I-10 Twin Peaks Traffic Interchange, Environmental Assessment
I-10 Twin Peaks Traffic Interchange, Environmental Assessment
I-10 Twin Peaks Traffic Interchange, Environmental Assessment
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong><br />
at <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
ADOT Project No. NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D(AIW)<br />
TRACS No. <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D<br />
DRAFT<br />
ENVIRONMENTAL<br />
ASSESSMENT AND<br />
SECTION 4(f)<br />
EVALUATION<br />
October 2005<br />
Federal<br />
Highway<br />
Administration
Draft <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> October 2005<br />
TABLE OF CONTENTS<br />
LIST OF ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................... x<br />
MITIGATION MEASURES ...........................................................................................xiii<br />
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION...................................................................................1-1<br />
Explanation of Project...................................................................................................... 1-1<br />
Existing Roadway Network ....................................................................................1-4<br />
Other Modes of Transportation................................................................................ 1-6<br />
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED ........................................................ 2-1<br />
Project Location............................................................................................................... 2-1<br />
Background and Overview .............................................................................................. 2-1<br />
Project Need.....................................................................................................................2-2<br />
Congestion Relief.................................................................................................... 2-2<br />
Drainage.................................................................................................................. 2-5<br />
Design Related Issues ............................................................................................. 2-6<br />
Connectivity............................................................................................................2-7<br />
Transportation System Connectivity.................................................................... 2-7<br />
Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity ...................................................................2-7<br />
Project Purpose ................................................................................................................2-8<br />
Conformance with Regulations, Land Use Plans, and Other Plans................................. 2-8<br />
General Project Schedule...............................................................................................2-<strong>10</strong><br />
CHAPTER 3: ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................................3-1<br />
Alternative Corridor Evaluation ...................................................................................... 3-1<br />
TI Alternatives .................................................................................................................3-2<br />
Alternative TI Configurations................................................................................. 3-2<br />
Alternative TI Design Options - <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road Over or Under I-<strong>10</strong><br />
and UPRR ...............................................................................................................3-4<br />
Alternative TI Alignments ......................................................................................3-6<br />
Alternatives Selected for Further Study......................................................................... 3-<strong>10</strong><br />
No Build Alternative............................................................................................. 3-<strong>10</strong><br />
Preferred Alternative............................................................................................. 3-11<br />
Proposed Roadway Improvements .......................................................................3-11<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
i<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Draft <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> October 2005<br />
Proposed Intersection Improvements.................................................................... 3-17<br />
Proposed Lighting Improvements......................................................................... 3-20<br />
Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities .......................................................... 3-20<br />
Proposed Drainage Improvements........................................................................ 3-22<br />
Proposed Santa Cruz River Channel Modifications ............................................. 3-25<br />
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND<br />
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.........................................................................4-1<br />
Land Use ..........................................................................................................................4-1<br />
Land Resources................................................................................................................ 4-4<br />
Topography.............................................................................................................4-4<br />
Soils.........................................................................................................................4-5<br />
Geologic Setting and Mineral Resources................................................................ 4-6<br />
Agriculture .............................................................................................................. 4-8<br />
Water Resources ..............................................................................................................4-9<br />
Surface Water.......................................................................................................... 4-9<br />
Ground Water........................................................................................................ 4-13<br />
Water Quality.................................................................................................................4-14<br />
Floodplains............................................................................................................4-14<br />
Section 404/401 of Clean Water Act .................................................................... 4-19<br />
NPDES/AZPDES/SWPPP....................................................................................4-21<br />
Sole Source Aquifer.............................................................................................. 4-22<br />
Biological Resources ..................................................................................................... 4-25<br />
Wildlife ................................................................................................................. 4-25<br />
Threatened/Endangered Wildlife Species.............................................................4-26<br />
Arizona Species of Concern.................................................................................. 4-33<br />
Plants..................................................................................................................... 4-34<br />
Threatened/Endangered Plant Species.................................................................. 4-34<br />
Arizona Native Plant Law Species .......................................................................4-35<br />
Vegetation, Riparian Habitat, and Wetlands......................................................... 4-36<br />
Invasive Species.................................................................................................... 4-40<br />
Visual Resources............................................................................................................ 4-41<br />
Air Quality .....................................................................................................................4-45<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
ii<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Draft <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> October 2005<br />
Noise ............................................................................................................................4-49<br />
Hazardous Materials ...................................................................................................... 4-63<br />
Cultural Resources......................................................................................................... 4-66<br />
Socioeconomics .............................................................................................................4-77<br />
Demographics .......................................................................................................4-77<br />
Minority Groups/Title VI/<strong>Environmental</strong> Justice................................................. 4-81<br />
Neighborhood Continuity .....................................................................................4-82<br />
Emergency Services..............................................................................................4-82<br />
Social Services......................................................................................................4-83<br />
Relocations/Displacements................................................................................... 4-83<br />
Temporary Impacts ............................................................................................... 4-84<br />
Permanent Impacts................................................................................................ 4-86<br />
Section 6 (f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act ........................................ 4-88<br />
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act................................................... 4-89<br />
Utilities and Railroad ..................................................................................................... 4-97<br />
Material Sources and Waste Materials ........................................................................ 4-<strong>10</strong>0<br />
Construction Water Source.......................................................................................... 4-<strong>10</strong>1<br />
Secondary Impacts.......................................................................................................4-<strong>10</strong>1<br />
Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................................... 4-<strong>10</strong>2<br />
CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT/PROJECT COORDINATION ...................5-1<br />
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION .......................................................................................6-1<br />
CHAPTER 7: PROJECT PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS................................7-1<br />
CHAPTER 8: BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................8-1<br />
Appendices<br />
APPENDIX A: AGENCY SCOPING.................................................................................<br />
APPENDIX B: U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE CONSULTATION LETTERS .<br />
APPENDIX C: STAMINA MODELING RESULTS .........................................................<br />
APPENDIX D: CULTURAL RESOURCES CONSULTATION LETTERS ...................<br />
APPENDIX E: SECTION 4(f) COORDINATION LETTERS ..........................................<br />
List of Tables<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
iii<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Draft <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> October 2005<br />
Table 2-1. Comparison of 2030 Average Daily <strong>Traffic</strong> Volumes for Selected Roadway<br />
Segments With and Without <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI .................................................... 2-5<br />
Table 3-1. Existing and Proposed I-<strong>10</strong> and Frontage Road Drainage Structures .......... 3-23<br />
Table 3-2. Proposed <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road and Linda Vista Boulevard Drainage<br />
Structures ................................................................................................................. 3-23<br />
Table 3-3. Existing and Proposed Channels Serving I-<strong>10</strong> and Frontage Roads ............ 3-25<br />
Table 4-1. Proposed Property Acquisitions ..................................................................... 4-3<br />
Table 4-2. Proposed Additional Drainage Easements ..................................................... 4-4<br />
Table 4-3. Special Status Wildlife Species.................................................................... 4-27<br />
Table 4-4. Special Status Plant Species ......................................................................... 4-34<br />
Table 4-5. National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ..................................... 4-46<br />
Table 4-6. 2002 Monitoring Data from Coachline Site compared to NAAQS ............. 4-47<br />
Table 4-7. <strong>Traffic</strong> Noise Monitoring Results..................................................................... 4-50<br />
Table 4-8. Noise Mitigation Evaluation Summary........................................................ 4-62<br />
Table 4-9. NRHP Eligibility Recommendations of Recorded Sites.............................. 4-74<br />
Table 4-<strong>10</strong>. 2000 Selected Census Data ........................................................................ 4-79<br />
Table 6-1. Summary of <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong>........................................................ 6-1<br />
List of Figures<br />
Figure 1-1. Project Location ............................................................................................ 1-2<br />
Figure 1-2. Study Area..................................................................................................... 1-3<br />
Figure 2-1. Levels of Service........................................................................................... 2-4<br />
Figure 3-1. Typical Roundabout <strong>Interchange</strong> .................................................................. 3-3<br />
Figure 3-2. Typical Diamond <strong>Interchange</strong>....................................................................... 3-3<br />
Figure 3-3. Typical Single Point Urban <strong>Interchange</strong>....................................................... 3-3<br />
Figure 3-4a. Alternative Alignments – North Alignment Alternative............................. 3-7<br />
Figure 3-4b. Alternative Alignments – Center Alignment Alternative ........................... 3-7<br />
Figure 3-4c. Alternative Alignments – South Alignment Alternative............................. 3-8<br />
Figure 3-5. No Build Alternative................................................................................... 3-<strong>10</strong><br />
Figure 3-6. Preferred Alternative................................................................................... 3-11<br />
Figure 3-7. Proposed <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road Typical Section .............................................. 3-12<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
iv<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Draft <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> October 2005<br />
Figure 3-8. Proposed <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road Bridge Crossing Over Santa Cruz River Typical<br />
Section...................................................................................................................... 3-12<br />
Figure 3-9. Proposed <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road Bridge Crossing over I-<strong>10</strong> and the UPRR Typical<br />
Section...................................................................................................................... 3-14<br />
Figure 3-<strong>10</strong>. Proposed Access Road Typical Section.................................................... 3-14<br />
Figure 3-11. Proposed I-<strong>10</strong> Eastbound Frontage Road and Ramps Typical Section..... 3-16<br />
Figure 3-12. Proposed I-<strong>10</strong> Westbound Frontage Road and Ramps Typical Section ... 3-16<br />
Figure 3-13. Proposed Linda Vista Boulevard Typical Section..................................... 3-18<br />
Figure 3-14. Proposed <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road/Access Roadway Intersection<br />
Configuration ........................................................................................................... 3-18<br />
Figure 3-15. Proposed <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road/Eastbound Frontage Road Intersection<br />
Configuration ........................................................................................................... 3-19<br />
Figure 3-16. Proposed <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road/Westbound Frontage Road Intersection<br />
Configuration ........................................................................................................... 3-19<br />
Figure 3-17. Proposed <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/El Camino De Mañana/Linda Vista Boulevard<br />
Intersection Configuration ....................................................................................... 3-20<br />
Figure 3-18. Proposed <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road Connection to Santa Cruz Shared Use Path. 3-21<br />
Figure 3-19. Proposed Drainage Facilities Near I-<strong>10</strong> .................................................... 3-24<br />
Figure 4-1. Land Jurisdiction........................................................................................... 4-2<br />
Figure 4-2. Floodplains.................................................................................................. 4-17<br />
Figure 4-3. Jurisdictional Waters................................................................................... 4-20<br />
Figure 4-4a-d. Noise Analysis ................................................................. 4-53 through 4-56<br />
Figure 4-5. Census Tracts .............................................................................................. 4-78<br />
Figure 4-6. Acquisitions and Relocations...................................................................... 4-85<br />
Figure 4-7. Section 4(f) Resources ................................................................................ 4-91<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
v<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Draft <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> October 2005<br />
List of Acronyms<br />
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials<br />
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation<br />
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act<br />
ADEQ Arizona Department of <strong>Environmental</strong> Quality<br />
ADOA Arizona Department of Agriculture<br />
ADOT Arizona Department of Transportation<br />
ADT average daily traffic<br />
ADWR Arizona Department of Water Resources<br />
AGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department<br />
AMA Active Management Area<br />
ANPL Arizona Native Plant Law<br />
a.s.l. above sea level<br />
ASM Arizona State Museum<br />
AT&T AT&T Communications<br />
AZPDES Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System<br />
BE Biological Evaluation<br />
BLM Bureau of Land Management<br />
BMP Best Management Practices<br />
CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments<br />
CEQ Council on <strong>Environmental</strong> Quality<br />
CFPO Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-owl<br />
CFR Code of Federal Regulations<br />
CHU Critical Habitat Unit<br />
CMID Cortaro-Marana Irrigation District<br />
CO Carbon monoxide<br />
Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers<br />
CWA Clean Water Act<br />
dB decibel<br />
dBA A-weighted sound level in decibels<br />
DCR Design Concept Report<br />
DOI Department of the Interior<br />
EA <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
EEG <strong>Environmental</strong> & Enhancement Group<br />
EO Executive Order<br />
EPA U.S. <strong>Environmental</strong> Protection Agency<br />
ESA Endangered Species Act<br />
FEA Final <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency<br />
FHWA Federal Highway Administration<br />
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
x<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Draft <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> October 2005<br />
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact<br />
GMP General Management Plan<br />
I-<strong>10</strong> Interstate <strong>10</strong><br />
I<strong>10</strong>F# Noise receiver location along I-<strong>10</strong> and the frontage roads<br />
IO Isolated occurrence<br />
LWCFA Land and Water Conservation Fund Act<br />
Leq(h) Energy equivalent level over a one hour period<br />
LOS Level of Service<br />
LUST leaking underground storage tanks<br />
LVR# Noise receiver location along Linda Vista Boulevard<br />
MP Milepost<br />
mph miles per hour<br />
N/A not applicable<br />
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards<br />
NAC Noise Abatement Criteria<br />
NAP Noise Abatement Policy<br />
NEAP Natural events action plan<br />
NEPA National <strong>Environmental</strong> Policy Act<br />
NO2<br />
Nitrogen dioxide<br />
NPPO Native Plant Preservation Ordinance<br />
NPPP Native Plant Preservation Plan<br />
NPS National Park Service<br />
NR# Noise receiver located along the north side of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road<br />
NRCS National Resources Conservation Service<br />
NRHP National Register of Historic Places<br />
O3<br />
Ozone<br />
PAG Pima Association of Governments<br />
PCDOT&FCD Pima County Department of Transportation and Flood Control District<br />
PDEQ Pima County Department of <strong>Environmental</strong> Quality<br />
PISA Preliminary Initial Site <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
PM<strong>10</strong> Particulate matter less than <strong>10</strong> microns in aerodynamic diameter<br />
PM2.5 Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter<br />
ppm Parts per million<br />
RAC rubberized asphaltic concrete<br />
RCBC reinforced concrete box culvert<br />
RCP reinforced corrugated pipe<br />
RS# Noise receiver location along the south side of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road<br />
RTP Regional Transportation Plan<br />
R/W Right-of-way<br />
SDCP Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan<br />
SHPO State Historic Preservation Office<br />
SIP State Implementation Plan<br />
SNP Saguaro National Park<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
xi<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Draft <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> October 2005<br />
SO2<br />
Sulfur dioxide<br />
SPUI Single Point Urban <strong>Interchange</strong><br />
SR State Route<br />
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan<br />
TAC Technical Advisory Committee<br />
TAPA Tucson Air Planning Area<br />
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century<br />
TEP Tucson Electric Power<br />
TI traffic interchange<br />
TRDN Tres Rios del Norte<br />
UPRR Union Pacific Railroad<br />
U.S. United States<br />
USC United States Code<br />
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service<br />
UST underground storage tanks<br />
VIR Visual Impact Rating<br />
Vpd Vehicles per day<br />
µg/ m 3 Micrograms per cubic meter<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
xii<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Mitigation Measures October 2005<br />
MITIGATION MEASURES<br />
The following mitigation measures and commitments are not subject to change or<br />
modification without the prior written approval of the Federal Highway<br />
Administration.<br />
Town of Marana Responsibilities:<br />
1. The Town of Marana and the Arizona Department of Transportation would<br />
participate in an intergovernmental agreement, which would include the<br />
environmental mitigation contained within this document.<br />
2. The Town of Marana would widen the low flow channel of the Santa Cruz River<br />
to prevent an unacceptable rise in floodwater elevations within the <strong>10</strong>0-year<br />
floodplain. (Refer to page 4-19)<br />
3. During final design, the Town of Marana would give the local floodplain<br />
administrator the opportunity to review project plans. (Refer to page 4-19)<br />
4. The Town of Marana would obtain an individual Clean Water Act Section 404<br />
permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Section 401 Water Quality<br />
Certification from the Arizona Department of <strong>Environmental</strong> Quality before<br />
construction commences. (Refer to page 4-21)<br />
5. To comply with Section 402, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan would be<br />
prepared for this project by the Town of Marana. (Refer to page 4-22)<br />
6. Prior to construction, the Town of Marana would develop a revegetation plan that<br />
would incorporate the mitigation discussed below. (Refer to page 4-31) This<br />
revegetation plan would be provided to the contractor. Mitigation measures would<br />
include revegetation of impacted areas along the roadway and the riparian<br />
vegetation along the Santa Cruz River. Mitigation would include:<br />
• Disturbed soils would be re-seeded using species native to the project vicinity<br />
and would mirror the current plant composition to the extent possible.<br />
• Within upland areas, trees greater than 4 inches diameter at breast height and<br />
Saguaro cactus that are removed would be replaced within the overall<br />
construction footprint at a 3:1 ratio. Vegetation would be replaced in kind<br />
with a minimum container size of 15 gallons. These replacements would not<br />
occur within the clear zone of the roadway.<br />
• Within the clear zone of the roadway, creosote bush seed would be utilized in<br />
order to facilitate quick replacement of vegetation cover.<br />
• Mesquite trees greater than 4 inches diameter at breast height that are removed<br />
within the high flow channel of the Santa Cruz River would be replaced at a<br />
3:1 ratio within the overall project limits in accordance with the revegetation<br />
plan. Vegetation would be replaced in kind with a minimum container size of<br />
15 gallons.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
xiii<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Mitigation Measures October 2005<br />
• Riparian trees greater than 4 inches diameter at breast height that are removed<br />
for construction would be replaced in kind at a 3:1 ratio with a minimum<br />
container size of 15 gallons.<br />
• When fully restored, the vegetation within the Santa Cruz River would<br />
provide continuous tree cover through the project limits.<br />
• The bottom of the bridges would be approximately 20 feet above the bottom<br />
of the low flow channel of the Santa Cruz River, which should provide<br />
sufficient height to allow pygmy-owls and other wildlife to move unimpeded<br />
under the bridges.<br />
• The Town of Marana would provide water for all plantings outside the low<br />
flow channel of the Santa Cruz River for a period of two years to facilitate<br />
their establishment.<br />
• The Town of Marana would monitor all plantings for a period of two years,<br />
starting at the time of planting, on a quarterly basis. Two yearly reports would<br />
be generated and submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the<br />
Arizona Department of Transportation’s <strong>Environmental</strong> and Enhancement<br />
Group discussing the progress of the revegetation effort.<br />
• The revegetation plan would comply with the Arizona Native Plant Law, and<br />
Native Plant Protection Ordinances of the Town of Marana and Pima County.<br />
In addition, the revegetation plan would also include U.S. Army Corps of<br />
Engineers recommended mitigation measures for the Santa Cruz River<br />
Channel.<br />
• The revegetation plan would be developed based on the objectives of the Tres<br />
Rio del Norte Feasibility Study. Tres Rio del Norte planning objectives related<br />
to vegetation on the Santa Cruz River include: creating a mesquite bosque at<br />
higher elevations from the Santa Cruz River bottom on terraces and over-bank<br />
areas; plant and establish cottonwood and willow tree plant communities<br />
along the wetted perimeter, and fringe area locations within the Santa Cruz<br />
River; established wetlands/Cienega at appropriate locations, to create a<br />
diverse and high value project habitat; and, reestablish desertscrub plant<br />
communities along the degraded upland portions of the Santa Cruz River<br />
corridor, emphasizing saltbush-wolfberry and mesquite associations as<br />
components.<br />
7. The Town of Marana would develop a Native Plant Protection Plan in accordance<br />
with local ordinances. (Refer to page 4-36)<br />
8. During design, a wetland delineation would be completed. In the event that<br />
jurisdictional wetlands are impacted by the preferred alternative, coordination<br />
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would occur and appropriate permits<br />
would be obtained. (Refer to page 4-39).<br />
9. During final design, invasive species surveys would occur to determine if invasive<br />
species are present. (Refer to page 4-40)<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
xiv<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Mitigation Measures October 2005<br />
<strong>10</strong>. Structural elements such as walls, bridges, concrete barriers, and abutments would<br />
be constructed of materials with color and texture qualities that blend into the<br />
existing landscape. Architectural treatments would be applied to the proposed<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road bridge over I-<strong>10</strong> and other visible structures to enhance the<br />
driver’s perception of Marana and to be in accordance with similar projects on<br />
I-<strong>10</strong> in the Tucson area. (Refer to page 4-44)<br />
11. Erosion control techniques such as slope rounding would be utilized, as<br />
necessary, to minimize impacts to visual quality. (Refer to page 4-45)<br />
12. Intersection lighting would be designed to minimize light pollution of night skies<br />
and limit glare into neighborhoods. (Refer to page 4-45)<br />
13. Methods of reducing headlight impact to residents of Continental Ranch would be<br />
considered in final design. (Refer to page 4-45)<br />
14. The need for sound mitigation walls would be reassessed during design. If walls<br />
would be required, the placement, type, and height would be determined during<br />
design. (Refer to pages 4-57)<br />
15. The Town of Marana would resurface <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road west to Silverbell Road<br />
with rubberized asphaltic concrete to decrease the noise generation from the tirepavement<br />
interface. (Refer to page 4-59)<br />
16. Before construction, the Town of Marana would conduct detailed Phase I Site<br />
<strong>Assessment</strong>s to assess site-specific potential for hazardous materials issues on<br />
parcels rated as high and medium priority. Additional investigation may include,<br />
but is not limited to, additional site reconnaissance and interviews with current<br />
and historical property owners. If parcels to be acquired involve structures,<br />
following the acquisition of the structure but prior to its demolition, the structures<br />
would be assessed for asbestos, lead-based paint, and other hazardous materials in<br />
accordance with State and Federal regulations. (Refer to page 4-65)<br />
17. The Town of Marana would follow the terms and conditions of the Section <strong>10</strong>6<br />
programmatic agreement for I-<strong>10</strong> improvements between the I-<strong>10</strong>/I-19<br />
interchange and Tangerine Road signed by SHPO, FHWA, ADOT, and the<br />
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in 1993 (included in Appendix D) and<br />
subsequently amended. In addition, the Town of Marana would follow the SHPO<br />
recommendations to prepare a project specific treatment plan (see letter in<br />
Appendix D). (Refer to page 4-76)<br />
18. Minor gaps in the cultural resources inventory would be addressed by the Town<br />
of Marana as final design proceeds. These include completion of the archeological<br />
survey on parcels that could not be surveyed previously along the eastbound I-<strong>10</strong><br />
frontage road and Linda Vista Boulevard because rights-of-entry could not be<br />
obtained. The Town of Marana would obtain archeological clearance before<br />
geotechnical testing for bridge and embankment piers. (Refer to page 4-76)<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
xv<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Mitigation Measures October 2005<br />
19. The Town of Marana would provide plans for UPRR review to ensure that the<br />
project met current UPRR standards for bridge design and that the sequencing of<br />
construction minimized temporary disruptions to train traffic. (Refer to page 4-99)<br />
20. The Town of Marana would coordinate with the Cortaro-Marana Irrigation<br />
District prior to any modifications of the canal and construction would be<br />
coordinated so that the proposed improvements would not interfere with the<br />
supply of irrigation water during critical periods. (Refer to page 4-<strong>10</strong>0)<br />
21. The Town of Marana would maintain utility coordination throughout the course<br />
of the project and schedules for any utility adjustments would be coordinated<br />
closely to minimize interruptions and inconvenience to customers. (Refer to page<br />
4-<strong>10</strong>0)<br />
22. Utility clearances obtained by the Town of Marana would be in accordance with the<br />
Arizona Department of Transportation requirements. (Refer to page 4-<strong>10</strong>1)<br />
Arizona Department of Transportation Tucson District Responsibilities:<br />
1. The Town of Marana and the Arizona Department of Transportation would<br />
participate in an intergovernmental agreement, which would include the<br />
environmental mitigation contained within this document.<br />
2. The Arizona Department of Transportation District Construction Office and the<br />
contractor will submit the Notice of Intent and the Notice of Termination to the<br />
Arizona Department of <strong>Environmental</strong> Quality and the <strong>Environmental</strong> Protection<br />
Agency. (Refer to page 4-22)<br />
Arizona Department of Transportation <strong>Environmental</strong> and Enhancement Group<br />
Responsibilities:<br />
1. To prevent damage to possible buried resources at the Stewart Brickyard<br />
archaeological site, a pre-construction testing plan would be developed and<br />
implemented for this site by the Town of Marana in consultation with Arizona<br />
Department of Transportation <strong>Environmental</strong> and Enhancement Group’s Historic<br />
Preservation Team. (Refer to page 4-76)<br />
Contractor’s Responsibilities:<br />
1. The terms and conditions of the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the<br />
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Section 401 Water Quality Certification from<br />
the Arizona Department of <strong>Environmental</strong> Quality would be followed by the<br />
contractor for work affecting jurisdictional waters within the project area. (Refer<br />
to page 4-21)<br />
2. The Arizona Department of Transportation District Construction Office and the<br />
contractor will submit the Notice of Intent and the Notice of Termination to the<br />
Arizona Department of <strong>Environmental</strong> Quality and the <strong>Environmental</strong> Protection<br />
Agency. (Refer to page 4-22)<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
xvi<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Mitigation Measures October 2005<br />
3. The contractor would clean all earth-moving and hauling equipment prior to its<br />
entering the construction site to prevent the introduction of invasive species.<br />
(Refer to page 4-41)<br />
4. Erosion control techniques such as slope rounding would be utilized, as<br />
necessary, to minimize impacts to visual quality. (Refer to page 4-45)<br />
5. The contractor would monitor dust generation from the construction area and<br />
limit the amount of dust generated to a maximum opacity of 20 percent. (Refer to<br />
page 4-48)<br />
6. If relocation of asbestos-containing water lines is required, the contractor would<br />
handle, transport, and dispose of the material in accordance with approved federal,<br />
state, and county asbestos handling procedures. This would include appropriate<br />
precautions to ensure that employees are not exposed to airborne asbestos fibers<br />
and that fibers are not released into the atmosphere. (Refer to page 4-66)<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
xvii<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Mitigation Measures October 2005<br />
Standard Specifications included as Mitigation Measures:<br />
1. Excess waste material and construction debris would be disposed of at sites<br />
supplied by the contractor in accordance with Arizona Department of<br />
Transportation’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction<br />
Section <strong>10</strong>7.11 Protection and Restoration of Property and Landscape (2000<br />
Edition). Disposal would be made at either municipal landfills approved under<br />
Title D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, construction debris<br />
landfills approved under Article 3 of the Arizona Revised Statutes 49-241<br />
(Aquifer Protection Permit) administered by the Arizona Department of<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Quality, or inert landfills. (Refer to page 4-12)<br />
2. During construction, the contractor would follow Arizona Department of<br />
Transportation’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction,<br />
Section <strong>10</strong>4.09 Prevention of Landscape Defacement; Protection of Streams,<br />
Lakes and Reservoirs (2000 Edition) and the Water Quality Standards in Title 18,<br />
Chapter 11 of the Arizona Administrative Code as administered by the Arizona<br />
Department of <strong>Environmental</strong> Quality. (Refer to page 4-45)<br />
3. During construction, the contractor would control, reduce, remove or prevent air<br />
pollution in all its forms, including air contaminants, in the performance of the<br />
contractor’s work in accordance with Arizona Department of Transportation’s<br />
Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, Section <strong>10</strong>4.08<br />
Prevention of Air and Noise Pollution (2000 Edition). (Refer to page 4-48)<br />
4. During construction, the contractor would control construction noise in<br />
accordance with Arizona Department of Transportation’s Standard Specifications<br />
for Road and Bridge Construction, Section <strong>10</strong>4.08 Prevention of Air and Noise<br />
Pollution (2000 Edition). (Refer to page 4-57)<br />
5. According to Arizona Department of Transportation’s Standard Specifications for<br />
Road and Bridge Construction, Section <strong>10</strong>7 Legal Relations and Responsibility to<br />
Public (2000 Edition) (Stored Specification <strong>10</strong>7HAZMT, 01/15/93), if previously<br />
unidentified or suspect hazardous materials are encountered during construction,<br />
work would stop at that location and the Town of Marana Engineer would be<br />
contacted to arrange for proper treatment of those materials. Such locations would<br />
be investigated and proper action implemented prior to the continuation of work<br />
in that location. (Refer to Page 4-66)<br />
6. According to Arizona Department of Transportation’s Standard Specifications for<br />
Road and Bridge Construction, Section <strong>10</strong>7.05 Legal Relations and<br />
Responsibility to Public, Archaeological Features (2000 Edition), if previously<br />
unidentified cultural resources are encountered during activity related to the<br />
construction of the project, the contractor would stop work immediately at that<br />
location and would take all reasonable steps to secure the preservation of those<br />
resources and notify the Engineer. The Engineer would contact the Arizona<br />
Department of Transportation <strong>Environmental</strong> Planning Group, Historic<br />
Preservation Team (602.712.8636) immediately and make arrangements for the<br />
proper treatment of those resources. Arizona Department of Transportation<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
xviii<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Mitigation Measures October 2005<br />
would, in turn, notify the appropriate agency(ies) to evaluate the significance of<br />
those resources. (Refer to page 4-76)<br />
7. Any material sources required for this project outside of the project area would be<br />
examined for environmental effects, by the contractor, prior to use, through a<br />
separate environmental analysis in accordance with Arizona Department of<br />
Transportation’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction,<br />
Section <strong>10</strong>01 Material Sources (2000 Edition) (Stored Specification <strong>10</strong>01.2<br />
General), unless the facility has received prior clearance from the <strong>Environmental</strong><br />
and Enhancement Group of the Arizona Department of Transportation. (Refer to<br />
page 4-<strong>10</strong>1)<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
xix<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Introduction October 2005<br />
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION<br />
This environmental assessment (EA) is being prepared to comply with the National<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the policies of the Federal Highway<br />
Administration (FHWA), as the lead federal agency. The EA process provides steps and<br />
procedures to evaluate the potential social, economic, and environmental impacts of a<br />
proposed action while providing an opportunity for public and local, state, or other<br />
agencies to provide input and/or comment. In addition, this EA provides FHWA and the<br />
Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) a detailed analysis to better examine and<br />
consider the level of impacts on any sensitive social, economic, and environmental<br />
resources and assists in the decision-making process.<br />
A companion document to this EA has been prepared. The companion document is<br />
entitled Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road/Linda Vista Boulevard<br />
Initial Location Design Concept Report (DCR). The DCR is a document prepared for<br />
ADOT, which documents the design concept for proposed improvements, substantiates<br />
recommendations, documents alternatives considered, and identifies environmental<br />
effects. The DCR contains a higher level of engineering design detail than this EA and<br />
readers who desire that level of detail are referred to that document.<br />
Explanation of Project<br />
The existing Interstate <strong>10</strong> (I-<strong>10</strong>) traffic interchanges (TI) at Avra Valley Road and<br />
Cortaro Road are approximately four miles apart; therefore, the Town of Marana, as part<br />
of its Marana Master Transportation Plan, proposed a new major arterial roadway that<br />
would cross the I-<strong>10</strong> Corridor in the vicinity of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road and provide additional<br />
access to and from I-<strong>10</strong>. ADOT’s I-<strong>10</strong> General Plan, Ruthrauff Road to Tangerine Road<br />
(General Plan) proposed the construction of a new I-<strong>10</strong> TI in the vicinity of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong><br />
Road, Linda Vista Boulevard, and El Camino de Mañana that would be an extension of<br />
the existing <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road in Marana. The General Plan also proposed a gradeseparated<br />
crossing of this roadway with the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) because only<br />
one other grade-separated railroad crossing (Orange Grove Road) existed between<br />
Ruthrauff Road and Tangerine Road. According to Pima Association of Governments’<br />
(PAG) 2025 Regional Transportation Plan, the new TI and roadway would serve a<br />
substantial amount of traffic both crossing and accessing I-<strong>10</strong>.<br />
The proposed project would construct a new I-<strong>10</strong> TI at <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road (hereinafter<br />
referred to as the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI) approximately midway between the Avra Valley<br />
Road TI (milepost [MP] 242) and the Cortaro Road TI (MP 246) and would connect<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road on the west to El Camino de Mañana/Linda Vista Boulevard on the<br />
east. The proposed project location and vicinity are presented in Figures 1-1 and 1-2,<br />
respectively.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
1-1<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
N<br />
95<br />
Yuma Yuma<br />
San Luis<br />
Hoover Dam<br />
Bullhead Bullhead City City<br />
95<br />
68<br />
Topock<br />
95<br />
95<br />
40<br />
Lake Lake Havasu Havasu City City<br />
95<br />
Ehrenberg<br />
95<br />
93<br />
L A P A Z<br />
Y U M A<br />
M O H A V E<br />
C O C O N I N O<br />
85<br />
85<br />
60<br />
8<br />
303<br />
89<br />
Y A V A P A I<br />
<strong>10</strong>1<br />
M A R I C O P A<br />
Ajo Ajo<br />
Why<br />
Mobile Mobile<br />
Cottonwood<br />
Cottonwood<br />
Cordes Cordes<br />
Juction Juction<br />
<strong>10</strong><br />
<strong>10</strong>1<br />
87<br />
P I N A L<br />
202<br />
60<br />
Eloy Eloy<br />
P I M A<br />
287<br />
87<br />
<strong>10</strong><br />
89<br />
89<br />
87<br />
60<br />
87<br />
Page<br />
Parker Parker Payson<br />
Quartzsite Quartzsite<br />
Wellton Wellton<br />
Kingman Kingman<br />
Littlefield Littlefield<br />
Peach Springs<br />
STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM<br />
OF<br />
ARIZONA<br />
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION<br />
INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION DIVISION<br />
0 25 50 75 <strong>10</strong>0<br />
MILES<br />
72<br />
15<br />
8<br />
93<br />
<strong>10</strong><br />
60<br />
66<br />
40<br />
Colorado City<br />
97<br />
PROJECT NAME<br />
Seligman Seligman<br />
PROJECT NUMBER<br />
TRACS NO.<br />
71<br />
96<br />
389<br />
Wickenburg<br />
Wickenburg<br />
Gila Gila Bend Bend<br />
Ash Ash Fork Fork<br />
Chino Chino Valley Valley<br />
Prescott Prescott<br />
89<br />
85<br />
Lukeville<br />
Fredonia Fredonia<br />
Jacob Lake<br />
Grand Canyon<br />
86<br />
Clarkdale Clarkdale<br />
Jerome Jerome<br />
69<br />
74<br />
Phoenix Phoenix<br />
238<br />
64<br />
Prescott Prescott<br />
Valley Valley<br />
Williams Williams<br />
347<br />
89A<br />
17<br />
67<br />
North Rim<br />
Sedona Sedona<br />
51<br />
84<br />
180<br />
89A<br />
179<br />
Camp Camp<br />
Verde Verde<br />
587<br />
387<br />
Casa Casa<br />
Grande Grande<br />
386<br />
89<br />
Flagstaff Flagstaff<br />
87<br />
89<br />
88<br />
Coolidge<br />
Sasabe Sasabe<br />
Tuba<br />
City<br />
40<br />
Payson<br />
Superior<br />
Florence Florence<br />
86<br />
289<br />
Roosevelt Roosevelt<br />
Apache Apache Junction Junction<br />
Robles<br />
Junction<br />
286<br />
188<br />
<strong>10</strong><br />
160<br />
Leupp<br />
260<br />
Young<br />
Miami Miami<br />
Kearny<br />
79<br />
98<br />
87<br />
Winlsow<br />
Hayden Hayden<br />
19<br />
STATE MAP<br />
264<br />
99<br />
288<br />
77<br />
Mammoth Mammoth<br />
77<br />
Tuscon Tucson<br />
189 Nogales<br />
77<br />
<strong>10</strong><br />
40<br />
60<br />
264<br />
N A V A J O<br />
G I L A<br />
Sonoita<br />
Patagonia Patagonia<br />
99<br />
564<br />
Globe Globe<br />
Winkelman<br />
83<br />
SANTA<br />
CRUZ<br />
Kayenta Kayenta<br />
260<br />
Second<br />
Mesa<br />
87<br />
Joseph<br />
City<br />
377<br />
Snowflake<br />
82<br />
60<br />
70<br />
<strong>10</strong><br />
366<br />
266<br />
A P A C H E<br />
189<br />
A<br />
260<br />
G R A H A M<br />
Benson Benson<br />
90<br />
163<br />
277<br />
Sierra Sierra<br />
Vista Vista<br />
92<br />
160<br />
73<br />
Holbrook Holbrook<br />
77<br />
Taylor<br />
Fort Grant<br />
Bonita Bonita<br />
90<br />
Show Show Low Low<br />
Pinetop Pinetop<br />
80<br />
77<br />
Pima Pima<br />
Willcox Willcox<br />
Bisbee Bisbee<br />
Safford Safford<br />
Thatcher<br />
191<br />
Chinle<br />
Ganado<br />
Window<br />
Rock<br />
40<br />
191<br />
Bowie<br />
186<br />
191<br />
Eagar Eagar<br />
Clifton Clifton<br />
Sanders<br />
Alpine Alpine<br />
191<br />
GREENLEE<br />
Morenci Morenci<br />
C O C H I S E<br />
Tombstone<br />
Tombstone<br />
80<br />
191<br />
61<br />
473<br />
191<br />
191<br />
Teec Nos Pos<br />
180<br />
191<br />
273<br />
264<br />
St. St.<br />
Johns Johns<br />
181<br />
Douglas Douglas<br />
FIGURE<br />
160<br />
Springerville<br />
Springerville<br />
78<br />
61<br />
180<br />
San San<br />
Simon Simon<br />
80<br />
75<br />
Duncan Duncan<br />
70
AVRA VALLEY RD<br />
MARANA<br />
I-<strong>10</strong><br />
SCENIC DR<br />
TWIN PEAKS RD<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at <strong>Twin</strong><br />
<strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
MP242<br />
SILVERBELL RD<br />
COACHLINE BLVD<br />
TANGERINE RD<br />
WADE RD<br />
Study Area<br />
SANTA CRUZ RIVER<br />
EL CAMINO DE MAÑANA<br />
ARIZONA<br />
PAVILLIONS<br />
DRIVE<br />
CORTARO RD<br />
INA RD<br />
1-3<br />
LINDA VISTA BLVD<br />
MP246<br />
HARTMAN LN<br />
CAMINO DE OESTE<br />
CORTARO FARMS RD<br />
CAMINO DE OESTE<br />
TUCSON<br />
THORNYDALE RD<br />
LAMBERT LN<br />
OVERTON RD<br />
HARDY RD<br />
ORANGE GROVE RD<br />
Figure 1-2<br />
Study Area<br />
Project Number: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Introduction October 2005<br />
The <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI would be grade-separated with I-<strong>10</strong> and with the UPRR and<br />
would include intersections with the I-<strong>10</strong> eastbound and westbound frontage roads, and a<br />
newly constructed business access/circulation roadway. <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road would cross<br />
the Santa Cruz River on two new bridges (one eastbound and one westbound) and the<br />
I-<strong>10</strong> eastbound frontage road, which is currently a two-way frontage road, would be<br />
converted to a one-way frontage road. The purpose and need for the project is described<br />
in the next chapter and the proposed improvements are described in greater detail in<br />
Chapter 3, Alternatives.<br />
The project area (the area where construction is expected to occur) occurs along I-<strong>10</strong> at<br />
approximately MP 243. The project area will include slightly beyond the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong><br />
Road tie-in on the west and slightly beyond the El Camino de Mañana/Linda Vista<br />
Boulevard intersection on the east. In addition, limited safety improvements are proposed<br />
along the I-<strong>10</strong> frontage roads.<br />
The study area is a much larger area. Federal guidelines suggest that the study area be<br />
large enough to: 1) treat environmental issues on a sufficiently broad scope to ensure that<br />
the project will function properly without requiring additional improvements elsewhere;<br />
2) not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation<br />
improvements; and, 3) give decision-makers and the public a clearer picture of the<br />
transportation requirements in the project area and a better understanding of the project<br />
purpose.<br />
Therefore, the study area is defined as the area between the Avra Valley Road TI on the<br />
north and the Cortaro Road TI on the south and the area between the intersection of <strong>Twin</strong><br />
<strong>Peaks</strong> Road and Silverbell Road on the west and the intersection of Linda Vista<br />
Boulevard and Thornydale Road on the east. These termini were selected because the<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI would be expected to influence traffic within this area.<br />
Existing Roadway Network<br />
The FHWA Draft Classification Map, dated 2003, classified I-<strong>10</strong> as an urban principal<br />
interstate roadway. In the area of the proposed <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI, I-<strong>10</strong> provides two<br />
lanes in each direction with a wide median and a posted speed limit of 75 miles per hour<br />
(mph). According to PAG, average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on the roadway vary from<br />
52,<strong>10</strong>0 vehicles per day (Vpd) north of the Avra Valley TI to 86,400 Vpd south of the<br />
Cortaro Road TI. Construction is underway on an I-<strong>10</strong> widening project to add one<br />
through lane in each direction between the Tangerine Road and Cortaro Road TIs, which<br />
includes the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI project area.<br />
The nearest TIs to the area of the proposed improvements include the Avra Valley Road<br />
TI, approximately 2 miles north of the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI, and the Cortaro Road TI,<br />
approximately 2 miles south of the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI. At the Avra Valley TI, a<br />
diamond interchange, the westbound I-<strong>10</strong> ramps merge with a one-way, one lane<br />
roadway that parallels I-<strong>10</strong>. The eastbound I-<strong>10</strong> ramps are separate from the two-lane,<br />
two-way frontage road that runs parallel to I-<strong>10</strong>. The two ramp intersections with Avra<br />
Valley Road are unsignalized. The Cortaro Road TI is also a diamond interchange. All<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
1-4<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Introduction October 2005<br />
Cortaro Road TI ramps merge with two-lane, one-way frontage roads. Both I-<strong>10</strong> ramp<br />
intersections with Cortaro Road are signalized.<br />
Frontage roads exist along both sides of I-<strong>10</strong> in the vicinity of the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI.<br />
The frontage road west of I-<strong>10</strong> provides one lane in each direction allowing two-way<br />
travel from Avra Valley Road to Arizona Pavilions Drive (just north of the eastbound<br />
Cortaro Road off-ramp). The frontage road east of I-<strong>10</strong> provides two lanes of one-way<br />
(westbound) travel from Cortaro Road to Avra Valley Road.<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road from Silverbell Road to its eastern terminus west of the Santa Cruz<br />
River is classified as an arterial roadway by the Town of Marana, but Pima County<br />
classifies <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road as a major collector. <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road is under the<br />
jurisdiction of and maintained by the Town of Marana. <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road consists of two<br />
travel lanes in each direction with a raised landscaped median, shared use lanes, curb,<br />
gutter, and sidewalk. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Access along <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road is<br />
restricted to connecting roadways. <strong>Traffic</strong> counts are available only east of Silverbell Road,<br />
where ADT volumes on the roadway are approximately <strong>10</strong>,700 Vpd. Volumes near the<br />
eastern terminus of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road are considerably less.<br />
El Camino de Mañana from the I-<strong>10</strong> westbound frontage road to Tangerine Road is<br />
classified as a collector roadway by the Town of Marana. Pima County classifies El<br />
Camino de Mañana from I-<strong>10</strong> to Linda Vista Boulevard as an urban collector and a minor<br />
collector from Linda Vista Boulevard to Tangerine Road. El Camino de Mañana is under<br />
the jurisdiction of both the Town of Marana and Pima County, but is maintained by the<br />
Town of Marana through an intergovernmental agreement. The roadway provides one<br />
travel lane in each direction with no shared use lanes, curb, gutter, or sidewalks. The<br />
posted speed limit is 35 mph along El Camino de Mañana from I-<strong>10</strong> to Tangerine Road.<br />
According to PAG, traffic volumes on El Camino de Mañana in this area reach<br />
approximately 500 Vpd. Access along El Camino de Mañana is unrestricted. El Camino de<br />
Mañana intersects with the I-<strong>10</strong> westbound frontage road in an unlighted unsignalized<br />
“T”-intersection with stop-control on the El Camino de Mañana approach. El Camino de<br />
Mañana crosses the UPRR at-grade just east of its intersection with the I-<strong>10</strong> westbound<br />
frontage road. El Camino de Mañana and Linda Vista Boulevard intersect in an unlighted<br />
unsignalized “T”-intersection with stop-control on the Linda Vista Boulevard approach.<br />
Linda Vista Boulevard from El Camino de Mañana to Thornydale Road is classified as a<br />
collector roadway by the Town of Marana. Linda Vista Boulevard west of Hartman Lane<br />
is under the jurisdiction of the Town of Marana while Linda Vista Boulevard east of<br />
Hartman Lane is under the jurisdiction of Pima County; however, Linda Vista Boulevard<br />
is maintained by Pima County through an intergovernmental agreement. West of Camino<br />
de Oeste, Linda Vista Boulevard provides one travel lane in each direction with no bike<br />
lanes, curb, gutter, or sidewalks. East of Camino de Oeste, Linda Vista Boulevard<br />
provides one travel lane in each direction with intermittent shared use lanes, curb, gutter,<br />
and sidewalks. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. Access along the roadway varies from<br />
unrestricted in the western portion to restricted in the eastern portion. According to PAG,<br />
traffic volumes on Linda Vista Boulevard vary from 400 Vpd near El Camino de Mañana<br />
to 7,700 Vpd near Thornydale Road.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
1-5<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Introduction October 2005<br />
Other Modes of Transportation<br />
The only continuous pedestrian and bicycle facilities (sidewalks 5 to 6 feet in width and<br />
paved shoulders of 6 to 8 feet in width) within the area are found along <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road<br />
from Silverbell Road to its eastern terminus. According to the PAG Tucson Bike Map,<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road from Silverbell Road to Coachline Road is designated as a Bike Route,<br />
while the roadway from Coachline Road to its eastern terminus is not designated. R17-3-<br />
407 of the Arizona Administrative Code prohibits bicycle use of I-<strong>10</strong> in the vicinity of<br />
the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI.<br />
Trails within the area are currently under design or construction. The Santa Cruz River<br />
Shared Use Path is under construction and will be a paved trail for bicycle and pedestrian<br />
use that will connect with other community trails and bikeways, facilitating nonmotorized<br />
access throughout the community and adjacent natural areas. This trail will<br />
follow the high flow channel of the Santa Cruz River and will cross <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road.<br />
The Marana segment of the De Anza National Historic Trail is under design and will<br />
follow and interpret the route of the 1775 De Anza expedition to San Francisco,<br />
California. This trail will be unpaved and suitable for equestrian use. The De Anza Trail<br />
will follow a circuitous route just outside the low flow channel of the Santa Cruz River<br />
and will connect with other equestrian trails that provide connections with nearby public<br />
open space and natural areas.<br />
Public transportation within the Town of Marana is provided by Sun Tran, the fixed bus<br />
route transit provider for the City of Tucson, and Pima County Rural Transit, the transit<br />
provider for unincorporated Pima County. Neither Sun Tran nor Pima County Rural<br />
Transit currently provides service stops in the vicinity of the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI. A<br />
Greyhound Bus Lines station is located on Sandario Road near the Marana TI,<br />
approximately 8 miles north of the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI<br />
Amtrak, which provides long distance intercity passenger rail service, passes through the<br />
Town of Marana. The only Amtrak station in Pima County is located at the Union Pacific<br />
Depot in downtown Tucson. The 1994 ADOT State Rail Plan Update identifies a future<br />
opportunity for providing a regional rail passenger system, which includes service<br />
between Tucson and Phoenix along I-<strong>10</strong>.<br />
The Union Pacific Transportation Company provides freight rail service along I-<strong>10</strong> for<br />
the central and southern portions of the state. The UPRR line runs parallel to and east of<br />
I-<strong>10</strong> in the vicinity of the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
1-6<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Project Purpose and Need October 2005<br />
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED<br />
Project Location<br />
The proposed project involves the construction of a <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI on I-<strong>10</strong> in the<br />
northwestern portion of the Tucson metropolitan area of Pima County, Arizona. The<br />
proposed project would occur primarily within the incorporated area of the Town of<br />
Marana, but also within the unincorporated area of Pima County. The <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road<br />
TI would be located approximately midway between the Avra Valley Road TI (MP 242)<br />
and the Cortaro Road TI (MP 246).<br />
Background and Overview<br />
Two studies, the Marana Master Transportation Plan completed in December 1989 and<br />
ADOT’s I-<strong>10</strong> Design Concept Study (DCR), Ruthrauff Road to the Pima/Pinal County<br />
Line completed in 1990, recommended a new I-<strong>10</strong> TI between the I-<strong>10</strong> interchanges at<br />
Cortaro and Avra Valley Roads. Both studies recommended that the new I-<strong>10</strong> TI connect<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road to El Camino de Mañana/Linda Vista Boulevard. The Marana Master<br />
Transportation Plan, the first transportation plan developed for the Town of Marana,<br />
recommended the TI as part of a planned parkway consisting of four- and six-lane<br />
arterials that encircled the Marana Town Center (near MP 236). The Marana Master<br />
Transportation Plan recommended two new TIs: a southern TI at <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road and a<br />
northern TI at Hardin Road (approximately MP 234).<br />
The ADOT I-<strong>10</strong> DCR originally recommended the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI to achieve<br />
desirable interchange spacing; however, as residential and commercial development<br />
increased in the area, the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI was later seen as an important “reliever”<br />
for growing traffic congestion at the Cortaro Road TI. The DCR and the subsequent<br />
ADOT I-<strong>10</strong> General Plan, Ruthrauff Road to Tangerine Road (1993) (General Plan)<br />
recommended a preliminary TI design which connected <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road and El Camino<br />
de Mañana and provided a grade separation with the Southern Pacific Railroad (now the<br />
UPRR).<br />
FHWA requires that additions or revisions of access to the interstate system be justified<br />
in a Change of Access Report. As a result of the recommendations of the General Plan,<br />
the Change of Freeway Access Report, I-<strong>10</strong> Corridor Improvements General Plan<br />
Ruthrauff Road to Tangerine Road, dated December 1991, was completed. This report<br />
contained an analysis of a <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI. The additional point of access to I-<strong>10</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road was approved in a memorandum from FHWA Administrator T.D.<br />
Larson on June 26, 1992, subject to the State’s compliance with applicable Federal<br />
requirements.<br />
One of these Federal requirements was to analyze the social, economic, and<br />
environmental effects of the improvement alternatives recommended in the General<br />
Plan. The Final <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> I-<strong>10</strong> Corridor Improvements General Plan<br />
Ruthrauff Road to Tangerine Road assessed 12 miles of I-<strong>10</strong> between Tangerine Road<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
2-1<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Project Purpose and Need October 2005<br />
(MP 240.4) and Ruthrauff Road (MP 252.4) in 1993 (hereinafter this document is<br />
referred to as the 1993 EA). Based on the social, environmental, and economic analyses<br />
in the 1993 EA, the FHWA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on<br />
October 29, 1993. Although a FONSI determination allows a project to proceed to design<br />
and construction, funding limitations have prevented project advancement until now.<br />
Because of the time that has elapsed since the FONSI was issued and the changes in<br />
conditions that have occurred, new environmental investigations are required.<br />
The 1993 EA stated that the purpose and need for improvements to I-<strong>10</strong> between<br />
Tangerine Road and Ruthrauff Road was to:<br />
• correct roadway, ramp, and frontage road deficiencies in design;<br />
• correct undesirable levels of service within certain segments of the interstate and<br />
at several interchanges;<br />
• provide future capacity and prevent operational issues relating to insufficient<br />
capacity; and,<br />
• improve safety in high volume interchange areas, freeway segments on which<br />
traffic demands are approaching capacity conditions, and other areas.<br />
The interest in a <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI has not waned. The first assumption in future<br />
growth projections developed for the transportation model used for the 2001-2025<br />
Marana Transportation Plan Update (Plan Update) was the construction of the <strong>Twin</strong><br />
<strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI. At a public open house on the Plan Update in December 2000, the<br />
public’s highest transportation priority was to extend <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road to I-<strong>10</strong> to relieve<br />
the congestion on Cortaro and Ina Roads.<br />
Project Need<br />
The <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI and associated improvements are needed to:<br />
• relieve existing and future congestion on Cortaro Road and Silverbell Road;<br />
• eliminate stormwater from the I-<strong>10</strong> mainline and frontage roads;<br />
• correct issues related to roadways not meeting current design standards, and<br />
motor vehicle conflicts with the railroad; and,<br />
• improve bicycle and pedestrian and general transportation system connectivity.<br />
Each of these project needs is documented in detail in the following sections.<br />
Congestion Relief<br />
The need for a <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI has been discussed since the mid-1980s. Since that<br />
time, development patterns changed as a result of environmental restrictions. The major<br />
reason for these changing development patterns was the listing of the cactus ferruginous<br />
pygmy-owl (CFPO) as endangered in 1997. Much of the land considered highly desirable<br />
for residential development was located in habitat considered critical to the survival of<br />
the CFPO. As a result, the bulk of development shifted to areas outside those preferred by<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
2-2<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Project Purpose and Need October 2005<br />
the CFPO. Much of this development occurred within the Cortaro Road and Silverbell<br />
Road corridors. At the time the Plan Update was being completed, traffic congestion was<br />
concentrated along Cortaro Road, Ina Road, and Orange Grove Road in the vicinity of<br />
I-<strong>10</strong> and at major arterial roadway intersections near retail centers.<br />
Congestion of roadways and intersections is measured by capacity analyses according to<br />
procedures contained in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Capacity is defined by<br />
Level of Service (LOS) which is expressed as letters A to F (LOS A representing the best<br />
operating conditions and LOS F the worst). During morning and evening peak hour<br />
traffic, LOS D is considered acceptable for the urban situation characteristic of the area<br />
of the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI. These LOS conditions are graphically depicted in Figure 2-1.<br />
At the time of the Plan Update, Cortaro Road suffered some of the poorest operating<br />
conditions of any arterial in the Town of Marana. Cortaro Road had the highest number<br />
of segments operating at LOS F (4) and the highest percentage of segments operating at<br />
LOS F (80%) within the Town of Marana. Since the Plan Update, Cortaro Road, Cortaro<br />
Farms Road, and Ina Road west of I-<strong>10</strong> were widened and additional widening is planned<br />
for Cortaro Farms Road east of I-<strong>10</strong>. This would continue to provide congestion relief in<br />
the area, but because Cortaro Farms Road crosses the UPRR at-grade, frequent passing<br />
trains cause substantial delays to motorists. According to PAG, approximately 50 to 65<br />
UPRR trains pass through the area per day.<br />
<strong>Traffic</strong> forecasts for the year 2030 were developed for this project using the regional<br />
transportation demand model. This information is presented in Table 2-1. The 2030<br />
projected ADT volumes presented in Table 2-1 are developed from 24-hour traffic counts<br />
of existing traffic, projected development (both residential and employment) in the<br />
region, and proposed improvements to other roadways in the regional transportation<br />
network. The regional transportation demand model then forecasts traffic based on<br />
drivers selecting the paths of least resistance from projected origins (residential areas) to<br />
destinations (areas of employment and other destinations). According to the forecasts, a<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI would absorb a substantial amount of traffic from other roadways in<br />
the area. As shown in Table 2-1, 7,600 and 5,<strong>10</strong>0 vehicles are displaced from Cortaro<br />
Road and Cortaro Farms Road west and east of I-<strong>10</strong>, respectively. However, Silverbell<br />
Road would experience the greatest relief. On Silverbell Road, 12,300 and 8,300 vehicles<br />
are displaced north and south of Cortaro Road, respectively.<br />
A grade-separation at the UPRR would prevent drivers from experiencing train-related<br />
delays on <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road and would reduce congestion on other local roadways. It is<br />
important to note that traffic impacts related to railroad crossings are difficult to analyze<br />
in both the traffic capacity software (which produces LOS) and the transportation demand<br />
model (which forecasts traffic). It is likely that the transportation demand model volumes<br />
presented in Table 2-1 underestimate the amount of traffic that the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI<br />
would displace, because drivers would favor grade-separated railroad crossings over atgrade<br />
crossings.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
2-3<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Project Purpose and Need October 2005<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
Figure 2-1. Levels of Service.<br />
Courtesy of Logan Simpson Design, Inc.<br />
2-4<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Project Purpose and Need October 2005<br />
Table 2-1. Comparison of 2030 Average Daily <strong>Traffic</strong> Volumes for Selected<br />
Roadway Segments With and Without <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI<br />
Roadway Segment (location) Without <strong>Twin</strong><br />
<strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI<br />
With <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong><br />
Road TI<br />
Silverbell Road (north of Cortaro Road) 48,000 35,700<br />
Silverbell Road (south of Cortaro Road) 39,000 30,700<br />
Cortaro Road (west of I-<strong>10</strong>) 26,000 18,400<br />
Cortaro Farms Road (east of I-<strong>10</strong>) 27,000 21,900<br />
Drainage<br />
Standing water on a roadway can cause vehicle hydroplaning and a subsequent loss of<br />
control resulting in a vehicle crash; therefore, removing the water that falls on or flows<br />
across roadways is important to public safety. To determine the drainage conditions<br />
within the general area of the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI, a drainage study was conducted.<br />
The drainage conditions were summarized in the Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista, Final Drainage Report, dated May 21, 2004. According to the<br />
Drainage Report, some of the watersheds that drain to the area near the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road<br />
TI originate in the Tortolita Mountains approximately 12 miles to the northeast. Runoff<br />
flows from the mountains are impeded by the embankment for the UPRR tracks. In<br />
general, the UPRR tracks are higher in elevation than both the westbound frontage road<br />
and I-<strong>10</strong> mainline, but the I-<strong>10</strong> mainline is higher in elevation than the westbound<br />
frontage road. Of the 17 drainage structures under the UPRR, 16 are undersized for the<br />
50-year rainfall event; therefore, during these events, ponding at these structures may<br />
occur. Water that cannot move through the structures, continues to flow northwest along<br />
the UPRR embankment to the next drainage structure. This pattern is consistent within<br />
the area of the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI and continues beyond the limits of the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong><br />
Road TI.<br />
Drainage structures are located also under the I-<strong>10</strong> frontage roads and I-<strong>10</strong> mainline (16<br />
culverts under the westbound frontage road and 12 under I-<strong>10</strong>) to allow water to drain to<br />
the Santa Cruz River. The drainage pattern at these structures follows that of the UPRR:<br />
flows that are not conveyed under I-<strong>10</strong> and its frontage roads by undersized drainage<br />
structures continue to the northwest along the roadway. Generally there is adequate<br />
drainage capacity to prevent the 50-year rainfall event from ponding on the I-<strong>10</strong> frontage<br />
roads and mainline because of a combination of: 1) the metering of flows to the roadways<br />
by the UPRR drainage structures; 2) the capacities of the I-<strong>10</strong> frontage road and I-<strong>10</strong><br />
mainline drainage structures; and, 3) the capacities of the roadside ditches which transmit<br />
flows along the roadways to the northwest. In one area north of the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI<br />
and one location south of the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI, however, runoff exceeds the capacity<br />
of this system. In these locations, water can flow over the westbound frontage road and<br />
the I-<strong>10</strong> mainline during the 50-year rainfall event.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
2-5<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Project Purpose and Need October 2005<br />
Drainage improvements are needed to the I-<strong>10</strong> mainline and frontage road drainage<br />
structures to prevent runoff from flowing over the mainline and frontage road and<br />
possible vehicle hydroplaning.<br />
Design Related Issues<br />
The existing roadway system does not meet current design standards and crosses the<br />
UPRR tracks at-grade. These issues are discussed in the following paragraphs.<br />
Frontage Roads<br />
Frontage roads exist along both sides of I-<strong>10</strong> in the vicinity of the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI.<br />
The westbound frontage road provides two lanes of one-way travel from Cortaro Road to<br />
Avra Valley Road. The frontage road west of I-<strong>10</strong> provides two lanes of one-way travel<br />
eastbound only from Arizona Pavilions Drive (just north of the eastbound Cortaro Road<br />
off-ramp) to Cortaro Road. From Arizona Pavilions Drive north to Avra Valley Road, the<br />
west side frontage road allows two-way travel with one lane in each direction.<br />
In accordance with the General Plan, ADOT has been systematically converting I-<strong>10</strong><br />
frontage roads from two-way to one-way operation in the Tucson area. The frontage road<br />
from Arizona Pavilions Drive north to Tangerine Road is the last remaining segment of<br />
two-way I-<strong>10</strong> frontage road in the Tucson metropolitan area. As a result, this segment of<br />
frontage road operates differently than other segments in the Tucson area. These<br />
operational differences may confuse drivers who expect one-way frontage road operation<br />
and, as traffic volumes increase, the potential for head on collisions and crashes typical of<br />
vehicles slowing to make turns (e.g., rear end crashes) increases; therefore, conversion of<br />
the two-way frontage road on the west side of I-<strong>10</strong> to a one-way eastbound frontage road<br />
is needed to promote better operations and to comply with ADOT policy.<br />
The two-way frontage road interferes also with proper interstate frontage road operation.<br />
According to the 1991 Change of Access Report, the frontage road system is intended to:<br />
1) provide direct and reasonable access to properties adjacent to the frontage roads; 2)<br />
provide arterial service to supplement corridor capacity; 3) preserve the interstate<br />
character of the freeway by encouraging drivers making short trips to use the frontage<br />
road; 4) facilitate local circulation; and, 5) provide a parallel facility for temporary<br />
diversion of freeway traffic during maintenance, construction, or freeway closures. These<br />
functions cannot be adequately met with two-way operation of the eastbound frontage<br />
road.<br />
The frontage roads do not meet current clear zone design guidelines. The American<br />
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) Roadside Design<br />
Guide (1996) recommends a clear zone or recovery zone adjacent to roadways. This clear<br />
zone will allow a vehicle that has left the roadway to recover and return to the roadway<br />
without colliding with roadside obstacles. Clear zone widths are based upon roadway<br />
design speed, traffic volumes, and slopes adjacent to the roadway. The frontage roads<br />
have a relatively high speed limit (55 mph), relatively flat slopes, and traffic volumes<br />
between 1,600 and 3,500 Vpd. The Roadside Design Guide recommends a clear zone<br />
width of approximately 25 feet under these conditions. Along the westbound frontage<br />
road, concrete headwalls of irrigation structures are within approximately 6 feet of the<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
2-6<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Project Purpose and Need October 2005<br />
roadway. Along the eastbound frontage road, numerous structures such as utility poles,<br />
mailboxes, and other obstructions encroach within the recommended clear zone. To meet<br />
AASHTO guidelines, obstructions within the clear zone should either be removed or an<br />
energy absorbing barrier placed between the obstruction and the roadway.<br />
Railroad Conflicts<br />
At-grade railroad crossings are a concern. At-grade railroad crossings have a higher<br />
potential for serious vehicle/train accidents than do grade-separated railroad crossings.<br />
Currently El Camino de Mañana and Cortaro Road both cross the railroad at-grade.<br />
Although waiting for a train to pass an at-grade crossing is an inconvenience to most<br />
motorists, it can pose time delays to emergency response personnel. Northwest Medical<br />
Center, at an early public agency scoping meeting for this project, stated that the at-grade<br />
crossings may result in extended delays for emergency medical personnel trying to reach<br />
patients on the west side of I-<strong>10</strong> and transporting them to hospital facilities on the east<br />
side of I-<strong>10</strong>. These delays may be critical to some patients.<br />
Connectivity<br />
Transportation System Connectivity<br />
Lack of access to destinations east of I-<strong>10</strong> limits circulation within the area. The TIs at<br />
Avra Valley Road and Cortaro Farms Road are approximately four miles apart. The<br />
Town of Marana, as part of the Plan Update and ADOT, as part of the DCR Ruthrauff<br />
Road to the Pima/Pinal County Line, both determined the need for a new major arterial<br />
roadway that would cross the I-<strong>10</strong> Corridor in the vicinity of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road. In the<br />
PAG Regional Transportation Plan, the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI and roadway was projected<br />
to serve a substantial amount of traffic both crossing and accessing I-<strong>10</strong>.<br />
Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity<br />
Within the study area, there are few pedestrian and bicycle amenities. According to the<br />
Plan Update, on-street bicycle lanes and paved shoulders throughout the Town of<br />
Marana are generally isolated facilities that do not interconnect with the surrounding<br />
network. Within the area, pedestrian and bicycle amenities are provided only on <strong>Twin</strong><br />
<strong>Peaks</strong> Road from Silverbell Road to its eastern terminus. According to the Plan Update,<br />
all new collector and arterial roadways should include sidewalks 6 feet in width on both<br />
sides of the roadway to accommodate pedestrians, especially people with disabilities. The<br />
Plan Update suggests also that new arterial roadways at a minimum include shared use<br />
paths on one side of the roadway within the right-of-way.<br />
The Town of Marana’s General Plan Update promoted alternative modes of<br />
transportation and park and ride lots and stated that the connection of a paved system of<br />
bicycle and pedestrian trails to the region’s Santa Cruz River Corridor system was of<br />
importance. To improve connectivity to the Santa Cruz River Shared Use Path and other<br />
facilities on both sides of I-<strong>10</strong>, improvements to bicycle and pedestrian facilities within<br />
the area of the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI are needed.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
2-7<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Project Purpose and Need October 2005<br />
Project Purpose<br />
The purpose of the proposed project is to address each of the needs identified above. The<br />
proposed project would:<br />
• Improve traffic operations on the area’s transportation network by providing an<br />
additional access point to I-<strong>10</strong> and a grade-separated crossing of the UPRR;<br />
• Correct drainage deficiencies on the I-<strong>10</strong> mainline and frontage roads;<br />
• Address design related issues by: eliminating an existing at-grade railroad<br />
crossing; providing a new grade-separated railroad crossing; improving the<br />
consistency of frontage road traffic operations; improving the I-<strong>10</strong> frontage roads’<br />
clear zones to current design guidelines; and,<br />
• Improve overall connectivity of all modes of transportation within the area,<br />
including pedestrians and bicycles.<br />
The proposed improvements that would fulfill the project purposes are discussed in detail<br />
in Chapter 3, Alternatives.<br />
Conformance with Regulations, Land Use Plans, and Other<br />
Plans<br />
Proposed improvements should conform to currently adopted transportation and land use<br />
plans and zoning ordinances. This section discusses the compatibility of the proposed<br />
project with existing regulations, land use plans, and other plans.<br />
Town of Marana General Plan Update<br />
The General Plan Update was adopted by the Marana Town Council in November 2002<br />
as a broad collection of goals, policies, and implementation strategies that provide overall<br />
direction for future growth and development. The General Plan Update stated that the<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI was essential to establish proper arterial spacing and to distribute<br />
I-<strong>10</strong> loading. The <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI improvements and frontage road traffic flow<br />
adjustments were anticipated also to enhance economic development along the I-<strong>10</strong><br />
Corridor. The General Plan Update promoted alternative modes of transportation and<br />
park and ride lots and stated that the connection of a paved system of bicycle and<br />
pedestrian trails to the region’s Santa Cruz River Corridor system was of importance.<br />
Marana Transportation Plan Update, 2001-2025<br />
The Transportation Plan Update, which updated the original 1989 plan, was adopted in<br />
July 2001. According to the Transportation Plan Update, a large portion of the Town of<br />
Marana’s population will be concentrated near Continental Ranch; therefore, construction<br />
of the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI by 20<strong>10</strong> was noted as a critical component of the traffic<br />
growth forecasts. The Transportation Plan Update contained also recommendations for<br />
transportation modes other than roadways and discussed the importance of<br />
interconnecting these facilities. On-street bicycle lanes, shared use lanes or paved<br />
shoulders, and sidewalks were proposed on all new or reconstructed arterial and collector<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
2-8<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Project Purpose and Need October 2005<br />
roadways. At Transportation Plan Update open houses, the highest roadway priorities<br />
were to extend <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road to I-<strong>10</strong> to relieve Cortaro and Ina Roads and to provide<br />
more grade-separated crossings of the UPRR or re-route the railroad.<br />
2025 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)<br />
PAG developed the RTP to guide long range improvements to bus, roadway, bicycle,<br />
pedestrian, aviation, and rail transportation systems in the eastern Pima County region.<br />
The RTP is the result of a multi-jurisdictional planning effort consisting of the Town of<br />
Oro Valley, City of South Tucson, City of Tucson, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Pima County,<br />
Tohono O’Odham Nation, Town of Marana, Town of Sahuarita, and the Arizona State<br />
Transportation Board. As a result, the RTP is the best representation of the transportation<br />
needs for eastern Pima County. The <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI is contained in the RTP.<br />
Town of Marana Santa Cruz River Corridor Plan<br />
The 2001 Santa Cruz River Corridor Plan contained several goals pertinent to the <strong>Twin</strong><br />
<strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI, including: 1) develop a Santa Cruz River corridor plan that reflected the<br />
character of the community; 2) integrate planning for the Santa Cruz River corridor with<br />
related planning activities; 3) assist in efficiently providing infrastructure needs; and, 4)<br />
facilitate planning for the De Anza National Historic Trail, including the trail itself,<br />
access, interpretive facilities, and historic De Anza campsites. According to the Santa<br />
Cruz River Corridor Plan, seriously inadequate transportation crossings of the Santa<br />
Cruz River, railroad, and I-<strong>10</strong> complicated efforts to unite the community on opposite<br />
sides of these features. The heavily traveled at-grade railroad crossings at Ina Road,<br />
Cortaro Road, and Tangerine Road were noted as major safety concerns and increasingly<br />
severe congestion problems. The Santa Cruz River Corridor Plan recommended also two<br />
trails along the Santa Cruz River corridor: the Santa Cruz River Shared Use Path and the<br />
Marana segment of the De Anza National Historic Trail.<br />
Continental Ranch Specific Plan<br />
The Specific Plan was first adopted in April 1988 and has been amended 8 times through<br />
2002. The Specific Plan established comprehensive guidance and regulations for the<br />
2,400-acre Continental Ranch development. The Specific Plan was regulatory and<br />
adopted by Town of Marana ordinance. The transportation circulation concept plan<br />
within the Specific Plan established the transportation system layout for the area<br />
(including <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road) and stated that residents from the development would<br />
initially access I-<strong>10</strong> at Cortaro Road and in the future they would access I-<strong>10</strong> at <strong>Twin</strong><br />
<strong>Peaks</strong> Road. A <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road extension across the Santa Cruz River was illustrated in<br />
the circulation maps. The Specific Plan recommended bicycle and pedestrian trails along<br />
roadways and open space corridors.<br />
Town of Marana Park, Trail, and Open-Space System Master Plan<br />
The Park Plan, dated July 2000, was developed to identify community needs for parks,<br />
trails, and open space and provide a long-range plan for meeting these needs. The Park<br />
Plan map showed a “<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road District Park” near the intersection of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong><br />
Road and Silverbell Road and the “Linda Vista Boulevard District Park” north of the El<br />
Camino de Mañana/Linda Vista Boulevard intersection. Although the Linda Vista<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
2-9<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Project Purpose and Need October 2005<br />
Boulevard District Park was drawn over part of El Camino de Mañana, the map stated<br />
also, “location approximate”. A proposed local trail (Scottie’s Loop Trail) appeared to<br />
cross both El Camino de Mañana and Linda Vista Boulevard near the intersection.<br />
Final Tres Rios del Norte (TRDN) Feasibility Study<br />
This study was completed in August 2001 as a coordinated effort between the Corps,<br />
Pima County, the City of Tucson, and the Town of Marana. The purpose of the TRDN<br />
Feasibility Study was to provide water resource and ecosystem improvements within the<br />
Santa Cruz River channel. The TRDN Feasibility Study consisted of several distinct parts,<br />
but its planning objectives were to: 1) increase habitat values and function of native plant<br />
and wildlife species identified in Pima County’s proposed Sonoran Desert Conservation<br />
Plan (SDCP); 2) attract wetland and riparian avian species identified in the SDCP; 3)<br />
facilitate wildlife movements for species identified in the SDCP; 4) establish the presence<br />
of amphibian species, reptilian species, mammalian species, and avian species in the area;<br />
5) control or manage non-native, invasive plant species in the area; and 6) restore natural<br />
Santa Cruz River flow paths. The TRDN Feasibility Study described several<br />
implementation measures that would address the planning objectives. Some of these<br />
measures included: 1) create mesquite bosque at higher elevations from the Santa Cruz<br />
River bottom on terraces and over-bank areas; 2) establish cottonwood and willow tree<br />
communities along the wetted perimeter and fringe area locations within the Santa Cruz<br />
River; 3) create wetlands/Cienega at appropriate locations; 4) incorporate trails and other<br />
passive recreational features in support of the other restoration management measures;<br />
and, 5) reestablish desertscrub plant communities along the degraded upland portions of<br />
the Santa Cruz River corridor.<br />
Additional discussion of these and other plans, proposed and adopted, may be found in<br />
later chapters of this document. In general, however, the transportation and land use<br />
elements of all plans discussed above were consistent with and supported the proposed<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI and associated improvements.<br />
General Project Schedule<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> studies and development of design concepts for the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI<br />
began in the Summer 2003. <strong>Environmental</strong> clearance for the proposed improvements is<br />
estimated to be obtained in 2006. Final Design for the proposed improvements is<br />
projected to begin in 2006 with an estimated completion of design in 2007. Construction<br />
of the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI is projected to begin in 2007 with an estimated completion in<br />
2009.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
2-<strong>10</strong><br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Alternatives October 2005<br />
CHAPTER 3: ALTERNATIVES<br />
Chapter 3 describes the project alternatives, including the preferred alternative and the no<br />
build alternative. The analysis of alternatives was documented in the Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong><br />
<strong>Interchange</strong> at <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista Alternatives Selection Report, dated May 3, 2004.<br />
Although readers are referred to the Alternatives Selection Report for a more thorough<br />
discussion, the results of the analyses are summarized here.<br />
Alternative Corridor Evaluation<br />
A series of analyses were applied to improvement alternatives considered for this project.<br />
These analyses began with very simple qualitative criteria and progressed through a<br />
series of successively more detailed analyses as the alternatives were refined. The first<br />
analysis was to determine if a proposed alternative met the project purpose and need as<br />
defined in the previous chapter. If the alternative met the purpose and need, it was<br />
advanced for additional study, if it did not, it was eliminated from additional<br />
consideration.<br />
Both the 1989 Marana Master Transportation Plan and ADOT’s 1990 I-<strong>10</strong> Design<br />
Concept Study, Ruthrauff Road to the Pima/Pinal County Line recommended a new I-<strong>10</strong><br />
TI between the I-<strong>10</strong> interchanges at Cortaro and Avra Valley Roads. This location served<br />
the Town of Marana’s objective to serve as part of a planned parkway system and<br />
achieved ADOT’s goals for desirable interchange spacing and for traffic congestion relief<br />
at the Cortaro Road TI.<br />
During the Public Open House of October 20, 2003, several individuals suggested that<br />
the new interchange with I-<strong>10</strong> be constructed north of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road; therefore, this<br />
alternative corridor was considered early in the analysis of alternatives. It was found that<br />
the construction of a new TI north of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road would have two major<br />
disadvantages: 1) it would not provide proper interchange spacing along I-<strong>10</strong>; and, 2) it<br />
would not adequately relieve traffic on Cortaro Road and Silverbell Road.<br />
According to AASHTO’s A Policy of Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (2001)<br />
(AASHTO Green Book), interchange spacing has a pronounced effect on freeway<br />
operations. A general rule of thumb for minimum interchange spacing is 1 mile from onramp<br />
to off-ramp in urban areas. Placement of an interchange north of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road<br />
would result in less than recommended spacing between the ramps of the new<br />
interchange and the Avra Valley Road TI ramps. A grade-separated railroad crossing at<br />
the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI location would produce desirable spacing of approximately five<br />
miles between grade separated railroad crossings at the Prince Road/La Cholla Road,<br />
Orange Grove Road, and <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TIs.<br />
A TI has been recommended at the approximate location of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road for many<br />
years because of the desirable design characteristics discussed above and because many<br />
trips originate and end in Continental Ranch and the surrounding area. If the TI were<br />
constructed north of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road, Continental Ranch residents would be required to<br />
drive farther to access the new TI. As a result, the TI would be used less, and congestion<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
3-1<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Alternatives October 2005<br />
and safety on Cortaro Road and Silverbell Road would not be improved sufficiently. For<br />
these reasons, an alternative corridor north of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road would not meet the<br />
project purpose and need and was eliminated from further consideration.<br />
TI Alternatives<br />
After meeting the purpose and need analysis, alternatives were subjected to a more<br />
detailed level of analysis. Several different alternatives were selected for additional<br />
analysis. These included alternative TI configurations, alternative TI design options, and<br />
alternative TI alignments. Each of these are discussed below.<br />
Alternative TI Configurations<br />
Several alternative TI configuration options were considered during the study, including a<br />
roundabout traffic interchange, a tight diamond interchange, and a Single Point Urban<br />
<strong>Interchange</strong> (SPUI). Each of these configuration options is discussed below.<br />
Alternative TI Configurations – Roundabout <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong><br />
A roundabout traffic interchange consists of a circular intersection in which entering<br />
traffic yields to circulating traffic. The intersection is not signalized. Entering traffic aims<br />
at the central island and is deflected slowly around it. These characteristics may increase<br />
the capacity of the intersection, reduce maintenance costs, slow traffic speeds, and may<br />
reduce the frequency and severity of crashes. A typical roundabout interchange is<br />
presented in Figure 3-1.<br />
Recently ADOT has considered roundabout intersections as possible alternatives for<br />
intersections of crossroads and frontage roads. Roundabouts have been constructed on<br />
freeway corridors in the Phoenix metropolitan area and were considered at the request of<br />
the Technical Advisory Committee for the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI. Because the<br />
intersections of the crossroad and frontage roads at the proposed interchange would be<br />
elevated on fill, the construction of roundabouts on one or both sides of I-<strong>10</strong> would<br />
present substantial design and construction challenges and would require additional rightof-way<br />
acquisition from property owners (including the railroad) in excess of that<br />
required by a tight-diamond interchange. As a result, the roundabout was eliminated from<br />
additional consideration.<br />
Alternative TI Configurations – Tight Diamond <strong>Interchange</strong><br />
The diamond interchange is one of the most prevalent TI designs and is commonly used<br />
throughout Arizona. A full diamond is formed when a one-way diagonal ramp (either an<br />
on-ramp or off-ramp) is provided in each quadrant of the interchange. The ramps<br />
terminate at the crossroad and at-grade left turns are confined to the crossroad. The<br />
diamond interchange has several advantages: traffic can enter and leave the major road at<br />
relatively high speeds; left-turning maneuvers entail little extra travel; and, a relatively<br />
narrow right-of-way is needed. A typical diamond interchange is presented in Figure 3-2.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
3-2<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Alternatives October 2005<br />
Figure 3-1.<br />
Typical Roundabout <strong>Interchange</strong><br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
Figure 3-3.<br />
Typical Single Point Urban <strong>Interchange</strong><br />
3-3<br />
Figure 3-2.<br />
Typical Diamond <strong>Interchange</strong><br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Alternatives October 2005<br />
Alternative TI Configurations - Single Point Urban <strong>Interchange</strong><br />
The SPUI is a form of diamond interchange with a single signalized intersection through<br />
which all left turns utilizing the interchange must travel. Right turns into and out of ramp<br />
approaches are generally free flow. SPUIs are typically characterized by narrow right-ofway,<br />
higher construction costs, and greater capacity than conventional tight diamond<br />
interchanges. The primary operational advantage of the SPUI is that vehicles making<br />
opposing left turns pass to the left of each other rather than to the right, so their paths do<br />
not intersect. A typical SPUI is presented in Figure 3-3.<br />
The SPUI interchange configuration with one-way frontage roads would result in reduced<br />
operational efficiency and increased delays compared to the diamond configuration. This<br />
operational difficulty would be exacerbated by accommodating pedestrian movements.<br />
As a result, the SPUI was eliminated from additional consideration and a tight diamond<br />
interchange was selected as the preferred interchange configuration.<br />
Alternative TI Design Options - <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road Over or Under I-<strong>10</strong> and<br />
UPRR<br />
After a tight diamond interchange configuration was selected, the method of crossing<br />
I-<strong>10</strong> and the UPRR was the next issue to be considered. The new roadway could either<br />
cross over I-<strong>10</strong> and the UPRR on bridge structures or could pass under I-<strong>10</strong> and the<br />
UPRR as a depressed facility. At the Public Open House held on October 20, 2003,<br />
several individuals suggested that the underpass design option be considered, because this<br />
design is in place at the I-<strong>10</strong>/Orange Grove Road TI.<br />
The underpass option was considered previously in the Change of Freeway Access<br />
Report, I-<strong>10</strong> Corridor Improvements General Plan Ruthrauff Road to Tangerine Road,<br />
dated December 1991. The Change of Freeway Access Report preferred the over design<br />
because it: 1) provided the greatest flexibility in allowing corridor improvement to take<br />
place without being dependent on interchange improvements; 2) minimized right-of-way<br />
acquisition; and, 3) provided a grade separated UPRR crossing, which would minimize<br />
future traffic delays and improve safety.<br />
To determine if the preferred design option selected in the Change of Freeway Access<br />
Report was still valid, the over and under design options were compared using design<br />
characteristics, social, economic and environmental affects, estimated costs, and ease of<br />
construction. The results of this analysis are presented below by design option.<br />
Alternative TI Design Options - <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road Under I-<strong>10</strong> and UPRR<br />
The underpass option had several major disadvantages, including:<br />
• A temporary relocation of the current railroad alignment would be required<br />
and disruption of train traffic would result;<br />
• Utilities between the railroad and I-<strong>10</strong> mainline would require relocation,<br />
including underground petroleum lines, which would be especially difficult<br />
and expensive to relocate.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
3-4<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Alternatives October 2005<br />
• Shallow groundwater (60 feet below ground surface) would require<br />
dewatering (removal of shallow groundwater) during construction and regular<br />
dewatering of the underpass after construction could be required.<br />
• To convey stormwater runoff collected in the underpass to the Santa Cruz<br />
River, pumping facilities would be required, which would result in higher<br />
personnel and maintenance costs.<br />
• The underpass would require 24-hour roadway lighting for security, traffic<br />
safety, and to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic.<br />
• To accommodate the eventual shift in the I-<strong>10</strong> mainline alignment<br />
recommended in the I-<strong>10</strong> General Plan, an I-<strong>10</strong> bridge over <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road<br />
would need to be excessively wide. To accommodate the future elevation<br />
increase proposed for the I-<strong>10</strong> mainline in the I-<strong>10</strong> General Plan,<br />
reconstruction of the I-<strong>10</strong> mainline to match the change in elevation at the<br />
bridge would be required. The excess bridge width and reconstruction of the<br />
I-<strong>10</strong> mainline would add considerable costs to the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI.<br />
Advantages of the underpass option included:<br />
• Relocation of overhead electric transmission lines and support structures<br />
would not be required.<br />
• <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road would pass under I-<strong>10</strong>; therefore, there would be less visual<br />
effects to users of I-<strong>10</strong>. In addition, an underpass would be less visible,<br />
although the bridge over the Santa Cruz River would still be visible.<br />
• Less traffic noise would be expected to emanate from a depressed structure<br />
than an elevated structure; therefore, traffic noise mitigation could be less<br />
extensive.<br />
Alternative TI Design Options - <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road Over I-<strong>10</strong> and UPRR<br />
Disadvantages of the overpass option included:<br />
Advantages:<br />
• Train traffic could be disrupted during placement of the bridge deck and<br />
possibly other phases of railroad bridge construction.<br />
• The overpass structures would be visible from I-<strong>10</strong> and to area residents.<br />
• More traffic noise would be expected to emanate from an elevated structure<br />
than a depressed structure; therefore, traffic noise mitigation could be more<br />
extensive.<br />
• Less disruption to train traffic would be expected than with the underpass<br />
alternative.<br />
• Users of the bridge would experience a greater range of views.<br />
• The bridge structure would offer the opportunity for public art treatments<br />
visible from I-<strong>10</strong> and at greater distances.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
3-5<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Alternatives October 2005<br />
• Relocation of underground utilities between the railroad and I-<strong>10</strong> mainline<br />
would not be extensive.<br />
• Pumping facilities would not be required to convey stormwater runoff to the<br />
Santa Cruz River.<br />
• Less extensive roadway lighting would be required.<br />
• Construction of a bridge would not be expected to involve extensive<br />
dewatering of groundwater during and after construction.<br />
• Eventual I-<strong>10</strong> mainline realignment could be accommodated by bridge design<br />
without reconstruction of the existing I-<strong>10</strong> mainline.<br />
The disadvantages of the underpass design option were considered much more substantial<br />
than those of the overpass design option; therefore, the overpass option was selected as<br />
the preferred design option. As a result, the design option of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road crossing<br />
under both I-<strong>10</strong> and the UPRR was eliminated from further consideration.<br />
Alternative TI Alignments<br />
After selecting a tight diamond interchange with a <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road overpass of I-<strong>10</strong> and<br />
the UPRR, alternative alignments for the overpass were developed. The range of<br />
alignment alternatives was defined and each alignment alternative was compared based<br />
on design characteristics, social, economic and environmental affects, cost, and<br />
constructability.<br />
The range of alternative alignments was framed by required or desirable design<br />
characteristics. For this project, a set of design criteria was established for the I-<strong>10</strong><br />
mainline, the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI and ramps, and approaching roadways (<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong><br />
Road, Linda Vista Boulevard, and El Camino de Mañana). Roadway design criteria<br />
contained in the ADOT Roadway Design Guidelines were used for the design of<br />
freeways, frontage roads, ramps, cross roads, and other roadway infrastructure within<br />
ADOT right-of-way. All other roadways used design criteria contained in the Pima<br />
County Roadway Design Manual. The north and south alignment limits were established<br />
by applying the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road design speed of 50 mph and the corresponding<br />
maximum allowable roadway curvature; therefore, three alternative alignment<br />
alternatives were evaluated: north, center, and south alignments. These alignments are<br />
presented in Figures 3-4A-C.<br />
The roadway design was complicated by the proximity of the UPRR tracks to the 138<br />
kilovolt transmission line towers east of I-<strong>10</strong> (approximately 150 feet apart), which<br />
forced the design to “thread the needle” between the two structures (avoiding the<br />
relocation of the transmission line towers was considered desireable). Railroad safety<br />
standards require that the bottom of the bridge crossing the UPRR be a minimum of 23<br />
feet above the railroad track surface and the Electric Safety Code requires a minimum of<br />
22 feet of clearance between the overhead transmission lines and the roadway to provide<br />
safe vehicle passage below the lines. Because the transmission lines sag between towers,<br />
alignments were located close to the towers to meet the required vertical clearance.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
3-6<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Alternatives October 2005<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
Figure 3-4. Alignment Alternatives<br />
A. North Alignment Alternative<br />
Figure 3-4. Alignment Alternatives<br />
B. Center Alignment Alternative<br />
3-7<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Alternatives October 2005<br />
Figure 3-4. Alignment Alternatives<br />
C. South Alignment Alternative<br />
The <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI alignment alternatives had many similarities. These included:<br />
• All would construct a new four-lane divided roadway that would connect the end<br />
of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road, west of the Santa Cruz River with a new signalized<br />
intersection of Linda Vista Road and El Camino de Mañana.<br />
• The I-<strong>10</strong> frontage roads would be reconstructed to accommodate the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong><br />
Road TI and the existing two-way segment of the eastbound frontage road would<br />
be converted to one-way operation.<br />
• The I-<strong>10</strong> frontage roads within the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI limits would be<br />
constructed in accordance with the ultimate improvements outlined in the I-<strong>10</strong><br />
General Plan. All alternatives would extend the I-<strong>10</strong> right-of-way west to<br />
accommodate the eventual shift in alignment of the I-<strong>10</strong> mainline.<br />
• Drainage improvements would be provided to protect the roadways against<br />
flooding. ADOT, Pima County, and Town of Marana requirements for safe and<br />
efficient roadway design would be included in each alternative.<br />
All alignment alternatives would construct also a two-way supplemental access road to<br />
compensate partially for the effects of right-of-way acquisition and the loss of access near<br />
the proposed <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI. Currently businesses in the area depend on access to<br />
the eastbound frontage road and this access would be either eliminated or modified with<br />
the construction of the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI. According to ADOT’s Roadway Design<br />
Guidelines, access onto the frontage roads should be prohibited from slightly beyond the<br />
ramp/frontage road intersection through the intersection with the cross road (<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong><br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
3-8<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Alternatives October 2005<br />
Road). Prohibiting access in this area would minimize conflicts between low speed<br />
vehicles turning into and out of driveways with traffic exiting and entering the interstate<br />
at high speeds. The two-way circulation roadway around the west side of these properties<br />
would allow properties near the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI to access <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road directly<br />
and I-<strong>10</strong> and the frontage roads indirectly after frontage road access would be eliminated<br />
(see access road in Figures 3-4A-C).<br />
The alignment alternatives were presented to the businesses surrounding the proposed TI<br />
on March 12 and 15, 2004 and to the general public on March 22, 2004. Almost no<br />
support was expressed for the north alignment. Many participants stated a preference for<br />
roadway alignments with fewer curves and a straighter alignment of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road,<br />
but no clear preference between the central and the south alignments was demonstrated.<br />
The analysis of alternative alignments was documented in the Alternatives Selection<br />
Report prepared for this project. Although readers are referred to the Alternatives<br />
Selection Report for a more thorough discussion, the results of the analyses are<br />
summarized here.<br />
• The Center Alternative had the lowest construction costs.<br />
• The Center Alternative required four fewer acres of additional right-of-way and<br />
fewer total property takes.<br />
• The Center Alternative exhibited the most desirable design characteristics.<br />
• The Center Alternative exhibited the most favorable environmental<br />
characteristics. These included:<br />
� least visual affects;<br />
� least displacement of habitat in the low flow and high flow channels of<br />
the Santa Cruz River;<br />
� least displacement of wetlands; and,<br />
� avoided documented cultural resources.<br />
As documented in the Alternatives Selection Report, the center alignment was selected to<br />
be carried forward for detailed analysis in the EA and design phases of the project. This<br />
alternative was selected because: it was the least cost alternative and minimized<br />
additional right-of-way acquisition and total property takes; it exhibited the most<br />
desirable design characteristics; it did not exhibit substantial disadvantages in comparison<br />
to the north and south alignments; and, it was generally preferred by the affected property<br />
owners and the public.<br />
Subsequent to the selection of the center alignment as the preferred alignment, design<br />
changes were required. The UPRR proposed to add a second track on the east side of the<br />
existing track and to increase the elevation of the added track above that of the existing<br />
track. In addition, revised traffic projections indicated that additional traffic lanes on the<br />
bridge over the UPRR may be needed. As a result, the height of the bridge over the UPRR<br />
was adjusted and the bridge width was increased to accommodate more traffic lanes at a<br />
later time. These design changes made it impossible to “thread the needle” between the<br />
UPRR tracks and the TEP towers. As a result, the relocation or the raising of one or more<br />
of the transmission line towers would be required. However, relocation or raising one or<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
3-9<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Alternatives October 2005<br />
more of the transmission line towers would be required for all of the alignment<br />
alternatives and would not influence the selection of center alignment alternative.<br />
The proposed improvements associated with the preferred alignment and the no build<br />
alignment are discussed below.<br />
Alternatives Selected for Further Study<br />
No Build Alternative<br />
The no build alternative would not construct an additional interchange on I-<strong>10</strong>, would not<br />
extend <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road, El Camino de Mañana or Linda Vista Boulevard to I-<strong>10</strong>, would<br />
not eliminate the at-grade crossing of the UPRR at El Camino de Mañana, would make<br />
no safety improvements to the I-<strong>10</strong> frontage roads in the area, would not acquire<br />
additional right-of-way in the study area, and would not convert the two-way frontage<br />
road along the west side of I-<strong>10</strong> to a one-way frontage road. No improvements would be<br />
made to any of the affected roadways except for those activities currently planned and<br />
programmed and routine maintenance. As a result, existing and future deficiencies in<br />
roadway design, roadway congestion on Cortaro Road and Silverbell Road, stormwater<br />
flowing over the I-<strong>10</strong> mainline and frontage roads, motor vehicle conflicts with the<br />
railroad, and bicycle, pedestrian, and general transportation system connectivity<br />
deficiencies would continue. Current trends of declining traffic operations and increasing<br />
crashes would be expected to continue also. The no build alternative is illustrated in<br />
Figure 3-5.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
Figure 3-5. No Build Alternative<br />
3-<strong>10</strong><br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Alternatives October 2005<br />
Preferred Alternative<br />
Constructing a <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI with I-<strong>10</strong> as a tight diamond interchange along the<br />
center alignment was selected as the preferred alternative. The specific improvements<br />
associated with this alternative are discussed below and illustrated in Figure 3-6.<br />
Proposed Roadway Improvements<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road<br />
Figure 3-6. Preferred Alternative<br />
A new four-lane divided roadway would be constructed that would connect <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong><br />
Road, west of the Santa Cruz River, with a new signalized intersection of El Camino de<br />
Mañana and Linda Vista Road on the east side of I-<strong>10</strong>. A typical section (a slice across the<br />
roadway) of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road would consist of 11-foot wide inside lanes and 12-foot<br />
wide outside lanes, as shown in Figure 3-7. Shoulders 7 feet in width that may be used by<br />
bicycles and a 6-foot wide sidewalk would be provided on both sides of the roadway. A<br />
raised center median that varies in width would be provided along most of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong><br />
Road. The median would not be provided where the roadway crosses the Santa Cruz<br />
River, because directional traffic would be separated onto two bridge structures. The total<br />
right-of-way width would vary between 200 and 300 feet. This roadway section would be<br />
maintained through the intersection with Linda Vista Boulevard and then transition to a<br />
two-lane section to match the existing roadway section of El Camino de Mañana.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
3-11<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Alternatives October 2005<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
Figure 3-7. Proposed <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road Typical Section (a slice across the roadway)<br />
Figure 3-8. Proposed <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road Bridge Crossing over the Santa Cruz River Typical Section<br />
3-12<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Alternatives October 2005<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road would cross the Santa Cruz River, I-<strong>10</strong>, and the UPRR on bridge<br />
structures. The roadway would approach the Santa Cruz River on both sides on<br />
embankment and then cross the Santa Cruz River on twin bridge structures of<br />
approximately 750 feet in length. A typical section of the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road bridge<br />
crossing of the Santa Cruz River is shown in Figure 3-8 and would consist of 11-foot<br />
wide inside lanes and 12-foot wide outside lanes. Shoulders 7 feet in width that may be<br />
used by bicycles and a 6-foot wide sidewalk would be provided on both sides of the<br />
roadway. The sidewalk would be physically separated from the shoulder by a concrete<br />
barrier 32 inches in height. The bottom of the bridge would be approximately 20 feet<br />
above the low flow channel of the Santa Cruz River.<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road would rise again on embankment approaching I-<strong>10</strong> from the west and<br />
approaching the UPRR tracks from the east. The roadway would cross I-<strong>10</strong> on a bridge of<br />
slightly over 200 feet in length approximately 24 feet above the exiting I-<strong>10</strong> roadway<br />
surface. According to the I-<strong>10</strong> General Plan, the elevation of I-<strong>10</strong> would be raised in this<br />
area; therefore, after the modifications to I-<strong>10</strong>, the bottom of the bridge would be slightly<br />
over 17 feet above the I-<strong>10</strong> roadway surface. A typical section of the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road<br />
bridge crossing of I-<strong>10</strong> and the UPRR is shown in Figure 3-9.<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road would cross over the UPRR tracks on a bridge approximately 130 feet<br />
in length. The UPRR plans to add an additional track on the east side of the existing track<br />
(double track) to increase the capacity of the line; therefore, the bridge length would<br />
accommodate the additional future track. The bottom of this bridge would be 23.5 feet<br />
above the track surface to meet railroad safety standards. The roadway would approach<br />
the railroad on embankment on both sides. The embankment would continue to the east<br />
until the roadway matched the existing terrain, approximately 750 feet east of the UPRR.<br />
The existing surface of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road through Continental Ranch is in fair to poor<br />
condition. The pavement shows signs of low to medium severity deterioration, rutting,<br />
and various types of cracking such as block, longitudinal, and transverse cracking. This<br />
project proposes to mill and resurface <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road to Silverbell Road with<br />
rubberized asphaltic concrete (RAC) which would improve drivability of the roadway.<br />
An RAC surface also decreases the noise generation from the tire-pavement interface.<br />
Although the FHWA will not participate in the funding of roadway resurfacing with<br />
RAC, the Town of Marana will provide the funding for this rehabilitation.<br />
Access Road<br />
The two-way supplemental access road was proposed to partially mitigate the effects of<br />
the potential additional right-of-way acquisition and the loss of access near the <strong>Twin</strong><br />
<strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI. The access road would connect the I-<strong>10</strong> eastbound frontage road north<br />
and south of the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI and intersect with <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road, east of the<br />
Santa Cruz River. A typical section of the access road would consist of a two-lane<br />
roadway with 12-foot wide travel lanes and <strong>10</strong>-foot wide shoulders, 6 feet of which<br />
would be paved. The total right-of-way width would be 150 feet. A typical section of the<br />
access road is shown in Figure 3-<strong>10</strong>.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
3-13<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Alternatives October 2005<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
Figure 3-9. Proposed <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road Bridge Crossing over I–<strong>10</strong> and the UPRR<br />
Figure 3-<strong>10</strong>. Proposed Access Road Typical Section<br />
3-14<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Alternatives October 2005<br />
I-<strong>10</strong> Frontage Roads<br />
New two-lane, one-way frontage roads would replace the current frontage roads near the<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI. The frontage roads would be positioned in accordance with the<br />
planned future improvements to I-<strong>10</strong> specified in the General Plan and the 1993 EA. The<br />
eastbound frontage road would be reconstructed and relocated approximately <strong>10</strong>0 feet west<br />
of its existing location in accordance with the proposed future I-<strong>10</strong> widening to 8 lanes and<br />
proposed I-<strong>10</strong> on and off ramps. Proposed right-of-way acquisition for this project would<br />
be sufficient to accommodate these roadway improvements. The westbound frontage road<br />
would be reconstructed in the vicinity of the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI to accommodate the<br />
grade-separated TI structure and to accommodate the I-<strong>10</strong> on and off ramps; therefore,<br />
additional right-of-way would not be acquired along the east side of I-<strong>10</strong>.<br />
Typical sections of the frontage roads and ramps are shown in Figures 3-11 and 3-12. The<br />
typical section would consist of two lanes, each 12 feet in width with 8-foot inside and<br />
outside shoulders. The new frontage roads would have a posted speed limit of 45 mph.<br />
Stop sign control would be provided on the frontage roads just prior to merging with the<br />
I-<strong>10</strong> off-ramps. The eastbound frontage road would be converted to one-way operation<br />
from the Avra Valley TI south to the Cortaro Road TI and would result in one-way<br />
frontage road operation from the Avra Valley TI to the 29 th Street TI.<br />
Encroachments into the clear zone of the existing frontage roads would be addressed with<br />
the proposed improvements. Additional right-of-way acquisition in the area of the<br />
proposed reconstruction and relocation of the eastbound frontage road would allow<br />
recommended clear zone widths to be provided. Along the westbound frontage road,<br />
concrete headwalls of irrigation structures are within approximately 6 feet of the roadway.<br />
A cost-benefit analysis of the clear zone obstructions along the westbound frontage road<br />
and beyond the area of eastbound frontage road reconstruction would be conducted.<br />
Depending on the results of this analysis, obstructions within the clear zone would either<br />
remain, be removed, or an energy absorbing barrier (i.e. guardrail) would be placed<br />
between the obstruction and the roadway.<br />
I-<strong>10</strong><br />
Modifications proposed to the I-<strong>10</strong> mainline are limited to transitions into and off the<br />
roadway in both directions to serve the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI on and off ramps. Although<br />
no other modifications to the I-<strong>10</strong> mainline are proposed as a part of this project, the<br />
proposed improvements would be designed in accordance with the completion of the<br />
mainline improvements specified in ADOT’s I-<strong>10</strong> General Plan and the 1993 EA.<br />
El Camino de Mañana<br />
The preferred alternative would remove the at-grade crossing of El Camino de Mañana<br />
with the UPRR. The roadway east of the UPRR would be retained for access to the Tucson<br />
Electric Power (TEP) transmission line and towers in the area and to provide access to<br />
adjacent properties. The proposed improvements would reconstruct the intersection of<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
3-15<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>_D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Alternatives October 2005<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
Figure 3-11. Proposed I-<strong>10</strong> Eastbound Frontage Road and Ramps Typical Section<br />
Figure 3-12. Proposed I-<strong>10</strong> Westbound Frontage Road and Ramps Typical Section<br />
3-16<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Alternatives October 2005<br />
Linda Vista Boulevard and El Camino de Mañana approximately 500 feet northeast of its<br />
current location and straighten the roadway. As a result, a portion of the existing El Camino<br />
de Mañana north of the existing intersection with Linda Vista Boulevard would be<br />
abandoned.<br />
Linda Vista Boulevard<br />
The preferred alternative would reconstruct Linda Vista Boulevard from its new<br />
intersection with El Camino de Mañana for approximately 0.7 miles to the east. The<br />
roadway and subgrade would be reconstructed as a two-lane all weather roadway section<br />
with 12-foot wide travel lanes, and <strong>10</strong>-foot wide shoulders, 6 feet of which would be<br />
paved and may be used by bicycles. A typical section of Linda Vista Boulevard is shown<br />
in Figure 3-13. Sidewalks would not be provided along Linda Vista Boulevard because:<br />
(1) the proposed roadway would not be provided with curb; therefore, pedestrians would<br />
not be separated from vehicles by the curb and unsafe conditions for pedestrians would<br />
result; (2) the addition of sidewalk now would require replacement whenever roadway<br />
improvements to Linda Vista Boulevard occur; (3) the area is characterized by low<br />
density residential development; and, (4) as the area develops, the Town of Marana will<br />
require developers to construct the sidewalk. New right-of-way would be acquired within<br />
the area proposed for reconstruction to produce a total right-of-way width of 150 feet.<br />
Linda Vista Boulevard east of the tie-in point would not be modified. The roadway<br />
structure is adequate to withstand the higher traffic volumes caused by the project, but the<br />
design life of the roadway may be reduced; therefore, the roadway may require more<br />
frequent maintenance.<br />
Proposed Intersection Improvements<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road/Silverbell Road/Scenic Drive is an unsignalized, unlighted intersection<br />
with stop sign control on the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road and Scenic Drive approaches. The<br />
westbound (<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road) approach provides single dedicated left-turn and right-turn<br />
lanes and one through lane, while the eastbound approach (Scenic Drive) provides a<br />
single lane. The northbound Silverbell Road approach provides a dedicated left-turn,<br />
right-turn, and a single through lane, while the southbound approach provides one<br />
through lane and a dedicated left-turn lane. According to the <strong>Traffic</strong> Report, projected<br />
peak hour traffic volumes for the implementation year (2008) are projected to merit<br />
signalization; therefore, a traffic signal at this intersection would be provided.<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road/Coachline Boulevard is an unsignalized, unlighted intersection with<br />
four-way stop control. All approaches provide a dedicated left-turn lane and two through<br />
lanes. According to the <strong>Traffic</strong> Report, projected peak hour traffic volumes for the<br />
implementation year (2008) are projected to merit signalization; therefore, a traffic signal<br />
at this intersection would be provided.<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road would meet the two-way access road at a signalized intersection. The<br />
lane configuration of the proposed <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road/access road intersection is shown in<br />
Figure 3-14. This intersection would be illuminated and bicycle striping would be carried<br />
through the intersection. Crosswalk and pedestrian actuated signals would be provided.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
3-17<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Alternatives October 2005<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
Figure 3-13. Proposed Linda Vista Boulevard Typical Section<br />
Figure 3-14. Proposed <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road/Access Road Intersection Configuration<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong><br />
Road<br />
Access Road<br />
3-18<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Alternatives October 2005<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road would form signalized intersections with the I-<strong>10</strong> frontage roads east<br />
and west of I-<strong>10</strong>. The lane configurations of the proposed intersections of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong><br />
Road with the eastbound and westbound frontage roads are shown in Figures 3-15 and<br />
3-16, respectively. Both intersections would be illuminated and bicycle striping would be<br />
carried through the intersection. Crosswalk and pedestrian actuated signals would be<br />
provided.<br />
Figure 3-15. Proposed <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road/Eastbound Frontage Road Intersection<br />
Configuration<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong><br />
Road<br />
I-<strong>10</strong> Eastbound frontage road<br />
Figure 3-16. Proposed <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road/Westbound Frontage Road Intersection<br />
Configuration<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong><br />
Road<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
I-<strong>10</strong> Westbound frontage road<br />
3-19<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Alternatives October 2005<br />
The preferred alternative would construct a new <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road/El Camino de<br />
Mañana/Linda Vista Boulevard signalized intersection approximately 650 feet northeast<br />
of the existing El Camino de Mañana/Linda Vista Boulevard intersection. The proposed<br />
intersection configuration is shown in Figure 3-17. This intersection would be illuminated<br />
and bicycle striping would be carried through the intersection. Crosswalk and pedestrian<br />
actuated signals would be provided. Past the intersection, the roadway would transition to<br />
a two-lane roadway to match the existing section of El Camino de Mañana.<br />
Figure 3-17. Proposed <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/El Camino De Mañana/Linda Vista Boulevard<br />
Intersection Configuration<br />
El Camino De Mañana<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road<br />
Proposed Lighting Improvements<br />
Linda Vista<br />
Boulevard<br />
New intersection lighting would be provided at all signalized intersections within the<br />
study area. These include the intersections of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road and Silverbell Road,<br />
Coachline Boulevard, the access road, the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road and the I-<strong>10</strong> eastbound and<br />
westbound frontage roads, and the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road/El Camino de Mañana/Linda Vista<br />
Boulevard intersection. In addition to intersection lighting, underdeck lighting would be<br />
provided under the bridges crossing I-<strong>10</strong> and the UPRR. According to UPRR’s Guidelines<br />
for Design of Highway Separation Structures over Railroads (Overhead Grade<br />
Separations) dated January 1999, underdeck lighting is required for bridges that exceed 80<br />
feet in width.<br />
Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities<br />
Inconsistent and discontinuous pedestrian and bicycle facilities exist within the project<br />
area. To promote the use of alternative modes of transportation and reduce vehicle trips,<br />
the existing bicycle lanes and sidewalk along <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road would be extended across<br />
the Santa Cruz River, across I-<strong>10</strong> and the UPRR, and through the intersection of <strong>Twin</strong><br />
<strong>Peaks</strong> Road/El Camino de Mañana/Linda Vista Boulevard. Along <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road,<br />
shoulders a minimum of 7 feet in width would be provided to accommodate bicycle use<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
3-20<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Alternatives October 2005<br />
and sidewalks would be 6 feet in width. Along the segment of Linda Vista Boulevard<br />
proposed for reconstruction, 6-foot wide paved shoulders could be used by bicycles, but<br />
sidewalks would not be provided. All sidewalks and proposed intersection improvements<br />
would provide crosswalks, sidewalk, and ramps that are compliant with the Americans<br />
with Disabilities Act (ADA) and resultant regulations.<br />
The proposed project would provide pedestrian and bicycle connections between the<br />
existing sidewalk and shared use lanes on <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road and the Santa Cruz River<br />
Shared Use Path and the Juan Bautista de Anza Historic Trail east of Continental Ranch.<br />
The Santa Cruz River Shared Use Path is under final design currently and will be<br />
completed prior to the construction of the proposed improvements to <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road.<br />
As a result, reconstruction of the path at its intersection with <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road would be<br />
required. At-grade shared use path crossings of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road were not recommended<br />
because of potential vehicle conflicts; therefore, users of the shared use path would be<br />
diverted along the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road embankment approximately 850 feet east of the<br />
shared use path’s alignment. In this location, both the Santa Cruz River Shared Use Path<br />
and the proposed Juan Bautista de Anza Historic Trail would cross <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road<br />
beneath the proposed Santa Cruz River Bridges. The connection to the Santa Cruz River<br />
Shared Use Path is illustrated in Figure 3-18.<br />
Figure 3-18. Proposed <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road Connection to Santa Cruz Shared Use Path<br />
To discourage pedestrian crossing of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road at the former alignment of the<br />
Santa Cruz River Shared Use Path, the roadway’s center median would be fenced for<br />
approximately <strong>10</strong>0 feet in length. This would direct path users to either cross under the<br />
Santa Cruz River Bridge or at the nearest intersection to the west (<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road and<br />
Clover Road).<br />
During public information meetings on the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI, the public expressed<br />
concerns regarding the safety of children attending <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Elementary School (7995<br />
West <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road). As a result, the Town of Marana chose <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Elementary<br />
School as their initial Safe Routes to School program. A successful grant application<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
3-21<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Alternatives October 2005<br />
would result in the construction of a 4,500-foot long, 14-foot wide shared use path along<br />
the south side of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road from Silverbell Road to Coachline Boulevard and<br />
along Coachline Boulevard from <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road to Desert Spirits Drive<br />
(approximately 725 feet south of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road). Although the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI<br />
project does not provide funding for this shared use path, the social, economic, and<br />
environmental effects of this path are addressed within this document to increase the<br />
probability of the grant application’s success.<br />
Proposed Drainage Improvements<br />
Drainage issues in the study area were documented in the Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong><br />
<strong>Interchange</strong> at <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista Final Drainage Report, dated May 21, 2004.<br />
Although readers are referred to the Final Drainage Report for a more thorough<br />
discussion, the results of the analyses are summarized here.<br />
Roadway Drainage<br />
Pavement drainage from <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road is collected currently by curb and gutter and<br />
transmitted to storm drains along the outsides of the roadway. Catch basins and storm<br />
drain pipe collect the drainage and transmit the water to drainage channels, which drain<br />
to tributaries of the Santa Cruz River. The western portion of Linda Vista Boulevard<br />
(near its intersection with El Camino de Mañana) and El Camino de Mañana have no<br />
curb and gutter and pavement drainage sheetflows off the roadway into small roadside<br />
ditches adjacent to the roadway.<br />
Proposed improvements to <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road would use curb and gutter to collect<br />
pavement drainage. Catch basins and storm drain pipe would collect the runoff and<br />
transmit the water to the nearest cross drainage channels, which would drain eventually to<br />
the Santa Cruz River. Where curbs are proposed for Linda Vista Boulevard and El<br />
Camino de Mañana (near the El Camino De Mañana/Linda Vista Boulevard intersection<br />
only) the method of drainage would be the same as that described for <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road.<br />
Beyond the reaches of the intersection, runoff would flow off the roadway into roadside<br />
ditches and to the nearest cross drainage facility.<br />
Due to the absence of curb and gutter, pavement drainage on the frontage roads is<br />
currently collected in roadside ditches and conveyed to existing cross culverts. Under<br />
proposed conditions, curb and gutter would be installed along portions of the frontage<br />
roads and a catch basin/storm drain system would be used to collect flows and convey<br />
them to the nearest cross drainage facility. In addition, median drainage would also be<br />
intercepted by the storm drain system for conveyance to the nearest cross drainage<br />
facility.<br />
Cross Culvert Design<br />
Drainage facilities under I-<strong>10</strong> and the frontage roads were developed assuming the 50year<br />
storm event in accordance with ADOT design criteria. The design considered<br />
existing box capacities and outfall angles in relation to receiving channels. In general,<br />
where existing facilities are proposed to be augmented, the existing culvert sizes were<br />
duplicated for the new culvert cell. Where feasible, larger cells were proposed to increase<br />
capacity and decrease the number of additional cells required for augmentation. The<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
3-22<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Alternatives October 2005<br />
proposed culvert locations and sizes under I-<strong>10</strong> are compared with the existing structures<br />
in Table 3-1. The structure locations are illustrated in Figure 3-19.<br />
Table 3-1. Existing and Proposed I-<strong>10</strong> and Frontage Road Drainage Structures<br />
Location<br />
(approximate<br />
I-<strong>10</strong><br />
Milepost)<br />
244.48<br />
Type of<br />
Improvement<br />
Augmentation<br />
/ Extension<br />
244.81 Extension<br />
Existing Size<br />
and Structure<br />
Under<br />
Frontage Road<br />
2 - 6-foot by 3foot<br />
cells<br />
RCBC<br />
2- 8-foot by<br />
3.5-foot cells<br />
RCBC<br />
Existing Size<br />
and Structure<br />
Under I-<strong>10</strong><br />
mainline<br />
2 - 8-foot by 3foot<br />
cells<br />
RCBC<br />
2- 8-foot by<br />
3.5-foot cells<br />
RCBC<br />
244.94 New Structure New - N/A New - N/A<br />
245.16 Replacement<br />
245.38 Replacement<br />
245.87<br />
Augmentation<br />
/ Extension<br />
3 - 8-foot by 4foot<br />
cells<br />
RCBC<br />
3 - 5-foot by<br />
2.5-foot cells<br />
RCBC<br />
2 - 6-foot by<br />
2.5-foot cells<br />
RCBC<br />
3 - 8-foot by 3foot<br />
cells<br />
RCBC<br />
2 - 8-foot by 3foot<br />
cells<br />
RCBC<br />
2 - 8-foot by 3foot<br />
cells<br />
RCBC<br />
Proposed Size and<br />
Structures for<br />
both I-<strong>10</strong><br />
mainline and<br />
Frontage Road<br />
7 - 8-foot by 3-foot<br />
cells RCBC<br />
No change –<br />
extend RCBC only<br />
6 – <strong>10</strong>-foot by 4foot<br />
cells RCBC<br />
3 – <strong>10</strong>-foot by 4foot<br />
cells RCBC<br />
4 - 8-foot by 4-foot<br />
cells RCBC<br />
15 - 8-foot by 4foot<br />
cells RCBC<br />
Cross drainage stormwater would be transmitted under <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road and Linda Vista<br />
Boulevard by a combination of reinforced concrete pipes (RCP) and reinforced concrete<br />
box culverts (RCBC). The sizes of these structures were developed assuming the <strong>10</strong>0year<br />
storm event in accordance with Pima County design criteria, because these drainage<br />
facilities are located outside ADOT right-of-way. The proposed culvert locations and<br />
sizes under <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road and Linda Vista Boulevard are shown in Table 3-2. The<br />
structure locations are illustrated in Figure 3-19.<br />
Table 3-2. Proposed <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road and Linda Vista Boulevard Drainage Structures<br />
Location (Distance and Direction from <strong>Twin</strong><br />
<strong>Peaks</strong> Road/El Camino de Mañana/Linda Vista<br />
Boulevard Intersection)<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
Proposed Structure and Size<br />
535 feet west 2 - 6-foot by 4-foot cells RCBC<br />
400 feet east 1 – 8-foot by 4-foot cell RCBC<br />
1,038 feet east 1 – 48-inch RCP<br />
1,660 feet east 2 - 6-foot by 4-foot cells RCBC<br />
2,595 feet east 2 - 36-inch RCP<br />
3-23<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Alternatives October 2005<br />
Channel Design<br />
After stormwater runoff is carried under the roadways in culverts or pipes, it would be<br />
transmitted to the Santa Cruz River in open channels. Because the existing outfall<br />
channels downstream of the I-<strong>10</strong> mainline and eastbound frontage road are located<br />
outside ADOT right-of-way, they were designed in accordance with Pima County<br />
requirements to convey the <strong>10</strong>0-year rainfall event. These channels discharge into the<br />
Santa Cruz River through openings in the soil cement bank protection.<br />
The existing channels are undersized to convey <strong>10</strong>0-year rainfall events. As a result, the<br />
channels near I-<strong>10</strong> would be either enlarged or replaced with larger structures. The<br />
location, structure, and size of these proposed improvements to drainage channels are<br />
compared to existing channels in Table 3-3. All proposed channels were designed to<br />
provide one foot of freeboard. The channel locations are illustrated in Figure 3-19. The<br />
proposed channel improvements would require widening existing discharge locations into<br />
the Santa Cruz River in two locations (the channel outfalls at approximate I-<strong>10</strong> MPs<br />
require widening also. Flows would be slowed by grade control structures or similar<br />
means prior to discharging into the Santa Cruz River; therefore, energy dissipation<br />
structures within the Santa Cruz River channel would not be required.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
Figure 3-19. Proposed Drainage Facilities Near I-<strong>10</strong><br />
3-24<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Alternatives October 2005<br />
Near the proposed intersection of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road/El Camino de Mañana/Linda Vista<br />
proposed alignment of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road in this area would interfere with historic<br />
drainage patterns. Water that currently flows south across El Camino de Mañana would<br />
be blocked by the proposed roadway; therefore, a channel is proposed to convey this<br />
blocked flow southwesterly along the north side of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road (see Figure 3-19).<br />
These flows would be combined with the discharge from the proposed 2-cell 6-foot by 4foot<br />
RCBC under <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road. The proposed channel will be lined, have a base<br />
width of 5 feet, and provide for a depth of flow between 1.91 and 2.65 feet. Flows from<br />
this channel would continue southwest to the new channel that would discharge into the<br />
cross drainage structure at approximate I-<strong>10</strong> MP 244.81. Routing the flows in this manner<br />
would avoid two drainage structures under <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road.<br />
Table 3-3. Existing and Proposed Channels Serving I-<strong>10</strong> and Frontage Roads<br />
Outfall Location<br />
(approximate I-<strong>10</strong><br />
Milepost)<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
Existing Channel Bottom<br />
Width and Depth (approx.)<br />
3-25<br />
Proposed Channel Bottom<br />
Width and Flow Depth<br />
244.41 20 feet wide by 3.5 feet deep 70 feet wide by 3.38 feet deep<br />
244.80 7 feet wide by 4 feet deep 30 feet wide by 2.74 feet deep<br />
244.81 New – N/A 50 feet wide by 2.92 feet deep<br />
245.18 6 feet wide by 3 feet deep 40 feet wide by 3.05 feet deep<br />
245.19 3 feet wide by 3.5 feet deep 40 feet wide by 3.1 feet deep<br />
Proposed Santa Cruz River Channel Modifications<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road would approach the Santa Cruz River on both sides on embankment<br />
and then cross the Santa Cruz River on twin bridge structures of approximately 750 feet<br />
in length. The roadway and bridge embankments would place a large volume of fill<br />
within the Santa Cruz River floodplain. The fill would displace an equal volume of water<br />
and, if no additional action were taken, would change the <strong>10</strong>0-year floodplain elevation.<br />
To prevent any increase in flood water elevation, the low flow channel of the Santa Cruz<br />
River would be widened to offset the volume displaced by the roadway and bridge<br />
embankment. This topic will be discuss in greater detail in the Chapter 4, Affected<br />
Environment in the Section entitled Floodplains (see page 4-14).<br />
The following chapter discusses the existing project area environment and anticipated<br />
effects to social, economic, and environmental resources within the project area from the<br />
construction of the preferred alternative. These effects are compared with the effects that<br />
would result from the no build alternative (doing nothing).<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND<br />
Land Use<br />
Existing Conditions<br />
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS<br />
Within the study area, several different governmental entities have jurisdiction,<br />
including the Town of Marana, Pima County, ADOT, and FHWA. Most of the<br />
project area is within the incorporated area of the Town of Marana, but the<br />
commercial area on the west side of I-<strong>10</strong> near the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI is within<br />
unincorporated Pima County. <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road and portions of El Camino de<br />
Mañana and Linda Vista Boulevard are under the shared control of the Town of<br />
Marana and Pima County and are maintained through memoranda of<br />
understanding between the two entities. The boundaries of the jurisdictions are<br />
illustrated on Figure 4-1.<br />
Land ownership is diverse in the study area also. In the western part of the study<br />
area (Continental Ranch), the land is almost entirely privately owned. An<br />
exception to private ownership in this area is the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Elementary School<br />
which belongs to the Marana Unified School District. The area within the high<br />
flow channel of the Santa Cruz River is under the control of Pima County. Near<br />
the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI, west of I-<strong>10</strong>, the property ownership is varied, consisting<br />
primarily of privately owned parcels, but parcels belonging to Pima County, the<br />
City of Tucson, and the Cortaro-Marana Irrigation District (CMID) are present<br />
also. I-<strong>10</strong> is a federal facility under the joint control of FHWA and ADOT. A canal<br />
owned by CMID lies between I-<strong>10</strong> and the westbound frontage road and the<br />
railroad line owned by the UPRR lies east of the westbound frontage road. The<br />
towers that support the TEP transmission lines are located within utility easements<br />
east of the railroad. With the exception of these linear facilities, the study area east<br />
of I-<strong>10</strong> is almost entirely privately owned. The notable exceptions are Arthur Pack<br />
Regional Park and Mountain View High School in the extreme eastern part of the<br />
study area, which are owned by Pima County and the Marana Unified School<br />
District, respectively.<br />
The proposed improvements would occur in areas under the auspices of both the<br />
Town of Marana and unincorporated Pima County. The land use policies of both<br />
entities are represented in their respective general plans. Actual land uses,<br />
however, do not follow necessarily the adopted land use patterns of general plans<br />
because many current land uses were in existence prior to adoption of the general<br />
plans.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-1<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Avra<br />
Valley Rd.<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Rd.<br />
Silverbell Rd.<br />
Town of Marana Pima County<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at <strong>Twin</strong><br />
<strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
El Camino de Mañana<br />
I<strong>10</strong><br />
Linda Vista Blvd.<br />
Cortaro Rd.<br />
4-2<br />
Hartman Ln.<br />
Camino de Oeste<br />
Thornydale Rd.<br />
Figure 4-1<br />
Land Jurisdiction<br />
Project Number: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
The study area is a mix of land uses. The study area contains vacant, residential,<br />
commercial, public and institutional, and parks and open space land uses. The land<br />
uses planned within the study area exhibit a major loss of vacant land. Vacant land<br />
is replaced primarily by low density residential and master planned developments,<br />
corridor commerce, and conservation/mitigation land uses.<br />
Impacts<br />
No Build Alternative<br />
The no build alternative would not affect the existing rights-of-way or easements,<br />
or result in land acquisitions within the project area.<br />
Preferred Alternative<br />
The preferred alternative would acquire additional right-of-way (R/W) for<br />
roadway improvements and construction of the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI and would<br />
acquire additional drainage easements. The proposed improvements would be in<br />
accordance with the Town of Marana and Pima County general plans.<br />
The preferred alternative would acquire a total of 72.4 acres of private and state or<br />
federal property for needed R/W. The proposed acquisitions are presented by<br />
proposed use of the property, number of acres by ownership type, and number of<br />
parcels affected in the following table.<br />
Proposed Use<br />
Extension of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong><br />
Road<br />
Reconstruction of eastbound<br />
I-<strong>10</strong> frontage road<br />
Table 4-1. Proposed Property Acquisitions<br />
State or<br />
Federal<br />
Property<br />
(acres)<br />
Number of<br />
Affected State<br />
or Federal<br />
Parcels<br />
Private<br />
Property<br />
(acres)<br />
Number of<br />
Affected<br />
Private<br />
Parcels<br />
15.7 6 28.1 12<br />
0.7 1 12.1 6<br />
Proposed access road 5.8 6 <strong>10</strong>.0 5<br />
In addition to the R/W for roadways, a number of new drainage easements would<br />
be required for the preferred alternative. These supplemental drainage easements<br />
would total 8.5 acres, and are detailed below. The channels and drainage structures<br />
are illustrated in Figure 3-19 in Chapter 3, Alternatives.<br />
Partial parcel acquisition could result in unusable or undesirable parcel sizes. For<br />
example, parcels could be created that may not meet minimum regulatory lot size<br />
requirements for septic tanks and/or private wells or may result in parcels that<br />
become undesirable for current uses. During individual property R/W negotiations,<br />
the effects of partial property takes would be considered.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-3<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
Approximate<br />
Location (MP)<br />
Mitigation<br />
Table 4-2. Proposed Additional Drainage Easements<br />
Existing<br />
Easement<br />
Width (feet)<br />
Proposed<br />
Easement<br />
Width (feet)<br />
Additional<br />
Easement<br />
Needed (acres)<br />
244.48 50 150 1.2<br />
244.81 25 75 1.0<br />
244.94 None 120 1.6<br />
245.16 None <strong>10</strong>0 2.4<br />
245.38 50 120 2.3<br />
The Town of Marana would conduct all acquisitions and relocations in accordance<br />
with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies<br />
Act of 1970, as amended. Sections 28-1841 through 28-1853 of Arizona Revised<br />
Statutes would be followed to provide for implementation of the Federal<br />
Relocation Assistance Program on a state level. During individual property rightof-way<br />
negotiations, the Town of Marana would consider the effects of partial<br />
property takes. During individual property right-of-way negotiations, the Town of<br />
Marana would address businesses access across other parcels to reach the access<br />
roadway.<br />
Conclusion<br />
The preferred alternative would be consistent with the transportation and land use<br />
elements of the Town of Marana and Pima County general plans and would assist<br />
in attaining these elements of the plans. Although property would be acquired to<br />
construct the proposed improvements, the impacts associated with these<br />
acquisitions would be minimized by following the Uniform Relocation Assistance<br />
and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and Sections 28-<br />
1841 through 28-1853 of Arizona Revised Statutes.<br />
Land Resources<br />
The following sections discuss conditions pertaining to land resources found<br />
within the study area. Components of land resources include topography, soils,<br />
mineral resources, and agriculture.<br />
Topography<br />
Existing Conditions<br />
Elevations in the study area range from approximately 2,<strong>10</strong>0 feet above sea level<br />
(a.s.l.) along the Santa Cruz River to over 2,500 feet at Rillito Peak on the west<br />
side of I-<strong>10</strong> and south of Avra Valley Road. In general, the topography of the<br />
study area is relatively flat along the Santa Cruz River, with gently sloping terrain<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-4<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
to the east and west of the Santa Cruz River. Slopes angle toward the Santa Cruz<br />
River. Slopes increase in the eastern portion of the study area near the foothills of<br />
the Santa Catalina Mountains and Tortolita Mountains. The Santa Cruz River and<br />
floodplain is the dominant topographic feature in the project area. With the<br />
exception of the Santa Cruz River, there are no unique or important topographic<br />
features in the study area.<br />
Impacts<br />
No Build Alternative<br />
The no build alternative would have no impact on topography in the project area.<br />
Preferred Alternative<br />
Although the preferred alternative would construct an elevated roadway and<br />
bridges over the Santa Cruz River, I-<strong>10</strong>, and the UPRR, existing slopes and other<br />
topographic features in the project area, would not be affected. The low flow<br />
channel of the Santa Cruz River would be widened to compensate for the roadway<br />
and bridge embankment fill placed within the high flow Santa Cruz River channel<br />
(see Floodplain Section, page 4-14); however, these impacts would not affect the<br />
Santa Cruz River flows or functions.<br />
Mitigation<br />
As described in the previous paragraph, no mitigation measures for topography are<br />
necessary, if the preferred alternative were constructed.<br />
Soils<br />
Existing Conditions<br />
Soil types were identified for the study area through a review of comprehensive<br />
maps compiled by the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources<br />
Conservation Service (NRCS) compiled in 2003, and the Arizona Agricultural<br />
Experiment Station in 1969. As would be expected in a fluvial depositional<br />
system, soils vary widely throughout the study area, often changing over distances<br />
of tens of feet. Soils are predominantly of the Anthony, Agua and Grabe Series.<br />
Anthony series consists of well-drained sandy loams to gravelly sandy loams.<br />
These soils are formed in mixed material that was deposited on flood plains and<br />
alluvial fans by rivers and streams. Slopes are 0 to 5 percent. Permeability of these<br />
soils is moderately rapid and the hazard of erosion is moderate. These soils are<br />
found throughout the study area.<br />
Agua Series soils consist of well-drained fine sandy loams about 2 feet thick over<br />
fine sand. These soils formed in mixed material that was deposited on flood plains<br />
by rivers and streams. Deposits of the Aqua series are found on the flood plain of<br />
the Santa Cruz River. Slopes are generally level and runoff is slow. Hence, the<br />
hazard of erosion is slight to moderate.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-5<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
Grabe series soils consist of well-drained loams, gravelly loams, and silty clay<br />
loams. These soils form in recent alluvium deposited in flood plains, alluvial fans,<br />
and valley slopes. Slopes range from zero to three percent. Permeability of these<br />
soils is rapid and the hazard of erosion is slight. Grabe gravelly sandy loams are<br />
generally found in the alluvial fans of the Santa Cruz River Valley.<br />
Impacts<br />
No Build Alternative<br />
The no build alternative would have no effects on soils in the project area.<br />
Preferred Alternative<br />
During construction, disturbed soils in the project area would be vulnerable to<br />
erosion. This is especially true for soils that are highly susceptible to erosion by<br />
water or wind. According to the soil survey, soils present in the project area have a<br />
slight to moderate hazard of erosion. Prior to construction, a Storm Water<br />
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Dust Control Plan would be developed<br />
and implemented. Management practices contained in these plans would minimize<br />
soil erosion from stormwater runoff and wind as a result of the preferred action.<br />
Mitigation<br />
The SWPPP, which is discussed in detail in the National Pollutant Discharge<br />
Elimination System (NPDES)/Arizona Pollution Discharge Elimination System<br />
(AZPDES) Section entitled NPDES/AZPDES/SWPPP (page 4-21), would outline<br />
the implementation sequence of erosion and sediment control measures. These<br />
may include stabilization practices, structural controls, storm water management<br />
measures, and best management practices to mitigate the water erosion of soils. In<br />
addition, an activity permit from the Pima County Department of <strong>Environmental</strong><br />
Quality and a grading permit from the Town of Marana would be obtained to limit<br />
the amount of dust generated from construction activities (see Air Quality Section,<br />
page 4-45).<br />
Geologic Setting and Mineral Resources<br />
Existing Conditions<br />
Regional Geology<br />
The project site is located within the Tucson basin, which is a sub-area of the<br />
Upper Santa Cruz River drainage basin (Davidson 1973, Anderson 1987). The<br />
Tucson basin is a structural depression within the Basin and Range physiographic<br />
province. The basin is filled with sediments and generally trends north to<br />
northwest. The Town of Marana, and this project, is located in the northwestern<br />
part of the basin.<br />
The primary formations of interest for this project are, in descending order, the<br />
Fort Lowell Formation and the Upper Tinaja Beds. Both the Fort Lowell<br />
Formation and the Tinaja beds were developed as a result of sedimentation in a<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-6<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
closed basin of internal drainage. The Fort Lowell Formation, which is generally<br />
300 to 400 feet thick, grades from silty gravel near the edges of the basin to silty<br />
sand and clayey silt in the central part of the basin. In most of the basin, the Fort<br />
Lowell Formation was deposited in fans by streams that spread out from the<br />
canyons in the surrounding mountains. The Tinaja beds, which vary from less than<br />
one foot to more than 2,000 feet thick and have up to three subunits, consist of<br />
gravel and sand (upper bed) that grade into a very thick sequence of gypsiferous<br />
clayey silt and mudstone in the center of the basin (lower bed). The Fort Lowell<br />
formation is early and middle Pleistocene in age, while the Tinaja beds range in<br />
age from Miocene to Pliocene. Tilting, accompanied by minor faulting, ended the<br />
sedimentation of the Fort Lowell Formation and initiated erosion and the early<br />
stages of the present drainage system, including the deposition of young<br />
Quaternary alluvium along the Santa Cruz River.<br />
Localized Surficial Geology<br />
Since the project site is located within or close to the range of influence of the<br />
meander migration of the Santa Cruz River, it can be expected that the near surface<br />
soil deposits would exhibit gradational characteristics ranging from fluvialdeposited<br />
silty and clayey soils to sandy and gravelly deposits. Below these<br />
surficial deposits, dense layers of sand and gravel of the Fort Lowell Formation<br />
with varying quantities of silt and clay would be encountered. The base of the Fort<br />
Lowell Formation is expected to be at approximately 2,000 feet, or approximately<br />
130 feet below existing grade, and so the very dense Upper Tinaja unit is unlikely<br />
to be encountered on this project.<br />
Seismic Conditions<br />
Based on ADOT seismic acceleration maps (Euge, Kenneth, and Schell 1992) and<br />
AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, seismic loading is not<br />
incorporated in the design of the bridges. Furthermore, there are no special seismic<br />
design requirements for the foundations and abutments of bridges in this category.<br />
Mineral Resources<br />
Sand and gravel mining operations have operated and continue to operate within<br />
the study area. An existing sand and gravel mining operation (I-<strong>10</strong> Avra Valley<br />
Mining and Development) is located on the west side of the Santa Cruz River<br />
south of Avra Valley Road, which is north of the project area. Although no longer<br />
a mining operation, a former sand and gravel mine was located in the northern<br />
portion of the project area between the Santa Cruz River and I-<strong>10</strong>. This area is now<br />
used for industrial operations. An active sand and gravel mining operation (Rinker<br />
Materials) is located in the southern project area immediately south of the south<br />
access road. In addition to sand and gravel mining, Arizona Block and Brick, in<br />
the southern portion of the project area mines and processes raw material on-site<br />
into adobe block.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-7<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
Impacts<br />
No Build Alternative<br />
The no build alternative would not effect the geological setting or mineral<br />
resources in the project area.<br />
Preferred Alternative<br />
The preferred alternative would have no effect on the geological setting or mineral<br />
resources in the project area. Although the study area contains former and existing<br />
sand and gravel mining and abode mining and manufacturing, the proposed<br />
improvements would not impact any existing mining operations. There are no<br />
special seismic design requirements for the foundations and abutments of proposed<br />
bridges in the project area.<br />
Mitigation<br />
No mitigation measures are necessary because the preferred alternative would<br />
have no effect on the geological setting or mineral resources in the project area.<br />
Agriculture<br />
Existing Conditions<br />
Two large areas west of I-<strong>10</strong> and east of Silverbell Road were identified as prime<br />
irrigated farmland in the most recent Important Farmlands map published by the<br />
NRCS. Since the NRCS last surveyed for prime farmlands in 1982, the land<br />
designated as prime irrigated farmland has been developed for commercial or<br />
residential uses. One of these areas was located west of the Santa Cruz River and<br />
is now occupied by Continental Ranch, a large master-planned community. No<br />
farming occurs in this area. The other area was located between the Santa Cruz<br />
River and I-<strong>10</strong> and stretched from Cortaro Road north to the southern part of the<br />
project area. This area is currently occupied by the Pines Golf Club at Marana and<br />
is not farmed. As a result of development in the area, no prime farmland exists in<br />
the study area.<br />
Impacts<br />
No Build Alternative<br />
Because no prime, unique, or farmland of state or local importance exists within<br />
the project area, the no build alternative would have no effects on agricultural land.<br />
Preferred Alternative<br />
Because no prime, unique, or farmland of state or local importance exists within<br />
the project area, the preferred alternative would have no effects on agricultural<br />
land.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-8<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
Mitigation<br />
No mitigation measures are required because the preferred alternative would have<br />
no effects on agricultural land.<br />
Conclusion<br />
The preferred action would not alter or impact slopes or substantially effect<br />
important topographic features in the project area. Although disturbed soils in the<br />
project area would be vulnerable to water and wind erosion, the SWPPP and air<br />
quality permitting regulations followed for this project would result in no impacts<br />
to area soils. The preferred alternative would have no effects on the geological<br />
setting or mineral resources in the project area and no prime, unique, or farmland<br />
of state or local importance exists within the project area; therefore, the preferred<br />
alternative would have no effects on agricultural land.<br />
Water Resources<br />
The following sections discuss surface water and groundwater conditions within<br />
the study area. Surface water resource concerns include potential impacts to rivers<br />
and intermittent washes. The Santa Cruz River and numerous washes that drain<br />
into the Santa Cruz River are the dominant surface water features in the study area.<br />
Groundwater is defined as stored water beneath the ground surface that can be<br />
used to supply wells and springs. This water is stored in natural underground<br />
reservoirs composed of loose rock fragments called aquifers.<br />
Surface Water<br />
Existing Conditions<br />
The main surface water drainage in the study area is the Santa Cruz River, which<br />
runs approximately parallel to and west of I-<strong>10</strong> within the study area. The Santa<br />
Cruz River originates in the San Rafael Valley in Arizona, and then flows south<br />
into Mexico before bending west and north and reentering the United States east of<br />
Nogales, Arizona. Near the study area, a perennial nine-mile reach of the Santa<br />
Cruz River flows north consisting of treated effluent discharged into the channel<br />
by the Ina Road and Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Plants. According to the<br />
Arizona Department of <strong>Environmental</strong> Quality (ADEQ), the portion of the Santa<br />
Cruz River that flows through the study area is classified as Effluent Dominated<br />
Waters. Swimming and fishing are deemed not allowable uses for the Santa Cruz<br />
River, but it is suitable for bird-watching and other terrestrial activities. With the<br />
exception of this effluent dominated reach, the remainder of the Santa Cruz River<br />
within the study area is intermittent and flows in response to rainfall events.<br />
The Canada del Oro Wash and many minor unnamed washes drain into the Santa<br />
Cruz River within the study area. All of these washes are ephemeral, flowing only<br />
in response to rainfall events. According to the Drainage Report prepared for this<br />
study, the Canada del Oro Wash and several minor unnamed washes originate in<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-9<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
of the Santa Catalina Mountains while other minor washes originate in the<br />
Tortolita Mountains located to the northeast of the study area. According to the<br />
Drainage Report, runoff from Tortolita Mountains to the Santa Cruz River is<br />
impeded by the UPRR, the I-<strong>10</strong> westbound frontage road, and the I-<strong>10</strong> mainline.<br />
The UPRR is located on the upstream side of the westbound frontage road, and,<br />
because the existing cross drainage structures are undersized, this causes flow<br />
from the upstream watersheds to pond at the drainage structures. Excess flows not<br />
conveyed by cross drainage structures continue to the northwest along the<br />
upstream side of the UPRR to the next cross drainage structure. This pattern is<br />
consistent throughout the study area, and continues beyond the limits of the study<br />
area.<br />
Additional cross drainage structures are located under the I-<strong>10</strong> frontage roads and<br />
mainline. Generally there is adequate drainage capacity to prevent the 50-year<br />
rainfall event from ponding on the I-<strong>10</strong> frontage roads and mainline because of a<br />
combination of: 1) the metering of flows to the roadways by the UPRR drainage<br />
structures; 2) the capacities of the I-<strong>10</strong> frontage road and I-<strong>10</strong> mainline drainage<br />
structures; and 3) the capacities of the roadside ditches which transmit flows along<br />
the roadways to the northwest. In one area north of the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI and<br />
one location south of the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI, however, runoff exceeds the<br />
capacity of this system. In these locations, water can flow over the westbound<br />
frontage road and the I-<strong>10</strong> mainline during a heavy rainfall event.<br />
There are no cross drainage structures along El Camino de Mañana and Linda<br />
Vista Boulevard within the study area and stormwater runoff currently overtops<br />
the surface of these roadways.<br />
Impacts<br />
No Build Alternative<br />
Under the no build alternative, no impacts to surface water resources would result<br />
and no improvements to the drainage facilities near I-<strong>10</strong> would occur; however,<br />
drainage improvements would occur as a part of the ultimate freeway<br />
improvements proposed in the I-<strong>10</strong> General Plan. According to PAG’s 2025<br />
Regional Transportation Plan (as amended), I-<strong>10</strong> is proposed to consist of 8 lanes<br />
by 2025 from the Pinal/Pima County line to the I-<strong>10</strong>/I-19 <strong>Interchange</strong>. However,<br />
these improvements are not programmed (planned and funded) in PAG’s 2005-<br />
2009 Transportation Improvement Program; therefore, it may be assumed that<br />
these improvements would be programmed between the years 20<strong>10</strong> and 2025. As a<br />
result, the potential for a heavy rainfall event to cause water to flow over the<br />
westbound frontage road and the I-<strong>10</strong> mainline in the project area would remain<br />
until these improvements were completed.<br />
Under the no build alternative, stormwater runoff that currently flows over the<br />
surface of El Camino de Mañana and Linda Vista Boulevard would not be routed<br />
under the roadways. As a result, surface flows that may damage the structure of<br />
the roadways and pose a safety challenge to motorists would continue.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-<strong>10</strong><br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
Preferred Alternative<br />
The preferred alternative would widen the low flow channel of the Santa Cruz<br />
River to compensate for the roadway and bridge embankment fill placed within the<br />
high flow Santa Cruz River channel (see Floodplain Section, page 4-14).<br />
Widening of the low flow channel would temporarily divert surface water flow in<br />
the Santa Cruz River. The only surface flow diversion within the construction area<br />
would consist of temporary diversion structures, consisting of pilot channels and<br />
coffer dams, to divert water around construction areas. Normal downstream flows<br />
would be maintained within the capacity of the existing channel with no<br />
substantial alteration to flows.<br />
The bridges would be designed such that piers and abutments would not be placed<br />
within the low flow channel of the Santa Cruz River. Water would be not removed<br />
from the Santa Cruz River for construction of the proposed improvements. Instead<br />
potable water from approved sources would be used for dust suppression and other<br />
construction water requirements.<br />
Proposed improvements to <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road would use curb and gutter to collect<br />
stormwater runoff into storm drains along the outsides of the roadway. Catch<br />
basins would collect the runoff and transmit the water to the nearest cross drainage<br />
channels, which would drain eventually to the Santa Cruz River. Where curbs are<br />
proposed for Linda Vista Boulevard and El Camino de Mañana (near the El<br />
Camino De Mañana/Linda Vista Boulevard intersection only) the method of<br />
drainage would be the same as that described for <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road. Beyond the<br />
reaches of the intersection, runoff would flow off the roadway into roadside<br />
ditches and to the nearest cross drainage facility. This system would protect the<br />
roadway structure and remove runoff from the paths of vehicles.<br />
The proposed improvements to drainage facilities were described in the previous<br />
chapter, Alternatives, but would consist of:<br />
• Under I-<strong>10</strong> and the frontage roads – Constructing one new drainage<br />
structure, extending one existing structure, replacing two drainage<br />
structures with higher capacity structures, and increasing the capacity at an<br />
additional 2 structures is proposed.<br />
• Under <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road and Linda Vista Boulevard – Constructing five<br />
new drainage structures is proposed.<br />
• Channels near I-<strong>10</strong> – Constructing one new and four higher capacity open<br />
concrete-lined channels outside ADOT R/W is proposed. Channel flows<br />
would be slowed by check dams or similar means prior to discharging into<br />
the Santa Cruz River; therefore, energy dissipation structures within the<br />
Santa Cruz River channel are not proposed.<br />
• Santa Cruz River discharge locations for Channels near I-<strong>10</strong> – Widening<br />
of the existing discharge locations into the Santa Cruz River in two<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-11<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
locations is proposed; therefore, widening the openings in the soil cement<br />
bank protection is proposed also.<br />
• Channels along <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road and Linda Vista Boulevard east of I-<strong>10</strong> –<br />
Constructing a new channel along the north side of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road is<br />
proposed.<br />
The proposed drainage improvements would provide higher capacity drainage<br />
structures under I-<strong>10</strong> and its frontage roads and new facilities under <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong><br />
Road and Linda Vista Boulevard. As a result, the stormwater predicted to flow<br />
over I-<strong>10</strong> and the westbound frontage road during high rainfall events would be<br />
routed under the roadways.<br />
The stormwater runoff that currently flows over the surface of El Camino de<br />
Mañana and Linda Vista Boulevard would be routed under the roadways in pipes<br />
and culverts. This system would protect the roadway structure and remove runoff<br />
from the paths of vehicles.<br />
The proposed improvements would improve overall drainage patterns; therefore,<br />
land uses near the project area would benefit from the additional capacity of the<br />
drainage structures.<br />
Mitigation<br />
The preferred alternative would improve drainage in the project area and would<br />
alter existing surface water drainage patterns into the Santa Cruz River. To prevent<br />
materials from entering the Santa Cruz River and its tributaries during<br />
construction, the contractor shall take precautions to prevent construction materials<br />
from being introduced into washes in accordance with Arizona Department of<br />
Transportation’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction<br />
Section <strong>10</strong>4.09 (2000 Edition) and the Water Quality Standards in Title 18,<br />
Chapter 11 of the Arizona Administrative Code as administered by ADEQ.<br />
Excess waste material and construction debris would be disposed of at sites<br />
supplied by the contractor in accordance with Arizona Department of<br />
Transportation’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction<br />
Section <strong>10</strong>7.11 Protection and Restoration of Property and Landscape (2000<br />
Edition). Disposal shall be made at either municipal landfills approved under Title<br />
D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), construction debris<br />
landfills approved under Article 3 of the Arizona Revised Statutes 49-241 (Aquifer<br />
Protection Permit) administered by the ADEQ, or inert landfills.<br />
Conclusion<br />
The preferred alternative would widen the low flow channel of the Santa Cruz<br />
River to compensate for the roadway and bridge embankment fill placed within the<br />
high flow Santa Cruz River channel. The proposed drainage improvements would<br />
provide higher capacity drainage structures under I-<strong>10</strong> and its frontage roads and<br />
new facilities under <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road and Linda Vista Boulevard. As a result, the<br />
stormwater predicted to flow over I-<strong>10</strong>, the westbound frontage road, El Camino<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-12<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
de Mañana, and Linda Vista Boulevard during high rainfall events would be routed<br />
under the roadways; therefore, land uses near the project area would benefit from<br />
the additional capacity of the drainage structures and runoff would be removed<br />
from the paths of vehicles.<br />
Ground Water<br />
Existing Conditions<br />
The aquifer underlying the Tucson metropolitan area is designated as the Tucson<br />
Active Management Area (AMA). This is a designation given to aquifers in areas<br />
where groundwater pumping is most severe (primarily urban and agricultural<br />
areas). Because these areas are most susceptible to depletion of water resources,<br />
they are carefully managed by the Arizona Department of Water Resources<br />
(ADWR) to ensure water supply resources for future use. Water levels continue to<br />
decrease in the Tucson AMA; however, these decreases have been mitigated by<br />
the use of Colorado River water to recharge the aquifers underlying the basin.<br />
Depths to groundwater in the Tucson AMA vary substantially depending on land<br />
surface elevations and proximity to natural drainage areas. According to the<br />
Preliminary Initial Site <strong>Assessment</strong> (PISA) prepared for this project, groundwater<br />
elevations in the study area are relatively shallow, typically less than <strong>10</strong>0 feet<br />
below ground surface. Groundwater conditions in the study area are affected by<br />
intermittent, but occasionally large, surface water flows in the Santa Cruz River.<br />
Surface water flows recharge the groundwater system in the vicinity of the Santa<br />
Cruz River as water infiltrates through the Santa Cruz River channel sediments to<br />
the underlying aquifer. Santa Cruz River channel recharge in the Upper Santa Cruz<br />
Valley Sub-basin is estimated at 31,000 acre-feet per year. Infiltration of treated<br />
effluent discharged to the Santa Cruz River from Pima County's regional<br />
wastewater treatment plants is not a component of this natural recharge estimate.<br />
Impacts<br />
No Build Alternative<br />
Under the no build alternative, no impacts to ground water would occur.<br />
Preferred Alternative<br />
Groundwater would not be encountered for the majority of proposed roadway<br />
construction activities. Roadway construction efforts would require relatively<br />
shallow ground surface disturbance on higher elevations and, therefore, would not<br />
encounter groundwater.<br />
Construction activities likely to encounter groundwater are those involving the<br />
construction of the new twin bridges over the Santa Cruz River. For construction<br />
of the bridges, groundwater would be encountered, especially during the<br />
preparation for and placement of bridge piers and abutments.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-13<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
Depending upon the results of the geotechnical investigations, three methods of<br />
drilling the piers and abutment foundations may be used. In order of preference,<br />
these are:<br />
• Dry drilling with limited isolated support - The dry method would be used<br />
if soils are not susceptible to cave-in. This method involves drilling to the<br />
desired depth and, if required, reinforcing steel is lowered into the hole and<br />
the hole is filled with concrete.<br />
• Slurry drilling - The slurry method would be used if soils are susceptible to<br />
cave-in or slough into the drilled hole. In this method, a slurry, produced<br />
by mixing bentonite or a polymer mixture with potable water, is injected<br />
into the drill hole, where it forms a lining on the walls of the excavation.<br />
The hydrostatic fluid pressure against the soil prevents caving.<br />
• Drilling within a casing – The casing method would be used if soils cannot<br />
be stabilized by slurry. A cylindrical steel casing is installed in layers<br />
where support is required.<br />
Mitigation<br />
To protect groundwater resources, Best Management Practices (BMP) would be<br />
used during construction of the bridges. These BMPs are described in detail in the<br />
Sole Source Aquifer Section (page 4-22). Any discharges to groundwater would be<br />
in accordance with state and federal regulations. To limit the amount of<br />
groundwater encountered, construction activities would avoid high groundwater<br />
flow periods during the mid to late summer.<br />
Conclusion<br />
As a result of the limited involvement of groundwater and of the proposed<br />
precautionary practices as outlined above, this project would not effect the quality<br />
of the study area’s groundwater.<br />
Water Quality<br />
Floodplains<br />
Floodplains are low-lying areas bordering rivers and washes that are subject to<br />
periodic flooding from high precipitation events. Potential impacts to floodplain<br />
areas are required by Executive Order (EO) 11988, Protection of Floodplains, to<br />
be identified, studied, and assessed to minimize the risk of flood loss, minimize<br />
impacts of flooding, and to preserve the beneficial values of the floodplains.<br />
In addition to EO 11988, Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part<br />
650 (23 CFR 650), establishes the policies and procedures for the location and<br />
hydraulic design of highway encroachments on floodplains. 23 CFR 650<br />
establishes the policy of the FHWA to: 1) encourage a broad and unified effort to<br />
prevent uneconomic, hazardous or incompatible use and development of the<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-14<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
Nation’s floodplains; 2) to avoid longitudinal encroachments, where practicable;<br />
3) to avoid significant encroachments, where practicable; 4) to minimize impacts<br />
of highway agency actions which adversely affect base floodplains; 5) to restore<br />
and preserve the natural and beneficial floodplain values that are adversely<br />
impacted by highway agency actions; 6) to avoid support of incompatible<br />
floodplain development; 7) to be consistent with the intent of the Standards and<br />
Criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program, where appropriate; and 8) to<br />
incorporate “A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management” of the<br />
Water Resources Council into FHWA procedures.<br />
To determine compliance with EO 11988 and 23 CFR 650, the Federal Emergency<br />
Management Agency (FEMA) floodplains map of the project area was obtained<br />
and a location hydraulic study for the proposed improvements was conducted. The<br />
elements of this study are contained within the Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista Santa Cruz River at <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road Existing Hydraulics<br />
Report, dated January 14, 2004 and the Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at <strong>Twin</strong><br />
<strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista Santa Cruz River at <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road Preliminary Bridge<br />
Hydraulics Report, July 8, 2004. The reports are summarized in the following<br />
discussion; however, readers wishing a greater level of detail are referred to the<br />
full reports.<br />
Existing Conditions<br />
The Santa Cruz River has been modified extensively within the study area to<br />
reduce the threat of flooding to nearby developments. According to the<br />
Continental Ranch Specific Plan, from Cortaro Road north for approximately 3<br />
miles (downstream), the Continental Ranch area developer constructed an<br />
approximately 2,000-foot wide floodway, which is referred to as the high flow<br />
channel of the Santa Cruz River. Within this floodway, the perennial flow of the<br />
Santa Cruz River is maintained within a bank-protected channel of approximately<br />
400 feet in width, which is referred to as the low flow channel. The low flow<br />
channel contains the approximate flows of a <strong>10</strong>-year rainfall event and the high<br />
flow channel contains the flows of the <strong>10</strong>0-year rainfall event.<br />
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) have been prepared and published by FEMA<br />
for the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> study area (FIRM 0419C<strong>10</strong>15K and 0419C1605K effective<br />
date February 8, 1999). The portion of the project area within the high flow<br />
channel of the Santa Cruz River is located in Zone AE. Zone AE is defined as<br />
areas of <strong>10</strong>0-year floodplain with base flood elevations. Within the project area,<br />
the base flood elevations vary from 2088 feet above sea level in the northern<br />
project area to 2135 feet in the southern project area. The entire project area east of<br />
the UPRR is located in Zone AH. Zone AH is defined as areas of <strong>10</strong>0-year<br />
floodplain with shallow flooding of an average depth of between one and three<br />
feet. <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road from Coachline Boulevard east to the high flow channel of<br />
the Santa Cruz River is located in Zone X, as are portions of the area from the east<br />
bank of the Santa Cruz River high flow channel to the eastbound I-<strong>10</strong> frontage<br />
road. Zone X is defined as areas: outside the <strong>10</strong>0-year flood plain; within the <strong>10</strong>0-<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-15<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
year floodplain with sheet flow flooding where average depths are less than 1 foot;<br />
in the <strong>10</strong>0-year floodplain with stream flooding where the contributing drainage is<br />
less than one square mile; or, protected from <strong>10</strong>0-year flood events by levees. The<br />
FIRMs for the study area are shown in Figure 4-2.<br />
Impacts<br />
No Build Alternative<br />
Under the no build alternative, no affects to floodplains would occur.<br />
Preferred Alternative<br />
Based on the information contained in the FIRMs for the study area, the proposed<br />
improvements constitute actions within the limits of the base floodplain; therefore,<br />
compliance with EO 11988 and 23 CFR 650 must be demonstrated. These actions<br />
within the <strong>10</strong>0-year floodplain include construction of: twin bridges spanning the<br />
low flow channel of the Santa Cruz River; bridge and roadway embankments<br />
within the high flow Santa Cruz River channel; bridge and roadway embankments<br />
on the east side of I-<strong>10</strong>; a new signalized intersection at <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road/El<br />
Camino de Mañana/Linda Vista Boulevard; and, reconstruction of Linda Vista<br />
Boulevard. The floodplain analysis conducted for these improvements is discussed<br />
in the following paragraphs.<br />
The risks associated with the Santa Cruz River bridges described in Chapter 3,<br />
Alternatives, were analyzed. Based on the scour analysis, the Town of Marana<br />
would design the bridges’ substructures and foundations for these scour depths;<br />
therefore, risks to the structures would be minimized.<br />
Incompatible use or development within the floodplain would not be facilitated by<br />
the proposed project. Any developments within the area must comply with the<br />
Town of Marana or Pima County zoning and floodplain ordinances. The area east<br />
of the proposed improvements is within the Tortolita Basin as defined by Pima<br />
County. The County has designated this area as a critical basin, which requires that<br />
developments provide sufficient stormwater detention to reduce predevelopment<br />
peak flows.<br />
Several improvement alternatives were developed and their associated impacts to<br />
the <strong>10</strong>0-year floodplain were analyzed. Alternatives considered, but eliminated<br />
from further consideration, included: 1) the no build alternative; 2) bridges<br />
spanning the high flow channel of the Santa Cruz River; and, 3) bridges spanning<br />
the low flow channel of the Santa Cruz River. These alternatives were eliminated<br />
because they either did not address the stated purpose and need of the proposed<br />
improvements (no build alternative) or they would increase flood elevations over the<br />
allowable 0.1 foot according to ADOT and Pima County design standards (the two<br />
bridge alternatives).<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-16<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Rd<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at <strong>Twin</strong><br />
<strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-17<br />
El Camino de Mañana<br />
Linda Vista Blvd<br />
Figure 4-2<br />
Floodplain<br />
Project Number: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
As a result, a modified design alternative was developed and analyzed. This<br />
modified design consisted of longer bridges with shorter embankments, and an<br />
accompanying widening of the low flow channel of the Santa Cruz River. The<br />
proposed design (the preferred alternative) consisted of proposed 750-foot long<br />
twin bridges over the low flow channel and a widening of the low flow channel to<br />
a 6<strong>10</strong>-foot top width at the bridge crossing. The modeled channel widening<br />
transitioned back to the existing 400-foot width over a distance of approximately<br />
1,500 feet upstream and downstream of the bridge crossing. The modeled<br />
widening was assumed to occur entirely on the west side of the existing low flow<br />
channel because the existing bank protection on the west side of the channel<br />
exhibits undercutting and is in need of repairs. This alternative would not increase<br />
flood elevations by more than 0.1 foot; therefore, this alternative was advanced for<br />
preliminary design and environmental investigation.<br />
The alternatives and analyses within the floodplain were developed in consultation<br />
with several local, state, and federal water resource and floodplain management<br />
agencies. Meetings or telephone conversations with ADOT and the U.S. Army<br />
Corps of Engineers (Corps) were held to obtain current information on<br />
development and proposed actions in the affected watersheds. These discussions<br />
helped also guide the preliminary alternatives design. The resulting analytical<br />
reports were shared with the Town of Marana Floodplain Coordinator and the<br />
Arizona State Floodplain Coordinator; therefore, the preferred bridge alternative is<br />
consistent with existing watershed and floodplain management programs.<br />
Although removal of vegetation during construction would occur, the Town of<br />
Marana would minimize vegetation removal and would develop a revegetation<br />
plan that would improve the value of the vegetation in the disturbed area of the<br />
floodplain. This is discussed in the Threatened and Endangered Species Section<br />
(page 4-26). As a result, the quality of habitat to be used by wildlife, would be<br />
improved with no reduction in the ability of the floodplain to mitigate the <strong>10</strong>0-year<br />
flooding event.<br />
As discussed above, the preferred bridge alternative is the only practicable<br />
alternative. The project must be located within the floodplain to enhance<br />
transportation connectivity across the Santa Cruz River. Although other<br />
alternatives were considered, these alternatives were not practicable because they<br />
could not meet freeboard requirements or they resulted in an unacceptable increase<br />
in flood elevations. The preferred bridge alternative conforms to applicable State<br />
and local floodplain protection standards.<br />
Mitigation<br />
The preferred alternative would implement measures to minimize floodplain<br />
impacts to the proposed improvements and to minimize floodplain impacts caused<br />
by the action. Based on the bridge analysis, the substructure and foundation of the<br />
bridge would be designed for appropriate scour depths to minimize risks to the<br />
structures. <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road, Linda Vista Boulevard, and El Camino de Mañana<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-18<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
would be designed and constructed as all-weather roadways designed to withstand<br />
a <strong>10</strong>0-year flood event.<br />
To mitigate the impacts to the floodplain from the preferred alternative, several<br />
mitigative measures would be implemented. These include:<br />
• The Town of Marana would widen the low flow channel of the Santa Cruz<br />
River to prevent an unacceptable rise in floodwater elevations within the<br />
<strong>10</strong>0-year floodplain.<br />
• Prior to the removal of vegetation during construction, the Town of Marana<br />
would develop a revegetation plan (See Biological Resources Section, page<br />
4-25).<br />
• During final design, the Town of Marana would give the local floodplain<br />
administrator the opportunity to review project plans.<br />
Section 404/401 of the Clean Water Act<br />
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes a permit program for<br />
activities that would discharge dredged or fill material into "waters of the United<br />
States." This permit program is authorized by the Corps. "Waters of the United<br />
States" is a broad term that includes: (1) waters, lakes, rivers, and streams that are<br />
navigable waters of the United States, including adjacent wetlands: (2) tributaries<br />
to navigable waters of the United States, including adjacent wetlands: and (3) other<br />
waters, such as isolated wetlands and intermittent streams, the degradation or<br />
destruction of which could affect interstate commerce.<br />
Existing Conditions<br />
Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. in the study area were delineated by the Town of<br />
Marana for the proposed improvements and for private development projects in the<br />
area. These delineations were compiled and submitted to the Corps for<br />
concurrence. The Corps concurred with these delineations, which appear in Figure<br />
4-3. As presented in Figure 4-3, three major jurisdictional waters and several<br />
minor tributaries were delineated. Two of the waters flow through box culverts<br />
beneath I-<strong>10</strong>, the eastbound and westbound frontage roads, and the UPRR. The<br />
third water is the low flow channel of the Santa Cruz River. The total area of<br />
jurisdictional waters within the project area is 47.39 acres.<br />
Impacts<br />
No Build Alternative<br />
Under the no build alternative, no affects to Waters of the U. S. would occur.<br />
Preferred Alternative<br />
Waters of the U.S. would be impacted by the preferred alterative. The bridge<br />
spanning the Santa Cruz River and the widening of the low flow channel in the<br />
Santa Cruz River would impact Waters of the U.S. In addition, redirection of a<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-19<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-20<br />
Figure 4-3<br />
Jurisdictional Waters<br />
Project Number: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
wash at the intersection of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road and El Camino de Mañana, and three<br />
wash crossing of Linda Vista Boulevard would impact Waters of the U.S.<br />
Coordination with the Corps indicates the preferred alternative would require an<br />
individual permit under Section 404 of the CWA and would require individual<br />
water quality certification under Section 401 of the Act from ADEQ. The terms<br />
and conditions of the Corps’ individual 404 Permit would be followed by the<br />
contractor for work affecting jurisdictional waters within the project area.<br />
Mitigation<br />
The Town of Marana would obtain an individual Clean Water Act Section 404<br />
permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Section 401 Water Quality<br />
Certification from the Arizona Department of <strong>Environmental</strong> Quality before<br />
construction commences. The terms and conditions of the Clean Water Act<br />
Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Section 401 Water<br />
Quality Certification from the Arizona Department of <strong>Environmental</strong> Quality<br />
would be followed by the contractor for work affecting jurisdictional waters within<br />
the project area.<br />
NPDES/AZPDES/SWPPP<br />
Under Section 402(p) of the CWA, an AZPDES general permit from ADEQ is<br />
required for construction activities when one acre or more of land would undergo<br />
excavation and/or grading during construction. The main objectives of the<br />
permitting program are to reduce erosion, minimize sedimentation, and eliminate the<br />
discharge of non-storm water pollutants. All work that meets the disturbance<br />
conditions must be permitted.<br />
On August 22, 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the United States<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Protection Agency (EPA) delegation of Clean Water Act permitting<br />
authority to the State of Arizona. The ruling questions the validity and status of<br />
permits issued and managed under the Arizona Pollution Discharge System<br />
(AZPDES), including the construction general permit for stormwater discharges and<br />
individual AZPDES permits.<br />
Existing Conditions<br />
There are no storm water pollution prevention plans in place in the project area.<br />
Impacts<br />
No Build Alternative<br />
Under the no build alternative, no land disturbance would occur and sediments<br />
would not be discharged.<br />
Preferred Alternative<br />
The preferred alternative would excavate and/or grade more than one acre of land;<br />
therefore, an AZPDES permit would be required.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-21<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
Mitigation<br />
To comply with Section 402, a SWPPP would be prepared for this project by the<br />
Town of Marana. The SWPPP would incorporate temporary erosion control<br />
measures during construction, permanent erosion control measures when the<br />
project is completed, and good housekeeping practices for the control and<br />
prevention of release of water pollutants. The SWPPP would identify the project<br />
scope, anticipated acreage of land disturbance, and the pollution control measures<br />
that would be implemented to reduce soil erosion, while containing and<br />
minimizing the construction pollutants (including oils, gasoline, and other<br />
chemicals released by construction equipment and vehicles) that may be released<br />
to surface waters through runoff during a storm event. The ADOT District<br />
Construction Office and the contractor will submit the Notice of Intent and the<br />
Notice of Termination to the Arizona Department of <strong>Environmental</strong> Quality and<br />
the EPA. ADOT would monitor all mitigation measures encompassing<br />
sedimentation and erosion control measures to affirm that these measures are being<br />
followed correctly and are providing the appropriate protection to sensitive areas.<br />
During construction of the project, care shall be taken to ensure that construction<br />
materials are not introduced into the washes, in accordance with Arizona<br />
Department of Transportation’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge<br />
Construction Section <strong>10</strong>4.09 (2000 Edition) and the Water Quality Standards in<br />
Title 18, Chapter 11 of the Arizona Administrative Code as administered by<br />
ADEQ. Excess concrete, curing agents, form work, waste materials, lubricants,<br />
and fuel would not be disposed of within the project boundaries. In the event of<br />
accidental chemical spills during construction, the site would be cleaned up to<br />
prevent chemical introduction into the surface or groundwater systems. Incidents<br />
involving hazardous materials would be coordinated by ADOT's Engineer. These<br />
measures would protect both surface and groundwater.<br />
Sole Source Aquifer<br />
Existing Conditions<br />
Under Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the U.S. <strong>Environmental</strong><br />
Protection Agency (EPA) designated the Upper Santa Cruz and Avra Valley<br />
Basin, which underlies the study area, as a sole source aquifer. This designation<br />
means that the area has an aquifer which is the sole or principal drinking water<br />
source for the area and which, if contaminated, would create a significant hazard to<br />
public health.<br />
As a result of this designation, proposed federal financially-assisted projects which<br />
have the potential to contaminate the designated sole source aquifer are subject to<br />
EPA review. Under a Memorandum of Understanding between EPA and FHWA<br />
dated October 1984, any proposed project that is within a designated sole source<br />
aquifer and which is subject to analysis through an environmental assessment, is<br />
subject to a Section 1424(e) review by EPA.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-22<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
To establish compliance with Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, a<br />
letter describing the project area and scope, anticipated involvement of<br />
groundwater during construction, and methods to protect groundwater resources<br />
during construction was sent to the EPA’s Groundwater Office.<br />
Impacts<br />
No Build Alternative<br />
Under the no build alternative, no affects to the sole source aquifer would occur.<br />
Preferred Alternative<br />
Groundwater is not anticipated to be encountered for the majority of proposed<br />
roadway construction activities. Roadway construction efforts are anticipated to<br />
require relatively shallow ground surface disturbance on higher elevations and,<br />
therefore, are not anticipated to encounter groundwater.<br />
Construction activities likely to encounter groundwater are those involving the<br />
construction of the new bridges over the Santa Cruz River. For bridge<br />
construction, groundwater would be encountered, especially during the preparation<br />
for and placement of bridge piers and abutments; however, the bridge would be<br />
designed such that piers and abutments would not be placed within the River’s<br />
perennial flow area.<br />
Mitigation<br />
As stated in the letter to EPA’s Groundwater Office, the contractor would utilize<br />
BMPs during bridge construction. ADOT Tucson District would monitor bridge<br />
construction to ensure that BMPs are utilized by the contractor. These BMPs<br />
include:<br />
• Water repellent fluids or surface treatments would not be applied below the<br />
water surface;<br />
• Lubricants, fuels, and oils would be stored and dispensed distant from the<br />
Santa Cruz River channel;<br />
• Watercourse construction activities would occur during periods of Santa<br />
Cruz River low flow;<br />
• Disturbance to stream substrates would be minimized;<br />
• Gravels and rip-rap would be obtained from approved sources and be<br />
contaminant-free;<br />
• Catchments, silt fencing, or concrete barriers would be used to prevent<br />
debris, waste, and toxic compounds from entering the Santa Cruz River<br />
channel;<br />
• Construction equipment would be inspected daily for leaks or fluid<br />
discharges;<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-23<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
• Maintenance yards outside the Santa Cruz River channel would be used to<br />
store and service construction equipment;<br />
• No cement dumping or equipment cleaning would occur in or near the<br />
watercourse;<br />
• Soils that are disturbed from the Santa Cruz River channel would be<br />
labeled and stockpiled outside the channel until construction activities are<br />
completed. Then the soils removed from the Santa Cruz River channel<br />
would be placed back into the areas from which they were removed; and,<br />
• Any upland soils that are removed would moved farther upland to prevent<br />
erosion into the Santa Cruz River.<br />
As a result of the limited involvement of groundwater and of the proposed<br />
precautionary practices as outlined above, EPA concurred, in a letter dated May<br />
13, 2004, that the proposed improvements would not effect the quality of the sole<br />
source aquifer. This concurrence letter may be found in Appendix A.<br />
Conclusion<br />
The preferred alternative’s impacts to the quality of surface and groundwater<br />
resources within the study area were analyzed. This analysis determined that:<br />
• The preferred alternative would be consistent with existing watershed and<br />
floodplain management programs.<br />
• The preferred alternative would be the only practicable alternative for<br />
floodplain encroachment.<br />
• The preferred alternative would conform to applicable State and local<br />
floodplain protection standards.<br />
• The preferred alternative would require an individual permit under Section<br />
404 of the CWA and would require individual water quality certification<br />
under Section 401 of the Act from ADEQ. Because the Section 404 permit<br />
and Section 401 water quality certification would be obtained by the Town<br />
of Marana prior to commencement of construction within waters of the<br />
U.S., the preferred alternative would have no negative impacts to surface<br />
water quality.<br />
• An AZPDES general permit and a SWPPP, under Section 402(p) of the<br />
CWA would be required. Because the SWPPP would be prepared and<br />
followed during construction of the proposed improvements, the preferred<br />
alternative would have no negative impacts to surface water quality.<br />
• The proposed project is in compliance with Section 1424(e) of the Safe<br />
Drinking Water Act. The project has been designed in such a manner as to<br />
not create a significant hazard to public health, interfere with public<br />
welfare, or cause any public water system to install additional treatment<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-24<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
facilities to meet the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. EPA<br />
has concurred with this finding.<br />
Biological Resources<br />
Biological resources included in this section are general vegetation and wildlife;<br />
federally endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species; state listed<br />
wildlife of concern; and protected native plants. Information on biological<br />
resources was obtained from a literature review, communications with local, state,<br />
and federal resource agencies, and field surveys.<br />
The study area is within the Sonoran Desert at the northern margin of the Tucson<br />
Basin. The Sonoran Desert has a warm climate characterized by low precipitation<br />
and high evapotranspiration rates. Precipitation varies considerably, but the region<br />
is generally arid. Although average precipitation in the Tucson area is more<br />
abundant than in many other parts of the Sonoran Desert, the basin receives only<br />
about 12 inches of precipitation annually. Summer rainfall (June through August)<br />
accounts for between 30 to 60 percent of the annual total, while winter<br />
precipitation accounts for <strong>10</strong> to 40 percent of the annual total.<br />
Topographic variability in the study area results in four distinct environmental<br />
zones. In the valley bottom, the Santa Cruz River floodplain and adjacent terraces<br />
support riparian and wetland vegetation, and provide a potential water source for<br />
wildlife. Creosote bush and bursage along with a variety of grasses and cacti cover<br />
the lower bajadas. Paloverde-mixed cacti communities, rich in saguaro and other<br />
cacti, grow around the mountain bases. In addition, xeroriparian vegetation<br />
communities are present along the washes radiating out of the mountains.<br />
Wildlife<br />
Existing Conditions<br />
The wildlife of the area is typical of similar sites in this region of the Sonoran<br />
Desert. The study area occurs in what is known as the ‘urban wildland interface’.<br />
The ‘urban wildland interface’ is the geographical area where urban landscapes are<br />
mixed with natural landscapes. As a result, wildlife species common to both urban<br />
and natural landscapes occur in this area. Representative common wildlife species<br />
in the study area include coyote, bobcat, javelina, desert cottontail, turkey vulture,<br />
Cooper’s hawk, red-tailed hawk, mourning dove, white-winged dove, great horned<br />
owl, Gila woodpecker, verdin, whiptail lizard, common collared lizard, and<br />
common kingsnake.<br />
Upland and riparian landscapes in the study area have the potential to provide<br />
movement corridors for wildlife. In particular, the Santa Cruz River connects core<br />
biological areas in the region of the study area including the Tortolita Mountains,<br />
Tucson Mountains, Waterman Mountains, and Santa Catalina Mountains. Wildlife<br />
species that may use the Santa Cruz River as a movement corridor include<br />
terrestrial species and avian species.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-25<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
Impacts<br />
No Build Alternative<br />
Under the no build alternative, no affects to wildlife would occur.<br />
Preferred Alternative<br />
Proposed improvements to <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road, Linda Vista Boulevard, and El<br />
Camino de Mañana would impact vegetation that may provide wildlife habitat.<br />
Vegetation impacts would be limited to riparian vegetation along the Santa Cruz<br />
River and desertscrub vegetation in upland areas along Linda Vista Boulevard and<br />
El Camino de Mañana.<br />
The preferred alternative would not impact wildlife movement along the Santa<br />
Cruz River. The bottom of the proposed bridge structures over the Santa Cruz<br />
River would be approximately 20 feet above the low flow channel of the Santa<br />
Cruz River, which would allow adequate clearance for wildlife movement under<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road. New or larger diameter drainage structures under Linda Vista<br />
Boulevard, El Camino de Mañana, and I-<strong>10</strong> could enhance wildlife movement<br />
under the roadways.<br />
Mitigation<br />
Prior to removal of vegetation during construction, the Town of Marana would<br />
develop a revegetation plan that would comply with the Arizona Native Plant Law<br />
(ANPL), and Native Plant Protection Ordinances (NPPO) of the Town of Marana<br />
and Pima County (see Threatened/Endangered Wildlife Species page 4-26). In<br />
addition, the revegetation plan would include Corps’ recommendations from the<br />
TRDN Feasibility Study (see Mitigation in the Threatened and Endangered<br />
Section below). As a result of the revegetation plan, the value of the vegetation in<br />
the disturbed area of the project area would be improved by construction of the<br />
preferred alternative.<br />
Conclusion<br />
Proposed improvements to <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road, Linda Vista Boulevard, and El<br />
Camino de Mañana would impact vegetation that may provide wildlife habitat;<br />
however, as a result of the revegetation plan, the value of the vegetation in the<br />
project area would be improved. The preferred alternative would not impact<br />
wildlife movement along the Santa Cruz River and may enhance wildlife<br />
movement under Linda Vista Boulevard, El Camino de Mañana, and I-<strong>10</strong> in new<br />
or larger diameter drainage structures.<br />
Threatened/Endangered Wildlife Species<br />
Species<br />
For purposes of this assessment, federally listed wildlife species include<br />
endangered, threatened, proposed, or candidate species as defined in the<br />
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (Endangered Species Act<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-26<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
1988). The list of federal wildlife species used in this report was developed from<br />
the federally listed, proposed, and candidate wildlife species for Pima County from<br />
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Arizona Ecological Field Office<br />
website. The species list contains 16 endangered and threatened, 1 proposed<br />
endangered, and 2 candidate wildlife species (Table 4-3). It was determined that<br />
listed species or suitable habitat could be impacted by the Preferred Alternative;<br />
therefore, a Biological Evaluation (BE) was prepared. The findings of this BE,<br />
entitled Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista Biological<br />
Evaluation, July 27, 2004 is summarized below.<br />
Of the 19 species described above, 13 were not evaluated further because the<br />
project area is either: 1) clearly outside of the known geographic or elevational<br />
range of the species, or, 2) does not contain habitat characteristics known to<br />
support the species. Of the six remaining species, one federally listed species,<br />
cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl (Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum), has been<br />
documented by Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) as occurring within<br />
two miles of the study area. Furthermore, the study area contains suitable habitat<br />
for five additional federally listed species: desert pupfish (Cyprinodon<br />
macularius), Gila chub (Gila intermedia), Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis<br />
occidentalis occidentalis), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii<br />
extimus), and yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). Each of these species<br />
is discussed below.<br />
Table 4-3. Special Status Wildlife Species<br />
Common Name Scientific Name Status<br />
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened<br />
Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum Endangered<br />
California Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis californicus Endangered<br />
Chiricahua Leopard Frog Rana chiricahuensis Threatened<br />
Desert Pupfish Cyprinodon macularius Endangered<br />
Gila Topminnow Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis Endangered<br />
Jaguar Panthera onca Endangered<br />
Lesser Long-nosed Bat Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae Endangered<br />
Loach Minnow Tiaroga cobitis Threatened<br />
Masked Bobwhite Colinus virginianus Endangered<br />
Mexican Gray Wolf Canis lupus baileyi Endangered<br />
Mexican Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened<br />
Ocelot Leopardus pardalis Endangered<br />
Sonoran pronghorn Antilocapra americana sonoriensis Endangered<br />
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus Endangered<br />
Spikedace Meda fulgida Threatened<br />
Gila Chub Gila intermedia Proposed<br />
Endangered<br />
Sonoyta Mud Turtle Kinosternon sonoriense longifemorale Candidate<br />
Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Candidate<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-27<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl<br />
CFPO is listed endangered with proposed critical habitat. The pygmy-owl has been<br />
found in river bottom woodlands, and palo verde cacti mixed scrub associations of<br />
the Sonoran desert. In central and southern Arizona, the pygmy-owl is currently<br />
found primarily in Sonoran desertscrub vegetation with some locations in riparian<br />
drainages and semi-desert grassland vegetation communities. CFPO nests in<br />
cavities, primarily in saguaro cacti, but they would also use tree cavities.<br />
CFPO has been documented by AGFD as occurring within two miles of the study<br />
area north of Linda Vista Boulevard. Westland Resources, Inc. conducted surveys<br />
for CFPO during the spring of 2002, 2003, and 2004. Surveys were conducted in<br />
the Santa Cruz River floodplain between <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road in the west and I-<strong>10</strong><br />
eastbound frontage road in the east; along Linda Vista Boulevard from its<br />
intersection with El Camino de Mañana to Thornydale Road; and along El Camino<br />
de Mañana from I-<strong>10</strong> to Tangerine Road. No CFPO were detected during these<br />
surveys.<br />
The USFWS has proposed designating 1.2 million acres of critical habitat for the<br />
endangered CFPO in southern Arizona. Approximately 15 acres of proposed<br />
critical habitat for the CFPO occur in the project area.<br />
Desert Pupfish<br />
The desert pupfish is listed endangered with critical habitat. Critical habitat<br />
includes Quitobaquito Spring and pond in Pima County, Arizona; and portions of<br />
San Felipe Creek, Carrizo Wash, and Fish Creek Wash in Imperial County,<br />
California. The desert pupfish is found in shallow water of desert springs, small<br />
streams, and marshes below 5,000 feet elevation. The species tolerates high<br />
salinities and high water temperatures.<br />
AGFD records indicate that no desert pupfish surveys have been conducted within<br />
the study area; however, no native fish species have been documented within the<br />
effluent dominated reaches within the study area. Desert pupfish were not<br />
observed during a pedestrian survey of the study area. The closest natural<br />
population occurs in Quitobaquito Spring and Pond in Organ Pipe Cactus National<br />
Monument located approximately 200 miles southwest of the study area.<br />
Gila Chub<br />
The Gila chub is listed proposed endangered with proposed critical habitat. The<br />
Gila chub commonly inhabit small headwater streams, cienegas and springs, or<br />
marshes of the Gila River basin. They utilize diverse habitat types based on the<br />
season and age of the fish. Adults have been collected from deep pools with<br />
heavily vegetated margins and undercut banks. Juveniles have been collected from<br />
riffles, pools and undercut banks of runs. Gila chubs have an affinity for deeper<br />
pools in slow velocity water and are almost always associated with cover such as<br />
undercut banks, root wads, and in-stream debris piles. In larger stream systems<br />
they utilize heavily vegetated backwaters for cover and feeding.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-28<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
AGFD records indicate that no Gila chub surveys have been conducted within the<br />
study area; however, no native fish species have been documented within the<br />
effluent dominated reaches within the study area. Gila chub were not observed<br />
during a pedestrian survey of the study area. The study area is more than 40 miles<br />
from the nearest population of Gila chub in the Tucson Basin. Connectivity from<br />
the study area to these known populations is restricted because the Pantano and<br />
Rillito River systems no longer have perennial flows and are dry washes with the<br />
exception of flows during storm events.<br />
Gila Topminnow<br />
The Gila topminnow is listed as endangered without critical habitat. The basic<br />
habitat requirement for the Gila topminnow is water that is permanent and free<br />
from nonindigenous and invasive predators. Beyond that, habitat requirements of<br />
Gila topminnows are broad. The species historically occupied headwater springs<br />
and vegetated margins and backwater areas of intermittent and perennial streams<br />
and rivers. Topminnows can withstand water temperatures from near freezing to<br />
90-<strong>10</strong>0 degrees Fahrenheit. Gila topminnows can live in a fairly wide range of<br />
water chemistry conditions, from acidic water to water with low levels of<br />
dissolved oxygen. Preferred habitats contain dense mats of algae and debris,<br />
usually along stream margins or below riffles, with sandy substrates sometimes<br />
covered with organic muds and debris.<br />
AGFD records indicate that no Gila topminnow surveys have been conducted<br />
within the study area; however, no native fish species have been documented<br />
within the effluent dominated reaches within the study area. Gila topminnows<br />
were not observed during a pedestrian survey of the study area. The study area is<br />
more than 40 miles from the nearest population of Gila topminnow in the Tucson<br />
Basin. These drainages are not connected to the study area by perennial water<br />
flows.<br />
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher<br />
The southwestern willow flycatcher is listed endangered with proposed critical<br />
habitat. The southwestern willow flycatcher breeds in dense riparian habitats along<br />
rivers, streams, or other wetlands. The vegetation can be dominated by dense<br />
growths of willows, seep willow, or other shrubs and medium-sized trees. There<br />
may be an overstory of cottonwood, tamarisk, or other large trees, but this is not<br />
always the case. In some areas, the flycatcher will nest in habitats dominated by<br />
tamarisk and Russian olive. One of the most important characteristics of the<br />
habitat appears to be the presence of dense vegetation, usually throughout all<br />
vegetation layers present. Almost all southwestern willow flycatcher breeding<br />
habitats are within close proximity (less than 20 yards) of water or very saturated<br />
soil. This water may be in the form of large rivers, smaller streams, springs, or<br />
marshes. At some sites, surface water is present early in the nesting season, but<br />
gradually dries up as the season progresses. Ultimately, the breeding site must<br />
have a water table high enough to support riparian vegetation<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-29<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
AGFD records show that no southwestern willow flycatcher has been detected in<br />
the study area. Southwestern willow flycatchers were not observed during a<br />
pedestrian survey of the study area. Southwestern willow flycatcher surveys were<br />
conducted at the Ina Road crossing of the Santa Cruz River in 2003, located<br />
approximately 3 miles south of the study area. No southwestern willow flycatchers<br />
were detected. The closest known breeding territory was detected near the<br />
confluence of Cienega Creek and Gardner Canyon, which is located approximately<br />
30 miles south of the study area, although breeding was not detected in 2003.<br />
Yellow-billed Cuckoo<br />
The yellow-billed cuckoo is listed as a candidate species. Suitable habitat for the<br />
species in the western United States is limited to narrow, and often widely<br />
separated, riparian cottonwood-willow galleries (salt cedar is also used by the<br />
cuckoo). Dense understory foliage appears to be an important factor in nest site<br />
selection, while cottonwood trees are an important foraging habitat.<br />
Surveys were conducted by Sage Landscape Architecture and <strong>Environmental</strong>, Inc.<br />
from August through September 2002 along four reaches of the Santa Cruz River<br />
and four reaches of the Tanque Verde Creek near Tucson. Survey areas included<br />
suitable habitat for yellow-billed cuckoos that contained mixed broadleaf riparian<br />
deciduous trees with stratified canopy. Using call tapes, five yellow-billed cuckoos<br />
were identified at four separate sites, two individuals along the Santa Cruz River<br />
and three along the Tanque Verde Creek. All appeared to be unpaired males.<br />
Impacts<br />
No Build Alternative<br />
The no build alternative would have no impacts upon threatened and endangered<br />
species in the project area.<br />
Preferred Alternative<br />
The study area does contain suitable habitat for the CFPO. Suitable habitat consists<br />
of riparian vegetation along the Santa Cruz River and Arizona Upland vegetation<br />
in the vicinity of Linda Vista Boulevard. Some locations in the study area do not<br />
contain suitable pygmy-owl habitat. These locations include areas of intense urban<br />
development and associated infrastructures that no longer support appropriate<br />
vegetation components. AGFD records indicate that pygmy-owls are known to<br />
occur approximately two miles north of the study area, although surveys for<br />
CFPOs conducted since 2001 have not detected pygmy-owls in the study area.<br />
Of the approximately 15 acres of proposed critical habitat for the CFPO within the<br />
study area, approximately 12 acres would be temporarily impacted by construction<br />
activities and approximately 0.5 acres beneath the proposed Santa Cruz River<br />
bridges would be permanently impacted by the project. However, based on the<br />
proposed replacement of trees, habitat connectivity important to successful<br />
dispersal would be maintained or enhanced.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-30<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
Proposed improvements to <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road, Linda Vista Boulevard, and El<br />
Camino de Mañana would impact vegetation in area of suitable habitat. Vegetation<br />
impacts in suitable habitat would be limited to riparian vegetation along the Santa<br />
Cruz River and desertscrub vegetation in upland areas along Linda Vista<br />
Boulevard and El Camino de Mañana. Prior to removal of vegetation during<br />
construction, the Town of Marana would develop a revegetation plan that would<br />
comply with the Arizona Native Plant Law (ANPL), and Native Plant Protection<br />
Ordinances (NPPO) of the Town of Marana and Pima County. In addition, the<br />
revegetation plan would include Corps’ recommendations from the TRDN<br />
Feasibility Study (see Mitigation below). As a result of the revegetation plan, the<br />
value of the vegetation in the disturbed area of the project area would be improved<br />
by construction of the preferred alternative.<br />
The preferred alternative is not likely to adversely affect CFPO or its habitat<br />
because: 1) although pygmy-owls do occur within mean dispersal distance of the<br />
study area, USFWS is not aware of any nesting pairs within this distance; 2)<br />
impacts to riparian vegetation would be temporary and would not permanently<br />
impede use of the Santa Cruz River as a movement corridor; 3) loss of desertscrub<br />
vegetation does not occur in areas used by pygmy-owls for nesting; 4) width of the<br />
proposed <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road and noise from traffic should not prevent movement of<br />
pygmy-owls across it; and, 5) the bridges over the Santa Cruz River would be of<br />
sufficient height to allow unimpeded wildlife movement underneath.<br />
The preferred alternative would result in disturbances to suitable habitat to the<br />
yellow-billed cuckoo. In addition, the species has been documented in the study<br />
area; therefore, the project may impact individual cuckoos, but is not likely to<br />
jeopardize the continued existence of yellow-billed cuckoos.<br />
The Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that the actions they<br />
authorize, fund, or carry out do not jeopardize the continued existence of<br />
endangered species. To comply with Section 7 requirements, FHWA requested<br />
concurrence with the USFWS on August 4, 2004 which resulted in the USFWS<br />
concurring that the Preferred Alternative would not jeopardize the endangered<br />
CFPO nor the yellow-billed cuckoo in a letter dated December 21, 2004 (see<br />
Appendix B).<br />
Mitigation<br />
Prior to construction, the Town of Marana would develop a revegetation plan that<br />
would incorporate the mitigation discussed below. This revegetation plan would be<br />
provided to the contractor. Mitigation measures would include revegetation of<br />
impacted areas along the roadway and the riparian vegetation along the Santa Cruz<br />
River. Mitigation would include:<br />
• Disturbed soils would be re-seeded using species native to the project vicinity<br />
and would mirror the current plant composition to the extent possible.<br />
• Within upland areas, trees greater than 4 inches diameter at breast height and<br />
Saguaro cactus that are removed would be replaced within the overall<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-31<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
construction footprint at a 3:1 ratio. Vegetation would be replaced in kind with<br />
a minimum container size of 15 gallons. These replacements would not occur<br />
within the clear zone of the roadway.<br />
• Within the clear zone of the roadway, creosote bush seed would be utilized in<br />
order to facilitate quick replacement of vegetation cover.<br />
• Mesquite trees greater than 4 inches diameter at breast height that are removed<br />
within the high flow channel of the Santa Cruz River would be replaced at a<br />
3:1 ratio within the overall project limits in accordance with the revegetation<br />
plan. Vegetation would be replaced in kind with a minimum container size of<br />
15 gallons.<br />
• Revegetation of the Santa Cruz River is planned following construction.<br />
Riparian vegetation in the low flow channel is comprised of cottonwood trees,<br />
willow trees, mesquite, and seep willow. Riparian trees greater than 4 inches<br />
diameter at breast height that are removed for construction would be replaced<br />
in kind at a 3:1 ratio with a minimum container size of 15 gallons.<br />
• When fully restored, the vegetation within the Santa Cruz River would provide<br />
continuous tree cover through the project limits.<br />
• The bottom of the bridges would be approximately 20 feet above the bottom of<br />
the low flow channel of the Santa Cruz River, which should provide sufficient<br />
height to allow pygmy-owls and other wildlife to move unimpeded under the<br />
bridges.<br />
• The Town of Marana would provide water for all plantings outside the low<br />
flow channel of the Santa Cruz River for a period of two years to facilitate<br />
their establishment.<br />
• The Town of Marana would monitor all plantings for a period of two years,<br />
starting at the time of planting, on a quarterly basis. Two yearly reports would<br />
be generated and submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the<br />
Arizona Department of Transportation’s <strong>Environmental</strong> and Enhancement<br />
Group discussing the progress of the revegetation effort.<br />
• The revegetation plan would comply with the Arizona Native Plant Law, and<br />
Native Plant Preservation Ordinances of the Town of Marana and Pima<br />
County. In addition, the revegetation plan would also include U.S. Army Corps<br />
of Engineers recommended mitigation measures for the Santa Cruz River<br />
Channel.<br />
• The revegetation plan would be developed based on the objectives of the Tres<br />
Rio del Norte Feasibility Study. Tres Rio del Norte planning objectives related<br />
to vegetation on the Santa Cruz River include: creating a mesquite bosque at<br />
higher elevations from the Santa Cruz River bottom on terraces and over-bank<br />
areas; plant and establish cottonwood and willow tree plant communities along<br />
the wetted perimeter, and fringe area locations within the Santa Cruz River;<br />
established wetlands/Cienega at appropriate locations, to create a diverse and<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-32<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
high value project habitat; and, reestablish desertscrub plant communities<br />
along the degraded upland portions of the Santa Cruz River corridor,<br />
emphasizing saltbush-wolfberry and mesquite associations as components.<br />
Conclusion<br />
Suitable habitat for the CFPO and the yellow-billed cuckoo is present in the<br />
project area within the Santa Cruz River Channel. Upland vegetation areas near<br />
Linda Vista Boulevard are also suitable habitat for the CFPO. The pygmy-owl and<br />
the yellow-billed cuckoo have been documented near the study area, although<br />
surveys for CFPO conducted in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 have not detected<br />
pygmy-owls in the study area. Vegetation impacts in suitable habitat would be<br />
limited to riparian vegetation along the Santa Cruz River and desertscrub<br />
vegetation in upland areas along Linda Vista Boulevard and El Camino de<br />
Mañana. USFWS concurred that the Preferred Alternative would not jeopardize<br />
the endangered CFPO nor the yellow-billed cuckoo in a letter dated December 21,<br />
2004. The USFWS concluded also that the majority of the project area does not<br />
support CFPO nesting habitat and that, based on the proposed replacement of<br />
trees, habitat connectivity important to successful dispersal would be maintained<br />
or enhanced. Mitigation measures that would be implemented include a<br />
revegetation plan developed by the Town of Marana prior to removal of vegetation<br />
during construction.<br />
Arizona Species of Concern<br />
Species<br />
Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizona, as defined by AGFD, are species whose<br />
occurrence in Arizona is or may be in jeopardy, species with known or perceived<br />
threats, or species suffering population declines. One state listed species, the<br />
Fulvous whistling duck (Dendrocygna bicolor), has been documented by AGFD<br />
as occurring within 2 miles of the study area.<br />
Fulvous whistling duck<br />
Fulvous whistling duck are found along rivers, ponds, stock ponds, marshes, and<br />
swamps. This species has been documented by AGFD as occurring within two<br />
miles of the study area in the vicinity of the Santa Cruz River. Potential suitable<br />
habitat in the study area is limited to a small, narrow band of riparian vegetation<br />
along the Santa Cruz River that lacks sufficient vegetation cover and density to<br />
support fulvous whistling duck nesting. Fulvous whistling duck were not observed<br />
during a pedestrian survey of the study area.<br />
Impacts<br />
No Build Alternative<br />
The no build alternative would have no impacts upon Arizona wildlife species of<br />
concern in the project area.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-33<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
Preferred Alternative<br />
The preferred alternative would not impact the fulvous whistling duck. Potential<br />
suitable habitat for the duck in the study area is limited to a small, narrow band of<br />
riparian vegetation along the Santa Cruz River that lacks sufficient vegetation<br />
cover and density to support fulvous whistling duck nesting.<br />
Mitigation<br />
The preferred alternative would implement measures to minimize impacts to<br />
vegetation and restore any vegetation losses resulting from construction. The<br />
fulvous whistling duck would benefit from the mitigation measures outlined in the<br />
revegetation plan developed for this project.<br />
Conclusion<br />
Fulvous whistling duck are documented to occur within two miles of the project<br />
area; however, potential suitable habitat in the study area is limited to a small,<br />
narrow band of riparian vegetation along the Santa Cruz River that lacks sufficient<br />
vegetation cover and density to support fulvous whistling duck nesting.<br />
Plants<br />
Threatened/Endangered Species<br />
Species<br />
For purposes of this assessment, federally listed plant species include endangered,<br />
threatened, proposed, or candidate species as defined in the ESA. The list of<br />
federal species used in this report was developed from the federally listed,<br />
proposed, and candidate species for Pima County from the USFWS Arizona<br />
Ecological Field Office website. The species list contains 4 endangered and 1<br />
candidate species (Table 4-4).<br />
No federally listed plant species occur in the project area because the project area<br />
is either: 1) clearly outside of the known geographic or elevational range of the<br />
species; or, 2) does not contain habitat characteristics known to support the<br />
species.<br />
Common Name<br />
Table 4-4. Special Status Plant Species<br />
Scientific Name Status<br />
Huachuca Water Umbel Lilaeopsis schaffneriana spp. recurva Endangered<br />
Kearney Blue Star Amsonia kearneyana Endangered<br />
Nichol’s Turk’s Head Cactus Echinocactus horizonthalonius var. Endangered<br />
nicholii<br />
Pima Pineapple Cactus Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina Endangered<br />
Acuna cactus Echinomastus erectocentrus var. acunensis Candidate<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-34<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
Impacts<br />
No Build Alternative<br />
No federally listed plant species occur in the project area; therefore, the no build<br />
alternative would have no impacts upon these species.<br />
Preferred Alternative<br />
No federally listed plant species occur in the project area; therefore, the preferred<br />
alternative would have no impacts on these species.<br />
Mitigation<br />
No federally listed plant species occur in the project area; therefore, no mitigation<br />
for federally listed plant species is necessary.<br />
Conclusion<br />
No federally listed plant species occur in the project area; therefore no impacts<br />
would occur to these species.<br />
Arizona Native Plant Law Species<br />
Species<br />
One Salvage Restricted plant species listed under the ANPL, the Tumamoc<br />
globeberry (Tumamoca macdougalii), has been documented by AGFD as<br />
occurring within 2 miles of the study area. This species is found on hot, dry, southfacing<br />
slopes of basalt and along desert washes. This species was not observed<br />
during a pedestrian survey of the study area.<br />
In addition, native plants protected by the ANPL, Marana NPPO and Pima County<br />
NPPO, such as paloverde, ironwood, mesquite and cactus, are present within the<br />
project area.<br />
Impacts<br />
No Build Alternative<br />
The no build alternative would not impact species protected by the ANPL or<br />
Marana or Pima County PPOs.<br />
Preferred Alternative<br />
Existing land uses have disturbed suitable habitat in the project area and natural<br />
vegetation in these disturbed areas has been removed. Much of the project area<br />
would occur within previously disturbed areas. Tumamoc globeberry were not<br />
observed during field reconnaissance of the project area, but undetected<br />
individuals may be impacted by construction in undisturbed areas.<br />
Native plants protected by the ANPL, Marana NPPO and Pima County NPPO are<br />
present within the project area and would be impacted by construction of the<br />
preferred alternative. Prior to construction, a native plant survey would be<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-35<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
conducted to determine the types of species and number of individual plants that<br />
would be impacted.<br />
Mitigation<br />
To protect vegetation resources in the project area, a revegetation plan would be<br />
developed prior to construction activities. The Town of Marana would develop a<br />
Native Plant Protection Plan (NPPP) in accordance with local ordinances.<br />
Protected native plants within the construction limits would be impacted by the<br />
preferred alternative; therefore, the ADOT Roadside Development Section would<br />
notify the Arizona Department of Agriculture (ADOA) at least 60 days prior to the<br />
start of construction to afford commercial salvagers the opportunity to remove and<br />
salvage these plants.<br />
Conclusion<br />
One Salvage Restricted plant species listed under the ANPL, the Tumamoc<br />
globeberry, has been documented by AGFD as occurring within 2 miles of the<br />
study area. Tumamoc globeberry were not observed during a pedestrian survey of<br />
the study area and existing land use has disturbed suitable habitat for the Tumamoc<br />
globeberry. In addition, native plants protected by the ANPL, Marana NPPO and<br />
Pima County NPPO are present within the project area and would be impacted by<br />
construction of the preferred alternative. A revegetation plan would be developed<br />
prior to construction activities and a NPPP would be developed by the Town of<br />
Marana to address impacts to native vegetation and develop mitigation measures.<br />
Vegetation, Riparian Habitat, and Wetlands<br />
Existing Conditions<br />
Vegetation in the study area is a mosaic of natural upland vegetation, small dry<br />
ephemeral washes, disturbed and re-established riparian areas, wetland vegetation<br />
of the Santa Cruz River, and disturbed and landscaped vegetation associated with<br />
residential housing, commercial businesses, and light industry. Most of the natural<br />
vegetation in the study area occurs: 1) within the high flow channel of the Santa<br />
Cruz River; and, 2) along Linda Vista Boulevard, particularly between El Camino<br />
de Mañana (west) and Hartman Lane (east).<br />
Natural vegetation in the study area is representative of three vegetation<br />
communities: 1) Arizona Uplands; 2) Riparian Scrub; and, 3) Cottonwood/Willow<br />
Riparian Forest. Arizona Uplands vegetation exists in the upland areas along Linda<br />
Vista Boulevard and is characterized by foothills palo verde, saguaro, velvet<br />
mesquite, triangle-leaf bursage, and cholla cactus. The most intact Arizona<br />
Uplands Vegetation occurs along Linda Vista Boulevard west of Hartman Lane.<br />
Arizona Uplands vegetation along Linda Vista Boulevard east of Hartman Lane<br />
has been fragmented as a result of residential development. No natural landscapes<br />
of Arizona Upland vegetation remain on the west side of the study area because of<br />
the Continental Ranch housing development. Small and scattered remnant Sonoran<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-36<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
Desertscrub vegetation is found in the light industrial area west of I-<strong>10</strong> to the Santa<br />
Cruz River and east of I-<strong>10</strong> to Linda Vista Boulevard.<br />
Riparian Scrub is associated with dry ephemeral washes that occur throughout the<br />
study area, but occur in the highest density and most natural condition east of El<br />
Camino de Mañana along Linda Vista Boulevard. Riparian Scrub vegetation is<br />
characterized by plant species found in adjacent desertscrub habitat, such as<br />
foothill palo verde and velvet mesquite, although riparian plants are typically<br />
larger and often occur at higher densities than those in upland areas. Plants in this<br />
association grow in rows along the margins of the watercourses and are clearly set<br />
apart from the intervening vegetation of the uplands. Plant species present include<br />
foothills paloverde and velvet mesquite. Most of the washes have been stabilized<br />
within Continental Ranch and within the residential housing areas along Linda<br />
Vista Boulevard. Stabilized washes in these areas have straightened stream<br />
channels, improved bank protection (often using soil cement), and are cleared of<br />
most vegetation.<br />
Cottonwood/Willow Riparian Forest occurs along the Santa Cruz River. This<br />
vegetation association is characterized by a narrow band of small to moderatesized<br />
(<strong>10</strong> to 30 feet in height) Freemont cottonwood and Goodding willow.<br />
Additional plant species in the area include seep willow, cattail, bulrush, tamarisk,<br />
and velvet mesquite. Along this reach of the Santa Cruz River, Riparian Forest is<br />
restricted to small, scattered stands separated by areas of low shrubs such as<br />
desertbroom and seep willow. The Riparian Forest is restricted to the low-flow<br />
channel where the influence of perennial effluent water flow from Pima County's<br />
Roger and Ina Road Treatment Plants allows this vegetation to survive in an<br />
otherwise dry river. Vegetation outside the low-flow channel, in the high-flow<br />
channel, is characteristic of disturbed areas. This vegetation consists of<br />
desertbroom, shrub-like velvet mesquite, four-wing saltbush, and grasses. In<br />
addition, large areas of bare soil characterize the high-flow channel.<br />
Riparian habitat includes the trees, other vegetation, and physical features<br />
normally found on the banks and floodplains of rivers, streams, and other bodies of<br />
water. Although riparian areas occupy a small area, they support a diversity of fish<br />
and wildlife species. In addition, riparian areas can help reduce flood flows and<br />
flood damage, improve groundwater recharge, reduce the damaging chemicals and<br />
other compounds that reach open water, and reduce wind erosion on adjacent<br />
lands. Riparian areas also provide important open space and recreational<br />
opportunities. Riparian areas approximate the jurisdictional waters presented in<br />
Figure 4-3.<br />
Wetlands are low-lying areas typically saturated with moisture that typically<br />
provide habitat for a variety of plant and animal species, including many<br />
endangered species. The state of Arizona has no wetland protection program, but<br />
wetlands are regulated by the Corps under Section 404 of the CWA. A regulated<br />
wetland is one that meets 3 criteria: 1) hydrophytic vegetation; 2) hydric soils; and,<br />
3) wetland hydrology (the presence of water).<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-37<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
The extent and development of potential wetlands and riparian vegetation of the<br />
Santa Cruz River contained within the study area varies significantly from year to<br />
year as it is frequently scoured by flood events. The distribution of potential<br />
wetlands is also regulated by discharges of effluent from the Ina Road Wastewater<br />
Treatment Plant. These discharges provide the water that supports potential<br />
wetland and riparian habitats within the low flow channel of the Santa Cruz River.<br />
Typical potential wetland plant communities found in these areas contain<br />
Goodding willow, cattail, smartweed, with some scattered tamarisk and<br />
cheesebush.<br />
Within the low flow channel of the Santa Cruz River, potential wetlands were<br />
identified, all of which were adjacent to the current Santa Cruz River channel.<br />
Areas away from the current channel had indicators for wetland hydrology,<br />
primarily due to the frequency of flooding, but the other criteria were not present<br />
in these areas.<br />
Impacts<br />
No Build Alternative<br />
The no build alternative would not affect existing vegetation, wetlands, or riparian<br />
habitat within the project area.<br />
Preferred Alternative<br />
The preferred alternative would result in limited disturbances to natural vegetation<br />
in the areas of the crossing of the Santa Cruz River and the area along El Camino<br />
de Mañana and Linda Vista Boulevard. The area along El Camino de Mañana and<br />
Linda Vista Boulevard is characterized by small ephemeral washes and<br />
desertscrub vegetation of the Arizona Uplands Subdivision, which provides a<br />
diversity of wildlife habitats. Although some disturbance of natural vegetation<br />
would occur along Linda Vista Boulevard with the proposed improvements, the<br />
areas of disturbance would be limited and revegetated in accordance with the<br />
revegetation plan (see Threatened and Endangered Species Section, page 4-26). In<br />
addition, most of the area along Linda Vista Boulevard and El Camino de Mañana<br />
that would be affected by the proposed improvements has been disturbed for<br />
construction and maintenance of the existing roadway; therefore, no substantial<br />
impacts to the value of riparian habitat would occur.<br />
The preferred alternative would have both temporary and permanent impacts to<br />
riparian habitat and potential wetlands in the area of the crossing of the Santa Cruz<br />
River. Vegetation removal in the low flow channel would be the minimum<br />
required for the construction of the proposed improvements. Impacts to vegetation<br />
in the high flow channel of the Santa Cruz River would be minimal because<br />
vegetation in this area is sparse and characteristic of disturbed areas. Vegetation<br />
that must be removed would be restored according to the revegetation plan<br />
developed for this project.<br />
The bridges spanning the low flow channel of the Santa Cruz River would have<br />
both temporary and permanent impacts on potential wetlands in the low flow<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-38<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
channel. Temporary impacts would include the removal of riparian vegetation<br />
within the area of construction of the bridge structure and embankments. Potential<br />
wetlands and riparian vegetation would be restored following construction<br />
according to the revegetation plan. Permanent impacts would result from the<br />
shading of riparian vegetation from the overhead bridges. Shading of vegetation<br />
reduces the amount of direct sunlight available to vegetation resulting in plants of<br />
smaller size and the establishment of more shade tolerant plants. Approximately<br />
0.07 acres of potential wetland would be permanently lost due to shading.<br />
The low flow channel of the Santa Cruz River would be widened to compensate<br />
for the roadway and bridge embankment fill placed with the high flow Santa Cruz<br />
River channel (see Floodplain Section, page 4-14). This action would temporarily<br />
impact approximately 1.5 acres of riparian habitat in the low flow channel of the<br />
Santa Cruz River. Because of the widening of the low flow channel that would<br />
occur with the preferred alternative, the area available for the establishment of<br />
riparian habitat would be larger and the size and quality of riparian habitat to be<br />
used by wildlife would be improved. As a result of the revegetation plan, the value<br />
of the vegetation in the disturbed area of the floodplain would be improved by<br />
construction of the preferred alternative.<br />
Mitigation<br />
The preferred alternative would implement measures to minimize impacts caused<br />
by the proposed improvements and to restore vegetation, riparian habitat, and<br />
potential wetlands impacted by the preferred alternative. Vegetation removal<br />
would be the minimum required for the construction of the proposed<br />
improvements. Prior to the removal of vegetation during construction, the Town of<br />
Marana would develop a revegetation plan that would comply with the ANPL, and<br />
NPPOs of the Town of Marana and Pima County. The revegetation plan would<br />
include Corps’ recommendations from the TRDN Feasibility Study. The main<br />
constituents of the revegetation plan were discussed earlier (see Threatened and<br />
Endangered Species Section, page 4-26). During design, a wetland delineation<br />
would be completed. In the event that jurisdictional wetlands are impacted by the<br />
preferred alternative, coordination with the Corps would occur and appropriate<br />
permits would be obtained.<br />
Conclusion<br />
The preferred alternative would have temporary and permanent impacts to<br />
vegetation, riparian habitat, and potential wetlands within the project area. These<br />
impacts would be minimized by limiting the amount of vegetation removed to the<br />
minimum required for the construction of the proposed improvements and through<br />
the development and implementation of the revegetation plan. The proposed<br />
improvements would provide a larger area for riparian vegetation through a<br />
widening of the low flow channel of the Santa Cruz River and the revegetation<br />
plan would restore or improve the value of riparian habitat in disturbed areas.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-39<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
Invasive Species<br />
Existing Conditions<br />
Under EO 13112, dated February 3, 1999, projects which occur on federal lands or<br />
are federally funded must “subject to the availability of appropriations, and within<br />
Administration budgetary limits, use relevant programs and authorities to: 1)<br />
prevent the introduction of invasive species; 2) detect and respond rapidly to, and<br />
control, populations of such species in a cost-effective and environmentally sound<br />
manner; 3) monitor invasive species populations accurately and reliably; and, 4)<br />
provide for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that<br />
have been invaded.”<br />
Highway corridors provide opportunities for the movement of invasive species<br />
through the landscape. Invasive species can move on vehicles and in the loads they<br />
carry. Invasive plants can be moved from site to site during spraying and mowing<br />
operations. Weed seed can be inadvertently introduced into the corridor during<br />
construction on equipment and through the use of mulch, imported soil or gravel,<br />
and sod. Some invasive plant species might be deliberately planted in erosion<br />
control, landscape, or wildflower projects.<br />
Impacts<br />
No Build Alternative<br />
The no build alternative would not actively contribute to the spread of invasive<br />
species. The Town of Marana, ADOT, and Pima County would continue to utilize<br />
current management practices for the control of invasive species in the project<br />
area.<br />
Preferred Alterative<br />
Through the use of detailed surveys and the mitigation measures described below,<br />
the preferred alternative would not contribute to the spread of invasive species in<br />
the project area.<br />
Mitigation<br />
During final design, invasive species surveys would occur to determine if invasive<br />
species are present.<br />
The Town of Marana would survey individual construction segments of the project<br />
area outside the Arizona Department of Transportation’s right-of-way to determine<br />
the invasive species present within the segment, treat these species prior to<br />
construction in accordance with the Natural Resources Section of the Intermodal<br />
Transportation Division of the Arizona Department of Transportation’s invasive<br />
species management plan, and continue any necessary treatments following<br />
construction completion.<br />
The Natural Resources Section of the Intermodal Transportation Division of the<br />
Arizona Department of Transportation would survey individual construction<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-40<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
segments of the project area within the Arizona Department of Transportation’s<br />
right-of-way to determine the invasive species present within the segment, treat<br />
these species prior to construction in accordance with the Section’s invasive<br />
species management plan, and continue any necessary treatments following<br />
construction completion.<br />
The contractor would clean all earth-moving and hauling equipment prior to its<br />
entering the construction site to prevent the introduction of invasive species.<br />
Additional invasive species mitigation, if needed, would be developed during final<br />
design using the invasive species survey. All disturbed soils would be seeded<br />
using native species to help prevent the reestablishment of invasive species.<br />
Conclusion<br />
As a result of the implemented mitigation measures, the preferred alternative<br />
would not assist in the spread of invasive species.<br />
Visual Resources<br />
The complete results of the visual resource investigations are presented in the<br />
document Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista Visual<br />
Impact Analysis Report, dated February 5, 2004. Readers are referred to this report<br />
for the detailed findings; however, the results are summarized below.<br />
In a roadway improvement project, visual resources are considered from two<br />
perspectives: 1) the view from the roadway to motorists; and, 2) the view of the<br />
roadway to the surrounding community. Visual resources and effects to these<br />
resources are defined by identifying key views and considering community goals<br />
and preferences.<br />
Community goals and preferences are established in planning documents that<br />
address protection of visual resources. Two Town of Marana planning documents,<br />
the Town of Marana General Plan Update (November 2002) and the Park, Trail,<br />
and Open-Space System Master Plan (July 2000), address visual resources. The<br />
General Plan provides overall direction for future growth and development. While<br />
the General Plan does not dictate parcel-level land use decisions, it integrates land<br />
use, resource conservation, transportation, economic development, and public<br />
facilities and services into a comprehensive and coordinated strategy. Although the<br />
General Plan expresses clear goals of protection of significant scenic value<br />
viewsheds, no specific policies or strategies to address transportation facilities are<br />
included. Marana’s Park Plan was developed to accomplish several goals, one of<br />
which was to protect significant natural open space areas. The Park Plan describes<br />
open space areas like the Tortolita Mountains, Saguaro National Park (SNP), and<br />
unique biological communities such as the Santa Cruz River riparian area and the<br />
Tortolita Fan Ironwood Forest as important visual resources valued by the<br />
community.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-41<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
Existing Conditions<br />
Foreground Views<br />
Foreground views in the study area include the low flow channel of the Santa Cruz<br />
River Floodplain, containing riparian vegetation and perennial effluent dominated<br />
water. Other foreground views include I-<strong>10</strong>, the UPRR, and TEP transmission<br />
lines.<br />
Background Views<br />
Middle ground views from both <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road and along I-<strong>10</strong> include the Santa<br />
Cruz River. The Santa Cruz River is an important water feature that runs in a<br />
northwesterly direction through the study area. The width of the Santa Cruz River<br />
is constricted in places by bank protection and flood control measures. Suburban<br />
development characterizes the area west and southwest of the study area and<br />
industrial land uses (portland cement plant) are visible to the southeast.<br />
The most memorable views within the study area are the background views: the<br />
Tucson Mountains to the west and southwest; the Rincon Mountains to the<br />
southeast; the Catalina Mountains to the east; and Tortolita Mountains to the<br />
northeast.<br />
Visual Quality Objectives<br />
Important natural visual resources within the study area (landform, water,<br />
vegetation, and natural colors) and cultural visual resources (ranching and grazing<br />
lands, residential, commercial, and industrial developments) were assessed and<br />
evaluated following the guidelines of the FHWA Visual Impact <strong>Assessment</strong> for<br />
Highway Projects (1981), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Visual<br />
Resource Management Manual (1981), and Pima County Department of<br />
Transportation and Flood Control District (PCDOT&FCD). The objective of the<br />
visual impact assessment is to better provide roadway users and community<br />
project viewers with a transportation system that is pleasing to the senses,<br />
assimilates the visual qualities of the community’s visual resources into its design,<br />
and makes the project compatible with the community at large.<br />
Impacts<br />
Visual impacts of the proposed improvements were determined by assessing the<br />
change in visual resources caused by the preferred alternative and then by<br />
predicting viewer response to that change of visual resources. To assess the visual<br />
resource change, the visual compatibility and/or visual contrast of the proposed<br />
alternative with the visual character of the existing landscape was examined. To<br />
predict viewer response, viewer exposure and viewer sensitivity was considered.<br />
Viewer exposure considers the physical limits of the views and the number of<br />
affected viewers. Viewer sensitivity considers viewer expectations based on the<br />
existing environment and the extent to which visual elements may be important to<br />
the viewer. The visual impacts of the preferred alternative were analyzed from six<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-42<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
viewpoints and then given a Visual Impact Rating (VIR) of: low, moderate,<br />
moderately high, or high.<br />
No Build Alternative<br />
The no build alternative would have no effect on visual resources within the<br />
project area.<br />
Preferred Alternative<br />
There are general visual impacts that would affect the entire project area, not only<br />
views from specific viewpoints. The visual short term impacts during construction<br />
would affect most viewpoints. Grading would affect existing topography,<br />
vegetation, and vistas and large construction vehicles would be visible from<br />
adjacent land. Barren slopes and the project in various stages of development<br />
would be visible intermittently throughout project construction.<br />
Offsite structures visible from the proposed roadway that would impact visual<br />
quality are the Arizona Portland Cement plant, commercial land uses along the<br />
frontage roads, and the TEP transmission line. These visual elements, which would<br />
be considered less desirable, would become more noticeable when viewed from<br />
the proposed elevated roadway section; however, the proposed elevated roadways<br />
would enhance the roadway users’ view of the Tucson, Santa Catalina, and<br />
Tortolita Mountains, which would be desirable views.<br />
View from <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road<br />
The preferred alternative would affect the existing open space views to the east<br />
from Continental Ranch. The proposed improvements would blend with existing<br />
land uses and traffic near the interstate; however, the alternative would contrast<br />
with the open space views and landscapes in the floodplain. In addition, residents<br />
on the south side of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road would have views blocked by a proposed<br />
17-foot tall noise wall. Lighting at the signalized intersections and light and glare<br />
from vehicle headlights would be visible also. In this area, there would be a<br />
moderate adverse change to the existing visual resource and a moderate viewer<br />
response; therefore, views from <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road would be moderately impacted.<br />
View from the High Flow Channel of the Santa Cruz River<br />
The preferred alternative would allow greater access to floodplain views.<br />
Background views to the west (Tucson Mountains) would be enhanced, because of<br />
the elevated roadway; however, views of the developed areas would be affected<br />
negatively by the proposed 17-foot tall noise walls on the south side of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong><br />
Road. Depending on the vantage point, background views to the east may be<br />
obstructed by the interchange/bridges or enhanced by the elevated roadway. In this<br />
area, there would be a moderate adverse change to the existing visual resource and<br />
a moderate viewer response; therefore, views from the high flow channel of the<br />
Santa Cruz River would be moderately impacted.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-43<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
View from the Low Flow Channel of the Santa Cruz River<br />
The preferred alternative would enhance access to views of the riparian area;<br />
however, the loss of native vegetation along the low flow channel would be a<br />
visual impact from all views. Depending on the vantage point, views of the Tucson<br />
Mountains would be enhanced, but some views to the east may be obstructed by<br />
the interchange/bridges. In this area, there would be a moderate adverse change to<br />
the existing visual resource and a moderate viewer response; therefore, views from<br />
the low flow channel of the Santa Cruz River would be moderately impacted.<br />
View from the I-<strong>10</strong> Westbound and Eastbound Frontage Roads<br />
The preferred alternative would improve the appearance of the existing<br />
unattractive frontage roads. The proposed roadways would blend with existing<br />
land uses. In this area, there would be a minor adverse change to the existing<br />
visual resource and low viewer response to the change; therefore, impacts to views<br />
from the I-<strong>10</strong> frontage roads would be low.<br />
View from I-<strong>10</strong><br />
The preferred alternative, in particular the bridge over the interstate, would be a<br />
low adverse change to the existing visual quality along I-<strong>10</strong>; however, the project<br />
would enhance the existing visual resource. In this area, there would be a high<br />
adverse change to the existing visual resource and a moderate viewer response;<br />
therefore, impacts to views from the I-<strong>10</strong> frontage roads would be low.<br />
View from Linda Vista Boulevard/El Camino de Mañana<br />
The preferred alternative would obstruct background views to the west. In<br />
addition, a rural road would change to an urban roadway appearance. In this area,<br />
there would be a moderate adverse change to the existing visual resource and a<br />
moderate viewer response; therefore, impacts to views from Linda Vista<br />
Boulevard and El Camino de Mañana would be moderate.<br />
Mitigation<br />
The goals of visual impact mitigation are to provide the user and the viewer of the<br />
roadway with a transportation system that is pleasing to the senses, enhances the<br />
aesthetic character of the roadway corridor, assimilates the qualities of the<br />
community’s visual resources into its design, and makes the roadway more<br />
compatible with the community-at-large. To design a facility that meets the<br />
aesthetic needs of the community, the project team would coordinate with the<br />
community, state and local agencies, and private interest groups.<br />
The Town of Marana would apply the following visual mitigation measures.<br />
• Structural elements such as walls, bridges, concrete barriers, and abutments<br />
would be constructed of materials with color and texture qualities that<br />
blend into the existing landscape. Architectural treatments would be<br />
applied to the proposed <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road bridge over I-<strong>10</strong> and other<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-44<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
visible structures to enhance the driver’s perception of Marana and to be in<br />
accordance with similar projects on I-<strong>10</strong> in the Tucson area.<br />
• During construction, the contractor would follow Arizona Department of<br />
Transportation’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge<br />
Construction, Section <strong>10</strong>4.09 Prevention of Landscape Defacement;<br />
Protection of Streams, Lakes and Reservoirs (2000 Edition) and the Water<br />
Quality Standards in Title 18, Chapter 11 of the Arizona Administrative<br />
Code as administered by the ADEQ.<br />
• Erosion control techniques such as slope rounding would be utilized, as<br />
necessary, to minimize impacts to visual quality.<br />
• The contractor would reduce visual impacts during construction by<br />
screening equipment storage and staging areas and by storing excavated<br />
material and debris in areas less visible to the public.<br />
• Intersection lighting would be designed to minimize light pollution of night<br />
skies and limit glare into neighborhoods.<br />
• Methods of reducing headlight impact to residents of Continental Ranch<br />
would be considered in final design.<br />
Conclusion<br />
As a result of the mitigation measures, visual impacts to the project area would be<br />
minimized and a visually enhanced traffic interchange would be developed that<br />
would blend with the surrounding area.<br />
Air Quality<br />
The EPA established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six<br />
criteria pollutants (ground level ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen<br />
dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter, and lead). Table 4-5<br />
presents the federal and state primary (health based) and secondary<br />
(aesthetic/economic based) standards for the pollutants of concern in the study area<br />
and the averaging period over which the standard is measured.<br />
Existing Conditions<br />
The Pima County Department of <strong>Environmental</strong> Quality (PDEQ) operates air<br />
quality monitoring stations at various sites throughout Pima County to monitor the<br />
levels of the two major air pollutants of concern in this area: particulates (PM<strong>10</strong><br />
and PM2.5), and CO. The closest of these monitoring stations to the study area is<br />
9597 North Coachline Boulevard, approximately 2,000 feet north of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong><br />
Road. This monitor was established in March of 2001 to determine fine particle<br />
concentrations in a residential neighborhood. The most recent reported results<br />
from this site is compared to the NAAQS in Table 4-6.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-45<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
The monitoring data indicate that the study area generally meets the NAAQS for<br />
monitored pollutants; however, particulate matter and CO are of general concern<br />
in the study area and Pima County. The project area lies completely within the<br />
boundaries of the Rillito Planning Area, which has been designated by EPA as a<br />
moderate nonattainment area for PM<strong>10</strong>. As opposed to the remainder of Pima<br />
County, which is under the auspices of PDEQ, the ADEQ has regulatory authority<br />
in the Rillito Planning Area. The primary sources of particulate emissions in this<br />
area include the Arizona Portland Cement Company, construction, unstabilized<br />
river banks, agriculture, unpaved roads, and unstabilized road shoulders. The<br />
Rillito PM<strong>10</strong> State Implementation Plan (SIP) was submitted to EPA in April 1994,<br />
but was never approved by EPA. However, the SIP does not include extraordinary<br />
particulate (dust) control mechanisms. According to ADEQ, compliance with Pima<br />
County’s Natural Events Action Plan (discussed in the following paragraph),<br />
ADOT standard specifications for dust suppression during construction, and the<br />
completion of a SWPPP would comply with the submitted Rillito Planning Area<br />
SIP.<br />
Table 4-5. National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards<br />
National and State Standards<br />
Pollutant Averaging Period Primary Secondary<br />
Carbon Monoxide<br />
(CO)<br />
Suspended<br />
Particulate Matter<br />
(PM<strong>10</strong>)<br />
8-Hour 9 ppm No Standard<br />
1 Hour 35 ppm No Standard<br />
24-Hour<br />
150 µg/<br />
m 3<br />
Same as Primary Standard<br />
Annual Arithmetic<br />
50 µg/ m<br />
Mean<br />
3 Same as Primary Standard<br />
Source: EPA (49 CFR 50).<br />
Abbreviations: ppm: parts per million, µg/m 3 : micrograms per cubic meter<br />
Although still considered an attainment area, Pima County exceeded the PM<strong>10</strong><br />
NAAQS six times in 1999. As a result, PDEQ developed a Natural Events Action<br />
Plan (NEAP) to protect public health, educate the public about high wind events,<br />
mitigate health impacts from future events, and identify and implement control<br />
measures for man-made sources of dust. The NEAP (and the ensuing Pima County<br />
ordinance) requires an activity permit from the PDEQ before activities such as<br />
earthmoving, trenching, or road construction are conducted. The ordinance also<br />
limits the amount of dust generated from these activities to a maximum opacity<br />
(cloudiness) of 20 percent. In addition to the NEAP, dust generation is also limited<br />
through grading permits issued by the Town of Marana and by ADOT standard<br />
specifications for dust suppression during construction.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-46<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
Table 4-6. 2002 Monitoring Data from Coachline Site compared to NAAQS<br />
Site/Location Pollutant (Averaging Period)<br />
Federal<br />
Standard<br />
Monitored<br />
2002 Value<br />
PM2.5 (maximum 24-hour 65 µg/m<br />
concentration)<br />
3 37.0 µg/m 3<br />
Coachline (9597<br />
Coachline Boulevard)<br />
PM2.5 (annual arithmetic mean<br />
concentration)<br />
15 µg/m 3 13.0 µg/m 3<br />
Source: PDEQ<br />
In addition to the requirements discussed above, additional particulate restrictions<br />
apply in the area. SNP, which is within approximately 3 miles of the project area,<br />
is a listed Federal Class I area subject to special particulate matter provisions.<br />
Class I areas, such as national parks, national wilderness areas, and national<br />
monuments are granted special air quality visibility protections under the federal<br />
Clean Air Act; however, these protections apply to stationary sources of pollutants<br />
(i.e. manufacturing and mining) and not to mobile sources of pollutants (motor<br />
vehicles).<br />
CO concentrations within the study area are determined by pollutants emitted into<br />
the airshed (primarily from motor vehicles) and the lack of pollutant dispersion<br />
due to topographical and meteorological characteristics of the Tucson basin. As a<br />
result of these conditions, exceedances of the CO NAAQS were relatively<br />
common in the 1970s; however, no CO violations have been recorded since 1984.<br />
The improvement in CO levels resulted in the Tucson Air Planning Area (TAPA)<br />
being redesignated by EPA to an attainment area for CO in 2000. A limited<br />
maintenance plan was approved that establishes procedures and contingency<br />
measures to be implemented, if necessary, in the future. The plan requires<br />
additional monitoring and modeling of CO concentrations at intersections with the<br />
worst level of service and highest ADT. A limited maintenance plan applies to<br />
areas whose monitored CO concentrations are equal to or less than 85% of the 8hour<br />
CO NAAQS for at least 8 consecutive quarters.<br />
PAG has the responsibility of maintaining the TAPA SIP. In this role, PAG<br />
determines the compliance of local transportation implementation programs and<br />
long range transportation plans with the SIP and conducts the microscale CO<br />
modeling analyses as required by the limited maintenance plan to address those<br />
areas most susceptible to CO violations.<br />
Impacts<br />
No Build Alternative<br />
The no build alternative would not provide an additional access point to I-<strong>10</strong> nor a<br />
grade-separated crossing of the UPRR; therefore, traffic congestion on area<br />
roadways would not be improved and would worsen over time. Increasing traffic<br />
congestion would result in higher emissions from stop and go traffic and idling<br />
vehicles, which would negatively impact air quality. Pedestrian and bicycle facility<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-47<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
connectivity within the area would not be improved; therefore, increased use of<br />
less polluting alternative transportation modes would not be expected.<br />
The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments require transportation projects to conform to<br />
(be consistent with) air quality implementation plans. To be a conforming project, it<br />
must be part of an approved transportation plan and transportation improvement<br />
program. The <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI is part of the approved 2025 Regional<br />
Transportation Plan and 2005-2009 Transportation Improvement Program. As a<br />
result, the no build alternative would not be consistent with the approved<br />
transportation plan and program and no benefits to regional air quality would<br />
occur.<br />
Preferred Alternative<br />
The proposed project is located within an area that is in attainment for all criteria<br />
pollutants except PM<strong>10</strong>. The project is within the boundaries of the Rillito Planning<br />
Area, which has been designated by EPA as a moderate nonattainment area for<br />
PM<strong>10</strong>. However, compliance with Pima County’s NEAP, ADOT standard<br />
specifications for dust suppression during construction, and a SWPPP would<br />
comply with the Rillito Planning Area SIP. Construction-related soil disturbance<br />
and operation of heavy equipment would produce an increase in particulate matter<br />
during roadway construction, but these impacts would be short-term in nature and<br />
mitigated as described below.<br />
The <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI is part of the approved 2025 Regional Transportation<br />
Plan and 2005-2009 Transportation Improvement Program. The proposed project<br />
is located within the TAPA in Pima County. This project is in an area that<br />
complies with the NAAQS for CO and would have no negative effects on CO<br />
levels in the area. The project involves construction of a new TI with I-<strong>10</strong> and<br />
associated improvements, which would reduce roadway congestion and associated<br />
CO emissions. Pursuant to 40 CFR 93.116, this project is in conformity.<br />
Mitigation<br />
Prior to initiating any construction activities, such as earthmoving, trenching, or<br />
road construction, the contractor would apply for and be granted an activity permit<br />
from the PDEQ and a grading permit from the Town of Marana. The contractor<br />
would monitor dust generation from the construction area and limit the amount of<br />
dust generated to a maximum opacity of 20 percent. The contractor would follow<br />
ADOT standard specifications for dust suppression during construction and shall<br />
comply with the SWPPP prepared for this project.<br />
During construction, the contractor would control, reduce, remove, or prevent air<br />
pollution in all its forms, including air contaminants, in the performance of the<br />
contractor’s work in accordance with Arizona Department of Transportation’s<br />
Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, Section <strong>10</strong>4.08<br />
Prevention of Air and Noise Pollution (2000 Edition).<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-48<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
Conclusion<br />
As a result of these mitigation measures, the proposed project would have only<br />
temporary, short-term, and minimal impacts to particulate levels during project<br />
construction. The project would decrease traffic congestion in the study area,<br />
which would improve overall air quality. Pedestrian and bicycle facility<br />
connectivity within the area would be improved; therefore, an increased use of less<br />
polluting alternative transportation modes would be expected.<br />
Noise<br />
ADOT’s Noise Abatement Policy(NAP) for Federal Aid Projects (March 21, 2000)<br />
defines a traffic noise impact as:<br />
• When the predicted level approaches or exceeds the FHWA’s NAC. ADOT<br />
defines “approach” as being within 3 dBA of the appropriate NAC. Under<br />
this policy, residential impacts would occur when the future Leq(h) value is<br />
64 dBA or greater; or,<br />
• When the predicted level substantially increases over existing noise levels.<br />
“Substantial” is defined as an increase of 15 dBA or higher.<br />
Existing Conditions<br />
The complete results of the traffic noise analyses are presented in the document<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista Final <strong>Traffic</strong> Noise<br />
Analysis Report, dated September, 2004. Readers are referred to this report for the<br />
detailed findings; however, the results are summarized below.<br />
<strong>Traffic</strong> Noise Monitoring<br />
Existing traffic noise conditions were assessed using traffic noise monitoring.<br />
Field monitoring of traffic noise during peak traffic periods was conducted on<br />
December 4, December 16, and December 17, 2003. Monitoring occurred between<br />
approximately 7:00 AM and 8:00 AM and between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM. Noise<br />
levels were measured at seven locations near roadways in the study area using an<br />
integrating sound level meter.<br />
The field monitoring results are presented in Table 4-7. Measured noise levels<br />
ranged from 55 dBA near <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Elementary School to 73 dBA west of the I-<br />
<strong>10</strong> Frontage Road at Linda Vista Boulevard. As expected, the highest noise<br />
readings were near I-<strong>10</strong>.<br />
<strong>Traffic</strong> Noise Modeling<br />
Computer modeling of traffic noise can be utilized at a greater number of locations<br />
along a corridor than noise monitoring, modeling can be adjusted to replicate<br />
highest traffic volumes and other parameters, and modeling can be used to assist in<br />
traffic noise mitigation design. For these reasons, noise impacts resulting from<br />
existing roadway traffic were analyzed using STAMINA/Optima 2.0 (STAMINA).<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-49<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
STAMINA is a traffic noise prediction model developed by FHWA that utilizes<br />
site-specific information including traffic volume, speed, vehicle classification<br />
data, roadway lane configuration, and site acoustical characteristics to predict<br />
peak-hour traffic noise at selected receiver locations.<br />
Table 4-7. <strong>Traffic</strong> Noise Monitoring Results<br />
Monitoring Location and (Beginning Times)<br />
Location 1 South Side of Linda Vista Boulevard, East of<br />
Hartman Lane (7:15 – 7:36 AM)<br />
Location 2 West of I-<strong>10</strong> at Linda Vista Boulevard (6:56 –<br />
7:20 AM)<br />
Location 3 South Side of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road, West of Palm<br />
Canyon Drive (7:52 – 8:07 AM)<br />
Location 4 West Side of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Elementary School<br />
(5:21 – 5:42 PM)<br />
Location 5 East of I-<strong>10</strong> at Camino de Mañana Road (4:27<br />
– 4:50 PM)<br />
Location 6 Mountain View High School/Arthur Pack Golf<br />
Course (4:08 – 4:29 PM)<br />
Location 7 North Side of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road, West of<br />
Sunflower Ridge Road (5:<strong>10</strong> – 5:32 PM)<br />
Noise Level (dBA)<br />
(Highest Reading Per Site)<br />
To ensure that the results of STAMINA accurately reflected actual conditions,<br />
traffic (volumes and numbers of medium and heavy trucks) and site data (location<br />
and height of walls) were also collected during field noise measurements. These<br />
field conditions were entered in the computer model and the noise levels predicted<br />
by the model were compared to those measured in the field. This adjustment<br />
process identifies minor modifications in model data entries that are used to more<br />
accurately predict field conditions. Model predicted values were within 2 dBA of<br />
those values measured in the field, demonstrating that the model predicted actual<br />
monitored conditions well.<br />
Modeling of Existing Conditions<br />
Noise levels for current (2004) conditions were modeled at sensitive receivers in<br />
the project area. This was done to determine where noise impacts currently exist<br />
and to establish the baseline from which a substantial increase in noise levels is<br />
determined. <strong>Traffic</strong> data necessary for modeling were obtained from several<br />
different sources. The primary source of information was the <strong>Traffic</strong> Report<br />
prepared for this project. The report provided traffic counts, speeds, peak hour, and<br />
vehicle classification information (numbers of trucks, cars, etc.) for most of the<br />
streets in the study area. The project route was broken into multiple segments<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-50<br />
68<br />
73<br />
57<br />
55<br />
69<br />
56<br />
63<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
within the model to accommodate areas where the roadway climbs and traffic<br />
volumes and speeds differed. Roadway geometry, topography, and receiver<br />
locations and elevations were established from MicroStation plan sets from project<br />
design engineers and PAG aerial photos and digital terrain model files.<br />
One hundred twenty-six representative properties throughout the study area were<br />
selected as model receiver locations (see Figures 4-4a-d). Residences and<br />
businesses within the study area were chosen as representative sensitive noise<br />
receivers and STAMINA was used to estimate the noise levels at these receiver<br />
locations under existing (2004) traffic and under predicted conditions (2030). The<br />
results of the analysis are presented in the table in Appendix C. Noise receivers<br />
were designed as NR# along the north side of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road, RS# along the<br />
south side of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road, I<strong>10</strong>F# in the area of I-<strong>10</strong> and its frontage roads, or<br />
LVR# along Linda Vista Boulevard.<br />
Impacts<br />
No Build Alternative<br />
The noise monitoring and modeling analyses suggested that the NAC are exceeded<br />
at a number of locations within the study area. Because traffic noise levels are<br />
dependent upon traffic volumes, and traffic volumes are predicted to increase in the<br />
area, noise levels would increase also. As a result additional properties in the project<br />
area would be impacted by traffic noise regardless of whether or not the project is<br />
constructed. According to the table in Appendix C, the entire area near I-<strong>10</strong> (all<br />
receivers beginning I<strong>10</strong>F#) exceeds the NAC under current conditions. All<br />
modeled locations in this area are commercial land uses. Although one residential<br />
property exists within this area, this residence would be acquired by the proposed<br />
improvements; therefore, this residential site was not modeled. With the exception<br />
of this area near I-<strong>10</strong>, only one other receiver (LVR12) within the study area<br />
approached or exceeded the NAC for the year 2004. This receiver, located at the<br />
intersection of Linda Vista Boulevard and Manatee Drive is adjacent to Linda<br />
Vista Boulevard and substantially lower in elevation than the roadway. This<br />
residence (as opposed to most in the area) is not separated from the roadway by a<br />
wall. It is reasonable to assume that, with additional traffic growth, additional<br />
residences in this area would exceed the NAC.<br />
Preferred Alternative<br />
Temporary Impacts<br />
Construction noise differs from traffic noise in several ways:<br />
• Construction noise lasts only for the duration of the construction contract,<br />
and it is usually limited to daylight hours when most human activity<br />
occurs.<br />
• Construction activities generally are of a short-term nature, and depending<br />
on the nature of construction operations, it could last from seconds (e.g., a<br />
truck passing a receiver) to months (e.g., constructing a bridge).<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-51<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
Construction noise is intermittent and depends on the type of operation, location,<br />
and function of the equipment, and the equipment usage cycle. <strong>Traffic</strong> noise is<br />
more continuous after construction activities are completed.<br />
Permanent Impacts<br />
Predicted noise levels assuming completion of the preferred alternative may be<br />
found in the column labeled Modeled Future (2030) in the table in Appendix C. Of<br />
the 126 modeled receivers, 49 were predicted to experience noise levels that would<br />
require consideration of traffic noise abatement. The results of the modeling for<br />
the future condition are divided by area and discussed in the following sections.<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road (Receivers noted as NR# and RS#)<br />
As would be expected, adding a new segment of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road to connect to<br />
I-<strong>10</strong> increases traffic substantially through Continental Ranch and results in traffic<br />
moving through an area where no traffic exists currently. As a result of this<br />
increase in traffic and the new roadway, noise levels are predicted to increase<br />
along <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road. As shown in the table in Appendix C, the increase in<br />
traffic noise levels ranges from 6 dBA to 18 dBA. The areas of higher increases<br />
were those areas on the east side of Continental Ranch where no roadway exists<br />
currently (NR26-NR32A and RS27-RS30).<br />
Although STAMINA did not predict that traffic noise levels would approach or<br />
exceed the NAC (64 dBA or higher for the residences and other sensitive land uses<br />
in this area), substantial increases (15 dBA) in noise levels were predicted. These<br />
increases are predicted along the eastern border of Continental Ranch both north<br />
and south of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road.<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI area (Receivers noted as I<strong>10</strong>F#)<br />
STAMINA predicted increases in traffic noise in this area as well. However,<br />
because traffic noise levels and traffic volumes are already high in this area, the<br />
predicted increases were much lower than along <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road. In this area<br />
traffic noise level increases ranged from 4 dBA to 5 dBA; however, all modeled<br />
receivers in this area approached or exceeded the NAC (69 dBA or higher for<br />
commercial properties).<br />
Linda Vista Boulevard (Receivers noted as LVR#)<br />
Although no improvements to Linda Vista Boulevard are proposed throughout the<br />
majority of the study area, the provision of a <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI, would result in<br />
increased traffic along Linda Vista Boulevard. To fully explore traffic noise<br />
impacts, traffic noise levels were modeled as far east as Thornydale Road (nearly 4<br />
miles east of the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI). As a result of the increase in traffic,<br />
STAMINA predicted increases in traffic noise levels ranging from 2 dBA to 14<br />
dBA. Because of this wide range in values, these areas are discussed individually<br />
below.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-52<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
NR1<br />
NR2<br />
NR3<br />
SILVERBELL ROAD<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
NR31A-F<br />
NR29A-F<br />
NR32<br />
NR32A<br />
NR27<br />
NR27A<br />
NR27B NR26<br />
NR30<br />
NR26A<br />
NR7 NR8 NR13 NR14<br />
NR25<br />
NR30A<br />
NR6<br />
NR9<br />
NR11<br />
NR6<br />
NR12<br />
NR19 NR20<br />
NR<strong>10</strong><br />
NR15 NR16<br />
NR18<br />
NR5<br />
RS5<br />
RS13<br />
RS7 RS9<br />
NR21 NR23<br />
RS6<br />
RS11 RS12 RS15 NR17<br />
NR24<br />
NR4<br />
RS14<br />
NR22<br />
SCHOOL3 RS8<br />
RS21 RS22<br />
RS<strong>10</strong><br />
RS18<br />
SOCCER2<br />
SCHOOL4<br />
PARK17<br />
RS19 RS20 RS23<br />
TWIN PEAKS ROAD<br />
SAFEWAY<br />
RS30<br />
RS29 A-E<br />
4-53<br />
COACHLINE BLVD<br />
RS28 A-C<br />
PARK16<br />
RS27<br />
RS27A<br />
RS25<br />
RS26<br />
RS24<br />
NR28<br />
NR28A<br />
Noise<br />
Wall<br />
Figure 4-4a<br />
Noise Analysis<br />
Project Number: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
IR1<br />
IR2<br />
IR3<br />
IR5<br />
IR4<br />
IR6<br />
I-<strong>10</strong><br />
IR7<br />
4-54<br />
IR8<br />
IR9<br />
IR<strong>10</strong><br />
LV1<br />
IR11<br />
El Camino de Mañana<br />
Linda Vista Blvd<br />
Figure 4-4b<br />
Noise Analysis<br />
Project Number: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
LV2<br />
LV3<br />
LINDA VISTA BLVD<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
HARTMAN ROAD<br />
LV4<br />
Noise Wall<br />
LV5<br />
Noise Wall<br />
4-55<br />
LV6 LV7<br />
Noise Wall<br />
Noise Wall<br />
Noise Wall<br />
LV8 LV9 LV<strong>10</strong> LV11<br />
BALD EAGLE DRIVE<br />
LV12<br />
LV17<br />
LV13LV14 LV15 LV16<br />
Noise Wall<br />
Figure 4-4c<br />
Noise Analysis<br />
Project Number: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
LINDA VISTA BLVD<br />
LV18<br />
LV19<br />
LV20<br />
LV21<br />
ARTHUR PACK GOLF COURSE<br />
4-56<br />
LV22<br />
LV23 LV24<br />
LV25<br />
LV26<br />
MOUNTAIN VIEW<br />
HIGH SCHOOL<br />
THORNYDALE ROAD<br />
Figure 4-4d<br />
Noise Analysis<br />
Project Number: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
The highest increases (14 dBA, 9 dBA, and 8 dBA at LVR1, LVR2, and LVR3,<br />
respectively) were the result of the relatively large increase in traffic volumes in<br />
the western segment of Linda Vista Boulevard. Currently, Linda Vista Boulevard<br />
in this area experiences total traffic volumes of approximately 60 vehicles per hour<br />
during the peak traffic period. With the completion of the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI,<br />
traffic volumes in this area are expected to increase to approximately 980 vehicles<br />
per hour during the peak traffic period. The highest increase (14 dBA) was<br />
predicted at LVR1, a residence near the proposed new intersection of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong><br />
Road/El Camino de Mañana/Linda Vista Boulevard. In addition to the increase in<br />
traffic volumes, the intersection would be relocated closer to this residence with<br />
the proposed improvements.<br />
As Linda Vista Boulevard moves east of Hartman Lane (represented by receivers<br />
LVR4-LVR26), single family housing is located near the roadway. Although noise<br />
levels were predicted to increase in this area, the increases were considerably less<br />
than those near the interstate. Noise levels along Linda Vista Boulevard east of<br />
Hartman Lane were predicted to increase by 2 dBA to 4 dBA. However, because<br />
of their proximity to the roadway, this relatively moderate increase in traffic noise<br />
levels caused a number of receivers (LVR7 – LVR<strong>10</strong>, LVR13-16, and LVR21) to<br />
approach or exceed the NAC.<br />
Mitigation<br />
Mitigation of Temporary Impacts<br />
Land uses in the project vicinity would be exposed to noise from construction<br />
activity under the preferred alternative. To minimize noise impacts from<br />
construction activities, the contractor shall control construction noise in<br />
accordance with Arizona Department of Transportation’s Standard Specifications<br />
for Road and Bridge Construction, Section <strong>10</strong>4.08 Prevention of Air and Noise<br />
Pollution (2000 Edition). This may include:<br />
• All exhaust systems on equipment would be in good working order.<br />
Properly designed engine enclosures and intake silencers would be used<br />
where appropriate.<br />
• Equipment would be maintained on a regular basis.<br />
• New equipment would be subject to new product emission standards.<br />
Stationary equipment would be located as far away from sensitive receivers<br />
as possible.<br />
Mitigation of Permanent Impacts<br />
Although 49 of the 126 receiver locations were predicted to meet criteria for<br />
consideration of noise mitigation in the 2030 build condition, 11 of these receivers<br />
(Receivers I<strong>10</strong>F1-I<strong>10</strong>F11) were commercial properties near I-<strong>10</strong>. It is ADOT’s<br />
policy that abatement is not considered reasonable for impacted businesses;<br />
therefore, noise mitigation for these 11 receivers was not considered.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-57<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
Noise mitigation is implemented where the efforts are feasible, reasonable,<br />
effective and desired by the affected community. Feasibility of mitigation<br />
measures is determined by considering factors such as local access constraints,<br />
safety, community aesthetics and cohesion, visual impact, engineering constraints<br />
of height, drainage considerations, and other engineering requirements.<br />
Reasonableness is based on the size of the impacted area (number of structures,<br />
spatial distribution of structures, etc.), the predominant activities exercised within<br />
the area, practicality of construction, and cost. Effectiveness criteria are based on<br />
the amount of noise reduction provided by a barrier (at least 5 dBA) and the<br />
barriers ability to reduce noise levels below 64 dBA. All of these factors were<br />
considered in this analysis. The analysis is summarized in Table 4-8 and is<br />
discussed briefly below by the same areas that were discussed earlier.<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road (Receivers NR26-NR32A and RS27-RS30)<br />
The homes with predicted substantial increases in traffic noise were along the east<br />
side of Continental Ranch both north and south of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road. Higher levels<br />
were predicted south of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road because of the roadway’s slight<br />
curvature to the south. Mitigation was considered on both the north and south sides<br />
of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road. It is important to note, however, that although these<br />
residences would experience a substantial increase in traffic noise levels according<br />
to ADOT criteria, the resultant noise levels are considerably below the levels at<br />
which mitigation is normally considered (64 dBA).<br />
A wall replacing the existing privacy wall along the east side of Continental Ranch<br />
north of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road was only marginally effective at mitigating noise.<br />
According to STAMINA, a 20-foot tall wall along the back yards of these<br />
residences would reduce predicted noise levels by 5 dBA or greater at only 3<br />
residences (NR26, NR26A, and NR27). A 20-foot tall wall 309 feet in length<br />
would result in a 5 dBA reduction at 3 residences for an approximate total cost of<br />
$154,500. The cost per benefited receiver would be $51,500 which is greater than<br />
the $35,000 per benefited receiver recommended by ADOT. Because of the<br />
expense, the wall’s height, and the limited number of homes that would benefit<br />
from the wall, this wall would not be constructed.<br />
A wall replacing the existing privacy wall along the east side of Continental Ranch<br />
on the south side of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road was effective at mitigating noise, but a very<br />
tall wall was necessary. A series of wall heights was examined in this area. Wall<br />
heights of ranging from 15 feet to 20 feet were examined. Because each of these<br />
walls protected varying numbers of homes, the most cost effective wall was<br />
selected. According to STAMINA, a 17-foot tall wall along the back yards of these<br />
residences would reduce predicted noise levels by 5 dBA or greater at 12<br />
residences (RS27, RS27A, RS28, RS28A, RS28B, RS28C, RS29, RS29A, RS29B,<br />
RS29C, RS29D, and RS29E). These results are presented in Table 4-8. A 17-foot<br />
tall wall 802 feet in length would result in a 5 dBA reduction at 12 residences for<br />
an approximate cost of $340,850. In addition, additional right of way would be<br />
acquired for the placement of the wall. Additional right of way costs in this area<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-58<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
are estimated to be $32,800 ($2 per square foot, 820 feet long and 20 feet wide);<br />
therefore, the cost per benefited receiver would be $31,138 which is less than the<br />
$35,000 per benefited receiver recommended by ADOT. Because this wall meets<br />
ADOT cost effectiveness criteria, this wall would be constructed.<br />
A slight adjustment to the existing privacy wall height along <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road<br />
was necessary. A segment of privacy wall along the south side of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong><br />
Road as it approaches the connection with the proposed <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road<br />
extension is shorter than surrounding walls. Although other privacy walls in the<br />
area are effective at mitigating traffic noise with a 6.5-foot height, a short segment<br />
(111 feet in length) of 4.5-foot wall results in higher noise levels for RS25 and<br />
RS26. Increasing the height of this wall from 4.5 feet to 6.5 feet to match the<br />
surrounding walls would cost approximately $14,430 (to completely reconstruct<br />
the wall) is effective at reducing traffic noise levels at these two receiver locations<br />
by 5 dBA, and would result in a cost per benefited receiver of $7,215. This wall<br />
would be constructed.<br />
Although noise walls are the most common method of traffic noise mitigation,<br />
other methods were considered for reducing noise exposure to residents along<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road. One of the reasons traffic noise levels are relatively high along<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road is the existing roadway surface. The existing surface of <strong>Twin</strong><br />
<strong>Peaks</strong> Road through Continental Ranch is in fair to poor condition. The pavement<br />
shows signs of low to medium severity deterioration, rutting, and various types of<br />
cracking. The Town of Marana proposes to resurface <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road west to<br />
Silverbell Road with RAC which would improve drivability of the roadway and<br />
decrease the noise generation from the tire-pavement interface. Although the FHWA<br />
would not participate in the funding of roadway resurfacing with RAC, the Town of<br />
Marana would fund this overlay.<br />
Linda Vista Boulevard (Receivers LVR1, LVR5, LVR7 – LVR<strong>10</strong>, LVR13-16, and<br />
LVR21)<br />
Receiver LVR1 – The greatest increase (14 dBA) and the highest noise level (67<br />
dBA) in this area was predicted at LVR1, which exists near the proposed<br />
intersection of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road/El Camino de Mañana/Linda Vista Boulevard.<br />
Although noise levels at this residence were predicted to approach or exceed the<br />
NAC for residential land uses, this residence would be displaced by the proposed<br />
improvements; therefore, mitigation for this receiver was not considered.<br />
Receiver LVR5 – <strong>Traffic</strong> noise levels at receiver LVR5 (66 dBA) were predicted to<br />
exceed ADOT’s noise abatement criteria. This residence is a single isolated<br />
residence widely separated from neighboring properties on the north side of Linda<br />
Vista Boulevard. ADOT’s noise policy does not consider mitigation of receivers<br />
set apart from other receivers reasonable; therefore, this wall would not be<br />
constructed.<br />
Receiver LVR7 – <strong>Traffic</strong> noise levels at receiver LVR7 (65 dBA) were predicted to<br />
exceed ADOT’s noise abatement criteria. This receiver, which sits on the south<br />
side of Linda Vista Boulevard, is a newly constructed residence with a solid<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-59<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
concrete block wall along Linda Vista Boulevard. To preserve views of the Santa<br />
Catalina Mountains to the east, the residence’s eastern wall is constructed of<br />
wrought iron. To mitigate traffic noise, a solid wall along the eastern side of the<br />
property would be required. Because the home was constructed to preserve views<br />
to the east, it is assumed that construction of a solid wall in this area would be<br />
unacceptable to the property owner. In addition, the construction of a noise<br />
mitigation wall would protect only this single isolated residence, which is not<br />
considered reasonable by ADOT’s noise policy. For these reasons, this wall would<br />
not be constructed; however, this decision would be discussed during the public<br />
hearing for this project and during subsequent property owner meetings.<br />
Receiver LVR8 – This receiver, on the southwest corner of Linda Vista Boulevard<br />
and Albatross Drive, is predicted to experience traffic noise levels of 65 dBA.<br />
According to STAMINA, the residence south of LVR8 was predicted to exceed<br />
the NAC also; therefore, mitigation for these two residences was considered. A<br />
reduction in traffic noise levels of 5 dBA was produced by a wall 256 feet in<br />
length and <strong>10</strong> feet in height along Linda Vista Boulevard. This wall was estimated<br />
to cost $51,200 and protect two residences. The cost per benefited receiver is<br />
$25,600; therefore, this wall would be constructed.<br />
Receivers LVR9 – LVR<strong>10</strong> – These receivers, from the southeast corner of Linda<br />
Vista Boulevard and Albatross Drive to the southwest corner of Linda Vista<br />
Boulevard and Bald Eagle Drive, are predicted to experience traffic noise levels of<br />
65 and 67 dBA, respectively. In addition to LVR9 and LVR<strong>10</strong>, an additional 6<br />
residences would experience noise levels in excess of the NAC in this area. These<br />
residences would be protected by a wall that begins 48 feet south of Linda Vista<br />
Boulevard, moves north to Linda Vista Boulevard and then turns to the east for<br />
500 feet. The 48-foot length would be 11.5 feet in height and the 500-foot length<br />
would be 12 feet in height. The approximate overall cost for the wall would be<br />
$131,040. The wall would protect only 7 of the 8 receivers in this area. LVR<strong>10</strong><br />
represents the clubhouse and community swimming pool for this subdivision,<br />
which currently has a wrought iron fence on the east side to allow views of the<br />
mountains. To reduce noise substantially at this location, the wall would be<br />
required to wrap to the south in this area, which would result in blocking the<br />
mountain views; therefore, extending the wall to the south would not occur;<br />
however, this decision would be discussed during the public hearing for this<br />
project and during subsequent property owner meetings. All homes in the area<br />
would be benefited by the proposed wall. The cost per benefited receiver for this<br />
wall would be $18,720; therefore, this wall would be constructed.<br />
Receivers LVR11 – LVR12 – These receivers, from the southeast corner of Linda<br />
Vista Boulevard and Bald Eagle Drive to the southwest corner of Linda Vista<br />
Boulevard and Manatee Drive, are predicted to experience traffic noise levels of<br />
67 and 69 dBA, respectively. In addition to LVR11 and LVR12, an additional 4<br />
residences experience noise levels in excess of the NAC in this area. Although<br />
several of these residences have an existing 6-foot wall that parallels Linda Vista<br />
Boulevard, these homes are several feet lower in elevation than the roadway. All<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-60<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
of these homes may be protected by a wall between Bald Eagle Drive and Manatee<br />
Drive that would be 773 feet in length and 5.5 feet in height. The approximate<br />
overall cost for the wall would be $85,030. The wall would protect 6 receivers at a<br />
cost per benefited receiver of $14,172; therefore, this wall would be constructed.<br />
Receiver LVR13 – This receiver is located in the southeast corner of Linda Vista<br />
Boulevard and Manatee Drive and is predicted to experience traffic noise levels of<br />
64 dBA. According to STAMINA, the residence immediately south of LVR13<br />
(LVR13A) does not approach the NAC. To mitigate noise, a wall that begins 51<br />
feet south of Linda Vista Boulevard, moves north to Linda Vista Boulevard and<br />
then turns to the east for <strong>10</strong>1 feet was examined. The 51-foot length of wall would<br />
begin at 9.5 feet in height and increase to 12.5 feet in height as it reaches Linda<br />
Vista Boulevard. The entire <strong>10</strong>1-foot length would be 12.5 feet in height. The<br />
approximate overall cost for this wall would be $36,480 and only receiver LVR13<br />
would receive a 5 dBA benefit; therefore, this wall would not be constructed.<br />
Receivers LVR14 – LVR15 – These receivers, from the drainage channel east of<br />
LVR13 to the southwest corner of Linda Vista Boulevard and Waterbuck Drive,<br />
are predicted to both experience traffic noise levels of 64 dBA. In addition to<br />
LVR14 and LVR15, an additional 3 residences experience noise levels in excess of<br />
the NAC in this area. All of these homes may be protected by a wall between the<br />
drainage channel and Waterbuck Drive that would be 463 feet in length which<br />
connects to the existing walls on the both ends to the south. The wall would be <strong>10</strong><br />
feet in height and would be constructed at an approximate cost of $92,600. The<br />
wall would protect 5 receivers at a cost per benefited receiver of $18,520;<br />
therefore, this wall would be constructed.<br />
Receiver LVR16 – This receiver is located on the southeast corner of Linda Vista<br />
Boulevard and Waterbuck Drive and is predicted to experience traffic noise levels<br />
of 64 dBA. According to STAMINA, the residence immediately south of LVR16<br />
(LVR16A) does not approach the NAC. A 12.5-foot wall that begins 60 feet south<br />
of Linda Vista Boulevard, moves north to Linda Vista Boulevard, turns to the east<br />
for 150 feet, then turns south for an additional 13 feet to tie to the existing fence<br />
along the drainage channel to the east of LVR16 would be required. The<br />
approximate cost for this wall would be $55,750 and only LVR16 would be<br />
benefited; therefore, this wall this wall would not be constructed.<br />
Receiver LVR21 – This receiver is located on the Arthur Pack golf course west of<br />
Mountain View High School on the south side of Linda Vista Boulevard. Noise<br />
levels are predicted to reach 67 dBA in this area because of the proximity of the<br />
golf course to the roadway. However, mitigation was not considered for this<br />
receiver because golfers are exposed to traffic noise for relatively short periods of<br />
time on the course and walls would impose a visual restriction on views to the<br />
north and east from the golf course.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-61<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Wall to<br />
Protect<br />
Rec. ID<br />
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
Total<br />
Units<br />
(Benefited)<br />
Table 4-8. Noise Mitigation Evaluation Summary<br />
2030<br />
Unmiti<br />
-gated<br />
Noise<br />
Level<br />
(dBA)<br />
2030<br />
Mitigated<br />
Noise<br />
Level<br />
(dBA)<br />
Barrier<br />
Insertion<br />
Loss<br />
(dBA)<br />
Barrier Dimensions Barrier Segment Costs<br />
Approximate<br />
Length<br />
(feet)<br />
Height<br />
(feet)<br />
Total<br />
Cost<br />
($20-25<br />
/square<br />
foot)<br />
Cost per<br />
Benefited<br />
Receiver<br />
NR26 3 60 54 6 309 20 $154,500 $51,500<br />
NR26A 59 53 6<br />
NR27 58 53 5<br />
RS27 12 60 55 5 802 17 $340,850 $28,404<br />
RS27A 58 53 5<br />
RS28 58 52 6<br />
RS28A 56 51 5<br />
RS28B 56 51 5<br />
RS28C 56 51 5<br />
RS29 55 50 5<br />
RS29A 55 50 5<br />
RS29B 54 49 5<br />
RS29C 55 49 6<br />
RS29D 55 48 7<br />
RS29E 53 48 5<br />
RS30 52 48 4<br />
RS25 2 61 56 5 111 6.5 $14,430 $7,215<br />
RS26 64 59 5<br />
LVR1 1 67 Single isolated receiver – no barrier recommended<br />
LVR5 1 66 Single isolated receiver – no barrier recommended<br />
LVR7 1 65 Single isolated receiver – no barrier recommended<br />
LVR8 2 65 60 5 256 <strong>10</strong> $51,200 $25,600<br />
LVR9 7 65 60 5 48 11.5<br />
LVR<strong>10</strong> 67 65 2 500 12 $131,040 $18,720<br />
LVR11 6 67 62 5 773 5.5 $85,030 $14,172<br />
LVR12 69 62 7<br />
LVR13 1 64 Single isolated receiver – no barrier recommended<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-62<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Wall to<br />
Protect<br />
Rec. ID<br />
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
Total<br />
Units<br />
(Benefited)<br />
Table 4-8. Noise Mitigation Evaluation Summary<br />
2030<br />
Unmiti<br />
-gated<br />
Noise<br />
Level<br />
(dBA)<br />
2030<br />
Mitigated<br />
Noise<br />
Level<br />
(dBA)<br />
Barrier<br />
Insertion<br />
Loss<br />
(dBA)<br />
Barrier Dimensions Barrier Segment Costs<br />
Approximate<br />
Length<br />
(feet)<br />
Height<br />
(feet)<br />
Total<br />
Cost<br />
($20-25<br />
/square<br />
foot)<br />
Cost per<br />
Benefited<br />
Receiver<br />
LVR14 5 64 59 5 463 <strong>10</strong> $92,600 $18,520<br />
LVR15 64 59 5<br />
LVR16 1 64 Single isolated receiver – no barrier recommended<br />
LVR21 1 67 Single isolated receiver – no barrier recommended<br />
Note: Recommended walls are indicated by bolding<br />
Conclusion<br />
Figures 4-4a through 4-4d illustrate locations where walls would be constructed to<br />
protect impacted receivers. Although 49 of the 126 receiver locations were<br />
predicted to meet criteria for consideration of noise mitigation in the 2030 build<br />
condition, 11 of these locations were commercial properties; therefore, noise<br />
mitigation for these 11 properties was not considered. Noise barrier walls were<br />
analyzed in 13 locations to protect impacted residences. Of these locations, 6 walls<br />
would protect single isolated residences and would not be constructed per ADOT<br />
policy. One wall would protect three residences at a cost of $51,500 per residence;<br />
therefore, this wall was determined to not meet ADOT’s cost per benefited<br />
receiver criterion and was not recommended. Six locations were recommended for<br />
the construction of noise abatement walls. These six walls would protect a total of<br />
34 residences and would meet ADOT’s cost per benefited receiver criterion.<br />
Although the Town intends to construct these walls as described above, the final<br />
decision would be made following the public hearing process and discussions with<br />
affected property owners. The design parameters of these walls would be<br />
determined during final project design.<br />
In addition to mitigation using noise walls, resurfacing <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road west to<br />
Silverbell Road with RAC is proposed also. This treatment would improve<br />
drivability of the roadway and decrease the noise generation from the tire-pavement<br />
interface. Although the FHWA would not participate in the funding of roadway<br />
resurfacing with RAC, the Town of Marana would fund this overlay.<br />
Hazardous Materials<br />
It is important to locate sites of soil or groundwater contamination before<br />
performing construction activities. These contaminated properties could pose a<br />
physical danger to construction crews or be liabilities if construction causes<br />
contamination to migrate. To determine the potential of soil or groundwater<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-63<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
contamination in the project area, URS conducted a PISA of properties that may<br />
be affected by the proposed construction. The purpose of the PISA was to perform<br />
a screening-level assessment to identify potential conditions associated with<br />
hazardous materials associated with individual properties within the Study Area,<br />
and to identify those parcels requiring more detailed investigation. The assessment<br />
was based on the findings of a limited site reconnaissance, a review of aerial<br />
photographs, a review of Tucson City business directories, a review of historical<br />
ADOT R/W drawings, a review of federal and state environmental records, a<br />
review of Tucson Water As-Built Plans, and ADWR water well records.<br />
The complete results of the investigations are presented in the document Interstate<br />
<strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista Preliminary Initial Site<br />
<strong>Assessment</strong>, dated January 14, 2004. Readers are referred to this report for the<br />
detailed findings; however, the results are summarized below.<br />
Existing Conditions<br />
Based on the findings of this assessment, the study area parcels were identified as<br />
High, Medium or Low Priority for conducting further hazardous materials<br />
investigation work. Eleven parcels were identified as high priority. A high priority<br />
rating was assigned to parcels with a history of commercial or industrial use or that<br />
were identified in the environmental agency databases. The designation of a parcel<br />
as a high priority site did not mean that known hazards were present on the parcel.<br />
All sites designated as high priority were located in the commercial area on the<br />
west side of I-<strong>10</strong>. The 11 sites were designated high priority because of the<br />
following existing or historic land uses and the hazardous materials they may have<br />
used, handled, stored, or disposed:<br />
• Roofing company and manufacture of steel products – solvents and<br />
processing chemicals<br />
• Manufacture of pre-cast or molded products – solvents, petroleum<br />
• Auto repair – petroleum and solvents<br />
• Mechanical equipment maintenance and storage, plant nursery – pesticides,<br />
solvents, petroleum<br />
• Heavy equipment sales and rentals – petroleum<br />
• Auto salvage yard, recorded leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) –<br />
petroleum<br />
• Heavy equipment sales and rentals, equipment maintenance – petroleum<br />
and solvents<br />
• Adjacent to site with reported fuel spills, fuel storage – petroleum<br />
• Site of reported fuel spills, fuel storage – petroleum<br />
• Unregistered historic underground storage tanks (UST), heavy equipment<br />
usage – petroleum<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-64<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
• Equipment rentals, landscaping, fuel storage – petroleum<br />
Four parcels were identified as medium priority. These parcels were identified as<br />
having a lesser potential for hazards due to unknown historical usage or<br />
indications of dumping. Nineteen parcels were identified as low priority sites. Low<br />
priority parcels are considered to have a low likelihood of encountering hazardous<br />
materials.<br />
According to Tucson Water, most of the larger water supply lines in the project<br />
area were cement asbestos. Twelve-inch cement asbestos water lines served the<br />
commercial parcels on the west side of I-<strong>10</strong> along the western property lines. A<br />
12-inch cement asbestos water supply line brought water into Continental Ranch<br />
approximately along the centerline of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road. There were numerous<br />
private wells in the area as well. According to the ADWR, at least 21 registered<br />
wells were located near the study area; however, there may also be other,<br />
unrecorded wells within the area. All properties in the commercial area on the west<br />
side of I-<strong>10</strong> within the project area disposed of liquid waste in individual septic<br />
tanks.<br />
Impacts<br />
No Build Alternative<br />
Because existing soils would remain undisturbed, no impacts from hazardous<br />
materials would result from the no build alternative.<br />
Preferred Alternative<br />
The preferred alternative would acquire additional R/W from all properties in the<br />
commercial area on the west side of I-<strong>10</strong> within the project area. As a result, all<br />
properties noted as high or medium priority in the PISA for this project would be<br />
affected by the preferred alternative. In addition to R/W acquisition, soils on several<br />
of the properties would be disturbed by the construction of the preferred alternative;<br />
therefore, the possibility of encountering hazardous materials would be increased<br />
from these activities. Subsurface ground disturbance during construction could<br />
affect also asbestos-containing water supply lines, private wells, and individual<br />
septic tanks located on these properties.<br />
Mitigation<br />
Before construction, the Town of Marana would conduct detailed Phase I Site<br />
<strong>Assessment</strong>s to assess site-specific potential for hazardous materials issues on<br />
parcels rated as high and medium priority. Additional investigation may include,<br />
but is not limited to, additional site reconnaissance and interviews with current and<br />
historical property owners. If parcels to be acquired involve structures, following<br />
the acquisition of the structure but prior to its demolition, the structures would be<br />
assessed for asbestos, lead-based paint, and other hazardous materials in<br />
accordance with State and Federal regulations.<br />
The Town of Marana would review sellers’ disclosure statements and title records<br />
of acquired properties for indications of hazardous materials usage and/or disposal<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-65<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
activities. Disclosure statements demonstrating affirmative or unknown responses<br />
for such activities would be subject to Phase I Site <strong>Assessment</strong>s activities.<br />
The Town of Marana would determine the location of unrecorded wells on<br />
potential acquisition properties prior to final roadway design and R/W acquisition.<br />
If wells are identified on the parcels to be acquired, the wells would be abandoned<br />
in accordance with the requirements of the ADWR.<br />
If relocation of asbestos-containing water lines is required, the contractor would<br />
handle, transport, and dispose of the material in accordance with approved federal,<br />
state, and county asbestos handling procedures. This would include appropriate<br />
precautions to ensure that employees are not exposed to airborne asbestos fibers and<br />
that fibers are not released into the atmosphere.<br />
Any construction project has the potential to discover new and previously<br />
undocumented cases of contamination. According to Arizona Department of<br />
Transportation’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction,<br />
Section <strong>10</strong>7 Legal Relations and Responsibility to Public (2000 Edition) (Stored<br />
Specification <strong>10</strong>7HAZMT, 01/15/93), if previously unidentified or suspect<br />
hazardous materials are encountered during construction, work would stop at that<br />
location and the Town of Marana Engineer would be contacted to arrange for<br />
proper treatment of those materials. Such locations would be investigated and<br />
proper action implemented prior to the continuation of work in that location.<br />
Conclusion<br />
Based upon the information contained within the PISA, additional R/W would be<br />
acquired from potentially contaminated properties, contaminated soils or<br />
groundwater may be encountered during project construction, and contaminated<br />
properties are possible within the project area that could pose a physical danger to<br />
construction crews. Because of these findings, a commitment was made to conduct<br />
additional investigations of high and medium priority sites prior to construction<br />
activities and to investigate any new cases of contamination that may be encountered<br />
during construction activities.<br />
Cultural Resources<br />
To ensure compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act and to prevent<br />
the disturbance of historic and/or cultural resources within the study area, a records<br />
search and a field survey were conducted to identify these resources. The results of<br />
the search and survey are summarized below.<br />
The AZSITE Cultural Resources Inventory was reviewed to identify information<br />
about prior studies and previously recorded resources in the project vicinity.<br />
AZSITE is a geographic information system database that includes records of the<br />
Arizona State Museum (ASM), Arizona State University, Museum of Northern<br />
Arizona, Bureau of Land Management, and State Historic Preservation Office<br />
(SHPO), including properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-66<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
(NRHP). Reports of major prior studies were reviewed also, including a recently<br />
completed overview prepared for the TRDN Project, which overlaps most of the<br />
records search area. The records search, which encompassed approximately <strong>10</strong>.3square-miles,<br />
identified information about 73 prior studies within the search area.<br />
Prior surveys were extensive and encompassed almost 90 percent of the record<br />
search area (9.25 square miles).<br />
The intensive pedestrian archaeological survey encompassed approximately 144<br />
acres of privately owned land. Observational transects at intervals of 20 meters or<br />
less were walked. The survey area was easily traversed and vegetation was sparse,<br />
which facilitated the survey. Approximately 140 acres was field surveyed for<br />
archaeological resources. Approximately <strong>10</strong>7 acres was previously surveyed.<br />
Thirteen acres within the channelized bed of the Santa Cruz River were not<br />
surveyed and another 5 acres were not surveyed because right-of-entry had not<br />
been acquired from the property owners. The 5 acres within the discontiguous Safe<br />
Routes to School corridor are within areas that were previously surveyed and data<br />
recovery studies had been conducted prior to construction of the modern<br />
residential development that now covers the area. This area was not resurveyed.<br />
In addition to the pedestrian survey, a historic building survey was completed for<br />
all existing properties within the project area. Potential historic-age buildings and<br />
structures were identified from County Assessor records and then field verified.<br />
All 22 parcels on the southwestern side of I-<strong>10</strong> were surveyed for historic<br />
buildings and structures. There were no buildings on the northeastern side of I-<strong>10</strong>.<br />
The PISA prepared for this project was reviewed because that study had examined<br />
aerial photographs dating between 1960 and 2000, maps dating from the late 1960s<br />
to the mid-1970s, and ADOT as-built plans from 1961. Properties constructed<br />
prior to 1960 were field inventoried. These inventories collected information about<br />
location, property type, historic and present use, construction materials,<br />
architectural style, condition, modifications or additions, and other integrity<br />
considerations. The information was used to complete Arizona Historic Property<br />
Inventory forms.<br />
Identification of Cultural Resources<br />
Archeological Sites - Previously Recorded<br />
The 73 previous surveys identified 49 archaeological and historical resources<br />
within the records search area. Thirty-one of these sites reflected the prehistoric<br />
occupation of the region, 15 were from the historic era, and three sites had both<br />
prehistoric and historic components.<br />
The surveys indicated that 14 of the 31 recorded prehistoric sites were habitation<br />
sites, <strong>10</strong> were artifact scatters without features, and the other 7 were artifact<br />
scatters with no identified features. A high percentage of sites appeared to be<br />
villages, which probably reflected the location adjacent to the Santa Cruz River.<br />
One site dated to the Archaic era, and the others to the Hohokam period. Four<br />
village sites were described as mostly or completely destroyed. Data recovery<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-67<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
studies were conducted at two of those before residential developments were<br />
constructed. Another appears to have been destroyed by erosion before it was<br />
recorded, and a sand and gravel quarry operation destroyed another.<br />
Numerous features were recorded at the seven artifact scatters with features. These<br />
included, rock shelters, bedrock mortars, check dams, rock piles, a canal, hearths,<br />
and roasting pits. One site dated to the Archaic era, and the others were Hohokam.<br />
Two sites were characterized as artifact scatters without features and were<br />
destroyed after they were recorded and another could not be found when a<br />
subsequent survey tried to relocate the site. Eight of the 15 historic-era sites were<br />
habitations or sites with remnants of other types of buildings. Three of these were<br />
homesteads.<br />
Four of the historic sites were related to transportation. These included the Tucson-<br />
Casa Grande Highway (State Route (SR) 84), and its predecessor, the Red Rock<br />
Road. Another was the current UPRR, which was constructed in 1880. The fourth<br />
is the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail, which is one of only 19<br />
National Historic Trails designated by Congress. The trail corridor was identified<br />
on the basis of written documents, and no physical evidence of the de Anza<br />
expedition have been found in the record search area.<br />
Of the three sites with both prehistoric and historic components, data recovery was<br />
conducted at one site before it was destroyed by a residential development.<br />
Another had remnants of a historic house with a scatter of prehistoric artifacts. The<br />
third site was a scatter of both prehistoric and historic artifacts.<br />
Archeological Sites – Field Survey<br />
Twelve of the previously recorded archaeological and historical resources<br />
identified by the records search were mapped within the alternatives area, and each<br />
of these was re-evaluated during the field survey. The current surveys located three<br />
additional cultural sites, one historic-age building, and two historic age wells that<br />
were previously unrecorded within the project area. Each of these resources are<br />
described below. The ASM site number follows the site name.<br />
Tucson-Casa Grande Highway (SR 84) AZ AA:2:118(ASM)<br />
Different segments of SR 84 have been recorded and designated with various<br />
numbers in the Arizona State Museum survey system. The segment of the highway<br />
within the alternatives analysis area was converted to the northwest-bound<br />
frontage road of I-<strong>10</strong> when I-<strong>10</strong> was constructed. The historic highway remains in<br />
use as a frontage road and is well maintained. During the field surveys for this<br />
project, two concrete box culverts were noted along the highway within the<br />
alternatives analysis area. Each has a survey benchmark medallion dated 1930.<br />
Stewart Brickyard Site AZ AA:12:51(ASM)<br />
The Stewart Brickyard site was recorded in 1955 and was described as a scatter of<br />
Hohokam pottery sherds that had been progressively destroyed by construction of<br />
the Southern Pacific Railroad, Casa Grande Highway (SR 84), and the Southern<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-68<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
Pacific Pipeline. Subsequently the site was characterized as a large Hohokam<br />
village. Even though the site is on the opposite side of the Santa Cruz River, it may<br />
have been part of the community centered around Los Morteros. During the field<br />
survey conducted for this project, it was noted that a sand and gravel operation that<br />
was redeveloped as the Pines Golf Club at Marana had destroyed the site south of<br />
the Arizona Block and Brick Company parcel. During the course of recording the<br />
Arizona Block and Brick Company building, the crew inspected the parcel. No<br />
artifacts or archaeological features were noted, but more deeply buried<br />
archaeological deposits could remain.<br />
Scatter Of Hohokam Pottery Sherds AZ AA:12:52(ASM)<br />
This site was first recorded in 1958 and described as a scatter of Hohokam pottery<br />
sherds; however, the site was noted as destroyed by construction of the Southern<br />
Pacific Railroad, Casa Grande Highway (State Highway 84), and the Southern<br />
Pacific Pipeline in 1958. I-<strong>10</strong> was subsequently constructed in this corridor as<br />
well.<br />
Disturbed Scatter Of Hohokam Pottery Sherds AZ AA:12:146(ASM)<br />
This site was discovered in 1981 and subsequent testing and data recovery<br />
identified 23 features including pit houses, small pits, roasting pits, rock<br />
concentrations, and a secondary cremation. The site was interpreted as a middle<br />
Sedentary period habitation locus associated with the community centered on Los<br />
Morteros. The site was described as no longer existing prior to construction of the<br />
residential development that covers the former site location.<br />
Extensive And Dense Scatter Of Hohokam Pottery Sherds And Flaked Stone AZ<br />
AA:12:226(ASM)<br />
This site was discovered in the 1980s by the North Tucson Basin Survey, and<br />
described as an extensive and sometimes dense scatter of Hohokam pottery sherds<br />
and flaked stone, along with fire-cracked rock and areas of ash staining. In 2003,<br />
archaeological monitoring of geotechnical testing near the site as part of the I-<strong>10</strong><br />
widening project discovered only a few artifacts. During the field surveys for this<br />
project, it was noted that the scatter extended farther west than originally mapped,<br />
and site boundaries were expanded approximately 3 acres to include the entire<br />
distribution of surface artifacts, increasing the total site area to approximately 24.2<br />
acres.<br />
Large Artifact Scatter And Possible Hohokam Pit House Village AZ<br />
AA:12:227(ASM)<br />
This site was discovered in the 1980s by the North Tucson Basin Survey and a<br />
recent survey inspected the site and reported finding approximately 50 artifacts on<br />
the site surface. Test excavations were recommended to determine if buried<br />
cultural deposits were present and evaluate the National Register eligibility of the<br />
site. During the field surveys for this project, a sample of surface artifacts were<br />
counted and a high density of artifacts at the site was suggested.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-69<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
Circa 1900-1930s Adobe House, A Trash Pit, And Multiple Trash Scatters AZ<br />
AA:12:350(ASM)<br />
This site was discovered in the 1980s by the North Tucson Basin Survey. A 2003<br />
study inspected the site and found a 27-foot-square foundation of shaped cobbles<br />
protruding from a mound of melted adobe about 2 feet high. The trash pit, about<br />
<strong>10</strong> feet wide, 12 feet long, and 3 feet deep, also was found, as well as an extensive<br />
artifact scatter. The surface assemblage was estimated to consist of approximately<br />
500 glass shards, 200 metal items, and 50 fragments of broken ceramic tableware.<br />
The site was recommended as eligible for the National Register under Criterion D<br />
for its potential to yield information about rural settlement in the Tucson Basin<br />
during the first part of the twentieth century.<br />
Antonio Alvarez Homestead AZ AA:12:370(ASM)<br />
This site was discovered in the 1980s by the North Tucson Basin Survey. Based on<br />
an 1896 survey, the site was identified as the homestead of Antonio Alvarez. The<br />
site was described as having remnants of an adobe building, a watering trough, a<br />
well, a rock pile, and a trash scatter. These features were on the east side of the<br />
Southern Pacific Railroad and the house was on the west side. This site was<br />
destroyed shortly after recording. Testing within the railroad R/W in 1992 failed to<br />
find any subsurface remains and at least four subsequent surveys found no<br />
evidence of the site. During the field surveys for this project, no trace of the site<br />
was found.<br />
Small Scatter Of Seven Pottery Sherds, And 5 Pieces Of Flaked Stone AZ<br />
AA:12:912(ASM)<br />
This site was recorded in 2002 and the recorders recommended that the site be<br />
considered eligible for the NRHP because of the potential for buried<br />
archaeological deposits that could yield important information. During the field<br />
surveys for this project, only five plain ware pottery sherds and a single piece of<br />
flaked stone were found.<br />
Red Rock Road AZ AA:12:952(ASM)<br />
Red Rock Road was recorded in 2003 and identified this unimproved dirt road as<br />
the principal route between Tucson and Red Rock prior to construction of the<br />
Tucson-Casa Grande Highway (SR 84) in the 1920s. This road currently is used to<br />
access ranch lands and a Yaqui cemetery. Small scatters of historic artifacts were<br />
noted along the road, and the road was recommended it be considered eligible for<br />
the National Register under Criterion A. During the field surveys for this project,<br />
the southern end of the road at its junction with El Camino De Mañana was<br />
inspected.<br />
Concrete Weir and Earthen Ditch AZ AA:12:955(ASM)<br />
This site, a concrete weir associated with an earthen ditch, was recorded during the<br />
field surveys for this project. The site consisted of a concrete weir with a central<br />
rectangular notch approximately 22 feet long, 8 inches wide, and a maximum of<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-70<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
approximately 3 feet above the ground at center. The central notch is 5.5 feet wide,<br />
1.5 feet deep, and has a narrow groove that perhaps once held a gate. The second<br />
feature at the site was a shallow swale aligned perpendicularly to the center of the<br />
weir. The swale was approximately 30 feet wide, 2 to 3 feet deep, with low berms<br />
on both sides. The swale could be traced for approximately 150 feet to the northnorthwest<br />
and about 550 feet to the south.<br />
The age of the structure is unknown, but the appearance of the concrete suggested<br />
it dated from the first or second quarter of the twentieth century. The swale was a<br />
silted-in ditch that once carried water, and the weir controlled the flow. The ditch<br />
generally paralleled local contours, but sediment indicated that water flowed to the<br />
north. The North Tucson Basin Survey noted similar ditches to the southeast, and<br />
hypothesized that they were dug to collect rainfall runoff and channel it to bean<br />
fields on the Santa Cruz River floodplain to the west; however, the ditch at this site<br />
does not seem to be oriented to delivering water to the floodplain. The ditch might<br />
have been built to control sheet flow erosion, but the weir does not resemble any<br />
recorded structures built by the Civilian Conservation Corps.<br />
Historic Trash Scatter AZ AA:12:956(ASM)<br />
This site was a sparse scatter of historic cans and broken glass that was recorded<br />
during the field surveys for this project. The irregularly shaped site was<br />
approximately 70 feet wide and 160 feet long. A count of surface artifacts tallied<br />
134 items, but they appear to represent only 30 cans, three glass bottles, and a<br />
crown cap. The artifacts represented food cans, milk containers, key-opened<br />
sardine cans, one tea container, one possible ketchup container, and a patent<br />
medicine bottle. The assemblage is quite small and may have been a secondary<br />
dump of household debris, or possibly the remains of a short-term camp.<br />
The most chronologically diagnostic artifacts were hole-in-top (matchstick filler)<br />
milk cans, which suggested a date in the early 1920s. Although the sale of patent<br />
medicine was outlawed by the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, patent medicines<br />
continued to be sold into the 1920s because of loopholes in the law and the<br />
relatively minor fines imposed for violations.<br />
Cortaro-Marana Irrigation District Canal AZ AA:12:957(ASM)<br />
The CMID Canal and two related wells were recorded during the field surveys for<br />
this project. The recorded segment of the irrigation canal site was approximately 3<br />
miles long. The canal was concrete lined and approximately <strong>10</strong> feet wide and 3<br />
feet deep. Thirteen features were recorded along the length of this canal. Seven of<br />
the features were inverted siphons that carried the canal beneath washes. One<br />
siphon was associated with a double culvert. Five of the features were simple slab<br />
bridges that allowed vehicle access from the I-<strong>10</strong> westbound frontage road<br />
(Tucson-Casa Grande Highway) across the canal. One feature was a set of gates to<br />
control flow to lateral canals.<br />
Two historic-age wells associated with the CMID also were identified. Well 16<br />
was a fenced well site that may have been drilled as early as 1919 and Well 22 was<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-71<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
drilled in 1948. The above ground pumps and facilities of both wells appeared to<br />
be modern.<br />
The Town of Marana was originally established in 1890 as a Southern Pacific<br />
Railroad station. In 1919, Valley Farms constructed a canal, dug wells, and<br />
installed an oil engine power plant. Components of these irrigation systems were<br />
eventually incorporated into the current CMID. In 1965, the CMID and the<br />
Cortaro Water Users Association took over the administration of the irrigation<br />
district. The main canal and many of the laterals were lined with concrete in the<br />
1940s and 1950s, and gunite lining was applied in the mid-1970s.<br />
Southern Pacific Railroad (currently the Union Pacific Railroad) AZ<br />
EE:3:53(ASM)<br />
The Southern Pacific Railroad main line across the entire state was determined<br />
eligible for the NRHP by the SHPO. The rail bed, ties, tracks, two trestle bridges,<br />
and a utility line were recorded along the railroad within the project area. The<br />
UPRR continues to operate and maintain the line as a modern railroad. The track<br />
was upgraded over the years and few historic materials remain intact, but much of<br />
the line followed the original alignment constructed in 1880 through the project<br />
area.<br />
Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail (No Site Number Assigned)<br />
The Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail is a nationally significant<br />
resource. However, identification of the trail corridor was based on historical<br />
documents, and no physical evidence of the de Anza expedition remains.<br />
Isolated Occurrences (No Site Number Assigned)<br />
Nine isolated occurrences (IO) were discovered during the field survey for this<br />
project. Eight of these consisted of one to four pieces of pottery, mostly plain<br />
wares. The other IO was a white chert biface.<br />
Historic Structures<br />
Western Meat Packing Company (No Site Number Assigned)<br />
The only historic-age building identified within the alternatives analysis area was<br />
Western Meat Packing Company (Stewart Block and Brick) located at 9311 N.<br />
Casa Grande Highway, which was recorded during the survey for this project.<br />
County Assessor records indicate that the building was constructed in 1957, but<br />
design elements of the building, including detailing on the doors and window<br />
surrounds on the front of the building, indicated that the building may have been<br />
built as early as the mid-1940s. The Western Meat Packing Company was one of<br />
earliest commercial structures to be built along this portion of Casa Grande<br />
Highway. By 1980, the livestock pens were removed and the property was<br />
converted to a concrete block manufacturing company. A 2000 aerial photograph<br />
documented additions to the original building.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-72<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
Traditional Cultural Places<br />
Although not formally designated as a Traditional Cultural Place, a Pascua Yaqui<br />
cemetery represents a highly sensitive historic resource near the project area.<br />
When first recorded, the site was characterized as a Hispanic cemetery, but<br />
subsequent research indicated the cemetery was established by residents of Yoem<br />
Pueblo, a Yaqui community in Marana.<br />
Eligibility Determination<br />
Cultural resources within the project area were evaluated using criteria for listing<br />
on the NRHP and the Arizona Register of Historic Properties. To be eligible for<br />
the NRHP, properties ordinarily must be at least 50 years old, and must be<br />
important in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture.<br />
They must possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,<br />
feeling, or association. In addition, properties must meet at least one of the<br />
following four criteria:<br />
Criterion A: are associated with events that have made a significant<br />
contribution to the broad pattern of our history<br />
Criterion B: are associated with the lives of persons significant in our<br />
past<br />
Criterion C: embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or<br />
method of construction, or that represent the work of a<br />
master, or possess high artistic values, or that represent a<br />
significant distinguishable entity whose components may<br />
lack individual distinction<br />
Criterion D: have yielded or may likely yield information important in<br />
prehistory or history.<br />
Previously recorded archaeological and historical sites were revisited as part of<br />
this survey and the sites were reviewed for eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP.<br />
The sites recorded initially during the field survey for this project were also<br />
analyzed for eligibility. Each of the sites is presented below in Table 4-9. Four<br />
sites, Stewart Brickyard Site - AZ AA:12:51(ASM), Scatter Of Hohokam Pottery<br />
Sherds - AZ AA:12:52(ASM), Disturbed Scatter Of Hohokam Pottery Sherds - AZ<br />
AA:12:146(ASM), and Antonio Alvarez Homestead AZ AA:12:370(ASM) were<br />
found to either be destroyed and no trace of the sites remained or unlikely to yield<br />
important information about the area and its history; therefore, these sites are not<br />
discussed further.<br />
No further consideration of cultural resources is recommended unless buried<br />
archaeological resources or human remains are unexpectedly encountered during<br />
project implementation. If buried artifacts, archaeological features, or human<br />
remains are encountered unexpectedly, they would be protected in place and<br />
reported to the Director of the ASM in compliance with the Arizona Antiquities<br />
Act.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-73<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
Table 4-9. NRHP Eligibility Recommendations of Recorded Sites<br />
ASM Site # Description<br />
Eligible to<br />
NRHP? (Y/N)<br />
Eligibility Criterion<br />
AZ AA:2:118 SR 84 Y D<br />
AZ AA:12:226 Hohokam Pottery Y D<br />
AZ AA:12:227 Possible Hohokam Pit<br />
House Village<br />
Y D<br />
AZ AA:12:350 Adobe House Y D<br />
AZ AA:12:912 Pottery/Stone Scatter N N/A<br />
AZ AA:12:952 Red Rock Road Y D<br />
AZ AA:12:955 Concrete Weir Y D<br />
AZ AA:12:956 Historic Trash Scatter N N/A<br />
AZ AA:12:957 CMID Canal N N/A<br />
AZ EE:3:53 UPRR Y A<br />
None assigned Juan Bautista de Anza<br />
National Historic Trail<br />
Y Congressional<br />
Designation as<br />
National Historic Trail<br />
None assigned Isolated Occurrences N N/A<br />
None assigned Western Meat Packing<br />
building<br />
Effects of Eligible Resources<br />
No Build Alternative<br />
N N/A<br />
The no build alternative would have no impacts to archeological and cultural<br />
resources in the project area.<br />
Preferred Alternative<br />
The preferred alignment would avoid all but 5 of the 16 cultural resources<br />
identified within the project area. Prior archaeological excavation or development<br />
destroyed two other sites; therefore, they warrant no further consideration. Three<br />
other sites were considered ineligible for the National Register and no treatment<br />
was proposed for those sites. The Pascua Yaqui cemetery was more than 0.25 mile<br />
from any ground disturbance that would result from construction of the preferred<br />
alternative. Because of the proximity of I-<strong>10</strong>, the preferred alternative would not<br />
produce noise or visual impacts that would adversely affect the historic integrity of<br />
the cemetery.<br />
The footprint of the preferred alternative would affect three resources, but the<br />
project is unlikely to adversely affect the historic qualities that make the properties<br />
eligible for the National Register. El Camino de Mañana would be realigned<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-74<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
slightly and the junction with the historic Red Rock Road would be abandoned.<br />
This would not affect the historic values of Red Rock Road. Expansion of Linda<br />
Vista Boulevard and its associated drainage improvements would disturb a short<br />
segment of the northern end of the earthen ditch at Concrete Weir and Earthen<br />
Ditch, but that would not affect the potential of the site to yield important<br />
information. The bridge crossing of the UPRR also would not adversely affect any<br />
historic values of this segment of the railroad, which passes through a setting<br />
highly modified by modern development. There is no physical evidence of the<br />
Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail to preserve; however, the proposed<br />
bridges over the Santa Cruz River would be designed to accommodate the Juan<br />
Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail beneath and to improve access to this<br />
trail.<br />
The preferred alternative would be likely to result in adverse effects to two cultural<br />
resources: the Tucson-Casa Grande Highway, and the Stewart Brickyard Site. The<br />
impacts to each of these facilities is detailed in the following paragraphs.<br />
Tucson-Casa Grande Highway (SR 84) AZ AA:2:118(ASM)<br />
The preferred alternative cannot achieve its stated purpose and fulfill the<br />
documented needs in the project area without crossing the Tucson-Casa Grande<br />
Highway and reconstructing the roadway to match the elevation of the gradeseparated<br />
TI and to accommodate new I-<strong>10</strong> on and off ramps. Although such<br />
effects would be considered adverse, they can be adequately mitigated by<br />
collecting and documenting information from the historic highway in accordance<br />
with the 2002 ADOT interim procedures for treating the historic state highway<br />
system. These procedures would be followed for the proposed project.<br />
Stewart Brickyard Site AZ AA:12:51(ASM)<br />
R/W acquisition, construction of the proposed access road, and the reconstruction<br />
of the eastbound I-<strong>10</strong> frontage road would cross the Stewart Brickyard Site AZ<br />
AA:12:51(ASM). Although part of the frontage road would be within areas of the<br />
site that were destroyed previously by a sand and gravel pit, buried archaeological<br />
features may remain intact beneath other parts of the proposed roadways. To<br />
prevent damage to possible buried resources, prior to construction, a testing<br />
program would be developed for this site in consultation with SHPO. The testing<br />
program would define locations and frequencies of test excavations within this site<br />
to determine if significant archaeological deposits exist within the project area.<br />
Depending upon the results of the testing program, follow-up data recovery may<br />
be required also.<br />
Mitigation<br />
The Town of Marana would follow the terms and conditions of the Section <strong>10</strong>6<br />
programmatic agreement for I-<strong>10</strong> improvements between the I-<strong>10</strong>/I-19 interchange<br />
and Tangerine Road signed by SHPO, FHWA, ADOT, and the Advisory Council<br />
on Historic Preservation in 1993 (included in Appendix D) and subsequently<br />
amended. In addition, the Town of Marana would follow the SHPO<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-75<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
recommendations to prepare a project specific treatment plan (see letter in<br />
Appendix D).<br />
The cultural resources inventory report prepared for this proposed project<br />
recommended a determination of adverse effect because of proposed project<br />
impacts on two National Register-eligible properties: the Tucson-Casa Grande<br />
Highway (SR 84) and the Stewart Brickyard archaeological site. Although such<br />
effects would be considered adverse, they would be adequately mitigated at both<br />
sites. The Town of Marana would mitigate adverse effects to two National<br />
Register-eligible properties: the Tucson-Casa Grande Highway (State Route 84),<br />
and the Stewart Brickyard archaeological site. Effects to the Tucson-Casa Grande<br />
Highway would be mitigated effectively by collecting and documenting<br />
information in accordance with the 2002 Arizona Department of Transportation<br />
interim procedures for the historic state highway system. To prevent damage to<br />
possible buried resources at the Stewart Brickyard archaeological site, a preconstruction<br />
testing plan would be developed and implemented for this site by the<br />
Town of Marana in consultation with ADOT <strong>Environmental</strong> and Enhancement<br />
Group’s Historic Preservation Team. The testing plan would define locations of<br />
test excavations within this site to determine if significant archaeological deposits<br />
exist within the area of potential effect. The Historic Preservation Team would<br />
consult with the SHPO as required. Depending upon the results of the testing<br />
program, follow-up data recovery may be required also.<br />
Minor gaps in the cultural resources inventory would be addressed by the Town of<br />
Marana as final design proceeds. These include completion of the archeological<br />
survey on parcels that could not be surveyed previously along the eastbound I-<strong>10</strong><br />
frontage road and Linda Vista Boulevard because rights-of-entry could not be<br />
obtained. Archeological clearance would be obtained before geotechnical testing<br />
for bridge and embankment piers.<br />
According to Arizona Department of Transportation’s Standard Specifications for<br />
Road and Bridge Construction, Section <strong>10</strong>7.05 Legal Relations and Responsibility<br />
to Public, Archaeological Features (2000 Edition), if previously unidentified<br />
cultural resources are encountered during activity related to the construction of the<br />
project, the contractor shall stop work immediately at that location and shall take<br />
all reasonable steps to secure the preservation of those resources and notify the<br />
Engineer. The Engineer would contact the ADOT EEG, Historic Preservation<br />
Team (602.712.8636) immediately and make arrangements for the proper<br />
treatment of those resources. ADOT would, in turn, notify the appropriate<br />
agency(ies) to evaluate the significance of those resources.<br />
Agreement Documents<br />
SHPO, FHWA, ADOT, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation signed<br />
a Section <strong>10</strong>6 programmatic agreement for I-<strong>10</strong> improvements between the I-<strong>10</strong>/I-<br />
19 interchange and Tangerine Road in 1993 (see Appendix D). This agreement<br />
established protocol and procedures to be followed for cultural resource<br />
investigations within the area covered by the agreement. This programmatic<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-76<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
agreement, as revised to address research design for treatment of archaeological<br />
resources, has been followed for this proposed project and would continue to be<br />
followed throughout the remainder of the project.<br />
In addition, ADOT interim procedures for treating the historic state highway<br />
system were developed in 2002. These procedures require the collection and<br />
documentation of information from the historic highway before construction that<br />
would impact these facilities.<br />
SHPO Concurrence<br />
SHPO has reviewed the cultural resources report prepared for this project and has<br />
concurred with all of the eligibility findings except that of the Tucson-Casa<br />
Grande Highway. SHPO stated that the segment of roadway within the project area<br />
contributed to its eligibility to the NRHP and that a project specific treatment plan<br />
would be needed (see letter in Appendix D).<br />
Conclusion<br />
The cultural resources report prepared for this proposed project recommended a<br />
determination of adverse effect because of proposed project impacts on two<br />
National Register-eligible properties: the Tucson-Casa Grande Highway (SR 84)<br />
and the Stewart Brickyard archaeological site. A strategy for mitigating adverse<br />
effects on these facilities was developed. Potential impacts on four other nearby<br />
National Register-eligible properties were evaluated and the project was<br />
determined to have no adverse effect on the historic qualities that make those<br />
resources eligible. Three other resources within the area of potential effect were<br />
recommended as ineligible for the National Register, and two other previously<br />
recorded properties had been destroyed.<br />
Socioeconomics<br />
Demographics<br />
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the study area consisted of five census tracts<br />
within Pima County and the Town of Marana (Census Tracts 44.16, 44.20, 46.29,<br />
46.30, and 46.39), which represented a total 2000 population of 21,480. These<br />
census tracts are presented in Figure 4-5. Selected 2000 U.S. Census Bureau data<br />
from the five census tracts were compared to the same data for the Town of<br />
Marana, Pima County, and the State of Arizona in Table 4-<strong>10</strong>. Census data for<br />
these tracts is summarized in the following paragraphs.<br />
Census Tract 46.16 was the largest of the tracts, with a population of 8,841<br />
persons. Housing in this tract tended to be newer (94% constructed 1990 or after)<br />
and more frequently occupied by the owner (90.7%) when compared to the other<br />
tracts, the Town of Marana, Pima County, and Arizona. This tract also had a<br />
higher median family income ($60,172) when compared to the other tracts, the<br />
Town of Marana, Pima County, and Arizona. This census tract could be<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-77<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
44.20<br />
Avra<br />
Valley Rd<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Rd<br />
Silverbell Rd<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
44.16<br />
46.39<br />
I<strong>10</strong><br />
El Camino de Mañana<br />
Linda Vista Blvd<br />
4-78<br />
Cortaro Rd.<br />
Hartman Ln<br />
46.30<br />
46.12<br />
Camino de Oeste<br />
46.29<br />
46.34<br />
Thornydale Rd<br />
Figure 4-5<br />
Census Tracts<br />
Project Number: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
Table 4-<strong>10</strong>. 2000 Selected Census Data<br />
Town of Pima State of Census<br />
Tract<br />
Census<br />
Tract<br />
Census<br />
Tract<br />
Census<br />
Tract<br />
Census<br />
Tract<br />
Marana County Arizona 44.16 44.20 46.29 46.30 46.39<br />
2000 Population 13,556 843,746 5,130,632 8,841 2,642 7,583 1,522 892<br />
RACE<br />
CHARACTERISTICS<br />
% White 84.3 77.8 77.9 87.5 68.2 90.5 94.2 92.7<br />
% Black 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.4 5.8 2.6 1.6 2.4<br />
% Indian 2.9 4.0 5.7 1.4 7.9 1.3 0.6 3.0<br />
% Asian 3.2 2.7 2.3 3.9 1.8 2.3 1.9 0.9<br />
% Other 8.7 15.1 13.2 6.6 19.3 6.2 3.9 5.6<br />
% Persons of Hispanic<br />
Origin<br />
AGE<br />
CHARACTERISTICS<br />
19.6 29.3 25.3 16.6 33.6 16.3 15.2 15.6<br />
% Below 25 years 34.2 35.6 36.8 34.0 35.3 40.9 36.2 35.7<br />
% 25 to 34 years 16.9 13.5 14.5 17.2 15.8 12.3 13.3 14.0<br />
% 35 to 54 years 29.5 28.0 27.2 30.7 28.9 36.4 35.3 33.5<br />
% 55 to 64 years 9.9 8.8 8.7 9.5 9.0 5.7 7.4 8.3<br />
% 65 to 84 years 9.1 14.2 11.7 8.0 <strong>10</strong>.4 4.4 6.9 8.2<br />
DISABILITY<br />
STATUS<br />
% Population 21 to 64<br />
years<br />
% Population 65 years<br />
and over<br />
ECONOMIC<br />
CHARACTERISTICS<br />
Median Family<br />
Income (1999)<br />
% Persons Below<br />
Poverty Level<br />
14.2 19.5 19.4 11.1 32.7 12.8 9.4 17.4<br />
28.3 40.7 39.7 28.3 63.5 29.1 56.6 25.8<br />
52,870 36,758 40,558 60,172 30,000 57,408 59,688 56,411<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
6.2 n/a 13.9 2.1 15.0 3.5 1.0 8.1<br />
4-79<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
HOUSING<br />
CHARACTERISTICS<br />
Occupied Housing<br />
Units<br />
Table 4-<strong>10</strong>. 2000 Selected Census Data<br />
Town of Pima State of Census<br />
Tract<br />
Census<br />
Tract<br />
Census<br />
Tract<br />
Census<br />
Tract<br />
Census<br />
Tract<br />
Marana County Arizona 44.16 44.20 46.29 46.30 46.39<br />
4,944 332,350 1,901,327 3,219 794 2,418 555 314<br />
% Owner Occupied 82.7 64.3 68.0 90.7 71.3 90.5 70.5 91.7<br />
% Renter Occupied 17.3 35.7 32.0 9.3 28.7 9.5 29.5 8.3<br />
OWNER OCCUPIED<br />
HOUSING VALUE<br />
% Under $50,000 1.1 4.3 4.9 0.3 16.9 0.7 2.0 0<br />
% $50,000-99,999 11.6 35.6 30.7 9.6 51.9 22.9 13.2 5.3<br />
% $<strong>10</strong>0,000-149,999 48.7 29.6 30.7 51.9 19.0 68.7 30.6 57.4<br />
% $150,000-199,999 24.8 13.9 15.2 23.5 4.2 6.5 28.1 33.0<br />
% $200,000-or higher 13.7 16.7 18.6 14.7 8.0 1.3 26.1 4.3<br />
YEAR STRUCTURE<br />
BUILT<br />
% 1990 or after 80.1 23.2 29.3 94.3 20.1 36.2 69.2 57.7<br />
% 1980-1989 8.8 22.4 24.7 1.9 15.0 59.5 22.3 16.2<br />
% 1970-1979 5.8 25.6 23.6 1.9 34.1 3.1 8.6 19.2<br />
% 1960 or earlier 5.2 28.8 22.4 1.9 30.7 1.2 0.0 6.8<br />
n/a-Not applicable<br />
Source: 2000 U.S. Census Bureau<br />
characterized as a new residential area with a relatively affluent low minority<br />
population.<br />
The Census Tract 44.20 contrasted strongly with the other tracts in the study area<br />
and with the Town of Marana, Pima County, and the state. This tract had a total<br />
population of 2,642 persons with 7.9% Indian, 19.3% classified as other, and only<br />
68.2% white. This indicated a much higher minority population than surrounding<br />
census tracts, the Town of Marana, Pima County, and the State of Arizona. This<br />
was partially explained by the presence of a small pueblo of the Pascua Yaqui tribe<br />
(Yoem Pueblo) located near the northern portion of the study area. The median<br />
family income in this tract was the lowest in the study area at $30,000 and was<br />
even below the median family income of Pima County. The percentage of persons<br />
below the poverty level (15%) was also higher than the study area, the Town of<br />
Marana, the county, or the state. This tract had older homes (64.8% constructed<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-80<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
before 1979) and lower value homes (68.8% of the homes were worth $99,999 or<br />
less) than the other areas of comparison. This tract also showed a high percentage<br />
of disabled individuals in all age groups. This census tract could be characterized<br />
as an older area with lower incomes and a high minority and disabled population.<br />
Census Tracts 46.29, 46.30, and 46.39 resembled the characteristics of Census<br />
Tract 46.16. These tracts were characterized also by a relatively young, low<br />
minority, affluent population with newer, higher value homes.<br />
Minority Groups/ Title VI/<strong>Environmental</strong> Justice<br />
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes assure that individuals<br />
are not excluded from participation in, denied the benefit of, or subjected to<br />
discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance<br />
on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, and disability. EO 12898<br />
Federal Actions to Address <strong>Environmental</strong> Justice to Minority Populations and<br />
Low Income Populations requires federal agencies to consider impacts to minority<br />
and low income populations as part of environmental analyses to ensure that these<br />
populations do not receive a disproportionately high number of adverse human<br />
health impacts as a result of a federally funded project. FHWA issues a guidance<br />
document that establishes policies and procedures for complying with this EO in<br />
relation to federally-funded transportation projects (FHWA 1998). This guidance<br />
defines a “disproportionately high and adverse effect as one that is predominately<br />
borne by, suffered by, of that is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude<br />
than the adverse effect that would be suffered by the non-minority population<br />
and/or the non-low-income population.<br />
As discussed above, the study area typically had a relatively low minority<br />
population, which reflected the overall population of the Town of Marana.<br />
However, Census Tract 44.20 exhibited a high Indian (7.9%), other (19.3%), and<br />
Hispanic (33.6%) population. This area represents the original incorporated area of<br />
Marana, while the remainder of the Town reflects a newer rapidly developing area.<br />
A small pueblo of the Pascua Yaqui tribe, the Yoem Pueblo, is located near the<br />
intersection of Sandario and Barnett Roads within Census Tract 44.20. Also of<br />
interest was the high percentage of disabled individuals in this tract. Although this<br />
census tract demonstrated the characteristics that would offer it protection under<br />
Title VI, EO 12898, and the ADA, as shown in Figure 4-5, this area is located in<br />
the extreme northern portion of the study area, approximately 8 miles from the<br />
project area.<br />
Because improvements would be distant from this area, the project would not<br />
affect this tract. In accordance with EO 12898, no disproportionately high and<br />
adverse human health or environmental effects upon minority and low income<br />
populations would occur as a result of the project. Pursuant to Title VI, individuals<br />
from the area would not be excluded from participation in, denied the benefit of, or<br />
subjected to discrimination as a result of the preferred alternative. In addition, the<br />
project would upgrade intersections and sidewalks within the project limits to be in<br />
compliance with the ADA and resulting regulations. The preferred alternative<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-81<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
could not be constructed in an area that would preferentially benefit this group. As<br />
discussed in Chapter 3, Alternatives, an alternative corridor location north of the<br />
preferred alternative was considered, but eliminated from further consideration<br />
because this location did not serve the proposed project’s demonstrated purpose<br />
and need.<br />
Neighborhood Continuity<br />
According to the Town of Marana’s General Plan Update, the Town is challenged<br />
to provide a sense of unity and accessibility to all public and private services<br />
because the Town boundaries are very widespread, development is irregularly<br />
shaped, and the Town is bisected by I-<strong>10</strong> and the Santa Cruz River. This project<br />
would provide an additional connection between services east and west of I-<strong>10</strong> and<br />
the Santa Cruz River, which would improve the sense of unity that the Town seeks<br />
to promote.<br />
The preferred alternative would also provide important improvements to bicycle<br />
and pedestrian facilities within the area of the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI. In addition,<br />
the preferred alternative would improve access for constituents on the east side of<br />
I-<strong>10</strong> to the Santa Cruz Shared Use Path and the De Anza National Historic Trail.<br />
These facilities may result in improved community cohesion and continuity. The<br />
project would also provide sidewalks and intersections within the project limits<br />
that would be in compliance with the ADA and resulting regulations. These<br />
improvements would provide enhanced access to those with mobility impairments,<br />
and generally would improve accessibility for all pedestrians in the area.<br />
Emergency Services<br />
Two agencies, the Town of Marana Police Department and the Pima County<br />
Sheriff’s Department, provide police services to the project area. Emergency<br />
medical services are provided by Northwest Fire and Rescue, a private service<br />
provider. Limited emergency services such as hospitals and other medical facilities<br />
service the project area, but none of these facilities are located within the project<br />
area. The hospital closest to the project area (Northwest Medical Center at Orange<br />
Grove and La Cholla Roads) is located approximately 7 miles from the project<br />
area. The new Northwest Medical Center near Tangerine Road and First Avenue is<br />
approximately <strong>10</strong> miles from the project area.<br />
Although these facilities would not be affected directly by the proposed<br />
improvements, Northwest Medical Center, at an early public agency scoping<br />
meeting for this project, stated that the at-grade crossings at El Camino de Mañana<br />
and Cortaro Road may result in extended delays for emergency medical personnel<br />
trying to transport individuals from the west side of I-<strong>10</strong> to hospital facilities on<br />
the east side of I-<strong>10</strong>. These delays may be critical to some patients. An additional<br />
grade-separated crossing within the study area would improve the chances of<br />
getting to critical patients from the west side of the interstate to medical facilities<br />
on the east side of the interstate quickly and thereby improve the chances of<br />
survival for these individuals.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-82<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
Social Services<br />
The project area is served by the Marana Unified School District. A second school<br />
district (Amphitheater Unified School District) is located near the study area, but<br />
east of Thornydale Road. There are several educational facilities located within the<br />
overall study area. <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Elementary is located within the project area in<br />
Continental Ranch along <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road. Coyote Trail Elementary is located<br />
approximately 1.5 miles from the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI. Tortolita and Marana<br />
Middle Schools are located approximately 3 and 7.5 miles from the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong><br />
Road TI, respectively. Mountain View and Marana High Schools are located<br />
approximately 3.5 and 7.5 miles from the project area, respectively. These schools<br />
would not be affected directly by the proposed improvements; however, as<br />
discussed in Chapter 3, Alternatives, Mountain View High School families would<br />
benefit from the proposed improvements.<br />
Relocations/Displacements<br />
Residential<br />
The preferred alternative would displace permanently two occupied residences on<br />
commercial property in the project area. One of these residences is the only<br />
residence in the commercial area west of I-<strong>10</strong> near the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI. The<br />
proposed <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road extension to I-<strong>10</strong> with its 300-foot R/W width would<br />
pass directly over this residence. The total commercial parcel of 2.3 acres would<br />
be acquired. Acquisitions and relocations are illustrated in Figure 4-6.<br />
The other residence proposed for displacement is located east of I-<strong>10</strong> near the<br />
proposed new intersection of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road/El Camino de Mañana/Linda Vista<br />
Boulevard. It is important to note, however, that this residence is leased for<br />
ranching in the area. This property is part of a large parcel that is planned for<br />
development; therefore, even if the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI were not constructed, this<br />
residence would be removed by private interests.<br />
Commercial<br />
The preferred alternative would result in displacement and subsequent relocation<br />
of a number of occupied commercial properties. The proposed western<br />
reconstruction of the eastbound I-<strong>10</strong> frontage road would result in the acquisition<br />
and relocation of all 8 commercial parcels between the access road and the<br />
eastbound I-<strong>10</strong> frontage road north of Linda Vista Boulevard. An additional<br />
commercial property would be displaced at the new TI, and 2 commercial parcels<br />
near the southern intersection of the eastbound I-<strong>10</strong> frontage road and the access<br />
road. These commercial displacements would result in total takes of 12.8 acres.<br />
The businesses displaced by the proposed improvements would be:<br />
• Eller Media Company 9741 N. Casa Grande Hwy<br />
• Amigos Nursery 9705 N. Casa Grande Hwy<br />
• Jarrell Pre-Cast 9685 N. Casa Grande Hwy<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-83<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
• Arizona Feeds/Alamo Saddlery/Bond’s Auction 9645 N. Casa Grande Hwy<br />
• Arrow Pump/Linda Vista Rent All 9635 N. Casa Grande Hwy<br />
• Quality Pallets 9625 or 9527 N. Casa Grande Hwy<br />
• Classi Carts 9601 N. Casa Grande Hwy<br />
• C & I Equipment 9421 N. Casa Grande Hwy<br />
• Cardi Used Equipment 9241 N. Casa Grande Hwy<br />
• Landscaping materials 9201 N. Casa Grande Hwy<br />
Temporary Impacts<br />
Access<br />
Construction activities would produce temporary interruptions to roadways on the<br />
east side of I-<strong>10</strong>. As a result of this, some short-term inconvenience would occur.<br />
During reconstruction of the eastbound I-<strong>10</strong> frontage road, business access to the<br />
frontage road would be prohibited. To minimize impacts from these access<br />
restrictions and eventual loss of access (discussed under permanent impacts<br />
below), an access road would be constructed before frontage road reconstruction<br />
occurs. The access road would intersect with the eastbound frontage road north<br />
and south of the reconstruction area of the eastbound frontage road, providing a<br />
frontage road bypass during reconstruction of the frontage road. The frontage road<br />
would then be closed to traffic between the access road intersections until<br />
reconstruction was complete. To allow complete circulation within the area, the<br />
access road and the eastbound frontage road would remain two-way until the<br />
reconstruction of the frontage road is completed. After construction is completed,<br />
the eastbound frontage road would be changed to one-way operation, but the<br />
access road would continue to have two-way operation.<br />
<strong>Traffic</strong> Patterns/Service<br />
Temporary impacts to traffic patterns and service would not be very burdensome<br />
within the project area because <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road east of Continental Ranch and<br />
the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI do not exist; therefore, there is no traffic to displace<br />
within most of the project area. The exception would be traffic that uses the atgrade<br />
crossing of the UPRR at El Camino de Mañana. During the initial<br />
construction phase, this at-grade crossing would be closed to traffic. The low<br />
volumes of traffic that use this crossing would be required to use Cortaro Road or<br />
another crossing of the UPRR. Because the only access point along the westbound<br />
frontage road between Cortaro Road and Avra Valley Road is at El Camino de<br />
Mañana, the westbound I-<strong>10</strong> frontage road would be closed between Cortaro Road<br />
and Avra Valley Road until construction was completed.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-84<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at <strong>Twin</strong><br />
<strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-85<br />
Figure 4-6<br />
Acquisitions and Relocations<br />
Project Number: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
Business Disruption<br />
A traffic control plan would be developed that would maintain business access<br />
throughout project construction. The construction phase of the project may result in<br />
some temporary inconvenience for the businesses within the project area. The traffic<br />
control plan would be prepared in accordance with ADOT requirements and the<br />
specific needs of area businesses. Access would be maintained throughout the<br />
construction project; however, some inconveniences would be experienced by<br />
customers due to rerouting traffic from the eastbound frontage road to the access<br />
road. Signs would be posted to alert motorists of construction and to direct traffic<br />
to area businesses.<br />
Permanent Impacts<br />
Access<br />
The two-way supplemental access road was proposed to partially mitigate the<br />
effects of the proposed additional R/W acquisition and the loss of access near the<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI. ADOT’s Roadway Design Guidelines prohibit access onto<br />
frontage roads from slightly beyond the ramp/frontage road intersection through<br />
the intersection with the cross road (<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road). Prohibiting access in this<br />
area would minimize conflicts between low speed vehicles turning into and out of<br />
driveways with traffic exiting and entering the interstate at high speeds. Currently<br />
businesses in the area depend on access to the eastbound I-<strong>10</strong> frontage road;<br />
therefore, the two-way access road would allow properties near the TI to access<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road, I-<strong>10</strong>, and the frontage roads after direct access onto the frontage<br />
road was eliminated.<br />
These businesses have developed their parcels to accommodate customer and<br />
service traffic access from the frontage road to the east. After frontage road access<br />
is eliminated, the businesses would be required to reorient their business<br />
operations to accommodate access from the west. Although this could be<br />
accomplished relatively easily by some property owners, others would find it<br />
difficult to accommodate this change. Some parcels are currently separated from<br />
the access road by parcels owned by others. Access across these parcels would be<br />
addressed during the final design of the proposed improvements and during R/W<br />
negotiations with individual property owners.<br />
Most users of the facility would experience improved access to points east and<br />
west of I-<strong>10</strong>, to I-<strong>10</strong>, and to the businesses along the frontage road with the<br />
completion of the preferred alternative.<br />
<strong>Traffic</strong> Patterns/Service<br />
The preferred alternative would improve most traffic patterns throughout the study<br />
area. The proposed grade-separation at the UPRR would prevent drivers from<br />
experiencing train-related delays on <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road and would reduce<br />
congestion on other local roadways, notably Silverbell and Cortaro Roads. The<br />
eastbound I-<strong>10</strong> frontage road would be converted to one-way operation from the<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-86<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
Avra Valley TI south to the Cortaro Road TI, which would result in one-way<br />
frontage road operation from the Avra Valley TI to the 29 th Street TI. This would<br />
promote safer operations and would comply with ADOT policy. Provision of a<br />
new TI at <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road would improve traffic circulation within the overall<br />
area and serve a substantial amount of traffic both crossing and accessing I-<strong>10</strong>.<br />
Circulation within the study area would be improved also with the proposed<br />
construction of improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities.<br />
Residents within Continental Ranch would see a substantial increase in traffic<br />
volumes along <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road. Current two-way traffic volumes on <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong><br />
Road near the eastern terminus of the roadway are estimated to be approximately<br />
<strong>10</strong>0 vehicles during the peak hour. After completion of the proposed<br />
improvements, two-way traffic volumes are estimated to increase to approximately<br />
2,5<strong>10</strong> vehicles during the peak hour by the year 2030; however, <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road<br />
was designed originally to provide this interstate connection.<br />
Business Disruption<br />
Although access to the businesses near the TI would be modified substantially with<br />
the loss of access to the eastbound I-<strong>10</strong> frontage road, the resulting business access<br />
from the west would be safer and more convenient for customers. Currently<br />
customers must make right and left turns into these businesses from the high speed<br />
eastbound I-<strong>10</strong> frontage road, which increases the risk of rear end and sideswipe<br />
crashes. The access road is a low speed facility and would be used primarily to<br />
access the businesses; therefore, the speeds and volumes on this roadway would be<br />
reduced and the resulting conditions would be safer for customers. In addition, the<br />
proposed improvements would provide new direct access to these businesses from<br />
Continental Ranch and from the east side of I-<strong>10</strong>. Currently customers must follow<br />
circuitous routes along the eastbound and westbound I-<strong>10</strong> frontage roads to access<br />
the businesses.<br />
Mitigation<br />
The Town of Marana would conduct acquisitions and relocations in accordance<br />
with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies<br />
Act of 1970, as amended. Sections 28-1841 through 28-1853 of Arizona Revised<br />
Statutes provide for implementation of the Federal Relocation Assistance Program<br />
on a state level. In compliance with the Act, a relocation plan would be prepared.<br />
The Town of Marana would develop a traffic control plan that would ensure that<br />
access to businesses is maintained at all times. The traffic control plan would be<br />
prepared in accordance with Arizona Department of Transportation requirements<br />
and the specific needs of area businesses. Signs would be posted to alert motorists<br />
of construction and to direct traffic to area businesses.<br />
Businesses would reorient operations to accommodate access from the west. Some<br />
parcels are currently separated from the access road by parcels owned by others.<br />
Access across these parcels would be addressed during the final design of the<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-87<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
proposed improvements and during R/W negotiations with individual property<br />
owners.<br />
Conclusion<br />
Social and economic impacts may result if the proposed improvements: 1) produce<br />
changes in neighborhood or community cohesion or continuity; 2) specially<br />
benefit or harm protected groups; 3) affect highway and traffic safety, or overall<br />
public safety; 4) affect access to social services, schools or recreational resources;<br />
5) result in relocations or displacements of residents or businesses; 6) affect the<br />
economic viability of existing highway-related businesses through changes to<br />
access or disruptions to business activities; or 7) produce changes in travel patterns<br />
and accessibility.<br />
The preferred alternative would produce positive effects to overall public safety,<br />
access to services, and travel patterns and accessibility, especially for pedestrians,<br />
bicyclists, and the disabled. Impacts to business and residences would occur<br />
through acquisition and relocation and modification of access; however, these<br />
impacts would be minimized through relocations which follow the Uniform<br />
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as<br />
amended, and Sections 28-1841 through 28-1853 of Arizona Revised Statutes. The<br />
traffic control plan developed for this project would ensure that access to<br />
businesses is maintained at all times. During the final design of the proposed<br />
improvements and R/W negotiations with individual property owners, providing<br />
access to the access road would be addressed.<br />
Section 6 (f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund<br />
Act<br />
The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA) of 1965 established a<br />
grants-in-aid fund to assist states in the planning, acquisition, and development of<br />
outdoor recreational land and water areas and facilities. Section 6 (f) of the Act<br />
prohibits the conversion of any property acquired or developed with the assistance<br />
of the fund to anything other than public outdoor recreation use without the<br />
approval of the Secretary of the Department of Interior (DOI). The National Park<br />
System (NPS), within the DOI, administers the program at the federal level. At the<br />
state level, Arizona State Parks administers the program through the Grants and<br />
Recreation Programs Section. Town of Marana and Pima County Parks and<br />
Recreation Departments administer the program locally.<br />
Existing Conditions<br />
Arthur Pack Regional Park, administered by Pima County, is located at 9<strong>10</strong>1 N.<br />
Thornydale Road, south of Linda Vista Boulevard and west of Thornydale Road.<br />
Facilities available include ADA accessible facilities, golf course, lighted baseball<br />
and football/soccer fields, ramadas, basketball court, concession building, picnic<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-88<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
area, playground, restrooms, and drinking water on 500 acres. LWCFA funds were<br />
used in 1980 to build a softball field and again in 1983 for ball field lighting;<br />
therefore, this facility is protected under Section 6 (f) of the LWCFA.<br />
Impacts<br />
No Build Alternative<br />
The no build alternative would not acquire recreational properties funded with<br />
LWCFA funds; therefore the no build alternative would have no impacts to<br />
Section 6 (f) facilities. The no build alternative would not improve access to or<br />
connectivity between recreational facilities or provide increased availability of<br />
bicycle or pedestrian facilities.<br />
Preferred Alternative<br />
The preferred alternative would not acquire recreational properties funded with<br />
LWCFA funds; therefore the preferred alternative would have no impacts to<br />
Section 6 (f) facilities. The preferred alternative would improve regional access to<br />
the recreational facilities.<br />
Mitigation<br />
No mitigation is required because no effects to Section 6 (f) facilities would result<br />
from the preferred alternative.<br />
Conclusion<br />
The preferred alternative would have no impacts to Section 6 (f) facilities, but<br />
would improve access to and connectivity between recreational facilities.<br />
Section 4(f) Department of Transportation Act<br />
Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 states that the<br />
FHWA “may approve a transportation program or project requiring publiclyowned<br />
land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of<br />
national, state, or local significance, or land of a historic site of national, state, or<br />
local significance (as determined by the federal, state, or local officials having<br />
jurisdiction over the park, area, refuge, or site) only if there is no prudent or<br />
feasible alternative to using that land and the program or project includes all<br />
possible planning to minimize harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife and<br />
waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use” (49 U.S.C. 303).<br />
A use of a Section 4(f) resource, as defined in 23 CFR 771.135 (p), occurs: when<br />
land is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility; when there is a<br />
temporary occupancy of land that is adverse in terms of the statute’s<br />
preservationist purposes, and/or; when there is a constructive use of land. A<br />
constructive use of a Section 4(f) resource occurs when the transportation project<br />
does not incorporate land from the Section 4(f) resource, but the project’s<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-89<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
proximity impacts are so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes<br />
that qualify a resource for protection under Section 4(f) are substantially impaired.<br />
Existing Conditions<br />
Several existing or proposed Section 4(f) resources are located within the study<br />
area. No wildlife and waterfowl refuge areas exist within the study area. Section<br />
4(f) resources near the project area are shown on Figure 4-7.<br />
Impacts<br />
No Build Alternative<br />
The no build alternative would not permanently incorporate, temporarily occupy,<br />
or constructively use 4(f) resources; therefore the no build alternative would have<br />
no impacts to Section 4(f) resources. The no build alternative would not improve<br />
access to or connectivity between recreational facilities or provide increased<br />
availability of bicycle or pedestrian facilities.<br />
Preferred Alternative<br />
Five Section 4(f) resources are located near the project area. Each of these<br />
resources and the potential impacts to each of the resources are discussed in the<br />
following paragraphs.<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Elementary School<br />
Description of Resource: <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Elementary School is a public school<br />
managed by the Marana Unified School District. <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Elementary’s<br />
outdoor recreational facilities (approximately 6 acres) are used by the general<br />
public outside school hours.<br />
Use of 4(f) Resource: <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Elementary is outside the area of construction<br />
for the proposed improvements and no temporary use of the recreational facilities<br />
would be required for construction purposes or temporary construction easements;<br />
therefore, the preferred alternative would not permanently nor temporarily<br />
incorporate any resources from this facility into a transportation facility. Although<br />
noise levels at the facility would increase with the preferred alternative, the noise<br />
analysis determined that the increase would not cause sound levels to exceed the<br />
FHWA’s NAC (see Noise section, page 4-49); therefore, no constructive use of the<br />
resource would occur. The preferred alternative would resurface <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road<br />
adjacent to the school; therefore, access to the resource may be temporarily<br />
impacted during this work. These temporary impacts would be minimized by a<br />
traffic control plan; therefore, no use of the 4(f) property would occur. The<br />
preferred alternative would improve overall access to this resource.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-90<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Avra<br />
Valley<br />
Rd<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Rd<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong><br />
Elementary School<br />
Silverbell Rd<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail<br />
Santa Cruz River Shared Use Path<br />
School<br />
Park<br />
I<strong>10</strong><br />
El Camino de Mañana<br />
Linda Vista Blvd<br />
Union Pacific Railroad<br />
Cultural Resource<br />
4-91<br />
Cortaro Rd<br />
Hartman Ln<br />
Camino de Oeste<br />
Arthur Park<br />
Regional Park<br />
Thornydale Rd<br />
Figure 4-7<br />
4(f) Resources<br />
Project Number: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: 0<strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
Measures to Minimize Harm: Temporary access impacts to recreational facilities<br />
would be minimized by developing and following a traffic control plan. The traffic<br />
control plan would be prepared in accordance with ADOT requirements and the<br />
specific needs of the school. Access would be maintained throughout the<br />
construction project; however, some inconveniences would be experienced by<br />
roadway users.<br />
Coordination Efforts: The school would be involved in the development of the<br />
traffic control plan.<br />
4(f) Conclusion: The preferred alternative would not permanently, temporarily, or<br />
constructively use any resources from this facility, and would minimize temporary<br />
access impacts to the resource through a traffic control plan; therefore, no use of<br />
the 4(f) property would occur.<br />
Santa Cruz River Shared Use Path<br />
Description of Resource: The Santa Cruz River Shared Use Path is under<br />
construction and will consist of a 14-foot wide paved trail for bicycle and<br />
pedestrian use that will connect with other community trails and bikeways,<br />
facilitating non-motorized access throughout the community and adjacent natural<br />
areas. The Santa Cruz River Shared Use Path is proposed to begin at Cortaro Road<br />
and proceed northward to the northern end of the Continental Ranch development<br />
where it connects via a drainage canal to approximately Coachline Boulevard, a<br />
total length of 3.75 miles. A one mile segment of the path exists also along<br />
Sanders Road northwest of the study area. The Town of Marana’s portion of the<br />
Santa Cruz River Shared Use Path, which is managed by the Town of Marana<br />
Parks and Recreation Department, is a section of the larger Pima County facility,<br />
which begins at Irvington Road and runs along the Santa Cruz River north to<br />
approximately Speedway Boulevard, a distance of approximately 6 miles.<br />
Avoidance Alternatives: Alternatives to the preferred alternative were considered<br />
and the impacts of these alternatives were assessed. The no-build alternative would<br />
not correct existing and future deficiencies in roadway design, roadway congestion<br />
on Cortaro Road and Silverbell Road, stormwater flowing over the I-<strong>10</strong> mainline<br />
and frontage roads, motor vehicle conflicts with the railroad, and bicycle,<br />
pedestrian, and general transportation system connectivity. Therefore, the no-build<br />
alternative is not a prudent and feasible alternative.<br />
To solve the deficiencies noted above, all alignment alternatives examined must<br />
connect to the existing <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road alignment, which the Santa Cruz River<br />
Shared Use Path meets perpendicularly; therefore, alternative alignments to avoid<br />
the Santa Cruz River Shared Use Path were not prudent and feasible.<br />
A tunnel to carry the Santa Cruz River Shared Use Path beneath <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road<br />
at or near the path’s current alignment was examined, but the tunnel would be<br />
within the <strong>10</strong>0-year floodplain of the Santa Cruz River. This would create safety<br />
issues for path users during flood events, would require pumping facilities to<br />
remove water from the tunnel after flood events, and would require permanent<br />
lighting; therefore, this alternative was not prudent and feasible.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-92<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
A bridge carrying pedestrians and bicyclists over <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road was considered<br />
also. The bridge concept had a number of disadvantages that resulted in<br />
elimination of its consideration. These included: cost; privacy and security of<br />
neighboring properties; hydraulic issues resulting from the placement of<br />
embankment and bridge piers within the floodway; visual impacts to neighboring<br />
properties; and, difficulty providing connections to the existing pedestrian and<br />
bicycle facilities along <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road. Therefore, there were no prudent and<br />
feasible alternatives to the use of the Santa Cruz Shared Use Path.<br />
Use of 4(f) Resource: As discussed in Chapter 3, Alternatives, the Santa Cruz<br />
Shared Use Path would be constructed prior to the construction of the preferred<br />
alternative; therefore, the preferred alternative would incorporate approximately<br />
500 feet of the adjacent path into the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road extension, which is a use of<br />
the resource under 4(f). The preferred alternative would incorporate less than one<br />
percent of the path’s total length.<br />
At-grade shared use path crossings of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road were not recommended<br />
because of potential vehicle conflicts; therefore, users of the shared use path would<br />
be diverted along the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road embankment approximately 850 feet east<br />
of the shared use path’s alignment. To discourage pedestrian crossing of <strong>Twin</strong><br />
<strong>Peaks</strong> Road at the former alignment of the Santa Cruz River Shared Use Path, the<br />
roadway’s center median would be fenced for approximately <strong>10</strong>0 feet in length.<br />
This would direct path users to either cross under the Santa Cruz River Bridge or<br />
at the nearest intersection to the west (<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road and Clover Road) using<br />
the existing sidewalk and shared use lanes on <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road. Although<br />
pedestrians and bicyclists would be diverted, the preferred alternative would not<br />
impair the use of the remaining 4(f) property for its intended purpose.<br />
Although noise levels in this area would increase with the preferred alternative, the<br />
increase would not cause sound levels to exceed FHWA’s NAC; therefore, no<br />
constructive use of the resource would occur. Construction of the preferred<br />
alternative would require temporary closure of the Santa Cruz River Shared Use<br />
Path during roadway and bridge construction; however, an alternative alignment of<br />
the Santa Cruz River Shared Use Path would be available during construction. As<br />
a result, no use of the 4(f) property would occur.<br />
The preferred alternative would provide a new connection across I-<strong>10</strong> and the<br />
Santa Cruz River; therefore, the preferred alternative would improve access to this<br />
4(f) resource.<br />
Measures to Minimize Harm: Although the Santa Cruz River Shared Use Path<br />
would be closed during construction, an alternative alignment would be provided<br />
by diverting path users westward on <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road to the intersection of <strong>Twin</strong><br />
<strong>Peaks</strong> Road and Clover Road. This crossing location would remain after<br />
construction is completed; therefore, no loss of access to the 4(f) property would<br />
occur during construction.<br />
The preferred alternative would divert pedestrians and bicyclists from the existing<br />
alignment of the Santa Cruz River Shared Use Path. This diversion was necessary<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-93<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
to maintain the intended purpose of the 4(f) property and protect the safety of<br />
resource users. The diversion would place users closer to the Santa Cruz River,<br />
which would broaden the users’ experiences on the facility.<br />
Coordination Efforts: The Town of Marana Parks and Recreation Department,<br />
who manages the Santa Cruz River Shared Use Path in this area, has been<br />
consulted regarding the preferred alternative and has submitted to the FHWA a<br />
letter of agreement for the proposed use of Santa Cruz River Shared Use Path (see<br />
Appendix E). The Parks and Recreation Department has concurred with the<br />
determination that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of the<br />
portion of the path and that the preferred alternative would not have significant<br />
impacts upon the recreational utility of the path. The Parks and Recreation<br />
Department would continue to be involved as the project proceeds.<br />
4(f) Conclusion: Based upon the above considerations, there is no feasible and<br />
prudent alternative to the use of land from the Santa Cruz River Shared Use Path<br />
and the preferred alternative includes all possible planning to minimize harm<br />
resulting from such use.<br />
Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail<br />
The Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail is a planned <strong>10</strong>-foot wide<br />
stabilized unpaved path along the Santa Cruz River for hiking, walking, and<br />
equestrian use that would commemorate the journey of de Anza from Nogales,<br />
Arizona to San Francisco, California. Although the Juan Bautista de Anza National<br />
Historic Trail does not exist and would not be constructed prior to the proposed<br />
construction of the preferred alternative, the Trail has been considered and<br />
incorporated into the design of the preferred alternative. The proposed Juan<br />
Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail would cross <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road beneath<br />
the proposed Santa Cruz River Bridges in the same area as the Santa Cruz River<br />
Shared Use Path. The proposed Santa Cruz River Bridges would be at least <strong>10</strong> feet<br />
above the ground surface in this area, allowing safe passage of equestrians below<br />
the bridge; therefore, the preferred alternative would not permanently incorporate<br />
any resources from this facility. Although noise levels in this area would increase<br />
with the preferred alternative, the area is adjacent to I-<strong>10</strong> and the increase would<br />
not exceed the FHWA’s NAC; therefore, no constructive use of the resource<br />
would occur. The Juan Bautista de Anza Historic Trail does not exist; therefore,<br />
access to the resource would not be impacted during construction of the proposed<br />
alternative.<br />
Arthur Pack Regional Park<br />
Description of Resource: Arthur Park Regional Park is located in the eastern end<br />
of the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI study area. It is a 500-acre facility managed by the<br />
Pima County Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation Department and provides<br />
ADA accessible facilities, a golf course, lighted baseball and football/soccer fields,<br />
basketball courts, concessions, picnic areas, playgrounds, and restrooms.<br />
Use of 4(f) Resource: No improvements to Linda Vista Boulevard are proposed in<br />
the vicinity of Arthur Pack Regional Park and access to the Park is from Hardy<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-94<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
Road; therefore, the preferred alternative would not permanently incorporate any<br />
resources from this facility nor impact access to the facility either permanently or<br />
temporarily.<br />
Construction of the preferred alternative would increase traffic volumes on Linda<br />
Vista Boulevard; therefore, traffic noise was predicted to increase adjacent to<br />
Linda Vista Boulevard. At hole #11 of the golf course, noise levels are predicted to<br />
increase from 63 to 67 dBA (A-weighted sound level in decibels) by the year 2030<br />
(see Noise Section, page 4-49). At this predicted noise level, FHWA and ADOT<br />
require that traffic noise mitigation be considered; however, because the sound<br />
levels do not exceed FHWA’s NAC, no constructive use of the 4(f) property<br />
would occur.<br />
Measures to Minimize Harm: Although noise levels were predicted to increase in<br />
this area, mitigation using noise barrier walls was not considered reasonable for<br />
Arthur Park Regional Park because: 1) golfers are exposed to this level of traffic<br />
noise for relatively short periods of time on the course; and, 2) walls would impose<br />
a visual restriction on views to the north and east from the golf course.<br />
Coordination Efforts: Pima County Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation<br />
Department, who manages Arthur Pack Regional Park, has been consulted<br />
regarding the preferred alternative and has submitted to the FHWA a letter of<br />
concurrence that the provision of noise mitigation walls for the Arthur Pack<br />
Regional Park is not reasonable (see Appendix E).<br />
4(f) Conclusion: The preferred alternative would not permanently, temporarily, or<br />
constructively use any resources from this facility; therefore, no use of the 4(f)<br />
property would occur.<br />
UPRR<br />
Description of Resource: The Southern Pacific Railroad main line (now the<br />
UPRR) across the entire state was determined eligible for the NRHP by the SHPO.<br />
Use of 4(f) Resource: According to the Cultural Resources Section (page 4-66),<br />
the preferred alternative would not adversely affect any historic values of this<br />
segment of the railroad, which passes through a setting highly modified by modern<br />
development. The preferred alternative would construct a bridge crossing of the<br />
UPRR, but would not incorporate any resources from this facility; therefore, no<br />
use of the 4(f) property would occur. Serenity and low noise levels are not<br />
contributing factors to the NRHP eligibility of this resources; therefore, no<br />
constructive use of the 4(f) property would occur with increased noise levels.<br />
While setting the bridge deck over the UPRR, temporary impacts to train traffic<br />
may occur; however, the UPRR has been involved in the planning of the project<br />
and would issue right-of-way grants or agreements for the bridge over their<br />
facilities. These temporary impacts would be of short duration, would not acquire<br />
any property (in the present or in the future), would produce no permanent adverse<br />
changes to the property, and would involve only the property in the project area,<br />
which is a very small portion of the statewide facility.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-95<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
Measures to Minimize Harm: UPRR would require right-of-way grants or<br />
agreements for the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road bridge over their railroad tracks. To issue<br />
these grants or agreements, UPRR would review the plans for the preferred<br />
alternative to ensure that the project met current UPRR standards for bridge<br />
design. UPRR would be involved also in the sequencing of construction plans to<br />
ensure that temporary disruptions to train traffic would be minimized.<br />
Coordination Efforts: SHPO has reviewed the cultural resources report prepared<br />
for this project and has concurred with the eligibility findings regarding the UPRR.<br />
The SHPO concurred that the bridge crossing of the UPRR would not adversely<br />
affect any historic values of this segment of the railroad, therefore, there would be<br />
no use of the 4(f) property. In addition, UPRR has been involved in the project<br />
since the beginning and has been a participating member of the Technical<br />
Advisory Team (TAC) for the project. Several meetings with the UPRR have been<br />
held in addition to the TAC meetings. The UPRR is an important participant in<br />
this project and would continue to be involved throughout the project.<br />
4(f) Conclusion: The preferred alternative would not permanently or constructively<br />
use any resources from this facility; therefore, no use of the 4(f) property would<br />
occur. The temporary impacts to the use of the facility would be minimized by the<br />
UPRR’s right-of-way grants or agreements process.<br />
Mitigation<br />
Temporary access impacts to recreational facilities at <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Elementary<br />
would be minimized by developing and following a traffic control plan. Impacts to<br />
the Santa Cruz Shared Use Path would be mitigated by realigning and<br />
reconstructing the Path along the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road embankment to direct path<br />
users to cross under the Santa Cruz River Bridges. The temporary closure of the<br />
Santa Cruz River Shared Use Path during roadway and bridge construction would<br />
be mitigated by diverting path users westward on <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road to the <strong>Twin</strong><br />
<strong>Peaks</strong> Road/Clover Road intersection. This additional crossing location would<br />
remain after construction is completed. Prior to construction of the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong><br />
Road bridge over the railroad, the UPRR would review the plans for the preferred<br />
alternative to ensure that the project met current standards for bridge design.<br />
UPRR would be involved also in the sequencing of construction plans to ensure<br />
that temporary disruptions to train traffic would be minimized.<br />
Conclusion<br />
The preferred alternative would not permanently, temporarily, or constructively<br />
use any resources from the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Elementary School recreational facilities,<br />
and would minimize temporary access impacts to the resource through a traffic<br />
control plan; therefore, no use of this 4(f) property would occur. The preferred<br />
alternative would not permanently, temporarily or constructively use any resources<br />
from the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail, nor the Arthur Pack<br />
Regional Park; therefore, no use of these 4(f) properties would occur. The<br />
preferred alternative would not permanently or constructively use any resources<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-96<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
from the UPRR; therefore, no use of the 4(f) property would occur. The temporary<br />
impacts to the use of the facility would be minimized by the UPRR’s right-of-way<br />
grants or agreements process.<br />
The only Section 4(f) resource that would be incorporated into the preferred<br />
alternative is the Santa Cruz River Shared Use Path. Approximately 500 feet of the<br />
Santa Cruz Shared Use Path, which is less than one percent of the path’s total<br />
length, would be incorporated into the preferred alternative. The Town of Marana<br />
Parks and Recreation Department, who manages the Santa Cruz River Shared Use<br />
Path in this area, concurred with the determination that there is no feasible and<br />
prudent alternative to the use of the portion of the path and that the preferred<br />
alternative includes all possible planning to minimize harm resulting from such<br />
use.<br />
Utilities and Railroad<br />
Existing Conditions<br />
There are a number of utilities within the study area. The most conspicuous of<br />
these utilities are 90-foot tall towers that support three sets of 138 kv TEP<br />
transmission lines. These towers are parallel to and approximately 150 feet east of<br />
the UPRR. Other overhead utilities include electric service lines owned by TEP<br />
and by Trico Electric.<br />
The Union Pacific Transportation Company provides freight rail service along I-<strong>10</strong><br />
for the central and southern portions of the state. The UPRR line runs parallel to<br />
and east of I-<strong>10</strong> in the vicinity of the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI. There is a heavy<br />
concentration of underground utilities within the 200-foot R/W of the UPRR.<br />
Known utilities include three high-pressure petroleum lines (6-, 8-, and 12-inch<br />
lines belonging to Kinder Morgan) and numerous fiber optic communications lines<br />
on both sides of the tracks (belonging to Sprint Communications, Qwest, MCI<br />
Communications, Williams Communications, Level 3 Communications, AT&T<br />
Communications, and UPRR’s internal communication facilities). AT&T also has<br />
service lines on the west side of I-<strong>10</strong> within the study area.<br />
Other underground utilities include natural gas and water lines which serve<br />
Continental Ranch and the commercial area west of I-<strong>10</strong>, that are owned by<br />
Southwest Gas and Tucson Water, respectively. Tucson Water’s well # Y004<br />
(7201 W. <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road) is located approximately 50 yards north of <strong>Twin</strong><br />
<strong>Peaks</strong> Road. Pima County Wastewater Management serves the Continental Ranch<br />
area where a sanitary sewer lift station pumps sewage east of the Santa Cruz River<br />
for treatment at the Ina Road Wastewater Treatment Plant; however, sewage in the<br />
commercial area west of I-<strong>10</strong> is treated by on-site individual septic systems.<br />
Continental Ranch is served also by buried television cable lines belonging to<br />
Comcast Cable.<br />
The CMID operates two wells within the project area which transmit flow under<br />
I-<strong>10</strong>. The CMID operates an open irrigation canal along the east side of I-<strong>10</strong>,<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-97<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
between the westbound lanes and the westbound frontage road. There are<br />
numerous private wells in the area as well. According to the Arizona Department<br />
of Water Resources, at least 21 registered wells are located near the study area.<br />
There may also be other, unrecorded wells within the area.<br />
Impacts<br />
No Build Alternative<br />
The no build alternative would not affect the existing utilities within the project<br />
area.<br />
Preferred Alternative<br />
The utilities of greatest concern within the project area are the 138 kv TEP<br />
transmission lines, the UPRR, and the Kinder Morgan high-pressure petroleum<br />
lines. As discussed in Chapter 3, Alternatives, the preferred alternative was<br />
designed to avoid relocation of the 138 kv TEP transmission lines. Subsequent to<br />
the selection of the preferred alignment, design changes were required. The UPRR<br />
proposed to add a second track on the east side of the existing track and to increase<br />
the elevation of the added track above that of the existing track. In addition, revised<br />
traffic projections indicated that additional traffic lanes on the bridge over the UPRR<br />
may be needed. As a result, the height of the bridge over the UPRR was adjusted<br />
and the bridge width was increased to accommodate more traffic lanes at a later<br />
time. These design changes would require that one or more of the transmission line<br />
towers be relocated or raised.<br />
While setting the proposed bridge deck over the UPRR, temporary impacts to train<br />
traffic may occur; however, the UPRR has been involved in the planning of the<br />
project and would issue right-of-way grants or agreements for the bridge over their<br />
facilities. To issue these grants or agreements, UPRR would review the plans for<br />
the preferred alternative to ensure that the project met current UPRR standards for<br />
bridge design. UPRR would be involved also in the sequencing of construction<br />
plans to ensure that temporary disruptions to train traffic would be minimized.<br />
UPRR has been involved in the project since the beginning and has been a<br />
participating member of the Technical Advisory Team (TAC) for the project.<br />
Several meetings with the UPRR have been held in addition to the TAC meetings.<br />
The UPRR would continue to be involved throughout the project.<br />
According to plans provided by Kinder Morgan, the proposed improvements<br />
would avoid the high pressure petroleum lines. This would be verified during final<br />
design, by potholing utilities to verify their locations. Other utilities within the<br />
project area may require slight adjustments. The preferred alternative would pipe<br />
and bury portions of the CMID irrigation canal that is located along the east side of<br />
I-<strong>10</strong>. Utility coordination was initiated as part of the planning process and would<br />
continue throughout the course of the project. Schedules for any utility<br />
adjustments would be closely coordinated to minimize interruptions and<br />
inconvenience to customers.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-98<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
The preferred alternative would acquire commercial property for needed R/W. The<br />
commercial properties between I-<strong>10</strong> and the access road dispose of liquid waste<br />
through individual septic tanks and some have individual water supply wells. In<br />
some areas, acquisitions of areas in which septic tanks are buried or wells are<br />
located may be required. During R/W negotiations, as a part of final design, these<br />
utilities would be located and relocations or avoidance may be required.<br />
Mitigation<br />
The preferred alternative would require the relocation or raising of the 138 kv TEP<br />
transmission lines in the project area. Coordination with TEP has been ongoing<br />
throughout the project and would continue throughout the design phase of the<br />
project. The relocation or raising of the 138 kv transmission lines would be<br />
coordinated closely with TEP.<br />
While setting the proposed bridge deck over the UPRR, temporary impacts to train<br />
traffic may occur; however, the Town of Marana would provide plans for UPRR<br />
review to ensure that the preferred alternative met current UPRR standards for<br />
bridge design and that the sequencing of construction minimized temporary<br />
disruptions to train traffic.<br />
During final design, potholing would be used to verify utility locations. Although<br />
the major utilities would be avoided by the preferred alternative, some utilities<br />
within the project area may require slight adjustments. Utility coordination would<br />
be maintained throughout the course of the project and schedules for any utility<br />
adjustments would be coordinated closely to minimize interruptions and<br />
inconvenience to customers.<br />
If asbestos-containing water lines are moved or replaced during the roadway<br />
construction, the lines would be handled, transported, and disposed of in accordance<br />
with approved federal, state, and county asbestos handling procedures. This would<br />
include appropriate precautions to ensure that employees are not exposed to airborne<br />
asbestos fibers and that fibers are not released into the atmosphere.<br />
As a part of final design and R/W acquisition, the Town of Marana would establish<br />
the locations of private wells and septic tanks would be established for acquired<br />
properties and any necessary relocations would be coordinated with the property<br />
owners.<br />
The Town of Marana would coordinate with the CMID prior to any modifications<br />
of the canal and construction would be coordinated so that the proposed<br />
improvements would not interfere with the supply of irrigation water during critical<br />
periods.<br />
The Town of Marana would maintain utility coordination throughout the course of<br />
the project and schedules for any utility adjustments would be coordinated closely<br />
to minimize interruptions and inconvenience to customers. Utility clearances<br />
obtained by the Town of Marana would be in accordance with ADOT requirements.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-99<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
Conclusion<br />
Construction of the preferred alternative would require that one or more of the 138<br />
kv TEP transmission line towers be relocated or raised. Close coordination with<br />
TEP would minimize interruptions and inconvenience to customers. While setting<br />
the proposed <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road bridge deck over the UPRR, temporary impacts to<br />
train traffic may occur; however, UPRR would review the plans and would be<br />
involved in the sequencing of construction to ensure that temporary disruptions to<br />
train traffic would be minimized. Some private wells and septic tanks may be<br />
affected by the proposed improvements. The preferred alternative would modify<br />
the CMID canal, but the proposed improvements would not interfere with the<br />
supply of irrigation water during critical periods. Utility coordination would be<br />
maintained throughout the course of the project and schedules for any utility<br />
adjustments would be coordinated closely to minimize interruptions and<br />
inconvenience to utility users. If asbestos-containing water lines are moved or<br />
replaced during the roadway construction, precautions would be implemented to<br />
ensure that the asbestos-containing material would be handled safely.<br />
Material Sources and Waste Materials<br />
Quantity of Borrow<br />
The preferred alternative would construct <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road, the Santa Cruz River<br />
bridges, <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road bridge over I-<strong>10</strong> and the UPRR on elevated<br />
embankments. Although the preferred alternative would generate excavation<br />
material from the widening of the low flow channel of the Santa Cruz River, the<br />
project would still require approximately 640,000 cubic yards of borrow material.<br />
Availability<br />
Sand and gravel mining operations operate within the study area. An existing sand<br />
and gravel mining operation (I-<strong>10</strong> Avra Valley Mining and Development) is<br />
located on the west side of the Santa Cruz River south of Avra Valley Road, which<br />
is north of the project area. Another active sand and gravel mining operation<br />
(Rinker Materials) is located in the southern project area immediately south of the<br />
south access road.<br />
Status of Clearance of Sites<br />
Any material sources required for this project outside of the project area would be<br />
examined for environmental effects, by the contractor, prior to use, through a<br />
separate environmental analysis in accordance with Arizona Department of<br />
Transportation’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction,<br />
Section <strong>10</strong>01 Material Sources (2000 Edition) (Stored Specification <strong>10</strong>01.2<br />
General), unless the facility has received prior clearance from the EEG of ADOT.<br />
According to Rinker Materials, their materials pit has received environmental<br />
clearance to provide materials to ADOT; therefore, materials from this site could<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-<strong>10</strong>0<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
be used without additional clearance activities. The clearance status of the I-<strong>10</strong><br />
Avra Valley Mining and Development site is unknown; therefore, it is assumed<br />
that clearance would be required to receive materials from this site.<br />
Conclusion<br />
Sources of borrow material are near the project area. Depending on the supplier<br />
chosen to provide materials, environmental clearance from ADOT EEG would or<br />
would not be required.<br />
Construction Water Source<br />
Construction water may be required for slurry drilling if soils are susceptible to<br />
cave-in or slough into the drilled hole. Water would be required also general<br />
material mixing and for dust suppression during soil disturbing activities. All<br />
water would be obtained from approved sources of potable water and no wells<br />
would be drilled in the project area.<br />
Secondary Impacts<br />
According to the Council on <strong>Environmental</strong> Quality (CEQ), a direct effect is one<br />
that is caused by the proposed action and occurs at the same time and place. The<br />
direct effects of the preferred alternative have been discussed in the previous<br />
sections of this chapter. A secondary effect is defined by CEQ as one that is<br />
caused by the action, but is later in time or farther removed in distance; however,<br />
the effect is still reasonably foreseeable. The CEQ cites induction of growth,<br />
changes in land use, or effects to air, water, or ecosystems as examples of<br />
secondary effects. However, the transportation demand models that generated<br />
traffic projections for the noise and air quality analyses for this project considered<br />
proposed growth and changes to the transportation network; therefore, these<br />
effects have been addressed. As discussed earlier, incompatible use or<br />
development within the Santa Cruz River floodplain would not be facilitated by<br />
the preferred alternative because developments within the area must comply with<br />
the Town of Marana or Pima County zoning and floodplain ordinances. It was<br />
noted also that the proposed revegetation plan would maintain or enhance habitat<br />
and connectivity important to the survival and successful dispersal of wildlife,<br />
including protected species. Relevant secondary impacts to this project include<br />
land use and access.<br />
Land Use<br />
The types of commercial enterprises near the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI may change after<br />
completion of the proposed improvements. Currently the commercial activities near<br />
I-<strong>10</strong> are wholesale and retail operations, equipment repair services, and light mining<br />
and manufacturing. After the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI is constructed, it is possible that<br />
some of these activities would be replaced by service-oriented businesses<br />
(hotel/motel, restaurant, etc.) that are typical of interstate interchange locations.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-<strong>10</strong>1<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
These effects, however, are market driven. Properties with easy access to an<br />
interstate become more desirable for service-oriented businesses; therefore, it is<br />
likely that property values in the vicinity of the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI would increase<br />
substantially after completion of the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI. As a result, businesses<br />
may choose to sell existing properties and relocate their businesses to parcels of<br />
lesser value.<br />
Access<br />
SNP 1988 General Management Plan (GMP) stated a desire to close Picture<br />
Rocks Road through the SNP, if the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI is constructed. SNP is<br />
updating its GMP currently and the NPS is obtaining public comments and<br />
developing proposed uses for the Park; however, the closure of Picture Rocks<br />
Road through SNP does not appear in any of the alternatives currently under<br />
consideration. Because the closure of Picture Rocks Road is not proposed<br />
currently and any proposed closure would be subject to environmental and public<br />
review based upon its own merits, the impacts of the closure of Picture Rocks<br />
Road are not discussed in this EA.<br />
Conclusion<br />
Secondary impacts to land use and access may occur with the completion of the<br />
preferred alternative. These may include changes to land uses near the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong><br />
Road TI and access through the SNP.<br />
Cumulative Impacts<br />
According to the CEQ, cumulative effects are defined as the impacts on the<br />
environment that result from the proposed action when added to other past,<br />
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The cumulative effects of this<br />
project may be undetectable when considered for its direct and secondary effects<br />
only, but may add to a measurable environmental change.<br />
The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that are considered in<br />
this analysis include the transportation projects planned over the next 20 years, as<br />
represented in the 2025 RTP, and the development expected to occur within the<br />
area. In addition, a number of conservation efforts are underway in the region and<br />
these efforts are expected to mitigate some of the development impacts. The area of<br />
analysis is the northwest portion of the Tucson metropolitan area, although air<br />
quality is discussed from an airshed perspective. For this assessment, only those “at<br />
risk” critical resources would be evaluated. These would include: land use, air<br />
quality, threatened and endangered species and natural resources, noise, and water<br />
resources. Each are discussed below.<br />
Land Use<br />
The completion of the projects contained within the RTP may result in additional<br />
development beyond those forecast in the area; however, these developments are<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-<strong>10</strong>2<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
controlled by the formal planning processes, zoning regulations, land use codes<br />
and regulations, and other land use controls of the Town of Marana and Pima<br />
County. As a result, it is reasonable to assume that these developments would<br />
comply with these regulations and ordinances and reflect the overall development<br />
patterns approved by the Town of Marana and Pima County. Because the<br />
developments would comply with land use regulations, the infrastructure needed to<br />
supply this growth (i.e. water supply, sewer and/or other utilities) would be<br />
provided also.<br />
Air Quality<br />
Pima County and the State of Arizona have programs in place to address<br />
particulate matter and CO. Because Pima County is classified as attainment under<br />
a limited maintenance plan for CO, the County must meet the conformity provisions<br />
of the federal Clean Air Act and subsequent amendments. As a result, all<br />
transportation projects that appear in the RTP are analyzed and the preferred<br />
alternative, along with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future<br />
transportation projects have been demonstrated to not contribute to a CO<br />
nonattainment designation. Likewise, regulatory controls in Pima County are likely<br />
to protect the County from reaching nonattainment for particulate matter despite<br />
future development.<br />
As the area develops, sources of volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen<br />
would be added to the area (gasoline stations, vehicles, lawnmowers, etc.); therefore,<br />
it is likely that the airshed’s ground level ozone levels would increase. Recent local<br />
data from PAG indicate that the Tucson region experiences ozone levels<br />
approaching the 8-hour federal standard. It is likely that ozone levels would<br />
continue to increase and additional control measures may be required to keep the<br />
area in attainment of the standard.<br />
Threatened and Endangered Species and Natural Resources<br />
As discussed in the Biological Resources section (page 4-25), the analysis<br />
conducted for the preferred alternative determined that the proposed action may<br />
affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the CFPO or its habitat due to the<br />
project design and mitigation measures that would be implemented as a part of this<br />
project. Although the listing of the owl as an endangered species is under review<br />
by the courts, the protections afforded the owl are still in place. If the owl is<br />
delisted, it is anticipated that one or more of three major conservation efforts<br />
proposed by the Town of Marana and Pima County would be in place and<br />
protection to the owl would be continued. These efforts are: 1) Pima County’s<br />
SDCP; 2) the Town of Marana’s Habitat Conservation Plan; and, 3) the Town of<br />
Marana’s Bajada <strong>Environmental</strong> Resource Overlay District. All of these programs<br />
are designed to preserve appropriate CFPO habitat and provide contiguous<br />
corridors between quality habitat areas, while allowing limited development to<br />
occur in areas deemed less desirable for the CFPO. Other animal species,<br />
vegetation, and natural surface features would benefit also from these efforts.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-<strong>10</strong>3<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impacts October 2005<br />
Noise<br />
As the area develops and additional or higher capacity transportation facilities are<br />
constructed, sources of noise (vehicles, general human activities, air travel, etc.)<br />
would increase; therefore, it is likely that the relatively low background noise levels<br />
in the area would increase as well.<br />
Water Resources<br />
As the area develops, the demand for water to serve an increasing population would<br />
continue to increase. Water providers in the area have, or are developing, long range<br />
master plans for their facilities. As a result, it is likely that additional conservation<br />
methods, water sources, and/or regulatory controls would be required to provide<br />
water to the increasing desert population.<br />
Conclusion<br />
As the area develops, the function and appearance of the land would change and<br />
additional demands upon resources would occur. These changes would occur with<br />
or without the construction of the preferred alternative, but these changes would<br />
reflect the overall development patterns approved by area governments.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
4-<strong>10</strong>4<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Public Involvement/Project Coordination October 2005<br />
CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT/PROJECT<br />
COORDINATION<br />
To ensure that the public contributed to this study and had full access to study results, a<br />
public involvement plan was prepared early in this project. The public involvement plan for<br />
this project included contact with numerous federal, state, and local agencies, utility<br />
companies, and residents and business owners potentially affected by the project.<br />
The Public Information Meeting and Public Hearing process had three phases: 1) identify<br />
public issues, goals, and objectives; 2) relay alternatives to the public based upon number<br />
1; and, 3) present the preferred alternative in a public hearing.<br />
Scoping Activities<br />
Agency scoping for this project reaches back several years. Numerous meetings were<br />
held between the Town of Marana and ADOT, USFWS, AGFD, the Corps, and the NPS<br />
to fully understand agency concerns and to proactively address these concerns.<br />
Partnering Session - Comments and Response Summary<br />
On March 13, 2003, a partnering session was conducted with the Town of Marana,<br />
FHWA, ADOT (both district and statewide representatives), resource agencies (AGFD),<br />
and the study consultant team. The meeting was intended to:<br />
• introduce the participants to each other;<br />
• present a project overview;<br />
• identify project challenges and opportunities;<br />
• establish a project management submittal review structure;<br />
• discuss challenges and opportunities; and,<br />
• develop an issue escalation ladder and assign project processes and<br />
responsible parties.<br />
A number of project issues and challenges were identified by the partnering participants.<br />
As a result of the partnering session, the issues and opportunities discussed have been<br />
investigated during the study. An Executive Committee was created and has met<br />
throughout the course of the study. Executive Committee membership includes ADOT<br />
district and statewide planning staff, FHWA, and the Town of Marana. In addition, clear<br />
lines of authority were established for the project and these lines of authority have been<br />
followed throughout the project study. Several technical committees were also formed.<br />
General Agency Scoping Meeting - Comments and Response Summary<br />
A general agency scoping meeting was held on September 29, 2003 to solicit comments<br />
and concerns related to the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI. A list of agencies invited to attend or to<br />
submit comments by telephone, electronic mail, or mail and a copy of the invitation letter<br />
is included in Appendix A. Those agencies and utilities that attended the meeting<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
5-1<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Public Involvement/Project Coordination October 2005<br />
included: Marana Town Council, Marana Town Manager, Marana Public Works<br />
Department, Marana Planning Department, Marana Police Department, PAG,<br />
PCDOT&FCD, ADOT, Northwest Medical Center, and Trico Electric. Correspondence<br />
received from agencies in response to this request may be found in Appendix A.<br />
The intent of the agency scoping meeting was to obtain comments or concerns to be<br />
considered in the development of the Design Concept Report and environmental<br />
documents for the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI. The meeting goals were to inform the agencies<br />
of the proposed project and to establish communication lines between the project<br />
development team and the concerned agencies. Several TI design concepts including<br />
shifting the I-<strong>10</strong> alignment, an elevated or depressed crossroad over or under I-<strong>10</strong>, grade<br />
separation with the UPRR, and the use of a SPUI were discussed. These items have been<br />
considered and are addressed in Chapter 3, Alternatives.<br />
Special <strong>Environmental</strong> Scoping Meetings - Comments and Response Summary<br />
A meeting was held on Monday, August 25, 2003 at FHWA offices in Phoenix to<br />
coordinate environmental efforts currently taking place on the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI<br />
project. Attendees included the Town of Marana, FHWA, AGFD, Corps, ADOT, and the<br />
consultant team. The meeting discussed the proposed project’s background, proposed<br />
scope, and issues. The meeting asked for comments on the proposed project approach.<br />
The level of environmental effort was discussed, both in general (e.g. environmental<br />
assessment versus environmental impact statement) and specific to particular issues (e.g.<br />
biological evaluation).<br />
A follow–up meeting was held on September 2, 2003 with agencies unable to attend the<br />
August 25 meeting. The meeting was attended by the Town of Marana, USFWS, ADOT,<br />
and the consultant team. The routing and review of environmental documents was<br />
discussed. The content of biological investigation documents was discussed and<br />
agreement was reached on content and species to be considered. Methods of possible<br />
mitigation for removal of vegetation were discussed.<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Working Group - Comments and Response Summary<br />
An environmental working group was established to maintain open communication<br />
between the Town of Marana, ADOT, FHWA, resource agencies, and the project<br />
consultant team. The group met on three occasions (October 1, 2003, and January 8 and<br />
May 13, 2004). The major points from each of the meetings are summarized below.<br />
The first meeting was held on Wednesday, October 1, 2003. The meeting was attended<br />
by the Town of Marana, FHWA, ADOT, and the consultant team. Meetings with several<br />
of the property owners in the study area had been conducted and a summary of comments<br />
received from the property owners was discussed. Coordination with other projects<br />
within the study area (especially trail projects) was discussed.<br />
The second meeting of the group was held on January 8, 2004. The meeting was attended<br />
by the Town of Marana, FHWA, ADOT, and the consultant team. The meeting discussed<br />
relationships with the SNP and the proposed closure of Picture Rocks Road by the NPS.<br />
This issue is discussed in detail in Chapter 4, Affected Environment. Coordination with<br />
other ongoing projects in the study area was also discussed.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
5-2<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Public Involvement/Project Coordination October 2005<br />
The third meeting of the environmental working group was held on May 13, 2004. The<br />
meeting was attended by the Town of Marana, FHWA, ADOT, USFWS, AGFD, and the<br />
consultant team. The intent of the meeting was to update all parties on the current status<br />
of the project and to solicit comments on the proposed design so that suggestions could<br />
be considered for incorporation into the project plans. The Town of Marana’s three year<br />
survey efforts for the CFPO were discussed. Coordination with other ongoing projects in<br />
the study area was discussed. Construction techniques and timing within the Santa Cruz<br />
River and maintenance or replacement of vegetation were discussed. The sizing of<br />
drainage facilities on both sides of the interstate to accommodate wildlife crossing was<br />
discussed.<br />
Scoping Meeting with Saguaro National Park - Comments and Response Summary<br />
At the request of the NPS, a meeting was held on November 13, 2003. Attendees<br />
included the Town of Marana, NPS, and the project consultant team. Project issues<br />
related to SNP are discussed in detail in Chapter 4, Affected Environment. The first public<br />
information meeting for the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI was discussed. NPS supports the <strong>Twin</strong><br />
<strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI and expressed a desire to close Picture Rocks Road through SNP after the<br />
TI is constructed.<br />
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meetings - Comments and Response Summary<br />
The TAC was formed early in the project to help guide decisions. The TAC consisted of<br />
technically based individuals who participated in discussions and review of documents and<br />
concepts. Several potentially impacted agencies served on the TAC and this provided a<br />
broader perspective to the project. Members of the TAC included representatives from the<br />
Town of Marana, ADOT, FHWA, UPRR, PAG, PCDOT&FCD, and the consultant team.<br />
The TAC met on October 1, 2003 and on January 8, February 26, and May 13, 2004.<br />
Public Information Meetings<br />
A number of meetings with the affected community have been conducted. These have<br />
included a collective meeting with residential property owners, meetings with the<br />
Continental Ranch and Sunflower Neighborhood Associations, two public information<br />
meetings, two collective meetings with area business owners, and numerous meetings with<br />
individual residential property owners and business owners.<br />
Property Owner Informational Meeting - Comments and Response Summary<br />
Meetings with the Continental Ranch and Sunflower Neighborhood Associations were<br />
held on August 26, 2003 and August 27, 2003, respectively. A total of 20 attended the<br />
Continental Ranch presentation and approximately <strong>10</strong>0 attended the Sunflower<br />
presentation. Comments and questions from the associations and responses to the<br />
comments and questions are presented in the following table.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
5-3<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Public Involvement/Project Coordination October 2005<br />
Comment: Would like to see a bridge over the railroad tracks.<br />
Response: A grade-separated railroad crossing is part of the proposed improvements<br />
(see Chapter 3, Preferred Alternative, page 3-11).<br />
Comment: What are the predicted traffic volumes for <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road and the<br />
interchange?<br />
Response: According to the <strong>Traffic</strong> Report, 21,<strong>10</strong>0 vehicles per day and 28,900 vehicles<br />
per day would use <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road west and east of the interchange by the year 2030,<br />
respectively.<br />
Comment: Will the design concept coordinate with the DeAnza Trail?<br />
Response: Yes, the DeAnza Trail would cross beneath the <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road bridges<br />
over the Santa Cruz River. The bridge would be of sufficient height to allow equestrians<br />
to pass beneath the bridges (see Chapter 3, Preferred Alternative, page 3-11).<br />
Comment: Will the traffic volumes take into account the new Continental Reserve<br />
development?<br />
Response: Yes, the traffic projections provided for this project include planned growth<br />
in employment and population in the entire area through the year 2030.<br />
Comment: Will there be sound walls along <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road?<br />
Response: The traffic noise analysis recommended sound walls only along the west side<br />
of Continental Ranch south of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road. The existing privacy walls along <strong>Twin</strong><br />
<strong>Peaks</strong> Road are effective at mitigating traffic noise (see Chapter 4, Noise Section, page<br />
4-49).<br />
Comment: Why does the process take so long? Can design be done during the planning<br />
process to speed things up?<br />
Response: This project would utilize federal funds and must follow the federal process;<br />
therefore, final design may not proceed until after the environmental documentation is<br />
completed.<br />
Comment: What about widening some of the other roads, like Silverbell from Cortaro to<br />
Ina?<br />
Response: Silverbell Road from Cortaro Road to Ina Road is anticipated to be<br />
constructed and widened prior to the completion of this project; however, widening<br />
other roads does not accomplish the project’s established purpose and need (see<br />
Chapter 2, Project Need, page 2-2).<br />
Comment: How will we get in and out of Sunflower, if <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> is extended and<br />
becomes busier?<br />
Response: <strong>Traffic</strong> signals are proposed at the intersections of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong><br />
Road/Coachline Road and <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road/Access Roads; therefore, the signals would<br />
produce gaps in traffic needed to cross the traffic lanes. The existing median opening at<br />
Sunflower Ridge Road would remain also, providing a storage area for turning vehicles.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
5-4<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Public Involvement/Project Coordination October 2005<br />
Comment: Will we be meeting again with Sunflower?<br />
Response: Yes, several meetings with the public would occur during the project. A<br />
public hearing on the EA would occur.<br />
Comment: What will happen at <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Elementary School when traffic increases<br />
on <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road?<br />
Response: According to the <strong>Traffic</strong> Report, most pedestrian and bicycle traffic to <strong>Twin</strong><br />
<strong>Peaks</strong> Elementary School originates south and east of the school. A shared use path was<br />
proposed south of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road, but is not a part of this project (see Chapter 3,<br />
Preferred Alternative, page 3-11). The proposed traffic signals at the intersections of<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road/Coachline Boulevard and <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road/Silverbell Road would<br />
enable pedestrians to safety cross at these intersections. The Town would work closely<br />
with the Marana Unified School District on appropriate crossing measures.<br />
Letters were sent to approximately 93 homeowners closest to the project inviting them to<br />
one-on-one meetings that were held in early September. The team met with residents on<br />
Saturday September 6, 2003 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and on Wednesday September<br />
<strong>10</strong>, 2004 from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. These meetings took place in the small conference<br />
room at the Sunflower Community Center. A total of <strong>10</strong> property owners within<br />
Continental Ranch scheduled individual appointments to meet with members of the<br />
project team to learn about the proposed project, ask any questions, and provide input.<br />
Residents were concerned about the increase in traffic and noise associated with the <strong>Twin</strong><br />
<strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI. The people who lived along the Santa Cruz River were concerned about<br />
visual impacts. Other concerns were the ability to get into and out of the side streets and<br />
safety concerns for the children walking to school.<br />
Public Information Open House #1 - Comments and Response Summary<br />
Approximately 350 people attended an open house on October 20, 2003 at the Sunflower<br />
Village Center – 9401 North Sunflower Park Drive. Blank aerial maps were displayed<br />
and project team members explained the overall project concept to individuals and small<br />
groups. Comment forms were provided asking the participants to record any comments or<br />
ask any questions. Notifications were mailed to approximately 15,000 residents that<br />
reside within a few miles of the project area, including residents in Continental Ranch,<br />
Sunflower, Dove Mountain, and communities east of I-<strong>10</strong>. Newspaper advertisements<br />
were placed in the October 5, 2003, Sunday Arizona Daily Star and the weekly<br />
Northwest Explorer newspapers on October 8, 2003. A summary of comments received<br />
and advertisements for the meeting may be found in Appendix A.<br />
Comment: Construct the TI immediately to relieve Cortaro Road and Silverbell Road (45<br />
comments)<br />
Response: This project would utilize federal funds and must follow the federal process;<br />
therefore, final design may not proceed until after the environmental documentation is<br />
completed.<br />
Comment: Provide grade-separation at the railroad (24 comments)<br />
Response: A grade-separated railroad crossing is part of the proposed improvements<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
5-5<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Public Involvement/Project Coordination October 2005<br />
(see Chapter 3, Preferred Alternative, page 3-11).<br />
Comment: Concerns about increases in traffic noise (19 comments)<br />
Response: The traffic noise analysis determined that future traffic noise levels in the area<br />
would increase and mitigation has been recommended (see Chapter 4, Noise Section,<br />
page 4-49).<br />
Comment: Questions about future traffic signals (11 comments)<br />
Response: The traffic report recommended future traffic signals at the intersections of<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road with Silverbell Road, Coachline Boulevard, Access Road, eastbound<br />
and westbound I-<strong>10</strong> frontage roads, and El Camino de Mañana/Linda Vista Boulevard<br />
(see Chapter 3, Proposed Intersection Improvements, page 3-17).<br />
Comment: Concerns about connections and effects to other roadways (11 comments)<br />
Response: Connections to other roadways and the effects to other roadways were<br />
considered in Chapter 2, Connectivity Section, page 2-6.<br />
Comment: Concerns about increased traffic on <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road (<strong>10</strong> comments)<br />
Response: Because of the increase in traffic volumes predicted in the traffic report, a<br />
number of improvements related to traffic signals, shared use paths, and other<br />
improvements are proposed as a part of the preferred alternative (see Chapter 3,<br />
Preferred Alternative, page 3-11).<br />
Comment: Concerns about speeds on <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road (6 comments)<br />
Response: No changes to the speed limits along the existing section of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road<br />
are proposed. The posted speed limit on <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road over the Santa Cruz River<br />
would be 45 miles per hour.<br />
Comment: Concerns about safety of children attending <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Elementary School (4<br />
comments)<br />
Response: According to the <strong>Traffic</strong> Report, most pedestrian and bicycle traffic to <strong>Twin</strong><br />
<strong>Peaks</strong> Elementary School originates south and east of the school. A shared use path was<br />
proposed south of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road, but is not a part of this project (see Chapter 3,<br />
Preferred Alternative, page 3-11). The proposed traffic signals at the intersections of<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road/Coachline Boulevard and <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road/Silverbell Road would<br />
enable pedestrians to safety cross at these intersections. The Town would work closely<br />
with the Marana Unified School District on appropriate crossing measures.<br />
Comment: Concerns about CFPO and wildlife movements (4 comments)<br />
Response: As discussed in the Biological Resources section of Chapter 4 (page 4-25), the<br />
analysis conducted for the preferred alternative determined that the proposed action may<br />
affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the CFPO or its habitat due to the project<br />
design and mitigation measures that would be implemented as a part of this project.<br />
Comment: Questions about funding (4 comments)<br />
Response: A combination of federal and local funds would be used on this project.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
5-6<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Public Involvement/Project Coordination October 2005<br />
Comment: Concerns about property values after the project (3 comments)<br />
Response: It is anticipated that greater access to I-<strong>10</strong> and areas east of the Santa Cruz<br />
River would enhance the area’s desirability and value.<br />
Comment: Concerns about conflicts/coordination with other projects (3 comments)<br />
Response: Relationships with other projects were considered and are addressed in<br />
Chapter 2, Conformance with Regulations, Land Use Plans, and Other Plans, page 2-7.<br />
Comment: Concerns/questions about changes in land uses/zoning (3 comments)<br />
Response: This project proposes no changes to land use or zoning within the project<br />
area. Although some changes in land use or zoning may occur, these changes would be<br />
under authority of the Town of Marana or Pima County (near the proposed <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong><br />
Road TI).<br />
Comment: Concerns about bicycle facilities and connections (2 comments)<br />
Response: Pedestrian and bicycle facilities are included in this project (see Chapter 3,<br />
Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities, page 3-20).<br />
Comment: Concerns about widening <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road (2 comments)<br />
Response: The project proposes no widening of the existing portion of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road<br />
(see Chapter 3, Preferred Alternative, page 3-11).<br />
Comment: Concerns about visual impacts (1 comment)<br />
Response: A visual impacts analysis was completed for this project (see Chapter 4,<br />
Visual Resources, page 4-41).<br />
Comment: Concerns about increased traffic through neighborhoods (1 comment)<br />
Response: <strong>Traffic</strong> volume increases have been predicted on <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road and<br />
Coachline Road as a result of the project, but increases in traffic on neighborhood streets<br />
are not anticipated. Issues associated with unanticipated impacts from the project would<br />
be addressed by the Town of Marana through established processes and procedures.<br />
Comment: Concerns about truck traffic in area (1 comment)<br />
Response: An increase in trucks to 2 percent of the total traffic volume along <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong><br />
Road was predicted by the traffic report.<br />
Comment: Concerns about stormwater runoff (1 comment)<br />
Response: The drainage study recommended a number of drainage improvements in the<br />
area (see Chapter 3, Proposed Drainage Improvements, page 3-22).<br />
Comment: Concerns about utilities (1 comment)<br />
Response: Utilities have been contacted and are participating in the project. Impacts to<br />
utilities are discussed in Chapter 4, Utilities and Railroad, page 4-97).<br />
Comment: Questions about phasing of construction (1 comment)<br />
Response: It is likely that the project would be phased, but phasing would be developed<br />
as a part of final design.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
5-7<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Public Involvement/Project Coordination October 2005<br />
Comment: Concerns about amenities – park facilities (1 comment)<br />
Response: Project amenities are discussed in Chapter 3, Preferred Alternative, page 3-<br />
11).<br />
Comment: Expressed desire to receive information from website (1 comment)<br />
Response: The Town intends to establish a website for this project, but one has not yet<br />
been established.<br />
During the initial public information meeting, concerns were expressed regarding the<br />
safety of children attending <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Elementary School. As a result, the Town of<br />
Marana chose <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Elementary School as their initial Safe Routes to School<br />
program and a “Safe Routes to School” committee was formed. The committee consisted<br />
of representatives from the Town of Marana’s Engineering staff, <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Elementary<br />
School staff (the Principal and a teacher), a parent of a student at <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Elementary<br />
School, the Marana Unified School District’s Facilities and Transportation Department,<br />
the Marana Police Department, and an engineering consultant. The committee<br />
recommended the construction of a 4,500-foot long, 14-foot wide shared use path along<br />
the south side of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road from Silverbell Road to Coachline Boulevard and<br />
along Coachline Boulevard from <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road approximately 725 feet to the south.<br />
The shared use path was discussed subsequently with the Town of Marana’s Parks and<br />
Recreation Department and nearby homeowners associations. As the design of the shared<br />
use path advances, an open house would be held to solicit additional input from the<br />
community. The Town participated also in a School Safety Day held at <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong><br />
Elementary School as part of the educational efforts initiated by the Town. Although the<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI project does not provide funding for this shared use path, the social,<br />
economic, and environmental effects of this path are addressed within this document to<br />
increase the probability of the grant application’s success.<br />
Public Information Open House #2 - Comments and Response Summary<br />
Approximately 135 people attended an open house on March 22, 2004 at <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong><br />
Elementary School, 7995 W. <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road. A presentation on the status of the<br />
project, project schedule, and <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI location alternatives was given at 7:00<br />
p.m. The project team was available before and after the presentation to answer questions<br />
and receive comments from open house participants. Comment forms were available for<br />
participants to record any comments or ask any questions. The public was asked<br />
specifically to comment on the three <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road TI alignment alternatives<br />
presented. The most common comment, as it was in the first public information meeting,<br />
was that the TI should be constructed as quickly as possible. Notifications were mailed to<br />
approximately 700 residents, businesses, and government agency personnel who are<br />
stakeholders in the project or who had expressed interest in the project. Newspaper<br />
advertisements were placed in the March 7, 2004, Sunday Arizona Daily Star and the<br />
weekly Northwest Explorer newspapers on March <strong>10</strong>, 2004. The advertisements for the<br />
meeting may be found in Appendix A.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
5-8<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Public Involvement/Project Coordination October 2005<br />
Comment: Preference expressed for the center alternative (18 comments)<br />
Response: The center alignment was selected as the preferred alignment (see Chapter 3,<br />
Alternative TI Alignments, page 3-6)<br />
Comment: Preference expressed for the south alternative (12 comments)<br />
Response: The center alignment was selected as the preferred alignment (see Chapter 3,<br />
Alternative TI Alignments, page 3-6)<br />
Comment: Concerns about increases in traffic noise (5 comments)<br />
Response: The traffic noise analysis determined that future traffic noise levels in the area<br />
would increase and mitigation has been recommended (see Chapter 4, Noise Section,<br />
page 4-49).<br />
Comment: Provide an intermodal center (3 comments)<br />
Response: An intermodal center is not proposed as a part of the preferred alternative<br />
because of the additional project costs and because there are no current plans to<br />
increase mass transit into the area..<br />
Comment: Questions about future traffic signals (3 comments)<br />
Response: The traffic report recommended future traffic signals at the intersections of<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road with Silverbell Road, Coachline Boulevard, Access Road, eastbound<br />
and westbound I-<strong>10</strong> frontage roads, and El Camino de Mañana/Linda Vista Boulevard<br />
(see Chapter 3, Proposed Intersection Improvements, page 3-17).<br />
Comment: Questions about funding (3 comments)<br />
Response: A combination of federal and local funds would be used on this project.<br />
Comment: Concerns about lighting (3 comments)<br />
Response: New intersection lighting would be provided at all signalized intersections<br />
within the study area (see Chapter 3, Proposed Lighting Improvements, page 3-20).<br />
Comment: Concerns about safety of children attending <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Elementary School (2<br />
comments)<br />
Response: According to the <strong>Traffic</strong> Report, most pedestrian and bicycle traffic to <strong>Twin</strong><br />
<strong>Peaks</strong> Elementary School originates south and east of the school. A shared use path was<br />
proposed south of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road, but is not a part of this project (see Chapter 3,<br />
Preferred Alternative, page 3-11). The proposed traffic signals at the intersections of<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road/Coachline Boulevard and <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road/Silverbell Road would<br />
enable pedestrians to safety cross at these intersections. The Town would work closely<br />
with the Marana Unified School District on appropriate crossing measures.<br />
Comment: Preference expressed for the north alternative (2 comments)<br />
Response: The center alignment was selected as the preferred alignment (see Chapter 3,<br />
Alternative TI Alignments, page 3-6)<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
5-9<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Public Involvement/Project Coordination October 2005<br />
Comment: Questions about phasing of construction (2 comment)<br />
Response: It is likely that the project would be phased, but phasing would be developed<br />
as a part of final design.<br />
Comment: Question about estimated costs of the alternatives (2 comments)<br />
Response: Planning level costs were developed for each of the alignment alternatives.<br />
The center alignment was the lowest cost alternative.<br />
Comment: Question about design features of I-<strong>10</strong> on and off ramps (2 comments)<br />
Response: I-<strong>10</strong> ramp and frontage road improvements are discussed in Chapter 3,<br />
Preferred Alternative, page 3-11.<br />
Comment: Concerns/questions about changes in land uses/zoning (2 comments)<br />
Response: This project proposes no changes to land use or zoning within the project<br />
area. Although some changes in land use or zoning may occur, these changes would be<br />
under authority of the Town of Marana or Pima County (near the proposed <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong><br />
Road TI).<br />
Comment: Expressed desire for decorative features for the improvements (2 comments)<br />
Response: Preliminary recommendations have been made for project features and<br />
amenities (see Chapter 4, Visual Resources, page 4-41), but most would be developed<br />
during final design.<br />
Comment: Concerns about increased traffic on <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road (2 comments)<br />
Response: Because of the increase in traffic volumes predicted in the traffic report, a<br />
number of improvements related to traffic signals, shared use paths, and other<br />
improvements are proposed as a part of the preferred alternative (see Chapter 3,<br />
Preferred Alternative, page 3-11).<br />
Comment: Compliment on efforts to contact the public (1 comment)<br />
Response: The project team appreciates the comment.<br />
Comment: Question about maximum height of bridge for alternatives (1 comment)<br />
Response: The bridges over the Santa Cruz River would be approximately 20 feet above<br />
the low flow channel of the Santa Cruz River.<br />
Comment: Save as much existing vegetation as possible (1 comment)<br />
Response: Vegetation removal is proposed to be as little as needed to construct the<br />
proposed improvements. For that vegetation that is removed, a revegetation plan would<br />
be developed (see Chapter 4, Biological Resources, page 4-25).<br />
Comment: Concerns about conflicts/coordination with other projects (1 comment)<br />
Response: Relationships with other projects were considered and are addressed in<br />
Chapter 2, Conformance with Regulations, Land Use Plans, and Other Plans, page 2-7.<br />
Comment: Concerns about the expense of removing the former portion of El Camino de<br />
Mañana (1 comment)<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
5-<strong>10</strong><br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Public Involvement/Project Coordination October 2005<br />
Response: The at-grade railroad crossing with El Camino de Mañana and the<br />
intersection with the I-<strong>10</strong> westbound frontage road would be removed, but other<br />
segments of the road, east of the UPRR would be retained for access to the TEP<br />
transmission lines and towers and to provide access to adjacent properties. Although a<br />
portion of the existing El Camino de Mañana north of its existing intersection with Linda<br />
Vista Boulevard would be abandoned, final design would determine how much of the<br />
roadway would be removed.<br />
Comment: Concerns about effects to businesses near TI (1 comment)<br />
Response: Impacts to businesses are discussed in Chapter 4, Land Use on page 4-1 and<br />
Relocations/Displacements on page 4-83, and Secondary Impacts on page 4-<strong>10</strong>1.<br />
Comment: Preference for the main cross road to have a single name (1 comment)<br />
Response: The project proposes that <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road be extended across I-<strong>10</strong> to the<br />
intersection with Linda Vista Boulevard. North of Linda Vista Boulevard, the road would<br />
be called El Camino de Mañana, as it is today.<br />
Comment: Concerns about speeds on <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road (1 comments)<br />
Response: No changes to the speed limits along the existing section of <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road<br />
are proposed. The posted speed limit on <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road over the Santa Cruz River<br />
would be 45 miles per hour.<br />
Comment: Expressed desire for single point urban interchange (1 comment)<br />
Response: A single point urban interchange configuration was considered, but was<br />
rejected because of several operational problems. A tight diamond interchange was<br />
selected as the preferred alternative (see Chapter 3, Alternative TI Configurations, page<br />
3-2).<br />
Comment: Concerns about increased traffic through neighborhoods (1 comment)<br />
Response: <strong>Traffic</strong> volume increases have been predicted on <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road and<br />
Coachline Road as a result of the project, but increases in traffic on neighborhood streets<br />
are not anticipated. Issues associated with unanticipated impacts from the project would<br />
be addressed by the Town of Marana through established processes and procedures.<br />
Comment: Expressed desire to receive information from website (1 comment)<br />
Response: The Town intends to establish a website for this project, but one has not yet<br />
been established.<br />
In addition to meetings with the general public and residential property owners, a number<br />
of meetings occurred with the affected business community. Because the business owners<br />
had different concerns (e.g. acquisitions and access) than the residential property owners<br />
(e.g. noise and traffic), separate meetings were held. This allowed discussion at a greater<br />
level of detail than would be possible in general public meetings. Although numerous<br />
meetings have occurred over the course of the project, the larger of these meetings are<br />
summarized below. Most of the comments received from the business community in the<br />
project area have involved R/W acquisitions, access limitations to the frontage road, timing<br />
of R/W acquisitions and construction, business visibility from the interstate, and billboard<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
5-11<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Public Involvement/Project Coordination October 2005<br />
locations. More complete descriptions of these meetings and summaries of comments may<br />
be found in Appendix A.<br />
• September 5, 2003 - Met with individual business and property owners along I-<strong>10</strong><br />
at Days Inn Conference Room (7 meetings) to introduce the project and solicit<br />
early concerns.<br />
• March 12, 2004- Met with business and property owners along I-<strong>10</strong> at Marana<br />
Development Services (15 meetings) to present and receive comments on the<br />
alternatives.<br />
Hearing<br />
The Draft EA would be made available for public review and comment. To facilitate public<br />
involvement, a public hearing to explain the project and its environmental consequences<br />
would be held in the study area. Comments received at the public hearing and during the<br />
30-day review and comment period would be incorporated into the Final <strong>Environmental</strong><br />
<strong>Assessment</strong> (FEA) prepared for this project. The FEA would be used to determine the final<br />
environmental impacts for the project.<br />
Other On-Going Activities<br />
Throughout the final design and construction processes, efforts to inform and involve the<br />
community and businesses would be continued. A series of community meetings would be<br />
conducted at appropriate phases throughout the project. These meetings would inform the<br />
community of upcoming construction activities and the possible affects of these activities<br />
on the community and would offer the opportunity for the community and businesses to<br />
provide suggestions or comments that may minimize these affects. The meetings would be<br />
advertised in the same manner as the public information meetings for this project. Special<br />
efforts would be made to keep emergency services personnel informed of construction<br />
activities. Construction information would be available to the general public through<br />
regular briefings and information releases to newspapers, radio, and television.<br />
Conclusion<br />
To ensure that the public contributed to this study and had full access to study results, a<br />
number of public meetings and outreach efforts occurred and technical committees were<br />
formed. The design of the preferred alternative has been modified to address some of the<br />
concerns that have resulted from these public involvement efforts. After circulation of the<br />
Draft EA, a public hearing to explain the project and its environmental consequences<br />
would be held in the study area. Comments received would be addressed and incorporated<br />
into the FEA. A series of community meetings would be conducted at appropriate phases<br />
throughout the remainder of the proposed project. Construction information would be<br />
available to the general public through regular briefings and information releases.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
5-12<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Conclusion October 2005<br />
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION<br />
The environmental impacts of the preferred alternative and the no build alternative were<br />
evaluated based on both the context of the effects on the project area and the intensity or<br />
severity of impacts as defined in the CEQ Regulations. Table 6-1 summarizes the<br />
environmental impacts.<br />
Table 6-1. Summary of <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
<strong>Environmental</strong><br />
Result of No Build Result of Preferred<br />
Consideration<br />
Alternative evaluation Alternative evaluation<br />
Land use No impacts Short-term minor negative<br />
impacts<br />
Long-term minor negative<br />
Land resources<br />
• Topography<br />
• Soils<br />
• Geologic setting/<br />
mineral resources<br />
• Agriculture<br />
Water resources<br />
• Surface water<br />
• Ground water<br />
Water quality<br />
• Floodplains<br />
• Section 404/401<br />
• AZPDES/SWPPP<br />
• Sole source aquifer<br />
Biological resources<br />
• Wildlife<br />
• Threatened/<br />
endangered species<br />
• Arizona wildlife of<br />
concern<br />
• Critical habitat<br />
• Vegetation, riparian<br />
habitat, wetlands<br />
• Invasive species<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
impacts<br />
No impacts Short-term minor negative<br />
impacts<br />
Long-term minor negative<br />
impacts<br />
Short-term moderate<br />
negative impacts<br />
Long-term moderate<br />
negative impacts<br />
Short-term minor negative<br />
impacts<br />
Long-term moderate<br />
beneficial impacts<br />
No impacts Short-term minor negative<br />
impacts<br />
No long-term negative<br />
impacts<br />
No impacts Short-term minor negative<br />
impacts<br />
No long-term negative<br />
impacts<br />
6-1<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Conclusion October 2005<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
Table 6-1. Summary of <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
<strong>Environmental</strong><br />
Result of No Build Result of Preferred<br />
Consideration<br />
Alternative evaluation Alternative evaluation<br />
Visual resources No impacts Short-term moderate<br />
negative impacts<br />
Long-term moderate<br />
Air quality Long-term minor negative<br />
impacts<br />
Noise Long-term minor negative<br />
impacts<br />
6-2<br />
negative impacts<br />
Short-term minor negative<br />
impacts<br />
Long-term minor beneficial<br />
impacts<br />
Short-term moderate<br />
negative impacts<br />
Long-term minor negative<br />
impacts<br />
Hazardous materials No impacts Short-term minor negative<br />
impacts<br />
Long-term minor beneficial<br />
impacts<br />
Cultural resources No impacts Short-term minor negative<br />
impacts<br />
Long-term minor negative<br />
Socioeconomics Long-term moderate<br />
negative impacts<br />
Section 6(f)/Section 4(f) Long-term minor negative<br />
impacts<br />
impacts<br />
Short-term minor negative<br />
impacts<br />
Long-term moderate<br />
beneficial impacts<br />
Short-term minor negative<br />
impacts<br />
Long-term moderate<br />
beneficial impacts<br />
Utilities No impacts Short-term moderate<br />
negative impacts<br />
No long-term impacts<br />
Secondary impacts Long-term minor beneficial<br />
impacts<br />
Cumulative impacts Long-term minor negative<br />
impacts<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Project Preparers and Contributors October 2005<br />
CHAPTER 7: PROJECT PREPARERS AND<br />
CONTRIBUTORS<br />
Federal Highway Administration<br />
Stephen Thomas <strong>Environmental</strong> Program Manager<br />
Town of Marana<br />
Harvey Gill Interim Director of Public works<br />
Kevin Thornton, PE Project Manager<br />
Farhad Moghimi<br />
Arizona Department of Transportation<br />
Melissa Maiefski <strong>Environmental</strong> & Enhancement Group<br />
Laurel Parker Project Manager, Tucson District<br />
Kae Neustadt <strong>Environmental</strong> & Enhancement Group<br />
Ed Green <strong>Environmental</strong> & Enhancement Group<br />
Fred Garcia <strong>Environmental</strong> & Enhancement Group<br />
Laura Tsosie <strong>Environmental</strong> & Enhancement Group<br />
URS Corporation<br />
Scott Stapp <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> Manager<br />
William Dehn, PE Roadway Design<br />
Eric Sibson, PE Roadway Design<br />
Gene Rogge, PhD Cultural Resources<br />
Jean Paul Charpentier Biology<br />
Barbara Garrison Biology<br />
Dana Strength Geology and Water Resources<br />
Mary Burke Hazardous Materials<br />
Michael Pegnam, PE Geotechnical<br />
Jaime Wood Land Use and Socioeconomics<br />
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.<br />
David Perkins, PE, PTOE <strong>Traffic</strong> Analysis<br />
Scott Beck, PE<br />
Kaneen Advertising and Public Relations, Inc.<br />
Nanette Pageau Public Involvement<br />
Carol Oaks<br />
Entranco<br />
Mike Bertram, PE Drainage<br />
Edie Griffith-Mettey, PE<br />
Wheat Scharf Associates<br />
Liba Wheat, RLA Visual Resources/Landscaping<br />
Laura Mielcarek, RLA<br />
JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology<br />
John Wallace, PE Hydraulics/Hydrology<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
7-1<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Bibliography October 2005<br />
CHAPTER 8: BIBLIOGRAPHY<br />
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. A Policy on Geometric<br />
Design of Highways and Streets, (referred to as Green Book). Washington, DC, 2001.<br />
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Roadside Design Guide.<br />
1996.<br />
Anderson, S. R. Cenozoic Stratigraphy and Geologic History of the Tucson Basin, Pima<br />
County, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 87-<br />
4190. 1987.<br />
Arizona Department of Transportation. Noise Abatement Policy for Federal Aid Projects.<br />
March 21, 2000.<br />
Arizona Department of Transportation. Roadway Design Guidelines. February 2004.<br />
Arizona Department of Transportation. Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge<br />
Construction. 2002.<br />
Bureau of Land Management. Visual Resource Management Manual: 8400 BLM Standards.<br />
March 1981.<br />
Davidson, E.S. Geohydrology and Water Resources of the Tucson Basin, Arizona. U.S.<br />
Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1939-E. 1973.<br />
Euge, Kenneth M. and Schell, R. G. Seismic Maps for Arizona, Final Report: Prepared for<br />
the Arizona Department of Transportation, Report Number: FHWA-AZ92-344. 1992.<br />
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Maps. FIRM 0419C<strong>10</strong>15K<br />
and 0419C1605K D. effective date February 8, 1999.<br />
Federal Highway Administration, Addressing <strong>Environmental</strong> Justice in the <strong>Environmental</strong><br />
<strong>Assessment</strong> and <strong>Environmental</strong> Impact Statement, September 1998.<br />
Federal Highway Administration. <strong>Environmental</strong> Guidebook.<br />
http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/guidebook/index.htm.<br />
Federal Highway Administration, FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A. 1987.<br />
Federal Highway Administration. Procedures for the Abatement of Highway <strong>Traffic</strong> and<br />
Construction Noise, 23 CFR 772.<br />
Federal Highway Administration. Visual Impact <strong>Assessment</strong> for Highway Projects. March<br />
1981.<br />
Institute of Transportation Engineers. A Toolbox For Alleviating <strong>Traffic</strong> Congestion And<br />
Enhancing Mobility. ISBN 0-935403-12-4. 1996.<br />
JHK & Associates. Change of Freeway Access Report, I-<strong>10</strong> Corridor Improvements General<br />
Plan Ruthrauff Road to Tangerine Road, Contract Number 87-38, Project Number<br />
IR-<strong>10</strong>-4(<strong>10</strong>2)PE, ADOT TRACS Number HO15<strong>10</strong>1D. December 1991.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
8-1<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Bibliography October 2005<br />
JHK & Associates. Final <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> I-<strong>10</strong> Corridor Improvements General<br />
Plan Ruthrauff Road to Tangerine Road Contract Number 87-38, Project Number IR-<br />
<strong>10</strong>-4(<strong>10</strong>2)PE, ADOT TRACS Number H015<strong>10</strong>1D. October 20, 1993.<br />
JHK & Associates. I-<strong>10</strong> Corridor Improvements General Plan Ruthrauff Road to Tangerine<br />
Road, Contract Number 87-38, Project Number IR-<strong>10</strong>-4(<strong>10</strong>2)PE, ADOT TRACS<br />
Number HO15<strong>10</strong>1D, Design Concept Study. January 1990.<br />
JHK & Associates. I-<strong>10</strong> Corridor Improvements General Plan Ruthrauff Road to Tangerine<br />
Road, Contract Number 87-38, Project Number IR-<strong>10</strong>-4(<strong>10</strong>2)PE, ADOT TRACS<br />
Number HO15<strong>10</strong>1D, Noise Analysis Report. October 1991.<br />
JHK & Associates. I-<strong>10</strong> Corridor Improvements General Plan Ruthrauff Road to Tangerine<br />
Road, Contract Number 87-38, Project Number IR-<strong>10</strong>-4(<strong>10</strong>2)PE, ADOT TRACS<br />
Number HO15<strong>10</strong>1D. 1993.<br />
McGann & Associates, Inc. Town of Marana Park, Trail, and Open-Space System Master<br />
Plan. July 2000.<br />
National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Desk Reference for Estimating the<br />
Indirect Effects of Proposed Transportation Projects, NCHRP Report 466. 2002.<br />
National Park Service Denver Service Center. Saguaro Draft Final General Management<br />
Plan. NPS D-29A. May 1988.<br />
Natural Resources Conservation Service. Important Farmlands, Pima County, Arizona.<br />
Tucson, Arizona. 1982.<br />
Natural Resources Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Pima County, Arizona. Arizona<br />
Agricultural Experiment Station. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1969.<br />
Natural Resources Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Pima County, Arizona. U.S.<br />
Department of Agriculture. 2003.<br />
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. and Curtis Lueck & Associates. Town of<br />
Marana Transportation Plan Update, 2001-2025, Final Report. July 2001.<br />
PAG Regional Council. 2005 - 2009 Pima County Transportation Improvement Program.<br />
adopted on June 23, 2004.<br />
Pima Association of Governments. 2025 Regional Transportation Plan. January 2004.<br />
Pima Association of Governments. Tucson Bike Map. 2004<br />
Pima County Department of <strong>Environmental</strong> Quality. Air Quality Summary Report for Pima<br />
County, Arizona. AQ-230 2002. August 2003.<br />
Pima County Department of Transportation and Flood Control District. Pima County<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong>ly Sensitive Roadway Design Guidelines. October 2002.<br />
Pima County Department of Transportation and Flood Control District. Pima County<br />
Roadway Design Manual. October 2002.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
8-2<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Bibliography October 2005<br />
Tetra Tech, Inc. Santa Cruz River Shared Use Path, Phase 1, Cortaro Road to <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong><br />
Road, Town of Marana, Arizona, Design Concept Report Project #TEA-MRN-0-<br />
(12)A, ADOT TRACS # SL475-01D. May 2002.<br />
Tetra Tech, Inc. Santa Cruz River Shared Use Path, Phase 2, <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road to Coachline<br />
Boulevard, Town of Marana, Arizona, Design Concept Report Project #TEA-MRN-0-<br />
(13)A, ADOT TRACS # 0000 PM MRN SL486-01D. May 2002.<br />
The Planning Center and the WLB Group, Inc. Continental Ranch Specific Plan. adopted<br />
April 5, 1988 and amended 8 times to 2002.<br />
Town of Marana. General Plan Update. Adopted by Town Council November 5, 2002.<br />
Town of Marana. Marana Master Transportation Plan. Adopted by Town Council 1989.<br />
Town of Marana. Staff Report to the Marana Planning Commission, Land Development<br />
Code Amendment adding Section 24.02 – Bajada <strong>Environmental</strong> Resource Overlay<br />
District. November 19, 2003.<br />
Town of Marana. Town of Marana Santa Cruz River Corridor Plan Technical Advisory<br />
Group Findings and Community Task Force Recommendations, October 31, 2001.<br />
Transportation Safety Board of the National Academies. Highway Capacity Manual.<br />
Washington DC. TRBNRC. 2000.<br />
URS Corp. Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista, ADOT Project No.<br />
0<strong>10</strong>-d (AIW), TRACS No. <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01C, Biological Evaluation. July 27,<br />
2004.<br />
URS Corp. Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista, ADOT Project No.<br />
0<strong>10</strong>-d (AIW), TRACS No. <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01C, Cultural Resources Survey Report.<br />
August 2004.<br />
URS Corp. Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista, ADOT Project No.<br />
I- 0<strong>10</strong>-D 305, TRACS No. <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D, Final <strong>Traffic</strong> Noise Analysis<br />
Report. September 2004.<br />
URS Corp. Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista, ADOT Project No.<br />
0<strong>10</strong>-d (AIW), TRACS No. <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01C, Initial AASHTO Controlling<br />
Design Criteria Report. November 2003.<br />
URS Corp. Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista, ADOT Project No.<br />
0<strong>10</strong>-d (AIW), TRACS No. <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01C, Preliminary Initial Site<br />
<strong>Assessment</strong>. January 14, 2004.<br />
URS Corp. and Entranco. Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista,<br />
ADOT Project No. I- 0<strong>10</strong>-D 305, TRACS No. <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D, Final Drainage<br />
Report. May 21, 2004.<br />
URS Corp. and JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology. Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong><br />
at <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista, ADOT Project No. 0<strong>10</strong>-d (AIW), TRACS No. <strong>10</strong> PM 236<br />
H5838 01C, Santa Cruz River at <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road Existing Hydraulics Report.<br />
January 14, 2004.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
8-3<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D
Bibliography October 2005<br />
URS Corp. and JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology. Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong><br />
at <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista, ADOT Project No. 0<strong>10</strong>-d (AIW), TRACS No. <strong>10</strong> PM 236<br />
H5838 01C, Santa Cruz River at <strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong> Road Preliminary Bridge Hydraulics<br />
Report. July 8, 2004.<br />
URS Corp. and Kimley-Horn and Associates. Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at <strong>Twin</strong><br />
<strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista, ADOT Project No. 0<strong>10</strong>-d (AIW), TRACS No. <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838<br />
01C, Alternatives Selection Report. May 3, 2004.<br />
URS Corp. and Kimley-Horn and Associates. Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at <strong>Twin</strong><br />
<strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista, ADOT Project No. 0<strong>10</strong>-d (AIW), TRACS No. <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838<br />
01C, Design Concept Report. August 2004.<br />
URS Corp. and Kimley-Horn and Associates. Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at <strong>Twin</strong><br />
<strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista, ADOT Project No. 0<strong>10</strong>-d (AIW), TRACS No. <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838<br />
01C, Final <strong>Traffic</strong> Report. August 19, 2004.<br />
URS Corp. and Wheat Scharf Associates. Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at <strong>Twin</strong><br />
<strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista, ADOT Project No. 0<strong>10</strong>-d (AIW), TRACS No. <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838<br />
01C, Visual Impact Analysis Report. February 5, 2004.<br />
US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District in Coordination with Pima County, City<br />
of Tucson, and the Town of Marana. Final Tres Rios del Norte Feasibility Study,<br />
Pima County, Arizona, Project Management Plan. August 2001.<br />
Interstate <strong>10</strong> <strong>Traffic</strong> <strong>Interchange</strong> at<br />
<strong>Twin</strong> <strong>Peaks</strong>/Linda Vista<br />
8-4<br />
Project No.: NH-0<strong>10</strong>-D (AIW)<br />
TRACS No.: <strong>10</strong> PM 236 H5838 01D