UNLV, Entitled Maintenance Cost Study • Basic Channel Conveyance, Culverts, and • All Practices Must Be in Compliance with Drainage Structures
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE & PLANNINGLV RESEARCH INCLUDES US 95 FROM THE CLARK COUNTY LINE WEST OF INDIAN SPRINGS NORTH TO I-80 AT TRINITY, US 6 CORRIDOR PLAN FROM THE CALIFOR- NIA STATE LINE EAST TO WARM SPRINGS, US 50 FROM SIX MILE Central US 95, West US 6, and Central US 50 CANYON ROAD NEAR DAYTON EAST TO NEW PASS SUMMIT, ALT 95 THROUGH landscape and aesthetics corridor plan YERINGTON AND ALT 50 DESIGN WORKSHOP PLACES Sand County Studios JW Zunino & Associates CH2MHill December 15, 2006 Endorsement Central US 95, West US 6, and Central US 50 corridor plan MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR OF NEVADA MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR OF NDOT On June 6, 2002, the Nevada Department of Transportation adopted NDOT is responsible for ensuring that landscape and aesthetics as policy, “Pattern and Palette of Place: A Landscape and Aesthetics are an integral part of the design in building and retrofitting our Master Plan for the Nevada State Highway System.” The second highway system. This Landscape and Aesthetics Corridor Plan for phase of planning is complete. The Landscape and Aesthetics Cor- US 95, US 6, and US 50 in Central Nevada helps realize our vision ridor Plan represents a significant step forward for the Landscape for the future appearance of our highways. The plan will provide and Aesthetics program created by the Master Plan because it in- the guidance for our own design teams, and it will help Nevada’s volves local public agencies and citizens in the planning process. citizens participate in formulating context-sensitive solutions for Now, Nevada’s highways truly represent the state and its people. today’s transportation needs. Together, we will ensure our high- The Corridor Plan will be the primary management tool for use in ways reflect Nevada’s distinctive heritage, landscape, and culture. guiding funding allocations, promoting appropriate aesthetic de- sign, and providing for the incorporation of highway elements that uniquely express Nevada’s landscape, communities, and cities, as well as its people. The State considers this Corridor Plan to be a major accomplishment for the future of Nevada highways. III Central US 95, West US 6, and Central US 50 corridor plan Endorsement ENDORSEMENT The Corridor Plan has been reviewed by the following groups and agencies. Endorsement means agreeing in principle with the opportunities and recommendations identified within agency jurisdiction. Beatty Habitat Committee Lyon County Building Department Beatty Museum & Historical Society Mineral County Development Corporation Beatty Town Advisory Board Natural Resources Conservation Service, High Desert Resources Beatty Town Office Conservation District Churchill County Road Department Nevada Silver Trails City of Fernley Nye County City of Yerington Nye County Natural Resources Office Economic Development Authority - Esmeralda / Nye Counties Nye County Road Department Esmeralda County Silver Springs Chamber of Commerce Esmeralda County Yucca Mountain Oversight Tonopah Development Corporation Fallon Convention & Tourism Authority Tonopah Historic Mining Park Advisory Board Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe Town of Tonopah Fernley Chamber of Commerce Town of Walker Lake Goldfield Chamber of Commerce Walker Lake Working Group Goldfield Welcome Center Walker River Paiute Tribal Council Lahontan Valley Environmental Alliance Yerington Paiute Tribe Luning Advisory Board Yomba Shoshone Tribe Lyon County IV Acknowledgements Central US 95, West US 6, and Central US 50 corridor plan ACKOWLEDGEMENTS Nevada Department of Transportation State Transportation Board Rand Pollard - Assistant Chief of Road Design Engineer Lucy Joyce-Mendive - Landscape Architect Supervisor Kenny C. Guinn (Chairman) Governor Janice Ellis - Assistant Landscape Architect Kathy Augustine Controller Ron Blakemore - Former Landscape Architect Supervisor Caesar Caviglia Member Tom Gust Member Lorraine Hunt Lt. Governor University of Nevada Las Vegas Landscape Architecture and Brian Sandoval Attorney General Planning Research Office Jim Thornton Member Mark Elison Hoversten - Professor, FASLA, AICP Susan Jones - Research Associate, ASLA STTAC (Statewide Transportation Technical Advisory Committee) Brian Pugh - Research Assistant, ASLA Audrey Allan Vincent Guthreau Tom Brady Sig Jaunarajs Consultant Team Steve Bunnell Mara Jones Denis Cederburg Charlie Kajkowski (Vice-Chair) Design Workshop Daryl Crawford Clara Lawson Richard W. Shaw - Principal, FASLA Keyth Durham Patrick Pittenger Steve Noll - Principal, ASLA Paul Enos Marc Reynolds (Chair) Stephanie Grigsby - Associate, ASLA Jon Ericson Jonna Samsom Kristofer Johnson - Landscape Designer David Fraser Bruce Turner Eric Roverud - Landscape Designer Debra Goodwin Steve Weaver Laura Miller - Landscape Designer Christopher Walsh - Landscape Designer Laurie Ann Grimes Elizabeth Scott - Landscape Designer, ASLA Technical Review Committee Anna Gagne - Planner Julie McGrew - Landscape Designer Alvin Moyle Jack Honeycutt Susan Keller Smith Devon Morgan - Graphic Designer Angela Haag Jim Marble Tamara Sandvik Lisa McGuire - Graphic Designer Bert Bertram John Hicks Teri Knight Rebecca Leonard - Planner Bill Kirby Kay Bennett Virginia Ridgway Nino Pero - Website Designer Charles Nixon Lesa Cagle Kelan Smith - Environmental Graphics Dave Ferguson Linda Tarvydas Casti- Dori Johnson - Executive Assistant Dave Spicer more Jen Tarbet - Project Specialist Dennis Bill Lorrie Chase Donna Kristaponis Margaret Ruckman PLACES Doug Baker Maxine Makinster Barbara Santner - Landscape Architect and Planner, ASLA, AICP Douglas Pope Michael O’Conner Kathie Brinkerhoff - Landscape Designer Durk Pearson Paula Elefante Susan Leuscher - Landscape Architect in Training Fred Satala Pauline LaVoie Gary Atkerson Rick Gray Sand County Studio George McCorkell RJ Gillum James Sipes - Landscape Architect and Digital Database Development, Glenn Bunch Rob Loveberg ASLA Heidi Bertolino Robert Boyce James Eason Ron Wolven JW Zunino Janet Sanderson Sandi Stanio Jack Zunino - Principal, FASLA Janet Rogers Shelagh Davis Geoffrey Schafler - Landscape Coordinator, ASLA Jean Peterson Ron Davis Jeannete Dahl Shirley Harlan CH2MHill Cindy Potter - Civil Engineer, Principal, P.E. V Central US 95, West US 6, and Central US 50 corridor plan Executive Summary USER’S GUIDE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY scape design segments: Mojave Desert Vista, Sil- Chapter Four summarizes the cost implications ver Legends, Great Basin Oasis and Pony Express associated with the improvements proposed by • Refer to the section beginning on This plan establishes the vision for the landscape Passage. A description of the theme and design this Corridor Plan. Cost estimates are included for page 1.5 to understand softscape and and aesthetics of the Central US 50, West US 6, objectives presents examples of the appropriate both preliminary project budgeting as well as on- hardscape types and treatments. and Central US 50 corridor. The vision synthesiz- design aesthetic for each segment. Additionally, going project maintenance. These estimates will • Refer to the introduction and section es historic, current, and future conditions into a maps and sections of the landscape design seg- inform NDOT in the decision-making process, and one beginning on page 2.1 to under- comprehensive guide to improve the visual ap- ments provide detail regarding the location of help influence budget allocations for the land- stand how the corridor is organized pearance of the highway corridors through com- specific projects and the desired level of aesthetic scape and aesthetics highway improvements. into highway zones. munities, rural landscapes, and scenic environ- treatment. ments. The remaining chapters provide information that • Refer to the sections two through five beginning on page 2.13 for the design Chapter Three begins by outlining an approach to will help readers understand the technical infor- theme and design objectives related The first chapter of this report provides an intro- the design process. This process highlights the ne- mation presented in the document. to each landscape design segment. duction to the NDOT Landscape and Aesthetics cessity of integrating landscape and aesthetics at program. It describes the mechanism by which the beginning of every project. Design guidelines • Refer to pages 2.20, 2.33, 2.47 and 2.54 corridor design will be managed, a description of are also included in the third chapter to provide for design interpretation. programs and elements that influence highway the framework for improving the aesthetics of aesthetics, and a summary of background infor- existing, new, and retrofit highway projects. They • Refer to the section beginning on page 3.2 for design guidelines. mation gathered and analyzed. are written statements of recommended meth- ods to meet the segment’s design objectives. The • Refer to the section beginning on page Chapter Two describes the process through guidelines, accompanied by concept diagrams, 3.21 for color palette information. which sections of the highway were categorized sketches, or photographs, demonstrate ways in into highway zones and divided into distinct land- which to achieve the design intent. • Refer to pages 3.39 – 3.47 for plant pal- ettes associated with each softscape treatment type. • Refer to the section beginning on page 4.14 for the description of funding and costs. • Refer to the section beginning on page 4.16 for project priorities. VI Table of Contents Central US 95, West US 6, and Central US 50 corridor plan TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT