City of Kingman Stockton Hill Road Corridor Study Appendices May 2014 APPENDICES - TABLE OF CONTENTS Appendix A – Prioritized Capital Improvements ................................................................... 1 Appendix B – Technical Information for Micro-Level Intersection Analysis ........................ 4 Appendix C – Supplemental Traffic Information ..................................................................12 Appendix D – Land Use Policy ...............................................................................................22 Appendix E – Potential Funding Sources ..............................................................................30 Appendix F – Access Management Case Studies ...............................................................34 Appendix G – Preliminary Environmental Review ................................................................38 Appendix H – Planning and Environmental Linkages Questionnaire and Checklist.........42 Appendices - i APPENDICES - TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1: Airway Avenue Improvement Option 1 (In Synchro Model)..................................5 Figure 2: Airway Avenue Improvement Option 2 (In Synchro Model)..................................7 Figure 3: Existing Midday Timing – Stockton Hill Road and Airway Avenue .........................8 Figure 4: Existing Midday Timing – Stockton Hill Road and Airway Avenue .........................9 Figure 5: Flashing Yellow Arrow Signal ...................................................................................14 Figure 6: Example Pedestrian Signage for HAWK Signal ......................................................17 Figure 7: Typical HAWK Signal Operation .............................................................................17 Figure 8: Ideal Office Site Criteria ..........................................................................................24 Figure 9: Ideal Entertainment/ Retail Site Criteria.................................................................25 Figure 10: Ideal Mixed-Use Commercial Site Criteria ...........................................................26 Figure 11: Ideal Mixed-Use Residential Site Criteria ..............................................................27 Figure 12: Preliminary Mixed-Use Target Areas .....................................................................28 Appendices - ii APPENDICES - TABLE OF TABLES Table 1: Left-turn Warrant Analysis – Stockton Hill Road Intersections ..................................5 Table 2: Synchro Capacity Analysis - Airway Avenue Improvement Option 1 ...................6 Table 3: Synchro Capacity Analysis - Airway Avenue Improvement Option 2 ...................8 Table 4: Preliminary Cost Estimate - Airway Avenue Improvement Option #1 ...................9 Table 5: Preliminary Cost Estimate - Airway Avenue Improvement Option #2 .................10 Table 6: Synchro Capacity Analysis – Detroit Avenue Eastbound Left Turn.......................11 Table 7: Left-turn Warrant Analysis – Stockton Hill Road Intersections ................................13 Table 8: Flashing Yellow Arrow Left Turn Signal – Arizona Intersections ..............................15 Table 9: Arizona HAWK Signal Installations............................................................................16 Table 10: Pedestrian Clear Time ............................................................................................18 Table 11: Updated Intersection Coordinated Signal Timing Parameters ...........................19 Table 12: Corridor Segment LOS (3.5 ft/s walk time) – AM Period Northbound .................19 Table 13: Corridor Segment LOS (3.5 ft/s walk time) – AM Period Southbound.................19 Table 14: Corridor Segment LOS (3.5 ft/s walk time) – Midday Period Northbound..........20 Table 15: Corridor Segment LOS (3.5 ft/s walk time) – Midday Period Southbound .........20 Table 16: Corridor Segment LOS (3.5 ft/s walk time) – PM Period Northbound .................20 Table 17: Corridor Segment LOS (3.5 ft/s walk time) – PM Period Southbound .................21 Table 18: Summary of Case Studies ......................................................................................35 Table 19: Elderly Population ...................................................................................................39 Table 20: Minority Population.................................................................................................40 Table 21: Disabled Population ...............................................................................................40 Table 22: Population Below Poverty Level ............................................................................40 Table 23: Special Status Species and Critical Habitats near Study Area ...........................41 Appendices - iii APPENDIX A – PRIORITIZED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Appendices -1 A. PRIORITIZED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS The following is a list of capital improvements that are recommended as a result of the Stockton Hill Road Corridor Study. Items represent only recommended physical roadway improvements, and do not include other items such as recommended policy changes. Included improvements have been prioritized based on their effectiveness in improving safety and mobility conditions within the corridor, and recommended project phasing. It is important to note that this list is intended only for reference, and that coordination of the listed items with the other recommendations described in Section 6.0 is essential in order for projects to be successful. In addition, access control recommendations for driveway closures, driveway combinations, and thru-access improvements were omitted from this reference list. Driveway and thru-access improvements to private property will require substantial coordination with individual property owners, and the exact sequencing of the improvements should result from a comprehensive corridor access control plan, as recommended in Section 6.0. 1. Traffic Signal Timing - Optimize traffic signal timing on Stockton Hill Road Intersections - Verify operational effectiveness of existing signal control hardware - Signal programming should proportion “green time” based on demand, in way that does not disrupt pedestrian signal crosswalk timing 2. Traffic Signal Interconnect System - Installation of traffic signal interconnect system to maintain signal coordination - Minimize disruptions in downstream and upstream traffic flow 3. Pedestrian Crossing at Kingman Regional Medical Center - Construction of midblock pedestrian crossing of Stockton Hill Road, between Sycamore Avenue and Beverly Avenue 4. Median Improvement – Access Control Location #1 - Installation of left turn bay / channelization for southbound Stockton Hill Road traffic, between Detroit Avenue and I-40 - Property east of improvement currently has no left turn access due to existing median - Improvement would not cause traffic conflicts with I-40 off ramps 5. Median Improvement – Access Control Location #11 - Installation of raised median / left turn channelization for northbound and southbound Stockton Hill Road traffic at Hillcrest Drive intersection, before Kino Avenue and Gordon Drive - Would ease north and southbound left turn movements, and reduce vehicle conflicts 6. ITS System Installation - Develop and implement corridor ITS system Appendices -2 - System should be optimized to compliment limitations of signal optimization - System should include GPS Clock Receivers, Interconnect system with central control, and adaptive signal control 7. Intersection Improvement – Stockton Hill Road & Airway Avenue - Implementation of preferred design configuration detailed in Section 4.2.2 - Improvements would improve intersection performance and reduce queuing 8. Intersection Improvement – Beverly Avenue Intersection Improvements - Implementation of preferred concept detailed in Section 4.2.4 - Improvements would improve intersection performance and reduce queuing 9. Non-motorized Improvement – Western Avenue and Glen Road - Construction of sidewalks and bicycle lanes along Western Avenue and Glen Road - Improvements would increase non-motorized mobility along Stockton Hill Road corridor - Construction recommended to be coordinated with adjacent roadway projects 10. Non-motorized Improvement – Airway Avenue, Sycamore Avenue, Beverly Avenue, and Burbank Street/ Fairgrounds Avenue - Construction of sidewalks along Airway Avenue, Sycamore Avenue, Beverly Avenue, and Burbank Street/ Fairgrounds Avenue - Improvements would increase non-motorized mobility along Stockton Hill Road corridor - Construction recommended to be coordinated with adjacent roadway projects 11. Non-motorized Improvement – Burbank Street/ Fairgrounds Avenue, Harrison Street/ Willow Road, Sycamore Avenue, and Airway Avenue - Construction of sidewalks along Burbank Street/ Fairgrounds Avenue, Harrison Street/ Willow Road, Sycamore Avenue, and Airway Avenue - Improvements would increase non-motorized mobility along Stockton Hill Road corridor - Construction recommended to be coordinated with adjacent roadway projects Appendices -3 APPENDIX B – TECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR MICRO-LEVEL INTERSECTION ANALYSIS Appendices -4 B. TECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR MICRO-LEVEL INTERSECTION ANALYSIS This section includes the technical information used for the Micro-level Intersection Analysis detailed in Section 4.2.2. Table 1 presents existing AM, Midday and PM intersection LOS for the Stockton Hill Road intersections included in the Micro-analysis. It indicates the need for improvements at the Airway Avenue intersection, which operates at AM and Midday LOS of “E” and “F” respectively. However, the Midday performance of the Airway Avenue intersection could be improved to LOS D with delay of 43.0 seconds, if recommended geometry and signal timing improvements are implemented. Table 1: Left-turn Warrant Analysis – Stockton Hill Road Intersections AM Intersection B.1. Midday PM LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Stockton Hill Road Detroit Avenue B 17.1 B 17.1 B 18.2 Stockton Hill Road Airway Avenue E 57.7 F 114.3 D 49.9 Stockton Hill Road Gordon Drive B 15.6 B 11.6 B 13.3 Stockton Hill Road and Airway Avenue Intersection Figure 1: Airway Avenue Improvement Option 1 (In Synchro Model) Appendices -5 Table 2: Synchro Capacity Analysis - Airway Avenue Improvement Option 1 Appendices -6 Figure 2: Airway Avenue Improvement Option 2 (In Synchro Model) Appendices -7 Table 3: Synchro Capacity Analysis - Airway Avenue Improvement Option 2 Optimized signal timings suggested for Improved Airway Avenue Intersection - 130 second cycle length for the coordination timing plan (Midday). - Two more phases are need for eastbound and westbound left turns. - The previous split phasing for eastbound and westbound approaches need to be changed to the lag left. Figure 3: Existing Midday Timing – Stockton Hill Road and Airway Avenue Appendices -8 Figure 4: Existing Midday Timing – Stockton Hill Road and Airway Avenue Preliminary Engineering Cost Estimates for Airway Avenue Improvement Options Table 4: Preliminary Cost Estimate - Airway Avenue Improvement Option #1 Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Relocate Signal Pole EA $20,000 2 $40,000 Remove Sidewalk & Pavement SF $3 10,480 $31,440 Remove Curb/Gutter LF $5 1,300 $6,500 Pavement SF $6 11,485 $68,910 Median Pavement SF $5 2,380 $11,900 Sidewalk SF $5 5,300 $26,500 Curb/Gutter LF $15 1,825 $27,375 Site Grading SF $5 18,900 $94,500 Signing/Striping LF $5 1,735 $8,675 Relocate Catch Basin EA $3,000 2 $6,000 Relocate Fire Hydrant EA $2,000 2 $4,000 Relocate Power Pole EA $10,000 1 $10,000 Subtotal $335,800 Traffic Control 25% $83,950 Contingency 10% $33,580 Design/Construction Engineering 10% $33,580 Construction Cost $486,910 Right-of-way/Easement SF $2 5,870 $11,740 Total Project Cost $498,650 Appendices -9 Table 5: Preliminary Cost Estimate - Airway Avenue Improvement Option #2 Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Relocate Signal Pole EA $20,000 2 $40,000 Remove Sidewalk & Pavement SF $3 8,255 $24,765 Remove Curb/Gutter LF $5 910 $4,550 Pavement SF $6 9,420 $56,520 Median Pavement SF $5 1,955 $9,775 Sidewalk SF $5 4,300 $21,500 Curb/Gutter LF $15 1,620 $24,300 Site Grading SF $5 15,390 $76,950 Signing/Striping LF $5 1,625 $8,125 Relocate Catch Basin EA $3,000 2 $6,000 Relocate Fire Hydrant EA $2,000 2 $4,000 Subtotal $276,485 Traffic Control 25% $69,121 Contingency 10% $27,649 Design/Construction Engineering 10% $27,649 Construction Cost $400,903 Right-of-way/Easement SF $2 3,280 $6,560 Total Project Cost $407,463 Appendices -10 B.2. Stockton Hill Road and Detroit Avenue Intersection Table 6: Synchro Capacity Analysis – Detroit Avenue Eastbound Left Turn Appendices -11 APPENDIX C – SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC INFORMATION Appendices -12 C. SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC INFORMATION C.1. Left-turn Traffic Signal – Warrant Analysis A left-turn signal phasing warrant study was performed on the Stockton Hill Road corridor using ADOT Standards. These standards take in account Traffic Volumes, Stopped-time Delays, and Crash Experience to determine if any approaches at an intersection would possibly warrant left-turn phasing. Once it is determined that an approach may warrant left-turn phasing, a series of requirements are evaluated (stated in Section 612 of ADOT Traffic Standards) to choose which type of phasing should be used. The three types of phasing ADOT provides are protected/permitted, protected, and split. The intersections of Stockton Hill Road with Detroit Avenue, The Kingman Regional Medical Center, Sycamore Avenue, and Airway Avenue were included in the analysis. Table 7 summarizes which warrants were met for each approach of each intersection analyzed. Table 7: Left-turn Warrant Analysis – Stockton Hill Road Intersections Stockton Hill Road Intersection Airway Ave Sycamore Ave KRMC Northbound Stopped-time Delay, Crash Experience Warrants Met Southbound Eastbound Traffic Volume, Stopped-time Delay, Crash Experience Traffic Volume, Crash Experience Traffic Volume, Crash Experience Detroit Ave Appendices -13 Stopped-time Delay Westbound Stopped-time Delay Stopped-time Delay C.2. Flashing Yellow Arrow Left Turn Signal The new “Flashing Yellow Arrow” signal has been adopted by the FHWA and is being applied throughout the US due to its benefits in safety and versatility. The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NHCRP) released Report 493, which details research performed to evaluate flashing yellow arrows. Their conclusions were that a flashing yellow turn arrow is easily understood by drivers, reduced left turning vehicle collisions, and allows left turn phasing to be varied by time of day. The typical position and arrangements of signal faces for Flashing Yellow Arrow Left Turn are displayed in Figure 5. Figure 5: Flashing Yellow Arrow Signal Source: MUTCD 2009 Edition, Section 4-20, Figure 4D-12 on Page 473. To implement the flashing yellow arrow left turn, four signal faces must be used for each left turn movement that will utilize this phasing. These four signal faces consist of steady left –turn Red Arrow, steady left –turn Yellow Arrow, flashing left-turn Yellow Arrow and left-turn Green Arrow. The flashing left-turn Yellow Arrow may not be the same signal as the steady left-turn Yellow Arrow. According to the MUTCD 2009 Edition, the signal phasing for lead and lag protected left turns are as follows: If permissive left turn follows protected left turn, the signal indication sequence should be: Green Arrow Steady Yellow Arrow Flashing Yellow Arrow Steady Yellow Arrow Red Arrow. Appendices -14 If permissive left turn changes to protected left turn, the signal indication sequence should be: Flashing Yellow Arrow Green Arrow Steady Yellow Arrow Red Arrow. The flashing yellow arrow for a permissive left turn is allowed when the adjacent through phase is circular red and opposing left turn is green arrow. Several cities in Arizona have installed the Flashing Yellow Arrow Left Turn signal. The major intersections where similar signals have been installed are listed in Table 8. Table 8: Flashing Yellow Arrow Left Turn Signal – Arizona Intersections Intersection Approach Jurisdiction Raintree Drive/ Northsight Northbound and City of Scottsdale Boulevard Southbound Left turns Northbound and 68th Street/ McDowell Road City of Scottsdale Southbound Left turns Installation Year October 2008 October 2008 Loop 202 San Tan Freeway Eastbound/ Dobson Road Southbound Left turn City of Chandler October 2010 Loop 202 San Tan Freeway Westbound/ San Tan Village Parkway Northbound Left turn Town of Gilbert February 2012 According to the City of Scottsdale website1, the flashing yellow arrow signals were beneficial for intersections where they were installed (Table 8). The flashing yellow arrow signals were credited with improved safety conditions at both intersections, as both locations have witnessed a significant reduction in left-turn collisions since installation. C.3. Midblock Pedestrian Crossing – HAWK Signal As discussed in Section 4.2.5, a midblock pedestrian crossing is recommended for installation, spanning Stockton Hill Road between Beverly Avenue and Airway Avenue, east of the KRMC. The area is an active pedestrian location, and several vehicular and pedestrian conflicts and collisions have occurred due to illegal crossings across travel lanes. To provide safe and efficient midblock pedestrian crossings, a High-intensity Activated Cross Walk (HAWK) signal is recommended for the crossing. The HAWK is normally in an “off” state until it is activated by the presence of a pedestrian approaching the crosswalk. Once a pedestrian reaches the crosswalk and presses the pedestrian push button, the signal changes to a flashing yellow to warn vehicular traffic that a solid yellow is next in sequence. The HAWK signal then performs a typical clearance of yellow and then allred for a calculated length based on the MUTCD. When clearance has concluded, the pedestrian is given a “WALK” signal, flashing “DON’T WALK”, and then solid “DON’T WALK”. Pedestrian countdown timers are also used. 1 http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/Topics/transportation Appendices -15 Once the pedestrian signal changes to flashing “DON’T WALK”, the vehicular signal begins to flash alternating reds. This alternating red signal alerts vehicles that they may proceed at a stop condition, yielding to pedestrians. Once the pedestrian phase has been completed, the signal returns to an “OFF” state. A set minimum cycle length is standard, in order to ensure sufficient service given to vehicles between pedestrian crossings. HAWK signal installations have become increasingly popular throughout Arizona. Table 9 lists the majority of HAWK signals currently in operation within the state. Although many installations have been beneficial to communities, a public education effort is essential, as some communities have indicated initial confusion from drivers and pedestrians unfamiliar with the system. Table 9: Arizona HAWK Signal Installations Crossings Jurisdiction Seventh Avenue and Glenrosa Avenue 19th Avenue near Thunderbird High School 59th Avenue and Clarendon Avenue, near Maryvale High School West Thomas Road and 44th Avenue, near the Urban League Manor senior housing center 32nd Street and Liberty Lane near Desert Vista High School Dunlap Avenue and Second Drive near Sunnyslope High School Indian School Road and 30th Street, near Devonshire Senior Center 75th Avenue and Weldon Avenue, at Estrella Junior High School Scottsdale Road between Butherus Drive and Greenway-Hayden Loop Pima Road and Dixileta Drive Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Scottsdale Scottsdale Pima Road and Jomax Road Scottsdale Chaparral Road just east of 78th Street Scottsdale Phoenix Western Canal and Rural Road Tempe Western Canal and McClintock Drive Tempe Beardsley Road and 63rd Avenue Glendale 91st Avenue and Tumblewood Drive, near Desert Harbor Elementary School Appendices -16 Peoria Figure 6: Example Pedestrian Signage for HAWK Signal Source: ADOT Figure 7: Typical HAWK Signal Operation Source: ADOT Appendices -17 C.4. Synchro Model Update – 3.5 ft/s Pedestrian Walking Speed The previous Stockton Hill Road Synchro model outputs were updated with a pedestrian clear time based upon a 3.5 ft/s walking speed. This pedestrian walking speed is the new standard presented in the MUTCD 2009. The pedestrian clearance (Flash “Don’t Walk”) signal was calculated with this new value. Considering the walking speed is 0.5 ft/s slower than previous, pedestrian clear times and thus phase lengths increased. These new phase lengths should be accounted for in any future timing plan development within the corridor. Table 10 presents the pedestrian clearance time defined in the original and the updated timing plans. The updated pedestrian clearance time was calculated using the curb to curb distance divided by walking speed of 3.5 ft/second. As shown in the table, the pedestrian clearance time for eastbound and westbound crosswalks were increased for all the intersections south of Airway Ave. The maximum increase was for intersections at I-40 ramps, where pedestrian clearance times were increased by 12 seconds. Intersection Table 10: Pedestrian Clear Time EB Cross WB Cross Walk Walk Orig. New Orig. New NB Cross Walk Orig. New SB Cross Walk Orig. New Stockton Hill Road Detroit Avenue 16 20 16 20 14 14 12 12 Stockton Hill Road I-40 EB Ramp 22 34 -- -- 14 14 14 14 Stockton Hill Road I-40 WB Ramp -- -- 22 34 14 14 14 14 Stockton Hill Road KRMC 22 28 17 24 19 22 12 14 Stockton Hill Road Sycamore Avenue 21 25 21 21 14 15 12 12 Stockton Hill Road Airway Avenue 16 23 16 26 16 23 16 18 Stockton Hill Road Kino Avenue 18 18 18 18 10 10 10 10 Stockton Hill Road Home Depot -- -- 22 22 16 16 16 16 Stockton Hill Road Gordon Drive 23 23 23 23 16 16 16 16 With the original phase settings and the increased pedestrian phase length, the cycle lengths and offsets for existing coordinated timings were updated using Synchro and are shown in Table 11. Compared to the original AM timing plan, the cycle lengths for all the intersections would need to increase to 120 seconds. The timing plan for PM shows all the intersections south of Airway Ave would need to increase cycle length to 120 seconds, while the three intersections to the north could apply lower cycle lengths of 80 seconds. The midday cycle lengths are nearly the same as the original timing plan for the period, with the exception of Airway Avenue, where the intersection would operate better if uncoordinated. For the Airway Avenue intersection, a 150 second cycle length is recommended based on Synchro analysis. Appendices -18 Table 11: Updated Intersection Coordinated Signal Timing Parameters Intersection Phases AM Midday PM Cycle Offset Cycle Offset Cycle Offset Stockton Hill Road Detroit Avenue 8 120 40 120 16 120 112 Stockton Hill Road I-40 EB Ramp 3 120 8 120 112 120 88 Stockton Hill Road I-40 WB Ramp 3 120 8 120 112 120 88 Stockton Hill Road KRMC 6 120 96 120 0 120 96 Stockton Hill Road Sycamore Avenue 8 120 104 120 16 120 24 Stockton Hill Road Airway Avenue 6 120 96 150 -- 120 32 Stockton Hill Road Kino Avenue 4 120 48 90 48 80 16 Stockton Hill Road Home Depot 6 120 56 90 48 80 32 Stockton Hill Road Gordon Drive 6 120 112 90 0 80 64 Table 12 through Table 17 show the updated segment LOS within the corridor, based on the signal timing optimized with 3.5 ft/s walk time. Table 12: Corridor Segment LOS (3.5 ft/s walk time) – AM Period Northbound Table 13: Corridor Segment LOS (3.5 ft/s walk time) – AM Period Southbound Appendices -19 Table 14: Corridor Segment LOS (3.5 ft/s walk time) – Midday Period Northbound Table 15: Corridor Segment LOS (3.5 ft/s walk time) – Midday Period Southbound Table 16: Corridor Segment LOS (3.5 ft/s walk time) – PM Period Northbound Appendices -20 Table 17: Corridor Segment LOS (3.5 ft/s walk time) – PM Period Southbound Appendices -21 APPENDIX D – LAND USE POLICY Appendices -22 D. LAND USE POLICY Land-use policy is an essential component in a community achieving its desired vision for a corridor. As discussed in Section 4.1.5, the current land-use pattern within the Stockton Hill Road corridor is that of an automobile oriented commercial strip, with inconsistent lot depths, and narrow parcel frontages. These conditions encourage continued automobile use, while discouraging pedestrian activity and compounding access management issues. The Kingman General Plan states that there is continued commercial growth anticipated for the corridor, and also that there are opportunities for increased residential growth in adjacent neighborhoods. In addition, stakeholders have expressed an interest in shaping a land-use scheme that includes a more compact development form including opportunities for mixed-use developments, which has been shown to create greater potential for pedestrian mobility, access management, and economic viability. Land Use Typologies This section contains descriptions of typical land use typologies for office, entertainment/retail, mixed use commercial, and mixed use residential uses, which are each applicable within the study area. Each typology includes ideal characteristics based on national best practices that can be used to serve as an example and guide a community vision specific to Kingman. It is important to note that the characteristics listed are heavily dependent on the local context in which they are applied. These descriptions may not all be applicable to Kingman, but are meant to serve as best practice examples of ideal development scenarios. Community stakeholders must first undergo a detailed visioning session before augmenting policies to accommodate the characteristics listed. Office Typology IDEAL LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS: Density: 2-4 story buildings and 50% site coverage Land Use Mix: Office and Institutional only Pedestrian: Wide internal walkways, logical connections and streetscape amenities Community Character: Attractive internal public spaces and public gathering areas IDEAL SITE CRITERIA: Continuous ground-floor commercial / office uses that activate streetscape Office Use Building setbacks transition to building heights Appendices -23 Buildings oriented to street and street corners, with 70% building façade transparency Surface parking located at interior of blocks Alleys provide service access for buildings Internal site on-street parking required except for timed loading zones Mixed-use parking garage with ground floor office uses Buildings provide space for pedestrian amenities Minimum 12 foot sidewalk from curb to building face Street width maximum width 52 feet; with on-street parking Figure 8: Ideal Office Site Criteria Alfred Park Place, Chandler, AZ (under construction) Entertainment/ Retail Typology IDEAL LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS: Density: 2-3 story buildings and 50% site coverage Land Use Mix: Entertainment and retail only Pedestrian: Wide internal walkways, logical connections and streetscape amenities Community Character: Attractive internal public spaces and public gathering areas Complementary Uses: Mixed-use commercial and mixed use residential IDEAL SITE CRITERIA: 2-3 stories of retail / entertainment uses Differentiated building heights provide for a more interesting streetscape and allows light to reach the street Maximum height at building corners provides a visual reference for pedestrians and motorists Building setbacks transition to building heights Buildings oriented to street and street corners on at least 2 sides of the block, with 70% building façade transparency Appendices -24 Surface parking located behind buildings and away from primary street frontages Defining primary streets to front buildings and entrances allows for surface parking on secondary streets On-street parking required except for timed loading zones Buildings provide space for pedestrian amenities Minimum 12 foot sidewalk from curb to building face Develop streetscape characters that define the district as a destination and place Street maximum width 52 feet; with on-street parking Figure 9: Ideal Entertainment/ Retail Site Criteria The Shops at Lake Havasu, Lake Havasu, AZ Tempe Marketplace, Tempe, AZ Mixed-Use Commercial Typology IDEAL LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS: Density: 2-4 story buildings and 70 - 80% lot coverage Land Use Mix: Ground floor retail or office uses required, neighborhood services, office, or commercial on upper floors, with minimum ground floor height of 16’ Pedestrian: Wide sidewalks, with convenient connections and community amenities Community Character: Flexible community gathering spaces, civic land uses, street amenities and neighborhood services Complementary Adjoining Uses: Mixed-use residential IDEAL SITE CRITERIA: Continuous ground-floor retail or office that activates streetscape, with additional height at corners to help define intersections Lower stories at midblock sections that allows sunlight to reach the street and provide variation along the building frontage Lower stories at midblock sections that allows sunlight to reach the street and provide variation along the building frontage Appendices -25 Mixed-use buildings with ground floor retail oriented to street corners Commercial units oriented towards streetscape allow for more “eyes on the street” for enhanced security Alleys provide service access for buildings and provide a transition area for building scale Surface parking to the rear or side of building Curb extensions with stripped crosswalks Landscaped area provides rest area Reduced setback and similar architectural facades complimentary to mixed-use commercial units Multi-family mixed use units with articulated facades complimentary to mixeduse commercial units Block circumference – 2,000 linear feet maximum 6 foot wide minimum sidewalk separated from curb with linear planting area suitable for trees and streetscape amenities Local street width: 38 feet maximum curb to curb Figure 10: Ideal Mixed-Use Commercial Site Criteria Heritage Marketplace, Gilbert, AZ (planned) Mixed-Use Residential Typology IDEAL LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS: Density: 12-20 units per acre, with 2-4 story buildings and 70 - 80% lot coverage Land Use Mix: Ground floor retail or office uses required, residential units on upper floors, with minimum ground floor height of 16’ Pedestrian: Wide sidewalks, with convenient connections and community amenities Community Character: Flexible community gathering spaces, civic land uses, street amenities and neighborhood services Complementary Adjoining Uses: Mixed-use commercial IDEAL SITE CRITERIA: Continuous ground-floor retail or office that activates streetscape Appendices -26 Single-family attached townhouses with attached parking in rear Single-family attached townhouses with attached parking in rear Mixed-use building with ground floor retail oriented to street corners Residential units oriented towards streetscape allow more “eyes on the street” for enhanced security Alleys provide service access for buildings and provides a transition area for building scale and use Surface parking to the rear or side of building Curb extensions with stripped crosswalks Recreation area Reduced setback and similar architectural styles on either side of the block balance and unify streetscape Multi-family units with articulated facades complimentary to attached single family units Block circumference – 2,000 linear feet maximum 6 foot wide minimum sidewalk separated from curb with linear planting area suitable for trees and streetscape amenities Figure 11: Ideal Mixed-Use Residential Site Criteria Grigio Metro, Tempe, AZ Southgate Complex, Lake Havasu, AZ Appendices -27 Conceptual Target Areas Figure 12 describes possible preliminary conceptual target areas for ideal land use typologies within the Stockton Hill Road corridor. For instance, developments following ideal office typology characteristics could be concentrated in the area west of Stockton Hill Road and south of Sycamore Avenue, near or adjacent to the Kingman Regional Medical Center. Mixed use residential could be implemented in the areas outlined in orange, and entertainment/ retail and mixed use commercial implemented in the dark red areas. Under this conceptual scenario, the light red areas would be preserved for large-scale big box commercial. Figure 12: Preliminary Mixed-Use Target Areas As stated previously concerning ideal land use typologies, these preliminary target areas represent one possible land-use vision for the Stockton Hill Road corridor. They are based on national best practices and may not all apply to Kingman. Community stakeholders must first conduct a formal visioning process and land-use analysis before targeting corridor locations for specific land-use types. In addition, many of the ideal site characteristics may not conform fully to currently adopted City of Kingman property development rules, parking regulations, or street and sidewalk development rules. However, a residential and commercial mixed-use land-use type would currently be allowed along the corridor within C-1, C-2, and C-3 zoning districts. The development of a land-use scheme for the corridor that accommodates a more compact development form, including mixed-use land use types, would offer greater potential for pedestrian mobility, access management and economic viability. In order Appendices -28 to implement an updated land-use scheme for the corridor, stakeholders must undertake a formal visioning process and develop a targeted corridor land-use policy. Appendices -29 APPENDIX E – POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES Appendices -30 E. POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES This section summarizes potential local, state, and federal funding sources for the multimodal improvements for the Stockton Hill Road corridor described throughout this study. As transportation project funding sources are somewhat limited and continually changing given the present economic and political environment, it is important to note that the development of all recommendations could require multiple funding sources and/or the identification of new funding sources. E.1. Local Funding Sources Improvement Districts Improvement districts are formed by the partnering of property owners with the City to finance public works improvements. Districts are initiated to fund projects that benefit the community such as roadways, landscaping, parking, and other public facilities. Property owners are given a several-year window to repay their share of the improvement cost. Revenue Bonds Revenue bonds are issues by municipalities to fund public work projects such as roadways. They are not a direct funding source, but can expedite construction by distributing capital improvement costs over the life of a project. General Fund The General Fund is the primary fund of the City. It includes all revenues that are not assigned to a special purpose fund such as sales taxes and licensing fees. Development Impact Fees Development impact fees are one-time payments imposed by the local government to build or expand public facilities for a new commercial or residential development. Impact fees are proportionate to the cost required to accommodate the nature and size of a given development. Funds acquired from impact fees are meant to pay for the construction or expansion of offsite capital improvements. They may not, however, be used for rehabilitation efforts or operating costs. E.2. State Funding Sources Economic Strength Project Program Through the Economic Strength Project Program, the Arizona Commerce Authority distributes grants for projects that support economic development. The program is continuously funded through HURF and is typically available new roadways, roadway Appendices -31 upgrades, and routine maintenance. At the time of the report, specific rules for grant awards were being finalized. Greater Arizona Development Authority The Arizona State Legislature created the Greater Arizona Development Authority (GADA) to aide local and tribal governments enhance their community and economic development opportunities through the development of public infrastructure. GADA offers financial and technical assistance programs to assist political subdivisions, special districts, and Indian tribes with their public facilities. GADA funds are used to lower financing costs and accelerate projects. Highway Extension Expansion and Loan Program The Highway Extension Expansion Loan Program (HELP) is managed by ADOT and provides loans and financial assistance for highway projects in Arizona. The objective of HELP is to accelerate the funding of general transportation and construction projects. HELP subsidizes interest rates and does not require an application fee. However, the program is currently not accepting applications due to state budget issues. Highway User Revenue Fund The Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) is collected by the state from transportation revenues such as gasoline and vehicle license taxes. They represent the bulk of the State’s transportation fund and can only be used on highway construction and improvements. ADOT distributes HURF funds to municipalities based on population. Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Program The Transportation, Community, and System Preservation (TCSP) Program provides grants to municipal projects that: (1) improve transportation efficiency, (2) reduce environmental impacts of transportation, (3) reduce the need for costly future public infrastructure, (4) ensure efficient access to jobs, services, and (5) examine community development patterns and identify strategies to encourage private sector development patterns that achieve these goals. The purpose of the program is to identify private sector-based initiatives to improve the relationships between transportation, community, and system preservation plans and practices. Transportation Alternatives Program The recently passed MAP-21 federal transportation bill (Summer 2012) consolidated the former Safe Routes to School (SRTS) and Transportation Enhancement programs into the new Transportation Alternatives Program. ADOT is currently preparing rules and program guidance, but eligible local projects will likely include those that encourage alternative transportation. Appendices -32 E.3. Federal Funding Sources Highway Safety Improvement Program The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is managed by the FHWA and ADOT and funds safety improvement projects that reduce the number and/or severity of highway-related collisions. National Highway System Program The National Highway System (NHS) Program funds roadway improvements to rural and urban roads that are a part of the NHS, including the Interstate System, and designated connections to major intermodal terminals. The NHS Program may also fund transit improvements in NHS corridors. Surface Transportation Program The Surface Transportation Program (STP) is a flexible funding program funds general transportation, environmental, and transit projects. The STP is managed by FHWA and ADOT and applies to projects on federal-aid highways, urban arterials and collectors, rural arterials and collectors, bridge projects on public roads, transit capital projects, and intracity/intercity bus terminals and facilities. Appendices -33 APPENDIX F – ACCESS MANAGEMENT CASE STUDIES Appendices -34 F. ACCESS MANAGEMENT CASE STUDIES Access management plans and regulations have been implemented throughout the United States in response to roadway safety and operational issues. The following case studies illustrate typical access management issues and solutions in busy corridors. The locations were selected due to their comprehensive documentation and relevance to the Stockton Hill Road corridor. Table 18 provides an overview of the case studies. Table 18: Summary of Case Studies Case Study Location Oakland Park Blvd. Ft. Lauderdale, FL (2.2 mi) Telegraph Road Detroit, MI (30 mi) US 27 Somerset, KY (5.4 mi) Description of Improvements Median extended to close 17 unsignalized openings Limited turn movements on remaining openings Retrofitted roadway with directional crossovers Redirected left turn traffic to directional crossover Widened roadway from four to six lanes Eliminated continuous leftturn lane Permitted U-turns signalized intersections Results Safety/ Operational Public Acceptance Impact 10% decline in 64% reported crash rate positive impact on safety and traffic 30 % less delay 68% of businesses 30% fewer had little to no midblock median economic impact manuevers 20% increase in roadway capacity 10% decline in crash rate 44% reported positive safety impact 65% of businesses had little to no economic impact Oakland Park Boulevard; Fort Lauderdale, Florida1 Description Located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Oakland Park Boulevard is a congested east-west corridor that links inner Broward County to the coastal beaches. In the mid-1980’s, it was part of a median closure and retrofitting plan which included 2.4-mile section of the roadway. At the time of the project, average daily traffic on Oakland Park Boulevard was approximately 35,000 vehicles per day. Prior to the project, 33 unsignalized median openings provided full access along this sixlane section of the corridor. Strip mall development and an excess of median openings that were closely spaced and allowed for all turn movements contributed to the corridor’s heavy traffic volumes. The access management project eliminated nearly 1 Access Management Manual, Transportation Research Board (2003) Appendices -35 half of the median openings. Remaining openings were limited to left ingress and Uturns, with only one opening that allowed left egress. As a result of the median elimination and retrofit, the distance between median openings increased and the number of openings per mile decreased. Results After improvements, the total number of crashes reduced by 26 percent, with a 41 percent reduction in crashes with property damage. This reduction was attributed to the reduction of conflicts points after completion of the project. In addition, there were 29 percent fewer midblock median movements and 37 percent fewer left turns from Oakland Park Boulevard onto adjacent arterials. As a result, travel speed increased and turning delays decreased. A survey was conducted to develop an understanding of the public acceptance of the corridor access management improvements. The 354 respondents consisted of frequent corridor users from various interest groups, including motorists, residents, merchants, and customers. A summary of the responses follows: 64 percent favored the improved corridors. All interest groups noticed an overall improvement in safety and traffic Of all interest groups, motorists were the most in favor of the project Property values were not affected by the median improvements. 70 percent of business reported no change in property value, and 13 percent reported some increase 68 percent of businesses reported little or no economic impact, but 27 percent reported some type of loss Telegraph Road; Detroit, Michigan1 Description In Michigan, directional crossovers are frequently used to control turning movements from medians. A program of directional crossover installations near signalized intersections was implemented by the Michigan Department of Transportation in the 1960s. Directional crossovers were installed at an average of 660 ft away from signalized intersections to prohibit left and U-turns and allow two-phase signal operations. As part of the program, a 30-mile section of Telegraph Road in Detroit was retrofitted with directional crossovers along the six- to eight-lane roadway. Traffic volumes in this section range from 32,000 to 99,000 per day. The project prohibited left turns at signalized intersections, but allowed them at directional crossovers. As a result, signal phasing allowed for more green time and signal optimization. 1 Access Management Manual, Transportation Research Board (2003) Appendices -36 Results A study that evaluated the effectiveness of Telegraph Road improvements found that overall roadway efficiency and safety improved. Traffic signals operated on a cycle with roughly 55% green time and roadway capacity increased by 20%. The study found that signalized intersections with nearby directional crossovers, as opposed to traditional intersections that allow left turns, resulted in a decrease in conflict points and crashes. US 27, Somerset, Kentucky1 Description Located in Somerset, Kentucky, US 27 is a heavily traveled corridor which extends from Boat Dock Road to KY 80 Business. The project area, spanning 5.4 miles of the roadway, had average daily traffic volumes of 22,000 to 36,000 vehicles per day. Weekend traffic volumes were estimated to be even higher due to recreational traffic generated from Lake Cumberland area users. Prior to the access management project, US 27 consisted of four lanes with 26 signalized intersections and a continuous two-way left-turn lane. An abundance of access points to adjacent businesses further congested the corridor. The project, completed in 1998, widened the roadway from four to six lanes and replaced the continuous turn lane with a non-traversable depressed median. Instead, left-turning traffic was redirected to the signalized intersections which permitted U-turns during left-turn phases. Results Five years after improvements were completed, crash data was collected to evaluate the safety benefit of the project. Total crashes decreased by 16 percent and the crash rate, by 10 percent. This reduction was attributed to the decrease in conflict points after eliminating the left-turn lane. In addition, there were only eight U-turn crashes, the majority of which were due to drivers’ inattention of U-turns during left-turn phases. Due to previous apprehension of the project, a survey was conducted to determine the public acceptance of the access management improvements. The following summarizes the 73 responses received from business and property owners along the corridor: 23 percent of business owners reported a positive effect on their business, while 42 percent reported no change 44 percent reported a positive safety impact and 18 percent reported a neutral impact. Quantification of the Benefits of Access Management for Kentucky, Kentucky Transportation Center (2006) 1 Appendices -37 APPENDIX G – PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Appendices -38 G. PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW G.1. Title VI and Environmental Justice Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes ensure 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, national origin, age, sex, and disability. Executive Order 12898 “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice (EJ) in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” directs that programs, policies, and activities identify and address as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. Population characteristics were analyzed to identify any high concentrations of racial or ethnic minority, low-income, elderly, or disabled populations. The following figures represent the City of Kingman, Mohave County, and the State of Arizona. Elderly Residents aged 60 years or older are defined as elderly. As shown in Table 19, the City of Kingman has an elderly population of 19.1 percent, which is higher than the State but slightly lower than Mohave County. Table 19: Elderly Population Percent Elderly Jurisdiction in Jurisdiction Kingman City 19.1% Mohave County 23.3% State of Arizona 13.8% Source: 2010 US Census Racial and Ethnic Minorities Racial minority groups comprise of people who identify themselves as any race other than White. It includes Black or African American, Native American, Asian, Pacific Islander, Other, and Two or More Races. The US Census also asks about ‘Hispanic or Latino’ origin as a separate ethnicity-related question. Thus, US Census respondents not only choose the race or races with which they most closely identify, they are also categorized by membership in one of two ethnicities: ‘Hispanic or Latino; and ‘Not Hispanic or Latino’. As shown in Table 20, the minority population in the City of Kingman is similar to that of Mohave County, 12 percent and 13.1 percent, respectively. Both these figures are relatively lower than the State minority population of 27 percent. The City of Kingman Hispanic population is 12.5 percent, which is also less than both Mohave County and the State of Arizona. Appendices -39 Table 20: Minority Population Percent Minority Percent Hispanic Jurisdiction in Jurisdiction in Jurisdiction Kingman City 12.0% 12.5% Mohave County 13.1% 14.8% State of Arizona 27.0% 29.6% Sources: 2010 US Census Disability In the City of Kingman, the proportion of residents with a disability is close to 17 percent. As detailed in Table 21, the Mohave County and the rest of the state has a respective disabled population of 17.7 and 11.1 percent. Table 21: Disabled Population Percent Jurisdiction Disabled in Jurisdiction Kingman City 16.9% Mohave County 17.7% State of Arizona 11.1% Sources: 2010 US Census Poverty Status The proportion of residents below poverty level in the City of Kingman is similar to that of Mohave County and the rest of the state. According to the 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, the City of Kingman has a 13.2 percent population of residents below poverty level. The results are detailed in Table 22. Table 22: Population Below Poverty Level Percent Below Poverty Jurisdiction Level Kingman City 13.2% Mohave County 16.1% State of Arizona 15.3% Sources: 2006-2010 American Community Survey (5-year estimates) Compliance with Title VI and Environmental Justice The assessment of demographic characteristics showed that the percentage of Elderly and Disabled populations within the City of Kingman represent a smaller percentage than the share of those same populations within Mohave County, but a slightly larger share than the State of Arizona as a whole. Appendices -40 In order to comply with Title VI and Environmental Justice requirements, recommendations made by this study will ensure that impacts from recommendations do not have disproportionately high and adverse health and environmental impacts on these populations. G.2. Special Status Species and Critical Habitats As shown in Table 23, according to the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s Heritage Data Management System, two special status species and one critical habitat were listed as potentially occurring within two miles of the study area. The Greater Western Bonneted Bat is listed as a “Species of Concern” by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as a “Sensitive Species” by the US Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. The Sonoran Desert Tortoise is described as a “Candidate Species” by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, a “Species of Concern” by the US Forest Service, and a “Wildlife of Special Concern” by the State of Arizona. A “10J” habitat area for the California Condor has also been identified within close proximity to the study area. Table 23: Special Status Species and Critical Habitats near Study Area Name Eumops perotis californicus Gopherus morafkai Gymnogyps californianus Common Name Greater Western Bonneted Bat Sonoran Desert Tortoise 10J area for California Condor US Fish & Wildlife Service US Forest Service Bureau of Land Management SC S S C S SC = Species of Concern; C = Candidate Species; S = Sensitive Species; WSC = Wildlife of Special Concern Source: Arizona Game and Fish Department (Heritage Data Management System), Appendices -41 State Of Arizona WSC APPENDIX H – PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL LINKAGES QUESTIONNAIRE AND CHECKLIST Appendices -42 Planning and Environmental Linkages Questionnaire and Checklist The Planning and Environmental Linkage (PEL) process, a specific product of implementing SAFETEA-LU, 1 seeks to develop subarea and corridor studies that can be used more directly to inform the NEPA 2 process. Effective, conceptual-level transportation planning studies that follow the PEL process provide opportunities both to identify important issues of concern early and to build the agency, stakeholder, and public understanding necessary to successfully address them. Such early, integrated planning is not driven solely by regulatory requirements and the quest for more efficient and effective processes, although those are desirable results. Transportation and environmental professionals—as well as those in metropolitan planning organizations, state and federal resource agencies, and nongovernmental organizations—are finding that early collaboration helps achieve broader transportation and environmental stewardship goals through better decisions regarding programs, planning, and projects. This document has been developed by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) to provide guidance, particularly to transportation planners and environmental planners, regarding how to most effectively link the transportation planning and NEPA processes. By considering the questions and issues raised in this questionnaire, transportation planners will become more aware of potential gaps in their subarea or corridor studies, better understand the needs of future users of the studies, and be reminded of the benefits of wider and/or deeper collaboration with agencies, the public, and other stakeholders. Environmental planners who fill out the checklist will assume a new role in the transportation planning process: becoming an advocate for early awareness of environmental issues before the NEPA process begins. This questionnaire and checklist will be used to effectively influence the scope, content, and process employed for ADOT transportation planning studies that focus on specific transportation corridors or on transportation network subareas (versus statewide transportation studies). Completion of this questionnaire and checklist will support the PEL process and serve dual objectives: 3 provide guidance to transportation planners on the level of detail needed to ensure that information collected and decisions made during the transportation planning study can be used during the NEPA process for a proposed transportation project provide the future NEPA study team with documentation on the outcomes of the transportation planning process, including the history of decisions made and the level of detailed analysis undertaken When conducting a transportation planning study that links to the future NEPA process, major issues include:4 identifying the appropriate level of environmental analysis for the study identifying the appropriate level of agency, stakeholder, and public involvement 1 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-59) 2 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 3 Objectives are based on the Federal Highway Administration’s online document: Case Studies: Colorado: Colorado Department of Transportation: Tools and Techniques to Implement PEL, (accessed October 24, 2011). 4 Further guidance is available in the Federal Highway Administration’s Guidance on Using Corridor and Subarea Planning to Inform NEPA, dated April 5, 2011, available online at . 1 defining unique study concurrence points for seeking agreement from relevant resource agencies, stakeholders, and members of the public developing a process to ensure that the study will be recognized as valid within the NEPA process identifying when to involve resource agencies in the study, and to what extent they influence decision making These issues should be considered throughout the transportation planning study process. Users of this ADOT Planning and Environmental Linkages Questionnaire and Checklist should review the entire document at the beginning of the study to familiarize themselves with whatever local and general issues may be operative. The questionnaire is provided in two parts: one to be completed by transportation planners at the beginning of the study and one to be completed at the end. The checklist (Part 3) should be used by environmental planners throughout the study and should be finalized at the end of the study. Upon completion of the transportation planning study, this document should be included as an appendix to the study’s final report to document how the study meets the requirements of 23 Code of Federal Regulations § 450.212 or § 450.318 (Subpart B: Statewide Transportation Planning and Programming or Subpart C: Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming, respectively). The flowchart on the following page outlines the major inputs, decision points, and outcomes that occur during implementation of a transportation planning study using the PEL process. 2 3 4 [Kingman Stockton Hill Road PARA Study] Questionnaire for Transportation Planners – Part 1 This part of the questionnaire should be completed by transportation planners at the beginning of the transportation planning study. Please note that planners should also review the second part of the questionnaire to understand what additional issues will need to be considered and documented as the study progresses. Project identification What is the name of the study? What cities and region does it cover? What major streets are covered? For corridor studies, what are the intended termini? Kingman Stockton Hill Road Corridor Study The Stockton Hill Road Corridor study area is located in the north-central area of the City of Kingman in northern Mohave County, and also includes a small portion of an adjacent unincorporated area within Mohave County jurisdiction. The study area is centered on Stockton Hill Road, with a specific focus on the segment between Detroit Avenue and Northern Avenue. However, the network of nearby collector streets, in particular the alternative north-south routes of Western Avenue and Glen Road will also be analyzed. Who is the study sponsor? Arizona Department of Transportation Briefly describe the study and its purpose. The objective of this study is to analyze the multimodal transportation and development policy needs of the Stockton Hill Road corridor. Specific considerations will include an analysis of existing and future transportation conditions, and an assessment of the current development and land-use framework. Findings will be utilized to evaluate alternative solutions and offer recommendations. Who are the primary study team members (include name, title, organization name, and contact information)? Matt Carpenter: Project Manager, ADOT/Multimodal Planning Division, 602-712-7870/MCarpenter@azdot.gov Burley Hambrick: Local Agency PM, City of Kingman, 928-692-3117/bhambrick@cityofkingman.gov Does the team include advisory groups such as a technical advisory committee, steering committee, or other? If so, include roster(s) as attachment(s). Yes, there is a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) in place. For roster, see Attachment A. Have previous transportation planning studies been conducted for this region? If so, provide a brief chronology, including the years the studies were completed. Provide contact names and locations of the studies and study websites. 1999: I-40 Stockton Hill Road Traffic Interchange – Initial Design Concept Report – southern section of study area Prepared by Sverdrup Civil, Inc. Prepared for ADOT. 2000 City of Kingman Pedestrian and Bikeway Plan Prepared by City of Kingman 2003: City of Kingman General Plan 2020 Prepared by City of Kingman Planning and Zoning Department 2010: Mohave County General Plan (2010 Update) Prepared by Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle. Prepared for Mohave County Planning Department 2011: Kingman Area Transportation Study Update Prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Prepared for ADOT, City of Kingman, and Mohave County What current or near-future planning (or other) studies in the vicinity are underway or will be undertaken? What is the relationship of this study to those studies? Provide contact names and locations of the studies and study websites. None were identified. 5 [Kingman Stockton Hill Road PARA Study] Study objectives What are your desired outcomes for this study? (Mark all that apply.) Stakeholder identification Stakeholder roles/responsibilities definition Travel study area definition Performance measures development Development of purpose and need goals and other objectives Alternative evaluation and screening Alternative travel modes definition Scheduling of infrastructure improvements over short-, mid-, and long-range time frames Environmental impacts Mitigation identification Don't know Other : Develop access and land use policy recommendations Have system improvements and additions that address your transportation need been identified in a fiscally constrained regional transportation plan? Yes, programmed improvements have been identified and documented. Will a purpose and need statement5 be prepared as part of this effort? If so, what steps will need to be taken during the NEPA process to make this a project-level purpose and need statement? Yes. This preliminary Purpose & Need statement will need to be updated during the NEPA study. Establishment of organizational relationships Is a partnering agreement in place? If so, who are signatories (for example, affected agencies, stakeholders, organizations)? Attach the partnering agreement(s). No. What are the key coordination points in the decision-making process? The TAC Advisory Committee is in place with recurring meetings. Planning assumptions and analytical methods Is the time horizon of the study sufficiently long to consider long-term (20 years or more from completion of the study) effects of potential scenarios? Yes, 5, 10, and 20 year planning horizons have been identified. What method will be used for forecasting traffic volumes (for example, traffic modeling or growth projections)? What are the sources of data being used? Has USDOT validated their use? Growth projections included in the updated 2011 Kingman Area Transportation Study Update are being utilized. Will the study use FHWA’s Guide on the Consistent Application of Traffic Analysis Tools and Methods6? If not, why not? How will traffic volumes from the travel demand model be incorporated, if necessary, into finer-scale applications such as a corridor study? Yes. (Highway Capacity Manual) Do the travel demand models base their projections on differentiations between vehicles? The Travel Demand Model applicable to this study uses growth factor data, which take into account differentiations between vehicles. 5 For an explanation of purpose and need in environmental documents, please see the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) “NEPA and Transportation Decisionmaking: The Importance of Purpose and Need in Environmental Documents,” . This website provides links to five additional resources and guidance from FHWA that should be helpful in understanding the relationship between goals and objectives in transportation planning studies and purpose and need statements of NEPA documents. 6 FHWA November 2011 publication: 6 [Kingman Stockton Hill Road PARA Study] Data, information, and tools Is there a centralized database or website that all State resource agencies may use to share resource data during the study? No. A centralized database does not exist at this time. Resource agencies were contacted to provide the necessary resource data. 7 [Kingman Stockton Hill Road PARA Study] Questionnaire for Transportation Planners – Part 2 This part of the questionnaire should be completed by transportation planners at the end of the transportation planning study. This completed document should become an appendix to the study’s final report to document how the study meets the requirements of 23 Code of Federal Regulations § 450.212 or § 450.318. Purpose and need for this study How did the study process define and clarify corridor-level or subarea-level goals (if applicable) that influenced modal infrastructure improvements and/or the range of reasonable alternatives? The study had the broad goal of improving operations throughout the corridor. It did this by identifying deficiencies across modes; then providing a solution set to provide a range of options to address the needs. Both the evaluation of deficiencies and the solution set aided in further defining and clarifying the corridor goals. What were the key steps and coordination points in the decision-making process? Who were the decision-makers and who else participated in those key steps? The technical advisory committee meetings were the key coordination points in the decision-making process. The City of Kingman, Mohave County, and WACOG were the major decision-makers for the project. How should this study information be presented in future NEPA document(s), if applicable? Are relevant findings documented in a format and at a level of detail that will facilitate reference to and/or inclusion in subsequent NEPA document(s)?7 The needs identified in this study develop the preliminary purpose & need and be can used to inform final project level purpose & need statements. The reasonable range of alternative solutions can inform future NEPA studies. This study is done at a level of detail that could be referenced in subsequent NEPA documents. Were the study’s findings and recommendations documented in such a way as to facilitate an FHWA or Federal Transit Administration decision regarding acceptability for application in the NEPA process? Does the study have logical points where decisions were made and where concurrence from resource or regulatory agencies, stakeholders, and the public was sought? If so, provide a list of those points. Yes. The primary stakeholders are the City of Kingman, Mohave County, and WACOG. The decision points were at the TAC meetings. Establishment of organizational relationships – tribes and agencies8 Tribe or agency Date(s) contacted Describe the agency’s primary concerns and the steps needed to coordinate with the agency during NEPA scoping.9 Describe level of participation Tribal (name of tribe) N/A (name of tribe) N/A Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs N/A Bureau of Land Management N/A 7 For an explanation of the types of documents needed under the NEPA process and the nature of the content of those documents, please see “NEPA Documentation: Improving the Quality of Environmental Documents,”. 8 Users may add rows to this table to accommodate additional tribes and agencies. Unused rows may be deleted. 9 If the transportation planning study final report does not adequately document interactions (for example, meeting minutes, resolutions, letters) with the relevant agencies, append such information to the end of this questionnaire and checklist. 8 [Kingman Stockton Hill Road PARA Study] Establishment of organizational relationships – tribes and agencies8 Tribe or agency Date(s) contacted Bureau of Reclamation Federal Highway Administration Describe the agency’s primary concerns and the steps needed to coordinate with the agency during NEPA scoping.9 Describe level of participation N/A June 2013 Reviewed initial concepts for improvement alternatives for the Beverly Avenue and Stockton Hill Road intersection. Primary concerns related to the impact of possible intersection improvements on Interstate 40. Study recommendations will not result in NEPA process, but further coordination with agency will take place during later studies of the intersection. Throughout study Steven Latoski, Director of Public Works, served as member of project Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Reviewed study analyses, reports, and commented on recommendations. No direct concerns as study corridor was not in county jurisdiction. Primary comments throughout study addressed traffic operations, safety and regional consistency. Throughout study Burley Hambrick, Public Works, served as local agency PM and head of project Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Mr. Hambrick and several other City of Kingman representatives (See attached roster) reviewed study analyses, reports, and commented on recommendations. City was lead agency on study. Primary concerns included traffic operations including left turn lanes, deceleration (right turn) lanes, raised medians as well as the Beverly roundabout (and subsequent traffic operations) and signal coordination with mid-block pedestrian crossing which would improve overall safety. ADOT – Kingman District Throughout study Michael Kondelis and Kara Lavertue served as members of project Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Reviewed study analyses, reports, and commented on recommendations. Beverly Avenue Intersection. Kingman District preference was for an elongated roundabout at the Stockton Hill/I-40 interchange due to traffic operations and safety. WACOG Throughout study Sharon Mitchell served as members of project Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Reviewed study analyses, reports, and commented on recommendations. WACOG reviewed documents and had no major concerns during study. County Mohave County Public Works Local City of Kingman Transportation agencies 9 [Kingman Stockton Hill Road PARA Study] Establishment of organizational relationships – stakeholders and members of the public10 Public and stakeholders Describe level of participation Describe the primary concerns expressed by members of the public and stakeholders. Public meetings were held on June 6, 2013 and November 14, 2013. Public meetings were held on June 6, 2013 and November 14, 2013, where members of the public could comment on corridor deficiencies, evaluation criteria, and recommendations. Comments were also received via email to ADOT communications or the project website. Primary concerns included traffic congestion throughout corridor, thru-access connections between properties, and the functionality of the Beverly Avenue and Stockton Hill Road. A detailed public involvement report is appended to the study. Stakeholders including major business owners, land owners and Chamber of Commerce were contacted throughout study. Phone interviews, attendance at public meetings, and written correspondence. Major business owners and land owners were interviewed to understand access and circulation needs. No major outstanding concerns except for the Del Taco property. ADOT/City of Kingman were contacted by Del Taco as they were concerned about limiting access to their property. A response explaining the recommendations and process of the study was provided. The Chamber of Commerce also participated through the public participation process and offered to liaise with businesses regarding access and circulation concerns. Date(s) contacted Public Members of the public Stakeholders Other (for example, Audubon Society, Center for Biological Diversity, citizens groups, homeowners associations, Sierra Club, private mining or energy interests, railroad companies) Planning assumptions and analytical methods Did the study provide regional development and growth assumptions and analyses? If so, what were the sources of the demographic and employment trends and forecasts? The study provided information on existing and projected population and employment. Sources included the 2010 U.S. Census and demographic information from the Kingman Area Transportation Study (2011). What were the future-year policy and/or data assumptions used in the transportation planning process related to land use, economic development, transportation costs, and network expansion? The model utilized for the Kingman Area Transportation Study (KATS 2011) was used to estimate future population, employment, and traffic conditions for the year 2013. Were the planning assumptions and the corridor vision/purpose and need statement consistent with each other and with the long-range transportation plan? Are the assumptions still valid? The assumptions of increased population, employment, and traffic volumes within the study area are consistent with the project purpose and need, and still valid at the conclusion of the study. Data, information, and tools Are the relevant data used in the study available in a compatible format that is readily usable? Are they available through a centralized web portal? Demographic information is documented in the Kingman Areas Transportation Study (KATS 2011). All traffic model derived data is available, but not available through a centralized web portal. 10 Users may add rows to this table to accommodate additional stakeholders. 10 [Kingman Stockton Hill Road PARA Study] Are the completeness and quality of the data consistent with the quality (not scale or detail) of inputs needed for a NEPA project-level analysis11? N/A Are the data used in the study regularly updated and augmented? If regularly updated, provide schedule and accessibility information. N/A Have the environmental data been mapped at scales that facilitate comparison of effects across different resources and at sufficient resolution to guide initial NEPA issue definition? If not, what data collection and/or manipulation would likely be needed for application to the NEPA scoping process? The only environmental areas that were evaluated in this high level study were biology and environmental justice and the resolution is sufficient to guide initial NEPA definition. A more detailed and comprehensive evaluation will need to be performed during NEPA. 11 For an explanation of the types of information needed to evaluate impacts in environmental documents, please see FHWA’s “NEPA and Transportation Decisionmaking: Impacts,”. This website provides links to six additional resources and guidance that should be helpful in understanding the types of impacts that need to be assessed, their context, and their intensity. 11 [Kingman Stockton Hill Road PARA Study] Examine the Checklist for Environmental Planners, at the back of this document, for more detail about potential impacts that could be mapped. Below is an abbreviated list of resources that could occur in the study area and may be knowable at this time and at the study’s various analytical scales: Is the resource or issue present in the area? Resource or issue Would any future transportation policies or projects involve the issue? Would there be impacts on the resource? Is the resource or issue present in the area? Would any future transportation policies or projects involve the issue? Would there be impacts on the resource? Resource or issue Sensitive biological resources Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Section 4(f)12 wildlife and/or waterfowl refuge, historic site, recreational site, park Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Wildlife corridors Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Section 6(f)13 resource Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Wetland areas Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Existing development Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Riparian areas Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Planned development Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable 100-year floodplain Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Title VI/ Environmental justice populations14 Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Prime or unique farmland or farmland of statewide or local importance Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Utilities Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Visual resources Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Hazardous materials Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Designated scenic road/byway Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Sensitive noise receivers15 Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Archaeological resources Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Air quality Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Historical resources Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Other (list) _______________ Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable 12 Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S. Code § 303, as amended); see
. 13 Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 14 refers to Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1994 Executive Order 12898 on environmental justice 12 [Kingman Stockton Hill Road PARA Study] Did the study incorporate models of, for example, species/habitat locations (predictive range maps), future land use, population dynamics, stormwater runoff, or travel demand? What models were used? Did the study adequately document what models were used, who was responsible for their use, and how they were used (with respect to, for example, calibration, replicability, contingencies, and exogenous factors)? No. In scoping, conducting, and documenting the planning study, participants have come across documents and leads from agency staff and other sources that the environmental planners may be able to use in conducting their studies. List any applicable memoranda of understanding, cost-share arrangements, programmatic agreements, or technical studies that are underway but whose findings are not yet published, etc. No. Development of alternatives Were resource agencies, stakeholders, and members of the public engaged in the process of identifying, evaluating, and screening out modes, corridors, a range of alternatives,16 or a preferred alternative (if one was identified—the latter two refer to corridor plans)? If so, how? Did these groups review the recommendation of a preferred mode(s), corridor(s), range of alternatives (including the no-build alternative), or an alternative? Were the participation and inputs of these groups at a level acceptable for use in purpose and need statements or alternatives development sections in NEPA documents? If not, why not? Yes, stakeholder TAC meetings and two public meetings were held to get input. The first public meeting sought input on corridor deficiencies and evaluation criteria. The second public meeting sought input on the recommendations made in the study. This study evaluated all of the modes that are applicable to this existing corridor and identified a variety of issues and a range of solutions. Preferred alternatives were not identified in this study. Describe the process of outreach to resource agencies, the public, and other stakeholders. Describe the documentation of this process and of the responses to their comments. Is this documentation adequate in breadth and detail for use in NEPA documents? As discussed in the responses to previous questions the City of Kingman, Mohave County, WACOG, and the public have been involved in this study. This high level study did not involve outreach to resource agencies. Since the project is in an urban environment, impacts under the jurisdiction of resource agencies are expected to be low. Additional outreach will need to be undertaken during project development and NEPA. If the study was a corridor study, describe the range of alternatives considered (if any), screening process, and screening criteria. Include what types of alternatives were considered (including the no-build alternative) and how the screening criteria were selected. Was a preferred alternative selected as best addressing the identified transportation issue? Are alternatives’ locations and design features specified? This study evaluates a busy urban street corridor and many issues and deficiencies were identified. As a result several solutions were identified for each deficiency and are too voluminous to discuss here. Please refer to the final study report for this information. Preferred solutions or alternatives were not identified. Also regarding whether the study was a corridor study, for alternatives that were screened out, summarize the reasons for their rejection. Are defensible, credible rationale articulated for their being screened out? Did the study team take into account legal standards17 needed in the NEPA process for such decisions? Did the study team have adequate information for screening out the alternatives? N/A What issues, if any, remain unresolved with the public, stakeholders, and/or resource agencies? This study did not identify major issue that could not be addressed in the study. 15 under FHWA’s Noise Abatement Criterion B: picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals 16 For an explanation of the development of alternatives in environmental documents, please see FHWA’s “NEPA and Transportation Decisionmaking: Development and Evaluation of Alternatives,”. 17 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 771.123(c), 23 CFR § 771.111(d), 40 CFR § 1502.14(a), 40 CFR § 1502.14(b) and (d), 23 CFR § 771.125(a)(1); see FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A, October 30, 1987, . 13 [Kingman Stockton Hill Road PARA Study] Formally joining PEL with the NEPA process Lead federal agencies proposing a project that will undergo the NEPA process will want to most effectively leverage the transportation planning study’s efforts and results. How could a Notice of Intent (for an environmental impact statement18) refer to the study’s findings with respect to preliminary purpose and need and/or the range of alternatives to be studied? N/A. The recommendations in this study will not result in an EIS. Could a Notice of Intent in the NEPA process clearly state that the lead federal agency or agencies will use analyses from prior, specific planning studies that are referenced in the transportation planning study final report? Does the report provide the name and source of the planning studies and explain where the studies are publicly available? If not, how could such relevant information come to the environmental planners’ attention and be made available to them in a timely way? N/A List how the study’s proposed transportation system would support adopted land use plans and growth objectives. Adopted land use plans and growth objectives informed this study and were a primary basis for recommendations. What modifications are needed in the goals and objectives as defined in the transportation study process to increase their efficient and timely application in the NEPA process? No modifications to the goals and objectives are needed. Jurisdictional delineations of waters of the United States frequently change. Housing and commercial developments can alter landscapes dramatically and can be constructed quickly. Noise and air quality regulations can change relatively rapidly. Resource agencies frequently alter habitat delineations to protect sensitive species. Will the study data’s currency, relevance, and quality still be acceptable to agencies, stakeholders, and members of the public for use in the NEPA process? If not, what will be done to rectify this problem? Who will be responsible for any needed updating? Because of the high-level nature of this study limited environmental factors were considered, namely biology and environmental justice. This analysis will need to be updated during the NEPA process. The remaining environmental factors will also need to be evaluated during NEPA. Other issues Are there any other issues a future NEPA study team should be aware of (mark all that apply)? In the space below the check boxes, explain the nature and location of any issue(s) checked. Public and/or stakeholders have expressed specific concerns Utility problems Access or right-of-way issues Encroachments into right-of-way Need to engage—and be perceived as engaging—specific landowners, citizens, citizen groups, or other stakeholders 18 Contact information for stakeholders Special or unique resources in the area Federal regulations that are undergoing initial promulgation or revision Other ____________________________________ While Notices of Intent are required by some federal agencies for environmental assessments, they are optional for FHWA. Please see “3.3.2 Using the Notice of Intent to Link Planning and NEPA,” in Guidance on Using Corridor and Subarea Planning to Inform NEPA (Federal Highway Administration, April 5, 2011), . 14 [Kingman Stockton Hill Road PARA Study] Checklist for Environmental Planners – Part 3 By completing this checklist, environmental planners will be able to systematically evaluate the transportation planning study with regard to environmental resources and issues. It provides a framework for future NEPA studies by identifying those resources and issues that have already been evaluated, and those that have not. The role of environmental planners during the study’s various stages is laid out in the flowchart on page 3. This role includes timely advocacy for resources and issues that will later be integral to NEPA processes. Checklist for environmental planners Is the resource or issue present in the area? Resource or issue Are impacts to the resource or issue involvement possible? Are the impacts mitigable? Discuss the level of review and method of review for this resource or issue and provide the name and location of any study or other information cited in the planning document where it is described in detail. Describe how the planning data may need to be supplemented during NEPA. Natural environment Sensitive biological resources Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Re-evaluate during NEPA. Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Evaluate during NEPA. Wildlife corridors Yes No Unknown Not applicable Invasive species Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Include standard mitigation in environmental clearance. Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Evaluate during NEPA. Wetland areas Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Evaluate during NEPA. Riparian areas Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Evaluate during NEPA. 100-year floodplain Yes No Unknown Not applicable Clean Water Act Sections 404/401 waters of the United States Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Evaluate during NEPA. Prime or unique farmland Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Evaluate during NEPA. Farmland of statewide or local importance Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Evaluate during NEPA. 15 [Kingman Stockton Hill Road PARA Study] Checklist for environmental planners Is the resource or issue present in the area? Resource or issue Are impacts to the resource or issue involvement possible? Are the impacts mitigable? Discuss the level of review and method of review for this resource or issue and provide the name and location of any study or other information cited in the planning document where it is described in detail. Describe how the planning data may need to be supplemented during NEPA. Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Evaluate during NEPA. Sole-source aquifers Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable N/A Wild and scenic rivers Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Evaluate during NEPA. Visual resources Yes No Unknown Not applicable Designated scenic road/byway Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Evaluate during NEPA. Archaeological resources Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Evaluate during NEPA. Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Evaluate during NEPA. Historical resources Yes No Unknown Not applicable Cultural resources Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) resources Section 4(f) wildlife and/or waterfowl refuge Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Evaluate during NEPA. Section 4(f) historic site Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Evaluate during NEPA. Section 4(f) recreational site Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Evaluate during NEPA. Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Evaluate during NEPA. Section 4(f) park Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Evaluate during NEPA. Section 6(f) resource Yes No Unknown Not applicable 16 [Kingman Stockton Hill Road PARA Study] Checklist for environmental planners Is the resource or issue present in the area? Resource or issue Are impacts to the resource or issue involvement possible? Are the impacts mitigable? Discuss the level of review and method of review for this resource or issue and provide the name and location of any study or other information cited in the planning document where it is described in detail. Describe how the planning data may need to be supplemented during NEPA. Human environment Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Evaluate during NEPA. Existing development Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Evaluate during NEPA. Planned development Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Evaluate during NEPA. Displacements Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Evaluate during NEPA. Access restriction Yes No Unknown Not applicable Neighborhood continuity Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Evaluate during NEPA. Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Evaluate during NEPA. Community cohesion Title VI/Environmental justice populations Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Evaluate during NEPA. Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Evaluate during project development. Utilities Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Evaluate during NEPA. Hazardous materials Yes No Unknown Not applicable Sensitive noise receivers Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Evaluate during NEPA. Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Evaluate during NEPA. Air quality Yes No Unknown Not applicable Physical environment 17 [Kingman Stockton Hill Road PARA Study] Checklist for environmental planners Is the resource or issue present in the area? Resource or issue Other (list) Yes No Unknown Not applicable Are impacts to the resource or issue involvement possible? Are the impacts mitigable? Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable 18 Discuss the level of review and method of review for this resource or issue and provide the name and location of any study or other information cited in the planning document where it is described in detail. Describe how the planning data may need to be supplemented during NEPA. [Kingman Stockton Hill Road PARA Study] Identification of potential environmental mitigation activities Could the transportation planning process be integrated with other planning activities, such as land use or resource management plans? If so, could this integrated planning effort be used to develop a more strategic approach to environmental mitigation measures? N/A With respect to potential environmental mitigation opportunities at the PEL level, who should ADOT consult with among federal, State, and local agencies and tribes and how formally and frequently should such consultation be undertaken? N/A Off-site and compensatory mitigation areas are often creatively negotiated to advance multiagency objectives or multiple objectives within one agency. Who determined what specific geographic areas or types of areas were appropriate for environmental mitigation activities? How were these determinations made? N/A To address potential impacts on the human environment, what mitigation measures or activities were considered and how were they developed and documented? N/A Prepared by: _Thor Anderson___________________ Date: __2-6-14__ Multimodal Planning Division, Arizona Department of Transportation 19 [Kingman Stockton Hill Road PARA Study] Attachment A: Kingman Stockton Hill Road PARA Study TAC Contact List Name Organization Phone E-Mail Matt Carpenter ADOT – MPD PM (602) 712-7870 mcarpenter@azdot.gov Burley Hambrick City of Kingman – Local Agency PM (928) 692-3117 bhambrick@cityofkingman.gov Frank Marbury City of Kingman – Asst City Engineer (928) 753-8122 fmarbury@cityofkingman.gov Gary Jeppson City of Kingman – Director Development Services (928) 753-8560 gjeppson@cityofkingman.gov Greg Henry City of Kingman – City Engineer (928) 753-8122 ghenry@cityofkingman.gov Greg Smith Mohave County – Sheriff Office (928) 753-0753 greg.smith@mohavecounty.us Jack Kramer City of Kingman – City Manager (928) 753-5561 jkramer@cityofkingman.gov Karl Taylor Mohave County – Planning Manager (928) 757-5823 karl.taylor@mohavecounty.us Keith Eaton City of Kingman – Asst Chief Fire Department (928) 753-2891 keaton@cityofkingman.gov Rob Owen City of Kingman – Director Public Works (928) 757-7467 rowen@cityofkingman.gov Sharon Mitchell WACOG (928) 377-1070 sharonm@wacog.com Steve Latoski Mohave County – Director Public Works (928) 757-0910 steven.latoski@mohavecounty.us Michele Beggs ADOT – Kingman District – Public Involvement (928) 681-6054 mbeggs@azdot.gov Michael Kondelis ADOT – Kingman District (928) 681-6010 mkondelis@azdot.gov Kara Lavertue ADOT – Kingman District Lars Jacoby ADOT – Communications Thor Anderson ADOT – MPD, PEL klavertue@azdot.gov (602) 712-7176 ljacoby@azdot.gov tanderson@azdot.gov 20 City of Kingman 310 North Fourth Street Kingman, AZ 86401 928-753-5561 www.cityofkingman.gov