APPENDIX 6 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 6 – PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION 091337118 Final Report and Executive Summary 2008-046, TT005 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study June 2010 Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study – Watermelon Road to Interstate 10 Contract No.: 2008-046 Work Order No.: TT005 FINAL Technical Memorandum No. 6 Public and Stakeholder Participation Prepared by: May 2010 091337118 Copyright © 2010, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 1.2 2. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND STAKEHOLDERS ........................................................... 4 2.1 2.2 2.3 3. Study Background ..................................................................................................................... 1 Project Study Area..................................................................................................................... 2 Technical Advisory Committee ................................................................................................ 4 Stakeholders ............................................................................................................................... 4 TAC/Stakeholder Meetings ....................................................................................................... 5 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSES ....................................................................................................................... 6 3.1 3.2 3.3 Scoping Phase Public Meeting .................................................................................................. 6 Alternatives Analysis Phase Public Meeting ........................................................................... 7 Findings and Recommendations Phase Public Meeting ......................................................... 7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Project Study Area .................................................................................................................... 3 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix TM6-1. TAC/Stakeholder Documentation Appendix TM6-2. MCDOT RightRoads Program Summary of Public Involvement 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 6 Public and Stakeholder Participation i Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study May 2010 1. INTRODUCTION Technical Memorandum No. 6 (TM 6), entitled Public and Stakeholder Participation, documents the results of the interaction with partnering agencies, stakeholders, and the general public throughout the course of the Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study. Specifically, TM 6 provides a summary of the study background and study area; a description of the Technical Advisory Committee and stakeholder participation; and a summary of the general public involvement effort. Additional detailed information is included in the following companion documents: Existing and Future Corridor Features (TM 1), Environmental Overview (TM 2), Conceptual Drainage Report (TM 3), Development and Evaluation of Candidate Alternative Alignments (TM 4), and Detailed Preferred Alignment (TM 5). Engaging partnering agencies, stakeholders, and the public in building consensus has been and will continue to be critical to the success of this study, as well as any future implementation of its recommendations. 1.1 Study Background In July 2008, the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) completed the Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study (known as the Hassayampa Framework Study), which recommended a comprehensive roadway network to meet the future traffic demands that result when the area west of the White Tank Mountains is completely developed (hereafter referred to as buildout travel demand). This long-range regional transportation network included the “Arizona Parkway” as a new facility type to supplement more traditional roadway classifications in meeting projected travel demand within the study area. The Arizona Parkway utilizes a distinct intersection treatment that prohibits left turns at major cross-street intersections and controls intersection traffic movements with two-phased signal control. Left-turn movements are made indirectly using directional left-turn crossovers immediately downstream of the cross-street intersection. A north-south Arizona Parkway known as the Hidden Waters Parkway was demonstrated to be needed in the Hassayampa Framework Study that generally is offset about two miles to the west of the Hassayampa River. The northern portion of the Hidden Waters Parkway is proposed to cross Interstate 10 at 339th Avenue (where a traffic interchange already exists) and extend southward to Old U.S. Highway 80 (Old US 80). Similar to the Hassayampa Framework Study, the Interstate 8 and Interstate 10 Hidden Valley Transportation Framework Study (known as the Hidden Valley Framework Study), completed by MAG in October 2009, indicates the need for a network of Arizona Parkways to meet the future buildout travel demand for the area southwest of Interstate 10 (I-10) and north of Interstate 8 (I8). In the Hidden Valley Framework Study, the need was demonstrated for the Hidden Waters Parkway identified previously in the Hassayampa Framework Study to extend further south, generally following the Old US 80 alignment, to Watermelon Road in Gila Bend. In May 2009, the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) retained KimleyHorn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) to conduct a corridor feasibility study for the southern portion of the Hidden Waters Parkway between Watermelon Road and I-10. 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 6 Public and Stakeholder Participation 1 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study May 2010 1.2 Project Study Area The project study area for the proposed Hidden Waters Parkway is approximately 39 miles in length between Watermelon Road and I-10 and is roughly two miles wide, centered on the northsouth segment of Old US 80. North of the Cactus Rose Road/Old US 80 intersection, where Old US 80 diverges to the east, the study area broadens to a four-mile wide corridor, centered on the 347th Avenue section-line alignment, extending north to the Salome Highway. North of the Salome Highway, the study area width narrows back to two miles, following the 339th Avenue alignment north to I-10. The study area covers approximately 93.9 square miles. The project study area is shown in Figure 1. 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 6 Public and Stakeholder Participation 2 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study May 2010 me Hw y H as sa y amp a R r ive 331st Ave Sa lo 363rd Ave PA L O V E RD E HILLS 339th Ave W H I T E TA N K M O U N TA I N S Gila River B U C K E Y E H IL L S Project Study Area Buckeye GIL A B E ND MO UN TA IN S M AR La Paz County A Project Study Area Gila R P Gila County O Old US 80 IC Yavapai County M O U N TA IN S iver op Maric Watermelon Rd a Rd Yuma County Gila Bend Pinal County 0 1.25 2.5 Maricopa County 5 Miles Pima County Sept. 2009 Figure 1 – Project Study Area 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 6 Public and Stakeholder Participation 3 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study May 2010 2. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND STAKEHOLDERS 2.1 Technical Advisory Committee A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was established by MCDOT to provide technical oversight and guidance throughout the study duration. The TAC was comprised of representatives from the following public agencies: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ Arizona Department of Transportation; Arizona Game and Fish Department; Federal Highway Administration; Flood Control District of Maricopa County; MAG; Maricopa County Planning and Development; MCDOT; Town of Buckeye; and Town of Gila Bend. The role and responsibility of the TAC was to meet at key decision and milestone points during the study to receive information on study progress, offer advice and guidance on study issues, and to inform the management of their respective agencies and organizations of the project study progress. The TAC was also requested to review and comment on all draft technical memoranda and the draft final report. Comment response forms are included in Appendix TM6-1 that show how comments submitted by the TAC regarding the draft study documents were addressed in the final study documents. 2.2 Stakeholders Early in the study process, a concerted effort was made to identify potential project stakeholders. A database of over 120 individuals was compiled and maintained throughout the study (see Appendix TM6-1). Several of the stakeholders were already part of the TAC. Additional stakeholders included representatives from the following agencies and organizations: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ Arizona State Land Department; Businesses; Center for Desert Archaeology; City of Phoenix; Community Organizations; Developers; Homeowners Associations; Irrigation and Utility Companies; Maricopa County Farm Bureau; Property Owners; Residents; School Districts; 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 6 Public and Stakeholder Participation 4 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study May 2010 ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ Sonoran Institute; Tribal Governments; Union Pacific Railroad; U.S. Bureau of Land Management; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. The role and responsibility of the stakeholders was to represent their interests, offer advice and guidance on study issues, and build consensus. 2.3 TAC/Stakeholder Meetings All individuals in the stakeholder database were invited to participate in four combined TAC/stakeholder meetings that were scheduled at key milestones throughout the study process as follows: ƒ July 22, 2009 – Study Purpose, Data Collection, and Issues Identification; ƒ September 17, 2009 – Review Existing and Future Corridor Features, Environmental Overview, Conceptual Drainage Report, Constraints, and Evaluation Criteria; ƒ November 3, 2009 – Review Conceptual Alternatives and Develop Candidate Alternatives; and ƒ February 3, 2010 – Review Alternatives Evaluation, Discuss Preferred Alignment, and Develop Consensus on Study Recommendations. Additional one-on-one meetings with stakeholders were conducted where necessary to obtain stakeholder input. All meetings were well attended with a valuable exchange of questions, answers, and input to the study findings and recommendations. The TAC/stakeholder meeting agendas, presentations, and meeting summaries are included in Appendix TM6-1. 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 6 Public and Stakeholder Participation 5 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study May 2010 3. PUBLIC OPEN HOUSES The MCDOT RightRoads Program, with assistance from the project team, conducted three public open house meetings at critical milestones in the study process as follows: ƒ ƒ ƒ September 22, 2009 – “Project Scoping Phase” public meeting to 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 also provided the study team members with an opportunity to discuss and elicit feedback regarding the study purpose, goals and objectives; December 1, 2009 – “Alternatives Analysis Phase” public meeting to provide the community an opportunity to comment on the roadway alignment alternatives being evaluated for the corridor; and March 3, 2010 – “Study Findings and Recommendations Phase” public meeting to present the findings and recommendations of the study, including the preferred parkway alignment, the rightof-way footprint, and preliminary engineering details for the future Hidden Waters Parkway. The public meetings were conducted in an “open house” format to provide a free, open, and accurate exchange of information between the project team and the public regarding specific issues and questions. Graphics, handouts, aerials, and display board exhibits presented study information. Comment sheets were distributed to all those in attendance so they could provide written comments. The following meeting summaries provide highlights of the input received from the public. Additional detail on the public involvement process is provided in the MCDOT RightRoads Program Summary of Public Involvement in Appendix TM6-2. 3.1 Scoping Phase Public Meeting Meeting Purpose: To gather public comment regarding the study area, existing conditions, current corridor deficiencies, future transportation needs and public review of overall study goals and objectives. Meeting Time: 5:00 – 7:00 p.m., September 22, 2009 Meeting Location: Arlington Elementary School, 9410 S. 355th Avenue, Arlington, AZ 85332 Meeting Attendance: 65 people Meeting Comments: ƒ Finish building out SR 85 and then you won't need the Hidden Waters Parkway; ƒ The parkway will bring more people to the area – local residents moved there for the rural ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ setting and lifestyle; Protect Gillespie Dam but allow access for appropriate use (local non-vehicular & pedestrian traffic; Consider new Transwestern and El Paso gas pipelines; Verify 69 kV power line location; Use the Old US 80 corridor south of Gillespie Dam and 339th Avenue south of I-10; Consider proposed new mining site near the Mission Materials mining site; Verify how the proposed future north/south rail line connects to the existing rail line through Gila Bend; The parkway is not needed and would be a waste of money; 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 6 Public and Stakeholder Participation 6 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study May 2010 ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ It makes sense to preserve right-of-way now for future growth; When will the parkway be constructed?; Constructing the parkway in wash areas would minimize property impacts; Concerned about how the parkway will impact irrigation facilities and the movement of farm equipment; ƒ How does this project relate to the I-11 project?; ƒ Concerned about the timing and location of proposed new rail line; and ƒ Why is another road needed in addition to SR 85 and Old US 80?. 3.2 Alternatives Analysis Phase Public Meeting Meeting Purpose: To gather public comment regarding preliminary study findings, traffic analysis, corridor alignment alternatives and future roadway options. Meeting Time: 5:00 – 7:00 p.m., December 1, 2009 Meeting Location: Arlington Elementary School, 9410 S. 355th Avenue, Arlington, AZ 85332 Meeting Attendance: 34 people Meeting Comments: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ 3.3 Need to provide for farm equipment to cross the parkway at culvert/siphon locations; Don't divide agricultural parcels; Locate the parkway adjacent to floodplains where possible to protect farm land from flooding; 339th Avenue is the best alternative alignment south of I-10; How does the I-11 project relate to Hidden Waters?; Support a new bridge crossing of the Gila River; Preserve Old US 80 bridge for bicycle and pedestrian use; Don't want to lose the rural character of the area by building more homes and roads; When will the parkway be built and how will it be funded?; Look at ways to reduce flooding problems; Concerned about protection of the canal north of the Gila River crossing; Don't follow US 80 alignment south of Gila River; and The final selection needs to stay on as much state and federal land as possible and avoid as much existing agriculture land as possible. It appears Alternative C should be the route to take from Watermelon Road until it meets up with Alternative B just north of the Gillespie Dam. From there, follow Alternative B to I-10. Findings and Recommendations Phase Public Meeting Meeting Purpose: To gather public comment regarding study findings and the “Preferred Alternative”, recommended access management strategies and guidelines, and an improvement phasing timeline. Meeting Time: 5:00 – 7:00 p.m., March 3, 2010 Meeting Location: Arlington Elementary School, 9410 S. 355th Avenue, Arlington, AZ 85332 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 6 Public and Stakeholder Participation 7 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study May 2010 Meeting Attendance: 14 people Meeting Comments: ƒ I think a parkway along the Old US 80 alignment is not necessary. I am glad you are ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ rehabilitating the bridge; We need ingress and egress across the canal, off of the parkway, on the north side of the intersection at Riggs Road to provide access for Rick Sutter and others across the canal; This is the first meeting I have been able to make. Exhibits and staff helpful and cordial. Thanks for all the hard work. Very informative; How does the I-11 project relate to the Hidden Waters Parkway?; Are there any anticipated problem areas from a soil stability standpoint?; How can we get more information about related archaeological studies?; When will the parkway be built and how will it be funded?; Why do we need another facility that duplicates SR 85?; A higher speed, safer facility is needed in the study area; What kind of access will be provided to properties on the east side of Old US 80 just south of the Old US 80 bridge?; What east/west connections to Old US 80 will be provided north of the Old US 80 bridge?; 339th Avenue is a better location for the parkway than 351st Avenue or 331st Avenue; Is the location of the Watermelon Parkway intersection finalized?; How will Hidden Waters tie into SR85 in the vicinity of Gila Bend Municipal Airport?; and What is the location/layout of the 801 interchange?. 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 6 Public and Stakeholder Participation 8 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study May 2010 APPENDIX TM6-1 TAC/STAKEHOLDER DOCUMENTATION 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 6 Public and Stakeholder Participation Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study May 2010 HIDDEN WATERS CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY TAC/STAKEHOLDER LIST Title First Name Last Name Company/Agency Title Business Address City State ZIP Code Business Phone E-mail Address Mr. Jeff Dana 339th & 10, LLC - Hidden Waters Ranch Attorney 7980 E. McClain Dr., Suite #5 Scottsdale AZ 85260 480-577-5966 jeff@andersonlandllc.com Mr. Mike Bruder ADOT Transportation Manager 1611 W. Jackson St. MD EM101 Phoenix AZ 85007 602-712-6836 mbruder@azdot.gov Ms. Charla Glendening ADOT Multimodal Planning Division 206 S. 17th Ave. Phoenix AZ 85007 606-712-7376 cglendening@azdot.gov Mr. Michael Jones ADOT Yuma District Maintenance Engineer 2243 E. Gila Ridge Rd. Yuma AZ 85365 928-317-2160 mjones@azdot.gov Mr. Larry Langer ADOT Assistant State Engineer 1611 W. Jackson St. MD EM101 Phoenix AZ 85007 602-712-7559 llanger@azdot.gov Ms. Velvet Mathew ADOT Project Manager 1611 W. Jackson St. MD EM101 Phoenix AZ 85007 602-712-3062 vmathew@azdot.gov Mr. Floyd Roehrich ADOT State Engineer 206 S. 17th Ave. MD 102A Phoenix AZ 85007 602-712-8274 froehrich@azdot.gov Ms. Jennifer Toth ADOT Director of Multi Modal Planning Division 206 S. 17th Ave. MD 310B Phoenix AZ 85007 602-712-8274 jtoth@azdot.gov Mr. Paul Patane ADOT - Yuma District District Engineer 2243 E. Gila Ridge Rd. Y200 Yuma AZ 85365 928-317-2115 ppatane@azdot.gov Ms. Sandy Haddock Agua Fria Ch-AAS President 6901 E. Windsor Ave. Scottsdale AZ 85257 480-481-0582 azmacaw44@cox.net Mr Bart Smith Ak-Chin Indian Community Senior Planner 42507 W. Peters & Nall Rd. Maricopa AZ 85238 520-568-1073 bsmith@ak-chin.nsn.us Mr. Chad Turner Arlington School District #47 Superintendent 9410 S. 335th Ave. Arlington AZ 85322 Mr. Edward Dietrich ASLD Senior Project Manager 1616 W. Adams St. Phoenix AZ 85007 602-542-2653 edietrich@land.az.gov Mr. Gordon Taylor ASLD Planning and Engineering 1616 W. Adams St. Phoenix AZ 85007 602-542-2647 gtaylor@land.az.gov Ms. Lillian Moodey ASLD Planning and Engineering 1616 W. Adams St. Phoenix AZ 85007 Mr. Ruben Ojeda ASLD ROW Section Manager 1616 W. Adams St. Phoenix AZ 85007 602-542-2648 rojeda@land.az.gov Mr. Manny Patel ASLD Water Resource Engineer 1616 W. Adams St. Phoenix AZ 85007 602-364-1596 mpatel@land.az.gov Ms. Susan Russell ASLD Right-of-Way 1616 W. Adams St. Phoenix AZ 85007 602-542-3115 srussell@land.az.gov Ms. Danica Norris AZ Wilderness Coalition Community Organizer P.O. Box 13524 Phoenix AZ 85002-3524 602-252-5530 Danica@azwild.org 5000 W. Carefree Highway Phoenix AZ 85086 Ms. Laura Canaca AZGFD Project Evaluation Program Supervisor chadt@arlingtonk8.org lmoodey@land.az.gov Mr. Daniel Nelson AZGFD Project Evaluation Specialist 5000 W. Carefree Highway Phoenix AZ 85086 623-236-7513 dnelson@azgfd.gov Mr. Troy Smith AZGFD Habitat Program Manager 9140 E. 28th St. Yuma AZ 85365 928-341-4068 trsmith@azgfd.gov Ms. Dana Warnecke AZGFD Habitat Specialist 7200 E. University Ave. Mesa AZ 85207 480-324-3547 dwarnecke@azgfd.gov Mr. Steven Bales Bales&Bales President 20600 W. Beloat Rd. Buckeye AZ 85326 602-469-4776 sbales@hughes.net Ms. Susan Demmitt Beus Gilbert - Belmont Attorney 4800 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 6000 Scottsdale AZ 85251 480-429-3017 sdemmitt@beusgilbert.com Ms. Lindsay Schube Beus Gilbert - Hassayampa Village Attorney 4800 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 6000 Scottsdale AZ 85251 480-429-3017 lschube@beusgilbert.com Ms. Jeanine Guy Buckeye Assistant Town Manager 530 East Monroe Avenue Buckeye AZ 85326 623-349-6000 Mr. Michael Melton Buckeye Elementary School District #33 Superintendent 210 S. 6th Street Buckeye AZ 85326 Mr. Ed Gerak Buckeye Irrigation and Water Conservation District General Manager P.O. Box 1726 Buckeye AZ 85326 jguy@buckeyeaz.gov mmelton@besd.k12.az.us 623-386-2196 egerak@bwcdd.com Ms. Beverly Hurley Buckeye Union High School District # 201 Superintendent 902 Eason Ave. Buckeye AZ 85326 Ms. Deanna Kupcik Buckeye Valley Chamber of Commerce President/CEO 508 E. Monroe Ave. Buckeye AZ 85326 623-386-2727 deanna@buckeyevalleychamber.org Ms. Jo Ann Goodlow Bureau of Land Management Realty Specialist 21605 N. 7th Ave. Phoenix AZ 85027 623-580-5548 joann_goodlow@blm.gov 1 bhurley@buhsd.org 5/19/2010 HIDDEN WATERS CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY TAC/STAKEHOLDER LIST Title First Name Last Name Company/Agency Title Business Address City State ZIP Code Business Phone Mr. Steven Bott Bureau of Reclamation Realty Specialist, Phoenix Area Office Mr. Peter Castaneda Bureau of Reclamation Chief, Water and Lands Division Mr. Jay Lininger Center for Biological Diversity Executive Director P.O. Box 1178 E-mail Address 6150 W. Thunderbird Rd. Phoenix AZ 85306-4001 623-773-6233 sbott@usbr.gov 6150 W. Thunderbird Rd. Glendale AZ 85306-4001 623-773-6240 pcastaneda@usbr.gov Flagstaff AZ 86002 Mr. Andy Laurenzi Center for Desert Archaeology Field Representative 300 E. University Blvd, Ste 230 Tucson AZ 85705 520-882-6946 alaurenzi@cdarc.org Mr. Marty Arambel City of Phoenix Project Manager 3060 S. 27th Ave. Phoenix AZ 85009-6810 602-534-1157 marty.arambel@phoenix.gov Mr. Ray Dovalina City of Phoenix Deputy Streets Transportation Director 200 W. Washington St. Phoenix AZ 85003 602-262-4057 raimundo.dovalina@phoenix.gov Mr. Dan Matthews City of Phoenix Engineering Supervisor 200 W. Washington St. Phoenix AZ 85003 602-495-2038 dan.matthews@phoenix.gov Mr. Mike Cronin Douglas Ranch/El Dorado Holdings Douglas Ranch Director of Entitlements 426 N. 44th St., Suite 100 Phoenix AZ 85008 602-955-2424 mcronin@eldoradoholdings.net Ms. Dawn Meininger Edge Land Consulting, Inc. - Cipriani President Mr. Ron Rayner Enterprise Ranch Mr. John Hathaway FCDMC Ms. Jen Pokorski FCDMC Project Manager 2801 W. Durango Street Phoenix AZ Ms. Valerie Swick FCDMC Project Manager 2801 W. Durango Street Phoenix AZ Ms. Sharon Gordon FHWA Area 3 Engineer 4000 N. Central Ave. Phoenix AZ Mr. Rick Buss Gila Bend Town Manager P.O. Box A Gila Bend Mr. Eric Fitzer Gila Bend Planning and Economic Development Director P.O. Box A Gila Bend Mr. James Mosley Gila Bend Union High School District #24 Superintendent P.O. Box V Gila Bend Mr. Barnaby Lewis Gila River Indian Community Cultural Resources Specialist P.O. Box 2140 Mr. Sasha Saliego Gila River Indian Community Transportation Planner P.O. Box 97 Mr. Earl Runte Gunsight Development Corp. President 17238 N. 66th Lane Mr. Glenn Hickman Hickman's Egg Ranch, Inc. Owner Mr. Russ Brock Home Builders Association of Central Arizona Vice President of Municipal Affairs Mr. Murray Johnson Johnson Valley Partners General Partner 30261 W. Lower River Rd. Project Manager P.O. Box 10317 Phoenix AZ 85064 602-510-5070 dawn@edgelandaz.com 14929 W. Broadway Rd. Goodyear AZ 85338 623-932-1834 attranch@agristar.net 2801 W. Durango Street Phoenix AZ 85009 602-506-0503 joh@mail.maricopa.gov 85009 602-506-4695 jmp@mail.maricopa.gov 85009 602-506-2929 vas@mail.maricopa.gov 85012 602-382-8972 sharon.gordon@dot.gov AZ 85337 928-683-2255 fbuss@gilabendaz.org AZ 85337 928-683-2255 efitzer@gilabendaz.org AZ 85337 Sacaton AZ 85247 520-562-3570 Sacaton AZ 85147 520-562-6306 sasha.pachito@gric.nsn.us Glendale AZ 85308 623-594-8227 earlrunte@cox.net 6515 S. Jackrabbit Tr. Buckeye AZ 85326 623-872-1120 ghickman@hickmanseggs.com 16430 N. Scottsdale Rd. Scottsdale AZ 85254 602-274-6545 brockr@hbaca.org Buckeye AZ 85326 623-444-2670 murray@jvmgt.com jamesm@gilabend.k12.az.us Ms. Jill Clements Jokake President of Jokake Real Estate Services 5013 East Washington St. Phoenix AZ 85034 602-224-4551 jill.clements@jokake.com Ms. Kathy Morton Jokake Project Coordinator 5013 East Washington St. Phoenix AZ 85034 602-224-4509 kathy.morton@jokake.com Mr. Gary Smith Jokake Principal 5013 East Washington St. Phoenix AZ 85034 602-224-4507 gary.smith@jokake.com Mr. Ben Liu Kimley-Horn and Associates Drainage Analyst 7878 North 16th Street Phoenix AZ 85020 602-906-1378 benjamin.liu@kimley-horn.com Mr. Bob Eichinger Kimley-Horn and Associates Drainage Project Manager 7878 N. 16th St. Phoenix AZ 85020 602-906-1182 bob.eichinger@kimley-horn.com Ms. Sarah Eichinger Kimley-Horn and Associates Environmental Planner 7878 N. 16th St. Phoenix AZ 85020 602-371-4577 sarah.eichinger@kimley-horn.com Mr. Michael Grandy Kimley-Horn and Associates Deputy Project Manager 1255 West Baseline Rd. Mesa AZ 85022 480-777-4730 michael.grandy@kimley-horn.com Mr. Frank Hoffman Kimley-Horn and Associates Roadway Engineer 7878 N. 16th St. Phoenix AZ 85020 602-216-1272 frank.hoffman@kimley-horn.com Mr. Bryan Patterson Kimley-Horn and Associates Project Manager 1255 West Baseline Rd. Mesa AZ 85022 480-777-4714 bryan.patterson@kimley-horn.com 2 5/19/2010 HIDDEN WATERS CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY TAC/STAKEHOLDER LIST Title First Name Last Name Company/Agency Title Mr. Mark Mr. Larry Turner Kimley-Horn and Associates Environmental Project Manager Yount LKY Development Compay, Inc. Mr. Bob Hazlett MAG Senior Engineer Business Address City State ZIP Code Business Phone E-mail Address 7878 N. 16th St. Phoenix AZ 85020 602-216-1203 mark.turner@kimley-horn.com 5040 E. Shea Blvd. Scottsdale AZ 85254 480-951-1281 lyount@lkydev.com 302 N. First Avenue, Suite 300 Phoenix AZ 85003 602-254-6300 bhazlett@mag.maricopa.gov Mr. Tim Strow MAG Transportation Planner 302 N. First Avenue, Suite 300 Phoenix AZ 85003 602-254-6300 tstrow@mag.maricopa.gov Ms. Jeannette Fish Maricopa County Farm Bureau Executive Director 4001 East Broadway Road, Suite B-9 Phoenix AZ 85040 602-437-1330 mcfb@qwestoffice.net Mr. Matthew Holm MC P&D Principal Planner 501 North 44th Street, Suite 100 Phoenix AZ 85008 602-506-7162 matthewholm@mail.maricopa.gov Mr. Alex Arriaga MCDOT Plans Review 2901 W. Durango St. Phoenix AZ 85009 602-506-6292 alexarriaga@mail.maricopa.gov Mr. David Brown MCDOT Development Services 2901 W. Durango St. Phoenix AZ 85009 602-506-4856 davidbrown@mail.maricopa.gov Ms. Roberta Crowe MCDOT Public Information Officer 2900 W. Durango St. Phoenix AZ 85009 602-506-8003 RobertaCrowe@mail.maricopa.gov Mr. Tomi Ghazal MCDOT Engineer 2901 W. Durango St. Phoenix AZ 85009 602-506-5427 tomighazal@mail.maricopa.gov Mr. Robert Herz MCDOT Engineer 2901 W. Durango St. Phoenix AZ 85009 602-506-4760 rherz@mail.maricopa.gov MS. Michele Kogl MCDOT Development Services Manager 2901 W. Durango St. Phoenix AZ 85009 602-506-8799 michelekogl@mail.maricopa.gov Ms. Denise Lacey MCDOT Senior Planner 2901 W. Durango St. Phoenix AZ 85009 602-506-6172 deniselacey@mail.maricopa.gov Mr. Mike Sabatini MCDOT Division Manager 2901 W. Durango St. Phoenix AZ 85009 602-506-8628 mikesabatini@mail.maricopa.gov Mr. Tom Sonnemann MCDOT Bridge Engineer 2901 W. Durango St. Phoenix AZ 85009 602-506-4880 tomsonnemann@mail.maricopa.gov Mr. Mitch Wagner MCDOT Senior Planner 2901 W. Durango St. Phoenix AZ 85009 602-506-8054 mitchwagner@mail.maricopa.gov Mr. Samir Hatab MCDOT - Engineering Civil Engineer 2901 W. Durango St. Phoenix AZ 85009 602-506-2867 samirhatab@mail.maricopa.gov Mr. Hugh Davidson MCDOT - Environ Planning Environmental Program Manager 2901 W. Durango St. Phoenix AZ 85009 602-506-8082 hughdavidson@mail.maricopa.gov Mr. Joe Pinto MCDOT - Environ Planning Environmental Planner 2901 W. Durango St. Phoenix AZ 85009 602-506-8068 joepinto@mail.maricopa.gov Mr. Nicolaas Swart MCDOT - Traffic Traffic Engineer 2901 W. Durango St. Phoenix AZ 85009 602-506-0599 nicolaasswart@mail.maricopa.gov Ms. Hedy Hall MCDOT: ROW Row - Agent 2801 W. Durango St. Phoenix AZ 85009 602-506-4897 hhall@mail.maricopa.gov Mr. Nariman Zadeh MCDOT-PMO Project Manager 2901 W. Durango St. Phoenix AZ 85009 602-506-8623 narimanzadeham@mail.maricopa.gov Mr. Andy Wojakiewicz MCDOT-Structures Engineer 2901 W. Durango St. Phoenix AZ 85009 602-506-8625 andrzejwojakiewicz@mail.maricopa.gov Mr. John Utz Paloma Irrigation District District Manager 38401 W. 1-8 Gila Bend AZ 85337 928-683-2236 paloma2@mindspring.com Ms. Rita Lauderdale Paloma School District # 94 Superintendent PO Box 175, HCR 1 Gila Bend AZ 85337 928-683-2588 rlauderdale@palomaesd.org Ms. Clara Vinzant Paloma School District # 94 Head Teacher PO Box 175, HCR 1 Gila Bend AZ 85337 928-683-2588 cvinzant@palomaesd.org Rev. Ronald Koplitz Phoenix Valley West Property Owner 907 E. Broadmor Dr. Tempe AZ 85282 480-967-5842 rk.mek@cox.net Mr. Marvin John Property Owner Property Owner 25910 W. Baseline Rd. Buckeye AZ 85326 Mr. Tom DeJong Property Owner Property Owner 14400 S. Airport Rd. Buckeye AZ 85326 Mr. Manuel Flores Property Owner Lot A40 Property Owner 17311 E. 40 Highway Independence MO 64055 Mr. Bill Kerr Property Owner Property Owner P.O. Box 1302 Buckeye AZ 85326 Mr. Danny Gladden Property Owner Property Owner P.O. Box 1061 Buckeye AZ 85326 3 5/19/2010 HIDDEN WATERS CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY TAC/STAKEHOLDER LIST Title First Name Last Name Company/Agency Title Business Address City State ZIP Code Mr. Rick Saylor Property Owner Property Owner 6404 South Wilson Rd. Buckeye AZ 85326 Mr. Leon Hardison Property Owner Property Owner P.O. Box 35 Arlington AZ 85322 Ms. Beth Huerta Property Owner Property Owner 14295 W. La Reata Ave. Goodyear AZ 85395 Business Phone beth.huerta@att.net Mr. Tim Wood Property Owner Property Owner P.O. Box 309 Buckeye AZ 85326 Mr. Robert Parker Property Owner Property Owner 31100 W. Old Hwy. 80 Palo Verde AZ 85343 Ms. Ella Pierpoint Property Owner Property Owner 30125 W. Pierpoint Rd. Arlington AZ 85322 602-622-2364 Mr. Roy Pierpoint Property Owner Property Owner 30125 W. Pierpoint Rd. Arlington AZ 85322 602-662-2364 Mr. Rick Sutter Property Owner Property Owner P.O. Box 1198 Buckeye AZ 85326 623-386-3471 Mr. Tim Vanderhart Property Owner Property Owner 11602 S. Bruner Palo Verde AZ 85343 Mr. R.M. Narramore Property Owner Property Owner P.O. Box 81 Palo Verde AZ 85343 Mr. Gary Gable Property Owner Property Owner P.O. Box 10 Arlington AZ 85322 E-mail Address epierpoint@yahoo.com Mr. Stan Ashby Roosevelt Irrigation District Superintendent 103 W. Baseline Rd. Buckeye AZ 85326 623-386-2046 sashby@rooseveltirrigation.org Ms. Carolyn Oberholtzer Rose Law Group, pc - Insignia and Desert Creek Attorney 5513 N. Scottsdale Rd. Scottsdale AZ 85250 480-505-3934 carolyno@roselawgroup.com Salt River Pee Posh Indian Community NAGPRA/Cultural Preservation Program Coordinator 10005 E. Osborn Rd. Scottsdale AZ 85256 480-850-8774 angela.garcia-lewis@srpmic-nsn.gov Chairman P.O. Box GG Gila Bend AZ 85337 Ms. Angela Garcia-Lewis Mr. Albert Manuel San Lucy District Mr. Eric Gorsegner Sonoran Institute Mr. Peter Steere Tohono O'odham Nation Ms. Julie Frazier Tonto Nation Planning Department Mr. Fred Stevens, Jr. Tonto Nation Planning Department Mr. David Schwake Tonopah Area Coalition Mr. Craig Weaver Tonopah Area Coalition Mr. Jack Arend Tonopah Valley Community Council President Mr. Aziz Aman Union Pacific Railroad Project Engineer 2073 E. Jade Dr. Chandler AZ 85286 Sells AZ 85634 928-683-2913 amanuel@toua.net 602-393-4310 x5 egorsegner@sonoraninstitute.org 520-383-3377 psteere@toua.net Program Manager P.O. Box 837 P.O. Box 837 Sells AZ 85634 520-383-5546 julie.frazier@tonation-nsn.gov Planner I P.O. Box 837 Sells AZ 85634 520-383-5546 fred.stevensjr@tonation-nsn.gov 3499 N. 371st Ave. Tonopah AZ 85354 ???- 999-9528 jdschwake@mac.com 923 Mercer Lane Phoenix AZ 85029 602-870-8730 craig@cybervault.com 623 386-7857 jkarend@cybertrails.com 480-415-2364 aaman@up.com Ms Debra Bills USFWS Field Supervisor for Central Arizona 2321 W. Royal Palm Rd., Suite 103 Phoenix AZ 85021 debra_bills@fws.gov Mr. Steve Spangle USFWS Field Supervisor 2321 W. Royal Palm Rd., Suite 103 Phoenix AZ 85021 steve_spangle@fws.gov Mr. Thomas Chlebanowski W.C. Scoutten Inc. Senior Engineer 1626 N. Litchfield Rd., Suite 310 Goodyear AZ 85395 623-547-4661 x 316 Buckeye Town Engineer 1626 N. Litchfield Rd., Suite 310 Goodyear AZ 85395 623-547-4661 x222 woody@scoutten.com 20680 W. Main St. Buckeye AZ 85396 623-979-6646 robinbuckeyesun@live.com thomas@scoutten.com Mr. Woody Scoutten W.C. Scoutten Inc. Ms. Robin Polk We Are Buckeye Mr. Doug Nelson Woolsey Flood Protection District District Counsel 7000 N. 16th St., Suite 120-307 Phoenix AZ 85020 602-395-1612 dougcnelson@cox.net Mr. Uri Schumm Wyatt Sure Farm LLC Manager P.O. Box 730 Wittman AZ 85361 602-697-6949 beemerguyrt@gmail.com 4 5/19/2010 Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Summary of TAC Comments and Responses on Technical Memoranda Tech. Memo No. Page No. 1 1 1 2 1 9 1 9 1 1 A. B. C. D. Chapter 2 Chapter 2 Reviewer Tim Strow, MAG Dana Warnecke, AGFD Denise Lacey, MCDOT Initial Final Comment Response Response Response Sec.1.1, 1st paragraph: Please change name to Interstate 10 Revised per comment. A A / Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study. nd Revised per comment. GOAL 3: 2 bullet; include wildlife areas in the list…”including wildlife corridors, state wildlife areas and A A archaeological sites…” Revised per comment. Sec. 2.2.9, 1st bullet point – Remove space between “and is” and the comma. A A You need to add the disclaimer that the MAG build out traffic Tim Strow, projections are “unofficial” on everything with MAG traffic MAG volumes. Include reference to “Arlington Wildlife Area Management Plan; Arizona Game and Fish Department, June 21, 1997” Issues to be bulleted include: • Maintaining existing access from the north to Arlington Wildlife Area via Old US 80 and Arlington School Road Dana • Maintaining wildlife habitat connectivity and Warnecke, movement corridors between Arlington Wildlife Area AGFD and agricultural lands, state lands and BLM lands to the west of Arlington Wildlife Area and Buckeye Hills. Incorporate bridge and culvert designs that facilitate movement for mule deer and other wildlife. Mule deer currently move east from BLM lands to agricultural fields for forage and Gila River area for water. What about Sonoran Desert Open Space Plan? Dana Warnecke, MAG Maricopa Associations of Governments. 1995. Desert AGFD Spaces: An Open Space Plan for the Maricopa Associations of Governments. Phoenix, Arizona. Will Comply or Clarify Will Evaluate Additional Information Needed No Action Required Contract No. 2008-046 A A Added “unofficial” in text and on Figure 9a and Figure 9b. Documents discussing detailed environmental issues and features are addressed in TM 2. Reference to this document and text corresponding to the comments in the second bullet of this comment has been added to TM 2. B B A A TM 1 states that one of the primary objectives of the study is to maintain reasonable access for adjacent developments/properties. This would certainly include the Arlington Wildlife Area. Documents discussing detailed environmental issues and features are addressed in TM 2. Reference to this document has been added to TM 2. Page 1 of 13 Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Summary of TAC Comments and Responses on Technical Memoranda Tech. Memo No. Page No. Reviewer 1 18 Denise Lacey, MCDOT 1 23 Denise Lacey, MCDOT Comment Figure 4c-Zoning – Why is the RU-190 area indicated as gray instead of the legend shown green? Initial Final Response Response B A B A Sec. 3.3.3 – Last paragraph seems out of place Sec. 3.4.2, 3rd Paragraph – Please spell out PGSI. 1 28 Tim Strow, MAG B D B A The Arizona Game and Fish Department (Department) 1 1 1 A. B. C. D. manages over 5,000 acres of wildlife areas along the Gila River adjacent to the Buckeye Hills including the Robbins Butte Wildlife Area, the Arlington Wildlife Area, the Powers Dana Butte Wildlife Area, the Fred Weiler Greenbelt, and the PLO Chapter 3 Warnecke, 1015 lands that are BLM lands withdrawn to the U.S. Fish AGFD and Wildlife Service and managed by the Department for wildlife management. Collectively, these lands are called the Lower Gila River Wildlife Management Areas Complex. Issue: check to see if any of these lands are within the planning area. Fig. 13 pg 37 indicates yes Include reference to: *Gila Bend – Sierra Estrella Linkage Design (Beier et al. 2008 or www.corridordesign.org) And Troy Smith, 38 *Potential Linkage Zones (PLZs): 73 (Gila Bend Mountains AGFD – North Maricopa Mountains) and 151 (Gila/Salt River Corridor Granite Reef – Gillespie Dam) (Nordhaugen et al. 2006) Need to use the final Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Appendix Tim Strow, Transportation Network recommended framework. The TM1-2, MAG version that is used in Figure 7.1 is not valid. I will send you Figure 7.1 the final network. Will Comply or Clarify Will Evaluate Additional Information Needed No Action Required Contract No. 2008-046 Response RU-190 area is green, matching the green in the legend for RU-190. The gray color represents Rural Residential (RR). Added “RR” text label to Figure 4c to clarify zoning of gray area. Created separate section for existing and planned developments. Sec. 2.2.7 indicates PGSI stands for Parkway Grade-Separated Interchange. The PGSI abbreviation is used thereafter in the document, including in Sec. 3.4.2. Added text to both TM 1 and TM 2. Added text to both TM 1 and TM 2. B A A A Revised Appendix TM1-2 to include most current versions of Hassayampa and Hidden Valley recommended frameworks. Page 2 of 13 Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Summary of TAC Comments and Responses on Technical Memoranda A. B. C. D. Tech. Memo No. Page No. 1 General 1 General Contract No. 2008-046 Initial Final Comment Response Response Response I believe this effort is redundant with efforts from ADOT, The Hidden Waters Parkway was identified in the MAG Hassayampa especially considering the size that SR 85 will be when they Framework Study and Hidden Valley finish making it a full freeway, plus the future 801 freeway, Framework Study as being needed to plus the future Hassayampa Freeway. If another parkway is Jeannette needed for the northern segment, concentrate on that serve buildout development projections for Fish, the project study area. East-west arterials portion. For the southern segment south of Gillespie Dam, Maricopa MCDOT should focus on making four or five short east-west connecting SR 85 with the Hidden Waters B D County Parkway are shown as part of the roads to connect development along Old US 80 with SR 85, Farm recommended transportation network in instead of creating an entire north-south parkway. Isn’t the Hidden Valley Framework Study. Bureau anybody questioning the safety issue of the left-turn plan? Multiple research studies have determined How can it be safer to enter the highway, cross all lanes of that indirect left-turn movements are traffic, make a U-turn and enter traffic again in the opposite typically safer than conventional direct leftdirection? turn movements. It seems that there will be two major high volume capacity The Hidden Waters Parkway was identified in the MAG Hassayampa roadways (SR 85 and the Hidden Waters Parkway) along Framework Study and Hidden Valley with Old US 80 all converging into the north side of Gila Framework Study as being needed to Bend at Watermelon Road and only a mile or so apart. serve buildout development projections for What happens south of Watermelon Road is not very clear. the project study area. ADOT is currently What will become of SR 85 through the middle of Gila finalizing a location design concept report Bend? Will the SR 85 traffic merge into the proposed for SR 85 that shows SR 85 connecting to Watermelon Road Parkway and all bypass Gila Bend? How I-8 southeast of Gila Bend. See Appendix Jim Sargent, will all that traffic tie into I-8? Both SR 85 and Hidden B D TM1-3 exhibit for the preferred alternative MCDOT Waters Parkway can probably carry a combined volume of for SR 85 in Gila Bend. A future study will approximately 150,000 (or more) vehicles a day, not even need to be conducted to determine the considering Old US 80. Why is all that capacity needed? It alignment for the Watermelon Road seems like it will be very difficult to try and get a stakeholder Parkway and how it will interact with the consensus on any alternative if MCDOT along with MAG Hidden Waters Parkway and the realigned and ADOT cannot convince the multitude of interests inside SR 85. the corridor just why the Hidden Waters Parkway is even necessary and what the future roadway system through, near or around Gila Bend will look like. Reviewer Will Comply or Clarify Will Evaluate Additional Information Needed No Action Required Page 3 of 13 Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Summary of TAC Comments and Responses on Technical Memoranda Tech. Memo No. Page No. 1 General 2 1 2 5 2 5 2 A. B. C. D. 8 Reviewer Comment Regarding Insignia- our general comment on the alignment Carolyn is that we do not want to see any alternates that bisect the Oberholtzer, Insignia property. If an alignment other than Old US 80 is Rose Law proposed, we would rather see it come up the east side of Group (on the property and then curve toward the west to hit the Riggs behalf of Road alignment. We know that our neighbor to the north Insignia) would support that as well. Sec. 1.1 – Please change name of project to InterstateTim Strow, 10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study. It MAG will need to be changed in all tech memo introductions. Denise Sec. 2 bullet points – consider indenting bullet points Lacey, MCDOT The Arizona Game and Fish Department (Department) manages over 5,000 acres of wildlife areas along the Gila River adjacent to the Buckeye Hills including the Robbins Butte Wildlife Area, the Arlington Wildlife Area, the Powers Butte Wildlife Area, the Fred Weiler Greenbelt, and the PLO 1015 lands that are BLM lands withdrawn to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Dana managed by the Department for wildlife management. Warnecke, Collectively, these lands are called the Lower Gila AGFD River Wildlife Management Areas Complex. Denise Lacey, MCDOT Will Comply or Clarify Will Evaluate Additional Information Needed No Action Required Figure 3 does not adequately illustrate the ownership and management authority. Text should also be corrected on page 5. AGFD can provide the GIS data. See pdf “ SW Maricopa County Linkage Designs & Conseration Priorities” map- pdf provided by AGFD as attachment to these comments. 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence – “town” should be capitalized when used as part of the title “Town of Buckeye”, “Town of Gila Bend”, as it is throughout the document Initial Final Response Response A A A A B D B A A A Contract No. 2008-046 Response These comments will be carried forward to the alternatives evaluation and considered at that time. Revised per comment. Bullets left as-is to be consistent with style and format for bullets in other tech memos for this project. Revised text to discuss Lower Gila River Wildlife Management Areas Complex. Revised per comment. Page 4 of 13 Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Summary of TAC Comments and Responses on Technical Memoranda Tech. Memo No. Page No. 2 12 2 2 2 A. B. C. D. 15 15 16 Reviewer Comment 2nd paragraph – Correct text to read: The Robbins Butte, Arlington Wildlife Area and Powers Butte Dana Wildlife Area, in addition to the Fred Weiler Greenbelt, Warnecke, and the PLO 1015 lands (BLM lands withdrawn to the AGFD U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and managed by the Department) are collectively known as the Lower Gila River Wildlife Management Areas Complex. Sec. 3.2, 4th paragraph – Please add references for the Dana Department’s guidelines, mitigation measures and Warnecke, information for burrowing owl and tortoise. See following AGFD website for reference: http://www.azgfd.gov/hgis/guidelines.aspx Sec. 3.2, 2nd paragraph – Please add reference for the final Linkage Design Report for Gila Bend-Sierra Estrellas: Beier, P., E. Garding, and D. Majka. 2008. Arizona Missing Linkages: Gila Bend – Sierra Estrella Linkage Dana Design.Report to Arizona Game and Fish Department. Warnecke, School of Forestry, Northern Arizona University. AGFD Note: there is specific information on existing barriers and design recommendations (and more) for this linkage in the report. More detail could be presented on linkage needs/constraints in this area. Last paragraph – Numerous wildlife species, including mule deer, utilize the washes and undeveloped uplands within the study area to move between wildland habitats to the west and the Lower Gila River Wildlife Management Area Dana complexes to the east. Species such as mule deer utilize Warnecke, the agricultural lands in the area as foraging areas. AGFD Conversion of these agricultural lands will impact wildlife movement patterns, population maintenance processes (immigration/emigration/genetics) as well as the local availability of food resources. Will Comply or Clarify Will Evaluate Additional Information Needed No Action Required Initial Final Response Response B Contract No. 2008-046 Response Added text regarding the LGRWMAC. A Revised per comment. B A Revised per comment. B A Revised per comment. B A Page 5 of 13 Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Summary of TAC Comments and Responses on Technical Memoranda A. B. C. D. Tech. Memo No. Page No. 2 16 2 16 2 18 2 42 Contract No. 2008-046 Initial Final Comment Response Response Response Sec. 3.3, 1st paragraph – the reference for the 2006 linkage Revised per comment. report is: Dana Nordhaugen, S.E., E. Erlandsen, P. Beier, B.D. Eilerts, R. Warnecke, Schweinsburg, T. Brennan, T. Cordery, N. Dodd, m. B A AGFD Maiefski, J. Przybyl, S. Thomas, K. Vacariu, and S. Wells. 2006. Arizona’s Wildlife Linkages Assessment. The Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup. Sec. 3.3, 2nd paragraph – Add the following: The 2006 report Revised per comment. was a coarse scale analysis. The linkage identifiers mapped were not intended to indicate specific linkage locations, but rather act as general or course scale place holders for future coordination and final linkage designing. The Gila Bend-Sierra Estrella linkage report is a fine scale design that was modeled for a suite of focal species for the PLZs 73 & 151. The course scale linkage identifier and fine scale Dana linkage designs are designed to work together and should Warnecke, B A not be considered a “new linkage zone” as presented in the AGFD report. They are more accurately referred to as a final linkage design for in this case PLZ 73. Reference for the fine scale linkage report should be: Beier, P., E. Garding, and D. Majka. 2008. Arizona Missing Linkages: Gila Bend – Sierra Estrella Linkage Design.Report to Arizona Game and Fish Department. School of Forestry, Northern Arizona University. Reviewer Denise Lacey, MCDOT Denise Lacey, MCDOT Will Comply or Clarify Will Evaluate Additional Information Needed No Action Required Sec. 3.5, 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence – change reference from highway to roadway. We need to avoid the use of the wording highway if it is referencing the parkway. Sec. 6.11, 2nd sentence – Phase I ESA should be conducted prior to what? To allow the purchaser….. Revised per comment. A A B A Added text to clarify statement refers to acquisition of new right-of-way. Page 6 of 13 Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Summary of TAC Comments and Responses on Technical Memoranda Tech. Memo No. Page No. 2 43 2 44 2 46 2 A. B. C. D. 46 Contract No. 2008-046 Initial Final Comment Response Response Response 4th paragraph – Add: The Robbins Butte, Arlington Wildlife Added text regarding the LGRWMAC. Area and Powers Butte Wildlife Area, in addition to the Fred Weiler Greenbelt, and the PLO 1015 lands (BLM lands withdrawn to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and managed by the Department) are collectively known as the Lower Gila River Wildlife Management Areas Complex. Dana Recommend substituting existing reference to Powers Butte Warnecke, and Arlington with “Lower Gila River Wildlife Management B A AGFD Areas Complex” Reviewer Also please note previous comment that wildlife that use these wildlife areas also utilize surrounding agricultural fields for foraging; and move between wildlife area habitats, surrounding wildlands and foraging areas through upland and wash habitats within the project area. Dana Table 9 – Arlington and Powers Butte are not Wilderness Warnecke, areas; please make corrections; they are Wildlife AGFD Management Areas Dana Sec. 6.3 – We recommend adding a conclusion for the Warnecke, linkage issue. It is a specific and important enough issue AGFD that it should be recognized in the conclusions. Sec. 6 – Include reference to: The Arizona Game and Fish Department (Department) manages over 5,000 acres of wildlife areas along the Gila River adjacent to the Buckeye Hills including the Robbins Troy Smith, Butte Wildlife Area, the Arlington Wildlife Area, the Powers AGFD Butte Wildlife Area, the Fred Weiler Greenbelt, and the PLO 1015 lands that are BLM lands withdrawn to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and managed by the Department for wildlife management. Collectively, these lands are called the Lower Gila River Wildlife Management Areas Complex. Will Comply or Clarify Will Evaluate Additional Information Needed No Action Required Revised per comment. A A A A Added Section 6.4 – Wildlife Crossing and Movement Corridors. Added text regarding the LGRWMAC. B A Page 7 of 13 Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Summary of TAC Comments and Responses on Technical Memoranda A. B. C. D. Tech. Memo No. Page No. 2 46 2 General 3 1 Reviewer Comment Sec. 6 – Include reference/section on the need for future coordination on developing mitigations and transportation designs for wildlife corridors to preserve linkages identified: Troy Smith, *Gila Bend – Sierra Estrella Linkage Design and AGFD *Potential Linkage Zones (PLZs): 73 (Gila Bend Mountains – North Maricopa Mountains) and 151 (Gila/Salt River Corridor Granite Reef – Gillespie Dam) For reference, the Department has produced and attached the: WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONNECTIVITY GOALS FOR MARICOPA Troy Smith, COUNTY – INPUT FOR THE HIDDEN WATERS AGFD PARKWAY FEASIBILITY STUDY PROVIDED BY THE ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT NOVEMBER 13, 2009 Sec. 1.1 – Please change name of project to InterstateTim Strow, 10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study. It MAG will need to be changed in all tech memo introductions. Will Comply or Clarify Will Evaluate Additional Information Needed No Action Required Initial Final Response Response A Contract No. 2008-046 Response Added Section 6.4 – Wildlife Crossing and Movement Corridors. A A A A A Document has been received and reviewed. Information has been incorporated into the text where appropriate. Revised per comment. Page 8 of 13 Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Summary of TAC Comments and Responses on Technical Memoranda Tech. Memo No. 3 Page No. Reviewer General Jennifer Pokorski, FCDMC Contract No. 2008-046 Initial Final Comment Response Response Response Add language specifying that FCDMC is initiating the Text added per comment as new Sec. Gillespie Area Drainage Master Study for a 140 square mile 1.5.5. portion of the Gillespie Watershed. The study area limits are the northern boundary of the watershed to 1/2 mile south of Pierpoint Road. The east-west boundary is the 100-year floodway of the Gila River and the western edge of the watershed. The primary goals of the study are to: • Create updated hydrology model utilizing new 2-foot contour mapping and NOAA-14 • Determine the impact of existing and planned development • Identify and prioritize watercourses for future floodplain delineation studies • Establish “planning guidelines” to coordinate future drainage improvements A A The study will get underway in April 2010 and will take approximately 18 months. 4 A. B. C. D. 23 Matrix – Wildlife Impacts- Alt. A and C Suggest adding crossing structure at Gila River in addition to those identified D. at Rainbow Wash. Both of these will be critical needs to Warnecke, preserving a limited amount of wildlife connectivity between AGFD Gila River Wildlife areas and the Gila Bend Mountains. Will Comply or Clarify Will Evaluate Additional Information Needed No Action Required B D The Gila River crossing is part of the northern segment alternatives. The potential for better accommodating wildlife movement with a new Gila River bridge is discussed in the northern segment alternatives. Page 9 of 13 Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Summary of TAC Comments and Responses on Technical Memoranda Tech. Memo No. Page No. 4 23 5 5 5 A. B. C. D. 6 6 6 Contract No. 2008-046 Initial Final Comment Response Response Response Request clarification of “This wider cross-section References to more gaps in traffic as potentially benefitting wildlife movement will provide more gaps in traffic for wildlife crossings than have been deleted. the No-Build Alternative”. If this statement suggests that lower traffic volumes on a parkway could facilitate more D. wildlife crossings compared to a no build alternative, the Warnecke, Department disagrees. Traffic will be traveling at higher B A AGFD speeds and will be at volumes already deemed high enough to need a parkway. We suggest you delete this metric or use relevant research on thresholds for volumes/speeds relating to roadways as barriers to wildlife to actually quantify threshold differences between alternatives. Reviewer Gila Bend, Eric Fitzer Gila Bend, Eric Fitzer Gila Bend, Eric Fitzer Will Comply or Clarify Will Evaluate Additional Information Needed No Action Required Proposed Parkway-arterial Intersections shown are very limited in quantity. Will other future parkway-arterial Intersection be permitted? The Town of Gila Bend would like to make sure that future parkway-arterial intersection spacing will be permitted to occur at possible one mile - two mile intervals. The Town would suggest that at minimum one ParkwayArterial intersection be denoted between the Watermelon Parkway-Hidden Waters Parkway Interchange and the Hidden Waters-Fornes Intersection. The Town would suggest that at minimum one ParkwayArterial Intersection be denoted between Fornes-Hidden Waters and Pierpont-Hidden Waters Intersections. B D B D B D Parkway-arterial intersections are those shown in the framework studies. As land development plans progress, it will be possible to accommodate additional parkway intersections where new arterials will be constructed, provided the spacing is consistent with Arizona Parkway access guidelines. The Hidden Waters Corridor Feasibility Study is not intended to specify all future arterial intersection locations. Arterial intersection locations will be established through future land development and roadway system improvement plans. The Hidden Waters Corridor Feasibility Study is not intended to specify all future arterial intersection locations. Arterial intersection locations will be established through future land development and roadway system improvement plans. Page 10 of 13 Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Summary of TAC Comments and Responses on Technical Memoranda A. B. C. D. Tech. Memo No. Page No. Reviewer 5 6 Gila Bend, Eric Fitzer 5 6 Gila Bend, Eric Fitzer 5 6 Gila Bend, Eric Fitzer 5 9 Gila Bend, Eric Fitzer 5 10 Denise Lacey, MCDOT Will Comply or Clarify Will Evaluate Additional Information Needed No Action Required Contract No. 2008-046 Initial Final Comment Response Response Response Woods Road currently is designated as a crossover point The future arterial intersection adjacent to Dos Lagos has been shifted to Woods along State Route 85. Why is Woods Road not considered Road as suggested and to align with the to be a Proposed Future Arterial-Parkway Intersection? The Town’s resolution on arterial connections Town would suggest that the designated proposed between Old US 80 and SR 85. Parkway-Arterial Intersection located adjacent to Dos Lagos B A be relocated to the Woods Road alignment due to the fact that SR-85 Access Management Requirements would preclude an access point within two miles of the Woods Road Alignment. Is there a current Cross-Over along SR85 which would line The next arterial intersection north of Woods Road will most likely be at up with the proposed Arterial-Parkway Intersection denoted Patterson Road. The arterial intersection just north of Woods Road? The Town would suggest that B A just north of Woods Road has been the proposed Arterial-Parkway intersection be relocated deleted pending future land development north of Woods Road at minimum 2 miles to correspond and roadway system improvement plans. with future possible access to SR-85. Why is there a Proposed Arterial-Parkway intersection just The intersection location as shown is the planned future Patterson Road south of Patterson Road? The Town believes that the intersection. The intersection is located proposed Arterial-Parkway intersection is meant for south of the Patterson Road section line Patterson Road; is the location south of the current B D alignment but is along the existing Patterson Road alignment due to a wash crossing or Patterson Road alignment, which dips Patterson Road being realigned to intersect at a south near Old US 80 to avoid crossing perpendicular angle? Rainbow Wash. A design consideration which is not included is the UPRR The Hidden Waters study assumes that the UPRR line will remain in place and Buckeye-Welton Line crossing which the Hidden Waters UPRR representatives have stated that a Parkway will intersect in the northern portion of the study Hidden Waters railroad grade separation area. Is that due to the fact that there may be a discussion B A will be required. The grade separation of eliminating the line? The Town would suggest that if has been noted on the detailed alignment elimination of the line is not the case that the study address drawings. a grade separation at this intersection. Clarify distinction between the new interim low-flow Gila Clarification added as requested. River crossing and the ultimate new crossing. A A Page 11 of 13 Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Summary of TAC Comments and Responses on Technical Memoranda Tech. Memo No. A. B. C. D. Page No. 5 12 5 Appendix Figure 1 5 Figure 4.4 Reviewer Denise Lacey, MCDOT Gila Bend, Eric Fitzer Gila Bend, Eric Fitzer 5 Figure 4.4 Gila Bend, Eric Fitzer 5 Appendix TM-5-2 Gila Bend, Eric Fitzer 5 Sheet 1 of 37 Gila Bend, Eric Fitzer 5 Sheet 2-3 of 37 Gila Bend, Eric Fitzer Will Comply or Clarify Will Evaluate Additional Information Needed No Action Required Comment Initial Final Response Response Provide cost estimate. On all “Typical Sections” Bike Lanes should be called out; just as the sidewalks are. Although the Town understands that the “Parkway Grade Separated Interchange” has been preliminarily designed. Such an interchange will be extremely costly. The Town questions this design concept and questions if any thoughts were given to designing a Round-A-Bout with separated Right Hand Turn lane movements as a Parkway-Parkway intersection model, specifically at the Watermelon-Hidden Waters interchange location? The Town wishes to connect the Watermelon Parkway to SR-85 in the future. As such the Town would like the Watermelon Alignment to be denoted as a Parkway facility east of the Watermelon-Hidden Waters intersection. If the current intersection configuration is utilized the Town would suggest that ramps be planned for Northbound traffic looking to travel west and for Southbound traffic looking to travel east. Overall Comment: Do all planned intersections need to be shown? Will Intersections of Arterial-Parkway require additional Right-of-Way such as the Parkway-Parkway intersections? The “New R/W” which is denoted for the WatermelonHidden Waters Intersection; should it not be denoted as “New R/W to be studied”? Why does the “Exist R/W” abruptly end between Match Line 56 and 84 and then reappears near Match Line 140? A A B A B D B D B D A D B D Contract No. 2008-046 Response Cost estimate added as requested. The bike lane call-out has been added as requested. Interchange designs will be subject to further study and analyses. The intent of the Hidden Waters Corridor Feasibility study is to identify likely ultimate right-ofway needs. Figure 4.4 does show a continuation of Watermelon Parkway to the east of Hidden Waters Parkway. The Hidden Waters Parkway connection to the Watermelon Parkway and the Watermelon Parkway connection to SR 85 will require further analyses in subsequent studies. All planned intersections do not need to be shown because they will not require more right-of-way along the parkway than the standard parkway cross-section. There is a note on the drawing that states that the right-of-way limits are subject to further study. This area is within the jurisdiction of the Arizona State Land Department and there are no existing roadway right-of-way limits in this area. Page 12 of 13 Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Summary of TAC Comments and Responses on Technical Memoranda Tech. Memo No. A. B. C. D. Page No. Reviewer 5 Sheet 22 of 37 Gila Bend, Eric Fitzer 5 Sheet 30 of 37 Gila Bend, Eric Fitzer 5 Sheet 32 of 37 Gila Bend, Eric Fitzer 5 Overall Gila Bend, Eric Fitzer Will Comply or Clarify Will Evaluate Additional Information Needed No Action Required Contract No. 2008-046 Initial Final Comment Response Response Response Between Match Line 1204 and 1232 there appears to be a The wash crossing near 1217+00 is a minor local drainage that is not a possible “Wash Crossing” which is not denoted. Is this due regulatory floodplain or named wash. to the possible size of the wash and the associated structure B D Minor flows like the wash near 1217+00 which would be required to maintain flow? will be examined in later design phases of the project. UPRR Grade Separation; should the area within the vicinity of the UPRR Line be denoted as “Future Grade Separation Area Subject to Future Study”? Just as what has been included for the future Wash Crossings? The area around the Salome Highway is shown as an Area of Future Study for a Wash Crossing but makes no mention of how the Salome Highway Alignment may, will, or will not be affected. There is no mention made of Fissuring issues within the Study Area. This would more or less pertain to the Northern Study area. There are issues with subsidence in Buckeye, Tonopah and the Harquahalla Valley and the associated fissuring that develops due to such subsidence. The Town would suggest that the Fissure issue be addressed, if not addressed in previous working papers. Or at minimum a discussion address “best practices for identifying and mitigating Fissures if identified through the design and construction of the Hidden Waters Parkway”. A A B D B D Notation of the need for a future railroad grade separation has been added. The Hidden Waters/Salome Highway intersection is not anticipated to require more right-of-way along the parkway than the standard parkway cross-section. Fissure locations were researched as part of the existing conditions assessment. No known fissure areas are located within the project study limits. Page 13 of 13 Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Watermelon Road to Interstate 10 Work Order TT005 Contract No. 2008-046 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND STAKEHOLDER MEETING DATE: WEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 2009 9:00 AM TIME: LOCATION: MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 2901 WEST DURANGO STREET MARICOPA CONFERENCE ROOM PHOENIX, ARIZONA AGENDA 1. Introduction and Opening Comments 2. Meeting Purpose 3. TAC/Stakeholder Membership, Roles, and Responsibilities 4. Study Need, Purpose, Goals, and Approach 5. Study Schedule 6. Study Issues ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ Environmental Drainage Topography Land Development System Continuity 7. Next Steps 8. Roundtable Discussion FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: RENEE PROBST, MCDOT (602) 506-8622 OR BRYAN PATTERSON, KIMLEY-HORN (480) 777-4714 Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Watermelon Road to Interstate 10 Work Order TT005 Contract No. 2008-046 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND STAKEHOLDER MEETING DATE: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2009 2:00 PM TIME: LOCATION: MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 2901 WEST DURANGO STREET APACHE/COCHISE CONFERENCE ROOM PHOENIX, ARIZONA AGENDA 1. Introduction and Opening Comments 2. Meeting Purpose 3. Summary of July 22 Meeting and Comments Received to Date 4. Draft Technical Memorandum No. 1 – Existing and Future Corridor Features 5. Draft Technical Memorandum No. 2 – Environmental Overview 6. Draft Technical Memorandum No. 3 – Conceptual Drainage Report 7. Issues and Constraints 8. Conceptual Alternative Alignments Roundtable 9. Next Steps FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: RENEE PROBST, MCDOT (602) 506-8622 OR BRYAN PATTERSON, KIMLEY-HORN (480) 777-4714 Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Watermelon Road to Interstate 10 Work Order TT005 Contract No. 2008-046 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND STAKEHOLDER MEETING DATE: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2009 TIME: 2:00 PM LOCATION: MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 2901 WEST DURANGO STREET APACHE/COCHISE CONFERENCE ROOM PHOENIX, ARIZONA 1. Introduction and Opening Comments 2. Meeting Purpose 3. Summary of September 17 SAC/TAC Meeting, September 22 Public Open House, and Comments Received to Date 4. Comments on Draft Technical Memoranda 1, 2, and 3 – Existing and Future Corridor Features, Environmental Overview, and Conceptual Drainage Report 5. Conceptual Alignment Alternatives 6. Evaluation Criteria and Performance Measures 7. Proposed Candidate Alternatives for Further Consideration and Evaluation 8. Roundtable Discussion 9. Next Steps FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: DENISE LACEY, MCDOT (602) 506-6172 OR BRYAN PATTERSON, KIMLEY-HORN (480) 777-4714 Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Watermelon Road to Interstate 10 Work Order TT005 Contract No. 2008-046 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND STAKEHOLDER MEETING DATE: WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2010 1:30 PM TIME: LOCATION: FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OF MARICOPA COUNTY 2801 WEST DURANGO STREET HARQUAHALA/ADOBE CONFERENCE ROOM PHOENIX, ARIZONA 1. Introduction and Opening Comments 2. Meeting Purpose 3. Summary of November 16, 2009 SAC/TAC Meeting, December 1, 2009 Public Open House, and Comments Received to Date 4. Alternatives Selected for Further Evaluation 5. Evaluation of Alternatives 6. Preferred Alignment 7. Roundtable Discussion 8. Next Steps FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: DENISE LACEY, MCDOT (602) 506-6172 OR BRYAN PATTERSON, KIMLEY-HORN (480) 756-6135 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Watermelon Road to Interstate 10 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Meeting Purpose • Introduce Project Team, Team TAC, TAC and Stakeholders • Present Study Purpose, Goals, Objectives, and Schedule • Present Key Study Issues • Discuss Next Steps p • Obtain TAC and Stakeholder Input Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Agency Partners/TAC Members • Maricopa County – MCDOT and Planning & D l Development • Town of Buckeye • Town of Gila Bend • Maricopa Association of Governments • Flood Control District of Maricopa County • Arizona Ai Department D off Transportation T i • Federal Highway Administration Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Keyy Stakeholders • • • • • • • • • Arizona State Land Department Arizona Game and Fish Department U. S. Bureau of Land Management U. S. Army Corps of Engineers U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services Union Pacific Railroad Landowners and Land Developers Utility and Irrigation Companies Arlington and Tonopah Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. TAC Member/Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities • Attend and Provide Input at TAC/Stakeholder Meetings • Identify Additional Stakeholders • Provide Project Related Data • Review and Comment on Deliverables (TAC) Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Need for the Study • MAG Hassayampa and Hidden Valley Framework Studies • “Build‐Out” Traffic Projections • Long‐Term Long Term Right‐of‐Way Right of Way Preservation • Stakeholder and Public Input Maricopa County Department of Transportation Project j Study Area Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Study Purpose • • • • Identify Strategic Issues Develop and Evaluate Conceptual Alternatives g Recommend Preferred Alignment Define Preferred Alignment in Detail Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Study Goals • • • • Achieve Network Continuity and Connectivity E h Enhance TTraffic ffi C Capacity it and d SSafety f t Preserve the Environment Develop Consensus‐Driven Improvement Alternatives Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Study Scope and Approach • Compile and Analyze Available Data Sources • Identify Potential “Arizona Parkway” Location Alternatives • Perform “Fatal Flaw” Analyses • Evaluate up to 3 Feasible Alternatives • Recommend Preferred Alternative • Detailed Drawings for Preferred Alternative Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Arizona Parkway Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Arizona Parkway Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Project Schedule TAC/Stakeholder #1 – Project Initiation July, 2009 TAC/Stakeholder #2 – Existing Conditions August, 2009 Scoping Open House September 2009 September, Existing and Future Conditions September, 2009 TAC/Stakeholder #3 – Evaluation Criteria September, 2009 Existing i i Conditions/Conceptual di i / l Alternatives l i Open House October, b 2009 Alternatives Development and Evaluation December, 2009 TAC/Stakeholder #4 – Alternatives Evaluation December, 2009 Recommended Alternative Development January, 2010 TAC/Stakeholder #5 – Preferred Alignment January, 2010 Alternatives Evaluation/Preferred Alignment Open House February, 2010 Detailed Preferred Alignment February, 2010 Draft Final Report April, 2010 Final Report May, 2010 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Issues and Challenges Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Environmental Issues Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Drainage Issues Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Topography Issuses Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Land Development Issues Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. System Continuity Issues Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. S Summary/Next /N Steps S • Draft Tech Memos on Existing and Future Corridor Features, Environmental Overview, and Drainage Overview • Hold 2nd TAC/Stakeholder Meeting in Late August or Early September p House in September p • Hold 1st Public Open Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Stakeholder/TAC Roundtable Discussion Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Watermelon Road to Interstate 10 September 17, 2009 TAC/Stakeholder Meeting Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Meeting Purpose Summarize July 22 TAC/ Stakeholder Meeting and Input Received to Date Present Summaries of Tech. Memos #1, #2, and #3 • Existing and Future Corridor Features • Environmental Overview • Conceptual Drainage Report Discuss Issues/Constraints/Potential Evaluation Criteria Discuss Next Steps/Open House September 22 Break-Out Discussion of Conceptual Alternatives Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Summary of Input to Date July 22 TAC/SAC Meeting Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona State Land Department Town of Gila Bend Maricopa Association of Governments Property Owners and Developers Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Tech. Memo #1 – Existing and Future Conditions Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Progress to Date Reviewed and Analyzed Available Documentation Identified Potential Constraints/Issues Prepared Draft Tech. Memo #1 – Existing and Future Corridor Features Maricopa County Department of Transportation Project Study Area Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Maricopa County Department of Transportation Jurisdictions Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Maricopa County Department of Transportation Land Ownership Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Maricopa County Department of Transportation Existing Land Use Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Maricopa County Department of Transportation Future Land Use Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Maricopa County Department of Transportation Existing Roadway Network (South) Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Maricopa County Department of Transportation Existing Roadway Network (North) Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Maricopa County Department of Transportation Build-Out Roadway Network (South) Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Maricopa County Department of Transportation Build-Out Roadway Network (North) Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Maricopa County Department of Transportation Facilities and Utilities (South) Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Maricopa County Department of Transportation 2 2 x 50 0 kV Miles 00kV 3 x 50 0k V 1x5 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Arlington Switch Yard 2x Roo se velt Ir Red Hawk Power Generating Station Buck g Arli n ton C eye C a nal a nal Mesquite Power Generating Station Legend Project Boundary Landfill Well Location Arlington Post Office canal Gillespie Substation Airfield 1 x 50 0kV 69kV Existing 230kV Existing 500kV Existing G Ca ila B na en l d 500kV Proposed Power Generating Station Substation ise pr ter En nal Ca Switching Yard Jojoba Substation Arizona State Prison Complex Lewis Natural Gas Line Power Transmission Lines al ri gat i on Distr i ct Can Hassayampa Switch Yard kV 500 1 x 500kV Proposed Facilities and Utilities (North) 0 0.5 1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Maricopa County Department of Transportation Development Areas Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Maricopa County Department of Transportation Recreational Areas Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Maricopa County Department of Transportation Slope Analysis Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Potential Alignment Constraints Land Ownership • BLM Land Near Gillespie Dam • Arizona State Land Land Use • Arlington Elementary School • Existing and Planned Developments • Arlington and Powers Butte Wildlife Areas Transportation • Watermelon Road/Old US 80 Intersection • Old US 80 Bridge Location • I-10/339th Avenue Interchange Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Potential Alignment Constraints Utilities/Facililties • Power Stations – Gila River, Panda, and Cotton Center • Canals – Gila Bend and Arlington • SR 85 Landfill Topography • Narrow Pass at Gillespie Dam • Large Hill Near 347th Avenue/Dobbins Road • Small Hill Near 363rd Avenue/Salome Highway Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Tech. Memo #2 – Environmental Overview Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Progress to Date Reviewed and Analyzed Documentation for: • Biological, Natural, and Cultural Resources • Hazardous Materials • Socioeconomic Considerations Prepared Draft Tech. Memo #2 Environmental Overview Maricopa County Department of Transportation Wildlife Areas Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Preliminary Findings Land Jurisdiction • BLM and State Lands Requirements Biological Resources • 15 Protected Species • 10 “Wildlife Species of Concern” • Protected Native Plants Cultural Resources • Properties Eligible for Historic Places Designation • Additional Survey Investigations Needed • Consultation and Compliance with State and Federal Regulations • Agency and Tribal Consultation Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Preliminary Findings Section 4(f) Resources • Known and Potential Resources Present • Additional Analyses Needed Water Quality and Floodplain Impacts • Clean Water Act Permitting and Compliance • Coordination Required with MCFCD and FEMA Noise Impacts • Residential and Recreational Receivers Present Hazardous Materials • Database Reviews Indicate Potential Issues • Field Investigations Needed Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Tech. Memo # 3 - Conceptual Drainage Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Progress to Date Reviewed and Analyzed Available Data Inventoried and Mapped Flowpaths, Watersheds, Concentration Points, and Structures Developed 50 and 100-Year Peak Flows Conducted Field Review Performed Stakeholder Survey on Maintenance Issues Prepared Draft Tech. Memo #3 – Conceptual Drainage Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Jackrabbit Wash FDS Area Drainage Studies Palo Verde FDS Lower Centennial Phase III FDS Buckeye Area FDS Lower Hassayampa WMP Lower Centennial Phase II FDS White Tanks/Agua Fria FDS White Tanks Wash FDS Luke Wash FDS El Rio WMP Gillespie Dam Lower Centennial Phase I FDS Rainbow Wash FDS Lower Painted Rock FDS Waterman Wash FDS Gila Bend Canal FDS Sentinel Wash FDS Gila Bend FDS Legend Hidden Waters Corridor 100-Year Floodplain 0 2 4 8 Miles Sept. 2009 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Preliminary Findings – Southern Region Flow Paths Generally Perpendicular to Corridor Runoff Originates in Mountains to the East and Flows West Washes Converge and Diverge in Braided Network Anticipate High Sediment Loading Gila Bend Canal is Major Control on Drainage 100-Year Peak Flows of 800 - 11,600 cfs Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Preliminary Findings – Central Region Major Cross Drainage Locations • Old US 80 Gillespie Dam Bridge/Gila River – 235,000 cfs • Lower Centennial Wash – 67,300 cfs Gillespie Dam Breached but Controls Gila River Flows North of Gillespie Dam, Runoff Originates in Mountains to the West and Flows East Arlington Canal Parallels Old US 80 Riverine Flows and Hardrock Geology Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Preliminary Findings – Northern Region Flow Paths Generally Parallel to Corridor Runoff Originates in the North and Flows South Major Cross Drainage Locations • Luke Wash – 3,900 cfs • Five Other Large Tributaries Wide Variety of Channel Shapes • Well-Defined Sand-Bed Channels • Shallow Distributary Reaches • Split Flows Common Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. AZ022 AZ028 AZ022 Flood Hazards Map AZ007 AZ016 AZ005 AZ001 AZ021 Wa t er n ma AZ021 sh Wa AZ007 AZ021 AZ021 AZ022 AZ003 Legend Hidden Waters Corridor 100-Year Floodplain Landform Descriptions AZ001 Floodplains at 0-1% Slopes AZ003 Floodplains at 0-1% Slopes AZ005 Stream Terraces at 0-3% Slopes AZ007 Fan Terraces at 1-3% Slopes AZ008 Fan Terraces at 0-15% Slopes AZ009 Fan Terrances at 0-3% Slopes AZ016 AZ021 AZ021 AZ003 AZ010 Fan Terrances at 0-3% Slopes AZ016 Alluvial Fans at 0-10% Slopes AZ016 AZ017 Hills and Mountains at 1-15% Slopes AZ021 Mountains at 15-55% Slopes AZ022 Hills and Mountains at 3-55% Slopes AZ028 AZ009 0 1.25 2.5 5 Miles Alluvial Fans at 0-5% Slopes AZ021 AZ010 Sept. 2009 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Potential Evaluation Criteria Development Compatibility System Continuity Drainage Impacts Irrigation Impacts Building/Property Impacts Cultural/Archaeological Impacts Wildlife Impacts Utility Impacts Public Acceptability Cost Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Summary/Next Steps Distribute Tech. Memos to TAC for Review Hold 1st Public Open House on September 22 Refine Evaluation Criteria Develop and Evaluate Alternatives Hold 3rd TAC/Stakeholder Meeting Tentatively Scheduled for October Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Project Schedule TAC/Stakeholder #1 – Project Initiation July 2009 TAC/Stakeholder #2 – Existing Conditions September 17, 2009 Scoping Open House September 22, 2009 Existing and Future Conditions September 2009 TAC/Stakeholder #3 – Alternatives/Evaluation Criteria October 2009 Existing Conditions/Conceptual Alternatives Open House October 2009 Alternatives Development and Evaluation December 2009 TAC/Stakeholder #4 – Alternatives Evaluation December 2009 Recommended Alternative Development January 2010 TAC/Stakeholder #5 – Preferred Alignment January 2010 Alternatives Evaluation/Preferred Alignment Open House February 2010 Detailed Preferred Alignment February 2010 Draft Final Report April 2010 Final Report May 2010 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. TAC/Stakeholder Breakout Groups Conceptual Alternatives Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Watermelon Road to Interstate 10 November 16, 2009 TAC/Stakeholder Meeting #3 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Meeting Purpose Summarize September 17 TAC/ Stakeholder Meeting Summarize September 22 Public Open House Summarize Comments on Draft Technical Memos Present and Discuss Conceptual Alternatives Present and Discuss Proposed Candidate Alternatives for Further Evaluation Present and Discuss Evaluation Criteria Break-Out Discussion of Conceptual/Proposed Candidate Alternatives Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Summary of September 17 TAC/Stakeholder Meeting Discussed Preliminary Findings on Existing and Future Corridor Features, Environmental Issues, and Drainage Issues Discussed Potential Alternatives Evaluation Criteria Discussed Next Steps in Study Process Break-Out Groups Provided Input on Corridor Constraints and Preliminary Conceptual Alternatives Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Summary of September 22 Public Open House Held at Arlington Elementary School – 60+ Attendees Display Boards Showing Tech Memo Exhibits Support for Protecting Right-of-Way Questions on Need for the Parkway Questions on Timing Concerns on Impacts to Irrigation and Farming Support for Following Old US 80 South of Gillespie Dam and 339th Alignment North of the Dam Questions on I-11/Hassayampa Freeway Corridor Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Comments on Draft Tech Memos Comments Due Last Friday Limited Responses to Date Will Make Necessary Revisions and Finalize Tech Memos Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Alternatives Development Constraints and “Fatal Flaws” Considerations Team Brainstorming Session Field Reviews TAC, Stakeholder, and Public Input Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Potential Constraints Land Ownership • BLM Land Near Gillespie Dam • Arizona State Land • Wildlife Areas Land Use • Arlington and Winters’ Well Elementary Schools • Existing and Planned Developments • Arlington and Powers Butte Wildlife Areas Transportation • Watermelon Road/Old US 80 Intersection • Old US 80 Bridge Location • I-10/339th Avenue Interchange Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Potential Constraints Utilities/Facililties • Power Stations – Gila River, Panda, and Cotton Center • Canals – Gila Bend, Enterprise, and Arlington • SR 85 Landfill/Solar Plant Topography • Narrow Pass at Gillespie Dam • Large Hill Near 347th Avenue/Dobbins Road • Small Hill Near 363rd Avenue/Salome Highway Maricopa County Department of Transportation Conceptual / Candidate Alternatives South Segment Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Maricopa County Department of Transportation Conceptual / Candidate Alternatives North Segment Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Evaluation Matrix Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Next Steps Hold 2nd Public Open House on December 1 at 5-7 pm – Arlington Elementary School Final Tech Memos 1, 2, and 3 Finalize and Evaluate Candidate Alternatives and Submit Draft Tech Memo 4 Hold 4th TAC/Stakeholder Meeting Tentatively Scheduled for January 2010 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Project Schedule TAC/Stakeholder #1 – Project Initiation July 22, 2009 TAC/Stakeholder #2 – Existing Conditions September 17, 2009 Scoping and Existing Conditions Open House September 22, 2009 Existing and Future Conditions October 2009 TAC/Stakeholder #3 – Alternatives/Evaluation Criteria November 16, 2009 Alternatives Development Open House December 1, 2009 Alternatives Development and Evaluation January 2010 TAC/Stakeholder #4 – Alternatives Evaluation January 2010 Preferred Alternative Selection February 2010 TAC/Stakeholder #5 – Preferred Alternative Alignment February 2010 Alternatives Evaluation/Preferred Alignment Open House March 2010 Detailed Preferred Alignment March 2010 Draft Final Report April 2010 Final Report May 2010 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. TAC/Stakeholder Breakout Groups Conceptual/Proposed Candidate Alternatives Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibilityy Studyy Watermelon Road to Interstate 10 Februaryy 3,, 2010 TAC/Stakeholder / Meetingg #4 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Meeting Purpose ¾ Summarize November 16 TAC/ Stakeholder Meeting ¾ Summarize December 1 Public Open House ¾ Present Alternatives Selected for Evaluation ¾ Present and Discuss Alternatives Evaluation ¾ Present and Discuss Preferred Alignment ¾ Discuss Next Steps Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Summary of November 16 TAC/Stakeholder Meeting ¾ Discussed Process for Developing and Evaluating Conceptual Alternatives ¾ Presented and Discussed Alternatives Recommended for Further Evaluation ¾ Discussed Next Steps in Study Process ¾ Break‐Out Groups Provided Input on Alternatives Recommended for Further Evaluation Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Summaryy of December 1 Public Open House ¾ Held at Arlington Elementary School – 50+ Attendees ¾ Display Boards Showing Tech Memo Exhibits and Conceptual Alternatives ¾ Concerns about Impacts to Rural Character, Irrigation, Farming, and Flood Plains ¾ Questions on Funding and Timing ¾ Support for Following Old US 80 South of Gillespie Dam and 339th Alignment North of the Dam ¾ Support for Preserving Old US 80 Bridge and Providing a New River Crossing Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Alternatives Selected for Further Evaluation ¾ Constraints and “Fatal Flaws” Considerations ¾ TAC, Stakeholder, and Public Input ¾ Additional Field Reviews ¾ Developed “Hybrid” Alternative D for North Segment Maricopa County Department of Transportation North Segment Alternative A Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Maricopa County Department of Transportation North Segment Alternative B Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Maricopa County Department of Transportation North Segment Alternative C Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Maricopa County Department of Transportation North Segment Alternative D Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Maricopa County Department of Transportation South Segment Alternative A Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Maricopa County Department of Transportation South Segment Alternative B Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Maricopa County Department of Transportation South Segment Alternative C Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Maricopa County Department of Transportation North Segment All Alternatives Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Maricopa County Department of Transportation South Segment All Alternatives Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Evaluation Matrix Maricopa County Department of Transportation North Segment Preferred Alignment Alternative D Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Maricopa County Department of Transportation South Segment Preferred Alignment Alternative C Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. N SSteps Next ¾ Hold H ld 3rd Public P bli Open O House H on March M h 3 from f 5‐7 5 7 pm at Arlington Elementary School ¾ Submit Draft Tech Memo 4 – Candidate Alternative Alignments and Evaluation ¾ Refine Preferred Alignment ¾ Prepare Preferred Alignment Drawings at 1”=200’ Scale ¾ Prepare Draft and Final Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Project Schedule TAC/Stakeholder #1 – Project Initiation July 22, 2009 TAC/Stakeholder #2 – Existing Conditions September 17, 2009 Scoping and Existing Conditions Open House September 22, 2009 Existing and Future Conditions October 2009 TAC/Stakeholder #3 – Alternatives/Evaluation Criteria November 16, 2009 Alternatives Development Open House December 1, 2009 Alternatives Development and Evaluation January 2010 / #4 – Alternatives Evaluation TAC/Stakeholder Februaryy 3,, 2010 Preferred Alternative Selection February 2010 Alternatives Evaluation/Preferred Alignment Open House March 3, 2010 Detailed Preferred Alignment March 2010 Draft Final Report April 2010 Final Report May 2010 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. TAC/Stakeholder Roundtable Discussion i i Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Coordination Meeting with Maricopa Association of Governments – July 28, 2009 Meeting Purpose The purpose of this coordination meeting was to clarify and follow up on three issues that surfaced during the July 22 Hidden Waters TAC/Stakeholder Meeting. These issues are: ¾ Validating the long-term need for the Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor ¾ Identifying the preferred location for a new crossing of the Gila River ¾ Clarifying the proposed alignment for the Hassayampa Freeway Participants Renee Probst – MCDOT Bob Hazlett – MAG Tim Strow – MAG Bryan Patterson – KHA Michael Grandy - KHA Meeting Summary Long-Term Need for the Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor – Both the Hidden Valley and Hassayampa Valley framework studies have confirmed that traffic projections for build-out conditions show that travel demand in the Hidden Waters Corridor will exceed the capacity of an arterial street. The area between Wickenburg and Gila Bend has a build-out population forecast of 3.5 million and projected traffic volumes in the Hidden Waters Corridor exceed 80,000 vehicles per day near I-10 and near Gila Bend. Design speed on the parkway was assumed by MAG to be 60 mph, with posted speeds in the 4550 mph range. The Harquahala Valley (459th Avenue to 595th Avenue) is not included in the current build-out framework projections, and it is possible that current traffic projections could change a bit once the Harquahala Valley information is included in the build-out model. Although there are some areas where there will be few connecting arterials, raising the possibility of reducing the parkway median width, it was decided that it is important to protect the full 200’ parkway cross-section throughout the entire length of the corridor. The Hidden Waters Parkway will provide a continuous alternate route to SR 85 that draws some traffic away from SR 85, especially when SR 85 is restricted due to construction or incidents. Preferred Location for New Gila River Crossing – The Old US 80 Bridge Value Engineering Report recommends Alternative DT-4 as the preferred location and design concept for a new Gila River crossing. Alternative DT-4 is an at-grade low-flow crossing located approximately 1200’ downstream of the existing Old US 80 Bridge. Due to topographic constraints, this is the most feasible location in this area for a new crossing. It was decided that Alternative DT-4 would be a common crossing location for all Hidden Waters corridor alignment alternatives. Although the Value Engineering Report recommends a low-flow crossing, this design concept could be upgraded in the future to provide an all weather-bridge for the Hidden Waters Parkway. In addition, this location may be the most feasible location for the planned Hassayampa Freeway to cross the Gila River. It may be possible to have both the Hidden Waters Parkway and Hassayampa Freeway cross at this location by placing freeway lanes in the middle of the corridor and expressway lanes on the outside of the corridor. KHA will review the geometrics of 1 Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Coordination Meeting with Maricopa Association of Governments – July 28, 2009 Alternative DT-4 and the topographic constraints to assess the feasibility of accommodating the Hidden Waters Parkway at this location. Hassayampa Freeway Location – The Hassyampa Valley Framework Study has shown the Hassayampa Freeway in very close proximity to the Hidden Waters Parkway north of the Old US 80 Bridge. It is expected that a Hassayampa Freeway Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be initiated by ADOT in the next year that will help to further define feasible alternative locations for the Hassayampa Freeway. It is conceivable that the Hassayampa Freeway could follow portions of the existing I-10 and SR 85 alignments that are outside the study limits of the Hidden Waters Parkway. Due to the likelihood that the timing of a Hassayampa Freeway EIS will not be within the timeframe of the Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study, it was decided that the Hidden Waters Corridor Study will proceed under the assumption the Hidden Waters Parkway will be totally independent from the Hassayampa Freeway. Once the Hassayampa Freeway location is established, the Hidden Waters Corridor limits may need to be modified to provide for joint and/or intersecting facilities. MCDOT and ADOT are looking at doing a freeway-parkway interchange concept study to develop ideas for what freeways and parkways intersections might look like. 2 Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Coordination Meeting with Town of Gila Bend – August 20, 2009 Meeting Purpose The purpose of this coordination meeting was to advise Rick Buss, Gila Bend Town Manager, of the project status and obtain his input on long range transportation planning issues and land development proposals that pertain to the Hidden Waters Parkway Study. Participants Rick Buss, Gila Bend Town Manager Renee Probst – MCDOT Bryan Patterson – KHA Meeting Summary Long Range Transportation Planning Issues – Gila Bend has requested assistance from MAG in developing a long range transportation plan for Gila Bend. The plan will establish a roadway functional classification system and identify right-of-way requirements. The plan is funded this fiscal year and the results will be incorporated in the Town’s General Plan Update that will begin in the next year. GannetFlemming prepared the latest transportation plan for the Town and Rick will provide a copy. Pierpoint Road has been a controversial subject for the Town. It is a private road that has been periodically closed by the owners. Other property owners needing this road for access have filed lawsuits to keep the road open. There are archaeological sites near the road and the Pierpoint family has hired David Doyle to assist them with archaeological studies. Gila Bend is being pressured to annex the area surrounding Pierpoint Road and designate it as a public road. Gila Bend is reluctant to accept this financial and legal responsibility and has referred the issue to the County. The ADOT SR 85 Design Concept Report shows a Watermelon Road interchange location that is north of existing Watermelon Road. Rick was not aware of the reasoning for this offset and will look into this issue further. The Town wants to expand the municipal airport runway from 5200’ to 8800’ and construct a park-andride facility at the airport. Federal stimulus funds are being pursued for the park-and-ride facility. Land Development Issues – There are several solar power plants being discussed in the Gila Bend area. None of them are located in the Hidden Waters study area, but the Hidden Waters Parkway could be a long term access facility for them in what is being called the “Solar Corridor”. The most imminent plant is the APS Solana plant located west of Gila Bend with a planned operational date of 2012. There will be 1500 to 2000 construction workers building the plant and about 100 employees operating the plant when it is finished. Spring Mountain Ski Ranch located north of Gila Bend on Old US 80 is currently under construction. Residential lots are being built now and the project will eventually include a commercial component. KHA needs to obtain the plans and review them to determine what roadway dedications are required for the project. Jokake is working on plans for Sonoran trails, also located north of Gila Bend along Old US 80. KHA needs to contact Jokake to obtain the plans and review them to determine what roadway dedications are required. 1 Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Coordination Meeting with Town of Gila Bend – August 20, 2009 Paloma Irrigation District is a key stakeholder in the Hidden Waters corridor. John Utz is the contact person. Briefing with Town Council members – Rick requested a briefing with two or three Town Council members in advance of the first Hidden Waters open house. KHA and MCDOT will schedule the briefing. 2 Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study ADOT Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Assessment For Improvements to State Route 85 Between Watermelon Rd. and Interstate 8 – October 28, 2009 – Town of Gila Bend Meeting Purpose The purpose of this Public Hearing was for ADOT to present information about the State Route 85 Environmental Assessment and to obtain public input. Participants Denise Lacey – MCDOT Bryan Patterson – KHA Michael Grandy – KHA Paul Patane – ADOT ADOT Staff and Consultants General Public Attendees Meeting Summary This was a Public Hearing to gather public input. ADOT presented the overall project design features and anticipated project schedule. A key issue regarding the project design as it pertains to the Hidden Waters Parkway connection with the planned Watermelon Parkway is the location and orientation of the planned SR 85/Watermelon Road interchange. The planned interchange is approximately 3000’ north of the Watermelon Road alignment and is oriented toward the northwest/southeast. This issue was discussed with ADOT staff and a subsequent communication was submitted by MCDOT. 1 Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Field Review with MCDOT of Conceptual Alternatives October 28, 2009 Meeting Purpose The purpose of this field review was to confirm the viability of conceptual alternatives for the Hidden Waters Parkway Participants Denise Lacey – MCDOT Bryan Patterson – KHA Michael Grandy – KHA Meeting Summary This field review was conducted in conjunction with travel to the ADOT Public Hearing on the SR 85 Draft Environmental Assessment held in the Town of Gila Bend. Areas of concern with respect to topography, cultural resources, irrigation canals, existing and planned developments, existing Old US 80 geometrics, and the Old US 80 bridge were examined in the field. Based on this field review, it was concluded that while none of the conceptual alternatives appeared to be “fatally flawed”, it appeared that the topography, cultural resources, and irrigation canals just north of the Old US 80 bridge would make it quite difficult to locate a parkway facility on the existing Old US 80 alignment. 1 Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study MCDOT Public Open House – Gillespie Dam Bridge Rehabilitation and Preliminary Design Presentation December 9, 2009 Meeting Purpose The purpose of this public open house was to gather input about preliminary design plans for the rehabilitation of the Old US 80 Bridge over the Gila River (Gillespie Dam). Participants Roberta Crowe – MCDOT Jerry Cannon – PBS&J Nariman Zadeh – MCDOT Ben Liu – KHA General Public Attendees Meeting Summary This was a general open house to gather public input. Because the plans for the Old US 80 Bridge need to be incorporated in the Hidden Waters Corridor Feasibility Study, KHA staff attended the open house to discuss the project with MCDOT staff and listen to public comments. Some of the relevant information obtained at the meeting is summarized as follows: ¾ The current set of plans for the bridge rehabilitation is the 40% submittal dated December 2009. ¾ Bridge rehabilitation construction is expected to start in May 2010. ¾ The detour during construction will be a two-lane at-grade crossing immediately south of the bridge. The plans include four 48”x36’ RCP culverts in the middle channel and five 48”x36’ RCP culverts for the east (primary) channel, plus a temporary 98” pipe at the west end for the irrigation canal. The drainage culverts will be encased in riprap and are only for nuisance flows (the detour crossing will not be passable during storms). ¾ Alternative “D” – Construct New Bridge Downstream of the Existing Bridge - is the preferred long-term ultimate alternative. The meeting was lightly attended and Ben spoke with Roberta Crowe, Jerry Cannon, and Nariman Zadeh about the project. He also took some photos of the bridge, dam, and bluff where Alternative D diverges towards the west. 1 Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Coordination Meeting with Woolsey Flood Protection District December 16, 2009 Meeting Purpose The purpose of this coordination meeting was to advise the Woolsey Flood Protection District (WFPD) of the project status and obtain their input on the Hidden Waters Parkways Study, particularly related to drainage issues. Participants Doug Nelson – WFPD Alex Menez – KHA Ben Liu – KHA Meeting Summary WFPD Information ¾ WFPD is a separate entity, not a subgroup of MCFCD. Encompasses all of the Gillespie ADMP. Meets at least quarterly and has 3 members. ¾ Landowners in area historically did not received MCFCD assistance so formed WFPD approximately 35 years ago, paid from local tax base (approx 700 tax parcels). ¾ Originally asked owners how big of a ditch they wanted; WFPD now maintains the ditches (mostly removal of sediment and vegetation). ¾ WFPD ideally gets easements for drainage ditches, but in practice the existing channels have been used and new easements not granted. Would be beneficial to move ahead of development to dedicate channel easements. ¾ WFPD to help fund project near Butterfield Dairy to keep flow out of tailwater ditches. ¾ Major flood damage in 2000 (received FEMA assistance), but not much damage in recent years. ¾ Ongoing litigation related to increased sedimentation from Gillespie Dam (landowners vs FCDMC). Large Washes ¾ Rainbow Wash – guessed that the Old US 80 concrete bridge was destroyed during floods in the 1920-1930s. ¾ Woods Wash ¾ Layton Wash – recent COP channel improvements cost ~$6 million. COP dealt directly with landowner, and WFPD is not sure who is expected to maintain the channel. ¾ WFPD would like MCDOT to identify all major washes with signs along Old US 80. ¾ Accurate measurements of flood levels not really available, but landowners have reported seeing floodwaters 10 ft tall. Flows are typically sediment laden. Canals ¾ Enterprise Canal does not extend as far south as shown on exhibits, should be updated. ¾ Gila Bend Canal was originally earthen and featured cross culverts. It was lined with concrete in the 1970’s and siphons/overshoots installed. ¾ Nelson used to work for Paloma Ranch (on water rights). Paloma split in 2001-2002, and the Paloma Irrigation and Drainage District was created to oversee the canal. Land Use ¾ Many major land changes in recent years: SR85 construction, COP landfill, the prison. Can informally see that SR85 improvements have changed the drainage patterns. 1 Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Coordination Meeting with Woolsey Flood Protection District December 16, 2009 ¾ Landfill to be massive; 200 ft high. Solar development taking place now on future landfill cells. ¾ Town of Buckeye landfill caused flooding on SR85. District recommended digging ditch to direct flows towards culvert in 1999, Nelson believes something like that was done. ¾ There might be drainage plans associated with the landfill engineering. ¾ State legislature gave Buckeye land in exchange for the prison site there. Buckeye later expanded to acquire landfill land. Town of Buckeye jurisdiction extends south to Woods Rd. ¾ Sonoran Solar project in EIS right now, construction to start in 2010. Is approximately 4000 ac near gas line road. ¾ Failed racetrack development on E side of SR85 between Woods Rd and Patterson Rd. Nelson still believes this is an attractive site for development. Comments applicable to Hidden Waters ¾ There was a significant study completed for the N-S gas line to the Panda powerplant near Gila Bend. A major wash is on this property. ¾ WFPD prefers Alternative A. Nelson believes this alternative may require less turnouts too. ¾ Nelson requested a copy of the TAC/SAC attendance list. 2 Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Coordination Meeting with Sonoran Institute – January 11, 2010 Meeting Purpose The purpose of this coordination meeting was to advise the Sonoran Institute of the project status and obtain their input on the Hidden Waters Parkway Study, particularly related to environmental concerns in the study area. Participants Eric Gorsegner, Sonoran Institute Denise Lacey – MCDOT Michael Grandy – KHA Meeting Summary Eric provided background information on the Sonoran Institute and its goals and objectives. One of the primary focuses of the Sonoran Institute is preserving prime Sonoran Desert habitat through the proposed Sonoran Desert Protection Proposal. This proposal includes designating additional Wilderness Areas and National Conservation Areas near the edges of the Hidden Waters Parkway study area, effectively preventing the development of these Areas into residential, industrial, or commercial uses. Eric provided maps showing where these proposed Areas are. While none of the candidate alternative alignments go directly through the proposed Wilderness Areas or National Conservation Areas, Alternative B and D on the north segment do get quite close. The Sonoran Institute wants to make sure the proposed Sonoran Desert Protection Proposal is accounted for during future study and design efforts in the area. 1 Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Coordination Meeting with El Paso Natural Gas – February 1, y 28, 2010 Meeting Purpose The purpose of this coordination meeting was to conduct a joint field review between Kimley-Horn and El Paso Natural Gas in the vicinity of where El Paso Natural Gas pipelines cross the Gila River just south of Gillespie Dam. The objectives of this field review were to: ¾ Better define the location of existing El Paso Natural Gas pipeline facilities ¾ Better understand the right-of-way and easements in place in the vicinity of the pipelines ¾ Determine if there appears to be a feasible location where the Hidden Waters Parkway alignment could cross the Gila River and go west/north towards the existing El Paso Natural Gas compressor site without negatively impacting El Paso Natural Gas facilities Participants Thomas Trujillo – El Paso Natural Gas Mickey Lowder – El Paso Natural Gas Dennis Seager – El Paso Natural Gas Denise Lacey – MCDOT Frank Hoffman – KHA Michael Grandy - KHA Meeting Summary Existing Locations of Pipelines – There are three existing El Paso Natural Gas pipelines that cross the river just south of Gillespie Dam. There is a gap of several hundred feet between these pipelines and the two lines of SRP electrical towers. South of the electrical towers, there is another El Paso Natural Gas pipeline. There is another gap of several hundred feet and then two Transwestern gas pipelines further to the south. Corrections were made to KHA’s maps to better reflect the locations of these utilities. Preferred Location for New Gila River Crossing – The Old US 80 Bridge Value Engineering Report recommended Alternative DT-4 as the preferred location and design concept for a new Gila River crossing. KHA brought exhibits and a GPS device showing this alignment and checked the alignment against the location of the existing pipelines. It appears there is adequate space to construct the parkway at the location proposed for Alternative DT-4. El Paso Natural Gas owns the land where the parkway would cross the river, so MCDOT would either have to purchase the right-of-way or obtain an easement before the road could be constructed, but El Paso did not see an issue with this as long as something else doesn’t come along in the mean time looking for an easement in the same place. Potential Alignment towards Compressor Site – KHA and El Paso reviewed the alignment of the existing El Paso Natural Gas facilities from the river crossing west and north towards the compressor site. The terrain is rocky but it does appear that there is adequate room to locate a parkway near the El Paso pipelines while still providing the appropriate clearances. Locating the parkway near the gas pipelines also minimizes likely environmental issues as most of the land near the pipelines was disturbed previously during the construction of the pipelines. The three northern El Paso pipelines will have to be crossed at some point, and Frank recommended that the crossing be through a drainage wash area where a bridge or culvert would need to be built 1 Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Coordination Meeting with El Paso Natural Gas – February 1, y 28, 2010 anyway for the parkway, which would minimize impacts on the gas pipelines by providing more vertical separation. Near the compressor site, there is a dirt airstrip that is owned and used by El Paso Natural Gas to allow for easier access to service the pipelines and old compressor station. The airstrip is rarely used, but the proposed alignment of the parkway would cut across that airstrip near its eastern end. Frank proposed that the airstrip could be extended further west to “replace” the portion cut off by the parkway. It was also discussed that by the time the area is more developed and the parkway is needed, the airstrip may no longer be needed and it could become a non-issue. In summary, all involved in the field review thought that there was a feasible alignment for the parkway across the Gila River and towards the old compressor site. There are several design issues that would have to be resolved as the design becomes more detailed, but there do not appear to be any “fatal flaws” in the proposed alignment. 2 Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Coordination Meeting with ADOT Yuma District – March 1, 2010 Meeting Purpose The purpose of this coordination meeting was to advise the ADOT Yuma District of the project status and obtain their input on the Hidden Waters Parkway Study, particularly due to the District not being able to attend the TAC/stakeholder meetings. Participants Paul Patane, ADOT Yuma District, District Engineer Bruce Fenske – ADOT Yuma District, Development Engineer Bryan Patterson – KHA Michael Grandy – KHA Meeting Summary Alternatives Analysis – Bryan and Michael reviewed the candidate alternatives and the evaluation process that led to the proposed preferred alternatives with Paul and Bruce. The Yuma District did not see any issues with the development and evaluation of alternatives and the selection of the preferred alternatives. Preferred Alternative Interchanges – ADOT indicated that the preliminary locations for two of the arterial interchanges/intersections with the Hidden Waters Parkway south of the Gillespie Dam didn’t line up with the proposed interchanges on SR 85. The area with the apparent misalignment is around Woods Road. An interchange is planned on SR 85 at Woods Road, while the draft Hidden Waters Preferred Alternative exhibit shows no arterial intersection at Woods but instead shows one about one-half mile north of Woods Road and one about one-half mile south of Woods Road. ADOT’s main concern is the spacing of interchanges. ADOT is trying to keep two-mile spacing of interchanges on SR 85. KHA responded that the preliminary locations of the arterial intersections along Hidden Waters Parkway are per the MAG Hidden Valley Framework study. ADOT suggested showing an arterial intersection at Woods Road on Hidden Waters Parkway and eliminating the two arterial intersections shown a half-mile north and south of Woods Road to be consistent with the planned twomile interchange spacing on SR 85. ADOT provided information on a recent Town of Gila Bend resolution that discusses the Town’s preferred locations for arterial connections between SR 85 and Hidden Waters Parkway. These preferred arterial connections align with the ADOT-proposed interchange locations along SR 85. KHA mentioned that ADOT VPM (Stephanie Huang as PM) is developing a freeway-parkway interchange design concept that should be done later this year. SR 85 at Gila Bend DCR/EA Coordination – The Hidden Waters Parkway is currently shown ending at Watermelon Road along the Old US 80 alignment. There was some discussion about what would happen south of that point, and how Watermelon Road would interact with Hidden Waters Parkway considering the ADOT SR 85 at Gila Bend DCR/EA shows the Watermelon Road interchange location to be about 3,000 feet north of the existing Watermelon Road alignment. ADOT indicated that the only funded portion of the project is Phase 1, which consists of reconstruction of Maricopa Road and the Pima/B-8 intersection, as well as a re-alignment of SR 85 at the ultimate configuration of Airport Connector Road. The Watermelon Road interchange along SR 85 is not funded and is expected to be funded by private sources when it is needed. 1 Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study 2nd Coordination Meeting with Town of Gila Bend – March 1, 2010 Meeting Purpose The purpose of this coordination meeting was to advise Eric Fitzer, the Town of Gila Bend’s new Planning and Economic Development Manager, of the project status and obtain his input on the Hidden Waters Parkway Study. Eric was not involved in the initial phases of the project because he was only recently hired by the Town. Participants Eric Fitzer, Town of Gila Bend Bryan Patterson – KHA Michael Grandy – KHA Meeting Summary Alternatives Analysis – Bryan and Michael reviewed the candidate alternatives and the evaluation process that led to the proposed preferred alternatives with Eric. Eric did not see any issues with the development and evaluation of alternatives and the selection of the preferred alternatives at first glance but said he would take a closer look when reviewing the technical memoranda on the alternatives evaluation and selection of the preferred alternatives. Arterial Intersection Locations – Eric mentioned the Town’s recent resolution that discusses the Town’s preferred locations for arterial connections between SR 85 and Hidden Waters Parkway. These preferred arterial connections align with the ADOT-proposed interchange locations along SR 85. Eric suggested these arterials be shown connecting to Hidden Waters Parkway at the locations indicated in the Town’s resolution. SR 85 at Gila Bend DCR/EA Coordination – The Hidden Waters Parkway is currently shown ending at Watermelon Road along the Old US 80 alignment. There was some discussion about what would happen south of that point, and how Watermelon Road would interact with Hidden Waters Parkway considering the ADOT SR 85 at Gila Bend DCR/EA shows the Watermelon Road interchange location to be about 3,000 feet north of the existing Watermelon Road alignment. The Town of Gila Bend would like further study to be done at the proposed Hidden Waters Parkway/Watermelon Road Parkway interchange to more clearly define what will happen with traffic there and as it enters the Town. It appears that MAG may be able to provide some funding to help Gila Bend conduct such a study. 1 APPENDIX TM6-2 MCDOT RIGHTROADS PROGRAM SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 6 Public and Stakeholder Participation Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study May 2010 MCDOT RightRoads Program Summary of Public Involvement Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Watermelon Road to Interstate 10 May 6, 2010 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa County Department of Transportation _________________________________________________________ 2901 W. Durango St. Phoenix, AZ 85009 Phone: 602-506-4608 Fax: 602-506-4882 www.maricopa.gov MCDOT RightRoads Program Summary of Public Involvement Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Watermelon Road to Interstate 10 TT005 FINAL REPORT PURPOSE OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT This study evaluated planned corridor development and the resulting projected 2030 traffic volumes along the future Hidden Waters Parkway corridor between Watermelon Road and Interstate 10 to develop the most cost-effective improvement plans that include a recommendation for establishing the future roadway type, alignment, access management strategies, future drainage structures and network connectivity. Gaining consensus among the agencies and the public is critical to the success of this transportation study as well as the future implementation of its recommendations to provide an efficient roadway for the long term. Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT), Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC), Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), the Town of Buckeye, the Town of Gila Bend, the City of Phoenix, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Impacted Tribal Governments, Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Center for Desert Archaeology, Maricopa County Farm Bureau, area developers, impacted utilities, affected businesses, property owners and residents are all major stakeholders in this study. The participation of stakeholder public and multi-agency involvement aids in the development of a consistent roadway and the resolution of conflicting agency requirements; facilitates ultimate regional traffic flow; and preserves the interests and rights of area residents and adjacent development. MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters Pkwy CFSS/5/7/10/RJCROWE 2 STUDY BACKGROUND & PURPOSE The Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study (Watermelon Road to Interstate 10) is one of a series of long-range transportation planning studies being conducted by the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) evaluating future parkways identified in the recently completed Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) I-8/I-10 Hidden Valley Transportation Framework Study (2009) and Interstate 10 (I-10)/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study (2008). Regional transportation planning agencies expect to increase capacity and measurably enhance safety by including a system of “Arizona Parkways” in future roadway networks. This new roadway classification type includes a distinct intersection treatment that uses a simple green/yellow/red traffic signal control and prohibits left-turns at cross-street intersections. Instead, all left-turn movements are made using an “indirect” left-turn crossover immediately beyond the crossroad intersection. The primary purpose of this feasibility study is to identify the preferred corridor alignment for the Hidden Waters Parkway, which is proposed as an Arizona Parkway. CORRIDOR DESCRIPTION The future Hidden Waters Parkway will originate at Watermelon Road in the Town of Gila Bend. The 38-mile long parkway will extend northerly to Interstate 10 and connect to the existing 339th Avenue/I-10 traffic interchange. The study area is defined roughly by a two-mile wide buffer centered upon the north-south segment of the Old US 80 corridor. Where Old US 80 starts diverging to the east, the study area will broaden to a four-mile wide swath centered approximately along the 347th Avenue section-line alignment extending north to the Salome Highway. North of the Salome Highway, the study area will narrow back to a two-mile wide buffer, following the 339th alignment as it continues north to I-10. STUDY NEED Although today’s land development and travel demands in the Hidden Waters Parkway corridor do not warrant a major new north-south high capacity roadway in the near-term future, the “build-out” forecast for future land development and travel demands does warrant a major new north-south high capacity roadway in the longterm future. Plans are already underway to convert some of the agricultural and low density residential lands within the corridor to more intense land uses that will generate significantly more traffic. To ensure the economic feasibility of the future Hidden Waters Parkway, the planning process needs to begin now to identify right-of-way requirements under MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters Pkwy CFSS/5/7/10/RJCROWE 3 ultimate “build-out” conditions. To this end, the Hidden Waters Parkway study is needed to: Address regional and local growth and development within the study area. (3.5 million population projected at build-out between Wickenburg and Gila Bend -- MAG I-8/I-10 Hidden Valley and I-10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework studies) Preserve sufficient public right-of-way for a high-capacity (non-freeway) north/south transportation corridor Ensure future parkway compatibility with existing/future land uses and environmental conditions Identify potential connectivity issues with other future planned parkways and freeways STUDY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES This Corridor Feasibility Study is the first step in the roadway development process and is meant to aid the jurisdictional agencies in defining and protecting a continuous future parkway corridor that will safely accommodate projected travel demand. Achieve Roadway Network Continuity and Connectivity o Determine preferred corridor alignment from a regional transportation corridor perspective o Provide future connectivity with local and regional roadway facilities o Identify crossing(s) locations of alluvial fans, drainage washes, rivers, canals and the Union Pacific Railroad Enhance Traffic Flow, Roadway Capacity and Safety o Preserve roadway functionality in constraint areas utilizing segmentspecific solutions o Identify areas of additional public right-of-way requirements (crossings with other parkways, alluvial fans, utility corridors) o Implement consistent roadway design standards and access management strategies (enhance access/mobility balance, traffic operation and safety while maintaining reasonable access for adjacent development) Preserve the Environment o comply with governing environmental regulations for new roadway development MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters Pkwy CFSS/5/7/10/RJCROWE 4 o Minimize adverse impacts associated with future parkway to study area environment, including wildlife corridors, state wildlife areas, and archeological sites o Use future parkway elements to enhance important environmental features (habitat areas, parks, overlooks) Develop “Consensus-Driven” Alternatives o Work with key stakeholders in developing feasible alternatives o Develop cost-effective roadway improvement alternatives o Conduct public outreach to obtain input on alternatives and build consensus o Ensure consistency between study elements and regional and local plans. KEY ISSUES AND CHALLENGES Early in the study process, a preliminary list of study issues and potential challenges was compiled. This list expands as the study progresses and input is obtained from public participation. Major issues identified include: Establishing a direction for future connection of Hidden Waters Parkway with Watermelon Road (future planned parkway) and I-10 Evaluation of drainage structures across alluvial fans, major washes, canals and the Gila River Evaluation of crossing of the Union Pacific Railroad Maintaining the functional integrity of the parkway through constrained areas Identifying ultimate alignment and access management strategies to maximize revenue-generating potential for developable lands Consideration of environmental impacts (including cultural resources and wildlife habitat linkages) Maintaining the ability to move agricultural equipment across and along the parkway corridor Coordination and compatibility with existing and planned land development STUDY MILESTONES Study Kick-off PHASE I: Data Collection/Issues Identification May 2009 May-October 2009 MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters Pkwy CFSS/5/7/10/RJCROWE 5 Stakeholder/Technical Advisory Committee (SAC/TAC) Meeting #1 July 22, 2009 Stakeholder/Technical Advisory Committee (SAC/TAC) Meeting #2 September 17, 2009 Public “Scoping” Input Meeting September 22, 2009 Stakeholder/Technical Advisory Committee (SAC/TAC) Meeting #3 November 16, 2009 PHASE II: Alternatives Analysis and Evaluation September- December 2009 “Alternatives Analysis” Public Input Meeting December 1, 2009 Stakeholder/Technical Advisory Committee (SAC/TAC) Meeting #4 February 3, 2010 “Findings and Recommendations” Public Input Meeting March 3, 2010 Draft Final Report April 2010 Study Completion/Final Report May 2010 STUDY APPROACH This Corridor Feasibility Study is considered “long-range” transportation planning and is the earliest phase of project development. The outcome of a Corridor Feasibility Study is an “agreed-upon plan” for the preservation of the right-of-way footprint for the future parkway corridor. To accomplish this goal, the study is broken into two phases. Phase I is a planning level evaluation of the study corridor and consists of gathering data on existing and future study area features, assessing and evaluating the surrounding corridor conditions to aid in potential issues identification, and preparing constraints maps and base maps that will allow the study team to make well-founded recommendations for possible parkway corridor alignments within the study area. Conceptual corridor alignment alternatives are developed only to the extent necessary to conduct a meaningful comparative analysis/fatal flaws analysis. Conceptual alignment alternatives are evaluated for technical feasibility as well as public acceptability as part of this process. Based upon Phase I “fatal flaw” evaluation and outcomes, up to three candidates for alternative alignments are advanced to Phase II for a more detailed preliminary engineering analysis. A “preferred” alignment is selected and implementation MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters Pkwy CFSS/5/7/10/RJCROWE 6 strategies are developed. This analysis addresses engineering feasibility, environmental compatibility, economic viability, compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and community concerns. Once a preferred alternative has emerged and has general consensus, preliminary plans are prepared to delineate the corridor alignment, future parkway cross section and public right-of-way requirements. Both Phase I and Phase II are conducted in consultation with a combined Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) representing agency and constituency interests. The SAC/TAC assists in the identification and resolution of issues or differing jurisdictional requirements to build as broad-based a consensus as possible regarding the preferred alternative alignment for the future parkway. DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES Phase I: Evaluation of Conceptual Alternatives During the Phase I Conceptual Alternatives analysis, the study team identified and evaluated several conceptual alignments for the future Hidden Waters Parkway. The conceptual alternatives were developed to avoid as many corridor constraints as possible yet provide a wide range of options within the study area limits. Constraints that were considered in developing the conceptual alternatives include: Land Ownership o BLM Land Near Gillespie Dam o Arizona State Land o Wildlife Areas Land Use o Arlington and Winters' Well Elementary Schools o Existing and Planned Developments o Arlington and Powers Butte Wildlife Areas o Wildlife Linkage Zones Transportation o Watermelon Road/Old US 80 Intersection o Old US 80 Bridge Location o I-10/339th Avenue Interchange Utilities/Facilities o Power Stations – Gila River, Panda, and Cotton Center o Canals – Gila Bend, Enterprise, and Arlington MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters Pkwy CFSS/5/7/10/RJCROWE 7 o Gas Pipelines and Electrical Power Lines near Old US 80 Bridge o SR 85 Landfill/Solar Plant Topography o Narrow Pass at Gillespie Dam o Large Hill Near 347th Avenue/Dobbins Road o Small Hill Near 363rd Avenue/Salome Highway o Known Cultural Resource Areas Many of the potential constraints can be mitigated as part of the project design process and do not necessarily constitute “fatal flaws”. However, some of the constraints are considered to be more significant than others. The Phase I Conceptual Alternatives were evaluated to determine the relative impacts of the identified constraints on the study goals and objectives as well as to determine acceptability by the Stakeholder and Technical Advisory Committee. Based on the findings of the evaluation and the input received from this committee, Candidate Alternatives were selected for advancement and then subjected to the more detailed Phase II evaluation process. Phase II: Evaluation of Advanced Candidate Alternatives For the Phase II Candidate Alternatives evaluation, the study area was divided into a southern segment (south of the Old US 80 Bridge over the Gila River) and a northern segment (north of the Old US 80 Bridge over the Gila River). Southern Candidate Alternatives: o Alternative A: Generally follows the eastern edge of the Gila River floodplain west of the Old US 80 alignment o Alternative B: Generally bisects the land in between Old US 80 and the Gila River floodplain o Alternative C: Generally follows the existing Old US 80 alignment Northern Candidate Alternatives: o Alternative A: Generally follows the 351st Avenue alignment o Alternative B: Generally follows the 339th Avenue alignment o Alternative C: Generally follows the Old US 80 and 331st Avenue alignments o Alternative D: A combination of Alternatives A and B Developed in response to stakeholder input regarding potential impacts on cultural and wildlife resources in close proximity to Old US 80 near the Gillespie Dam Bridge) MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters Pkwy CFSS/5/7/10/RJCROWE 8 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The above Candidate Alternatives were studied in more detail, including on-site field reviews, and have been evaluated based on the following criteria: Future Development Compatibility; System Continuity and Capacity; Drainage Impacts; Irrigation Impacts; Building/Property Impacts; Cultural/Archaeological Impacts; Wildlife Impacts; Utility Impacts; Public Acceptability; and Cost. The SAC/TAC deliberated the Candidate Alternatives evaluation results and concurred that Application of these evaluation criteria has led to recommended preferred alignments for both the northern and southern corridor segments. For the southern segment, the preferred alternative is Candidate Alternative C that generally follows the Old US 80 alignment. For the northern segment, Candidate Alternative D is the preferred alternative, which combines the 339 th Avenue and 351st Avenue alternatives. Following the March public input meeting, the preferred alternatives for the south and north segments were refined and depicted in more detailed engineering drawings to be used for future land development planning. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Three public input meetings were conducted at critical milestones in the study process. The first Public “Scoping” meeting (September 22, 2009) provided 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 also provided the study team members with an opportunity to discuss and elicit feedback regarding the study purpose, goals and objectives. The second “Alternatives Analysis” public meeting, conducted December 1, 2009, provided the community with the opportunity to comment on the different roadway alignment alternatives being evaluated for the corridor. The final “Study Findings and Recommendations” public information meeting (March 3, 2010) presented the findings and recommendations of the study, including the preferred parkway alignment, the right-of-way footprint, and preliminary engineering details for the future Hidden Waters Parkway. Public input during each phase of the study process is very important and a vital component of study development. Participants: MCDOT Planning & Engineering Denise Lacey Roberta Crowe Mike Pavlina Kimley-Horn and Associates Michael Grandy Frank Hoffmann Bryan Patterson MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters Pkwy CFSS/5/7/10/RJCROWE 9 Outreach Methods The following outreach methods were used to inform and notify the general public and impacted residents about the study, public input meeting dates and locations and additional opportunities or means for input: • • • • • • Media releases Newspaper articles Display advertisements in local and regional publications o Arizona Republic o West Valley View o Buckeye Valley News o Buckeye Sun o Tonopah Tribune o Gila Bend Sun MCDOT website Partner agency mediums Direct mail flyers to adjacent property owners and previous meeting attendees PUBLIC COMMENT Over 100 people attended three public input meetings conducted through the course of this study. Graphics, aerials and display exhibits presented corridor alternatives and study information. Study Fact Sheets and Comment Sheets were distributed to all those in attendance. The following information is representative of discussions that the project team had with meeting attendees and written comments received by MCDOT: All public meetings were conducted in an “open house” format providing a free, open and accurate exchange of information between area residents with specific issues or questions and the project team. Scoping Phase Public Meeting Meeting Purpose: Gather public comment regarding the study area, existing conditions, current corridor deficiencies, future transportation needs and public review of overall Study Goals and Objectives. 5:00 – 7:00 p.m., September 22, 2009 Arlington Elementary School 9410 S. 355th Avenue, Arlington, AZ 85332 Attendance: 65 Finish building out SR 85 and then you won't need the Hidden Waters Parkway The parkway will bring more people to the area – local residents moved there for the rural setting and lifestyle Protect Gillespie Dam but allow access for appropriate use (local nonvehicular & pedestrian traffic Consider new TransWestern and El Paso gas pipelines Verify 69 kV power line location Use the Old US 80 corridor south of Gillespie Dam and 339th Avenue south of I-10 Consider proposed new mining site near the Mission Materials mining site Verify how the proposed future north/south rail line connects to the existing rail line through Gila Bend The parkway is not needed and would be a waste of money It makes sense to preserve right-of-way now for future growth When will the parkway be constructed? Constructing the parkway in wash areas would minimize property impacts Concerned about how the parkway will impact irrigation facilities and the movement of farm equipment How does this project relate to the I-11 project? MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters Pkwy CFSS/5/7/10/RJCROWE 11 Concerned about the timing and location of proposed new rail line Why is another road needed in addition to SR 85 and Old US 80? Alternatives Analysis Phase Public Meeting Meeting Purpose: Gather public comment regarding preliminary study findings, traffic analysis, corridor alignment alternatives and future roadway options. 5:00 – 7:00 p.m., December 1 2009 Arlington Elementary School 9410 S. 355th Avenue, Arlington, AZ 85332 Attendance:34 Need to provide for farm equipment to cross the parkway at culvert/siphon locations Don't divide agricultural parcels Locate the parkway adjacent to floodplains where possible to protect farm land from flooding 339th Avenue is the best alternative alignment south of I-10 How does the I-11 project relate to Hidden Waters? Support a new bridge crossing of the Gila River Preserve Old US 80 bridge for bicycle and pedestrian use Don't want to lose the rural character of the area by building more homes and roads When will the parkway be built and how will it be funded? Look at ways to reduce flooding problems Concerned about protection of the canal north of the Gila River crossing. Don't follow US 80 alignment south of Gila River The final selection needs to stay on as much state and federal land as possible and avoid as much existing agriculture land as possible. It appears Alternative C should be the route to take from whatever road until it meets up with Alternative B just north of the Gillespie Dam. From there, follow Alternative B to I-10 Findings and Recommendations Phase Public Meeting Meeting Purpose: Gather public comment regarding study findings and “Preferred Alternative”, recommended access management strategies and guidelines, and an improvement phasing timeline. 5:00 – 7:00 p.m., March 3, 2010 MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters Pkwy CFSS/5/7/10/RJCROWE 12 Arlington Elementary School 9410 S. 355th Avenue, Arlington, AZ 85332 Attendance: 14 Comments/questions received by Project Team during discussions with meeting attendees: I think a parkway along the old US 80 alignment is not necessary. I am glad you are rehabilitating the bridge. We need ingress and egress across the canal, off of the parkway, on the north side of the intersection at Riggs Road to provide access for Rick Sutter and others across the canal. This is the first meeting I have been able to make. Exhibits and staff helpful and cordial. Thanks for all the hard work. Very informative. How does the I-11 project relate to the Hidden Waters Parkway? Are there any anticipated problem areas from a soil stability standpoint? How can we get more information about related archaeological studies? When will the parkway be built and how will it be funded? Why do we need another facility that duplicates SR 85? A higher speed, safer facility is needed in the study area. What kind of access will be provided to properties on the east side of Old US 80 just south of the Old US 80 bridge? What east/west connections to Old US 80 will be provided north of the Old US 80 bridge? 339th Avenue is a better location for the parkway than 351 st Avenue or 331st Avenue. Is the location of the Watermelon Parkway intersection finalized? How will Hidden Waters tie into SR85 in the vicinity of Gila Bend Municipal Airport? What is the location/layout of the 801 interchange? FUTURE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS It is important to recognize that the Hidden Waters Corridor Feasibility Study is a long range transportation planning study and the earliest phase of potential project development. It is intended to identify the “feasibility” of constructing a parkway facility at some future date along the Hidden Waters Parkway corridor to address forecasted travel demand associated with future area land development. No public funding is currently allocated for design, right-of-way acquisition, or construction of any elements of the Hidden Waters Parkway. The Preferred Alternatives (parkway centerline and right-of-way limits as recommended in this study) will be used to guide future planning efforts and ensure that subsequent land development proposals and transportation system plans are compatible with future construction of the Hidden Waters Parkway. Further MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters Pkwy CFSS/5/7/10/RJCROWE 13 refinement and negotiation of the parkway centerline right-of-way limits and consideration of environmental impacts will take place in later phases of project development as properties develop and as transportation system improvements are implemented. The following are key issues captured during this study's stakeholder and public involvement process that should be taken into consideration by individual jurisdictions as the recommendations of this study are carried forward into design and construction: Project Funding: It can be anticipated that area developers will participate as part of project requirements. Access Management Strategies: Specific strategies should be implemented to ensure a seamless roadway with efficient traffic flow, safety and good access to local land uses. Environmental Impacts: (Natural, Cultural and Archeological Resources) and Noise Mitigation. Specific impacts on the local environment will require further evaluation during future project development. New Right-of-Way Requirements: Final roadway configuration (during preparation of Final Design Plans) will determine exactly how much land will need to be acquired to accommodate the future parkway. Landscaping Plans: Final project design will specify the type of landscaping to be used. Drainage Structures: Bridges along the new roadway will be designed during final roadway design. It will be critical to ensure the roadway is designed to provide “all weather” crossings during major storm flows. Bicycle, Pedestrian and Transit Access: Future projects will be designed to accommodate alternative modes of travel and provide access to trails and neighborhoods in the area. Corridor Traffic Management: ITS (Intelligent Transportation System) will control operation of traffic between jurisdictions and differing intersection configurations. Jurisdictional Coordination: As with the overall traffic control, implementation of different corridor improvements and access management concepts will be coordinated to ensure a safe, seamless and efficient transportation facility. MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters Pkwy CFSS/5/7/10/RJCROWE 14 Next Steps: Implementation of Recommended Improvements Adoption of Recommendations by Individual Jurisdictions o Functional Roadway Classification (Arizona Parkway) o Corridor Alignment o Access Management Plan Right-of-way Preservation in Developing Areas Design Concept programming Report (DCR) for Consideration in project Appropriation of Funds for Design, Right-of-Way Acquisition Construction of Recommended Corridor Improvements Consistent Coordination between various Transportation Improvements and Traffic Issues Jurisdictions and on This report contains capsulated key issues identified during this study’s public involvement process that should be taken into consideration by individual jurisdictions as the recommendations of this study are carried forward through design and construction. It is recommended that future project development build upon the public involvement program established during this study and continue as a comprehensive program progression. For more information about the study, contact Denise Lacey, MCDOT Planning at 602/506-6172 or Roberta Crowe, MCDOT Public Information Officer at 602/5068003. MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters Pkwy CFSS/5/7/10/RJCROWE 15 Exhibit A: Public Meeting Notification & Newspaper Display Advertisement Scoping Phase Public Input Meeting Newspaper Advertisement Arizona Republic Buckeye Valley News Buckeye Sun Gila Bend Sun West Valley View MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters Pkwy CFSS/5/7/10/RJCROWE 16 Scoping Phase Public Input Meeting Mail Notification MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters Pkwy CFSS/5/7/10/RJCROWE 17 Alternatives Analysis Phase Public Input Meeting Newspaper Advertisement Arizona Republic Buckeye Valley News Tonopah Tribune Gila Bend Sun West Valley View MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters Pkwy CFSS/5/7/10/RJCROWE 18 Alternatives Analysis Phase Public Input Meeting Mail Notification MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters Pkwy CFSS/5/7/10/RJCROWE 19 Findings & Recommendations Phase Public Input Meeting Newspaper Advertisement Arizona Republic Buckeye Valley News Tonopah Tribune Gila Bend Sun West Valley View t MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters Pkwy CFSS/5/7/10/RJCROWE 20 Findings & Recommendations Phase Public Input Meeting Mail Notification MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters Pkwy CFSS/5/7/10/RJCROWE 21 Exhibit B: Media Coverage WEST VALLEY VIEW 9/15/09 MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters Pkwy CFSS/5/7/10/RJCROWE 22 The Arizona Republic Sept. 19, 2009 07:00 AM Public input sought on parkway Jackee Coe The Maricopa County Department of Transportation is holding a public meeting Tuesday to introduce area residents to proposed plans for a new parkway in the far West Valley. The open house is the first of three meetings being conducted as part of the Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study to gather community input about the proposed roadway that would connect Watermelon Road in Gila Bend and Interstate 10 west of Estrella Mountain Regional Park. Residents will be able to see the current plans, offer input and discuss their transportation needs. Roberta Crowe, a spokeswoman for MCDOT, said the proposed parkway would be much safer than a freeway. A parkway is like a major arterial road but has traffic-signal intersections every mile, a 60-foot median and indirect left turns, in which drivers go about 660 feet past the intersection, make a U-turn and then turn right onto the street. The feasibility study is an early stage of the planning and development process and will focus primarily on the feasibility of building the proposed parkway in the planned corridor based on projected future growth and development. Crowe said it's important for community members to attend the meeting because the chances for public input will decrease as they get further into the development process. "Even though it is long-range transportation planning, the opportunities for input are greater at these early phases," she said. A second public meeting to present alternative plans based on input from the first meeting is tentatively scheduled for November. The third and final meeting to collect public input on the study's findings and recommendations is scheduled for February. The Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study is one of three corridor feasibility studies that the transportation department is conducting. Others are the McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study and the Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study. MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters Pkwy CFSS/5/7/10/RJCROWE 23 MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters Pkwy CFSS/5/7/10/RJCROWE 24 AZ Rural Times February 17, 2010 at 9:46 am Hidden Waters Parkway corridor feasibility study MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters Pkwy CFSS/5/7/10/RJCROWE 25 Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study (Watermelon Road to I-10) Findings & Recommendations Phase Public Open House 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, March 3, 2010 Arlington Elementary School Commons Area 9410 S. 355th Avenue, Arlington, AZ 85322 (South of Dobbins Road) The Maricopa County Department of Transportation’s (MCDOT) RightRoads Program is conducting the final in a series of three public open house meetings held through the course of this study to gather community input about potential improvements along the future Hidden Waters Parkway corridor between Watermelon Road and Interstate 10. The Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study is one of several new studies currently being conducted on future Parkways identified in the recently completed Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) I-8/I-10 Hidden Valley Transportation Framework and Interstate 10/Hassayampa Roadway Framework Studies. The primary focus of this study is corridor feasibility and future roadway alignment based upon area growth, development and projected travel demand. This final “Study Findings and Recommendations” public input meeting will provide area residents and other impacted study stakeholders with an opportunity to inform study team members about study area issues and local transportation needs. Evaluated alternatives along with the recommended “Preferred” roadway cross section and future roadway alignment will be presented for public review and comment. The Arizona Parkway roadway design concept, maps and exhibits will be available for viewing during the meeting. Stop by anytime between 5:00 and 7:00 p.m. to speak with MCDOT project team members. MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters Pkwy CFSS/5/7/10/RJCROWE 26 Exhibit C: 1. Public Meeting 1 “Scoping Phase” Handouts, Exhibits/Graphics 2. Public Meeting 2 “Alternatives Analysis” Phase” Handouts, Exhibits/Graphics 3. Public Meeting 3 “Findings and Recommendations Phase” Handouts, Exhibits/Graphics MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters Pkwy CFSS/5/7/10/RJCROWE 27