Central Mesa Reuse Pipeline Alignment Investigation and Analysis Study - Final Summary Report by City of Mesa, AZ

Final Summary Report Central Mesa Reuse Pipeline Alignment Investigation and Analysis Study Project No.: CP0896

November 2020

1640 S. Stapley Drive, Suite 120 Mesa, AZ 85204 P. 480.757.7876 F. 602.957.2838 www.dibblecorp.com

11 /

23 /2

Prepared For: City of Mesa

Table of Contents I.

Executive Summary .................................................................................... 1

A. Project Background and Description ..................................................................................................................... 1 B. Project Location ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 C. Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1. Cost Analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 3 D. ROW Alignments Multi-Criteria Decision Matrix (MCDM) ................................................................................ 3 E. Scenario Challenges of Significance ...................................................................................................................... 4 1. Scenario 1: City ROW ..................................................................................................................................... 4 2. Scenario 2.1: RWCD Water Wheel ................................................................................................................. 4 3. Scenario 2.2: RWCD Pipeline......................................................................................................................... 4 4. Scenario 3: EMF ............................................................................................................................................. 4 5. Scenario 4: City ROW/EMF Hybrid .............................................................................................................. 4 F. Scenarios MCDM ....................................................................................................................................................5 G. Recommendation ....................................................................................................................................................5

II. A. B. C. D.

Introduction and Project Summary .............................................................. 6

Project Background ................................................................................................................................................ 6 Project Objectives ................................................................................................................................................... 6 Project Location ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 Summary of Alignment Scenarios ......................................................................................................................... 6

III.

Scenario 1 Analysis Methodology ............................................................ 8

A. Preliminary Routes Screening – Scenario 1 .......................................................................................................... 8 1. Approach ........................................................................................................................................................ 12 2. Results ............................................................................................................................................................ 12 B. Detailed Analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 15 1. Utility Research & Mapping .......................................................................................................................... 15 2. Geotechnical Screening ................................................................................................................................. 19 3. Community Impact Screening ..................................................................................................................... 22 4. Land Resource Screening ............................................................................................................................. 23 5. Roadway Classification ..................................................................................................................................27 6. Right-of-Way Screening ................................................................................................................................27 7. Stakeholder Outreach & Regulatory/Permit Screening .............................................................................. 30 8. Cost Analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 39 C. ROW Alignments Multi-Criteria Decision Matrix (MCDM) ............................................................................... 41 1. Approach ........................................................................................................................................................ 41 2. Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 43 D. Final Scenario 1 Alignment .................................................................................................................................. 43

IV.

Scenario 2-4 Analysis Methodology ....................................................... 44

A. Detailed Analysis .................................................................................................................................................. 44 1. Utility Research & Mapping ......................................................................................................................... 44 2. Geotechnical Screening .................................................................................................................................47 3. Community Impact Screening ......................................................................................................................47 4. Right-of-Way Screening ................................................................................................................................47 5. Stakeholder Outreach & Regulatory/Permit Screening .............................................................................. 48

V. A. B. C. D. E.

Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (EOPCC) ........................... 61

Scenario 1: City ROW Cost Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 61 Scenario 2: RWCD................................................................................................................................................ 64 Scenario 3: EMF ....................................................................................................................................................67 Scenario 4: City ROW/EMF Hybrid ..................................................................................................................... 71 Summary ...............................................................................................................................................................72

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

VI.

Advantages/Disadvantages Analysis ...................................................... 73

A. Scenario 1: City ROW ............................................................................................................................................73 1. Advantages .....................................................................................................................................................73 2. Disadvantages ................................................................................................................................................73 B. Scenario 2: RWCD.................................................................................................................................................74 1. Scenario 2.1 Advantages ................................................................................................................................74 2. Scenario 2.2 Disadvantages...........................................................................................................................74 3. Scenario 2.2 Advantages ............................................................................................................................... 75 4. Scenario 2.2 Disadvantages........................................................................................................................... 75 C. Scenario 3: EMF ....................................................................................................................................................76 1. Advantages .....................................................................................................................................................76 2. Disadvantages ................................................................................................................................................76 D. Scenario 4: City ROW/EMF Hybrid ..................................................................................................................... 77 1. Advantages ..................................................................................................................................................... 77 2. Disadvantages ................................................................................................................................................ 77 E. Summary .............................................................................................................................................................. 78

VII.

Decision Analysis of Scenarios .............................................................. 79

A. Approach ...............................................................................................................................................................79 B. Results ................................................................................................................................................................... 81 /2 3

/2 0

Conclusion ......................................................................................... 81 References ......................................................................................... 82 11

VIII. IX.

List of Figures Figure 1 - Higley Road Bridge Crossing of US60, Google Maps ..................................................................... 13 Figure 2 - SRP Eastern Canal at US60, Looking South ................................................................................... 13 Figure 3 - Utility Analysis Six-Foot Buffer ....................................................................................................... 18 Figure 4 – Potential Sand, Gravel, and Cobbles within Northern Portion of the Study Area ....................... 22 Figure 5 - RWCD Canal at Quenton Drive and McDowell Road.....................................................................49 Figure 6 - RWCD Cross Section Reduction at Chandler Heights ................................................................... 51 Figure 7 - RWCD Resident Encroachment, Aerial and Looking North .......................................................... 52 Figure 8 - RWCD Well Site at Broadway Road, Looking South...................................................................... 53 Figure 9 - EMF East Bank Access Road Between Main Street and Broadway Road, Looking South ........... 55 Figure 10 - Superstition Springs Golf Course, Looking North ....................................................................... 60 Figure 11 - RWCD Canal Liner Damage ........................................................................................................... 65

List of Tables Table 1 - Central Mesa Reuse Pipeline Scenario Summary ............................................................................... 1 Table 2 - Probable Project Budget ...................................................................................................................... 3 Table 3 – ROW Alignments Multi-Criteria Decision Matrix Categories and Criteria ..................................... 3 Table 4 - Scenarios Multi-Criteria Decision Matrix Categories and Criteria ................................................... 5 Table 5 - Scenarios MCDM Results .................................................................................................................... 5 Table 6 - Utility Analysis Results ...................................................................................................................... 19 Table 7 - Identified Easement/Property Acquisition Requirements ............................................................. 30 Table 8 - RWCD Utility Separation Requirements .......................................................................................... 34 Table 9 - Regulatory/Permit Summary Table .................................................................................................. 39 Table 10 - Multi-Criteria Decision Matrix Categories and Criteria ................................................................ 41 Table 11 - Sliding Scale for Category Importance Comparison ....................................................................... 41 Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Table 12 – Category and Criteria Weights ........................................................................................................42 Table 13 - Minor Utility Relocation Count Ranges and Associated Scores ....................................................42 Table 14 - Ranking Matrix Results Summary .................................................................................................. 43 Table 15 - Length Comparison for Town of Gilbert Proposed Alignment Modification ...............................44 Table 16 - Utility Analysis Results .................................................................................................................... 47 Table 17 - Scenario 2-4 ROW Widths ............................................................................................................... 47 Table 18 - Leisure World Golf Course Easement Cost Estimate ..................................................................... 56 Table 19 - Superstition Springs Golf Course Easement Cost Estimate........................................................... 59 Table 20 - Estimated City ROW Alignment Cost Summary ...........................................................................64 Table 21 – Estimated RWCD Pipeline Alignment Cost Summary .................................................................. 67 Table 22 - Segment Lengths Located Within EMF Channel ...........................................................................69 Table 23 – Estimated EMF Cost Analysis Summary ....................................................................................... 71 Table 24 – Estimated City ROW/EMF Hybrid Cost Analysis Summary ....................................................... 72 Table 25 – Estimated Pipeline Cost Analysis Summary.................................................................................. 72 Table 26 – Estimated Water Wheel Agreement Cost Analysis Summary ...................................................... 73 Table 27 - City ROW Potential Utility Relocations .......................................................................................... 74 Table 28 - City ROW Advantages/Disadvantages Summary .......................................................................... 74 Table 29 – Scenario 2.1 - RWCD Canal Water Wheel Advantages/Disadvantages Summary ...................... 76 Table 30 – Scenario 2.2 - RWCD Pipeline Advantages/Disadvantages Summary ........................................ 76 Table 31 - EMF Advantages/Disadvantages Summary ................................................................................... 77 Table 32 - City ROW/EMF Hybrid Advantages/Disadvantages Summary ................................................... 78 Table 33 - Advantages/Disadvantages Analysis Summary ............................................................................. 79 Table 34 - Scenario MCDM Categories and Criteria ...................................................................................... 80 Table 35 – Scenario Categories and Criteria Calculated Weights.................................................................. 80 Table 36 – Decision Analysis of Scenarios ....................................................................................................... 81

List of Exhibits Exhibit 1 – Scenario 1-4 Alignments Exhibit 2 – Project Area Exhibit 3 – RWCD Alignments Exhibit 4 – EMF Alignment Exhibit 5 – City ROW/EMF Hybrid Alignment Exhibit 6 – Preliminary Routes Exhibit 7 – Roadway Segment Numbers Exhibit 8 – Major Utility Crossings Exhibit 9 – Potential Utility Relocations Exhibit 10 – Public Facilities Exhibit 11 – Business Impact Exhibit 12 – Traffic Volumes Exhibit 13 – Roadway Classification Exhibit 14 – Right-of-Way Widths Exhibit 15 – Jurisdictions Exhibit 16 – Permit Counts Exhibit 17 – City ROW Top 5 Alignments Exhibit 18 – City ROW Alignment Exhibit 19 – RWCD Canal Widths Exhibit 20 – RWCD System Map – Well Sites Exhibit 21 – Higley and Main Intersection Exhibit 22 – EMF Land Ownership

Dibble November 2020

iii

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Appendices Appendix A - ArcGIS Intersect and Buffer Analyses Results .................................. A Appendix B – Typical Cross Sections .................................................................. B Appendix B1 – City ROW Typical Cross Sections ............................................... B-1 Appendix B2 – EMF/RWCD Typical Cross Sections ............................................ B-2 Appendix C – Major Utility Crossing Counts ........................................................ C Appendix D – Potential Minor Utility Relocation Measurements .............................. D Appendix E – Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, NWWRP Reclaimed Waterline Alignment Study, Ninyo & Moore, (2019) ............................................................ E Appendix F – Preliminary Land Resource/ROW Screening Summary, NWWRP Reclaimed Waterline Alignment Study, Tierra Right-of-Way, (2020)........................ F Appendix G – Permit Requirements Table ........................................................... G Appendix H– Regulatory Permits ....................................................................... H Appendix H1 – ADOT Highway Encroachment Permit Application ........................ H-1 Appendix H2 – Falcon Field District Federal Aviation Administration OE/AAA Form 7640 Application .................................................................................................. H-2 Appendix H3 – FCDMC Floodplain Use Permit Application & ROW Use Permit Instructions ................................................................................................. H-3 Appendix H4 – MCDOT ROW Use Permit Application ......................................... H-4 Appendix H5 – MCESD Approval to Construct Application .................................. H-5 Appendix H6 – RWCD Crossing Permit Application ............................................ H-6 Appendix H7 – SRP Easement Encroachment Request ....................................... H-7 Appendix H8 – Town of Gilbert Engineering Construction Permit Application ........ H-8 Appendix H9 – USACE Nationwide 12 404 Permit Application ............................. H-9 Appendix I – Stakeholder Outreach Log and Meeting Notes ................................... I Appendix J – ROW Alignments Ranking Matrix ..................................................... J Appendix J1 – Categories Score Card ............................................................... J-1 Appendix J2 – Criteria Score Card ................................................................... J-2 Appendix J3 – Criteria Scoring Rubric .............................................................. J-3 Appendix J4 – City ROW Alignments Scores & Ranks ......................................... J-4 Appendix K – City of Mesa Pavement Cut Restriction Map ..................................... K Appendix L – Cost Estimate ............................................................................... L Appendix L1 – City ROW Roadway Segment Cost Estimate .................................. L1 Appendix L2 – RWCD Pipeline Cost Estimate ...................................................... L2 Appendix L3 – EMF Pipeline Cost Estimate ......................................................... L3 Appendix L4 – City ROW/EMF Hybrid Pipeline Cost Estimate ................................ L4 Appendix L5 – Plant Improvements Preliminary Cost Estimate ............................. L5 Appendix L6 – Scenario 1-4 Pipeline Alignments: EOPCC ..................................... L6 Appendix M – Advantages/Disadvantages Analysis Table ...................................... M Appendix N – RWCD Water Wheel Technical Memorandum ................................... N Appendix O – Scenarios Ranking Matrix ............................................................. O Appendix O1 – Scenarios Scoring Rubic .......................................................... O-1 Appendix O2 – Scenario Scores and Ranks ...................................................... O-2 Appendix P – Referenced Standard Details .......................................................... P

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

I. Executive Summary A. Project Background and Description The City of Mesa (City) plans to design and construct a new reuse water transmission main known as the Central Mesa Reuse Pipeline (CMRP) that will deliver reuse water from an existing 36-inch pipeline stubout at Val Vista Drive and Quenton Drive to an existing Southeast Water Reclamation Plant (SEWRP) 42inch pipeline located at Baseline Road and Recker Road. Connecting the NWWRP and the SEWRP will allow the City to send reuse water from the NWWRP to the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) using the existing infrastructure available south of the SEWRP and utilize surface water credits from an existing water rights settlement agreement with the GRIC. These surface water credits will help diversify the City’s water portfolio and allow for future expansion and growth. Four reuse water delivery scenarios have been considered for further investigation and analysis. These scenarios are listed in Table 1 and can be seen in Exhibit 1, Scenario 1-4 Alignments. Table 1 - Central Mesa Reuse Pipeline Scenario Summary

Scenario 1

2.1 2.2

City ROW RWCD Water Wheel RWCD Pipeline

EMF

City ROW/EMF Hybrid

Description Construct a 42-inch reuse waterline connecting the NWWRP (Val Vista Drive & Quenton Drive) to the SEWRP (Baseline Road & Recker Road) utilizing City Right-of-Way. A total of 44 linear miles of roadway were analyzed within this scenario to develop 446 possible City ROW alignments. A multi-criteria decision matrix (MCDM) was utilized to select the preferred alignment for this Scenario. Utilize RWCD’s Main Canal to convey the reuse water from Val Vista Drive and McDowell Road directly to the GRIC through open channel flow methodology. Construct a 42-inch reuse waterline connecting the NWWRP to the SEWRP utilizing RWCD’s Right-ofWay parallel to the RWCD Main Canal. Construct a 42-inch reuse waterline connecting the NWWRP to the SEWRP utilizing the East Maricopa Floodway (EMF) Right-of-Way.

Construct a 42-inch reuse waterline connecting the NWWRP to the SEWRP utilizing a combination of City and EMF Rights-of-Way.

These four scenarios were developed and analyzed so that Dibble (Engineer) could recommend to the City which scenario is preferred for conveying the reuse water to utilize the water exchange rate with the GRIC. B. Project Location The project is located primarily in the City of Mesa, Maricopa County, Arizona with the project boundaries being the Loop 202 at the north, Power Road at the east, Guadalupe Road at the south, and Lindsay Road at the west. Refer to Exhibit 1, Scenario 1-4 Alignments, for an illustration of project limits. C. Analysis Methodology A preferred alignment for Scenario 1- City ROW was determined by evaluating the 446 potential alignments developed within City ROW roadways. Each of those alignments was subjected to the analysis components which consisted of existing utilities, geotechnical evaluation, community impact screening, land resource screening, right-of-way, and stakeholder outreach. The results were compiled into a ROW Alignments multi-criteria decision matrix (MCDM). The matrix was utilized to objectively compare each Scenario 1City ROW alignment and determine the preferred alignment within this scenario. The preferred alignment for Scenario 1- City ROW was then analyzed in an advantages/disadvantages analysis and Scenarios MCDM.

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

r E Ea gl e C rest D

E Thomas Rd

E Quenton Dr

_ ^

2.2 RWCD ALIGNMENT

North Connection Point

N Power Rd

N Higley Rd

E McKellips Rd

N Val Vista Dr

N Recker Rd

Falcon Field Airport

N Greenfield Rd

N 32nd St

E McDowell Rd

3. EMF ALIGNMENT

N 40th St

N 32nd St

N Lindsay Rd

E McLellan Rd

E Princess Dr

E Brown Rd

2.1 RWCD Water Wheel 1. ROW ALIGNMENT

E University Dr

E Main St

S 40th St

S Recker Rd

E Main St

E Broadway Rd

SR PE S Greenfield Rd

S Sunnyvale Ave

SEWRP

_ ^ _ ^ N Recker Rd

N Li n

N Val V

dsay

ista Dr

South Connection Point

l na Ca

E Inverness Ave E Baseline Rd

in Ma

E Banner Gateway Dr

C RW

4. HYBRID ALIGNMENT

S Power Rd

S Val Vista Dr

al an

S Lindsay Rd

S Higley Rd

ter as E Southern Ave

E Guadalupe Rd

Maricopa County Assessor's Office

Legend

_ ^

Features of Interest Study Area Abandoned Utah Canal ROW ADOT ROW RWCD ROW SRP ROW

MCFCD

Route

CF Superstition Springs

1. Mesa ROW Alignment

Falcon Field

2.1 RWCD Water Wheel

Maricopa County

2.2 RWCD Alignment

Mesa

3. EMF Alignment

Gilbert

4. Hybrid Alignment

SWRRC Main Document Path: H:\2018\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\GIS\Mesa_Alignment_Mesa_ROW_EMF_Hybrid_Routes_11x17P.mxd

CMRP ALIGNMENT STUDY Exhibit 1 Scenario 1-4 Alignments

I 0

0.5

Date Saved: 11/12/2020 1:42:09 PM

Scenario 2.1- RWCD Water Wheel, Scenario 2.2- RWCD Pipeline, Scenario 3- EMF, and Scenario 4- City ROW/EMF Hybrid were also subjected to the analysis components listed above. The results of each analysis for Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 were incorporated into the Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (EOPCC), an advantages/disadvantages analysis, and Scenarios MCDM. The advantages/disadvantages analysis and Scenarios MCDM were utilized as tools to compare each of the four scenarios, which included the top-ranking alignment within the City ROW, and the RWCD, EMF, and City ROW/EMF Hybrid alignments. 1. Cost Analysis An EOPCC was developed for each alignment within each Scenario. It was assumed that the pipeline would be constructed using 42-inch diameter concrete cylinder pipe (CCP). Plant improvements are anticipated at both the NWWRP and the SEWRP. Assumed improvements included a new reservoir and booster pump station at the NWWRP, and booster pump station improvements at the SEWRP. These improvements will be further analyzed in a later hydraulic and surge analysis. Preliminary costs for the assumed improvements indicated were included in the total project cost. The total project costs for each scenario are outlined in Table 2. Refer to Appendix L, Cost Estimate, for the detailed EOPCC associated with Scenarios 1, 2.2, 3, and 4, and Appendix N, RWCD Water Wheel Technical Memorandum for the detailed EOPCC associated with Scenario 2.1. Table 2 - Probable Project Budget

Scenario Total Cost

Scenario 2.1RWCD Water Wheel*

Scenario 1City ROW

$70.7 M (40-yr) $83.9 M (100-yr)

$88.6 M

Scenario 2.2RWCD Pipeline $75.2 M

Scenario 3- EMF $84.7 M

Scenario 4City ROW/EMF Hybrid $88.1 M

*Scenario 2.1 was analyzed for both a 40-year and 100-year lifespan D. ROW Alignments Multi-Criteria Decision Matrix (MCDM) The ROW Alignments MCDM was utilized as a comparison tool for the project team to understand the overall advantages and disadvantages of each Scenario 1- City ROW alignment and aided in the process of determining the preferred Scenario 1- City ROW alignment. The MCDM development was completed in conjunction with the screening analysis and solidified after completing two workshops with the City. The matrix was composed of the following major categories and criteria in Table 3: Table 3 – ROW Alignments Multi-Criteria Decision Matrix Categories and Criteria

Category

Criteria

Community Impact

Public Facility Impact Business Impact Traffic Impact Minor Utility Relocations Regulatory / Permit Screening Geotechnical Analysis Roadway Classification Existing Major Utility Crossing Right-of-Way Width Easements / Property Acquisitions Land Resource Analysis Probable Construction Cost

Constructability

Right-of-Way

Cost

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

The top five (5) ranking alignments as a result of the matrix are illustrated in Exhibit 17, City ROW Top 5 Alignments. E. Scenario Challenges of Significance The challenges associated with each scenario are outlined below. 1. Scenario 1: City ROW Significant challenges associated with Scenario 1- City ROW include: • Traffic control • Public facility and business impact • Potential utility relocations • Construction in arterial roadways 2. Scenario 2.1: RWCD Water Wheel Significant challenges associated with Scenario 2.1- RWCD Water Wheel include: • Associated perpetual legal agreements and annual toll • Water quality concerns and liability • Canal improvements required to accommodate City flows • Required coordination with an additional major stakeholder (RWCD) 3. Scenario 2.2: RWCD Pipeline Significant challenges associated with Scenario 2.2- RWCD Pipeline include: • Legal agreements with risk of future relocation • Coordination with private property owners due to resident encroachment on RWCD’s ROW between University Drive and Main Street • RWCD canal liner damage causing leakage and saturated, unstable soils adjacent to the canal • Required coordination with an additional major stakeholder (RWCD) 4. Scenario 3: EMF Significant challenges associated with Scenario 3- EMF include: • Two (2) RWCD Main Canal crossings • Legal agreements with risk of future relocation • Potential 404 permitting • Complex intersection crossing at Higley Road and Main Street • Coordination with five major stakeholders (Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC), Leisure World Golf Course, Maricopa County, Superstition Springs Golf Course, and RWCD for Main Canal Crossings) 5. Scenario 4: City ROW/EMF Hybrid Significant challenges associated with Scenario 4- City ROW/EMF Hybrid include: • Four RWCD Main Canal Crossings • Legal agreements • Potential 404 permitting • Complex canal crossing at Higley Road and Main Street • Coordination with three major stakeholders (FCDMC, Superstition Springs Golf Course, and RWCD for Main Canal Crossings)

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

F. Scenarios MCDM The City requested that the Engineer develop an additional Scenarios MCDM that was utilized as a comparison tool for the project team to further assess the results of the Advantages/Disadvantages Analysis and identify a recommended alignment. The matrix was composed of the major categories and criteria shown in Table 4. The Scenarios MCDM is discussed in detail in Section VII. Table 4 - Scenarios Multi-Criteria Decision Matrix Categories and Criteria

Category

Criteria

Cost

Cost per Acre-Foot Delivered Schedule Constructability

Construction

Community Impact Water Quality Concerns Water Portfolio Benefit

Risk

Environmental Impact / Future Regulatory Legal Agreements Unencumbered Control

Autonomy

Stakeholder Involvement Timeline to Implement Ease of Access Required Maintenance / Operational Functionality

Operations

System Longevity

The Scenarios MCDM resulted in the ranking of the scenarios alignments shown in Table 5: Table 5 - Scenarios MCDM Results

Rank

Scenario

Scenario 1- City ROW

Scenario 2.2- RWCD Pipeline

Scenario 2.1- RWCD Water Wheel

Scenario 4- City ROW/EMF Hybrid

Scenario 3- EMF

G. Recommendation After consideration of the various analysis components including the Detailed Analysis of each Scenario, the ROW Alignments MCDM, the Advantages/Disadvantages Analysis, and the Scenarios MCDM, as well as coordination and approval of the City’s Engineering Department and Water Resources Department, the recommended alignment is Scenario 1, City ROW Alignment 41. The proposed pipeline alignment is illustrated in Exhibit 18, City ROW Alignment. The preliminary EOPCC for this alignment is $88.6 M. This cost and final pipeline alignment will be developed during the construction document phase by the Pipeline Design Engineer and the CMAR Contractor.

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

II. Introduction and Project Summary A. Project Background The City of Mesa (City) currently produces reuse water at the Northwest Water Reclamation Plant (NWWRP) and delivers it 9.5 miles northeast, through an existing 36-inch pipeline, to the Granite Reef Underground Storage Project (GRUSP) recharge basins, located approximately at Val Vista Drive and the Loop 202. The delivery of the reuse water from NWWRP to the GRUSP enables the City to receive recharge credits, which permit them to pump additional groundwater at a future date. Historically, intermittent flow of the Salt River and groundwater mounding do not allow these recharge basins to be used to their full potential. When the GRUSP is not available, the City discharges the water to the Salt River and the City does not receive any recharge credits for the reuse water produced at the NWWRP. The City has an existing water rights settlement agreement with the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) to exchange reuse water for Central Arizona Project (CAP) surface water credits. For every five (5) acre-feet (AF) of reuse water delivered to GRIC, the City receives four (4) AF of CAP water exchange credits. Currently, the City delivers reuse water from the Southeast Water Reclamation Plant (SEWRP) to the Greenfield Water Reclamation Plant (GWRP). Reuse water from both the SEWRP and the GWRP are then sent to the GRIC to fulfill a portion of the water rights settlement agreement. The City desires to send additional reuse water to GRIC, in exchange for CAP water, to increase the resiliency of the water supply for current and future growth. B. Project Objectives An existing 42-inch pipeline at the SEWRP effluent booster pump station, delivers reuse water to the GWRP, and ultimately to the GRIC. The objective of this project is to determine a preferred alignment for a pipeline that will connect the existing NWWRP GRUSP pipeline, which has an existing stub-out at Val Vista Drive and Quenton Drive, to the SEWRP pipeline at Houston Avenue and Recker Road (approximately 10 miles). This will allow the City to deliver reuse water from the NWWRP to GRIC and fulfill a larger portion of the existing water rights settlement agreement. The additional surface water credits received from this connection will maximize the beneficial use of reuse water and help diversify the City’s water portfolio. The City has initiated the Central Mesa Reuse Pipeline Alignment Investigation and Analysis Study to analyze the potential alignments for the Central Mesa Reuse Pipeline (CMRP). The recommendations derived from this Alignment Investigation and Analysis Study will be used as a technical basis for the final alignment to be used in the design and construction document phase of the pipeline system. C. Project Location The project is located primarily within the City of Mesa, Maricopa County, Arizona, with the project boundaries being the Loop 202 at the north, Power Road at the east, Guadalupe Road at the south, and Lindsay Road at the west. The pipeline connection points for developing the potential alignments were Val Vista Drive and Quenton Drive as the north connection point and Recker Road and Baseline Road as the south connection point. Refer to Exhibit 2, Project Area, for a more in-depth illustration of the project limits. D. Summary of Alignment Scenarios Four water delivery scenarios have been considered for further investigation and analysis: Scenario 1 uses City right-of-way (ROW) to construct the pipeline. An engineering analysis was performed to evaluate 44 linear miles of roadway to determine the preferred alignment within City ROW. A ROW Alignments multi-criteria decision matrix (MCDM) was utilized to select the preferred alignment for this scenario, as described in Section III.C, ROW Alignments Multi-Criteria Decision Matrix.

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

r E Ea gl e C rest D

E Thomas Rd

£ ¤ 202

_ ^ North Connection Point E McDowell Rd

N Power Rd

N Recker Rd

N Higley Rd

E McKellips Rd

N 32nd St

N Lindsay Rd

N Val Vista Dr

N Greenfield Rd

N 32nd St

Falcon Field Airport

E Brown Rd

E University Dr

E Main St

S Recker Rd

E Main St

S Higley Rd

Leisure World

E Southern Ave

S Power Rd

S Greenfield Rd

S Val Vista Dr

S Lindsay Rd

E Broadway Rd

£ ¤

ista Dr

N Val V

dsay N Li n

_ ^ _ ^ N Recker Rd

N Hig

E Baseline Rd

ley R d

SEWRP South Connection Point

E Guadalupe Rd

Maricopa County Assessor's Office

Legend Abandoned Utah Canal ROW

CF Superstition Springs

ADOT ROW

Falcon Field

SRP Canal ROW

Maricopa County

RWCD ROW

Mesa

MCFCD

Gilbert

Document Path: H:\2018\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\GIS\Mesa_Alignment_Study_Project_Area_11x17P.mxd

_ ^

Features of Interest Study Area

CMRP ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 0.5

Exhibit 2 Project Area Date Saved: 11/12/2020 1:53:58 PM

Scenario 2 consists of two options, both utilizing Roosevelt Water Conservation District (RWCD) ROW. RWCD is an irrigation district responsible for delivering agricultural and residential irrigation water to contracted customers located within their service area. This service area is bounded by the Salt River Project (SRP) South Canal to the north, the RWCD Main Canal to the east, Hunt Highway to the south, and the SRP Eastern Canal to the west. The RWCD Main Canal, which is RWCD’s primary means of water transport, starts just north of Quenton Drive, east of Val Vista Drive, and travels approximately 30 miles south to the GRIC at Hunt Highway east of Val Vista Drive. Scenario 2.1 is for the City to enter into an agreement with RWCD in which the City would extend the existing NWWRP pipeline to discharge into the RWCD Main Canal and transport the water to GRIC using the canal. This relationship would create a water wheel arrangement between the two agencies. Scenario 2.2 is to construct the pipeline within RWCD’s ROW parallel to the RWCD Main Canal. This pipeline would travel from the north connection point within Quenton Drive, enter RWCD’s ROW at Quenton, then remain in RWCD’s ROW until reaching Baseline Road, and finally connect into the south connection point. These options are illustrated in Exhibit 3, RWCD Alignments. Scenario 3 includes coordination with the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) to utilize existing East Maricopa Floodway (EMF) ROW to construct a portion of the pipeline. The EMF is a 27.5mile long engineered channel, designed to capture excess stormwater, and provide 100-year flood protection for the Williams Chandler watershed area. The EMF begins at approximately Brown Road and Greenfield Road and is adjacent to the east side of the RWCD Main Canal until it also terminates at Hunt Highway. The pipeline for this scenario would begin at the north connection point and utilize the most costeffective route for the north portion of the City ROW to reach the intersection of Brown Road and Greenfield Road. It would then enter the EMF and remain within the EMF until reaching Baseline Road and connect into the south connection point. Refer to Exhibit 4, EMF Alignment, for an illustration of the proposed EMF alignment. Scenario 4 uses a combination of City ROW and the FCDMC’s EMF ROW to construct the pipeline, in a hybrid type scenario. The pipeline would begin at the north connection point and utilize the most costeffective route for the north portion of the City ROW to reach the intersection of Brown Road and Greenfield Road. It would then enter the EMF at this location until it reaches Higley Road and Main Street, where it would exit, then travel south on Higley Road until reaching Southern Avenue, continue east on Southern Avenue, and re-enter the EMF. This hybrid alignment would utilize City ROW in locations where the City’s ROW would be more advantageous to the pipeline construction. Refer to Exhibit 5, City ROW/EMF Hybrid Alignment, for an illustration of the proposed City ROW/EMF hybrid alignment.

III. Scenario 1 Analysis Methodology A methodology was developed to organize, analyze, and evaluate the data provided by the various research and analyses procedures performed to determine the preferred alignment within Scenario 1. Due to the amount of alignment options for Scenario 1, additional analyses were required to evaluate the feasibility of this scenario. A. Preliminary Routes Screening – Scenario 1 The first step in the analysis methodology was to determine the routes to include in the detailed analysis for Scenario 1. The project team performed an initial elimination of routes which were not practical for a potential alignment. Reasons for eliminating a route were based on the following criteria: • • • Dibble November 2020

Nominal length of pipeline - significant contribution to pipeline length (1 mile or more added to overall pipeline length) adds cost Existing major utility concentration – complicates construction Traffic count – high counts require extensive traffic control 8

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

r E Ea gl e C rest D

E Thomas Rd

E Quenton Dr

_ ^ North Connection Point

E McDowell Rd

N Power Rd

N Recker Rd

E McKellips Rd

N Higley Rd

N Val Vista Dr

N Greenfield Rd

N 32nd St

Falcon Field Airport

N 40th St

N 32nd St

N Lindsay Rd

E McLellan Rd

E Brown Rd

E University Dr

E Main St

S 40th St

S Recker Rd

E Main St

E Broadway Rd

SR PE E Southern Ave

C RW

S Power Rd

S Greenfield Rd

S Val Vista Dr

al an

S Lindsay Rd

S Higley Rd

ter as

Leisure World

in Ma l na Ca

SEWRP

_ ^

ista Dr

Rd N Li n

N Val V

dsay

South Connection Point

N Recker Rd

_ ^

E Baseline Rd

Maricopa County Assessor's Office

Legend

_ ^

Features of Interest SWRRC Main Study Area Abandoned Utah Canal ROW ADOT ROW SRP ROW

RWCD ROW MCFCD

Gilbert

CMRP ALIGNMENT STUDY

0.5

Route

CF Superstition Springs

Option 1 - Canal Transport

Falcon Field

Option 2 -Pipeline

Maricopa County Mesa

Document Path: H:\2018\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\GIS\Mesa_Alignment_Mesa_RWCD_Routes_11x17P_Updated.mxd

Exhibit 3 RWCD Alignment Options

Date Saved: 11/12/2020 3:24:27 PM

r E Ea gl e C rest D

E Thomas Rd

E Quenton Dr

_ ^ North Connection Point

E McDowell Rd

N Power Rd

N Recker Rd

N Higley Rd

E McKellips Rd

E Princess Dr N 32nd St

N Lindsay Rd

N Val Vista Dr

N Greenfield Rd

N 32nd St

Falcon Field Airport

E Brown Rd

E University Dr

E Main St

S 40th St

S Recker Rd

E Main St

E Broadway Rd

SR S Higley Rd

C RW

S Power Rd

S Greenfield Rd

S Val Vista Dr

l na Ca

S Lindsay Rd

n ter as

PE E Southern Ave

in Ma l na Ca

SEWRP

_ ^

N Li n

N Val V

dsay

ista Dr

South Connection Point

N Recker Rd

_ ^

E Baseline Rd

E Guadalupe Rd

Maricopa County Assessor's Office

Legend

_ ^

Abandoned Utah Canal ROW

CF Superstition Springs

ADOT ROW

Falcon Field

Study Area

SRP Canal ROW

Maricopa County

SWRRC Main

RWCD ROW

Mesa

MCFCD

Gilbert

Document Path: H:\2018\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\GIS\Mesa_Alignment_EMF_Routes_11x17P.mxd

Features of Interest

Route EMF Route

CMRP ALIGNMENT STUDY Exhibit 4 EMF Alignment

I 0

0.5

Date Saved: 11/12/2020 2:02:43 PM

E Ea gl e C rest Dr

E Thomas Rd

E Quenton Dr

_ ^ North Connection Point

E McDowell Rd

N Power Rd

N Recker Rd

N Higley Rd

E McKellips Rd

E Princess Dr N 32nd St

N Lindsay Rd

N Val Vista Dr

N Greenfield Rd

N 32nd St

Falcon Field Airport

E Brown Rd

E University Dr

E Main St

S 40th St

S Recker Rd

E Main St

E Broadway Rd

SR S Higley Rd

C RW

S Power Rd

S Greenfield Rd

S Val Vista Dr

l na Ca

S Lindsay Rd

n ter as

PE E Southern Ave

in Ma l na Ca

SEWRP

_ ^

N Li n

N Val V

dsay

ista Dr

South Connection Point

N Recker Rd

_ ^

E Baseline Rd

E Guadalupe Rd

Maricopa County Assessor's Office

Legend

_ ^

Abandoned Utah Canal ROW

CF Superstition Springs

ADOT ROW

Falcon Field

Study Area

SRP Canal ROW

Maricopa County

SWRRC Main

RWCD ROW

Mesa

MCFCD

Gilbert

Document Path: H:\2018\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\GIS\Mesa_Alignment_EMF_Hybrid_Routes_11x17P.mxd

Features of Interest

Route EMF Hybrid

CMRP ALIGNMENT STUDY Exhibit 5 City ROW/EMF Hybrid Alignment

I 0

0.5

Date Saved: 11/12/2020 2:09:11 PM

• • • • •

Jurisdictional analysis – presence of county islands (ROW not owned by the City) Canal crossings – multiple canal crossings increase cost and complicate construction US60 crossing - require complex jack-and-bore at major and minor arterial intersections Geotechnical analysis - conditions likely to require hard dig such as rock Dead-end roadway segments leading up to items listed above

1. Approach All major routes within the project area that appeared to be viable for accommodating the installation of a large diameter reuse waterline were subject to preliminary route screening. Routes that when combined would produce longer alignments were initially considered in case there were constraints discovered that would prohibit construction within the most direct alignments. 2. Results Major routes determined to be disadvantageous, in terms of each of the preliminary route screening criteria, are identified below: • Nominal Length of Pipeline Power Road, Lindsay Road, Recker Road (due to being discontinuous between Broadway Road and the US60), and Guadalupe Road result in a minimum of two (2) additional miles being added to the alignment. Because the average cost of constructing a 42-inch pipeline is approximately $4-6 million (M) per mile, these segments are anticipated to add $8-12M to the construction cost. Discussion with the City determined that there was no apparent advantage to adding this amount of length to the alignment. • Existing Major Utility Concentration A preliminary utility analysis was conducted in GIS based on data provided by the City. Available corridor width was measured for a 42-inch reuse waterline. Due to existing infrastructure in Lindsay Road associated with the Val Vista Water Treatment Plant located at Lindsay Road and McDowell Road (72-inch and 108-inch water transmission mains) and a 72-inch storm drain starting at McKellips Road, Lindsay Road was eliminated due to existing major utility concentration. • Traffic Count Available Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) counts for the City of Mesa (Mesa, 2016 and 2017), Town of Gilbert (Gilbert, 2017 Annual Traffic Counts, 2017), and Maricopa County (County, 2016 and 2017) were compiled for each roadway segment within the project area. Power Road had the highest overall traffic volume within the project area, ranging from 20,500 vehicles per day to 40,700 vehicles per day. Extensive traffic control was probable for the entire length of Power Road. • Jurisdictional Analysis The following streets are located within Maricopa County Islands and are likely to require additional permitting and construction requirements per MCDOT standards: o Recker Road between Adobe Street and Main Street o University Drive between Higley Road and Power Road • Topographic Impact Topographical maps produced by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) encompassing the extents of the study area were reviewed. The review of these maps indicated that there were no significant topographical features within the extents of the study area. The general topography of the study area is relatively consistent with a gradual increase in ground elevation to the northeast toward the Superstition Mountain Range. • Canal Crossings Power Road, Recker Road, and Lindsay Road will require at least two (2) canal crossings. Canal crossings introduce additional construction cost, permits, coordination with additional stakeholders, potential schedule impact, and risk associated with canal leakage and potential structural failure.

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

• US60 Crossing Val Vista Drive, Higley Road, and Power Road are bridge crossings with a depressed portion of the U.S. Highway 60 (US60) passing underneath them as shown in Figure 1. These crossings would require deep, complex jack-and-bore crossings in heavily trafficked intersections. The City Water Resources Department was also concerned about future accessibility having a pipeline below the US60.

Figure 1 - Higley Road Bridge Crossing of US60, Google Maps

The Engineer investigated the possibility of constructing the pipeline parallel to the SRP Eastern Canal to cross the US60 from a constructability standpoint. High voltage overhead power lines run parallel to the Eastern Canal on the east bank as shown in Figure 2. From Southern Avenue to Pecos Road, RWCD also has an irrigation pipeline/open channel running parallel to the east bank of the Eastern Canal, within SRP’s right-of-way. SRP requires a minimum 15-foot separation of high voltage power lines from any open trench without special pole bracing provisions. RWCD requires a minimum two- to four-foot separation from the RWCD facilities. Both agency requirements make construction of the reuse waterline within SRP’s ROW on the east bank technically challenging. Constructing the pipeline on the west bank was also investigated. This would require crossing the SRP Eastern Canal and would conflict with an existing SRP irrigation pipeline located within the access road on the west bank of the canal. A second crossing of the Eastern Canal would be necessary to continue east to reach the south connection point. Due to the existing utilities present within SRP’s Eastern Canal ROW, this crossing of the US60 was determined to be disadvantageous from a constructability standpoint.

Figure 2 - SRP Eastern Canal at US60, Looking South

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

• Geotechnical Analysis McDowell Road between Higley Road and Power Road is composed of Early Proterozoic Granite rock, which would likely require hard dig or blasting. This could result in lower pipe laying production rates, lengthen the construction schedule and increase the construction cost within this section of roadway. Eliminated Routes Based on the initial alignment screening results criteria, these major routes were eliminated: Northern and Southern Routes • Lindsay Road • Recker Road • Power Road • Recker Road between Adobe Street and Main Street • Val Vista Drive and Higley Road at US60 crossing East-West Routes • All routes determined to be dead-end roadway segments leading up to the eliminated Northern and Southern Routes. • University Drive between Higley Road and Power Road • McDowell Road between Higley Road and Power Road Possible Routes Based on the initial alignment screening results, the following routes were selected for further, detailed analysis. Northern and Southern Routes • Val Vista Drive • Greenfield Road • Higley Road Viable US60 Crossings • Greenfield Road • Pierpont Drive • RWCD Canal • EMF A complete illustration of the routes selected for detailed analysis can be found in Exhibit 6, Preliminary Routes. Preliminary Routes Workshop The project team held a Preliminary Routes Workshop with City staff to present the results of the preliminary routes screening and the routes selected for detailed analysis. The purpose of the workshop was to confirm the elimination of any routes that were known to be infeasible or present significant construction and coordination challenges based on the preliminary analysis. The remaining routes were considered viable and in agreement with the City and direction to proceed with the detailed analysis was given. These routes are illustrated in Exhibit 6, Preliminary Routes, as Possible Routes.

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

B. Detailed Analysis The preliminary routes for Scenario 1 were broken down into roadway segments, based on a nodal analysis. Refer to Exhibit 7, Roadway Segment Numbers, for the delineation of each segment. These roadway segments were subjected to detailed analyses, to identify areas of concern or conflict, as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Utility Research and Mapping Geotechnical Screening Community Impact Screening Land Resource Screening Roadway Classification Right of Way Screening Stakeholder Outreach & Regulatory/Permit Screening Cost Analysis

The data from the analyses was utilized to identify if the roadway segments were more or less accommodating to the installation of a large diameter reuse water transmission main. Each analysis has either been included in the text of this report or summarized in this report and presented as a technical memorandum found in an appendix to this report. 1. Utility Research & Mapping Approach Utility research and mapping in GIS was performed to identify the locations of available major utility crossings and potential minor utility relocations for the roadway segments included in the detailed analysis. Major utilities were defined as: • Sewer mains 15-inch diameter and larger • Water mains 18-inch diameter and larger • Reuse water mains 24-inch diameter and larger • Gas lines 4-inch diameter and larger • Storm drain facilities 24-inch diameter and larger • Irrigation facilities 24-inch diameter and larger • High voltage power lines 69 kV and above Data received from the City, Town of Gilbert, and U.S. Energy Information Administration was compiled into the GIS database. Facilities were also reported in the area by Blue Stake, and facility owners were contacted to obtain utility quarter section maps and available record drawings. The following utilities were contacted to facilitate existing utility identification and mapping: • American Telegraph & Telephone (AT&T) • CenturyLink • Cox Communications • El Paso Natural Gas/Kinder Morgan • Roosevelt Water Conservation District (RWCD) Irrigation • Salt River Project (SRP) Electric • Salt River Project (SRP) Irrigation • Southwest Gas • Verizon • Zayo Communications Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

r E Ea gl e C rest D

E Thomas Rd

E Quenton Dr

_ ^ North Connection Point

E McKellips Rd

N Power Rd

N Greenfield Rd

N Val Vista Dr

N Recker Rd

Falcon Field Airport

E Hermosa Vista Dr

N Higley Rd

N 32nd St

E McDowell Rd

N 32nd St

N Lindsay Rd

E McLellan Rd

S 40th St.

E Brown Rd

N Nassau

E Adobe St

E University Dr

E Main St

S 40th St

S 48th St.

S Recker Rd

E Main St

E Broadway Rd

S Val Vista Dr

al an

C RW

E Holmes Ave

S Power Rd

S Lindsay Rd

S Higley Rd

ter as

PE E Southern Ave

in Ma l na Ca

SEWRP

_ ^

N Val V

N Higley Rd

S Greenfield Rd

ista Dr

Rd dsay N Li n

South Connection Point

N Recker Rd

_ ^

E Baseline Rd

E Guadalupe Rd

Maricopa County Assessor's Office

Legend

_ ^

Abandoned Utah Canal ROW

CF Superstition Springs

ADOT ROW

Falcon Field

Study Area

SRP Canal ROW

Maricopa County

Possible Route

RWCD ROW

Mesa

Eliminated Route

MCFCD

Gilbert

Document Path: H:\2018\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\GIS\Mesa_Alignment_Study_Routes_11x17P.mxd

Features of Interest

CMRP ALIGNMENT STUDY Exhibit 6 Preliminary Routes

I 0.5

Date Saved: 11/12/2020 2:10:36 PM

r E Ea gl e C rest D

E Thomas Rd

E Quenton Dr

_ ^ North Connection Point

E McDowell Rd

N 32nd St

52 14

N Power Rd

E McKellips Rd

E McLellan Rd 53

E Brown Rd

S 40th St.

N Nassau

E University Dr

E Adobe St

E Main St

E Main St 58

S 48th St.

S 40th St

S Recker Rd

N 32nd St

N Higley Rd

N Greenfield Rd

N Val Vista Dr

N Recker Rd

N Lindsay Rd

Falcon Field Airport

E Hermosa Vista Dr

E Broadway Rd

S Val Vista Dr

al an

E Southern Ave

S Power Rd

S Lindsay Rd

S Higley Rd

ter as

PE 20

61 34

in Ma

62 25

l na Ca

E Baseline Rd

South Connection Point

_ ^

N Higley Rd

N Val V

37 71

SEWRP

_ ^

36 69

S Greenfield Rd

ista Dr

Rd dsay

N Recker Rd

N Li n

C RW

E Holmes Ave

E Guadalupe Rd

Maricopa County Assessor's Office

Legend

_ ^

Abandoned Utah Canal ROW

CF Superstition Springs

ADOT ROW

Falcon Field

Study Area

SRP Canal ROW

Maricopa County

Possible Route

RWCD ROW

Mesa

Eliminated Route

MCFCD

Gilbert

Document Path: H:\2018\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\GIS\Mesa_Alignment_Study_Routes_11x17P.mxd

Features of Interest

CMRP ALIGNMENT STUDY Exhibit 7 Roadway Segment Numbers

I 0.5

Date Saved: 11/12/2020 2:10:36 PM

Additional major utilities identified through Blue Stake coordination were manually mapped into GIS based on provided As-Builts or utility quarter section maps. This included Southwest Gas pipelines and SRP irrigation pipelines. Potential pipeline locations within City ROW were developed in GIS through a buffer analysis, with use of a 6-foot buffer on the outside edges of the 42-inch reuse pipe diameter. An example of the six (6)-foot buffer is displayed in Figure 3. The buffer analysis met or exceeded the horizontal separation requirements for a reuse watermain from each of the following facilities: water, sewer, reuse, storm drain, gas, RWCD irrigation, SRP irrigation, and RWCD irrigation ditches. An additional buffer of 15 feet was placed on each side of all SRP electric transmission lines to represent the required horizontal separation requirements for the pipeline from the power line without the use of special pole bracing provisions. An intersect analysis was performed in GIS to identify all crossings and potential conflicts. The indicated potential pipeline location reflects the most ideal location for the reuse watermain within the City ROW based on the location of known, existing utilities. The potential pipeline and intersect analysis locations for the Scenario 1 – City ROW alignment are displayed in a series of maps located in Appendix A, ArcGIS Buffer and Intersect Analyses Results.

Figure 3 - Utility Analysis Six-Foot Buffer

Typical cross sections were developed for each mile segment of the detailed study area within City ROW. These sections incorporated all available utilities indicated in the utility data received from the utility owners, including minor utilities identified through Blue Stake coordination and RWCD irrigation pipelines that were not mapped in GIS. The proposed pipeline location is displayed in the section view with a 6-foot zone on each side to represent the required horizontal separation requirements for a reuse watermain. Cross sections were used to determine if there were any potential utility conflicts, and to illustrate the estimated vertical proximity of existing utilities and anticipated new pipeline location. Typical cross sections for the City ROW option are displayed in Appendix B1, City ROW Typical Cross Sections. Results The number of major utility crossings, and the linear feet (LF) of potential required utility relocations, were quantified for each roadway segment within City ROW. Tables displaying this information can be found in Appendix C, Major Utility Crossing Counts and Appendix D, Potential Minor Utility Relocation Measurements. Exhibit 8, Major Utility Crossings and Exhibit 9, Potential Utility Relocations, summarize the results of the utility research and mapping analysis within the City ROW. The minimum and maximum length of utility relocations is displayed in Table 6. It should be noted that linear feet of utility relocation does not necessarily translate to linear feet of roadway. There may be two or more adjacent utilities requiring replacement for any given length of roadway. For example, if 300 feet of a waterline must be relocated, then 300 feet of a small diameter gas line that is joint-trenched with the waterline must also be relocated. In total, this would be recorded as 600 feet of required potential utility relocations. Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Table 6 - Utility Analysis Results

Scenario

City ROW Minimum

Corresponding Alignment No. (Minimum)

City ROW Maximum

Corresponding Alignment No. (Maximum)

Major Utility Crossings

283, 378, 433

112, 117

Potential Minor Utility Relocations (LF)

2,630 (0.5 miles)

106, 107, 108, 109, 110

40,825 (7.75 miles)

381, 382, 383, 384, 385

It is recommended that all utility locations are confirmed during design and construction document phase prior to construction by utility base mapping, Blue Stake, and potholing. 2. Geotechnical Screening Approach A preliminary geotechnical desktop study was performed by Ninyo & Moore, Inc. (Geotechnical Engineer) based on previous studies in the proposed project area. Preliminary soil data was collected by reviewing available published and in-house geotechnical literature of study area. No subsurface explorations or excavations were performed. The supporting evaluation report is located in Appendix E, Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, NWWRP Waterline Alignment Study, Ninyo & Moore (2019). Results The geotechnical analysis provided insight into existing geotechnical conditions and potential issues that may be encountered within the study area. Soils The geotechnical conditions within the study area are separated into three zones: the Pleistocene zone, Holocene zone, and Granite zone. A large portion of the study area is comprised of alluvial deposits from the Pleistocene and Holocene zones. In general, these deposits predominantly consist of sand, silt, gravel, and cobbles. Both the Pleistocene and Holocene zones are expected to have cemented caliche deposits, but it is more likely to encounter these caliche deposits in Pleistocene zone than the Holocene zone due to the older age of the deposits. The surface alluvial materials within the study area are generally rippable, to relatively shallow depths, utilizing conventional heavy-duty, powered equipment that is in good operating condition. Exceptions to this, include areas where cemented deposits are encountered and the mapped granite zones which are located in the northeast region of the study area. Slope Stability Concerns There is concern for temporary slope instability in trenches due to the presence of cohesionless soils (sand, gravel, and cobbles) as shown in Figure 4. Many of the mapped soil units are characterized as severe with respect to shallow excavations. Based on previous project experience in the vicinity of the Salt River, it is anticipated that slope stability will be more of an issue in the northern extents of the study area.

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

E Ea gl e C rest Dr

N Val Vista Dr

E Thomas Rd

E Quenton Dr

^3 _ North Connection Point

0 E McDowell Rd

N Higley Rd

Falcon Field Airport

E Hermosa Vista Dr 3

N Recker Rd

7 E McKellips Rd

N Power Rd

N 32nd St

4 E McLellan Rd 5

N 32nd St

6 E Brown Rd

E University Dr

E Adobe St

N Nassau

S 40th St.

N Lindsay Rd

ter as

PE S Higley Rd

S Greenfield Rd

S Lindsay Rd

S Val Vista Dr

S Power Rd

E Southern Ave

S Recker Rd

S 48th St.

S 40th St

E Main St

l na Ca

E Broadway Rd

n ai

al an

E Main St

1 1

E Holmes Ave 1 2

SEWRP

0 0

3 2

4 E Baseline Rd

ista Dr

N Val V

dsay N Li n

N Higley Rd

E Guadalupe Rd

_ ^

2 1

2 0

South Connection Point

_ ^ N Recker Rd

Maricopa County Assessor's Office

Legend

_ ^

Features of Interest Study Area

Utility Crossing Count

CMRP ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 0.5

0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7 7+

Document Path: H:\2018\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\GIS\Mesa_Alignment_Major_Utility_Xing_Count_11x17P.mxd

Exhibit 8 Major Utility Crossings Date Saved: 11/12/2020 2:17:42 PM

r E Ea gl e C rest D

E Thomas Rd

l na Ca E Quenton Dr

N Greenfield Rd

^1470 _ 190

E McDowell Rd

775

Falcon Field Airport

E Hermosa Vista Dr

2650

2972

396

E McKellips Rd

5415

345

N Power Rd

N 32nd St

2612

745

N Recker Rd

North Connection Point

N Higley Rd

uth So

E McLellan Rd

8163

N 32nd St

E Brown Rd

2513

1240

3400

S 48th St

S 40th St

600

r ste nC

a an

E Main St

l na

E Broadway Rd

E Main St

1820

5600

N Nassau St

6500

E Adobe St

1070

88 0

E University Dr

S Recker Rd

0 S 40th St

N Lindsay Rd

1040

E Southern Ave

E Hamptom Ave

300

Ca Consolidated

275

N Val V

0 0

South Connection Point

E Guadalupe Rd

_ ^

N Recker Rd

ista Dr

S Greenfield Rd

SEWRP

dsay

E Baseline Rd

N Li n

£ ¤ 0

nal

Pierpont Dr

475

£ ¤

S Power Rd

S Val Vista Dr

S Lindsay Rd

l Leisure World

35 Maricopa County Assessor's Office

Legend

_ ^

Utility Relocations (ft)

Features of Interest

MCFCD

Study Area

CF Superstition Springs

0 ft

Falcon Field

1 ft - 1,000 ft

ADOT ROW

Maricopa County

1,000 ft - 2,000 ft

SRP Canal ROW

Mesa

2,000 ft<

RWCD ROW

Gilbert

Document Path: H:\2018\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\GIS\Mesa_Alignment_Utility_Relocation_11x17P.mxd

CMRP ALIGNMENT STUDY Exhibit 9 Potential Utility Relocations

I 0

0.5

Date Saved: 11/12/2020 2:20:07 PM

Figure 4 – Potential Sand, Gravel, and Cobbles within Northern Portion of the Study Area

Groundwater Based on ADWR well data and geotechnical explorations indicated in Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) as-built plans, the depth to the groundwater level in the study area is between 200 and 250 feet below the ground surface. Note that groundwater levels can fluctuate due to seasonal variations, proximity to canals, irrigation, groundwater withdrawal or injection, and other factors. Other factors to consider are final alignment proximity to washes, drainage channels, and canals, and perched groundwater near bedrock surfaces following periods of significant precipitation. Groundwater is not expected to be a constraint to the construction of the project. Geologic Hazards Groundwater depletion, due to groundwater pumping, has caused land subsidence and earth fissures in numerous alluvial basins in Arizona. With such depletions of groundwater, the alluvium has undergone consolidation, which results in large areas of land subsidence. The closest documented earth fissure to the site is approximately 6 miles to the southeast of the NWWRP and approximately 3.5 miles to the northeast of the SEWRP, which is outside of the project area. Land subsidence and earth fissures are not expected to be a constraint during the construction of this project. Corrosivity Upon selection of a final alignment, it is recommended that a more detailed geotechnical investigation be performed to evaluate corrosivity of the soil along the selected route. This evaluation will be important for the soil that will be in contact with the reuse water main. If corrosive conditions are found, proper design consideration should be taken to protect the pipeline against premature failure to corrosive impacts. Based on the preliminary geotechnical investigation, the selection of the route will take into account the proximity to the Salt River and avoid if possible, sand, gravel and cobbles. 3. Community Impact Screening Approach Community impact was analyzed for each roadway segment included in the detailed analysis. Criteria considered for this analysis included public facilities, businesses, and traffic volumes that would be impacted due to construction activity in the vicinity. GIS maps were developed for each category, identifying the locations, quantities, and volumes of the items. Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Results Public Facility Impact Public facilities analyzed within the project area include medical facilities, schools, parks, churches, fire stations, and police stations. It was assumed that facilities located within ½ mile of a given potential alignment would be impacted due to construction activities. The total number of public facilities located along each potential alignment were determined. An alignment containing a larger number of public facilities impacted scored lower in this criterion than an alignment with a lesser number of public facilities. Refer to Exhibit 10, Public Facilities, for information regarding public facility types and locations within the project area. Business Impact The total number of businesses located along each potential roadway segment were determined by reviewing aerial mapping, site visits, and discussion with City staff. The businesses identified along each roadway segment were added to the GIS database for the project; only businesses located directly adjacent to each potential alignment were considered. An alignment with a larger number of businesses scored lower in this criterion than an alignment with a lesser number of businesses. Refer to Exhibit 11, Business Impact, for additional information regarding business counts associated with each potential roadway segment. Traffic Impact Due to the fact that the study area for this project encompasses several jurisdictions (Mesa, Gilbert, and Maricopa County), available traffic data was retrieved from each of the agencies and imported into the study’s GIS database for further analysis. A GIS exhibit was developed displaying the daily traffic counts for the roadway segments. These counts were used in the scoring process for each potential alignment. Most of the roadway segments that were used in the detailed analysis had daily traffic counts associated with them. The total traffic count was determined by summing all daily traffic counts for each roadway segment that was used to compose each potential alignment. A potential alignment with a larger total daily traffic count scored lower than an alignment with a lower daily traffic count. Refer to Exhibit 12, Traffic Volumes, for additional information regarding the roadway segment traffic counts. 4. Land Resource Screening Approach Dibble consulted with Tierra Right-of-Way (Tierra) to perform a land resource screening of the study area. The land resource screening investigated the study area for the presence of land jurisdiction, parks, recreation, preserves, conservation lands, and existing planned land. A cursory review of existing historic districts, landmarks, and properties was performed within the study area. The Mesa Historic Preservation Office’s website, the Arizona Register of Historic Places, and the National Register of Historic Places database were used as references. Results Review of the publicly available data indicated that there are no historic sites located in proximity to the selected routes for detailed analysis. Note that ground surveys were not performed, cultural monitors did not observe any locations within the project area, and a Class 1 Report was not produced. It is recommended that a Class 1 Report be performed for further confirmation. Tierra Right-of-Way indicated that canals can be classified as historic features, however from research performed, neither the RWCD Main Canal nor the SRP Eastern Canal appeared in any databases of historic features within the study area. The EMF also was not indicated in any databases of historic features.

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Thomas Rd

£ ¤ 202

North Connection Point

£ ¤ 202

_ ^

Power Rd

Recker Rd

Higley Rd

Greenfield Rd

Val Vista Dr

Lindsay Rd

32nd St

McDowell Rd

32nd St

McKellips Rd

Brown Rd

University Dr

RW CD M n ai

Main St

Recker Rd

l na Ca

SR ter as

Broadway Rd

Blvd World

Power Rd

al an

e Leisur

Southern Ave

n io d tit lv rs B pe gs Su prin S

£ ¤

South Connection Point Baseline Rd

SEWRP

_ ^ _ ^

Guadalupe Rd

Maricopa County Assessor's Office

Legend

î ¨ P Æ

Church Fire Station

ô ó õ a c

Park

_ ^

Features of Interest

Study Area

CMRP ALIGNMENT STUDY

Canals Police Station

Hospital School

Arterial Road Highway

Document Path: H:\2018\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\GIS\Mesa_Alignment_Study_PublicFacilities_11x17P.mxd

Exhibit 10 Public Facilities

I 0

0.5

Date Saved: 11/12/2020 2:21:42 PM

Dr E Thomas Rd

E Quenton Dr

E McDowell Rd

E McLellan Rd

E Adobe St

N Nassau

S 40th St.

0 0

6 0

E Brown Rd

E University Dr

N 32nd St

E McKellips Rd

N Recker Rd

N Val Vista Dr

N Power Rd

Falcon Field Airport

E Hermosa Vista Dr

E Main St

S 48th St.

S 40th St

E Main St

S Recker Rd

N 32nd St

N Higley Rd

North Connection Point

N Greenfield Rd

_ ^

N Lindsay Rd

E Ea gl e C rest

E Thomas Rd

E Broadway Rd

SR S Higley Rd

in Ma

C RW

E Holmes Ave

l na Ca

0 South Connection Point

0 3

0 0

SEWRP

_ ^

_ ^ N Recker Rd

N Val V

E Guadalupe Rd

3 9

41 N Higley Rd

ista Dr

Rd dsay

E Baseline Rd

N Li n

S Power Rd

S Greenfield Rd

S Val Vista Dr

l na Ca

S Lindsay Rd

n ter as

PE E Southern Ave

37 Maricopa County Assessor's Office

Legend

_ ^

Features of Interest Study Area

No. Of Businesses 5 0-12 4

13-24

25-36

37-48

49+

Document Path: H:\2018\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\GIS\Mesa_Alignment_Business_Count_11x17P.mxd

CMRP ALIGNMENT STUDY Exhibit 11 Business Counts

I 0.5

Date Saved: 11/4/2020 10:36:31 PM

20,573

25,613

1,062

13,129

26,225

Power Rd

2,755

64th St

26,225

2,755

15,435

3,212

13,206

Alta Mesa 2,1 47

26,107

16,159

18,705

26,574

20,119

Higley Rd

22,770

20,769

19,169

15,435

22,770

15,998

Val Vista Dr

Arboleda 32nd St

16,429

800

1,428

2,562

3,219

800

2,755

20,866

2 21 3,

Adobe Rd

2,617

McClellan Rd 1,649

18,705

19,423

21,382

21,643

21,735

600

16,922

25,613

56th St

16,819 21,735

McClellan Rd

16,639

752

17,820

Brown Rd

Hermosa Vista Dr

1,044

16,819

10,426

3,876

McKellips Rd

21,376

1,0 44

11,422

Greenfield Rd

10,426

3,876

32nd St

7,265

1,320

11,742

2,396

7,265 Lindsay Rd

Hermosa Vista Dr

20,5 7

1,062

11,065

8,743

704

20,573

4,998 11,065

13,129

McDowell Rd

7,983

3 14,7

14,734

16,223

6,356

Recker Rd

6,356

14,734

6,564

_ ^

2,396

North Connection Point

10,740

So ut

1,438

2,111

Ca na l

Thomas Rd

26,574

2,072 13,369

13,369

15,577

18,925

10,411

1,335

26,107

20,769

19,169

20,866

University Dr

21,382

56th St

2,915

25,864 31,275

41,077

34,266

27,114

30,822

South Connection Point 22,200

22,300

Guadalupe Rd

17,800

_ ^ _ ^

18,300

10,900

42,900

25,900

37,700

26,900

26,600

16,900

18,995

SEWRP

16,200

40 ,68 4

36 ,65 8

15 ,5 23

31,711

Baseline Rd

40,057

39,789

30,746 36 ,28 4

3,610

2,777

35,884 43,704

26,600

n io d tit lv rs B pe gs Su prin S

nal 28,000

18,091

18,045

13,766

13,274

39th St

32nd St

Power Rd

28,289

3,992

22,695 22,695

Ca Consolidated

20,914

a an

Cana

3,992

Southern Ave 13, 274

29,739

D RWC

r ste

2,400

17,636

1,270

18,652

17,209

Pueblo Ave

5,6 91

17,209

14,391

17,376

2,400

1,316

8,314

Recker Rd

26,174

28,289

21,458

Broadway Rd

18,975

2,645

30,906

17,021

18,975

18,804

15,612

22,982

6,605

Main St

17,231

1,419

23,845

21,801

20,265

28,321

23,360

16,400

16,100 Maricopa County Assessor's Office

Legend Traffic Volume (Vehicles/Day)

_ ^

Features of Interest

< 5,000

Canals

5,001 - 12,000

Highway

12,001 - 20,000 20,001 - 30,000 > 30,001 Document Path: H:\2018\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\GIS\Mesa_Alignment_Study_TrafficVolume_11x17P.mxd

Study Area

CMRP ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 0.5

1 Mi

Exhibit 12 Traffic Volume Date Saved: 11/12/2020 2:26:33 PM

The review of land resources within the study area did not identify any issues for the for the potential alignment routes, except for the Riparian Preserve at Water Ranch, located on Guadalupe Road. Land use was determined to be primarily residential, commercial, or industrial within the outlined study area. Commercial and industrial impact was further analyzed in the business portion of the community impact screening analysis (See Section III.B.3.). The impact along other routes was considered to be negligible because the City already owns the ROW, and therefore additional easements and/or permits would not be required to construct the 42-inch diameter reuse water main. 5. Roadway Classification Approach The roadway segments within the study area were analyzed and categorized into the following categories: Major Arterial – 6 lanes; Minor Arterial – 4 or less lanes; Collector – intermediate roadways that occur at approximately ½-mile intervals between arterial roads; Other – local streets which do not meet the other criteria previously described. The average roadway classification for each alignment was calculated based on the percent of each roadway classification along a given alignment. Results Refer to Exhibit 13, Roadway Classifications for the summary of the classification of each roadway segment in the study area. 6. Right-of-Way Screening Approach A ROW analysis was performed by Tierra, based solely on public records. Research was not completed through a Title Agency, nor was research of existing water easements completed. The primary concern and reason for performing the ROW analysis was to determine whether there was sufficient, existing City ROW width along the primary north/south corridors that were selected as possible routes (Val Vista Drive, Greenfield Road, and Higley Road). Tierra collected and reviewed public records including plats and deeds and reviewed the legal descriptions of the property boundaries from the parcels and developments adjacent to these corridors. These items were compared against the ROW widths, which were provided in the City’s GIS ROW data to confirm correctness and accuracy. Tierra also investigated major roadways for the presence of small sections of abandoned irrigation district ROW within the City’s streets, resulting from the installation of historical irrigation lines prior to the widening of the streets to their current widths. These irrigation lines would have been removed and relocated outside of the current street width, but the land they previously occupied may still have prior rights associated with the irrigation district, depending on land ownership at the time of installation. Results Tierra research resulted in the confirmation of the ROW widths along Val Vista Drive, Greenfield Road, and Higley Road that were provided in the City’s GIS data: •

•

Typical ROW width along Val Vista Drive varied between 105 and 130 feet except for an approximate ¼ mile stretch south of McLellan Road where ROW width narrows to approximately 65 feet. Typical ROW widths for Greenfield Road and Higley Road ranged from 110 to 130 feet. No significant reductions in ROW width were noted for these corridors.

Refer to Exhibit 14, Right-of-Way Widths, for additional detail. It was noted that McLellan Road is discontinuous both at Greenfield Road and Higley Road. It is assumed that easements and/or property acquisitions would be required along these segments. These easements are summarized in Table 7. The larger the square foot area of easement and/or property acquisition required along a given alignment, the

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

r E Ea gl e C rest D

E Thomas Rd

l na Ca

N Greenfield Rd

uth So

E Quenton Dr

_ ^

North Connection Point

E McDowell Rd

N Power Rd

N Recker Rd

N Val Vista Dr

E McKellips Rd

N 32nd St

N Lindsay Rd

N Higley Rd

N 32nd St

Falcon Field Airport

N Nassau St

S 40th St

E Brown Rd

E University Dr

RW CD Ca

E Main St

S Recker Rd

E Broadway Rd

S 48th St

S 40th St

l na

E Main St

a an

S Val Vista Dr

S Power Rd

S Lindsay Rd

S Higley Rd

S Greenfield Rd

r ste E Southern Ave

nal Consolidated Ca

E Hamptom Ave

Pierpont Dr

_ ^ _ ^

N Li n

N Val V

dsay

ista Dr

South Connection Point

N Recker Rd

E Baseline Rd

SEWRP

E Guadalupe Rd

Maricopa County Assessor's Office

Legend

_ ^

Roadway Classification

Features of Interest

MCFCD

Study Area

CF Superstition Springs

Major Arterial

Falcon Field

Minor Arterial

ADOT ROW

Maricopa County

Collector

SRP Canal ROW

Mesa

Other

RWCD ROW

Gilbert

Document Path: H:\2018\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\GIS\Mesa_Alignment_Street_Classification_11x17P.mxd

CMRP ALIGNMENT STUDY Exhibit 13 Roadway Classification

I 0

0.5

Date Saved: 11/12/2020 2:27:48 PM

r E Ea gl e C rest D

E Thomas Rd

£ ¤ E Quenton Dr

_ ^

25 ft

110-130 ft

105-130 ft

110 ft

110-130 ft

95 ft 120 ft

65 ft

N Power Rd

130 ft

70-80 ft

80 ft

110-120 ft

110 ft

80-90 ft

110-120 ft

ter as

110-120 ft

E University Dr

120-130 ft

80 ft

S 40th St

110 ft

S Higley Rd 120 ft

110-200 ft (ADOT ROW)

130 ft

60 ft

£ ¤

C ana

40 ft

70-80 ft

Main

S Val Vista Dr

D RWC 130 ft

110-120 ft

E Southern Ave

S Recker Rd

al an

110-120 ft

110 ft

110-120 ft

E Broadway Rd

E Main St

140-150 ft

50-60 ft

120-130 ft

S Power Rd

50 ft

120 ft

110-130 ft

70-80 ft

120 ft

E Brown Rd

85 ft

120 ft

70-80 ft

120 ft

S Lindsay Rd

E McKellips Rd

N Recker Rd

N Val Vista Dr

90 ft

105-120 ft

N 32nd St

120 ft

95 ft

120-130 ft

110-130 ft

80 ft

110 ft

N 32nd St

Falcon Field Airport

110-120 ft

N Lindsay Rd

E McDowell Rd

20-40 ft

E Main St

202

130-140 ft

North Connection Point

£ ¤

N Higley Rd

50-65 ft

N Greenfield Rd

202

EMF Right-of-Way

£ ¤ 60

80 ft

16 0

_ ^

130-140 ft

N Recker Rd

N Val V

80 ft

130-140 ft

N Higley Rd

S Greenfield Rd

ista Dr

Rd dsay N Li n

SEWRP

South Connection Point

100-130 ft

E Guadalupe Rd

130-140 ft

110 ft

80 ft

120

E Baseline Rd

130 f t

60-90 ft

0 10

80 ft

90 ft

65-100 ft

130-140 ft

Maricopa County Assessor's Office

Legend

_ ^

Features of Interest Right-of-Way Width (Feet) Study Area

CMRP ALIGNMENT STUDY

>150 100-150 50-100 0-50

Document Path: H:\2018\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\GIS\Mesa_Alignment_Study_ROW_Width_11x17P.mxd

I 0.5

Exhibit 14 Right-of-Way Width Date Saved: 11/12/2020 2:30:10 PM

lower that alignment scored in this criterion. Refer to Appendix F, Preliminary Land Resource/ROW Screening Summary, Tierra Right-of-Way, (2020). Table 7 - Identified Easement/Property Acquisition Requirements

Easement/Property Acquisition Location

Property Owner

RWCD & Private McLellan Road at Greenfield Property Owner Road (Johnstar LLC) Copper Crest McLellan Road at Higley Community Road Association

Approximate SF 10,000

20,000

Tierra did not identify any instances of abandoned RWCD Irrigation District ROW within the analyzed alignments. It should be noted that a title report was not performed as part of this analysis and may be required to confirm the above findings regarding potential abandoned irrigation district ROW. 7. Stakeholder Outreach & Regulatory/Permit Screening Approach The anticipated approval by stakeholders and necessary permitting requirements are important criteria to consider in determining the preferred alignment in this study. Refer to Exhibit 15, Jurisdictions, for the location of major stakeholder jurisdictions within the project area. Stakeholders in the study area were identified and the required process and necessary documentation to receive proper authorization for potential impacts within their respective jurisdictions was outlined. Refer to Appendix G, Permit Requirements Table, for quantities and descriptions of permits required for each of the roadway segments within Scenario 1. Refer to Exhibit 16, Permit Counts for an illustration of the number of permits required for each segment. Appendix H contains blank permit application forms for each of the permits needed. Stakeholder outreach was performed by the project team. Project stakeholders have been identified and have been contacted to assess the following potential project impacts: • Special construction requirements, including special traffic control and lane restrictions. • Special permitting requirements. The following agencies have been contacted as a part of stakeholder outreach. A summary table of stakeholder outreach efforts is included in Appendix I, Stakeholder Outreach Log and Meeting Notes. Stakeholder coordination outlined below is specific to the construction of the pipeline within City ROW. Additional coordination specific to Scenarios 2 through 4 is outlined in Section IV.A.5, Scenario 2-4 Stakeholder Outreach & Regulatory/Permit Screening. Arizona Department of Transportation Special Construction Requirements ADOT requires a construction traffic control plan to be submitted in conjunction with the ADOT Highway Encroachment Permit. A topographical survey of the ADOT roadway is required before, during, and after reuse waterline installation to verify that no settlement takes place due to utility installation. Coordination with ADOT is required during the design phase to ensure that bore pit locations do not conflict with future ADOT improvements.

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Permits Work performed within ADOT right-of-way will require an ADOT Highway Encroachment Permit. In ADOT ROW areas, water transmission main design documents shall conform to ADOT Standard Specifications and Details. Requirements for submittal of the ADOT Highway Encroachment Permit application include the following: • • • •

Completed ADOT Highway Encroachment Permit Application Sealed construction drawings Traffic Control Plan Encroachment Owner Certificate of Insurance

Typical permit review time is 150 days. An ADOT Highway Encroachment Permit Application and instructions are included in Appendix H1, ADOT Highway Encroachment Permit. Falcon Field District Special Construction Requirements No special construction requirements were identified by Falcon Field District. Permits Work performed within the Falcon Field District will require approval from the airport prior to submittal of construction documents to the City. The Falcon Field District is displayed in Exhibit 15, Jurisdiction. Requirements for submittal of the Falcon Field Pre-Approval application include the following: • Applicants should contact Zenia Cornejo at 480-644-4386 or at Zenia.Cornejo@mesaaz.gov to obtain the Pre-Approval Letter (must be labeled as the Falcon Field Pre-Approval Letter) • Sealed construction drawings In addition to the Pre-Approval Letter, an Obstruction Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis (OE/AAA) Form 7460 - Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, must be filed with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) prior to the start of construction. This form can be accessed using the FAA website and can be filed electronically. Users must register an account with the FAA to access the permit portal. Typical review time is 30 to 45 days. An OE/AAA Form 7460 Application and instructions are included in Appendix H2, Falcon Field District Federal Aviation Administration OE/AAA Form 7460 Application. Flood Control District of Maricopa County Special Construction Requirements There are potential Scenario 1 alignments which would cross FCDMC’s EMF. If the pipeline is constructed in the channel bottom, a scour analysis would need to be performed to determine bury depth. Restrained joints would be required when building within FCDMC ROW. The backfill requirements will vary with pipeline location. For pipelines located within the channel bank, 1-sack controlled low-strength material (CLSM) backfill is required from 6 inches beneath the bottom of the pipe to the pipe spring line. Backfill above the CLSM must be compacted to 95% proctor. If the pipeline enters into the channel bottom, FCDMC requires 1-sack CLSM backfill within the pipe zone (6 inches beneath the bottom of the pipe to 6 inches above the top of the pipe). Maximum allowable valve spacing should be used in design. Building in the EMF will require provisions for isolation of flow, in the event of a pipeline leak or break, resulting in depressurization of the pipeline.

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

£ ¤ Thomas Rd 202

£ ¤ 202

_ ^

McDowell Rd

Greenfield Rd

32nd St

Lindsay Rd

North Connection Point

32nd St

Power Rd

Recker Rd

Higley Rd

Val Vista Dr

McKellips Rd

Brown Rd

University Dr

Broadway Rd

e Leisur

Blvd World

Power Rd

Recker Rd

Main St

Southern Ave

n io d tit lv rs B pe gs Su prin S

£ ¤

SEWRP

South Connection Point Baseline Rd

_ ^ _ ^

Maricopa County Assessor's Office

Legend

_ ^

Abandoned Utah Canal ROW

CF Superstition Springs

ADOT ROW

Falcon Field

Arterial Road

SRP Canal ROW

Maricopa County

Highway

RWCD ROW

Mesa

Study Area

MCFCD

Gilbert

Document Path: H:\2018\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\GIS\Mesa_Alignment_Study_Jurisdiction_11x17P.mxd

Features of Interest

CMRP ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 0.5

1 Mi

Exhibit 15 Jurisdiction Date Saved: 11/12/2020 2:32:14 PM

FCDMC indicated that any work performed within the channel should be scheduled in May and October, when it is less likely for flows to be within the EMF. When a storm event occurs, flows will typically occur in the EMF within one hour. An Emergency Action Plan (EAP) would need to be developed for construction in the EMF. Permits Work performed within floodplain areas designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will require a Floodplain Use Permit (FPUP). Requirements for submittal of the FPUP application include the following: • •

Completed FPUP Application Sealed construction drawings

Typical review time is 7-14 days. A Floodplain Use Permit Application is included in Appendix H3, FCDMC Floodplain Use Permit & ROW Use Permit Instructions. Building within FCDMC-owned land will also require a FCDMC ROW Use Permit. Instructions for filing a ROW Use permit with FCDMC are included in Appendix H3, FCDMC Floodplain Use Permit & ROW Use Permit Instructions. Maricopa County Department of Transportation Special Construction Requirements Newly paved roadways that have been improved by MCDOT will have a two-year moratorium for new utility construction. These roadways require a $20 per linear foot early pavement cut fee if the pavement is cut prior to two years after the new asphalt was installed. The MCDOT roadways located within the project area are not anticipated to be affected by pavement cut restrictions. All compaction and backfill within County ROW shall conform to the MCDOT Supplement to MAG Specification section 601. Backfill under existing pavement, curb and gutter, roadway shoulders, and unpaved roadways shall consist of full-depth ½- or 1sack CLSM. Construction plans submitted with a ROW Use permit will be redlined by MCDOT to indicate any locations in which MCDOT would prefer a jack-and-bore installation of the utility. Permits Work performed within ROW owned by Maricopa County will require a Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) Right-of-Way Use Permit. Requirements for submittal of the Right-of-Way Use Permit application include the following: • • •

Completed Right-of-Way Use Permit Application Sealed construction drawings Permit fee: 3% of approved engineer’s cost estimate plus $50 processing fee

Typical review time is 14 days. A Right-of-Way Use Permit is included in Appendix H4, MCDOT ROW Use Permit. Major roads within the study area which are owned and maintained by MCDOT include University Drive between Higley Road and Power Road, and Recker Road between Adobe Street and Main Street. The Scenario 1 - City ROW possible routes selected for alignment do not enter MCDOT ROW. It was anticipated that a MCDOT Right-of-Way Use permit would be required in Scenarios 3 and 4 when crossing any streets located within the Leisure World Community, which is within a Maricopa County Island. However, coordination with MCDOT determined that the roads within the Leisure World Community fall under the jurisdiction of the Leisure World Community Association and do not require a MCDOT Right-of-Way Use permit.

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Maricopa County Environmental Services Department Special Construction Requirements No special construction requirements were identified by MCESD. Permits An Approval to Construct (ATC) is required through MCESD during the design phase of the project. Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD) reviews the sealed project construction documents for compliance with the standards and requirements of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. MCESD also requires a design letter or memorandum that verifies that the pipeline was designed to the appropriate standards and regulations. Upon approval, MCESD issues an Approval to Construct (ATC). Maximum review time of construction documents is 95 days, although typical review time is approximately three to four weeks. An expedited review is also available for double the review fee. An MCESD ATC Application is included in Appendix H5, MCESD Approval to Construct Application. Requirements for submittal of the ATC application include the following: • • • •

Completed ATC Application Sealed construction drawings Design memo/letter Review fee: $250 for reuse

Roosevelt Water Conservation District Special Construction Requirements Facility Crossings There are potential Scenario 1 alignments which would cross RWCD irrigation facilities. RWCD separation requirements from each of their facility types is specified by RWCD Standard Detail 41 and outlined in Table 8. Refer to Appendix P, Referenced Standard Details for RWCD Standard Detail 41. Table 8 - RWCD Utility Separation Requirements

Minimum Vertical Separation (ft)

RWCD Facility

Minimum Horizontal Separation (ft)

Irrigation Pipeline

Irrigation Ditch

Turnout Structure, Manhole, or Headwall

No Crossings Allowed

Wet utilities crossing RWCD facilities should be backfilled with ½-sack slurry from the utility line up to 6 inches below the RWCD irrigation pipe for seven feet on either side of the centerline of the RWCD pipe (District, 2019). No joints are allowed in the wet utility lines for a distance of eight feet on either side of the RWCD pipe (District, 2019). When a proposed wet utility will cross an existing RWCD pipe lateral, the wet utilities should be installed using a jack-and-bore operation (District, 2019). If proposed wet utilities cross an existing RWCD open ditch lateral, the contractor may request a dry-up from RWCD in order to cross using open cut (District, 2019). If a dry-up is not available, the proposed wet utility should be installed using a jack-and-bore.

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Utility crossings of the RWCD Main Canal should be installed by horizontal earth auger bore (District, 2019). The bore pits should be located outside of the edge of RWCD property. All utilities crossing the canal should be encased in a steel casing (District, 2019). Permits An RWCD Crossing Permit is required for each instance the reuse waterline crosses any RWCD facilities, including irrigation laterals, ditches, and the RWCD Main Canal. Requirements for submittal of the RWCD Crossing Permit application include the following: • • •

Completed RWCD Crossing Permit Application Sealed construction drawings Review fee: $1,000 plus $1,500 security deposit

In the construction drawings, a profile of each crossing should be provided and the top of casing pipe, and outside diameter of the RWCD irrigation pipe elevations should be shown on the plans and meet the clearances displayed in RWCD Standard Detail 41. Refer to Appendix P, Referenced Standard Details for RWCD Standard Detail 41. The RWCD inspector must be contacted prior to making the utility crossing to be scheduled for on-site inspection of the crossing (District, 2019). Typical review time for an RWCD Crossing Permit is not provided by RWCD. An RWCD Crossing Permit is included in Appendix H6, RWCD Crossing Permit Application. Salt River Project (SRP) Special Construction Requirements SRP requires a minimum 15-foot separation to be maintained from high voltage overhead power transmission lines and any open trench without special pole bracing provisions. SRP requires a minimum 5-foot separation between overhead power distribution lines and any open trench without special pole bracing provisions. Permits At locations where the pipeline would be installed within an SRP easement for electric or irrigation facilities, an Easement Encroachment Request would be required. To determine the locations where an Easement Encroachment Request is required, a Conflict Review Request must be submitted to SRP through their website portal. The Conflict Review Request will need to include an exhibit displaying the pipeline route. By following this method, the information will automatically be distributed to Power Distribution, Transmission, Commercial, and Water for review and a land agent will be assigned. The land agent will aide in the Easement Encroachment Request process. The design engineer will be required to coordinate with SRP through the design process. SRP will review progress submittals of the construction documents and will inspect reuse water main construction at crossing locations. An SRP Easement Encroachment Request is included in Appendix H7, SRP Easement Encroachment Request. Typical review time of construction documents is 15 to 30 days. Upon approval of the construction documents, SRP will issue an easement encroachment permit. Town of Gilbert Special Construction Requirements The top-ranking Scenario 1 Alignment was presented to the Town of Gilbert (Town) for their input regarding the CMRP alignment. The Town proposed some modifications to the selected Secnario 1 Alignment that were not analyzed as part of the MCDM. Refer to Section III.D, Final Scenario 1 Alignment for more information regarding the results of this meeting. No additional construction requirements were identified by Town however, during the design phase the pipeline engineers will need to coordinate and obtain applicable permits. Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Permits Work performed within the Town will require a Town of Gilbert Engineering Construction Permit. The project type will be classified as Engineering Misc. Non-residential. The Town will accept permit applications without an approved set of construction drawings. Typical review time of construction documents is 5 weeks. A Town of Gilbert Engineering Construction Permit Application is included in Appendix H8, Town of Gilbert Engineering Construction Permit Application. United States Army Corps of Engineers Special Construction Requirements A 404 permit with USACE may be required for EMF crossings if the pipeline enters the channel bottom. A USACE Nationwide Permit (NWP) 12 can be obtained for applicable projects that do not result in a loss of more than ½ acre of surface area of waters of the United States for each single and complete project. The USACE definition of single and complete project treats each 404 jurisdictional crossing as a separate project. Compliance to NWP 12 requires notification to the USACE when a 404 jurisdictional area is crossed or if the length of the project in the waters of the U.S. exceeds 500 LF. Currently, the EMF has not been delineated by the USACE and will require further evaluation if an alignment crossing the EMF is selected. Culvert and roadway crossings are not considered as potential 404 jurisdictional areas. The USACE recommends that a pre-notification meeting be held during the design phase, after the required evaluations and a 404-impact study is completed to ensure proper compliance to NWP 12. Design of the new reuse waterline should consider environmental impacts, cultural impacts, and scour protection at each location requiring a 404 permit. Summary • • •

USACE is authorized to issue 404 crossing permits. Individual 404 permits are not anticipated for this project. It is anticipated that an NWP 12 will be required whenever constructing within the EMF channel.

Permits An NWP 12 application is required for construction within the waters of the U.S. USACE will accept permit applications with an approved set of construction drawings. Typical review time is 45 days. A 404 NWP 12 permit is included in Appendix H9, USACE Nationwide 12 404 Permit Application. Utility Companies Coordination and outreach were performed with the following utility companies located within the study area. For additional information, refer to Section III.B.1, Utility Research and Mapping. American Telephone & Telegraph American Telephone & Telegraph (AT&T) utilities were identified during the utility research and mapping phase of this study. AT&T utilities are presented in Appendix B1, City ROW Typical Sections. Additional coordination with AT&T should be conducted during the design phase. AT&T did not provide any additional information with regards to planned infrastructure projects, special construction requirements, permits, or advisory consultation. Century Link Century Link utilities were identified during the utility research and mapping phase of this study. Century Link utilities are presented in Appendix B1, City ROW Typical Sections. Additional coordination with Century Link should be conducted during the design phase. Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Century Link did not provide any additional information with regards to planned infrastructure projects, special construction requirements, permits, or advisory consultation. Cox Communications Cox Communications utilities were identified during the utility research and mapping phase of this study. Cox Communications utilities are presented in Appendix B1, City ROW Typical Sections. Additional coordination with Cox Communications should be conducted during the design phase. Cox Communications did not provide any additional information with regards to planned infrastructure projects, special construction requirements, permits, or advisory consultation. Kinder Morgan/El Paso Natural Gas In the utility research and mapping phase of this study, no Kinder Morgan/El Paso Natural Gas pipelines were identified by Blue Stake. Kinder Morgan/El Paso Natural gas was contacted directly to confirm that no large-diameter gas lines are present within the study area. Kinder Morgan indicated that there is a possible 6-inch abandoned line in the project area from the "Liquids Division". No active facilities are anticipated to be encountered in the project area. Kinder Morgan did not provide any additional information with regards to planned infrastructure projects, special construction requirements, permits, or advisory consultation. RWCD Irrigation RWCD irrigation facilities were identified during the utility research and mapping phase of this study. RWCD utilities are presented in Appendix B1, City ROW Typical Sections. Additional coordination with RWCD should be conducted during the design phase. Southwest Gas Southwest Gas (SWG) facilities were identified during the utility research and mapping phase of this study. SWG utilities are presented in Appendix A, ArcGis Intersect and Buffer Analyses Results, and Appendix B1, City ROW Typical Sections. Additional coordination with SWG will be conducted during the design phase. Special Construction Requirements If high pressure or large diameter gas mains are encountered during construction, the contractor is required to contact a stand-by a minimum of 24 hours in advance of working within 10 feet of high-pressure gas mains or mains with diameters of 6 inches or greater. SWG requires a minimum of 1-foot separation from their distribution facilities and a minimum of 2-feet separation from their high-pressure facilities and any proposed structures. SRP Electric SRP overhead and underground electric facilities were identified during the utility research and mapping phase of this study. High voltage overhead power line GIS data was requested from the U.S. Energy Information Administration and added to the project’s utility GIS database. City GIS data included SRP underground electric lines within City ROW. Refer to Appendix A, ArcGIS Intersect and Buffer Analyses Results, for high-voltage overhead power line and underground electric locations. The locations of SRP electric lines shown in GIS were taken into consideration when placing the proposed pipeline alignments. Coordination with SRP should be conducted during the design phase to identify if there are additional existing underground electric facilities at that time. Overhead power distribution lines were not analyzed within the scope of this project. The buffer analysis performed on the reuse waterline in GIS should ensure that 5-foot minimum horizontal separation requirements from overhead power distribution lines will be maintained if the pipeline is installed parallel to a distribution line. Overhead power distribution line crossings will be identified during the design phase. The 15-foot horizontal separation requirement from high voltage power transmission lines was analyzed in the GIS buffer analysis. Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

SRP did not provide any additional information with regards to planned infrastructure projects, special construction requirements, permits, or advisory consultation. SRP Irrigation SRP irrigation facilities were identified during the utility research and mapping phase of this study. SRP requires a minimum 1-foot vertical clearance for utilities crossing underneath SRP irrigation pipelines, a minimum of 2-feet horizontal separation, plus the SRP irrigation pipe typical excavation area for utilities installed parallel to SRP pipelines, shown in SRP Right-of-Way Guidelines Standard Detail. SRP utilities are presented in Appendix A, ArcGis Intersect and Buffer Analyses Results, and Appendix B1, City ROW Typical Cross Sections. Additional coordination with SRP should be conducted during the design phase. SRP did not provide any additional information with regards to planned infrastructure projects, special construction requirements, permits, or advisory consultation. Verizon Verizon utilities were identified during the utility research and mapping phase of this study using Blue Stake. A utility map request was submitted to Verizon Facilities Engineering. No facilities were identified by Verizon within the area indicated. Additional coordination with Verizon should be conducted during the design phase to confirm that there are no existing utilities at that time. Verizon did not provide any additional information with regards to planned infrastructure projects, special construction requirements, permits, or advisory consultation. Zayo Communications Zayo Communications utilities were identified during the utility research and mapping phase of this study using Blue Stake. A utility map request was submitted to Zayo Communications in September of 2019. No response was received. Zayo Communications facilities are identified within the City’s GIS database. Additional coordination with Zayo Communications should be conducted during the design phase to identify if there are additional existing utilities at that time. Results A summary of the required permits and respective review durations can be seen in Table 9.

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Table 9 - Regulatory/Permit Summary Table

Agency Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Falcon Field District

Required Document Highway Encroachment Permit Pre-Approval Letter and Notice of Proposed Construction (FAA Form 7460-1)

Approximate Agency Review Time 150 days

None

30 to 45 days

None

Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC)

Floodplain Use Permit; Right-of-Way Use Permit

7 to 14 days 4 to 6 weeks

Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT)

Right-of-Way Use Permit

14 days

Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD) Salt River Project (SRP)

Approval to Construct (Subdivision and Infrastructure) Easement Encroachment Request

Permit Fee

$900 + $325 Per Submittal Review After First Submittal + Land Use/Easement Fee of $600 Minimum or Market Value (Whichever is Greater) 3% of Engineer’s Cost Estimate + $50 Processing Fee

Typical: 3 - 4 weeks Max: 95 days

$250

15 to 30 days

None

Roosevelt Water Conservation District (RWCD)

RWCD Crossing Permit

Not provided

Town of Gilbert

Engineering Construction Permit

5 weeks

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

Clean Water Act, Section 404 – Nationwide 12 Permit

45 days

$1,000 + $1,500 Security Deposit $6,340 + $150 Per Page for 21 or More Pages $100

8. Cost Analysis A cost estimate was developed for each the roadway segments within City ROW. Refer to Section V, Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost, for methodology and results.

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

r E Thomas Rd

l na Ca E Quenton Dr

^0 _ 1

E McDowell Rd

1 2

1 1

N Val Vista Dr

0 E McLellan Rd

N 32nd St

E McKellips Rd

N Power Rd

Falcon Field Airport

E Hermosa Vista Dr

N Recker Rd

N 32nd St

N Higley Rd

North Connection Point

N Greenfield Rd

uth So

E Brown Rd

0 1

E Adobe St

0 N Nassau St

E University Dr

0 S 40th St

N Lindsay Rd

E Ea gl e C rest D

E Thomas Rd

1 0

S Recker Rd

S 48th St

S 40th St

E Main St

l na

E Broadway Rd

E Main St

S Val Vista Dr

r ste

E Southern Ave

0 Ca Consolidated

E Hamptom Ave

1 EM

0 2

0 E Baseline Rd

N Val V

E Guadalupe Rd

_ ^

0 0

South Connection Point

ista Dr

Rd dsay

SEWRP

0 0 0 1

_ ^ N Recker Rd

nal

Pierpont Dr

N Li n

S Power Rd

S Lindsay Rd

S Greenfield Rd

S Higley Rd

a an

9 Maricopa County Assessor's Office

Legend

_ ^

Permit Count

Features of Interest

MCFCD

Study Area

CF Superstition Springs

Falcon Field

ADOT ROW

Maricopa County

SRP Canal ROW

Mesa

RWCD ROW

Gilbert

Document Path: H:\2018\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\GIS\Mesa_Alignment_Permit_Count_11x17P.mxd

CMRP ALIGNMENT STUDY Exhibit 16 Permit Counts

I 0

0.5

Date Saved: 11/12/2020 2:36:13 PM

C. ROW Alignments Multi-Criteria Decision Matrix (MCDM) 1. Approach Scenario 1 included the evaluation of 44 miles of potential roadway segments for use in the alignment selection for the reuse pipeline. To assist in determining the preferred alignment, an MCDM was developed to tabulate and score the results of the detailed analyses for Scenario 1. The matrix was used to compare all potential alignments that were developed, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each. The final category and criteria groupings, based on the detailed analyses, include the following in Table 10: Table 10 - Multi-Criteria Decision Matrix Categories and Criteria

Category

Criteria

Community Impact

Constructability

Right-of-Way Cost

The weights of the major categories were calculated using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). This process was developed by R. W. Saaty specifically for use in determining weights of criteria in multi-criteria decision analyses. A survey score card was developed and distributed to each team member for comparing the major categories on a pairwise approach (Saaty, 1987). See Appendix J1, Categories Score Card, for the Survey Score Card that was distributed to the team members. Each survey participant’s pairwise importance comparison was completed using a sliding scale as shown in Table 11. Table 11 - Sliding Scale for Category Importance Comparison

Category CAT1

Category Weighting Score Card More or Less Important Than 9

Equal

Less or More Important Than

Category 9

CAT2

Scores on the left side of the scale indicate that the category on the left-hand side (CAT1) is more important than the category on the right-hand side (CAT2) based on the evaluator’s opinion. Scores on the right-hand side indicate that the category on the right-hand side (CAT2) is more important than the category on the left-hand side (CAT1). Higher numbers signify stronger levels of importance separating the categories and lower numbers signify low to moderate importance separating the categories. If the number 1 is selected, this signifies that both categories are equally important. For this project there were multiple survey participants, therefore the results from the surveys were entered into a database and the geometric mean of the aggregate data calculated. The geometric mean was used, due to its ability to more accurately represent the trend of non-linear aggregate data analyzed rather than the arithmetic mean (more commonly known as the average). Once the geometric mean of each row was calculated, the values were used to calculate the category weight using the AHP. The final category and criteria weights are displayed in Table 12. Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Table 12 – Category and Criteria Weights

DECISION MAKING CATEGORIES

Category Weight

COMMUNITY IMPACT

CONSTRUCTIBILITY

RIGHT-OF-WAY

COST

10.9%

26.8%

10.8%

51.5%

Probable Construction Cost

Land Resource Analysis

Existing Major Utility Crossing

Roadway Classification

Geotechnical Analysis

Regulatory/Permit Screening

46.3%

17.6%

16.7%

19.5%

11.2%

35.1%

26.0%

57.4%

16.5%

100.0%

3.2%

2.7%

5.1%

4.7%

4.5%

5.2%

3.0%

9.4%

2.8%

6.2%

1.8%

51.5%

Easements/Property Acquisition

24.5%

ROW Width

Business Impact

29.2%

Traffic Impact

Public Facility Impact Weight in Category Total % Contribution

Minor Utility Relocations

Decision Making Criteria

The results of the criteria weights were presented to and reviewed by the project team. The only instance where subjectivity was introduced into the analysis was when the individual surveys were completed. After calculating the weights of the categories and the criteria, the criteria were scored. Scoring was done utilizing a scoring rubric. The scoring ranges developed in the rubric were derived from the results of the detailed analyses and applied to complete alignments. It was desired to have typical score range from 5 (highest) to 1 (lowest) for the criteria. The difference between the high and low counts was divided by 5 to calculate the count range assigned to each score. As an example, this methodology produced the count ranges and associated scores for the utility relocation criteria that can be seen in Table 13: Table 13 - Minor Utility Relocation Count Ranges and Associated Scores

Minor Utility Relocation Count Range (ft)

Score

2,630 – 10,269 10,270 – 17,908 17,909 – 25,547 25,548 – 33,186 33,187 – 40,825

5 4 3 2 1

A similar process was followed for most of the criteria used in the matrix. The criteria which deviated from this process were Geotechnical Analysis, Roadway Classification, and ROW Width. The geotechnical conditions, roadway classifications, and ROW widths were not constant along the length of each complete alignment, thus an approach needed to be developed on how to score these criteria. The approach taken was to use a weighted average of the assigned value from each of the roadway segments comprising the alignment, based on each segment’s length, and its worst condition anticipated to be encountered. The complete scoring rubric can be seen in Appendix J3, Criteria Scoring Rubric. The MCDM tabulated the scores for each criterion in each alignment. The next step in preparing the MCDM was to score every count for each criterion associated with each potential alignment according to the scoring rubric. The steps for assigning scores according to the rubric were previously discussed. After each criterion for all potential alignments was scored according to the grading rubric, the scores were normalized. This process was completed for each of the 12 criteria vectors.

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Finally, the total normalized and weighted score for each alignment was calculated by summing the normalized, weighted criteria scores for each alignment. This resulted in 446 analyzed and scored alignments. These alignment scores were reviewed and ranked. The alignment with the highest normalized, weighted score ranked highest and the alignment with the lowest normalized, weighted score ranked lowest. Refer to Appendix J4, City ROW Alignments Scores and Ranks, for the complete list of final alignment scores and rankings. 2. Results The MCDM was used as a tool to help the Engineer and the City determine which of the 446 potential City ROW alignments developed is the most advantageous for installation of a 42-inch reuse waterline. Many factors were considered and analyzed to arrive at the conclusion of this analysis. This analysis was designed to be as objective and quantitative as possible. A summary of the final scored, normalized, and weighted matrix is shown in Table 14, displaying the top five ranked alignments and the lowest ranked alignment. The path the top five alignments take can be viewed in Exhibit 17, City ROW Top 5 Alignments. The lowest ranking alignment is shown in the table for comparison. The complete table can be found in Appendix J4, City ROW Alignment Scores and Ranks. Table 14 - Ranking Matrix Results Summary

DECISION MAKING CATEGORIES AND WEIGHTS COMMUNITY IMPACT

CONSTRUCTABILITY

RIGHTOF-WAY

COST

ALIGNMENT TOTAL SCORE

RANK

ALIGNMENT NO.

10.9%

26.8%

10.8%

51.5%

---

Max Potential

78.82

189.72

57.88

437.16

763.58

Alignment 41

67.92

152.45

51.69

437.16

709.22

Alignment 42

67.92

144.71

51.73

437.16

701.52

Alignment 401

62.47

145.69

51.18

437.16

696.51

Alignment 46

62.47

144.02

51.51

437.16

695.17

Alignment 43

67.92

137.15

51.91

437.16

694.14

446

Alignment 438

29.32

91.72

51.05

87.43

259.52

The top-ranking alignment from this analysis was Alignment 41. This alignment had an overall score of 709.22. Note that while Probable Construction Cost carried the largest weight in the ranking matrix results, the top ranked alignment was not the lowest cost option. This demonstrates the importance of including and analyzing the other criteria and categories used in the ranking matrix. The top five alignment scores were within 2.1% or less of each other. From a technical analysis perspective, any of these top five alignments are considered advantageous and could feasibly be constructed. D. Final Scenario 1 Alignment After the completion of the ROW Alignments MCDM analysis, the top-ranking alignment was presented to the Town of Gilbert for their approval. The Town requested for the southern portion of the pipeline alignment within their right-of-way be re-routed to avoid the busy Baseline Road and Banner Gateway Drive corridors. Baseline Road has experienced multiple construction projects within the last several years and the Town would prefer not to interrupt that roadway again and avoid disrupting access to the Banner Gateway Hospital. Rather than turning east at Greenfield Road and Banner Gateway Drive, the Town requested that the pipeline alignment be re-routed to continue south on Old Greenfield Road, east on Baseline Road, south on Claiborne Avenue, and east on Houston Avenue to connect to the SEWRP pipeline at Recker Road and Houston Avenue.

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

The top-ranking Alignment 41 from the results of the MCDM was modified to accommodate the Town’s request. The final Scenario 1 Alignment represents the top-ranking alignment within the City’s ROW as determined by the MCDM, combined with the southern re-routed portion requested by the Town, and is shown in Exhibit 18, City ROW Alignment. The difference in length between the original and modified alignment are displayed in Table 15. Table 15 - Length Comparison for Town of Gilbert Proposed Alignment Modification

Alignment 41 Length (LF) Length (miles)

IV.

50,670 9.6

Final Scenario 1 Alignment 54,795 10.4

Delta 4,125 0.8

Scenario 2-4 Analysis Methodology

A. Detailed Analysis Detailed analysis for Scenarios 2-4 consisted of the following components: • Utility Research & Mapping • Geotechnical Screening • Community Impact Screening • Right-of-Way Screening • Stakeholder Outreach & Regulatory/Permit Screening The results of each analysis were utilized to develop an EOPCC, an advantages/disadvantages summary for each Scenario, and a Scenarios MCDM. 1. Utility Research & Mapping Approach Typical cross sections were developed for eight segments of the EMF/RWCD alignments at approximately one-mile intervals. These sections incorporated utilities indicated in the utility data received from the utility owners, including GIS data and major utilities identified through Blue Stake coordination. The proposed pipeline location is displayed in the section view with a 6-foot zone on each side to represent the required horizontal separation requirements for a reuse watermain. Cross sections were used to determine if there were any potential utility conflicts, and to illustrate the estimated vertical proximity of existing utilities and anticipated new pipeline location. Typical cross sections for the EMF/RWCD alignments are displayed in Appendix B2, EMF/RWCD Typical Cross Sections. Results The number of major utility crossings, and the linear feet (LF) of potential required utility relocations, were quantified for the EMF/RWCD alignments. The utility analysis results for the RWCD/EMF alignments is summarized in Table 16. The previous results of the City ROW utility analysis are included for comparison.

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

r E Ea gl e C rest D

E Thomas Rd

l na Ca

N Greenfield Rd

uth So

E Quenton Dr

_ ^

North Connection Point

E McDowell Rd

N 32nd St

N Lindsay Rd

E McKellips Rd

N Power Rd

N Recker Rd

N Val Vista Dr

N Higley Rd

N 32nd St

Falcon Field Airport

N Nassau St

S 40th St

E Brown Rd

E University Dr

RW CD Ca

E Main St

S 40th St

S Recker Rd

l na

E Main St

E Broadway Rd

a an

S Val Vista Dr

Ca Consolidated

S Power Rd

S Lindsay Rd

S Higley Rd

S Greenfield Rd

r ste E Southern Ave

E Holmes Ave

Pierpont Dr

_ ^ South Connection Point

ista Dr

N Val V

dsay N Li n

_ ^ N Recker Rd

nal E Baseline Rd

SEWRP

E Guadalupe Rd

Maricopa County Assessor's Office

Legend

_ ^

Top Ranking Alignments

Features of Interest

MCFCD

Study Area

CF Superstition Springs

1 (Alignment 41)

Falcon Field

2 (Alignment 42)

ADOT ROW

Maricopa County

3 (Alignment 401)

SRP Canal ROW

Mesa

4 (Alignment 46)

RWCD ROW

Gilbert

5 (Alignment 43)

Document Path: H:\2018\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\GIS\Mesa_Alignment_Top_Alignments_11x17P.mxd

CMRP ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 0

0.5

Exhibit 17 City ROW Top 5 Alignments Date Saved: 11/12/2020 2:39:05 PM

r E Ea gl e C rest D

E Thomas Rd

E Quenton Dr

_ ^ North Connection Point

E McDowell Rd

E McKellips Rd

N Power Rd

N Recker Rd

N Higley Rd

N Val Vista Dr

N Greenfield Rd

N 32nd St

Falcon Field Airport

N 40th St

N 32nd St

N Lindsay Rd

E McLellan Rd

E Brown Rd

E University Dr

E Main St

S 40th St

S Recker Rd

E Main St

E Broadway Rd

SR PE S Greenfield Rd

S Sunnyvale Ave

SEWRP

_ ^ _ ^ N Recker Rd

N Li n

N Val V

dsay

ista Dr

South Connection Point

l na Ca

E Baseline Rd

in Ma

E Inverness Ave

C RW

E Banner Gateway Dr

S Power Rd

S Val Vista Dr

al an

S Lindsay Rd

S Higley Rd

ter as E Southern Ave

Maricopa County Assessor's Office

Legend

_ ^

Abandoned Utah Canal ROW

CF Superstition Springs

ADOT ROW

Falcon Field

Study Area

SRP ROW

Maricopa County

SWRRC Main

RWCD ROW

Mesa

MCFCD

Gilbert

Document Path: H:\2018\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\GIS\Mesa_Alignment_Mesa_ROW_Route_11x17P.mxd

Features of Interest

Route Mesa ROW Route

CMRP ALIGNMENT STUDY Exhibit 18 City ROW Alignment

I 0

0.5

Date Saved: 11/23/2020 8:33:49 AM

Table 16 - Utility Analysis Results

Scenario Major Utility Crossings

Scenario 1 – City ROW Alignment 41 51

Scenario 2.2 RWCD Pipeline 21

Scenario 3 - EMF

Scenario 4 - City ROW/EMF Hybrid

Potential Minor Utility 17,037 0 3,000 Relocations (LF) (3.23 miles) (0 miles) (0.57 miles) Note: For corresponding City ROW Minimum and Maximum alignment numbers, refer to Table 6.

3,050 (0.58 miles)

No potential utility relocations were identified within RWCD and EMF ROW, although there are utility relocations associated with the City ROW roadway segments utilized between the north connection point and the entrance to the EMF at approximately Greenfield Road and Brown Road. Major utility crossings for Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 were incorporated into the EOPCC. It is recommended that all utility locations are confirmed during the design and construction document phase prior to construction by Blue Stake and potholing. 2. Geotechnical Screening Geotechnical considerations identified by the Geotechnical Engineer were incorporated into the EOPCC for Scenarios 2, 3, and 4. 3. Community Impact Screening Community impact was determined to be reduced for Scenarios 2-4 since the pipeline alignments located within these agencies’ ROW does not impact access to public facilities and businesses or require extensive traffic control except at roadway intersections. This was considered as an advantage of each Scenario in the advantages/disadvantages analysis. 4. Right-of-Way Screening The approximate ROW widths displayed in Table 17 were identified for RWCD and the EMF. Table 17 - Scenario 2-4 ROW Widths

Approximate ROW Width (ft)

Property Owner RWCD

100

FCDMC

150 - 250

Right-of-way screening for Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 investigated the requirements within each stakeholder’s respective ROW. More detailed information on construction requirements can be found in Section IV.A.5, Stakeholder Outreach & Regulatory/Permit Screening. Scenario 2.1 Discharging into the RWCD canal will require an easement for the portion of the pipeline to be constructed in RWCD’s ROW until reaching the discharge point, as well as legal agreements associated with both maintenance of that portion of the pipeline as well as the use of RWCD’s canal. An annual toll may be required in exchange for canal use. It is also possible that the City may have to enter into an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with the Town of Queen Creek, who discharges into the RWCD from the GWRP at Queen Creek Road, regarding liability for any water quality concerns downstream of that point. Refer to Appendix N, RWCD Water Wheel Technical Memorandum for information regarding the assumptions made to approximate the Scenario 2.1 water wheel agreement. Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Scenario 2.2 It was determined that an easement would be required to construct the pipeline within RWCD’s ROW, and a legal agreement would need to be negotiated regarding the City’s access to the pipeline for maintenance purposes. Scenarios 3 and 4 An easement and access agreement would be required from FCDMC for the portion of the pipeline located within their ROW between Brown Road and Broadway Road. However, between Broadway Road and the south connection point, the land is owned by two separate golf courses: Leisure World Community Association’s Coyote Run Golf Course between Broadway Road and Southern Avenue, and Arcis LLC’s Superstition Spring Golf Course between Southern Avenue and Baseline Road. Easement and access agreements would be required from each of these stakeholders. Additional easements from individual private property owners may be required for Scenario 3 at the Higley Road and Main Street intersection, and for Scenarios 3 and 4 when crossing Southern Avenue to avoid existing golf course lakes. 5. Stakeholder Outreach & Regulatory/Permit Screening Scenario 2-4 stakeholders were identified and the required process and necessary documentation to receive proper authorization for potential impacts within their respective jurisdictions was outlined. Refer to Appendix H for blank permit application forms. The following potential project impacts have been analyzed: • •

Special construction requirements. Special permitting requirements.

A summary table of stakeholder outreach efforts is included in Appendix I, Stakeholder Outreach Log and Meeting Notes. Scenario 2: RWCD Special Construction Requirements RWCD Canal Transport The project team met with RWCD on October 28th, 2019. Refer to Appendix I, Stakeholder Outreach Log and Meeting Notes for meeting notes. RWCD agreed to exploring the option of using the RWCD Canal for conveying water to GRIC. Currently RWCD utilizes fish (Koi and White Amur) to mitigate the algae in the canal. RWCD expressed concern that introducing reuse water into the canal may lead to the development of toxic algae blooms. RWCD indicated that the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) requires that flows in the canal not contain more than a 50/50 ratio of reuse water to surface water per Arizona Administrative Code R18-11-107.01B. The majority of the water supplied to the RWCD canal is supplied from a CAP pipeline that discharges into the canal at McDowell Road; only a small amount is supplied from the SRP South Canal. There are periods of time where there is not water in the RWCD Canal north of McDowell Road. It is anticipated that the City will be required to discharge into the canal at McDowell Road (approximate location shown in Figure 5 instead of Quenton Drive so as not to exceed the 50/50 reuse to surface water blending ratio.

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Figure 5 - RWCD Canal at Quenton Drive and McDowell Road

The Town of Queen Creek currently discharges reuse water from the Greenfield Water Reclamation Plant into the RWCD Canal at Queen Creek Road from a 12-inch diameter pipeline. It is not clear how this affects the blending ratio within the canal. Further discussion will be required with both RWCD and the Town of Queen Creek regarding liability for flows and any water quality concerns at and beyond that point. An intergovernmental agreement (IGA) may be required. SRP also discharges water into the RWCD Canal from their San Tan Generating Station located near Warner and Val Vista from a 15-inch diameter pipe; however, it is the team’s understanding that this water is treated to potable levels prior to discharge into the canal and would not count against the reuse water blending ratio. Further investigation and a meeting are required on this matter. RWCD indicated that a steady state discharge of the City’s reuse water into the canal would be required. To equalize the diurnal flow of reuse water for steady state discharge, the City may need to construct water storage infrastructure. The flows within the RWCD Canal vary with customer demand; peak flows typically occur between April and July for agricultural use. In addition to maintaining steady state discharge, the City must also have the capability to adjust flow rates into the canal based on RWCD’s flows. The RWCD Canal dry-up for maintenance typically occurs between mid-December through mid-January, although exact dates vary each year. The City may not be able to discharge into the canal during this time. The RWCD Canal has cross section reductions at Pecos Road and then again at Chandler Heights Road. Preliminary field measurements by the project engineer determined an approximate top-width reduction from 35 feet to 25 feet for five miles between Pecos Road and Chandler Heights Road. The top-width of the canal then reduces again from approximately 25 feet to 12 feet for two miles between Chandler Heights Road and Hunt Highway. See Exhibit 19, RWCD Canal Widths for RWCD canal typical cross sections. The City may be responsible for approximately two miles of canal improvements between Chandler Heights Road and Hunt Highway to accommodate additional flows contributed to the canal. RWCD has indicated that RWCD may be willing to share cost on necessary canal improvements. The cross-section reduction at Chandler Heights Road is depicted in Figure 6.

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

E Quenton Dr

_ ^

Dr E Eag

le C

re st

N Higley Rd

E Thomas Rd

North Connection Point

E Thomas Rd

N Crismon Rd

- 45

E University Dr

202

N Lindsay Rd

E Brown Rd

£ ¤

N Ellsworth Rd

E McKellips Rd

N Power Rd

Falcon Field Airport

N Val Vista Dr

E Lehi Rd

N Lindsay Rd

N Gilbert R d

N 32nd St

202

N Recker Rd

E McDowell Rd

£ ¤

W Main St

£ ¤

S Hawes Rd

S Lindsay Rd

S Gilbert Rd

S Mesa Dr

N Stapley Dr

E Broadway Rd

E Southern Ave SEWRP

£ ¤ 60

N Cooper Rd

W Ray Rd

S Ellsworth Rd

S Power Rd E Hunt Hwy

- 45 35 Legend

_ ^

Features of Interest Canal Width Study Area

35-45 ft

Note: Canal widths are estimates and should be verified with RWCD.

25-35 ft 10-15 ft

Document Path: H:\2018\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\GIS\Mesa_Alignment_Study_RWCD_Canal_11x17P.mxd

nh ou s

S Ellsworth Rd

S Recker Rd

E San Tan Blvd

_ ^

E Hunt Hwy

- 15

Delivery Point

tte

E Ocotillo Rd

E Chandler Heights Rd

E Riggs Rd

S Crismon Rd

S Hawes Rd

E Ocotillo Rd

S Recker Rd

S Val Vista Dr

S Greenfield Rd

E Queen Creek Rd

_ ^

E Germann Rd

- 35

S Gilbert Rd

E Germann Rd

E Pecos Rd

S Sossaman Rd

202

GWRP

S Power Rd

E Williams Field Rd

£ ¤

S Cooper Rd

S Hawes Rd

E Ray Rd

W Pecos Rd

S McQueen Rd

S Recker Rd

202

S Higley Rd

E Chandler Blvd

E Elliot Rd

£ ¤

S Lindsay Rd

W Warner Rd

S Higley Rd

S Val Vista Dr

W Elliot Rd

_ ^

^ _ _ ^

S Sossaman Rd

South Connection Point

S Greenfield Rd

W Guadalupe Rd

N Gilbert Rd

E Baseline Rd

Maricopa County Assessor's Office

CMRP ALIGNMENT STUDY Exhibit 19 RWCD Canal Width

I 0

Date Saved: 11/12/2020 2:48:25 PM

Figure 6 - RWCD Cross Section Reduction at Chandler Heights

Refer to Appendix N, RWCD Water Wheel Technical Memorandum for analysis of the RWCD Main Canal capacity and required improvements. Pipeline Construction in RWCD’s ROW During the meeting with RWCD on October 28th, 2019, discussion regarding the use of maintenance roads, parallel to the canal, for pipeline alignment considerations was discussed. Refer to Appendix I, Stakeholder Outreach Log and Meeting Notes for meeting notes. RWCD prefers that the pipeline be installed as close to the edge of their ROW as possible (as far away from the canal as possible). RWCD ROW for the canal is approximately 100-feet wide. The canal is approximately centered within the ROW, with approximately 50-feet of ROW on either side of the canal centerline. Based on field observations, it was noted that the concrete canal is aging and is experiencing cracking and degradation. Due to these cracks, the soil adjacent to the canal can become saturated with water. An open cut trench may become less stable as it approaches the canal during normal operation. The need for trench stabilization should be anticipated when building within RWCD’s ROW. RWCD indicated that several of the residents of the Tower Point Community between University Drive and Main Street whose properties border the RWCD Canal ROW have encroached into the ROW with landscaping and irrigation, shown in Figure 7. To maintain the pipeline alignment at the edge of the ROW as indicated above, the reuse waterline may conflict with the encroached landscaping and irrigation infrastructure. Coordination will be required within the Tower Point Community, which contains over 50 residents adjacent to RWCD.

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Figure 7 - RWCD Resident Encroachment, Aerial and Looking North

RWCD has several well sites located within their ROW along the canal. One of these well sites is depicted in Figure 8. Installation dates for these wells range from 1939 to 2018. The proposed pipeline alignment along the RWCD west bank has the potential to impact 11 different well sites. Realignment of the pipeline and/or well site restoration in these locations may be required. Refer to Exhibit 20, RWCD System Map – Well Sites, for well site locations.

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Figure 8 - RWCD Well Site at Broadway Road, Looking South

RWCD is obligated to provide existing customers with a determined volume of water each year. If RWCD needs to increase their canal capacity to meet customer demands in the future, this may require modifications to the canal width. The modifications could impact the proposed pipeline. Permits An RWCD Crossing Permit is required when crossing RWCD facilities. Additional information on the RWCD Crossing Permit is included in Section III.B.6., Regulatory/Permit Screening. Scenario 3 and 4: EMF and City ROW/EMF Hybrid Flood Control District of Maricopa County Special Construction Requirements A meeting was conducted with the project team and FCDMC on December 10th, 2019. Refer to Appendix I, Stakeholder Outreach Log and Meeting Notes for meeting notes. The FCDMC is agreeable to further exploration of the option to install the reuse water pipeline within their ROW associated with the EMF, and is open to considering the use of maintenance roads parallel to the EMF for pipeline alignment considerations. FCDMC indicated that all instances where the pipeline enters their ROW will require crossing the RWCD Canal, and therefore will require a permit or license from both RWCD and FCDMC. FCDMC has an easement through the Leisure World and Superstition Springs golf courses. Separate coordination will be required with each of these landowners. See sections below regarding Leisure World and Superstition Springs Golf Course coordination. FCDMC indicated that if the pipeline is constructed in the channel bottom, approximately 6 to 10 feet of bury depth may be required. A scour analysis would need to be performed to confirm these depths. The channel bottom may be considered waters of the United States (U.S.) and therefore require 404 permitting through the USACE. Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

FCDMC prefers that the reuse waterline be located near the access road on the east bank of the EMF channel. Using the east bank access road for pipeline construction should not require a 404 permit. Figure 9 depicts the location of the access road on the east side of the EMF where the reuse waterline could be installed.

Figure 9 - EMF East Bank Access Road Between Main Street and Broadway Road, Looking South

Restrained joints would be required when building within FCDMC ROW. The backfill requirements will vary with pipeline location. The proposed pipeline alignment is primarily located within the channel bank. For pipelines located within the channel bank, 1-sack controlled low-strength material (CLSM) backfill is required from 6 inches beneath the bottom of the pipe to the pipe spring line. Backfill above the CLSM must be compacted to 95% proctor. If the pipeline enters into the channel bottom, FCDMC requires 1-sack CLSM backfill within the pipe zone (6 inches beneath the bottom of the pipe to 6 inches above the top of the pipe). Maximum allowable valve spacing should be used in design. Building in the EMF will require provisions for isolation of flow, in the event of a pipeline leak or break, resulting in depressurization of the pipeline. FCDMC indicated that any work performed within the channel should be scheduled in May and October, when it is less likely for flows to be within the EMF. When a storm event occurs, flows will typically occur in the EMF within one hour. An Emergency Action Plan (EAP) would need to be developed for construction in the EMF, but is not required to be as detailed when constructing in the channel bank. Fee title land is owned by FCDMC and will require an easement or license agreement. The easement will require the submission of a map and legal description with the permit application. The easement may require the City to relocate the pipeline in the event of future FCDMC improvements. However, FCDMC indicated that it is unlikely a pipeline constructed in the EMF would require relocation. At the intersection of Higley Road and Main Street, the EMF channel is reduced through a box culvert to pass underneath the intersection. Construction at this intersection will likely require that the pipeline be placed in the floodway and then be installed using a complex approximately 650-foot jack-and-bore underneath the box culvert. Refer to Exhibit 21, Higley and Main Intersection, for an illustration of the complexities associated with this intersection.

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Additional easements and maintenance access agreements with various landowners will be required as discussed in detail below. Refer to Exhibit 22, EMF Land Ownership, for a map of each landowner’s property boundaries and the proposed pipeline alignment within them. Permits Building within FCDMC-owned land will require an FCDMC ROW Use Permit. Instructions for filing a ROW Use permit with FCDMC are included in Appendix H3, FCDMC Floodplain Use Permit & ROW Use Permit Instructions. An easement will also need to be granted to the reuse waterline. This will require the submission of a map and legal description with the ROW Use Permit application. Typical review time for an FCDMC ROW Use permit is 4 to 6 weeks. Work performed within floodplain areas designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will require a Floodplain Use Permit (FPUP). Requirements for submittal of the FPUP application include the following: • Completed FPUP Application • Sealed construction drawings A Floodplain Use Permit Application is included in Appendix H3, FCDMC Floodplain Use Permit & ROW Use Permit Instructions. The typical cross sections depicted in Appendix B2, EMF/RWCD Typical Cross Sections, show the approximate width of the floodplain in relation to the pipeline alignment. A FPUP is anticipated whenever the pipeline enters the channel. Typical review time is 7-14 days. Leisure World Golf Course Special Construction Requirements A meeting with Leisure World Golf Course and the project team was held on January 21st, 2020. Refer to Appendix I, Stakeholder Outreach Log and Meeting Notes for meeting notes. Leisure World Golf Club is agreeable to further exploring the option of installing the reuse water pipeline within their ROW. However, before an easement would be considered, the Leisure World community has requested access to the City of Mesa Household Hazardous Waste Facility. This negotiation would need to take place with the City. The estimated cost of an easement within the Leisure World Golf Course was provided by the City and is $150,000, delineated as follows in Table 18. Table 18 - Leisure World Golf Course Easement Cost Estimate

Easement Component

Estimated Cost

Waterline Easement, 81,650 SF

$80,000

TCE, 41,000 SF Improvements, Appraisal, Escrow & Staff Costs Contingency

$10,000

Total Cost

$150,000

$20,000 $40,000

Note: Easement cost estimate provided by City of Mesa Real Estate

Pipeline construction within the Leisure World Golf Course would be preferred during the summer to avoid Leisure World’s golf season, which lasts from October to April. Further project coordination will be required. Permits Leisure World Golf Course is located within the floodplain and may require a FPUP from FCDMC. Requirements for this permit are outlined in FCDMC Section ii, Permits. Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Higley Rd

140-17-006A Sun Life RVR LLC

141-76-017C MAR-MHP-X-B Branch LLC

141-76-015A DH 5252 Main LLC 141-76-017E ADP Properties

140-17-007 Famini LLC

Main St

141-51-002B Guru Ramdas JI LLC

CD M n ai l na Ca

141-51-009D Sun Mesa LP

140-34-004F Venture Out at Mesa INC

141-51-005 Arizona Communities LTD

Maricopa County Assessor's Office

Legend High Voltage Electrical

RWCD Main Canal Ownership

High Pressure Gas Line

Parcels

CMRP ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 0

100

RWCD ROW

Conduits

Mesa ROW

Storm Gravity Main

FCDMC

Sewer Water Main Document Path: H:\2018\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\GIS\Mesa_Alignment_Study_Higley_Main_11x17P_2.mxd

Exhibit 21 Higley and Main Intersection

Feet

Date Saved: 11/12/2020 2:50:24 PM

Broadway Rd

Potential Reclaimed Water Main Location

C RW DM ain

Southern Ave

l na Ca

£ ¤ 60

_ ^ SEWRP

South Connection Point

Baseline Rd

_ ^ Maricopa County Assessor's Office

Legend

_ ^

Features of Interest RWCD Main Canal SWRRC Main

EMF Route

Ownership

Parcels

CF Superstition Springs

ADOT ROW

FCDMC Leisure World SEWRP

Document Path: H:\2018\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\GIS\Mesa_Alignment_Study_EMF_11x17P.mxd

CMRP ALIGNMENT STUDY Exhibit 22 EMF Land Ownership

I 0

500

1,000

Feet

Date Saved: 11/12/2020 2:52:55 PM

Natural Resource Conservation Service The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (previously known as the U.S. Soil Conservation Service) is the federal joint-sponsor of the EMF. Responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the EMF was delegated to the FCDMC upon its completion. FCDMC indicated that the project will likely require approval from NRCS. Superstition Springs Golf Course Special Construction Requirements The project team met with Superstition Springs Golf Course on January 22nd, 2020. Refer to Appendix I, Stakeholder Outreach Log and Meeting Notes for meeting notes. Superstition Springs Golf Course agreed to further exploration of the option to install a reuse water pipeline within their ROW. The cost of an easement within the Superstition Springs Golf Course is estimated by the City to be $200,000, delineated as follows in Table 19. Table 19 - Superstition Springs Golf Course Easement Cost Estimate

Easement Component

Estimated Cost

Waterline Easement, 113,400 SF

$100,000

TCE, 56,700 SF Improvements, Appraisal, Escrow & Staff Costs Contingency

$10,000

Total Cost

$200,000

$30,000 $50,000

Note: Easement cost estimate provided by City of Mesa Real Estate.

Pipeline construction within the Superstition Springs Golf Course would need to take place during the summer to avoid Superstition Spring’s golf season, which lasts from October to April. Six feet of cover will be required above the pipe. The pipeline alignment may require the relocation of the golf course’s current irrigation mainline (6- to 8-inch PVC) and sprinkler system laterals. The pipeline alignment is anticipated to have a minimal impact on the course fairways and greens, but will require the replacement of mature trees, landscaping, and golf cart pathway which can be seen in Figure 10. A landscape architect would be required to design the restoration of the golf course to the existing conditions prior to construction. Further coordination will be required with ARCIS LLC.

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Figure 10 - Superstition Springs Golf Course, Looking North

Permits The Superstition Springs Golf Course is located within the floodplain and may require a FPUP from FCDMC. Requirements for this permit are outlined above. United States Army Corps of Engineers Special Construction Requirements Single & Complete Project A USACE Nationwide Permit (NWP) 12 can be obtained for applicable projects that do not result in a loss of more than ½ acre of surface area of waters of the United States for each single and complete project. The USACE definition of single and complete project treats each 404 jurisdictional crossing as a separate project. Loss of Waters of United States Each single and complete project under NWP 12 must not individually exceed ½ acre of loss of surface area of waters of the U.S. (2012 Nationwide Permits, Conditions, District Engineer’s Decision, Further Information, and Definitions (with corrections), p 45). The USACE defines loss of waters of the U.S. as a permanent loss and does not include construction disturbances less than three months duration, or less than six months duration with approval from the USACE (2012 Nationwide Permits, Conditions, District Engineer’s Decision, Further Information, and Definitions (with corrections), p 43). The USACE requires restoration of the disturbed area to preconstruction elevations and revegetation of the disturbed area. Pipeline projects that restore the existing surface conditions are not considered to be a loss of waters of the United States and typically fall under the scope of NWP 12. In the event a loss of the waters of the United States in excess of ½ acre, an NWP 12 is not applicable and an individual 404 permit will be required from the USACE.

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

NWP 12 Compliance Compliance to NWP 12 requires notification to the USACE under certain conditions, primarily when a 404 jurisdictional area is crossed or if the length of the project in the waters of the U.S. exceeds 500 LF. Currently, the EMF has not been delineated by the USACE and will require further evaluation if this alignment is selected. Culvert and roadway crossings are not considered as potential 404 jurisdictional areas. An individual 404 permit is not anticipated for construction of the Central Mesa Reuse Pipeline; instead, 404 permitting can be obtained through NWP 12. NWP 12 compliance requires environmental and cultural evaluations, including a mitigation plan when sensitive conditions are encountered during construction. The USACE recommends that a pre-notification meeting be held during the design phase, after the required evaluations and a 404-impact study is completed to ensure proper compliance to NWP 12. The 404 jurisdictional areas should be delineated and agreed upon by the USACE prior to performing the environmental and cultural evaluations. Design of the new reuse waterline should consider environmental impacts, cultural impacts, and scour protection at each location requiring a 404 permit. Summary • • •

Permits The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is the permitting agency for construction projects within 404 jurisdictional areas. Potential 404 permitting is anticipated for Scenarios 3 and 4 if the pipeline enters the channel of the EMF. The type of 404-permit applicable to this project is a Nationwide 12 Permit (NWP 12), which is issued for utility construction within the waters of the U.S. USACE will accept permit applications with an approved set of construction drawings. Typical review time is 45 days. A 404 NWP 12 permit is included in Appendix H9, USACE Nationwide 12 404 Permit Application.

V. Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (EOPCC) A preliminary engineer’s opinion of construction cost (EOPCC) was developed to analyze each Scenario. These opinions of construction cost are developed based on historic pricing for publicly bid projects including commodity items as well as manufacturer’s price quotes (for significant items such as the pipe material and valves) combined with the engineer’s opinion of the costs associated with installation of these items (based on a combination of experience and standard construction estimating texts). Non-bid items, such as general conditions, contractor profit, insurance, and bonds are not included in the EOPCC as separate line items but are incorporated into the listed bid items. Inflation and time-value of money were not considered in determining costs. Any potential required upgrades to the existing pipeline between the SEWRP, GWRP, and the GRIC, or between the NWWRP and the north connection were excluded from the cost estimates. These cost estimates are for budgetary purposes only and will be further developed and refined during the design phase, by the Pipeline and Plant Engineers, and if the City decides to use the services of a CMAR Contractor. A. Scenario 1: City ROW Cost Analysis Approach To complete the cost analysis, the EOPCC for each of the 75 roadway segments that contribute to the 446 alignment possibilities considered within City ROW was developed. The cost analysis for each roadway segment considered in the detailed analysis of Scenario 1 was determined based on the methodology outlined below. This detailed cost estimate is in Appendix L1, City ROW Roadway Segment Cost Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Estimate. The total cost of each alignment was calculated within the MCDM, where the costs of each roadway segment making up the total alignment were summed to reach a total alignment cost. Easements/Property Acquisition Any known parcels not within the City ROW, which overlapped the potential pipeline alignments, were determined from Maricopa County Assessor’s Website. Segments passing through these parcels (Segments 43, 53) had 3% of the construction cost added for easements/property acquisition. Permits The permits outlined in Appendix G, Permit Requirements Table were used to classify the number of permits required for each roadway segment. Permit costs were added to each segment based on the number of permits required, ranging from 0.25% to 3%. Traffic Control Traffic volume was classified as Low (L), Medium (M), or High (H) based on the City AADT data for each mile segment. The following ranges were used, based on Exhibit 12, Traffic Volumes. • • •

Low: 0-12,00 vehicles/day Medium: 12,001-20,000 vehicles/day High: 20,001+ vehicles/day

Traffic control was then priced as 3% of the construction cost for low traffic volume, 5% of the construction cost for medium traffic volume, and 7% of the construction cost for high traffic volume. Length of Pipeline The length of each pipe segment was measured in GIS based on the proposed routes shown in Appendix A, ArcGIS Intersect and Buffer Analyses Results. Concrete Cylinder Pipe (CCP) material was assumed. The following spacing was used to calculate the number of each appurtenances required for each pipe segment: • • • • •

42-inch Gate Valve: Every ½ mile (2640 feet) Combination Air Release Valve (Size TBD): Every ½ mile (2640 feet) Dewatering Stations: Every ½ mile (2640 feet) Access Manways: Every ½ mile (2640 feet) Corrosion Test Stations: Every 1,000 feet

Major Utility Crossings Major utility crossings were quantified in GIS based on an intersect analysis. See Exhibit 8, Major Utility Crossings, and Appendix C, Major Utility Crossing Counts, for major utility crossing counts. Potential Minor Utility Relocations Minor utility relocations were measured in GIS based on an intersect analysis. See Exhibit 9, Potential Utility Relocations, and Appendix D, Potential Minor Utility Relocation Measurements, for minor utility relocation measurements. Pavement Replacement Pavement replacement was based on the requirements outlined by the City of Mesa Standard Detail M19.04.1. Refer to Appendix P, Referenced Standard Details for City of Mesa Standard Detail M-19.04.1. Moratorium/Cut Restrictions Moratorium/Cut Restrictions based on Appendix K, City of Mesa Pavement Cut Restriction Map, published by the City of Mesa Transportation Department for the fiscal year of 2019-2020, and City of Mesa Schedule of Fees and Charges. Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

It should be noted that future fiscal year planned projects are unknown and may cause pavement cut restrictions closer to the time of construction for the Central Mesa Reuse Pipeline that would potentially have a larger cost impact on other mile segments. This is not accounted for in the cost estimate. Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Replacement Curb, gutter, and sidewalk replacement lengths were measured in GIS. US60 Jack-and-Bore/Tunneling A jack-and-bore would be required to cross the US60 at Pierpont Drive. Due to an existing storm drain running parallel within the US60, the required bore pit depth for this jack-and-bore is approximately 50 feet. The length of this jack-and-bore was measured in GIS and is 680 linear feet starting north of the concrete ADOT storm drain channel which runs parallel to the north of the US60 and measured through the width of the freeway. Due to the depth associated with this jack-and-bore in comparison to typical jackand-bore/ tunneling outlined below, a higher unit cost was utilized. RWCD Jack-and-Bore/Tunneling RWCD General Notes require a jack-and-bore underneath all existing RWCD facilities. Jack-and-bore lengths for RWCD Main Canal Crossings were determined by assuming a maximum canal top width of 45 feet and bore pit locations 50 feet from each edge of the canal. This meets the RWCD requirement for bore pit locations outside of RWCD ROW. For RWCD utility crossings, the maximum irrigation pipeline diameter was assumed to be 42-inches based on RWCD Standard Detail 41. Refer to Appendix P, Referenced Standard Details for RWCD Standard Detail 41. A jack-and-bore length of 20 feet per utility crossing was assumed. Geotechnical Additional costs per cubic yard of excavation were applied as follows based on the geotechnical desktop evaluation completed by Ninyo & Moore: • • •

Holocene soil: Typical excavation, included in the cost of the pipe Pleistocene soil: Additional $4/CY of excavation Salt Riverbed soil: Additional $8/CY of excavation

Cubic yards of excavation was calculated based on the requirements outlined by the City of Mesa Standard Detail M-19.04.1. Refer to Appendix P, Referenced Standard Details for City of Mesa Standard Detail M19.04.1. Results The construction cost of all roadway segments used to build each alignment were summed to determine the alignment cost. The minimum cost of construction within City ROW, including a 20% contingency, is $56.9M. The maximum cost of construction within City ROW, including a 20% contingency, is $69.9M, the preferred City ROW alignment, including 20% contingency is $57.1M, as shown in Table 20.

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Table 20 - Estimated City ROW Alignment Cost Summary

Cost Component

City ROW Estimated Minimum Cost (Alignment 43)

City ROW Estimated Maximum Cost (Alignment 192)

Preferred City ROW Alignment Estimated Cost (Alignment 41)*

Pipeline Construction Cost

$47.4M

$58.2M

$47.5M

20% Contingency

$9.5M

$11.6M

$9.5M

Total Pipeline Cost $56.9M $69.9M $57.1M Note: Does not include engineering, construction management, or plant upgrades. * Alignment 41 estimated cost is as analyzed in City ROW MCDM. An EOPCC was not developed for the final Scenario 1 alignment modifications proposed by the Town of Gilbert.

The highest cost segments on a per LF basis were the US60 crossings (Segments 25 and 22), Higley Road between Main Street and Broadway Road (Segment 32), Greenfield Road between McLellan Road and Brown Road (Segment 15), and Main Street between 48th Street and Broadway (Segment 58). The lowest cost segments on a cost per LF basis were Old Greenfield Road between Greenfield Road and Banner Gateway Drive (Segment 74), and Inverness Avenue between Slater Road and Sunview/Recker Road (Segment 72). Refer to Exhibit 7, Roadway Segment Numbers, for a map displaying these segments. The major factors contributing to cost in the highest cost segments include complexities associated with crossing the US60, canal crossings, number of major utility crossings, and pavement replacement. Conversely, the least costly segments had very few utility crossings, less pavement replacement, and no canal crossings. B. Scenario 2: RWCD Preliminary cost estimates were developed for Scenario 2.1 – RWCD Water Wheel. The cost estimates developed were for 40-year and 100-year water wheel arrangements between the City and RWCD based on information provided by RWCD and the City. There is anticipated to be an annual water wheeling toll as well as an annual leasing fee and administrative fee. The portion of RWCD’s Main Canal between Chandler Heights Blvd and Hunt Highway would likely need to be improved to be able to accommodate larger flow rates. The cost for the construction of the canal improvements is included as well as assumed other improvements to gate and weir structures to accommodate the additional flows. There are water losses associated with open channel flow due to seepage and evaporation. An attempt to quantify these losses and the costs associated with them is included. Refer to Appendix N, RWCD Water Wheel Technical Memorandum for the detailed Scenario 2.1- RWCD Water Wheel cost estimate. A preliminary cost estimate was developed for Scenario 2.2- RWCD Pipeline based on available information. This cost estimate included additional construction provisions specified by RWCD, which included ½-sack CLSM backfill, trench stabilization, and dewatering because of unstable soils and canal liner damage adjacent to the potential pipeline corridor. Restrained joints, cathodic protection, well site restoration, and a contingency for canal crossings were assumed to be necessary within RWCD ROW. The cost analysis was developed based on the methodology outlined below. The RWCD pipeline cost estimate is in Appendix L2, RWCD Pipeline Cost Estimate. Approach Easements/Property Acquisition An easement will be required for the utility installation within RWCD ROW. The cost of this easement is represented with an allowance equal to 3% of the construction cost. It should be noted that there are many unknowns associated with this easement cost. No easement cost estimates were received from RWCD. There is a possibility that the easement cost may be based on the market value of RWCD’s property, which is unknown.

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Permits The following permits outlined below were used to classify the number of permits required for each mile segment. • Segment 1 (Quenton Drive): o RWCD Encroachment Permit • Segment 2 (Quenton Drive to McDowell Road): o RWCD Encroachment Permit • Segment 3 (McDowell Road to Southern Avenue): o RWCD Encroachment Permit • Segment 3 (Southern to Recker): o RWCD Encroachment Permit o ADOT Highway Encroachment Permit • Segment 4 (Recker to Baseline): o RWCD Encroachment Permit If any permits were required, an allowance equal to 3% of the construction cost was added to the segment. Traffic Control Because traffic control would only be required at the roadway intersections of the RWCD, traffic control was priced as 1% of the construction cost. Cathodic Protection Cathodic protection was assumed for the entire length of the pipeline within RWCD ROW to prevent pipeline corrosion. Trench Stabilization and Dewatering Trench stabilization and dewatering are anticipated for pipeline construction within RWCD ROW. There are many unknowns associated with this line item, including all locations of canal liner damage and the amount of leakage that may be occurring. Examples of canal liner damage near Southern Avenue are shown in Figure 11. A lump sum cost was applied for trench stabilization and dewatering to attempt to account for canal liner leakage and saturated, unstable soils.

Figure 11 - RWCD Canal Liner Damage

Length of Pipeline The length of each pipeline segment was measured in GIS. Pipeline cost was based on an assumed pipe diameter of 42 inches and assumed pipe material of CCP. The cost per LF foot of CCP was assumed to be lower in RWCD ROW due to higher potential production rates. Higher production rates are assumed based on less required traffic control and utility relocations, and lower-cost access road pavement replacement. The following spacing was used to calculate the number of appurtenances required for each pipe segment:

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

• • • • •

The number of restrained joints per segment was calculated assuming a single pipe length of 20 feet. Major Utility Crossings Major utility crossings were quantified in GIS and classified based on gravity versus non-gravity crossings. Minor Utility Relocations Minor utility relocations were identified in GIS and through the development of typical cross sections for each RWCD segment. Based on the data that was provided through the City’s GIS data and Blue Stake coordination, the segments located within the RWCD ROW are not anticipated to require any utility relocations. Canal Crossing Contingency The canal crossing contingency allows for two canal crossings if the pipeline must be realigned because of existing well site locations. Well Site Restoration The number of well sites to be potentially affected by the reuse waterline installation, and require postconstruction restoration, were quantified based on Exhibit 20, RWCD System Map – Well Sites. Access Road Pavement Replacement It was assumed that the entire width of the existing RWCD access road would have to be replaced and improved for vehicular loading to meet City’s standards for maintenance access. The access road was assumed to be 16 feet wide per RWCD Standard Detail 42. Roadway Crossing Pavement Replacement (T-Top) Pavement replacement was based on the requirements outlined by the City of Mesa Standard Detail M19.04.1. Refer to Appendix P, Referenced Standard Details for City of Mesa Standard Detail M-19.04.1. Concrete Access Ramp Replacement Concrete access ramps at the roadway intersections were measured in GIS to be approximately 25 feet by 8 feet. Controlled Low-Strength Material Backfill RWCD indicated that ½-sack CLSM backfill would most likely be required for installation within RWCD ROW. It was assumed that CLSM backfill would be necessary for the entire pipe zone (6 inches below the pipe to 6 inches above the pipe) for pipe located within RWCD ROW. 60-inch Jack-and-Bore/Tunneling RWCD General Notes require a jack-and-bore underneath all existing RWCD facilities. Jack-and-bore lengths for RWCD Main Canal Crossings were determined by assuming a maximum canal top width of 45 feet and bore pit locations 50 feet from each edge of the canal. This meets the RWCD requirement for bore pit locations outside of RWCD ROW. For RWCD utility crossings, the maximum irrigation pipeline diameter was assumed to be 42-inches based on RWCD Standard Detail 41. Refer to Appendix P, Referenced Standard Details for RWCD Standard Detail 41. A jack-and-bore length of 20 feet per utility crossing was assumed.

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Geotechnical Additional costs per cubic yard of excavation were applied as follows based on the geotechnical desktop evaluation completed by Ninyo & Moore: • Holocene soil: Typical excavation, included in the cost of the pipe • Pleistocene soil: Additional $4/CY of excavation • Salt Riverbed soil: Additional $8/CY of excavation Cubic yards of excavation was calculated based on the requirements outlined by the City of Mesa Standard Detail M-19.04.1. Refer to Appendix P, Referenced Standard Details for City of Mesa Standard Detail M19.04.1. Results The estimated cost of building a pipeline within RWCD ROW, including a 20% contingency, is $46.1M, as shown in Table 21. See Appendix L2, RWCD Pipeline Cost Estimate, for cost estimate breakdown. Table 21 – Estimated RWCD Pipeline Alignment Cost Summary

Estimated RWCD Alignment Cost

Cost Component Pipeline Construction Cost

$38.4M

20% Contingency

$7.7M

Total Pipeline Cost

$46.1M

Note: Does not include engineering or construction management

The highest cost segment of the RWCD pipeline option on a per LF basis was between Recker Road and Baseline Road at $1,220 per foot. The lowest cost segments on a per LF basis were Quenton Drive entering RWCD ROW and the RWCD ROW between Quenton Drive and McDowell Road, both costing $870 per foot. The major factors contributing to cost for the RWCD segments were restrained joints and access road pavement replacement. The RWCD pipeline option provides the most direct route to the south connection point and the shortest pipe length, resulting in the lowest cost. It also does not enter City ROW for the entire length of the pipeline except for roadway crossings, saving on traffic control, T-Top pavement replacement, and utility crossings and relocations. It should be noted that there are many unknowns associated with the RWCD option which could not be quantified in the cost. C. Scenario 3: EMF Approach The EMF cost estimate included additional construction provisions specified by the FCDMC, which included restrained joints, landscaping replacement, golf course landscape restoration, and 1-sack CLSM backfill. The City also requested the use of an alternative pipe material within the golf courses to maintain pipe longevity when exposed to wet/dry cycles associated with golf course irrigation. The cost analysis was developed based on the methodology outlined below. The EMF cost estimate is located in Appendix L3, EMF Pipeline Cost Estimate. City ROW segments from the Scenario 1 analysis were utilized to determine the most cost-effective route for the pipeline travelling to the EMF at approximately Brown Road and Greenfield Road. The costs of these segments, which were determined based on the methodology in Section V.A.i., City ROW Cost Analysis, were summed to determine the cost of the northern portion of the alignment. The costs for the segments located within the EMF were determined based on the methodology as follows.

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Easements/Property Acquisition The easements/property acquisitions were identified as follows: •

•

Segment 1 (Brown to Main): o FCDMC utility easement o GURU RAMDAS JI LLC easement (Convenience store) Segment 2 (Main to Southern): o FCDMC utility easement o Leisure World Community Association (Golf Course) Segment 3 (Southern to US60): o CF Superstition Springs Arcis LLC (Golf Course) o Possible Wolfy’s RE Holdings LLC or Parklinks at Superstition Springs HOA if it is not feasible to cross Southern at golf course lakes Segment 4 (US60 to SEWRP): o CF Superstition Springs Arcis LLC (Golf Course)

City Real Estate provided estimates for the cost of easements through each of the golf courses as presented in Section IV.A.5 , Stakeholder Outreach & Regulatory/Permit Screening. The total estimated easement cost for the Leisure World golf course was $150,000, and the total estimated easement cost for the Superstition Springs golf course was $200,000. The FCDMC requires an easement/land use fee of $600 minimum or market value (whichever is greater) in addition to permitting fees (FCDMC Permit Use and Fee Schedule). Therefore, an allowance equal to 3% of the construction cost was added to Segments 1 and 2 to account for the costs of easements/property acquisition. This totaled $230,000 for Segment 2, which included the $150,000 easement through the Leisure World Golf Course, as well as additional cost ($80,000 to make up the rest of the 3%) to account for the easement required through FCDMC from Main Street to Broadway Road. The easement through the Superstition Springs Golf Course was split between Segments 3 and 4 based on the percentage of the length of pipeline that was located within each segment. This calculated easement cost was used for the easement/property acquisition cost associated with Segments 3 and 4. The potential easement at Southern is not accounted for in the easement cost estimate. Permits The following permits outlined below were used to classify the number of permits required for each mile segment. •

•

Segment 1 (Brown to Main): o FCDMC Right-of-Way Use Permit o FCDMC Floodplain Use Permit Segment 2 (Main to Southern): o FCDMC Right-of-Way Use Permit o FCDMC Floodplain Use Permit Segment 3 (Southern to US60): o FCDMC Floodplain Use Permit o ADOT Highway Encroachment Permit Segment 4 (US60 to SEWRP): o FCDMC Floodplain Use Permit

If any permits were required, an allowance equal to 3% of the construction cost was added to the segment. Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Traffic Control Because traffic control would only be required at the roadway intersections of the EMF, traffic control was priced as 1% of the construction cost. Length of Pipeline The length of each pipe segment was measured in GIS. These measurements were made to the southern boundary of the City ROW intersecting the north-south boundary. Pipeline cost was based on an assumed pipe diameter of 42 inches and assumed pipe material of CCP for segments located in the EMF east bank. For segments located within the golf courses, an assumed pipe material of fiberglass-reinforced pipe (FRP) was utilized at the request of the City to mitigate the risk of pipe failure due to wet/dry cycles caused by golf course irrigation. The following spacing was used to calculate the number of each appurtenance required for each pipe segment: • • • • •

Corrosion test stations were not included for the segments located within the golf courses due to the use of FRP pipe material. FCDMC indicated that restrained joints would be required within the EMF. The number of restrained joints per segment was calculated assuming a single pipe length of 20 feet. The segment length located within the EMF channel was broken out individually for landscape/pavement replacement/slurry backfill calculations which differed based on the location of the pipeline relative to the floodway channel. Table 22 elaborates on the channel measurements. Costs within the channel differed based on the construction requirements outlined in Section V.A.5, Stakeholder Outreach & Regulatory/Permit Screening Table 22 - Segment Lengths Located Within EMF Channel

Segment

Length Located Within EMF Channel (ft)

Brown to Main

250

Main to Southern

6000

Southern to US60

3500

US60 to SEWRP

2950

Dibble November 2020

Notes 250 feet located within channel to begin jackand-bore at Higley and Main intersection. 400 feet located within channel following jackand-bore at Higley and Main intersection and reentering east bank; 5600 feet within the Leisure World golf course 3500 feet (entire segment length) within Superstition Springs Golf Course 2950 feet (entire segment length) within Superstition Springs Golf Course

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Major Utility Crossings Major utility crossings were quantified in GIS and classified based on gravity versus non-gravity crossings. Minor Utility Relocations Minor utility relocations were identified in GIS and through the development of typical cross sections for each EMF segment. Based on the data that was provided through both City’s GIS files and Blue Stake coordination, none of the segments located within the EMF are anticipated to require utility relocations. See Scenario 1 Cost Estimate for utility relocations associated with City ROW segments utilized to reach the EMF. Landscaping Replacement Landscaping replacement was based on an assumed excavation path of 25 feet. Golf Course Landscape Replacement Golf course landscape restoration was calculated using the same methodology as the landscaping replacement above. However, the cost of golf course landscape restoration was assumed to be higher due to the replacement of mature trees and golf course fairway and greens. Access Road Pavement Replacement It was assumed that the entire width of the existing FCDMC access road would have to be replaced and improved for vehicular loading to meet City standards for maintenance access. The access road was assumed to be 16 feet wide per FCDMC Standard Detail 201. Refer to Appendix P, Referenced Standard Details for FCDMC Standard Detail 201. Access road pavement replacement was only anticipated for segments north of the golf courses. Segment lengths that were located within the golf course (measured in GIS) were subtracted out of the pipe length used for access road pavement replacement. Within the golf courses, golf cart path improvements are expected and are discussed below. Golf Cart Path Improvements It was assumed that golf cart path improvements would be required to meet City standards for maintenance access, and that the golf cart path would need to be widened to 12 feet. The golf cart path material was assumed to be reinforced concrete to match the existing golf course aesthetics. Roadway Crossing Pavement Replacement (T-Top) Pavement replacement was based on the requirements outlined by the City of Mesa Standard Detail M19.04.1. Refer to Appendix P, Referenced Standard Details for City of Mesa Standard Detail M-19.04.1. Concrete Access Ramp Replacement Concrete access ramps at the roadway intersections were measured in GIS to be approximately 35 feet by 15 feet. There are two concrete access ramps per intersection except for 56th street, resulting in the need for the replacement of six concrete access ramps in Segment 1 and four concrete access ramps in Segment 2. One-Sack CLSM Backfill During the coordination meeting with FCDMC on December 10, 2019, FCDMC indicated that CLSM backfill would be required from 6 inches below the pipe to spring line for pipe located in the bank, and for the entire pipe zone (6 inches below the pipe to six 6 inches above the pipe) for pipe located within the channel. Jack-and-Bore/Tunneling The length of the jack-and-bore underneath the EMF Higley & Main box culvert was measured in GIS as approximately 650 feet long. Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Canal Leakage Contingency Because the EMF runs parallel to the RWCD Main Canal and liner damage is anticipated, a contingency was added for the jack-and-bore underneath the box culvert at the Higley & Main intersection in anticipation of water leakage from the canal. Geotechnical Additional costs per cubic yard of excavation were applied as follows based on the geotechnical desktop evaluation completed by Ninyo & Moore: • • •

Holocene soil: Typical excavation, included in the cost of the pipe Pleistocene soil: Additional $4/CY of excavation Salt Riverbed soil: Additional $8/CY of excavation

Cubic yards of excavation was calculated based on the requirements outlined by the City of Mesa Standard Detail M-19.04.1. Refer to Appendix P, Referenced Standard Details for City of Mesa Standard Detail M19.04.1. Results The estimated cost of building a pipeline within the EMF, including a 20% contingency, is $53.9M, as shown in Table 23. See Appendix L3, EMF Pipeline Cost Estimate, for cost estimate breakdown. Table 23 – Estimated EMF Cost Analysis Summary

Estimated EMF Alignment Cost

Cost Component Pipeline Construction Cost

$44.9M

20% Contingency

$9.0M

Total Pipeline Cost

$53.9M

Note: Does not include engineering or construction management

The highest cost segments of the EMF pipeline option on a per LF basis were between Main Street and Southern Avenue, due to the jack-and-bore at the Higley and Main intersection, and between the US60 and the south connection point due to FRP pipe material, golf course-associated improvements, and utility crossings. The least costly segment on a per LF basis was within the EMF between Brown Road and Main Street. D. Scenario 4: City ROW/EMF Hybrid The hybrid option combined the cost analysis results of Scenario 1 and Scenario 3 to provide an alternate route, which avoids some of the challenging aspects of Scenario 3. These include the jack-and-bore at the Higley and Main intersection and the Leisure World golf course. Approach The City ROW/EMF Hybrid cost estimate approach was identical to that of Scenario 3 with the exception of Segment 3 from Main Street to Southern Avenue supplemented by the use of City ROW roadway segments 32, 33, and the use of an additional segment comprised of Southern Avenue between Higley Road and the EMF. Refer to Exhibit 7, Roadway Segment Numbers and Exhibit 5, City ROW/EMF Hybrid Alignment for an illustration of these segments. The cost of these segments was summed along with the cost of the northern City ROW segments and segments located within the EMF to reach the total estimated construction cost. Results Entering into City ROW increases the pipe length by taking a less direct route to return to Southern Avenue and takes on additional pavement replacement, major utility crossings, and utility relocations. The cost of

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

the hybrid option was estimated at $56.6M, including a 20% contingency as shown in Table 24. See Appendix L4, City ROW/EMF Hybrid Pipeline Cost Estimate, for cost estimate breakdown. Table 24 – Estimated City ROW/EMF Hybrid Cost Analysis Summary

Estimated EMF Alignment Cost

Cost Component Pipeline Construction Cost

$47.2M

20% Contingency

$9.4M

Total Pipeline Cost

$56.6M

Note: Does not include engineering or construction management

E. Summary The cost of each pipeline Scenario is summarized in Table 25. This cost includes the pipeline construction cost and the cost of plant improvements, which are summarized in Appendix L5, Plant Improvements Preliminary Cost Estimate. Assumed improvements included a new reservoir or equalization basin and modifications to the existing booster pump station at the NWWRP, and booster pump station improvements at the SEWRP. These improvements will be further analyzed in a hydraulic and surge analysis project. The costs of a 40-year and 100-year water wheel agreement are summarized in Table 26. These costs include the pipeline construction cost and the cost of plant improvements, canal improvement costs, capitalized water wheel agreement costs, and an estimated cost to replace water losses from evaporation based on the CAP 2026 Municipal Rate, which are summarized in Appendix N, RWCD Water Wheel Technical Memorandum. For all scenarios, a 20% contingency of the total project construction cost was added to the cost of pipeline construction and plant improvements to account for unknowns and variables not yet determined at this study phase. The total project cost was estimated by adding a 10% design fee, 10% construction administration fee, and 3% City administration fee. A summary of the estimated cost associated with each scenario is included in Table 25 and Table 26. Refer to Appendix L6, Scenario 1-4 Pipeline Alignments: EOPCC, for detailed estimated pipeline cost analysis summary and Appendix N, RWCD Water Wheel Technical Memorandum for detailed water wheel agreement cost analysis summary. Table 25 – Estimated Pipeline Cost Analysis Summary

Scenario

Estimated City ROW Alignment Cost (Alignment 41)*

Estimated RWCD Pipeline Cost

Estimated EMF Cost

Estimated City ROW/EMF Hybrid Cost

Pipeline Construction

$47.5 M

$38.4 M

$44.9 M

$47.2 M

Plant Improvements

$12.5 M

20% Contingency

$12.0 M

$10.2 M

$11.5 M

$11.9 M

Subtotal

$72.1 M

$61.1 M

$68.9 M

$71.6 M

Design (10%)

$7.2 M

$6.1 M

$6.9 M

$7.2 M

CA&I (10%)

$7.2 M

$6.1 M

$6.9 M

$7.2 M

City Administration (3%)

$2.2 M

$1.8 M

$2.1 M

Total

$88.6 M

$75.2 M

$84.7 M

$88.1 M

* Estimated Alignment 41 cost is as analyzed in City ROW MCDM. An EOPCC was not developed for the final Scenario 1 alignment modifications proposed by the Town of Gilbert.

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Table 26 – Estimated Water Wheel Agreement Cost Analysis Summary

Water Wheel Agreement Timeframe

Estimated 40 Year Agreement Cost

Estimated 100 Year Agreement Cost

RWCD Main Canal Improvements

$19.1 M

Plant Improvements

$10.0 M

Reuse Water Pipeline – Quenton and Val Vista to RWCD and McDowell

$5.4 M

Water Wheel Agreement

$6.2 M

$10.0 M

Water Loss Replacement Cost

$11.6 M

$18.8 M

20% Contingency

$10.5 M

$12.7 M

Design (10%)

$3.5 M

CA&I (10%)

$3.5 M

City Administration (3%)

$1.0 M

Total

$70.7 M

$83.9 M

Note: Refer to Appendix N, RWCD Water Wheel Technical Memorandum for cost estimate development methodology

VI.

Advantages/Disadvantages Analysis

A. Scenario 1: City ROW 1. Advantages Advantages of the City ROW are that it does not cross any canals, allows for unrestricted access for future maintenance, requires less permitting coordination and associated schedule impacts, and does not require any legal agreements. Each canal crossing has an associated cost of $0.5M to $1M. These costs attempt to reflect contingencies for canal leakage during jack-and-bore and dewatering, but there is still an inherent risk associated with each crossing that may result in even higher costs and/or liability. Building within the City’s ROW allows for the City to maintain complete control over the pipeline throughout both construction and operation and maintenance of the reuse waterline. It also reduces the likelihood of delays associated with coordinating with other stakeholders to obtain permit approval, develop legal agreements, and collaborate during construction management. By choosing an option with the least amount of anticipated schedule impact, the City can maximize its return on investment for the project. Using City ROW guarantees that the reuse waterline will not have to be relocated at the City’s cost in the future because of any other stakeholder’s facility expansion. It keeps the location of the pipeline within typically dry soils and normal operating conditions that will not put the pipe at risk of premature failure and allows for the unrestricted maintenance access necessary to maintain pipeline longevity. The City ROW option minimizes the risk and unknowns associated with the reuse waterline construction and allows the City to have complete control of the pipeline. It reduces legal and liability concerns and maximizes pipeline longevity. 2. Disadvantages The major disadvantages of Scenario 1 are pavement replacement, pipeline length, public impact, and potential utility relocations. The Scenario 1 option will disrupt nearly 9.6 miles of roadway with daily traffic volumes reaching up to 36,300 vehicles per day near the US60. This will require approximately 44,300 SY of pavement replacement and extensive traffic control. The Scenario 1 alignment will also impact approximately 26 public facilities and 97 businesses. The Scenario 1 alignment will result in a total of 51 known major utility crossings, and has the potential for approximately 17,000 linear feet (3.23 miles) of minor utility relocations, outlined in Table 27. Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Table 27 - City ROW Potential Utility Relocations

Utility

Potential Required Relocation (LF)

6” Water

2,670

12” Water

5,755

14” Water

16” Water

5,250

8” Sewer

2” Gas

2,670

4” Gas 8” SRP Electric (No

102 Fiber)1

475

Note 1: May be avoided if jack-and-bore technology is utilized at US60 crossing. Of the pipeline scenarios considered, the Scenario 1 alignment also has the longest pipeline length of 9.6 miles and the second-highest estimated construction cost of $88.6M. The advantages and disadvantages of Scenario 1 are summarized in Table 28. Table 28 - City ROW Advantages/Disadvantages Summary

Advantages • • • •

Disadvantages

Does not cross any canals Allows for unrestricted access for future maintenance Requires less permitting coordination and associated schedule impacts Does not require any legal agreements or risk of future relocation

• • • •

Pavement replacement Public impact Longer pipeline length due to less direct route Potential utility relocations

B. Scenario 2: RWCD 1. Scenario 2.1 Advantages Advantages of discharging into the RWCD canal are that it provides direct transport to GRIC and minimizes pipe length and construction. Pipeline construction to discharge into the canal would require only 0.9 miles of pipeline to reach McDowell Road. This construction would occur in the City’s ROW along Val Vista Drive and McDowell Road and within RWCD’s ROW, significantly reducing public impact. Refer to Appendix N, RWCD Water Wheel Technical Memorandum for a more detailed summary of advantages associated with Option 1. 2. Scenario 2.1 Disadvantages Disadvantages for the RWCD canal transport include the associated perpetual legal agreements, potential annual toll, water quality concerns with associated liabilities, and canal improvements. Canal improvements are anticipated between Pecos Road and Hunt Highway. For the canal to be able to accommodate additional flows provided by the City, RWCD has indicated that they would be willing to share the cost. However what percentage of the cost they would carry is unknown. See Exhibit 19, RWCD Canal Widths, for RWCD canal map and RWCD canal typical cross sections. The City will be required to maintain a steady discharge into the canal, which may vary seasonally based on irrigation water demand and depend on other parties with existing discharge agreements with RWCD contributing flows downstream. The City may require storage infrastructure and the ability to adjust flow rates based on RWCD’s flow rates. The City may not be able to discharge into the canal during canal dry ups each year. RWCD uses fish to control algae within the canal and has cited concern regarding reuse water causing toxic algae blooms endangering the fish population. From a constructability standpoint, Quenton Drive ROW width narrows to 25 feet as it approaches the RWCD Canal. Residential access along this street will most likely be impacted. Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

The RWCD Canal cannot exceed a 50/50 ratio of reuse water to surface water per Arizona Administrative Code R18-11-107.01B. Most of the water supplied to the RWCD canal comes from a CAP pipeline that discharges into the canal at McDowell Road; only a small amount comes from the SRP South Canal. There are periods of time where there is not water in the RWCD Canal north of McDowell Road. It is anticipated that the City will be required to discharge into the canal at McDowell Road instead of Quenton Drive so as not to exceed the 50/50 reuse to surface water blending ratio. Other parties contributing to flow within the RWCD Main Canal include The Town of Queen Creek, who currently discharge reuse water from the Greenfield Water Reclamation Plant, and SRP, who discharges at Warner Road. Further discussion may be required with both RWCD and Queen Creek regarding liability for flows and any water quality concerns at and beyond that point. An IGA may be required. Refer to Appendix N, RWCD Water Wheel Technical Memorandum for a more detailed summary of disadvantages associated with Option 1. 3. Scenario 2.2 Advantages Advantages of building a pipeline in RWCD’s ROW parallel to the canal are that it provides a direct route to the south connection point. It allows for a simplified US60 crossing, and it minimizes construction impact to the public. The RWCD pipeline has the shortest pipe length of 7.51 miles. It minimizes utility conflict, requiring 21 known major utility crossings and no known anticipated utility relocations based on available information. Most of the pavement replacement associated with the RWCD pipeline option is associated with the maintenance access road (68,100 SY), which is less costly than pavement replacement within the roadway. This option will require approximately 2,200 SY of T-top pavement replacement within the roadways, and traffic control will only be required at roadway intersections. Because of this, impact to public facilities and businesses will be minimized. Of the scenarios considered, this pipeline has the lowest estimated construction cost of $75.2M. 4. Scenario 2.2 Disadvantages The disadvantages of building in RWCD’s ROW include legal agreements which may require the City to relocate the pipeline at its cost should RWCD ever need to expand their facilities. Public outreach and coordination with private property owners may be required due to Tower Point Community resident encroachment on RWCD’s ROW between University Drive and Main Street, and RWCD canal liner damage may cause leakage and potentially saturated, unstable soils adjacent to the canal. The required coordination with an additional stakeholder has the potential to stimulate significant schedule impacts and delays to the project. The pipeline may need to be relocated or realigned around 11 RWCD well sites located adjacent to the canal. Minimal As-Built information is available for both the RWCD Main Canal and existing wells. A legal access agreement would need to be negotiated for the City to access the pipeline for normal operation and maintenance tasks. Construction parallel to the canal will require ½-sack CLSM backfill and cathodic protection or use of an alternate pipe material. An RWCD inspector would need to be scheduled for construction observation. The advantages and disadvantages of Scenario 2.1 are summarized in Table 29. The advantages and disadvantages of Scenario 2.2 are summarized in Table 30.

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Table 29 – Scenario 2.1 - RWCD Canal Water Wheel Advantages/Disadvantages Summary

Advantages • • •

Disadvantages

Provides direct transport to the GRIC Minimizes pipe length and construction RWCD has indicated they would be willing to share the costs of canal improvements

• • • • • • •

Perpetual legal agreements/potential annual toll Water quality concerns and liability associated with discharging reuse water Canal improvements may be required for canal to accommodate additional flows Constant flow of reuse water may be required from the City RWCD controls flow in the canal City may need to have the ability to adjust flow rates based on RWCD’s flows, which vary seasonally City may not be able to discharge into the canal during annual canal maintenance dry-ups

Table 30 – Scenario 2.2 - RWCD Pipeline Advantages/Disadvantages Summary

Advantages • • •

Disadvantages • •

Provides a direct route to the south connection point Simplified US60 crossing Minimizes construction impact to public

• • •

Legal agreements with risk of future relocation Coordination with private property owners due to resident encroachment on RWCD’s ROW between University Drive and Main Street RWCD canal liner damage causing leakage and saturated, unstable soils adjacent to the canal Potential relocation or realignment around RWCD well sites located adjacent to the canal Coordination with a third party and potential schedule impact/project delays

C. Scenario 3: EMF 1. Advantages Advantages of the EMF include a direct route to the south connection point, higher production rates in construction, and reduced construction impact to the public. The EMF pipeline has the second-shortest pipe length of the scenarios considered measuring approximately 8.17 miles. It has reduced utility conflict, requiring 28 known major utility crossings and 3,000 LF of potential utility relocations. Most of the pavement replacement associated with the EMF pipeline option is associated with the maintenance access road (23,000 SY), which is less costly than pavement replacement within the roadway. This option will require approximately 16,600 SY of T-top pavement replacement within the roadways. Traffic control will be required for 3.5 miles from the north connection point to the entrance of the EMF at Greenfield and Brown Road, and at roadway intersections along the EMF as opposed to the entire length of the pipeline. Traffic counts are lower in the north area of the project than the south. The two main ROW segments used to reach the EMF have daily traffics counts between 7,000 and 12,000 vehicles per day. Impact to public facilities and businesses will be less than other alignments once entering the EMF. Of the scenarios considered, this pipeline also has the second-lowest estimated construction cost of $84.7M. 2. Disadvantages Disadvantages of the EMF include required RWCD Main Canal crossings to enter the EMF, legal agreements with risk of future relocation, and a potential 404 permitting whenever entering the channel. An access agreement would need to be negotiated for City maintenance access. Construction within FCDMC will require 1-sack CLSM backfill and restrained joints. An EAP will be required. Work in the channel will be limited to dry-up periods in May and October, causing schedule restraints. At the intersection of Higley Road and Main Street, the EMF channel is reduced through a box culvert to pass underneath the intersection. Construction at this intersection will likely require that the pipeline be Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

placed in the floodway and then be installed using a complex approximately 650-foot jack-and-bore underneath the box culvert. Refer to Exhibit 21, Higley and Main Intersection, for an illustration of the complexities associated with this intersection. The EMF option will require easements and maintenance access agreements with various landowners as discussed in Section IV.A.4., Right-of-Way Screening and Section IV.A.5., Stakeholder Outreach: Flood Control District of Maricopa County. Refer to Exhibit 22, EMF Land Ownership, for a map of each landowner’s property boundaries and the proposed pipeline alignment within them. The coordination with five major stakeholders (FCDMC, Leisure World Golf Course, Maricopa County, Superstition Springs Golf Course, and RWCD for Main Canal Crossings) also has the potential to cause schedule impacts and delays to the project. Building in the EMF will require provisions for isolation of flow in the event of a pipeline leak or break, resulting in depressurizing the pipeline. There is an increased risk of pipe failure due to exposure to wet/dry cycles in the floodway. The advantages and disadvantages of Scenario 3 are summarized in Table 31. Table 31 - EMF Advantages/Disadvantages Summary

Advantages • • •

Disadvantages • • • •

Provides a direct route to south connection point Higher production rates due to easier excavation Reduces construction impact to public

•

• •

Two (2) RWCD Main Canal crossings Legal agreements with risk of future relocation Potential 404 permit whenever entering the channel At Higley and Main, the EMF channel constricts through a box culvert to pass under the intersection. Pipeline will be placed in the floodway and then be installed using a 650-foot jack-and-bore underneath the box culvert. Requires easements and maintenance access agreements with various landowners Coordination with five major stakeholders (FCDMC, Leisure World Golf Course, Maricopa County, Superstition Springs Golf Course, and RWCD for Main Canal Crossings) and potential schedule impact/project delays

D. Scenario 4: City ROW/EMF Hybrid 1. Advantages Advantages of the Hybrid option are that it avoids some of the challenging areas of the EMF option, including the Higley Road and Main Street intersection and the Leisure World Golf Course. This option reduces construction impact to the public and reduces total pipe length compared to the Scenario 1 option. The hybrid option reduces overall utility impact compared to Scenario 1, requiring 31 known major utility crossings and 3,050 LF of anticipated utility relocations. It will require approximately 27,200 SY of T-top pavement replacement within the roadways. Traffic control will be required for 5.5 miles of the alignment as opposed to the entire length of the pipeline. Impact to public facilities and businesses will be reduced for segments located within the EMF. 2. Disadvantages Disadvantages of this option include four RWCD Main Canal Crossings, legal agreements, potential 404 permitting, and land ownership as discussed in Section IV.A.4., Right-of-Way Screening and Section VI.A.5., Stakeholder Outreach: Flood Control District of Maricopa County. The coordination with three major stakeholders (FCDMC, Superstition Springs Golf Course, and RWCD for Main Canal Crossings) also Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

has the potential to cause schedule impacts and delays to the project. Legal access agreements will be required for the City to perform typical operation and maintenance tasks. CLSM backfill will be required as well as restrained joints. Pipeline longevity due to wet/dry cycles and potential use of alternate pipe material to mitigate premature pipe failure because of these cycles. Of the scenarios considered, the City ROW/EMF hybrid pipeline has the second-longest length of 8.78 miles. This pipeline has the second-highest estimated construction cost of $88.1M. The advantages and disadvantages of Scenario 4 are summarized in Table 32. Table 32 - City ROW/EMF Hybrid Advantages/Disadvantages Summary

Advantages • • •

Disadvantages

Eliminates some of the challenging areas of the EMF option Reduces construction impact to public Reduces total pipeline length compared to Scenario 1

• • • • •

Four (4) RWCD Main Canal crossings Legal agreements with risk of future relocation Potential 404 permit whenever entering the channel Requires easements and maintenance access agreements with various landowners Coordination with three major stakeholders (FCDMC, Superstition Springs Golf Course, and RWCD for Main Canal Crossings) and potential schedule impact/project delays

E. Summary The Advantages/Disadvantages Analysis is summarized in Table 33. An extensive tabulation of all advantages, disadvantages, and unknowns associated with each scenario can be found in Appendix M, Advantages/Disadvantages Analysis Table.

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Table 33 - Advantages/Disadvantages Analysis Summary

Scenario

City ROW

Estimated Cost

$88.6M

Pipe Length (miles)

9.6

Significant Advantages

Significant Disadvantages

-No canal crossings -Unrestricted access -Less permitting coordination and schedule impacts -No legal agreements/risk of future relocation -Traffic control -Public impact -Potential utility relocations

RWCD Water Wheel

RWCD Pipeline

$70.7 M (40-yr) $83.9 M (100-yr)

EMF

City ROW/EMF Hybrid

$75.2M

$84.7M

$88.1M

1.0 (2 miles of canal improvements) -Direct transport to GRIC -Minimizes pipe length and construction -RWCD to share cost

7.5

8.2

8.8

-Shortest pipe length -Less difficult US60 crossing -Minimizes construction impact to public

-Direct route -Easier excavation improves production rates -Reduces construction impact to public

-Avoids problematic areas of the EMF -Reduces construction impact to public

-Legal agreements -Flow regulation -Canal dry-ups -Canal improvements -Water quality concerns & liability -Water losses -Schedule impact

-Canal liner damage -Trench stabilization -Well sites -Resident encroachment -Legal agreements -Schedule impact -Pipeline longevity

-2 RWCD canal crossings -Legal agreements -Land ownership -404 Permit -Schedule impact -Pipeline longevity -Higley & Main intersection

-4 RWCD canal crossings -Legal agreements -Land ownership -404 Permit -Schedule impact -Pipeline longevity

VII. Decision Analysis of Scenarios A. Approach To create an equitable analysis between the five scenarios, a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) was performed for analyzing and ranking the scenarios. A MCDM was developed to rank the scenarios based on the carefully selected criteria used to score them. The highest-ranking scenario in the matrix is the preferred scenario. The same process that was used in ranking the ROW alignments in Scenario 1, the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), was used to calculate the category and criteria weights. These weights were based on statistical analysis of the results from the surveys that were developed and then completed by the Engineer and City staff. The categories and criteria that were developed and used in this MCDA are in Table 34:

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Table 34 - Scenario MCDM Categories and Criteria

Category

Criteria Cost per Acre-Foot Delivered Schedule Constructability Community Impact Water Quality Concerns Water Portfolio Benefit Environmental Impact / Future Regulatory Legal Agreements Unencumbered Control Stakeholder Involvement Timeline to Implement Ease of Access Required Maintenance / Operational Functionality System Longevity

Cost Construction

Risk

Autonomy

Operations

The category and criteria weights calculated based on the statistical analysis and the implementation of the AHP are shown in Table 35. Table 35 – Scenario Categories and Criteria Calculated Weights

Category

Category Weight

Cost

13.2%

Construction

10.5%

Risk

33.3%

Autonomy

27.6%

Operations

15.5%

Criteria Weight within Category 100% 42.8% 30.4% 26.8% 30.6% 47.8%

Total % Contribution 13.2% 4.5% 3.2% 2.8% 10.2% 15.9%

21.7%

7.2%

22.7% 48.0% 9.4% 19.8% 15.6%

6.3% 13.3% 2.6% 5.5% 2.4%

35.3%

5.5%

49.1%

7.6%

The results of the category and criteria weights were presented to and accepted by the project team. A scoring rubric was developed, presented, reviewed, and accepted by the project team which was used to score each criterion for each unique scenario. The scoring rubric can be found Appendix O1, Scenarios Scoring Rubric. After the criteria for each scenario were scored according to the rubric, the scores were normalized for each of the 14 criteria columns. In addition, the total normalized, weighted score for each scenario was calculated by summing the normalized, weighted criteria scores for each scenario. The five scenario scores were reviewed and ranked from highest to lowest.

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

B. Results The MCDM used in conjunction with the AHP and the scoring rubric assisted the Engineer and the City to determine which of the five scenarios is anticipated to be the most advantageous for conveying reuse water to GRIC. These criteria were considered in this analysis and significant effort was made to make the analysis objective. The top-ranking Scenario from this analysis was Scenario 1 – ROW Alignment, which will use a pipeline to convey the reuse water. This scenario had an overall score of 4967. The summary of the final scoring and ranking can be seen in Table 36. Refer to Appendix O2, Scenarios Scores & Ranks for the detailed breakdown of the criteria scores within each comparison category. Table 36 – Decision Analysis of Scenarios

COMPARISON CATEGORIES CATEGORY COST

CONSTRUCTION

RISK

AUTONOMY

OPERATIONS

TOTAL

RANK

CATEGORY WEIGHT

13.2%

10.5%

33.3%

27.6%

15.5%

100.0%

---

MAXIMUM POTENTIAL

1040

652

1774

1933

1171

6570

Scenario 1 (ROW Alignment)

208

375

1774

1933

678

4967

Scenario 2.2 (RWCD Pipeline)

1040

347

1774

1017

439

4618

Scenario 2.1 (RWCD Water Wheel)

624

617

720

622

1122

3706

Scenario 4 (EMF Hybrid)

208

375

1440

1216

439

3677

Scenario 3 (EMF)

416

531

1440

800

439

3625

VIII. Conclusion After consideration of the various analysis components including the Detailed Analysis of each Scenario, the ROW Alignments MCDM, the Advantages/Disadvantages Analysis, and the Scenarios MCDM, as well as coordination and approval of the City’s Engineering Department and Water Resources Department, the recommended alignment is Scenario 1, City ROW Alignment 41. The proposed pipeline alignment is illustrated in Exhibit 18, City ROW Alignment. The Engineer and City recommend constructing the pipeline within City ROW. This allows the City to maintain autonomy over the pipeline throughout construction, operation, and maintenance of the reuse pipeline. The estimated cost of construction for the CMRP is $88.6 M.

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

IX.

References

County, M. (2016 and 2017). Traffic Count Book 2019. Retrieved from https://www.maricopa.gov/858/A District, R. W. (2019, January 30). RWCD General Notes. FCDMC Permit Use and Fee Schedule. (n.d.). Retrieved January 2020, from Flood Control District of Maricopa County. Gilbert. (2017). 2017 Annual Traffic Counts. Retrieved from https://www.gilbertaz.gov/departments/public-works/engineering-services/trafficengineering/traffic-counts Gilbert. (2019). Public Works and Engineering Standards. Town of Gilbert. Mesa, C. o. (2016 and 2017). Traffic Count Map By Year. Retrieved from https://data.mesaaz.gov/Planes-Trains-Automobiles/Traffic-Count-Map-by-Year/wjm9-z5ap Saaty, R. W. (1987). The Analytical Hierarchy Process - What It Is And How It Is Used. Mathl Modelling, Volume 9(Issues 3-5), Pages 161-176. Thompson. (2020, January 21). Bryce Ducharm, Regional Sales Manager. (K. Dykstra, Interviewer)

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Appendix A ArcGIS Intersect and Buffer Analyses Result

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Page 1 of 39

E e rn uth o S

t en

l N Va

sta

Es ta te s

E Quenton Dr

N Val Vista Dr

_ ^

N Orchard

E Presidio Cir

E P om e gra n

a te C ir

E Po m e g

ra na te

E Pearl Cir

INDEX MAP

Legend

_ ^

Connection Point Minor UT Crossing Major UT Crossing Alignment Route Conduit

Electric Gas

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Storm Sewer Reclaimed Water

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

Page 2 of 39

E Po m e g

ra na te S t

N Orcha rd

E Pearl Cir

lm S

N Val Vista Dr

E Pa

E Oasis Cir

E Omega Cir

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Electric

Alignment Route

Gas

Conduit

Storm Sewer Water

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

Page 3 of 39

E Omega Cir

E McDowell Rd

N Val Vista Dr

E Nance Cir

E Norcroft Cir

E Norwood Cir

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Electric

Major UT Crossing

Gas

Alignment Route

Storm

Conduit

Sewer Water

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

Page 4 of 39

E Norwood Cir

N Val Vista Dr

E Minton St

E Mallory Cir

E Menlo Cir

E Hermosa Vista Dr

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Electric

Alignment Route

Gas

Conduit

Storm Sewer Water

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

Page 5 of 39

E Menlo Cir

E Hermosa Vista Dr

l a nd

Avalon Grove

N Val Vista Dr

E Le

Avalon Grove

E Kael St

N Orchard

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Electric

Alignment Route

Gas

Conduit

Storm Sewer Water

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

Page 6 of 39

E Kael St

N Orchard

N Val Vista Dr

E Kenwood St

N Le mon

E Knoll St

E McKellips Rd

E June Cir

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Electric

Major UT Crossing

Gas

Alignment Route

Storm

Conduit

Sewer Water

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

Page 7 of 39

E McKellips Rd

E June Cir

N Val Vista Dr

E Jaeger Cir

E Jasmine Cir

E Ivyglen Cir

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Electric

Alignment Route

Gas

Conduit

Storm Sewer Water

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

Page 8 of 39

E Ivyglen Cir

N 36th Pl

E Inglewood Cir

N Val Vista Dr

E Indigo Cir

E McLellan Rd

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Electric

Major UT Crossing

Gas

Alignment Route

Storm

Conduit

Sewer Water

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

N 36th Pl

E Lemon

Page 9 of 39

E Indigo Cir

N Val Vista Dr

E McLellan Rd

E Halifax Cir

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Electric

Major UT Crossing

Gas

Alignment Route

Storm

Conduit

Sewer Water

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

Page 10 of 39

E Ivy St

N Maple

E Lemon

E Ivy Cir

Citrus Manor

N 38th Cir

E McLellan Rd

E Halifax Cir

Day Springs

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Electric

Alignment Route

Gas

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Storm Sewer Water

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

N 40th St

Page 11 of 39

E Ivy St

Los Esta dos

Crossroads Estates

Lo s

a do Est s

s sta do Los E

E McLellan Rd

Citrus Manor

E Hale Cir

N 40th St

Citrus Manor

E Hope St

N Centre Ct

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Electric

Alignment Route

Gas

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Storm Sewer Water

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

Page 12 of 39

E Hope St

N 40th St

N Centre Ct

E Centre Ct

E Hackamore Cir

N 40th St

E Huber St

E Grandvie w St

Citrus Greens

N Nassau

E Glencove St

E Greenway Cir

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Electric

Alignment Route

Gas

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Storm Sewer Water

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

N Nassau

Page 13 of 39

E Greenway Cir

N 40th St

E Brown Rd

E Fairbrook St

E Fairbrook Cir

N Nassau

E Fox St

E Fox Cir

E Fairfield St

E Fairfield Cir

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Electric

Major UT Crossing

Gas

Alignment Route

Storm

Conduit

Sewer Water

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

Page 14 of 39

Citrus Greens

N Norwalk

N Norfolk Cir

N Nassau

E Glencove St

E Greenway Cir

N 40th St

E Brown Rd

N New Haven

E Fairbrook St

N Nassau

N Norwalk

E Fairbrook Cir

E Fox St

N Norwalk Cir

E Fox Cir

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Electric

Major UT Crossing

Gas

Alignment Route

Storm

Conduit

Sewer Water

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

Page 15 of 39

Villa Sendero

E Glencove Cir

Vi ll a Sendero

N Norfol k Cir

E Glencove St

Villa S e nde ro

E Greenway Cir

N Norwalk

N New Haven

E Brown Rd

x St

N Omaha

E Fo

N Omaha Cir

ai nt

N New Haven

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Electric

Alignment Route

Gas

Conduit

Storm Sewer Water

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

Page 16 of 39

eve

Villa Sendero

os Ro lt W CD Cs r

Villa Sendero

N Greenfield Rd

E Brown Rd

N Oakland

E Fairbrook Cir

E Fox Cir

a in S ount F E

E Fountain Cir

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Electric

Alignment Route

Gas

Conduit

Storm Sewer Water

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

Page 17 of 39

E Fox Cir

d kl a n N Oa S ta in

E Fo

ta i n

Ci r

oun EF

N Greenfield Rd

E Fairfield St

E Encanto St

N Pico

E Encanto St

N Orlando

E Elmwood St

E Enrose St

N Oakland

N Portland

E Enrose St

E Ellis St N Oakland

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Electric

Alignment Route

Gas

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Storm Sewer Water

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

N Orla ndo

Page 18 of 39

N Portland

N Oakland

E Enrose St

E Ellis St

N Oakland

N Orlando Cir

E Adobe St

N Greenfield Rd

E Downing Cir

N Orlando Cir

E Downing St

E Dartmouth St

N Orlando

N Portland

E Des Moines St

E Dover St E Dover St

E Decatur St

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Electric

Major UT Crossing

Gas

Alignment Route

Storm

Conduit

Sewer Water

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

Page 19 of 39

E Dover St

N Portland

N Orlando

E Dover St

E Decatur St

E Contessa St

E Covina St

N Greenfield Rd

nd N Oa kla

N Orlando Cir

E Covina St

E Contessa St

E University Dr

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Electric

Major UT Crossing

Gas

Alignment Route

Storm

Conduit

Sewer Water

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

Page 20 of 39

N Greenfield Rd

E University Dr

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Electric

Major UT Crossing

Gas

Alignment Route

Storm

Conduit

Sewer Water

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

N Greenfield Rd

Page 21 of 39

S Greenfield Rd

E Main St

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Electric

Major UT Crossing

Gas

Alignment Route

Storm

Conduit

Sewer Water

Southwest Gas

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

S Greenfield Rd

E Main St

N Greenfield Rd

Page 22 of 39

S Orlando

E Aspen Ave

S Oakland

E Balsam Ave

E Baywood Ave

E Bayberry Ave

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Electric

Alignment Route

Gas

Conduit

Storm Sewer Water

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

S Oakland

S Orlando

Page 23 of 39

E Baywood Ave

E Bayberry Ave

S Greenfield Rd

S Oakland

E Birchwood Ave

E Bramble Ave

E Broadway Rd

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Electric

Major UT Crossing

Gas

Alignment Route

Storm

Conduit

Sewer Water

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

Page 24 of 39

E Capri Ave

S Greenfield Rd

E Carol Ave

E Carmel Ave

S Portland

E Carmel Ave

E Catalina Ave

S Oakland

E Catalina Ave

E Dragoon Ave

E Dragoon Cir

S Pico Cir

E Dragoon Ave

E Dol phin Ave

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Electric

Major UT Crossing

Storm

Alignment Route

Sewer

Conduit

Water

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

Page 25 of 39

E Dragoon Ave

E Dragoon Cir

S Portland

S Oakland

E Dragoon Ave

S Pico Cir

E Dol phin Ave

S Greenfield Rd

E Diamond Ave

E Delta Ave

E Escondido Ave

E Pueblo Ave

S Portland

E Edgewood Ave

E Elena Ave

S Pico

E Edgewood Ave

E Emelita Ave

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Electric

Major UT Crossing

Storm

Alignment Route

Sewer

Conduit

Water

Southwest Gas

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

S Portland

Page 26 of 39

E Elena Ave

S Pico

E Edgewood Ave

E Emelita Ave

S Greenfield Rd

E Emelita Ave

E Florian Ave

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Electric

Major UT Crossing

Storm

Alignment Route

Sewer

Conduit

Water

Southwest Gas

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

Page 27 of 39

E Florian Ave

S Greenfield Rd

E Southern Ave

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Electric

Major UT Crossing

Gas

Alignment Route

Storm

Conduit

Sewer Water

Southwest Gas

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

S Greenfield Rd

Page 28 of 39

E Holmes Ave

t Eas e rn Cs r

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Electric

Major UT Crossing

Gas

Alignment Route

Storm

Conduit

Sewer Water

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

Page 29 of 39

£ ¤ 60

£ ¤

r ee

nfi

el d

Ea s

t er

S re

er nn

O en

fie

at ay

s Ea te rn Cs r

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Electric

Major UT Crossing

Gas

Alignment Route

Storm

Conduit

Sewer Water

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

Page 30 of 39

E Banner Gateway Dr

ld SO

G re

e rn

Rd ie ld e nf Csr

rn ste Ea

t Eas

Cs r

e rn nv ve sA es

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Electric

Alignment Route

Gas

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Storm Sewer Water

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

Page 31 of 39

E Banner Gateway Dr

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Electric

Alignment Route

Gas

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Storm Sewer Water

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

CITY OF MES A

S 48th St

Page 32 of 39

E Banner Gateway Dr

NO TOW FG ILB ERT Dr on t i e rp SP

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Electric

Alignment Route

Gas

Municipal Boundary

Storm Sewer Water

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

Page 33 of 39

r Gatewa y Dr

N Hi g l ey R

E Ba nne

INDEX MAP

Legend Alignment Route Municipal Boundary

Gas

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Utility Analysis Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

Page 34 of 39

GILBERT

MES CITY OF

TOWN OF

E In ver n es s

E Banner Ga tew ay Dr

Ave

ig le

E Banner Ga te w ay D r

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Gas

Major UT Crossing

Sewer

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Alignment Route Municipal Boundary

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

N Higley

TOW N O F

MES CITY OF

GILBERT

Page 35 of 39

CITY OF MESA

TOWN OF GILBERT

In ve

rn es

Av e

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Electric

Major UT Crossing

Gas

Alignment Route

Storm

Municipal Boundary

Sewer Water

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

Page 36 of 39

e ver n E In

ve ss A

nyva S S un le

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Electric

Major UT Crossing

Storm

Alignment Route

Sewer Water

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

Page 37 of 39

E Inverness Ave

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Electric

Major UT Crossing

Gas

Alignment Route

Storm Sewer Water

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

Page 38 of 39

S Slater

E Inverness Ave

CITY OF MESA

E Baseline Rd

TOWN OF GILBERT

INDEX MAP

Legend Minor UT Crossing

Electric

Gilbert Storm

Major UT Crossing

Gas

Gilbert Water

Alignment Route

Storm

Municipal Boundary

Sewer Water

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

Page 39 of 39

r Ci

Ave

S Sunview

ne ss E In ve r

ll S ti

CITY OF MESA

E Baseline Rd

_ ^

N Recker Rd

TOWN OF GILBERT

INDEX MAP

Legend

_ ^

Connection Point Minor UT Crossing Major UT Crossing Alignment Route Municipal Boundary

Electric

Gilbert Storm

Gas

Gilbert Sewer

Storm

Gilbert Water

Sewer

Gilbert Reclaimed

Reclaimed Water

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

I 100

200

Feet

Utility Analysis

Document Path: S:\GIS\Data\City\Mesa\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\MXDs\Utility_Analysis\Utility_ComprehensiveAnalysis_DataDrivenPages_Figures_MesaROWRoute_11x17.mxd

Date Saved: 11/5/2020 7:07:11 AM

Appendix B Typical Cross Sections

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Appendix B1 City ROW Typical Cross Section

Dibble November 2020

B-1

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

A A

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

A A

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

A A

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

A A

MESA ALIGNMENT STUDY

Appendix B2 EMF/RWCD Typical Cross Sections

Dibble November 2020

B-2

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

GREENFIELD RD

A A

BROWN RD

SECTION A-A EMF CROSS SECTION -

MESA RECLAIMED WATERLINE ALIGNMENT STUDY

GREENFIELD RD

BROWN RD

SECTION B-B EMF CROSS SECTION -

MESA RECLAIMED WATERLINE ALIGNMENT STUDY

GREENFIELD RD

UNIVERSITY DR

SECTION C-C EMF CROSS SECTION -

MESA RECLAIMED WATERLINE ALIGNMENT STUDY

UNIVERSITY DR

HIGLEY RD

GREENFIELD RD

MAIN ST

SECTION D-D EMF CROSS SECTION -

MESA RECLAIMED WATERLINE ALIGNMENT STUDY

MAIN ST

HIGLEY RD

BROADWAY RD

SECTION E-E EMF CROSS SECTION -

MESA RECLAIMED WATERLINE ALIGNMENT STUDY

HIGLEY RD

SOUTHERN RD

SECTION F-F EMF CROSS SECTION -

MESA RECLAIMED WATERLINE ALIGNMENT STUDY

HIGLEY RD

SOUTHERN RD

SUPERSTITION FREEWAY (US ROUTE 60)

SECTION G-G EMF CROSS SECTION -

MESA RECLAIMED WATERLINE ALIGNMENT STUDY

HIGLEY RD

SUPERSTITION FREEWAY (US ROUTE 60)

BASELINE RD

SECTION H-H EMF CROSS SECTION -

MESA RECLAIMED WATERLINE ALIGNMENT STUDY

Appendix C Major Utility Crossing Counts

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Project: Mesa NWWRP Reclaimed Waterline Alignment Study Dibble Project No.: 1018123.01 Title: Major Utility Crossing Counts

SEGMENT NO.

39 40 41 42 44 46 48 43 45 47 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 59 61 62 58 60 63

EAST-WEST SEGMENTS Between Val Vista and 40th Street/Greenfield Quenton Drive McDowell Road Hermosa Vista Drive McKellips Road McLellan Road Brown Road Adobe Street University Drive Between 40th Street and Greenfield McLellan Road Brown Road Adobe Street University Drive Main Street Broadway Road Between Greenfield and 48th Street/Higley Road McKellips Road McLellan Road Brown Road Adobe Street University Drive Main Street Broadway Road Southern Ave Holmes Between 48th Street and Higley Road Main Street Broadway Road Hampton East of Higley Broadway Road Southern Ave

Date: 3/16/2020 By: KAD

Major Non-Gravity Utility Crossings

Major Gravity Utility Crossings

0 3 1 5 1 2 1 1

0 3 2 6 1 0 0 2

2 0 1 2 1 0

1 0 2 2 4 2

6 3 7 2 1 0 0 1 0

Notes 4" Gas 4" Gas 30" Storm 30" Storm 36" Water 4" Gas 36" Storm

30" Water 15" Sewer 4" Gas 4" Gas 4" Gas

24" Storm 24" Sewer 15" Sewer 30" Water 30" Storm

36" Storm

6" Gas

4" Gas

8" Gas

84" Storm

4.5" Gas 6" Gas 24" Storm 30" Storm

24" Storm 24" Sewer 24" Storm 54" Storm

24" Sewer 4.5" Gas 42" Storm 4" Gas 24" Sewer

1 2 4 2 2 1 3 0 1

24" Sewer 18" Sewer 4" Gas 8" Gas 8" Gas 24" Storm 30" Sewer 4" Gas 24" Storm

4" Gas 24" Sewer 24" Storm 96" Box Culvert 24" Storm

30" Water 48" Storm 30" Water 20" Water 24" Sewer 8" Gas 24" Storm 6" Gas 66" Storm

24" Storm

1 0 0

2 1 0

8" Gas 24" Storm

120" Box Culvert

72" Storm

0 1

1 1

24" Storm 30" Storm

4" Gas

30" Water

30" Storm

1 2

0 3

4" Gas 48" Storm

30" Water

6" Gas

1 4

3 3

30" Water 15" Sewer

1 1 2

1 3 1

0 1 4 0 0 1 0 1 3

6" Gas

30" Storm

36" Storm

24" Storm

4" Gas

24" Water

4" Gas

36" Water 54" Storm 30" Water 20" Water

66" Storm 15" Sewer

6" Gas

54" Storm

30" Water 6" Gas 96" Box Culvert

6" Gas 6" Gas

NORTH-SOUTH SEGMENTS 1 2 12 3 13 4 14 27 5 8 15 28 6 9 16 29

15" Sewer

66" Storm

30" Storm 4" Gas

18" Sewer 30" Storm 4" Gas 66" Storm

15" Sewer

36" Sewer 54" Storm 42" Storm

4" Gas 30" Water 4" Gas

18" Sewer 24" Storm 4" Gas

5 2 2 3 2

30" Storm 18" Sewer 4" Gas 18" Sewer 48" Storm

30" Storm 36" Water 84" Storm 24" Sewer 18" Sewer

0 0 2 0

36" Water 4.5" Gas 42" Water

24" Storm 4" Gas

15" Sewer 18" Sewer 24" Storm 8" Gas 4" Gas 24" Storm

4" Gas

6" Gas

42" Storm 30" Sewer

36" Water

24" Sewer 4" Gas

1 of 2

Project: Mesa NWWRP Reclaimed Waterline Alignment Study Dibble Project No.: 1018123.01 Title: Major Utility Crossing Counts

7 10 17 30 18 31 11 19 24 32 20 33 21 34

Between Adobe and University Val Vista Drive Nassau Greenfield Road Higley Road Between University and Main Greenfield Road Higley Road Between Main and Broadway 40th Street Greenfield Road 48th Street Higley Road Between Broadway and Southern Greenfield Road Higley Road Between Southern and Holmes/Hampton Greenfield Road Higley Road

Date: 3/16/2020 By: KAD

0 0 1 2

1 0 2 11

30" Storm 6" Gas 24" Storm

15" Sewer 30" Storm

24" Storm 30" Storm

30" Storm

36" Storm

60" Storm

2 1

2 6

4" Gas 84" Storm

36" Storm 4" Gas

4" Gas 18" Sewer 30" Storm 30" Storm

30" Storm

48" Storm 24" Storm

1 0 0 1

2 2 1 5

4" Gas 24" Storm 15" Sewer 72" Storm

36" Storm 24" Sewer

24" Storm

120" Box Culvert

24" Storm

8" Gas

24" Storm

15" Sewer

4 0

7 0

30" Storm

36" Storm

30" Storm

27" Storm

30" Sewer

24" Storm 54" Storm

1 0

1 1

36" Storm 36" Storm

4" Gas

0 0

3 2

27" Storm 96" Box Culvert

96" Box Culvert 60" Storm

24" Storm

1 0

2 0

24" Storm

4" Gas

24" Storm

1 0

4" Gas

15" Sewer

3 1

1 2

4" Gas 4" Gas

4" Gas 30" Storm

0 2

0 0

4" Gas

2 1

0 0

4" Gas 4" Gas

4" Gas

1 1 1 1 3 1

1 3 1 1 1 1

8" Gas 24" Storm 8" Gas 8" Gas 4" Gas 8" Gas

36" Sewer 24" Storm 36" Sewer 36" Sewer 4" Gas 36" Sewer

30" Sewer

6" Gas

42" Storm 24" Storm 24" Storm 42" Storm 4" Gas 66" Storm

10" Gas

4" Gas

10" Gas

4" Gas

36" SRP

42" SRP

US60 CROSSING 22 25

Greenfield Road Pierpont Drive

SOUTH OF US60 66 64 67 65 69 68 71 70 73 72

74 23 26 35 36 37 38 75

EAST-WEST SEGMENTS Between Greenfield and Pierpont Baseline Road Banner Gateway Between Pierpont and Higley Baseline Road Banner Gateway Between Higley and Sunnyvale Baseline Road Banner Gateway/Inverness Ave Between Sunnyvale and Slater Baseline Road Inverness Ave Between Slater and Sunview/Recker Baseline Road Inverness Ave NORTH-SOUTH SEGMENTS Between US60 and Banner Gateway Old Greenfield/Banner Gateway Between Banner Gateway and Baseline Old Greenfield Road Pierpont Drive Higley Road Sunnyvale Avenue South Slater Sunview/Recker Road Additional Analysis Greenfield/Guadalupe Road

24" Storm 30" Storm

4" Gas

8" Gas

36" Sewer

8" Gas

36" Sewer

4" Gas

8" Gas

30" Sewer 36" Sewer

4" Gas

54" Storm 15" Sewer

4" Gas

2 of 2

Appendix D Potential Minor Utility Relocation Measurements

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Project: Mesa NWWRP Reclaimed Waterline Alignment Study Dibble Project No.: 1018123.01 Title: Potential Minor Utility Relocations SEGMENT NO.

39 40 41 42 44 46 48 43 45 47 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 59 61 62 58 60 63

Date: 3/16/2020 By: KAD

Minor Utility Relocations (LF) 190 745 2972 396 0 0 0 5600 0 0 0 3400 0 0 345 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300

Notes 190' 8" Water 745' 8" Sewer 160' 6" Water 295' 8" Sewer

12' 6" Water 16' 12" Water

2800' 2" Gas

2800' 4" Water

1700' 2" Gas

1700' 4" Water

900' 1" Gas 85' 8" Water

880' 1" Sewer Odor Control

920' 1.5" Water

100' 1" Sewer Odor Control

70' 2-2" Cox

85' 2-2" Cox

85' 12-2" Cox

75' 2-2" Cox

345' 8" Water 40' 12-2" Conduit (E-Streets)

300' 10" Sewer

0 0

NORTH-SOUTH SEGMENTS 1 2 12 3 13 4 14 27 5 8 15 28 6 9 16 29 7 10 17 30 18 31 11 19

Between Quenton and McDowell Val Vista Drive Between McDowell and Hermosa Vista Val Vista Drive Greenfield Road Between Hermosa Vista and McKellips Val Vista Drive Greenfield Road Between McKellips and McLellan Val Vista Drive Greenfield Road Higley Road Between McLellan and Brown Val Vista Drive 40th Street Greenfield Road Princess Drive Higley Road Between Brown and Adobe Val Vista Drive 40th Street Greenfield Road Higley Road Between Adobe and University Val Vista Drive Nassau Greenfield Road Higley Road Between University and Main Greenfield Road Higley Road Between Main and Broadway 40th Street Greenfield Road

1470

1380' 12" Water

90' 4" Gas

2612 775

2612' 16" Water 110' 2-2" Cox

100' 12-2" Cox

2650 0

2638' 16" Water

12' 4" Gas

5415 0 0

75' 14" Water

2670' 6" Water

5360 0 0 0 0

2675' 16" W

2685' 2" Gas

88 2513 0 0

32' 16" Water 1255' 12" Water

32' 2" Gas 1258' 2" Gas

24' 8" Water

6500 1070 1240 0

2655' 6" Water 1070 8" Sewer 1240' 12" Water

2655' 2" Gas

1190' 15" Storm Drain

1820 0

1750' 12" Water

70' 12" Water

600 40

540' 12" Water 40' 8" Sewer

60' 12" Water

90' 2-2" Cox 85' 12-2" Cox 75' 2-2" Cox

2670' 2" Gas

1 of 2

Project: Mesa NWWRP Reclaimed Waterline Alignment Study Dibble Project No.: 1018123.01 Title: Potential Minor Utility Relocations 24 32 20 33 21 34

48th Street Higley Road Between Broadway and Southern Greenfield Road Higley Road Between Southern and Holmes/Hampton Greenfield Road Higley Road

Date: 3/16/2020 By: KAD

0 0 1040 45

1040 12" water 45' 12" Water

275 40

275' 12" water 40' 12" Water

475 0

475' 8" SRP Electric (No fiber)

US60 CROSSING 22 25

Greenfield Road Pierpont Drive

SOUTH OF US60 66 64 67 65 69 68 71 70 73 72

74 23 26 35 36 37 38 75

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

35' 15" Sewer

2 of 2

Appendix E Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, NWWRP Reclaimed Waterline Alignment Study Ninyo & Moore, (2019)

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Appendix F Preliminary Land Resource/ROW Screening Summary, NWWRP Reclaimed Waterline Alignment Study Tierra Right-of-Way, (2020)

Note: Plats and deeds can be provided digitally

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Appendix G Permit Requirements Table

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Date: 3/16/2020 By: KAD

Project: Mesa NWWRP Reclaimed Waterline Alignment Study Dibble Project No.: 1018123.01 Title: Permit Requirements Table Permit Count SEGMENT No. 39 40 41 42 44 46 48 43 45 47 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 59 61 62 58 60 63

Notes

EAST-WEST SEGMENTS Between Val Vista and 40th Street/Greenfield Quenton Drive McDowell Road Hermosa Vista Drive McKellips Road McLellan Road Brown Road Adobe Street University Drive Between 40th Street and Greenfield McLellan Road Brown Road Adobe Street University Drive Main Street Broadway Road Between Greenfield and 48th Street/Higley McKellips Road McLellan Road Brown Road Adobe Street University Drive Main Street Broadway Road Southern Ave Holmes Between 48th Street and Higley Main Street Broadway Road Hampton East of Higley Broadway Road Southern Ave

1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0

RWCD Encroachment Permit RWCD Canal Crossing Permit RWCD Canal Crossing Permit RWCD Canal Crossing Permit

1 0 0 0 0 0

RWCD Canal Crossing Permit

1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0

Falcon Field Airport Authority

1 0 0

RWCD Canal Crossing Permit

1 1

RWCD Irrigation Lateral Crossing Permit RWCD Irrigation Lateral Crossing Permit

RWCD Canal Crossing Permit RWCD Canal Crossing Permit RWCD Canal Crossing Permit

NORTH-SOUTH SEGMENTS Between Quenton and McDowell 1

Val Vista Drive

Between McDowell and Hermosa Vista Val Vista Drive

Greenfield Road

3 13 4 14 27 5 8 15 28 6 9 16 29

Between Hermosa Vista and McKellips Val Vista Drive Greenfield Road Between McKellips and McLellan Val Vista Drive Greenfield Road Higley Road Between McLellan and Brown Val Vista Drive 40th Street Greenfield Road Higley Road Between Brown and Adobe Val Vista Drive 40th Street/Nassau Greenfield Road Higley Road

RWCD Irrigation Lateral Crossing Permit at McDowell Falcon Field Airport Authority, RWCD Irrigation Lateral Crossing Permit at McDowell

1 1

RWCD Ditch Crossing Permit at Hermosa Vista Falcon Field Airport Authority

1 0 0

RWCD Irrigation Lateral Crossing Permit at McKellips

0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0

RWCD Canal Crossing Permit

RWCD Irrigation Lateral Crossing Permit at Brown RWCD Irrigation Lateral Crossing Permit at Brown RWCD Irrigation Lateral Crossing Permit at Brown

1 of 3

Project: Mesa NWWRP Reclaimed Waterline Alignment Study Dibble Project No.: 1018123.01 Title: Permit Requirements Table Between Adobe and University 7 Val Vista Drive 10 40th Street/Nassau 17 Greenfield Road 30 Higley Road Between University and Main 18 Greenfield Road 31 Higley Road Between Main and Broadway 11 40th Street 19 Greenfield Road 24 48th Street 32 Higley Road Between Broadway and Southern 20 Greenfield Road

Date: 3/16/2020 By: KAD

0 0 0 0 1 0

RWCD Irrigation Lateral Crossing Permit at University

0 1 1 1

RWCD Irrigation Lateral Crossing Permit at Main RWCD Irrigation Lateral Crossing Permit at Main RWCD Canal Crossing Permit

RWCD Irrigation Lateral Crossing Permit at Broadway

Higley Road

RWCD Irrigation Lateral Crossing Permit at Broadway, RWCD Irrigation Lateral Crossing Permit at Delta Avenue

21 34

Between Southern and Holmes/Hampton Greenfield Road Higley Road

1 1

RWCD Irrigation Lateral Crossing Permit at Southern RWCD Irrigation Lateral Crossing Permit at Southern

US60 CROSSING 22

Greenfield Road

Pierpont Drive

ADOT Highway Encroachment Permit, RWCD Irrigation Lateral Crossing Permit ADOT Highway Encroachment Permit, Town of Gilbert, RWCD Irrigation Lateral Crossing Permit

SOUTH OF US60 66 64 67 65 69 68 71 70 73 72

74 23 26 35 36 37 38

1 0

Town of Gilbert

1 1

Town of Gilbert Town of Gilbert

1 1

Town of Gilbert Town of Gilbert

1 0

Town of Gilbert

1 0

Town of Gilbert

0 0 1 1 0 0 0

Town of Gilbert Town of Gilbert

2 of 3

Date: 3/16/2020 By: KAD

Project: Mesa NWWRP Reclaimed Waterline Alignment Study Dibble Project No.: 1018123.01 Title: Permit Requirements Table

Greenfield/Guadalupe Road

RWCD Irrigation Ditch Crossing Permit, SRP Canal Crossing - Easement Encroachment Permit, Town of Gilbert, (4) SRP Irrigation Pipeline Crossings - Easement Encroachment Permits SRP Canal Crossing - Easement Encroachment Permit, RWCD Irrigation Ditch Crossing Permit

Note: SRP power lines not evaluated for easement encroachment requests. Refer to Appendix A for high voltage overhead power line locations. A Conflict Review Request must be submitted to SRP and a land agent assigned for further coordination regarding power line crossings. The proposed pipeline alignments were chosen so as to minimize conflict with overhead transmission lines. Pole bracing is not anticipated based on the pipeline locations outlined in Appendix A.

3 of 3

Appendix H Regulatory Permits H1: ADOT Highway Encroachment Permit Application H2: Falcon Field District Federal Aviation Administration OE/AAA Form 7460 Application H3: FCDMC Floodplain Use Permit Application & ROW Use Permit Instructions H4: MCDOT ROW Use Permit Application H5: MCESD Approval to Construct Permit Application H6: RWCD Crossing Permit Application H7: SRP Easement Encroachment Request H8: Town of Gilbert Engineering Construction Permit Application H9: USACE Nationwide 12 404 Permit Application

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Appendix H1 ADOT Highway Encroachment Permit Application

Dibble November 2020

H-1

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION DIVISION

ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION

www.azdot.gov

FOR ADOT USE:

ECS

ADOT Agreement Number:

JPA

OTHER: MILEPOST:

ROUTE:

PERMIT NUMBER:

ADOT ENGINEERING STATION:

ADOT PROJECT NUMBER: NAME OF ENCROACHMENT OWNER:

NAME OF AUTHORIZED AGENT/APPLICANT:If other than Encroachment Owner

Mailing Address of Owner:

Mailing Address of Authorized Agent:

City:

State:

Zip:

State:

Zip:

Phone:

E-mail address:

E-mail Address:

Name of Local Point of Contact:

Legal Relationship to Owner:

Phone Number for Local Point of Contact: TRAFFIC CONTROL COMPANY:

Contractor

Sub Contractor

Engineer

Attorney

Other:

CONTACT NAME AND PHONE NUMBER:

City (in or near) Highway Route #

Authorized Employee

Side of Highway: (check one) N Approximately

Feet N

Encroachment Owner's Project # or Property Parcel #:

of Milepost #

Project Duration:

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK OR ACTIVITY TO OCCUR IN RIGHT-OF-WAY:

The Encroachment Owner will be the Permittee. By signing this application, the Encroachment Owner and the Owner's Agent acknowledge that the information given and statements made in this application are true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The Encroachment Owner agrees as the Permittee to accept the following General Obligations and Responsibilities as described on page 2 of the application. By accepting an approved encroachment permit, the Permittee agrees to the requirements described in the permit, to be responsible for all permit requirements, and to comply with ADOT's requirements as set out in the permit. An approved permit consists of but is not limited to this application and final supporting documentation approved by ADOT, and any requirements set by ADOT. NO WORK SHALL TAKE PLACE INSIDE THE RIGHT OF WAY WITHOUT AN ADOT APPROVED PERMIT ON SITE.

Encroachment Owner (Print Name and Sign)

Date

Authorized Agent or Applicant: If other than the Encroachment Owner (Print Name and Sign)

Date

Traffic Control Company Representative (Print Name and Sign)

Date

FOR ADOT USE:

PERMIT TO USE STATE HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY

This application is approved as a permit and a permit is issued to the Permittee. Construction is authorized only for the period indicated below. Authorized ADOT Name and Signature

PERMIT ISSUED(Date): ADOT ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION, REVISED NOVEMBER 2016

Authorized ADOT Name and Signature

PERMIT WORK TO BE COMPLETED BY (Date): Page 1 of 2

GENERAL OBLIGATIONS AND RESPONSIBLITIES THE PERMITTEE SHALL: 1. Assume all legal liability and financial responsibility for the encroachment activity for the duration of the encroachment, including indemnify, defend, and save harmless ADOT and the State of Arizona and any of its departments, agencies, boards, commissions, universities, officers, officials, agents and employees from and against any and all claims, demands, suits, actions, proceedings, loss, costs, damages of every kind, or expenses, including court costs, reasonable attorney's fees and/or litigation expenses, and costs of claim processing and investigation, arising out of bodily injury or death of any person, or tangible or intangible property damage, caused, or alleged to be caused, in whole or in part, by the negligent or willful acts, or omissions of the Permittee, any of its directors, officers, agents, employees, or volunteers, or its contractor or subcontractors. This indemnity includes any claim or amount arising out of or recovered under the Workers' Compensation Law or arising out of the contractor's failure to conform to any federal, state or local law, statute, ordinance, rule, regulation or court decree. Permittee and Contractor agree to provide ADOT with certificate(s) of insurance consistent with the requirements stated in the ADOT Permit Insurance Matrix to include naming State of Arizona/ADOT as an Additional Insured with respects to General Liability and Automobile Liability and provide a Waiver of Subrogation endorsement in favor of the State of Arizona/ADOT for all insurance coverages. The required insurance shall be kept in force by the Permittee and its contractors/subcontractors for the term of the permit and shall not expire, be cancelled or materially changed to affect coverage available to the State without thirty (30) days written notice to the State. Automobile and Worker's Compensation coverage requirements are dependent upon the use of employees and autos for the encroachment activity. Please refer to the ADOT Permit Insurance Matrix to determine requirements for coverage, limits, language and other insurance related items specific to each permit. Permittee agrees to maintain and make available to ADOT all contractors/subcontractors' certificates upon demand. ADOT reserves the right to require an increase or allow a decrease in insurance limits or coverage based on the risks and financial exposure arising out of the event or activity proposed in the permit application. The Encroachment Permit is issued upon the expressed condition that ADOT and The State of Arizona does not protect or insure against loss of personal property or improvements owned by Permittee. 2. Comply with Environmental Laws. A. Environmental Laws refer collectively to any and all federal, state, or local statute, law, ordinance, code, rule, regulation, permit, order or decree regulating, relating to, or imposing liability or standards of conduct on a person discharging, releasing or threatening to discharge or release or causing the discharge or release of any hazardous or solid waste or any hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, water, wastewater or storm water, and specifically includes, but is not limited to: The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as amended; the Toxic Substances Control Act; the Clean Water Act (CWA); the Clean Air Act; the Occupational Safety and Health Act; the Arizona Water Quality Act Revolving Fund Act, the Arizona Hazardous Waste Management Act, any applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or Arizona Pollution Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) permit, any applicable CWA Section 404 permit, or any local pretreatment or environmental nuisance ordinance. B. The Permitee (and/or any person or entity performing work on their behalf under this Permit) specifically agree that in the course of performing any activity for which this Permit is necessary: i. Shall comply with any and all Environmental Laws; ii. Ensure that no activity under this Permit shall cause ADOT to be in violation of any Environmental Laws; iii. Indemnify ADOT for any losses, damages, expenses, penalties, liabilities or claims of any nature whatsoever suffered by or asserted against ADOT as a direct or indirect result of the disposal, escape, seepage, leakage, spillage, discharge, emission, or release of any hazardous waste, solid waste, hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant, water, wastewater or storm water and losses, damages, expenses, penalties, liabilities and claims asserted or arising under the Environmental Laws, or for ADOT's costs in undertaking corrective action pursuant to an order of or settlement with a duly authorized regulatory agency or injured third party or for any penalties associated with Permittee's activities; C. If the Permittee fails or refuses to comply with any Environmental Laws, or causes ADOT to be in violation of any Environmental Laws; ADOT may at its sole and unreviewable discretion, (1) revoke this Permit; (2) require the Permittee to undertake corrective or remedial action to address any release or threatened release or discharge of the hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant, water, wastewater or storm water; and (3) expressly consents to entry of injunctive relief to enforce any listed remedies. 3. Be responsible for any repair or maintenance work and repair any aspect or condition of the encroachment that causes danger or hazard to the traveling public, for the duration of the encroachment and must perform such work under the appropriate encroachment permit authorization; 4. Comply with ADOT's traffic control standards with an ADOT approved traffic control plan; 5. In any case and at the Department's discretion; ADOT may require written approval from the abutting property owner prior to issuance of the encroachment permit. If the encroachment encroaches on abutting property owned by someone other than the permittee (and/or on underlying fee land owned by someone other than the permittee where ADOT owns its right of way by easement), the Permittee must obtain written approval from the abutting property owner (and/or underlying fee owner where ADOT owns its right of way by easement). 6. ADOT reserves the right to require the permittee to perform any repairs necessary to the encroachment throughout the life of the encroachment; 7. Remove the encroachment and restore the right-of-way to its original or better condition if ADOT cancels the encroachment permit, and terminates all rights under the permit, or if the project terminates for any reason beyond ADOT's control; 8. Reimburse ADOT for costs incurred or deposit with ADOT money necessary to cover all costs incurred for activities related to the encroachment, such as inspections, restoring the right-of-way to its original or better condition, removing the encroachment, or repair encroachment to originally permitted condition and comply with ADOT's bond policy as applicable; 9. Notify new owner of property or encroachment to apply for an ADOT encroachment permit, as required by Arizona Administrative Rule R17-3-502(D); 10. Apply for a new encroachment permit if the use of the permitted encroachment or the use of adjoining property changes; 11. Keep a copy of the encroachment permit at the work site or site of encroachment activity; 12. Construct the encroachment according to attached Specifications, Standards and the plans approved by ADOT as part of the final permit; any changes shall be approved by ADOT prior to implementation; 13. Obtain all required permits from other government agencies or political subdivisions; 14. Remove any defective materials, or materials that fail to pass ADOT's final inspection, and replace with materials ADOT specifies. 15. Have the right to a hearing as prescribed in Arizona Administrative Code, R17-3-509 if the permit application is denied; 16. Understand that once issued, the permit is revocable and subject to modification or abrogation by ADOT at any time, without prejudice. By accepting an ADOT approved Encroachment permit, the Permittee agrees to the requirements described in the permit, to be responsible for all permit requirements, and to comply with ADOT's requirements as set out in the permit. NO WORK SHALL TAKE PLACE INSIDE THE RIGHT OF WAY WITHOUT AN AD O T APPROVED PERMIT ON SITE.

I have read, understand and shall comply with the requirements: Initial: ADOT ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION, REVISED NOVEMBER 2016

Date:

Name: Page 2 of 2

Appendix H2 Falcon Field District Federal Aviation Administration OE/AAA Form 7460 Application

Dibble November 2020

H-2

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Appendix H3 FCDMC Floodplain Use Permit Application & ROW Use Permit Instructions

Dibble November 2020

H-3

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Permit No. _______________

Received Stamp

Flood Control District of Maricopa County For District use only

FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT / CLEARANCE APPLICATION Application Information Residential

Commercial

Sand & Gravel

CLOMR/LOMR

Name:_____________________________________________________________________________________ Mailing Address:

City:______________ State:_______ ZIP:_________

Phone Number:_____________________________ Alternate Phone Number :________________________ E-Mail:_____________________________________________________________________________________ Property Owner

YES

If no the following is required: A signed Property Owner Authorization form if the owner wishes to grant an agent, contractor, or consultant authority to make decisions on this application.

Refer to the Floodplain Regulations for Maricopa County Section 403(B) for application requirements for a Floodplain Use Permit for extraction of sand and gravel or other materials. Property Information City:______________ State:_____ ZIP:________

Property Address:

Assessor Parcel Number(s): _____________________________________________________________________ (if multiple APNs please include in the Purpose of Application description)

Cross Streets: ____________________________ Section:_____ Township:_____ Range:_____ ¼ Section:_____ Basement:

Yes

As-Built

Purpose of Application:

APPLICANT SIGNATURE _____________________________________________ DATE ____________________ FCDMC REV 2/6/2018 2801 West Durango Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85009

Phone: 602-506-1501 main / 602-506-2419 Floodplain Management Fax: 602-372-6232

(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)

Flood Control District of Maricopa County

FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT / CLEARANCE APPLICATION

Arizona Revised Statutes § 48‐3644. Prohibited acts by district and employees; enforcement; notice A. A district shall not base a licensing decision in whole or in part on a licensing requirement or

condition that is not specifically authorized by statute, rule, regulation, ordinance, executive order or delegation agreement. A general grant of authority does not constitute a basis for imposing a licensing requirement or condition unless the authority specifically authorizes the requirement or condition.

B. Unless specifically authorized, a district shall avoid duplication of other laws or executive orders that

do not enhance regulatory clarity and shall avoid dual permitting to the maximum extent practicable.

C. This section does not prohibit district flexibility to issue licenses or adopt ordinances or regulations.

D. A district shall not request or initiate discussions with a person about waiving that person's rights.

E. This section may be enforced in a private civil action and relief may be awarded against the district. The court may award reasonable attorney fees, damages and all fees associated with the license application to a party that prevails in an action against the district for a violation of this section.

F. A district employee may not intentionally or knowingly violate this section. A violation of this

section is cause for disciplinary action or dismissal pursuant to the district's adopted personnel policy.

G. This section does not abrogate the immunity provided by section 12‐820.01 or 12‐820.02. H. A district shall prominently print the provisions of subsections A, B, C, D, E, F and G of this section on all license applications.

The licensing application may be in either print or electronic format.

FCDMC REV 1/17/2018

2801 West Durango Street Phoenix, Arizona 85009

Phone: 602‐506‐2419

Fax: 602‐506‐4601

(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)

Flood Control District of Maricopa County

WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY A Floodplain Regulation for Maricopa County has been in force since February 25, 1974. The current version of the Floodplain Regulation for Maricopa County, Arizona was adopted on August 4, 1986, and amended March 23, 1987, April 6, 1988, September 18, 1989, September 3, 1991, December 15, 1993, November 1, 2000, December 20, 2006, November 30, 2011, April 9, 2014, June 25, 2014, and January 17, 2018. The intent of the Regulations is to prevent the dangerous and expensive misuse of floodplains in Maricopa County. A Floodplain or floodprone area as defined in the Regulations is any land area susceptible to being inundated by water from any source. Depending on the location of your property it could possibly be inundated by greater frequency flood events (those occurring more often). A flood greater in magnitude than the 100-year flood could also occur. The review your development has undergone is solely for the purpose of determining if your application conforms with the written requirements of the Floodplain Regulation for Maricopa County. It is not to be taken as a warranty. Compliance with this Regulation does not insure complete protection from flooding. The Floodplain Regulation meets established standards for floodplain management, but neither this review nor the Regulation take into account such flood related problems as natural erosion, streambed meander or man-made obstructions and diversions all of which may have an adverse affect in the event of a flood. You are advised to consult your own engineer or other expert regarding these considerations. In consideration for the issuance of the requested permit the applicant, owner, agent, engineer and their successors agree to hold the District harmless from any onsite or offsite damages of any kind arising from the development of the subject property in accordance with their submittals as outlined in the attached permit

I have read and understand the above WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY.

___________ __________________________________________ __________________ Permit Number

Owner or Agent

Date

FCDMC Rev. 1/17/2018

2801 West Durango Street

Phoenix, Arizona 85009

Phone: 602-506-2419

Fax: 602-506-4601

(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)

Flood Control District of Maricopa County

FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT/CLEARANCE APPLICATION – PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM

FORM MUST BE COMPLETED IF THE APPLICANT IS NOT THE PROPERTY OWNER I hereby authorize:

Name: Address: City, State, Zip: E-mail address:

to file this application for a floodplain use permit/clearance for development, as described in the application and supporting materials, for my property at , and to take all action required related to the requested development on my property including documentation and submittal of technical information required by the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (“District”).

Property Owner Signature: Property Owner Printed Name: Property Owner Address: City, State, Zip Property Owner Phone: Property Owner e-mail: Date:

NOTE: This form is for all Floodplain Use Permits/Clearance except for extraction of sand and gravel or other materials.

DISTRICT USE ONLY Tracking Number:

Project Name: FCDMC Rev. 1/17/2018

OnBase ePlan Review: Users Guide for ROW Permits

August 31, 2016

Updated September 5, 2017

Flood Control District of Maricopa County

Right of Way Use Permits Online 1

Flood Control District of Maricopa County Right of Way Use Permits Online TABLE OF CONTENTS Plan Review Portal ............................................................................................................................................................3 Access and Registration ..................................................................................................................................................3 Logging On....................................................................................................................................................................3 Resetting or Retrieving Your User Name and Password .........................................................................................4 Resetting or Retrieving Your Password ..................................................................................................................4 Retrieving Your User Name ........................................................................................................................................4 New Permit Application ...................................................................................................................................................5 View and Select Permits ..................................................................................................................................................7 Upload Documents ..........................................................................................................................................................7 Submit for Review .........................................................................................................................................................8 View and Download Documents ..............................................................................................................................9 Editing Permit Information .............................................................................................................................................10 Edit Permit Information ..............................................................................................................................................10 Removing Documents from a Permit ......................................................................................................................11 Submitting a Permit.........................................................................................................................................................12 Searching for Permits ......................................................................................................................................................13 Inviting Other Users .........................................................................................................................................................14 Managing Invitations ......................................................................................................................................................16 Viewing Reviewed Documents ....................................................................................................................................17 Downloading Documents .........................................................................................................................................17 Downloading Approved Documents ..........................................................................................................................18 Approved Plan Sets ....................................................................................................................................................18 Approved Plan Sheets ...............................................................................................................................................19 Modifying Your Account Information ..........................................................................................................................19 Online Payments .............................................................................................................................................................20 Payment Entry .............................................................................................................................................................21

Flood Control District of Maricopa County

Right of Way Use Permits Online 2

PLAN REVIEW PORTAL Permit Applicants may submit applications, upload permit documents and view markups and comments by way of the Flood Control District Right of Way Use Permits Online Plan Review Portal.

At this time, the FCD Right of Way Use Permits Online Portal is only compatible with Internet Explorer. ACCESS AND REGISTRATION Registration is required to begin using the Online Portal. To register to use the system, click on the registration link from the Online Portal. Note: when you register, your email address must not already be in the system. If you have already registered, you may sign in with your user name and password. Note: The email account must be unique in the system.

LOGGING ON To logon to your Plan Review account, follow these steps: 1. Navigate the District’s Web Site to the page for Right-of-Way permits. 2. Click on the “Sign In or Register Here” link. 3. Enter your user name and password in the User and Password fields, then click Sign In. Note: If you have forgotten your password, you can select the Forgot Name/Password option to reset your password. See Resetting or Retrieving Your User Name and Password for more information.

Flood Control District of Maricopa County

Right of Way Use Permits Online 3

RESETTING OR RETRIEVING YOUR USER NAME AND PASSWORD If you have forgotten your user name or password, you can use the Forgot Name/ Password feature to reset or retrieve your user name or password.

Resetting or Retrieving Your Password To retrieve or reset your password, follow these steps: 1. Navigate to the Online Portal 2. Click Sign In. 3. Select the Forgot Name/Password option. The Account Recovery window is displayed. 4. Type your user name in the User name field and click Show Hint. Your security hint is displayed. • If the security hint was sufficient to remind you of your password, you can click the Return to Login button and log in to Plan Review. • If you still do not remember your password, click the Reset Password button. An e-mail message that contains a hyperlink to reset your password will be sent to your e-mail account. After you reset your password, you can log in to Plan Review with your user name and new password.

RETRIEVING YOUR USER N AME To retrieve your user name, follow these steps: 1. Navigate to the address of your Plan Review site. 2. Click Login. 3. Select the Forgot Name/Password option. The Account Recovery window is displayed. 4. Type your e-mail address in the Email address field and click Find. An e-mail message that contains your user name will be sent to your e-mail account.

Flood Control District of Maricopa County

Right of Way Use Permits Online 4

NEW PERMIT APPLICATION To create a new application, sign into the Plan Review portal site. Click the Review Type drop down in the Start New Permit section. 1. Select ‘Permit Application’. 2. Click the “Add Permit” button. 3. Enter the new permit information into the new permit form. All required fields are indicated with a red asterisk (*). 4. Throughout the different stages of the permit, different information on the additional tables must be completed but are not required at this time. 5. Click the “Add” button when finished.

Flood Control District of Maricopa County

Right of Way Use Permits Online 5

The application (Permit) now has a status of “Plan Submission” and can now have supporting documents added to it.

Flood Control District of Maricopa County

Right of Way Use Permits Online 6

VIEW AND SELECT PERMITS Open a permit by clicking the folder icon in the furthest right column of the permits table.

UPLOAD DOCUMENTS NOTE: At this time, the UPLOAD button is currently only available through Internet Explorer. 1. In an open permit, select the Plan Documents tab to upload plan documents. Note: The upload buttons will be available as long as the permit is not in an open review cycle. 2. Click the “Add Plan Documents” button 3. Use the Browse button to select files from your source. TIP: If you have more than one supporting document to upload, you can hold down Control + Click to select more than one file then click Open. 4. Index the supporting permit documentation with the appropriate Phase, Sheet Type, and Description then click the “Upload” button.

Flood Control District of Maricopa County

Right of Way Use Permits Online 7

5. Files that have yet to be uploaded are indicated with a status of ‘Pending Upload’ and once uploaded display a status of ‘Success’. When the upload is complete, the status next to the Edit Names button will change to “Done”.

SUBMIT FOR REVIEW

Once all desired files have been uploaded, return to the Permit Information tab and select the link to ‘Submit for Review’. This will notify the Coordinator that the permit and plans are ready for review and will begin the review/application process. 1. Once the documents are submitted for review the system will not allow additional documents to be uploaded until the review cycle is complete. If you need to add documents during the review cycle, contact the Permit Admin for the permit and they can give you permission to upload a document.

FILE NAMING CONVENTIONS AND FILE SIZES Prior to uploading files for review, consider the following naming conventions and file size limitations which when followed will make the review and approval process more efficient. 1. All files should use the same file name through the process. The system recognizes revisions of the same file and keeps copies of each revision. 2. Plan sets should be submitted as individual plan sheets rather than a large PDF unless the plan set is over about 30 sheets. The Plans sets should be broken down to small PDF files grouped by sheet types such as C for civil plans, D for Drainage Plans, L for Landscaping, etc. 3. Reports (drainage, geotechnical, engineering, etc.) should be submitted as complete PDF files. 4. HEC-RAS, HEC-1, and other engineering program input files should be submitted as ZIP files. 5. Letters, memos, etc. should be submitted as PDF files.

Flood Control District of Maricopa County

Right of Way Use Permits Online 8

VIEW AND DOWNLOAD DOCUMENTS Throughout the review process, documents may be published to the portal containing markups, comments or instructions. To view these documents: 1. Choose the Review Documents (for markups and comments) or Approved Documents (for approved plan sets) tabs. 2. Check the box to the left of any document you wish to download and download by clicking the icon in the furthest right column. 3. To download all documents on the tab in a zipped file, choose the checkbox in the column header to select all documents and click the corresponding download icon.

Flood Control District of Maricopa County

Right of Way Use Permits Online 9

EDITING PERMIT INFORMATION EDIT PERMIT INFORMATION 1. Navigate to the Permits page to select the Permit from the Permits Page

2. Click on the Open button next to the desired Permit 3. Click on the Edit button in the top right hand corner above Permit Information

4. When you are finished editing information related to the Permit, click on the Save button in the bottom right of the main Permit page.

Flood Control District of Maricopa County

Right of Way Use Permits Online 10

REMOVING DOCUMENTS FROM A PERMIT To remove documents from a permit, follow these steps: 1. Select the Permits tab. The Permits window is displayed.

2. Select the folder button for the permit you want to add documents to. The Permit Information window is displayed.

3. Select the Plan Documents tab. The Plan Documents window is d i s p l a y e d .

4. Click the Delete action for the document(s) you want to remove from your Plan Review permit.

Flood Control District of Maricopa County

Right of Way Use Permits Online 11

You will be prompted to confirm your decision. 5. Click Yes. The selected document is removed from your Plan Documents list.

SUBMITTING A PERMIT To submit a permit for review, follow these steps: 1. Select the Permits tab. The Permits window is displayed.

2. Click the folder button for the permit you want to add documents to. The Permit Information window is displayed. 3. Select the Submit for Review button from the left side menu.

Flood Control District of Maricopa County

Right of Way Use Permits Online 12

SEARCHING FOR PERMITS You can filter your permit list using a variety of date criteria, as well as several advanced search options. The Plan Review site will only display permits that meet the criteria you have selected. To specify criteria to filter your permit list, follow these steps:

1. Select the Permits tab. The Permits window is displayed. 2. Use the View drop-down select list to specify a date or range of dates. 3. Select the blue arrow icon to display the Advanced Search Fields window. 4. Enter values in the available fields as desired. Note: By default, searches will only locate values at the beginning of a field. For example, if you search for Main in the Street Name field, the search will not return any permits with a Street Name of North Main Street. In order to locate values in the middle of a field, you must begin your search with a wildcard character: * 5. Select Find. The permit list will be updated to only display permits that match your specified criteria.

Flood Control District of Maricopa County

Right of Way Use Permits Online 13

INVITING OTHER USERS You can grant access to a permit that you have created to another person by sending them an invitation to your permit. To send someone an invitation, follow these steps: 1. Select the Permits tab. The Permits window is di s p l a ye d .

2. Click the folder button for the desired permit. The Permit Information window is displayed.

3. Click the Permit Invitations tab. The Permit Invitations window is displayed.

4. Click Invite User. The Invite User window is displayed.

Flood Control District of Maricopa County

Right of Way Use Permits Online 14

5. Select one of the following options for Grant Access: • View Only - The invited user will have access to view permit information but may not update information or upload documents. • Upload Access - The invited user will be able to access the permit, update permit information and upload documents. 6. Enter the e-mail address of the person you want to invite to view your permit into the Email address field. 7. Click on the Invite button. The invitation will be sent to the specified address.

Flood Control District of Maricopa County

Right of Way Use Permits Online 15

MANAGING INVITATIONS Once another user has accepted your invitation, you can manage the level of access that you are allowing them to have for this permit. To manage the level of access your invitees have, follow these steps: From the Permit Invitations tab:

1. Click Manage Invitations. The Manage Invitations window is displayed.

2. To change a user’s access level, select the desired access level from the user’s Grant Access drop-down select list. The following selections are available:

View Only

Upload Access

When this option is selected, the user will only be able to view permit information. When this option is selected, the user will be able to upload and delete documents from the permit and update permit information.

Click the Check icon to save your changes. You may also select the Delete icon to revoke a user’s access to the permit entirely.

Flood Control District of Maricopa County

Right of Way Use Permits Online 16

VIEWING REVIEWED DOCUMENTS Permits reviewers will review your submitted plans and add comments or markups to any sheets that require modification. These updated documents will then be posted onto your Plan Review site, under the Review Documents tab. When you see a document in this tab, you should review the document by downloading it to determine the issue, modify your document so that the issue is resolved, and then re-submit your document for another review c y c l e .

DOWNLOADING DOCUMENTS To download a document that has been reviewed, follow these steps: 1. Select the Review Documents tab. All available documents will be listed in the Review Documents window. 2. Select a review cycle from the Review Cycle drop-down select list to filter the list of available documents. 3. Click on the document download button to download the document.

Tip: You can also download multiple documents as a compiled ZIP file. To do so, select the check box next to every document you want to include in the ZIP file, and then click the download button at the top left of the list of document

4. Review all comments and markups that have been made by your plan reviewer(s). 5. Revise your plan document(s) as noted by the reviewers and save the revised documents using the same file name as the original document.

Note: When re-uploading a document, the document must use the exact file name that the original document initially used so that the modified document is correctly uploaded as a revision of the original document. 6. Re-upload the document. For more information on uploading documents, see Adding Documents to a Permit.

Flood Control District of Maricopa County

Right of Way Use Permits Online 17

DOWNLOADING APPROVED DOCUMENTS Submitted documents that have been approved and require no modifications are displayed in the Approved Documents tab. The Approved Plan Sets option allows you to download a set of approved documents and any comment letters, while the Approved Plan Sheets option allows you to download one or more approved plan sheets by themselves.

APPROVED PLAN SETS To download a set of documents that have been approved, follow these steps: 1. Select the Approved Documents tab. 2. Select the Approved Plan Sets option from the drop-down select list. 3. All available plan sets and comment letters will be listed in the Approved Documents window.

4. Click on the document download button to download the document or plan set .

Tip: You can also download multiple documents and/or plan sets as a compiled ZIP file. To do so, select the check box next to every document or plan set you want to include in the ZIP file, then click the zip download button.

Flood Control District of Maricopa County

Right of Way Use Permits Online 18

APPROVED PLAN SHEETS Documents or plans that have been approved and require no modifications will appear in your Approved Documents tab. To download a document that has been approved, follow these steps: 1. Select the Approved Documents tab. All available documents will be listed in the Approved Documents window. 2. Select the Approved Plan Sheets option from the drop-down select list.All available documents will be listed in the Approved Documents window.

3. Click on the document download button

to download the document or plan set .

MODIFYING YOUR ACCOUNT INFORMATION You can modify your user information at any time by selecting the Profile tab.

Make sure you select Save after making your changes.

Flood Control District of Maricopa County

Right of Way Use Permits Online 19

ONLINE PAYMENTS You may now pay fees for ROW Use Permits using the online payment option. The online payment accepts Visa, MasterCard, Discover and American Express. Navigate to your Plan Review Project: 1. Select the Permits tab. The Permits window is di s p l a ye d .

2. Click the folder button for the desired permit. The Permit Information window is displayed. 3. On the left hand side of the Project Information page, click on the Review Payment Information button

4. Clicking on the Review Payment Information will provide a listing of all fees that are currently due. a. If no fees are due, you will get a notice that no fees are due at this time. b. If fees are due, you will be provided with the list of fees that are due: Flood Control District of Maricopa County

Right of Way Use Permits Online 20

To make a payment, click on the Make Payment button.

PAYMENT ENTRY 1. Follow the on-screen prompts to fill in your credit card information and billing information and then click on Continue.

Flood Control District of Maricopa County

Right of Way Use Permits Online 21

2. You can review your payment information before processing the payment. To continue processing the payment, click on Process Payment.

3. A receipt will be emailed to the email address entered in the billing address section or you can print the receipt from the confirmation screen by clicking on the Print PDF button. Charges on your credit card will show up under Flood Control District.

Flood Control District of Maricopa County

Right of Way Use Permits Online 22

EXHIBIT A to RESOLUTION FCD 2018R013 PERMIT USE AND FEE SCHEDULE

Permit Filing Fees (in all cases)

$250.00/application

2. Temporary Use *

$325.00 + Land Use Fee

Permanent Installation Review Fee

$650.00 /first submittal $325.00/ for each submittal thereafter

Inspection Fees

$70.00/inspection (within 25 miles of Durango Complex) $80.00/inspection (25 to 50 miles of Durango Complex) $90.00/inspection (over 50 miles of Durango Complex) Number of inspections is to be calculated based on the project complexity and duration.

Land Use Fee (if applicable) **

$600.00 minimum or market value (whichever is greater)

Easement (if applicable) **

$600.00 minimum or market value (whichever is greater)

Valuation Fee (if applicable) ***

$250.00 (market analysis) or actual cost if an appraisal is required.

Extensions

$50.00 Filing Fee + Land Use Fee and Additional Inspections (if applicable)

After-the-Fact Permit

$1,500.00 (assessed in addition to the above fees)

No Permanent Installation Review Fee will be assessed when the DISTRICT real property is utilized for temporary use only. (For example: temporary ingress/egress, geotechnical explorations & surveys)

** Land Use Fee or Easement Fees will not be charged on existing easements for the same use held by the applicant. *** A market analysis will be used for easements valued at $10,000 or less.

Funding of Expedited USACE Section 408 Reviews: If the applicant’s request for an expedited review through the 214 MOA is approved by the DISTRICT, the applicant and DISTRICT will provide detailed project information and a scope of design and construction efforts to the USACE. The USACE will proceed with developing a detailed cost estimate for review and approval activities that are to be undertaken. The USACE estimate will include a cost for each review activity, schedule, and identification of travel by USACE personnel that may be necessary to the activities covered. Prior to the USACE commencing the expedited review, the applicant shall provide funds to the DISTRICT in the full amount of the USACE cost estimate. The DISTRICT shall then pass through the applicant funds to the USACE. If at any time the USACE determines that additional funds are needed, the USACE will notify the DISTRICT in writing and the DISTRICT will notify the applicant. The applicant shall pay the full amount of such additional funds to the DISTRICT for pass through to the USACE. Permit Filing Fees are non-refundable. Initial Permanent Installation Review Fee covers the first submittal only and inspection fees are per trip. The number of inspection trips required is determined by the DISTRICT on a case-by-case basis.

Resolution FCD 2018R013

Page 6 of 6

Appendix H4 MCDOT ROW Use Permit Application

Dibble November 2020

H-4

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

(Revision 03-2019)

MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PERMIT APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION IN COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY MCDOT TC NO.:

Submitted By:

Supervisor Dist.: Reviewed By: Issue Date: Expiration Date:

The undersigned herewith makes application for a permit to enter upon and use a portion of the right-of-way of the Public Project Title: Major Crossroads / Address: in the

, Of Section

, Township

, Range

for the purpose of: Applicant Signature:

Applicant Name (PRINT):

Phone:

Address:

City, State, Zip Code:

Contractor:

Phone:

Contact Person:

Fax:

Contact Email: Owner:

Please answer the following related to this project:

Enter Total Sheets for Review by MCDOT:

[ ] Is this a MCDOT project? If so, please provide name and/or number. ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Is there an IGA for this project? If so, please provide a copy. If applicable, please provide the utility company job number: ____________________________________

ENTER PERMIT ITEMS:

Unit Cost

Unit Quant.

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00

SEWER -->

$ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

PVMT

$ 0.00

-->

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

[ ] Is this a cell or wireless project? [ ] Is this project subject to a license or franchise agreement? [ ] Is this related to a subdivision? If so, please provide subdivision name: ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Professional Registrant Seal for Cost Estimate (if applicable)

Amount $ 0.00

WATER -->

MISC.

$ 0.00

-->

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

OTHER -->

$ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 -------------- Below section for use by MCDOT permitting staff only -------------

SUBTOTAL PERMIT ITEMS (above)

$ 0.00

PLAN REVIEW FEE @ $100/sht

$ 0.00

PROCESSING FEE

$ 50.00

PERMIT FEE (3% of Permit Items)

$ 0.00

TOTAL FEE (Permit Fee + Review + Processing) INSURANCE (Expiration Date): BOND REQUIRED,

$ 0.00

Comments:

*Attach additional sheet if necessary for more permit items. *For questions regarding this permit application contact a MCDOT right-of-way permit coordinator at (602) 506-7848, (602) 506-8791 or (602) 506-6216.

$ 50.00

Appendix H5 MCESD Approval to Construct Application

Dibble November 2020

H-5

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Maricopa County

Approval To Construct (ATC)

Environmental Services Mailing and Delivery Address: Maricopa County Environmental Services Department Subdivision Infrastructure and Planning Program 501 N. 44th St., Suite 200 Phoenix, AZ 85008

COVER / TRANSMITTAL PAGE This packet is for submitting Approval TO Construct applications for these projects: - Water Line Extension - Water Booster Station - Reuse Lines



- Sewer Line Extension - Sewer Lift Station - Master Plans

- Storage Tank - Well - Geological Reports

- Pressure Tank - Chlorination - Waiver Request

Use this Cover/Transmittal Page f or all projects EXCEPT Geological Reports. For Geological Reports, use the Geological Report Cover Page (next page).

Detailed instructions for completing this packet are included. Our experience shows that most questions are already answered by the attached instructions or the form itself. Each transmittal page has a check list of ALL the required information for a complete submittal. Incomplete submittals will be returned to you. Also included is a fee list so that you can calculate the fees.

Project Name: (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Contact Person: E-mail address of contact person Company Name: Phone number: Address: City:

Title

Ext:

Fax Number: State:

Zip Code:

Application Check List for Approval to Construct Cover/Transmittal Page for MCESD Projects – this page (or next for Geological) ATC Fee’s – list attached Approval to Construct application pages 1 of 3, 2 of 3 and 3 of 3 (attached) Full size set of plans with every page sealed and signed by engineer. (1 set only) Water Design Report-water projects only (must be sealed & signed by a registered engineer) Sewer Design Report-sewer projects only (must be sealed & signed by a registered engineer) Sewer Capacity Letter (must be issued by the sewer utility provider, NOT the engineer) 

If you are submitting for a sewer line project, it will not be accepted without a sewer capacity letter. Date and signature cannot be more than one year old.



Sewer Capacity Letter - a statement, signed by the owner or operator of the sewage treatment facility and/or down stream collection system, affirming compliance in accordance with R18-9-E301.C. Operation and Maintenance Plan – there must be verification of an O&M Plan. Submittal of the O&M Plan will be upon request.



Any questions contact Cindy Furze at 602-506-1058 or CFurze@Maricopa.gov *** The Department reserves the right to request any other information *** Visit our web page at www.maricopa.gov/EnvSvc/WaterWaste/Subdivisions/Subdivisions.aspx Revised October 2018 - Fillable

Approval To Construct (ATC)

Maricopa County Environmental Services Mailing and Delivery Address: Maricopa County Environmental Services Department Subdivision Infrastructure and Planning Program 501 N. 44th St., Suite 200 Phoenix, AZ 85008

COVER PAGE / TRANSMITTAL PAGE FOR GEOLOGICAL REPORT USE THIS PAGE ONLY IF APPLYING FOR A CERTIFICATE OF GEOLOGICAL REPORT FOR ONSITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL FOR SEPTIC SUBDIVISIONS



Project Name: Contact Person: E-mail address of contact person Company Name: Phone number:

Title

Ext:

Fax Number:

Address: City:

State:

Zip Code:

Application Check List for On-Site Sewage Disposal/Septic Subdivision submittal Check the box Soils on application This cover page must be submitted with the Approval To Construct application. The plan must include the following Soils Test Plan • location on the plat where the soils testing will be performed (percolation tests and soil borings) • the method of testing • person/firm performing tests • depth to seasonal high groundwater level • site specific geology and topography • list of information that will be included in the final soils testing report (field notes, soils boring logs, etc.) Percolation test methodology Must be specified and comply with the Arizona Administration Code R18-9-A310.E or F, depending on the proposed method of effluent disposal. (No mere reference to AAC Code) All Soil Borings must be a minimum of 50 feet Unless disposal pits deeper then 50 feet are proposed. in depth This will allow coordination for a site visit during the field activities. Statement on the plans: “At least five (5) working days notice will be provided to the reviewing Senior Civil Engineer for MCESD”. Approval To Construct Application Cover Page

Maricopa County

Environmental Services Department Water and Waste Management Division

501 N 44th St., Suite 200 Phoenix, Arizona 85008 Phone: (602) 506-1058 www.maricopa.gov/envsvc

PERMIT APPLICATION PROCESS NOTICE Subdivision Infrastructure and Planning Program 1) Steps required to obtain an Approval to Construct/Approval of Construction for Water Systems, Sewer Systems and Reuse Water Lines are as follows: i) Submission of the complete application for Approval To Construct along with all relative items in the application check list on the Cover/Transmittal Page of the application. When the review is complete, an Approval To Construct certificate will be issued to allow construction of the system to commence. ii) Construction of the project. iii) Submission of the complete application for Approval of Construction along with all relative items in the application checklist on the Cover Page of the application. When the review and approval of the submitted documentation is complete, an Approval Of Construction certificate is issued. The system can then be put into service. 2) The Department will approve or deny the application in the number of business days listed below or less, excluding any days the application is returned to the applicant for additional information. This overall licensing timeframe is set by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) as required by A.R.S. §11-1605 and is part of the Delegation agreement between ADEQ and Maricopa county. Permit Wastewater System 300 Services or less (Gravity/Force Main) More than 300 Services (Gravity) Sewer Lift Station Wastewater Master Plan or Amendment Wastewater Line Waiver Drinking Water System Standard - Public Water Supply Distribution Line Complex Chlorination Plan Booster Pump Station Storage Tank / Pressure Tank Drinking Water Master Plan or Amendment Drinking Water Line Waiver Reclaimed Water System Standard Complex

Overall Timeframe (Business Days) 95 136 95 83 53 53 83 53 53 53 53 53 95 NA

3) Department contact information regarding your application i) Telephone: 602-506-1058 ii) E-mail: subdivision@mail.maricopa.gov iii) Website: www.maricopa.gov/EnvSvc/WaterWaste You may request a clarification from the Department of its interpretation or application of a statute, ordinance, regulation, delegation agreement or authorized substantive policy statement as provided in A.R.S. §11-1609. Contact us by e-mail or telephone, or in person or mail at the address listed at the top of the page, marked attention Subdivision Infrastructure & Planning Program.

Revised October 2018 - Fillable

Maricopa County

Environmental Services Department Water and Waste Management Division

501 N 44th St., Suite 200 Phoenix, Arizona 85008 Phone: (602) 506-1058 www.maricopa.gov/envsvc

PERMIT APPLICATION PROCESS NOTICE Subdivision Infrastructure and Planning Program 1) Steps required to obtain an Approval of Soils / Hydrology Report are as follows: i. Submission of the complete application for Approval of Soils / Hydrology Report along with all relative items in the application check list on the Cover/Transmittal Page of the application. When the review is complete, an Approval of Soils / Hydrology Report certificate will be issued to allow construction of the system to commence. ii. Construction of the project. 2) The Department will approve or deny the application in the number of business days listed below or less, excluding any days the application is returned to the applicant for additional information. This overall licensing timeframe is set by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) as required by A.R.S. §11-1605 and is part of the Delegation agreement between ADEQ and Maricopa county. Permit Soils / Hydrology Report Standard

Overall Timeframe (Business Days) 67

3) Department contact information regarding your application i. Telephone: 602-506-1058 ii. E-mail: subdivision@mail.maricopa.gov iii. Website: www.maricopa.gov/EnvSvc/WaterWaste You may request a clarification from the Department of its interpretation or application of a statute, ordinance, regulation, delegation agreement or authorized substantive policy statement as provided in A.R.S. §11-1609. Contact us by e-mail or telephone, or in person or mail at the address listed at the top of the page, marked attention Subdivision Infrastructure & Planning Program.

Revised October 2018 - Fillable

Maricopa County Environmental Services

Approval To Construct Fee List

Fees for Approval To Construct (ATC) and Soils Reports Make Checks Payable to MCESD A $35.00 fee for all returned checks

Double The Fee For Expedited Review



ATC FEES Public water supply system $600. 150 or less connections $1200. 151 to 300 connections $1800. 301 to 450 connections $2400. 451 to 600 connections $3000. 601 to 750 connections $3600. 751 to 900 connections (Every 150 connections add $600.)

$675. $675. $675. $675.

Storage Tank (each) Well (each) Pressure Tank (each) Booster Station

$600. $250. $150.

Sewer collection system Gravity Sewer only, including manholes $500. Serving 50 connections or less $1000. Serving 51 to 300 connections $1500. Serving 301 or more connections Force Mains + Gravity Sewer $800. Serving 50 connections or less $1300. Serving 51 to 300 connections $1800. Serving 301 or more connections Other Components $500. Master Plans - Per Component Sewer Lift Station (Water/Sewer) Reuse lines Chlorination $150. Waiver (each)  Any Fee Questions Contact MCESD

** “An approval of plans and specifications can be renewed for one year if an application for renewal is submitted within 180 days of expiration. A fee equal to one-half (1/2) of the flat fee or initial plan review fee is paid. The approval will be effective for one year from the date of expiration”. MCESD Ch. 1, Reg. 4f. (Check with MCESD if questions.)

Geologi cal ( Soils) Report Fees $5 2 5. 50 lo ts or l es s $1 0 50 . 51 t o 1 0 0 l ots $1 5 75 . 10 1 t o 1 50 lo ts $2 1 00 . 15 1 t o 2 00 lo ts ( Ev er y 5 0 l ots a d d $ 52 5.)

Fees

Regular Fees

Expedited Fees

Break down fees (fees for multiple components on the same project can be put on one (1) check) Type of component (.i.e.: water line, sewer line, etc)

Regular Fee per component

Expedited Fee per component

Total Fee per component

TOTAL FEE

*** The Department reser ves the right to request any ot her information *** Revised October 2018 - Fillable

Maricopa County Environmental Services

Approval To Construct Application Instructions

AP P L I C ANT – Y o u o n l y n ee d t o c o mp l et e t h o s e p o rt io n s o f t h e f o r m t h at a p p l y t o yo ur pro je ct . If s ubm it t i n g a w at er l in e, yo u d o n o t n ee d t o p ro v i d e in f o r ma t io n o n t h e s ew er s yst em a nd v ic e v e rs a.  For Soils, Master Plans and Waiver Requests only – on page 1 of 3 fill out #1 only and page 3 of 3 - #4, 5, 6.

Page 1 of 3 1. Project Name – must be the same as on the engineered plans. This name will appear on the ATC certificate. Project Address – physical location of project. City, AZ and Zip Code – of actual location of project. Section, Township, Range – information can be located in the Phoenix Metropolitan Street Atlas or on the plans. Project Description – what type of review you are requesting from our department. •

You will receive an individual certificate for each component. (Example: water line extension, lift station, well site and/or any other component) 2. System information required: Water / Well information – Provide rest of numbers for PWS for the Public Water System and/or the DWR for the well as the

case may be.

Sewage Information – Sewage Collection System Owner – name of sewage collection system owner, providing sewer

service to the project.

Sewage Treatment Facility Owner –

collection system owner.

name of owner of treatment facility, may be different from the

3. Quantity: Number of water and sewer connections – number of service connections on the project that we are to review. Water and Sewer Linear Feet and Size – these totals are included on the certificate our Department issues. Reuse Linear Feet and Size – these totals are included on the certificate our Department issues.

Page 2 of 3 – ONLY NECESSARY IF SUBMITTAL IS FOR WATERLINE OR WATER COMPONENT Public Water Supply number (PWS) Signature Form – if this form is not signed, your project will be denied. This agreement

MUST be signed by the Public Water System Representative NOT the Engineer or Project owner.

PWS # - public water system number from the water supply provider. Project Name – the name of the project Project Address – physical location of project. City, Zip Code – location of project Public Water Supply Provider – name of public water supply system that will be providing water service to the project.

Page 3 of 3 4. Name of Registered Engineer – registered engineer who is the contact person for project. (Please Print Clearly) Phone Number, Ext and Fax – phone number, extension, and fax number of registered engineer working on the project. E-mail Address – e-mail address for the registered engineer working on the project. Name of Engineering Firm as Registered with the AZ Board of Technical Registration - a registered engineering

firm that employees the project engineer.

Mailing Address, City, State and Zip Code - mailing address of registered engineering firm. 5. Project Owner/Responsible Party - MUST be a person with fiduciary responsibilities associated with the Project or Company. Job Title - examples: Project Owner, President or Vice President of Corporation/Home Owners Association, Manager. E-mail address – e-mail address for the project owner/responsible party. Company Name - the name of Company who owns the Project. Mailing Address, City, State, Zip Code - location of Project Owner, will be put on certificate. Phone Number, Ext and Fax - project owner phone, extension and fax number. 6. Authorization–Only the named Project Owner/Responsible Party can sign for the Project Owner/Responsible Party unless there is a letter of authorization. Revised October 2018 - Fillable

Environmental Services Department 501 N. 44th St., Suite 200 Phoenix, AZ 85008

Division of Water and Waste Management Subdivision Infrastructure & Planning Phone (602) 506-1058

Application for Approval to Construct (ATC) and/or Provisional Verification of General Permit Conformance ** for Water/Wastewater Facilities Page 1 of 3

Off-Site  Use separate applications for On-Site and Off-Site if submitting both.

On-Site Waterline Well Reissue

Gravity Sewer Force Main Master Plan

Storage Tank Booster Station Soils

Pressure Tank Chlorination Other:

Reuse Lift Station

"On-site, Off-site, Master Plan, and Soils projects each require separate applications if submitted together."

1. Project Name: (Physical location of Project)

Project Address City

, AZ

Section

Township

Zip Code Range

Project Description:

System information required

Water / Well Info Wells Only: DWR# 55-

Public Water Supply Provider (PWS) 0407

Sewage Info Sewage Collection System Name Sewage Treatment Facility Name (if different) 3. Quantity: Number of water connections Water Line

Number of sewer connections

Sewer Line

L.F. L.F. L.F. L.F. L.F. L.F. L.F. L.F.

Size Size Size Size Size Size Size Size

Total Water L.F.

in. in. in. in. in. in. in. in.

L.F. L.F. L.F. L.F. L.F. L.F. L.F. L.F.

Reuse Line Size Size Size Size Size Size Size Size

Total Sewer L.F.

in. in. in. in. in. in. in. in.

L.F. L.F. L.F. L.F. L.F. L.F. L.F. L.F.

Size Size Size Size Size Size Size Size

in. in. in. in. in. in. in. in.

Total Reuse L.F.

** This application constitutes the Notice of Intent to Discharge referenced by R18-9-A301.B. "NO APPLICATION WILL BE ACCEPTED UNLESS FULLY COMPLETED " Revised October 2018 - Fillable

Environmental Services Department 501 N. 44th St., Suite 200 Phoenix, AZ 85008

Division of Water and Waste Management Subdivision Infrastructure & Planning (602) 506-1058

Application for Approval to Construct (ATC) and/or Provisional Verification of General Permit Conformance ** For Water/Wastewater Facilities

Public Water Supply Number (PWS) Signature Form Page 2 of 3

PWS number 0407

(Public Water Supply number)

WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT - An unconditional agreement which is effective this date has been made between the owners of: Project Name (Physical location of Project)

Project Address City

, AZ

Zip Code

, ,

and the (Public Water Supply Provider “PWS”)

The undersigned hereby agrees to provide water to the above project with the Public Water Supply (PWS) number and they agree that the PWS is in compliance and on file with Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD). Date



Print Name clearly Job Title Address City Signature

Signature must not be over one (1) year old.

 This agreement MUST be signed by the Public Water System Representative NOT the Engineer or Project owner.  Failure to provide a Public Water Supply (PWS) number that is in compliance will result in immediate rejection of your project.

*** The Department reserves the right to request any other information ***

Revised October 2018 - Fillable

Environmental Services Department 501 N. 44 St., Suite 200 Phoenix, AZ 85008

Division of Water and Waste Management Subdivision Infrastructure & Planning Phone (602) 506-1058

Application for Approval to Construct and/or ** Provisional Verification of General Permit Conformance ** For Water/Wastewater Facilities

Page 3 of 3 4. Name of Registered Engineer Working on Project:

Must be Registered with the Arizona Board of Technical Registration. Phone Number

Number:

Ext

Fax

E-mail address Name of Engineer's Firm as Registered With The AZ Board of Technical Registration: Mailing Address City

State

Zip Code

(Please print legibly) (The information provided will be used on the ATC Certificate)

5. PROJECT OWNER NAME:

Can be Individual or Company

Responsible Party

Job Title

Must be a Person with fiduciary responsibilities associated directly with the project ownership

Mailing Address City

State

Phone Number

Ext

Zip Code Fax Number

E-mail address

Authorization

The Project Owner/Responsible Party hereby authorizes the review of project plans as described for approval to construct and/or provisional verification of conformance under General Aquifer Protection Permit 4.01.

_______________________________/___________________________ Signature of Project Owner/Responsible Party

Please print name

__________________ Date (not more than 1 year old)

Please complete and attach Letter of Authorization if Project Owner is not signing above.

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1009, the Department may enter your establishment to conduct inspections. You have the right to receive a copy of the Department’s inspection report at the time of the inspection, within thirty (30) days after the inspection, or as otherwise provided by federal law.

By initialing below, I agree that the Department may send me a copy of its inspection report by e-mail to the following email address: ______________________________________________________________or by facsimile transmission to the following fax number: ________________________________ (Fax Number). ___________ (Initials). ** It is the responsibility of the permit holder to update the Department if there is a change in contact information. ** "N O AP P L I C AT IO N W ILL B E AC C E PT ED U NL E S S F ULLY CO M P LET E D"

Department use only Waterline Well Reissue Reuse Lift Station Check number (s) Revised October 2018 - Fillable

Gravity Sewer Force Main Master Plan Pressure Tank Chlorination

Storage Tank Booster Station Other:

Amount Paid

Maricopa County Environmental Services Subdivision Infrastructure & Planning Program

LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION Complete this form ONLY if the Project Owner/Responsible Party is not signing the application This form is effective for one (1) year from date of signature. P lease P rint Clearly Date: I hereby authorize

, of firm to file (Engineering Firm / Organization)

and sign this application and act on my behalf for project(s) name(s) listed: Project Owner / Responsible Party Name / Title: NAME

/ /

TITLE

Signature of Project Owner /

Responsible Party of Fiduciary Responsibility *** MANDATORY ***

NOTES: - Project Owner’s / Responsible Party’s information must be on application for use on the certificate. - Engineer cannot sign this form as Project Owner / Responsible Party Department Use Only MCESD number (s):

*** The Department reserves the right to request any other information *** Visit our web page at www.maricopa.gov/EnvSvc/WaterWaste/Subdivisions/Subdivisions.aspx

Revised October 2018 - Fillable

Appendix H6 RWCD Crossing Permit Application

Dibble November 2020

H-6

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Permit Request Form Date: ___________________ Project Name: ___________________________________________ Job Number: ___________________________________________ Primary Contact: Company: ___________________________________________ Name: ___________________________________________ Phone # ___________________________________________ Email: ___________________________________________ Jobsite Contact: Company: ___________________________________________ Name: ___________________________________________ Phone # ___________________________________________ Email: ___________________________________________ Project Location: Job Address: ___________________________________________ Project Location: ___________________________________________ Section/Township/Range: ___________________________________________

Appendix H7 SRP Easement Encroachment Request

Dibble November 2020

H-7

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Appendix H8 Town of Gilbert Engineering Construction Permit Application

Dibble November 2020

H-8

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Engineering Construction Permit Application THIS INFORMATION TO BE FILLED IN BY TOG STAFF ONLY PERMIT TYPE___________________________________ QUALITY CONTROL DONE BY______________________

Development Services Department 90 E. Civic Center Dr. Gilbert, AZ 85296 (480) 503-6700-Phone (480) 497-4923-Fax www.gilbertaz.gov

INSPECTOR ____________________________________ APPROVED BY _________________________________ PERMIT FEES $_________________________________

Permit Number ENG - ___________________________________ Project Name/Subdivision__________________________________________________________________________________ Project Address ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Owner __________________________________________________________________________________________________ NAME

PHONE

Address _________________________________________________________________________________________________ City

State

Zip

Contractor Performing Work ______________________________________________________________________________ NAME

PHONE

Address ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ City

State

Zip

Place check mark(s) for Type of Project(s): **Grading Permits Require a County Dust Control Permit and a storm water permit from ADEQ may also be required** At Risk Grading Concrete Water/Fire Sewer Grading** Paving Landscaping Drainage Utilities Streetlights Project Project #__________________ Other/Description of Work: ______________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Applicant MUST be contractor actually performing work. General contractors MAY NOT apply for sub-contractors. 2. Permit will not be issued until a signed application and fees have been collected. A STATE CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE _______________________IS REQUIRED & AZ State Privilege Rax IT (TPT) # ________________________desired. 3. APPLICANTS must have a certificate of insurance for a minimum of $1,000,000.00 General liability with the Town of Gilbert as ADDITIONAL INSURED. Contractor must turn in a copy of C of I with each application (completed at time of submittal). 4. If WORKING ON OR NEAR A ROADWAY Complete a Traffic Engineering Application. 5. If applying for a HAUL ROUTE Permit, complete a Traffic Engineering Application. 6. SUBMITTALS THAT DO NOT MEET THE ABOVE-MENTIONED CRITERIA MAY EXPERIENCE DELAYS IN APPROVAL. *****I REQUEST THAT GILBERT PERFORM ALL NECESSARY INSPECTIONS RELATED TO GRANTING THIS PERMIT*****

Print Name______________________________ Signature________________________________________ Date____________ I CERTIFY THAT I HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SIGN THIS APPLICATION AND THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS CORRECT Contact Person__________________________ Phone Number________________ Email________________________________ Customer rights on back Engineering Permit 10/2015

Arizona Revised Statues, Chapter 7, Article 4 9-834. Prohibited acts by municipalities and employees; enforcement; notice A. A municipality shall not base a licensing decision in whole or in part on a licensing requirement or condition that is not specifically authorized by statute, rule, ordinance or code. A general grant of authority does not constitute a basis for imposing a licensing requirement or condition unless the authority specifically authorizes the requirement or condition. B. Unless specifically authorized, a municipality shall avoid duplication of other laws that do not enhance regulatory clarity and shall avoid dual permitting to the maximum extent practicable. C. This section does not prohibit municipal flexibility to issue licenses or adopt ordinances or codes. D. A municipality shall not request or initiate discussions with a person about waiving that person's rights. E. This section may be enforced in a private civil action and relief may be awarded against a municipality. The court may award reasonable attorney fees, damages and all fees associated with the license application to a party that prevails in an action against a municipality for a violation of this section. F. A municipal employee may not intentionally or knowingly violate this section. A violation of this section is cause for disciplinary action or dismissal pursuant to the municipality's adopted personnel policy. G. This section does not abrogate the immunity provided by section 12-820.01 or 12-820.02.

ENGINEERING FEES

Fees Effective August 11, 2008 as approved by Council on June 10, 2008 by Resolution 2893 Final Plat (moved from planning section) $1220 + $24.35 per lot Final Plat Amendment (moved from planning $245 + $24.35 per lot section) Sewer Buy-In Fees Calculated per project basis Water Buy-In Fees

Calculated per project basis

Median Buy-In Fee

Calculated per project basis

Recording Fee

$44 per page for plat filed for record $4.50 per page for additional copy $93 per hour – Two Hour Minimum

Engineering Hourly Inspection Fees For inspections outside regular business hours Review Fee First Review Second Review & Third Review

No charge

Fourth Review

$150 per page through 20 pages plus $75 per page for 21 or more pages

Plan Changes

One-half of the review fees as stated above for first review

Drainage Report Review 40 acres or less 41 acres to 160 acres Over 161 acres Permit Application Fee • Requests for water service outside Town limits or • •

$295 per page through 20 pages plus $150 per page for 21 or more pages

$415 $530 $645 $88 per permit

not within a subdivided area must be made in writing and approved by the Town. Fees calculated from Certificate of Quantities shall be submitted with the final review of the Improvement Plan. All plats will be recorded by the Town of Gilbert (all recording fees will be paid by the Developer).

Engineering Traffic Control Permit Fee

$150 per permit

Encroachment Permit

$200

Resolution #3086 Approved 6/23/2011 effective 7/25/2011

Resolution #3204 Approved 10/3/2013 effective 11/2/2013

Revised 6/20/2019

Appendix H9 USACE Nationwide 12 404 Permit Application

Dibble November 2020

H-9

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Appendix I Stakeholder Outreach Log and Meeting Notes

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Stakeholder Outreach Log Mesa Reclaimed Alignment Study Dibble Project 1018123.01 Date 9/3/2019

Agency ADOT

Contact Name Deborah Planalp

Contact Title Permit Supervisor, Central Region

Phone 602-882-8018

E-Mail N/A

Communication Type Phone

Outreach by Arno Leskinen

9/3/2019

Carm Soto

RCC Lead

602-236-0777

CCSRequests@srpnet.com

Phone

Arno Leskinen

9/3/2019 9/4/2019

SRP Electric Construction Contact Center SRP Water FCDMC

Call Center Mike Jones

N/A Civil Engineer

602-236-3333 602-506-4718

N/A m.jones@maricopa.gov

Phone Phone

Arno Leskinen Arno Leskinen

9/4/2019

SRP Water

Christian Andrews

Engineer/Project Administrator

602-236-3046 (O); 602-315- Christian.Andrews@srpnet.com 9807 (M)

Phone and e-mail

Arno Leskinen

9/5/2019

MCDOT

Steve Stanczyk

ROW Coordinator

602-506-4892

steve.stanczyk@maricopa.gov

Phone

Arno Leskinen

9/5/2019

SRP Power

Keith Hixon

602-236-4773

keith.hixon@srpnet.com

Phone response to Ticket Arno Leskinen #739206

Town of Gilbert

David Fabiano

480-503-6844

david.fabiano@gilbertaz.gov

Phone

Arno Leskinen

9/25/2019

Falcon Field Airport

Dibble Airport Team

Meeting

Paul Buss

10/11/2019

MCDOT

Steve Stanczyk

Phone

Kylie Dykstra

10/14/2019

SRP Power Transmission Line Design

Phone

Kylie Dykstra

Town Engineer

ROW Coordinator

602-506-4892

602-236-0841

steve.stanczyk@maricopa.gov

Notes Dibble's Transportation practice recommended contacting ADOT Permitting. ADOT Permits main number said to speak to Deborah Planalp. When the purpose and scope of the alignment study was explained to her she stated that ADOT does not provide guidance or recommendations on the location of proposed crossings of ADOT ROW or facilities. She said it is up to the Engineer to do their due diligence and propose a crossing. ADOT will only review and provide input once a formal permit application has been submitted along with construction documents at the 60% level. Responsible party for the area is Frank Martinez (602-489-9624). Service Ticket #739206 created once alignment study was explained.

A request was made for an SRP representative to contact Dibble to discuss this project. Mike Jones confirmed that he would be the first point of contact for stakeholder outreach on behalf of the FCDMC. He noted that the FCDMC has a levee just north of the Red Mountain Loop 202 from the 101 east to the McKellips alignment that should be avoided. He noted that the other major asset in the study area would be the East Maricopa Floodway. Christian Andrews called and said that he is the assigned SRP Irrigation contact for the alignment study and he and the land agent are available for a sit down meeting when we are at a point where we are ready to discuss Steve said that dealing with MCDOT would be a two step process. He would review our routes to confirm whether or not any MCDOT property or ROW is affected. He suggested using the "Road Information Tool" on MCDOT's website during our study which shows what streets/roads are the responsibility of MCDOT. He said we should also coordinate with their Utility Coordinator, Kelly Roy (602-506-8603) since this is a "utility project".

Keith Hixon from SRP said that the best way to do coordination and review with them is to get access to the Sharepoint Portal. He says that he has worked with Dibble before and he is certain that some Dibble staff have access. From there, a Conflict Review Request can be submitted. This will need to include some type of exhibit showing the route(s). By following this method the information will automatically be distributed to Power Distribution, Transmission, Commercial, and Water for review. Land agents will also be assigned that way. Keith says that he usually works on the developer end and since this is a municipal project he would be of limited help personally. Called David Fabiano to see if he could direct me to the correct person to coordinate with at the Town of Gilbert. I told him that I had thus far been unsuccessful with the Planning Department as well as Permits. He agreed that those were not the right contacts but he was not sure who the right person is. He thinks that there will need to be multiple contacts in different departments. He said to send him an e-mail and he will work on identifying the right contacts. Dibble Airport Team has worked extensively with Falcon Field Airport and was consulted in regards to utility construction within Falcon Field District. Falcon Field Pre Approval Letter will be required. FAA OE/AAA Form 7460 will be required. Typical review time for FAA OE/AAA Form 7460 is 30-45 days. Main concerns associated with Falcon Field District are construction equipment height and impact to airspace. Steve provided As-Built's for roads in the project area within MCDOT ROW. We need to talk to Utility Coordinator, Kelly Roy (602-506-8603) regarding feasibility and permitting for a pipeline in any of those roadways. For distribution lines, minimum horizontal distance to edge of trench is 5'; For transmission lines, minimum horizontal distance to edge of trench is 15'; If these distances are not met, the pole will have to be braced.

1 of 3

10/28/2019

RWCD

Brad Strader, Tabatha Langland

District Engineer/ Water 480-988-9586 Operations Manager, Water Operations and Engineering Supervisor

b.strader@rwcd.net t.langland@rwcd.net

Meeting

Jake Nelson

RWCD is open to further exploring pipeline construction in their ROW and discharging into their canal. Pipeline should be installed as close to edge of RWCD 100-foot ROW as possible. Concrete canal lining has cracked over time and adjacent soil can become saturated with water. RWCD has several well sites adjacent to the canal. Resident encrochament into RWCD ROW has occurred between University Drive and Main Street. RWCD expressed concern about introducing reclaimed water into the canal and the potential development of algae blooms that may harm their fish population, which they use for algae and sediment control in the canal. ADWR requires canal flow not exceed a 50/50 ratio of reclaimed water to surface water. RWCD would require a steady discharge of reclaimed water into the canal. RWCD peak flows occur between April and July. Most of the water supplied to the RWCD Canal comes from the CAP pipeline at McDowell Road. The Town of Queen Creek and SRP discharge into the RWCD Canal at Queen Creek Road and Warner Road. RWCD is obligated to provide the GRIC with 4,500 acre-feet of water via the canal each year. RWCD canal has cross section reductions at Pecos Road and then again at Chandler Heights Road. RWCD Canal dry-up typically occurs between December and January.

12/10/2019

FCDMC

Mike Jones, Don Ravick

Civil Engineer

602-506-4718 602-506-1878

m.jones@maricopa.gov

Meeting

Jake Nelson

12/12/2019

Kinder Morgan

Jeff Ferguson

480-272-1312

jeffrey_ferguson@kindermorgan.com

Phone and e-mail

Arno Leskinen

12/12/2019

US Army Corps of Kevin Grove Engineers

Phone

Mike Olson

12/12/2019

National Resource Conservation Service

Map order for NRCS easements in Maricopa County

Mike Olson

There is existing 18-21 inch sewer in EMF parallel on west side near SEWRP; If pipeline built in channel bottom, scour analysis required; Restrained joints required; Channel bottom may require 404; East bank likely would not; FCDMC has easement through golf courses; CLSM backfill required in EMF - to springline in bank and to pipe zone in channel; Work in channel should be in May and October (least likelihood for flow); Emergency Action Plan required for work in EMF; NRCS approval likely to be required; Coordinate with FCDMC Civil Engineering Branch Manager Patrick Schafer regarding this project Possible 6-inch abandoned line in area from the "Liquids Division", but the El Paso Pipeline division may have something. Exhibit sent for review. Maricopa County Floodways are currently not delineated under the Clean Water Act; Currently only the interfaces with the rivers are counted in the Clean Water Act and would require 404 permitting; If the Army Corps built any of the structures that would be crossed by the pipeline, a 408 permit would be needed for dealing with those structures; Kevin did not believe that the ACoE constructed any structures in the area Order was returned complete with no results; No NRCS easements are located within the project area

12/16/2019

FCDMC

Sarelda Marshall

FCDMC ROW Specialist

Phone

Mike Olson

Use of FCDMC owned properties requires the same encroachment permit that going through their easements & ROW does; The only additional requirement is that an easement will need to be granted to the utility; The easement will require the submission of a map and legal description with the permit application

12/17/2019

RWCD

Tabatha Langland

Water Operations and Engineering Supervisor

Phone

Kylie Dykstra

1/21/2020

Leisure World Golf Course

Bob Kimble, Robin Harvey

Community Manager, Facilities Manager

Meeting

Jake Nelson

Typical cost associated with RWCD Crossing Permits is $1,000 plus a fully refundable $1,500 security deposit per permit. Typical cost for permitting associated with relocating an RWCD pipeline is $7,500. Jack-and-bore should be used whenever crossing an RWCD irrigation pipeline. Crossing an RWCD open ditch may be able to be done using open cut if a dry-up is requested and feasible. RWCD irrigation pipelines typically run east/west at every half-mile street along the RWCD Main Canal. If the pipeline is built parallel to the Canal, agreements regarding RWCD utility crossings at every half-mile would most likely be part of the overall agreement associated with building in RWCD ROW and would not require individual crossing permits for every crossing. 1/2-sack slurry backfill should be used if building next to the canal. Tabatha will look into if RWCD has any horizontal separation requirements for a reclaimed waterline from their wells, and if there would be any additional special encasement requirements for the reclaimed line near the wells. Before an easement would be considered, the community requests access to the City of Mesa Household Hazardous Waste Facility; Construction would need to take place during the summer to avoid golf season (December to April)

1/22/2020

Superstition Springs Golf Course

Mike Moffet, Mike Decrescenza

ARCIS Regional Superintendent, Golf Course Superintendent

Meeting

Jake Nelson

480-988-9586

t.langland@rwcd.net

Corporate ARCIS office located in Dallas; Construction would need to take place during the summer to avoid golf season (December to April); 6 feet of cover required above pipe; Current alignment may require relocation of golf course irrigation mainline (6-8-inch PVC) and sprinkler laterals

2 of 3

3/10/2020

MCDOT

Kelly Roy

Utility Coordinator

602-506-8603

kelly.roy@maricopa.gov

Phone

Kylie Dykstra

Confirmed that utility construction would be feasible in MCDOT ROW and referenced MCDOT standards for CLSM backfill and trench depth requirements; Referred to Simon Edwards in permitting for further assistance

3/10/2020

MCDOT

Simon Edwards

Permitting

602-506-8192

simon.edwards@maricopa.gov

Phone

Kylie Dykstra

3/16/2020

Town of Gilbert

Albert Pineda

Engineering Plan Review 480-503-6843 Administrator

albert.pineda@gilbertaz.gov

Phone

Kylie Dykstra

3/16/2020

SRP Land Department

Jennifer Angeles

602-236-3117

Jennifer.Angeles@srpnet.com

Phone

Kylie Dykstra

3/19/2020

Town of Gilbert

Tom Condit

480-503-6815

tom.condit@gilbertaz.gov

Kylie Dykstra

Confirmed that roadways located within the Leisure World community, including 56th street, do no require a MCDOT ROW Use Permit; If the pipeline were to be built in other locations within MCDOT ROW (University between Recker and Power and Recker Between Adobe and Main), plans will be submitted with ROW Use Application and MCDOT will redline locations in which they would prefer a jack-and-bore; MCDOT has a 2-year moratorium on new pavement but Simon did not believe that the locations within our study area would be affected by pavement cut restrictions Building within the Town of Gilbert will require submittal of an Engineering Construction Permit Application. Albert did not believe that any additional ROW use/encroachment permit would be required, but suggested that this be confirmed with Tom Condit (480-5036815, tom.condit@gilbertaz.gov) in the Development Engineering Group. Albert said that Gilbert has experience working with Mesa on large-diameter pipelines within Gilbert ROW in the past and does not foresee any major challenges. All crossings of SRP facilities (power, irrigation, canal) will require an easement encroachment request. Construction plans and a Conflict Review Request should be submitted using SRP's Sharepoint portal as previously indicated by Keith Hixon. Once land agents are assigned, they will aide in the easement encroachment request process. Tom referenced the IGA that Mesa and Gilbert have in place for Baseline Road, and stated that the IGA will be shared if an alignment in Baseline Road is selected. He referred the email to Albert Pineda for right-of-way use permitting. Albert confirmed that an Engineering Construction Permit will be required when building in the Town of Gilbert, and that once plans are approved the contractor will need to submit for an 'Approval to Work' on the Town of Gilbert's website.

Development Engineering Manager

3 of 3

J1: J2: J3: J4:

Appendix J Scenario 1 – ROW Alignments Ranking Matrix Categories Score Card Criteria Score Card Criteria Scoring Rubric City ROW Alignments Scores and Ranks

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Appendix J1 Categories Score Card

Dibble November 2020

J-1

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Mesa Reclaimed Waterline Alignment Investigation Analysis Study Mesa Project No.: P0896 Dibble Project No.: 1018123.01

Decision Matrix Category Weighting Score Card 11/26/2019

SCORE CARD Scale 9 7 5 3 1

Definition Extreme importance Very strong importance Strong or essential importance Moderate Importance of one factor over another Equal Importance

8,6,4,2

Intermediate values between those listed above

Category ROW 1 ROW 2 ROW 3 ROW 4 ROW 5 ROW 6

CAT1 CAT1 CAT1 CAT2 CAT2 CAT3

9 9 9 9 9 9

8 8 8 8 8 8

More or Less Important Than 7 6 5 4 7 6 5 4 7 6 5 4 7 6 5 4 7 6 5 4 7 6 5 4

CATEGORY Weighting Score Card Equal 3 2 1 2 3 3 2 1 2 3 3 2 1 2 3 3 2 1 2 3 3 2 1 2 3 3 2 1 2 3

Reference 1. "The Analytical Hierarchy Process - What it is and How it is Used", R.W. Saaty, 1987, Pergamon Journals Ltd

Category Legend CAT1 - Community Impact CAT2 - Constructibility CAT3 - Right-of-Way CAT4 - Cost

Less or More Important Than 4 5 6 7 4 5 6 7 4 5 6 7 4 5 6 7 4 5 6 7 4 5 6 7

Category 8 8 8 8 8 8

9 9 9 9 9 9

CAT2 CAT3 CAT4 CAT3 CAT4 CAT4

Appendix J2 Criteria Score Card

Dibble November 2020

J-2

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Mesa Reclaimed Waterline Alignment Investigation Analysis Study Mesa Project No.: CP0896 Dibble Project No.: 1018123.01

Decision Matrix Criteria Importance Score Card 12/18/2019

SCORE CARD Category & Criteria Legend

Name: C1 C2 C3

Scale

9 7 5 3 1

Definition Extreme importance Very strong importance Strong or essential importance Moderate Importance of one factor over another Equal Importance

8,6,4,2

Intermediate values between those listed above

C1 C1 C2

9 9 9

8 8 8

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

Constructability Criteria Importance Score Card Equal 3 2 1 2 3 3 2 1 2 3 3 2 1 2 3 3 2 1 2 3 3 2 1 2 3 3 2 1 2 3 3 2 1 2 3 3 2 1 2 3 3 2 1 2 3 3 2 1 2 3

Criteria ROW 1 ROW 2 ROW 3 ROW 4 ROW 5 ROW 6 ROW 7 ROW 8 ROW 9 ROW 10

C4 C4 C4 C4 C5 C5 C5 C6 C6 C7

9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

C9 C10 C11

Community Impact Criteria Importance Score Card Equal More Important Than Less Important Than 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Criteria ROW 1 ROW 2 ROW 3

C4 C5 C6 C7 C8

CAT1 - Community Impact Public Facility Impact Business Impact Traffic Impact CAT2 - Constructability Minor Utility Relocations Regulatory / Permit Screening Geotechnical Analysis Roadway Classification Existing Major Utility Crossing CAT3 - Right-of-Way ROW Width Easements / Property Acquisition Land Resource Analysis

More Important Than 7 6 5 4 7 6 5 4 7 6 5 4 7 6 5 4 7 6 5 4 7 6 5 4 7 6 5 4 7 6 5 4 7 6 5 4 7 6 5 4

Less Important Than 4 5 6 7 4 5 6 7 4 5 6 7 4 5 6 7 4 5 6 7 4 5 6 7 4 5 6 7 4 5 6 7 4 5 6 7 4 5 6 7

Criteria 8 8 8

9 9 9

C2 C3 C3

Criteria 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

C5 C6 C7 C8 C6 C7 C8 C7 C8 C8

Page 1 of 2

Mesa Reclaimed Waterline Alignment Investigation Analysis Study Mesa Project No.: CP0896 Dibble Project No.: 1018123.01 Criteria ROW 1 ROW 2 ROW 3

C9 C9 C10

9 9 9

8 8 8

More Important Than 7 6 5 4 7 6 5 4 7 6 5 4

Right-of-Way Criteria Importance Score Card Equal 3 2 1 2 3 3 2 1 2 3 3 2 1 2 3

Decision Matrix Criteria Importance Score Card 12/18/2019

Less Important Than 4 5 6 7 4 5 6 7 4 5 6 7

Criteria 8 8 8

9 9 9

C10 C11 C11

Reference 1. "The Analytical Hierarchy Process - What it is and How it is Used", R.W. Saaty, 1987, Pergamon Journals Ltd

Page 2 of 2

Appendix J3 Criteria Scoring Rubric

Dibble November 2020

J-3

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Mesa Alignment Study - City of Mesa Right-of-Way Decision Matrix Criteria Scoring Rubric 2/4/2020

Community Impact Criteria

Criteria Public Facility Impact 20-22 23-24 25-26 27-28 >28 Business Impact 70-114 115-158 159-202 203-246 >246

10.9%

Scoring Range Low High ---

---

5 4 3 2 1

---

5 4 3 2 1

---

<207,252

207,252 - 235,942

235,943 - 264,633

264,634 - 293,324

>293,324

Traffic impact

Weight

Potential Normalized Criteria Maximum Weighted Scoring Potential Normalized Total Maximum Range Score Contribution to Potential Normalized Category Contribution Low High

Notes

0.032

29.2%

3.2%

Number of public facilities (fire station, church, park, police station, hospital, school) impacted along a potential alignment. It is assumed that the construction will have an impact for approximately 1/2 mile each side perpendicular to the alignment. Refer to Public Facility Impact exhibit

0.027

24.5%

2.7%

Number of businesses potentially impacted along a potential alignment, directly adjacent to the roadway. Refer to Business Impact exhibit

0.051

46.3%

5.1%

Total traffic count per day along a potential alignment. Refer to Traffic Count exhibit

0.109

100.0%

10.9%

1 Maximum Possible Total Score:

Constructability

Parameter

26.8%

Scoring Range Low High

Minor Utility Relocations 0' - 10,269' 10,270' - 17,908' 17,909' - 25,547' 25,548' - 33,186' >33,186'

--5 4 3 2 1

Regulatory / Permit Screening

---

12 13 14-15 16-17 >17 Geotechnical Analysis Holocene Zone Pleistocene Zone Salt River Bed Zone Granite Zone Roadway Classification Major Arterial (6 lanes) Minor Arterial (4 or less lanes) Collector (1/2 mile between arterials) Other Existing Major Utilities (Crossings) <50 50-56 57-63 64-70 >70

5 4 3 2 1 --3 2 1 0 --4 3 2 1 --5 4 3 2 1

Weight

0.047

Potential Normalized Criteria Maximum Weighted Scoring Potential Normalized Total Maximum Range Score Contribution to Potential Normalized Category Contribution Low High

5 4 0.045 0 3 2 1 --3 0.052 0 2 1 0 --4 0.030 0 3 2 1 --5 4 0.094 0 3 2 1 Maximum Possible Total Score:

0.047

17.6%

Notes

4.7%

Linear feet of known minor utilities that will require relocation for the anticipated reclaimed water pipe line installation location

0.045

16.7%

4.5%

Quantity of additional permits required beyond City of Mesa and MCESD for a potential alignment. Level of effort / level of coordination / amount of time to obtain permits is assumed to be directly proportional to the number of additional permits required

0.052

19.5%

5.2%

Average existing geotechnical properties along a potential alignment. Refer to the geothechnical exhibit provided by Ninyo & Moore

0.030

11.2%

3.0%

Average roadway classification along a potential alignment.

Quantity of major utility crossings anticipated to occur along a potential alignment. Major utilities are defined as 24-inch and larger wet utilities (water, sewer, storm drain), 4-inch and larger gas, High voltage (69 kV or higher) overhead power lines

0.094

35.1%

9.4%

0.268

100.00%

26.8%

Right-of-Way

Parameter

10.8%

Scoring Range Low High

ROW Width >150' 100' - 150' 50' - 100' 0' - 50'

--4 3 2 1

Easements / Property Acquisitions

---

0ft2-9,999ft2 10,000ft2-19,999ft2 >19,999ft2 Land Resource Analysis Zoning Category Commercial Industrial Residential Airport Agricultural Parks Recreation Preserves Conservation Land

3 2 1 ----1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Weight

0.028

Potential Normalized Criteria Maximum Weighted Scoring Potential Normalized Total Maximum Range Score Contribution to Potential Normalized Category Contribution Low High

3 0.062 0 2 1 ----5 5 5 0 0.018 5 5 5 5 5 5 Maximum Possible Total Score:

Notes

0.028

26.0%

2.8%

Average ROW width along a potential alignment. There may be some corridors that score similar on the "Roadway Classification" criteria under "Constructibiliy". This criteria will aid to detect differences between similar roadways and give a higher score to those which are wider

0.062

57.4%

6.2%

The known area of easements and or property acquisitions that will need to be executed along a potential alignment

0.018

16.5%

1.8%

1=Impact; 5=No Impact Land resources would not be impacted if construction occurs within the exsting road right-of-ways. Conservation lands may include Historic Properties that have not yet been researched

0.108

100.0%

10.8%

Cost

Parameter Probable Construction Cost <$61.385M $61.385M - $64.234M $64.234M - $67.083M $67.083M - $69.932M >$69.932M

51.5%

Scoring Range Low High --5 4 3 2 1

Weight

Potential Normalized Criteria Maximum Weighted Scoring Potential Normalized Total Maximum Range Score Contribution to Potential Normalized Category Contribution Low High

--5 4 0.515 0 3 2 1 Maximum Possible Total Score:

0.515

100.0%

51.5%

0.515

100.00%

51.5%

Notes Engineer's estimated pipeline alignment construction cost ($Million) to install a functional 42-inch DIP pipeline within Mesa's right-of-way, considering as many known conflicts, special crossings, relocations, and other special conditions which can be approximated from a high level planning perspective

Appendix J4 Scenario 1 – City ROW Alignments Scores and Ranks

Dibble November 2020

J-4

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Project: Mesa NWWRP Reclaimed Waterline Alignment Study Dibble Project No.: 1018123.01 Title: Final Alignment Scores and Ranks

Date: 3/2/2020 By: JRU

FINAL ALIGNMENT CATEGORY SCORES, TOTAL SCORES, AND RANKING DECISION MAKING CATEGORIES AND WEIGHTS

RANK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 24 26 27

ALIGNMENT NO. Alignment 41 Alignment 42 Alignment 401 Alignment 46 Alignment 43 Alignment 402 Alignment 48 Alignment 47 Alignment 51 Alignment 71 Alignment 61 Alignment 81 Alignment 406 Alignment 403 Alignment 52 Alignment 72 Alignment 62 Alignment 44 Alignment 408 Alignment 407 Alignment 45 Alignment 405 Alignment 53 Alignment 82 Alignment 92 Alignment 73 Alignment 63

COMMUNITY IMPACT 10.9%

67.92 67.92 62.47 62.47 67.92 62.47 62.47 62.47 57.02 57.02 57.02 57.02 57.02 62.47 57.02 57.02 57.02 50.54 57.02 57.02 47.29 54.37 57.02 49.95 49.95 57.02 57.02

CONSTRUCTIBILITY 26.8% 152.45 144.71 145.69 144.02 137.15 137.95 136.84 136.29 140.58 140.04 140.03 140.03 137.27 130.39 132.84 132.30 132.30 138.31 130.08 129.53 138.14 131.37 125.29 132.30 132.30 124.74 124.74

RIGHT-OF-WAY 10.8% 51.69 51.73 51.18 51.51 51.91 51.22 51.73 51.55 52.20 51.69 51.69 51.43 50.99 51.39 52.24 51.73 51.73 52.02 51.21 51.03 52.10 51.58 52.42 51.47 51.47 51.91 51.91

COST 51.5% 437.16 437.16 437.16 437.16 437.16 437.16 437.16 437.16 437.16 437.16 437.16 437.16 437.16 437.16 437.16 437.16 437.16 437.16 437.16 437.16 437.16 437.16 437.16 437.16 437.16 437.16 437.16

ALIGNMENT TOTAL SCORE 709.22 701.52 696.51 695.17 694.14 688.81 688.20 687.48 686.96 685.91 685.90 685.65 682.44 681.42 679.27 678.21 678.21 678.04 675.47 674.75 674.69 674.48 671.89 670.88 670.88 670.83 670.83

Note: All criteria scores have been scaled by a factor of 10,000 compared to other matrix output sheets H:\2018\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\Notebook\Ranking Matrix\Route Ranking Matrix_Alignments.xlsx

1 of 14

Project: Mesa NWWRP Reclaimed Waterline Alignment Study Dibble Project No.: 1018123.01 Title: Final Alignment Scores and Ranks 28 Alignment 404 45.08 131.56 51.51 29 Alignment 49 45.08 129.92 51.85 30 Alignment 83 49.95 124.74 51.65 30 Alignment 93 49.95 124.74 51.65 32 Alignment 409 39.63 123.16 51.33 33 Alignment 74 32.56 125.90 52.03 34 Alignment 84 32.56 125.90 51.76 34 Alignment 94 32.56 125.90 51.76 36 Alignment 276 64.68 149.02 51.38 37 Alignment 277 57.61 149.35 51.42 38 Alignment 426 64.68 142.31 50.92 39 Alignment 278 57.61 141.75 51.58 40 Alignment 31 67.92 136.25 41.62 41 Alignment 283 52.16 141.17 51.81 42 Alignment 428 57.61 135.04 51.11 43 Alignment 91 57.02 134.38 52.20 44 Alignment 56 57.02 132.17 52.02 45 Alignment 11 59.23 130.75 50.94 46 Alignment 76 57.02 131.62 51.51 47 Alignment 66 57.02 131.61 51.50 48 Alignment 86 57.02 131.61 51.25 48 Alignment 96 57.02 131.61 51.25 50 Alignment 36 62.47 135.93 41.44 51 Alignment 2 70.13 117.38 51.74 52 Alignment 1 70.13 117.02 51.69 53 Alignment 33 67.92 129.05 41.84 54 Alignment 21 64.68 118.92 51.69 55 Alignment 280 40.81 142.56 51.72 56 Alignment 279 40.22 142.81 51.69 57 Alignment 58 57.02 124.99 52.25 58 Alignment 13 59.23 123.55 51.15 59 Alignment 32 67.92 124.24 41.66 60 Alignment 23 57.61 124.09 51.91 Note: All criteria scores have been scaled by a factor of 10,000 compared to other matrix output sheets H:\2018\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\Notebook\Ranking Matrix\Route Ranking Matrix_Alignments.xlsx

Date: 3/2/2020 By: JRU 437.16 437.16 437.16 437.16 437.16 437.16 437.16 437.16 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73

665.32 664.02 663.50 663.50 651.28 647.65 647.39 647.39 614.81 608.11 607.64 600.67 595.51 594.86 593.49 593.32 590.94 590.65 589.87 589.87 589.61 589.61 589.56 588.98 588.57 588.54 585.02 584.82 584.45 583.99 583.66 583.56 583.33

2 of 14

Project: Mesa NWWRP Reclaimed Waterline Alignment Study Dibble Project No.: 1018123.01 Title: Final Alignment Scores and Ranks 61 Alignment 57 57.02 124.44 52.07 62 Alignment 12 59.23 123.01 50.98 63 Alignment 78 57.02 124.44 51.73 64 Alignment 68 57.02 124.43 51.72 65 Alignment 6 64.68 116.69 51.51 66 Alignment 38 62.47 128.75 41.65 67 Alignment 285 38.60 141.96 51.96 68 Alignment 77 57.02 123.88 51.55 69 Alignment 67 57.02 123.88 51.55 70 Alignment 3 70.13 109.82 51.91 71 Alignment 50 41.84 137.84 51.92 72 Alignment 410 48.92 131.07 51.39 73 Alignment 430 44.05 135.84 51.24 74 Alignment 17 53.78 122.68 50.79 75 Alignment 16 53.78 122.31 50.75 76 Alignment 8 64.68 109.50 51.73 77 Alignment 88 49.95 124.43 51.46 77 Alignment 98 49.95 124.43 51.46 79 Alignment 7 64.68 108.95 51.55 80 Alignment 87 49.95 123.88 51.29 80 Alignment 97 49.95 123.88 51.29 82 Alignment 22 57.61 111.18 51.73 83 Alignment 15 44.05 124.52 51.33 84 Alignment 18 53.78 115.12 50.96 85 Alignment 28 52.16 115.67 51.73 86 Alignment 85 41.84 125.72 51.83 86 Alignment 95 41.84 125.72 51.83 88 Alignment 5 54.95 110.79 52.10 89 Alignment 4 52.75 110.98 52.03 90 Alignment 34 43.46 130.21 41.95 91 Alignment 90 36.39 125.43 51.65 91 Alignment 100 36.39 125.43 51.65 93 Alignment 59 39.63 118.07 52.36 Note: All criteria scores have been scaled by a factor of 10,000 compared to other matrix output sheets H:\2018\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\Notebook\Ranking Matrix\Route Ranking Matrix_Alignments.xlsx

Date: 3/2/2020 By: JRU 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73

583.25 582.95 582.91 582.91 582.61 582.60 582.25 582.18 582.18 581.59 581.33 581.11 580.86 576.97 576.57 575.64 575.57 575.57 574.92 574.85 574.85 570.25 569.63 569.58 569.28 569.13 569.13 567.57 565.48 565.36 563.20 563.20 559.80

3 of 14

Project: Mesa NWWRP Reclaimed Waterline Alignment Study Dibble Project No.: 1018123.01 Title: Final Alignment Scores and Ranks 94 Alignment 14 41.84 116.61 51.27 95 Alignment 69 39.63 117.51 51.84 96 Alignment 25 44.05 112.70 52.10 97 Alignment 55 41.84 113.92 52.61 98 Alignment 35 47.29 117.67 42.02 99 Alignment 20 38.60 116.10 51.14 100 Alignment 19 36.39 116.30 51.08 101 Alignment 60 36.39 113.63 52.44 102 Alignment 79 32.56 117.51 51.85 103 Alignment 75 36.39 113.36 52.10 104 Alignment 65 36.39 113.36 52.09 105 Alignment 9 47.29 102.58 51.85 106 Alignment 89 32.56 117.51 51.58 106 Alignment 99 32.56 117.51 51.58 108 Alignment 80 36.39 113.07 51.92 109 Alignment 70 36.39 113.06 51.91 110 Alignment 24 40.22 104.78 52.03 111 Alignment 282 55.40 148.77 51.65 112 Alignment 281 55.40 148.44 51.61 113 Alignment 431 62.47 141.74 51.15 114 Alignment 301 59.23 143.31 51.84 115 Alignment 427 57.61 142.65 50.96 116 Alignment 432 55.40 142.07 51.18 117 Alignment 171 61.44 135.53 50.70 118 Alignment 131 72.34 121.75 51.39 119 Alignment 307 49.95 143.07 52.11 120 Alignment 306 49.95 142.73 52.07 121 Alignment 356 49.95 142.23 51.61 122 Alignment 433 55.40 134.46 51.34 123 Alignment 351 46.71 142.81 51.38 124 Alignment 372 52.16 136.94 51.19 125 Alignment 303 52.16 136.05 52.05 126 Alignment 371 52.16 136.61 51.15 Note: All criteria scores have been scaled by a factor of 10,000 compared to other matrix output sheets H:\2018\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\Notebook\Ranking Matrix\Route Ranking Matrix_Alignments.xlsx

Date: 3/2/2020 By: JRU 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 349.73 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30

559.45 558.72 558.58 558.10 556.72 555.57 553.50 552.19 551.65 551.58 551.57 551.45 551.38 551.38 551.11 551.10 546.76 518.12 517.74 517.65 516.68 513.51 510.95 509.97 507.78 507.42 507.05 506.09 503.49 503.20 502.58 502.55 502.21

4 of 14

Project: Mesa NWWRP Reclaimed Waterline Alignment Study Dibble Project No.: 1018123.01 Title: Final Alignment Scores and Ranks 127 Alignment 132 65.27 122.08 51.42 128 Alignment 332 49.95 136.36 51.65 129 Alignment 331 49.95 136.03 51.61 130 Alignment 376 49.95 136.03 51.37 131 Alignment 357 42.88 142.57 51.65 132 Alignment 302 52.16 131.28 51.88 133 Alignment 326 46.71 136.61 51.38 134 Alignment 308 46.71 135.46 52.27 135 Alignment 353 46.71 135.55 51.58 136 Alignment 173 54.37 128.25 50.89 137 Alignment 172 54.37 127.76 50.74 138 Alignment 373 52.16 129.34 51.34 139 Alignment 284 38.01 142.23 51.92 140 Alignment 133 65.27 114.48 51.58 141 Alignment 178 52.16 127.67 51.12 142 Alignment 429 43.46 136.10 51.22 143 Alignment 377 42.88 136.36 51.41 144 Alignment 333 49.95 128.75 51.81 145 Alignment 352 46.71 130.78 51.42 146 Alignment 328 46.71 129.34 51.58 147 Alignment 358 39.63 134.96 51.81 148 Alignment 435 38.60 135.24 51.48 149 Alignment 434 38.01 135.52 51.45 150 Alignment 305 35.36 136.87 52.20 151 Alignment 304 34.77 137.11 52.15 152 Alignment 378 42.88 128.76 51.57 153 Alignment 327 46.71 124.57 51.42 154 Alignment 310 33.15 136.27 52.44 155 Alignment 309 32.56 136.53 52.38 156 Alignment 26 59.23 110.49 51.51 157 Alignment 360 33.15 135.76 51.96 158 Alignment 175 40.81 129.03 51.01 159 Alignment 375 38.60 130.15 51.48 Note: All criteria scores have been scaled by a factor of 10,000 compared to other matrix output sheets H:\2018\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\Notebook\Ranking Matrix\Route Ranking Matrix_Alignments.xlsx

Date: 3/2/2020 By: JRU 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30

501.07 500.25 499.88 499.65 499.39 497.62 496.99 496.74 496.13 495.80 495.16 495.13 494.45 493.62 493.24 493.08 492.95 492.81 491.21 489.92 488.70 487.61 487.28 486.73 486.33 485.50 485.00 484.16 483.77 483.53 483.16 483.15 482.53

5 of 14

Project: Mesa NWWRP Reclaimed Waterline Alignment Study Dibble Project No.: 1018123.01 Title: Final Alignment Scores and Ranks 160 Alignment 37 62.47 115.83 41.48 161 Alignment 135 51.71 115.27 51.73 162 Alignment 355 29.91 136.36 51.72 163 Alignment 354 29.32 136.61 51.69 164 Alignment 54 39.63 125.30 51.60 165 Alignment 64 39.63 124.77 51.11 166 Alignment 134 47.88 115.54 51.69 167 Alignment 180 35.36 128.43 51.25 168 Alignment 330 33.15 130.15 51.72 169 Alignment 335 33.15 129.55 51.96 170 Alignment 329 32.56 130.40 51.68 171 Alignment 27 52.16 110.86 51.55 172 Alignment 380 33.15 129.55 51.71 173 Alignment 334 32.56 129.82 51.91 174 Alignment 359 25.49 136.03 51.92 175 Alignment 140 46.26 114.67 51.96 176 Alignment 374 30.94 130.40 51.45 177 Alignment 174 40.22 121.21 51.00 178 Alignment 10 49.50 110.49 51.92 179 Alignment 379 25.49 129.82 51.68 180 Alignment 250 40.81 122.10 41.65 181 Alignment 39 38.01 121.82 41.77 182 Alignment 40 41.84 117.38 41.84 183 Alignment 30 38.60 104.29 51.92 184 Alignment 29 34.77 104.48 51.85 185 Alignment 266 60.85 158.24 51.61 186 Alignment 271 63.06 150.64 51.61 187 Alignment 416 55.40 151.54 51.15 188 Alignment 268 53.78 150.99 51.81 189 Alignment 421 57.61 143.93 51.15 190 Alignment 256 66.30 133.51 51.61 191 Alignment 273 55.99 143.38 51.81 192 Alignment 418 55.40 144.28 51.34 Note: All criteria scores have been scaled by a factor of 10,000 compared to other matrix output sheets H:\2018\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\Notebook\Ranking Matrix\Route Ranking Matrix_Alignments.xlsx

Date: 3/2/2020 By: JRU 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 262.30 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87

482.07 481.00 480.29 479.91 478.83 477.82 477.41 477.33 477.32 476.95 476.94 476.86 476.71 476.59 475.73 475.19 475.09 474.73 474.21 469.28 466.85 463.91 463.36 457.11 453.40 445.57 440.17 432.95 431.44 427.55 426.28 426.04 425.88

6 of 14

Project: Mesa NWWRP Reclaimed Waterline Alignment Study Dibble Project No.: 1018123.01 Title: Final Alignment Scores and Ranks 193 Alignment 361 49.95 145.83 51.38 194 Alignment 272 55.99 138.61 51.65 195 Alignment 423 57.61 136.67 51.34 196 Alignment 411 67.92 124.98 50.69 197 Alignment 267 53.78 138.11 51.65 198 Alignment 261 66.30 125.48 51.15 199 Alignment 366 52.16 138.22 51.38 200 Alignment 422 57.61 131.90 51.19 201 Alignment 216 52.16 135.44 51.61 202 Alignment 176 52.16 134.95 50.93 203 Alignment 417 55.40 131.40 51.19 204 Alignment 412 60.85 125.31 50.72 205 Alignment 296 52.16 132.56 52.07 206 Alignment 257 59.23 125.74 51.65 207 Alignment 262 59.23 125.81 51.19 208 Alignment 137 63.06 121.50 51.65 209 Alignment 291 49.95 133.96 52.07 210 Alignment 136 63.06 121.17 51.61 211 Alignment 346 52.16 132.07 51.61 212 Alignment 298 45.08 137.68 52.28 213 Alignment 341 49.95 133.47 51.61 214 Alignment 316 49.95 133.46 51.61 215 Alignment 274 38.60 144.44 51.92 216 Alignment 348 45.08 137.18 51.81 217 Alignment 258 55.99 126.25 51.81 218 Alignment 251 52.16 140.34 41.54 219 Alignment 363 42.88 138.57 51.57 220 Alignment 248 57.61 133.65 41.51 221 Alignment 269 36.39 143.94 51.92 222 Alignment 221 66.30 133.01 31.00 223 Alignment 177 52.16 127.18 50.96 224 Alignment 297 45.08 132.90 52.11 225 Alignment 321 52.16 125.86 51.61 Note: All criteria scores have been scaled by a factor of 10,000 compared to other matrix output sheets H:\2018\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\Notebook\Ranking Matrix\Route Ranking Matrix_Alignments.xlsx

Date: 3/2/2020 By: JRU 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87

422.02 421.11 420.49 418.45 418.40 417.79 416.62 415.56 414.08 412.90 412.85 411.75 411.66 411.49 411.09 411.08 410.85 410.71 410.70 409.91 409.89 409.89 409.82 408.94 408.91 408.90 407.88 407.63 407.11 405.18 405.16 404.97 404.49

7 of 14

Project: Mesa NWWRP Reclaimed Waterline Alignment Study Dibble Project No.: 1018123.01 Title: Final Alignment Scores and Ranks 226 Alignment 391 46.71 130.90 51.85 227 Alignment 413 60.85 117.71 50.88 228 Alignment 211 54.37 123.65 51.38 229 Alignment 424 40.22 137.73 51.45 230 Alignment 347 45.08 132.40 51.65 231 Alignment 396 46.71 130.32 52.07 232 Alignment 263 59.23 118.22 51.34 233 Alignment 270 36.98 139.46 51.96 234 Alignment 323 45.08 130.97 51.81 235 Alignment 247 57.61 128.89 41.35 236 Alignment 368 45.08 130.97 51.57 237 Alignment 246 57.61 128.55 41.31 238 Alignment 146 63.06 133.83 30.31 239 Alignment 286 55.40 119.77 51.61 240 Alignment 419 38.01 137.23 51.45 241 Alignment 336 55.40 119.27 51.15 242 Alignment 138 59.82 113.89 51.81 243 Alignment 218 45.08 128.16 51.81 244 Alignment 223 66.30 125.75 31.19 245 Alignment 275 39.19 131.87 51.96 246 Alignment 322 45.08 126.19 51.65 247 Alignment 420 38.60 132.73 51.48 248 Alignment 367 45.08 126.19 51.41 249 Alignment 397 39.63 130.66 52.11 250 Alignment 393 46.71 123.64 52.05 251 Alignment 213 54.37 116.38 51.58 252 Alignment 293 42.88 126.71 52.28 253 Alignment 212 54.37 115.88 51.42 254 Alignment 260 42.43 127.09 51.96 255 Alignment 186 55.99 134.32 31.00 256 Alignment 292 42.88 126.20 52.11 257 Alignment 343 42.88 126.21 51.81 258 Alignment 318 42.88 126.21 51.81 Note: All criteria scores have been scaled by a factor of 10,000 compared to other matrix output sheets H:\2018\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\Notebook\Ranking Matrix\Route Ranking Matrix_Alignments.xlsx

404.32 404.30 404.27 404.27 404.00 403.97 403.66 403.26 402.73 402.71 402.49 402.34 402.07 401.64 401.56 400.69 400.39 399.92 398.11 397.89 397.79 397.68 397.56 397.27 397.26 397.19 396.73 396.54 396.35 396.17 396.05 395.76 395.75

8 of 14

Project: Mesa NWWRP Reclaimed Waterline Alignment Study Dibble Project No.: 1018123.01 Title: Final Alignment Scores and Ranks 259 Alignment 141 52.16 117.24 50.92 260 Alignment 342 42.88 125.70 51.65 261 Alignment 317 42.88 125.70 51.65 262 Alignment 362 42.88 125.70 51.41 263 Alignment 253 45.08 133.07 41.74 264 Alignment 392 46.71 118.87 51.89 265 Alignment 425 40.81 125.15 51.48 266 Alignment 415 47.29 118.54 51.00 267 Alignment 101 59.82 105.36 51.61 268 Alignment 414 46.70 118.77 50.99 269 Alignment 265 45.67 119.06 51.48 270 Alignment 264 45.08 119.28 51.45 271 Alignment 252 45.08 128.31 41.58 272 Alignment 398 39.63 123.06 52.27 273 Alignment 142 45.08 117.58 50.96 274 Alignment 106 68.51 113.84 31.00 275 Alignment 259 41.84 119.21 51.92 276 Alignment 288 48.33 112.52 51.81 277 Alignment 139 45.67 114.95 51.92 278 Alignment 147 55.99 126.06 30.35 279 Alignment 217 45.08 115.30 51.65 280 Alignment 338 48.33 112.01 51.34 281 Alignment 313 48.33 112.01 51.34 282 Alignment 369 27.70 132.03 51.68 283 Alignment 222 66.30 112.88 31.04 284 Alignment 215 40.81 117.17 51.72 285 Alignment 400 33.15 123.86 52.44 286 Alignment 440 32.56 125.17 51.04 287 Alignment 446 39.63 118.48 50.59 288 Alignment 364 25.49 131.53 51.68 289 Alignment 182 50.54 105.70 51.65 290 Alignment 287 48.33 107.74 51.65 291 Alignment 181 50.54 105.37 51.61 Note: All criteria scores have been scaled by a factor of 10,000 compared to other matrix output sheets H:\2018\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\Notebook\Ranking Matrix\Route Ranking Matrix_Alignments.xlsx

395.19 395.09 395.09 394.85 394.75 392.33 392.30 391.70 391.66 391.33 391.08 390.68 389.83 389.83 388.48 388.22 387.83 387.52 387.41 387.26 386.90 386.55 386.54 386.27 385.08 384.57 384.32 383.64 383.57 383.56 382.75 382.58 382.38

9 of 14

Project: Mesa NWWRP Reclaimed Waterline Alignment Study Dibble Project No.: 1018123.01 Title: Final Alignment Scores and Ranks 292 Alignment 254 30.94 134.13 41.84 293 Alignment 300 28.29 126.18 52.44 294 Alignment 337 48.33 107.24 51.19 295 Alignment 179 34.77 120.63 51.23 296 Alignment 299 27.70 126.37 52.38 297 Alignment 394 29.32 124.70 52.15 298 Alignment 143 45.08 109.97 51.11 299 Alignment 188 55.99 118.95 31.19 300 Alignment 295 26.08 127.57 52.44 301 Alignment 350 28.29 125.67 51.96 302 Alignment 349 27.70 125.87 51.92 303 Alignment 345 26.08 127.05 51.96 304 Alignment 320 26.08 127.05 51.96 305 Alignment 148 55.99 118.45 30.50 306 Alignment 365 26.08 127.05 51.71 307 Alignment 249 40.22 122.35 41.61 308 Alignment 220 35.36 116.57 51.96 309 Alignment 103 52.75 98.09 51.81 310 Alignment 102 52.75 97.59 51.65 311 Alignment 399 25.49 124.12 52.38 312 Alignment 255 38.60 121.49 41.89 313 Alignment 187 55.99 114.18 31.04 314 Alignment 219 27.70 121.12 51.92 315 Alignment 325 28.29 119.46 51.96 316 Alignment 289 34.18 113.57 51.92 317 Alignment 370 28.29 119.46 51.71 318 Alignment 324 27.70 119.66 51.91 319 Alignment 108 61.44 106.58 31.19 320 Alignment 339 34.18 113.07 51.45 321 Alignment 107 61.44 106.08 31.04 322 Alignment 294 25.49 119.67 52.38 323 Alignment 183 47.29 98.10 51.81 324 Alignment 344 25.49 119.17 51.92 Note: All criteria scores have been scaled by a factor of 10,000 compared to other matrix output sheets H:\2018\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\Notebook\Ranking Matrix\Route Ranking Matrix_Alignments.xlsx

381.78 381.78 381.62 381.49 381.32 381.04 381.03 380.99 380.95 380.78 380.35 379.95 379.95 379.81 379.70 379.05 378.75 377.51 376.85 376.85 376.85 376.07 375.60 374.57 374.54 374.33 374.14 374.07 373.57 373.42 372.40 372.06 371.44

10 of 14

Project: Mesa NWWRP Reclaimed Waterline Alignment Study Dibble Project No.: 1018123.01 Title: Final Alignment Scores and Ranks 325 Alignment 319 25.49 119.16 51.91 326 Alignment 225 49.50 114.21 31.33 327 Alignment 395 29.91 112.10 52.20 328 Alignment 214 33.15 109.34 51.69 329 Alignment 340 41.84 100.49 51.48 330 Alignment 315 41.84 100.49 51.48 331 Alignment 224 41.84 118.71 31.30 332 Alignment 145 28.29 110.76 51.24 333 Alignment 105 39.19 98.89 51.96 334 Alignment 144 27.70 111.03 51.22 335 Alignment 189 38.60 120.01 31.30 336 Alignment 150 39.19 119.25 30.62 337 Alignment 149 38.60 119.52 30.61 338 Alignment 290 34.77 101.01 51.96 339 Alignment 185 33.74 98.90 51.96 340 Alignment 184 33.15 99.16 51.91 341 Alignment 110 44.64 107.38 31.33 342 Alignment 104 38.60 91.05 51.91 343 Alignment 190 39.19 107.39 31.33 344 Alignment 109 44.05 99.53 31.30 345 Alignment 166 54.37 137.15 50.93 346 Alignment 126 65.27 123.37 51.61 347 Alignment 236 60.85 137.78 41.54 348 Alignment 206 59.82 125.27 51.61 349 Alignment 241 63.06 130.17 41.54 350 Alignment 201 57.61 124.77 51.61 351 Alignment 121 63.06 118.61 51.61 352 Alignment 123 55.99 123.71 51.81 353 Alignment 381 49.95 127.76 52.07 354 Alignment 156 60.85 118.19 50.47 355 Alignment 168 47.29 129.88 51.12 356 Alignment 242 55.99 130.51 41.58 357 Alignment 161 52.16 124.29 50.93 Note: All criteria scores have been scaled by a factor of 10,000 compared to other matrix output sheets H:\2018\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\Notebook\Ranking Matrix\Route Ranking Matrix_Alignments.xlsx

Date: 3/2/2020 By: JRU 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 174.87 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43

371.43 369.91 369.07 369.04 368.68 368.67 366.72 365.15 364.90 364.82 364.77 363.92 363.59 362.60 359.46 359.09 358.22 356.43 352.77 349.75 329.88 327.68 327.60 324.13 322.20 321.43 320.71 318.94 317.21 316.94 315.73 315.51 314.80

11 of 14

Project: Mesa NWWRP Reclaimed Waterline Alignment Study Dibble Project No.: 1018123.01 Title: Final Alignment Scores and Ranks 358 Alignment 151 57.61 118.12 50.93 359 Alignment 128 58.20 116.11 51.81 360 Alignment 238 53.78 130.52 41.74 361 Alignment 311 55.40 119.27 51.15 362 Alignment 163 45.08 129.38 51.12 363 Alignment 111 65.27 106.24 51.61 364 Alignment 208 52.75 118.01 51.81 365 Alignment 127 58.20 111.34 51.65 366 Alignment 162 45.08 124.62 50.97 367 Alignment 243 55.99 122.92 41.74 368 Alignment 203 50.54 117.51 51.81 369 Alignment 386 46.71 120.15 52.07 370 Alignment 122 55.99 110.84 51.65 371 Alignment 116 68.51 98.21 51.15 372 Alignment 226 63.06 113.04 41.54 373 Alignment 196 59.23 106.31 51.15 374 Alignment 383 42.88 120.51 52.28 375 Alignment 167 47.29 117.01 50.97 376 Alignment 382 42.88 119.99 52.11 377 Alignment 202 50.54 112.74 51.65 378 Alignment 192 55.99 106.58 51.65 379 Alignment 191 55.99 106.24 51.61 380 Alignment 237 53.78 117.64 41.58 381 Alignment 153 50.54 110.85 51.12 382 Alignment 387 39.63 120.49 52.11 383 Alignment 158 50.54 110.92 50.65 384 Alignment 117 61.44 98.54 51.19 385 Alignment 240 36.98 131.36 41.89 386 Alignment 210 39.19 118.84 51.96 387 Alignment 129 40.81 117.16 51.92 388 Alignment 207 52.75 105.14 51.65 389 Alignment 113 58.20 98.97 51.81 390 Alignment 197 59.23 98.55 51.19 Note: All criteria scores have been scaled by a factor of 10,000 compared to other matrix output sheets H:\2018\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\Notebook\Ranking Matrix\Route Ranking Matrix_Alignments.xlsx

Date: 3/2/2020 By: JRU 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43

314.09 313.55 313.47 313.25 313.02 310.55 310.00 308.62 308.10 308.07 307.29 306.37 305.91 305.30 305.07 304.13 303.09 302.71 302.42 302.36 301.65 301.28 300.43 299.94 299.67 299.55 298.60 297.66 297.43 297.32 296.97 296.41 296.40

12 of 14

Project: Mesa NWWRP Reclaimed Waterline Alignment Study Dibble Project No.: 1018123.01 Title: Final Alignment Scores and Ranks 391 Alignment 112 58.20 98.47 51.65 392 Alignment 152 50.54 106.09 50.96 393 Alignment 193 55.99 98.98 51.81 394 Alignment 312 48.33 107.24 51.19 395 Alignment 198 55.99 99.05 51.35 396 Alignment 232 59.23 105.35 41.12 397 Alignment 231 59.23 105.01 41.08 398 Alignment 245 39.19 123.77 41.89 399 Alignment 388 39.63 112.91 52.28 400 Alignment 244 38.60 123.97 41.84 401 Alignment 169 29.91 122.84 51.23 402 Alignment 118 61.44 90.94 51.35 403 Alignment 204 33.15 118.57 51.92 404 Alignment 228 55.99 105.78 41.74 405 Alignment 170 33.74 118.34 51.25 406 Alignment 125 39.19 112.16 51.96 407 Alignment 227 55.99 105.28 41.58 408 Alignment 157 53.78 98.06 50.50 409 Alignment 239 36.39 123.47 41.84 410 Alignment 130 44.64 104.57 51.96 411 Alignment 165 31.53 117.82 51.25 412 Alignment 385 26.08 121.36 52.44 413 Alignment 160 36.98 111.73 50.77 414 Alignment 314 34.18 113.07 51.45 415 Alignment 233 59.23 97.75 41.27 416 Alignment 209 35.36 110.96 51.92 417 Alignment 441 32.56 113.25 51.50 418 Alignment 164 27.70 118.08 51.23 419 Alignment 155 33.74 111.66 51.25 420 Alignment 115 44.64 99.80 51.96 421 Alignment 443 32.56 112.77 51.04 422 Alignment 442 32.56 112.76 51.04 423 Alignment 154 33.15 111.91 51.23 Note: All criteria scores have been scaled by a factor of 10,000 compared to other matrix output sheets H:\2018\1018123.01_Mesa_Alignment_Study\Notebook\Ranking Matrix\Route Ranking Matrix_Alignments.xlsx

295.75 295.02 294.21 294.18 293.81 293.12 292.75 292.28 292.25 291.85 291.41 291.16 291.07 290.94 290.76 290.75 290.27 289.77 289.14 288.61 288.04 287.31 286.92 286.13 285.68 285.67 284.74 284.44 284.08 283.83 283.80 283.80 283.72

13 of 14

Project: Mesa NWWRP Reclaimed Waterline Alignment Study Dibble Project No.: 1018123.01 Title: Final Alignment Scores and Ranks 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435

Alignment 444 Alignment 124 Alignment 200 Alignment 205 Alignment 384 Alignment 120 Alignment 445 Alignment 159 Alignment 195 Alignment 230 Alignment 119 Alignment 194

32.56 38.60 42.43 33.74 25.49 47.88 32.56 36.39 39.19 42.43 47.29 38.60

Date: 3/2/2020 By: JRU 112.76 104.30 99.87 105.96 113.46 91.76 107.05 103.88 99.80 106.63 92.00 100.04

50.81 51.92 51.48 51.96 52.38 51.48 51.50 50.76 51.96 41.89 51.46 51.92

87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43 87.43

283.57 282.25 281.22 279.10 278.76 278.56 278.54 278.47 278.38 278.38 278.18 277.99

14 of 14

Appendix K City of Mesa Pavement Cut Restriction Map

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

L1: L2: L3: L4: L5: L6:

Appendix L Cost Estimate City ROW Roadway Segment Cost Estimate RWCD Pipeline Cost Estimate EMF Pipeline Cost Estimate City ROW/EMF Hybrid Pipeline Cost Estimate Plant Improvements Preliminary Cost Estimate Scenario 1-4 Pipeline Alignments: EOPCC

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Appendix L1 City ROW Roadway Segment Cost Estimate

Dibble November 2020

L-1

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

NWWRP RECLAIMED WATERLINE ALIGNMENT AND INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS STUDY Mesa ROW Roadway Segment Quantities City of Mesa Project No. CP0896 November 13, 2020

Prepared By: KAD Checked By: KJN

McKellips Road

McLellan Road

Brown Road

Adobe Street

University Drive

McLellan Road

Brown Road

Adobe Street

University Drive

Main Street

Broadway Road

Easements/Property Acquisition SF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 Permits EA 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Traffic Volume EA L L M L M L H L M L H M M Connect to Exst Reclaimed EA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Length of Pipeline LF 5285 5260 5310 2635 2625 2648 2660 2645 2625 2648 2660 2680 2655 Gate Valves EA 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Combination ARV's EA 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Dewatering Stations EA 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Access Manways EA 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Corrosion Test Stations EA 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Typical Excavation CY 9983 9936 10030 4978 4959 5001 5025 4997 4959 5001 5025 5063 5015 Major Non-Gravity Utility Crossings EA 3 1 5 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 0 Major Gravity Utility Crossings EA 3 2 6 1 0 0 2 1 0 2 2 4 2 RWCD Main Canal Crossings EA 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 SRP Eastern Canal Crossings EA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minor Utility Relocations LF 745 2972 396 0 0 0 5600 0 0 0 3400 0 0 Pavement Replacement SY 4698 4676 4720 2343 2334 2354 2365 2352 2334 2354 2365 2383 2360 Moratorium/Cut Restrictions SY 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Curb, Gutter, & Sidewalk Replacement LF 630 0 0 0 1090 2300 0 25 700 0 0 0 0 PCCP Replacement (ADOT) SY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jack and Bore (ADOT) LF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jack and Bore (RWCD Utility Crossings) LF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Geotechnical Type SRB SRB SRB P P P P P P P P P P This is a preliminary cost estimate for budgetary purposes only. It is recommended that a detailed cost estimate be developed during the design phase of the project.

Hampton

Broadway Road

Main Street

Holmes

Southern Ave

Broadway Road

Main Street

University Drive

Adobe Street

Brown Road

McLellan Road

McKellips Road

Hermosa Vista Drive

Cost Component

Unit

Segment Number

E-W Between 48th Street and Higley

E-W Between Greenfield and 48th Street/Higley

E-W Between 40th Street and Greenfield

McDowell Road

E-W Between Val Vista and 40th Street/Greenfield

0 1 H 0 5250 2 2 2 2 5 9917 6 1 0 0 345 4667 36 0 0 0 0 P

20,000 0 L 0 5295 2 2 2 2 5 10002 3 2 0 0 0 4707 76 60 0 0 0 P

0 1 M 0 5340 2 2 2 2 5 10087 7 4 1 0 40 4747 0 0 0 0 0 P

0 1 L 0 5280 2 2 2 2 5 9974 2 2 1 0 0 4694 0 0 0 0 0 H

0 1 M 0 5250 2 2 2 2 5 9917 1 2 1 0 0 4667 267 0 0 0 0 H

0 0 H 0 2620 1 1 1 1 3 4949 0 1 0 0 0 2329 2400 0 0 0 0 H

0 0 M 0 2605 1 1 1 1 3 4921 0 3 0 0 0 2316 0 0 0 0 0 P

0 0 M 0 5215 2 2 2 2 5 9851 1 0 0 0 0 4636 4636 0 0 0 0 H

0 0 L 0 2635 1 1 1 1 3 4978 0 1 0 0 0 2343 0 1600 0 0 0 H

0 1 H 0 2620 1 1 1 1 3 4949 1 2 1 0 0 2329 2400 0 0 0 0 H

0 0 M 0 2605 1 1 1 1 3 4921 0 1 0 0 0 2316 0 0 0 0 0 P

0 0 L 0 3120 1 1 1 1 3 5894 0 0 0 0 300 2774 0 0 0 0 0 H

1 of 3

NWWRP RECLAIMED WATERLINE ALIGNMENT AND INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS STUDY Mesa ROW Roadway Segment Quantities City of Mesa Project No. CP0896 November 13, 2020

Prepared By: KAD Checked By: KJN

0 0 1 1 L H 0 0 2683 2665 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 5067 5034 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2513 0 2385 2369 0 0 1050 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 P P

Greenfield Road

Higley Road

Val Vista Drive

0 0 H 0 2640 1 1 1 1 3 4987 3 0 0 0 0 2347 0 0 0 0 0 H

0 0 M 0 2635 1 1 1 1 3 4978 0 1 0 0 6500 2343 44 0 0 0 20 P

0 0 0 0 0 0 L H H 0 0 0 2683 2665 2640 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 5067 5034 4987 0 1 2 0 2 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 1070 1240 0 2385 2369 2347 0 0 0 0 1190 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 0 P P H

Higley Road

40th Street

48th Street

Val Vista Drive

Easements/Property Acquisition SF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Permits EA 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Traffic Volume EA L L L L L M H H M L H H M Connect to Exst Reclaimed EA 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Length of Pipeline LF 2685 2628 2653 2628 2653 2680 2700 2638 2660 2670 2700 2638 2635 Gate Valves EA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Combination ARV's EA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Dewatering Stations EA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Access Manways EA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Corrosion Test Stations EA 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Typical Excavation CY 5072 4964 5011 4964 5011 5063 5100 4982 5025 5044 5100 4982 4978 Major Non-Gravity Utility Crossings EA 2 1 2 1 4 1 1 2 0 1 4 0 1 Major Gravity Utility Crossings EA 1 0 3 3 3 1 3 1 5 2 2 2 0 RWCD Main Canal Crossings EA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 SRP Eastern Canal Crossings EA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minor Utility Relocations LF 1470 2612 775 2650 0 5415 0 0 5360 0 0 0 88 Pavement Replacement SY 2387 2336 2358 2336 2358 2383 2400 2345 2365 2374 2400 2345 2343 Moratorium/Cut Restrictions SY 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 42 0 0 0 42 0 Curb, Gutter, & Sidewalk Replacement LF 0 585 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 0 0 0 PCCP Replacement (ADOT) SY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jack and Bore (ADOT) LF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jack and Bore (RWCD Utility Crossings) LF 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 Geotechnical Type SRB SRB SRB SRB SRB P SRB P P P SRB P P This is a preliminary cost estimate for budgetary purposes only. It is recommended that a detailed cost estimate be developed during the design phase of the project.

Greenfield Road

40th Street

N-S Between Main and Broadway

Higley Road

N-S Between University and Main

Greenfield Road

Higley Road

Greenfield Road

Nassau

Val Vista Drive

Higley Road

Greenfield Road

40th Street

Higley Road

Greenfield Road

N-S Between Adobe and University

Val Vista Drive

N-S Between Brown and Adobe

Greenfield Road

N-S Between McLellan and Brown

Val Vista Drive

N-S Between McKellips and McLellan

Greenfield Road

N-S Between N-S Between McDowell Hermosa and Hermosa Vista and Vista McKellips

Val Vista Drive

Cost Component

Unit

Segment Number

Val Vista Drive

N-S Between Quenton and McDowell 1

0 1 H 0 2638 1 1 1 1 3 4982 2 2 0 0 1820 2345 45 0 0 0 40 P

0 0 H 0 2660 1 1 1 1 3 5025 1 6 0 0 0 2365 62 0 0 0 0 H

0 0 L 0 2605 1 1 1 1 3 4921 1 2 0 0 600 2316 0 0 0 0 0 P

0 1 H 0 2638 1 1 1 1 3 4982 0 2 0 0 40 2345 45 0 0 0 40 P

0 1 L 0 2600 1 1 1 1 3 4912 0 1 0 0 0 2312 0 0 0 0 20 P

0 1 H 0 2660 1 1 1 1 3 5025 1 5 1 0 0 2365 62 0 0 0 0 H

2 of 3

NWWRP RECLAIMED WATERLINE ALIGNMENT AND INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS STUDY Mesa ROW Roadway Segment Quantities City of Mesa Project No. CP0896 November 13, 2020

Prepared By: KAD Checked By: KJN

Greenfield Road

Pierpont Drive

Baseline Road

Banner Gateway

Baseline Road

Banner Gateway

Baseline Road

Banner Gateway/Inverness Ave

Baseline Road

Easements/Property Acquisition SF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Permits EA 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 Traffic Volume EA H H H H H L H L H L H L H Connect to Exst Reclaimed EA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Length of Pipeline 1325 LF 5275 5340 1700 1530 2055 1740 2120 1520 2245 2570 2505 1535 Gate Valves EA 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Combination ARV's EA 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Dewatering Stations EA 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Access Manways EA 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Corrosion Test Stations EA 5 5 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 Typical Excavation CY 9964 10087 3212 2503 2890 3882 3287 4005 2872 4241 4855 4732 2900 Major Non-Gravity Utility Crossings EA 4 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 1 0 Major Gravity Utility Crossings EA 7 0 1 1 3 2 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 RWCD Main Canal Crossings EA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SRP Eastern Canal Crossings EA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minor Utility Relocations 40 LF 1040 45 275 475 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pavement Replacement SY 4689 4747 1512 1178 1360 1827 1547 1885 1352 1996 2285 2227 1365 Moratorium/Cut Restrictions SY 58 755 58 1236 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Curb, Gutter, & Sidewalk Replacement LF 1,480 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1100 0 2165 700 1305 PCCP Replacement (ADOT) SY 0 0 0 0 1665 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jack and Bore (ADOT) LF 0 0 0 0 0 680 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jack and Bore (RWCD Utility Crossings) LF 40 60 40 20 125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Geotechnical Type P P P P H H P H P H P H P This is a preliminary cost estimate for budgetary purposes only. It is recommended that a detailed cost estimate be developed during the design phase of the project.

0 0 L 0 2485 1 1 1 1 2 4694 2 0 0 0 0 2209 0 0 0 0 0 H

0 1 H 1 1105 0 0 0 0 1 2088 2 0 0 0 0 983 0 1050 0 0 0 P

0 0 L 0 1105 0 0 0 0 1 2088 1 0 0 0 0 983 0 370 0 0 0 H

0 0 L 0 900 0 0 0 0 1 1700 0 0 0 0 0 800 0 75 0 0 0 H

0 0 L 0 1530 1 1 1 1 2 2890 1 1 0 0 0 1360 0 0 0 0 0 P

0 0 0 1 1 0 L H L 0 0 0 1395 1245 1190 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 2635 2352 2248 1 1 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1240 1107 1058 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P P P

Greenfield/Guadalupe Road

Sunview/Recker Road

Additional Analysis

South Slater

Sunnyvale Avenue

Higley Road

Pierpont Drive

Old Greenfield Road

Old Greenfield/Banner Gateway

Inverness Ave

Baseline Road

N-S Between Banner Gateway and Baseline

Inverness Ave

Higley Road

E-W Between N-S Between E-W Between E-W Between E-W Between E-W Between Slater and US60 and Greenfield and Pierpont and Higley and Sunnyvale and Sunview/Reck Banner Pierpont Higley Sunnyvale Slater er Gateway

Greenfield Road

US60 Crossing

Higley Road

Cost Component

Unit

Segment Number

N-S Between Southern and Holmes/ Hampton

Greenfield Road

N-S Between Broadway and Southern

0 0 L 0 615 0 0 0 0 1 1162 3 1 0 0 0 547 547 540 0 0 0 P

0 0 L 1 745 0 0 0 0 1 1408 1 1 0 0 0 663 662 675 0 0 0 P

0 5 H 1 18095 7 7 7 7 18 34180 8 8 0 2 35 16085 0 970 0 0 0 P

3 of 3

NWWRP RECLAIMED WATERLINE ALIGNMENT AND INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS STUDY Mesa ROW Roadway Segments: Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost City of Mesa Project No. CP0896 November 13, 2020

Prepared By: KAD Checked By: KJN

E-W Between Val Vista and 40th Street/Greenfield

Mobilization

3% $

156,000

157,000

166,000

3% $

156,000

157,000

27,000

58,000

59,000

83,000

90,000

55,000

62,000

Main Street

University Drive

Adobe Street

McLellan Road

Brown Road $

Brown Road

University Drive

McLellan Road

McKellips Road

Adobe Street

Hermosa Vista Drive

McDowell Road

Unit

Unit Cost

E-W Between 40th Street and Greenfield

58,000

76,000

68,000

166,000

58,000

59,000

83,000

90,000

55,000

62,000

76,000

68,000

27,000

14,000

Construction Surveying & Layout

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

MILE

Easements/Property Acquisition 1 Permits

3% $

90,000

0.25%-3% $

52,000

53,000

56,000

5,000

7,000

30,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

6,000

3-7% $

113,000

Traffic Control

25,000

156,000

157,000

276,000

58,000

97,000

59,000

193,000

90,000

91,000

62,000

177,000

Connect to Existing Reclaimed

80,000

42" Reclaimed Waterline 3 42" Gate Valves

450

2,379,000

2,367,000

2,390,000

1,186,000

1,182,000

1,192,000

1,197,000

1,191,000

1,182,000

1,192,000

1,197,000

1,206,000

150,000

300,000

150,000

50,000

100,000

50,000

70,000

140,000

70,000

55,000

110,000

55,000

5,000

25,000

15,000

50,000

150,000

50,000

250,000

50,000

100,000

50,000

100,000

50,000

100,000

50,000

100,000

300,000

200,000

600,000

100,000

200,000

100,000

- $

200,000

400,000

RWCD Main Canal Crossing

$ 1,000,000

1,000,000

SRP Eastern Canal Crossings

500,000

Minor Utility Relocations 6 Pavement Replacement

125

94,000

372,000

50,000

700,000

425,000

100 $

470,000

468,000

472,000

235,000

234,000

236,000

237,000

236,000

234,000

236,000

237,000

239,000

8 $

Combination ARV's (Size TBD) Dewatering Stations

Access Manways

Corrosion Test Stations

Major Non-Gravity Utility Crossings Major Gravity Utility Crossings

Moratorium/Cut Restrictions

2,000 $

$ $

Curb, Gutter, & Sidewalk Replacement

32,000

55,000

115,000

2,000

35,000

PCCP Replacement (ADOT)

450

Jack and Bore (US60 Freeway Crossing)

3,500

Jack and Bore (RWCD Utility Crossings) 8 Geotechnical (Additional Cost)

2,000

80,000

81,000

20,000

21,000

20,000

21,000

80,000

21,000

Segment Subtotal Cost

$4-$8

5,727,000 $

5,763,000 $

6,211,000 $

2,124,000 $

2,163,000 $

2,150,000 $

3,125,000 $

3,393,000 $

2,031,000 $

2,245,000 $

2,870,000 $

2,525,000

Cost Per LF

1,090 $

1,100 $

1,170 $

810 $

830 $

820 $

1,180 $

1,290 $

780 $

850 $

1,080 $

950

Cost Per Mile

5,755,200 $

5,808,000 $

6,177,600 $

4,276,800 $

4,382,400 $

4,329,600 $

6,230,400 $

6,811,200 $

4,118,400 $

4,488,000 $

5,702,400 $

5,016,000

20% Contingency

1,146,000 $

1,153,000 $

1,243,000 $

425,000 $

433,000 $

430,000 $

625,000 $

679,000 $

407,000 $

449,000 $

574,000 $

505,000

Segment Total Cost $ 6,873,000 $ 6,916,000 $ 7,454,000 $ 2,549,000 $ 2,596,000 $ This is a preliminary cost estimate for budgetary purposes only. It is recommended that a detailed cost estimate be developed during the design phase of the project.

2,580,000 $

3,750,000 $

4,072,000 $

2,438,000 $

2,694,000 $

3,444,000 $

3,030,000

1 of 7

NWWRP RECLAIMED WATERLINE ALIGNMENT AND INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS STUDY Mesa ROW Roadway Segments: Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost City of Mesa Project No. CP0896 November 13, 2020

Prepared By: KAD Checked By: KJN

0% $

Southern Ave

Main Street

60,000

120,000

118,000

161,000

145,000

143,000

57,000

62,000

108,000

60,000

120,000

118,000

161,000

145,000

143,000

57,000

62,000

14,000

27,000

14,000

Main Street

Holmes

Broadway Road

University Drive

Brown Road

McLellan Road

McKellips Road

59,000

108,000

59,000

27,000

14,000

91,000

56,000

91,000

56,000

14,000

Construction Surveying & Layout

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

MILE

Easements/Property Acquisition 1 Permits

0% $

118,000

0.25%-3% $

5,000

40,000

10,000

54,000

49,000

48,000

5,000

6,000

9,000

5,000

31,000

5,000

3-7% $

104,000 $

94,000

Traffic Control

0% $

Adobe Street

Broadway Road

Unit

Unit Cost

Mobilization

E-W Between 48th Street and Higley

E-W Between Greenfield and 48th Street/Higley

Broadway Road

E-W Between 40th Street and Greenfield

25,000

100,000

280,000

118,000

268,000

145,000

238,000

132,000

179,000

59,000

212,000

Connect to Existing Reclaimed

42" Reclaimed Waterline 3 42" Gate Valves

1,195,000

2,363,000

2,383,000

2,403,000

2,376,000

2,363,000

1,179,000

1,173,000

2,347,000

1,186,000

$ 1,179,000

1,173,000

150,000

300,000

150,000

150,000 $

300,000

150,000

50,000

100,000

50,000

100,000

50,000

70,000

140,000

70,000

140,000

70,000

55,000

110,000

55,000

110,000

55,000

15,000

25,000

15,000

25,000

15,000

300,000

150,000

350,000

100,000

50,000

200,000

100,000

200,000

400,000

200,000

100,000

300,000

- $

100,000

200,000

100,000

RWCD Main Canal Crossing

1,000,000

1,000,000 $

$ 1,000,000

SRP Eastern Canal Crossings

500,000

Minor Utility Relocations 6 Pavement Replacement

236,000

Combination ARV's (Size TBD) Dewatering Stations

Access Manways

Corrosion Test Stations

Major Non-Gravity Utility Crossings Major Gravity Utility Crossings

Moratorium/Cut Restrictions

44,000

5,000

467,000

471,000

475,000

470,000

467,000

233,000

2,000 $

4,000 $

21,000 $

232,000 $

464,000

235,000

233,000

232,000

39,000 $

21,000 $

Curb, Gutter, & Sidewalk Replacement

3,000

80,000

PCCP Replacement (ADOT)

Jack and Bore (US60 Freeway Crossing)

Jack and Bore (RWCD Utility Crossings) 8 Geotechnical (Additional Cost)

40,000

41,000

20,000

$4-$8

21,000

20,000

Segment Subtotal Cost

2,231,000 $

4,578,000 $

4,434,000 $

6,020,000 $

5,332,000 $

5,358,000 $

2,138,000 $

2,313,000 $

4,006,000 $

2,137,000 $

3,462,000 $

2,090,000

Cost Per LF

850 $

880 $

840 $

1,130 $

1,010 $

1,030 $

820 $

890 $

770 $

820 $

1,330 $

810

Cost Per Mile

4,488,000 $

4,646,400 $

4,435,200 $

5,966,400 $

5,332,800 $

5,438,400 $

4,329,600 $

4,699,200 $

4,065,600 $

4,329,600 $

7,022,400 $

4,276,800

20% Contingency

447,000 $

916,000 $

887,000 $

1,204,000 $

1,067,000 $

1,072,000 $

428,000 $

463,000 $

802,000 $

428,000 $

693,000 $

418,000

Segment Total Cost $ 2,678,000 $ 5,494,000 $ 5,321,000 $ 7,224,000 $ This is a preliminary cost estimate for budgetary purposes only. It is recommended that a detailed cost estimate be developed during the design phase of the project.

6,399,000 $

6,430,000 $

2,566,000 $

2,776,000 $

4,808,000 $

2,565,000 $

4,155,000 $

2,508,000

2 of 7

NWWRP RECLAIMED WATERLINE ALIGNMENT AND INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS STUDY Mesa ROW Roadway Segments: Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost City of Mesa Project No. CP0896 November 13, 2020

Prepared By: KAD Checked By: KJN

67,000

Construction Surveying & Layout

LS MILE

Easements/Property Acquisition 1 Permits

0% $

0.25%-3% $

6,000

23,000

3-7% $

25,000

70,000

76,000

70,000

81,000

66,000

60,000

Greenfield Road

40th Street

Val Vista Drive

N-S Between McLellan and Brown

Higley Road

Greenfield Road

68,000

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

Traffic Control

0% $

62,000

Val Vista Drive

Hampton 0% $

N-S Between McKellips and McLellan

Val Vista Drive

N-S Between Hermosa Vista and McKellips

Greenfield Road

N-S Between McDowell and Hermosa Vista

Val Vista Drive

N-S Between Quenton and McDowell

Unit Cost

Unit LS

Mobilization

E-W Between 48th Street and Higley

89,000

62,000

98,000

62,000

67,000

68,000

70,000

76,000

70,000

81,000

66,000

60,000

89,000

62,000

98,000

16,000

14,000

35,000

26,000

24,000

27,000

6,000

5,000

8,000

6,000

33,000 227,000

62,000

67,000

68,000

70,000

76,000

70,000

134,000

154,000

139,000

149,000

62,000

Connect to Existing Reclaimed

80,000

42" Reclaimed Waterline 3 42" Gate Valves

1,404,000

1,209,000

1,183,000

1,194,000

1,183,000

1,194,000

1,206,000

1,215,000

1,187,000

1,197,000

1,202,000

1,215,000

150,000

150,000 $

150,000

50,000

70,000

55,000

15,000

100,000

50,000

100,000

50,000

200,000

50,000

100,000

50,000

200,000

100,000

- $

300,000

100,000

300,000

100,000

500,000

200,000

RWCD Main Canal Crossing

1,000,000 $

1,000,000

SRP Eastern Canal Crossings

500,000 $

Minor Utility Relocations 6 Pavement Replacement

38,000

184,000

327,000

97,000

332,000

677,000

670,000

278,000

239,000 $

234,000

236,000

234,000

236,000

239,000

240,000

235,000

237,000

238,000

240,000

Combination ARV's (Size TBD) Dewatering Stations

Access Manways

Corrosion Test Stations

Major Non-Gravity Utility Crossings Major Gravity Utility Crossings

Moratorium/Cut Restrictions

$ $

2,000 $

$ $

2,000 $

Curb, Gutter, & Sidewalk Replacement

30,000

15,000

PCCP Replacement (ADOT)

Jack and Bore (US60 Freeway Crossing)

Jack and Bore (RWCD Utility Crossings) 8 Geotechnical (Additional Cost)

40,000

41,000

40,000

41,000

40,000

41,000

21,000

41,000

20,000

21,000

41,000

Segment Subtotal Cost

$4-$8

2,268,000 $

2,514,000 $

2,485,000 $

2,567,000 $

2,787,000 $

2,561,000 $

3,010,000 $

2,494,000 $

2,262,000 $

3,314,000 $

2,272,000 $

3,706,000

Cost Per LF

730 $

940 $

950 $

970 $

1,070 $

970 $

1,130 $

930 $

860 $

1,250 $

860 $

1,380

Cost Per Mile

3,854,400 $

4,963,200 $

5,016,000 $

5,121,600 $

5,649,600 $

5,121,600 $

5,966,400 $

4,910,400 $

4,540,800 $

6,600,000 $

4,540,800 $

7,286,400

20% Contingency

454,000 $

503,000 $

497,000 $

514,000 $

558,000 $

513,000 $

602,000 $

499,000 $

453,000 $

663,000 $

455,000 $

742,000

Segment Total Cost $ 2,722,000 $ 3,017,000 $ 2,982,000 $ 3,081,000 $ 3,345,000 $ This is a preliminary cost estimate for budgetary purposes only. It is recommended that a detailed cost estimate be developed during the design phase of the project.

3,074,000 $

3,612,000 $

2,993,000 $

2,715,000 $

3,977,000 $

2,727,000 $

4,448,000

3 of 7

NWWRP RECLAIMED WATERLINE ALIGNMENT AND INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS STUDY Mesa ROW Roadway Segments: Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost City of Mesa Project No. CP0896 November 13, 2020

Prepared By: KAD Checked By: KJN

Mobilization Construction Surveying & Layout

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

MILE

Easements/Property Acquisition 1 Permits Traffic Control

0% $ 0% $

40th Street

N-S Between Main and Broadway

Higley Road

Nassau

Higley Road

40th Street

N-S Between University and Main

Greenfield Road

Val Vista Drive

Greenfield Road

Val Vista Drive

Higley Road

Unit

Unit Cost

N-S Between Adobe and University

Higley Road

N-S Between Brown and Adobe

Greenfield Road

N-S Between McLellan and Brown

60,000

57,000

67,000

63,000

58,000

83,000

60,000

70,000

89,000

72,000

73,000

63,000

60,000

57,000

67,000

63,000

58,000

83,000

60,000

70,000

89,000

72,000

73,000

63,000

14,000

0% $

0.25%-3% $

5,000

19,000

23,000

21,000

5,000

7,000

5,000

6,000

8,000

24,000

7,000

6,000

3-7% $

63,000

25,000

139,000

95,000

67,000

147,000

134,000

137,000

60,000

162,000

208,000

168,000

170,000

Connect to Existing Reclaimed

42" Reclaimed Waterline 3 42" Gate Valves

1,187,000

1,186,000

1,208,000

1,200,000

1,188,000 $

1,186,000

1,208,000

1,187,000 $

1,197,000

1,173,000

150,000

50,000

70,000

55,000

15,000

50,000

150,000

50,000

100,000

50,000

200,000

100,000

200,000

1,100,000

200,000

600,000

200,000

RWCD Main Canal Crossing

1,000,000

SRP Eastern Canal Crossings

500,000

Minor Utility Relocations 6 Pavement Replacement

Combination ARV's (Size TBD) Dewatering Stations

Access Manways

Corrosion Test Stations

Major Non-Gravity Utility Crossings Major Gravity Utility Crossings

Moratorium/Cut Restrictions

11,000

315,000

235,000

239,000

2,000 $

237,000

$ $

235,000

813,000

134,000

235,000

239,000

2,000 $

1,200,000 $

155,000

237,000

1,188,000 $

$ $

235,000

228,000

75,000

235,000

237,000

232,000

2,000 $

Curb, Gutter, & Sidewalk Replacement

53,000

60,000

PCCP Replacement (ADOT)

Jack and Bore (US60 Freeway Crossing)

Jack and Bore (RWCD Utility Crossings) 8 Geotechnical (Additional Cost)

40,000

80,000

20,000

21,000

20,000

21,000

20,000

Segment Subtotal Cost

$4-$8

2,262,000 $

2,124,000 $

2,454,000 $

2,396,000 $

2,182,000 $

3,060,000 $

2,181,000 $

2,625,000 $

3,371,000 $

2,742,000 $

2,763,000 $

2,299,000

Cost Per LF

860 $

810 $

920 $

900 $

830 $

1,170 $

820 $

990 $

1,280 $

1,040 $

890

Cost Per Mile

4,540,800 $

4,276,800 $

4,857,600 $

4,752,000 $

4,382,400 $

6,177,600 $

4,329,600 $

5,227,200 $

6,758,400 $

5,491,200 $

4,699,200

20% Contingency

453,000 $

425,000 $

491,000 $

480,000 $

437,000 $

612,000 $

437,000 $

525,000 $

675,000 $

549,000 $

553,000 $

460,000

Segment Total Cost $ 2,715,000 $ 2,549,000 $ 2,945,000 $ 2,876,000 $ This is a preliminary cost estimate for budgetary purposes only. It is recommended that a detailed cost estimate be developed during the design phase of the project.

2,619,000 $

3,672,000 $

2,618,000 $

3,150,000 $

4,046,000 $

3,291,000 $

3,316,000 $

2,759,000

4 of 7

NWWRP RECLAIMED WATERLINE ALIGNMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS STUDY Mesa ROW Roadway Segments: Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost City of Mesa Project No. CP0896 November 13, 2020

Prepared By: KAD Checked By: KJN

Mobilization

0% $

Construction Surveying & Layout

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

MILE

Easements/Property Acquisition 1 Permits

LS LS

3-7% $

Traffic Control

0% $ $

100,000

143,000

112,000

46,000

37,000

76,000

Baseline Road

Banner Gateway

Baseline Road

47,000

64,000

143,000

112,000

46,000

37,000

76,000

121,000

47,000

45,000

42,000

47,000

64,000

27,000

9,000

7,000

8,000

11,000

9,000

11,000

8,000

12,000

13,000

0% $

0.25%-3% $

21,000

20,000

34,000

48,000

56,000

16,000

13,000

38,000

81,000

16,000

4,000

14,000

16,000

22,000

85,000 $

148,000

233,000

333,000

261,000

108,000

42" Reclaimed Waterline 3 42" Gate Valves

1,187,000

1,170,000

150,000

50,000

70,000

RWCD Main Canal Crossing

1,000,000 $

SRP Eastern Canal Crossings

Minor Utility Relocations 6 Pavement Replacement

SY SY

42,000

14,000

Moratorium/Cut Restrictions

100,000

45,000

Major Gravity Utility Crossings

58,000

Major Non-Gravity Utility Crossings

47,000

58,000

13,000

121,000

Corrosion Test Stations

145,000

63,000

Access Manways

14,000

25,000

E-W Between Higley and Sunnyvale

E-W Between Pierpont and Higley

Banner Gateway

Higley Road

Dewatering Stations

58,000

Baseline Road

Connect to Existing Reclaimed

Combination ARV's (Size TBD)

E-W Between Greenfield and Pierpont

US60 Crossing

Pierpont Drive

Greenfield Road

Higley Road

48th Street

63,000

Greenfield Road

Higley Road

Greenfield Road

Unit

Unit Cost

N-S Between Southern and Holmes/Hampton

Greenfield Road

N-S Between Broadway and Southern

N-S Between Main and Broadway

177,000

121,000

108,000

45,000

97,000

47,000

$ 1,197,000

$ 2,374,000

$ 2,403,000

765,000

597,000 $

689,000

925,000

783,000

954,000

684,000

$ 1,011,000

1,157,000

150,000

300,000

150,000

150,000 $

150,000

50,000

100,000

50,000

70,000

140,000

70,000

55,000

110,000

55,000

15,000

25,000

10,000

5,000

10,000

15,000

50,000

200,000

50,000

150,000

200,000

100,000

500,000

700,000

100,000

100,000 $

300,000

200,000

100,000

$ 1,000,000

500,000 $

5,000

130,000

235,000

232,000

237,000

469,000

2,000 $

6,000

35,000

5,000

475,000

152,000

118,000 $

8,000 $

2,000 $

11,000 $

2,000 $

60,000

136,000

183,000

155,000

189,000

136,000

200,000

229,000

Curb, Gutter, & Sidewalk Replacement

74,000

55,000

109,000

PCCP Replacement (ADOT)

750,000

Jack and Bore (US60 Freeway Crossing)

$ 2,380,000

Jack and Bore (RWCD Utility Crossings) 8 Geotechnical (Additional Cost)

80,000

40,000

80,000

120,000

80,000

40,000

250,000

20,000

40,000

41,000

13,000

11,000

14,000

12,000

20,000

Segment Subtotal Cost

$4-$8

2,375,000 $

2,109,000 $

3,807,000 $

5,438,000 $

Cost Per LF

910 $

820 $

1,440 $

1,040 $

Cost Per Mile

4,804,800 $

4,329,600 $

7,603,200 $

5,491,200 $

20% Contingency

475,000 $

422,000 $

762,000 $

1,088,000 $

4,296,000 $ 1,757,000 $ 810 $

1,040 $

4,276,800 $ 5,491,200 $ 860,000 $

1,391,000 $

2,895,000 $

4,478,000 $

1,764,000 $

1,050 $

1,900 $

2,180 $

1,020 $

5,544,000 $ 10,032,000 $ 11,510,400 $

5,385,600 $

352,000 $

279,000 $

579,000 $

896,000 $

353,000 $

Segment Total Cost $ 2,850,000 $ 2,531,000 $ 4,569,000 $ 6,526,000 $ 5,156,000 $ 2,109,000 $ This is a preliminary cost estimate for budgetary purposes only. It is recommended that a detailed cost estimate be developed during the design phase of the project.

1,670,000 $

3,474,000 $

5,374,000 $

2,117,000 $

20,000

1,715,000 $

2,416,000

1,040 $

770 $

950

4,065,600 $ 5,491,200 $

4,065,600 $

5,016,000

1,628,000 $ 1,575,000 $ 770 $ 326,000 $

315,000 $

343,000 $

484,000

1,954,000 $ 1,890,000 $

2,058,000 $

2,900,000

5 of 7

NWWRP RECLAIMED WATERLINE ALIGNMENT AND INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS STUDY Mesa ROW Roadway Segments: Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost City of Mesa Project No. CP0896 November 13, 2020

Prepared By: KAD Checked By: KJN

Construction Surveying & Layout

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

MILE

Easements/Property Acquisition 1 Permits Traffic Control

0% $ 0% $

38,000

54,000

23,000

21,000

15,000

40,000

44,000

Greenfield/Guadalupe Road

Sunview/Recker Road

Pierpont Drive

South Slater

Sunnyvale Avenue

Higley Road

Inverness Ave

60,000

Additional Analysis

N-S Between Banner Gateway and Baseline

Old Greenfield/Banner Gateway

Baseline Road

Unit Cost

Unit LS

Mobilization

Banner Gateway/Inverness Ave

N-S Between US60 and Banner Gateway

E-W Between Slater and Sunview/Recker

Old Greenfield Road

E-W Between E-W Between Sunnyvale and Higley and Slater Sunnyvale

26,000

25,000

19,000

436,000

60,000

38,000

54,000

23,000

21,000

15,000

40,000

44,000

26,000

25,000

19,000

436,000

13,000

8,000

13,000

6,000

5,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

4,000

91,000

0% $

0.25%-3% $

20,000

13,000

5,000

8,000

2,000

4,000

15,000

9,000

3,000

2,000

436,000

3-7% $

60,000

1,016,000

25,000

87,000

54,000

21,000

15,000

40,000

44,000

59,000

25,000

19,000

Connect to Existing Reclaimed

80,000

42" Reclaimed Waterline 3 42" Gate Valves

$ 1,128,000

691,000

$ 1,119,000

498,000

405,000

689,000

628,000

561,000

536,000

277,000

336,000

8,143,000

150,000

1,050,000

50,000

350,000

70,000

490,000

55,000

385,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

10,000

5,000

90,000

50,000

100,000

50,000

150,000

50,000

400,000

200,000

100,000

300,000

100,000

800,000

RWCD Main Canal Crossing

$ 1,000,000

SRP Eastern Canal Crossings

Minor Utility Relocations 6 Pavement Replacement

5,000

223,000

137,000

221,000

99,000

80,000

136,000

124,000

111,000

106,000

55,000

67,000

1,609,000

Combination ARV's (Size TBD) Dewatering Stations

Access Manways

Corrosion Test Stations

Major Non-Gravity Utility Crossings Major Gravity Utility Crossings

Moratorium/Cut Restrictions

500,000

6,000 $

$ $

7,000 $

1,000,000

Curb, Gutter, & Sidewalk Replacement

35,000

66,000

53,000

19,000

4,000

27,000

34,000

49,000

PCCP Replacement (ADOT)

Jack and Bore (US60 Freeway Crossing)

Jack and Bore (RWCD Utility Crossings) 8 Geotechnical (Additional Cost)

12,000

9,000

12,000

11,000

10,000

9,000

5,000

6,000

$4-$8

137,000

1,955,000 $

958,000 $

742,000 $

546,000 $

1,454,000 $

1,597,000 $

964,000 $

890,000 $

688,000 $

748,000 $

17,003,000

930 $

790 $

870 $

680 $

610 $

960 $

1,150 $

780 $

750 $

1,120 $

1,010 $

940

4,646,400 $ 4,910,400 $

4,171,200 $

4,593,600 $

3,590,400 $

3,220,800 $

5,068,800 $

3,960,000 $ 5,913,600 $

5,332,800 $

4,963,200

391,000 $

192,000 $

149,000 $

110,000 $

291,000 $

Segment Total Cost $ 2,627,000 $ 1,710,000 $ 2,346,000 $ 1,150,000 $ 891,000 $ This is a preliminary cost estimate for budgetary purposes only. It is recommended that a detailed cost estimate be developed during the design phase of the project.

656,000 $

1,745,000 $

Segment Subtotal Cost

Cost Per LF

Cost Per Mile

20% Contingency

2,189,000 $ 1,425,000 $ 880 $ 438,000 $

285,000 $

6,072,000 $ 4,118,400 $ 320,000 $

193,000 $

178,000 $

138,000 $

150,000 $

3,401,000

1,917,000 $ 1,157,000 $

1,068,000 $

826,000 $

898,000 $

20,404,000

6 of 7

NWWRP RECLAIMED WATERLINE ALIGNMENT AND INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS STUDY Mesa ROW Roadway Segments: Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost City of Mesa Project No. CP0896 November 13, 2020

Prepared By: KAD Checked By: KJN

Notes 1. Permitting in Mesa ROW City of Mesa + MCESD = 0.25% City of Mesa + MCESD + 1 Other = 1% City of Mesa + MCESD + 2 Others = 1.5% City of Mesa + MCESD + 3 Others = 2% 2. Traffic Control Based on the following ranges: L= Low, 0-12,000 vehicles/day, 3% of construction cost M= Medium, 12,001-20,000 vehicles/day, 5% construction cost H= High, 20,001+ vehicles/day, 7% construction cost 3. Gate Valves, Combination ARV's, Dewatering Stations, and Access Manways Spacing = Every 2640 feet (1/2 mile) 4. Corrosion Test Station Spacing = Every 1000 feet 5. Major utilities defined as Sewer >= 15-inch, Water >= 18-inch, Reclaimed, Irrigation and Storm >= 24-inch, Gas >=4-inch 6. Pavement Replacement (T-Top) = (Trench Width 6 ft + 1 ft T Top on each side)*pipe length per Mesa Standard Detail M-19.04.1 7. Moratorium/Cut Restrictions based on City of Mesa Transportation Department Pavement Cut Restriction Map, cost includes $1,000 fee per cut + $8 per SY 8. Geotechnical classifications include: SRB = Salt River Bed (large-diameter SGC, caliche), P = Pleistocene soil (SGC, caliche), H = Holocene soil (SGC)

7 of 7

Appendix L2 RWCD Pipeline Cost Estimate

Dibble November 2020

L-2

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

NWWRP RECLAIMED WATERLINE ALIGNMENT AND INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS STUDY RWCD Pipeline Alignment: Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost City of Mesa Project No. CP0896 November 13, 2020

Prepared By: KAD Checked By: KJN

Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

Segment 5

Quenton Drive

Between Quenton and McDowell

Between McDowell and Southern

Between Southern and Recker

Between Recker and Baseline

Item No.

Description

Unit

Mobilization

Quantity -

Cost 30,000

Construction Surveying & Layout

Unit Cost

Segment 1

Cost 81,000

Quantity -

Cost 633,000

30,000

7,000

30,000

Quantity -

Cost 85,000

81,000

16,000

81,000

Quantity -

633,000

85,000

137,000

16,000

633,000

85,000

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 1 Easements/Property Acquisition

Permits

30,000

81,000

633,000

85,000

Traffic Control

10,000

27,000

211,000

29,000

Cathodic Protection

46,000

407,000

46,000

Trench Stabilization and Dewatering

EA EA

42" Reclaimed Waterline 3 Restrained Joints

42" Gate Valves

Combination ARV's (Size TBD)

4 4

Dewatering Stations

Access Manways

Corrosion Test Stations

4 5 6, 7

Major Non-Gravity Utility Crossings

Major Gravity Utility Crossings

6, 7

18 19

Minor Utility Relocations 8 Canal Crossing Contingency

Well Site Restoration

9 10

Access Road Pavement Replacement

Roadway Crossing Pavement Replacement (T-Top)

Concrete Access Ramp Replacement

1/2 Sack CLSM Backfill

25,000

MILE $

Quantity -

$540,000

43,000

375,000

43,000

350

1380

483,000

3255

1,140,000

28845

10,096,000

3240

1,134,000

2910

500

35,000

163

82,000

1442

722,000

162

81,000

146

150,000

300,000

1,650,000

300,000

50,000

100,000

550,000

100,000

70,000

140,000

770,000

140,000

55,000

110,000

605,000

110,000

5,000

10,000

20,000

145,000

20,000

50,000

100,000

450,000

100,000

400,000

125

2,000,000

N/A

150,000

1,050,000

300,000

SY SY

5800

232,000

51300

2,052,000

5800

232,000

100

1230

123,000

8,000

760

76,000

3,000

110

5,500

440

48,400

3,300

2200

220,000

19300

1,930,000

2200

220,000

$ $

40,000 50,000

160

$ $

320,000 218,000

$ $

80,000 -

3,154,000

24,745,000

$500,000

100

2,000

$ $

21,000

Segment Subtotal Cost

1,134,000

60-inch Jack and Bore/Tunneling 14 Geotechnical (Additional Cost)

SRB

Totals

Cost 79,000 $ 79,000 $

14,000 $ 79,000 $

908,000 908,000 190,000 908,000

79,000 $ 27,000 $ 41,000 $

304,000

39,000 $ 1,019,000 $ 73,000 $

13,872,000

908,000 540,000 500,000 993,000

300,000 $ 100,000 $

2,700,000

140,000 $ 110,000 $

1,260,000

15,000 $ 150,000 $

210,000 500,000

100,000 $ - $

2,000,000

N/A $ 150,000 $

5200

2,724,000

208,000 $ 7,000 $

5,500 $

62,700

2000

200,000 $

2,570,000

$ $

40,000 $ $

480,000

3,298,000

3,055,000 $

38,426,000

900,000 990,000 800,000 1,650,000 217,000

289,000

Cost Per LF

870

1,210

1,100

1,220

1,060

Cost Per Mile

4,593,600

6,388,800

5,808,000

6,441,600

5,596,800

20% Contingency

227,000

631,000

4,949,000

660,000

611,000 $

7,686,000

Total Segment Cost

1,361,000

3,785,000

29,694,000

3,958,000

3,666,000 $

46,112,000

Notes 1. Anticipated easements: RWCD utility easement 2. Permits Include (In addition to MCESD): RWCD Encroachment Permit, ADOT Highway Encroachment Permit 3. Restrained Joint Quantities Based on Assumed Pipe Length of 20 feet 4. Gate Valves, Combination ARV's, Dewatering Stations, and Access Manways Spacing = Every 2640 feet (1/2 mile) 5. Corrosion Test Station Spacing = Every 1000 feet 6. Major utilities defined as Sewer >= 15-inch, Water >= 18-inch, Reclaimed, Irrigation and Storm >= 24-inch, Gas >=4-inch 7. RWCD major utility crossings accounted for in line item 25, 60-inch Jack and Bore/Tunneling 8. Canal Crossing Contingency includes contingency for 2 RWCD Main Canal crossings ($1M per crossing) 9. Well Site Restoration assumes associated well pipe and appurtenance replacement for items impacted by reclaimed water main construction 10. Full Acess Road Replacement Assumed, Access Road Width = 16 ft per RWCD Std Detail 42 11. Roadway Crossing Pavement Replacement (T-Top) = (Trench Width 6 ft + 1 ft T Top on each side)*Roadway width, roadway width measured in GIS and confirmed with Mesa Std Detail M-19.01 12. Concrete Access Ramp dimensions measured in GIS, approximately 25 ft x 8 ft 13. CLSM Backfill in RWCD ROW = Pipe Zone (4.5 ft x 6 ft trench width minus pipe cross sectional area)*pipe length in channel 14. Geotechnical classifications include: SRB = Salt River Bed (large-diameter SGC, caliche), P = Pleistocene soil (SGC, caliche), H = Halocene soil (SGC) 1 of 1

Appendix L3 EMF Pipeline Cost Estimate

Dibble November 2020

L-3

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

NWWRP RECLAIMED WATERLINE ALIGNMENT AND INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS STUDY EMF Pipeline Alignment, City ROW Segments From North Connection Point to EMF: Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost City of Mesa Project No. CP0896 November 13, 2020

Prepared By: KAD Checked By: KJN

Unit Cost

Segment 1

Segment 39

Segment 12

Segment 13

Segment 14

Segment 14.1

Segment 14.2

Val Vista Drive Between Quenton and McDowell

McDowell Between Val Vista and Greenfield

Greenfield Between McDowell and Hermosa Vista

Greenfield Between Hermosa Vista and McKellips

Greenfield Between McKellips and McLellan

Greenfield Between McLellan and Princess Drive

Princess Drive Between Greenfield and EMF

Item No.

Description

Unit

Mobilization

Cost 67,000

Construction Surveying & Layout

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

4 5

Easements/Property Acquisition 1 Permits

Traffic Control

Connect to Existing Reclaimed

80,000

450

150,000

50,000

Quantity

MILE $

25,000

Quantity

Cost 156,000

67,000

14,000

Quantity

Cost 70,000

156,000

27,000

Quantity

Cost 70,000

70,000

14,000

Quantity

Cost 66,000

70,000

14,000

Quantity

Cost 12,000

66,000

14,000

Quantity

Totals

Cost 47,000

488,000

12,000

47,000

488,000

4,000

9,000

96,000

0.25% - 3.5%

6,000

52,000

35,000

24,000

6,000

1,000

4,000

128,000

156,000

70,000

154,000

27,000

47,000

591,000

2653

2652.5

2700

670

1615

80,000

3-7%

67,000

80,000

2685

1,209,000

5285

150,000

300,000

50,000

100,000

70,000

55,000

5,000

15,000

50,000

100,000

2,379,000

1,194,000

150,000

50,000

150,000

50,000

140,000

70,000

110,000

55,000

25,000

15,000

100,000

150,000

100,000

300,000

1,215,000

302,000

150,000

50,000

70,000

55,000

15,000

200,000

50,000

300,000

727,000

8,220,000

150,000

1,050,000

50,000

350,000

70,000

490,000

55,000

385,000

5,000

10,000

100,000

600,000

1,600,000

1,000,000

42" Reclaimed Waterline 3 42" Gate Valves

Combination ARV's (Size TBD)

Dewatering Stations

Access Manways

Corrosion Test Stations

Major Non-Gravity Utility Crossings

Major Gravity Utility Crossings

RWCD Main Canal Crossings

1,000,000

Minor Utility Relocations 6 Pavement Replacement

125

1470

184,000

745

94,000

775

97,000

375,000

100

2387

239,000

4698

470,000

2358

236,000

2358

236,000

2400

240,000

596

60,000

1436

1,625,000

3 4 5

300,000

144,000

Moratorium/Cut Restrictions

2,000

4,000

Curb, Gutter, & Sidewalk Replacement

630

32,000

3,000

35,000

PCCP Replacement (ADOT)

450

Jack and Bore (US60 Freeway Crossing)

3,500

Jack and Bore (RWCD Canal and Utility Crossings) 8 Geotechnical (Additional Cost)

2,000

$4-$8

SRB

41,000

SRB

80,000

SRB

41,000

SRB

41,000

SRB

41,000

6,000

13,000

Landscaping

14500

24 25

Segment Subtotal Cost

2,514,000

5,727,000

2,567,000

2,561,000

2,494,000

263,000

44,000

429,000

1,720,000

18,012,000

Cost Per LF

940

1,090

970

930

650

1,070

1,060

Cost Per Mile

4,963,200

5,755,200

5,121,600

4,910,400

3,432,000

5,649,600

5,596,800

20% Contingency

503,000

1,146,000

514,000

513,000

499,000

86,000

Total Segment Cost

3,017,000

6,873,000

3,081,000

3,074,000

2,993,000

515,000

344,000 $ 2,064,000

3,603,000 21,615,000

This is a preliminary cost estimate for budgetary purposes only. It is recommended that a detailed cost estimate be developed during the design phase of the project. Notes 1. Permitting in Mesa ROW City of Mesa + MCESD = 0.25% City of Mesa + MCESD + 1 Other = 1% City of Mesa + MCESD + 2 Others = 1.5% City of Mesa + MCESD + 3 Others = 2% 2. Traffic Control Based on the following ranges: L= Low, 0-12,000 vehicles/day, 3% of construction cost M= Medium, 12,001-20,000 vehicles/day, 5% construction cost H= High, 20,001+ vehicles/day, 7% construction cost 3. Gate Valves, Combination ARV's, Dewatering Stations, and Access Manways Spacing = Every 2640 feet (1/2 mile) 4. Corrosion Test Station Spacing = Every 1000 feet 5. Major utilities defined as Sewer >= 15-inch, Water >= 18-inch, Reclaimed, Irrigation and Storm >= 24-inch, Gas >=4-inch 6. Pavement Replacement (T-Top) = (Trench Width 6 ft + 1 ft T Top on each side)*pipe length per Mesa Standard Detail M-19.04.1 7. Moratorium/Cut Restrictions based on City of Mesa Transportation Department Pavement Cut Restriction Map, cost includes $1,000 fee per cut + $8 per SY 8. Geotechnical classifications include: SRB = Salt River Bed (large-diameter SGC, caliche), P = Pleistocene soil (SGC, caliche), H = Holocene soil (SGC)

1 of 1

NWWRP RECLAIMED WATERLINE ALIGNMENT AND INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS STUDY EMF Pipeline Alignment, EMF Segments: Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost City of Mesa Project No. CP0896 November 13, 2020

Item No.

Prepared By: KAD Checked By: KJN

Description

Unit

Unit Cost

Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

N-S Between Brown and Main

N-S Between Main and Southern

N-S Between Southern and US60

N-S Between US60 and SEWRP

Quantity

Mobilization

Cost 243,000

Cost 272,000

Cost 102,000

Construction Surveying & Layout

243,000

272,000

102,000

MILE

47,000

42,000

17,000

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 1 Easements/Property Acquisition

Permits

6 7

25,000

Quantity

243,000

272,000

102,000

243,000

272,000

102,000

Traffic Control

81,000

91,000

34,000

9750

3,169,000

1,008,000

2950

3500

42" Reclaimed Waterline 3 42" Reclaimed Waterline - FRP

8700

5600

2,100,000

3500

1,313,000

2950

Restrained Joints

440

220,000

180

90,000

150

42" Gate Valves

Combination ARV's

Dewatering Stations

Access Manways

5 5

5 6

Corrosion Test Stations

Major Non-Gravity Utility Crossings

Major Gravity Utility Crossings

17 18

Minor Utility Relocations 8 Landscaping Replacement

Golf Course Landscape Restoration

8 9

Access Road Pavement Replacement

Golf Cart Path Improvements

Roadway Crossing Pavement Replacement (T-Top)

23 24 25

Concrete Access Ramp Replacement

13,14

1 Sack CLSM Backfill

325

375

500

490

245,000

150,000

600,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

140,000

50,000

70,000

280,000

55,000

220,000

110,000

50,000

20,000

5,000

50,000

100,000

150,000

100,000

400,000

200,000

Totals

Cost 95,000 $ 95,000 $

712,000 712,000

14,000 $ 95,000 $

120,000

95,000 $ 32,000 $

712,000

712,000 238,000

- $ 1,107,000 $ 75,000 $

4,177,000

300,000 $ 100,000 $

1,800,000

140,000 $ 110,000 $

840,000

- $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ - $

4,520,000 630,000 600,000 660,000 70,000 350,000 700,000

125

243800

732,000

77500

233,000

965,000

140000

700,000

87500

438,000

73800

369,000

1,507,000

17400

696,000

5600

224,000

7500

825,000

4700

517,000

- $ 440,000 $ - $

920,000

1,782,000

- $ 300,000 $

77,000 1,905,000 1,300,000

4000

SY SY

110

100

200

20,000

200

20,000

110

400

44,000

300

33,000

40,000

150

3400

510,000

4900

735,000

2400

360,000

2000

2,000

250

500,000

400

800,000

650,000

250

$ $

250,000 74,000

400 P

$ $

400,000 66,000

$ $

23,000

650,000

163,000

Segment Subtotal Cost

9,190,000

10,260,000

3,830,000

3,590,000

26,870,000

Cost Per LF

870

1,210

1,100

1,220

1,060

Cost Per Mile

4,593,600

6,388,800

5,808,000

6,441,600

5,596,800

20% Contingency

1,838,000

2,052,000

766,000

718,000

5,374,000

Total Segment Cost

11,028,000

12,312,000

4,596,000

4,308,000

32,244,000

60-inch Jack and Bore/Tunneling

Canal Leakage Contingency

Pleistocene Soil Excavation (Additional Cost)

This is a preliminary cost estimate for budgetary purposes only. It is recommended that a detailed cost estimate be developed during the design phase of the project.

1 of 1

NWWRP RECLAIMED WATERLINE ALIGNMENT AND INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS STUDY EMF Pipeline Alignment: Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost City of Mesa Project No. CP0896 November 13, 2020

Prepared By: KAD Checked By: KJN

Notes 1. Anticipated easements: Segment 1- FCDMC utility easement Segment 2- FCDMC utility easement, GURU RAMDAS JI LLC Easement (Convenience store), Leisure World Community Association (Golf Course) Segment 3- CF Superstition Springs Arcis LLC (Golf Course), Possible Wolfy's RE Holdings LLC or Parklinks at Superstition Springs HOA if not feasible to cross Southern at golf course lakes Segment 4- CF Superstition Springs Arcis LLC (Golf Course) 2. Permits Include (In addition to MCESD): Segment 1- FCDMC ROW Use Permit, FCDMC Floodplain Use Permit Segment 2- FCDMC ROW Use Permit, FCDMC Floodplain Use Permit Segment 3- FCDMC Floodplain Use Permit, ADOT Highway Encroachment Permit Segment 4- FCDMC Floodplain Use Permit 3. FRP assumed within golf courses to mitigate the affects of wet/dry cycles caused by golf course irrigation at the request of the City 4. Restrained Joint Quantities Based on Assumed Pipe Length of 20 feet 5. Gate Valves, Combination ARV's, Dewatering Stations, and Access Manways Spacing = Every 2640 feet (1/2 mile) 6. Corrosion Test Station Spacing = Every 1000 feet, Corrosion test stations not required with FRP 7. Major utilities defined as Sewer >= 15-inch, Water >= 18-inch, Reclaimed, Irrigation and Storm >= 24-inch, Gas >=4-inch 8. Width of landscape replacement assumed to be 25 feet based on typical excavator widths 9. Full Access Road Replacement Assumed, Access Road Width = 16 ft per FCDMC Std Detail 201 10. Required Improved Golf Cart Path Width = 12 feet per Mesa Standard Details and Specifications Section 316.4 11. Roadway Crossing Pavement Replacement (T-Top) = (Trench Width 6 ft + 1 ft T Top on each side)*Roadway width, roadway width measured in GIS and confirmed with Mesa Std Detail M-19.01 12. Concrete Access Ramp dimensions measured in GIS, approximately 35 ft x 15 ft 13. CLSM Backfill in Bank= 6" Below Pipe to Springline (2.25 ft x 6 ft trench width minus pipe cross sectional area)*pipe length in bank 14. CLSM Backfill in Channel= Pipe Zone (4.5 ft x 6 ft trench width minus pipe cross sectional area)*pipe length in channel 15. 60-inch jack-and-bore/tunneling length for Higley and Main intersection measured in GIS, approximately 650 feet total 16. Canal Leakage Contingency included in anticipation of canal liner damage and unstable soils adjacent to jack-and-bore at Higley and Main intersection 17. Geotechnical classifications include: SRB = Salt River Bed (large-diameter SGC, caliche), P = Pleistocene soil (SGC, caliche), H = Holocene soil (SGC)

1 of 1

NWWRP RECLAIMED WATERLINE ALIGNMENT AND INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS STUDY EMF Pipeline Alignment: Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost City of Mesa Project No. CP0896

Prepared By: KAD Checked By: KJN

November 13, 2020

Item No.

Item Description

Subtotal

20% Contingency

Cost

Mesa ROW Quenton Drive to EMF

18,012,000

$3,603,000

21,615,000

EMF Segment 1 - Brown to Main

9,190,000

$1,838,000

11,028,000

EMF Segment 2 - Main to Southern

10,260,000

$2,052,000

12,312,000

EMF Segment 3 - Southern to US60

3,830,000

$766,000 $

4,596,000

EMF Segment 4 - US60 to SEWRP

3,590,000

$718,000 $

4,308,000

Total

$44,882,000

$8,977,000

$53,859,000

This is a preliminary cost estimate for budgetary purposes only. It is recommended that a detailed cost estimate be developed during the design phase of the project.

Appendix L4 City ROW/EMF Hybrid Pipeline Cost Estimate

Dibble November 2020

L-4

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Prepared By: KAD Checked By: KJN

Unit Cost

Segment 1

Segment 39

Segment 12

Segment 13

Segment 14

Segment 14.1

Segment 14.2

Val Vista Drive Between Quenton and McDowell

McDowell Between Val Vista and Greenfield

Greenfield Between McDowell and Hermosa Vista

Greenfield Between Hermosa Vista and McKellips

Greenfield Between McKellips and McLellan

Greenfield Between McLellan and Princess Drive

Princess Drive Between Greenfield and EMF

Item No.

Description

Unit

Mobilization

Cost 67,000

Construction Surveying & Layout

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

4 5

Easements/Property Acquisition 1 Permits

Traffic Control

Connect to Existing Reclaimed

80,000

450

150,000

50,000

Quantity

MILE $

25,000

Quantity

Cost 156,000

67,000

14,000

Quantity

Cost 70,000

156,000

27,000

Quantity

Cost 70,000

70,000

14,000

Quantity

Cost 66,000

70,000

14,000

Quantity

Cost 12,000

66,000

14,000

Quantity

Totals

Cost 47,000

488,000

12,000

47,000

488,000

4,000

9,000

96,000

0.25% - 3.5%

6,000

52,000

35,000

24,000

6,000

1,000

4,000

128,000

156,000

70,000

154,000

27,000

47,000

591,000

2653

2652.5

2700

670

1615

80,000

3-7%

67,000

80,000

2685

1,209,000

5285

150,000

300,000

50,000

100,000

70,000

55,000

5,000

15,000

50,000

100,000

2,379,000

1,194,000

150,000

50,000

150,000

50,000

140,000

70,000

110,000

55,000

25,000

15,000

100,000

150,000

100,000

300,000

1,215,000

302,000

150,000

50,000

70,000

55,000

15,000

200,000

50,000

300,000

727,000

8,220,000

150,000

1,050,000

50,000

350,000

70,000

490,000

55,000

385,000

5,000

10,000

100,000

600,000

1,600,000

1,000,000

42" Reclaimed Waterline 3 42" Gate Valves

Combination ARV's (Size TBD)

Dewatering Stations

Access Manways

Corrosion Test Stations

Major Non-Gravity Utility Crossings

Major Gravity Utility Crossings

RWCD Main Canal Crossings

1,000,000

Minor Utility Relocations 6 Pavement Replacement

125

1470

184,000

745

94,000

775

97,000

375,000

100

2387

239,000

4698

470,000

2358

236,000

2358

236,000

2400

240,000

596

60,000

1436

1,625,000

3 4 5

300,000

144,000

Moratorium/Cut Restrictions

2,000

4,000

Curb, Gutter, & Sidewalk Replacement

630

32,000

3,000

35,000

PCCP Replacement (ADOT)

450

Jack and Bore (US60 Freeway Crossing)

3,500

Jack and Bore (RWCD Canal and Utility Crossings) 8 Geotechnical (Additional Cost)

2,000

$4-$8

SRB

41,000

SRB

80,000

SRB

41,000

SRB

41,000

SRB

41,000

6,000

13,000

Landscaping

14500

24 25

Segment Subtotal Cost

2,514,000

5,727,000

2,567,000

2,561,000

2,494,000

263,000

44,000

429,000

1,720,000

18,012,000

Cost Per LF

940

1,090

970

930

650

1,070

1,060

Cost Per Mile

4,963,200

5,755,200

5,121,600

4,910,400

3,432,000

5,649,600

5,596,800

20% Contingency

503,000

1,146,000

514,000

513,000

499,000

86,000

Total Segment Cost

3,017,000

6,873,000

3,081,000

3,074,000

2,993,000

515,000

344,000 $ 2,064,000

3,603,000 21,615,000

1 of 1

Item No.

Prepared By: KAD Checked By: KJN

Description

Unit

Unit Cost

Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

N-S Between Brown and Main

N-S Between Main and Southern

N-S Between Southern and US60

N-S Between US60 and SEWRP

Quantity

Mobilization

Cost 243,000

Cost 272,000

Cost 102,000

Construction Surveying & Layout

243,000

272,000

102,000

MILE

47,000

42,000

17,000

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 1 Easements/Property Acquisition

Permits

6 7

25,000

Quantity

243,000

272,000

102,000

243,000

272,000

102,000

Traffic Control

81,000

91,000

34,000

9750

3,169,000

1,008,000

2950

3500

42" Reclaimed Waterline 3 42" Reclaimed Waterline - FRP

8700

5600

2,100,000

3500

1,313,000

2950

Restrained Joints

440

220,000

180

90,000

150

42" Gate Valves

Combination ARV's

Dewatering Stations

Access Manways

5 5

5 6

Corrosion Test Stations

Major Non-Gravity Utility Crossings

Major Gravity Utility Crossings

17 18

Minor Utility Relocations 8 Landscaping Replacement

Golf Course Landscape Restoration

8 9

Access Road Pavement Replacement

Golf Cart Path Improvements

Roadway Crossing Pavement Replacement (T-Top)

23 24 25

Concrete Access Ramp Replacement

13,14

1 Sack CLSM Backfill

325

375

500

490

245,000

150,000

600,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

140,000

50,000

70,000

280,000

55,000

220,000

110,000

50,000

20,000

5,000

50,000

100,000

150,000

100,000

400,000

200,000

Totals

Cost 95,000 $ 95,000 $

712,000 712,000

14,000 $ 95,000 $

120,000

95,000 $ 32,000 $

712,000

712,000 238,000

- $ 1,107,000 $ 75,000 $

4,177,000

300,000 $ 100,000 $

1,800,000

140,000 $ 110,000 $

840,000

- $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ - $

4,520,000 630,000 600,000 660,000 70,000 350,000 700,000

125

243800

732,000

77500

233,000

965,000

140000

700,000

87500

438,000

73800

369,000

1,507,000

17400

696,000

5600

224,000

7500

825,000

4700

517,000

- $ 440,000 $ - $

920,000

1,782,000

- $ 300,000 $

77,000 1,905,000 1,300,000

4000

SY SY

110

100

200

20,000

200

20,000

110

400

44,000

300

33,000

40,000

150

3400

510,000

4900

735,000

2400

360,000

2000

2,000

250

500,000

400

800,000

650,000

250

$ $

250,000 74,000

400 P

$ $

400,000 66,000

$ $

23,000

650,000

163,000

Segment Subtotal Cost

9,190,000

10,260,000

3,830,000

3,590,000

26,870,000

Cost Per LF

870

1,210

1,100

1,220

1,060

Cost Per Mile

4,593,600

6,388,800

5,808,000

6,441,600

5,596,800

20% Contingency

1,838,000

2,052,000

766,000

718,000

5,374,000

Total Segment Cost

11,028,000

12,312,000

4,596,000

4,308,000

32,244,000

60-inch Jack and Bore/Tunneling

Canal Leakage Contingency

Pleistocene Soil Excavation (Additional Cost)

This is a preliminary cost estimate for budgetary purposes only. It is recommended that a detailed cost estimate be developed during the design phase of the project.

1 of 1

NWWRP RECLAIMED WATERLINE ALIGNMENT AND INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS STUDY EMF Pipeline Alignment: Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost City of Mesa Project No. CP0896 November 13, 2020

Prepared By: KAD Checked By: KJN

1 of 1

NWWRP RECLAIMED WATERLINE ALIGNMENT AND INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS STUDY Mesa ROW/EMF Hybrid Pipeline Alignment, Hybrid Segments: Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost City of Mesa Project No. CP0896 November 13, 2020

Item No.

Prepared By: KAD Checked By: KJN

Description

Unit

Unit Cost

Segment 32

Segment 33

Segment 61.1

Higley Road Between Main and Broadway

Higley Road Between Broadway and Southern

Southern Ave Between Higley and EMF

Quantity 1

Mobilization

Cost 101,000

Construction Surveying & Layout

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

Easements/Property Acquisition 1 Permits

MILE $

25,000

Quantity -

Cost 111,000

101,000

14,000

Quantity -

111,000

27,000

0.25% - 3.5%

9,000

56,000

3-7%

235,000

257,000

40,000 $ 200,000 $

1,179,000

2,385,000

3980

2620

5300

1,791,000 $ 300,000 $

5,355,000

100,000 $ 140,000 $

250,000

110,000 $ 20,000 $

275,000

50,000 $ 100,000 $

50,000

80,000

42" Reclaimed Waterline 3 42" Gate Valves

450

150,000

300,000

50,000

100,000

70,000

140,000

55,000

110,000

5,000

15,000

25,000

50,000

100,000

1,500,000

6,000

12 13 14

Dewatering Stations Access Manways

Corrosion Test Stations

Major Non-Gravity Utility Crossings

Major Gravity Utility Crossings

RWCD Main Canal Crossings

1,000,000

Minor Utility Relocations 6 Pavement Replacement

125

100

2329

233,000

4712

472,000

3538

2,000

755

8,000

3538

105,000

61,000

20,000 $ $

Connect to Existing Reclaimed

Combination ARV's (Size TBD)

332,000

Traffic Control

Cost 120,000 $ 120,000 $

Totals

692,000 750,000 350,000 60,000 200,000

1,000,000 $ $

2,500,000 1,059,000

354,000 $ 30,000 $

6,000

Moratorium/Cut Restrictions

Curb, Gutter, & Sidewalk Replacement

PCCP Replacement (ADOT)

450

Jack and Bore (US60 Freeway Crossing)

3,500

Jack and Bore (RWCD Canal and Utility Crossings) 8 Geotechnical (Additional Cost)

2,000

80,000

$4-$8

41,000

40,000

1 of 2

Landscaping

4,495,000 $ 1,130 $

12,538,000 21,120,000 15,046,000

Segment Subtotal Cost

3,814,000

4,229,000

Cost Per LF

1,460

800

Cost Per Mile

7,708,800

4,224,000

20% Contingency

763,000

846,000

5,966,400 $ 899,000 $

Total Segment Cost

4,577,000

5,075,000

5,394,000 $

4,000 2,508,000

2 of 2

NWWRP RECLAIMED WATERLINE ALIGNMENT AND INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS STUDY Mesa ROW/EMF Hybrid Pipeline Alignment: Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost City of Mesa Project No. CP0896

Prepared By: KAD Checked By: KJN

November 13, 2020

Item No.

Item Description

Subtotal

20% Contingency

Cost

Mesa ROW Quenton Drive to EMF

18,012,000

$3,603,000

21,615,000

EMF Segment 1 - Brown to Main

9,190,000

$1,838,000

11,028,000

Mesa ROW Higley & Main to EMF at Southern

12,538,000

$2,508,000

15,046,000

EMF Segment 3 - Southern to US60

3,830,000

$766,000 $

4,596,000

EMF Segment 4 - US60 to SEWRP

3,590,000

$718,000 $

4,308,000

Total

$47,160,000

$9,433,000

$56,593,000

This is a preliminary cost estimate for budgetary purposes only. It is recommended that a detailed cost estimate be developed during the design phase of the project.

Appendix L5 Plant Improvements Preliminary Cost Estimate

Dibble November 2020

L-5

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

NWWRP RECLAIMED WATERLINE ALIGNMENT AND INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS STUDY Plant Improvements Preliminary Cost Estimate City of Mesa Project No. CP0896

Prepared By: KAD

November 13, 2020

Item No.

Checked By: KJN

Item Description

Unit

Cost

NWWRP - Reservoir

$3,500,000

NWWRP - Booster Pump Station

$6,000,000

SEWRP - Booster Pump Improvements

$3,000,000

Total

$12,500,000

This is a preliminary cost estimate for budgetary purposes only. It is recommended that a detailed cost estimate be developed during the design phase of the project.

Appendix L6 Scenario 1-4 Pipeline Alignments: EOPCC

Dibble November 2020

L-6

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

NWWRP RECLAIMED WATERLINE ALIGNMENT AND INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS STUDY Scenario 1-4 Pipeline Alignments: Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost City of Mesa Project No. CP0896

Prepared By: KAD

November 13, 2020

Checked By: KJN

Option

Mesa ROW

EMF

Hybrid

RWCD

Pipeline Construction

47,546,000

44,882,000

47,160,000

38,426,000

Plant Improvements

12,500,000

20% Contingency

12,009,000

11,476,000

11,932,000

10,185,000

Subtotal

72,055,000

68,858,000

71,592,000

61,111,000

Design (10%)

7,206,000

6,886,000

7,160,000

6,112,000

Construction Administration (10%)

7,206,000

6,886,000

7,160,000

6,112,000

City Administration (3%)

2,162,000

2,066,000

2,148,000

1,834,000

Total

88,629,000

84,696,000

88,060,000

75,169,000

Pipe Length (LF) Pipe Length (Miles)

50,667 9.59

43,160 8.17

46,360 8.78

39,630 7.51

Appendix M Advantages/Disadvantages Analysis Table

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

City of Mesa NWWRP Reclaimed Waterline Alignment Investigations & Analysis Study Mesa ROW, RWCD, & EMF Alignments Advantages & Disadvantages Alignment RWCD: Water Wheel

Advantages • • • • • • •

Minimizes pipeline installation costs Minimizes utility conflicts Minimizes traffic control Minimizes public impact Simplest US 60 crossing Minimize pavement replacement Direct to GRIC

Disadvantages •

•

• • • • •

RWCD: ROW Option

• • • • •

Minimizes Pavement Replacement Direct route – reduce new pipe length Minimizes utility crossings Minimizes traffic control Minimizes public impact

1/7/2020 CP0896

• • • • • • •

Potential expansion of RWCD canal at cross section reduction from Pecos Road and at Chandler Heights Road (Potential for 2-7 miles of canal improvements) Mesa would be required to maintain constant flow to RWCD canal. Would require additional infrastructure, potential reservoir at NWWRP Annual toll required for water wheeling Water quality would need to be monitored to prevent algae blooms or danger to fish Canal would not be available during dry-up periods (Dec-Jan) Likely cannot discharge into canal at Quenton Mesa’s flows are a low priority

May need to relocate/re-align around well sites adjacent to canal Minimal As-Built information May encounter saturated, unstable soils from leaking canal liner ½-sack slurry backfill required Access agreement for Mesa maintenance access RWCD inspector coordination and availability Tower Point community residents have encroached on RWCD ROW. Route would require coordination and public involvement.

Unknowns • • •

•

• • •

• •

Current canal flow data and capacity are not known Cannot exceed 50/50 ratio reclaimed water to surface water. The surface water volume fluctuates. Queen Creek discharges reclaimed water at Queen Creek Road. Agreement would be required with Mesa, RWCD and Queen Creek to determine liability for flows beyond this point. Some of the mixing ratio may be utilized by SRP near Warner and Val Vista. It is believed that the SRP discharge is treated to potable levels. Would require a perpetual agreement with RWCD. Stipulations are unknown. Limited response from RWCD to obtain information needed for decision-making Existing RWCD agreements provide canal widening if capacity is needed. This may affect pipeline location. Mesa would have to relocate at own cost. Cost of utility easement in RWCD ROW. May be based on market value of RWCD property, which is unknown. Limited response from RWCD to obtain information needed for decision-making

Summary Reclaimed water to discharge into canal near McDowell Road Cost: • Pipeline: $5.4M • Canal expansion: $23.9M minimum • Additional infrastructure: $11.9M • Total: $41.2M

Cost: • • •

Pipeline in Mesa ROW: $1.5M Pipeline in RWCD ROW: $46.6M Total: $48.1M

Page 1 of 4

City of Mesa NWWRP Reclaimed Waterline Alignment Investigations & Analysis Study Mesa ROW, RWCD, & EMF Alignments Advantages & Disadvantages Alignment EMF: Brown Rd to Main St

Advantages • • • • • • •

Can utilize access road on east side of EMF Minimizes pavement replacement Direct route – reduce new pipe length Minimizes utility crossings Minimizes traffic control Minimizes public impact No scour analysis required outside of floodway (in embankment)

Disadvantages • • • • • • • • • •

EMF: Main St to Southern Ave

• • • • •

Minimizes pavement replacement Direct route – reduce new pipe length Minimizes utility crossings Minimizes traffic control Minimizes public impact

1/7/2020 CP0896

• •

• • • • • • • • • • •

Requires a crossing of RWCD 1-sack Slurry backfill required from 6-inches below pipe to spring line Requires RWCD crossing permit Requires FCDMC encroachment permit & easement Pipe within FCDMC required to have restrained joints Requires agreement for Mesa maintenance access Emergency Action Plan required (should be minimal on access road) Potential 404 permit required May require NRCS approval Requires provisions for isolation of flow in the event of a pipeline leak or break (depressurize pipeline) Land not owned by FCDMC. Would require easement from golf course owner. Many complicated stakeholders o MCDOT o FCDMC o Golf Course o Leisure World Public outreach for construction in 56th Street (work area restrictions) Slurry backfill required from 6-inches below pipe to 6-inches above pipe Requires RWCD crossing permit Requires FCDMC encroachment permit & easement Pipe within FCDMC required to have restrained joints Requires agreement for Mesa maintenance access May require 404 permit in floodway (determination of waters of the US) Work in channel limited outside of dry-up periods Emergency Action Plan required May require NRCS approval Increases risk of pipe failure due to wet/dry cycles in floodway

Unknowns • •

•

Summary

Would require an Easement/License agreement and access agreement with FCDMC. Stipulations are unknown. Potential Easement/License language may require Mesa to relocate pipeline in the event of future improvements to the floodway.

Utilize Mesa right-of-way from Val Vista & Quenton to Greenfield & Brown Cost: • Pipeline in Mesa ROW: $22.5M • Pipeline in EMF: $11.5M • Total: $34.0M

Would require an Easement/License agreement and access agreement with FCDMC. Stipulations are unknown. Is Mesa willing to enter into agreement? Potential easement/license language may require Mesa to relocate pipeline in the event of future improvements to the floodway. Is Mesa willing to agree to this?

Cost: • • •

Pipeline in Mesa ROW: $0M Pipeline in EMF: $12.8M Total: $12.8M

Hybrid Segment Cost: • Pipeline in Mesa ROW: $15.7M

Page 2 of 4

City of Mesa NWWRP Reclaimed Waterline Alignment Investigations & Analysis Study Mesa ROW, RWCD, & EMF Alignments Advantages & Disadvantages Alignment

EMF: Southern Ave to Baseline Rd

Advantages

• • • • • •

Minimizes pavement replacement Direct route – reduce new pipe length Minimizes utility crossings Minimizes traffic control Minimizes public impact Open cut trench US 60 crossing

1/7/2020 CP0896 Disadvantages

•

Requires provisions for isolation of flow in the event of a pipeline leak or break (depressurize pipeline)

•

Land not owned by FCDMC. Would require easement from golf course owner. Many complicated stakeholders o FCDMC o Golf Course Requires RWCD crossing permit Requires FCDMC encroachment permit & easement Pipe within FCDMC required to have restrained joints Requires agreement for Mesa maintenance access May require 404 permit in floodway (waters of the US?) Work in channel limited outside of dry-up periods Emergency Action Plan required May require NRCS approval Increases risk of pipe failure due to wet/dry cycles in floodway Requires provisions for isolation of flow in the event of a pipeline leak or break (depressurize pipeline)

• • • • • • • • • • •

Unknowns

•

Would require an Easement/License agreement and access agreement with FCDMC. Stipulations are unknown. Is Mesa willing to enter into agreement? Easement/License may require Mesa to relocate pipeline in the event of future improvements. Is Mesa willing to agree to this?

Summary

Cost: • • •

Pipeline in Mesa ROW: $0M Pipeline in EMF: $9.3M Total: $9.3M

Page 3 of 4

City of Mesa NWWRP Reclaimed Waterline Alignment Investigations & Analysis Study Mesa ROW, RWCD, & EMF Alignments Advantages & Disadvantages Alignment Mesa ROW Option (Matrix)

Advantages • • • • •

Pipeline built completely in Mesa ROW Unrestricted access Ease of future maintenance Less permitting and coordination with 3rd parties No legal agreements with RWCD or FCDMC

1/7/2020 CP0896 Disadvantages

• • • • • •

Requires pavement replacement Requires extensive traffic control Impact to the public for pipeline construction Higher total construction cost due to longer pipeline length Possible modifications to pumping and storage systems at NWWRP Heavy existing utility conflict/coordination/crossings

Unknowns • •

Potential easements required Possible utility relocations required

Summary Selected alignment: Alignment 41 Cost: • Pipeline in Mesa ROW: $58.8M • Total: $58.8M

Page 4 of 4

Appendix N RWCD Water Wheel Technical Memorandum

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

1640 South Stapley Drive, Suite 120 Mesa, Arizona 85204 P 602.957.1155 www.dibblecorp.com

Technical Memorandum To: Copy: From: Subject:

Date: 8/27/2020 Mike McBrady, PE Lance Webb, PE Project No: CP0896 Jake Nelson, PE Jesse Udall, PE Central Mesa Reuse Pipeline Alignment Study – Scenario 2.1 RWCD Canal Analysis

Introduction The City of Mesa (City) is conducting a feasibility study to transport processed effluent (reuse water) from the Northwest Water Reclamation Plant (NWWRP), south to the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), to fulfill a water rights agreement between the City and GRIC. The City contracted Dibble Engineering (Engineer) to perform an alignment study to determine the best route to fulfill the City’s interest. The purpose of this memorandum is to further analyze the Roosevelt Water Conservation District (RWCD) water wheeling option, previously discussed and documented in the Preliminary Summary Report – Central Mesa Reuse Pipeline Alignment Investigation and Analysis as Scenario 2.1, and use recent data provided by RWCD. The proposed scenario will utilize the RWCD’s Main Canal (Canal), which runs approximately from the North 202 Red Mountain Freeway south to GRIC, to convey the reuse water. This technical memorandum will highlight the advantages and disadvantages for utilizing the Canal system as a feasible route. Existing Conditions Existing System The Canal begins just north of Quenton Drive and Val Vista Drive, extends to the southeast for approximately 21 miles to Hunt Highway, and onto GRIC. The cross section of the Canal varies between Sections 1, 2, and 3 (see Exhibit 19 from the Preliminary Summary Report). Cross Section 1 is approximately 14 miles long, from Quenton Drive to Pecos Road. Record drawings were not provided to the Engineer. Field measurements were conducted to estimate the geometry of the Canal. Engineer’s field measurements of this section indicate an approximate top width of 35 feet. Cross Section 2 is approximately five miles long, from Pecos Road to Chandler Heights Road. Engineer’s field measurements of this section indicate an approximate top width of 25 feet. Cross Section 3 continues for approximately two miles, from Chandler Heights Road to Hunt Highway and where it then enters GRIC. Engineer’s field measurements of this section indicate an approximate top width of 12 feet. A topographic survey of the slope or width of the Canal was not performed as a part of this project. The Canal slope was approximated to be 0.15% from USGS topographical maps. Previous discussions with RWCD concluded the approximated canal dimensions reasonable. Existing Flows The Engineer analyzed the daily flow data provided by RWCD to estimate the capacity of the Canal. This data included daily user demand volumes in Acre-Feet (AF) and daily canal orders as volumetric flow rates per unit time, obtained from the Central Arizona Project and enter the Canal 1

1640 South Stapley Drive, Suite 120 Mesa, Arizona 85204 P 602.957.1155 www.dibblecorp.com

at McDowell Road, given in miner’s inches (MI). The MI flow rate is equal to 1/40th cubic foot per second (CFS) and is assumed to occur for the entire day (86,400 seconds). The volumetric flow rate for the given period of time is then converted into AF volume. As RWCD delivers water to users flow within the Canal decreases. The assumed base flow for this analysis is the difference between the daily user demand and the canal orders that reach GRIC and must pass through the Canal’s Section 3. The existing RWCD data was reviewed from years 2018 and 2019 and the largest day’s flow observed was 81.32 AF, in January of 2018 (Table 1). This is equivalent to 40.94 CFS. Peak flow was used to generate a conservative estimate of the Canal’s capacity. It is important to note that flows vary depending on the time of year and the Canal has a periodical dry up for maintenance activities and repairs. Table 1: RWCD Peak Daily Flow Summary

Peak Daily Flow to GRIC [CFS] [MGD]

Month, Year

[AF]

Jan, 2018

81.32

40.94

26.46

Sept, 2019

63.22

31.83

20.96

The Town of Queen Creek discharges flow into the Canal at Queen Creek Road from the Greenfield Water Reclamation Plant. Salt River Project discharges flow into the Canal at Warner Road from their San Tan Generating Station. RWCD indicated that the Town of Queen Creek and SRP’s flows are not included in the flow data that has been provided and that RWCD Staff are currently working on compiling the flow data from these contributors. RWCD owns and operates multiple wells along the Canal, the contribution from these wells is unknown. The Engineer calculated if the base flow plus the City’s reuse flow could be supported by the current capacity of Section 3. It is anticipated that the City will contribute a maximum flow of 12 million gallons per day (MGD) (18.57 CFS) of reuse water to the Canal. Combining the assumed base flow in the Canal (40.94 CFS) with the added reuse water from Mesa equals 38 MGD (59.51 CFS) of peak daily flow to be conveyed through the Canal. This flow does not include the unknown flow contributions from RWCD’s wells, SRP and the Town of Queen Creek. Table 2: RWCD Canal Contributions Summary

Contributor

Maximum Flow Contribution [MGD] [CFS]

RWCD Base Flow*

26.46

40.94

RWCD Wells

Unknown

SRP

Unknown

Town of Queen Creek

Unknown

City of Mesa

12.00

18.57

Total

Unknown

* Flow data provided by RWCD

1640 South Stapley Drive, Suite 120 Mesa, Arizona 85204 P 602.957.1155 www.dibblecorp.com

Based on the Engineer’s field observations, the canal system appears to maintain approximately 1.0 foot of free board from the top of the canal. This is illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 2. RWCD did not provide information regarding requirements of flow depth within the canal; therefore, it is assumed that this is RWCD’s operational requirement for the canal. The Bureau of Reclamation’s (BOR) Design Standard No. 3 Canals and Related Structures gives recommended freeboard values for lined canals based on canal conveyance capacity. RWCD has indicated that Section 3 of the canal has a conveyance capacity of approximately 75 CFS. The BOR recommends a minimum freeboard of 0.6 feet. To be conservative, the Engineer will use a free board of 1.0 foot for canal improvement recommendations.

Figure 1:RWCD Canal at Greenfield Road and Chandler Heights Road

Figure 2: RWCD Canal at Higley Road and Main Street

Analysis Existing Capacity Section 3 The Engineer calculated the existing Canal capacity of Section 3, shown in Figure 3, to estimate if the size of the Canal is adequate for the City’s anticipated contribution. The capacity calculation assumes open channel flow and used Manning’s equation based on the provided RWCD flow data and field measured Canal dimensions. The Manning’s n used for this section is 0.016 based on BOR recommendations for lining type and an approximated slope of 0.15%. Table 3 illustrates the Canal capacity at 0.6 feet of free board and 1.0 foot of free board. Based on the Engineer’s field measurements of the Canal at Figure 3: RWCD Canal South of Chandler Heights Road (Section 3), August 2019 Section 3, the capacity of the Canal is estimated 3

1640 South Stapley Drive, Suite 120 Mesa, Arizona 85204 P 602.957.1155 www.dibblecorp.com

to be 51.5 CFS, assuming 1.0 foot of free board and 73.6 CFS assuming 0.6 feet of free board. Refer to Appendix 1 for the open channel flow calculations. The conveyance capacity of the Canal would likely be reduced if RWCD operates it similar to other canal sections using adjustable gates and weirs to divert flows to laterals. Table 3: RWCD Canal Capacity Summary (Section 3) Bottom

Top

Flow Depth

Side Slope (H:V)

Flow Capacity

RWCD Canal

B1 [FT]

B2 [FT]

D [FT]

LEFT [FT/FT]

RIGHT [FT/FT]

Q [CFS]

0.6 Feet of Free Board

2.33

10.19

2.62

1.5

73.6

1.0 Foot of Free Board

2.33

8.99

2.22

1.5

51.5

These calculations indicate that the Canal may be able to accommodate the peak daily flow of

59.51 CFS at Section 3. However, this calculation does not account for the additional flows contributed by RWCD’s wells, SRP, and the Town of Queen Creek. The Engineer would need to perform additional coordination with RWCD to determine what these flows are and if there is capacity in the canal for the additional contribution from the City. Section 1 & Section 2 The existing capacity in Section 1 and Section 2 of canal could not be calculated at the time of the analysis because these sections do not operate under principals of open channel flow. However, the Engineer observed that the cross-section dimensions are much larger at these sections and are expected to accommodate the proposed flow from the City. These sections can manage flow depths and flow volumes using a system of adjustable gates and weirs. RWCD indicated that minimal infrastructure improvements upstream of Chandler Heights Road may be necessary, presumably to the gate and weir structures. To account for this cost, the Engineer has assumed that six of the gate and weir structures upstream from Chandler Heights Road will require complete replacement. It is assumed that canal liner repair would be necessary based on initial site visits and observations. If the City desires to explore this option in more detail, the Engineer will need additional information from RWCD to confirm the capacity at these sections. Other Considerations There are other limiting factors to consider regarding flow conveyance capacity besides the geometric parameters of the Canal. These items include seasonal canal outages, maintenance, repairs, competing customer priority, water quality, and ADWR blending requirements. Each of these items could limit or eliminate the City’s ability to discharge into the Canal for a period of time. An analysis of the flow data from 2018 and 2019 provided by RWCD indicated that there is an average number of 81 days in the year which RWCD would not be able to convey the City’s 12 MDG discharge rate. Therefore, it is assumed the Canal would only be able to convey the City’s reuse flow 75% of the time for a given year. Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (EOPCC) Water wheeling between RWCD and the City will likely require a contractual agreement that extends for 100 years, based on requirements established by the Arizona Department of Water 4

1640 South Stapley Drive, Suite 120 Mesa, Arizona 85204 P 602.957.1155 www.dibblecorp.com

Resources. This agreement has annual costs associated with it, including annual lease, annual water transportation fee and annual administrative fee. These annual fees may be subject to change based on the Department of Commerce’s Price Index for GDP. Additional costs calculated include the losses the City can expect due to seepage and evaporation and the cost to replace water due to inability to convey the full discharge amount in the canal. See Table 3 for an estimated annual cost for wheeling water in the Canal. Table 3: Water Wheeling and Water Losses Annual Costs

Water Wheeling Annual Cost Lease Price

Water Transportation Fee

Wheeled Reuse/Day1

$5.06

/AF

$22.94

/AF

27.62

$50,975

/yr

$231,331

/yr

$2,525

/yr

$284,831

/yr

Lease $/Year Water Transportation Fee Annual Administrative Fee Subtotal

AF/day

Water Losses Annual Cost CAP 2026 Municipal Water Rate2

$191

/AF

Seepage and Evaporation Losses

0.41

AF/day

Seepage and Evaporation Losses Cost2

$63

/day

Seepage and Evaporation Losses Cost2

$23,108

Inability to Transport Full Water Amount Losses

9.21

Inability to Transport Full Water Amount Losses

3,361

/yr AF/day AF/yr

Cost to Replace Water Losses

$513,521

/yr

Subtotal

$536,629

/yr

Total Annual Cost

$821,460

/yr

Table 3 Notes: 1. The assumed average daily flow RWCD will be able to accommodate is ¾ of the NWWRP’s 12 MGD (36.83 AF) capacity based on limiting conditions including seasonal canal outages, maintenance, competing customer priority, and blending requirements. 2. Water loss costs are based on CAP’s 2026 Municipal Water Rate and may be subject to change. 3. Values were estimated based on an example water wheeling agreement and were adjusted for the total length of the canal. 4. Seepage and evaporation losses were calculated based on an example water wheeling agreement at a rate of 0.07% per mile of distance the water is wheeled (0.07% x 21 miles = 1.5%).

The Engineer has performed an analysis to estimate the capitalized cost of water wheeling for two scenarios: 1) 40-year equivalent pipeline life span, and 2) the life of the 100-year agreement. Note that the time-value of money (capitalization factor) is included in this calculation regarding the annual toll, annual water transportation fee, and annual administration fee to bring these future 5

1640 South Stapley Drive, Suite 120 Mesa, Arizona 85204 P 602.957.1155 www.dibblecorp.com

annual capital costs to a present value and incorporate them into the EOPCC. The capitalization factors calculated to convert a uniform series to a present worth based on the engineering economics equation ⁄ , %, = and the capitalized costs based on the capitalization factors are shown in Table 4. Table 4: 40-year and 100-year capitalization factors, water wheel, and water loss capitalized costs

Item 40-year Capitalization Factor (P/A)

Value 21.61

40-year Water Wheel Capitalized Cost

$6,156,000

40-year Water Losses Capitalized Cost

$11,598,000

100-year Capitalization Factor (P/A)

35.02

100-year Water Wheel Capitalized Cost

$9,974,000

100-year Water Losses Capitalized Cost

$18,792,000

Table 4 Notes: 1. Yearly inflation rate (i) assumed to be 2.6% and 3.4%, 100-yr and 40-yr respectively based on the average inflation rate data calculated using historical Consumer Price Index data which is published by the United States Bureau of Labor and Statistics. 2. Uniform Series Present Worth (P/A), Engineering Economics Supplement, FE Reference

Preliminary cost analyses were performed to estimate probable construction costs for the two time periods previously mentioned. The estimated construction cost for upgrading approximately two miles of the Canal, adding the necessary support infrastructure, and the 40-year water wheeling agreement is $70,680,000. The cost summary is shown in Table 5. The estimated construction cost for upgrading approximately two miles of the Canal, adding the necessary support infrastructure, and the 100-year water wheeling agreement is $83,900,000. The cost summary is shown in Table 6. A detailed Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost for the proposed improvements is included in Appendix 2. Table 5: Summary of Total Cost - 40 Year Time Period

Item

Cost

RWCD Main Canal Improvements

$19,148,000

Plant Upgrades

$10,000,000

Reuse Water Pipeline – Quenton and Val Vista to RWCD Canal and McDowell

$5,378,000

Water Wheel Agreement (40 years)

$6,156,000

Water Losses (40 years)

$11,598,000

Contingency (20%)

$10,456,000

Design Cost (10% Construction Costs)

$3,453,000

Construction Administration (10% Construction Costs)

$3,453,000

City Administration (3% Construction Costs)

$1,036,000

Grand Total

$70,680,000

1640 South Stapley Drive, Suite 120 Mesa, Arizona 85204 P 602.957.1155 www.dibblecorp.com Table 6: Summary of Total Cost – 100 Year Time Period

Item

Cost

RWCD Main Canal Improvements

$19,148,000

Plant Upgrades

$10,000,000

Reuse Water Pipeline – Quenton and Val Vista to RWCD Canal and McDowell

$5,378,000

Water Wheel Agreement (100 years)

$9,974,000

Water Losses (100 years)

$18,792,000

Contingency (20%)

$12,658,000

Design Cost (10% of Construction Costs)

$3,453,000

Construction Administration (10% Construction Costs)

$3,453,000

City Administration (3% Construction Costs)

$1,036,000

Grand Total

$83,900,000

Overall Considerations Scenario 2.1 from the Central Mesa Reuse Pipeline Alignment Study is the option to utilize RWCD’s Main Canal to wheel the City’s reuse water to GRIC. This scenario will require the City and RWCD to collaborate and resolve various topics and discrepancies. Water Quality If the City discharges reuse water into the Canal near McDowell Road, this water will be distributed to all RWCD customers from that point downstream. The reuse water, which is higher in total dissolved solids (TDS) than raw surface water, may negatively affect stakeholder’s crops if they are sensitive to higher salt contents. This could potentially lead to scrutiny, reduction, or elimination of discharge volume into the Canal, and potential legal action. If this were to occur, the City could be limited in fulfilling their water rights agreement with GRIC and would ultimately negate the purpose of the water wheeling agreement with RWCD. The quality of the water will need to be maintained and cannot exceed a 50/50 blending ratio. Arizona Department of Water Resources requires that flows in the canal not contain more than a 50/50 ratio of reuse water to surface water per Arizona Administrative Code R18-11-107.01B. The future holds uncertainty in how agencies will regulate the blending of reuse water with surface water. General regulations tend to become more restricting over time. RWCD has also expressed concerns of toxic algae blooms that may arise due to an unbalanced blending of reuse water and surface water. A toxic algae bloom could be harmful to the fish population in the Canal. Cost of Needed Improvements RWCD indicated they are willing to share the cost of the needed canal improvements. RWCD and the City will need to negotiate these terms. RWCD and the City will also need to determine the best course of action for construction and improvements to minimize the Canal’s downtime. Removal of canal lining may be time intensive and costly for Section 3. RWCD will determine whether to dry up the canal or maintain operations with a bypass during construction. Bypass 7

1640 South Stapley Drive, Suite 120 Mesa, Arizona 85204 P 602.957.1155 www.dibblecorp.com

pumping has the potential to be a significant cost during canal construction. Additionally, a design will need to be prepared for replacing the Canal gate structures to regulate the increased flows. Flow Requirements RWCD requires consistent flow and may require the City to modify or cease its discharge rate depending on Canal inflow and demands. The City will need to construct infrastructure to equalize the diurnal flows to accommodate a steady state discharge to meet RWCD’s requirements. Additionally, Mesa’s water demand would be considered lower priority compared with other RWCD customers and other existing agreements. Based on a review of other water wheeling agreements, the City could be first on the list for usage reductions based on the age of this agreement compared to other existing agreements. This could ultimately limit the amount of flow the City could exchange with GRIC for credits. Water Loss Over the 21-mile length of the Canal, evaporation and leakage could result in water losses up to 1.5% of the City’s reuse water. This totals 23,731 AF of lost water over the span of the 100-year agreement. There is an additional financial loss the City can expect, due to the inability to transport a total of 12 MGD to GRIC. The flow data provided by RWCD was analyzed and over the course of a year, 25% of the City’s annual flow may not be accepted by the Canal. This reduction of reuse water reaching GRIC and resulting loss of water credits could result in an estimated loss of $617,000 annually for the City. Canal Dry Up Period If RWCD cannot convey water to GRIC during the dry up periods for maintenance, the City could temporarily lose their ability to capitalize on the water rights agreement with GRIC. This could cost the City approximately $300,000-$400,000 annually, assuming the canal is unavailable for a maximum time of two months. All annual fees are subject to the open market water rates at the time they are accrued. Time Critical The City has a limited amount of time to utilize the water rights agreement with GRIC. In order to use Scenario 2.1 to transport the reuse water, agreements between the City and RWCD have to be executed. Developing the terms of the agreement, legalizing the terms of the agreement through easements, legal descriptions, and getting both parties to agree with the terms, can be a long and arduous process, which can take years to complete. Legal aspects of the agreement will need to be finalized and approved before construction. Lower Exchange Volume A Water Wheeling agreement with RWCD results in a lower quantity of reuse water delivered to GRIC than a pipeline due to seasonal canal outages, maintenance, open channel transport losses, blending requirements, and competing customer priority. Overall, the City should expect only 75% of the 12 MGD of water to reach GRIC on a daily occurrence over the course of a year. Conclusion Scenario 2.1, from the Preliminary Summary Report – Central Mesa Reuse Pipeline Alignment Investigation & Analysis, utilizes RWCD’s Main Canal to transport reuse water from the NWWRP to GRIC. The advantages and disadvantages of this option are as follows: 8

1640 South Stapley Drive, Suite 120 Mesa, Arizona 85204 P 602.957.1155 www.dibblecorp.com

Advantages • • • • • • • •

Decreased impacts on City residents with less construction activity. Presents an opportunity of City-District collaboration through a water wheel agreement. RWCD has indicated that they would be willing to share the cost on necessary canal improvements. Utilizes mostly existing infrastructure. RWCD indicated that any agreement between the City and RWCD to water wheel can provide the City with year-round capacity in RWCD’s system. RWCD indicated it can provide the City continued deliveries to GRIC through canal maintenance periods. RWCD indicated it can reach an agreement with the City to address water quality issues that may arise. RWCD is aware of the variable nature of wastewater treatment effluent operations and indicated they may be able to address the diurnal fluctuations of discharge into RWCD’s system with proper planning and communication between both parties.

Disadvantages •

• • • • • •

Requires contract negotiations between the City and RWCD that could result in schedule delay. This is a time sensitive project and the negotiation process can become lengthy (two to three years). The City has a limited amount of time to maximize the monetary impact of the NWWRP reuse water agreement with GRIC. The City would not have ownership or control of the Canal facilities. RWCD wheeling length is approximately 21 miles. The estimated new pipeline length is 10 miles. The Canal presents a greater exposure to potential infrastructure issues, resulting in a higher chance of delivery interruptions. Upgrading a two-mile stretch of canal would require temporary shutdowns or bypass pumping. RWCD has expressed concerns about potential toxic algae blooms caused by mixing canal & reuse water which could be detrimental to their fish population. Additional infrastructure may need to be designed and constructed to monitor the ownership of SRP, Queen Creek, City, and RWCD water. Lower quantity of water delivered to GRIC compared to a pipeline option because of limiting conditions which exist within the RWCD system: o Seasonal Canal outages - RWCD dries up the canal for a period of time each year to perform canal maintenance and repairs. Mesa may not be able to discharge to the Canal during these times. o Competing customer and existing agreement priority - RWCD may have to reduce the City’s flow contribution to meet the requirements of customers and other existing agreements before meeting any requirements of an agreement with the City. o Regulatory Blending Requirements - Water quality and accounting measures would need to be followed to ensure that the 50/50 blending ratio of reuse water to surface water is not exceeded. Risk of future regulatory restrictions placed on how reuse water is mixed with raw surface water.

1640 South Stapley Drive, Suite 120 Mesa, Arizona 85204 P 602.957.1155 www.dibblecorp.com

• • • • • •

Losses of water by open channel transport (seepage and evaporation) and opportunity loss annual cost of approximately $640,000. Water wheeling agreement annual fee of approximately $342,000 (Table 3 and Table 4). Risk of liability with RWCD’s customers and stakeholders of contributed flow that has higher TDS levels than raw surface water. Water wheeling fees may be adjusted annually based on Department of Commerce’s Price Index for GDP. Will require facilities to equalize diurnal flow and control discharge flow rate into RWCD’s Main Canal. RWCD has indicated to Mesa that many of their concerns can be addressed. However, the time associated with the resolution of these items is unknown and may negatively impact the ability of Mesa to maximize water credits in a timely manner.

This analysis demonstrates that Scenario 2.1 can be a feasible option but may require Canal improvements to accommodate the flow capacity requirements as well as additional investigation on the overall considerations previously discussed. The City will make the final decision to further pursue this alignment scenario.

References 1. City of Mesa Standard Specifications, 2019 2. RWCD Main Canal Flow Data for calendar years 2018 and 2019 3. Preliminary Summary Report – Central Mesa Reuse Pipeline Alignment Investigation and Analysis. 4. Design Standards for Canal and Related Structures - Bureau of Reclamation Manual, 1967

Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.

Thursday, Jul 23 2020

CMRP Alignment Study - Scenario 2.1 RWCD Canal Analysis - 0.6 ft Free Board Trapezoidal Bottom Width (ft) Side Slopes (z:1) Total Depth (ft) Invert Elev (ft) Slope (%) N-Value

= = = = = =

Calculations Compute by: Known Depth (ft)

Known Depth = 2.62

Highlighted Depth (ft) Q (cfs) Area (sqft) Velocity (ft/s) Wetted Perim (ft) Crit Depth, Yc (ft) Top Width (ft) EGL (ft)

2.33 1.50, 1.50 3.22 10.00 0.15 0.016

Elev (ft)

= = = = = = = =

2.62 73.58 16.40 4.49 11.78 2.08 10.19 2.93

Depth (ft)

Section

14.00

4.00

13.00

3.00

12.00

2.00

11.00

1.00

10.00

0.00

9.00

-1.00 0

Reach (ft)

Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.

Thursday, Jul 23 2020

CMRP Alignment Study - Scenario 2.1 RWCD Canal Analysis - 1.0 ft Free Board Trapezoidal Bottom Width (ft) Side Slopes (z:1) Total Depth (ft) Invert Elev (ft) Slope (%) N-Value

= = = = = =

Calculations Compute by: Known Depth (ft)

Known Depth = 2.22

Highlighted Depth (ft) Q (cfs) Area (sqft) Velocity (ft/s) Wetted Perim (ft) Crit Depth, Yc (ft) Top Width (ft) EGL (ft)

2.33 1.50, 1.50 3.22 10.00 0.15 0.016

Elev (ft)

= = = = = = = =

2.22 51.49 12.57 4.10 10.33 1.74 8.99 2.48

Depth (ft)

Section

14.00

4.00

13.00

3.00

12.00

2.00

11.00

1.00

10.00

0.00

9.00

-1.00 0

Reach (ft)

Mesa Project No.: CP0896 Dibble Project No.: 1018123.01 Date: 8/27/2020

Prepared By: GCT Checked By: JRU

Appendix 2

RWCD Main Canal Improvement Costs - Chandler Heights to Hunt Highway Item No.

Item Description

Unit

Unit Cost

Quantity

Cost $2,400,000 $500,000

1 2

Canal Lining Demolition Excavation

Dewatering/Cofferdam

$500,000

Canal Lining (Shotcrete, Unreinforced)

$30

212,476

$6,375,000

Bypass Pumping

$500,000

Existing Box Culvert Demolition

$150

6,940

$1,041,000

Box Culvert Modifications

$430,000

$1,290,000

Roadway Replacement (T-Top)

$100

613

$62,000

Concrete Access Ramp Replacement

$110

303

$34,000

Canal Gate Structure Replacement

$3,500,000

Rectangular Channel Widening at Hunt Highway

$1,500,000

Discharge Structure

$250,000

Traffic Control

$532,000

14 15

Utility Relocations Permitting Improve Maintenance Access Roadway for Joint Use with City Subtotal

LS LS

3% 3%

1 1

$532,000 $532,000

$2,000,000

$15 $75

SF CY

159,841 6,275

$350,000

$ 2,000,000.00

$19,148,000 **

Plant Upgrades Item No.

Item Description

Unit

Unit Cost

Quantity

Cost

Plant Upgrades

$10,000,000

Subtotal

Reuse Water Pipe Installation Costs - Quenton to Val Vista Drive Item No. Item Description Val Vista from Quenton to McDowell: ROW Segment 1 1 - Refer to Exhibit 7 from the Alignment Study Summary Report

Cost $2,514,400

McDowell from Val Vista to RWCD Canal: ROW Segment 39 (50% Segment Length) - Refer to Exhibit 7 from the Alignment Study Summary Report

$2,863,500

Subtotal

$5,377,900

40- Year Water Wheel Agreement Costs Item No. Item Description

Cost

Annual Water Transport Fee, Annual Toll, and Annual Administrative Fee - Capitalized Cost 40 years

Water Losses - Capitalized Cost 40 years

$6,155,902 $11,597,891

Subtotal Total Contingency

$ $ 20% $

17,753,794 52,279,694 10,455,939

Design and Administration Costs Item No. Item Description

Cost

Design (10% of Construction Costs)

$3,452,590

2 3

Construction Administration (10% of Construction Costs) City Administration (3% of Construction Costs)

$3,452,590 $1,035,777

Subtotal Grand Total

$ $

7,940,957 70,676,589 →

70,680,000.00

Note: 1. Preliminary (10%) Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost 2. Future meeting with RWCD is necessary to confirm canal geometry and functionality 3. Refer to Engineers Cost Estimate from Final Summary Report regarding a breakdown of Reuse Water Pipeline Installation Costs 4. Approximately 2.3 miles of canal improvements between Chandler Heights Road and Hunt Highway ** This is the anticipated value if total length of Canal section 3 must be improved; Value could be less if it is determine that the Canal upgrades are not required. RWCD has indicated that they may be willing to share the costs of these improvements.

1 of 1

Mesa Project No.: CP0896 Dibble Project No.: 1018123.01 Date: 8/27/2020

Prepared By: GCT Checked By: JRU

Appendix 2

RWCD Main Canal Improvement Costs - Chandler Heights to Hunt Highway Item No.

Item Description

Unit

Unit Cost

Quantity

Cost $2,400,000 $500,000

1 2

Canal Lining Demolition Excavation

Dewatering/Cofferdam

$500,000

Canal Lining (Shotcrete, Unreinforced)

$30

212,476

$6,375,000

Bypass Pumping

$500,000

Existing Box Culvert Demolition

$150

6,940

$1,041,000

Box Culvert Modifications

$430,000

$1,290,000

Roadway Replacement (T-Top)

$100

613

$62,000

Concrete Access Ramp Replacement

$110

303

$34,000

Canal Gate and Weir Structure Replacement

$3,500,000

Rectangular Channel Widening at Hunt Highway

$1,500,000

Discharge Structure

$250,000

Traffic Control

$532,000

14 15

Utility Relocations Permitting Improve Maintenance Access Roadway for Joint Use with City Subtotal

LS LS

3% 3%

1 1

$532,000 $532,000

$2,000,000

$15 $75

SF CY

159,841 6,275

$350,000

$ 2,000,000.00

$19,148,000 **

Plant Upgrades Item No.

Item Description

Unit

Unit Cost

Quantity

Cost

Plant Upgrades

$10,000,000

Subtotal

Cost $2,514,400

McDowell from Val Vista to RWCD Canal: ROW Segment 39 (50% Segment Length) - Refer to Exhibit 7 from the Alignment Study Summary Report

$2,863,500

Subtotal

$5,377,900

100-Year Water Wheel Agreement Costs Item No. Item Description

Cost

Annual Water Transport Fee, Annual Toll, and Annual Administrative Fee - Capitalized Cost 100 years

Water Losses - Capitalized Cost 100 years

$9,974,275 $18,791,814

Subtotal Total Contingency

$ $ 20% $

28,766,089 63,291,989 12,658,398

Design and Administration Costs Item No. Item Description

Cost

Design (10% of Construction Costs)

$3,452,590

2 3

Construction Administration (10% of Construction Costs) City Administration (3% of Construction Costs)

$3,452,590 $1,035,777

Subtotal Grand Total

$ $

7,940,957 83,891,344 →

83,900,000.00

1 of 1

Appendix O Scenarios Ranking Matrix O1: Scenarios Scoring Rubric O2: Scenarios Scores and Ranks

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

Appendix O1 Scenarios Scoring Rubric

Dibble November 2020

O-1

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

CMRP Alignment Investigation Analysis Study Mesa Project No.: CP0896 Dibble Project No.: 1018123.01

Alignment Scenarios Decision Matrix Criteria Scoring Rubric 9/17/2020

Mesa Alignment Study - Alignment Scenarios Decision Matrix Criteria Scoring Rubric

Cost

Parameter Cost per Acre Foot Delivered

13.2%

Scoring Range Low High ---

---

<=$145

$145-$150

$150-$155

$155-$160

>=160

Weight

0.132

Potential Normalized Criteria Maximum Weighted Scoring Potential Normalized Total Maximum Range Score Contribution to Potential Normalized Low High Contribution Category

1 Maximum Possible Total Score:

0.132

100.0%

13.2%

0.132

100.0%

13.2%

Notes Cost per AF of water delivered over 40-year time period Scenario 1: 1 ($164.84) Scenario 2.1: 3 ($151.32) Scenario 2.2: 5 ($139.81) Scenario 3: 2 ($157.52) Scenario 4: 1 ($163.78)

Page 1 of 5

CMRP Alignment Investigation Analysis Study Mesa Project No.: CP0896 Dibble Project No.: 1018123.01

Alignment Scenarios Decision Matrix Criteria Scoring Rubric 9/17/2020

Construction

Parameter

10.5%

Scoring Range Low High ---

---

18 months

21 months

24 months

27 months

30 months

---

High production, fewer unknowns

Moderate production, fewer unknowns

High production, more unknowns

Moderate production, more unknowns Low production

2 1

Community Impact Low

---

Moderate

High

Schedule

Constructability

Weight

0.045

0.032

0.028

Potential Normalized Criteria Maximum Weighted Scoring Potential Normalized Total Maximum Range Score Contribution to Potential Normalized Low High Category Contribution

Maximum Possible Total Score:

0.045

0.032

42.8%

30.4%

Notes

4.5%

Anticipated timeline to complete construction; does not include design or up-front agreements (see Timeline to Implement ) Scenario 1: 3 (24 Months, 9.5 miles of pipe, utility crossings/relocations, traffic control) Scenario 2.1: 5 (18 Months, 1 mile of pipe and 2 miles of canal improvements) Scenario 2.2: 2 (27 Months, 7.5 miles of pipe, trench stabilization) Scenario 3: 4 (21 Months, 8.2 miles of pipe) Scenario 4: 3 (24 Months, 8.8 miles of pipe, 5.5 miles located within the roadway)

3.2%

Scenario 1: 4 (Moderate production - pavement replacement, utility concentration, traffic control; Fewer unknowns- less unknowns in City ROW) Scenario 2.1: 4 (Moderate production - shorter length but pavement replacement, bypass pumping; Fewer unknowns - shorter construction length) Scenario 2.2: 3 (High production - Easier excavation and less traffic control; More unknowns - trench stabilization, coordination) Scenario 3: 5 (High production - Easier excavation and less traffic control; Fewer unknowns - flood events, golf courses, coordination) Scenario 4: 4 (Moderate production - ~60% pipeline in City ROW, pavement replacement, etc.; Fewer unknwons - less unknowns in City ROW, less coordination) High level comparison of community impact (including consideration of public facility, business, and traffic impact) Scenario 1: 1 (High, construction in major roadways impacting traffic and business/pucblic facility access) Scenario 2.1: 3 (Low, minimal length of construction) Scenario 2.2: 2 (Moderate, roadway crossings, residents along canal) Scenario 3: 2 (Moderate, roadway crossings, golf courses) Scenario 4: 1 (High, construction in major roadways, 1 golf course)

0.028

26.8%

2.8%

0.105

100.00%

10.5%

Page 2 of 5

CMRP Alignment Investigation Analysis Study Mesa Project No.: CP0896 Dibble Project No.: 1018123.01

Alignment Scenarios Decision Matrix Criteria Scoring Rubric 9/17/2020

Risk

Parameter Water Quality Concerns Low

33.3%

Scoring Range Low High ---

---

Moderate

High

Water Portfolio Benefit

---

Maximized (100% of NWWRP delivered)

Reduced (75% of NWWRP delivered)

---

Moderate

High

Environmental Impact / Future Regulatory Low

Weight

0.102

0.159

0.072

Potential Normalized Criteria Maximum Weighted Scoring Potential Normalized Total Maximum Range Score Contribution to Potential Normalized Low High Category Contribution

Maximum Possible Total Score:

0.102

0.159

30.6%

47.8%

Notes

10.2%

Likelihood of public exposure to water quality concerns Scenario 1: 3 (Low, water contained in pipeline) Scenario 2.1: 1 (High, open air, RWCD fish population, RWCD customers) Scenario 2.2: 3 (Low, water contained in pipeline) Scenario 3: 2 (Moderate, risk of dewatering in Waters of US and/or public golf course) Scenario 4: 2 (Moderate, risk of dewatering in Waters of US and/or public golf course)

15.9%

Beneficial use of each scenario Scenario 1: 2 (Pipeline anticipated to deliver full amount of reuse water from NWWRP) Scenario 2.1: 1 (Canal anticipated to deliver water 75% of the time based on historical RWCD data) Scenario 2.2: 2 (Pipeline anticipated to deliver full amount of reuse water from NWWRP) Scenario 3: 2 (Pipeline anticipated to deliver full amount of reuse water from NWWRP) Scenario 4: 2 (Pipeline anticipated to deliver full amount of reuse water from NWWRP) Risk of regulatory changes affecting water delivery Scenario 1: 3 (Low, MCESD subdivision infrastructure) Scenario 2.1: 1 (High, ADWR, blending requirements, water reuse rules) Scenario 2.2: 3 (Low, MCESD subdivision infrastructure) Scenario 3: 2 (Moderate, Waters of the US) Scenario 4: 2 (Moderate, Waters of the US)

0.072

21.7%

7.2%

0.333

100.0%

33.3%

Page 3 of 5

CMRP Alignment Investigation Analysis Study Mesa Project No.: CP0896 Dibble Project No.: 1018123.01

Alignment Scenarios Decision Matrix Criteria Scoring Rubric 9/17/2020

Autonomy

Parameter Legal Agreements None

27.6%

Scoring Range Low High ---

---

Moderate

Low

---

3 additional major stakeholders involved

4 additional major stakeholders involved

5 additional major stakeholders involved

6+ additional major stakeholders involved

---

24 months

30 months

36 months

42 Months+

Unencumbered Control High

Stakeholder Involvement 2 additional major stakeholder involved

Timeline to Implement 18 months

Weight

0.063

0.133

0.026

0.055

Potential Normalized Criteria Maximum Weighted Scoring Potential Normalized Total Maximum Range Score Contribution to Potential Normalized Low High Category Contribution

1 Maximum Possible Total Score:

0.063

0.133

0.026

22.7%

48.0%

9.4%

Notes

6.3%

Number of legal agreements required Scenario 1: 5 (None) Scenario 2.1: 1 (RWCD, Queen Creek, SRP, ADWR, GRIC) Scenario 2.2: 4 (RWCD) Scenario 3: 2 (FCDMC, Superstition Springs, Leisure World) Scenario 4: 3 (FCDMC, Superstition Springs)

13.3%

Ranking of autonomy (access, decisions, risk of future relocation) Scenario 1: 3 (Primarily within City ROW) Scenario 2.1: 1 (Primarily within another stakeholder's ROW) Scenario 2.2: 1 (Primarily within another stakeholder's ROW) Scenario 3: 1 (Primarily within another stakeholder's ROW) Scenario 4: 2 (~60% of pipeline length in City ROW)

2.6%

Number of major stakeholders involved Scenario 1: 5 (TOG, ADOT) Scenario 2.1: 2 (RWCD, Queen Creek, SRP, ADWR, GRIC) Scenario 2.2: 4 (TOG, ADOT, RWCD) Scenario 3: 1 (TOG, ADOT, FCDMC, RWCD, Leisure World, Superstition Springs, Maricopa County, Falcon Field) Scenario 4: 1 (TOG, ADOT, FCDMC, RWCD, Superstition Springs, Falcon Field) Time required before construction begins, increased by legal agreements and stakeholder coordination Scenario 1: 5 (No legal agreements required) Scenario 2.1: 2 (Water wheel agreement) Scenario 2.2: 3 (ROW use legal agreement) Scenario 3: 4 (Utility easement) Scenario 4: 4 (Utility easement)

0.055

19.8%

5.5%

0.276

100.00%

27.6%

Page 4 of 5

CMRP Alignment Investigation Analysis Study Mesa Project No.: CP0896 Dibble Project No.: 1018123.01

Alignment Scenarios Decision Matrix Criteria Scoring Rubric 9/17/2020

Operations

Parameter Ease of Access High

15.5%

Scoring Range Low High ---

---

Moderate

Low

Required Maintenance / Operational Functionality

---

Low

Moderate

High

---

75 years

<=50 years

System Longevity Indefinite

Weight

0.024

0.055

0.076

Potential Normalized Criteria Maximum Weighted Scoring Potential Normalized Total Maximum Range Score Contribution to Potential Normalized Low High Category Contribution

Maximum Possible Total Score:

0.024

0.055

15.6%

35.3%

Notes

2.4%

Ranking of pipeline access for maintenance Scenario 1: 3 (High, very few access restrictions anticipated) Scenario 2.1: 2 (Moderate, access agreement required) Scenario 2.2: 2 (Moderate, access agreement required) Scenario 3: 2 (Moderate, access agreement required - FCDMC & golf courses) Scenario 4: 2 (Moderate, access agreement required - FCDMC & golf course)

5.5%

Level of effort / quantity of resources required by Mesa to maintain and operate delivery method Ranking of required maintenance tasks Scenario 1: 1 (High maintenance, servicing valves) Scenario 2.1: 3 (Low maintenance, little City maintenance required; RWCD responsible for canal) Scenario 2.2: 1 (High maintenance, servicing valves) Scenario 3: 1 (High maintenance, servicing valves) Scenario 4: 1 (High maintenance, servicing valves) Anticipated longevity of the system Scenario 1: 2 (75 years, City Operations) Scenario 2.1: 3 (Indefinite, historical nature of canal delivery and continued canal maintenance) Scenario 2.2: 1 (<=50 years due to wet/dry cycles) Scenario 3: 1 (<=50 years due to wet/dry cycles) Scenario 4: 1 (<=50 years due to wet/dry cycles)

0.076

49.1%

7.6%

0.155

100.00%

15.5%

Page 5 of 5

Appendix O2 Scenarios Scores and Ranks

Dibble November 2020

O-2

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

CMRP Alignment Investigation Analysis Study Mesa Project No.: CP0896 Dibble Project No.: 1018123.01

Alignment Scenarios Decision Matrix 9/17/2020

Alignment Scenarios Criteria Ranking Matrix - Weighted and Ranked Scenarios COMPARISON CATEGORIES AND WEIGHTS RISK AUTONOMY 33.3% 27.6% COMPARISON CRITERIA

CONSTRUCTION 10.5%

OPERATIONS 15.5%

COMMUNITY IMPACT

WATER QUALITY CONCERNS

WATER PORTFOLIO BENEFIT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT / FUTURE REGULATORY

LEGAL AGREEMENTS

UNENCUMBERED CONTROL

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

TIMELINE TO IMPLEMENT

EASE OF ACCESS

REQUIRED MAINTENANCE / OPERATIONAL FUNCTIONALITY

SYSTEM LONGEVITY

100%

42.8%

30.4%

26.8%

30.6%

47.8%

21.7%

22.7%

48.0%

9.4%

19.8%

15.6%

35.3%

49.1%

TOTAL % CONTRIBUTION

13.2%

4.5%

3.2%

2.8%

10.2%

15.9%

7.2%

6.3%

13.3%

2.6%

5.5%

2.4%

5.5%

7.6%

100%

MAXIMUM POTENTIAL

1040

282

176

193

587

771

416

422

994

189

327

146

455

571

6570

Scenario 1 (ROW Alignment)

208

169

141

587

771

416

422

994

189

327

146

152

380

4967

Scenario 2.2 (RWCD Pipeline)

1040

113

106

129

587

771

416

338

331

152

196

152

190

4618

Scenario 2.1 (RWCD Water Wheel)

624

282

141

193

196

385

139

331

131

455

571

3706

Scenario 4 (EMF Hybrid)

208

169

141

392

771

277

253

663

262

152

190

3677

Scenario 3 (EMF)

416

226

176

129

392

771

277

169

331

262

152

190

3625

SCENARIO RANK

CONSTRUCTABILITY

WEIGHT WITHIN CATEGORY

TOTAL SCORE

SCHEDULE

TOTAL 100.0%

COST PER ACRE FOOT DELIVERED

COST 13.2%

Page 1 of 1

Appendix P Referenced Standard Detail

Dibble November 2020

Final Summary Report CMRP Alignment Study

LONGITUDINAL TRENCHES (PARALLEL TO CL OF STREET)

TRANSVERSE TRENCHES (NON PARALLEL TO CL OF STREET, SEE NOTE 9)

48" OR LESS (NOTE 4) S/W (TYP.)

TRENCH

BASE A.C. WHEN APPLICABLE (VARIES) TOTAL WIDTH = PAY WIDTH BUT NOT LESS THAN 48"

12"

MORE THAN 48"

PAY WIDTH NOTES 6 & 8

12"

24"

SAWCUT & TACK (TYP.)

PIPE ZONE

BEDDING (MAG 601.4)

LONGITUDINAL TYP. BACKFILL SEC. A-A (TYPE "A") NOTE: FOR CONCRETE PIPE, NATIVE BACKFILL WITH NO MATERIAL GREATER THAN 1 1/2" MAY BE USED WITH CITY APPROVAL.

CRACKSEAL AND SLURRY SEAL (MAG 336 AND 337) (TYP. SEE NOTE #7)

SAWCUT & TACK (TYP.)

A.B.C.(MAG 702) AT 100% PER AASHTO T-99 12"

PAY WIDTH NOTES 6 & 8

BASE ASPHALT (SEE NOTE 10)

SURFACE ASPHALT (SEE NOTES 3 & 5)

A.B.C., GRANULAR NATIVE MATERIAL AT 95% PER AASHTO T-99 (MAG 601 & 702) (SEE NOTE #11) A.B.C. PER MAG STD. SPEC. 702 AND 601. RECLAIMED CONCRETE AND RECLAIMED PAVEMENT MATERIAL ARE NOT ALLOWED FOR PIPE ZONE BACKFILL AND BEDDING. LIME TREATED ABC IS NOT ALLOWED FOR PIPE ZONE BACKFILL AND BEDDING OF DUCTILE IRON PIPE.

CRACKSEAL AND SLURRY SEAL (MAG 336 AND 337) (TYP. SEE NOTE #7)

SURFACE ASPHALT (SEE NOTE 10)

12"

A.B.C. (MAG 702) AT 100% AASHTO T-99 (SEE NOTE #11) OR 1/2-SACK CLSM (MAG 728)

1/2 SACK C.L.S.M. (MAG 728)

A.B.C. PER MAG STD. SPEC. 702 AND 601. RECLAIMED CONCRETE AND RECLAIMED PAVEMENT MATERIAL ARE NOT ALLOWED FOR PIPE ZONE BACKFILL AND BEDDING. LIME TREATED ABC IS NOT ALLOWED FOR PIPE ZONE BACKFILL AND BEDDING OF DUCTILE IRON PIPE. BEDDING (MAG 601.4)

12" PIPE ZONE

TRANSVERSE TYP. BACKFILL SEC. B-B & C-C (TYPE "B")

DETAIL NO.

SURFACE A.C. (VARIES) TOTAL WIDTH = PAY WIDTH + 12" EACH SIDE MIN.

A.B.C./SELECT (VARIES)

PROPOSED OR EXISTING PAVEMENT

TRENCH

STANDARD TRENCH BACKFILL DETAIL ARTERIAL, COLLECTOR & LOCAL

PROPOSED OR EXISTING PAVEMENT

NOT TO SCALE

M-19.04.1

S/W (TYP.)

REV. 07/17/2018

UTILITY CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS

RWCD-41

UTILITY CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS

RWCD-41

UTILITY CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS

RWCD-41

16'-0"

FOG SEAL WITH STONE CHIPS AND PRIME COAT APPLICATION

EXISTING GROUND

FOG SEAL WITH STONE CHIPS AND PRIME COAT APPLICATION

EXISTING GROUND

12" 12" PREPARE SUBGRADE, LEVEL AND PLACE ABC BY CONTRACTOR

EXCAVATE, GRADE, LEVEL AND PLACE ABC BY CONTRACTOR

TYPICAL MAINTENANCE ROAD PAVING CONSTRUCTION (WITHOUT EXCAVATION)

TYPICAL MAINTENANCE ROAD PAVING CONSTRUCTION (WITH EXCAVATION)

NTS NTS

FOG SEAL 0.14-0.16 GAL/SY SWEEP CHIPS PRIOR TO FOG SEAL

STONE CHIPS HIGH VOLUME (MODIFIED) NON COATED - 23-27LB/SY

BITUMINOUS PRIME COAT MC800TR 0.55-0.65 GAL/SY

4" MINIMUM ABC. COMPACT BASE COURSE

NOTES

ADD MOISTURE PRIOR TO PRIMER MC800TR

1) MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPE SHALL BE 2% 2) CROSS SLOPE SHALL DRAIN TOWARD UPSTREAM SIDE ON ALL DAMS AND FLOOD RETARDING STRUCTURES (FRS)

t r n ol D Co

nt y

ct tri is

NTS

Fl oo

TYPICAL MAINTENANCE ROAD PAVING CONSTRUCTION SECTION

ar ou i c o aC p

FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OF MARICOPA COUNTY

MAINTENANCE ROAD (CHIP SEAL) DETAIL

APPROVED BY

REVISION DATE

10/05/15

DETAIL NO.

FCD201-1

16'-0"

EXISTING GROUND

16'-0"

EXISTING GROUND

12" 12" PREPARE SUBGRADE, LEVEL AND PLACE ABC

PREPARE SUBGRADE, LEVEL AND PLACE ABC

ABC MAINTENANCE ROAD (WITH EXCAVATION)

ABC MAINTENANCE ROAD (WITHOUT EXCAVATION) NTS NTS

6" ABC

4" MINIMUM COMPACT

NOTES

SUBGRADE

1) MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPE SHALL BE 2% 2) CROSS SLOPE SHALL DRAIN TOWARD UPSTREAM SIDE ON ALL DAMS AND FLOOD RETARDING STRUCTURES (FRS) 3) SUBGRADE GRADING PER M.A.G. SPECIFICATION 301 4) 6" ABC PER M.A.G. SPECIFICATION 702

ABC MAINTENANCE ROAD SECTION

t r n ol D Co

nt y

ct tri is

Fl oo

NTS

ar ou i c o aC p

FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OF MARICOPA COUNTY

MAINTENANCE ROAD (ABC) DETAIL

APPROVED BY

REVISION DATE

10/05/15

DETAIL NO.

FCD201-2

16'-0"

#4 REBAR CONTINUOUS EACH SIDE

RADIUS = 1/4" EACH SIDE

COMPACTED SUBGRADE

1'-0"

SECTION VIEW NTS

NOTES

t r n ol D Co

nt y

ct tri is

Fl oo

1) MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPE SHALL BE 2% 2) CROSS SLOPE SHALL DRAIN TOWARD UPSTREAM SIDE ON ALL DAMS AND FLOOD RETARDING STRUCTURES (FRS) 3) CONCRETE SHALL BE CLASS "A" 3000PSI BROOM FINISH 4) CONSTRUCTION JOINTS SHALL BE 10'-0" MAX WITH EXPANSION JOINTS AT 50'-0" MAX

ar ou i c o aC p

FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OF MARICOPA COUNTY

MAINTENANCE ROAD (CONCRETE) DETAIL

APPROVED BY

REVISION DATE

10/05/15

DETAIL NO.

FCD201-3

CHANNEL FLOW 12'-0"

50 'R

2'-0"

2% ( MA X)

50 'R

1 0%

FOG SEAL WITH STONE CHIPS AND PRIME COAT APPLICATION

EXCAVATE, GRADE, LEVEL AND PLACE ABC

DRAINAGE SWALE (IF REQUIRED) EITHER SIDE

MAINTENANCE ROAD

ACCESS RAMP CROSS SECTION NTS

PLAN VIEW MAINTENANCE ROAD ACCESS RAMP NTS 12'-0"

2'-0"

CUTOFF WALL FILTER FABRIC EACH SIDE

CONCRETE RAMP

FOG SEAL 0.14-0.16 GAL/SY

CONCRETE RAMP CROSS SECTION

SWEEP CHIPS PRIOR TO FOG SEAL

NTS STONE CHIPS HIGH VOLUME 12'-0"

(MODIFIED) NON COATED

23-27LB/SY #4- 1'-6"x1'-6"

2' -0"

AT 1'-0" O.C.

BITUMINOUS PRIME COAT

CONSTRUCTION JOINT

MC800TR 0.55-0.65 GAL/SY

NOTES #4 BARS TOP

#4 @ 1'-0" E.W. AND O.C.

4" MINIMUM ABC. COMPACT BASE COURSE

AND BOTTOM

NATIVE MATERIAL (COMPACTED)

ADD MOISTURE PRIOR TO PRIMER MC800TR

CONCRETE RAMP REINFORCING

MAINTENANCE ROAD CONSTRUCTION SECTION

NTS

t r n ol D Co

nt y

ct tri is

Fl oo

NTS

ar ou i c o aC p

FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OF MARICOPA COUNTY

MAINTENANCE RAMP DETAIL

APPROVED BY

REVISION DATE

10/05/15

DETAIL NO.

FCD201-4

NOTES (1) MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPE SHALL BE 2% (2) THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 16 FEET DRIVEABLE WIDTH ALONG TRAIL, IF TRAIL MEANDERS THEN 16'-0" (MIN) DRIVEABLE WIDTH (INCLUDING SHOULDER) SHALL BE MAINTAINED FROM TOP OF BANK (3) PAVED TRAIL SHALL HANDLE TRUCK LOADS AS WELL AS BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC (4) DRIVEABLE SHOULDER SHALL BE COMPACTED MATERIAL (AB/DG) OR PAVEMENT. SUB-BASE SOILS SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 95% (MIN) STANDARD PROCTOR (5) IF SHOULDER IS 5 FEET OR LESS INSTALL SAFETY RAIL TO PROTECT BICYCLE TRAFFIC PER FCD STANDARD DETAIL 145-1 (4'-8" HEIGHT) (6) SAFETY RAIL SHALL MEET FCD STANDARD DETAIL 145-1 (MINIMUM) WITH TYPE 4 FOOTINGS. ALTERNATE RAIL TYPE(S) SHALL BE PRE-APPROVED BY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT STAFF

16'-0" MIN (7)

(7) A CLEARANCE HEIGHT OF 13 FEET 6 INCHES SHALL BE MAINTAINED ABOVE DRIVEABLE AREA (INCLUDING LIGHT POLES AND TREES) FOR EQUIPMENT PASSAGE. (8) TREE TRUNKS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 5 FEET CLEARANCE FROM DRIVEABLE AREA. LARGE TREES MAY NEED TO BE PLACED MORE THEN 5'-0" FROM DRIVEABLE AREA TO PREVENT ENCROACHMENT INTO 13'-6" CLEARANCE AREA

16'-0" MIN (2)

10'-0" MIN (3)

SHOULDER VARIES (4) (5)

STRUCTURES (IE: DAMS/LEVEES) REFER TO FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT STAFF FOR ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS (9) THE REQUIREMENTS PRESENTED HEREON ARE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS/RESTRICTIONS MAY APPLY TO SPECIFIC STRUCTURES

RAIL REQUIREMENT TABLE SIDE SLOPE VERTICAL WALL TO 2:1 SLOPE

(1)

SAFETY RAIL (6)

ACCESS TRAIL

2:1 - 6:1 SLOPE

6:1 - FLAT SLOPE

ELEVATION VIEW NTS

t r n ol D Co

nt y

ct tri is

Fl oo

5-0" MIN (8)

SHOULDER VARIES (4)

13' -6" MI N

(7)

ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON TREES OR VEGETATION MAY APPLY FOR SOME

ar ou i c o aC p

SIDE SLOPE - SEE RAIL REQUIREMENT TABLE

PUBLIC TRAILS FOR

FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE OF MARICOPA COUNTY USE DETAIL

APPROVED BY

RAIL REQUIREMENT PIPE RAIL WITH ATTACHED CHAIN LINK FABRIC OR OTHER RESTRICTION TO PROTECT AGAINST FALL HAZARDS

PIPE RAIL ONLY, UNLESS SIDE SLOPE PRESENTS OTHER HAZARDS NO PIPE RAIL REQUIRED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE BY DISTRICT STAFF

REVISION DATE

10/05/15

DETAIL NO.

FCD201-5