I-10 Twin Peaks Traffic Interchange, Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Alternatives October 2005 Near the proposed intersection of Twin Peaks Road/El Camino de Mañana/Linda Vista proposed alignment of Twin Peaks Road in this area would interfere with historic drainage patterns. Water that currently flows south across El Camino de Mañana would be blocked by the proposed roadway; therefore, a channel is proposed to convey this blocked flow southwesterly along the north side of Twin Peaks Road (see Figure 3-19). These flows would be combined with the discharge from the proposed 2-cell 6-foot by 4foot RCBC under Twin Peaks Road. The proposed channel will be lined, have a base width of 5 feet, and provide for a depth of flow between 1.91 and 2.65 feet. Flows from this channel would continue southwest to the new channel that would discharge into the cross drainage structure at approximate I-10 MP 244.81. Routing the flows in this manner would avoid two drainage structures under Twin Peaks Road. Table 3-3. Existing and Proposed Channels Serving I-10 and Frontage Roads Outfall Location (approximate I-10 Milepost) Interstate 10 Traffic Interchange at Twin Peaks/Linda Vista Existing Channel Bottom Width and Depth (approx.) 3-25 Proposed Channel Bottom Width and Flow Depth 244.41 20 feet wide by 3.5 feet deep 70 feet wide by 3.38 feet deep 244.80 7 feet wide by 4 feet deep 30 feet wide by 2.74 feet deep 244.81 New – N/A 50 feet wide by 2.92 feet deep 245.18 6 feet wide by 3 feet deep 40 feet wide by 3.05 feet deep 245.19 3 feet wide by 3.5 feet deep 40 feet wide by 3.1 feet deep Proposed Santa Cruz River Channel Modifications Twin Peaks Road would approach the Santa Cruz River on both sides on embankment and then cross the Santa Cruz River on twin bridge structures of approximately 750 feet in length. The roadway and bridge embankments would place a large volume of fill within the Santa Cruz River floodplain. The fill would displace an equal volume of water and, if no additional action were taken, would change the 100-year floodplain elevation. To prevent any increase in flood water elevation, the low flow channel of the Santa Cruz River would be widened to offset the volume displaced by the roadway and bridge embankment. This topic will be discuss in greater detail in the Chapter 4, Affected Environment in the Section entitled Floodplains (see page 4-14). The following chapter discusses the existing project area environment and anticipated effects to social, economic, and environmental resources within the project area from the construction of the preferred alternative. These effects are compared with the effects that would result from the no build alternative (doing nothing). Project No.: NH-010-D (AIW) TRACS No.: 10 PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts October 2005 CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND Land Use Existing Conditions ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Within the study area, several different governmental entities have jurisdiction, including the Town of Marana, Pima County, ADOT, and FHWA. Most of the project area is within the incorporated area of the Town of Marana, but the commercial area on the west side of I-10 near the Twin Peaks Road TI is within unincorporated Pima County. Twin Peaks Road and portions of El Camino de Mañana and Linda Vista Boulevard are under the shared control of the Town of Marana and Pima County and are maintained through memoranda of understanding between the two entities. The boundaries of the jurisdictions are illustrated on Figure 4-1. Land ownership is diverse in the study area also. In the western part of the study area (Continental Ranch), the land is almost entirely privately owned. An exception to private ownership in this area is the Twin Peaks Elementary School which belongs to the Marana Unified School District. The area within the high flow channel of the Santa Cruz River is under the control of Pima County. Near the Twin Peaks Road TI, west of I-10, the property ownership is varied, consisting primarily of privately owned parcels, but parcels belonging to Pima County, the City of Tucson, and the Cortaro-Marana Irrigation District (CMID) are present also. I-10 is a federal facility under the joint control of FHWA and ADOT. A canal owned by CMID lies between I-10 and the westbound frontage road and the railroad line owned by the UPRR lies east of the westbound frontage road. The towers that support the TEP transmission lines are located within utility easements east of the railroad. With the exception of these linear facilities, the study area east of I-10 is almost entirely privately owned. The notable exceptions are Arthur Pack Regional Park and Mountain View High School in the extreme eastern part of the study area, which are owned by Pima County and the Marana Unified School District, respectively. The proposed improvements would occur in areas under the auspices of both the Town of Marana and unincorporated Pima County. The land use policies of both entities are represented in their respective general plans. Actual land uses, however, do not follow necessarily the adopted land use patterns of general plans because many current land uses were in existence prior to adoption of the general plans. Interstate 10 Traffic Interchange at Twin Peaks/Linda Vista 4-1 Project No.: NH-010-D (AIW) TRACS No.: 10 PM 236 H5838 01D
Page 1:
Interstate 10 Traffic Interchange a
Page 4 and 5:
Draft Environmental Assessment Octo
Page 6 and 7:
Draft Environmental Assessment Octo
Page 8 and 9: Draft Environmental Assessment Octo
Page 10 and 11: Draft Environmental Assessment Octo
Page 12 and 13: Mitigation Measures October 2005
Page 14 and 15: Mitigation Measures October 2005 19
Page 16 and 17: Mitigation Measures October 2005 St
Page 18 and 19: Introduction October 2005 CHAPTER 1
Page 20 and 21: AVRA VALLEY RD MARANA I-10 SCENIC D
Page 22 and 23: Introduction October 2005 Cortaro R
Page 24 and 25: Project Purpose and Need October 20
Page 34 and 35: Alternatives October 2005 CHAPTER 3
Page 36 and 37: Alternatives October 2005 Figure 3-
Page 38 and 39: Alternatives October 2005 • Shall
Page 40 and 41: Alternatives October 2005 Interstat
Page 42 and 43: Alternatives October 2005 Road). Pr
Page 44 and 45: Alternatives October 2005 Preferred
Page 46 and 47: Alternatives October 2005 Twin Peak
Page 48 and 49: Alternatives October 2005 I-10 Fron
Page 50 and 51: Alternatives October 2005 Linda Vis
Page 52 and 53: Alternatives October 2005 Twin Peak
Page 54 and 55: Alternatives October 2005 and sidew
Page 56 and 57: Alternatives October 2005 proposed
Page 60 and 61: Avra Valley Rd. Twin Peaks Rd. Silv
Page 62 and 63: Affected Environment and Environmen
Page 78 and 79: Interstate 10 Traffic Interchange a
Page 108 and 109:
Affected Environment and Environmen
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Wall to Protect Rec. ID Affected En
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
44.20 Avra Valley Rd Twin Peaks Rd
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Public Involvement/Project Coordina
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Conclusion October 2005 Interstate
Page 178 and 179:
Bibliography October 2005 CHAPTER 8
Page 180 and 181:
Bibliography October 2005 Tetra Tec
show all

I-10 Twin Peaks Traffic Interchange, Environmental Assessment

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?