Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study: Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Final Report: Appendix July 2011 Appendix A Technical Memorandum No. 1: Existing and Future Corridor Features Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study: Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Conditions Table of Contents 1.0  INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 2.0  LAND USE, ZONING, AND OWNERSHIP ........................................................................ 3 Land Ownership and Management ........................................................................................... 3 Existing Land Use ..................................................................................................................... 4 Future Land Use........................................................................................................................4 January 2011 Zoning .......................................................................................................................................8 Socioeconomic Data ................................................................................................................. 8 3.0  PHYSICAL FEATURES ................................................................................................... 20 Topography .............................................................................................................................20 Drainage Features...................................................................................................................21 Utilities .....................................................................................................................................23 Recreation and Trails ..............................................................................................................23 4.0 TRANSPORTATION NETWORK .....................................................................................29 Existing Transportation Network ............................................................................................. 29 Future Transportation Network ................................................................................................ 29 Public Transit...........................................................................................................................32 Circulation Plans .....................................................................................................................33 Programmed Transportation Improvements ............................................................................ 33 5.0 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................... 42 Existing Horizontal/Vertical Alignment ..................................................................................... 42 Existing Roadway Widths ........................................................................................................ 42 Existing Right-of-Way .............................................................................................................. 44 Pavement Conditions ..............................................................................................................44 Intersection and Lane Geometry ............................................................................................. 45 Access Conditions ................................................................................................................... 46 Future Typical Sections ........................................................................................................... 46 Design Criteria.........................................................................................................................47 6.0 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ................................................................................................. 59 Existing Traffic Volumes .......................................................................................................... 59 Future Traffic Projections ........................................................................................................59 7.0 PRELIMINARY ISSUES, OPPORTUNITIES, AND SPECIAL INTEREST AREAS.........63 8.0 RELEVANT PLANS, REPORTS, GUIDELINES, STUDIES, AND STANDARDS ........... 67 Page i January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road List of Figures List of Tables Figure 1 – Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2 – Land Ownership ........................................................................................................... 9 Figure 3 – Municipal Planning Areas and Incorporated Areas .................................................... 10 Figure 4 – Existing Land Use ...................................................................................................... 11 Figure 5 – Future Land Use ........................................................................................................ 12 Figure 6 – Master Planned Communities .................................................................................... 13 Figure 7 – Potential Traffic Generators and Attractors ............................................................... 14 Figure 8 – Zoning ........................................................................................................................ 15 Figure 9 – Population Density 2005 ............................................................................................16 Figure 10 – Population Density 2030 .......................................................................................... 17 Figure 11 – Employment Density 2005 ....................................................................................... 18 Figure 12 – Employment Density 2030 ....................................................................................... 19 Figure 13 – Slope AnalysisFigure 14 – Land Subsidence and Fissures ..................................... 24 Figure 14 – Land Subsidence and Fissures ............................................................................... 25 Figure 15 – Major Drainage Features ......................................................................................... 26 Figure 16 – Utilities ..................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 17 – Recreation and Trails ............................................................................................... 28 Figure 18 – Existing Transportation Network .............................................................................. 35 Figure 19 – Maricopa County Major Streets and Routes Plan Functional Classification ............ 36 Figure 20 – MAG I-10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study Functional Classification ................................................................................ 37 Figure 21 – MAG 2030 Arterial Street System ............................................................................ 38 Figure 22 – City of Surprise Functional Classification Map ........................................................ 39 Figure 23 – City of Glendale Functional Classification Map ....................................................... 40 Figure 24 – Future Roadway Network Including Public Transit .................................................. 41 Figure 25 – Existing Roadway Alignment ................................................................................... 49 Figure 26 – Existing Right-of-Way Widths .................................................................................. 50 Figure 27 – Existing Intersection Configurations ........................................................................ 51 Figure 28 – Existing Access Conditions (Sheet 1) ...................................................................... 54 Figure 29 – Existing Access Conditions (Sheet 2) ...................................................................... 55 Figure 30 – MCDOT Principal Arterial Cross-Section ................................................................. 56 Figure 31 – MAG Principal Arterial Cross-Section ...................................................................... 56 Figure 32 – City of Surprise Major Arterial Cross-Section .......................................................... 56 Figure 33 – City of El Mirage Minor Arterial Cross-Section ........................................................ 57 Figure 34 – City of Glendale Major Arterial Cross-Section ......................................................... 57 Figure 35 – Non-Motorized and Other Transportation Routes .................................................... 58 Figure 36 – Existing ADT Volumes ............................................................................................. 60 Figure 37 – Existing 2010 Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes ........................................... 61 Figure 38 – 2031 Projected ADT Volumes ................................................................................. 62 Page ii January 2011 Table 1 – Study Area by MPA ....................................................................................................... 4 Table 2 – Summary of Study Area Master Planned Communities ................................................ 6 Table 3 – Socioeconomic Data .....................................................................................................8 Table 4 – Programmed Roadway Improvements: MAG TIP ...................................................... 34 Table 5 – Roadway Characteristics ............................................................................................ 43 Table 6 – Existing Pavement Condition ...................................................................................... 45 Table 7 – Existing Intersection Characteristics ........................................................................... 46 Table 8 – Adopted Design Guidelines ........................................................................................ 48 Table 9 – Preliminary Issues and Opportunities ......................................................................... 63 Table 10 – Special Interest Areas ............................................................................................... 66 Appendices Appendix A – City Limits Map Page iii January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) prepared the Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study (Hassayampa Framework Study) that identified a comprehensive roadway network to meet traffic demands for the build out of the area west of State Route 303 (SR 303L). This long range regional transportation study identified the need for a roadway network consisting of freeways, parkways, and major arterial roads. The Hassayampa Framework Study recommended an extension of Peoria Avenue west from Perryville Road to the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway, and identified Peoria Avenue as a major arterial from the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Sarival Avenue. The study area for this project includes Peoria Avenue from the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway alignment to Dysart Road (Peoria Avenue Corridor). The study area generally encompasses a 2-mile wide corridor centered on the existing Peoria Avenue. The study area is shown in Figure 1. This study will establish the facility type, number of lanes, right-of-way needs, and general alignment for the Peoria Avenue Corridor that will be required to accommodate projected traffic growth and enhance safety. In cooperation with the City of Surprise, the City of Glendale, and the City of El Mirage, the study will also develop access management guidelines, determine design standards based upon which jurisdiction anticipates annexing the roadway, and develop an implementation plan. In general, the purpose of this Corridor Improvement Study is to provide the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) and other jurisdictions with a future “footprint” of the Peoria Avenue Corridor and a timeframe for the implementation of the recommended future roadway improvements. The key objectives of this Corridor Improvement Study are to: x x x x x x Define and assess strategic issues within the project study area; Develop and evaluate conceptual alternative alignments within the corridor study area; Recommend a preferred alignment; Develop consensus for the preferred alignment; Define the characteristics of the preferred alignment; and Develop an implementation plan. This technical memorandum identifies the existing and future corridor conditions including physical features (utilities, drainage, topography); land use and zoning; transportation network; roadway characteristics; traffic conditions; programmed improvements; and preliminary issues and constraints for the Peoria Avenue Corridor. Page 1 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 1 – Vicinity Map Page 2 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road 2.0 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road LAND USE, ZONING, AND OWNERSHIP Table 1 – Study Area by MPA Land Ownership and Management Land ownership is identified in terms of public or private control, whereas land jurisdiction refers to the city, town, county, state, or federal agency or agencies exercising governmental authority over an area. The majority of the land in the study area is privately owned, with only about 20 percent of the westernmost study area publicly owned by the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) (Figure 2). While much of the private land is parceled out and owned by individual property owners, there are several major private land holdings in the study area, including the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC), Maricopa Water District (MWD), and Dysart Unified School District #89, as well as the major master planned community land owners of Property Reserve Arizona LLC and John F. Long and Home Place Development LLC. Figure 3 depicts the boundaries of all the jurisdictions and their municipal planning areas (MPAs) within the study area. An MPA is defined as the geographic area in which the municipal planning process is carried out. It includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the incorporated territory of the city or town. Three MPAs lie partially within the study area: City of El Mirage, City of Glendale, and City of Surprise. Peoria Avenue serves as the boundary between the Glendale and Surprise MPAs. Maricopa County has planning and zoning authority over the unincorporated areas, including areas inside an MPA but outside the current city limits. The MPAs of El Mirage and Surprise are largely incorporated in the study area, while the areas in the Glendale MPA are mostly unincorporated, with the exception of a parcel abutting SR 303L and a 10-foot strip of land along the south side of Peoria Avenue from Perryville Road to east of Litchfield Road. This annexation is part of the City of Glendale Strip Annex Area which includes approximately 39 square miles of land with Peoria Avenue serving as the northern boundary. Other communities cannot annex property within the strip annex area. Maricopa County Planning and Development Department administers the zoning and subdivision ordinances within the strip annex area. The strip annex area is within the Glendale Municipal Planning Area. The northern edge of the 10-foot wide strip annex is located either 23 or 30 feet south of the Peoria Avenue section line. In some areas, this is within the existing Peoria Avenue right-ofway. While this does not impact the planning for the overall footprint of Peoria Avenue, the municipal control of the corridor is undefined due to the multi-jurisdictional nature of land ownership. Within unincorporated areas, the county has planning authority over privately owned land. The county works jointly with the ASLD on lands that ASLD owns outside municipal boundaries. Table 1 notes the extent of the study area in each MPA, as well as the remaining land within the county. MPA/Jurisdiction Area (acres) Percent of Study Area El Mirage 320 3% Glendale 4,160 38% Surprise 5,440 50% 960 9% 10,880 100% Maricopa County Total Source: Flood Control District of Maricopa County. Existing Land Use Figure 4 illustrates existing land uses within the study area. The majority of the area is categorized as vacant (i.e., undeveloped) or agricultural. Several single-family residential subdivisions are built or under development, which include three elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school within the communities. Several existing homes, not associated with large master-planned communities, are located adjacent to Peoria Avenue. Small clusters of industrial and commercial development are scattered throughout the area. The BNSF Railway (BNSF) owns and operates a north-south railroad spur (Ennis Spur) that crosses Peoria Avenue at the half-mile between Litchfield and Dysart Roads. The Ennis Spur connects to a major branch line (Peavine) that links the Phoenix metropolitan area with the Transcon mainline in northern Arizona. The nine-mile long Ennis Spur runs from Ennis, a junction on the Peavine in the Surprise area, west and south through farmland to Fennemore siding, where a fertilizer plant is located. Three other freight customers are currently served by way of the Ennis Spur. The primary commodities carried on the Ennis Spur are natural gas, fertilizer and lumber. The City of Surprise’s 16.3-MGD (millions gallons per day) Surprise South Water Reclamation Plant (SSWRP) occupies the half-section between the Ennis Spur and Litchfield Road. The White Tanks Regional Water Treatment Facility, an Arizona American Water Company (AAW) facility that began operation in April 2009, is a 13.7-MGD water treatment facility located at the intersection of Cactus Road and Perryville Road. The plant treats Colorado River Water from the Central Arizona Project (CAP) Canal that is delivered to the facility via the Beardsley Canal. Future Land Use Figure 5 illustrates anticipated future buildout land uses within the study area, based on longrange planning efforts conducted by each jurisdiction. This map shows that the majority of the vacant and agricultural land will be converted to single-family residential housing and mixed-use developments in the future. Commercial and industrial development will expand, but remain scattered throughout the study area. The majority of employment land uses are clustered in the Page 3 January 2011 Page 4 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road eastern part of the study area, between Litchfield and Dysart Roads. Much of the study area will consist of planned developments (i.e., master-planned communities). The City of Surprise is working with BNSF and private developers to create a new industrial park along the Ennis Spur. New warehouse districts, distribution centers, and commercial enterprises are expected to double the business demand on the BNSF branch in the future. Additionally, BNSF plans to improve the Ennis Spur with construction of a new wye at Grand Avenue (US 60) and a new rail-oriented business park adjacent to Luke Air Force Base, likely causing rail traffic crossing Peoria Avenue to increase in the future. Master Planned Communities With the exception of the southeast portion of the study area, which is affected by the noise contours of Luke Air Force Base, much of the study area is anticipated to lie within master planned communities (Figure 6). About half of the major residential communities located in the study area are built or actively in the development phase. These communities are primarily composed of residences, with some local commercial development. The only major retail town center thus far envisioned is at the north end of Sycamore Farms, between SR 303L and Sarival Avenue, abutting Cactus Road on the south side. Three commercial/business parks are planned between Litchfield and Dysart Roads; one is in the development phase. Glendale 303, located at the southeast corner of Peoria Avenue and SR 303L, has been annexed by the City of Glendale and is planned as a major commercial center to potentially include auto dealerships and/or large retail businesses. Due to current economic conditions, the rate of growth has slowed, but it is expected to increase in the futurealthough the timeframe for buildout will likely be extended. Built out, active (e.g., under construction), and future master planned communities in the study area are summarized in Table 2. Table 2 – Summary of Study Area Master Planned Communities MPA Development Status Acres Anticipated Dwelling Units Cortessa Glendale Active 605 1,732 Acreage of Commercial and Industrial Development 4 Desert Cove Commercial Park Surprise Active 95 0 95 Glendale 303 Glendale Active 110 0 0 Master Planned Community Greer Ranch Surprise Active 586 1,664 38 John F Long Industrial Complex El Mirage Future 1,470 0 348 Kenly Farms Surprise Active 187 256 118 Copper Canyon Ranch Surprise Active 416 682 15 Prasada Surprise Future 3,355 14,180 850 Rancho Gabriela Surprise Active 799 2,329 197 Skyway Business Park Surprise Active 145 0 145 Sycamore Farms Surprise Active 640 2,131 96 Twelve Oaks Estates Glendale Active 133 130 0 Zanjero Pass Glendale Future 544 187 0 Zanjero Trails Surprise Future 879 3,054 11 Source: City of Surprise, City of Glendale, MAG; 2010. Potential Traffic Generators and Attractors During the weekday mornings and afternoons, schools will become significant traffic generators; specifically Shadow Ridge High School, which is the largest school in the study area, located along Peoria Avenue on the west side of the study area. Dysart High School and the Dysart Unified School District #89 Administration Center are both located just outside the study area, between Peoria Avenue and Cactus Road, east of Dysart Road. On weekends, churches could become large traffic generators. Two large “megachurches” exist (Parkway Christian Church, attendance of approximately 2,000) or are planned (Calvary Chapel) on Peoria Avenue, both between Reems Road and Bullard Avenue. SR 303L, currently a major arterial, is planned to be upgraded to a freeway, with construction beginning in 2011. This corridor is expected to generate adjacent commercial and office/employment land uses, which will become major traffic generators during peak commuting times. The freeway itself will also become a generator because of its nature as a high-capacity transportation facility, providing the ability to move faster and more efficiently around the region. Because of the proximity to Luke Air Force Base, the area south of Peoria Avenue and east of Reems Road is not compatible with residential development. Therefore, this area may see commercial and industrial land uses – becoming a regional employment center and generating peak hour commuting traffic. Currently, the area is planned to be mixed-use. Additionally, the Page 5 January 2011 Page 6 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road three commercial/industrial planned developments between Litchfield and Dysart Roads may also be generators of peak hour commuter traffic. Lastly, the land west of the Beardsley Canal, belonging to the ASLD, has the potential to see intense development in the future, although no plans are currently active. While not located within the study area, the White Tank Mountain Regional Park, accessed via Olive Avenue just west of the study area, is a popular recreational destination. Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Zoning Zoning, as defined by each jurisdiction in the study area, is illustrated on Figure 8. Except for pockets of commercial and industrial development, the majority of the area is either zoned for rural (one or less dwelling units per acre) or single-family (approximately two to seven dwelling units per acre) residential development. As of August 2010, no rezoning requests are being processed by the study area jurisdictions. Prasada, a master planned community, is composed of several “villages”, of which a residential village is located within the study area. Between Cactus Road and Greenway Road, two other villages span SR 303L, which have a heavy commercial component. To the west of SR 303L, a major auto mall is planned between Cactus Road and Waddell Road. To the east, a regional mall and lifestyle center, as well as a mixed-use urban village are planned. North of Waddell Road and west of SR 303L is a planned major regional medical campus; to the east of SR 303L is a planned regional employment/office campus. All of these concentrated commercial and employment land uses can generate and attract traffic all day long. Socioeconomic Data The thirteen socioeconomic analysis zones (SAZ) within the study area constitute approximately 17.5 square miles (less than one-half percent) of the 9,223-square-mile MAG planning area and modeling region. In 2005, the study area had a population of approximately 4,550 persons and an employment base of approximately 1,500 employees. By 2030, these numbers are expected to dramatically increase. Table 3 presents the socioeconomic data for the existing 2005 and adopted 2030 forecast scenarios, as well as the percent change between the two forecast years. Potential traffic generators and attractors are illustrated on Figure 7. Growth Areas Table 3 – Socioeconomic Data The City of Surprise 2030 General Plan illustrates two major growth areas in the Peoria Avenue Corridor study area. A regional center (defined as an area of intense and high-density development with strong connections to the regional transportation system) spans approximately one mile on each side of the planned SR 303L freeway. Concentrated and mixed-use development is encouraged. Streetscapes in regional centers should support future transit-oriented development and must encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation as the preferred method of travel. The area between Litchfield and Dysart Roads and Waddell Road and Peoria Avenue is intended as an employment center. Employment centers support a variety of employment types that are expected to contain prime industrial land that support export-oriented activities, such as warehouse distribution, heavy or light manufacturing, research and development uses, and selected business services. The City of Glendale 2025 General Plan also illustrates two major growth areas within the study area. The first includes the Luke Compatible Growth Area, located along and south of Peoria Avenue, from approximately Reems Road east. Special legislation pertaining to land utilization in the Luke Air Force Base vicinity establishes parameters to restrict residential and business development. Employment (employees) 1,500 Scenario Population (persons) 2005 4,550 2030 36,330 21,010 Percent Change 698% 1,300% Source: MAG, 2010. Population density maps (Figures 9 and 10) show the highest existing density located in the built out/under construction master-planned communities located north of Peoria Avenue between Reems and Litchfield Roads. While that will remain an area of higher density, the greatest densities will be located in the Prasada community, north of Peoria Avenue between Citrus Road and SR 303L. The areas of lowest population density include much of the area affected by the BNSF Ennis Spur and Luke Air Force Base noise contours, and the area surrounding the McMicken Dam. The second growth area is the Loop 303 Growth Area, with a growth cluster located at the future traffic interchange of SR 303L and Peoria Avenue. The General Plan calls for commercial and employment uses within this growth area. Employment density maps (Figures 11 and 12) illustrate that the largest number of existing jobs are located north of Peoria Avenue between Reems and Dysart Roads, although the employment density is still quite low, reflecting an average of 1.1 to 4 jobs per acre. Employment growth to 2030 is scattered, with the highest densities of jobs located adjacent to SR 303L and Dysart Road. The areas with the lowest employment densities are the McMicken Dam and the area south of Peoria Avenue between Sarival Road and the Ennis Spur – generally affected by the Luke Air Force Base noise contours. Page 7 Page 8 January 2011 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 2 – Land Ownership Page 9 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 3 – Municipal Planning Areas and Incorporated Areas Page 10 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 4 – Existing Land Use Page 11 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 5 – Future Land Use Page 12 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 6 – Master Planned Communities Page 13 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 7 – Potential Traffic Generators and Attractors Page 14 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 8 – Zoning Page 15 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 9 – Population Density 2005 Page 16 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 10 – Population Density 2030 Page 17 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 11 – Employment Density 2005 Page 18 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 12 – Employment Density 2030 Page 19 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road 3.0 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road The effects of land subsidence and earth fissuring can be significant, because they may cause significant damage to infrastructure, increase flooding potential, worsen groundwater pollution, and accelerate soil erosion. Continued urban development on lands that require groundwater pumping ensures a future land subsidence problem. PHYSICAL FEATURES Topography This section describes the existing physical and natural environment of the Peoria Avenue Corridor study area relative to topographical features, including slopes, land subsidence and fissures. Generally speaking, the study area is relatively flat, with an elevation range of 1,094 to 1,402 feet above mean sea level. Slope Analysis Figure 13 shows the slope analysis for the Peoria Avenue Corridor study area. Slope analysis aids in understanding the topography of a region and helps to delineate compatible and incompatible slopes for urban development. It is combined with surface geology and soil data to determine the most appropriate sites for land uses and transportation corridors. The slope of a line segment is the ratio of the change in elevation (rise) to the horizontal distance between endpoints (run). The larger the rise per unit of run, the steeper the slope. The slopes for the study area have been divided into four ranges. Areas with slopes less than 5 percent are considered “flat,” while slopes of 5 to 10 percent are “gradual.” Slopes of 10 to 20 percent are “moderate,” while slopes of 20 percent or more are “steep.” The lighter shades on the map represent flatter terrain, while darker shades denote steeper slopes. Almost the entire study area falls under the “flat” category, with the exception of a small area at the westernmost end, between Waterfall and Cholla Washes, south of the Peoria Avenue section line. These steeper slopes begin the ascent of the White Tank Mountains directly to the west. Therefore, the majority of the study area is deemed suitable for transportation corridor development. Land Subsidence and Fissures Figure 14 shows land subsidence for the Peoria Avenue Corridor study area. Land subsidence has been identified in several Arizona locations. This phenomenon occurs when water is removed from underground reservoirs and the weight of the overlying material compresses, causing the land to settle. Once compressed, alluvial deposits take up less space than before and the ground surface sinks. The amount of subsidence varies by location. Portions of the study area have seen land subsidence between five and 15 feet, some of the highest levels in Arizona. Land subsidence creates another potential problem: earth fissures. These are cracks in the ground surface that occur because of uneven or differentiated land subsidence. Depending on circumstances, fissures can form gullies as much as 50 feet wide and 10 to 15 feet deep. Once fissures start to form, they tend to increase in number and length, spreading at uneven speeds and directions for several miles. Page 20 January 2011 The Arizona Geological Survey is currently conducting a mapping exercise to locate and define fissure locations throughout Arizona. Nine “study areas” have been defined in Maricopa County as areas of earth fissure development. The Luke Air Force Base study area, ranging from approximately Indian School to Waddell Roads, and Jackrabbit Trail to El Mirage Road, contains a series of earth fissures. A fissure crosses Peoria Avenue just west of Sarival Avenue. Additionally, a series of unconfirmed (not confirmed by recent surface investigations, but previously reported) and discontinuous (confirmed portions of fissures, likely representing an incipient surface expression of an earth fissure) are documented approximately along the Peoria Avenue section line, west of the Beardsley Canal. Drainage Features Figure 15 depicts major drainage features for the Peoria Avenue study area. Three major drainage structures/features are located within the study area: the McMicken Dam, the Beardsley Canal, and the Reems Road Channel and Basin. The McMicken Dam is almost eleven miles long, following an alignment offset from the Beardsley Canal, beginning at Peoria Avenue west of Perryville Road and extending north and east to Happy Valley Road west of Bullard Avenue. The dam is operated and maintained by the FCDMC. The dam detains storm runoff and meters outflows through a channel located at the east end of the structure. The Peoria Avenue section line intersects the detention basin located immediately south of the dam. The Beardsley Canal is located approximately a half mile west of Perryville Road and is owned by the MWD. A series of irrigation canals/ditches is also owned by the MWD in the study area. These east-west canals connect with the Beardsley Canal on the west end, extending to approximately one-half mile east of Sarival Road, located south of Peoria Avenue and south of Cactus Road. Parallel, but privately owned, irrigation canals also exist in segments along the south side of Peoria Avenue. Additionally, MWD manages the Cross-Cut Canal and Pipeline, which crosses Peoria Avenue underground, along Citrus Avenue. Any crossings of MWD facilities will require close coordination with MWD. The Reems Road Channel and Basin is a regional flood control facility to intercept and convey the 100-year stormwater event. The ultimate facility includes a channel flowing south along Reems Road from Bell Road to the Reems Basin, an off-line detention basin is located a quarter-mile south of Peoria Avenue. The purpose of the channel is to protect Reems Road and the land to the east, including the City of Surprise wastewater treatment plant and various utilities. In the summer of 2009, FCDMC completed the construction of the segment of the project south of Peoria Avenue. Page 21 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road While no rivers are located within the study area, several streams and washes traverse the area, generally located in the westernmost portion, draining from the White Tank Mountains. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps show most of the study area to be within the 100-year to 500-year floodplain. Concentrations of land are located within the 100year floodplain, including drainage areas west of McMicken Dam, major washes, and channel west of Cotton Lane, Reems Road, and the Ennis Spur. The 100-year floodplains listed adjacent to major roadways serve as permanent drainage channels, with the land owned and controlled by the FCDMC, and therefore preserved against future development. As uncontrolled or natural drainage features, both Waterfall and Cholla Washes include floodway areas. The Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) regulates and permits ground water wells in Arizona. There are a number of wells within the study area, including several located adjacent to Peoria Avenue, whose locations will need to be considered with respect to potential roadway improvements. Improvement Projects The FCDMC is implementing and planning improvements to many drainage features to reduce area flooding and drainage problems as new development expands west. Two FCDMC Area Drainage Master Plans (ADMPs) or Area Drainage Master Plan Updates (ADMPUs) cover the study area. The studies estimate flood potential for a watershed, map watercourses, identify existing and potential drainage problems, and develop preliminary solutions and standards for floodplain and stormwater management. A discussion of their major findings follows. Loop 303 Corridor/White Tanks ADMPU: The study included the analysis of approximately 220 square miles of watershed from the McMicken Dam south to the Gila River and from the White Tank Mountains east to the Agua Fria River, including the entire study area. Three development alternatives recommended in the ADMPU fall within this project’s study area: the SR 303L channel and basins, the Reems Road Channel and Basin and the BNSF Railway Channel and Basin. The Beardsley Canal is classified as a facility under development. Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Additionally, a series of channels and basins are in varying stages of development throughout the corridor, including those public channels and basins cited above in the Loop 303 Corridor/White Tanks ADMPU, as well as a series of private channels and basins, such as at Shadow Ridge High School and within the master planned communities of Greer Ranch, Twelve Oaks Estates, and Copper Canyon Ranch (Mountain Gate). Utilities There are numerous utilities within the study area (Figure 16). A portion of the study area, the properties between the Beardsley Canal and Reems Road, is within the MWD Conservation District Number One service area boundaries. MWD is primarily an irrigation water conservation district providing water services to its customers. The District’s irrigation conveyance and delivery channels and pipelines span the entire length of its service areas along Peoria Avenue. Many MWD wells and private irrigation wells (active and inactive) are also sited along Peoria Avenue. Under a contract with Arizona Public Service (APS), MWD also delivers power and energy through APS’s distribution facilities to water wells belonging to the District and its customers. Numerous overhead power distribution lines run in an east-west direction parallel to Peoria Avenue, along both sides of the roadway, as well as in a north-south direction along the cross streets: Cotton Lane, Sarival Avenue, Dysart Road, and the Ennis Spur. Aboveground power lines along Peoria Avenue are fragmented, a result of gradual burying of overhead distribution lines in front of new housing developments over the years. The future APS West Valley-North 230kV power transmission line, scheduled to be placed in service in 2015 in a corridor west of SR 303L, follows SR 303L from Olive Avenue to Cactus Road through the study area, where it will then turn west to parallel Cactus Road to the north. Power substation sites are planned on the adjacent major arterials to Peoria Avenue (Olive Avenue and Cactus Road). City utilities along Peoria Avenue include underground water and sewer lines and appurtenances: a 30-inch reclaimed water line and reclaimed water delivery headers on the south side of Peoria Avenue across from the SSWRP. Other public utilities along Peoria Avenue include Southwest Gas natural gas lines and Qwest overhead and underground telephone lines. Recreation and Trails Wittman ADMP: The Wittman ADMP study area is approximately 310 square miles and is located within the City of Surprise and unincorporated Maricopa County. The area including and west of the McMicken Dam is in this study area. Recommended improvements in the Peoria Avenue study area include removal of the floodplains west of the McMicken Dam and development of a parallel scenic/wildlife/multi-use corridor west of the dam. Figure 17 depicts recreational opportunities in the study area. While there are no regional parks within the study area, White Tank Mountain Regional Park sits just to the west, beyond Jackrabbit Trail. The main entrance to the park is located on Olive Avenue, one mile to the south, but attracts visitors from the entire metropolitan area. Several community or “pocket” parks exist in developed communities. McMicken Dam Fissure Zone Remediation Project: Because a series of fissures and conditions sufficient for fissure development were found adjacent to the south end of the dam, this study was conducted to consider alternative alignments or modifications to the dam to negate potential future damage. The recommended action included removing the southern segment of the dam and replacing it with a realigned soil-cement dam segment and basin located outside the area with a high risk of fissures. This project has recently been completed by FCDMC. The 1,521 miles of the planned Maricopa County Regional Trail System are organized into priorities to serve as a guide while implementing the trail system plan. The two corridors in the study area, adjacent to and west of both the McMicken Dam and the Beardsley Canal are Priority 1 corridors. The segment west of McMicken Dam exists; the segment connecting to it from the Beardsley Canal has yet to be built. These corridors are part of the Maricopa Trail, connecting the regional parks in the Maricopa County Park System. The study area corridors provide connections to White Tank Mountain Regional Park. Page 22 Page 23 January 2011 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 13 – Slope Analysis Page 24 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 14 – Land Subsidence and Fissures Page 25 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 15 – Major Drainage Features Page 26 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 16 – Utilities Page 27 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 17 – Recreation and Trails Page 28 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road 4.0 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road For the planned future network, Peoria Avenue has been classified by the local jurisdictions as listed below: TRANSPORTATION NETWORK Relevant information regarding the existing and future transportation network is detailed in the following sections, including discussions of roadway functional classification, planned network improvements, transit plans, local circulation plans, and programmed transportation improvements. Existing Transportation Network Figure 18 illustrates the existing transportation network in the study area. At the time of this report, Peoria Avenue is a two-lane roadway, with varying degrees of improvements. Peoria Avenue extends west as far as Perryville Road as a paved road, with the exception of one mile between Citrus Road and Cotton Lane that is unpaved. Between Perryville Road and the Beardsley Canal, an unpaved and narrow maintenance/access road exists. In the wider context of the study area, Jackrabbit Trail Parkway does not yet exist; Olive Avenue is the only crossing of the Beardsley Canal, providing access to the west; and SR 303L remains a major arterial road with no freeway improvements completed. Local roadways are intermittently developed, depending on the degree of built residential and industrial land uses. The BNSF Ennis Spur crosses Peoria Avenue at an at-grade railroad crossing, protected by lights and gates. Based on its current function in the existing network, MCDOT functionally classifies the existing Peoria Avenue roadway as a major collector in the Maricopa County Transportation System Plan, February 2007. A major collector provides short-distance (less than three miles) traffic movement, collects and distributes traffic between local and arterial streets, and provides direct access to abutting land. Future Transportation Network For the planned future network, functional classification is the process by which roads are grouped into classes or systems according to the kind of service they will provide in the future. Roadways functionally classified as high-speed, high-capacity facilities tend to maximize mobility and minimize direct land access. The hierarchy of functional classification typically includes freeways, expressways, parkways, major and minor arterials, collectors, and local streets. Maricopa County and MAG similarly classify Peoria Avenue as an (urban) principal arterial in the future network. However, Peoria Avenue actually falls within multiple jurisdictions in the study area. Each jurisdiction has assigned its own future functional classification to the portion of Peoria Avenue within its boundaries. The overlapping classifications are even more complex where Peoria Avenue forms the boundary between jurisdictions. Page 29 January 2011 x x x x x MCDOT – Urban Principal Arterial MAG – Major Arterial City of El Mirage – Minor Arterial City of Glendale – Major Arterial City of Surprise – Major Arterial The future MCDOT functional classification of Peoria Avenue in the study area is as an urban principal arterial, as stated in the Maricopa County Major Streets and Routes Plan, adopted in 2001 and revised in 2004 (Figure 19). The corridor currently exists from Dysart to Perryville Roads, and is classified as “future” from Perryville Road to Jackrabbit Trail. A principal arterial is defined as a street that provides for long-distance traffic movement within Maricopa County or between Maricopa County and urban areas. Access to abutting land is restricted and controlled through frontage roads and raised medians, as well as by the spacing and location of driveways and intersections. Opposing traffic flows may be separated by a raised median. MCDOT also classifies all other one-mile grid roadways in the study area as principal arterials, except Perryville Road south of Cactus Road, which is defined as a minor arterial, and SR 303L, defined as a future freeway. The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) I-10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study identifies Peoria Avenue as a major arterial, as illustrated in the functional classification network map in Figure 20. This is supported in the 2010 MAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which defines Peoria Avenue as a four-lane arterial from Dysart to Reems Road, and as a six-lane arterial from Reems Road to Jackrabbit Trail in 2030 (Figure 21). The City of Surprise incorporated area within the study area extends north from Peoria Avenue, between the Beardsley Canal and Dysart Road. Surprise classifies Peoria Avenue as a major arterial in the current General Plan, illustrated in Figure 22. Incorporated El Mirage includes the areas both north and south of Peoria Avenue east of Dysart Road (and therefore out of the study area), but also the area south of Peoria Avenue between the Ennis Spur and Dysart Road. El Mirage classifies Peoria Avenue as a minor arterial (based upon City of Peoria standard details). El Mirage does not have a functional classification map at the current time. The City of Glendale maintains planning jurisdiction over the south side of Peoria Avenue from the Ennis Spur to Perryville Road as part of its MPA. One-half mile between SR 303L and Sarival Road is incorporated, fronting Peoria Avenue to the south. Recent General Plan amendments have upgraded Peoria Avenue to a major arterial roadway (Figure 23). Page 30 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Planned Network Improvements Much of the surrounding roadway system to the project area does not exist or is planned to be expanded or adjusted from its current configuration. SR 303L, Jackrabbit Trail Parkway, and Northern Avenue Parkway are other planned roadway facilities in the surrounding network that are considered regional routes. SR 303L Corridor: SR 303L is located roughly in the center of the study area. It intersects Peoria Avenue between Cotton Lane and Sarival Road. It has been studied, classified, reclassified, restudied, and ultimately confirmed as a major link in the regional and state highway system. SR 303L is currently being improved from an interim two-lane roadway into a “Rural Major Freeway,” as classified by MAG. SR 303L is an important link in the regional freeway system because it will alleviate the bottlenecks on the Grand Avenue arterial (US 60/US 93) and provide a new transportation corridor for the West Valley. The ultimate improved SR 303L will be a fully access-controlled, grade-separated urban freeway with a rolling profile that will be elevated or depressed at the arterial crossroads and near ground level at all other locations. The ultimate freeway will include four general purpose lanes with high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and auxiliary lanes between service interchanges. Thirteen service interchanges for arterial crossroads and two system interchanges at Northern Parkway and US 60 are also planned for this freeway. Peoria Avenue is one of the thirteen service interchanges planned for the build out of the SR 303L corridor. This interchange is under design as a full diamond interchange. The Stage III ADOT design plans have been obtained for this interchange and will be considered throughout the study. Jackrabbit Trail Parkway: Jackrabbit Trail Parkway has undergone several planning and corridor-level studies in the last few years. In the 2007 MAG I-10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study, Jackrabbit Trail was established as an Arizona Parkway, a new category of roadway classification in Arizona. The framework study also changed the alignment of the corridor – specifically within the Peoria Avenue study area, offsetting it a half mile west of the section line – to miss major topographical and drainage features. Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road In 2008, MCDOT completed the Jackrabbit Trail Access Control and Corridor Improvement Study, which further refined the corridor and established a preferred alignment, supported by preliminary engineering considerations that provide operational and design details regarding its classification as an Arizona Parkway. Because Peoria Avenue will intersect Jackrabbit Trail Parkway, this study can provide guidance for future roadway improvements in the study corridor. Northern Avenue Parkway: While located outside the study area, Northern Avenue through the Phoenix metropolitan area has been under study for several years, with a view to upgrading it to a “super street.” With a fourteen–mile gap in the freeway system between I-10 and SR 101L, Northern Avenue has been envisioned as another east-west connection across the metropolitan area, offering more access control and capacity than a major arterial, but less speed than a freeway. In the MAG I-10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study, this facility is defined as an Arizona Parkway, positioned approximately one-half mile between the Northern and Olive Avenue section lines throughout the study corridor. Scenic Corridors Maricopa County has designated a series of corridors as scenic for a number of reasons, including their prominent views or vistas, native landscaping, or unique characteristics that attract residents in search of a distinct quality of life. MCDOT has developed design guidelines (e.g., landscape, habitat, character, height, lighting, signage, fencing) to direct and enhance planning of these corridors as development occurs, with the intent of highlighting, promoting, and preserving the scenic and environmental characteristics of the community, while minimizing the impacts of rapid urban growth . Two scenic corridors exist in the study area: x x The Olive Avenue Scenic Corridor has been designated because it provides access to the White Tank Mountain Regional Park, a major recreational destination in Maricopa County. The McMicken Dam Scenic Corridor has been designated for its recreational role and potential as a segment of the Maricopa County Regional Trail System. Jackrabbit Trail Parkway will follow the new Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway (MCDOT, August 2008), which includes an intermediate-capacity, six- to eight-lane divided highway with partial access control and no direct left turns permitted at major intersections. Compared with a conventional arterial, an Arizona Parkway can provide additional travel capacity without full grade separations at major intersections. It can provide the benefit of increasing intersection capacity while maintaining direct driveway access to each quadrant of the intersection. The junction of Peoria Avenue with Jackrabbit Trail Parkway will need to consider the design standards in the Arizona Parkway Intersection/Interchange Operational Analysis and Design Concepts Study (MCDOT, August 2009). As alternatives are developed for Peoria Avenue, coordination should occur with these studies, if the alternative alignments intersect these corridors in any way. Page 31 Page 32 January 2011 Public Transit Figure 24 expands upon the future roadway network planned for the study area and includes other transportation modes planned or proposed by the jurisdictions. They include two future transit services, currently funded through the MAG RTP: bus rapid transit (BRT) along the future SR 303L, and local bus service along Dysart Road. Unfunded but proposed future service includes local bus service along Cotton Lane, Sarival Road, Litchfield Road, and Peoria January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Avenue through the study area, and on Reems Road and Bullard Avenue north of Peoria Avenue. Consideration should be given to future bus stops and pullouts for these services. Table 4 – Programmed Roadway Improvements: MAG TIP Agency FY Location ADOT 2011 As discussed earlier, the study area includes several existing and proposed master planned communities. Each of these communities has its own planned internal circulation system. Most of the communities plan curving and circuitous local roadways that loop back on each other, often with cul-de-sacs and limited connectivity in and out. ADOT 2011 ADOT 2011 ADOT 2012 Programmed Transportation Improvements ADOT 2012 ADOT 2013 El Mirage 2011 Maricopa County 2012 SR 303L: Glendale Avenue Peoria Avenue SR 303L: Peoria Avenue Waddell Road SR 303L: Peoria Avenue Waddell Road SR 303L: Glendale Avenue to Peoria Avenue SR 303L: Peoria Avenue Waddell Road SR 303L: Glendale Avenue to Peoria Avenue Dysart Ranchettes area: Varney Road, Peoria Avenue, Dysart Road, El Mirage Olive Avenue: Litchfield Road to SR 101L Surprise 2011 Surprise 2011 Surprise 2011 Surprise 2011 Surprise 2011 Surprise 2011 Surprise 2012 Surprise 2013 Circulation Plans MCDOT’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for Fiscal Years (FY) 2011-2015 does not include any transportation improvements for Peoria Avenue within the study area boundaries. In the larger project area, Olive Avenue is slated for intersection improvements in FY 2011 at Reems Road and Cotton Lane, to install traffic signals, make safety improvements, reduce congestion, and increase traffic flow. Along Olive Avenue between Litchfield Road and SR 101L, intelligent transportation system (ITS) elements will be constructed through FY 2013. MAG maintains two major documents that identify projects: the RTP, which identifies transportation projects for a twenty-year horizon; and the TIP, which summarizes projects programmed during the next five years. The MAG RTP was updated in July 2010. With the exception of SR 303L, defined as a five- to six-lane freeway to be constructed between FY 2011 and 2015, the RTP defines the major roads within the study area as arterials, varying between four and six lanes by 2030. No roads, however, are designated for specific improvements within the study area. BRT along SR 303L is planned for implementation in “Phase 5” of the RTP (FY 2026-2031); no other transit service is specified. (“Phase 5” is in quotation marks because the half-cent sales tax that funds the RTP expires in 2026, so no funding is actually available beyond that date.) The MAG TIP for FY 2011-2015, approved in July 2010, outlines recently completed, deferred, and deleted projects from the previous year’s TIP. A number of projects have recently been deleted because of revenue and funding shortfalls. The only listing pertaining to Peoria Avenue is the recently completed Peoria Avenue (Cotton Lane to Litchfield Road) and Litchfield Road (Peoria Avenue to Greenway Road) design and construction of fiber optic cable interconnection of existing and future ITS facilities. Table 4 lists programmed projects included in the MAG FY 2011-2015 TIP. The list draws from the individual city and town TIPs, including capital projects currently programmed in the City of Surprise Capital Improvement Plan FY 2010-2014, City of El Mirage FY 2009-2019 Capital Improvement Plan, and City of Glendale FY 2010-2019 Capital Improvement Plan. Page 33 January 2011 Litchfield Road: Desert Cove and Cactus Road Peoria Avenue: Perryville Road and east 1/4 mile Perryville Road: Peoria Ave and Cactus Road Reems Road: Cactus Road and Peoria Avenue Peoria Avenue: Cotton Lane to Litchfield Road SR 303L: Peoria Avenue to Bell Road SR 303L: Peoria Avenue to Bell Road SR 303L: Peoria Avenue to Bell Road Description Funding Source* Funding Total Right-of-way acquisition STP-AZ $85,900,000 Landscape design RARF $200,000 Construction NHS $60,000,000 Landscape design RARF $300,000 Landscape construction RARF $2,400,000 Landscape construction RARF $3,500,000 Paving dirt roads CMAQ $3,000,000 Construct and install new conduit and fiber optic cable to connect existing and planned ITS field devices Construct new 2 northbound and 2 southbound lanes Construct new 2 westbound lanes with curb, gutter, sidewalk, raised median, and 1 turn lane Construct new 2 lane arterial road CMAQ $1,265,000 Local $2,472,000 Private $500,000 Private $1,000,000 Reconstructed 2 lane arterial road adding 1 southbound and 1 northbound lane with curb, gutter, median, and sidewalk Design and installation/construction of fiber optics. JPA with ADOT to install fiber optic conduit Design fiber optic line and ITS devices to interconnect arterial/freeway traffic signals Construction of fiber optic line and ITS devices Local $2,600,000 Local $800,000 Local $190,000 Local $120,000 CMAQ $753,500 *Funding source abbreviations: STP-AZ – Surface Transportation Program-Arizona, RARF – Regional Area Road Fund, NHS – National Highway System, CMAQ – Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality. Sources: MAG FY 2011-2015 TIP, City of Surprise Capital Improvement Plan FY 2010-2014, City of El Mirage FY 2009-2019 Capital Improvement Plan, and City of Glendale FY 2010-2019 Capital Improvement Plan. As can be noted from the table, the City of Glendale Capital Improvement Plan contains no capital improvements in the study area during the FY 2010-2019 period. Page 34 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 18 – Existing Transportation Network Page 35 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Source: Maricopa County Major Streets and Routes Plan, Street Atlas, revised 2004. Source: MAG I-10 Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study, 2007. Figure 19 – Maricopa County Major Streets and Routes Plan Functional Classification Page 36 January 2011 Figure 20 – MAG I-10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study Functional Classification Page 37 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Source: MAG RTP 2010 Update, 2010. Figure 21 – MAG 2030 Arterial Street System Page 38 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Source: City of Surprise General Plan 2030, Transportation Plan, 2010. Figure 22 – City of Surprise Functional Classification Map Page 39 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Source: City of Glendale General Plan 2025. Figure 23 – City of Glendale Functional Classification Map Page 40 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 24 – Future Roadway Network Including Public Transit Page 41 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road 5.0 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Table 5 – Roadway Characteristics  The following sections detail relevant information regarding the existing and future characteristics of Peoria Avenue. Currently, Peoria Avenue exists as a two-lane roadway with varying degrees of improvements throughout the study area. Existing Horizontal/Vertical Alignment Peoria Avenue is currently an east/west roadway from Perryville Road to Dysart Road, with an unpaved section from Citrus Road to Cotton Lane (one mile). Within these limits, the current roadway alignment generally follows the Peoria Avenue section line, with some variation (Figure 25). The existing roadway is centered on the Peoria Avenue section line in the following areas: between Perryville Road and a half-mile east, between a quarter-mile west of Cotton Lane and a half-mile east of Sarival Road, between Reems Road and Bullard Avenue, and between Litchfield Road and Dysart Road. The existing roadway shifts slightly to the south so that the Peoria Avenue section line is near the north edge of the existing roadway between a half-mile east of Perryville Road and Citrus Road, and between a half-mile east of Sarival Road and Reems Road. Between Bullard Avenue and Litchfield Road, the existing roadway shifts slightly to the north so that the Peoria Avenue section line is near the south edge of the existing roadway. As-built plans are not available for Peoria Avenue, so the horizontal alignment data (curves and angle points) are unknown. The existing roadway profile of Peoria Avenue does not contain any significant changes in elevation. Based on FCDMC; White Tanks-Agua Fria ADMP, 1989; NGVD29 data, the existing roadway elevations vary from 1,280 feet at Perryville Road to 1,108 feet at Dysart Road, which equates to an approximate slope of 0.50 percent. The flattest section is between Reems Road and Bullard Avenue (approximate 0.2 percent slope) and the steepest section is from Perryville Road to Cotton Lane (approx. 0.70 percent slope). Exact vertical alignment data is unknown, since as-built plans are not available. Existing Roadway Widths In general, existing Peoria Avenue from Perryville Road to Dysart Road has been built as a twolane roadway, with varying degrees of improvements along the route. The existing roadway currently has a speed limit of 45 miles per hour. No designated parking lanes or bicycle lanes exist along the roadway. There is existing sidewalk (primarily detached) at various locations along the route where curb and gutter exist. Table 5 lists the number of lanes by direction, median type, and approximate roadway width along Peoria Avenue between Perryville Road and Dysart Road. Segment Perryville Road to ¼ Mile East to ½ Mile East to ¾ Mile East to Citrus Road to ¾ Mile East to Cotton Lane to Sarival Road to ½ Mile East to ¾ Mile East to Reems Road to Bullard Avenue to ¼ Mile East to ½ Mile East to ¾ Mile East to Litchfield Road to ¼ Mile East to ½ Mile East to ¾ Mile East to Dysart Road Number of Lanes EB Number of Lanes WB Median Type Roadway Width 1 2 Raised 96’ 1 1 None 96’-27’ 1 1 None 27’-54’ 1 1 None 36’-52’ Unpaved Unpaved n/a n/a 1 1 None 28’ 1 1 None 28’ 2 1 TWLTL 50’ 1 1 None 50’-28’ 1 1 None 28’ 1 1 None 28’ 1 1 None 50’-32’ 1 1 None 32’-40’ 1 1 None 40’-33’ 1 1 None 33’-50’ 1 1 TWLTL 64’ 1 1 TWLTL 64’-47’ 1 1 TWLTL 46’ 1 2 TWLTL 74’-64’ Note: All roadway widths vary at intersections. TWLTL median type is a two way left-turn lane. Source: Maricopa County 2010; Field verification 2010. Page 42 January 2011 Page 43 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road than the two “good” segments on Peoria Avenue. PCR data was not available for the remaining sections of the study corridor. Existing Right-of-Way Existing right-of-way information was obtained from Maricopa County Assessor Maps, recorded plat maps and other surveys, and Maricopa County geographic information systems (GIS) data. The existing right-of-way width along Peoria Avenue varies along the corridor. Figure 26 provides representative right-of-way width information along Peoria Avenue from Perryville Road to Dysart Road. It is important to note that information presented on this map includes formally recorded right-of-way per the Maricopa County Assessor’s Office, as of September 2010. This does not reflect right-of-way dedications that may be in process, municipality required developer stipulations that have not been administered, or any other situations not documented with the county. Pavement Conditions Peoria Avenue is generally paved with asphalt concrete from Perryville Road to Dysart Road, with the exception of the unpaved segment from Citrus Road to Cotton Lane. MCDOT supplied road summary reports for three specific locations: Cotton Lane to approximately 3,000 feet east, Sarival Avenue to Reems Road, and Reems Road to Bullard Avenue. Peoria Avenue from Cotton Lane to approximately 3,000 feet east of Cotton Lane was constructed in May 1974 and is currently paved with a two-inch road mix over a native subgrade. This section was last sealed with a chip seal in May 2007. The left and right shoulders consist of native dirt. No curb and gutter are present. Peoria Avenue from Sarival Avenue to Reems Road was originally constructed in June 1975 and improved in February 2008. It is currently paved with a five-inch road mix over an eightinch aggregate base course. This section was last sealed with a 3/8-inch chip seal in June 2009. The left shoulders consist of native dirt. Curb and gutter are present on the right edge (south) for most of the segment. Peoria Avenue from Reems Road to Bullard Avenue was constructed in June 1975 and is currently paved with a one-inch road mix over a native subgrade. This section was last sealed with a 3/8-inch chip seal in June 2009. The left and right shoulders consist of native dirt. No curb and gutter are present. The Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) is a composite evaluation of nine surface distress categories for extent and severity. The PCRs for Peoria Avenue, obtained from MCDOT in August 2010, are given in Table 6. The PCR for Peoria Avenue ranges from a low of 60 (from Cotton Lane to a point approximately 3,000 feet east, and from Reems Road to Bullard Avenue) to a high of 86 (between Sarival Road and Reems Road). A PCR of 55 to 70 is considered “good,” 71 to 84 rates as “very good,” and 85 to 100 rates as “excellent.” As shown in Table 6, the section of Peoria Avenue between Sarival Road and Reems Road is in excellent condition, while the other two segments are in good condition. Based on historical data (2002-2007), approximately 70 percent of the arterial road segments in Maricopa County have a higher rating Page 44 January 2011 Also shown in Table 6, the Sufficiency Rating identifies how each arterial roadway segment compares to the MCDOT Roadway Design Manual (RDM) standards for each segment’s functional classification. The MCDOT Roadway Management Section maintains information on lane geometry, width, shoulder width, drainage features, vertical sight distance, and horizontal sight distance. This information is then combined so that each road is scored on a scale from 1 to 100, with an excellent rating of 100 representing a road in complete compliance with RDM standards. The Sufficiency Rating of Peoria Avenue ranges from a good rating of 66 between Sarival Road and Reems Road to a very good rating of 71 from Cotton Lane to approximately 3,000 feet east. Based on historical data (2002-2007), approximately 85 percent of the arterial road segments in Maricopa County have a higher rating than all three of these segments on Peoria Avenue. Sufficiency Rating data were not available for the remaining sections of the study area.  Table 6 – Existing Pavement Condition  Pavement Condition Segment Sufficiency Rating Rating Cotton Lane to 2,957’ east 60 (Good) 71 (Very Good) Sarival Road to Reems Road 86 (Excellent) 66 (Good) Reems Road to Bullard Avenue 60 (Good) 69 (Good) Source: MCDOT Road Management System – Road Summary Report, August 2010.  Intersection and Lane Geometry The existing portion of Peoria Avenue within the study area has eight major cross-street intersections from Perryville Road to Dysart Road. The intersection with Litchfield Road is a four-legged signal controlled intersection. The other seven intersections are either two-way stop controlled or all-way stop controlled. The Perryville Road intersection is a “T” intersection, with the existing Peoria Avenue terminating here. The roadway lane geometry and intersection traffic control was taken from aerial mapping provided by Maricopa County and field-verified in August 2010. Table 7 summarizes the configuration of these eight intersections, including the type of intersection, current traffic control, and number of lanes at each approach. Figure 27 shows the lane geometry of each intersection along with an aerial plan view of the intersection. Page 45 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Table 7 – Existing Intersection Characteristics  Approach Lanes Intersection Type Traffic Control NB SB EB WB Perryville Road “T”-intersection Three-Way STOP 1 1 n/a* 2 Citrus Road Four-legged NB/SB STOP 1 1 2 1 Cotton Lane Four-legged EB/WB STOP 1 1 1 1 Sarival Road Four-legged Four-Way STOP 3 2 2 2 Reems Road Four-legged Four-Way STOP 2 3 1 1 Bullard Avenue “T”-intersection Three-Way STOP n/a 2 1 2 Litchfield Road Four-legged SIGNAL 2 3 2 3 Dysart Road Four-legged Four-Way STOP 3 3 2 3 *n/a applies to approach lanes that do not exist (e.g., three-legged intersection). Source: Maricopa County 2010; Field verification 2010. Access Conditions There are thirty four driveways and fifteen intersections on Peoria Avenue. The names and approximate locations of these driveways and intersections were obtained on a field visit in August 2010. In addition to these defined access points, there is also “undefined” access throughout the corridor at various locations. All of the intersections have full access configurations, but only a few have separate lanes for left and right turns. All of the driveways have full-access, single-lane configurations with shared movements for each approach. The approximate locations of these minor intersections and driveways are shown in Figures 28 and 29. The figures include example photos of the various types of access conditions that are present along the corridor. All intersections and driveways along existing Peoria Avenue have full movement access in all directions (no limited access). Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road A MCDOT principal arterial is six lanes wide, constructed on a minimum right-of-way of 130 feet, including a bicycle lane. Right-of-way for future bus pullouts should be provided on the far side of each intersection of a principal arterial with another principal or minor arterial – which, in the study area, includes every one-mile cross street. Figure 30 illustrates this MCDOT typical cross-section for Peoria Avenue. A MAG principal arterial is also six lanes wide, constructed on a minimum right-of-way of 140 feet, including a bicycle lane. Figure 31 depicts the MAG typical cross-section for Peoria Avenue. Surprise classifies Peoria Avenue as a major arterial in the current General Plan, whereas El Mirage classifies Peoria Avenue as a minor arterial (based on City of Peoria standard details). Typical cross-sections for both cities are illustrated in Figures 32 and 33. The City of Glendale has indicated that amendments to the General Plan have upgraded Peoria Avenue to a major arterial. A typical cross-section for the City of Glendale is shown in Figure 34. Bicycle lanes are typically part of most arterial cross-sections, but are specifically planned for Perryville Road, Citrus Road, Bullard Avenue, and Litchfield Road – all north of Peoria Avenue – in the Surprise General Plan. Multi-use paths are planned along Peoria Avenue and Jackrabbit Trail Parkway. Surprise has designated SR 303L and Dysart Road as truck routes (Figure 35). Design Criteria Table 8 summarizes the functional classification guidelines described for each of the typical sections displayed in the last section. Future Typical Sections As mentioned in section 4.0, Peoria Avenue has been classified by the local jurisdictions as follows: x x x x x MCDOT – Urban Principal Arterial MAG – Major Arterial City of El Mirage – Minor Arterial City of Glendale – Major Arterial City of Surprise – Major Arterial Page 46 January 2011 Page 47 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Table 8 – Adopted Design Guidelines Element Number of Lanes Minimum Right-of-Way Roadway Width Lane Width Lane Separation Access (min. driveway spacing) Design Speed Bicycle Facilities MCDOT Principal Arterial 6 Design Guidelines Surprise El Mirage Major Arterial Minor Arterial 6 4 Glendale Major Arterial 6 130 feet 136 feet 110 feet 130 feet 101 feet 101 feet 78 feet 95 feet 12 feet 12 feet 12 feet 11-12 feet 14 foot Median 165’ for low vol driveways and 330’ for high vol driveways 55 mph 24 foot Median 200’ for all driveways and 300’ for major arterial intersections 55 mph 16 foot Median 15 foot Median 150’-260’ based on 30 mph to 50 mph design speed 150’ min spacing 5.5 feet Multi-Use Path 6 feet n/a n/a 5 feet w/11 foot lane Source: Maricopa County Major Streets and Routes Plan, Policy Document, revised 2004; MCDOT Roadway Design Manual; City of Surprise Transportation Plan, 2009; City of Surprise Engineering Design Standards; City of Peoria Standard Detail, 2007; City of Peoria Infrastructure Design Guidelines; City of Glendale Standard Detail Index, 2002; City of Glendale Design and Construction Standards, 2002. Page 48 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 25 – Existing Roadway Alignment Page 49 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 26 – Existing Right-of-Way Widths Page 50 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 27 – Existing Intersection Configurations Page 51 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 27 – Continued Page 52 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 27 – Continued Page 53 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 28 – Existing Access Conditions (Sheet 1) Page 54 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 29 – Existing Access Conditions (Sheet 2) Page 55 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Source: Maricopa County Major Streets and Routes Plan, Policy Document, revised 2004. Figure 30 – MCDOT Principal Arterial Cross-Section Source: City of Surprise Street Design Guidelines, 2009. Figure 32 – City of Surprise Major Arterial Cross-Section Source: MAG I-10 Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study, 2007. Figure 31 – MAG Principal Arterial Cross-Section Page 56 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Source: City of Peoria Standard Detail, 2007. Source: City of Glendale Standard Detail Index, 2002. Figure 34 – City of Glendale Major Arterial Cross-Section Figure 33 – City of El Mirage Minor Arterial Cross-Section Page 57 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 35 – Non-Motorized and Other Transportation Routes Page 58 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road 6.0 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Existing Traffic Volumes Historical traffic volumes were obtained from the City of Surprise and MCDOT for years 2008– 2009 where available. In addition, Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc. (TRA) conducted traffic counts in August 2010, at several locations in the study area. The existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes within the study area are shown in Figure 36. TRA also conducted turning movement counts at eight major intersections in the same month. These intersection volumes represent existing peak hour traffic between the hours of 7:00-9:00 a.m. and 4:00-6:00 p.m. Figure 37 displays the 2010 peak hour turning movements at each of the major intersections along Peoria Avenue. Existing daily traffic on Peoria Avenue varies in the study area from approximately 900 vehicles per day (vpd) at the west end to 9,000 vpd between Bullard Avenue and Litchfield Road. A majority of the north/south grid cross streets currently carry more traffic than Peoria Avenue. With the exception of SR 303L, Litchfield Road has the highest existing cross street daily traffic volume (16,500 to 14,600 vpd) in the study area. Future Traffic Projections MAG provided design year 2031 traffic volume projections for use in this study. MAG maintains a regional traffic forecasting model based on projected socioeconomic data, which provides numerous outputs including daily traffic and peak hour traffic. MAG network simulations were provided for two design years under the build scenario. For the purposes of this study, the “build scenario” network corresponds to three traffic lanes in each direction of travel and includes (beyond the study area limits) a future river crossing of the Agua Fria River. The 2031 build traffic volume projections are shown in Figure 38, ranging from approximately 10,000 vpd to 31,000 vpd.  Page 59 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 36 – Existing ADT Volumes Page 60 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 37 – Existing 2010 Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes Page 61 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 38 – 2031 Projected ADT Volumes Page 62 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road 7.0 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road PRELIMINARY ISSUES, OPPORTUNITIES, AND SPECIAL INTEREST AREAS Table 9 Continued Table 9 presents preliminary issues and opportunities identified as part of the Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study. The list was developed from observations in the field, review of existing studies and plans, and discussions with the Technical Advisory Committee. Issue/Constraint Drainage Table 9 – Preliminary Issues and Opportunities Topic Opportunity Roadway Major Utility Issue/Constraint Roadway Location Peoria Avenue between Perryville Road and Citrus Road Corridor-wide Full street cross-section built out; tie into and utilize existing improvements Corridor-wide Burying local power lines for corridor consistency Corridor-wide Converting irrigation ditches into pipes to increase corridor safety Peoria Avenue and SR 303L Planned upgrade to freeway, including traffic interchange at Peoria Avenue Peoria Avenue forms boundary between multiple jurisdictions, causing undefined ultimate control and responsibility of corridor (e.g.,land to the north of Peoria Avenue is incorporated by Surprise, land to the south of Peoria Avenue and east of Ennis Spur incorporated by El Mirage, some land south of Peoria Avenue incorporated by Glendale, including 10-foot wide strip annex) Installation of future APS West Valley-North 230kV power transmission line 30-inch reclaimed water line and reclaimed water delivery headers Numerous well sites directly adjacent to Peoria Avenue right-of-way Underground city water and sewer lines and appurtenances Underground Southwest Gas natural gas lines Parallel to SR 303L Peoria Avenue, between Litchfield Road and Ennis Spur Corridor-wide Corridor-wide Corridor-wide Corridor-wide Page 63 January 2011 Description Major drainage structure Peoria Avenue section line, south of McMicken Dam Peoria Avenue and Sarival Road Existing fissures Land Ownership East of Beardsley Canal State Trust Land Existing Development Northeast corner of Peoria Avenue and Perryville Road South of Peoria Avenue, Perryville Road to Citrus Road South of Peoria Avenue, Citrus Road to Cotton Lane North of Peoria Avenue, SR 303L to Sarival Road North of Peoria Avenue, Sarival Road to Reems Road South of Peoria Avenue, Sarival Road and half-mile east North of Peoria Avenue, Reems Road to Bullard Avenue North of Peoria Avenue, Bullard Avenue to Litchfield Road North of Peoria Avenue, Ennis Spur to Dysart Road Shadow Ridge High School Maximize use of existing half-streets Qwest overhead and underground telephone lines Location Beardsley Canal, west of Perryville Road McMicken Dam, west of Beardsley Canal Waterfall Wash, west of Beardsley Canal and south of McMicken Dam South side of Peoria Avenue, west half of corridor Adjacent to Cotton Lane, Reems Road, and Ennis Spur Peoria Avenue and Citrus Road Description Corridor-wide Major Utility Topic Topography Major drainage structure; cannot cross Major drainage feature that crosses Peoria Avenue section line Parallel private irrigation ditches Flood channels/100-year floodplains MWD underground cross-cut canal Existing fissures Cortessa master planned community; active development Adjacent custom home development; individual driveway access to Peoria Avenue; built out Limited development within Sycamore Farms master-planned community; active development Greer Ranch master planned community; active development Twelve Oaks Estate master planned community; active development Rancho Gabriela master planned community; built out Copper Canyon Ranch master planned community; active development Skyway Business Park; active development Page 64 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Table 10 – Special Interest Areas Table 9 Continued Topic Issue/Constraint Future Development Location Description North of Peoria Avenue, Beardsley Canal to half-mile east of Perryville Road; South of Peoria Avenue Beardsley Canal to Perryville Road North of Peoria Avenue, halfmile east of Perryville Road to Cotton Lane South of Peoria Avenue, Citrus Road to Cotton Lane South of Peoria Avenue, SR 303L to Sarival Road North of Peoria Avenue, Reems Road to Bullard Avenue North of Peoria Avenue, Litchfield Road to Ennis Spur South of Peoria Avenue, Ennis Spur to Dysart Road Parallel to Ennis Spur Growth Areas Future Peoria Avenue/SR 303L traffic interchange North of Peoria Avenue, Litchfield Road to Dysart Road Special Interest Area Description Zanjero Trails master planned community Peoria Avenue/Ennis Spur Railroad Crossing Prasada master planned community Peoria Avenue from Citrus Road to Cotton Lane Zanjero Pass master planned community; south of existing development directly adjacent to Peoria Avenue Glendale 303 commercial development Beardsley Canal to Jackrabbit Trail Parkway Improvements to Peoria Avenue will have to include close coordination with the BNSF Railway. As traffic may significantly increase along the Ennis Spur in the future, consideration could be given to a grade separation of these two transportation facilities. Special consideration should be given to this corridor segment due to its unique circumstances, including numerous large lot homes with individual driveway access on the south side, the future Prasada master planned community on the north side, and the use of this segment by school buses for access to Shadow Ridge High School. Planning an extension of Peoria Avenue west of Perryville Road to the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway will require close consideration of environmental and drainage features, including coordination with MWD and FCDMC. This extension will include a crossing of the Beardsley Canal, and is in close proximity to the McMicken Dam and Waterfall Wash. In addition, any planned community circulation connections to Jackrabbit Trail Parkway from the west should be understood to construct a seamless Peoria Avenue corridor. Two planned megachurch developments Desert Cove Commercial Park John F. Long Industrial Complex Potential industrial development Major commercial employment center Major office/industrial employment center Additionally, Table 10 presents a series of special interest areas that must be considered in any infrastructure improvements proposed. Page 65 January 2011 Page 66 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road 8.0 RELEVANT PLANS, REPORTS, GUIDELINES, STUDIES, AND STANDARDS Many existing plans, reports, and guidelines were compiled, reviewed, and summarized for this project. Relevant findings, conclusions, and recommendations from these documents have been discussed throughout the working paper. A listing of such references follows. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x ADOT SR 303L 60% Project Plans APS West Valley-North Power Line and Substation Project, 2005 Arizona Geological Survey Earth Fissure Map of Maricopa County, December 2009 City of El Mirage FY 2009-2019 Capital Improvement Plan, 2009 City of El Mirage General Plan, 2010 City of Glendale FY 2010-2019 Capital Improvement Plan, 2009 City of Glendale General Plan, 2002 City of Glendale Major General Plan Amendments, 2005 City of Glendale Zoning Ordinance, 2009 City of Surprise Development Master Plans (Copper Canyon Ranch/Mountain Gate, Desert Cove, Greer Ranch, Prasada, Rancho Gabriela, Sycamore Farms, Zanjero Trails) City of Surprise Designated Truck Routes, 2007 City of Surprise Developments Status, 2010 City of Surprise General Plan, 2008 City of Surprise Major General Plan Amendments, 2010 City of Surprise Transportation Plan, 2005 City of Surprise FY 2010-2014 Capital Improvement Plan, 2009 City of Surprise Zoning Ordinance, 2010 FCDMC Loop 303/White Tanks ADMP, 2003 FCDMC McMicken Dam Fissure Zone Remediation Project FCDMC Wittman ADMP, 2007 MAG TIP, 2010 MAG Desert Spaces Plan, 2003 MAG Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study, 2008 MAG RTP, 2010 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan, 2002 Maricopa County Major Streets and Routes Plan (Atlas and Policy Document), 2004 Maricopa County McMicken Dam Scenic Corridor Guidelines Maricopa County Olive Avenue Scenic Corridor Guidelines Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan, 2004 Maricopa County Transportation System Plan, 2007 Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance, 2010 MCDOT Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway, 2008 MCDOT TIP FY 2011-2015, 2010 Page 67 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road  Appendix A: City Limits Map Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Appendix B Technical Memorandum No. 2: Environmental Overview Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study: Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #2: Environmental Overview January 2011 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................1 2.0 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT ...............................................................................3 Jurisdiction and Ownership ......................................................................................................3 Existing Land Use ....................................................................................................................3 Planned Development ..............................................................................................................5 Title VI/Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................5 Section 4(f) Resources.............................................................................................................6 Section 6(f) Resources.............................................................................................................7 3.0 PHYSICAL AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT...................................................................8 Topography and Physiography.................................................................................................8 Prime and Unique Farmlands.................................................................................................10 Land Subsidence and Earth Fissures .....................................................................................11 Vegetation ..............................................................................................................................12 Wildlife and Wildlife Movement...............................................................................................16 Special Status Species ..........................................................................................................17 Water Resources ...................................................................................................................19 Visual Resources ...................................................................................................................21 Noise......................................................................................................................................24 Air Quality ..............................................................................................................................26 Hazardous Materials ..............................................................................................................29 4.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................31 5.0 AGENCY AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT........................................................................32 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY .....................................................................................32 Surveys and Impact Evaluations ............................................................................................33 Permitting and Planning Requirements ..................................................................................33 Design and Construction Considerations: ..............................................................................33 7.0 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................36 Page i January 2011 Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road List of Abbreviations and Acronyms List of Figures Figure 1 – Vicinity Map................................................................................................................2 Figure 2 – Existing Land Use ......................................................................................................4 Figure 3 – Water Resources, Earth Fissures, and Soils ..............................................................9 Figure 4 – Prime and Unique Farmland.....................................................................................13 Figure 5 – Visual Resources .....................................................................................................23 Figure 6 – Photo Taken from the Library and Nature Center at the White Tank Regional Park Looking East-Northeast. ..........................................................................................24 Figure 7 – Environmental Constraints .......................................................................................35 List of Tables Table 1 – Population Distribution.................................................................................................6 Table 2 – Plant Species Known to Occur Within the Study Area ...............................................14 Table 3 – Federally-Listed Species Known to Occur in Maricopa County, Arizona ....................18 Table 4 – FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (Hourly Sound Level in A-Weighted Decibels [dBA]) 1 .......................................................................................................25 Table 5 – National Ambient Air Quality Standards.....................................................................28 Appendices Appendix A: Arizona Game and Fish Department On-Line Project Review Tool Receipt Appendix B: Regulatory Database Search Summary Page ii January 2011 ADA ADEQ ADWR AFB AGFD AMA ASLD AWLW BG BNSF CT CAA CAAA CERCLA CFR dBA EO EPA ESA FCDMC FHWA FPPA GIS L10(h) Leq(h) LWCF MAG MBTA MCDOT MPA MWD NAAQS NEPA NAC NHPA NRCS NRHP PM2.5 PM10 ppm RCRA SARA SHPO SIP SR TIP USACE USC USFWS UST Arizona Department of Agriculture Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Arizona Department of Water Resources Air Force Base Arizona Game & Fish Department Active Management Area Arizona State Land Department Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup Block Group Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad Census Tract Clean Air Act CAA Amendments and Amendments Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, & Liability Act Code of Federal Regulations A-Weighted Decibels Environmental Overview U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Endangered Species Act Flood Control District of Maricopa County Federal Highway Administration Farmland Protection Policy Act Geographic Information Systems The sound level that is exceeded ten percent of the time (the 90th percentile) during an hour Hourly Equivalent Sound Level Land and Water Conservation Fund Maricopa Association of Governments Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Municipal Planning Area Maricopa Water District National Ambient Air Quality Standards National Environmental Policy Act Noise Abatement Criteria National Historic Preservation Act Natural Resources Conservation Service National Register of Historic Places Fine Particulate Matter Coarse Particulate Matter Parts per Million Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act State Historic Preservation Office State Implementation Plan State Route Transportation Improvement Program U.S. Army Corps of Engineers United States Code U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Underground Storage Tank Page iii January 2011 Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) prepared the Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study (Hassayampa Framework Study) that identified a comprehensive roadway network to meet traffic demand for the build out of the area west of State Route 303 (SR 303L). This long range regional transportation study identified the need for a roadway network consisting of freeways, parkways, and major arterial roads. The Hassayampa Framework Study recommends an extension of Peoria Avenue west from Perryville Road to the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway, and identified Peoria Avenue as a major arterial from the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Sarival Avenue. The study area for this project includes Peoria Avenue from the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway alignment to Dysart Road (Peoria Avenue Corridor). The study area generally encompasses a two-mile-wide corridor centered on the existing Peoria Avenue. The study area is shown in Figure 1. This study will establish the facility type, number of lanes, right-of-way needs, and general alignment for the Peoria Avenue Corridor that will be required to accommodate projected traffic growth and enhance safety. In cooperation with the City of Surprise (Surprise), the City of Glendale (Glendale), and the City of El Mirage (Mirage), the study will also develop access management guidelines, determine design standards based upon which jurisdiction anticipates annexing the roadway, and develop an implementation plan. In general, the purpose of this Corridor Improvement Study is to provide the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) and other jurisdictions with a future “footprint” of the Peoria Avenue Corridor and a timeframe for the implementation of the recommended future roadway improvements. The key objectives of this Corridor Improvement Study are to: x x x x x x Define and assess strategic issues within the project study area; Develop and evaluate conceptual alternative alignments within the corridor study area; Recommend a preferred alignment; Develop consensus for the preferred alignment; Define the characteristics of the preferred alignment; and Develop an implementation plan. This technical memorandum identifies the known existing environmental conditions including the physical, natural, and socioeconomic environment, as well as cultural resources. The information in the Environmental Overview (EO) is based on data available from county, municipal, state, and federal databases, personal interviews, and a field review of the study area. The EO provides known information to assist in the identification of potential environmental concerns in the study area that would need to be considered in evaluating and prioritizing alternatives for future project development. Future improvements would require further study, analysis and documentation under applicable environmental statues. If federal funds are used for such improvements, requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and associated federal statues would apply. Page 1 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 1 – Vicinity Map Page 2 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road 2.0 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT The socioeconomic environment includes jurisdictional boundaries, land ownership, existing land use, and planned development. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data coverage created by the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) and MAG, and municipal land use plans were used in identifying jurisdiction, ownership, existing land use, and planned land use. The presence of parks or recreation areas was determined using aerial imagery, as well as GIS data coverage from local municipalities and MAG. Jurisdiction and Ownership For the purposes of this overview, land ownership is identified in terms of public or private control, while land jurisdiction refers to the city, town, county, state, or federal agency or agencies exercising governmental authority over an area. The majority of the land in the study area is privately-owned, with approximately 20 percent of the westernmost study area publiclyowned by the ASLD. While much of the private land is owned by individual property owners, there are several major land holdings in the study area including the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC), Maricopa Water District (MWD), the Dysart Unified School District #89 (Maricopa County Tax Assessor 2010), and major master-planned community land owners. The study area includes land within the municipal planning areas (MPA) of the City of El Mirage, City of Glendale, City of Surprise, and Maricopa County. An MPA is defined as the geographic area in which the municipal planning process is carried out, and can include both incorporated and unincorporated areas. Land within the El Mirage and Surprise MPA’s is largely incorporated within the study area, while land within the City of Glendale MPA is mostly unincorporated. Maricopa County has planning and zoning authority over the unincorporated areas, including areas within an MPA. Planning and zoning authority for unincorporated State Trust land is shared jointly by ASLD and the County. Existing Land Use Much of the land within the study area is categorized as vacant (i.e., undeveloped) or agriculture. There are several single-family residential subdivisions that are built or under development, as well as three elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. Several existing homes, not associated with the subdivisions, are located adjacent to Peoria Avenue. Small clusters of industrial and commercial development are scattered throughout the area. Existing land use is shown in Figure 2. Page 3 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 2 – Existing Land Use Page 4 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Planned Development Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road The Peoria Avenue corridor is located in an area of projected development within Maricopa County. With the exception of the southeast portion of the study area, which is affected by the noise contours of the Luke Air Force Base (AFB), much of the study area is anticipated to reside within master planned communities. Approximately half of the major residential communities located within the study area are built or actively in the development phase. Peoria Avenue between Cotton Lane and the Beardsley Canal, contains a population with a high percentage of disabled persons (Table 1). However, aerial imagery reveals that much of the BG that lies within the study area is used for agriculture or is undeveloped. The data also indicate that CT 610.07, BG 4, located north of Peoria Avenue between Cotton Lane and Bullard Avenue, has a high percentage of minority persons (Table 1). However, the 2000 Census Data predates the construction of a large residential subdivision currently located within this BG. Additional analysis and data collection would be required to determine the presence of any protected populations within the study area. Based upon long-range planning efforts conducted by each jurisdiction, the majority of the vacant and agricultural land will be converted to single-family residential housing in master planned communities and mixed use developments in the future. Commercial and industrial development will expand, but remain scattered throughout the study area. Table 1 – Population Distribution Title VI/Environmental Justice The United State Environmental Protection Agency defines Environmental Justice as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies (Environmental Protection Agency 1998). Environmental Justice is based on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin, by recipients of federal financial assistance. Executive Order 12898, issued February 11, 1994, provides that each federal agency, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, shall make achieving Environmental Justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. A minority person is defined as an individual who is racially classified as African American, Native American or Alaskan Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, some other race, or two or more races. Hispanics are also considered minorities regardless of their racial affiliation. Elderly refers to individuals who are older than 60 years of age. Low-income is defined as a person whose household income is at or below federal government poverty guidelines. The disabled population refers to individuals five years and older that have disability status and are non-institutionalized. Female head-of-household is a family household where there is a female with no spouse present, regardless of whether she has any children less than 18 years of age. Demographic data obtained from the 2000 U.S. Census were used to compare the demographic profile of the study area with that of El Mirage, Glendale, Surprise, and Maricopa County. Census block group (BG) data were used to identify disabled, gender, income, age, and minority populations. The study area is comprised of six BGs. The population distribution is summarized in Table 1. An evaluation of the demographic data indicates that there may be a disabled population and a minority population within the study area. Census Tract (CT) 610.07, BG 1, located North of Page 5 January 2011 Census Tract, Block Group Total Population # 506.02, BG 2 610.06, BG 3 610.06, BG 3 610.07, BG 1 610.07, BG 3 610.07, BG 4 Total Tracts City of El Mirage City of Glendale City of Surprise Maricopa County 2,721 1,699 3,767 499 970 109 9,765 7,518 218,596 30,886 3,072,149 Total Minority # 396 309 469 162 242 90 1,668 2,604 53,675 4,219 696,758 Total Minority % Age 60 years and over # Age 60 years and over % Total population for whom disabled is determined # 15% 18% 12% 32% 25% 83% * 17% 35% 25% 14% 23% 263 270 377 47 100 0 1,057 663 22,842 10,549 465,849 10% 16% 10% 9% 10% 0% 11% 9% 10% 34% 15% 2,545 1,577 3,500 466 842 109 9,039 6,569 197,407 28,239 2,802,278 Disabled # 491 410 624 131 145 7 1,808 1,655 36,136 5,608 504,992 Disabled % Total population for whom poverty is determined # Below Poverty Level # Below Poverty Level % 19% 26% 18% 28% * 17% 6% 20% 25% 18% 20% 18% 2,710 1,699 3,735 499 970 109 9,722 7,441 215,389 30,763 3,027,299 151 90 325 0 25 0 591 1,181 25,688 2,689 355,668 6% 5% 9% 0% 3% 0% 6% 16% Households # 861 570 1,165 181 333 20 3,130 2,063 Female Head of Household # 89 65 134 34 32 0 354 446 Female Head of Household % 10% 11% 12% 19% 10% 0% 11% 22% * Bold text indicates Census Tract Block Groups with potential environmental justice or Title VI populations. Source: US Census Bureau 2000 12% 9% 12% 75,697 12,474 1,133,048 19,672 2,178 303,905 26% 17% 27% Section 4(f) Resources Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 USC 303) prohibits the use of land of significant publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and land of a historic site for transportation projects unless the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) determines that there is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative and that all possible planning to minimize harm has occurred (FHWA 2005). Page 6 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Only federally-funded transportation projects are subject to the Section 4(f) requirement. If a project uses federal funds to acquire land protected by Section 4(f), or if the project affects any 4(f) resources, an evaluation of the impacts must be conducted. Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road the Act, the provisions under Section 6(f)(3) mandates that these investments are protected, but realizes that changes in land use especially in growing urban areas can impact these protected resources. As detailed in the following excerpt from the Act, the LWCF contains a provision to protect these areas from conversions (National Park Service 2010). White Tank Mountain Regional Park sits outside of the study area, just to the west of Jackrabbit Trail. The main entrance to the park is on Olive Avenue, which is one mile south of Peoria Avenue. There is a segment of the Maricopa Trail within the study area, along the west side of the McMicken Dam near the White Tank Mountain Regional Park (Figure 2). The Maricopa Trail (Figure 2) connects regional parks within the Maricopa County Park System. An additional segment of the trail is planned within the study limits, but not yet built. The new segment would connect the existing segment to the Beardsley Canal. There are no wildlife or waterfowl refuge areas within the study area. SEC. 6(f)(3) No property acquired or developed with assistance under this section shall, without the approval of the Secretary, be converted to other than public outdoor recreation uses. The Secretary shall approve such conversion only if he finds it to be in accord with the then existing comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan and only upon such conditions as he deems necessary to assure the substitution of other recreation properties of at least equal fair market value and of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location. While there are no other City or County parks within the study area, there are several community or “pocket” parks within developed communities. School playgrounds may qualify as Section 4(f) resources if they are publicly owned, open to the public, have a major recreational purpose, and are considered by the community to be a significant resource. Shadow Ridge High School is located immediately adjacent to Peoria Avenue in the western limits of the study area. There are several other schools within the study limits, though not immediately adjacent to Peoria Avenue: Mountain View Elementary, Sonoran Heights Elementary, Rancho Gabriela Elementary, and Imagine Middle School. The 2008 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (Arizona State Parks 2007) was reviewed to determine whether any LWCF funds were expended within the study area. No Section 6(f) funded properties are currently located within the Peoria Avenue study area. Section 6(f) funds were used to construct the nearby White Tank Mountain Regional Park, but this is outside of the study area. If a park were to be developed within the study area and LWCF funds were used to construct the park, requirements under the provisions of Section 6(f) could apply. In the event this were to occur, coordination with the Arizona State Parks LWCF Grants Coordinator and the National Park Service would be required, regardless of construction funding. Some historic sites on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are also afforded protection by Section 4(f). FHWA's determination of adverse effect under 36 Section 106 (see page 30) does not mean that Section 4(f) automatically applies, nor should it be presumed that the lack of an adverse effect finding (no historic properties adversely affected) means that Section 4(f) will not apply. Section 4(f) applicability should be considered on a caseby-case basis. There is currently a limited amount of information inventorying historic properties within the study area. Of the known sites within the study area, the Beardsley Canal and the Ennis spur of the BNSF Railway (BNSF) would potentially be afforded protection under Section 4(f). The Beardsley Canal, an historic canal, is partially located within the study area. While numerous sections of the canal are considered eligible, the section within the study area has not been evaluated. A portion of a historic railroad, the Ennis spur of the BNSF, crosses Peoria Avenue just east of 136th Avenue. The segment of the railroad that lies within the study area has not been evaluated for NRHP eligibility. Further evaluation to determine the eligibility status of these two sites and to survey for the presence of additional sites would be required prior to construction. Section 6(f) Resources The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCF) was signed into law on September 3, 1964 as Public Law 88-578, 16 U.S.C. 4601-4. The Act was established to provide a funding source for acquisition of park and recreation lands by federal, state, and local governments. As part of Page 7 January 2011 3.0 PHYSICAL AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT This section describes the existing physical and natural environment including topography, physiography, biotic communities, wildlife, sensitive species and habitat, water resources, visual character, noise, air quality, and hazardous materials. The information in this section was gathered from several sources, including local, state, and federal regulatory agencies having jurisdiction within the area. The agencies include the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), Arizona Game & Fish Department (AGFD) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The characteristics of the physical and natural environment were also identified from preliminary surveys of the area. The preliminary surveys were conducted by driving the portions of the project area that can be accessed by road and walking surveys of selected representative portions of the project area that could not be accessed by car. Topography and Physiography The study area is located within the Basin and Range Physiographic Province of Central Arizona (Hendricks 1985), which is characterized by numerous mountain ranges with broad valleys or basins between them. Portions of the Basin and Range province are composed of broad areas of alluvial fans and fan terraces, separated by isolated desert mountains. The White Tank Mountains, located just west of the study area (shown in Figure 3), are an example of isolated desert mountains found in the Basin and Range province. Page 8 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 3 – Water Resources, Earth Fissures, and Soils Page 9 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road The study area is generally flat with an elevation range of 1,094 to 1,402 feet above mean sea level. The drainage pattern slopes southeast toward the Agua Fria River, located east of the study area. Major topographic features in the vicinity of the study area include the White Tank Mountains at the western end of the corridor and the Agua Fria River located east of the corridor. Many small washes remain in the undeveloped portions of the study area, but the majority of the land is farmed or has been developed for residential uses. The majority of the surface water in the study area is controlled using drainage channels and retention basins. The Maricopa Water District maintains a mix of open lateral canals and underground pipes that extend along Cactus Road, Peoria Avenue, and Dunlap Avenue between Sarival Road and the Beardsley Canal. The existing Peoria Avenue alignment crosses floodplains at some of the major north-south roads, discussed in more detail on page 21. The McMicken Dam/Trilby Wash Basin, a flood control structure, is also located within the study area. The Beardsley Canal crosses perpendicular to the Peoria Avenue alignment at the western end of the study area. There are two ephemeral desert washes located south of McMicken Dam and west of the Beardsley Canal that may be affected depending on the alignment selected for Peoria Avenue in that area. Water resources are discussed further on page 19. Unique farmland is defined as land other than prime farmland that is used for the production of specific high-value food and fiber crops. It has the special combination of soil quality, location, growing season and moisture supply needed to produce a sustained high quality or high yields of a specific crop in an economic manner when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods. As shown in Figure 3, there are areas of soils with high shrink-swell potential located on both the western and eastern boundaries of the study area. These soils are one of several soil units present throughout the study area that are rated as having “limited suitability for road building” by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (2008), due to flooding characteristics, large stone content, low strength, and shrink-swell potential (Figure 3). There are no hydric soils, which can be an indicator of wetland conditions, within the study area. Prime and Unique Farmlands The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) was passed in 1981 with the intent to minimize the impact of federal programs that involve converting farmland to non-agricultural uses. As a result, federal agencies must identify important farmland within the study area that would be affected by the project. Impacts can be direct, as with the conversion of agricultural land use to non-agricultural use, or indirect, if, for example, a new roadway blocks access to cropland. If there are adverse effects associated with a project that is tied to a federal action/aid, the FPPA requires that measures be considered to reduce those effects. Important farmlands consist of prime farmland, unique farmland, and farmland of statewide or local importance. Prime farmland is defined as land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, oilseed, and other agricultural crops with a minimum input of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, and labor, and without intolerable soil erosion. Prime farmland has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods. The criteria for identification of prime farmlands are entirely related to soil and other physical characteristics. The land could be cropland, pasture land, range land, forest land, or other land, but not urban built-up land or water. Page 10 January 2011 Farmland of statewide or local importance is defined as farmland soils that fail to meet one of the requirements of prime or unique farmland, but are important for the production of food, feed, fiber, or forage crops. They include those soils that are nearly prime farmland and that economically produce high yields of crops when treated or managed according to acceptable farming methods. Some may produce as high a yield as prime farmlands if conditions are favorable. As shown in Figure 4, no prime or unique farmlands are located west of Perryville Road. East of Perryville Road all of the soils surrounding Peoria Avenue are classified as either prime or unique farmland. Much of the soils are considered prime farmland if irrigated, with pockets or soils that are considered prime farmland if both irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season. There are also several small inclusions of unique farmland (NRCS 2010). If federal funds are used for improvements to Peoria Avenue that would require the acquisition of right-of-way, a farmland impact assessment will need to be performed in accordance with the FPPA. This would entail a formal request to see whether prime or unique farmland are within the proposed right-of-way and documentation that alternative routes were explored to attempt to avoid these lands. If no other alternative is available, no penalty is imposed and no mitigation is required. If the land under consideration is already in or committed for urban development, a farmland impact assessment is still required. Land Subsidence and Earth Fissures Land subsidence has been identified in several south-central Arizona locations. This phenomenon occurs when water is pumped from underground aquifers and the weight of the overlying material compresses the empty aquifer, causing the land to settle and the ground surface to sink. The amount of subsidence varies by location; subsidence between five and 15 feet occurred throughout the study area between 1957 and 1991 (Schumann 1995). As a result, flooding has increased in some areas and required the Dysart Drain to be re-leveled at a cost of $16 million; agricultural fields and irrigation ditches also had to be re-leveled and repaired (Arizona Department of Water Resources [ADWR] 1999). Groundwater pumping and subsequent land subsidence can also cause earth fissures. These are cracks in the ground surface that occur due to uneven land subsidence. Fissures can form gullies as much as 50 feet wide and 10 to 15 feet deep; they can eventually reach as deep as the water table (ADWR 1999). Existing and potential locations of earth fissures have been mapped south of McMicken Dam, at SR 303L near Olive Avenue, and at Peoria Avenue near Page 11 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Sarival Road (Arizona Geological Survey 2009). Once fissures start to form, they tend to increase in number and length, spreading at uneven speeds and directions for several miles. The effects of land subsidence and earth fissures can be significant, causing damage to infrastructure, increasing flood potential, worsening groundwater pollution by allowing contaminants to flow directly into the water table, and accelerating soil erosion (ADWR 1999). Continued land subsidence and accompanying earth fissures will likely occur in this area as long as groundwater overdraft continues. Vegetation The study area is located within the Lower Colorado River Valley Subdivision of the Sonoran Desertscrub Biotic Community (Brown 1994), which is found throughout southwestern Arizona at elevations below 3,500 feet. The corridor was originally developed for agricultural use with scattered residences and industrial properties, but is now a patchwork of agricultural, industrial, residential, and community facilities. Some undisturbed desert areas remain, mainly on State Trust Land and land west of Perryville Road at the western end of the study area abutting White Tank Mountain Regional Park. There is an isolated desert remnant area located north of Olive Avenue between Citrus Road and Cotton Lane. Isolated desert remnants are relatively small tracts of desert that are enclosed by developed land. They have lower conservation value than undisturbed desert because they are no longer connected to undisturbed desert and are likely to have some measure of disturbance as a result of the surrounding land uses. Plant Communities The vegetation in the areas of undisturbed desert consists mainly of scattered trees, shrubs and cacti. Common species include palo verde (Parkinsonia sp.), mesquite (Prosopis sp.), ironwood (Olneya tesota), desert broom (Baccharis sarothroides), creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), brittlebush (Encelia farinosa), bursage (Ambrosia deltoidea), cholla (Cylindropuntia spp.), barrel cactus (Ferocactus sp.), and saguaro (Carnegiea gigantea). Various forbs occur throughout the area, including fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii), cryptantha (Cryptantha sp.) and plantain (Plantago spp). Table 2 contains a list of plants confirmed within the study area based on the August 2010 field visit and vouchers stored at the Arizona State University Vascular Plant Herbarium; because it is based on only a cursory field visit, it does not contain all species that may be present. The agricultural land within the study area contains mainly crop plants with additional vegetation typical of desert agriculture-dominated landscapes located at field edges and around residences. This vegetation includes large trees, such as eucalyptus and pine, that were used to serve as windbreaks, or were planted around historic farm houses or businesses. A few orchard remnants were also noted during the preliminary survey. Page 12 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 4 – Prime and Unique Farmland Page 13 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Table 2 Continued Residential areas and subdivisions within the study area contain both native and non-native landscape plants. Native plants that have been grown for landscaping purposes are not subject to Arizona’s native plant protection laws; native plants that have been salvaged from the desert may be transplanted by the holder of the native plant permit without additional requirements. Table 2 – Plant Species Known to Occur Within the Study Area Common Name Scientific Name Family Desert broom Brittlebush Bursage Fleabane Chinchweed Fiddleneck Cryptantha Cryptantha Combseed Popcornflower Pepperweed Sahara mustard London rocket Cholla Barrel cactus Prickly pear cactus Saguaro Tumbleweed Pygmy weed Desert starvine Milkvetch Blue palo verde Ironwood Little-leaf palo verde Lupine Mesquite Ocotillo Stork’s bill Phacelia Blue fiestaflower Chia Bluedicks Cheeseweed Globemallow Globemallow Desert Indianwheat Woolly plantain Arizona brome Red brome Baccharis sarothroides Encelia farinosa Ambrosia deltoidea Erigeron lobatus Pectis papposa var. papposa Amsinckia menziesii Cryptantha sp. Cryptantha nevadensis Pectocarya platycarpa Plagiobothrys arizonicus Lepidium lasiocarpum Brassica tournefortii Sisymbrium irio Cylindropuntia sp. Ferocactus sp. Opuntia sp. Carnegiea gigantea Salsola tragus Crassula connata Brandegea bigelovii Astragalus didymocarpus Parkinsonia florida Olneya tesota Parkinsonia microphylla Lupinus sparsiflorus Prosopis sp. Fouquieria splendens Erodium cicutarium Phacelia distans Pholistoma auritum Salvia columbariae Dichelostemma capitatum ssp. pauciflorum Malva parviflora Sphaeralcea ambigua Sphaeralcea coulteri Plantago ovata Plantago patagonica Bromus arizonicus Bromus rubens Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Boraginaceae Boraginaceae Boraginaceae Boraginaceae Boraginaceae Brassicaceae Brassicaceae Brassicaceae Cactaceae Cactaceae Cactaceae Cactaceae Chenopodiaceae Crassulaceae Cucurbitaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Fouquieraceae Geraniaceae Hydrophyllaceae Hydrophyllaceae Lamiaceae Liliaceae Malvaceae Malvaceae Malvaceae Plantaginaceae Plantaginaceae Poaceae Poaceae Status 1 Common Name Scientific Name Family Bluegrass Mediterranean grass Star gilia Citrus tree Owl’s clover Creosote bush Poa bigelovii Schismus arabicus Gilia stellata Citrus sinensis Castilleja exserta Larrea tridentata Poaceae Poaceae Polemoniaceae Rutaceae Scrophulariaceae Zygophyllaceae Status 1 1 Protected Native Plant Categories, established by the Arizona Department of Agriculture: HS: Highly Safeguarded - Highly protected plants; salvage, collection and scientific research permits required to move plants or harvest any parts of them. SR: Salvage Restricted - Collection or destruction by permit only. SA: Salvage Assessed - These plants have a significant value if salvaged. HR: Harvest Restricted - Permits required to remove plant by-products (fuel wood). Sources: ASU Herbarium, Field Survey 8/24/2010, Arizona Department of Agriculture Invasive SR SR SR HS, SR Invasive SA SA, HR SA SA, HR SR SR Native Plants Several naturally occurring protected native plants were observed in the study area (Table 2). These include palo verde (Parkinsonia spp.), mesquite (Prosopis spp.), ironwood (Olneya tesota), ocotillo (Fouquieria splendens), saguaro (Carnegiea gigantea), barrel cactus (Ferocactus sp.), prickly pear (Opuntia sp.), and cholla (Cylindropuntia spp.). The Arizona Department of Agriculture (ADA) protects these native plant species. Preparation of a native plant salvage plan is recommended; at a minimum, notice of the intended destruction of protected plants must be disseminated to the public and the ADA 60 days prior to beginning the action, as specified in ARS 3-904 (ADA 2010). Invasive Species Invasive plant species including Sahara mustard (Brassica tournefortii), red brome (Bromus rubens), and tumbleweed (Salsola tragus) were observed during a preliminary field review of the study area in August 2010. Standard precautions to avoid introducing and/or spreading invasive plants should be practiced during construction. These precautions include washing all earth moving and hauling equipment at the contractor’s storage facility prior to entering the construction site, seeding all disturbed soils that will not be landscaped or otherwise permanently stabilized by construction using species native to the project vicinity, and inspecting all construction equipment and removing all attached plant/vegetation and soil/mud debris prior to leaving the construction site. Typically, contractors must develop invasive species control plans prior to beginning work. Invasive Rare Plants The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) On-Line Environmental Review Tool was queried on August 12, 2010 (Search ID No. 20100812012960, Appendix A). The query revealed that a variety of Englemann’s Prickly-Pear (Opuntia engelmannii var. flavispina), also known as Cactus Apple, has been reported to occur within three miles of the Corridor. A search of herbarium vouchers from the Arizona State University Vascular Plant Herbarium showed that this variety of prickly pear was collected just inside the boundary of the White Tank Mountain Page 14 January 2011 Page 15 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Regional Park, just outside the western end of the study area, in 1977. This plant may be present within the study area. It is listed as a Salvage Restricted Protected Native Plant by the Arizona Department of Agriculture (ADA 2010). Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Linkages (www.corridordesign.org); consideration of the guidelines in the design process for the Peoria Avenue Corridor is recommended. Special Status Species Wildlife and Wildlife Movement The relatively undisturbed desert land within the study area offers potential habitat for many desert wildlife species of all sizes. The proximity and connectivity to the White Tank Mountain Regional Park likely allows use of the area by larger animals than would often be found in land adjacent to urban areas. Typical species that may be found in these parts of the study area include deer (Odocoileus sp.), coyote (Canis latrans), javelina (Pecari tajacu), rabbit or hare (Family Lagomorph), round-tailed ground squirrel (Spermophilus tereticaudus), small rodents, and possibly mountain lion (Puma concolor). Many bird species are also likely present, including cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus), roadrunner (Geococcyx californianus), Gambel’s quail (Callipepla gambelii), and likely western burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia). Reptile species that may occur in the area include Sonoran desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), western rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus), diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus atrox), Gila monster (Heloderma suspectum), and gopher snakes (Pituophis spp.). A significant portion of the study area has long been developed for agricultural uses. However, many species use agricultural areas as habitat. Agricultural fields offer some nesting and foraging habitat for birds, small rodents, and other small mammals. Species that might occur in the area include coyotes, raptors, rabbits, a variety of seasonally migrant songbirds, and an array of small mammals, amphibians, reptiles, perching birds and songbirds. As residential and commercial uses develop, a variety of wildlife species adapted to urban conditions will continue to use vegetation in residential and commercial landscaping, parks, and remaining agricultural fields. The Peoria Avenue Corridor extends from one half-mile east of the White Tank Mountain Regional Park eastern almost to the Agua Fria River. This area could serve as an important wildlife corridor. A Feasibility Study for the Trilby Wash has been initiated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and FCDMC to develop and evaluate potential flood control solutions for the Trilby Wash, McMicken Dam, and outflow channels to the Agua Fria River. AGFD will be involved with the study to facilitate use of an ecosystem restoration approach and tie into a regional connectivity plan to preserve wildlife habitat linkages between the White Tank Mountains and surrounding wildlands as well as to create recreational opportunities within the urban environment (AGFD 2009a). Maintaining access between large habitat blocks, such as the White Tank Mountain Regional Park, and natural corridors in the landscape, such as the Agua Fria River, is key to maintaining native biodiversity as much as possible in the metropolitan area. The Peoria Avenue Corridor could provide such a connection if low-cost wildlife connectivity features are considered during the design process. Guidelines for facilitating wildlife connectivity have been developed by the Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup (AWLW 2006), the AGFD (AGFD 2006a, 2008a, 2009b), and Arizona Missing Page 16 January 2011 Threatened and Endangered Species The Endangered Species Act (ESA), passed in 1973, is a federal law to protect and recover imperiled species and their habitats. Under the ESA, species are designated as threatened or endangered by the USFWS. “Endangered” species are in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range. “Threatened” species are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (USFWS 2010). “Candidate” species are those for which USFWS has sufficient information on their biological status and threats to propose them as endangered or threatened, but for which development of a proposed listing regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing activities. They receive no statutory protection under the ESA (USFWS 2007). A qualified biologist, Kristin Gade (AECOM), reviewed the list of Threatened and Endangered Species for Maricopa County from the USFWS (Table 3). The AGFD On-Line Environmental Review Tool was queried on December 6, 2010 (Appendix A). The On-Line Environmental Review Tool contains records for special status species reports that have been made to AGFD. These include species listed as threatened, endangered, or candidates for listing by USFWS, Critical Habitat areas listed under the Endangered Species Act, eagles protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Act, sensitive species listed by the Bureau of Land Management or US Forest Service, species with special status in Mexico or the Navajo Nation, and Arizona Wildlife Species of Concern. This includes species that are also protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA), but not all species protected under the MBTA are included in the database. The query indicated that no threatened or endangered species have been reported within three miles of the study area. No proposed or designated Critical Habitat is present within three miles of the study area. Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spraguei), a small sparrow-sized bird, was added to the list of federally-protected species for Maricopa County as a Candidate species as of October 28, 2010. This species is rare in Arizona, but could potentially use cultivated, dry Bermuda grass, alfalfa fields mixed with dry grass, or fallow fields within the project area during its wintering season from October through March. Sightings have been reported to AGFD only from Santa Cruz and Cochise counties (AGFD 2010). As the project development process continues, the county species list and critical habitat designations should be re-evaluated to determine whether consultation with the USFWS will be necessary. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The MBTA is a federal act that protects birds that migrate within the United States or between the United States and other countries, as they may not otherwise be afforded protection when they are not full-time residents in a single state. The act protects most bird species. The AGFD On-Line Environmental Review did not indicate that any species protected under the MBTA have been observed within three miles of the study area. Although western burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) have not been reported to the AGFD as occurring nearby, they are likely to occur in the desert and agricultural portions of the study area, particularly near canals. No Page 17 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road burrowing owls were observed during the preliminary field review, but the field review was not conducted at the optimal time for spotting burrowing owls (dawn or dusk). A survey for burrowing owls should be performed prior to construction so that any owls that might be impacted can be relocated following the guidelines from AGFD (2007). Table 3 – Federally-Listed Species Known to Occur in Maricopa County, Arizona Common Name Scientific Name Status Suitable Habitat Present? Occupied Habitat Present? Critical Habitat Present? Species Affected? Critical/ Suitable Habitat Affected? Arizona cliffrose Purshia subintegra E No No N/A No N/A Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus T No No N/A No N/A California least tern Sterna antillarum browni E No No N/A No N/A Desert pupfish Cyprinodon macularius E No No N/A No N/A Gila topminnow Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis E No No N/A No N/A Lesser long-nosed bat Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae E No No N/A No N/A Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida T (CH) No No No No No Mountain plover Charadrius montnaus PT No No N/A No N/A Razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus E (CH) No No No No No Sonoran pronghorn Antilocapra americana sonoriensis E No No N/A No N/A Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus E (CH) No No No No No Woundfin Plagopterus argentissimus E No No N/A No N/A Yuma clapper rail Rallus longirostris yumanensis E No No N/A No N/A Roundtail chub Gila robusta C No No N/A No N/A Sprague’s pipit Anthus spragueii C Yes No N/A No No Tucson shovel-nosed snake Chionactus occipitalis klauberi C No No N/A No N/A Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus C No No N/A No N/A Notes: E = Endangered; T = Threatened; C = Candidate; CH= Designated Critical Habitat within 3 Miles of Study Area; PT = Proposed Threatened. Source: Federally listed species for Maricopa County (October 28, 2010). Obtained from USFWS on Dec. 6, 2010. Page 18 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Arizona Special Status Species In addition to the rare plant species discussed on page 11, the only other species identified by the AGFD On-Line Environmental Review Tool as occurring within three miles of the study area is the lowland leopard frog (Rana yavapaiensis), which is designated by the state of Arizona as “Wildlife of Special Concern.” One sighting of the frog in the general area of SR 303L near the study area had been reported to AGFD as of February 2008 (AGFD 2008b). This species of frog inhabits and breeds in natural and man-made aquatic systems in desert grasslands to pinyon-juniper forests (AGFD 2006b). Man-made systems that support the lowland leopard frog can include cattle tanks, canals, irrigation sloughs, wells, abandoned swimming pools and ornamental backyard ponds. The frogs require shallow water with emergent and perimeter vegetation for basking habitat and deep water areas with root masses, undercut banks, and/or debris piles for refuge from predators and hibernation locations (AGFD 2006b). They can survive in semi-permanent aquatic systems by retreating into deep mud cracks, mammal burrows or rock fissures (Howland et al. 1997 as cited in AGFD 2006b). No likely habitat for lowland leopard frogs was observed during the preliminary survey. It is possible that such habitat might occur on agricultural land that was not surveyed or in some of the open lateral canals located in residential yards and undeveloped land along Peoria Avenue. If aquatic systems that meet the description will be impacted by the construction of the Peoria Avenue corridor improvements, mitigation measures to protect lowland leopard frogs and their habitat should be implemented. In addition, design guidelines for culverts to facilitate wildlife crossings should be implemented for this project (AGFD 2006a). As the project progresses, the review tool should be re-queried to determine whether any additional sightings of special status species have been reported near the project area to AGFD or any additional species have been designated as having special status. Water Resources The following subsections discuss groundwater and surface water resources within the study area, including major watercourses, water distribution by the Maricopa Water District, flood control structures, permitting under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, and floodplains. Groundwater The study area is located within the West Salt River Valley subbasin of the Phoenix Active Management Area (AMA) for groundwater (ADWR 1999). In 1980, the state of Arizona established the groundwater AMAs in areas where groundwater overdraft was occurring with the goal of achieving balanced withdrawal and recharge over time. Groundwater levels in the West Salt River Valley subbasin have declined substantially since groundwater pumping began in the early 1900s. There are two large cones of depression in the groundwater levels within the subbasin due to groundwater pumping near Luke Air Force Base and in Deer Valley near the Hedgpeth Hills (ADWR 1999). Between 1923 and 1977, water levels declined by more than 300 feet in these areas (Ross 1978, as cited in ADWR 1999). Most of the groundwater in the subbasin flows toward the two cones of depression. Page 19 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road In general, groundwater in the Phoenix AMA is of acceptable quality for most uses. Most of the groundwater supplies in the Phoenix AMA meet federal and state drinking water standards, though contaminant levels exceed primary safe drinking water standards in a few areas. Within the study area, tests at four wells have resulted in concentrations of fluoride and arsenic that exceed the permissible levels in the Safe Drinking Water Act and two wells had levels of fluoride only that exceeded the standard (ADWR 2010). These contaminants can occur naturally in the groundwater due to their presence in some geologic formations. McMicken Dam for several miles before turning due south midway between the Perryville Road and Jackrabbit Trail alignments, ending near Indian School Road. Surface Water There are no wetlands or major natural watercourses in the study area. The drainage throughout the area has generally been redirected for use by agriculture and to allow residential and industrial development. Two ephemeral washes, Waterfall Wash and Cholla Wash, run through the southwest corner of the study area, south of McMicken Dam and west of the Beardsley Canal (Figure 2). The Beardsley Canal, a man-made watercourse constructed to deliver water, is the only major watercourse in the study area. Surface water does not drain into the canal. There are lateral channels and pipelines running along Cactus Road, Peoria Avenue, and Olive Avenue between the Beardsley Canal and Reems Road, as well as north-south laterals along portions of Cotton Lane, Sarival Lane and SR 303L. The planned drainage channel improvements along Reems Road and SR 303L may cause the drainage channels to be considered jurisdictional if they drain to natural watercourses. The future drainage channel improvements along SR 303L will drain storm water to the Gila River. The Reems Road channel will connect to the Dysart Drain, which drains to the Agua Fria River. Both of these channels would likely be considered “Waters of the U.S.,” which are under the jurisdiction of the USACE per Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. If so, placement of permanent fill, rip-rap, and construction or extension of bridges and box culverts in these watercourses would require Section 404 permitting. Waterfall and Cholla Washes are both ephemeral washes located south of McMicken Dam and west of the Beardsley Canal. They may be considered jurisdictional in the future if they flow into the future Jackrabbit Trail drainage channel. The future Jackrabbit Trail drainage channel, portions of which are in planning and design stages, is located two to three miles south of the study area and will ultimately connect to the Gila River. A Jurisdictional Determination report should be completed for the project once the alignment is set and the project is scheduled to go to design to aid in determining permit requirements. Irrigation The MWD owns and operates the Beardsley Canal and several water delivery structures east of the canal and west of Bullard Avenue. This includes the Cross-Cut Canal and Pipeline and several lateral canals within the study area, as shown in Figure 3 and described below. The canals and pipelines do not appear to connect to any natural drainage channels. The Beardsley Canal flows from north to south and is parallel to the White Tank Mountains. The canal crosses Cactus Road and Olive Avenue within the study area. The extension of Peoria Avenue will have to cross over it to reach the future Jackrabbit Parkway alignment. The canal begins near Lake Pleasant south of the New Waddell Dam, crosses the Agua Fria River, and heads generally south and west to cross US 60 northwest of SR 303L. It then parallels the Page 20 January 2011 The Cross-Cut Canal is an open canal from Cactus Road south to Peoria Avenue. It runs between Citrus Road and Cotton Lane (Figure 2). South of Peoria Avenue, the canal becomes an underground pipeline which runs south down Citrus Road to Olive Avenue and then west along Olive Avenue to 183rd Avenue, where it turns south and leaves the study area. Flood Control There are 100-year floodplains present within the study area (Figure 2). The floodplains generally occur in a north-south alignment, and follow the Beardsley Canal, McMicken Dam, two natural washes (Waterfall Wash and Cholla Wash), Cotton Lane and Reems Road. A 100-year floodplain also runs along a portion of the Ennis Spur of the BNSF. Floodwaters from the railroad drain into the Dysart Ditch, which empties into the Agua Fria River. McMicken Dam, which is under the jurisdiction of the FCDMC, is located within the study area. FCDMC has conducted several studies to support future projects related to flood control and development in the study area and surrounding vicinity. Construction of these channels is planned and/or ongoing. Planned drainage channels in the study area include the SR 303L Channel and Basin (which will drain to the Gila River), the Reems Road Channel (which will direct storm water from Reems Road into the Dysart Drain), and the BNSF/Ennis Spur Channel and Basin. The main drainage channel in the vicinity of the study area is the existing Dysart Detention Basin and Dysart Drain, located south of the study area between Estrella Parkway and the Agua Fria River. There are also flood control facilities such as channels and retention basins within the commercial and residential developments within the study area. These facilities are privately owned but follow local and county design standards and ordinances for on-site retention of the 100-year 2-hour storm event, the acceptance of pavement runoff for the half street adjacent to the development, and the conveyance of upstream off-site flows through street/roadside channel systems. Future development projects within the study area would likely include similar channel and retention basin facilities. The majority of the floodwaters detained by the McMicken Dam remain in the Trilby Wash Basin. Planned drainage projects within the study area are discussed in more detail in Technical Memo #1, and there is a more detailed drainage analysis in Technical Memo #3. Visual Resources The study area is situated within a semi-rural area that includes historic agricultural and industrial developments. The area is a patchwork of agricultural, industrial, residential, and Page 21 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road public uses, and is rapidly transforming from the rural, open desert setting into one with new residential and commercial developments. Some undisturbed desert areas remain in the corridor, mainly in the western end of the study area abutting the White Tank Mountain Regional Park. The undeveloped landscape exhibits shades of brown and tans of the Sonoran desert, with greens from the desert scrub that covers much of it. The study area is generally flat, with elevations ranging from 1094 to 1402 feet above sea level. As shown in Figure 5, the terrain gently rises northwest as it approaches the base of the White Tank Mountains. Just west of the study area the White Tank Mountains rise sharply from its base to a peak of over 4,000 feet. Middle ground (0.25 – 3 miles) and background (beyond 3 miles) views of the White Tank Mountains can be seen from much of the study area, with minimal obstruction. Typically, residential viewers are more sensitive to perceivable changes in their surrounding landscape than other types of land uses. Within the study area the majority of residents live in newer, walled communities, which would likely obstruct immediate views of a roadway project. There are some older homes, outside of these communities, that could potentially be exposed to foreground (0 - .25 miles) views of the project. Due to the flat terrain, the main views of the project will be immediate foreground views. Middle ground and background views from within the study area were not analyzed because the lack of elevation makes these types of views unlikely. Recreational viewers in the vicinity of the study area would be users of the White Tank Regional Park (approximately one-half mile west of the study area) and the Maricopa Trail (Figure 5). The natural landscape and open views draw visitors to the Maricopa Trail, as well as the hiking, bicycle and equestrian trails that crisscross the Park, and to the picnic areas and armadas that are scattered throughout the Park. Figure 6 shows the view of the study area from the White Tank Mountain Regional Park. Visitors to the Park and the Maricopa Trail would be highly sensitive to changes in the landscape. Much of the eastern side of the Park has middle ground and background views of the study area. Page 22 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 5 – Visual Resources Page 23 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road of noise abatement or reduction measures on roadway projects, regardless of funding source (MCDOT 2010). Figure 6 – Photo Taken from the Library and Nature Center at the White Tank Regional Park Looking East-Northeast. The MCDOT Policy determines traffic noise impacts based upon the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC), contained in 23 CFR 772. The FHWA NAC specify an allowable traffic noise level for different categories of land uses and activities. The MCDOT Noise Abatement Policy states that impacts occur if the noise level “approaches” the FHWA NAC (Table 4). MCDOT defines approach as one dBA below the FHWA NAC (Table 4). Impacts also occur if the predicted noise levels result in a substantial noise level increase of 15 dBA or more when compared to the existing noise levels. Table 4 – FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (Hourly Sound Level in A-Weighted Decibels [dBA]) 1 Activity Category A Maricopa County has designated a series of corridors as scenic for a number of reasons, including their prominent views or vistas, native landscaping, or unique characteristics that attract residents in search of a distinct quality of life. As part of a public process, design guidelines (e.g., landscape, habitat, character, height, lighting, signage, fencing, etc.) have been developed to direct and enhance planning of such corridors as development occurs, with the intent generally being to highlight, promote, and preserve the scenic and environmental characteristics of the community, while also minimizing the impacts that rapid urban growth may have on an area, and helping accommodate future population growth. Two scenic corridors exist within the study area: x x The Olive Avenue Scenic Corridor has been designated because of its access to the White Tank Mountain Regional Park, which is a major recreational destination in Maricopa County. The McMicken Dam Scenic Corridor has been designated for similar reasons, as well as its role as a segment of the Maricopa County Regional Trail System. As alternatives are developed for Peoria Avenue, coordination should occur with these past studies, if the alternative alignments intersect these corridors in any way. Noise MCDOT considers mitigation for receptors predicted to be impacted by increased noise levels associated with proposed transportation projects. MCDOT has developed a Noise Abatement Policy that provides additional guidance in determining the need, feasibility, and reasonableness Page 24 January 2011 Activity Leq(h) 57 Criteria L10(h) 60 2 Evaluation Location Exterior Activity Description Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to its intended purpose. B 3 67 70 Exterior Residential C 3 67 70 Exterior 52 55 Interior 72 75 Exterior Active sport areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums, campgrounds, cemeteries, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, parks, picnic areas, places of worship, playgrounds, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, recreation areas, Section 4(f) sites, schools, television studios, trails, and trail crossings. Auditoriums, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, places of worship, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, schools, and television studios. Hotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars, and other developed lands, properties or activities not included in A-D or F. Agriculture, airports, bus yards, emergency services, industrial, logging, maintenance facilities, manufacturing, mining, rail yards, retail facilities, shipyards, utilities (water resources, water treatment, electrical), and warehousing. Undeveloped lands that are not permitted. D E 3 F G 1 Either Leq(h) or L10(h) may be used on a project, but not both. Leq is defined as the hourly equivalent steady-state sound level which contains the same acoustic energy as the time-varying sound level during that hour. L10(h) is defined as the sound level that is exceeded th ten percent of the time (the 90 percentile) during an hour. 2 The Leq(h) and L10(h) Activity Criteria values are for impact determination only, and are not design standards for noise abatement measures. 3 Includes undeveloped lands permitted for this activity category. Source: FHWA 2010 Noise activity categories B, C, D, E, F, and G occur within the study area. Much of the land within the study limits falls under Land Use Category F or G, and includes agricultural land, industrial facilities, and undeveloped lands that are not permitted. Category B land uses include several master-planned residential communities that are still under development. The residential land uses are concentrated in two areas: north of Peoria Avenue between SR 303L and Litchfield Road, and south of Peoria Avenue between Perryville Road and Cotton Lane. Category C and D land uses, mainly schools, are generally located near the residential areas. Page 25 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Category E land uses are concentrated north of Peoria Avenue near its intersection with Dysart Road. As development in the study area progresses, these areas would need to be evaluated for the presence of any new sensitive noise receptors. replaced with an 8-hour standard. In addition, the concentration of ozone standard was lowered from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm, and the method for determination of exceedances was revised. To ensure effective transition to the new standards, the existing standards will remain in effect until it is determined that they have been met. Arizona standards are identical to the NAAQS summarized in Table 5. According to the MCDOT Noise Abatement Policy, road projects that create additional throughlane capacity, include a change in horizontal alignment greater than 10 feet, or a change in vertical alignment greater than 3 feet must be evaluated to determine if noise abatement or reduction measures are warranted. If a roadway improvement project along Peoria Avenue would add capacity or result in a change in vertical or horizontal alignment as described above, a noise impact analysis would be required. This is regardless of funding source. The analysis should be performed in accordance with 23 CFR 772, and following MCDOT Noise Abatement Policy. The 65, 70, and 75 dBA noise contours for Luke Air Force Base intersect Peoria Avenue within the study area. Land-use restrictions apply to areas that fall within the 65+ dBA noise contours, but these provisions are primarily focused on restricting residential land uses. Transportation land use has a high noise-level compatibility and can be located within the higher noise zones. Nonattainment Areas The CAAA authorized the EPA to designate those areas that have not met the NAAQS as nonattainment, and directed it to classify them according to their degree of severity. States that fail to attain the NAAQS for any of the criteria pollutants are required to submit State Implementation Plans (SIP), which outline those actions that will be taken to attain compliance. The study area lies within the Phoenix non-attainment area for 8-hour ozone and PM10, and the Phoenix maintenance area for CO. There are no exceedances of the NAAQS for the pollutants nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, or PM2.5 in Maricopa County. Air Quality The 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA) and the 1990 CAA Amendments (CAAA), along with the NEPA require that air quality impacts be addressed in the preparation of environmental documents. The level of effort used to evaluate these impacts may vary from a simplified description to a detailed micro-scale analysis, depending on factors such as the type of document to be prepared, the project location and size, the meteorology of the project area, the air quality attainment status of the area, and the state air quality standards. Under the CAAA, areas are classified by levels of ambient air pollution existing at the time of the 1990 amendments, and by whether they attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or are in nonattainment of the standards, as described in the following paragraphs. Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of “sensitive” populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protections against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation and buildings. The CAAA established NAAQS for six pollutants. These pollutants, referred to as the “Criteria Pollutants,” are carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide and lead. In 1987, the standard for particulate matter was revised by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from total suspended particulate matter, consisting of aerosols with diameters up to approximately 45 microns, to those aerosols with aerodynamic diameters of 10 microns or less. This standard is referred to as PM10. In 1997, the EPA revised the standards for both particulate matter and ozone. It revised the PM10 standard, added standards for particulates with diameters of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5) and revised the method for the determination of exceedances. In 2006, due to a lack of evidence linking health problems to long-term exposure to coarse particulates, the EPA revoked the annual PM10 standard (effective December 17, 2006). For ozone, the 1-hour standard was Page 26 January 2011 Page 27 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Table 5 – National Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Carbon Monoxide Lead Nitrogen Dioxide Averaging Time 1-hour 35 ppm 8-hour (1) 9 ppm Quarterly Average 1.5 µg/m3 PM2.5 53 ppb (4) 24-hour Annual Sulfur Dioxide (7) 3 (2) Same as Primary. (3) Same as Primary 100 ppb None 150 µg/m3 Same as Primary 15.0 µg/m 3 Same as Primary 35.0 µg/m 3 Same as Primary 8-hour 0.075 (2008 standard) Same as Primary 8-hour (9) 0.08 (1997 standard) Same as Primary 1-hour (10) 0.12 ppm Same as Primary 0.03 ppm 0.5 ppm (3-hour averaging time) Annual 24-hour (1) 1-hour 0.14 ppm 75 ppb Because CO emissions are associated with motor vehicles and transportation projects, and because the project is located in a CO maintenance area, CO is a pollutant of concern for a quantitative project-level analysis. Because the study area is located in a PM10 non-attainment area, a qualitative assessment of PM10 impacts would also need to be conducted. Same as Primary (8) 24-hour Ozone (5) (6) Secondary None 0.15 µg/m Annual for the majority of vehicle emissions. Ozone, nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons are pollutants that are regional in nature, and as such, cannot be meaningfully evaluated at the project level. Since the EPA has not yet released guidance for performing quantitative PM analysis for project-level transportation improvements, a qualitative analysis is required. None Rolling 3-Month Average 1-hour PM10 Primary Standards (1) (11) As individual roadway projects are developed, evaluation to determine current NAAQS attainment status will be needed. Should the EPA develop guidelines for quantifying impacts for additional pollutants of concern, additional project-level analysis may be required. (1) None Pg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter ppm = parts per million ppb = parts per billion (1) Not to be exceeded more than once per year. (2) Final rule signed October 15, 2008. (3) The official level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 ppm, equal to 53 ppb, which is shown here for the purpose of clearer comparison to the 1-hour standard (4) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 100 ppb (effective January 22, 2010). (5) Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years. (6) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the weighted annual mean PM2.5 concentrations from single or multiple community-oriented monitors must not exceed 15.0 µg/m3. (7) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each population-oriented monitor within an area must not exceed 35 µg/m3 (effective December 17, 2006). (8) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.075 ppm. (effective May 27, 2008) (9) (a) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. (b) The 1997 standard—and the implementation rules for that standard—will remain in place for implementation purposes as EPA undertakes rulemaking to address the transition from the 1997 ozone standard to the 2008 ozone standard. (c) EPA is in the process of reconsidering these standards (set in March 2008). (10) (a) EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard in all areas, although some areas have continuing obligations under that standard ("anti-backsliding"). (b) The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm is < 1. (11) (a) Final rule signed June 2, 2010. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 75 ppb. Source: US Environmental Protection Agency 2010 Conformity Since 1977, federal agencies and metropolitan planning organizations have been required by Section 176(c) of the CAAA to ensure that all transportation projects conform to the approved air quality SIP. The conformity determinations for federal actions related to transportation projects must meet the requirements of 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93. According to 40 CFR 93.116, an FHWA-sponsored project must not cause or contribute to any new violations, nor delay attainment of any NAAQS. In assessing air quality impacts from proposed transportation projects, analysis typically focuses on vehicle emissions of CO. Other pollutants, such as PM10, PM2.5, and nitrogen dioxide are also components of vehicular emissions; however, CO accounts Page 28 Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road January 2011 In compliance with conformity requirements, any corridor improvement projects will need to be included in an approved Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) at least one year and no more than three years before construction. This TIP must conform to the SIP. Certain transportation projects are exempted from conformity requirements. These generally include safety improvements, transit and transportation support activities. During a construction project, disturbance of the soil by heavy equipment and tracking of dirt onto roadways, if uncontrolled, increases fugitive dust, in turn affecting local air quality. In addition, construction-related traffic delays, combined with exhaust emissions from constructionrelated equipment, elevate levels of pollutants. Such impacts would be temporary and eliminated once construction is complete. Any construction activity located within Maricopa County must obtain permits and adhere to local air quality rules and ordinances, including Maricopa County Rules 310 and 310.01. Hazardous Materials Hazardous materials are regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). ADEQ implements CERCLA, commonly known as Superfund, and its amendment, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986. The inherent environmental concerns associated with hazardous materials require a preliminary investigation into the location of permitted and non-regulated hazardous material sites within the study area. In August 2010, a regulatory database search for hazardous materials was conducted for the study area. The search consisted of both Federal and state environmental record sources, and included data sources provided by the EPA, ADEQ, and ADWR. Fire insurance, topographical maps and aerial maps were also reviewed. The results are attached in Appendix B. A review of the records search identified the following hazardous material related information: x Registered underground storage tanks (USTs) were identified at 6 properties. The tanks have been permanently removed from 4 of the sites. The existing USTs are located at Page 29 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road x x x x x x 13501 West Peoria Avenue and 9000-10000 North Litchfield Avenue; the USTs at both locations are used for diesel and gasoline storage. Two leaking USTs were identified at 9801 North Litchfield Road. Both tanks were closed in September 2009 and the surrounding soil met regulatory levels for closure. In 1993, 55 gallons of phosphoric acid were spilled at 14702 West Olive Avenue. In 1994, illegal dumping of empty drums, debris, and pesticides was reported on a dirt road parallel to the railroad tracks ¼ mile east of Litchfield Road between Peoria Avenue and Olive Avenue. In 1997, 40,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia were released into the atmosphere when a forklift sheared off a valve on a tank at 17102 West Olive Avenue. There are 424 drywells registered with the ADEQ Dry Well Registration Database within the study area. Dry wells are constructed for the purpose of collecting storm water. The wells are registered to schools, housing developments, ranches, water supply and treatment facilities, and businesses (Allands 2010). There are 94 groundwater wells registered with the ADWR at locations within the study area (Allands 2010). The wells are registered to housing developments, water companies, individuals, businesses, the City of Surprise, the City of Phoenix, and a ranch. The listed depths-to-water range from 350 to 885 feet below ground surface (bgs). The location data provided in the listing is not adequate to determine precisely where the wells are located within the study area. It is possible that some wells may be impacted depending on the alignment selected for the project. Wells would need to be properly abandoned if they are disturbed. Some instances of debris dumping, mainly construction materials, were observed during the field visit in August 2010. No obviously hazardous materials were visible. Locations with dumped materials were located along less traveled portions of the roads, including the north side of Olive Avenue between Cotton Lane and Citrus Road and the south side of Peoria Avenue between Sarival Road and Reems Road. No visual indications of contamination were observed that would be contacted during road construction activities within the study area. Many groundwater wells and drywells are located within the study area and may be impacted depending on the alignment selected for the project. One ranch was identified as having soil contamination associated with their USTs, but the regulatory case file has been closed and residual contamination does not exceed Arizona cleanup guidelines (Allands 2010). There are industrial and agricultural activities within the area that have numerous aboveground storage tanks, but there are no reports of unaddressed contamination issues. Based on the results of the database search and field visit, further investigation of hazardous materials issues are recommended for this project. Once the construction area has been established, additional research and visual inspection should be performed to evaluate the potential presence of groundwater wells, dry wells, and/or surface contamination within the construction zone. Prior to project construction activities, performing a Phase I/II site assessment on the property acquired for the project would provide information necessary to determine environmental conditions and reduce exposure from hazmat contamination. Page 30 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road 4.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES Cultural resources include archaeological or cultural sites, standing structures, and other historic properties considered to be eligible for or listed on the NRHP. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (16 U.S. Code Part 470 et seq.) mandates that federal agencies consider the impact of their undertakings on historic properties within a project’s area of potential effect. If adverse effects on historic, archaeological, or cultural properties are identified, then agencies must attempt to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to resources considered important in our nation’s history or prehistory. Several federal, state and local laws have been enacted to preserve cultural resources. The NHPA requires that projects defined in 36 CFR Part 800.16(y) as “Federal Undertakings” be evaluated for their impacts to historic properties. Section 106 of the NHPA defines a process of consultation that federal agencies follow to evaluate impacts on historic properties. NEPA (40 CFR Part 1500) requires that projects with a “Federal Action” be evaluated for impacts to the human and natural environment. Other legislation, including the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S. Code Part 470aa-mm) and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 U.S. Code Part 138), also ensures the proper treatment of cultural resources for projects that occur on federal lands, are funded by federal monies, or that require a federally issued permit. Similarly, Arizona Revised Statutes sections 41-841 through 41-847 and 861 through 881 protect cultural resources and Native American graves during undertakings within the state that do not fall under federal jurisdiction. The Arizona State Historic Preservation Act of 1982 directs state agencies to consider impacts that their projects may have on historic properties that they own or control. Sources examined for this overview include files at the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the AZSITE electronic database at the Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, which houses Arizona’s cultural resources inventory. Records reviewed show that the study area consists of a patchwork of approximately 24 cultural resource inventories undertaken from 1987 to 2004. Inventory levels range from unsurveyed to completely surveyed, with the majority of sections only partially surveyed. Not all archaeological inventories conducted may appear on AZSITE if they were undertaken on private land, as private land owners are not required to report inventories to public officials. Additionally, previously identified sites not surveyed within the last ten years may require re-survey. The existing cultural resource inventories identify 22 sites within the study area. The majority of NRHP-eligible sites and those requiring testing are located west of the proposed SR 303L. While numerous sections of the historic Beardsley Canal are considered eligible, the section within the study area has not been evaluated. The BNSF (formerly Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe) has been determined Eligible under Criterion A. However, the segment of the BNSF within the study area, the Ennis Spur, has not been evaluated for NRHP eligibility. There are no records of historic property inventories within the study area with the exception of the eastern limits within Glendale, AZ. Surveyed historic properties within Glendale are outside the study area. A preliminary field review observed residences and structures present on the Page 31 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road parcels adjacent to Peoria Avenue that could potentially be 50 years old or older. Typically, historic properties are at least 50 years old, but younger properties may be considered for listing if they are of exceptional importance. Should project design include any of these parcels, the structure may need to be evaluated for their eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP. are likely to change based upon results of the surveys and technical impact evaluations. As such, further analysis and identification of relevant environmental concerns will be required once the scope of the project is determined. Figure 7 identifies the locations of 100-year floodplains, potential Section 4(f) sites (schools, recreation trails, and historic sites), earth fissures, potential hazardous material sites, and wells. As large areas remain unsurveyed, an intensive Class III cultural resources inventory of the final right-of-way should be undertaken prior to any ground-disturbing activities. Class III pedestrian surveys must meet State Museum and SHPO standards. Similarly, possible historic properties should be evaluated with completion of Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record documentation should the property be affected by the proposed project. 5.0 AGENCY AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT An important component of the corridor improvement study is the dissemination of information to public agency and private stakeholders and the solicitation of their input. As the planning process continues, MCDOT will be meeting with appropriate stakeholders (listed below) to identify concerns, discuss relevant issues, gather input, and build consensus. In addition to the stakeholders listed below, MCDOT will also be coordinating with the principal land developers within the study area and private property owners: x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Public Service Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona State Land Department City of El Mirage City of Glendale City of Surprise Dysart School District Flood Control District of Maricopa County Luke Air Force Base Maricopa Association of Governments Maricopa County Planning and Development Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Maricopa Water District Surveys and Impact Evaluations x Socioeconomic impact analysis x Native plant survey x Biological evaluation x Special status species surveys x Visual impact evaluation x Traffic noise impact evaluation x Hazardous materials assessment x Cultural resources survey Surveys and Impact Evaluations Tied to Federal Aid/Action x Air quality analysis x Environmental Justice evaluation x Section 4(f) inventory and analysis x Prime and unique farmlands impact assessment The project will also include a public outreach effort. It is anticipated this effort will include three public open house meetings and presentations to city councils. 6.0 It is anticipated that the following surveys, impact evaluations, and permit determinations will need to be conducted prior to implementing any roadway improvements along Peoria Avenue. The level of effort and required documentation for the evaluations will depend upon the scope of the project and, to an extent, federal funding/involvement. ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY Permitting and Planning Requirements x Jurisdictional Determination to determine if watercourses within the study area would be considered “Waters of the US.” Dependent upon the findings, placement of permanent fill, rip-rap, and construction/extension of bridges/box culverts in the following watercourses would likely require Section 404 permitting: Reems Road Channel, Future drainage channels along SR 303L, Waterfall Wash, and Cholla Wash. x Maricopa County air quality rules, ordinances, and permits for construction activities x Air Quality conformity requirements for corridor improvement projects are that the project be included in an approved TIP at least one year and no more than three years before construction. This TIP must conform to the SIP. Based upon the preliminary evaluation of the environmental considerations discussed in the previous chapters of this document, no known environmental issues have been identified in the study area that would pose a fatal flaw to the improvement of Peoria Avenue. However, a full environmental study was not conducted at this level of analysis, and for some topics available information does not cover the entire study area. Additionally, new environmental concerns not outlined in this document may develop prior to project implementation. Design considerations Design and Construction Considerations: x Geotechnical evaluation to determine engineering constraints related to soils of limited suitability for road building, land subsidence, and earth fissures. x Guidelines for Facilitating Wildlife Connectivity, developed by the AWLW. x Design guidelines for culverts, developed by AGFD, to facilitate wildlife crossings. Page 32 Page 33 January 2011 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road x Scenic corridor design guidelines, if the project intersects the Olive Avenue or McMicken Dam Scenic Corridors. Page 34 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 7 – Environmental Constraints Page 35 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road 7.0 REFERENCES Allands. 2010. Corridor Database Search 2010-08-042D. Prepared for AECOM, Phoenix, Arizona. 19 pp. Arizona Department of Agriculture (ADA), 2010, “Protected Arizona Native Plants,” , accessed September 2, 2010. Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 1999, “Third Management Plan for the Phoenix Active Management Area 2000-2010,” , accessed September 2, 2010. ADWR, 2010, “Phoenix AMA Water Quality,” , accessed September 2, 2010. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), 2006a, “Guidelines for Culvert Construction to Accommodate Fish and Wildlife Movement and Passage. AGFD Habitat Branch,” , accessed September 2, 2010. AGFD, 2006b, “Rana yavapaiensis: Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department,” Phoenix, AZ, October 26, 10pp, , accessed September 2, 2010. AGFD, 2007, “Burrowing Owl Management Guidelines for Municipalities in Arizona,” prepared by the Burrowing Owl Working Group, June, 11 pp, , accessed September 2, 2010. AGFD, 2008a, “Guidelines for Bridge Construction or Maintenance to Accommodate Fish and Wildlife Movement and Passage,” AGFD Habitat Branch, November, , accessed September 2, 2010. AGFD, 2008b, “Rana yavapaiensis occurrences in Arizona,” Online map from the Heritage Data Management System, February 19, , accessed September 2, 2010. AGFD, 2009a, “Minutes of the Meeting of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, Friday August 7, 2009 and Saturday August 8, 2009,” Phoenix, AZ, , accessed September 2, 2010. Page 36 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road AGFD, 2009b, “Wildlife Friendly Guidelines: Community and Project Planning,” February, 43 pp, , accessed September 2, 2010. AGFD, 2010, “Anthus spragueii,” Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ, 7 pp. , accessed December 6, 2010. Arizona Geological Survey, 2009, “Earth Fissure Map of the Luke Study Area: Maricopa County, Arizona,” Digital Map Series – Earth Fissure Map 8 (DM-EF-8), Tucson, AZ, , accessed September 2, 2010. Arizona State Parks, 2007, “2008 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan,” September, , accessed September 2, 2010. Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup (AWLW), 2006, “Arizona’s Wildlife Linkages Assessment,” , accessed September 2, 2010. Brown, D.E, 1994, Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah, 342 pp. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2005, Section 4(f) Policy Paper. FHWA, 2010, Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance. , accessed September 2, 2010. Hendricks, D.M, 1985, Arizona Soils, University of Arizona College of Agriculture, Tucson, Arizona, 244 pp. Maricopa County Tax Assessor, “GIS Interactive Maps,” , accessed September 2, 2010. Natural Resources Conservation Service, “Web Soil Survey,” , accessed August 26, 2010. National Park Service, 2010, “Land & Water Conservation Fund,” , accessed September 3, 2010. Page 37 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Schumann, H.H, 1995, Land Subsidence and Earth-Fissure Hazards near Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, Pages 18-21 in U.S. Geological Survey Subsidence Interest Group Conference, Edwards Air Force Base, Antelope Valley, California, November 18-19: 1992: Abstracts and Summary, Prince, K.R., D.L. Galloway, and S.A. Leake, Eds., USGS Open-file Report 94-532. US Census Bureau, 2000, “American Fact Finder: Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) Sample Data,” , accessed August 30, 2010. US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), 1998. Final Guidance For Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA’s NEPA Compliance Analysis. US EPA, 2010, “National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” , accessed September 3, 2010. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2007, “Candidate Species: Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act,”< http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/candidate_ species.pdf>, accessed December 6, 2010. USFWS, 2010a, “Threatened and Endangered Species for Maricopa County,” , accessed September 2, 2010. USFWS, 2010b, “Endangered Species Act Overview,” < http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ laws-policies/index.html>, accessed September 13, 2010. Page 38 January 2011 Appendix A Arizona's On-line Environmental Review Tool Arizona's On-line Environmental Review Tool Search ID: 20101206013878 Project Name: Peoria Ave. CIS Date: 12/6/2010 11:38:21 AM Search ID: 20101206013878 Project Name: Peoria Ave. CIS Date: 12/6/2010 11:38:21 AM Project Location The Department appreciates the opportunity to provide in-depth comments and project review when additional information or environmental documentation becomes available. Special Status Species Occurrences/Critical Habitat/Tribal Lands within 3 miles of Project Vicinity: Name Common Name FWS USFS BLM Opuntia engelmannii var. flavispina Rana yavapaiensis SR Lowland Leopard Frog Project Name: Peoria Ave. CIS Submitted By: Kristin Gade On behalf of: MARICOPA Project Search ID: 20101206013878 Date: 12/6/2010 11:38:16 AM Project Category: Transportation & Infrastructure,Road construction (including staging areas),Realignment/ new roads Project Coordinates (UTM Zone 12-NAD 83): 368704.955, 3716528.208 meter Project Length: 13549.191 meter County: MARICOPA USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle ID: 1247 Quadrangle Name: WADDELL Project locality is currently being scoped Location 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 Receipt is solely responsible for the project location and thus the correctness of the Project Review Receipt content. Page 1 of 7 State Please review the entire receipt for project type recommendations and/or species or location information and retain a copy for future reference. If any of the information you provided did not accurately reflect this project, or if project plans change, another review should be conducted, as this determination may not be valid. APPLICATION INITIALS: ___________ SC S S WSC Tucson Sub-Office 201 North Bonita, Suite 141 Tucson, AZ 85745 Phone 520-670-6144 Fax 520-670-6154 Arizona’s On-line Environmental Review Tool: 1. This On-line Environmental Review Tool inquiry has generated recommendations regarding the potential impacts of your project on Special Status Species (SSS) and other wildlife of Arizona. SSS include all U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service federally listed, U.S. Bureau of Land Management sensitive, U.S. Forest Service sensitive, and Arizona Game and Fish Department (Department) recognized species of concern. 2. These 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). These recommendations are preliminary in scope, designed to provide early considerations for all species of wildlife, pertinent to the project type you entered. 3. This receipt, generated by the automated On-line Environmental Review Tool does not constitute an official project review by Department biologists and planners. Further coordination may be necessary as appropriate under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and/or the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has regulatory authority over all federally listed species under the ESA. Contact USFWS Ecological Services Offices: http://arizonaes.fws.gov/. Phoenix Main Office 2321 W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, AZ 85021 Phone 602-242-0210 Fax 602-242-2513 Flagstaff Sub-Office 323 N. Leroux Street, Suite 101 Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Phone 928-226-0614 Fax 928-226-1099 Disclaimer: 1. 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. 2. The Department’s 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. 3. 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. HDMS data contains information about species occurrences that have actually been reported to the Department. Arizona Game and Fish Department Mission To conserve, enhance, and restore Arizona’s diverse wildlife resources and habitats through aggressive protection and Page 2 of 7 APPLICATION INITIALS: ___________ Arizona's On-line Environmental Review Tool Arizona's On-line Environmental Review Tool Search ID: 20101206013878 Project Name: Peoria Ave. CIS Date: 12/6/2010 11:38:21 AM Search ID: 20101206013878 Project Name: Peoria Ave. CIS Date: 12/6/2010 11:38:21 AM management programs, and to provide wildlife resources and safe watercraft and off-highway vehicle recreation for the enjoyment, appreciation, and use by present and future generations. Project Category: Transportation & Infrastructure,Road construction (including staging areas),Realignment/ new roads Project Type Recommendations: All degraded and disturbed lands should be restored to their natural state. 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. Based on the project type entered; coordination with Arizona Department of Environmental Quality may be required (http://www.azdeq.gov/). Based on the project type entered; coordination with County Flood Control districts may be required. Based on the project type entered; coordination with State Historic Preservation Office may be required http://azstateparks.com/SHPO/index.html Page 3 of 7 Based on the project type entered; coordination with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may be required (http://www.spl.usace.army.mil/regulatory/phonedir.html) During planning and construction, 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 and after project activities to reduce the spread of invasive species. 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 http://www.azda.gov/PSD/quarantine5.htm. 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. 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 APPLICATION INITIALS: ___________ 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. Hydrological considerations: 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. Aquatic wildlife considerations: reduce/minimize barriers to migration of amphibians or fish (e.g. eliminate falls). 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 at http://www.azgfd.gov/hgis/guidelines.aspx. Minimization and mitigation of impacts to wildlife and fish species due to changes in water quality, quantity, chemistry, temperature, and alteration to flow regimes (timing, magnitude, duration, and frequency of floods) should be evaluated. Minimize impacts to springs, in-stream flow, and consider irrigation improvements to decrease water use. If dredging is a project component, consider timing of the project in order to minimize impacts to spawning fish and other aquatic species (including spawning seasons), and to reduce spread of exotic invasive species. We recommend early direct coordination with Project Evaluation Program for projects that could impact water resources, wetlands, streams, springs, and/or riparian habitats. Planning: consider impacts of lighting intensity on mammals and birds and develop measures or alternatives that can be taken to increase Page 4 of 7 human safety while minimizing potential impacts to wildlife. Conduct wildlife surveys to determine species within project area, and evaluate proposed activities based on species biology and natural history to determine if artificial lighting may disrupt behavior patterns or habitat use. Preconstruction - Consider design structures and construction plans that minimize impacts to channel geometry (i.e. width/depth ratio, sinuosity, allow overflow channels) to avoid alteration of hydrological function. Identify whether wildlife species use the structure for roosting or nesting during anticipated construction period. Plan the timing of construction/maintenance to minimize impacts to wildlife species. In addition to the species list generated by the Arizona's On-line Environmental Review Tool, the Department recommends that surveys be conducted at the bridge and in the vicinity of the bridge to identify additional or currently undocumented bat, bird, or aquatic species in the project area. To minimize impacts to birds and bats, as well as aquatic species, consider conducting maintenance and construction activities outside the breeding/maternity season (breeding seasons for birds and bats usually occur spring - summer). Examining the crevices for the presence of bats prior to pouring new paving materials. When bats are present, the top of the crevices should be sealed to prevent material from dripping or falling through the cracks and potentially onto bats. If bats are present, maintenance and construction (including paving and milling) activities should be conducted during nighttime hours, if possible, when the fewest number of bats will be roosting. Consider incorporating roosting habitat for bats into bridge designs. Minimize impacts to the vegetation community. A revegetation plan should be developed to replace impacted communities. Unavoidable impacts to vegetation should be mitigated on-site whenever possible. During construction: Erosion control structures and drainage features should be used to prevent introduction of sediment laden runoff into the waterway. Minimize instream construction activity. If culverts are planned, mitigate impacts to wildlife and fish movement. Guidelines for bridge designs to facilitate wildlife passage can be found at http://www.azgfd.gov/hgis/guidelines.aspx. APPLICATION INITIALS: ___________ Arizona's On-line Environmental Review Tool Arizona's On-line Environmental Review Tool Search ID: 20101206013878 Project Name: Peoria Ave. CIS Date: 12/6/2010 11:38:21 AM Search ID: 20101206013878 Project Name: Peoria Ave. CIS Date: 12/6/2010 11:38:21 AM Phone: 602-542-4373 Recommendations will be dependant upon goals of the fence project and the wildlife species expected to be impacted by the project. General guidelines for ensuring wildlife-friendly fences include: barbless wire on the top and bottom with the maximum fence height 42”, minimum height for bottom 16”. Modifications to this design may be considered for fencing anticipated to be routinely encountered by elk, bighorn sheep or pronghorn (e.g., Pronghorn fencing would require 18” minimum height on the bottom). Please refer to the Department's Fencing Guidelines located at http://www.azgfd.gov/hgis/guidelines.aspx. 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. The Department requests further coordination to provide project/species specific recommendations, please contact Project Evaluation Program directly. Trenches should be covered or back-filled as soon as possible. Incorporate escape ramps in ditches or fencing along the perimeter to deter small mammals and herptefauna (snakes, lizards, tortoise) from entering ditches. Project Location and/or Species recommendations: Heritage Data Management System records indicate that one or more native plants listed on the Arizona Native Plant Law and Antiquities Act have been documented within the vicinity of your project area (refer to page 1 of the receipt). Please contact: Arizona Department of Agriculture 1688 W Adams Phoenix, AZ 85007 Page 5 of 7 Fax Number: (623) 236-7366 Terms of Use Recommendations Disclaimer: 1. Potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources may be minimized or avoided by the recommendations generated from information submitted for your proposed project. 2. These recommendations are proposed actions or guidelines to be considered during preliminary project development. 3. Additional site specific recommendations may be proposed during further NEPA/ESA analysis or through coordination with affected agencies. 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. The Department is interested in the conservation of all fish and wildlife resources, including those Special Status Species listed on this receipt, and those that may have not been documented within the project vicinity as well as other game and nongame wildlife. 6. Further coordination requires the submittal of this initialed and signed Environmental Review Receipt 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). 7. Upon receiving information by AZGFD, please allow 30 days for completion of project reviews. Mail 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 APPLICATION INITIALS: ___________ By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand the terms of use. Department staff may revise these terms periodically. If you continue to use our website after we post changes to these terms, it will mean that you accept such changes. If at any time you do not wish to accept the Terms, you may choose not to use the website. 1. This Environmental Review and project planning website was developed and intended for the purpose of screening projects for potential impacts on resources of special concern. By indicating your agreement to the terms of use for this website, you warrant that you will not use this website for any other purpose. 2. Unauthorized attempts to upload information or change information on this website are strictly prohibited and may be punishable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 and/or the National Information Infrastructure Protection Act . 3. The Department reserves the right at any time, without notice, to enhance, modify, alter, or suspend the website and to terminate or restrict your access to the website. 4. This Environmental Review is based on the project study area that was entered. The review must be redone if the project study area, location, or the type of project changes. If additional information becomes available, this review may need to be reconsidered. 5. A signed and initialed copy of the Environmental Review Receipt indicates that the entire receipt has been read by the signer of the Environmental Review Receipt. applicable security features, and for other like purposes. Anyone using this system expressly consents to such monitoring and is advised that if such monitoring reveals possible evidence of criminal activity, system personnel may provide the evidence of such monitoring to law enforcement officials. Unauthorized attempts to upload or change information; to defeat or circumvent security measures; or to utilize this system for other than its intended purposes are prohibited. This website maintains a record of each environmental review search result as well as all contact information. This information is maintained for internal tracking purposes. Information collected in this application will not be shared outside of the purposes of the Department. If the Environmental Review Receipt and supporting material are not mailed to the Department or other appropriate agencies within six (6) months of the Project Review Receipt date, the receipt is considered to be null and void, and a new review must be initiated. Print this Environmental Review Receipt using your Internet browser's print function and keep it for your records. Signature of this receipt indicates the signer has read and understands the information provided. Signature:___________________________________ Date: ___________________________________ Security: The Environmental Review and project planning web application operates on a complex State computer system. This system is monitored to ensure proper operation, to verify the functioning of Page 6 of 7 Proposed Date of Implementation: _____________________ APPLICATION INITIALS: ___________ Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Arizona's On-line Environmental Review Tool Search ID: 20101206013878 Project Name: Peoria Ave. CIS Date: 12/6/2010 11:38:21 AM Please provide point of contact information regarding this Environmental Review. City, State, Zip: _____________________ Application or organization responsible for project implementation Phone: _____________________ Agency/organization:______________________ E-mail: ___________________________ Contact Name: _________________________ Appendix B Address: ___________________ City, State, Zip: _____________________ Phone: _____________________ E-mail: ___________________________ Person Conducting Search (if not applicant) Agency/organization:______________________ Contact Name: _________________________ Address: ___________________ Page 7 of 7 APPLICATION INITIALS: ___________ Table B-1. Regulatory Database Search Summary Date of Database Database Approximate Minimum Search Distance (miles) Table B-2. Registered Dry Wells within the Study Area FACILITY Reported Facilities Standard Federal ASTM Environmental Record Sources NPL (National Priorities List) / Proposed NPL / DOD (Department of Defense Sites) Within corridor boundaries 08/10 Delisted National Priorities List 08/10 CERCLIS (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System)/No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) 08/10 RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) Large and Small Quantity Generators 08/10 Within corridor boundaries 1 RCRA – CORRACTS TSDFs (Corrective Action Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities) 08/10 Within corridor boundaries 0 Within corridor boundaries Within corridor boundaries Within corridor boundaries Within corridor 08/10 ERNS (Emergency Response Notification System) boundaries Standard State ASTM Environmental Record Sources 08/10 RCRA – Non-CORRACTS TSDFs WQARF (Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund) Areas 08/10 Superfund Program List (replaces ACIDS) 08/04 Solid Waste Facilities/Landfill Sites – Operating and Closed 05/99 & 05/04 Brownfields / Voluntary Remediation Program 08/10 Registered USTs (Underground Storage Tanks) 01/10 LUSTs (Leaking Underground Storage Tanks) Incident Reports 01/10 0 0 0 0 3 Within corridor boundaries Within corridor boundaries Within corridor boundaries 0 Within corridor boundaries Within corridor boundaries Within corridor boundaries 1 0 0 6 1 Additional Environmental Record Sources RCRA Compliance Facilities 11/09 Hazardous Materials Incidents Emergency Response Logbook 198406/01 ADEQ Drywell Registration Database 08/10 Fire Insurance Maps Various Topographical / Aerial Maps See text DRYCLEANER 06/06 Arizona Department of Water Resources Well Registration Database 08/10 Within corridor boundaries Within corridor boundaries 0 Within corridor boundaries Within corridor boundaries Within corridor boundaries Within corridor boundaries Within corridor boundaries 424 0 0 1 0 See Text Dysart Middle School Dysart High School Dysart High School Rancho Gabriela Water Supply Facility Exp Cactus Ward Building Surprise Fire Station No. 307 Sarah Ann Ranch Varamonte - Parcels 1 To 6 Arsenic Treatment Plant At Rancho Gabriela Rancho Gabriela Phases 3 & 4a Mountain Gate - Phase 3 Mountain Gate - Phase 4 Mountain Gate - Phase 5 Kenly Farms Imagine Charter School (No Name) Rancho Gabriela Phases 2 & 4 Diesel Eagle Mountain Gate - Phase I & Ii Greer Ranch South Infrastructure Dysart High School No. 4 Wyngate At Sycamore Farms Ministorage At Gabriella Plaza Cortessa White Tank Foothills Shadow Ridge High School Fine Arts Facility White Tanks WTP Spa 1 South WRF Canyon Pipe & Supply Skycom Business Park Sunstate Plumbing Inc New Dysart District Office Support Facility ADDRESS 11405 N Dysart Rd 11405 N Dysart Rd 11405 N Dysart Rd 13627 W Cactus Rd BEG REG # 10704 26060 27138 41808 15880 W Cactus Rd 16171 W Cactus Rd NEC Citrus Rd & Cactus Rd NWC Litchfield Rd & Cactus Rd S of Cactus Rd, Approx .25 Mi E Of Litchfield Rd SEC Cactus & Reems Rds SEC Cactus Rd & Bullard Ave SEC Cactus Rd & Bullard Ave SEC Cactus Rd & Bullard Ave SEC Litchfield Rd & Cactus Rd SWC Bullard Ave & Cactus Rd SWC Bullard Ave & Cactus Rd SWC Bullard Rd & Cactus Rd 13374 West Peoria NEC Peoria Ave & Bullard Ave NEC Peoria Ave & Sarival Rd NEC Perryville Rd & Peoria Ave NEC State Route 303 & Peoria Ave NWC Bullard Ave & Peoria Ave NWC Citrus Rd & Olive Rd SWC Citrus Rd & Olive Ave 10909 N Perryville Rd 44394 40214 33403 32063 43480 Cactus Rd, Approx 3 Mi W Of 303 11401 N 136th Ave 10779 N Milgard Way 11081 & 11113 N Milgard Way 11051 N 132nd Ave SWC Litchfield Rd & Desert Cove Rd 44934 43279 43207 38968 37806 44482 27635 27014 27026 27035 31660 31025 35671 25622 15968 25552 29032 43434 43975 42636 32520 33710 44940 END REG # 26072 44395 33478 32083 27660 27025 27034 27042 31664 31027 25651 15970 25571 29056 43478 43978 42639 32579 33736 44943 44937 43210 38969 37807 44489 TOTAL WELLS 1 13 1 1 2 1 76 21 1 26 12 9 8 5 3 1 30 3 20 25 45 4 4 60 27 4 4 1 4 2 2 8 ID Table B-3. Arizona Department of Water Resources Well Report ID T N/S R E/W S Q1 Q2 Q3 WU WD WL DIA NAME T N/S R E/W S Q1 Q2 Q3 WU WD 609452 3 N 597682 3 N 1W 1W 27 SW NE NW A 27 SW NW NW M WL 1000 450 120 300 DIA 20 2 NAME Mckee,R H Phoenix, City Of, 601886 3 N 1W 19 NE NW NW A 943 475 16 Aranda Properties Inc 579041 3 N 1W 27 SW NW NW N 601885 3 N 1W 19 NE NW NW A 1595 500 18 Courtland Homes Inc 597681 3 N 1W 27 SW NW NW M 0 7300 2 Phoenix, City Of, 481950 3 N 481755 3 N 1W 1W 19 NE 19 NE SW SW A SW SW D Lennar Communities Lennar Communities Development, Inc. 597683 3 N 1W 27 SW NW NW M 120 7300 2 City Of Phoenix Aviation Department 609455 3 N 1W 27 SW NW NW D 800 400 14 Mckee,R H 601888 3 N 212491 3 N 1W 1W 19 NW NW NW A 19 NW SW NW E Courtland Homes Inc Arizona American Water Company 625816 3 N 625817 3 N 1W 1W 28 NE 28 NE NE NW A NW NW A 1157 515 1150 450 18 18 Property Reserve Arizona Llc Property Reserve Arizona Llc 200469 3 N 1W 19 SE Lennar Communities 601887 3 N 1W 19 SW NW NW A NW NW D SE SE A 475 419 1170 510 0 18 Pleshe & Lesniewicz, Property Reserve Arizona Llc 400419 3 N 607537 3 N 1W 1W 20 NE 20 NE NE NE NW NW A 1100 600 20 Beals,K R 640 4 Sperry Trading 593638 3 N 608547 3 N 1W 1W 5 Webster Anway 086408 3 N 400495 3 N NW NE 592 520 1070 393 18 18 T City Of Phoenix Aviation Department 0 Lennar Communities Development, Inc. 631810 3 N 625815 3 N 1W 1W 28 NE 28 NE 610821 3 N 1W 28 NW NE A 1200 535 20 R G 2223, Inc R G 2223, Inc 903067 3 N 1W 28 NW NE NW D 20 NE SE SE E 20 NW NW NW D 1517 2051 485 16 18 City Of Surprise Water Services Dept R.G. 2223 Inc 208837 3 N 210465 3 N 1W 1W 28 NW NE 28 NW NE NW D NW D 1W 1W 20 NW NW NW A 20 NW NW NW D 1239 0 16 Continental Fund 213, Llc R.G. 2223 Inc 210409 3 N 626942 3 N 1W 1W 28 NW NE SE D 28 NW NW NW A 600 400 1090 545 5 20 Waldron Justice Brothers 621514 3 N 1W 21 NE NW NW A 1200 550 20 Richmond American Homes Of Az Inc 610110 3 N 1W 21 NW NW NW A 1500 430 20 William Lyons Homes Inc 609453 3 N 802266 3 N 1W 1W 28 SE NW NW A 28 SW NW NE D 1200 450 0 450 16 6 City Of Phoenix Tkr Enterprises 621515 3 N 572866 3 N 1W 1W 21 SE 22 NE D N 775 200 0 8 Smith,P L City Of Surprise 803677 3 N 1W 28 SW NW NE 0 450 6 Wyatt, James,D 626943 3 N 1W 29 NE 927 545 20 Justice Brothers 628487 3 N 214668 3 N 1W 1W 22 NE 22 NE NW NW A NW NW F 670 400 20 Skyway Business Park Ii Llc Surprise/Dysart Llc 610103 3 N 201563 3 N 1W 1W 29 NW NW NW A 29 SE SE SE T 1200 430 450 0 20 6 Woolf Brothers, Amerigas 572867 3 N 1W 22 NW NE SE 415 365 5 Surprise City Of 801047 3 N 1W 29 SE SE SE 780 8 Woolf Brothers, 218388 3 N 1W 22 NW NE SE 152 12 City Of Surprise 610104 3 N 1W 29 SE SE SW A 1350 430 20 Woolf Brothers, 218387 3 N 1W 22 NW NE SE 157 12 City Of Surprise 610102 3 N 1W 29 SW NW NW A 1400 430 20 Woolf Brothers, 218390 3 N 1W 22 NW NE SE 150 12 City Of Surprise 584309 3 N 1W 30 SE NE 1500 475 218391 3 N 218389 3 N 1W 1W 22 NW NE 22 NW NE SE SE 150 153 12 12 City Of Surprise City Of Surprise 589039 3 N 1W 30 SE NW SE 606610 3 N 1W 30 SW SW SW D 705 450 8 Property Reserve Arizona Llc 605189 3 N 1W 22 NW NW NW A 18 Surprise, City Of 21 NE 22 NE NW NE A NW NW A 20 22 NW NW NW 2W 2W 356 1W 612994 3 N 213494 3 N 534 218658 3 N Maricopa Co Mun Wtr Property Reserve Arizona 605188 3 N 1W 22 NW SW NE A 780 213214 3 N 2W 22 NE NW NW A 519048 3 N 1W 22 SW NE D 520176 3 N 564527 3 N 1W 1W 604504 3 N 2W 22 NE NW NW A 1100 0 20 Property Reserve Arizona, L.L.C. 538332 3 N 2W 22 NW NE NE D 640 8 Property Reserve Inc 909845 3 N 612997 3 N 612995 3 N 2W 2W 23 NE 23 NE NE NE NE NE A B 1032 481 1000 420 20 16 Maricopa Co Mun Wtr Maricopa Water District 612996 3 N 2W 23 NW NE NE A 1000 493 20 Maricopa Co Mun Wtr 500768 3 N 2W 24 NE NW NW A 1050 580 16 Taylor Trust Farms Llc 617465 3 N 617464 3 N 2W 2W 24 NE NW NW A 24 NW NW SW A 1050 530 1160 540 16 20 Taylor Trust Farms Llc Moore Ranches Inc, 212494 3 N 2W 24 SE NW SE 641284 3 N 2W 25 NE SE NE T 1100 550 840 379 City Of Surprise 20 Surprise, City Of 1001 438 8 Sage Development, 22 SW NE NE C 22 SW SW SW M 0 380 0 10 Sage Development, Surprise City Of 1W 27 125 6 City Of Phoenix Aviation Dept. 610631 3 N 1W 27 NE NE NW A 1820 520 20 610625 3 N 1W 27 NE NW NW A 1050 520 20 John F Long Family Revocable Living Trust U/A/D 2/26/2008 John F Long Family Revocable Living Trust U/A/D 2/26/2008 610626 3 N 1W 27 NE 609454 3 N 1W 27 NW SE NE NW SW A NW A 350 0 335 1050 520 20 John F Long Family Revocable Living Trust U/A/D 2/26/2008 1500 410 20 Mckee,R H NE D NW A F SW N 680 420 540 519 The London Group D Rose Garden Estates, Llc Fulton Homes 470 T NW D Taylor Woodrow 750 550 8 Jarrell,D E ID T N/S R E/W S Q1 Q2 Q3 WU WD WL DIA NAME 612998 3 N 606609 3 N 2W 2W 25 NW NE NE A 25 NW NW NW A 1000 471 2567 885 16 18 Maricopa Co Mun Wtr Property Reserve Arizona, Llc 606608 3 N 2W 25 SE 1200 650 20 Property Reserve Arizona, Llc 606607 3 N 2W 25 SW NW NW A 930 650 18 Property Reserve Arizona, L.L.C. 612999 3 N 2W 26 NW NE NE A 1000 459 20 Maricopa Co Mun Wtr 624692 3 N 2W 26 SW SE SE D 888 20 Arizona-American Water Co 216251 3 N 613001 3 N 2W 2W 27 NE 27 NE NE NE NE NE A A 489 16 Stardust Development Inc Maricopa Water District 613000 3 N 213859 3 N 2W 2W 27 NE 27 NE NW NW A SE SE B 1030 471 1478 16 21 Maricopa Co Mun Wtr Stardust Development Inc 577658 3 N 2W 27 SE NE NE C 205432 3 N 2W 27 SW SE SE T 1620 427 19 Arizona American Water Company 801074 3 N 511416 3 N 2W 2W 29 NW SE 29 NW SE SE SE D D 0 0 0 0 11 0 Thorton Lumber Co, Thornton Lumber Co, 614441 3 N 590348 3 N 2W 2W 29 NW SE SW D 29 NW SW SW D 0 700 0 560 0 6 Thornton Lumber Co, White Tank Ranch Llc NW NW A 452 Macanudo Investors Ltd Partnership Appendix C Technical Memorandum No. 3: Drainage Overview Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study: Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #3: Conceptual Drainage Report Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road April 2011 Technical Memorandum #3 Conceptual Drainage Report Prepared for: Prepared by: In Association With: 11811 North Tatum Boulevard Suite 3031 Phoenix, Arizona 85028 April 2011 Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Table of Contents List of Figures 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 FLOOD CONTROL FACILITIES ......................................................................................... 4 1.1 1.2 2.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.2 2.2.1 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.4 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.4.4 2.5 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 1 Purpose of This Report ....................................................................................................... 2 Existing Facilities................................................................................................................ 4 McMicken Dam .................................................................................................................. 4 Reems Road Channel and Basin ......................................................................................... 5 Previous Studies .................................................................................................................. 6 Loop 303 Corridor / White Tanks Area Drainage Master Plan Update ............................. 6 Improvement Projects ......................................................................................................... 7 SR 303L Channel and Basins ............................................................................................. 7 BNSF Railway (Ennis Spur) Channel and Basin................................................................ 8 Privately Owned Facilities .................................................................................................. 9 Shadow Ridge High School - Channels and Basin ............................................................. 9 Greer Ranch Subdivision - Channel ................................................................................. 10 Twelve Oaks Estates – Channel ........................................................................................ 10 Copper Canyon Subdivision - Channel............................................................................. 11 Future Development.......................................................................................................... 11 3.0 HYDROLOGY .................................................................................................................... 12 4.0 GROUNDWATER .............................................................................................................. 19 5.0 EARTH FISSURES AND GROUND SUBSIDENCE ......................................................... 21 3.1 3.2 5.1 5.2 Peak Flows ........................................................................................................................ 13 Floodways and Floodplains .............................................................................................. 17 Reems Road Channel Evaluation...................................................................................... 21 McMicken Dam Evaluation .............................................................................................. 22 6.0 PROPOSED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................... 23 7.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................... 28 6.1 6.2 Offsite Drainage Improvements ........................................................................................ 23 Onsite Drainage Improvements ........................................................................................ 26 Page i April 2011 Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Vicinity Map .............................................................................................................. 1 Study Area Map ........................................................................................................ 3 McMicken Dam near Peoria Avenue ........................................................................ 4 Reems Channel and Basin ....................................................................................... 5 White Tanks ADMPU Recommended Alternatives .................................................. 6 Proposed SR 303L Channel ..................................................................................... 7 Proposed Ennis Spur Channel and Basin. ............................................................... 8 Shadow Ridge High School Off-site Drainage Facilities. ......................................... 9 Greer Ranch and Twelve Oaks Estates Off-site Drainage Facilities ...................... 10 Copper Canyon Off-site Drainage Facilities ........................................................... 11 Peoria Avenue Watershed Map ............................................................................. 12 Floodplains Map ..................................................................................................... 18 Earth Fissure Map near Reems Road .................................................................... 21 Fenne Knoll Fissures Map ..................................................................................... 22 Points of Concentration along Corridor Centerline ................................................. 24 List of Tables Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Summary of Off-Site Peak Flows ............................................................................... 14 Flood Insurance Rate Maps Summary ...................................................................... 17 Active Water Wells near Peoria Avenue .................................................................... 19 List of Appendices APPENDIX I Original Hydrology Data APPENDIX II Modified Hydrologic Model (50-year Peak Flows Estimation) APPENDIX III Flood Insurance Rate Maps APPENDIX IV ADWR Documentation APPENDIX V Geotechnical Information APPENDIX VI Developer Drainage Reports (Excerpts) Page ii April 2011 Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road List of Abbreviations ADMP ADMPU ADMS ADMSU ADWR CBC DDMSW FCDMC FEMA FIRM FRS HMS MCDOT MWD NOAA NRCS USACOE Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road 1.0 INTRODUCTION Area Drainage Master Plan Area Drainage Master Plan Update Area Drainage Master Study Area Drainage Master Study Update Arizona Department of Water Resources Concrete Box Culvert Drainage Design Management System Flood Control District of Maricopa County Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map Flood Retarding Structure Hydrologic Map Series Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa Water District National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Natural Resources Conservation Service United States Army Corps of Engineers 1.1 Project Location The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) prepared the Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study (Hassayampa Framework Study) that identified a comprehensive roadway network to meet traffic demands for the build out of the area west of State Route 303 (SR 303L). This long range regional transportation study identified the need for a roadway network consisting of freeways, parkways, and major arterial roads. The Hassayampa Framework Study recommended an extension of Peoria Avenue west from Perryville Road to the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway, and identified Peoria Avenue as a major arterial from the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Sarival Avenue. The study area for this project includes Peoria Avenue from the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway alignment to Dysart Road (Peoria Avenue Corridor). The study area generally encompasses a 2-mile wide corridor centered on the existing Peoria Avenue. The study area is shown in Figure 2. Figure 1 - Vicinity Map Page iii April 2011 Page 1 April 2011 Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road This study will establish the facility type, number of lanes, right-of-way needs, and general alignment for the Peoria Avenue Corridor that will be required to accommodate projected traffic growth and enhance safety. In cooperation with the City of Surprise, the City of Glendale, and the City of El Mirage, the study will also develop access management guidelines, determine design standards based upon which jurisdiction anticipates annexing the roadway, and develop an implementation plan. In general, the purpose of this Corridor Improvement Study is to provide the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) and other jurisdictions with a future “footprint” of the Peoria Avenue Corridor and a timeframe for the implementation of the recommended future roadway improvements. The key objectives of this Corridor Improvement Study are to: x x x x x x 1.2 Define and assess strategic issues within the project study area; Develop and evaluate conceptual alternative alignments within the corridor study area; Recommend a preferred alignment; Develop consensus for the preferred alignment; Define the characteristics of the preferred alignment; and Develop an implementation plan. Purpose of This Report This report summarizes data collected from the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) studies, Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) reports, Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) design documentation, private development drainage reports and field reviews. The data includes peak flows and field conditions. The report also includes an inventory of existing drainage infrastructure within the project area. Page 2 April 2011 Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 2 – Study Area Map Page 3 April 2011 Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road The detention basin and the section of the dam south of Waddell Road are located in a fissure risk zone. The detention basin was created when the FCDMC removed the final 0.5 mile segment of the dam within the area determined to have the highest fissure risk potential and replaced it with a realigned soil-cement dam segment located outside of said area (Figure 3 shows the current condition). Construction began in March of 2005 and was completed in August of 2006. 2.0 FLOOD CONTROL FACILITIES 2.1 Existing Facilities The FCDMC operates and maintains two flood control facilities within the project area: x x 2.1.1 Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road McMicken Dam Reems Road Channel and Basin McMicken Dam McMicken Dam is a flood control structure that is almost 11 miles long and follows an alignment offset from the Beardsley Canal, beginning at Peoria Avenue west of Perryville Road and extending north and east to Happy Valley Road west of Bullard Avenue. A watershed of approximately 220 square miles to the north and west of the structure contributes runoff to the dam. Its storage capacity is 23,800 Acre-ft. The dam was constructed in the mid 1950’s by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) and is operated and maintained by the FCDMC. The dam detains storm runoff and meters outflows through a channel located at the northeast end of the structure. The emergency spillway is located just southwest of the intersection between the dam and US 60 and has a design peak flow of 22,000 cfs. The maximum height of the dam is approximately 34’, with a crest width of 12’. The Peoria Avenue section line intersects the detention basin located immediately south of the dam. The basin is designed for the 500-year event. FCDMC and USACOE are considering alternatives for the overall rehabilitation or replacement of the dam in order to address safety issues. Detailed analyses were completed in 2007, but at this time there is no set schedule for the selection of a preferred alternative or further development of the rehabilitation project. The level of flood protection is not expected to change regardless of the selected alternative; therefore no direct impact is expected for the Peoria Avenue corridor. 2.1.2 Reems Road Channel and Basin The Reems Road Channel and Basin is a regional flood control facility that was recommended in the Loop 303/White Tanks Area Drainage Master Plan (ADMP) to intercept and convey the 100-year stormwater event. The ultimate facility includes a channel flowing south along Reems Road from Bell Road to the Reems Basin, an off-line detention basin located ¼ mile south of Peoria Avenue, continuing to the outfall at the Falcon Dunes golf course/detention basin, which drains into the Dysart Drain. The purpose of the channel is to protect Reems Road and the land to the east, including the City of Surprise wastewater treatment plant and various utilities. Without the channel a majority of the stormwater flow would be carried within the Reems Road roadway prism, with large flows overtopping and sheetflowing to the southeast. In the summer of 2009 the FCDMC completed the construction of the segment of the project south of Peoria Avenue, including a 6-barrel 10’x4’x142’ CBC, an approximately 1.5-mile-long earthen channel mostly on the west side of Reems Road, the Reems detention basin and culvert crossings at Olive Avenue and Reems Road. The Figure 3 - McMicken Dam near Peoria Avenue Page 4 April 2011 Page 5 Figure 4 - Reems Channel and Basin April 2011 Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road FCDMC retains ownership and maintenance of these facilities. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) reflecting the floodplain mitigation as a result of the project is pending approval. Ownership, funding, design, construction and maintenance of the segment of the channel north of Peoria Avenue are the responsibility of the City of Surprise. The city is to partner with private developers to complete its portion of the project north of Cactus Road with a currently undefined schedule. 2.2 2.2.1 Previous Studies Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road White Tanks ADMPU report. Peak flow data summarized in this technical memorandum is derived from the hydrologic models created for the ADMPU. The models have been updated since completion of the ADMPU. The latest version includes NOAA 14 rainfall depth values and reflects the design of channels and basins along SR 303L and Reems Road. Loop 303 Corridor / White Tanks Area Drainage Master Plan Update In February of 2005 the FCDMC completed the “Loop 303 Corridor / White Tanks Area Drainage Master Plan Update” (the White Tanks ADMPU). The White Tanks ADMPU updated the ADMP previously completed in 1995 with the purpose of developing alternatives for structural flood control improvements to mitigate flood hazards. The proposed alternatives address higher runoff rates associated with the onset of development of rangeland and agricultural land to an urban environment. The White Tanks ADMPU study area covers the entire project area. The greater ADMPU study area is bounded by the White Tank Mountains to the west, McMicken Dam/Deer Valley Road to the north, the Agua Fria River to the east, and Gila River to the south. The area includes the portions of the incorporated areas of Avondale, Buckeye, El Mirage, Glendale, Goodyear, Litchfield Park, Peoria, Sun City, and Surprise, as well as unincorporated areas of Maricopa County. Source: FCDMC Figure 5 - White Tanks ADMPU Recommended Alternatives Three development alternatives recommended in the ADMPU fall within this project’s study area: the SR 303L Channel and Basins, the Reems Road Channel and Basin and the BNSF Railway Channel and Basin. These facilities are discussed in greater detail in other sections of this report. Figure 2.3 shows the location of alternatives as portrayed in a graphic included in the Page 6 April 2011 2.3 Improvement Projects FCDMC, ADOT, the City of Surprise and the City of Glendale are partnering for the development of the regional flood control facilities recommended in the White Tanks ADMPU. Section 2.1.2 covers the Reems Road Channel and Basin project. The SR 303L Channel and Basins and the BNSF Railway Channel and Basin projects are discussed below. 2.3.1 SR 303L Channel and Basins FCDMC and ADOT are working on the design of an 18-mile-long system of channels and basins that will provide 100year flood protection for SR 303L and lands to the east. The channel system is located on the west side of SR 303L, beginning at Bell Road and extending south to the Gila River. ADOT is responsible for the development of the system from Bell Road to Van Buren Street and the FCDMC is responsible for the segment between Van Buren Street and the outfall at the Gila River. ADOT’s portion of the channel system is in the final stages of design. Preliminary design was completed in 2008 in two sections, Bell Road to Peoria Avenue and Peoria Avenue to Thomas Road. Final Source: ADOT Figure 6 - Proposed SR 303L Channel Page 7 April 2011 Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road design of the segment from Peoria Avenue to Northern Avenue is currently underway and is expected to be complete by the end of 2010, with construction scheduled to start in the spring of 2011. The channel system in the vicinity of Peoria Avenue consists of a concrete-lined open channel with box culverts at major roadway intersections and detention basins located on the north side of Cactus Road and the north side of Northern Avenue. The culvert crossing at Peoria Avenue is a 3-10’x6’x221’ CBC, with winged inlet and outlet transitions to a 40’-wide channel at the top, with 2:1 side slopes and 6’ of depth. 2.3.2 BNSF Railway (Ennis Spur) Channel and Basin 2.4 Privately Owned Facilities The agricultural character of the area has been changing in recent years to an urban environment. Commercial and residential developments along the corridor have introduced changes to runoff patterns and include flood control facilities such as channels and retention basins that are maintained by entities other than municipal and county agencies. The design and construction of these facilities has been monitored by the City of Surprise and the FCDMC through the permitting process, and therefore follow local and county design standards and ordinances. The most relevant requirements are the on-site retention of the 100-year 2-hour storm event, the acceptance of pavement runoff for the half street adjacent to the development, and the conveyance of upstream off-site flows through street/roadside channel systems. 2.4.1 FCDMC is in the initial stages of development of a 100-year event channel and basin system that would parallel the existing railroad track that runs north-south along the half-section line between Litchfield Road and Dysart Road. The system would begin at Waddell Road, collecting runoff approaching from the north-west and conveying it to the south to its outfall at the proposed channel on the north side of the Northern Parkway. Conceptual design for the segment of the system in the vicinity of Peoria Avenue includes an open channel on the west side of the railroad tracks to the south of Peoria Avenue, a closed conduit system to the north of Peoria Avenue due to limited rightof-way availability, and a detention basin on the north side of Olive Avenue. Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Shadow Ridge High School - Channels and Basin The Shadow Ridge High School is located on the northeast corner of the Peoria Avenue and Perryville intersection. Off-site flows approaching the school are routed around the site through a natural wash on the north side, and a system of channels and detention basin along the west and south sides. See Figure 8. Source: FCDMC Figure 7 - Proposed Ennis Spur Channel And Basin Design and construction of the channel and basin are not yet programmed, but are expected to proceed within 5 to 10 years. The proposed general alignment of the channel and location of the basin are shown in Figure 7. Page 8 April 2011 Figure 8 - Shadow Ridge High School Off-site Drainage Facilities A 1,450’-long unlined channel along the west side of Perryville Roads collects off-site runoff and routes it to a detention basin located on the northwest corner of the Perryville Road and Peoria Avenue intersection. A single 48” pipe culvert under Perryville Road meters flows out of the basin into a 1,400’-long grass-lined triangular open channel that flows east along the north side Page 9 April 2011 Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road of Peoria Avenue, which in turn discharges through 5-36” pipe culverts under the southeast roadway school entrance into a 1,100’-long temporary unlined channel. The temporary channel was graded through the adjacent undeveloped land to the east and eventually terminates, allowing runoff to continue east on Peoria Avenue. The school’s on-site retention basins were constructed immediately north of the Peoria Avenue roadside channel. 2.4.2 Greer Ranch Subdivision - Channel Greer Ranch is a residential subdivision located on the north side of Peoria Avenue from Sarival Avenue to Reems Road. Off-site runoff approaching from the northwest is routed around the site, using berms along Cactus Road on the north side and raised entrances along Sarival Avenue on the west side to keep runoff on the roadway’s prism. A channel along the north side of Peoria Avenue was built to convey 820 cfs (roughly 50% of the 100-year event that flows along the roadway) from Sarival Avenue east to the Reems Road Channel. It should be noted that peak flow data used in this section and in Figure 9 is taken from the Greer Ranch Drainage Report of 2003. The segments of the channel along the undeveloped parcels at the Sarival Avenue and Reems Road corners are unlined, while grass and desert landscape are used for lining in front of the residential lots. A 3-10’x4’ CBC was built at the channel crossing of Greer Ranch Parkway. Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road 2.4.4 Copper Canyon Subdivision - Channel Copper Canyon (previously known as Mountain Gate) is a residential subdivision located on the north side of Peoria Avenue from Bullard Avenue to Litchfield Road. Off-site runoff from the west is collected in an unlined channel along the west side of Bullard Avenue. The Bullard Avenue channel flows south and outfalls into a channel on the north side of Peoria Avenue through a 2-6’x3’ CBC. From the CBC the Peoria Avenue roadside channel takes flows from the Bullard Avenue channel and the roadway from the west and extends east to Litchfield Road. The channel is designed for a peak flow of 480 cfs (almost the entire 100-year event of 487 cfs) and has no outfall, as it assumed that future developers will extend the channel to the south along Litchfield Road. Another channel along the west side of Litchfield Road meets the end of the Peoria Avenue channel at the roadway intersection, contributing 342 cfs. A 3-10’x3’ CBC was constructed at the channel intersection with 143rd Avenue. In the existing condition, during a rainfall event the combined runoff from the two channels is retained within the channel sections until capacity is exceeded and breaks over the roadway intersection to the south and east. Extensive flooding has been observed at the intersection, requiring closures and pumping of ponded water. Figure 10 – Copper Canyon Off-site Drainage Facilities Figure 9 - Greer Ranch and Twelve Oaks Estates Off-site Drainage Facilities 2.4.3 2.5 Twelve Oaks Estates – Channel Twelve Oaks Estates is a residential subdivision of large lots for custom home construction that is partially occupied. A hard-lined open channel was constructed along the south side of Peoria Avenue to convey breakout off-site flows from the northwest, as well as on-site and pavement runoff. The channel begins at Sarival Avenue and daylights to the east, about 1,100’ short of the Reems Road Channel. A 3-10’x6’ CBC was constructed at the channel intersection with 159th Avenue. It should be noted that the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Sarival Avenue and Peoria Avenue is subject to flooding as no culvert connections to the aforementioned offsite channels exist across either roadway. Page 10 April 2011 Future Development Future development projects along the north side of Peoria Avenue are likely to follow the offsite runoff management practices as the previously mentioned subdivisions. Planning documentation for the proposed Zanjero Trails (Beardsley Canal to Perryville Road) and Prasada developments (Shadow Ridge High School to Cotton Lane) include channels along the west side of Perryville Road and Cotton Lane that would discharge into a channel along the north side of Peoria Avenue for which the SR 303L Channel would be the outfall. On-site retention of the 100-year 2-hour event at all future developments will reduce the amount of offsite runoff that reaches Peoria Avenue. Page 11 April 2011 Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road The map below shows the contributing watershed for the project area. The prefix in the subbasin ID indicates the major basin in which it is located. The hydrologic delineation and model were developed in the White Tanks ADMPU. The delineation and the model have been revised several times in the last few years in order to incorporate on-going changes to land use and the design of capital improvements such as the SR 303L and the Reems Road channel systems. The model referenced in this report was provided by the FCDMC and includes the latest revisions made in 2009. 3.0 HYDROLOGY Three major basins cover the project area, defined by the basin’s outfall feature: x x x 3.1 Basin W: located between the McMicken Dam and the Beardsley Canal. Flows are routed to the White Tanks flood retarding structures to the south. Sub-basins L21 and L22 are within Basin W. Basin L: located between the Beardsley Canal and the SR 303L freeway. Flows are routed to the SR 303L channel system. Basin D: located east of the SR 303L freeway. The ultimate outfall for this basin is the Dysart Drain, located along the north and east boundaries of Luke Air Force Base. Peak Flows HEC-1 models of the contributing watershed were completed as part of the White Tanks ADMPU. The FCDMC continued updating the HEC-1 models after completion of the ADMPU in order to account for changes to the watershed, including design and construction of regional flood control infrastructure. The models referenced in this report are included in the WT1FC02.DAT (Major Basin 1) and FCIP-MB2.DAT (Major Basin 2) HEC-1 files, created by HDR Engineering in August and September of 2009 for the FCDMC. The models correspond to the 100-year 24-hour future condition with capital improvement projects in place (SR 303L, Reems Road and Ennis spur Channels). Revisions in October of 2009 and January of 2010 are noted on the files by the FCDMC (storage, routing and diversion corrections for Major Basin 1). For the purpose of estimating 50-year peak flow data, the models were modified by replacing the 100-year precipitation data (with areal reduction factors) in the original JD cards with 50year precipitation data. The 50-year 24-hour precipitation depth value of 2.996” representative of the Peoria Avenue watershed was obtained using the NOAA 14 tool included in the FCDMC’s Drainage Design Management Software (DDMSW). The modified models were run for the 50year event. A summary of sub-basin flow data is presented in Table 1. Tables and graphics with original data are included in Appendix II. Relevant pages of the output files for the modified models are included in Appendix III. It should be noted that peak flow data used in Section 2 of this technical memorandum was derived from older versions of the HEC-1 model, which did not include FCDMC capital improvement projects, used NOAA 2 precipitation values, and differed with the current model in other aspects such as routing, storage and sub-basin delineation. The HEC-1 model is expected to be updated in the future to account for new designs of capital improvement and private development projects. Source: FCDMC Figure 11 - Peoria Avenue Watershed Map Page 12 April 2011 Page 13 April 2011 Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Area (sq.mi.) L21 L22 CPL22 W01 CPW01 W02 CPW02 CPW04 L01 L02 L20 L03 CPL03 L04 CPL04 L05 CPL05 L06 L07 CPL07 L08 CPL08 L09 CPL09 L10 L11 CPL11 L12 CPL12 L13 CPL13 L14 L15 CPL15 L16 CPL16 L17 CPL17 L18 CPL18 L19 CPL19 L23 L24 CPL24 L25 0.52 0.36 0.89 0.19 1.08 0.39 1.47 4.01 0.16 1.88 0.35 0.79 1.29 0.63 1.93 0.49 4.30 0.70 0.63 2.62 0.49 3.74 0.49 4.78 0.84 0.62 4.09 0.36 5.56 0.48 8.90 0.23 0.37 0.60 0.50 1.10 0.50 1.61 0.50 7.67 0.49 11.50 0.90 0.50 1.40 0.24 100-Year Peak Flow (cfs) 273 87 0 151 150 544 454 3313 268 1737 390 958 60 663 17 660 636 914 816 37 647 36 657 574 845 744 439 586 385 860 502 269 438 0 582 0 586 0 604 44 877 511 922 624 0 261 50-Year Peak Flow (cfs) 173 50 0 91 90 364 82 2082 221 1416 317 785 8 534 0 549 88 754 673 7 544 5 547 82 672 607 156 494 109 731 87 211 347 0 463 0 473 0 484 10 745 89 727 496 0 208 Page 14 Notes Basin L Drainage Area ID Table 1 – Summary of Off-site Peak Flows (2 of 4) Beardsley Canal @ Peoria Ave. Waterfall Wash @ JT SR 303L @ Bell Road Basin D Basin L Basin W Table 1 – Summary of Off-site Peak Flows (1 of 4) SR 303L @ Greenway Road SR 303L @ Waddell Road SR 303L @ Cactus Road Drainage Area ID Area (sq.mi.) L26 CPL26 DL26SE L27 CPL27 D01 D02 D06 D07 CPD07 CPD02 D09 D10 CPD10 D08 D16 CPD16 D18 CPD18 D17 D19 CPD19 D29 CPD29 D30 CPD30 D45 DD451 DD452 D46 CPD46 D03 D04 CPD04 D05 CPD05 D11 D12 CPD12 D13 CPD13 D14 CPD14 0.76 10.07 10.07 0.51 14.41 1.56 1.84 0.46 0.89 1.35 4.76 0.26 0.63 5.65 0.51 0.52 1.03 0.20 1.23 0.20 0.51 7.58 0.51 1.54 0.91 9.01 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.92 10.41 0.72 0.89 1.61 0.16 1.78 0.66 0.35 1.01 1.03 3.65 0.94 4.76 100-Year Peak Flow (cfs) 980 5 0 906 518 1347 1750 616 919 348 617 360 787 500 661 922 263 321 22 324 577 437 910 250 1541 594 780 24 68 982 573 960 1149 1062 325 337 807 438 258 1329 220 1126 188 50-Year Peak Flow (cfs) 790 0 0 769 97 1085 1422 513 751 17 31 298 650 54 550 783 50 262 6 266 466 35 773 62 1310 107 654 3 8 801 106 783 949 487 277 274 667 365 54 1093 54 932 33 Notes Peoria Ave. @ Cotton Ln. Cotton Ln. South xing Peoria Ave. SR 303L @ Peoria Ave. Reems Rd. @ Bell Rd. Reems Rd. @ Greenway Rd. Reems Rd. @ Wadell Rd. Reems Rd. @ Cactus Rd. Sarival Ave. South xing Peoria Ave. Reems Rd. @ Peoria Ave. Greenway Rd. leaving to East Peoria Ave. @ Citrus Rd. April 2011 Page 15 April 2011 Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Basin D Table 1 – Summary of Off-site Peak Flows (3 of 4) Area (sq.mi.) DD111 DD112 DD121 DD122 DD131 DD132 D20 CPD20 D21 CPD21 D22 CPD22 CPD23 D24 CPD24 D25 CPD25 D39 CPD39 DD211 DD212 DD231 DD232 D35 D38 CPD38 D31 CPD31 D32 D33 CPD33 D34 CPD34 D36 CPD36 D40 CPD40 D47 CPD47 DD47SE D48 CPD48 DD481 DD482 D49 CPD49 0.66 0.66 1.01 1.01 3.65 3.65 0.50 1.16 0.50 2.00 0.45 2.46 5.64 0.49 6.13 0.50 6.63 0.18 6.81 2.00 2.00 5.64 5.64 0.25 0.32 6.22 0.50 2.50 0.25 0.25 3.00 0.50 3.50 0.25 7.64 0.24 8.20 1.00 3.99 3.99 1.00 9.63 9.63 9.63 0.49 10.69 100-Year Peak Flow (cfs) 564 45 111 60 8 48 595 291 565 244 562 37 38 538 64 574 69 354 67 172 44 4 4 444 446 6 667 166 361 377 160 697 67 404 63 451 5 1066 74 65 949 74 63 3 724 724 50-Year Peak Flow (cfs) 356 33 16 19 2 12 484 120 460 101 459 13 12 438 16 466 15 296 14 76 20 1 1 367 368 2 543 72 297 312 64 571 26 333 24 378 2 868 28 25 765 25 21 1 598 598 Page 16 Notes Drainage Area ID Area (sq.mi.) D41 D50 CPD50 0.25 0.50 0.76 B. D Drainage Area ID Table 1 – Summary of Off-site Peak Flows (4 of 4) South xing Greenway Rd. 100-Year Peak Flow (cfs) 557 774 11 50-Year Peak Flow (cfs) 474 653 0 Notes Dysart Rd. @ Peoria Ave. Source: FCDMC 3.2 Floodways and Floodplains Figure 3.2 shows the floodways and floodplains that have been delineated within the project area. The only designated floodway is the Waterfall Wash. Floodplains have been delineated at the McMicken Dam flood pool, the 500-year detention basin, as well as along Cotton Lane, Reems Road, and the BNSF Railway (Ennis) Spur. Table 3.2 is a summary of Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) that cover the project area. The FIRM plats are included in Appendix IV. The floodplain along Reems Road is to be eliminated once the pending LOMR for the Reems Road Channel and Basin project is approved. There are no other revisions currently being processed. South of Wadell Leaving to East Table 2 - Flood Insurance Rate Maps Summary South xing Waddell Rd. Map Number Revision Date 04013C1140H September 30, 2005 04013C1145H September 30, 2005 04013C1165J September 30, 2005 04013C1580H September 30, 2005 04013C1585H September 30, 2005 04013C1605J September 30, 2005 Source: FEMA RR Spur @ Cactus Rd. Bullard Ave. South xing Peoria Ave. Litchfield Rd. South xing Peoria Ave. RR Spur @ Peoria Ave. April 2011 Page 17 April 2011 Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 12 – Floodplains Map Page 18 April 2011 Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road 4.0 GROUNDWATER The project area is located within the West Salt River Valley groundwater sub-basin of the Phoenix Active Management Area. The primary sources of groundwater are the upper alluvial units bounded by the Wickenburg and Hieroglyphic Mountains to the north, and the White Tank Mountains to the west. Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road agrees with data shown in Table 4.1 and in Hydrograph Charts plotted by ADWR for some of the listed wells. ADWR and FCDMC documentation indicate that since the 1980’s local groundwater has recharged, with levels increasing from 50’ to 150’ from the low levels observed after approximately 40 years of decline. Supporting ADWR documentation is included in Appendix IV. Extensive agricultural development that requires continued irrigation of crops exists in the area west of the Beardsley Canal. Groundwater pumping through water wells is widely used in the vicinity of Peoria Avenue. Table is 4.1 is a summary of active water wells in the proximity of Peoria Avenue, sorted by location from west to east. Table 3 – Active Water Wells near Peoria Avenue Well ID 613000 216251 613001 612999 606609 911652 612998 610103 626943 626942 208837 210465 903067 610821 210409 625817 631810 625816 564527 610626 610625 610631 610627 610628 Water Level Location Relative Nearest Well Depth Below Ground Surface To Peoria Avenue Crossroad (ft) (ft) South South South South South North South South South South South South South South South South South South North South South South South South Citrus Rd. Citrus Rd. Citrus Rd. th 175 Ave. Cotton Ln. Cotton Ln. SR 303L Reems Rd. Bullard Ave. Bullard Ave. 144th Dr. 144th Dr. 144th Dr. 144th Dr. 144th Dr. 144th Dr. th 144 Dr. th 144 Dr. Litchfield Rd. nd 132 Ave. nd 132 Ave nd 132 Ave. Dysart Rd. Dysart Rd. 1030 n/a 489 1000 2567 n/a 1000 1200 927 1090 n/a 680 640 1100 600 1150 475 1157 380 1050 1050 1820 1000 1150 471 n/a n/a 459 885 n/a 471 430 344 545 n/a 540 420 600 400 450 419 515 335 520 520 520 520 520 Source: ADWR Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) Hydrologic Map Series (HMS) Report No. 35 (Nov. 2002 to Feb. 2003) indicates that ground water levels for wells in the vicinity of the project area ranges between 300’ and 500’ below ground surface. A similar range of water level values is observed in the HMS Report No. 12 of 1982. The 300’ to 500’ range Page 19 April 2011 Page 20 April 2011 Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road 5.0 EARTH FISSURES AND GROUND SUBSIDENCE The report concludes that although additional subsidence is possible, if ground water levels continue to recover then the rate of subsidence is likely to decline. 5.1 5.2 Reems Road Channel Evaluation In 2007 the FCDMC completed a Preliminary Ground Subsidence and Earth Fissure Evaluation as part of the Reems Road Channel and Basin project. The evaluation reports on historic groundwater and subsidence conditions. According to the aforementioned report, the area has undergone significant subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal since groundwater pumping commenced in the west valley. The overall depression extends from the White Tank Mountains to the vicinity of the Luke Air Force Base, with a major subsidence depression of about 15’ in depth and a 4-mile-radius centered on the Reems Road and Olive Avenue intersection. Between the 1940’s and the 1980’s groundwater levels dropped an average of 250’. Consequently by 1990, subsidence in the area had reached 18’ compared to 1957 USGS elevations. However, since active management of the aquifer began in the 1980’s, water levels have recovered and only about 0.8 to 0.9 ft of additional subsidence was observed between 1990 and 2003. Two earth fissure risk zones have been identified within the project area. The first is located at the southern end of the McMicken Dam, where a remediation project realigned the dam and created the 500-year detention basin. The second is located to the southeast of the Peoria Avenue and Sarival Avenue intersection, as shown in Figure 5.1. Evidence of the earth fissure was observed at the vertical displacement of the pavement surface of Olive Avenue, just east of the intersection with SR 303L. McMicken Dam Evaluation The Earth Fissure Investigation Report of the McMicken Dam area was completed in 2003 by the FCDMC. The investigation was intended to detect and characterize the distribution and nature of earth fissures located in the vicinity of the southernmost six-mile portion of McMicken Dam. According to the report, 2’ to 3’ of ground subsidence caused by groundwater withdrawal was observed in the vicinity of the intersection of the McMicken Dam and the Peoria Avenue section line for the period between 1947 and 1981. Less than 1’ of additional subsidence has occurred since 1981. Ground subsidence may have contributed to the development of earth fissures in the area. The report documents the investigation of earth fissures (the Fenne Knoll fissures) around the southern end of the McMicken Dam. The Fenne Knoll fissures are near-vertical discontinuities with uneroded widths of about ¼ “ to ½”, extending to about 20’ in depth. The fissure complex contains small gullies that changed little in the 20 years before the 2003 investigation, as well as other cracks that are concealed at the surface. It was the likely presence of high hazard fissures under the southern end of the McMicken Dam foundation that prompted its reconstruction in 2006. The location of the Fenne Knoll fissures is shown in Figure 14. Source: FCDMC Figure 13 – Earth Fissure Map near Reems Road Source: FCDMC Figure 14 – Fenne Knoll Fissures Map Page 21 April 2011 Page 22 April 2011 Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road 6.0 PROPOSED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS The proposed ultimate roadway section for Peoria Avenue within the study limits includes three lanes of travel in each direction, raised median, exterior curb and gutter, and sidewalks. Turn lanes and frontage roads are proposed for traffic flow and access control reasons. Widening of the existing Peoria Avenue would be symmetrical about the section line, or to the north or south as required to address physical, development and right-of-way constraints. The roadway rightof-way width would be 120’ or greater as needed to accommodate turn lanes and frontage roads. Maricopa County Drainage Policies and Standards for an arterial roadway require a drainage system with the capacity to: x x x x Maintain one 12-foot dry driving lane in each direction, and flow depths not to exceed curb height for the 10-year storm event. Convey the 50-year frequency flow in adjacent channels, with a maximum allowed depth of 6” over the pavement surface for the 100-year frequency flow. Keep the headwater elevation at culvert crossings below the lowest adjacent road subgrade for the 50-year frequency flow, with a maximum allowed depth of 6” over the pavement surface for the 100-year frequency flow. Maintain a minimum of 2’ freeboard below the low chord of bridges for the 100-year frequency flow. Offsite and onsite drainage improvements are recommended in order to meet the aforementioned requirements. 6.1 Offsite Drainage Improvements Several new improvements are required along the corridor, some of which are already planned by agencies and developers, in order to complete the offsite system. Starting at the west end, mitigation of impacts to the FCDMC’s 500-year retention basin located south of the McMicken Dam will need to be implemented as a result of Peoria Avenue’s crossing of the facility. Reconfiguration of the basin and/or addition of pool leveling culverts would be needed to retain safety, function, operation and capacity requirements. Management of outflows from the basin to Waterfall Wash and the presence of earth fissures and monitoring devices should also be addressed. A bridge crossing of Waterfall Wash would be required should the roadway alignment be shifted to the south of the basin. Culvert crossings of Peoria Avenue are proposed to implement a pass-through concept for the small washes downstream of the dam in the segment between the basin and the Beardsley Canal. Future development plans may eliminate the need for offsite improvements as a result of onsite retention requirements that would intercept flows upstream of Peoria Avenue. Page 23 April 2011 Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Onsite retention for Zanjero Trails east of the Beardsley Canal to Perryville Road will prevent offsite flows from reaching Peoria Avenue. The existing channel along the north side of Peoria Avenue at Shadow Ridge High School is planned to be extended east in the development plans of Zanjero Trails and Prasada. The channel would convey flows east to Cotton Lane, where box culverts across Cotton Lane to the east and Peoria Avenue to the south would split flows in order to maintain historic patterns, according to Prasada’s concept. A new channel would need to be constructed along the north side of Peoria Avenue from Cotton Lane to the SR 303L channel in order to provide an ultimate outfall. The latter channel is not in any developers plans at this time and will need to be coordinated with FCDMC and ADOT for compliance with SR 303L design parameters. A culvert crossing of Peoria Avenue is proposed in order to discharge into the SR 303L channel downstream of the freeway channel’s box culvert. Onsite retention will also prevent offsite flows from reaching Peoria Avenue in the segment between SR 303L and Sarival Avenue. A culvert crossing of Sarival Avenue and a channel extension to the east is proposed along the north side of Peoria Avenue to allow the conveyance of flows from the Sarival Avenue Channel to the Greer Ranch Channel, eliminating current flooding problems at the Sarival Avenue intersection. The existing Greer Ranch channel conveys flows to the Reems Road Channel. No additional facilities are proposed for the segment between Reems Road and Litchfield Road, as onsite retention and the existing Copper Canyon channel already address offsite requirements. A culvert crossing of the intersection of Litchfield Road and Peoria Avenue and a new channel along the south side of Peoria Avenue are proposed to convey flows from the Copper Canyon channel to the future BNSF Railroad (Enis) spur channel. The south side of Peoria Avenue is proposed for the channel because of conflicts with existing development and private retention basins on the north side. Additional offsite facilities are not required east of the BNSF railroad spur as a result of onsite retention north of Peoria Avenue. A pipe culvert that crosses the intersection of Dysart Road and Peoria Avenue will need to be extended as a result of the Peoria Avenue widening. Consequently, a roadside channel along the west side of Dysart Road would need to be relocated to make way for the widened intersection. Figure 15 shows off-site drainage crossings along the corridor centerline. 100-year and 50-year peak flows are shown at 10 drainage crossings. Table 4 is a summary of existing, planned by third parties, and proposed (in this study) culvert crossings of Peoria Avenue and crossroads. Table 5 is a summary of existing, planned and proposed channels. The proposed culvert and channel improvements at the intersections of Peoria Avenue with Sarival Avenue and Litchfield Road could be completed ahead of the ultimate roadway widening in order to resolve recurrent flooding problems. The opportunity to include these improvements in the ongoing development efforts by ADOT and FCDMC of the SR 303L and BNSF Railroad Page 24 April 2011 Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road spur regional drainage facilities could be explored and coordinated with the benefit of providing relief much earlier than if left to future private development to complete. Additional design will be required in order to establish parameters and determine capacity of culverts and channels needed to convey runoff from the intersections to the flood control channels. Table 5 – Existing, Planned and Proposed Channels (Continued) Top Width Table 4 – Existing, Planned and Proposed and Culverts Size and Type Location Relative To Peoria Avenue Crossroad Status 48”x150’ RCP 48”x210’ RCP 48”x140’ RCP 10’x6’x160’ CBC 48”x135’ CMP 5-36”x60’ CMP 5-36”x60’ CMP 3-12’x4’x150’ CBC 3-12’x4’x65’ CBC 4-8’x4’x190’ CBC 3-10’x4’x135’ CBC 2-72”x330’ CMP 3-10’x6’x221’ CBC 3-8’x6’x130’ CBC 3-10’x4’x90’ CBC 3-10’x6’x90’ CBC 6-10’x4x142’ CBC 2-6’x3’x122’ CBC 3-10’x3’x66’ CBC 3-10’x6’x226’ CBC Ennis Spur RCP 36”x40’ RCP Crossing Crossing Crossing Crossing North North North North North Crossing North Crossing Crossing North North South Crossing North North Crossing Crossing Crossing Extension n/a n/a n/a n/a Perryville Road Shadow Ridge HS rd 183 Avenue Citrus Road th 175 Avenue Cotton Lane Cotton Lane SR 303L SR 303L Sarival Avenue Greer Ranch Pkwy Greer Ranch Pkwy Reems Road Bullard Avenue rd 143 Avenue Litchfield Road BNSF RR Spur Dysart Road Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Existing Existing Planned Planned Planned Planned Planned Proposed Planned Proposed Existing Existing Existing Existing Existing Proposed Planned Proposed 28’ (Est.) Owner (Blank if Undefined) Top Width 27’ 32’ 80’ 83’ 28’ (Est.) North Perryville Rd. to HS Entrance North rd HS Entrance to 183 Ave. North 183rd Ave. to Citrus Road North Citrus Road to Cotton Lane North Cotton Lane to SR 303L 30’ (Est.) Municipal Municipal Zanjero Trails Prasada Prasada Prasada Prasada 6.2 ADOT Greer Ranch Twelve Oaks Estates FCDMC Municipal Copper Canyon North st Sarival Ave. to 161 Lane North st 161 Lane to Reems Rd. South th Sarival Ave. to 167 Dr. North Bullard Ave. to Litchfield Rd. South Litchfeld Rd. to BNSF RR Spur Owner (Blank if Undefined) Length Status 665’ Proposed 3,865’ Existing Greer Ranch 3,300’ Existing Twelve Oaks Estates 5,075’ Existing Copper Canyon 2,420’ Proposed Onsite Drainage Improvements With the exemptions described below, onsite pavement runoff can be collected in catch basins and scuppers along Peoria Avenue, and where needed, conveyed through storm drain laterals to the nearest offsite channel or culvert. Differences in frequency and time of concentration between offsite and onsite design events, added to the excess capacity of the offsite channels related to the future reduction of offsite peak flows resulting from build-out of the watershed make viable the use of offsite facilities as outfall for onsite runoff. First-flush requirements would need to be addressed during design in order to satisfy water quality policies. FCDMC Length Status Owner (Blank if Undefined) 1,420’ Existing Shadow Ridge High School 1,060’ Planned Zanjero Trails 2,540’ Planned Prasada 5,100’ Planned Prasada 2,145’ Proposed Page 25 30’ 30’ Table 5 – Existing, Planned and Proposed Channels Location Relative To Peoria Avenue And Termini 34’ Location Relative To Peoria Avenue And Termini April 2011 Segments of Peoria Avenue where there are no offsite channels along the roadway require storm drain trunk lines to collect flows from laterals and convey them to the nearest outfall. Such is the case in the segments between the Beardsley Canal and Perryville Road, SR 303L and Sarival Avenue, Reems Road and Bullard Avenue, and between the BNSF Railroad spur and Dysart Road. However, future development on either side of Peoria Avenue may be able to accommodate pavement runoff within their onsite retention and therefore eliminate the need for trunk lines. The onsite retention alternative is more viable where parcels of land on both sides of the roadway are undeveloped, as opposed to segments where existing private retention basins on one side may have insufficient capacity to accept larger volumes from a wider-thanexisting half of Peoria Avenue. Page 26 April 2011 Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 15 – Points of Concentration along Corridor Centerline Page 27 April 2011 Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road 7.0 REFERENCES x Loop 303 Corridor / White Tanks Area Drainage Master Plan Update Existing Condition Hydrology URS for FCDMC November 2002 x Loop 303 Corridor / White Tanks Area Drainage Master Plan Update Final Volume IV – Level III Area Drainage Master Plan Update Report URS for FCDMC February 2005 x Preliminary Ground Subsidence and Earth Fissure Evaluation Reems Road Channel and Basin – Maricopa County, Arizona AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. for FCDMC 2007 x Earth Fissure Investigation Report – McMicken Dam AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. for FCDMC 2003 x Estrella Freeway, SR 303L – Initial Drainage Report Stage II Design (30%); Peoria Avenue – Bell Road PB Americas, Inc. for ADOT 2007 x Estrella Freeway, SR 303L – Initial Drainage Report Stage II Design (30%); Thomas Road – Peoria Avenue PB Americas, Inc. for ADOT 2008 x Jackrabbit Trail Access Control and Corridor Improvement Study Interstate 10 to Bell Road Conceptual Drainage Report Andes Engineering for MCDOT 2008 x ADWR Hydrologic Map Series Report No. 12 Maps Showing Groundwater Conditions in the West Salt River, East Salt River, Lake Pleasant, Carefree and Fountain Hills Sub-basins of the Phoenix Active Management Area, Maricopa, Pinal and Yavapai Counties R.W. Reeter and W.H. Remick 1983 Page 28 April 2011 Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road x ADWR Hydrologic Map Series Report No. 35 Maps Showing Groundwater Conditions in the Phoenix Active Management Area, Maricopa, Pinal and Yavapai Counties S.J. Rascona 2003 x Developer Drainage Reports for: Phase 2 of Zanjero Trails, Prasada, Dysart High School #4 (Shadow Ridge High School), Sycamore Farms, Rancho Gabriela, Greer Ranch, Mountain Gate, Skyway Business Park and Desert Cove Commercial Park. Included in Appendix VI Page 29 April 2011 Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road APPENDIX I ORIGINAL HYDROLOGY DATA April 2011 WT1FC02.OUT 1***************************************** * * * FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) * * JUN 1998 * * VERSION 4.1 * * * * RUN DATE 07JAN10 TIME 13:32:37 * * * ***************************************** *************************************** * * * U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS * * HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER * * 609 SECOND STREET * * DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 * * (916) 756-1104 * * * *************************************** + RN25 376. 12.00 WT1FC02.OUT 38. 12. 4. .49 DN25RE 766. 12.25 70. 20. 7. .49 CPN25 911. 12.33 133. 39. 13. .88 N25N26 801. 12.42 132. 39. 13. .88 N26 320. 12.33 43. 14. 5. .26 RN26 320. 12.33 43. 13. 4. .26 DN26RE 6. 17.58 4. 1. 0. .26 CPN26 801. 12.42 133. 40. 13. 1.14 N19 372. 12.08 35. 11. 4. .18 N23 833. 12.25 90. 29. 10. .52 RN23 31. 11.00 14. 5. 2. .52 DN23RE 833. 12.25 88. 24. 8. .52 N23N24 627. 12.33 86. 24. 8. .52 N24 397. 12.17 38. 12. 4. .25 RN24 388. 12.17 22. 6. 2. .25 DN24RE 362. 12.25 20. 6. 2. .25 CPN24 911. 12.25 105. 30. 10. .77 N27 177. 12.17 17. 6. 2. .13 RN27 177. 12.17 17. 6. 2. .13 DN27RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .13 DUMMY 1605. 12.42 269. 80. 27. 2.21 DUMMY 8156. 12.58 1574. 481. 162. 15.78 D03 960. 12.25 110. 34. 11. .72 RD03 960. 12.25 96. 26. 9. .72 DD03RE 177. 12.67 25. 8. 3. .72 D03D04 110. 12.92 24. 8. 3. .72 D04 1149. 12.33 142. 44. 15. .89 RD04 1118. 12.33 85. 24. 8. .89 DD04RE 1065. 12.42 72. 20. 7. .89 CPD04 1062. 12.42 95. 28. 9. 1.61 DD04S 647. 12.42 30. 7. 2. 1.61 DD04SE 414. 12.42 65. 21. 7. 1.61 D04D05 308. 12.67 64. 21. 7. 1.61 D05 325. 12.17 35. 12. 4. .16 RD05 137. 11.92 13. 4. 1. .16 HYDROGRAPH AT + 3 COMBINED AT + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + X X X X X X XXXXXXX X X X X X X XXXXXXX X X XXXX X X XXXXXXX XXXXX X X X X X X X XX X X X X XXX XXXXX X XXXXX DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + 2 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + THIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC-1 KNOWN AS HEC1 (JAN 73), HEC1GS, HEC1DB, AND HEC1KW. HYDROGRAPH AT THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES -RTIMP- AND -RTIOR- HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE USED WITH THE 1973-STYLE INPUT STRUCTURE. THE DEFINITION OF -AMSKK- ON RM-CARD WAS CHANGED WITH REVISIONS DATED 28 SEP 81. THIS IS THE FORTRAN77 VERSION NEW OPTIONS: DAMBREAK OUTFLOW SUBMERGENCE , SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION, DSS:WRITE STAGE FREQUENCY, DSS:READ TIME SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULATION INTERVAL LOSS RATE:GREEN AND AMPT INFILTRATION KINEMATIC WAVE: NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + 1 HEC-1 INPUT PAGE 1 ROUTED TO LINE ID.......1.......2.......3.......4.......5.......6.......7.......8.......9......10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ID Flood Control District of Maricopa County ID L303_FU_CIP_MB01 - Loop 303/ White Tanks ADMPU AHA ID 100 YEAR ID 24 Hour Storm ID Unit Hydrograph: S-Graph ID 08/18/2009 ID ID FCDMC CONTRACT 2007C031 ID BY HDR ENGINEERING (#79902) ID FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH CIP-AUGUST 2009 ID MAJOR BASIN 01 ID FILE NAME: FCIP-MB1.DAT ID ID ************************************************************************* ID ID FOLLOWING ARE THE CHANGES BY FCDMC: ID 1. Storage routing correction: removed SRD14. - JWH 10-16-09 ID 2. Diversion RMSBSN correction: replaced DQ card. ID 3. Routing RRMS correction: replace RY card. - JWH 01-07-2010 ID FILE NAME: WT1FC02.DAT ID ID For details concerning changes to this HEC-1 model, please contact ID FCDMC, H&H Branch. ID ID ************************************************************************* ID IT 5 0 0 2000 IN 15 IO 5 *DIAGRAM * JD 3.480 0.0001 PC 0.000 0.002 0.005 0.008 0.011 0.014 0.017 0.020 0.023 0.026 PC 0.029 0.032 0.035 0.038 0.041 0.044 0.048 0.052 0.056 0.060 PC 0.064 0.068 0.072 0.076 0.080 0.085 0.090 0.095 0.100 0.105 PC 0.110 0.115 0.120 0.126 0.133 0.140 0.147 0.155 0.163 0.172 PC 0.181 0.191 0.203 0.218 0.236 0.257 0.283 0.387 0.663 0.707 PC 0.735 0.758 0.776 0.791 0.804 0.815 0.825 0.834 0.842 0.849 PC 0.856 0.863 0.869 0.875 0.881 0.887 0.893 0.898 0.903 0.908 PC 0.913 0.918 0.922 0.926 0.930 0.934 0.938 0.942 0.946 0.950 PC 0.953 0.956 0.959 0.962 0.965 0.968 0.971 0.974 0.977 0.980 PC 0.983 0.986 0.989 0.992 0.995 0.998 1.000 JD 3.393 5.0 JD 3.306 10.0 JD 3.219 20.0 JD 3.132 30.0 JD 3.028 60.0 JD 2.965 90.0 JD 2.927 120.0 * HEC-1 INPUT 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 1 + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + 2 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + 4 COMBINED AT + 4 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + 2 COMBINED AT + PAGE 2 DIVERSION TO LINE ID.......1.......2.......3.......4.......5.......6.......7.......8.......9......10 + HYDROGRAPH AT 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 KK KM BA LG UI UI UI UI UI * N07BASIN BASIN BOUNDARY FROM CORTE BELLA AND MCMICKEN DAM 0.570 0.16 0 36 0 0 0 + ROUTED TO 0.25 107 29 0 0 0 5.40 405 29 0 0 0 0.30 604 0 0 0 0 61 990 0 0 0 0 + 931 0 0 0 0 612 0 0 0 0 389 0 0 0 0 172 0 0 0 0 105 0 0 0 0 HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + Page 1 Page 225 WT1FC02.OUT WT1FC02.OUT HYDROGRAPH AT + DD05RE 325. 12.17 27. 8. 3. .16 CPD05 337. 12.67 89. 28. 9. 1.78 D05D14 272. 12.83 88. 28. 9. 1.78 DD141S 150. 12.83 17. 4. 1. 1.78 DD141 122. 12.17 71. 24. 8. 1.78 D05D15 122. 12.92 70. 24. 8. 1.78 D11 807. 12.33 108. 34. 11. .66 RD11 807. 12.33 64. 18. 6. .66 DD11RE 686. 12.50 55. 16. 5. .66 DD111S 564. 12.50 44. 12. 4. .66 DD111 122. 12.50 11. 3. 1. .66 DD112S 45. 12.50 6. 2. 1. .66 DD112 77. 12.50 5. 1. 0. .66 D11D12 49. 12.67 5. 1. 0. .66 D12 438. 12.33 62. 20. 7. .35 RD12 438. 12.33 47. 13. 4. .35 DD12RE 210. 12.67 23. 7. 2. .35 CPD12 258. 12.67 28. 8. 3. 1.01 DD121S 111. 12.67 10. 3. 1. 1.01 DD121 146. 12.67 18. 6. 2. 1.01 DD122S 60. 12.67 9. 3. 1. 1.01 DD122 86. 12.67 10. 3. 1. 1.01 D12D13 37. 13.58 9. 3. 1. 1.01 D13 1329. 12.33 157. 49. 16. 1.03 RD13 1329. 12.33 157. 49. 16. 1.03 DD13RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.03 DD04SE 647. 12.42 30. 7. 2. 1.61 D04D13 189. 13.50 30. 7. 2. 1.61 CPD13 220. 13.50 38. 10. 3. 3.65 DD131S 8. 13.50 1. 0. 0. 3.65 DD131 212. 13.50 37. 10. 3. 3.65 DD132S 48. 13.50 8. 2. 1. 3.65 DD132 164. 13.50 29. 8. 3. 3.65 D13D14 136. 14.00 28. 8. 3. 3.65 D14 1126. 12.42 157. 50. 17. .94 DIVERSION TO + RD14 1126. 12.42 150. 41. 14. .94 DD14RE 64. 13.50 26. 9. 3. .94 DD141 150. 12.83 17. 4. 1. 1.78 D0514A 122. 13.08 17. 4. 1. 1.78 CPD14 188. 14.00 67. 21. 7. 4.76 DD142S 171. 14.00 61. 19. 6. 4.76 DD142 17. 14.00 6. 2. 1. 4.76 D14D15 16. 14.25 6. 2. 1. 4.76 D15 421. 12.17 44. 14. 5. .22 RD15 3. 1.00 1. 0. 0. .22 DD15RE 421. 12.17 44. 14. 5. .22 CPD15 423. 12.17 113. 40. 13. 4.98 D15D26 359. 12.42 113. 40. 13. 4.98 D15D28 324. 12.58 112. 40. 13. 4.98 D28 428. 12.17 39. 12. 4. .25 RD28 3. 4.08 2. 0. 0. .25 DD28RE 428. 12.17 39. 12. 4. .25 CPD28 481. 12.25 147. 51. 17. 5.23 D28AFR 467. 12.25 146. 51. 17. 5.23 D26 1103. 12.17 107. 33. 11. .64 RD26 1103. 12.17 107. 31. 10. .64 DD26RE 13. 16.58 9. 3. 1. .64 DD142 171. 14.00 61. 19. 6. 4.76 D14D26 159. 14.25 60. 19. 6. 4.76 CPD26 153. 14.25 62. 21. 7. 5.40 D26D27 150. 14.42 62. 21. 7. 5.40 D27 498. 12.17 52. 17. 6. .32 RD27 100. 11.92 13. 4. 1. .32 DD27RE 498. 12.17 45. 12. 4. .32 CPD27 491. 12.17 100. 33. 11. 5.72 SRD27 491. 12.17 100. 33. 11. 5.72 D27D42 345. 12.58 96. 33. 11. 5.72 D20 595. 12.33 72. 22. 7. .50 RD20 595. 12.33 72. 21. 7. .50 2 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + 3 COMBINED AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + 3 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + ROUTED TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + 2 COMBINED AT + 2 COMBINED AT + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + 2 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + 3 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + 2 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + Page 226 HYDROGRAPH AT Page 227 + DD20RE 6. 18.33 WT1FC02.OUT 5. 1. WT1FC02.OUT 0. .50 ROUTED TO + D23D24 29. 14.17 11. 5. 2. 5.64 D24 538. 12.42 71. 21. 7. .49 RD24 538. 12.42 71. 21. 7. .49 DD24RE 4. 21.08 2. 1. 0. .49 DD132 48. 13.50 8. 2. 1. 3.65 D13D24 40. 13.92 8. 2. 1. 3.65 CPD24 64. 14.00 18. 7. 2. 6.13 D24D25 62. 14.25 18. 7. 2. 6.13 D25 574. 12.33 72. 22. 7. .50 RD25 574. 12.33 69. 19. 6. .50 DD25RE 21. 13.58 9. 3. 1. .50 CPD25 69. 14.25 25. 9. 3. 6.63 D25D39 67. 14.42 25. 9. 3. 6.63 D39 354. 12.08 30. 9. 3. .18 RD39 354. 12.08 30. 9. 3. .18 DD39RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .18 CPD39 67. 14.42 25. 9. 3. 6.81 D39D42 52. 15.42 24. 9. 3. 6.81 D42 1338. 12.25 155. 48. 16. .99 RD42 1338. 12.25 142. 38. 13. .99 DD42RE 123. 12.83 28. 9. 3. .99 CPD42 345. 12.58 143. 52. 17. 9.87 SRD42 178. 12.83 118. 44. 15. 9.87 D42D53 174. 13.08 117. 44. 15. 9.87 D53 195. 12.17 16. 5. 2. .12 RD53 195. 12.17 16. 5. 2. .12 DD53RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .12 CPD53 174. 13.08 117. 44. 15. 9.99 SRD53 54. 21.08 36. 10. 3. 9.99 D53D54 46. 21.67 35. 10. 3. 9.99 D43 651. 12.33 77. 24. 8. .50 RD43 651. 12.33 72. 19. 6. .50 DD43RE 43. 13.08 13. 5. 2. .50 D43D54 27. 14.25 13. 5. 2. .50 D54 369. 12.25 34. 10. 3. .27 HYDROGRAPH AT + DD111 564. 12.50 44. 12. 4. .66 D11D20 292. 12.92 42. 12. 4. .66 CPD20 291. 12.92 42. 14. 5. 1.16 D20D21 210. 13.42 40. 14. 5. 1.16 D21 565. 12.33 72. 22. 7. .50 RD21 565. 12.33 72. 20. 7. .50 DD21RE 9. 15.92 6. 2. 1. .50 DD112 45. 12.50 6. 2. 1. .66 D11D21 20. 13.33 5. 2. 1. .66 DD121 111. 12.67 10. 3. 1. 1.01 D12D21 76. 12.83 9. 3. 1. 1.01 CPD21 244. 13.33 57. 20. 7. 2.00 DD211S 172. 13.33 43. 15. 5. 2.00 DD211 72. 13.33 15. 5. 2. 2.00 DD212S 44. 13.33 11. 4. 1. 2.00 DD212 28. 13.33 4. 1. 0. 2.00 D21D22 18. 13.75 3. 1. 0. 2.00 D22 562. 12.33 67. 21. 7. .45 RD22 562. 12.33 67. 19. 6. .45 DD22RE 8. 16.75 5. 2. 1. .45 DD122 60. 12.67 9. 3. 1. 1.01 D12D22 35. 13.25 8. 3. 1. 1.01 CPD22 37. 13.67 14. 5. 2. 2.46 D22D23 35. 13.83 14. 5. 2. 2.46 D23 649. 12.33 82. 25. 8. .54 RD23 649. 12.33 82. 25. 8. .54 DD23RE 5. 23.08 2. 0. 0. .54 DD131 8. 13.50 1. 0. 0. 3.65 D13D23 6. 14.08 1. 0. 0. 3.65 CPD23 38. 13.92 14. 6. 2. 5.64 DD231S 4. 13.92 1. 1. 0. 5.64 DD231 34. 13.92 13. 5. 2. 5.64 DD232S 4. 13.92 2. 1. 0. 5.64 DD232 30. 13.92 11. 5. 2. 5.64 HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + 2 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + 3 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + 2 COMBINED AT + 4 COMBINED AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + 2 COMBINED AT + ROUTED TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + 3 COMBINED AT + ROUTED TO + ROUTED TO + 3 COMBINED AT + ROUTED TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + 2 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + ROUTED TO + ROUTED TO + 3 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + Page 228 Page 229 WT1FC02.OUT + D35 444. 12.17 WT1FC02.OUT 38. 12. 4. .25 RD35 444. 12.17 38. 12. 4. .25 DD35RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .25 DD231 4. 13.92 1. 1. 0. 5.64 D23D35 3. 14.50 1. 1. 0. 5.64 CPD35 3. 14.50 1. 1. 0. 5.90 DD35S 1. 14.50 0. 0. 0. 5.90 DD35SE 3. 14.50 1. 0. 0. 5.90 D35D38 3. 15.17 1. 0. 0. 5.90 D38 446. 12.25 52. 16. 5. .32 RD38 446. 12.25 52. 16. 5. .32 DD38RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .32 DD232 4. 13.92 2. 1. 0. 5.64 D23D38 4. 14.83 1. 1. 0. 5.64 CPD38 6. 14.92 2. 1. 0. 6.22 D38D40 5. 16.33 2. 1. 0. 6.22 D32 361. 12.25 38. 12. 4. .25 RD32 361. 12.25 38. 12. 4. .25 DD32RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .25 DD32S 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .25 DD32SE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .25 D32D33 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .25 D31 667. 12.25 73. 22. 7. .50 RD31 667. 12.25 73. 22. 7. .50 DD31RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .50 DD211 172. 13.33 43. 15. 5. 2.00 D21D31 166. 13.50 42. 15. 5. 2.00 CPD31 166. 13.50 42. 15. 5. 2.50 D31D33 150. 13.67 42. 15. 5. 2.50 D33 377. 12.25 38. 12. 4. .25 RD33 377. 12.25 35. 9. 3. .25 DD33RE 31. 12.75 7. 2. 1. .25 CPD33 160. 13.67 48. 17. 6. 3.00 DD331S 87. 13.67 26. 9. 3. 3.00 DD331 73. 13.67 22. 8. 3. 3.00 DIVERSION TO + RD54 290. 12.17 16. 5. 2. .27 DD54RE 369. 12.25 21. 6. 2. .27 CPD54 335. 12.25 36. 18. 6. 10.76 D44 625. 12.33 78. 24. 8. .54 RD44 625. 12.33 60. 16. 5. .54 DD44RE 323. 12.58 26. 8. 3. .54 D55 249. 12.25 24. 7. 2. .19 RD55 249. 12.25 20. 5. 2. .19 DD55RE 92. 12.50 7. 2. 1. .19 D56 276. 12.25 30. 9. 3. .22 RD56 103. 12.00 8. 2. 1. .22 DD56RE 276. 12.25 25. 7. 2. .22 DUMMY 587. 12.25 76. 32. 11. 11.71 DUMMY 8183. 12.50 1649. 512. 172. 32.72 D52 658. 12.42 82. 24. 8. .59 RD52 12. 10.67 7. 2. 1. .59 DD52RE 658. 12.42 81. 22. 7. .59 D52D66 441. 13.08 81. 22. 7. .59 D66 440. 12.25 49. 16. 5. .30 RD66 440. 12.25 49. 16. 5. .30 DD66RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .30 CPD66 441. 13.08 81. 22. 7. .89 D66D67 435. 13.17 81. 22. 7. .89 D67 467. 12.25 52. 17. 6. .32 RD67 317. 12.08 24. 7. 2. .32 DD67RE 467. 12.25 34. 10. 3. .32 CPD67 550. 12.33 114. 31. 10. 1.20 D76 171. 12.25 19. 6. 2. .11 RD76 128. 12.08 9. 3. 1. .11 DD76RE 171. 12.25 12. 3. 1. .11 D76D77 143. 12.33 12. 3. 1. .11 D77 630. 12.17 65. 22. 7. .36 CPD77 665. 12.25 76. 25. 8. .47 DUMMY 8751. 12.50 1804. 558. 188. 34.40 DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + 3 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + 2 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + 4 COMBINED AT + ROUTED TO + 3 COMBINED AT + 3 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + 2 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + 2 COMBINED AT + 2 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + 3 COMBINED AT + 2 COMBINED AT + DIVERSION TO + 3 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT Page 230 Page 231 WT1FC02.OUT WT1FC02.OUT DIVERSION TO + DD332S 34. 13.67 11. 4. 1. 3.00 DD332 39. 13.67 11. 4. 1. 3.00 D33D34 34. 14.08 11. 4. 1. 3.00 D34 697. 12.25 75. 24. 8. .50 RD34 697. 12.25 75. 24. 8. .50 DD34RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .50 DD212 44. 13.33 11. 4. 1. 2.00 D21D34 38. 13.75 11. 4. 1. 2.00 CPD34 67. 13.92 22. 8. 3. 3.50 D34D36 62. 14.33 21. 8. 3. 3.50 D36 404. 12.17 38. 12. 4. .25 RD36 404. 12.17 35. 9. 3. .25 DD36RE 22. 12.75 7. 2. 1. .25 DD35SE 1. 14.50 0. 0. 0. 5.90 D35D36 0. 15.25 0. 0. 0. 5.90 CPD36 63. 14.42 24. 9. 3. 7.64 DD361S 58. 14.42 22. 9. 3. 7.64 DD361 5. 14.42 2. 1. 0. 7.64 DD362S 5. 14.42 2. 1. 0. 7.64 DD362 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 7.64 D36D40 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 7.64 D40 451. 12.17 40. 12. 4. .24 RD40 451. 12.17 40. 12. 4. .24 DD40RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .24 CPD40 5. 16.33 2. 1. 0. 8.20 D4049A 4. 16.83 2. 1. 0. 8.20 D4049B 4. 17.25 2. 1. 0. 8.20 D47 1066. 12.42 152. 47. 16. 1.00 RD47 1066. 12.42 152. 47. 16. 1.00 DD47RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.00 DD32SE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .25 D3247A 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .25 D3247B 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .25 DD331 87. 13.67 26. 9. 3. 3.00 D3347A 78. 14.00 26. 9. 3. 3.00 ROUTED TO + D3347B 74. 14.25 25. 9. 3. 3.00 CPD47 74. 14.25 25. 9. 3. 3.99 DD47S 65. 14.25 22. 8. 3. 3.99 DD47SE 9. 14.25 3. 1. 0. 3.99 D47D48 7. 15.42 3. 1. 0. 3.99 D48 949. 12.50 134. 39. 13. 1.00 RD48 949. 12.50 134. 39. 13. 1.00 DD48RE 1. 22.08 0. 0. 0. 1.00 DD332 34. 13.67 11. 4. 1. 3.00 D33D48 28. 14.83 10. 4. 1. 3.00 DD361 58. 14.42 22. 9. 3. 7.64 D3648A 53. 14.92 22. 9. 3. 7.64 D3648B 52. 15.08 22. 9. 3. 7.64 CPD48 74. 15.08 32. 13. 4. 9.63 DD481S 63. 15.08 28. 11. 4. 9.63 DD481 11. 15.08 5. 2. 1. 9.63 DD482S 3. 15.08 1. 0. 0. 9.63 DD482 8. 15.08 4. 1. 0. 9.63 D48D49 8. 15.42 4. 1. 0. 9.63 D49 724. 12.25 75. 24. 8. .49 RD49 27. 11.17 11. 4. 1. .49 DD49RE 724. 12.25 73. 20. 7. .49 DD362 5. 14.42 2. 1. 0. 7.64 D36D49 4. 16.00 2. 1. 0. 7.64 CPD49 724. 12.25 78. 23. 8. 10.69 D49D63 519. 12.33 72. 22. 7. 10.69 D60 710. 12.17 87. 30. 10. .40 RD60 710. 12.17 70. 20. 7. .40 DD60RE 192. 12.50 31. 10. 3. .40 DD481 63. 15.08 28. 11. 4. 9.63 D48D60 61. 15.33 27. 11. 4. 9.63 CPD60 304. 12.50 57. 22. 7. 10.04 D60D63 106. 12.67 49. 19. 6. 10.04 D63 454. 12.08 49. 17. 6. .22 HYDROGRAPH AT + 3 COMBINED AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + 3 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + 4 COMBINED AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + 3 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + 3 COMBINED AT + 4 COMBINED AT + ROUTED TO + ROUTED TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + ROUTED TO + 2 COMBINED AT + ROUTED TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + Page 232 DIVERSION TO Page 233 + RD63 454. 12.08 WT1FC02.OUT 43. 12. WT1FC02.OUT 4. .22 DIVERSION TO + RD78A 307. 12.25 36. 10. 3. .18 DD78AR 45. 12.75 12. 4. 1. .18 CPD78A 117. 17.92 106. 66. 23. 12.58 D78ACP 117. 18.00 106. 65. 23. 12.58 D41 557. 12.08 47. 14. 5. .25 RD41 557. 12.08 47. 14. 5. .25 DD41RE 4. 19.25 2. 1. 0. .25 D41D50 3. 21.42 2. 1. 0. .25 D50 774. 12.25 92. 29. 10. .50 RD50 774. 12.25 92. 26. 9. .50 DD50RE 11. 16.00 8. 3. 1. .50 CPD50 11. 16.00 9. 3. 1. .76 D5064A 10. 17.75 8. 3. 1. .76 D64A 748. 12.25 80. 26. 9. .50 RD64A 748. 12.25 80. 26. 9. .50 DD64AR 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .50 CPD64A 10. 17.75 8. 3. 1. 1.25 64A74A 10. 18.42 8. 3. 1. 1.25 D74A 775. 12.25 91. 30. 10. .49 RD74A 775. 12.25 73. 20. 7. .49 DD74AR 258. 12.50 31. 10. 3. .49 CPD74A 257. 12.50 32. 13. 4. 1.75 D74A78 200. 12.58 31. 13. 4. 1.75 CP7874 128. 12.67 114. 74. 26. 14.32 78A78B 125. 18.17 114. 73. 26. 14.32 D06 616. 12.33 77. 23. 8. .46 RD06 616. 12.33 60. 16. 5. .46 DD06RE 252. 12.67 24. 7. 2. .46 DD06S 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .46 DD06SE 252. 12.67 24. 7. 2. .46 D06D07 162. 12.75 23. 7. 2. .46 D07 919. 12.50 134. 40. 13. .89 RD07 919. 12.50 116. 31. 10. .89 DD07RE 250. 13.00 29. 9. 3. .89 CPD07 348. 13.00 51. 16. 5. 1.35 HYDROGRAPH AT + DD63RE 47. 12.58 14. 5. 2. .22 DD482 3. 15.08 1. 0. 0. 9.63 D48D63 2. 19.42 1. 0. 0. 9.63 CPD63 519. 12.33 128. 46. 15. 11.31 SRD63 105. 13.50 85. 45. 15. 11.31 D63D64 104. 13.92 84. 45. 15. 11.31 D62 492. 12.17 54. 18. 6. .25 RD62 492. 12.17 45. 13. 4. .25 DD62RE 82. 12.42 17. 6. 2. .25 DD621S 60. 12.42 13. 4. 1. .25 DD621 22. 12.42 4. 1. 0. .25 DD622S 9. 12.42 2. 1. 0. .25 DD622 13. 12.42 2. 1. 0. .25 D62D64 5. 13.42 2. 1. 0. .25 D64 534. 12.17 59. 20. 7. .27 RD64 534. 12.17 48. 13. 4. .27 DD64RE 133. 12.42 21. 7. 2. .27 CPD64 127. 13.75 98. 51. 17. 11.84 D64D74 125. 14.33 98. 51. 17. 11.84 D73A 389. 12.17 40. 13. 4. .24 RD73A 389. 12.17 24. 7. 2. .24 DD73AR 303. 12.25 21. 6. 2. .24 DD621 60. 12.42 13. 4. 1. .25 D6273A 37. 12.92 12. 4. 1. .25 CPD73A 303. 12.25 33. 10. 3. .49 D73A74 145. 12.42 31. 10. 3. .49 D74 538. 12.25 70. 24. 8. .31 RD74 538. 12.25 61. 17. 6. .31 DD74RE 77. 12.67 21. 7. 2. .31 DD622 9. 12.42 2. 1. 0. .25 D62D74 5. 14.50 2. 1. 0. .25 CPD74 174. 14.17 130. 66. 22. 12.39 SRD74 111. 18.08 101. 62. 22. 12.39 D78A 307. 12.25 41. 14. 5. .18 HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + 2 COMBINED AT + ROUTED TO + ROUTED TO + 4 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + 2 COMBINED AT + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + 2 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + 3 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + 2 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + 2 COMBINED AT + ROUTED TO + ROUTED TO + 2 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + 4 COMBINED AT + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + 2 COMBINED AT + Page 234 Page 235 WT1FC02.OUT + D18 321. 12.17 WT1FC02.OUT 28. 9. 3. .20 RD18 321. 12.17 28. 9. 3. .20 DD18RE 0. 21.42 0. 0. 0. .20 CPD18 22. 13.42 8. 3. 1. 1.23 D18D19 20. 13.50 8. 3. 1. 1.23 D17 324. 12.17 28. 9. 3. .20 RD17 324. 12.17 28. 8. 3. .20 DD17RE 2. 20.17 1. 0. 0. .20 D17D19 2. 21.67 1. 0. 0. .20 D19 577. 12.33 71. 21. 7. .51 RD19 577. 12.33 71. 20. 7. .51 DD19RE 5. 18.58 4. 1. 0. .51 CPD19 437. 13.50 174. 61. 20. 7.58 D19D30 372. 13.83 164. 59. 20. 7.58 D29 910. 12.17 114. 39. 13. .51 RD29 910. 12.17 93. 26. 9. .51 DD29RE 251. 12.50 39. 13. 4. .51 DD161 213. 12.50 53. 17. 6. 1.03 D16D29 157. 13.42 51. 17. 6. 1.03 CPD29 250. 12.50 88. 30. 10. 1.54 D29D30 198. 13.58 86. 30. 10. 1.54 D30 1541. 12.25 203. 70. 23. .91 RD30 1541. 12.25 174. 49. 16. .91 DD30RE 282. 12.67 62. 21. 7. .91 DD162 19. 12.50 7. 3. 1. 1.03 D16D30 14. 14.25 7. 3. 1. 1.03 CPD30 594. 13.83 292. 105. 35. 9.01 D30D46 573. 14.00 287. 105. 35. 9.01 D45 780. 12.25 92. 31. 10. .49 RD45 780. 12.25 79. 22. 7. .49 DD45RE 167. 12.58 27. 9. 3. .49 DD451S 24. 12.58 4. 1. 0. .49 DD451 142. 12.58 23. 7. 2. .49 DD452S 68. 12.58 11. 4. 1. .49 DD452 74. 12.58 11. 4. 1. .49 ROUTED TO + D07D02 252. 13.08 50. 16. 5. 1.35 D01 1347. 12.58 212. 63. 21. 1.56 RD01 1347. 12.58 184. 49. 16. 1.56 DD01RE 334. 13.17 46. 14. 5. 1.56 D01D02 146. 14.42 42. 14. 5. 1.56 D02 1750. 12.50 266. 80. 27. 1.84 RD02 1750. 12.50 237. 63. 21. 1.84 DD02RE 378. 13.08 53. 17. 6. 1.84 CPD02 617. 13.08 139. 46. 15. 4.76 D02D10 479. 13.33 137. 46. 15. 4.76 D09 360. 12.33 42. 13. 4. .26 RD09 360. 12.33 29. 8. 3. .26 DD09RE 225. 12.50 18. 5. 2. .26 D09D10 170. 12.58 17. 5. 2. .26 DD06SE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .46 D06D10 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .46 D10 787. 12.33 104. 32. 11. .63 RD10 787. 12.33 83. 23. 8. .63 DD10RE 354. 12.67 32. 10. 3. .63 CPD10 500. 13.33 175. 59. 20. 5.65 D10D19 460. 13.50 173. 59. 20. 5.65 D08 661. 12.33 91. 29. 10. .51 RD08 661. 12.33 73. 20. 7. .51 DD08RE 283. 12.67 29. 9. 3. .51 D08D16 139. 13.08 28. 9. 3. .51 D16 922. 12.17 116. 40. 13. .52 RD16 922. 12.17 94. 27. 9. .52 DD16RE 263. 12.50 42. 13. 4. .52 CPD16 263. 12.50 68. 22. 7. 1.03 DD161S 213. 12.50 53. 17. 6. 1.03 DD161 50. 12.50 16. 5. 2. 1.03 DD162S 19. 12.50 7. 3. 1. 1.03 DD162 30. 12.50 8. 3. 1. 1.03 D16D18 22. 13.42 8. 3. 1. 1.03 DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + 2 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + 3 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + 4 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + 2 COMBINED AT + 4 COMBINED AT + ROUTED TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + 4 COMBINED AT + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + 2 COMBINED AT + DIVERSION TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT Page 236 Page 237 WT1FC02.OUT WT1FC02.OUT ROUTED TO + D45D46 31. 13.33 11. 4. 1. .49 D46 982. 12.42 139. 43. 14. .92 RD46 982. 12.42 139. 42. 14. .92 DD46RE 8. 22.17 4. 1. 0. .92 CPD46 573. 14.00 290. 106. 35. 10.41 D46D58 552. 14.17 286. 105. 35. 10.41 SSPILL 287. 14.17 125. 45. 15. 10.41 RMSBSN 265. 14.17 161. 60. 20. 10.41 RMSBSN 287. 14.17 125. 45. 15. 10.41 SRREEM 37. 24.50 37. 31. 15. 10.41 CPRMS 279. 14.17 186. 90. 35. 10.41 RRMS 276. 14.33 185. 90. 35. 10.41 D57 909. 12.17 109. 38. 13. .48 RD57 909. 12.17 88. 25. 8. .48 DD57RE 277. 12.42 40. 13. 4. .48 DD451 24. 12.58 4. 1. 0. .49 D45D57 11. 13.33 4. 1. 0. .49 CPD57 277. 12.42 43. 14. 5. .97 D57D58 140. 12.75 41. 14. 5. .97 D58 1239. 12.25 149. 47. 16. .92 RD58 1239. 12.25 126. 35. 12. .92 DD58RE 283. 12.67 41. 13. 4. .92 DD452 68. 12.58 11. 4. 1. .49 D45D58 30. 13.50 11. 4. 1. .49 CPD58 359. 14.25 243. 114. 43. 11.81 D5869A 352. 14.50 239. 113. 43. 11.81 D68A 507. 12.08 44. 15. 5. .24 RD68A 507. 12.08 42. 12. 4. .24 DD68AR 18. 13.42 8. 3. 1. .24 68A69A 14. 14.17 8. 3. 1. .24 D69A 804. 12.17 72. 23. 8. .46 RD69A 804. 12.17 69. 19. 6. .46 DD69AR 26. 13.33 11. 4. 1. .46 CPD69A 357. 14.58 249. 117. 44. 12.52 D69A70 348. 15.42 247. 116. 44. 12.52 HYDROGRAPH AT + D68 506. 12.08 55. 19. 6. .25 RD68 506. 12.08 44. 13. 4. .25 DD68RE 133. 12.33 19. 6. 2. .25 DD681S 105. 12.33 15. 5. 2. .25 DD681 28. 12.33 4. 1. 0. .25 DD682S 9. 12.33 1. 0. 0. .25 DD682 19. 12.33 3. 1. 0. .25 D68D69 9. 12.83 3. 1. 0. .25 D69 664. 12.25 71. 22. 7. .46 RD69 664. 12.25 68. 19. 6. .46 DD69RE 23. 13.50 10. 4. 1. .46 CPD69 28. 13.50 12. 4. 1. .71 DD691S 2. 13.50 1. 0. 0. .71 DD691 26. 13.50 11. 4. 1. .71 DD692S 2. 13.50 1. 0. 0. .71 DD692 24. 13.50 11. 4. 1. .71 D69D70 20. 14.00 10. 4. 1. .71 D70 330. 12.17 25. 7. 2. .26 RD70 1. 9.00 1. 0. 0. .26 DD70RE 330. 12.17 25. 7. 2. .26 D70A 532. 12.17 59. 20. 7. .27 RD70A 532. 12.17 49. 14. 5. .27 DD70AR 104. 12.42 19. 6. 2. .27 D70A70 44. 13.58 18. 6. 2. .27 CPD70 363. 15.42 261. 125. 48. 13.76 SRD70 180. 20.25 176. 114. 45. 13.76 D70D71 180. 20.25 175. 114. 45. 13.76 D71 473. 12.17 50. 17. 6. .24 RD71 473. 12.17 40. 11. 4. .24 DD71RE 158. 12.33 18. 6. 2. .24 CPD71 185. 19.83 180. 116. 46. 14.00 D71D72 185. 19.92 180. 116. 46. 14.00 D59 1581. 12.25 218. 75. 25. .99 RD59 1581. 12.25 188. 53. 18. .99 HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + 3 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + 2 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + 2 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + ROUTED TO + 2 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + ROUTED TO + 4 COMBINED AT + 4 COMBINED AT + ROUTED TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + 2 COMBINED AT + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + 3 COMBINED AT + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + Page 238 HYDROGRAPH AT Page 239 + DD59RE 280. 12.75 WT1FC02.OUT 66. 22. WT1FC02.OUT 7. .99 DIVERSION TO + RB02 492. 12.17 36. 10. 3. .54 DB02RE 673. 12.33 60. 17. 6. .54 DB02LR 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .54 DB02SD 673. 12.33 60. 17. 6. .54 B04 641. 12.08 49. 15. 5. .31 RB04 537. 12.00 25. 7. 2. .31 DB04RE 598. 12.08 29. 8. 3. .31 B04B02 205. 12.58 28. 8. 3. .31 DB02SD 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .54 CPB02 205. 12.58 28. 8. 3. .86 LR02LR 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .86 LR02SD 202. 12.58 28. 8. 3. .86 LR2D78 110. 12.92 28. 8. 3. .86 D78B 681. 12.42 115. 39. 13. .53 RD78B 681. 12.42 101. 28. 9. .53 DD78BR 144. 13.00 33. 11. 4. .53 CPD78B 747. 12.33 404. 271. 101. 32.08 78B79B 485. 12.50 310. 215. 81. 32.08 D51 474. 12.25 46. 13. 4. .29 RD51 197. 12.00 10. 3. 1. .29 DD51RE 474. 12.25 38. 10. 3. .29 D51D65 243. 13.08 37. 10. 3. .29 D65 1109. 12.17 116. 37. 12. .69 RD65 1109. 12.17 116. 36. 12. .69 DD65RE 8. 21.00 5. 1. 0. .69 CPD65 243. 13.08 37. 11. 4. .98 D65D75 187. 13.58 36. 11. 4. .98 D79A 340. 12.17 36. 12. 4. .17 RD79A 340. 12.17 34. 10. 3. .17 DD79AR 17. 13.33 7. 3. 1. .17 D75 1302. 12.25 150. 49. 16. .88 RD75 1302. 12.25 129. 35. 12. .88 DD75RE 256. 12.58 41. 13. 4. .88 CPD75 254. 13.58 83. 27. 9. 2.04 SRD75 103. 14.42 70. 27. 9. 2.04 HYDROGRAPH AT + DD47SE 65. 14.25 22. 8. 3. 3.99 D47D59 62. 14.67 22. 8. 3. 3.99 CPD59 279. 12.75 84. 30. 10. 4.99 DD59S 264. 12.75 80. 28. 9. 4.99 DD59SE 14. 12.75 4. 2. 1. 4.99 D59D61 9. 13.33 4. 2. 1. 4.99 D61 571. 12.25 78. 27. 9. .35 RD61 571. 12.25 67. 19. 6. .35 DD61RE 95. 12.75 24. 8. 3. .35 CPD61 87. 12.75 27. 9. 3. 5.34 D6172A 76. 12.83 26. 9. 3. 5.34 D71A 474. 12.17 53. 18. 6. .24 RD71A 474. 12.17 46. 13. 4. .24 DD71AR 53. 12.58 15. 5. 2. .24 DD59SE 264. 12.75 80. 28. 9. 4.99 D5971A 180. 13.17 77. 28. 9. 4.99 CPD71A 202. 13.17 89. 33. 11. 5.22 71A72A 192. 13.33 89. 33. 11. 5.22 D72A 508. 12.17 56. 19. 6. .25 RD72A 508. 12.17 50. 14. 5. .25 DD72AR 54. 12.58 16. 5. 2. .25 CPD72A 257. 13.42 127. 47. 16. 5.83 D72A72 253. 13.42 127. 47. 16. 5.83 D72 524. 12.17 57. 19. 6. .26 RD72 524. 12.17 48. 13. 4. .26 DD72RE 93. 12.42 18. 6. 2. .26 CPD72 265. 13.83 246. 160. 61. 20.09 D72D73 236. 18.08 228. 149. 57. 20.09 D73 447. 12.25 52. 17. 6. .28 RD73 447. 12.25 44. 12. 4. .28 DD73RE 89. 12.58 16. 5. 2. .28 CPD73 240. 18.00 232. 152. 58. 20.37 D73D78 239. 19.00 232. 151. 58. 20.37 B02 673. 12.33 86. 27. 9. .54 HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + 2 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + 2 COMBINED AT + 2 COMBINED AT + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + 5 COMBINED AT + 2 COMBINED AT + ROUTED TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + 3 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + 2 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + 3 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + 2 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + 3 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + Page 240 Page 241 WT1FC02.OUT WT1FC02.OUT HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + D7579B 102. 14.83 70. 27. 9. DB442 177. 12.50 59. 19. 6. 1.29 B44B45 167. 13.42 58. 19. 6. 1.29 B45 1129. 12.33 157. 53. 18. .81 RB45 1129. 12.33 113. 32. 11. .81 DB45RE 744. 12.50 67. 21. 7. .81 DB402 79. 12.33 13. 4. 1. .77 B40B45 46. 12.83 12. 4. 1. .77 DB41SE 987. 12.50 98. 28. 9. 2.18 B41B45 555. 13.17 93. 28. 9. 2.18 CPB45 855. 13.17 265. 85. 28. 4.05 B45B47 764. 13.75 256. 85. 28. 4.05 L01 268. 12.17 25. 8. 3. .16 RL01 268. 12.17 18. 5. 2. .16 DL01RE 157. 12.33 9. 3. 1. .16 L01L03 58. 12.75 8. 3. 1. .16 L03 958. 12.33 116. 35. 12. .79 RL03 958. 12.33 116. 34. 11. .79 DL03RE 1. 19.83 1. 0. 0. .79 L20 390. 12.42 47. 14. 5. .35 RL20 390. 12.42 41. 11. 4. .35 DL20RE 88. 12.83 9. 3. 1. .35 L20L03 46. 13.25 9. 3. 1. .35 CPL03 60. 13.25 17. 5. 2. 1.29 DL03S 37. 12.67 15. 5. 2. 1.29 DL03SE 23. 13.25 2. 0. 0. 1.29 L03L04 18. 13.58 2. 0. 0. 1.29 L04 663. 12.42 82. 24. 8. .63 RL04 663. 12.42 81. 22. 7. .63 DL04RE 8. 15.67 6. 2. 1. .63 CPL04 17. 13.58 6. 2. 1. 1.93 DL04S 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.93 DL04SE 17. 13.58 6. 2. 1. 1.93 L04L05 6. 17.25 5. 2. 1. 1.93 L02 1737. 12.58 279. 85. 28. 1.88 RL02 1737. 12.58 219. 59. 20. 1.88 2.04 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + D79B 538. 12.17 64. 21. 7. .32 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RD79B 538. 12.17 51. 14. 5. .32 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD79BR 203. 12.42 23. 7. 2. .32 HYDROGRAPH AT 3 COMBINED AT + + CPD79B 491. 12.58 341. 234. 87. 34.44 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + D79B80 499. 12.58 341. 234. 87. 34.44 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + D80 257. 12.08 22. 7. 2. .13 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RD80 257. 12.08 17. 5. 2. .13 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD80RE 124. 12.25 8. 3. 1. .13 5 COMBINED AT 2 COMBINED AT + + CPD80 514. 12.58 343. 236. 87. 34.57 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + B01 194. 12.08 16. 5. 2. .10 HYDROGRAPH AT 3 COMBINED AT + + DUMMY 8751. 12.58 1944. 705. 254. 69.06 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + B03 581. 12.17 61. 20. 7. .34 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RB03 581. 12.17 56. 15. 5. .34 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DB03RE 40. 12.83 13. 5. 2. .34 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + B03B05 33. 13.25 13. 5. 2. .34 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + B05 610. 12.25 74. 25. 8. .40 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RB05 588. 12.25 47. 13. 4. .40 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DB05RE 539. 12.33 38. 11. 4. .40 DIVERSION TO 2 COMBINED AT + + CPB05 537. 12.33 50. 16. 5. .73 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + B05B06 281. 12.58 48. 16. 5. .73 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + B06 622. 12.17 64. 20. 7. .40 3 COMBINED AT DIVERSION TO + + RB06 135. 11.92 16. 5. 2. .40 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DB06RE 622. 12.17 56. 15. 5. .40 HYDROGRAPH AT 2 COMBINED AT + + CPB06 620. 12.17 102. 31. 10. 1.13 ROUTED TO ROUTED TO + + B06B15 423. 12.67 100. 31. 10. 1.13 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + B07 309. 12.33 32. 9. 3. .25 DIVERSION TO DIVERSION TO + + RB07 309. 12.33 32. 9. 3. .25 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DB07RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .25 2 COMBINED AT ROUTED TO + + B07B09 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .25 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + B08 500. 12.08 43. 14. 5. .23 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RB08 500. 12.08 43. 13. 4. .23 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DB08RE 7. 15.92 5. 2. 1. .23 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + B08B09 7. 16.58 5. 2. 1. .23 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + Page 242 Page 250 WT1FC02.OUT + WT1FC02.OUT 3. 1. DL07S 7. 13.83 0. 2.62 DL07SE 29. 13.83 11. 4. 1. 2.62 L07L08 29. 14.00 11. 4. 1. 2.62 L08 647. 12.33 87. 27. 9. .49 RL08 647. 12.33 86. 23. 8. .49 DL08RE 15. 14.50 8. 3. 1. .49 DL04SE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.93 L04L08 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.93 CPL08 36. 14.50 19. 7. 2. 3.74 L08L12 29. 15.50 18. 7. 2. 3.74 L10 845. 12.42 103. 30. 10. .84 RL10 845. 12.42 65. 17. 6. .84 DL10RE 647. 12.58 46. 13. 4. .84 L10L11 441. 12.83 45. 13. 4. .84 DL06SE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .70 L06L11 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .70 L11 744. 12.33 94. 29. 10. .62 RL11 744. 12.33 89. 24. 8. .62 DL11RE 46. 13.25 15. 5. 2. .62 DL07SE 7. 13.83 3. 1. 0. 2.62 L07L11 6. 15.25 3. 1. 0. 2.62 CPL11 439. 12.83 61. 19. 6. 4.09 DL11S 3. 12.83 0. 0. 0. 4.09 DL11SE 434. 12.83 60. 18. 6. 4.09 L11L12 354. 13.00 60. 18. 6. 4.09 L12 586. 12.25 68. 22. 7. .36 RL12 586. 12.25 60. 16. 5. .36 DL12RE 90. 12.67 16. 5. 2. .36 CPL12 385. 13.00 89. 30. 10. 5.56 DL121S 68. 13.00 16. 5. 2. 5.56 DL121 318. 13.00 73. 25. 8. 5.56 DL122S 4. 13.00 1. 0. 0. 5.56 DL122 314. 13.00 72. 24. 8. 5.56 L12L13 280. 13.08 71. 24. 8. 5.56 CPL13 502. 13.25 176. 67. 22. 8.90 HYDROGRAPH AT + DL02RE 891. 12.92 88. 26. 9. 1.88 L02L05 584. 13.08 87. 26. 9. 1.88 L05 660. 12.33 84. 27. 9. .49 RL05 660. 12.33 61. 17. 6. .49 DL05RE 406. 12.50 33. 10. 3. .49 CPL05 636. 13.08 121. 38. 13. 4.30 L05L09 574. 13.17 119. 38. 13. 4.30 L09 657. 12.33 85. 27. 9. .49 RL09 657. 12.33 85. 26. 9. .49 DL09RE 6. 20.92 4. 1. 0. .49 CPL09 574. 13.17 119. 39. 13. 4.78 L0913B 540. 13.25 118. 39. 13. 4.78 DL13BR 314. 13.25 49. 14. 5. 4.78 DL13BN 225. 13.25 69. 24. 8. 4.78 DL13BN 314. 13.25 49. 14. 5. 4.78 SRL13B 22. 15.25 21. 14. 5. 4.78 CPL13B 245. 13.25 89. 39. 13. 4.78 L13B13 244. 13.33 89. 39. 13. 4.78 L13 860. 12.17 109. 38. 13. .48 RL13 860. 12.17 91. 26. 9. .48 DL13RE 190. 12.50 36. 12. 4. .48 L06 914. 12.33 107. 33. 11. .70 RL06 914. 12.33 107. 33. 11. .70 DL06RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .70 DL06S 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .70 DL06SE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .70 L06L07 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .70 L07 816. 12.33 101. 31. 10. .63 RL07 816. 12.33 101. 31. 10. .63 DL07RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .63 DL03SE 37. 12.67 15. 5. 2. 1.29 L0307A 37. 13.58 14. 5. 2. 1.29 L0307B 37. 13.83 14. 5. 2. 1.29 CPL07 37. 13.83 14. 5. 2. 2.62 HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + 3 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + 3 COMBINED AT + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + 2 COMBINED AT + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + 2 COMBINED AT + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + 4 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + 3 COMBINED AT + DIVERSION TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + ROUTED TO + 3 COMBINED AT + 3 COMBINED AT + DIVERSION TO Page 251 Page 252 WT1FC02.OUT WT1FC02.OUT ROUTED TO + L13DS5 493. 13.33 176. 67. 22. 8.90 DS5L19 485. 13.33 175. 67. 22. 8.90 L14 269. 12.25 24. 7. 2. .23 RL14 269. 12.25 24. 7. 2. .23 DL14RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .23 L14L15 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .23 L15 438. 12.25 40. 11. 4. .37 RL15 438. 12.25 40. 11. 4. .37 DL15RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .37 CPL15 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .60 L15L16 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .60 L16 582. 12.33 58. 17. 6. .50 RL16 582. 12.33 58. 17. 6. .50 DL16RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .50 CPL16 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.10 L16L17 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.10 L17 586. 12.33 72. 23. 8. .50 RL17 586. 12.33 72. 23. 8. .50 DL17RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .50 CPL17 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.61 DL17S 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.61 DL17SE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.61 L17L18 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.61 L18 604. 12.25 58. 17. 6. .50 RL18 604. 12.25 58. 17. 6. .50 DL18RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .50 DL11SE 3. 12.83 0. 0. 0. 4.09 L11L18 1. 13.75 0. 0. 0. 4.09 DL121 68. 13.00 16. 5. 2. 5.56 L12L18 48. 13.58 15. 5. 2. 5.56 CPL18 44. 13.58 14. 5. 2. 7.67 DL181S 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 7.67 DL181 44. 13.58 14. 5. 2. 7.67 DL182S 2. 13.58 1. 0. 0. 7.67 DL182 42. 13.58 13. 5. 2. 7.67 ROUTED TO + L18L19 37. 13.92 13. 5. 2. 7.67 L19 877. 12.17 110. 38. 13. .49 RL19 877. 12.17 91. 26. 9. .49 DL19RE 205. 12.50 37. 12. 4. .49 DL122 4. 13.00 1. 0. 0. 5.56 L12L19 2. 14.25 1. 0. 0. 5.56 CPL19 511. 13.42 207. 79. 26. 11.50 L19DS7 508. 13.42 207. 79. 26. 11.50 DS7L27 496. 13.50 206. 79. 26. 11.50 L23 922. 12.33 102. 30. 10. .90 RL23 922. 12.33 102. 30. 10. .90 DL23RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .90 L23L24 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .90 L24 624. 12.25 60. 18. 6. .50 RL24 624. 12.25 60. 18. 6. .50 DL24RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .50 CPL24 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.40 L24L26 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.40 L25 261. 12.33 29. 8. 3. .24 RL25 261. 12.33 29. 8. 3. .24 DL25RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .24 L25L26 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .24 DL181 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 7.67 L18L26 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 7.67 DL17SE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.61 L17L26 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.61 L26 980. 12.25 103. 32. 11. .76 RL26 980. 12.25 103. 29. 10. .76 DL26RE 9. 17.50 7. 2. 1. .76 CPL26 5. 20.83 3. 1. 0. 10.07 DL26S 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 10.07 DL26SE 5. 20.83 3. 1. 0. 10.07 L26L27 5. 23.00 3. 1. 0. 10.07 L27 906. 12.17 113. 39. 13. .51 ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + 4 COMBINED AT + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + 2 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + 2 COMBINED AT + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + 2 COMBINED AT + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + 2 COMBINED AT + DIVERSION TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + 5 COMBINED AT + 4 COMBINED AT + DIVERSION TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + Page 253 DIVERSION TO Page 254 + RL27 906. 12.17 WT1FC02.OUT 91. 26. 9. .51 DL27RE 250. 12.42 41. 13. 4. .51 DL182 2. 13.58 1. 0. 0. 7.67 L18L27 2. 14.75 1. 0. 0. 7.67 CPL27 518. 13.58 225. 87. 29. 14.41 L27L34 510. 13.67 224. 87. 29. 14.41 DL34BR 58. 13.67 4. 1. 0. 14.41 FCIP-MB2.out HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + 1***************************************** * * * FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) * * JUN 1998 * * VERSION 4.1 * * * * RUN DATE 02SEP09 TIME 19:08:35 * * * ***************************************** *************************************** * * * U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS * * HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER * * 609 SECOND STREET * * DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 * * (916) 756-1104 * * * *************************************** 4 COMBINED AT + ROUTED TO + X X X X X X XXXXXXX X X X X X X DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + DL34BN 452. 13.67 220. 86. 29. 14.41 DL34BN 58. 13.67 4. 1. 0. 14.41 SRL34B 11. 14.00 4. 1. 0. 14.41 CPL34 458. 13.67 224. 87. 29. 14.41 L34B34 456. 13.75 224. 87. 29. 14.41 L33 627. 12.42 65. 17. 6. .65 RL33 435. 12.25 21. 5. 2. .65 DL33RE 627. 12.42 46. 12. 4. .65 DL33S 1. 12.42 0. 0. 0. .65 DL33SE 625. 12.42 46. 12. 4. .65 L33L34 539. 12.58 46. 12. 4. .65 L34 917. 12.17 115. 40. 13. .51 RL34 917. 12.17 97. 27. 9. .51 DL34RE 181. 12.58 38. 12. 4. .51 DL26SE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 10.07 L26L34 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 10.07 CPL34B 517. 12.58 283. 107. 36. 15.58 34DS11 514. 12.67 282. 107. 36. 15.58 DS1139 510. 12.75 282. 107. 36. 15.58 L39A 545. 12.08 57. 20. 7. .26 CPL39A 549. 12.75 311. 123. 42. 15.84 DL39BR 63. 12.75 10. 3. 1. 15.84 DL39BN 486. 12.75 301. 121. 41. 15.84 L28 406. 12.25 42. 13. 4. .31 XXXXXXX X X XXXX X X XXXXXXX XXXXX X X X X X X XXXXX X XXXXX X XX X X X X XXX HYDROGRAPH AT + THIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC-1 KNOWN AS HEC1 (JAN 73), HEC1GS, HEC1DB, AND HEC1KW. ROUTED TO + THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES -RTIMP- AND -RTIOR- HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE USED WITH THE 1973-STYLE INPUT STRUCTURE. THE DEFINITION OF -AMSKK- ON RM-CARD WAS CHANGED WITH REVISIONS DATED 28 SEP 81. THIS IS THE FORTRAN77 VERSION NEW OPTIONS: DAMBREAK OUTFLOW SUBMERGENCE , SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION, DSS:WRITE STAGE FREQUENCY, DSS:READ TIME SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULATION INTERVAL LOSS RATE:GREEN AND AMPT INFILTRATION KINEMATIC WAVE: NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM 2 COMBINED AT + ROUTED TO + 1 HEC-1 INPUT PAGE 1 PAGE 2 HYDROGRAPH AT + LINE DIVERSION TO + 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + 4 COMBINED AT + ID.......1.......2.......3.......4.......5.......6.......7.......8.......9......10 ID Flood Control District of Maricopa ID L303_FU_CIP_MB02 - Loop 303/ White ID 100 YEAR ID 24 Hour Storm ID Unit Hydrograph: S-Graph ID 09/02/2009 FCDMC CONTRACT 2007C031 ID ID BY HDR ENGINEERING (#79902) ID FUTURE CONDITIONS-SEPTEMBER 2009 ID MAJOR BASIN 02 ID FILE NAME: FCIP-MB2.DAT IT 5 0 0 2000 IN 15 IO 3 *DIAGRAM * JD 3.941 0.0001 PC 0.000 0.002 0.005 0.008 0.011 PC 0.029 0.032 0.035 0.038 0.041 PC 0.064 0.068 0.072 0.076 0.080 PC 0.110 0.115 0.120 0.126 0.133 PC 0.181 0.191 0.203 0.218 0.236 PC 0.735 0.758 0.776 0.791 0.804 PC 0.856 0.863 0.869 0.875 0.881 PC 0.913 0.918 0.922 0.926 0.930 PC 0.953 0.956 0.959 0.962 0.965 PC 0.983 0.986 0.989 0.992 0.995 JD 3.843 5.0 JD 3.744 10.0 JD 3.646 20.0 JD 3.547 30.0 JD 3.429 60.0 * County Tanks ADMPU AHA 0.014 0.044 0.085 0.140 0.257 0.815 0.887 0.934 0.968 0.998 0.017 0.048 0.090 0.147 0.283 0.825 0.893 0.938 0.971 1.000 0.020 0.052 0.095 0.155 0.387 0.834 0.898 0.942 0.974 0.023 0.056 0.100 0.163 0.663 0.842 0.903 0.946 0.977 0.026 0.060 0.105 0.172 0.707 0.849 0.908 0.950 0.980 L21BASIN BASIN BOUNDARY FROM MCMICKEN DAM ON THE WEST AND THE BEARDSLEY CSR ON THE EAST 0.525 0.33 0.24 4.55 0.44 14 0 21 21 21 27 70 79 96 124 136 151 163 189 232 260 263 185 169 155 139 127 114 105 95 42 37 36 34 31 21 21 21 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 107 226 77 16 7 116 200 60 6 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ROUTED TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + 2 COMBINED AT + 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 KK KM KM BA LG UI UI UI UI UI * 41 42 43 44 45 KK KM DT DI DQ * DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + + RL28 406. 12.25 41. 11. 4. .31 DL28RE 12. 13.58 5. 2. 1. .31 L28L29 10. 14.33 5. 2. 1. .31 L29 303. 12.33 35. 11. 4. .25 HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + 1 Page 255 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 HEC-1 INPUT LINE DIVERSION TO DL21REDIVERT Mass grading and Storage along canal RL21 81.8 0.0 0.0 500.0 5000.0 50000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 500.0 5000.0 50000.0 0.0 0.0 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 ID.......1.......2.......3.......4.......5.......6.......7.......8.......9......10 KK KM KM RS RC RX RY * L21L22ROUTE Cross-section determined from A-team survey Manning's N Value: earth w/sparse trees and brush, ponding against canal 1 FLOW 0.032 0.032 0.032 8793 0.0020 0.00 100.00 101.00 107.00 117.00 169.00 409.00 512.00 513.00 1328.1 1328.00 1326.00 1324.00 1324.10 1326.00 1328.00 1328.10 Page 1 6-HR + (AC-FT) 628. (HR) 34.17 FCIP-MB2.out 72-HR 166.58-HR 24-HR FCIP-MB2.out DIVERSION TO + 628. 628. 628. DW02 544. 12.33 39. 10. 3. 0.39 DW02RE 335. 12.50 20. 6. 2. 0.39 CPW02 454. 12.50 41. 11. 4. 1.47 W02W05 343. 12.58 40. 11. 4. 1.47 W03 1998. 12.33 273. 83. 28. 1.97 W03W04 1629. 12.58 272. 83. 28. 1.97 W04 2200. 12.33 312. 94. 31. 2.03 DW04 71. 11.08 33. 11. 4. 2.03 DW04RE 2200. 12.33 307. 83. 28. 2.03 CPW04 3313. 12.42 577. 165. 55. 4.01 W04W05 3103. 12.58 576. 165. 55. 4.01 W05 422. 12.33 42. 12. 4. 0.32 DW05 422. 12.33 37. 10. 3. 0.32 DW05RE 108. 12.67 7. 2. 1. 0.32 CPW05 3406. 12.58 616. 176. 59. 5.79 DW05S 1808. 12.58 320. 102. 34. 5.79 DW05SE 1598. 12.58 296. 74. 25. 5.79 W0512A 1426. 12.75 296. 74. 25. 5.79 W06 1115. 12.17 99. 30. 10. 0.71 W07 751. 12.08 75. 26. 9. 0.31 DW07 399. 12.00 36. 11. 4. 0.31 DW07RE 751. 12.08 52. 15. 5. 0.31 CPW07 1797. 12.17 147. 44. 15. 1.02 W07W08 1521. 12.25 147. 44. 15. 1.02 W08 917. 12.08 72. 21. 7. 0.45 CPW08 2276. 12.17 217. 66. 22. 1.47 W09 748. 12.08 54. 16. 5. 0.34 DW09 86. 11.75 9. 3. 1. 0.34 DW09RE 748. 12.08 50. 13. 4. 0.34 CPW09 2952. 12.17 266. 79. 26. 1.80 W09W10 2382. 12.25 266. 79. 26. 1.80 W10 2114. 12.17 217. 64. 21. 1.34 CPW10 4343. 12.25 480. 142. 48. 3.14 W11 1334. 12.17 132. 39. 13. 0.81 CPW11 5537. 12.25 610. 181. 60. 3.95 571. HYDROGRAPH AT PEAK STAGE TIME MAXIMUM AVERAGE STAGE 24-HR 72-HR 6-HR + (FEET) 1042.82 (HR) 34.17 + 166.58-HR 2 COMBINED AT 1042.82 1042.81 CUMULATIVE AREA = 1042.81 1042.36 + 20.31 SQ MI ROUTED TO + *** *** *** *** *** HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT STATION SRS60 TRANSPOSITION AREA 60.0 SQ MI ROUTED TO + PEAK OUTFLOW IS 0. AT TIME 0.00 HOURS HYDROGRAPH AT + PEAK FLOW TIME MAXIMUM AVERAGE FLOW 24-HR 72-HR 6-HR + (CFS) 166.58-HR DIVERSION TO (HR) + (CFS) + 0. 0.00 (INCHES) (AC-FT) 0. 0.000 0. 0. 0.000 0. 0. 0.000 0. 0. 0.000 0. HYDROGRAPH AT + 2 COMBINED AT PEAK STORAGE TIME MAXIMUM AVERAGE STORAGE 24-HR 72-HR 6-HR + (AC-FT) 574. (HR) 34.50 PEAK STAGE ROUTED TO 574. 574. TIME (FEET) 1041.83 (HR) 34.50 575. 522. MAXIMUM AVERAGE STAGE 24-HR 72-HR 6-HR + + 166.58-HR 1041.83 1041.81 1041.81 + HYDROGRAPH AT 166.58-HR + 1041.41 DIVERSION TO + CUMULATIVE AREA = 20.31 SQ MI HYDROGRAPH AT *** *** *** *** *** + 3 COMBINED AT + INTERPOLATED HYDROGRAPH AT SRS60 DIVERSION TO PEAK FLOW TIME (CFS) (HR) MAXIMUM AVERAGE FLOW 24-HR 72-HR 6-HR + + 166.58-HR HYDROGRAPH AT (CFS) + 0. 0.00 (INCHES) (AC-FT) + 0. 0.000 0. 0. 0.000 0. CUMULATIVE AREA = 0. 0.000 0. 0. 0.000 0. ROUTED TO + 20.31 SQ MI HYDROGRAPH AT + 1 RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO OPERATION STATION PEAK FLOW TIME OF PEAK + AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR BASIN AREA MAXIMUM STAGE TIME OF MAX STAGE + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + L21 273. 13.25 70. 20. 7. 0.52 RL21 273. 13.25 70. 20. 7. 0.52 DL21RE 0. 0.00 0. 0. 0. 0.52 L21L22 0. 0.00 0. 0. 0. 0.52 L22 87. 13.67 32. 8. 3. 0.36 RL22 87. 13.67 32. 8. 3. 0.36 DL22RE 0. 0.00 0. 0. 0. 0.36 CPL22 0. 0.00 0. 0. 0. 0.89 L22W01 0. 0.00 0. 0. 0. 0.89 W01 151. 12.50 21. 5. 2. 0.19 CPW01 150. 12.50 21. 5. 2. 1.08 W01W02 141. 12.67 21. 5. 2. 1.08 W02 544. 12.33 55. 16. 5. 0.39 2 COMBINED AT + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + 2 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + 2 COMBINED AT + 2 COMBINED AT + ROUTED TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + 2 COMBINED AT + 2 COMBINED AT + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + 2 COMBINED AT + Page 404 Page 405 Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road PEORIA AVENUE CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road APPENDIX II MODIFIED HYDROLOGIC MODEL (50-YEAR PEAK FLOWS ESTIMATION) Peoria Avenue Watershed on FCDMC’s NOAA 14 Map No. 62 Legend White Tanks ADMPU Major Sub-basin Boundary Peoria Ave. / Dysart Road Boundary Source: FCDMC April 2011 Not to Scale Maricopa County Department of Transporation Drainage Design Management System RAINFALL DATA Project Reference: 1001D - PEORIA AVE Page 1 12/8/2010 ID Method Duration 2 Year 5 Year 10 Year 25 Year 50 Year 100 Year DEFAULT NOAA14 NOAA14 NOAA14 NOAA14 NOAA14 NOAA14 NOAA14 NOAA14 NOAA14 NOAA14 5 MIN 10 MIN 15 MIN 30 MIN 1 HOUR 2 HOUR 3 HOUR 6 HOUR 12 HOUR 24 HOUR 0.235 0.358 0.444 0.598 0.740 0.845 0.878 1.011 1.132 1.435 0.320 0.488 0.604 0.814 1.007 1.133 1.161 1.302 1.437 1.854 0.386 0.587 0.728 0.980 1.213 1.355 1.385 1.534 1.678 2.182 0.474 0.722 0.895 1.205 1.492 1.656 1.691 1.853 2.002 2.637 0.543 0.826 1.025 1.380 1.708 1.889 1.938 2.104 2.249 2.996 0.615 0.935 1.160 1.562 1.933 2.132 2.201 2.365 2.507 3.372 WT1FC02_B.out 1***************************************** * * * FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) * * JUN 1998 * * VERSION 4.1 * * * * RUN DATE 09DEC10 TIME 15:17:54 * * * ***************************************** *************************************** * * * U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS * * HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER * * 609 SECOND STREET * * DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 * * (916) 756-1104 * * * *************************************** X X X X X X XXXXXXX X X X X X X XXXXXXX X X XXXX X X XXXXXXX XXXXX X X X X X X XXXXX X XXXXX X XX X X X X XXX THIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC-1 KNOWN AS HEC1 (JAN 73), HEC1GS, HEC1DB, AND HEC1KW. THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES -RTIMP- AND -RTIOR- HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE USED WITH THE 1973-STYLE INPUT STRUCTURE. THE DEFINITION OF -AMSKK- ON RM-CARD WAS CHANGED WITH REVISIONS DATED 28 SEP 81. THIS IS THE FORTRAN77 VERSION NEW OPTIONS: DAMBREAK OUTFLOW SUBMERGENCE , SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION, DSS:WRITE STAGE FREQUENCY, DSS:READ TIME SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULATION INTERVAL LOSS RATE:GREEN AND AMPT INFILTRATION KINEMATIC WAVE: NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM 1 HEC-1 INPUT LINE ID.......1.......2.......3.......4.......5.......6.......7.......8.......9......10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 ID Flood Control District of Maricopa County ID L303_FU_CIP_MB01 - Loop 303/ White Tanks ADMPU AHA ID 100 YEAR ID 24 Hour Storm ID Unit Hydrograph: S-Graph ID 08/18/2009 ID ID FCDMC CONTRACT 2007C031 ID BY HDR ENGINEERING (#79902) ID FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH CIP-AUGUST 2009 ID MAJOR BASIN 01 ID FILE NAME: FCIP-MB1.DAT ID ID ************************************************************************* ID ID FOLLOWING ARE THE CHANGES BY FCDMC: ID 1. Storage routing correction: removed SRD14. - JWH 10-16-09 ID 2. Diversion RMSBSN correction: replaced DQ card. ID 3. Routing RRMS correction: replace RY card. - JWH 01-07-2010 ID FILE NAME: WT1FC02.DAT ID ID FOLLOWING ARE THE CHANGES BY ANDES ENGINEERING: ID 1. Depth-area factors in JD cards replaced for 50-year event values ID JOG September 6, 2010 ID ID For details concerning changes to this HEC-1 model, please contact ID FCDMC, H&H Branch. ID ID ************************************************************************* ID IT 5 0 0 2000 IN 15 IO 5 *DIAGRAM * JD 2.996 0.001 PC 0.000 0.002 0.005 0.008 0.011 0.014 0.017 0.020 0.023 0.026 PC 0.029 0.032 0.035 0.038 0.041 0.044 0.048 0.052 0.056 0.060 PC 0.064 0.068 0.072 0.076 0.080 0.085 0.090 0.095 0.100 0.105 PC 0.110 0.115 0.120 0.126 0.133 0.140 0.147 0.155 0.163 0.172 PC 0.181 0.191 0.203 0.218 0.236 0.257 0.283 0.387 0.663 0.707 PC 0.735 0.758 0.776 0.791 0.804 0.815 0.825 0.834 0.842 0.849 PC 0.856 0.863 0.869 0.875 0.881 0.887 0.893 0.898 0.903 0.908 PC 0.913 0.918 0.922 0.926 0.930 0.934 0.938 0.942 0.946 0.950 PC 0.953 0.956 0.959 0.962 0.965 0.968 0.971 0.974 0.977 0.980 PC 0.983 0.986 0.989 0.992 0.995 0.998 1.000 JD 2.921 5.0 JD 2.846 10.0 JD 2.771 20.0 JD 2.696 30.0 JD 2.607 60.0 JD 2.553 90.0 JD 2.520 120.0 * HEC-1 INPUT 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 1 LINE 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 (stRanMulti.rpt) ID.......1.......2.......3.......4.......5.......6.......7.......8.......9......10 KK KM BA LG UI UI UI UI UI N07BASIN BASIN BOUNDARY FROM CORTE BELLA AND MCMICKEN DAM 0.570 0.16 0 36 0 0 0 0.25 107 29 0 0 0 5.40 405 29 0 0 0 0.30 604 0 0 0 0 61 990 931 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 1 612 0 0 0 0 389 0 0 0 0 172 0 0 0 0 105 0 0 0 0 PAGE 1 PAGE 2 WT1FC02_B.out WT1FC02_B.out ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + N24 325. 12.17 31. 10. 3. D11D12 22. 12.83 3. 1. 0. .66 D12 365. 12.42 52. 17. 6. .35 RD12 365. 12.42 47. 13. 4. .35 DD12RE 41. 13.08 11. 4. 1. .35 CPD12 54. 13.08 14. 5. 2. 1.01 DD121S 16. 13.08 4. 1. 0. 1.01 DD121 39. 13.08 10. 3. 1. 1.01 DD122S 19. 13.08 5. 2. 1. 1.01 DD122 19. 13.08 5. 2. 1. 1.01 D12D13 10. 14.50 5. 2. 1. 1.01 D13 1093. 12.33 129. 41. 14. 1.03 RD13 1093. 12.33 129. 41. 14. 1.03 DD13RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.03 DD04SE 244. 12.58 10. 2. 1. 1.61 D04D13 55. 13.83 10. 2. 1. 1.61 CPD13 54. 13.92 14. 4. 1. 3.65 DD131S 2. 13.92 1. 0. 0. 3.65 DD131 52. 13.92 13. 4. 1. 3.65 DD132S 12. 13.92 3. 1. 0. 3.65 DD132 40. 13.92 10. 3. 1. 3.65 D13D14 32. 14.67 10. 3. 1. 3.65 D14 932. 12.42 131. 42. 14. .94 RD14 932. 12.42 131. 41. 14. .94 DD14RE 9. 23.00 3. 1. 0. .94 DD141 48. 12.33 3. 1. 0. 1.78 D0514A 25. 13.25 3. 1. 0. 1.78 CPD14 33. 14.67 12. 4. 1. 4.76 DD142S 30. 14.67 11. 4. 1. 4.76 DD142 3. 14.67 1. 0. 0. 4.76 D14D15 3. 15.08 1. 0. 0. 4.76 D15 359. 12.17 37. 12. 4. .22 RD15 3. 1.00 1. 0. 0. .22 DD15RE 359. 12.17 37. 12. 4. .22 CPD15 355. 12.17 81. 29. 10. 4.98 D15D26 288. 12.42 81. 29. 10. 4.98 .25 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RN24 325. 12.17 23. 6. 2. .25 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DN24RE 184. 12.33 12. 4. 1. .25 HYDROGRAPH AT 2 COMBINED AT + + CPN24 677. 12.33 81. 23. 8. .77 2 COMBINED AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + N27 143. 12.17 14. 5. 2. .13 DIVERSION TO DIVERSION TO + + RN27 143. 12.17 14. 5. 2. .13 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DN27RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .13 DIVERSION TO 4 COMBINED AT + + DUMMY 1155. 12.42 210. 62. 21. 2.21 HYDROGRAPH AT 4 COMBINED AT + + DUMMY 6526. 12.58 1252. 379. 127. 15.78 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + D03 783. 12.25 90. 28. 9. .72 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RD03 783. 12.25 90. 26. 9. .72 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD03RE 10. 17.42 7. 2. 1. .72 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + D03D04 9. 18.25 7. 2. 1. .72 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + D04 949. 12.33 117. 37. 12. .89 ROUTED TO DIVERSION TO + + RD04 949. 12.33 86. 24. 8. .89 3 COMBINED AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD04RE 488. 12.58 44. 13. 4. .89 DIVERSION TO 2 COMBINED AT + + CPD04 487. 12.58 45. 15. 5. 1.61 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + DD04S 244. 12.58 10. 2. 1. 1.61 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD04SE 243. 12.58 35. 13. 4. 1.61 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + D04D05 177. 12.75 34. 13. 4. 1.61 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + D05 277. 12.17 30. 10. 3. .16 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RD05 177. 12.00 14. 4. 1. .16 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD05RE 277. 12.17 21. 6. 2. .16 HYDROGRAPH AT 2 COMBINED AT + + CPD05 274. 12.17 53. 18. 6. 1.78 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + D05D14 170. 12.33 52. 18. 6. 1.78 ROUTED TO DIVERSION TO + + DD141S 48. 12.33 3. 1. 0. 1.78 3 COMBINED AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD141 122. 12.25 49. 18. 6. 1.78 DIVERSION TO ROUTED TO + + D05D15 122. 13.25 48. 18. 6. 1.78 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + D11 667. 12.42 89. 28. 9. .66 ROUTED TO DIVERSION TO + + RD11 667. 12.42 65. 18. 6. .66 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD11RE 429. 12.58 34. 10. 3. .66 DIVERSION TO DIVERSION TO + + DD111S 356. 12.58 27. 8. 3. .66 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD111 73. 12.58 7. 2. 1. .66 3 COMBINED AT DIVERSION TO + + DD112S 33. 12.58 4. 1. 0. .66 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD112 40. 12.58 3. 1. 0. .66 ROUTED TO Page 220 Page 221 + D15D28 258. 12.58 WT1FC02_B.out 81. 29. WT1FC02_B.out 10. 4.98 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + D28 353. 12.17 32. 10. 3. DD212S 20. 13.83 6. 2. 1. 2.00 DD212 5. 13.83 2. 1. 0. 2.00 D21D22 3. 14.67 1. 1. 0. 2.00 D22 459. 12.33 55. 17. 6. .45 RD22 459. 12.33 55. 17. 6. .45 DD22RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .45 DD122 19. 13.08 5. 2. 1. 1.01 D12D22 12. 13.83 5. 2. 1. 1.01 CPD22 13. 13.83 6. 2. 1. 2.46 D22D23 11. 14.33 6. 2. 1. 2.46 D23 531. 12.33 68. 21. 7. .54 RD23 531. 12.33 68. 21. 7. .54 DD23RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .54 DD131 2. 13.92 1. 0. 0. 3.65 D13D23 2. 14.83 0. 0. 0. 3.65 CPD23 12. 14.67 6. 2. 1. 5.64 DD231S 1. 14.58 1. 0. 0. 5.64 DD231 11. 14.67 6. 2. 1. 5.64 DD232S 1. 14.58 1. 0. 0. 5.64 DD232 9. 14.67 5. 2. 1. 5.64 D23D24 9. 15.00 5. 2. 1. 5.64 D24 438. 12.42 58. 18. 6. .49 RD24 438. 12.42 58. 18. 6. .49 DD24RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .49 DD132 12. 13.92 3. 1. 0. 3.65 D13D24 10. 14.42 3. 1. 0. 3.65 CPD24 16. 14.75 7. 3. 1. 6.13 D24D25 15. 15.17 7. 3. 1. 6.13 D25 466. 12.42 59. 18. 6. .50 RD25 466. 12.42 59. 18. 6. .50 DD25RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .50 CPD25 15. 15.17 7. 3. 1. 6.63 D25D39 14. 15.50 7. 3. 1. 6.63 D39 296. 12.08 25. 8. 3. .18 RD39 296. 12.08 25. 8. 3. .18 .25 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RD28 3. 4.50 2. 0. 0. .25 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD28RE 353. 12.17 32. 10. 3. .25 HYDROGRAPH AT 2 COMBINED AT + + CPD28 388. 12.17 110. 39. 13. 5.23 DIVERSION TO ROUTED TO + + D28AFR 373. 12.25 109. 39. 13. 5.23 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + D26 919. 12.17 88. 28. 9. .64 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RD26 919. 12.17 88. 28. 9. .64 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD26RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .64 3 COMBINED AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD142 30. 14.67 11. 4. 1. 4.76 ROUTED TO ROUTED TO + + D14D26 25. 15.33 11. 4. 1. 4.76 HYDROGRAPH AT 2 COMBINED AT + + CPD26 24. 15.33 11. 4. 1. 5.40 DIVERSION TO ROUTED TO + + D26D27 23. 15.58 11. 4. 1. 5.40 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + D27 414. 12.25 43. 14. 5. .32 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RD27 142. 12.00 13. 4. 1. .32 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD27RE 414. 12.25 35. 10. 3. .32 3 COMBINED AT 2 COMBINED AT + + CPD27 407. 12.25 44. 13. 4. 5.72 DIVERSION TO ROUTED TO + + SRD27 406. 12.17 44. 13. 4. 5.72 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + D27D42 242. 12.67 42. 13. 4. 5.72 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + D20 484. 12.33 59. 18. 6. .50 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RD20 484. 12.33 59. 18. 6. .50 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD20RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .50 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD111 356. 12.58 27. 8. 3. .66 DIVERSION TO ROUTED TO + + D11D20 122. 13.17 25. 8. 3. .66 HYDROGRAPH AT 2 COMBINED AT + + CPD20 120. 13.17 25. 8. 3. 1.16 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + D20D21 85. 13.83 23. 8. 3. 1.16 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + D21 460. 12.42 59. 18. 6. .50 3 COMBINED AT DIVERSION TO + + RD21 460. 12.42 59. 18. 6. .50 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD21RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .50 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD112 33. 12.58 4. 1. 0. .66 DIVERSION TO ROUTED TO + + D11D21 10. 13.75 4. 1. 0. .66 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD121 16. 13.08 4. 1. 0. 1.01 2 COMBINED AT ROUTED TO + + D12D21 13. 13.25 4. 1. 0. 1.01 ROUTED TO 4 COMBINED AT + + CPD21 101. 13.83 30. 10. 3. 2.00 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + DD211S 76. 13.83 23. 8. 3. 2.00 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD211 25. 13.83 7. 3. Page 222 1. 2.00 Page 223 WT1FC02_B.out HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD39RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. WT1FC02_B.out 7. 2. RD52 16. 11.25 1. .59 DD52RE 536. 12.42 65. 17. 6. .59 D52D66 382. 13.00 65. 17. 6. .59 D66 364. 12.25 40. 13. 4. .30 RD66 364. 12.25 40. 13. 4. .30 DD66RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .30 CPD66 382. 13.00 65. 17. 6. .89 D66D67 375. 13.08 64. 17. 6. .89 D67 386. 12.25 43. 14. 5. .32 RD67 359. 12.17 25. 7. 2. .32 DD67RE 350. 12.33 24. 7. 2. .32 CPD67 425. 12.33 88. 24. 8. 1.20 D76 143. 12.25 16. 5. 2. .11 RD76 140. 12.17 10. 3. 1. .11 DD76RE 117. 12.33 8. 2. 1. .11 D76D77 89. 12.42 8. 2. 1. .11 D77 526. 12.17 55. 18. 6. .36 CPD77 526. 12.17 62. 20. 7. .47 DUMMY 6913. 12.58 1415. 434. 146. 34.40 D35 367. 12.17 32. 10. 3. .25 RD35 367. 12.17 32. 10. 3. .25 DD35RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .25 DD231 1. 14.58 1. 0. 0. 5.64 D23D35 1. 15.25 1. 0. 0. 5.64 CPD35 1. 15.25 1. 0. 0. 5.90 DD35S 0. 15.25 0. 0. 0. 5.90 DD35SE 1. 15.25 0. 0. 0. 5.90 D35D38 1. 16.17 0. 0. 0. 5.90 D38 368. 12.25 43. 14. 5. .32 RD38 368. 12.25 43. 14. 5. .32 DD38RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .32 DD232 1. 14.58 1. 0. 0. 5.64 D23D38 1. 16.33 1. 0. 0. 5.64 CPD38 2. 16.33 1. 0. 0. 6.22 D38D40 2. 17.75 1. 0. 0. 6.22 D32 297. 12.25 31. 10. 3. .25 .18 HYDROGRAPH AT 2 COMBINED AT + + CPD39 14. 15.50 7. 3. 1. 6.81 ROUTED TO ROUTED TO + + D39D42 13. 16.42 7. 2. 1. 6.81 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + D42 1107. 12.33 128. 40. 13. .99 DIVERSION TO DIVERSION TO + + RD42 1107. 12.33 128. 38. 13. .99 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD42RE 8. 20.75 6. 1. 0. .99 2 COMBINED AT 3 COMBINED AT + + CPD42 242. 12.67 47. 17. 6. 9.87 ROUTED TO ROUTED TO + + SRD42 136. 12.92 40. 14. 5. 9.87 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + D42D53 128. 13.17 39. 14. 5. 9.87 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + D53 159. 12.17 13. 4. 1. .12 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RD53 159. 12.17 13. 4. 1. .12 2 COMBINED AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD53RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .12 HYDROGRAPH AT 2 COMBINED AT + + CPD53 128. 13.17 39. 14. 5. 9.99 DIVERSION TO ROUTED TO + + SRD53 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 9.99 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + D53D54 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 9.99 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + D43 536. 12.33 63. 20. 7. .50 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RD43 536. 12.33 63. 19. 6. .50 2 COMBINED AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD43RE 4. 22.83 2. 0. 0. .50 3 COMBINED AT ROUTED TO + + D43D54 4. 25.08 2. 0. 0. .50 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + D54 298. 12.25 28. 8. 3. .27 DIVERSION TO DIVERSION TO + + RD54 278. 12.17 17. 5. 2. .27 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD54RE 259. 12.33 14. 4. 1. .27 HYDROGRAPH AT 3 COMBINED AT + + CPD54 233. 12.33 12. 3. 1. 10.76 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + D44 508. 12.33 64. 20. 7. .54 2 COMBINED AT DIVERSION TO + + RD44 508. 12.33 60. 16. 5. .54 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD44RE 34. 13.17 11. 4. 1. .54 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + D55 201. 12.25 19. 6. 2. .19 ROUTED TO DIVERSION TO + + RD55 201. 12.25 19. 5. 2. .19 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD55RE 3. 14.58 2. 1. 0. .19 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + D56 222. 12.33 24. 7. 2. .22 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RD56 121. 12.08 8. 2. 1. .22 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD56RE 222. 12.33 18. 5. 2. .22 ROUTED TO 4 COMBINED AT + + DUMMY 434. 12.33 35. 11. 4. 11.71 3 COMBINED AT 3 COMBINED AT + + DUMMY 6526. 12.58 1303. 400. 134. 32.72 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + D52 536. 12.42 67. 20. 7. .59 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + Page 224 Page 225 WT1FC02_B.out WT1FC02_B.out HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RD32 297. 12.25 31. 10. 3. DD361 2. 15.50 1. 0. 0. 7.64 DD362S 2. 15.50 1. 0. 0. 7.64 DD362 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 7.64 D36D40 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 7.64 D40 378. 12.17 33. 10. 3. .24 RD40 378. 12.17 33. 10. 3. .24 DD40RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .24 CPD40 2. 17.75 1. 0. 0. 8.20 D4049A 2. 18.33 1. 0. 0. 8.20 D4049B 2. 18.75 1. 0. 0. 8.20 D47 868. 12.42 124. 39. 13. 1.00 RD47 868. 12.42 124. 39. 13. 1.00 DD47RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.00 DD32SE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .25 D3247A 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .25 D3247B 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .25 DD331 35. 14.17 12. 4. 1. 3.00 D3347A 34. 14.42 12. 4. 1. 3.00 D3347B 28. 14.92 11. 4. 1. 3.00 CPD47 28. 14.92 11. 4. 1. 3.99 DD47S 25. 14.92 10. 4. 1. 3.99 DD47SE 3. 14.92 1. 1. 0. 3.99 D47D48 2. 17.33 1. 1. 0. 3.99 D48 765. 12.50 108. 32. 11. 1.00 RD48 765. 12.50 108. 32. 11. 1.00 DD48RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.00 DD332 15. 14.17 5. 2. 1. 3.00 D33D48 9. 16.08 4. 2. 1. 3.00 DD361 19. 15.50 9. 3. 1. 7.64 D3648A 18. 16.08 9. 3. 1. 7.64 D3648B 18. 16.33 9. 3. 1. 7.64 CPD48 25. 16.50 13. 5. 2. 9.63 DD481S 21. 16.50 11. 5. 2. 9.63 DD481 4. 16.50 2. 1. 0. 9.63 DD482S 1. 16.50 0. 0. 0. 9.63 .25 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD32RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .25 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + DD32S 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .25 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD32SE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .25 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + D32D33 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .25 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + D31 543. 12.25 59. 18. 6. .50 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RD31 543. 12.25 59. 18. 6. .50 3 COMBINED AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD31RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .50 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD211 76. 13.83 23. 8. 3. 2.00 ROUTED TO ROUTED TO + + D21D31 72. 14.00 23. 8. 3. 2.00 HYDROGRAPH AT 2 COMBINED AT + + CPD31 72. 14.00 22. 8. 3. 2.50 DIVERSION TO ROUTED TO + + D31D33 65. 14.17 22. 8. 3. 2.50 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + D33 312. 12.25 32. 10. 3. .25 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RD33 312. 12.25 32. 9. 3. .25 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD33RE 2. 20.75 2. 0. 0. .25 ROUTED TO 3 COMBINED AT + + CPD33 64. 14.17 22. 8. 3. 3.00 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + DD331S 35. 14.17 12. 4. 1. 3.00 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD331 30. 14.17 10. 4. 1. 3.00 ROUTED TO DIVERSION TO + + DD332S 15. 14.17 5. 2. 1. 3.00 3 COMBINED AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD332 15. 14.17 5. 2. 1. 3.00 DIVERSION TO ROUTED TO + + D33D34 13. 14.83 5. 2. 1. 3.00 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + D34 571. 12.25 62. 19. 6. .50 ROUTED TO DIVERSION TO + + RD34 571. 12.25 62. 19. 6. .50 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD34RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .50 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD212 20. 13.83 6. 2. 1. 2.00 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + D21D34 15. 14.42 6. 2. 1. 2.00 HYDROGRAPH AT 3 COMBINED AT + + CPD34 26. 14.75 11. 4. 1. 3.50 ROUTED TO ROUTED TO + + D34D36 24. 15.33 10. 4. 1. 3.50 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + D36 333. 12.17 31. 10. 3. .25 ROUTED TO DIVERSION TO + + RD36 333. 12.17 31. 9. 3. .25 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD36RE 2. 20.92 2. 0. 0. .25 4 COMBINED AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD35SE 0. 15.25 0. 0. 0. 5.90 DIVERSION TO ROUTED TO + + D35D36 0. 16.50 0. 0. 0. 5.90 HYDROGRAPH AT 3 COMBINED AT + + CPD36 24. 15.33 10. 4. 1. 7.64 DIVERSION TO DIVERSION TO + + DD361S 19. 15.50 9. 3. 1. 7.64 HYDROGRAPH AT Page 226 Page 227 + DD482 3. 16.50 WT1FC02_B.out 1. 1. WT1FC02_B.out 0. 9.63 ROUTED TO ROUTED TO + + D48D49 3. 17.00 1. 1. 0. D64D74 63. 14.83 56. 30. 10. 11.84 D73A 321. 12.17 33. 11. 4. .24 RD73A 321. 12.17 25. 7. 2. .24 DD73AR 135. 12.42 13. 4. 1. .24 DD621 11. 14.00 6. 2. 1. .25 D6273A 9. 14.83 6. 2. 1. .25 CPD73A 135. 12.42 17. 6. 2. .49 D73A74 57. 12.58 16. 6. 2. .49 D74 458. 12.25 60. 21. 7. .31 RD74 458. 12.25 59. 17. 6. .31 DD74RE 15. 14.75 10. 3. 1. .31 DD622 2. 14.00 1. 0. 0. .25 D62D74 1. 16.08 1. 0. 0. .25 CPD74 78. 16.67 72. 37. 13. 12.39 SRD74 53. 24.00 50. 36. 13. 12.39 D78A 261. 12.25 35. 12. 4. .18 RD78A 261. 12.25 35. 10. 3. .18 DD78AR 8. 14.92 6. 2. 1. .18 CPD78A 56. 23.83 52. 37. 13. 12.58 D78ACP 56. 23.92 52. 37. 13. 12.58 D41 474. 12.08 39. 12. 4. .25 RD41 474. 12.08 39. 12. 4. .25 DD41RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .25 D41D50 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .25 D50 653. 12.25 77. 24. 8. .50 RD50 653. 12.25 77. 24. 8. .50 DD50RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .50 CPD50 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .76 D5064A 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .76 D64A 619. 12.25 66. 21. 7. .50 RD64A 619. 12.25 66. 21. 7. .50 DD64AR 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .50 CPD64A 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.25 64A74A 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.25 D74A 648. 12.25 76. 25. 8. .49 9.63 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + D49 598. 12.25 62. 20. 7. .49 DIVERSION TO DIVERSION TO + + RD49 32. 11.67 11. 4. 1. .49 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD49RE 598. 12.25 58. 16. 5. .49 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD362 2. 15.50 1. 0. 0. 7.64 ROUTED TO ROUTED TO + + D36D49 1. 17.08 1. 0. 0. 7.64 2 COMBINED AT 4 COMBINED AT + + CPD49 598. 12.25 60. 17. 6. 10.69 ROUTED TO ROUTED TO + + D49D63 402. 12.42 54. 16. 5. 10.69 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + D60 601. 12.17 74. 25. 8. .40 DIVERSION TO DIVERSION TO + + RD60 601. 12.17 70. 20. 7. .40 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD60RE 35. 13.42 15. 5. 2. .40 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD481 21. 16.50 11. 5. 2. 9.63 ROUTED TO ROUTED TO + + D48D60 21. 16.83 11. 5. 2. 9.63 4 COMBINED AT 2 COMBINED AT + + CPD60 36. 16.67 23. 9. 3. 10.04 ROUTED TO ROUTED TO + + D60D63 33. 16.92 22. 9. 3. 10.04 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + D63 386. 12.08 42. 15. 5. .22 DIVERSION TO DIVERSION TO + + RD63 386. 12.08 42. 12. 4. .22 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD63RE 11. 14.67 7. 2. 1. .22 2 COMBINED AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD482 1. 16.50 0. 0. 0. 9.63 ROUTED TO ROUTED TO + + D48D63 1. 21.75 0. 0. 0. 9.63 HYDROGRAPH AT 4 COMBINED AT + + CPD63 402. 12.42 71. 27. 9. 11.31 DIVERSION TO ROUTED TO + + SRD63 52. 13.33 48. 27. 9. 11.31 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + D63D64 52. 13.83 48. 27. 9. 11.31 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + D62 418. 12.17 46. 16. 5. .25 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RD62 418. 12.17 44. 13. 4. .25 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD62RE 15. 14.00 8. 3. 1. .25 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + DD621S 11. 14.00 6. 2. 1. .25 2 COMBINED AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD621 4. 14.00 2. 1. 0. .25 ROUTED TO DIVERSION TO + + DD622S 2. 14.00 1. 0. 0. .25 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD622 2. 14.00 1. 0. 0. .25 DIVERSION TO ROUTED TO + + D62D64 1. 15.58 1. 0. 0. .25 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + D64 453. 12.17 50. 17. 6. .27 2 COMBINED AT DIVERSION TO + + RD64 453. 12.17 47. 13. 4. .27 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD64RE 25. 13.33 11. 4. 1. .27 HYDROGRAPH AT 3 COMBINED AT + + CPD64 66. 13.75 57. 30. Page 228 10. 11.84 Page 229 WT1FC02_B.out DIVERSION TO + + RD74A 648. 12.25 72. 20. 7. CPD10 54. 12.75 WT1FC02_B.out 39. 19. 6. 5.65 D10D19 33. 23.25 29. 15. 5. 5.65 D08 550. 12.33 76. 24. 8. .51 RD08 550. 12.33 72. 20. 7. .51 DD08RE 30. 13.58 13. 4. 1. .51 D08D16 21. 14.50 12. 4. 1. .51 D16 783. 12.17 99. 34. 11. .52 RD16 783. 12.17 93. 27. 9. .52 DD16RE 51. 13.33 21. 8. 3. .52 CPD16 50. 13.33 33. 12. 4. 1.03 DD161S 37. 13.33 24. 9. 3. 1.03 DD161 13. 13.33 9. 3. 1. 1.03 DD162S 7. 13.33 5. 2. 1. 1.03 DD162 6. 13.33 4. 1. 0. 1.03 D16D18 6. 13.75 4. 1. 0. 1.03 D18 262. 12.17 23. 7. 2. .20 RD18 262. 12.17 23. 7. 2. .20 DD18RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .20 CPD18 6. 13.75 4. 1. 0. 1.23 D18D19 6. 15.00 4. 1. 0. 1.23 D17 266. 12.17 23. 7. 2. .20 RD17 266. 12.17 23. 7. 2. .20 DD17RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .20 D17D19 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .20 D19 466. 12.33 57. 18. 6. .51 RD19 466. 12.33 57. 18. 6. .51 DD19RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .51 CPD19 35. 15.00 27. 15. 5. 7.58 D19D30 29. 16.42 25. 13. 4. 7.58 D29 773. 12.17 97. 33. 11. .51 RD29 773. 12.17 93. 26. 9. .51 DD29RE 43. 13.58 20. 7. 2. .51 DD161 37. 13.33 24. 9. 3. 1.03 D16D29 34. 15.08 23. 9. 3. 1.03 CPD29 62. 14.25 42. 16. 5. 1.54 D29D30 57. 14.75 41. 16. 5. 1.54 .49 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD74AR 34. 13.42 14. 5. 2. .49 HYDROGRAPH AT 2 COMBINED AT + + CPD74A 34. 13.42 14. 5. 2. 1.75 DIVERSION TO ROUTED TO + + D74A78 28. 13.75 14. 5. 2. 1.75 HYDROGRAPH AT 2 COMBINED AT + + CP7874 60. 23.92 57. 40. 14. 14.32 ROUTED TO ROUTED TO + + 78A78B 60. 24.00 57. 40. 14. 14.32 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + D06 513. 12.33 64. 19. 6. .46 DIVERSION TO DIVERSION TO + + RD06 513. 12.33 60. 16. 5. .46 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD06RE 29. 13.25 9. 3. 1. .46 2 COMBINED AT DIVERSION TO + + DD06S 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .46 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD06SE 29. 13.25 9. 3. 1. .46 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + D06D07 18. 13.58 9. 3. 1. .46 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + D07 751. 12.50 109. 33. 11. .89 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RD07 751. 12.50 109. 31. 10. .89 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD07RE 9. 18.17 6. 2. 1. .89 HYDROGRAPH AT 2 COMBINED AT + + CPD07 17. 13.67 11. 5. 2. 1.35 DIVERSION TO ROUTED TO + + D07D02 15. 14.17 11. 5. 2. 1.35 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + D01 1085. 12.58 171. 51. 17. 1.56 2 COMBINED AT DIVERSION TO + + RD01 1085. 12.58 171. 49. 16. 1.56 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD01RE 12. 18.92 9. 3. 1. 1.56 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + D01D02 10. 22.08 8. 3. 1. 1.56 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + D02 1422. 12.50 217. 66. 22. 1.84 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RD02 1422. 12.50 217. 63. 21. 1.84 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD02RE 16. 19.83 10. 3. 1. 1.84 HYDROGRAPH AT 3 COMBINED AT + + CPD02 31. 22.08 25. 10. 3. 4.76 DIVERSION TO ROUTED TO + + D02D10 30. 22.58 25. 10. 3. 4.76 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + D09 298. 12.33 35. 11. 4. .26 4 COMBINED AT DIVERSION TO + + RD09 298. 12.33 30. 8. 3. .26 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD09RE 83. 12.67 9. 3. 1. .26 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + D09D10 50. 12.75 9. 3. 1. .26 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD06SE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .46 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + D06D10 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .46 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + D10 650. 12.33 86. 27. 9. .63 ROUTED TO DIVERSION TO + + RD10 650. 12.33 83. 23. 8. .63 2 COMBINED AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD10RE 28. 13.67 12. 4. 1. .63 ROUTED TO 4 COMBINED AT + Page 230 Page 231 WT1FC02_B.out WT1FC02_B.out HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + D30 1310. 12.25 173. 59. 20. DD58RE 22. 15.00 14. 5. 2. .92 DD452 8. 14.67 5. 2. 1. .49 D45D58 6. 16.50 5. 2. 1. .49 CPD58 94. 18.42 84. 41. 15. 11.81 D5869A 93. 18.25 83. 41. 15. 11.81 D68A 424. 12.08 37. 13. 4. .24 RD68A 424. 12.08 37. 12. 4. .24 DD68AR 3. 20.75 2. 1. 0. .24 68A69A 3. 22.75 2. 1. 0. .24 D69A 665. 12.17 59. 19. 6. .46 RD69A 665. 12.17 59. 19. 6. .46 DD69AR 1. 21.42 1. 0. 0. .46 CPD69A 92. 18.25 83. 41. 15. 12.52 D69A70 89. 19.75 80. 40. 14. 12.52 D68 429. 12.08 46. 16. 5. .25 RD68 429. 12.08 44. 13. 4. .25 DD68RE 22. 13.42 10. 3. 1. .25 DD681S 17. 13.42 8. 3. 1. .25 DD681 5. 13.42 2. 1. 0. .25 DD682S 2. 13.42 1. 0. 0. .25 DD682 3. 13.42 1. 0. 0. .25 D68D69 2. 14.25 1. 0. 0. .25 D69 545. 12.25 58. 18. 6. .46 RD69 545. 12.25 58. 18. 6. .46 DD69RE 1. 22.83 0. 0. 0. .46 CPD69 2. 14.25 1. 1. 0. .71 DD691S 0. 14.25 0. 0. 0. .71 DD691 2. 14.25 1. 0. 0. .71 DD692S 0. 14.25 0. 0. 0. .71 DD692 2. 14.25 1. 0. 0. .71 D69D70 2. 15.33 1. 0. 0. .71 D70 258. 12.17 19. 5. 2. .26 RD70 1. 9.75 1. 0. 0. .26 DD70RE 258. 12.17 19. 5. 2. .26 D70A 453. 12.17 50. 17. 6. .27 .91 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RD30 1310. 12.25 170. 49. 16. .91 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD30RE 52. 14.33 30. 10. 3. .91 4 COMBINED AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD162 7. 13.33 5. 2. 1. 1.03 ROUTED TO ROUTED TO + + D16D30 6. 15.67 5. 2. 1. 1.03 HYDROGRAPH AT 4 COMBINED AT + + CPD30 107. 15.50 87. 35. 12. 9.01 DIVERSION TO ROUTED TO + + D30D46 106. 16.67 86. 35. 12. 9.01 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + D45 654. 12.25 78. 26. 9. .49 ROUTED TO DIVERSION TO + + RD45 654. 12.25 77. 22. 7. .49 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD45RE 18. 14.67 11. 4. 1. .49 DIVERSION TO DIVERSION TO + + DD451S 3. 14.67 2. 1. 0. .49 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD451 15. 14.67 9. 3. 1. .49 3 COMBINED AT DIVERSION TO + + DD452S 8. 14.67 5. 2. 1. .49 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD452 8. 14.67 5. 2. 1. .49 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + D45D46 6. 16.42 4. 2. 1. .49 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + D46 801. 12.42 114. 36. 12. .92 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RD46 801. 12.42 114. 36. 12. .92 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD46RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .92 HYDROGRAPH AT 3 COMBINED AT + + CPD46 106. 16.83 88. 35. 12. 10.41 DIVERSION TO ROUTED TO + + D46D58 102. 17.08 86. 35. 12. 10.41 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + SSPILL 42. 17.08 35. 14. 5. 10.41 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + RMSBSN 60. 17.08 51. 20. 7. 10.41 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + RMSBSN 42. 17.08 35. 14. 5. 10.41 DIVERSION TO ROUTED TO + + SRREEM 15. 25.50 15. 11. 5. 10.41 HYDROGRAPH AT 2 COMBINED AT + + CPRMS 66. 17.33 60. 31. 12. 10.41 2 COMBINED AT ROUTED TO + + RRMS 66. 17.92 59. 31. 12. 10.41 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + D57 773. 12.17 93. 32. 11. .48 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RD57 773. 12.17 88. 25. 8. .48 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD57RE 49. 13.33 21. 7. 2. .48 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD451 3. 14.67 2. 1. 0. .49 ROUTED TO ROUTED TO + + D45D57 2. 16.33 1. 1. 0. .49 HYDROGRAPH AT 2 COMBINED AT + + CPD57 49. 13.33 22. 8. 3. .97 DIVERSION TO ROUTED TO + + D57D58 38. 14.00 21. 8. 3. .97 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + D58 1019. 12.33 123. 40. 13. .92 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RD58 1019. 12.33 122. 35. 12. .92 DIVERSION TO Page 232 Page 233 + RD70A 453. 12.17 WT1FC02_B.out 49. 14. WT1FC02_B.out 5. .27 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD70AR 18. 13.83 9. 3. 1. D72A72 84. 16.50 60. 22. 7. 5.83 D72 446. 12.17 48. 17. 6. .26 RD72 446. 12.17 47. 13. 4. .26 DD72RE 16. 14.00 9. 3. 1. .26 CPD72 94. 23.92 78. 48. 18. 20.09 D72D73 94. 24.00 78. 48. 18. 20.09 D73 375. 12.25 44. 15. 5. .28 RD73 375. 12.25 43. 12. 4. .28 DD73RE 11. 14.42 6. 2. 1. .28 CPD73 96. 23.92 79. 49. 18. 20.37 D73D78 95. 24.08 79. 49. 18. 20.37 B02 552. 12.33 71. 22. 8. .54 RB02 507. 12.25 37. 10. 3. .54 DB02RE 531. 12.42 43. 12. 4. .54 DB02LR 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .54 DB02SD 531. 12.42 43. 12. 4. .54 B04 532. 12.08 40. 13. 4. .31 RB04 444. 12.00 26. 7. 2. .31 DB04RE 444. 12.17 19. 6. 2. .31 B04B02 97. 12.75 19. 6. 2. .31 DB02SD 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .54 CPB02 97. 12.75 19. 6. 2. .86 LR02LR 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .86 LR02SD 96. 12.75 19. 6. 2. .86 LR2D78 52. 13.17 18. 6. 2. .86 D78B 576. 12.42 98. 34. 11. .53 RD78B 576. 12.42 97. 28. 9. .53 DD78BR 22. 15.17 15. 5. 2. .53 CPD78B 580. 12.42 155. 102. 38. 32.08 78B79B 289. 12.58 120. 80. 30. 32.08 D51 399. 12.25 38. 11. 4. .29 RD51 200. 12.00 11. 3. 1. .29 DD51RE 399. 12.25 29. 8. 3. .29 D51D65 176. 13.08 28. 8. 3. .29 D65 918. 12.17 96. 31. 10. .69 .27 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + D70A70 14. 15.50 9. 3. 1. .27 DIVERSION TO 4 COMBINED AT + + CPD70 258. 12.17 128. 61. 23. 13.76 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + SRD70 65. 25.75 61. 36. 13. 13.76 3 COMBINED AT ROUTED TO + + D70D71 65. 25.83 61. 36. 13. 13.76 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + D71 402. 12.17 43. 14. 5. .24 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RD71 402. 12.17 40. 11. 4. .24 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD71RE 22. 13.25 9. 3. 1. .24 HYDROGRAPH AT 2 COMBINED AT + + CPD71 65. 23.92 62. 36. 14. 14.00 2 COMBINED AT ROUTED TO + + D71D72 65. 26.00 62. 36. 14. 14.00 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + D59 1341. 12.25 186. 64. 21. .99 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RD59 1341. 12.25 183. 53. 18. .99 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD59RE 55. 14.42 31. 11. 4. .99 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD47SE 25. 14.92 10. 4. 1. 3.99 DIVERSION TO ROUTED TO + + D47D59 21. 15.75 10. 4. 1. 3.99 HYDROGRAPH AT 2 COMBINED AT + + CPD59 59. 15.58 40. 14. 5. 4.99 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + DD59S 56. 15.58 38. 14. 5. 4.99 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD59SE 3. 15.58 2. 1. 0. 4.99 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + D59D61 3. 16.17 2. 1. 0. 4.99 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + D61 485. 12.25 66. 23. 8. .35 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RD61 485. 12.25 65. 19. 6. .35 2 COMBINED AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD61RE 19. 14.50 11. 4. 1. .35 DIVERSION TO 2 COMBINED AT + + CPD61 17. 14.50 12. 4. 1. 5.34 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + D6172A 16. 15.58 12. 4. 1. 5.34 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + D71A 404. 12.17 45. 16. 5. .24 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RD71A 404. 12.17 45. 13. 4. .24 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD71AR 11. 14.75 7. 3. 1. .24 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD59SE 56. 15.58 38. 14. 5. 4.99 5 COMBINED AT ROUTED TO + + D5971A 54. 16.08 37. 14. 5. 4.99 ROUTED TO 2 COMBINED AT + + CPD71A 62. 16.08 43. 16. 5. 5.22 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + 71A72A 61. 16.33 43. 16. 5. 5.22 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + D72A 433. 12.17 48. 17. 6. .25 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RD72A 433. 12.17 48. 14. 5. .25 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD72AR 11. 14.75 7. 3. 1. .25 HYDROGRAPH AT 3 COMBINED AT + + CPD72A 84. 16.42 60. 22. Page 234 7. 5.83 Page 235 WT1FC02_B.out DIVERSION TO + + RD65 918. 12.17 96. 31. 10. DB06RE 516. 12.25 WT1FC02_B.out 43. 12. 4. .40 CPB06 514. 12.25 64. 20. 7. 1.13 B06B15 316. 12.75 63. 20. 7. 1.13 B07 251. 12.33 26. 8. 3. .25 RB07 251. 12.33 26. 8. 3. .25 DB07RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .25 B07B09 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .25 B08 421. 12.08 36. 12. 4. .23 RB08 421. 12.08 36. 12. 4. .23 DB08RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .23 B08B09 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .23 B09 638. 12.17 53. 17. 6. .43 RB09 632. 12.17 37. 10. 3. .43 DB09RE 452. 12.25 22. 6. 2. .43 CPB09 443. 12.25 22. 6. 2. .91 SRB11 12. 13.92 11. 6. 2. .91 B09B11 12. 14.83 11. 6. 2. .91 B10 255. 12.08 23. 8. 3. .16 RB10 255. 12.08 23. 8. 3. .16 DB10RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .16 B1011A 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .16 B1011B 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .16 B11 952. 12.25 97. 30. 10. .82 RB11 77. 11.75 17. 6. 2. .82 DB11RE 952. 12.25 90. 24. 8. .82 CPB11 949. 12.25 97. 30. 10. 1.89 B11B12 752. 12.33 95. 30. 10. 1.89 B12 328. 12.33 35. 10. 3. .38 RB12 4. 10.25 3. 1. 0. .38 DB12RE 328. 12.33 35. 9. 3. .38 CPB12 1076. 12.33 128. 39. 13. 2.27 B12B14 1053. 12.42 128. 39. 13. 2.27 B13 493. 12.25 46. 13. 4. .49 RB13 493. 12.25 45. 12. 4. .49 DB13RE 7. 13.83 4. 1. 0. .49 B13B14 5. 15.33 3. 1. 0. .49 .69 2 COMBINED AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD65RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .69 ROUTED TO 2 COMBINED AT + + CPD65 176. 13.08 28. 8. 3. .98 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + D65D75 130. 13.75 27. 8. 3. .98 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + D79A 288. 12.17 31. 10. 3. .17 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RD79A 288. 12.17 31. 10. 3. .17 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD79AR 4. 19.00 3. 1. 0. .17 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + D75 1080. 12.25 125. 41. 14. .88 DIVERSION TO DIVERSION TO + + RD75 1080. 12.25 124. 35. 12. .88 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD75RE 22. 15.17 15. 5. 2. .88 ROUTED TO 3 COMBINED AT + + CPD75 130. 13.75 40. 14. 5. 2.04 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + SRD75 40. 15.58 32. 13. 4. 2.04 DIVERSION TO ROUTED TO + + D7579B 39. 16.00 32. 13. 4. 2.04 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + D79B 452. 12.17 54. 18. 6. .32 3 COMBINED AT DIVERSION TO + + RD79B 452. 12.17 50. 14. 5. .32 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD79BR 29. 13.25 12. 4. 1. .32 ROUTED TO 3 COMBINED AT + + CPD79B 283. 12.58 129. 88. 32. 34.44 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + D79B80 285. 12.67 128. 87. 32. 34.44 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + D80 214. 12.08 19. 6. 2. .13 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RD80 214. 12.08 17. 5. 2. .13 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DD80RE 10. 13.00 4. 1. 0. .13 ROUTED TO 2 COMBINED AT + + CPD80 285. 12.67 129. 88. 32. 34.57 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + B01 162. 12.08 14. 4. 1. .10 DIVERSION TO 3 COMBINED AT + + DUMMY 6913. 12.58 1450. 482. 171. 69.06 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + B03 485. 12.17 51. 17. 6. .34 3 COMBINED AT DIVERSION TO + + RB03 485. 12.17 51. 15. 5. .34 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DB03RE 7. 17.83 5. 1. 0. .34 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + B03B05 6. 18.50 5. 1. 0. .34 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + B05 511. 12.25 62. 21. 7. .40 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RB05 511. 12.25 48. 13. 4. .40 2 COMBINED AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DB05RE 208. 12.50 24. 7. 2. .40 ROUTED TO 2 COMBINED AT + + CPB05 207. 12.50 24. 9. 3. .73 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + B05B06 107. 12.83 23. 9. 3. .73 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + B06 516. 12.25 53. 17. 6. .40 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RB06 188. 12.00 16. 5. 2. .40 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + Page 236 Page 237 WT1FC02_B.out WT1FC02_B.out HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + B14 374. 12.25 40. 13. 4. DB23RE 299. 12.33 36. 10. 3. .27 B23B24 282. 12.42 36. 10. 3. .27 B24 237. 12.17 23. 7. 2. .19 RB24 237. 12.17 23. 6. 2. .19 DB24RE 4. 14.83 3. 1. 0. .19 CPB24 282. 12.42 37. 11. 4. .46 B24B25 234. 12.67 37. 11. 4. .46 B25 285. 12.17 26. 8. 3. .20 RB25 285. 12.17 19. 5. 2. .20 DB25RE 130. 12.33 10. 3. 1. .20 CPB25 253. 12.67 47. 14. 5. .66 B26 400. 12.17 39. 13. 4. .31 RB26 400. 12.17 32. 9. 3. .31 DB26RE 120. 12.42 12. 4. 1. .31 B26B27 63. 12.83 12. 4. 1. .31 B27 443. 12.25 54. 18. 6. .36 CPB27 442. 12.25 63. 22. 7. .67 DUMMY 7977. 12.58 1735. 569. 199. 76.53 B76 335. 12.33 37. 11. 4. .39 RB76 335. 12.33 37. 11. 4. .39 DB76RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .39 B7676A 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .39 B75 443. 12.25 38. 12. 4. .42 RB75 443. 12.25 38. 12. 4. .42 DB75RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .42 B75A75 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .42 B75A 342. 12.25 35. 10. 3. .28 CPB75A 341. 12.25 35. 10. 3. .70 B7576A 307. 12.33 35. 10. 3. .70 B76A 432. 12.17 38. 12. 4. .31 CPB76A 622. 12.17 72. 22. 7. 1.40 B76A78 626. 12.17 72. 22. 7. 1.40 B77 1011. 12.33 113. 33. 11. .83 RB77 873. 12.25 59. 16. 5. .83 DB77RE 1011. 12.33 63. 17. 6. .83 .33 ROUTED TO DIVERSION TO + + RB14 374. 12.25 40. 12. 4. .33 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DB14RE 3. 23.42 1. 0. 0. .33 DIVERSION TO 3 COMBINED AT + + CPB14 1053. 12.42 130. 41. 14. 3.09 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + B14B15 863. 12.58 128. 40. 14. 3.09 2 COMBINED AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + B15 463. 12.25 55. 18. 6. .38 ROUTED TO 3 COMBINED AT + + CPB15 1277. 12.50 238. 77. 26. 4.60 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + B16 171. 12.08 14. 5. 2. .11 DIVERSION TO DIVERSION TO + + RB16 171. 12.08 13. 3. 1. .11 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DB16RE 18. 12.42 4. 1. 0. .11 2 COMBINED AT ROUTED TO + + B16B17 7. 13.00 4. 1. 0. .11 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + B17 445. 12.25 50. 16. 5. .33 DIVERSION TO DIVERSION TO + + RB17 440. 12.17 34. 9. 3. .33 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DB17RE 349. 12.33 23. 7. 2. .33 ROUTED TO 2 COMBINED AT + + CPB17 348. 12.33 26. 8. 3. .45 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + B17B18 210. 12.50 26. 8. 3. .45 2 COMBINED AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + B18 321. 12.25 35. 11. 4. .28 4 COMBINED AT DIVERSION TO + + RB18 321. 12.25 35. 10. 3. .28 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DB18RE 3. 18.83 2. 1. 0. .28 DIVERSION TO 2 COMBINED AT + + CPB18 210. 12.50 26. 9. 3. .73 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + B18B19 126. 12.75 25. 9. 3. .73 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + B19 200. 12.08 17. 6. 2. .12 HYDROGRAPH AT 2 COMBINED AT + + CPB19 199. 12.08 40. 14. 5. .85 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + B20 347. 12.17 34. 11. 4. .23 HYDROGRAPH AT 4 COMBINED AT + + DUMMY 7658. 12.58 1630. 535. 188. 74.73 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + B21 275. 12.25 31. 10. 3. .24 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RB21 275. 12.25 31. 10. 3. .24 2 COMBINED AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DB21RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .24 ROUTED TO ROUTED TO + + B21B22 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .24 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + B22 331. 12.17 32. 11. 4. .22 3 COMBINED AT DIVERSION TO + + RB22 4. 4.33 3. 1. 0. .22 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DB22RE 331. 12.17 32. 10. 3. .22 HYDROGRAPH AT 2 COMBINED AT + + CPB22 330. 12.17 32. 10. 3. .46 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + B23 299. 12.33 36. 11. 4. .27 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RB23 5. 9.17 3. 1. 0. .27 ROUTED TO Page 238 Page 239 + B77B78 398. 13.08 WT1FC02_B.out 60. 17. WT1FC02_B.out 6. .83 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + B78 495. 12.58 85. 27. 9. B71 811. 12.42 113. 36. 12. .96 RB71 811. 12.42 113. 36. 12. .96 DB71RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .96 B71B72 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .96 B72 1012. 12.42 136. 42. 14. 1.12 RB72 1012. 12.42 91. 25. 8. 1.12 DB72RE 730. 12.58 60. 17. 6. 1.12 CPB72 728. 12.58 59. 17. 6. 2.08 B72B74 545. 12.67 59. 17. 6. 2.08 B73 443. 12.17 46. 15. 5. .30 RB73 443. 12.17 45. 13. 4. .30 DB73RE 15. 13.83 8. 3. 1. .30 SRB73 3. 24.08 3. 2. 1. .30 B73B74 3. 25.08 3. 2. 1. .30 B74 183. 12.08 18. 6. 2. .11 RB74 81. 12.00 8. 2. 1. .11 DB74RE 183. 12.08 13. 4. 1. .11 CPB74 558. 12.67 71. 23. 8. 2.49 SRB74 37. 14.33 32. 17. 7. 2.49 B74B84 37. 14.50 32. 17. 7. 2.49 B84 352. 12.17 37. 12. 4. .22 RB84 4. 6.75 3. 1. 0. .22 DB84RE 352. 12.17 37. 11. 4. .22 CPB84 479. 13.58 270. 98. 34. 7.24 SRB84 241. 15.67 195. 86. 32. 7.24 B28 875. 12.42 118. 37. 12. .96 RB28 8. 1.17 1. 0. 0. .96 DB28RE 875. 12.42 118. 37. 12. .96 B29 256. 12.25 32. 11. 4. .18 RB29 256. 12.25 29. 8. 3. .18 DB29RE 27. 12.75 9. 3. 1. .18 B30 274. 12.17 33. 11. 4. .17 RB30 274. 12.17 22. 6. 2. .17 DB30RE 171. 12.33 16. 5. 2. .17 SRB30 23. 13.00 16. 5. 2. .17 .57 DIVERSION TO DIVERSION TO + + RB78 492. 12.50 48. 14. 5. .57 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DB78RE 436. 12.67 47. 14. 5. .57 ROUTED TO 2 COMBINED AT + + CPB78A 567. 13.00 107. 31. 10. 1.40 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RB78BN 537. 12.92 37. 9. 3. 1.40 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DB78BN 535. 13.08 71. 21. 7. 1.40 HYDROGRAPH AT 2 COMBINED AT + + CPB78B 626. 12.17 136. 43. 15. 2.80 2 COMBINED AT ROUTED TO + + B78B79 392. 12.92 134. 43. 15. 2.80 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + B79 904. 12.33 110. 34. 12. .85 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RB79 904. 12.33 72. 20. 7. .85 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DB79RE 621. 12.50 50. 15. 5. .85 HYDROGRAPH AT 2 COMBINED AT + + CPB79 674. 12.50 183. 57. 19. 3.64 ROUTED TO ROUTED TO + + B79B80 561. 12.67 182. 57. 19. 3.64 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + B80 296. 12.25 32. 10. 3. .27 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RB80 296. 12.25 32. 10. 3. .27 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DB80RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .27 HYDROGRAPH AT 2 COMBINED AT + + CPB80 561. 12.67 182. 57. 19. 3.91 3 COMBINED AT ROUTED TO + + SRB80 489. 13.00 181. 57. 19. 3.91 ROUTED TO ROUTED TO + + B80B81 480. 13.25 180. 57. 19. 3.91 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + B81 329. 12.25 33. 10. 3. .25 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RB81 9. 11.25 3. 1. 0. .25 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DB81RE 329. 12.25 32. 9. 3. .25 HYDROGRAPH AT 2 COMBINED AT + + CPB81 489. 13.25 206. 66. 22. 4.16 4 COMBINED AT ROUTED TO + + SRB81 446. 13.50 205. 66. 22. 4.16 ROUTED TO ROUTED TO + + B81B84 438. 13.58 204. 66. 22. 4.16 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + B82 181. 12.25 18. 5. 2. .15 DIVERSION TO DIVERSION TO + + RB82 181. 12.25 18. 5. 2. .15 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DB82RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .15 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + B82B83 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .15 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + B83 405. 12.08 38. 13. 4. .22 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RB83 21. 11.25 8. 3. 1. .22 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DB83RE 405. 12.08 36. 10. 3. .22 DIVERSION TO 2 COMBINED AT + + CPB83 404. 12.08 36. 10. 3. .37 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + SRB83 23. 12.92 19. 10. 3. .37 ROUTED TO ROUTED TO + + B83B84 23. 13.08 19. 10. Page 240 3. .37 Page 241 WT1FC02_B.out HYDROGRAPH AT + + B31 836. 12.25 90. 29. 10. RB36 29. 11.75 WT1FC02_B.out 1. 0. 0. .06 DB36RE 105. 12.08 6. 1. 0. .06 DUMMY 482. 12.08 34. 9. 3. 1.91 DUMMY 8429. 12.58 1951. 666. 235. 88.76 B40 720. 12.25 89. 30. 10. .51 RB40 720. 12.25 67. 19. 6. .51 DB40RE 364. 12.42 36. 11. 4. .51 DD681 17. 13.42 8. 3. 1. .25 D68B40 14. 14.00 8. 3. 1. .25 CPB40 364. 12.42 43. 14. 5. .77 DB401S 215. 12.42 24. 8. 3. .77 DB401 149. 12.42 19. 6. 2. .77 DB402S 57. 12.42 9. 3. 1. .77 DB402 92. 12.42 10. 3. 1. .77 B40B41 39. 12.75 10. 3. 1. .77 B41 812. 12.50 118. 37. 12. .95 RB41 809. 12.42 76. 21. 7. .95 DB41RE 652. 12.58 56. 16. 5. .95 DD682 2. 13.42 1. 0. 0. .25 D68B41 1. 16.33 1. 0. 0. .25 DD691 0. 14.25 0. 0. 0. .71 D69B41 0. 15.92 0. 0. 0. .71 CPB41 657. 12.58 65. 20. 7. 2.18 DB41S 624. 12.58 62. 19. 6. 2.18 DB41SE 33. 12.58 3. 1. 0. 2.18 B41B43 24. 12.83 3. 1. 0. 2.18 B43 594. 12.42 101. 35. 12. .54 RB43 594. 12.42 99. 28. 9. .54 DB43RE 32. 14.42 17. 6. 2. .54 DD692 0. 14.25 0. 0. 0. .71 D69B43 0. 16.92 0. 0. 0. .71 CPB43 34. 14.42 18. 7. 2. 2.72 B43B45 27. 15.42 18. 7. 2. 2.72 B44 728. 12.25 90. 31. 10. .52 RB44 728. 12.25 87. 25. 8. .52 DB44RE 34. 13.83 17. 6. 2. .52 .68 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RB31 772. 12.17 47. 14. 5. .68 4 COMBINED AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DB31RE 807. 12.25 55. 16. 5. .68 3 COMBINED AT ROUTED TO + + SRB31 32. 13.58 29. 16. 5. .68 HYDROGRAPH AT 2 COMBINED AT + + DUMMY 54. 13.17 45. 20. 7. .85 DIVERSION TO 5 COMBINED AT + + DUMMY 8429. 12.58 1929. 660. 234. 85.75 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + B32 786. 12.42 104. 33. 11. .82 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RB32 786. 12.42 91. 25. 8. .82 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DB32RE 169. 12.83 26. 8. 3. .82 2 COMBINED AT ROUTED TO + + SRB32 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .82 DIVERSION TO ROUTED TO + + B32B33 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .82 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + B33 484. 12.08 43. 14. 5. .28 DIVERSION TO DIVERSION TO + + RB33 484. 12.08 43. 14. 5. .28 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DB33RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .28 ROUTED TO 2 COMBINED AT + + CPB33 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.10 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + B34 208. 12.08 16. 5. 2. .13 DIVERSION TO DIVERSION TO + + RB34 35. 11.75 4. 1. 0. .13 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DB34RE 208. 12.08 14. 4. 1. .13 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + B38 522. 12.17 50. 17. 6. .34 ROUTED TO DIVERSION TO + + RB38 522. 12.17 50. 17. 6. .34 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DB38RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .34 ROUTED TO ROUTED TO + + B38B39 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .34 4 COMBINED AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + B37 704. 12.17 72. 24. 8. .47 DIVERSION TO DIVERSION TO + + RB37 704. 12.17 72. 24. 8. .47 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DB37RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .47 ROUTED TO ROUTED TO + + B37B39 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .47 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + B39 981. 12.25 108. 35. 12. .77 DIVERSION TO DIVERSION TO + + RB39 981. 12.25 108. 35. 12. .77 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DB39RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .77 HYDROGRAPH AT 3 COMBINED AT + + CPB39 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.58 ROUTED TO ROUTED TO + + SRB39 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.58 3 COMBINED AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + B35 191. 12.17 15. 4. 1. .14 ROUTED TO DIVERSION TO + + RB35 1. 4.67 1. 0. 0. .14 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DB35RE 191. 12.17 15. 4. 1. .14 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + B36 105. 12.08 6. 2. 1. .06 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + Page 242 Page 243 WT1FC02_B.out WT1FC02_B.out 2 COMBINED AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DB401 215. 12.42 24. 8. 3. CPL04 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.93 DL04S 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.93 DL04SE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.93 L04L05 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.93 L02 1416. 12.58 228. 70. 23. 1.88 RL02 1416. 12.58 218. 59. 20. 1.88 DL02RE 110. 13.75 33. 11. 4. 1.88 L02L05 71. 14.00 32. 11. 4. 1.88 L05 549. 12.33 70. 22. 7. .49 RL05 549. 12.33 61. 17. 6. .49 DL05RE 91. 12.75 17. 6. 2. .49 CPL05 88. 14.00 45. 16. 5. 4.30 L05L09 82. 14.25 44. 16. 5. 4.30 L09 547. 12.33 71. 23. 8. .49 RL09 547. 12.33 71. 23. 8. .49 DL09RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .49 CPL09 82. 14.25 44. 16. 5. 4.78 L0913B 79. 14.42 44. 16. 5. 4.78 DL13BR 28. 14.42 13. 4. 1. 4.78 DL13BN 51. 14.42 30. 12. 4. 4.78 DL13BN 28. 14.42 13. 4. 1. 4.78 SRL13B 16. 15.50 12. 4. 1. 4.78 CPL13B 62. 14.50 42. 16. 5. 4.78 L13B13 62. 14.58 42. 16. 5. 4.78 L13 731. 12.17 93. 32. 11. .48 RL13 731. 12.17 90. 26. 9. .48 DL13RE 38. 13.75 18. 6. 2. .48 L06 754. 12.33 88. 28. 9. .70 RL06 754. 12.33 88. 28. 9. .70 DL06RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .70 DL06S 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .70 DL06SE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .70 L06L07 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .70 L07 673. 12.33 83. 26. 9. .63 RL07 673. 12.33 83. 26. 9. .63 .77 DIVERSION TO ROUTED TO + + B40B44 78. 13.42 23. 8. 3. .77 HYDROGRAPH AT 2 COMBINED AT + + CPB44 85. 13.42 38. 14. 5. 1.29 ROUTED TO DIVERSION TO + + DB441S 10. 13.42 5. 2. 1. 1.29 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DB441 74. 13.42 33. 12. 4. 1.29 DIVERSION TO DIVERSION TO + + DB442S 6. 13.42 3. 1. 0. 1.29 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DB442 68. 13.42 30. 11. 4. 1.29 ROUTED TO ROUTED TO + + B44B45 62. 13.50 30. 11. 4. 1.29 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + B45 948. 12.33 132. 45. 15. .81 DIVERSION TO DIVERSION TO + + RB45 948. 12.33 114. 32. 11. .81 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DB45RE 184. 12.75 38. 13. 4. .81 3 COMBINED AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DB402 57. 12.42 9. 3. 1. .77 ROUTED TO ROUTED TO + + B40B45 24. 13.00 8. 3. 1. .77 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DB41SE 624. 12.58 62. 19. 6. 2.18 DIVERSION TO ROUTED TO + + B41B45 287. 13.33 58. 19. 6. 2.18 HYDROGRAPH AT 5 COMBINED AT + + CPB45 427. 13.33 145. 51. 17. 4.05 2 COMBINED AT ROUTED TO + + B45B47 343. 14.08 140. 51. 17. 4.05 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + L01 221. 12.17 20. 6. 2. .16 DIVERSION TO DIVERSION TO + + RL01 221. 12.17 19. 5. 2. .16 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DL01RE 15. 12.67 4. 1. 0. .16 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + L01L03 8. 13.50 4. 1. 0. .16 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + L03 785. 12.33 95. 28. 10. .79 2 COMBINED AT DIVERSION TO + + RL03 785. 12.33 95. 28. 10. .79 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DL03RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .79 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + L20 317. 12.42 38. 11. 4. .35 DIVERSION TO DIVERSION TO + + RL20 317. 12.42 38. 11. 4. .35 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DL20RE 2. 22.08 1. 0. 0. .35 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + L20L03 1. 24.75 1. 0. 0. .35 DIVERSION TO 3 COMBINED AT + + CPL03 8. 13.58 4. 2. 1. 1.29 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + DL03S 7. 13.67 4. 1. 0. 1.29 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DL03SE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.29 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + L03L04 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.29 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + L04 534. 12.42 66. 20. 7. .63 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RL04 534. 12.42 66. 20. 7. .63 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DL04RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .63 HYDROGRAPH AT Page 244 Page 245 + DL07RE 0. .00 WT1FC02_B.out 0. 0. WT1FC02_B.out 0. .63 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DL03SE 7. 13.67 4. 1. 0. DL122S 1. 13.33 0. 0. 0. 5.56 DL122 84. 13.33 21. 8. 3. 5.56 L12L13 73. 13.50 20. 8. 3. 5.56 CPL13 87. 13.75 64. 26. 9. 8.90 L13DS5 84. 13.83 64. 26. 9. 8.90 DS5L19 79. 14.00 64. 26. 9. 8.90 L14 211. 12.25 19. 6. 2. .23 RL14 211. 12.25 19. 6. 2. .23 DL14RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .23 L14L15 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .23 L15 347. 12.33 31. 9. 3. .37 RL15 347. 12.33 31. 9. 3. .37 DL15RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .37 CPL15 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .60 L15L16 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .60 L16 463. 12.33 46. 14. 5. .50 RL16 463. 12.33 46. 14. 5. .50 DL16RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .50 CPL16 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.10 L16L17 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.10 L17 473. 12.33 59. 19. 6. .50 RL17 473. 12.33 59. 19. 6. .50 DL17RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .50 CPL17 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.61 DL17S 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.61 DL17SE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.61 L17L18 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.61 L18 484. 12.33 46. 13. 4. .50 RL18 484. 12.33 46. 13. 4. .50 DL18RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .50 DL11SE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 4.09 L11L18 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 4.09 DL121 18. 13.33 4. 2. 1. 5.56 L12L18 12. 14.17 4. 2. 1. 5.56 CPL18 10. 14.25 4. 2. 1. 7.67 1.29 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + L0307A 7. 14.08 3. 1. 0. 1.29 ROUTED TO ROUTED TO + + L0307B 7. 14.42 3. 1. 0. 1.29 3 COMBINED AT 3 COMBINED AT + + CPL07 7. 14.42 3. 1. 0. 2.62 ROUTED TO DIVERSION TO + + DL07S 1. 14.42 1. 0. 0. 2.62 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DL07SE 5. 14.42 3. 1. 0. 2.62 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + L07L08 5. 14.83 3. 1. 0. 2.62 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + L08 544. 12.33 73. 22. 7. .49 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RL08 544. 12.33 73. 22. 7. .49 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DL08RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .49 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DL04SE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.93 DIVERSION TO ROUTED TO + + L04L08 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.93 HYDROGRAPH AT 3 COMBINED AT + + CPL08 5. 14.83 3. 1. 0. 3.74 2 COMBINED AT ROUTED TO + + L08L12 5. 15.75 2. 1. 0. 3.74 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + L10 672. 12.42 82. 24. 8. .84 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RL10 672. 12.42 65. 17. 6. .84 DIVERSION TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DL10RE 293. 12.75 23. 7. 2. .84 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO + + L10L11 156. 13.00 22. 7. 2. .84 2 COMBINED AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DL06SE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .70 ROUTED TO ROUTED TO + + L06L11 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .70 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + L11 607. 12.33 77. 24. 8. .62 DIVERSION TO DIVERSION TO + + RL11 607. 12.33 77. 24. 8. .62 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DL11RE 1. 20.75 1. 0. 0. .62 2 COMBINED AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DL07SE 1. 14.42 1. 0. 0. 2.62 DIVERSION TO ROUTED TO + + L07L11 1. 17.33 1. 0. 0. 2.62 HYDROGRAPH AT 4 COMBINED AT + + CPL11 156. 13.00 22. 7. 2. 4.09 ROUTED TO DIVERSION TO + + DL11S 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 4.09 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DL11SE 147. 13.00 22. 7. 2. 4.09 DIVERSION TO ROUTED TO + + L11L12 109. 13.33 22. 7. 2. 4.09 HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + L12 494. 12.25 57. 18. 6. .36 HYDROGRAPH AT DIVERSION TO + + RL12 494. 12.25 57. 16. 5. .36 ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT + + DL12RE 8. 16.25 6. 2. 1. .36 HYDROGRAPH AT 3 COMBINED AT + + CPL12 109. 13.33 27. 10. 3. 5.56 ROUTED TO DIVERSION TO + + DL121S 18. 13.33 4. 2. 1. 5.56 4 COMBINED AT HYDROGRAPH AT + + DL121 85. 13.33 21. 8. Page 246 3. 5.56 Page 247 WT1FC02_B.out FCIP-MB2_B.out DIVERSION TO + DL181S 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 7.67 DL181 10. 14.25 4. 2. 1. 7.67 DL182S 0. 14.25 0. 0. 0. 7.67 DL182 10. 14.25 3. 1. 0. 7.67 L18L19 8. 14.92 3. 1. 0. 7.67 L19 745. 12.17 93. 32. 11. .49 RL19 745. 12.17 90. 26. 9. .49 DL19RE 38. 13.75 18. 7. 2. .49 DL122 1. 13.33 0. 0. 0. 5.56 L12L19 1. 14.58 0. 0. 0. 5.56 CPL19 89. 14.50 74. 31. 10. 11.50 L19DS7 88. 14.58 74. 31. 10. 11.50 HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + 1***************************************** * * * FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) * * JUN 1998 * * VERSION 4.1 * * * * RUN DATE 05OCT10 TIME 10:48:56 * * * ***************************************** *************************************** * * * U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS * * HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER * * 609 SECOND STREET * * DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 * * (916) 756-1104 * * * *************************************** ROUTED TO + X X X X X X XXXXXXX X X X X X X HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + XXXXXXX X X XXXX X X XXXXXXX XXXXX X X X X X X XXXXX X XXXXX X XX X X X X XXX HYDROGRAPH AT + THIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC-1 KNOWN AS HEC1 (JAN 73), HEC1GS, HEC1DB, AND HEC1KW. ROUTED TO + THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES -RTIMP- AND -RTIOR- HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE USED WITH THE 1973-STYLE INPUT STRUCTURE. THE DEFINITION OF -AMSKK- ON RM-CARD WAS CHANGED WITH REVISIONS DATED 28 SEP 81. THIS IS THE FORTRAN77 VERSION NEW OPTIONS: DAMBREAK OUTFLOW SUBMERGENCE , SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION, DSS:WRITE STAGE FREQUENCY, DSS:READ TIME SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULATION INTERVAL LOSS RATE:GREEN AND AMPT INFILTRATION KINEMATIC WAVE: NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM 4 COMBINED AT + ROUTED TO + 1 ROUTED TO + DS7L27 87. 15.67 74. 31. 10. 11.50 L23 727. 12.42 80. 23. 8. .90 RL23 727. 12.42 80. 23. 8. .90 DL23RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .90 L23L24 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .90 L24 496. 12.25 47. 14. 5. .50 RL24 496. 12.25 47. 14. 5. .50 DL24RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .50 CPL24 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.40 L24L26 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.40 L25 208. 12.42 22. 6. 2. .24 RL25 208. 12.42 22. 6. 2. .24 DL25RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .24 L25L26 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .24 DL181 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 7.67 L18L26 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 7.67 DL17SE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.61 L17L26 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 1.61 L26 790. 12.25 83. 26. 9. .76 RL26 790. 12.25 83. 26. 9. .76 HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + 2 COMBINED AT + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + ID.......1.......2.......3.......4.......5.......6.......7.......8.......9......10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ID Flood Control District of Maricopa County ID L303_FU_CIP_MB02 - Loop 303/ White Tanks ADMPU AHA ID 100 YEAR ID 24 Hour Storm ID Unit Hydrograph: S-Graph ID 09/02/2009 ID FCDMC CONTRACT 2007C031 ID BY HDR ENGINEERING (#79902) ID FUTURE CONDITIONS-SEPTEMBER 2009 ID MAJOR BASIN 02 ID FILE NAME: FCIP-MB2.DAT ID ID ************************************************************************* ID ID FOLLOWING ARE THE CHANGES BY ANDES ENGINEERING: ID 1. Depth-area factors in JD cards replaced for 50-year event values ID JOG September 15, 2010 ID ID For details concerning changes to this HEC-1 model, please contact ID FCDMC, H&H Branch. ID ID ************************************************************************* ID IT 5 0 0 2000 IN 15 IO 3 *DIAGRAM * JD 2.95 0.0001 PC 0.000 0.002 0.005 0.008 0.011 0.014 0.017 0.020 0.023 0.026 PC 0.029 0.032 0.035 0.038 0.041 0.044 0.048 0.052 0.056 0.060 PC 0.064 0.068 0.072 0.076 0.080 0.085 0.090 0.095 0.100 0.105 PC 0.110 0.115 0.120 0.126 0.133 0.140 0.147 0.155 0.163 0.172 PC 0.181 0.191 0.203 0.218 0.236 0.257 0.283 0.387 0.663 0.707 PC 0.735 0.758 0.776 0.791 0.804 0.815 0.825 0.834 0.842 0.849 PC 0.856 0.863 0.869 0.875 0.881 0.887 0.893 0.898 0.903 0.908 PC 0.913 0.918 0.922 0.926 0.930 0.934 0.938 0.942 0.946 0.950 PC 0.953 0.956 0.959 0.962 0.965 0.968 0.971 0.974 0.977 0.980 PC 0.983 0.986 0.989 0.992 0.995 0.998 1.000 JD 2.877 5.0 JD 2.803 10.0 JD 2.729 20.0 JD 2.655 30.0 JD 2.567 60.0 * 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 DIVERSION TO + HEC-1 INPUT LINE PAGE 1 PAGE 2 HYDROGRAPH AT + 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + 1 LINE DL26RE 0. .00 0. 0. 0. .76 CPL26 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 10.07 DL26S 0. .00 0. 0. 0. 10.07 DIVERSION TO + L21BASIN BASIN BOUNDARY FROM MCMICKEN DAM ON THE WEST AND THE BEARDSLEY CSR ON THE EAST 0.525 0.33 0.24 4.55 0.44 14 0 21 21 21 27 70 79 96 124 136 151 163 189 232 260 263 185 169 155 139 127 114 105 95 42 37 36 34 31 21 21 21 HEC-1 INPUT UI * 53 54 55 56 KK KM DT DI 7 6 7 6 7 116 200 60 6 6 7 6 7 6 DL21REDIVERT Mass grading and Storage along canal RL21 81.8 0.0 0.0 500.0 5000.0 50000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 HYDROGRAPH AT Page 248 107 226 77 16 ID.......1.......2.......3.......4.......5.......6.......7.......8.......9......10 52 5 COMBINED AT + KK KM KM BA LG UI UI UI UI Page 1 PEAK STAGE FCIP-MB2_B.out MAXIMUM AVERAGE STAGE 24-HR 72-HR 166.58-HR TIME 6-HR + (FEET) 1039.05 (HR) 24.83 FCIP-MB2_B.out DIVERSION TO + 1039.05 1039.07 1039.06 RL22 48. 13.67 18. 5. 2. 0.36 DL22RE 0. 0.00 0. 0. 0. 0.36 CPL22 0. 0.00 0. 0. 0. 0.89 L22W01 0. 0.00 0. 0. 0. 0.89 W01 88. 12.50 12. 3. 1. 0.19 CPW01 87. 12.50 12. 3. 1. 1.08 W01W02 79. 12.75 12. 3. 1. 1.08 W02 354. 12.33 35. 10. 3. 0.39 DW02 354. 12.33 35. 10. 3. 0.39 DW02RE 0. 20.00 0. 0. 0. 0.39 CPW02 79. 12.75 12. 3. 1. 1.47 W02W05 69. 12.92 12. 3. 1. 1.47 W03 1285. 12.33 180. 56. 19. 1.97 W03W04 988. 12.58 180. 56. 19. 1.97 W04 1433. 12.33 204. 63. 21. 2.03 DW04 163. 11.92 34. 11. 4. 2.03 DW04RE 1433. 12.33 191. 52. 17. 2.03 CPW04 2028. 12.42 368. 107. 36. 4.01 W04W05 1895. 12.58 367. 107. 36. 4.01 W05 271. 12.33 26. 8. 3. 0.32 DW05 271. 12.33 26. 8. 3. 0.32 DW05RE 0. 0.00 0. 0. 0. 0.32 CPW05 1907. 12.58 376. 109. 36. 5.79 DW05S 1028. 12.58 182. 61. 20. 5.79 DW05SE 879. 12.58 194. 48. 16. 5.79 W0512A 832. 12.92 194. 48. 16. 5.79 W06 722. 12.17 64. 20. 7. 0.71 W07 542. 12.08 55. 19. 6. 0.31 DW07 542. 12.08 37. 11. 4. 0.31 DW07RE 338. 12.17 27. 8. 3. 0.31 CPW07 1049. 12.17 88. 28. 9. 1.02 W07W08 832. 12.25 88. 28. 9. 1.02 W08 632. 12.08 49. 15. 5. 0.45 CPW08 1228. 12.17 136. 42. 14. 1.47 1039.03 HYDROGRAPH AT CUMULATIVE AREA = 20.31 SQ MI + 2 COMBINED AT *** *** *** *** *** + HYDROGRAPH AT STATION SRS60 TRANSPOSITION AREA 30.0 SQ MI PEAK OUTFLOW IS 0. AT TIME ROUTED TO + 0.00 HOURS HYDROGRAPH AT + PEAK FLOW TIME (CFS) (HR) MAXIMUM AVERAGE FLOW 24-HR 72-HR 6-HR + 2 COMBINED AT 166.58-HR + (CFS) + 0. 0.00 (INCHES) (AC-FT) ROUTED TO 0. 0.000 0. 0. 0.000 0. 0. 0.000 0. 0. 0.000 0. + HYDROGRAPH AT + PEAK STORAGE TIME MAXIMUM AVERAGE STORAGE 24-HR 72-HR 6-HR + (AC-FT) 269. (HR) 24.58 166.58-HR DIVERSION TO + 269. 269. 269. 243. HYDROGRAPH AT PEAK STAGE TIME MAXIMUM AVERAGE STAGE 24-HR 72-HR 6-HR + (FEET) 1039.05 (HR) 24.58 + 166.58-HR 2 COMBINED AT 1039.05 1039.05 CUMULATIVE AREA = 1039.06 1039.02 + 20.31 SQ MI ROUTED TO + *** *** *** *** *** HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT STATION SRS60 TRANSPOSITION AREA 60.0 SQ MI ROUTED TO + PEAK OUTFLOW IS 0. AT TIME 0.00 HOURS HYDROGRAPH AT + PEAK FLOW TIME MAXIMUM AVERAGE FLOW 24-HR 72-HR 6-HR + (CFS) 166.58-HR DIVERSION TO (HR) + (CFS) + 0. 0.00 (INCHES) (AC-FT) 0. 0.000 0. 0. 0.000 0. 0. 0.000 0. 0. 0.000 0. HYDROGRAPH AT + 2 COMBINED AT PEAK STORAGE TIME MAXIMUM AVERAGE STORAGE 24-HR 72-HR 6-HR + (AC-FT) 242. (HR) 24.33 PEAK STAGE ROUTED TO 242. 242. TIME (FEET) 1039.04 (HR) 24.33 242. 219. MAXIMUM AVERAGE STAGE 24-HR 72-HR 6-HR + + 166.58-HR 1039.04 1039.03 1039.05 + HYDROGRAPH AT 166.58-HR + 1039.02 DIVERSION TO + CUMULATIVE AREA = 20.31 SQ MI HYDROGRAPH AT *** *** *** *** *** + 3 COMBINED AT + INTERPOLATED HYDROGRAPH AT SRS60 DIVERSION TO PEAK FLOW TIME (CFS) (HR) MAXIMUM AVERAGE FLOW 24-HR 72-HR 6-HR + + 166.58-HR HYDROGRAPH AT (CFS) + 0. 0.00 (INCHES) (AC-FT) + 0. 0.000 0. 0. 0.000 0. CUMULATIVE AREA = 0. 0.000 0. 0. 0.000 0. ROUTED TO + 20.31 SQ MI HYDROGRAPH AT + 1 RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES HYDROGRAPH AT + DIVERSION TO OPERATION STATION PEAK FLOW TIME OF PEAK + AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR BASIN AREA MAXIMUM STAGE TIME OF MAX STAGE + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + L21 168. 13.25 43. 13. 4. 0.52 RL21 168. 13.25 43. 13. 4. 0.52 DL21RE 0. 0.00 0. 0. 0. 0.52 L21L22 0. 0.00 0. 0. 0. 0.52 L22 48. 13.67 18. 5. 2. 0.36 2 COMBINED AT + DIVERSION TO + ROUTED TO + HYDROGRAPH AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + ROUTED TO + 2 COMBINED AT + HYDROGRAPH AT + Page 404 HYDROGRAPH AT Page 405 Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road APPENDIX III FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS April 2011 Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road APPENDIX IV ADWR DOCUMENTATION April 2011 HMS No. 12 A.D.W.R HYDROLOGIC MAP SERIES REPORT NO. 35 DEPTH TO WATER AND WATER - LEVEL ALTITUDE, SHEET 1 OF 3 THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES PREPARED IN COOPERATION WITH THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY R. 4 E. RE CA FO IN TA LA EXPLANATION R. 5 E. UN KE T. 9 N. EE FR NT SA EA PL 95 1084 HIL LS HASSAYAMPA R. 3 E. 112 00 WELL IN WHICH DEPTH TO WATER WAS MEASURED IN 1997-1998 AND 2002-2003. UPPER NUMBER, 95, IS DEPTH TO WATER IN FEET BELOW LAND SURFACE. LOWER NUMBER,1084, IS THE ALTITUDE OF THE WATER LEVEL IN FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL. DATUM IS REFERENCED TO THE NATIONAL VERTICAL GEODETIC DATUM OF 1929. R. 3 W. WEST SALT RIVER VALLEY T. 8 N. EAST SALT RIVER VALLEY BASIN-FILL DEPOSITS, (SILT, SAND, CLAY, GRAVEL, CONGLOMERATE, SANDSTONE, MUDSTONE, EVAPORITES, AND VOLCANICS). 112 30 34 00 AI NT R. 2 E. RAINBOW VALLEY Sub-Basins in the Phoenix AMA M R E IV R MAJOR HIGHWAY R. 6 E. 112 45 R. 1 W. R. 7 W. 165 2150 50 00 12 K EE AN AL K E C REE 0 120 CAV 5 11 800 SCALE BARS 800 750 0 0 95 100 10 1050 TAINS 33 30 1100 1200 IVE R LT SA R. 8 E. 0 1050 90 0 50 10 111 15 R. 9 E. 11 0 850 R. 10 E. S ER RIV LT SA R. 12 E. 23rd Ave WWTP Discharge 1050 900 900 800 SUPERSTITION MOUNTAINS 850 0 S M 50 10 S AR IVE 0 11 5 800 R 750 SI CAN ER 800 A ES 33 15 0 5 11 EL S Queen Creek 00 12 M 11 0 OU 0 NT AI NS 1150 12 GILLESPIE DAM 33 15 EK RE NC EE QU 0 UNT AIN 5 11 LA 112 45 MO 0 115 TR D AL RR BEN 00 L W ASH CAP 850 NIA R. 13 E. 0 TAIN OUN 11 0 H OUT GIL BUCKEYE HILLS CEN 113 00 100 95 ILA G 0 91st Ave WWTP Discharge 1000 700 850 RIVER Arlington 0 1050 800 TEN Apache Junction Mesa Tempe 75 T. 1 S. A KILOMETERS 111 30 1150 Phoenix 900 HI LL GIL 10 R. 11 E. VE E T. 2 S. 5 USERY MOUNTAINS R 1150 0 0 STATUTE MILES Scottsdale 1100 1000 5 50 90 RD 33 15 5 Paradise Valley 90 0 0 MOUN 80 0 O 0 5 GRANITE REEF DAM 950 PA L Fountain HILLS 900 1 T. 1 N. MILLIMETERS METERS KILOMETERS SQUARE KILOMETERS CUBIC HECTOMETERS 1000 000 33 30 25.4 0.3048 1.609 2.59 0.001233 TAINS 95 Tonopah 0 110 850 750 800 10 50 METRIC UNITS INCH FOOT MILE SQUARE MILE ACRE-FEET 0 900 TANK 1100 CA MOUN 115 DESERT 0 90 800 VERDE RIVER NEW CR PC WELL WHITE 0 900 TONOPAH 00 22 1 130 350 0 12 00 13 12 50 AGUA 50 10 00 10 CA LS 00 12 750 1 1 1 1 1 0 UN NS ENGLISH UNITS 11 5 MCDO 1100 110 0 S TA I FOR READERS WHO PREFER TO USE METRIC UNITS RATHER THAN INCH-FEET UNITS, THE CONVERSION FACTORS FOR THE TERMS USED IN THIS REPORT ARE LISTED BELOW: 33 45 LS IL H K N KU MO 850 N 50 TH HIL T T. 2 N. 0 115 PE G LM AL IO ED BE ON PINNACLE PEAK N 10 1000 950 H PLAINS 1250 1200 0 AN PC BOUNDARY OF PHOENIX AMA HIGHWAY SYMBOL (Source: Jim Mossman, Data Deja Vu, 2002) 95 T. 3 N. SUB-BASIN BOUNDARY R. 7 E. 0 225 U 1200 1150 50 10 CAP AL CAN Luke Air Force Base HASSAYAMPA BOUNDARY BETWEEN HARDROCK AND BASIN FILL WATER LEVEL CONTOURS - SHOWS THE APPROXIMATE ALTITUDE OF THE WATER-LEVEL. THE NUMBER 1100 REPRESENTS 1100 FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL. DASHED WHERE INFERRED. 1100 1350 FRIA 1150 HASSAY AMPA 15 RIVER RIVER 00 1000 33 45 NS AI NT 12 0 145 00 14 00 OU 0 125 00 13 T. 5 N. 50 0 14 40 1 M 50 Cave Creek 00 C 12 1600 1550 15 HI P LY 112 15 2100 OG 0 130 T. 4 N. GENERAL DIRECTION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW IN THE PRIMARY PART OF THE MAIN AQUIFER 0 ER VULTURE MOUNTAINS MAJOR WATERWAY 111 45 RIVER 113 00 R. 1 E. HI T. 6 N. INDIAN RESERVATIONS W NE R. 5 W. R. 6 W. R. 8 W. HARDROCK (GRANITIC, METAMORPHIC, VOLCANIC OR CONSOLIDATED SEDIMENTARY ROCK - WATER MAY OCCUR IN WEATHERED OR FRACTURED ZONES, JOINT SYSTEMS, OR FLUVIAL DEPOSITS OVERLYING BEDROCK). OU R. 2 W. R. 4 W. T. 7 N. 34 00 NS 1050 115 0 750 800 11 0 850 E AT W 111 15 AR RM T. 3 S. 0 GIL IVE N A R A W SANTAN MOUNTAINS SH 114 1200 112 00 112 113 111 110 109 37 11 0 0 37 1250 112 30 36 FIG . 1 N A V A J O 1150 T. 4 S. EXPLANATION C O C O N I N O 111 30 0 120 Flagstaff KINGMAN A P A C H E 36 35 35 MOHAVE The Central Arizona Project (CAP), a 336-mile aqueduct designed to carry about 1.5 million acre-feet of surface water annually from the Colorado River to Maricopa, Pinal and Pima Counties, began delivery to the Phoenix metropolitan area in 1985. In 2003, deliveries of CAP water to the Phoenix AMA totaled more than 300,000 acre-feet (CAP, 2004). 0 Prescott 34 34 M A R I C O P A L A PAZ GILA PHOENIX 33 33 00 33 00 YUMA 111 45 GRAHAM (Phoenix WSFO AP, Station:026481) TUCSON P I M A 112 15 32 32 COCHISE 114 111 0 T. 6 S. precipitation (inches) 12.0 pumpage in acre-feet The Hassayampa Sub-basin is further divided into the upper Hassayampa Plain and the Lower Hassayampa Area. Groundwater in the upper Hassayampa Plain occurs primarily under unconfined conditions in the basin-fill deposits (Long, 1983). The upper Hassayampa Plain is predominantly undeveloped with few existing wells scattered over a large area. Groundwater Average Groundwater occurs under generally unconfined conditions throughout most of the alluvial-filled basins and local hardrock areas of the Phoenix AMA. Depths to water range from just below land surface to more than 800 feet below land surface. The main aquifer systems of both the east and west sub-basins are composed primarily of basin-fill deposits. Previous investigations by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (1976) divided these deposits into three hydrogeologic units. 4.0 The units were further defined as the Upper Alluvial Unit (UAU), Middle Alluvial Unit (MAU) and the Lower Alluvial Unit (LAU) by Corkhill and others (1993) in the East and West Salt River Valley Sub-basins. Location, thickness and composition of the units are described in detail by Brown & Pool (1989) and Laney & Hahn (1986). Each of the units is characterized by distinct hydrologic properties that vary in extent and thickness throughout the Phoenix AMA. Detailed hydrologic properties of the units in the East and West Salt River Valley Sub-basins are listed by Township, Range and section in ADWR Modeling Report No. 6 (Correll and Corkhill, 1994). 0.0 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 Source: WRRC, 2004a 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 year 1200000 The average daily temperature in the Phoenix metropolitan area has been increasing steadily during the past 50 years (fig. 4, sheet 1). The average daily temperature for 2003 was 76.3 ºF, (WRCC, 2004b). 600000 Fig. 4 5 Phoenix Average Annual Temperature 400000 Prior to extensive pumping in the AMA, groundwater flowed primarily from ESRV to the WSRV along or toward the Salt and Gila Rivers. Groundwater exited the AMA near the former Gillespie Dam (Freethey and Anderson, 1986). By1964, a large groundwater depression had formed east of the White Tank Mountains, redirecting flow from virtually all directions in the WSRV toward the depression. (ADWR, 2003a). By 1983, localized groundwater depressions caused primarily by decades of agricultural pumping had formed throughout the AMA (Reeter and Remick, 1986). As a result, a groundwater divide has formed in the southwest quarter of Township 1N, Range 4E that essentially severed the hydraulic connection between the ESRV and WSRV sub-basins (Corkhill and others, 1993). Groundwater in the Lower Hassayampa Area occurs primarily under unconfined conditions in the basin-fill deposits (Stulik, 1974), with smaller amounts under locally confined, artesian, or perched conditions (Long, 1983). Agricultural development in the Lower Hassayampa Area began in the early 1950’s (Stulik, 1974) and continues to the present, particularly in the area near Tonopah. Groundwater pumpage from the Hassyampa Sub-Basin (primarily from the Lower Hassayampa Area) was about 49,000 acre-feet in 2002. Although this is only half as much pumped throughout the 1970’s and 80’s, groundwater depressions are still present in both the Centennial Wash and the Tonopah areas. (fig. 1, sheet 1). Recent water-level declines are limited to the Tonopah area (sheet 2). Three newly constructed power plants have also recently begun operation in the Lower Hassayampa Area with a total projected annual water use of more than 17,000 acre-feet. Rainbow Valley Sub-basin Groundwater in the Rainbow Valley Sub-basin (also known as the Waterman Wash Area) occurs under unconfined conditions in the basin-fill alluvial deposits that underlie the valley (Stulik, 1982). Groundwater pumping in the sub-basin began in the 1940’s with the development of agriculture in the area. By 1952, continued pumpage resulted in the development of a groundwater depression in the northwest portion of the sub-basin (Stulik, 1982). Although annual pumpage has declined from a high of 72,000 acre-feet in 1972 (Stulik, 1982) to less than 7,000 acre-feet in 2002, the groundwater depression is still evident. (fig. 1, sheet 1). Lake Pleasant Sub-basin (Phoenix WSFO AP, Station:026481) 78 200000 0 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 76 Although groundwater levels in the ESRV have risen somewhat, the map prepared for this report (fig. 1, sheet 1) shows that most of the groundwater depressions depicted on the 1983 and 1992 maps (Reeter and Remick, 1986 and Hammett and Herther, 1995, respectively) are still evident. The groundwater divide that developed around 1983 between the East and West Salt River Valley sub-basins is still present. The hydrogeologic units of the Lake Pleasant Sub-basin consist of unconsolidated basin fill and streambed alluvium underlain by sedimentary sandstone and conglomerate. The sedimentary layer is underlain locally by Tertiary volcanics and Precambrian schist. The unconsolidated basin fill, interbedded with volcanics, intrusives and conglomerate make up the main water-producing aquifer in the sub-basin (Clear Creek & Associates, 2003). The major drainages include the Salt, Gila, Verde, Hassayampa, Agua Fria and New Rivers, Queen, Cave and Skunk Creeks and Indian Bend Wash. Upstream dams and diversions prevent all but the upper reach of Cave Creek and the Verde River from having natural perennial flow within the Phoenix AMA. The entire flow of the Salt River below Stewart Mountain Dam (except for minor overflow and during infrequent periods of extreme flooding) is diverted at Granite Reef Dam (10 miles downstream) for irrigation and municipal use in the Phoenix AMA (McCormack and others, 2003). Effluent dominated perennial flow is also present in the Salt River below the City of Phoenix 23rd and 91st Ave. wastewater treatment plants. Flows below the City of Phoenix 23rd and 91st Ave wastewater treatment plants are comprised primarily of treated effluent discharged by the plants but may also include irrigation return flows from agricultural fields and rainfall runoff from urban land. temperature (degrees F) The Phoenix AMA is located primarily in south-central Arizona. This area is part of the Basin and Range physiographic province described by Fenneman (1931). It is characterized by alluvium filled basins separated by elongated fault-block mountain ranges. 74 West Salt River Valley Sub-basin Annual pumpage in the Lake Pleasant Sub-basin is minimal. Since 1992, reported pumpage has averaged about 1,550 acre-feet per year and has exceeded 2,000 acre-feet in only three of the past 13 years. The sources of groundwater in the WSRV are spread almost evenly among the three alluvial units: 32 percent from the UAU, 33 percent from the MAU, and 35 percent from the LAU (ADWR, 2003a). About 6,817,500 acre-feet of groundwater was withdrawn from the WSRV from 1990 to 2002. 72 Major sources of groundwater recharge in the WSRV include incidental recharge of agricultural irrigation (approx. 200,000 acre-feet/year) and effluent discharged from the City of Phoenix 23rd and 91st Ave. wastewater treatment plants (approx. 40,000 acre-feet/year). An increasing amount of aquifer recharge of surface water and effluent is currently managed at 10 permitted underground storage facilities (USFs) in the WSRV. Approximately 125,950 acre-feet was stored from 1996 to 2002 via USFs in the WSRV. From 1996 to 2002, 4,220,088 acre-feet from all sources was recharged in the WSRV (ADWR, 2003a). 70 68 66 1945 Perennial flow in the Hassayampa River near Arlington is also dependant on effluent discharged by the City of Phoenix 91st Ave wastewater treatment plant. The effluent is mixed with groundwater in the Buckeye Canal and used to irrigate cotton and other crops. Downstream, effluent and irrigation return flows in the Buckeye Canal are discharged into the river near Arlington (Cordy and others, 2000 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 year Source: WRRC, 2004b ADWR BOOKSTORE Phone: (602) 771-8638 Fax: (602) 771-8690 WEBSITE: www.azwater.gov 2000 2005 0 Withdrawal of groundwater in the WSRV from 1990 to 2002 exceeded recharge by almost 2.6 million acre-feet. This fact, along with historic overpumping in the area around Luke Air Force Base has resulted in a large groundwater depression known locally as the Luke cone of depression. Coinciding with this large groundwater depression, land subsidence of up to 18 feet has been recorded in the vicinity of Luke Air Force Base (Schuman and O’day, 1995). ADWR is currently monitoring land subsidence in the WSRV. In addition to the area around Luke Air Force Base, preliminary results have identified several areas of active land subsidence as high as 7 cm (2.75 inches) per year between 1997 and 2000. (ADWR, 2003b). Groundwater in the Carefree Sub-basin occurs under a variety of conditions. Water bearing units may consist of unconsolidated streambed alluvium, and various members of the Carefree Formation (HydroSystems, 2000). Local areas of fractured schist, gneiss and granite also yield water to wells (Littin, 1979). The Carefree Formation is the major water-producing unit, with the majority of water pumped in the basin coming from its various members (HydroSystems, 2000). Pumpage in the Carefree Sub-basin is primarily for domestic use, municipal use and golf course irrigation. Reported pumpage in the subbasin has decreased from approximately 3,700 acre-feet in 1990 to less than 2,100 acre-feet in 2002. As a result of historic heavy pumping, cones of depression formed near the Carefree Airport in the south-central portion of the basin and in the northern part of the Town of Cave Creek. The depression near the airport reached its largest extent in 1993 (Bernier, 2001), and is currently less pronounced. However, the cone of depression centered in the southeast quarter of section 21 in Township 6N, Range 4E in the northern part of the Town of Cave Creek, is still well defined. (fig 1, sheet 1.) East Salt River Valley Sub-basin The primary source of groundwater in the ESRV is the LAU. Nearly half (49 percent) of the total pumpage in the ESRV is withdrawn from the LAU, 40 percent from the MAU, and only 11 percent from the UAU (ADWR, 2003a). About 4,257,500 acre-feet of groundwater was withdrawn in the ESRV from 1990 to 2002 (ADWR, 2003a). Major sources of groundwater recharge in the ESRV include agricultural irrigation (approx. 250,000 acre-feet/year), canal leakage (approx. 22,000 acre-feet/year), and storage at USFs. Aquifer recharge of surface water and effluent is currently managed at 12 permitted USFs in the ESRV. Approximately 789,500 acre-feet was stored from 1995 to 2002 at USFs in the ESRV, and about 6,946,430 acre-feet from all sources was recharged from 1990 to 2002 (ADWR, 2003a). Recharge of groundwater in the ESRV from 1990 to 2002 exceeded withdrawals by almost 2.7 million acre-feet. Localized pumping near Apache Junction area in the ESRV may be the cause of past earth fissuring and ongoing land subsidence of up to 2.5 cm (about 1 inch) per year (ADWR, 2003b). Other areas in the ESRV with documented earth fissures and/or land subsidence are in the vicinities of Queen Creek, North Scottsdale and Paradise Valley (ADWR, 2003b). Hydrographs for selected wells throughout the AMA are presented in Sheet 3. The Hydrographs were prepared using data from ADWR’s Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI) Database. The hydrogeology of the Fountain Hills Sub-basin is not well documented. A geologic cross-section through the Town of Fountain Hills prepared by HydroSystems (1999), indicates a confined aquifer system consisting primarily of clays and interbedded conglomerates. Separate aquifer systems occur within the recent alluvium in the streams and washes around the Town of Fountain Hills (HydroSystems 1999) and along the Verde River. In the area on the west side of the Verde River, east of Pinnacle Peak and north of the McDowell Mountains, groundwater is present in an aquifer comprised of decomposed and fractured granites (ADWR, 2001). East of this area, a clay sequence as thick as 600 feet is encountered toward the Verde River. The clay acts as a barrier to groundwater flow between the shallow alluvial aquifer along the Verde River and the decomposed and fractured granites (ADWR, 2001). Most of the groundwater development in the Fountain Hills Sub-basin is limited to the area around the town of Fountain Hills and the area west of the retirement community of Rio Verde. Groundwater pumpage is primarily for domestic use, municipal use and golf course irrigation. Both the number of wells and the volume of groundwater pumped in the sub-basin has increased steadily since 1990. Reported pumpage in 2002 was about 4,700 acre-feet compared to 1990 when pumpage was just over 2,500 acre-feet. Since 1997, significant changes in water levels have been recorded throughout the AMA. The area with the largest increases in water levels from 1997 to 2000 (from +25 to +75 feet) is in the southeast portion of the ESRV while the largest and most extensive area of decline (from -25 to -50 feet) is in the WSRV (sheet 2). 50 50 110 109 100 MILES 100 150 KILOMETERS INDEX MAP SHOWING AREA OF REPORT (SHADED) References ADWR, 2001, Arizona Department of Water Resources Hydrology Division Water Resources Section. Memo to File, Water Availability review for a Certificate of Assured Water Supply, Verde Estates, application no. 27-400468,dated March, 2001. ADWR, 2003a, Arizona Department of Water Resources Hydrology Division Modeling Unit. Personal communication with Phil Janke. ADWR, 2003b, Arizona Department of Water Resources Hydrology Division Surveying Unit. Personal communication with Maurice Tatlow. Fountain Hills Sub-basin Water Level Changes year Physiographical Setting BASE MAP FROM U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PHOENIX, ARIZONA, 1954,REV.1969,1:250,000 MESA, ARIZONA, 1954, REV. 1978, 1:125,000 HOLBROOK, ARIZONA, 1954, REV. 1970, 1:250,000 AJO, ARIZONA, 1953, REV. 1969, 1:250,000 Carefree Sub-basin Hassayampa Sub-basin 8.0 1400000 Source: ADWR WRRC, 2003b Nogales 112 Fig. 3 2 Total Annual Pumpage in the Phoenix AMA 800000 SANTA CRUZ 113 16.0 1000000 33 P I N A L Y uma T. 5 S. Fig. 3 4 Total Annual Precipitation (inches) Land and Water Use Despite the decrease in agricultural land use, groundwater withdrawn for agriculture still exceeds that withdrawn for municipal and industrial use. In 2000, agricultural use accounted for approximately 54.7% of all groundwater withdrawn in the AMA, and municipal (including domestic) and industrial (including mining and turf-related facilities) use was approximately 31.9% and 13.4%, respectively. From 1990 to 2002, the highest total groundwater pumpage in the AMA was in 1990 while the lowest was in 1992. However, since 1992 the trend has been a general increase in total annual pumpage (fig. 2, sheet 1). GREENLEE Climate in the Phoenix AMA is semi-arid. Precipitation averages about 7.6 inches per year (WRCC, 2004a). The Phoenix area as well as much of the State of Arizona is in the midst of a drought that began in 1996 (fig. 3, sheet 1). During this drought, average annual precipitation has been below normal in six of the past eight years. Water-level data presented in this report were collected and compiled by the Field Services Section of the Arizona Department of Water Resources from November 2002 to February 2003. Historic pumpage data were compiled by the Hydrology Division and the Phoenix AMA Office. Land use within the Phoenix AMA has become increasingly urban with the expansion of the Phoenix metropolitan area into native desert and previously irrigated agricultural areas. The population of Maricopa County, which includes the Phoenix metropolitan area, has increased more than 50 percent since 1990 from approximately 2,122,100 to 3,194,800 in 2001 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). By 1995, urban land use in the Phoenix AMA (Maricopa county portion only and excluding the Gila River Indian Reservation) exceeded agricultural land use (ASU CAPLTER, 2003). Combined irrigated acreage of agricultural land in the East and West sub-basins (Maricopa county only and excluding the Gila River Indian Reservation) decreased from approximately 264,000 acres in 1995 to less than 200,000 acres in 2000 while urban land use has increased from approximately 280,000 acres to more than 420,000 over the same time period (ASU CAPLTER, 2003). Prior to the early 1990’s agriculture was the dominant land use in the Phoenix AMA. Holbrook YAVAPAI 90 The Phoenix Active Management Area (AMA) is subdivided into seven legislatively defined sub-basins (fig. 1, sheet 1): three hydrologically interconnected east valley sub-basins [East Salt River Valley (ESRV), Carefree and Fountain Hills] and four hydrologically interconnected west valley sub-basins [West Salt River Valley (WSRV), Lake Pleasant, Hassayampa and Rainbow Valley]. Hydrologic interconnection between the east and west valley sub-basins is minimal. Hydrographs and maps showing groundwater level contours are presented for each of the sub-basins. Discussion of groundwater conditions and water-level changes focuses on the larger East and West Salt River Valley sub-basins. The sub-basins of the Phoenix AMA are located almost entirely within Maricopa County except for a portion of the southeastern ESRV, which is located in Pinal County and small hardrock areas of the northern Hassaymapa, WSRV and Lake Pleasant Sub-basins located in Yavapai County. ADWR, 2003c, Arizona Department of Water Resources Phoenix AMA. Personal communication with Virginia O’Connell. ASU CAPLTER, 2003, Preliminary and revised data compiled by the Central Arizona Phoenix LongtermEcological Research Historic Land Use Team. Center for Environmental Studies, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ. HydroSystems, 1999, Fountain Hills Sanitary District, Fountain Hills, Arizona, Underground Storage Facility and Aquifer Protection Permit Applications. HydroSystems, Inc., Tempe AZ. HydroSystems, 2000, North Scottsdale Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project, Full Scale Underground Storage Facility Permit Application. HydroSystems, Inc., Tempe AZ. Laney, R. L., and Hahn, M. E., 1986, Hydrogeology of the Eastern Part of the Salt River Valley Area, Maricopa and Pinal Counties, Arizona. U. S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation Report 86-4147. Littin, G. R., 1979, Maps Showing Groundwater Conditions in the New-River-Cave Creek Area, Maricopa and Yavapai Counties, Arizona-1979. U. S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation Open- File Report 79-1068. Bernier, Joseph C., 2001, Report on the Year 2001 static water level measurements in the CarefreeCave Creek Basin. Joseph C. Bernier & Associates, Glendale, AZ. Long, M. R., 1983, Maps Showing Groundwater Conditions in the Hassayampa Sub-basin of the Phoenix Active Management Area, Maricopa and Yavapai Counties, Arizona-1982. Arizona Department of Water Resources Hydrologic Map Series No. 10. Brown, J. G. and Pool, D. R., 1989, Hydrogeology of the Western Part of the Salt River Valley, Maricopa County, Arizona. U. S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation Report 884202. McCormick, H. F., Fisk, G. G., Duet, N. R., Evans, D. W., Roberts, W. P., Castillo, N. K., 2003, Water Resources Data for Arizona, Water Year 2002, Water-Data Report AZ-02-1. U. S. Geological Survey, WRD, Tucson, AZ. Central Arizona Project, 2004, Central Arizona Project CY 2003 Annual Turnout Delivery Summary. Reeter, R.W. and Remick, W.H., 1986, Maps Showing Groundwater Conditions in the West Salt River, East Salt River, Lake Pleasant, Carefree and Fountain Hills Sub-basins of the Phoenix Active Management Area, Maricopa, Pinal and Yavapai Counties, Arizona-1983. Arizona Department of Water Resources Hydrologic Map Series No.12. Cordy, G. E., Gellenbeck, D. J., Gebler, J. B., Anning, D. W., Coes, A. L., Edmonds, R. J., Rees, J. A. H., and Sanger, H. W., 2000, Water Quality in the Central Arizona Basins, Arizona, 199598: U. S. Geological Survey Circular 1213, 38 p. on-line at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/circ 1213/ Corkhill, E. F., Correl, S. W., Hill, B. M. and Carr, D. A., 1993 A Regional Flow Model of the Salt River Valley - Phase I, Phoenix Active Management Area, Hydrogeologic Framework and Basic DataReport. Arizona Department of Water Resources Modeling Report No. 6. Schumann, H. H., and O’Day, C. M., 1995, Investigation of Hydrogeology, Land Subsidence, and Earth Fissures, Luke Air Force Base, Arizona. U. S. Geological Survey Administrative Report. Stulik, R. S., 1974, Ground-water conditions in the Lower Hassayampa Area, Maricopa County, Arizona: Arizona Water Commission Bulletin 8. The areas where substantial water-level rises have occurred coincide with sizeable decreases of agriculture combined with increased use of surface water, (primarily CAP) in lieu of groundwater on the remaining agricultural land. From 1992 to 2001 more than1.3 million acre-feet of in lieu CAP water was ‘stored’ in the Phoenix AMA (ADWR, 2003c). Of the 1.3 million acre-feet, most (approx. 75 percent) was ‘stored’ in the ESRV. Other small local areas of water-level rise have resulted from artificial recharge at many of the permitted USFs located throughout the AMA Correl, S. W., and Corkhill, E. F., 1994, A Regional Flow Model of the Salt River Valley – Phase II, Phoenix Active Management Area, Hydrogeologic Framework and Basic Data Report. Arizona Department of Water Resources Modeling Report No. 6. Within the large area of water-level decline in the WSRV, agricultural land use has continued to decrease due to expanding urbanization. The extent of the recent water level decline is a result of increased groundwater pumping over the past five years due in large part to the ongoing drought. Salt River Project (SRP) operates a high number of large-capacity wells in this area of water-level decline and has had to rely heavily on pumping these wells during times when surface water is not readily available. At the center of the decline in Township 2N, Range 1E, withdrawals have increased from less than 40,000 acre-feet in 1997 to more than 60,000 acre-feet in 2002. Throughout the AMA, SRP pumped over 300,000 acre-feet of groundwater in 2002 compared to only 77,000 acre-feet in 1998, when surface water was readily available and demand was lower due to above average annual rainfall. Fenneman, N. M., 1931, Physiography of the Western United States: McGraw Hill Book Co., Inc. New York and London. U. S. Census Bureau, 2003, State and County QuickFacts. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, PopulationEstimates Program (PEP).Updated annually. http://eire.census.gov/popest/estimates. php Freethey, G. W., and Anderson, T. W., 1986, Predevelopment Hydrologic Conditions in the Alluvial Basins of Arizona and Adjacent Parts of California and New Mexico. USGS Hydrologic Investigation Atlas HA-664. WRCC, 2004a, Monthly Total Precipitation (inches) Station:(026481) Phoenix WSFO AP From Year 1948 to Year 2003. Western Regional Climate Center, Division of Atmospheric Sciences, Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?azphoe Hammett, B. A., and Herther, R. L., 1995, Maps Showing Groundwater Conditions in the Phoenix Active Management Area, Maricopa, Pinal and Yavapai Counties, Arizona-1992. Arizona Department of Water Resources Hydrologic Map Series. No. 27. WRCC, 2004b, Phoenix WSFO AP, Arizona Monthly Average (Degrees Fahrenheit) Station:(026481). Western Regional Climate Center, Division of Atmospheric Sciences, Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada.http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?azphoe MAPS SHOWING GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS IN THE PHOENIX ACTIVE MANAGEMENT AREA MARICOPA, PINAL, AND YAVAPAI COUNTIES, ARIZONA—NOV. 2002- FEB. 2003 BY S.J. RASCONA Clear Creek & Associates, 2003, City of Peoria Groundwater Flow Model of the West Salt River Valley . Clear Creek & Associates, Phoenix, AZ. Stulik, R. S., 1982, Ground-water conditions in the Waterman Wash Area, Maricopa and Pinal Counties, Arizona: Arizona Department of Water Resources Hydrologic Map Series No. 8. U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1976, Central Arizona Project, Geology and Groundwater Resources Report, Maricopa and Pinal Counties, Arizona. Vols. 1 & 2. THESE HYDROLOGIC MAPS ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST FROM THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, INFORMATION CENTRAL, 3550 NORTH CENTRAL AVE, PHOENIX, ARIZONA, 85012. THE HYDROLOGIC DATA ON WHICH THESE MAPS ARE BASED ARE AVAILABLE AT THE ADWR BOOKSTORE. (602) 771-8638 HMS No. 35 A.D.W.R HYDROLOGIC MAP SERIES REPORT NO. 35 THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES PREPARED IN COOPERATION WITH THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER LEVEL CHANGE MAP SHEET 2 OF 3 FR EE T. 9 N. EXPLANATION R. 5 E. IN TA UN LA K FO E PL CA EA RE SA N T R. 4 E. HIL HASSAYAMPA LS R. 3 E. -12 112 00 R. 3 W. WEST SALT RIVER VALLEY T. 8 N. EAST SALT RIVER VALLEY NS 51 AI NT 112 30 34 00 M Sub-Basins in the Phoenix AMA Sub-Basins in the Phoenix AMA BASIN-FILL DEPOSITS, (SILT, SAND, CLAY, GRAVEL, CONGLOMERATE, SANDSTONE, MUDSTONE, EVAPORITES, AND VOLCANICS R T. 7 N. VE RI R. 2 E. R. 2 W. W NE HARDROCK (GRANITIC, METAMORPHIC, VOLCANIC OR CONSOLIDATED SEDIMENTARY ROCK - WATER MAY OCCUR IN WEATHERED OR FRACTURED ZONES, JOINT SYSTEMS, OR FLUVIAL DEPOSITS OVERLYING BEDROCK). R. 4 W. HI ER R. 5 W. MAJOR HIGHWAY OG R. 6 W. LY P 112 45 R. 6 E. HI C R. 7 W. R. 8 W. T. 6 N. R. 1 E. R. 1 W. MAJOR WATERWAYS 111 45 M 113 00 OU VULTURE MOUNTAINS BOUNDARY BETWEEN HARDROCK AND BASIN FILL NT AI NS 72 112 15 SUB-BASIN BOUNDARY BOUNDARY OF PHOENIX AMA Cave Creek N IL H RIVER AGUA ON DESERT AL CAN 3 73 53 21 Fountain Hills SCALE BARS TANK CAP 19 29 WHITE TONOPAH CA VE 28 NS T. 3 N. CR SK 20 CA 54 PC AINS MOUNT T. 33 30 2 N. 15 5 50 27 USERY MOUNTAINS 18 23 Phoenix Scottsdale 40 E HI LL 23rd Ave WWTP Discharge NI AL R. 9 E. H 49 R. 13 E. PC RIVER 47 57 S GIL TH R M AL IVE BUCKEYE HILLS TAIN OUN AN AR SOU 33 59 61 7 62 58 35 65 BEN REEK NC UEE ES TR D MO M 34 Queen Creek 66 67 S IN TA N U GILLESPIE DAM O S 64 LA 112 45 UNT AIN Q EL 113 00 33 15 63 A A RR GIL ER T. 2 S. 60 33 15 SI 33 15 SUPERSTITION MOUNTAINS Apache Junction CA GILA Arlington R. 10 E. R. 12 E. 46 Mesa 91st Ave WWTP Discharge 111 15 45 RIVER Tempe 8 44 43 SALT 10 WA S T. 1 S. R. 11 E. 48 12 NT EN 111 30 13 25 CE KILOMETERS 42 41 24 1 S LT SA E RIV 39 9 2 RD 10 R. 8 E. R 11 PA L VE 5 33 30 52 Paradise Valley 17 O 0 51 26 Tonopah STATUTE MILES 5 0 GRANITE REEF DAM AL 16 T. 1 N. 5 AN 14 4 MILLIMETERS METERS KILOMETERS SQUARE KILOMETERS CUBIC HECTOMETERS NS TA I EE UN 30 MO UN K K T 25.4 0.3048 1.609 2.59 0.001233 VERDE LM OUNTAI BE METRIC UNITS INCH FOOT MILE SQUARE MILE ACRE-FEET RIVER CR EE K NEW RIVER 55 ELL M 22 PLAINS 1 1 1 1 1 MCDOW Luke Air Force Base ENGLISH UNITS 33 45 LS 31 PINNACLE PEAK IO LS HASSAY AMPA N TH HIL 32 74 U PE HASSAY AMPA FOR READERS WHO PREFER TO USE METRIC UNITS RATHER THAN INCH-FEET UNITS, THE CONVERSION FACTORS FOR THE TERMS USED IN THIS REPORT ARE LISTED BELOW: G T. 4 N. AL CAN ED 5 HIGHWAY SYMBOL (Source: Jim Mossman, Data Deja Vu, 2002) H CAP 6 33 45 R.7 E. 56 38 FRIA RIVER T. 5 N. WELL WITH HYDROGRAPHS. THE NUMBER 51 IS THE NUMBER OF THE HYDROGRAPH IN PLATE 3. 34 00 OU RAINBOW VALLEY WELL IN WHICH DEPTH TO WATER WAS MEASURED IN 1997- 1998 AND 2002 - 2003 THE NUMBER -12 IS THE DIFFERENCE, IN FEET BETWEEN MEASUREMENTS FOR THE TIME PERIOD 1997 - 1998 TO 2002 - 2003. UNSIGNED VALUES DENOTE RISES IN WATER LEVELS AND VALUES WITH NEGATIVE SIGNS DENOTE DECLINES IN WATER LEVELS. 64.8 68 RM E AT W 111 15 GILA RIVER N A T. 3 S. 70 A W SANTAN MOUNTAINS SH 69 114 >50 WATER-LEVEL DECLINES 40 to 50 - 10 to 19.9 30 to 40 - 20 to 29.9 71 112 30 109 37 36 36 C O C O N I N O T. 4 S. - 0 to 10 110 Flagstaff KINGMAN 111 30 35 35 MOHAVE Holbrook YAVAPAI Prescott 34 37 34 M A R I C O P A L A PAZ GILA PHOENIX 33 20 to 30 10 to 20 YUMA - 30 to 39.9 T. 5 S. - 40 to 49.9 GRAHAM GREENLEE WATER-LEVEL RISES 111 A P A C H E EXPLANATION OF DIFFERENT COLOR ZONES, RISES AND DECLINES IN FEET (1997- 1998 TO 2002-2003). 112 113 37 112 00 N A V A J O 36 33 P I N A L Y uma 33 00 33 00 TUCSON 111 45 P I M A 32 32 COCHISE 114 0 to 10 > - 50 SANTA CRUZ 113 112 15 Nogales 112 111 0 0 T. 6 S. BASE MAP FROM U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PHOENIX, ARIZONA, 1954,REV.1969,1:250,000 MESA, ARIZONA, 1954, REV. 1978, 1:125,000 HOLBROOK, ARIZONA, 1954, REV. 1970, 1:250,000 AJO, ARIZONA, 1953, REV. 1969, 1:250,000 ADWR BOOKSTORE Phone: (602) 771-8638 Fax: (602) 771 8690 WEBSITE: www.azwater.gov 50 50 110 109 100 MILES 100 150 KILOMETERS INDEX MAP SHOWING AREA OF REPORT (SHADED) MAPS SHOWING GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS IN THE PHOENIX ACTIVE MANAGEMENT AREA MARICOPA, PINAL, AND YAVAPAI COUNTIES, ARIZONA—NOV. 2002- FEB. 2003 BY S.J. RASCONA THESE HYDROLOGIC MAPS ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST FROM THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, INFORMATION CENTRAL, 3550 NORTH CENTRAL AVE, PHOENIX, ARIZONA, 85012. THE HYDROLOGIC DATA ON WHICH THESE MAPS ARE BASED ARE AVAILABLE AT THE ADWR BOOKSTORE. (602) 771-8638 D.W.R HYDROLOGIC MAP SERIES REPORT NO. 35 THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES PREPARED IN COOPERATION WITH THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY HYDROGRAPHS FOR SELECTED WELLS IN THE PHOENIX AMA, SHEET 3 OF 3 HASSAYAMPA 75 1 125 1965 50 2 UNUSED DEPTH: 304 ft. 12 B-01-05 08DAB 0 1985 1995 1975 1985 3 250 PUBLIC SUPPLY DEPTH: 771 ft. A-04-01 18DAA 31 UNUSED DEPTH: 500 ft. B-04-01 09BCD 300 300 40 50 UNUSED DEPTH: 300 ft. A-01-05 06BDA1 50 100 350 2005 1995 2005 13 1985 1995 49 150 1965 1975 1985 1995 450 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 50 32 300 UNUSED DEPTH: 1155 ft 1975 41 150 1985 IRRIGATION DEPTH:700 ft. 1995 2005 23 200 1995 A-01-08 32BBA 650 1985 1995 100 33 1975 1985 1995 UNUSED DEPTH: 740 ft. D-01-01 13DDD1 150 1965 1975 1985 1995 50 300 IRRIGATION DEPTH: 1003 ft. 2005 4 200 UNUSED DEPTH: 390 ft. 1965 1975 42 1985 UNUSED DEPTH: 664 ft. 1995 200 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 24 IRRIGATION DEPTH: 425 ft. A-01-06 03ADA 15 IRRIGATION DEPTH: 700 ft. 1965 300 59 200 400 1965 350 100 1975 1985 1995 34 150 51 1975 1985 STOCK DEPTH: 550 ft. 1995 1985 1995 2005 1995 D-03-08 04BBA 2005 D-01-06 24CCC2 350 400 300 450 350 500 69 400 1985 1995 200 1965 B-04-05 05ABB 16 100 1985 IRRIGATION DEPTH: 560 ft 1995 1995 2005 1975 1985 1995 D-03-08 20BDC 2005 2005 60 350 1975 1985 UNUSED DEPTH: UNKNOWN 350 1965 1975 1975 400 450 5 1975 IRRIGATION DEPTH: 1000 ft. 2005 250 1965 350 1985 250 200 STOCK DEPTH: 712 ft. 2005 D-02-09 36DBD A-02-05 10DDD1 200 C-02-01 33AAA 150 300 2005 1975 IRRIGATION DEPTH: 1008 ft. 68 1965 IRRIGATION DEPTH: 1030 ft. 300 1995 1995 2005 RAINBOW VALLEY A-02-01 14BBA 100 250 1985 1985 600 200 250 450 B-01-03 21DBB 1965 1975 1975 PUBLIC SUPPLY DEPTH: 890 ft. 50 100 1965 525 2005 300 2005 B-02-07 23CCA D-01-05 36DDD A-02-04 11DCC2 350 300 2005 400 1995 2005 550 2005 300 1985 1995 1965 1965 1965 250 0 1975 58 1985 350 350 1965 D-02-08 27DDD 475 1975 IRRIGATION DEPTH: 500 ft. 150 1975 IRRIGATION DEPTH: 614 ft. 425 67 600 250 A-02-01 08DDD 375 A-01-05 16ABB 400 IRRIGATION DEPTH: 600 ft. 66 D-01-05 08DDD2 250 100 B-01-02 05CBB 300 14 IRRIGATION DEPTH: 1000 ft. 2005 1965 1965 UNUSED DEPTH: 400 ft. 57 2005 200 1995 1985 B-05-02 35BAA 250 1985 1975 IRRIGATION DEPTH: 700 ft. 550 1965 2005 B-02-06 05DAA 1975 150 500 200 450 A-01-04 18DAD 200 100 1965 A-01-08 10DCC1 2005 400 UNUSED DEPTH: 200 ft. COMMERCIAL DEPTH: 300 ft. 200 1965 400 350 1975 48 100 B-01-06 11BCA 0 IRRIGATION DEPTH: 890 ft. 22 A-01-03 18BBC 50 1975 IRRIGATION DEPTH: UNKNOWN 100 1965 100 1965 IRRIGATION DEPTH: 410 ft. 300 300 350 350 STOCK DEPTH: UNKNOWN D-01-07 25ADD 400 2005 25 100 IRRIGATION DEPTH: 350 ft. B-01-04 27ABB A-02-01 20DDD2 500 450 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 400 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 61 150 400 1965 150 1965 1975 1985 1995 1975 1985 1995 2005 35 6 400 550 2005 IRRIGATION DEPTH: 750 ft. 1965 1965 1975 B-05-04 24CCD 26 200 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 UNUSED DEPTH: 708 ft. 1995 1975 1985 1995 2005 B-02-01 14CBB 43 250 150 IRRIGATION DEPTH: 1000 ft. D-01-08 21ADB 500 300 2005 MAU C-02-02 10CCC 200 STOCK DEPTH: 800 ft. 400 1985 MONITOR WELLS PZ1, PZ2 52 A-01-06 16AAB IRRIGATION DEPTH: 800 ft. A-02-06 32ACD 200 550 Legend Depth: 350 1965 PZ1 830 1975 1985 1995 2005 PZ2 470 450 1965 7 0 1975 1985 1995 2005 100 17 IRRIGATION DEPTH: 700 ft. A-02-01 36DAD 250 300 200 70 350 400 250 IRRIGATION DEPTH: 757 ft. D-03-09 20DAA LAU IRRIGATION DEPTH: 650 ft. C-01-05 29ADC 1965 50 200 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 300 350 250 150 27 1975 1985 UNUSED DEPTH: 480 ft. 1995 2005 450 1965 300 62 350 400 1975 1985 MONITOR WELLS PZ1, PZ2 1995 2005 D-01-08 30DAA 450 250 B-02-02 04DCB 400 300 350 1965 100 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 100 18 IRRIGATION DEPTH: 702 ft. 8 200 1985 1995 2005 400 36 1965 IRRIGATION DEPTH: 950 ft. 1975 1985 1995 MAU 2005 C-03-01 28CDD 44 C-01-07 14BBB 1965 UNUSED DEPTH: 600 ft. 1975 1985 1995 71 A-01-07 11CAA 350 53 400 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 300 IRRIGATION DEPTH: 981ft. 1975 1985 1995 2005 28 UNUSED DEPTH: 1200 ft. 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 19 UNUSED DEPTH: 1000 ft. 1975 1975 1985 1995 45 2005 400 A-03-01 04BAA2 350 300 1985 1995 37 STOCK DEPTH: 750 ft. UNUSED DEPTH: 1041 ft. A-01-07 18ACC LAU 75 1985 1995 IRRIGATION DEPTH: 910 ft. 350 1975 1985 54 UNUSED DEPTH: 1280 ft. 1995 1965 1975 1985 1995 125 1965 1975 1985 1995 1985 1995 150 64 UNUSED DEPTH: 717 ft. D-02-06 26DDD 150 550 1965 LAKE PLEASANT 450 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 175 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 350 29 38 UNUSED DEPTH: 534 ft. B-03-02 21ABA 10 20 A-01-01 19DCD1 0 1965 200 A-03-01 21CBB 1975 46 400 200 1995 2005 200 600 1985 1995 2005 73 475 PUBLIC SUPPLY DEPTH: 735 ft. A-03-06 15ABA 325 1965 IRRIGATION DEPTH: 505 ft. 1985 FOUNTAIN HILLS A-06-02 30AAA 325 UNUSED DEPTH: 100 ft. 1975 275 STOCK DEPTH: 230 ft. 150 A-06-04 21DAC A-03-04 24CAA 2005 2005 DOMESTIC DEPTH: 350 ft. 2005 225 1975 72 2005 450 1965 2005 175 500 450 1995 100 1965 400 400 1985 CAREFREE 125 400 A-01-01 02CCC 1975 D-02-05 09DDD 450 9 1965 2005 50 450 WEST SALT RIVER VALLEY 63 1975 IRRIGATION DEPTH: 290 ft. 400 D-04-01 28CDD 350 75 2005 250 1965 2005 350 1965 300 300 1995 D-04-08 02CCC PZ2 696 400 B-03-01 08ABB1 1985 PZ1 1084 400 1965 200 1965 1975 UNUSED DEPTH: 485 ft. 200 Legend Depth A-03-04 17BAA 350 400 250 1965 2005 350 150 500 300 450 350 300 UNUSED DEPTH: 500 ft. 1975 A-02-02 14CBC2 1975 1985 1995 2005 250 PUBLIC SUPPLY DEPTH: 1000 ft. A-01-07 26AAC2 55 PUBLIC SUPPLY DEPTH: 1169 ft. A-04-04 13CCC 575 375 1965 300 1975 1985 1995 2005 250 50 1965 450 250 1975 1985 1995 2005 525 74 625 EAST SALT RIVER VALLEY 100 300 1965 50 11 1975 1985 IRRIGATION DEPTH: 500 ft. 1995 2005 A-01-02 09AAB2 1965 21 1975 1985 UNUSED DEPTH: 851 ft. 1995 2005 500 1965 30 A-03-02 22BAA 275 1975 1985 IRRIGATION DEPTH: 1030 ft. 1995 2005 39 UNUSED DEPTH: 610 ft. 350 A-01-04 02DBB 1965 1975 47 175 1985 MONITOR WELLS PZ1, PZ2, PZ3 1995 2005 675 325 450 225 Legend Depth: 500 400 1965 65 A-01-07 36DAA2 725 1965 450 LAU LAU 100 250 MAU 56 250 1975 1985 DOMESTIC DEPTH: 480 ft. 1995 350 1975 1985 IRRIGATION DEPTH: 1524 ft. 1995 2005 D-02-07 04ADD 375 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 500 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 1965 275 1975 1985 1995 2005 450 A-06-02 25BDD1 300 500 300 550 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 1965 1975 400 2005 PZ 1 1241 PZ 2 932 PZ 3 599 150 A-05-06 27ADD 300 575 125 B-04-02 36BCB 400 DOMESTIC DEPTH: 1960 ft. 1985 1995 2005 1965 1975 1985 1995 350 2005 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 550 EXPLANATION MAU-Middle Alluvial Unit of the basin-fill deposits 600 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 LAU-Lower Alluvial Unit of the basin-fill deposits BASE MAP FROM U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PHOENIX, ARIZONA, 1954,REV.1969,1:250,000 MESA, ARIZONA, 1954, REV. 1978, 1:125,000 HOLBROOK, ARIZONA, 1954, REV. 1970, 1:250,000 AJO, ARIZONA, 1953, REV. 1969, 1:250,000 ADWR BOOKSTORE PHONE: (602) 771-8638 FAX: (602) 771-8690 WEBSITE: www.azwater.gov MAPS SHOWING GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS IN THE PHOENIX ACTIVE MANAGEMENT AREA MARICOPA, PINAL, AND YAVAPAI COUNTIES, ARIZONA—NOV. 2002 - FEB. 2003 BY S.J. RASCONA THESE HYDROLOGIC MAPS ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST FROM THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, INFORMATION CENTRAL, 3550 NORTH CENTRAL AVE, PHOENIX, ARIZONA, 85013. THE HYDROLOGIC DATA ON WHICH THESE MAPS ARE BASED ARE AVAILABLE AT THE ADWR BOOKSTORE. (602) 771-8638 A.D.W.R HYDROLOGIC MAP SERIES REPORT NO. 35 DEPTH TO WATER AND WATER - LEVEL ALTITUDE, SHEET 1 OF 3 THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES PREPARED IN COOPERATION WITH THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY R. 4 E. NT SA EA T. 9 N. FO EXPLANATION IN TA LA 95 1084 R. 5 E. UN KE PL EE RREE EF RE CAAR C HIL LS HASSAYAMPA R. 3 E. 112 00 R. 3 W. BASIN-FILL DEPOSITS, (SILT, SAND, CLAY, GRAVEL, CONGLOMERATE, SANDSTONE, MUDSTONE, EVAPORITES, AND VOLCANICS). WEST SALT RIVER VALLEY T. 8 N. EAST SALT RIVER VALLEY 112 30 34 00 OU R. 2 W. Sub-Basins in the Phoenix AMA M R. 4 W. R. 1 W. R. 7 W. R. 1 E. 111 45 0 1 130 350 0 50 12 00 12 00 RIVER NEW K EE CR AN EK E C RE 0 120 CAV SCALE BARS 800 750 AINS MOUNT 0 0 5 50 0 95 100 10 105 IVE 120 R LT SA 33 30 1100 0 9 5 10 KILOMETERS USERY MOUNTAINS R 1150 00 0 Scottsdale 1100 0 STATUTE MILES 5 Paradise Valley 90 0 100 950 0 5 GRANITE REEF DAM 0 0 0 Fountain HILLS 900 80 95 100 5 11 850 750 800 10 50 0 100 0 900 TANK 1100 Tonopah 800 WHITE DESERT 0 110 NS 00 12 0 115 900 TONOPAH 0 90 800 OUNTAI SK ELL M AL MILLIMETERS METERS KILOMETERS SQUARE KILOMETERS CUBIC HECTOMETERS 25.4 0.3048 1.609 2.59 0.001233 INCH FOOT MILE SQUARE MILE ACRE-FEET VERDE RIVER 13 50 50 10 00 10 1100 PC UN 750 MCDOW CA LS K UN MO 850 0 TH HIL T 1 1 1 1 1 11 5 PE G ON 33 45 LS IL H ED LM T. 2 33 30 N. 110 0 METRIC UNITS ENGLISH UNITS PINNACLE PEAK 0 115 N 50 H BE CAP FOR READERS WHO PREFER TO USE METRIC UNITS RATHER THAN INCH-FEET UNITS, THE CONVERSION FACTORS FOR THE TERMS USED IN THIS REPORT ARE LISTED BELOW: IO 10 1000 950 0 AL CAN BOUNDARY OF PHOENIX AMA HIGHWAY SYMBOL (Source: Jim Mossman, Data Deja Vu, 2002) N 1250 1200 95 T. 3 N. WATER LEVEL CONTOURS - SHOWS THE APPROXIMATE ALTITUDE OF THE WATER-LEVEL. THE NUMBER 1100 REPRESENTS 1100 FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL. DASHED WHERE INFERRED. SUB-BASIN BOUNDARY R. 7 E. 0 225 U 1200 1150 50 10 12 0 AGUA 100 L ANA C CAP PLAINS NS 1100 1350 FRIA 1150 Luke Air Force Base TA I 00 2150 15 RIVER NS AI NT 00 0 145 00 14 00 OU RIVER 22 0 50 14 40 1 M 12 HASSAY AMPA Cave Creek 00 C 00 13 0 125 33 45 15 HI P LY 50 1600 1550 2100 OG 112 15 12 HASSAYAMPA BOUNDARY BETWEEN HARDROCK AND BASIN FILL ER 0 130 T. 5 N. GENERAL DIRECTION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW IN THE PRIMARY PART OF THE MAIN AQUIFER 165 HI VULTURE MOUNTAINS 113 00 T. 4 N. MAJOR HIGHWAY MAJOR WATERWAY R. 6 E. 112 45 R. 8 W. INDIAN RESERVATIONS R VE RI W NE R. 5 W. R. 6 W. T. 6 N. HARDROCK (GRANITIC, METAMORPHIC, VOLCANIC OR CONSOLIDATED SEDIMENTARY ROCK - WATER MAY OCCUR IN WEATHERED OR FRACTURED ZONES, JOINT SYSTEMS, OR FLUVIAL DEPOSITS OVERLYING BEDROCK). 34 00 NS AI NT R. 2 E. RAINBOW VALLEY T. 7 N. WELL IN WHICH DEPTH TO WATER WAS MEASURED IN 1997-1998 AND 2002-2003. UPPER NUMBER, 95, IS DEPTH TO WATER IN FEET BELOW LAND SURFACE. LOWER NUMBER,1084, IS THE ALTITUDE OF THE WATER LEVEL IN FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL. DATUM IS REFERENCED TO THE NATIONAL VERTICAL GEODETIC DATUM OF 1929. R. 8 E. 111 30 1150 0 105 0 Phoenix 90 PA L O R. 11 E. VE HI 11 0 0 50 E 10 900 RD T. 1 N. 850 LL 111 15 R. 9 E. R. 10 E. S ER LT RIV SA R. 12 E. 23rd Ave WWTP Discharge 1050 900 900 800 SUPERSTITION MOUNTAINS 850 Mesa Tempe 75 0 AR IVE 750 ES 33 15 TR 0 5 11 EL LA D 0 NT AI NS GILLESPIE DAM 1150 12 S 33 15 EK RE NC EE QU 0 UNT AIN 11 0 OU 112 45 MO Queen Creek 00 12 M 00 BEN AL RR 5 11 113 00 0 ER 800 0 115 A 11 0 SI CAN L W ASH A T. 2 S. GIL R. 13 E. 850 NIA 33 15 50 10 CAP TEN MO 0 800 R CEN A UNT TH SOU GIL BUCKEYE HILLS INS 11 5 A GIL 100 95 RIVER Arlington 0 91st Ave WWTP Discharge 1000 700 850 0 1050 800 T. 1 S. Apache Junction 1050 115 0 111 15 GIL AR RM T. 3 S. 850 E AT W 11 0 0 750 800 IVE N A R A W SANTAN MOUNTAINS 112 113 114 111 109 110 SH 37 37 36 36 C O C O N I N O 112 30 FIG . 1 Flagstaff KINGMAN 1150 T. 4 S. 111 30 A P A C H E 0 125 N A V A J O 11 0 0 120 0 112 00 35 35 0 120 MOHAVE Holbrook YAVAPAI Prescott 34 90 M A R I C O P A L A PAZ GILA PHOENIX 33 YUMA 33 00 33 00 111 45 GRAHAM P I M A 112 15 32 32 COCHISE 114 SANTA CRUZ 113 Nogales 112 111 0 T. 6 S. ADWR BOOKSTORE Phone: (602) 771-8638 Fax: (602) 771-8690 WEBSITE: www.azwater.gov 33 P I N A L Y uma TUCSON T. 5 S. BASE MAP FROM U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PHOENIX, ARIZONA, 1954,REV.1969,1:250,000 MESA, ARIZONA, 1954, REV. 1978, 1:125,000 HOLBROOK, ARIZONA, 1954, REV. 1970, 1:250,000 AJO, ARIZONA, 1953, REV. 1969, 1:250,000 GREENLEE 0 34 0 50 50 110 109 100 MILES 100 150 KILOMETERS INDEX MAP SHOWING AREA OF REPORT (SHADED) MAPS SHOWING GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS IN THE PHOENIX ACTIVE MANAGEMENT AREA MARICOPA, PINAL, AND YAVAPAI COUNTIES, ARIZONA—NOV. 2002- FEB. 2003 BY S.J. RASCONA THESE HYDROLOGIC MAPS ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST FROM THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, INFORMATION CENTRAL, 3550 NORTH CENTRAL AVE, PHOENIX, ARIZONA, 85012. THE HYDROLOGIC DATA ON WHICH THESE MAPS ARE BASED ARE AVAILABLE AT THE ADWR BOOKSTORE. 602 771-8638 GWSI Hydrograph Well Info Map GWSI Hydrograph Reset Graph Auto Site Hydrograph Well Info Email Map Reset Graph Arizona GroundWater Monitoring Site Hydrograph B-03-01 28BBB Site ID 333448112223201 Registry ID 626942 33° 34' 48.0" Longitude NAD27 Alt. (ft amsl) 112° 22' 32.0" 1152 Water Use IRRIGATION Case Well Dia. Depth (ft) (in) 1090 20 Email Arizona GroundWater Monitoring Site Hydrograph Drill Date Latest WL Date 4/1/1942 1/13/1972 DTW (ft) WL Elv. (ft) 400 752 Set x-axis Set x-axis Local ID Latitude NAD27 Auto Site Hydrograph Local ID B-03-02 27AAA Site ID 333449112263801 Registry ID Latitude NAD27 613001 33° 34' 49.5" Longitude NAD27 Alt. (ft amsl) 112° 26' 37.2" 1249 Water Use IRRIGATION Case Well Dia. Depth (ft) (in) 1000 20 Drill Date Latest WL Date 2/1/1947 12/29/2009 DTW (ft) WL Elv. (ft) 420 829 Set y-axis Set y-axis Measurement Remarks Measurement Remarks GWSI is ADWR's technical database of well locations, construction data, and water levels. Created on 8/18/2010 GWSI is ADWR's technical database of well locations, construction data, and water levels. Created on 8/18/2010 GWSI Hydrograph Well Info Map GWSI Hydrograph Reset Graph Auto Site Hydrograph Well Info Email Map Reset Graph Arizona GroundWater Monitoring Site Hydrograph B-03-02 26BAA Site ID 333449112260601 Registry ID Longitude NAD27 Alt. (ft amsl) Water Use 612999 33° 34' 50.1" 112° 26' 8.2" 1226 UNUSED Case Well Dia. Depth (ft) (in) 1000 20 Email Arizona GroundWater Monitoring Site Hydrograph Drill Date Latest WL Date 1/1/1938 1/13/2009 DTW (ft) WL Elv. (ft) 392.8 833.2 Set x-axis Set x-axis Local ID Latitude NAD27 Auto Site Hydrograph Local ID B-03-02 25BAA Site ID 333450112250501 Registry ID Latitude NAD27 Longitude NAD27 Alt. (ft amsl) Water Use 612998 33° 34' 50.3" 112° 25' 6.3" 1198 IRRIGATION Case Latest WL Well Dia. Drill Date Date Depth (ft) (in) 1002 20 11/1/1939 1/13/2009 DTW (ft) WL Elv. (ft) 362.9 835.1 Set y-axis Set y-axis Measurement Remarks Measurement Remarks GWSI is ADWR's technical database of well locations, construction data, and water levels. Created on 8/18/2010 GWSI is ADWR's technical database of well locations, construction data, and water levels. Created on 8/18/2010 GWSI Hydrograph Well Info Map GWSI Hydrograph Reset Graph Auto Site Hydrograph Well Info Email Map Reset Graph Arizona GroundWater Monitoring Site Hydrograph B-03-01 26BAB Site ID 333447112200701 Registry ID Longitude NAD27 Alt. (ft amsl) Water Use 610628 33° 34' 47.2" 112° 20' 6.7" 1116 UNUSED Case Well Dia. Depth (ft) (in) 1150 24 Email Arizona GroundWater Monitoring Site Hydrograph Drill Date Latest WL Date DTW (ft) 12/11/2002 407.79 WL Elv. (ft) 708.21 Set x-axis Set x-axis Local ID Latitude NAD27 Auto Site Hydrograph Local ID B-03-01 29BBB Site ID 333449112233401 Registry ID Latitude NAD27 610103 33° 34' 49.5" Longitude NAD27 Alt. (ft amsl) 112° 23' 36.7" 1161 Water Use IRRIGATION Case Well Dia. Depth (ft) (in) 1140 20 Drill Date Latest WL Date DTW (ft) 1/1/1944 11/21/2002 379.29 WL Elv. (ft) 781.71 Set y-axis Set y-axis Measurement Remarks Measurement Remarks GWSI is ADWR's technical database of well locations, construction data, and water levels. Created on 8/18/2010 GWSI is ADWR's technical database of well locations, construction data, and water levels. Created on 8/18/2010 GWSI Hydrograph Well Info Map GWSI Hydrograph Reset Graph Auto Site Hydrograph Set x-axis Well Info Email Map Reset Graph Arizona GroundWater Monitoring Site Hydrograph B-03-02 25BBB Site ID 333448112253001 Registry ID 606609 33° 34' 50.3" Longitude NAD27 Alt. (ft amsl) 112° 25' 35.0" 1210 Water Use IRRIGATION Email Arizona GroundWater Monitoring Site Hydrograph Case Latest WL DTW Well Dia. Drill Date Date (ft) Depth (ft) (in) 2567 18 11/1/1964 11/22/2002 373.1 WL Elv. (ft) 836.9 Set x-axis Set x-axis Local ID Latitude NAD27 Auto Site Hydrograph Local ID B-03-01 27ABB1 Site ID 333447112205801 Registry ID Latitude NAD27 33° 34' 47.7" Longitude NAD27 Alt. (ft amsl) Water Use 112° 20' 58.2" 1124 UNUSED Case Well Dia. Depth (ft) (in) 752 20 Drill Date Latest WL Date DTW (ft) 5/1/1951 12/11/2002 414.5 WL Elv. (ft) 709.5 Set y-axis Set y-axis Measurement Remarks Measurement Remarks GWSI is ADWR's technical database of well locations, construction data, and water levels. Created on 8/18/2010 GWSI is ADWR's technical database of well locations, construction data, and water levels. Created on 8/18/2010 Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road APPENDIX V GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION April 2011 470000 480000 490000 500000 510000 520000 530000 560000 550000 54‫סס‬oo 570000 580000 590000 61‫סס‬oo 600000 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OF MARICOPA COUNTY Earth Fissure Investigation McMicken Dam Work Assignment Nos. 4 & 5 Contract FCD 2000C006 Maricopa County, Arizona • o 8 LEGEND 8 8o § Q-Surficial Deposits Qo-older surficial deposits C TKgm-granitic rocks Tb-basaltic rocks Tg-granitoid rocks Tsy-Sedimenlary rocks Tv-Volcanic rocks Xg-granitoid rocks Xm-metamorphic rocks z 8 Xms-metasedimentary rocks 0> YXg-granitoid rocks 8ex> Q) (,,) :II C NOTES ~ m 8 8.... 0> Q :::t :I: 8 8 :g < m 8 8 '" 0> Road Data derived from u.s. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Geography Division, 200HIGERlLine Files Data is in State Plane Coordinates (international feel) for the Arizona Cenlral zone using the North American Datum 011983. Q 8 8 8 8v "if, 0> WOLIVE VE z 8 8 8 8 W NORTHERN AVE Sl 3 8 8 hiteTanks ~ #3 FRS / / C') 0> W GLENDALE AVE ~ ~ /0 / • 8 8 :g GeOlogy Data from Arizona Geological SUFVey DI-8, v.2, 2000 w > « 0 a: 0 M en Z / ~ Iii ,... z w z 0 ~ 0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY 0 Z '" 0> > « ::I: l::: z N W+E AMEC Job No. 0-117-001122 co ~ 0 a: ~ cr. Z DESIGN en -i « en >0 '" EMP DESIGNCHK. < 8 8 g m Z , ...les lw?aiw S 8 8 ;;; W IN IAN SCHOOL RD :3 8 8 ::I: "'. 1/24103 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OF MARICOPA COUNTY PLANS DSlt,. PLANSCHK. Dale: O~leF ENGINEER AND GENERAL MANAGER SU MI 490000 530000 540000 570000 580000 590000 600000 610000 Dnle' FIGURE 2 48‫סס‬oo 47‫סס‬oo • 49‫סס‬oo 500000 510000 520000 53‫סס‬oo 540000 55‫סס‬oo 560000 570000 58‫סס‬oo 590000 600000 61‫סס‬oo FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OF MARICOPA COUNTY Earth Fissure Investigation McMicken Dam Work Assignment Nos. 4 & 5 Contract FCD 2000C006 Maricopa County, Arizona § ~ o § § LEGEND PUMPRATE (gpm) 8 8 ~ 8 8 III 8 8 ill • 0 - 450 • 451-1500 • 1501-2500 • 2501 - 4500 • 4501 -7000 NOTES 8 8 :;; Road Data derived from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Geography Division, 200HIGERlLine Files 8 8 :g 8 8 :ll Welf Data from Arizona Department of Water Resources Arizona WeH Registry Distribution Database March 2002 Data is in State Plane Coordinates (international feet) for the Arizona Central zone using the ~orth American Datum of 1983. • 8 8 8 8 ~ ~ 8 8 • Sl 8 8 !lI 8 8 ~ 1i1':0j.5i1::::iO• • •==:::j2I Miles MM • 8 8 8 8 c;; AMEC Job No. 0-117-001122 0; 9'1 DESIGN • • 8 8 :il EMP Olte 1/24/03 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OF MARICOPA COUNTY 1------+---+---1 DESIGNCHK. PLANS WELLS REGISTERED WITHADWR PLANSCHK. 470000 80000 Date: OiIEF ENGINEER AND GENERAL MANAGER SUBMITIEDB : 490000 FIGURE 4 ~ • :;; . .,. . . --,__5~11°O:00~_:-T 7_--,r5~21°O:00~ __' 540000 550000 560000 8~ T5:300J:OO:.....---,------r--~r-ll"------r-----r--~~-rT FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OF MARICOPA COUNTY Earth Fissure Investigation McMicken Dam North Study Area 36 ~---!~. .- -----+Io-__ r;....... Work Assignment Nos. 4 & 5 Contract FCD 2000C006 Maricopa County, Arizona 31 . ~~~.;,;;.--~-- --~ ~8 LEGEND • 6 Water Wells ADWR Registration 621000 Number • 8 8 :ll Water Wells with Hydrograph NOTES Well Data from Arizona Department of Water Resources Arizona Well Registry Distribution Database March 2002 Roa6Data oorived·from u.s. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Geography Division, 200HIGERlLine Files Data is in State Plane Coordinates (international feet} for the Arizona Central zone using the North American Datum of 1983. Z ...J Z ~ 8 8 ~ 36 tl24691 8 8 WNORTHE • w+, s Slf--~------------ AVE AMEC Job No. 0-117-001122 DESIGN 6 SELECTED WELLS NEAR SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF McMICKEN DAM o.51:::0' i2.5do• • •O.5 Miles MM By Date EMP 1/24/03 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OF MARICOPA COUNTY DESIGN CHK. PLANS 1---_ _-+-_-+-_--1 Delft" APPROVED BY Date: PLANSCHK. ~IEF SUBMITTED BY: na1e'_ _ ENGINEER AND Ge.lERAL MANAGER FIGURE 5 JOB NO.: DESIGN: DRAWN: DATE: SCALE: ,. 12/19/02 1 " -,600 E;M~, REW I I 0,-117-001122 Earth Fissure Risk Zones Earth Fissure Investigation - McMicken Dam Work Assignment Nos. 4 & 5 Contract FCD 2000C006 Maricopa County, Arizona 29 FIGURE Technical Memorandum #3 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road APPENDIX VI DEVELOPER DRAINAGE REPORTS (EXCERPTS) April 2011 Appendix D Technical Memorandum No. 4: Candidate Alternative Alignments and Evaluation Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study: Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #4: Candidate Alternative Alignments and Evaluation April 2011 Technical Memorandum #4 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 EVALUATION FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................ 3 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS................................................................ 5 4.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS ................................................................. 7 List of Figures Figure 1 – Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2 – West Peoria Avenue Alignment Options ...................................................................... 9 Figure 3 – Recommended Alignment ......................................................................................... 22 List of Tables Table 1 – Evaluation Criteria and Performance Measures ........................................................... 3 Table 2 – Alternative Alignment Descriptions ............................................................................... 5 Table 3 – Segment 4 Evaluation Matrix ...................................................................................... 13 Table 4 – Segment 6 Evaluation Matrix ...................................................................................... 14 Table 5 – Segment 8 Evaluation Matrix ...................................................................................... 15 Table 6 – Segment 3 Evaluation Matrix ...................................................................................... 16 Table 7 – Segment 5 Evaluation Matrix ...................................................................................... 17 Table 8 – Segment 7 Evaluation Matrix ...................................................................................... 18 Table 9 – Segment 9 Evaluation Matrix ...................................................................................... 19 Table 10 – Segment 1 Evaluation Matrix .................................................................................... 20 Table 11 – Recommended Alignment ......................................................................................... 21 Appendices Appendix A – Alternative Plan Sheets Appendix B – Correspondence from Maricopa Water District Page i April 2011 Technical Memorandum #4 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) prepared the Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study (Hassayampa Framework Study) that identified a comprehensive roadway network to meet traffic demands for the buildout of the area west of State Route 303 (SR 303L). This long-range regional transportation study identified the need for a roadway network consisting of freeways, parkways, and major arterial roads. The Hassayampa Framework Study recommended an extension of Peoria Avenue west from Perryville Road to the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway, and identified Peoria Avenue as a major arterial from the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Sarival Avenue. The study area for this project includes Peoria Avenue from the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway alignment to Dysart Road (Peoria Avenue Corridor). The study area generally encompasses a two-mile wide corridor centered on the existing Peoria Avenue. The study area is shown in Figure 1. This study will establish the facility type, number of lanes, right-of-way needs, and general alignment for the Peoria Avenue Corridor that will be required to accommodate projected traffic growth and enhance safety. In cooperation with the City of Surprise, the City of Glendale, and the City of El Mirage, the study will also develop access management guidelines, determine design standards based upon which jurisdiction anticipates annexing the roadway, and develop an implementation plan. In general, the purpose of this Corridor Improvement Study is to provide the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) and other jurisdictions with a future “footprint” of the Peoria Avenue Corridor and a timeframe for the implementation of the recommended future roadway improvements. The key objectives of this Corridor Improvement Study are to: x x x x x x Define and assess strategic issues within the project study area; Develop and evaluate conceptual alternative alignments within the corridor study area; Recommend a preferred alignment; Develop consensus for the preferred alignment; Define the characteristics of the preferred alignment; and Develop an implementation plan. This technical memorandum presents the evaluation framework, including the evaluation criteria and performance objectives, and the description of corridor alternatives. The corridor is subdivided into nine segments, allowing for more detailed evaluation and analysis of each alternative. The evaluation of each alternative alignment and subsequent recommendations by project segment are presented last. Page 1 April 2011 Technical Memorandum #4 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 1 – Vicinity Map Page 2 April 2011 Technical Memorandum #4 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road 2.0 EVALUATION FRAMEWORK Technical Memorandum #4 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Criteria Title Public Acceptability Evaluation Criteria and Performance Objectives After completion of the inventory of existing conditions and traffic forecasts, the study team conducted a single-tiered process of developing and evaluating alternatives. Table 1 lists the evaluation criteria, a short description, and performance measures associated with each. The number of performance measures varies for each criterion, reflecting the inherent complexity and amount of data available for each element. The performance measures are intended to minimize or maximize an outcome that reflects fulfillment of the criterion. Some of the measures are evaluated numerically; others are based on a qualitative assessment. Table 1 – Evaluation Criteria and Performance Measures Criteria Title Criteria Description Drainage/Flood Control Considerations Environmental Considerations Criteria Performance Measure Quantitative assessment of acres or square feet of acquisition Qualitative assessment of potential cost Right-of-Way Considerations An assessment of the amount and value of the right-of-way that would need to be acquired for corridor alternatives in relation to other alternatives under consideration for the segment. Compatibility with Existing Developments An estimate of the potential effect of proposed corridor alternatives on the existing developments most directly affected. Key considerations include the proximity to existing developments and potential displacements. Qualitative assessment of compatibility Compatibility with Planned Future Developments An estimate of the potential effect of the corridor alternatives on planned developments and/or land that is currently under the jurisdiction of the Arizona State Land Department. Key considerations include compatibility with approved master plans and/or preliminary and final plats. Qualitative assessment of compatibility Compatibility with Existing and Planned Roadway Improvements Engineering Complexity and Constructability An assessment of the compatibility of the corridor alternatives with the existing and planned roadway improvements. Qualitative assessment of compatibility A general assessment of engineering complications, exclusive of cost considerations, which could arise from construction of the roadway. Key considerations include roadway geometry, permitting requirements, construction staging, etc. Qualitative assessment of complexity and constructability Page 3 Local Agency Support Utility Considerations Criteria Description Estimated community support for and acceptance of the corridor alternative, based on input from municipal staff, stakeholders, homeowner associations, and the public. Estimated local agency (city) support for and acceptance of the corridor alternative, based on input from municipal staff. An estimate of potential impacts from the proposed corridor alternatives to both existing FCDMC facilities as well as to future improvements. An assessment of social, ecological, and cultural environment in the study area. Estimate of potential impacts from the proposed corridor alternative to both existing and planned future utility facilities such as the MWD canals, wells, reclaimed water delivery headers, and overhead lines. Criteria Performance Measure Qualitative assessment of acceptability Qualitative assessment of acceptability Qualitative assessment of potential impacts Qualitative assessment of potential impacts to socioeconomic environment Qualitative assessment of potential impacts to physical and natural environment Qualitative assessment of potential impacts to cultural resources Quantitative assessment of potential impacts Source: Project Team, October 2010 April 2011 Page 4 April 2011 Technical Memorandum #4 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS Technical Memorandum #4 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Segment A series of three alternative alignments was considered for Peoria Avenue. For planning purposes, a 140-foot wide (minimum) corridor was used for each alternative. Alternative 1 includes widening the corridor symmetric about the section line. Alternative 2 includes widening the corridor to the south, maintaining the northern right-of-way (R/W) boundary. Alternative 3 includes widening the corridor to the north, maintaining the southern R/W boundary. Because the existing R/W throughout the corridor differs due to varying dedications of land, the degree of shifting to the north or south changes. For example, in some areas a shift may represent a difference of only five feet; in others, a shift could represent a change of 55 feet. To help in the analysis, the Peoria Avenue corridor was divided into nine segments for the evaluation process. Table 2 describes the alignment of each alternative within each segment. Because Peoria Avenue does not yet exist through Segments 1 and 2, and because of other constraints, fewer alternatives were considered for these segments than elsewhere. Appendix A contains plan sheets showing the various alternatives. Segment 6: Sarival Road to Reems Road Alternative 1 Centered on section line 2 Centerline shifted 15 feet south of section line Centerline shifted 5 feet north of section line Centered on section line 3 Segment 7: Reems Road to Bullard Avenue 1 2 3 Segment 8: Bullard Avenue to Litchfield Road 1 2 3 Table 2 – Alternative Alignment Descriptions Segment Segment 1: Future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Beardsley Canal Segment 2: Beardsley Canal to Perryville Road Segment 3: Perryville Road to Citrus Road Alternative Centered on section line Goes through basin and floodpool 2 Goes south of floodpool 1 South of reconstructed McMicken Dam Centered on section line 1 Centered on section line 2 Centerline shifted 5 feet south of section line Centerline shifted 15 feet north of section line Centered on section line 1 2 3 Segment 5: Cotton Lane to Sarival Road Additional Information 1 3 Segment 4: Citrus Road to Cotton Lane Alternative Description Centerline shifted 5 feet south of section line Centerline shifted 37 feet north of section line 1 Centered on section line 2 Centerline shifted 55 feet south of section line Centerline shifted 55 feet north of section line 3 Page 5 Segment 9: Litchfield Road to Dysart Road 1 2 3 Matches Zanjero Trails Preliminary Plat 140-foot wide corridor requires acquisition on both sides Holds planned dedicated R/W along north side Holds existing south R/W line Alternative Description Centerline shifted 5 feet south of section line Centerline shifted 30 feet north of section line Centered on section line Centerline shifted 15 feet south of section line Centerline shifted 30 feet north of section line Centered on section line Centerline shifted south of section line (varies from 2 feet [west end], to 37 feet [middle], to 2 feet [east end]) Centerline shifted north of section line (varies from 30 feet [east end] to 37 feet [west end]) Additional Information 140-foot wide corridor requires acquisition on both sides Holds existing R/W line along developed areas Holds existing R/W line along developed areas 140-foot wide corridor requires acquisition on both sides Holds existing R/W line along developed areas Holds existing south R/W line 140-foot wide corridor requires acquisition on both sides Holds existing north R/W line Holds existing south R/W line 140-foot wide corridor requires acquisition on both sides Holds existing north R/W line Holds existing south R/W line Source: Project Team, November 2010 140-foot wide corridor requires acquisition on both sides Holds planned dedicated R/W along north side Places south R/W line approximately 10 feet south of irrigation ditch and allows room for potential frontage road 176-foot wide corridor requires acquisition on both sides; wider corridor adjacent to SR 303L/Peoria Avenue traffic interchange Holds existing north R/W line Holds existing south R/W line April 2011 Page 6 April 2011 Technical Memorandum #4 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road 4.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS Each alternative was evaluated with respect to each segment, and each segment was evaluated independently of the others. Tables 3 through 10 show the results of the evaluation. The left column of each table lists the evaluation criteria, subdivided into more specific measures where appropriate. For example, environmental considerations is a very comprehensive criterion, so it was divided into socioeconomics, physical and natural features, and cultural resources. Each alternative in each segment was rated with respect to each of the evaluation criteria. The rating system consisted of a simple three-point scale, with  representing the worst possible rating, ٫ an intermediate rating, and  the best possible rating. The rating scale is strictly relative – alternatives were considered in relationship to each other for each segment. Just because an alternative receives the highest rating does not mean that it faces no issues or obstacles with respect to that criterion. An evaluation matrix for Segment 2 is not presented because that segment included only one alternative. Technical Memorandum #4 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road shifting the roadway north to minimize impacts on existing land uses to the south (Table 3). Alternative 3 also provides the opportunity to construct a frontage road along the south side of Peoria Avenue so the existing access locations do not have direct access to Peoria Avenue. In addition to the alignments developed by the Project Team (shown in Table 2), other realignment alternatives were suggested at the January 18, 2011 public open house, as illustrated on Figure 2. The proposed alignment options for Peoria Avenue, west of Cotton Lane, share the alignment shift illustrated in white, relocating the corridor approximately one-half mile to the north (within the Prasada community), west of Cotton Lane and extending west to Perryville Road. This alignment option would disrupt existing plans for the Prasada and Zanjero Trails communities. Options, and any issues they may present, to provide a connection to Jackrabbit Trail Parkway include: x The evaluation was conducted by a multidisciplinary consultant team, with input from various sources, including the Technical Advisory Committee during December 2010 and January 2011 (for the Local Agency Support criterion), as well as the public at an open house meeting held on January 18, 2011. x Results and Recommendations Through the evaluation process, some segments (2, 4, 6 and 8) contained constraints and/or opportunities that clearly favored one alternative. Once their alignment recommendations were established, these segments assisted in determining the recommended alternative for the adjacent segments (3, 5, 7 and 9). To show this process, the following evaluation highlights are presented out of numerical order. x Segment 2: Beardsley Canal to Perryville Road The Zanjero Trails master planned community is planned on both sides of Peoria Avenue. The preliminary plat dedicates 136 feet of R/W for Peoria Avenue, centered on the section line. Because Zanjero Trails is expected to move forward with this plat configuration in the future, the section line option (Alternative 1) was decided to be the only practical alternative. Because this segment has only one alternative, no evaluation was necessary. Segment 4: Citrus Road to Cotton Lane Maricopa County does not have any R/W recorded in this segment, so the full width, regardless of alternative, will require R/W negotiations. Key factors for this segment include existing and planned land uses. To the north, the Prasada community is planned, although no preliminary plat yet exists. To the south, Peoria Avenue is lined with existing large-lot, single-family houses that front the roadway corridor and often have driveways that access Peoria Avenue. In addition, two irrigation canals run parallel to Peoria Avenue to the south. Because of the more imminent constraint that the existing land uses pose, the recommendation favors Alternative 3: Page 7 April 2011 x Option A (blue): Peoria Avenue would be realigned to the north, as shown in white in Figure 2. Option A would continue to the west on the half-mile alignment (as shown in blue in Figure 2). This alignment change could have significant impacts on the Zanjero Trails development, which already has a preliminary plat on file. This alignment requires crossing McMicken Dam to provide the through connection to Jackrabbit Trail Parkway, which may be seen as a fatal flaw by the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) when other options are available. Option B (green): Peoria Avenue would be realigned to the north, as shown in white in Figure 2. Option B would continue to the west, but swing to the south to connect back to the Peoria Avenue section line (as shown in green in Figure 2) to provide a connection to Jackrabbit Trail Parkway. This alignment change could have significant impacts on the Zanjero Trails development, which already has a preliminary plat on file. Option C (yellow): Peoria Avenue would be realigned to the north, as shown in white in Figure 2. Option C would provide a continuation of the existing Peoria Avenue to the west along the Peoria Avenue section line (as shown in yellow in Figure 2). This option would result in offset intersections being located ½ mile apart. This option does not provide a continuous east-west facility, and will require the half-mile segment of Perryville Road north of Peoria Avenue to serve as a connector between the two facilities. Option D (red + yellow): Peoria Avenue would be realigned to the north, as shown in white in Figure 2. Option D would modify Option C (shown as red plus yellow in Figure 2) to provide a connection from the new Peoria Avenue to the old Peoria Avenue through the Prasada community. This option, like Option C, does not provide a continuous eastwest facility, although it requires fewer intersection turn movements. In the future, however, the operational capacity at the intersection (where red meets white) may not be sufficient. Additionally, this option could impact Prasada, by routing Peoria Avenue through the middle, instead of the periphery, of the community. Any of the realignment options would not maximize use of the existing Peoria Avenue improvements between Perryville and Citrus Roads, and would have significant impacts to the Zanjero Trails and Prasada communities. In addition, maintaining the roadway grid system allows for adequate spacing of intersections. Page 8 April 2011 Technical Memorandum #4 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 2 – West Peoria Avenue Alignment Options Page 9 April 2011 Technical Memorandum #4 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Therefore, Alternative 3 is recommended to be further refined to minimize impacts to the south and north, while providing route continuity and a connection to Jackrabbit Trail Parkway. Segment 6: Sarival Road to Reems Road Existing residential development and related drainage facilities are located on both sides of Peoria Avenue through Segment 6. As these criteria potentially impact the corridor the greatest, an effort was made to balance the impacts to both sides of the corridor. Therefore, Alternative 1 (symmetric on section line) is recommended (Table 4). Technical Memorandum #4 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Segment 5: Cotton Lane to Sarival Road The key determinant for Segment 5 is ADOT’s final design for SR 303L, which includes a traffic interchange at Peoria Avenue, centered on the section line. Very little development exists today through this segment. As SR 303L requires a section line alignment and such an alignment was also recommended for Segment 6, the recommendation for Segment 5 is to move forward with Alternative 1 (symmetric on section line). Because of the constraint that the existing development on the south side of the corridor poses in Segment 4, the transition area from the section line to a northerly shift is recommended to occur in the western portion of Segment 5, slightly impacting an existing development to the north, but no structures (Table 7). Segment 8: Bullard Avenue to Litchfield Road Segment 7: Reems Road to Bullard Avenue Like Segment 6, Segment 8 contains existing residential development on both sides of the corridor. To the north, a newer residential subdivision has a small landscaped buffer between the R/W and property lines. To the south, individual large-lot, single-family homes front Peoria Avenue but are offset approximately 100 feet from the roadway. Recommending Alternative 1 (symmetric on section line) best balances the impacts to existing development (Table 5). Segments 2, 4, 6, and 8 provided the context that influenced the recommendation for the oddnumbered segments. Often, two or three alternatives in these segments achieved similar scores, with no alternative presenting a clear advantage. In these cases, connectivity with the adjacent segments helped determine the most practical solution. Likewise, transitional subsegments were strategically placed to avoid constraints or take advantage of opportunities to seamlessly connect segments. Because of the relative equality of the impacts of the different alternatives, if conditions change in the future (e.g., wells removed, advanced development plats, etc.), the recommendations for the following segments could be reviewed and changed to reflect current conditions. Because of the noise contours associated with Luke Air Force Base, the majority of this segment is undeveloped, with the exception of approximately four houses that back up to Peoria Avenue on the west end. However, the presence of these houses skews the evaluation away from an option that impacts the north side of the corridor. The south side of the corridor, however, contains irrigation facilities and well sites. Section line alignments are recommended for the adjacent links, Segments 6 and 8. In an effort to reduce impact to the drainage facilities and the existing development, and also to connect to the adjacent segments, the recommendation for this segment includes a northerly shift in the center of the segment to avoid the irrigation facilities and well sites, with transition areas back to the section line at the east and west ends, avoiding impact to the existing development (Table 8). If corridor conditions change in the future (e.g., removal of the irrigation facilities on the south side or new development on the north side) this recommendation could be reconsidered to recommend a section line alignment. Segment 9: Litchfield Road to Dysart Road Segment 3: Perryville Road to Citrus Road Existing and planned developments, as well as existing and planned roadway improvements, were the key factors for Segment 3. To the north, Shadow Ridge High School has been built at the west end. A portion of the remaining land is platted through Zanjero Trails and preliminarily planned as part of the Prasada community. To the south, the Cortessa subdivision has been constructed, as well as several irrigation facilities and wells. On the west end, between Cortessa and the high school, is the corridor’s only street section constructed to full width. In an effort to maximize use of this full-width street, which is built symmetric on the section line, Alternative 1 is recommended. This supports a connection to Segment 2 to the west, which is also recommended to be located symmetric to the section line. To the east, Segment 4 is recommended to shift north. Because of the constraint that the existing development on the south side of the corridor poses in Segment 4, the transition area from the section line to a northerly shift is recommended to occur in the eastern portion of Segment 3 (Table 6). Page 10 April 2011 Segment 9 contains no existing or platted development to the south. To the north of Peoria Avenue, existing land uses are next to the Ennis Spur of the BNSF Railway in the middle of the corridor. Development is planned and platted to the east and west. Half streets have been constructed on the north side throughout, but with no constant centerline offset. Therefore, the corridor’s constructed half-street varies with differing amounts of R/W. To minimize impacts to existing land uses, the recommendation for this segment includes a southerly shift in the alignment, with transition areas to connect back to the section line on the east and west ends (Table 9). Like Segment 7, if corridor conditions change in the future (e.g., existing land uses are redeveloped), maintaining a section line alignment may be considered. Segment 1: Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Beardsley Canal Segment 1 is unique because no roadway or existing development is currently present and no development plans are imminent. Only two alternatives are practical for this section – Alternative 1, alignment symmetric to the section line, and Alternative 2, which does not follow the other widening guidelines (e.g., maintaining the north or south R/W boundary). Alternative 2 in this segment dips south to miss the flood basin south of the truncated McMicken Dam. Page 11 April 2011 Technical Memorandum #4 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Drainage impacts and local agency support (specifically of FCDMC) are the two key determining factors. After the Project Team’s evaluation, Alternative 1, which travels through the flood basin, was seen to have the least drainage impacts, as Alternative 2 would cross numerous washes; Waterfall Wash may require a substantial crossing. The recommendation for Segment 1 is to move forward with Alternative 1, predicated upon consensus from FCDMC that it is less impactful to cross the basin than to cross a number of natural washes. By recommending a section line alignment, this alternative also maximizes the ability of the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) to auction larger tracts of developable land in the future. (Currently, ASLD has a general master plan for the land, but no formal planning will be documented until a developer assumes responsibility.) In addition, Alternative 1 would provide better intersection spacing along the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway (Table 10). Figure 3 illustrates the recommended alignments, with a description of these recommendations in Table 11. Future Refinement These recommendations are based on a 140-foot R/W corridor. Once the typical section is defined, then further refinement of the centerline location will be required to provide the best-fit alignment. Technical Memorandum #4 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Table 3 – Segment 4 Evaluation Matrix Segment 4: Citrus Road to Cotton Lane Criteria Alternative 1 (on section line) Area  Cost  Right-of-way Considerations 716,000 square feet Alternative 2 (shift 5 feet south)  716,000 square feet   Higher cost likely to south   Balances impacts  Greatest impact to most properties  No known impacts Compatibility with Planned Future Developments  Balances impacts  No new planned development to south  All planned development to the north Compatibility with Existing and Planned Roadway Improvements  Half-street constructed at Citrus Rd  Engineering Complexity and Constructability  Access fronting Peoria Ave  Public Acceptability    Local Agency Support    Environmental Considerations  Access fronting Peoria Ave Opportunity for frontage road   No existing drainage infrastructure constructed; must continue channel from the west Impacts to private property  Impacts to private property  No known impacts  Balances impacts  Balances impacts  Impacts to farmland  Impacts to irrigation ditch  Impacts to irrigation ditch  Impacts to irrigation ditch  1 well site; 5200 ft lined irrigation ditch; 20 power poles  1 well site; 5200 ft lined irrigation ditch; 20 power poles  Socioeconomic  Physical and Natural Cultural  5200 ft lined irrigation ditch; 20 power poles Recommended Alignment – minimizes impacts to existing land uses to south Recommendations impact  Lowest Best performance  No existing drainage infrastructure constructed; must continue channel from the west No existing drainage infrastructure constructed; must continue channel from the west Utility Considerations April 2011 718,000 square feet Compatibility with Existing Developments Drainage/Flood Control Considerations Page 12 Alternative 3 (shift 37 feet north)  Moderate impact Moderate performance Page 13  Highest impact Worst performance April 2011 Technical Memorandum #4 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #4 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Table 4 – Segment 6 Evaluation Matrix Table 5 – Segment 8 Evaluation Matrix Segment 8: Bullard Ave to Litchfield Rd Criteria Segment 6: Sarival Road to Reems Road Criteria Alternative 1 (on section line)  Area Right-of-way Considerations 182,000 square feet Compatibility with Existing Developments Compatibility with Planned Future Developments    182,000 square feet   Cost Alternative 2 (shift 15 feet south) Balances impacts to both sides Minor impact to future development to north Most compatible with existing street and Reems Rd intersection Alternative 3 (shift 5 feet north)  182,000 square feet  Greatest impact to existing and planned developments in rightof-way  Minor impacts to south side  Minor impacts to north side  No known future development to south  Impacts future development to north  Not compatible with existing street and Reems Rd intersection  Not compatible with existing street but more compatible than #2 with Reems Rd intersection Alternative 1 (on section line) Area  Cost  Right-of-way Considerations Compatibility with Planned Future Developments  Minor impacts to future development  No future development to south  Impacts to future development to north Compatibility with Existing and Planned Roadway Improvements  Litchfield and Bullard intersections fully improved; centered on section line   Engineering Complexity and Constructability    Public Acceptability        Local Agency Support  Local Agency Support    Drainage/Flood Control Considerations Minor impacts to existing drainage facilities Socioecono mic  Minimal impact  Minimal impact  Minimal impact Environmental Considerations Physical and Natural  Minimal impact  Minimal impact  Minimal impact Cultural  No known impact  No known impact  No known impact  No known impacts to irrigation or power lines  Potential relocation of underground irrigation facilities  No known impacts to irrigation or power lines Utility Considerations Recommendations  Recommended Alignment – balances impacts and scores best in drainage and existing development compatibility Lowest impact Best performance  Moderate impact Moderate performance Page 14  Highest impact Worst performance April 2011  Impacts land uses to north   Highest cost likely to south  Public Acceptability Minor impacts to existing drainage facilities  233,000 square feet Impacts land uses to south       235,000 square feet Balances impacts Engineering Complexity and Constructability Drainage/Flood Control Considerations    Least impact to existing drainage facilities Alternative 3 (shift 30 feet north) Compatibility with Existing Developments Compatibility with Existing and Planned Roadway Improvements  235,000 square feet Alternative 2 (shift 15 feet south)  Least impacts to existing drainage facilities  Most impacts to existing drainage facilities (channel and box culverts) Balanced impacts  Impacts to private property lots  No known impacts  Balanced impacts  Greatest impact to farmland and potential habitat areas  No known impacts  No known impacts  No known impacts  No known impacts Utility Considerations  2 well sites  4 well sites  No well sites impacted Recommendations Recommended Alignment – balances impacts and scores better than #3 in drainage and existing development compatibility Environmental Considerations  Minor impacts to existing drainage facilities Socioeconomic  Physical and Natural Cultural impact  Lowest Best performance  Moderate impact Moderate performance Page 15  Highest impact Worst performance April 2011 Technical Memorandum #4 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #4 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Table 6 – Segment 3 Evaluation Matrix Table 7 – Segment 5 Evaluation Matrix Segment 3: Perryville Road to Citrus Road Criteria Area Right-of-way Considerations Cost Alternative 1 (on section line)  295,000 square feet  Alternative 2 (shift 5 feet south)  293,000 square feet  Segment 5: Cotton Lane to Sarival Road Alternative 3 (shift 15 feet north)  309,000 square feet   Moderate impact to existing land uses  Moderate impact to existing land uses  Least impact to existing land uses Compatibility with Planned Future Developments  Moderate impact to planned land uses  Moderate impact to planned land uses  Least compatible with future development to north Compatibility with Existing and Planned Roadway Improvements  Most compatible with existing street improvements   Engineering Complexity and Constructability    Public Acceptability    Local Agency Support    Drainage/Flood Control Considerations  Minimal impact  Minimal impact  Slight impact to existing drainage channel to the north Socioeconomic  Slight impact to land; no impact to public access or structures  Slight impact to land; no impact to public access or structures  Slight impact to land; no impact to public access or structures Physical and Natural  Some impact to farmland  Some impact to farmland  Some impact to farmland Cultural  Impacts to irrigation ditch  Impacts to irrigation ditch  Impacts to irrigation ditch Utility Considerations  1600 ft lined irrigation ditch, 7 power poles, 2 well sites  1600 ft lined irrigation ditch, 7 power poles, 2 well sites  1600 ft lined irrigation ditch, 7 power poles, 2 well sites Recommendations Recommended Alignment with transition at east end – most compatible with existing improvements and developments impact  Lowest Best performance  Moderate impact Moderate performance Page 16  Highest impact Worst performance  Cost  543,000 square feet Alternative 2 (shift 55 feet south) Alternative 3 (shift 55 feet north)  453,000 square feet  457,000 square feet  Lower cost to south  Highest cost to north Compatibility with Existing Developments  Balances impacts  No known impacts  Impacts property to the north Compatibility with Planned Future Developments  Least impact to all properties  Balances impacts  Greatest impact to most properties Compatibility with Existing and Planned Roadway Improvements  Most compatible w/ ADOT’s plans for SR 303L interchange   Engineering Complexity and Constructability    Public Acceptability    Local Agency Support    Drainage/Flood Control Considerations  Minimal impacts  Minimal impacts  Minimal impacts Socioeconomic  Minor impacts to existing land uses  Minor impacts to existing land uses  Minor impacts to existing land uses Physical and Natural  Minor impacts to farmlands  Minor impacts to farmlands  Minor impacts to farmlands Cultural  Impacts to irrigation ditch  Impacts to irrigation ditch  No known impacts Utility Considerations  2 well sites; 4300 ft lined irrigation ditch; 14 power poles  2 well sites; 4300 ft lined irrigation ditch; 6 power poles  8 power poles Recommendations Recommended Alignment w/ transition at west end compatible with SR303 and transition at west end will minimize impacts to wells Environmental Considerations impact  Lowest Best performance April 2011 Alternative 1 (on section line) Area Right-of-way Considerations Compatibility with Existing Developments Environmental Considerations Criteria  Moderate impact Moderate performance Page 17  Highest impact Worst performance April 2011 Technical Memorandum #4 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #4 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Table 8 – Segment 7 Evaluation Matrix Table 9 – Segment 9 Evaluation Matrix Segment 7: Reems Road to Bullard Ave Criteria Area Right-of-way Considerations Cost Alternative 1 (on section line)  227,000 square feet  Alternative 2 (shift 5 feet south)  227,000 square feet  Segment 9: Litchfield Rd to Dysart Rd Alternative 3 (shift 30 feet north)  224,000 square feet  Higher cost likely to north; encroachment into residential lots Criteria Alternative 1 (on section line) Alternative 2 (shift south) Alternative 3 (shift north) Area  257,000 square feet  300,000 square feet  252,000 square feet Cost  Moderate costs  Lowest cost likely to south  Highest cost likely to north, including potential building takes Compatibility with Existing Developments  Minor impacts to land uses to north  No known impacts  Impacts to land uses to north Compatibility with Planned Future Developments  No known impacts to future development  Minor impacts to future development to south  Impacts future development to north  Most compatible with existing half-streets and Litchfield and Dysart Rd intersections  Least compatible with existing half-streets and Litchfield and Dysart Rd intersections Right-of-way Considerations Compatibility with Existing Developments  Balances impacts  Balances impacts  All existing development to the north Compatibility with Planned Future Developments  Balances impacts to both sides  No future development plans to the south  All future development plans to the north Compatibility with Existing and Planned Roadway Improvements  Reems Rd improved to full street section; centered on section line   Compatibility with Existing and Planned Roadway Improvements Engineering Complexity and Constructability    Engineering Complexity and Constructability    Public Acceptability    Public Acceptability    Local Agency Support    Local Agency Support    Drainage/Flood Control Considerations  No known impacts Drainage/Flood Control Considerations  Balances impacts  Least impact to existing drainage facilities  Most impact to existing drainage facilities  Impacts to agriculture Socioeconomic  Balances impacts  No known impacts  Impacts to private property to north Physical and Natural  Physical and Natural  Balances impacts  Greatest impact to farmland  No known impacts Cultural Cultural  Impacts to Ennis Spur  Impacts to Ennis Spur  Impacts to Ennis Spur  2 well sites; 2 reclaim taps; 7 power poles  2 well sites; 2 reclaim taps; 7 power poles  No well sites, reclaim taps or power poles Socioeconomic Environmental Considerations Utility Considerations  No known impacts  No known impacts  Impacts to agriculture  Impacts to private property Potential impact to farms and habitat  Potential impact to farms and habitat  Potential impact to habitat  Impacts to irrigation ditch  Impacts to irrigation ditch  No known impacts  5 well sites; 4500 ft lined irrigation ditch; 16 power poles  5 well sites; 4500 ft lined irrigation ditch  3 well sites; 16 power poles Recommended Alignment with transition at west end and east end. Would minimize impacts to irrigation facilities. Low scores due to impacts at west end. Recommendations impact  Lowest Best performance  Moderate impact Moderate performance Page 18  Environmental Considerations Utility Considerations April 2011 Balances impacts Recommended Alignment with transitions at both ends – minimizes impacts to existing land uses Recommendations impact  Lowest Best performance Highest impact Worst performance   Moderate impact Moderate performance Page 19  Highest impact Worst performance April 2011 Technical Memorandum #4 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #4 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Table 10 – Segment 1 Evaluation Matrix Table 11 – Recommended Alignment Segment 1: Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Beardsley Canal Criteria Alternative 1 (on section line) Area  Cost  Right-of-way Considerations Alternative 2 (shift to south) 779,000 square feet  825,000 square feet  Higher cost due to additional length No existing development Compatibility with Existing Developments  No existing development  Compatibility with Planned Future Developments  Provides higher amount of developable land near intersection  Compatibility with Existing and Planned Roadway Improvements  Facilitates 1-mile intersection spacing along Jackrabbit Parkway  Engineering Complexity and Constructability   Public Acceptability   Local Agency Support   Drainage/Flood Control Considerations   Numerous wash and floodplain crossing  No known impacts  Greatest impact to wash corridors and floodplains Numerous wash and floodplain crossing Socioeconomic  Physical and Natural  Cultural  Impacts to Beardsley Canal  Impacts to Beardsley Canal Utility Considerations  No known impacts  No known impacts Recommendations Recommended Alignment-likely lower cost; minimizes natural wash crossings; better intersection spacing along Jackrabbit Trail Parkway Environmental Considerations impact  Lowest Best performance  No known impacts Moderate impact Moderate performance  Highest impact Worst performance Segment Segment 1: Future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Beardsley Canal Segment 2: Beardsley Canal to Perryville Road Segment 3: Perryville Road to Citrus Road Segment 4: Citrus Road to Cotton Lane Segment 5: Cotton Lane to Sarival Road Recommended Alignment Comments Alternative 1, centered on section line Scored higher than second alternative due to shorter corridor length and less disturbance to drainage corridors. Alternative 1, centered on section line Independent evaluation not carried out; alignment is already set in the Zanjero Trails Preliminary Plat. Alternative 1, centered on section line Scored highest of the three alternatives; most compatible with existing street improvement on Peoria Avenue. Alternative 3, centerline shifted 37 feet north of section line Alternative 1, centered on section line Segment 6: Sarival Road to Reems Road Alternative 1, centered on section line Segment 7: Reems Road to Bullard Avenue Alternative 3, centerline shifted 30 feet north of section line for short distance in middle portion of segment Segment 8: Bullard Avenue to Litchfield Road Alternative 1, centered on section line Segment 9: Litchfield Road to Dysart Road Alternative 2, centerline shifted south of section line Corridor will transition at east end to meet segment 4, shifted north of the section line. Scored highest of the three alternatives; most compatible with existing development; likely to have least R/W cost. All three alternatives scored similarly. Alternative 1 chosen due to compatibility with existing development and planned roadway improvements, specifically placement of SR 303L and the Peoria Avenue traffic interchange in this segment. Corridor will transition from Segment 4 north shift to centerline symmetry at the west end of this segment. Scored highest of the three alternatives; balances impacts throughout segment and performs best in key factors, including compatibility with existing development and drainage/flood control considerations. Although scoring the lowest due to impacts to existing development, maintaining section line alignment at west end and transitioning to the north, east of existing development allows alignment to miss well site and balance impacts throughout remainder of segment. Corridor will transition at east end to meet segment 8, centered on the section line. Scored highest of the three alternatives; balances impacts throughout segment and performs better than Alternative 3 in key factors, including compatibility with existing development and drainage/flood control considerations. Because of the varying shifts associated with Alternative 2, it best minimizes impacts to existing land uses throughout the segment. Source: Project Team, December 2010 Page 20 April 2011 Page 21 April 2011 Technical Memorandum #4 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 3 – Recommended Alignment Page 22 April 2011 Appendix A Appendix B Appendix E Technical Memorandum No. 5: Preferred Alignment Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study: Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #5: Preferred Alignment Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................1 2.0 DESIGN CRITERIA...............................................................................................................3 Typical Section.........................................................................................................................3 3.0 FEATURES OF THE PREFERRED ALIGNMENT.................................................................8 Geometrics...............................................................................................................................8 June 2011 Drainage ................................................................................................................................10 Structures ..............................................................................................................................14 Bicycles and Pedestrians .......................................................................................................15 Trails ......................................................................................................................................15 Utilities ...................................................................................................................................15 Ennis Spur .............................................................................................................................17 Corridor Traffic Management/Intelligent Transportation System .............................................20 Right-of-Way ..........................................................................................................................20 Considerations for Future Study and Design ..........................................................................21 Planning-Level Cost Estimate ................................................................................................22 4.0 ACCESS MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................................25 Definition ................................................................................................................................25 Purpose and Need for Access Management ..........................................................................25 Techniques ............................................................................................................................26 Recommended Techniques for Peoria Avenue ......................................................................29 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ..................................................................................................30 Page i June 2011 Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road List of Figures 1.0 INTRODUCTION Figure 1 – Vicinity Map................................................................................................................2 Figure 2 – Standard Hybrid Typical Section ................................................................................5 Figure 3 – Narrow Hybrid Typical Section ...................................................................................5 Figure 4 – Widened Hybrid Typical Section.................................................................................6 Figure 5 – Standard City of Surprise Typical Section ..................................................................6 Figure 6 – Narrow City of Surprise Typical Section .....................................................................7 Figure 7 – Narrow Hybrid with Frontage Road Typical Section ...................................................7 Figure 8 – Preferred Alignment ..................................................................................................9 Figure 9 – Off-Site Drainage Flow .............................................................................................18 Figure 10 – Ennis Spur Grade Separation.................................................................................19 Figure 11 – Implementation Plan...............................................................................................31 List of Tables Table 1 – Design Criteria ............................................................................................................3 Table 2 – Horizontal Curves ......................................................................................................10 Table 3 – Culvert Summary.......................................................................................................13 Table 4 – Channel Summary.....................................................................................................14 Table 5 – New Right-of-Way .....................................................................................................21 Table 6 – Full Width Ultimate Facility Planning Level Cost Estimates .......................................23 Table 7 – Full Width Ultimate Facility Planning Level Cost Estimates Adjusted for Inflation ......23 Table 8 – Interim Implementation Planning Level Cost Estimates .............................................24 Table 9 – Interim Implementation Planning Level Cost Estimates Adjusted for Inflation ............24 Appendices Appendix A – Preferred Alignment Plan Sheets Appendix B – MWD Letter Appendix C – Cost Estimates Page ii Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) prepared the Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study (Hassayampa Framework Study) that identified a comprehensive roadway network to meet traffic demands for the buildout of the area west of State Route 303 (SR 303L). This long-range regional transportation study identified the need for a roadway network consisting of freeways, parkways, and major arterial roads. The Hassayampa Framework Study recommended an extension of Peoria Avenue west from Perryville Road to the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway, and identified Peoria Avenue as a major arterial from the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Sarival Avenue. The study area for this project includes Peoria Avenue from the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway alignment to Dysart Road (Peoria Avenue Corridor). The study area generally encompasses a two-mile wide corridor centered on the existing Peoria Avenue. The study area is shown in Figure 1. This study will establish the facility type, number of lanes, right-of-way needs, and general alignment for the Peoria Avenue Corridor that will be required to accommodate projected traffic growth and enhance safety. In cooperation with the City of Surprise, the City of Glendale, and the City of El Mirage, the study will also develop access management guidelines, determine design standards based upon which jurisdiction anticipates annexing the roadway, and develop an implementation plan. In general, the purpose of this Corridor Improvement Study is to provide the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) and other jurisdictions with a future “footprint” of the Peoria Avenue Corridor and a timeframe for the implementation of the recommended future roadway improvements. The key objectives of this Corridor Improvement Study are to: x x x x x x Define and assess strategic issues within the project study area; Develop and evaluate conceptual alternative alignments within the corridor study area; Recommend a preferred alignment; Develop consensus for the preferred alignment; Define the characteristics of the preferred alignment; and Develop an implementation plan. This technical memorandum describes the Preferred Alignment, including the typical section, design criteria, drainage features, structures, right-of-way, utilities, access management, cost estimate, and implementation plan. June 2011 Page 1 June 2011 Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 1 – Vicinity Map Page 2 June 2011 Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road 2.0 DESIGN CRITERIA Table 1 shows the major design features recommended for Peoria Avenue. These design criteria are for urban roadway sections and apply to the envisioned ultimate cross-section of Peoria Avenue. Interim construction may not include all of these elements. Table 1 – Design Criteria Description Typical Section Design Year Design Vehicle Design Speed Pavement Design Life Number of Lanes Roadway Width Drainage (Pavement) Minimum Right-of-Way Requirements Lane Widths Clear Zone Width Median Maximum Superelevation Rate Maximum Gradient Minimum Radius @ normal crown Criteria Urban Principal Arterial Design year for future projects should be 20 years after construction completion WB-50 55 mph (urban) 20 years 3 through lanes in each direction See typical sections (Figures 2 –7) 10-year event See typical sections (Figures 2 – 7) 12 feet Approx. 25’ min. (varies based on side slopes, design speed, and traffic volume) See typical sections (Figures 2 – 7) emax = 4% (urban) 5% R = 10,000 feet (approx.) Typical Section Between the Beardsley Canal and Dysart Road, the Peoria Avenue section line is the southern boundary of the incorporated limits for the City of Surprise. South of the section line lies within unincorporated Maricopa County, with the exception of a parcel abutting SR 303L and a 10-foot strip of land along the south side of Peoria Avenue (located either 23 or 30 feet south of the Peoria Avenue section line) from Perryville Road to east of Litchfield Road. This annexation is part of the City of Glendale Strip Annex Area. Maricopa County Planning and Development Department administers the zoning and subdivision ordinances within unincorporated areas and the strip annex area. The Peoria Avenue section line serves as a boundary between two jurisdictional agencies with different design standards – the City of Surprise to the north, and Maricopa County to the south. Without an executed agreement in place, roadway designs and development plans will be reviewed and approved by one of the two different agencies, depending on whether the site is north or south of Peoria Avenue. Due to the differing design standards for a principal arterial, hybrid typical sections were developed for Peoria Avenue. As shown in Figure 2, the half-street to the north reflects the City Page 3 June 2011 Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road of Surprise standard for a Major Arterial, while the half-street to the south reflects Figure 5.7 from the MCDOT Roadway Design Manual. This Standard Hybrid Typical Section would be utilized in the following areas: Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Perryville Road; Reems Road to Bullard Avenue; and Litchfield Road to Dysart Road. In numerous segments along the corridor, existing constraints limit the ultimate right-of-way to 120 feet. In these segments, the Narrow Hybrid Typical Section shown in Figure 3 would be utilized. This reduced-width typical section is similar to the typical section shown in Figure 2 with reduced median widths and buffer distances (offset from curb to right-of-way line). This typical section would be utilized in the following areas: Perryville Road to Citrus Road; Sarival Road to Reems Road; and Bullard Avenue to Litchfield Road. The segment from Cotton Lane to Sarival Road would utilize the Widened Hybrid Typical Section shown in Figure 4, which is similar to Figure 2 with an expanded right-of-way width to facilitate the addition of turn lanes and/or auxiliary lanes near SR 303L. If the City of Surprise, City of Glendale, City of El Mirage, and MCDOT enter into agreements stipulating that the City of Surprise will assume ownership and maintenance of Peoria Avenue, then the corridor’s typical sections should conform to the City of Surprise standard, as shown in Figure 5, in areas included in that agreement. Figure 6, which is based upon the City of Surprise standard, with reduced right-of-way, should be utilized in the constrained areas that are included in that agreement. The segment from Citrus Road to Cotton Lane contains numerous residential properties along the south side of Peoria Avenue that have direct access on to Peoria Avenue. The Narrow Hybrid with Frontage Road Typical Section, as shown in Figure 7, was developed for this segment as an access management strategy. Since an agreement is not in place at the publication of this technical memorandum, the following typical sections are recommended: Figure 2 (Standard Hybrid Typical Section): x Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Perryville Road x Reems Road to Bullard Avenue x Litchfield Road to Dysart Road Figure 3 (Narrow Hybrid Typical Section): x Perryville Road to Citrus Road x Sarival Road to Reems Road x Bullard Avenue to Litchfield Road Figure 4 (Widened Hybrid Typical Section): x Cotton Lane to Sarival Road Figure 7 (Narrow Hybrid with Frontage Road Typical Section): x Citrus Road to Cotton Lane Page 4 June 2011 Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 2 – Standard Hybrid Typical Section Figure 4 – Widened Hybrid Typical Section Figure 3 – Narrow Hybrid Typical Section Figure 5 – Standard City of Surprise Typical Section Page 5 June 2011 Page 6 June 2011 Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road 3.0 FEATURES OF THE PREFERRED ALIGNMENT Appendix A contains plan sheets illustrating the proposed conceptual alignment for Peoria Avenue. The plan sheets show the proposed centerline, pavement widths, and right-of-way widths superimposed on aerial photographs. Geometrics The preliminary corridor alignment recommendations were based on a 140 foot wide corridor. The recommended typical sections shown in Section 2 vary in width from 120 feet to 169 feet. Therefore, in some segments of the corridor, slight adjustments were made to the recommended centerline location to balance the improvements within the existing right-of-way. The resulting corridor horizontal alignment is shown in Figure 8 and described below. Jackrabbit Parkway to Perryville Road x Centerline coincident with section line x 5’ shift to north occurs just west of Perryville Road (55:1 taper) Figure 6 – Narrow City of Surprise Typical Section Perryville Road to Citrus Road x Centerline 5’ north of and parallel to the section line x Near Cortessa Parkway, horizontal curvature would shift the centerline to a 38.5’ offset north of the section line, west of Citrus Road Citrus Road to Cotton Lane x Centerline 38.5’ north of and parallel to the section line Cotton Lane to Sarival Road x East of Cotton Lane, horizontal curvature would shift the centerline to the south to be coincident with the section line x Centerline remains coincident with section line to Sarival Road Sarival Road to Reems Road x 5’ shift to the south occurs east of Sarival Road (55:1 taper) x Centerline remains 5’ south of and parallel to the section line x 5’ shift to the north (to become coincident with the section line) occurs west of Reems Road (55:1 taper) Reems Road to Bullard Avenue x Centerline coincident with section line x Approximately 3,000 feet east of Reems Road, horizontal curvature would shift the centerline 30’ to the north, and then transition to a 5’ offset south of the section line, prior to reaching Bullard Avenue Figure 7 – Narrow Hybrid with Frontage Road Typical Section Page 7 June 2011 Page 8 June 2011 Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 8 – Preferred Alignment Page 9 May 2011 Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road x Bullard Avenue to Litchfield Road x Centerline 5’ south of and parallel to the section line x Litchfield Road to Dysart Road x East of Litchfield Road, horizontal curvature would shift the centerline to the south to an offset 35’ south of the section line x Centerline would continue to the east, 35’ south of and parallel to the section line for approximately 2,200 feet x Horizontal curvature would be introduced to shift the alignment back to the section line, west of the Dysart Road Based on the maximum superelevation rate of 4%, ten of the eleven curves are flat enough to not require superelevation and can remain at normal crown. The sharpest horizontal curve would occur west of Bullard Road where the alignment shifts to the north. One curve in this location has a radius of 4,000 feet which would result in a 2.6% crown. Table 2 contains a list of the horizontal curves planned along the Peoria Avenue centerline. Table 2 – Horizontal Curves Curve No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 PI Station (approx.) 120+00 128+00 193+00 199+00 321+00 327+00 334+00 400+00 405+00 433+00 439+00 Direction Radius Superelevation Description Left Right Right Left Left Right Left Right Left Left Right 10,000’ 10,000’ 10,000’ 10,000’ 10,000’ 4,000’ 10,000’ 10,000’ 10,000’ 10,000’ 10,000’ Normal Crown Normal Crown Normal Crown Normal Crown Normal Crown 2.6% Normal Crown Normal Crown Normal Crown Normal Crown Normal Crown Curve set to shift to the north Curve set to shift to the south Curve set to shift to the north and back to the south Curve set to shift to the south Curve set to shift to the north Generally, the vertical alignment would closely follow the existing ground or existing roadway. SR 303L will be constructed to go over Peoria Avenue with Peoria Avenue remaining at-grade. According to the MCDOT Roadway Design Manual, the minimum longitudinal grade should be 0.25%, while the City of Surprise standards require a minimum longitudinal grade of 0.30%. Therefore, the minimum longitudinal grade should be 0.30%. In areas where the existing roadway does not meet this requirement, consideration should be given to increasing the longitudinal slope to meet this minimum requirement. Drainage For an arterial roadway, Maricopa County Drainage Policies and Standards require a drainage system with the capacity to: Page 10 June 2011 x x Maintain one 12-foot dry driving lane in each direction of travel and flow depths not to exceed the curb height for the 10-year storm event. Convey the 50-year frequency flow in adjacent channels, with a maximum allowed depth of 6 inches over the pavement surface for the 100-year frequency flow. Keep the headwater elevation at culvert crossings below the lowest adjacent road subgrade for the 50-year frequency flow, with a maximum allowed depth of 6 inches over the pavement surface for the 100-year frequency flow. Maintain a minimum of 2-feet freeboard below the low chord of bridges for the 100-year frequency flow. The following off-site and on-site drainage improvements are recommended in order to meet these requirements. Off-Site Improvements Several improvements are required along the corridor, some of which are already planned by agencies and developers, to complete the off-site drainage system. Starting at the west end, mitigation of impacts to the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) 500-year retention basin located south of the McMicken Dam will need to be implemented as a result of Peoria Avenue crossing the basin. Reconfiguration of the basin and/or addition of flood-pool leveling culverts would be needed to retain safety, function, operation, and capacity requirements of the basin. Management of outflows from the basin to Waterfall Wash and the presence of earth fissures and monitoring devices should also be addressed. A bridge crossing of Waterfall Wash would be required should the roadway alignment be shifted south of the basin. Culvert crossings of Peoria Avenue are proposed to implement a pass-through system for the small washes downstream of the dam in the segment between the basin and the Beardsley Canal. Future development plans may reduce the need for off-site improvements as a result of development retention requirements that would intercept flows upstream of Peoria Avenue. On-site retention for Zanjero Trails, from the Beardsley Canal to Perryville Road, will reduce offsite flows reaching Peoria Avenue. The existing channel along the north side of Peoria Avenue at Shadow Ridge High School is planned to be extended east in the development plans of Zanjero Trails and Prasada. The channel would convey flows east to Cotton Lane where box culverts, across Cotton Lane to the east and Peoria Avenue to the south, would split flows to maintain historic patterns, according to Prasada’s concept. A new channel would need to be constructed along the north side of Peoria Avenue from Cotton Lane to the SR 303L channel to provide an ultimate outfall. This channel is not in any development plans at this time and will need to be coordinated with FCDMC and Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) for compliance with SR 303L design parameters. A culvert crossing of Peoria Avenue is proposed to discharge into the SR 303L channel downstream of the freeway channel’s box culvert. Development retention will also reduce off-site flows reaching Peoria Avenue in the segment between SR 303L and Sarival Road. A culvert crossing of Sarival Road and a channel extension to the east is proposed along the north side of Peoria Avenue to allow the Page 11 June 2011 Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Table 3 – Culvert Summary conveyance of flows from the Sarival Road Channel to the Greer Ranch channel, mitigating current flooding problems at the Sarival Road intersection. The existing Greer Ranch channel conveys flows to the Reems Road Channel. No additional facilities are proposed for the segment between Reems Road and Litchfield Road, as on-site retention and the existing Copper Canyon channel already address off-site requirements. A culvert crossing of the intersection of Litchfield Road and Peoria Avenue, and a new channel along the south side of Peoria Avenue are proposed to convey flows from the Copper Canyon channel to the future BNSF Railway (Ennis Spur) Channel. The south side of Peoria Avenue is proposed for the channel because of conflicts with existing development and private retention basins on the north side. Location Status 48”x150’ RCP 48”x210’ RCP 48”x140’ RCP 10’x6’x160’ CBC 48”x135’ CMP Across Peoria Ave, west of 195th Ave Across Peoria Ave, west of Beardsley Canal Across Peoria Ave, west of Beardsley Canal Across Peoria Ave, west of Beardsley Canal Across Perryville Road, north of Peoria Ave Across Shadow Ridge High School access road, north of Peoria Ave rd Across 183 Ave, north of Peoria Ave Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Existing Municipal Existing Municipal Planned Zanjero Trails Across Citrus Rd, north of Peoria Ave Planned Prasada Across 175th Ave, north of Peoria Ave Planned Prasada Across Peoria Ave, west of Cotton Ln Planned Prasada Across Cotton Ln, north of Peoria Ave Planned Prasada Across Peoria Ave, west of SR 303L Proposed Across Peoria Ave, west of SR 303L Planned Across Sarival Rd, north of Peoria Ave Proposed Across Greer Ranch Pkwy, north of Peoria Ave Existing Greer Ranch th Across 159 Ave, south of Peoria Ave Existing Twelve Oaks Estates Across Peoria Ave, west of Reems Rd Existing FCDMC Across Bullard Ave, north of Peoria Ave Existing Municipal Across 143rd Ave, north of Peoria Ave Existing Copper Canyon Ranch Across Peoria Ave, at Litchfield Rd Proposed Across Peoria Ave, west of BNSF Ennis Spur Across Peoria Ave, at Dysart Rd Planned Proposed 5-36”x60’ CMP Additional off-site facilities are not required east of the BNSF Ennis Spur as a result of on-site retention north of Peoria Avenue. A pipe culvert that crosses the intersection of Dysart Road and Peoria Avenue will need to be extended as a result of the Peoria Avenue widening. Consequently, a roadside channel along the west side of Dysart Road would need to be relocated for the widened intersection. Figure 9 shows off-site drainage crossings along the corridor centerline. 100-year and 50-year peak flows are shown at ten drainage crossings. Table 3 is a summary of existing, planned (by others), and proposed (in this study) culvert crossings of Peoria Avenue and its crossroads. Table 4 is a summary of existing, planned and proposed channels. The proposed culvert and channel improvements at the intersections of Peoria Avenue with Sarival Road and Litchfield Road could be completed ahead of the ultimate roadway widening to resolve current drainage problems. The opportunity to include these spot intersection improvements in ongoing development efforts by ADOT and FCDMC of the SR 303L and BNSF Ennis Spur regional drainage facilities should be explored. Additional study is required to establish design parameters and determine capacity of culverts and channels needed to convey runoff from these intersections to the flood control channels. Implementation of off-site drainage improvements will likely occur in multiple phases with varying interim conditions. Outfalls may not be available during the interim conditions and future designs will need to address this issue. The recommended drainage improvements are consistent with the overall plan for the area and are compatible with the current FCDMC plans. On-Site Improvements On-site pavement runoff can be collected in catch basins and scuppers along Peoria Avenue, and where needed, conveyed through storm drain laterals to the nearest off-site channel or culvert. The use of off-site facilities as outfall for on-site runoff is viable due to differences in frequency and time of concentration between off-site and on-site design events, and the excess capacity of the off-site channels due to the future reduction of off-site peak flows resulting from build-out of the watershed. First-flush requirements would need to be addressed during design to satisfy water quality policies. Page 12 June 2011 Owner (Blank if Undefined) Size and Type 5-36”x60’ CMP 3-12’x4’x150’ CBC 3-12’x4’x65’ CBC 4-8’x4’x190’ CBC 3-10’x4’x65’ CBC 2-72”x330’ CMP 3-10’x6’x221’ CBC 3-8’x6’x130’ CBC 3-10’x4’x90’ CBC 3-10’x6’x90’ CBC 6-10’x4x142’ CBC 2-6’x3’x122’ CBC 3-10’x3’x66’ CBC 3-10’x6’x226’ CBC Ennis Spur RCP 36”x40’ RCP ADOT FCDMC RCP – Reinforced Concrete Pipe CBC – Concrete Box Culvert CMP – Corrugated Metal Pipe Page 13 June 2011 Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Table 4 – Channel Summary Top Width Location Relative To Peoria Avenue Termini 27’ North Perryville Rd to HS Entrance 32’ 80’ 83’ 28’(Est.) 28’(Est.) 34’ North North North North North North rd HS Entrance to 183 Ave rd 183 Ave to Citrus Rd Citrus Rd to Cotton Ln Cotton Ln to SR 303L st Sarival Ave to 161 Ln st 161 Ln to Reems Rd th Length Status 1,420’ Existing 1,060’ 2,540’ 5,100’ 2,145’ 665’ 3,865’ Planned Planned Planned Proposed Proposed Existing 30’ South Sarival Ave to 167 Dr 3,300’ Existing 30’ North Bullard Ave to Litchfield Rd 5,075’ Existing 30’(Est.) South Litchfield Rd to BNSF Ennis Spur 2,420’ Proposed Owner (Blank if Undefined) Shadow Ridge High School Zanjero Trails Prasada Prasada Greer Ranch Twelve Oaks Estates Copper Canyon Ranch Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road A crossing of the Maricopa Water District’s (MWD) Beardsley Canal is planned west of Perryville Road. This crossing could be a CBC or a bridge structure. Coordination will be required with MWD to comply with their crossing requirements and to secure the necessary easements and/or permits to cross their facility. A future box culvert crossing under Citrus Road is planned north of Peoria Avenue. This crossing will be in conflict with the existing MWD Cross-Cut Canal. Future design and coordination efforts are needed to address this crossing. ADOT’s SR 303L project will construct a new 3-barrel 10’x6’x221’ CBC to convey the SR 303L drainage channel beneath Peoria Avenue, and a new 2-span AASHTO girder bridge to carry SR 303L traffic over Peoria Avenue. It is envisioned that both of these structures will be compatible with the ultimate Peoria Avenue cross-section and that additional improvements will not be necessary. Multimodal Accommodations Segments of Peoria Avenue where there are no off-site channels along the roadway will require storm drain trunk lines to collect flows from laterals and convey them to the nearest outfall, such as the segments from the Beardsley Canal to Perryville Road, SR 303L to Sarival Road, Reems Road to Bullard Avenue, and the BNSF Ennis Spur to Dysart Road. Future development on either side of Peoria Avenue may be able to accommodate pavement runoff within their on-site retention and therefore eliminate the need for trunk lines. The on-site retention alternative is more viable where the parcels of land on both sides of the roadway are undeveloped, as opposed to segments where existing private retention basins on one side may have insufficient capacity to accept larger flows from a widened Peoria Avenue half-street. Structures The ultimate typical section includes sidewalks to accommodate pedestrians, and an outside shoulder that can accommodate bicycles. Local bus routes are envisioned along Peoria Avenue, therefore far-side bus bays should be included in future designs, in coordination with Valley Metro/Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA). Trails A planned Maricopa County trail runs along the west side of the Beardsley Canal. At Peoria Avenue, this trail is planned to turn west and may be adjacent to Peoria Avenue. In addition, Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department is planning a trailhead staging area at the south end of the McMicken Dam. Future studies and designs should plan for an appropriate interface between pedestrian, equestrian, and vehicular movements. Utilities Immediately west of Reems Road, a 6-barrel 10’x4’x142’ concrete box culvert (CBC) conveys the Reems Road Channel beneath Peoria Avenue. The southern headwall is located 75 feet south of the section line while the northern headwall is located 65 feet north of the section line. Based on the ultimate plan for Peoria Avenue (as shown in Appendix A), this CBC will need to be extended to accommodate the planned turn lanes and future bus bay. Existing Concrete Box Culvert West of Reems Road Page 14 June 2011 There are numerous existing and planned utilities along Peoria Avenue. A portion of the study area, including the properties between the Beardsley Canal and Reems Road, is within the MWD Conservation District Number One service area boundaries. MWD is primarily an irrigation water conservation district providing water services to its customers. The District’s irrigation conveyance and delivery channels and pipelines span the entire length of its service areas along Peoria Avenue. Existing MWD Lateral 8 Page 15 June 2011 Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Many MWD wells and private irrigation wells (active and inactive) are also sited along Peoria Avenue. Under a contract with Arizona Public Service (APS), MWD also delivers power and energy through APS’s distribution facilities to wells owned by the District and its customers. As improvements to Peoria Avenue are constructed, the MWD facilities will be impacted. MWD Lateral 8, which is located along the south side of Peoria Avenue, will need to be relocated outside of the roadway right-of-way in an MWD easement. In addition, numerous MWD and private well sites will be impacted and will require new wells to replace those that are removed or abandoned with the roadway improvements. Coordination will be required with MWD to relocate these facilities. Appendix B contains a detailed list of the facilities that would likely be impacted, and also contains MWD Easement Guidelines. Ennis Spur The BNSF Railway (BNSF) owns and operates a north-south railroad spur (Ennis Spur) that crosses Peoria Avenue at the half-mile between Litchfield and Dysart Roads. The Ennis Spur connects to a major branch line (Peavine) that links the Phoenix metropolitan area with the Transcon mainline in northern Arizona. The nine-mile long Ennis Spur runs from Ennis, a junction on the Peavine in the Surprise area, west and south through farmland to Fennemore siding, where a fertilizer plant is located. Three other freight customers are currently served by way of the Ennis Spur. The primary commodities carried on the Ennis Spur are natural gas, fertilizer and lumber. The City of Surprise is working with BNSF and private developers to create a new industrial park along the Ennis Spur. New warehouse districts, distribution centers, and commercial enterprises are expected to double the business demand on the BNSF branch in the future. Additionally, BNSF plans to improve the Ennis Spur with construction of a new wye at Grand Avenue (US 60) and a new rail-oriented business park adjacent to Luke Air Force Base, likely causing rail traffic crossing Peoria Avenue to increase in the future. A future box culvert crossing under Citrus Road is planned north of Peoria Avenue. This crossing will be in conflict with the existing MWD CrossCut Canal. Future design and coordination efforts will be needed to address this crossing. Numerous overhead power distribution lines run in an east-west direction parallel to Peoria Avenue along both sides of the roadway, and in a north-south direction along Existing Reclaimed Water Delivery Header several cross-streets: Cotton Lane, Sarival Avenue, Dysart Road, and the BNSF Ennis Spur. Above ground power lines along Peoria Avenue are fragmented, a result of gradual burying of overhead distribution lines in front of new housing developments over the years. The future APS West Valley-North 230kV power transmission line is scheduled to be in service in 2015, in a corridor west of and parallel to SR 303L from Olive Avenue to Cactus Road where it will then turn west to parallel Cactus Road to the north. Power substation sites are planned on the major arterials adjacent to Peoria Avenue (Olive Avenue and Cactus Road). The existing Ennis Spur crossing of Peoria Avenue is at-grade and the improvements shown in Appendix A maintain the at-grade crossing. However, in the future, if the rail traffic using the Ennis Spur were to increase along with increased vehicular traffic on Peoria Avenue, it may be desirable to implement a grade separated crossing at this location. Future development plans near the Ennis Spur should provide building set-backs to allow the future potential implementation of a grade separated crossing. Without providing set-backs, it may not be feasible to grade separate Peoria Avenue from the Ennis Spur, if needed in the future. Figure 10 shows a conceptual layout of a grade separation and provides a conceptual footprint. Future development plans should include building set-backs to avoid this footprint. City utilities along Peoria Avenue include underground water and sewer lines and appurtenances, and a 30-inch reclaimed water line and reclaimed water delivery headers on the south side of Peoria Avenue across from the Surprise South Water Reclamation Plant. The reclaimed water delivery headers will be impacted and will require relocation. Other public utilities along Peoria Avenue include Southwest Gas natural gas lines and Qwest overhead and underground communication lines. A majority of the underground utilities will not be directly impacted by the roadway itself. However, future designs will need to verify that sufficient cover is provided with the new roadway. Relocations may be necessary due to the drainage facilities associated with the roadway improvements. Utility companies will be responsible for relocation costs if they cannot prove prior rights. Page 16 June 2011 Page 17 June 2011 Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 9 – Off-Site Drainage Flow Page 18 June 2011 Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 10 – Ennis Spur Grade Separation Page 19 June 2011 Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Corridor Traffic Management/Intelligent Transportation System As traffic volumes and congestion increase throughout the metropolitan area, agencies and jurisdictions seek ways to operate and manage their infrastructure more efficiently. Traffic congestion, road closures and traffic-related incidents can be better managed through application of intelligent transportation systems (ITS). ITS tools such as cameras, traffic detectors, dynamic message signs and traffic signals interconnected by fiber-optic lines all help to provide real-time travel information for both travelers and traffic managers. As the Peoria Avenue corridor and regional roadway infrastructure is developed, consideration should be given to deploying ITS infrastructure. Partnering agencies will effectively manage the corridor through integration between individual systems, devices and networks. It is recommended that the following elements be considered for design and implementation on the Peoria Avenue corridor: x x x x x x x x Develop a centrally controlled signal system management plan for the corridor. Implement traffic detection and counting capabilities to achieve real-time signal operations. Equip the corridor for video camera-based real-time traffic monitoring by the operators at the traffic management center. Implement a traveler information system. Conduct incident response and on-site incident management through Regional Emergency Action Coordinating Team (REACT). Procure all devices, equipment and systems per owning agencies or mutually agreed specifications. Develop, implement, and maintain an operations plan for the corridor detailing the roles and responsibilities of each agency. Install ITS systems and equipment compliant with National Transportation Communications ITS Protocol (NTCIP). Right-of-Way The minimum right-of-way requirements are shown in Figures 2 through 7. Additional right-ofway and/or easements may be needed for turn lanes, bus bays, drainage facilities, side slopes, utilities, or landscaping. The right-of-way shown in Appendix A accounts for an 80 foot half-width near the major intersections to facilitate additional turn lanes and a far-side bus bay. Additional right-of-way beyond the standard widths may be needed at the Beardsley Canal crossing, or the retention basin crossing west of the Beardsley Canal. Additional right-of-way will be needed between Citrus Road and Cotton Lane to accommodate the proposed frontage road, whose typical section is illustrated in Figure 7. Additional right-of-way and/or easements will be needed for the drainage channel along Peoria Avenue, and the MWD irrigation facilities along the south side of Peoria Avenue. Building set-backs should be provided near the Ennis Spur, as discussed earlier. Page 20 June 2011 Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Table 5 shows the amount of new right-of-way required for the ultimate corridor and includes all right-of-way shown in Appendix A. Table 5 does not account for impacts outside of the roadway right-of-way such as drainage easements or MWD easements. A parcel-by-parcel assessment was not conducted to determine the size of the remnant parcels or whether total acquisition is warranted. It is envisioned that a majority of the right-of-way will be obtained through dedications as development of the adjacent land occurs, and only a limited amount will be acquired through actual purchases. Table 5 – New Right-of-Way Segment New R/W (acres) New R/W (sq ft) Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Perryville Road Perryville Road to SR 303L SR 303L to Bullard Avenue Bullard Avenue to Dysart Road 25.2 26.0 12.0 10.6 1,097,100 1,134,000 522,390 460,460 Considerations for Future Study and Design Arizona State Land Department Holding West of Beardsley Canal The west end of the corridor from Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Beardsley Canal is owned by the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD). The State Trust Lands held by ASLD will likely be sold or leased to private interests for development. At such time, a detailed land development plan will be developed, including roadway alignments. The Preferred Alignment for Peoria Avenue is coincident with the section line in this segment. However, future development plans could result in a different alignment for Peoria Avenue as long as the connection to Jackrabbit Trail Parkway is maintained and regional connectivity to the east is provided. The Preferred Alignment crosses a flood retention basin owned by FCDMC. A FCDMC right-ofway use permit would be required for any improvements that are located on FCDMC property. Future coordination will be required with FCDMC on all studies and design efforts pertaining to this proposed roadway alignment. The roadway must not impact the safety and function of the existing FCDMC facilities and associated basin, channel and dam. For example, the proposed roadway must not reduce the existing basin volume or adversely impact existing flow conveyance. In addition, all FCDMC requirements pertaining to operations and maintenance, environment, and land rights must be met. Citrus Road to Cotton Lane Between Citrus Road and Cotton Lane, the Preferred Alignment includes a shift to the north and the construction of a frontage road along the south side of Peoria Avenue. The Preferred Alignment would require approximately 100 feet of right-of-way north of the section line. The planned Prasada development within the City of Surprise contained provisions for a landscape buffer along the north side of Peoria Avenue to accommodate a drainage channel. The proposed Peoria Avenue shift to the north would likely affect the planned landscape buffer and drainage channel. Further investigation and coordination is needed to determine the drainage channel and landscape configuration. Page 21 June 2011 Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road This unpaved one-mile segment of the corridor generated the most interest from the public during the open house meetings conducted during this study. The primary feedback was to immediately implement improvements to mitigate dust issues, and to place the ultimate roadway as far north as possible. In addition, concern was expressed regarding vehicle speeds along Peoria Avenue adjacent to the homes along the south side, with a strong desire for a reduced speed limit (below 40 miles per hour) within this segment. In addition, the public requested to limit the number of connections to the frontage road from the south, such that some of the existing north-south streets would not connect to the frontage road. A future box culvert crossing under Citrus Road is planned north of Peoria Avenue. This crossing will be in conflict with the existing MWD Cross-Cut Canal. Future design and coordination efforts will be needed to address this crossing. Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road x x On-site roadway drainage system includes catch basins spaced approximately every 500’ that discharge into a drainage channel along the roadway $4 per square foot for right-of-way acquisition Table 6 summarizes the planning-level cost estimates in 2010 dollars while Table 7 summarizes the costs adjusted for inflation. In addition to construction, several other types of project costs are included in the overall cost estimates: x x x Design costs are assumed to be 12% of the construction cost Construction management costs are assumed to be 15% of the construction cost Administration costs are assumed to be 10% of the construction cost Table 6 – Full Width Ultimate Facility Planning Level Cost Estimates Realignment West of Bullard Avenue West of Bullard Avenue, the Preferred Alignment includes a northerly shift near the center of the segment to avoid the existing irrigation facilities and well sites. If corridor conditions change in the future (e.g., removal of the irrigation facilities on the south side or new development on the north side) this recommendation should be reconsidered. For example, if development occurs first on the south side of Peoria Avenue, the existing irrigation facilities would likely be relocated as part of the development. If this were the case, then the alignment could stay on the section line and the realignment would not be necessary. However, if development were to occur first on the north side of Peoria Avenue, then the northerly shift should be implemented to avoid relocation of the irrigation facilities. Ennis Spur The existing BNSF Ennis Spur crossing of Peoria Avenue is at-grade and the improvements shown in Appendix A maintain the at-grade crossing. Future development plans near the Ennis Spur should provide building set-backs to allow the future implementation of a grade separated crossing, if deemed necessary in the future. Figure 10 shows a conceptual layout of a grade separation and provides a conceptual footprint. Cost Category Construction Design Construction Management Right-of-Way Structures Utility Relocation Administration Total x x x x x x x x x 6-lane typical section Two traffic signals per mile (every ½ mile) Underground signal equipment provided at ¼ mile locations Traffic signal interconnection system for the entire length No street lighting 8’ masonry sound wall adjacent to existing development (actual noise mitigation to be based on future study at time of construction following current noise abatement policy) Eight driveways per mile per side Minimal earthwork assuming roadway would be at or near existing ground Remove and replace existing roadway features Page 22 June 2011 $4,390,000 $310,000 $440,000 $770,000 $15,750,000 2010 Dollars Perryville Rd to SR 303L to SR 303L Bullard Ave (2.5 miles) (2.5 miles) $13,700,000 $11,830,000 $1,640,000 $1,420,000 $2,050,000 $1,770,000 $4,540,000 $1,570,000 $7,380,000 $1,370,000 $32,250,000 $2,090,000 $560,000 $6,170,000 $1,180,000 $25,020,000 Bullard Ave to Dysart Rd (2 miles) $10,540,000 $1,260,000 $1,580,000 $1,840,000 $580,000 $7,850,000 $1,050,000 $24,700,000 Table 7 – Full Width Ultimate Facility Planning Level Cost Estimates Adjusted for Inflation Cost Category Planning-Level Cost Estimate Preliminary planning-level cost estimates for the Preferred Alignment were developed with the following assumptions: Jackrabbit Trail Pkwy to Perryville Rd (1.5 miles) $7,750,000 $930,000 $1,160,000 Construction Design Construction Management Right-of-Way Structures Utility Relocation Administration Total Jackrabbit Trail Pkwy to Perryville Rd (1.5 miles) $9,200,000 $1,100,000 $1,380,000 $5,210,000 $360,000 $530,000 $920,000 $18,700,000 Inflation Adjusted* Perryville Rd to SR 303L to SR 303L Bullard Ave (2.5 miles) (2.5 miles) $16,260,000 $14,050,000 $1,950,000 $1,680,000 $2,440,000 $2,110,000 $5,390,000 $1,860,000 $8,760,000 $1,620,000 $38,280,000 $2,480,000 $660,000 $7,320,000 $1,400,000 $29,700,000 Bullard Ave to Dysart Rd (2 miles) $12,520,000 $1,500,000 $1,880,000 $2,190,000 $680,000 $9,330,000 $1,250,000 $29,350,000 * 5 years @ 3.5% annual inflation rate Tables 6 and 7 are based on implementation of the ultimate facility and include full reconstruction in areas where Peoria Avenue currently exists. However, a majority of this corridor will be built by developers as the adjacent land is developed, as discussed in Section 5 Page 23 June 2011 Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road (Implementation Plan). Therefore, additional cost estimates were prepared for the projects that most likely will be implemented by either the city or county, as follows: x x x x Perryville Road to Citrus Road – minor improvements at west end and east end to provide 6 lane roadway Citrus Road to Cotton Lane – south ½ street including frontage road and realignment west of Citrus Road and east of Cotton Lane Bullard Avenue to Litchfield Road – south ½ street from approximately Bullard Avenue to 143rd Avenue; and north half-street from approximately Bullard Avenue to 140th Avenue Litchfield Road to Dysart Road – full street width from Litchfield Road to Ennis Spur; and north ½ street from Ennis Spur to Dysart Road Table 8 summarizes these planning-level cost estimates in 2010 dollars, while Table 9 summarizes these costs adjusted for inflation. Costs for improvements between Sarival Road and Reems Road which are currently planned the City of Surprise to construct half-street improvements along the north side of Peoria Avenue are not included in Tables 8 and 9. Costs to upgrade this half-street to be compatible with the recommendations of this study are also not included in Tables 8 and 9. In addition, other minor improvements may be needed which are not described above or included in Tables 8 and 9. 4.0 ACCESS MANAGEMENT Definition Access management consists of the planning, design and implementation of land use and transportation strategies that maintain a safe flow of traffic while accommodating the access needs of adjacent properties. Access is managed through the regulation of vehicular access to public roadways from adjoining properties, and vice versa. Management of access is provided through legal, administrative and technical strategies available to political jurisdictions under their police powers to maintain public health, safety and welfare. Access management can be categorized as either full or partial access control. Full access control means that properties abutting a roadway do not have direct access, and that access is provided only at grade-separated interchanges. Partial access control allows some at-grade crossing and some private driveway connections, but only at designated points and often for designated movements (e.g., right-in and right-out only). Uncontrolled access means that all abutting properties are allowed direct access to the roadway. Purpose and Need for Access Management Table 8 – Interim Implementation Planning Level Cost Estimates Cost Category Construction Design Construction Management Right-of-Way Structures Utility Relocation Administration Total Perryville Rd to Citrus Rd $2,990,000 $360,000 $450,000 $290,000 $0 $1,400,000 $300,000 $5,790,000 2010 Dollars Citrus Rd to Bullard Ave to Cotton Ln Litchfield Rd $6,370,000 $3,950,000 $760,000 $470,000 $960,000 $590,000 $2,070,000 $520,000 $5,600,000 $640,000 $16,920,000 $490,000 $130,000 $3,610,000 $390,000 $9,630,000 Litchfield Rd to Dysart Rd $5,400,000 $650,000 $810,000 $620,000 $580,000 $610,000 $540,000 $9,210,000 Table 9 – Interim Implementation Planning Level Cost Estimates Adjusted for Inflation Cost Category Construction Design Construction Management Right-of-Way Structures Utility Relocation Administration Total Perryville Rd to Citrus Rd $3,560,000 $430,000 $530,000 $340,000 $0 $1,660,000 $350,000 $6,870,000 Inflation Adjusted* Citrus Rd to Bullard Ave to Cotton Ln Litchfield Rd $7,560,000 $4,690,000 $910,000 $560,000 $1,130,000 $700,000 $2,460,000 $610,000 $6,640,000 $760,000 $20,070,000 $580,000 $160,000 $4,290,000 $470,000 $11,450,000 Litchfield Rd to Dysart Rd $6,410,000 $770,000 $960,000 $740,000 $680,000 $730,000 $640,000 $10,930,000 * 5 years @ 3.5% annual inflation rate Page 24 June 2011 The purpose of access management is to preserve the capacity and maintain safety of public roadways, while retaining access to private land. Access management is intended to balance a roadway’s two main functions: mobility and access. The proper balance between these two functions depends on the classification of the roadway. In general, the higher the functional classification, the more importance is given to through traffic mobility, as opposed to access to adjoining properties. Higher functional classification roadways, such as principal arterials, are designed to satisfy the public need for high mobility over substantial distances. Fast, efficient travel in a safe, uniform manner is the primary objective of these roads, and therefore access is often limited. It is desirable for major transportation corridors to facilitate the safe and efficient movement of people and goods with minimal delay or interference from conflicting vehicle movements. However, over time, the addition of more traffic signals and/or curb cuts with resulting turning movements degrades the intended function of the transportation corridor. The use of land along a major transportation corridor is heavily dependent upon vehicular access to the corridor. Often, no direct (lateral) access exists between adjacent properties along a corridor, necessitating indirect access via the through roadway. Therefore, uncoordinated internal circulation systems force more trips onto major roadways. As traffic congestion increases, the level of service provided by the transportation corridor erodes. Crashes along such a corridor generally increase due to the large number of turning vehicles and other conflicts along the route. As the motoring public experiences increasing travel delays, requests for solutions are made to transportation officials. Typical solutions include adding more travel lanes and constructing raised medians. However, these retrofitting techniques are expensive to implement and disrupt the traveling public as well as adjacent land uses. If demand for the roadway continues to Page 25 June 2011 Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road exceed the supplied roadway capacity, then businesses begin to feel the effects due to a deterioration of access. Potential customers are deterred by delays in leaving and re-entering the main road, or if they perceive a safety risk in making difficult turning movements. In response, some businesses may relocate to areas that offer better accessibility. Frequently, as economic activity declines in the area with congested traffic, so does the property value and tax base. Ultimately, the roadway is transformed into a low-speed road with a confusing mixture of signs and curb cuts that is no longer useful as a major transportation corridor. for landscaping and other aesthetic treatments. A disadvantage of providing medians is that by limiting the number of locations where one can cross the roadway, the number of u-turns will most likely increase. Techniques Access rights are property rights protected by the U.S. and Arizona constitutions. An owner of a property abutting a public roadway has a private right or easement for the purpose of ingress to and egress from the property. This easement may not be taken or substantially impaired without compensation. Property right of access is not an absolute right, however, and is subject to the public’s right of passage. Thus, the right of access is a right of reasonable access and not a private right of direct access. An owner is deemed to have a right to access the public road system in a reasonably convenient manner, but not to any specific street or any specific point of access. The following access management techniques are not an all-inclusive list, but have been found to be among the most effective techniques to enhance traffic safety and mobility along a major arterial, while preserving the basic access to the public roadway system to which every adjacent property is entitled. Raised Medians at Intersections Raised medians at intersections (signalized or unsignalized) provide an obstruction to prevent some turning movements from occurring. For example, medians can be constructed to allow for left-turn in only/no left-turn out, which facilitates access to the adjacent property and leaves right turns unrestricted. Right-in/right-out driveways are also commonly used, often in conjunction with raised medians. Raised medians at signalized intersections are especially desirable because they can prevent left-turns to and from driveways located near the intersection. Such turning movements create special hazards because of the complexity of traffic operations at many signals, including queuing of vehicles. One disadvantage of this treatment is that motorists entering from driveways may need to make u-turns elsewhere along the roadway. Full Raised or Non-Traversable Medians Continuous raised or wide non-traversable medians provide a barrier on the main roadway that separates opposing travel lanes and prevents both left turns and cross traffic. Full raised medians reduce conflict points by restricting turn movements to right-in/right-out only, except at full median breaks. Continuous raised medians are an especially effective access management measure on roadways with high traffic volumes and high driveway densities. The main advantage of a raised median is that it limits roadway crossings and left turns to specific locations where adequate sight distance and vehicle storage can be provided. If the median is wide enough, it can also provide a refuge for pedestrians crossing the roadway. By removing left-turning vehicles from through traffic, continuous raised medians with left-turn lanes at designated breaks help maintain roadway operating speed. Raised medians also provide space Page 26 June 2011 Because raised medians are a restrictive access management technique, building such a median along an arterial often generates controversy among business and property owners. Two-way left-turn lanes are less restrictive, but are also a less effective access management technique because they fail to physically restrict turning and crossing movements. Businesses and property owners may perceive that installation of raised medians will have a large, negative impact on their customers, sales, and property values. Driveway Spacing and Consolidation A critical aspect of access management is maintaining adequate spacing between driveways. The speed differences caused by traffic turning into and out of driveways can produce conflicts that may lead to broadside and rear-end collisions between vehicles. Spacing requirements may be based on posted speed limits, the classification of the roadway, and the amount of traffic generated by a development along with other design considerations. Driveways are consolidated to limit the number of access points per mile along a road and provide adequate spacing between driveways in order to reduce the number of conflicts. Driveway consolidation can be achieved by closing driveways, creating alternative access ways, creating shared driveways, relocating entrances to side streets, and promoting cross access (i.e., lateral access between adjacent commercial properties to remove very short trips from the main roadway). These techniques can be applied individually or through projects such as installation of medians, two-way left-turn lanes, and frontage or reverse access roads. This access management technique requires property owners to agree to reduce/combine their access points or share access with adjacent property owners. Reducing the number of driveways can benefit owners of commercial property both directly (by freeing up space for parking or other use) and indirectly (by making access safer and less confusing to drivers on the main road; this is especially important to merchants who rely on drive-by traffic). In some cases, consolidation of driveways serving a major retail center can justify installation of a rightturn deceleration lane. Joint Driveways/Cross Access Joint access requirements provide for a unified on-site circulation plan serving several properties on a commercial corridor. This serves as an alternative method of achieving adequate driveway spacing where lot frontage is otherwise inadequate. This method could also be employed to provide a definition of a driveway in an area where driveway/access locations are not well defined. Cross access requirements allow for circulation between sites and may be applied in accordance with a joint access plan, or as a means of connecting major developments to allow such circulation. This method requires establishment of joint-use driveways and cross access easements between properties to provide a logical circulation system. Cross-circulation between adjacent properties and provision for service roads allows movement across adjacent parcels without re-entry to the major roadway. Page 27 June 2011 Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Corner Clearance Adequate corner clearance (i.e., the distance from the edge of the intersection to the nearest curb cut) is important in maintaining safe and efficient operations at the intersection. Driveways and access points should be located outside the functional intersection area, as drivers on the main roadway are making decisions regarding the intersection and do not expect turning movements from adjacent driveways. The functional intersection area is defined by AASHTO’s Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (2004), which states that “the functional area extends both upstream and downstream from the physical intersection area and includes the longitudinal limits of auxiliary lanes.” The functional area includes the turn lanes approaching the intersection as well as the perception-reaction distance of the driver approaching the intersection. This functional area is longer on the upstream (approach) side of the intersection than the downstream (departure) side. Recommended Techniques for Peoria Avenue Dedicated Left and Right Turn Lanes One way to accomplish a smooth flow of traffic is to provide dedicated turn lanes to remove turning vehicles from the through traffic flow at roadway intersections and near busy driveways. Turning traffic reduces the capacity of lanes to carry through traffic, causing congestion and delay to increase. This is most noticeable in the case of left-turning vehicles, which must await a safe gap in opposing traffic. However, right-turning vehicles also delay through traffic because of the need to slow down to a safe turning speed. Turning movements from through lanes result in speed differentials that contribute to crashes, especially rear-end collisions which are often the most common crash type in urban environments. Dedicated turn lanes allow through traffic to keep moving at a steady speed. A combination of medians and turn lanes provides protection for turning movements, thus reducing the crash potential. Development policies intended to help achieve access management that can be implemented through future development and redevelopment include: Recommended access management techniques for Peoria Avenue include: x x x x x x x x x x x A divided cross-section with a raised, physical median Full-access median breaks limited to four per mile Left turn lanes at all locations where left turns are permitted Minimum driveway spacing of 200’ on the north side (City of Surprise) and 165’- 330’ on the south side (MCDOT) Minimum corner clearance at major intersections of 300’ on the north side (City of Surprise), and 115’ (approach) or 230’ (departure) on the south side (MCDOT) A frontage road along the south side from Citrus Road to Cotton Lane No on-street parking Encourage alternative access ways that connect to Peoria Avenue at identified major access points Encourage on-site circulation or parallel routes that would discourage direct access to Peoria Avenue Encourage the use of direct access to minor roadways connecting to the corridor Minimize the number of driveways to reduce traffic conflicts Alternative Access Ways Alternative access ways can be provided to sites adjoining the main road by either frontage or reverse access roads that run parallel to the mainline route. Alternative access may be achieved by using frontage, collector or arterial roads off the major roadway right-of-way. Property access is provided along the frontage or reverse access road, which accesses the main roadway from a smaller crossroad. This reduces the number and density of conflict points along the arterial. Frontage roads are typically constructed adjacent to the major roadway providing access to properties fronting the roadway, thereby funneling local traffic to a common point to gain access. Frontage roads can be one-way or two-way, depending on the situation. Reverse access or “backage” roads also parallel the main roadway, but are offset from the rightof-way to provide site access along the “back side” of the property rather than the arterial side. Both types of alternative access ways are beneficial in providing convenient access to local properties, while preserving the safety and capacity of the major roadway. Operational problems involving queues on the smaller crossroad blocking closely spaced intersections can occur if adequate separation is not provided between the frontage road and the roadway. Therefore, an effective frontage road system requires additional right-of-way. Page 28 June 2011 Page 29 June 2011 Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The recommendations of this study are intended to be used to preserve corridor right-of-way since construction of improvements will not likely be completed in the near-term, but rather as development occurs along the corridor, as shown in Figure 11. All timetables are subject to change, however, depending on such circumstances as identification of additional funding, new opportunities for cost-sharing with partner jurisdictions, and development of land adjacent to Peoria Avenue. In the near-term, projects that are already programmed should be completed, such as improvements at the SR 303L/Peoria Avenue interchange to be constructed by ADOT when SR 303L is upgraded to a freeway facility, as well as the City of Surprise planned completion of the north half-street between Sarival and Reems Roads. Other near-term improvements recommended for consideration include: x x Acquire right-of-way and construct a two-lane roadway between Citrus Road and Cotton Lane Drainage improvements at Litchfield and Sarival Roads Assuming completion of the segments to be implemented by developers, several additional improvement projects would be needed in the mid-term timeframe to provide a continuous 4lane facility by the year 2030, including: x x x x x South half-street and frontage road construction between Citrus Road and Cotton Lane Cotton Lane intersection improvements Reems Road intersection improvements South half-street construction between Bullard Avenue and Litchfield Road South half-street construction between Litchfield Road and Ennis Spur Long-term (likely beyond 2030) improvements will focus on bringing uniformity to the corridor and widening to the ultimate 6-lane facility. Areas where these improvements would occur include: x x x x Perryville Road to Citrus Road Sarival Road to Reems Road Bullard Road to Litchfield Road Litchfield Road to Dysart Road The MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), updated annually, is based on a 5year projection of available transportation funding and a countywide prioritization of roadway system needs. No projects (Design Concept Report, design, or construction) along this portion of Peoria Avenue are a part of the current 5-year TIP. Page 30 June 2011 Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 11 – Implementation Plan Page 31 June 2011 Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Appendix A: Preferred Alignment Plan Sheets June 2011 Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Appendix B: MWD Letter June 2011 Technical Memorandum #5 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Summary Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: Jackrabbit Trail to Perryville Rd 2010 SUMMARY COST ESTIMATES (Current Dollars) No Build COST CATEGORIES Factors Construction Appendix C: Cost Estimates Alternative 1 Alternative 2 $ - $ 7,750,951.56 $ - Design (10% TO 15%) 12% $ - $ 930,114.19 $ - Construction Management 15% $ - $ 1,162,642.73 $ - Right-of-Way $ - $ 4,390,000.00 $ - Structures $ - $ 306,170.00 $ - Utility Relocation $ - $ 442,329.13 $ - $ - $ 775,095.16 $ - $ - $ 15,757,302.77 $ - Administration (8% TO 13%) Total 10% PRELIMINARY SUMMARY COST ESTIMATES (Adjusted for Inflation) Assumed Annual Inflation Rate = 3.50% Assumed Number of Years = 5 Adjusted Construction Cost $ - $ 9,205,699.02 $ - Design $ - $ 1,104,683.88 $ - Construction Management $ - $ 1,380,854.85 $ - Right-of-Way $ - $ 5,213,942.88 $ - Structures $ - $ 363,633.92 $ - Utility Relocation $ - $ 525,348.25 $ - Administration $ - $ 920,569.90 $ - Adjusted Total $ - $ 18,714,732.71 $ - June 2011 6/18/2011 Road Construction Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: Jackrabbit Trail to Perryville Rd Alternative: Item Description Unit Cost Total Unit Quantity N.P.D.E.S. Lump Sum 1 $ 31,858.71 $ Community Relations Allowance 1 $ 12,790.30 $ 12,790.30 Engineer's Field Office Lump Sum 1 $ 139,708.51 $ 139,708.51 Roadway Excavation C YD 39,900 $ 4.26 $ 170,012.37 Borrow Excavation (if anticipated) C YD 90,375 $ 8.37 $ 756,614.01 $ 2.88 $ 72,969 $ 1.59 $ Channel & Retention Basin Excavation Subgrade Preparation C YD SQ YD 116,378.77 New Asphalt Concrete Pavement (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 0 $ 13.85 $ New Rubberized Asphalt Pavement (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 72,969 $ 19.45 $ Asphalt Rubber Overlay (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 0 $ 7.70 $ - Chip Seal on AC Pavement (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 0 $ 2.65 $ - Double Chip Seal on Aggregate Base (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 0 $ 4.90 $ LF 15,865 $ 14.42 $ 228,766.91 Concrete Curb & Gutter LF 16,091 $ 12.36 $ 198,864.16 Concrete Sidewalk Ramp Std Det 231, Type "A" EA 8 $ 1,522.65 $ 12,181.19 Concrete Sidewalk Std Det 230 SQ YD 10,727 $ 50.41 $ 540,746.28 Concrete Driveway with 5' Wings, Std Det 250 SQ YD 289 $ 27.28 $ 7,881.39 Concrete Single Curb 1,419,249.21 - Traffic Signing & Striping - 2 lanes LF 0 $ 2.41 $ - Traffic Signing & Striping - 5 lanes LF 0 $ 4.58 $ - Traffic Signing & Striping - 7 lanes LF 8,100 $ 4.85 $ 39,265.21 Traffic Signal, Full Intersection EA 2 $ 494,973.19 $ 989,946.39 Interconnect/Traffic Signals LF 8,100 $ 9.47 $ 76,735.14 Traffic Signal, Future "Box-in" EA 2 $ 6,049.47 $ 12,098.94 Catch Basin EA 2 $ 6,631.89 $ 13,263.78 Scupper EA $ 5,001.54 $ - Drywell EA $ 41,998.26 $ - Storm Drain System (retention basin option) Mile $ 816,688.61 $ - 18" CMP and smaller LF $ 57.51 $ - 24" CMP LF $ 78.02 $ - 30" CMP LF $ 116.44 $ - 36" CMP LF $ 122.02 $ - 42" CMP LF $ 103.53 $ - 54" CMP LF $ 231.91 $ - 60" CMP LF $ 318.29 $ - 18" & 24" RGRCP, Class III LF $ 95.00 $ - 30" & 36" RGRCP, Class III LF $ 105.00 $ - 42" & 48" RGRCP, Class III LF 500 $ 154.00 $ 77,000.00 54" & 60" RGRCP, Class III LF 1,322 $ 230.00 $ 304,060.00 54" & 60" Storm Drain Manhole EA 3 $ 4,137.04 $ 12,411.12 Headwall (MAG details) EA 0 $ 5,941.91 $ Irrigation Junction Box (MAG details) EA $ - $ - Concrete Slip Form Irrigation Ditch LF $ 52.58 $ - - Earth Irrigation Ditch/Special Drainage Ditch, 6' Top LF $ 4.57 $ Box Culvert (see Structure sheet) LS 1 $ 306,170.00 $ Irrigation Structure with Gates EA 0 $ 2,789.56 $ - Bridge < 100' (see Structure sheet) SF $ - Bridge >= 100' (see Structure sheet) SF Guardrail without Approach End Section LF Guardrail Approach End Section, New ADOT Type Median Fine Grading, Pre-emergent, & D.G. 8' Masonry Soundwall** Concrete Soundwall** $ - $ - $ - $ 47.71 $ - EA 0 $ 2,558.97 $ SQ YD 16,723 $ 27.50 $ LF 0 $ 85.00 $ SQ YD 0 $ 431.00 $ - - $ 5,925,804.30 Lump Sum 1 $ 118,516.00 $ 118,516.00 Lump Sum 1 $ 237,032.00 $ 237,032.00 Traffic Control @ 3% Lump Sum 1 $ 177,774.00 $ 177,774.00 $ 6,459,126.30 20% $ 1,291,825.26 $ 7,750,951.56 TOTAL **Calculated current costs for the 8' Masonry Soundwall and Concrete Soundwall items above were not available in the current projects and therefore they were calculated using the ADOT construction cost 2008 - 2010 projects. ***Pavement Sawcut Removed as pay item BOX CULVERT COST CALCULATIONS TYPE OF ROAD URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL OR LESS (27 m or 88.58' for 5 lanes & 2 sidewalks) BOX LENGTH (ft) BOX DESCRIPTION BOX WIDTH (ft) TOP SFC AREA* 0 UNIT COST** TOTAL COST 0 0.00 SQ FT $ 85.00 $0.00 URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL W/ BIKE LANES (28.8 m or 94.49' for 5 lanes, 2 B/L's & 2 S/W's) 160 H=6 10 1,600.00 SQ FT $ 85.00 $136,000.00 URBAN MAJOR ARTERIAL (31.8 m or 104.33' for 7 lanes & 2 S/W's) 143 H=6 14 2,002.00 SQ FT $ 85.00 $170,170.00 0.00 SQ FT $52.00 $0.00 SPECIAL LOW VOLUME ROAD CONDITION*** (16 m or 52.49' for 2 lanes with shoulders) $306,170.00 * Top surface area of box. ** Includes cost of standard wing walls and bridge barrier. For special construction review unit cost with MCDOT bridge section. *** 16 m box with approval only. Generally a non-section line, low volume location. Cost in Red is from FY 2006 as there was not any new data available for FY 2010 BRIDGE COST CALCULATIONS TYPE OF ROAD BRIDGE LENGTH (ft) DESCRIPTION BRIDGE WIDTH (ft) TOP SFC AREA* UNIT COST** TOTAL COST URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL OR LESS (27 m or 88.58' for 5 lanes & 2 sidewalks ) 0 89.58 0 SQ FT $ 190.00 $0.00 URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL W/ BIKE LANES (28.8 m or 94.49' for 5 lanes, 2 B/L's & 2 S/W's) 0 94.49 0 SQ FT $ 190.00 $0.00 URBAN MAJOR ARTERIAL (31.8 m or 104.33' for 7 lanes & 2 S/W's) 0 104.33 0 SQ FT $ 190.00 $0.00 SPECIAL LOW VOLUME ROAD CONDITION*** (16 m or 52.49' for 2 lanes with shoulders) 0 52.49 0 SQ FT $ 190.00 $0.00 <100' Long >=100' Long $0.00 $0.00 * Top surface area of bridge. ** Cost includes bridge railings, barriers, approach slabs, piers, and other items used in bridge construction. Note: Show cost of channel excavation and other bridge site work on Road Construction Sheet. *** 16 m bridge with approval only. Generally a non-section line, low volume location. - Removal of Existing Improvements @ 2% Contingency Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: Jackrabbit Trail to Perryville Rd 459,801.89 Mobilization/Demobilization @ 4% SUBTOTAL Construction Structures 306,170.00 0 Subtotal 6/18/2011 31,858.71 6/18/2011 Irrigation Utility Relocation Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: Jackrabbit Trail to Perryville Rd Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: Jackrabbit Trail to Perryville Rd Alternative: Alternative: Item Description Relocate 12 kv Wood Pole (Tangent) Relocate 12 kv Wood Pole (Dead-End) Relocate 69 kv Wood Pole (Tangent) Relocate 69 kv Steel Pole (Tangent) Relocate 69 kv Wood Pole (Dead-End) Relocate 69 kv Steel Pole (Dead-End) Other Poles associated w/ 69kv Power Line Railroad Crossing Irrigation (See Irrigation sheet) Unit EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA Quantity Unit Cost $5,000.00 $7,000.00 $18,000.00 $20,000.00 $38,000.00 $40,000.00 $8,400.00 $650,000.00 $368,607.61 Subtotal Construction Contingency Total 6/18/2011 Item Description Mobilization Clearing, Grubbing and Site Clean Up Irrigation Structure w/ Gates, Medium Irrigation Structure w/ Gates, Large 24" RGRCP 30" & 36" RGRCP 42" & 48" RGRCP 54" & 60" RGRCP Headwall w/ Trash Rack Headwall Manhole Remove Existing Structures Concrete Lined Ditch Well Site Relocation Catch Basin Total $368,607.61 Quantity 1 1 0 2,600 1 5 0 Unit Cost $5,398.49 $5,398.49 $70,911.55 $129,596.98 $95.00 $105.00 $154.00 $230.00 $14,426.83 $10,025.43 $7,091.16 $30,809.85 $106.37 $750,000.00 Subtotal Construction $368,607.61 20% Unit LS EA EA EA LF LF LF LF EA EA EA LS LF EA EA Irrigation System Design Total SRP Relocation Estimate $73,721.52 *Note: English units used per SRP standards $442,329.13 6/18/2011 Total $5,398.49 $5,398.49 $0.00 $0.00 $273,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $14,426.83 $0.00 $36,874.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $335,097.83 10% $33,509.78 $368,607.61 Road Construction Summary Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: Perryville Rd to SR 303L Alternative: Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: Perryville Rd to SR 303L Item Description 2010 SUMMARY COST ESTIMATES (Current Dollars) No Build COST CATEGORIES Factors Construction Alternative 1 Alternative 2 $ - $ 13,694,691.31 $ - Design (10% TO 15%) 12% $ - $ 1,643,362.96 $ - Construction Management 15% $ - $ 2,054,203.70 $ - Right-of-Way $ Structures $ Utility Relocation Administration (8% TO 13%) Total $ 10% $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ 4,540,000.00 1,567,825.00 7,378,699.75 1,369,469.13 32,248,251.85 $ $ $ $ $ - PRELIMINARY SUMMARY COST ESTIMATES (Adjusted for Inflation) Assumed Annual Inflation Rate = 3.50% Assumed Number of Years = 5 Adjusted Construction Cost Design Construction Management Right-of-Way Structures $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ 16,264,997.33 1,951,799.68 2,439,749.60 5,392,095.83 1,862,084.28 $ $ $ $ $ - 1 $ 31,858.71 $ Community Relations Allowance 1 $ 12,790.30 $ 12,790.30 Engineer's Field Office Lump Sum 1 $ 139,708.51 $ 139,708.51 Roadway Excavation C YD 96,019 $ 4.26 $ 409,131.22 Borrow Excavation (if anticipated) C YD 90,421 $ 8.37 $ 757,001.60 Channel & Retention Basin Excavation C YD 47,223 $ 2.88 $ 136,050.29 Subgrade Preparation SQ YD 138,553 $ 1.59 $ 220,978.65 New Asphalt Concrete Pavement (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 0 $ 13.85 $ New Rubberized Asphalt Pavement (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 138,553 $ 19.45 $ Asphalt Rubber Overlay (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 0 $ 7.70 $ Chip Seal on AC Pavement (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 0 $ 2.65 $ - Double Chip Seal on Aggregate Base (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 0 $ 4.90 $ - Concrete Single Curb LF 24,795 $ 14.42 $ 357,533.92 Concrete Curb & Gutter LF 34,635 $ 12.36 $ 428,044.27 Concrete Sidewalk Ramp Std Det 231, Type "A" EA 40 $ 1,522.65 $ 60,905.94 Concrete Sidewalk Std Det 230 SQ YD 17,212 $ 50.41 $ 867,627.09 Concrete Driveway with 5' Wings, Std Det 250 19,703.49 $ - $ 8,763,580.65 $ Administration $ - $ 1,626,499.73 $ - Adjusted Total $ - $ 38,300,807.10 $ - 722 $ 27.28 $ 0 $ 2.41 $ - Traffic Signing & Striping - 5 lanes LF 0 $ 4.58 $ - Traffic Signing & Striping - 7 lanes LF 13,075 $ 4.85 $ 63,381.81 Traffic Signal, Full Intersection EA 5 $ 494,973.19 $ 2,474,865.97 Interconnect/Traffic Signals LF 13,075 $ 9.47 $ 123,865.67 Traffic Signal, Future "Box-in" EA 5 $ 6,049.47 $ 30,247.36 Catch Basin EA 44 $ 6,631.89 $ 291,803.24 Scupper EA $ 5,001.54 $ - Drywell EA $ 41,998.26 $ - Storm Drain System (retention basin option) Mile $ 816,688.61 $ - 18" CMP and smaller LF $ 57.51 $ - 24" CMP LF $ 78.02 $ - 30" CMP LF $ 116.44 $ - 36" CMP LF $ 122.02 $ 42" CMP LF $ 103.53 $ - 54" CMP LF $ 231.91 $ - 60" CMP LF $ 318.29 $ - 72" CMP LF 660 18" & 24" RGRCP, Class III LF 2,592 30" & 36" RGRCP, Class III LF 42" & 48" RGRCP, Class III LF 54" & 60" RGRCP, Class III 300 36,606.04 $ 95.00 $ $ 105.00 $ - 0 $ 154.00 $ - LF 0 $ 230.00 $ - 54" & 60" Storm Drain Manhole EA 0 $ 4,137.04 $ - Headwall (MAG details) EA $ 5,941.91 $ - Irrigation Junction Box (MAG details) EA $ - $ - Concrete Slip Form Irrigation Ditch LF $ 52.58 $ - Earth Irrigation Ditch/Special Drainage Ditch, 6' Top LF $ 4.57 $ - Box Culvert (see Structure sheet) LS $ 1,567,825.00 $ - Irrigation Structure with Gates EA $ 2,789.56 $ - Bridge < 100' (see Structure sheet) SF $ - $ - Bridge >= 100' (see Structure sheet) SF $ - $ - Guardrail without Approach End Section LF 0 $ 47.71 $ - 246,240.00 EA 0 $ 2,558.97 $ SQ YD 18,338 $ 27.50 $ 504,220.00 LF 6,618 $ 85.00 $ 562,530.00 SQ YD 0 $ 431.00 $ Subtotal - - $ 10,469,947.76 Removal of Existing Improvements @ 2% Lump Sum 1 $ 209,399.00 $ 209,399.00 Mobilization/Demobilization @ 4% Lump Sum 1 $ 418,798.00 $ 418,798.00 Traffic Control @ 3% Lump Sum 1 $ 314,098.00 $ 314,098.00 $ 11,412,242.76 SUBTOTAL Construction Contingency TOTAL 20% $ 2,282,448.55 $ 13,694,691.31 **Calculated current costs for the 8' Masonry Soundwall and Concrete Soundwall items above were not available in the current projects and therefore they were calculated using the ADOT construction cost 2008 - 2010 projects. ***Pavement Sawcut Removed as pay item 6/18/2011 - LF Concrete Soundwall** 6/18/2011 2,694,853.69 SQ YD Median Fine Grading, Pre-emergent, & D.G. - 31,858.71 Traffic Signing & Striping - 2 lanes 8' Masonry Soundwall** Utility Relocation Total Quantity Lump Sum Guardrail Approach End Section, New ADOT Type - Unit Cost Unit N.P.D.E.S. Structures Utility Relocation Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: Perryville Rd to SR 303L Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: Perryville Rd to SR 303L BOX CULVERT COST CALCULATIONS TYPE OF ROAD Alternative: BOX LENGTH (ft) BOX DESCRIPTION BOX WIDTH (ft) TOP SFC AREA* URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL OR LESS (27 m or 88.58' for 5 lanes & 2 sidewalks) 150 65 H=4 H=4 36 36 5,400.00 2,340.00 SQ FT SQ FT $ $ 85.00 85.00 $459,000.00 $198,900.00 URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL W/ BIKE LANES (28.8 m or 94.49' for 5 lanes, 2 B/L's & 2 S/W's) 135 115 H=4 H=4 30 5 4,050.00 575.00 SQ FT SQ FT $ $ 85.00 85.00 $344,250.00 $48,875.00 URBAN MAJOR ARTERIAL (31.8 m or 104.33' for 7 lanes & 2 S/W's) 190 H=4 32 6,080.00 SQ FT $ 85.00 $516,800.00 0.00 SQ FT $52.00 $0.00 SPECIAL LOW VOLUME ROAD CONDITION*** (16 m or 52.49' for 2 lanes with shoulders) UNIT COST** Item Description Relocate 12 kv Wood Pole (Tangent) Relocate 12 kv Wood Pole (Dead-End) Relocate 69 kv Wood Pole (Tangent) Relocate 69 kv Steel Pole (Tangent) Relocate 69 kv Wood Pole (Dead-End) Relocate 69 kv Steel Pole (Dead-End) Other Poles associated w/ 69kv Power Line Railroad Crossing Irrigation (See Irrigation sheet) TOTAL COST $1,567,825.00 Unit EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA Quantity 35.00 1 Unit Cost Total $5,000.00 $175,000.00 $7,000.00 $18,000.00 $18,000.00 $20,000.00 $38,000.00 $40,000.00 $8,400.00 $650,000.00 $5,955,916.46 $5,955,916.46 * Top surface area of box. ** Includes cost of standard wing walls and bridge barrier. For special construction review unit cost with MCDOT bridge section. *** 16 m box with approval only. Generally a non-section line, low volume location. Cost in Red is from FY 2006 as there was not any new data available for FY 2010 BRIDGE COST CALCULATIONS TYPE OF ROAD BRIDGE LENGTH (ft) DESCRIPTION BRIDGE WIDTH (ft) TOP SFC AREA* UNIT COST** TOTAL COST URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL OR LESS (27 m or 88.58' for 5 lanes & 2 sidewalks ) 0 89.58 0 SQ FT $ 190.00 $0.00 URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL W/ BIKE LANES (28.8 m or 94.49' for 5 lanes, 2 B/L's & 2 S/W's) 0 94.49 0 SQ FT $ 190.00 $0.00 URBAN MAJOR ARTERIAL (31.8 m or 104.33' for 7 lanes & 2 S/W's) 0 104.33 0 SQ FT $ 190.00 $0.00 SPECIAL LOW VOLUME ROAD CONDITION*** (16 m or 52.49' for 2 lanes with shoulders) 0 52.49 0 SQ FT $ 190.00 $0.00 <100' Long >=100' Long $0.00 $0.00 Contingency Total * Top surface area of bridge. ** Cost includes bridge railings, barriers, approach slabs, piers, and other items used in bridge construction. Note: Show cost of channel excavation and other bridge site work on Road Construction Sheet. *** 16 m bridge with approval only. Generally a non-section line, low volume location. 6/18/2011 Subtotal Construction 6/18/2011 $6,148,916.46 20% $1,229,783.29 $7,378,699.75 Summary Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: SR 303L to Bullard Ave 2010 SUMMARY COST ESTIMATES (Current Dollars) No Build COST CATEGORIES Factors Construction Irrigation Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: Perryville Rd to SR 303L Alternative: Item Description Mobilization Clearing, Grubbing and Site Clean Up Irrigation Structure w/ Gates, Medium Irrigation Structure w/ Gates, Large 24" RGRCP 30" & 36" RGRCP 42" & 48" RGRCP 54" & 60" RGRCP Headwall w/ Trash Rack Headwall Manhole Remove Existing Structures Concrete Lined Ditch Well Site Relocation Catch Basin Unit LS EA EA EA LF LF LF LF EA EA EA LS LF EA EA Quantity 1 1 1 13,075 0 0 1 1 26 5 Unit Cost Total $5,398.49 $5,398.49 $5,398.49 $5,398.49 $70,911.55 $70,911.55 $129,596.98 $95.00 $0.00 $105.00 $1,372,875.00 $154.00 $0.00 $230.00 $0.00 $14,426.83 $14,426.83 $10,025.43 $10,025.43 $7,091.16 $185,433.71 $30,809.85 $0.00 $106.37 $0.00 $750,000.00 $3,750,000.00 $0.00 Subtotal Construction Irrigation System Design Total SRP Relocation Estimate $ - $ 11,829,148.14 $ - Design (10% TO 15%) 12% $ - $ 1,419,497.78 $ - Construction Management 15% $ - $ 1,774,372.22 $ - Right-of-Way $ - $ 2,090,000.00 $ - Structures $ - $ 555,900.00 $ - Utility Relocation $ - $ 6,166,504.30 $ - $ - $ 1,182,914.81 $ - $ - $ 25,018,337.25 $ - Administration (8% TO 13%) Total 10% PRELIMINARY SUMMARY COST ESTIMATES (Adjusted for Inflation) Assumed Annual Inflation Rate = 3.50% Assumed Number of Years = 5 $5,414,469.51 10% Alternative 1 Alternative 2 $541,446.95 $5,955,916.46 Adjusted Construction Cost $ - $ 14,049,317.25 $ - Design $ - $ 1,685,918.07 $ - Construction Management $ - $ 2,107,397.59 $ - Right-of-Way $ - $ 2,482,264.38 $ - Structures $ - $ 660,234.82 $ - Utility Relocation $ - $ 7,323,872.72 $ - Administration $ - $ 1,404,931.72 $ - Adjusted Total $ - $ 29,713,936.54 $ - *Note: English units used per SRP standards 6/18/2011 6/18/2011 Road Construction Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: SR 303L to Bullard Ave Alternative: Item Description Unit Cost Total Unit Quantity N.P.D.E.S. Lump Sum 1 $ 31,858.71 $ Community Relations Allowance 1 $ 12,790.30 $ 12,790.30 Engineer's Field Office Lump Sum 1 $ 139,708.51 $ 139,708.51 Roadway Excavation C YD 61,335 $ 4.26 $ 261,345.29 Borrow Excavation (if anticipated) C YD 30,000 $ 8.37 $ 251,158.18 Channel & Retention Basin Excavation C YD 1,429 $ 2.88 $ 4,115.56 SQ YD 120,700 $ 1.59 $ 192,504.46 Subgrade Preparation New Asphalt Concrete Pavement (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 0 $ 13.85 $ New Rubberized Asphalt Pavement (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 120,700 $ 19.45 $ Asphalt Rubber Overlay (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 0 $ 7.70 $ - Chip Seal on AC Pavement (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 0 $ 2.65 $ - Double Chip Seal on Aggregate Base (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 0 $ 4.90 $ LF 23,294 $ 14.42 $ 335,890.10 Concrete Curb & Gutter LF 24,438 $ 12.36 $ 302,022.40 Concrete Sidewalk Ramp Std Det 231, Type "A" EA 28 $ 1,522.65 $ 42,634.16 Concrete Sidewalk Std Det 230 SQ YD 16,292 $ 50.41 $ 821,251.49 Concrete Driveway with 5' Wings, Std Det 250 SQ YD 722 $ 27.28 $ 19,703.49 Concrete Single Curb 2,347,608.52 - Traffic Signing & Striping - 2 lanes LF 0 $ 2.41 $ - Traffic Signing & Striping - 5 lanes LF 0 $ 4.58 $ - Traffic Signing & Striping - 7 lanes LF 12,300 $ 4.85 $ 59,624.95 Traffic Signal, Full Intersection EA 4 $ 494,973.19 $ 1,979,892.78 Interconnect/Traffic Signals LF 12,300 $ 9.47 $ 116,523.73 Traffic Signal, Future "Box-in" EA 5 $ 6,049.47 $ 30,247.36 Catch Basin EA 6 $ 6,631.89 $ 39,791.35 Scupper EA $ 5,001.54 $ Drywell EA $ 41,998.26 $ - Storm Drain System (retention basin option) Mile $ 816,688.61 $ - 18" CMP and smaller LF $ 57.51 $ - 24" CMP LF $ 78.02 $ - - 30" CMP LF $ 116.44 $ - 36" CMP LF $ 122.02 $ - 42" CMP LF $ 103.53 $ - 54" CMP LF $ 231.91 $ - 60" CMP LF $ 318.29 $ - 18" & 24" RGRCP, Class III LF $ 95.00 $ 30" & 36" RGRCP, Class III LF $ 105.00 $ - 42" & 48" RGRCP, Class III LF $ 154.00 $ - 143 54" & 60" RGRCP, Class III LF 6,166 $ 230.00 $ 1,418,180.00 EA 12 $ 4,137.04 $ 49,644.48 Headwall (MAG details) EA $ 5,941.91 $ Irrigation Junction Box (MAG details) EA $ - $ - Concrete Slip Form Irrigation Ditch LF $ 52.58 $ - - Earth Irrigation Ditch/Special Drainage Ditch, 6' Top LF $ 4.57 $ Box Culvert (see Structure sheet) LS $ 555,900.00 $ - Irrigation Structure with Gates EA $ 2,789.56 $ - Bridge < 100' (see Structure sheet) SF $ $ - Bridge >= 100' (see Structure sheet) SF Guardrail without Approach End Section LF Guardrail Approach End Section, New ADOT Type 8' Masonry Soundwall** Concrete Soundwall** - $ - $ - 0 $ 47.71 $ - EA 0 $ 2,558.97 $ SQ YD 19,378 $ 27.50 $ 532,809.64 LF 480 $ 85.00 $ 40,800.00 SQ YD 0 $ 431.00 $ Subtotal - - $ 9,043,690.45 180,874.00 Removal of Existing Improvements @ 2% Lump Sum 1 $ 180,874.00 $ Mobilization/Demobilization @ 4% Lump Sum 1 $ 361,748.00 $ 361,748.00 Traffic Control @ 3% Lump Sum 1 $ 271,311.00 $ 271,311.00 $ 9,857,623.45 SUBTOTAL Construction Contingency TOTAL 20% $ 1,971,524.69 $ 11,829,148.14 **Calculated current costs for the 8' Masonry Soundwall and Concrete Soundwall items above were not available in the current projects and therefore they were calculated using the ADOT construction cost 2008 - 2010 projects. ***Pavement Sawcut Removed as pay item Structures Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: SR 303L to Bullard Ave BOX CULVERT COST CALCULATIONS TYPE OF ROAD BOX LENGTH (ft) BOX DESCRIPTION URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL OR LESS (27 m or 88.58' for 5 lanes & 2 sidewalks) 130 H=6 24 3,120.00 SQ FT $ 85.00 $265,200.00 URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL W/ BIKE LANES (28.8 m or 94.49' for 5 lanes, 2 B/L's & 2 S/W's) 31 H=6 60 1,860.00 SQ FT $ 85.00 $158,100.00 URBAN MAJOR ARTERIAL (31.8 m or 104.33' for 7 lanes & 2 S/W's) 130 H=3 12 1,560.00 SQ FT $ 85.00 $132,600.00 0 0.00 SQ FT $52.00 $0.00 SPECIAL LOW VOLUME ROAD CONDITION*** (16 m or 52.49' for 2 lanes with shoulders) BOX WIDTH (ft) TOP SFC AREA* 0 UNIT COST** TOTAL COST $555,900.00 * Top surface area of box. ** Includes cost of standard wing walls and bridge barrier. For special construction review unit cost with MCDOT bridge section. *** 16 m box with approval only. Generally a non-section line, low volume location. Cost in Red is from FY 2006 as there was not any new data available for FY 2010 BRIDGE COST CALCULATIONS TYPE OF ROAD 13,585.00 54" & 60" Storm Drain Manhole Median Fine Grading, Pre-emergent, & D.G. 6/18/2011 31,858.71 BRIDGE LENGTH (ft) DESCRIPTION BRIDGE WIDTH (ft) TOP SFC AREA* UNIT COST** TOTAL COST URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL OR LESS (27 m or 88.58' for 5 lanes & 2 sidewalks ) 0 89.58 0 SQ FT $ 190.00 $0.00 URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL W/ BIKE LANES (28.8 m or 94.49' for 5 lanes, 2 B/L's & 2 S/W's) 0 94.49 0 SQ FT $ 190.00 $0.00 URBAN MAJOR ARTERIAL (31.8 m or 104.33' for 7 lanes & 2 S/W's) 0 104.33 0 SQ FT $ 190.00 $0.00 SPECIAL LOW VOLUME ROAD CONDITION*** (16 m or 52.49' for 2 lanes with shoulders) 0 52.49 0 SQ FT $ 190.00 $0.00 <100' Long >=100' Long $0.00 $0.00 * Top surface area of bridge. ** Cost includes bridge railings, barriers, approach slabs, piers, and other items used in bridge construction. Note: Show cost of channel excavation and other bridge site work on Road Construction Sheet. *** 16 m bridge with approval only. Generally a non-section line, low volume location. 6/18/2011 Utility Relocation Irrigation Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: SR 303L to Bullard Ave Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: SR 303L to Bullard Ave Alternative: Item Description Relocate 12 kv Wood Pole (Tangent) Relocate 12 kv Wood Pole (Dead-End) Relocate 69 kv Wood Pole (Tangent) Relocate 69 kv Steel Pole (Tangent) Relocate 69 kv Wood Pole (Dead-End) Relocate 69 kv Steel Pole (Dead-End) Other Poles associated w/ 69kv Power Line Railroad Crossing Irrigation (See Irrigation sheet) Alternative: Unit EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA Quantity 24.00 Unit Cost Total $5,000.00 $120,000.00 $7,000.00 $18,000.00 $20,000.00 $38,000.00 $40,000.00 $8,400.00 $650,000.00 $5,018,753.59 $5,018,753.59 Subtotal Construction Contingency Total Item Description Mobilization Clearing, Grubbing and Site Clean Up Irrigation Structure w/ Gates, Medium Irrigation Structure w/ Gates, Large 24" RGRCP 30" & 36" RGRCP 42" & 48" RGRCP 54" & 60" RGRCP Headwall w/ Trash Rack Headwall Manhole Remove Existing Structures Concrete Lined Ditch Well Site Relocation Catch Basin $5,138,753.59 20% $1,027,750.72 Subtotal Construction $6,166,504.30 Irrigation System Design Total SRP Relocation Estimate *Note: English units used per SRP standards 6/18/2011 Unit LS EA EA EA LF LF LF LF EA EA EA LS LF EA EA 6/18/2011 Quantity 1 1 1 12,300 1 25 4 Unit Cost Total $5,398.49 $5,398.49 $5,398.49 $5,398.49 $70,911.55 $70,911.55 $129,596.98 $95.00 $0.00 $105.00 $1,291,500.00 $154.00 $0.00 $230.00 $0.00 $14,426.83 $14,426.83 $10,025.43 $0.00 $7,091.16 $174,867.89 $30,809.85 $0.00 $106.37 $0.00 $750,000.00 $3,000,000.00 $0.00 $4,562,503.26 10% $456,250.33 $5,018,753.59 Road Construction Summary Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: Bullard Ave to Dysart Rd Alternative: Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: Bullard Ave to Dysart Rd Item Description 2010 SUMMARY COST ESTIMATES (Current Dollars) No Build COST CATEGORIES Factors Alternative 1 Alternative 2 $ - $ 10,543,606.21 $ - Design (10% TO 15%) 12% $ - $ 1,265,232.74 $ - Construction Management 15% $ - $ 1,581,540.93 $ - Right-of-Way $ - $ 1,840,000.00 $ - Structures $ - $ 576,300.00 $ - Utility Relocation $ - $ 7,852,395.52 $ - Administration (8% TO 13%) Total 10% $ - $ 1,054,360.62 $ - $ - $ 24,713,436.02 $ - PRELIMINARY SUMMARY COST ESTIMATES (Adjusted for Inflation) Assumed Annual Inflation Rate = 3.50% Assumed Number of Years = 5 Adjusted Construction Cost $ - $ 12,522,496.70 $ - Design $ - $ 1,502,699.60 $ - Construction Management $ - $ 1,878,374.51 $ - Right-of-Way Structures $ $ - $ $ 2,185,342.80 684,463.62 $ $ - 1 $ 31,858.71 $ Community Relations Allowance 1 $ 12,790.30 $ 12,790.30 Engineer's Field Office Lump Sum 1 $ 139,708.51 $ 139,708.51 Roadway Excavation C YD 49,279 $ 4.26 $ 209,973.88 Borrow Excavation (if anticipated) C YD 68,465 $ 8.37 $ 573,183.27 Channel & Retention Basin Excavation C YD 5,378 $ 2.88 $ 15,493.47 SQ YD 103,065 $ 1.59 $ 164,379.20 SQ YD 0 $ 13.85 $ New Rubberized Asphalt Pavement (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 103,065 $ 19.45 $ Asphalt Rubber Overlay (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 0 $ 7.70 $ Chip Seal on AC Pavement (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 0 $ 2.65 $ - Double Chip Seal on Aggregate Base (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 0 $ 4.90 $ - Concrete Single Curb LF 19,896 $ 14.42 $ 286,892.31 Concrete Curb & Gutter LF 20,926 $ 12.36 $ 258,618.57 Concrete Sidewalk Ramp Std Det 231, Type "A" EA 36 $ 1,522.65 $ 54,815.35 Concrete Sidewalk Std Det 230 SQ YD 13,951 $ 50.41 $ 703,228.93 Concrete Driveway with 5' Wings, Std Det 250 $ - $ 9,326,182.62 $ 15,762.79 Administration $ - $ 1,252,249.67 $ - Adjusted Total $ - $ 29,351,809.53 $ - 578 $ 27.28 $ LF 0 $ 2.41 $ Traffic Signing & Striping - 5 lanes LF 0 $ 4.58 $ Traffic Signing & Striping - 7 lanes LF 10,500 $ 4.85 $ 50,899.35 Traffic Signal, Full Intersection EA 4.5 $ 494,973.19 $ 2,227,379.38 Interconnect/Traffic Signals LF 10,500 $ 9.47 $ 99,471.48 Traffic Signal, Future "Box-in" EA 4 $ 6,049.47 $ 24,197.89 Catch Basin EA 10 $ 6,631.89 $ 66,318.92 Scupper EA $ 5,001.54 $ - Drywell EA $ 41,998.26 $ - Storm Drain System (retention basin option) - - Mile $ 816,688.61 $ LF $ 57.51 $ - 24" CMP LF $ 78.02 $ - 30" CMP LF 36" CMP LF 42" CMP 54" CMP $ 116.44 $ $ 122.02 $ LF $ 103.53 $ - LF $ 231.91 $ - 60" CMP LF $ 318.29 $ 18" & 24" RGRCP, Class III LF $ 95.00 $ 30" & 36" RGRCP, Class III LF $ 105.00 $ 42" & 48" RGRCP, Class III LF $ 154.00 $ 54" & 60" RGRCP, Class III LF 1,688 $ 230.00 $ 388,240.00 72" RGRCP, Class III LF 750 $ 318.29 $ 238,717.08 54" & 60" Storm Drain Manhole EA 4 $ 4,137.04 $ 16,548.16 Headwall (MAG details) EA $ 5,941.91 $ Irrigation Junction Box (MAG details) EA $ - $ - Concrete Slip Form Irrigation Ditch LF $ 52.58 $ - 40 526 4,880.81 49,970.00 - - Earth Irrigation Ditch/Special Drainage Ditch, 6' Top LF $ 4.57 $ - Box Culvert (see Structure sheet) LS $ 576,300.00 $ - Irrigation Structure with Gates EA $ 2,789.56 $ - Bridge < 100' (see Structure sheet) SF $ - $ - Bridge >= 100' (see Structure sheet) SF $ - $ - Guardrail without Approach End Section LF 0 $ 47.71 $ - EA 0 $ 2,558.97 $ SQ YD 15,381 $ 27.50 $ LF 0 $ 85.00 $ SQ YD 0 $ 431.00 $ Subtotal 422,914.60 - $ 8,060,861.50 Removal of Existing Improvements @ 2% Lump Sum 1 $ 161,217.00 $ 161,217.00 Mobilization/Demobilization @ 4% Lump Sum 1 $ 322,434.00 $ 322,434.00 Traffic Control @ 3% Lump Sum 1 $ 241,826.00 $ 241,826.00 $ 8,786,338.50 SUBTOTAL Construction Contingency TOTAL 20% $ 1,757,267.70 $ 10,543,606.21 **Calculated current costs for the 8' Masonry Soundwall and Concrete Soundwall items above were not available in the current projects and therefore they were calculated using the ADOT construction cost 2008 - 2010 projects. ***Pavement Sawcut Removed as pay item 6/18/2011 - 18" CMP and smaller Concrete Soundwall** 6/18/2011 - SQ YD Median Fine Grading, Pre-emergent, & D.G. - 2,004,618.57 Traffic Signing & Striping - 2 lanes 8' Masonry Soundwall** Utility Relocation 31,858.71 New Asphalt Concrete Pavement (see Pavement sheet) Guardrail Approach End Section, New ADOT Type - Total Quantity Lump Sum Subgrade Preparation Construction Unit Cost Unit N.P.D.E.S. Structures Utility Relocation Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: Bullard Ave to Dysart Rd Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: Bullard Ave to Dysart Rd BOX CULVERT COST CALCULATIONS TYPE OF ROAD URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL OR LESS (27 m or 88.58' for 5 lanes & 2 sidewalks) BOX LENGTH (ft) BOX DESCRIPTION 226 H=6' Alternative: BOX WIDTH (ft) TOP SFC AREA* 30 UNIT COST** Item Description Relocate 12 kv Wood Pole (Tangent) Relocate 12 kv Wood Pole (Dead-End) Relocate 69 kv Wood Pole (Tangent) Relocate 69 kv Steel Pole (Tangent) Relocate 69 kv Wood Pole (Dead-End) Relocate 69 kv Steel Pole (Dead-End) Other Poles associated w/ 69kv Power Line Railroad Crossing Irrigation(See Irrigation sheet) TOTAL COST 6,780.00 SQ FT $ 85.00 $576,300.00 URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL W/ BIKE LANES (28.8 m or 94.49' for 5 lanes, 2 B/L's & 2 S/W's) 0 0 0.00 SQ FT $ 85.00 $0.00 URBAN MAJOR ARTERIAL (31.8 m or 104.33' for 7 lanes & 2 S/W's) 0 0 0.00 SQ FT $ 85.00 $0.00 SPECIAL LOW VOLUME ROAD CONDITION*** (16 m or 52.49' for 2 lanes with shoulders) 0 0 0.00 SQ FT $52.00 $0.00 $576,300.00 Unit EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA Quantity 9.00 Unit Cost Total $5,000.00 $45,000.00 $7,000.00 $18,000.00 $20,000.00 $38,000.00 $40,000.00 $8,400.00 $650,000.00 $6,498,662.93 $6,498,662.93 * Top surface area of box. ** Includes cost of standard wing walls and bridge barrier. For special construction review unit cost with MCDOT bridge section. *** 16 m box with approval only. Generally a non-section line, low volume location. Cost in Red is from FY 2006 as there was not any new data available for FY 2010 BRIDGE COST CALCULATIONS TYPE OF ROAD BRIDGE LENGTH (ft) DESCRIPTION BRIDGE WIDTH (ft) TOP SFC AREA* UNIT COST** TOTAL COST URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL OR LESS (27 m or 88.58' for 5 lanes & 2 sidewalks ) 0 89.58 0 SQ FT $ 190.00 $0.00 URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL W/ BIKE LANES (28.8 m or 94.49' for 5 lanes, 2 B/L's & 2 S/W's) 0 94.49 0 SQ FT $ 190.00 $0.00 URBAN MAJOR ARTERIAL (31.8 m or 104.33' for 7 lanes & 2 S/W's) 0 104.33 0 SQ FT $ 190.00 $0.00 SPECIAL LOW VOLUME ROAD CONDITION*** (16 m or 52.49' for 2 lanes with shoulders) 0 52.49 0 SQ FT $ 190.00 $0.00 <100' Long >=100' Long $0.00 $0.00 Contingency Total * Top surface area of bridge. ** Cost includes bridge railings, barriers, approach slabs, piers, and other items used in bridge construction. Note: Show cost of channel excavation and other bridge site work on Road Construction Sheet. *** 16 m bridge with approval only. Generally a non-section line, low volume location. 6/18/2011 Subtotal Construction 6/18/2011 $6,543,662.93 20% $1,308,732.59 $7,852,395.52 Summary Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: 82+00 to 97+00 (North Side), 82+00 to 97+00 (South Side) and 110+00 to 120+00 (South Side) 2010 SUMMARY COST ESTIMATES (Current Dollars) No Build COST CATEGORIES Factors Construction Irrigation Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: Bullard Ave to Dysart Rd Alternative: Item Description Mobilization Clearing, Grubbing and Site Clean Up Irrigation Structure w/ Gates, Medium Irrigation Structure w/ Gates, Large 24" RGRCP 30" & 36" RGRCP 42" & 48" RGRCP 54" & 60" RGRCP 72" RGRCP Headwall w/ Trash Rack Headwall Manhole Remove Existing Structures Concrete Lined Ditch Well Site Relocation Reclaim Water Head Catch Basin Unit LS EA EA EA LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA LS LF EA EA EA Quantity 1 1 0 10,520 3 21 6 2 Unit Cost Total $5,398.49 $5,398.49 $5,398.49 $5,398.49 $70,911.55 $0.00 $129,596.98 $95.00 $0.00 $105.00 $1,104,600.00 $154.00 $0.00 $230.00 $0.00 $0.00 $14,426.83 $43,280.50 $10,025.43 $0.00 $7,091.16 $149,197.91 $30,809.85 $0.00 $106.37 $0.00 $750,000.00 $4,500,000.00 $50,000.00 $100,000.00 $0.00 Subtotal Construction Irrigation System Design Total SRP Relocation Estimate Alternative 1 Alternative 2 $ - $ 2,994,505.14 $ - Design (10% TO 15%) 12% $ - $ 359,340.62 $ - Construction Management 15% $ - $ 449,175.77 $ - Right-of-Way $ - $ 290,000.00 $ - Structures $ - $ $ - Utility Relocation $ - $ 1,397,553.65 $ - $ - $ 299,450.51 $ - $ - $ 5,790,025.68 $ - Administration (8% TO 13%) Total 10% - PRELIMINARY SUMMARY COST ESTIMATES (Adjusted for Inflation) Assumed Annual Inflation Rate = 3.50% Assumed Number of Years = 5 Adjusted Construction Cost $ - $ 3,556,532.74 $ - Design $ - $ 426,783.93 $ - Construction Management $ - $ 533,479.91 $ - Right-of-Way $ - $ 344,429.03 $ - Structures $ - $ $ - Utility Relocation $ - $ 1,659,855.33 $ - Administration $ - $ 355,653.27 $ - Adjusted Total $ - $ 6,876,734.21 $ - $5,907,875.39 10% $590,787.54 $6,498,662.93 *Note: English units used per SRP standards - 6/18/2011 6/18/2011 Road Construction Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: 82+00 to 97+00 (North Side), 82+00 to 97+00 (South Side) and 110+00 to 120+00 (South Side) Alternative: Item Description Unit Cost Total Unit Quantity N.P.D.E.S. Lump Sum 1 $ 31,858.71 $ Community Relations Allowance 1 $ 12,790.30 $ 12,790.30 Engineer's Field Office Lump Sum 1 $ 139,708.51 $ 139,708.51 Roadway Excavation C YD 8,889 $ 4.26 $ 37,875.21 Borrow Excavation (if anticipated) C YD 7,500 $ 8.37 $ 62,789.54 Channel & Retention Basin Excavation C YD 0 $ 2.88 $ SQ YD 19,589 $ 1.59 $ Subgrade Preparation New Asphalt Concrete Pavement (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 0 $ 13.85 $ New Rubberized Asphalt Pavement (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 19,589 $ 19.45 $ 31,241.88 380,997.41 Asphalt Rubber Overlay (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 0 $ 7.70 $ - Chip Seal on AC Pavement (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 0 $ 2.65 $ - Double Chip Seal on Aggregate Base (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 0 $ 4.90 $ LF 3,853 $ 14.42 $ 55,558.71 Concrete Curb & Gutter LF 4,106 $ 12.36 $ 50,744.90 Concrete Sidewalk Ramp Std Det 231, Type "A" EA 12 $ 1,522.65 $ 18,271.78 Concrete Sidewalk Std Det 230 SQ YD 2,737 $ 50.41 $ 137,984.23 Concrete Driveway with 5' Wings, Std Det 250 SQ YD 108 $ 27.28 $ 2,955.52 Traffic Signing & Striping - 2 lanes LF 0 $ 2.41 $ - Traffic Signing & Striping - 5 lanes LF 0 $ 4.58 $ - Traffic Signing & Striping - 7 lanes LF 4,000 $ 4.85 $ 19,390.23 Traffic Signal, Full Intersection EA 2 $ 494,973.19 $ 989,946.39 Interconnect/Traffic Signals LF 4,000 $ 9.47 $ 37,893.90 Traffic Signal, Future "Box-in" EA 1 $ 6,049.47 $ 6,049.47 Catch Basin EA 2 $ 6,631.89 $ 13,263.78 Scupper EA $ 5,001.54 $ - Drywell EA $ 41,998.26 $ - Storm Drain System (retention basin option) Mile $ 816,688.61 $ - 18" CMP and smaller LF $ 57.51 $ - 24" CMP LF $ 78.02 $ - Concrete Single Curb - 30" CMP LF $ 116.44 $ - 36" CMP LF $ 122.02 $ - 42" CMP LF $ 103.53 $ - 54" CMP LF $ 231.91 $ - 60" CMP LF $ 318.29 $ - 18" & 24" RGRCP, Class III LF $ 95.00 $ 30" & 36" RGRCP, Class III LF $ 105.00 $ - 42" & 48" RGRCP, Class III LF $ 154.00 $ - 54" & 60" RGRCP, Class III LF 54" & 60" Storm Drain Manhole EA Headwall (MAG details) 102 230.00 $ $ 4,137.04 $ - EA $ 5,941.91 $ - Irrigation Junction Box (MAG details) EA $ - $ - Concrete Slip Form Irrigation Ditch LF $ 52.58 $ - Earth Irrigation Ditch/Special Drainage Ditch, 6' Top LF $ 4.57 $ - Box Culvert (see Structure sheet) LS $ Irrigation Structure with Gates EA $ Bridge < 100' (see Structure sheet) SF $ Bridge >= 100' (see Structure sheet) SF Guardrail without Approach End Section LF Guardrail Approach End Section, New ADOT Type 8' Masonry Soundwall** Concrete Soundwall** 0 2,789.56 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ 47.71 $ - EA 0 $ 2,558.97 $ SQ YD 2,969 $ 27.50 $ 81,641.47 LF 1,985 $ 85.00 $ 168,725.00 SQ YD 0 $ 431.00 $ Subtotal $ - 2,289,376.95 Removal of Existing Improvements @ 2% Lump Sum 1 $ 45,788.00 $ 45,788.00 Mobilization/Demobilization @ 4% Lump Sum 1 $ 91,575.00 $ 91,575.00 Traffic Control @ 3% Lump Sum 1 $ 68,681.00 $ 68,681.00 $ 2,495,420.95 SUBTOTAL Construction Contingency TOTAL 20% $ 499,084.19 $ 2,994,505.14 **Calculated current costs for the 8' Masonry Soundwall and Concrete Soundwall items above were not available in the current projects and therefore they were calculated using the ADOT construction cost 2008 - 2010 projects. ***Pavement Sawcut Removed as pay item Structures Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: 82+00 to 97+00 (North Side), 82+00 to 97+00 (South Side) and 110+00 to 120+00 (South Side) BOX CULVERT COST CALCULATIONS TYPE OF ROAD BOX LENGTH (ft) BOX DESCRIPTION BOX WIDTH (ft) TOP SFC AREA* UNIT COST** TOTAL COST URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL OR LESS (27 m or 88.58' for 5 lanes & 2 sidewalks) 0 0 0.00 SQ FT $ 85.00 $0.00 URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL W/ BIKE LANES (28.8 m or 94.49' for 5 lanes, 2 B/L's & 2 S/W's) 0 0 0.00 SQ FT $ 85.00 $0.00 URBAN MAJOR ARTERIAL (31.8 m or 104.33' for 7 lanes & 2 S/W's) 0 0 0.00 SQ FT $ 85.00 $0.00 SPECIAL LOW VOLUME ROAD CONDITION*** (16 m or 52.49' for 2 lanes with shoulders) 0 0 0.00 SQ FT $52.00 $0.00 $0.00 * Top surface area of box. ** Includes cost of standard wing walls and bridge barrier. For special construction review unit cost with MCDOT bridge section. *** 16 m box with approval only. Generally a non-section line, low volume location. Cost in Red is from FY 2006 as there was not any new data available for FY 2010 BRIDGE COST CALCULATIONS TYPE OF ROAD 9,690.00 $ Median Fine Grading, Pre-emergent, & D.G. 6/18/2011 31,858.71 BRIDGE LENGTH (ft) DESCRIPTION BRIDGE WIDTH (ft) TOP SFC AREA* UNIT COST** TOTAL COST URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL OR LESS (27 m or 88.58' for 5 lanes & 2 sidewalks ) 0 89.58 0 SQ FT $ 190.00 $0.00 URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL W/ BIKE LANES (28.8 m or 94.49' for 5 lanes, 2 B/L's & 2 S/W's) 0 94.49 0 SQ FT $ 190.00 $0.00 URBAN MAJOR ARTERIAL (31.8 m or 104.33' for 7 lanes & 2 S/W's) 0 104.33 0 SQ FT $ 190.00 $0.00 SPECIAL LOW VOLUME ROAD CONDITION*** (16 m or 52.49' for 2 lanes with shoulders) 0 52.49 0 SQ FT $ 190.00 $0.00 <100' Long >=100' Long $0.00 $0.00 * Top surface area of bridge. ** Cost includes bridge railings, barriers, approach slabs, piers, and other items used in bridge construction. Note: Show cost of channel excavation and other bridge site work on Road Construction Sheet. *** 16 m bridge with approval only. Generally a non-section line, low volume location. 6/18/2011 Irrigation Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: 82+00 to 97+00 (North Side), 82+00 to 97+00 (South Side) and 110+00 to 120+00 (South Side) Alternative: Item Description Mobilization Clearing, Grubbing and Site Clean Up Irrigation Structure w/ Gates, Medium Irrigation Structure w/ Gates, Large 24" RGRCP 30" & 36" RGRCP 42" & 48" RGRCP 54" & 60" RGRCP Headwall w/ Trash Rack Headwall Manhole Remove Existing Structures Concrete Lined Ditch Well Site Relocation Catch Basin Utility Relocation Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: 82+00 to 97+00 (North Side), 82+00 to 97+00 (South Side) and 110+00 to 120+00 (South Side) Alternative: Item Description Relocate 12 kv Wood Pole (Tangent) Relocate 12 kv Wood Pole (Dead-End) Relocate 69 kv Wood Pole (Tangent) Relocate 69 kv Steel Pole (Tangent) Relocate 69 kv Wood Pole (Dead-End) Relocate 69 kv Steel Pole (Dead-End) Other Poles associated w/ 69kv Power Line Railroad Crossing Irrigation (See Irrigation sheet) Unit EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA Quantity Unit Cost Total $5,000.00 $7,000.00 $18,000.00 $20,000.00 $38,000.00 $40,000.00 $8,400.00 $650,000.00 $1,164,628.04 $1,164,628.04 Contingency Irrigation System Design Total SRP Relocation Estimate Total $1,164,628.04 20% Quantity 1 1 0 2,500 0 5 1 Unit Cost $5,398.49 $5,398.49 $70,911.55 $129,596.98 $95.00 $105.00 $154.00 $230.00 $14,426.83 $10,025.43 $7,091.16 $30,809.85 $106.37 $750,000.00 Subtotal Construction *Note: English units used per SRP standards Subtotal Construction Unit LS EA EA EA LF LF LF LF EA EA EA LS LF EA EA $232,925.61 $1,397,553.65 6/18/2011 6/18/2011 Total $5,398.49 $5,398.49 $0.00 $0.00 $262,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $35,455.78 $0.00 $0.00 $750,000.00 $0.00 $1,058,752.76 10% $105,875.28 $1,164,628.04 Road Construction Summary Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini:119+30 to 202+59 Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: 119+30 to 202+59 Alternative: Item Description 2010 SUMMARY COST ESTIMATES (Current Dollars) No Build COST CATEGORIES Factors Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Design (10% TO 15%) Construction Management 12% 15% Right-of-Way $ - $ 6,368,131.87 $ - $ - $ 764,175.82 $ - $ $ - $ $ 955,219.78 2,070,000.00 $ 1 $ 31,858.71 $ Community Relations Allowance 1 $ 12,790.30 $ 12,790.30 Engineer's Field Office Lump Sum 1 $ 139,708.51 $ 139,708.51 Roadway Excavation C YD 41,433 $ 4.26 $ 176,542.69 Borrow Excavation (if anticipated) C YD 47,449 $ 8.37 $ 397,240.76 Channel & Retention Basin Excavation C YD 0 $ 2.88 $ SQ YD 52,334 $ 1.59 $ $ - Structures $ - $ 516,800.00 $ - Utility Relocation $ - $ 5,586,979.70 $ - Administration (8% TO 13%) Total 10% $ $ - $ $ 636,813.19 16,898,120.37 $ $ - PRELIMINARY SUMMARY COST ESTIMATES (Adjusted for Inflation) Assumed Annual Inflation Rate = 3.50% Assumed Number of Years = 5 Adjusted Construction Cost Design Construction Management $ $ $ - $ $ $ 7,563,343.02 907,601.16 1,134,501.45 $ $ $ - Right-of-Way $ - $ 2,458,510.65 $ - Structures $ - $ 613,796.28 $ - SQ YD 0 $ 13.85 $ SQ YD 52,334 $ 19.45 $ Asphalt Rubber Overlay (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 0 $ 7.70 $ - Chip Seal on AC Pavement (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 0 $ 2.65 $ - Double Chip Seal on Aggregate Base (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 0 $ 4.90 $ LF 7,839 $ 14.42 $ 113,035.22 Concrete Curb & Gutter LF 17,069 $ 12.36 $ 210,950.99 Concrete Sidewalk Ramp Std Det 231, Type "A" EA 20 $ 1,522.65 $ 30,452.97 Concrete Sidewalk Std Det 230 SQ YD 5,403 $ 50.41 $ 272,372.67 Concrete Driveway with 5' Wings, Std Det 250 - $ 6,635,579.29 $ 4,925.87 $ - $ 756,334.30 $ - Adjusted Total $ - $ 20,069,666.16 $ - 181 $ 27.28 $ LF 0 $ 2.41 $ Traffic Signing & Striping - 5 lanes LF 0 $ 4.58 $ Traffic Signing & Striping - 7 lanes LF 8,330 $ 4.85 $ 40,380.15 Traffic Signal, Full Intersection EA 3 $ 494,973.19 $ 1,484,919.58 Interconnect/Traffic Signals LF 8,330 $ 9.47 $ 78,914.04 Traffic Signal, Future "Box-in" EA 4 $ 6,049.47 $ 24,197.89 Catch Basin EA 20 $ 6,631.89 $ 132,637.84 Scupper EA $ 5,001.54 $ - Drywell EA $ 41,998.26 $ - Storm Drain System (retention basin option) - Mile $ 816,688.61 $ - LF $ 57.51 $ - 24" CMP LF $ 78.02 $ - 30" CMP LF $ 116.44 $ - 36" CMP LF $ 122.02 $ - 42" CMP LF $ 103.53 $ - 54" CMP LF $ 231.91 $ - 60" CMP LF $ 318.29 $ 18" & 24" RGRCP, Class III LF $ 95.00 $ 30" & 36" RGRCP, Class III LF $ 105.00 $ - 42" & 48" RGRCP, Class III LF $ 154.00 $ - 54" & 60" RGRCP, Class III LF $ 230.00 $ - 54" & 60" Storm Drain Manhole EA $ 4,137.04 $ - Headwall (MAG details) EA $ 5,941.91 $ - Irrigation Junction Box (MAG details) EA $ - $ - Concrete Slip Form Irrigation Ditch LF $ 52.58 $ - Earth Irrigation Ditch/Special Drainage Ditch, 6' Top LF $ 4.57 $ - Box Culvert (see Structure sheet) LS $ 516,800.00 $ - Irrigation Structure with Gates EA $ 2,789.56 $ - Bridge < 100' (see Structure sheet) SF $ - $ - Bridge >= 100' (see Structure sheet) SF $ - $ - Guardrail without Approach End Section LF 0 $ 47.71 $ - 8' Masonry Soundwall** 835 79,325.00 EA 0 $ 2,558.97 $ SQ YD 5,025 $ 27.50 $ 138,170.00 LF 4,692 $ 85.00 $ 398,820.00 SQ YD 0 $ 431.00 $ Subtotal $ - 4,868,602.56 Removal of Existing Improvements @ 2% Lump Sum 1 $ 97,372.00 $ 97,372.00 Mobilization/Demobilization @ 4% Lump Sum 1 $ 194,744.00 $ 194,744.00 Traffic Control @ 3% Lump Sum 1 $ 146,058.00 $ 146,058.00 $ 5,306,776.56 SUBTOTAL Construction Contingency TOTAL 20% $ 1,061,355.31 $ 6,368,131.87 **Calculated current costs for the 8' Masonry Soundwall and Concrete Soundwall items above were not available in the current projects and therefore they were calculated using the ADOT construction cost 2008 - 2010 projects. ***Pavement Sawcut Removed as pay item 6/18/2011 - 18" CMP and smaller Median Fine Grading, Pre-emergent, & D.G. 6/18/2011 - SQ YD - Administration 1,017,891.98 Traffic Signing & Striping - 2 lanes Concrete Soundwall** $ 83,467.39 New Rubberized Asphalt Pavement (see Pavement sheet) Guardrail Approach End Section, New ADOT Type Utility Relocation 31,858.71 New Asphalt Concrete Pavement (see Pavement sheet) Concrete Single Curb - Total Quantity Lump Sum Subgrade Preparation Construction Unit Cost Unit N.P.D.E.S. Structures Utility Relocation Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini:119+30 to 202+59 Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: 119+30 to 202+59 BOX CULVERT COST CALCULATIONS TYPE OF ROAD URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL OR LESS (27 m or 88.58' for 5 lanes & 2 sidewalks) BOX LENGTH (ft) BOX DESCRIPTION 190 H=4' Alternative: BOX WIDTH (ft) TOP SFC AREA* 32 UNIT COST** Item Description Relocate 12 kv Wood Pole (Tangent) Relocate 12 kv Wood Pole (Dead-End) Relocate 69 kv Wood Pole (Tangent) Relocate 69 kv Steel Pole (Tangent) Relocate 69 kv Wood Pole (Dead-End) Relocate 69 kv Steel Pole (Dead-End) Other Poles associated w/ 69kv Power Line Railroad Crossing Irrigation(See Irrigation sheet) TOTAL COST 6,080.00 SQ FT $ 85.00 $516,800.00 URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL W/ BIKE LANES (28.8 m or 94.49' for 5 lanes, 2 B/L's & 2 S/W's) 0 0 0.00 SQ FT $ 85.00 $0.00 URBAN MAJOR ARTERIAL (31.8 m or 104.33' for 7 lanes & 2 S/W's) 0 0 0.00 SQ FT $ 85.00 $0.00 SPECIAL LOW VOLUME ROAD CONDITION*** (16 m or 52.49' for 2 lanes with shoulders) 0 0 0.00 SQ FT $52.00 $0.00 $516,800.00 Unit EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA Quantity 28.00 1 Unit Cost Total $5,000.00 $140,000.00 $7,000.00 $18,000.00 $18,000.00 $20,000.00 $38,000.00 $40,000.00 $8,400.00 $650,000.00 $4,497,816.42 $4,497,816.42 * Top surface area of box. ** Includes cost of standard wing walls and bridge barrier. For special construction review unit cost with MCDOT bridge section. *** 16 m box with approval only. Generally a non-section line, low volume location. Cost in Red is from FY 2006 as there was not any new data available for FY 2010 BRIDGE COST CALCULATIONS TYPE OF ROAD BRIDGE LENGTH (ft) DESCRIPTION BRIDGE WIDTH (ft) TOP SFC AREA* UNIT COST** TOTAL COST URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL OR LESS (27 m or 88.58' for 5 lanes & 2 sidewalks ) 0 89.58 0 SQ FT $ 190.00 $0.00 URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL W/ BIKE LANES (28.8 m or 94.49' for 5 lanes, 2 B/L's & 2 S/W's) 0 94.49 0 SQ FT $ 190.00 $0.00 URBAN MAJOR ARTERIAL (31.8 m or 104.33' for 7 lanes & 2 S/W's) 0 104.33 0 SQ FT $ 190.00 $0.00 SPECIAL LOW VOLUME ROAD CONDITION*** (16 m or 52.49' for 2 lanes with shoulders) 0 52.49 0 SQ FT $ 190.00 $0.00 <100' Long >=100' Long $0.00 $0.00 Contingency Total * Top surface area of bridge. ** Cost includes bridge railings, barriers, approach slabs, piers, and other items used in bridge construction. Note: Show cost of channel excavation and other bridge site work on Road Construction Sheet. *** 16 m bridge with approval only. Generally a non-section line, low volume location. 6/18/2011 Subtotal Construction 6/18/2011 $4,655,816.42 20% $931,163.28 $5,586,979.70 Irrigation Summary Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: 119+30 to 202+59 Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: 340+00 to 385+00 (North Side) and 340+00 to 380+00 (South Side) Alternative: Item Description Mobilization Clearing, Grubbing and Site Clean Up Irrigation Structure w/ Gates, Medium Irrigation Structure w/ Gates, Large 24" RGRCP 30" & 36" RGRCP 42" & 48" RGRCP 54" & 60" RGRCP Headwall w/ Trash Rack Headwall Manhole Remove Existing Structures Concrete Lined Ditch Well Site Relocation Catch Basin Unit LS EA EA EA LF LF LF LF EA EA EA LS LF EA EA Quantity 1 1 1 8,330 1 17 4 Unit Cost Total $5,398.49 $5,398.49 $5,398.49 $5,398.49 $70,911.55 $70,911.55 $129,596.98 $95.00 $105.00 $874,650.00 $154.00 $230.00 $14,426.83 $14,426.83 $10,025.43 $7,091.16 $118,138.65 $30,809.85 $106.37 $750,000.00 $3,000,000.00 Subtotal Construction Irrigation System Design Total SRP Relocation Estimate 10% 2010 SUMMARY COST ESTIMATES (Current Dollars) No Build COST CATEGORIES Factors Construction Alternative 1 Alternative 2 $ - $ 3,951,654.73 $ - Design (10% TO 15%) 12% $ - $ 474,198.57 $ - Construction Management 15% $ - $ 592,748.21 $ - Right-of-Way $ - $ 490,000.00 $ - Structures $ - $ 132,600.00 $ - Utility Relocation $ - $ 3,613,534.62 $ - $ - $ 395,165.47 $ - $ - $ 9,649,901.60 $ - $4,088,924.02 Administration (8% TO 13%) $408,892.40 $4,497,816.42 Total 10% *Note: English units used per SRP standards PRELIMINARY SUMMARY COST ESTIMATES (Adjusted for Inflation) Assumed Annual Inflation Rate = 3.50% Assumed Number of Years = 5 6/18/2011 Adjusted Construction Cost $ - $ 4,693,326.20 $ - Design $ - $ 563,199.14 $ - Construction Management $ - $ 703,998.93 $ - Right-of-Way $ - $ 581,966.29 $ - Structures $ - $ 157,487.20 $ - Utility Relocation $ - $ 4,291,745.59 $ - Administration $ - $ 469,332.62 $ - Adjusted Total $ - $ 11,461,055.98 $ - 6/18/2011 Road Construction Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: 340+00 to 385+00 (North Side) and 340+00 to 380+00 (South Side) Alternative: Item Description Unit Cost Total Unit Quantity N.P.D.E.S. Lump Sum 1 $ 31,858.71 $ Community Relations Allowance 1 $ 12,790.30 $ 12,790.30 Engineer's Field Office Lump Sum 1 $ 139,708.51 $ 139,708.51 Roadway Excavation C YD 18,889 $ 4.26 $ 80,484.83 Borrow Excavation (if anticipated) C YD 15,000 $ 8.37 $ 125,579.09 C YD 0 $ 2.88 $ SQ YD 40,526 $ 1.59 $ Channel & Retention Basin Excavation Subgrade Preparation 64,634.93 New Asphalt Concrete Pavement (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 0 $ 13.85 $ New Rubberized Asphalt Pavement (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 40,526 $ 19.45 $ Asphalt Rubber Overlay (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 0 $ 7.70 $ - Chip Seal on AC Pavement (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 0 $ 2.65 $ - Double Chip Seal on Aggregate Base (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 0 $ 4.90 $ LF 7,774 $ 14.42 $ 112,097.95 Concrete Curb & Gutter LF 8,318 $ 12.36 $ 102,799.83 Concrete Sidewalk Ramp Std Det 231, Type "A" EA 12 $ 1,522.65 $ 18,271.78 Concrete Sidewalk Std Det 230 SQ YD 5,545 $ 50.41 $ 279,530.64 Concrete Driveway with 5' Wings, Std Det 250 SQ YD 217 $ 27.28 $ 5,911.05 Concrete Single Curb 788,228.54 - Traffic Signing & Striping - 2 lanes LF 0 $ 2.41 $ - Traffic Signing & Striping - 5 lanes LF 0 $ 4.58 $ - Traffic Signing & Striping - 7 lanes LF 8,500 $ 4.85 $ 41,204.23 Traffic Signal, Full Intersection EA 2 $ 494,973.19 $ 989,946.39 Interconnect/Traffic Signals LF 8,500 $ 9.47 $ 80,524.53 Traffic Signal, Future "Box-in" EA 2 $ 6,049.47 $ 12,098.94 Catch Basin EA $ 6,631.89 $ - Scupper EA $ 5,001.54 $ - Drywell EA $ 41,998.26 $ - Storm Drain System (retention basin option) Mile $ 816,688.61 $ - 18" CMP and smaller LF $ 57.51 $ - 24" CMP LF $ 78.02 $ - 30" CMP LF $ 116.44 $ - 36" CMP LF $ 122.02 $ - 42" CMP LF $ 103.53 $ - 54" CMP LF $ 231.91 $ - 60" CMP LF $ 318.29 $ - 18" & 24" RGRCP, Class III LF $ 95.00 $ - 30" & 36" RGRCP, Class III LF $ 105.00 $ - 42" & 48" RGRCP, Class III LF $ 154.00 $ - $ 230.00 $ - $ 4,137.04 $ - 5,941.91 $ - 54" & 60" RGRCP, Class III LF 54" & 60" Storm Drain Manhole EA Headwall (MAG details) EA $ Irrigation Junction Box (MAG details) EA $ - $ - Concrete Slip Form Irrigation Ditch LF $ 52.58 $ - 0 Earth Irrigation Ditch/Special Drainage Ditch, 6' Top LF $ 4.57 $ - Box Culvert (see Structure sheet) LS $ 132,600.00 $ - Irrigation Structure with Gates EA $ 2,789.56 $ - Bridge < 100' (see Structure sheet) SF $ $ - Bridge >= 100' (see Structure sheet) SF Guardrail without Approach End Section LF Guardrail Approach End Section, New ADOT Type Median Fine Grading, Pre-emergent, & D.G. 8' Masonry Soundwall** Concrete Soundwall** - $ - $ - 0 $ 47.71 $ - EA 0 $ 2,558.97 $ SQ YD 4,927 $ 27.50 $ - LF 0 $ 85.00 $ - 0 $ 431.00 $ - $ 3,021,142.61 Removal of Existing Improvements @ 2% Lump Sum 1 $ 60,423.00 $ 60,423.00 Mobilization/Demobilization @ 4% Lump Sum 1 $ 120,846.00 $ 120,846.00 Traffic Control @ 3% Lump Sum 1 $ 90,634.00 $ 90,634.00 $ 3,293,045.61 SUBTOTAL Construction Contingency TOTAL 20% $ 658,609.12 $ 3,951,654.73 **Calculated current costs for the 8' Masonry Soundwall and Concrete Soundwall items above were not available in the current projects and therefore they were calculated using the ADOT construction cost 2008 - 2010 projects. ***Pavement Sawcut Removed as pay item Structures Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: 340+00 to 385+00 (North Side) and 340+00 to 380+00 (South Side) BOX CULVERT COST CALCULATIONS TYPE OF ROAD URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL OR LESS (27 m or 88.58' for 5 lanes & 2 sidewalks) BOX LENGTH (ft) BOX DESCRIPTION 130 H=3' BOX WIDTH (ft) TOP SFC AREA* 12 UNIT COST** TOTAL COST 1,560.00 SQ FT $ 85.00 $132,600.00 URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL W/ BIKE LANES (28.8 m or 94.49' for 5 lanes, 2 B/L's & 2 S/W's) 0 0 0.00 SQ FT $ 85.00 $0.00 URBAN MAJOR ARTERIAL (31.8 m or 104.33' for 7 lanes & 2 S/W's) 0 0 0.00 SQ FT $ 85.00 $0.00 SPECIAL LOW VOLUME ROAD CONDITION*** (16 m or 52.49' for 2 lanes with shoulders) 0 0 0.00 SQ FT $52.00 $0.00 $132,600.00 * Top surface area of box. ** Includes cost of standard wing walls and bridge barrier. For special construction review unit cost with MCDOT bridge section. *** 16 m box with approval only. Generally a non-section line, low volume location. Cost in Red is from FY 2006 as there was not any new data available for FY 2010 BRIDGE COST CALCULATIONS TYPE OF ROAD BRIDGE LENGTH (ft) DESCRIPTION BRIDGE WIDTH (ft) TOP SFC AREA* UNIT COST** TOTAL COST URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL OR LESS (27 m or 88.58' for 5 lanes & 2 sidewalks ) 0 89.58 0 SQ FT $ 190.00 $0.00 URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL W/ BIKE LANES (28.8 m or 94.49' for 5 lanes, 2 B/L's & 2 S/W's) 0 94.49 0 SQ FT $ 190.00 $0.00 URBAN MAJOR ARTERIAL (31.8 m or 104.33' for 7 lanes & 2 S/W's) 0 104.33 0 SQ FT $ 190.00 $0.00 SPECIAL LOW VOLUME ROAD CONDITION*** (16 m or 52.49' for 2 lanes with shoulders) 0 52.49 0 SQ FT $ 190.00 $0.00 <100' Long >=100' Long $0.00 $0.00 * Top surface area of bridge. ** Cost includes bridge railings, barriers, approach slabs, piers, and other items used in bridge construction. Note: Show cost of channel excavation and other bridge site work on Road Construction Sheet. *** 16 m bridge with approval only. Generally a non-section line, low volume location. 135,472.35 SQ YD Subtotal 6/18/2011 31,858.71 6/18/2011 Irrigation Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: 340+00 to 385+00 (North Side) and 340+00 to 380+00 (South Side) Alternative: Utility Relocation Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: 340+00 to 385+00 (North Side) and 340+00 to 380+00 (South Side) Alternative: Item Description Relocate 12 kv Wood Pole (Tangent) Relocate 12 kv Wood Pole (Dead-End) Relocate 69 kv Wood Pole (Tangent) Relocate 69 kv Steel Pole (Tangent) Relocate 69 kv Wood Pole (Dead-End) Relocate 69 kv Steel Pole (Dead-End) Other Poles associated w/ 69kv Power Line Railroad Crossing Irrigation (See Irrigation sheet) Unit EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA Quantity Unit Cost Total $5,000.00 $7,000.00 $18,000.00 $20,000.00 $38,000.00 $40,000.00 $8,400.00 $650,000.00 $3,011,278.85 $3,011,278.85 Item Description Mobilization Clearing, Grubbing and Site Clean Up Irrigation Structure w/ Gates, Medium Irrigation Structure w/ Gates, Large 24" RGRCP 30" & 36" RGRCP 42" & 48" RGRCP 54" & 60" RGRCP Headwall w/ Trash Rack Headwall Manhole Remove Existing Structures Concrete Lined Ditch Well Site Relocation Unit LS EA EA EA LF LF LF LF EA EA EA LS LF EA Contingency Total $3,011,278.85 20% 4,000 0 8 3 Unit Cost Total $5,398.49 $5,398.49 $5,398.49 $5,398.49 $70,911.55 $0.00 $129,596.98 $95.00 $0.00 $105.00 $420,000.00 $154.00 $0.00 $230.00 $0.00 $14,426.83 $0.00 $10,025.43 $0.00 $7,091.16 $56,729.24 $30,809.85 $0.00 $106.37 $0.00 $750,000.00 $2,250,000.00 Subtotal Construction Irrigation System Design Total SRP Relocation Estimate Subtotal Construction Quantity 1 1 0 *Note: English units used per SRP standards $602,255.77 $3,613,534.62 6/18/2011 6/18/2011 $2,737,526.23 10% $273,752.62 $3,011,278.85 Road Construction Summary Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: 395+00 to 420+00 (North Side), 395+00 to 420+00 (South Side) and 420+00 to 445+00 (North Side) Alternative: Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: 395+00 to 420+00 (North Side), 395+00 to 420+00 (South Side) and 420+00 to 445+00 (North Side) 2010 SUMMARY COST ESTIMATES (Current Dollars) No Build COST CATEGORIES Factors Construction Design (10% TO 15%) 12% Item Description Alternative 1 Alternative 2 $ - $ 5,393,377.35 $ - $ - $ 647,205.28 $ - 15% Right-of-Way $ $ - $ $ 809,006.60 620,000.00 $ 1 $ 31,858.71 $ 31,858.71 Community Relations Allowance 1 $ 12,790.30 $ 12,790.30 Engineer's Field Office 139,708.51 Lump Sum 1 $ 139,708.51 $ Roadway Excavation C YD 18,611 $ 4.26 $ 79,301.23 Borrow Excavation (if anticipated) C YD 42,417 $ 8.37 $ 355,109.76 Channel & Retention Basin Excavation $ - Structures $ - $ 576,300.00 $ - Utility Relocation $ - $ 612,597.07 $ - Administration (8% TO 13%) Total 10% $ - $ 539,337.74 $ - $ - $ 9,197,824.04 $ - PRELIMINARY SUMMARY COST ESTIMATES (Adjusted for Inflation) Assumed Annual Inflation Rate = 3.50% Assumed Number of Years = 5 Adjusted Construction Cost Design Construction Management Right-of-Way Structures $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ 6,405,640.42 768,676.85 960,846.06 736,365.51 684,463.62 $ $ $ $ $ - C YD 5,378 $ 2.88 $ 15,493.47 Subgrade Preparation SQ YD 39,151 $ 1.59 $ 62,441.93 New Asphalt Concrete Pavement (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 0 $ 13.85 $ New Rubberized Asphalt Pavement (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 39,151 $ 19.45 $ Asphalt Rubber Overlay (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 0 $ 7.70 $ - Chip Seal on AC Pavement (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 0 $ 2.65 $ - Double Chip Seal on Aggregate Base (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD 0 $ 4.90 $ LF 7,632 $ 14.42 $ 110,050.37 Concrete Curb & Gutter LF 7,797 $ 12.36 $ 96,360.94 Concrete Sidewalk Ramp Std Det 231, Type "A" EA 18 $ 1,522.65 $ 27,407.67 Concrete Sidewalk Std Det 230 SQ YD 5,198 $ 50.41 $ 262,022.17 Concrete Driveway with 5' Wings, Std Det 250 5,911.05 $ - $ 727,573.15 $ - SQ YD 217 $ 27.28 $ LF 0 $ 2.41 $ Traffic Signing & Striping - 5 lanes LF 0 $ 4.58 $ Traffic Signing & Striping - 7 lanes LF 7,500 $ 4.85 $ 36,356.68 Traffic Signal, Full Intersection EA 3 $ 494,973.19 $ 1,484,919.58 Interconnect/Traffic Signals LF 7,500 $ 9.47 $ 71,051.05 Traffic Signal, Future "Box-in" EA 2 $ 6,049.47 $ 12,098.94 Catch Basin EA 9 $ 6,631.89 $ 59,687.03 Scupper EA $ 5,001.54 $ - Drywell EA $ 41,998.26 $ - Storm Drain System (retention basin option) - Mile $ 816,688.61 $ - 18" CMP and smaller LF $ 57.51 $ - 24" CMP LF $ 78.02 $ - 30" CMP LF $ 116.44 $ - 36" CMP LF $ 122.02 $ - 42" CMP LF $ 103.53 $ - 54" CMP LF $ 231.91 $ - 60" CMP LF $ 318.29 $ 18" & 24" RGRCP, Class III LF $ 95.00 $ 30" & 36" RGRCP, Class III LF $ 105.00 $ 42" & 48" RGRCP, Class III LF $ 154.00 $ 54" & 60" RGRCP, Class III LF 48 $ 230.00 $ 11,040.00 72" RGRCP, Class III LF 750 $ 318.29 $ 238,717.08 54" & 60" Storm Drain Manhole EA 0 $ 4,137.04 $ - Headwall (MAG details) EA $ 5,941.91 $ - Irrigation Junction Box (MAG details) EA $ - $ - Concrete Slip Form Irrigation Ditch LF $ 52.58 $ - Earth Irrigation Ditch/Special Drainage Ditch, 6' Top LF $ 4.57 $ - Box Culvert (see Structure sheet) LS $ 576,300.00 $ - Irrigation Structure with Gates EA $ 2,789.56 $ - Bridge < 100' (see Structure sheet) SF $ - $ - Bridge >= 100' (see Structure sheet) SF $ - $ - Guardrail without Approach End Section LF 0 $ 47.71 $ - EA 0 $ 2,558.97 $ SQ YD 7,259 $ 27.50 $ Median Fine Grading, Pre-emergent, & D.G. 8' Masonry Soundwall** Utility Relocation 761,484.79 Traffic Signing & Striping - 2 lanes Guardrail Approach End Section, New ADOT Type - Total Quantity Lump Sum Concrete Single Curb Construction Management Unit Cost Unit N.P.D.E.S. 526 LF 0 $ 85.00 $ SQ YD 0 $ 431.00 $ 49,970.00 - 199,595.87 - - Concrete Soundwall** Removal of Existing Improvements @ 2% Lump Sum 1 $ 82,468.00 $ 82,468.00 Mobilization/Demobilization @ 4% Lump Sum 1 $ 164,935.00 $ 164,935.00 Traffic Control @ 3% Lump Sum 1 $ 123,701.00 $ 123,701.00 $ 4,494,481.13 Administration $ - $ 640,564.04 $ - Adjusted Total $ - $ 10,924,129.65 $ - Subtotal $ SUBTOTAL Construction Contingency TOTAL 20% $ 898,896.23 $ 5,393,377.35 **Calculated current costs for the 8' Masonry Soundwall and Concrete Soundwall items above were not available in the current projects and therefore they were calculated using the ADOT construction cost 2008 - 2010 projects. ***Pavement Sawcut Removed as pay item 6/18/2011 6/18/2011 4,123,377.13 Structures Utility Relocation Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: 395+00 to 420+00 (North Side), 395+00 to 420+00 (South Side) and 420+00 to 445+00 (North Side) Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: 395+00 to 420+00 (North Side), 395+00 to 420+00 (South Side) and 420+00 to 445+00 (North Side) BOX CULVERT COST CALCULATIONS TYPE OF ROAD URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL OR LESS (27 m or 88.58' for 5 lanes & 2 sidewalks) BOX LENGTH (ft) BOX DESCRIPTION 226 H=6' Alternative: BOX WIDTH (ft) TOP SFC AREA* 30 UNIT COST** Item Description Relocate 12 kv Wood Pole (Tangent) Relocate 12 kv Wood Pole (Dead-End) Relocate 69 kv Wood Pole (Tangent) Relocate 69 kv Steel Pole (Tangent) Relocate 69 kv Wood Pole (Dead-End) Relocate 69 kv Steel Pole (Dead-End) Other Poles associated w/ 69kv Power Line Railroad Crossing Irrigation (See Irrigation sheet) TOTAL COST 6,780.00 SQ FT $ 85.00 $576,300.00 URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL W/ BIKE LANES (28.8 m or 94.49' for 5 lanes, 2 B/L's & 2 S/W's) 0 0 0.00 SQ FT $ 85.00 $0.00 URBAN MAJOR ARTERIAL (31.8 m or 104.33' for 7 lanes & 2 S/W's) 0 0 0.00 SQ FT $ 85.00 $0.00 SPECIAL LOW VOLUME ROAD CONDITION*** (16 m or 52.49' for 2 lanes with shoulders) 0 0 0.00 SQ FT $52.00 $0.00 $576,300.00 Unit EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA Quantity 9.00 Unit Cost $5,000.00 $7,000.00 $18,000.00 $20,000.00 $38,000.00 $40,000.00 $8,400.00 $650,000.00 $465,497.56 Total $45,000.00 $465,497.56 * Top surface area of box. ** Includes cost of standard wing walls and bridge barrier. For special construction review unit cost with MCDOT bridge section. *** 16 m box with approval only. Generally a non-section line, low volume location. Cost in Red is from FY 2006 as there was not any new data available for FY 2010 BRIDGE COST CALCULATIONS TYPE OF ROAD BRIDGE LENGTH (ft) DESCRIPTION BRIDGE WIDTH (ft) TOP SFC AREA* UNIT COST** TOTAL COST URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL OR LESS (27 m or 88.58' for 5 lanes & 2 sidewalks ) 0 89.58 0 SQ FT $ 190.00 $0.00 URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL W/ BIKE LANES (28.8 m or 94.49' for 5 lanes, 2 B/L's & 2 S/W's) 0 94.49 0 SQ FT $ 190.00 $0.00 URBAN MAJOR ARTERIAL (31.8 m or 104.33' for 7 lanes & 2 S/W's) 0 104.33 0 SQ FT $ 190.00 $0.00 SPECIAL LOW VOLUME ROAD CONDITION*** (16 m or 52.49' for 2 lanes with shoulders) 0 52.49 0 SQ FT $ 190.00 $0.00 <100' Long >=100' Long $0.00 $0.00 Contingency Total * Top surface area of bridge. ** Cost includes bridge railings, barriers, approach slabs, piers, and other items used in bridge construction. Note: Show cost of channel excavation and other bridge site work on Road Construction Sheet. *** 16 m bridge with approval only. Generally a non-section line, low volume location. 6/18/2011 Subtotal Construction 6/18/2011 $510,497.56 20% $102,099.51 $612,597.07 Irrigation Project Name: Peoria Ave Termini: 395+00 to 420+00 (North Side), 395+00 to 420+00 (South Side) and 420+00 to 445+00 (North Side) Alternative: Item Description Mobilization Clearing, Grubbing and Site Clean Up Irrigation Structure w/ Gates, Medium Irrigation Structure w/ Gates, Large 24" RGRCP 30" & 36" RGRCP 42" & 48" RGRCP 54" & 60" RGRCP 72" RGRCP Headwall w/ Trash Rack Headwall Manhole Remove Existing Structures Concrete Lined Ditch Well Site Relocation Reclaim Water Head Catch Basin Unit LS EA EA EA LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA LS LF EA EA EA Quantity 1 1 0 2,500 1 5 0 2 Unit Cost $5,398.49 $5,398.49 $70,911.55 $129,596.98 $95.00 $105.00 $154.00 $230.00 $14,426.83 $10,025.43 $7,091.16 $30,809.85 $106.37 $750,000.00 $50,000.00 Subtotal Construction Irrigation System Design Total SRP Relocation Estimate *Note: English units used per SRP standards 6/18/2011 Total $5,398.49 $5,398.49 $0.00 $0.00 $262,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $14,426.83 $0.00 $35,455.78 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100,000.00 $0.00 $423,179.60 10% $42,317.96 $465,497.56 Appendix F Technical Memorandum No. 6: Public and Stakeholder Participation Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study: Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #6: Public and Stakeholder Participation Technical Memorandum #6 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION .................................................................. 3 List of Figures June 2011 Figure 1 – Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................. 2 Appendices Appendix A – Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Materials Appendix B – Public Meeting Materials Appendix C – MCDOT RightRoads Program Summary of Public Involvement Page i June 2011 Technical Memorandum #6 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) prepared the Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study (Hassayampa Framework Study) that identified a comprehensive roadway network to meet traffic demands for the build out of the area west of State Route 303 (SR 303L). This long range regional transportation study identified the need for a roadway network consisting of freeways, parkways, and major arterial roads. The Hassayampa Framework Study recommended an extension of Peoria Avenue west from Perryville Road to the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway, and identified Peoria Avenue as a major arterial from the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Sarival Avenue. The study area for this project includes Peoria Avenue from the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway alignment to Dysart Road (Peoria Avenue Corridor). The study area generally encompasses a 2-mile wide corridor centered on the existing Peoria Avenue. The study area is shown in Figure 1. This study will establish the facility type, number of lanes, right-of-way needs, and general alignment for the Peoria Avenue Corridor that will be required to accommodate projected traffic growth and enhance safety. In cooperation with the City of Surprise, the City of Glendale, and the City of El Mirage, the study will also develop access management guidelines, determine design standards based upon which jurisdiction anticipates annexing the roadway, and develop an implementation plan. In general, the purpose of this Corridor Improvement Study is to provide the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) and other jurisdictions with a future “footprint” of the Peoria Avenue Corridor and a timeframe for the implementation of the recommended future roadway improvements. The key objectives of this Corridor Improvement Study are to: x x x x x x Define and assess strategic issues within the project study area; Develop and evaluate conceptual alternative alignments within the corridor study area; Recommend a preferred alignment; Develop consensus for the preferred alignment; Define the characteristics of the preferred alignment; and Develop an implementation plan. This technical memorandum summarizes the public and stakeholder participation process, including meeting summaries for Technical Advisory Committee meetings and public open houses. Page 1 June 2011 Technical Memorandum #6 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 1 – Vicinity Map Page 2 June 2011 Technical Memorandum #6 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #6 Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road x 2.0 PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION Gaining consensus among stakeholder agencies and the public is critical to the success of this transportation study, as well as the future implementation of its recommendations to provide a long-term functional and efficient transportation corridor. The participation of the public and stakeholder agencies aids in the development of a consistent recommendation, resolves conflicting agency requirements, facilitates ultimate regional traffic flow, and preserves the interests and rights of area residents and adjacent development. Technical Advisory Committee A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was established to solicit feedback from partnering agencies and key stakeholders at multiple stages of the corridor improvement study. Members of the TAC include: Maricopa County (Transportation, Engineering, Traffic, Planning and Development, Environmental, Cultural Resources, Parks and Recreation, Intergovernmental Relations, Real Estate, Utilities), Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC), Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), Arizona Public Service (APS), City of El Mirage, City of Glendale, City of Surprise, Dysart School District, Luke Air Force Base, Maricopa Water District, and major land developers. Minutes and meeting materials for all TAC meetings may be found in Appendix A. Public Meetings Three public meetings were held during the course of the Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study, all located at Shadow Ridge High School, positioned at the western end of the study corridor. All meetings were conducted in an open house format which provided a free and open exchange of information between area residents with specific issues or questions and the project team. Study fact sheets and comment cards were distributed to all those in attendance. x The first meeting was held for scoping purposes (September 20, 2010) to provide area residents and impacted stakeholders an opportunity to inform project team members about study area issues and local transportation needs. This meeting also provided project team members an opportunity to present and elicit feedback on the study purpose, process, and goals and objectives. x The second meeting was held to discuss alternatives development and analysis (January 18, 2011), presenting three separate alternative alignment options in each of the nine corridor segments. Proposed roadway cross sections and the project team’s preliminary evaluation were presented for public review and comment. Out of this meeting, a series of additional alignment options were requested for consideration by the public for the western portion of the study area between Cotton Lane and the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway. x The third meeting focused on the findings and recommendations of the Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study (March 22, 2011). The alternatives, along with the recommended roadway cross section and future roadway alignment, were presented for public review and comment. Positive feedback was received on the preferred alignment and innovative solutions presented to accommodate corridor obstacles. Five separate TAC meetings were planned over the course of the study: x x The first TAC meeting was held on August 23, 2010. The purpose of this meeting was to initiate the MCDOT Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study, define the role of the TAC, gather information relative to the study needs, and share next steps with the committee. Preparations were made for the first public open house. The second TAC meeting was held on October 12, 2010. The meeting presented study area issues, constraints, and opportunities identified through the development of the first three technical memoranda; discussed potential alternatives and evaluation criteria; gathered additional information from TAC members to consider as the next phase of the project progressed; and shared next steps. Traffic volume information was presented to determine the corridor’s ultimate typical section parameters. x The third TAC meeting was planned for November 2010, but was cancelled and instead, information was disseminated through email to gain consensus on evaluation criteria and alternative corridor scenarios. x The fourth TAC meeting was held on December 14, 2010. The meeting discussed progress on the alternatives development, evaluation, and preliminary recommendations; and gathered pertinent information to complete the evaluation. Planning efforts for the second public open house were discussed. Page 3 June 2011 The fifth TAC meeting was held on February 15, 2011. The meeting presented the results of the alternatives evaluation process, discussed design features of the recommended alignment, and preliminary implementation plan. Meeting flyers, newspaper notices and articles, and information presented at all three public meetings may be found in Appendix B. Appendix C contains the MCDOT RightRoads Program Summary of Public Involvement. Page 4 June 2011         7HFKQLFDO0HPRUDQGXP 3HRULD$YHQXH&RUULGRU,PSURYHPHQW6WXG\ -DFNUDEELW7UDLO3DUNZD\WR'\VDUW5RDG      PEORIA AVENUE CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY JACKRABBIT TRAIL PARKWAY TO DYSART ROAD Appendix A: Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Materials MCDOT Contract No. 2010-005 Work Order No. TT005 MEETING MINUTES 'DWH $XJXVW 7R 0LWFK:DJQHU3URMHFW0DQDJHU0&'27 )URP 5RGQH\%UDJJ$(&20 5H 3HRULD$YHQXH&RUULGRU,PSURYHPHQW6WXG\ 6XEMHFW $XJXVW7$&0HHWLQJ $WWHQGHHV 6HHDWWDFKHGVLJQLQVKHHW I. Introductions 6HHDWWDFKHGVLJQLQVKHHW II. Meeting Purpose 7KHSXUSRVHRIWKLVPHHWLQJLVWRLQLWLDWHWKH0&'273HRULD$YHQXH&RUULGRU ,PSURYHPHQW6WXG\GHILQHWKHUROHRIWKH7HFKQLFDO$GYLVRU\&RPPLWWHH 7$&  JDWKHULQIRUPDWLRQUHODWLYHWRWKHVWXG\QHHGVDQGVKDUHQH[WVWHSVZLWKWKH FRPPLWWHH$OOPHHWLQJGRFXPHQWVZLOOEHPDGHDYDLODEOHRQDQRQOLQH)73V\VWHP III. Study Purpose and Objectives 7KHSXUSRVHRIWKLVVWXG\LVWRHVWDEOLVKWKHIDFLOLW\W\SHQXPEHURIODQHVULJKWRI ZD\DQGFRUULGRUDOLJQPHQWUHTXLUHGWRDFFRPPRGDWHWKHXOWLPDWHIDFLOLW\ FODVVLILFDWLRQDQGVDIHO\DFFRPPRGDWHIRUHFDVWWUDYHOGHPDQGVIRU3HRULD$YHQXH 7KLVVWXG\ZLOOUHVXOWLQDIXWXUH³IRRWSULQW´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x 'HYHORSPHQWRIDQLPSOHPHQWDWLRQSODQZLWKWKHVWDNHKROGHUVZKHUHE\PDMRU GHVLJQIHDWXUHVDUHILQDOL]HG VII. IV. Study Area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roject Overview 7KHVWXG\LVGLYLGHGLQWRWZRSKDVHV3KDVH6WXG\$UHD$VVHVVPHQWDQG3KDVH $OWHUQDWLYH'HYHORSPHQWDQG(YDOXDWLRQ3KDVHLVFXUUHQWO\XQGHUZD\ LQFOXGLQJDGDWDFROOHFWLRQHIIRUWDQGUHYLHZRIH[LVWLQJDQGIXWXUHVWXG\DUHD FRQGLWLRQV)RXUWHFKQLFDOPHPRVZLOOEHSURGXFHGDVSDUWRI3KDVH DQG  LQFOXGLQJH[LVWLQJDQGIXWXUHFRQGLWLRQVGUDLQDJHHQYLURQPHQWDORYHUYLHZDQG WUDIILFFRQGLWLRQV7KHILUVWWZR7$&PHHWLQJVZLOORFFXUGXULQJWKLVSKDVHRIZKLFK WKLVLVWKHILUVWDVZHOODVWKHILUVWSXEOLFPHHWLQJ7KLVSKDVHLVH[SHFWHGWRODVW WKURXJKWKHHQGRI6HSWHPEHU 3KDVHZLOOH[WHQGIURP2FWREHUWRWKHHQGRIWKHVWXG\DSSUR[LPDWHO\-XQH 7KLVSKDVHZLOOLQFOXGHGHYHORSPHQWDQGHYDOXDWLRQRIFDQGLGDWHDOWHUQDWLYHVWKH LGHQWLILFDWLRQRIDSUHIHUUHGDOWHUQDWLYHDQGGHYHORSPHQWRIDFRUUHVSRQGLQJ LPSOHPHQWDWLRQSODQ7HFKQLFDOPHPRVDQGZLOOEHSURGXFHGGXULQJWKLV SKDVHLQFOXGLQJFDQGLGDWHDOWHUQDWLYHVDQGHYDOXDWLRQSUHIHUUHGDOLJQPHQWDQG LPSOHPHQWDWLRQDQGSXEOLFDQGVWDNHKROGHUSDUWLFLSDWLRQ7KUHH7$&PHHWLQJVDQG WZRSXEOLFPHHWLQJVZLOOEHKHOGGXULQJWKLVSKDVH3UHSDUDWLRQDQGFRPSOHWLRQRI GUDIWDQGILQDOUHSRUWVZLOOFXOPLQDWHWKHSURMHFW VI. Study Process 7KHVWXG\SURFHVVLQYROYHVDWKUHHVWHSLQYROYHPHQWSODQZKLFKOHDGVWRWKH SUHSDUDWLRQRIDSKDVHGLPSOHPHQWDWLRQSODQRIWKHSUHIHUUHGDOLJQPHQW7KLV LQFOXGHV x 6FRSLQJDQGGHYHORSPHQWRIDVWDNHKROGHUGDWDEDVHWRLGHQWLI\FRUULGRU LVVXHVDQGQHHGV x 'HYHORSPHQWHYDOXDWLRQDQGUHILQHPHQWRIDOWHUQDWLYHVZLWKVWDNHKROGHU LQSXWDQG >@ Study Milestones 0DMRUPLOHVWRQHVDUHDVIROORZV Phase 1 x 3URMHFWNLFNRIIDQGVWXG\LQLWLDWLRQ x 'DWDFROOHFWLRQSKDVH x 7$&PHHWLQJ x 3XEOLFPHHWLQJ VFRSLQJ x 7$&PHHWLQJ -XO\ -XO\±6HSWHPEHU $XJXVW 6HSWHPEHU DSSUR[ 2FWREHU Phase 2 x 7$&PHHWLQJ x 7$&PHHWLQJ x 3XEOLFPHHWLQJ DOWHUQDWLYHV x 7$&PHHWLQJ x 3XEOLFPHHWLQJ SUHIDOWHUQDWLYH x 'UDIWILQDOUHSRUW x )LQDOUHSRUWVXEPLVVLRQ 1RYHPEHU 'HFHPEHU -DQXDU\ DSSUR[ )HEUXDU\ 0DUFK DSSUR[ $SULO -XQH VIII. Technical Advisory Committee 7KHPDMRUUROHVDQGUHVSRQVLELOLWLHVRIWKH7$&LQFOXGHDVVLVWLQJLQLVVXH LGHQWLILFDWLRQSURYLGLQJLQSXWWRDOWHUQDWLYHHYDOXDWLRQDQGSUHYLHZLQJSXEOLFPHHWLQJ PDWHULDOV%XLOGLQJFRQVHQVXVDPRQJ7$&PHPEHUVLVGHVLUHGWRGHYHORSD XQLYHUVDODQGLPSOHPHQWDEOHSODQ(DFKPHPEHULVDVNHGWRUHSUHVHQWWKHLUDJHQF\ DQGEULQJLQWHUHVWVLVVXHVDQGRSSRUWXQLWLHVWRWKHWDEOH/DVWO\HYHU\RQHLVDVNHG WRSDUWLFLSDWHLQHDFKRIWKHSODQQHG7$&PHHWLQJV IX. Study Area Overview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¶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±=DQMHUR7UDLOVDQG 3UDVDGD=DQMHUR7UDLOVLVHQWLWOHGIRUDFUHVZLWKDOPRVWGZHOOLQJXQLWV 1RUWKRI3HRULD$YHQXH=DQMHUR7UDLOVH[WHQGVIURPWKH%HDUGVOH\&DQDOWR DSSUR[LPDWHO\òPLOHHDVWRI3HUU\YLOOH5RDG7KLVVXEGLYLVLRQVLWVDGMDFHQWWRWKH SODQQHG3UDVDGDFRPPXQLW\DFWLYHO\XQGHUGHYHORSPHQWIXUWKHUWRWKHQRUWKDQG HDVW$GMDFHQWWR3HRULD$YHQXH3UDVDGDVWUHWFKHVIURPLWVERUGHUZLWK=DQMHUR 7UDLOVHDVWWR&RWWRQ/DQH6RXWKRI3HRULD$YHQXH=DQMHUR7UDLOVH[WHQGVIURPWKH %HDUGVOH\&DQDOWR3HUU\YLOOH5RDG 7RVXPPDUL]HVRPHRIWKHNH\LVVXHVLQWKHVWXG\DUHDLQFOXGH x x x x x x x x x X. 6HJPHQW )URP&LWUXV5RDGWR6DULYDO5RDGWZRPDMRULQIUDVWUXFWXUHSURMHFWVDUHSODQQHG±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±XOWLPDWHW\SLFDOVHFWLRQ Typical Section 3HRULD$YHQXHLVFDWHJRUL]HGVOLJKWO\GLIIHUHQWLQHDFKMXULVGLFWLRQ¶VIXQFWLRQDO FODVVLILFDWLRQSODQV7KH&LW\RI6XUSULVH7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ3ODQVKRZV3HRULD $YHQXHDVDPDMRUDUWHULDOZLWKVL[ODQHVDQGIHHWRIULJKWRIZD\6XUSULVH¶V XSGDWHGWUDQVSRUWDWLRQSODQGRHVQRWFKDQJH3HRULD$YHQXH¶VFODVVLILFDWLRQ 7KH&LW\RI*OHQGDOH¶V*HQHUDO3ODQFODVVLILHV3HRULD$YHQXHDVDQ$DUWHULDO ZKLFKLQFOXGHVIRXUODQHVDQGIHHWRIULJKWRIZD\7KHFLW\KDVDQXSGDWHG WUDQVSRUWDWLRQSODQWKDWVKRZVWKLVFRUULGRUDVDQ$DUWHULDOZLWKVL[ODQHVDQG IHHWRIULJKWRIZD\ 7KH0DULFRSD&RXQW\0DMRU6WUHHWVDQG5RXWHV3ODQFODVVLILHV3HRULD$YHQXH DVDQXUEDQSULQFLSDODUWHULDOZLWKVL[ODQHVDQGIHHWRIULJKWRIZD\ XI. Next Steps 'DWDFROOHFWLRQZLOOFRQWLQXHWKURXJK3KDVHFXOPLQDWLQJLQGRFXPHQWDWLRQRIWKH IRXUZRUNLQJSDSHUVVSHFLILHGDERYH7KHILUVWSXEOLFPHHWLQJZLOORFFXULQPLG 6HSWHPEHUWRSUHVHQWWKHH[LVWLQJFRQGLWLRQVDQGJDLQSXEOLFLQSXWRQRWKHULVVXHV DQGRSSRUWXQLWLHV7KHWLPHDQGORFDWLRQRIWKLVPHHWLQJDUHVWLOOWREHGHWHUPLQHG &RQFXUUHQWO\WUDYHOGHPDQGIRUHFDVWVIRUWKHVWXG\DUHDZLOOEHXQGHUUHYLHZ XII. Open Discussion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¶VUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVIRU3HRULD$YHQXH,QDGGLWLRQWR GHYHORSHUIXQGLQJ6XUSULVHLVDSSO\LQJIRU0DULFRSD&RXQW\6SHFLDO3URMHFWV)XQGV IRULPSURYHPHQWVWR3HRULD$YHQXH /XNH$LU)RUFH%DVHZRXOGOLNHWREHNHSWDSSUDLVHGRIDQ\SURSRVHGHOHYDWHG RYHUSDVVHVRUWDOOFRQVWUXFWLRQHOHPHQWV HJFUDQHV WKDWFRXOGLPSDFWIOLJKW SDWWHUQV &RQFHUQZDVH[SUHVVHGUHJDUGLQJWKHRQHPLOHXQSDYHGVHFWLRQRI3HRULD$YHQXH EHWZHHQ&LWUXV5RDGDQG&RWWRQ/DQH,WZDVVXJJHVWHGWKDW&0$430IXQGV FRXOGEHXVHGIRUDQLPPHGLDWHLPSURYHPHQWSURMHFW LHSDYLQJIRUGXVWPLWLJDWLRQ  $WWDFKPHQWV x 0HHWLQJ6LJQ,Q6KHHW x 0HHWLQJ$JHQGD x 7$&:HOFRPH/HWWHU x 6WXG\$UHD0DS x 3RZHU3RLQWVOLGHV 7KH'\VDUW8QLILHG6FKRRO'LVWULFW '86' LVZRUNLQJZLWKWKH&LW\RI6XUSULVHDQG 0:'WRH[WHQG3HUU\YLOOHQRUWKWR&DFWXV5RDGDOORZLQJ&DFWXV5RDGWRRSHUDWHDV DQDOWHUQDWLYHURXWHIRUVFKRROWUDIILFDVDSRUWLRQRI3HRULD$YHQXHLVXQSDYHG &LW\RI*OHQGDOH 7KH&LW\RI*OHQGDOHDVNHGWKHSURMHFWWHDPWREHFRJQL]DQWRIWKHWUDYHOGHPDQG LPSDFWRI1RUWKHUQ$YHQXH3DUNZD\RQ3HRULD$YHQXH1RUWKHUQ$YHQXHKDVORQJ EHHQSODQQHGDVD³VXSHUVWUHHW´WKURXJKRXWWKHZHVWHUQPHWURSROLWDQDUHD 7KHSRUWLRQRI3HRULD$YHQXHWKDWLVDQQH[HGE\*OHQGDOHZLWKLQWKHVWXG\DUHD ZLWKLQDGHYHORSPHQWHQWLWOHG³*OHQGDOH´ORFDWHGEHWZHHQ65/DQG6DULYDO 5RDGVRXWKRI3HRULD$YHQXHLVEHLQJDVNHGWRFRQIRUPZLWK0DULFRSD&RXQW\ DQGRU&LW\RI6XUSULVHJXLGHOLQHVIRUURDGZD\GHVLJQ7KH&LW\RI*OHQGDOHZRXOG OLNHWRHYHQWXDOO\WXUQWKLVFRUULGRURYHUWRDQRWKHUMXULVGLFWLRQIRUPDLQWHQDQFH UHVSRQVLELOLW\ *HQHUDO 7KHFRQFHUQRYHURZQHUVKLSDQGPDLQWHQDQFHRI3HRULD$YHQXHLVDPDMRUIDFWRUIRU WKLVVWXG\,WZDVH[SUHVVHGWKDWRQHMXULVGLFWLRQVKRXOGKDYHIXOOFRQWURORYHUWKH FRUULGRUWRHQVXUHFRQVLVWHQWGHVLJQFRQVWUXFWLRQDQGPDLQWHQDQFH7KLVZLOOOLNHO\ UHVXOWLQDQLQWHUJRYHUQPHQWDODJUHHPHQW ,*$ DPRQJ6XUSULVH(O0LUDJH *OHQGDOHDQG0DULFRSD&RXQW\ 7KH)ORRG&RQWURO'LVWULFWRI0DULFRSD&RXQW\LVSODQQLQJDFKDQQHOSDUDOOHOWRWKH (QQLV6SXU %HFDXVH3HRULD$YHQXHLVSDUWRIWKHUHJLRQDODUWHULDOURDGZD\QHWZRUNLWV FRQQHFWLYLW\WRWKHHDVWZDVTXHVWLRQHGDVWKHFRUULGRUFXUUHQWO\GRHVQRWKDYHD FURVVLQJRYHUWKH$JXD)ULD5LYHU$VWKHULYHULVRXWVLGHWKHVWXG\DUHDH[WHQWQR UHFRPPHQGDWLRQVZLOOEHPDGHUHJDUGLQJDSRWHQWLDOULYHUFURVVLQJ7UDYHOGHPDQG ZLOOEHPRGHOHGZLWKDQGZLWKRXWDIXWXUHFURVVLQJ(O0LUDJHKRZHYHUVXEPLWWHG DQLQWHULPFURVVLQJRIWKHULYHUWREHLQFOXGHGLQWKHLUQH[W&DSLWDO,PSURYHPHQW3ODQ 7KHFLW\LVDOVRGUDIWLQJDUHYLVHGWUDQVSRUWDWLRQSODQWKDWZLOOOLPLWWKH3HRULD$YHQXH FURVVVHFWLRQWRDFRQILJXUDWLRQHDVWRI'\VDUW5RDG >@ >@ PEORIA AVENUE CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY JACKRABBIT TRAIL PARKWAY TO DYSART ROAD MCDOT Contract No. 2010-005 Work Order No. TT005 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda August 17, 2010, 9:00 AM Apache & Cochise Conference Rooms at MCDOT x, QWURGXFWLRQV x 0HHWLQJ3XUSRVH x 6WXG\3XUSRVH 2EMHFWLYHV x 3URMHFW2YHUYLHZDQG6FKHGXOH x 6WXG\$UHD2YHUYLHZ x 1H[W6WHSV x 2SHQ'LVFXVVLRQ x$GM RXUQ Ennis Spur Litchfield Rd Bullard Ave Reems Rd Sarival Rd SR 303L Cotton Ln Citrus Rd Perryville Rd Jackrabbit Trail (195th Ave) M cM icke n Da m Peoria Ave Beardsley Canal Futu re J Trail ackrabb it Park way Cactus Rd Dysart Rd DRAFT PEORIA AVENUE CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Olive Ave Study Area Map 0 0.25 0.5 Miles 1 I Legend Study Area Boundary Railroad Proposed Freeway Noise Contour El Mirage Drainage Structure (canal, dam) Surprise Peoria Avenue Section Line Proposed Parkway Road Source: Flood Control District of Maricopa County, ALRIS Topography (100') General Floodplain Limits Stream/Wash Jurisdiction Glendale August 2010                   !! " #                                                !  "# $       " #                 !   $%  &! %'!  !#     " #            ( ! # $# %#% &    )  !% ! ''!% ! !'!   !%  '# ( %  * ''!  '%!'! %  %  !! ''     " #                   !!% !            )$*    " #   $!! !   !!!  ! '  %!% ' $%  !!   %% ' $! ''! ! $      " #        *)  & ! +,  !  ' ƒ (#  !%    !!    ƒ   ! ' -+*-.*-/*!-0 ƒ    -+!-. ƒ     -+    " #        *)  & ! ., ! $'(! !  ƒ   !!!  ƒ ! ! !  ƒ %!  ƒ ''! ! ƒ   ! ' -1*-2*!-3 ƒ    -/*-1*!-2 ƒ      -.!-/ ƒ $!%!4 !     " #          6FRSLQJ             67(3 67(3 67(3 '(9(/2367$.(+2/'(5 '$7$%$6( '(9(/23$/7(51$7,9(6 :,7+67$.(+2/'(5,1387 '(9(/23,03/(0(17$7,21 3/$1:,7+67$.(+2/'(56 ‡$OWHUQDWLYHV 'HYHORSPHQW ‡ (YDOXDWH$OWHUQDWLYHV ‡&RQFHSWXDO&RQFXUUHQFHRQ 5HFRPPHQGHG$OWHUQDWLYHDQG6WXG\ )LQGLQJV ‡)LQDOL]H0DMRU'HVLJQ)HDWXUHV ‡ ,GHQWLI\&RUULGRU ,VVXHVDQG1HHGV ‡&RQGXFW'DWD$QDO\VLV " #  ‡5HILQH$OWHUQDWLYHV   5 67%%   !  8 .9+9  $!!  !  8 7 .9+9    -+        -+:  ; ..*.9+9    -. ,03/(0(17$7,213/$1 ‡ 3URMHFW'HYHORSPHQW ‡)XQGLQJ3ODQ  !  $' +0*.9+9  +.*.9+9  .9+9, 8!.9++ (! ! !    +    " #               , "<*.9+9    -1 $ +1*.9+9      -.:!  ; 8!+.*.9++    -2 4+2*.9++      -/:%==; ! +3*.9++  4 !  '  .9++            -    -/  $!%4 !  " #  8 .9++            % !     !! ! !     ' '! ! >      ! ?   ! ! '  .    " #          )  &            / " #        0Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Citrus Road (#  ' 4  ' 4 !! ! @     %!       / " #         0Citrus Road to Sarival Road %!       / " #        10Sarival Road to Bullard Avenue %!       / " #           20Bullard Avenue to Dysart Road       3          %! " #  (#  ' ?!  : ?A!! !  ; B!%7  '' 4  ' (#  !%  ! !%!       (  >! !!  C!!D!$!'!   ! % ! 7  '! !       " #           " #             %  ! ! !*.992  %   ! ! 3!  +/3E ?A      %&!.9.2&!!  %&! ! 1!  ++9E ?A    " #            $ ! !   !*.991 @!  ! ! 3!  +/9E ?A    " #        45    '   !'!'   (#  !%       '!     " #         $  #  $ %   $!FA !*..*.9+9  'D ! >$    " #        ) "    !!  *  !  *     !6# !   !6 '           PEORIA AVENUE CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY JACKRABBIT TRAIL PARKWAY TO DYSART ROAD " #   MCDOT Contract No. 2010-005 Work Order No. TT005      MEETING MINUTES 45   October 12, 2010  $!F   F   4'F   F     F   F I. II. III.  +<*.9+9   A!*  !!* $ 8! 6 % %%*(   !  ''   +.*.9+9  -. !!  7   Introductions !!  7    Meeting Purpose   % '   !  ! I    !!  *  !  *!    :;! '%  %      ! ''!!I    ! !!   ! ! !    !I ! !  ! %'!  %'  ''     !   # ! %   I! !#  ='  '   '!!! ! 4  '=  Study Purpose and Objectives    %      ! %!   *  ' % ! *  7%7 !* !   ! ' )   ! ''!   '! %!   ! % !  ! !% ! ''! % !  ! '!  %  !  =       !%  J% K%  * ''!  '%!'* !! %  % !! '' =           !    !    !  ! '!    #  ! ' *! !%!  *     *! '!  = >!     %'! *       ! ! !   !   G+H  IV. V. VI. !!  ! ' * !   !   % ! % ! '=  A  ! % ! '*  %  !!    %       %  %  ! ! ''!  !   !     '' =    '!*    ! '  ! !      !'  !   !       !   %%   ''! =  Study Area    !! #  !# '! 0=2 '  * %'  %   8! 6!  !  !6! ! '  $ ! !*     ! 7'    !!*    !  =          !    !    !!=    !        ! %  !   % &! !  !! *      %      %!      ! !  * !      !        % ( !=  %!!    !( !'  !! !!  :  ;   !*! ! '!! !!  ! !  /9/D !#&!=  A !6  !   !!6   %  !!!D 6  4  >!     =  6 $!' !  >!  !!      '! ! !    *  ! !   %    !!=    /9/D    !!%!* !    ! =  >"4 (    !          D  %  ! $ ! ! =  Study Process         !   ' !*   !    !!  % ! !  ''!  ! %    !! =       F  x +F  !'%! !6!!!   %    ! I x .F$'*! ! *!% '%!!    !6  I! x /F$'%! ''! !  !6  '! %!  !% ! C=   *  ' %' + .=  Study Milestones !'   !! % F  Phase 1 x  6 67%%!     !  8 .9+9: '; x $!!   !    8 ,'.9+9: '; x ' -+      +0*.9+9: '; x   ' -+:  ;  '.9*.9+9: '; x ' -.     +.*.9+9   VII. VIII. Phase 2 x ' -/    "'<*.9+9 x ' -1    $ '+1*.9+9 x   ' -.:!!  ;  8! !+.*.9++:!#=; x ' -2    4 !+2*.9+9 x   ' -/:%=!! ; ! +3*.9++:!#=; x $!%% !     .9++ x 4 ! '    8 .9++  Public Meeting Summary  E %    ' ! '.9*.9+9!!  B   ! %'!=# '!39 !! = ! !  ! ' # !       * ! ! !     7 '  ! '   !!D!='     '  !  ''      '!    !! !    6   ! '!   ! I   !  6    !    !  '  !      !    !  !%%     '=''' % ''    !!!'  ! ! %   ''  ! =!*' ! !  !   ' %'!     !  =  Study Area ICO Overview    ! '    !  %          !!*    !     %  ' =   %       ! !  !!  !%  '    %  !   '! '%  !!  =   !! ! C ! F  !!* '!   * ! !* !* !   * #  '*%  '*!!7!=         * ! !%7    '     % ! !! '' !   =  ' % !!     6 '!# ' C %  ''       %  =   %      !   !  7  !      ! ! ! '=  4 #!'* '!    !  !       !!* ! ! !!       %  !  =    '!     % %!   *    !              '! ! ' %  !  =    !* ! !       !  !  %!!*! !    !!    *! !!   *!  =  '+   ' # %'  8! 6! !  !6! ! '     !=  % !  %  >!  !!     C! ! D! $!':D$;= !'' D$4 !* L*.9+9   !   !  %%     !!=  D$  !   ! '!  ! %   ! * 6 !   A     !*      !   !   ! 6 % '' !'    !   !!=    !'! !! ! !D!'' =B*! %!D! !!  !     G.H G/H       '  ! !  !!*   ! %    %   !  !  7    !'=  '!  !   #     '* !* !  %  !  ! !  %   !=  !  B    !          %    =   !!         !       % 7  ! !           =  '!' !!    ',M!!  ! ! !!=  M! !   !   !     >!  !! !   !=    ' ! ! % M! !     +/3E %  7%7! : ?A;     %!# % !  =  !! !! ''    !% ! *   %'      M! !   !    D!=  '!  !  !     % ''   '!   !'= !   !    %    !  ! !! !      ! ! '*!    ! !   ! !=  '+     !'!! !%!    *    >! !!* 6$!'*!!  !  = 6$!'!A!%!A!    !       !!%7' %! !   !6   !   '     '! ! ' % !  !  # !       8! 6! ! !6!=  '. >    ! !  D!*  !     !=   !!     ! %  ! !! ''  I  !!      '  %    ! !7 ' =  7%7!  !        7 '  '!  !=  ' !'! !   =        !   /9/D  ! %!  #     ! .9+9?! .9++*     '     !  !=  $ !  ! ! %   !'  !    !       *    %!  !!!  ='%!!         !=  !  *'! '' !?''!  !!!%!  =  &! /9/*     % ! !#     % &!     !!*!   /9/D! *  % ! =! !! ! '! '' !  !%!  *  /9/D, !! '!* *! ! !=  '    #      '*   '!  % !  !   %  '! ! ''    :! !!! !'4!' ;=  4' ! ! !    *   %   /9/D*  ! !       !  =  $     % '' * ! ! !7!      !6 ! %        % ! !!=  %  !!  ''  ''  %  * !  ! ! !        ) =   #  ! ! !  !!  %D!=   4  $   % ! !   :4$ ;    '  D/9/!$! ! ! !=!  % !%   !!   % /9/D=  !  '     %  /9/D%!  !  6! !% ! !    !!=  '/ 4' ! ! !  > !  * '  %  !  %  !    !! !   %  !'! ! ''    =%   '    '    !        %' D 6   4  >! *  ! !!    ! %   ! '  !  &! !* %      =  > !  %    '!  *     !' !  % !   ! %D 6  4 >! =  & !  !   ! 22E % ?A ! !     ' '' *   %  !%7      !   ! 6   !  ! !6=  %     !  ! !! ''   ' =8   %& ! *!6 ( ! !  !32E% ?A= ! ! !6!  !=$! ! ! #    %  !       !!=    !  % & ! * !  &! !!  !32E% ?A*!!! *!%7  %    =  '1 4' > !    $ ! !*    ! ''   #   !    ! ''     !  !  !   %  '   =   ! ! * !> ! !D  %  !!  ! 22E% ?A= * *! !6   !*% !%7    # =  (#    ! ' '        %  !  =     ! '   D  %  ! $ ! !    F $   '' ! :3LE ?A  !  %  !  ;* 6! >   !6 :30=2E ?A  !  %  !  ;* ! 8 4= D   ! '# :19E ?A  !   %  !  ;=   >"4 (        ' =    % ! !(     ! !7!  =   (         >"4  #    !!&! =4  ! '!# # (  !'!   !'  %  !!!D 6  4  >! =  %     *   ' % !      !    !    ! =!  ' ! '! ! !!7!!       ! !%  =%!! !!     %  *     !    !   ' D 6  4 >!      =  4$  !  !  % ! %   ! ! ! !  (   =  !   #  !!  D  %  ! !  !  *       %!      =  $! ! ''  '!  !!   %  =    G1H G2H   IX.  X. XI. &! !6 * ! #   ! ! !        !             !! ! % !  '! !  !   !  !  !  %% !'! ! %  =  ''! C* '%6  !     !!   F  x (#  ' ! ?A!! !   x B!%7  ''  x 4  '!  x (#  !%  ! !%!     x  /9/D!%%   ! x !       Traffic Volume Information and Ultimate Typical Section  & .9/+ ! '! '   !  ! % 7! %!      !!   !    .9/9=    ' !6    !    '   !  !!! !  '' =.9/+ '  % !!   %! !   % !4 ! =    !!      '!! %  !  %.9/9=     '    )  % 7! %!    .9/9*      !  %%       =%         !! ! !  '! !   !  E  %   ! ! % !   !  !  !   ! ! !*       # !  !    =       !  ! '  ' ' % +19E ?A      *   !   %      D! ! ! ! ! !  %  !  !%% !   ''  )  !   %   /9/D !%%   !=  !            '! !   ! %   ?A %    ! ''! !% *!  ! !     = Potential Corridor Alternatives  ' ! ! !  % !!     !    7'    ' =   '!  %     #    ! ''!#    6!'!!! % !! ''     =  !        !  '! %  ''  !       *    %   *     %  =  Potential Evaluation Criteria    !' !  !%  !    %  ! ! !    !  !  !!  *=        !! '!  ) ! ! !) ! ! = !   ! !     F  x ?A  !   x '!    #  '  x '!    !%  '  x '!    #  !!!! ''  x (   '# !   !   x   ! !   x D !!   x $! !?%   !    x @    !   x ( '!  !   XII. XIII.     !' !  )   ! !   ''     ' ! ! !    ! !     ! ''   )        ..* .9+9=  Next Steps  ''    !    !      ! '!! + ! /*  !    4 =    ! '! ' .    !! ! ! !I  ''      %   ! '! =  !  '  ! ''    A! !?  >!    ..* .9+9=  !    ! ''     !! !    ! !'! =   !% %  ! '! ' 0     ! !  '=A    %  '  '*  ' #! *      !!   ' ! ! ! =      ! !      ! ''!!  %#  '  8! !=  Open Discussion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x   7 x  ! x     x $!%(! !   !    G3H G0H   PEORIA AVENUE CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY JACKRABBIT TRAIL PARKWAY TO DYSART ROAD MCDOT Contract No. 2010-005 Work Order No. TT005 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda  October 12, 2010, 9:00 AM    x     x       x  ! @!  x  % !  * !  *      x !%% N '$!! !%% !  x  !!  '   x  !(! !   !  x"#    x $  x    Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #2 October 12, 2010 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa County Department of Transportation Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Meeting Agenda            ! @!   % ! Meeting Agenda   !!  '  (! !   !  * !  *     : ;  !%% N '$!! !%% !  "#  $     Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa County Department of Transportation Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Meeting Purpose  @!  !   %   ! !  $  !!!  ! !  Study Purpose  ( !  facility type, number of lanes, right-ofway, and corridor alignment )  !% ! ''!% ! !'!   !  &! %'!   !#    !%   “footprint” %  * ''!  '%!'! %  %  !! '' Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa County Department of Transportation Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Study Process Study Area STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 DEVELOP STAKEHOLDER DATABASE DEVELOP ALTERNATIVES WITH STAKEHOLDER INPUT DEVELOP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN WITH STAKEHOLDERS • Alternatives Development • Evaluate Alternatives • Conceptual Concurrence on Recommended Alternative and Study Findings • Finalize Major Design Features • Identify Corridor Issues and Needs • Conduct Data Analysis • Refine Alternatives IMPLEMENTATION PLAN • Project Development • Funding Plan Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa County Department of Transportation Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Study Milestones Study Milestones Contd.   5 67%%   !  July 2010    -/ "<*.9+9  $!!  !  July - Sept 2010    -1 $ +1*.9+9    -+ August 17, 2010      -.:!  ; 8!+.*.9++    -2 4+2*.9++      -/:%==; ! +3*.9++      -+:  ; Sept 20, 2010    -.  !  $'  +.*.9+9  .9+9, 8!.9++ (! ! !   $!%4 !   4 !  ' Continued…  .9++  8 .9++ Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa County Department of Transportation Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Public Meeting Summary          B=.9!! B     #=39! Study Area ICO Overview         !! !@   $! ! ! D!   (#  ' 4  ' &!! Indian School Road Maricopa County Department of Transportation Indian School Road Maricopa County Department of Transportation Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Segment 1: Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Citrus Road I-10 Segment 2: Citrus Road to Sarival Road I-10 Indian School Road Maricopa County Department of Transportation Indian School Road Maricopa County Department of Transportation Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Segment 3: Sarival Road to Bullard Avenue I-10 Segment 4: Bullard Avenue to Dysart Road I-10 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa County Department of Transportation Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Summary of Key Constraints       (#  ' ?!  : ?A!! !  ; B!%7  '' 4  ' (#  !%  ! !%!     /9/D !     Traffic Volumes Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa County Department of Transportation Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Traffic Information    17D!%!  !!.9/9!  &'    !!   '!! ) ' %.9/9  ''!  '!%!   Ultimate Typical Section      %  * %&!* &*! ! ! !  %37D! !  ! ! 3!  +19E ?A:' =; A % D!! ! ! ! !     ! ''! !% ! 7 ! ! Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa County Department of Transportation Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Potential Corridor Alternatives     (! ! !+7'  ' '' !         %      % Potential Evaluation Criteria        7%7! !  '!   ?(#  $' '!   ?4  $' '!   ?(#  4   !! '' (  '#      !  D !   !   Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa County Department of Transportation Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Potential Evaluation Criteria    $! !?4 !  ( '! !  @   !  Next Steps   '' $!% -+*.*/   ..     $   $!% -0 4 ! C -+*.*/ $! !    !!!   ! !  Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa County Department of Transportation Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Open Discussion      !!  *  !  *    !%%  ' !!! !  ! !    !  !6   Next TAC Meeting November 9, 2010  !  ''  8! 6! ! !6!$ ! !  Draft Evaluation Criteria  Criteria Title 7%7! !   '!    (#   $'  '!    ! 4  $'  '!    (#   !! !! ''  (  '# !   !      !   D !   $! !?4  !   ( '!  !   @   !    Criteria Description !  '%!' !! %  7%7!! ! ) %  !!   !  !!     ! % '= Criteria Performance Measure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ontract No. 2010-005 Work Order No. TT005  '% '!     '% '!    O ! ! !  '% '#  !   !   O ! ! !         '%!  '%! !   MEETING MINUTES Date: December 17, 2010 To: Mitch Wagner, Project Manager, MCDOT From: Rodney Bragg, AECOM Re: Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Subject: December 14, 2010 TAC Meeting #4 Attendees: See attached sign-in sheet I. Introductions See attached sign-in sheet II. Meeting Purpose The purpose of this meeting was to provide an update on the project status; discuss the alternatives development, evaluation, and preliminary recommendations; and gather information to complete the evaluation. III. Study Purpose and Objectives The purpose of this study is to establish the facility type, number of lanes, right-ofway, and corridor alignment required to accommodate the ultimate facility classification and safely accommodate forecast travel demands for Peoria Avenue. This study will result in a future “footprint” of the corridor, implementation timeframe, and phasing of identified roadway improvements. !    '% ! O ! ! !  '% ! '!     '  ' O ! ! !  '% ! '!   !!! !  ' O ! ! !  '% ! '!    !     O ! ! !  '% ! '!   Study objectives include assessing the strategic issues and potential impacts by existing and proposed developments, drainage features, utilities, and environmental issues. Based on this information, the study will develop and evaluate conceptual alternative alignments, as well as identify a preferred alignment. With a preferred alignment, specific characteristics of the corridor will be further defined and an implementation plan developed to carry out corridor improvements. Most importantly, the study aims at gaining consensus amongst partners to achieve design consistency and preserve the corridor for future implementation. [1] VII. IV. Study Area The study area extends approximately 7.5 miles, from the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway alignment to Dysart Road, including a two-mile wide area, centered on Peoria Avenue. Multiple jurisdictions have control over the land in this area. The Peoria Avenue section line provides the boundary between the City of Surprise and City of Glendale planning areas, with portions of the corridor to the far west belonging to Maricopa County, and portions to the east belonging to the City of El Mirage. Most of the area within the Surprise and El Mirage municipal planning areas (MPAs) is incorporated, whereas only a small parcel adjacent to Peoria Avenue and SR 303L is annexed by Glendale. Although the MAG model demand warrants a four-lane facility in 2030, this does not account for full build out conditions. The City of Surprise, City of Glendale, and MCDOT all categorize Peoria Avenue as a principal arterial and have agreed to maintain the corridor’s functional classification designation which includes six travel lanes. For planning purposes, a minimum of 140’ R/W will be used throughout the corridor, with a wider footprint envisioned between Cotton Lane and Sarival Road to account for increased traffic and turning movements required near the SR 303L traffic interchange. Major intersections throughout the corridor will also be planned for wider R/W footprints to accommodate dual lefts and separate right turn lanes on all intersection legs. White Tank Mountain Regional Park sits to the west of the study area and Luke Air Force Base to the south. McMicken Dam and the Beardsley Canal constitute two major drainage structures, both located at the western end of the study area. The SR 303L corridor will be upgraded to a freeway, with a connection to Peoria Avenue. The BNSF Ennis Spur also intersects the corridor between Litchfield and Dysart Roads. V. Study Process The study process involves a three step involvement plan, which leads to the preparation of a phased implementation plan of the selected alternative. This includes: x x x VI. Scoping and development of a stakeholder database to identify corridor issues and needs; Development, evaluation, and refinement of alternatives with stakeholder input; and Development of an implementation plan with the stakeholders whereby major design features are finalized. Study Milestones Major milestones are as follows: Phase 1 x Project kick-off and study initiation x Data collection phase x TAC meeting #1 x Public meeting #1 (scoping) x TAC meeting #2 July 2010 (completed) July – September 2010 (completed) August 17, 2010 (completed) September 20, 2010 (completed) October 12, 2010 (completed) Phase 2 x TAC meeting #3 x TAC meeting #4 x Public meeting #2 (alternatives) x TAC meeting #5 x Public meeting #3 (pref. alternative) x Draft final report x Final report submission November 9, 2010 (cancelled) December 14, 2010 January 18, 2011 February 15, 2010 March 16, 2011 (approx.) April 2011 June 2011 [2] Draft Tech Memo #7 Draft Tech Memo #7 is available on the FTP site for review and comment. TAC comments were previously requested by December 17th. It includes a review of existing and future traffic conditions with an analysis horizon year of 2030. The MAG 2030 travel demand model shows that a four-lane facility will be warranted on Peoria Avenue by 2030, therefore a sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine what conditions imply that six lanes are not warranted by 2030 and when a six-lane facility may be required. VIII. Alternatives Development and Evaluation Evaluation Criteria Ten evaluation criteria were drafted by the Project Team and reviewed by the TAC for use in the alternatives evaluation. This includes criteria that can be measured both qualitatively and quantitatively. Criteria categories include (full list of criteria and descriptions in attachments): x x x x x x x x x x R/W considerations (including both square footage of R/W takes and estimated order of magnitude R/W costs) Compatibility with existing developments Compatibility with planned future developments Compatibility with existing and planned roadway improvements Engineering complexity and constructability Public acceptability Local agency support Drainage/flood control considerations Utility considerations Environmental considerations (including consideration of socioeconomic, physical/natural, and cultural resources) Alignment Alternatives Three alternative alignments were considered for the Peoria Avenue corridor. Alternative 1 includes widening the corridor symmetrically to the section line, attempting to balance impacts to both sides of the corridor. Alternative 2 includes widening the corridor to the south, maintaining the northern R/W boundary and therefore only impacting land to the south. Alternative 3 includes widening the corridor to the north, maintaining the southern R/W boundary and therefore only impacting land to the north. [3] Because the existing R/W throughout the corridor differs due to varying dedications, the degree of shifting to the north or south changes (detailed listing of alternative alignments and R/W shifts in attachments). Because Peoria Avenue does not yet exist through Segments 1 and 2, and due to different constraints, a lesser number of alternatives were considered. Evaluation Process The corridor was divided into nine segments for the evaluation process: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Beardsley Canal Beardsley Canal to Perryville Road Perryville Road to Citrus Road Citrus Road to Cotton Lane Cotton Lane to Sarival Road Sarival Road to Reems Road Reems Road to Bullard Avenue Bullard Avenue to Litchfield Road Litchfield Road to Dysart Road corridor and often have driveways that access Peoria Avenue. In addition, two sets of irrigation canals run parallel to Peoria Avenue to the south. Because of the more imminent constraint that the existing land uses pose, the recommendation favored Alternative 3, shifting to the north to minimize impacts to the existing land uses to the south.  6HJPHQW6DULYDO5RDGWR5HHPV5RDG Existing residential development and related drainage facilities are located on both sides of Peoria Avenue through Segment 6. In an effort to balance the impacts to both sides of the corridor, Alternative 1 (symmetrical on section line) was recommended.  6HJPHQW%XOODUG$YHQXHWR/LWFKILHOG5RDG Like Segment 6, Segment 8 contains existing residential development on both sides of the corridor. To the north there is a newer residential subdivision that includes a small landscaped buffer between the R/W and property lines. To the south, individual large-lot, single-family homes front Peoria Avenue but are significantly offset from the roadway. Recommending Alternative 1 (symmetrical on section line) was seen to best balance the impacts to existing development. The Project Team (composed of a multidisciplinary consultant group) conducted the evaluation which determined a preliminary recommendation for the corridor alignment. Two measures were left blank during this evaluation, public acceptability and local agency support, due to required input from the general public and the TAC. The TAC is requested to review the alternatives and the consultant team’s preliminary evaluation and provide input on (1) TAC member’s preferred alternative by segment, and (2) any other comments regarding preliminary evaluation, by December 24, 2010. Public input will be gathered at the January 2011 public meeting. Evaluation Highlights Through the evaluation process, some segments contained constraints and/or opportunities that clearly favored one alternative (Segments 2, 4, 6, 8). Once those alignment recommendations were established, those conditions assisted in determining the recommended alternative for the adjacent segments (Segments 3, 5, 7, 9). The following evaluation highlights are presented out of numerical order to illustrate this process. Segments 2, 4, 6, and 8 provided the context which influenced the recommendation for the adjacent segments. Oftentimes, two or even all three alternatives in the following segments scored very closely, with one alternative not presenting a clear advantage over another. In these cases, connectivity with the adjacent segments helped determine the most practical solution. Likewise, transition areas were strategically placed throughout these segments to avoid certain constraints or maximize the use of other opportunities to form a seamless connection of segments. Because of the relative equality of the impacts of the different alternatives, if conditions change in the future (e.g., wells removed, advanced development plats, etc.), the recommendations for the following segments could be reviewed and changed to reflect current conditions.  6HJPHQW%HDUGVOH\&DQDOWR3HUU\YLOOH5RDG The Zanjero Trails master planned community is planned on both sides of Peoria Avenue. Their preliminary plat dedicates 136 feet of R/W for Peoria Avenue, centered on the section line. Because Zanjero Trails is expected to move forward with this plat configuration in the future, the section line option (Alternative 1) was decided to be the only practical alternative. Because this segment only has one alternative, no evaluation was conducted.  6HJPHQW&LWUXV5RDGWR&RWWRQ/DQH Maricopa County does not have any R/W recorded in this segment, therefore the full width, regardless of alternative, will require R/W negotiations. Key factors for this segment focus on existing and planned land uses. To the north, the Prasada community is planned, although no preliminary plat yet exists. To the south, Peoria Avenue is lined with existing large-lot, single-family houses that front the roadway [4]     6HJPHQW3HUU\YLOOH5RDGWR&LWUXV5RDG Existing and planned developments, as well as existing and planned roadway improvements were the key factors for Segment 3. To the north, Shadow Ridge High School is built at the west end. A portion of the remaining land is platted through Zanjero Trails and preliminarily planned as part of the Prasada community. To the south, the Cortessa subdivision is constructed, as well as several irrigation facilities and wells. On the west end, between Cortessa and the high school, is the corridor’s only full width constructed street section. In an effort to maximize use of this full width street, which is built symmetrically on the section line, Alternative 1 was recommended. This supports a connection to Segment 2 to the west, which is also recommended to be located symmetrically to the section line. To the east, Segment 4 is recommended to shift north. Because of the constraint the existing development on the south side of the corridor poses in Segment 4, the transition area from the section line to a northerly shift is recommended to occur in the eastern portion of Segment 3.  [5]  6HJPHQW&RWWRQ/DQHWR6DULYDO5RDG The key determinant in Segment 5 is ADOT’s final design for SR 303L, which includes a traffic interchange at Peoria Avenue, centered on the section line. Very little development exists today through this segment. As both SR 303L requires a section line alignment and Segment 6 recommended a section line alignment, the recommendation for Segment 5 is to move forward with Alternative 1 (symmetrical on section line). Because of the constraint the existing development on the south side of the corridor poses in Segment 4, the transition area from the section line to a northerly shift is recommended to occur in the western portion of Segment 5, slightly impacting an existing development to the north, although not impacting any structures.  6HJPHQW5HHPV5RDGWR%XOODUG$YHQXH Because of the noise contours associated with Luke Air Force Base, the majority of the corridor is undeveloped, with the exception of approximately four houses that back up to Peoria Avenue on the west end. However, the presence of these houses skews the evaluation away from an option that impacts the north side of the corridor. The south side of the corridor, however, contains irrigation facilities and well sites. The adjacent links, Segments 6 and 8, recommend section line alignments. In an effort to both reduce impact to the drainage facilities as well as the existing development, and also connect to the adjacent segments, the recommendation for this segment includes a northerly shift in the center of the segment to avoid the irrigation facilities and well sites, with the corridor transition areas back to the section line at the east and west ends, avoiding impact to the existing development. If corridor conditions change in the future, such as the removal of the irrigation facilities on the south side or new development on the north side, this recommendation could be reconsidered to recommend a section line alignment. have the least drainage impacts, as Alternative 2 would cross numerous washes – Waterfall Wash potentially including a substantial crossing. The recommendation for Segment 1 is to move forward with Alternative 1, predicated upon consensus from FCDMC that it is less impactful to cross the basin than to cross a number of natural washes. By recommending a section line alignment, this also maximizes the ability for larger tracts of developable land in the future, to be auctioned by the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD). Currently, ASLD has a general master plan for the land, but no formal planning will be documented until a developer assumes responsibility. In addition, Alternative 1 would provide better intersection spacing along the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway. IX.    6HJPHQW/LWFKILHOG5RDGWR'\VDUW5RDG Segment 9 contains no existing or platted development to the south. To the north of Peoria Avenue, existing land uses are adjacent to the Ennis Spur in the middle of the corridor. Development is planned and platted to the east and west. Half-streets have been constructed on the north side throughout, however with no constant centerline offset. Therefore, the corridor’s constructed half street varies with differing amounts of R/W. To minimize impacts to existing land uses, the recommendation for this segment includes a southerly shift in the alignment with transition areas to connect back to the section line on the east and west ends. Like Segment 7, if corridor conditions change in the future (e.g., existing land uses are redeveloped), consideration could be given to maintaining a section line alignment. Next Steps Key milestones and next steps include: x Tech Memos #1, 2, and 3 will be distributed in final form shortly. x TAC comments on Draft Tech Memo #7 are due December 17th. x TAC comments on alternatives evaluation and local agency support are due December 24th. x Project Team will submit Pre-Draft Tech Memo #4 during the first week of January. x Second public open house will be conducted January 18th. x Next TAC meeting is scheduled for February 15th. Attachments: x Meeting Sign-In Sheet x Meeting Agenda x Power Point Slides x Evaluation Criteria and Descriptions x Alternative Alignment Descriptions x Draft Evaluation Matrix x Recommended Alignment Map  Segment 1 is unique because no roadway or existing development is currently present and no development plans are imminent. Only two alternatives were practical for this section – Alternative 1, alignment symmetrical along the section line, and Alternative 2, which does not follow the other widening guidelines. Alternative 2 in this segment dips south to miss the flood basin south of the truncated McMicken Dam. 6HJPHQW-DFNUDEELW7UDLO3DUNZD\WR%HDUGVOH\&DQDO Drainage impacts and local agency support (specifically the Flood Control District of Maricopa County [FCDMC]) are the two key determining factors. After the Project Team’s evaluation, Alternative 1, which travels through the flood basin, was seen to [6] [7]        PEORIA AVENUE CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY JACKRABBIT TRAIL PARKWAY TO DYSART ROAD MCDOT Contract No. 2010-005 Work Order No. TT005 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda December 14, 2010, 9:00 AM x Introductions x Meeting Purpose x Project Status Update x Overview of Draft Tech Memo #7 x Overview of Alternative Development & Evaluation x Next Steps x Open Discussion x Adjourn Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #4 December 14, 2010 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa County Department of Transportation Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Meeting Agenda • • • • • Introductions Meeting Purpose Project Status Update Overview of Tech Memo #7 Overview of Alternative Development and Evaluation Meeting Agenda • Next Steps • Open Discussion • Adjourn Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa County Department of Transportation Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Meeting Purpose Study Purpose • Update on project status • Discuss alternative development & • Establish the facility type, number of lanes, right-of- evaluation • Gather information • Share next steps way, and corridor alignment required to safely accommodate forecast travel demands • Provide a future “footprint” of the corridor, implementation timeframe & phasing of the identified roadway improvements Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa County Department of Transportation Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Study Process Study Area 67(3 67(3 67(3 '(9(/2367$.(+2/'(5 '$7$%$6( '(9(/23$/7(51$7,9(6 :,7+67$.(+2/'(5,1387 '(9(/23,03/(0(17$7,21 3/$1:,7+67$.(+2/'(56 ‡$OWHUQDWLYHV 'HYHORSPHQW ‡ (YDOXDWH$OWHUQDWLYHV ‡&RQFHSWXDO&RQFXUUHQFHRQ 5HFRPPHQGHG$OWHUQDWLYHDQG6WXG\ )LQGLQJV ‡)LQDOL]H0DMRU'HVLJQ)HDWXUHV ‡ ,GHQWLI\&RUULGRU ,VVXHVDQG1HHGV ‡&RQGXFW'DWD$QDO\VLV ‡5HILQH$OWHUQDWLYHV ,03/(0(17$7,213/$1 ‡ 3URMHFW'HYHORSPHQW ‡)XQGLQJ3ODQ Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa County Department of Transportation Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Study Milestones Study Milestones Contd. -XO\ • TAC Meeting #3 1RY • Data Collection Phase -XO\ 6HSW • TAC Meeting #4 Dec 14, 2010 • TAC Meeting #1 $XJXVW • Public Meeting #2 (Alternatives) Jan 12, 2011 • TAC Meeting #5 Feb 15, 2011 • Project Kick-off & Study Initiation • Public Meeting #1 (Scoping) 6HSW 2FW • TAC Meeting #2 • Alternatives Development & Oct 2010 – Jan 2011 Evaluation Phase Continued… • Public Meeting #3 (Pref. Alt.) March 16, 2011 • Draft Final Report April 2011 • Final Report Submission June 2011 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa County Department of Transportation Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Draft Tech Memo #7 • • Existing traffic conditions Ultimate Typical Section • Future traffic conditions o Roadway classification & ultimate typical Maricopa County all identify 6-Lane Arterial • section • • Traffic analysis o 2030 horizon year o Sensitivity analysis Crash data City of Surprise, City of Glendale, MAG, and Corridor planning based on 6 lanes in 140’ R/W (min.) • Wider footprint between Cotton Lane and Sarival Road • Major intersections to accommodate dual lefts and right-turn lanes on all legs Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa County Department of Transportation Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Traffic Volumes Traffic Information • 4-Lane facility warranted by 2030 based on MAG model • Intersection analysis to estimate lane requirements for 2030 • Accommodate ultimate facility Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa County Department of Transportation Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Evaluation Criteria • • • • Right-of-way Considerations Compatibility w/ Existing Developments Compatibility w/ Future Developments Compatibility w/ Existing & Future Roadway Improvements • • • Engineering Complexity & Constructability Public Acceptance Local Agency Support Evaluation Criteria • • • Drainage/Flood Control Considerations Environmental Considerations Utility Considerations Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa County Department of Transportation Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Overview of Alignment Alternatives • Jackrabbit Trail Pkwy to Beardsley Canal • Beardsley Canal to Perryville Road • Perryville Road to Citrus Road • Citrus Road to Cotton Lane • Cotton Lane to Sarival Road • Sarival Road to Reems Road • Reems Road to Bullard Avenue • Bullard Avenue to Litchfield Road • Litchfield Road to Dysart Road Overview of Evaluation Process • Consultant team evaluation – Preliminary Recommendation • TAC feedback • • • Plan sheets available on FTP site Feedback due by December 24th Public feedback Indian School Road Maricopa County Department of Transportation Indian School Road Maricopa County Department of Transportation Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Segment 2: Beardsley Canal to Perryville Road I-10 Segment 4: Citrus Road to Cotton Lane I-10 Indian School Road Maricopa County Department of Transportation Indian School Road Maricopa County Department of Transportation Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Segment 6: Sarival Road to Reems Road I-10 Segment 8: Bullard Avenue to Litchfield Road I-10 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Indian School Road Maricopa County Department of Transportation Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Recommended Alignment Segment 3: Perryville Road to Citrus Road I-10 Indian School Road Maricopa County Department of Transportation Indian School Road Maricopa County Department of Transportation Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Segment 5: Cotton Lane to Sarival Road I-10 Segment 7: Reems Road to Bullard Avenue I-10 Indian School Road Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa County Department of Transportation Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Segment 9: Litchfield Road to Dysart Road I-10 Recommended Alignment Indian School Road Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa County Department of Transportation Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Segment 1: Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Beardsley Canal I-10 Recommended Alignment Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa County Department of Transportation Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Next Steps • Distribute Final TM #1, 2, and 3 • TAC comments on Draft TM #7 due on December 17th • TAC comments on alternative evaluation due December 24th • Submit Draft TM #4 during 1st week of January • Conduct public open house #2 in January Open Discussion • • • • Study area issues, constraints, & opportunities Traffic volumes and analysis Alternatives & evaluation process Other stakeholder concerns Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Evaluation Criteria Criteria Title Right-of-way Considerations Maricopa County Department of Transportation Compatibility with Existing Developments Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Compatibility with Planned Future Developments Next TAC Meeting February 15, 2011 Compatibility with Existing and Planned Roadway Improvements Engineering Complexity and Constructability Public Acceptability Local Agency Support Drainage/Flood Control Considerations Environmental Considerations Utility Considerations Criteria Description Criteria Performance Measure An assessment of the amount and value of the right-of-way that would need to be acquired for corridor alternatives in relation to other alternatives under consideration for the segment. Quantitative assessment of acres or square feet of acquisition An estimate of the potential effect of proposed corridor alternatives on the existing developments most directly affected. Key considerations include the proximity to existing developments and potential displacements. An estimate of the potential effect of the corridor alternatives on planned developments and/or land that is currently under the jurisdiction of the Arizona State Land Department. Key considerations include compatibility with approved master plans and/or preliminary and final plats. An assessment of the compatibility of the corridor alternatives with the existing and planned roadway improvements. Qualitative assessment of compatibility A general assessment of engineering complications, exclusive of cost considerations, which could arise from construction of the roadway. Key considerations include roadway geometry, permitting requirements, construction staging, etc. Estimated community support for and acceptance of the corridor alternative, based on input from municipal staff, stakeholders, homeowner associations, and the public. Estimated local agency (city) support for and acceptance of the corridor alternative, based on input from municipal staff. An estimate of potential impacts from the proposed corridor alternatives to both existing FCDMC facilities as well as to future improvements. An assessment of social, ecological, and cultural environment in the study area. Qualitative assessment of complexity and constructability Estimate of potential impacts from the proposed corridor alternatives to both existing and planned future utility facilities such as the MWD canals, wells, reclaimed water delivery headers, and overhead lines. Qualitative assessment of potential cost Qualitative assessment of compatibility Qualitative assessment of compatibility Qualitative assessment of acceptability Qualitative assessment of acceptability Qualitative assessment of potential impacts Qualitative assessment of potential impacts to socioeconomic environment Qualitative assessment of potential impacts to physical and natural environment Qualitative assessment of potential impacts to cultural resources Quantitative assessment of potential impacts Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Alternative Alignment Descriptions Jackrabbit Pkwy to Beardsley Canal Centerline on Section Alt #1 Line South of reconstructed Alt #2 McMicken Dam Beardsley Canal to Perryville Rd Centerline on Section Alt #1 Line Perryville Rd to Citrus Rd Centerline on Section Alt #1 Line Centerline shifted 5' Alt #2 south of Section Line Centerline shifted 15' Alt #3 north of Section Line Citrus Rd to Cotton Ln Centerline on Section Alt #1 Line Centerline shifted 5' Alt #2 south of Section Line Centerline shifted 37' Alt #3 north of Section Line Cotton Ln to Sarival Rd Centerline on Section Alt #1 Line Centerline shifted 55' Alt #2 south of Section Line Centerline shifted 55' Alt #3 north of Section Line Sarival Rd to Reems Rd Centerline on Section Alt #1 Line Centerline shifted 15' Alt #2 south of Section Line Centerline shifted 5' Alt #3 north of Section Line Reems Rd to Bullard Ave Centerline on Section Alt #1 Line Centerline shifted 5' Alt #2 south of Section Line Centerline shifted 30' Alt #3 north of Section Line Bullard Ave to Litchfield Rd Centerline on Section Alt #1 Line Centerline shifted 15' Alt #2 south of Section Line Centerline shifted 30' Alt #3 north of Section Line Litchfield Rd to Dysart Rd Centerline on Section Alt #1 Line Alt #2 Centerline shift south of Section Line [varies from 2' (west end) to 37' (middle) to 2' (east end)] Alt #3 Centerline shift north of Section Line [varies from 37' (west end) to 30' (east end)] DRAFT EVALUATION MATRIX  Goes through basin & floodpool Segment 1: Jackrabbit Trail to Beardsley Canal Criteria Goes south of floodpool Matches Zanjero Trails Preliminary Plat Right-of-way Considerations 140' wide corridor requires acquisition on both sides Alternative 1 (on section line) ◒ 779k SF ◒ Holds planned dedicated R/W along north side Holds existing south R/W line Compatibility with Existing Developments ○ 140' wide corridor requires acquisition on both sides Compatibility with Planned Future Developments ○ Holds planned dedicated R/W along north side Compatibility with Existing and Planned Roadway Improvements Places south R/W line approx. 10' south of ditch & allows room for potential frontage road ○ Engineering Complexity & Constructability 176' wide corridor requires acquisition on both sides No existing development Alternative 2 (shift to south) ● ● ○ 825k SF Higher cost due to additional length No existing development ◒ Most compatible with future ASLD plans Facilitates 1-mile intersection spacing along Jackrabbit Parkway ◒ ◒ ● ◒ ● Numerous wash and floodplain crossing Holds existing north R/W line Public Acceptability Holds existing south R/W line Local Agency Support 140' wide corridor requires acquisition on both sides Drainage/Flood Control Considerations Holds existing north R/W line along developed areas Holds existing south R/W line along developed areas Socioeconomic 140' wide corridor requires acquisition on both sides Environmental Considerations Holds existing north R/W line along developed areas Physical & Natural Cultural Holds existing south R/W line Utility Considerations 140' wide corridor requires acquisition on both sides Holds existing north R/W line Holds existing south R/W line Recommendations 140' wide corridor requires acquisition on both sides ○ No known impacts ◒ ● ○ Impacts to Beardsley Canal No known impacts Numerous wash and floodplain crossing ○ ● ● No known impacts Greatest impact to wash corridors and floodplains Impacts to Beardsley Canal ○ No known impacts Recommended Alignment-likely lower cost; minimizes natural wash crossings; better intersection spacing along Jackrabbit Trail  Holds existing north R/W line Holds existing south R/W line ○ – Lowest impact/best performance  ◒ - Moderate impact/moderate performance ● - Highest impact/worst performance Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road DRAFT EVALUATION MATRIX DRAFT EVALUATION MATRIX   Segment 3: Perryville Road to Citrus Road Criteria Right-of-way Considerations Alternative 1 (on section line) ◒ 295k SF Alternative 2 (shift 5’ south) ◒ ◒ Compatibility with Existing Developments ◒ Moderate impact to existing land uses Compatibility with Planned Future Developments ◒ Moderate impact to planned land uses Compatibility with Existing and Planned Roadway Improvements ○ Engineering Complexity & Constructability Alternative 3 (shift 15’ north) ● 293k SF ◒ ◒ Moderate impact to existing land uses ◒ Moderate impact to planned land uses Most compatible with existing street improvements 309k SF Right-of-way Considerations ◒ ○ ● ◒ ○ Segment 4: Citrus Road to Cotton Lane Criteria ○ Compatibility with Existing Developments ◒ Least compatible with future development to north Compatibility with Planned Future Developments ◒ ● Compatibility with Existing and Planned Roadway Improvements ○ Half-street constructed at Citrus ○ Engineering Complexity & Constructability ◒ Access fronting Peoria Ave Local Agency Support Local Agency Support Environmental Considerations ○ Slight impact to land; no impact to public access or structures ○ Slight impact to land; no impact to public access or structures ◒ Slight impact to existing drainage channel to the north ◒ Slight impact to land; no impact to public access or structures Socioeconomic ◒ Physical & Natural ◒ Some impact to farmland ◒ Some impact to farmland ◒ Some impact to farmland Cultural ◒ Impacts to irrigation ditch ◒ Impacts to irrigation ditch ◒ Impacts to irrigation ditch Utility Considerations Recommendations 1600 ft lined irrigation ditch, 7 power poles, 2 well sites Recommended Alignment with transition at east end – most compatible with existing improvements and developments ◒ ◒ Minimal impact ◒ 1600 ft lined irrigation ditch, 7 power poles, 2 well sites ◒ 716k SF Least impact to existing land uses Public Acceptability Minimal impact ◒ ◒ Public Acceptability Drainage/Flood Control Considerations Alternative 1 (on section line) Drainage/Flood Control Considerations Environmental Considerations 1600 ft lined irrigation ditch, 7 power poles, 2 well sites ◒ Socioeconomic ● Physical & Natural ◒ Cultural ◒ Utility Considerations ● Balances impacts Balances impacts No existing drainage infrastructure constructed; must continue channel from the west Impacts to private property Balances impacts Impacts to irrigation ditch 1 well site; 5200 ft lined irrigation ditch; 20 power poles Alternative 2 (shift 5’ south) ◒ 716k SF ● Higher cost likely to south ● Greatest impact to most properties ○ No new planned development to south Alternative 3 (shift 37’ north) ◒ ○ ○ ● ◒ ◒ ◒ ● ◒ ◒ ● 718k SF No known impacts All planned development to the north ◒ Access fronting Peoria Ave No existing drainage infrastructure constructed; must continue channel from the west Impacts to private property Balances impacts ○ ◒ ○ ● Opportunity for frontage road No existing drainage infrastructure constructed; must continue channel from the west No known impacts Impacts to farmland Impacts to irrigation ditch ◒ Impacts to irrigation ditch 1 well site; 5200 ft lined irrigation ditch; 20 power poles ◒ 5200 ft lined irrigation ditch; 20 power poles Recommended Alignment – minimizes impacts to existing land uses to south Recommendations   ○ – Lowest impact/best performance  ◒ - Moderate impact/moderate performance ● - Highest impact/worst performance ○ – Lowest impact/best performance  ◒ - Moderate impact/moderate performance ● - Highest impact/worst performance Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road DRAFT EVALUATION MATRIX DRAFT EVALUATION MATRIX   Segment 5: Cotton Lane to Sarival Road Criteria Right-of-way Considerations Alternative 1 (on section line) ● 543k SF ◒ Compatibility with Existing Developments ◒ Compatibility with Planned Future Developments ○ Compatibility with Existing and Planned Roadway Improvements ○ Engineering Complexity & Constructability Balances impacts Least impact to all properties Alternative 2 (shift 55’ south) ◒ ○ ○ ◒ 453k SF Lower cost to south No known impacts Balances impacts Segment 6: Sarival Road to Reems Road Criteria Alternative 3 (shift 55’ north) ◒ ● Alternative 1 (on section line) ◒ 457k SF Right-of-way Considerations ● ● Greatest impact to most properties Compatibility with Existing Developments Compatibility with Planned Future Developments Most compatible w/ ADOT’s plans for SR303L interchange ◒ ◒ Compatibility with Existing and Planned Roadway Improvements ○ ○ ○ Engineering Complexity & Constructability ◒ ○ ◒ ○ Balances impacts to both sides Minor impact to future development to north Most compatible with existing street and Reems Rd intersection Alternative 3 (shift 5’ north) ◒ 182k SF ◒ Highest cost to north Impacts property to the north 182k SF Alternative 2 (shift 15’ south) ○ ● 182k SF Greatest impact to existing and planned developments in rightof-way ◒ Minor impacts to south side ◒ Minor impacts to north side ○ No known future development to south ● Impacts future development to north ● Not compatible with existing street and Reems Rd intersection ○ ◒ ○ Not compatible with existing street but more compatible than #2 with Reems Rd intersection ○ Public Acceptability Public Acceptability Local Agency Support Local Agency Support Drainage/Flood Control Considerations Environmental Considerations Socioeconomic Physical & Natural Cultural Utility Considerations Recommendations ○ Minimal impacts ◒ Minor impacts to existing land uses ◒ Minor impacts to farmlands ◒ Impacts to irrigation ditch ● 2 well sites; 4300 ft lined irrigation ditch; 14 power poles ○ Minimal impacts ○ Minimal impacts Drainage/Flood Control Considerations ◒ Minor impacts to existing land uses ◒ Minor impacts to existing land uses ◒ Minor impacts to farmlands ◒ Minor impacts to farmlands ◒ Impacts to irrigation ditch ● 2 well sites; 4300 ft lined irrigation ditch; 6 power poles ○ ○ Environmental Considerations Socioeconomic ○ Physical & Natural ○ Cultural ○ No known impacts 8 power poles Utility Considerations Recommended Alignment w/ transition at west end compatible with SR303 & transition at west end will minimize impacts to wells Recommendations    ○ – Lowest impact/best performance  ◒ - Moderate impact/moderate performance ● - Highest impact/worst performance ○ – Lowest impact/best performance  ○ ○ Least impact to existing drainage facilities Minimal impact Minimal impact No known impact No known impacts to irrigation or power lines ◒ ○ ○ ○ ◒ Minor impacts to existing drainage facilities ◒ ○ Minimal impact ○ Minimal impact ○ No known impact Potential relocation of underground irrigation facilities ○ Minor impacts to existing drainage facilities Minimal impact Minimal impact No known impact No known impacts to irrigation or power lines Recommended Alignment – balances impacts and scores best in drainage and existing development compatibility ◒ - Moderate impact/moderate performance ● - Highest impact/worst performance Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road DRAFT EVALUATION MATRIX DRAFT EVALUATION MATRIX   Segment 7: Reems Road to Bullard Ave Criteria Alternative 1 (on section line) ◒ Right-of-way Considerations 227k SF Alternative 2 (shift 5’ south) ◒ ◒ Compatibility with Existing Developments ◒ Compatibility with Planned Future Developments ◒ Compatibility with Existing and Planned Roadway Improvements ○ Engineering Complexity & Constructability Balances impacts Balances impacts to both sides Alternative 3 (shift 30’ north) ◒ 227k SF ◒ ◒ ○ Reems Road improved to full street section; centered on section line ○ Segment 8: Bullard Ave to Litchfield Rd Criteria ● Balances impacts No future development plans to the south ● ● Right-of-way Considerations Higher cost likely to north; encroachment into residential lots All existing development to the north All future development plans to the north ◒ Compatibility with Planned Future Developments ◒ ◒ ◒ Compatibility with Existing and Planned Roadway Improvements ○ ○ Engineering Complexity & Constructability Local Agency Support Environmental Considerations Socioeconomic ◒ Physical & Natural ● Cultural ◒ ● Utility Considerations ○ No known impacts ○ Impacts to agriculture ● Impacts to private property Potential impact to farms and habitat ● Potential impact to farms and habitat ◒ Potential impact to habitat Impacts to irrigation ditch ◒ Impacts to irrigation ditch ○ ◒ 5 well sites; 4500 ft lined irrigation ditch ○ 5 well sites; 4500 ft lined irrigation ditch; 16 power poles Environmental Considerations No known impacts 3 well sites; 16 power poles Recommended Alignment with transition at west end and east end. Would minimize impacts to irrigation facilities. Low scores due to impacts at west end.  Balances impacts Minor impacts to future development Alternative 2 (shift 15’ south) ◒ ◒ Socioeconomic ◒ Physical & Natural ◒ Cultural ○ ◒ Balanced impacts Balanced impacts No known impacts 2 well sites ◒ ● Highest cost likely to south ● Impacts land uses to south ● ○ No future development to south ● Litchfield and Bullard intersections fully improved; centered on section line Minor impacts to existing drainage facilities Alternative 3 (shift 30’ north) 235k SF ○ Utility Considerations ○ ○ ○ ● ● Impacts to private property lots ○ Greatest impact to farmland and potential habitat areas No known impacts ● Impacts to future development to north ● ○ ○ Impacts land uses to north ◒ Least impacts to existing drainage facilities ● 233k SF 4 well sites ○ ○ ○ Most impacts to existing drainage facilities (channel and box culverts) No known impacts No known impacts No known impacts No well sites impacted Recommended Alignment – balances impacts and scores better than #3 in drainage and existing development compatibility Recommendations     – Lowest impact/best performance ○ Drainage/Flood Control Considerations No known impacts ◒ Impacts to agriculture Recommendations ○ Compatibility with Existing Developments Local Agency Support No known impacts 235k SF ◒ Public Acceptability ○ ◒ 224k SF Public Acceptability Drainage/Flood Control Considerations Alternative 1 (on section line) ◒ - Moderate impact/moderate performance ● - Highest impact/worst performance ○ – Lowest impact/best performance  ◒ - Moderate impact/moderate performance ● - Highest impact/worst performance !) 2 - # !-  -- - !-)  -  ' #---#) - ' # / /  !)2!6 IV. PEORIA AVENUE CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY JACKRABBIT TRAIL PARKWAY TO DYSART ROAD MCDOT Contract No. 2010-005 Work Order No. TT005 MEETING MINUTES      "#$ %&  " * 5 "2 5--0-/- # #? 5%   $-  -  6 5! #$  #-22-  0 ! # -  - 2#0- #/- # 6  *">>? # 022  ) ##/ 00 %' 6  $@*  &-* )  2-  --   #  0? /2# #-   "#-6      !  %'  # (!) '!* #   %#-  *#-.- Introductions *#-.- II. Meeting Purpose ) )-/-!0-) '# )#) - -1#- -2 '-'2 ) --#-/ -/ !!##2! #) 2 !  !)2!)2 1#-  --  3- )-  - #1 #  ) 4/# 5/ !%6 III. V.  +%,+ I. Study Purpose and Objectives ) )-/ -- #-- 2-/2) !  / 2- ./. 0 # #  2! 7  # !!# 2! /2 2--/#-/2!!#/ - '2#!#-/  %' 6 -- #022 - 2/  8/) 9/ # !)2!!/ ! #)-/#/# #0!) '!-6 * # '- 2 # ---- -  -- - # )2 !)-  3-#) )-##'2)!-# / - 2-#' !2 -- -6 $-#  - / ! - #0 22#' 2) #' 2  ) 2 2 '2 !- -0 22 - #/) / #2 !6 ) / # 2!-) /   -- /   # 0 22  /  # /# #  !)2! )2 #'2)#      #  !) '!-6 -  Study Area - #  3#- )) 3!26 +! 2-/ ! /  : 5   2  50 2! - " # 2 #  0.!20 #    #   %'  6 2)2 -#- '  2' 2# - 6   %' -2) '#-  #  0/* ) -#  /;2 #2 )2  - 0 ) - /   #    /  0- 2 ) #) -- 2/&2  6-/ 0* ) -#&2 ! )2)2 <%-=- ) #0 -2-!22) 2# %' # *">>?-3# ;2#26 Study Process -  #) -- '2'-   - ) '2'!)2 0 2 #-   ) )  / ) -#! )2!)2  / -2 #2  '62 #6 *)##'2)!/-52# # -#/ # -- -##-1 6 '2)!'2 # /!/2 '-0-52# ) 1# >6 '2)!/!)2!)20-52# -0  ! #-/ - /2A#6 VI. Study Milestones  !2-- -/220Phase 1 x  55.//#- # x 22)- x %!, x  2!,<-)= x %!, : 2<!)2#= : 2B*)!  <!)2#= %  -<!)2#= *)!  <!)2#=   <!)2#= Phase 2 x %!,> x %!,D x  2!,<2 '-= x %!,+ x  2!,><) /62 '= x  //2 )  @'!  C<22#= !  D<!)2#= :  <!)2#=   +  E %) 2  x VII. !-- x :  Technical Memorandums * #2!! # !-# - - -/2206 6 >6 D6 +6 E6 6 VIII. 2 ) - 222 /  '!#)-0 2#-/ #  0 / !3-2# -- --) !)- # 6 &3-#   # #-.!)2# &' !2 ' '0.!)2#   ' '0.!)2# ##%2 '%2!-#&'2 .# /#-  #/  '0  / #%2!.# /)#   2#*52#  ).# /)#%) 2  //%2--.!)2# x  - #25 <-/#2/.!2  0 -  -!=  2##- )3-)2-/  -##H  2-!! -6 x )% 7  - --5!) '#   :5   2 500! --/2/20  6 x ) $  2# ' -/ !)- H   2- #'2)! 02 #-) 2! )2/26 x )#-) '#  --.0-/2#022 7   2/.!2- ! /  '22" #   /  % '  -  ' -    00/2-6 x )  25 )  #-  ) '#    - -.0- /2 2  7  - /0   - ! '!-6( /   0' ) 2) -! - //6 Alternatives Evaluation Process  2 '-' 2 ) -- 0    !< !)-# /  ! 2#-)2  - 2   )= #  /  -  #' 2 0  # !#) 2!  !!# /   # 2 !6 -0 /220#  - - / -52# ! - /  '2  # !!###) 2) #!!--/220x x x x x x %,D#/220. )!!-<!  =  2 )F -<:  = !<:  = /* ) -!<:  = %,+<   =  -#4/* ) -!<$= %2 '%2! )%)) 3!2 >) )20   # :     2 )  F -/0! 0  -#-/  -# .!2- 0  - "# # ?6 -#-0  -#-   %' )'#--!## -!6F0' 0    -# ##2 ) !) '!- !   - // 2  # 6 /  #-  ) 2! - -#  2 '2! /  %'   0 2#-/  #0 )) 3!2 .2/ !2    0-/?   0-  - 0 '22"#6%- ! - '22"##-) '#' 0- #/- #  !#'2)#- -/) !)2 - -#  2! !)  ) '#  #    <22 - # # ! ) 2#8 -  % ' %2 ! )-9=6 -)-2 # x ) % < 2 =        -/   0-   2/.!2 2!6 x ) $ < =      0-  -0   -    5 %' -2) '#:5    2 506 x )  <220=   '#    /  3-   %'   0-2 %' -2   '22"#6 -)0 2# - 2//- --2#.2/!2) 6 > ) < # G220=  #/ ) ) '# / ! 0  % '   2#   %'      -# !! 6 IX. Recommended Alignment 2 !!##2!-#-22/ !00-) -# / %!# - -7 -52# !-- 22'  -!2 68"!!##%2!9!)!# -22 - -- !0   ) )2- #  ) -! ) '!-- !!     - 2  7 -- #  ) - 2!- /     - #  ) -  2!- /  -   #2 20- # ) -  - -  / !   -2 !6 %- !!  /  !!#-/2206 2-  - %' -2 2! -- 22 !!##0-  / ? # -)2  '2 ! )-3)2 #/ 0-) / # 6 x *!  :5    2  50   $ #-2 2  *!!    -26 x *!  $ #-2 2   '22 "#  *!!     - 26 x *! >  '22 "#   - "#  *!!     - 2 0 -   -"#-/ 6 x *!D -"#? */ 6 x *!+?* '2"#  - ? -/ 5-22!6 x *!E* '2"#"!-"# *!!   -26 x *!  "!- "#  $ 22 # %'   *!!     - 2 #3-#'2)!"; 21-2-/  !##2 / - ! ' #  3-02 2 -  - - # /  %'  1 -0-/$ 2 2 #%'  - / 5 -  22!6 x *!I$ 22 #%' ?/2#"# *!!   -26 D x *! C ?/2# "#  -  "#   - / ! - 2 2! -!#-1-/-  / -! '#3-#'2)! 6 X.    2!'-/  %' - # # 2   - # /   # 0 /   /22-  *" >>? "!- # &- 2-6   #  022  ' - !#   52 -6   #0 # 022 '#  2#)) )  /222-6  ! ) '!-0 22 ! )2!#- #'2)! -     -#/ # 2  !!) '!-!  7  #-)2 !#3--- -<66?/2#"##* '2"# --0  %' =6 Recommended Design Features  /220#- /  #-  ---0 22 3 )2 #!  # 2    ! 2)-0 #/#-2-52# /# 56 )2* /* ) -/;2#2%;# ) 22#/  %' --3 .2  2 #06 # )2-  -#E. 2 #00D// ./.0<"4=---0#-"4/)  /22 ) ) -#-#  - %' / !-  #  0! 2)2-63-"4 # ---0'  '  0>>//"4 #'2)# -++.EI./##- #'2)#- !-6 %##22  2 20  3 - / 220 # #0- --/ '22"##"40##-/ !  -#J-"4-# #-< !/  22 - 2#  0!#=6 XI. Implementation Plan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x @.- ) 5 x "-#!# x 22!# 5-7   .!2-) x  #<- -#= 0 -"##? + x  7 - (!) '!- 2)  !!# )2# x  )2   !) '!- #'2) x    !#. !!) '!- 4  x K220   2. !!) '!- 4  +.+K ; 22 !# / -!-<- !)2!#   4 = /22  ! #. ! !/ ! /  !)2! # 0 2#  7  #) '#D.2  /2  +.> !/ !6  / - !) '! -   2 2  # '-# #'2) /  >6-2 # x * 2/.- #/  # 0 -"##? x  ?  - <"4 7 - 7  #  !)2!   / ! - !  0- B- /#  6  4  0 2#252# '2'#-- 7  - #03- 2#0 = E x "!-"# - x *  2/.-  0 $ 22 # %'  # ?/2# "# <3- -#2#'2)!= x @ 2/.-  &-*) <3-!! 2#'2)!= %-- !! )2 / - !-  ! )2!# # '2)!2  0!)2/-!) '!-03+ -  -D. 2/2<!! !=0 2# ) '## +.>!/ !6 %!x *.(* x %# x 0 *2#x "!!##%2 ')2* x - %' %2! )-!) x "!!##%2!!) x (!)2!2!)  +K  220.-##! ) '!- 2 . ! // -   / !   #  0# 2!E.2/) 6% -0 -!) '! 2# 0) ) 4 2 # x x x x XII. Next Steps L!2--#3-)-2 # x x x x XIII.  '22"# -"# * '2"#"!-"# $ 22 #"#?/2#"# ?/2#"#- "# %!!-2! # !,D#    +6  /2! # !,+ #-  # 6  #) 2) -022 # # 6  //2 )  #-  #%) 26 Discussion (-- - -#  # 2 2 !)- /  0-)  /   # 2 # x %2!/  )  2--!3--) 2225 !6 - 2  2! )  --- -  2  2# -E 15 years • • • • Perryville Rd to Citrus Rd Sarival Rd to Reems Rd Bullard Rd to Litchfield Rd Litchfield Rd to Dysart Rd Next Steps • TAC comments on Draft TM #4 due on February 25th • Distribute Draft TM #5 in March • Conduct public open house #3 in March • Distribute Draft Report in April Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa County Department of Transportation Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Open Discussion • • • • • Alternatives & evaluation process Recommended alignment Recommended typical section & access control Implementation plan Other stakeholder concerns Next TAC Meeting Future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway Cotton Ln Beardsley Canal Citrus Rd Perryville Rd m n Da icke McM Jackrabbit Trail (195th Ave) PEORIA AVENUE CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Peoria Ave West Peoria Avenue Alignment Options 0 0.125 0.25 Miles 0.5 I Legend Proposed Parkway Alignment Options Stream/Wash Option B West Peoria Avenue Alignment Change* Option C Option A Option D Source: Flood Control District of Maricopa County, ALRIS *NOTE: Alignment illustrated in white, beginning at Peoria Avenue/Cotton Lane, is common to all subsequent alignment options. Feburary 2011 Dysart Rd Ennis Spur Litchfield Rd DRAFT Bullard Ave Reems Rd Sarival Rd SR 303L Cactus Rd Cotton Ln Citrus Rd Perryville Rd Beardsley Canal Jackrabbit Trail (195th Ave) McM i cke n Da m Futu re J Trail ackrabb it Park way PEORIA AVENUE CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Peoria Ave Olive Ave Implementation Plan 0 0.25 0.5 Miles 1 I Legend Study Area Boundary Railroad Future Improvements by Developer Peoria Avenue Section Line General Floodplain Limits Future Mid-Term Improvements by City/County (5 to 15 years) Proposed Freeway Drainage Structure (canal, dam) Future Long-Term Improvements by City/County (more than 15 years) Proposed Parkway Stream/Wash Improvements Currently Programmed/Planned Road Source: Flood Control District of Maricopa County, ALRIS February 2011         7HFKQLFDO0HPRUDQGXP 3HRULD$YHQXH&RUULGRU,PSURYHPHQW6WXG\ -DFNUDEELW7UDLO3DUNZD\WR'\VDUW5RDG MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION We Need Your Input     Peoria Avenue   Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Appendix B: Public Meeting Materials Public Open House Monday, September 20, 2010 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Shadow Ridge High School 10909 N. Perryville Road Surprise, AZ 85388 (at Peoria Avenue and Perryville Road) Public “Scoping” Meeting The Maricopa County Department of Transportation’s (MCDOT) RightRoads Program, is conducting the first in a series of three public open house meetings to gather community input about potential improvements along an eight-mile section of Peoria Avenue from Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road. The goal of this study is to identify and establish the future roadway type, alignment, number of lanes and right-of-way requirements along the Peoria Avenue corridor to safely accommodate future traffic demand. Stop by anytime between 5:00 and 7:00 p.m. to speak with MCDOT project team members. For more information, contact Mitch Wagner at (602) 506-8054 write to Wagner at: MCDOT, 2901 W. Durango Street, Phoenix, AZ 85009, or e-mail at: mitchwagner@mail.maricopa.gov or contact Roberta Crowe, Public Information Officer at (602) 506-8003. Reasonable accommodations may be made available for people with disabilities with a minimum 72-hour notice. For more information on such accommodations, contact Roberta Crowe at (602) 506-8003. Si desea recibir esta información en Español, favor llame (480) 350-9288. Con adviso de setenta y dos horas o más, es posible obtener plans reasonables para personas con discapacidades; lo mismo para representantes que hablan Español. Si quiere más información, llame (480) 350-9288. District 4 Supervisor, Max Wilson www.mcdot.maricopa.gov   -XQH Note: The content, design, tone and writing style of this document is solely-owned by the Maricopa County Department of Transportation. Duplication or copying of the content, design, tone and/or writing style of this document, without permission, is strictly prohibited. All inquiries must be directed to Roberta Crowe, MCDOT at 602-506-8003. Scoping Phase Public Input Meeting Newspaper Advertisement x x x x ArizonaRepublic BuckeyeValleyNews SurpriseIndependent WestValleyView MARICOPA COUNTY Public Involvement The second (#2) public input meeting will be held to provide the results of the issues and constraints identification process, review candidate alignment evaluation criteria, present the conceptual alternative alignments, and gather input that will assist in the further development and evaluation of the candidate alternatives and the selection of the preferred alignment. Gaining consensus among the agencies and the public is critical to the success of the study and implementation of its recommendations to provide a safe and efficient roadway for the long term. A total of three public input meetings are planned during the course of the study process. The first public meeting will be held to inform the public of the objectives of the study and provide area residents and other stakeholders with an opportunity to inform project team members about the study area issues and local transportation needs. This meeting will also provide the public an opportunity to provide feedback on the study purpose, goals, and objectives. The third public input meeting will present the results of the candidate alternative evaluation process, present the preferred alignment, and gather input for use in the development of the final report. Your input during each phase of the study process is very important and a vital component of study development. TANKS N BULLARD AVENUE WHITE FUTURE JACKRABBIT TRAIL PARKWAY WADDELL ROAD SURPRISE CACTUS ROAD PEORIA AVENUE EL MIRAGE NORTHERN AVENUE LEGEND EL MIRAGE ROAD REEMS ROAD SARIVAL ROAD COTTON LANE CITRUS ROAD GLENDALE DYSART ROAD PARK LITCHFIELD ROAD OLIVE AVENUE PEORIA AVENUE MCDOT Jack Rabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road TRANSPORTATION Right Road Right Time Right Cost "Scoping Phase" Maricopa County Department of Transportation Background The Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study (Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road) is one of a series of long-range transportation planning studies being conducted by the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT). The City of Surprise, City of Glendale, City of El Mirage, and Maricopa County transportation plans all include Peoria Avenue as a future arterial roadway from Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road. The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) recently prepared the Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study (Hassayampa Framework Study) that identified a comprehensive roadway network to meet traffic demands for the build out of the area west of SR Loop 303. This long range regional transportation study identified the need for future roadway network consisting of freeways, parkways, and major arterial roads. The MAG Hassayampa Framework Study recommended an extension of Peoria Avenue westward from Perryville Road to the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway, and identified Peoria Avenue as a major arterial roadway from the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Sarival Avenue. This study will identify the preferred alignment and “footprint” for the future Peoria Avenue between Jackrabbit Trail Parkway and Dysart Road and will facilitate future roadway implementation by developers and local jurisdictions, providing a cohesive transportation corridor, compatible with the City of Surprise, City of Glendale, City of El Mirage, Maricopa County, and MAG transportation plans. Corridor Description STUDY AREA The Peoria Avenue Corridor study area includes the segment of Peoria Avenue between the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway alignment and Dysart Road. The study area generally encompasses a two-mile wide corridor centered on the existing Peoria Avenue alignment. Maricopa County Department of Transportation www.mcdot.maricopa.gov Today's Peoria Avenue generally consists of a two-lane roadway (one travel lane in each direction). Half-street improvements have been constructed along the north side of Peoria Avenue adjacent to developments such as September 20, 2010 Shadow Ridge High School, Greer Ranch subdivision, Copper Canyon Ranch subdivision and Skyway Business Park. Improvements on the south side of Peoria Avenue have been constructed adjacent to the Cortessa subdivision. The only full-width roadway section of Peoria Avenue is located immediately east of Perryville Road between Cortessa and Shadow Ridge High School. The BNSF Railway operates a north-south railroad spur (Ennis Spur) that crosses Peoria Avenue between Litchfield and Dysart Roads. SR Loop 303 crosses the Peoria Avenue Corridor between Cotton Lane and Sarival Road. The majority of the land in the study area is privately owned, with the exception of the westernmost limit (west of Beardsley Canal) which is owned by the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD). The majority of the existing land use is categorized as vacant (undeveloped) or agricultural. Several residential subdivisions are built or under development, which include three elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. In several locations, existing homes not associated with large master-planned communities, are located adjacent to Peoria Avenue. Small clusters of industrial and commercial development are scattered throughout the eastern end of the study area. Based on the City of Surprise, City of Glendale, and City of El Mirage future land use planning, a majority of the vacant and agricultural land within the study area is envisioned to be converted to single-family residential housing and mixed-use developments in the future. It is anticipated that commercial and industrial development will expand, but remain scattered throughout the study area. Study Need Today's land development and existing travel demands in the Peoria Avenue Corridor do not warrant a major new east/west high capacity roadway in the near-term; however, plans are underway to convert much of the rural and low density residential lands within the corridor to more intense land uses that will generate significantly more traffic. The “build-out” forecast for future land development and resulting travel demand warrant a For more information, contact Mitch Wagner at (602) 506-8054 or write to him at: MCDOT, 2901 W. Durango Street, Phoenix, AZ 85009, or e-mail at: MitchWagner@mail.maricopa.gov. MCDOT MCDOT major east/west high capacity roadway in the long term. To help make future roadway construction economically feasible, the planning process needs to begin now to identify and protect long-term public right-of-way needs for the future roadway under ultimate “build-out” conditions. Study Goals & Objectives This corridor study is the first step in the planning process and its primary goal is to aid the affected agencies and jurisdictions in defining and protecting sufficient right-ofway for a continuous future Peoria Avenue Corridor that will safely accommodate projected travel demand. In general, the purpose of this Corridor Improvement Study is to provide MCDOT and our partner jurisdictions with a future “footprint” of the Peoria Avenue Corridor and a timeframe for the implementation of the recommended future roadway improvements. To accomplish this, the main focus of this study is to investigate, map, and analyze corridor constraints and opportunities to arrive at a recommended corridor alignment. This study will establish the facility type, number of lanes, right-of-way needs, and general alignment for the Peoria Avenue Corridor that will be required to accommodate projected traffic growth and enhance safety. In cooperation with the City of Surprise, the City of Glendale, and the City of El Mirage, the study will also determine design standards based upon future roadway jurisdiction (anticipated roadway annexation) and an implementation or construction phasing plan. The key objectives of this Corridor Improvement Study are to: Define and assess the strategic issues within the project study area Develop and evaluate conceptual alternative alignments within the corridor study area Recommend a preferred alignment Define the characteristics of the preferred alignment Develop consensus for the preferred alignment Develop an implementation (recommended construction phasing) plan Study Approach The Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study is carried out in two phases, a planning phase and an engineering phase. Planning Phase During the Planning Phase, general background information regarding the corridor is gathered and documented in reports that will lead to well-founded recommendations for improvements and longer-term needs along Peoria Avenue. During the Planning Phase, meetings are conducted with affected jurisdictions, agencies, stakeholders, and the impacted public to form a broad consensus of the overall needs and vision of the corridor. Based on identified needs, conceptual alternatives are developed and candidate alternatives are then evaluated for technical and environmental feasibility, public acceptability, and economic viability. Engineering Phase The Engineering Phase of the study begins following the selection of a preferred alternative. Preliminary engineering design plans, right-of-way requirements, and estimated construction costs will be prepared for longterm roadway design features. Priorities for roadway construction phasing along with policies and guidelines to preserve the intended regional function of the road are developed. Preliminary plans and cost estimates will be presented during the final “Study Findings and Recommendations” (March 2011) public meeting to present the preferred (recommended) design alternative for Peoria Avenue. Evaluation Criteria Potential evaluation criteria used to compare the alternatives could include: Compatibility with Existing/Planned Development Transportation System Continuity Drainage Impacts Irrigation Impacts Building/Property Impacts Cultural/Archaeological Impacts Wildlife Impacts Utility Impacts Public Acceptability Cost Study Stakeholders Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona State Land Department BNSF Railway Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) Maricopa County Environmental Services Maricopa County Parks Department Maricopa County Planning and Development Maricopa Water District City of Surprise City of Glendale City of El Mirage Dysart Unified School District Major Utility Providers Land Developments Impacted residents, businesses and property owners Preliminary Key Issues and Challenges Study Schedule Early in the study process, a preliminary list of study issues and potential challenges is compiled. This list expands as the study progresses and input is obtained from public participation. PHASE I: Data Collection/Issues Identification Establish future connections of Peoria Avenue to planned roadways such as Jackrabbit Trail Parkway Project Kick-off & Study Initiation July - September 2010 Public Input Meeting #1 (Scoping Phase) PHASE II: Alternative Development and Evaluation September 20, 2010 October 2010 - January 2011 Account for future planned connection to SR Loop 303 Public Input Meeting #2 (Alternatives Analysis Phase) Evaluation of drainage structures across major washes, canals and channels Public Input Meeting #3 (Study Findings & Recommendations Phase) Evaluation of crossing of the BNSF Railroad Study Completion/Final Report Submitted Maintain functional integrity of roadway through constrained areas Maximize use of existing roadway improvements along corridor to reduce costs Identify ultimate alignment and access management strategies Consideration of environmental July 2010 January 2011 March 2011 June 2011 MCDOT MCDOT PEORIA AVENUE MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road TRANSPORTATION Corridor Improvement Study Right Road Right Time Right Cost WADDELL ROAD TANKS CACTUS ROAD BULLARD AVENUE FUTURE JACKRABBIT TRAIL PARKWAY WHITE SURPRISE N PEORIA AVENUE EL MIRAGE NORTHERN AVENUE EL MIRAGE ROAD REEMS ROAD SARIVAL ROAD COTTON LANE CITRUS ROAD GLENDALE DYSART ROAD PARK LITCHFIELD ROAD OLIVE AVENUE LEGEND STUDY AREA  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT KEY STUDY OBJECTIVES Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road PEORIA AVENUE Identify potential connectivity issues with other future planned roadways and freeways Ensure future roadway compatibility with existing/future land uses and environmental conditions Preserve sufficient public right-of-way for a high capacity east/west transportation corridor (3.5 million population projected at build-out between Wickenburg and Gila Bend -- MAG I-8/I-10 Hidden Valley and I-10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework studies) Address regional and local growth and development within study area STUDY NEED Develop an implementation (recommended construction phasing) plan Develop consensus for the preferred alignment Define the characteristics of the preferred alignment Recommend a preferred alignment Develop and evaluate conceptual alternative alignments within the corridor study area Define and assess the strategic issues within the project study area Right Road Right Time Right Cost TRANSPORTATION MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT PEORIA AVENUE MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road TRANSPORTATION Corridor Improvement Study Right Road Right Time Right Cost Corridor Improvement Study The Process Transportation Improvement Program Project Requests CAR Dev elopment 0 External CAR CAR development Non-selected are recycled DCR development DCR Transportation Advisory Board recommends Designs / DCRs to Board of Supervisors Design 5 YEARS External DCR or External Design Non-selected are recycled 5.5 YEARS 6.5 YEARS BOS Approval CONSTRUCTION 7 YEARS CAR = Candidate Assessment Report DCR = Design Concept Report BOS = Board of Supervisors  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT PEORIA AVENUE MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road TRANSPORTATION Corridor Improvement Study Right Road Right Time Right Cost Interactive Study Process YOU ARE HERE Scoping Phase STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 INFORM INVOLVE INCLUDE DEVELOP STAKEHOLDER DATABASE DEVELOP ALTERNATIVES WITH STAKEHOLDER INPUT DEVELOP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN WITH STAKEHOLDERS • Identify Corridor Issues and Needs • Conduct Data Analysis • Interactive Alternative Development • Evaluate Alternatives • Refine Alternatives • Conceptual Concurrence on Recommended Alternative and Study Findings • Finalize Major Design Features IMPLEMENTATION PLAN • Project Development • Funding Plan • Access Management Plan  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT Study Completion/Final Report Submitted Public Input Meeting #3 (Study Findings & Recommendations Phase) Public Input Meeting #2 (Alternatives Analysis Phase) Alternative Development and Evaluation PHASE II: Public Input Meeting #1 (Scoping Phase) Data Collection/Issues Identification PHASE I: July 2010 June 2011 March 2011 January 2011 October 2010 January 2011 September 20, 2010 July - September 2010 Study Schedule Study Schedule Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road PEORIA AVENUE Project Kick-off & Study Initiation Right Road Right Time Right Cost TRANSPORTATION MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT STUDY STAKEHOLDERS Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road PEORIA AVENUE Affected Businesses, Property Owners and Residents Land Developments Major Utility Providers Dysart School District City of El Mirage City of Glendale City of Surprise Maricopa Water District Maricopa County Planning and Development Maricopa County Parks Department Maricopa County Environmental Services Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) Arizona State Land Department Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Right Road Right Time Right Cost TRANSPORTATION MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT EVALUATION CRITERIA Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road PEORIA AVENUE Consideration Considerationofofenvironmental environmentalimpacts constraints Identify Identifyultimate ultimatealignment alignmentand andaccess accessmanagement managementstrategies strategies Maximize Maximizeuse useofofexisting existingroadway roadwayimprovements improvementsalong alongcorridor corridortoto reduce reducecosts costs Maintain Maintainfunctional functionalintegrity integrityofofroadway roadwaythrough throughconstrained constrainedareas areas Evaluation Railroad Evaluationofofcrossing crossingofofthe theUnion BNSFPacific Railroad Evaluation Evaluationofofdrainage drainagestructures structuresacross acrossmajor majorwashes,canals washes, canalsand and channels channels Account Accountfor forfuture futureplanned plannedconnection connectiontotoSR SRLoop Loop303 303 Establish of of Peoria Avenue to to planned roadways Establishfuture futureconnection connections Peoria Avenue planned roadways such as Jackrabbit Trail Parkway such as Jackrabbit Trail Parkway Early in the study process, a preliminary list of study issues and potential challenges is compiled. This list expands as the study progresses and input is obtained from public participation. PRELIMINARY KEY ISSUES AND CHALLENGES Compatibility with Existing/Planned Development Transportation System Continuity Drainage Impacts Irrigation Impacts Building/Property Impacts Cultural/Archaeological Impacts Wildlife Impacts Utility Impacts Public Acceptability Cost Potential evaluation criteria used to compare the alternatives could include: Right Road Right Time Right Cost TRANSPORTATION MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT  MCDOT MCDOT Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road PEORIA AVENUE  ¶ 5HWHQWLRQ %DVLQ 6LGH:DON ¶ 6LGH:DON ¶ )XWXUH 6LGHZDON %LNH /DQH  &XUE ¶  ¶ &XUE  ¶ ¶  ¶ ¶  ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶0LQ Arizona          SFFS    ICU2    ¶ Maricopa County Arterial Road    City of Surprise Arterial Road ¶ ¶ ¶0LQ & / City of El Mirage Arterial Road  ¶ &XUE *XWWHU ¶ Arizona ¶ )XWXUH 6LGHZDON %LNH /DQH  &XUE *XWWHU ¶  ¶ 6LGH:DON ROADWAY CROSS SECTIONS Right Road Right Time Right Cost TRANSPORTATION MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY 5:/,1( MCDOT 5LJKWRI:D\ 6LGH:DON ¶ 5:/,1( 5LJKWRI:D\ MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT TRANSPORTATION Right Road Right Time Right Cost PEORIA AVENUE Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Corridor Improvement Study LAND OWNERSHIP  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT TRANSPORTATION Right Road Right Time Right Cost PEORIA AVENUE Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Corridor Improvement Study MUNICIPAL PLANNING AREAS AND INCORPORATED AREAS  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT TRANSPORTATION Right Road Right Time Right Cost PEORIA AVENUE Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Corridor Improvement Study EXISTING LAND USE  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT TRANSPORTATION Right Road Right Time Right Cost PEORIA AVENUE Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Corridor Improvement Study FUTURE LAND USE  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT TRANSPORTATION Right Road Right Time Right Cost PEORIA AVENUE Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Corridor Improvement Study MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITIES  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT TRANSPORTATION Right Road Right Time Right Cost PEORIA AVENUE Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Corridor Improvement Study DRAINAGE  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT TRANSPORTATION Right Road Right Time Right Cost PEORIA AVENUE Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Corridor Improvement Study 2031 PROJECTED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT TRANSPORTATION Right Road Right Time Right Cost PEORIA AVENUE Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Corridor Improvement Study RECREATION AND TRAILS  MCDOT MCDOT 451st Ave ntia Pote tension Ex wy T1S R7W l Pk T1N R7W Tonopah Northern Ave CAP Canal T3N R6W 10 Sierra Negra Ranch n Pa Unio R cific T1S R6W ad ailro T5N R5W Whispering Ranch T4N R5W T3N R5W y gton Canal lin Arlington T1S R5W w Cipriani Insignia Verma Micca John Farms John Ladera Tartesso Seibert TO 85 Lewis Prison Knorr Farms Buckeye Hills Recreation Area T1S R4W 8 85 West Peakview Estates Surprise Foothills T4N R3W Buena Vista Ranch T3N R3W T1S R3W Riata West Sonoran Desert National Monument Santana Sonoran Buckeye Vista Ranch Monte Verde Watson T1N R3W Estates Sundance T2N R3W Olive Avenue traffic interchange on SR-303L to be a half-diamond. Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study Locations of proposed freeway interchanges and the use of parallel roads connecting to freeways are preliminary and subject to review and approval of the FHWA and ADOT. Locations of proposed roadway facilities south of the study area are subject to refinement in the I-8 and I-10/Hidden Valley Roadway Framework Study to be completed in 2008, and roadways north to be planned in the New River Roadway Framework Study, schedule to be determined. General alignments for new freeway, highway, arterial, and bridge facilities will be determined following the completion of appropriate design and environmental studies. Surprise Goodyear State Land Development Planning Areas Master Plan Buckeye National Monument Glendale Wilderness Area Proposed Service Traffic Interchanges Proposed Parkway Land Ownership Traffic Interchanges BLM Proposed System Interchanges State Land Planned Developments Regional Parks BLM Raptor Protection Military Zone Bureau of Reclamation Topography (100' contours) Arterial river crossings are conceptual to demonstrate the number of crossing needed to support development. Final locations and number will be determined in engineering and water resource studies. Noise Contours Unincorporated Communities Township/Range Canals Rivers/Washes Roads Railroads Study Area Boundary Estates Bell Pointe 1, 2 Westside (ASLD) Maracay White Tanks Zanjero Trails White Tank Foothills Cortessa Sarah Ann Ranch Dove Trails Jackrabbit Estates Litchfield Sedella Farms Gila Surprise Prasada Legacy Park Estrella Mountain Regional Park Ranch 801 King Palm Valley LUKE AIR FORCE BASE Woolf Crossing Greer Ranch 303 Estrella Mountain Ranch Rainbow Valley T1S R2W Rainbow Valley 303 Rainbow Ranch r Liberty Liberty Park Canyon Trails III T1N R2W Trails White Tanks FRS #4 Canyon McRae Properties Rive MC-85 Southwest Ranch Blue Horizons Ranch FRS #3 Abel Sun City Grand Mountain Northwest Vista Ranch Ranch Sycamore Farms Cactus Lane Ranch Sierra Montana Surprise Farms Pinnacle Peak Country Estates Tierra Verde Marisol Ranch 17 TO Beardsley Arizona Traditions Surprise Bell West Ranch Ranch T3N R2W Arroyo Arroyo Seco Verde Sienna Buckeye Hills Verrado Henry Park Austin Northwest Ranch Regional Landfill Asante Desert Oasis Tierra Sierra Rico Norte 60 T4N R2W Quintero White Tanks Russell T2N R2W Ranch FRS #3 Detailed tunnel feasibility study to be conducted While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this information, the Maricopa Association of Governments makes no warranty, expressed or implied, as to its accuracy and expressly disclaims liability for the accuracy thereof. Notes Legend Fox Trail White Tank Mountain Regional Park Buckeye FRS #2 VOLVO Asante North T5N R2W Sun Haven Ranch Witman Ranch Surprise Grand Vista LUKE AFB PROVING Rio Rancho AUXILIARY GROUNDS Estates Whonnack FIELD Walden Ranch Wittman T5N R3W BNSF Commercial Facility Lake Lake Pleasant Pleas ant F T6N R2W rwy Sun Valley Pkwy Copper Falls p ar k Tartesso Canal Buckeye Silver Rock anal Westwind T1N R4W Tartesso McDowell Pkwy Elianto T2N R4W Sun Valley South White Tanks (ASLD) Palo Verde Benessere Wyatt 801 Hassayampa Johnson Valley Festival Ranch Del Webb T3N R4W Sun Valley RID C Buckeye Municipal Airport Spurlock Ranch T4N R4W Vistoso Festival Ranch T5N R4W 74 T6N R3W G ing r ton and No Av rt h e n ue er n (U Sa Circle City nta S-6 Fe 0 Ra ) Broadstone ilro Mountain ad Ranch White Tanks Frwy B Morristown url T6N R4W Buck eye F RS # 1 Tartesso West Elianto Valle del Sol Montiere Sun Valley Trillium West Southern Ave T1N R5W Desert Creek Tartesso West Hassayampa Ranch T2N R5W Belmont w Fr y Bell Pkwy Douglas Ranch Yuma Pkwy pa am ay s as H PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION T1N R6W Wintersburg Sierra Negra Ranch Tonopah Verde Camelback RdT2N R6W 403rd Ave TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK RECOMMENDATION 459th Ave Tonopah Pkwy 411th Ave T2N R7W 427th Ave T4N R6W 387th Ave T3N R7W 435th Ave :DVK 395th Ave Hummingbird Springs Wilderness Area 443rd Ave &R\RW H 363rd Ave T4N R7W 419th Ave Vult u re M ine Rd 371st Ave TOYOTA TECHNICAL TESTING CENTER 347th Ave Wintersburg Pkwy 379th Ave Ar T5N R6W 355th Ave %R[:DV K 6WDU:DV K Hidden Waters Pkwy 339th Ave River T5N R7W 315th Ave T6N R5W 331st Ave Hidden Waters Pkwy Johnson Rd T6N R6W Wilson Rd Hass ayam pa 323rd Ave 60 Rooks Rd T6N R7W Bruner Rd Turner Pkwy Turner Pkwy Turner Rd Wild Rose Pkwy Miller Rd 60 Apache Rd Wickenburg Oglesby Rd 211th Ave 0 7-1 February 22, 2008 C 2007, All Rights Reserved Miles 5 Future Major Arterial Network New Parkway Alternatives New Parkway Proposals New Freeway Proposals Proposed Roadway Network Improvements to Existing Freeways Future Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Freeways (Prop 400) Dean Rd 89 Verrado Way/ Airport Rd TO Rainbow Rd Jackrabbit Trail 187th Ave ic ke n M cM 163rd Ave 93 Watson Rd Beardsley Canal Jackrabbit Trl Sun Valley Pkwy Palo Verde Rd Cotton Lane D am Citrus Rd :LQWHUV:DVK Fr pa Perryville Rd 3KLOOLSV:DVK Has say am Cotton Ln K Sarival Ave h as tW Estrella Pkwy r ck Ja bi ab DV /XNH: Black Mountain Rd Woods Rd 8 10 TO Patterson Rd Hunt Rd Riggs Rd Chandler Heights Rd Ocotillo Rd Queen Creek Rd Germann Rd Pecos Rd Williams Field Rd Ray Rd Narramore Rd Elliot Rd Beloat Rd Baseline Rd Southern Ave Broadway Rd Lower Buckeye Rd Yuma Rd Van Buren St McDowell Rd INTERSTATE 10 Thomas Rd Indian School Rd Camelback Rd Bethany Home Rd Glendale Ave Northern Ave Olive Ave Peoria Ave Cactus Rd Waddell Rd Greenway Rd Bell Rd Union Hills Dr Beardsley Rd Deer Valley Rd Pinnacle Peak Rd Happy Valley Rd Jomax Rd Patton Rd/Dynamite Rd Dixileta Dr Lone Mountain Rd Dove Valley Rd Carefree Hwy alignment Roadway Plan Municipal Planning Area Highw ay 74 Roadway Classification y 74 60 Highwa Freeway Black Mountain Expressway G ra nd Av e . Parkway Dove Valley Major Arterial Minor Arterial Lone Mountain 60 Interchange Dixeleta Dr. sant Patton Rd. City Boundary Plea 303 Lake Jomax Rd. Municipal Planning Area 107th Ave. Happy Valley Rd. Pinnacle Peak Rd. nd ra G Deer Valley Rd. . e Av Beardsley Rd. City of Surprise Sun Valley Parkway Union Hills Dr. 101 115th Ave. 211th Ave. 219th Ave. Crosier Rd. 227th Ave. 235th Ave. 243rd Ave. 251st Ave. Bell Rd. Greenway Rd. Waddell Rd. 60 Cactus Rd. Gra nd A ve. Peoria Ave. 303 Olive Ave. 101 Northern Ave. 110th Ave. El Mirage Rd. Dysart Rd. Litchfield Rd. Bullard Ave. Reems Rd. Sarival Ave. Cotton Ln. Citrus Rd. Perryville Rd. A R I Z O N A 195th Ave. S U R P R I S E Northern Parkway 4-1 0 Mile NORTH 1 Mile 2 Mile 3 Mile Scale in Miles 4 Mile 5 Mile 6 Mile FIGURE MCDOT MCDOT PEORIA AVENUE MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT TRANSPORTATION Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Corridor Improvement Study Right Road Right Time Right Cost BASE MAP SEGMENT 2 SEGMENT 4 SEGMENT 1 SEGMENT 3  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT PEORIA AVENUE MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road TRANSPORTATION Corridor Improvement Study Right Road Right Time Right Cost SEGMENT 1  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT PEORIA AVENUE MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road TRANSPORTATION Corridor Improvement Study Right Road Right Time Right Cost SEGMENT 2  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT PEORIA AVENUE MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road TRANSPORTATION Corridor Improvement Study Right Road Right Time Right Cost SEGMENT 3  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT PEORIA AVENUE MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road TRANSPORTATION Corridor Improvement Study Right Road Right Time Right Cost SEGMENT 4  MCDOT MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION We Need Your Input Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Public Open House Tuesday, January 18, 2011 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Shadow Ridge High School 10909 N. Perryville Road Surprise, AZ 85388 (On Perryville Road just north of Peoria Avenue) “Alternative Analysis” Phase Public Input Meeting The Maricopa County Department of Transportation’s (MCDOT) RightRoads Program, is conducting the second in a series of three public open house meetings to gather community input about potential improvements along an eight-mile section of Peoria Avenue between Jackrabbit Trail Parkway and Dysart Road. The study goal is to identify and establish the future roadway type, alignment and right-of-way requirements along the Peoria Avenue corridor to safely address forecast travel demands and to accommodate the future six-lane major arterial roadway as identified in the Surprise, Glendale, MCDOT and MAG (Maricopa Association of Governments) long range transportation plans. This second (Alternatives Analysis Phase) public input meeting will provide area residents and other impacted study stakeholders with an opportunity to inform study team members about study area issues and local transportation needs. This meeting will also serve to elicit feedback regarding the study’s purpose, goals and objectives. Alternatives for proposed roadway cross sections, alternative alignments, and an evaluation of each conceptual alternative will be presented for public review and comment. Study information, maps and exhibits will be available for viewing during the meeting. Stop by anytime between 5:00 and 7:00 p.m. to speak with MCDOT project team members. For more information, contact Mitch Wagner at (602) 506-8054 write to Wagner at: MCDOT, 2901 W. Durango Street, Phoenix, AZ 85009, or e-mail at: mitchwagner@mail.maricopa.gov or contact Roberta Crowe, Public Information Officer at (602) 506-8003, robertacrowe@mail.maricopa.gov. Alternatives Analysis Phase Public Input Meeting Newspaper Advertisement The Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study is one of several long range transportation planning studies currently being conducted by MCDOT on future West Valley roadways identified in the recently completed Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) I-8/I-10 Hidden Valley Transportation Framework and Interstate 10/Hassayampa Roadway Framework Studies. Reasonable accommodations may be made available for people with disabilities with a minimum 72-hour notice. For more information on such accommodations, contact Roberta Crowe at (602) 506-8003. Si desea recibir esta información en Español, favor llame (480) 350-9288. Con adviso de setenta y dos horas o más, es posible obtener plans reasonables para personas con discapacidades; lo mismo para representantes que hablan Español. Si quiere más información, llame (480) 350-9288. District 4 Supervisor, Max Wilson www.mcdot.maricopa.gov Note: The content, design, tone and writing style of this document is solely-owned by the Maricopa County Department of Transportation. Duplication or copying of the content, design, tone and/or writing style of this document, without permission, is strictly prohibited. All inquiries must be directed to Roberta Crowe, MCDOT at 602-506-8003. x x x x ArizonaRepublic BuckeyeValleyNews SurpriseIndependent WestValleyView  MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION We Need Your Input Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Public Open House Tuesday, March 22, 2011 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Shadow Ridge High School 10909 N. Perryville Road Surprise, AZ 85388 (On Perryville Road just north of Peoria Avenue) Findings & Recommendations Phase Public Input Meeting The Maricopa County Department of Transportation’s (MCDOT) RightRoads Program, is conducting the final in a series of three public open house meetings to gather community input about potential improvements along an eight-mile section of Peoria Avenue between Jackrabbit Trail Parkway and Dysart Road. The study goal is to identify and establish the future roadway type, alignment and right-of-way requirements along the Peoria Avenue corridor to safely address forecast travel demands and to accommodate the future sixlane major arterial roadway as identified in the Surprise, Glendale, MCDOT and MAG (Maricopa Association of Governments) long range transportation plans. This final “Study Findings and Recommendations” public input meeting will provide area residents and other impacted study stakeholders with an opportunity to inform study team members about study area issues and local transportation needs. Evaluated alternatives along with the recommended “preferred” roadway cross section and future roadway alignment will be presented for public review and comment. Project information maps and exhibits will be available for viewing during the meeting. Stop by anytime between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. to speak with MCDOT project team members. For more information, contact Mitch Wagner at (602) 506-8054 write to Wagner at: MCDOT, 2901 W. Durango Street, Phoenix, AZ 85009, or e-mail at: mitchwagner@mail.maricopa.gov or contact Roberta Crowe, Public Information Officer at (602) 506-8003, robertacrowe@mail.maricopa.gov. The Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study is one of several long range transportation planning studies currently being conducted by MCDOT on future West Valley roadways identified in the recently completed Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) I-8/I-10 Hidden Valley Transportation Framework and Interstate 10/Hassayampa Roadway Framework Studies. Reasonable accommodations may be made available for people with disabilities with a minimum 72-hour notice. For more information on such accommodations, contact Roberta Crowe at (602) 506-8003. Si desea recibir esta información en Español, favor llame (480) 350-9288. Con adviso de setenta y dos horas o más, es posible obtener plans reasonables para personas con discapacidades; lo mismo para representantes que hablan Español. Si quiere más información, llame (480) 350-9288. District 4 Supervisor, Max Wilson www.mcdot.maricopa.gov Note: The content, design, tone and writing style of this document is solely-owned by the Maricopa County Department of Transportation. Duplication or copying of the content, design, tone and/or writing style of this document, without permission, is strictly prohibited. All inquiries must be directed to Roberta Crowe, MCDOT at 602-506-8003. MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Safe Driving Tips: Findings & Recommendations Phase Public Input Meeting Newspaper Advertisement Inoperative Traffic Light/Power Outage • Treat the intersection just like a four-way STOP! Flooded Roadway and Washes • Don’t Risk It! • Never cross a rain-swollen wash • Do not drive around roadway barriers • Never underestimate the power and force of water • A vehicle is NOT a flotation device! Dust Storms x x x x ArizonaRepublic BuckeyeValleyNews SurpriseIndependent WestValleyView • Turn your headlights on and slow to a prudent speed • If you pull off the road, get as far to the right as possible. Turn off the car and headlights, and set the parking brake • Keep your foot off the brake pedal – other drivers may think you’re a car in motion Share the Ride! Do your part to help improve air quality in Maricopa County. If you are planning on attending this public input meeting, why not car pool with a neighbor? Learn more ways to reduce ozone pollution by visiting www.maricopa.gov/aq. Maricopa County Green Government Initiative study process. The first public input meeting (September 20, 2010) was held during the data collection and Scoping Phase to inform the public of the objectives of the study and provide area residents and other stakeholders with an opportunity to inform project team members about study area issues and local transportation needs. This meeting also provided the public an opportunity to contribute feedback on the study purpose, goals, and objectives. Study Schedule Project Kick-off & Study Initiation PHASE I: Data Collection/Issues Identification July 2010 July - September 2010 Public Input Meeting #1 (Scoping Phase) The second public input meeting (January 18, 2011) was conducted during the Alternatives Analysis Phase. This meeting served to provide the results of the issues and constraints identification process and reviewed the candidate alignment evaluation criteria. This meeting also presented the conceptual alternative alignments, and gathered more public feedback to assist further development and evaluation of the advanced Candidate Alternatives, leading to the study's primary objective, the selection of a Preferred Alignment. September 20, 2010 PHASE II: Alternatives Development and Evaluation October 2010 - January 2011 Public Input Meeting #2 (Alternatives Analysis Phase) Public Input Meeting #3 (Findings & Recommendations) January 2011 The third and final public input meeting (March 22, 2011) is held during the Findings and Recommendations Phase of the study. This meeting reviews the results of the Candidate Alternative evaluation process, presents the Preferred Alternative (recommended alignment), and gathers additional public input and feedback for use in the development of the final report. Public participation and feedback during each phase of the study process is very important and a vital component of study development. March 22, 2011 Study Completion/Final Report June 2011 Public Involvement Gaining consensus among the jurisdictional agencies and the public is critical to the success of the study and implementation of its recommendations to provide a safe and efficient roadway for the long term. A total of three public input meetings are planned during the course of the WADDELL ROAD TANKS N BULLARD AVENUE FUTURE JACKRABBIT TRAIL PARKWAY WHITE SURPRISE CACTUS ROAD PEORIA AVENUE EL MIRAGE PEORIA AVENUE LEGEND Maricopa County Department of Transportation www.mcdot.maricopa.gov STUDY AREA EL MIRAGE ROAD DYSART ROAD NORTHERN AVENUE LITCHFIELD ROAD REEMS ROAD SARIVAL ROAD COTTON LANE CITRUS ROAD GLENDALE MCDOT Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road “Findings & Recommendations” TRANSPORTATION Right Road Right Time Right Cost Maricopa County Department of Transportation Background The Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study (Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road) is one of a series of longrange transportation planning studies being conducted by the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT). The City of Surprise, City of Glendale, City of El Mirage, and Maricopa County transportation plans all include Peoria Avenue as a future arterial roadway from Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road. The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) recently prepared the Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study (Hassayampa Framework Study) that identified a comprehensive roadway network to meet traffic demands for the build out of the area west of SR 303L. This long range regional transportation study identified the need for future roadway network consisting of freeways, parkways, and major arterial roads. March 22, 2011 Improvements on the south side of Peoria Avenue have been constructed adjacent to the Cortessa subdivision. The only full-width roadway section of Peoria Avenue is located immediately east of Perryville Road between Cortessa and Shadow Ridge High School. The BNSF Railway operates a north-south railroad spur (Ennis Spur) that crosses Peoria Avenue between Litchfield and Dysart Roads. SR 303L crosses the Peoria Avenue Corridor between Cotton Lane and Sarival Road. The MAG Hassayampa Framework Study recommended an extension of Peoria Avenue westward from Perryville Road to the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway, and identified Peoria Avenue as a major arterial roadway from the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Sarival Avenue. The majority of the land in the study area is privately owned, with the exception of the westernmost limit (west of Beardsley Canal) which is owned by the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD). The majority of the existing land use is categorized as vacant (undeveloped) or agricultural. Several residential subdivisions are built or under development, which include three elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. In several locations, existing homes not associated with large master-planned communities, are located adjacent to Peoria Avenue. Small clusters of industrial and commercial development are scattered throughout the eastern end of the study area. This study will identify the preferred alignment and "footprint" for the future Peoria Avenue between Jackrabbit Trail Parkway and Dysart Road and will facilitate future roadway implementation by developers and local jurisdictions, providing a cohesive transportation corridor, compatible with the City of Surprise, City of Glendale, City of El Mirage, Maricopa County, and MAG transportation plans. Based on the City of Surprise, City of Glendale, and City of El Mirage future land use planning, a majority of the vacant and agricultural land within the study area is envisioned to be converted to single-family residential housing and mixed-use developments in the future. It is anticipated that commercial and industrial development will expand, but remain scattered throughout the study area. Corridor Description Study Need The Peoria Avenue Corridor study area includes the segment of Peoria Avenue between the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway alignment and Dysart Road. The study area generally encompasses a two-mile wide corridor centered on the existing Peoria Avenue alignment. Today's land development and existing travel demands in the Peoria Avenue Corridor do not warrant a major east/west arterial roadway in the near-term; however, plans are underway to convert much of the rural and low density residential lands within the corridor to more intense land uses that will generate significantly more traffic. The "build-out" forecast for future land development and resulting travel demand warrant a major east/west arterial roadway in the long term. OLIVE AVENUE PARK MARICOPA COUNTY Today's Peoria Avenue generally consists of a two-lane roadway (one travel lane in each direction). Half-street improvements have been constructed along the north side of Peoria Avenue adjacent to developments such as Shadow Ridge High School, Greer Ranch subdivision, Copper Canyon Ranch subdivision and Skyway Business Park. To help make future roadway construction economically feasible, the planning process needs to begin now to For more information, contact Mitch Wagner at (602) 506-8054 or write to him at: MCDOT, 2901 W. Durango Street, Phoenix, AZ 85009, or e-mail at: MitchWagner@mail.maricopa.gov. MCDOT MCDOT identify and protect long-term public right-of-way needs for the future roadway under ultimate "build-out" conditions. Study Goals & Objectives This corridor study is the first step in the planning process and its primary goal is to aid the affected agencies and jurisdictions in defining and protecting sufficient right-of-way for a continuous future Peoria Avenue Corridor that will safely accommodate projected travel demand and the future sixlane major arterial roadway as identified in the Surprise, Glendale, MCDOT and MAG long-range transportation plans. In general, the purpose of this Corridor Improvement Study is to provide MCDOT and partner jurisdictions with a future "footprint" of the Peoria Avenue Corridor and a timeframe for the implementation of the recommended future roadway improvements. To accomplish this, the main focus of this study is to investigate, map, and analyze corridor constraints and opportunities to arrive at a recommended corridor alignment. This study will establish the facility type, number of lanes, right-of-way needs, and general alignment for the Peoria Avenue Corridor that will be required to accommodate projected traffic growth and enhance safety. In cooperation with the City of Surprise, the City of Glendale, and the City of El Mirage, the study will also determine design standards based upon future roadway jurisdiction (anticipated roadway annexation) and an implementation or construction phasing plan. The key objectives of this Corridor Improvement Study are to: Define and assess the strategic issues within the project study area Develop and evaluate conceptual alternative alignments within the corridor study area Recommend a preferred alignment Define the characteristics of the preferred alignment Develop consensus for the preferred alignment Develop an implementation (recommended construction phasing) plan Preliminary Key Issues and Challenges Early in the study process, a preliminary list of study issues and potential challenges is compiled. This list expands as the study progresses and input is obtained from public participation. Establish future connections of Peoria Avenue to planned roadways such as Jackrabbit Trail Parkway Account for future planned connection to SR 303L Evaluation of drainage structures across major washes, canals and channels. Evaluation of crossing of the BNSF Railway Ennis Spur Maintain functional integrity of roadway through constrained areas Maximize use of existing roadway improvements along corridor to reduce costs Identify ultimate alignment and access management strategies Consideration of environmental constraints Study Approach The Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study is carried out in two phases, a planning phase and an engineering phase. Planning Phase During the Planning Phase, general background information regarding the corridor is gathered and documented in reports that will lead to well-founded recommendations for improvements and longer-term needs along Peoria Avenue. Meetings are conducted with affected jurisdictions, agencies, stakeholders, and the impacted public to form a broad consensus of the overall needs and vision of the corridor. Based on identified needs, conceptual alternatives are developed and candidate alternatives are then evaluated for technical and environmental feasibility, public acceptability, and economic viability. Engineering Phase The Engineering Phase of the study begins following the selection of a preferred alternative. Preliminary engineering design plans, right-of-way requirements, and estimated construction costs will be prepared for long-term roadway design features. Priorities for roadway construction phasing along with policies and guidelines to preserve the intended regional function of the road are developed. Alternatives Development & Evaluation After completion of the inventory of existing and future conditions, the study team developed the following evaluation criteria to help determine the alignment for Peoria Avenue: Right-of-way impacts Compatibility with existing developments Compatibility with planned future developments Compatibility with existing and planned roadway improvements Engineering complexity and constructability Public acceptance Local agency support Drainage/flood control considerations Utility considerations Environmental considerations Preferred Alternatives (Recommended Alignments) The Peoria Avenue corridor was split into nine east/west geographic segments to conduct the evaluation. Up to three alternative alignments were considered for each segment: Alternative 1 included widening the corridor symmetric to the section line, attempting to balance impacts to both sides of the corridor; Alternative 2 included widening the corridor to the south, maintaining the northern right-of-way boundary; Alternative 3 included widening the corridor to the north, maintaining the southern right-of-way boundary. Based on this evaluation and study findings, the following alternatives are being recommended along the corridor: Segment 1 (future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Beardsley Canal): Alternative 1 - new corridor along section line Segment 2 (Beardsley Canal to Perryville Road): Alternative 1 - new corridor along the section line Segment 3 (Perryville Road to Citrus Road): Alternative 1 - widen symmetric along the section line Segment 4 (Citrus Road to Cotton Lane): Alternative 3 - shift north Segment 5 (Cotton Lane to Sarival Road): Alternative 1 - widen symmetric along the section line Segment 6 (Sarival Road to Reems Road): Alternative 1 - widen symmetric along the section line Segment 7 (Reems Road to Bullard Avenue): Alternative 3 - shift north Segment 8 (Bullard Avenue to Litchfield Road): Alternative 1 - widen symmetric along the section line Segment 9 (Litchfield Road to Dysart Road): Alternative 2 - shift south After receiving input from the public and the local agencies, the recommended alignment and corridor plan will be finalized and used for future land development planning. Recommended Implementation Plan The recommendations of this study are intended to be used to preserve corridor right-of-way for the ultimate Peoria Avenue, as construction of improvements will not likely be completed in the near-term, but rather by developers as development occurs along the corridor. Near-Term Improvements In the near-term, projects that are already funded will be completed, such as improvements at the Loop 303/Peoria Avenue interchange (to be constructed by ADOT when Loop 303 is upgraded to a freeway) and City of Surprise planned completion of the north half-street section between Sarival and Reems Roads. Other near-term improvements recommended for consideration include acquiring right-ofway and constructing a two-lane roadway between Citrus Road and Cotton Lane, and constructing drainage improvements at Litchfield and Sarival roads. Mid-Term Improvements Several additional improvement projects, most likely constructed by adjacent development, would be needed in the mid-term timeframe to provide a continuous four-lane facility by the year 2030: South half-street and frontage road construction between Citrus Road and Cotton Lane Cotton Lane intersection improvements Reems Road intersection improvements South half-street construction between Bullard Avenue and Litchfield Road Long-Term Improvements Long-term (likely beyond 2030) improvements will focus on bringing uniformity to the corridor and widening to the ultimate six-lane facility. Areas where these improvements would occur include: Perryville Road to Citrus Road Sarival Road to Reems Road Bullard Road to Litchfield Road Litchfield Road to Dysart Road Study Stakeholders Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) BNSF Railway Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) Maricopa County Environmental Services Maricopa County Parks Department Maricopa County Planning and Development Maricopa Water District City of Surprise City of Glendale City of El Mirage Dysart Unified School District Major Utility Providers Land Developments Impacted residents, businesses and property owners MCDOT MCDOT PEORIA AVENUE MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road TRANSPORTATION Corridor Improvement Study Right Road Right Time Right Cost WADDELL ROAD TANKS CACTUS ROAD BULLARD AVENUE FUTURE JACKRABBIT TRAIL PARKWAY WHITE SURPRISE N PEORIA AVENUE EL MIRAGE NORTHERN AVENUE EL MIRAGE ROAD REEMS ROAD SARIVAL ROAD COTTON LANE CITRUS ROAD GLENDALE DYSART ROAD PARK LITCHFIELD ROAD OLIVE AVENUE LEGEND STUDY AREA 3-22-2011 MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT KEY STUDY OBJECTIVES Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road PEORIA AVENUE Identify potential connectivity issues with other future planned roadways and freeways Ensure future roadway compatibility with existing/future land uses and environmental conditions Preserve sufficient public right-of-way for an east/west transportation corridor Address regional and local growth and development within study area (3.5 million population projected at build-out between Wickenburg and Gila Bend -- MAG I-8/I-10 Hidden Valley and I-10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework studies) STUDY NEED Develop an implementation (recommended construction phasing) plan Develop consensus for the preferred alignment Define the characteristics of the preferred alignment Recommend a preferred alignment Develop and evaluate conceptual alternative alignments within the corridor study area Define and assess the strategic issues within the project study area Right Road Right Time Right Cost TRANSPORTATION MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT PEORIA AVENUE MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road TRANSPORTATION Corridor Improvement Study Right Road Right Time Right Cost Interactive Study Process YOU ARE HERE Findings & Recommendation Phase STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 INFORM INVOLVE INCLUDE DEVELOP STAKEHOLDER DATABASE DEVELOP ALTERNATIVES WITH STAKEHOLDER INPUT DEVELOP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN WITH STAKEHOLDERS • Identify Corridor Issues and Needs • Conduct Data Analysis • Interactive Alternative Development • Evaluate Alternatives • Conceptual Concurrence on Recommended Alternative and Study Findings • Finalize Major Design Features • Refine Alternatives IMPLEMENTATION PLAN • Project Development • Funding Plan • Access Management Plan 3-22-2011 MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT PEORIA AVENUE MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road TRANSPORTATION Corridor Improvement Study Right Road Right Time Right Cost Corridor Improvement Study The Process Transportation Improvement Program Project Requests CAR Dev CAR development elopment Non-selected are recycled DCR development DCR Transportation Advisory Board recommends Designs / DCRs to Board of Supervisors External CAR Design 0 5 YEARS External DCR or External Design Non-selected are recycled 5.5 YEARS 6.5 YEARS BOS Approval CONSTRUCTION CAR = Candidate Assessment Report DCR = Design Concept Report BOS = Board of Supervisors 7 YEARS 3-22-2011 MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT Study Completion/Final Report Submitted Public Input Meeting #3 (Study Findings & Recommendations Phase) Public Input Meeting #2 (Alternatives Analysis Phase) Alternative Development and Evaluation PHASE II: Public Input Meeting #1 (Scoping Phase) Data Collection/Issues Identification PHASE I: July 2010 June 2011 March 22, 2011 January 18, 2011 October 2010 January 2011 September 20, 2010 July - September 2010 Study Schedule Study Schedule Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road PEORIA AVENUE Project Kick-off & Study Initiation Right Road Right Time Right Cost TRANSPORTATION MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT 3-22-2011 MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT STUDY STAKEHOLDERS Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road PEORIA AVENUE Affected Businesses, Property Owners and Residents Land Developments Major Utility Providers Dysart School District City of El Mirage City of Glendale City of Surprise Maricopa Water District Maricopa County Planning and Development Maricopa County Parks Department Maricopa County Environmental Services Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) Arizona State Land Department Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Right Road Right Time Right Cost TRANSPORTATION MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT 3-22-2011 MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road PEORIA AVENUE Environmental considerations Utility considerations Drainage/flood control considerations Local agency support Public acceptance Engineering complexity and constructability Compatibility with existing and planned roadway improvements Compatibility with planned future developments Compatibility with existing developments Right-of-way impacts Issues and Challenges Right Road Right Time Right Cost TRANSPORTATION MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT TRANSPORTATION Right Road Right Time Right Cost PEORIA AVENUE Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Corridor Improvement Study LAND OWNERSHIP  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT TRANSPORTATION Right Road Right Time Right Cost PEORIA AVENUE Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Corridor Improvement Study MUNICIPAL PLANNING AREAS AND INCORPORATED AREAS  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT TRANSPORTATION Right Road Right Time Right Cost PEORIA AVENUE Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Corridor Improvement Study EXISTING LAND USE  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT TRANSPORTATION Right Road Right Time Right Cost PEORIA AVENUE Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Corridor Improvement Study FUTURE LAND USE  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT TRANSPORTATION Right Road Right Time Right Cost PEORIA AVENUE Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Corridor Improvement Study MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITIES  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT TRANSPORTATION Right Road Right Time Right Cost PEORIA AVENUE Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Corridor Improvement Study DRAINAGE  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT PEORIA AVENUE MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road TRANSPORTATION Right Road Right Time Right Cost Corridor Improvement Study AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT TRANSPORTATION Right Road Right Time Right Cost PEORIA AVENUE Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Corridor Improvement Study RECREATION AND TRAILS  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT Roadway Classification 451st Ave ntia Pote tension Ex wy T1S R7W l Pk T1N R7W Tonopah Northern Ave CAP Canal T3N R6W 10 Sierra Negra Ranch n Pa Unio R cific T1S R6W ad ailro T5N R5W Whispering Ranch T4N R5W T3N R5W y gton Canal lin Arlington T1S R5W w Cipriani Insignia Verma Micca John Farms John Ladera Tartesso Seibert TO 85 Lewis Prison Knorr Farms Buckeye Hills Recreation Area T1S R4W 8 85 West Peakview Estates Surprise Foothills T4N R3W Buena Vista Ranch T3N R3W T1S R3W Riata West Sonoran Desert National Monument Santana Sonoran Buckeye Vista Ranch Monte Verde Watson T1N R3W Estates Sundance T2N R3W Olive Avenue traffic interchange on SR-303L to be a half-diamond. Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study Locations of proposed freeway interchanges and the use of parallel roads connecting to freeways are preliminary and subject to review and approval of the FHWA and ADOT. Locations of proposed roadway facilities south of the study area are subject to refinement in the I-8 and I-10/Hidden Valley Roadway Framework Study to be completed in 2008, and roadways north to be planned in the New River Roadway Framework Study, schedule to be determined. General alignments for new freeway, highway, arterial, and bridge facilities will be determined following the completion of appropriate design and environmental studies. Surprise Goodyear State Land Development Planning Areas Master Plan Buckeye National Monument Glendale Wilderness Area Proposed Service Traffic Interchanges Proposed Parkway Land Ownership Traffic Interchanges BLM Proposed System Interchanges State Land Planned Developments Regional Parks BLM Raptor Protection Military Zone Bureau of Reclamation Topography (100' contours) Arterial river crossings are conceptual to demonstrate the number of crossing needed to support development. Final locations and number will be determined in engineering and water resource studies. Noise Contours Unincorporated Communities Township/Range Canals Rivers/Washes Roads Railroads Study Area Boundary Estates Bell Pointe 1, 2 Westside (ASLD) Maracay White Tanks Zanjero Trails White Tank Foothills Cortessa Sarah Ann Ranch Dove Trails Jackrabbit Estates Litchfield Sedella Farms Gila Surprise Prasada Legacy Park Estrella Mountain Regional Park Ranch 801 King Palm Valley LUKE AIR FORCE BASE Woolf Crossing Greer Ranch 303 Estrella Mountain Ranch Rainbow Valley T1S R2W Rainbow Valley 303 Rainbow Ranch r Liberty Liberty Park Canyon Trails III T1N R2W Trails White Tanks FRS #4 Canyon McRae Properties Rive MC-85 Southwest Ranch Blue Horizons Ranch FRS #3 Abel Sun City Grand Mountain Northwest Vista Ranch Ranch Sycamore Farms Cactus Lane Ranch Sierra Montana Surprise Farms Pinnacle Peak Country Estates Tierra Verde Marisol Ranch 17 TO Beardsley Arizona Traditions Surprise Bell West Ranch Ranch T3N R2W Arroyo Arroyo Seco Verde Sienna Buckeye Hills Verrado Henry Park Austin Northwest Ranch Regional Landfill Asante Desert Oasis Tierra Sierra Rico Norte 60 T4N R2W Quintero White Tanks Russell T2N R2W Ranch FRS #3 Detailed tunnel feasibility study to be conducted While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this information, the Maricopa Association of Governments makes no warranty, expressed or implied, as to its accuracy and expressly disclaims liability for the accuracy thereof. Notes Legend Fox Trail White Tank Mountain Regional Park Buckeye FRS #2 VOLVO Asante North T5N R2W Sun Haven Ranch Witman Ranch Surprise Grand Vista LUKE AFB PROVING Rio Rancho AUXILIARY GROUNDS Estates Whonnack FIELD Walden Ranch Wittman T5N R3W BNSF Commercial Facility Lake Lake Pleasant Pleas ant F T6N R2W rwy Sun Valley Pkwy Copper Falls p ar k Tartesso Canal Buckeye Silver Rock anal Westwind T1N R4W Tartesso McDowell Pkwy Elianto T2N R4W Sun Valley South White Tanks (ASLD) Palo Verde Benessere Wyatt 801 Hassayampa Johnson Valley Festival Ranch Del Webb T3N R4W Sun Valley RID C Buckeye Municipal Airport Spurlock Ranch T4N R4W Vistoso Festival Ranch T5N R4W 74 T6N R3W G ing r ton and No Av rt h e n ue er n (U Sa Circle City nta S-6 Fe 0 Ra ) Broadstone ilro Mountain ad Ranch White Tanks Frwy B Morristown url T6N R4W Buck eye F RS # 1 Tartesso West Elianto Valle del Sol Montiere Sun Valley Trillium West Southern Ave T1N R5W Desert Creek Tartesso West Hassayampa Ranch T2N R5W Belmont w Fr y Bell Pkwy Douglas Ranch Yuma Pkwy pa am ay s as H PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION T1N R6W Wintersburg Sierra Negra Ranch Tonopah Verde Camelback RdT2N R6W 403rd Ave TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK RECOMMENDATION 459th Ave Tonopah Pkwy 411th Ave T2N R7W 427th Ave T4N R6W 387th Ave T3N R7W 435th Ave :DVK 395th Ave Hummingbird Springs Wilderness Area 443rd Ave &R\RW H 363rd Ave T4N R7W 419th Ave Vult u re M ine Rd 371st Ave TOYOTA TECHNICAL TESTING CENTER 347th Ave Wintersburg Pkwy 379th Ave Ar T5N R6W 355th Ave %R[:DV K 6WDU:DV K Hidden Waters Pkwy 339th Ave River T5N R7W 315th Ave T6N R5W 331st Ave Hidden Waters Pkwy Johnson Rd T6N R6W Wilson Rd Hass ayam pa 323rd Ave 60 Rooks Rd T6N R7W Bruner Rd Turner Pkwy Turner Pkwy Turner Rd Wild Rose Pkwy Miller Rd 60 Apache Rd Wickenburg Oglesby Rd 211th Ave 0 7-1 February 22, 2008 C 2007, All Rights Reserved Miles 5 Future Major Arterial Network New Parkway Alternatives New Parkway Proposals New Freeway Proposals Proposed Roadway Network Improvements to Existing Freeways Future Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Freeways (Prop 400) Dean Rd 89 Verrado Way/ Airport Rd TO Rainbow Rd Jackrabbit Trail 187th Ave ic ke n M cM 163rd Ave 93 Watson Rd Beardsley Canal Jackrabbit Trl Sun Valley Pkwy Palo Verde Rd Cotton Lane D am Citrus Rd :LQWHUV:DVK Fr pa Perryville Rd 3KLOOLSV:DVK Has say am Cotton Ln K Sarival Ave h as tW Estrella Pkwy r ck Ja bi ab DV /XNH: Black Mountain Rd Woods Rd 8 10 TO Patterson Rd Hunt Rd Riggs Rd Chandler Heights Rd Ocotillo Rd Queen Creek Rd Germann Rd Pecos Rd Williams Field Rd Ray Rd Narramore Rd Elliot Rd Beloat Rd Baseline Rd Southern Ave Broadway Rd Lower Buckeye Rd Yuma Rd Van Buren St McDowell Rd INTERSTATE 10 Thomas Rd Indian School Rd Camelback Rd Bethany Home Rd Glendale Ave Northern Ave Olive Ave Peoria Ave Cactus Rd Waddell Rd Greenway Rd Bell Rd Union Hills Dr Beardsley Rd Deer Valley Rd Pinnacle Peak Rd Happy Valley Rd Jomax Rd Patton Rd/Dynamite Rd Dixileta Dr Lone Mountain Rd Dove Valley Rd Carefree Hwy alignment Roadway Plan Municipal Planning Area Highw ay 74 Roadway Classification y 74 60 Highwa Freeway Black Mountain Expressway G ra nd Av e . Parkway Dove Valley Major Arterial Minor Arterial Lone Mountain 60 Interchange Dixeleta Dr. sant Patton Rd. City Boundary Plea 303 Lake Jomax Rd. Municipal Planning Area 107th Ave. Happy Valley Rd. Pinnacle Peak Rd. nd ra G Deer Valley Rd. . e Av Beardsley Rd. City of Surprise Sun Valley Parkway Union Hills Dr. 101 115th Ave. 211th Ave. 219th Ave. Crosier Rd. 227th Ave. 235th Ave. 243rd Ave. 251st Ave. Bell Rd. Greenway Rd. Waddell Rd. 60 Cactus Rd. Gra nd A ve. Peoria Ave. 303 Olive Ave. 101 Northern Ave. 110th Ave. El Mirage Rd. Dysart Rd. Litchfield Rd. Bullard Ave. Reems Rd. Sarival Ave. Cotton Ln. Citrus Rd. Perryville Rd. A R I Z O N A 195th Ave. S U R P R I S E Northern Parkway 4-1 0 Mile NORTH 1 Mile 2 Mile 3 Mile Scale in Miles 4 Mile 5 Mile 6 Mile FIGURE MCDOT MCDOT PEORIA AVENUE MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road TRANSPORTATION Corridor Improvement Study Right Road Right Time Right Cost BASE MAP SEGMENT 1 SEGMENT 2 SEGMENT 3 SEGMENT 4 SEGMENT 5 SEGMENT 6 SEGMENT 7 SEGMENT 8 SEGMENT 9  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT " Right-of-way impacts " Compatibility with existing developments Compatibility with Existing/Planned Development " Compatibility with planned future developments Transportation System Continuity " Compatibility with existing and planned roadway Drainage Impacts improvements Irrigation Impacts " Engineering complexity and constructability Building/Property Impacts " Public acceptance Cultural/Archaeological Impacts " Local agency support Wildlife Impacts " Drainage/flood control considerations Utility Impacts " Utility considerations Public Acceptability " Environmental considerations Cost EVALUATION CRITERIA Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road PEORIA AVENUE Consideration Considerationofofenvironmental environmentalimpacts constraints Identify Identifyultimate ultimatealignment alignmentand andaccess accessmanagement managementstrategies strategies Maximize Maximizeuse useofofexisting existingroadway roadwayimprovements improvementsalong alongcorridor corridortoto reduce reducecosts costs Maintain Maintainfunctional functionalintegrity integrityofofroadway roadwaythrough throughconstrained constrainedareas areas Evaluation Railroad Evaluationofofcrossing crossingofofthe theUnion BNSFPacific Railroad Evaluation Evaluationofofdrainage drainagestructures structuresacross acrossmajor majorwashes,canals washes, canalsand and channels channels Account Accountfor forfuture futureplanned plannedconnection connectiontotoSR SRLoop Loop303 303 Establish of of Peoria Avenue to to planned roadways Establishfuture futureconnection connections Peoria Avenue planned roadways such as Jackrabbit Trail Parkway such as Jackrabbit Trail Parkway Early in the study process, a preliminary list of study issues and potential challenges is compiled. This list expands as the study progresses and input is obtained from public participation. PRELIMINARY KEY ISSUES AND CHALLENGES Right Road Right Time Right Cost TRANSPORTATION MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT 3-22-2011 MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT PEORIA AVENUE MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road TRANSPORTATION Corridor Improvement Study Right Road Right Time Right Cost Preferred Alternative 1 SEGMENT 1: Jackrabbit Pkwy to Perryville Road Alternative 2  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT PEORIA AVENUE MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road TRANSPORTATION Corridor Improvement Study Right Road Right Time Right Cost Segment 3: Perryville Road to Citrus Road Segment 1: Jackrabbit Trail to Beardsley Canal Criteria 5LJKWRIZD\&RQVLGHUDWLRQV Preferred Alternative Criteria Alternative 1 (on section line) ◒ Alternative 2 (shift to south) N6) ◒ &RPSDWLELOLW\ZLWK([LVWLQJ 'HYHORSPHQWV &RPSDWLELOLW\ZLWK3ODQQHG)XWXUH 'HYHORSPHQWV ○ 1RH[LVWLQJGHYHORSPHQW ● N6) ● +LJKHUFRVWGXHWRDGGLWLRQDOOHQJWK ○ 1RH[LVWLQJGHYHORSPHQW 5LJKWRIZD\&RQVLGHUDWLRQV ○ ○ )DFLOLWDWHVPLOH LQWHUVHFWLRQVSDFLQJDORQJ -DFNUDEELW3DUNZD\  ◒ ◒ 3XEOLF$FFHSWDELOLW\  ◒  6RFLRHFRQRPLF (QYLURQPHQWDO &RQVLGHUDWLRQV ○ 3K\VLFDO  1DWXUDO &XOWXUDO 8WLOLW\&RQVLGHUDWLRQV ◒  ●  ◒  ● ○ 1RNQRZQLPSDFWV   ◒   ◒ ○ (QJLQHHULQJ&RPSOH[LW\  &RQVWUXFWDELOLW\        ◒  3XEOLF$FFHSWDELOLW\   /RFDO$JHQF\6XSSRUW      ● 1XPHURXVZDVKDQGIORRGSODLQFURVVLQJ ○ 1RNQRZQLPSDFWV ●  &RPSDWLELOLW\ZLWK([LVWLQJDQG 3ODQQHG5RDGZD\ ,PSURYHPHQWV  0RGHUDWHLPSDFWWR H[LVWLQJODQGXVHV ◒ ◒ 0RGHUDWH LPSDFWWR H[LVWLQJODQG XVHV 0RGHUDWHLPSDFWWR SODQQHGODQGXVHV ◒ 0RGHUDWH LPSDFWWR SODQQHGODQG XVHV 0RVWFRPSDWLEOH ZLWKH[LVWLQJVWUHHW LPSURYHPHQWV N6) ● ◒ ○ ● /HDVWLPSDFWWR H[LVWLQJODQGXVHV /HDVWFRPSDWLEOH ZLWKIXWXUH GHYHORSPHQWWR QRUWK ◒ ● ○ ◒ ○ ◒ ○ ◒ ◒ ◒ ◒ 'UDLQDJH)ORRG&RQWURO &RQVLGHUDWLRQV 6RFLRHFRQRPLF *UHDWHVWLPSDFWWRZDVKFRUULGRUVDQG IORRGSODLQV ● ,PSDFWVWR%HDUGVOH\&DQDO ○ 1RNQRZQLPSDFWV ○ Lowest impact/best performance ◒ Moderate impact/moderate performance ● Highest impact/worst performance ◒ 6OLJKWLPSDFWWR H[LVWLQJGUDLQDJH FKDQQHOWRWKH QRUWK ◒ 6OLJKWLPSDFWWR ODQGQRLPSDFWWR SXEOLFDFFHVVRU VWUXFWXUHV  (QYLURQPHQWDO &RQVLGHUDWLRQV 3K\VLFDO  1DWXUDO &XOWXUDO 8WLOLW\&RQVLGHUDWLRQV MCDOT ◒ Alternative 3 (shift 15’ north)   ,PSDFWVWR%HDUGVOH\ &DQDO     ◒      1XPHURXVZDVKDQGIORRGSODLQFURVVLQJ   &RPSDWLELOLW\ZLWK3ODQQHG )XWXUH'HYHORSPHQWV    1RNQRZQLPSDFWV      ◒  N6) ◒   'UDLQDJH)ORRG&RQWURO &RQVLGHUDWLRQV     /RFDO$JHQF\6XSSRUW &RPSDWLELOLW\ZLWK([LVWLQJ 'HYHORSPHQWV   (QJLQHHULQJ&RPSOH[LW\  &RQVWUXFWDELOLW\ N6) ◒ Alternative 2 (shift 5’ south)   &RPSDWLELOLW\ZLWK([LVWLQJDQG 3ODQQHG5RDGZD\,PSURYHPHQWV Alternative 1 (on section line) ◒   /LNHO\WRSURYLGHPRUH GHYHORSDEOHODQGQHDU  LQWHUVHFWLRQ Preferred Alternative ○ ◒ ◒ ◒ ◒ 0LQLPDOLPSDFW 6OLJKWLPSDFWWR ODQGQRLPSDFWWR SXEOLFDFFHVVRU VWUXFWXUHV 6RPHLPSDFWWR IDUPODQG ,PSDFWVWRLUULJDWLRQ GLWFK IWOLQHG LUULJDWLRQGLWFK SRZHUSROHVZHOO VLWHV ○ ◒ ◒ ◒ ◒ 0LQLPDOLPSDFW 6OLJKWLPSDFWWR ODQGQRLPSDFW WRSXEOLFDFFHVV RUVWUXFWXUHV 6RPHLPSDFWWR IDUPODQG ,PSDFWVWR LUULJDWLRQGLWFK IWOLQHG LUULJDWLRQGLWFK SRZHUSROHV ZHOOVLWHV ◒ ◒ ◒ 6RPHLPSDFWWR IDUPODQG ,PSDFWVWR LUULJDWLRQGLWFK IWOLQHG LUULJDWLRQGLWFK SRZHUSROHV ZHOOVLWHV  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT TRANSPORTATION PEORIA AVENUE Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Corridor Improvement Study Right Road Right Time Right Cost Preferred Alternative 1 - Section Line SEGMENT 3: Perryville Road to Citrus Road Alternative 2 - South Shift Alternative 3 - North Shift  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT TRANSPORTATION PEORIA AVENUE Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Corridor Improvement Study Right Road Right Time Right Cost Alternative 1 - Section Line SEGMENT 4: Citrus Road to Cotton Lane Alternative 2 - South Shift Preferred Alternative 3 - North Shift  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT PEORIA AVENUE MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road TRANSPORTATION Right Road Right Time Right Cost Corridor Improvement Study Segment 4: Citrus Road to Cotton Lane Segment 5: Cotton Lane to Sarival Road Preferred Alternative Criteria $UHD 5LJKWRIZD\ &RQVLGHUDWLRQV &RVW &RPSDWLELOLW\ZLWK([LVWLQJ 'HYHORSPHQWV Preferred Alternative Alternative 1 (on section line) ◒ N6) ◒ ◒ %DODQFHVLPSDFWV ◒ *UHDWHVWLPSDFWWR PRVWSURSHUWLHV ●  %DODQFHVLPSDFWV  ○   5LJKWRIZD\&RQVLGHUDWLRQV Alternative 1 (on section line) ○         &RPSDWLELOLW\ZLWK([LVWLQJ 'HYHORSPHQWV 1RNQRZQLPSDFWV ● $OOSODQQHG GHYHORSPHQWWRWKH QRUWK   &RPSDWLELOLW\ZLWK3ODQQHG)XWXUH 'HYHORSPHQWV      ◒   ○ &RPSDWLELOLW\ZLWK([LVWLQJDQG 3ODQQHG5RDGZD\,PSURYHPHQWV (QJLQHHULQJ&RPSOH[LW\  &RQVWUXFWDELOLW\ ○ ◒ /RFDO$JHQF\6XSSRUW 'UDLQDJH)ORRG&RQWURO &RQVLGHUDWLRQV 6RFLRHFRQRPLF 3K\VLFDO  1DWXUDO &XOWXUDO 8WLOLW\&RQVLGHUDWLRQV ◒ ● ◒ ◒ ● ◒  $FFHVVIURQWLQJ 3HRULD$YH ● ◒ 3XEOLF$FFHSWDELOLW\ (QYLURQPHQWDO &RQVLGHUDWLRQV +DOIVWUHHW FRQVWUXFWHGDW&LWUXV      1RH[LVWLQJGUDLQDJH  LQIUDVWUXFWXUH  FRQVWUXFWHGPXVW FRQWLQXHFKDQQHO IURPWKHZHVW ,PSDFWVWRSULYDWH SURSHUW\ %DODQFHVLPSDFWV ,PSDFWVWRLUULJDWLRQ GLWFK ZHOOVLWHIW OLQHGLUULJDWLRQGLWFK  SRZHUSROHV      $FFHVVIURQWLQJ 3HRULD$YH ◒  ● ◒ ● ◒ ◒ ● ○     2SSRUWXQLW\IRU IURQWDJHURDG          ,PSDFWVWRSULYDWH SURSHUW\ %DODQFHVLPSDFWV ,PSDFWVWRLUULJDWLRQ GLWFK ZHOOVLWHIW OLQHGLUULJDWLRQGLWFK  SRZHUSROHV  ◒  1RNQRZQLPSDFWV ● ,PSDFWVWRIDUPODQG ◒    ,PSDFWVWRLUULJDWLRQ GLWFK IWOLQHG LUULJDWLRQGLWFK SRZHUSROHV     /RFDO$JHQF\6XSSRUW     3XEOLF$FFHSWDELOLW\    1RH[LVWLQJGUDLQDJH  LQIUDVWUXFWXUH  FRQVWUXFWHGPXVW FRQWLQXHFKDQQHO IURPWKHZHVW   'UDLQDJH)ORRG&RQWURO &RQVLGHUDWLRQV 6RFLRHFRQRPLF (QYLURQPHQWDO &RQVLGHUDWLRQV 3K\VLFDO  1DWXUDO &XOWXUDO 8WLOLW\&RQVLGHUDWLRQV ○ Lowest impact/best performance ◒ Moderate impact/moderate performance ● Highest impact/worst performance MCDOT ○ (QJLQHHULQJ&RPSOH[LW\  &RQVWUXFWDELOLW\   ○ ◒    ○ ◒  Alternative 3 (shift 55’ north) ◒ N6) ◒ N6) ◒ ○ /RZHUFRVWWRVRXWK ● +LJKHVWFRVWWRQRUWK %DODQFHVLPSDFWV ○ 1RNQRZQLPSDFWV ● ◒ %DODQFHVLPSDFWV ● /HDVWLPSDFWWRDOO SURSHUWLHV ,PSDFWVSURSHUW\WRWKH QRUWK *UHDWHVWLPSDFWWR PRVWSURSHUWLHV 0RVWFRPSDWLEOH      &RPSDWLELOLW\ZLWK([LVWLQJDQG 3ODQQHG5RDGZD\,PSURYHPHQWV    1RH[LVWLQJGUDLQDJH LQIUDVWUXFWXUH FRQVWUXFWHG PXVW FRQWLQXHFKDQQHO IURPWKHZHVW  ◒ ◒      Alternative 2 (shift 55’ south)      N6) ● ○  1RQHZSODQQHG GHYHORSPHQWWR VRXWK  N6) ◒ +LJKHUFRVWOLNHO\WR VRXWK ●  &RPSDWLELOLW\ZLWK3ODQQHG)XWXUH 'HYHORSPHQWV N6) ◒ Criteria Alternative 3 (shift 37’ north) Alternative 2 (shift 5’ south) ○ ◒ ◒ ◒ ● Z$'27¶VSODQV IRU65/ LQWHUFKDQJH ◒ ◒ ○ ◒ ○ ◒ ○ ◒ ◒ ◒ ◒ 0LQLPDOLPSDFWV 0LQRULPSDFWVWR H[LVWLQJODQGXVHV 0LQRULPSDFWVWR IDUPODQGV ,PSDFWVWR LUULJDWLRQGLWFK ZHOOVLWHV IWOLQHGLUULJDWLRQ GLWFKSRZHU SROHV ○ ◒ ◒ ◒ ● 0LQLPDOLPSDFWV 0LQRULPSDFWVWR H[LVWLQJODQGXVHV 0LQRULPSDFWVWR IDUPODQGV ,PSDFWVWRLUULJDWLRQ GLWFK ZHOOVLWHVIW OLQHGLUULJDWLRQGLWFK SRZHUSROHV ○ ◒ ◒ 0LQLPDOLPSDFWV 0LQRULPSDFWVWR H[LVWLQJODQGXVHV 0LQRULPSDFWVWR IDUPODQGV ○ 1RNQRZQLPSDFWV ○ SRZHUSROHV  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT TRANSPORTATION PEORIA AVENUE Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Corridor Improvement Study Right Road Right Time Right Cost Preferred Alternative 1 - Section Line SEGMENT 5: Cotton Lane to Sarival Road Alternative 2 - South Shift Alternative 3 - North Shift  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT TRANSPORTATION PEORIA AVENUE Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Corridor Improvement Study Right Road Right Time Right Cost Preferred Alternative 1 - Section Line SEGMENT 6: Sarival Road to Reems Road Alternative 2 - South Shift Alternative 3 - North Shift  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT PEORIA AVENUE MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road TRANSPORTATION Corridor Improvement Study Right Road Right Time Right Cost Segment 6: Sarival Road to Reems Road Criteria 5LJKWRIZD\&RQVLGHUDWLRQV &RPSDWLELOLW\ZLWK([LVWLQJ 'HYHORSPHQWV &RPSDWLELOLW\ZLWK3ODQQHG)XWXUH 'HYHORSPHQWV &RPSDWLELOLW\ZLWK([LVWLQJDQG 3ODQQHG5RDGZD\,PSURYHPHQWV Segment 7: Reems Road to Bullard Ave Preferred Alternative Alternative 1 (on section line) ◒ Alternative 2 (shift 15’ south) N6) N6) ◒ ◒ ○ ◒ ○ ○ %DODQFHVLPSDFWVWR ERWKVLGHV ◒  N6) ◒ 0LQRULPSDFWVWR VRXWKVLGH 5LJKWRIZD\&RQVLGHUDWLRQV *UHDWHVWLPSDFWWR H[LVWLQJDQGSODQQHG GHYHORSPHQWVLQULJKW RIZD\ ● &RPSDWLELOLW\ZLWK([LVWLQJ 'HYHORSPHQWV   ○  ●      0RVWFRPSDWLEOHZLWK H[LVWLQJVWUHHWDQG 5HHPV 5G  LQWHUVHFWLRQ  1RNQRZQIXWXUH GHYHORSPHQWWRVRXWK 1RWFRPSDWLEOHZLWK H[LVWLQJVWUHHWDQG 5HHPV5G LQWHUVHFWLRQ ●   ◒ ○ ◒ 3XEOLF$FFHSWDELOLW\ ○ ◒          &RPSDWLELOLW\ZLWK3ODQQHG)XWXUH 'HYHORSPHQWV   ,PSDFWVIXWXUH GHYHORSPHQWWRQRUWK     &RPSDWLELOLW\ZLWK([LVWLQJDQG 3ODQQHG5RDGZD\,PSURYHPHQWV   ○ ◒   ◒ 'UDLQDJH)ORRG&RQWURO &RQVLGHUDWLRQV 6RFLRHFRQRPLF (QYLURQPHQWDO &RQVLGHUDWLRQV 3K\VLFDO  1DWXUDO &XOWXUDO 8WLOLW\&RQVLGHUDWLRQV ○   /HDVWLPSDFWWR H[LVWLQJGUDLQDJH IDFLOLWLHV ○ 0LQLPDOLPSDFW ○ 0LQLPDOLPSDFW ○ 1RNQRZQLPSDFW ○ 1RNQRZQLPSDFWVWR LUULJDWLRQRUSRZHU OLQHV ◒ ◒  0LQRULPSDFWVWR H[LVWLQJGUDLQDJH IDFLOLWLHV ○ 0LQLPDOLPSDFW ○ 0LQLPDOLPSDFW ○ 1RNQRZQLPSDFW ◒ 3RWHQWLDOUHORFDWLRQRI XQGHUJURXQGLUULJDWLRQ IDFLOLWLHV   3XEOLF$FFHSWDELOLW\       ◒  0LQRULPSDFWVWR H[LVWLQJGUDLQDJH IDFLOLWLHV ○ 0LQLPDOLPSDFW ○ 0LQLPDOLPSDFW ○ 1RNQRZQLPSDFW ○     ◒ N6) ◒ %DODQFHVLPSDFWV   'UDLQDJH)ORRG&RQWURO &RQVLGHUDWLRQV 6RFLRHFRQRPLF (QYLURQPHQWDO &RQVLGHUDWLRQV 3K\VLFDO  1DWXUDO &XOWXUDO 1RNQRZQLPSDFWVWR LUULJDWLRQRUSRZHUOLQHV %DODQFHVLPSDFWVWR ERWKVLGHV N 6) ◒ ◒ ○ 5HHPV5RDG LPSURYHGWRIXOOVWUHHW VHFWLRQFHQWHUHGRQ VHFWLRQOLQH %DODQFHVLPSDFWV 1RIXWXUH GHYHORSPHQWSODQV WRWKHVRXWK Alternative 3 (shift 30’ north) ◒ N6) ● +LJKHUFRVWOLNHO\WR QRUWKHQFURDFKPHQW LQWRUHVLGHQWLDOORWV ● $OOH[LVWLQJ GHYHORSPHQWWRWKH QRUWK ● $OOIXWXUHGHYHORSPHQW SODQVWRWKHQRUWK ◒ ◒ ○ ◒ ○ ◒ ○ ◒ ◒ ◒ ◒  /RFDO$JHQF\6XSSRUW 8WLOLW\&RQVLGHUDWLRQV ○ Lowest impact/best performance ◒ Moderate impact/moderate performance ● Highest impact/worst performance MCDOT ○    ◒ (QJLQHHULQJ&RPSOH[LW\  &RQVWUXFWDELOLW\    /RFDO$JHQF\6XSSRUW ◒   (QJLQHHULQJ&RPSOH[LW\  &RQVWUXFWDELOLW\ ◒ Alternative 2 (shift 5’ south)   1RWFRPSDWLEOHZLWK H[LVWLQJVWUHHWEXWPRUH  FRPSDWLEOHWKDQ  ZLWK5HHPV5G  LQWHUVHFWLRQ      0LQRULPSDFWWR  IXWXUHGHYHORSPHQW  WRQRUWK Alternative 1 (on section line) ◒ 0LQRULPSDFWVWRQRUWK VLGH ◒ Preferred Alternative Criteria Alternative 3 (shift 5’ north) ○ 1RNQRZQLPSDFWV ○ ◒ ,PSDFWVWRDJULFXOWXUH ◒ ● ◒ ● 3RWHQWLDOLPSDFWWR IDUPVDQGKDELWDW ,PSDFWVWRLUULJDWLRQ GLWFK ZHOOVLWHVIW OLQHGLUULJDWLRQGLWFK SRZHUSROHV ● ◒ ◒ 1RNQRZQLPSDFWV ,PSDFWVWR DJULFXOWXUH 3RWHQWLDOLPSDFWWR IDUPVDQGKDELWDW ,PSDFWVWRLUULJDWLRQ GLWFK ZHOOVLWHVIW OLQHGLUULJDWLRQGLWFK ○ ● ◒ ○ ○ 1RNQRZQLPSDFWV ,PSDFWVWRSULYDWH SURSHUW\ 3RWHQWLDOLPSDFWWR KDELWDW 1RNQRZQLPSDFWV ZHOOVLWHVSRZHU SROHV  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT TRANSPORTATION PEORIA AVENUE Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Corridor Improvement Study Right Road Right Time Right Cost Alternative 1 - Section Line SEGMENT 7: Reems Road to Bullard Ave Alternative 2 - South Shift Preferred Alternative 3 - North Shift  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT TRANSPORTATION PEORIA AVENUE Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Corridor Improvement Study Right Road Right Time Right Cost Preferred Alternative 1 - Section Line SEGMENT 8: Bullard Ave to Litchfield Road Alternative 2 - South Shift Alternative 3 - North Shift  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT PEORIA AVENUE MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road TRANSPORTATION Corridor Improvement Study Right Road Right Time Right Cost Segment 9: Litchfield Rd to Dysart Rd Segment 8: Bullard Ave to Litchfield Rd Criteria 5LJKWRIZD\&RQVLGHUDWLRQV Preferred Alternative Alternative 1 (on section line) ◒ Alternative 2 (shift 15’ south) N6) ◒ &RPSDWLELOLW\ZLWK([LVWLQJ 'HYHORSPHQWV ◒ N6) ◒ ● %DODQFHVLPSDFWV  ● N6) ◒ 5LJKWRIZD\&RQVLGHUDWLRQV +LJKHVWFRVWOLNHO\WR VRXWK ,PSDFWVODQGXVHVWR VRXWK  Criteria Alternative 3 (shift 30’ north)  ○ ● ,PSDFWVODQGXVHVWRQRUWK  &RPSDWLELOLW\ZLWK([LVWLQJ 'HYHORSPHQWV   &RPSDWLELOLW\ZLWK3ODQQHG)XWXUH 'HYHORSPHQWV &RPSDWLELOLW\ZLWK([LVWLQJDQG 3ODQQHG5RDGZD\,PSURYHPHQWV ◒ ○ (QJLQHHULQJ&RPSOH[LW\  &RQVWUXFWDELOLW\ ◒ /RFDO$JHQF\6XSSRUW ○ 1R IXWXUHGHYHORSPHQWWR VRXWK   ● 6RFLRHFRQRPLF (QYLURQPHQWDO &RQVLGHUDWLRQV 3K\VLFDO  1DWXUDO &XOWXUDO 8WLOLW\&RQVLGHUDWLRQV ◒      ● &RPSDWLELOLW\ZLWK([LVWLQJDQG 3ODQQHG5RDGZD\,PSURYHPHQWV  ○ N6) ◒ 0RGHUDWHFRVWV ◒ 0LQRULPSDFWVWRODQG XVHVWRQRUWK Preferred Alternative Alternative 2 (shift south) ● ○ ○ N6) /RZHVWFRVWOLNHO\WR VRXWK 1RNQRZQLPSDFWV Alternative 3 (shift north) ○ ● ● N6) +LJKHVWFRVWOLNHO\WR QRUWKLQFOXGLQJSRWHQWLDO EXLOGLQJWDNHV ,PSDFWVWRODQGXVHVWR QRUWK    ◒  ○ ○ 1RNQRZQLPSDFWVWR IXWXUHGHYHORSPHQW 0RVW FRPSDWLEOHZLWK H[LVWLQJKDOIVWUHHWV DQG/LWFKILHOGDQG '\VDUWLQWHUVHFWLRQV ◒ ◒ 0LQRULPSDFWVWRIXWXUH GHYHORSPHQWWRVRXWK %DODQFHVLPSDFWV ● ● ,PSDFWVIXWXUH GHYHORSPHQWWRQRUWK /HDVWFRPSDWLEOHZLWK H[LVWLQJKDOIVWUHHWVDQG /LWFKILHOGDQG'\VDUW LQWHUVHFWLRQV    ○ ◒           ◒      ○ ◒       (QJLQHHULQJ&RPSOH[LW\  &RQVWUXFWDELOLW\       3XEOLF$FFHSWDELOLW\   ○ ◒ %DODQFHGLPSDFWV ● ◒ %DODQFHGLPSDFWV ● ○ 1RNQRZQLPSDFWV ◒ ZHOOVLWHV /HDVWLPSDFWVWRH[LVWLQJ GUDLQDJHIDFLOLWLHV ,PSDFWVWRSULYDWH SURSHUW\ORWV *UHDWHVWLPSDFWWR IDUPODQGDQGSRWHQWLDO KDELWDWDUHDV ● 0RVWLPSDFWVWRH[LVWLQJ GUDLQDJHIDFLOLWLHV FKDQQHO DQGER[FXOYHUWV ○ 1RNQRZQLPSDFWV ○ 1RNQRZQLPSDFWV  ○ 1RNQRZQLPSDFWV ○ ● ZHOOVLWHV ○ 1RZHOOVLWHVLPSDFWHG ○ ○ ◒ ◒ ◒ ◒ ◒ ◒  /RFDO$JHQF\6XSSRUW   'UDLQDJH)ORRG&RQWURO &RQVLGHUDWLRQV 6RFLRHFRQRPLF (QYLURQPHQWDO &RQVLGHUDWLRQV 3K\VLFDO  1DWXUDO &XOWXUDO 1RNQRZQLPSDFWV ○   ◒    'UDLQDJH)ORRG&RQWURO &RQVLGHUDWLRQV  &RPSDWLELOLW\ZLWK3ODQQHG)XWXUH 'HYHORSPHQWV    0LQRULPSDFWVWR H[LVWLQJGUDLQDJH IDFLOLWLHV   ,PSDFWVWRIXWXUH GHYHORSPHQWWRQRUWK         /LWFKILHOGDQG%XOODUG  LQWHUVHFWLRQVIXOO\ LPSURYHGFHQWHUHG RQVHFWLRQOLQH  ○ ◒ 3XEOLF$FFHSWDELOLW\   0LQRULPSDFWVWR IXWXUHGHYHORSPHQW      Alternative 1 (on section line) 8WLOLW\&RQVLGHUDWLRQV ◒ %DODQFHVLPSDFWV ○ ◒ %DODQFHVLPSDFWV ○ ◒ %DODQFHVLPSDFWV ● ● ,PSDFWVWR(QQLV6SXU ● ● ZHOOVLWHVUHFODLP WDSVSRZHUSROHV ● /HDVWLPSDFWWRH[LVWLQJ GUDLQDJHIDFLOLWLHV 1RNQRZQLPSDFWV *UHDWHVWLPSDFWWR IDUPODQG ,PSDFWVWR(QQLV6SXU ZHOOVLWHVUHFODLP WDSVSRZHUSROHV ● ● 0RVWLPSDFWWRH[LVWLQJ GUDLQDJHIDFLOLWLHV ,PSDFWVWRSULYDWH SURSHUW\WRQRUWK ○ 1RNQRZQLPSDFWV ● ,PSDFWVWR(QQLV6SXU ○ 1RZHOOVLWHVUHFODLPWDSV RUSRZHUSROHV ○ Lowest impact/best performance ◒ Moderate impact/moderate performance ● Highest impact/worst performance  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT TRANSPORTATION PEORIA AVENUE Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Corridor Improvement Study Right Road Right Time Right Cost Alternative 1 - Section Line SEGMENT 9: Litchfield Road to Dysart Road Preferred Alternative 2 - South Shift Alternative 3 - North Shift  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road PEORIA AVENUE                       $OOWKUHHDOWHUQDWLYHVVFRUHGVLPLODUO\ $OWHUQDWLYHFKRVHQGXHWR FRPSDWLELOLW\ZLWKH[LVWLQJGHYHORSPHQW DQGSODQQHGURDGZD\LPSURYHPHQWV VSHFLILFDOO\SODFHPHQWRI/RRSDQG WKH3HRULD$YHQXHWUDIILFLQWHUFKDQJH &RUULGRUZLOOWUDQVLWLRQDWHDVWHQGWR PHHWVHJPHQWVKLIWHGQRUWKRIWKH VHFWLRQOLQH 6FRUHGKLJKHVWRIWKHWKUHH DOWHUQDWLYHVPRVWFRPSDWLEOHZLWK H[LVWLQJGHYHORSPHQWOLNHO\WRKDYH OHDVW5LJKWRIZD\FRVW Alternative 1 &HQWHUHGRQVHFWLRQ OLQH Alternative 2 &HQWHUOLQHVKLIWHG VRXWKRIVHFWLRQOLQH %XOODUG$YHQXHWR /LWFKILHOG5RDG /LWFKILHOG5RDGWR '\VDUW5RDG    &RUULGRUZLOOWUDQVLWLRQDWHDVWHQGWR PHHWVHJPHQWFHQWHUHGRQWKH VHFWLRQOLQH 6FRUHGKLJKHVWRIWKHWKUHH DOWHUQDWLYHVEDODQFHVLPSDFWV WKURXJKRXWVHJPHQWDQGSHUIRUPV EHWWHUWKDQ$OWHUQDWLYHLQNH\IDFWRUV %HFDXVHRIWKHYDU\LQJVKLIWV DVVRFLDWHGZLWK$OWHUQDWLYHLWEHVW PLQLPL]HVLPSDFWVWRH[LVWLQJODQG XVHVWKURXJKRXWWKHVHJPHQW &RUULGRUZLOOWUDQVLWLRQIURP6HJPHQW QRUWKVKLIWWRFHQWHUOLQHV\PPHWU\DW WKHZHVWHQGRIWKLVVHJPHQW Alternative 1 6FRUHGKLJKHVWRIWKHWKUHH &HQWHUHGRQVHFWLRQ DOWHUQDWLYHVEDODQFHVLPSDFWV WKURXJKRXWVHJPHQWDQGSHUIRUPVEHVW OLQH LQNH\IDFWRUVLQFOXGLQJFRPSDWLELOLW\ ZLWKH[LVWLQJGHYHORSPHQWDQG GUDLQDJHIORRGFRQWUROFRQVLGHUDWLRQV Alternative 3 $OWKRXJKVFRULQJWKHORZHVWGXHWR &HQWHUOLQHVKLIWHG LPSDFWVWRH[LVWLQJGHYHORSPHQW PDLQWDLQLQJVHFWLRQOLQHDOLJQPHQWDW IHHWQRUWKRIVHFWLRQ OLQHIRUVKRUWGLVWDQFH ZHVWHQGDQGWUDQVLWLRQLQJWRWKHQRUWK HDVWRIH[LVWLQJGHYHORSPHQWDOORZV LQPLGGOHSRUWLRQRI DOLJQPHQWWRPLVVZHOOVLWHDQGEDODQFH VHJPHQW LPSDFWVWKURXJKRXWUHPDLQGHURI VHJPHQW        Alternative 1 &HQWHUHGRQVHFWLRQ OLQH     Alternative 3 &HQWHUOLQHVKLIWHG IHHWQRUWKRIVHFWLRQ OLQH  6HJPHQW 5HHPV5RDGWR %XOODUG$YHQXH            &RWWRQ/DQHWR 6DULYDO5RDG &RWWRQ/DQH   6DULYDO5RDGWR 5HHPV5RDG    &LWUXV5RDGWR      6FRUHGKLJKHVWRIWKHWKUHH DOWHUQDWLYHVPRVWFRPSDWLEOHZLWK H[LVWLQJVWUHHWLPSURYHPHQWRQ3HRULD $YHQXH ,QGHSHQGHQWHYDOXDWLRQQRWFDUULHGRXW DOLJQPHQWLVDOUHDG\VHWLQWKH=DQMHUR 7UDLOV3UHOLPLQDU\3ODW $lternative 1 &HQWHUHGRQVHFWLRQ OLQH Alternative 1 &HQWHUHGRQVHFWLRQ OLQH %HDUGVOH\&DQDOWR 3HUU\YLOOH5RDG 3HUU\YLOOH5RDGWR &LWUXV5RDG 6FRUHGKLJKHUGXHWRVKRUWHUFRUULGRU OHQJWKDQGOHVVGLVWXUEDQFH WR GUDLQDJHFRUULGRUV Alternative 1 &HQWHUHGRQVHFWLRQ OLQH )XWXUH-DFNUDEELW 7UDLO3DUNZD\WR %HDUGVOH\&DQDO  Comments Location Segment Recommended Alignment Summary of Recommended Alignment Right Road Right Time Right Cost TRANSPORTATION MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT  MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT Arizona Right Road Right Time Right Cost TRANSPORTATION MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY SFFS ICU2 &RWWRQ/QWR6DULYDO5G Typical Section 169’ Right-of-Way -DFNUDEELW3DUNZD\WR3HUU\YLOOH5G 5HHPV5GWR%XOODUG$YH /LWFKILHOG5GWR'\VDUW5G Typical Section 133’ Right-of-Way 3HUU\YLOOH5GWR&LWUXV5G 6DULYDO5GWR5HHPV5G %XOODUG$YHWR/LWFKILHOG5G Typical Section 120’ Right-of-Way frontage road concept &LWUXV5GWR&RWWRQ/Q Typical Section with Frontage Road Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road PEORIA AVENUE MCDOT 3-22-2011 MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MARICOPA COUNTY MCDOT TRANSPORTATION Right Road Right Time Right Cost PEORIA AVENUE Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Corridor Improvement Study Implementation Plan 3-22-2011 MCDOT MCDOT                               ! "      Surprise City Council OKs Peoria Avenue agreement   The Arizona Republic 4-29-11 The Surprise City Council on Tuesday discussed the following items. Appendix C: MCDOT RightRoads Program Summary of Public Involvement   ISSUE  Vote to allow city staff to enter into an intergovernmental agreement that would make Surprise responsible for operating and maintaining the road. Maricopa County has conducted a transportation study that suggests Peoria Avenue between Dysart Road and Jackrabbit Trail Parkway be converted into a six-lane, major arterial street. The road is currently two lanes across most of the 7.5-mile span and is bordered by Surprise to the north and Glendale and the county to the south. Construction and design will not begin for years, but city staff hopes that taking ownership over the road will give Surprise a say in its design and provide another east-west crossing of the Agua Fria River. Maintaining the new road is estimated to cost the city an additional $137,000 per year and would begin once it is complete. VOTE Approved 7-0.   #$%%   MCDOT RightRoads Program Summary of Public Involvement Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail to Dysart Road May 10, 2011 Maricopa County Department of Transportation  0&'275LJKW5RDGV3URJUDP3XEOLF,QYROYHPHQW6XPPDU\3HRULD$YHQXH&,65-&52:(    STUDY BACKGROUND & PURPOSE Maricopa County Department of Transportation The Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study (Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road) is one of a series of long-range transportation planning studies being conducted by the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT). The City of Surprise, City of Glendale, City of El Mirage, and Maricopa County transportation plans all include Peoria Avenue as a future arterial roadway from Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road. The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) recently prepared the Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study (Hassayampa Framework Study) that identified a comprehensive roadway network to meet traffic demands for the build out of the area west of SR 303L. This long range regional transportation study identified the need for future roadway network consisting of freeways, parkways, and major arterial roads. _________________________________________________________ 2901 W. Durango St. Phoenix, AZ 85009 Phone: 602-506-4608 Fax: 602-506-4882 www.maricopa.gov MCDOT RightRoads Program Summary of Public Involvement Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail to Dysart Road TT005 The MAG Hassayampa Framework Study recommended an extension of Peoria Avenue westward from Perryville Road to the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway, and identified Peoria Avenue as a major arterial roadway from the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Sarival Avenue. FINAL REPORT PURPOSE OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT This study evaluated planned corridor development and the resulting projected 2030 traffic volumes along the future Peoria Avenue corridor between Jackrabbit Trail and Dysart Road to develop the most cost-effective improvement plans that include a recommendation for establishing the future roadway type, alignment, access management strategies, future drainage structures and network connectivity. This study will identify the preferred alignment and “footprint” for the future Peoria Avenue between Jackrabbit Trail Parkway and Dysart Road and will facilitate future roadway implementation by developers and local jurisdictions, providing a cohesive transportation corridor, compatible with the City of Surprise, City of Glendale, City of El Mirage, Maricopa County, and MAG transportation plans. Corridor Description The Peoria Avenue Corridor study area includes the segment of Peoria Avenue between the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway alignment and Dysart Road. The study area generally encompasses a two-mile wide corridor centered on the existing Peoria Avenue alignment. Gaining consensus among the agencies and the public is critical to the success of this long range transportation study as well as the future implementation of its recommendations to provide an efficient roadway for the long term. Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT), Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC), Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), the Burlington-Santa Fe Railway (BNSF), Maricopa County Environmental Services, Maricopa County Parks Department, Maricopa County Planning and Development, Maricopa Water District, the City of Surprise, the City of Glendale, the City of El Mirage, Dysart Unified School District, major utility providers, impacted land developments, affected businesses, property owners and residents are all major stakeholders in this study. The participation of stakeholder public and multi-agency involvement aids in the development of a consistent roadway and the resolution of conflicting agency requirements; facilitates ultimate regional traffic flow; and preserves the interests and rights of area residents and adjacent development. Today’s Peoria Avenue generally consists of a two-lane roadway (one travel lane in each direction). Half-street improvements have been constructed along the north side of Peoria Avenue adjacent to developments such as Shadow Ridge High School, Greer Ranch subdivision, Copper Canyon Ranch subdivision and Skyway Business Park. Improvements on the south side of Peoria Avenue have been constructed adjacent to the Cortessa subdivision. The only full-width roadway section of Peoria Avenue is located immediately east of Perryville Road between Cortessa and Shadow Ridge High School. The BNSF Railway operates a north-south railroad spur (Ennis Spur) that crosses Peoria Avenue between Litchfield and Dysart Roads. SR 303L crosses the Peoria Avenue Corridor between Cotton Lane and Sarival Road. The majority of the land in the study area is privately owned, with the exception of the westernmost limit (west of Beardsley Canal) which is owned by the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD). The majority of the existing land use is categorized as vacant (undeveloped) or agricultural. Several residential subdivisions are built or 0&'275LJKW5RDGV3URJUDP3XEOLF,QYROYHPHQW6XPPDU\3HRULD$YHQXH&,65-&52:(  0&'275LJKW5RDGV3URJUDP3XEOLF,QYROYHPHQW6XPPDU\3HRULD$YHQXH&,65-&52:(   under development, which include three elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. In several locations, existing homes not associated with large master-planned communities, are located adjacent to Peoria Avenue. Small clusters of industrial and commercial development are scattered throughout the eastern end of the study area. Based on the City of Surprise, City of Glendale, and City of El Mirage future land use planning, a majority of the vacant and agricultural land within the study area is envisioned to be converted to single-family residential housing and mixed-use developments in the future. It is anticipated that commercial and industrial development will expand, but remain scattered throughout the study area.  • • • • • Develop and evaluate conceptual alternative alignments within the corridor study area Recommend a preferred alignment Define the characteristics of the preferred alignment Develop consensus for the preferred alignment Develop an implementation (recommended construction phasing) plan Preliminary Key Issues and Challenges Early in the study process, a preliminary list of study issues and potential challenges is compiled. This list expands as the study progresses and input is obtained from public participation. Study Need Today's land development and existing travel demands in the Peoria Avenue Corridor do not warrant a major east/west arterial roadway in the near-term; however, plans are underway to convert much of the rural and low density residential lands within the corridor to more intense land uses that will generate significantly more traffic. The “build-out” forecast for future land development and resulting travel demand warrant a major east/west arterial roadway in the long term. Establish future connections of Peoria Avenue to planned roadways such as Jackrabbit Trail Parkway To help make future roadway construction economically feasible, the planning process needs to begin now to identify and protect long-term public right-of-way needs for the future roadway under ultimate “build-out” conditions. Maintain functional integrity of roadway through constrained areas Study Goals & Objectives This corridor study is the first step in the planning process and its primary goal is to aid the affected agencies and jurisdictions in defining and protecting sufficient rightof-way for a continuous future Peoria Avenue Corridor that will safely accommodate projected travel demand and the future six-lane major arterial roadway as identified in the Surprise, Glendale, MCDOT and MAG long-range transportation plans. In general, the purpose of this Corridor Improvement Study is to provide MCDOT and partner jurisdictions with a future “footprint” of the Peoria Avenue Corridor and a timeframe for the implementation of the recommended future roadway improvements. Identify ultimate alignment and access management strategies Account for future planned connection to SR 303L Evaluation of drainage structures across major washes, canals and channels. Evaluation of crossing of the BNSF Railway Ennis Spur Maximize use of existing roadway improvements along corridor to reduce costs Consideration of environmental constraints Study Approach The Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study is carried out in two phases, a planning phase and an engineering phase. To accomplish this, the main focus of this study is to investigate, map, and analyze corridor constraints and opportunities to arrive at a recommended corridor alignment. This study will establish the facility type, number of lanes, right-of-way needs, and general alignment for the Peoria Avenue Corridor that will be required to accommodate projected traffic growth and enhance safety. In cooperation with the City of Surprise, the City of Glendale, and the City of El Mirage, the study will also determine design standards based upon future roadway jurisdiction (anticipated roadway annexation) and an implementation or construction phasing plan. The key objectives of this Corridor Improvement Study are to: • Define and assess the strategic issues within the project study area 0&'275LJKW5RDGV3URJUDP3XEOLF,QYROYHPHQW6XPPDU\3HRULD$YHQXH&,65-&52:(  3ODQQLQJ3KDVH During the Planning Phase, general background information regarding the corridor is gathered and documented in reports that will lead to well-founded recommendations for improvements and longer-term needs along Peoria Avenue. Meetings are conducted with affected jurisdictions, agencies, stakeholders, and the impacted public to form a broad consensus of the overall needs and vision of the corridor. Based on identified needs, conceptual alternatives are developed and candidate alternatives are then evaluated for technical and environmental feasibility, public acceptability, and economic viability. (QJLQHHULQJ3KDVH The Engineering Phase of the study begins following the selection of a preferred alternative. Preliminary engineering design plans, right-of-way requirements, and estimated construction costs will be prepared for long-term roadway design features. 0&'275LJKW5RDGV3URJUDP3XEOLF,QYROYHPHQW6XPPDU\3HRULD$YHQXH&,65-&52:(   Priorities for roadway construction phasing along with policies and guidelines to preserve the intended regional function of the road are developed.  attempting to balance impacts to both sides of the corridor; Alternative 2 included widening the corridor to the south, maintaining the northern right-of-way boundary; Alternative 3 included widening the corridor to the north, maintaining the southern right-of-way boundary. STUDY MILESTONES Project Kick-off & Study Initiation Based on this evaluation and study findings, the following alternatives are recommended along the corridor: July 2010 PHASE I: Data Collection/Issues Identification July - September 2010 Public Input Meeting #1 (Scoping Phase) September 20, 2010 PHASE II: Alternatives Development and Evaluation October 2010 – January 2011 Public Input Meeting #2 (Alternatives Analysis Phase) January 18, 2011 Public Input Meeting #3 (Findings & Recommendations) March 22, 2011 Study Completion/Final Report June 2011 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT & EVALUATION Segment 1 (future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Beardsley Canal): Alternative 1 – new corridor along section line Segment 2 (Beardsley Canal to Perryville Road): Alternative 1 – new corridor along the section line Segment 3 (Perryville Road to Citrus Road): Alternative 1 - widen symmetric along the section line Segment 4 (Citrus Road to Cotton Lane): Alternative 3 – shift north Segment 5 (Cotton Lane to Sarival Road): Alternative 1 - widen symmetric along the section line Segment 6 (Sarival Road to Reems Road): Alternative 1 - widen symmetric along the section line Segment 7 (Reems Road to Bullard Avenue): Alternative 3 - shift north Segment 8 (Bullard Avenue to Litchfield Road): Alternative 1 - widen symmetric along the section line Segment 9 (Litchfield Road to Dysart Road): Alternative 2 - shift south After completion of the inventory of existing and future conditions, the study team developed the following evaluation criteria to help determine the alignment for Peoria Avenue:  Right-of-way impacts Compatibility with existing developments Compatibility with planned future developments Compatibility with existing and planned roadway improvements Engineering complexity and constructability Public acceptance Local agency support Drainage/flood control considerations Utility considerations Environmental considerations Segment Location Recommended Alignment Comments 1 Future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Beardsley Canal Alternative 1 Centered on section line Scored higher due to shorter corridor length and less disturbance to drainage corridors. 2 Beardsley Canal to Perryville Road Alternative 1 Centered on section line Alternative 1 Centered on section line Independent evaluation not carried out; alignment is already set in the Zanjero Trails Preliminary Plat. 3 Preferred Alternatives (Recommended Alignments) The Peoria Avenue corridor was split into nine east/west geographic segments to conduct the evaluation. Up to three alternative alignments were considered for each segment: Alternative 1 included widening the corridor symmetric to the section line, 0&'275LJKW5RDGV3URJUDP3XEOLF,QYROYHPHQW6XPPDU\3HRULD$YHQXH&,65-&52:( SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT Perryville Road to Citrus Road Scored highest of the three alternatives; most compatible with existing street improvement on Peoria Avenue. Corridor will transition at east end to meet Segment 4, shifted north of the section line.  0&'275LJKW5RDGV3URJUDP3XEOLF,QYROYHPHQW6XPPDU\3HRULD$YHQXH&,65-&52:(   Segment 4 5 6 Location Recommended Alignment Citrus Road to Cotton Lane Alternative 3 Centerline shifted 37 feet north of section line Scored highest of the three alternatives; most compatible with existing development; likely to have least right-of-way cost. Alternative 1 Centered on section line All three alternatives scored similarly. Alternative 1 chosen due to compatibility with existing development and planned roadway improvements, specifically placement of Loop 303 and the Peoria Avenue traffic interchange. Cotton Lane to Sarival Road Sarival Road to Reems Road 7 Segment 7: Reems Road to Bullard Avenue Alternative 1 Centered on section line Alternative 3 Centerline shifted 30- feet north of section line for short distance in middle portion of segment Alternative 1 Centered on section line 8 Bullard Avenue to Litchfield Road 9 Litchfield Road to Dysart Road Alternative 2 Centerline shifted south of section line  improvements will not likely be completed in the near-term, but rather by private developers as development along the corridor occurs. Comments Near-Term Improvements In the near-term, projects that are already funded will be completed, such as improvements at the SR Loop 303/Peoria Avenue interchange (to be constructed by ADOT when SR Loop 303 is upgraded to a freeway) and City of Surprise planned completion of the north half-street section between Sarival and Reems Roads. Other near-term improvements recommended for consideration include acquiring public right-of-way and constructing a twolane roadway between Citrus Road and Cotton Lane, and constructing drainage improvements at Litchfield and Sarival roads. Corridor will transition from Segment 4 north shift to centerline symmetry at the west end of this segment. Scored highest of the three alternatives; balances impacts throughout segment and performs best in key factors, including compatibility with existing development and drainage/flood control considerations. Although scoring the lowest due to impacts to existing development, maintaining section line alignment at west end and transitioning to the north, east of existing development allows alignment to miss well site and balance impacts throughout remainder of segment. Corridor will transition at east end to meet segment 8, centered on the section line. Scored highest of the three alternatives; balances impacts throughout segment and performs better than Alternative 3 in key factors, including compatibility with existing development and drainage/flood control considerations. Because of the varying shifts associated with Alternative 2, it best minimizes impacts to existing land uses throughout the segment. Long-Term Improvements Long-term (likely beyond 2030) improvements will focus on bringing uniformity to the corridor and widening to the ultimate six-lane facility. Areas where these improvements would occur include: Perryville Road to Citrus Road Sarival Road to Reems Road Bullard Road to Litchfield Road Litchfield Road to Dysart Road PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Public participation and feedback during each phase of the study process is very important and a vital component of study development. Gaining consensus among the jurisdictional agencies and the public is critical to the success of the study and implementation of its recommendations to provide a safe and efficient roadway for the long term. In addition to multiple Stakeholder Advisory Committee meetings, a total of three public input meetings are conducted during the course of the study process. The first public input meeting (September 20, 2010) was held during the data collection and Scoping Phase to inform the public of the objectives of the study and provide area residents and other stakeholders with an opportunity to inform project team Recommended Implementation Plan The recommendations of this study are intended to be used to preserve corridor right-of-way for the ultimate Peoria Avenue. It is anticipated that construction of 0&'275LJKW5RDGV3URJUDP3XEOLF,QYROYHPHQW6XPPDU\3HRULD$YHQXH&,65-&52:( Mid-Term Improvements Several additional improvement projects, most likely constructed by adjacent development, would be needed in the mid-term timeframe to provide a continuous four-lane facility by the year 2030: South half-street and frontage road construction between Citrus Road and Cotton Lane Cotton Lane intersection improvements Reems Road intersection improvements South half-street construction between Bullard Avenue and Litchfield Road  0&'275LJKW5RDGV3URJUDP3XEOLF,QYROYHPHQW6XPPDU\3HRULD$YHQXH&,65-&52:(   members about study area issues and local transportation needs. This meeting also provided the public an opportunity to contribute feedback on the study purpose, goals, and objectives. The second public input meeting (January 18, 2011) was conducted during the Alternatives Analysis Phase. This meeting served to provide the results of the issues and constraints identification process and reviewed the candidate alignment evaluation criteria. This meeting also presented the conceptual alternative alignments, and gathered more public feedback to assist further development and evaluation of the advanced Candidate Alternatives, leading to the study’s primary objective, the selection of a Preferred Alignment. 5:00 – 7:00 p.m., September 20, 2011 Shadow Ridge High School Media Center Surprise, AZ 85388 Participants Attendance: 66 Consultant Team: Rodney Bragg (AECOM) Jackie Pfeiffer (AECOM) Javier Guana (Andes) Public Works Lands/Real Estate: Robert Sachs Outreach Methods The following outreach methods were used to inform and notify the general public and impacted residents about the study, public input meeting dates and locations and additional opportunities or means for input: ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ Media releases Newspaper articles Display advertisements in local and regional publications o Arizona Republic o Surprise Independent o West Valley View o Buckeye Valley News MCDOT website Partner agency mediums Direct mail flyers to adjacent property owners and previous meeting attendees 0&'275LJKW5RDGV3URJUDP3XEOLF,QYROYHPHQW6XPPDU\3HRULD$YHQXH&,65-&52:( Over 150 people attended three public input meetings conducted through the course of this study. Graphics, aerials and display exhibits presented corridor alternatives and study information. Study Fact Sheets and Comment Sheets were distributed to those in attendance. All public meetings were conducted in an “open house” format providing a free, open and accurate exchange of information between area residents with specific issues or questions and the project team. The following information is representative of discussions that the project team had with meeting attendees and written comments received by MCDOT: Scoping Phase Public Meeting Meeting Purpose: Gather public comment regarding the study area, existing conditions, current corridor deficiencies, future transportation needs and public review of overall Study Goals and Objectives. The third and final public input meeting (March 22, 2011) was held during the Findings and Recommendations Phase of the study. This meeting reviewed the results of the Candidate Alternative evaluation process, presented the Preferred Alternative (recommended alignment), and gathered additional public input and feedback for use in the development of the final report. MCDOT Planning & Engineering: Mitch Wagner Roberta Crowe Mike Pavlina  PUBLIC COMMENT  There are lot of people using this road especially in the peak hours. I would suggest there should be a minimum of 2 lanes on each side with lighting on both sides of the road. West of Bullard avenue there is no lighting on the road .There is lot of vacant land surrounding the Peoria Ave and I am assuming there will be lot of future residential/commercial development will be happening adjacent to Peoria Avenue. Intersection of 303 & Peoria Avenue needs to be signalized. I support the completion/improvement of Peoria Avenue from Jackrabbit Trail to Dysart Road. It is imperative that alternate ingress and egress roadways are established for the residents in this area. Peoria between Cotton Lane and Citrus needs to be addressed sooner than later. For emergency services to meet somewhat decent response times this road should be paved or monthly maintained for proper and secure road travel. Owner made speed bumps and or ditches should be addressed. If a road improvement is needed then Olive should be the road. It has much less housing affected and it goes all the way through to the 101. Peoria after Dysart turns into 25 mph. Peoria does not make sense. MCDOT not very knowledgeable about Peoria Avenue & Citrus as to how it is going to be improved (# of lanes, speed, traffic control devices) right of way purchasing and speed enforcement/traffic control devices, i.e. residential neighborhood 25mph or less. What time frame for project improvements. This section of roadway provides a very big environmental issue caused by the dust. Very big impact from developments to the west of this location to the high school. 0&'275LJKW5RDGV3URJUDP3XEOLF,QYROYHPHQW6XPPDU\3HRULD$YHQXH&,65-&52:(    Please pave Peoria between Cotton Lane and Citrus ASAP. Thank you. The community on 178th Avenue does not want the street (178th Ave.) to exit onto Peoria Ave. What noise barriers are going to be installed to cut down on noise pollution? The dust pollution on Peoria is terrible. What is the County and City of Surprise going to do about the pollution from traffic between now and the time pavement is installed. My concern is the area from Cotton Lane to Citrus on Peoria. Before the school was built, someone should have thought about the people who already live in the neighborhood. What is the speed limit; will there be stoplights or stop signs? Where will the intersections be? What can you do in the meantime to control the dust? What about the speeders? How many lanes will there be? We need to have more answers if you wanted out opinions! Provide more info at next meeting. Do something about the dirt road between Cotton lane and Citrus. The dust is killing us. Keep the speed limit at 25mph on dirt road and enforce it. Need to know number of lanes and traffic control devices. Dust control and environmental issues at the present time and future. Hopeful that Peoria will become paved from Cotton Lane to Perryville. We have kids at the elementary school and traffic would be significantly decreased if this were to happen. Interested in the sequence/timeline of improvements and proposed changes to Peoria Ave Also – type of interchanges at 303 and arterials. Nobody working this meeting really had any information as to what was going to happen if anything. Nick Mascia (City of Surprise) was very helpful and knowledgeable however there are no plans for anything to happen. This meeting led me to believe there was something in the “works”. What a disappointment to find out it is a dead-end. The high school will have Seniors and Juniors driving – the dust level for Peoria and Cotton area will be much worse. The 4-way stop at Cotton and Olive is very busy and in the mornings it is impossible to get through. I know money is dear, but can’t we pave some of the dirt roads before tearing up existing roads constantly? Project needs to be “fast tracked” thru local City/State/County DOT officials. I was disheartened to find out this “project” is still in the study phase. My main concern is Peoria fronting the community of Greer Ranch. The HOA is concerned regarding road signs, sidewalks and necessary landscaping that need to be to actually finish off the development. I would be more than happy to discuss this further. Appreciate the “Open House”. This is a very needed project improvement for the area. The challenge will be on getting the owners (all of them) to agree on the best alternatives. The District has tried that before when we built the school and met resistance. We live in Cortessa and Olive Avenue right now is the only in and out of this area. Should Peoria Avenue get improved, it would help the traffic flow tremendously. Also, with the High School now being open, it would assist with traffic as well. I don't believe that there is any reason not to 0&'275LJKW5RDGV3URJUDP3XEOLF,QYROYHPHQW6XPPDU\3HRULD$YHQXH&,65-&52:(  Improve Peoria Avenue with the exception of the home owners that happen to live there and don't want the additional traffic - then they should move. Recently a large school was put in at the end of Peoria and Citrus. Since this school was put in, we have had nothing but traffic speeding down Peoria (dirt road) each morning and also in the afternoon. I assume these are people taking and picking up their children from school. This causes a tremendous amount of dust for the people who live in my neighborhood, especially the people whose houses face Peoria Road. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see the road paved to cut down on the dust in our neighborhood, however I have some concerns. We do not want 178th Avenue to connect to Peoria Avenue. In addition, we would like to have a sound wall as well. My questions to you are if this road is paved, who will incur the cost? Will our taxes be raised so people who do not live in our neighborhood can take their kids to the new school? Is there some sort of stimulus that will take care of the cost? Will the people whose houses face Peoria loose part of their frontage property, and what about the irrigation canals that run along Peoria? The stretch of road on Peoria from Cotton Lane to Citrus will there be speed bumps or stop signs? We would like for the road to be paved. Since Shadow Ridge High School has opened we have experienced a lot of traffic thru our community (Cortessa) and have even experienced a number of accidents down Olive ave towards Cotton Lane. Perryville Rd going towards Olive has become a race way for the High School kids as well resulting in the kids driving extremely fast down that road. We feel if Peoria Ave was paved it would eliminate the high school kids driving thru the community, allowing more routes to exit the High School eliminating accidents, kids getting hit (which this has happened) and reducing traffic flow/speed down Olive ave towards Cotton and Perryville Rd towards Olive. I would love to see road improvements to Peoria Ave! Not only for quicker, safer access to the High School but congestion and traffic would be reduced at all entrances/exits on Olive Ave west of Cotton Lane as well. Though the housing boom has ceased, there are many who live in the Cortessa development that would greatly benefit from the improvements. Work and shopping expeditions would have less drive, which saves on gas in these tough economic times. It is a great time to update Peoria Ave and also provide work for many. My vote is a YES! The following are key issues captured by the study team during conversations with meeting attendees: 0&'275LJKW5RDGV3URJUDP3XEOLF,QYROYHPHQW6XPPDU\3HRULD$YHQXH&,65-&52:(    Support (from a number of people who live in Cortessa) to pave the one-mile of Peoria Avenue between Citrus Road and Cotton Lane. Want improvements made to Peoria Avenue sooner rather than later. Concern about emergency access if emergency vehicles “detour” around unpaved segment. Desire for the use of asphalt rubber to reduce noise levels. Don’t want 178th Ave connected to Peoria Avenue when Peoria Ave is improved. Questions about the study schedule and future input opportunities. Questions about alternatives under consideration. Questions about the timing of new development/master planned communities. Clarification of study purpose. Concern about other unpaved roads (not in the study area) and when the county will pave them. Questions about specific development entitlements relative to future land use (e.g., when/where will a gas station be placed in the neighborhood; when will the new Safeway begin construction, etc.). Alternatives Analysis Phase Public Meeting Meeting Purpose: Gather public comment regarding preliminary study findings, traffic analysis, corridor alignment alternatives and future roadway options. 5:00 – 7:00 p.m., September 20, 2011 Shadow Ridge High School Media Center Surprise, AZ 85388 Peoria’s unpaved section East of Citrus needs 2 lanes paved “yesterday”, if not dust to control the dust, to eliminate the extra 2 miles of travel getting around it in lieu destroying your vehicle. It does not appear to be any reasonable alternative route other than Peoria, at least nothing as straight forward and nothing that wouldn’t cost a lot more money. Findings and Recommendations Phase Public Meeting Meeting Purpose: Gather public comment regarding study findings and “Preferred Alternative”, recommended access management strategies and guidelines, and an improvement phasing timeline. Attendance: 35 We live at 15751 W. Becker Lane and Peoria Ave. is just beyond our back wall. Traffic noise is already high. Peoria Ave. doesn't go through to the 101 so it makes no sense to widen it. A better idea would be to widen Olive Ave. instead. There are very few homes along the corridor planned and there are stop lights already installed at the major intersections including the 303 and the 101. It is more of a major road than Peoria Ave. We are against your plans at this time. I attended the open house last night at the High School. Thank you for taking the time to speak with all of us and listen to the concerns of the homeowners in the neighborhood. My first concerns at this meeting was to be sure that there were no plans to open up our dead end street to Peoria Ave. (178th, 177th, 176, all dead end at the irrigation ditches). You nodded your head and said that that was not included in this study or the plans. I was good with that. My second concern was a noise barrier along Peoria. This was not addressed at the meeting... so I am not sure what the plans are for that. After reviewing the 3 alternatives that were posted. I have to say that Alternative 3 0&'275LJKW5RDGV3URJUDP3XEOLF,QYROYHPHQW6XPPDU\3HRULD$YHQXH&,65-&52:( (road to the north) is really the only option. I am the billing coordinator for Co-op 100, the co-op that owns the small irrigation ditches that provides irrigation to the homes from 175th - Citrus, south of Peoria Ave. If you went with Alt. 1 or 2, this will affect the irrigation ditches and the wells. I am not sure how that would affect the irrigating of our property. Some of the homeowners have been there for over 40 years, and some are fairly new; but nevertheless, we all moved out there for the irrigated acre's and raise our children in a rural environment. I completely understand that "progress" and "change" is coming. We dealt with that with Cortessa. If there is an option (Alt. 3) that can improve the road without disturbing the homes in our neighborhood, I feel that that should be your only option. The only thing on the North side of Peoria is farmland. No homes, no families, nothing personal will be disturbed by using the farmland for your Peoria Corridor. PS: If the county would like to pave the existing 2 lane road from Cotton Lane to Citrus, I don't think anyone would have heartache over that.  5:00 – 7:00 p.m., September 20, 2011 Shadow Ridge High School Media Center Surprise, AZ 85388 Attendance: 50 I live at 18537 W. Onyx Ave near Shadow Ridge School. I would like to see Peoria improved from Cactus Lane to 303. This would cut 2 miles off every time I drive to Surprise. Also the intersection of Olive and 303 is in deplorable condition. A little patch work could smoothen it up. The bumps could cause accidents. Thank You It is simply my feeling that the County should proceed with the plan for Peoria Ave. that make sense. There are a few vocal individuals (as usual) that will cause delay and therefore added expense to this project If the County doesn't proceed. The Peoria "cow trail" east of Citrus is a prime example of a few, delaying what should have been done ages ago ,but would a single lane in each direction west of the 303 be any sort of an option, at least for that section, until the entire project can move forward ? 0&'275LJKW5RDGV3URJUDP3XEOLF,QYROYHPHQW6XPPDU\3HRULD$YHQXH&,65-&52:(   Comments/questions received by Project Team during discussions with meeting attendees:  Most attendees want improvements built now to mitigate dust issues along Peoria from Citrus Road to Cotton Lane. General support for frontage road concept in segment between Citrus Road and Cotton Lane. Some concerns/questions regarding frequency of median breaks/access to Peoria Avenue and intersecting side streets. Want noise mitigation to be considered between Citrus Road and Cotton Lane as homes will be close to roadway. Request to reduce speed limit along Peoria Avenue between Citrus Rood and Cotton Lane as homes will be close to roadway. Several questions on timeframe of implementation of Peoria Avenue improvements; preference for improvements sooner rather than later. FUTURE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS It is important to recognize that the Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study is a long range transportation planning study and the earliest phase of potential project development. It is intended to identify the facility type and roadway alignment at some future date along the Peoria Avenue corridor to address forecasted travel demand associated with future area land development. No public funding is currently allocated for design, right-of-way acquisition, or construction of any elements of this segment of the Peoria Avenue corridor. The Preferred Alignments as recommended in this study will be used to guide future planning efforts and ensure that subsequent land development proposals and transportation system plans are compatible with future construction of Peoria Avenue. Further refinement and negotiation of the roadway centerline right-of-way limits and consideration of environmental impacts will take place in later phases of project development as properties develop and as transportation system improvements are implemented. The following are key issues captured during this study's stakeholder and public involvement process that should be taken into consideration by individual jurisdictions as the recommendations of this study are carried forward into design and construction: Next Steps: Implementation of Recommended Improvements Adoption of Recommendations by Individual Jurisdictions o Functional Roadway Classification (Urban Arterial ) o Corridor Alignment o Access Management Plan Right-of-way Preservation in Developing Areas Design Concept Report (DCR) or Scoping Report for Consideration in project programming Project Funding: It can be anticipated that area developers will participate as part of project requirements. Access Management Strategies: Specific strategies should be implemented to ensure a seamless roadway with efficient traffic flow, safety and good access to local land uses. 0&'275LJKW5RDGV3URJUDP3XEOLF,QYROYHPHQW6XPPDU\3HRULD$YHQXH&,65-&52:( Environmental Impacts: (Natural, Cultural and Archeological Resources) and Noise Mitigation. Specific impacts on the local environment will require further evaluation during future project development. New Right-of-Way Requirements: Final roadway configuration (during preparation of Final Design Plans) will determine exactly how much land will need to be acquired to accommodate the future roadway. Landscaping Plans: Final project design will specify the type of landscaping to be used. Drainage Structures: Bridges along the new roadway will be designed during final roadway design efforts. It will be critical to ensure the roadway is designed to provide “all weather” crossings during major storm flows. Bicycle, Pedestrian and Transit Access: Future projects will be designed to accommodate alternative modes of travel and provide access to trails and neighborhoods in the area. Corridor Traffic Management: ITS (Intelligent Transportation System) will control operation of traffic between jurisdictions and differing intersection configurations. Jurisdictional Coordination: As with the overall traffic control, implementation of different corridor improvements and access management concepts will be coordinated to ensure a safe, seamless and efficient transportation facility. Appropriation of Funds for Design, Right-of-Way Acquisition and Construction of Recommended Corridor Improvements  0&'275LJKW5RDGV3URJUDP3XEOLF,QYROYHPHQW6XPPDU\3HRULD$YHQXH&,65-&52:(   Consistent Coordination between various Jurisdictions on Transportation Improvements and Traffic Issues This report contains capsulated key issues identified during this study’s public involvement process that should be taken into consideration by individual jurisdictions as the recommendations of this study are carried forward through design and construction. It is recommended that future project development build upon the public involvement program established during this study and continue as a comprehensive program progression.  For more information about the study, contact Mitch Wagner, MCDOT Planning, at 602/506-8054 or Roberta Crowe, MCDOT Public Information Officer at 602/5068003. 0&'275LJKW5RDGV3URJUDP3XEOLF,QYROYHPHQW6XPPDU\3HRULD$YHQXH&,65-&52:(  Appendix G Technical Memorandum No. 7: Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study: Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #7: Tra c Analysis Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................1 2.0 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS .................................................................................3 Existing Transportation Network ..............................................................................................3 Existing Traffic Volumes ..........................................................................................................4 February 2011 3.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS..................................................................................11 Future Transportation Network ..............................................................................................11 Future Typical Sections .........................................................................................................13 Future Traffic Volumes ..........................................................................................................14 4.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................24 Methodology ..........................................................................................................................24 Analysis Results ....................................................................................................................26 Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................................27 5.0 CRASH ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................34 List of Figures Figure 1 – Vicinity Map................................................................................................................2 Figure 2 – Existing Transportation Network.................................................................................5 Figure 3 – Existing Intersection Configurations ...........................................................................6 Figure 4 – Existing ADT Volumes................................................................................................9 Figure 5 – Existing 2010 Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes .............................................10 Figure 6 – Maricopa County Major Streets and Routes Plan Functional Classification ..............15 Figure 7 – MAG I-10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study Functional Classification ...........................................................................................16 Figure 8 – MAG 2030 Arterial Street System ............................................................................17 Figure 9 – City of Surprise Functional Classification Map ..........................................................18 Figure 10 – City of Glendale Functional Classification Map .......................................................19 Figure 11 – MCDOT Principal Arterial Cross-Section ................................................................20 Figure 12 – MAG Principal Arterial Cross-Section .....................................................................20 Figure 13 – City of Surprise Major Arterial Cross-Section..........................................................20 Figure 14 – City of El Mirage Minor Arterial Cross-Section ........................................................21 Figure 15 – City of Glendale Major Arterial Cross-Section.........................................................21 Figure 16 – 2031 Projected Daily Traffic Volumes.....................................................................22 Figure 17 – 2031 Projected Peak Hour Turing Volumes............................................................23 Figure 18 – 2031 Lane Configurations and Level of Service .....................................................29 Figure 19 – Population Density 2005 ........................................................................................30 Figure 20 – Population Density 2030 ........................................................................................31 Figure 21 – Employment Density 2005......................................................................................32 Figure 22 – Employment Density 2030......................................................................................33 Page i January 2011 Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road List of Tables 1.0 Table 1 – Existing Intersection Characteristics ............................................................................3 Table 2 – 4-Lane Arterial LOS Thresholds ................................................................................24 Table 3 – ADT Volume Warrant ................................................................................................25 Table 4 – Control Delays and Corresponding Levels-of-Service ...............................................26 Table 5 – Socioeconomic Data .................................................................................................27 INTRODUCTION The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) prepared the Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study (Hassayampa Framework Study) that identified a comprehensive roadway network to meet traffic demands for the build out of the area west of State Route 303 (SR 303L). This long range regional transportation study identified the need for a roadway network consisting of freeways, parkways, and major arterial roads. The Hassayampa Framework Study recommended an extension of Peoria Avenue west from Perryville Road to the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway, and identified Peoria Avenue as a major arterial from the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Sarival Avenue. The study area for this project includes Peoria Avenue from the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway alignment to Dysart Road (Peoria Avenue Corridor). The study area generally encompasses a two-mile wide corridor centered on the existing Peoria Avenue. The study area is shown in Figure 1. Appendices Appendix A – 2031 Intersection Analysis This study will establish the facility type, number of lanes, right-of-way needs, and general alignment for the Peoria Avenue Corridor that will be required to accommodate projected traffic growth and enhance safety. In cooperation with the City of Surprise, the City of Glendale, and the City of El Mirage, the study will also develop access management guidelines, determine design standards based upon which jurisdiction anticipates annexing the roadway, and develop an implementation plan. In general, the purpose of this Corridor Improvement Study is to provide the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) and other jurisdictions with a future “footprint” of the Peoria Avenue Corridor and a timeframe for the implementation of the recommended future roadway improvements. The key objectives of this Corridor Improvement Study are to: x x x x x x Define and assess strategic issues within the project study area; Develop and evaluate conceptual alternative alignments within the corridor study area; Recommend a preferred alignment; Develop consensus for the preferred alignment; Define the characteristics of the preferred alignment; and Develop an implementation plan. This technical memorandum identifies the existing and future travel demand, roadway network, and traffic conditions for the Peoria Avenue Corridor. Page ii January 2011 Page 1 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 1 – Vicinity Map Page 2 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Existing Traffic Volumes 2.0 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Existing Transportation Network Figure 2 illustrates the existing transportation network in the study area. Currently, Peoria Avenue is a two-lane roadway, with varying degrees of improvements. Presently, Peoria Avenue extends west as far as Perryville Road as a paved road, with the exception of one mile between Citrus Road and Cotton Lane that is unpaved. Between Perryville Road and the Beardsley Canal, an unpaved and narrow maintenance/access road exists. In the wider context of the study area, Jackrabbit Trail Parkway does not yet exist; Olive Avenue is the only crossing of the Beardsley Canal, granting access to the west; and SR 303L remains a major arterial road with no freeway improvements completed. Local roadways are intermittently developed, depending on the degree of built residential and industrial land uses. The BNSF Ennis Spur crosses Peoria Avenue at an at-grade railroad crossing, protected by lights and gates. Based on its current function in the existing network, MCDOT functionally classifies the existing Peoria Avenue roadway as a major collector in the Maricopa County Transportation System Plan, February 2007. A major collector provides short-distance (less than three miles) traffic movement, collects and distributes traffic between local and arterial streets, and provides direct access to abutting land. The existing portion of Peoria Avenue within the study area has eight major cross-street intersections from Perryville Road to Dysart Road, not including the intersection with SR 303L. The intersection with Litchfield Road is a four-legged signal controlled intersection. The other seven intersections are either two-way stop controlled or all-way stop controlled. The Perryville Road intersection is a “T” intersection, with the existing Peoria Avenue terminating here. The roadway lane geometry and intersection traffic control was taken from aerial mapping provided by Maricopa County and field-verified in August 2010. Table 1 summarizes the configuration of these eight intersections, including the type of intersection, current traffic control, and number of lanes at each approach. Figure 3 shows the lane geometry of each intersection along with an aerial plan view of the intersection. Historical traffic volumes were obtained from the City of Surprise and MCDOT for years 2008– 2009 where available. In addition, Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc. (TRA) conducted traffic counts in August 2010, at several locations in the study area. The existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes within the study area are shown in Figure 4. TRA also conducted turning movement counts at eight major intersections in the same month. These intersection volumes represent existing peak hour traffic between the hours of 7:00-9:00 a.m. and 4:00-6:00 p.m. Figure 5 displays the 2010 peak hour turning movements at each of the major intersections along the Peoria Avenue study corridor. Existing daily traffic on Peoria Avenue varies in the study area from approximately 900 vehicles per day (vpd) at the west end to 9,000 vpd between Bullard Avenue and Litchfield Road. A majority of the north/south arterial cross streets along the corridor currently carry more traffic than Peoria Avenue. With the exception of SR 303, Litchfield Road has the highest existing cross street daily traffic volume (16,500 to 14,600 vpd) in the study area. Classification counts were also conducted at three locations within the Peoria Avenue study area: (1) Peoria Avenue east of Cotton Lane; (2) Cotton Lane north of Peoria Avenue; and (3) Litchfield Road north of Peoria Avenue. All three locations show that passenger cars comprise a vast majority of the existing daily traffic volumes (approximately 98%) while large trucks comprise less than 1% of the daily traffic volumes. The remaining 1% to 2% is medium-sized vehicles (buses, RVs, small trucks). Table 1 – Existing Intersection Characteristics Intersection Type Traffic Control NB 1 Approach Lanes SB EB WB 1 n/a* 2 Perryville Road “T”-intersection Three-Way STOP Citrus Road Four-legged NB/SB STOP 1 1 2 1 Cotton Lane Four-legged EB/WB STOP 1 1 1 1 Sarival Road Four-legged Four-Way STOP 3 2 2 2 Reems Road Four-legged Four-Way STOP 2 3 1 1 Bullard Avenue “T”-intersection Three-Way STOP n/a 2 1 2 Litchfield Road Four-legged SIGNAL 2 3 2 3 Dysart Road Four-legged Four-Way STOP 3 3 2 3 *n/a applies to approach lanes that do not exist (e.g., three-legged intersection). Source: Maricopa County 2010; Field verification 2010. Page 3 January 2011 Page 4 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 2 – Existing Transportation Network Page 5 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 3 – Existing Intersection Configurations Page 6 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 3 – Continued Page 7 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 3 – Continued Page 8 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 4 – Existing ADT Volumes Page 9 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 5 – Existing 2010 Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes Page 10 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road 3.0 Incorporated El Mirage includes the areas both north and south of Peoria Avenue east of Dysart Road (and therefore out of the study area), but also the area south of Peoria Avenue between the Ennis Spur and Dysart Road. El Mirage classifies Peoria Avenue as a minor arterial (based upon City of Peoria standard details). El Mirage does not have a functional classification map at the current time. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Future Transportation Network For the planned future network, functional classification is the process by which roads are grouped into classes or systems according to the kind of service they will provide in the future. Roadways functionally classified as high-speed, high-capacity facilities tend to maximize mobility and minimize direct land access. The hierarchy of functional classification typically includes freeways, expressways, parkways, major and minor arterials, collectors, and local streets. Maricopa County and MAG similarly classify Peoria Avenue as an (urban) principal arterial in the future network. However, Peoria Avenue actually falls within multiple jurisdictions in the study area. Each jurisdiction has assigned its own future functional classification to the portion of Peoria Avenue within its boundaries. The overlapping classifications are even more complex where Peoria Avenue forms the boundary between jurisdictions. For the planned future network, Peoria Avenue has been classified by the local jurisdictions as listed below: x x x x x Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road MCDOT – Urban Principal Arterial MAG – Major Arterial City of El Mirage – Minor Arterial City of Glendale – Major Arterial City of Surprise – Major Arterial The future MCDOT functional classification of Peoria Avenue in the study area is an urban principal arterial, as stated in the Maricopa County Major Streets and Routes Plan, adopted in 2001 and revised in 2004 (Figure 6). The corridor currently exists from Dysart to Perryville Roads, and is classified as “future” from Perryville Road to Jackrabbit Trail. A principal arterial is defined as a street that provides for long-distance traffic movement within Maricopa County or between Maricopa County and urban areas. Access to abutting land is restricted and controlled through frontage roads and raised medians, as well as by the spacing and location of driveways and intersections. Opposing traffic flows may be separated by a raised median. MCDOT also classifies all other one-mile grid roadways in the study area as principal arterials, except Perryville Road south of Cactus Road, which is defined as a minor arterial and SR 303L, defined as a future freeway. The MAG I-10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study identifies Peoria Avenue as a major arterial, as illustrated in the functional classification network map in Figure 7. This is supported in the 2010 MAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which defines Peoria Avenue as a four-lane arterial from Dysart to Reems Road, and as a six-lane arterial from Reems Road to Jackrabbit Trail in 2030 (Figure 8). The City of Surprise incorporated area within the study area extends north from Peoria Avenue, between the Beardsley Canal and Dysart Road. Surprise classifies Peoria Avenue as a major arterial in the current General Plan, illustrated in Figure 9. Page 11 January 2011 The City of Glendale maintains planning jurisdiction over the south side of Peoria Avenue from the Ennis Spur to Perryville Road as part of its Municipal Planning Area (MPA). One-half mile between SR 303L and Sarival Road is incorporated, fronting Peoria Avenue to the south. Recent General Plan amendments have upgraded Peoria Avenue to a major arterial roadway (Figure 10). Planned Network Improvements Much of the surrounding roadway system to the project area does not exist or is planned to be expanded or adjusted from its current configuration. SR 303L, Jackrabbit Trail Parkway, and Northern Avenue Parkway are planned roadway facilities in the surrounding network that are considered regional routes. SR 303L Corridor SR 303L is located roughly in the center of the study area. It intersects Peoria Avenue between Cotton Lane and Sarival Road. It has been studied, classified, reclassified, restudied, and ultimately confirmed as a major link in the regional and state highway system. SR 303L is currently being improved from an interim two-lane roadway into a “Rural Major Freeway,” as classified by MAG. SR 303L is an important link in the regional freeway system because it will alleviate the bottlenecks on the Grand Avenue arterial (US 60/US 93) and provide a new transportation corridor for the West Valley. The ultimate improved SR 303L will be a fully access-controlled, grade-separated urban freeway with a rolling profile that will be elevated or depressed at the arterial crossroads and near ground level at all other locations. The ultimate freeway will include four general purpose lanes with high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and auxiliary lanes between service interchanges. Thirteen service interchanges for arterial crossroads and two system interchanges at Northern Parkway and US 60 are also planned for this freeway. Peoria Avenue is one of the thirteen service interchanges planned for the ultimate corridor. This interchange is currently under design as a full diamond interchange. The Stage III ADOT design plans have been obtained for this interchange and will be considered throughout the study. Jackrabbit Trail Parkway Jackrabbit Trail Parkway has undergone several planning and corridor-level studies in the last few years. In the 2007 MAG I-10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study, Jackrabbit Trail was established as an Arizona Parkway, a new category of roadway classification in Arizona. The framework study also changed the alignment of the corridor – specifically within the Peoria Avenue study area, offsetting it a half mile west of the section line – to miss major topographical and drainage features. Page 12 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Jackrabbit Trail Parkway will follow the new Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway (MCDOT, August 2008), which includes an intermediate-capacity, six- to eight-lane divided highway with partial access control and no direct left turns permitted at major intersections. Compared with a conventional arterial, an Arizona Parkway can provide additional travel capacity without full grade separations at major intersections. It can provide the benefit of increasing intersection capacity while maintaining direct driveway access to each quadrant of the intersection. The junction of Peoria Avenue with Jackrabbit Trail Parkway will need to consider the design standards in the Arizona Parkway Intersection/Interchange Operational Analysis and Design Concepts Study (MCDOT, August 2009). Surprise classifies Peoria Avenue as a major arterial in the current General Plan, whereas El Mirage classifies Peoria Avenue as a minor arterial (based on City of Peoria standard details). Typical cross-sections for both cities are illustrated in Figures 13 and 14. In 2008, MCDOT completed the Jackrabbit Trail Access Control and Corridor Improvement Study, which further refined the corridor and established a preferred alignment, supported by preliminary engineering considerations that provide operational and design details regarding its classification as an Arizona Parkway. Because Peoria Avenue will intersect Jackrabbit Trail Parkway, this study can provide guidance for future roadway improvements in the study corridor. MAG provided design year 2031 traffic volume projections for use in this study. MAG maintains a regional traffic forecasting model based on projected socioeconomic data, which provides numerous outputs including daily traffic and peak hour traffic. MAG network simulations were provided for the 2031 design year under the build scenario. For the purposes of the MAG model, the “build scenario” network corresponds to three traffic lanes in each direction of travel. The 2031 Build traffic volume projections are shown in Figure 16. Northern Avenue Parkway MCDOT does not include a Peoria Avenue crossing of the Agua Fria River in its current or future roadway network. Other regional planning studies have suggested a need for a river crossing and the City of El Mirage has included a crossing in its roadway network. While this river crossing may not be implemented in the near future, a conservative approach (by including the river crossing) was used to project the 2031 Peoria Avenue travel demand. While the transportation plans described above were used to establish the ultimate Peoria Avenue classification, the 2031 travel demand will be used to help determine an implementation strategy for the corridor. While located outside the study area, Northern Avenue through the Phoenix metropolitan area has been under study for several years, with a view to upgrading it to a “super street.” With a fourteen–mile gap in the freeway system between I-10 and SR 101L, Northern Avenue has been envisioned as another east-west connection across the metropolitan area, offering more access control and capacity than a major arterial, but less speed than a freeway. In the MAG I-10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study, this facility is defined as an Arizona Parkway, positioned approximately one-half mile between the Northern and Olive Avenue section lines throughout the study corridor. Future Typical Sections As mentioned previously, Peoria Avenue has been classified by the local jurisdictions as follows: x x x x x MCDOT – Urban Principal Arterial MAG – Major Arterial City of El Mirage – Minor Arterial City of Glendale – Major Arterial City of Surprise – Major Arterial A MCDOT principal arterial is six lanes wide, constructed on a minimum right-of-way of 130 feet, including a bicycle lane. Right-of-way for future bus pullouts should be provided on the far side of each intersection of a principal arterial with another principal or minor arterial – which, in the study area, includes every one-mile cross street. Figure 11 illustrates this MCDOT typical cross-section for Peoria Avenue. The City of Glendale has indicated that amendments to the General Plan have upgraded Peoria Avenue to a major arterial. A typical cross-section for the City of Glendale is shown in Figure 15. Future Traffic Volumes The 2031 MAG daily traffic projections were also used to develop projected peak hour turning movements at the major intersections. The following assumptions were applied to the daily traffic projections to estimate approach and departure peak hour volumes at each major intersection: x x Approximately 8% of the daily traffic would occur during the peak hours (K factor) A 60/40 directional split (D factor) would occur during the peak hours with the dominant movement in the A.M. peak hour being toward SR 303L and to the south with the reverse movement in the P.M. peak hour The estimated approach and departure volumes were then converted to peak hour turning volumes utilizing procedures outlined in NCHRP 255. In order to balance the turning movements, slight adjustments were made to the K factor at isolated locations with the resulting K factors varying between 7% and 9%. The projected 2031 peak hour turning movements are shown in Figure 17. A MAG principal arterial is also six lanes wide, constructed on a minimum right-of-way of 140 feet, including a bicycle lane. Figure 12 depicts the MAG typical cross-section for Peoria Avenue. Page 13 January 2011 Page 14 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Source: MAG I-10 Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study, 2007. Source: Maricopa County Major Streets and Routes Plan, Street Atlas, revised 2004. Figure 6 – Maricopa County Major Streets and Routes Plan Functional Classification Figure 7 – MAG I-10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study Functional Classification Page 15 Page 16 January 2011 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Source: MAG RTP 2010 Update, 2010. Figure 8 – MAG 2030 Arterial Street System Page 17 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Source: City of Surprise General Plan 2030, Transportation Plan, 2010. Figure 9 – City of Surprise Functional Classification Map Page 18 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Source: City of Glendale General Plan 2025. Figure 10 – City of Glendale Functional Classification Map Page 19 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Source: Maricopa County Major Streets and Routes Plan, Policy Document, revised 2004. Figure 11 – MCDOT Urban Principal Arterial Cross-Section Source: City of Surprise Street Design Guidelines, 2009. Figure 13 – City of Surprise Major Arterial Cross-Section Source: MAG I-10 Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study, 2007. Figure 12 – MAG Principal Arterial Cross-Section Page 20 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Source: City of Glendale Standard Detail Index, 2002. Source: City of Peoria Standard Detail, 2007. Figure 14 – City of El Mirage Minor Arterial Cross-Section Figure 15 – City of Glendale Major Arterial Cross-Section Page 21 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 16 – 2031 Projected Daily Traffic Volumes Page 22 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 17 – 2031 Projected Peak Hour Turing Volumes Page 23 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road 4.0 Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road residential development. The warrant is met when the estimated ADT on the major street and on the higher volume minor street or driveway approach to the intersection equals or exceeds the values in Table 3. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Methodology Table 3 – ADT Volume Warrant Arterial Street Analysis Table 2.1 of the MCDOT Roadway Design Manual includes information regarding planning level traffic volume thresholds for different facility types. According to this table, a 4-lane urban arterial can accommodate approximately 35,000 vpd. In addition, planning level analyses were conducted using Highway Capacity Software to estimate volume thresholds for a 4-lane urban arterial roadway. The following assumptions were utilized in this analysis: x x x x x x x x x x x 45 mph free-flow speed 60/40 directional split in peak hour 0.95 peak hour factor (PHF) 9% of daily traffic occurs during peak hour Class II street with medians and turn bays 15% turns from exclusive lanes 1 mile segment 3 signals (actuated) Random arrivals (type 3) 90 sec cycle length 0.42 g/c ratio Major Street Minor Street Major Street Minor Street 1 1 10,000 3,000 2 or more 2 or more 1 2 or more 12,000 12,000 3,000 4,000 1 2 or more 10,000 4,000 1 1 15,000 1,500 2 or more 1 18,000 1,500 2 or more 2 or more 18,000 2,000 1 2 or more 15,000 2,000 Intersection Analysis Table 2 – 4-Lane Arterial LOS Thresholds C D E F Estimated ADT Source: MCDOT Traffic Engineering Policy/Procedure Guideline (PPG), Section 4, Subject 4.6 Table 2 shows the resulting daily traffic ranges and corresponding level-of-service thresholds. Level-ofService Lanes for Moving Traffic on Each Approach ADT Range Arterial (veh/day) < 19,000 19,000 – 31,000 31,000 – 33,000 > 33,000 Intersection Level-of-Service (LOS) analyses were conducted using Synchro 6.0 in accordance with procedures outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The concept of level-ofservice uses qualitative measures that characterize operational conditions within a stream of traffic. The descriptions of individual levels-of-service characterize these conditions in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience. Six levels of service are defined for each type of facility for which the analytical procedures are available. They are given letter designations from ‘A’ to ‘F’, with LOS ‘A’ representing the best operational conditions and LOS ‘F’ representing an over-capacity condition (congestion). Each level-of-service represents a range of operating conditions. Table 4 below shows the control delays and corresponding levels-of-service established in the HCM for signalized intersections. This analysis, along with the MCDOT Roadway Design Manual, generally shows that a 4-lane arterial can accommodate approximately 30,000 vpd. Daily traffic volumes greater than approximately 30,000 vpd would warrant a 6-lane arterial. Signal Warrant Analysis Signal warrant analyses were conducted in accordance with MCDOT Traffic Engineering Policy/Procedure Guideline (PPG), Section 4, Subject 4.6. This guideline sets forth the ADT volume warrant to be evaluated for future traffic needs on a new intersection, an intersection revised by a proposed roadway construction project, or at the driveway of a new commercial or Page 24 January 2011 Page 25 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Table 4 – Control Delays and Corresponding Levels-of-Service Level-of-Service Control Delay (sec/veh) A B C D E F < 10 10 – 20 20 – 35 35 – 55 55 – 80 > 80 Sensitivity Analysis Since the 2031 traffic volumes warrant a 4-lane facility, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to help determine if and when a 6-lane facility might be needed. This analysis included a review of 2031 socioeconomic data in the MAG model to determine the land use densities assumed in 2031; a review of the growth trends in the travel demand from 2010 to 2031; and a review of the Hassayampa Framework Study travel demand model which is generally representative of a potential “build-out” scenario in the far west valley. Socioeconomic Data The following assumptions/input parameters were used in the intersection analysis: x x x x x x x Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Peak hour factor: 0.92 Vehicle travel speed: 45 mph Percentage of heavy vehicles: 4% Lane widths: 12 feet Base saturation flow rate: 1,900 pcphpl for all movements Right-turn on red movement was allowed and modeled in the software Cycle length: 60 seconds The thirteen socioeconomic analysis zones (SAZ) within the study area constitute approximately 17.5 square miles (less than one-half percent) of the 9,223-square-mile MAG planning area and modeling region. In 2005, the study area had a population of approximately 4,550 persons and an employment base of approximately 1,500 employees. By 2030, these numbers are expected to dramatically increase. Table 5 presents the socioeconomic data for the existing 2005 and adopted 2030 forecast scenarios, as well as the percent change between the two forecast years. Table 5 – Socioeconomic Data Analysis Results Arterial Street Analysis Results As shown in Figure 16, the 2031 traffic volumes along Peoria Avenue range from approximately 10,000 vpd to 31,000 vpd. According to the criteria established above, in 2031 a 4-lane facility would be warranted from Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road however, the ultimate classification is for 6 lanes. Signal Warrant Analysis Results According to the criteria shown in Table 3 and the 2031 traffic volume shown in Figure 16, all major intersections along Peoria Avenue would warrant signalization by 2031. Intersection Analysis Results The intersection analysis results and recommended 2031 lane configurations are shown in Figure 18. For the 2031 design year, single left-turn lanes are recommended at a majority of the intersections with dual left-turn lanes being recommended at Jackrabbit Trail Parkway and at Cotton Lane. As signalized intersections, under the conditions shown in Figures 17 and 18, all of the intersections are expected to operate at level-of-service ‘C’ or better during the peak hours. These lane configurations show what is warranted in 2031 based on the conditions analyzed, the ultimate classification is for 6 lanes. Page 26 January 2011 Scenario Population (persons) 2005 4,550 Employment (employees) 1,500 2030 36,330 21,010 Percent Change 698% 1,300% Source: MAG, 2010. Population density maps (Figures 19 and 20) show the highest existing density located in the built out/under construction master planned communities located north of Peoria Avenue between Reems and Litchfield Roads. While that will remain an area of higher density, the greatest densities in the future will be located in the Prasada community, north of Peoria Avenue between Citrus Road and SR 303L. The areas of lowest population density include much of the area affected by the BNSF Ennis Spur and Luke Air Force Base noise contours, and the area surrounding the McMicken Dam. This will remain the same in the future, as these features are generally incompatible with adjacent residential development. Employment density maps (Figures 21 and 22) illustrate that the largest number of existing jobs are located north of Peoria Avenue between Reems and Dysart Roads, although the employment density is still quite low, reflecting an average of 1.1 to 4 jobs per acre. Employment growth to 2030 is scattered, with the highest densities of jobs located adjacent to SR 303L and Dysart Road. The areas with the lowest employment densities are the McMicken Dam and the area south of Peoria Avenue between Sarival Road and the Ennis Spur – generally affected by the Luke Air Force Base noise contours. Page 27 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road A majority of the area adjacent to Peoria Avenue has a 2030 population density (less than 4 persons per acre) which is lower than the current population density in the more urban areas of the valley (6 to 9 persons per acre). Therefore, it is likely that the 2030 socioeconomic data used in the MAG model is well below the future potential “build-out” of the study area. Additional development could occur beyond that reflected in the MAG 2030 socioeconomic data that would result in increased travel demand along the Peoria Avenue corridor. Travel Demand Growth Trends Based on the existing traffic volumes and the 2031 traffic projections, the travel demand along Peoria Avenue is expected to experience substantial growth over the next 20 years. The annual growth rates vary from approximately 5 percent to 100 percent per year. While this type of growth in travel demand can occur as development occurs in undeveloped areas, these growth rates cannot be sustained over a long period. Assuming that the annual growth rate beyond 2031 will be approximately 15 percent per year, the daily traffic volumes along a majority of Peoria Avenue will exceed 35,000 vpd by the year 2040. I-10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study An expanded and updated version of the MAG regional transportation model was used to forecast the growth in total travel demand and future changes in travel patterns in the Hassayampa Study Area. As the first step in the update of the model, MAG developed new build-out population and employment estimates. “Build-out” refers not to a specific future year, but rather to an unspecified date when urban development will have reached its highest level or maximum extent. These assumptions were based on an amalgamation of (1) expected land development patterns and densities in general plans and comprehensive plans, (2) approved private development plans, and (3) planned or proposed development plans. Each of these sources provided a glimpse of the level of future development in the MAG planning area and, specifically, the density of development for all major land uses. Build-out represents the best current understanding of how the region will develop in the long term. Build-out of the Hassayampa Valley is expected to occur at least 40 to 60 years in the future. Daily traffic projections were obtained from MAG for the Hassayampa Framework Study model. The daily traffic projections for Peoria Avenue from this model ranged from approximately 30,000 to 60,000 vpd which would warrant a 6-lane arterial roadway. Conclusions Maricopa County, City of Surprise, and City of Glendale all classify Peoria Avenue as a 6-lane arterial facility. It is likely that the 2030 socioeconomic data used in the MAG model is well below the future potential build-out of the study area. Additional development could occur beyond that reflected in the MAG 2030 socioeconomic data that would result in increased travel demand along Peoria Avenue. The MAG Hassayampa Framework Study travel demand model was based on a build-out scenario of western Maricopa County and produced daily traffic projections that would warrant a 6-lane arterial facility. Based on the growth trends between 2010 and 2031, a 6-lane facility may be warranted by approximately 2040. Page 28 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Note: This lane configuration is the minimum warranted by projected 2031 conditions. The ultimate configuration includes 3 lanes in each direction of travel. Figure 18 – 2031 Lane Configurations and Level of Service Page 29 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 19 – Population Density 2005 Page 30 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 20 – Population Density 2030 Page 31 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 21 – Employment Density 2005 Page 32 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road Figure 22 – Employment Density 2030 Page 33 January 2011 Technical Memorandum #7 Traffic Analysis Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road 5.0 CRASH ANALYSIS MCDOT provided detailed information on 79 crashes reported along Peoria Avenue between Perryville Road and Dysart Road, during the three-year period beginning January 1, 2004 and ending December 31, 2006. A review of the crash data showed the following information: x x x x x x Approximately 90% (71 of 79) of the reported crashes were classified as multi-vehicle crashes. Of these 71 multi-vehicle crashes, approximately 87% were reported as angle (60%) or rear-end crashes (27%). Of the 79 crashes, approximately 68% were reported as non-injury. One crash involved a fatality. Approximately 82% (65) of the 79 crashes were recorded as occurring at an intersection. A review of the remaining 14 crashes showed that 1 occurred at a driveway, and 12 crashes occurred near an intersection (within 200’) even though they were recorded as not related to an intersection or no data was provided as to their relationship to an intersection. Appendix A Page 34 January 2011 Appendix H MCDOT RightRoads Summary of Public and Stakeholder Involvement MCDOT RightRoads Program Summary of Public Involvement Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail to Dysart Road May 10, 2011 Maricopa County Department of Transportation MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Peoria Avenue CIS/4/15/11/RJCROWE 2 Maricopa County STUDY BACKGROUND & PURPOSE Department of Transportation The Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study (Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road) is one of a series of long-range transportation planning studies being conducted by the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT). The City of Surprise, City of Glendale, City of El Mirage, and Maricopa County transportation plans all include Peoria Avenue as a future arterial roadway from Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Dysart Road. The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) recently prepared the Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study (Hassayampa Framework Study) that identified a comprehensive roadway network to meet traffic demands for the build out of the area west of SR 303L. This long range regional transportation study identified the need for future roadway network consisting of freeways, parkways, and major arterial roads. _________________________________________________________ 2901 W. Durango St. Phoenix, AZ 85009 Phone: 602-506-4608 Fax: 602-506-4882 www.maricopa.gov MCDOT RightRoads Program Summary of Public Involvement Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study Jackrabbit Trail to Dysart Road TT005 The MAG Hassayampa Framework Study recommended an extension of Peoria Avenue westward from Perryville Road to the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway, and identified Peoria Avenue as a major arterial roadway from the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Sarival Avenue. FINAL REPORT PURPOSE OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT This study evaluated planned corridor development and the resulting projected 2030 traffic volumes along the future Peoria Avenue corridor between Jackrabbit Trail and Dysart Road to develop the most cost-effective improvement plans that include a recommendation for establishing the future roadway type, alignment, access management strategies, future drainage structures and network connectivity. This study will identify the preferred alignment and “footprint” for the future Peoria Avenue between Jackrabbit Trail Parkway and Dysart Road and will facilitate future roadway implementation by developers and local jurisdictions, providing a cohesive transportation corridor, compatible with the City of Surprise, City of Glendale, City of El Mirage, Maricopa County, and MAG transportation plans. Corridor Description The Peoria Avenue Corridor study area includes the segment of Peoria Avenue between the future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway alignment and Dysart Road. The study area generally encompasses a two-mile wide corridor centered on the existing Peoria Avenue alignment. Gaining consensus among the agencies and the public is critical to the success of this long range transportation study as well as the future implementation of its recommendations to provide an efficient roadway for the long term. Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT), Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC), Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), the Burlington-Santa Fe Railway (BNSF), Maricopa County Environmental Services, Maricopa County Parks Department, Maricopa County Planning and Development, Maricopa Water District, the City of Surprise, the City of Glendale, the City of El Mirage, Dysart Unified School District, major utility providers, impacted land developments, affected businesses, property owners and residents are all major stakeholders in this study. The participation of stakeholder public and multi-agency involvement aids in the development of a consistent roadway and the resolution of conflicting agency requirements; facilitates ultimate regional traffic flow; and preserves the interests and rights of area residents and adjacent development. Today’s Peoria Avenue generally consists of a two-lane roadway (one travel lane in each direction). Half-street improvements have been constructed along the north side of Peoria Avenue adjacent to developments such as Shadow Ridge High School, Greer Ranch subdivision, Copper Canyon Ranch subdivision and Skyway Business Park. Improvements on the south side of Peoria Avenue have been constructed adjacent to the Cortessa subdivision. The only full-width roadway section of Peoria Avenue is located immediately east of Perryville Road between Cortessa and Shadow Ridge High School. The BNSF Railway operates a north-south railroad spur (Ennis Spur) that crosses Peoria Avenue between Litchfield and Dysart Roads. SR 303L crosses the Peoria Avenue Corridor between Cotton Lane and Sarival Road. The majority of the land in the study area is privately owned, with the exception of the westernmost limit (west of Beardsley Canal) which is owned by the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD). The majority of the existing land use is categorized as vacant (undeveloped) or agricultural. Several residential subdivisions are built or MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Peoria Avenue CIS/4/15/11/RJCROWE 3 MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Peoria Avenue CIS/4/15/11/RJCROWE 4 under development, which include three elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. In several locations, existing homes not associated with large master-planned communities, are located adjacent to Peoria Avenue. Small clusters of industrial and commercial development are scattered throughout the eastern end of the study area. Based on the City of Surprise, City of Glendale, and City of El Mirage future land use planning, a majority of the vacant and agricultural land within the study area is envisioned to be converted to single-family residential housing and mixed-use developments in the future. It is anticipated that commercial and industrial development will expand, but remain scattered throughout the study area. • • • • • Develop and evaluate conceptual alternative alignments within the corridor study area Recommend a preferred alignment Define the characteristics of the preferred alignment Develop consensus for the preferred alignment Develop an implementation (recommended construction phasing) plan Preliminary Key Issues and Challenges Early in the study process, a preliminary list of study issues and potential challenges is compiled. This list expands as the study progresses and input is obtained from public participation. Study Need Today's land development and existing travel demands in the Peoria Avenue Corridor do not warrant a major east/west arterial roadway in the near-term; however, plans are underway to convert much of the rural and low density residential lands within the corridor to more intense land uses that will generate significantly more traffic. The “build-out” forecast for future land development and resulting travel demand warrant a major east/west arterial roadway in the long term. Establish future connections of Peoria Avenue to planned roadways such as Jackrabbit Trail Parkway To help make future roadway construction economically feasible, the planning process needs to begin now to identify and protect long-term public right-of-way needs for the future roadway under ultimate “build-out” conditions. Maintain functional integrity of roadway through constrained areas Study Goals & Objectives This corridor study is the first step in the planning process and its primary goal is to aid the affected agencies and jurisdictions in defining and protecting sufficient rightof-way for a continuous future Peoria Avenue Corridor that will safely accommodate projected travel demand and the future six-lane major arterial roadway as identified in the Surprise, Glendale, MCDOT and MAG long-range transportation plans. In general, the purpose of this Corridor Improvement Study is to provide MCDOT and partner jurisdictions with a future “footprint” of the Peoria Avenue Corridor and a timeframe for the implementation of the recommended future roadway improvements. Identify ultimate alignment and access management strategies Account for future planned connection to SR 303L Evaluation of drainage structures across major washes, canals and channels. Evaluation of crossing of the BNSF Railway Ennis Spur Maximize use of existing roadway improvements along corridor to reduce costs Consideration of environmental constraints Study Approach The Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study is carried out in two phases, a planning phase and an engineering phase. To accomplish this, the main focus of this study is to investigate, map, and analyze corridor constraints and opportunities to arrive at a recommended corridor alignment. This study will establish the facility type, number of lanes, right-of-way needs, and general alignment for the Peoria Avenue Corridor that will be required to accommodate projected traffic growth and enhance safety. In cooperation with the City of Surprise, the City of Glendale, and the City of El Mirage, the study will also determine design standards based upon future roadway jurisdiction (anticipated roadway annexation) and an implementation or construction phasing plan. Define and assess the strategic issues within the project study area MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Peoria Avenue CIS/4/15/11/RJCROWE Based on identified needs, conceptual alternatives are developed and candidate alternatives are then evaluated for technical and environmental feasibility, public acceptability, and economic viability. Engineering Phase The Engineering Phase of the study begins following the selection of a preferred alternative. Preliminary engineering design plans, right-of-way requirements, and estimated construction costs will be prepared for long-term roadway design features. The key objectives of this Corridor Improvement Study are to: • Planning Phase During the Planning Phase, general background information regarding the corridor is gathered and documented in reports that will lead to well-founded recommendations for improvements and longer-term needs along Peoria Avenue. Meetings are conducted with affected jurisdictions, agencies, stakeholders, and the impacted public to form a broad consensus of the overall needs and vision of the corridor. 5 MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Peoria Avenue CIS/4/15/11/RJCROWE 6 Priorities for roadway construction phasing along with policies and guidelines to preserve the intended regional function of the road are developed. attempting to balance impacts to both sides of the corridor; Alternative 2 included widening the corridor to the south, maintaining the northern right-of-way boundary; Alternative 3 included widening the corridor to the north, maintaining the southern right-of-way boundary. STUDY MILESTONES Project Kick-off & Study Initiation Based on this evaluation and study findings, the following alternatives are recommended along the corridor: July 2010 PHASE I: Data Collection/Issues Identification July - September 2010 Public Input Meeting #1 (Scoping Phase) September 20, 2010 PHASE II: Alternatives Development and Evaluation October 2010 – January 2011 Public Input Meeting #2 (Alternatives Analysis Phase) January 18, 2011 Public Input Meeting #3 (Findings & Recommendations) March 22, 2011 Study Completion/Final Report June 2011 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT & EVALUATION Segment 1 (future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Beardsley Canal): Alternative 1 – new corridor along section line Segment 2 (Beardsley Canal to Perryville Road): Alternative 1 – new corridor along the section line Segment 3 (Perryville Road to Citrus Road): Alternative 1 - widen symmetric along the section line Segment 4 (Citrus Road to Cotton Lane): Alternative 3 – shift north Segment 5 (Cotton Lane to Sarival Road): Alternative 1 - widen symmetric along the section line Segment 6 (Sarival Road to Reems Road): Alternative 1 - widen symmetric along the section line Segment 7 (Reems Road to Bullard Avenue): Alternative 3 - shift north Segment 8 (Bullard Avenue to Litchfield Road): Alternative 1 - widen symmetric along the section line Segment 9 (Litchfield Road to Dysart Road): Alternative 2 - shift south After completion of the inventory of existing and future conditions, the study team developed the following evaluation criteria to help determine the alignment for Peoria Avenue: Right-of-way impacts Compatibility with existing developments Compatibility with planned future developments Compatibility with existing and planned roadway improvements Engineering complexity and constructability Public acceptance Local agency support Drainage/flood control considerations Utility considerations Environmental considerations Segment Location Recommended Alignment Comments 1 Future Jackrabbit Trail Parkway to Beardsley Canal Alternative 1 Centered on section line Scored higher due to shorter corridor length and less disturbance to drainage corridors. 2 Beardsley Canal to Perryville Road Alternative 1 Centered on section line Alternative 1 Centered on section line Independent evaluation not carried out; alignment is already set in the Zanjero Trails Preliminary Plat. 3 Preferred Alternatives (Recommended Alignments) The Peoria Avenue corridor was split into nine east/west geographic segments to conduct the evaluation. Up to three alternative alignments were considered for each segment: Alternative 1 included widening the corridor symmetric to the section line, MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Peoria Avenue CIS/4/15/11/RJCROWE SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT Perryville Road to Citrus Road Scored highest of the three alternatives; most compatible with existing street improvement on Peoria Avenue. Corridor will transition at east end to meet Segment 4, shifted north of the section line. 7 MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Peoria Avenue CIS/4/15/11/RJCROWE 8 Segment 4 5 6 Location Recommended Alignment Citrus Road to Cotton Lane Alternative 3 Centerline shifted 37 feet north of section line Scored highest of the three alternatives; most compatible with existing development; likely to have least right-of-way cost. Alternative 1 Centered on section line All three alternatives scored similarly. Alternative 1 chosen due to compatibility with existing development and planned roadway improvements, specifically placement of Loop 303 and the Peoria Avenue traffic interchange. Cotton Lane to Sarival Road Sarival Road to Reems Road 7 Segment 7: Reems Road to Bullard Avenue Alternative 1 Centered on section line Alternative 3 Centerline shifted 30- feet north of section line for short distance in middle portion of segment Alternative 1 Centered on section line 8 Bullard Avenue to Litchfield Road 9 Litchfield Road to Dysart Road Alternative 2 Centerline shifted south of section line improvements will not likely be completed in the near-term, but rather by private developers as development along the corridor occurs. Comments Near-Term Improvements In the near-term, projects that are already funded will be completed, such as improvements at the SR Loop 303/Peoria Avenue interchange (to be constructed by ADOT when SR Loop 303 is upgraded to a freeway) and City of Surprise planned completion of the north half-street section between Sarival and Reems Roads. Other near-term improvements recommended for consideration include acquiring public right-of-way and constructing a twolane roadway between Citrus Road and Cotton Lane, and constructing drainage improvements at Litchfield and Sarival roads. Corridor will transition from Segment 4 north shift to centerline symmetry at the west end of this segment. Scored highest of the three alternatives; balances impacts throughout segment and performs best in key factors, including compatibility with existing development and drainage/flood control considerations. Although scoring the lowest due to impacts to existing development, maintaining section line alignment at west end and transitioning to the north, east of existing development allows alignment to miss well site and balance impacts throughout remainder of segment. Corridor will transition at east end to meet segment 8, centered on the section line. Scored highest of the three alternatives; balances impacts throughout segment and performs better than Alternative 3 in key factors, including compatibility with existing development and drainage/flood control considerations. Because of the varying shifts associated with Alternative 2, it best minimizes impacts to existing land uses throughout the segment. Long-Term Improvements Long-term (likely beyond 2030) improvements will focus on bringing uniformity to the corridor and widening to the ultimate six-lane facility. Areas where these improvements would occur include: Perryville Road to Citrus Road Sarival Road to Reems Road Bullard Road to Litchfield Road Litchfield Road to Dysart Road PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Public participation and feedback during each phase of the study process is very important and a vital component of study development. Gaining consensus among the jurisdictional agencies and the public is critical to the success of the study and implementation of its recommendations to provide a safe and efficient roadway for the long term. In addition to multiple Stakeholder Advisory Committee meetings, a total of three public input meetings are conducted during the course of the study process. The first public input meeting (September 20, 2010) was held during the data collection and Scoping Phase to inform the public of the objectives of the study and provide area residents and other stakeholders with an opportunity to inform project team Recommended Implementation Plan The recommendations of this study are intended to be used to preserve corridor right-of-way for the ultimate Peoria Avenue. It is anticipated that construction of MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Peoria Avenue CIS/4/15/11/RJCROWE Mid-Term Improvements Several additional improvement projects, most likely constructed by adjacent development, would be needed in the mid-term timeframe to provide a continuous four-lane facility by the year 2030: South half-street and frontage road construction between Citrus Road and Cotton Lane Cotton Lane intersection improvements Reems Road intersection improvements South half-street construction between Bullard Avenue and Litchfield Road 9 MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Peoria Avenue CIS/4/15/11/RJCROWE 10 members about study area issues and local transportation needs. This meeting also provided the public an opportunity to contribute feedback on the study purpose, goals, and objectives. The second public input meeting (January 18, 2011) was conducted during the Alternatives Analysis Phase. This meeting served to provide the results of the issues and constraints identification process and reviewed the candidate alignment evaluation criteria. This meeting also presented the conceptual alternative alignments, and gathered more public feedback to assist further development and evaluation of the advanced Candidate Alternatives, leading to the study’s primary objective, the selection of a Preferred Alignment. 5:00 – 7:00 p.m., September 20, 2011 Shadow Ridge High School Media Center Surprise, AZ 85388 Participants Attendance: 66 Consultant Team: Rodney Bragg (AECOM) Jackie Pfeiffer (AECOM) Javier Guana (Andes) Public Works Lands/Real Estate: Robert Sachs Outreach Methods The following outreach methods were used to inform and notify the general public and impacted residents about the study, public input meeting dates and locations and additional opportunities or means for input: • • • • • • Media releases Newspaper articles Display advertisements in local and regional publications o Arizona Republic o Surprise Independent o West Valley View o Buckeye Valley News MCDOT website Partner agency mediums Direct mail flyers to adjacent property owners and previous meeting attendees MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Peoria Avenue CIS/4/15/11/RJCROWE Over 150 people attended three public input meetings conducted through the course of this study. Graphics, aerials and display exhibits presented corridor alternatives and study information. Study Fact Sheets and Comment Sheets were distributed to those in attendance. All public meetings were conducted in an “open house” format providing a free, open and accurate exchange of information between area residents with specific issues or questions and the project team. The following information is representative of discussions that the project team had with meeting attendees and written comments received by MCDOT: Scoping Phase Public Meeting Meeting Purpose: Gather public comment regarding the study area, existing conditions, current corridor deficiencies, future transportation needs and public review of overall Study Goals and Objectives. The third and final public input meeting (March 22, 2011) was held during the Findings and Recommendations Phase of the study. This meeting reviewed the results of the Candidate Alternative evaluation process, presented the Preferred Alternative (recommended alignment), and gathered additional public input and feedback for use in the development of the final report. MCDOT Planning & Engineering: Mitch Wagner Roberta Crowe Mike Pavlina PUBLIC COMMENT 11 There are lot of people using this road especially in the peak hours. I would suggest there should be a minimum of 2 lanes on each side with lighting on both sides of the road. West of Bullard avenue there is no lighting on the road .There is lot of vacant land surrounding the Peoria Ave and I am assuming there will be lot of future residential/commercial development will be happening adjacent to Peoria Avenue. Intersection of 303 & Peoria Avenue needs to be signalized. I support the completion/improvement of Peoria Avenue from Jackrabbit Trail to Dysart Road. It is imperative that alternate ingress and egress roadways are established for the residents in this area. Peoria between Cotton Lane and Citrus needs to be addressed sooner than later. For emergency services to meet somewhat decent response times this road should be paved or monthly maintained for proper and secure road travel. Owner made speed bumps and or ditches should be addressed. If a road improvement is needed then Olive should be the road. It has much less housing affected and it goes all the way through to the 101. Peoria after Dysart turns into 25 mph. Peoria does not make sense. MCDOT not very knowledgeable about Peoria Avenue & Citrus as to how it is going to be improved (# of lanes, speed, traffic control devices) right of way purchasing and speed enforcement/traffic control devices, i.e. residential neighborhood 25mph or less. What time frame for project improvements. This section of roadway provides a very big environmental issue caused by the dust. Very big impact from developments to the west of this location to the high school. MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Peoria Avenue CIS/4/15/11/RJCROWE 12 Please pave Peoria between Cotton Lane and Citrus ASAP. Thank you. The community on 178th Avenue does not want the street (178th Ave.) to exit onto Peoria Ave. What noise barriers are going to be installed to cut down on noise pollution? The dust pollution on Peoria is terrible. What is the County and City of Surprise going to do about the pollution from traffic between now and the time pavement is installed. My concern is the area from Cotton Lane to Citrus on Peoria. Before the school was built, someone should have thought about the people who already live in the neighborhood. What is the speed limit; will there be stoplights or stop signs? Where will the intersections be? What can you do in the meantime to control the dust? What about the speeders? How many lanes will there be? We need to have more answers if you wanted out opinions! Provide more info at next meeting. Do something about the dirt road between Cotton lane and Citrus. The dust is killing us. Keep the speed limit at 25mph on dirt road and enforce it. Need to know number of lanes and traffic control devices. Dust control and environmental issues at the present time and future. Hopeful that Peoria will become paved from Cotton Lane to Perryville. We have kids at the elementary school and traffic would be significantly decreased if this were to happen. Interested in the sequence/timeline of improvements and proposed changes to Peoria Ave Also – type of interchanges at 303 and arterials. Nobody working this meeting really had any information as to what was going to happen if anything. Nick Mascia (City of Surprise) was very helpful and knowledgeable however there are no plans for anything to happen. This meeting led me to believe there was something in the “works”. What a disappointment to find out it is a dead-end. The high school will have Seniors and Juniors driving – the dust level for Peoria and Cotton area will be much worse. The 4-way stop at Cotton and Olive is very busy and in the mornings it is impossible to get through. I know money is dear, but can’t we pave some of the dirt roads before tearing up existing roads constantly? Project needs to be “fast tracked” thru local City/State/County DOT officials. I was disheartened to find out this “project” is still in the study phase. My main concern is Peoria fronting the community of Greer Ranch. The HOA is concerned regarding road signs, sidewalks and necessary landscaping that need to be to actually finish off the development. I would be more than happy to discuss this further. Appreciate the “Open House”. This is a very needed project improvement for the area. The challenge will be on getting the owners (all of them) to agree on the best alternatives. The District has tried that before when we built the school and met resistance. We live in Cortessa and Olive Avenue right now is the only in and out of this area. Should Peoria Avenue get improved, it would help the traffic flow tremendously. Also, with the High School now being open, it would assist with traffic as well. I don't believe that there is any reason not to MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Peoria Avenue CIS/4/15/11/RJCROWE 13 Improve Peoria Avenue with the exception of the home owners that happen to live there and don't want the additional traffic - then they should move. Recently a large school was put in at the end of Peoria and Citrus. Since this school was put in, we have had nothing but traffic speeding down Peoria (dirt road) each morning and also in the afternoon. I assume these are people taking and picking up their children from school. This causes a tremendous amount of dust for the people who live in my neighborhood, especially the people whose houses face Peoria Road. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see the road paved to cut down on the dust in our neighborhood, however I have some concerns. We do not want 178th Avenue to connect to Peoria Avenue. In addition, we would like to have a sound wall as well. My questions to you are if this road is paved, who will incur the cost? Will our taxes be raised so people who do not live in our neighborhood can take their kids to the new school? Is there some sort of stimulus that will take care of the cost? Will the people whose houses face Peoria loose part of their frontage property, and what about the irrigation canals that run along Peoria? The stretch of road on Peoria from Cotton Lane to Citrus will there be speed bumps or stop signs? We would like for the road to be paved. Since Shadow Ridge High School has opened we have experienced a lot of traffic thru our community (Cortessa) and have even experienced a number of accidents down Olive ave towards Cotton Lane. Perryville Rd going towards Olive has become a race way for the High School kids as well resulting in the kids driving extremely fast down that road. We feel if Peoria Ave was paved it would eliminate the high school kids driving thru the community, allowing more routes to exit the High School eliminating accidents, kids getting hit (which this has happened) and reducing traffic flow/speed down Olive ave towards Cotton and Perryville Rd towards Olive. I would love to see road improvements to Peoria Ave! Not only for quicker, safer access to the High School but congestion and traffic would be reduced at all entrances/exits on Olive Ave west of Cotton Lane as well. Though the housing boom has ceased, there are many who live in the Cortessa development that would greatly benefit from the improvements. Work and shopping expeditions would have less drive, which saves on gas in these tough economic times. It is a great time to update Peoria Ave and also provide work for many. My vote is a YES! The following are key issues captured by the study team during conversations with meeting attendees: MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Peoria Avenue CIS/4/15/11/RJCROWE 14 Support (from a number of people who live in Cortessa) to pave the one-mile of Peoria Avenue between Citrus Road and Cotton Lane. Want improvements made to Peoria Avenue sooner rather than later. Concern about emergency access if emergency vehicles “detour” around unpaved segment. Desire for the use of asphalt rubber to reduce noise levels. Don’t want 178th Ave connected to Peoria Avenue when Peoria Ave is improved. Questions about the study schedule and future input opportunities. Questions about alternatives under consideration. Questions about the timing of new development/master planned communities. Clarification of study purpose. Concern about other unpaved roads (not in the study area) and when the county will pave them. Questions about specific development entitlements relative to future land use (e.g., when/where will a gas station be placed in the neighborhood; when will the new Safeway begin construction, etc.). Alternatives Analysis Phase Public Meeting Meeting Purpose: Gather public comment regarding preliminary study findings, traffic analysis, corridor alignment alternatives and future roadway options. 5:00 – 7:00 p.m., September 20, 2011 Shadow Ridge High School Media Center Surprise, AZ 85388 Peoria’s unpaved section East of Citrus needs 2 lanes paved “yesterday”, if not dust to control the dust, to eliminate the extra 2 miles of travel getting around it in lieu destroying your vehicle. It does not appear to be any reasonable alternative route other than Peoria, at least nothing as straight forward and nothing that wouldn’t cost a lot more money. Findings and Recommendations Phase Public Meeting Meeting Purpose: Gather public comment regarding study findings and “Preferred Alternative”, recommended access management strategies and guidelines, and an improvement phasing timeline. Attendance: 35 We live at 15751 W. Becker Lane and Peoria Ave. is just beyond our back wall. Traffic noise is already high. Peoria Ave. doesn't go through to the 101 so it makes no sense to widen it. A better idea would be to widen Olive Ave. instead. There are very few homes along the corridor planned and there are stop lights already installed at the major intersections including the 303 and the 101. It is more of a major road than Peoria Ave. We are against your plans at this time. I attended the open house last night at the High School. Thank you for taking the time to speak with all of us and listen to the concerns of the homeowners in the neighborhood. My first concerns at this meeting was to be sure that there were no plans to open up our dead end street to Peoria Ave. (178th, 177th, 176, all dead end at the irrigation ditches). You nodded your head and said that that was not included in this study or the plans. I was good with that. My second concern was a noise barrier along Peoria. This was not addressed at the meeting... so I am not sure what the plans are for that. After reviewing the 3 alternatives that were posted. I have to say that Alternative 3 MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Peoria Avenue CIS/4/15/11/RJCROWE (road to the north) is really the only option. I am the billing coordinator for Co-op 100, the co-op that owns the small irrigation ditches that provides irrigation to the homes from 175th - Citrus, south of Peoria Ave. If you went with Alt. 1 or 2, this will affect the irrigation ditches and the wells. I am not sure how that would affect the irrigating of our property. Some of the homeowners have been there for over 40 years, and some are fairly new; but nevertheless, we all moved out there for the irrigated acre's and raise our children in a rural environment. I completely understand that "progress" and "change" is coming. We dealt with that with Cortessa. If there is an option (Alt. 3) that can improve the road without disturbing the homes in our neighborhood, I feel that that should be your only option. The only thing on the North side of Peoria is farmland. No homes, no families, nothing personal will be disturbed by using the farmland for your Peoria Corridor. PS: If the county would like to pave the existing 2 lane road from Cotton Lane to Citrus, I don't think anyone would have heartache over that. 15 5:00 – 7:00 p.m., September 20, 2011 Shadow Ridge High School Media Center Surprise, AZ 85388 Attendance: 50 I live at 18537 W. Onyx Ave near Shadow Ridge School. I would like to see Peoria improved from Cactus Lane to 303. This would cut 2 miles off every time I drive to Surprise. Also the intersection of Olive and 303 is in deplorable condition. A little patch work could smoothen it up. The bumps could cause accidents. Thank You It is simply my feeling that the County should proceed with the plan for Peoria Ave. that make sense. There are a few vocal individuals (as usual) that will cause delay and therefore added expense to this project If the County doesn't proceed. The Peoria "cow trail" east of Citrus is a prime example of a few, delaying what should have been done ages ago ,but would a single lane in each direction west of the 303 be any sort of an option, at least for that section, until the entire project can move forward ? MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Peoria Avenue CIS/4/15/11/RJCROWE 16 Comments/questions received by Project Team during discussions with meeting attendees: Most attendees want improvements built now to mitigate dust issues along Peoria from Citrus Road to Cotton Lane. General support for frontage road concept in segment between Citrus Road and Cotton Lane. Some concerns/questions regarding frequency of median breaks/access to Peoria Avenue and intersecting side streets. Want noise mitigation to be considered between Citrus Road and Cotton Lane as homes will be close to roadway. Request to reduce speed limit along Peoria Avenue between Citrus Rood and Cotton Lane as homes will be close to roadway. Several questions on timeframe of implementation of Peoria Avenue improvements; preference for improvements sooner rather than later. FUTURE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS It is important to recognize that the Peoria Avenue Corridor Improvement Study is a long range transportation planning study and the earliest phase of potential project development. It is intended to identify the facility type and roadway alignment at some future date along the Peoria Avenue corridor to address forecasted travel demand associated with future area land development. No public funding is currently allocated for design, right-of-way acquisition, or construction of any elements of this segment of the Peoria Avenue corridor. The Preferred Alignments as recommended in this study will be used to guide future planning efforts and ensure that subsequent land development proposals and transportation system plans are compatible with future construction of Peoria Avenue. Further refinement and negotiation of the roadway centerline right-of-way limits and consideration of environmental impacts will take place in later phases of project development as properties develop and as transportation system improvements are implemented. The following are key issues captured during this study's stakeholder and public involvement process that should be taken into consideration by individual jurisdictions as the recommendations of this study are carried forward into design and construction: Next Steps: Implementation of Recommended Improvements Adoption of Recommendations by Individual Jurisdictions o Functional Roadway Classification (Urban Arterial ) o Corridor Alignment o Access Management Plan Right-of-way Preservation in Developing Areas Design Concept Report (DCR) or Scoping Report for Consideration in project programming Project Funding: It can be anticipated that area developers will participate as part of project requirements. Access Management Strategies: Specific strategies should be implemented to ensure a seamless roadway with efficient traffic flow, safety and good access to local land uses. MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Peoria Avenue CIS/4/15/11/RJCROWE Environmental Impacts: (Natural, Cultural and Archeological Resources) and Noise Mitigation. Specific impacts on the local environment will require further evaluation during future project development. New Right-of-Way Requirements: Final roadway configuration (during preparation of Final Design Plans) will determine exactly how much land will need to be acquired to accommodate the future roadway. Landscaping Plans: Final project design will specify the type of landscaping to be used. Drainage Structures: Bridges along the new roadway will be designed during final roadway design efforts. It will be critical to ensure the roadway is designed to provide “all weather” crossings during major storm flows. Bicycle, Pedestrian and Transit Access: Future projects will be designed to accommodate alternative modes of travel and provide access to trails and neighborhoods in the area. Corridor Traffic Management: ITS (Intelligent Transportation System) will control operation of traffic between jurisdictions and differing intersection configurations. Jurisdictional Coordination: As with the overall traffic control, implementation of different corridor improvements and access management concepts will be coordinated to ensure a safe, seamless and efficient transportation facility. Appropriation of Funds for Design, Right-of-Way Acquisition and Construction of Recommended Corridor Improvements 17 MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Peoria Avenue CIS/4/15/11/RJCROWE 18 Consistent Coordination between various Jurisdictions on Transportation Improvements and Traffic Issues This report contains capsulated key issues identified during this study’s public involvement process that should be taken into consideration by individual jurisdictions as the recommendations of this study are carried forward through design and construction. It is recommended that future project development build upon the public involvement program established during this study and continue as a comprehensive program progression. For more information about the study, contact Mitch Wagner, MCDOT Planning, at 602/506-8054 or Roberta Crowe, MCDOT Public Information Officer at 602/5068003. MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Peoria Avenue CIS/4/15/11/RJCROWE 19 MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Peoria Avenue CIS/4/15/11/RJCROWE 20 Scoping Phase Public Input Meeting Mail Notification Exhibit A: Public Meeting Notification & Newspaper Display Advertisement Scoping Phase Public Input Meeting Newspaper Advertisement Arizona Republic Buckeye Valley News Surprise Independent West Valley View MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Peoria Avenue CIS/4/15/11/RJCROWE 21 MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Peoria Avenue CIS/4/15/11/RJCROWE 22 Alternatives Analysis Phase Public Input Meeting Mail Notification Alternatives Analysis Phase Public Input Meeting Newspaper Advertisement Arizona Republic Buckeye Valley News Surprise Independent West Valley View MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Peoria Avenue CIS/4/15/11/RJCROWE 23 MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Peoria Avenue CIS/4/15/11/RJCROWE 24 Findings & Recommendations Phase Public Input Meeting Newspaper Advertisement Findings & Recommendations Phase Public Input Meeting Mail Notification Arizona Republic Buckeye Valley News Surprise Independent West Valley View MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Peoria Avenue CIS/4/15/11/RJCROWE 25 MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Peoria Avenue CIS/4/15/11/RJCROWE 26 Exhibit B: 1. Public Meeting 1 “Scoping Phase” Handouts, Exhibits/Graphics 2. Public Meeting 2 “Alternatives Analysis” Phase” Handouts, Exhibits/Graphics 3. Public Meeting 3 “Findings and Recommendations Phase” Handouts, Exhibits/Graphics MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Peoria Avenue CIS/4/15/11/RJCROWE 27 MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Peoria Avenue CIS/4/15/11/RJCROWE 28 Exhibit C: 1. Media Coverage Surprise City Council OKs Peoria Avenue agreement The Arizona Republic 4-29-11 The Surprise City Council on Tuesday discussed the following items. ISSUE Vote to allow city staff to enter into an intergovernmental agreement that would make Surprise responsible for operating and maintaining the road. Maricopa County has conducted a transportation study that suggests Peoria Avenue between Dysart Road and Jackrabbit Trail Parkway be converted into a six-lane, major arterial street. The road is currently two lanes across most of the 7.5-mile span and is bordered by Surprise to the north and Glendale and the county to the south. Construction and design will not begin for years, but city staff hopes that taking ownership over the road will give Surprise a say in its design and provide another east-west crossing of the Agua Fria River. Maintaining the new road is estimated to cost the city an additional $137,000 per year and would begin once it is complete. VOTE Approved 7-0. MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Peoria Avenue CIS/4/15/11/RJCROWE 29