Southern Pinal / Northern Pima corridors definition study 
|
|
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study
FINAL REPORT
ADOT Project No. T04-49-P0001
Prepared by:
Prepared for: ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
April 2008
091374017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FINAL REPORT, SOUTHERN PINAL/NORTHERN PIMA CORRIDORS DEFINITION STUDY 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 1.2 Study Area ................................................................................................................... 1 Working Paper Contents ............................................................................................ 1
2.0 STUDY AREA TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS ................................................................... 3 2.1 2.2 State Highways in the Study Area .............................................................................. 3 Planned Transportation Network ............................................................................... 4
3.0 OVERVIEW OF TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING .................................................................. 12 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Travel Demand Model Selection ............................................................................... 12 Model Population and Employment ......................................................................... 14 Employment Trends .................................................................................................. 14 Preliminary Travel Demand Model Observations ................................................... 15 Summary of Findings ................................................................................................ 16
4.0 LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ............................................................... 20 4.1 Land-Use Compatibility Opportunities and Constraints ......................................... 20 4.1.1 Land Jurisdiction and Ownership...................................................................... 20 4.1.2 Summary of Land Use and Local Jurisdiction Perspectives Opportunities and Constraints......................................................................................................................... 24 4.2 Environmental Conditions ........................................................................................ 25 4.2.1 Topography ...................................................................................................... 25 4.2.2 Natural Environment ........................................................................................ 25 4.2.2.1 Biotic Communities ....................................................................................... 26 4.2.2.2 Wildlife ......................................................................................................... 27 4.2.2.3 Special Status Species and Critical Habitat .................................................... 27 4.2.2.4 Noxious Weeds ............................................................................................. 32 4.2.2.5 Water Resources............................................................................................ 32 4.2.2.6 Farmla nds ..................................................................................................... 33 4.2.2.7 Air Quality Analysis ...................................................................................... 33 4.2.2.8 Nonattainment Areas ..................................................................................... 34 4.2.2.9 Conformity .................................................................................................... 34 4.2.2.10 Noise............................................................................................................. 35 4.2.2.11 Hazardous Materials ...................................................................................... 36 4.2.2.12 Undergr ound Storage Tanks .......................................................................... 37 4.2.2.13 Lea king Underground Storage Tanks ............................................................. 37 4.2.2.14 Hazardous Material Incident Logbook ........................................................... 37 4.2.2.15 Superfund Sites ............................................................................................. 37 4.2.2.16 Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities.................................................... 37 4.2.2.17 Other Environmental Sites ............................................................................. 38 4.2.2.18 Hazardous Materials Summary ...................................................................... 38 4.2.2.19 Section 4(f) Resources ................................................................................... 38 4.2.2.20 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................ 38 4.2.2.21 ADOT Environmental Consultation ............................................................... 39
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 i Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FINAL REPORT, SOUTHERN PINAL/NORTHERN PIMA CORRIDORS DEFINITION STUDY 4.2.2.22 Summary of Environmental Opportunities and Constraints ............................ 40
5.0 NEW CORRIDORS ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT .......................................................... 42 5.1 5.2 5.3 Stakeholder Meetings on Initial Development of Alternatives................................. 42 Preliminary New Corridors Concept ........................................................................ 44 Modified New Corridors Concept............................................................................. 45
6.0 NEW CORRIDORS NEEDS ANALYSIS ................................................................................. 48 6.1 6.2 6.3 Description of Transportation Model Runs.............................................................. 48 Needs Analysis Findings ............................................................................................ 48 Study Area Performance with New Corridors ......................................................... 50
7.0 NEW CORRIDORS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS........................................................................ 51 7.1 Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................... 51 7.1.1 Physical Location Criteria ................................................................................ 51 7.1.2 Major Environmental Concerns Criteria ........................................................... 55 7.1.3 Land-use Compatibility Criteria........................................................................ 58 7.1.4 Influence on Major Transportation Infrastructure Criteria................................ 61 7.2 Feasibility Analysis .................................................................................................... 63 8.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................... 68 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 Findings ..................................................................................................................... 68 Preliminary Corridor Definitions ............................................................................. 69 Estimate of Probable Cost ......................................................................................... 69 Steps Required for Future Corridor Development .................................................. 71
APPENDIX A � ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW SUPPORTING MATERIALS................................ 72 Appendix A-1 Listed and Proposed Species that May Occur in Maricopa County, Pinal County, and Pima County, Arizona .................................................................................... 73 Appendix A-2 Environmental Databases Search Results ................................................ 76 Appendix A-3 � Environmental Documentation References .............................................. 76 APPENDIX B � DISCUSSION OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE I-10 DCR MODEL ........................... 79
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
ii
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FINAL REPORT, SOUTHERN PINAL/NORTHERN PIMA CORRIDORS DEFINITION STUDY
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1-1 � Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridor Definition Study Area ............................. 2 Exhibit 2-1 � Study Area State Highways Functional Classification............................................. 5 Exhibit 2-2 � Study Area State Highways Number of Lanes ........................................................ 6 Exhibit 2-3 � 2004 Average Annual Daily Traffic ....................................................................... 7 Exhibit 2-4 � Study Area State Highways .................................................................................... 8 Exhibit 2-5 � State Highway Projects, 2008 to 2011 � Arizona Department of Transportation.... 11 Exhibit 3-1 � Analysis Tool Selection Considerations ................................................................ 13 Exhibit 3-2 � Pima County 2005 and 2030 Population ............................................................... 14 Exhibit 3-3 � Pinal County 2005 and 2030 Population ............................................................... 14 Exhibit 3-4 � 2005 and 2030 Employment ................................................................................. 15 Exhibit 3-5 � 2030 Travel Demand Model Output (no new corridors) ........................................ 17 Exhibit 3-6 � Comparison of Daily Traffic Volumes .................................................................. 18 Exhibit 4-1 � Jurisdictions ......................................................................................................... 21 Exhibit 4-2 � Land Ownership ................................................................................................... 22 Exhibit 4-3 � Planned Developments ......................................................................................... 23 Exhibit 4-4 � Summary of Land-use and Local Jurisdictions Opportunities and Constraints ....... 24 Exhibit 4-5 � Topography.......................................................................................................... 29 Exhibit 4-6 � Natural Vegetation ............................................................................................... 30 Exhibit 4-7 � Arizona Priority Conservation Areas and Arizona Wildlife Linkages .................... 31 Exhibit 4-8 � Noise Abatement Criteria ..................................................................................... 36 Exhibit 4-9 � Identified Cultural Resources within the Study Area ............................................. 39 Exhibit 5-1 � New Corridors Concepts Discussed at Stakeholder Interviews .............................. 43 Exhibit 5-2 � New Corridors Concept, Corridor Descriptions .................................................... 46 Exhibit 5-3 � New Corridors Concept ........................................................................................ 47 Exhibit 6-1 � 2030 Modeling Assumptions, By Scenario ........................................................... 48 Exhibit 6-2 � 2030 Base Future Network Traffic Volumes ......................................................... 50 Exhibit 6-3 � 2030 New Corridor Network Traffic Volumes ...................................................... 51 Exhibit 6-4 � Needs Analysis Findings for New Corridors ......................................................... 50 Exhibit 6-5 � Overall Mobility Performance .............................................................................. 50 Exhibit 7-1 � Summary of Data Collected and Reviewed ........................................................... 51 Exhibit 7-2 � Topography Considerations .................................................................................. 54 Exhibit 7-3 � Environmental Considerations .............................................................................. 57 Exhibit 7-4 � Development Considerations ................................................................................ 60 Exhibit 7-5 � Existing and Proposed Transportation Infrastructure............................................. 62 Exhibit 7-6 � Summary of Feasibility Analysis .......................................................................... 64 Exhibit 8-1 � Estimated Unit Costs ............................................................................................ 70 Exhibit 8-2 � Estimate of Probable Costs ................................................................................... 70
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
iii
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the ADOT Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study is to determine the need for and feasibility of new high-capacity transportation corridors in Southern Pinal County and Northern Pima County. The study recommends the general location of potential corridors for which both need and feasibility are determined. The study recommendations do not identify the exact location of new roads, but identify broad corridor definitions for potential new high-capacity facilities. Objectives of the study are: Determination of the need for new corridors using performance-based evaluation techniques. Definition of planning-level corridor definition alternatives based on regional freeway planning principles, existing and future corridor conditions, and input from affected jurisdictions and stakeholders. Evaluation of the engineering, environmental, and land use compatibility characteristics of alternative corridor definitions through a technical assessment of performance criteria, impact criteria, and implementation criteria. Development of preferred corridor definitions on the basis of the technical evaluation. Docu mentation of planning-level corridor development costs, funding options, and the extent to which affected jurisdictional and stakeholders support the preferred corridor definitions. (Note: This objective was limited to jurisdictional and stakeholder perspectives of members of the Technical Advisory Committee.)
1.1 Study Area The study area for the ADOT Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Study is shown in Exhibit 1-1. The study area was defined to include the rapidly growing region north of Tucson within both Pima and Pinal Counties. 1.2 Working Paper Contents This document, entitled ADOT Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study, Final Report, contains the following chapters: Chapter 1, Introduction Chapter 2, Study Area Transportation Conditions �Transportation conditions in the study area applicable to the determination of need and feasibility for new corridors are discussed. Chapter 3, Overview of Travel Demand Modeling � This chapter describes the modeling process used to develop future travel forecasts in the study area, population and employment assumptions, and preliminary travel demand model observations. Chapter 4, Land Use and Environmental Conditions � A high level overview of potential environmental conditions is presented. Chapter 5, New Corridors Alternatives Development � Development of corridor definition alternatives is described. Chapter 6, New Corridors Needs Analysis � A discussion of how new corridors attract trips and how they affect parallel facilities is presented. Chapter 7, New Corridors Feasibility Analysis � Evaluation of new corridor feasibility through a fatal flaw analysis is discussed. Chapter 8, Summary of Findings and Recommendations � Preliminary planning-level corridor definitions and planning level costs are presented. The next steps in corridor development are discussed in this chapter.
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
1
040
Gila River Indian Res.
San Carlos Apache Tribe
MARICOPA
( '0 &� % A10
10
180
190 140
Ak-Chin Indian Res.
� A
130
140 FLORENCE 130
140
� A
160 150
190
COOLIDGE
130
� A
160
170
8 ( ' & %
CASA GRANDE
170
000 200
� A
120
� A
120 120 110
GRAHAM
190
ELOY
� A
120
210
10 ( ' & % 220
PINAL
� A
110
Tohono O'odham Nation
100 100
230
090
MARANA
� A
ORO VALLEY
240
080
PIMA
250
Saguaro National Park
070 260
TUCS ON
COCHISE
Saguaro National Park
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridor Definition Study
� A
Exhibit 1-1 Study Area
4
0 1 2 4 6
Legend
100
250
000 MilePost Number
County Boundary CDS Boundary
THREE POINTS
Indian Reservation
Miles 10
National Park/Monument Stud y Roadway
� A
8
San Xavier District of the Tohono O'odham Nation
Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System, Arizona Department of Transportation
( ' & %
2.0 STUDY AREA TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS
This chapter summarizes existing transportation conditions on study area state highways. The principal data source for existing conditions is the 200? Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) maintained by ADOT (some data in the 200? HPMS may not reflect 2008 conditions). Information is presented in sufficient detail to provide input for determination of need for and the general location of new transportation facilities within the study area. 2.1 State Highways in the Study Area Study area state highways and their functional classification are displayed in Exhibit 2-1. The existing number of lanes is shown in Exhibit 2-2. Average Annual Daily Traffic volumes are displayed in Exhibit 2-3. Exhibit 2-4 lists each state highway in the study area, and the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes, number of lanes, functional classification, percent trucks, and the volume-tocapacity ratio as contained in the 2004 HPMS data set. I-10: I-10 within the study are extends from the I-10 / I-19 interchange in Tucson to the I-10 / SR-287 interchange near Casa Grande. Through the Tucson urban area I-10 is functionally classified as an Urban Arterial � Interstate. North of Tucson, I-10 is classified as a Principal Arterial � Interstate. A small segment of I-10 at the north end of the study area is classified as an Urban Principal Arterial � Interstate. I-10 within the study area currently has six lanes from the I-10/I-19 interchange to north of Tangerine Road. The remainder of I-10 in the study area is 4 lanes divided (2 lanes in each direction). Several improvement projects are underway by ADOT (refer to section 2.2, and Exhibit 2-5) to add additional lanes to I-10 throughout the study area. SR-77: SR 77 is classified as an Urban Principal � Other facility throughout the Tucson area. It transitions to a Rural Principal Arterial-Other facility near the Pima / Pinal County line and to a Rural Minor Arterial in Pinal County. SR-77/Miracle Mile between I-10 and SR77/Oracle Road is 4 lanes. SR-77/Oracle Road, between Miracle Mile and Calle Concordia in Oro Valley is six lanes, at which point SR-77 transitions to 4 lanes and continues as a 4lane section to Pusch Ridge Drive in Oro Valley. From Pusch Ridge Drive to La Reserve Drive, SR-77 is a 6 lane segment. From La Reserve Drive to Golder Ranch Road (Catalina), SR-77 is a 4-lane roadway with median separation. As SR-77 / Oracle Road passes through Catalina, the median is replaced with a two-way left turn lane. North of Catalina, SR-77 transitions to a 2-lane roadway and remains two lanes as it continues north through the community of Oracle. Between the community of Oracle and Mammoth, passing lanes have been constructed. North of Mammoth, SR-77 continues as a two-lane roadway. SR 77 is planned to be widened to 6 lanes from Calle Concordia to Tangerine Road (between 2008 and 2010) and from Tangerine Road to the Pinal County line (in 2010). SR 79: SR-79 connects Oracle Junction (SR-77/SR-79 junction) to Florence. SR-79 within the study area is a 2-lane roadway and is classified as a Rural Minor Arterial. SR-87: SR-87 within the study area is a north-south state highway that connects Eloy to Coolidge and Florence. SR-87 then continues outside of the study area to the Gila River Indian Community. Segments of SR-87 in the study area are functionally classified as a
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
3
Rural Major Collector, Rural Minor Arterial, Rural Principal Arterial, Urban Principal Arterial � other. SR-87 is the primary roadway through Coolidge. SR-287: SR-287 is a Rural Minor Arterial that runs east-west between Casa Grande, Coolidge, and Florence. SR-287 is two lanes, with exception to a 4-lane section as it passes through the City of Coolidge.
2.2 Planned Transportation Network Several major projects are planned in the study area in the time period 2008 to 2011, based on information contained in the Arizona State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP), Fiscal Years 2008-2011. A total of 9 projects are planned in the study area for a total of approximately $154 million. These projects are listed in Exhibit 2-5. On I-10 these projects include new or reconstructed traffic interchanges at Ina Road, Cortaro Road, and Twin Peaks Road and mainline widening to 8 lanes between Ruthrauff Road and Prince Road. SR 77 is planned to be widened to 6 lanes from Calle Concordia to Tangerine Road (between 2008 and 2010) and from Tangerine Road to the Pinal County line (in 2010).
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
4
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report
� A � A
040
Gila River Indian Res.
� A
150 190 140 140 150
San Carlos Apache Tribe
MARICOPA
( '0 &� % A10
10
180
Ak-Chin Indian Res.
� A
COOLIDGE
140 FLORENCE 130
140
� A
160 150
190 120
130
130
� A
160
170
8 ( ' & %
CASA GRANDE
170
000 200
� A
190
ELOY
� A
120 120 110
� A
120
210
� A
100 100 110
MAMMOTH
Tohono O'odham Nation
( ' & %
10 220
230
090
MARANA
� A
ORO VALLEY
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridor Definition Study
240
080
4
Exhibit 2-1 Study Area State Highway Functional Classification
Saguaro National Park
250 070 260
TUCSON
0 1.5
3
6
9
12
Miles 15
Legend
000 MilePost Number
CDS Boundary Coun ty Boundary
Indian Reservation National Park/Monument
100
FUNCTIONAL CLASS CODE
Rural: Principal Arterial - Interstate Rural: Principal Arterial - Other Rural: Minor Arterial Rural: Major Collector Rural: Minor Collector Urban: Principal Arterial - Interstate Urban: Principal Arterial - Other FWY Urban: Principal Arterial - Other Urban: Minor Arterial
250
Saguaro National Park
� A
THREE POINTS San Xavier District of the Tohono O'odham Nation
� A
Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System, Arizona Department of Transportation
( ' & %
� A � A
040
Gila River Indian Res.
� A
150 190 140 140 150
San Carlos Apache Tribe
MARICOPA
( '0 &� % A10
10
180
Ak-Chin Indian Res.
� A
COOLIDGE
140 FLORENCE 130
140
� A
160 150
190 120
130
130
� A
160
170
8 ( ' & %
CASA GRANDE
170
000 200
� A
190
ELOY
� A
120 120 110
� A
120
210
� A
100 100 110
MAMMOTH
Tohono O'odham Nation
( ' & %
10 220
230
090
MARANA
� A
ORO VALLEY
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridor Definition Study
240
080
4
Exhibit 2-2 Study Area State Highways Number of Lanes
Saguaro National Park
Miles 15
250 070 260
TUCSON
0 1.5
3
6
9
12
Legend
000 MilePost Number CDS Boundary County Boundary
Indian Reservation National Park/Monument
100
Numb er of Through Lanes
250
Saguaro National Park
� A
2 3 4 5 6
Frontage Roads THREE POINTS San Xavier District of the Tohono O'odham Nation
� A
Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System, Arizona Department of Transportation
( ' & %
� A
22 6
59 2 0
4606
Gila River Indian Res.
6 54 46
San Carlos Apache Tribe
MARICOPA
( ' &� %A
10
20626
3 56
6 273
1 28 3
4
41 6
6
6478 7786 11972
Ak-Chin Indian Res.
� A
77 6 7
FLORENCE
8 34
284 5
442 8
3661
6424
� A
3224
13 63
3203
� A
4285
CASA GRANDE
12 5
37 72 6
45 53 0
7
COOLIDGE
52 23
� A
44
� A
9 28 9
GRAHAM
41 3
3203
5646
8 ( ' & %
86 48
00
� A
2929
38
ELOY
PINAL
� A
47 92
98
Tohono O'odham Nation
( ' & %
10
81 7 9
0 59
5156
7
0 45
4
87
6
MARANA
48 01 6
30 26 0
Saguaro National Park
Note: Traffic volumes shown on this map are two-way volumes.
411 2 9
4428
1
38 88 6
25 3 0 1
39
� A
PIMA
ORO VALLEY
82 73 7
7 13
80 3
COCHISE
TUCS ON Saguaro National Park
14 58 28
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridor Definition Study
E �ve a Daily Traffic Axhribigte2-3 2004 Annual A
V/C
4
0 - 0.75 0.75 - 0.90 0.90 - 1.19
Legend
0000 AADT
County Boundary CDS Boundary Indian Reservation National Park/Monument
THREE POINTS
0
2
4
8
12
16
Miles 20
Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System, Arizona Department of Transportation
� A
San Xavier District of the Tohono O'odham Nation
Exhibit 2-4 � Study Area State Highways
% Trucks (FHWA Class 813, Tractor/Trailer) 30%
ROAD I-10
From Florence Blvd
To Selma Hwy
Begin Mile Post 195.2
Ending Milepost 197.2
Roadway Functional Class Urban: Principal Arterial Interstate Rural: Principal Arterial Interstate Rural: Principal Arterial Interstate Urban: Principal Arterial Interstate Urban: Principal Arterial Interstate Urban: Principal Arterial Interstate Urban: Principal Arterial Interstate
Length (miles) 2.01
AADT 41,000 4
Thru Lanes
Volume to Capacity Ratio 0.530
Selm a Hwy
I-8
197.2
199.4
2.16
38,000 to 41,000 37,000 to 48,000 48,000
4
30%
.51 to .58
I-8
Tangerine Rd
199.4
240.7
41.30
4
28% to 31%
0.5 to .68
Tangerine Rd
Cortaro Farms Rd
240.7
247.0
6.30
4
31%
0.670
Cortaro Farms Rd
Ina Rd
247.0
249.0
2.00
83,000
6
31%
1.050
Ina Rd
Ruthrauff Rd
249.0
252.7
3.70
100,000 to 124000
6
31%
1.050
Ruthrauff Rd
22nd St
252.7
259.6
6.90
138,000 to 160,000
6
15% to 25%
1.160
Source: HPMS
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
8
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report
Exhibit 2-4 � Study Area State Highways (continued)
% Trucks (FHWA Class 813, Tractor/ Trailer) 10% 7% to 10% 6% 6% 5% 5% 6% 7% 6% 6%
ROAD SR287
From M116+0.00 Sunland Gin Rd SR-87 Florence UB
To Sunland Gin Rd SR-87 Florence UB SR-79B Oracle Rd Calle Concordia Golder Ranch Dr Saddlebrooke Blvd SR-79 Gila/Pinal CB
Begin Mile Post 4.3 5.0 22.7 30.1 0.0 1.5 9.4 17.6 20.6 22.9
Ending Mile Post 5.0 14.1 30.1 30.6 1.5 9.4 17.6 20.6 22.9 65.5
Roadway Functional Class Urban: Principal Arterial - Other Rural: Minor Arterial Rural: Minor Arterial Urban: Minor Arterial Urban: Principal Arterial - Other Urban: Principal Arterial - Other Urban: Principal Arterial - Other Urban: Minor Arterial Rural: Minor Arterial Rural: Minor Arterial
Length (miles) 0.75 9.04 7.30 0.50 1.48 7.90 8.25 2.96 2.30 42.60
AADT 8,200 3,000 to 8,000 8,000 to 12,000 7,800 25,000 40,000 to 53,000 30,000 to 40,000 25,000 25,000 3,900 to 8,200 3 2
Thru Lanes
Volume to Capacity Ratio 0.140 0.330 0.350 0.350 0.240 .27 to .41 .25 to .43 0.230 0.210 0.410
2, with one 4 lane segm ent 2 4 6 4 4 4 2 lanes, passing lanes constructed on som e segments (3 lanes total)
SR-77
I-10 Oracle Rd Calle Concordia Golder Ranch Dr Saddlebrooke Blvd SR-79
Source: HPMS
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
9
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report
Exhibit 2-4 � Study Area State Highways (continued)
% Trucks (FHWA Class 813, Tractor/ Trailer) 6%
ROAD SR-79
From SR-77
To M131+0.99 (North of Florence-Kelvin Hwy) SR-287 M130+0.90 Martin Rd M134+0.32 SR-287
Begin Mile Post 0.0
Ending Mile Post 40.9
Roadway Functional Class Rural: Minor Arterial
Length (miles) 40.90
AADT 2,900 to 3,500 2
Thru Lanes
Volume to Capacity Ratio 0.17 to .26
SR-87
M115+0.77 SR-287 M130+0.90 Martin Rd M134+0.32
1.0 11.1 16.1 16.6 19.2
11.1 16.1 16.6 19.2 19.7
Rural: Major Collector Rural: Minor Arterial Rural: Principal Arterial - Other Urban: Principal Arterial - Other Rural: Principal Arterial - Other
10.09 5.00 0.58 2.56 0.44
2900 to 3200 6424 6424 12800 to 15600 13557
2 2 2 4 2
9% 8% 8% 8% 9%
0.190 0.350 0.350 0.220 0.530
Source: HPMS
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
10
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report
Exhibit 2-5 � State Highway Projects, 2008 to 2011 � Arizona Department of Transportation Jurisdiction
ADOT
Route
10
Location
Twin Peaks (Linda Vista TI) I-10/I-19 Interchange I-10/I-19 Interchange
Begin Milepost
236
Length
Year
2008
Type of Work
Construct TI
Cost ($000)
28,000
10
ADOT
260
2009
Design and Construct landscaping Extend Intelligent Transportation System s along I10 and I-19 Design and Construct new TI
600 (2009 funding) 6,600
10
ADOT
260
2009
10
Cortaro TI
ADOT
247.4
0.2
2009 2010
1,800 (2009 funding) 2,206 (2010 funding)
10
Ina Road TI
ADOT
248
1.5
2008 2010 2011
Design and Reconstruct TI & mainline
3,000 (2008 funding) 17,764 (2010 funding) 17,400 (2011 funding)
10
Ruthrauff Road to Prince Road
ADOT
252.8
1.8
2009 2010 2011
Construct mainline widening to 8 lanes
21,000 (2009 funding) 14,000 (2010 funding) 18,000 (2011 funding)
10
Tangerine Road and I10 WB ramp Calle ConcordiaTangerine Road
ADOT
240
2008
Install traffic signal system Widen to 6 lanes
250
77
ADOT
77
5
2008 2009 2010
11,735 (2008 funding) 3,000 (2009 funding) 7,000 (2010 funding)
77
Tangerine Road to Pinal County Line
ADOT
82
2010
Widen to 6 lanes
2,000
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study 11 Final Report
3.0 OVERVIEW OF TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING
This chapter describes the travel demand modeling process used to evaluate the need for future new corridors in the study area. 3.1 Travel Demand Model Selection Travel demand modeling served as the primary analysis tool to evaluate the need for new corridors within the study area. Selection and development of an appropriate travel demand model for the Corridors Definition Study was complicated by the fact that the study area spans two counties (Pima and Pinal) that are within in two separate MPO/COG planning areas (Pima Association of Governments, and the Central Arizona Association of Governments). However, the travel demand model must cohesively analyze travel demand patterns across county and MPO lines. In addition, the travel demand model must be consistent with other on-going studies in the study area, and specifically the I-10, I-8 to Tangerine Road Design Concept Report. Several travel demand modeling tools were identified. These included (1) the Pinal County Small Ar ea Transportation Study (PC SATS) travel demand model, (2) adapting the PC SATS model to "beyond-2030" population (3) the I-10 Design Concept Report model, (4) PAG 2030 Travel dema nd model, and (5) PAG "Beyond 2030 Model" that was developed for the PAG Loop Study. Three modeling approaches were ultimately considered that use a combination of the available travel demand models: 1. Utilize the Pinal County SATS 2030 Model for the study area in Pinal County in combination with the PAG 2030 Model for the study area in Pima County. 2. Develop a Pinal County "beyond 2030" model for the study area in Pinal County, and use the model in combination with the PAG "Beyond 2030" model. 3. Utilize the I-10 Design Concept Report (DCR), Tangerine Road to I-8, 2030 Model. The I10 DCR model includes the entire corridor definition study area in a single model. These modeling approaches are summarized in Exhibit 3-1. The I-10 DCR travel demand model was selected as the analysis tool for the Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridor Definition Study. Several considerations led to the selection of the I-10 DCR 2030 model as the preferred tool for needs analysis. Advantages to using and adapting the I-10 DCR model include: The model encompasses the entire corridors definition study area. Options 1 and 2 above did not include the entire study area, and would have required combing output from these models with the Pima Association of Governments travel demand model. The model's socioeconomic data and forecasts were previously reviewed and deemed acceptable by ADOT and local jurisdictions. Use of the model would maintain consistency between the I-10 DCR and the Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study. A review of preliminary output from the I-10 DCR model, determined that certain elements of the model should be modified for application to the Corridors Definition Study. A summary of model refinements that were made to the I-10 DCR model are summarized in Appendix B. The modifications resulted in model output reasonable for application to the Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study.
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study 12 Final Report
Exhibit 3-1 � Analysis Tool Selection Considerations Option Model Description Advantages for Application to Corridors Needs Analysis
Operational model. Model underwent significant review and scrutiny by local jurisdictions as part of Pinal County SATS. Operational model. Routinely updated by PAG staff.
Disadvantages for Application to Corridors Needs Analysis
Com prehensive coverage of study area requires utilization of both models, which introduces external stations complexities. New corridors that span modeling areas of each model must be coded separately and analyzed separately in each model. Com prehensive study area coverage requires utilization and application of both the PAG and Pima County models, which introduces external stations com plexities. New corridors that span modeling areas of each model must be coded separately and analyzed separately in each model. Build-out conditions did not provide enough sensitivity for determination of need for new corridors. In effect, any new corridor that was modeled `loaded' because of the lack of an arterial network throughout the study area.
1
Pinal County SATS 2030 Model
Developed for Pinal County SATS (2006). Modeled area limited to Pinal County
PAG 2030 Model
Developed and maintained by Pima Association of Governm ents.
2
Pinal County Buildout Model
Model is based on Pinal County SATS Model. Socioeconomic data was expanded to build-out conditions.
Build-out perspective is needed to be proactive in rapidly developing Pinal County to enable corridor preservation in advance of developm ent.
PAG "Beyond 2030" Model
Model based on PAG 2030 Model. Socioeconomic data was expanded to beyond 2030 / buildout conditions.
3
I-10 (DCR) Tangerine Road to I8, 2030 Model.
Modeled area includes Pinal, and portions of Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties. Model was determined as being appropriate for I-10 DCR, I-8 to Tangerine Road.
Modeled area includes the entire Corridor Definition Study area.
Traffic volume output on many roadway segm ents in the study area are higher than could reasonably be expected.
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study 13 Final Report
3.2 Model Population and Employment Population and employment forecasts serve as basic inputs to the 2030 travel demand model. Information regarding population and employment projections in the I-10 DCR travel demand model was obtained from a Technical Memorandum developed for the Interstate 10 Corridor Study (Casa Grande to Tangerine Road) entitled Traffic Model Development and Application (February 12, 2007) by Cambridge Systematics. These data are summarized in the following sections. The reader is referred to the Cambridge Systematics technical memorandum for a detailed description of the travel demand model. Pima County Within Pima County, population data for 2005 and 2030 were developed by the Pima Association of Governments and adopted by the PAG Board in October 2002 for use in transportation planning in the PAG region. 2005 and 2030 projected population in Pima County is summarized in Exhibit 3-2.
Exhibit 3-2 � Pima County 2005 and 2030 Population
Location Pima County
Source: Pima Association of Governments
2005 Population 943,413
2030 Population 1,494,105
Pinal County Within Pinal County, the Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study (SATS) developed year 2005 population and employment estimates and year 2025 projections. These data reflected a compound growth rate of 10.9 percent between 2005 and 2025 which is above the 6.7 percent annual growth rate in the preceding 5 years. The Pinal SATS population projections were based on a tabulation of housing units within Planned Area Developments (PAD) and a continuation of the current average household size of 2.6 persons. The population projections assumed that all PADs that were under construction in 2005 would be built out by 2025, and other PADs that had an approved land use designation would be 75% built out by 2025. These assumptions were applied uniformly across the county and did not appear to be constrained by market absorption rates or infrastructure availability. The resulting estimates were allocated to individual zones based on each PAD's geographic location. Since the real estate market in Pinal County has been very dynamic, after considering several options for modifying overall growth trends, it was determined that that the socioeconomic projections developed for 2025 apply to the year 2030 in the I-10 Corridor Study project. These population projections, as compared to 2005 data, are summarized in Exhibit 3-3.
Exhibit 3-3 � Pinal County 2005 and 2030 Population Location
Pinal County
2005 Population
222,913
2030 Population
1,954,016
Sources: Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study
3.3 Employment Trends For Pima County, employment projections were developed by the Pima Association of Governments and were adopted by the PAG Board in 2002 for use in transportation planning in
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study 14 Final Report
the PAG region. 2030 population forecasts call for total employment in the region of 673,383 jobs, as compared to 481,336 jobs that were in place in 2005. For Pinal County, employment forecasts were developed based on a similar approach that was used in the Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study and was subsequently used in the I-10 Corridor Study to develop population forecasts. Planned area developments that were under construction in 2005 were assumed to be completely built out by the horizon year of 2025 (2030 was used as the horizon year in the I-10 Corridor Study), and other PADs that had an approved land use designation would be 75% built out by 2025 (2030 used as a horizon year in the I-10 Corridor Study). These assumptions were applied uniformly across the county, resulting in the following employment projections. A summary of 2005 and 2030 employment estimates for Pima County and Pinal County is summarized in Exhibit 3-4.
Exhibit 3-4 � 2005 and 2030 Employment Location
Pima County Pinal County
2005 Employment
481,336 40,027 673,383 519,774
2030 Employment
Source: Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study
3.4 Preliminary Travel Demand Model Observations 2030 base (no new corridors) travel demand model traffic volume output is displayed in Exhibit 3-5. General observations are: 1. Segments of I-10 within the study area exceed 200,000 vehicles per day in 2030. I-10 is modeled as a 10-lane facility with a capacity of 95,000 vehicles per day in each direction (for a total capacity of 190,000 vehicles per day). 2. Many segments of the I-10 frontage roads carry up to 60,000 vehicles per day. Much of this would be on I-10 if more capacity were provided on I-10. 3. SR 79 (a 6-lane facility) has several segments that carry more than 100,000 vehicles per day. 4. Delay curves limit I-10 from exceeding a volume to capacity ratio over 1.2, or approximately 228,000 vehicles per day. Vehicles that would normally prefer to utilize I-10 are diverted to alternate facilities. A model run was conducted in which I-10 is assumed to be unconstrained (e.g. there is not an upper limit to the capacity of I-10) and all vehicles that desire to travel on I-10 are able to do so. Traffic volumes across an east-west screen line that runs near the Pinal County/Pima County line shows that nearly 520,000 vehicles per day desire to travel on I-10 in this unconstrained condition (refer to Exhibit 3-6, column 5), as compared to 223,000 (column 4) under congested constrained conditions and using the updated delay curves. Note that in the constrained model run, nearly 296,000 vehicles per day (column 6) use alternate routes. The demand is referred to as latent dema nd. The latent demand, shown in column 6, represents the demand that desires to travel on the route but due to congestion travels on alternative routes. The primary alternate routes that other vehicles utilize are SR 79 and Wheeler Road, in addition to other arterials such as Signal Peak, Sunland Gin, and Sunshine Blvd.
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study 15 Final Report
Column 7 represents a model run in which hypothetical new parallel corridors to I-10 were input to the model. As demonstrated, the new corridors directly draw vehicles from I-10 and onto the new corridors. 3.5 Summary of Findings 1. Analysis of the 2030 model demonstrates that 1-10 in the year 2030 is over capacity, even as a 10 - lane facility. As demonstrated by the unconstrained I-10 model run (Exhibit 3-6, column 6), over 500,000 vehicles desire to utilize I-10 in the year 2030. Nearly 300,000 of these vehicles are diverted to alternate routes. Accommodation of all vehicles that `naturally' desire to utilize I-10 would require I-10 to be constructed well beyond 10 lanes. I-10 does not carry more traffic in the updated Kimley-Horn 2030 model because of the constraints introduced with the volume-delay curves in the model. 2. If the I-10 capacities are increased by 20 percent (e.g. I-10 is coded as a 12 lane facility rather than a 10 lane facility), traffic volumes on I-10 in the 2030 model will increase by a similar magnitude. Much of the traffic being diverted from I-10 are using unrealistic routes (minor arterials and frontage roads) to traverse the region, so it would be expected that I-10 would carry volumes at or higher than what the model currently depicts. 3. Additional capacity should be provided on new parallel and alternate corridors to I-10.
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study 16 Final Report
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridor Definition Study Exhibit 3-5 2030 Base Travel Demand Model Output (No new corridors)
Gila River Indian Res.
San Carlos Apache Tribe
�
41
42
46
47
89
25
14 13
4
8
76
36
43
41
19
15
8
75
47
30
18
25
27
65
3
5
21
0
26
23
74
40
19
72
15
54
17
50
28
8
3
1
16
22
21
59
74
73
21
23
39
18
12
11
84
24
74
23
42
8
26
43
1
83
19 2
19
19
8
48
37
22
45
30
26
64
39
3
2
208
0
44
12
19 4
37
63
2 11
21
9
31
4
2
7 11
25
24
22 4
37
19
10
63
Tohono O'odham Nation
14
22 4
34
27
28
1 0
13
29
33
43
9
54
53
31
68
15
19
59
13
83
97
26
43
43
13
34
71
45
50
32
2
7
51
0
61
38
47
33
34
156
48
88
85
76
26
4
9
73
25
4
54
85
137
50
57
3
1
0
1
5
16
26
6
32
2
8
20 2
5
4
20 9
46
31
7
0
13
33
29
27
2
6 22
0 21
40
15
4 20
1
29
22
8 22
44
0
0
128
22 2
0
20
31
22 0
25
1
90
77
0
12
35
21
PIMA COUNTY
1
61
6
48
37
52
31
NOTES: Traffic volumes shown on the map are in thousand vehicles and two-way volumes.
23
55
25
91
5
11
26
76
28
69
123
29
73
4
3
24
8 19
22
0
23
3
7
60
94
76
70
11
35
29
78
18
47
4
52
Legend
KHAALT_00_CLIP Freeway Major Arterial Major Collector Minor Arterial CAP Canal County Boundary Corridor Definition Study Area Indian Reservation
6
24
30
4
16
4
49
64
25
3
67
80
93
2
5
3
0
COCHIS
58
26
24
44
15
26
25
26
12
92
56
36
21
16
8
86
81
4
34
98
66
18 8
22
3
87
18 0
0
10
7
21
55
46
62
39
0
1.25 2.5
5
7.5
10
12.5 Miles
11
0
2
0
68
5
13
48
43
58
12 6
11
69
9
4
Exhibit 3-6 � Comparison of Daily Traffic Volumes
1
2
3
4
2030 Base (No New Corridor s) Volumes (vpd)
5
2030 Base (No New Corridor s) Unconstr ained Volumes on I-10 (vpd)
6
7
Road Name
Sunland Gin Rd Signal Peak Rd Eleven Mile Corner Rd Sunshine Blvd SR-87 Picacho Hwy I-10 I-10 Frontage Roads Wheeler Road SR 79 SR-77 River Rd Centroid Connectors New Corridors East-West Screenline near Pinal County/Pima County border
Location
2005 Base Model Volumes (vpd)
2030 Latent Demand
2030 New Corridors Volumes (vpd)
South of Milligan Road South of Milligan Road South of Milligan Road South of Milligan Road South of I-10 South of I-10 West of Wheeler Road West of Wheeler Road North of I-10 North of Park Link Drive South of River Road South of SR 77 Varies Varies
981 560 975 41,774 339 2,879 1,582 570 2,118 74,473
25,414 24,411 37,235 27,182 31,731 9,327 223,193 29,153 63,116 116,723 24,528 1,954 43,392 0 657,359
7,506 1,438 24,186 116 25,144 6,783 518,839 790 1,244 45,229 10,429 1,954 53,981 0 697,639
-17,908 -22,973 -13,049 -27,066 -6,587 -2,544 295,646 -28,363 -61,872 -71,494 -14,099 0 10,589 0 40,280
11,079 1,487 11,936 2,876 17,537 4,570 164,939 990 3,759 71,655 7,843 1,946 47,233 320,880 668,730
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
18
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report
4.0 LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
This chapter describes land use and environmental conditions that exist in the study area for the purposes of identifying opportunities and constraints for new transportation corridors. 4.1 Land-Use Compatibility Opportunities and Constraints This section documents land-use compatibility opportunities and constraints. Land use compatibility criteria include issues of project compatibility with jurisdictional development and local land use plans. An outcome of this analysis is how the alternatives fit with adopted transportation and land use plans; incompatibilities and adopted transportation and land use plan modifications to accommodate the corridors are identified and addressed. 4.1.1 Land Jurisdiction and Ownership
Land jurisdiction refers to the authority to regulate land uses. Land ownership information was obtained from the Arizona State Land Department's Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS). Land ownership is identified as public or private ownership. The study area contains property within Pinal County and Pima County, as well as the cities of Tucson, Casa Grande, Coolidge, Eloy, and the towns of Marana, and Oro Valley. Jurisdictions are shown in Exhibit 4-1. Additionally, land areas within the study area are made up of State Trust Land and Bureau of Land Management property, the San Carlos Apache Tribal Reservation, National Forests, National Parks and Monuments, City Parks, State Parks, and private property (Figure 4-2, Land Ownership). Some large land holdings east and west of Tucson include the Saguaro National Park, which is comprised of two areas, the Saguaro National Park East and the Saguaro National Park West. These two parks are comprised of approximately 91,000 acres. Exhibit 4-3 depicts planned developments in the Pinal County portion of the study area.
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
19
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report
� A � A
� A � A
Gila River Indian Res.
� A
� A
� A
San Carlos Apache Tribe
MARICOPA
10 ( ' &� %A
FLORENCE
Ak-Chin Indian Res.
� A
COOLIDGE
� A � A
8 ( ' & %
ELOY CASA GRANDE
� A � A
10 ( ' & %
� A
GRAHAM
PINAL
� A
Tohono O'odham Nation
MARANA
� A
ORO VALLEY
PIMA
Saguaro National Park
COCHISE
TUCSON Saguaro National Park
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridor Definition Study
� A
Exhibit 4-1 Jurisdictions
4
0 12 4 6
Legend
County Boundary THREE POINTS CDS Boundary Indian Reservation National Park/Monument Stud y Roadway San Xavier District of the Tohono O'odham Nation
� A
8
Miles 10
Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System, Arizona Department of Transportation
( ' & %
10 ( ' &� %A
� A � A � A � A
10 ( ' & %
� A � A
8 ( ' & %
GRAHA
PINAL
� A
� A
PIMA
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridor Definition Study
Exhibit 4-2 Land Ownership
� A
4
0 1 2 4 6 8 Miles 10
Legend
PINAL_RTP_STUDYR OADS Existing Corridors Corridor Definition Study Area County Boundary Bure au of Land Management Forest and Parks Indian Res. Military State Trust Land
Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System, Arizona Department of Transportation
� A
10 ( ' &� %A
� A � A � A � A
10 ( ' & %
� A � A
8 ( ' & %
GRAHA
PINAL
� A
� A
PIMA
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridor Definition Study
Exhibit 4-3 Planned Developments in Pinal County
� A
4
0 1 2 4 6 8 Miles 10
Legend
PINAL_RTP_STUDYR OADS Planned Developments Corridor Definition Study Area County Boundary Existing Corridors
Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System, Arizona Department of Transportation Pinal County
� A
4.1.2
Summary of Land Use and Local Jurisdiction Perspectives Opportunities and Constraints
A summary of opportunities and constraints from a land-use and local jurisdiction perspective near existing roads in the study area is presented in Exhibit 4-4.
Exhibit 4-4 � Summary of Land-use and Local Jurisdictions Opportunities and Constraints Corridor Definition Alternative
SR 77 (from junction with I-10 to the junction with SR 177) x x x
Lan d Use and Local Jurisdictions Perspectives Constraints
Land identified as Indian Allotments are located in the northern portion of the SR 77 study limits, north of Mammoth. The US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management owns parcels of land along the northern portion of the SR 77 study limits, north of Mammoth. The US Department of the Interior, National Park Service owns the lands identified as Coronado National Forest located along the southern portion of the SR 77 study limits in Pima County. The Arizona State Parks Department owns the lands identified as Catalina State Park located on SR 77 north of Tucson. The US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management owns parcels of land along the southern portion of the SR 79 study limits. The US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation owns parcels of land along the southern portion of the SR 79 study limits. The United States Military owns one parcel within the study area: 1) Florence Military Reservation located north of Florence along the southern portion SR 79 and supports the Arizona Army National Guard. The Gila River Indian Reservation owns the land along the northwestern portion of SR 87 west of Coolidge. The US Department of the Interior, National Parks Service owns the lands identified as Casa Grande Ruins National Monument located on SR 87/SR 287 at Coolidge. The US Bureau of Land Management owns parcels of land along the southern portion of the SR 87 study limits just south of Coolidge. The US Department of the Interior, National Parks Service owns the lands identified as Casa Grande Ruins National Monument located on SR 87/SR 287 at Coolidge.
x SR 79 (Entire Length) x x x
SR 87 (from PinalMaricopa County line to the junction with I-10)
x x x
SR 287 (Entire Length)
x
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
23
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report
4.2 Environmental Conditions The purpose of the environmental overview is to describe the existing environmental conditions within the proposed Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Area, and to identify potential environmental concerns for future development of new corridors within the study area. Information presented within this environmental analysis is based on the existing data sources from local, county, state, and federal agencies. This analysis is not intended to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This chapter presents background information that is used as a basis for analyzing feasibility of new roadway corridors. This analysis documents the socioeconomic environment, physical and natural environmental character, cultural resources, and section 4(f) resources in the study area. Existing environmental conditions within the study area have been evaluated to identify potential "fatal flaws," obstacles, issues, and sensitive areas for future improvements. This analysis also addresses surveying, permitting, and agency coordination requir ements that would need to be addressed in future studies prepared in accordance with NEPA. 4.2.1 Topography
Topography of the study area is shown in Exhibit 4-5. In the Pima County area, key topographic features include the five ranges of mountains that surround Tucson: the Santa Catalina Mountains and the Tortolita Mountains to the north, the Santa Rita Mountains to the south, the Rincon Mountains to the east, and the Tucson Mountains to the west. Tucson itself is located on an alluvial plain in the Sonoran desert, at an elevation of 2,389 feet. In the Pinal County area, key topographic features include Picacho Peak and the Picacho Mountains, located in the southern part of Pinal County and the Tortolita Mountains, also located in the southern central part of the county. Land Subsidence Earth Fissures Land subsidence has been observed in the study area. Land subsidence is a result of groundwater overpumping and subsequent settling of the soil material. Another result of subsidence is earth fissures. Earth fissures are ruptures (typically long linear cracks) in the Earth's surface caused by uneven or differential compaction in the earth's surface, as a result from ground water level subsidence. It is estimated that mor e than 3,000 square miles in Arizona has been affected by subsidence and the resulting fissures including Tucson, metropolitan Phoenix, and other communities. The Eloy area of Central Arizona has been extensively documented. (South-Central Arizona, Earth Fissures and Subsidence Complicate Development of Desert Water Resources. Carpenter, Michael C. U.S. Geological Survey, Tucson, Arizona). Earth fissures have caused significant damage to infrastructure and property including roads, railroads, flood control structures, and other utilities, including the Central Arizona Project Canal, the Loop 202, and housing developments. New transportation corridors in the study area will need to consider fissures in their design and alignment. Idea lly, known fissure zones will be avoided. Areas of earth fissures are identified in Exhibit 4-5. 4.2.2 Natural Environment
This section describes the existing natural environment within the study area in terms of wildlife, sensitive species, plants, water resources, visual character, air quality, noise, and hazardous material concerns. The inventory of the natural environment of the study area consisted of gathering data and infor mation from various local, state, and federal agencies, including the Arizona Game and Fish
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
24
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report
Department (AGFD) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The characteristics of the natural environment were also identified based on a visual survey of the study area. 4.2.2.1 Biotic Communities
The study area is predominantly ecotonal between the Lower Colorado River subdivision and the Arizona Upland subdivision of the Sonoran Desert Scrub Biotic Community (Brown, 1994). The eastern portion of the study area is slightly higher in elevation with portions of SR 77 and SR 79 occupied by the Semidesert Grassland Series and Madrean Evergreen Woodland Series (Brown, 1994). Natural vegetation within the study area is depicted in Exhibit 4-6. The characteristics of the natural environment were also identified based on aerial photographs (Google Earth, 2007) of the study area. Numerous ephemeral washes occur throughout the study area which contain xeroriparian habitat. In addition, there are intermittent and/or perennial waters with associated riparian habitat that cross our study corridors. Some of the major drainages include: Gila River, Mineral Creek, San Pedro River, Tanque Verde Creek, and the Santa Cruz River. Biotic communities within the study area are described in mor e detail below and are depicted in Exhibit 4-6. Lower Colorado River Sonoran Desert Scrub Subdivision According to Brown (1994), the Lower Colorado River Sonoran Desert Scrub subdivision is the largest and most arid subdivision in Arizona. The Lower Colorado River Sonoran Desert Scrub subdivision ranges in elevation from approximately 70 feet (ft) to 2,132 ft mean sea level (MSL), transitioning elevations between the Lower Colorado River subdivision and the Arizona Upland subdivision occur between approximately 984 ft and 2,132 ft MSL. Species commonly found in this subdivision include: honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), Ironwood (Olneya tesota), Blue paloverde (Cercidium floridum), desert willow (Chiopsis linearis), creosotebush (Larrea tridentata), white bursage (Ambrosia dumosa), canyon ragweed (Ambrosia ambrosioides), indigo bush (Psorothamnus schottii), big galleta (Hilaria rigida), catclaw acacia (Acacia greggii), burrobrush (Hymenoclea salsola), saltbush (Atriplex polycarpa), and desert broom (Baccharis sarothroides). Arizona Upland Sonoran Desert Scrub Subdivision According to Brown (1994), this subdivision is the most watered and least desert-like desertscrub in North America. The Arizona Upland Sonoran Desert Scrub subdivision ranges in elevation from approximat ely 984 ft to 3,500 ft MSL, with transitioning elevations between the Lower Colorado River subdivision and the Arizona Upland subdivision vary between approximately 984 ft and 2,132 ft MSL. The vegetation generally appears similar to a scrubland or low woodland of leguminous trees with intervening spaces held by several open layers of shrubs and perennials succulents. Species found within this subdivision include: Blue paloverde, ironwood, mesquites (Prosopis sp), catclaw acacia, foothill paloverde (Cercidium microphyllum), crucifixion thorn (Canotia holacantha), chollas (Opuntia sp), saguaro (Carnegia gigantean), organ pipe (Stenocereus thurberi), barrel cactus (Echinocactus horizonthanlonius), and fish-hook barrel cactus (Ferocactus wislizenii). Semidesert Grassland Series According to Brown (1994), this series has naturally high diversity of dry-tropic shrubby species. The Semidesert Grassland Series ranges in elevation from approximately 3,500 ft to 5,577 ft MSL. Common plants found in this series include: black grama (Bouteloua eriopoda), slender grama (Bouteloua filiformis), chino grama (Bouteloua breviseta), spruce top grama (Bouteloua chondrosioides), hoe grass (Muhlenbergia porteri), several three-awn species (Artistida spp.), curly mesquite (Hilaria belangeri), slim tridens (Tridens muticus), pappus grass (Pappophorum vaginatum), and tanglehead grass (Heteropogon contortus).
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
25
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report
Madrean Evergreen Woodland Series According to Brown (1994), this series is considered by some as a transition between the pine and oak for ests. The Madrean Evergreen Woodland Series ranges in elevation from approximately 4,921 ft to 5,905 ft MSL. Some of the species found in this series include: Emory oak (Quercus emoryi), Arizona white oak (Quercus arizonica), Mexican blue oak (Quercus oblongifolia), gray oak (Quercus grisea), Apache pine (Pinus engelmannii), Chihuahua pine (Pinus leiophylla), Arizona pine (Pinus ponderosa var. arizonica), Durango pine (Pinus durangensis) alligator juniper (Juniperus deppeana) and one-seed juniper (Juniper monosperma). 4.2.2.2 Wildlife
The most common wildlife found within the study area would include birds, reptiles, and small mammals, such as: black-tailed jack rabbit (Lepus californicus), spotted ground squirrel (Spermophilus spilosoma), hispid pocket mouse (Perognathus hispidus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), road-runner (Geococcyx californianus), raven (Covus cryptoleucus), cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus), chuckwalla (Sauromalus obesus), and zebra-tailed lizard (Callisaurus draconoides). The majority of the wildlife within the study area will utilize xeroriparian habitat associated with the ephemeral washes and inter mittent/perennial rivers and creeks. These areas will also provide the best habitat value for wildlife, providing food, shelter, and travel corridors. 4.2.2.3 Special Status Species and Critical Habitat
For purposes of this document special status species include those that are federally listed as threatened, endanger ed, proposed, and candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. A list of federally listed threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species as well as state-listed wildlife of concern in Arizona which may occur within the project area was prepared from information provided by the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). This list and a list of sensitive species from AGFD are provided in Appendix A-1. Critical habitat is the specific geographic areas, whether occupied by listed species or not, that are deter mined to be essential for the conservation and management of listed species, and that have been for mally described in the Federal Register. Critical habitat only applies to federally listed endangered or threat ened species. The southwest willow fly-catcher and Gila top minnow have designated areas of critical habitat that occur within or near the study area. Potential impacts to species and their critical habitat will require consultation under Section 7 of Endanger ed Species Act. Depending on the type or amount of potential impacts, project compliance may requir e formal consultation procedures to be implemented before the United States Fish and Wildlife Service can make a `no jeopardy' statement. In addition, the burrowing owl, protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, is known to occur within the study area. The study area contains large areas of bare ground and vacant lots that provide suitable habitat for burrowing owls. Potential impacts to the burrowing owl should be evaluated during the environmental clearance process. The Sonoran desert tortoise, an AGFD Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizona, is known to occur within the study area. The AGFD guidelines for handling Sonoran desert tortoises for development projects in 1997 would be followed for projects with the potential to impact this species. The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) developed a statewide wildlife linkage assessment identifying important habitat connectivity areas, or linkage zones. The Arizona Wildlife Linkages Assessment (2006) was conducted as a proactive effort to preserve and potentially restore habitat connectivity within the state of Arizona. The purpose of the assessment was to identify habitat blocks
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
26
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report
that consist of important wildlife habitat; fracture zones that separate habitat blocks; the potential linkage zones between, within, and through the habitat blocks and fracture zones that can be identified as areas critical to wildlife movement; and the factors threatening to disrupt the potential wildlife linkage zones. The objective of the assessment is to maintain natural ecosystems, habitat connectivity, and wildlife populations and to address habitat fragmentation through a comprehensive, systematic approach. ADOT encourages minimization of further fragmentation of wildlife corridors through maintaining landscape connectivity within these linkage zones. The Arizona Wildlife Linkages Assessment recognizes "that transportation corridors cut through large tracts of wildlife habitat, destroying habitat, and creating fragmentation of wildlife corridors. Roadway corridors can become either impassable to wildlife, or passable only at risk to the traveling public and the wildlife crossing the highway." Within the study area, the linkage zones connect the Tucson Mountains, Picacho Mountains, Tortolita Mountains and the Santa Catalina Mountains. Wildlife linkage areas are depicted in Exhibit 4-7 and include: Linkage 66 Superior-Miami US 60; Linkage 67 Gila River-El Capitan; Linkage 78 State Route 79; Linkage 79 Ironwood-Tortolita; Linkage 80 Saguaro-Tortolita; Linkage 81 Santa Catalina-Tortolita; and Linkage 82 Santa Catalina-Galliuro. Of the seven identified linka ge zones, two (Linkage 66 and 67) are of high priority for consideration containing both a high ecological value and the most pressing threats to the existing linkage. The Wildlife Linkages Assessment is available at: http://www.azdot.gov/Highways/OES/AZ_Wildlife_Linkages/index.asp. Arizona Priority Conservation Lands are displayed in Exhibit 4-7, which are a result of assessments conduct ed by the Nature Conservancy in collaboration with public and private agencies to identify core habituate for species throughout Arizona.
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
27
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report
10 ( ' &� %A
� A � A � A � A
Picacho Mountains 10 ( ' & %
� A � A
8 ( ' & %
GRAHAM
PINAL
� A
Picacho Peak
Tortolita Mountains
� A
PIMA
C atalina Mountains
Tucson Mountains
COCHISE
� A
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridor Definition Study
Exhibit 4-5 Topography
4
0 1 2 4 6 8 Miles 10
Legend
Study Roadway
Rincon Mountains
Contour Lines
CDS Boundary County Boundary
Fissures
Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System, Arizona Department of Transportation
� A
GILA
� A � A
� A
� A � A
10 ( ' &� %A
� A
� A
�
GRAHAM
� A � A � A � A
10 ( ' & %
� A � A
8 ( ' & %
GRAHAM
PINAL
� A
MARICOPA
� A
PIMA
GRAHAM
COCHISE
0
3.5
7
14
21
28 Miles
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridor Definition Study
Exhibit 4-6 Natural Vegetation
� A
Legend
Study Roadway Count y Boundary Inte rior Chaparral Low er Colorado River Sonoran Desertscrub Madrean Evergreen Woodland
Corridor Definition Study Area Arizona Upland Sonoran Desertscrub GR EAT BASIN CONIFER WOODLAND
� A
Petran Montane Conifer Forest Semidesert Grassland
19 ( ' & %
Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System, Arizona Department of Transportation
10 ( ' &� %A
� A � A � A � A
10 ( ' & %
� A � A
8 ( ' & %
GRAHA
PINAL
� A
� A
PIMA
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridor Definition Study
Exhibit 4-7 Priority Conservation Areas and Arizona Wildlife Linkages
� A
4
0 1 2 4 6 8 Miles 10
Legend
Corridor Definition Study Area Potential Wildlife Linkage Zones Conservation Area County Boundary Existing Corridors
Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System, Arizona Department of Transportation Nature Conservancy
� A
4.2.2.4
Noxious Weeds
Invasive and noxious weeds are an increasing problem. Invasive and noxious weeds rapidly displace desirable plants that provide habitat for wildlife and food for people and livestock. Invasive and noxious weeds are plants that are not native to Arizona and were introduced accidentally or intentionally. Noxious weeds are listed by state and federal law and are generally considered those that are exotics and negatively impact agriculture, navigation, fish, wildlife, and public health. Since the 1900s, weedy annuals such as cheatgrass, Russian thistle, filaree, and tumble mustard have become established in areas where grazing has greatly reduced the native vegetation. Invasive weeds such as those listed previously can alter fire regimes. Under Executive Order 13112, dated February 3, 1999, projects that occur on federal lands or are federally funded must be: "subject to the availability of appropriations, and within Administration budgetary limits, use relevant programs and authorities to: i) prevent the introduction of invasive species; ii) detect and respond rapidly to, and control, populations of such species in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner; iii) monit or invasive species populations accurately and reliably; and iv) provide for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded." For any proposed roadway project, a survey will be required by a qualified noxious weed authority to deter mine if any noxious weeds are present within the project boundaries. 4.2.2.5 Water Resources
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) regulates the discharge of dredge and fill material into waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Any activity that will discharge dredge or fill material into jurisdictional waters, including wetlands, will require a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit, following the completion of a jurisdictional delineation. A jurisdictional delineation is the process of identifying the characteristics and boundaries of waters of the U.S. within a given geographic area, and must receive final approval by the ACOE. USGS 7.5 �minute quadrangles and aerial photographs of the study area were reviewed to determine if potential waters of the U.S. are present. There are ephemeral drainage systems within the study area. In general, ephemeral drainage systems are determined by the ACOE to be jurisdictional waters. If it is anticipated that work will take place within or adjacent to potential waters of the U.S., a jurisdictional delineation for the project area should be completed and submitted to the ACOE for concurrence. Following ACOE-approval of the jurisdictional delineation, the project should be reviewed to determine if a Section 404 permit is necessary. Activities that may require a permit include, but are not limited to, construction of new roads, widening of existing roads, construction or expansion of bridges, installation of corrugated-metal pipe and concrete box culverts, installation of riprap, and maintenance activities within a drainage system. If impacts are expected to be below 0.5 acre for each identified water of the U.S. (i.e. each individual wash system), a Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number 14 would likely be required. If impacts at a single crossing or to any individual drainage system exceed 0.1 acre, pre-construction notification must be provided to the ACOE, and the project must be authorized by the ACOE prior to the start of construction. If impacts at a single crossing or to any individual drainage system do not exceed 0.1 acre, preconstruction notification is generally not required, but may be required if a "may effect" determination is ma de for a threatened or endangered species and/or the presence of any historic property determined to be eligible, or which may be eligible, for listing on the National Register of Historic Places is identified. If impacts at any single crossing or to any individual drainage system exceed 0.5 acre, a Section 404
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
31
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report
Individual Permit would be required. The Individual Permit process requires a more detailed permit application, and the ACOE review period is typically much longer than that of a Nationwide Permit. Improvements within or near waters of the U.S. require Section 401 Water Quality Certification. In certain cases, projects are Conditionally Certified and it is not necessary to submit an application for certification to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality; however, the Section 401 conditions listed in the applicable Section 404 permit must be adhered to in order to qualify for Conditionally Certified. Linear transportation projects are generally Conditionally Certified. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System is a national program under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act that regulates discharges of pollutants from point sources into waters of the U.S. Arizona has been delegated authority from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to implement the per mit program within the state. The state program is referred to as the Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES). The AZPDES permit program requires an AZPDES general permit for construction activities that disturb one or more acres of land. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SW3P) must be prepared as a part of the permit. A review of Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Maps indicates 100-year floodplains are located along major drainage systems within the study area. Coordination with FEMA would be required if impacts are proposed within the flood zone. 4.2.2.6 Farmlands
Agricultural lands compose much of the central and western portions of the study area. Agricultural lands within the study area were observed in aerial photographs (GoogleEarth, 2007) Prime farmland is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, oilseed, and other agricultural crops with a minimum input of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, and labor, and without intolerable soil erosion. Prime farmland has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed, including water management, according to acceptable farming methods. If federal funds are used for any roadway improvements that would require right-of-way acquisition, a farmland impact assessment may need to be performed in accordance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act. 4.2.2.7 Air Quality Analysis
The Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments and NEPA require that air quality impacts be addressed in the preparation of environmental documents. The level of effort used to evaluate these impacts may vary from a simplified description to a detailed analysis depending on factors, such as the type of document to be prepared, the project location and size, the air quality attainment status of the area, and the state air quality standards. Under the CAA, areas are classified for the degree of ambient air pollution existing at the time of the 1990 amendments as to whether they attain the NAAQS or are in nonattainment of the standards as described below. As required by the CAA, NAAQS have been established for the following major air pollutants: carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter smaller than 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter smaller that 2.5 microns (PM2.5), sulfur dioxides, and lead. Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless gas that affects the cardiovascular system. Vehicular emissions are a major source of carbon monoxide. Ozone is created through a complex reaction of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen with sunlight as a catalyst. Ozone affects the respiratory system; and vehicle emissions, power plants, and service stations are major sources. High concentrations of ozone are common in the Phoenix area during the summer. Nitrogen dioxide is a gas with a yellowish orange to reddish brown appearance, depending on its concentration, which impairs the respiratory system. Major sources of nitrogen dioxide are power
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report
32
plants and vehicle emissions. Particulate matter refers to small aerosols that may cause irritation and da mage to the respiratory system. Vehicle emissions and the resuspension of road dust by vehicular activity are common sources. Sulfur dioxide is a colorless gas frequently derived from the combustion of sulfur-containing fuels. It primarily affects the respiratory system and major sources are coal- and oilfir ed power plants. Lead and its compounds damage the cardiovascular, renal, and nervous systems. The primary source of lead is vehicular emissions associated with the use of leaded gasoline. These standards have also been established as the official ambient air quality standards for the state of Arizona. The "primary" standards have been established to protect the public health. The "secondary" standards are intended to protect the nation's welfare and account for air pollutant effects on soil, water, visibility, materials, vegetation, and other aspects of the general welfare. In 1987, the standard for particulate matter was revised by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA defines total suspended particulate matter (TSP) as aerosols with diameters ranging from 0.1 microns up to approximately 30 microns in size, and include fine, coarse, and super coarse particles. Aer osols with aerodynamic diameters of 10 microns or less are referred to as PM10. In July 1997, EPA revised the standards for both particulate matter and ozone. EPA revised the methods for the determination of exceedences and revised the PM10 standard by adding standards for particulates with diameters less than or equal to 2.5 microns and are referred to as PM2.5. For ozone, the 1-hour standard was replaced with an 8-hour standard. In addition, the standard for concentration of ozone was lower ed from 0.12 parts per million to 0.08 parts per million, and the method for the determination of exceedences was also revised. The effective date of those final rules was September 16, 1997. 4.2.2.8 Nonattainment Areas
The CAA Amendments of 1990 authorized the EPA to designate areas as nonattainment, and to classify them according to their degree of severity. This classification initiates a set of control requirements designed to achieve attainment by a specified date. A nonattainment area is an area in which compliance with the NAAQS has not been established for one or more pollutants. States that fail to attain the NAAQS for any of the criteria pollutants are required to submit State Implementation Plans, which outline those actions that will be taken to attain compliance. The section of the study area within Pinal County is located in the Hayden nonattainment areas for PM 10 and sulfur dioxide (SO2). The southeastern portion of the study area, in Pinal County, is within the San Manuel nonattainment area for SO2. And in the southern portions of the study area, in Pima County, are within the Rillito nonattainment area for PM10, and the Tucson maintenance area for CO. 4.2.2.9 Conformity
Since 1977, federal agencies and Metropolitan Planning Organizations have been required by Section 176c of the CAA to ensure that all transportation projects conform to the approved air quality State Implementation Plans. The CAA enacted in 1990 defined conformity to a State Implementation Plan as meaning conformity to a State Implementation Plan's purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS. The conformity determinations for federal actions related to transportation projects must meet the requirements of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 51 and 93. Portions of the study area are within six air quality nonattainment areas and two maintenance areas which have transportation control measures in the State Implementation Plans and Federal Implementation Plan. Within Pinal County portions of the study area are within air quality nonattainment areas for PM 10 and SO2. Within Pima County portions of the study area are within air quality nonattainment areas for PM10 and are also within a maintenance area for carbon monoxide (CO). A given individual project within these designated areas will need to be included in an approved transportation improvement plan for at least one year, and no more than three years, prior to construction. That Transportation Improvement Plan
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
33
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report
will have to be approved by the Federal Highway Administration and EPA as conforming to the State Implementation Plan, and the Federal Implementation Plan will have to conform. During a construction project, disturbance of the soil by heavy equipment would increase fugitive dust and, if uncontrolled, would affect local air quality. In addition, construction-related traffic delays, combined with exhaust emissions from constructed-related equipment, may elevate levels of pollutants. Such impacts would be temporary and would be eliminated once construction is complete. Any construction activity located within Pima or Pinal Counties must adhere to the local air quality rules and ordinances. 4.2.2.10 Noise Noise, defined as unwanted or excessive sound, is an undesirable by-product of our modern way of life. While noise emanates from many different sources, transportation noise is perhaps the most pervasive and difficult source to avoid in society today. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 mandates the FHWA to develop noise standards for mitigating highway traffic noise. The FHWA regulations for mitigation of highwa y traffic noise in the planning and design of federally aided highways are contained in Title 23 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations Part 772. The regulations require the following during the planning and design of a highway project: 1) identification of traffic noise impacts; examination of potential mitigation measures; 2) the incorporation of reasonable and feasible noise mitigation measures into the highway project; and 3) coordination with local officials to provide helpful information on compatible land use planning and control. The regulations contain noise abatement criteria, which represent the upper limit of acceptable highway traffic noise for different types of land uses and human activities. The regulations do not require that the abatement criteria be met in every instance. Rather, they requir e that every reasonable and feasible effort be made to provide noise mitigation when the criteria are approached or exceeded. ADOT has adopted a State Policy, the Noise Abatement Policy for Federal Aid Projects, which is consistent with FHWA policy. These policies outline noise impacts. A traffic noise impact occurs when either of the following condition occurs: The predicted traffic noise level approaches or exceeds the noise abatement criteria shown in Exhibit 4-8. ADOT defines approach as being 3dBA below the appropriate NAC. The predicted traffic noise level substantially exceeds the existing noise level. ADOT defines substantial in this context as 15dBA or greater.
Exhibit 4-8 � Noise Abatement Criteria Activity Category A Description Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and ser ve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B Undeveloped lands. Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums. Leq(h) 57 dBA (exterior) 67 dBA (exterior) 72 dBA (exterior) None 52 dBA (interior)
B C D E
Source: Title 23, CFR Part 772
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
34
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report
If potential traffic noise impacts are identified, noise abatement is considered and implemented, if it is found to be both reasonable and feasible. The views of the impacted residents are a major consideration in reaching a decision on the reasonableness of abatement measures to be provided. When noise abatement measur es are being considered, every reasonable effort is made to obtain substantial noise reductions. Substantial noise reductions have been defined by State highway agencies to typically range from 5 to 10 dBA. Highway construction noise is often viewed by the public as being short term and a necessary price for growth and improvement. Highway construction noise should generally be addressed in a qualitative, rather than quantitative, manner commensurate with the scope of the highway project. Construction noise levels may be predicted, if warranted. If potential construction noise impacts are identified, a common sense approach should be utilized to incorporate appropriate abatement measures into the highway project. 4.2.2.11 Hazardous Materials Hazardous materials are regulated by the Federal Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) implements CERCLA, commonly known as the Superfund, and its amendments, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986. In order to investigate the environmental concerns associated with hazardous materials and solid waste landfills, a preliminary investigation was performed of the permitted and non-regulated hazardous mat erials sites and solid waste facilities located near state routes within the study area (not including I-10, but including SR 77, SR 79, SR 87, and SR 287). A review of the various state and federal databases for hazardous materials was completed for the study area. Sources consist of: ADEQ Underground Storage Tanks (UST); ADEQ Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST); ADEQ Hazardous Material (HazMat) Incident Logbook (HMIL); Federal Superfund Sites to include National Priority List (NPL), Department of Defense (DoD) Sites and Arizona Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (WQARF); Arizona Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDF) and Solid Waste Landfills (SWLF).
A search was performed for facilities with underground storage tanks (UST) and leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) that are within or immediately adjacent to the study area. A search for hazardous material incidents was performed to identify potential hazmat concerns within or immediately adjacent to state routes within the study area. Additionally, a search radius of one mile was used to identify superfund sites, TSDF sites, and SWLF sites that may possess a hazardous material concern within the study area. For the purpose of this Environmental Overview the identified regulated facilities within the study area do not equate to the total number of environmental concerns. In most cases the number of environmental concern for each facility is greater than one. Further hazardous materials analysis would be required as new potential roadway corridors are defined.
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
35
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report
4.2.2.12 Underground Storage Tanks T he results of the underground storage tank (UST) database search indicate that near existing state routes in the study area there are 132 facilities with UST records located within or immediately adjacent to the study area. The results of UST facilities for each identified roadway within the study area are summarized in the Table A-2.a in Appendix A-2. 4.2.2.13 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks The results of the leaking underground storage tank (LUST) database search indicate that near existing state routes in the study area there are 68 facilities with LUST case files located within or immediately adjacent to state routes in the study area. The results of LUST facilities for each identified roadway within the study area are summarized in the Table A-2.a in Appendix A-2. 4.2.2.14 Hazardous Material Incident Logbook Eleven hazardous material incidents occurred within or immediately adjacent to existing state routes in the study area, as recorded in the Hazardous Material Incident Logbook. The results of hazardous material incidents for each identified roadway within the study area are summarized in the Table A-2.a in Appendix A-2. 4.2.2.15 Superfund Sites Superfund Sites included two WQARF sites identified within one mile of SR 77 (Table A-2.a in Appendix A-2). 4.2.2.16 Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities According to the Arizona Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities List and ADEQ Interactive GIS eMap website, three hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities are located within or immediately adjacent to the study area. The results of hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities for each identified roadway within the study area are summarized in the Table A-2.a in Appendix A-2. 4.2.2.17 Other Environmental Sites According to the ADEQ Interactive GIS eMap website there are two landfills, and two material recovery sites located within 1 mile of the study area. Identification of these sites is summarized in the Table A2.a in Appendix A-2. 4.2.2.18 Hazardous Materials Summary The limited hazardous materials investigation Hazardous material sites indicated a number of potential impact areas near the existing state routes of SR 77, SR 79, SR 87 and SR 287. A similar investigation should be conducted for new potential routes. An assessment will need to conform to established ADOT policy and process. 4.2.2.19 Section 4(f) Resources Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 stipulates that Federal Highway Administration may not approve the use of land from a significant publicly owned park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or any significant historic site that is either listed, or eligible for listing on the Register under the following Criterion stated in 49 U.S.C., Section 303:
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
36
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report
(a) "It is the policy of the United States Government that special effort be made to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. (b) The Secretary of Transportation shall cooperate and consult with the Secretaries of the Interior, Housing and Urban Development, and Agricultural, and with the States, in developing transportation plans and programs that include measures to maintain or enhance the natural beauty of lands crossed by transportation activities or facilities. (c) The Secretary may approve a transportation program or project requiring the use of publicly owned land or a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or land of an historic site of national, State, or local significance (as determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction over the park, recreation area, refuge, or site) only if1) There is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and 2) The program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use." The study area does contain publicly owned parks and recreation areas. Recreational areas include the Casa Grande National Monument on SR 287 and SR 87, and Coronado National Forest on SR 77. Other parks include the Tortolita Mountain Park in northern Pima County, and a number of Parks west of the Tucson urbanized area: the Saguaro National Park West, Tucson Mountain Park and the Ironwood Forest National Monument. Therefore, future coordination with the appropriate agencies and departments is recommended for these facilities. 4.2.2.20 Cultural Resources A preliminary review of cultural resource records was conducted utilizing the Arizona Archaeological Site and Survey Database (AZSITE). This analysis included a review of previously conducted cultural resources surveys and identified historic properties and archaeological sites within a 2 km buffer of the existing state routes within the study area. The AZSITE database listed a total of 799 cultural resource survey projects with 1,178 archaeological sites, and 98 historic sites within a 2 km buffer of existing state routes in the study area. The AZSITE database list of survey projects with specific archaeological and historic sites are further detailed in Exhibit 4-9.
Exhibit 4-9 � Identified Cultural Resources within the Study Area Route
SR 77 SR 79 SR 87 SR 287 Total
Cultural Resource Survey Projects
235 128 326 110 799
Archaeological Sites
95 302 675 106 1178 0 16 35 47 98
Historic Sites
Many of these cultural resource sites have been either investigated through controlled excavation projects or have been avoided by construction and development projects and therefore have been preserved.
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
37
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report
As transportation corridors are constructed and improved to serve the rapidly growing populations of Pinal and Pima counties, compliance with existing state and federal legislation concerning cultural resources must be part of the planning process. It is expected that any transportation corridors selected across the study area will require additional archaeological survey. The site density in the study area indicates that significant archaeological sites eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) will be present. Furthermore, it is estimated that any newly recorded archaeological sites will require testing and/or data recovery investigations to mitigate the potential impacts related to the construction of the new transportation corridors. Compliance with cultural resources laws will be a substantial component of any transportation corridor that is selected. Cultural resources clearance and compliance with existing legislation requires adequate time to account for agency reviews and possible testing and/or data recovery, which must be factored into the planning process. 4.2.2.21 ADOT Environmental Consultation The study team met with environmental stakeholders for an Environmental Consultation meeting on December 3, 2007. Attendees included representatives from the following agencies and organizations: US Fish and Wildlife Wildla nds Project Sky Island Alliance Arizona State Land Department Federal Highway Administration Coronado National Forest Arizona Game and Fish Arizona State Parks
The purpose of the meeting was to present environmental stakeholders with the status of the Northern Pima County/Southern Pinal County Corridor Definition Study. Key input and discussion points identified by the stakeholders included: Picacho Peak Wildlife Corridor/crossing area should be considered. Smart-growth planning principles should be utilized during the planning process. Ensure that regional transportation planning efforts are coordinated with local planning agencies. Plan for wildlife habitat. Don't don't push wildlife and natural areas to places that are not going to be developed. Identify wildlife and habitat areas first and develop around those important areas. Avoid these areas, rather than mitigating these areas. Wildlife Corridors are key to the success of the Arizona State Park systems.
4.2.2.22 Summary of Environmental Opportunities and Constraints This section summarizes the social and environmental issues that should be considered during future corridor development, which are described as follows. Native vegetation, including riparian tree species and cacti, is present within the study area. During future design phases, additional consideration would be required to ensure that impacts to these species are minimized and that landscape firms and nurseries are afforded the opportunity for salvage.
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
38
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report
Animal species that live in the Sonoran Desert and surrounding vegetative communities are unique but most are not protected by law. Minimizing impacts to the natural biotic communities and preservation of roadless lands should be considered during final design. Seven wildlife linkages are located within the study area with two linkages identified as critical linka ges. Further studies and/or surveys for habitat connectivity and biological value may be required as roadway plans are developed. The USFWS list of Threatened and Endangered Species would need to be addressed for compliance with the Endangered Species Act for any future project. It may be necessary to conduct a survey for burrowing owls, bald eagles, southwest willow flycatcher, and Sonoran desert tortoise. For any proposed roadway project, a survey will be required by a qualified noxious weed authority to deter mine if any noxious weeds are present within the project boundaries. Proposed work within or adjacent to potential waters of the U.S. would require a jurisdictional delineation and ACOE concurrence. A Section 404 Nationwide Permit (NWP) would be required if the proposed project impacts identified waters of the U.S. within the project limits. Additionally, a pre-construction notification (PCN) would be required if impacts exceeded 0.1 acre. Improvements that occur within or near waters of the U.S. would require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification. However if the proposed project is Conditionally Certified then a Section 401 Water Quality Certification would not be required. Improvements that disturb more than one acre of land would require an AZPDES permit. Additionally a SW3P would also be required. 100-year floodplains are located within the study area. Considerations would be required for proposed work that falls within the flood zone. Farmla nds are present within the study area. A farmland impact assessment is required in accordance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act if federal funds are used for any roadway improvements that requir e right-of-way acquisition of adjacent farmlands. Four air quality nonattainment areas and one maintenance area were identified within the study area. Proposed transportation projects that are within the nonattainment areas are required to meet the requir ements of Title 40 of CFR Parts 51 and 93; to be listed in an approved Transportation Improvement Plan prior to construction; and must adhere to the air quality rules and ordinances of Pima County. A noise analysis would be required if the proposed roadway improvements are located near noise receptors. 132 underground storage tank (UST) facilities and 68 leaking underground storage tank (LUST) facilities were recorded within or immediately adjacent to existing state highways and routes within the study area. Also, 11 hazardous material incidents occurred within or immediately adjacent to state highways and routes within the study area. Additionally, records indicate two WQARF sites are within one mile of existing state highways and routes within the study area. And furthermore, ther e is three hazardous materials treatment, storage, or disposal facilities, two landfills, two material recovery sites. The results are summarized in Appendix A-2. A hazardous materials analysis following the ASTM Standards will be required for individual project limits. If new ROW is to be acquired for future construction, a Phase I ESA should be conducted to deter mine if potential hazmat concerns are Recognized Environmental Conditions. Section 4(f) coordination would be required if ROW acquisition of any 4(f) property is needed by the proposed project.
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
39
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report
The density and diversity of the cultural resources in the study area is high. As evident from the number and location of the survey activities, the study area has not been systematically surveyed. Instead many of the survey efforts are the results of compliance activities initiated by state, federal, and local regulations. Furthermor e, it is estimated that any newly recorded archaeological sites will require testing and/or data recovery investigations to mitigate the potential impacts related to the construction of the new transportation corridors.
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
40
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report
5.0 NEW CORRIDORS ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT
Travel demand modeling as described in chapter three demonstrated that I-10 will be congested in the future, and demonstrated a general need for a new major corridors in the study area. These findings confir m the findings of the I-10 Design Concept Report, Tangerine Road to I-8 (I-10 DCR). The I-10 DCR stated that planning must continue for an integrated parallel system in southern Pinal County and northern Pima County. The next step of Corridors Definition Study was to identify a set of preliminary new corridors, considering the existing conditions (including environmental conditions described in Chapter 4) and perfor m a more detailed assessment of needs and feasibility for each corridor alternative. Existing conditions data, travel demand modeling analysis, and input received from the Technical Advisor y Committee and from individual stakeholder meetings served as input to development of new corridors alternatives in the study area. New corridors alternatives were developed considering the following criteria: New corridors should attract trips that are principally regional in nature; New corridors should divert traffic from congested routes and state highways; New corridors should supplement / integrate with local and regional transportation plans; New corridors should serve as a state or regional freeway; New corridors should reflect jurisdiction and agency visions; New corridors should address local travel demand; New corridors should consider build-out needs: some new corridors alternatives may not exhibit a definitive need in 2030, but may be needed beyond 2030.
The following sections discuss the results of each step of the potential corridor identification process. 5.1 Stakeholder Meetings on Initial Development of Alternatives The first step of new corridors alternatives development was to conduct individual stakeholder meetings with agency representatives. Stakeholder meetings were conducted with the following agencies and jurisdictions. Pima Association of Governments Maricopa Association of Governments Arizona Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Division Arizona Department of Transportation, I-10 Design Concept Report Team Town of Marana Pinal County
In addition, the study team hosted an Environmental Consultation Meeting on December 3, 2007 to solicit input and perspectives from the environmental and conservation community. This was attended by Arizona Game and Fish Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona State Land Department, Arizona State Parks, Coronado National Forest, and the Federal Highway Administration. New corridors alternatives suggested and discussed during the stakeholder and jurisdiction meetings included those listed in Exhibit 5-1:
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
41
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report
Exhibit 5-1 � New Corridors Concepts Discussed at Stakeholder Interviews
Corridor Name I-8 Extension Corridor North-South Corridor Concept Origin Stakeholder input ADOT Pinal County Corridors Definition Study PAG Loop Study Preliminary review of travel dem and modeling Western I-10 Parallel Corridor PAG Loop Study, and modified by stakeholder input. Description Extend I-8 eastward towards SR-79. Extend the North-South corridor to I-10. Extend the North-South corridor south of I-10 and continue southward to connect to a northern extension of the PAG Loop Study western loop. Construct Western Loop and connect to the North-South Corridor near I-10. The new corridor should run parallel to I-10, west of I-10. The corridor would connect to I-10 near the I-8 Interchange. The corridor would be routed west of established communities such as Arizona City Construct a new east-west corridor that runs south of the City of Maricopa. The corridor would connect to new freeway corridors that are being discussed in the MAG Hidden Valley Study. This proposed corridor lies outside of the Corridors Definition Study area. New corridor would run north of I-8, north of Casa Grande. The corridor would intersect the North-South Corridor and continue eastward before heading southeast through Reddington Pass and the Benson/Wilcox area. Upgrade existing SR-79 to freeway facility.
Maricopa East-West Corridor
MAG Hidden Valley Framework Study
I-10 Bypass
ADOT I-10 Bypass Study
SR-79 Upgrade Corridor / Oracle Junction to Florence Corridor Park Link Drive Corridor
Stakeholder input Preliminary review of travel dem and modeling Pinal County Routes of Regional Significance for Safety and Mobility PAG Loop Study
Im prove Park Link Drive to a freeway facility.
SR-77 Reliever Corridor
Construct a new corridor to parallel Oracle Road / SR-77. The Tortolita Mountain Park will need to be considered. Improve Tangerine Road to a freeway corridor.
Oro Valley -Marana Corridor / Tangerine Road Corridor Oracle to Florence Junction Corridor / Far-east I-10 Parallel Corridor Florence - Red Rock -Avra Valley Corridor Marana to SR-79 Corridor
Stakeholder input, and preliminary review of travel demand modeling Pinal County Routes of Regional Significance for Safety and Mobility Preliminary review of travel dem and modeling Preliminary review of travel dem and modeling
This corridor would connect Kearny, Arizona to the Marana, Arizona area. This corridor would run north-south parallel to and east of the proposed North-South corridor, and extend from Florence to Avra Valley. This corridor would run north-south from the Tangerine / I-10 interchange area due north to intersection with SR-79
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
42
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report
In considering and developing new corridors alternatives, ADOT directed that new corridors alternatives have logical termini within or in close proximity to the study area. The need for and feasibility of new corridors outside of the study area that have been proposed in other studies (e.g., ADOT Phoenix-Tucson Bypass and the MAG Hidden Valley Study) will be considered but should not have a major influence on new corridors within the study area. 5.2 Preliminary New Corridors Concept Based upon input received from stakeholder and jurisdiction discussions coupled with a review of travel demand patterns in the study area, the corridors identified in Exhibit 5-1 were refined and a Preliminary New Corridors Concepts was developed. The Preliminary New Corridors Concepts were presented to the Technical Advisory Committee on August 28, 2007. The Concept includes the following: I-8 Extension Corridor North-S outh Corridor Western I-10 Parallel Corridor SR-79 Upgrade Corridor / Oracle Junction to Florence Corridor Park Link Drive Corridor SR-77 Reliever Corridor Oro Valley - Marana Corridor / Tangerine Road Corridor Oracle to Florence Junction Corridor Flor ence - Red Rock -Avra Valley Corridor Marana/Tangerine to SR-79 Corridor
Technical Advisory Committee input received at the August 28 meeting on the preliminary corridors included the following: The Town of Marana would prefer to see a corridor shifted further to the north-west rather than intersect at Tangerine Road. A future north-south corridor could tie to the Villages at Tortolitas. The Town does not want a future corridor to connect at Tangerine Road / I-10 Interchange area. The SR-79 corridor is currently a pristine corridor. Environmental considerations will be significant. The scenic beauty of the area will be a draw to future development. The SR-77 / Oracle Road reliever will need to avoid the La Cholla Airpark and the planned Tortolita Mountain Preserve. The SR-77 / Oracle Road reliever is not supported by Pima County. A new corridor should not be constructed through high-end development areas such as Saguaro Ranch and Canyon Pass (in Marana) Town of Marana is considering a north-east area impact study that could provide funding for improvements to Tangerine Road. The Town envisions that Tangerine Road will be an eight lane roadway near the I-10 interchange, transition to 6 lanes to Dove Mountain Blvd, and then continue as a four lane roadway to match the current four lane cross section in Oro Valley. The Western Parallel corridor makes sense from a build-out perspective, providing a parallel reliever facility to I-10. Tangerine Road should be extended to the southwest. As a result of these comments, the preliminary corridors were modified as discussed in the following section.
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
43
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report
5.3 Modified New Corridors Concept The preliminary new corridors were modified considering input received from the Technical Advisory Committ ee. The revised corridors were subsequently subjected to travel demand modeling. The modified New Corridors Concept are described in Exhibit 5-2. The New Corridors Concept is depicted graphically in Exhibit 5-3. Key differences between the Preliminary and Modified Corridors Concepts are: The Marana/Tangerine to SR-79 Corridor was removed, consistent with input from the Town of Marana. The Park Link Corridor (Red Rock to SR 79) was removed from consideration, because preliminary modeling results showed the corridor did not attract traffic volumes. The I-8 extension corridor was removed from consideration due to feasibility considerations. In addition, modeling demonstrated that when this corridor was removed that traffic volumes efficiently dispersed onto multiple alternate parallel facilities. Oracle to Florence Junction Corridor was removed because the corridor did not attract enough trips to warrant future considerations. The Preliminary New Corridors Concept did not include an east-west high-capacity corridor in the Maricopa /Casa Grande area, as it is outside of the study area. An east-west corridor in the Maricopa / Casa Grande area is being considered in the MAG Hidden Valley Framework Study. The I-10 by-pass was not directly included in the corridors concept because the I-10 By-Pass study does not identify a preferred alternative. However, many segments of the I-10 by-pass are included in the Corridors Concept as parts of other corridors (e.g. Western Parallel, SR-79 Upgrade, and the I-8 Extension). The Preliminary New Corridors Concept does include an additional corridor, the Valencia Road / South Tucson Loop Corridor to provide consistency with the PAG Loop Study. However, this corridor will not be explored further within this study because it is outside of the study area. It is important to note the following with respect to the New Corridors Concept: 1. The corridors depicted in the New Corridor Concept are general corridors in which new transportation facilities may be located. 2. Further environmental and alignment studies will be required to identify alignments for the new corridors. 3. No funding has been identified for any of the corridors depicted in the New Corridors Concept.
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
44
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report
Exhibit 5-2 � New Corridors Concept, Corridor Descriptions Corridor Name
North-South Corridor Extension
Corridor Description
This corridor extends south between Florence and Coolidge, and intersects I-10 along the eastern fringe of Eloy. It crosses I10 and connects the Western Parallel Corridor at its southern terminus. This corridor originates on SR-79 north of Florence, extends south along the eastern edge of Florence, intersects at I-10 and skirts the western side of Marana, and terminating at the Western Parallel Junction. This corridor extends parallel and west of I10, extends southeast through Pima County, and intersects with both I-19 and I-10 in Santa Cruz County just south of Tucson. This corridor, on a SR-79 alignment, extends southeast from the northern area of Florence to Oracle where it intersects SR-77.
Purpose
The North-South Corridor provides relief to I10, SR-87, and SR-79 by providing adjacent north-south connectivity between southeast suburban Phoenix and northwest suburban Tucson. Provides alternative north-south connectivity between central Pinal County and Western Tucson.
Florence / Red Rock / Avra Valley Corridor
Western I-10 Parallel Corridor
Provides relief to I-10 and I-19 by serving as an alternative route between South Tucson and the Casa Grande / Eloy region. Provides an alternative parallel route to I-10, SR-79, and SR-77 which supplies relief to those roadways, and improves the connectivity between the areas of Florence and Oracle Serves as a reliever route to SR-77, La Cholla Boulevard, and La Canada Drive
Oracle Junction to Florence (SR-79) Corridor
SR-77 Reliever
This corridor runs north-south within the City of Tucson, with an alignment in the area of La Cholla Boulevard and La Canada Drive, connects with I-10 at the southern end of the corridor, and extends north to the SR77 / SR79 junction. This corridor is on a Tangerine Road alignm ent which runs east-west between Oro Valley and Marana.
Oro Valley / Marana Corridor (Tangerine Road)
Intended Purpose � the Oro Valley / Marana Corridor serves as an alternative east-west passage between Oro Valley and Marana thereby providing relief to the neighboring arterials of Ina, Orange Grove, and Tangerine.
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
45
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report
A �
Gila River Indian Res.
� A
SR-79 terminates
San Carlos Apache Tribe
MARICOPA
10 ( ' &� %A
FLORENCE
� A
COOLIDGE
� A A �
CASA GRANDE
8 ( ' & %
A �
North-South Corridor Florence/ Red Rock/Avra Valley
� A
ELOY
le ac Or tio nc Ju
A �
Arizon a City
A �
PINAL COUNTY
n to o Fl e nc re
Tohono O'odham Nation
We ste rn P
10 ( ' & %
ara l lel
Oracle
San Manuel
Cat alina
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridor Definition Study
MARANA
Oro Valley / Marana
A �
ORO VALLEY
PIMA COUNTY
4
Leg end
Exhibit 5-3 New Corridors Concept
Avra Valley
Western Parallel
SR-77 Re liever
Picture Rocks
0
1.5
3
6
9
12
Miles 15
COCHISE
Sahuarit a Co rrido r
Proposed Corridor Definition Corrid or Definition Study Area Coun ty Boundary Rivers Land Ownership Federal Land Indian Reservation
Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System, Arizona Department of Transportation
TUCSON
10 19 (( '' && %%
South ern Tucson Loop
6.0 NEW CORRIDORS NEEDS ANALYSIS
This chapter describes the results of the 2030 traffic modeling effort that was conducted to evaluate in gr eater detail the need for each new corridor (as identified in the New Corridors Concept). Each new corridor alternative is reviewed for is ability to attract trips is impact on parallel facilities. Specifically, the needs assessment for the new corridors involved five assessment criteria: The corridor attracts trips. The corridor diverts traffic from congested routes and state highways. The corridor is supported by regional transportation plans or studies. The corridor serves a regional freeway function. The corridor reflects jurisdiction and agency visions.
6.1 Description of Transportation Model Runs Two models were run for 2030 conditions, a 2030 Base future network and a 2030 New Corridors Concept model run. In the 2030 Base future network, I-10 is assumed to be constructed to 10 lanes consistent with the I-10 Design Concept Report. In the 2030 New Corridors Concept, each of the New Corridors was assumed to be 6-lane freeway facilities. A summary of the assumptions with respect to facilities included in the model is summarized in Exhibit 6-1.
Exhibit 6-1 � 2030 Modeling Assumptions, By Scenario
Scenario 2030 Base Future Network x x x No new freeway corridors; Interstate 10 constructed as a 10-lane facility. Planned and programmed investments in Pinal County; as consistent with Pinal County Transportation Improvement Program, Pinal County Small Area Transportation Plan, plus a basic arterial infrastructure that will be required to support future development that will be constructed in conjunction with large developm ents and master planned communities. Widening of existing arterials to 4 lanes throughout Pinal County; Improvements as described in 2030 Base Future Network; The following new corridors (all assumed to be 6-lane freeway facilities): North-South Corridor Florence / Red Rock / Avra Valley Corridor Western I-10 Parallel Corridor Oracle Junction to Florence Corridor SR-77 Reliever Oro Valley / Marana Corridor (Tangerine Road) Description
x 2030 New Corridors Concept x x
6.2 Needs Analysis Findings The travel demand modeling output for the 2030 Base Future Network is shown in Exhibit 6-2, and for the 2030 New Corridor Concept in Exhibit 6-3. Each exhibit displays traffic volumes projected in the year 2030. A summary of the needs analysis findings is summarized in Exhibit 6-4. Does the corridor attract trips?
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
47
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report
All of the six corridors included in the New Corridors Concept attracted a significant number of trips. Does the corridor divert trips from other congested corridors? With respect to trip diversion of the corridors, the North-South Corridor provided a significant impact on trips on SR 87, providing a 51 percent reduction in trips on that facility. The SR-79 / Oracle Junction to Flor ence Corridor significantly reduced trips on Park Link Drive, providing a 59 percent reduction in trips. The SR 77 Reliever Corridor provided a 21 percent reduction in trips to SR 77. Is the corridor supported by other transportation plans? A number of the corridors were supported by previous plans and studies. The North-South Corridor was recommended by the ADOT Pinal County Corridors Definition Study. The Western I-10 Parallel Corridor was assessed in the PAG Loop Study. The SR 77 Reliever Corridor was recommended by the PAG Loop Study. It is interesting to note that the Tangerine Road Corridor was not recommended by the PAG Loop Study, as the traffic analysis did not show this facility loading as a 6-lane arterial facility. It does, however, load as a 6-lane freeway facility in the travel demand model used in the Corridor Definition Study. Does the corridor serve a regional freeway function? All of the corridors serve a regional freeway function, and were modeled with that intent. Does the Corridor reflect agency and jurisdiction visions? With respect to jurisdictional support for the corridors, the North-South corridor has received jurisdictional support and is being advanced by ADOT to further development in a Design Concept Report and Environmental Study. Stakeholder support has been received for the Florence / Red Rock / Avra Valley Corridor, the Oracle Junction to Florence Corridor, and the Tangerine Road Corridor. The Wester n I-10 Parallel Corridor has received public opposition in the I-10 Bypass Study. The SR 77 Reliever Route is supported by Oro Valley, but has received opposition by Pima County.
091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008
48
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridor Definition Study Exhibit 6-2 2030 Base Future Network Traffic Volume
Gila River Indian Res.
San Carlos Apache Tribe
�
19 19 14 19 23 16 24 18 29 32 31 32 28 36 40 26 23 24 21 22 33 32 51 43 42 47 50 43 38
41 42 53 46 42 48 51 30 39 43 44 37 41 19 33 35 15 28 27 52 18
51
46 58 77 65 76 98
44 14 13 74
8
8
21
47
3
5
50
40
19
15
17
19 28 20
3
1
41 59
13 20 26
8
3
74
16
0
26
23
25
76 89
75 74
72
73
21
45 47 46 47
26 31
22
19 20 17
1
13 12
62
11
24
84
43
19 26 8 24
34
63
31 30
0
3
26
49
39
25
24
14 30 37 21 27
28 20 9
0
14
63
19 33 71 44 43 28
10
Tohono O'odham Nation
34
22 4
9
1
2 0
13
30 38 33
64 64
13
19 33 32 01 34
21
15
37
59
43
21
26
54
32
13
53
31
14
26
15
43
47
12 45
34
50 61
2
48
38
88 26
69
51
85
76
26
7
0
4
9
73
97
29
54
2
0
6 28 17 6 12 1
1
29 23
5 12 34 27 52 15 61 52 47 73 42 14
1
2
8
26
82 0
20 2
0
29 33 5 1 13
0
3
18
13
38
8
7
Legend
Freeway Major Arterial Major Collector Minor Arterial CAP Canal County Boundary Indian Reservation Corridor Definition Study Area
30
26
58 23 130
2
15 25
23
24
6 20 6 11 27 11 36
99 2 3
52
17
29 16 13 22 31 43 37 33 81 14 4 7 43 6
23
24
18
86 70 28 24
68
0 55 16 28 50 58 58 80 22
NOTES: Traffic volumes shown on the map are in thousand vehicles and two-way volumes.
22
3 11 03
26
32 55 11185 71 91 135
20 21 31 8 2 3 24 25 8
2
90
0 6 14 20 9 25 77 54 45
137
3
1
54 7
30
1
22
4
0
0
25
22
7
85
40
2 5 50 7
36
3
35
1 02
PIMA COUNTY
1
23
30 8 6 11 56
31 0
25
79
25 78
60
94
22
22
39 19 15
8 27 109 73 81
25
68
66
0 1.2 5 2.5
5
7.5
10
12.5 Mil es
7
0 8 64 8 13
48
31 33 17 0 11
41
22
77
144
18
8
19
13 16 12 6
83
21
88
37
22
12 22
19 14 9 8 1 6 8 19 4 42 208
2 11
21
4
2
7 11
22
43
6 22
44
0 21
21 8
95
40
2 22
27 156 128 1
22 8
22 4
0
0
23
2
8 19
75
98
18
3
27
41
61 92
26
12 92
COCHIS
2
0
0
6
8 16
8 6 16 17
48
61
15 5 3 13 6 5 1 0
32
18
87
67
20 13
8
12
6
25 13 16
17
23
Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridor Definition Study Exhibit 6-3 2030 New Corridors Network Traffic Volume
Gila River Indian Res.
San Carlos Apache Tribe
7 7 18 24 7 8 16 5 8 3 25 13 24 19 14 20 19 18 12 14 13 11
26 29 19 21 7 2 16 19 6 19 26 2 20 5 36 13 11 38 15
119
23 26 28 36 45
30 31
112
10
3
27 17 22 24 23 25 27 29
34 28 21 19 18 25 28 26 24 26
35
35
5 9 6
34
34
96 154
3 16 18 25 24
24
109 117 11 6
0
14
13
88
11 5 16 13 8 95
24 27
5
2
14 8
4
0
6
6
8
8
4
1
4
33
94 103
43
0
3
14 10
20 14 9 6 7
6
103
5 9 15 9 3 3 17 5 7 48 62
17
54
21
11
3
0
1
3
117
4 4 2 2 1
21
6
4
3
5
5
0
45
4
4
12
6
0
�
0
3
40 42
2
39 39
37
10
2
92
10
18
39
1
5
10
3
1
1 01
5
2
0
76
1
4
4
63 81 69
0
Tohono O'odham Nation
3
0
01 1 3 16
5 5 2
90 12 80 6
2
0
10
3
35
96 19 4 0
0 19
1 10
10
7
6 6
61
1
26
16 6 2
3
100
1
13
101
2
29
9
3
12
14
2
0
4
16 2
4
10
3
0
1
2
0
0
2
90 88
22
02
0
1
11
22
2
2
9
7
9
9
0
5
3
15
10
2
47 66
19
130 131
0 2
0
0
8
0
0
1
1
21 19 19
17
0
6
0 15 01 98 5 13
6 17 13
20
0
9
14
2
0
16
7
9
2 21 1 3 30 30 25 2 1 4 5 1 9
9
18
7 3
06 34 57 83 84 73 3 19 4 31 0 0
21 1 36 31 99 83 98 5 52 44 21 121 53 71 61 38 1 3 87 5 101 47 8 103 94 31 0 47 28 61 6 9 60 70 6 41 68 51 1 38 5 26 77 45 46 0 11 8 17 81 75 43 28 76 42 7 0 62 74 88 5 12 5 40 6 99 38 4 35 15 28 28 34 1 2 1 7 787 3 1 20 3
11 0
0
15
0
1
0
164
96
2
11
95
8
7
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
| Rating | |
| TITLE | Southern Pinal / Northern Pima corridors definition study |
| CREATOR | Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. |
| SUBJECT | Roads--Pinal County (Ariz.)--Design and construction; Roads--Arizona--Pima County (Ariz.)--Design and construction; Express highways--Arizona--Planning; |
| Browse Topic |
Transportation Land and resources |
| DESCRIPTION | 88 pages (PDF version). File size: 7485.861 KB. Cover: "Final Report ADOT Project No. T04-49-P0001 Prepared for: Arizona Department of Transportation" |
| Language | English |
| Publisher | Arizona. Dept. of Transportation. |
| TYPE | Text |
| Material Collection |
State Documents |
| Geographic Coverage | Pima County (Ariz.); Pinal County (Ariz.); |
| Acquisition Note | Publication or link to publication sent to reports@lib.az.us |
| RIGHTS MANAGEMENT | Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution. |
| DATE ORIGINAL | 2008-04 |
| Time Period |
2000s (2000-2009) |
| ORIGINAL FORMAT | Born digital |
| Source Identifier | TRT 5.2:S 58 C 56 |
| Location | ocn460776415 |
| DIGITAL IDENTIFIER | SouthernPinalCDSFinalReport04-15-08.pdf |
| DIGITAL FORMAT | PDF (Portable Document Format) |
| REPOSITORY | Arizona State Library. Archives and Public Records--Law and Research Library. |
| File Size | 7485.861 KB |
| Full Text | Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study FINAL REPORT ADOT Project No. T04-49-P0001 Prepared by: Prepared for: ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION April 2008 091374017 TABLE OF CONTENTS FINAL REPORT, SOUTHERN PINAL/NORTHERN PIMA CORRIDORS DEFINITION STUDY 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 1.2 Study Area ................................................................................................................... 1 Working Paper Contents ............................................................................................ 1 2.0 STUDY AREA TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS ................................................................... 3 2.1 2.2 State Highways in the Study Area .............................................................................. 3 Planned Transportation Network ............................................................................... 4 3.0 OVERVIEW OF TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING .................................................................. 12 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Travel Demand Model Selection ............................................................................... 12 Model Population and Employment ......................................................................... 14 Employment Trends .................................................................................................. 14 Preliminary Travel Demand Model Observations ................................................... 15 Summary of Findings ................................................................................................ 16 4.0 LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ............................................................... 20 4.1 Land-Use Compatibility Opportunities and Constraints ......................................... 20 4.1.1 Land Jurisdiction and Ownership...................................................................... 20 4.1.2 Summary of Land Use and Local Jurisdiction Perspectives Opportunities and Constraints......................................................................................................................... 24 4.2 Environmental Conditions ........................................................................................ 25 4.2.1 Topography ...................................................................................................... 25 4.2.2 Natural Environment ........................................................................................ 25 4.2.2.1 Biotic Communities ....................................................................................... 26 4.2.2.2 Wildlife ......................................................................................................... 27 4.2.2.3 Special Status Species and Critical Habitat .................................................... 27 4.2.2.4 Noxious Weeds ............................................................................................. 32 4.2.2.5 Water Resources............................................................................................ 32 4.2.2.6 Farmla nds ..................................................................................................... 33 4.2.2.7 Air Quality Analysis ...................................................................................... 33 4.2.2.8 Nonattainment Areas ..................................................................................... 34 4.2.2.9 Conformity .................................................................................................... 34 4.2.2.10 Noise............................................................................................................. 35 4.2.2.11 Hazardous Materials ...................................................................................... 36 4.2.2.12 Undergr ound Storage Tanks .......................................................................... 37 4.2.2.13 Lea king Underground Storage Tanks ............................................................. 37 4.2.2.14 Hazardous Material Incident Logbook ........................................................... 37 4.2.2.15 Superfund Sites ............................................................................................. 37 4.2.2.16 Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities.................................................... 37 4.2.2.17 Other Environmental Sites ............................................................................. 38 4.2.2.18 Hazardous Materials Summary ...................................................................... 38 4.2.2.19 Section 4(f) Resources ................................................................................... 38 4.2.2.20 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................ 38 4.2.2.21 ADOT Environmental Consultation ............................................................... 39 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 i Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report TABLE OF CONTENTS FINAL REPORT, SOUTHERN PINAL/NORTHERN PIMA CORRIDORS DEFINITION STUDY 4.2.2.22 Summary of Environmental Opportunities and Constraints ............................ 40 5.0 NEW CORRIDORS ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT .......................................................... 42 5.1 5.2 5.3 Stakeholder Meetings on Initial Development of Alternatives................................. 42 Preliminary New Corridors Concept ........................................................................ 44 Modified New Corridors Concept............................................................................. 45 6.0 NEW CORRIDORS NEEDS ANALYSIS ................................................................................. 48 6.1 6.2 6.3 Description of Transportation Model Runs.............................................................. 48 Needs Analysis Findings ............................................................................................ 48 Study Area Performance with New Corridors ......................................................... 50 7.0 NEW CORRIDORS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS........................................................................ 51 7.1 Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................... 51 7.1.1 Physical Location Criteria ................................................................................ 51 7.1.2 Major Environmental Concerns Criteria ........................................................... 55 7.1.3 Land-use Compatibility Criteria........................................................................ 58 7.1.4 Influence on Major Transportation Infrastructure Criteria................................ 61 7.2 Feasibility Analysis .................................................................................................... 63 8.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................... 68 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 Findings ..................................................................................................................... 68 Preliminary Corridor Definitions ............................................................................. 69 Estimate of Probable Cost ......................................................................................... 69 Steps Required for Future Corridor Development .................................................. 71 APPENDIX A � ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW SUPPORTING MATERIALS................................ 72 Appendix A-1 Listed and Proposed Species that May Occur in Maricopa County, Pinal County, and Pima County, Arizona .................................................................................... 73 Appendix A-2 Environmental Databases Search Results ................................................ 76 Appendix A-3 � Environmental Documentation References .............................................. 76 APPENDIX B � DISCUSSION OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE I-10 DCR MODEL ........................... 79 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 ii Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report TABLE OF CONTENTS FINAL REPORT, SOUTHERN PINAL/NORTHERN PIMA CORRIDORS DEFINITION STUDY LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1-1 � Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridor Definition Study Area ............................. 2 Exhibit 2-1 � Study Area State Highways Functional Classification............................................. 5 Exhibit 2-2 � Study Area State Highways Number of Lanes ........................................................ 6 Exhibit 2-3 � 2004 Average Annual Daily Traffic ....................................................................... 7 Exhibit 2-4 � Study Area State Highways .................................................................................... 8 Exhibit 2-5 � State Highway Projects, 2008 to 2011 � Arizona Department of Transportation.... 11 Exhibit 3-1 � Analysis Tool Selection Considerations ................................................................ 13 Exhibit 3-2 � Pima County 2005 and 2030 Population ............................................................... 14 Exhibit 3-3 � Pinal County 2005 and 2030 Population ............................................................... 14 Exhibit 3-4 � 2005 and 2030 Employment ................................................................................. 15 Exhibit 3-5 � 2030 Travel Demand Model Output (no new corridors) ........................................ 17 Exhibit 3-6 � Comparison of Daily Traffic Volumes .................................................................. 18 Exhibit 4-1 � Jurisdictions ......................................................................................................... 21 Exhibit 4-2 � Land Ownership ................................................................................................... 22 Exhibit 4-3 � Planned Developments ......................................................................................... 23 Exhibit 4-4 � Summary of Land-use and Local Jurisdictions Opportunities and Constraints ....... 24 Exhibit 4-5 � Topography.......................................................................................................... 29 Exhibit 4-6 � Natural Vegetation ............................................................................................... 30 Exhibit 4-7 � Arizona Priority Conservation Areas and Arizona Wildlife Linkages .................... 31 Exhibit 4-8 � Noise Abatement Criteria ..................................................................................... 36 Exhibit 4-9 � Identified Cultural Resources within the Study Area ............................................. 39 Exhibit 5-1 � New Corridors Concepts Discussed at Stakeholder Interviews .............................. 43 Exhibit 5-2 � New Corridors Concept, Corridor Descriptions .................................................... 46 Exhibit 5-3 � New Corridors Concept ........................................................................................ 47 Exhibit 6-1 � 2030 Modeling Assumptions, By Scenario ........................................................... 48 Exhibit 6-2 � 2030 Base Future Network Traffic Volumes ......................................................... 50 Exhibit 6-3 � 2030 New Corridor Network Traffic Volumes ...................................................... 51 Exhibit 6-4 � Needs Analysis Findings for New Corridors ......................................................... 50 Exhibit 6-5 � Overall Mobility Performance .............................................................................. 50 Exhibit 7-1 � Summary of Data Collected and Reviewed ........................................................... 51 Exhibit 7-2 � Topography Considerations .................................................................................. 54 Exhibit 7-3 � Environmental Considerations .............................................................................. 57 Exhibit 7-4 � Development Considerations ................................................................................ 60 Exhibit 7-5 � Existing and Proposed Transportation Infrastructure............................................. 62 Exhibit 7-6 � Summary of Feasibility Analysis .......................................................................... 64 Exhibit 8-1 � Estimated Unit Costs ............................................................................................ 70 Exhibit 8-2 � Estimate of Probable Costs ................................................................................... 70 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 iii Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of the ADOT Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study is to determine the need for and feasibility of new high-capacity transportation corridors in Southern Pinal County and Northern Pima County. The study recommends the general location of potential corridors for which both need and feasibility are determined. The study recommendations do not identify the exact location of new roads, but identify broad corridor definitions for potential new high-capacity facilities. Objectives of the study are: Determination of the need for new corridors using performance-based evaluation techniques. Definition of planning-level corridor definition alternatives based on regional freeway planning principles, existing and future corridor conditions, and input from affected jurisdictions and stakeholders. Evaluation of the engineering, environmental, and land use compatibility characteristics of alternative corridor definitions through a technical assessment of performance criteria, impact criteria, and implementation criteria. Development of preferred corridor definitions on the basis of the technical evaluation. Docu mentation of planning-level corridor development costs, funding options, and the extent to which affected jurisdictional and stakeholders support the preferred corridor definitions. (Note: This objective was limited to jurisdictional and stakeholder perspectives of members of the Technical Advisory Committee.) 1.1 Study Area The study area for the ADOT Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Study is shown in Exhibit 1-1. The study area was defined to include the rapidly growing region north of Tucson within both Pima and Pinal Counties. 1.2 Working Paper Contents This document, entitled ADOT Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study, Final Report, contains the following chapters: Chapter 1, Introduction Chapter 2, Study Area Transportation Conditions �Transportation conditions in the study area applicable to the determination of need and feasibility for new corridors are discussed. Chapter 3, Overview of Travel Demand Modeling � This chapter describes the modeling process used to develop future travel forecasts in the study area, population and employment assumptions, and preliminary travel demand model observations. Chapter 4, Land Use and Environmental Conditions � A high level overview of potential environmental conditions is presented. Chapter 5, New Corridors Alternatives Development � Development of corridor definition alternatives is described. Chapter 6, New Corridors Needs Analysis � A discussion of how new corridors attract trips and how they affect parallel facilities is presented. Chapter 7, New Corridors Feasibility Analysis � Evaluation of new corridor feasibility through a fatal flaw analysis is discussed. Chapter 8, Summary of Findings and Recommendations � Preliminary planning-level corridor definitions and planning level costs are presented. The next steps in corridor development are discussed in this chapter. Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 1 040 Gila River Indian Res. San Carlos Apache Tribe MARICOPA ( '0 &� % A10 10 180 190 140 Ak-Chin Indian Res. � A 130 140 FLORENCE 130 140 � A 160 150 190 COOLIDGE 130 � A 160 170 8 ( ' & % CASA GRANDE 170 000 200 � A 120 � A 120 120 110 GRAHAM 190 ELOY � A 120 210 10 ( ' & % 220 PINAL � A 110 Tohono O'odham Nation 100 100 230 090 MARANA � A ORO VALLEY 240 080 PIMA 250 Saguaro National Park 070 260 TUCS ON COCHISE Saguaro National Park Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridor Definition Study � A Exhibit 1-1 Study Area 4 0 1 2 4 6 Legend 100 250 000 MilePost Number County Boundary CDS Boundary THREE POINTS Indian Reservation Miles 10 National Park/Monument Stud y Roadway � A 8 San Xavier District of the Tohono O'odham Nation Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System, Arizona Department of Transportation ( ' & % 2.0 STUDY AREA TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS This chapter summarizes existing transportation conditions on study area state highways. The principal data source for existing conditions is the 200? Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) maintained by ADOT (some data in the 200? HPMS may not reflect 2008 conditions). Information is presented in sufficient detail to provide input for determination of need for and the general location of new transportation facilities within the study area. 2.1 State Highways in the Study Area Study area state highways and their functional classification are displayed in Exhibit 2-1. The existing number of lanes is shown in Exhibit 2-2. Average Annual Daily Traffic volumes are displayed in Exhibit 2-3. Exhibit 2-4 lists each state highway in the study area, and the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes, number of lanes, functional classification, percent trucks, and the volume-tocapacity ratio as contained in the 2004 HPMS data set. I-10: I-10 within the study are extends from the I-10 / I-19 interchange in Tucson to the I-10 / SR-287 interchange near Casa Grande. Through the Tucson urban area I-10 is functionally classified as an Urban Arterial � Interstate. North of Tucson, I-10 is classified as a Principal Arterial � Interstate. A small segment of I-10 at the north end of the study area is classified as an Urban Principal Arterial � Interstate. I-10 within the study area currently has six lanes from the I-10/I-19 interchange to north of Tangerine Road. The remainder of I-10 in the study area is 4 lanes divided (2 lanes in each direction). Several improvement projects are underway by ADOT (refer to section 2.2, and Exhibit 2-5) to add additional lanes to I-10 throughout the study area. SR-77: SR 77 is classified as an Urban Principal � Other facility throughout the Tucson area. It transitions to a Rural Principal Arterial-Other facility near the Pima / Pinal County line and to a Rural Minor Arterial in Pinal County. SR-77/Miracle Mile between I-10 and SR77/Oracle Road is 4 lanes. SR-77/Oracle Road, between Miracle Mile and Calle Concordia in Oro Valley is six lanes, at which point SR-77 transitions to 4 lanes and continues as a 4lane section to Pusch Ridge Drive in Oro Valley. From Pusch Ridge Drive to La Reserve Drive, SR-77 is a 6 lane segment. From La Reserve Drive to Golder Ranch Road (Catalina), SR-77 is a 4-lane roadway with median separation. As SR-77 / Oracle Road passes through Catalina, the median is replaced with a two-way left turn lane. North of Catalina, SR-77 transitions to a 2-lane roadway and remains two lanes as it continues north through the community of Oracle. Between the community of Oracle and Mammoth, passing lanes have been constructed. North of Mammoth, SR-77 continues as a two-lane roadway. SR 77 is planned to be widened to 6 lanes from Calle Concordia to Tangerine Road (between 2008 and 2010) and from Tangerine Road to the Pinal County line (in 2010). SR 79: SR-79 connects Oracle Junction (SR-77/SR-79 junction) to Florence. SR-79 within the study area is a 2-lane roadway and is classified as a Rural Minor Arterial. SR-87: SR-87 within the study area is a north-south state highway that connects Eloy to Coolidge and Florence. SR-87 then continues outside of the study area to the Gila River Indian Community. Segments of SR-87 in the study area are functionally classified as a Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 3 Rural Major Collector, Rural Minor Arterial, Rural Principal Arterial, Urban Principal Arterial � other. SR-87 is the primary roadway through Coolidge. SR-287: SR-287 is a Rural Minor Arterial that runs east-west between Casa Grande, Coolidge, and Florence. SR-287 is two lanes, with exception to a 4-lane section as it passes through the City of Coolidge. 2.2 Planned Transportation Network Several major projects are planned in the study area in the time period 2008 to 2011, based on information contained in the Arizona State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP), Fiscal Years 2008-2011. A total of 9 projects are planned in the study area for a total of approximately $154 million. These projects are listed in Exhibit 2-5. On I-10 these projects include new or reconstructed traffic interchanges at Ina Road, Cortaro Road, and Twin Peaks Road and mainline widening to 8 lanes between Ruthrauff Road and Prince Road. SR 77 is planned to be widened to 6 lanes from Calle Concordia to Tangerine Road (between 2008 and 2010) and from Tangerine Road to the Pinal County line (in 2010). 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 4 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report � A � A 040 Gila River Indian Res. � A 150 190 140 140 150 San Carlos Apache Tribe MARICOPA ( '0 &� % A10 10 180 Ak-Chin Indian Res. � A COOLIDGE 140 FLORENCE 130 140 � A 160 150 190 120 130 130 � A 160 170 8 ( ' & % CASA GRANDE 170 000 200 � A 190 ELOY � A 120 120 110 � A 120 210 � A 100 100 110 MAMMOTH Tohono O'odham Nation ( ' & % 10 220 230 090 MARANA � A ORO VALLEY Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridor Definition Study 240 080 4 Exhibit 2-1 Study Area State Highway Functional Classification Saguaro National Park 250 070 260 TUCSON 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 Miles 15 Legend 000 MilePost Number CDS Boundary Coun ty Boundary Indian Reservation National Park/Monument 100 FUNCTIONAL CLASS CODE Rural: Principal Arterial - Interstate Rural: Principal Arterial - Other Rural: Minor Arterial Rural: Major Collector Rural: Minor Collector Urban: Principal Arterial - Interstate Urban: Principal Arterial - Other FWY Urban: Principal Arterial - Other Urban: Minor Arterial 250 Saguaro National Park � A THREE POINTS San Xavier District of the Tohono O'odham Nation � A Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System, Arizona Department of Transportation ( ' & % � A � A 040 Gila River Indian Res. � A 150 190 140 140 150 San Carlos Apache Tribe MARICOPA ( '0 &� % A10 10 180 Ak-Chin Indian Res. � A COOLIDGE 140 FLORENCE 130 140 � A 160 150 190 120 130 130 � A 160 170 8 ( ' & % CASA GRANDE 170 000 200 � A 190 ELOY � A 120 120 110 � A 120 210 � A 100 100 110 MAMMOTH Tohono O'odham Nation ( ' & % 10 220 230 090 MARANA � A ORO VALLEY Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridor Definition Study 240 080 4 Exhibit 2-2 Study Area State Highways Number of Lanes Saguaro National Park Miles 15 250 070 260 TUCSON 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 Legend 000 MilePost Number CDS Boundary County Boundary Indian Reservation National Park/Monument 100 Numb er of Through Lanes 250 Saguaro National Park � A 2 3 4 5 6 Frontage Roads THREE POINTS San Xavier District of the Tohono O'odham Nation � A Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System, Arizona Department of Transportation ( ' & % � A 22 6 59 2 0 4606 Gila River Indian Res. 6 54 46 San Carlos Apache Tribe MARICOPA ( ' &� %A 10 20626 3 56 6 273 1 28 3 4 41 6 6 6478 7786 11972 Ak-Chin Indian Res. � A 77 6 7 FLORENCE 8 34 284 5 442 8 3661 6424 � A 3224 13 63 3203 � A 4285 CASA GRANDE 12 5 37 72 6 45 53 0 7 COOLIDGE 52 23 � A 44 � A 9 28 9 GRAHAM 41 3 3203 5646 8 ( ' & % 86 48 00 � A 2929 38 ELOY PINAL � A 47 92 98 Tohono O'odham Nation ( ' & % 10 81 7 9 0 59 5156 7 0 45 4 87 6 MARANA 48 01 6 30 26 0 Saguaro National Park Note: Traffic volumes shown on this map are two-way volumes. 411 2 9 4428 1 38 88 6 25 3 0 1 39 � A PIMA ORO VALLEY 82 73 7 7 13 80 3 COCHISE TUCS ON Saguaro National Park 14 58 28 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridor Definition Study E �ve a Daily Traffic Axhribigte2-3 2004 Annual A V/C 4 0 - 0.75 0.75 - 0.90 0.90 - 1.19 Legend 0000 AADT County Boundary CDS Boundary Indian Reservation National Park/Monument THREE POINTS 0 2 4 8 12 16 Miles 20 Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System, Arizona Department of Transportation � A San Xavier District of the Tohono O'odham Nation Exhibit 2-4 � Study Area State Highways % Trucks (FHWA Class 813, Tractor/Trailer) 30% ROAD I-10 From Florence Blvd To Selma Hwy Begin Mile Post 195.2 Ending Milepost 197.2 Roadway Functional Class Urban: Principal Arterial Interstate Rural: Principal Arterial Interstate Rural: Principal Arterial Interstate Urban: Principal Arterial Interstate Urban: Principal Arterial Interstate Urban: Principal Arterial Interstate Urban: Principal Arterial Interstate Length (miles) 2.01 AADT 41,000 4 Thru Lanes Volume to Capacity Ratio 0.530 Selm a Hwy I-8 197.2 199.4 2.16 38,000 to 41,000 37,000 to 48,000 48,000 4 30% .51 to .58 I-8 Tangerine Rd 199.4 240.7 41.30 4 28% to 31% 0.5 to .68 Tangerine Rd Cortaro Farms Rd 240.7 247.0 6.30 4 31% 0.670 Cortaro Farms Rd Ina Rd 247.0 249.0 2.00 83,000 6 31% 1.050 Ina Rd Ruthrauff Rd 249.0 252.7 3.70 100,000 to 124000 6 31% 1.050 Ruthrauff Rd 22nd St 252.7 259.6 6.90 138,000 to 160,000 6 15% to 25% 1.160 Source: HPMS 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 8 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report Exhibit 2-4 � Study Area State Highways (continued) % Trucks (FHWA Class 813, Tractor/ Trailer) 10% 7% to 10% 6% 6% 5% 5% 6% 7% 6% 6% ROAD SR287 From M116+0.00 Sunland Gin Rd SR-87 Florence UB To Sunland Gin Rd SR-87 Florence UB SR-79B Oracle Rd Calle Concordia Golder Ranch Dr Saddlebrooke Blvd SR-79 Gila/Pinal CB Begin Mile Post 4.3 5.0 22.7 30.1 0.0 1.5 9.4 17.6 20.6 22.9 Ending Mile Post 5.0 14.1 30.1 30.6 1.5 9.4 17.6 20.6 22.9 65.5 Roadway Functional Class Urban: Principal Arterial - Other Rural: Minor Arterial Rural: Minor Arterial Urban: Minor Arterial Urban: Principal Arterial - Other Urban: Principal Arterial - Other Urban: Principal Arterial - Other Urban: Minor Arterial Rural: Minor Arterial Rural: Minor Arterial Length (miles) 0.75 9.04 7.30 0.50 1.48 7.90 8.25 2.96 2.30 42.60 AADT 8,200 3,000 to 8,000 8,000 to 12,000 7,800 25,000 40,000 to 53,000 30,000 to 40,000 25,000 25,000 3,900 to 8,200 3 2 Thru Lanes Volume to Capacity Ratio 0.140 0.330 0.350 0.350 0.240 .27 to .41 .25 to .43 0.230 0.210 0.410 2, with one 4 lane segm ent 2 4 6 4 4 4 2 lanes, passing lanes constructed on som e segments (3 lanes total) SR-77 I-10 Oracle Rd Calle Concordia Golder Ranch Dr Saddlebrooke Blvd SR-79 Source: HPMS 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 9 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report Exhibit 2-4 � Study Area State Highways (continued) % Trucks (FHWA Class 813, Tractor/ Trailer) 6% ROAD SR-79 From SR-77 To M131+0.99 (North of Florence-Kelvin Hwy) SR-287 M130+0.90 Martin Rd M134+0.32 SR-287 Begin Mile Post 0.0 Ending Mile Post 40.9 Roadway Functional Class Rural: Minor Arterial Length (miles) 40.90 AADT 2,900 to 3,500 2 Thru Lanes Volume to Capacity Ratio 0.17 to .26 SR-87 M115+0.77 SR-287 M130+0.90 Martin Rd M134+0.32 1.0 11.1 16.1 16.6 19.2 11.1 16.1 16.6 19.2 19.7 Rural: Major Collector Rural: Minor Arterial Rural: Principal Arterial - Other Urban: Principal Arterial - Other Rural: Principal Arterial - Other 10.09 5.00 0.58 2.56 0.44 2900 to 3200 6424 6424 12800 to 15600 13557 2 2 2 4 2 9% 8% 8% 8% 9% 0.190 0.350 0.350 0.220 0.530 Source: HPMS 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 10 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report Exhibit 2-5 � State Highway Projects, 2008 to 2011 � Arizona Department of Transportation Jurisdiction ADOT Route 10 Location Twin Peaks (Linda Vista TI) I-10/I-19 Interchange I-10/I-19 Interchange Begin Milepost 236 Length Year 2008 Type of Work Construct TI Cost ($000) 28,000 10 ADOT 260 2009 Design and Construct landscaping Extend Intelligent Transportation System s along I10 and I-19 Design and Construct new TI 600 (2009 funding) 6,600 10 ADOT 260 2009 10 Cortaro TI ADOT 247.4 0.2 2009 2010 1,800 (2009 funding) 2,206 (2010 funding) 10 Ina Road TI ADOT 248 1.5 2008 2010 2011 Design and Reconstruct TI & mainline 3,000 (2008 funding) 17,764 (2010 funding) 17,400 (2011 funding) 10 Ruthrauff Road to Prince Road ADOT 252.8 1.8 2009 2010 2011 Construct mainline widening to 8 lanes 21,000 (2009 funding) 14,000 (2010 funding) 18,000 (2011 funding) 10 Tangerine Road and I10 WB ramp Calle ConcordiaTangerine Road ADOT 240 2008 Install traffic signal system Widen to 6 lanes 250 77 ADOT 77 5 2008 2009 2010 11,735 (2008 funding) 3,000 (2009 funding) 7,000 (2010 funding) 77 Tangerine Road to Pinal County Line ADOT 82 2010 Widen to 6 lanes 2,000 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study 11 Final Report 3.0 OVERVIEW OF TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING This chapter describes the travel demand modeling process used to evaluate the need for future new corridors in the study area. 3.1 Travel Demand Model Selection Travel demand modeling served as the primary analysis tool to evaluate the need for new corridors within the study area. Selection and development of an appropriate travel demand model for the Corridors Definition Study was complicated by the fact that the study area spans two counties (Pima and Pinal) that are within in two separate MPO/COG planning areas (Pima Association of Governments, and the Central Arizona Association of Governments). However, the travel demand model must cohesively analyze travel demand patterns across county and MPO lines. In addition, the travel demand model must be consistent with other on-going studies in the study area, and specifically the I-10, I-8 to Tangerine Road Design Concept Report. Several travel demand modeling tools were identified. These included (1) the Pinal County Small Ar ea Transportation Study (PC SATS) travel demand model, (2) adapting the PC SATS model to "beyond-2030" population (3) the I-10 Design Concept Report model, (4) PAG 2030 Travel dema nd model, and (5) PAG "Beyond 2030 Model" that was developed for the PAG Loop Study. Three modeling approaches were ultimately considered that use a combination of the available travel demand models: 1. Utilize the Pinal County SATS 2030 Model for the study area in Pinal County in combination with the PAG 2030 Model for the study area in Pima County. 2. Develop a Pinal County "beyond 2030" model for the study area in Pinal County, and use the model in combination with the PAG "Beyond 2030" model. 3. Utilize the I-10 Design Concept Report (DCR), Tangerine Road to I-8, 2030 Model. The I10 DCR model includes the entire corridor definition study area in a single model. These modeling approaches are summarized in Exhibit 3-1. The I-10 DCR travel demand model was selected as the analysis tool for the Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridor Definition Study. Several considerations led to the selection of the I-10 DCR 2030 model as the preferred tool for needs analysis. Advantages to using and adapting the I-10 DCR model include: The model encompasses the entire corridors definition study area. Options 1 and 2 above did not include the entire study area, and would have required combing output from these models with the Pima Association of Governments travel demand model. The model's socioeconomic data and forecasts were previously reviewed and deemed acceptable by ADOT and local jurisdictions. Use of the model would maintain consistency between the I-10 DCR and the Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study. A review of preliminary output from the I-10 DCR model, determined that certain elements of the model should be modified for application to the Corridors Definition Study. A summary of model refinements that were made to the I-10 DCR model are summarized in Appendix B. The modifications resulted in model output reasonable for application to the Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study. 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study 12 Final Report Exhibit 3-1 � Analysis Tool Selection Considerations Option Model Description Advantages for Application to Corridors Needs Analysis Operational model. Model underwent significant review and scrutiny by local jurisdictions as part of Pinal County SATS. Operational model. Routinely updated by PAG staff. Disadvantages for Application to Corridors Needs Analysis Com prehensive coverage of study area requires utilization of both models, which introduces external stations complexities. New corridors that span modeling areas of each model must be coded separately and analyzed separately in each model. Com prehensive study area coverage requires utilization and application of both the PAG and Pima County models, which introduces external stations com plexities. New corridors that span modeling areas of each model must be coded separately and analyzed separately in each model. Build-out conditions did not provide enough sensitivity for determination of need for new corridors. In effect, any new corridor that was modeled `loaded' because of the lack of an arterial network throughout the study area. 1 Pinal County SATS 2030 Model Developed for Pinal County SATS (2006). Modeled area limited to Pinal County PAG 2030 Model Developed and maintained by Pima Association of Governm ents. 2 Pinal County Buildout Model Model is based on Pinal County SATS Model. Socioeconomic data was expanded to build-out conditions. Build-out perspective is needed to be proactive in rapidly developing Pinal County to enable corridor preservation in advance of developm ent. PAG "Beyond 2030" Model Model based on PAG 2030 Model. Socioeconomic data was expanded to beyond 2030 / buildout conditions. 3 I-10 (DCR) Tangerine Road to I8, 2030 Model. Modeled area includes Pinal, and portions of Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties. Model was determined as being appropriate for I-10 DCR, I-8 to Tangerine Road. Modeled area includes the entire Corridor Definition Study area. Traffic volume output on many roadway segm ents in the study area are higher than could reasonably be expected. 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study 13 Final Report 3.2 Model Population and Employment Population and employment forecasts serve as basic inputs to the 2030 travel demand model. Information regarding population and employment projections in the I-10 DCR travel demand model was obtained from a Technical Memorandum developed for the Interstate 10 Corridor Study (Casa Grande to Tangerine Road) entitled Traffic Model Development and Application (February 12, 2007) by Cambridge Systematics. These data are summarized in the following sections. The reader is referred to the Cambridge Systematics technical memorandum for a detailed description of the travel demand model. Pima County Within Pima County, population data for 2005 and 2030 were developed by the Pima Association of Governments and adopted by the PAG Board in October 2002 for use in transportation planning in the PAG region. 2005 and 2030 projected population in Pima County is summarized in Exhibit 3-2. Exhibit 3-2 � Pima County 2005 and 2030 Population Location Pima County Source: Pima Association of Governments 2005 Population 943,413 2030 Population 1,494,105 Pinal County Within Pinal County, the Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study (SATS) developed year 2005 population and employment estimates and year 2025 projections. These data reflected a compound growth rate of 10.9 percent between 2005 and 2025 which is above the 6.7 percent annual growth rate in the preceding 5 years. The Pinal SATS population projections were based on a tabulation of housing units within Planned Area Developments (PAD) and a continuation of the current average household size of 2.6 persons. The population projections assumed that all PADs that were under construction in 2005 would be built out by 2025, and other PADs that had an approved land use designation would be 75% built out by 2025. These assumptions were applied uniformly across the county and did not appear to be constrained by market absorption rates or infrastructure availability. The resulting estimates were allocated to individual zones based on each PAD's geographic location. Since the real estate market in Pinal County has been very dynamic, after considering several options for modifying overall growth trends, it was determined that that the socioeconomic projections developed for 2025 apply to the year 2030 in the I-10 Corridor Study project. These population projections, as compared to 2005 data, are summarized in Exhibit 3-3. Exhibit 3-3 � Pinal County 2005 and 2030 Population Location Pinal County 2005 Population 222,913 2030 Population 1,954,016 Sources: Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study 3.3 Employment Trends For Pima County, employment projections were developed by the Pima Association of Governments and were adopted by the PAG Board in 2002 for use in transportation planning in 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study 14 Final Report the PAG region. 2030 population forecasts call for total employment in the region of 673,383 jobs, as compared to 481,336 jobs that were in place in 2005. For Pinal County, employment forecasts were developed based on a similar approach that was used in the Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study and was subsequently used in the I-10 Corridor Study to develop population forecasts. Planned area developments that were under construction in 2005 were assumed to be completely built out by the horizon year of 2025 (2030 was used as the horizon year in the I-10 Corridor Study), and other PADs that had an approved land use designation would be 75% built out by 2025 (2030 used as a horizon year in the I-10 Corridor Study). These assumptions were applied uniformly across the county, resulting in the following employment projections. A summary of 2005 and 2030 employment estimates for Pima County and Pinal County is summarized in Exhibit 3-4. Exhibit 3-4 � 2005 and 2030 Employment Location Pima County Pinal County 2005 Employment 481,336 40,027 673,383 519,774 2030 Employment Source: Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study 3.4 Preliminary Travel Demand Model Observations 2030 base (no new corridors) travel demand model traffic volume output is displayed in Exhibit 3-5. General observations are: 1. Segments of I-10 within the study area exceed 200,000 vehicles per day in 2030. I-10 is modeled as a 10-lane facility with a capacity of 95,000 vehicles per day in each direction (for a total capacity of 190,000 vehicles per day). 2. Many segments of the I-10 frontage roads carry up to 60,000 vehicles per day. Much of this would be on I-10 if more capacity were provided on I-10. 3. SR 79 (a 6-lane facility) has several segments that carry more than 100,000 vehicles per day. 4. Delay curves limit I-10 from exceeding a volume to capacity ratio over 1.2, or approximately 228,000 vehicles per day. Vehicles that would normally prefer to utilize I-10 are diverted to alternate facilities. A model run was conducted in which I-10 is assumed to be unconstrained (e.g. there is not an upper limit to the capacity of I-10) and all vehicles that desire to travel on I-10 are able to do so. Traffic volumes across an east-west screen line that runs near the Pinal County/Pima County line shows that nearly 520,000 vehicles per day desire to travel on I-10 in this unconstrained condition (refer to Exhibit 3-6, column 5), as compared to 223,000 (column 4) under congested constrained conditions and using the updated delay curves. Note that in the constrained model run, nearly 296,000 vehicles per day (column 6) use alternate routes. The demand is referred to as latent dema nd. The latent demand, shown in column 6, represents the demand that desires to travel on the route but due to congestion travels on alternative routes. The primary alternate routes that other vehicles utilize are SR 79 and Wheeler Road, in addition to other arterials such as Signal Peak, Sunland Gin, and Sunshine Blvd. 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study 15 Final Report Column 7 represents a model run in which hypothetical new parallel corridors to I-10 were input to the model. As demonstrated, the new corridors directly draw vehicles from I-10 and onto the new corridors. 3.5 Summary of Findings 1. Analysis of the 2030 model demonstrates that 1-10 in the year 2030 is over capacity, even as a 10 - lane facility. As demonstrated by the unconstrained I-10 model run (Exhibit 3-6, column 6), over 500,000 vehicles desire to utilize I-10 in the year 2030. Nearly 300,000 of these vehicles are diverted to alternate routes. Accommodation of all vehicles that `naturally' desire to utilize I-10 would require I-10 to be constructed well beyond 10 lanes. I-10 does not carry more traffic in the updated Kimley-Horn 2030 model because of the constraints introduced with the volume-delay curves in the model. 2. If the I-10 capacities are increased by 20 percent (e.g. I-10 is coded as a 12 lane facility rather than a 10 lane facility), traffic volumes on I-10 in the 2030 model will increase by a similar magnitude. Much of the traffic being diverted from I-10 are using unrealistic routes (minor arterials and frontage roads) to traverse the region, so it would be expected that I-10 would carry volumes at or higher than what the model currently depicts. 3. Additional capacity should be provided on new parallel and alternate corridors to I-10. 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study 16 Final Report Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridor Definition Study Exhibit 3-5 2030 Base Travel Demand Model Output (No new corridors) Gila River Indian Res. San Carlos Apache Tribe � 41 42 46 47 89 25 14 13 4 8 76 36 43 41 19 15 8 75 47 30 18 25 27 65 3 5 21 0 26 23 74 40 19 72 15 54 17 50 28 8 3 1 16 22 21 59 74 73 21 23 39 18 12 11 84 24 74 23 42 8 26 43 1 83 19 2 19 19 8 48 37 22 45 30 26 64 39 3 2 208 0 44 12 19 4 37 63 2 11 21 9 31 4 2 7 11 25 24 22 4 37 19 10 63 Tohono O'odham Nation 14 22 4 34 27 28 1 0 13 29 33 43 9 54 53 31 68 15 19 59 13 83 97 26 43 43 13 34 71 45 50 32 2 7 51 0 61 38 47 33 34 156 48 88 85 76 26 4 9 73 25 4 54 85 137 50 57 3 1 0 1 5 16 26 6 32 2 8 20 2 5 4 20 9 46 31 7 0 13 33 29 27 2 6 22 0 21 40 15 4 20 1 29 22 8 22 44 0 0 128 22 2 0 20 31 22 0 25 1 90 77 0 12 35 21 PIMA COUNTY 1 61 6 48 37 52 31 NOTES: Traffic volumes shown on the map are in thousand vehicles and two-way volumes. 23 55 25 91 5 11 26 76 28 69 123 29 73 4 3 24 8 19 22 0 23 3 7 60 94 76 70 11 35 29 78 18 47 4 52 Legend KHAALT_00_CLIP Freeway Major Arterial Major Collector Minor Arterial CAP Canal County Boundary Corridor Definition Study Area Indian Reservation 6 24 30 4 16 4 49 64 25 3 67 80 93 2 5 3 0 COCHIS 58 26 24 44 15 26 25 26 12 92 56 36 21 16 8 86 81 4 34 98 66 18 8 22 3 87 18 0 0 10 7 21 55 46 62 39 0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 Miles 11 0 2 0 68 5 13 48 43 58 12 6 11 69 9 4 Exhibit 3-6 � Comparison of Daily Traffic Volumes 1 2 3 4 2030 Base (No New Corridor s) Volumes (vpd) 5 2030 Base (No New Corridor s) Unconstr ained Volumes on I-10 (vpd) 6 7 Road Name Sunland Gin Rd Signal Peak Rd Eleven Mile Corner Rd Sunshine Blvd SR-87 Picacho Hwy I-10 I-10 Frontage Roads Wheeler Road SR 79 SR-77 River Rd Centroid Connectors New Corridors East-West Screenline near Pinal County/Pima County border Location 2005 Base Model Volumes (vpd) 2030 Latent Demand 2030 New Corridors Volumes (vpd) South of Milligan Road South of Milligan Road South of Milligan Road South of Milligan Road South of I-10 South of I-10 West of Wheeler Road West of Wheeler Road North of I-10 North of Park Link Drive South of River Road South of SR 77 Varies Varies 981 560 975 41,774 339 2,879 1,582 570 2,118 74,473 25,414 24,411 37,235 27,182 31,731 9,327 223,193 29,153 63,116 116,723 24,528 1,954 43,392 0 657,359 7,506 1,438 24,186 116 25,144 6,783 518,839 790 1,244 45,229 10,429 1,954 53,981 0 697,639 -17,908 -22,973 -13,049 -27,066 -6,587 -2,544 295,646 -28,363 -61,872 -71,494 -14,099 0 10,589 0 40,280 11,079 1,487 11,936 2,876 17,537 4,570 164,939 990 3,759 71,655 7,843 1,946 47,233 320,880 668,730 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 18 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report 4.0 LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS This chapter describes land use and environmental conditions that exist in the study area for the purposes of identifying opportunities and constraints for new transportation corridors. 4.1 Land-Use Compatibility Opportunities and Constraints This section documents land-use compatibility opportunities and constraints. Land use compatibility criteria include issues of project compatibility with jurisdictional development and local land use plans. An outcome of this analysis is how the alternatives fit with adopted transportation and land use plans; incompatibilities and adopted transportation and land use plan modifications to accommodate the corridors are identified and addressed. 4.1.1 Land Jurisdiction and Ownership Land jurisdiction refers to the authority to regulate land uses. Land ownership information was obtained from the Arizona State Land Department's Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS). Land ownership is identified as public or private ownership. The study area contains property within Pinal County and Pima County, as well as the cities of Tucson, Casa Grande, Coolidge, Eloy, and the towns of Marana, and Oro Valley. Jurisdictions are shown in Exhibit 4-1. Additionally, land areas within the study area are made up of State Trust Land and Bureau of Land Management property, the San Carlos Apache Tribal Reservation, National Forests, National Parks and Monuments, City Parks, State Parks, and private property (Figure 4-2, Land Ownership). Some large land holdings east and west of Tucson include the Saguaro National Park, which is comprised of two areas, the Saguaro National Park East and the Saguaro National Park West. These two parks are comprised of approximately 91,000 acres. Exhibit 4-3 depicts planned developments in the Pinal County portion of the study area. 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 19 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report � A � A � A � A Gila River Indian Res. � A � A � A San Carlos Apache Tribe MARICOPA 10 ( ' &� %A FLORENCE Ak-Chin Indian Res. � A COOLIDGE � A � A 8 ( ' & % ELOY CASA GRANDE � A � A 10 ( ' & % � A GRAHAM PINAL � A Tohono O'odham Nation MARANA � A ORO VALLEY PIMA Saguaro National Park COCHISE TUCSON Saguaro National Park Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridor Definition Study � A Exhibit 4-1 Jurisdictions 4 0 12 4 6 Legend County Boundary THREE POINTS CDS Boundary Indian Reservation National Park/Monument Stud y Roadway San Xavier District of the Tohono O'odham Nation � A 8 Miles 10 Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System, Arizona Department of Transportation ( ' & % 10 ( ' &� %A � A � A � A � A 10 ( ' & % � A � A 8 ( ' & % GRAHA PINAL � A � A PIMA Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridor Definition Study Exhibit 4-2 Land Ownership � A 4 0 1 2 4 6 8 Miles 10 Legend PINAL_RTP_STUDYR OADS Existing Corridors Corridor Definition Study Area County Boundary Bure au of Land Management Forest and Parks Indian Res. Military State Trust Land Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System, Arizona Department of Transportation � A 10 ( ' &� %A � A � A � A � A 10 ( ' & % � A � A 8 ( ' & % GRAHA PINAL � A � A PIMA Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridor Definition Study Exhibit 4-3 Planned Developments in Pinal County � A 4 0 1 2 4 6 8 Miles 10 Legend PINAL_RTP_STUDYR OADS Planned Developments Corridor Definition Study Area County Boundary Existing Corridors Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System, Arizona Department of Transportation Pinal County � A 4.1.2 Summary of Land Use and Local Jurisdiction Perspectives Opportunities and Constraints A summary of opportunities and constraints from a land-use and local jurisdiction perspective near existing roads in the study area is presented in Exhibit 4-4. Exhibit 4-4 � Summary of Land-use and Local Jurisdictions Opportunities and Constraints Corridor Definition Alternative SR 77 (from junction with I-10 to the junction with SR 177) x x x Lan d Use and Local Jurisdictions Perspectives Constraints Land identified as Indian Allotments are located in the northern portion of the SR 77 study limits, north of Mammoth. The US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management owns parcels of land along the northern portion of the SR 77 study limits, north of Mammoth. The US Department of the Interior, National Park Service owns the lands identified as Coronado National Forest located along the southern portion of the SR 77 study limits in Pima County. The Arizona State Parks Department owns the lands identified as Catalina State Park located on SR 77 north of Tucson. The US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management owns parcels of land along the southern portion of the SR 79 study limits. The US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation owns parcels of land along the southern portion of the SR 79 study limits. The United States Military owns one parcel within the study area: 1) Florence Military Reservation located north of Florence along the southern portion SR 79 and supports the Arizona Army National Guard. The Gila River Indian Reservation owns the land along the northwestern portion of SR 87 west of Coolidge. The US Department of the Interior, National Parks Service owns the lands identified as Casa Grande Ruins National Monument located on SR 87/SR 287 at Coolidge. The US Bureau of Land Management owns parcels of land along the southern portion of the SR 87 study limits just south of Coolidge. The US Department of the Interior, National Parks Service owns the lands identified as Casa Grande Ruins National Monument located on SR 87/SR 287 at Coolidge. x SR 79 (Entire Length) x x x SR 87 (from PinalMaricopa County line to the junction with I-10) x x x SR 287 (Entire Length) x 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 23 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report 4.2 Environmental Conditions The purpose of the environmental overview is to describe the existing environmental conditions within the proposed Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Area, and to identify potential environmental concerns for future development of new corridors within the study area. Information presented within this environmental analysis is based on the existing data sources from local, county, state, and federal agencies. This analysis is not intended to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This chapter presents background information that is used as a basis for analyzing feasibility of new roadway corridors. This analysis documents the socioeconomic environment, physical and natural environmental character, cultural resources, and section 4(f) resources in the study area. Existing environmental conditions within the study area have been evaluated to identify potential "fatal flaws" obstacles, issues, and sensitive areas for future improvements. This analysis also addresses surveying, permitting, and agency coordination requir ements that would need to be addressed in future studies prepared in accordance with NEPA. 4.2.1 Topography Topography of the study area is shown in Exhibit 4-5. In the Pima County area, key topographic features include the five ranges of mountains that surround Tucson: the Santa Catalina Mountains and the Tortolita Mountains to the north, the Santa Rita Mountains to the south, the Rincon Mountains to the east, and the Tucson Mountains to the west. Tucson itself is located on an alluvial plain in the Sonoran desert, at an elevation of 2,389 feet. In the Pinal County area, key topographic features include Picacho Peak and the Picacho Mountains, located in the southern part of Pinal County and the Tortolita Mountains, also located in the southern central part of the county. Land Subsidence Earth Fissures Land subsidence has been observed in the study area. Land subsidence is a result of groundwater overpumping and subsequent settling of the soil material. Another result of subsidence is earth fissures. Earth fissures are ruptures (typically long linear cracks) in the Earth's surface caused by uneven or differential compaction in the earth's surface, as a result from ground water level subsidence. It is estimated that mor e than 3,000 square miles in Arizona has been affected by subsidence and the resulting fissures including Tucson, metropolitan Phoenix, and other communities. The Eloy area of Central Arizona has been extensively documented. (South-Central Arizona, Earth Fissures and Subsidence Complicate Development of Desert Water Resources. Carpenter, Michael C. U.S. Geological Survey, Tucson, Arizona). Earth fissures have caused significant damage to infrastructure and property including roads, railroads, flood control structures, and other utilities, including the Central Arizona Project Canal, the Loop 202, and housing developments. New transportation corridors in the study area will need to consider fissures in their design and alignment. Idea lly, known fissure zones will be avoided. Areas of earth fissures are identified in Exhibit 4-5. 4.2.2 Natural Environment This section describes the existing natural environment within the study area in terms of wildlife, sensitive species, plants, water resources, visual character, air quality, noise, and hazardous material concerns. The inventory of the natural environment of the study area consisted of gathering data and infor mation from various local, state, and federal agencies, including the Arizona Game and Fish 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 24 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report Department (AGFD) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The characteristics of the natural environment were also identified based on a visual survey of the study area. 4.2.2.1 Biotic Communities The study area is predominantly ecotonal between the Lower Colorado River subdivision and the Arizona Upland subdivision of the Sonoran Desert Scrub Biotic Community (Brown, 1994). The eastern portion of the study area is slightly higher in elevation with portions of SR 77 and SR 79 occupied by the Semidesert Grassland Series and Madrean Evergreen Woodland Series (Brown, 1994). Natural vegetation within the study area is depicted in Exhibit 4-6. The characteristics of the natural environment were also identified based on aerial photographs (Google Earth, 2007) of the study area. Numerous ephemeral washes occur throughout the study area which contain xeroriparian habitat. In addition, there are intermittent and/or perennial waters with associated riparian habitat that cross our study corridors. Some of the major drainages include: Gila River, Mineral Creek, San Pedro River, Tanque Verde Creek, and the Santa Cruz River. Biotic communities within the study area are described in mor e detail below and are depicted in Exhibit 4-6. Lower Colorado River Sonoran Desert Scrub Subdivision According to Brown (1994), the Lower Colorado River Sonoran Desert Scrub subdivision is the largest and most arid subdivision in Arizona. The Lower Colorado River Sonoran Desert Scrub subdivision ranges in elevation from approximately 70 feet (ft) to 2,132 ft mean sea level (MSL), transitioning elevations between the Lower Colorado River subdivision and the Arizona Upland subdivision occur between approximately 984 ft and 2,132 ft MSL. Species commonly found in this subdivision include: honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), Ironwood (Olneya tesota), Blue paloverde (Cercidium floridum), desert willow (Chiopsis linearis), creosotebush (Larrea tridentata), white bursage (Ambrosia dumosa), canyon ragweed (Ambrosia ambrosioides), indigo bush (Psorothamnus schottii), big galleta (Hilaria rigida), catclaw acacia (Acacia greggii), burrobrush (Hymenoclea salsola), saltbush (Atriplex polycarpa), and desert broom (Baccharis sarothroides). Arizona Upland Sonoran Desert Scrub Subdivision According to Brown (1994), this subdivision is the most watered and least desert-like desertscrub in North America. The Arizona Upland Sonoran Desert Scrub subdivision ranges in elevation from approximat ely 984 ft to 3,500 ft MSL, with transitioning elevations between the Lower Colorado River subdivision and the Arizona Upland subdivision vary between approximately 984 ft and 2,132 ft MSL. The vegetation generally appears similar to a scrubland or low woodland of leguminous trees with intervening spaces held by several open layers of shrubs and perennials succulents. Species found within this subdivision include: Blue paloverde, ironwood, mesquites (Prosopis sp), catclaw acacia, foothill paloverde (Cercidium microphyllum), crucifixion thorn (Canotia holacantha), chollas (Opuntia sp), saguaro (Carnegia gigantean), organ pipe (Stenocereus thurberi), barrel cactus (Echinocactus horizonthanlonius), and fish-hook barrel cactus (Ferocactus wislizenii). Semidesert Grassland Series According to Brown (1994), this series has naturally high diversity of dry-tropic shrubby species. The Semidesert Grassland Series ranges in elevation from approximately 3,500 ft to 5,577 ft MSL. Common plants found in this series include: black grama (Bouteloua eriopoda), slender grama (Bouteloua filiformis), chino grama (Bouteloua breviseta), spruce top grama (Bouteloua chondrosioides), hoe grass (Muhlenbergia porteri), several three-awn species (Artistida spp.), curly mesquite (Hilaria belangeri), slim tridens (Tridens muticus), pappus grass (Pappophorum vaginatum), and tanglehead grass (Heteropogon contortus). 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 25 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report Madrean Evergreen Woodland Series According to Brown (1994), this series is considered by some as a transition between the pine and oak for ests. The Madrean Evergreen Woodland Series ranges in elevation from approximately 4,921 ft to 5,905 ft MSL. Some of the species found in this series include: Emory oak (Quercus emoryi), Arizona white oak (Quercus arizonica), Mexican blue oak (Quercus oblongifolia), gray oak (Quercus grisea), Apache pine (Pinus engelmannii), Chihuahua pine (Pinus leiophylla), Arizona pine (Pinus ponderosa var. arizonica), Durango pine (Pinus durangensis) alligator juniper (Juniperus deppeana) and one-seed juniper (Juniper monosperma). 4.2.2.2 Wildlife The most common wildlife found within the study area would include birds, reptiles, and small mammals, such as: black-tailed jack rabbit (Lepus californicus), spotted ground squirrel (Spermophilus spilosoma), hispid pocket mouse (Perognathus hispidus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), road-runner (Geococcyx californianus), raven (Covus cryptoleucus), cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus), chuckwalla (Sauromalus obesus), and zebra-tailed lizard (Callisaurus draconoides). The majority of the wildlife within the study area will utilize xeroriparian habitat associated with the ephemeral washes and inter mittent/perennial rivers and creeks. These areas will also provide the best habitat value for wildlife, providing food, shelter, and travel corridors. 4.2.2.3 Special Status Species and Critical Habitat For purposes of this document special status species include those that are federally listed as threatened, endanger ed, proposed, and candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. A list of federally listed threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species as well as state-listed wildlife of concern in Arizona which may occur within the project area was prepared from information provided by the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). This list and a list of sensitive species from AGFD are provided in Appendix A-1. Critical habitat is the specific geographic areas, whether occupied by listed species or not, that are deter mined to be essential for the conservation and management of listed species, and that have been for mally described in the Federal Register. Critical habitat only applies to federally listed endangered or threat ened species. The southwest willow fly-catcher and Gila top minnow have designated areas of critical habitat that occur within or near the study area. Potential impacts to species and their critical habitat will require consultation under Section 7 of Endanger ed Species Act. Depending on the type or amount of potential impacts, project compliance may requir e formal consultation procedures to be implemented before the United States Fish and Wildlife Service can make a `no jeopardy' statement. In addition, the burrowing owl, protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, is known to occur within the study area. The study area contains large areas of bare ground and vacant lots that provide suitable habitat for burrowing owls. Potential impacts to the burrowing owl should be evaluated during the environmental clearance process. The Sonoran desert tortoise, an AGFD Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizona, is known to occur within the study area. The AGFD guidelines for handling Sonoran desert tortoises for development projects in 1997 would be followed for projects with the potential to impact this species. The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) developed a statewide wildlife linkage assessment identifying important habitat connectivity areas, or linkage zones. The Arizona Wildlife Linkages Assessment (2006) was conducted as a proactive effort to preserve and potentially restore habitat connectivity within the state of Arizona. The purpose of the assessment was to identify habitat blocks 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 26 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report that consist of important wildlife habitat; fracture zones that separate habitat blocks; the potential linkage zones between, within, and through the habitat blocks and fracture zones that can be identified as areas critical to wildlife movement; and the factors threatening to disrupt the potential wildlife linkage zones. The objective of the assessment is to maintain natural ecosystems, habitat connectivity, and wildlife populations and to address habitat fragmentation through a comprehensive, systematic approach. ADOT encourages minimization of further fragmentation of wildlife corridors through maintaining landscape connectivity within these linkage zones. The Arizona Wildlife Linkages Assessment recognizes "that transportation corridors cut through large tracts of wildlife habitat, destroying habitat, and creating fragmentation of wildlife corridors. Roadway corridors can become either impassable to wildlife, or passable only at risk to the traveling public and the wildlife crossing the highway." Within the study area, the linkage zones connect the Tucson Mountains, Picacho Mountains, Tortolita Mountains and the Santa Catalina Mountains. Wildlife linkage areas are depicted in Exhibit 4-7 and include: Linkage 66 Superior-Miami US 60; Linkage 67 Gila River-El Capitan; Linkage 78 State Route 79; Linkage 79 Ironwood-Tortolita; Linkage 80 Saguaro-Tortolita; Linkage 81 Santa Catalina-Tortolita; and Linkage 82 Santa Catalina-Galliuro. Of the seven identified linka ge zones, two (Linkage 66 and 67) are of high priority for consideration containing both a high ecological value and the most pressing threats to the existing linkage. The Wildlife Linkages Assessment is available at: http://www.azdot.gov/Highways/OES/AZ_Wildlife_Linkages/index.asp. Arizona Priority Conservation Lands are displayed in Exhibit 4-7, which are a result of assessments conduct ed by the Nature Conservancy in collaboration with public and private agencies to identify core habituate for species throughout Arizona. 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 27 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report 10 ( ' &� %A � A � A � A � A Picacho Mountains 10 ( ' & % � A � A 8 ( ' & % GRAHAM PINAL � A Picacho Peak Tortolita Mountains � A PIMA C atalina Mountains Tucson Mountains COCHISE � A Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridor Definition Study Exhibit 4-5 Topography 4 0 1 2 4 6 8 Miles 10 Legend Study Roadway Rincon Mountains Contour Lines CDS Boundary County Boundary Fissures Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System, Arizona Department of Transportation � A GILA � A � A � A � A � A 10 ( ' &� %A � A � A � GRAHAM � A � A � A � A 10 ( ' & % � A � A 8 ( ' & % GRAHAM PINAL � A MARICOPA � A PIMA GRAHAM COCHISE 0 3.5 7 14 21 28 Miles Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridor Definition Study Exhibit 4-6 Natural Vegetation � A Legend Study Roadway Count y Boundary Inte rior Chaparral Low er Colorado River Sonoran Desertscrub Madrean Evergreen Woodland Corridor Definition Study Area Arizona Upland Sonoran Desertscrub GR EAT BASIN CONIFER WOODLAND � A Petran Montane Conifer Forest Semidesert Grassland 19 ( ' & % Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System, Arizona Department of Transportation 10 ( ' &� %A � A � A � A � A 10 ( ' & % � A � A 8 ( ' & % GRAHA PINAL � A � A PIMA Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridor Definition Study Exhibit 4-7 Priority Conservation Areas and Arizona Wildlife Linkages � A 4 0 1 2 4 6 8 Miles 10 Legend Corridor Definition Study Area Potential Wildlife Linkage Zones Conservation Area County Boundary Existing Corridors Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System, Arizona Department of Transportation Nature Conservancy � A 4.2.2.4 Noxious Weeds Invasive and noxious weeds are an increasing problem. Invasive and noxious weeds rapidly displace desirable plants that provide habitat for wildlife and food for people and livestock. Invasive and noxious weeds are plants that are not native to Arizona and were introduced accidentally or intentionally. Noxious weeds are listed by state and federal law and are generally considered those that are exotics and negatively impact agriculture, navigation, fish, wildlife, and public health. Since the 1900s, weedy annuals such as cheatgrass, Russian thistle, filaree, and tumble mustard have become established in areas where grazing has greatly reduced the native vegetation. Invasive weeds such as those listed previously can alter fire regimes. Under Executive Order 13112, dated February 3, 1999, projects that occur on federal lands or are federally funded must be: "subject to the availability of appropriations, and within Administration budgetary limits, use relevant programs and authorities to: i) prevent the introduction of invasive species; ii) detect and respond rapidly to, and control, populations of such species in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner; iii) monit or invasive species populations accurately and reliably; and iv) provide for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded." For any proposed roadway project, a survey will be required by a qualified noxious weed authority to deter mine if any noxious weeds are present within the project boundaries. 4.2.2.5 Water Resources The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) regulates the discharge of dredge and fill material into waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Any activity that will discharge dredge or fill material into jurisdictional waters, including wetlands, will require a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit, following the completion of a jurisdictional delineation. A jurisdictional delineation is the process of identifying the characteristics and boundaries of waters of the U.S. within a given geographic area, and must receive final approval by the ACOE. USGS 7.5 �minute quadrangles and aerial photographs of the study area were reviewed to determine if potential waters of the U.S. are present. There are ephemeral drainage systems within the study area. In general, ephemeral drainage systems are determined by the ACOE to be jurisdictional waters. If it is anticipated that work will take place within or adjacent to potential waters of the U.S., a jurisdictional delineation for the project area should be completed and submitted to the ACOE for concurrence. Following ACOE-approval of the jurisdictional delineation, the project should be reviewed to determine if a Section 404 permit is necessary. Activities that may require a permit include, but are not limited to, construction of new roads, widening of existing roads, construction or expansion of bridges, installation of corrugated-metal pipe and concrete box culverts, installation of riprap, and maintenance activities within a drainage system. If impacts are expected to be below 0.5 acre for each identified water of the U.S. (i.e. each individual wash system), a Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number 14 would likely be required. If impacts at a single crossing or to any individual drainage system exceed 0.1 acre, pre-construction notification must be provided to the ACOE, and the project must be authorized by the ACOE prior to the start of construction. If impacts at a single crossing or to any individual drainage system do not exceed 0.1 acre, preconstruction notification is generally not required, but may be required if a "may effect" determination is ma de for a threatened or endangered species and/or the presence of any historic property determined to be eligible, or which may be eligible, for listing on the National Register of Historic Places is identified. If impacts at any single crossing or to any individual drainage system exceed 0.5 acre, a Section 404 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 31 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report Individual Permit would be required. The Individual Permit process requires a more detailed permit application, and the ACOE review period is typically much longer than that of a Nationwide Permit. Improvements within or near waters of the U.S. require Section 401 Water Quality Certification. In certain cases, projects are Conditionally Certified and it is not necessary to submit an application for certification to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality; however, the Section 401 conditions listed in the applicable Section 404 permit must be adhered to in order to qualify for Conditionally Certified. Linear transportation projects are generally Conditionally Certified. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System is a national program under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act that regulates discharges of pollutants from point sources into waters of the U.S. Arizona has been delegated authority from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to implement the per mit program within the state. The state program is referred to as the Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES). The AZPDES permit program requires an AZPDES general permit for construction activities that disturb one or more acres of land. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SW3P) must be prepared as a part of the permit. A review of Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Maps indicates 100-year floodplains are located along major drainage systems within the study area. Coordination with FEMA would be required if impacts are proposed within the flood zone. 4.2.2.6 Farmlands Agricultural lands compose much of the central and western portions of the study area. Agricultural lands within the study area were observed in aerial photographs (GoogleEarth, 2007) Prime farmland is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, oilseed, and other agricultural crops with a minimum input of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, and labor, and without intolerable soil erosion. Prime farmland has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed, including water management, according to acceptable farming methods. If federal funds are used for any roadway improvements that would require right-of-way acquisition, a farmland impact assessment may need to be performed in accordance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act. 4.2.2.7 Air Quality Analysis The Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments and NEPA require that air quality impacts be addressed in the preparation of environmental documents. The level of effort used to evaluate these impacts may vary from a simplified description to a detailed analysis depending on factors, such as the type of document to be prepared, the project location and size, the air quality attainment status of the area, and the state air quality standards. Under the CAA, areas are classified for the degree of ambient air pollution existing at the time of the 1990 amendments as to whether they attain the NAAQS or are in nonattainment of the standards as described below. As required by the CAA, NAAQS have been established for the following major air pollutants: carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter smaller than 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter smaller that 2.5 microns (PM2.5), sulfur dioxides, and lead. Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless gas that affects the cardiovascular system. Vehicular emissions are a major source of carbon monoxide. Ozone is created through a complex reaction of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen with sunlight as a catalyst. Ozone affects the respiratory system; and vehicle emissions, power plants, and service stations are major sources. High concentrations of ozone are common in the Phoenix area during the summer. Nitrogen dioxide is a gas with a yellowish orange to reddish brown appearance, depending on its concentration, which impairs the respiratory system. Major sources of nitrogen dioxide are power 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report 32 plants and vehicle emissions. Particulate matter refers to small aerosols that may cause irritation and da mage to the respiratory system. Vehicle emissions and the resuspension of road dust by vehicular activity are common sources. Sulfur dioxide is a colorless gas frequently derived from the combustion of sulfur-containing fuels. It primarily affects the respiratory system and major sources are coal- and oilfir ed power plants. Lead and its compounds damage the cardiovascular, renal, and nervous systems. The primary source of lead is vehicular emissions associated with the use of leaded gasoline. These standards have also been established as the official ambient air quality standards for the state of Arizona. The "primary" standards have been established to protect the public health. The "secondary" standards are intended to protect the nation's welfare and account for air pollutant effects on soil, water, visibility, materials, vegetation, and other aspects of the general welfare. In 1987, the standard for particulate matter was revised by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA defines total suspended particulate matter (TSP) as aerosols with diameters ranging from 0.1 microns up to approximately 30 microns in size, and include fine, coarse, and super coarse particles. Aer osols with aerodynamic diameters of 10 microns or less are referred to as PM10. In July 1997, EPA revised the standards for both particulate matter and ozone. EPA revised the methods for the determination of exceedences and revised the PM10 standard by adding standards for particulates with diameters less than or equal to 2.5 microns and are referred to as PM2.5. For ozone, the 1-hour standard was replaced with an 8-hour standard. In addition, the standard for concentration of ozone was lower ed from 0.12 parts per million to 0.08 parts per million, and the method for the determination of exceedences was also revised. The effective date of those final rules was September 16, 1997. 4.2.2.8 Nonattainment Areas The CAA Amendments of 1990 authorized the EPA to designate areas as nonattainment, and to classify them according to their degree of severity. This classification initiates a set of control requirements designed to achieve attainment by a specified date. A nonattainment area is an area in which compliance with the NAAQS has not been established for one or more pollutants. States that fail to attain the NAAQS for any of the criteria pollutants are required to submit State Implementation Plans, which outline those actions that will be taken to attain compliance. The section of the study area within Pinal County is located in the Hayden nonattainment areas for PM 10 and sulfur dioxide (SO2). The southeastern portion of the study area, in Pinal County, is within the San Manuel nonattainment area for SO2. And in the southern portions of the study area, in Pima County, are within the Rillito nonattainment area for PM10, and the Tucson maintenance area for CO. 4.2.2.9 Conformity Since 1977, federal agencies and Metropolitan Planning Organizations have been required by Section 176c of the CAA to ensure that all transportation projects conform to the approved air quality State Implementation Plans. The CAA enacted in 1990 defined conformity to a State Implementation Plan as meaning conformity to a State Implementation Plan's purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS. The conformity determinations for federal actions related to transportation projects must meet the requirements of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 51 and 93. Portions of the study area are within six air quality nonattainment areas and two maintenance areas which have transportation control measures in the State Implementation Plans and Federal Implementation Plan. Within Pinal County portions of the study area are within air quality nonattainment areas for PM 10 and SO2. Within Pima County portions of the study area are within air quality nonattainment areas for PM10 and are also within a maintenance area for carbon monoxide (CO). A given individual project within these designated areas will need to be included in an approved transportation improvement plan for at least one year, and no more than three years, prior to construction. That Transportation Improvement Plan 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 33 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report will have to be approved by the Federal Highway Administration and EPA as conforming to the State Implementation Plan, and the Federal Implementation Plan will have to conform. During a construction project, disturbance of the soil by heavy equipment would increase fugitive dust and, if uncontrolled, would affect local air quality. In addition, construction-related traffic delays, combined with exhaust emissions from constructed-related equipment, may elevate levels of pollutants. Such impacts would be temporary and would be eliminated once construction is complete. Any construction activity located within Pima or Pinal Counties must adhere to the local air quality rules and ordinances. 4.2.2.10 Noise Noise, defined as unwanted or excessive sound, is an undesirable by-product of our modern way of life. While noise emanates from many different sources, transportation noise is perhaps the most pervasive and difficult source to avoid in society today. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 mandates the FHWA to develop noise standards for mitigating highway traffic noise. The FHWA regulations for mitigation of highwa y traffic noise in the planning and design of federally aided highways are contained in Title 23 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations Part 772. The regulations require the following during the planning and design of a highway project: 1) identification of traffic noise impacts; examination of potential mitigation measures; 2) the incorporation of reasonable and feasible noise mitigation measures into the highway project; and 3) coordination with local officials to provide helpful information on compatible land use planning and control. The regulations contain noise abatement criteria, which represent the upper limit of acceptable highway traffic noise for different types of land uses and human activities. The regulations do not require that the abatement criteria be met in every instance. Rather, they requir e that every reasonable and feasible effort be made to provide noise mitigation when the criteria are approached or exceeded. ADOT has adopted a State Policy, the Noise Abatement Policy for Federal Aid Projects, which is consistent with FHWA policy. These policies outline noise impacts. A traffic noise impact occurs when either of the following condition occurs: The predicted traffic noise level approaches or exceeds the noise abatement criteria shown in Exhibit 4-8. ADOT defines approach as being 3dBA below the appropriate NAC. The predicted traffic noise level substantially exceeds the existing noise level. ADOT defines substantial in this context as 15dBA or greater. Exhibit 4-8 � Noise Abatement Criteria Activity Category A Description Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and ser ve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B Undeveloped lands. Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums. Leq(h) 57 dBA (exterior) 67 dBA (exterior) 72 dBA (exterior) None 52 dBA (interior) B C D E Source: Title 23, CFR Part 772 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 34 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report If potential traffic noise impacts are identified, noise abatement is considered and implemented, if it is found to be both reasonable and feasible. The views of the impacted residents are a major consideration in reaching a decision on the reasonableness of abatement measures to be provided. When noise abatement measur es are being considered, every reasonable effort is made to obtain substantial noise reductions. Substantial noise reductions have been defined by State highway agencies to typically range from 5 to 10 dBA. Highway construction noise is often viewed by the public as being short term and a necessary price for growth and improvement. Highway construction noise should generally be addressed in a qualitative, rather than quantitative, manner commensurate with the scope of the highway project. Construction noise levels may be predicted, if warranted. If potential construction noise impacts are identified, a common sense approach should be utilized to incorporate appropriate abatement measures into the highway project. 4.2.2.11 Hazardous Materials Hazardous materials are regulated by the Federal Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) implements CERCLA, commonly known as the Superfund, and its amendments, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986. In order to investigate the environmental concerns associated with hazardous materials and solid waste landfills, a preliminary investigation was performed of the permitted and non-regulated hazardous mat erials sites and solid waste facilities located near state routes within the study area (not including I-10, but including SR 77, SR 79, SR 87, and SR 287). A review of the various state and federal databases for hazardous materials was completed for the study area. Sources consist of: ADEQ Underground Storage Tanks (UST); ADEQ Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST); ADEQ Hazardous Material (HazMat) Incident Logbook (HMIL); Federal Superfund Sites to include National Priority List (NPL), Department of Defense (DoD) Sites and Arizona Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (WQARF); Arizona Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDF) and Solid Waste Landfills (SWLF). A search was performed for facilities with underground storage tanks (UST) and leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) that are within or immediately adjacent to the study area. A search for hazardous material incidents was performed to identify potential hazmat concerns within or immediately adjacent to state routes within the study area. Additionally, a search radius of one mile was used to identify superfund sites, TSDF sites, and SWLF sites that may possess a hazardous material concern within the study area. For the purpose of this Environmental Overview the identified regulated facilities within the study area do not equate to the total number of environmental concerns. In most cases the number of environmental concern for each facility is greater than one. Further hazardous materials analysis would be required as new potential roadway corridors are defined. 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 35 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report 4.2.2.12 Underground Storage Tanks T he results of the underground storage tank (UST) database search indicate that near existing state routes in the study area there are 132 facilities with UST records located within or immediately adjacent to the study area. The results of UST facilities for each identified roadway within the study area are summarized in the Table A-2.a in Appendix A-2. 4.2.2.13 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks The results of the leaking underground storage tank (LUST) database search indicate that near existing state routes in the study area there are 68 facilities with LUST case files located within or immediately adjacent to state routes in the study area. The results of LUST facilities for each identified roadway within the study area are summarized in the Table A-2.a in Appendix A-2. 4.2.2.14 Hazardous Material Incident Logbook Eleven hazardous material incidents occurred within or immediately adjacent to existing state routes in the study area, as recorded in the Hazardous Material Incident Logbook. The results of hazardous material incidents for each identified roadway within the study area are summarized in the Table A-2.a in Appendix A-2. 4.2.2.15 Superfund Sites Superfund Sites included two WQARF sites identified within one mile of SR 77 (Table A-2.a in Appendix A-2). 4.2.2.16 Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities According to the Arizona Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities List and ADEQ Interactive GIS eMap website, three hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities are located within or immediately adjacent to the study area. The results of hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities for each identified roadway within the study area are summarized in the Table A-2.a in Appendix A-2. 4.2.2.17 Other Environmental Sites According to the ADEQ Interactive GIS eMap website there are two landfills, and two material recovery sites located within 1 mile of the study area. Identification of these sites is summarized in the Table A2.a in Appendix A-2. 4.2.2.18 Hazardous Materials Summary The limited hazardous materials investigation Hazardous material sites indicated a number of potential impact areas near the existing state routes of SR 77, SR 79, SR 87 and SR 287. A similar investigation should be conducted for new potential routes. An assessment will need to conform to established ADOT policy and process. 4.2.2.19 Section 4(f) Resources Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 stipulates that Federal Highway Administration may not approve the use of land from a significant publicly owned park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or any significant historic site that is either listed, or eligible for listing on the Register under the following Criterion stated in 49 U.S.C., Section 303: 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 36 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report (a) "It is the policy of the United States Government that special effort be made to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. (b) The Secretary of Transportation shall cooperate and consult with the Secretaries of the Interior, Housing and Urban Development, and Agricultural, and with the States, in developing transportation plans and programs that include measures to maintain or enhance the natural beauty of lands crossed by transportation activities or facilities. (c) The Secretary may approve a transportation program or project requiring the use of publicly owned land or a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or land of an historic site of national, State, or local significance (as determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction over the park, recreation area, refuge, or site) only if1) There is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and 2) The program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use." The study area does contain publicly owned parks and recreation areas. Recreational areas include the Casa Grande National Monument on SR 287 and SR 87, and Coronado National Forest on SR 77. Other parks include the Tortolita Mountain Park in northern Pima County, and a number of Parks west of the Tucson urbanized area: the Saguaro National Park West, Tucson Mountain Park and the Ironwood Forest National Monument. Therefore, future coordination with the appropriate agencies and departments is recommended for these facilities. 4.2.2.20 Cultural Resources A preliminary review of cultural resource records was conducted utilizing the Arizona Archaeological Site and Survey Database (AZSITE). This analysis included a review of previously conducted cultural resources surveys and identified historic properties and archaeological sites within a 2 km buffer of the existing state routes within the study area. The AZSITE database listed a total of 799 cultural resource survey projects with 1,178 archaeological sites, and 98 historic sites within a 2 km buffer of existing state routes in the study area. The AZSITE database list of survey projects with specific archaeological and historic sites are further detailed in Exhibit 4-9. Exhibit 4-9 � Identified Cultural Resources within the Study Area Route SR 77 SR 79 SR 87 SR 287 Total Cultural Resource Survey Projects 235 128 326 110 799 Archaeological Sites 95 302 675 106 1178 0 16 35 47 98 Historic Sites Many of these cultural resource sites have been either investigated through controlled excavation projects or have been avoided by construction and development projects and therefore have been preserved. 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 37 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report As transportation corridors are constructed and improved to serve the rapidly growing populations of Pinal and Pima counties, compliance with existing state and federal legislation concerning cultural resources must be part of the planning process. It is expected that any transportation corridors selected across the study area will require additional archaeological survey. The site density in the study area indicates that significant archaeological sites eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) will be present. Furthermore, it is estimated that any newly recorded archaeological sites will require testing and/or data recovery investigations to mitigate the potential impacts related to the construction of the new transportation corridors. Compliance with cultural resources laws will be a substantial component of any transportation corridor that is selected. Cultural resources clearance and compliance with existing legislation requires adequate time to account for agency reviews and possible testing and/or data recovery, which must be factored into the planning process. 4.2.2.21 ADOT Environmental Consultation The study team met with environmental stakeholders for an Environmental Consultation meeting on December 3, 2007. Attendees included representatives from the following agencies and organizations: US Fish and Wildlife Wildla nds Project Sky Island Alliance Arizona State Land Department Federal Highway Administration Coronado National Forest Arizona Game and Fish Arizona State Parks The purpose of the meeting was to present environmental stakeholders with the status of the Northern Pima County/Southern Pinal County Corridor Definition Study. Key input and discussion points identified by the stakeholders included: Picacho Peak Wildlife Corridor/crossing area should be considered. Smart-growth planning principles should be utilized during the planning process. Ensure that regional transportation planning efforts are coordinated with local planning agencies. Plan for wildlife habitat. Don't don't push wildlife and natural areas to places that are not going to be developed. Identify wildlife and habitat areas first and develop around those important areas. Avoid these areas, rather than mitigating these areas. Wildlife Corridors are key to the success of the Arizona State Park systems. 4.2.2.22 Summary of Environmental Opportunities and Constraints This section summarizes the social and environmental issues that should be considered during future corridor development, which are described as follows. Native vegetation, including riparian tree species and cacti, is present within the study area. During future design phases, additional consideration would be required to ensure that impacts to these species are minimized and that landscape firms and nurseries are afforded the opportunity for salvage. 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 38 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report Animal species that live in the Sonoran Desert and surrounding vegetative communities are unique but most are not protected by law. Minimizing impacts to the natural biotic communities and preservation of roadless lands should be considered during final design. Seven wildlife linkages are located within the study area with two linkages identified as critical linka ges. Further studies and/or surveys for habitat connectivity and biological value may be required as roadway plans are developed. The USFWS list of Threatened and Endangered Species would need to be addressed for compliance with the Endangered Species Act for any future project. It may be necessary to conduct a survey for burrowing owls, bald eagles, southwest willow flycatcher, and Sonoran desert tortoise. For any proposed roadway project, a survey will be required by a qualified noxious weed authority to deter mine if any noxious weeds are present within the project boundaries. Proposed work within or adjacent to potential waters of the U.S. would require a jurisdictional delineation and ACOE concurrence. A Section 404 Nationwide Permit (NWP) would be required if the proposed project impacts identified waters of the U.S. within the project limits. Additionally, a pre-construction notification (PCN) would be required if impacts exceeded 0.1 acre. Improvements that occur within or near waters of the U.S. would require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification. However if the proposed project is Conditionally Certified then a Section 401 Water Quality Certification would not be required. Improvements that disturb more than one acre of land would require an AZPDES permit. Additionally a SW3P would also be required. 100-year floodplains are located within the study area. Considerations would be required for proposed work that falls within the flood zone. Farmla nds are present within the study area. A farmland impact assessment is required in accordance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act if federal funds are used for any roadway improvements that requir e right-of-way acquisition of adjacent farmlands. Four air quality nonattainment areas and one maintenance area were identified within the study area. Proposed transportation projects that are within the nonattainment areas are required to meet the requir ements of Title 40 of CFR Parts 51 and 93; to be listed in an approved Transportation Improvement Plan prior to construction; and must adhere to the air quality rules and ordinances of Pima County. A noise analysis would be required if the proposed roadway improvements are located near noise receptors. 132 underground storage tank (UST) facilities and 68 leaking underground storage tank (LUST) facilities were recorded within or immediately adjacent to existing state highways and routes within the study area. Also, 11 hazardous material incidents occurred within or immediately adjacent to state highways and routes within the study area. Additionally, records indicate two WQARF sites are within one mile of existing state highways and routes within the study area. And furthermore, ther e is three hazardous materials treatment, storage, or disposal facilities, two landfills, two material recovery sites. The results are summarized in Appendix A-2. A hazardous materials analysis following the ASTM Standards will be required for individual project limits. If new ROW is to be acquired for future construction, a Phase I ESA should be conducted to deter mine if potential hazmat concerns are Recognized Environmental Conditions. Section 4(f) coordination would be required if ROW acquisition of any 4(f) property is needed by the proposed project. 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 39 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report The density and diversity of the cultural resources in the study area is high. As evident from the number and location of the survey activities, the study area has not been systematically surveyed. Instead many of the survey efforts are the results of compliance activities initiated by state, federal, and local regulations. Furthermor e, it is estimated that any newly recorded archaeological sites will require testing and/or data recovery investigations to mitigate the potential impacts related to the construction of the new transportation corridors. 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 40 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report 5.0 NEW CORRIDORS ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT Travel demand modeling as described in chapter three demonstrated that I-10 will be congested in the future, and demonstrated a general need for a new major corridors in the study area. These findings confir m the findings of the I-10 Design Concept Report, Tangerine Road to I-8 (I-10 DCR). The I-10 DCR stated that planning must continue for an integrated parallel system in southern Pinal County and northern Pima County. The next step of Corridors Definition Study was to identify a set of preliminary new corridors, considering the existing conditions (including environmental conditions described in Chapter 4) and perfor m a more detailed assessment of needs and feasibility for each corridor alternative. Existing conditions data, travel demand modeling analysis, and input received from the Technical Advisor y Committee and from individual stakeholder meetings served as input to development of new corridors alternatives in the study area. New corridors alternatives were developed considering the following criteria: New corridors should attract trips that are principally regional in nature; New corridors should divert traffic from congested routes and state highways; New corridors should supplement / integrate with local and regional transportation plans; New corridors should serve as a state or regional freeway; New corridors should reflect jurisdiction and agency visions; New corridors should address local travel demand; New corridors should consider build-out needs: some new corridors alternatives may not exhibit a definitive need in 2030, but may be needed beyond 2030. The following sections discuss the results of each step of the potential corridor identification process. 5.1 Stakeholder Meetings on Initial Development of Alternatives The first step of new corridors alternatives development was to conduct individual stakeholder meetings with agency representatives. Stakeholder meetings were conducted with the following agencies and jurisdictions. Pima Association of Governments Maricopa Association of Governments Arizona Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Division Arizona Department of Transportation, I-10 Design Concept Report Team Town of Marana Pinal County In addition, the study team hosted an Environmental Consultation Meeting on December 3, 2007 to solicit input and perspectives from the environmental and conservation community. This was attended by Arizona Game and Fish Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona State Land Department, Arizona State Parks, Coronado National Forest, and the Federal Highway Administration. New corridors alternatives suggested and discussed during the stakeholder and jurisdiction meetings included those listed in Exhibit 5-1: 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 41 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report Exhibit 5-1 � New Corridors Concepts Discussed at Stakeholder Interviews Corridor Name I-8 Extension Corridor North-South Corridor Concept Origin Stakeholder input ADOT Pinal County Corridors Definition Study PAG Loop Study Preliminary review of travel dem and modeling Western I-10 Parallel Corridor PAG Loop Study, and modified by stakeholder input. Description Extend I-8 eastward towards SR-79. Extend the North-South corridor to I-10. Extend the North-South corridor south of I-10 and continue southward to connect to a northern extension of the PAG Loop Study western loop. Construct Western Loop and connect to the North-South Corridor near I-10. The new corridor should run parallel to I-10, west of I-10. The corridor would connect to I-10 near the I-8 Interchange. The corridor would be routed west of established communities such as Arizona City Construct a new east-west corridor that runs south of the City of Maricopa. The corridor would connect to new freeway corridors that are being discussed in the MAG Hidden Valley Study. This proposed corridor lies outside of the Corridors Definition Study area. New corridor would run north of I-8, north of Casa Grande. The corridor would intersect the North-South Corridor and continue eastward before heading southeast through Reddington Pass and the Benson/Wilcox area. Upgrade existing SR-79 to freeway facility. Maricopa East-West Corridor MAG Hidden Valley Framework Study I-10 Bypass ADOT I-10 Bypass Study SR-79 Upgrade Corridor / Oracle Junction to Florence Corridor Park Link Drive Corridor Stakeholder input Preliminary review of travel dem and modeling Pinal County Routes of Regional Significance for Safety and Mobility PAG Loop Study Im prove Park Link Drive to a freeway facility. SR-77 Reliever Corridor Construct a new corridor to parallel Oracle Road / SR-77. The Tortolita Mountain Park will need to be considered. Improve Tangerine Road to a freeway corridor. Oro Valley -Marana Corridor / Tangerine Road Corridor Oracle to Florence Junction Corridor / Far-east I-10 Parallel Corridor Florence - Red Rock -Avra Valley Corridor Marana to SR-79 Corridor Stakeholder input, and preliminary review of travel demand modeling Pinal County Routes of Regional Significance for Safety and Mobility Preliminary review of travel dem and modeling Preliminary review of travel dem and modeling This corridor would connect Kearny, Arizona to the Marana, Arizona area. This corridor would run north-south parallel to and east of the proposed North-South corridor, and extend from Florence to Avra Valley. This corridor would run north-south from the Tangerine / I-10 interchange area due north to intersection with SR-79 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 42 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report In considering and developing new corridors alternatives, ADOT directed that new corridors alternatives have logical termini within or in close proximity to the study area. The need for and feasibility of new corridors outside of the study area that have been proposed in other studies (e.g., ADOT Phoenix-Tucson Bypass and the MAG Hidden Valley Study) will be considered but should not have a major influence on new corridors within the study area. 5.2 Preliminary New Corridors Concept Based upon input received from stakeholder and jurisdiction discussions coupled with a review of travel demand patterns in the study area, the corridors identified in Exhibit 5-1 were refined and a Preliminary New Corridors Concepts was developed. The Preliminary New Corridors Concepts were presented to the Technical Advisory Committee on August 28, 2007. The Concept includes the following: I-8 Extension Corridor North-S outh Corridor Western I-10 Parallel Corridor SR-79 Upgrade Corridor / Oracle Junction to Florence Corridor Park Link Drive Corridor SR-77 Reliever Corridor Oro Valley - Marana Corridor / Tangerine Road Corridor Oracle to Florence Junction Corridor Flor ence - Red Rock -Avra Valley Corridor Marana/Tangerine to SR-79 Corridor Technical Advisory Committee input received at the August 28 meeting on the preliminary corridors included the following: The Town of Marana would prefer to see a corridor shifted further to the north-west rather than intersect at Tangerine Road. A future north-south corridor could tie to the Villages at Tortolitas. The Town does not want a future corridor to connect at Tangerine Road / I-10 Interchange area. The SR-79 corridor is currently a pristine corridor. Environmental considerations will be significant. The scenic beauty of the area will be a draw to future development. The SR-77 / Oracle Road reliever will need to avoid the La Cholla Airpark and the planned Tortolita Mountain Preserve. The SR-77 / Oracle Road reliever is not supported by Pima County. A new corridor should not be constructed through high-end development areas such as Saguaro Ranch and Canyon Pass (in Marana) Town of Marana is considering a north-east area impact study that could provide funding for improvements to Tangerine Road. The Town envisions that Tangerine Road will be an eight lane roadway near the I-10 interchange, transition to 6 lanes to Dove Mountain Blvd, and then continue as a four lane roadway to match the current four lane cross section in Oro Valley. The Western Parallel corridor makes sense from a build-out perspective, providing a parallel reliever facility to I-10. Tangerine Road should be extended to the southwest. As a result of these comments, the preliminary corridors were modified as discussed in the following section. 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 43 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report 5.3 Modified New Corridors Concept The preliminary new corridors were modified considering input received from the Technical Advisory Committ ee. The revised corridors were subsequently subjected to travel demand modeling. The modified New Corridors Concept are described in Exhibit 5-2. The New Corridors Concept is depicted graphically in Exhibit 5-3. Key differences between the Preliminary and Modified Corridors Concepts are: The Marana/Tangerine to SR-79 Corridor was removed, consistent with input from the Town of Marana. The Park Link Corridor (Red Rock to SR 79) was removed from consideration, because preliminary modeling results showed the corridor did not attract traffic volumes. The I-8 extension corridor was removed from consideration due to feasibility considerations. In addition, modeling demonstrated that when this corridor was removed that traffic volumes efficiently dispersed onto multiple alternate parallel facilities. Oracle to Florence Junction Corridor was removed because the corridor did not attract enough trips to warrant future considerations. The Preliminary New Corridors Concept did not include an east-west high-capacity corridor in the Maricopa /Casa Grande area, as it is outside of the study area. An east-west corridor in the Maricopa / Casa Grande area is being considered in the MAG Hidden Valley Framework Study. The I-10 by-pass was not directly included in the corridors concept because the I-10 By-Pass study does not identify a preferred alternative. However, many segments of the I-10 by-pass are included in the Corridors Concept as parts of other corridors (e.g. Western Parallel, SR-79 Upgrade, and the I-8 Extension). The Preliminary New Corridors Concept does include an additional corridor, the Valencia Road / South Tucson Loop Corridor to provide consistency with the PAG Loop Study. However, this corridor will not be explored further within this study because it is outside of the study area. It is important to note the following with respect to the New Corridors Concept: 1. The corridors depicted in the New Corridor Concept are general corridors in which new transportation facilities may be located. 2. Further environmental and alignment studies will be required to identify alignments for the new corridors. 3. No funding has been identified for any of the corridors depicted in the New Corridors Concept. 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 44 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report Exhibit 5-2 � New Corridors Concept, Corridor Descriptions Corridor Name North-South Corridor Extension Corridor Description This corridor extends south between Florence and Coolidge, and intersects I-10 along the eastern fringe of Eloy. It crosses I10 and connects the Western Parallel Corridor at its southern terminus. This corridor originates on SR-79 north of Florence, extends south along the eastern edge of Florence, intersects at I-10 and skirts the western side of Marana, and terminating at the Western Parallel Junction. This corridor extends parallel and west of I10, extends southeast through Pima County, and intersects with both I-19 and I-10 in Santa Cruz County just south of Tucson. This corridor, on a SR-79 alignment, extends southeast from the northern area of Florence to Oracle where it intersects SR-77. Purpose The North-South Corridor provides relief to I10, SR-87, and SR-79 by providing adjacent north-south connectivity between southeast suburban Phoenix and northwest suburban Tucson. Provides alternative north-south connectivity between central Pinal County and Western Tucson. Florence / Red Rock / Avra Valley Corridor Western I-10 Parallel Corridor Provides relief to I-10 and I-19 by serving as an alternative route between South Tucson and the Casa Grande / Eloy region. Provides an alternative parallel route to I-10, SR-79, and SR-77 which supplies relief to those roadways, and improves the connectivity between the areas of Florence and Oracle Serves as a reliever route to SR-77, La Cholla Boulevard, and La Canada Drive Oracle Junction to Florence (SR-79) Corridor SR-77 Reliever This corridor runs north-south within the City of Tucson, with an alignment in the area of La Cholla Boulevard and La Canada Drive, connects with I-10 at the southern end of the corridor, and extends north to the SR77 / SR79 junction. This corridor is on a Tangerine Road alignm ent which runs east-west between Oro Valley and Marana. Oro Valley / Marana Corridor (Tangerine Road) Intended Purpose � the Oro Valley / Marana Corridor serves as an alternative east-west passage between Oro Valley and Marana thereby providing relief to the neighboring arterials of Ina, Orange Grove, and Tangerine. 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 45 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report A � Gila River Indian Res. � A SR-79 terminates San Carlos Apache Tribe MARICOPA 10 ( ' &� %A FLORENCE � A COOLIDGE � A A � CASA GRANDE 8 ( ' & % A � North-South Corridor Florence/ Red Rock/Avra Valley � A ELOY le ac Or tio nc Ju A � Arizon a City A � PINAL COUNTY n to o Fl e nc re Tohono O'odham Nation We ste rn P 10 ( ' & % ara l lel Oracle San Manuel Cat alina Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridor Definition Study MARANA Oro Valley / Marana A � ORO VALLEY PIMA COUNTY 4 Leg end Exhibit 5-3 New Corridors Concept Avra Valley Western Parallel SR-77 Re liever Picture Rocks 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 Miles 15 COCHISE Sahuarit a Co rrido r Proposed Corridor Definition Corrid or Definition Study Area Coun ty Boundary Rivers Land Ownership Federal Land Indian Reservation Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System, Arizona Department of Transportation TUCSON 10 19 (( '' && %% South ern Tucson Loop 6.0 NEW CORRIDORS NEEDS ANALYSIS This chapter describes the results of the 2030 traffic modeling effort that was conducted to evaluate in gr eater detail the need for each new corridor (as identified in the New Corridors Concept). Each new corridor alternative is reviewed for is ability to attract trips is impact on parallel facilities. Specifically, the needs assessment for the new corridors involved five assessment criteria: The corridor attracts trips. The corridor diverts traffic from congested routes and state highways. The corridor is supported by regional transportation plans or studies. The corridor serves a regional freeway function. The corridor reflects jurisdiction and agency visions. 6.1 Description of Transportation Model Runs Two models were run for 2030 conditions, a 2030 Base future network and a 2030 New Corridors Concept model run. In the 2030 Base future network, I-10 is assumed to be constructed to 10 lanes consistent with the I-10 Design Concept Report. In the 2030 New Corridors Concept, each of the New Corridors was assumed to be 6-lane freeway facilities. A summary of the assumptions with respect to facilities included in the model is summarized in Exhibit 6-1. Exhibit 6-1 � 2030 Modeling Assumptions, By Scenario Scenario 2030 Base Future Network x x x No new freeway corridors; Interstate 10 constructed as a 10-lane facility. Planned and programmed investments in Pinal County; as consistent with Pinal County Transportation Improvement Program, Pinal County Small Area Transportation Plan, plus a basic arterial infrastructure that will be required to support future development that will be constructed in conjunction with large developm ents and master planned communities. Widening of existing arterials to 4 lanes throughout Pinal County; Improvements as described in 2030 Base Future Network; The following new corridors (all assumed to be 6-lane freeway facilities): North-South Corridor Florence / Red Rock / Avra Valley Corridor Western I-10 Parallel Corridor Oracle Junction to Florence Corridor SR-77 Reliever Oro Valley / Marana Corridor (Tangerine Road) Description x 2030 New Corridors Concept x x 6.2 Needs Analysis Findings The travel demand modeling output for the 2030 Base Future Network is shown in Exhibit 6-2, and for the 2030 New Corridor Concept in Exhibit 6-3. Each exhibit displays traffic volumes projected in the year 2030. A summary of the needs analysis findings is summarized in Exhibit 6-4. Does the corridor attract trips? 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 47 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report All of the six corridors included in the New Corridors Concept attracted a significant number of trips. Does the corridor divert trips from other congested corridors? With respect to trip diversion of the corridors, the North-South Corridor provided a significant impact on trips on SR 87, providing a 51 percent reduction in trips on that facility. The SR-79 / Oracle Junction to Flor ence Corridor significantly reduced trips on Park Link Drive, providing a 59 percent reduction in trips. The SR 77 Reliever Corridor provided a 21 percent reduction in trips to SR 77. Is the corridor supported by other transportation plans? A number of the corridors were supported by previous plans and studies. The North-South Corridor was recommended by the ADOT Pinal County Corridors Definition Study. The Western I-10 Parallel Corridor was assessed in the PAG Loop Study. The SR 77 Reliever Corridor was recommended by the PAG Loop Study. It is interesting to note that the Tangerine Road Corridor was not recommended by the PAG Loop Study, as the traffic analysis did not show this facility loading as a 6-lane arterial facility. It does, however, load as a 6-lane freeway facility in the travel demand model used in the Corridor Definition Study. Does the corridor serve a regional freeway function? All of the corridors serve a regional freeway function, and were modeled with that intent. Does the Corridor reflect agency and jurisdiction visions? With respect to jurisdictional support for the corridors, the North-South corridor has received jurisdictional support and is being advanced by ADOT to further development in a Design Concept Report and Environmental Study. Stakeholder support has been received for the Florence / Red Rock / Avra Valley Corridor, the Oracle Junction to Florence Corridor, and the Tangerine Road Corridor. The Wester n I-10 Parallel Corridor has received public opposition in the I-10 Bypass Study. The SR 77 Reliever Route is supported by Oro Valley, but has received opposition by Pima County. 091374017 Southern Pinal CDS Final Report (04-15-08).doc April 2008 48 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridors Definition Study Final Report Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridor Definition Study Exhibit 6-2 2030 Base Future Network Traffic Volume Gila River Indian Res. San Carlos Apache Tribe � 19 19 14 19 23 16 24 18 29 32 31 32 28 36 40 26 23 24 21 22 33 32 51 43 42 47 50 43 38 41 42 53 46 42 48 51 30 39 43 44 37 41 19 33 35 15 28 27 52 18 51 46 58 77 65 76 98 44 14 13 74 8 8 21 47 3 5 50 40 19 15 17 19 28 20 3 1 41 59 13 20 26 8 3 74 16 0 26 23 25 76 89 75 74 72 73 21 45 47 46 47 26 31 22 19 20 17 1 13 12 62 11 24 84 43 19 26 8 24 34 63 31 30 0 3 26 49 39 25 24 14 30 37 21 27 28 20 9 0 14 63 19 33 71 44 43 28 10 Tohono O'odham Nation 34 22 4 9 1 2 0 13 30 38 33 64 64 13 19 33 32 01 34 21 15 37 59 43 21 26 54 32 13 53 31 14 26 15 43 47 12 45 34 50 61 2 48 38 88 26 69 51 85 76 26 7 0 4 9 73 97 29 54 2 0 6 28 17 6 12 1 1 29 23 5 12 34 27 52 15 61 52 47 73 42 14 1 2 8 26 82 0 20 2 0 29 33 5 1 13 0 3 18 13 38 8 7 Legend Freeway Major Arterial Major Collector Minor Arterial CAP Canal County Boundary Indian Reservation Corridor Definition Study Area 30 26 58 23 130 2 15 25 23 24 6 20 6 11 27 11 36 99 2 3 52 17 29 16 13 22 31 43 37 33 81 14 4 7 43 6 23 24 18 86 70 28 24 68 0 55 16 28 50 58 58 80 22 NOTES: Traffic volumes shown on the map are in thousand vehicles and two-way volumes. 22 3 11 03 26 32 55 11185 71 91 135 20 21 31 8 2 3 24 25 8 2 90 0 6 14 20 9 25 77 54 45 137 3 1 54 7 30 1 22 4 0 0 25 22 7 85 40 2 5 50 7 36 3 35 1 02 PIMA COUNTY 1 23 30 8 6 11 56 31 0 25 79 25 78 60 94 22 22 39 19 15 8 27 109 73 81 25 68 66 0 1.2 5 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 Mil es 7 0 8 64 8 13 48 31 33 17 0 11 41 22 77 144 18 8 19 13 16 12 6 83 21 88 37 22 12 22 19 14 9 8 1 6 8 19 4 42 208 2 11 21 4 2 7 11 22 43 6 22 44 0 21 21 8 95 40 2 22 27 156 128 1 22 8 22 4 0 0 23 2 8 19 75 98 18 3 27 41 61 92 26 12 92 COCHIS 2 0 0 6 8 16 8 6 16 17 48 61 15 5 3 13 6 5 1 0 32 18 87 67 20 13 8 12 6 25 13 16 17 23 Southern Pinal / Northern Pima Corridor Definition Study Exhibit 6-3 2030 New Corridors Network Traffic Volume Gila River Indian Res. San Carlos Apache Tribe 7 7 18 24 7 8 16 5 8 3 25 13 24 19 14 20 19 18 12 14 13 11 26 29 19 21 7 2 16 19 6 19 26 2 20 5 36 13 11 38 15 119 23 26 28 36 45 30 31 112 10 3 27 17 22 24 23 25 27 29 34 28 21 19 18 25 28 26 24 26 35 35 5 9 6 34 34 96 154 3 16 18 25 24 24 109 117 11 6 0 14 13 88 11 5 16 13 8 95 24 27 5 2 14 8 4 0 6 6 8 8 4 1 4 33 94 103 43 0 3 14 10 20 14 9 6 7 6 103 5 9 15 9 3 3 17 5 7 48 62 17 54 21 11 3 0 1 3 117 4 4 2 2 1 21 6 4 3 5 5 0 45 4 4 12 6 0 � 0 3 40 42 2 39 39 37 10 2 92 10 18 39 1 5 10 3 1 1 01 5 2 0 76 1 4 4 63 81 69 0 Tohono O'odham Nation 3 0 01 1 3 16 5 5 2 90 12 80 6 2 0 10 3 35 96 19 4 0 0 19 1 10 10 7 6 6 61 1 26 16 6 2 3 100 1 13 101 2 29 9 3 12 14 2 0 4 16 2 4 10 3 0 1 2 0 0 2 90 88 22 02 0 1 11 22 2 2 9 7 9 9 0 5 3 15 10 2 47 66 19 130 131 0 2 0 0 8 0 0 1 1 21 19 19 17 0 6 0 15 01 98 5 13 6 17 13 20 0 9 14 2 0 16 7 9 2 21 1 3 30 30 25 2 1 4 5 1 9 9 18 7 3 06 34 57 83 84 73 3 19 4 31 0 0 21 1 36 31 99 83 98 5 52 44 21 121 53 71 61 38 1 3 87 5 101 47 8 103 94 31 0 47 28 61 6 9 60 70 6 41 68 51 1 38 5 26 77 45 46 0 11 8 17 81 75 43 28 76 42 7 0 62 74 88 5 12 5 40 6 99 38 4 35 15 28 28 34 1 2 1 7 787 3 1 20 3 11 0 0 15 0 1 0 164 96 2 11 95 8 7 |
|
|
| A |
|
| B |
| C |
|
| D |
| E |
| F |
| G |
| H |
| I |
| J |
| L |
| M |
|
| N |
| O |
| P |
|
| R |
| S |
|
| T |
|
| U |
| V |
| W |
| Y |
|
|