Prepared for: MCDOWELL PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY FINAL REPORT Maricopa County Department of Transportation 2901 W. Durango Phoenix, Arizona 85009 By: 20860 North Tatum Boulevard, Suite 300 Phoenix, Arizona 85050 June 2010 Acknowledgements Sandy Mallach, Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs The following individuals were instrumental in preparation of the McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study. Bruce Fenske, ADOT Yuma District Reuben Teran, Arizona Game and Fish Dana Warnecke, Arizona Game and Fish John Rael, Arizona Public Services Manish Patel, Arizona State Land Department Planning and Engineering Division Gordon Taylor, Arizona State Land Department Planning and Engineering Division Sue Russell, Arizona State Land Department ROW Division Bill Ring, Belmont DMP Stephanie Gerlach, Buckeye Irrigation District Lynne Lagarde, Earl, Curley & Lagarde Bob Dubsky, Luke Air Force Base Community Initiatives Team Roger Herzog, Maricopa Association of Governments Tim Strow, Maricopa Association of Governments John Padilla, MCDOT Emergency Management James Sargent, MCDOT Traffic Engineering Division Nicolaas Swart, MCDOT Traffic Engineering Division Gary Scott, Maricopa County Public Works Real Estate Division Rob Sachs, Maricopa County Public Works Real Estate Division Darci Kinsman, Maricopa County White Tank Mountains Regional Park Randy Christman, Pulte Homes West Valley Division Shane Graser, Pulte Homes West Valley Division Yvonne Aguirre, Southwest Gas Wendell McGehee, Sprint Communications Company Scott Ward, Starlight Canyon Project 11 Ricky Holston, Sunrise Engineering Bob Speirs, Stardust Companies Tom Dixon, Town of Buckeye Planning and Zoning Brian Rose, Town of Buckeye Associate Planner Jose Heredia, Town of Buckeye Facilities Operations Manager Theresa Pinto, FCDMC Suparna Dasgupta, Town Development Director of Buckeye Community Valerie Swick, FCDMC Woody Scoutten, Town of Buckeye Town Engineer Jeannette Fish, Maricopa County Farm Bureau Pete Saldivar, Transwestern Pipeline Company Gary Pasciak, MCDOT Development Services Bernie Armstrong, Zona Communications Michele Kogl, MCDOT Development Services Andrzej Wojakiewicz, MCDOT Engineering and Planning Denise Lacey, MCDOT Engineering and Planning Matt Frost, MCDOT Engineering and Planning Mike Sabatini, MCDOT Engineering and Planning Mitch Wagner, MCDOT Engineering and Planning Tim Oliver, MCDOT Engineering and Planning Joe Pinto, MCDOT Environmental Matt Holm, MCDOT Plan Development Roberta Crowe, MCDOT Public Information Our gratitude and appreciation go to these individuals for their interest, guidance, and input throughout this study. Troy Sieglitz, PE, AECOM Heather Thomas, PE, PBS&J Richard Wallace, PE, PBS&J Seth Ahrens, PE, PBS&J Rob Scrivo, PE, EEC Doug McCants, PE, PTOE, PTP, PBS&J Mike Dawson, EcoPlan PPaaggee iii Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................... v STUDY LOCATION AND PURPOSE ........................... V EXISTING CORRIDOR FEATURES ............................... V PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES .................................... VI CANDIDATE ALTERNATIVES ...................................... VI PREFERRED ALIGNMENT ............................................ VIII PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATE ................... viii ACCESS MANAGEMENT......................................... viii IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ........................................ ix CONSIDERATIONS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ............................................. ix EXISTING AND FUTURE CORRIDOR FEATURES ............................................................ 1 LAND USE, ZONING AND OWNERSHIP ................. 1 EXISTING LAND USE .................................................. 1 FUTURE LAND USE ..................................................... 1 ROADWAY NETWORK ................................................. 1 EXISTING ........................................................................ 1 FUTURE............................................................................ 1 EXISTING AND FUTURE ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS .......................................................... 2 EXISTING AND FUTURE ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS .......................................................... 9 PHYSICAL FEATURES .................................................. 9 EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS .................. 9 EXISTING ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION............ 9 FUTURE ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION ............... 9 CROSS-STREETS ............................................................. 11 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ............................................... 12 EXISTING CONDITIONS........................................ 12 FORECAST CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ........... 12 EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY ........................................ 13 RECREATION AND TRAILS ........................................ 13 EXISTING UTILITIES ...................................................... 13 PRELIMINARY ISSUES AND CONSTRAINTS ......... 14 PRELIMINARY ISSUES AND CONSTRAINTS ......... 15 DATA COLLECTION .................................................... 17 MEETINGS .................................................................... 17 EXISTING STUDIES, PLANS, AND REPORTS ... 17 ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW SUMMARY . 18 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES AND TITLE VI/ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POPULATIONS ................................................................ 18 PHYSICAL AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ........ 18 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..................................... 18 FLOODPLAINS ........................................................... 20 WATER QUALITY ..................................................... 20 VISUAL RESOURCES ................................................. 20 AIR QUALITY .............................................................. 20 NOISE IMPACTS ......................................................... 22 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ..................................... 22 CULTURAL RESOURCES.............................................. 22 SECTION 4(F) PROPERTIES ......................................... 22 AGENCY COORDINATION....................................... 22 SUMMARY ......................................................................... 22 DRAINAGE SUMMARY ..................................... 23 REGION I ........................................................................... 23 REGION II .......................................................................... 24 REGION III......................................................................... 24 CANDIDATE ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION ............ 27 PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION ..... 27 PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES .................................. 28 SEGMENT 1 ALTERNATIVE 1 ................................ 28 SEGMENT 2.................................................................. 28 SEGMENT 2 ALTERNATIVE 1 ................................ 29 SEGMENT 2 ALTERNATIVE 2 ................................ 29 SEGMENT 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 ................................ 30 SEGMENT 2 ALTERNATIVE 4 ................................ 30 SEGMENT 2 ALTERNATIVE 5 ................................ 31 SEGMENT 2 ALTERNATIVE 6 ................................ 31 SEGMENT 2 ALTERNATIVE 7 ................................ 32 SEGMENT 2 ALTERNATIVE 8 ................................ 32 SEGMENT 2 ALTERNATIVE 9 ................................ 33 SEGMENT 2 ALTERNATIVE 10 - CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY (CIS) ALTERNATIVE ............................................. 33 SEGMENT 2 ALTERNATIVE 11 .............................. 34 SEGMENT 2 ALTERNATIVE 12 .............................. 34 EVALUATION OF INITIAL CANDIDATE ALTERNATIVES ............................................................... 35 ANALYSIS OF INITIAL CANDIDATE ALTERNATIVES ............................................................... 35 SEGMENT 1 ALTERNATIVE 1 ................................ 35 SEGMENT 2 ALTERNATIVE 5 ................................ 35 SEGMENT 2 ALTERNATIVE 11 .............................. 35 SEGMENT 2 ALTERNATIVE 12 .............................. 35 CANDIDATE ALTERNATIVES .................................... 36 WEST SEGMENT ........................................................ 36 EAST SEGMENT.......................................................... 36 EVALUATION OF CANDIDATE ALTERNATIVES 36 DETAILED PREFERRED ALIGNMENT ........... 38 DESIGN FEATURES OF THE DETAILED PREFERRED ALIGNMENT .................................................................... 38 PRELIMINARY DESIGN AREAS OF CONCERN..... 38 CONCEPTUAL-LEVEL COST ESTIMATE. ................ 39 STANDARD CROSS SECTION ................................... 40 DESIGN CRITERIA .......................................................... 40 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS IN RESTRICTED SITUATIONS ................................................ 40 ELEMENTS OF DESIGN ................................................. 40 DESIGN SPEED ........................................................... 40 DESIGN VEHICLE....................................................... 40 SUPERELEVATION .................................................... 40 CLEAR ZONE.............................................................. 40 SIGHT DISTANCES ................................................... 40 ACCESS MANAGEMENT .............................................. 41 MEDIAN OPENING AND DIRECTIONAL CROSSOVER SPACING ............................ 41 DRIVEWAY SPACING .............................................. 41 CORNER CLEARANCES.......................................... 41 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN............................................ 41 PREFERRED ALIGNMENT DRAWINGS ......... 42 PPaaggee iiii List of Figures Figure 1 Study Area and Location Map ............................... v Figure 2 Segment 1 Preliminary Alternative ..................... vi Figure 3 Segment 2 Preliminary Alternatives.................... vi Figure 4 West Segment Alternatives 5 and 12................. vi Figure 5 Preferred Alignment ............................................... vi Figure 6 East Segment Options A and B ............................ vi Figure 7 Preferred Alignment .............................................. vii Figure 8 Existing Land Use .....................................................2 Figure 9 Existing Land Ownership........................................3 Figure 10 Existing Zoning .......................................................4 Figure 11 Future Land Use.....................................................5 Figure 12 Planned Development...........................................6 Figure 13 Town of Buckeye – General Plan Land Use ....7 Figure 14 Existing Roadway Functional Classification System .................................................................................8 Figure 15 Conceptual Roadway Framework .....................8 Figure 16 Arizona Parkway Schematic Drawing ...............9 Figure 17 Arizona Parkway Typical Section .......................9 Figure 18 Existing Topography and Physical Features .. 10 Figure 19 Intersection of McDowell Road and Sun Valley Parkway (Palo Verde Road) ........................................ 11 Figure 20 Intersection of Indian School Road and 339th Avenue ............................................................................. 11 Figure 21 Intersection of McDowell Road and Sun Valley Parkway (Palo Verde Road) ........................................ 11 Figure 22 Recreation and Trails ......................................... 14 Figure 23 Preliminary Issues and Constraints ................ 16 Figure 24 100-year floodplain, ADEQ non-attainment areas, wildlife movement corridors, and linkages .. 21 Figure 25 Drainage Regions ................................................ 25 Figure 26 Area Drainage...................................................... 26 Figure 27 Segment 1 – Alternative 1 ................................ 28 Figure 28 Segment 2 – Alternative 1 ................................ 29 Figure 29 Segment 2 – Alternative 2 ................................ 29 Figure 30 Segment 2 – Alternative 3 ................................ 30 Figure 31 Segment 2 – Alternative 4 ................................ 30 Figure 32 Segment 2 – Alternative 5 ................................ 31 Figure 33 Segment 2 – Alternative 6 ................................ 31 Figure 34 Segment 2 – Alternative 7 ................................ 32 Figure 35 Segment 2 – Alternative 8 ................................ 32 Figure 36 Segment 2 – Alternative 9 ................................ 33 Figure 37 Segment 2 – Alternative 10 .............................. 33 Figure 38 Segment 2 – Alternative 11 .............................. 34 Figure 39 Segment 2 – Alternative 12 .............................. 34 Figure 40 West Segment ..................................................... 36 Figure 41 East Segment – Options A & B........................ 36 Figure 42 Segment 2 – Candidate Alternatives 5 and 12 ............................................................................................ 36 Figure 43 Preferred Alignment .......................................... 38 Figure 44 Typical Section .................................................... 40 List of Tables Appendices Table 1 Candidate Alternatives Evaluation ....................... vi Table 2 Planning Level Cost Estimate for Preferred Alignment ......................................................................... viii Table 3 Existing Intersection Characteristics ................. 11 Table 4 2005/2030/Buildout Population and Employment Forecast in the McDowell Parkway Corridor ........ 12 Table 5 2030/Buildout Traffic Volumes in the McDowell Parkway Corridor.......................................................... 12 Table 6 Existing Right-of-Way............................................ 13 Table 7 Existing Utilities ...................................................... 13 Table 8 Preliminary Issues and Constraints .................... 15 Table 9 Total Minority and Population Below Poverty 18 Table 10 Noise Abatement Criteria ................................. 22 Table 11 Evaluation Criteria ............................................... 27 Table 12 Evaluation Summary ............................................ 27 Table 13 Segment 1 – Alternative 1 – Evaluation.......... 28 Table 14 Segment 2 – Alternative 1 – Evaluation.......... 29 Table 15 Segment 2 – Alternative 2 - Evaluation .......... 29 Table 16 Segment 2 – Alternative 3 – Evaluation.......... 30 Table 17 Segment 2 – Alternative 4 – Evaluation.......... 30 Table 18 Segment 2 – Alternative 5 – Evaluation.......... 31 Table 19 Segment 2 – Alternative 6 – Evaluation.......... 31 Table 20 Segment 2 – Alternative 7 - Evaluation .......... 32 Table 21 Segment 2 – Alternative 8 – Evaluation.......... 32 Table 22 Segment 2 – Alternative 9 – Evaluation.......... 33 Table 23 Segment 2 – Alternative 10 – Evaluation ....... 33 Table 24 Segment 2 – Alternative 11 – Evaluation ....... 34 Table 25 Segment 2 – Alternative 12 – Evaluation ....... 34 Table 26 Conceptual Cost Estimate ................................. 35 Table 27 Candidate Alternatives Evaluation ................... 37 Table 28 Required Major Drainage Crossings ............... 39 Table 29 Conceptual Level Cost Estimate for Detailed Preferred Alignment...................................................... 39 Table 30 Cross-Sectional Summary .................................. 40 Table 31 Minimum Design Speeds .................................... 40 Appendix A: Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Appendix B: Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview Appendix C: Technical Memorandum #3 Conceptual Drainage Report Appendix D: Technical Memorandum #4 Candidate Alternative Alignments and Evaluation Appendix E: Technical Memorandum #5 Detailed Preferred Alignment Appendix F: Technical Memorandum #6 Summary of Public Involvement Appendix G: Summary of Field Review Appendix H: Summary of Meetings PPaaggee iivv EXISTING CORRIDOR FEATURES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) recently completed the Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study (Hassayampa 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. The McDowell Parkway corridor falls under the jurisdiction of both Maricopa County and the Town of Buckeye. Existing land uses consist mainly of undeveloped and open space. Land owners along the corridor include Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), military, and private owners. The most prevalent zoning categories are Maricopa County zone Rural-43 and planned communities. Due to the limited existing roadway network, there is also limited existing right-of-way. Physical features along the corridor include the Buckeye Training Site at the base of the White Tank Mountains on Miller Road, material mining pits on Tonopah Salome Highway just west of the Hassayampa River, a water reclamation plant south of Tonopah Salome Highway just west of 315th Avenue and various power substations. Much of the existing roadway is partially graded dirt road surface and some areas have a worn down thin chip seal. The only paved roadway sections are near the intersection of Tonopah Salome Highway and Sun Valley Parkway and the intersection of Indian School and 339th Avenue. STUDY LOCATION AND PURPOSE A corridor generally following the McDowell Road alignment and identified as McDowell Parkway is recommended in the Hassayampa 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 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 Hassayampa Framework Study (see Figure 1). 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. 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. Substantial growth is expected in the region. This growth is reflected in the forecasted volumes for 2030 and buildout scenario as shown later in Table 5. Figure 1 Study Area and Location Map The primary objectives of the corridor feasibility study are to: ¾ Clearly define and assess the project study area for strategic issues identification. ¾ Develop and evaluate conceptual alternative alignments within the corridor study area. ¾ Recommend a preferred optimum alignment. There are several significant utilities in the corridor including overhead and underground electric, natural gas, 12-inch sewer line, and fiber optic communication cables. ¾ Subsequently define the characteristics of the preferred alignment in greater detail. ¾ This study is the first step in the development process and is meant to guide the governing bodies in protecting a continuous corridor in this area. PPaaggee vv PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES CANDIDATE ALTERNATIVES A total of 12 alternatives were considered in the preliminary stages of the decision making process. These alternatives, depicted in Figure 2 and Figure 3, were presented to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and narrowed to the Candidate Alternatives which were again presented to the TAC and the public and further narrowed to arrive at the Preferred Alignment. Figure 6 East Segment Options A and B The Candidate Alternatives were selected/created from these Preliminary Alternatives. Input from the TAC was considered and the Candidate Alternatives became a hybrid of the Preliminary Alternatives. The West Segment (See Figure 4) was determined to have two Candidate Alternatives (i.e. Alternatives 5 and 12). The East Segment (See Figure 6) was determined to have two Options (i.e. Option A and B). All combinations of these alternatives were considered Candidate Alternatives and were evaluated as shown in Table 1. Figure 2 Segment 1 Preliminary Alternative Table 1 Candidate Alternatives Evaluation Figure 3 Segment 2 Preliminary Alternatives / = Minimum Impact/High Performance 2 = Moderate Impact/Moderate Performance Figure 4 West Segment Alternatives 5 and 12 d = High Impact/Low Performance Figure 5 Preferred Alignment (see Page vii for a larger map of the Preferred Alternative) PPaaggee vvii FIGURE 7 PREFERRED ALIGNMENT Figure 7 Preferred Alignment PPaaggee vviii PREFERRED ALIGNMENT ACCESS MANAGEMENT Based on input received from the TAC, the Town of Buckeye Council, the public, and detailed analysis of the alternatives, it was determined that Alternative 5/Option B, shown in Figure 5 and Figure 7, best meets the goals and objectives of the McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study for the following reasons: The following access management guidelines should be considered as a minimum and may be supplemented or superseded by the guidelines and policies of the controlling jurisdiction of McDowell Parkway: ¾ Fewer right-of-way impacts. ¾ Relative ease of construction. ¾ Lower capital cost. ¾ Fewer significant drainage structures. ¾ Greater compatibility with military operations at the Buckeye Training Site. ¾ More favorable to the public. ¾ Better access to publicly and privately owned land. PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATE Preliminary planning-level costs associated with the recommended alignment are developed and summarized in Table 2. ¾ A divided cross-section with a 50-foot typical median (exclusive of turn lanes). ¾ U-turn directional crossovers restricted to a maximum of eight per mile. ¾ Left turns in any direction are prohibited at all intersections (full median break). ¾ Left turns from a side street or driveway onto the Parkway are prohibited. ¾ Left turns from the Parkway to a side street or driveway are discouraged due to conflicts between u-turns and right turns. However, this can be accommodated by aligning the u-turn crossover with the side-street or driveway in order to facilitate left turns and u-turns. ¾ Intersections (full median breaks) preferably restricted to one-mile spacing and a minimum spacing of one half-mile. ¾ No on-street parking. During an interim stage when the indirect left-turn is not fully implemented, direct left turns may be allowed. Preferred Alignment 85,400 Feet 16.17 Miles Item Description Unit N.P.D.E.S. Community Relations Engineer's Field Office Earthwork New Construction (Ave Width: New Const = 112 feet) Subgrade Preparation New Asphalt Concrete Pavement Concrete Curb & Gutter Concrete Sidewalk Ramp Std Det 231, Type "A" Concrete Sidewalk Std Det 230 Traffic Signing & Striping - 8 lanes Traffic Signal, Full Intersection Traffic Signal, 3 Legged Intersection Parkway-to-Parkway Grade Separated Interchange Parkway-to-Parkway At-Grade Intersection Bridge > 100' (see Structure sheet) Subtotal Drainage Removal of Existing Improvements Mobilization/Demobilization Traffic Control Lump Sum Allowance Lump Sum C YD SUBTOTAL Construction Contingency Unit Cost Quantity $40,660.00 $10,880.00 $30,875.00 $9.00 1 1 1 1,715,277 $40,660 $10,880 $30,875 $15,437,493 SQ YD SQ YD LF $5.00 $41.60 $16.00 1,062,756 1,062,756 341,600 $5,313,778 $44,210,631 $5,465,600 EA SQ YD LF EA EA $2,680.00 $68.00 $8.00 $319,000.00 $255,200.00 90 113,867 85,400 9 0 $240,316 $7,742,933 $683,200 $2,871,000 $0 EA $21,262,500.00 2 $42,525,000 EA SF $414,700.00 $100.00 2 210,000 10% 2% 4% 3% $829,400 $21,000,000 $146,401,766 $14,640,177 $2,928,035 $5,856,071 $4,392,053 20% $174,218,101 $34,843,620 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION Design Construction Management Utility Relocation Administration TOTAL Amount $209,061,722 12% 15% 3% 10% $25,087,407 $31,359,258 $6,271,852 $20,906,172 $292,686,410 Table 2 Planning Level Cost Estimate for Preferred Alignment PPaaggee vviiii IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Planning, design, and construction of the McDowell Parkway corridor will be driven by development of the adjacent lands. As development occurs, it is anticipated that the need for the new parkway will be driven by the traffic demand associated with the trips generated. It is difficult to determine where along the alignment the development will occur first. However, the Tartesso Development is further along in the planning stages than areas to the east. If the area west of Turner Parkway develops sooner, a connection from Sun Valley Parkway east to Dean Road will be needed. It is anticipated that as these areas develop, dedications will be granted for the right-of-way for McDowell Parkway. Additionally, it is possible the developments will be able to provide a portion of the funding of the construction of the Parkway. However, in areas of public, military, and jurisdictional lands, public funding for right-of-way and construction will be needed. Construction of the corridor will be phased over time and should be completed as outlined in section 9 of the Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway, August 2008. CONSIDERATIONS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT During the preliminary design of the Detailed Preferred Alignment, the study team identified several areas that may need further study to determine the extent of the impact of the roadway corridor: ¾ Power Sub-Station − Conflict-near 339th Avenue and Indian School. ¾ Hassayampa River Crossing − A bridge will be required to span the 100-year floodplain. Exact limits of the bridge need to be determined. ¾ Residential Impact at Sun Valley Parkway − An existing residential property at the intersection is in nearly unavoidable conflict with the location of the roadway. It will be necessary to engage the property owner in conversations and inform them of the process required for future acquisition of the property. ¾ Potential Power Line Tower Conflict − Two high-voltage power line towers located at approximately station 584+00 that will need consideration. ¾ Structure Over Flood Retarding Structure (FRS) #3 − It is likely that the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) will require continuous access along the structure for maintenance. Coordination will need to take place to allow McDowell Parkway to travel up and over the structure. ¾ Tie-in to Dean Road − Sienna Hills provided a preliminary vertical profile for the McDowell Road alignment however, they did not account for enough vertical clearance over the FRS. Coordination will need to take place to determine the tie-in location. ¾ Drainage Structures − A detailed drainage report will need to be completed to determine the exact locations for the required drainage structures. ¾ Mine Sites. − Arizona Game and Fish Department expressed concern that the close proximity of the proposed alignment to mine sites on the Buckeye Military Training Site will disrupt foraging and reproductive activities of the California Leaf-nosed bat. The Department recommends further evaluation of the proposed alternatives when the East segment goes to the Design Concept Report stage. PPaaggee iixx EXISTING AND FUTURE CORRIDOR FEATURES LAND USE, ZONING AND OWNERSHIP Existing and future land uses, zoning, and property ownership were collected from the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), Town of Buckeye (Buckeye), and Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT). EXISTING LAND USE As shown in Figure 8, and subsequent maps, the two jurisdictions in the study area are Maricopa County and Buckeye. The Buckeye Town Limits are shown as the hatched area and the rest of the area is Maricopa County. Figure 8 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. Land ownership throughout the McDowell Parkway corridor includes private entities, Arizona State Trust Land, military, Bureau of Land Management, and others as shown on Figure 9. Figure 10 identifies existing zoning as identified by Town of Buckeye and Maricopa County within the study area. FUTURE LAND USE ROADWAY NETWORK Figure 11 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. Information about the existing and future roadway networks has been obtained from the Hassayampa Framework Study which was based on transportation planning studies obtained from jurisdictions or agencies within the study area. The 1,430-square-mile Hassayampa 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. 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 Figure 12. EXISTING 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 Figure 12. A well-developed transportation network does not yet exist in the sparsely populated McDowell Parkway study area. Figure 14 depicts the existing transportation network as well as the MAG-defined roadway functional classifications. Buckeye recently completed a General Plan Land Use Map (ratified May 20, 2008). This Plan includes planned developments and land uses as shown in Figure 13. The Hassayampa Framework Study included a conceptual roadway framework as shown in Figure 15. 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. FUTURE PPaaggee 11 FIGURE 8 EXISTING LAND USE Figure 8 Existing Land Use PPaaggee 22 FIGURE 9 EXISTING LAND OWNERSHIP Figure 9 Existing Land Ownership PPaaggee 33 FIGURE 10 EXISTING ZONING Figure 10 Existing Zoning PPaaggee 44 FIGURE 11 FUTURE LAND USE Figure 11 Future Land Use PPaaggee 55 FIGURE 12 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Figure 12 Planned Development PPaaggee 66 FIGURE 13 TOWN OF BUCKEYE – GENERAL PLAN LAND USE Figure 13 Town of Buckeye – General Plan Land Use PPaaggee 77 FIGURE 14 FIGURE 15 EXISTING ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CONCEPTUAL ROADWAY FRAMEWORK Figure 14 Existing Roadway Functional Classification System Figure 15 Conceptual Roadway Framework PPaaggee 88 EXISTING AND FUTURE ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS A summary of relevant information regarding existing physical features, roadway conditions, and classifications was compiled. Also included were the characteristics of the future roadway designation, the Arizona Parkway. PHYSICAL FEATURES Existing topographic and physical features have been determined using information from sources including MCDOT, MAG, and the FCDMC and are shown on Figure 18. Some of these include: ¾ Buckeye Military Reserve located at the base of the White Tank Mountains on Miller Road. ¾ Hanson and CEMEX materials mining pits on Tonopah-Salome Highway and 327th Avenue just west of the Hassayampa River ¾ Tartesso Water Reclamation Plant south of Tonopah-Salome Highway just west of 315th Avenue. EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS Arizona Parkway The section of roadway from 339th Avenue along the Tonopah-Salome Highway to Sun Valley Parkway consists of a partially graded, dirt-surface road that crosses the Hassayampa River along the riverbed. Portions of the roadway have a partial thin chip seal that has been eroded 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-surface roads or nonexistent roadway. The Hassayampa 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. where McDowell Parkway intersects with other proposed parkways such as the Hidden Waters, Sun Valley, and Turner Parkways Typical Section Figure 17 depicts the proposed typical section for the Arizona Parkway. 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. McDowell Road is shown to be a principal arterial. FUTURE ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION This study incorporates the recommendation of an Arizona Parkway for the McDowell Parkway alignment. ¾ Various power substations along the study alignment. Figure 17 Arizona Parkway Typical Section 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 U-turn break in the median on the far side of the main roadway. These U-turn breaks can be signalized in particularly high-volume areas. Figure 16 illustrates the general layout for a typical MLT intersection. Key advantages of this type of roadway over a typical urban arterial include: ¾ Higher vehicle capacity. ¾ Faster travel times. ¾ Better fuel economy due to fewer stops and less idling at intersections. ¾ Reduced vehicular emissions. Key: Green arterial to parkway, Red parkway to arterial – Source: Michigan Highways.org Figure 16 Arizona Parkway Schematic Drawing ¾ Less crashes at intersections due to elimination of left-turn conflict points. MCDOT recently finalized standards for Parkway-toParkway connections. These connections will be necessary PPaaggee 99 FIGURE 18 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND PHYSICAL FEATURES Figure 18 Existing Topography and Physical Features PPaaggee 1100 CROSS-STREETS The McDowell Parkway alignment has several intersections and local access locations. These can be categorized into four groups: ¾ 339th Avenue (Figure 20) - The intersection of 339th Ave and Indian School Road is a paved Tintersection and stop controlled in the northbound direction. ¾ Minor Cross-Streets, Local Roads, and Driveway Access - Currently unlimited access exists along existing roads along the study alignment. Future conditions will likely limit access along the parkway corridor. ¾ Major Cross Street − A major collector intersecting with a minor arterial. ¾ Minor Cross Street - A minor collector or local road intersecting with a minor arterial. ¾ Local Road - Allows local traffic to gain access to bordering properties. They are commonly low volume and low speed. ¾ Driveway Access - A residential or commercial point of entry. Figure 20 Intersection of Indian School Road and 339th Avenue Figure 21 Intersection of McDowell Road and Sun Valley Parkway (Palo Verde Road) ¾ Sun Valley Parkway (Figure 19 and Figure 21) The intersection of Sun Valley Parkway (Palo Verde Road) and McDowell Road is paved and stopcontrolled for the east-west traffic. Figure 19 Intersection of McDowell Road and Sun Valley Parkway (Palo Verde Road) Looking East These definitions are general and may not fit each criterion exactly. ¾ Watson Road - McDowell Road and Watson Road intersect in an L-shape. Watson road does not continue north and McDowell Road does not continue westward. The Town of Buckeye is planning to continue the Watson Road alignment north. ¾ Dean Road - Dean Road is a future roadway that intersects McDowell Road. Table 3 summarizes the locations of the major cross streets along the McDowell Parkway Corridor. These are: Intersecting Roadway Roadway Classification Intersection Control Type 339th Avenue Minor Arterial Sun Valley Parkway # 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 -- -- -- -- Table 3 Existing Intersection Characteristics PPaaggee 1111 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Traffic Volumes The McDowell Parkway corridor is one of many new facilities identified in the Hassayampa 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 Hassayampa Framework Study as they relate to McDowell Parkway. The following sections briefly summarize the existing and future corridor conditions and needs. Table 5 provides a summary of the Hassayampa 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. 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 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). 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. Corridor Features The Hassayampa 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 Hassayampa Framework Study as: ¾ 2011-2020: Alignment studies and right-of-way preservation. ¾ 2026-2035: Construction at interim or ultimate configuration. It is important to note that McDowell Parkway or any other facility identified in the Hassayampa Framework Study is not currently funded and this preliminary implementation timeframe is subject to change. To accommodate future volumes, the Hassayampa Framework Study suggests the following intersections will require enhanced treatments: Socioeconomic Characteristics Eleven1 of the socioeconomic analysis zones in the Framework Study are located adjacent to, or contain, the proposed McDowell Parkway alignment. Table 4 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. Factor 2005 2030 Buildout Annualized Growth Rate Between 2005 and 2030 Annualized Growth Rate Between 2030 and 2 Buildout Population 5,823 49,354 131,643 8.9% 3.3% Employment 3,118 14,325 69,611 6.3% 5.4% Table 4 2005/2030/Buildout Population and Employment Forecast in the McDowell Parkway Corridor McDowell Parkway Segment Two-Way Average Daily Traffic 3 (vehicles per day) From To 2030 Buildout 339th Avenue 327th Avenue 9,000 61,000 327th Avenue 315th Avenue 3,000-12,000 82,000-98,000 315th Avenue 311th Avenue 11,000 90,000 311th Avenue Bruner Road 8,000-10,000 92,000-94,000 Bruner Road Sun Valley Parkway 10,000 97,000 Sun Valley Parkway 287th Avenue 17,000 106,000 ¾ McDowell Parkway at Turner Parkway: Grade separation with 8-lane McDowell Parkway over the 8-lane Turner Parkway. 287th Avenue 283rd Avenue 20,000 95,000 283rd Avenue Turner Road 23,000 105,000 ¾ McDowell Parkway at Sun Valley Parkway: Grade separation with 8- lane McDowell Parkway over the 8-lane Sun Valley Parkway. Turner Road Oglesby Road 29,000 129,000 Oglesby Road Miller Road 32,000 137,000 Miller Road Watson Road 31,000-32,000 126,000 Watson Road Verrado Way 29,000-38,000 106,000-112,000 FORECAST CONDITIONS AND NEEDS Table 5 2030/Buildout Traffic Volumes in the McDowell Parkway Corridor Future conditions in the corridor were derived from the data and analyses of the Hassayampa Framework Study. 2 1 Zones 136, 118, 129, 125, 1813, 1832, 1831, 119, 1819, 1837, 1834. Assumes a 30-year buildout timeframe beyond 2030. Volumes are from the Hassayampa Framework Study model and not the official MAG model. 3 PPaaggee 1122 EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY RECREATION AND TRAILS Table 6 summarizes existing right-of-way in the study corridor and was taken from MCDOT’s Roadrunner Rightof-Way files in GIS. Information for all segments was not included due to the lack of existing roadway in these sections. There are two known Maricopa County designated trail in the study area. One 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 Figure 22. The second trail crosses the McDowell Road alignment at FRS #3. Bridge structures will be provided at both locations and will allow for pedestrian access The White Tank Mountains are a major recreational area in the study area. Right-Of-Way Width Roadway Segment 339th Avenue McDowell Parkway Sun Parkway Valley Watson Road to Sun Valley Parkway West/South Of Centerline East/North Of Centerline Total Width 55’ 55’ 110’ to Watson Road None None None to Dean Road 55' None' 55' Table 6 Existing Right-of-Way 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. 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 determining the ultimate alignment. Various other overhead and underground utilities may potentially be impacted by the ultimate alignment. Table 7 provides a list of the utility providers with major facilities within the study area along with the associated type of utility. At this time there are no new major utilities planned for the McDowell corridor. Utility Company Type Of Utility APS Overhead Electric and Underground Electric Transwestern Natural Gas Pipeline Stardust-Tartesso West 12 inch Sewer Line AT&T Fiber Optics Sprint Fiber Optics Table 7 Existing Utilities PPaaggee 1133 FIGURE 22 RECREATION AND TRAILS Figure 22 Recreation and Trails PPaaggee 1144 PRELIMINARY ISSUES AND CONSTRAINTS Table 8 identifies general issues and constraints identified as a part of the McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study. # Issue/Challenge The list of issues and constraints identified in Table 8 was developed from observations in the field on August 19, 2009, review of existing studies and plans, and internal discussions with the study team. The issues and constraints in Table 8 are summarized graphically in Figure 23. Location Description 1 East of 339th Avenue on Indian School APS Substation 16 2 Parallel to Indian School Road alignment near 339th Avenue - East and West APS Overhead Electric 17 3 Parallel to Tonopah Salome Highway on North Side Underground Sprint Fiber Optic 4 Parallel to Tonopah Salome Highway on South Side Underground AT&T Fiber Optic 5 Parallel to Thomas Road East of 315th Avenue Sewer Manholes 6 Perpendicular to Tonopah Salome Highway South of the Highway just West of 315th Avenue Sewer Manholes 7 South of Tonopah Salome Highway just West of 315 Avenue Tartesso Water Reclamation Plant. Currently acting as a recharge well. 8 Crossing Tonopah Salome Highway just West of Johnson Road traveling in a NE/SW Direction APS Transmission Lines with low vertical clearance 9 Crossing Tonopah Salome Highway just West of Johnson Road traveling in a NE/SW Direction 10 Parallel to Tonopah Salome Highway on South Side 11 Crossing McDowell Road Alignment just East of 289th Avenue traveling in a NW/SE Direction APS Overhead Electric 12 Parallel to the McDowell Road Alignment East of Sun Valley Parkway on South Side APS Overhead Electric 13 Parallel to Tonopah Salome Highway East of Wilson Avenue on North Side Underground Sprint Fiber Optic 14 Parallel to Parker Liberty Power Road on East Side APS Overhead Electric 15 Southeast Corner of Watson Road and McDowell Road Water Tank Major Utility # Location Description Just South of Tonopah Salome Highway and 327th Avenue Hanson Material Mining Pit/Rock Quarry Just North of Tonopah Salome Highway and 327th Avenue CEMEX Material Mining Pit/Rock Quarry 18 Southwest of Tonopah Salome Highway and 315th Avenue Tartesso West 19 North and East of Thomas Road and Johnson Road Tartesso West 20 South and East of McDowell Road and Sun Valley Parkway Tartesso South and East of Thomas Road and Sun Valley Parkway Tartesso 22 North and East of Turner Road and McDowell Road Tartesso 23 North and West of Van Buren Street and 259th Avenue Tartesso 24 North of McDowell Road at Dean Road Sienna Hills Transwestern Natural Gas Pipeline paralleling APS Transmission Lines 25 North and West of Thomas Road and Johnson Road Partial Tartesso West APS Overhead Electric 26 West side of Watson Road just North of I-10 Sierra and Highlands North of I-10 on Miller Road Buckeye Military Reserve North and East of 315th Avenue and McDowell Road Bureau of Land Management 29 South and East of McDowell Road and Parker Liberty Power Road Bureau of Land Management 30 Crossing Tonopah Salome Highway just East of 327th Avenue Hassayampa River Crossing McDowell Road just West of Dean Road Flood Retarding Structure 21 Issue/Challenge Industrial/ Commercial Planned Development Existing Development 27 28 Ownership Drainage 31 Table 8 Preliminary Issues and Constraints (Cont.) Table 8 Preliminary Issues and Constraints PPaaggee 1155 FIGURE 23 PRELIMINARY ISSUES AND CONSTRAINTS Figure 23 Preliminary Issues and Constraints PPaaggee 1166 DATA COLLECTION Lead Agency: Town of Buckeye Date Completed: December 2006 Date Completed: July 2006 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. Author: North American Development Group Lead Agency: Flood Control District of Maricopa County Lead Agency: Flood Control District of Maricopa County Author: JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Author: JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. MEETINGS ¾ August 19, 2009 - Buckeye Military Base with Sandy Mallach, AZ Army National Guard ¾ September 1, 2009 – ADOT Offices with Mike Bruder, ADOT ¾ September 1, 2009 – PBS&J Offices with Bob Speirs, Stardust Development, Inc. ¾ September 9, 2009 – Flood Control District of Maricopa County with Valerie Swick, FCDMC EXISTING STUDIES, PLANS, AND REPORTS ¾ Interstate 10/Hassayampa Framework Study Valley Roadway Author: DMJM Harris/AECOM ¾ Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway Date Completed: August 2008 Maricopa County Department of Author: DMJM Harris/AECOM ¾ Hassayampa Ranch Zoning Exhibit Date Completed: March 2008 Maricopa County Department of Author: WRG Design, Inc for Harvard Investments, Inc. Date Completed: May 2009 ¾ Tartesso Additional Parcels – Biological Evaluation Date Completed: December 2003 Lead Agency: Town of Buckeye Author: Senna Environmental Services for Stardust Development, Inc. ¾ Tartesso 3800: An Archaeological Survey of 3,800 Acres Located West of the White Tank Mountains on the East Edge of the Tonopah Desert Lead Agency: Town of Buckeye Lead Agency: Maricopa Association of Governments ¾ Tartesso Town Center Master Plan Author: Kimley-Horn and Associations, Inc. Date Completed: January 2004 Date Completed: September 2007 Lead Agency: Transportation Date Completed: May 2005 Lead Agency: Town of Buckeye ¾ August 10, 2009 – WC Scoutten Offices with Woody Scoutten, Buckeye Town Engineer Lead Agency: Transportation ¾ Tartesso Amendment #2 – Trip Generation Comparison Author: Douglas B. Craig for Stardust Companies ¾ Tesota (Sienna) Hills Community Master Plan Date Completed: January 2004 Lead Agency: Town of Buckeye Author: CMX ¾ Off-Site Sewer Plan Tonopah-Salome Highway (McDowell Parkway) Date Completed: December 2007 Lead Agency: Town of Buckeye Author: Sage Engineering Corporation ¾ Off-Site Sewer Plan Tonopah-Salome Highway (McDowell Parkway) ¾ Buck/Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Study, Technical Data Notebook, Volume II-B: Data Collection Report Date Completed: August 2006 Date Completed: December 2006 Lead Agency: Flood Control District of Maricopa County Lead Agency: Flood Control District of Maricopa County Author: JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Author: JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc ¾ 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 Date Completed: May 2005 Lead Agency: Flood Control District of Maricopa County Author: PBS&J ¾ 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. ¾ 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. ¾ 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 Lead Agency: Town of Buckeye Author: JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. ¾ Buckeye/Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Plan, Step 3, Recommended Alternative Report, Volume I, Executive Summary and Overview ¾ Buckeye/Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Study Author: JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Date Completed: April 2008 Author: Sage Engineering Corporation ¾ Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Plan, Step 3, Recommended Alternative Report, Volume 7, Buckeye FRS #2 & #3 Sub Area ¾ Buckeye/Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Study, Technical Data Notebook, Volume VII, Geomorphology Studies, Geomorphic Evaluation, and Landform Stability Assessments PPaaggee 1177 ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW SUMMARY The purpose of this section is 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. It is also intended to identify early in the project development stages issues, constraints, or opportunities present based on an existing records review, coordination with local jurisdictions and regulatory agencies, and a limited field review. The following sections summarize current information and identify the level of concern or sensitivity for each environmental issue. SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES AND TITLE VI/ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POPULATIONS 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. 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. 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 9 provides percentages of total minority population (an aggregate of racial/ethnic categories) and population below poverty level. a Area Total Population Total Minority # % Total Population for Whom Poverty Is Determined Below Poverty Level # % CT 506.01 BG 2 1,938 469 24.2 1,928 131 6.8 CT 506.02 BG 2 2,721 592 21.8 2,710 151 5.6 Total Tracts 4,659 1,061 22.8 4,638 282 6.1 Buckeye 6,417 2,676 41.7 6,393 1,200 18.8 3,072,149 1,038,729 33.8 3,027,299 355,668 11.7 Maricopa County Table 9 Total Minority and Population Below Poverty 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 NonWhite 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 9 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. PHYSICAL AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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. No critical habitat is present, and no species are expected to be affected. Other Special Status Species 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. Due to the length of the study area, the area was divided into western and eastern halves for analysis. Correspondences received from the AGFD 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, including parkway crossing structures suitable for large mammals at several wash corridors and/or a terrestrial location suitable for wildlife overpass structure. 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 to determine the current distribution and status of the tortoise in the project area. AGFD requested to participate in the future project development including exploration of wildlife movement research to fully evaluate movement patterns of mule deer and mountain lions in the southern portions of the White Tank Mountains. 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). AGFD also indicated the Department’s Research Branch has been involved with monitoring bat use of the Golden Eye Mine #2 on Buckeye National Guard property between 2003 and 2008. A copula was installed in September 2005 by the Department’s Development Branch to protect this important winter bat roost for California Leaf-nosed Bats (Macrotus Californicus). The most recent emergence counts conducted by the Department in 2008 resulted in a total of 691 bats emerging from the roost. The California Leafnosed bat is a BLM Sensitive Species and is a Wildlife of Special Concern for Arizona (AGFD-Heritage Data Management System). They congregate in warm roost sites during the winter and AGFD researchers have found that foraging during the winter is limited to within approximately 2 miles of the mine and tended towards the White Tank Mountains. During the summer this species moves to cooler roost sites. Just a bit north of the Golden Eagle Mine AGFD researchers were able to find that male Macrotus use the Valencia Mine Prospect (also on National Guard property) as a lek site. 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 pygmyowl (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). Protected Native Plants The study area encompasses a large area of relatively undisturbed Sonoran desertscrub habitat. Even if the preferred alignment will 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 will require the removal of salvage-restricted protected native plants. These will likely include various species of cacti. In addition, salvage-assessed protected native plants such as velvet mesquite, blue and foothill paloverde, and desert willow will be affected. Protected native plants in the study area will be impacted by project construction. PPaaggee 1188 Therefore, MCDOT will 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 rightof-way will 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. Wildlife Movement Corridors and Linkages The movement of wildlife through the study area depends on the availability of preferred habitat, foraging range, and migration and dispersal patterns. EcoPlan combined a review of aerial photographs, published results of speciesspecific surveys, and literature from wildlife management agencies to locate and determine potential wildlife movement corridors and linkages within the McDowell study area (Figure 24). 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. 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. 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 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 will likely be limited to areas where relatively undisturbed desertscrub habitat abuts the roadway. In areas where future development abuts it, the parkway will 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. 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: ¾ Continuous natural corridors through areas of development. ¾ Ephemeral water sources for wildlife. ¾ A visual screen from surrounding development, thereby increasing the actual and perceived sense of security for passing wildlife. ¾ A corridor of preferred habitat for riparian birds. ¾ Habitat and migration corridors for smaller terrestrial species (rodents, reptiles, and amphibians). ¾ Habitat for xeroriparian plant species. 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 (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. 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 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 PPaaggee 1199 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 AGFD correspondence should be considered as part of this coordination effort. 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 24). 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 the Maricopa County Flood Control Manager will need to be provided an opportunity to review and comment on design plans during the design phase. WATER QUALITY Sections 404/401 of The Clean Water Act Potential Waters in the Study Area 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, FRS#2, and FRS#3. Flows are conveyed along the FRS #1, FRS#2, and FRS#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. 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. Permitting The project will 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 will 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 precertified for Section 401 Water Quality Certification, an individual Section 404 permit will require an individual 401 certification from the ADEQ. Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 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 will result in 1 or more acres of ground disturbance will 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. VISUAL RESOURCES 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 will 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 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 will be expected to impact the visual quality. The level of impact will 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 will 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 H-8410-1–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.” If the preferred alignment crosses BLM lands, an analysis of visual impacts will be required. AIR QUALITY 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, particulate 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 nonattainment 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 will need to comply with the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Rules and Ordinances (June 6, 2007). PPaaggee 2200 FIGURE 24 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, ADEQ NON-ATTAINMENT AREAS, WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS, AND LINKAGES Figure 24 100-year floodplain, ADEQ non-attainment areas, wildlife movement corridors, and linkages PPaaggee 2211 NOISE IMPACTS The following table provides specific hourly weighted noise abatement criteria that serve as the upper limit of acceptable traffic noise levels for various types of land use (Table 10). Activity Category 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. 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 57 dBA (exterior) B Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals 67 dBA (exterior) C Developed land, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B 72 dBA (exterior) D Undeveloped land None E Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums 52 dBA (interior) A Source: U.S. Department of Transportation 2008 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 will be required during future project design and will take into account forecasted future traffic volumes, speed, percentage of trucks, distance to receptors, and roadway profile. If noise impacts are identified, MCDOT will 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. 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 Table 10 Noise Abatement Criteria 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. CULTURAL RESOURCES 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, an 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) PROPERTIES There are no identified parks, recreation areas, historic sites 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) will 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. AGENCY COORDINATION 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. 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. Additional letters were sent to the ADEQ, the AGFD, the BLM, the USFWS, and the White Tank Mountain Regional Park on August 28, 2009. The AGFD responded with a letter that included a list of special status species within 3 miles of the corridor (September 11, 2009). The letter requested consideration of the listed species during project development, analysis of wildlife linkages, and participation in future TAC meetings. 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 will pose a fatal flaw to the development of McDowell Parkway. Figure 24 identifies the locations of 100-year floodplains, ADEQ non-attainment areas for ozone and particulate matter, and known wildlife movement corridors and linkages. Though no fatal flaws were identified, further environmental documentation and permitting that will be necessary prior to project design and construction includes: ¾ Jurisdictional delineation of Waters, Clean Water Act Section 404 permit, and Section 401 State Water Quality Certification. ¾ Preliminary Initial Site Assessment for hazardous materials. ¾ Cultural resources Class I literature review and Class III survey, potential data recovery, and approval from the BLM, SHPO, and appropriate tribes. ¾ Noise analysis. ¾ Air quality analysis. ¾ ASLD cultural and biological resource clearances for right-of-way acquisition. ¾ BLM approval of the project’s conformity to Visual Resource Management Objectives if acquisition of right-of-way from the BLM occurs. ¾ Coordination with the AGFD regarding impacts to wildlife. ¾ Public involvement and continued coordination with stakeholders. SUMMARY 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 PPaaggee 2222 DRAINAGE SUMMARY 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: ¾ 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. ¾ 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. ¾ 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. Figure 25 depicts these regions and Figure 26 shows the area drainage. Definitions for the acronyms found on Figure 26 are shown thereafter: ¾ A – Zone A – An area with an approximate delineation of a Floodplain. Floodway boundaries and Base Flood Elevations have not been determined. ¾ AE – Zone AE – An area with a detailed delineation of a Floodplain and in which Base Flood Elevations have been determined. ¾ AH – Zone AH –An area with Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain); average flood depths have been determined. For areas of Alluvial Fan flooding, velocities may have also been determined. ¾ AAFF – Approximate Alluvial Fan Floodway – Major conveyance corridors defined within AFUFD and AFZA areas for unimpeded through flow of floodwater and sediment. ¾ AFHH – Alluvial Fan High Hazard – An area of active Alluvial Fan Flooding that is reserved to convey and receive sediment and floodwater without altering and thereby increasing the distribution of hazard across the fan to inactive areas and to areas downslope. ¾ AFZA – Alluvial Fan Zone A – An area of inactive Alluvial Fan Flooding characterized by flooding along stable flow paths and sheet flow or sheet flooding. These stable flow paths may still be subject to erosion hazards, channel bed and bank scour, and deposition. ¾ FW – Floodway – The channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas necessary in order to discharge the one hundred year flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot. ¾ D – Zone D – Areas in which flood hazards are undetermined, but possible. ¾ AFUFD – Alluvial Fan Unknown Flow Distribution Area – A transitional area for sheet flooding and channelized flow located below the AFHH area. ¾ AFW – Administrative Floodway – The Special Flood Hazard Area designated on either the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) or flood management maps as areas that are subject to local regulation requirements. These areas may include Active Alluvial Fan Flooding, Alluvial Fan High Hazard Area Flooding, Inactive Alluvial Fan Flooding, and Conveyance Corridors. These areas are designated as the corridors that must be reserved to maintain the continuity of flow and sediment for the one (1) percent flood event without causing cumulative adverse impact to adjacent properties. ¾ X1 – Zone X (shaded) – Areas between limits of the 100-year flood and 500-year flood; certain areas subject to 100-year flooding with average depths less than one (1) foot or where the contributing drainage area is <1 square mile; or areas protected by levees from base flood. ¾ X2 – Zone X (unshaded) - Areas determined to be outside the 500-year flood. REGION I Region I includes an approximate 2-mile-wide corridor centered on the McDowell Parkway alignment as depicted in the Hassayampa 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 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. 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: ¾ Type I − Individually confined split or distributary flow paths. These features are associated with welldefined through-flow channels that may diverge or split into multiple smaller channels which then rejoin while remaining well confined. ¾ 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. ¾ 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 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. PPaaggee 2233 REGION II REGION III Region II includes an approximate 2-mile wide corridor centered on the baseline alternative McDowell Road alignment as depicted in the Hassayampa 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. Region III includes an approximate 2-mile wide corridor centered on the baseline alternative McDowell Road alignment as depicted in the Hassayampa 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. 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. 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 multichannel 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. 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: ¾ 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. 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. 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 evaluation have been conducted and the detailed results documented in Technical Memorandum #3, Conceptual Drainage Report. 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 100-year 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 PPaaggee 2244 FIGURE 25 DRAINAGE REGIONS Region III Region II Region I Figure 25 Drainage Regions PPaaggee 2255 FIGURE 26 AREA DRAINAGE Figure 26 Area Drainage PPaaggee 2266 CANDIDATE ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION For the McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study the alternative alignments have been divided into two segments. A logical dividing point is the future Turner Parkway alignment. Everything to the west of this point is considered Segment 1 and to the east is considered Segment 2. Segment 1 has only one feasible alignment that traverses the existing Tonopah-Salome Highway corridor from 339th Avenue to Sun Valley Parkway and then follows the McDowell Road alignment to Turner Parkway. Segment 2 has no existing corridor and therefore, has multiple options for traversing the terrain. The two Segments and the corresponding alternative alignments are described below. Evaluation of preliminary alternatives was carried out using the evaluation criteria shown in Table 11. The evaluation criteria are a combination of standard criteria used for all Evaluation Criteria Description Right-of-Way Requirements No existing right-of-way results in more impact Property Impacts (non jurisdictional) Impact on privately-owned properties Buildings Affected Impacts to existing buildings Ownership Constraints (ASLD, BLM) Constraints due to agency-owned land Constructability Construction access related to mountainous terrain, other private property or flood areas Engineering Complexity Additional structures, complex drainage facilities, and other engineering challenges Environmental Issues Table 12 illustrates the comparative analysis of the alternatives. Based on review of the total scores, discussions with MCDOT, the corridor study team, the Town of Buckeye, military officials, the TAC and representatives of local developments – Segment 1 Alternative 1 and Segment 2 Alternatives 5, 11, and 12 received some of the lowest scores and were carried forward as the Candidate Alternatives. Although Alternative 10 has a lower score, based on the comparative analysis, than Alternative 12, Alternative 10 was dismissed from consideration as a Candidate Alternative because of the paralyzing effect it would cause on the Armed Forces Reserve Center on the Arizona Army National Guard Buckeye Training Site (Buckeye Training Site). Descriptions of each preliminary alternative and comprehensive analysis can be found in the next section. current MCDOT corridor studies along with McDowell Parkway corridor-specific criteria. The evaluation criteria for this study were developed, refined, and agreed to by the Technical Advisory Committee. PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION Segment I has only one feasible alternative. For segment 2 twelve preliminary alternatives were considered and analyzed based on the evaluation criteria listed in Table 11. In order to comparatively evaluate alternatives, a numerical value was assigned to the criteria based on the severity of impact resulting from each alternative. The values were tabulated in the evaluation matrices and totaled to determine the alternatives that best meet the purpose and objectives of the McDowell Parkway CFS. The following values were used: 1 = Minimum Impact/High Performance 2 = Moderate Impact/Moderate Performance 3 = High Impact/Low Performance Segment 2 Seg 1 Alt 1 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Alt 8 Right-of-Way Requirements 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 Impacts to environmental resources such as sensitive species, hazardous waste sites, existing mine shafts, etc. Property Impacts (non jurisdictional) 1 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 1 2 1 Buildings Affected 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Utility Conflicts Fiber optic, high voltage power lines, natural gas, water and sewer, etc. Ownership Constraints (ASLD, BLM) 1 3 3 2 3 2 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 Constructability 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 Drainage Impacts to alluvial washes, floodplains, and Flood Retarding Structure (FRS) Engineering Complexity 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 Construction Cost Cost to construct Public Acceptability Impacts to travel times, out-of-direction travel, roadway geometry, visual impacts, etc. Safety Impacts to sight distance and horizontal and vertical curve parameters Compatibility with Roadway Network Consistency with Hassayampa Framework Study and proximity to parallel corridors Compatibility with Buckeye Training Site Regional Trail Access Acceptability to military officials, impacts to property, troop movements, and training exercises Evaluation Criteria Alt 9 Alt 10 Alt 11 Alt 12 Environmental Issues 2 1 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 Utility Conflicts 3 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 Drainage 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 Construction Cost 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 Public Acceptability 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 Safety 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 Compatibility with Roadway Network 1 2 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Compatibility with Buckeye Training Site 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 Regional Trail Access 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 23 30 31 32 32 27 30 30 33 30 27 25 29 Total Table 12 Evaluation Summary Accessibility to regional trails Table 11 Evaluation Criteria PPaaggee 2277 PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES SEGMENT 2 In determining the Candidate Alternatives, previously discussed, a full range of possibilities were considered. The following are descriptions and evaluations of the Preliminary Alternatives. A graphic depicting each alternative is followed by an initial evaluation. Segment 2 begins at Turner Parkway on the McDowell Road section line and ends at Dean Road. There is no existing roadway connecting these two points. Several preliminary alternatives have been developed to navigate the somewhat mountainous terrain, avoid conflicts with both planned and existing developments (including the Buckeye Training Site), and minimize utility conflicts. SEGMENT 1 ALTERNATIVE 1 The proposed alignment for this alternative follows the existing Tonopah-Salome Highway from 339th Avenue at Indian School Road to west of Sun Valley Parkway. The alignment then matches the McDowell Road section line alignment. This allows the planned interchange at Sun Valley Parkway and McDowell Parkway to be nearly perpendicular. Beyond Sun Valley Parkway, the McDowell Parkway alignment follows the existing McDowell Road section line to Turner Parkway. The existing alignment is proposed to remain from 339th Avenue to west of Sun Valley Parkway due to the presence of existing right of way and compatibility with planning by private developers, most notably for the Tartesso development. Figure 27 Segment 1 – Alternative 1 Initial Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Right-of-Way Requirements Property Impacts (non jurisdictional) Buildings Affected Ownership Constraints (ASLD, BLM) Constructability 2 2 / 2 d Engineering Complexity d Environmental Issues 2 Utility Conflicts Drainage / d Construction Cost d Public Acceptability Safety Compatibility with Roadway Network 2 2 / Compatibility with Buckeye Training Site 2 Regional Trail Access / Notes Shorter alignment compared to others. Minimal available Impacts Skyline West property Fewer impacts to ASLD based on terrain, no impacts to BLM Extreme mountainous terrain Extreme vertical grades through mountainous terrain. Very large drainage structures required Potential impacts to sensitive species. Visual impacts associated with large cuts and fills. Minimal impacts to BLM Large number of crossings due to mountainous terrain Large amounts of earthwork through mountainous terrain and large number of drainage crossings Environmental and visual impacts to White Tank Mountains Sight distance may be compromised due to steep grades Facility is north of Buckeye Military Reserve buildings and may impact troop movements Table 13 Segment 1 – Alternative 1 – Evaluation / = Minimum Impact/High Performance 2 = Moderate Impact/Moderate Performance d = High Impact/Low Performance PPaaggee 2288 SEGMENT 2 ALTERNATIVE 1 Alternative 1 follows a southerly route around the Buckeye Training Site. In order to avoid this military land and the Tartesso development, the alignment traverses diagonally across large portions of Arizona State Trust, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and privately owned lands. Total avoidance of the Buckeye Training site results in the longest alternative and brings the corridor closer to Flood Retarding Structure (FRS) #2 and Interstate 10. SEGMENT 2 ALTERNATIVE 2 Alternative 2 leaves the McDowell Road section line east of Turner Parkway and traverses through Arizona State Trust land along the north side of Tartesso. East of Tartesso, the alignment heads southeasterly through the Buckeye Training Site south of the existing buildings. It then follows the Van Buren Road alignment east from Miller Road for one mile and then turns northeasterly through Arizona State Trust land to the McDowell Road section line at Watson Road. East of Watson Road, Alternative 2, follows the section line to Dean Road. Issues include conflicts with mine shafts in the southern portion of the Buckeye Training Site and bisecting large portions of State land. Figure 28 Segment 2 – Alternative 1 Initial Evaluation Criteria Figure 29 Segment 2 – Alternative 2 Initial Notes Evaluation Right-of-Way Requirements Property Impacts (non jurisdictional) Buildings Affected 2 d / Minimal existing R/W Impacts Skyline West property Ownership Constraints (ASLD, BLM) d Bisects at least two sections of state land and impacts a large Constructability Engineering Complexity Environmental Issues Utility Conflicts Drainage 2 2 / 2 d Construction Cost 2 Challenging mountainous terrain Close proximity to FRS #2 and may require additional Potential conflicts with mine shafts Overhead electric crosses alignment in at least two places Very close to FRS #2 just west of Miller Road The longest alternative alignment and potential bridge near Public Acceptability d Safety 2 Compatibility with Roadway Network 2 Compatibility with Buckeye Training Site Regional Trail Access / / portion of BLM FRS #2 Very long route around the mountains and Buckeye Training Site Multiple horizontal curves Alignment is nearly parallel to Turner Parkway for a short period. Close proximity to I-10 Completely avoids the Buckeye Training Site Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Notes Right-of-Way Requirements Property Impacts (non jurisdictional) Buildings Affected Ownership Constraints (ASLD, BLM) 2 d 2 d Constructability 2 Engineering Complexity 2 Terrain creates additional need for drainage structures and Environmental Issues Utility Conflicts Drainage Construction Cost Public Acceptability Safety d / 2 2 / 2 Potential conflicts with mine shafts and sensitive species Fewer utility impacts crossing jurisdictional properties Crosses alluvial fans and floodplains Higher cost associated with mountainous terrain Compatibility with Roadway Network d Compatibility with Buckeye Training Site Regional Trail Access 2 / Minimal existing R/W Impacts Skyline West property Home just south and east of Military installation may be Bisects two large portions of state land Challenging mountainous terrain through Buckeye Military Reserve vertical alignment changes Possible conflicts with the Van Buren alignment and future Tartesso roadway on the south side of the Tartesso Bisects military land south of existing buildings Table 15 Segment 2 – Alternative 2 - Evaluation Table 14 Segment 2 – Alternative 1 – Evaluation / = Minimum Impact/High Performance 2 = Moderate Impact/Moderate Performance d = High Impact/Low Performance PPaaggee 2299 SEGMENT 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 Alternative 3 departs the McDowell Road section line east of Turner Parkway and turns southeasterly through Arizona State Trust land to follow along the south border of Tartesso between Ogelsby Road and Rooks Road. Just east of Ogelsby Road, the alignment turns southeasterly through the Buckeye Training Site and traverses mountainous terrain. It continues on this alignment until it passes the FRS #2 west of Miller Road. After which the alignment follows a northeasterly path across private land and Arizona State Land, thereby avoiding mountainous terrain, and connects to McDowell Road at Watson Road. Challenges include proximity to FRS #2 and Interstate 10. SEGMENT 2 ALTERNATIVE 4 Alternative 4 leaves the McDowell Road section line east of Turner Parkway and turns southeasterly through BLM and Buckeye Training Site land passing north of the existing building facilities on the training site. It then follows an easterly route until one-half mile past Miller Road. The alignment then turns south around a cluster of mountains and then heads northeasterly through Arizona State Trust land to the McDowell Road section line by Watson Road. East of Watson Road, Alternative 4, follows the section line to Dean Road. Figure 30 Segment 2 – Alternative 3 Initial Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Figure 31 Segment 2 – Alternative 4 Notes Right-of-Way Requirements Property Impacts (non jurisdictional) Buildings Affected Ownership Constraints (ASLD, BLM) Constructability 2 d / 2 2 Engineering Complexity 2 Environmental Issues 2 Utility Conflicts Drainage Construction Cost Public Acceptability Safety 2 d d 2 2 Site Overhead electric crosses alignment in at least two places Potential impacts to FRS #2 Long alignment and impacts to FRS #2 More impacts to private land Multiple horizontal and vertical curves Alignment is nearly parallel to Turner Parkway. Possible Compatibility with Roadway Network d conflicts with the Van Buren alignment planned on the south Compatibility with Buckeye Training Site Regional Trail Access 2 / Minimal existing R/W Impacts more private property Bisects large portions of state land and portions of BLM More complex construction near FRS #2 Alignment cuts through mountainous terrain and has numerous curves. Very close to FRS #2 west of Miller Road Potential conflicts with mine shafts within Buckeye Training side of the Tartesso development. Close proximity to I-10 Bisects military land south of existing buildings Initial Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Right-of-Way Requirements Property Impacts (non jurisdictional) Buildings Affected Ownership Constraints (ASLD, BLM) Constructability 2 d 2 d d Engineering Complexity 2 Environmental Issues Utility Conflicts Drainage Construction Cost Public Acceptability Safety Compatibility with Roadway Network d 2 2 2 / / 2 Compatibility with Buckeye Training Site d Regional Trail Access / Table 16 Segment 2 – Alternative 3 – Evaluation / = Minimum Impact/High Performance 2 = Moderate Impact/Moderate Performance Notes Minimal existing R/W Impacts Skyline West property Potential impacts to Buckeye Military Reserve buildings Bisects large portion of state land and BLM Challenging mountainous terrain Terrain creates additional need for drainage structures and large cuts and fills Potential conflicts with mine shafts and sensitive species Overhead electric crosses alignment in at least two places Crosses alluvial fans and floodplains Higher cost associated with cuts and fills Tartesso roadway network compatibility Facility is north of Buckey Training Site buildings and impacts troop movements Table 17 Segment 2 – Alternative 4 – Evaluation d = High Impact/Low Performance PPaaggee 3300 SEGMENT 2 ALTERNATIVE 5 SEGMENT 2 ALTERNATIVE 6 Alternative 5 is similar to Alternative 2 with the exception that it leaves the McDowell Road section line one mile east of Turner Parkway and turns southeasterly through BLM land where it joins the alignment described in Alternative 2. This alternative passes through BLM land instead of Arizona State Trust land west of the Buckeye Training Site. Alternative 6 follows the McDowell Road section line until east of Miller Road. This route traverses mountainous terrain and the Buckeye Training Site. The alignment then traverses the south around a large mountain through Arizona State Trust land. At this point it turns northeasterly through Arizona State Trust land until reaching the McDowell Road section line at Watson Road. This route affects a very large portion of State Trust land; however, this land is in very mountainous terrain which may be less desirable to develop than other sections of land. Creating a parkway alignment through this terrain requires large cuts and fills generating large amounts of earthwork and significant visual impacts. It also cuts across the northern portion of the Buckeye Training Site which will require underpasses to facilitate troop movement. Figure 33 Segment 2 – Alternative 6 Initial Figure 32 Segment 2 – Alternative 5 Evaluation Right-of-Way Requirements Property Impacts (non jurisdictional) Buildings Affected Ownership Constraints (ASLD, BLM) 2 d / 2 Constructability 2 Engineering Complexity Environmental Issues Utility Conflicts Drainage Construction Cost Public Acceptability Safety 2 d / 2 2 / / Compatibility with Roadway Network 2 Compatibility with Buckeye Training Site Regional Trail Access 2 / Evaluation Right-of-Way Requirements Property Impacts (non jurisdictional) Buildings Affected Ownership Constraints (ASLD, BLM) Constructability 2 2 / 2 d Bisects large portions of state land and small portion of BLM Challenging mountainous terrain through Buckeye Military Engineering Complexity d Reserve Terrain creates additional need for drainage structures Potential conflicts with mine shafts and sensitive species Fewer utility impacts crossing jurisdictional properties Crosses alluvial fans and floodplains Higher cost associated with cuts and fills Environmental Issues 2 Utility Conflicts Drainage / d Construction Cost d Public Acceptability Safety Compatibility with Roadway Network 2 2 / Compatibility with Buckeye Training Site 2 Regional Trail Access / Initial Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Notes Minimal existing R/W Impacts Skyline West property Possible conflicts with the Van Buren alignment planned on the south side of the Tartesso development Bisects military land south of existing buildings Table 18 Segment 2 – Alternative 5 – Evaluation / = Minimum Impact/High Performance 2 = Moderate Impact/Moderate Performance Notes Shorter alignment compared to others. Minimal available Impacts Skyline West property Fewer impacts to ASLD based on terrain, no impacts to BLM Extreme mountainous terrain Extreme vertical grades through mountainous terrain. Very large drainage structures required Potential impacts to sensitive species. Visual impacts associated with large cuts and fills. Minimal impacts to BLM Large number of crossings due to mountainous terrain Large amounts of earthwork through mountainous terrain and large number of drainage crossings Environmental and visual impacts to White Tank Mountains Sight distance may be compromised due to steep grades Facility is north of Buckeye Military Reserve buildings and may impact troop movements Table 19 Segment 2 – Alternative 6 – Evaluation d = High Impact/Low Performance PPaaggee 3311 SEGMENT 2 ALTERNATIVE 7 Alternative 7 follows the McDowell Road section line from Turner Parkway to Dean Road. This alignment appears to be the most logical alignment, but has several challenges including crossing the Buckeye Training Site and traversing very challenging mountainous terrain resulting in extremely steep grades. On the positive side, this alignment minimizes impact to Arizona State Trust land, BLM, and privately held lands. SEGMENT 2 ALTERNATIVE 8 there the alignment turns northeasterly through state land parcels avoiding privately owned land until it meets the Watson/McDowell intersection and follows the McDowell Road section line east to Dean Road. Alternative 8 turns south of the McDowell road section line 1.5 miles east of turner parkway, touches the corner of the Tartesso development and continues onto the Buckeye Training Site south of the existing building facilities. From Figure 34 Segment 2 – Alternative 7 Initial Initial Evaluation Criteria Figure 35 Segment 2 – Alternative 8 Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Notes Evaluation Right-of-Way Requirements 2 Notes Shorter alignment compared to others. Minimal available R/W Right-of-Way Requirements 2 Property Impacts (non jurisdictional) 2 Impacts Skyline West property, minimal impacts to other prop. Property Impacts (non jurisdictional) 2 Buildings Affected Ownership Constraints (ASLD, BLM) Constructability / / d Buildings Affected Ownership Constraints (ASLD, BLM) Constructability / d d Engineering Complexity d Engineering Complexity d Environmental Issues d Environmental Issues d Potential impacts to sensitive species. Visual impacts Utility Conflicts Drainage / d Utility Conflicts Drainage / d Construction Cost d Construction Cost d Fewer utility impacts crossing jurisdictional properties Large number of crossings due to mountainous terrain Large amounts of earthwork through mountainous terrain Public Acceptability Safety Compatibility with Roadway Network 2 2 / Compatibility with Buckeye Training Site 2 Facility is north of Buckeye Training Site buildings and may Public Acceptability Safety Compatibility with Roadway Network Compatibility with Buckeye Training Site Regional Trail Access d 2 / 2 / Regional Trail Access / No impact Minimal impacts to state land Extreme mountainous terrain Extreme vertical grades through mountainous terrain. Very large drainage structures required Potential impacts to sensitive species. Visual impacts associated with large cuts and fills Large number of crossings due to mountainous terrain Large amounts of earthwork through mountainous terrain and large number of drainage crossings Environmental and visual impacts to White Tank Mountains Sight distance may be compromised due to steep grades impact troop movements Minimal existing R/W Impacts Skyline West property, minimal impacts to other prop. Bisects very large portions of state land and BLM Extreme mountainous terrain Extreme vertical grades through mountainous terrain. Very large drainage structures required associated with large cuts and fills and large number of drainage crossings Environmental and visual impacts to White Tank Mountains Sight distance may be compromised due to steep grades Bisects military land south of existing buildings Table 21 Segment 2 – Alternative 8 – Evaluation Table 20 Segment 2 – Alternative 7 - Evaluation / = Minimum Impact/High Performance 2 = Moderate Impact/Moderate Performance d = High Impact/Low Performance PPaaggee 3322 SEGMENT 2 ALTERNATIVE 9 SEGMENT 2 ALTERNATIVE 10 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY (CIS) ALTERNATIVE Alternative 9 begins along the same route as Alternative 5 until one half mile east of Miller Road. At this point the alignment turns diagonally across privately owned land and continues across state land until the Watson/McDowell intersection at which point it follows the same alignment as previous alternatives. This alternative was originally recommended in the Final Access Control and Corridor Improvement Study for McDowell Road completed in 2003. It follows the McDowell Road alignment then turns southeasterly across the Buckeye Training Site. It follows to the north of a small range of mountains. It then continues east on the quartersection line through Arizona State Trust land and along the edge of private land until one mile past Watson Road. This alternative then continues northeasterly to Dean Road. Figure 37 Segment 2 – Alternative 10 Initial Figure 36 Segment 2 – Alternative 9 d / / 2 2 Engineering Complexity 2 Environmental Issues 2 Utility Conflicts Drainage 2 2 Construction Cost 2 Environmental and visual impacts to White Tank Mountains Public Acceptability Safety Compatibility with Roadway Network 2 / / Bisects military land south of existing buildings Compatibility with Buckeye Training Site d Regional Trail Access / Evaluation Right-of-Way Requirements Property Impacts (non jurisdictional) Buildings Affected Ownership Constraints (ASLD, BLM) Constructability 2 d / d 2 Engineering Complexity 2 Environmental Issues Utility Conflicts Drainage Construction Cost Public Acceptability Safety Compatibility with Roadway Network Compatibility with Buckeye Training Site Regional Trail Access d / d 2 d / / 2 / Evaluation Right-of-Way Requirements Property Impacts (non jurisdictional) Buildings Affected Ownership Constraints (ASLD, BLM) Constructability Initial Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Notes Minimal existing R/W Bisects privately owned developable land & Skyline West Bisects very large portions of state land and BLM Mountainous terrain Alignment through mountainous terrain. Very large drainage structures required Potential impacts to sensitive species and mine shafts Fewer utility impacts crossing jurisdictional properties Large number of crossings due to mountainous terrain Table 22 Segment 2 – Alternative 9 – Evaluation / = Minimum Impact/High Performance 2 = Moderate Impact/Moderate Performance Notes No existing R/W Impacts to state land Mountainous terrain Extreme vertical grades through mountainous terrain. Very large drainage structures required Potential impacts to sensitive species. Visual impacts associated with large cuts and fills Overhead electric crosses alignment in at least two places Large number of crossings due to mountainous terrain Large amounts of earthwork through mountainous terrain and large number of drainage crossings Environmental and visual impacts to White Tank Mountains Sight distance may be compromised due to steep grades Facility is north of Buckeye Training Site buildings and impacts troop movements Table 23 Segment 2 – Alternative 10 – Evaluation d = High Impact/Low Performance PPaaggee 3333 SEGMENT 2 ALTERNATIVE 11 Alternative 11 is a combination of Alternatives 5 and 10. Alternative 11 follows the alignment of Alternative 5 from Turner Parkway to one mile east of Miller Road. At this point the alignment turns northeasterly traversing Arizona State Trust land for one mile. From this point the alignment follows Alternative 10 to Dean Road. The relative shift of the alignment to the south as compared to Alternative 5 was a result of concerns brought up by a representative for the Skyline West Development during the TAC Meeting #3 held January 14, 2010. This shift allows the alignment to avoid bisecting the Skyline West development by traversing along the southern edge of the development SEGMENT 2 ALTERNATIVE 12 Alternative 12 is a combination of Alternatives 6 and 10 and was added into consideration after TAC Meeting #3. Alternative 12 follows the alignment of Alternative 6 from Turner Parkway to one mile east of Miler Road. From this point east, the alignment follows Alternative 10 to Dean Road. This alternative avoids bisecting the Skyline West Development by traversing along the southern boundary of the alignment; and it minimizes the adverse impacts to Arizona State Trust land by staying on the mid section line. While this route affects a large portion of Arizona State Trust land the alignment will create additional access, which may make the land more developable. Furthermore, this alignment will necessitate the northerly extension of Miller Road resulting in increased access to the surrounding land. The alignment cuts across the northern portion of the Buckeye Training Site, which will require underpasses to facilitate unhindered Figure 39 Segment 2 – Alternative 12 Initial Figure 38 Segment 2 – Alternative 11 Initial Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Right-of-Way Requirements Property Impacts (non jurisdictional) Buildings Affected Ownership Constraints (ASLD, BLM) d 2 / 2 Constructability 2 Engineering Complexity Environmental Issues Utility Conflicts Drainage Construction Cost Public Acceptability Safety Compatibility with Roadway Network Compatibility with Buckeye Training Site Regional Trail Access 2 2 / 2 2 / / / 2 / Notes No existing R/W Bisects large portions of state land and small portion of BLM Challenging mountainous terrain through Buckeye Training Site Terrain creates additional need for drainage structures Potential conflicts with mine shafts and sensitive species Fewer utility impacts crossing jurisdictional properties Crosses alluvial fans and floodplains Higher cost associated with cuts and fills Bisects military land south of existing buildings Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Right-of-Way Requirements Property Impacts (non jurisdictional) Buildings Affected Ownership Constraints (ASLD, BLM) Constructability d / / 2 d Engineering Complexity d Environmental Issues 2 Utility Conflicts Drainage / d Construction Cost d Public Acceptability Safety Compatibility with Roadway Network / 2 / Compatibility with Buckeye Training Site 2 Regional Trail Access / Table 24 Segment 2 – Alternative 11 – Evaluation / = Minimum Impact/High Performance 2 = Moderate Impact/Moderate Performance Notes Shorter alignment compared to others. Requires less R/W Impacts to ASLD based on terrain Extreme mountainous terrain Extreme vertical grades through mountainous terrain. Very large drainage structures required Potential impacts to sensitive species. Visual impacts associated with large cuts and fills. Large number of crossings due to mountainous terrain Large amounts of earthwork through mountainous terrain and large number of drainage crossings More direct alignment Sight distance may be compromised due to steep grades Facility is north of Buckeye Training Site buildings and impacts troop movements Table 25 Segment 2 – Alternative 12 – Evaluation d = High Impact/Low Performance PPaaggee 3344 EVALUATION OF INITIAL CANDIDATE ALTERNATIVES Evaluation of the Initial Candidate Alternatives consisted of quantitatively comparing the alternatives. Since there is only one alternative in Segment 1, (Segment 1 Alternative 1) that alternative is the preferred alternative. For Segment 2, Alternatives 5, 11, and 12 were compared. Each of the Candidate Alternatives for Segment 2 has various benefits and constraints as shown in the evaluation summary in Table 12. Costs associated with the Candidate Alternatives were estimated and are summarized in Table 26. Design Concepts Study, August 2009. Unit cost was assumed to be 30 percent more than the unit cost of a fully signalized intersection. ¾ Drainage cost was assumed to be a percentage of the total cost. Alternatives 5 and 11 were assumed to be the standard at 10 percent. Alternative 12 passes through the Buckeye Training Site resulting in a need for upsized drainage structures. Alternative 12 also traverses mountainous terrain. Therefore, an extra 5 percent was added to the base drainage cost. ANALYSIS OF INITIAL CANDIDATE ALTERNATIVES SEGMENT 1 ALTERNATIVE 1 This section of the alignment follows the existing roadway alignments – Tonopah Salome Highway to the west and McDowell Road to the east. Since the existing alignment was deemed to be the best option, no alternatives were studied for this segment. Even though this is one of the longer alternatives, it has the lowest associated cost. This alternative has fewer impacts to existing and planned developments. This alternative cuts across the Buckeye Training Site and passes to the south of the building facilities while staying north of the possible mine locations, thereby minimizing impacts to military operations. This alternative has fewer challenges associated with topography and geometric design. It also has minimal environmental and visual impacts to the study area. Alternative 11 is similar to Alternative 5 in all aspects except Alternative 11 does not bisect the skyline west development, along the McDowell Road section line between Watson Road and Dean Road. ¾ Roadway excavation was quantified based on average right-of-way width and lengths of the alternatives. Alternative 12 traverses mountainous terrain; therefore an additive factor of 15 percent was applied. ¾ Concrete sidewalk ramps were assumed at 1,000foot intervals. Alternatives 5 and 11 serve a relatively higher percentage of residential zones; therefore an additive factor of 5 percent was applied. SEGMENT 2 ALTERNATIVE 12 ¾ Signalized intersections were assumed at intersections between McDowell Parkway and arterial cross streets along section lines. Full intersections were assumed when traffic was anticipated in all directions. Unit cost was provided by MCDOT. o Three-legged Intersections were assumed when traffic was anticipated in three directions. A 20 percent reduction was applied to the unit cost of the full intersection. The locations and unit costs of the Parkway-to-Parkway Grade-Separated Interchanges were taken from the Arizona Parkway Intersection/Interchange Operational Analysis and Design Concepts Study, August 2009. Even though this is the longest alternative, it is not the most expensive. This alternative has fewer impacts to existing and planned developments. Although this alternative cuts across the Buckeye Training Site, it passes to the south of the building facilities while staying north of the possible mine locations, thereby minimizing impacts to military operations. This alternative has fewer challenges associated with topography and geometric design. It also has minimal environmental and visual impacts to the study area. SEGMENT 2 ALTERNATIVE 11 The following assumptions were used in the development of cost estimates: o SEGMENT 2 ALTERNATIVE 5 Table 26 Conceptual Cost Estimate This alternative is the shortest in length; however it costs approximately $15 million more than the lowest cost Candidate Alternative. This alternative provides for the most direct connection between the termini. However, the alignment passes thorough mountainous terrain resulting in high earthwork and structure related costs. Although this alternative does not disturb the integrity of the Buckeye Training Site, it may inhibit personnel and vehicular movements. Mitigation of this impact will likely lead to oversized drainage crossings resulting in higher costs associated with drainage. This alternative causes more environmental and visual impacts to the White Tank Mountains relative to other alternatives ¾ Locations of the Parkway-to-Parkway At-Grade Intersections were taken from the Arizona Parkway Intersection/Interchange Operational Analysis and PPaaggee 3355 CANDIDATE ALTERNATIVES The Preliminary Alternatives introduced previously were presented to the Technical Advisory Committee, the Town of Buckeye Council, and the public during an Open House informational meeting. Input from these and other meetings is summarized in the public input section of the report in Appendix F. Based on comments received at these meetings, the Final Candidate Alternatives were selected and are summarized below. WEST SEGMENT For purposes of this round of evaluation and the Final Report the alternatives are divided into a West Segment and an East Segment. The West Segment extends from 339th Avenue to approximately 1.5 miles east of Miller Road as shown in Figure 40. This portion of the alignment takes advantage of existing right-of-way on Tonopah Salome Highway, maximizes compatibility with planning by private developers, and takes either of two paths through the Buckeye Training Site creating varying levels of impact. difference between the two paths is their impact on the Skyline West property. The two options considered for this area are described below: ¾ Option A is defined as the alignment that follows the McDowell Road section line alignment between Watson Road and Dean Road. ¾ Option B is defined as the alignment that follows the Roosevelt Street alignment between Watson Road to west of the Flood Retarding Structure (FRS) near the east end of the study area. Just west of the FRS both Options join the existing McDowell Road alignment to cross the FRS and continue easterly to Dean Road. It was originally thought that Option B would only be feasible if a flood diversion structure and associated drainage channel improvements are constructed north of the Skyline West Development. The purpose of this proposed structure is to remove the area from the McDowell Road section line alignment south to the existing FRS from the existing Figure 41 East Segment – Options A & B EVALUATION OF CANDIDATE ALTERNATIVES By including Options A and B in the evaluation of the Candidate Alternatives, Alternatives 5 and 11 can be combined since they follow the same alignment from Turner Parkway to one-half mile west of Watson Road. By combining the alternatives, the study team was able to eliminate Alternative 11 from consideration since Alternative 5 now includes all of the same alignment options. Alignment Options A and B will be included in the comparative analysis and evaluation for both Alternative 5 and Alternative 12. Figure 42 shows both of the remaining alignment alternatives (Alternative 5 and Alternative 12). Before a second evaluation, Candidate Alternatives 5 and 12 were examined more closely and refined to eliminate unnecessary impacts. For example; Alternative 12 was modified to travel around a peak in the White Tank Mountains to eliminate large amounts of earthwork. Alternative 5 was smoothed and shifted in the area entering and passing through the Buckeye Training Site to eliminate mountains and to avoid traversing the northeast corner of the Tartesso development. At the request of ASLD, Option B was shifted to the southeast in the diagonally northeast Figure 40 West Segment EAST SEGMENT The East Segment extends from the eastern terminus of the West Segment to the Dean Road alignment. Candidate Alternatives 5 and 11 previously presented followed similar alignments with the exception of the area west of Watson Road to Dean Road. The alternatives in this segment follow one of two paths, shown in Figure 41 as Option A and Option B. Alternative 5 followed Option A, while Alternatives 11 & 12 followed Option B. The primary floodplain. However, upon further discussion with the TAC this assertion was determined to be an overstatement. Both Option A and Option B will be feasible alternatives. Representatives of Skyline West, the Town of Buckeye, and Arizona State Land Department have been engaged in discussions regarding the alternative alignments (Options A and B). Based on the impacts to developable property, all have indicated a preference for Option B. Figure 42 Segment 2 – Candidate Alternatives 5 and 12 PPaaggee 3366 portion to avoid leaving remnant parcels of State Trust land. The adjustment to the alignment left the undesirable condition of the bridge over FRS #3 on a curve. ASLD understands that this graphic representation is preliminary and during final engineering design changes to the alignment may be made in order to meet all design standards. To evaluate the Candidate Alternatives to determine a Detailed Preferred Alignment, the previous evaluation criteria were refined to be more quantitative. Specifically, where a numerical value can be used to differentiate one alternative from another, the value of the impact was used to determine the level of impact to the resource. In cases where a quantitative measure was not possible a comparative analysis based on perceived impacts was used. Where previously defined criteria were found to have no comparative difference in the screening of the Candidate Alternatives, they were not included in the final evaluation. Evaluation of the alternatives included developing preliminary horizontal and vertical alignments for the remaining Candidate Alternatives (5 and 12). The study team used roadway design software to assess the extent of the impacts associated with each alignment as follows: ¾ Developed preliminary horizontal and vertical alignments and a template of the typical cross section for an 8-lane Arizona Parkway was applied to the entire alignment. ¾ Measured areas of required right-of-way based on the slope impacts associated with the alignment alternatives. The standard 200-foot right-of-way corridor was assumed and additional right-of-way requirements at areas of large cuts and fills, intersections, and grade separations were included. ¾ Measured the area of impact to private and jurisdictional properties based on the required right-of-way ¾ Created conceptual cost estimates for each alternative, including Options A and B. Table 27 summarizes the quantitative, where possible, analysis of each of the remaining candidate alternatives. The measure of the impacts associated with each are defined as follows: / Low Impact – High Performance 2 Moderate Impact – Moderate Performance d High Impact – Low Performance Table 27 Candidate Alternatives Evaluation PPaaggee 3377 DETAILED PREFERRED ALIGNMENT for maintenance activities. For this reason, McDowell Parkway will have to be elevated above the FRS. If FCDMC requires underpass access along the FRS, the structure will have to be elevated another 20 feet above the top of the structure. There may be a possibility that FCDMC will allow the roadway to pass over the structure at the same grade as the top of the FRS. Future discussions will need to take place with FCDMC to determine the appropriate crossing method and geometry at this location. Based on input received from the Technical Advisory Committee, the Town of Buckeye Council, the public, and detailed analysis of both of the remaining alternatives, it has been determined that Alternative 5/Option B best meets the goals and objectives of the McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study for the following reasons: ¾ Fewer right-of-way impacts. ¾ Relative ease of construction. ¾ Lower capital cost. ¾ Fewer environmental impacts. ¾ Fewer significant drainage structures. ¾ More compatible with military operations at the Buckeye Training Site. ¾ More favorable to the public. ¾ Creates better access to publicly and privately owned land. DESIGN FEATURES OF THE DETAILED PREFERRED ALIGNMENT Preliminary plans for the Detailed Preferred Alignment are provided at the end of this report The basis of the design is consistent with the recommendations identified for McDowell Parkway in the Arizona Parkway Intersection/Interchange Operational Analysis and Design Concepts Study (Design Concepts Study), August 2009. This study identifies the locations of additional intersecting parkways and roadways with McDowell Parkway. The parkway-to-parkway intersections include: ¾ Hidden Waters Parkway ¾ Sun Valley Parkway ¾ Turner Parkway ¾ Watson Parkway The intersection of McDowell Parkway with Hidden Waters Parkway and Watson Parkway will be at-grade intersections and the layout of these intersections will be as Figure 43 Preferred Alignment outlined in the Design Concepts Study. The intersections of McDowell Parkway with Sun Valley Parkway and Turner Parkway will be grade-separated. Grade-separated intersections will require at least 15 acres of right-of-way in addition to the 200-foot parkway corridor right-of-way. PRELIMINARY DESIGN AREAS OF CONCERN During the preliminary design of the Detailed Preferred Alignment, the study team identified several areas that may need further study to determine the extent of the impact: Power Sub-Station Conflict. Near the far west end of the corridor at approximately station 110+00 of the plans, there is a small APS power substation located on the Indian School Road section line alignment. To avoid this conflict, the alignment of McDowell Parkway was shifted slightly to the south of the Indian School Road section line. This shift affects the location of the intersection with Hidden Waters Parkway. Future study will be needed to determine the tie-in location of the McDowell Parkway alignment to the east with the Indian School Road alignment to the west. Hassayampa River Crossing. The McDowell Parkway crossing of the Hassayampa River will require a bridge to span the 100-year floodplain. At this time, the study team has estimated the limits of the future bridge based on the floodplain limits and existing topography. The Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) is currently in the process of preparing the Lower Hassayampa River Watercourse Master Plan (Study). The Study will develop recommendations for future bridged crossings of the Hassayampa River. The McDowell Parkway crossing will be included in the Study and future development of the corridor will need to reflect the Study’s recommendations. Residential Impact at Sun Valley Parkway. In the southwest quadrant of the McDowell Parkway and Sun Valley Parkway intersection, there is an existing residential property that is in nearly unavoidable conflict with the location of the future grade-separated intersection. As the corridor develops, it will be necessary to engage this property owner in conversations and inform them of the process required for future acquisition of the property for roadway right-of-way. Potential Power Line Tower Conflict. At approximate station 584+00 there are two high-voltage power line towers located along the Parker Liberty Power Line Road. It may be possible to realign McDowell Parkway to avoid this conflict. However, McDowell Parkway in this area is bounded by the Tartesso developments and coordination will be required to determine an acceptable alignment. Additionally, there is a planned roadway within the Tartesso Master Plan to the east of this location and coordination with this intersection will be required. Future studies will need to further define the location and right-of-way for McDowell Parkway in this area to avoid the towers. Structure Over Flood Retarding Structure #3. At the east end of the corridor McDowell Parkway intersects Flood Retarding Structure #3 (FRS). Because this structure exists for flood retention purposes, it cannot be impacted by the roadway construction. Additionally, it is likely that the FCDMC will require continuous access along the structure If the future flood retention structure is constructed, there may be a possibility that FRS#3 can be eliminated. However, substantial study will have to be completed to determine the feasibility of this option. If it is found to be feasible, this will substantially reduce the cost of crossing the FRS and may eliminate the need for a bridge. Tie-in to Dean Road. Development east of FRS#3 to Dean Road has already begun. The developer of Sienna Hills on the north side of existing McDowell Road has dedicated right-of-way 51.5’ north of the centerline on McDowell Road in front of Sienna Hills and has constructed improvements on McDowell Road from the western boundary of Sienna Hills to Verrado Way. The approved McDowell Road improvement plans in front of Sienna Hills provide for a 6’bike lane, 12’ outer travel lane, a 14’ inner travel lane, and a 39’ median. Preliminary drawings for a crossing of FRS #3 were prepared in February 2006 and were submitted to the Town of Buckeye. The profile design allowed for less than 8-feet of clearance between the top of FRS #3 to the finished surface of the road. If FCDMC requires underpass access along the FRS #3, additional clearance would be required and the tie in location of the McDowell Parkway alignment may need to be shifted to the east in order to provide a profile that meets all standards. As currently planned and designed an existing 103’ of right-of-way would be available at the proposed tie-in point. Although there are currently no homes under construction in this location, the plans in the area only included sufficient right-of-way for an arterial roadway. Future study will need to determine the appropriate transition of the parkway facility to an arterial or agreements with impacted development will need to be reached to secure the 200-foot right-of-way to extend the parkway to Dean Road and beyond. Additional Right-of-Way Requirements. The Arizona Parkway corridor requires a 200-foot right-of-way corridor. PPaaggee 3388 Additional right of way will be required to accommodate auxiliary lanes, bus bays, intersections and other corridor features. The preliminary design shows areas of cut and fill slopes associated with the construction of the roadway. These areas may require additional right-of-way, slope easements, or retaining walls to remain within the planned right-of-way. Future design and development of the corridor will need to consider these areas and plan for the construction of the needed roadway template. Mine Sites. As noted in the Environmental Summary portion of this report, AGFD expressed concern that the close proximity of the proposed alignment will disrupt foraging and reproductive activities of the California Leafnosed bat which combined could result in negative impacts on the number of bats and/or abandonment of mine sites. AGFD recommends further evaluation of the proposed alternatives for the East segment. They prefer Alternative 3.to avoid direct and indirect impacts to the two mine sites and area wildlife. They also suggest creating a buffer around these mine sites and other mine sites that might be impacted by the future parkway to avoid disturbance of natural vegetation and topography and to minimize artificial lighting along the buffer. Drainage Structures. The locations of the major wash crossings were identified to determine where culvert crossings are required. Table 28 shows the locations and associated 100-year flow rates. During the design of McDowell Parkway detailed drainage reports will be required to determine to final sizes, locations, and requirements for each crossing. These areas may require additional right-of-way or easements to accommodate the drainage-related improvements. Detailed Preferred Alignment Station 100-year Flow (CFS) 113+00 181+00 Hassayampa River 260+00 291+78 305+00 356+00 375+00 453+00 493+00 509+37 536+00 551+00 569+00 582+00 619+00 632+00 653+00 678+00 710+00 726+00 751+00 763+00 781+00 817+00 838+00 851+19 921+16 3,800 2,100 74,970 4,422 1,212 1,566 705 3,004 2,392 151 2,347 175 582 407 1,455 842 915 740 110 100 1,239 1,721 430 683 683 526 2,573 645 CONCEPTUAL-LEVEL COST ESTIMATE Preliminary planning-level costs associated with the recommended alignment were developed. Table 29 summarizes these costs. Table 28 Required Major Drainage Crossings Table 29 Conceptual Level Cost Estimate for Detailed Preferred Alignment PPaaggee 3399 STANDARD CROSS SECTION Criteria Urban ELEMENTS OF DESIGN DESIGN VEHICLE The typical section for McDowell Parkway is consistent with the Arizona Parkway urban 8-lane section based on the recommendation in Arizona Parkway Intersection/Interchange Operational Analysis and Design Concepts Study, August 2009 and as shown in Figure 44. The cross section for the McDowell Parkway will ultimately consist of 4 travel lanes in each direction. The minimum median width of 50 feet is required to accommodate u-turns by a WB-50 design vehicle. Minimum Median Width 50’ for WB-50 design vehicle into 4th lane The WB-50 is the recommended minimum design vehicle for intersections and median openings. Lane Width 12’ (exclusive of gutters/curbs); 11’ minimum A Parkway facility is a principal arterial with the indirect left-turn intersection treatment implemented on a corridorwide basis. Many of the design elements (design speed, design vehicle, etc.) recommended for the Parkway match the current practices for arterials. DESIGN CRITERIA The design criteria to be used for the development of McDowell Parkway shall be in accordance with the Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway, August, 2008. This report includes direct excerpts from this document and should be used during the next phases of study and design of McDowell Parkway. Table 30 Shoulder Width Inside shoulder width is 2’ (including gutter) while the outside shoulder width is 6’ (including gutter) Edge Treatment Curb and gutter per MAG Detail 220-1, Type A; single curb allowable along median Right-of-Way 200’ minimum Table 30 Cross-Sectional Summary DESIGN SPEED The selection of a design speed typically depends on the facility classification and terrain through which the facility traverses. The design speed then dictates a number of geometric design parameters including, but not limited to, stopping sight distance, intersection sight distance, horizontal and vertical curvature, and taper rates. The design speed recommended for McDowell Parkway is a minimum of 50 miles per hour and a desirable design speed of 55 miles per hour. The general design speed guidelines for parkways are shown in Table 31. Terrain Urban Level 55 mph Rolling 50 mph SUPERELEVATION In urban areas, a maximum superelevation rate of 4 percent is recommended. McDowell Parkway is currently planned as an urban facility and will use 4 percent. CLEAR ZONE The clear zone, or roadside recovery area, should be determined based on design speed, traffic volume and side slopes in accordance with the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide. The most current edition should be used for future studies and design of McDowell Parkway. SIGHT DISTANCES Sufficient sight distance should be provided at the intersections as well as the directional crossovers (u-turn locations) in accordance with the current AASHTO publication A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets – “Green Book”. Table 31 Minimum Design Speeds Figure 44 Typical Section summarizes the recommended cross-sectional design elements discussed above. For the preliminary design of the McDowell Parkway Corridor, the study team has assumed the most desirable condition consisting of the highest recommended criteria. During future studies and design of the corridor, the detailed requirements for McDowell Parkway may be reduced below the criteria listed herein. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS IN RESTRICTED SITUATIONS The portion of McDowell Parkway located within the Buckeye Training Site may be considered for future reduction of the cross-sectional width. Since this area will only have one intersecting roadway (Miller Road) on the east boundary of the site, the remaining area within the site may be reduced to save future costs and reduce the impact to military property and operations. Additional right-of-way and/or easements may be needed for turn lanes; bus bays; drainage structures and drainage facilities; and for side slopes, or utilities. The standard minimum roadway right-of-way corridor should be 200 feet. The primary cross-sectional element dictating the right-of-way required is the median width. The median widths shown in Table 31 (Minimum Median Widths) will accommodate a WB-50 design vehicle. PPaaggee 4400 ACCESS MANAGEMENT The following access management guidelines should be considered as a minimum and may be supplemented or superseded by the guidelines and policies of the controlling jurisdiction of McDowell Parkway: ¾ A divided cross-section with a 50-foot typical median (exclusive of turn lanes). ¾ U-turn directional crossovers restricted to a maximum of eight per mile. ¾ Left turns in any direction are prohibited at all intersections (full median breaks). ¾ Left turns from a side street or driveway onto the Parkway are prohibited. ¾ Left turns from the Parkway to a side street or driveway are discouraged due to conflicts between u-turns and right turns. However, this can be accommodated by aligning the u-turn crossover with the side-street or driveway in order to facilitate left turns and u-turns... ¾ Intersections (full median breaks) preferably restricted to one-mile spacing and a minimum spacing of one half-mile. ¾ No on-street parking. During an interim stage when the indirect left-turn is not fully implemented, direct left-turns may be allowed. MEDIAN OPENING AND DIRECTIONAL CROSSOVER SPACING Full median openings are only recommended at intersections with parkway, arterial or major collector streets. Left turns will not be allowed at the full median breaks. All full median breaks will be signalized, based on MUTCD warrants. The recommended full median opening spacing is one mile while the minimum spacing is one-half mile. The recommended offset from the cross-street centerline to the first directional crossover is 660 feet (±100’) downstream of a major intersection. In an urban area 660foot (±100’) spacing is recommended along the corridor. It is undesirable to align public side streets or driveways with the crossovers due to the vehicle conflicts between the right turns (onto McDowell Parkway) and the u-turns. However, in some situations, crossovers can coincide with a public side-street or a driveway to allow inbound left turns (from Parkway to driveway or side street) and u-turns. If allowed, the approach of the side street or driveway should be blocked by the median on the parkway, thus encouraging drivers to turn right, and right-turn channelization (raised median) should be installed on the approach. A directional crossover can be located immediately upstream of a major/signalized intersection. A crossover allows some traffic to make a u-turn maneuver prior to entering the major intersection and therefore removes that traffic from passing through the intersection twice (once prior to the uturn and once after the u-turn). However, a crossover in this location creates additional conflicts with right-turn traffic from the cross street. Crossovers in these locations should be considered when warranted by site-specific conditions. A crossover in this location is discouraged when driveways exist or are planned on the receiving side of the roadway. DRIVEWAY SPACING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN For a low-volume driveway, a 165-foot minimum spacing (from centerline to centerline) is recommended. For a highvolume driveway, a 330-foot minimum spacing (from centerline to centerline) is recommended. The typical driveway will be limited to right-in/right-out maneuvers. Planning, design, and construction of the McDowell Parkway corridor will be driven by development of the adjacent lands. As development occurs it is anticipated that the need for the new parkway will be driven by the traffic demand associated with the trips generated. It is difficult to determine where along the alignment that the development will occur first. However, the Tartesso Development is further along in the planning stages than areas to the east. If the area west of Turner Parkway develops sooner, a connection from Sun Valley Parkway east to Dean Road will be needed. CORNER CLEARANCES Upstream of a signalized intersection, the recommended corner clearance is 115 feet from the edge of the cross street to the edge of the first right-in/right-out driveway. Downstream of a signalized intersection, the recommended corner clearance is 230 feet from the edge of the cross street to the edge of the first right-in/right-out driveway. It is recommended that access connections be located directly opposite or downstream from a directional crossover. Driveway access should be located a minimum of 75 feet upstream of the crossover to discourage wrong way maneuvers. It is anticipated that as these areas develop, dedications will be granted for the right-of-way for McDowell Parkway. While development of a funding plan is outside of the scope of this corridor feasibility study, it is possible that private developers may be able to provide a portion of the funding. However, in areas of public, military, and jurisdictional lands, public funding for right-of-way and construction will be needed. Construction of the corridor will be phased over time and should be completed as outlined in Section 9 of the Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway, August 2008. PPaaggee 4411 PREFERRED ALIGNMENT DRAWINGS PPaaggee 4422