US 93: Wickenburg to Santa Maria River

Location/Design Concept Study and Environmental Studies

Home

SR 89 to Wickenburg Interim Bypass

Wickenburg   (SR 89) to Santa Maria River

Interim Improvement Project

Wickenburg Bypass

Related Studies

Study Team

Feedback

What's New

Location and Time:

Thursday, October 7, 1999 – 1:00 p.m.

Hassayampa River Preserve Conference Room

Participants:

MEETING SUMMARY:

The meeting started at approximately 1:15 p.m., at which time Rich DeBoer expressed his opinion that the steering committee has been a beneficial adjunct to the study and thanked the committee members for their participation. Following those opening remarks, Bert Bertleson asked the members for comments on the minutes of the last meeting. A few editorial comments were made and the corrections were noted. Jim Liggett also asked for clarification on the phased construction diagram for the ultimate, full build alternative west of Wickenburg.

1. Project Status Report: Bert Bertleson continued the meeting by providing a project status report. He reported that the interim improvement traffic study had been completed, and the report would be distributed for review once it is reviewed by ADOT.

Mr. Bertleson also stated that Sverdrup/ADOT had met with BLM and FHWA representatives on September 27^th to discuss the two proposed corridors that pass through the BLM’s planned Vulture Peak Recreation Management Area (RMA) relative to Section 4(f). He indicated that Sverdrup had revised the Bypass Corridor Evaluations based on the results of the meeting, specifically regarding Land Use Consistency, Recreational Resource, and Section 4(f) impacts of the Southwest (SW) and Far West Corridor Alternatives.

2. Bypass Corridor Evaluations: Mr. Bertleson distributed revised copies of the design, social, and environmental evaluation factors analysis of the three bypass corridors. The revisions, which were presented in bold italics to aid identification, reflected the results of the BLM meeting and addressed the numerous questions from the committee at the last meeting. At this point, Mr. Bertleson briefly highlighted the various changes prior to focusing the discussion on the BLM/Section 4(f) issues. The committee members had no specific comments on the non-4(f) issues.

• Both the SW and Far West Corridors will separate a fragment of land on the north side of the highway from the remainder of the proposed RMA.
• BLM will not revise the RMA Land Use Plan to account for joint planning of a transportation corridor within the RMA. BLM has completed its public involvement program regarding the RMA, and will formalize the RMA designation within the next few months. Any revisions to the current planning document would require reopening their plan to public review and possible opposition.
• BLM has designated the land within the RMA for "Retention"; i.e., retaining the existing character and use of the land to optimize recreational opportunities.
• With either alternative, the highway will create a barrier for recreational trail usage and wildlife movement between the main portion of the RMA and the RMA fragment (however, such impacts can be mitigated).

• BLM is concerned about fragmentation of the RMA with either corridor alternative, but felt the Far West Alternative would have a greater effect on their ability to manage that larger fragment due to development on abutting State Lands.

• BLM has assumed the State Land along the northern perimeter of the RMA will be developed, which will provide easy access to other parcels and result in abuse of the RMA fragment by the public. Such abuse would deteriorate the value of the recreation land, defeat the purpose of retaining RMA-status in that area, and would likely lead BLM to dispose of the property after amending the RMA Land Use Plan and receiving public input.

• BLM felt that the Far West Corridor Alternative would have a greater impact upon the function and value of the land within the RMA; therefore, BLM indicated a preference for the SW Corridor Alternative because it would have less impact upon the RMA.

• The committee members expressed a consensus for the Far West Alternative and a desire to seek ways to support it being selected.
• If strong public opinion was expressed for the Far West Alternative (as it was at the last public meeting), can BLM’s preference override what the public wants?
• BLM does not manage the land in the proposed RMA now, so why should a formal designation of the RMA make a difference? Greg Gamble, Nature Conservancy, indicated his agency has assumed a management role over other BLM land elsewhere in Arizona and suggested a similar approach could be applied to the fragmented area associated with the Far West Alternative.
• Mike Sabatini, MCDOT, suggested that Maricopa County’s Parks and Recreation Department be contacted about turning either one of the fragmented parcels over as a regional park.
• Several committee members remarked that they should be allowed to comment on BLM’s planned designation of the RMA because it had not yet been formally adopted. The same individuals also stated they had never been contacted by BLM when they were developing the plan for the RMA. The committee members also expressed dismay as to why BLM was not participating in the Steering Committee meetings, and felt they should be. [Mr. Bertleson advised BLM is participating in the Interdisciplinary Team meetings.]
• The Far West Alternative would put the highway further from town and would have less noise and visual impacts.

3. Interim Improvements: Mr. Bertleson reviewed the reasons for considering an interim improvement project and restated the criteria for evaluating interim improvement alternatives. He indicated that traffic volumes would increase 40% in the next 10 years and 60% in the next 15 years on Tegner Street and Wickenburg Way (US 60). After a brief definition of levels of service (LOS) and how urban intersections determine LOS, Mr. Bertleson indicated Interim Alternatives 4, 7, and 10 would all provide an acceptable LOS for the next 15 years. He did state, however, that the left turn from southbound US 93 to eastbound US 60 (Alternative 10) would operate at LOS D, compared to the current LOS F. Mr. Bertleson then made the following observations.

• Alternative 4 would likely compete with the ultimate bypass because it would be a substantial investment that would remain operationally effective for many years. Thus, it could defer the need for the ultimate bypass for 15 to 20 or more years.
• Eventually, the roadway north and south of Alternative 4 would need to be improved to accommodate future traffic demand, adding to the initial cost.
• Alternative 7 is similar to Alternative 4 in terms of representing a major investment. However, there may be opportunities to reduce the cost if the design criteria can be altered.
• Alternative 10 would be a relatively minor investment that would alleviate congestion for the near term at a low cost. Thus, Alternative 10 would not compete with the implementation of a bypass.

4. Economic Impact Report: Due to the length of the meeting, this topic was not discussed in detail. With the exception of Mr. Liggett’s opposition to the report’s findings, the committee agreed to "accept" the report and move ahead.

The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

The next steering committee meeting will be scheduled for the week prior to the public information meeting in early December. The committee meeting would again be conducted at the Hassayampa River Preserve from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m.