Appendix A: Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features 1 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study (CFS) Existing and Future Corridor Features December 2009 This technical memorandum identifies the existing and future corridor features including land use and zoning, roadway network, roadway characteristics, cross streets, traffic conditions, drainage characteristics, right-of-way, recreation and trails, existing utilities, and preliminary issues and constraints for the McDowell Parkway from 339th Avenue to Dean Road. The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) recently completed the Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study1 (Framework Study) that recommended a comprehensive transportation network designed to meet the future traffic demands for the build out of the area west of the White Tank Mountains. This long-range regional transportation network identified the need for a new facility type that could safely handle the projected high travel demand within the study area. This new facility, recently referred to as the “Arizona Parkway,” uses a distinct intersection treatment that prohibits left-turns at all cross streets, thereby creating a simpler, more efficient two-phase signal control. Left-turn movements are made indirectly using directional left-turn crossovers immediately downstream of the cross street intersection. (;,67,1*$1')8785(&255,'25)($785(6 7(&+1,&$/0(025$1'80 A corridor generally following the McDowell Road alignment and identified as McDowell Parkway is recommended in the I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study as necessitating a highercapacity parkway cross section. McDowell Parkway will originate at 339th Avenue and will extend easterly to Dean Road (219th Avenue alignment). The McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study (CFS) area encompasses approximately 15 miles in length and is defined by a two-mile wide corridor generally centered upon the McDowell Parkway alignment as recommended in the Framework Study (see Exhibits 1.1 and 1.2). The purpose of this feasibility study is to identify the optimum corridor alignment for the proposed McDowell Parkway based on the indirect left-turn intersection design outlined in the Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway (MCDOT, August 2008). All alternatives developed will include the Arizona Parkway typical section within a 200-foot- right-of-way corridor. The main focus of this feasibility study is to investigate, map, and analyze corridor constraints and opportunities to arrive at a recommended corridor alignment. The primary objectives of the corridor feasibility study are to: (1) clearly define and assess the project study area for strategic issues identification; (2) develop and evaluate conceptual alternative alignments within the corridor study area; (3) recommend a preferred alignment; and (4) define the characteristics of the preferred alignment in greater detail. This study is the first step in the development process and is meant to aid the governing bodies in protecting a continuous corridor in this area. 1 Interstate 10–Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study, Maricopa Association of Governments, September 2007. Page 1 DECEMBER 2009 McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features 1.1 McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features Land Use, Zoning and Ownership Land ownership throughout the McDowell Parkway corridor includes private entities, Arizona State Trust Land, military, Bureau of Land Management, and others as shown on Exhibit 1.4. Table 1.2 identifies the approximate percentage of land in the study area for each ownership category. Existing and future land uses, zoning, and property ownership were collected from the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), Town of Buckeye, and Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT). Table 1.2: Existing Land Ownership Summary 1.1.1 Existing Land Use As shown in Exhibit 1.3, and subsequent maps, the two jurisdictions in the study area are Maricopa County and the Town of Buckeye (Buckeye). The Town of Buckeye Limits are shown as the hatched area and the rest of the area is Maricopa County. Exhibit 1.3 also identifies the various land uses within the corridor. The majority of the land in the study area is undeveloped and open space. The open space category includes all active and passive open space, cemeteries, and golf courses. There are a large number of community master plans approved within this study area. Table 1.1 identifies the approximate percentage of land in the study area for each land use category. Table 1.1: Existing Land Use Summary Existing Land Use Acres Percent of Total Master Planned Community 756 3.7% Military 910 4.5% Low Density Residential 164 0.8% Medium Density Residential 12 0.1% Existing Land Ownership Acres Percent of Total Bureau of Land Management 1006 4.9% Military 938 4.6% Private 11967 58.8% AZ State Land Department 6429 31.7% Total 20340 100% Exhibit 1.5 identifies existing zoning as identified by Town of Buckeye and Maricopa County within the study area. Table 1.3 identifies the approximate percentage of land in the study area for each zoning classification. Table 1.3: Existing Zoning Summary Existing Zoning Acres Percent of Total R1-35 50 0.2% Rural-43 9757 48.0% Medium High Density Residential 294 1.4% Agriculture 912 4.5% General Commerce 952 4.7% Open Space 3769 18.5% Commercial Center 118 0.6% Vacant 13273 65.3% Planned Community 4721 23.2% Water 250 1.2% Rural Residential 2713 13.3% Total 20340 100% Planned Residential 1199 5.9% Special Use 830 4.1% Total 20340 100% Page 2 Page 3 McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features Table 1.5: Planned Developments Summary 1.1.2 Future Land Use Exhibit 1.6 represents the anticipated buildout land use as identified in the Town of Buckeye General Plan Land Use. Significant amounts of open space will be preserved in the area of the White Tank Mountains. Table 1.4 identifies the approximate percentage of future land use in the study area for each category. Planned Developments Acres Percent of Total Elianto 20 0.1% Sienna Hills 150 0.7% Sundance 203 1.0% Sundance Parcel 7 72 0.4% Tartesso 3132 15.4% Tartesso West 1531 7.5% Hassayampa Ranch 232 1.2% Not Currently Planned 15000 73.7% Total 20340 100% Table 1.4: Future Land Use Summary Future Land Use Acres Percent of Total Community Commercial 268 1.3% High Density Residential 467 2.3% Industrial 169 0.8% Low Density Residential 5517 27.1% Master Planned Community 8 0.0% Medium Density Residential 6007 29.5% Medium High Density Residential 1338 6.6% Military 945 4.6% Mixed Use 649 3.2% Open Space 962 4.7% Professional Office Employment 71 0.4% Regional Commercial 631 3.1% Very Low Density Residential 3039 14.9% Water 269 1.5% Total 20340 100% Based on discussions with Maricopa County’s Planning and Development division, Hassayampa Ranch is the only pending request for rezoning in the McDowell Parkway CFS study area. The last communication between the County and the owner was March 2008. Hassayampa Ranch is included in Exhibit 1.7. The Town of Buckeye recently completed a General Plan Land Use Map (ratified May 20, 2008). This General Plan includes planned developments and land uses as shown in Exhibit 1.8. 1.2 Roadway Network Information about the existing and future roadway networks has been obtained from the Framework Study which was based on transportation planning studies obtained from jurisdictions or agencies within the study area. The 1,430-square-mile Framework Study area extended from approximately State Route (SR) 74 on the north to the Gila River on the south, and from 459th Avenue on the west to SR 303L on the east. 1.2.1 Existing The majority of land in the study area will consist of planned developments (i.e., master-planned communities) with a combination of residential, commercial, mixed-use, open space, and office/employment land uses as shown in Exhibit 1.7. Table 1.5 identifies the approximate percentage of planned development in the study area. A well-developed transportation network does not yet exist in the sparsely populated McDowell Parkway study area. Exhibit 1.9 depicts the existing transportation network as well as the MAG-defined roadway functional classifications. Page 4 Page 5 1.3 McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features 1.2.2 Future 1.3.4 Future Roadway Classification The Framework Study included a conceptual roadway framework as shown in Exhibit 1.10. This recommended framework was the result of coordination with the study team and each of the local funding partners including the Town of Buckeye, City of Goodyear, City of Surprise, and Maricopa County. This study will propose an Arizona Parkway for the McDowell Parkway alignment. Existing and Future Roadway Characteristics A summary of relevant information regarding existing physical features, roadway conditions, and classifications was compiled. Also included are the characteristics of the future roadway designation, the Arizona Parkway. 1.3.1 Physical Features Existing topographic and physical features have been determined using information from sources including MCDOT, MAG, and the FCDMC and are shown on Exhibit 1.11. Some of these include: o Buckeye Military Reserve located at the base of the White Tank Mountains on Miller Road o Hanson and CEMEX materials mining pits on Tonopah-Salome Highway and 327th Avenue just west of the Hassayampa River o Tartesso Water Reclamation Plant south of Tonopah-Salome Highway just west of 315th Avenue o Various power substations along the study alignment 1.3.4.1. Arizona Parkway The Framework Study identified the need for non-freeway restricted access facilities able to offer significantly greater travel capacity than that provided by major urban arterials. This roadway facility alternative provides additional travel capacity without employing full grade-separations at intersections with arterial cross streets. It also provides the benefit of increasing intersection capacity while maintaining the potential for direct driveway access to each quadrant of the intersection. This innovative design alternative generally focuses on the provision of simple two-phase traffic signal operations at the intersections by eliminating left-turn movements. This has been demonstrated throughout the state of Michigan and is commonly referred to as the Michigan left-turn (MLT), or indirect left-turn, intersection design. In an MLT intersection, the left-turn movement is accommodated through a strategically placed Uturn break in the median on the far side of the main roadway. These U-turn breaks can be signalized in particularly high-volume areas. Exhibit 1.13 illustrates the general layout for a typical MLT intersection. 1.3.2 Existing Roadway Conditions The section of roadway from 339th Avenue along the Tonopah-Salome Highway to Sun Valley Parkway consists of a partially graded, dirt road surface that crosses the Hassayampa River along the riverbed. Portions of the roadway have a partial thin chip seal that has been worn down with use. The intersection of Tonopah-Salome Highway and Sun Valley Parkway is paved. The rest of the study alignment consists of more partially graded, dirt road surfaces or nonexistent roadway. Key: Green arterial to parkway, Red parkway to arterial — Source: MichiganHighways.org Exhibit 1.13 Arizona Parkway Schematic Drawing Key advantages of this type of roadway over a typical urban arterial include: 1.3.3 Existing Roadway Classification In the Street Classification Atlas of Maricopa County’s Major Streets and Routes Plan (MSRP) – adopted April 18, 2001 and revised September 2004 – Tonopah-Salome Highway is classified as a minor arterial. Other portions of the study area are not currently classified by this document. A classification map for the study area is shown in Exhibit 1.12. McDowell Road is shown to be a future principal arterial. x x x x x Higher vehicle capacity Faster travel times Better fuel economy due to fewer stops and less idling at intersections Reduced vehicular emissions Less crashes at intersections due to elimination of left-turn conflict points MCDOT recently finalized standards for Parkway-to-Parkway connections. These Page 6 Page 7 McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features connections will be necessary where McDowell Parkway intersects with other proposed parkways such as the Hidden Waters, Sun Valley, and Turner Parkways 1.3.4.2. paved T-intersection and stop controlled in the northbound direction. Typical Section Exhibit 1.14 shows the proposed typical section for the Arizona Parkway. 1.4 Exhibit 1.14 Arizona Parkway Typical Section Cross-Streets The McDowell Parkway alignment has several intersections and local access locations. These can be categorized into four groups: x x x x Major Cross Street – A major collector intersecting with a minor arterial. Minor Cross Street – A minor collector or local road intersecting with a minor arterial. Local Road – Allows local traffic to gain access to bordering properties. They are commonly low volume and low speed. Driveway Access – A residential or commercial point of entry. Exhibit 1.15 Intersection of Indian School Road and 339th Avenue x Sun Valley Parkway (Exhibits 1.16 and 1.17) - The intersection of Sun Valley Parkway (Palo Verde Rd) and McDowell Road is paved and stop-controlled for the east-west traffic. These definitions are general and may not fit each criterion exactly. Table 1.6 summarizes the locations of the major cross streets along the McDowell Parkway Corridor. These are: Table 1.6: Existing Intersection Characteristics Intersecting Roadway Roadway Classification Intersection Control Type 339th Avenue Minor Arterial Sun Valley Parkway x # Of Approach Lanes NB SB EB WB One-way stop 1 -- 1 1 Enhanced Arterial One-way stop 1 1 1 1 Watson Road Principal Arterial No control 1 -- -- 1 Dean Road -- No control -- -- -- -- 339th Avenue (Exhibit 1.15) - The intersection of 339th Ave and Indian School Road is a Page 8 Exhibit 1.16 Intersection of McDowell Road and Sun Valley Parkway (Palo Verde Rd) Looking East Page 9 McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features treatment has been worn down with use. Segments of the existing roadway, most notably in the Buckeye area, are posted with a 15-mph speed limit in order to reduce dust (PM10). 1.5.1.1. Existing Traffic Traffic on McDowell Road, just west of Jackrabbit Trail, was approximately 1,500 vehicles per day in 2008. The traffic volume on the Tonopah-Salome Highway, just west of 379th Avenue was estimated at 1,000 vehicles per day. 1.5.1.2. Socioeconomic Characteristics Eleven2 of the socioeconomic analysis zones in the Framework Study are located adjacent to, or contain, the proposed McDowell Parkway alignment. Table 1.7 provides a compilation of the socioeconomic characteristics of these eleven zones (comprising approximately 65 square miles) for 2005, 2030, and buildout and reflects the substantial growth that is expected in the region. Table1.7 – 2005/2030/Buildout Population and Employment Forecasts in the McDowell Parkway Corridor Exhibit 1.17 Intersection of McDowell Road and Sun Valley Parkway (Palo Verde Rd) x 1.5 Watson Road - McDowell Road and Watson Road intersect in an L-shape. Watson does not continue north and McDowell Road does not continue westward. The Town of Buckeye is planning to continue the Watson Road alignment north. x Dean Road - Dean Road is a future roadway that intersects McDowell Road. x Minor Cross-Streets, Local Roads, and Driveway Accesses - Unlimited access currently exists along existing roads along the study alignment. Future conditions will likely limit access along the parkway corridor. Factor 2005 2030 Buildout Annualized Growth Rate Between 2005 and 2030 Annualized Growth Rate Between 2030 and Buildout3 Population 5,823 49,354 131,643 8.9% 3.3% Employment 3,118 14,325 69,611 6.3% 5.4% 1.5.2 Forecast Conditions and Needs Future conditions in the corridor were derived from the data and analyses of the Framework Study. Traffic Conditions 1.5.2.1. The McDowell Parkway corridor is one of many new facilities identified in the Framework Study as necessary to ensure adequate mobility as development occurs in the far western portions of the Valley. Given the comprehensive regional transportation planning and capacity analyses prepared for that study’s 1,400-square-mile study area, MCDOT has opted to utilize the data, analysis, and findings of the framework study as they relate to McDowell Parkway. The following sections briefly summarize the existing and future corridor conditions and needs. Traffic Volumes Table1.8 provides a summary of the framework study forecast 2030 and Buildout average daily traffic volumes in the McDowell Parkway corridor. Traffic volumes for 2015 were not estimated since the corridor was not expected to be constructed until sometime thereafter. 1.5.1 Existing Conditions The existing section of roadway from 339th Avenue along the Tonopah-Salome Highway to Sun Valley Parkway consists of a partially graded, dirt road surface that crosses the Hassayampa River along the riverbed. Portions of the dirt road were previously chip sealed but that surface Page 10 2 3 Zones 136, 118, 129, 125, 1813, 1832, 1831, 119, 1819, 1837, 1834 Assumes a 30-year buildout timeframe beyond 2030 Page 11 McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features x It is important to note that McDowell Parkway or any other facility identified in the Framework Study is not currently funded and this preliminary implementation timeframe is subject to change. Table1.8 – 2030/Buildout Traffic Volumes in the McDowell Parkway Corridor McDowell Parkway Segment To 2030 Buildout 339th Ave 327th Ave 9,000 61,000 327th Ave 315th Ave 3,000-12,000 82,000-98,000 315th Ave 311th 311th Ave Bruner Rd Ave 11,000 90,000 8,000-10,000 92,000-94,000 To accommodate future volumes, the framework suggests the following intersections will require enhanced treatments: x McDowell Parkway at Turner Parkway: Grade separation with 8-lane McDowell Parkway over the 8-lane Turner Parkway x McDowell Parkway at Sun Valley Parkway: Grade separation with 8- lane McDowell Parkway over the 8-lane Sun Valley Parkway 1.5.3 Recommendations Bruner Rd Sun Valley Pkwy 10,000 97,000 Based on the analyses conducted for the Framework Study, MCDOT should advance the McDowell Parkway corridor planning to: Sun Valley Pkwy 287th Ave 17,000 106,000 x Establish a preliminary alignment 287th Ave 283rd Ave 20,000 95,000 x Identify the right-of-way needs for an eight-lane parkway cross section and preserve that right of way for future phased implementation of the corridor 283rd Ave Turner Rd 23,000 105,000 x Turner Rd Oglesby Rd 29,000 129,000 Oglesby Rd Miller Rd 32,000 137,000 Identify the right-of-way needs for the parkway-to-parkway interchanges at Sun Valley and Turner Parkways and preserve that right of way for future interchange construction Miller Rd Watson Rd 31,000-32,000 126,000 Watson Rd Verrado Way 29,000-38,000 106,000-112,000 1.6 Drainage Characteristics To aid in summarizing the current drainage characteristics and the existing storm water management features, the McDowell Road corridor will be divided into three regions as follows: x Region 1 (Sun Valley Region East) – This region of the corridor is bounded on the east by Dean Road and on the west by Sun Valley Parkway. The Framework Study recommends McDowell Road (between Jackrabbit Trail and the Hassayampa Freeway) be constructed as a medium-priority, eight-lane parkway with a jog northward to the Indian School alignment between Desert Creek Parkway and 347th Avenue. A preliminary implementation timeframe was identified in the Framework Study as: x Region II (Hassayampa River East) - This region of the corridor is bounded on the east by Sun Valley Parkway and on the west by the Hassayampa River. x Region III (Hassayampa River West) – This region of the corridor is bounded on the east by the Hassayampa River and on the west by 339th Avenue. x Exhibit 1.18 depicts these regions and Exhibit 1.19 shows the area drainage. 1.5.2.2. 4 Two-Way Average Daily Traffic (vehicles per day) 4 From 2026-2035: Construction at interim or ultimate configuration Corridor Features 2011-2020: Alignment studies and right-of-way preservation Volumes are from the Framework Study model and not the official MAG model. Page 12 Page 13 McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features possible obstructions to the flow path. However, these features remain confined within well-defined boundaries. This type of conveyance path is sometimes referred to as an inset alluvial fan. 1.6.1 Region I Region I includes an approximate 2-mile-wide corridor centered on the McDowell Parkway alignment as depicted in the Framework Study. Region I extends from Dean Road westerly nine miles to Sun Valley Parkway. Region I is currently dominated by undeveloped, natural desert with very little development however, a major portion of this area has undergone master planning and land entitlement efforts. Storm water runoff in this portion of the corridor generally originates in the White Tank Mountains to the northeast and discharges to the existing Flood Retarding Structures (FRS#1, FRS#2 and FRS#3) located to the south and southwest. Nearly all of the relevant drainage information available for Region I is documented in the Buckeye/Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Study (ADMS) (PBS&J, 2005) and the Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Plan (ADMP) (J.E. Fuller Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc., 2006). These reports are comprised of several volumes each and have been obtained from the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC). Additional information has been obtained specific to several master planned communities present within the area. This information was provided by the Town of Buckeye, MCDOT, and developers. Review of the above data and field reconnaissance indicate that Region I lies within an area characterized by mountainous terrain with piedmont landforms primarily comprised of active (unstable) and in-active/relict (conditionally unstable) alluvial fan features. Other unstable features present within Region I include some multi-channel distributary areas below active alluvial fan areas and braded channels where flood-flow is generally wide and shallow in areas of recent sedimentation. According to the ADMS conditionally unstable alluvial fans pose little hazard outside of the confining margins of the geomorphic floodway. Since the geomorphic floodway represents a much wider inundation area than the 100-year floodplain, it effectively defines the limits of potential lateral floodplain migration during the 100-year event. That is, the 100-year floodplain is generally contained within the geomorphic floodway. Review of the studies referenced above as well as field reconnaissance indicate that there are three distinct types of conditionally unstable fan features present within Region I which may be defined as follows: In addition, Region I contains several active (unstable) alluvial fans. Between the ADMS and the ADMP, approximately 11 major fan features have been identified in Region I. These features are characterized by fluvial deposits, are fan-shaped and are generally located on terrain sloping in the range of approximately 1-10 percent. The wash channels present on an active fan are typically wide with little incision or very small. Most active alluvial fans are located within a small part of an overall inactive fan area. As a result of the above studies, as well as several existing development master plans, the watershed (including and contributing to) this area is relatively well defined. Peak discharge estimates for the 100-year storm event have been established and will be used to evaluate corridor alternatives where significant wash and/or drainage crossings are anticipated. 1.6.2 Region II Region II includes an approximate 2-mile wide corridor centered on the baseline alternative McDowell Road alignment as depicted in the Framework Study. Region II extends from Sun Valley Parkway westerly 4.5 miles to the Hassayampa River. Region II is currently dominated by undeveloped, natural desert with very little development. However, a significant portion of this area has undergone master planning and land entitlement efforts. Storm water runoff in this portion of the corridor generally originates in the White Tank Mountains to the northeast and is conveyed across Sun Valley Parkway to the southwest ultimately outfalling to the Hassayampa River. Slopes through this area are gentler than those in Region I and range from approximately 0-3 percent. As with Region I, nearly all of the relevant drainage information available for Region II is documented in the ADMS and the ADMP. x Type I - Individually confined split or distributary flow paths. These features are associated with well-defined through-flow channels that may diverge or split into multiple smaller channels which then rejoin while remaining well confined. Review of the above data and field reconnaissance indicate that Region II lies within an area characterized by terrain consistent with lower piedmont landforms (piedmont toe) primarily comprised of active (unstable) and in-active/relict (conditionally unstable) alluvial fan features. Other unstable features present within Region II include some multi-channel distributary areas below active alluvial fan areas, braided channels where flood-flow is generally wide and shallow in areas of recent sedimentation and an Alluvial Plain area adjacent to the Hassayampa River. x Type II – Multiple split or braided, contained within a single reach. These features are associated with channel segments having confined braided or multiple channel appearance. In addition to the three distinct types of conditionally unstable fan features present in Region I (as described above), an Alluvial Plain is described as follows: x Type III – Confined localized aggradational reaches with braided or undefined flow paths. These features diverge into two or more flow paths as a result of local aggradation or x Page 14 Alluvial Plain – Alluvial Plains are features generally located in a flat or gently sloping area directly adjacent to a river and are formed through the deposition of sediments. Page 15 McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features As a result of the above studies, as well as several existing development master plans, the watershed (including and contributing to) this area is relatively well defined. Peak discharge estimates for the 100-year storm event have been established and will be used to evaluate corridor alternatives where significant wash and/or drainage crossings are anticipated. evaluation will be conducted and the detailed results documented in Technical Memorandum #3, Conceptual Drainage Report. 1.7 Table 1.9 summarizes existing right-of-way in the study corridor was taken from MCDOT’s Roadrunner Right-of-Way files in GIS. Information for all segments was not included due to the lack of existing road in these sections. 1.6.3 Region III Region III includes an approximate 2-mile wide corridor centered on the baseline alternative McDowell Road alignment as depicted in the Framework Study. Region III extends from the Hassayampa River westerly two miles to the intersection of the Tonopah Salome Highway and Indian School Road. Region III is currently dominated by undeveloped, natural desert with very little development however, future land use planned in the area is for a combination of rural residential, estate residential, small & medium lot residential, mixed use, commercial and some planned community. Unlike Regions I and II above, storm water runoff in this portion of the corridor originates in the watershed area to the northwest and is conveyed through the corridor to the southeast ultimately outfalling to the Hassayampa River. Slopes through this area are gentler than those in Region I and range from approximately 0-1percent. In contrast with Regions I and II, relevant drainage information available for region III is limited. Neither the ADMS nor ADMP cover the watershed area contributing to the runoff in Region III. Rather, this area has been studied in less detail as part of the Luke Wash mapping effort completed by FCDMC in 2006 and is currently under study per the Luke Wash Delineation Study. FCDMC plans to conduct an Area Drainage Master Plan for this area at some future date. In addition to the Luke Wash Delineation Study, FCDMC has completed Phase I of the Lower Hassayampa River Watercourse Master Plan and is currently conducting Phase II of that study. While the majority of the information associated with these studies has been received and is under review, detailed peak discharges have not been received. The availability of detailed 100year peak discharge data relevant to corridor alternatives through Region III is still unknown and is being assessed through a continued data collection effort and coordination with FCDMC. Since corridor feasibility in terms of drainage impacts will be relative from one alternative to another, a lack of detailed discharge data through Region III will not pose a problem to the successful completion of this study. Such a lack of detailed information will require approximate methods be used to determine peak discharges through this area. The key to successful alternative evaluation will be the application of consistent criteria used in the analysis. Review of the above data and field reconnaissance indicate that Region III lies within an area characterized by terrain associated with drainage channels and tributaries which are generally better defined than those present within Regions I and II. Continued data collection, review and Page 16 Existing Right-of-Way Table 1.9: Existing Right-of-Way Right-Of-Way Width Roadway McDowell Parkway 1.8 Segment West/South Of Centerline East/North Of Centerline Total Width 339th Ave to Sun Valley Pkwy 55’ 55’ 110’ Sun Valley Pkwy to Watson Rd None None None Watson Rd to Dean Rd 55' None 55' Recreation and Trails There is one known Maricopa County designated trail in the study area. It is located on the west side of the Hassayampa River and travels in a north-south direction. It crosses the Tonopah-Salome Highway just east of 327th Avenue as shown in Exhibit 1.20. The White Tank Mountains are also a major recreational area in the study area. 1.9 Existing Utilities Utilities are located across, adjacent, and along the McDowell Parkway corridor. Arizona Blue Stake was contacted to assist in determining the existing utilities within the study area. There are several utility owners tentatively identified within the study area that could potentially be impacted by the ultimate alignment. There are a few private water companies identified in the vicinity but most will not be impacted by this project. The most significant utility issues to consider are a Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC (Transwestern Pipeline) large diameter high pressure gas line and a major Arizona Public Service (APS) overhead electrical transmission line that will cross the alignment west of Johnson Road. There is also an APS power substation just north of Interstate 10, west of Miller Road that should be avoided. Page 17 McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features A sewer line has been constructed along portions of the existing Tonopah Salome Highway and identified as the future McDowell Road alignment by the Town of Buckeye as part of the Tartesso development. These lines are within right-of-way dedicated for pubic roadway and utility purposes and should be sufficiently deep to not conflict with the future roadway. American Telephone & Telegraph (AT&T) and Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) have two separate fiber optic lines parallel to portions of the existing Tonopah Salome Highway alignment and appear to lie outside the existing right-of-way within their own easements. Prior rights implications will need to be considered when evaluating alternative alignments. 1.10 Table 1.11 identifies general issues and constraints identified as a part of the McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study: The list of issues and constraints identified in Table 1.11 was developed from observations in the field August 19, 2009, review of existing studies and plans, and internal discussions with the study team. The issues and constraints in Table 1.11 are summarized graphically in Exhibit 1.21. Table 1.11 – Preliminary Issues and Constraints # Various other overhead and underground utilities may potentially be impacted by the ultimate alignment. Table 1.10 provides a list of the utility providers with major facilities within the study area along with the associated type of utility. Preliminary Issues and Constraints Issue/Challenge 1 3 Table 1.10: Existing Utilities 4 APS Type Of Utility Overhead Electric and Underground Electric Transwestern Pipeline Natural Gas Stardust-Tartesso West 12 inch Sewer Line AT&T Fiber Optics Sprint Fiber Optics East of 339th Ave on Indian School APS Substation APS Overhead Electric Underground Sprint Fiber Optic Underground AT&T Fiber Optic 5 Parallel to Thomas Rd East of 315th Ave Sewer Manholes 6 Perpendicular to Tonopah Salome Hwy South of the Hwy Just West of 315th Ave Sewer Manholes 7 South of Tonopah Salome Hwy just West of 315 Ave Tartesso Water Reclamation Plant. Currently acting as a recharge well. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Page 18 Description Parallel to Indian School alignment near 339th Ave - East and West Parallel to Tonopah Salome Hwy on North Side Parallel to Tonopah Salome Hwy on South Side 2 At this time there are no new major utilities planned for the McDowell corridor. Utility Company Location Major Utility Crossing Tonopah Salome Hwy just West of Johnson Rd traveling in a NE/SW Direction Crossing Tonopah Salome Hwy just West of Johnson Rd traveling in a NE/SW Direction Parallel to Tonopah Salome Hwy on South Side Crossing McDowell Rd Alignment just East of 289th Ave Traveling in a NW/SE Direction Parallel to the McDowell Rd Alignment East of Sun Valley Pkwy on South Side Parallel to Tonopah Salome Hwy East of Wilson Ave on North Side Parallel to Parker Liberty Power Rd on East Side Southeast Corner of Watson Rd and McDowell Rd APS Transmission Lines with low vertical clearance Transwestern Natural Gas Pipeline paralleling APS Transmission Lines APS Overhead Electric APS Overhead Electric APS Overhead Electric Underground Sprint Fiber Optic APS Overhead Electric Water Tank Page 19 McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features Table 1.11 – Preliminary Issues and Constraints (Cont.) # 16 17 Issue/Challenge Industrial/ Commercial 18 19 20 21 Planned Development 22 23 24 25 26 Existing Development 27 28 Ownership 29 30 Drainage 31 1.11 4. September 1, 2009 – PBS&J Offices with Bob Speirs, Stardust Development, Inc. Location Description Just South of Tonopah Salome Hwy and 327th Ave Just North of Tonopah Salome Hwy and 327th Ave Southwest of Tonopah Salome Hwy and 315th Ave North and East of Thomas Rd and Johnson Rd South and East of McDowell Rd and Sun Valley Pkwy South and East of Thomas Rd and Sun Valley Pkwy North and East of Turner Rd and McDowell Rd North and West of Van Buren and 259th Ave Hanson Material Mining Pit/Rock Quarry CEMEX Material Mining Pit/Rock Quarry North of McDowell at Dean Rd Sienna Hills North and West of Thomas Rd and Johnson Rd Partial Tartesso West West side of Watson just North of I-10 Sierra and Highlands North of I-10 on Miller Rd Buckeye Military Reserve North and East of 315th Ave and McDowell Rd South and East of McDowell Rd and Parker Liberty Power Rd Crossing Tonopah Salome Hwy just East of 327th Ave Crossing McDowell Rd just West of Dean Rd Tartesso West 1.11.2 Existing Studies, Plans, and Reports 1. Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study Date Completed: September 2007 Lead Agency: Maricopa Association of Governments Author: DMJM Harris/AECOM Tartesso West 2. Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway Tartesso Date Completed: August 2008 Lead Agency: Maricopa County Department of Transportation Author: DMJM Harris/AECOM Tartesso Tartesso 3. Hassayampa Ranch Zoning Exhibit Tartesso Date Completed: March 2008 Lead Agency: Maricopa County Department of Transportation Author: WRG Design, Inc for Harvard Investments, Inc. 4. Tartesso Town Center Master Plan Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Land Management Hassayampa River Flood Retarding Structure Date Completed: May 2009 Lead Agency: Town of Buckeye Author: North American Development Group 5. Tartesso Amendment #2 – Trip Generation Comparison Date Completed: May 2005 Lead Agency: Town of Buckeye Author: Kimley-Horn and Associations, Inc. 6. Tartesso Additional Parcels – Biological Evaluation Data Collection Listed below are the data collection efforts put forth by the study team including a list of meetings and referenced studies, plans, and reports. In addition, the study team held a visit to the study area August 19, 2009. 1.11.1 5. September 9, 2009 – Flood Control District of Maricopa County with Valerie Swick, FCDMC Meetings 1. August 10, 2009 – WC Scoutten Offices with Woody Scoutten, Buckeye Town Engineer 2. August 19, 2009 - Buckeye Military Base with Sandy Mallach, AZ Army National Guard Date Completed: December 2003 Lead Agency: Town of Buckeye Author: Senna Environmental Services for Stardust Development, Inc. 7. Tartesso 3800: An Archaeological Survey of 3,800 Acres Located West of the White Tank Mountains on the East Edge of the Tonopah Desert Date Completed: January 2004 Lead Agency: Town of Buckeye Author: Douglas B. Craig for The Stardust Companies 8. Tesota (Sienna) Hills Community Master Plan 3. September 1, 2009 – ADOT Offices with Mike Bruder, ADOT Page 20 Page 21 McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features Date Completed: January 2004 Lead Agency: Town of Buckeye Author: CMX 16. Buckeye/Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Study, Technical Data Notebook, Volume V-A2, Area 3 Hydrology Report Date Completed: January 2006 Lead Agency: Flood Control District of Maricopa County Author: JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. 9. Off-Site Sewer Plan Tonopah-Salome Highway (McDowell Parkway) Date Completed: December 2007 Lead Agency: Town of Buckeye Author: Sage Engineering Corporation 17. Buckeye/Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Study, Technical Data Notebook, Volume VII, Geomorphology Studies, Geomorphic Evaluation, and Landform Stability Assessments 10. Off-Site Sewer Plan Tonopah-Salome Highway (McDowell Parkway) Date Completed: July 2006 Lead Agency: Flood Control District of Maricopa County Author: JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Date Completed: April 2008 Lead Agency: Town of Buckeye Author: Sage Engineering Corporation 18. Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Plan, Step 3, Recommended Alternative Report, Volume 7, Buckeye FRS #2 & #3 Sub Area 11. Buckeye/Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Plan, Step 3, Recommended Alternative Report, Volume I, Executive Summary and Overview Date Completed: December 2006 Lead Agency: Flood Control District of Maricopa County Author: JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc Date Completed: December 2006 Lead Agency: Flood Control District of Maricopa County Author: JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. 19. Buckeye/Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Study 12. Buck/Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Study, Technical Data Notebook, Volume II-B: Data Collection Report Date Completed: May 2005 Lead Agency: Flood Control District of Maricopa County Author: PBS&J Date Completed: August 2006 Lead Agency: Flood Control District of Maricopa County Author: JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. 13. Buckeye /Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Study, Technical Data Notebook, Volume IV-A: Area 2 Floodplain Delineation Report Date Completed: April 2007 Lead Agency: Flood Control District of Maricopa County Author: JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. 14. Buckeye /Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Study, Volume I, Master Document Summary Date Completed: June 2006 Lead Agency: Flood Control District of Maricopa County Author: JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. 15. Buckeye/Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Study, Technical Data Notebook, Volume V-AI, Area 3 Hydrology Report Date Completed: January 2006 Lead Agency: Flood Control District of Maricopa County Author: JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Page 22 Page 23 McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features Page 25 Page 24 McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features Page 26 McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features Page 27 McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features Page 28 McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features Page 29 McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features Page 30 McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features Exhibit 1.8 Town of Buckeye- General Plan Land Use Page 31 McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features Exhibit 1.9 Existing Roadway Functional Classification System Page 32 McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features Exhibit 1.10 Conceptual Roadway Framework Page 33 McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features Page 34 McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features Exhibit1.12 Existing and Future Roadway Classifications Page 35 McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features Page 36 McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features Page 37 McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features Page 38 McDowell Parkway CFS Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Corridor Features Page 39 Appendix B: Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Transmittal Date: December 21, 2009 To: Heather Thomas, PBS&J From: Michael R. Dawson, EcoPlan Associates, Inc. Project Number: TT005 EcoPlan Number: 08-247 Project Name: McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Regarding: Environmental Overview–Final Submittal Comments: Attached is the revised Environmental Overview (EO) for the referenced project. This version reflects the edits provided by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) and the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). The requested edits that were addressed are as follows: x MAG comment 1—The title of the Framework Study was changed as requested. x AGFD comment 1—The EO Figure 6 was revised to illustrate broader wildlife corridors. We believe the intent of the comment has been met by the revised figure. x AGFD comment 2—Figure 5 was revised to identify the planned White (19,5210(17$/29(59,(: 7(&+1,&$/0(025$1'80 Tank Mountain Regional Park expansion. x AGFD comment 3—Figure 6 was revised to depict broader wildlife corridors. Further refinement is not needed at the EO stage. The EO text recommends continued coordination with the AGFD as project development moves forward. x AGFD comment 4—Additional text regarding the desert tortoise was added to the section. x AGFD comment 5—Maricopa County Flood Control District (MCFCD) dam rehabilitation plans are not a component of the McDowell Parkway and thus were not discussed in the EO. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (480) 733-6666, ext. 177, or via e-mail at mdawson@ecoplanaz.com. 701 West Southern Avenue, Suite 203 • Mesa, Arizona 85210 • (480) 733-6666 • Fax (480) 733-6661 DECEMBER 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study 339th Avenue to Dean Road MCDOT Project No. TT005 Environmental Overview Technical Memorandum #2 PREPARED FOR: Maricopa County Department of Transportation 2901 W. Durango St. Phoenix, AZ 85009 PREPARED BY: PBS&J 20860 N. Tatum Blvd., Suite 200 Phoenix, AZ 85050 and II. SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES AND TITLE VI/ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POPULATIONS ................................................................................................................. 5 A. Land Ownership/Use .................................................................................................... 5 1. Land Ownership...................................................................................................... 5 2. Existing Land Use................................................................................................... 5 3. Future Land Use...................................................................................................... 8 B. Title VI/Environmental Justice Populations ................................................................. 8 III. PHYSICAL AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT........................................................... 11 A. Biological Resources .................................................................................................. 11 1. Project Area .......................................................................................................... 11 2. Threatened and Endangered Species .................................................................... 12 3. Other Special Status Species................................................................................. 12 4. Protected Native Plants ......................................................................................... 13 5. Wildlife Movement Corridors and Linkages ........................................................ 13 B. Floodplains.................................................................................................................. 17 C. Water Quality.............................................................................................................. 17 1. Sections 404/401 of the Clean Water Act............................................................. 17 2. Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ................................................ 19 D. Visual Resources......................................................................................................... 19 E. Air Quality .................................................................................................................. 20 F. Noise Impacts.............................................................................................................. 21 G. Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................... 21 IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................. 23 A. Study Area and Inventory Methods ............................................................................ 23 B. Cultural Resources in the Study Area......................................................................... 23 C. Cultural Resource Summary ....................................................................................... 26 VI. AGENCY COORDINATION .......................................................................................... 28 VII. ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW SUMMARY............................................................ 29 VIII. LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................................... 30 EcoPlan Associates, Inc. 701 W. Southern Ave., Suite 203 Mesa, AZ 85210 December 21, 2009 Environmental Overview i McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I. List of Figures Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Maricopa County. ....................................................................................................... 2 Project location. .......................................................................................................... 3 Land jurisdiction. ........................................................................................................ 6 Current land use. ......................................................................................................... 7 Future land use. ........................................................................................................... 9 100-year floodplain, ADEQ non-attainment areas, wildlife movement corridors, and linkages. ............................................................................................. 14 List of Tables Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Total minority and population below poverty. ......................................................... 10 USFWS listed species in Maricopa County and evaluation of effects. .................... 12 Noise abatement criteria............................................................................................ 21 Previously recorded cultural resources in the study area.......................................... 24 Prior cultural resource investigations in the study area. ........................................... 25 List of Appendices Appendix A Appendix B AGFD On-line Environmental Review Tool Results Stakeholder/Agency Coordination INTRODUCTION The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) recently completed the Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study (Framework Study) (MAG 2008) that recommended a comprehensive transportation network designed to meet the future traffic demands for the buildout of the area west of the White Tank Mountains. This long-range regional transportation network identified the need for a new facility type that could safely handle the projected high travel demand in the study area. This new facility, recently referred to as the “Arizona Parkway,” uses a distinct intersection treatment that prohibits left turns at all cross streets, thereby creating a simpler, more efficient two-phase signal control. Left-turn movements are made indirectly using directional left-turn crossovers immediately downstream of the cross street intersection. A corridor generally following the McDowell Road alignment and identified as McDowell Parkway is recommended in the Framework Study as necessitating a higher-capacity parkway cross section. McDowell Parkway will originate at 339th Avenue and will extend easterly to Dean Road (219th Avenue alignment). The McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study (CFS) area is approximately 15 miles long and is defined by a 2-mile-wide corridor generally centered on the McDowell Parkway alignment as recommended in the Framework Study (Figures 1 and 2). The proposed corridor would create a new east–west route north of Interstate 10 (I-10). Currently, the western terminus of McDowell Road is at Dean Road, east of the White Tank Mountains. An unpaved segment of McDowell Road exists west of the White Tank Mountains between Sun Valley Parkway and 311th Avenue. The Arizona Parkway is a new roadway facility type outlined by the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) in 2008 that eliminates left turns at intersections. The signal progression along the entire corridor allows for more green time to be provided for through traffic, enhancing traffic operations along the parkway. The proposed new parkway would be contained within a 200-foot right-of-way and would be designed to accommodate phased construction, allowing the addition of lanes as traffic demands warrant. The CFS study area is located in: x Township (T) 2 North (N), Range (R) 5 West (W), Sections 21, 26, 27, 28, 35, and 36 x T2N, R4W, Sections 31–36 x T1N, R4W, Sections 1–5 x T2N, R3W, Section 31 x T1N, R3W, Sections 1–6 x T2N, R2W, Section 36 These sections are found on the Wintersburg (1984), Buckeye NW (1982), and Valencia (1982), Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic series maps. Environmental Overview ii McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Environmental Overview 1 McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study $ a " ! er a Riv GILA BEND Í ? BUCKEYE $̀ " ! 1 2 Miles Buckeye City Limits North ° Buckeye Military Reservation Proposed Road Extension Study Area Ton opa h -Sa lom e Hig hwa y Environmental Overview Figure 2. Project location. McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study MCDOT Project No. TT005 0 Environmental Overview 339th Avenue ive r Figure 1. Maricopa County. McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study MCDOT Project No. TT005 Í ? 311th Avenue Ha s s aya mpa R 331st Avenue v I Agua Fria R iver ß A ß A ¸ ? FOUNTAIN HILLS Verde River GOODYEAR 3 Í ? McDowell Parkway 2 ó A Ð ? $ a " ! 0 5 10 ° North W\08-247\NEPA\EO\Fig1 Miles 20 W/08-247/NEPA/EO/Fig2 McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Baseline Road McDowell Road Thomas Road Indian School Road McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Ñ ? Saft River White Tank Mountains VALLEY ! $ c " LITCHFIELD $ ð a " A TOLLESON ! PARK $ A c " ! á TEMPEMESA er Salt Riv v I v I AVONDALE GUADALUPE ß A $ CHANDLER GILBERT a " ð ! A QUEEN À CREEK PARADISE ß A SCOTTSDALE CAVE CREEK CAREFREE PHOENIX $ c " ! GLENDALE ÿ YOUNGTOWN A EL MIRAGE SURPRISE Sun Valley Parkway Palo Verde Road yam p  ? Turner Road Hass a PEORIA Rooks Road PROJECT LOCATION Johnson Avenue r Apache Road WICKENBURG Rainbow Road v I Dean Road ve Ri Airport Road la Gi The preparation of this Environmental Overview (EO) is intended to describe the existing environment; identify socioeconomic, physical, and natural resources; identify cultural or potential Section 4(f) resource issues; and note regulatory issues pertinent to project development. An EO is not intended to meet the needs of a National Environmental Policy Act environmental document but to identify early in the project development stages issues, constraints, or opportunities present. Information presented in this document is based on an existing records review, coordination with local jurisdictions and regulatory agencies, and a limited field review. No new studies were conducted to prepare this EO. In general, the study area is defined as a 2-mile-wide corridor generally centered on the existing McDowell Road alignment from Dean Road west to Sun Valley Parkway and the TonopahSalome Highway from Sun Valley Parkway to 339th Avenue. Certain resource data, such as floodplains, land use, wildlife habitat, and demographics, are gathered on a broader regional basis. Based on a review of the study area, the following are not present in the study area and thus will not be addressed in this EO: x Sole source aquifers x Wetlands x Designated critical habitat x Wilderness areas x Prime or unique farmlands or other farmlands of statewide or local importance x Unique or impaired waters x Wild or scenic rivers The following sections of this EO summarize current information and identify the level of concern or sensitivity for each environmental issue. II. SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES AND TITLE VI/ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POPULATIONS A. Land Ownership/Use The majority of the study area is within the land use planning limits of the Town of Buckeye. A small segment of the area between 339th Avenue and the Hassayampa River falls within the planning limits of unincorporated Maricopa County. The Town of Buckeye General Plan (adopted September 18, 2001; updated 2008) and the Maricopa County Tonopah/Arlington Area Plan (adopted September 6, 2000) serve as the planning tools for growth and development in Buckeye and the surrounding community. These plans, as well as the Arizona Land Resource Information System (2009), were used to determine existing land ownership, existing land use, and future land use within and adjacent to the corridor. 1. Land Ownership Some lands within and adjacent to the study area are managed by the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Arizona National Guard, and the U.S. Army; other lands are privately owned (Figure 3). Acquisition of ASLD land would require biological and cultural resource clearances. 2. Existing Land Use Land use is a representation of existing occupation and/or physical use of land. Existing land uses were verified using aerial photography of the study area and consist of residential, agricultural, military, and rock product excavation (Figure 4). The majority of the study area is undeveloped natural desert. Residential areas are primarily on the eastern and western edges of the study area. Residential developments on the eastern edge consist of large-scale master-planned communities in the foothills of the White Tank Mountains. These new developments have a comparatively higher density than the residential areas in the western portion and are indicative of the growth trend of the Buckeye area. The residential areas in the western portion are characteristic of rural low-density land uses. A livestock feedlot east of Sun Valley Parkway comprises the agricultural use in the area. Rock product excavation exists within the Hassayampa River valley in the western portion of the study area and south of the White Tank Mountains just outside the study area. On the Buckeye Military Reservation, in the center of the study area, the Arizona National Guard and the U.S. Army recently completed the construction of two training centers. The majority of the Buckeye Military Reservation remains undeveloped desert that is used jointly by the Arizona National Guard and the U.S. Army for training exercises. No shooting range is within the reservation. The Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) maintains the approximately 14-milelong earthen flood retarding structure (FRS) that parallels the north side of I-10, south of the White Tank Mountains in the eastern portion of the study area. The FRS directs floodwaters that emanate from the White Tank Mountains away from I-10 and toward the Hassayampa River. Environmental Overview 4 McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Environmental Overview 5 McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study 2 Miles Buckeye City Limits 1 ° North Hig hwa y -Sa lom e Agriculture Rock Product Residential 3 Miles ° North Portion of Census Tract 506.02 within Study Area Hig hwa y Environmental Overview Figure 4. Current land use. McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study MCDOT Project No. TT005 0 Ton opa h Portion of Census Tract 506.01 within Study Area Buckeye Military Reservation Study Area Proposed Road Extension 339th Avenue Environmental Overview 331st Avenue Ha s s aya mpa R ive r Figure 3: Land jurisdiction. McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study MCDOT Project No. TT005 0 Buckeye Military Reservation BLM ASLD Private Study Area Proposed Road Extension Buckeye Flood Retarding Structure 339th Avenue ive r Ha s s aya mpa R 331st Avenue -Sa lom e 311th Avenue 311th Avenue 6 7 $ a " ! $ a " ! Í ? McDowell Parkway Í ? McDowell Parkway McDowell Road Thomas Road Indian School Road W/08-247/NEPA/EO/Fig3 McDowell Road Thomas Road Indian School Road W/08-247/NEPA/EO/Fig4 McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Baseline Road White Tank Mountains McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Baseline Road White Tank Mountains Apache Road Apache Road Sun Valley Parkway Palo Verde Road Sun Valley Parkway Palo Verde Road Rainbow Road Rainbow Road Ton opa h Rooks Road Rooks Road Dean Road Dean Road Johnson Avenue Johnson Avenue Turner Road Turner Road Airport Road Airport Road McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study White Tank Mountain Regional Park (Proposed Expansion) Apache Road $ a " ! 9 McDowell Parkway Turner Road Land under the jurisdiction of the BLM is guided by the Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan (BLM 2005). The unconsolidated BLM-managed parcels in the study area are not identified with a specific land use plan. However, the Town of Buckeye has proposed leasing and eventually purchasing about 8,600 acres of BLM land to expand the White Tank Mountain Regional Park (Figure 5). Í ? Rooks Road The Town of Buckeye General Plan identifies the current Tonopah-Salome Highway as the future McDowell Parkway alignment west of Sun Valley Parkway. The Maricopa County Tonopah/Arlington Area Plan guides future land use for the relatively small portion of the study area west of the Hassayampa River. This area is predominantly planned for rural use. Baseline Road Rainbow Road Commercial and mixed-use areas will be located at major intersections, and three open-space areas are designated—two west of the Buckeye Military Reservation and one in the southern portion of the White Tank Mountains. Training facilities will continue to operate at the military reservation as more military units transfer to the facilities from other military installations in the state (Arizona Republic 2008). Industrial use is designated for a small area east of the Hassayampa River. W/08-247/NEPA/EO/Fig5 McDowell Road Thomas Road Indian School Road Dean Road The predominant future land use will be medium-density residential that is defined as 3.01 to 6 dwelling units per acre (Figure 5). Master-planned communities such as Tartesso, Verrado, Hassayampa Ranch, and Sienna Hills are in various stages of planning, development, and construction in the study area. Areas along the Hassayampa River are defined as floodplain transitional areas, which include rock products industry uses. Airport Road 3. Future Land Use B. Title VI/Environmental Justice Populations McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Environmental Overview 339th Avenue ° 3 Miles ive r 8 Figure 5. Future land use. 331st Avenue Ha s s aya mpa R 0 Open Space Low Density Residential Medium to High Density North Residential Industrial Commercial Study Area Buckeye Military Reservation Proposed Road Extension Ton opa h 311th Avenue Environmental Overview McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study MCDOT Project No. TT005 Johnson Avenue -Sa lom e Hig hwa y Sun Valley Parkway Data from the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census at the Block Group (BG) level were collected and used to assess potential Title VI impacts. The BGs selected for analysis are either adjacent to or overlap the project limits. Table 1 provides percentages of total minority population (an aggregate of racial/ethnic categories) and population below poverty level. The Department of Transportation Order on Environmental Justice (U.S. Department of Transportation 1997) defines low income as a median household income at or below the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services poverty guideline, which was $16,700 for a family of four in 1999. Data from the 2000 Census indicate that the project study area includes minority populations and populations below the poverty level. The percentages of these populations in the selected BGs are lower than the corresponding percentages for Buckeye and Maricopa County. Palo Verde Road “Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” ensures that individuals are not excluded from participation in, denied the benefit of, or subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance on the basis of race, color, or national origin. “Executive Order 12898” on environmental justice, dated February 11, 1994, directs that programs, policies, and activities not have a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effect on minority and low-income populations. It is anticipated that right-of-way acquisition will be required from private landowners, and additional easements will be required from the ASLD and the BLM. III. PHYSICAL AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Table 1. Total minority and population below poverty. Area CT 506.01 BG 2 CT 506.02 BG 2 Total Tracts Buckeye Maricopa County Total Population 1,938 2,721 4,659 6,417 3,072,149 Total Minoritya # 469 592 1,061 2,676 1,038,729 % 24.2 21.8 22.8 41.7 33.8 Total Population for Whom Poverty Is Determined Below Poverty Level # 1,928 2,710 4,638 6,393 131 151 282 1,200 3,027,299 355,668 % 6.8 5.6 6.1 18.8 11.7 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000. BG = Block Group, CT = Census Tract, # = Number, % = Percentage a “Total Minority” is composed of all people who consider themselves Non-White racially plus those who consider themselves White Hispanic. It should be noted that Buckeye’s population in 2000 was 6,417, and the 2008 estimated population was 47,261—an increase of more than 700 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2008). This rapid growth may have contributed to changes in the demographic composition of the study area, which will be reflected in the upcoming 2010 Census. Therefore, the data reflected in Table 1 may not accurately represent the current demographics for the study area. Impacts on Title VI protected populations must be addressed in the future Environmental Assessment that will be prepared prior to project design and construction. A. Biological Resources 1. Project Area The study area lies between 880 and 1,280 feet elevation1 on relatively flat to gently rolling terrain in the Hassayampa River Valley and on moderately steep slopes in the southern foothills of the White Tank Mountains. The north-to-south-flowing Hassayampa River crosses the western end of the study area. The Hassayampa River, which originates in the Bradshaw Mountains approximately 65 miles to the north, is perennial along some of its upper reaches (near Wickenburg and closer to the headwaters) but is ephemeral along most of its length, including where it crosses the study area. The Hassayampa River continues south approximately 7 miles, where it joins the Gila River. With the exception of the Hassayampa River, the only named drainages crossing the western end of the study area are Coyote Wash and White Tank Wash, both joining the Hassayampa River approximately 2 miles south of the McDowell Road corridor from the northwest and northeast, respectively. A number of other unnamed ephemeral washes originating on the western and southern slopes of the White Tank Mountains descend onto alluvial plains surrounding the range and cross the study area to join the Hassayampa River to the southwest (via the Buckeye FRS that parallels I-10) or the Gila River to the south. The White Tank Mountains, a low, rugged, north-to-south-oriented desert range reaching just over 4,000 feet in elevation, is the closest area of elevated terrain. The centerline of the study area bends south to avoid steep terrain within the southern end of the range, while the northern edge of the study area extends onto the southern slopes of the range. West of the Hassayampa River, rolling terrain southeast of the Belmont Mountains extends into the study area from the north. The majority of the study area lies within creosote bush (Larrea tridentata)–white bursage (Ambrosia dumosa)–dominated Lower Colorado River subdivision of Sonoran desertscrub (Turner and Brown 1994). This community is of relatively low diversity; however, along xeroriparian drainages such as the Hassayampa River, Coyote Wash, White Tank Wash, and other unnamed washes crossing the study area, diversity increases, augmented by the increased water supply provided by infrequent rains and sometimes violent flash floods. Catclaw acacia (Acacia greggii), whitethorn acacia (Acacia constricta), desert hackberry (Celtis ehrenbergiana [pallida]), blue paloverde (Parkinsonia florida), desert ironwood (Olneya tesota), velvet mesquite (Prosopis velutina), Anderson thornbush (Lycium andersonii), and occasional saguaros (Carnegiea gigantea) occur singly or in patches along these drainages. A shallower water table and subterranean flow along the Hassayampa River supports a higher density of desert trees and shrubs, including desert willow (Chilopsis linearis). The FRS serves to collect overload runoff and intercept numerous small drainages. This has resulted in a xeroriparian corridor along the north side of the structure. Vegetation in the White Tank Mountains represents foothill paloverde (Parkinsonia microphylla)–saguaro–dominated Arizona upland subdivision of Sonoran desertscrub. Other common perennial species included within this community are triangle-leaf bursage, brittlebush (Encelia farinosa), ocotillo (Fouquieria splendens), ironwood, blue paloverde, and velvet mesquite. 1 Environmental Overview 10 McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Elevations in this document are referenced to mean sea level. Environmental Overview 11 McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study 2. Threatened and Endangered Species The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species for Maricopa County (USFWS 2009a) was reviewed by a qualified biologist (Stephen Hale, EcoPlan Associates, Inc.) to determine which listed species may occur in the vicinity of the study area (Table 2). No critical habitat is present, and no species are expected to be affected. Table 2. USFWS listed species in Maricopa County and evaluation of effects. Common Name Arizona cliffrose Bald eagle California brown pelican California least tern Desert pupfish Gila topminnow Lesser longnosed bat Mexican spotted owl Razorback sucker Roundtail chub Sonoran pronghorn Southwestern willow flycatcher Woundfin Scientific Name Purshia subintegra Haliaeetus leucocephalus Pelecanus occidentalis californicus Sterna antillarum browni Cyprinodon macularius Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae Strix occidentalis lucida Xyrauchen texanus Gila robusta Antilocapra americana Empidonax traillii extimus Status Suitable Habitat Present? Occupied Habitat Present? Critical Habitat Present? Species Affected? Critical/ Suitable Habitat Affected? E No No No No No T No No No No No E No No No No No E No No No No No E No No No No No halves for analysis. A scoping response letter was received from the AGFD on September 15, 2009 (Appendix B). The letter addressed concerns over potential impacts to special status species and their habitats, impacts to more common wildlife, and the regional conservation goals of the White Tank Mountains, such as wildlife linkage corridors; therefore, the AGFD requested to participate in project development. The AGFD identified the occurrence of the Western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) within 3 miles of the project area. The Western burrowing owl is protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and requires preconstruction surveys. The correspondence identifies older records of the Sonoran Desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) in the project vicinity and recommends that preconstruction surveys be conducted for this species. It should be noted that on August 28, 2009, the USFWS determined that the Sonoran Desert tortoise may warrant listing as threatened or endangered, initiating a 12-month status review to determine if listing is warranted (USFWS 2009b). Two additional species currently being considered for listing under the Endangered Species Act have potential habitat in the project area. On July 29, 2008, the USFWS determined that the Tucson shovel-nosed snake (Chionactis occipitalis klauberi) may warrant protection as a threatened or endangered species, initiating a 12-month status review (USFWS 2008b). On June 2, 2008, the USFWS published a 90-day finding that listing of the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl (CFPO) subspecies may be warranted based on new genetic, taxonomic, and threats information not available when the CFPO was listed in 1997 and delisted in 2006 (USFWS 2008a). 4. Protected Native Plants E No No No No No E No No No No No T No No No No No E No No No No No C No No No No No E No No No No No E No No No No No E No No No No No C No No No No No E No No No No No The study area encompasses a large area of relatively undisturbed Sonoran desertscrub habitat. Even if the preferred alignment would follow the existing portions of McDowell Road and the Tonopah-Salome Highway, widening of these roadways and construction of new roadway to circumvent the southern end of the White Tank Mountains would require the removal of salvagerestricted protected native plants. These would likely include various species of cacti. In addition, salvage-assessed protected native plants such as velvet mesquite, blue and foothill paloverde, and desert willow would be affected. Protected native plants in the study area would be impacted by project construction; therefore, MCDOT would notify the Arizona Department of Agriculture at least 60 days prior to the start of construction so the Arizona Department of Agriculture can determine the disposition of these plants. Acquisition of ASLD right-of-way would require that a survey of plants protected under the Arizona Native Plant Law be conducted, as well as an assessment for salvage potential of impacted plants. 5. Wildlife Movement Corridors and Linkages Plagopterus argentissimus Coccyzus americanus The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) On-line Environmental Review Tool was accessed to determine special status species known to occur in the vicinity of the study area (Appendix A). Due to the length of the study area, the area was divided into western and eastern The movement of wildlife through the study area depends on the availability of preferred habitat, foraging range, migration and dispersal patterns. EcoPlan combined a review of aerial photographs, published results of species-specific surveys, and literature from wildlife management agencies to locate and determine potential wildlife movement corridors and linkages within the McDowell study area (Figure 6). In their north–south migration, some species of birds may pass over the study area as they follow the lowland corridor of the Hassayampa River valley and other low-elevation passes between the adjacent desert mountain ranges. Other species preferring the more diverse Arizona Upland Sonoran desertscrub community within the White Tank and other desert mountain ranges in the area may cross the study area as they disperse between areas of preferred habitat. Environmental Overview Environmental Overview Yellow-billed cuckoo Yuma clapper rail Rallus longirostris yumanensis C = Candidate, E = Endangered, T = Threatened (USFWS 2009a) 3. Other Special Status Species 12 McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study 13 McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Rainbow Road $ a " ! Turner Road McDowell Parkway Í ? Rooks Road Sun Valley Parkway hwa y Johnson Avenue ° Miles North 3 0 ADEQ PM10 Non-Attainment Area ADEQ Ozone 8-Hour Non-Attainment Area Buckeye Military Reservation FEMA 100-Year Floodplain Wildlife Movement Corridor Study Area 311th Avenue Proposed Road Extension McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study MCDOT Project No. TT005 Palo Verde Road Hig Figure 6. 100-year floodplain, ADEQ non-attainment areas, wildlife movement corridors, and linkages Apache Road -Sa lom e The traffic and noise associated with McDowell Parkway may pose a barrier to the movement of some species. Combined with the barrier created by I-10, north–south movement of terrestrial mammals may be affected. The barrier presented by the new roadway may cause some large mammals to avoid the McDowell Parkway corridor altogether. Many of these may choose to remain within preferred habitat of the desert mountain ranges and other areas of relatively undisturbed desertscrub habitat well away from the parkway. Terrestrial wildlife seeking to cross McDowell Parkway would likely be limited to areas where relatively undisturbed desertscrub habitat abuts the roadway. In areas where future development abuts it, the parkway would likely form an insurmountable barrier disrupting access to and across McDowell Parkway for most large mammals and other terrestrial species seeking to disperse across the study area. x Continuous natural corridors through areas of development 14 Baseline Road Dean Road Ton opa h Movement corridors are more likely to remain on lands under the jurisdiction of the ASLD and the BLM. The study area crosses federal and state land intermittently along its route. The natural drainage channels crossing the study area, including the Hassayampa River and other large ephemeral drainages, are also important as wildlife corridors. In these areas, habitat complexity and topographic relief provided by the drainage channels and bordering xeroriparian vegetation funnel wildlife through adjacent developed or open terrain. These xeroriparian corridors are beneficial to wildlife because they provide: x Ephemeral water sources for wildlife x A visual screen from surrounding development, thereby increasing the actual and perceived sense of security for passing wildlife x A corridor of preferred habitat for riparian birds x Habitat and migration corridors for smaller terrestrial species (rodents, reptiles, and amphibians) x Habitat for xeroriparian plant species Environmental Overview W/08-247/NEPA/EO/Fig6 McDowell Road Thomas Road Indian School Road Airport Road White Tank Mountains Many resident birds and terrestrial wildlife species find the lack of cover, altered habitat, and the presence of structures and roads in developed areas to present a barrier to movement. For these species, wildlife corridors include gaps in development where animals are funneled between patches of preferred habitat. Many of these gaps will close as development continues in the study area. The White Tank Mountains, which include White Tank Mountains Regional Park and large areas of BLM lands, are largely protected from development. Additional scattered tracts of BLM lands within or adjacent to the study area are undeveloped. The Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup is a cooperative effort between the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), the USFWS, the BLM, the AGFD, and several other federal and state agencies, academic institutions, and conservation organizations. This group has identified known and potential wildlife corridors and developed Arizona’s Wildlife Linkages Assessment. The study area abuts and crosses an area along the Hassayampa River between the White Tank Mountains and the low desert ranges to the northwest, which has been identified as the White Tank–Hassayampa River wildlife linkage. This linkage is important to such species as desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), bobcat Environmental Overview 15 McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study 331st Avenue 339th Avenue Ha s s aya mpa R ive r (Lynx rufus), javelina (Tayassu tajacu), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), mountain lion (Felis concolor), and Sonoran Desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). These species require a corridor of undisturbed Sonoran desertscrub habitat through which to pass between the desert mountain ranges on both sides of the Hassayampa River. The wide xeroriparian corridor along the Hassayampa River within this linkage area also provides a north–south corridor for these and other desert species between the Gila River Valley to the south and areas along the Hassayampa River Valley in the study area and to the north. The White Tank Mountains support potential habitat for the Sonoran Desert tortoise, which is currently undergoing status review to determine whether listing under the Endangered Species Act is warranted. Older records from 1978 and more recent anecdotal observations indicate that this species may occur in portions of the project area, particularly the mountainous eastern reaches. It is recommended that coordination take place with the USFWS to determine whether additional information is available on the presence of this species in the project area or vicinity. As applicable, portions of the new roadway through areas of moderate to high tortoise densities should be fenced with desert tortoise barrier and funnel fencing, and culverts should be constructed approximately every mile. Fencing should adhere to specifications outlined in desert tortoise mitigation recommendations issued by the Arizona Interagency Desert Tortoise Team (2008). Fence placement, funnel fencing design and siting, and culvert design should be coordinated with the AGFD and authorizing state and federal agencies. Desert mule deer, which inhabit the desert regions of the southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico, are typically found in mountainous areas but at times descend into the surrounding desert areas, usually following desert washes (Ordway and Krausman 1986, Fox and Krausman 1994) where food and cover are more abundant and the flow channel of the wash provides an open travel lane compared with adjacent upland areas (Krausman et al. 1985). Mature male deer, in a wide-ranging search for females, descend into desert areas surrounding mountainous habitat (Ordway and Krausman 1986, Albert and Krausman 1993). Tracking data from radio-collared deer in the Belmont Mountains northwest of the study area indicate that mule deer of both sexes use washes predominantly from spring through fall (Fox and Krausman 1994). Senna Environmental Services, LLC (2006) conducted a survey of the distribution of pellet groups (scat) of mule deer along washes within the Tartesso East project area, which encompasses portions of the upper and lower bajada (alluvial plain) extending southwest from the southern end of the White Tank Mountains to I-10 and is transected by the McDowell Parkway corridor. The survey indicated that habitat use by mule deer along washes in the study area is highest for washes on the upper bajada, closest to the mountain, and decreases with distance from the mountains. The McDowell Parkway corridor transects the upper bajada below the southwestern end of the White Tank Mountains through areas where the presence of pellet groups indicates use by mule deer. study tracked a relatively small number of deer and is not necessarily representative of the overall movement patterns of the mule deer population in the area. The pellet group data (Senna Environmental Services, LLC 2006) shows that mule deer also use the southern end of the range and the associated bajada and desert plains. The AGFD is currently attempting to improve the habitat conditions for wildlife along the FCDMC FRS, which extends along the north side of I-10 between the area south of the White Tank Mountains west to the Hassayampa River. There is concern that the McDowell Parkway will sever the connection for wildlife along the bajada washes between the White Tank Mountains and the FRS (AGFD 2009). The wildlife corridors and linkages identified in this EO are based on current data, anecdotal field observations, and proposed habitat improvements (i.e., Buckeye FRS). It is important to note that additional corridors and linkages may exist along the corridor. During the design process for this project, it is recommended that Buckeye, MCDOT, and their environmental and design subcontractors coordinate with the AGFD, the USFWS, and the Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup to incorporate elements and features into the final design to protect wildlife from roadway traffic and allow for the ease of movement of wildlife across the McDowell Parkway in safety. Recommendations made in the recent AGFD study (Grandmaison and Schweinsburg 2008) to maintain wildlife connectivity and recommendations made in the AGFD’s September 11, 2009, letter regarding the CFS (Appendix B) should be considered as part of this coordination effort. B. Floodplains A review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (2005) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for the project vicinity indicated that several segments of the study area are located within 100-year floodplains (Figure 6). Impacts to floodplains typically occur when the topography within a floodplain is substantially modified by placement or removal of materials within the floodplain. Because the corridor crosses many 100-year floodplains (FIRMs 04013C1985G, 04013C2005H, 04013C2010H, 04013C2030H, and 04013C2035H), the Maricopa County Flood Control Manager would need to be provided an opportunity to review and comment on design plans during the design phase. The FCDMC manages the FRS, portions of which are in the study area. The FCDMC is partnering with ADOT to reconstruct portions of the structure. Any alignment of the parkway in the study area would cross the eastern section of this structure. C. Water Quality 1. Sections 404/401 of the Clean Water Act a. Regulatory Background The AGFD completed a radiotelemetry study in 2008 that tracked the movement of 12 mule deer captured in the White Tank Mountains and fitted with radio transmitters (Grandmaison and Schweinsburg 2008). Though the study area included portions of the McDowell Parkway corridor, no movements were recorded across the corridor. Some of the deer fitted with radio transmitters made movements from the White Tank Mountains to the Hassayampa River across Sun Valley Parkway, but closer to the north end of the range. It is important to note that this Environmental Overview 16 McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the placement of dredged or fill material into Waters of the United States (Waters). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has regulatory jurisdiction of Waters. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification administrated by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) is required for any action subject to Section 404. Environmental Overview 17 McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study b. Potential Waters in the Study Area Potential Waters in the study area are influenced by the hydrologic characteristics of the watershed. The study area crosses foothill, bajada, and desert plain areas south and west of the White Tank Mountains as well as the Hassayampa River and its floodplain. The majority of the study area occurs within the watershed of the FCDMC’s FRS (1-3), though a short segment of the corridor at its western terminus falls within the Hassayampa River watershed. The Buckeye FRS (1-3) is located downstream of, and roughly parallel to, the study area and was constructed to protect I-10 and agricultural areas to the south from flooding. Potential Waters in the study area include the Hassayampa River and smaller ephemeral tributaries that generally flow from northeast to southwest and roughly perpendicular to the study area. Except at the western terminus, flood flows from drainages that cross the study area are detained by the FRS (1-3). Flows are conveyed along the FRS (1-3) and overland through pipes, and are ultimately conveyed to the Hassayampa River. The Hassayampa River at the I-10 crossing is ephemeral until a point approximately 4 miles upstream of its confluence with the Gila River, where agricultural irrigation returns from the Buckeye Water Conservation District Canal restore more frequent flows. The Hassayampa River connects (about 14 miles downstream) to a stretch of the Gila River that has been classified as effluent-dependent. The Gila River then flows approximately 170 miles to the perennial Colorado River. Potential Waters in the study area are expected to be limited to ephemeral drainages. No wetlands, other special aquatic sites, or other types of potential Waters are known or anticipated to occur. The Corps has completed jurisdictional determinations for several private masterplanned developments that occur along the study area, including the Tartesso East and the Tartesso West master-planned communities (Corps File Nos. 2006-00834-RWF and 200200844-RWF). Approved delineations for these projects indicate the presence of ephemeral Waters ranging in width from 3 feet to 50 feet that cross the study area. If a preliminary JD is requested and obtained from the Corps, MCDOT could subsequently file an application for a Section 404 permit based on this preliminary determination, including the resultant assessment of impacts and required mitigation. If an approved delineation is requested, MCDOT would be required to prepare and submit an analysis that evaluates the presence of a significant nexus between the Waters in the study area and downstream TNWs (in this case, the effluent-dominated reach of the Gila River). This option may take up to several years to complete, with an uncertain outcome in regard to the ultimate determination of jurisdiction. For the McDowell Parkway, even if a lack of significant nexus is determined for the smaller drainages in the study area, larger drainages in the study area such as White Tank Wash and the Hassayampa River would likely be considered jurisdictional and would still require Section 404 permitting, though total impacts and mitigation requirements would be less. The project would likely require an individual Section 404 permit. Crossings of smaller drainages could be considered as separate and complete crossings of Waters and could qualify under Nationwide Permit (NWP) 14 (Linear Transportation Projects) if each crossing does not exceed ½ acre of impacts and meets all other conditions of this NWP. However, crossing of larger drainages, particularly the Hassayampa River, is unlikely to qualify under the NWP program due to the anticipated extent of impacts. This would result in the requirement for an individual permit for all impacts to Waters incurred by the project unless impacts from larger drainage crossings can be reduced through the use of clear spans or other methods that limit placement of fill material in Waters. Though NWPs are conditionally pre-certified for Section 401 Water Quality Certification, an individual Section 404 permit would require an individual 401 certification from the ADEQ. 2. Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System A total of 17 washes were delineated as jurisdictional along the 4-mile section of the Tartesso East property that directly abuts the McDowell Road alignment between Rooks Road and Sun Valley Parkway. These consist of five washes with a bottom width greater than 12 feet (including one wash with a bottom width of 50 feet), four washes with a bottom width between 7 and 11 feet, and eight washes with a bottom width of 6 feet or less. Based on review of aerial photography, the density of potentially jurisdictional washes increases in the sloped areas and foothills south of the White Tank Mountains, while wash density generally decreases in desert plain areas west of the mountains. White Tank Wash and two of its tributaries cross the existing McDowell Road alignment just east of the Hassayampa River and have a combined bottom (potentially jurisdictional) width of approximately 85 feet. The Hassayampa River at the existing McDowell Road alignment has a bottom width of about 700 feet. Clean Water Act Section 402 authorizes the national and state pollutant discharge elimination system programs. These permit programs are intended to maintain water quality by regulating discharges of pollutants into surface waters, including sediment and construction debris–related pollutants that can be generated during ground-disturbing activities and transported by storm water runoff. Any project alternative that would result in 1 or more acres of ground disturbance would require that an Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System construction general permit be obtained during final design from the ADEQ. The reach of the Hassayampa River in the study area is not currently listed as an impaired water as defined by §303(d) of the Clean Water Act. However, the downstream reach of the Hassayampa River from the Buckeye Canal to the Gila River is listed as impaired due to pesticide residues in fish tissue. The Gila River from Centennial Wash to Gillespie Dam is currently listed as impaired due to elevated selenium and boron concentrations. c. Permitting D. Visual Resources Potential Waters in the study area are non-navigable tributaries of Traditional Navigable Waters (TNWs) that are not relatively permanent, which presents two potential Section 404 permitting strategies. MCDOT may opt to obtain a preliminary or an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) from the Corps. For either, a proposed delineation of Waters in the study area would need to be completed in the field and submitted to the Corps for review. In general, the McDowell Parkway corridor is located within undeveloped natural desert with varying topography. Dense suburban development is encroaching into the natural setting in the southern portion of the White Tank Mountains. The proposed parkway would be a linear road through relatively flat terrain in the western portion of the study area that becomes rolling terrain as it approaches and eventually circumvents the White Tank Mountains before returning to the Environmental Overview Environmental Overview 18 McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study 19 McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study existing McDowell Road alignment. The ephemeral Hassayampa River provides a xeroriparian visual setting. Distant views include the Belmont Mountains and Saddle Mountain to the west, the Buckeye Hills and Sierra Estrella to the south, and the suburban areas of metropolitan Phoenix to the east. The study area has relatively undisturbed views of natural landscape and topographical features. Any roadway alignment would be expected to impact the visual quality. The level of impact would be affected by the degree of change from the existing alignment of McDowell Road and the currently undisturbed natural landscape. Locations of cut or fill slopes would present visual quality issues and may merit mitigation to limit the amount of exposed disturbed surfaces, erosion control, and/or landscaping/reseeding. The parcels of land under the jurisdiction of the BLM are subject to the agency’s visual resource management system. This system assesses the scenic value of an area and then establishes management objectives based on an acceptable level of visual preservation or disturbance. The BLM has designated the parcels in the study area as Class III. According to the BLM Manual H8410-1–Visual Resource Inventory (2009), the objective of Class III “is to partially retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate. Management activities may attract attention but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.” Should the preferred alignment cross BLM lands, an analysis of visual impacts would be required. E. Air Quality F. Noise Impacts MCDOT adopted a Noise Abatement Policy in April 2001 that was updated in 2008 (Maricopa County 2001). The policy was created to set guidelines to determine the need, feasibility, and reasonableness of noise abatement measures for all roadway projects. This policy is based on the currently accepted practices and procedures used by federal and state transportation agencies to assess highway-related noise impacts. For all construction projects, MCDOT is committed to ascertaining existing conditions, identifying potential noise receptors, and evaluating the nature of the project and its potential to impact prospective noise receptors. The following table provides specific hourly A-weighted noise abatement criteria that serve as the upper limit of acceptable traffic noise levels for various types of land use (Table 3). Table 3. Noise abatement criteria. Activity Category A B C D E Description Leq(h) Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities are essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals Developed land, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B 57 dBA (exterior) Undeveloped land Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums 67 dBA (exterior) 72 dBA (exterior) None 52 dBA (interior) Source: U.S. Department of Transportation 2008 The federal Clean Air Act of 1970 established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six air pollutants. These pollutants, referred to as the “Criteria Pollutants,” are carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particular matter, sulfur dioxide, and lead. A major source of nitrogen dioxide is power plants. Ozone is created through a complex reaction of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen, with sunlight as a catalyst. Sources of the ozone precursors include vehicle emissions, power plants, and service stations. Particulate matter sources include agricultural activities, vehicular emissions, and the resuspension of road dust by off-road vehicular activity. There are no known sources of sulfur dioxide or lead; no smelter or other industrial activities occur in the vicinity. Primary sources of carbon monoxide include vehicular emissions and rock product operations in the study area. The State of Arizona standards are identical to the NAAQS. The entire study area is in the Phoenix 8-hour ozone non-attainment area. The eastern portion of the study area is within the Phoenix maintenance area for particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) (Figure 6). The western boundary of the Phoenix carbon monoxide maintenance area is located at Jackrabbit Road, approximately 2.5 miles east of Dean Road. Prior to programming construction projects, air quality impacts should be evaluated in the Maricopa Association of Governments Transportation Improvement Program for regional conformity. Future projects that add traffic capacity to the study area may require more detailed microscale analysis prior to construction. Construction activities would need to comply with the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Rules and Ordinances (June 6, 2007). Environmental Overview 20 McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Homes within the residential areas at the eastern and western ends of the study area are potentially sensitive noise receptors. A detailed analysis of potential impacts would be conducted during future project design and would take into account forecasted future traffic volumes, speed, percentage of trucks, distance to receptors, and roadway profile. If noise impacts are identified, MCDOT would evaluate the ability to mitigate such impacts, the cost of the abatement, and the preference of property owners. Typically, noise abatement is accomplished through the use of rubberized asphalt paving surfaces and barriers in the form of berms or walls. G. Hazardous Materials A Hazardous Materials Background Review was conducted for the study area that consisted of recent and historic aerial photo reviews of Internet-based photography and the evaluation of a corridor environmental database search report. The properties in the study area are a combination of undeveloped natural desert, residential developments, rock product excavation, a livestock feedlot, and the Buckeye Military Reservation. The southern portion of the military reservation is known to have numerous existing abandoned old exploratory excavation pits or mine shafts. These sites may warrant proper safety protection, reclamation, or abandonment mitigation measures if they occur within the approximate 200-foot-wide roadway easement. Prior to the recently constructed training Environmental Overview 21 McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study facilities at the military reservation, the area was commonly used for recreational target shooting practice. A possible environmental concern from unauthorized small target shooting range sites is the probable existence of spent shotgun lead pellets and/or bullet shrapnel concentrated on the surface and shallow subsurface of the immediate areas. Unauthorized “wildcat” trash dumping areas may exist in the study area. A review of federal and state databases was completed for this 15-mile-long McDowell Parkway corridor that also extends for a 1-mile radius around the study area. The report lists only two former underground storage tank sites that are located at Federal Aviation Administration Airway Beacon facility #007 (on Miller Road, northwest of I-10). Neither of these sites was reported as having leaking underground storage tank histories. No other areas of hazardous materials or similar environmental concerns were reported in the study area. IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES Cultural resources are properties that reflect the heritage of local communities, states, and nations. Properties judged to be significant and to retain sufficient integrity to convey that significance are termed “historic properties” and are afforded certain protections in accordance with state and federal legislation. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, defines historic properties as sites, buildings, structures, districts (including landscapes) and objects included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), as well as the artifacts, records, and remains related to such properties. Section 106 of the NHPA, as implemented under Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800, requires federal agencies to consider the potential effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The Corps, for example, will need to comply with Section 106 when it responds to either the preconstruction notices of Maricopa County’s intent to use a programmatic NWP or to the county’s application for an individual permit to comply with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. If MCDOT were to obtain federal monies from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the FHWA would need to comply with Section 106 (with assistance from ADOT). The Arizona State Historic Preservation Act of 1982, as amended (Arizona Revised Statues [ARS] § 41-861-866) largely mirrors the NHPA and requires state agencies, including the ASLD, to consider the potential effects of their actions on historic properties. The Arizona Antiquities Act of 1973, as amended (ARS § 41-841-847), requires that state agencies and political subdivisions of the state, including counties and municipalities, report the discovery of any archaeological, paleontological, or historic site, including human burials that are at least 50 years old, to the Arizona State Museum (ASM). A. Study Area and Inventory Methods To accommodate planning efforts, which may include consideration of areas beyond the planned McDowell Parkway right-of-way, this inventory includes all known or suspected cultural resources within a 2-mile-wide corridor centered on the McDowell Parkway alignment. Background research was conducted at the ASM, the Archaeological Research Institute at Arizona State University (ASU), and the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The AZSITE on-line database and General Land Office (GLO) plats also were used to identify surveys and recorded or suspected cultural resources in the study area. B. Cultural Resources in the Study Area Research identified 35 cultural resources (Table 4) and 37 prior cultural resource investigations (Table 5) in the study area. Prior cultural resource inventories have covered 29.4 percent of the current study area. Cultural resources in the study area include prehistoric and historic archaeological sites and historic-age roads, house foundations, and a mine (Table 4). Archaeological site designations have been assigned by ASM (those that begin with AZ and end with ASM) and by ASU (those that begin with AZ and end with ASU). In some cases, archaeological sites have multiple designations and have been plotted at different times in slightly different locations. Some of the Environmental Overview 22 McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Environmental Overview 23 McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study other property types also have been assigned site designations despite not technically being “sites.” Table 4. Previously recorded cultural resources in the study area. No. 1 Site Name/Number AZ T:9:79 (ASM) WickenburgHassayampa Road Description Historic road NRHP Status Recommended not eligible Reference Jones 2008a, Jones 2008b 2 Historic road Recommended not eligible Recommended not eligible Recommended not eligible Unevaluated Jones 2008a, Jones 2008b Bruder et al. 1972 9 AZ T:9:83 (ASM)/ Indian School Road AZ T:10:13 (ASM)/ AZ T:10:2 (ASU) AZ T:10:15 (ASM)/ AZ T:10:4 (ASU) AZ T:10:16 (ASM)/ AZ T:10:5 (ASU) AZ T:10:17 (ASM)/ AZ T:10:6 (ASU) AZ T:10:19 (ASM)/ AZ T:10:8 (ASU) AZ T:10:24 (ASM)/ AZ T:10:17 (ASU) AZ T:10:72 (ASM) 10 AZ T:10:101 (ASM) Prehistoric artifact scatter Historic artifact scatter and associated features Historic artifact scatter 11 AZ T:10:102 (ASM) Historic artifact scatter 12 AZ T:10:103 (ASM) Historic artifact scatter 13 AZ T:10:104 (ASM) Historic trash dump 14 AZ T:10:105 (ASM) 15 AZ T:10:106 (ASM) Historic house foundation, features, and artifact scatter Historic artifact scatter 16 AZ T:10:107 (ASM) 17 AZ T:10:108 (ASM) 18 AZ T:10:109 (ASM) 3 4 5 6 7 8 Prehistoric artifact scatter Prehistoric artifact scatter Prehistoric artifact scatter Prehistoric artifact scatter Camp site AZ T:10:110 (ASM) Historic trash dump 20 AZ T:10:111 (ASM) 21 AZ T:10:117 (ASM) Historic artifact scatter and associated features Historic artifact scatter Environmental Overview Bruder et al. 1972 Recommended not eligible Unevaluated Bruder et al. 1972 Bruder et al. 1972 Unevaluated Bruder et al. 1972 Determined not eligible Rosenberg 1985 Recommended not eligible Recommended not eligible Recommended not eligible Recommended eligible; no criterion listed Recommended eligible; no criterion listed Marshall 1999 No. 22 Site Name/Number AZ T:10:118 (ASM) Description Historic artifact scatter 23 AZ T:10:119 (ASM) Historic artifact scatter 24 AZ T:10:120 (ASM) Historic artifact scatter 25 AZ T:10:121 (ASM) Historic artifact scatter 26 AZ T:10:122 (ASM) 27 AZ T:10:136 (ASM) 28 AZ T:10:137 (ASM) Historic mine and artifact scatter Historic road and artifact scatter Historic trash dump 29 33 AZ T:10:140 (ASM)/ Turner Road AZ T:10:141 (ASM)/ Johnson Road AZ T:10:145 (ASM)/ Watson Road AZ T:10:146 (ASM)/ Miller Road AZ T:10:161 (ASM) Historic artifact scatter 34 AZ T:10:162 (ASM) Historic artifact scatter 35 Unnamed/ Unnumbered Historic road segments 30 31 32 Historic house foundation, features, and artifact scatter Historic artifact scatter and associated features Historic trash pits 19 Bruder et al. 1972 Table 4. Previously recorded cultural resources in the study area. 24 Recommended eligible; no criterion listed Recommended eligible; no criterion listed Recommended eligible; no criterion listed Recommended eligible; no criterion listed Recommended not eligible Recommended eligible; no criterion listed Recommended eligible; no criterion listed Historic road Marshall 1999 Marshall 1999 Marshall 1999 Marshall 1999 Marshall 1999 Historic road Historic road Recommended not eligible Recommended not eligible Recommended not eligible Recommended not eligible Unevaluated Historic road Marshall 1999 Marshall 1999 McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Reference Marshall 1999 Marshall 1999 Marshall 1999 Marshall 1999 Marshall 1999 Hohmann and Larkin 1999 Hohmann and Larkin 1999 Jones 2008a, Jones 2008b Jones 2008a, Jones 2008b Baker 2004 Baker 2004 Touchin and Brodbeck 2002 Touchin and Brodbeck 2002 GLO maps Table 5. Prior cultural resource investigations in the study area. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Marshall 1999 Marshall 1999 Recommended eligible, D Recommended not eligible Unevaluated Marshall 1999 Marshall 1999 NRHP Status Recommended not eligible Recommended not eligible Recommended not eligible Recommended not eligible Recommended eligible; no criterion listed Recommended eligible, D 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Project Number 1977-20.ASM 1983-101.ASM 1984-197.ASM 1985-81.ASM 1986-52.ASM 1986-194.ASM 1987-222.ASM 1992-23.ASM 1996-271.ASM 1998-530.ASM/ 12-100-9.BLM 2000-178.ASM 2000-179.ASM 2000-497.ASM 2000-553.ASM 2000-601.ASM 2000-723.ASM 2001-406.ASM 2001-548.ASM 2002-263.ASM Environmental Overview Project Description Arizona Nuclear Power Project ADOT Materials Pit # 8372 Materials Source 8486 APS State Land Survey-W. Phoenix State Land Survey White Tank Mt. Regional Pkwy. U.S. Telecom Buried Fiber Optic Cable McDowell Road Paving RJC Buckeye Tartesso Survey Reference Stein et al. 1977 Perrine 1983 Rosenberg 1985 Effland 1985 Howard and Hamby 1987 Howard and Hamby 1987 O’Brien et al. 1987 Adams 1992 Kwiatkowsi 1996 Marshall 1999 Watson Road Airport TI Hassayampa Survey Sundance 2000 Survey Wintersburg and Wendon Op-Amp Facilities AT&T NexGen/Core Project Link 3 Six Proposed Reroutes-Fiber Optic ROW I-10 Avondale - Buckeye Buckeye Watershed Section Survey Dobscheutz and Garcia 2000a Dobscheutz and Garcia 2000b Lindly 2000 Lindly and Mitchell 2000 Walter and Kearns 2000 Kearns et al. 2001 Baker and Webb 2001 Gentilli and Folb 2001 Touchin and Brodbeck 2002 25 McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Table 5. Prior cultural resource investigations in the study area. No. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Project Number 2002-354.ASM 2002-404.ASM SHPO-2002-1955 2003-870.ASM 2003-1216.ASM SHPO-2003-1950 2004-96.ASM 2004-102.ASM 2004-221.ASM 2004-424.ASM 2004-454.ASM 2004-511.ASM 2004-679.ASM 2005-6.ASM 2005-66.ASM 2006-257.ASM 2006-736.ASM 7.3024.SHPO Project Description White Tank Mountains 140 Survey White Tank Mountains 300 Survey Survey for ASLD right-of-way #71-1925 Buckeye Survey Tartesso Powerline Easement Survey ASLD Application #18-109432 Rinker Materials-Tonopah Copper Eagle Gas Storage Tartesso Historic Property Inventory I-10 MP 112.2-134) Tartesso 280 Survey Festival Ranch/Tartesso Natural Gas AT&T NexGen/Core Project Tartesso ADDL Sundance Cover 35 Ac Survey Sun Valley ADMP Inventory Montana Vista Survey Unknown V. SECTION 4(f) PROPERTIES Reference Lindly 2002a Lindly 2002b Gage and Aguila 2002 Hohmann and Larkin 1999 Marshall 2003a Marshall 2003a Christenson 2004 Luhnow et al. 2003 Boloyan 2003 Touchin and Brodbeck 2003 Marshall 2003b Darrington et al. 2004 Baker 2004 Boloyan 2004 Foster and Schmidt 2004 Rodgers 2006 Motsinger 2006 AZSITE C. Cultural Resource Summary The inventory of known and suspected cultural resources on or within 2 miles of the McDowell Parkway alignment includes 26 archaeological sites, eight linear structures (multiple GLO road segments are herein referred to as a single entity), and one historic-age mine. As project planning progresses, additional cultural resources inventory will be required. Efforts to arrive at definitive eligibility assessments, including whether the portions of eligible properties subject to potential effect are contributing elements of the properties as a whole, will be required. If eligible properties will be affected, mitigation measures will need to be developed and implemented prior to construction. Such measures can include data recovery of archaeological sites and archival research and photographic documentation of historic buildings and structures. Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 states that the Federal Highway Administration “may approve a transportation program or project . . . requiring the use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance, or land of an historic site of national, State, or local significance (as determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction over the park, area, refuge, or site) only if. . . there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and . . . the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use” (49 U.S. Code 303[c]). A “use” of a Section 4(f) resource, as defined in Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 771.135(p), occurs (1) when land is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility, (2) when there is a temporary occupancy of land that is adverse in terms of the statute’s preservationist purposes, or (3) when there is a constructive use of the land. A constructive use of a Section 4(f) resource occurs when the transportation project does not incorporate land from a Section 4(f) resource, but the project’s proximity impacts are so severe that the project activities, features, or attributes that qualify a resource for protection under Section 4(f) are substantially impaired. For example, a constructive use can occur when: a. the projected noise level increase, attributable to the project, substantially interferes with the use and enjoyment of a noise-sensitive facility of a resource protected by Section 4(f); b. the proximity of the project substantially impairs aesthetic features or attributes of a resource protected by Section 4(f), where such features or attributes are considered important contributing elements to the value of the resource. An example of such an effect would be the location of a transportation facility in such proximity that it obstructs or eliminates the primary views of an architecturally significant historical building, or substantially detracts from the setting of a park or historic site which derives its value in substantial part due to its setting; and/or c. the project results in a restriction on access, which substantially diminishes the utility of a significant publicly owned park, recreation area, or historic site. There are no identified parks, recreation areas, historic sites (defined in the Transportation Act and its implementing regulations as properties eligible for NRHP listing that are valued for inplace preservation in contrast to data potential), or wildlife refuges in the immediate vicinity. However, because complete cultural resources survey has not occurred in the study area, it cannot be determined at this time whether Section 4(f)–eligible NRHP resources are present. The nearest known Section 4(f) resource is White Tank Mountain Regional Park, approximately 4 miles north of the eastern portion of the study area. Section 4(f) would only be applicable to the project if federal funding is used for construction of the project. At this stage in project development, funding sources have not been defined. Environmental Overview 26 McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Environmental Overview 27 McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study VI. AGENCY COORDINATION VII. ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW SUMMARY An important component of the corridor feasibility study is the dissemination of information to public agency and private stakeholders and the solicitation of their input. MCDOT initialized outreach to agency stakeholders on June 25, 2009, by sending an e-mail that described the corridor feasibility study and invited the agencies to participate in the Stakeholder/Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) project kickoff meeting (e-mail and contact list attached, Appendix B). The kickoff meeting was conducted on July 9, 2009, and was the first of five TAC meetings planned for the study (Meeting Minutes attached, Appendix B). The purpose of this meeting and future meetings is to identify specific issues and challenges that will need to be considered during the alternative development and evaluation process, and to gain insight into stakeholders’ perspectives and plans for the development of the corridor. Issues that were raised during the meeting included, but were not limited to, wildlife linkage corridors, potential cultural resources, cost of right-of-way, and floodplain constraints. All issues will continue to be discussed at the remaining TAC meetings and throughout project development. Over the past 9 years, the town of Buckeye and the surrounding area have experienced a period of unprecedented growth. In anticipation of continued growth in the region, the McDowell Parkway CFS is being conducted to develop the appropriate transportation infrastructure as identified in the Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study. Based on the evaluation of existing data, documents, and stakeholder/agency coordination, no environmental issues are identified in the study area that would pose a fatal flaw to the development of McDowell Parkway. Figure 6 identifies the locations of 100-year floodplains, ADEQ nonattainment areas for ozone and particulate matter, and known wildlife movement corridors and linkages. Additional letters were sent to the ADEQ, the AGFD, the BLM, the USFWS, and the White Tank Mountain Regional Park on August 28, 2009 (letters attached, Appendix B). The AGFD responded with a letter that included a list of special status species within 3 miles of the corridor (September 11, 2009, letter attached, Appendix B). The letter requested consideration of the listed species during project development, analysis of wildlife linkages, and participation in future TAC meetings. Though no fatal flaws were identified, further environmental documentation and permitting that will be necessary prior to project design and construction includes: x Jurisdictional delineation of Waters, Clean Water Act Section 404 permit, and Section 401 State Water Quality Certification x Preliminary Initial Site Assessment for hazardous materials x Cultural resources Class I literature review and Class III survey, potential data recovery, and approval from the BLM, SHPO, and appropriate tribes x Noise analysis x Air quality analysis x ASLD cultural and biological resource clearances for right-of-way acquisition x BLM approval of the project’s conformity to Visual Resource Management Objectives if acquisition of right-of-way from the BLM occurs x Coordination with the AGFD regarding impacts to wildlife x Public involvement and continued coordination with stakeholders Environmental Overview 28 McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Environmental Overview 29 McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study VIII. LITERATURE CITED Adams, Kim. 1992. An Archaeological Assessment of a Portion of McDowell Road between Sun Valley Parkway and Johnson Road, Maricopa County, Arizona. Archaeological Consulting Services Ltd., Tempe, Arizona. AGFD. 2009. Personnel communication, Ray Schweinsburg, September 2, 2009. Albert, S.K., and P.R. Krausman. 1993. “Desert Mule Deer and Foraging Resources in Southwestern Arizona.” Southwestern Naturalist 38(3):198–205. Christenson, A.L. 2004. An Archaeological Survey for a Materials Pit on the Hassayampa River near Tonopah, Maricopa County, Arizona-Rinker Hassayampa. Biozone, Inc., Prescott, Arizona. Darrington, Glenn P., Robert Pape, Scott Wilcox, and Melanie Sides. 2004. A Cultural Resource Survey of Arizona State Land for the Festival Ranch & Tartesso Approach Natural Gas Pipeline Project, Maricopa County, Arizona. Environmental Planning Group. EPG Cultural Resource Services Technical Paper No. 2004-1460. Phoenix, Arizona. Arizona Interagency Desert Tortoise Team. 2008. Recommended Standard Mitigation Measures for Projects in Sonoran Desert Tortoise Habitat. June. Dobschuetz, Kris, and Daniel Garcia. 2000a. A Cultural Resources Survey of the Watson Road Traffic Interchange on Interstate 10, Maricopa County, Arizona. EcoPlan Associates, Inc., Mesa, Arizona. Arizona Land Resource Information System. 2009. Arizona State Land Parcel Viewer. www.state.land.az.us/alris. Accessed September 2009. _____. 2000b. A Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Airport Interchange on Interstate 10, Maricopa County, Arizona. EcoPlan Associates, Inc., Mesa, Arizona. Arizona Republic, The. 2008, Army builds new facility in Buckeye, June 15, 2008. Effland, Richard W. 1985. Letter report dated June 24, 1985, to Lounell R. Chenevert of the Arizona Public Service Co. Regarding the Proposed Distribution Line Parallel to the Tonopah-Salome Road West of Phoenix. Archaeological Consulting Services, Ltd., Tempe, Arizona. Baker, Jeffrey L., and Dorothy L. Webb. 2001. An Archaeological Survey of Six Reroutes: Addendum 2 to an Archaeological Survey of Link Three of the AT&T NexGen/Core Project, Arizona and California. Western Cultural Resource Management, Inc. Farmington, New Mexico. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2005. FIRMs 04013C1985G, 04013C2005H, 04013C2010H, 04013C2030G, and 04013C2035G. Baker, Kathleen A. 2004. An Archaeological Survey of Link Three Ingress/Egree Routes: Addendum 8 to an Archaeological Survey of Link Three of the AT&T NexGen/Core Project, Arizona and California. Western Cultural Resource Management, Inc. Farmington, New Mexico. Foster, Michael L. and Cara Schmidt. 2004. An Archaeological Survey of Approximately 35 Acres for the Sundance Cove Development near Buckeye, Maricopa County, Arizona. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Phoenix, Arizona. BLM. 2005. Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan. Fox, K.B., and P.R. Krausman. 1994. “Fawning Habitat of Desert Mule Deer.” Southwestern Naturalist 39(3):269–275. _____. 2009. Manual H-8410-1–Visual Resource Inventory. Boloyan, David S. 2003. Archaeological Survey: Tartesso North between the White Tank Mountains and the Hassayampa River, Maricopa County, Arizona. David S. Boloyan Archaeological Services, Tempe, Arizona. _____. 2004. Class III Archaeological Survey: 20 Acres in Section 22 and 160 acres in Section 28, T2N R4W, Maricopa County, Arizona. David S. Boloyan Archaeological Services, Tempe, Arizona. Bruder, J. Simon, Gerald W. Kline, and Jannifer Wyatt. 1972. Sites AZ T:10:2 (ASU), AZ T:10:4 (ASU), AZ T:10:5 (ASU), AZ T:10:6 (ASU), AZ T:10:8 (ASU), AZ T:10:17 (ASU); site cards on file at the Archaeological Research Institute, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona. Buckeye, Town of. 2008. Town of Buckeye General Plan. Environmental Overview 30 McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Gage, Gina S., and Lourdes Aguila. 2002. Cultural Resources Survey for Arizona Public Service Company’s Proposed 69kV Overhead Power Line Rebuild, Buckeye, Maricopa County, Arizona. Archaeological Consulting Services, Tempe, Arizona. Gentilli, Toni, and Lisa Folb. 2001. A Cultural Resource Survey of Six Land Disposal Areas on Interstate 10 between Avondale and Buckeye, Maricopa County, Arizona. EcoPlan Associates, Inc., Mesa, Arizona. Grandmaison, D.D., and R.E. Schweinsburg. 2008. Mule Deer Movements in the White Tank Mountain Regional Park and Sun Valley Parkway Corridor, Maricopa County, AZ: Final Report. AGFD Research Branch, Phoenix, Arizona. Hohmann, John W., and Robert A. Larkin. 1999. A Phase I (Class III) Archaeological Survey of 1, 481.24 Acres on the Buckeye Training Area for the Arizona Army National Guard, Maricopa County, Arizona. The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Cultural Resource Group Clearance Report No. 90. Phoenix, Arizona. Environmental Overview 31 McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Howard, Ann Valdo, and Quincie Hamby. 1987. A Cultural Resource Assessment of the Proposed White Tank Mountain Regional Parkway. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Division, Tucson, Arizona. Jones, Joshua G. 2008a. Cultural Resources Monitoring and Discovery Report for the AT&T NexGen/Core Project: Arizona and California Portions, Book 1 of 2. Western Cultural Resource Management, Farmington, New Mexico. _____. 2008b. Cultural Resources Monitoring and Discovery Report for the AT&T NexGen/Core Project: Arizona and California Portions, Book 2 of 2. Western Cultural Resource Management, Farmington, New Mexico. Kearns, T.M., T.J. Lennon, J. Jones, and S.F. Mehls. 2001. An Archaeological Survey of Link Three of the AT&T NexGen/Core Project, Arizona and California. Western Cultural Resource Management, Farmington, New Mexico. Krausman, P.R., K.R. Rautenstrauch, and B.D. Leopold. 1985. “Xeroriparian Systems Used by Desert Mule Deer in Texas and Arizona.” In Proceedings of the First North American Riparian Conference, University of Arizona, Tucson, April 16–18, 1985. Pages 144–148. Kwiatkowski, Scott. 1996. A Cultural Resources Survey along Watson Road North of Buckeye, Maricopa County, Arizona. Archaeological Research Services, Tempe, Arizona. Lindly, John M., 2000. Archaeological Survey at Pioneer Concrete Hassayampa, Maricopa County, Arizona. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Phoenix, Arizona. _____. 2002a. Archaeological Survey of 140 Acres for the White Tanks 140 L.L.C. Development Project, Buckeye, Maricopa County, Arizona. SWCA Cultural Resources Report No. 02427. Phoenix, Arizona. _____. 2002b. Archaeological Survey of Approximately 300 Acres for the White Tank Mountain Foothills Development Project, Buckeye, Maricopa County, Arizona. SWCA Cultural Resources Report No. 02-428. Phoenix, Arizona. Lindly, John M., and Douglas R. Mitchell. 2000. An Archaeological Survey of 2,000 Acres at the Sundance Development, Buckeye, Maricopa County, Arizona. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Phoenix, Arizona. Luhnow, Glennda Gene, Regina L. Chapin-Pyritz, and Glenn Darrington. 2003. Cultural Resources Studies in Support of the Copper Eagle Gas Storage Project, Maricopa County, Arizona. EPG Cultural Resource Service Research Paper No. 2002-16. Environmental Planning Group; Phoenix, Arizona. MAG. 2008. Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study. _____. 2007. Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Rules and Ordinances. June 6. Marshall, John T. 1999. Tartesso: An Archaeological Survey of 3,300 Acres between the White Tank Mountains and the Hassayampa River near Buckeye, Arizona. Northland Research, Inc. Tempe, Arizona. _____. 2003a. Tartesso Water Reclamation Facility Power Line Easement: An Archaeological Survey of a 4.9 Acre Utility Easement Located East of the Hassayampa River, in the Tonopah Desert, Buckeye, Maricopa County, Arizona. Northland Research, Inc. Northland Research, Inc. Technical Report No. 03-81. Tempe, Arizona. _____. 2003b. Tartesso: A Cultural Resources Survey of 280 Acres Located East of the Hassayampa River, in the Tonopah Desert, Buckeye, Maricopa County, Arizona. Northland Research, Inc. Technical Report No. 03-113. Tempe, Arizona. Motsinger, Thomas N. 2006. Archaeological Survey of 70 Acres for the Proposed Montana Vista Development in Maricopa County, Arizona. Technical Report / PaleoWest Solutions in Archaeology; 06-03. PaleoWest Solutions in Archaeology, Prescott, Arizona. O’Brien, Patrick M., J. Simon Bruder, David A. Gregory, A.E. Rogge, and Deborah A. Hull. 1987. Cultural Resources Technical Report for the US Telecom Fiber Optic Cable Project from San Timoteo, California to Socorro, Texas: The Arizona Segment. Dames & Moore, Phoenix, Arizona. Ordway, L.L., and P.R. Krausman. 1986. “Habitat Use by Mule Deer.” Journal of Wildlife Management 50(6):677–683. Perrine, Stephen R. 1983. Letter report: An Archaeological Clearance Survey of ADOT Materials Pit 8372, Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, Arizona. Rodgers, James B. 2006. The Sun Valley ADMP Archeological Inventory I Project of WestCentral Maricopa County, Arizona. Scientific Archeological Services. Phoenix, Arizona. Rosenberg, Bettina H. 1985. Cultural Resources Inventory Report for Arizona Department of Transportation, Materials Source 8486, Maricopa County, Arizona. Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, Arizona. Senna Environmental Services, LLC. 2006. Mule Deer Use of the Tartesso East Project Area Based on Pellet Group Distributions Along Selected Washes. Technical memorandum to Tartesso W12, Inc. August 22, 2006. Stein, Pat H., Stanley Granger, and Cynthia L. Freeman. 1977. Archaeological Investigations: Arizona Nuclear Power Project, Bureau of Land Management and Private Land, Maricopa County, Arizona. Museum of Northern Arizona, Department of Anthropology, Flagstaff, Arizona. Maricopa County. 2000. Maricopa County Tonopah/Arlington Area Plan. Touchin, Jewel, and Mark Brodbeck. 2002. A Cultural Resources Survey of the Buckeye Watershed Section Disposal Parcel, North of Interstate-10 from Approximately Milepost _____. 2001. Noise Abatement Policy (updated 2008). Environmental Overview 32 McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Environmental Overview 33 McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study 105 to Milepost 119, Maricopa County, Arizona. Cultural Resource Report 02-17. HDR Engineering, Inc., Phoenix, Arizona. _____. 2003. A Cultural Resources Survey along the Interstate 10 Corridor from State Route 85 to the Loop 101 Freeway (Mileposts 112.20-134.00), Maricopa County, Arizona. HDR Engineering, Phoenix, Arizona. Turner, R.M., and D.E. Brown. 1994. Sonoran desertscrub. In Desert Plants, Biotic Communities of the American Southwest–United States and Northwestern Mexico, edited by D.E. Brown. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah. 4(1–4):181–221. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. U.S. Census Bureau data. Summary File 3. http://www.census.gov. Accessed September 8, 2009. _____. 2008. U.S. Census Bureau county population data. http://www.census.gov. Accessed September 8, 2009. U.S. Department of Transportation. 1997. Department of Transportation Order on Environmental Justice, April 15, 1997. USFWS. 2008a. 90-day finding on a petition to list the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl (Glaucidium ridgwayi cactorum) as threatened or endangered with critical habitat. Federal Register 73(106):31418–31424. _____. 2008b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: 90-day finding on a petition to list the Tucson shovel-nosed snake (Chionactis occipitalis klauberi) as threatened or endangered with critical habitat. Federal Register 73:43905-43910. ______. 2009a. Arizona Ecological Services Field Office Web site, http://arizonaes.fws.gov/. Arizona federally listed species in Maricopa County. Updated July 16, 2009. Accessed August 14, 2009. _____. 2009b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: 90-day finding on a petition to list the Sonoran desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) as a distinct population segment (DPS) with critical habitat. Federal Register 74:44335-44344. Walter, Richard W., and Timothy M. Kearns. 2000. An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Wintersburg and Wendon Op Amp Facilities. Addendum to an Archaeological Survey of Link Three of the AT&T NexGen/Core Project, Arizona and California. Western Cultural Resource Management, Inc. Farmington, New Mexico. Environmental Overview 34 McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Appendix A AGFD On-line Environmental Review Tool Results Phoenix Main Office 2321 W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, AZ 85021 Phone 602-242-0210 Fax 602-242-2513 Page 2 of 6 Common Name Western Burrowing Owl S ESA USFS BLM SC State To conserve, enhance, and restore Arizona’s diverse wildlife resources and habitats through aggressive protection and Arizona Game and Fish Department Mission 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. Disclaimer: Flagstaff Sub-Office 323 N. Leroux Street, Suite 101 Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Phone 928-226-0614 Fax 928-226-1099 Tucson Sub-Office 201 North Bonita, Suite 141 Tucson, AZ 85745 Phone 520-670-6144 Fax 520-670-6154 APPLICATION INITIALS: ___________ 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/. 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). Arizona’s On-line Environmental Review Tool: Athene cunicularia hypugaea Name Special Status Species Occurrences/Critical Habitat/Tribal Lands within 3 miles of Project Vicinity: The Department appreciates the opportunity to provide in-depth comments and project review when additional information or environmental documentation becomes available. APPLICATION INITIALS: ___________ 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. Search ID: 20090824009679 Project Name: McDowell Parkway study area, east Date: 8/24/2009 5:11:59 PM Arizona's On-line Environmental Review Tool Page 1 of 6 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. Location Accuracy Disclaimer Project Name: McDowell Parkway study area, east Submitted By: Patrick Dockens On behalf of: CONSULTING Project Search ID: 20090824009679 Date: 8/24/2009 5:11:54 PM Project Category: Transportation & Infrastructure,Road construction (including staging areas),Realignment/ new roads Project Coordinates (UTM Zone 12-NAD 83): 352476.979, 3703676.022 meter Project Area: 7902.417 acres Project Perimeter: 28577.759 meter County: MARICOPA USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle ID: 1289 Quadrangle Name: BUCKEYE NW Project locality is currently being scoped Project Location Search ID: 20090824009679 Project Name: McDowell Parkway study area, east Date: 8/24/2009 5:11:59 PM Arizona's On-line Environmental Review Tool 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, Recommendations Disclaimer: , http://mirror-pole.com/burr_owl/bur_owl1.htm HDMS records indicate that western burrowing owls have been documented within the vicinity of your project area (refer to the species list on page 1 of the receipt). Please review the relocation procedures recommended for burrowing owls found on the Environmental Review Home Page. Project Location and/or Species recommendations: APPLICATION INITIALS: ___________ The Department requests further coordination to provide project/species specific recommendations, please contact Project Evaluation Program directly. 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. 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. Page 4 of 6 Hydrological considerations: design culverts to minimize impacts to channel geometry, or design channel geometry (low flow, overbank, During the planning stages of your project, please consider the local or regional needs of wildlife in regards to movement, connectivity, and access to habitat needs. Loss of this permeability prevents wildlife from accessing resources, finding mates, reduces gene flow, prevents wildlife from re-colonizing areas where local extirpations may have occurred, and ultimately prevents wildlife from contributing to ecosystem functions, such as pollination, seed dispersal, control of prey numbers, and resistance to invasive species. In many cases, streams and washes provide natural movement corridors for wildlife and should be maintained in their natural state. Uplands also support a large diversity of species, and should be contained within important wildlife movement corridors. In addition, maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem functions can be facilitated through improving designs of structures, fences, roadways, and culverts to promote passage for a variety of wildlife. 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. APPLICATION INITIALS: ___________ 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. Search ID: 20090824009679 Project Name: McDowell Parkway study area, east Date: 8/24/2009 5:11:59 PM Arizona's On-line Environmental Review Tool Page 3 of 6 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 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) Based on the project type entered; coordination with State Historic Preservation Office may be required http://www.pr.state.az.us/partnerships/shpo/shpo.html#anchor561695 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. Project Type Recommendations: Project Category: Transportation & Infrastructure,Road construction (including staging areas),Realignment/ new roads 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. Search ID: 20090824009679 Project Name: McDowell Parkway study area, east Date: 8/24/2009 5:11:59 PM Arizona's On-line Environmental Review Tool Phone: _____________________ Application or organization responsible for project implementation Page 6 of 6 Person Conducting Search (if not applicant) E-mail: ___________________________ Phone: _____________________ City, State, Zip: _____________________ Address: ___________________ Contact Name: _________________________ APPLICATION INITIALS: ___________ E-mail: ___________________________ City, State, Zip: _____________________ Please provide point of contact information regarding this Environmental Review. Agency/organization:______________________ Address: ___________________ Contact Name: _________________________ Agency/organization:______________________ APPLICATION INITIALS: ___________ 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 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. 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. Proposed Date of Implementation: _____________________ Date: ___________________________________ Signature:___________________________________ provided. Search ID: 20090824009679 Project Name: McDowell Parkway study area, east Date: 8/24/2009 5:11:59 PM Arizona's On-line Environmental Review Tool Page 5 of 6 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, 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. Terms of Use Security: Project Evaluation Program, Habitat Branch Arizona Game and Fish Department 5000 West Carefree Highway Phoenix, Arizona 85086-5000 Phone Number: (623) 236-7600 Fax Number: (623) 236-7366 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 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. 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. 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: Search ID: 20090824009679 Project Name: McDowell Parkway study area, east Date: 8/24/2009 5:11:59 PM Arizona's On-line Environmental Review Tool Phoenix Main Office 2321 W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, AZ 85021 Phone 602-242-0210 Fax 602-242-2513 Page 2 of 6 To conserve, enhance, and restore Arizona’s diverse wildlife resources and habitats through aggressive protection and Arizona Game and Fish Department Mission 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. Disclaimer: Flagstaff Sub-Office 323 N. Leroux Street, Suite 101 Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Phone 928-226-0614 Fax 928-226-1099 Tucson Sub-Office 201 North Bonita, Suite 141 Tucson, AZ 85745 Phone 520-670-6144 Fax 520-670-6154 APPLICATION INITIALS: ___________ 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/. 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). Arizona’s On-line Environmental Review Tool: No Indian tribal lands are within the project vicinity. No proposed or designated critical habitat is within the project vicinity. No special status species were documented as occurring within the project vicinity. However, further field investigations of the project area are highly recommended. Site visits may reveal previously unrecorded resources of special concern in locations where they are currently undocumented. Special Status Species Occurrences/Critical Habitat/Tribal Lands within 3 miles of Project Vicinity: The Department appreciates the opportunity to provide in-depth comments and project review when additional information or environmental documentation becomes available. APPLICATION INITIALS: ___________ 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. Search ID: 20090824009678 Project Name: McDowell Parkway study area, west Date: 8/24/2009 5:04:06 PM Arizona's On-line Environmental Review Tool Page 1 of 6 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. Location Accuracy Disclaimer Project Name: McDowell Parkway study area, west Submitted By: Patrick Dockens On behalf of: CONSULTING Project Search ID: 20090824009678 Date: 8/24/2009 5:04:01 PM Project Category: Transportation & Infrastructure,Road construction (including staging areas),Realignment/ new roads Project Coordinates (UTM Zone 12-NAD 83): 341059.517, 3704616.607 meter Project Area: 8664.790 acres Project Perimeter: 30337.398 meter County: MARICOPA USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle ID: 1287 Quadrangle Name: WINTERSBURG Project locality is currently being scoped Project Location Search ID: 20090824009678 Project Name: McDowell Parkway study area, west Date: 8/24/2009 5:04:06 PM Arizona's On-line Environmental Review Tool Terms of Use Project Evaluation Program, Habitat Branch Arizona Game and Fish Department 5000 West Carefree Highway Phoenix, Arizona 85086-5000 Phone Number: (623) 236-7600 Fax Number: (623) 236-7366 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: Recommendations Disclaimer: APPLICATION INITIALS: ___________ The Department requests further coordination to provide project/species specific recommendations, please contact Project Evaluation Program directly. 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. 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. Page 4 of 6 Hydrological considerations: design culverts to minimize impacts to channel geometry, or design channel geometry (low flow, overbank, During the planning stages of your project, please consider the local or regional needs of wildlife in regards to movement, connectivity, and access to habitat needs. Loss of this permeability prevents wildlife from accessing resources, finding mates, reduces gene flow, prevents wildlife from re-colonizing areas where local extirpations may have occurred, and ultimately prevents wildlife from contributing to ecosystem functions, such as pollination, seed dispersal, control of prey numbers, and resistance to invasive species. In many cases, streams and washes provide natural movement corridors for wildlife and should be maintained in their natural state. Uplands also support a large diversity of species, and should be contained within important wildlife movement corridors. In addition, maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem functions can be facilitated through improving designs of structures, fences, roadways, and culverts to promote passage for a variety of wildlife. 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. APPLICATION INITIALS: ___________ 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. Search ID: 20090824009678 Project Name: McDowell Parkway study area, west Date: 8/24/2009 5:04:06 PM Arizona's On-line Environmental Review Tool Page 3 of 6 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 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) Based on the project type entered; coordination with State Historic Preservation Office may be required http://www.pr.state.az.us/partnerships/shpo/shpo.html#anchor561695 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. Project Type Recommendations: Project Category: Transportation & Infrastructure,Road construction (including staging areas),Realignment/ new roads 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. Search ID: 20090824009678 Project Name: McDowell Parkway study area, west Date: 8/24/2009 5:04:06 PM Arizona's On-line Environmental Review Tool City, State, Zip: _____________________ Address: ___________________ Page 6 of 6 Contact Name: _________________________ Agency/organization:______________________ Person Conducting Search (if not applicant) E-mail: ___________________________ Phone: _____________________ City, State, Zip: _____________________ Address: ___________________ Contact Name: _________________________ Agency/organization:______________________ Please provide point of contact information regarding this Environmental Review. Proposed Date of Implementation: _____________________ Date: ___________________________________ Signature:___________________________________ 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. 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. 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. 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. APPLICATION INITIALS: ___________ E-mail: ___________________________ Phone: _____________________ APPLICATION INITIALS: ___________ Application or organization responsible for project implementation Search ID: 20090824009678 Project Name: McDowell Parkway study area, west Date: 8/24/2009 5:04:06 PM Arizona's On-line Environmental Review Tool Page 5 of 6 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 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 Security: 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. 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. Search ID: 20090824009678 Project Name: McDowell Parkway study area, west Date: 8/24/2009 5:04:06 PM Arizona's On-line Environmental Review Tool Appendix B Stakeholder/Agency Coordination Final Meeting Notes Meeting: McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Technical Advisory Committee Meeting No. 1 Date/Time: July 9, 2009, 9:00 AM Location: Maricopa County Department of Transportation Apache, Cochise, and Maricopa Conference Rooms 2901 W. Durango Street Phoenix, Arizona 85009 Attendees: See Attached Attendance List Final Meeting Notes July 9, 2009 upstream or downstream impacts when crossing the Hassayampa River floodplain. Troy responded by saying the study would be identifying a need for a bridge but would not go to the detail to determine the required length. Study Schedule & TAC Member Responsibilities: Introductions, Opening Comments, and Presentation: Mitch Wagner introduced himself as the MCDOT Project Manager for the McDowell Parkway Feasibility Study and began by welcoming everyone to the meeting. He stated the goal of MCDOT’s current feasibility studies is to get ahead of development by establishing right-of-way corridors for “Arizona Parkways” identified in MAG framework studies such as the I-10 /Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study. He then introduced Troy Sieglitz (Consultant Project Manager) who invited everyone to introduce themselves. Troy outlined the study purpose, need, approach, goals, and objectives. A copy of Troy’s PowerPoint presentation is available on the study FTP site in the TAC #1 Study Notebook pdf file. Issues, challenges and constraints: One issue identified was the potential for four parkway-to-parkway intersections. These include McDowell Parkway with Sonora Parkway, Turner Parkway, Sun Valley Parkway, and Hidden Waters Parkway. Sue Russell, Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), identified several issues or challenges. The first is related to the cultural resources that may be found in the study area. If found this could add processing time to obtain the required approvals. Secondly, the cost of land may also become an issue. She suggested contacting a local realtor to determine the current market value of the land needed for right-of-way. She noted that if the application to purchase the land from ASLD is done by a municipality a public auction is not necessary. Sue also mentioned that the Hassayampa River is designated by Arizona Game and Fish as an important wildlife corridor. She suggested that the study team should review “Designing for Wildlife” which is available by contacting Dana Waneke. The project has an eleven month schedule from beginning to final submittals. A presentation of alternative alignments will be made at the first Public Open House in October 2009. The Stakeholder / Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) will meet to discuss corridor alignment alternatives in December 2009. A presentation of the preferred alignment will be made at the second Public Open House in January 2010. The draft and final reports will be submitted for review in February 2010 and April 2010 respectively. Prior to each Public Open House there will be a meeting with the TAC and the Buckeye Town Council so everyone will be able to have input on what will be presented at the public meeting. In order to adhere to the study schedule, Troy requested that the TAC members review draft documents in a timely fashion (i.e. 2-3 weeks). Data collection: Much of the meeting discussion focused on identifying information currently available and who to contact in order to obtain it. Bob Speirs, Stardust Companies (Tartesso), mentioned that much of the existing information available for the McDowell Parkway Corridor east of the Hassayampa River has already been compiled for the Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study. This information should be readily available through Denise Lacey at MCDOT. Bob also asked how the study will coordinate with the 2003 McDowell Road study completed by DMJM. Troy assured Bob that we would take into consideration any and all studies that have been previously completed. The goal is to compile existing data into one document. Bob also mentioned there are hard engineering documents, including engineering plans and some sewer line plans, for Tonopah. MCDOT or Buckeye should have access to these plans. Drainage information should be available by contacting Amara Ibeji at CK Group. The FCDMC has the information provided in JE Fuller’s alluvial fan analysis for the area east of Sun Valley Parkway. Also available are the Sun Valley ADMP, Buckeye ADMP, and Hassayampa – Phase I Watercourse Master Plan (MP) for the Hassayampa River and Jackrabbit Wash (Phase II is not yet finished, but could possibly obtain flows for our use). Michael Bruder (ADOT) noted that ADOT has requested a Turner Parkway/SR 85 and I-10 connection. A template for parkway-to-freeway connections is being developed by the ADOT Management Consultant for this area. There will be approximately 6-8 of these connections along the I-10 corridor. ADOT is also working on the reconstruction of the FRS1 in partnership with the FCDMC. Theresa Pinto, Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC), identified a desire to identify the lengths of the bridges in order to perform scour analysis and ensure there are no Page 1 of 4 Page 2 of 4 Final Meeting Notes July 9, 2009 Final Meeting Notes July 9, 2009 Bruce Fenske (ADOT) mentioned that TransWestern Natural Gas has a pipeline that crosses I-10 east of Johnson Road and west of Sun Valley Parkway. He will look into the location and provide the information to the study team. In a follow-up email, Bruce identified the location of the crossing at milepost 106 along I-10. Next Steps: Stakeholder Roundtable: Troy asked those in attendance to identify any additional stakeholders that should be invited to future meetings. Several entities discussed were: sand and gravel mining operations, the Arizona Rock Products Association (ARPA), Woody Scoutten (Town Engineer for Buckeye), Katherine Gross (FCDMC), Dan Kelly (Verrado), and Sam Sherman (FCDMC Project Manager for FRS1 in Buckeye). Bob Speirs raised the question of who will have control of the parkway once it is constructed. Mitch said the control would probably fall to the Town of Buckeye after annexation. However, there was a time when MCDOT wanted to maintain control of roads of regional significance such as MC 85. Mitch said he would check on the county’s policy. In a follow-up email, Mitch confirmed that MCDOT anticipates that the local jurisdiction where a parkway is constructed will be responsible for operation and maintenance. Mike Bruder (ADOT) raised the question as to why Dean Road was selected as the eastern terminus of the study. He wondered why not go further east to Perryville Road? Mitch explained that the original eastern terminus was Watson Road and that the study limits were extended to the Dean Road alignment. This was necessary to accommodate the elevated structure required for the McDowell Parkway to cross the FRS just west of the Dean Road alignment and to provide a transition to the existing McDowell Road in the Verrado development. Mitch explained that we will do our best to incorporate “in progress studies” being conducted by other agencies. However, we will not delay the completion of our study to wait for them to be completed. We will be creating a “snapshot in time”. The final McDowell Parkway Feasibility Study will identify these “in progress studies” and areas requiring further analysis as a starting point for future parkway construction projects in this corridor. The next steps that will be taken by the study team are to continue to gather data, especially the data identified during this kickoff meeting and then prepare the first three draft technical memoranda set forth in the Scope of Work. These memoranda include Existing and Future Corridor Features, Environmental Overview, and Conceptual Drainage Report. Summary & Next Meeting: Troy thanked everyone for attending and providing input on the study. The next meeting will be held in September 2009 and invitations will be sent out to stakeholders one month in advance with a reminder email two weeks prior to the meeting. Final Distribution: Wednesday July 22, 2009 Attendees Michael Bruder Bruce A. Fenske Sue Russell Mitch Wagner John Hathaway Theresa Pinto Randy Christman Bob Speirs George A. Ruffner Troy Sieglitz Doug McCants Rob Scrivo Heather Thomas Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) – Phoenix Office Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) – Yuma District Arizona State Land Department (ALSD) – ROW Division Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) - Planning Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) – Planning Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) – Planning Pulte Homes Stardust Companies - Tartesso EcoPlan PBS&J PBS&J PBS&J PBS&J Please see the study FTP site in the TAC #1 Study Notebook pdf file for a complete list of stakeholders invited to participate. Troy asked the stakeholders to identify their expectations from the study. FCDMC responded that they would like a larger scale map that shows landowners, floodplains, and the McDowell Parkway Corridor. Ultimately, they would like to see bridge lengths, however, they understand that these will not be provided as a part of this study. Arizona State Land asked the order in which the parkways will be developed. Mitch responded by saying we are generating a planning document for developers and local jurisdictions regarding a preferred alignment within the corridor but that there is no set order for the design and construction of the parkways identified in the MAG framework studies. Page 3 of 4 Page 4 of 4 Page 2 of 2 August 28, 2009 Mr. Benjamin Grumbles Director Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 1110 West Washington Street, Mailstop 5415A-1 Phoenix, AZ 85007 Dear Mr. Grumbles: Subject: McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study MCDOT Project No. TT005 The Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) is conducting a Corridor Feasibility Study (CFS) for a proposed parkway to be located in the town of Buckeye and unincorporated Maricopa County (Figure 1). This CFS follows the recommendation of the Maricopa Association of Government’s Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study to develop a corridor generally following the current alignment of McDowell Road that would accommodate increased travel demand in the White Tank Mountains area. The study area for the proposed McDowell Parkway corridor is defined as 2 miles wide by 17 miles long, centered on the identified alignment of McDowell Parkway between 339th Avenue and Sun Valley Parkway, with a section that would circumvent the southern end of the White Tank Mountains (Figure 2). West of Sun Valley Parkway, the study area generally follows the existing Tonopah-Salome Highway alignment to the 339th Avenue/Indian School Road intersection. Beginning at 339th Avenue at the western end, the centerline of the study corridor extends east-southeast across portions of: x x x x x x Township (T) 2 North (N), Range (R) 5 West (W), Sections 21, 26, 27, 28, 35 and 36 T2N, R4W, Sections 31 through 36 T1N, R4W, Sections 1 through 5 T2N, R3W, Section 31 T1N, R3W, Sections 1 through 6 T2N, R2W, Section 36 These sections are found on the Wintersburg (1984), Buckeye NW (1982), and Valencia (1982), Arizona, US Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Topographic Series. The purpose of the feasibility study is to identify the optimal corridor alignment for the proposed parkway that accommodates the projected high travel demand for the study area. The proposed corridor would create a new east–west route north of Interstate 10. Currently, McDowell Road’s western terminus is at Dean Road, east of the White Tank Mountains. An unpaved segment of McDowell Road exists west of the White Tank Mountains between Sun Valley Parkway and 311th Avenue. The CFS will analyze possible future alignments for an “Arizona Parkway” within the corridor study area. The Arizona Parkway is a new roadway facility type outlined by MCDOT in 2008 that uses a distinct intersection treatment that prohibits left turns at all 78 West Cushing Street • Tucson, Arizona 85701 • (520) 624-4326 • Fax (520) 882-0432 cross streets, therefore creating a simple two-phase signal control. Left-turn movements are made indirectly using directional left-turn crossovers immediately after crossroad intersections (Figure 3). By eliminating left turns at intersections, the signal progression along the entire corridor allows for more green time to be provided for through traffic, enhancing traffic operations along the parkway. The proposed new parkway would be contained within a 200-foot right-of-way. Acquisition of new right-of-way for the corridor would be necessary, and temporary construction easements would also be necessary for project construction. A construction date for the project has not been established. The purpose of this letter is to provide information to stakeholders and solicit input regarding potential environmental and socioeconomic constraints that may exist in the corridor study area. MCDOT will prepare the CFS and an Environmental Overview to document the project development process. EcoPlan Associates, Inc., is providing assistance in preparing the Environmental Overview. Individuals can provide input by submitting comments directly to Michael R. Dawson by phone at 480.733.6666, extension 177; by fax at 480.733.6661; by e-mail at mdawson@ecoplanaz.com; or by mail at: Michael R. Dawson EcoPlan Associates, Inc. 701 W. Southern Ave., Suite 203 Mesa, AZ 85210 We would appreciate receipt of your comments by September 14, 2009. Thank you for your time and assistance. Sincerely, Michael R. Dawson Senior Environmental Planner MRD:jp Enclosures: Figures 1–3 cc: Heather Thomas, PBSJ Hugh Davidson, MCDOT Roberta Crowe, MCDOT Joe Pinto, MCDOT Mitch Wagner, MCDOT Michael R. Dawson, EcoPlan Associates, Inc. (without enclosures) Page 2 of 2 August 28, 2009 Ms. Laura Canaca Project Evaluation Program Supervisor Arizona Game and Fish Department Habitat Branch 5000 West Carefree Highway Phoenix, AZ 85086 Dear Ms. Canaca: Subject: McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study MCDOT Project No. TT005 The Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) is conducting a Corridor Feasibility Study (CFS) for a proposed parkway to be located in the town of Buckeye and unincorporated Maricopa County (Figure 1). This CFS follows the recommendation of the Maricopa Association of Government’s Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study to develop a corridor generally following the current alignment of McDowell Road that would accommodate increased travel demand in the White Tank Mountains area. The study area for the proposed McDowell Parkway corridor is defined as 2 miles wide by 17 miles long, centered on the identified alignment of McDowell Parkway between 339th Avenue and Sun Valley Parkway, with a section that would circumvent the southern end of the White Tank Mountains (Figure 2). West of Sun Valley Parkway, the study area generally follows the existing Tonopah-Salome Highway alignment to the 339th Avenue/Indian School Road intersection. Beginning at 339th Avenue at the western end, the centerline of the study corridor extends east-southeast across portions of: x x x x x x Township (T) 2 North (N), Range (R) 5 West (W), Sections 21, 26, 27, 28, 35 and 36 T2N, R4W, Sections 31 through 36 T1N, R4W, Sections 1 through 5 T2N, R3W, Section 31 T1N, R3W, Sections 1 through 6 T2N, R2W, Section 36 These sections are found on the Wintersburg (1984), Buckeye NW (1982), and Valencia (1982), Arizona, US Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Topographic Series. The purpose of the feasibility study is to identify the optimal corridor alignment for the proposed parkway that accommodates the projected high travel demand for the study area. The proposed corridor would create a new east–west route north of Interstate 10. Currently, McDowell Road’s western terminus is at Dean Road, east of the White Tank Mountains. An unpaved segment of McDowell Road exists west of the White Tank Mountains between Sun Valley Parkway and 311th Avenue. The CFS will analyze possible future alignments for an “Arizona Parkway” within the corridor study area. The Arizona Parkway is a new roadway facility type outlined by MCDOT in 2008 that uses a distinct intersection treatment that prohibits left turns at all 78 West Cushing Street • Tucson, Arizona 85701 • (520) 624-4326 • Fax (520) 882-0432 cross streets, therefore creating a simple two-phase signal control. Left-turn movements are made indirectly using directional left-turn crossovers immediately after crossroad intersections (Figure 3). By eliminating left turns at intersections, the signal progression along the entire corridor allows for more green time to be provided for through traffic, enhancing traffic operations along the parkway. The proposed new parkway would be contained within a 200-foot right-of-way. Acquisition of new right-of-way for the corridor would be necessary, and temporary construction easements would also be necessary for project construction. A construction date for the project has not been established. The purpose of this letter is to provide information to stakeholders and solicit input regarding potential environmental and socioeconomic constraints that may exist in the corridor study area. MCDOT will prepare the CFS and an Environmental Overview to document the project development process. EcoPlan Associates, Inc., is providing assistance in preparing the Environmental Overview. Individuals can provide input by submitting comments directly to Michael R. Dawson by phone at 480.733.6666, extension 177; by fax at 480.733.6661; by e-mail at mdawson@ecoplanaz.com; or by mail at: Michael R. Dawson EcoPlan Associates, Inc. 701 W. Southern Ave., Suite 203 Mesa, AZ 85210 We would appreciate receipt of your comments by September 14, 2009. Thank you for your time and assistance. Sincerely, Michael R. Dawson Senior Environmental Planner MRD:jp Enclosures: Figures 1–3 cc: Heather Thomas, PBSJ Hugh Davidson, MCDOT Roberta Crowe, MCDOT Joe Pinto, MCDOT Mitch Wagner, MCDOT Michael R. Dawson, EcoPlan Associates, Inc. (without enclosures) Page 2 of 2 August 28, 2009 Dr. Ray Schweinsburg Research Supervisor Arizona Game and Fish Department 5000 West Carefree Highway Phoenix, AZ 85086 Dear Dr. Schweinsburg: Subject: McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study MCDOT Project No. TT005 The Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) is conducting a Corridor Feasibility Study (CFS) for a proposed parkway to be located in the town of Buckeye and unincorporated Maricopa County (Figure 1). This CFS follows the recommendation of the Maricopa Association of Government’s Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study to develop a corridor generally following the current alignment of McDowell Road that would accommodate increased travel demand in the White Tank Mountains area. The study area for the proposed McDowell Parkway corridor is defined as 2 miles wide by 17 miles long, centered on the identified alignment of McDowell Parkway between 339th Avenue and Sun Valley Parkway, with a section that would circumvent the southern end of the White Tank Mountains (Figure 2). West of Sun Valley Parkway, the study area generally follows the existing Tonopah-Salome Highway alignment to the 339th Avenue/Indian School Road intersection. Beginning at 339th Avenue at the western end, the centerline of the study corridor extends east-southeast across portions of: x x x x x x Township (T) 2 North (N), Range (R) 5 West (W), Sections 21, 26, 27, 28, 35 and 36 T2N, R4W, Sections 31 through 36 T1N, R4W, Sections 1 through 5 T2N, R3W, Section 31 T1N, R3W, Sections 1 through 6 T2N, R2W, Section 36 These sections are found on the Wintersburg (1984), Buckeye NW (1982), and Valencia (1982), Arizona, US Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Topographic Series. The purpose of the feasibility study is to identify the optimal corridor alignment for the proposed parkway that accommodates the projected high travel demand for the study area. The proposed corridor would create a new east–west route north of Interstate 10. Currently, McDowell Road’s western terminus is at Dean Road, east of the White Tank Mountains. An unpaved segment of McDowell Road exists west of the White Tank Mountains between Sun Valley Parkway and 311th Avenue. The CFS will analyze possible future alignments for an “Arizona Parkway” within the corridor study area. The Arizona Parkway is a new roadway facility type outlined by MCDOT in 2008 that uses a distinct intersection treatment that prohibits left turns at all 78 West Cushing Street • Tucson, Arizona 85701 • (520) 624-4326 • Fax (520) 882-0432 cross streets, therefore creating a simple two-phase signal control. Left-turn movements are made indirectly using directional left-turn crossovers immediately after crossroad intersections (Figure 3). By eliminating left turns at intersections, the signal progression along the entire corridor allows for more green time to be provided for through traffic, enhancing traffic operations along the parkway. The proposed new parkway would be contained within a 200-foot right-of-way. Acquisition of new right-of-way for the corridor would be necessary, and temporary construction easements would also be necessary for project construction. A construction date for the project has not been established. The purpose of this letter is to provide information to stakeholders and solicit input regarding potential environmental and socioeconomic constraints that may exist in the corridor study area. MCDOT will prepare the CFS and an Environmental Overview to document the project development process. EcoPlan Associates, Inc., is providing assistance in preparing the Environmental Overview. Individuals can provide input by submitting comments directly to Michael R. Dawson by phone at 480.733.6666, extension 177; by fax at 480.733.6661; by e-mail at mdawson@ecoplanaz.com; or by mail at: Michael R. Dawson EcoPlan Associates, Inc. 701 W. Southern Ave., Suite 203 Mesa, AZ 85210 We would appreciate receipt of your comments by September 14, 2009. Thank you for your time and assistance. Sincerely, Michael R. Dawson Senior Environmental Planner MRD:jp Enclosures: Figures 1–3 cc: Heather Thomas, PBSJ Hugh Davidson, MCDOT Roberta Crowe, MCDOT Joe Pinto, MCDOT Mitch Wagner, MCDOT Michael R. Dawson, EcoPlan Associates, Inc. (without enclosures) Page 2 of 2 August 28, 2009 Mr. Steve Cohn Field Manager Bureau of Land Management Hassayampa Field Office 21605 North Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85027 Dear Mr. Cohn: Subject: McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study MCDOT Project No. TT005 The Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) is conducting a Corridor Feasibility Study (CFS) for a proposed parkway to be located in the town of Buckeye and unincorporated Maricopa County (Figure 1). This CFS follows the recommendation of the Maricopa Association of Government’s Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study to develop a corridor generally following the current alignment of McDowell Road that would accommodate increased travel demand in the White Tank Mountains area. The study area for the proposed McDowell Parkway corridor is defined as 2 miles wide by 17 miles long, centered on the identified alignment of McDowell Parkway between 339th Avenue and Sun Valley Parkway, with a section that would circumvent the southern end of the White Tank Mountains (Figure 2). West of Sun Valley Parkway, the study area generally follows the existing Tonopah-Salome Highway alignment to the 339th Avenue/Indian School Road intersection. Beginning at 339th Avenue at the western end, the centerline of the study corridor extends east-southeast across portions of: x x x x x x Township (T) 2 North (N), Range (R) 5 West (W), Sections 21, 26, 27, 28, 35 and 36 T2N, R4W, Sections 31 through 36 T1N, R4W, Sections 1 through 5 T2N, R3W, Section 31 T1N, R3W, Sections 1 through 6 T2N, R2W, Section 36 These sections are found on the Wintersburg (1984), Buckeye NW (1982), and Valencia (1982), Arizona, US Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Topographic Series. The purpose of the feasibility study is to identify the optimal corridor alignment for the proposed parkway that accommodates the projected high travel demand for the study area. The proposed corridor would create a new east–west route north of Interstate 10. Currently, McDowell Road’s western terminus is at Dean Road, east of the White Tank Mountains. An unpaved segment of McDowell Road exists west of the White Tank Mountains between Sun Valley Parkway and 311th Avenue. The CFS will analyze possible future alignments for an “Arizona Parkway” within the corridor study area. The Arizona Parkway is a new roadway facility type outlined by MCDOT in 2008 that uses a distinct intersection treatment that prohibits left turns at all 78 West Cushing Street • Tucson, Arizona 85701 • (520) 624-4326 • Fax (520) 882-0432 cross streets, therefore creating a simple two-phase signal control. Left-turn movements are made indirectly using directional left-turn crossovers immediately after crossroad intersections (Figure 3). By eliminating left turns at intersections, the signal progression along the entire corridor allows for more green time to be provided for through traffic, enhancing traffic operations along the parkway. The proposed new parkway would be contained within a 200-foot right-of-way. Acquisition of new right-of-way for the corridor would be necessary, and temporary construction easements would also be necessary for project construction. A construction date for the project has not been established. The purpose of this letter is to provide information to stakeholders and solicit input regarding potential environmental and socioeconomic constraints that may exist in the corridor study area. MCDOT will prepare the CFS and an Environmental Overview to document the project development process. EcoPlan Associates, Inc., is providing assistance in preparing the Environmental Overview. Individuals can provide input by submitting comments directly to Michael R. Dawson by phone at 480.733.6666, extension 177; by fax at 480.733.6661; by e-mail at mdawson@ecoplanaz.com; or by mail at: Michael R. Dawson EcoPlan Associates, Inc. 701 W. Southern Ave., Suite 203 Mesa, AZ 85210 We would appreciate receipt of your comments by September 14, 2009. Thank you for your time and assistance. Sincerely, Michael R. Dawson Senior Environmental Planner MRD:jp Enclosures: Figures 1–3 cc: Heather Thomas, PBSJ Hugh Davidson, MCDOT Roberta Crowe, MCDOT Joe Pinto, MCDOT Mitch Wagner, MCDOT Michael R. Dawson, EcoPlan Associates, Inc. (without enclosures) Page 2 of 2 August 28, 2009 Mr. Steve Spangle Field Supervisor US Fish and Wildlife Service 2321 West Royal Palm Boulevard, Suite 103 Phoenix, AZ 85021 Dear Mr. Spangle: Subject: McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study MCDOT Project No. TT005 The Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) is conducting a Corridor Feasibility Study (CFS) for a proposed parkway to be located in the town of Buckeye and unincorporated Maricopa County (Figure 1). This CFS follows the recommendation of the Maricopa Association of Government’s Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study to develop a corridor generally following the current alignment of McDowell Road that would accommodate increased travel demand in the White Tank Mountains area. The study area for the proposed McDowell Parkway corridor is defined as 2 miles wide by 17 miles long, centered on the identified alignment of McDowell Parkway between 339th Avenue and Sun Valley Parkway, with a section that would circumvent the southern end of the White Tank Mountains (Figure 2). West of Sun Valley Parkway, the study area generally follows the existing Tonopah-Salome Highway alignment to the 339th Avenue/Indian School Road intersection. Beginning at 339th Avenue at the western end, the centerline of the study corridor extends east-southeast across portions of: x x x x x x Township (T) 2 North (N), Range (R) 5 West (W), Sections 21, 26, 27, 28, 35 and 36 T2N, R4W, Sections 31 through 36 T1N, R4W, Sections 1 through 5 T2N, R3W, Section 31 T1N, R3W, Sections 1 through 6 T2N, R2W, Section 36 These sections are found on the Wintersburg (1984), Buckeye NW (1982), and Valencia (1982), Arizona, US Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Topographic Series. The purpose of the feasibility study is to identify the optimal corridor alignment for the proposed parkway that accommodates the projected high travel demand for the study area. The proposed corridor would create a new east–west route north of Interstate 10. Currently, McDowell Road’s western terminus is at Dean Road, east of the White Tank Mountains. An unpaved segment of McDowell Road exists west of the White Tank Mountains between Sun Valley Parkway and 311th Avenue. The CFS will analyze possible future alignments for an “Arizona Parkway” within the corridor study area. The Arizona Parkway is a new roadway facility type outlined by MCDOT in 2008 that uses a distinct intersection treatment that prohibits left turns at all 78 West Cushing Street • Tucson, Arizona 85701 • (520) 624-4326 • Fax (520) 882-0432 cross streets, therefore creating a simple two-phase signal control. Left-turn movements are made indirectly using directional left-turn crossovers immediately after crossroad intersections (Figure 3). By eliminating left turns at intersections, the signal progression along the entire corridor allows for more green time to be provided for through traffic, enhancing traffic operations along the parkway. The proposed new parkway would be contained within a 200-foot right-of-way. Acquisition of new right-of-way for the corridor would be necessary, and temporary construction easements would also be necessary for project construction. A construction date for the project has not been established. The purpose of this letter is to provide information to stakeholders and solicit input regarding potential environmental and socioeconomic constraints that may exist in the corridor study area. MCDOT will prepare the CFS and an Environmental Overview to document the project development process. EcoPlan Associates, Inc., is providing assistance in preparing the Environmental Overview. Individuals can provide input by submitting comments directly to Michael R. Dawson by phone at 480.733.6666, extension 177; by fax at 480.733.6661; by e-mail at mdawson@ecoplanaz.com; or by mail at: Michael R. Dawson EcoPlan Associates, Inc. 701 W. Southern Ave., Suite 203 Mesa, AZ 85210 We would appreciate receipt of your comments by September 14, 2009. Thank you for your time and assistance. Sincerely, Michael R. Dawson Senior Environmental Planner MRD:jp Enclosures: Figures 1–3 cc: Heather Thomas, PBSJ Hugh Davidson, MCDOT Roberta Crowe, MCDOT Joe Pinto, MCDOT Mitch Wagner, MCDOT Michael R. Dawson, EcoPlan Associates, Inc. (without enclosures) Page 2 of 2 August 28, 2009 Ms. Darci Kinsman Park Director White Tank Mountain Regional Park 13025 North White Tank Mountain Road Waddell, AZ 85355 Dear Ms. Kinsman: Subject: McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study MCDOT Project No. TT005 The Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) is conducting a Corridor Feasibility Study (CFS) for a proposed parkway to be located in the town of Buckeye and unincorporated Maricopa County (Figure 1). This CFS follows the recommendation of the Maricopa Association of Government’s Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study to develop a corridor generally following the current alignment of McDowell Road that would accommodate increased travel demand in the White Tank Mountains area. The study area for the proposed McDowell Parkway corridor is defined as 2 miles wide by 17 miles long, centered on the identified alignment of McDowell Parkway between 339th Avenue and Sun Valley Parkway, with a section that would circumvent the southern end of the White Tank Mountains (Figure 2). West of Sun Valley Parkway, the study area generally follows the existing Tonopah-Salome Highway alignment to the 339th Avenue/Indian School Road intersection. Beginning at 339th Avenue at the western end, the centerline of the study corridor extends east-southeast across portions of: x x x x x x Township (T) 2 North (N), Range (R) 5 West (W), Sections 21, 26, 27, 28, 35 and 36 T2N, R4W, Sections 31 through 36 T1N, R4W, Sections 1 through 5 T2N, R3W, Section 31 T1N, R3W, Sections 1 through 6 T2N, R2W, Section 36 These sections are found on the Wintersburg (1984), Buckeye NW (1982), and Valencia (1982), Arizona, US Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Topographic Series. The purpose of the feasibility study is to identify the optimal corridor alignment for the proposed parkway that accommodates the projected high travel demand for the study area. The proposed corridor would create a new east–west route north of Interstate 10. Currently, McDowell Road’s western terminus is at Dean Road, east of the White Tank Mountains. An unpaved segment of McDowell Road exists west of the White Tank Mountains between Sun Valley Parkway and 311th Avenue. The CFS will analyze possible future alignments for an “Arizona Parkway” within the corridor study area. The Arizona Parkway is a new roadway facility type outlined by MCDOT in 2008 that uses a distinct intersection treatment that prohibits left turns at all 78 West Cushing Street • Tucson, Arizona 85701 • (520) 624-4326 • Fax (520) 882-0432 cross streets, therefore creating a simple two-phase signal control. Left-turn movements are made indirectly using directional left-turn crossovers immediately after crossroad intersections (Figure 3). By eliminating left turns at intersections, the signal progression along the entire corridor allows for more green time to be provided for through traffic, enhancing traffic operations along the parkway. The proposed new parkway would be contained within a 200-foot right-of-way. Acquisition of new right-of-way for the corridor would be necessary, and temporary construction easements would also be necessary for project construction. A construction date for the project has not been established. The purpose of this letter is to provide information to stakeholders and solicit input regarding potential environmental and socioeconomic constraints that may exist in the corridor study area. MCDOT will prepare the CFS and an Environmental Overview to document the project development process. EcoPlan Associates, Inc., is providing assistance in preparing the Environmental Overview. Individuals can provide input by submitting comments directly to Michael R. Dawson by phone at 480.733.6666, extension 177; by fax at 480.733.6661; by e-mail at mdawson@ecoplanaz.com; or by mail at: Michael R. Dawson EcoPlan Associates, Inc. 701 W. Southern Ave., Suite 203 Mesa, AZ 85210 We would appreciate receipt of your comments by September 14, 2009. Thank you for your time and assistance. Sincerely, Michael R. Dawson Senior Environmental Planner MRD:jp Enclosures: Figures 1–3 cc: Heather Thomas, PBSJ Hugh Davidson, MCDOT Roberta Crowe, MCDOT Joe Pinto, MCDOT Mitch Wagner, MCDOT Michael R. Dawson, EcoPlan Associates, Inc. (without enclosures) pa R iv er GILA BEND Í ? BUCKEYE $̀ " ! H 1 2 Miles ° Buckeye Military Reservation North Buckeye City Limits pa h -S a l om eH igh wa y Figure 2. Project location. McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study MCDOT Project No. TT005 0 339th Avenue iv er aR Proposed Road Extension Study Area Ton o 311th Avenue Figure 1. Maricopa County. McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study MCDOT Project No. TT005 Í ? $ a " ! PROJECT LOCATION a ya m  ? ß A AVONDALE ó A ß A ¸ ? ! $ c " $ A a " ! ð $ A c " ! á GLENDALE Verde River FOUNTAIN HILLS Í ? Ð ? Ñ ? $ a " ! 4 8 Dean Road Baseline Road 0 Sa ft Riv er White Tank Mountains I v v I GUADALUPE ß A $ CHANDLER GILBERT a " ð ! A QUEEN À CREEK MESA TEMPE PARADISE VALLEY ß A SCOTTSDALE CAVE CREEK CAREFREE PHOENIX $ c " ! LITCHFIELD TOLLESON PARK er Sa lt Riv GOODYEAR ÿ YOUNGTOWN A EL MIRAGE SURPRISE v I Palo Verde Road Has s Johnson Avenue as s a ya mp 331st Avenue Sun Valley Parkway ria Riv er Ag u a F PEORIA Turner Road WICKENBURG Rooks Road v I Apache Road ve Rainbow Road Ri ° North McDowell Road W\08-247\NEPA\Scope\Fig1 16 Miles W/08-247/NEPA/Scope/Fig2 Airport Road G ila r Figure 3. Typical Arizona Parkway-Arterial intersection. McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study MCDOT Project No. TT005 Arizona Parkway Arterial Roadway Arizona Parkway W/08-247/NEPA/Scope/Fig3 Appendix C: Technical Memorandum #3 Conceptual Drainage Report 3 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study (CFS) Drainage Overview November 2009 This technical memorandum provides an overview of the existing corridor drainage features including information summarized from existing studies. Such information includes geomorphology, flood hazards, sub-surface geology and groundwater monitoring data. The information presented here is solely based upon the review of existing data including maps, aerials, topography, reports, studies, plans and other related documents currently available and relevant to the corridor. This material was obtained during the data collection effort and forms the basis for the identification of opportunities and constraints presented in this memorandum. The opportunities and constraints listed herein are not exhaustive of those present within the area. Rather, they were identified during the review of data specific to the subject matter addressed by this document. Additional opportunities and constraints are discussed in the other technical memoranda being developed as a part of this study. Taken as a whole, they will comprise a major tool by which corridor alignment alternatives may be evaluated. CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE REPORT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #3 The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) recently completed the Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study1 (Framework Study) that recommended a comprehensive transportation network designed to meet the future traffic demands for the build out of the area west of the White Tank Mountains. This long-range regional transportation network identified the need for a new facility type that could safely handle the projected high travel demand within the study area. For more details regarding this new facility, refer to Technical Memorandum #1. As a result of the Framework Study, a corridor generally following the McDowell Road alignment and identified as McDowell Parkway was identified. McDowell Parkway will originate at 339th Avenue and extend east to Dean Road (219th Avenue alignment). The McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study is approximately 15 miles in length and is defined by an approximately two-mile wide area centered upon the McDowell Parkway alignment as recommended in the Framework Study (see Exhibits 1.1 and 1.2). The purpose of this technical memorandum is to investigate, summarize, map, and document corridor constraints and opportunities from an area-drainage, water resources and flood hazard perspective. 1.1 Data Collection As part of the data collection phase of this study, research was conducted to determine the extent, availability and relevance of the existing studies, maps, aerials, topography and other information impacting the study area. As a result, a large amount of information was obtained and reviewed. A complete listing of that information may be found in the Data Collection Bibliography which is included for 1 Interstate 10–Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study, Maricopa Association of Governments, September 2007. Page 1 NOVEMBER 2009 Page 3 reference in Appendix A of this memorandum. In addition, a summary of each major document reviewed may be found in Appendix A. Note that all of the data collected was reviewed, however only those portions considered significant to the corridor were included with the summary. Other data not included in the summary includes electronic (mapping) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data. Topographic contours were provided by the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) and provided for use in this study. The contours were prepared from a 10-foot grid derived from 50-foot mass points and break lines as documented and described in the Buckeye/Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Study, by PBS&J, dated 2006 (ADMS). The contour interval for most of the provided mapping was 10 feet. A limited portion of this mapping had a contour interval of two feet; however that coverage was generally outside the study area. In order to simplify the discussion of the corridor and its associated drainage characteristics, as well as the results of the data collection effort, the corridor was divided into three regions as follows: x Region 1 (Sun Valley Region East) – Bounded on the east by Dean Road and on the west by Sun Valley Parkway. x Region II (Hassayampa River East) - Bounded on the east by Sun Valley Parkway and on the west by the Hassayampa River. x Region III (Hassayampa River West) – Bounded on the east by the Hassayampa River and on the west by 339th Avenue. 1.1.1 Data Summary The most significant and comprehensive sources of data relevant to the corridor were the Buckeye/Sun Valley ADMS and the Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Plan (ADMP), by J.E. Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc., dated December 2006. Many other sources were useful, particularly in Region III area which lies outside of the limits of the above studies. The Data Collection Summary Table provides the following information: x Major document types x Document Date x Status (ongoing or complete) x Geographical context (Region I, II or III) x Subject matter x Relevance to the study area (High-Medium-Low) Page 2 1.1.2 Meetings The discharge data associated with these studies is not as comprehensive as the data associated with the ADMS in Regions I and II. However, peak discharge data is being developed as part of the current/ongoing WCMP specific to the Hassayampa River as well as the ongoing Luke Wash Floodplain Delineation Study which will likely include a significant portion of the Region III area. During the course of this CFS, the following meetings occurred between PBS&J staff and the individuals in the following list: 1. August 19, 2009 - Buckeye Military Base with Sandy Mallach, AZ Army National Guard In addition to the above information, there was an approximate floodplain delineation study conducted by JE Fuller that was completed as part of the Approximate Zone A Floodplain Delineation Study of Watershed “OO”, Hassayampa River Tributaries and Lower Jackrabbit Wash Tributaries, dated 2003. 2. September 1, 2009 – PBS&J Offices with Bob Speirs, Stardust Development, Inc. 3. September 9, 2009 – FCDMC with Valerie Swick, FCDMC 4. September 23, 2009 – FCDMC with Sam Sherman, FCDMC Based on meetings with FCDMC staff, FCDMC is currently in the process of conducting detailed floodplain delineation in this area as part of the Luke Wash Floodplain Delineation Study. This study will revise the existing Zone A and Zone AE floodplains delineated on Luke Wash, Tributaries to Luke Wash and Tributaries to the Hassayampa and Gila Rivers. This study also will include the preparation of a new hydrologic model for the contributing watershed. FCDMC did not provide a definitive timeline for the completion of this effort; therefore, it must be assumed that it will not be available for use with this feasibility study. It is very likely that this information will be available for use during subsequent corridor studies. FCDMC also has plans to perform an ADMP for the Luke Wash watershed however the timing of that study has not yet been determined. The following sections describe the data collection specific to each Region (I, II and III). 1.1.3 Region I and Region II The majority of the existing detailed data available is specific to Regions I and II. There have been several previous studies within portions of these two Regions. However, the most comprehensive and recent data is available per the ADMS and the ADMP. Together these studies provide a detailed source of information regarding the hydrologic, geomorphic and hydraulic characteristics of the features present throughout the majority of the study area (approximately 13.5 miles). Available data include geomorphology, detailed hydrology including concentration points and peak discharges as well as proposed regional flood control plans. In addition, detailed floodplain hazard mapping recently completed by FCDMC will be added to the floodplain hazards currently shown on the effective FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (Appendix B). Although the level of detail and quantity of available data are somewhat limited in Region III relative to Regions I and II, they should be sufficient for use in differentiating among alignment alternatives. Further, Region III comprises approximately 1.8 miles of the total corridor length and alternatives through this area are likely to be very similar due to the existing Tonopah Salome Highway and West Indian School Road pavement sections and right-of-way, especially since use of those alignments is consistent with the Framework Study. 1.1.4 Region III In contrast with Regions I and II, the extent of detailed data available within Region III is somewhat limited. Although there have been several studies conducted in this area (e.g. Hydrologic Analysis of the Hassayampa River in Maricopa County, Jackrabbit Wash Floodplain Delineation Study, etc.) there has not been an area-wide comprehensive and detailed hydrologic and hydraulic analysis similar to the ADMS & the ADMP completed within Regions I and II. Currently, the best available information is contained within the following documents: x Lower Hassayampa River Watercourse Master Plan (WCMP), various documents, dated 2006 to present x Jackrabbit Wash Floodplain Delineation Study, TDN 1&2, by Burgess and Niple, dated 1991 x Hydrologic Analysis of the Hassayampa River in Maricopa County, by Cella Barr and Associates, dated 1988 Page 4 Note that existing land use, zoning maps, ownership, etc. were collected and documented by Technical Memorandum #1 and will not be specifically addressed or discussed in this document. Refer to Exhibit 1.3 and Exhibit 1.4 for the Existing Land Ownership and Planned Development. 1.2 Area Background and Drainage Characteristics Although a major portion of Regions I and II has undergone master planning and land entitlement efforts the majority of that area remains undeveloped natural desert. Plans for several master planned communities exist within and around the corridor however, the recent economic slow-down has virtually stopped all development activity in this area. It is anticipated that this activity, which has been vibrant over the last five years, will resume once the economy experiences significant recovery. Storm water runoff within Regions I and II generally flows from the White Tank Mountains in the northeast to the existing Flood Retarding Structures (FRS #’s 1, 2 and 3) to the south and southwest as well as to White Tank Wash and the Hassayampa River to the west and southwest. Page 5 Similar to Regions I and II, Region III exists primarily as undeveloped natural desert. There is some rural residential development present in the area however individual homes are fairly scattered. There is virtually no sub-division development near the study area. Unlike Regions I and II, Region III is dominated by a flatter desert valley type landform. In addition, existing drainage conveyances appear to be better confined in contrast with the alluvial fans present in Regions I and II. Although the washes are somewhat more defined, they are still associated with relatively large floodplains which will require crossing. Refer to Exhibit 1.5 for the area topography. percent. As mentioned in the previous section neither the ADMS nor the ADMP cover the watershed area contributing to the runoff in Region III. Rather, this area has been studied in less detail and has generally been addressed by multiple reports that focus on Jackrabbit Wash and/or the Hassayampa River. With the recent completion of the Luke Wash mapping effort by FCDMC in 2006 the Luke Wash Floodplain Delineation Study is under way. This study will result in updated hydrology for Region III in addition to revised Zone A and Zone AE floodplain delineations for Luke Wash, the Hassayampa and Gila Rivers and the rivers’ tributaries. The result of this update will be Zone AE floodplain mapping that will include a floodway. FCDMC also plans to conduct an ADMP for this area at some future date. In addition to the Luke Wash Floodplain Delineation Study, FCDMC has completed Phase I of the Lower Hassayampa River WCMP and is currently conducting Phase II of that study. A more detailed description of each region is provided in the following sections. 1.2.1 Region I Storm water runoff generated within Region I of the corridor generally originates in the White Tank Mountains to the north and discharges to the existing Flood Retarding Structures (FRS #s 1, 2 and 3) located to the south and southwest. Slopes within this area range from 1.0 to 2.5 percent. In lieu of the new hydrology currently under development for Luke Wash, peak discharge estimates through this area were available as part of the 1991 Burgess and Niple study. This information will provide a means of estimating peak discharges at the locations where wash crossings will be required. For the purposes of this study, discharge estimates will be based on the best available data at the time the alternatives are analyzed. Through continued coordination with FCDMC available data will be included for use in this study as it is received. Since corridor feasibility will be relative from one alternative to another, the available data should be sufficient for the purposes of this study. The key to successful alternative evaluation will be the application of consistent criteria for each alternative proposed. The ADMS, the ADMP and the existing development master plans have all noted that the watershed impacting the corridor through this area is relatively well defined. Peak discharge estimates for the 100-year storm event have been established and will be the basis for evaluating those corridor alternatives where significant wash and/or drainage crossings are anticipated. 1.2.2 Region II Storm water runoff generated in this portion of the corridor generally originates in the White Tank Mountains to the northeast and is conveyed across Sun Valley Parkway to the southwest, ultimately outfalling to White Tank Wash and/or the Hassayampa River. Slopes through this area are typically gentler than those in Region I and range from approximately 0 to 3 percent. Refer to Area Drainage Exhibit 1.6. 1.3 Regional Character The following section summarizes the character found in the area including geomorphology, subsidence potential, existing (primary) washes and alluvial fans. As with Region I, nearly all of the relevant drainage information available for region II is documented in the ADMS and the ADMP. 1.3.1 Geomorphology Region II is currently dominated by undeveloped, natural desert with very little development however; a significant portion of this area has undergone master planning and land entitlement efforts. As with Region I peak discharge estimates in Region II for the 100-year storm event have been established and will be the basis for evaluating the corridor alternatives where significant wash and/or drainage crossings are anticipated. The available geomorphologic data was primarily found within the ADMS for Regions I and II. Although there was limited geomorphic information available for Region III, this data was specific to evaluations conducted along Jackrabbit Wash following a major flood event in October 2000. Additional geomorphic analysis is being completed in the area as a part of the ongoing WCMP. That information is specific to the Hassayampa River and has been included with the document summary located in Appendix A. In general, geomorphology can be used to assist in determining flood hazard areas through an evaluation of surficial characteristics such as the following: 1.2.3 Region III Unlike within Regions I and II, storm water runoff in this area originates within portions of the Luke Wash and Jackrabbit Wash watersheds located to the northwest. Runoff is conveyed through the corridor to the southeast ultimately outfalling to the Hassayampa River. Slopes through this area are gentler than those in Region I and range from approximately 0 to 1 Page 6 x x x x Surface Color Soil Development Accumulation of Calcium Carbonate Development of Desert Varnish and Desert Pavement Page 7 x x x Drainage Channel Entrenchment Topography Vegetation The above information can provide valuable insight into the age of deposits and the potential inundation zone which could result during a flood event. Additional information may be obtained regarding potential erosion and possible changes to existing channels. Geomorphology is generally a qualitative evaluation conducted by individuals specializing in such studies. While geomorphology is a useful tool, there are some limitations. For instance, it does not necessarily correlate the identified zones of inundation with a statistical return period such as the 100-year flood. Another shortcoming is that it does not result in detailed information regarding velocity and depth, which are used to determine the extent of the identified hazard associated with the inundation zone as well as for sizing flood control structures. Geomorphology also has some advantage over typical flood studies in areas subject to alluvial fan flooding such as Regions I and II of this study. Since most typical flood studies use a onedimensional hydraulic model (such as HEC-RAS) they cannot account for rapid changes in channel geometry, slope, boundary, etc, which are typical of the distributary type channel features encountered on alluvial fan features. The following sections will briefly summarize the available geomorphologic data obtained and reviewed in Regions I, II and III of the study area. Regions I and II As part of the ADMS a thorough geomorphologic investigation was conducted that included all of Regions I and II of the study area. As a result of that study Region I was found to be within an area characterized by mountainous terrain with piedmont landforms primarily comprised of active (unstable) and in-active/relict (conditionally unstable) alluvial fan features. Piedmont landforms are defined as a broad, gently sloping, rock-floored eroded surfaces located at the base of an abrupt mountain front. A relict fan is defined as an erosion remnant from a previously active alluvial fan that is now hardened by cementation. Other unstable features present within Region I include some multi-channel distributary areas below active alluvial fan areas and braided channels where flood-flow is generally wide and shallow in areas of recent sedimentation. According to the ADMS conditionally unstable alluvial fans pose little hazard outside of the confining margins of the geomorphic floodway. This is due to the fact that most of these areas probably contain the 100-year flood boundary. Review of the studies referenced above as well as field reconnaissance indicate that there are three distinct types of conditionally unstable fan features present within Region I which may be defined as follows: x Type I - Individually confined split or distributary flow paths. These features are associated with well-defined through-flow channels that may diverge or split into multiple smaller channels which then rejoin while remaining well confined. Page 8 x Type II – Multiple split or braided, contained within a single reach. These features are associated with channel segments having confined braided or multiple channel appearance. x Type III – Confined localized aggradational reaches with braided or undefined flow paths. These features diverge into two or more flow paths as a result of local aggradation or possible obstructions to the flow path. However, these features remain confined within well-defined boundaries. This type of conveyance path is sometimes referred to as an inset alluvial fan. In addition, Region I contains several active (unstable) alluvial fans. Between the ADMS and the ADMP, approximately 11 major alluvial fan features have been identified in Region I. These features are characterized by fluvial deposits, are fan-shaped and are generally located on terrain sloping in the range of approximately 1-10 percent. The conveyances associated with an active fan are typically wide with little incision. Most active alluvial fans are located within a small part of an overall inactive fan area. Region II lies within an area characterized by terrain consistent with lower piedmont landforms (piedmont toe) primarily comprised of active (unstable) and in-active/relict (conditionally unstable) alluvial fan features. Other unstable features present within Region II include some multi-channel distributary areas below active alluvial fan areas, braided channels where floodflow is generally wide and shallow in areas of recent sedimentation and an alluvial plain area adjacent to the Hassayampa River. In addition to the three distinct types of conditionally unstable fan features present in Region I (as described above), an alluvial plain is described as follows: x Alluvial Plain – Features generally located in a flat or gently sloping area directly adjacent to a river and are formed through the deposition of sediments. For detailed mapping showing the identified landforms in Regions I and II refer to the Landform Delineation map (Numbers 4 & 5) by Ayres and Associates located in Appendix B. For detailed mapping showing landform stability, refer to the Landform Stability map (Numbers 4 & 5) by Ayres and Associates located in Appendix B. Region III Unlike Regions I and II, Region III has very little geomorphologic data currently available that is specific to the study area. The following documents contained some limited information: x A Compilation of Geomorphologic and Hydrologic Reports on the Jackrabbit Wash Flood, compiled by Ann Youberg, dated June 2002. x Hydrologic Analysis of the Hassayampa River in Maricopa County, Arizona for Federal Page 9 Emergency Management Agency, by Cella Barr and Associates, dated 5/2/1988. x Lower Hassayampa River Watercourse Master Plan, Jackrabbit Wash Technical Data Notebook, Volume 4, by JE Fuller Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc., March 2006. Although there is more detailed geomorphic data being developed as part of the Hassayampa WCMP, that information is specific to the river and does not generally cover other portions of Region III. Therefore, detailed comprehensive geomorphology throughout Region III is not yet available. If such data become available and is received prior to completion of this study it will be included with the final submittal documents. In general, given the similarity in the soils and the nature of the topography adjacent to the Hassayampa River’s west bank relative to its east bank, it is reasonable to assume that Region III is at least partially located within an alluvial plain landform as defined above. In addition, the geomorphology available for review and specific to the Hassayampa River concluded the following: x The Hassayampa River is subject to high flow velocity and significant lateral erosion. x The Hassayampa River is generally in equilibrium. There is no significant long-term prediction for degradation or aggradation along the channel bed of the river. This would not necessarily hold true if the contributing watershed were to develop. Development would likely alter the sediment balance currently experienced by the river since developed areas typically generate less sediment than undeveloped areas. x The total scour through the reach of the river that crosses the Region III portion of the corridor is expected to be ten feet or more. Bridge designs must therefore account for that scour in their final design computations. x There was no evidence of erosion-resistant soils during field reconnaissance and sampling activities. x The main channel of the lower Hassayampa River actively migrates across the geologic floodplain. The major wash crossings of the study area west of the Hassayampa River generally appear narrower (better defined) than those located within Regions I and II. However, the current effective floodplains delineated for those features are still fairly wide. As a result of the ongoing detailed mapping in this area by FCDMC these floodplains could be subject to change. For example the Zone A (approximate) floodplain associated with the break-out channel from Jackrabbit Wash, which occurs two miles north of the Tonopah Salome Highway and crosses the study area prior to outfalling into the Hassayampa River (FIRM Panel No. 4013C1985G, Appendix B) appears narrower. This is based on the pending (more detailed) delineations by FCDMC which are indicated on the Area Drainage Exhibit 1.6 in red. the vicinity of the corridor through Region III. 1.3.2 Primary Washes and Alluvial Fans The study area traverses an area that is dominated by several small, medium and large washes. In most cases these washes are highly braided and part of a broad distributary network of conveyances that tend to overflow during large storm events. Hence, they are susceptible to migration resulting from sedimentation, changes in watershed development and overall instability common in alluvial sediment areas. Due to the relatively large number of small to medium size washes present throughout the corridor, a specific discussion of each of those features is beyond the scope and intent of this document. Although one evaluated alternative may require fewer of these relatively small wash crossings than another, the order of magnitude associated with any cost differential is not considered a significant factor in the selection of a preferred alternative. However, the ‘Primary’ or major wash crossings should be considered when evaluating the alternatives. Since these washes will be a major element of conveyance during storm events, minimizing such crossings could be a significant component of cost difference between alternatives. For the purposes of this study a major wash crossing will be considered to be an intermittent wash delineated by a combination of dot and dash blue lines on the USGS 7.5 Quadrangle Maps. This is consistent with the wash features analyzed as part of the ADMS. For a general depiction of these washes, refer to the figure by Ayres and Associates located within Appendix B. The major washes are depicted on this figure by yellow lines and are called ‘Primary Washes’. Refer to Figure(s) 7.15 – 7.17 for historic photos showing changes in flow paths due to instability typical of the Primary Washes in the area. In addition to the Primary Washes, there are several alluvial fans that have been identified along the study area. The Primary Washes described above are typically associated with a broader fan feature. These fans were identified through a combination of the ADMS and ADMP studies in Regions I and II. The fans impacting the corridor are the Skyline Fan and fans 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 20, 36, 37, and 38. Refer to the Area Drainage Exhibit 1.6 for the fan locations. Per meetings with FCDMC staff, these fan hazards have been identified and FCDMC is in the process of determining guidelines for future development that occurs within the fan hazard area. To that end, initial recommendations have been provided by Kathryn Gross (FCDMC) and are included for reference in Appendix C. It should be noted that final (formal) guidelines and procedures for dealing with alluvial fan crossings will be forthcoming at some undetermined time. FCDMC recently procured the services of a consultant and is in the process of conducting analysis on a variety of fan features throughout the county. The purpose of this study is to establish a set of guidelines and procedures for development to follow in alluvial fan areas. Since the time frame for the completion of this study is not known, close coordination should continue with FCMDC staff as the McDowell Parkway project progresses. Although FCDMC has provided these initial guidelines (Appendix C) they are subject to change pending the finalization of the referenced study. Refer to Figure 3-10 in Appendix B for the geomorphic character of the Hassayampa River in Page 10 Page 11 The primary washes that impact the study area in Region III include three unnamed tributaries and the Jackrabbit Wash break-out just west of the Hassayampa River and east of the Dickey Wash. These tributaries are generally located within the Luke and Jackrabbit Wash contributing watershed areas to the north. Refer to Exhibit 1.7 for additional information. 1.3.3 Subsidence and Earth Fissures As a part of the ADMS, a study entitled Preliminary Subsidence Engineering Report was completed and included with Volume VIII ‘Supporting Documents’. This preliminary investigation is applicable to Regions I and II. Currently there is no known similar investigation available for review that includes Region III. Refer to Appendix D for a copy of this report. subsidence was indicated near FRS #1, it was determined to be a result of atmospheric interference. In regard to earth fissures, the report stated that since the water table data did not indicate a decline of 100-feet or more subsidence is not occurring and therefore, no fissuring is expected to exist. This is reasonable since fissures are formed as a result of differential settlement during land subsidence. Fissures form when adjacent portions of the land subside at different rates due to soil type, subsurface features, and variations in underlying bedrock formations or some combination. With regard to the possibility of the formation of earth fissures in the future, the report stated the following: The purpose of the investigation was as follows: x x Determine if there is on-going land subsidence. x Determine the existence of credible evidence for the potential for subsidence. x x Determine if there is a potential for earth fissures due to existing or future subsidence. x The preliminary report indicated that land subsidence may occur given the following conditions: In areas where the depth to bedrock is 1,200 feet of less, fissures are likely to form in subsiding areas. Available existing surface geology and detailed sub surface data are insufficient to determine the likelihood of future fissure formation if subsidence were to occur. The presence of regional topographic/physiographic surface features that would infer buried bedrock features or other structures which could indicate possible fissure formation were not noted. As a result of the above information, the report concluded the following: x Groundwater table depths experience a decline of at least 100-feet. x Underlying soils include silt and clay sediments are present that have an average porosity of 40% (versus 20% for gravel and 30% for sand). The report states that the area soils range from gravel to clay. It states that the soils could be susceptible to subsidence if a major decline in ground water were to occur. Coarser material found near the mountains was attributed to the steeper terrain which results in relatively high storm water velocities. The higher velocities transport finer sediments further downstream depositing them on the flatter terrain below. This results in the coarser material being left in the upper mountain areas. The presence of the coarser sands and gravels (which have lower porosity) suggests that there is less potential for subsidence in the northerly region of the study (Regions I and II). The report documented several study wells that were used to assess the groundwater table depths. The conclusion was that the groundwater table has been relatively stable in the northern area. Refer to Table 5-2 in Appendix D for this report. The report states that review of the available well data did not indicate on-going land subsidence. In addition, the report included a review of interferogram data. Interferograms are satellite images capable of showing land surface elevation changes as small as 1.2 inches. The interferograms for this study were provided by the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) and analyzed in consultation with ADWR. The interferograms did not provide any indication of regional subsidence. Although some Page 12 x Current (available) water table data do not indicate a significant decline in the historic water table. x Interferogram analysis did not indicate regional subsidence. x There was insufficient geologic and sub-surface data available to accurately predict the likelihood of future fissure formation were subsidence to occur. The report also discusses the ADWR Salt River Valley groundwater model. This groundwater model did not include Regions I, II or III. However, it did include the Town of Buckeye south of I-10. The model results did not project any significant water table decline south of I-10 in the Buckeye area. The report also states that through a joint effort between the Town of Buckeye, ADWR and area developers, a groundwater model north of I-10 in the Hassayampa valley was being developed. Its completion was anticipated to occur during Fiscal Year 2005. Currently, PBS&J is working to determine the status of this model and if possible, to obtain it for inclusion with this report. If the model becomes available prior to the completion of this study, it will be included with the final submittal documents. Refer to the following figures in Appendix D for reference: x Figure 5-1 – Depth to Groundwater, ADMS Page 13 x Table 5-2 – Northern Area Groundwater History, ADMS x Table 4-1 – Saturated Thickness of Aquifer at Exploration Holes, Groundwater in the Hassayampa River Valley x Untitled – Map of Part of Hassayampa River Valley Showing Location of Test Wells, Groundwater in the Hassayampa River Valley x Figure 20 – Areas of Insufficient Geology Data: SRV Model Area, ADWR x Figure 4-1 – Bedrock Geology, ADMS x Untitled – Exhibit showing Land Subsidence in the Harquahala Valley, 1992 – 1997, ADWR x Untitled – Exhibit showing Land Subsidence in the Buckeye Area, ADWR Refer to Appendix G for photographs take throughout Regions I, II and III. 1.4 Regional Hydrology As mentioned in previous sections regarding data collection and area background, extensive hydrologic analyses have been conducted in Regions I and II of the study area. The following is a list of older hydrology studies that have been replaced by the recent (comprehensive) ADMS: Region III is currently being studied as part of the ongoing studies associated with the Hassayampa River WCMP and the Luke Wash Floodplain Delineation Study. Detailed hydrology is being prepared as a part of these studies; however, this data is currently under development. Therefore, data associated with the following (previous) studies will be used as the source for peak flow estimates in Region III: x Jackrabbit Wash Floodplain Delineation Study, TDN 1&2, by Burgess and Niple, dated 1991. x Lower Hassayampa River Watercourse Master Plan, TDN, Volume 4, by J.E. Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc., dated March 2006. If prior to the completion of this study, more detailed and/or comprehensive data becomes available through either or both of the ongoing studies mentioned above, that information will be included with the final submittal documents. Regardless, close coordination with FCDMC should continue as the McDowell Parkway Project continues beyond the feasibility phase. Such coordination will ensure that current hydrologic data are being used. This will become increasingly important as each successive study will require higher levels of analysis regarding the location and size of hydraulic structures required to protect the ultimate parkway facility. Refer to Appendix E for the following documents relevant to Region III: x Figure 4 – Jackrabbit Wash Watershed, by Cella Barr and Associates, 1988. x Exhibit C – Jackrabbit Wash Watershed, by Burgess and Niple, 1991. x Table F-3b – Summary of Peak Discharges (Jackrabbit Wash), by Burgess and Niple, 1991. x Phase 1 Report, Project Calculations Hydrologic Analysis Buckeye FRS #1, #2, and #3, FCD Project 88-63, by Dames and Moore, January 23, 1990. x Figure 1 – Hassayampa River Basin, by J.E. Fuller Hydrology & Geomorphology, 2005 (study used the peak discharge from the 1991 study by Burgess and Niple). x White Tanks Wash Flood Insurance Study, FCD 90-64, by Harding Lawson and Associates, Inc. (Alpha Engineering Group), dated January 30, 1996. x Figure 3-1 – Flow change Locations, by WEST Consultants, Inc., dated 2006; documents the Hassayampa River Discharge. x White Tanks Wash Flood Insurance Study Final Report, FCD 90-64, by Harding Lawson and Associates, Inc. (Alpha Engineering Group), dated January 31, 1996. x Table 3-1 – Discharges Used in the Main Channel of the Hydraulic Model, by WEST Consultants, Inc., dated 2006; documents the Hassayampa River Discharge. x Conceptual Drainage Report for Tartesso and Tartesso North, by David Evans and Associates, dated 2000. x Luke Wash Watershed FDS – Currently being studied as part of the Luke Wash Floodplain Delineation Study. x Preliminary Drainage Report for Tartesso Unit 1, by David Evans and Associates, dated 2003. 1.4.1 Existing/Known Flood Hazards The current and most comprehensive hydrologic data available is documented in the ADMS. The ADMS includes detailed HEC-1 hydrologic models and estimates for the 100-year peak discharges expected at various concentration points throughout the watershed. Refer to Figure 4-6 located in Appendix E for the watershed map and associated 100-year peak discharges. Refer to Table 4-3 located in Appendix E for a summary of the 10- and 100-year peak discharges. The existing/known flood hazards in Regions I, II and III have been identified and mapped as either approximate floodplains or detailed floodplains and floodways. A brief discussion regarding the known hazards in each region follows below. Regions I and II The known flood hazards in Regions I and II are currently documented by the ADMS, Flood Page 14 Page 15 Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and FCDMC delineations. Refer to the Piedmont Landform Delineation(s) (sheets 4 and 5) located in Appendix B for the geomorphic depiction of the known flood hazards. Note that the majority of these geomorphic hazards have subsequently been studied and mapped and appear as floodplain areas on the Area Drainage Exhibit 1.6. The exception to this is the area indicated on the Ayres Maps (Appendix B) as ‘Verification Site #6’. This area is generally located south of the Indian School Road alignment, west of the Sun Valley Parkway, north of FRS #1 and east of the White Tank Wash. Primary Washes 23, 24 and 25 traverse this portion of the corridor. Note that this area is still likely to be considered a hazard area even though it is not presently shown on the floodplain maps. Refer to the figure in Appendix B titled White Tank Mountains Piedmont, Hassayampa River to Sun Valley Parkway for a depiction of this area. less than one foot over a BFE and in many cases are equivalent to it. Region III The known flood hazards in Region III were documented by the combination of the 1991 Burgess and Niple Study, the 1988 Cella Barr Study, the ongoing WCMP, Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and FCDMC delineations. Refer to Appendix B for the current effective FIRM (Panel No. 4013C1985G). Note that the more detailed floodplain data shown on the Area Drainage Exhibit 1.6 is somewhat different. The reason is due to the fact that the floodplains in this area are currently being studied in greater detail by FCDMC through the Luke Wash Floodplain Delineation Study and the WCMP. In addition, the current effective FIRM panels in the area (refer to Appendix B for the relevant Panels) do not include all of the fan hazards shown on the Area Drainage Exhibit 1.6. The reason is that some of the alluvial fan delineations shown on Exhibit 1.6 were recently completed by FCDMC and are in the process of being submitted to FEMA. It is the intent of FCDMC however to have those delineations added to the current effective mapping. Finally, based on FCDMC staff review of the corridor there will be several alluvial fan flood hazard zones crossed by the proposed alternatives. Each of these zones is considered unique from the others and will require specific treatment when crossing. The two most stringent flood zones associated with the fan hazards in the corridor vicinity are the Approximate Alluvial Fan Floodway (AAFF) zone and the Alluvial Fan High Hazard (AFHH) zone. The majority of the AAFF zone impacts on the corridor occur west of Turner Road and east of Sun Valley Parkway (in the vicinity of Tartesso). Most of the impact due to the AFHH crossings appear to be north of FRS#3 (Skyline Fan) with some impact occurring just west of Turner Road north of the McDowell section line alignment. Another issue identified by FCDMC staff review was sediment transport occurring through the study area bounded on the east by Turner Road and on the west by Sun Valley Parkway. This area is located downstream of fans 7, 8 and 12 which are known to have the potential to carry sediment. This will be an important consideration during the final design of the roadway and associated offsite drainage conveyance facilities in that area. Refer to FCDMC Exhibits/Figures in Appendix C for a detailed description of the fans impacting the study area and the various zone designations associated with each. Additionally, refer to the detailed recommendations provided by Kathryn Gross (FCDMC) regarding potential crossing of each zone designation. Note that the corridor will be crossing riverine floodways associated with both White Tank Wash and the Hassayampa River. These zones (AFHH, AAFF, FW) require that there be no impact (no increase) in to the water surface elevation of the floodway. When designing bridge crossings at these locations, care should be taken in establishing the floodway water surface elevation as that will define the regulatory benchmark. Note that although floodway water surface elevations cannot exceed a one-foot increase over the 100-year base flood elevation (BFE), the design should not assume that a floodway elevation is one-foot above the BFE. In fact floodway water surface elevations are often Page 16 There are five major hazards in Region III as follows: x Unnamed Wash #1 – This wash is the western-most major crossing and is located approximately 1,200 feet east of 339th Avenue. x Unnamed Wash #2 – This was is located approximately 1,000 feet east of unnamed Wash #1. x Unnamed Wash #3 – This wash is located approximately 4,800 feet southeast of unnamed Wash #2. x Jackrabbit Wash Breakout – This wash is located approximately 1,200 feet southeast of Unnamed Wash #3. x The Hassayampa River – The river is located approximately 9,900 feet southeast of 339th Avenue. Refer to Exhibit 1.7 for the Region III known flood hazards. 1.5 Future/Planned Development and Flood Control Facilities Regions I and II are currently dominated by undeveloped, natural desert with very little development however, a major portion of this area has undergone master planning and land entitlement efforts. 1.5.1 Existing Development Although the majority of the existing development in the study area is comprised of scattered rural residential and some commercial (such as the sand and gravel operations in the Hassyampa River north and south of the Tonopah Salome Highway), there are some larger master planned communities that have been constructed. The following is a list of known (significant) existing development: x Tartesso West – Portions of Unit 2A and 2B appear to be built or under Page 17 construction. Only the reclamation plan has been constructed on the portion south of the Tonopah Salome Highway. x West Phoenix Estates – Existing rural residential area that is south of Tartesso West and South of Tonopah Salome Highway. x Sweetwater Estates – Existing rural residential area that is southwest of the Tonopah Salome Highway intersection with Sun Valley Parkway. x Sundance Parcel 7 – Existing master plan community that is located just north of FRS#2 adjacent to Watson Road on the west. x Sienna Hills Master Planned Community – Only a portion exists as a partially (massgraded) constructed development. Mass grading appears to have been completed and then stopped. The graded portion is located just east of the emergency spillway for the FRS#3. were identified throughout the study area. This memorandum will limit its discussion to those which are most critical to area drainage and known flood hazard issues. For a detailed description of opportunities and constraints specific to land ownership, existing utility corridors, right of way, environmental impacts, etc, refer to Technical Memorandums #1 and #2 respectively. Regions I and II The following is a list of the major opportunities recognized within Regions I and II: x Future/planned facilities per the ADMP may be used to protect the parkway, simplify offsite drainage crossings, or as an outfall for onsite drainage systems. Refer to the ‘Flood Control Corridor’ features as shown in green on Exhibit 1.6. These corridors provide opportunities for simplified crossings of known fan hazards as well as potential outfall locations for stormwater runoff generated on the parkway itself. In addition, a planned channel along the north side of the McDowell Road alignment north of FRS#1 presents an opportunity to combine protection for the parkway from offsite discharges with a planned FCDMC facility. This could present a cost-share opportunity. Refer to Exhibit 1.4 for a map of the planned developments in the corridor. Refer to the figures located in Appendix F for details regarding future/planned flood control facilities as presented in the ADMP. 1.5.2 Planned Flood Control Infrastructure The planned developments in the corridor are shown on Exhibit 1.4. Although care should be taken when evaluating alignment alternatives relative to these known (planned) communities, there are two in particular that will have a strong impact on the study area. These developments will be discussed in detail below. The first of these high-impact planned communities is the Tartesso Development. This is a large, multi-phased community planned throughout significant portions of the corridor in Regions I and II. Several of the planned phases of Tartesso have already been approved by the Town of Buckeye. Portions of the proposed development have made provisions in their land planning for the future study area along the Tonopah Salome Highway from approximately Turner Road to Sun Valley Parkway. In addition, Tartesso West has been planning for the study area to traverse portions of its property from approximately 307th Avenue west to the east overbank of the Hassayampa River. Finally, a portion of the Tartesso West land parcel south of the existing Tonopah Salome Highway has been developed as the Tartesso Reclamation Plant. The second of the high-impact planned communities is the Sienna Hills development which is planned at the east corridor limit. Sienna Hills is significant in that it wraps around the northeast portion of FRS#3 and is adjacent to the McDowell Road alignment on the north. This will require candidate alternatives to assess potential right-of-way constraints in the vicinity of Dean Road. 1.6 Opportunities and Constraints Through the course of the data collection and evaluation effort, several opportunities and constraints Page 18 x The majority of the area is undeveloped and therefore, there are few existing obstructions due to actual development. x There are several large developments planned that will be immediately adjacent to and/or upstream of the corridor. Community development standards will require retention of the 100-year, 2-hour discharge generated within the project boundary. In addition developments must collect and convey offsite discharges through and/or around their site. The result will likely be additional containment and stabilization of existing washes through areas currently comprised of very unstable alluvial fans and shallow distributary channel features. This could result in simplifying design and construction of future hydraulic structures necessary to protect the proposed/ultimate parkway. The following is a list of the major constraints recognized within Regions I and II: x Existing alluvial fan features and the over-all unpredictable nature of drainage patterns throughout the corridor present constraints to the potential location of candidate alignments. x Existing terrain and topography pose a significant constraint in the northeastern portion of the corridor. Although the lack of existing development in the area provides an opportunity to shift candidate alternatives laterally, existing topographic constraints in the vicinity of FRS#3, FRS#2 and the Buckeye Military Reserve limits the number of feasible possibilities due to constructability and cost issues. Page 19 x Fill may not be placed within the existing FRS #1, #2 or #3 Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) pool elevation ponding area. Per coordination meetings with the Dam Safety staff at FCMDC, proposed roadway crossings may not place berms or fill within the limits of the PMF pool. Rather, a bridge with piers must be constructed to minimize any impact due to obstructions located within the ponding area behind the dam. In addition, the preferred crossing (from FCDMC’s perspective) at the east side of FRS#3 would be to go north around the existing emergency spillway. Although the topography may permit this alignment the proposed Sienna Hills development would likely render it non-feasible. Region III structures. Refer to Exhibit 1.8 for the major area constraints related to drainage. Refer to Figure 2-19 for detail regarding existing sand and gravel operations in the Hassayampa River in Region III. 1.7 Conclusions As a result of the data collection and evaluation specific to the regional drainage, watershed and flood hazard information, the following conclusions have been drawn: x Regions I and II are associated with several flood hazards which will affect all of the candidate alignment alternatives. The most restrictive hazards present are defined as: o AFHH - An alluvial fan floodway. No development can occur in this area unless the flooding is mitigated. Areas designated High Hazard areas with the potential for unknown flow paths and unknown flow distributions. o AAFF - Areas of channelized flow or areas that are somewhat channelized but still have a sheet flow component. These zones require that conveyance be maintained in these corridors. It is a floodway designation. No fill is allowed unless it can be proven that conveyance is maintained. These floodway corridors are regulated slightly differently than traditional riverine floodways. Care must be taken to not modify the flow character leaving the site. x Flood hazards in the area bounded on the north by Indian School Road, the east by Sun Valley Parkway, on the south by FRS #1 and on the west by the White Tank Wash have not yet been studied and/or mapped. Given the nature of the area and the fact that it is immediately downstream of Fans 36, 37 and 38 the presence of flood hazards is very likely. x The levee corridors proposed by the ADMP (along Fan(s) Sky, SkyET, 7, 8, 12, 36, 37 and 38) will significantly reduce flood hazards posed by those Alluvial Fans. However, the timing of construction for the corridors is not defined. Further, these corridors will be very expensive and their construction may be further delayed due to the slowed economy. The ADMP does recommend construction of the upstream offline detention basin features first. Therefore, close coordination with FCDMC should continue as planning for the McDowell Parkway continues. At a minimum, the parkway should provide hydraulic structures for the ultimate/future corridor crossings at the planned locations. x The McDowell Channel is considered a high priority per the recommendations in the ADMP. This facility is proposed from approximately one mile east of Johnson Road to the White Tank Wash. This facility could offer a cost-share opportunity if the McDowell Parkway were to be proposed adjacent to it. x The Sienna Hills master planned community (located at the northeast corner of FRS#3) will likely preclude an alternative alignment for the McDowell Parkway which could go around the FRS#3 emergency spillway. x Existing mountainous terrain in Region I combined with the existing Buckeye Military The following is a list of the major opportunities recognized within Region III: x The existing Tonopah Salome Highway could be used to cross the Hassayampa River as opposed to an entirely new alignment. This existing alignment is located roughly mid-way between existing sand and gravel operations located within the river to the north and south. This provides an opportunity to use an existing alignment that is fairly well spaced between those operations. x The Tonopah Salome Highway alignment could be used to minimize the number of medium to major wash crossings necessary for a given alternative. Therefore, the impact to the existing floodplain and the level of complexity associated with each crossing could be minimized. The following is a list of the major constraints recognized within Region III: x Existing sand and gravel operations north and south of the Tonopah Salome Highway in the Hassayampa River pose a potential hazard to a future bridge crossing. At a minimum such features can lead to head-cutting upstream and/or clear water scour downstream and/or tailcutting which could result in undermining bridge abutments and/or approach embankments. Moving the crossing north or south only shortens the distance to one hazard or the other. Note, that these operations will have a significant impact on any future bridge design necessary to cross the Hassayampa River. This type of design will require a thorough evaluation of sediment transport, equilibrium, etc., to determine the potential impacts and design features necessary to protect the structure. x There are more existing medium to major washes south of the Tonopah Salome Highway alignment. Therefore, if a candidate alignment were to proposed south of the Tonopah Salome Highway, there would be several additional wash crossings required. x The existing (shallow/broad) floodplain to the north of the alignment would required larger hydraulic structures in order to protect the parkway and maintain cross conveyance. Although these floodplains still require crossing at the Tonopah Salome Highway however they appear to be more confined in those areas and therefore, result in lower cost Page 20 Page 21 Reservation will limit the number of feasible alternatives through that area. x The master planned community Tartesso and Tartesso West has planned for the McDowell Parkway corridor and incorporated it into its land plans at specific locations. x White Tank Wash and the Hassayampa River are associated with riverine floodways. Water surface elevations may not exceed floodway elevations as a result of encroachment or development. x Existing sand and gravel operations north and south of the Tonopah Salome Highway in the Hassayampa River will require analysis in final design to ensure the integrity and stability of any bridge crossing is not threatened due to headcutting and/or tailcutting. This will require a detailed sediment transport and equilibrium model and analysis and close coordination with FCDMC. x There was no credible evidence found to suggest that there is any subsidence occurring in the study area. x Based on the conclusion that there is not subsidence occurring, there can therefore be no associated differential settlement or earth fissures. x ADWR is in the process of modeling or has recently completed a groundwater model in the area. This model will be useful in predicting future potential for subsidence. To date this model has not been obtained. It is suggested future planning be coordinated with ADWR to determine the potential for future subsidence as a result of increased groundwater withdrawal. Region III is associated with less restrictive flood hazards which are currently shown as Zone ‘A’ floodplain on the current, effective FIRM Panel No. 04013C1985G, dated September 30, 2005. Zone ‘A’ is generally defined as ‘Special flood hazard areas subject to inundation by the 1% annual chance flood, no base flood elevations determined’. However, FCDMC is in the process of conducting more detailed delineations in this area as part of the Luke Wash Floodplain Delineation Study. The result of this study will likely be a more restrictive flood hazard designation of Zone ‘AE’ with a floodway. Zone ‘AE’ is generally defined as ‘Special flood hazard areas subject to inundation by the 1% annual chance flood, base flood elevations determined’. The floodway is typically an area within the floodplain which must be kept free of encroachment such that the 1% annual chance flood can be conveyed without substantial increase in flood elevations. This designation will likely replace the Zone ‘A’ designation on all or some of the washes located within Region III. Therefore, continued coordination with FCDMC will be critical during subsequent study and design phases to ensure all the requirements associated with the more restrictive hazard zones are met if necessary. There is no known study and/or information directly addressing the issues of subsidence and earth fissures in Region III. Although this information may be included as part of a future (planned) ADMP, it is not currently available. Continued coordination with FCDMC should be maintained during subsequent studies to ensure that this information is shared when and if it is addressed by the future ADMP planned within the Region. x x Page 22 x x There are currently no significant master planned communities within Region III. Based on the existing right of way associated with the Tonopah Salome Highway and Indian School Road, as well as the existing constraints associated with the sand and gravel operations within the Hassayampa River corridor alignment alternatives will likely follow those existing alignments. Finally, the following represents comments from project stakeholders regarding the McDowell Parkway corridor: x Per the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) Engineering Section: o In general, no proposed alternative should result in adverse backwater conditions which result in a new/additional floodplain on state land. o ASLD recommends that cross culverts be designed to convey the 100-year storm event without overtopping the roadway in order to mitigate any potential for increased ponding and/or floodplains on state land. This would also allow for more efficient sediment transport as well as improve the over-all safety of the roadway design. o Any discharge of runoff onto state land resulting from this project must have a velocity of less than 5 ft/sec and include erosion mitigation measures as a part of the design. o All washes identified as jurisdictional under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) should maintain their existing connectivity in order to mitigate any potential environmental and/or biological impacts to the watershed through which the ultimate parkway corridor will traverse. o Proposed corridor alternatives east of Sun Valley Parkway which cross Alluvial fan #36 should be aligned at a right angle to the direction of flow across the fan. The existing Tonopah Salome Highway alignment is oriented approximately ninety degrees to the direction of flow from Fan #36. This would minimize the potential skew for proposed cross drainage which would result from an east-west corridor alignment paralleling the existing McDowell Road section line. It should be noted that while every effort will be made to incorporate comments from participating stakeholders, due to prioritization of potentially conflicting interests, it may not always be possible. For example, due to existing approved master planned developments such as Tartesso, crossing Fan #36 at a right angle by following the Tonopah Salome Highway alignment east of Sun Valley Parkway may not be feasible. While several alternatives were explored, only those most compatible with the existing constraints (over-all) will be evaluated further and documented in Technical Memorandum #4. Although a corridor alternative crossing Fan #36 at a skew may not be ideal, it is not considered to be a fatal flaw. Page 23 Page 25 Page 24 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 APPENDIX A McDowell Road Corridor Feasibility Study Data Collection Bibliography Document Type Fan Studies Fan Studies Flood Structure WCMP ADMS STUDY TOPO ADMP GIS/Digital GIS/Digital TDN Hydrology Study Groundwater Study WCMP Sand/Gravel Title Fan 36 Fan(s) 7,8,37,38 • Buckeye FRS #1 Rehabilitation Project • Hassyampa Water Course Master Plan (Phase I and II) • Buckeye Sun Valley ADMS • Skyline Wash • County 2-foot contours for the project limits Sun Valley ADMP, Step 3, Recommended Alternative Report, Volume I, Executive Summary and Overview Sun Valley ADMP and/or Buckeye Sun Valley ADMS - Select Exhibits and Watershed Maps Buckeye Sun Valley ADMS - Exhibits, Watershed Maps, GIS, etc. Jackrabbit Wash Floodplain Delineation Study, Technical Data Notebook, Hydrology Hydrologic Analysis of the Hassayampa River In Maricopa County, AZ Groundwater in the Hassayampa River Valley, Maricopa County, AZ Lower Hassayampa River Watercourse Master Plan Fluvial-12 Modeling of Sand Mining Impacts for Lower Hassayampa River Document Date n/a n/a n/a Feb-06 2006 Dec-06 n/a Contact Valerie Swick Valerie Swick Valerie Swick Theresa Pinto Mona M. Valerie Swick Valerie Swick Requested From FCDMC FCDMC FCDMC FCDMC FCDMC FCDMC FCDMC Date Requested 7/1/2009 7/1/2009 7/1/2009 7/12/2009 7/13/09 7/1/2009 7/1/2009 Date Received n/a n/a n/a 7/13/2009 7/13/09 7/21/09 7/21/09 Received From n/a n/a n/a FCDMC FCDMC FCDMC FCDMC Dec-06 Valerie Swick FCDMC 3/25/09 3/30/2009 FCDMC PBS&J, J.E. Fuller Dec-06/2006 Theresa Pinto, Valerie Swick & Katherine Gross FCDMC 7/17/09 7/21/09 FCDMC PBS&J: *Received several CD's which are in Rob Scrivo's lower, left-had desk drawe r varies (04-07) PBS&J Denver 7/17/09 7/21/09 FCDMC Burgess & Niple, Inc Feb-01 Valerie Swick FCDMC 7/17/2009 9/11/09 FCDMC Cella Barr May-88 Valerie Swick FCDMC 7/17/2009 9/11/09 FCDMC Leonard C. Halpenny, Water Development Corporation, Tucson AZ Sep-86 Valerie Swick FCDMC 7/17/2009 9/11/09 FCDMC JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Oct-07 Valerie Swick FCDMC 7/17/2009 9/11/09 FCDMC Chang Consultants May-09 Valerie Swick FCDMC 7/17/2009 9/11/09 FCDMC By JE Fuller and FCDMC - Currently under study, not available by others. GIS data showing fan limits/boundaries obtained via GIS final design to begin fall of 2009 FCDMC (In-House Study) PBS&J Part of JE Fuller ADMP data not available through corridor. Obtained 10-foot contours from county J.E. Fuller Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.; EDAW; CL Williams Consulting Engineers, Logan Simpson Design, Inc.; Richard H. French, Ph.D., P.E.; AMEC Geomorphic Hazard Mapping Geomorphic Evaluation and Landform Stability Assessment Buckeye/Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Study, Volume VII Ayres & Associates Jun-05 Valerie Swick FCDMC 7/13/09 7/22/09 FCDMC Developer Master Plan Geomorphic Hazard Mapping Developer Master Plans (Tartesso (west&east), Elianto/Elianto West, other) Stardust Development ----- Bob Spears Stardust 9/1/09 9/1/09 Stardust Jackrabbit Wash (west of Hassayampa) Arizona Geological Survey Jun-02 Valerie Swick FCDMC 7/17/2009 9/11/09 FCDMC Geological Society Mapping - identifies known fissure areas; include a groundwater map from ADWR Flood Insurance Re-Study of the Hassayampa River, Gila River to Maricopa County Line, FEMA Subsidence data Groundwater Model - Update Memo Documented in Buckeye/Sun Valley ADMS, Volume VIII, Supporting Documents, Dated October 2005. Oct-06 Valerie Swick FCDMC 7/13/09 7/13/09 FCDMC Cella Barr and Associates 1988 FCDMC FCDMC 9/21/09 n/a FCDMC DWR DWR n/a n/a Website Website Download Download 7/15/09 7/15/09 7/15/09 7/15/09 ADWR ADWR Mapping FIS ADWR ADWR 1 of 1 McDowell Road Corridor Feasibility Study IV. Buckeye/Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Study, Technical Data Notebook, Volume V-AI, Area 3 Hydrology Report, dated January 2006. Data Review Summary a. Shows peak flows generated for all major washes crossing the McDowell I. Road Corridor (p. 178 of 178). Buckeye/Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Study, Master Document Summary, Volume I: Master Document Summary, Dated June 2006. b. Purpose: i. Update current hydrology by Alpha Eng., 1996 a. Purpose: Provides a summary listing of all volumes submitted as a part of the ADMS. ii. Develop hydrology for FRS structures i. Includes a stakeholder’s list 1. Prepare stage-frequency relationships b. Study Areas iii. Prepare existing and future condition hydrology models iv. Identify existing and future drainage problems. i. Describes the study area and its sub-division into 4 different hydrologically distinct areas: v. Proposed mitigating alternatives for identified problems c. Volume V-A1 & Appendix D – Contain new hydraulic data for Area 3 1. Area 3 – This area is the portion of the ADMS within which the McDowell Corridor Alternatives will lie. d. Appendix E – contains the old analysis based on the previous hydrology 2. Area 4 – a small portion of this area will intersect the e. PBS&J was asked to add concentration points (at identified fan apexes) McDowell Corridor Alternatives just east of the subsequent to the completion of a study by Ayres and Associates (2005) Hassayampa River. which identified several alluvial fan apexes f. 100-year, 24-hour storm event was used c. Broad over-view of project area i. Figure 4 – 6: Identical to Figure 4-16 except that some of the sub II. Buck/Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Study, Technical Data Notebook, Volume II-A: Data Collection Report, Final, Dated 8/23/06. basins were split (i.e., Sub Basin Q1 split as Q1A and Q1B; Sub Basin P1 split as P1A and P1B) a. Purpose: g. Datum: Horizontal – projected, State Plane NAD 1983, AZ Central i. Quantify drainage, flooding and erosion problems ii. Develop preliminary mitigating solutions h. Datum: Vertical – projected, State Plan NAVD 1988 V. b. Mapping – base mapping provided by FCDMC in GIS format. (Figure 2- Buckeye/Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Study, Technical Data Notebook, Volume V-A2, Area 3 Hydrology Report, dated January 2006. 1). Request a copy of this information from Denver and/or Valerie. a. The watershed map in this report (Figure(s) 4-16, 4-17) appears to be c. As-Builts – Buckeye FRS #2 and #3, dated April 27, 2000. with-out the split basins per the new fan apex locations as per the Ayres reIII. study. Since Figure 4-6 (further splits) matches the data in the FCDMC Buckeye /Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Study, Technical Data Notebook, Volume IV-A: Area 2 Floodplain Delineation Report, dated April 2007. GIS database, this will be the basis for pro-rating of flows. VI. a. Area is not applicable to McDowell Corridor (S. of I-10). Buckeye/Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Study, Technical Data Notebook, Volume V-B, Area 3 Hydraulics Report, dated July 2005. a. Main focus is the FRS Structures and the associated hydraulic modeling of each. i. Purpose – identify erosion, sediment problems, delineate floodplains, evaluate existing floodplain delineations 1. Area 3 – Tributary FRS #’s 1-3, approximately 90 sm. 2. Mapping for hydrology – 10-foot contours, 2003 3. Mapping for hydraulics – 2-foot contours, 2003 b. Datum: i. Hor: State Plane NAD83, AZ Central ii. Vert: NAVD 1988 c. Manning Roughness i. LOB = 0.040 ii. ROB = 0.045 iii. CHN = 0.035 d. Existing Culverts at FRS built in 1974 – as-built plans on NGVD 1929 e. Transverse Roads i. Miller Road ii. Sun Valley Pkwy iii. Johnson 1. Impacts previously ignored 2. Roadway fill assumed negligible compared with storage volume of dams 3. HEC-RAS modeling showed that during the PMF storm, there was a 3-foot head differential across some of the roads. Therefore, ignoring these crossings is not reasonable. 2. When Level I not deemed appropriate, geomorphic methods were used. 3. Minimum set-back – edge of FP +50feet VIII. Buckeye/Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Study, Technical Data Notebook, Volume VII, Geomorphology Studies, Geomorphic Evaluation, and Landform Stability Assessments, dated July 2005. Purpose: Qualitative assessment for Area 3: PURPOSE pg 14 a. i. Erosion potential of major washes ii. Sedimentation potential iii. Lateral and vertical stream instability hazard (primary washes) iv. Piedmont landform stability within the drainage networks b. Scope of Work i. Major Primary Washes – Defined as: ‘Intermittent streams and washes delineated by a combination of dot and dash blue line on the USGS 7.5 Quads’ (Plate 1, Appendix C). 1. This study excludes following washes: a. All washes in ‘White Tank Fan Study, by Wood, Patel & Associates, dated 2001’ VII. Buckeye/Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Study, Technical Data Notebook, Volume VI, Sediment Transport Studies, dated July 2005. b. ‘Skyline Fan Study, by DEI, 1997’ c. Wagner Wash and its right bank (northern) a. Technical Memo – Sediment yield Analysis i. Objective – document the methodology and results of the sediment yield analysis 1. 100-year storm, sediment yield for FRS structures 2. Compare results with original performed for the FRS design. b. Technical Memorandum T2.6.5 – Delineation of Erosion Hazard Setbacks i. Objective – document methodology and results of erosion hazard setbacks for watercourses within Areas 2 and 3 having existing FEMA floodplain delineations 1. Level I setbacks – determined and then field review followed to determine adequacy of the setback a. Drainage area less than 50 sm; if greater than 50 sm, use Level II or III tributaries d. Primary streams north of Granite Reef Aqueduct ii. Primary Washes In Proximity to McDowell 1. 20, 22, 23N, 23T, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 28E, 29, 29E, 29T, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 iii. Geotechnical analysis not included c. Background & Landforms i. Piedmonts defined ii. 3-stage process for defining and assessing piedmont landforms explained iii. Stages 1 and 2 were part of this study Comment [RJS1]: Not relevant to McDowell Corridor Study – northwest of area; tributary to Hassyampa Comment [RJS2]: Not relevant to McDowell Corridor Study – northwest of area; tributary to Hassyampa iv. Relict Fans and Piedmonts are generally products of erosion 2. Loses capacity – flow distributed v. Alluvial Fans and Alluvial Plains are generally the products of across ground surface, undefined sediment accumulation paths vi. Table 3.1 – Landforms vs. Soil Type 3. Not considered active since very vii. Table 3.4 – Characteristics of Stable/Unstable flood hazards little sediments deposited in d. 3.3 - Existing conditions Assessment of Primary Washes unconfined zone i. Focuses on a discussion of Caliche Soils and formation 4. Major hazard is from broad shallow e. 4.1 – Landform Identification, Delineation and Mapping sheet flooding much less than 1-foot i. 10-foot contours deep ii. NRCS Soils Maps, AZGS Maps, Flood Hazard Maps iii. These areas are sometimes active inset 1. Used to guide initial identification of landforms iii. Aerials alluvial fans – high hazard b. Solid Red – Alluvial Fan/unstable area 1. Used sequential photos to observed changes in streams 2. Correlated photo dates with recorded (major) storm events a. Example: (August 27, 1951) 3. No aerials available prior to 1949 f. Sec 5 – Landform Verification i. Extreme hazard areas h. Section 7 – Existing Conditions Assessment of Primary Washes i. Two methods to assess existing stability 1. Aerial photo analysis 2. Field reconnaissance i. This section contains the details regarding field verification of the delineated landforms and associated characteristics. ii. Tables 5.1-5.3 summarize the field results iii. Field photos illustrate the conditions at each of the 8 verification sites. ii. Conditionally Unstable 1. Most contained multiple channels (braided) in confined reach iii. Existing Culverts on Sun Valley Parkway 1. Primary Washes g. Sec 6 – Landform Stability Assessment i. Appendix B Maps 2. From 0% to 55% obstructed (sediment) 3. Average obstruction was approximately 20% 1. Unstable Areas mapped in red a. Red Outline – other unstable areas i. These areas are ‘conditionally unstable’ ii. These areas are generally described as nonactive alluvial fans of alluvial plain 1. Not entrenched or well-confined iv. Primary Wash Descriptions from Field Reconnaissance 1. No. 24 – sheet flow becomes confined creating gullies that feed to a main channel near Tonopah a. Wash crosses McDowell at 8,200 feet upstream of FRS b. At 6,000 feet upstream, channel re-routed per development – old alignment abandoned 2. Wash No. 25 – Approx. 1,000 feet downstream of the parkway, channel splits into distributary channels a. 1 to 2 foot headcuts b. 7,500 feet upstream the channel crosses west Tonopah-Salome Highway – then loses confinement and definition at the ranch on the south side of the road. 7. Wash No. 29 – Ongoing aggradation within entrenched channel upstream of BSV Site #12 (hydrographic apex) 8. Wash No. 30 – Drains piedmont and relict fan areas a. Ultimately drains into the FRS #2 b. Bedrock controls much of the channel 9. Wash No. 31 – a. Channel is actively aggrading 6,500 feet upstream c. Dairy farm obliterated remainder of the channel downstream of confluence b. Channel primary source for BSV Site #10 (active 3. Wash No. 26 – Well confined – drains the relict fan north alluvial fan) 4. Wash No. 27 – i. Hydrographic apex it 2,000 feet upstream of a. Upstream of Salome Highway and downstream of Fan FRS 10. Wash No. 32 – drains a portion of piedmont and relict fan i. Multiple small, shallow poorly defined paths b. Downstream of Highway i. Multiple paths combine into a better defined areas. a. Upper 4,000 feet controlled by bedrock b. Three long knickzones (developed in caliche) channel. 5. Wash No. 28 – present on the lower 2,500 feet of wash. c. Channel appears to be actively aggrading between a. The wash serves as the western boundary for BSV Site #8 (active fan) at the McDowell Road section line. 1,600 and 2,000 feet upstream of the FRS. 11. Wash No. 33 – Drains piedmont and relict fan area a. Bedrock control is present in upper end of wash b. At downstream end of fan, wash loses capacity c. Flow distributed along multiple, defined flow paths (4,300 feet upstream of a small inselberg) b. Multiple small distributary flow paths are associated d. At Tonopah-Salome Highway, wash becomes welldefined e. Below Tonopah-Salome Highway, wash redistributes flow into poorly defined distributary with the lower Knickzone. 12. Wash No. 34 –Drains piedmont and relict fan area west of Skyline Wash Fan. a. 4-foot headcut present 100 feet downstream of channels. Watson road 6. Wash No. 28 E – channel has aggraded along a narrow entrenched section (could be an inset alluvial fan) i. Poses significant threat to Watson Road. v. Appendix C – 1. Wash profiles useful in evaluation proposed alignment ii. Studies show land subsidence likely where water table declined more than 100 feet (Gelt, 1992) iii. Groundwater table has been relatively stable in the northern area (Table 5-2, N1 to N8) iv. Well data do not indicate on-going land subsidence crossings. IX. Buckeye/Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Study, Technical Data Notebook, Volume VIII, Supporting Documents, dated October 2005. a. Preliminary Subsidence Engineering Report, June 2004 i. Purpose – Determine if there is an on-going land subsidence; if there is credible evidence of the potential for subsidence, if there is potential for subsidence/fissure due to future groundwater withdrawal. ii. Area study Wells 1. ADWR maintains data base a. Last updated June 2003 2. Approximately 162 wells (Apparently in the general vicinity of the McDowell Corridor study area) 3. Regional Geology a. No topographic/physiographic surface features that would infer buried bedrock features or other structures which could lead to differential settlement and/or fissures if subsidence were to occur. b. Insufficient geologic information in northern (Vicinity of McDowell Corridor) study area to verify depth to bedrock c. Where depth to bedrock less than 1,200 feet, fissures in subsiding areas often form i. Per observations in central AZ d. Land surface geology and sub surface info do not provide sufficient information to determine the likelihood of fissure formation should subsidence occur. i. Very limited well/drill log data in north (162 wells vs. over a 1,000 south of I-10) ii. Estimates of bedrock depth in northern area (1,200 – 1,600 feet) do not support observed trends in know fissure areas where depths are less than 1,200 feet. 4. Groundwater Hydrology a. Affects subsidence since reduction in water table necessary to initiate i. Depth to ground water is 87 feet (near Hassayampa) to 415 feet (north of the White Tank Mts.) iii. Conclusion(s) Regarding On-Going Regional Subsidence and Fissuring: 1. Water table data do not indicate significant historic decline a. Therefore, no credible evidence to suggest conditions are suitable for regional land subsidence due to compaction of existing sub-surface sediment layers 2. Inteferogram – a. Most did not indicate subsidence b. Review of one interferogram suggested as much as 3mm subsidence near FRS#1. Upon further study it was determined that atmospheric interference was responsible for the apparent subsidence. i. Further – there was no evidence of ground water declines in the area 3. Since there is no indicated on regional land subsidence there is no earth fissuring. iv. Future Potential for Land Subsidence and Earth Fissuring: 1. ADMS states that ADWR was in a partnership with area developers and the Town of Buckeye to complete a groundwater model 2. Model was projected to be completed in 2005 a. ADMS was final in 10/2005 b. Status of model is unknown at this time 3. ADMS states that the course grained sediments less susceptible to subsidence a. If equal amount of water table decline occurred as on east side of White Tank Mts., there would be less subsidence. 4. Current available data is insufficient to predict if fissures will form in the future. *MCDOT should coordinate with ADWR in the future regarding area groundwater table, modeling, etc. X. Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Plan, Step 3, Recommended Alternative Report, Volume 1, Executive Summary and Overview, by J.E. Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc., Dated December 2006 a. Executive Summary, Background and Area Description b. 3-step process i. Step 1 – developed 4 strategies for flood control ii. Step 2 – refine and evaluate strategies 1. Non-structural 2. Environmentally friendly 3. Aesthetically compatible/structural flood control measures iii. Step 3 – further refine engineering elements of recommended alternative from Step 2 c. Special Attention – i. Maximizing non-structural, floodplain management approach along preferred corridors ii. Selection of walled-levee corridors along preferred corridor alignments 1. Result of close coordination with project stakeholders and public in general 2. Fans 36, 37 and 38 include excavated channels iii. Non-structural elements added wherever possible 1. Significant reaches of floodplain delineations along White Tank Wash have been included as part of the nonstructural alternatives. iv. Structural Elements of Recommended Alternative 1. 17 on-line detention basins a. Near alluvial fan aspices 2. 3 off-line detention basins 3. 65 miles of walled levee corridors 4. 4-miles of excavated earthen channels v. Landscape and Multi-Use 1. 35-foot setback buffer 2. Additional 15-foot maintenance access vi. Implementation 1. Apex detention basins to be constructed first for any given fan system d. Section 2 - Introduction i. Background & Purpose – To develop a conceptual plan which will serve as a guide to be used by jurisdictional authorities and developers during the planning of flood control measures necessary to mitigate flood hazards resulting from the 100-year storm event. ii. Major objectives 1. Include preparation of fan Floodplain delineations not previously delineated iii. Previous studies 1. ADMS – PBS&J e. Section 3 – ADMP Process i. Cultural Resource Assessment – An Archeological Resource Overview of the Sun Valley ADMP Area of West – Central Maricopa County, Arizona (SAS, 2005). 1. Prepared via archival resource with limited field work a. 80 cultural resource investigations have been completed across the area 2. ii. Environmental Issues and Permitting 1. Biological Resources a. Several sensitive or protected species habitat exists within area b. None of the species observed during fieldwork c. Federally protected species are listed in this section f. Section 4 – Description of Recommended Alternative i. Recommend floodplain management in areas not impacted by fans ii. ADMS development guidelines 1. Goal is to provide regional solution to flood control 2. Control of fan apices (active fans) and conveyance through entire fans is important iii. Hassayampa Sub-Area 1. iv. Buckeye FRS No. 1 Sub-Area 1. Flow passes beneath major roadway crossings of the FRS Flood Pool at Sun Valley Parkway and Johnson Road. 2. Fan 37 – Plan is: a. On-line detention at apex b. Walled levee corridor to McDowell Road 3. Fan 36 – Plan is: a. On-line detention at apex b. Walled levee corridor to 1,000 feet north Van Buren c. Excavated channel south to FRS No. 1 Flood Pool g. Section 5 – Concept Design Approach i. Mapping References 1. Contract Date 2000/2001 2. CI = 10 foot 3. Flight Date(s) 12-16-00, 12-17-00, 12-27-00 4. TIN – ArcGIS, 10’ mass points and breaklines ii. Aerials used were dated November 2004 iii. Design Criteria 1. 100-year storm used to design: a. Walled levee corridors b. Channels c. Detention basins 2. Existing condition hydrology model was the basis for design peaks a. Existing peaks lower than future condition b. Future phasing and development timing unknown 3. HEC-1 modeling was used to determine flow volume passing design structures 4. Proposed detention designed for outflow = 10% inflow 5. No Concrete (or heavily armored channels) used – deemed completely out of context with the landscape settings of the sub-area. iv. Landscape – Any proposed channels should be consistent with the two major themes and sub-theme per Section 5.6.3 and Figure 23. 1. Two Main Themes a. Natural Sonoran Desert b. Semi-Natural/Desert Adapted park Valley Plains Sub-Theme v. Detention Basin Design 1. Use average 6:1 side slopes a. Represents the average of variations from 4:1 to 8:1 per aesthetic treatment requirements vi. Walled Levee Design 1. Accommodate 3-foot FB per FEMA 2. Sized for local drainage and sediment 3. Designed for sub-critical flow (generally) 4. Froude number less than 0.86 5. Max. Velocity