Hidden Waters Parkway North Feasibility Study: Interstate 10 to State Route 74 Final Report Prepared For: Prepared By: January 2012 Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... v Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 1.1 Background Information and Study Area ..................................................................... 1 1.2 Study Purpose and Need ............................................................................................. 1 1.3 Relevant Plans, Reports, Guidelines, Studies, and Standards ..................................... 3 2.0 Existing and Future Corridor Features ............................................................................. 4 2.1 Jurisdictions, Ownership, and Land Uses .................................................................... 4 2.1.1 Jurisdictional Control.............................................................................................. 4 2.1.2 Land Ownership..................................................................................................... 4 2.1.3 Existing Land Use .................................................................................................. 6 2.1.4 Existing Zoning ...................................................................................................... 8 2.1.5 Future Land Use .................................................................................................. 10 2.1.6 Master Planned Communities .............................................................................. 12 2.2 Existing Topography .................................................................................................. 13 2.3 Existing/Proposed Utilities ......................................................................................... 13 2.4 Existing Roadway Features ....................................................................................... 15 2.4.1 Access Control..................................................................................................... 15 2.4.2 Right-of-Way ........................................................................................................ 15 2.5 Future Roadway Network .......................................................................................... 17 2.5.1 Forecast Travel Conditions .................................................................................. 17 2.5.2 Future Functional Classification ........................................................................... 17 2.5.3 Programmed Roadway Improvements ................................................................. 17 3.0 Environmental Overview Summary ................................................................................ 18 3.1 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................... 18 3.2 Natural Resources ..................................................................................................... 18 3.3 Land Use and Socioeconomics ................................................................................. 19 3.4 Visual Resources....................................................................................................... 19 3.5 Water Resources ....................................................................................................... 20 3.6 Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................. 20 3.7 Noise ......................................................................................................................... 20 3.8 Air Quality .................................................................................................................. 20 4.0 Drainage Overview Summary ........................................................................................ 21 4.1 Existing Floodplains ................................................................................................... 21 4.2 Existing Drainage Facilities ........................................................................................ 21 Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation i January 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 4.3 5.0 Hydrology Results ..................................................................................................... 23 Development and Evaluation of Candidate Alignments ................................................. 24 5.1 Development of Candidate Alignments ...................................................................... 24 5.1.1 Alternative 1 ......................................................................................................... 24 5.1.2 Alternative 2 ......................................................................................................... 25 5.1.3 Alternative 3 ......................................................................................................... 25 5.1.4 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................. 25 5.1.5 Schematic Drawings of the Candidate Alignments ............................................... 27 5.1.6 Special Interest Areas .......................................................................................... 27 5.2 Evaluation of the Candidate Alignments .................................................................... 28 5.3 Conclusions and Recommendations.......................................................................... 29 6.0 Detailed Preferred Alignment ......................................................................................... 30 6.1 Standard Cross-Section............................................................................................. 30 6.2 Design Features of the Preferred Alignment .............................................................. 31 6.2.1 Design Vehicle ..................................................................................................... 31 6.2.2 Design Speeds .................................................................................................... 31 6.2.3 Vertical Geometry ................................................................................................ 31 6.2.4 Horizontal Geometry ............................................................................................ 31 6.2.5 Intersections ........................................................................................................ 32 6.2.6 Drainage Considerations ..................................................................................... 32 6.3 General Access Management Guidelines .................................................................. 36 6.4 Special Interest Areas and the Preferred Alignment................................................... 36 6.5 Implementation Plan .................................................................................................. 38 6.6 Planning Level Cost Estimate .................................................................................... 38 6.7 Preferred Alignment Drawings ................................................................................... 40 7.0 Future Activities and Considerations for Future Development ....................................... 74 8.0 Public Involvement Overview ......................................................................................... 76 8.1 Technical Advisory Committee .................................................................................. 76 8.1.1 8.2 Public Outreach Methods .......................................................................................... 77 8.2.1 8.3 TAC Meetings ...................................................................................................... 76 Public Open House Meetings............................................................................... 77 Public Comment ........................................................................................................ 78 Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation ii January 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 List of Figures Figure 1-1 Hidden Waters Parkway study area .......................................................................... 2 Figure 2-1 Land Ownership ........................................................................................................ 5 Figure 2-2 Existing Land Use ..................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2-3 Existing Zoning ......................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2-4 Future Land Use ......................................................................................................11 Figure 2-5 Planned Development ..............................................................................................12 Figure 2-6 Existing/Proposed Utilities ........................................................................................14 Figure 4-1 Delineated Floodplains.............................................................................................22 Figure 4-2 Proposed Drainage Crossings .................................................................................23 Figure 5-1 Hidden Waters Parkway Conceptual Alignments .....................................................24 Figure 5-2 Candidate Alignments for the Hidden Waters Parkway ............................................26 Figure 5-3 Special Interest Areas ..............................................................................................27 Figure 6-1 AZ Parkway: 6-lane Urban Typical Section ..............................................................30 Figure 6-2 Estimated Cross-Drainage Features ........................................................................33 Figure 6-3 Special Interest Areas ..............................................................................................37 List of Tables Table 2-1 Existing Land Use ...................................................................................................... 6 Table 2-2 Utility Stakeholders in the Hidden Waters Parkway Study Area.................................13 Table 2-3 Existing Roadway Conditions ....................................................................................15 Table 2-4 Existing Right-of-Way along Proposed Corridor ........................................................16 Table 2-5 Other Right-of-Way ...................................................................................................16 Table 2-6 Summary of MAG Forecasted Traffic Volume ...........................................................17 Table 5-1 Summary of Qualitative Evaluation ...........................................................................28 Table 6-1 AZ Parkway: Urban Design Speeds ..........................................................................31 Table 6-2 Estimated Roadway Drainage Crossing Types and Discharges ................................34 Table 6-3 Summary of Planning Level Cost Estimate................................................................39 Appendices Appendix A: Technical Memorandum #1 - Existing and Future Corridor Features, June 2011 Appendix B: Technical Memorandum #2 - Environmental Overview, June 2011 Appendix C: Technical Memorandum #3 - Conceptual Drainage Report, June 2011 Appendix D: Technical Memorandum #4 - Candidate Alignments and Evaluation, September 2011 Appendix E: Technical Memorandum #5 - Detailed Preferred Alignment, October 2011 Appendix F: Technical Memorandum #6 – Public and Stakeholder Involvement, January 2012 Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation iii January 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Abbreviations American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Department of Water Resources Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona Public Service Arizona State Land Department Arizona State Museum Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Reclamation Capital Improvement Program Central Arizona Project Community Retail Commercial Development Master Plan Dwelling Units Environmental Protection Agency Federal Highway Administration Federal Implementation Plan Flood Control District of Maricopa County Geographic Information System Maricopa Association of Governments Maricopa County Department of Transportation Master Planned Community Municipal Planning Area National Environmental Protection Agency National Register of Historic Places Planned Area Development Salt River Project State Implementation Plan State Route State Transportation Improvement Program Technical Advisory Committee Toyota Arizona Proving Ground Traffic Interchange Transportation Improvement Program US Fish and Wildlife Service Visual Resource Management Western Area Power Authority Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation iv AASHTO ADEQ ADOT ADWR AGFD APS ASLD ASM BLM BOR CIP CAP CRC DMP DU EPA FHWA FIP FCDMC GIS MAG MCDOT MPC MPA NEPA NRHP PAD SRP SIP SR STIP TAC TAPG TI TIP USFWS VRM WAPA January 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Executive Summary The Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study (Hassayampa Framework Study) is a transportation planning document completed by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) in 2008 that identified a comprehensive roadway network to meet future traffic demands in northwest Maricopa County. The roadway network recommended by the Hassayampa Framework Study is comprised of freeways, parkways and major arterial roads. The Hidden Waters Parkway was identified as a major link in this recommended transportation framework. Study Area and Purpose The purpose of the Hidden Waters Parkway study is to document conditions along the parkway corridor, identify potential fatal flaws and develop an alignment alternative that meets the future traffic needs identified in the Hassayampa Framework Study. The recommended alternative will establish a roadway footprint that may be used as a guide for local agencies and development within the corridor. The Hidden Waters Parkway North (Hidden Waters Parkway) Feasibility Study Area is located west of the Phoenix metropolitan area in Maricopa County, Arizona (Exhibit 1). The Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) commissioned the Hidden Waters Parkway North Parkway Feasibility Study in response to anticipated growth and the future need for a highcapacity roadway within the Hassayampa River Valley west of the White Tank Mountains. The study area includes the northern section of the Hidden Waters Parkway, as shown on the Hassayampa Framework Study, from Interstate 10 (I-10) north to the future alignment of State Route 74 (SR74). The study area is approximately 28 miles long and 2 to 3 miles wide. Exhibit 1 Study Area Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation v January 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Existing Corridor Features The Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor falls under the jurisdiction of both Maricopa County and the Town of Buckeye. Maricopa County currently has jurisdictional control over all of the improved roadways within the study area. The majority of land along the corridor is privately owned, but land owners in the area also include The Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). The vast majority of the existing study area consists of vacant/undeveloped land. The most common zoning categories are RU-43 and RU-190 (Rural Residential) and planned communities. The existing roadway network in the study area is very limited. Currently, just five sections of existing roadway, ranging from 0.5 to 2 miles in length, are paved. With this limited roadway network, the amount of existing dedicated right-of-way present within the corridor is also limited. Existing physical features include the Central Arizona Project (CAP) Canal, the Toyota Arizona Proving Ground (TAPG) located near northern end of the study area, and 139 well sites identified by the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR). A total of eight utility providers currently have facilities within the study area. Among the facilities are water, gas, irrigation, telephone, fiber optic lines, and aerial and buried electric. The primary electric utilities of interest within the study area are overhead highvoltage transmission lines, owned by Western Area Power Authority (WAPA) and Arizona Public Service (APS), which cross the study corridor at various locations. Candidate Alignments A wide variety of conceptual alignments were initially developed as part of the study. The design team examined each of these alignments and selected three candidate alignment alternatives for further analysis. The candidate alignments are as follows: Alternative 1 Alternative 1 was developed as part of the Hassayampa Framework Study. It begins at the 339th Avenue/ I-10 Traffic Interchange (TI) and extends north, generally following the pre-determined alignments of 339th, 331st, and 302nd Avenues. Within the proposed Douglas Ranch Development, This alternative generally follows arterial roadway alignments identified in the Development Master Plan (DMP) circulation element. Between Dove Valley Road and the northern boundary of the study area Alternative 1 generally follows the 302nd Avenue alignment. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was developed in response to existing/approved land plans and the stakeholder feedback received during the planning phase of this study. It was created to minimize impact to the proposed developments within the study area. As such, this alignment reflects the proposed circulation elements of the Millennium Ranch, Hassayampa Ranch, Belmont and Douglas Ranch Development Master Plans (DMP’s). Alternative 2 generally follows the alignment of 299 th and 302nd Avenues through Whispering Ranch. Alternative 3 Alternative 3 was developed in response to geomorphology, existing drainage patterns, utilities, etc. with the goal of minimizing the number of engineering constraints. Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation vi January 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Subsequently, the alignment was located along natural ridgelines to minimized drainage and environmental impacts. Alignment 3 generally runs between 301 st and 302nd Avenues through Whispering Ranch. Exhibit 2 Candidate Alignments for the Hidden Waters Parkway The three candidate alignments were evaluated using a set of criteria identified through Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation vii January 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 the agency and public scoping process. These criteria and the results of this initial screening of the candidate alternatives are summarized in Exhibit 3. Strong Disadvantage Disadvantage Evaluation Criteria Neutral Strong Advantage Advantage Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Build Right-of-Way Requirements 686 ac 717 ac 695 ac N/A Cost (in millions) $266.3 $248.8 $232.30 N/A No Yes No No Consistency with Proposed Development Environmental Impacts Utility Impacts Drainage Impacts Engineering Complexity System Functionality Buildings/Property Impacts Stakeholder/Community Feedback Recommended for Further Evaluation Exhibit 3 Summary of Qualitative Evaluation Preferred Alignment Alternative 2 is recommended as the preferred alternative primarily because it received the greatest support from key stakeholders and the public, it is coincident with the approved development master plans, and no special engineering challenges were identified with this alignment. Based on traffic projections from the Hassayampa Framework Study, the Arizona Parkway Intersection/Interchange - Operational Analysis and Design Concepts Study (MCDOT, 2009) makes the following recommendations for the size/number of lanes for the Hidden Waters Parkway through the study area:    8-lane Parkway: between I-10 and Northern Parkway 6-lane Parkway: between Northern Parkway and Dove Valley Parkway 4-lane Parkway: between Dove Valley Parkway and the future SR 74 Freeway The recommended alternative is shown in Exhibit 4. Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation viii January 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Exhibit 4 Preferred Alignment Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation ix January 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Planning Level Cost Estimate A planning level cost estimate was prepared for the preferred alternative and is summarized in Exhibit 4. The exhibit demonstrates how initial construction costs could be modified if one of the two phased implementation options identified in the Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway (MCDOT, 2008) are utilized. These phased options include:   Option 1: Only construct the required number of lanes to meet the initial traffic demands (beginning from the outside curb). Purchase the full 200ft right-of-way for the parkway with the initial construction. Option 2: Construct half of the proposed parkway first and operate as a traditional arterial roadway allowing left-turns at intersections. This option would require the purchase of only 100ft of right-of-way for initial construction. Cost Category Factor Construction Preferred Alternative Phased Option No. 1 Phased Option No. 2 $88,700,000 $77,900,000 $56,700,000 Design (10% TO 15%) 12% $10,600,000 $9,300,000 $6,800,000 Construction Management 15% $13,300,000 $11,700,000 $8,500,000 Right-of-Way $104,000,000 $104,000,000 $104,000,000 Structures $21,500,000 $21,500,000 $10,800,000 Utility Relocation $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $8,900,000 $7,800,000 $5,700,000 $247,100,000 $232,300,000 $192,600,000 Administration (8% TO 13%) 10% Total Exhibit 5 Planning Level Cost Estimate Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation x January 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background Information and Study Area The Interstate-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study (Hassayampa Framework Study) is a transportation planning document completed by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) in 2008 that identified a comprehensive roadway network to meet future traffic demands in northwest Maricopa County. The roadway network recommended by the Hassayampa Framework Study is comprised of freeways, parkways and major arterial roads. The Hidden Waters Parkway was identified as a major link in this recommended transportation framework. The Hidden Waters Parkway North (Hidden Waters Parkway) Feasibility Study Area is located west of the Phoenix metropolitan area in Maricopa County, Arizona (Figure 1-1). The area west of the White Tank Mountains within the Hassayampa River Valley has been identified as an area where intense growth is anticipated to occur in the future. Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) commissioned the Hidden Waters Parkway North Parkway Feasibility Study in response to this anticipated growth and the future need for a high-capacity roadway within this corridor. The study area includes the northern section of the Hidden Waters Parkway, as shown on the Hassayampa Framework Study, from Interstate 10 (I-10) north to the future alignment of State Route 74 (SR 74). The study area is approximately 28 miles long and two miles wide, primarily centered about the Hassayampa Framework Study proposed alignment (baseline alignment) for the Hidden Waters Parkway, except in the area from Northern Avenue to Bell Road where the study area expands to two miles west of the baseline alignment and from the south end of Douglas Ranch to Patton Road where the study area expands to two miles east of the baseline alignment. This results in the study corridor being a total of three miles wide in these two areas (refer to Figure 1-1 for a graphic depiction of the study area). 1.2 Study Purpose and Need The proposed Hidden Waters Parkway corridor passes adjacent to, or through, several entitled Master Plan Communities (MPC) including: Millennium Ranch, Hassayampa Ranch, Belmont, and Douglas Ranch. At build-out, it is estimated that these communities may contain over 187,000 dwelling units. The need for a parkway within the Hidden Waters corridor is based upon projected development and is linked directly to the development of the previously mentioned MPC’s. It is important to identify a recommended alignment for the Hidden Waters Parkway during the planning stages of the proposed MPC’s to ensure that adequate right-of-way will be preserved. The purpose of the Hidden Waters Parkway study is to document conditions along the parkway corridor, identify potential fatal flaws and develop an alignment alternative that meets the future traffic needs identified in the Hassayampa Framework Study. The recommended alternative will establish a roadway footprint that may be used as a guide for local agencies and development within the corridor. Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 1 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Note: Roadway alignments shown are approximate based on the Hassayampa Framework Study and may be revised based on further, more detailed study. Figure 1-1 Hidden Waters Parkway study area Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 2 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 1.3 Relevant Plans, Reports, Guidelines, Studies, and Standards Several relevant transportation studies and design guideline documents were referenced throughout the course of the corridor feasibility study including the following:  Interstate 10-Hassayampa September 2007  2007 Town of Buckeye General Plan, Town of Buckeye, adopted January 2008.  Town of Buckeye Preliminary Transportation Master Plan, Town of Buckeye, in draft form.  Town of Buckeye Development Code, effective January 2010  Hassayampa Framework Study for the Wickenburg Area, MAG, in draft form.  Interstate 8 and 10: Hidden Valley Transportation Framework Study, MAG, October 2009  McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study: 339th Avenue to Dean Road, MCDOT, June 2010  Hidden Waters Parkway South Corridor Feasibility Study (I-10 to Watermelon Road), MCDOT, June 2010.  Northern Parkway/Tonopah Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study, MCDOT, June 2011  Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway, MCDOT, August 2008  Arizona Parkway Intersection/Interchange Operational Analysis and Design Concepts Study, MCDOT, August 2009.  Freeway to Parkway Interchange Template, ADOT, October 2010.  MCDOT Roadway Design Manual, Revised April 2004, MCDOT, April 2004.  Wildlife Friendly Guidelines- Community and Project Planning, Arizona Game and Fish Department, February 2009  Guidelines for Bridge Construction or Maintenance to Accommodate Fish & Wildlife Movement and Passage, Arizona Game and Fish Department – Habitat Branch, November 2008  Guidelines for Culvert Construction or Maintenance to Accommodate Fish & Wildlife Movement and Passage, Arizona Game and Fish Department – Habitat Branch, November 2008 Valley Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation Transportation 3 Framework Study, MAG, January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 2.0 Existing and Future Corridor Features 2.1 Jurisdictions, Ownership, and Land Uses 2.1.1 Jurisdictional Control Approximately two thirds of the Hidden Waters Parkway study area falls within the jurisdictional boundaries of Maricopa County (refer to Figure 1-1). The remaining third, which corresponds to the proposed Douglas Ranch development, is located within the Town of Buckeye. Each jurisdiction controls development through their adopted general/comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances. Portions of the study area are located within the Town of Buckeye Municipal Planning Area (MPA), but remain under Maricopa County jurisdiction until they are annexed into the Town. Currently, Maricopa County has jurisdictional control over all of the improved roadways within the study area. 2.1.2 Land Ownership The study area is comprised mainly of privately owned land within the Town of Buckeye and unincorporated areas of Maricopa County. Less than a quarter of the study area contains land that is managed by the Land Ownership Acres Percentage Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Private 31,176 78% the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), and Arizona State Trust Land 4,590 12% the Arizona State Land Department 3,515 9% (ASLD). Figure 2-1 illustrates the Bureau of Land Management 489 1% existing land ownership within the Bureau of Reclamation Total 39,770 100% Hidden Waters Parkway study area. Private Lands Private Lands include the CMP’s of Belmont, Millennium Ranch, Hassayampa Ranch, and Douglas Ranch. Other private lands consist mainly of low density residential or agricultural lands. Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) Arizona State Trust Lands, managed by the ASLD, are scattered throughout the entire study area. The responsibility of the ASLD is to maximize revenue for the Trust beneficiaries through the sale and use of the lands. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) BLM manages land along the Hassayampa River adjacent to the proposed Belmont and Douglas Ranch developments. They also manage the land north of the existing Whispering Ranch community. A main objective of the BLM is to ensure the best balance of use and resource for America’s “public” lands, which is implemented through an extensive and collaborative land use planning approach. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) The Bureau of Reclamation owns a swath of land near the center of the study area that is coincident with the Central Arizona Project (CAP) Canal. A main objective of the BOR is to manage, develop and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 4 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Figure 2-1 Land Ownership Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 5 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 2.1.3 Existing Land Use Existing land uses presented in Figure 2-2 are based upon County Assessor’s data (verified via aerial photograph). Table 2-1 summarizes the land uses within the study corridor by area. The “other” category includes land designated for transportation or regional drainage purposes. Table 2-1 Existing Land Use Land Use Vacant Residential Commercial Other Total Acres 37,230 947 561 1,032 39,770 Percentage 94% 2% 1% 3% 100% Vacant The vast majority of the study area remains as vacant/undeveloped Sonoran Desert land. Portions of this undeveloped land are used for cattle grazing. These grazing allotments occur within the study area from just south of the Central Arizona Project (CAP) Canal through the northern end of the study area. Residential Residential land uses within the Hidden Waters Parkway study area are best described as widely spaced rural development. A small cluster of residential parcels ranging in size from one to forty acres are located near the intersection of 339th Avenue and Indian School Road. These residential parcels generally contain existing homes and other improvements. The second cluster of residential parcels is located near the northern end of the study area within the Whispering Ranch community. This community is characterized by large (mostly five-acre) residential parcels. Houses of varying size, including mobile and manufactured homes, are present on of these parcels. Some of the residential structures within this area have fallen into disrepair and may no longer be habitable. Commercial The Toyota Arizona Proving Ground (TAPG) is located within the Hidden Waters Parkway study area adjacent to the Whispering Ranch community. The TAPG is the principal North American test facility for Toyota. This 18-square mile state-of-the-art proving ground is used to conduct rigorous vehicle performance and durability tests under the harsh conditions found in the Arizona desert climate. Toyota representatives have indicated that confidentiality is critical to their testing operations and requested that their privacy requirements be considered when developing potential parkway alternatives. Toyota considers the proving ground to be an essential facility required to meet Toyota's current and long term North American vehicle development activities. Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) records indicate that Sun State Materials has an active 240 acre sand and gravel operation along the west edge of the Hassayampa River north of the CAP Canal. There is an additional 40 acre parcel approximately one quarter mile north of Indian School Road which appears to be the site of a neighborhood garage or shop. Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 6 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Figure 2-2 Existing Land Use Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 7 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 2.1.4 Existing Zoning Figure 2-3 illustrates the existing zoning patterns within the Hidden Waters Parkway study area. Zoning data for the Town of Buckeye and unincorporated areas of Maricopa County were obtained from Town of Buckeye Planning & Zoning Department and Maricopa County Planning & Development Department (via the Maricopa County GIS portal), respectively. Town of Buckeye Zoning The Town of Buckeye annexed the proposed Douglas Ranch development in 2002. The land was zoned as a “Planned Community” within the Town of Buckeye. The “Planned Community” zoning district was designed to accommodate/incorporate a combination of land uses, wherein specific uses, public services, densities, and design criteria were identified and adopted. The latest version of the Town’s development code (effective January 2010) eliminates the “Planned Community” zoning district for future zoning cases. However, this zoning designation has been carried forward for previously approved land areas that were assigned that zoning classification. The newest version of the Town development code offers the Community Master Plan designation as an overlay district to accommodate this type of development. Maricopa County Zoning The vast majority of the existing zoning within unincorporated Maricopa County is zoned RU-43 and RU-190 (Rural Residential). The RU-43 and RU-190 zoning districts permit one dwelling unit per 43,000 and 190,000 square feet, respectively. The land area associated with Hassayampa Ranch is zoned in accordance with its approved Development Master Plan (DMP). The Hassayampa Ranch DMP adopted a Planned Area Development (PAD) overlay to permit and encourage a cohesive mixture and variety of residential and commercial zoning districts. The Hassayampa Ranch zoning districts are as follows:       R1-6 (Single Family Residential- 6,000 square feet per dwelling unit); R-2 (Two-Family Residential- 4,000 square feet per dwelling unit); R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential- 3,000 square feet per dwelling unit); C-S (Planned Shopping Center); C-0 (Commercial Office); and C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) Although the Belmont and Millennium Ranch are currently zoned RU-43/RU-190, these developments will ultimately adopt zoning districts in accordance with their approved DMP’s. There are currently no zoning requests being processed in the Hidden Waters Parkway study area. Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 8 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Figure 2-3 Existing Zoning Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 9 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 2.1.5 Future Land Use The future land use patterns within the Hidden Waters Parkway study area are illustrated in Figure 2-4. Future Land Use data for the Town of Buckeye and unincorporated areas of Maricopa County were obtained from the Town of Buckeye General Plan (2007 update), Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan 2020 (rev. August 2002), and the Maricopa County Tonopah/Arlington Sub Area Plan 2020 (September 2000). Town of Buckeye Future Land Use The Town of Buckeye General Plan identifies future land uses in conjunction with the approved Douglas Ranch Community Master Plan (CMP). The future land uses associated with the Douglas Ranch CMP are anticipated to provide a variety of single and multi-family residential densities ranging from 3 to 15 Dwelling Units per acre (DU/ac), Community and Regional Commercial, Business Park/Employment, Mixed-Use containing a mix of office, retail, high and urban density residential, and open space and recreational uses. Unincorporated land areas located adjacent to the east of Douglas Ranch, but within the Town’s Master Planned Area (MPA) are anticipated as Very Low Density Residential (up to 1 DU/ac). Land areas adjacent to the north of Douglas Ranch are planned for Regional Commercial and Medium Density Residential (3 to 6 DU/ac), respectively. Maricopa County Future Land Use The Maricopa County Land Use plan illustrates that a majority of the existing vacant, undeveloped land is anticipated to follow the approved DMP’s for Hassayampa Ranch, Belmont, and Millennium Ranch. Similar to Douglas Ranch, these approved DMP’s are anticipated to provide a wide range of housing densities, mixed-use commercial/employment/business land uses, open space and recreational uses, and multi-modal transportations systems. These master planned communities are further discussed in Section 2.6. The northern portion of the study area is anticipated to continue as Rural Development with very low density, generally one dwelling unit per five acres, and is consistent with the existing Whispering Ranch development. Additional areas of Rural Development are located along the east side of the study area adjacent to Belmont, and in the southern portion of the corridor area. While these areas are identified as a Rural Development, it is possible that these areas could become part of a development plan as the county and surrounding master plan communities develop. The future land use at the intersection of 339th Avenue and Interstate 10 is delineated as Community Retail Commercial (CRC), which allows for the development of general neighborhood/ community based commercial uses. Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 10 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Figure 2-4 Future Land Use Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 11 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 2.1.6 Master Planned Communities The Hidden Waters Parkway study area passes adjacent to, or through several approved MPC’s, (Hassayampa Ranch, Millennium Ranch, Belmont, and Douglas Ranch) and the existing community of Whispering Ranch. Figure 2-5 identifies the existing and approved MPC’s within the study area. At complete build out, it is anticipated that these communities will combine for over 187,000 dwelling units Figure 2-5 Planned Development Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 12 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 2.2 Existing Topography The study area is located within the Basin and Range physiographic province of Central Arizona, which is characterized by numerous mountain ranges rising abruptly from broad valleys or basins. Elevation ranges from approximately 1,065 to 2,300 feet above mean sea level within the study area. Land within the northern portion of the study area includes rolling hills to steep mountains, but the majority of the study area lies on the valley floor just west of the Hassayampa River. Land within the central and southern portion of the study area is generally flat, with small to large drainages flowing primarily south and east where they join the Hassayampa River. The topography surrounding the corridor generally slopes from northeast to southwest. The average slopes within the northern, central, and southern portions of the study area are 1.0%, 0.7%, and 0.5%, respectively. 2.3 Existing/Proposed Utilities Arizona Blue Stake was contacted to identify the utility stakeholders within the Hidden Waters Parkway study area. Table 2-2 contains a list of the utility owners and utility types identified by Blue Stake within the study area. Table 2-2 Utility Stakeholders in the Hidden Waters Parkway Study Area Type of Utility Utility Company AT&T Arizona Department of Transportation Fiber Optic, Telephone Culverts, Electric, Fiber, Gas, Irrigation, Lighting, Propane, Sewer, Storm Drain, Telephone, Traffic Signals, Water Arizona Public Service (APS) Aerial and Buried Electric Central Arizona Water Conservation District Fiber Optic, Electric, Water Qwest Local Networks Fiber Optic, Telephone Sprint Communications Company Fiber Optic Western Area Power Authority Electric Fiber Optic, Telephone Zona Communications The utility stakeholders identified by Blue Stake were contacted to determine what facilities are within in the Hidden Waters Parkway study area and to request mapping. Figure 2-6 illustrates the locations of the existing and proposed utilities within the study area. For a complete description of each of the existing utilities see Appendix A, Technical Memorandum #1. Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 13 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Figure 2-6 Existing/Proposed Utilities Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 14 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 2.4 Existing Roadway Features There are currently five paved roadways within the Hidden Waters Parkway study area. The current functional classifications, pavement conditions, and existing traffic volumes on these roadways are summarized in Table 2-3. Table 2-3 Existing Roadway Conditions Road Segement 339th Ave. 5962' North of I-10 to Indian School Road Indian School 347th Avenue to Road 331st Avenue 299th Avenue to Patton Road 5280' East of 299th Avenue Patton Road to Peak 299th Avenue View Road 299th Avenue to Peak View 5280' West of 299th Road Avenue Length Existing Facility (Miles) Width (Feet) Surface Type Pavement Condition Year Built ADT (2010) 1 2-lane minor arterial 30 Asphaltic Rubber Very Good 1982 941 2 2-lane minor arterial 28 Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 213 1 2-lane major collector 28 Penetration Chip Good 1989 500 0.5 2-lane local road 28 Asphaltic Concrete Excellent 1991 466 1 2-lane local road 28 Asphaltic Concrete Excellent 1991 411 *Data gathered from MCDOT’s 2010 roadway summary reports. 2.4.1 Access Control Access control may be described as the process of managing access points, and thus the number of conflict areas, along a roadway to increase the efficiency and safety of traffic flow. Access control does not currently exist along the existing roadways within the Hidden Waters Parkway study area, with the exception of the right-of-way along Interstate 10 wherein the access is 100% controlled. This lack of access control has likely contributed to the large number of unpaved dirt driveways observed throughout the study area. There are three partially stop controlled intersections within the study area. These intersections are Indian School Road and 339th Avenue, Patton Road and 299th Avenue, and Peak View Road and 299th Avenue. 2.4.2 Right-of-Way Right-of-way data was gathered by reviewing the Maricopa County Assessor’s maps, GIS data, and final plats/surveys available on MCDOT’s online county plat map index. Table 2-4 summarizes the existing right-of-way widths along major roadways within the corridor and in nearby areas. Other areas of dedicated right-of-way within the study corridor are located in the Whispering Ranch development. These areas are summarized in Table 2-5. Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 15 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Table 2-4 Existing Right-of-Way along Proposed Corridor Right-of-Way Road West/South East/North of Total of Centerline/ Centerline/ Width Sectionline Sectionline Segment Thomas Road 2640' north of Thomas Road 3545' north of Thomas Road 3865' north of Thomas Road 2640' north of Thomas Road 3545' north of to Thomas Road 3865' north of to Thomas Road to to Indian School Road 2640' north of Indian School Road 2640' north of 3960' north of to Indian School Road Indian School Road 3960' north of to Camelback Road Indian School Road Bethany Home Camelback Road to Road Bethany Home to Northern Avenue Road Indian School Road to 339th Avenue Indian School Road/ Tonopah-Salome Hwy. 40' 40' 80' 0' 40' 40' 40' 40' 80' 0' 40' 40' 65' 0' 65' 65' 32' 97' 65' 65' 130' 0' 0' 0' 75' 75' 150' Northern Avenue to Olive Avenue 0' 75' 75' Olive Avenue to Peoria Avenue 75' 75' 150' 339th Ave to 20' 20' 40' 55' 55' 110' 339th Ave 5280' west of 339th Avenue 5280' east of 339th to Avenue Table 2-5 Other Right-of-Way Right-of-Way Road 660' west of 299th Avenue 660' west of 299th 990' west of 299th to Avenue Avenue 990' west of 299th 2310' west of 299th to Avenue Avenue 2310' west of 299th 2640' west of 299th to Avenue Avenue 2640' west of 299th to 307th Avenue Avenue 299th Avenue Peak View Road 299th Avenue West/ South East/ North of Total of Centerline/ Centerline/ Width Sectionline Sectionline Segment Patton Road to to Peak View Road Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 16 45' 45' 90' 20' 45' 65' 45' 45' 90' 20' 20' 40' 45 45 90' 45' 45' 90' January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 2.5 Future Roadway Network 2.5.1 Forecast Travel Conditions The MAG Hassayampa Framework Study is the basis for all of the forecast traffic volumes for this study. Table 2-6 summarizes the MAG forecasted average daily traffic volumes for the Hidden Watters Parkway study area in the year 2030 and at build-out. Table 2-6 Summary of MAG Forecasted Traffic Volume Hidden Waters Parkway North Segement From To I-10 Thomas Rd. Thomas Rd. Indian School Rd. Indian School Rd. Camelback Rd. Camelback Rd. Bethany Home Rd. Bethany Home Rd. Glendale Ave. Glendale Ave. Northern Ave. Northern Ave. Olive Ave. Olive Ave. Peoria Ave. Peoria Ave. Cactus Ave. Cactus Ave. Waddel Ave. Waddel Ave. Greenway Rd. Greenway Rd. Bell Rd. Bell Rd. Union Hills Dr. Union Hills Dr. Beardsley Rd. Beardsley Rd. Deer Valley Rd. Deer Valley Rd. Pinnacle Peak Rd. Pinnacle Peak Rd. Happy Valley Rd. Happy Valley Rd. Jomax Rd. Jomax Rd. Patton Rd. Patton Rd. Dixileta Dr. Dixileta Dr. Lone Mountain Rd. Lone Mountain Rd. Dove Valley Rd. Dove Valley Rd. Carefree Highway (alignment) Carefree Highway (alignment) Black Mountain Rd. Average Daily Traffic 2030 Build-out 15,000 65,000 13,000 68,000 10,000 67,000 12,000 59,000 13,000 63,000 10,000 34,000 10,000 34,000 11,000 30,000 12,000 51,000 7,000 34,000 7,000 34,000 11,000 47,000 4,000 49,000 4,000 41,000 3,000 47,000 3,000 47,000 2,000 45,000 1,000 67,000 1,000 45,000 1,000 45,000 < 1,000 43,000 < 1,000 43,000 < 1,000 31,000 < 1,000 32,000 2.5.2 Future Functional Classification The future functional classification for the Hidden Waters Parkway was established during the Hassayampa Framework Study as an Arizona Parkway. Arizona Parkways are described in the Hassayampa Framework Study as intermediate capacity roadways with four to eight lanes, partial access control (primarily right-in/right-out) and no directleft turns permitted at each intersection. This roadway requires a 200 feet of right-ofway with a 74-foot wide median in urban settings. 2.5.3 Programmed Roadway Improvements The most recently available Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) and/or Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP) for MCDOT, ADOT, MAG, and the Town of Buckeye were reviewed to determine the potential for future transportation or public improvement Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 17 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 projects within the study corridor. Based on this review, no significant publicly funded projects are planned within the next four or more years in the study corridor. 3.0 Environmental Overview Summary Hidden Waters Technical Memoranda No. 2 (TM2) provides an overview of the environmental characteristics of the study area and is included in the appendices of this final report. This section summarizes the findings of TM2 including the cultural, natural, socioeconomic, and physical resources identified from existing data sources and a “windshield” survey of the study area. 3.1 Cultural Resources The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) documents the appearance and importance of properties significant in our prehistory and history. To be listed in the NRHP, a property must be demonstrably significant under at least one of four criteria and must possess sufficient integrity in terms of the NRHP’s seven aspects (location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association). The criteria for NRHP eligibility are as follows: association with significant historic events that have contributed to broad patterns of history (Criterion A); association with the life of a person significant to the past (Criterion B); embodiment of an important design or method of construction, representative of the work of a master, embodiment of high artistic values, or representative of a distinguishable entity whose components may lack distinction (Criterion C); or potential to yield scientifically important information about prehistory or history (Criterion D). Research indicates approximately 15 percent of the study area has been previously surveyed for cultural resources; however, 12 of the 22 surveys were conducted before 2000 and may not meet current Arizona State Museum (ASM), State Historic Preservation Office, and other professional standards for site recording and reporting; as such, it is likely that they may require new survey. The research also resulted in the identification of five cultural resources sites within the study area, including two historic roads, two historic prospects, and one prehistoric lithic scatter. A historic road has been recommended eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion A, and the lithic scatter, has been recommended NRHP eligible under Criterion D. The other three sites were previously recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP. 3.2 Natural Resources The majority of the study area is located within relatively undisturbed Sonoran Desertscrub vegetation. This vegetation supports numerous species of plants and wildlife that are likely to be impacted by project activities. The study area does not contain suitable habitat for any threatened or endangered species included on the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list, and no proposed or designated critical habitat as listed under the Endangered Species Act occurs. The northern third of the study area contains suitable habitat for the Sonoran desert tortoise and the California leaf-nosed bat, which are sensitive species. Coordination with the USFWS, Arizona Game & Fish (AGFD) and BLM regarding listed and species of concern should occur as the project is further developed. Pre-construction surveys for Sonoran desert tortoise may be Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 18 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 necessary within the northern portion of the study area. Numerous species of wildlife use the Hassayampa River corridor for forage as well for movement. In addition, wildlife is drawn to the Hassayampa River due to the presence of food and water following precipitation. As the Hassayampa River, the White Tank-Vulture/Hieroglyphic Mountains wildlife linkage corridor, and CAP Canal are major wildlife movement areas, avoidance of these areas is recommended. New road construction in the study area is likely to result in habitat loss, increased habitat fragmentation, decreased connectivity for wildlife, and increased wildlife/vehicle collisions. Fragmentation and isolation of wildlife habitats and populations leads to:      Decreased colonization and/or exchange between local wildlife populations Reduced population sizes Reduced genetic diversity Reduced species diversity and abundance Local extirpations Roadways have the potential for direct mortality (i.e., roadkill) and habitat loss and to impede the movement of wildlife across the landscape, resulting in habitat fragmentation and the isolation of wildlife populations. Coordination with the AGFD to address potential impacts and explore the possibility of wildlife crossing structures or fencing options to maintain wildlife connectivity is recommended. 3.3 Land Use and Socioeconomics Environmental justice populations (elderly and disabled) occur in greater number within the northern half of the study area than in Maricopa County and the town of Buckeye. Some general types of impacts such as acquisition of new right-of-way, increased noise levels, and community continuity are likely with the development of a new transportation corridor. It will be necessary for the future National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) evaluation to address any potential disproportionate adverse effects on these populations as required by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Executive Order 12898. The study area includes numerous planned parks, trails and recreation areas. The proposed alignment is consistent with the roadway layout of the master planned communities and therefore avoids impacts to the planned parks and recreation areas. In addition, a cultural resource potentially eligible under Criterion A is present within the study area. Evaluation under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (23 USC § 138) will be required for parks, trails, recreational areas, and properties eligible or listed under Criteria A, B, or C. These cultural and recreational resources are potential Section 4(f) resources. Once a corridor is identified, if a constructive or actual use of these or other Section 4(f) resources is anticipated to occur, then a Section 4(f) evaluation will be necessary. 3.4 Visual Resources Visual impacts, of the preferred alignment, to the BLM lands north of Black Mountain Road will need to be assessed at a later date. No VRM Class I areas occur within the project area. In Class II, III, and IV areas, the proposed Hidden Waters Parkway would be consistent with the management objectives with varying levels of mitigation or design Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 19 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 effort to minimize the visual impact of the road. In Class II areas, the design should consider siting and location and repeat the form and line of the existing characteristic landscape to minimize impact. Coordination with the BLM with regard to potential impacts and proposed mitigation measures would take place during future NEPA analysis to ensure that the BLM visual resource management objectives are adequately considered and addressed. 3.5 Water Resources The Hassayampa River and a total of five named and 14 unnamed ephemeral washes occur within the study area, all of which may be considered waters of the United States. It is not anticipated that wetlands or other special aquatic sites would be impacted by the project. No unique or impaired waters designated by the EPA or the ADEQ are located within or in the vicinity (i.e., 1.0 mile) of the area of potential affect. A Section 404 Nationwide Permit No. 14 (Linear Transportation Projects) or a Section 404 Individual Permit will be required for the proposed improvements contingent on the extent of excavation and fill within waters of the US required for roadway and drainage improvements. Section 401 certification for the project will be issued by the ADEQ and will be either conditional or individual based on the type of Section 404 permit necessary. 3.6 Hazardous Materials The recommended alignment avoids the recorded hazardous material sites identified within and adjacent to the study area. Additional investigation of hazardous materials is recommended for this study area and the surrounding area to identify the potential for impacts on soil and groundwater resulting from past and current land uses. 3.7 Noise Noise receivers occur in the residential developments in the northern and southern end of the study area. Additional receivers will be introduced throughout the study area with the development of the planned master planned communities and regional park. An evaluation of future noise levels compared to the existing noise levels will be needed to determine any necessary noise mitigation measures in compliance with MCDOT Noise Abatement Policy requirements, as well as FHWA if federal funds are involved. 3.8 Air Quality The study area is within the Maricopa nonattainment area for O 3. Transportation control measures in the State Implementation Plans (SIP) and Federal Implementation Plans (FIP) will apply. The project will need to be included in an approved State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) for at least one year, and no more than three years, before construction. That STIP will have to be approved by FHWA and EPA as conforming to the SIP and the FIP. Future transportation improvements will also follow to the extent possible recommendations given by the MAG Regional Transportation Plan, a plan to ensure that the additional roadway does not cause or contribute to new violations of the air quality standards and assists in the conformity of the existing air quality improvement plans. Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 20 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 4.0 Drainage Overview Summary Hidden Waters Technical Memorandum #3 presents an overview of the drainage characteristics of the study area. Among the topics discussed in this memorandum are:      Existing Hydrology Reports Past Drainage Problems Existing Drainage Facilities Existing Concentration Points Potential Drainage-Related Issue Segments The intent of this section is to summarize key aspects of Technical Memorandum #3 in order to give an overview of its findings. 4.1 Existing Floodplains The Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) has previously completed several reports in the area, two of which cover the entire Hidden Waters Parkway study area. In these reports, 100-year floodplain delineations have been determined for the large and medium watercourses in the region. Figure 4-1 shows the delineated floodplains in the area. There are numerous tributary washes that flow from the north to southeast into the Hassayampa River. Three of the larger contributing washes within the study area include Star Wash, Jackrabbit Wash, and Daggs Wash. 4.2 Existing Drainage Facilities There are a few existing culverts along 339th Avenue and Indian School Road near the southern end of the study area. The majority of the Hidden Waters Parkway study area is undeveloped with no existing drainage improvements. Other roadway drainage crossings are at-grade “dip-crossings” that allow offsite runoff to pass over the top of the road surface. The Central Arizona Project (CAP) Canal is a major drainage feature within the study area as it runs perpendicular to the existing washes and obstructs historic flow patterns. Hidden Waters Technical Memorandum #3 describes seven drainage facilities that Daggs Wash Flume cross the CAP Canal within the study area. Two of the major drainage structures across the CAP Canal include a 1450’ siphon beneath Jackrabbit Wash and a 43’ flume passing Daggs Wash over the canal. The other CAP cross-drainage structures include pipes, culverts and overchutes ranging in size between 30 and 66 inches. Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 21 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Figure 4-1 Delineated Floodplains Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 22 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 4.3 Hydrology Results A total of 84 drainage crossing locations were identified across the center of the Hidden Waters Parkway study area. The largest of these crossings corresponds to Jackrabbit Wash which would require a bridge structure to traverse the 33,600 cfs flow during the 100-year storm event. Descriptions of the remaining cross-drainage structures within the study area may be found in the Hidden Waters Technical Memorandum #3. Figure 4-2 shows the locations of the identified drainage crossings. Figure 4-2 Proposed Drainage Crossings All of the potential drainage constraints within the study area can be mitigated through additional engineering and construction efforts. Hidden Waters Technical Memorandum Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 23 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 #3 concluded that no fatal flaws, based upon drainage issues, occur within the study area. 5.0 Development and Evaluation of Candidate Alignments 5.1 Development of Candidate Alignments Initially, conceptual alignments for the Hidden Waters Parkway were developed in response to the opportunities and constraints identified in Technical Memoranda 1, 2 and 3 which include:       Existing/proposed residential communities Existing commercial and/or employment centers Current land ownership Environmental resources Existing/proposed utilities Existing drainage patterns To determine which of these alignments would be carried forward for further analysis, members of the design team evaluated each conceptual alignment segment. These efforts refined the conceptual alignments down to three candidate alignment alternatives identified and discussed in the following sections. The three candidate alternatives, plus the no-build alternative, were carried forward into the next tier of development and analysis. The candidate alignment alternatives are depicted in Figure 5-2. Schematic drawings of the candidate alternatives are presented in section 5.1.6. 5.1.1 Alternative 1 The first alignment alternative carried forward for further analysis was developed during the Hassayampa Framework Study. Alternative 1 begins at Figure 5-1 Hidden Waters Parkway Conceptual Alignments Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 24 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 the 339th Avenue/ I-10 Traffic Interchange (TI) and continues north for seven miles along the 339th Avenue alignment. North of Olive Avenue, Alternative 1 shifts east to the 331st Avenue alignment and follows a curvilinear path through the proposed Douglas Ranch development generally along different arterial roadway alignments than what was identified for the Hidden Watters Parkway in the Development Master Plan (DMP) circulation element. Alternative 1 follows the 302 nd Avenue alignment between Dove Valley Road and the northern boundary of the study area. 5.1.2 Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was developed in response to existing/approved land plans and the stakeholder feedback received during the planning phase of this study. It incorporates the proposed circulation elements of the Hassayampa Ranch, Belmont, and Douglas Ranch MPC’s. Similar to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 begins at the 339th Avenue/ I-10 TI and continues north to Camelback Road. It follows the proposed parkway alignment of Hassayampa Ranch between Camelback and Bethany Home Road, which curves approximately 500 feet to the west 339th Avenue. Alternative 2 runs along the west side of Jackrabbit Wash, through the proposed Belmont MPC, then turns east along the south side of the Central Arizona Project (CAP) Canal. Alternative 2 crosses the CAP Canal at the Hassayampa River siphon and runs along the east side of the proposed Douglas Ranch development. The alternative then runs along 229th Avenue between Jomax Road and Lone Valley Road where it shifts west to the 302nd Avenue alignment until the Carefree Highway alignment. At this point Alternative 2 generally runs along the east side of an unnamed wash to the proposed alignment for SR 74. 5.1.3 Alternative 3 The third alignment alternative carried forward to the second tier of analysis begins at the 339th Avenue/ I-10 TI and then curves to the west along an existing ridgeline between McDowell Road and the Glendale Avenue alignment. This shift was added to minimize the number of wash crossings for the proposed parkway. Alternative 3 follows the same path as Alternative 1 between Glendale Avenue and Olive Avenue, then turns east to cross Jackrabbit Wash near its narrowest floodplain width. It then continues north along an existing ridgeline to the CAP Canal where it crosses the canal approximately one mile west of Alternative 2. At this point Alternative 3 continues north along the west side of an Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) parcel and an existing ridgeline until it rejoins Alternative 2 north of the Deer Valley Road alignment. This alternative passes through the community of Whispering Ranch along/between 301 st Avenue and 302nd Avenue. Alternative 3 generally runs along the west side of an unnamed wash north of Black Mountain Road to the proposed alignment for SR 74. 5.1.4 No Build Alternative The no-build alternative considers how the existing roadway network would function if this project were not constructed. This alternative provides a valuable baseline for comparison when evaluating other alignments. Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 25 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Figure 5-2 Candidate Alignments for the Hidden Waters Parkway Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 26 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 5.1.5 Schematic Drawings of the Candidate Alignments Refer to Appendix D, Technical Memorandum #4 - Candidate Alignments and Evaluation, for the schematic drawings of the candidate alternatives. 5.1.6 Special Interest Areas Two special interest areas were identified during this stage of the study. The first is located near the intersection of 323rd Avenue and Greenway Road. A second special interest area was added to evaluate the CAP crossing of candidate alternatives near the Hassayampa Wash/CAP siphon. Figure 5-3 Special Interest Areas Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 27 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 5.2 Evaluation of the Candidate Alignments The three candidate alignments were evaluated using a tiered format. The first tier of analysis evaluated the candidate Alignments for any fatal flaws, of which none were identified. The second tier of analysis qualitatively evaluated the candidate and no-build alternatives based upon a set of criteria identified through the agency and public scoping process. These criteria included the following: Consistency with proposed development Environmental impacts Utility impacts Drainage impacts Engineering complexity System functionality Right-of-way requirements Buildings/property impacts Planning level cost estimate Stakeholder and community feedback Corridor alternatives were evaluated using one of five rankings based upon the perceived response to each evaluation criteria question. Strong Disadvantage Disadvantage Neutral Strong Advantage Advantage All three candidate alternatives were qualitatively evaluated based upon the criteria described on the previous page. The results of this initial screening of the candidate alternatives are summarized in Table 5-1. Table 5-1 Summary of Qualitative Evaluation Evaluation Criteria Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Build Right-of-Way Requirements 686 ac 717 ac 695 ac N/A Cost (in millions) $266.3 $248.8 $232.30 N/A No Yes No No Proposed Development Environmental Impacts Utility Impacts Drainage Impacts Engineering Complexity System Functionality Buildings/Property Impacts Stakeholder/Community Feedback Recommended for Further Evaluation Note: The costs reported in Table 5-1 assume a six-lane parkway through the entire study area. Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 28 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 5.3 Conclusions and Recommendations Alternative 1 was not recommended for further consideration because it presented the greater impacts to proposed developments, existing utilities, drainage features, and existing buildings/properties. In addition this alternative is the most costly of the candidate alignments and was opposed by several key landowners/stakeholders. Alternative 3 was rated favorably in several qualitative categories including drainage impacts, engineering complexity and system functionality and also has the lowest estimated cost to construct. However, this candidate alternative was not recommended because it was the least compatible with the approved development master plans within the study area and was opposed by several key landowners/stakeholders. The No-build alternative was not recommended for further consideration because does not address future traffic demands or the regional connectivity needs of the study area. Alternative 2 was recommended as the preferred alternative because it received the greatest support from key stakeholders and the public. In addition it is coincident with the approved development master plans and no special engineering challenges were identified with this alignment. Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 29 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 6.0 Detailed Preferred Alignment The preferred alternative is centered along the section line coincident with 339th Avenue between the I-10 traffic interchange and Camelback Road. From there, it generally follows the proposed parkway alignments of the approved circulation elements for the planned communities of Hassayampa Ranch, Belmont, and Douglas Ranch. It parallels the west side of Jackrabbit Wash, through the proposed Belmont MPC, and then turns to the east along the south side of the Central Arizona Project (CAP) Canal. The preferred alternative crosses the CAP Canal approximately 500 feet west of the Hassayampa River siphon, then runs along the east side of the proposed Douglas Ranch development to Jomax Road. Between Jomax Road and Patton Road, the preferred alternative follows a northeasterly alignment. Then generally follows the 299th Avenue alignment between Patton Road and Lone Mountain Road. Between Lone Mountain Road and the future Carefree Highway, the alignment shifts west to 302nd Avenue. North of the future Carefree Highway, the preferred alternative alignment runs along the east side of an unnamed wash to the northern limits of the study area (i.e. potential location for the future SR 74 freeway). 6.1 Standard Cross-Section The AZ parkway has phased options for 4-lane, 6-lane, and 8-lane roadway facilities (refer to Appendix E, Technical Memorandum #5). Figure 6-1 presents a typical section for 6-lane urban parkway. The standard minimum right-of-way width is 200 feet. The urban street section has raised curb and gutter per MAG Detail 220-1, Type A; single curb allowable along median. A 2% cross-slope is recommended for roadway drainage. Figure 6-1 AZ Parkway: 6-lane Urban Typical Section Based on traffic projections from the Hassayampa Framework Study, the Arizona Parkway Intersection/Interchange - Operational Analysis and Design Concepts Study (MCDOT, 2009) makes the following recommendations for the size/number of lanes for the Hidden Waters Parkway through the study area:    8-lane Parkway: between I-10 and Northern Parkway 6-lane Parkway: between Northern Parkway and Dove Valley Parkway 4-lane Parkway: between Dove Valley Parkway and the future SR 74 Freeway Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 30 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 6.2 Design Features of the Preferred Alignment 6.2.1 Design Vehicle Design vehicle refers to the largest vehicle anticipated to frequently use a roadway. The choice of design vehicles influences the radii of intersection returns and curving roadways. The MCDOT Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway (p. 7) recommend a WB-50 design vehicle as defined by the AASHTO - Policy on Geometric Design of Highways. 6.2.2 Design Speeds Many roadway geometric features (i.e. curve radii and superelevation rates) are dependent on the assumed velocity of traffic. The design speed is the maximum recommended speed that will ensure reasonable and safe vehicle operation. Table 6-1 summarizes the recommended design speeds for an AZ parkway in an urban setting for differing terrain. Table 6-1 AZ Parkway: Urban Design Speeds Terrain Design Speed Level 55 mph Rolling 50 mph Mountainous 45 mph 6.2.3 Vertical Geometry The maximum vertical gradient for the Hidden Waters parkway per the MCDOT Roadway Design Manual and AASHTO is 5% for an urban roadway on level terrain (see MCDOT RDM Section 5.11). The “minimum” preferred longitudinal slope is +/- 0.25% (per MCDOT RDM Section 5.11). Vertical curves are designed to ensure that adequate sight distance is provided and to increase the safety and comfort of driving. They should be provided on the Hidden Waters Parkway when the algebraic difference of longitudinal slopes is greater than 0.3% (per MCDOT RDM Section 5.11). 6.2.4 Horizontal Geometry Flat horizontal curves are recommended wherever possible per the MCDOT Roadway Design Manual. Superelevation rates and curve radii should be designed together as a function of the maximum side friction factor and the assumed maximum superelevation rate per AASHTO design guidelines (2004 AASHTO Green Book, Pages 146-147). The minimum radius for a horizontal curve at a design speed of 55 mph without superelevation is 1833 feet. The maximum superelevation rate recommended for urban roadways is 4%. The minimum horizontal curve radius for the Hidden Waters Parkway with superelevation is 1190 feet. The parkway design guideline recommendations state that the roadway width should be tapered through the use of reverse curves. The transition taper lengths will vary depending upon the design speed, curve radius and lane offset. Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 31 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 6.2.5 Intersections The Hassayampa Framework Study recommends a network of freeways, parkways, and arterial roadways to accommodate the future traffic needs of the region. As a part of this integrated roadway network, the Hidden Waters Parkway is anticipated to have three parkway-to-freeway interchanges, six at-grade parkway-to-parkway intersections, and numerous parkway to arterial intersections. The parkway-to-freeway interchanges located at I-10, the future Hassayampa Freeway, and the future SR 74 will be based upon ADOT’s recently completed Freeway-toParkway Interchange Templates (October 2010). Additional traffic analysis will be required to select an appropriate interchange template at each of these locations prior to future design efforts. The at-grade parkway-to-parkway interchanges will be based upon the Arizona Parkway indirect left-turn intersection design established in Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway. These intersections will be located along the Hidden Waters Parkway at intersections with the following parkways: (McDowell Parkway, Camelback Parkway, Northern Parkway, Wintersburg Parkway, Bell/Greenway Parkway, Deer Valley/Beardsley Parkway and Dove Valley Parkway). Parkway to arterial intersections will be based upon the parkway/arterial intersection detail from the Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway. This and other select details from the Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway are included in Appendix E, Technical Memorandum #5. 6.2.6 Drainage Considerations In Technical Memorandum #3, conceptual drainage facilities were estimated for the Hidden Waters Parkway baseline alignment. This analysis was revisited for the preferred alignment and refinements were made to number and size of proposed crossdrainage structures. The revised cross-drainage structure estimates are illustrated graphically in Figure 6-2. Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 32 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Figure 6-2 Estimated Cross-Drainage Features The estimated roadway drainage crossing types and discharges for the 100-year and 50-year storm events are summarized in Table 6-2. Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 33 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Table 6-2 Estimated Roadway Drainage Crossing Types and Discharges Id 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Station 14+00 33+83 55+45 80+02 84+24 105+72 115+68 122+10 134+32 137+37 162+76 174+95 186+16 192+07 205+17 218+06 222+84 232+22 236+56 241+94 254+44 261+55 269+37 282+59 301+59 308+36 314+51 337+56 360+80 379+85 383+89 398+26 411+05 417+43 422+57 431+05 447+81 461+32 470+74 499+72 509+15 517+46 529+45 Crossing Type Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Box Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Box Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Box Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Box Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Bridge Pipe Box Pipe Box Pipe Pipe Pipe Area (sq. mi.) 0.053 0.035 0.133 0.065 0.228 0.020 0.051 0.041 0.024 0.402 0.043 0.030 0.024 0.164 0.118 0.020 0.024 0.020 2.737 0.241 0.020 0.026 0.028 0.072 0.037 0.017 0.049 0.131 0.038 0.035 0.041 0.052 0.037 0.110 0.036 41.404 0.069 0.177 0.055 0.140 0.043 0.053 0.029 (acres) 33.7 22.3 85.4 41.4 146.2 12.9 32.6 26.3 15.1 257.2 27.3 19.2 15.5 105.1 75.7 13.0 15.5 13.1 1751.8 154.5 12.8 16.6 18.2 46.3 23.4 10.7 31.5 83.9 24.3 22.4 26.1 33.4 23.8 70.5 23.3 26498.6 44.3 113.5 34.9 89.5 27.3 33.6 18.9 Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 34 Peak Discharge (cfs) 100-yr 50-yr 64 43 43 29 150 100 73 49 344 230 27 18 72 48 57 38 19 13 382 256 32 21 23 15 23 15 150 100 97 65 12 8 17 11 14 9 1700 1139 118 79 18 12 23 15 14 9 70 47 53 36 25 17 64 43 175 117 52 35 31 21 36 24 60 40 43 29 128 85 42 28 5500 3685 87 58 268 179 93 62 239 160 73 49 90 60 84 56 Source Luke Wash Watershed Zone AE FDS (FCD 2007C020) Watershed 'PP' Luke Wash FDS Luke Wash Watershed Zone AE FDS (FCD 2007C020) Watershed 'PP' Luke Wash FDS (FCD 99-03) January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Id Station 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 548+00 575+95 584+90 669+07 726+55 746+56 757+03 774+01 784+58 792+57 797+95 816+50 826+57 829+80 838+82 844+19 854+03 863+38 871+84 881+98 895+72 905+77 915+50 924+20 928+82 956+65 1025+70 1040+74 1156+07 1166+70 1188+12 1325+79 1367+14 1439+29 1502+98 Crossing Type Bridge Pipe Pipe Box Box Pipe Pipe Pipe Box Pipe Box Pipe Pipe Box Pipe Pipe Box Box Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Box Pipe Box Pipe Pipe Box Box Pipe Box Box Area (sq. mi.) 313.535 2.458 2.458 25.224 0.906 0.092 0.057 0.035 0.372 0.043 0.182 0.045 0.034 0.554 0.021 0.103 1.180 0.301 0.017 0.056 0.027 0.062 0.069 0.034 0.052 0.237 0.089 0.511 0.028 0.071 0.128 3.042 0.024 1.139 2.368 (acres) 200662. 2 1573.0 1573.0 16143.4 580.0 59.2 36.4 22.2 238.3 27.7 116.5 28.5 21.9 354.5 13.6 65.7 754.9 192.9 10.9 36.0 17.1 39.6 44.1 21.5 33.6 151.8 57.1 326.8 17.8 45.6 81.6 1946.6 15.4 729.2 1515.6 Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 35 Peak Discharge (cfs) 100-yr 50-yr 33600 22512 115 77 130 87 3277 2196 210 141 65 44 32 21 20 13 472 316 55 37 231 155 57 38 43 29 703 471 27 18 131 88 1152 772 382 256 22 15 71 48 34 23 79 53 88 59 43 29 66 44 300 200 114 76 655 439 52 35 131 88 237 159 3900 2613 42 28 697 467 2300 1541 Source Jackrabbit Wash FDS Watershed Approx. (FCD 'OO' 90-05) FDS Daggs(FCD Wash FDS HEC-2 2000C019) Jackrabbit Wash FDS (FCD 90-05) Watershed 'OO' Approx. FDS (FCD 2000C019) Upper Daggs/Star Wash Zone AE FDS (FCD 2006C006) Watershed 'OO' Approx. FDS January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 6.3 General Access Management Guidelines The access management guidelines for the Hidden Waters Parkway were taken directly from Section 4 of the Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway. The following general recommendations were made:         U-turn directional crossovers restricted to a maximum of eight per mile. Left-turns in any direction are prohibited at all intersections (full median break). Left-turns from a side-street or driveway onto the Parkway are prohibited. Left-turns from the Parkway to a side-street or driveway are discouraged due to conflicts between U-turns and right-turns. However, this can be accommodated by aligning the U-turn crossover with the side-street or driveway in order to facilitate left turns and U-turns. Intersections (full median breaks) preferably restricted to one-mile spacing and a minimum spacing of half-mile. No on-street parking Full median openings are only recommended at intersections with arterial or major collector streets. For a low-volume driveway, a 165’ minimum spacing (from centerline to centerline) is recommended. For a high-volume driveway, a 330ft minimum spacing (from centerline to centerline) is recommended. For additional detail, refer to the typical urban parkway access plan detail from the Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway included in Appendix E. 6.4 Special Interest Areas and the Preferred Alignment Two special analysis areas were identified during the candidate selection process (refer to Figure 6-3). The first of these two areas is located adjacent to the CAP Canal between the Waddell Road and Greenway Road alignments. This special interest area was identified because the preferred alignment passes in close proximity to existing and proposed overhead transmission lines, major drainage crossings of the CAP Canal, a potential cultural resource site and a proposed wildlife linkage corridor. The second special interest area addresses the Hidden Waters Parkway CAP Canal crossing. Special Interest Area No. 1: The following observations were made about the preferred alignment within special interest area No. 1:    The preferred alignment provides a minimum 50ft buffer between the proposed curb and gutter and existing Western Area Power Authority (Western) transmission towers per Western’s design criteria. The alignment will require a multiple cell box culvert immediately downstream of the Daggs Wash flume across the CAP Canal (Structure 47 at Sta. 668+75). The proposed box culvert should allow the preferred alignment to pass beneath Western’s 345kV transmission line with adequate clearance. Technical Memorandum #2 of this study recommended that an additional Class III cultural resource survey be completed prior to design to better assess the presence of cultural resources that may be affected by the preferred alignment through this special interest area. Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 36 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092   The preferred alignment passes through special interest area number 1 roughly adjacent to the CAP Canal right-of-way. Arizona Game & Fish (AGFD) has expressed the concern that the proximity of the preferred alignment to the CAP Canal will negatively impact east-west wildlife movement through the study area. In order to mitigate the potential impacts to this wildlife linkage zone, AGFD has recommended that the preferred alignment be shifted to the southeast along the CAP Canal to create a buffer for wildlife movement in the future. This southeasterly shift was not incorporated into the detailed drawings of the preferred alignment. Although feasible, additional coordination between AGFD and the affected land owners/stakeholders will be required to revise the alignment. AGFD has requested that the future design of the Hidden Waters Parkway include elements to help promote/facilitate wildlife movement through the study area. Special Interest Area No. 2 was identified to investigate how the preferred alignment crosses the CAP Canal. The preferred alignment was shifted west of the Hassayampa siphon based upon feedback received from CAP representatives during the evaluation of candidate alignments. A conceptual plan and profile drawing was generated to investigate the CAP crossing in greater detail (see Appendix E, Technical Memorandum #5). A vertical alignment was selected to provide a minimum of 14.5 feet of clearance above the CAP Canal access roads, per CAP requirements. A 6.5 foot structure depth was assumed for the proposed bridge across the CAP Canal. Figure 6-3 Special Interest Areas Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 37 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 6.5 Implementation Plan The recent downturn in the economy has made the timing of the traffic volumes forecast in the MAG Hassayampa Framework Study less certain. Proposed master planned communities and development within the study area will drive the need for the Hidden Waters Parkway. Right-of-way dedication and initial parkway construction efforts will likely coincide with the development of these communities. The existing and future freeways will likely serve as a catalyst to development within the study area. For this reason, it is believed that the southern portions of the Hidden Waters Parkway (adjacent to I-10) may be constructed first. As development progresses to the north, so will construction of the corresponding parkway segments. The northernmost portion of the parkway (north of Jomax Road) will likely not be needed until the future SR 74 freeway is built. Ideally, the full-width parkway section will be built with the initial construction. However, the initial traffic volumes generated by these communities may not warrant the construction of the full six-lane facility. The Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway (MCDOT, 2008) provides phasing options to construct portions of the roadway as traffic volumes materialize. The first option involves a full width phased implementation of the parkway. Under this scenario, the outside curb line would be constructed in its ultimate location in each direction with an extra-wide center median. Additional lanes, in each direction, can be added to the median as traffic volumes increase. Details illustrating the full-width phased implementation of the parkway are provided in Appendix E, Technical Memorandum #5. A second, half-street phasing, implementation option may be considered for initial construction efforts. In this case, a half street of the proposed parkway could be constructed first and operated as a traditional arterial roadway allowing left-turns at intersections. The following general descriptions for a half street phased implementation were documented in the parkway design guidelines:      6.6 Build outside curb and gutter in its ultimate location and construct three travel lanes and appropriate shoulders; Operate with one lane in each direction of travel and with a striped median lane (continuous two-way left-turn lane); Allow left-turns at intersections similar to a traditional street; Do not build crossovers until the development patterns (and accompanying access locations) on both sides of the roadway have been established in order to optimize the crossover locations. The minimum half-street width is approximately 44’ which corresponds to onehalf of the six-lane urban section and will accommodate three travel lanes in the interim condition. Planning Level Cost Estimate A planning level cost estimate for roadway construction and right-of-way acquisition was prepared for the preferred alternative. The cost estimate is based upon MCDOT’s 2010 construction cost worksheet. The following assumptions were made: Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 38 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092     A signalized intersection was assumed at each one mile intersection. Signal conduit and pull boxes were provided at the half mile street intersections. Traffic signal interconnect facilities will be provided for the entire corridor length. Street lighting was not included in the cost estimate. Table 6-3 summarizes the revised planning level cost estimate. Design, construction management, and administration costs were added as a percentage of the construction cost. Roadway construction costs and utility relocations both include a 20% contingency cost. Appendix E contains a list of the cost items, unit costs, and quantities that were used to prepare the estimate. Table 6-3 Summary of Planning Level Cost Estimate Cost Category Factor Construction Preferred Alternative Phased Option No. 1 Phased Option No. 2 $88,700,000 $77,900,000 $56,700,000 Design (10% TO 15%) 12% $10,600,000 $9,300,000 $6,800,000 Construction Management 15% $13,300,000 $11,700,000 $8,500,000 Right-of-Way $104,000,000 $104,000,000 $104,000,000 Structures $21,500,000 $21,500,000 $10,800,000 Utility Relocation $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $8,900,000 $7,800,000 $5,700,000 $247,100,000 $232,300,000 $192,600,000 Administration (8% TO 13%) Total 10% Note: The costs reported in Table 6-3 were modified based on recommendations from the Hassayampa Framework Study regarding number of lanes for the Hidden Waters Parkway. The preferred alignment requires right-of-way from 113 parcels within the Whispering Ranch community. However, the impact to these properties will not affect the usable/buildable area of the lots. It is anticipated that only one parcel will have impacts significant enough to require full property purchase. At the time of this study there are two existing structures that will be impacted by the proposed alignment. These impacts will need to be reevaluated prior to final design. Table 6-3 also provides estimates of how the initial construction costs could be modified if either of the two phased implementation strategies discussed in the previous section were implemented (assuming that the full right-of-way would be purchased with both phased implementation options). The full-width phased implementation option provides marginal cost savings at best (approximately 5%). The half-street phased option reduces the initial overall cost by approximately 23%. If desirable, an interim roadway could be constructed for the entire route using a reduced right-of-way width potentially saving up to an additional 20% of the ultimate project cost. Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 39 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 6.7 Preferred Alignment Drawings Hidden Waters Feasibility Study - Final Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation 40 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters Feasibility Study - Final Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation 41 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters Feasibility Study - Final Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation 42 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters Feasibility Study - Final Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation 43 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters Feasibility Study - Final Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation 44 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters Feasibility Study - Final Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation 45 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters Feasibility Study - Final Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation 46 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters Feasibility Study - Final Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation 47 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters Feasibility Study - Final Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation 48 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters Feasibility Study - Final Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation 49 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters Feasibility Study - Final Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation 50 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters Feasibility Study - Final Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation 51 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters Feasibility Study - Final Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation 52 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters Feasibility Study - Final Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation 53 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters Feasibility Study - Final Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation 54 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters Feasibility Study - Final Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation 55 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters Feasibility Study - Final Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation 56 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters Feasibility Study - Final Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation 57 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters Feasibility Study - Final Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation 58 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters Feasibility Study - Final Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation 59 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters Feasibility Study - Final Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation 60 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters Feasibility Study - Final Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation 61 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters Feasibility Study - Final Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation 62 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters Feasibility Study - Final Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation 63 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters Feasibility Study - Final Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation 64 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters Feasibility Study - Final Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation 65 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters Feasibility Study - Final Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation 66 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters Feasibility Study - Final Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation 67 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters Feasibility Study - Final Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation 68 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters Feasibility Study - Final Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation 69 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters Feasibility Study - Final Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation 70 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters Feasibility Study - Final Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation 71 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters Feasibility Study - Final Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation 72 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters Feasibility Study - Final Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation 73 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 7.0 Future Activities and Considerations for Future Development As the preferred alternative becomes better defined through more in-depth phases of project development, additional elements will be incorporated and considered that will address the needs and impacts of future projects within the context of both the current and future settings along the Hidden Waters Parkway corridor. The following are capsulated key issues identified during this study’s Stakeholder Advisory Committee and public involvement process that should be taken into consideration by individual jurisdictions as the recommendations of this study are carried forward through design and construction: Project Funding There is currently no funding programmed for construction. It can be anticipated that area developers will participate as part of project requirements. Access Management Strategies MCDOT and local jurisdictions have specific expectations regarding roadway access. These strategies should be implemented to ensure a seamless roadway with efficient traffic flow, safety and good access to local land uses. Environmental Impacts and Noise Mitigation Specific impacts on the local environment will require further evaluation in future project development. New Right-of-Way Requirements Final roadway configuration will determine how much land will need to be acquired. Landscaping plans Final project design will specify the type of landscaping to be used. Drainage Structures Because the future roadway corridor crosses a number of washes and lies partly in a flood zone, it will be critical to ensure the roadway is designed to provide “all weather” crossings during major storm flows. Bridges along the new roadway will be designed during final roadway design. Bicycle, Pedestrian and Transit Access Future projects will be designed to accommodate alternative modes of travel and provide access to trails and neighborhoods in the area. Corridor Traffic Management ITS (Intelligent Transportation System) will control operation of traffic between jurisdictions and differing intersection configurations. Jurisdictional Coordination As with the overall traffic control, implementation of different corridor improvements and access management concepts will need to be coordinated to ensure a safe, seamless and efficient transportation facility. Residential Impact within Whispering Ranch Specific impacts to property within the community will need to be reevaluated prior to final design and construction of the parkway. Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 74 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Future Roadway Connections Additional analysis will be required to coordinate/design the future connections with I-10 and the proposed alignments of SR 74 and the Hassayampa Freeway. Cultural Resources Only a portion of the study area has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. Additional cultural resource surveys will be required along the final roadway alignment during design. Wildlife Movement The Arizona Game & Fish Department (AGFD) has expressed concern regarding potential negative impacts to wildlife movement across the study area. AGFD has requested that the future design of the Hidden Waters Parkway include elements to help promote/facilitate wildlife movement, particularly where the preferred alignment is adjacent to the CAP Canal. Jackrabbit Wash Crossing The preferred alignment will require a bridge to span the 100-year floodplain of the Jackrabbit Wash. Further analysis will be required to determine the exact location and limits of the bridge. Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 75 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 8.0 Public Involvement Overview Building consensus between MCDOT, local agencies, jurisdictions, key stakeholders and the public is vital to the success of the Hidden Waters Parkway North Corridor Feasibility Study. Technical Memoranda 6 documents the general public involvement efforts and stakeholder participation of the Hidden Waters Parkway Study. 8.1 Technical Advisory Committee A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was established to solicit feedback from partnering agencies and key stakeholders at multiple stages of the corridor feasibility study. The TAC and stakeholder group included representatives from the following agencies and interests:                Arizona Department of Transportation; Arizona Game and Fish Department; Arizona State Land Department; BLM Central Arizona Project; Developers (El Dorado Holdings, LKY Holdings, Harvard Investments, BET Investments); Federal Highway Administration; Flood Control District of Maricopa County; Utility Companies (SRP, APS, Western); Maricopa Association of Governments; Maricopa County Planning and Development; Maricopa County Department of Transportation; Property Owners/Residents; Town of Buckeye; Toyota Arizona Proving Ground. The TAC met four times over the course of the study to review progress, provide feedback/direction and build consensus on study recommendations. Additional study coordination meetings were held with TAC members as needed to understand concerns and establish consensus. TAC members were also invited to review and comment on all draft technical memoranda and the final report. 8.1.1 TAC Meetings TAC meetings were held at four key milestones over the course of the study. These meetings discussed the following topics:  April 13, 2011 – The purpose of this meeting was to present the Work Plan to the TAC. This meeting included a general project overview, definition of the corridor limits, key study goals and objectives, identification of study area issues, project schedules, relevant studies, etc. Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 76 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092    June 1, 2011 – This meeting was held to review the results of Technical Memoranda 1, 2, and 3, which described the existing and future corridor features, environmental overview and drainage overviews, respectively. August 18, 2011 – The third TAC meeting presented the results of Technical Memorandum 4, which discussed the development and evaluation of the candidate parkway alignments. October 25, 2011 – The final TAC meeting was held to present the detailed analysis of the preferred alignment alternative and to develop consensus on the study recommendations. Refer to Technical Memo 6 (Appendix F) for summaries of the Hidden Waters Parkway TAC meetings. 8.2 Public Outreach Methods The MCDOT RightRoads Program conducted three public meetings to solicit public feedback for the Hidden Waters Parkway Study. The “open-house” public meeting format was chosen because it provided a free, open and accurate exchange of information between area residents with specific issues or questions and the project team. The following outreach methods were used to inform and notify the general public and impacted residents about the study, public input meeting dates and locations and additional opportunities or means for input:       Media releases Newspaper articles Display advertisements in local and regional publications o Arizona Republic o West Valley View o Buckeye Valley News o Buckeye Star o Tonopah Tribune MCDOT website Partner agency mediums Direct mail flyers to adjacent property owners and previous meeting attendees 8.2.1 Public Open House Meetings The open-house meetings were held to address critical milestones in the study process on the following dates:   June 15, 2011 – The first public open house was held during the initial scoping phase of the study to introduce the project to the community and to gather information from the residents about key study area issues and local transportation needs. This meeting also provided the study team members with an opportunity to discuss and elicit feedback regarding the study purpose, goals and objectives. August 30, 2011 – The second public meeting was held during the Alternatives Analysis phase of the study. The purpose of the meeting was to present the Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 77 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092  8.3 conceptual alignment alternatives to residents and provide the community with the opportunity to comment on the three Candidate Alternative alignments being evaluated for the corridor. November 9, 2011 – The findings and recommendations of the study, including the preferred parkway alignment, a right-of-way footprint, and preliminary engineering details, were presented to the public during the final "Study Findings and Recommendations” public information meeting. Public Comment Over 100 people attended the three public input meetings. Graphics, aerials and display exhibits presented corridor alternatives and study information. Study Fact Sheets and Comment Sheets were distributed to all those in attendance. Technical Memo 6, summarizes the input received during the three public open house meetings. The Summary of Public Involvement Report, prepared by MCDOT Community Relations staff, provides additional detail regarding the public open house meeting materials and is included in Appendix F. Hidden Waters – Final Report Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 78 January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Appendix A  Technical Memorandum #1 - Existing and Future Corridor Features, June 2011 Hidden Waters – Final Report Corridor Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Appendix B  Technical Memorandum #2 - Environmental Overview, June 2011 Hidden Waters – Final Report Corridor Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Appendix C  Technical Memorandum #3 - Conceptual Drainage Report, June 2011 Hidden Waters – Final Report Corridor Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Appendix D  Technical Memorandum #4 - Candidate Alignments and Evaluation, Sep 2011 Hidden Waters – Final Report Corridor Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Appendix E  Technical Memorandum #5 - Detailed Preferred Alignment, October 2011 Hidden Waters – Final Report Corridor Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Appendix F  Technical Memorandum #6 – Public and Stakeholder Involvement, January 2012 Hidden Waters – Final Report Corridor Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092