Hidden Waters Parkway North Corridor Feasibility Study: Interstate 10 to State Route 74 Final-Work Plan Prepared For: Prepared By: April 2011 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Problem Statement ........................................................................................... 1 2.0 Study Area Definition/Project Understanding ....................................................... 2 3.0 Key Issues ............................................................................................................ 4 3.1 Existing/Proposed Development ....................................................................... 4 3.2 Drainage ........................................................................................................... 6 3.3 Utilities .............................................................................................................. 6 3.4 Environmental ................................................................................................... 6 4.0 Study Goals and Objectives ................................................................................. 7 5.0 Study Process and Approach ............................................................................... 8 5.1 Data Collection Plan ......................................................................................... 9 5.2 Future Technical Memorandums ...................................................................... 9 5.3 Quality Control .................................................................................................. 9 5.4 Project Schedule ............................................................................................... 9 6.0 Relevant Studies and Guidelines........................................................................ 11 7.0 Public and Stakeholder Involvement .................................................................. 13 8.0 Criteria for Evaluation of Alternatives ................................................................. 14 8.1 Performance Measures ................................................................................... 14 List of Figures Figure 2-1 Hidden Waters Parkway North Study Area .................................................... 2 Figure 3-1 Hidden Waters Parkway North Project Issues Map ....................................... 5 Figure 5-1 Study process ................................................................................................ 8 Figure 5-2 Project Schedule .......................................................................................... 10 Appendices Appendix A – Hidden Waters Parkway: Interstate 10 to SR74 Project # TT005 Corridor Feasibility Study Project Scoping Report Appendix B – TAC Contact Information Appendix C – EPS Quality Assurance Plan Hidden Waters Corridor Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation i Final Work Plan April, 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 Abbreviations Arizona Department of Water Resources Arizona Public Service Arizona State Land Department Bureau of Land Management Central Arizona Project Environmental Overview Flood Control District of Maricopa County Geographic Information System Maricopa Association of Governments Maricopa County Department of Transportation Master Planned Community Salt River Project State Route Technical Advisory Committee Western Area Power Authority Hidden Waters Corridor Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation ADWR APS ASLD BLM CAP EO FCDMC GIS MAG MCDOT MPC SRP SR TAC WAPA ii Final Work Plan April, 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background 1.2 Problem Statement 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 2007 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 is identified as a necessary, higher-capacity roadway to serve future developments west of the White Tank Mountains. The Hidden Waters Parkway North Corridor Feasibility Study was commissioned by the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) in response to this identified need. The proposed Hidden Valley Parkway corridor passes adjacent to or through several entitled Master Plan Communities (MPC), which include Hassayampa Ranch, Belmont and Douglas Ranch. At buildout, it is estimated that these communities will contain over 150,000 dwelling units. The need for a high-capacity parkway within the Hidden Waters Corridor is based upon projected development as identified in the Hassayampa Valley Framework Study and is linked directly to the development of the previously mentioned MPC. It is important to identify a recommended alignment for the Hidden Waters Parkway during the planning stages of the proposed MPC to ensure that adequate rightof-way can be preserved for the future parkway corridor. The purpose of the Hidden Waters Parkway North 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 should ensure the safety/future level of service of the parkway and establish a roadway footprint that may be used as a guide for local agencies and development for the corridor. Recommendations to implement roadway improvements will also be prepared as a part of this study. Hidden Waters Corridor Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 1 Final Work Plan April, 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 2.0 Study Area Definition/Project Understanding The project 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 two miles wide (approximately one mile each side of the alignment as shown in the Hassayampa Framework Study) except in the area from Northern Avenue to Bell Road were the study area expands to two miles west of the alignment and from the south end of Douglas Ranch to Patton Road were the study area expands to two miles east of the alignment for a total of three miles wide in these two areas (refer to Figure 21 for graphic depiction of study area). Figure 2-1 Hidden Waters Parkway North Study Area Hidden Waters Corridor Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 2 Final Work Plan April, 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 In order to develop feasible parkway alignments, the existing conditions of the study corridor will be documented and future conditions forecasted to make well founded recommendations that address corridor needs. This background information will include a description of the existing roadway and right-of-way conditions. Available data, including GIS files from Maricopa County, MAG, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and others will be assembled and documented. Roadway improvement projects programmed for design and/or construction will be identified. Land use planning will be considered when generating feasible alignments for the Hidden Waters Parkway. Existing land ownership and zoning will be documented, and proposed developments (with their anticipated timelines) identified. This information will be gathered through a review of existing mapping and development plans. Aerial photography and a field review will be used to validate the existing land use research. A comprehensive planning framework for the study corridor will be established by reviewing the general plan documents from the affected municipalities and jurisdictions. Arizona Blue Stake will be contacted to identify potential conflicts between existing/proposed utilities and future corridor improvements during the planning stage of the Hidden Waters Parkway Study. This information will be used to evaluate corridor alternatives and to determine which alignments are feasible. A separate traffic analysis will not be completed with this corridor feasibility study. Instead, the results of the Hassayampa Framework Study will serve as the basis for the recommended roadway network. An environmental overview will describe the existing environment and identify potential areas of concern. This overview will document cultural resources by performing a search of existing field survey records. Potential hazardous material sites will be identified via a records search and field investigation. The environmental overview will also address impacts to threatened species/critical habitats, water/air quality, socioeconomic characteristics and noise impacts. A drainage overview will summarize the existing drainage studies that have been performed within the area. This overview will identify the key off-site concentration points with their respective flow magnitudes in order to estimate the types of crossdrainage structures that may be required for the proposed parkway alignments. Appropriate personnel from the local municipalities/jurisdictions will be consulted to identify past drainage problem areas. Hidden Waters Corridor Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 3 Final Work Plan April, 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 3.0 Key Issues The intent of this study is to identify an alignment that is acceptable to MCDOT, major landowners/ developers, the Town of Buckeye, Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and major utility providers thus establishing a roadway footprint that can guide the planning efforts in this high growth-potential area. In order to achieve this objective, it is important to have an understanding of the key issues and opportunities that exist within the study corridor. The key issues that have been identified are illustrated in Figure 3-1 and are described in the following sections. 3.1 Existing/Proposed Development As the primary driver of this corridor project, planned development will strongly influence the project goal of establishing a viable alignment for the Hidden Waters Parkway. There are several MPC within the Hidden Waters Parkway North study corridor; each has a different idea of what is appropriate regarding land use and transportation facility plans. For example Figure 3-1 highlights locations where the circulation elements from Hassayampa Ranch, Douglas Ranch, and Belmont differ from what was proposed in the Hassayampa Framework Study roadway network. It will be important to consider the approved circulation documents of the MPC when developing potential parkway alignments. The Whispering Ranch development is an existing community that was platted in 1965 (See Figure 3-1) and is comprised mainly of large residential parcels (5 acres) throughout undeveloped subdivisions (i.e. no water, sewer, or roadway improvements were constructed). This development falls within unincorporated areas of Maricopa County. This development is sparsely populated with the residents that prefer a rural, isolated lifestyle. It will be important to limit the impacts to existing residents of the Whispering Ranch community when developing potential parkway alignments. In addition to the MPC, ASLD has developed land plans and/or has zoned most of its holdings in the project corridor. Although not a developer in name, ASLD is certainly like a developer in its ideology of trying to maximize the land value. It will be important to involve ASLD in the alignment development process to ensure that their interests are preserved. The BLM owns property adjacent to the corridor between the Northern and Cactus Avenue alignments and in the northern two miles of the study corridor. Proposed Parkway alignments should be sensitive to BLM’s objectives which are often driven by environmental and resources oriented goals. Another key landowner/stakeholder is the Toyota Motor Corporation. They operate a vehicle testing center in the north part of the study corridor. Confidentiality is important to the Toyota Technical Testing Center operations. Toyota representatives have requested that their privacy requirements be considered when developing potential parkway alternatives by avoiding alignments that create an unobstructed view of their internal testing facilities. Toyota considers its proving grounds to be a 100-year operating facility. Hidden Waters Corridor Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 4 Final Work Plan April, 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 Figure 3-1 Hidden Waters Parkway North Project Issues Map Hidden Waters Corridor Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 5 Final Work Plan April, 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 3.2 Drainage The Hidden Waters Corridor crosses numerous well defined tributary washes that generally run from north to south. As such, there are many opportunities to reduce structure costs and minimize floodplain impacts by developing landform-sensitive alignments that minimize the number and length of potential drainage crossings. Numerous ephemeral washes and several major drainages, including Jackrabbit Wash, Daggs Wash and Star Wash are likely to be considered Waters of the United States. Efficient corridor alignments could also reduce the amount of permitting that is required, by limiting the number of jurisdictional Waters of the US that are crossed. 3.3 Utilities 3.4 Environmental There are a number of large utility corridors that have the potential to affect alignment alternatives. Those of major significance include a WAPA 345 kV power transmission line, the WAPA 500 kV transmission line, the APS 500 kV power transmission line and the proposed APS high voltage transmission line (all as shown on Figure 3-1). The existing CAP Canal is another significant utility corridor that will affect the parkway alignment. The greatest utility constraint likely occurs at the location where the WAPA 345 kV transmission line and the WAPA 500 kV transmission line are converging (approximately 1/2 mile separation) at the crossing of the CAP canal. Review of aerial photographs indicate that transmission towers are likely in direct conflict with the proposed 200' wide parkway corridor proposed as part of the Belmont DMP. A preliminary review of the study area indicates that there is potentially suitable habitat present for state-listed species such as the western burrowing owl and the lesser long nosed bat. The northern portion of the study corridor also passes through BLMdesignated Category 2 and Category 3 desert tortoise habitats. It will be important to identify potential locations for wildlife crossings associated with long-term wildlife movement corridors and to coordinate with the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) to obtain their input during the development of strategies for addressing habitat connectivity. Cultural resource research will be compiled from several sources including MCDOT, the State Historic Preservation Office, the National Register Information Systems database, and AZSITE, the state's electronic inventory of cultural resources. Although cultural field reviews will not be included in the scope of this feasibility study, previous research would indicate a great potential for discovering a high density of prehistoric sites. The data compiled from the Environmental Overview (EO) will be used to map and avoid any known environmental "fatal flaws" within the corridor. A review of the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) Well Registry identified over 50 ground water wells in the project corridor. Alternative corridors should be developed to avoid or limit impact to these water resources. Hidden Waters Corridor Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 6 Final Work Plan April, 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 4.0 Study Goals and Objectives The primary objectives of the Hidden Waters Parkway North Study as defined by the project scope are to: (1) clearly define and assess the project study area for strategic issues identification; (2) develop and evaluate candidate alignments within the corridor study area; (3) recommend a preferred alignment; and (4) subsequently define the characteristics of the preferred alignment in greater detail. This study is the first step in the development process and is meant to aid the governing bodies in protecting a continuous corridor in this area. In addition to these objectives, several other goals/objectives were discussed by project stakeholders during the Project Scoping Workshop (see Appendix A for the Project Scoping Workshop Report). Some of the additional topics that were discussed include:  Ensure that connectivity is established throughout the corridor.  Refer to the Hassayampa Framework Study to identify key east-west roadway connections.  Maintain consistency with ongoing and existing corridor studies.  Consider the proposed parkway interchange locations of the ongoing Northern Parkway, McDowell Parkway, and I-11 corridor studies.  Consider the approved master plan circulation elements of proposed developments. Verify that the proposed master plan parkway alignments meet the intent of the MAG framework study.  Review existing documentation/databases to identify any potential environmental fatal flaws. Consider important wildlife linkage zones when developing parkway alignment alternatives.  Consider accessibility to, and avoid creating undevelopable remnant parcels on ASLD land.  Consider alternatives that minimize roadway development costs.  Limit negative impacts to the Whispering Ranch community. Consider the potential impacts of parcel splits when developing alternatives.  Be sensitive to the Toyota Technical Testing Center’s request for privacy when developing potential parkway alternatives.  Document the existing corridor characteristics to identify opportunities and constraints that may affect roadway alignments. Identify and address any planning level issues prior to the initiation of project programming and engineering design.  Develop a recommend implementation plan. Hidden Waters Corridor Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 7 Final Work Plan April, 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 5.0 Study Process and Approach The Hidden Waters Parkway North Study will be divided into two phases (see figure 51). Phase I is the planning portion of the study. During this phase, technical memoranda will be prepared that address parkway corridor features including environmental and drainage overviews. During the second phase of the study, candidate parkway alternatives will be developed based upon the findings of Phase I. These alternatives will be objectively evaluated to select a recommended alignment for further refinement. Preliminary design drawings will be generated to better evaluate the right-of-way and to identify probable drainage facilities. Phase II will also include a recommended implementation plan for the proposed parkway improvements Figure 5-1 Study process Hidden Waters Corridor Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 8 Final Work Plan April, 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 5.1 Data Collection Plan 5.2 Future Technical Memorandums This study will utilize existing documentation and relevant studies to identify potential opportunities and constraints within the study area. GIS data, including recent aerial imagery, has been requested from the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) and MAG. The Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study, AZ parkway design guidelines, and other applicable studies will be obtained from MAG and MCDOT. Copies of the Town of Buckeye General Plan and Draft Transportation Master Plan will be obtained from the Town of Buckeye. Existing utility providers within the study area will be identified by contacting AZ Blue-Stake. Developer Stakeholders (El Dorado Holdings, LKY Development, Harvard Investments, etc.) will be contacted directly for copies of their most recent development master plan circulation elements. will be consulted for relevant, adjacent corridor feasibility studies. Maricopa Planning and Development and the Town of Buckeye will be contacted for the most recent land entitlements. This work plan will be followed by six additional technical memorandums.  Technical Memorandum No. 1 – Existing and Future Corridor Features  Technical Memorandum No. 2 – Environmental Overview  Technical Memorandum No. 3 – Conceptual Drainage Report  Technical Memorandum No. 4 – Candidate Alternatives and Evaluation  Technical Memorandum No. 5 – Preferred Alignment  Technical Memorandum No. 6 – Public and Stakeholder Participation These memoranda will address the topics illustrated in Figure 5-1 as the study progresses. At the end of this corridor feasibility study, the findings of each technical memo will be summarized in a final report. 5.3 Quality Control 5.4 Project Schedule All of the described technical memorandum as well as the final feasibility study will be subject to EPS’s written quality control plan (see Appendix C). Figure 5-2 presents a project schedule for the Hidden Waters Parkway North Corridor Feasibility Study. The study is scheduled to be completed January 31, 2012, approximately one year from the notice to proceed. Hidden Waters Corridor Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 9 Final Work Plan April, 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 Figure 5-2 Project Schedule Hidden Waters Corridor Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 10 Final Work Plan April, 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 6.0 Relevant Studies and Guidelines Several relevant transportation studies and design guideline documents will be referenced throughout the course of the corridor feasibility study. Some of the studies include the following:  Interstate 10-Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study, MAG, September 2007 o This study was completed to develop a recommended roadway network that will provide access throughout northwest Maricopa County and preserve the interstate functionality of I-10. o This study identified the need for the Hidden Waters Parkway between I10 and SR 74.  Town of Buckeye General Plan, Town of Buckeye, January 2008. o The Town’s General Plan document is intended to serve as a blueprint for development within their community. o The Town’s General Plan makes recommendations for appropriate land uses within Town limits.  Town of Buckeye Preliminary Transportation Master Plan, Town of Buckeye, December 2009. o (Progress on this document is ongoing.) This document supports the Town’s General Plan by defining the needed roadway network within the Town of Buckeye.  Hassayampa Framework Study for the Wickenburg Area, MAG, ongoing. o This is an ongoing transportation framework study for the region north of the Interstate 10-Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study.  Interstate 8 and 10: Hidden Valley Transportation Framework Study, MAG, October 2009 o This study was completed to develop a recommended roadway network that will provide access throughout southwest Maricopa County and preserve the interstate functionality of I-10. The study area extends from the Gila Mountains to Casa Grande, generally between I10 and I8. There are also several design guidelines that will be referenced throughout the course of the study.  Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway, MCDOT, August 2008 o This document identifies various elements necessary to design an Arizona Parkway such as; cross-section features, design speed, vehicles, access management and other geometric design standards. Hidden Waters Corridor Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 11 Final Work Plan April, 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092  Arizona Parkway Intersection/Interchange Operational Analysis and Design Concepts Study, MCDOT, August 2009. o This study analyzed different parkway intersection geometrics and makes recommendations for the appropriate type of intersections throughout the entire Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework study area.  Freeway to Parkway Interchange Template, ADOT, October 2010.  MCDOT Roadway Design Manual, Revised April 2004, MCDOT, April 2004. o This document details the standardized roadway design guidelines that are to be used within Maricopa County. Hidden Waters Corridor Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 12 Final Work Plan April, 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 7.0 Public and Stakeholder Involvement Building consensus between MCDOT, local agencies, jurisdictions, key stakeholders and the public is vital to the success of the Hidden Waters Parkway North Study. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) will be established to solicit feedback from partnering agencies and key stakeholders at multiple stages of the corridor study. Potential members of the technical advisory committee are as follows: Maricopa County (Transportation and Planning, Traffic, Design, Planning and Development), Flood Control District of Maricopa County, Town of Buckeye, MAG, Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), ASLD, Arizona Game and Fish, BLM, Toyota Technical Testing Center, utility providers (SRP, APS, WAPA), Developers (El Dorado Holdings, LKY Holdings, Harvard Investments) and select private land owners. It is the responsibility of MCDOT to finalize the committee members (See Appendix B for TAC contact information). The TAC will meet up to five times over the course of the study to review progress and provide direction. Three of the TAC meetings will be held prior to the public open houses. Up to ten study-coordination meetings will be held with the affected agencies and jurisdictions, principal land developers, private property owners, and utility companies as needed to understand concerns and establish consensus. Input from the public will be solicited on three separate occasions. The first of these meetings will be a Public Scoping Meeting. It will be held during the planning phase to allow TAC members to inform the public of the intent of the study and gather feedback. The second open house will be used to present the alternative alignment options and the evaluation criteria to the public. At the third public meeting, TAC members will present the recommended alignment to the public. Hidden Waters Corridor Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 13 Final Work Plan April, 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 8.0 Criteria for Evaluation of Alternatives The alignment alternatives will be objectively reviewed based upon defined evaluation criteria. These criteria may include but are not limited to:  Affected Parcels  Consistency with approved Development/MPC Plans  Additional Right of Way Required (sf/acre)  Estimated Right of Way Cost  Buildings Affected  Constructability Issues  Engineering Complexity  Environmental Issues  Potential Utility Conflicts  Public Acceptability  Functionality As the study progresses, these criteria will be further refined as additional information becomes available. Each alignment will be qualitatively scored based upon the evaluation criteria, and the results will be reviewed by the TAC to determine which alignment/alignments should be carried forward to preliminary design. 8.1 Performance Measures In addition to the alternative evaluation criteria identified in the previous section, the corridor study will be assessed by the following performance measures:  Has the purpose for the project been adequately been met?  Have all of the stakeholders’ concerns/issues been addressed/mitigated?  Are the identified key issues satisfied by the study recommendations? Hidden Waters Corridor Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 14 Final Work Plan April, 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 Appendix A  Hidden Waters Parkway: Interstate 10 to SR74 Project # TT005 Corridor Feasibility Study Scoping Report x Hidden Waters Parkway: Interstate 10 to SR 74 Corridor Feasibility Study - Project #TT005 Hidden Waters Parkway: Interstate 10 to SR74 Project # TT005 Corridor Feasibility Study Final Report Presented by: RH & Associates, Inc. “Partnering, Public Information & Value Specialists” 6677 West Thunderbird Road, Suite K-183, Glendale, AZ 85306 (623) 266-3943 Fax (623) 266-3611 (800) 480-1401 Email: rhpartnering@earthlink.net RH & Associates, Inc. x Hidden Waters Parkway: Interstate 10 to SR 74 Corridor Feasibility Study - Project #TT005 111 Project Partners Arizona Game & Fish Department Arizona State Land Department Belmont - LKY Development Company, Inc. El Dorado Holdings – Douglas Ranch EPS Group Logan Simpson Design Maricopa Association of Governments Maricopa Department of Transportation Snell & Wilmer – Toyota Technical Testing Center Town of Buckeye Toyota Technical Center WVSV FINAL REPORT MEETING DATE: November 1st, 2010 Project #: 1025107.96 Facilitator: Renee Hoekstra RH & Associates, Inc. 1 x Attendees 222 Arizona Game & Fish 7200 W. University Drive Mesa, AZ 85201 Kelly Wolff Habitat Program Manager kwolff@azgfd.gov Arizona State Land Department 1616 W. Adams Street Phoenix, AZ 85007 Gordon Taylor Stakeholder gtaylor@land.az.gov Belmont - LKY Development Company Inc. 5040 E. Shea Blvd., Suite 254 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Robyn Calihan Manager rcalihan@lkydev.com El Dorado Holdings – Douglas Ranch 426 N. 44th Street, Suite #100 Phoenix, AZ 85008 Mike Cronin mcronin@eldoradoholdings.net EPS Group 2045 S. Vineyard, Suite #101 Mesa, AZ 85210 Darrell Truitt Project Principle darrell.truitt@epsgroupinc.com Elijah Williams Project Manager elijah.williams@epsgroupinc.com Matt Truitt Engineer matt.truitt@epsgroupinc.com Logan Simpson Design 51 W. Third Street, Suite 450 Tempe, AZ 85281 Patrick Higgins Environmental Lead phiggins@logansimpson.com RH & Associates, Inc. Hidden Waters Parkway: Interstate 10 to SR 74 Corridor Feasibility Study - Project #TT005 Phone 480-324-3550 Cell 602-697-3988 Phone 602-542-2647 Cell 480-951-1281 602-315-5474 602-955-2424 602-679-8013 480-503-2250 480-226-9907 480-503-2250 480-252-7633 480-503-2250 480-529-3174 480-967-1343 602-803-2637 2 xAttendees (cont’d) 333 Maricopa Association of Governments 302 N. 1st Avenue, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Tim Strow tstrow@azmag.gov Maricopa Department of Transportation 2901 W. Durango Phoenix, AZ 85009 Denise Lacey Project Manager deniselacey@mail.maricopa.gov Jim Sargent Traffic jimsargent@mail.maricopa.gov Hugh Davidson Planning hughdavidson@mail.maricopa.gov Snell & Wilmer – Toyota Technical Testing Center One Arizona Center Phoenix, AZ 85004 Noel Griemsmann ngriemsmann@swlaw.com Toyota Technical Center 30700 W. Patton Road Wittmann, AZ 85361 Mark Schrage mark.schrage@tema.toyota.com Town of Buckeye/Woody Scoutten Scott Zipprich scott@scoutten.com WVSV Holdings 1121 W. Warner, Suite 109 Tempe, AZ 85284 Richard Maes Project Manager richardm@vistoso.net RH & Associates, Inc. Hidden Waters Parkway: Interstate 10 to SR 74 Corridor Feasibility Study - Project #TT005 602-254-6300 602-506-6172 602-506-8678 602-506-8082 602-382-6824 623-546-5350 623-547-4661 480-831-2000 602-723-1170 3 xAgenda Hidden Waters Parkway: Interstate 10 to SR 74 Corridor Feasibility Study - Project #TT005 444 Hidden Waters Parkway: Interstate 10 to State Route 74 Corridor Feasibility Study Scoping Session Agenda November 1, 2010 8:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Welcome & Introductions – Denise Lacey Review Scoping Process – Renee Hoekstra Project Understanding Define Corridor Improvement Study Study Area Project Overview (purpose & need) Project Goals/Expectations/Objectives Identify Project issues/constraints Discuss Planning Budget & Expectations Introduce Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Members Identify TAC Role Phase I – Corridor Study Area Planning Evaluation Overview – Denise Lacey Phase II – Candidate Alternatives and Preferred Alignment Overview – Denise Lacey Break (Excuse Stakeholders) Work Plan Development Tech Memo 1 – Existing and Future Corridor Features Analysis Tech Memo 2 – Environmental Overview Tech Memo 3 – Drainage Overview Tech Memo 4 – Development and Evaluation of Candidate Alternatives Technical Memorandum #5 - Preferred Alignment Drawings Design Guidelines Implementation Plan Planning Level Cost Estimates RH & Associates, Inc. 4 xAgenda (cont’d) 555 Hidden Waters Parkway: Interstate 10 to SR 74 Corridor Feasibility Study - Project #TT005 Meetings TAC Meetings Study Meetings Public Open Houses Stakeholder & Public Participation Project Management Tasks Quality Control Reporting Scheduling Report Standards Deliverables Additional Work, as Directed Finalize Level of Effort Next Steps Final Scope Schedule Fee Negotiations Meeting Notice to Proceed Schedule RH & Associates, Inc. 5 xProject Goals Hidden Waters Parkway: Interstate 10 to SR 74 Corridor Feasibility Study - Project #TT005 Project Purpose: Preserve the right-of-way and connectivity, while providing a guiding document for future development. Project Need: Follow-up on recommendations from Hassayampa Study of moving traffic into the future. Study Goals & Expectations: The project team members discussed the various aspects of the project and agreed on the following goals that support the success of this planning effort. ª Consider the approved alignments - - Douglas Ranch & Belmont - Maintain existing approved alignments - Verify the existing information to ensure they meet the intent of the MAG study ª Identification of future studies ª Consider the impact to Toyota relative to confidentiality issues at the Proving Grounds - Avoid view points that allow sight into the Proving Grounds - Toyota views this as a 100-year facility, i.e. land use ª Alignment with Belmont Development at Peoria ª Establish connectivity through the corridor ª Alignment considerations with ADOT tie ins - Parkway to Freeway connections ª Review and identify environmental fatal flaws ª Use the Hassayampa framework study related to east west connections ª Consider access points on state lands - Avoid leaving land undevelopable ª Wildlife Connectivity/Linkage ª Minimize Roadway Development Costs ª Maintain/Limit Negative Impact to Whispering Ranch - Be cognizant of parcel splits and impacts ª Collaboration with Other On-going Studies (MAG, MCDOT, FCDMC, ADOT) - Interchange at Northern - McDowell - I-11 Corridor (kicks off January 2011) ª Consistency with Existing Corridor Studies RH & Associates, Inc. xTechnical Advisory Committee 111 Hidden Waters Parkway: Interstate 10 to SR 74 Corridor Feasibility Study - Project #TT005 Expectations, Roles and Responsibilities • • • • • • Five meetings over 12 months Invite stakeholders to attend TAC meetings for informational purposes only Technical memo 1will be sent out to all stakeholders - Need to have responses from all stakeholders on this Memo - This needs to included comments on the land-use and utilities Other reviews of the Technical Memos is up to each stakeholder to decide whether or not they have the technical expertise to provide comments - Buckeye responds to all Technical Memos FTP site will be used for all Technical Memos - EPS to send out notifications - All comments go back to EPS with a copy to Denise Lacey Renew assessors maps for developers east of Douglas Ranch to include as a stakeholder RH & Associates, Inc. xTechnical Advisory Committee Hidden Waters Parkway: Interstate 10 to SR 74 Corridor Feasibility Study - Project #TT005 TAC Members This is an initial list of TAC and contacts should be determined for those stakeholders where none is identified. Type First Name Technical Review Members Last Name Title Company E‐mail Phone Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Lacey Pinto Davidson Sonnemanm Butch Swart Kattan Crowe Swick Kulina Strow Scouten Cardin Senior Planner Environmental Planner Environmental Planner Structures Utilities Traffic Project Management PIO Project Manager Associate Planner Planner Engineer MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT Flood Control District Town of Buckeye MAG Town of Buckeye Maricopa County Parks deniselacey@mail.maricopa.gov joepinto@mail.maricopa.gov hughdavidson@mail.maricopa.gov TomSonnemann@mail.maricopa.gov WayneButch@mail.maricopa.gov nicolaaswart@mail.maricopa.gov AlKattan@mail.maricopa.gov robertacrowe@mail.maricopa.gov vas@mail.maricopa.gov bkulina@buckeyeaz.gov tstrow@mag.maricopa.gov woody@scoutten.com richardcardin@mail.maricopa.gov 602‐506‐6172 602‐506‐8068 602‐506‐8082 602‐506‐8625 602‐506‐8603 602‐506‐0599 602‐506‐4618 602‐506‐8003 602‐506‐2929 623‐349‐6210 602‐254‐6300 4661x222 Technical Advisory Members Agricultural Community Jeanette Developer Susan Developer Robyn Developer Michael Developer Linda Developer Jeff Developer Kimberley Developer Chris Fish Demmitt Calihan Cronin Chenney Klem Korp Cacheris Executive Director Representative Maricopa Co. Farm Bureau mcfb@qwestoffice.net Belmont sdemmitt@beusgilbert.com Belmont rcalihan@lkydev.com El Dorado Holdings/ Douglas mcronin@eldoradoholdings.net El Dorado Holdings/ Douglas lcheney@eldoradoholdings.net Elliot Homes j.klem@elliotthomesaz.com Havard Investments/ Hassayakimkorp@havardinvestments.com Havard Investments/ HassayaChriscacheris@havardinvestments.com Developer Developer Developer/Government Developer/Government Developer/Government Developer/Government Developer/Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Utilities Utilities Utilities Utilities Utilities Utilities Utilities Utilities Utilities Ring Griemsmann Patel Dietrich Taylor Edelman Mayes Glendening Warnecke Smith Goodlow Ashcroft Gordon Meck Strauss Cleveland Bott Hobday Garza Lubandi Wood Lopez Atkins Herndon Penunuri Denise Joe Hugh Tom Wayne Nicolaas Al Roberta Valerie Brian Tim Woody RJ Bill Noel Manny Ed Gordon Mark Richard Charla Dana Troy Jo Ann Aaron Sharon Jackie Ray Stephen Bob Phil Bob Elijah John Steve Paula Jessica Jo RH & Associates, Inc. Director of Entitlements Vice President Project Manager Project Manager Senior Urban Planner LKY Holdings/Bellmont ringeraz@yahoo.com Snell & Wilmer/Toyota Technngriemsmann@swlaw.com ASLD mpatel@land.az.gov Senior Project Manager ASLD edietrich@land.az.gov Planning and Engineering ASLD Gtaylor@land.az.gov Project Manager ASLD medelman@land.az.gov Project Manager W Holdings richardm@wholdings.com Project Manager ADOT cglendening@azdot.gov Habitat Specialist Arizona Game & Fish dwarnecke@azgfd.gov Habitat Program Manager Arizona Game & Fish trsmith@azgfd.gov Realty Specialist BLM joann_goodlow@blm.gov Civil Engineer Central Arizona Project aashcroft@cap‐az.com Area 3 Engineer FHWA sharon.gordon@dot.gov Mayor Town of Buckeye jmeck@buckeyeaz.gov District 4 Councilmember Town of Buckeye rstrauss@buckeyeaz.gov Town Manager Town of Buckeye scleveland@buckeyeaz.gov Arizona Public Service robert.bott@aps.com APS Transmission Arizona Public Service phillip.hobday@aps.com APS Distribution Arizona Public Service baldemar.garza@aps.com SRP Transmission Salt River Project elijah.lubandi@srpnet.com SRP Distribution Salt River Project john.wood@srpnet.com SRP Transmission Salt River Project steven.lopez@srpnet.com SRP Transmission Maintenan Salt River Project paula.atkins@srpnet.com Western Arizona Power AuthHerndon@wapa.gov Western Arizona Power Authpenunuri@wapa.gov 601‐437‐1330 480‐429‐3064 480‐951‐1281 602‐955‐2424 602‐955‐2424 480‐831‐9200 480‐348‐1118 480‐348‐1118 480‐951‐1281 602‐402‐1716 602‐382‐6824 602‐364‐1595 602‐542‐2653 602‐542‐6331 480‐831‐2000 602‐712‐7376 480‐324‐3547 928‐341‐4068 623‐580‐5548 623‐869‐2257 602‐382‐8972 623‐349‐6950 623‐349‐6949 623‐349‐6099 602‐371‐6255 602‐371‐7047 602‐371‐7989 602‐236‐3794/60 602‐236‐0452 602‐236‐3786 602‐818‐0166 (ce 602‐605‐2580 602‐605‐2564 xIssues/Information Hidden Waters Parkway: Interstate 10 to SR 74 Corridor Feasibility Study - Project #TT005 These issues need to be considered for future action or provide information to the planning team on things to be considered. 1. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT FROM DOUGLAS RANCH AND BELMONT 2. I-11 ADOT EIS IN JANUARY 2011 3. WICKENBURG FRAMEWORK STUDY – FINAL APPROVAL 11/2010 4. RESPONSIVE TO DRAINAGE IN THE AREA 5. EXISTING AND PROPOSED UTILITY CORRIDORS 6. CAP CANALS AND ACCESS 7. APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATIONS FROM BELMONT 8. LACK OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION/STUDIES IN THE AREA • Phase I from Belmont is available BLM/MARICOPA COUNTY REGIONAL PARK VULTURE MINE STUDY 9. • 10. Study may have environmental information GRAZING LESEES ON STATE LANDS • 11. Impacts to fencing requirements APPROVED MASTER PLANS FOR EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS • RH & Associates, Inc. Identify and consider xScope of Work 111 Hidden Waters Parkway: Interstate 10 to SR 74 Corridor Feasibility Study - Project #TT005 The scope of work elements for the design consultant was discussed and additional items or comments are included in the following document. It is the responsibility of the consultant to use these comments to determine their final scope and fees to be submitted to MCDOT. RH & Associates, Inc. MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SCOPE OF WORK CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Project Number TT005 Contract No. Hidden Waters Parkway North: Interstate 10 to State Route 74 Contents Study Overview .............................................................................................................................. 3 Study Area ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Study Purpose ................................................................................................................................. 3 Study Management ......................................................................................................................... 4 Coordination with Technical Advisory Committee ........................................................................ 4 Study Approach and Proposed Tasks ............................................................................................. 4 1. 2. Phase I – Corridor Study Area Planning and Evaluation ..................................................... 4 1.1. Development of Work Plan .......................................................................................... 4 1.2. Existing and Future Corridor Features Analysis .......................................................... 5 1.3. Environmental Overview .............................................................................................. 7 1.4. Drainage Overview ....................................................................................................... 9 Phase II – Develop Candidate Alignments and Preferred Alignment ............................... 10 2.1. Development and Evaluation of Candidate Alignments ............................................ 10 2.1.2. Flow Concentration Points: For the three candidate alignments, identify, qualitatively consider, and document the proposed flow concentration points by providing a graphic map showing the locations of the concentration points and existing calculated flow rates.(?) 11 2.2. 3. 4. 5. Detailed Preferred Alignment ..................................................................................... 11 Project Meetings ................................................................................................................ 11 3.1. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meetings ...................................................... 12 3.2. Study Coordination Meetings ..................................................................................... 12 Stakeholder Participation and Public Involvement ............................................................ 12 4.1. Stakeholders................................................................................................................ 12 4.2. Public Involvement Program ...................................................................................... 14 Project Management, Reports, and Documentation .......................................................... 16 5.1. Project Management ................................................................................................... 16 5.2. Corridor Study Schedule ............................................................................................ 17 5.3. Documentation............................................................................................................ 17 Study Overview The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) prepared the Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study (Hassayampa Framework Study) that identified a comprehensive roadway network to meet traffic demands for the build out of the area west of the White Tank Mountains. This long range regional transportation study identifies the need for a roadway network consisting of freeways, parkways, and major arterial roads. The expectation in the Hassayampa Framework Study is that the parkways will be able to offer significantly greater travel capacity than that provided by the typical major urban arterial road seen in other parts of the region. Hidden Waters Parkway is one of the corridors recommended in the Hassayampa Framework Study as necessitating a higher capacity parkway cross-section. Hidden Waters Parkway is a north south roadway recommended in the Hassayampa Framework Study. It is designated as a high-capacity facility utilizing the Michigan in-direct left turn intersection design concept and a 200-foot right-of-way cross section as set forth in the Arizona Parkway Design Guidelines. The purpose and need for this corridor was confirmed during the MAG study process. Thus, the primary focus of this study is right-of-way preservation by identifying opportunities and constraints (fatal flaws) within the two mile wide study area (one mile on each side of the base alignment set forth in the Hassayampa Framework Study). The project scope of work for the study includes the tasks necessary to prepare a corridor feasibility report for Hidden Waters Parkway North (Interstate 10 to State Route 74) that will provide Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT), the Town of Buckeye (Buckeye), area property owners, developers, and other stakeholders with a planning tool, for future growth and development, that preserves the 200-foot right-of-way required for the Arizona Parkway design. This will require significant coordination with various governing bodies, other public agencies, development interests, and the general public. This study is the first step in the development process and is meant to assist the governing bodies in protecting a continuous corridor that will develop as growth moves to the west. Study Area The project study area includes the northern section of the Hidden Waters Parkway, as shown on the Hassayampa Framework Study, from Interstate 10 north to the future alignment of State Route 74. The study area is approximately 28 miles long and is two miles wide (one mile each side of the alignment as shown on the Hassayampa Framework Study) except in the area from Northern Avenue to Bell Road were the study area expands to two miles west of the alignment and from the south end of Douglas Ranch to Patton Road were the study area expands to two miles east of the alignment for a total of three miles wide in these two areas (refer to exhibit for graphic depiction of study area). Study Purpose The primary objectives of the Corridor Feasibility Study are to: (1) clearly define and assess the project study area for strategic issues identification; (2) develop and evaluate candidate alignments within the corridor study area; (3) recommend a preferred alignment; and (4) subsequently define the characteristics of the preferred alignment in greater detail. This study is the first step in the development process and is meant to aid the governing bodies in protecting a continuous corridor in this area. Study Management The study will be managed by MCDOT, Transportation Planning Division. The Consultant will perform the technical analyses as described in this scope of work. All work herein shall be completed within 365 calendar days after notice to proceed has been issued. Coordination with Technical Advisory Committee A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) will be established to guide all aspects of the study. TAC members will be selected by their respective agencies and will apply planning and engineering expertise to the study. The TAC will meet with the MCDOT Project Manager and Consultant, as noted in the description of the following tasks, to participate in the scoping of the study, review study documents, and provide relevant input. TAC members will also serve as an important resource for data collection and in identifying additional stakeholders within their organizations or jurisdictions. A preliminary list of stakeholders and potential TAC members is included in Section 4.1. Study Approach and Proposed Tasks The Consultant will provide the planning and environmental services necessary for the preparation of a corridor feasibility study for Hidden Waters Parkway. This study will be conducted in two phases: 1. Phase I – Corridor Study Area Planning and Evaluation This phase includes researching and gathering all existing and future study area features, assessing and evaluating the surrounding corridor conditions for issues identification, and preparing constraints and base maps that will allow the Consultant to make well-founded recommendations for possible corridor alignments within the study area. As part of this planning process the Consultant will work closely with staff and development interests in the affected jurisdictions, both individually and collectively, to form a broad consensus of the existing and future conditions. Based on the constraints and corridor conditions identified, conceptual alignments will be developed. The Consultant will develop an alignment comparison matrix that identifies the benefits and shortcomings of each alternative. The conceptual alignments will be developed only to the extent necessary to conduct a meaningful comparative fatal flaws analysis. As part of this process, the conceptual alignments will be evaluated for technical feasibility and public acceptability. Once the conceptual alignments have been screened (fatal flaw screening), the Consultant will recommend up to three alignments to be carried forward for further development and analysis in Phase II. The Consultant and MCDOT will conduct Public Open Houses at a convenient location(s) in the study area to present the candidate alignment analysis and obtain public input on the candidate alignments. 1.1. Development of Work Plan Product: Work Plan The Consultant will develop a 15-20 page Work Plan that will include: • Schedule, • Study area boundary, • Study purpose and objectives, • Study process and approach used to meet objectives, • Data collection plan, • Design standards and guidelines, (per; MCDOT standards regarding access principles, Arizona Parkway Guidelines, geometry, etc.) • Stakeholder database, • Key issues and challenges, • Detailed study tasks, • Criteria for the evaluation of alternatives, • Scoping report summary, (as an attachment from RHA) • Written quality assurance/quality control plan – including: o Checklists of items to be reviewed prior to each County submittal (including sub-consultant prepared materials), o Monthly quality progress reports, o Procedures for conducting QA/QC activities, o Person(s) responsible for QA/QC activities, o Sub consultant coordination and communication plan. 1.2. Existing and Future Corridor Features Analysis Product: Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing and Future Corridor Features (including aerial maps illustrating the base conditions/constraints) The Consultant will collect, analyze, map, and document (including dates) existing data relevant to the corridor feasibility study area. Both corridor characteristics and roadway conditions will need to be assessed. The Consultant shall also obtain, and utilize as appropriate, existing information/documentation from recent/relevant studies such as: I10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study, Town of Buckeye General Plans, Area Drainage Master Plans (ADMPs), Developer Master Plan Circulation Elements, available master plan circulation documents, and other recent reports/analysis to supplement this collection effort. All information and analysis will be documented in the Existing and Future Corridor Features Technical Memorandum #1. At a minimum, the following features will be included in this section: 1.2.1. Physical Features (natural and human made) of Study Area such as: • • Drainage features (floodplains, washes, rivers and alluvial fans) and structures (channels, dikes, bridges, dams), Irrigation canals, • Topography from existing sources, • Facilities (airfields, power plants, waste water plants etc.), • Existing and planned utilities (above/below ground) – including: o Identification and mapping of major existing and planned utilities (including private wells) and utility owners within the corridor o Identification and documentation of potential conflicts between utilities and future corridor improvements, • Recreation trails, parks/areas, greenup areas, and clear zones. 1.2.2. Existing Corridor Roadway Conditions – Using existing available data, the Consultant will document the existing roadways including alignment, ADT, roadway width, lanes, surface type, existing pavement condition ratings, year constructed, horizontal/vertical alignment, intersection configurations, traffic control, and right-of-way. 1.2.3. Existing Approved Access Conditions and Policies/Guidelines that address: • Land access – driveways, • Median openings and intersections/interchanges. 1.2.4. Existing and Future Roadway Network Information within the study area, including at a minimum: • Future functional classification to be used is an Arizona Parkway, • MCDOT will provide Parkway configurations, • Road improvements programmed as under design or under construction, • Transportation networks, circulation elements, and site plans from DMPs/CMP’s, General Plans, MCDOT plans/studies, and other regional/area studies as available, • If applicable, traffic reports and impact studies conducted by land developers should be reviewed, • Travel demand 2030 and build-out projections from the I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study (use for implementation plan or phasing plan only). The Consultant will request modeling results from MCDOT and MCDOT will work closely with MAG through the formal request process to acquire modeling results from their regional travel demand model and provide this information to the Consultant. No additional traffic modeling or analysis is required. 1.2.5. Land Use, Jurisdictional Control, Ownership, and Management including at a minimum: • Property boundaries from County Assessor’s maps, the Town of Buckeye, and other jurisdictional agencies, • Existing land use and ownership including: • • • • • • • • • o Identifying, analyzing, and mapping the information on current land ownership and land uses per the County Assessor’s data within the corridor feasibility study area, o Description of the existing land uses identifying the approximate percentage of land within the project area that is in agricultural, commercial, industrial, residential, and similar uses, Large commercial or industrial enterprises and public facilities shall be identified by name and current use, Existing zoning classifications and descriptions, Town of Buckeye and Maricopa County General Plans, Proposed future land uses per adopted County or local government plans, Potential and actual rezoning requests currently being processed by the County or other local governmental agencies, Significant traffic generators or attractors, Jurisdictional maps, Zoning maps, Comprehensive list of approved Community Master Plans and identification of: o Name of the development, o Name of developer and contact person, o Date of approval, o Date of any amendments, o Number of existing and entitled dwelling units, o Acreage and entitled square footage for commercial and industrial development, o Approved land use and circulation maps. 1.2.6. Relevant Plans, Reports, Guidelines, Studies and Standards – These existing documents may be available from Developers, the Town of Buckeye, MAG, Arizona Game & Fish, Maricopa County, etc. 1.2.7. Existing Topography/Mapping to be used shall be from the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (10-foot contours shall be used when available). Additional mapping may be obtained from the Maricopa County Assessor. 1.2.8. Identification of Special Interest Areas – These may include areas where additional right-of-way may be required for drainage improvements, large cuts/fill, major utilities, crossing the CAP canal, Whispering Ranch, freeway crossings, or areas where reduced right-of-way may be necessary. The extent of the evaluation will focus on preliminary identification of the special interest areas and not additional detailed evaluation. 1.3. Environmental Overview Product: Technical Memorandum #2 – Environmental Overview The purpose of the Environmental Overview (EO) is to describe the existing environment within the project area and to identify any documented potential problem areas (fatal flaws) that may be attributed to transportation improvements or potential issues that impact candidate alternative alignment development or selection. This analysis will address all of the major environmental disciplines and a review of all appropriate resources. Data obtained and evaluated under this task will be used in both Phases of this study and the dates of all reports used shall be documented. Some of this information will be gathered early in the project to assist Technical Memorandum #1 as needed. The Consultant will perform the following tasks and provide the appropriate documentation in the EO: 1.3.1. Cultural Resources • Records review from the Arizona State Museum, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), AZSITE, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) general land office (GLO) maps and other databases or resources for known historic and archaeological resources present in the study area – a bibliography of resources will be developed, including dates of documents, • No consultation or Class I Inventory Report will be prepared, • A windshield field review will occur. 1.3.2. Biology • Conduct a records review and consultation with appropriate federal and state agencies of the project area to determine the potential for encountering threatened, endangered, or proposed endangered species and designated critical habitats for federal, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and BLM, and state, Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD), listed species and to gain information about the physical environment, including plant communities, native plant occurrences, topography, sensitive species habitat, and wildlife crossing corridors/linkage zones, • A windshield field review will occur. 1.3.3. Land Use/Socioeconomic/Visual Quality • Collect data and research the land use, socioeconomic, and visual quality for the project area, including population, employment, prime or unique agricultural farm land, and other socioeconomic characteristics, • Review potential Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act 1966, BLM, and Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act resources identified in existing databases. 1.3.4. Water Quality • Coordinate with Arizona Department of Water Resources to identify known well sites within the study area, • Research and identify any water quality issues for the project, including identification of potential jurisdictional waters (JDs) and permit needs, • A jurisdictional delineation will not be completed, However, completed existing jurisdictional delineations shall be identified, • Make reasonable effort to obtain documents available from previously approved JDs and Section 404/401 permitting through developer actions, 1.3.5. Hazardous Materials • Obtain a regulatory database report to determine the potential for hazardous materials that may adversely affect the project area, • A windshield field review will occur. 1.3.6. Noise Impacts • Preliminary qualitative evaluation of potential noise impacts/potential receptors, • No measurement or modeling will be conducted. 1.3.7. Air Quality • Preliminary evaluation for compliance with national standards, including Mobile Source Air Toxins (MSATS) and impacts to regional non-attainment areas, • No measurement or modeling will be conducted. 1.3.8. Documentation • Develop an environmental constraints map, • Format the EO as a separate document for easy future reference, • The EO will be notated to clearly state that it reports and summarizes existing documents and dates, to the extent they are available, and that new studies were not conducted. 1.4. Drainage Overview Product: Technical Memorandum #3 – Conceptual Drainage Report The Consultant will prepare a Drainage Overview Report for the corridor feasibility study area using existing available studies and data, from Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC), Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), Town of Buckeye, MCDOT, Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), Central Arizona Project (CAP) and developers, as well as limited field review, and existing mapping and hydrology/hydraulics. Data obtained and evaluations conducted under this task will be used in both Phases of this study. The Consultant will: • Obtain and Review Existing Reports including: o FCDMC Area Drainage Master Studies (ADMS) and Area Drainage Master Plans (ADMP) that address drainage conditions along the corridor, o CAP drainage studies that address drainage conditions along within or adjacent to the corridor. Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) drainage studies that address drainage conditions adjacent to the corridor (I-10), o Research, identify, and summarize other relevant information from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), FCDMC, and municipalities, o ADWR groundwater level mapping (most current mapping), including known fissures, o Regional context flood and geomorphic hazard maps based on existing floodplain reports and geologic mapping within and adjacent to the corridor. • Determine the existing off-site concentration points and flow magnitudes for the 100-year storm event using existing data and studies (the determination will be based on simple area/graphic interpolations). • Where necessary, use regional regression equations to calculate the drainage flows affecting the study (hydrologic modeling is not included in this scope of work). • Contact appropriate personnel from MCDOT, FCDMC, Town of Buckeye, ADWR and Arizona Geological Survey to identify and summarize past drainage problems, subsidence and fissure areas. 2. Phase II – Develop Candidate Alignments and Preferred Alignment In this phase, based on the issues and constraints identified in Phase I, the Consultant will develop candidate alignments. Layout of these alignments will be based on a minimum corridor right-of-way width of 200-feet. Right-of-way requirements associated with parkway-to-parkway and parkway-to-freeway interchanges will also be indentified based on the latest design guidelines developed by MCDOT and ADOT. Using information acquired in the previous tasks, the Consultant will develop and evaluate in more detail the candidate alignments for the Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor. The Consultant will identify a framework of evaluation criteria that will be presented to the Technical Advisory Committee) TAC for review. Using the framework, the Consultant will prepare an alternatives evaluation matrix. Based upon the evaluation, the Consultant will recommend a preferred alignment to be carried forward for further refinement. The Consultant and MCDOT will jointly conduct Public Open Houses at a convenient location(s) in the study area to present the candidate alignments study and preferred alignment recommendations. 2.1. Development and Evaluation of Candidate Alignments Product: Technical Memorandum #4 –Candidate Alignments and Evaluation Based on evaluation of the candidate alignments (fatal flaw in Phase I), the Consultant will carry out a more detailed analysis of the no-build alternative and up to three candidate alignments. This analysis will address engineering feasibility, environmental compatibility, economic viability, compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, community concerns, and order of magnitude cost estimates. The development and evaluation of alignments will include the following: 2.1.1. Schematic Drawings - For each of the alignments, the Consultant will provide schematic drawings of the plan view (1” = 1,000’ scale) of the alignment superimposed on aerial photography and printed on 11” x 17” paper. The drawings will include proposed right-of-way centerlines and envelopes. 2.1.2. Flow Concentration Points: For the three candidate alignments, identify, qualitatively consider, and document the proposed flow concentration points by providing a graphic map showing the locations of the concentration points and existing calculated flow rates.(?) 2.1.3. Preliminary Cost Estimates - Planning-level order-of-magnitude cost estimates will be developed for each of the alternatives based only on the full build-out of 8 lanes. The County will provide typical cost items and unit costs. 2.1.4. Evaluation of Final Candidate Alignments - The Consultant will document the evaluation of up to three candidate alignments in Technical Memorandum #4. One of the three alternatives will be as shown in the Hassayampa Valley Framework Study. The analysis will include a matrix documenting the various evaluation factors used in determining the preferred alignment, including information obtained through public outreach. 2.2. Detailed Preferred Alignment Product: Technical Memorandum #5 –Preferred Alignment Appendix A – Preferred Alignment Drawings The Consultant will document, in detail, all information that has been gathered and evaluated in association with the preferred alignment in Technical Memorandum #4. Additional design features considered during the development and refinement (impact mitigation/alignment optimization) of the preferred alignment will be documented and depicted on the preferred alignment drawings. At a minimum, the drawings will include: • Standard cross section, • Plan view with corridor study centerline, right of way lines and drainage features shown on an aerial base map (1” = 200’ scale unless otherwise directed) and printed on 11” x 17” paper, • Potential areas requiring additional right-of-way (profile changes, parkway to parkway, parkway to freeway, roadway embankments, new drainage crossings, and realigned washes), • Implementation Plan: The Consultant will recommend phasing and staging of appropriate corridor improvements based upon 2030 modeling according to a reasonable and constructible sequence. The implementation plan will also include recommendations for interim improvements. A revised cost estimate for the preferred alternative will need to be prepared for use in the implementation plan. 3. Project Meetings 3.1. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meetings The Consultant (typically the Consultant Project Manager plus two members of the consulting team, sub-consultants will attend only upon MCDOT approval) will participate in up to five (5) meetings with the TAC. These meetings will address: • Project Initiation, • Results of the data collection, assessment and evaluation of the corridor conditions to be used for issues identification and Conceptual Alignment Brainstorming, • Alignment evaluation framework criteria and performance measures, • Evaluation and analysis of candidate alignments (minimum two weeks prior to Public Open House #2), • Recommendation of the preferred alignment (minimum two weeks prior to the Public Open House #3), • The Consultant will: o Prepare and maintain the TAC database, o Prepare meeting invitations, agendas, sign-in sheets, handout materials, PowerPoint presentations (if applicable), and graphics/displays, o Meet with the MCDOT Project Manager, via phone call, two weeks before each TAC meeting (these will also serve as project progress meetings), o Conduct and attend (up to 4 consultant team members) the TAC meetings, o Prepare meeting summaries including documentation of decisions reached and task assignments, • MCDOT will organize the committee, schedule meetings, participate in meetings, and communicate with the TAC as deemed appropriate by the MCDOT Project Manager. 3.2. Study Coordination Meetings The Consultant will be responsible for up to ten (10) meetings with agencies, principal land developers, private property owners, and utility companies. These meetings will be conducted on an individual and/or group basis, as appropriate and as identified in Subsection 4.1 and will typically include the MCDOT Project Manager and two Consultant representatives. 4. Stakeholder Participation and Public Involvement Product: Technical Memorandum #6 – Public and Stakeholder Participation 4.1. Stakeholders The MCDOT Project Manager and the Consultant will meet with appropriate stakeholders to identify concerns, discuss relevant issues, gather input, and build consensus. Meetings with these stakeholders will be conducted on an individual and/or group basis, as appropriate. A preliminary list of stakeholders and potential TAC members may include, but will not necessarily be limited to, representatives of the following organizations: • • • • • • • • Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) Arizona Game and Fish Department Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) o Traffic o Right of way o Development Services o Utilities o Engineering o Public Information o Environmental o Cultural Resources • • • • • • • • • • Maricopa County Environmental Services Maricopa County Planning and Development Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Maricopa County Supervisor – District 4 Town of Buckeye School District Representatives Maricopa County Farm Bureau Fire District Representatives Western Area Power Administration Major Utility Providers o Arizona Public Service (APS) o El Paso Natural Gas o Transwestern o Salt River Project (SRP) o Central Arizona Project (CAP) • Land Developments o Belmont DMP (Belmont Partnership) o Douglas Ranch o Toyota Proving Grounds • • • • Private property owners and residents Area Businesses Community Groups Media o West Valley View o Buckeye Valley News 4.2. Public Involvement Program As part of the comprehensive overall MCDOT RightRoads Program for public outreach the MCDOT Community Relations Branch has primary responsibility for all MCDOT public outreach efforts. However, Consultant involvement is crucial in the development and implementation of a comprehensive project specific outreach program for this study. Program components will include strategies and specific approaches intended to involve and inform the public throughout the study process. It is anticipated that an iterative Public Involvement Process will be implemented in order to address community needs and objectives. Interactive public involvement meetings along with other public involvement methods may be used to gather public input and help facilitate public communication and education efforts throughout the project. A tentative schedule of study phase public meetings and an assignment of responsibilities for both MCDOT and consulting staff shall also be prepared. The Consultant will contribute to this effort by participating with MCDOT staff in a preparation meeting prior to the each of the Public Open House meetings. In general, MCDOT Community Relations staff will be responsible for: • Producing materials such as display boards, advertisements, handouts, and questionnaires for public meetings, based on technical and/or graphical information provided by the Consultant, • Scheduling and conducting public meetings and Public Open Houses, • Contracting for meeting locations, • Developing and mailing meeting notices, • Placing newspaper ads, • Preparing press releases, • MCDOT Community Relations staff will prepare a detailed “Summary of Public Involvement” report that includes public and stakeholder comments collected at all public meetings, stakeholder meetings, and special purpose meetings and MCDOT responses. The Consultant will use this information to prepare Technical Memorandum #6 – Public and Stakeholder Participation. In general the Consultant will be responsible for: • Participation in the Public Open Houses (up to three Consultant team staff members) and o Participation in a pre-submittal briefing with the MCDOT Community Relations staff 21 calendar days before each Public Open House to discuss the necessary information that the Consultant will need to provide to MCDOT, o Providing all requested data to the MCDOT Community Relations staff 14 calendar days prior to the Public Open House, unless otherwise directed by the MCDOT Project Manager, o Participation in one review meeting to check the presentation materials a minimum of 5 calendar days before each Public Open House, if required by the MCDOT Project Manager. • Providing technical information to the MCDOT Community Relations staff for use in display boards, roll plots, advertisements, handouts, questionnaires, and presentations, • Preparing project renderings and detailed drawings to visually assist stakeholders to make informed decisions, • Participating in and answering technical questions at all Public Open Houses, • Identifying and maintaining a list of current contact information for stakeholders (public agencies, developers, etc.), • Providing public meeting summaries to the MCDOT Community Relations staff for inclusion in the final public participation report prepared by the MCDOT Community Relations Branch, • Providing meeting minutes for all pre-public meeting briefings, • Summarizing the public involvement effort for inclusion in the Final Report as Technical Memorandum #6 – Public and Stakeholder Participation. 4.2.1 Public Open House #1 – Introduction and Data Collection Note –MCDOT Community Relations Staff has primary responsibility for this task Public Open House #1 will be held to inform the public of the objectives of the study, introduce the Arizona Parkway concept, and provide area residents and other impacted stakeholders with an opportunity to inform project team members about the study area, issues and local transportation needs. This meeting will also provide project team members an opportunity to discuss and elicit feedback about the study purpose, goals and objectives. The following initial study data will be presented: • Study Location, • Study Schedule, • Study Background (Context), • Study Purpose/Need, • Study Goals/Objectives, • Preliminary Study Issues and Challenge, • Study Stakeholders , • Study Process/Approach. 4.2.2 Public Open House #2 – Evaluation of Candidate Alignments Note –MCDOT Community Relations Staff has primary responsibility for this task Open House #2 will be held to inform the public of progress made in the study, provide all base and constraints mapping, review the Arizona Parkway concept, review alignment evaluation criteria, present the candidate alignments, answer questions, and gather input that will assist in the further development and evaluation of the alignments and the selection of the preferred alignment. The following updated study data shall be reviewed or presented: 4.2.3 • Study Location, • Study Schedule, • Study Background (Context), • Study Purpose/Need, • Study Goals/Objectives, • Preliminary Study Issues and Challenges, • Study Stakeholders, • Study Process/Approach, • Environmental Overview, • Existing Condition Information, • Drainage Overview, • Candidate Alignments. Public Open House #3 – Preferred Alignment Note –MCDOT Community Relations Staff has primary responsibility for this task Public Open House to inform the public of progress made in the study, present results of the candidate alignment evaluation process, the preferred alignment, answer questions, and gather input for use in the development of the final report. 5. Project Management, Reports, and Documentation 5.1. Project Management Product – Progress Reports, Project Schedule, and Monthly Invoices The Consultant will be responsible for providing project administration and management services in accordance with the general requirements for this project. The Consultant will set up and maintain a project File Transfer Protocol (.ftp) site for project file transfers between the study team members. Monthly Reports/Invoices – The Consultant will provide monthly progress reports, submit monthly invoices with Earned Value graphs, and provide oversight to ensure all deliverables are in compliance with this Scope of Work. Project Schedule – The Consultant shall prepare, submit, and maintain an updated project work schedule in Gantt Chart (bar chart) form. The schedule shall identify key meeting, delivery, and review times. Each review time shall be shown as 21 days unless otherwise advised by the MCDOT Project Manager. The Consultant shall update the project schedule as necessary for it to accurately represent project progress and to realistically forecast scheduled submittals. 5.2. Corridor Study Schedule The study schedule will be developed, and finalized upon notice to proceed, by the MCDOT Project Manager in consultation with the Consultant. Consultant shall provide updates to schedule as changes occur. 5.3. Documentation Study Products – See below 5.3.1 Technical Memoranda All reports and memoranda will include standard report covers developed by the Consultant and will be consistent for all documents. Draft technical memoranda will be provided in pdf format for review on the project ftp site. A Word Document, digital version, will be provided to the MCDOT Project Manager. The Consultant shall prepare and submit the following Draft and Final Technical Memoranda and meeting documentation: • Work Plan • Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features, • Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview, • Technical Memorandum #3 Conceptual Drainage Report, • Technical Memorandum #4 Candidate Alignments and Evaluation, • Technical Memorandum #5 Preferred Alignment, • Technical Memorandum #6 – Public and Stakeholder Participation, • Summary of field reviews/meetings. The Consultant will submit Tech Memos in the following manner: 5.3.2 • Draft Technical Memoranda: Upload to the ftp site • Final Technical Memoranda: Two copies, spiral bound, sealed Draft Final and Final Report Format The Consultant will prepare the corridor Draft and Final Reports in general conformance with the following outline: • Title Page, • Table of Contents, • List of Figures, • List of Tables, • Executive Summary o Study purpose, o Brief description of alignment alternatives, including the preferred alignment evaluation matrix, o Brief description of the preferred alignment, planning level estimated costs, phasing strategy, and general access management guidelines if applicable, o Map(s) depicting the candidate alignment alternatives and the preferred alignment, o Considerations for Future Development, • Existing and future corridor features, including: o Corridor Characteristics (natural/man-made), o Roadway Features, o Transportation Network/Travel Demand, o Utilities /Constraints mapping, o Land Use, Ownership and Management, o Environmental summary, o Drainage summary, o Special Analysis Areas, o Relevant Plans/Reports and Guidelines, • Development and Evaluation of Candidate Alignments o Candidate Alignments and Evaluation Matrix, o Alignment Schematic Drawings, o Conclusions and Recommendations. • Preferred Alignment o Standard cross-section, o Design Features, o General Access management guidelines if applicable, o Planning-level cost estimates, o Phasing Strategy/Implementation Plan, o Preferred Alignment Drawings, o Right of way needs, o Public Involvement Overview (provided by MCDOT). Appendices The following will be included as appendices of the final report: • Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features • Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview • Technical Memorandum #3 Conceptual Drainage Report • Technical Memorandum #4 Candidate Alignments and Evaluation • Technical Memorandum #5 Preferred Alignment • Technical Memorandum #6 – Public and Stakeholder Participation • Summary of field reviews/meetings The Consultant will submit the Final Report in the following manner: • Draft Final Report: Upload to ftp site • Final Report and Appendices: Five copies, spiral bound, and 15 CD-ROMs with final report and appendices.. Note: The entire report - including text, photos, drawings, tables, maps, appendices and hand calculations -- shall be provided to MCDOT as one Acrobat Reader (.PDF) formatted file on a compact disk or DVD, suitable for publishing on the MCDOT website. The Consultant will prepare and consolidate project-related data obtained or collected during the course of the project in GIS layers, the Preferred Alternative shape file shall be labeled “Preferred Alternative”.. Additionally, plans will be prepared in MicroStation (V8) format and be re-submitted separately from the entire report on a second compact disk or DVD. Digital photographs shall be provided to MCDOT in electronic format. Electronic files shall be submitted on compact disk, DVD, or 100 MB zip disks. 5.4 Special Analysis Areas (Up to three areas) Candidate Alternatives may require options for detailing special analysis areas such as future parkway/parkway and parkway/freeway connections, drainage crossings, alluvial fan crossings, or environmentally sensitive areas. These options will identify issues, alternatives, potential benefits, and any potential fatal flaws. The specific scope and effort required for each special analysis are will be determined in consultation with the MCDOT Project Manager. xProject Notes 222 Hidden Waters Parkway: Interstate 10 to SR 74 Corridor Feasibility Study - Project #TT005 Project Budget: $500,000 Project Schedule: 12 months Study Area: Douglas Ranch may not fit Hassayampa Framework Study purpose and need - There is a close proximity to the freeway - Belmont wouldn’t cooperate - Had to match jurisdictional lines Evaluation Criteria to include: - Functionality - MAG to define this criteria item Site Visit with the team to include the environmental subconsultant to walk the site MCDOT – to provide parcel data, etc., parks for northern portion FCDMC – Aerial mapping available EPS – Research and get information from Section/Township, Developments, Buckeye, utilities (Blue Stake), i.e. Millennium Ranch. All available studies which impact this study, include the McDowell Study Schedule Final Scope – 11/18/2010: - Scope of work - Fee schedule Notice to Proceed – 2/2/2011 RH & Associates, Inc. Appendix B  TAC Contact information Type First Name Technical Review Members Last Name Title Company E‐mail Phone Address City State Zip Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Swick Strow Butch Crowe Davidson Kattan Lacey Pinto Sonnemanm Swart Kulina Scouten Project Manager Planner Utilities PIO Environmental Planner Project Management Senior Planner Environmental Planner Structures Traffic Associate Planner Engineer Flood Control District MAG MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT Town of Buckeye Town of Buckeye vas@mail.maricopa.gov tstrow@mag.maricopa.gov WayneButch@mail.maricopa.gov robertacrowe@mail.maricopa.gov hughdavidson@mail.maricopa.gov AlKattan@mail.maricopa.gov deniselacey@mail.maricopa.gov joepinto@mail.maricopa.gov TomSonnemann@mail.maricopa.gov nicolaasswart@mail.maricopa.gov bkulina@buckeyeaz.gov woody@scoutten.com 602‐506‐2929 602‐254‐6300 602‐506‐8603 602‐506‐8003 602‐506‐8082 602‐506‐4618 602‐506‐6172 602‐506‐8068 602‐506‐8625 602‐506‐0599 623‐349‐6210 4661x222 2801 W. Durango St. 302 N. 1st. Avenue 2901 W. Durango St. 2901 W. Durango St. 2901 W. Durango St. 2901 W. Durango St. 2901 W. Durango St. 2901 W. Durango St. 2901 W. Durango St. 2901 W. Durango St. 530 E. Monroe SUITE 310 Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Buckeye Goodyear AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ 85009 85003 85009 85009 85009 85009 85009 85009 85009 85009 85326 85395 Glendening Bommarito Warnecke Dietrich Edelman Taylor Demmitt Goodlow Ashcroft Chenney Cronin Klem Deitering Cacheris Korp Liberty Ring Calihan Fish Griemsmann Cleveland Meck Strauss Mayes Patel Project Manager ADOT cglendening@azdot.gov Arizona Game & Fish TBommarito@azgfd.gov Arizona Game & Fish dwarnecke@azgfd.gov ASLD edietrich@land.az.gov ASLD medelman@land.az.gov ASLD Gtaylor@land.az.gov Belmont sdemmitt@beusgilbert.com BLM joann_goodlow@blm.gov Central Arizona Project aashcroft@cap‐az.com El Dorado Holdings/ Douglas lcheney@eldoradoholdings.net El Dorado Holdings/ Douglas mcronin@eldoradoholdings.net Elliot Homes j.klem@elliotthomesaz.com FHWA tom.deitering@dot.gov Havard Investments/ HassayaChriscacheris@harvardinvestments.com Havard Investments/ Hassayakimkorp@harvardinvestments.com Liberty Southwest Realty/WhJoeLiberty@cox.net LKY Holdings/Bellmont ringeraz@yahoo.com LKY Holdings/Belmont rcalihan@lkydev.com Maricopa Co. Farm Bureau mcfb@qwestoffice.net Snell & Wilmer/Toyota Technngriemsmann@swlaw.com Town of Buckeye scleveland@buckeyeaz.gov Town of Buckeye jmeck@buckeyeaz.gov Town of Buckeye rstrauss@buckeyeaz.gov W Holdings richardm@wholdings.com mpatel@land.az.gov 602‐712‐7376 206 S. 17th Ave. Phoenix AZ 85007 480‐324‐3547 602‐542‐2653 602‐542‐6331 7200 E. University Dr. Mesa 1616 W. Adams Phoenix 1616 W. Adams Phoenix 1616 W. Adams Phoenix 4800 N. Scottsdale Rd, Ste 6000 Scottsdale 21605 N. 7th Ave. Phoenix 23636 N. 7th St. Phoenix 426 N. 44th Street, Suite 100 Phoenix 426 N. 44th Street, Suite 100 Phoenix 1400 E. Southern Ave. Tempe AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ 85207 85007 85007 85007 85251 85027 85080 85008 85008 85282 17700 N Pacesetter Way 17700 N Pacesetter Way 4147 W Runion Dr. 5040 E. Shea Blvd. 5040 E. Shea Blvd. #254 4001 E. Broadway Rd. One Arizona Center 530 E. Monroe 530 E. Monroe 530 E. Monroe 1121 W. Warner Rd., Ste 109 AZ AZ AZ AZ Az AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ 85255 85255 85308 85254 85254 85040 85004 85326 85326 85326 85284 Valerie Tim Wayne Roberta Hugh Al Denise Joe Tom Nicolaas Brian Woody Technical Advisory Members Government Charla Tab Government Dana Developer/Government Ed Developer/Government Mark Developer/Government Gordon Developer Susan Government Jo Ann Government Aaron Developer Linda Developer Michael Developer Jeff Tom Developer Chris Developer Kimberley Resident Joe Developer Bill Developer Robyn Agricultural Community Jeanette Developer Noel Government Stephen Government Jackie Government Ray Developer/Government Richard Developer/Government Manny Utility Provider Utility Provider Utility Provider Utility Provider Utility Provider Utility Provider Utility Provider Utility Provider Utility Provider Utility Provider Utility Provider Larry Krueger Jim Craig Looney Stegmeier Bobby John Steve Elijah Paula Jessica Jo Garza Wood Lopez Lubandi Atkins Herndon Penunuri Habitat Specialist Senior Project Manager Project Manager Planning and Engineering Representative Realty Specialist Civil Engineer Vice President Director of Entitlements Project Manager Project Manager Executive Director Senior Urban Planner Town Manager Mayor District 4 Councilmember Project Manager Engineering Line Siting Land Services Overhead System Design APS Lawrence.Krueger@aps.com APS James.Looney@aps.com APS Craig.Stegmeier@aps.com APS Distribution baldemar.garza@aps.com SRP ‐ Distribution john.wood@srpnet.com SRP ‐ Transmission steven.lopez@srpnet.com SRP ‐ Transmission elijah.lubandi@srpnet.com SRP ‐ Transmission Maintena paula.atkins@srpnet.com WAPA Herndon@wapa.gov WAPA penunuri@wapa.gov 480‐429‐3064 623‐580‐5548 623‐869‐2257 602‐955‐2424 602‐955‐2424 480‐831‐9200 602‐382‐8971 480‐348‐1118 480‐348‐1118 602‐505‐7675 480‐951‐ 480‐951‐1281 601‐437‐1330 602‐382‐6824 623‐349‐6099 623‐349‐6950 623‐349‐6949 480‐831‐2000 602‐364‐1596 602‐371‐7989 602‐236‐0452 602‐236‐3786 602‐236‐3794 602‐236‐4885 602‐605‐2580 602‐605‐2564 Scottsdale Scottsdale Glendale Scottsdale Scottsdale Phoenix Phoenix Buckeye Buckeye Buckeye Tempe Appendix C  EPS Quality Assurance Plan HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CFS: QUALITY CONTROL PLAN INTRODUCTION EPS Group has prepared this quality assurance/quality control (QC) plan for the Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study (CFS) to ensure that MCDOT’s needs are efficiently met. We believe that quality is the responsibility of every individual working on a project and that it is achieved by careful planning and execution of a QC plan tailored specifically to the project. The deliverables of the Hidden Waters Parkway CFS will be a series of technical memoranda that characterize the study corridor and document the alternative generation/selection process. The following procedures will be used to ensure that the highest quality documents are produced resulting in more streamlined review periods and increased client satisfaction. RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY The Project Principal has the responsibility to assure that the necessary personnel are available to work on the project. The Project Manager and the Project Engineer will be responsible for all of the design work and coordination that is performed on the project. Every person working on any element of the project is responsible for the quality of their own work, to ensure that it is accurate, complete and meets the requirements of the project. MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORTS A progress report will be included with each monthly invoice submitted to MCDOT’s Project Manager PRODUCTION REVIEW PROCEDURES As items or tasks are completed, the person completing the task should then go back and review the work by answering the following questions:  Has all of the content specified in the scope of work been adequately addressed in the document? (Checklist will be generated specific to the project scope.)  Is the information presented accurate and correct?  Is it information consistent with the data presented in other reports?  Is the document readable and does it follow a logical path to the conclusion?  Are all of the graphics and tables readable and appropriately labeled?  Does the report cover have the appropriate title, project number, client data, etc?  Has the table of contents been reviewed for the correct section titles, figures, tables, appendices and page numbers?  Have all spelling, grammar, and formatting errors been addressed.  Is the task complete? Once the originator is satisfied that all of the self-check questions have been addressed, the document will be forwarded to the Project Engineer. The Project Engineer will review the document by answering the same questions listed above, mark any needed changes in red, and return the document back to the originator for revision. Only when the originator and Project Engineer are satisfied that all necessary revisions have been made, will the Plan Documents will be forwarded to the Project Manager for review. The Plan Documents will be submitted to the Client only after approval by the Project Manager. This Quality Control Process is illustrated in the following flow chart. EPS Group – Quality Assurance Plan Hidden Waters Parkway CFS 1 EPS QUALITY CONTROL FLOW CHART SUB-CONSULTANT COORDINATION AND COMMUNICATION EPS will contact its sub-consultants on a weekly basis to ensure that progress is being made according to the project schedule. Sub-consultant reports will be subjected to the same QC review process described above before they are submitted to MCDOT. TECHNICAL REVIEW Where production reviews are for the verification of the accuracy and completeness of documents, a technical review is for the assessment of the overall design concept of the project. A technical review will be conducted by EPS, MCDOT and the Technical Advisory Committee. As a minimum, the technical review process should:         Determine the adequacy of the process used to achieve the desired project goals Determine if all opportunities and constraints have been appropriately identified Determine if all viable alternatives have been considered Determine the practicality of the design concept Determine if legal and physical restraints were considered Determine if the design theory, concepts, and project layout are logical Determine if technical specifications are sufficiently comprehensive Determine the constructability of the selected design DOCUMENT CONTROL All documents shall be filed in accordance with the standard departmental filing system (modified to each project’s scope). The engineer shall write the specific filing section on the document to be filed. All communications, whether written or verbal, that concern the Scope of Work, contract conditions, regulatory agency information, etc., should be documented. Documentation should include written EPS Group – Quality Assurance Plan Hidden Waters Parkway CFS 2 verification of verbal conversation, parties to the communication, when it was received, who conveyed it and who received it. Specifically, communication should be handled in the following ways:       All communication should be written and filed, including telephone logs. All written information entering or leaving the office should be copied to the Project Manager or Deputy Project Manager. Standard distribution lists should be developed for all communication. All calculations and design assumptions shall be documented and filed. One complete copy of each submittal should be filed, including plans, specifications, reports, estimates and calculations. Copies of all Client review comments shall be scanned and stored in the project electronic file. REVIEW CHECKLISTS Project documents shall be reviewed per the applicable checklists by the originator and the Project Engineer. Checklists used shall be Client specific and applicable to the project type. Project Managers may review the documents per the checklists but shall primarily determine compatibility with the project scope, compatibility to agreed design concepts, identify potential design conflicts, and assess constructability. Specific checklists for the Hidden Waters CFS documents per the scope of work are as follows: Work Plan □ Schedule, □ Study area boundary, □ Study purpose and objectives, □ Study process and approach used to meet objectives, □ Data collection plan, □ Design standards and guidelines, □ Stakeholder database, □ Key issues and challenges, □ Detailed study tasks, □ Criteria for the evaluation of alternatives, □ Scoping report summary, □ Written quality assurance/quality control plan Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing and Future Corridor Features □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Physical Features Existing Corridor Roadway Conditions Existing Approved Access Conditions and Policies/Guidelines Existing and Future Roadway Network Information Land Use, Jurisdictional Control, Ownership, and Management Relevant Plans, Reports, Guidelines, Studies and Standards Existing Topography/Mapping Identification of Special Interest Areas Technical Memorandum #2 – Environmental Overview □ □ □ □ Cultural Resources Biology Land Use/Socioeconomic/Visual Quality Water Quality EPS Group – Quality Assurance Plan Hidden Waters Parkway CFS 3 □ □ □ □ Hazardous Materials Noise Impacts Air Quality Documentation Technical Memorandum #3 – Conceptual Drainage Report □ Obtain and Review Existing Reports, □ Determine the existing off-site concentration points and flow magnitudes affecting the baseline alignment. □ Contact appropriate agency personnel to identify and summarize past drainage problems, subsidence and fissure areas. Technical Memorandum #4 –Candidate Alignments and Evaluation □ □ □ □ Schematic Drawings Flow Concentration Points Preliminary Cost Estimates Evaluation of Final Candidate Alignments Technical Memorandum #5 –Preferred Alignment □ Standard cross section, □ Plan view with corridor study centerline, right of way lines and drainage features shown on an aerial base map (1” = 200’ scale unless otherwise directed) and printed on 11” x 17” paper, □ Potential areas requiring additional right-of-way, □ Implementation Plan, □ Compute 50- and 100-year discharges at drainage crossing locations for the preferred corridor alignment. Draft Final Report Title Page, Table of Contents, List of Figures, List of Tables, Executive Summary Existing and future corridor features, including: o Corridor Characteristics (natural/man-made), o Roadway Features, o Transportation Network/Travel Demand, o Utilities /Constraints mapping, o Land Use, Ownership and Management, o Environmental summary, o Drainage summary, o Special Analysis Areas, o Relevant Plans/Reports and Guidelines, □ Development and Evaluation of Candidate Alignments o Candidate Alignments and Evaluation Matrix, o Alignment Schematic Drawings, o Conclusions and Recommendations. □ □ □ □ □ □ EPS Group – Quality Assurance Plan Hidden Waters Parkway CFS 4 □ Preferred Alignment o Standard cross-section, o Design Features, o General Access management guidelines if applicable, o Planning-level cost estimates, o Phasing Strategy/Implementation Plan, o Preferred Alignment Drawings, o Right of way needs, o Public Involvement Overview (provided by MCDOT). □ Appendices – The following will be included as appendices of the final report: o Technical Memorandum #1 Existing and Future Corridor Features o Technical Memorandum #2 Environmental Overview o Technical Memorandum #3 Conceptual Drainage Report o Technical Memorandum #4 Candidate Alignments and Evaluation o Technical Memorandum #5 Preferred Alignment o Technical Memorandum #6 – Public and Stakeholder Participation o Summary of field reviews/meetings EPS Group – Quality Assurance Plan Hidden Waters Parkway CFS 5