DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL FOR MOHAVE COUNTY APPENDICES 3675 E. Andy Devine, Suite C, Kingman, AZ 86402 (928) 757-0910 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ i LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... vii A. HYDROLOGY EXAMPLES ................................................................................. A-1 A.1 Rainfall Examples .................................................................................... A-1 A.1.1 D-D-F and I-D-F Data for Use with the Rational Method ...................... A-1 A.1.1.1 Example Using the Manual Method .............................................. A-1 A.1.1.2 Example using the DDMSW Manual Method ................................. A-5 A.1.1.3 Example using the DDMSW GIS Method ...................................... A-9 A.1.1.4 Comparison of Methods .............................................................A-12 A.1.2 Rainfall Data for Use with the Unit Hydrograph Method ......................A-12 A.1.2.2 Example Using the Manual Method .............................................A-13 A.1.2.3 Example using the DDMSW Manual Method ................................A-14 A.1.2.4 Example using the DDMSW GIS Method .....................................A-23 A.1.2.5 Comparison of Methods .............................................................A-25 A.2 Rational Method Example ........................................................................A-27 A.2.1 Problem Statement ..........................................................................A-27 A.2.2 Given Parameters .............................................................................A-27 A.2.3 Solution Using Manual Methods ........................................................A-30 A.2.4 Solution Using DDMSW.....................................................................A-39 A.2.5 Comparison of Results ......................................................................A-40 A.3 Rainfall Losses Example ..........................................................................A-43 A.3.1 Example for Green and Ampt Method ................................................A-43 A.3.1.1 Problem Statement ....................................................................A-43 A.3.1.2 Problem Solution .......................................................................A-43 A.3.2 Example for Initial Loss and Uniform Loss Rate Method ......................A-71 A.4 Unit Hydrograph Example........................................................................A-73 A.4.1 Problem Statement ..........................................................................A-73 A.4.2 Problem Solution ..............................................................................A-73 A.4.3 Unit Hydrograph Method HEC-1 Model Results ...................................A-78 A.5 Channel Routing Example........................................................................A-83 A.5.1 Problem Statement ..........................................................................A-83 A.5.2 Problem Solution ..............................................................................A-83 A.6 Storage Routing Examples.......................................................................A-91 A.6.1 Modified Puls Method .......................................................................A-91 A.6.2 Retention Basin Storage Diversions ...................................................A-95 A.7 Indirect Methods Example .......................................................................A-99 A.7.1 Indirect Method 1 ............................................................................A-99 A.7.2 Indirect Method 2 ............................................................................A-99 A.7.3 Indirect Method 3 ............................................................................A-99 A.8 Stormwater Storage Example ................................................................ A-105 A.8.1 Problem Statement ........................................................................ A-105 August 24, 2009 i Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Table of Contents A.8.2 Problem Solution ............................................................................ A-105 A.8.2.1 Given Information ................................................................... A-105 A.8.2.2 Basin Sizing ............................................................................ A-105 A.8.2.3 Emergency Spillway Design ...................................................... A-108 B. RAINFALL ...................................................................................................... B-1 B.1 2-year Storm isopluvials ........................................................................... B-1 B.2 5-year Storm isopluvials ..........................................................................B-13 B.3 10-year Storm isopluvials ........................................................................B-25 B.4 25-year Storm isopluvials ........................................................................B-37 B.5 50-year Storm isopluvials ........................................................................B-49 B.6 100-year Storm isopluvials ......................................................................B-61 B.7 Rainfall forms and graph paper................................................................B-73 C. PROCEDURE FOR ESTIMATION OF VEGETATIVE COVER .................................. C-1 C.1 Method 1: Physical Measurement.............................................................. C-1 C.2 Method 2: Aerial Photograph GIS/CAD Polygons ........................................ C-2 D. RAINFALL LOSSES .......................................................................................... D-1 D.1 Procedures Used To Assign G&A Parameters ............................................. D-1 D.1.1 Base Soils Data ................................................................................. D-1 D.1.1.1 Source ....................................................................................... D-1 D.1.2 Data Extraction ................................................................................. D-2 D.2 Computation of Green and Ampt Parameters ............................................. D-7 D.2.1 Method............................................................................................. D-7 D.2.1.1 General...................................................................................... D-7 D.2.1.2 XKSAT by Sabol 1993 ................................................................. D-7 D.2.1.3 XKSAT by Saxton and Rawls 2005 ............................................... D-8 D.2.1.4 Green and Ampt Parameters Equations ........................................ D-8 D.2.2 Computation of Parameters for Each Horizon .................................... D-10 D.2.3 Computing Green and Ampt Parameters for Each Component Horizon D-11 D.2.4 Determining the Control Horizon for Each Component Soil ................. D-12 D.2.5 Miscellaneous Component Soils ........................................................ D-12 D.2.6 Computation of Composite XKSAT for each Soil Map Unit .................. D-55 D.2.7 Computation of PSIF and DTHETA ................................................... D-56 D.2.8 Proposed XKSAT Method ................................................................. D-57 D.3 XKSAT Values By NRCS Soil Survey ......................................................... D-61 D.3.1 AZ623 ............................................................................................ D-61 D.3.2 AZ625 ............................................................................................ D-67 D.3.3 AZ627 ............................................................................................ D-71 D.3.4 AZ629 ............................................................................................ D-79 D.3.5 AZ631 ............................................................................................ D-83 D.3.6 AZ637 ............................................................................................ D-87 D.3.7 AZ697 ............................................................................................ D-93 D.3.8 AZ699 .......................................................................................... D-103 D.3.9 AZ701 .......................................................................................... D-107 D.3.10 Arizona General Soil Survey ........................................................... D-117 ii August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Table of Contents D.3.11 NV608 .......................................................................................... D-127 D.3.12 NV613 .......................................................................................... D-133 D.3.13 NV754 .......................................................................................... D-139 D.3.14 NV755 .......................................................................................... D-145 D.3.15 UT634 .......................................................................................... D-155 D.3.16 UT636 .......................................................................................... D-165 D.3.17 UT641 .......................................................................................... D-173 D.3.18 UT686 .......................................................................................... D-179 D.3.19 Utah General Soil Survey ............................................................... D-189 E. CHECKLISTS ...................................................................................................E-1 E.1 Purpose ...................................................................................................E-1 E.2 Checklist 1: Drainage Design Report Checklist ............................................E-2 E.3 Ckecklist 2: Hydrology Specific Checklist ....................................................E-8 E.4 Checklist 3: HEC-RAS Hydraulics Specific Checklist .................................... E-15 E.5 Checklist 4: Technical Data Notebook Checklist ........................................ E-18 F. DATA FOR INDIRECT METHODS ......................................................................F-1 F.1 Method 2 USGS Data Listing ......................................................................F-1 F.2 Method 3 USGS Data Listing ......................................................................F-9 August 24, 2009 iii Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Table of Contents Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure iv A.1 A.2 A.3 A.4 A.5 A.6 A.7 A.8 A.9 A.10 A.11 A.12 A.13 A.14 A.15 A.16 A.17 A.18 A.19 A.20 A.21 A.22 A.23 A.24 A.25 A.26 A.27 A.28 A.29 A.30 A.31 A.32 A.33 A.34 A.35 B.1 B.2 B.3 B.4 B.5 B.6 B.7 B.8 LIST OF FIGURES Federal Township and Range System ................................................. A-2 I-D-F example site location for 2-year 10-minute precipitation ............. A-3 DDMSW NOAA Atlas 14 index map ..................................................... A-6 DDMSW NOAA Atlas 14 detailed location map ..................................... A-7 DDMSW NOAA Atlas 14 Kingman-area polygon ..................................A-10 Unit Hydrograph Method watershed limits map ..................................A-13 Unit Hydrograph Method watershed limits map ..................................A-15 DDMSW NOAA Atlas 14 Index Map....................................................A-17 DDMSW NOAA Atlas 14 Map 26 ........................................................A-18 DDMSW NOAA Atlas 14 Map 27 ........................................................A-19 DDMSW NOAA Atlas 14 Map 20 ........................................................A-20 DDMSW NOAA Atlas 14 Map 21 ........................................................A-21 Rational Method watershed and land use map ...................................A-29 10-year Rational Method hydrographs at CP 1 ...................................A-37 10-year Rational Method hydrographs at CP 2 ...................................A-38 DDMSW 10-year Rational Method results ...........................................A-40 DDMSW 10-year Rational Method hydrographs at CP 1 ......................A-41 DDMSW 10-year Rational Method hydrographs at CP 2 ......................A-41 Unit Hydrograph Method watershed slope variation map ....................A-45 Unit Hydrograph Method natural terrain classification map .................A-46 Unit Hydrograph Method combined land use map ..............................A-47 Unit Hydrograph Method soil map units map .....................................A-48 Unit Hydrograph Method sub-basin delineation map ...........................A-49 Unit Hydrograph Method land use map .............................................A-50 Unit Hydrograph Method soils map....................................................A-51 Unit Hydrograph Method example HEC-1 input file .............................A-78 Reach route cross sections ...............................................................A-85 HEC-1 output Runoff Summary table excerpt, NSTPS=16 ...................A-88 HEC-1 output Runoff Summary table excerpt, NSTPS=8 .....................A-89 Example stage-storage rating curve ..................................................A-92 Example stage-discharge rating curve ...............................................A-94 Example of retention basin diversion hydrographs..............................A-97 Indirect Method 1 check of Unit Hydrograph Method example........... A-101 Indirect Method 2 check of Unit Hydrograph Method example........... A-102 Indirect Method 3 check of Unit Hydrograph Method example........... A-103 NOAA Atlas 14 2-year 5-minute isopluvial map.................................... B-2 NOAA Atlas 14 2-year 10-minute isopluvial map .................................. B-3 NOAA Atlas 14 2-year 15-minute isopluvial map .................................. B-4 NOAA Atlas 14 2-year 30-minute isopluvial map .................................. B-5 NOAA Atlas 14 2-year 1-hour isopluvial map ....................................... B-6 NOAA Atlas 14 2-year 2-hour isopluvial map ....................................... B-7 NOAA Atlas 14 2-year 3-hour isopluvial map ....................................... B-8 NOAA Atlas 14 2-year 6-hour isopluvial map ....................................... B-9 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Table of Contents Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure B.9 B.10 B.11 B.12 B.13 B.14 B.15 B.16 B.17 B.18 B.19 B.20 B.21 B.22 B.23 B.24 B.25 B.26 B.27 B.28 B.29 B.30 B.31 B.32 B.33 B.34 B.35 B.36 B.37 B.38 B.39 B.40 B.41 B.42 B.43 B.44 B.45 B.46 B.47 B.48 B.49 B.50 B.51 B.52 NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA August 24, 2009 Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas Atlas 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 2-year 12-hour isopluvial map ....................................B-10 2-year 24-hour isopluvial map ....................................B-11 5-year 5-minute isopluvial map...................................B-14 5-year 10-minute isopluvial map .................................B-15 5-year 15-minute isopluvial map .................................B-16 5-year 30-minute isopluvial map .................................B-17 5-year 1-hour isopluvial map ......................................B-18 5-year 2-hour isopluvial map ......................................B-19 5-year 3-hour isopluvial map ......................................B-20 5-year 6-hour isopluvial map ......................................B-21 5-year 12-hour isopluvial map ....................................B-22 5-year 24-hour isopluvial map ....................................B-23 10-year 5-minute isopluvial map .................................B-26 10-year 10-minute isopluvial map ...............................B-27 10-year 15-minute isopluvial map ...............................B-28 10-year 30-minute isopluvial map ...............................B-29 10-year 1-hour isopluvial map ....................................B-30 10-year 2-hour isopluvial map ....................................B-31 10-year 3-hour isopluvial map ....................................B-32 10-year 6-hour isopluvial map ....................................B-33 10-year 12-hour isopluvial map ..................................B-34 10-year 24-hour isopluvial map ..................................B-35 25-year 5-minute isopluvial map .................................B-38 25-year 10-minute isopluvial map ...............................B-39 25-year 15-minute isopluvial map ...............................B-40 25-year 30-minute isopluvial map ...............................B-41 25-year 1-hour isopluvial map ....................................B-42 25-year 2-hour isopluvial map ....................................B-43 25-year 3-hour isopluvial map ....................................B-44 25-year 6-hour isopluvial map ....................................B-45 25-year 12-hour isopluvial map ..................................B-46 25-year 24-hour isopluvial map ..................................B-47 50-year 5-minute isopluvial map .................................B-50 50-year 10-minute isopluvial map ...............................B-51 50-year 15-minute isopluvial map ...............................B-52 50-year 30-minute isopluvial map ...............................B-53 50-year 1-hour isopluvial map ....................................B-54 50-year 2-hour isopluvial map ....................................B-55 50-year 3-hour isopluvial map ....................................B-56 50-year 6-hour isopluvial map ....................................B-57 50-year 12-hour isopluvial map ..................................B-58 50-year 24-hour isopluvial map ..................................B-59 100-year 5-minute isopluvial map ...............................B-62 100-year 10-minute isopluvial map .............................B-63 v Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Table of Contents Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure vi B.53 B.54 B.55 B.56 B.57 B.58 B.59 B.60 B.61 C.1 D.1 D.2 NOAA Atlas 14 100-year 15-minute isopluvial map .............................B-64 NOAA Atlas 14 100-year 30-minute isopluvial map .............................B-65 NOAA Atlas 14 100-year 1-hour isopluvial map ..................................B-66 NOAA Atlas 14 100-year 2-hour isopluvial map ..................................B-67 NOAA Atlas 14 100-year 3-hour isopluvial map ..................................B-68 NOAA Atlas 14 100-year 6-hour isopluvial map ..................................B-69 NOAA Atlas 14 100-year 12-hour isopluvial map ................................B-70 NOAA Atlas 14 100-year 24-hour isopluvial map ................................B-71 Intensity-Duration-Frequency Graph..................................................B-76 Physical measurement of vegetative canopy cover schematic .............. C-1 PSIF as a function of XKSAT ............................................................ D-58 DTHETA as a function of XKSAT....................................................... D-59 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES Table A.1 Table A.2 Table A.3 Table A.4 Table A.5 Table A.6 Table A.7 Table A.8 Table A.9 Table A.10 Table A.11 Table A.12 Table A.13 Table A.14 Table A.15 Table A.16 Table A.17 Table A.18 Table A.19 Table A.20 Table A.21 Table A.22 Table A.23 Table A.24 Table A.25 Table A.26 Table A.27 Table A.28 Table A.29 Table A.30 Table A.31 Table D.1 Table D.2 Table D.3 Table D.4 Table D.5 Table D.6 Table D.7 Table D.8 Table D.9 Table D.10 Table D.11 Table D.12 Rainfall Depth-Duration-Frequency for Kingman, AZ (manual) ............. A-4 Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency for Kingman, AZ (manual) ......... A-5 Rainfall Depth-Duration-Frequency for Kingman, AZ (DDMSW mm)...... A-9 DDMSW required fields for GIS shape files.........................................A-10 Rainfall Depth-Duration-Frequency for Kingman, AZ (DDMSW GIS) .....A-11 Unit Hydrograph Method point precipitation estimate (manual) ...........A-14 Unit Hydrograph Method depth-area reduction (manual) ....................A-14 Rainfall D-D-F for Unit Hydrograph Example (DDMSW mm) ................A-22 Unit Hydrograph Method point precipitation estimate(DDMSW mm) ....A-22 Unit Hydrograph Method depth-area reduction (DDMSW manual) .......A-23 Rainfall D-D-F for unit hydrograph example (DDMSW GIS) .................A-24 Unit Hydrograph Method point precipitation estimate(DDMSW GIS) ....A-24 Unit Hydrograph Method depth-area reduction (DDMSW GIS) ............A-25 Unit Hydrograph Method point precipitation estimate(DDMSW GIS) ....A-25 Rainfall Depth-Duration-Frequency for Kingman, AZ (DDMSW GIS) .....A-28 Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency for Kingman, AZ (DDMSW GIS) .A-28 Tc and land use data ........................................................................A-30 Rational Method example, land use C coefficients ..............................A-30 Summary of results for the various methods ......................................A-42 Natural land use codes .....................................................................A-44 Unit hydrograph example soils and land use parameters ....................A-52 Sub-basin and land use areas ...........................................................A-58 Unit hydrograph land use parameters................................................A-58 Unit hydrograph example RTIMP calculations .....................................A-64 Unit hydrograph Tc and Lca parameters ..............................................A-74 Unit hydrograph Tc equation type assignment ....................................A-74 Assignment of the time-area relationship to each sub-basin ................A-76 Unit hydrograph method example HEC-1 results ................................A-81 Reach route physical characteristics ..................................................A-84 Example stage-storage curve data ....................................................A-91 Example stage-discharge curve data .................................................A-93 List of soil surveys ............................................................................. D-1 List of summary results files ............................................................ D-10 Green and Ampt parameters as a function of soil texture................... D-11 List of miscellaneous component soils .............................................. D-12 Assignment of XKSAT to miscellaneous component soils .................... D-45 Average XKSAT values for bare ground ............................................ D-55 AZ623 Shivwits Area ...................................................................... D-61 AZ625 Mohave County Area, Northeastern Part................................ D-67 AZ627 Mohave County Southern Part .............................................. D-71 AZ629 Coconino County Area North Kaibab Part .............................. D-79 AZ631 Coconino County Central Part ............................................... D-83 AZ637 Yavapai County Western Part ............................................... D-87 August 24, 2009 vii Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Table of Contents Table D.13 Table D.14 Table D.15 Table D.16 Table D.17 Table D.18 Table D.19 Table D.20 Table D.21 Table D.22 Table D.23 Table D.24 Table D.25 Table F.1 Table F.2 AZ697 Mohave County Central Part ................................................. D-93 AZ699 Hualapai-Havasupai Area ................................................... D-103 AZ701 Grand Canyon Area............................................................ D-107 AZ STATSGO Arizona General Soils Survey ..................................... D-117 NV608 Virgin River Area ............................................................... D-127 NV613 Meadow Valley Area Nevada and Utah................................ D-133 NV754 Lincoln County Nevada South Part...................................... D-139 NV755 Clark County Area ............................................................. D-145 UT634 Iron-Washington Area Utah ............................................... D-155 UT636 Panguitch Area Utah .......................................................... D-165 UT641 Washington County Area Utah ........................................... D-173 UT686 Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Utah ........... D-179 UT STATSGO Utah General Soil Survey ........................................... D-189 USGS stream gage LP3 data listing......................................................F-1 USGS data for stream gages used for regional regression equations ......F-9 The 1st Edition of this document prepared by: Arid Hydrology & Hydraulics, LLC Star Valley, Arizona tom@aridhh.com viii August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples A. HYDROLOGY EXAMPLES A.1 RAINFALL EXAMPLES A.1.1 D-D-F AND I-D-F DATA FOR USE WITH THE RATIONAL METHOD The Depth-Duration-Frequency (D-D-F) and Intensity-Duration-Frequency (I-D-F) data for use with the Rational Method can be generated in three ways. Manually using Figure B.1 through Figure B.60. Using the manual method within the DDMSW computer program. Using ESRI ArcMap Shape files within the DDMSW computer program. The use of each method will be demonstrated for the following problem: Problem: A D-D-F and an I-D-F are needed for a small project in Kingman, AZ. The site is located in the west half of Section 9, T21N, R16W, G and SRM, and overlaps into Section 8. A.1.1.1 Example Using the Manual Method Solution: The first step is to assemble copies of Figure B.1 through Figure B.60. Then the site must be located on each figure. Sites are located on the figures by use of world coordinates or by use of the Federal Township and Range System. A world coordinate graticule grid (latitude and longitude) with a 30-second resolution is shown on each figure. Also shown are the grid of township and range lines from the Federal Township and Range System. As a refresher, a basic graphical representation of the Federal Township and Range System is shown on Figure A.1. Using this information, a site can be located within the level of positional accuracy of the NOAA Atlas 14 point rainfall data depicted on the figure. The T21N and R16W grid cell can be easily located on each figure. Then the location of Section 9 can be estimated visually by understanding where Section 9 is located using the standard system shown on Figure A.1. The example site location is identified on the Figure B.2 2-year 10-minute isopluvial map as shown on Figure A.2. Interpolating the isopluvial lines at the site location, the 2-year 10-minute point precipitation is estimated at 0.39 inches. This value is then entered in the appropriate cell in Table A.1. This same process was duplicated for the fifty nine (59) other isopluvial maps and the estimated point precipitation values tabulated in Table A.1. August 24, 2009 A-1 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Figure A.1 Federal Township and Range System The largest grouping is the township which is named in reference to a Principal Meridian (P.M.) and a Baseline. T2N, R1E refers to Township 2 North (of the Baseline), Range 1 East (of the Principal Meridian). Surveys in Arizona are governed by the Gila and Salt River Base Line and Meridian. The Initial Point is at the intersection of these two lines. The Base Line runs east and west though this point and the Meridian runs north and south through the point. Land descriptions and property boundaries are governed by and identified by this point. Within each township are 36 sections, each one mile square. Each section contains approximately 640 acres. The sections are numbered from 1 to 36 in the following order. A-2 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Figure A.2 August 24, 2009 I-D-F example site location for 2-year 10-minute precipitation A-3 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Table A.1 Rainfall Depth-Duration-Frequency for Kingman, AZ (manual) (estimated using Figure B.1 through Figure B.60) Rainfall Depth, in inches Storm Frequency, in years Duration 2 5 10 25 50 100 5-min 0.23 0.37 0.44 0.56 0.60 0.69 10-min 0.39 0.56 0.66 0.79 0.90 1.05 15-min 0.48 0.68 0.80 0.99 1.18 1.29 30-min 0.64 0.90 1.09 1.38 1.58 1.70 1-hour 0.79 1.10 1.37 1.68 1.96 2.18 2-hour 0.88 1.26 1.50 1.90 2.20 2.49 3-hour 0.95 1.29 1.59 2.00 2.41 2.80 6-hour 1.09 1.49 1.86 2.36 2.76 3.30 12-hour 1.29 1.77 2.17 2.76 3.10 3.50 24-hour 1.58 2.17 2.75 3.40 3.90 4.40 The next step is to use the point precipitation data from Table A.1 to compute the rainfall intensity for each storm duration and frequency combination. This is done as follows: 𝐼𝐼𝐹𝐹,𝐷𝐷 = 𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹,𝐷𝐷 A.1 𝐷𝐷 where: IF,D = rainfall intensity in inches per hour for frequency F and duration D. PF,D = point precipitation in inches for frequency F and duration D. D = storm duration D in hours. Applying Equation A.1 for the 5-minute 2-year storm: 𝐼𝐼2−yr ,5−min = 0.23 5 60 = 2.76 inches/hour. Insert the computed value in Table A.2 in the 2-year 5-minute cell. Apply Equation A.1 to all values from Table A.1 and place the results in Table A.2. A-4 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Table A.2 Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency for Kingman, AZ (manual) (computed using the data in Table A.1) Rainfall Intensity, in inches/hour Storm Frequency, in years Duration 2 5 10 25 50 100 5-min 2.76 4.44 5.28 6.72 7.20 8.28 10-min 2.34 3.36 3.96 4.74 5.40 6.30 15-min 1.92 2.72 3.20 3.96 4.72 5.16 30-min 1.28 1.80 2.18 2.76 3.16 3.40 1-hour 0.79 1.10 1.37 1.68 1.96 2.18 2-hour 0.44 0.63 0.75 0.95 1.10 1.25 3-hour 0.32 0.43 0.53 0.67 0.80 0.93 6-hour 0.18 0.25 0.31 0.39 0.46 0.55 12-hour 0.11 0.15 0.18 0.23 0.26 0.29 24-hour 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.14 0.16 0.18 A.1.1.2 Example using the DDMSW Manual Method NOTE: To apply this method, the Mohave County-specific version of the DDMSW computer program must be installed on your computer as well as Adobe Acrobat Reader. Both are free programs. DSMSW can be downloaded from the Mohave County web site at http://www.co.mohave.az.us/FloodControlDrainageDesignManual and Adobe Acrobat Reader can be downloaded at http://www.adobe.com. Solution: The NOAA Atlas 14 point precipitation data is supplied by NOAA in a GIS grid format with a cell size of about 2,500 feet square. This method is applied by determining the average point precipitation value of the cell or cells that cover the subject watershed. In DDMSW, the user selects the cell or cells that cover the project site. DDMSW then “looks up” the point precipitation values for each storm frequency and duration for each cell or cells specified and compute an average value for every storm frequency-duration combination. To select the project cells, the general project site location is identified by the user from an index map contained within DDMSW in Adobe PDF format. The index map is on page 1 of the PDF (77 pages). The user locates the map covering the project watershed (Figure A.3) and then moves to the page where the more detailed map is located (Figure A.4). August 24, 2009 A-5 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Figure A.3 A-6 DDMSW NOAA Atlas 14 index map August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Figure A.4 August 24, 2009 DDMSW NOAA Atlas 14 detailed location map A-7 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Using Figure A.3, it can be seen that the project site, in T21N, R16W, is located on Map 21. Moving to Map 21, as shown on Figure A.4, the Sections 8 and 9 must be located. The sections are labeled in white with a brown background. The NOAA Atlas 14 cells are labeled blue. Grid cells 51, 52, 91 and 92 approximate the location of the watershed in the west half of Section 9 and overlapping into Section 8. In DDMSW, establish a new project then perform the following steps: 1. Open menu item Hydrology\Rainfall. 2. Set the Data Source to Manual. 3. Click on the Maps button to load the PDF of the NOAA Atlas 14 Index Maps. 4. Locate the project site on the overview index page and see that detailed Map Number 21 is needed. 5. Move to PDF page 22 to find Map Number 21. 6. Verify that Map Number 21 depicts Township 21N, Range 16W. Estimate the location of Section 9 on the map and write down the numbers of the grid cells covering the project watershed (51, 52, 91 and 92). 7. Close the PDF file and return to DDMSW. 8. Use the Multiple Map Selection Menu. The table on the left side of the wind with the headings Map, From, and To, should be empty. 9. Click on Add. 10. Click on the Magnifying Glass icon to the right of Map Index and select Map 21. 11. Enter 51 in the From field and 52 in the To field. Click Save. 12. Click on Add. 13. Enter 91 in the From field and 92 in the To field. Click Save. 14. Click on Update. The Average Rainfall Data for Project table should be updated and match the values listed in Table A.3. A-8 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Table A.3 Rainfall Depth-Duration-Frequency for Kingman, AZ (DDMSW mm) (estimated using the DDMSW Manual Method) Rainfall Depth, in inches Storm Frequency, in years Duration 2 5 10 25 50 100 5-min 0.254 0.356 0.429 0.526 0.598 0.673 10-min 0.387 0.543 0.653 0.801 0.910 1.024 15-min 0.479 0.672 0.809 0.992 1.128 1.269 30-min 0.645 0.905 1.090 1.336 1.519 1.709 1-hour 0.798 1.121 1.349 1.653 1.880 2.115 2-hour 0.875 1.234 1.512 1.893 2.205 2.534 3-hour 0.936 1.302 1.599 2.022 2.376 2.759 6-hour 1.102 1.509 1.833 2.303 2.687 3.108 12-hour 1.284 1.753 2.133 2.652 3.081 3.529 24-hour 1.597 2.190 2.650 3.300 3.820 4.370 A.1.1.3 Example using the DDMSW GIS Method Solution: Create an ESRI shape file containing a polygon of the total study watershed area. The fields required for the various ESRI shape files used within DDMSW are listed in Table A.4. Note that the rainfall shape file for the overall watershed boundary polygon only requires one field, the Major Basin ID. For this example, a polygon of the Kingman corporate boundary is used to obtain an average D-D-F for the entire city (Figure A.5). DDMSW overlays the polygon on the NOAA Atlas 14 rain cell grid, which is GIS version of the grids shown in the PDF file used for the DDMSW manual method (see Figure A.4). The grid cells that touch and are contained within the polygon are selected and an average point precipitation depth computed for each frequency-duration combination. To implement the GIS approach using DDMSW, the following steps should be followed. For this example, the results are shown in Table A.5. 1. Open menu item Hydrology\Rainfall. 2. Set the Data Source to GIS. 3. Click on the Select a file button and point DDMSW to the desired polygon of the entire watershed under consideration. 4. Click on Update. August 24, 2009 A-9 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Table A.4 DDMSW required fields for GIS shape files Map Field Name Rainfall BASINID Character 2 Major Basin ID AREAID Character 6 Unique ID BASINID Character 2 Major Basin ID AREASF Numeric 12.0 Area in square feet Land Use LUCODE Character 15 Land use code Soils SOIL_LID Numeric 15.0 Soils code AREAID Character 6 Unique ID (same as sub basin) BASINID Character 2 Major Basin ID LENGTH Numeric 12.0 Length in feet USGE Numeric 9.2 Upstream ground elevation DSGE Numeric 9.2 Downstream ground elevation AREAID Character 6 Unique ID (same as sub basin) BASINID Character 2 Major Basin ID LENGTH Numeric 12.0 Length in feet USGE Numeric 9.2 Upstream ground elevation DSGE Numeric 9.2 Downstream ground elevation Sub Basin Lca Tc Figure A.5 A-10 Type and Length Description DDMSW NOAA Atlas 14 Kingman-area polygon August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Table A.5 Rainfall Depth-Duration-Frequency for Kingman, AZ (DDMSW GIS) (estimated using the DDMSW GIS Method) Rainfall Depth, in inches Storm Frequency, in years Duration 2 5 10 25 50 100 5-min 0.252 0.355 0.428 0.526 0.600 0.676 10-min 0.384 0.541 0.652 0.801 0.913 1.029 15-min 0.477 0.670 0.808 0.993 1.131 1.275 30-min 0.642 0.903 1.088 1.337 1.523 1.717 1-hour 0.794 1.117 1.347 1.655 1.885 2.125 2-hour 0.873 1.233 1.512 1.896 2.213 2.546 3-hour 0.935 1.302 1.600 2.024 2.381 2.767 6-hour 1.100 1.509 1.835 2.306 2.692 3.116 12-hour 1.284 1.755 2.136 2.658 3.089 3.540 24-hour 1.586 2.175 2.634 3.283 3.801 4.353 An important consideration when applying the DDMSW GIS method is to be sure the following projection and coordinate system is used when preparing all shape files for use with the Mohave County-specific version of DDMSW: State Plane Coordinate System, NAD 83, Arizona West, U.S. Survey feet. The Mohave County DDMSW NOAA Atlas 14 GIS rainfall data is in the above projection. To obtain meaningful results, all shape files must be in the Mohave County standard projection and coordinate system. An ESRI ArcView license is NOT required to apply the DDMSW GIS method. Shape files can, of course, be created using ArcView (http://www.ersi.com). Other options include AutoCAD and Microstation (with the optional GIS capable add-on packages), Map Info (http://www.pbinsight.com/products/location-intelligence/applications/mappinganalytical/mapinfo-professional/), and Manifold Project (http://www.manifold.net). August 24, 2009 A-11 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples A.1.1.4 Comparison of Methods The first comparison is between the Manual Method and the DDMSW Manual Method. Closely examine the results in Table A.1 and Table A.3. The differences in point precipitation vary from hundredths of an inch to as much as 0.19 inches for the 100-year 6-hour storm. The differences are minimal and will not have a significant effect on hydrologic modeling results for small watersheds based on either method when applying the Rational Method. The second comparison is between the DDMSW Manual Method and the DDMSW GIS method. Keep in mind that the DDMSW Manual Method example is for a site-specific location within Kingman in Section 9, T21N, R16W. The DDMSW GIS Method example is for the City of Kingman corporate area. Closely examine the results displayed in Table A.3 and Table A.5. The differences are minor, with variances measured in hundredths of an inch. This means that the NOAA Atlas 14 point precipitation data only has slight variations for all considered durations and frequencies across the entire Kingman metropolitan area. The data in Table A.5 can be used with confidence for rainfall-runoff modeling for watersheds within the Kingman corporate boundary. A.1.2 RAINFALL DATA FOR USE WITH THE UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD The data necessary for use with the unit hydrograph method is as follows: 1. The following point precipitation values for the storm to be modeled (ie. 100-yr, 10-yr, etc.). Items g and h are only necessary for storms longer than 6-hours. a. 5-min, b. 15- min, c. 1-hr, d. 2- hr, e. 3- hr, f. 6- hr, g. 12- hr, h. 24- hr. The depth area curve for the storm to be modeled. Problem: Point precipitation data are needed for a HEC-1 model of a large watershed within, and south of, Kingman, AZ. The site is located as shown on Figure A.6. Prepare the HEC-1 precipitation records for a 100-year 24-hour storm. A-12 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Figure A.6 Unit Hydrograph Method watershed limits map A.1.2.2 Example Using the Manual Method Solution: Prepare a watershed location map as shown on Figure A.6. Next, assemble copies of Figure B.51, Figure B.53, and Figure B.55 through Figure B.60. There is a significant elevation difference from the top to the bottom of the watershed; 8,054 to 2814. Therefore, orographic effects could significantly affect precipitation. Due to the scale and lack of resolution of the isopluvial maps, it is not reasonable to attempt to determine multiple precipitation values for representative portions of the watershed. Therefore, accounting for orographic effects is not a viable option for this watershed when using this method. The centroid of the overall August 24, 2009 A-13 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples watershed is used to estimate the average point precipitation values. The same basic procedure applied in Appendix A.1.1.1 should be followed here. However, instead of using the Section, Township, and Range information, the world coordinates for the watershed centroid will be used to location the position on the NOAA Atlas 14 isopluvial maps from Appendix B. The coordinates of the watershed centroid are: 35°09’26” North by -114°02’23” West. A world coordinate graticule grid (latitude and longitude) with a 30-second resolution is shown on each isopluvial figure. Using this information, the point precipitation values were interpolated from Figure B.51, Figure B.53, and Figure B.55 through Figure B.60 and are shown in Table A.6. Table A.6 Unit Hydrograph Method point precipitation estimate (manual) ID 5-min 15-min 1-hr 2-hr 3-hr 6-hr 12-hr 24-hr Watershed 0.70 1.31 2.20 2.65 2.83 3.40 3.70 4.50 Depth-area reduction factors for the 100-year 24-hour storm are determined using the data in Table 7.3. The results are shown in Table A.7. Table A.7 Unit Hydrograph Method depth-area reduction (manual) Watershed Area Depth-Area Factor Areally Reduced Precipitation 0 1.000 0.950 0.919 0.900 0.887 0.877 0.870 0.863 4.50 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 4.28 4.14 4.05 3.99 3.95 3.92 3.88 A.1.2.3 Example using the DDMSW Manual Method NOTE: To apply this method, the Mohave County-specific version of the DDMSW computer program must be installed on your computer as well as Adobe Acrobat Reader. Both are free programs. DSMSW can be downloaded from the Mohave County web site at A-14 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples http://www.co.mohave.az.us/FloodControlDrainageDesignManual and Adobe Acrobat Reader can be downloaded at http://www.adobe.com. Solution: Follow the same approach as outlined in Appendix A.1.1.2. The Section, Township and Range lines are shown on Figure A.7. Use this information with the PDF map file in DDMSW to locate the project cells. Inspection of the DDMSW PDF Index Map shows that the subject watershed lies on Maps 20, 21, 26, and 27 as shown on Figure A.8. Inspection of these four maps with the section, township and range data yields the following cell numbers listed by Map Number and shown graphically on Figure A.9 through Figure A.12: Figure A.7 August 24, 2009 Unit Hydrograph Method watershed limits map A-15 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Map 20: 38-40, 78-80, 118-120, 157-160, 197-200, 237-240, 277-280, 317-320, 357-360, 397400, 438-440, 477-480, 517-520, 558-560, and 598-600. Map 21: 1-3, 41-43, 81-84, 121-125, 161-168, 201-209, 241-251, 281-293, 321-334, 361-380, 401-420, 441-460, 481-501, 521-541, 561-583, 606-624, 646-650, 656-665, 687-688, 701-705, 742-745, and 782-783. Map 26: 1799-1800, 1839-1840, 1878-1880, 1917-1920, 1958-1960, and 1999-2000. Map 27: 1801, 1841-1842, 1881-1882, 1921-1922, and 1961-1963. In DDMSW, establish a new project then perform the following steps: 1. Open menu item Hydrology\Rainfall. 2. Set the Data Source to Manual. 3. Click on the Maps button to load the PDF of the NOAA Atlas 14 Index Maps. 4. Locate the project site on the overview index page and see that detailed Map Numbers 20, 21, 26, and 27 are needed. 5. Examine PDF pages 21, 22, 27, and 28 to find Map Numbers 20, 21, 26, and 27, respectively. Determine the cell numbers listed above for each map. 6. Close the PDF file and return to DDMSW. 7. Use the Multiple Map Selection Menu. The table on the left side of the wind with the headings Map, From, and To, should be empty. 8. Click on Add. 9. Click on the Magnifying Glass icon to the right of Map Index and select Map 20. 10. Enter 38 in the From field and 40 in the To field. Click Save. 11. Click on Add. 12. Enter 78 in the From field and 80 in the To field. Click Save. 13. Repeat Steps 11 and 12 for the remaining cells on Map 20. 14. Follow Steps 8 through 13 for cells on Maps 21, 26, and 27. 15. Click on Update. The Average Rainfall Data for Project table should be updated and match the values listed in Table A.15. A-16 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Figure A.8 August 24, 2009 DDMSW NOAA Atlas 14 Index Map A-17 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Figure A.9 A-18 DDMSW NOAA Atlas 14 Map 26 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Figure A.10 DDMSW NOAA Atlas 14 Map 27 August 24, 2009 A-19 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Figure A.11 DDMSW NOAA Atlas 14 Map 20 A-20 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Figure A.12 DDMSW NOAA Atlas 14 Map 21 August 24, 2009 A-21 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Table A.8 Rainfall D-D-F for Unit Hydrograph Example (DDMSW mm) (estimated using the DDMSW Manual Method) Rainfall Depth, in inches Storm Frequency, in years Duration 2 5 10 25 50 100 5-min 0.258 0.365 0.441 0.544 0.623 0.705 10-min 0.393 0.555 0.671 0.828 0.948 1.073 15-min 0.488 0.688 0.832 1.027 1.175 1.330 30-min 0.657 0.927 1.120 1.383 1.582 1.791 1-hour 0.813 1.147 1.387 1.711 1.958 2.217 2-hour 0.898 1.271 1.562 1.966 2.300 2.655 3-hour 0.962 1.342 1.652 2.094 2.466 2.873 6-hour 1.132 1.554 1.892 2.382 2.784 3.225 12-hour 1.325 1.813 2.207 2.751 3.200 3.672 24-hour 1.623 2.228 2.701 3.371 3.908 4.479 The data in Table A.8 can then be used to prepare the needed input data for the HEC-1 PH and JD records as shown in Table A.9 and Table A.10. Table A.9 Unit Hydrograph Method point precipitation estimate(DDMSW mm) (results using the DDMSW Manual Method) ID 5-min 15-min 1-hr 2-hr 3-hr 6-hr 12-hr 24-hr Watershed 0.705 1.330 2.217 2.655 2.873 3.225 3.672 4.479 Depth-area reduction factors for the 100-year 24-hour storm are determined using the data in Table 7.3. The results are shown in Table A.10. A-22 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Table A.10 Unit Hydrograph Method depth-area reduction (DDMSW manual) Watershed Area Depth-Area Factor Areally Reduced Precipitation 0 1.000 0.950 0.919 0.900 0.887 0.877 0.870 0.863 4.479 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 4.255 4.116 4.031 3.973 3.928 3.897 3.865 A.1.2.4 Example using the DDMSW GIS Method Solution: Create an ESRI shape file containing a polygon of the total study watershed area. The fields required for the various ESRI shape files used within DDMSW are listed in Table A.4. Note that the rainfall shape file for the overall watershed boundary polygon only requires one field, the Major Basin ID. For this example, a polygon of the entire watershed is used to obtain a watershed-specific D-D-F for the study area (Figure A.6). DDMSW overlays the polygon on the NOAA Atlas 14 rain cell grid, which is a GIS version of the grids shown in the PDF file used for the DDMSW manual method (see Figure A.8 through Figure A.12). The grid cells that touch and are contained within the polygon are selected and an average point precipitation depth computed for each frequency-duration combination. To implement the GIS approach using DDMSW, the following steps should be followed. For this example, the results are shown in Table A.11. 1. Open menu item Hydrology\Rainfall. 2. Set the Data Source to GIS. 3. Click on the Select button and point DDMSW to the desired polygon of the entire watershed under consideration. Click on Update. Be sure to verify that the correct projection and coordinate system is assigned to the GIS shape file used for the watershed limits, as described in Appendix A.1.1.3. August 24, 2009 A-23 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Table A.11 Rainfall D-D-F for unit hydrograph example (DDMSW GIS) (estimated using the DDMSW GIS Method) Rainfall Depth, in inches Storm Frequency, in years Duration 2 5 10 25 50 100 5-min 0.259 0.365 0.441 0.545 0.623 0.706 10-min 0.394 0.555 0.672 0.829 0.949 1.074 15-min 0.488 0.688 0.833 1.028 1.176 1.332 30-min 0.657 0.927 1.121 1.384 1.584 1.794 1-hour 0.813 1.147 1.388 1.713 1.961 2.220 2-hour 0.899 1.273 1.564 1.968 2.304 2.659 3-hour 0.963 1.343 1.654 2.097 2.469 2.877 6-hour 1.133 1.556 1.894 2.385 2.788 3.229 12-hour 1.327 1.815 2.210 2.755 3.204 3.677 24-hour 1.624 2.231 2.704 3.375 3.913 4.484 The data in Table A.11 can then be used to prepare the needed input data for the HEC-1 PH and JD records as shown in Table A.12 and Table A.13. Table A.12 Unit Hydrograph Method point precipitation estimate(DDMSW GIS) (results using the DDMSW GIS Method) ID 5-min 15-min 1-hr 2-hr 3-hr 6-hr 12-hr 24-hr Watershed 0.706 1.332 2.220 2.659 2.877 3.229 3.677 4.484 Depth-area reduction factors for the 100-year 24-hour storm are determined using the data in Table 7.3. The results are shown in Table A.13. A-24 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Table A.13 Unit Hydrograph Method depth-area reduction (DDMSW GIS) Watershed Area Depth-Area Factor Areally Reduced Precipitation 0 1.000 0.950 0.919 0.900 0.887 0.877 0.870 0.863 4.484 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 4.260 4.121 4.036 3.977 3.932 3.901 3.870 A.1.2.5 Comparison of Methods The results from the three methods for use with the HEC-1 PH and JD records are compared in Table A.14. Table A.14 Unit Hydrograph Method point precipitation estimate(DDMSW GIS) (results using the DDMSW GIS Method) Method 5-min 15-min 1-hr 2-hr 3-hr 6-hr 12-hr 24-hr Manual 0.70 1.31 2.20 2.65 2.83 3.40 3.70 4.50 DDMSW Manual 0.705 1.330 2.217 2.655 2.873 3.225 3.672 4.479 DDMSW GIS 0.706 1.332 2.220 2.659 2.877 3.229 3.677 4.484 The most accurate results are expected from the DDMSW FIS Method, so the other two methods are compared with it. Note that the Manual Method has the highest error, especially for the 100-year 24-hour point precipitation. The DDMSW Manual Method and the DDMSW GIS Method are close enough that there is no practical difference. The Manual Method is most acceptable for small watersheds where the difference in point precipitation values are small across the watershed. The DDMSW methods should be used for larger watersheds. August 24, 2009 A-25 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Page Intentionally Left Blank A-26 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples A.2 RATIONAL METHOD EXAMPLE A.2.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT A 212.3 acre mixed-use residential and commercial development is planned in Kingman, AZ for the tract of land shown on Figure A.13. One of the watersheds (71.38 acres) that is contained entirely within the site has been delineated into three (3) sub-basins using available topographic mapping and the proposed street drainage patterns. A storm drain is to be constructed to convey runoff from the residential areas through the commercial tract. Determine the 10-year, post-development peak discharge at concentration points CP 1 (storm drain inlet) and CP 2 (storm drain outlet). Use both the combined watershed and triangular hydrograph method approaches as defined in Section 7.3.3.2. Compare the results. A.2.2 GIVEN PARAMETERS Rainfall depth-duration-frequency statistics were prepared as described in Appendix A.1 and the results listed in Table A.15 and Table A.16. Time of concentration and land use area data are listed in Table A.17. The resistance coefficient for all three sub-basins is 0.025 per Table 7.4. The maximum permissible velocity in the storm drain is 6 fps, and the storm drain length is 918 feet, as shown on Figure A.13. The land use zoning classifications proposed are: R-1, 2 acre minimum = LDR Land Use Code R-1, 0.5 acre minimum = LDR Land Use Code R-MH, 7,000 sf lots = MDR Land Use Code C-1, Neighborhood Commercial = C1 Land Use Code August 24, 2009 A-27 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Table A.15 Rainfall Depth-Duration-Frequency for Kingman, AZ (DDMSW GIS) (estimated using the DDMSW GIS Method) Rainfall Depth, in inches Storm Frequency, in years Duration 2 5 10 25 50 100 5-min 0.252 0.355 0.428 0.526 0.600 0.676 10-min 0.384 0.541 0.652 0.801 0.913 1.029 15-min 0.477 0.670 0.808 0.993 1.131 1.275 30-min 0.642 0.903 1.088 1.337 1.523 1.717 1-hour 0.794 1.117 1.347 1.655 1.885 2.125 2-hour 0.873 1.233 1.512 1.896 2.213 2.546 3-hour 0.935 1.302 1.600 2.024 2.381 2.767 6-hour 1.100 1.509 1.835 2.306 2.692 3.116 12-hour 1.284 1.755 2.136 2.658 3.089 3.540 24-hour 1.586 2.175 2.634 3.283 3.801 4.353 Table A.16 Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency for Kingman, AZ (DDMSW GIS) (computed using the data in Table A.15) Rainfall Intensity, in inches/hour Storm Frequency, in years Duration 2 5 10 25 50 100 5-min 3.024 4.260 5.136 6.312 7.200 8.112 10-min 2.304 3.246 3.912 4.806 5.478 6.174 15-min 1.908 2.680 3.232 3.972 4.524 5.100 30-min 1.284 1.806 2.176 2.674 3.046 3.434 1-hour 0.794 1.117 1.347 1.655 1.885 2.125 2-hour 0.437 0.617 0.756 0.948 1.107 1.273 3-hour 0.312 0.434 0.533 0.675 0.794 0.922 6-hour 0.183 0.252 0.306 0.384 0.449 0.519 12-hour 0.107 0.146 0.178 0.222 0.257 0.295 24-hour 0.066 0.091 0.110 0.137 0.158 0.181 A-28 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Figure A.13 Rational Method watershed and land use map August 24, 2009 A-29 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Table A.17 Tc and land use data Tc Computation Data Subbasin ID Length, miles Slope, ft./mi. Kb VLDR (114) LDR (140) MDR (160) C1 (220) Total Drainage Area, acres A 0.4295 41.9 0.025 0.36 20.25 15.00 0.00 35.61 B 0.4155 50.5 0.025 9.44 0.11 9.42 0.00 18.97 C 0.3121 28.8 0.025 0.00 0.00 7.61 9.19 16.80 TOTALS: 9.80 20.36 32.03 9.19 71.38 A.2.3 Land Use Area, acres SOLUTION USING MANUAL METHODS 1. Area: The areas for each sub-basin, and each land use within each sub-basin, were determined using available topographic mapping and are provided in Table A.17. C: The C values for each land use were selected from Table 7.19 and are shown in Table A.18. Table A.18 Rational Method example, land use C coefficients DDMSW ID A-30 Zoning Classification Hydrologic Classification Land Use Code C Kb VLDR 0.42 0.04 114 R-1, 2 acre Very Low Density Residential 140 R-1, 0.5 acre Low Density Residential LDR 0.48 0.04 160 R-MH, 7,000 sf Medium Density Residential MDR 0.60 0.025 220 C-1, Neighborhood Commercial Commercial C1 0.83 0.025 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Compute the arithmetically area-weighted C value for sub-basins A, B, and C; A+B; and A+B+C, using the areas from Table A.17 and the C values from Table A.18: NOTE: Composite C values are normally rounded to the nearest hundredth. Sub-basin A: 𝐶𝐶𝑤𝑤 = (0.42)(0.36)+(0.48)(20.25)+(0.60)(15.00) 35 .61 Sub-basin B: 𝐶𝐶𝑤𝑤 = (0.42)(9.44)+(0.48)(0.11)+(0.60)(9.42) 18.97 Sub-basin C: 𝐶𝐶𝑤𝑤 = (0.60)(7.61)+(0.83)(9.19) Sub-basins A + B: 𝐶𝐶𝑤𝑤 = 16.80 Sub-basins A + B + C: 𝐶𝐶𝑤𝑤 = = 0.51 = 0.73 (0.53)(35.61)+(0.51)(18.97) 54 .58 = 0.53 = 0.52 (0.53)(35.61)+(0.51)(18.97)+(0.73)(16.80) 71.38 The computed runoff coefficients (C) are: = 0.57 Sub-basin A: 0.53 Sub-basin B: 0.51 Sub-basin C: 0.73 Sub-basin A + B: 0.52 Sub-basin A + B + C: 0.57 Tc Parameters: L: The Tc flow paths were defined on the topographic mapping and measured. The lengths are tabulated in Table A.17. S: The Tc paths were inspected and found to have a reasonably constant slope. The slopes were calculated in feet/mile using the lengths and elevations shown on Figure A.13 and tabulated in Table A.17. Kb: Compute the arithmetically area-weighted Kb value for sub-basins A, B, and C; A+B; and A+B+C, using the areas from Table A.17 and the Kb values from Table A.18: August 24, 2009 A-31 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Sub-basin A: 𝐾𝐾𝑏𝑏 𝑤𝑤 = (0.04)(0.36)+(0.04)(20.25)+(0..025)(15.00) 35.61 Sub-basin B: 𝐾𝐾𝑏𝑏 𝑤𝑤 = (0.04)(9.44)+(0.04)(0.11)+(0..025)(9.42) 18.97 Sub-basin C: = 0.034 = 0.033 𝐾𝐾𝑏𝑏 𝑤𝑤 = 0.025 Sub-basins A + B: 𝐾𝐾𝑏𝑏 𝑤𝑤 = (0.034)(35.61)+(0.033)(18.97) Sub-basins A + B + C: 𝐾𝐾𝑏𝑏 𝑤𝑤 = 54.58 = 0.034 (0.034)(35.76)+(0033 )(18.97)+(0.025)(16.80) 71.38 = 0.032 NOTE: Kb estimates are normally rounded to the nearest hundredth. The computed Kb estimates are: Sub-basin A: 0.03 Sub-basin B: 0.03 Sub-basin C: 0.03 Sub-basin A + B: 0.03 Sub-basin A + B + C: 0.03 Compile the rainfall data (already complete, see Table A.15 and Table A.16). Tc: Compute Tc for sub-basins A, B, C, A + B, and A + B + C: Sub-basin A: 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = 11.4𝐿𝐿0.5 𝐾𝐾𝑏𝑏0.52 𝑆𝑆 −0.31 𝑖𝑖 −0.38 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = 11.4(0.4295)0.5 (0.03)0.52 (41.9)−0.31 𝑖𝑖 −0.38 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = 0.379𝑖𝑖 −0.38 Estimate an initial Tc. Assume 5 fps velocity. Tc = L/V = 2,268/5*60 = 8 min A-32 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples From Table A.16: 𝑖𝑖 = �(8 − 5)/(10 − 5)� ∗ (3.91 − 5.14) + 5.14 = 4.4 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒/ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 NOTE: Estimates of i are normally rounded to the nearest tenth of an inch per hour. 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = 0.379(4.4)−0.38 = 0.216 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 = 13.0 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑠𝑠 Recompute i for Tc = 13.8 minutes 𝑖𝑖 = �(13.0 − 10)/(15 − 10)� ∗ (3.23 − 3.91) + 3.91 = 3.5 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒/ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = 0.379(3.5)−0.38 = 0.235 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 = 14.1 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Recompute i for Tc = 14.1 minutes 𝑖𝑖 = �(14.1 − 10)/(15 − 10)� ∗ (3.23 − 3.91) + 3.91 = 3.4 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒/ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = 0.379(3.4)−0.38 = 0.238 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 = 14.3 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Difference is less than 2%. Use Tc = 14 min, i = 3.4 inches/hour Sub-basin B: 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = 11.4𝐿𝐿0.5 𝐾𝐾𝑏𝑏0.52 𝑆𝑆 −0.31 𝑖𝑖 −0.38 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = 11.4(0.4155)0.5 (0.03)0.52 (50.5)−0.31 𝑖𝑖 −0.38 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = 0.352𝑖𝑖 −0.38 Estimate an initial Tc. Assume 4 fps velocity. Tc = L/V = 2193/4*60 = 9 min From Table A.16: 𝑖𝑖 = �(9 − 5)/(10 − 5)� ∗ (3.91 − 5.14) + 5.14 = 4.2 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒/ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = 0.352(4.2)−0.38 = 0.204 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 = 12.2 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Recompute i for Tc = 12.2 minutes 𝑖𝑖 = �(12.2 − 10)/(15 − 10)� ∗ (3.23 − 3.91) + 3.91 = 3.6 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒/ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = 0.352(3.6)−0.38 = 0.216 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 = 13.0 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Recompute i for Tc = 13.0 minutes 𝑖𝑖 = �(13.0 − 10)/(15 − 10)� ∗ (3.23 − 3.91) + 3.91 = 3.5 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒/ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 August 24, 2009 A-33 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = 0.352(3.5)−0.38 = 0.219 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 = 13.1 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Difference is less than 2%. Use Tc = 13 min, i = 3.5 inches/hour Sub-basin C: 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = 11.4𝐿𝐿0.5 𝐾𝐾𝑏𝑏0.52 𝑆𝑆 −0.31 𝑖𝑖 −0.38 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = 11.4(0.3121)0.5 (0.03)0.52 (28.8)−0.31 𝑖𝑖 −0.38 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = 0.363𝑖𝑖 −0.38 Estimate an initial Tc. Assume 4 fps velocity. Tc = L/V = 1648/4*60 = 6.9 min From Table A.16: 𝑖𝑖 = �(6.9 − 5)/(10 − 5)� ∗ (3.91 − 5.14) + 5.14 = 4.7 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒/ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = 0.363(4.7)−0.38 = 0.202 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 = 12.1 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Recompute i for Tc = 12.1 minutes 𝑖𝑖 = �(12.1 − 10)/(15 − 10)� ∗ (3.23 − 3.91) + 3.91 = 3.6 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒/ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = 0.363(3.6)−0.38 = 0.223 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 = 13.4 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Recompute i for Tc = 13.4 minutes 𝑖𝑖 = �(13.4 − 10)/(15 − 10)� ∗ (3.23 − 3.91) + 3.91 = 3.4 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒/ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = 0.363(3.4)−0.38 = 0.228 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 = 13.7 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Recompute i for Tc = 13.7 minutes 𝑖𝑖 = �(13.7 − 10)/(15 − 10)� ∗ (3.23 − 3.91) + 3.91 = 3.4 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒/ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = 0.363(3.4)−0.38 = 0.228 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 = 13.7 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Difference is less than 2%. Use Tc = 14 min, i = 3.4 inches/hour Sub-basin A + B: 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = 11.4𝐿𝐿0.5 𝐾𝐾𝑏𝑏0.52 𝑆𝑆 −0.31 𝑖𝑖 −0.38 Use the longest L, which is sub-basin A, and the Tc from sub-basin A, assuming that a Kb of 0.034 will have negligible effect on Tc. A-34 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Use Tc = 14 min, i = 3.4 inches/hour Sub-basin A + B + C: 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = 11.4𝐿𝐿0.5 𝐾𝐾𝑏𝑏0.52 𝑆𝑆 −0.31 𝑖𝑖 −0.38 L = 2268 + 918 = 3186 ft S = (4321-4298)/3186/5280 = 38.1 feet/mile 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = 11.4(0.6034)0.5 (0.03)0.52 (38.1)−0.31 𝑖𝑖 −0.38 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = 0.462𝑖𝑖 −0.38 Estimate an initial Tc. Assume 4 fps velocity. Tc = L/V = 3186/4*60 = 13.3 min From Table A.16: 𝑖𝑖 = �(13.3 − 10)/(15 − 10)� ∗ (3.23 − 3.91) + 3.91 = 3.5 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒/ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = 0.462(3.5)−0.38 = 0.287 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 = 17.2 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Recompute i for Tc = 17.2 minutes 𝑖𝑖 = �(17.2 − 15)/(30 − 15)� ∗ (2.18 − 3.23) + 3.23 = 3.1 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒/ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = 0.462(3.1)−0.38 = 0.301 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 = 18.1 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Recompute i for Tc = 18.1 minutes 𝑖𝑖 = �(18.1 − 15)/(30 − 15)� ∗ (2.18 − 3.23) + 3.23 = 3.0 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒/ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = 0.462(3.0)−0.38 = 0.304 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 = 18.3 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Difference is less than 2%. Use Tc = 18.0 min, i = 3.0 inches/hour To summarize: Sub-basin A: Tc = 14 min, i = 3.4 inches/hour Sub-basin B: Use Tc = 13 min, i = 3.5 inches/hour Sub-basin C: Use Tc = 14 min, i = 3.4 inches/hour Sub-basin A + B: Use Tc = 14 min, i = 3.4 inches/hour Sub-basin A + B + C: Use Tc = 18.0 min, i = 3.0 inches/hour August 24, 2009 A-35 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Compute Q for each Sub-basin using the Combined Watershed Approach: Sub-basin A: 𝑄𝑄10 = 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 = (0.53)(3.4)(35.61) = 64 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 Sub-basin B: 𝑄𝑄10 = 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 = (0.51)(3.5)(18.97) = 34 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 Sub-basin C: 𝑄𝑄10 = 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 = (0.73)(3.4)(16.80) = 42 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 Sub-basin A + B: 𝑄𝑄10 = 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 = (0.52)(3.4)(54.58) = 97 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 Sub-basin A + B + C: 𝑄𝑄10 = 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 = (0.57)(3.0)(71.38) = 122 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 Compute Q for each sub-basin using the manual Triangular Hydrograph Approach: Use Figure 7.9 to construct a triangular hydrograph for both sub-basin A and sub-basin B. Then add the ordinates of the two hydrographs to estimate the total flow at CP 1 as shown on Figure A.14. A-36 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Figure A.14 10-year Rational Method hydrographs at CP 1 Lag the hydrograph for CP 1 in relation to the hydrograph for sub-basin C and plot as shown on Figure A.15. Assume that the travel time for flow from CP 1 to CP 2 is the length of the storm drain divided by 6 fps. The length of the storm drain is 918 ft. At 6 fps, the estimated travel time is about 3 minutes. Therefore, lag the hydrograph from CP 1 (subbasin A + sub-basin B) by 3 minutes in relation to the hydrograph from sub-basin C. Then add the ordinates of the two hydrographs to estimate the total flow at CP 2. August 24, 2009 A-37 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Figure A.15 10-year Rational Method hydrographs at CP 2 A-38 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples The total peak discharge at the two concentration points is estimated to be: CP 1: Q10 = 96 cfs at 14 minutes. CP 2: Q10 = 133 cfs at 17 minutes. The results of the two multiple basin approaches are summarized in Table A.19. Note that the results compare favorably with the exception of the peak discharge at CP 2. There is a 1-minute difference in time-to-peak between the two methods, contributing to the difference in peak discharge of 10 cfs. The Triangular Hydrograph results should be revised using the actual velocity in the storm drain for a peak discharge of 96 cfs. Assuming a 54-inch diameter CMP storm drain, it is determined that the full flow capacity is only about 79 cfs. Therefore, the design is revised to use two 54inch CMP’s with a full flow capacity of about 157 cfs and a velocity of about 4.9 fps, which provides factor of safety. The design could be refined to use smaller pipes, and of course other physical constraints may affect the final pipe size selection. For a storm drain length of 918 feet, the travel time is approximately 3.1 minutes. The lag of 3 minutes is still a valid assumption. In general, the accepted approach is to use the Triangular Hydrograph Method when applying the Rational Method in Mohave County; however, the Combined Watershed Method may be used when performing the hydrology computations manually. A.2.4 SOLUTION USING DDMSW The DDMSW computer program applies only the Triangular Hydrograph Method. The general steps for using the Rational Method under DDMSW are as follows: 1. File\Select Project. Create a new project and set the model project default to Rational. 2. Hydrology\Rainfall. Establish the rainfall criteria as described in Appendix A.1.1. 3. Sub-Basin and Land Use Data, GIS Method: a. Create shape files for the sub-basins, land use and Tc paths, making sure the required fields exist and are populated. Make sure the projection and coordinate system are the Mohave County standard. b. Maps\Update Hydrology. Set the pointers to the path and file name for the sub-basins, land use and Tc GIS shape files. Click Save, then click Update. c. Hydrology\Sub Basins. Check data to be sure it was imported properly. Click Update. d. Hydrology\Land Use. Check data to be sure it was imported properly. Click Update. August 24, 2009 A-39 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Sub-Basin and Land Use Data, Manual Method. a. Hydrology\Sub Basins. Enter the sub-basin data manually and click Update. b. Hydrology\Land Use. Enter land use data manually and click Update. Hydrology\Rational Method\Network. Click Add and select Type sub-basin. Select the ID for the first sub-basin. Click Save. Repeat for all sub-basins. Hydrology\Rational Method\Model. Select desired return periods and click Run Model. Click Results, then click View and select the return period you want to review first. Check for reasonableness. Click Graph and review hydrographs for reasonableness. Click View and select another return period (assuming you ran the model with multiple return periods selected). Repeat for all storm return periods modeled. Hydraulics\Conveyance Facilities. If conveyance facilities such as storm drains are to be modeled, add them in. Hydrology\Rational Method\Network. Add in the Conveyance Facilities defined, and add in any hydrograph combines. Place in the proper order to simulate the flow progression. Repeat Step 6. The DDMSW 10-year results for the example problem are shown on Figure A.16, Figure A.17, and Figure A.18. One of the many advantages of using DDMSW is that the results can easily be obtained for multiple return periods (not shown for this example). Figure A.16 DDMSW 10-year Rational Method results A.2.5 COMPARISON OF RESULTS The results prepared using DDMSW are compared with the Manual Method results in Table A.19. Note that the DDMSW method produces more accurate computations, but when rounded are nearly identical to the Manual Method results. A-40 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Figure A.17 DDMSW 10-year Rational Method hydrographs at CP 1 Combine ID: C1 County of Mohave Rational Method Hydrograph RP: 10 Year Peak Q: 94.4 cfs at 14.0 minutes 100.0 Q (cfs) 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 28.0 32.0 36.0 40.0 Time (min) 1st Hydrograph 2nd Hydrograph Combined Hydrographs Figure A.18 DDMSW 10-year Rational Method hydrographs at CP 2 Combine ID: C2 County of Mohave Rational Method Hydrograph RP: 10 Year Peak Q: 130.5 cfs at 17.0 minutes 140.0 120.0 Q (cfs) 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 Time (min) 1st Hydrograph August 24, 2009 2nd Hydrograph Combined Hydrographs A-41 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Table A.19 Summary of results for the various methods Triangular Hydrograph Method Manual Method Manual Method DDMSW Q10, cfs Tp, min. Tp, min. Q10, cfs Tp, min Q10, cfs Sub-basin A 64 14 14 64 14.3 63.4 Sub-basin B 34 13 13 34 13.1 33.7 CP 1 97 14 14 96 14.0 95.9 Sub-basin C 42 14 14 42 13.7 41.2 CP 2 122 18 17 132 17.0 130.5 Location A-42 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples A.3 RAINFALL LOSSES EXAMPLE This section pertains to estimating rainfall loss parameters for use with the unit hydrograph method. Refer to Section 7.4 for a description of the methodology used. Refer to Appendix D for a complete description of the Green and Ampt parameters used in Mohave County and derived from NCRS databases and GIS coverages. A.3.1 EXAMPLE FOR GREEN AND AMPT METHOD A.3.1.1 Problem Statement Rainfall loss parameters for use with the Green and Ampt method are needed for a HEC-1 model of a large watershed within, and south of, Kingman, AZ. The site is located as shown on Figure A.6. Derive the parameters and prepare the HEC-1 rainfall loss records for the model using the instructions set forth in Section 7.4.4. There are three methods that can be used: 1. Manual Computations. Computations are performed by hand or with a calculator. 2. DDMSW Manual Input. Areas and other parameters are determined by the most expedient means available and then manually input to DDMSW. DDMSW then computes rainfall loss parameters for each sub-basin. 3. DDMSW GIS Method. Sub-basin boundaries, soil map unit boundaries and land use boundaries are created in ERSI GIS shape file format external to DDMSW, read into DDMSW, and then DDMSW performs the rainfall loss parameter computations for each subbasin using the GIS information. A.3.1.2 Problem Solution The solution consists of several steps, which are common to all methods. 1. Watershed delineation. 2. Watershed slope evaluation. 3. Land use definition. 4. Soil Map Unit definition. 5. Concentration point definition and Sub-basin delineation. 6. Computation of sub-basin composite initial abstraction. 7. Computation of sub-basin composite bare ground XKSAT. 8. Assignment of PSIF and DTHETA. 9. Computation of sub-basin composite vegetation cover density (VCD). 10. Computation of XKSAT adjusted for vegetation canopy cover. August 24, 2009 A-43 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples 11. Estimation of sub-basin composite RTIMP. 12. Preparation of the HEC-1 rainfall loss input records. Step 1. Watershed Delineation. The bottom end of the study watershed is normally a known point that is the focus of the study. The upstream watershed should first be delineated using the best available topographic information. USGS quadrangle maps covering the watershed, in combination with the 10-meter resolution USGS digital elevation maps (DEM), were used for delineation of the watershed boundaries shown on Figure A.6. Step 2. Watershed Slope Evaluation. It is very helpful to assess the range of slopes present on the watershed. This information is useful when deciding how the watershed should be delineated into sub-basins, and for the assignment natural land use classifications (undeveloped desert, hillslopes, or mountain terrain), which are slope dependant. The USGS DEM’s of the watershed were used to prepare Figure A.19. Slope ranges defined were less than 5%, greater than 5%, and greater than 20%. This information was used to define simplified natural terrain polygons for the three classifications, as shown on Figure A.20, which is the natural land use map. The land use codes (LUCODE) shown on Figure A.20 are related to terrain classification in Table A.20. Table A.20 Natural land use codes LUCODE Description 500 Undeveloped Desert Rangeland. Little topographic relief, slopes <5%. 510 Hillslopes, Sonoran Desert. Moderate topographic relief, slopes >5%. 520 Mountain Terrain. High topographic relief, slopes >20%. Step 3. Land Use Definition. Definition of land use spatial limits is necessary to estimate the impervious area (RTIMP), developed vegetation canopy cover (VCD), Initial Abstraction (IA), and the areas where the soil moisture deficit at start of rainfall (DTHETA) are assumed to be have a normal value. The standard Mohave County land use/zoning map in GIS shape file format was used to define the land uses for the areas in the unincorporated County. Land use polygons for the area within Kingman were drawn in GIS using the USGS quadrangle maps and knowledge of the area. These land use types and limits are for the purposes of this example only and are not an A-44 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples accurate representation of actual land uses in the area. The urban land use map was combined with the natural land use map to produce a comprehensive land use GIS shape file coverage of the entire watershed. Refer to Figure A.21. Figure A.19 Unit Hydrograph Method watershed slope variation map August 24, 2009 A-45 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Figure A.20 Unit Hydrograph Method natural terrain classification map A-46 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Figure A.21 Unit Hydrograph Method combined land use map Step 4. Soil Map Unit Definition. The NRCS soil map units (SMU) present in each sub-basin are needed for estimation of saturated hydraulic conductivity (XKSAT), the wetting front capillary suction (PSIF), and DTHETA. The NRCS soil map units for all Mohave County watersheds are available in GIS shape file format. The soil map unit boundaries for the watershed are shown on Figure A.22. The NRCS soils data for the watershed were used to define sub-areas for this example. Each sub-area polygon defines the limits of an NRCS soil map unit (SMU). These sub-area polygons are used to define natural impervious area and to estimate the Green and Ampt rainfall loss parameters. August 24, 2009 A-47 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Figure A.22 Unit Hydrograph Method soil map units map Step 5. Concentration Point Definition and Sub-basin Delineation. The watershed should be broken into sub-basins if hydrologic parameters such as topography, land use, soil characteristics, vegetation, or percent impervious area vary significantly. The sub-basins should be as homogeneous as possible in terms of those parameters. For this example, significant changes in slope and differences in land ownership occur between the upper and lower watersheds; therefore, the watershed is divided into nine (9) sub-basins as shown on Figure A.23. The land use types with the delineated sub-basins superimposed are shown on Figure A.24. The soil map units with the delineated sub-basins superimposed are shown on Figure A.25. Further delineation of sub-basins A2 and A3 would be warranted for an A-48 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples actual study because of the change in land use from natural to urban and the need for concentration points where off-site watersheds impact the developed area. Sub-basin A5 could also be split again because of slope change. Further sub-basin delineation would make this example more complex and harder to follow and therefore was not done. Computation of the rainfall loss parameters using manual methods will be done for sub-basin A3. Computation of the rainfall loss parameters for the other sub-basins will be done using DDMSW. Figure A.23 Unit Hydrograph Method sub-basin delineation map August 24, 2009 A-49 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Figure A.24 Unit Hydrograph Method land use map Step 6. Computation of sub-basin composite initial abstraction. IA is estimated by calculating an area-weighted value for each sub-basin using standard values assigned for the land use sub-areas. The areas of the land use sub-areas can be determined by hand using a hard copy of the watershed land use map or digitally using CADD or GIS software. For this example, the areas were calculated using GIS. The sub-basin and land use sub-areas are summarized in Table A.22. A-50 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Figure A.25 Unit Hydrograph Method soils map August 24, 2009 A-51 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Table A.21 Unit hydrograph example soils and land use parameters Land Use XKSAT, in/hr Basin Soil Area XKSAT VC DTHETA ID LID CODE Cond. Nat Dev Assign Log10 sm x Area VC x Area x Area IA x Area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A1 557 510 N 1.03 0.63 1.03 0.0128 0.0718 0.0009 10 0.7178 0.0228 0.15 0.0108 A1 652 510 N 0.07 0.02 0.07 -1.1549 0.0500 -0.0578 10 0.5001 0.0159 0.15 0.0075 A1 668 510 N 0.3 0.13 0.3 -0.5229 0.2276 -0.1190 10 2.2757 0.0724 0.15 0.0341 A1 700 510 N 0.12 0.04 0.12 -0.9208 0.0024 -0.0022 10 0.0239 0.0008 0.15 0.0004 A1 557 520 N 1.03 0.63 1.03 0.0128 0.0479 0.0006 20 0.9581 0.0152 0.25 0.0120 A1 180 520 N 1.01 0.62 1.01 0.0043 0.0080 0.0000 20 0.1591 0.0025 0.25 0.0020 A1 585 520 N 0.41 0.21 0.41 -0.3872 0.5444 -0.2108 20 10.8883 0.1731 0.25 0.1361 A1 213 520 N 0.58 0.33 0.58 -0.2366 1.0740 -0.2541 20 21.4804 0.3415 0.25 0.2685 A1 229 520 N 0.45 0.22 0.45 -0.3468 2.3764 -0.8241 20 47.5289 0.7556 0.25 0.5941 A1 245 520 N 0.45 0.23 0.45 -0.3468 2.6347 -0.9137 20 52.6944 0.8378 0.25 0.6587 A1 264 520 N 0.3 0.13 0.3 -0.5229 0.3562 -0.1863 20 7.1246 0.1133 0.25 0.0891 A1 650 520 N 0.09 0.02 0.09 -1.0458 0.0033 -0.0034 20 0.0659 0.0010 0.25 0.0008 A1 651 520 N 0.43 0.21 0.43 -0.3665 0.3585 -0.1314 20 7.1692 0.1140 0.25 0.0896 A1 652 520 N 0.07 0.02 0.07 -1.1549 0.1953 -0.2256 20 3.9061 0.0621 0.25 0.0488 A1 655 520 N 0.06 0.02 0.06 -1.2218 0.1024 -0.1251 20 2.0483 0.0326 0.25 0.0256 A1 668 520 N 0.3 0.13 0.3 -0.5229 0.2336 -0.1221 20 4.6717 0.0743 0.25 0.0584 A1 292 520 N 0.12 0.04 0.12 -0.9208 0.0398 -0.0366 20 0.7953 0.0126 0.25 0.0099 A1 700 520 N 0.12 0.04 0.12 -0.9208 0.0370 -0.0341 20 0.7396 0.0118 0.25 0.0092 Totals: 8.3632 -3.2447 Bare Ground XKSATComp: 163.7474 2.6593 0.41 VCAvg: 19.58 PSIF: 9.12 DTHETAAvg: 0.32 DTHETADry: 0.32 XKSATAdj: 0.45 DTHETANormal: 0.20 IAAvg: 0.25 IA 2.0556 A1 A2 557 114 N 1.03 0.63 1.03 0.0128 0.0053 0.0001 50 0.2644 0.0015 0.30 0.0016 A2 701 114 N 0.32 0.14 0.32 -0.4949 0.0911 -0.0451 50 4.5537 0.0265 0.30 0.0273 A2 557 140 D 1.03 0.63 0.63 -0.2007 0.0669 -0.0134 50 3.3469 0.0106 0.25 0.0167 A2 610 140 D 0.31 0.13 0.13 -0.8861 0.0101 -0.0089 50 0.5026 0.0016 0.25 0.0025 A2 621 140 D 0.29 0.12 0.12 -0.9208 0.3352 -0.3087 50 16.7600 0.0529 0.25 0.0838 A2 652 140 D 0.07 0.02 0.02 -1.6990 0.0922 -0.1567 50 4.6119 0.0145 0.25 0.0231 A2 668 140 D 0.3 0.13 0.13 -0.8861 0.1818 -0.1611 50 9.0920 0.0287 0.25 0.0455 A2 557 160 D 1.03 0.63 0.63 -0.2007 0.1635 -0.0328 50 8.1736 0.0258 0.25 0.0409 A2 610 160 D 0.31 0.13 0.13 -0.8861 0.0538 -0.0477 50 2.6919 0.0085 0.25 0.0135 A2 621 160 D 0.29 0.12 0.12 -0.9208 0.2370 -0.2182 50 11.8493 0.0374 0.25 0.0592 A2 668 160 D 0.3 0.13 0.13 -0.8861 0.7439 -0.6592 50 37.1965 0.1173 0.25 0.1860 A2 700 160 D 0.12 0.04 0.04 -1.3979 0.1958 -0.2737 50 9.7891 0.0309 0.25 0.0489 A2 701 160 D 0.32 0.14 0.14 -0.8539 0.1636 -0.1397 50 8.1815 0.0258 0.25 0.0409 A2 706 160 D 0.73 0.37 0.37 -0.4318 0.0676 -0.0292 50 3.3793 0.0107 0.25 0.0169 A2 610 230 D 0.31 0.13 0.13 -0.8861 0.0322 -0.0285 75 2.4158 0.0051 0.10 0.0032 A2 621 230 D 0.29 0.12 0.12 -0.9208 0.0003 -0.0003 75 0.0251 0.0001 0.10 0.0000 A2 700 230 D 0.12 0.04 0.04 -1.3979 0.1483 -0.2073 75 11.1230 0.0234 0.10 0.0148 A-52 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Table A.21 Unit hydrograph example soils and land use parameters Land Use XKSAT, in/hr Basin Soil Area XKSAT VC DTHETA ID LID CODE Cond. Nat Dev Assign Log10 sm x Area VC x Area x Area IA x Area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A2 706 230 D 0.73 0.37 0.37 -0.4318 0.0330 -0.0142 75 2.4737 0.0052 0.10 0.0033 A2 557 290 D 1.03 0.63 0.63 -0.2007 0.1781 -0.0357 60 10.6833 0.0281 0.15 0.0267 A2 610 290 D 0.31 0.13 0.13 -0.8861 0.0220 -0.0195 60 1.3223 0.0035 0.15 0.0033 A2 621 290 D 0.29 0.12 0.12 -0.9208 0.0707 -0.0651 60 4.2438 0.0112 0.15 0.0106 A2 668 290 D 0.3 0.13 0.13 -0.8861 0.2180 -0.1932 60 13.0827 0.0344 0.15 0.0327 A2 700 290 D 0.12 0.04 0.04 -1.3979 0.2059 -0.2879 60 12.3553 0.0325 0.15 0.0309 A2 701 290 D 0.32 0.14 0.14 -0.8539 0.0169 -0.0145 60 1.0169 0.0027 0.15 0.0025 A2 557 500 N 1.03 0.63 1.03 0.0128 0.0255 0.0003 10 0.2546 0.0074 0.35 0.0089 A2 610 500 N 0.31 0.13 0.31 -0.5086 0.1656 -0.0842 10 1.6558 0.0482 0.35 0.0580 A2 621 500 N 0.29 0.12 0.29 -0.5376 0.1173 -0.0631 10 1.1733 0.0341 0.35 0.0411 A2 700 500 N 0.12 0.04 0.12 -0.9208 0.0027 -0.0025 10 0.0269 0.0008 0.35 0.0009 A2 701 500 N 0.32 0.14 0.32 -0.4949 0.0001 -0.0001 10 0.0012 0.0000 0.35 0.0000 A2 706 500 N 0.73 0.37 0.73 -0.1367 0.0066 -0.0009 10 0.0660 0.0019 0.35 0.0023 A2 557 510 N 1.03 0.63 1.03 0.0128 0.1312 0.0017 10 1.3120 0.0382 0.15 0.0197 A2 610 510 N 0.31 0.13 0.31 -0.5086 0.1817 -0.0924 10 1.8171 0.0528 0.15 0.0273 A2 621 510 N 0.29 0.12 0.29 -0.5376 0.1761 -0.0947 10 1.7606 0.0512 0.15 0.0264 A2 652 510 N 0.07 0.02 0.07 -1.1549 0.1881 -0.2173 10 1.8814 0.0547 0.15 0.0282 A2 668 510 N 0.3 0.13 0.3 -0.5229 0.3587 -0.1876 10 3.5869 0.1043 0.15 0.0538 A2 700 510 N 0.12 0.04 0.12 -0.9208 0.0690 -0.0635 10 0.6898 0.0201 0.15 0.0103 A2 701 510 N 0.32 0.14 0.32 -0.4949 0.1231 -0.0609 10 1.2313 0.0358 0.15 0.0185 A2 706 510 N 0.73 0.37 0.73 -0.1367 0.0244 -0.0033 10 0.2438 0.0071 0.15 0.0037 A2 557 520 N 1.03 0.63 1.03 0.0128 0.0878 0.0011 20 1.7552 0.0255 0.25 0.0219 A2 229 520 N 0.45 0.22 0.45 -0.3468 0.0000 0.0000 20 0.0003 0.0000 0.25 0.0000 A2 610 520 N 0.31 0.13 0.31 -0.5086 0.1496 -0.0761 20 2.9927 0.0435 0.25 0.0374 A2 621 520 N 0.29 0.12 0.29 -0.5376 0.0128 -0.0069 20 0.2567 0.0037 0.25 0.0032 A2 264 520 N 0.3 0.13 0.3 -0.5229 1.0784 -0.5639 20 21.5676 0.3136 0.25 0.2696 A2 668 520 N 0.3 0.13 0.3 -0.5229 2.3971 -1.2534 20 47.9421 0.6971 0.25 0.5993 A2 292 520 N 0.12 0.04 0.12 -0.9208 1.1843 -1.0905 20 23.6857 0.3444 0.25 0.2961 A2 700 520 N 0.12 0.04 0.12 -0.9208 1.1649 -1.0727 20 23.2989 0.3388 0.25 0.2912 A2 701 520 N 0.32 0.14 0.32 -0.4949 0.6074 -0.3006 20 12.1487 0.1766 0.25 0.1519 A2 706 520 N 0.73 0.37 0.73 -0.1367 0.0131 -0.0018 20 0.25 Totals: 11.5990 -8.1938 Bare Ground XKSATComp: PSIF: 0.20 14.43 0.2617 0.0038 328.7450 2.9419 VCAvg: 28.34 DTHETAAvg: 0.25 DTHETADry: 0.29 XKSATAdj: 0.24 DTHETANormal: 0.16 IAAvg: 0.23 IA 0.0033 2.7079 A2 A3 552 160 D 0.41 0.18 0.18 -0.7447 0.1372 -0.1022 50 6.8587 0.0243 0.25 0.0343 A3 557 160 D 1.03 0.63 0.63 -0.2007 0.0813 -0.0163 50 4.0642 0.0144 0.25 0.0203 A3 700 160 D 0.12 0.04 0.04 -1.3979 0.0196 -0.0275 50 0.9821 0.0035 0.25 0.0049 A3 701 160 D 0.32 0.14 0.14 -0.8539 1.3092 -1.1179 50 65.4617 0.2323 0.25 0.3273 August 24, 2009 A-53 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Table A.21 Unit hydrograph example soils and land use parameters Land Use XKSAT, in/hr Basin Soil Area XKSAT VC DTHETA ID LID CODE Cond. Nat Dev Assign Log10 sm x Area VC x Area x Area IA x Area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A3 706 160 D 0.73 0.37 0.37 -0.4318 0.8179 -0.3532 50 40.8951 0.1451 0.25 0.2045 A3 557 230 D 1.03 0.63 0.63 -0.2007 0.0582 -0.0117 75 4.3626 0.0103 0.10 0.0058 A3 610 230 D 0.31 0.13 0.13 -0.8861 0.0528 -0.0468 75 3.9585 0.0094 0.10 0.0053 A3 700 230 D 0.12 0.04 0.04 -1.3979 0.1129 -0.1578 75 8.4673 0.0200 0.10 0.0113 A3 701 230 D 0.32 0.14 0.14 -0.8539 0.1627 -0.1389 75 12.2004 0.0289 0.10 0.0163 A3 706 230 D 0.73 0.37 0.37 -0.4318 0.2893 -0.1249 75 21.6993 0.0513 0.10 0.0289 A3 557 290 D 1.03 0.63 0.63 -0.2007 0.0082 -0.0016 60 0.4911 0.0015 0.15 0.0012 A3 610 290 D 0.31 0.13 0.13 -0.8861 0.0030 -0.0026 60 0.1793 0.0005 0.15 0.0004 A3 701 290 D 0.32 0.14 0.14 -0.8539 0.0005 -0.0004 60 0.0287 0.0001 0.15 0.0001 A3 700 500 N 0.12 0.04 0.12 -0.9208 0.0002 -0.0002 10 0.0024 0.0001 0.35 0.0001 A3 706 500 N 0.73 0.37 0.73 -0.1367 0.0414 -0.0057 10 0.4139 0.0126 0.35 0.0145 A3 552 510 N 0.41 0.18 0.41 -0.3872 0.0868 -0.0336 10 0.8679 0.0265 0.15 0.0130 A3 557 510 N 1.03 0.63 1.03 0.0128 0.0136 0.0002 10 0.1364 0.0042 0.15 0.0020 A3 610 510 N 0.31 0.13 0.31 -0.5086 0.0016 -0.0008 10 0.0165 0.0005 0.15 0.0002 A3 700 510 N 0.12 0.04 0.12 -0.9208 0.1497 -0.1379 10 1.4971 0.0456 0.15 0.0225 A3 701 510 N 0.32 0.14 0.32 -0.4949 0.8131 -0.4024 10 8.1314 0.2479 0.15 0.1220 A3 706 510 N 0.73 0.37 0.73 -0.1367 0.1193 -0.0163 10 1.1930 0.0364 0.15 0.0179 A3 552 520 N 0.41 0.18 0.41 -0.3872 0.0046 -0.0018 20 0.0929 0.0014 0.25 0.0012 A3 557 520 N 1.03 0.63 1.03 0.0128 0.0745 0.0010 20 1.4902 0.0227 0.25 0.0186 A3 586 520 N 0.43 0.21 0.43 -0.3665 0.0396 -0.0145 20 0.7927 0.0121 0.25 0.0099 A3 610 520 N 0.31 0.13 0.31 -0.5086 0.0644 -0.0328 20 1.2883 0.0196 0.25 0.0161 A3 700 520 N 0.12 0.04 0.12 -0.9208 0.1665 -0.1533 20 3.3297 0.0508 0.25 0.0416 A3 701 520 N 0.32 0.14 0.32 -0.4949 8.5099 -4.2111 20 170.1973 2.5943 0.25 2.1275 A3 706 520 N 0.73 0.37 0.73 -0.1367 0.0216 -0.0030 20 0.4317 0.0066 0.25 0.0054 A3 713 520 N 0.64 0.34 0.64 -0.1938 0.0068 -0.0013 20 0.25 Totals: 13.1665 -7.1153 Bare Ground XKSATComp: PSIF: 0.29 12.11 0.1352 0.0021 359.6653 3.6250 VCAvg: 27.32 DTHETAAvg: 0.28 DTHETADry: 0.30 XKSATAdj: 0.35 DTHETANormal: 0.18 IAAvg: 0.23 IA 0.0017 3.0748 A3 A4 557 290 D 1.03 0.63 0.63 -0.2007 0.0226 -0.0045 60 1.3556 0.0040 0.15 0.0034 A4 610 290 D 0.31 0.13 0.13 -0.8861 0.0042 -0.0037 60 0.2502 0.0007 0.15 0.0006 A4 668 290 D 0.3 0.13 0.13 -0.8861 0.0212 -0.0187 60 1.2692 0.0037 0.15 0.0032 A4 292 290 D 0.12 0.04 0.04 -1.3979 0.0173 -0.0241 60 1.0362 0.0030 0.15 0.0026 A4 700 290 D 0.12 0.04 0.04 -1.3979 0.0572 -0.0800 60 3.4350 0.0100 0.15 0.0086 A4 557 520 N 1.03 0.63 1.03 0.0128 0.0962 0.0012 20 1.9243 0.0292 0.25 0.0241 A4 180 520 N 1.01 0.62 1.01 0.0043 0.0819 0.0004 20 1.6375 0.0249 0.25 0.0205 A4 229 520 N 0.45 0.22 0.45 -0.3468 0.0126 -0.0044 20 0.2522 0.0038 0.25 0.0032 A4 245 520 N 0.45 0.23 0.45 -0.3468 2.1896 -0.7593 20 43.7913 0.6646 0.25 0.5474 A4 264 520 N 0.3 0.13 0.3 -0.5229 3.5589 -1.8609 20 71.1789 1.0803 0.25 0.8897 A-54 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Table A.21 Unit hydrograph example soils and land use parameters Land Use XKSAT, in/hr Basin Soil Area XKSAT VC DTHETA ID LID CODE Cond. Nat Dev Assign Log10 sm x Area VC x Area x Area IA x Area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A4 668 520 N 0.3 0.13 0.3 -0.5229 0.3376 -0.1765 20 6.7525 0.1025 0.25 0.0844 A4 292 520 N 0.12 0.04 0.12 -0.9208 1.3712 -1.2626 20 27.4243 0.4162 0.25 0.3428 A4 700 520 N 0.12 0.04 0.12 -0.9208 0.1861 -0.1714 20 3.7226 0.0565 0.25 0.0465 Totals: 7.9566 -4.3647 164.0297 2.3994 VCAvg: 20.62 Bare Ground XKSATComp: PSIF: 0.28 DTHETAAvg: 0.30 DTHETADry: 12.38 0.30 XKSATAdj: 0.31 DTHETANormal: 0.18 IAAvg: 0.25 IA 1.9769 A4 A5 557 230 D 1.03 0.63 0.63 -0.2007 0.0693 -0.0139 75 5.1939 0.0122 0.10 0.0069 A5 583 230 D 0.93 0.5 0.5 -0.3010 0.0009 -0.0003 75 0.0691 0.0002 0.10 0.0001 A5 700 230 D 0.12 0.04 0.04 -1.3979 0.0868 -0.1213 75 6.5084 0.0152 0.10 0.0087 A5 701 230 D 0.32 0.14 0.14 -0.8539 0.4857 -0.4147 75 36.4256 0.0852 0.10 0.0486 A5 557 290 D 1.03 0.63 0.63 -0.2007 0.0482 -0.0097 60 2.8895 0.0085 0.15 0.0072 A5 583 290 D 0.93 0.5 0.5 -0.3010 0.0070 -0.0021 60 0.4177 0.0012 0.15 0.0010 A5 668 290 D 0.3 0.13 0.13 -0.8861 0.0637 -0.0564 60 3.8214 0.0112 0.15 0.0096 A5 701 290 D 0.32 0.14 0.14 -0.8539 0.0044 -0.0037 60 0.2617 0.0008 0.15 0.0007 A5 701 510 N 0.32 0.14 0.32 -0.4949 2.6072 -1.2902 10 26.0725 0.7914 0.15 0.3911 A5 557 520 N 1.03 0.63 1.03 0.0128 0.0074 0.0001 20 0.1483 0.0023 0.25 0.0019 A5 701 520 N 0.32 0.14 0.32 -0.4949 1.2889 -0.6378 20 25.7777 0.3912 0.25 0.3222 Totals: 4.6693 -2.5500 Bare Ground XKSATComp: PSIF: 107.5857 0.28 VCAvg: 12.38 1.3192 0.7979 23.04 DTHETAAvg: 0.28 DTHETADry: 0.30 XKSATAdj: 0.32 DTHETANormal: 0.18 IAAvg: 0.17 A5 A6 557 230 D 1.03 0.63 0.63 -0.2007 0.1140 -0.0229 75 8.5522 0.0180 0.10 0.0114 A6 583 230 D 0.93 0.5 0.5 -0.3010 0.0181 -0.0055 75 1.3601 0.0029 0.10 0.0018 A6 701 230 D 0.32 0.14 0.14 -0.8539 0.3631 -0.3101 75 27.2359 0.0573 0.10 0.0363 A6 557 290 D 1.03 0.63 0.63 -0.2007 0.1001 -0.0201 60 6.0036 0.0158 0.15 0.0150 A6 180 290 D 1.01 0.62 0.62 -0.2076 0.0327 -0.0068 60 1.9603 0.0052 0.15 0.0049 A6 583 290 D 0.93 0.5 0.5 -0.3010 0.0615 -0.0185 60 3.6883 0.0097 0.15 0.0092 A6 264 290 D 0.3 0.13 0.13 -0.8861 0.7748 -0.6866 60 46.4904 0.1222 0.15 0.1162 A6 668 290 D 0.3 0.13 0.13 -0.8861 0.1780 -0.1578 60 10.6823 0.0281 0.15 0.0267 A6 292 290 D 0.12 0.04 0.04 -1.3979 0.0550 -0.0768 60 3.2983 0.0087 0.15 0.0082 A6 304 290 D 0.39 0.17 0.17 -0.7696 0.1284 -0.0988 60 7.7042 0.0202 0.15 0.0193 A6 700 290 D 0.12 0.04 0.04 -1.3979 0.0108 -0.0151 60 0.6478 0.0017 0.15 0.0016 A6 264 510 N 0.3 0.13 0.3 -0.5229 0.0230 -0.0120 10 0.2299 0.0067 0.15 0.0034 A6 292 510 N 0.12 0.04 0.12 -0.9208 1.1133 -1.0252 10 11.1334 0.3237 0.15 0.1670 A6 245 520 N 0.45 0.23 0.45 -0.3468 0.0003 -0.0001 20 0.0069 0.0001 0.25 0.0001 A6 264 520 N 0.3 0.13 0.3 -0.5229 3.4407 -1.7991 20 68.8144 1.0005 0.25 0.8602 A6 292 520 N 0.12 0.04 0.12 -0.9208 1.7169 -1.5809 20 34.3371 0.4992 0.25 0.4292 August 24, 2009 A-55 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Table A.21 Unit hydrograph example soils and land use parameters Land Use XKSAT, in/hr Basin Soil Area XKSAT VC DTHETA ID LID CODE Cond. Nat Dev Assign Log10 sm x Area VC x Area x Area IA x Area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A6 304 520 N 0.39 0.17 0.39 -0.4089 -0.1480 20 7.2362 0.1052 0.25 0.0905 A6 701 520 N 0.32 0.14 0.32 -0.4949 0.1974 -0.0977 20 0.25 Totals: 8.6900 -6.0818 0.3618 Bare Ground XKSATComp: PSIF: 1.03 0.63 0.63 0.20 14.43 3.9480 0.0574 243.3293 2.2825 VCAvg: 28.00 DTHETAAvg: 0.26 DTHETADry: 0.29 XKSATAdj: 0.24 DTHETANormal: 0.16 IAAvg: 0.21 A7 557 230 D -0.2007 0.0003 A7 701 230 D 0.32 0.14 0.14 -0.8539 0.1955 A7 701 510 N 0.32 0.14 0.32 -0.4949 0.1577 A7 701 520 N 0.32 0.14 0.32 -0.4949 1.1107 -0.5496 20 Totals: 1.4642 -0.7946 Bare Ground XKSATComp: PSIF: -0.0001 75 0.0206 -0.1669 75 -0.0780 10 0.29 0.0494 1.8505 A6 0.0000 0.10 0.0000 14.6594 0.0347 0.10 0.0195 1.5771 0.0481 0.15 0.0237 22.2144 0.3386 0.25 38.4715 0.4214 VCAvg: 12.11 IA 0.2777 0.3209 26.28 DTHETAAvg: 0.29 DTHETADry: 0.30 XKSATAdj: 0.34 DTHETANormal: 0.18 IAAvg: 0.22 A7 A8 180 160 D 1.01 0.62 0.62 -0.2076 0.0486 -0.0101 50 2.4305 0.0089 0.25 0.0122 A8 221 160 D 0.5 0.23 0.23 -0.6383 0.0027 -0.0017 50 0.1342 0.0005 0.25 0.0007 A8 260 160 D 0.23 0.09 0.09 -1.0458 0.0242 -0.0253 50 1.2113 0.0044 0.25 0.0061 A8 557 230 D 1.03 0.63 0.63 -0.2007 0.0449 -0.0090 75 3.3711 0.0082 0.10 0.0045 A8 180 230 D 1.01 0.62 0.62 -0.2076 0.1384 -0.0287 75 10.3763 0.0253 0.10 0.0138 A8 188 230 D 0.06 0.01 0.01 -2.0000 0.0397 -0.0795 75 2.9805 0.0073 0.10 0.0040 A8 221 230 D 0.5 0.23 0.23 -0.6383 0.0007 -0.0004 75 0.0494 0.0001 0.10 0.0001 A8 260 230 D 0.23 0.09 0.09 -1.0458 0.0136 -0.0142 75 1.0165 0.0025 0.10 0.0014 A8 304 230 D 0.39 0.17 0.17 -0.7696 0.0006 -0.0004 75 0.0419 0.0001 0.10 0.0001 A8 307 230 D 0.32 0.14 0.14 -0.8539 0.0244 -0.0209 75 1.8316 0.0045 0.10 0.0024 A8 701 230 D 0.32 0.14 0.14 -0.8539 0.1546 -0.1320 75 11.5934 0.0283 0.10 0.0155 A8 180 500 N 1.01 0.62 1.01 0.0043 0.0127 0.0001 10 0.1271 0.0039 0.35 0.0044 A8 221 500 N 0.5 0.23 0.5 -0.3010 0.0029 -0.0009 10 0.0288 0.0009 0.35 0.0010 A8 247 500 N 0.62 0.32 0.62 -0.2076 0.0108 -0.0023 10 0.1084 0.0033 0.35 0.0038 A8 260 500 N 0.23 0.09 0.23 -0.6383 0.0000 0.0000 10 0.0000 0.0000 0.35 0.0000 A8 304 500 N 0.39 0.17 0.39 -0.4089 0.0018 -0.0008 10 0.0184 0.0006 0.35 0.0006 A8 307 500 N 0.32 0.14 0.32 -0.4949 0.0021 -0.0010 10 0.0211 0.0007 0.35 0.0007 A8 180 510 N 1.01 0.62 1.01 0.0043 0.0091 0.0000 10 0.0909 0.0028 0.15 0.0014 A8 221 510 N 0.5 0.23 0.5 -0.3010 0.2203 -0.0663 10 2.2032 0.0680 0.15 0.0330 A8 247 510 N 0.62 0.32 0.62 -0.2076 0.0011 -0.0002 10 0.0105 0.0003 0.15 0.0002 A8 642 510 N 0.33 0.14 0.33 -0.4815 0.0266 -0.0128 10 0.2658 0.0082 0.15 0.0040 A8 304 510 N 0.39 0.17 0.39 -0.4089 0.1076 -0.0440 10 1.0760 0.0332 0.15 0.0161 A8 307 510 N 0.32 0.14 0.32 -0.4949 0.0684 -0.0339 10 0.6844 0.0211 0.15 0.0103 A8 701 510 N 0.32 0.14 0.32 -0.4949 0.2050 -0.1014 10 2.0500 0.0633 0.15 0.0308 A-56 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Table A.21 Unit hydrograph example soils and land use parameters Land Use XKSAT, in/hr Basin Soil Area XKSAT VC DTHETA ID LID CODE Cond. Nat Dev Assign Log10 sm x Area VC x Area x Area IA x Area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A8 221 520 N 0.5 0.23 0.5 -0.3010 0.0165 -0.0050 20 0.3310 0.0051 0.25 0.0041 A8 642 520 N 0.33 0.14 0.33 -0.4815 0.0614 -0.0296 20 1.2277 0.0189 0.25 0.0153 A8 304 520 N 0.39 0.17 0.39 -0.4089 0.1171 -0.0479 20 2.3417 0.0361 0.25 0.0293 A8 701 520 N 0.32 0.14 0.32 -0.4949 0.8596 -0.4254 20 17.1912 0.2653 0.25 Totals: 2.2154 -1.0935 62.8129 0.6219 Bare Ground XKSATComp: PSIF: 0.32 VCAvg: 11.32 IA 0.2149 0.4305 28.35 DTHETAAvg: 0.28 DTHETADry: 0.31 XKSATAdj: 0.39 DTHETANormal: 0.18 IAAvg: 0.19 A8 B1 181 160 D 1.03 0.63 0.63 -0.2007 0.0099 -0.0020 50 0.4930 0.0012 0.25 0.0025 B1 188 160 D 0.06 0.01 0.01 -2.0000 0.0041 -0.0081 50 0.2034 0.0005 0.25 0.0010 B1 221 160 D 0.5 0.23 0.23 -0.6383 0.0602 -0.0384 50 3.0120 0.0071 0.25 0.0151 B1 260 160 D 0.23 0.09 0.09 -1.0458 0.0098 -0.0103 50 0.4910 0.0012 0.25 0.0025 B1 221 170 D 0.5 0.23 0.23 -0.6383 0.0336 -0.0214 50 1.6798 0.0040 0.25 0.0084 B1 557 230 D 1.03 0.63 0.63 -0.2007 0.0017 -0.0003 75 0.1247 0.0002 0.10 0.0002 B1 180 230 D 1.01 0.62 0.62 -0.2076 0.0405 -0.0084 75 3.0403 0.0048 0.10 0.0041 B1 181 230 D 1.03 0.63 0.63 -0.2007 0.0408 -0.0082 75 3.0585 0.0048 0.10 0.0041 B1 188 230 D 0.06 0.01 0.01 -2.0000 0.2868 -0.5737 75 21.5127 0.0338 0.10 0.0287 B1 221 230 D 0.5 0.23 0.23 -0.6383 0.1291 -0.0824 75 9.6844 0.0152 0.10 0.0129 B1 260 230 D 0.23 0.09 0.09 -1.0458 0.0403 -0.0421 75 3.0216 0.0047 0.10 0.0040 B1 557 290 D 1.03 0.63 0.63 -0.2007 0.0073 -0.0015 60 0.4368 0.0009 0.15 0.0011 B1 180 290 D 1.01 0.62 0.62 -0.2076 0.0065 -0.0013 60 0.3877 0.0008 0.15 0.0010 B1 188 290 D 0.06 0.01 0.01 -2.0000 1.0805 -2.1610 60 64.8311 0.1273 0.15 0.1621 B1 221 290 D 0.5 0.23 0.23 -0.6383 0.8399 -0.5361 60 50.3941 0.0989 0.15 0.1260 B1 253 290 D 0.18 0.05 0.05 -1.3010 0.0084 -0.0110 60 0.5053 0.0010 0.15 0.0013 B1 264 290 D 0.3 0.13 0.13 -0.8861 0.1884 -0.1669 60 11.3012 0.0222 0.15 0.0283 B1 668 290 D 0.3 0.13 0.13 -0.8861 0.0012 -0.0011 60 0.0735 0.0001 0.15 0.0002 B1 304 290 D 0.39 0.17 0.17 -0.7696 0.9004 -0.6929 60 54.0247 0.1061 0.15 0.1351 B1 188 500 N 0.06 0.01 0.06 -1.2218 0.0004 -0.0005 10 0.0045 0.0001 0.35 0.0002 B1 221 500 N 0.5 0.23 0.5 -0.3010 0.0003 -0.0001 10 0.0029 0.0001 0.35 0.0001 B1 188 510 N 0.06 0.01 0.06 -1.2218 0.2885 -0.3525 10 2.8848 0.0739 0.15 0.0433 B1 221 510 N 0.5 0.23 0.5 -0.3010 0.0014 -0.0004 10 0.0145 0.0004 0.15 0.0002 B1 304 510 N 0.39 0.17 0.39 -0.4089 0.2830 -0.1157 10 2.8303 0.0725 0.15 0.0425 B1 264 520 N 0.3 0.13 0.3 -0.5229 0.0285 -0.0149 20 0.5698 0.0073 0.25 0.0071 B1 304 520 N 0.39 0.17 0.39 -0.4089 0.3806 -0.1556 20 7.6112 0.0975 0.25 0.0951 Totals: 4.6721 -5.0070 242.1937 0.6863 VCAvg: 51.84 Bare Ground XKSATComp: PSIF: August 24, 2009 0.08 DTHETAAvg: 0.15 DTHETADry: 16.38 0.26 XKSATAdj: 0.12 DTHETANormal: 0.12 IAAvg: 0.16 0.7267 B1 A-57 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Table A.22 Sub-basin and land use areas Land Use Area, in sq. mi. Sub-basin ID 114 140 510 520 Totals A1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.352 8.012 8.363 A2 0.096 0.686 1.625 0.000 0.214 0.712 0.318 1.252 6.696 11.599 A3 0.000 0.000 2.365 0.000 0.676 0.012 0.042 1.184 8.888 13.167 A4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.122 0.000 0.000 7.834 7.957 A5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.643 0.125 0.000 2.607 1.296 4.671 A6 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.495 1.344 0.000 1.136 5.717 8.692 A7 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.196 0.000 0.000 0.158 1.111 1.464 A8 0.000 0.000 0.076 0.000 0.417 0.000 0.030 0.638 1.055 2.215 B1 0.000 0.000 0.084 0.034 0.539 3.033 0.001 0.573 0.409 4.672 Totals 0.096 0.686 4.150 0.034 3.179 5.347 0.391 7.901 41.017 62.800 160 170 230 290 500 Per Table 7.20, the unit hydrograph land use parameters are listed in Table A.23 for each land use type present in the watershed: Table A.23 Unit hydrograph land use parameters DDMS ID Vegetation Cover Density Mohave County Zoning Classification RTIMP IA DTHETA Condition Commercial 230 C-2: General Commercial (6,000 sf minimum, C2) 75 80 0.10 NORMAL 290 M-X: Heavy Manufacturing (1 acre minimum, I2) 60 60 0.15 NORMAL Natural 500 Undeveloped Desert Rangeland. Little topographic relief, slopes <5% 10 (varies) varies 0.35 DRY 510 Hillslopes, Sonoran Desert. Moderate topographic relief, slopes >5% 10 (varies) varies 0.15 DRY 520 Mountain Terrain. High topographic relief, slopes >20% 20 (varies) varies 0.25 DRY Residential A-58 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Table A.23 Unit hydrograph land use parameters Vegetation Cover Density RTIMP IA DTHETA Condition 114 A-R, R-E, R-1, R-MH, R-TT, R-M, R-O, R-O/A (2-5 acre minimum, VLDR) 50 15 0.30 NORMAL 140 R-E, R-1, R-MH, R-TT, R-M, R-O (20,000 sf – 1 acre minimum, LDR) 50 25 0.25 NORMAL 160 R-1, R-MH, R-TT, R-M, R-O (7,000-10,000 sf minimum, MDR) 50 50 0.25 NORMAL 170 R-1, R-MH, R-TT, R-M, R-O (6,000-7,000 sf minimum, MDR) 50 60 0.25 NORMAL DDMS ID Mohave County Zoning Classification Using sub-basin A7 as an example and the data in Table A.21, the area-weighted, or composite, value of IA is computed as follows, using Equation 7.11 in Section 7.4.4.2:  ∑ Ai IAi IA =   A T      where: IA = composite value of IA, inches IAi = IA of each sub-area, inches Ai = size of IA sub-area AT = size of the watershed or sub-basin  0.0003 * 0.10 + 0.1955 * 0.10 + 0.1577 * 0.15 + 1.1107 * 0.25  IA =   = 0.22 inches 1.4642   Using the same procedure, IA for the other sub-basins was computed. Refer to Table A.21. The results are summarized as follows: IA A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 B1 0.25 0.23 0.23 0.25 0.17 0.21 0.22 0.19 0.16 August 24, 2009 A-59 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Step 7. Computation of sub-basin composite bare ground XKSAT. The first step is to obtain the needed soil properties data. The most difficult part has already been completed on a countywide basis for Mohave County. This is the estimate for an average value of bare ground XKSAT for natural and developed conditions each NRCS soil map unit (SMU). The procedures used to accomplish this are described in Appendix D. The values of XKSAT for each SMU in each NRCS Soil Survey are tabulated in Appendix D.3. To estimate an average value of bare ground XKSAT for each sub-basin, the area of each SMU within the sub-basin is needed. These areas can be measured by hand using a scaled map of the watershed overlaid on the NRCS soil map, in CAD software by importing the available GIS databases, using GIS software, or using the GIS Method within the DDMSW computer program. For this example the GIS Method within DDMSW was used. The computed soils sub-areas for sub-basin A7 are listed in Table A.21. The sub-basin log-area-averaged value of bare ground XKSAT for sub-basin A7 is computed using Equation 7.12 in Section 7.4.4.3 and data from Table A.21 as follows:  ∑ Ai log10 XKSATi XKSAT = anti log AT      where: XKSAT = composite bare ground hydraulic conductivity for the watershed sub-basin, inches/hour XKSATi = bare ground hydraulic conductivity of the soil map unit within a sub-basin, inches/hour Ai = area of soil map unit subarea within a sub-basin AT = total area of the watershed or sub-basin  0.0003 log10 (0.63) + 0.1955 log10 (0.14) + 0.1577 log10 (0.32 ) + 1.1107 log10 (0.32 ) XKSAT = a log   1.4642   XKSAT = 0.29 inches / hour Using the same procedure, composite bare ground XKSAT for the other sub-basins was computed. The results are summarized as follows: A-60 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Bare Ground A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 B1 XKSAT 0.41 0.20 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.20 0.29 0.32 0.08 Step 8. Assignment of PSIF and DTHETA. The values of PSIF and DTHETA for each sub-basin are estimated using the bare ground XKSAT computed in Step 7. Refer to Figure 7.13 and Figure 7.14, and Equation 7.8, Equation 7.9, and Equation 7.10 in Section 7.4.2.3. The bare ground XKSAT for sub-basin A7 is 0.29 in/hr. From Figure 7.13, the PSIF value corresponding to an XKSAT of 0.29 is approximately 12 in. Applying Equation 7.8, PSIF is: 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 1/�0.06149 − 0.03544(0.29) + 0.37264 (0.292 )� 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 12.11 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 From Figure 7.14, DTHETAdry and DTHETAnormal are 0.30 and 0.18, respectively. Applying Equation 7.9 and Equation 7.10, DTHETAdry and DTHETAnormal are: 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = 0.35174 + 0.03787loge (0.29) 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = 0.3049 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 = 0.26309(0.290.31813 ) 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 = 0.1775 When a sub-basin contains a mix of natural and urban land uses, an area-weighted value of DTHETA should be computed. The total area of natural land use from Table A.22 (Types 510 and 520) for sub-basin A7 is 1.2684 square miles. The total area of developed land use from Table A.22 (Type 230) for sub-basin A7 is 0.1958 square miles. The area-weighted, or composite, value of DTHETA is computed as follows, using Equation 7.13 in Section 7.4.4.4:  ∑ Ai DTHETAi DTHETA =   AT      where: DTHETA = DTHETAi = August 24, 2009 composite value of DTHETA DTHETA of each subarea A-61 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Ai = size of DTHETA subarea AT = size of the watershed or sub-basin  1.2684 * 0.3049 + 0.1958 * 0.1775  DTHETA =   = 0.29 1.4642   Using the same procedure, are-weighted DTHETA for the other sub-basins was computed. The results are summarized as follows: A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 B1 PSIF 9.12 14.43 12.11 12.38 12.11 14.43 12.11 11.32 16.31 DTHETA 0.32 0.25 0.28 0.30 0.28 0.26 0.29 0.28 0.15 Step 9. Computation of sub-basin composite vegetation cover density (VCD). VCD is estimated by calculating an area-weighted value for each sub-basin using standard values assigned for the land use sub-areas. The areas of the land use sub-areas can be determined by hand using a hard copy of the watershed land use map or digitally using CADD or GIS software. For this example, the areas were calculated using GIS. The sub-basin and land use sub-areas are summarized in Table A.22, the default values of VCD for each land use are listed in Table A.23. Using sub-basin A7 as an example, the area-weighted, or composite, value of VCD is computed as follows, using Equation 7.14 in Section 7.4.4.5:  ∑ AiVCDi VCD =   AT      where: VCD = composite value of VCD, inches VCDi = VCD of each subarea, inches Ai = size of VCD subarea AT = size of the watershed or sub-basin  0.1958 * 75 + 0.1577 *10 + 1.1107 * 20  VCD =   = 26% 1.4642   Using the same procedure, VCD for the other sub-basins was computed. The results are summarized as follows, rounded to the nearest percent: A-62 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples VCD A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 B1 20 28 27 21 23 28 26 28 52 Note that the sub-basin VCD values are affected by having a significant percentage of both developed and undeveloped land uses within most of the sub-basins. The sub-basin VCD is significantly higher than the estimates for the undeveloped areas and significantly lower than the estimates for the developed areas. This is an example of why it is a preferred approach to breakout developed and undeveloped areas into separate sub-basins. The same effect can be seen in IA, DTHETA and RTIMP. Step 10. Computation of XKSAT adjusted for vegetation canopy cover. The sub-basin composite bare ground XKSAT values from Step 7 area adjusted for the effects of vegetation canopy cover using Figure 7.15 or Equation 7.15 in Section 7.4.4.5. The adjusted XKSAT for sub-basin A7 is computed using Equation 7.15 as follows: 𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = ���������� 𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 � where: ������ − 10 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 + 1� 90 𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = ���������� 𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 adjusted for the effects of vegetation canopy cover, inches/hour ����������𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 = sub-basin composite bare ground XKSAT, inches/hour 𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋 VCD 𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 0.29 � = sub-basin composite value of vegetation canopy cover, percent 26 − 10 + 1� = 0.34 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒/ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 90 Using the same procedure, XKSATadj for the other sub-basins was computed. The results are summarized as follows: XKSATadj A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 B1 0.45 0.24 0.35 0.31 0.32 0.24 0.34 0.39 0.12 August 24, 2009 A-63 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Step 11. Estimation of sub-basin composite RTIMP. RTIMP is estimated by calculating an area-weighted value for each sub-basin for the natural areas and the developed areas separately, and then area weighting the natural and developed average values. The RTIMP computations for each sub-basin are listed in Table A.24. Table A.24 Unit hydrograph example RTIMP calculations Land Use RTIMP RTIMP, % Basin Soil Area Area x Area x ID LID CODE Cond. Nat % Eff Nat. Adj Dev. sm RTIMPN RTIMPD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A1 557 510 N 100 0 0 0 0.0718 0.0000 0.0000 A1 652 510 N 100 0 0 0 0.0500 0.0000 0.0000 A1 668 510 N 100 20 20 0 0.2276 4.5515 0.0000 A1 700 510 N 100 0 0 0 0.0024 0.0000 0.0000 A1 557 520 N 100 0 0 0 0.0479 0.0000 0.0000 A1 180 520 N 100 0 0 0 0.0080 0.0000 0.0000 A1 585 520 N 100 20 20 0 0.5444 10.8883 0.0000 A1 213 520 N 100 20 20 0 1.0740 21.4804 0.0000 A1 229 520 N 100 20 20 0 2.3764 47.5289 0.0000 A1 245 520 N 100 20 20 0 2.6347 52.6944 0.0000 A1 264 520 N 100 20 20 0 0.3562 7.1246 0.0000 A1 650 520 N 100 20 20 0 0.0033 0.0659 0.0000 A1 651 520 N 100 0 0 0 0.3585 0.0000 0.0000 A1 652 520 N 100 0 0 0 0.1953 0.0000 0.0000 A1 655 520 N 100 0 0 0 0.1024 0.0000 0.0000 A1 668 520 N 100 20 20 0 0.2336 4.6717 0.0000 A1 292 520 N 100 0 0 0 0.0398 0.0000 0.0000 A1 700 520 N 100 0 0 0 0.0370 0.0000 0.0000 8.3632 149.0057 0.0000 17.82 0.00 Totals: RTIMP Avg: Total RTIMP: 18 A1 0 15 0.0053 0.0000 0.0793 100 0 0 15 0.0911 0.0000 1.3661 100 0 0 25 0.0669 0.0000 1.6735 100 20 20 25 0.0101 0.2010 0.2513 100 0 0 25 0.3352 0.0000 8.3800 0 0 25 0.0922 0.0000 2.3059 20 20 25 0.1818 3.6368 4.5460 0 0 50 0.1635 0.0000 8.1736 20 20 50 0.0538 1.0768 2.6919 0 0 50 0.2370 0.0000 11.8493 20 20 50 0.7439 14.8786 37.1965 0 50 0.1958 0.0000 9.7891 557 114 A2 701 114 N A2 557 140 D A2 610 140 D A2 621 140 D A2 652 140 D 100 A2 668 140 D 100 A2 557 160 D 100 A2 610 160 D 100 A2 621 160 D 100 A2 668 160 D 100 A2 700 160 D 100 0 A-64 N 0 A2 100 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Table A.24 Unit hydrograph example RTIMP calculations Land Use RTIMP RTIMP, % Basin Soil Area Area x Area x ID LID CODE Cond. Nat % Eff Nat. Adj Dev. sm RTIMPN RTIMPD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A2 701 160 D 100 0 0 50 0.1636 0.0000 8.1815 A2 706 160 D 100 0 0 50 0.0676 0.0000 3.3793 A2 610 230 D 100 20 20 80 0.0322 0.6442 2.5769 A2 621 230 D 100 0 0 80 0.0003 0.0000 0.0267 A2 700 230 D 100 0 0 80 0.1483 0.0000 11.8646 A2 706 230 D 100 0 0 80 0.0330 0.0000 2.6386 A2 557 290 D 100 0 0 60 0.1781 0.0000 10.6833 A2 610 290 D 100 20 20 60 0.0220 0.4408 1.3223 A2 621 290 D 100 0 0 60 0.0707 0.0000 4.2438 A2 668 290 D 100 20 20 60 0.2180 4.3609 13.0827 A2 700 290 D 100 0 0 60 0.2059 0.0000 12.3553 A2 701 290 D 100 0 0 60 0.0169 0.0000 1.0169 A2 557 500 N 100 0 0 0 0.0255 0.0000 0.0000 A2 610 500 N 100 20 20 0 0.1656 3.3117 0.0000 A2 621 500 N 100 0 0 0 0.1173 0.0000 0.0000 A2 700 500 N 100 0 0 0 0.0027 0.0000 0.0000 A2 701 500 N 100 0 0 0 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 A2 706 500 N 100 0 0 0 0.0066 0.0000 0.0000 A2 557 510 N 100 0 0 0 0.1312 0.0000 0.0000 A2 610 510 N 100 20 20 0 0.1817 3.6342 0.0000 A2 621 510 N 100 0 0 0 0.1761 0.0000 0.0000 A2 652 510 N 100 0 0 0 0.1881 0.0000 0.0000 A2 668 510 N 100 20 20 0 0.3587 7.1738 0.0000 A2 700 510 N 100 0 0 0 0.0690 0.0000 0.0000 A2 701 510 N 100 0 0 0 0.1231 0.0000 0.0000 A2 706 510 N 100 0 0 0 0.0244 0.0000 0.0000 A2 557 520 N 100 0 0 0 0.0878 0.0000 0.0000 A2 229 520 N 100 20 20 0 0.0000 0.0003 0.0000 A2 610 520 N 100 20 20 0 0.1496 2.9927 0.0000 A2 621 520 N 100 0 0 0 0.0128 0.0000 0.0000 A2 264 520 N 100 20 20 0 1.0784 21.5676 0.0000 A2 668 520 N 100 20 20 0 2.3971 47.9421 0.0000 A2 292 520 N 100 0 0 0 1.1843 0.0000 0.0000 A2 700 520 N 100 0 0 0 1.1649 0.0000 0.0000 A2 701 520 N 100 0 0 0 0.6074 0.0000 0.0000 A2 706 520 N 100 0 0 0 0.0131 0.0000 0.0000 11.5990 111.8615 159.6746 9.64 13.77 23 A2 0.0000 6.8587 Totals: RTIMP Avg: Total RTIMP: A3 552 August 24, 2009 160 D 100 0 0 50 0.1372 A-65 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Table A.24 Unit hydrograph example RTIMP calculations Land Use RTIMP RTIMP, % Basin Soil Area Area x Area x ID LID CODE Cond. Nat % Eff Nat. Adj Dev. sm RTIMPN RTIMPD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A3 557 160 D 100 0 0 50 0.0813 0.0000 4.0642 A3 700 160 D 100 0 0 50 0.0196 0.0000 0.9821 A3 701 160 D 100 0 0 50 1.3092 0.0000 65.4617 A3 706 160 D 100 0 0 50 0.8179 0.0000 40.8951 A3 557 230 D 100 0 0 80 0.0582 0.0000 4.6535 A3 610 230 D 60 20 12 80 0.0528 1.0556 4.2224 A3 700 230 D 100 0 0 80 0.1129 0.0000 9.0317 A3 701 230 D 100 0 0 80 0.1627 0.0000 13.0138 A3 706 230 D 100 0 0 80 0.2893 0.0000 23.1459 A3 557 290 D 100 0 0 60 0.0082 0.0000 0.4911 A3 610 290 D 60 20 12 60 0.0030 0.0598 0.1793 A3 701 290 D 100 0 0 60 0.0005 0.0000 0.0287 A3 700 500 N 100 0 0 0 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 A3 706 500 N 100 0 0 0 0.0414 0.0000 0.0000 A3 552 510 N 100 0 0 0 0.0868 0.0000 0.0000 A3 557 510 N 100 0 0 0 0.0136 0.0000 0.0000 A3 610 510 N 60 20 12 0 0.0016 0.0329 0.0000 A3 700 510 N 100 0 0 0 0.1497 0.0000 0.0000 A3 701 510 N 100 0 0 0 0.8131 0.0000 0.0000 A3 706 510 N 100 0 0 0 0.1193 0.0000 0.0000 A3 552 520 N 100 0 0 0 0.0046 0.0000 0.0000 A3 557 520 N 100 0 0 0 0.0745 0.0000 0.0000 A3 586 520 N 100 0 0 0 0.0396 0.0000 0.0000 A3 610 520 N 60 20 12 0 0.0644 1.2883 0.0000 A3 700 520 N 100 0 0 0 0.1665 0.0000 0.0000 A3 701 520 N 100 0 0 0 8.5099 0.0000 0.0000 A3 706 520 N 100 0 0 0 0.0216 0.0000 0.0000 A3 713 520 N 50 10 5 0 0.0068 0.0676 0.0000 13.1665 2.5041 173.0281 0.19 13.14 Totals: RTIMP Avg: 13 A3 A4 557 290 D 100 0 0 60 Total RTIMP: 0.0226 0.0000 1.3556 A4 610 290 D 100 20 20 60 0.0042 0.0834 0.2502 A4 668 290 D 100 20 20 60 0.0212 0.4231 1.2692 A4 292 290 D 100 0 0 60 0.0173 0.0000 1.0362 A4 700 290 D 100 0 0 60 0.0572 0.0000 3.4350 A4 557 520 N 100 0 0 0 0.0962 0.0000 0.0000 A4 180 520 N 100 0 0 0 0.0819 0.0000 0.0000 A4 229 520 N 100 20 20 0 0.0126 0.2522 0.0000 A4 245 520 N 100 20 20 0 2.1896 43.7913 0.0000 A-66 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Table A.24 Unit hydrograph example RTIMP calculations Land Use RTIMP RTIMP, % Basin Soil Area Area x Area x ID LID CODE Cond. Nat % Eff Nat. Adj Dev. sm RTIMPN RTIMPD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A4 264 520 N 100 20 20 0 3.5589 71.1789 0.0000 A4 668 520 N 100 20 20 0 0.3376 6.7525 0.0000 A4 292 520 N 100 0 0 0 1.3712 0.0000 0.0000 A4 700 520 N 100 0 0 0 0.1861 0.0000 0.0000 Totals: 7.9566 122.4813 7.3461 15.39 0.92 16 A4 RTIMP Avg: Total RTIMP: A5 557 230 D 100 0 0 80 0.0693 0.0000 5.5401 A5 583 230 D 100 0 0 80 0.0009 0.0000 0.0737 A5 700 230 D 100 0 0 80 0.0868 0.0000 6.9423 A5 701 230 D 100 0 0 80 0.4857 0.0000 38.8540 A5 557 290 D 100 0 0 60 0.0482 0.0000 2.8895 A5 583 290 D 100 0 0 60 0.0070 0.0000 0.4177 A5 668 290 D 100 20 20 60 0.0637 1.2738 3.8214 A5 701 290 D 100 0 0 60 0.0044 0.0000 0.2617 A5 701 510 N 100 0 0 0 2.6072 0.0000 0.0000 A5 557 520 N 100 0 0 0 0.0074 0.0000 0.0000 A5 701 520 N 100 0 0 0 1.2889 0.0000 0.0000 Totals: 4.6693 1.2738 58.8004 0.27 12.59 13 A5 RTIMP Avg: Total RTIMP: A6 557 230 D 100 0 0 80 0.1140 0.0000 9.1224 A6 583 230 D 100 0 0 80 0.0181 0.0000 1.4508 A6 701 230 D 100 0 0 80 0.3631 0.0000 29.0516 A6 557 290 D 100 0 0 60 0.1001 0.0000 6.0036 A6 180 290 D 100 0 0 60 0.0327 0.0000 1.9603 A6 583 290 D 100 0 0 60 0.0615 0.0000 3.6883 A6 264 290 D 100 20 20 60 0.7748 15.4968 46.4904 A6 668 290 D 100 20 20 60 0.1780 3.5608 10.6823 A6 292 290 D 100 0 0 60 0.0550 0.0000 3.2983 A6 304 290 D 100 15 15 60 0.1284 1.9260 7.7042 A6 700 290 D 100 0 0 60 0.0108 0.0000 0.6478 A6 264 510 N 100 20 20 0 0.0230 0.4597 0.0000 A6 292 510 N 100 0 0 0 1.1133 0.0000 0.0000 A6 245 520 N 100 20 20 0 0.0003 0.0069 0.0000 A6 264 520 N 100 20 20 0 3.4407 68.8144 0.0000 A6 292 520 N 100 0 0 0 1.7169 0.0000 0.0000 A6 304 520 N 100 15 15 0 0.3618 5.4272 0.0000 A6 701 520 N 100 0 0 0 0.1974 0.0000 0.0000 Totals: 8.6900 95.6918 120.1000 August 24, 2009 A-67 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Table A.24 Unit hydrograph example RTIMP calculations Land Use RTIMP RTIMP, % Basin Soil Area Area x Area x ID LID CODE Cond. Nat % Eff Nat. Adj Dev. sm RTIMPN RTIMPD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 11.01 13.82 25 A6 RTIMP Avg: Total RTIMP: A7 557 230 D 100 0 0 80 0.0003 0.0000 0.0220 A7 701 230 D 100 0 0 80 0.1955 0.0000 15.6367 A7 701 510 N 100 0 0 0 0.1577 0.0000 0.0000 A7 701 520 N 100 0 0 0 1.1107 0.0000 0.0000 Totals: 1.4642 0.0000 15.6587 0.00 10.69 11 A7 RTIMP Avg: Total RTIMP: A8 180 160 D 100 0 0 50 0.0486 0.0000 2.4305 A8 221 160 D 100 0 0 50 0.0027 0.0000 0.1342 A8 260 160 D 100 0 0 50 0.0242 0.0000 1.2113 A8 557 230 D 100 0 0 80 0.0449 0.0000 3.5959 A8 180 230 D 100 0 0 80 0.1384 0.0000 11.0681 A8 188 230 D 100 0 0 80 0.0397 0.0000 3.1792 A8 221 230 D 100 0 0 80 0.0007 0.0000 0.0527 A8 260 230 D 100 0 0 80 0.0136 0.0000 1.0842 A8 304 230 D 100 15 15 80 0.0006 0.0084 0.0447 A8 307 230 D 100 0 0 80 0.0244 0.0000 1.9537 A8 701 230 D 100 0 0 80 0.1546 0.0000 12.3663 A8 180 500 N 100 0 0 0 0.0127 0.0000 0.0000 A8 221 500 N 100 0 0 0 0.0029 0.0000 0.0000 A8 247 500 N 100 0 0 0 0.0108 0.0000 0.0000 A8 260 500 N 100 0 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 A8 304 500 N 100 15 15 0 0.0018 0.0275 0.0000 A8 307 500 N 100 0 0 0 0.0021 0.0000 0.0000 A8 180 510 N 100 0 0 0 0.0091 0.0000 0.0000 A8 221 510 N 100 0 0 0 0.2203 0.0000 0.0000 A8 247 510 N 100 0 0 0 0.0011 0.0000 0.0000 A8 642 510 N 100 15 15 0 0.0266 0.3987 0.0000 A8 304 510 N 100 15 15 0 0.1076 1.6140 0.0000 A8 307 510 N 100 0 0 0 0.0684 0.0000 0.0000 A8 701 510 N 100 0 0 0 0.2050 0.0000 0.0000 A8 221 520 N 100 0 0 0 0.0165 0.0000 0.0000 A8 642 520 N 100 15 15 0 0.0614 0.9208 0.0000 A8 304 520 N 100 15 15 0 0.1171 1.7563 0.0000 A8 701 520 N 100 0 0 0 0.8596 0.0000 0.0000 2.2154 4.7256 37.1209 2.13 16.76 19 A8 Totals: RTIMP Avg: Total RTIMP: A-68 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Table A.24 Unit hydrograph example RTIMP calculations Land Use RTIMP RTIMP, % Basin Soil Area Area x Area x ID LID CODE Cond. Nat % Eff Nat. Adj Dev. sm RTIMPN RTIMPD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 B1 181 160 D 100 0 0 50 0.0099 0.0000 0.4930 B1 188 160 D 100 0 0 50 0.0041 0.0000 0.2034 B1 221 160 D 100 0 0 50 0.0602 0.0000 3.0120 B1 260 160 D 100 0 0 50 0.0098 0.0000 0.4910 B1 221 170 D 100 0 0 60 0.0336 0.0000 2.0157 B1 557 230 D 100 0 0 80 0.0017 0.0000 0.1330 B1 180 230 D 100 0 0 80 0.0405 0.0000 3.2429 B1 181 230 D 100 0 0 80 0.0408 0.0000 3.2624 B1 188 230 D 100 0 0 80 0.2868 0.0000 22.9469 B1 221 230 D 100 0 0 80 0.1291 0.0000 10.3301 B1 260 230 D 100 0 0 80 0.0403 0.0000 3.2231 B1 557 290 D 100 0 0 60 0.0073 0.0000 0.4368 B1 180 290 D 100 0 0 60 0.0065 0.0000 0.3877 B1 188 290 D 100 0 0 60 1.0805 0.0000 64.8311 B1 221 290 D 100 0 0 60 0.8399 0.0000 50.3941 B1 253 290 D 100 0 0 60 0.0084 0.0000 0.5053 B1 264 290 D 100 20 20 60 0.1884 3.7671 11.3012 B1 668 290 D 100 20 20 60 0.0012 0.0245 0.0735 B1 304 290 D 100 15 15 60 0.9004 13.5062 54.0247 B1 188 500 N 100 0 0 0 0.0004 0.0000 0.0000 B1 221 500 N 100 0 0 0 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000 B1 188 510 N 100 0 0 0 0.2885 0.0000 0.0000 B1 221 510 N 100 0 0 0 0.0014 0.0000 0.0000 B1 304 510 N 100 15 15 0 0.2830 4.2455 0.0000 B1 264 520 N 100 20 20 0 0.0285 0.5698 0.0000 B1 304 520 N 100 15 15 0 0.3806 5.7084 0.0000 4.6721 27.8214 231.3079 5.95 49.51 55 B1 Totals: RTIMP Avg: Total RTIMP: August 24, 2009 A-69 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Using Equation 7.16 in Section 7.4.4.6, the developed RTIMP for sub-basin A5 is computed as follows:  ∑ Ai RTIMPi RTIMP N , D =   AT      where: RTIMP N , D = natural or developed condition composite value of RTIMP, inches RTIMPi = RTIMP of each subarea, inches Ai AT = area of RTIMP subarea = area of the watershed or sub-basin  0.0637 * 20  RTIMP N =    4.6693  RTIMPN = 0.27 %  0.6427 * 80 + 0.1233 * 60  RTIMP D =   4.6693   RTIMPD = 12.60 % RTIMP = RTIMP N + RTIMP D RTIMP = 0.27 + 12.60 = 13% The impervious areas for Sub-basin A-5 are assumed to be hydraulically connected and 100% effective for the purposes of this example. Refer to Table A.24, column 5. If they are not, as with sub-basin A-3, then the impervious area is reduced based on engineering judgment. Using the same procedure, composite RTIMP for the other sub-basins was computed. The results, rounded to the nearest percent, are summarized as follows: RTIMP A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 B1 18 23 13 16 13 25 11 19 55 Step 12. Preparation of the HEC-1 rainfall loss input records. Code the HEC-1 LG record for sub-basin A3 as follows: _______1_______2_______3_______4_______5_______6_______7_______8_______9______10 LG 0.23 0.28 12.11 0.35 13.0 Where Field 1 is IA, Field 2 is DTHETA, Field 3 is PSIF, Field 4 is adjusted XKSAT and Field 5 is RTIMP. The other sub-basin LG records are coded similarly. A-70 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples A.3.2 EXAMPLE FOR INITIAL LOSS AND UNIFORM LOSS RATE METHOD The Initial Loss and Uniform Loss Rate Method is not normally applied in Mohave County. This method may be applicable when the soils for a watershed are predominately sands with a bare ground XKSAT greater than 2 inches hour. Sub-basin A3 from Appendix A.3.1 is used to illustrate application of this method. Refer to Section 7.4.5 for the procedures for the Initial Loss and Uniform Loss Rate Method. Steps 1 through 7, 9, 10 and 11 from Appendix A.3.1 should be followed to obtain sub-basin composite values of IA, adjusted bare ground XKSAT, and RTIMP. The adjusted bare ground XKSAT is assigned as CNSTL. For sub-basin A3, this is 0.35 inches/hour. Estimate STRTL. STRTL is the sum of IA and the initial infiltration, II. IA for sub-basin A3 is computed to be 0.23 inches. Using Table 7.10, and a CNSTL of 0.35 inches/hour, IIdry is 0.6 inches and IInormal is 0.5 inches. IIdry is applicable for the natural portion of sub-basin A3, and IInormal is applicable to the developed areas. An area-weighted value of II is computed as follows, using a similar method to that applied in Green and Ampt Step 8 above for computing composite DTHETA:  ∑ Ai II i II =   A T      where: II = composite value of II, inches II i = II of each subarea, inches Ai = size of II subarea AT = size of the watershed or sub-basin  10.114 * 0.6 + 3.053 * 0.5  II =   = 0.58 inches 13.167   � ��� + 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = 0.23 + 0.58 = 0.81 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 Preparation of the HEC-1 rainfall loss input records. August 24, 2009 A-71 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Code the HEC-1 LU record for sub-basin A3 as follows: _______1_______2_______3_______4_______5_______6_______7_______8_______9______10 LU 0.81 0.35 13.0 Where Field 1 is STRTL, Field 2 is CNSTL, and Field 3 is RTIMP. A-72 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples A.4 UNIT HYDROGRAPH EXAMPLE A.4.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT Clark unit hydrograph parameters are needed for a HEC-1 model of a large watershed within, and south of, Kingman, AZ. The site is located as shown on Figure A.6, and is the same watershed used for the Appendix A.3 example. Derive the parameters and prepare the HEC-1 unit hydrograph records for the model using the instructions set forth in Section 7.5.3. There are two methods that can be used: 1. Manual Computations. Computations are performed by hand or with a calculator. 2. DDMSW Manual Input. Lengths and other parameters are determined by the most expedient means available and then manually input to DDMSW. DDMSW then computes the Clark unit hydrograph parameters for each sub-basin. 3. DDMSW GIS Method. Sub-basin boundaries, land use boundaries, Tc paths, and Lca paths are created in ERSI GIS shape file format external to DDMSW, read into DDMSW, and then DDMSW computes Clark unit hydrograph parameters for each sub-basin using the GIS information. A.4.2 PROBLEM SOLUTION The manual solution consists of the following steps. 1. Watershed delineation. 2. Definition of the Tc and Lca paths for each sub-basin. 3. Definition of the Lca path for each sub-basin. 4. Calculation of Tc. 5. Calculation of R. 6. Determination of the time-area relationship for each sub-basin. 7. Preparation of the HEC-1 UC record for each sub-basin.\ Determine the NMIN and NQ Parameters for the HEC-1 Model. Step 1. Watershed Delineation. Refer to Appendix A.3.1.2, Step 1. Step 2. Definition of the Tc and Lca paths for each sub-basin. The Tc and Lca paths were delineated using the USGS 7.5 minute Quadrangle Maps and 10meter Digital Elevation Maps (DEM) of the area. The results are shown on Figure A.23. The parameters derived from the USGS Quadrangle Maps and DEMs are listed in Table A.25. August 24, 2009 A-73 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Table A.25 Unit hydrograph Tc and Lca parameters Tc Path Lca Sub-basin ID Length, miles Top Elevation Bottom Elevation Slope, ft/mi Length, miles A1 8.66 8054.4 4068.0 460.4 4.77 A2 9.98 5009.5 3162.2 185.1 5.06 A3 9.29 5161.0 3131.1 218.4 4.19 A4 10.60 6274.5 3131.1 296.4 6.54 A5 5.35 4311.9 3055.8 235.0 2.70 A6 11.03 4896.3 3001.6 171.8 5.44 A7 3.12 4110.7 3001.6 355.5 1.54 A8 4.25 3925.8 2840.1 255.7 2.78 B1 4.58 3827.5 2813.6 221.3 1.92 Step 3. Determination of sub-basin land uses. The land uses present on the watershed are shown on Figure A.24. Based on an evaluation of the land uses for each sub-basin, the Tc equation appropriate to the dominate land use in each sub-basin was assigned as listed in Table A.26. Refer to Section 7.5.2.1. Table A.26 Unit hydrograph Tc equation type assignment Sub-basin ID Tc Equation Type A1 Desert/Mountain A2 Desert/Mountain A3 A8 Desert/Mountain Desert/Mountain Desert/Mountain Desert/Mountain Desert/Mountain Desert/Mountain B1 Urban A4 A5 A6 A7 A-74 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Step 4. Calculation of Tc. The time of concentration, Tc, for sub-basins A3 and B1 are computed using the appropriate Tc equation (Equation 7.17 or 7.19) and data from Appendix A.3.1.2 and Table A.25 as follows: desert/mountain: urban 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = 2.4𝐴𝐴0.1 𝐿𝐿0.25 𝐿𝐿𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 0.25 𝑆𝑆 −0.2 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = 3.2𝐴𝐴0.1 𝐿𝐿0.25 𝐿𝐿𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 0.25 𝑆𝑆 −0.14 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅−0.36 A.1 where: Tc = time of concentration, in hours, A = area, in square miles, S = watercourse slope, in feet/mile, L = length of watercourse to the hydraulically most distant point, in miles, Lca = length measured from the concentration point along L to a point on L that is perpendicular to the watershed centroid, in miles, and RTIMP = effective impervious area, in percent. Sub-basin A3: 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = 2.4(13.167)0.1 (9.29)0.25 (4.19)0.25 (218.4)−0.2 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = 2.64 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 Sub-basin B1: 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = 3.2(4.672)0.1 (4.58)0.25 (1.92)0.25 (221.3)−0.14 (55)−0.36 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = 0.71 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 Step 5. Calculation of R. The storage coefficient, R, for sub-basins A3 and B1 are computed using Equation 7.20 and data from Appendix A.3.1.2 and Table A.25 as follows: 𝑅𝑅 = 0.37𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 1.11 𝐿𝐿0.80 𝐴𝐴−0.57 where: R is in hours and the variables are as defined for the Tc equations. August 24, 2009 A-75 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Sub-basin A3: 𝑅𝑅 = 0.37(2.64)1.11 (9.29)0.80 (13.167)−0.57 𝑅𝑅 = 1.49 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 Sub-basin B1: 𝑅𝑅 = 0.37(0.71)1.11 (4.58)0.80 (4.672)−0.57 𝑅𝑅 = 0.36 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 Using the same procedures, Tc and R for the other sub-basins were computed. The results are summarized as follows: A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 B1 Tc 2.21 2.88 2.64 2.73 1.83 2.96 1.14 1.59 0.71 R 1.49 1.86 1.49 2.29 1.15 2.46 0.86 1.25 0.36 Step 6. Determination of the time-area relationship for each sub-basin. A time-area relationship must be either computed, or assigned using one of the three synthetic relationships defined in Section 7.5.2.3. For the majority of cases in Mohave County, use of the synthetic relationships is appropriate. In general, the land use codes assigned in Appendix A.3.1.2 can be used as guidance for assigning the synthetic time-area relationship. The dominate land use and the assigned time-area relationship for each sub-basin are listed in Table A.27. Table A.27 Assignment of the time-area relationship to each sub-basin A-76 Sub-basin ID Dominate Land Use Assigned Time-Area Relationship A1 520 Mountain, HEC-1 Default Curve B A2 520 Mountain, HEC-1 Default Curve B A3 520 Mountain, HEC-1 Default Curve B A4 520 Mountain, HEC-1 Default Curve B A5 510 Desert Rangeland, Curve C A6 520 Mountain, HEC-1 Default Curve B A7 520 Mountain, HEC-1 Default Curve B A8 520 Mountain, HEC-1 Default Curve B B1 290 Urban, Curve A August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Land use codes 500 and 510, undeveloped desert rangeland and hillslope areas, are assigned curve C. Land use code 520, Mountain, areas are assigned curve B. Predominately urban areas are assigned curve A. Note that this is another instance where proper sub-basin delineation based on land use is very important. For instance, sub-basins A2 and A3 have a significant percentage of urban area. The urban areas should be delineated into separate sub-basins whenever possible so that an appropriate time-area relationship can be assigned. Step 7. Preparation of the HEC-1 UC record for each sub-basin. Code the HEC-1 UC record for the Clark unit hydrograph parameters for sub-basin A3 as follows: _______1_______2_______3_______4_______5_______6_______7_______8_______9______10 UC 2.64 1.49 Where Field 1 is Tc, and Field 2 is R. Code the HEC-1 UA record for the time-area relationship for sub-basin A3 as follows. The UA records follow the UC record in the HEC-1 input file. _______1_______2_______3_______4_______5_______6_______7_______8_______9______10 UA UA 0 100 4.5 12.6 23.2 35.8 50.0 64.2 76.8 87.4 95.5 Where Field 1 is percent of watershed area at time interval 0, Field 2 is percent of watershed area at time interval 2, etc. UC and UA records for the other sub-basins should be coded in a similar manner. Step 8. Determine the NMIN and NQ Parameters for the HEC-1 Model. As described in Section 7.9.2.4, NMIN is the integer number of minutes for the computation interval, which will usually be either 2 minutes or 5 minutes. To determine NMIN, estimate the time of concentration (Tc) for the smallest sub-basin. Using this value, estimate the number of hydrograph ordinates (NQ) required to provide an adequate time base for the HEC-1 model. Per Step 6 above, the shortest Tc is 0.71 hours for sub-basin B1. NMIN should be between 0.1Tc and 0.25Tc, or between 4 and 11 minutes. Select a Tc of 5-minutes. The total length of channel reach routes for the model is 56,701 feet (refer to Appendix A.5). Assuming an average velocity of 5 fps, the total reach travel time is 3.15 hours. The storm duration for this example is 24-hours. Use a model duration of 24+4 hours = 28 hours. NQ is August 24, 2009 A-77 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples therefore 28*60/NMIN or 336. Use NQ = 400. NQ should be checked after the HEC-1 model is completed. A.4.3 UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD HEC-1 MODEL RESULTS DDMSW was used to model the unit hydrograph method example discussed in Appendixs A.3, A.4, A.5, and A.6. The resultant HEC-1 input file is listed in Figure A.26. Figure A.26 Unit Hydrograph Method example HEC-1 input file ID County of Mohave ID UNIT HYDROGRAPH EX - Unit Hydrograph Method Example ID 100 YEAR ID 24 Hour Storm ID Unit Hydrograph: Clark ID 08/16/2009 IT 5 0 0 400 IN 15 IO 3 *DIAGRAM * JD 4.484 0.01 PH 0.706 1.332 2.220 2.659 2.877 3.229 JD 4.260 10 JD 4.116 20 JD 4.036 30 JD 3.932 50 JD 3.802 100 JD 3.731 150 JD 3.614 300 JD 3.511 500 * KK A1 BASIN BA 8.363 LG 0.25 0.32 9.12 0.41 18 UC 2.207 1.493 UA 0 4.5 12.6 23.2 35.8 50.0 64.2 76.8 UA 100 * KK001002 ROUTE RS 8 FLOW -1 RC 0.055 0.045 0.055 33573 0.0270 3575.00 RX 0.00 100.00 614.00 629.00 739.00 748.60 765.80 950.40 RY3624.2 3570.00 3569.00 3566.00 3566.00 3570.90 3573.10 3618.00 * KK A2 BASIN BA11.599 LG 0.23 0.25 14.43 0.24 23 UC 2.877 1.863 UA 0 4.5 12.6 23.2 35.8 50.0 64.2 76.8 UA 100 * KK C2 COMBINE HC 2 * KK002003 ROUTE RS 1 FLOW -1 A-78 3.677 4.484 87.4 95.5 87.4 95.5 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Figure A.26 Unit Hydrograph Method example HEC-1 input file RC 0.055 RX 0.00 RY3173.5 * KK A3 BA13.167 LG 0.23 UC 2.642 UA 0 UA 100 * KK A4 BA 7.957 LG 0.25 UC 2.730 UA 0 UA 100 * KK C3 HC 3 * KK003004 RS 1 RC 0.055 RX 0.00 RY3123.3 * KK A5 BA 4.669 LG 0.17 UC 1.831 UA 0 UA 100 * KK C4 HC 2 * KK004005 RS 1 RC 0.055 RX 0.00 RY3044.2 * KK A6 BA 8.690 LG 0.21 UC 2.962 UA 0 UA 100 * KK C5L HC 2 * KK A7 BA 1.464 LG 0.22 UC 1.140 UA 0 UA 100 0.045 0.055 1586 0.0196 3170.00 0.10 253.00 274.00 336.20 359.40 380.70 394.80 3166.40 3164.50 3162.20 3162.40 3164.90 3164.90 3173.50 BASIN 0.28 1.489 4.5 12.11 0.35 13 12.6 23.2 35.8 12.38 0.31 16 12.6 23.2 35.8 50.0 64.2 76.8 87.4 95.5 50.0 64.2 76.8 87.4 95.5 90.0 96.0 BASIN 0.30 2.287 4.5 COMBINE ROUTE FLOW -1 0.045 0.055 4417 0.0170 3123.00 31.20 77.70 124.50 164.60 231.90 316.30 363.50 3122.90 3116.10 3112.80 3114.20 3118.40 3121.00 3123.30 BASIN 0.28 1.150 3.0 12.11 0.33 13 5.0 8.0 12.0 20.0 43.0 75.0 COMBINE ROUTE FLOW -1 0.045 0.055 4644 0.0117 3039.00 256.30 462.90 620.20 673.90 826.70 936.90 1045.80 3042.70 3035.70 3030.80 3030.40 3035.60 3041.50 3049.90 BASIN 0.26 2.457 4.5 14.43 0.24 25 12.6 23.2 35.8 12.11 0.34 11 12.6 23.2 35.8 50.0 64.2 76.8 87.4 95.5 50.0 64.2 76.8 87.4 95.5 COMBINE BASIN 0.29 0.856 4.5 August 24, 2009 A-79 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Figure A.26 Unit Hydrograph Method example HEC-1 input file * KK C5 COMBINE HC 2 * KK005006 ROUTE RS 4 FLOW -1 RC 0.055 0.045 0.055 12481 0.0129 2925.00 RX 0.00 102.40 200.20 285.30 391.40 478.90 530.80 619.50 RY2928.0 2922.70 2916.90 2918.30 2918.10 2916.00 2917.60 2928.00 * KK A8 BASIN BA 2.215 LG 0.19 0.28 11.32 0.38 19 UC 1.589 1.250 UA 0 4.5 12.6 23.2 35.8 50.0 64.2 76.8 UA 100 * KK C6 COMBINE HC 2 * KK B1 BASIN BA 4.672 LG 0.16 0.15 16.31 0.13 55 UC 0.713 0.357 UA 0 5.0 16.0 30.0 65.0 77.0 84.0 90.0 UA 100 ZZ 87.4 95.5 94.0 97.0 The output results are listed in Table A.28. There are several areas of interest in the results. 1. The Time-to-Peak (Tp) in column 4 for the last combine operation (C6) is 14.83 hours. Therefore, the total time base is 24 hours + 2.83 hours = 26.83 hours. The NQ value for the model could be reduced to: NQ = 26.83*60/5 = 321 minutes. The value used, 400, is a good estimate and does not need to be adjusted. 2. Check the Channel Route operations. In all cases the peak discharge is reduced as a result of attenuation in the reach. If any peak discharges had increased as a result of the route, the operation would need to be checked in detail as this is an indication of improper coding of parameters. The cross section should be plotted to make sure there are no input errors and all other parameters should be verified. Evaluate the combine operations. At C2 note that the combined peak discharge is less than the sum of the upstream peaks. The same is true for the combined runoff volume. All of the combine operations show this result. This is due to the use of the HEC-1 JD record option. The combine operation increases the total watershed area at the concentration point. The increased watershed area results in a greater areal reduction factor applied to the rainfall value. The JD record option causes HEC-1 to compute what are called index hydrographs, one for each JD record used. Each JD record specifies a watershed area and corresponding areally-reduced point precipitation value. The index hydrographs represent the runoff hydrograph for that specific watershed area and precipitation A-80 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples value. When a sub-basin operation is performed, HEC-1 computes all the index hydrographs and then computes a log-based interpolated hydrograph using the actual sub-basin area. The interpolated hydrograph results are what are reported. The index hydrographs are carried forward. When a hydrograph operation such as a combine is performed, the index hydrographs from the upstream hydrograph operations are added and then the log-based interpolation is performed using the total watershed area at the combine operation concentration point. This process results in the areally-reduced peak discharge at the combine being lower than the total of the peak discharges being added. The unit peak discharges in column 6 represent the peak discharge in column 5 divided by the watershed area in column 3. The unit peak discharges are very useful for checking the reasonableness of the model results by indirect methods, as described in Section 7.11. Table A.28 Unit hydrograph method example HEC-1 results HEC-1 Operation ID Area, sm Time to Peak, hrs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) A1 8.36 13.92 2,406 288 1.547 690 001002 8.36 14.58 2,334 279 1.547 690 HYDROGRAPH AT A2 11.60 14.50 3,138 271 1.846 1,142 2 COMBINED AT C2 19.96 14.58 4,988 250 1.603 1,707 ROUTED TO 002003 19.96 14.58 4,987 250 1.603 1,707 HYDROGRAPH AT A3 13.17 14.17 3,203 243 1.355 952 HYDROGRAPH AT A4 7.96 14.42 1,710 215 1.532 650 3 COMBINED AT C3 41.09 14.50 7,981 194 1.293 2,832 ROUTED TO 003004 41.09 14.58 7,959 194 1.293 2,832 HYDROGRAPH AT A5 4.67 13.50 1,962 420 1.470 366 2 COMBINED AT C4 45.75 14.50 8,506 186 1.251 3,054 ROUTED TO 004005 45.75 14.58 8,466 185 1.251 3,054 A6 8.69 14.67 2,095 241 1.933 896 HYDROGRAPH AT ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH August 24, 2009 Peak Discharge, cfs Unit Discharge, cfs/sq mi Rainfall Excess, in Runoff Volume, ac-ft A-81 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Table A.28 Unit hydrograph method example HEC-1 results HEC-1 Operation ID Area, sm Time to Peak, hrs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) 2 COMBINED AT C5L 54.44 14.58 9,641 177 1.265 3,672 HYDROGRAPH AT A7 1.46 13.00 723 495 1.399 109 2 COMBINED AT C5 55.91 14.58 9,677 173 1.251 3,730 ROUTED TO 005006 55.91 14.92 9,601 172 1.251 3,730 HYDROGRAPH AT A8 2.21 13.42 840 380 1.636 193 2 COMBINED AT C6 58.12 14.83 9,739 168 1.241 3,846 HYDROGRAPH AT B1 4.67 12.42 6,545 1401 3.105 774 Peak Discharge, cfs Unit Discharge, cfs/sq mi Rainfall Excess, in Runoff Volume, ac-ft AT A-82 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples A.5 CHANNEL ROUTING EXAMPLE A.5.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT Channel hydrograph routing parameters are needed for a HEC-1 model of a large watershed within, and south of, Kingman, AZ. The site is located as shown on Figure A.6, and is the same watershed used for the Appendixs A.3 and A.4 examples. Derive the parameters and prepare the HEC-1 channel route records for the model using the instructions set forth in Section 7.6.4. An excellent resource for guidance when performing hydrologic routing using HEC-1 is Hoggan (1997). A.5.2 PROBLEM SOLUTION The procedure consists of the following steps: 1. Watershed delineation. 2. Definition of the routing paths for each routing reach. 3. Evaluation the physical characteristics of each reach. 4. Determinations of the reach or sub-reach cross section. 5. Assignment of Manning's n-values. 6. Preparation of the HEC-1 channel route input records. 7. Estimation and optimization of routing computation steps. Step 1. Watershed Delineation. Refer to Appendix A.3.1.2, Step 1. Step 2. Definition of the routing paths for each routing reach. There are five (5) routing reaches for this example. They have been defined using the "blue" thalweg lines on the 7.5-minute USGS Quadrangle Maps and are shown on Figure A.23. Concentration points at the outlet of each sub-basin and at confluences have been defined and are also shown on Figure A.23. The routing reaches for this example are named by combining the concentration point identifiers for the upstream and downstream end of the reach. For example, the reach that routes the hydrograph from sub-basin A1 through sub-basin A2 is named '001002' because it connects concentration points C1 and C2. In HEC-1, the maximum length of a named for a hydrograph operation such as a reach route operation or a sub-basin designation is characters. Using this naming convention, a total of 999 concentration points August 24, 2009 A-83 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples could be defined for a given HEC-1 model. The reach names for this example are 001002, 002003, 003004, 004005, and 005006. Step 3. Evaluation the physical characteristics of each reach. The first characteristic to evaluate is slope. If there are significant changes in slope within the reach, it should be subdivided into sub-reaches. Reach 001002 is very long (33,573 feet) and does have significant change in slope. Before dividing up the reach, evaluate the second characteristic, which is the average cross section. Does it significantly change in configuration (ie. significant changes in the width, or the depth to width ratio)? Can the reach be subdivided to account for both characteristics? Other characteristics to consider are changes in roughness , soils, natural conditions versus constructed, and vegetation. All of these characteristics affect travel time in the reach and potential storage, which are the effects being modeled with the normal depth channel route method. A detailed examination of reaches 001002 and 005006, including field reconnaissance, would likely result in subdivision of both reaches. For the purposes of this example, no further subdivision will be made, but the hydrologist/engineer is expected to break routing reaches into sub-reaches where appropriate. Table A.29 Reach route physical characteristics Elevation Reach ID In Sub-basin Top Bottom Length, ft Slope, ft/ft 001002 A2 4068.0 3162.2 33,572.5 0.0270 002003 A4 3162.2 3131.1 1,585.7 0.0196 003004 A5 3131.1 3055.8 4,416.60 0.0170 004005 A6 3055.8 3001.6 4,644.1 0.0117 005006 A8 3001.6 2840.1 12,481.1 0.0129 Step 4. Determinations of the reach or sub-reach cross section. The next step is to establish a cross section for each reach that is a reasonable approximation of the various cross section configurations present within the reach. This can be done by examining the available contour mapping covering each reach and by field reconnaissance. The cross sections for this example were defined using the USGS 7.5-minute Quadrangle Maps. In actual application, if the quad maps are the best available topography, the hydrologist/engineer should conduct a field reconnaissance and survey field cross sections at representative A-84 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples locations. Then a composite eight (8) point cross section that is representative of the reach can be prepared. HEC-1 normal depth routing reach cross sections are limited to eight (8) points to define cross section. The cross sections used for this example are shown in Figure A.27. Figure A.27 Reach route cross sections Reach 002003 Reach 001002 3,176.00 3,630.00 3,174.00 3,620.00 3,172.00 3,610.00 3,170.00 3,600.00 3,168.00 3,590.00 3,166.00 3,580.00 3,164.00 3,570.00 3,162.00 3,160.00 3,560.00 0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00 900.00 0.00 1,000.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00 350.00 400.00 450.00 Reach 002003 Reach 001002 Reach 004005 Reach 003004 3,124.00 3,055.00 3,122.00 3,050.00 3,120.00 3,045.00 3,118.00 3,040.00 3,116.00 3,035.00 3,114.00 3,030.00 3,025.00 3,112.00 0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00 350.00 400.00 0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1,000.00 1,200.00 Reach 004005 Reach 003004 Reach 005006 2,926.00 2,925.00 2,924.00 2,923.00 2,922.00 2,921.00 2,920.00 2,919.00 2,918.00 2,917.00 2,916.00 2,915.00 0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 Reach 005006 August 24, 2009 A-85 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples In general, use cross section points 1-3 and 6-8 to define the left and right overbank areas, respectively, and cross section points 3-6 should be used to define the main channel. As with HEC-2 and HEC-RAS, routing cross sections should be stationed from left to right looking downstream. Step 5. Assignment of Manning's n-values. Manning's n for the main channel and left and right overbanks should be determined using the procedures set forth in Chapter 13. For the purposes of this example, a value of 0.045 was used for the main channel for all five routing reaches. An n-value of 0.055 was assigned for the left and right overbank areas for all five reaches. Step 6. Preparation of the HEC-1 channel route input records. Using the data from Steps 1-5, the HEC-1 input data file records for reach route 001002 are coded as follows: _______1_______2_______3_______4_______5_______6_______7_______8_______9______10 KK001002 ROUTE RS 8 FLOW -1 RC 0.055 0.045 0.055 33573 0.0270 3575.00 RX 0.00 100.00 614.00 629.00 739.00 748.60 765.80 950.40 RY3624.2 3570.00 3569.00 3566.00 3566.00 3570.90 3573.10 3618.00 The KK record defines the hydrograph operation name. The RS record establishes that this is a storage route. The type of storage route is not yet specified. The Normal Depth channel route is actually a form of storage route based on the Modified Puls method (refer to Hoggan, 1997). Field 1, NSTPS, is set equal to eight (8), which is the number of steps to be used in the route operation. This value should be computed through an optimization process as described in Step 7. "FLOW" is entered in Field 2, which specifies that the discharge rate for the beginning of the first time period will be in the next field. The next field (Field 3) is set to -1, which specifies the initial outflow rate is set equal to the initial inflow rate. The RC record establishes that this is a Normal Depth Channel Routing operation. The fields are: 1. ANL, Left overbank Manning's n-value. 2. ANCH, Channel Manning's n-value. 3. ANR, Right overbank Manning's n-value. A-86 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples 4. RLNTH, Reach length, in feet. 5. SEL, Energy gradeline slope in ft/ft. Can be computed from a HEC-RAS model. If unknown, estimate using the average channel slope for the reach. 6. ELMAX, Maximum elevation for which storage and outflow values are to be computed. The RX record is used to define the ground stations for each point on the cross section, increasing from left to right looking downstream. Note that the left and right bank are assumed to be located at points 3 and 6, respectively, on the cross section. A maximum of eight (8) points are allowed per cross section. The RY record is used to define the ground elevation of each point on the cross section, corresponding to the stations defined on the RX record. Step 7. Estimation and optimization of routing computation steps. The NSTPS parameter, entered in Field 1 of the RS record, should be optimized as described in Section 7.9.2.9. The DDMSW computer program will perform the optimization but it is important to understand how the program accomplishes the optimization and there may be times when the hydrologist/engineer needs to perform the optimization manually. The process for accomplishing the optimization of NSTPS manually for reach 001002 is presented here. 1. Initial Estimation of NSTEPS. Determine an initial estimate of NSTPS by assuming an average velocity for the reach and using Equation 7.23. Assume an average velocity of 7 fps and use the reach data from Table A.29. Assume an NMIN of 5-minutes is used for the HEC-1 model. NSTPS = 𝐿𝐿 �𝑉𝑉𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 �(60)(𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁) where: NSTPS = L = the minimum reach length, in feet. NSTPS = an integer with a minimum value of 1, but preferably more than 1. Vavg = an estimate of the average velocity, in feet/second. NMIN = the integer number of minutes for the computation interval. 33,572.5 = 16 (7)(60)(5) Iteration 1. After an initial estimate of NSTPS has been made for all routing reaches, the NSTPS values should be coded on the RS record and the HEC-1 model run. Then open the HEC-1 Output file with a text editor such as Notepad or TextPAD (http://www.textpad.com/) and evaluate the RUNOFF SUMMARY table at the end of the file. Refer to Figure A.28 for an August 24, 2009 A-87 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples excerpt from the the Runoff Summary table from the 100-year 24-hour HEC-1 model for this example using NSTPS = 16 for reach 001002. Figure A.28 HEC-1 output Runoff Summary table excerpt, NSTPS=16 RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME IN HOURS, OPERATION STATION PEAK TIME OF FLOW PEAK + AREA IN SQUARE MILES AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN AREA 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR HYDROGRAPH AT + A1 2406. 13.92 1146. 345. 251. 8.36 001002 2370. 14.58 1129. 345. 251. 8.36 ROUTED TO + Using the data in Figure A.28, compute the reach travel time by subtracting the Time-to-Peak at the beginning of the route from the Time-to-Peak at the end of the route: Travel Time = 14.58-13.92 = 0.66 hours. Compute the new estimate of NSTPS: NSTPS Iteration 2 = (0.66)(60)/5 = 8 Iteration 2. Revise the RS record for reach 001002 by changing the NSTPS value from 16 to 8. Rerun the HEC-1 model and determine NSTPS from the Runoff Summary table. The results are shown in Figure A.29. Note that the travel time of 0.66 hours remains unchanged. The value of NSTPS = 8 is accepted for use in the model. NSTPS normally converges to no change within three (3) iterations. This technique is only accurate to +/- 1 time step. Sometimes the computed NSTPS value will oscillate by a value of +/- 1 between iterations. In this case, use engineering judgment to select which of the two values to use. The current version of DDMSW uses the 100-year storm frequency to perform the NSTPS optimization. The optimized NSTPS values from 100-year HEC-1 model are then used for any other frequencies run. The hydrologist/engineer should keep this in mind when checking the results for frequencies other than the 100-year. The Runoff Summary table results for other frequencies should be checked to be sure the NSTPS values computed by HEC-1 are not significantly different than input. Manual adjustment may be necessary. A-88 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Figure A.29 HEC-1 output Runoff Summary table excerpt, NSTPS=8 RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME IN HOURS, MAXIMUM TIME OF FLOW PEAK AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN TIME OF OPERATION STAGE PEAK AREA IN SQUARE MILES STATION AREA MAX STAGE + 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR HYDROGRAPH AT + A1 2406. 13.92 1146. 345. 251. 8.36 001002 2334. 14.58 1123. 345. 251. 8.36 ROUTED TO + Other items to check when evaluating the HEC-1 results of reach route operations are: a. The routed peak discharge should not increase as a result of the routing operation. If it does, the cross section and other routing parameters should be carefully reviewed for errors. The peak discharge entering the routing reach should not exceed the normal depth flow capacity of the cross section. If it does, the cross section should be extended. If the reach travel time is less than 1, consider using the HEC-1 lag operation instead of a Normal Depth Channel route or no routing operation at all. August 24, 2009 A-89 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Page Intentionally Left Blank A-90 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples A.6 STORAGE ROUTING EXAMPLES A.6.1 MODIFIED PULS METHOD The Modified Puls Method HEC-1 option can be used to model the effects of stormwater storage facilities used as detention basins or flood retarding structures. The steps for application are as follows: 1. Determine the Stage-Storage characteristics of the basin. 2. Determine the Stage-Discharge characteristics of the outlet(s). 3. Code the HEC-1 input records. Step 1. Determine the Stage-Storage characteristics of the basin. A rating curve of the available storage for storm water within the basin should be developed. This can be accomplished using the design topography for the basin and computing the storage for the basin in depth increments appropriate for physical characteristics affecting storage such as changes side slope ratios and horizontal shape changes. An example of data computed for a storage basin is shown in Table A.30 and graphically on Figure A.30. Table A.30 Example stage-storage curve data Volume, ac-ft Depth, ft Stage, ft Surface Area, acres Incremental Cumulative 0.0 3570.0 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.5 3570.5 1.05 0.51 0.51 1.0 3571.0 1.25 0.57 1.09 1.5 3571.5 1.50 0.69 1.77 2.0 3572.0 2.00 0.87 2.65 2.5 3572.5 3.00 1.24 3.89 3.0 3573.0 3.50 1.62 5.51 4.0 3574.0 4.00 3.75 9.26 5.0 3575.0 5.00 4.49 13.75 The volume data can be calculated using Equation A.2 (USACE, 1998). ∆𝑉𝑉1,2 = ℎ �A + A2 + �A1 A2 � 3 1 August 24, 2009 A.2 A-91 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples where: ∆𝐴𝐴1,2 = volume between stage areas 1 and 2, h = vertical distance (depth) between stage areas A1 and A2, A1 = surface area of stage 1, and A2 = surface area of stage 2. Figure A.30 Example stage-storage rating curve 3576.0 3575.0 Stage, ft 3574.0 3573.0 3572.0 3571.0 3570.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Volume, ac-ft Volume Step 2. Determine the Stage-Discharge characteristics of the outlet(s). HEC-1 can model the effects of both principal spillways (culverts) and emergency spillways (overflow weirs or channels) through a combined hydraulic rating curve. The rating curves for both types of outlets should be developed using appropriate hydraulic modeling software such A-92 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples as HEC-RAS or HY-8 and then combined into a single rating table. For the above example, the principal spillway is an 18-inch CMP with headwalls on a slope of 1 percent. The culvert discharges into a riprap lined trapezoidal channel with 2:1 side slopes, a bottom width of 15 feet, and a slope of 0.8 percent. The emergency spillway is a broad-crested weir with a crest length of 25 feet, a crest width of 10 feet, and the flowline set at elevation 3573.0. HY-8 (USDOT, 2005b and 2007) was used to model the spillway hydraulics and the results are shown in Table A.31. The design criteria requires that a total 100-year peak discharge of 100 cfs be passed through the spillways with a freeboard of 1 foot (ie. water surface cannot exceed elevation 3574.0). Also, the total spillway capacity is to be determined and the basin must drain completely within 36 hours.. Table A.31 Example stage-discharge curve data Outlet Control Depth, ft Spillway Discharge, cfs Stage, ft 0.00 3570.00 0.62 Principal Emergency Combined 0.0 0.0 0.0 3570.62 1.2 0.0 1.2 0.90 3570.90 2.4 0.0 2.4 1.14 3571.14 3.6 0.0 3.6 1.36 3571.36 4.8 0.0 4.8 1.58 3571.58 6.0 0.0 6.0 1.91 3571.91 7.2 0.0 7.2 2.23 3572.23 8.0 0.0 8.0 2.95 3572.95 9.6 0.0 9.6 3.00 3573.00 9.7 0.0 9.7 3.08 3573.08 9.9 2.1 12.0 3.65 3573.65 11.0 49.0 60.0 3.89 3573.89 11.4 78.5 90.0 4.10 3574.10 11.7 108.2 120.0 4.29 3574.29 11.6 138.2 150.0 4.46 3574.46 11.6 168.3 180.0 4.62 3574.62 11.6 198.2 210.0 4.77 3574.77 11.5 228.3 240.0 4.91 3574.91 11.5 258.4 270.0 5.05 3575.05 11.5 288.5 300.0 August 24, 2009 A-93 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Figure A.31 Example stage-discharge rating curve 3576.00 3575.00 Stage, ft 3574.00 3573.00 3572.00 3571.00 3570.00 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 Discharge, cfs Combined Spillway Discharge Note from examination of Table A.31 that the principal spillway is functioning under outlet control for the entire rating. Also note from examination of Figure A.31 that at stage 3574 the combined spillway discharge is about 105 cfs and the total combined spillway capacity at the crest of the basin is about 300 cfs. The average discharge for the principal spillway can be assumed to be 5 cfs. At that flow rate, the time to drain the basin, assuming it is filled to the crest of the emergency spillway at elevation 3573, is estimated as follows: Drain Time = (5.51 ac-ft)(43,560 sf/ac-ft)/(5 ft3/s)(3600s/hr) = 13.3 hours. Therefore, OK. If the estimated drain time were close to 36 hours, a more detailed computation of drain time would be necessary. This can be accomplished using HEC-1 as described in Chapter 9 of the Hydraulics Manual. A-94 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Step 3. Code the HEC-1 input records. Using the data from Steps 1 and 2, the HEC-1 input data file records for a storage route through the basin are coded as follows: _______1_______2_______3_______4_______5_______6_______7_______8_______9______10 KK BASIN STORAGE RS 1 ELEV 3570.0 SV 0.00 0.51 1.09 1.77 2.65 3.89 5.51 9.26 13.75 SE3570.0 3570.5 3571.0 3571.5 3572.0 3572.5 3573.0 3574.0 3575.0 SQ 0.0 1.2 2.4 3.6 4.8 6.0 7.2 8.0 9.6 9.7 SQ 12.0 60.0 90.0 120.0 150.0 180.0 210.0 240.0 270.0 300.0 SE3570.0 3570.62 3570.90 3571.14 3571.36 3571.58 3571.91 3572.23 3572.95 3573.00 SE3573.1 3573.65 3573.89 3574.10 3574.29 3574.46 3574.62 3574.77 3574.91 3575.05 The KK record defines the hydrograph operation name. The RS record establishes that this is a storage route. The type of storage route is not yet specified. Field 1, NSTPS, is set equal to one (1), which is the number of steps to be used in the route operation. "ELEV" is entered in Field 2, which specifies that the elevation for the beginning of the first time period will be in the next field. The next field (Field 3) is set to 3570.0, which is the bottom elevation of the storage basin. The SV record establishes that this is a Modified Puls storage operation. The values are the storage in acre-feet from column five (5) of Table A.30. A total of 20 values may be entered on two SV records. The first SE record contains the stage elevation values corresponding to the storage values in the same field on the SV record. The values are from column two (2) of Table A.30. The SQ record contains the peak discharge values in cfs from column five (5) of Table A.31. A total of 20 values may be entered on two SQ records. The second SE record contains the stage elevation values corresponding to the peak discharge values in the same field on the SQ record. The values are from column two (2) of Table A.31. A.6.2 RETENTION BASIN STORAGE DIVERSIONS When stormwater storage is in place for developments in a watershed it is usually appropriate to account for it in a HEC-1 model of the watershed. Normally, stormwater storage basins have relatively small watersheds and, in Mohave County, are sized to retain the 100-year 2-hour storm runoff volume. Due to the small scale of such watersheds in comparison with the subbasin size of most HEC-1 models, it is not practical to model the retention basins using the August 24, 2009 A-95 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples procedure described in Appendix A.6.1. The preferred approach is to make an estimate of the total design storage capacity of the retention basins in each HEC-1 sub-basin and then divert that volume from the rising limb of the sub-basin runoff hydrograph. This is accomplished in HEC-1 using the diversion operation records. Consider the B1 HEC-1 sub-basin from the example in Appendix A.4 that is 79 percent developed and has retention basins in place designed to retain all runoff from the 100-year 2hour storm. The hydrologist has reviewed the as-built drawings for all the developments in the area and totaled the as-built retention basin design volumes. The hydrologist has also performed a field reconnaissance of the sub-basin to verify the retention basins are in place and sized per the as-built drawings. It was noted that on average the basins have 25 percent less capacity than the as-built drawings indicate due to sedimentation and changes made during landscaping. The total as-built storage volume is 533 ac-ft. Reduce this storage capacity by 25 percent and use 400 ac-ft. The HEC-1 runoff computation records for sub-basin B1 are: _______1_______2_______3_______4_______5_______6_______7_______8_______9______10 KK B1 BASIN BA 4.672 LG 0.16 0.15 16.31 0.13 55 UC 0.713 0.357 UA 0 5.0 16.0 30.0 65.0 77.0 84.0 90.0 94.0 97.0 UA 100 This HEC-1 operation generates the runoff hydrograph for sub-basin B1. Next, the retention volume is diverted from the B1 runoff hydrograph, which has the effect of removing it from the rising limb. The following KK record set is used to accomplish the diversion: _______1_______2_______3_______4_______5_______6_______7_______8_______9______10 KK B1DS DIVERT KO 1 DT B1DIV 400.0 0.0 DI 0.0 100.0 250.0 500.0 750.0 1000.0 2000.0 4000.0 6000.0 10000.0 DQ 0.0 100.0 250.0 500.0 750.0 1000.0 2000.0 4000.0 6000.0 10000.0 The KK record defines the name of the hydrograph that will continue downstream in the HEC-1 model after the diversion. The DT record defines the name of the diverted flow hydrograph in Field 1 so it could be retrieved later in the model. However, for this example no retrieval is desired. Field 2 contains the total volume to be diverted in acre-feet. The DI record contains a list of inflow values to the diversion operation. A-96 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples The DQ record contains the list of flow rates to be diverted corresponding to the field values on the DI record. Note that for this example the flow rates are the same for both the DI and DQ records. This has the effect of diverting all flow up to 10,000 cfs until a total volume of 400 acre-feet has been diverted. Then no more flow is diverted. The results are shown on Figure A.32. Note that the 100-year 24-hour peak discharge from sub-basin B1 is reduced from 6,545 cfs to 5,241 cfs as a result of the on-site retention. Figure A.32 Example of retention basin diversion hydrographs 7000 6000 Discharge, cfs 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time, hours Sub-basin B1 Prior to Diversion August 24, 2009 Sub-basin B1 After Diversion A-97 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Page Intentionally Left Blank A-98 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples A.7 INDIRECT METHODS EXAMPLE The unit hydrograph method example results can be checked for reasonableness using indirect methods, as described in Section 7.11. The following is a discussion of the check made with each of the three methods. This approach is an example of what is expected by Mohave County for inclusion in drainage design reports when the unit hydrograph method is applied for estimating peak discharges. A.7.1 INDIRECT METHOD 1 The Method 1 check is a comparison of the HEC-1 model results with unit peak discharge envelope curves of maximum observed floods of record from natural watersheds for differing hydrologic regions in the southwestern United States. The comparison is shown on Figure A.33. Note that all the model results with the exception of sub-basin B1 fall below the envelope curves. This is to be expected as the envelope curves are lines enveloping peak discharges from extreme events. The 100-year frequency is not necessarily an extreme event in comparison with this data. Sub-basin B1 is predominately an urban watershed and is expected to have a higher unit discharge than the other sub-basins. This check yields no reason to suspect the model results are unreasonable. A.7.2 INDIRECT METHOD 2 Indirect Method 2 is a comparison with 100-year peak discharges for Arizona analyzed by the USGS from streamflow data using the Log-Pearson Type 3 statistical method. The comparison is shown on Figure A.34. The example peak discharges check very well against the data fit line and lie within the 75 percent tolerance limits. Sub-basin B1 lies just outside the upper 75 percent tolerance limit, which is to be expected as the Arizona LP3 data are from predominately natural watersheds. This check yields no reason to suspect the model results are unreasonable. A.7.3 INDIRECT METHOD 3 Indirect Method 3 is a check against the data used to generate the USGS regional regression equation for Region 10, which covers Kingman and the example watershed. It is also a check against an envelope curve for that region. The comparison is shown on Figure A.35. The example results compare favorably with the regression equation data points. The example results plot just below the fit line for the regression equation and at the upper end of the August 24, 2009 A-99 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples majority of the data points. Sub-basin B1 again plots high, but is below the envelope line. This check yields no reason to suspect the model results are unreasonable. A-100 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Figure A.33 Indirect Method 1 check of Unit Hydrograph Method example August 24, 2009 A-101 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Figure A.34 Indirect Method 2 check of Unit Hydrograph Method example A-102 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Figure A.35 Indirect Method 3 check of Unit Hydrograph Method example August 24, 2009 A-103 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Page Intentionally Left Blank A-104 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples A.8 STORMWATER STORAGE EXAMPLE A.8.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT A stormwater storage basin is needed for the commercial parcel within sub-basin C from the Rational Method example in Appendix A.2. Refer to Figure A.13. The design storage volume is to be determined and basin characteristics recommended based on drain time and Mohave County minimum requirements for inclusion in a Preliminary Design Report for the project. A.8.2 PROBLEM SOLUTION A.8.2.1 Given Information The physical information for the solution is derived from Table A.15, Table A.17 and Table A.18 as follows: 1. 100-year 2-hour Storm Point Precipitation: 2.546 inches 2. Area of Commercial Site: 9.19 acres 3. Rational C coefficient for C1 zoning: 0.83 A.8.2.2 Basin Sizing The retention basin must be designed to contain the entire runoff volume from the site from a 100-year 2-hour storm. The required minimum design storage volume is determined using Equation 7.7: 𝑃𝑃 V= 𝐶𝐶 �12 � 𝐴𝐴 where: 𝑉𝑉 = 0.83 � V = runoff volume, in acre-feet, C = runoff coefficient (or Ccomp), P = rainfall depth, in inches, and A = drainage area, in acres. 2.546 � 9.19 = 1.62 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 − 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 12 Prior to scheduling geotechnical testing for the proposed site, approximate basin dimensions are needed. The basin should have the following characteristics: 1. Depth: 4 feet total, 3-feet of depth at the crest of the emergency spillway. 2. Side slopes: August 24, 2009 3:1 A-105 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Approximate land area required is estimated as follows, assuming a square basin and applying Equation A.2: Bottom area = x2 Top area = (x+2*3*3)2 ∆𝑉𝑉𝐵𝐵,𝑇𝑇 = 𝑑𝑑 �A + AT + �AB AT � 3 B where: ∆𝐴𝐴1,2 = volume between the top and bottom of the basin, d = vertical distance (depth) between top and bottom, AB = surface area of bottom of basin, and AT = surface area of top of basin. 3 (1.62)(43560) = �x 2 + (x + 18)2 + �x 2 (x + 18)2 � 3 Solving for x: 𝑥𝑥 2 + (𝑥𝑥 2 + 36𝑥𝑥 + 324) + �𝑥𝑥 2 (𝑥𝑥 + 18)2 = 70,567.2 2𝑥𝑥 2 + 54𝑥𝑥 + 324 = 70,567.2 3𝑥𝑥 2 + 36𝑥𝑥 + 324 + 𝑥𝑥 (𝑥𝑥 + 18) = 70,567.2 𝑥𝑥 2 + 18𝑥𝑥 − 23,414.4 = 0 Solving the quadratic, X=144.28. Use X=150 feet The basin bottom area is therefore = 150*150 = 22,500 sq ft Per Table 15.2, the minimum number of soil log hole/percolation tests required for a basin bottom area of 22,500 feet is four. A geotechnical firm was retained to perform testing in conformance with Section 15.4.1.4. The following are the results of the geotechnical investigation: Test Location 1: 14-foot deep soil log hole (10 feet below bottom of basin). 0 to 5 inches Gravelly sandy loam 5-inches to 9-feet Gravelly loam 9-feet to 13-feet Caliche 13-feet to 14-feet Gravelly Clay loam Measured percolation rate: A-106 1.2 inches/hour August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Test Location 2: 14-foot deep soil log hole (10 feet below bottom of basin). 0 to 5 inches Gravelly sandy loam 5-inches to 10-feet Gravelly loam 10-feet to 12-feet Caliche 12-feet to 14-feet Gravelly Clay loam Measured percolation rate: 1.5 inches/hour Test Location 3: 14-foot deep soil log hole (10 feet below bottom of basin). 0 to 8 inches Gravelly sandy loam 8-inches to 10-feet Gravelly loam 10-feet to 13-feet Caliche 13-feet to 14-feet Gravelly Clay loam Measured percolation rate: 1.2 inches/hour Test Location 4: 14-foot deep soil log hole (10 feet below bottom of basin). 0 to 5 inches Gravelly sandy loam 5-inches to 9-feet Gravelly loam 9-feet to 12-feet Caliche 12-feet to 14-feet Gravelly Clay loam Measured percolation rate: 1.2 inches/hour The lowest percolation rate of 1.2 inches/hour is selected for use in the design. An impermeable layer was found in the soil log hole at a depth of 6- to 9-feet below the basin bottom. From Table 15.3, a Design Factor, Dr, of 4.0 is selected. Applying Equation 15.1 to determine the design percolation rate: 𝑃𝑃𝑑𝑑 = 𝑃𝑃 𝐷𝐷𝑟𝑟 where: Pd P Dr August 24, 2009 = = = Design percolation rate, in inches/hour, Lowest measured percolation rate, in inches/hour, and Design Factor from Table 15.3. A-107 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples 𝑃𝑃𝑑𝑑 = 1.2 = 0.3 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒/ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 4 𝑇𝑇𝑑𝑑 = 𝑉𝑉 𝑃𝑃 𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝 𝑑𝑑 12 Next, applying Equation 15.2 to estimate the minimum required basin bottom area: where: Td Ap Pd V = = = = Retention basin drain time in hours, Percolation area (basin bottom), in acres Design percolation rate, in inches/hour, and Retention basin design storage volume, in acre-feet. 𝑉𝑉 𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝 = 𝑃𝑃 𝑇𝑇𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑 12 𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝 = 1.62 = 1.80 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 0.3 (36) � � 12 The required basin bottom area is significantly greater than the minimum area of 2,500 sf. The new approximate basin dimensions are: Design Ponding Depth = 36(0.3/12) = 0.9 feet Design Freeboard = 1 foot. Total Basin Design Depth = 1.9 feet Side Slope = 3:1 Top Area = ((2)(1.9)(3)+280)2 = 84,914 sf or 1.95 acres If a basin with a smaller land requirement is desired, the design will need to be supplemented with dry wells. A.8.2.3 Emergency Spillway Design In accordance with Section 15.4.3.7, all stormwater storage basins shall have an emergency spillway. The spillway must be designed to safely pass the 100-year peak discharge, which is 42 cfs for sub-basin C. In this case, the spillway discharges into a trapezoidal channel with the following characteristics: Slope (S): A-108 0.006 ft/ft August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Base width (w): 10 feet Available depth (d): 2 feet Side slopes = 2:1 Lining: rock rip rap with a d50 of 6-inches The spillway cannot have a flow depth greater than 1 foot without exceeding the maximum design basin depth of 4 feet. Assuming normal depth in the channel and no constrictions downstream that result in backwater effects that could impact the spillway area, the Manning equation may be used to determine the spillway characteristics. Assuming a flow depth of 1 foot: 𝑄𝑄 = � 1.486𝑅𝑅 0.67 𝑆𝑆 0.5 𝑛𝑛 � 𝐴𝐴 A = (12)(1) = 12 sf P = 2(2.24)+10 = 14.5 ft R = A/P = 12/14.5 = 0.83 ft n = 0.040 (from Table 13.4) 𝑄𝑄 = � 1.486�0.83 0.67 ��0.006 0.5 � 0.040 � 12 = 30.5 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 30.5 cfs<42 cfs therefore no good. Try w = 15 feet A = 17 sf P = 19.5 ft R = 17/19.5 = 0.87 ft 𝑄𝑄 = � 1.486�0.87 0.67 ��0.006 0.5 � 0.040 � 17 = 44.6 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 44.6 cfs>42 cfs, therefore OK The velocity is 2.6 fps. By inspection use of 6-inch riprap is acceptable. August 24, 2009 A-109 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix A: Hydrology Examples Page Intentionally Left Blank A-110 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall B. RAINFALL B.1 2-YEAR STORM ISOPLUVIALS August 24, 2009 B-1 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.1 B-2 NOAA Atlas 14 2-year 5-minute isopluvial map August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.2 August 24, 2009 NOAA Atlas 14 2-year 10-minute isopluvial map B-3 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.3 B-4 NOAA Atlas 14 2-year 15-minute isopluvial map August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.4 August 24, 2009 NOAA Atlas 14 2-year 30-minute isopluvial map B-5 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.5 B-6 NOAA Atlas 14 2-year 1-hour isopluvial map August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.6 August 24, 2009 NOAA Atlas 14 2-year 2-hour isopluvial map B-7 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.7 B-8 NOAA Atlas 14 2-year 3-hour isopluvial map August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.8 August 24, 2009 NOAA Atlas 14 2-year 6-hour isopluvial map B-9 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.9 B-10 NOAA Atlas 14 2-year 12-hour isopluvial map August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.10 NOAA Atlas 14 2-year 24-hour isopluvial map August 24, 2009 B-11 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall B-12 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall B.2 5-YEAR STORM ISOPLUVIALS August 24, 2009 B-13 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.11 NOAA Atlas 14 5-year 5-minute isopluvial map B-14 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.12 NOAA Atlas 14 5-year 10-minute isopluvial map August 24, 2009 B-15 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.13 NOAA Atlas 14 5-year 15-minute isopluvial map B-16 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.14 NOAA Atlas 14 5-year 30-minute isopluvial map August 24, 2009 B-17 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.15 NOAA Atlas 14 5-year 1-hour isopluvial map B-18 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.16 NOAA Atlas 14 5-year 2-hour isopluvial map August 24, 2009 B-19 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.17 NOAA Atlas 14 5-year 3-hour isopluvial map B-20 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.18 NOAA Atlas 14 5-year 6-hour isopluvial map August 24, 2009 B-21 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.19 NOAA Atlas 14 5-year 12-hour isopluvial map B-22 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.20 NOAA Atlas 14 5-year 24-hour isopluvial map August 24, 2009 B-23 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Page Intentionally Left Blank B-24 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall B.3 10-YEAR STORM ISOPLUVIALS August 24, 2009 B-25 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.21 NOAA Atlas 14 10-year 5-minute isopluvial map B-26 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.22 NOAA Atlas 14 10-year 10-minute isopluvial map August 24, 2009 B-27 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.23 NOAA Atlas 14 10-year 15-minute isopluvial map B-28 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.24 NOAA Atlas 14 10-year 30-minute isopluvial map August 24, 2009 B-29 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.25 NOAA Atlas 14 10-year 1-hour isopluvial map B-30 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.26 NOAA Atlas 14 10-year 2-hour isopluvial map August 24, 2009 B-31 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.27 NOAA Atlas 14 10-year 3-hour isopluvial map B-32 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.28 NOAA Atlas 14 10-year 6-hour isopluvial map August 24, 2009 B-33 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.29 NOAA Atlas 14 10-year 12-hour isopluvial map B-34 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.30 NOAA Atlas 14 10-year 24-hour isopluvial map August 24, 2009 B-35 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Page Intentionally Left Blank B-36 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall B.4 25-YEAR STORM ISOPLUVIALS August 24, 2009 B-37 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.31 NOAA Atlas 14 25-year 5-minute isopluvial map B-38 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.32 NOAA Atlas 14 25-year 10-minute isopluvial map August 24, 2009 B-39 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.33 NOAA Atlas 14 25-year 15-minute isopluvial map B-40 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.34 NOAA Atlas 14 25-year 30-minute isopluvial map August 24, 2009 B-41 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.35 NOAA Atlas 14 25-year 1-hour isopluvial map B-42 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.36 NOAA Atlas 14 25-year 2-hour isopluvial map August 24, 2009 B-43 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.37 NOAA Atlas 14 25-year 3-hour isopluvial map B-44 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.38 NOAA Atlas 14 25-year 6-hour isopluvial map August 24, 2009 B-45 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.39 NOAA Atlas 14 25-year 12-hour isopluvial map B-46 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.40 NOAA Atlas 14 25-year 24-hour isopluvial map August 24, 2009 B-47 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Page Intentionally Left Blank B-48 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall B.5 50-YEAR STORM ISOPLUVIALS August 24, 2009 B-49 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.41 NOAA Atlas 14 50-year 5-minute isopluvial map B-50 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.42 NOAA Atlas 14 50-year 10-minute isopluvial map August 24, 2009 B-51 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.43 NOAA Atlas 14 50-year 15-minute isopluvial map B-52 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.44 NOAA Atlas 14 50-year 30-minute isopluvial map August 24, 2009 B-53 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.45 NOAA Atlas 14 50-year 1-hour isopluvial map B-54 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.46 NOAA Atlas 14 50-year 2-hour isopluvial map August 24, 2009 B-55 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.47 NOAA Atlas 14 50-year 3-hour isopluvial map B-56 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.48 NOAA Atlas 14 50-year 6-hour isopluvial map August 24, 2009 B-57 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.49 NOAA Atlas 14 50-year 12-hour isopluvial map B-58 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.50 NOAA Atlas 14 50-year 24-hour isopluvial map August 24, 2009 B-59 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Page Intentionally Left Blank B-60 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall B.6 100-YEAR STORM ISOPLUVIALS August 24, 2009 B-61 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.51 NOAA Atlas 14 100-year 5-minute isopluvial map B-62 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.52 NOAA Atlas 14 100-year 10-minute isopluvial map August 24, 2009 B-63 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.53 NOAA Atlas 14 100-year 15-minute isopluvial map B-64 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.54 NOAA Atlas 14 100-year 30-minute isopluvial map August 24, 2009 B-65 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.55 NOAA Atlas 14 100-year 1-hour isopluvial map B-66 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.56 NOAA Atlas 14 100-year 2-hour isopluvial map August 24, 2009 B-67 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.57 NOAA Atlas 14 100-year 3-hour isopluvial map B-68 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.58 NOAA Atlas 14 100-year 6-hour isopluvial map August 24, 2009 B-69 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.59 NOAA Atlas 14 100-year 12-hour isopluvial map B-70 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.60 NOAA Atlas 14 100-year 24-hour isopluvial map August 24, 2009 B-71 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Page Intentionally Left Blank B-72 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall B.7 RAINFALL FORMS AND GRAPH PAPER August 24, 2009 B-73 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Rainfall Depth-Duration-Frequency Table Project No: Date: Project Name: Location/Watershed: Designer: Checked by: Rainfall Depth(i,j), in inches Storm Frequency(j), in years Duration(i) 2 5 10 25 50 100 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 5-min 10-min 15-min 30-min 1-hour 2-hour 3-hour 6-hour 12-hour 24-hour B-74 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency Table Project No: Date: Project Name: Location/Watershed: Designer: Checked by: Rainfall Intensity(i,j), in inches/hour Storm Frequency(j), in years Duration(i) 2 5 10 25 50 100 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 5-min 10-min 15-min 30-min 1-hour 2-hour 3-hour 6-hour 12-hour 24-hour The rainfall intensity is computed as follows: where: 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 ℎ (𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 ) 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼(𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 ) = �𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 (𝑖𝑖) �(60) Depth(i,j) = Point rainfall corresponding to Duration(i) and Frequency(j) in inches. Duration(i) = Duration of point rainfall for Frequency(j) in minutes. Intensity(i,j) = Rainfall intensity corresponding to Duration(i) and Frequency(j) in inches/hour. August 24, 2009 B-75 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix B: Rainfall Figure B.61 Intensity-Duration-Frequency Graph Location/Watershed: B-76 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix C: Procedure for Estimation of Vegetative Cover C. PROCEDURE FOR ESTIMATION OF VEGETATIVE COVER Vegetative cover densities are determined using one or both of the two following methods: C.1 METHOD 1: PHYSICAL MEASUREMENT 1. An area representing the typical vegetative cover density for the drainage sub-basin or subarea is selected. 2. A 100 foot chain is stretched out on the ground in a straight line in the area selected. 3. The intercepts of the vegetative canopy along the 100 foot length are noted. 4. The total distances covered by vegetation canopy along the 100 foot length are summed up and repre sent the percent of vegetative cover for the selected area. 5. Several determinations mayhave to be made to compute the average percent of cover for the drainage sub-basin or sub-area. The following sketch (Jencsok, 1969) illustrates the field procedure: Figure C.1 August 24, 2009 Physical measurement of vegetative canopy cover schematic C-1 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix C: Procedure for Estimation of Vegetative Cover C.2 METHOD 2: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH GIS/CAD POLYGONS Fully rectified and scaled digital aerial photographs of the sub-basins or sub-areas can be used to estimate vegetative canopy cover. The photographs are used to define polygons covering the various areas of visible vegetation using CAD or GIS software. Then the percent coverage area of each sub-basin or sub-area is computed using CAD or GIS tools. This method should be verified and/or calibrated using Method 1 above. C-2 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses D. RAINFALL LOSSES D.1 PROCEDURES USED TO ASSIGN G&A PARAMETERS D.1.1 BASE SOILS DATA D.1.1.1 Source The data used for estimation of Green and Ampt parameters was the SSURGO detailed soil survey data obtained from the NRCS. The web site the data was downloaded from is: http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/ The information consisted of GIS polygon files in ESRI shape file format, and Microsoft Access format databases for the following soil surveys: Table D.1 List of soil surveys ID Soil Survey Title AZ623 SHIVWITS AREA, ARIZONA, PART OF MOHAVE COUNTY AZ625 MOHAVE COUNTY AREA, AZ, NORTHEASTERN PART, AND PART OF COCONINO COUNTY AZ627 MOHAVE COUNTY, AZ, SOUTHERN PART AZ629 COCONINO COUNTY AREA, ARIZONA, NORTH KAIBAB PART AZ631 COCONINO COUNTY AREA, ARIZONA, CENTRAL PART AZ637 YAVAPAI COUNTY, ARIZONA, WESTERN PART AZ657 KOFA AREA, ARIZONA, PARTS OF LA PAZ AND YUMA COUNTIES: Use AZ STATSGO clipped to AZ657 boundary. AZ695 KAIBAB NATIONAL FORESTS, ARIZONA, PARTS OF COCONINO, MOHAVE AND YAVAPAI COUNTIES. Database not available yet. The AZ STATSGO coverages was used and clipped to AZ695 boundary. AZ697 MOHAVE COUNTY, AZ. CENTRAL PART AZ699 HUALAPAI-HAVASUPAI AREA, PARTS OF COCONINO, MOHAVE, AND YAVAPAI COUNTIES AZ701 GRAND CANYON AREA, ARIZONA, PARTS OF COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES NV608 VIRGIN RIVER AREA, NEVADA AND ARIZONA NV613 MEADOW VALLEY AREA, NEVADA AND UTAH August 24, 2009 D-1 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.1 List of soil surveys ID Soil Survey Title NV754 LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA, SOUTH PART NV755 CLARK COUNTY AREA, NEVADA UT634 IRON-WASHINGTON AREA, UTAH, PARTS OF IRON, KANE,AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES UT636 PANGUITCH AREA, PARTS OF GARFIELD, IRON, KANE AND PIUTE COUNTIES, UTAH UT641 WASHINGTON COUNTY AREA, UTAH UT642 KANE COUNTY, UTAH: : The UT STATSGO coverages was used and clipped to UT642 boundary UT646 DIXIE NATL.FOREST-PARTS OF GARFIELD,WASHINGTON, IRON,KANE & WAYNE COUNTIES. Database not available yet. The UT STATSGO coverages was used and clipped to UT646 boundary. UT686 GRAND STAIRCASE - ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, PARTS OF KANE AND GARFIELD COUNTIES, UTAH AZ ARIZONA GENERAL SOIL SURVEY UT UTAH GENERAL SOIL SURVEY D.1.2 DATA EXTRACTION The NRCS databases are very complex and contain a large amount of data in numerous tables. The data necessary for computation of Green and Ampt parameters was extracted from each soils database and stored in a new separate database file containing two tables. The procedures used to accomplish this are as follows. Familiarity with Microsoft Access 2003 is required and these instructions are specific to MS Access 2003. MS Access 2007 can also be used but the location of the commands is often slightly different. 1. Populate the NRCS template database with data using the procedures provided by the NRCS. Create a new empty database named "?????_XKSAT.mdb". Use the NRCS soil survey ID number from Table D.1 in place of the question marks. Open the NRCS database (soildb_US_2002.mdb). Create a new Query using the “Simple Wizard” and adding the fields listed below. Name it "Query - XKSAT Computation Data." The table names are critical. A computer program was written to process the data in these databases and it looks for tables with specific names. 1 Source D-2 2 mapunit 3 component 4 chtexturegrp 5 6 chtexture August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table: Source Field: musym muname compname texdesc SMU Map Unit Name Component Name 7 8 9 Description Source Table: Source Field: lieutex Texture Description Texture in lieu Texture 10 11 12 sandtotal_r silttotal_r claytotal_r Total Percentage by weight < 2mm Sand Silt Clay 16 17 18 chorizon ksat_r hzdept_r hzdepb_r Description KSAT micrometers/s Horizon, inches Top Bottom 13 Source Table: Source Field: 14 15 chfrags fragsize_r chorizon fragvol_r Gravel Description om_r Organic Matter dbthirdbar_r in mm Percent of total volume 1/3 Bar 19 20 21 22 chtexture chorizon chfrags cokey chtgkey chkey chfragskey Component Horizon Texture Horizon Horizon Fragments component Description component dbovendry_r Dry Density, g/cc Percent of total volume Size Source Table: Source Field: texcl mukey Keys < 2mm Total Map Unit In "Design View", sort ascending on the fields “musym”, “compname”, “hzdept_r”, and “fragsize_r”. In "Design View", set criteria for “hzdept_r”: <=6. In "Design View", select the link between the “chtexture” and “chfrags” tables, right-click on the link, and select “Join Properties”. Set radio button 2, “Include ALL records from ‘chorizon’…” August 24, 2009 D-3 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Save Query. Go to "Datasheet View". Copy and Paste Query. Rename copy to "Make-Table Query XKSAT Computation Data." Open the Make-Table Query and enter "Design View". Click on the "Query Type" icon and select "Make-Table Query." (in Access 2007, click on "Make Table") Use the "Another Database" option and use table name ="XKSAT". Point to the "????_XKSAT" database file from Step 1. Save the Query and hit the "Run" icon. Save the work and open the new "????_XKSAT" database. Explore the database to verify the data was processed correctly. Re-open the NRCS database. Create a new Query using the “Simple Wizard” and adding the fields listed below. Name it "Query – SMU Component Percentages." 1 Source Table: Source Field: 2 3 4 mapunit 5 6 7 component mapunit musym muname compname comppct_r slope_r cokey mukey SMU Map Unit Name Component Name Component Percentage Average Slope Keys Component Map Unit Description In "Design View", sort ascending on the fields “musym” and “compname”. Save Query and go to "Datasheet View". Copy and Paste Query. Rename copy to "Make-Table Query SMU Component Percentages." Open the Make-Table Query and enter Design mode. Click on the "Query Type" icon and select "Make-Table Query SMU Component Percentages." (in Access 2007, click on "Make Table") Use the "Another Database" option and use table name ="SMU_Comp". Point to the "????_XKSAT" database file from Step 1. Save the Query and hit the "Run" icon. Save the work and open the new "????_XKSAT" database. Explore the database to verify the data was processed correctly. Create a query named “Query_XKSAT” in the "????_XKSAT" database and populate it with all the fields in the XKSAT table. In "Design View", sort ascending on the fields “musym”, “compname”, “hzdept_r”, and “fragsize_r”. Save and return to "Datasheet View." D-4 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Create a query named “Query_SMU” in the "????_XKSAT" database and populate it with all the fields in the SMU_Comp table. In "Design View", sort ascending on the fields “musym” and “compname”. Save and return to "Datasheet View." Check for records in the XKSAT table (not the Query) for blank “texcl” fields. Assign a texture if possible and appropriate. Leave impervious SMU’s blank. Use Saxton’s equations or program to determine the texture class based on the percent sand and clay if the sand OR clay fields are populated. If sand and clay are not populated, then leave “texcl” blank. This data was used as described in Appendix D.2.2 below. Note that not all SMU’s and Component soils listed in the SMU_Comp database are included in the XKSAT database. There are a number of miscellaneous soils for which no laboratory data is available. These are addressed in Appendix D.2.5. August 24, 2009 D-5 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Page Intentionally Left Blank D-6 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses D.2 COMPUTATION OF GREEN AND AMPT PARAMETERS D.2.1 METHOD D.2.1.1 General A summary of the procedures used to compute Green and Ampt parameters follows: 2. The NRCS data is structured as follows: a. Soil Map Units (SMU). This is the identifier for a soil type and the name comes from the “musys” field. An SMU is composed of one or more major and minor soil types. The minor soils are neglected for these procedures. Each major soil is called a Component soil with the name coming from the “compname” field. The physical data needed for computation of Green and Ampt parameters and specific to each Component of an SMU is contained in the XKSAT table. The percentages of the area of each Component within each SMU are contained in the SMU_Comp table. Each component soil is made up of vertical soil layers called Horizons. The thickness of each Horizon is measured in inches and the depth to the top and bottom of each Horizon comes from the “hzdept_r” and “hzdepb_r” fields, respectively. The top 6-inches of each Component is evaluated to determine which Horizon is the limiting soil layer for infiltration. The XKSAT value for that layer is used to represent the infiltration ability of that Component. Sand, Silt and Clay. The percentage of sand, silt, and clay provided by the NRCS is the percentage by weight of the matric soil (all particles <2mm). This data is provided in fields “sandtotal_r”, “silttotal_r”, and “claytotal_r”. Gravel. The gravel size in mm is provided in the field “fragsize_r” and the percentage by volume of the bulk soil in field “fragvol_r”. Each Horizon soil contains either none, or one or more gravel size fractions. Total the gravel for each Horizon. The total gravel volume for each Horizon must be computed by totaling the volumes for the size fractions. There are often multiple duplicate records for each size fraction in the table. The multiple records of a given size fraction are ignored. Compute XKSAT for each horizon. Determine the control horizon for each component. Total RTIMP for each Horizon where multiple records exist. Compute an area log-averaged value of XKSAT for each SMU. Assign PSIF and DTHETA values to each SMU based on the relationship to XKSAT equations developed by regression analysis. D.2.1.2 XKSAT by Sabol 1993 Sabol 1993 references the Drainage Design Manual for Maricopa County – Hydrology, by George V. Sabol, first published in 1993. The relationships between soil texture and saturated August 24, 2009 D-7 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses hydraulic conductivity, XKSAT, from that publication are used to assign XKSAT to each Component Horizon based on texture. The basis for Sabols’ work is a paper by Walter J. Rawls, Donald L. Brakensiek, and Norman Miller titled Green-Ampt Infiltration Parameters From Soils Data published in the ASCE Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Volume 109, Number 1, January 1983. D.2.1.3 XKSAT by Saxton and Rawls 2005 Saxton and Rawls 2005 references a paper titled Soil Characteristic Estimates by Texture and Organic Matter for Hydrologic Solutions by K.E. Saxton and W.J. Rawls. This is continuation of the 1983 work by Rawls, Brakensiek and Miller. XKSAT may now be computed based on the percent volume by weight of sand and clay for a given matric soil, and corrected based on the percentage of gravel and organic matter in the bulk soil, and the relative level of compaction of the bulk soil. The new procedures are based on extensive research using 2,000 A-Horizon and 2,000 B-Horizon samples from the NRCS. The A Horizon is the top soil layer, and the B Horizon the second layer below the surface. These two Horizons cover the top 6-inches of the surface soils, which is the area of concern for this analysis. The new procedure also provides the necessary information to directly computing PSIF and DTHETA for each Horizon using the equations included in Rawls, Brakensiek and Miller (1983). Refer to Appendix D.2.7. The equations used for computation of XKSAT, PSIF and DTHETA and the corrections for gravel content, organic matter and compaction are listed in Appendix D.2.1.4: D.2.1.4 Green and Ampt Parameters Equations Wilting Point Predict = -0.024 * Sand + 0.487 * Clay + 0.006 * OrgMat + 0.005 * Sand * OrgMat - 0.013 * Clay * OrgMat + 0.068 * Sand * Clay + 0.031 WPoint = Predict + (0.14 * Predict - 0.02) Field Capacity Predict = -0.251 * Sand + 0.195 * Clay + 0.011 * OrgMat + 0.006 * Sand * OrgMat - 0.027 * Clay * OrgMat + 0.452 * Sand * Clay + 0.299 FCapac = Predict + (1.283 * Predict ^ 2 - 0.374 * Predict - 0.015) Saturation Predict = 0.278 * Sand + 0.034 * Clay + 0.022 * OrgMat - 0.018 * Sand * OrgMat - 0.027 * Clay * OrgMat - 0.584 * Sand * Clay + 0.078 S33 = Predict + (0.636 * Predict - 0.107) Sat = FCapac + S33 - 0.097 * Sand + 0.043 D-8 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Adjustment for organic matter and compaction DensityO = (1 - Sat) * 2.65 DensityC = DensityO * DensityFactor PorO = 1 - (DensityC / 2.65) PorC = PorO - (1 - DensityO / 2.65) M33C = FCapac + 0.25 * PorC PM33C = PorO - M33C If PM33C < 0 Then PM33C = 0 XKSAT CALCULATION Gadj = (1 - Gravel) / (1 - Gravel * (1 - 1.5 * ((DensityC) / 2.65))) B = (Math.Log(1500) - Math.Log(33)) / (Math.Log(M33C) Math.Log(WPoint)) A = Math.Exp(Math.Log(33) + (B * Math.Log(M33C))) Lamda = 1 / B XKSAT = 1930 * (PM33C ^ (3 - Lamda)) * 0.0393700787 * Gadj sngKsCF = CSng(frmOptions.txtKsCF.Text) XKSAT = XKSAT * sngKsCF If XKSAT < 0.01 Then XKSAT = 0.01 End If DTHETA(dry And normal)CALCULATION DTHETAdry = Sat - WPoint DTHETAnormal = Sat - FCapac PSIF CALCULATIONS BubblingPressure = -21.674 * Sand - 27.932 * Clay - 81.975 * PM33C + 71.121 * Sand * PM33C + 8.294 * Clay * PM33C + 14.05 * Sand * Clay + 27.161 BPadj = BubblingPressure + (0.02 * BubblingPressure ^ 2 - 0.113 * BubblingPressure - 0.7) If BubblingPressure >= 0 Then PSIF = (2 * Lamda + 3) / (2 * Lamda + 2) * BubblingPressure / 2 * 4.014630787 Else PSIF = -999 End If If BPadj >= 0 Then PSIFadj = (2 * Lamda + 3) / (2 * Lamda + 2) * BPadj / 2 * 4.014630787 Else PSIFadj = -999 End If PSIFscp = Math.Exp(6.53 - 7.326 * PorO + 0.00158 * (Clay * 100) ^ 2 + 3.809 * PorO ^ 2 + 0.000344 * Sand * 100 * Clay * 100 - 0.04989 * Sand * 100 * PorO + 0.0016 * (Sand * 100) ^ 2 * PorO ^ 2 + 0.0016 * (Clay * 100) ^ 2 * PorO ^ 2 - 0.0000136 * (Sand * 100) ^ 2 * Clay - 0.00348 * (Clay * 100) ^ 2 * PorO - 0.000799 * (Sand * 100) ^ 2 * PorO) * 0.393700787 August 24, 2009 D-9 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses The documentation for Saxton and Rawls 2005 is found at: http://hydrolab.arsusda.gov/SPAW/Index.htm The documentation is included as a part of the SPAW computer program available on that web page. A spreadsheet available as a part of the “Soil Water Characteristics” portion of the SPAW download from this website can be used to check the computations made using these equations. D.2.2 COMPUTATION OF PARAMETERS FOR EACH HORIZON There is an Adobe PDF file provided that contains the data used for computation of the Green and Ampt parameters for each soil survey area. The file is available upon request to Mohave County Flood Control District. The PDF file contains groups of data by NRCS Soil Survey descriptioned as listed in Table D.2 Table D.2 List of summary results files Number D-10 File Name Description 1 Study ID_NRCS XKSAT Contains the data from the NRCS Soil Survey database tables used for computation of XKSAT, DTHETA, and PSIF. 2 Study ID _NRCS SMU Components Contains the Component percentages from the NRCS component database table for each SMU. 3 Study ID _All Horizons XKSAT Contains a list of all Horizons with the gravel volumes totaled, including the computed XKSAT, PSIF and DTHETA values from both methods. 4 Study ID _Control Horizons Sabol Contains a listing of the results of the determination of the control Horizon for each Component based on the Sabol 1993 method. 5 Study ID _Control Horizons 2005 Contains a listing of the results of the determination of the control Horizon for each Component based on the Saxton and Rawls 2005 method. 6 Study ID _Composite XKSAT Contains the computed area log-averaged values of XKSAT for each SMU for both the Sabol 1993 and Saxton and Rawls 2005 methods. August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses D.2.3 COMPUTING GREEN AND AMPT PARAMETERS FOR EACH COMPONENT HORIZON The data in File 1 was used to create File 3. The gravel volumes for each horizon were totaled, and XKSAT, PSIF and DTHETA computed. The XKSAT 2005 values are based on a maximum of 50% gravel, 8% organic matter, and a density factor of 1.0 for natural land uses and 1.1 for developed land uses. XKSAT assigned using Sabol 1993 was done using the values in Table D.3. No adjustments were made based on adjectives to the soil texture classification, such as “fine”, “very fine”, “gravelly” or “very gravelly”. Table D.3 Green and Ampt parameters as a function of soil texture (Source: Sabol, 1993) August 24, 2009 D-11 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses D.2.4 DETERMINING THE CONTROL HORIZON FOR EACH COMPONENT SOIL The control horizon for each Component is listed in Files 4 and 5, for the Sabol 1993 and Saxton and Rawls 2005 methods, respectively. The assignments were made using the data in File 3. The Horizon with the lowest value of XKSAT was selected as the control Horizon. D.2.5 MISCELLANEOUS COMPONENT SOILS The miscellaneous component soils were addressed before computing the composite values of XKSAT. A list of missing component soil types from the soil surveys evaluated is shown in Table D.5. A texture class was assigned for each missing Component using one of three approaches: 1. If the Component was listed in another soil survey, the texture was assigned based on that survey. 2. The NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook was consulted and the assignment made based on the typical texture for the soil order corresponding to that Component. 3. If methods 1 or 2 above could not be used, then the texture was assigned based on engineering judgment. Assignment of XKSAT for both the Sabol 1993 and Saxton and Rawls 2005 methods was made using the assigned texture and the values in Table D.6. Table D.4 List of miscellaneous component soils NRCS Soil Survey SMU Miscellaneous Component Soil (1) (2) (3) AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ D-12 s289 s293 s294 s295 s314 s315 s316 s317 s318 s318 s327 s327 s329 rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop torriorthents rock outcrop torriorthents rock outcrop August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.4 List of miscellaneous component soils NRCS Soil Survey SMU Miscellaneous Component Soil (1) (2) (3) AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ s330 s334 s335 s337 s337 s337 s338 s339 s340 s341 s341 s342 s344 s344 s345 s345 s347 s351 s356 s362 s362 s362 s364 s364 s366 s366 s367 s368 s368 s369 s372 s375 s383 s383 s384 s384 s384 s385 August 24, 2009 rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop riverwash rock outcrop typic torrifluvents rock outcrop rock outcrop torriorthents rock outcrop torriorthents rock outcrop badland rock outcrop rock outcrop typic torriorthents torriorthents rock outcrop rock outcrop cinder land lava flows rock outcrop rock outcrop ustic torriorthents rock outcrop ustic haplargids rock outcrop rock outcrop ustic haplargids rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop ustic torriorthents badland rock outcrop torriorthents rock outcrop D-13 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.4 List of miscellaneous component soils NRCS Soil Survey SMU Miscellaneous Component Soil (1) (2) (3) AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ D-14 s390 s392 s393 s394 s398 s402 s403 s404 s407 s408 s410 s411 s412 s415 s420 s429 s435 s436 s440 s441 s449 s450 s451 s453 s454 s455 s455 s457 s461 s464 s467 s468 s471 s472 s474 s478 s479 s481 rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop ustorthents badland badland badland lithic ustorthents family rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop badland rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.4 List of miscellaneous component soils NRCS Soil Survey SMU Miscellaneous Component Soil (1) (2) (3) AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ s482 s489 s492 s495 s495 s499 s1126 s1126 s1129 s1131 s1131 s1131 s1422 s5068 s5085 s5087 s5168 s5169 s5170 s5177 s5315 s5325 s5333 s5396 s5573 s5573 s5573 s5573 s5575 s5576 s5578 s5578 s5578 s5579 s5579 s5580 s5580 s5581 August 24, 2009 rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop badland torriorthents rock outcrop rock outcrop rubble land badland lava flows rock outcrop rubble land rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop alluvial land badland riverwash water rock outcrop rock outcrop badland riverwash torrifluvents alluvial land badland badland rock land badland D-15 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.4 List of miscellaneous component soils NRCS Soil Survey SMU Miscellaneous Component Soil (1) (2) (3) AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ623 AZ623 AZ623 AZ623 AZ623 AZ623 AZ623 D-16 s5581 s5581 s5581 s5586 s5587 s5588 s5588 s5590 s5590 s5592 s5742 s5742 s5742 s7770 s7771 s7774 s7774 s8184 s8184 s8187 s8187 s8187 s8196 s8197 s8198 s8369 s9582 s9583 s9583 s9583 s9584 6 10 17 20 28 32 34 haplocalcids rock outcrop torriorthents rock outcrop rock outcrop badland rock outcrop badland rock outcrop rock outcrop badland riverwash rough broken land rock outcrop rock outcrop badland rock outcrop badland rock outcrop cinder land gullied land rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop water rock outcrop badland rock outcrop torriorthents rock outcrop badland rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop badland gypsiorthids rock outcrop August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.4 List of miscellaneous component soils NRCS Soil Survey SMU Miscellaneous Component Soil (1) (2) (3) AZ623 AZ623 AZ623 AZ623 AZ623 AZ623 AZ623 AZ623 AZ623 AZ623 AZ623 AZ623 AZ623 AZ623 AZ623 AZ623 AZ623 AZ623 AZ623 AZ623 AZ623 AZ625 AZ625 AZ625 AZ625 AZ625 AZ625 AZ625 AZ625 AZ625 AZ625 AZ625 AZ625 AZ625 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 42 45 45 51 52 55 56 57 64 64 65 74 78 78 78 80 84 86 87 93 94 1 1 6 15 26 51 63 63 64 64 65 65 70 1 1 2 2 August 24, 2009 rock outcrop rock outcrop torriorthents rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop riverwash torrifluvents rock outcrop rock outcrop calciorthids rock outcrop torriorthents rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop badland badland rock outcrop gypsiorthids lava flows riverwash rock outcrop torriorthents rock outcrop torriorthents torriorthents rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rubble land rock outcrop rubble land D-17 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.4 List of miscellaneous component soils NRCS Soil Survey SMU Miscellaneous Component Soil (1) (2) (3) AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 D-18 8 9 10 20 21 22 25 26 27 40 40 41 42 48 49 55 58 62 63 63 69 70 73 74 75 79 90 92 93 94 95 95 96 96 102 102 103 104 rock outcrop riverwash riverwash riverwash riverwash riverwash rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rubble land rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rubble land riverwash riverwash rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop marshes rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rubble land rock outcrop rubble land fluvaquents riverwash rock outcrop rock outcrop August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.4 List of miscellaneous component soils NRCS Soil Survey SMU Miscellaneous Component Soil (1) (2) (3) AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ627 AZ629 AZ629 AZ629 AZ629 AZ629 AZ629 AZ629 AZ629 AZ629 AZ629 AZ629 AZ629 AZ629 AZ631 AZ631 AZ631 AZ631 AZ631 AZ631 AZ631 AZ631 AZ631 AZ631 AZ631 105 106 107 108 109 117 119 120 127 132 133 134 137 138 6 9 30 40 41 42 43 43 47 48 48 50 53 5 5 12 19 20 23 36 48 50 64 65 August 24, 2009 rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop torriorthents torriorthents rock outcrop torriorthents torriorthents water rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop torriorthents rock outcrop pits borrow rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop torriorthents torriorthents rock outcrop torriorthents rock outcrop water torriorthents badland rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop lava flows riverwash rock outcrop torrifluvents rock outcrop rock outcrop D-19 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.4 List of miscellaneous component soils NRCS Soil Survey SMU Miscellaneous Component Soil (1) (2) (3) AZ631 AZ631 AZ637 AZ637 AZ637 AZ637 AZ637 AZ637 AZ637 AZ637 AZ637 AZ637 AZ637 AZ637 AZ637 AZ637 AZ637 AZ637 AZ637 AZ637 AZ637 AZ637 AZ637 AZ637 AZ637 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 D-20 67 73 AwE Ba BoF CnC CnF CvB DrC FaC JaC JaD Lh LvE LxD MkF MoD Ro Rr Rs Sa Sa TmD TnF W 4 4 6 7 8 9 10 16 17 22 23 33 34 rock outcrop water rock outcrop badland rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop loamy alluvial land rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock land rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock land rock land rough broken land gravelly alluvial land sandy alluvial land rock outcrop rock outcrop water aridic argiustolls lithic haplustolls riverwash riverwash riverwash riverwash riverwash riverwash riverwash riverwash rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.4 List of miscellaneous component soils NRCS Soil Survey SMU Miscellaneous Component Soil (1) (2) (3) AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 40 41 42 46 53 54 55 56 59 65 67 68 75 82 83 86 91 99 108 109 112 113 114 117 118 122 123 124 125 125 126 126 127 129 130 139 142 144 August 24, 2009 rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop gypsids haplogypsids rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop riverwash rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop pits-dumps mine playa rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop torriorthents rock outcrop torriorthents rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop torriorthents D-21 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.4 List of miscellaneous component soils NRCS Soil Survey SMU Miscellaneous Component Soil (1) (2) (3) AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ697 AZ699 AZ699 AZ699 AZ699 AZ699 AZ699 AZ699 AZ699 AZ699 AZ699 AZ699 AZ699 AZ699 AZ699 AZ699 AZ699 AZ699 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 D-22 145 145 146 146 155 156 156 158 162 163 164 169 170 10 18 23 33 36 38 39 39 43 47 52 52 54 55 57 59 60 2 3 4 4 5 6 6 10 haplocambids torriorthents rock outcrop torriorthents urban land rock outcrop ustorthents rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop water rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop torriorthents rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop ustorthents rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop water argic petrocalcids argic petrocalcids aridic haplustalfs lithic haplustalfs aridic haplustepts aridic lithic ustorthents rock outcrop rock outcrop August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.4 List of miscellaneous component soils NRCS Soil Survey SMU Miscellaneous Component Soil (1) (2) (3) AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 20 33 39 40 40 41 41 45 45 46 48 56 57 57 58 59 59 60 60 60 61 62 62 63 63 64 64 65 65 65 66 August 24, 2009 calcic petrocalcids calcic petrocalcids rock outcrop calcic petrocalcids rock outcrop calcic petrocalcids typic haplocambids lava flows rock outcrop rock outcrop fluvaquents psamments fluvaquents psamments haplocalcids rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop lava flows typic torriorthents lithic haplargids lithic haplargids rock outcrop lava flows lithic haplargids typic haplargids lithic haplocalcids lithic haplocalcids rock outcrop lithic haplargids lithic haplocambids lava flows lithic haplustalfs lithic haplustolls rock outcrop udic haplustolls lithic calciargids D-23 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.4 List of miscellaneous component soils NRCS Soil Survey SMU Miscellaneous Component Soil (1) (2) (3) AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 D-24 66 67 67 68 68 69 69 70 70 71 71 71 72 72 73 73 74 74 74 80 82 88 88 90 101 102 103 103 104 104 105 105 106 106 107 107 108 108 lithic torriorthents lithic calciargids lithic torriorthents lithic torriorthents rock outcrop lithic torriorthents rock outcrop lithic torriorthents rock outcrop lithic torriorthents rock outcrop typic torriorthents lithic ustic torriorthents rock outcrop lithic ustic torriorthents rock outcrop lithic ustic torriorthents rock outcrop udic haplustolls rock outcrop rock outcrop orthents rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop lithic torriorthents rock outcrop lithic torriorthents rock outcrop lithic torriorthents rock outcrop lithic torriorthents rock outcrop lithic torriorthents rock outcrop lithic torriorthents rock outcrop August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.4 List of miscellaneous component soils NRCS Soil Survey SMU Miscellaneous Component Soil (1) (2) (3) AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 109 109 110 110 111 111 112 112 112 113 114 114 115 115 115 116 116 117 117 119 120 126 127 127 128 128 128 129 129 134 134 135 136 137 137 138 138 139 August 24, 2009 lithic torriorthents rock outcrop lithic torriorthents rock outcrop lithic ustic torriorthents rock outcrop lithic ustic torriorthents rock outcrop ustic haplocalcids rock outcrop rock outcrop torriorthents lithic torriorthents rock outcrop torriorthents rock outcrop typic torriorthents rock outcrop typic torriorthents rock outcrop rock outcrop lava flows haplogypsids torriorthents lithic haplargids rock outcrop torriorthents rock outcrop torriorthents lava flows typic calciargids typic haplocalcids typic haplocalcids typic calciargids typic haplocalcids typic haplocalcids typic petrocalcids typic haplocalcids D-25 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.4 List of miscellaneous component soils NRCS Soil Survey SMU Miscellaneous Component Soil (1) (2) (3) AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 D-26 139 140 141 141 141 142 142 143 144 144 145 145 146 146 147 148 148 149 149 150 150 151 151 151 152 153 154 154 155 156 157 158 158 158 160 161 161 162 typic torriorthents typic haplogypsids haplogypsids rock outcrop typic petrocalcids rock outcrop typic petrocalcids typic torrifluvents typic torrifluvents typic torripsamments typic torrifluvents typic torripsamments badlands typic torriorthents typic torriorthents typic haplogypsids typic torriorthents lava flows ustic haplargids ustic haplocalcids ustic petrocalcids rock outcrop ustic haplocalcids ustic petrocalcids ustic haplocambids ustic haplocambids badlands ustic torriorthents ustic torriorthents ustic torriorthents ustic torriorthents lithic ustic haplargids lithic ustic torriorthents ustic torriorthents vitrandic haplocalcids vitrandic haplocalcids vitrandic haplocambids water August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.4 List of miscellaneous component soils NRCS Soil Survey SMU Miscellaneous Component Soil (1) (2) (3) AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 AZ701 NV608 NV608 NV608 NV608 NV608 NV608 NV608 NV608 NV608 NV608 NV608 NV608 NV608 NV608 NV608 NV608 NV608 NV608 NV608 NV608 NV608 NV608 NV608 NV608 NV608 NV608 NV608 NV608 NV608 NV613 165 166 171 172 173 174 175 176 BD BLB BOB BP BSG BZF GHF GP HHD HUF MAE MBG PME RBG RHF Ri RME RTF SEG SQE STE STF Ty USE UWD VFG W WHE ZAG BA August 24, 2009 rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop badland badland rough broken land pits rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop pits rock outcrop badland rock outcrop badland rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop water rock land rock land rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop badland badland badland rock outcrop water badland rock outcrop badland D-27 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.4 List of miscellaneous component soils NRCS Soil Survey SMU Miscellaneous Component Soil (1) (2) (3) NV613 NV613 NV613 NV613 NV613 NV613 NV613 NV613 NV613 NV613 NV613 NV613 NV613 NV613 NV613 NV613 NV613 NV613 NV613 NV613 NV613 NV613 NV613 NV613 NV613 NV613 NV613 NV613 NV613 NV613 NV613 NV613 NV613 NV613 NV754 NV754 NV754 NV754 D-28 BB BD2 BR CE CR GAB GAR GOV HA HC IO IR KER KO KR LD MO MR NR OTR PS RO RR SH SLR TN TR UK US UT VBR W WR ZR 1040 1041 1060 1061 badland badland rough broken land rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop badland riverwash rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock land rock outcrop badland rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop badland rock outcrop rock outcrop water rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.4 List of miscellaneous component soils NRCS Soil Survey SMU Miscellaneous Component Soil (1) (2) (3) NV754 NV754 NV754 NV754 NV754 NV754 NV754 NV754 NV754 NV754 NV754 NV754 NV754 NV754 NV754 NV754 NV754 NV754 NV754 NV754 NV754 NV754 NV754 NV754 NV754 NV754 NV754 NV754 NV754 NV754 NV754 NV754 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 1063 1064 1065 1066 1090 1091 1110 1211 1270 1420 1430 1570 1571 1591 1683 1750 1761 1810 1811 1833 1880 1881 1890 1920 1940 1990 1992 1993 2011 2290 2297 3673 100 105 106 115 134 135 August 24, 2009 rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop badland rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop badland rock outcrop rock outcrop D-29 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.4 List of miscellaneous component soils NRCS Soil Survey SMU Miscellaneous Component Soil (1) (2) (3) NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 D-30 140 141 143 144 165 167 175 176 178 195 205 207 225 226 228 232 235 241 255 270 271 272 288 289 289 290 291 292 294 298 315 315 320 321 322 323 330 330 rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop badland badland rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop badland badland badland badland badland badland badland rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop badland badland rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop sodic haplocalcids typic haplocalcids rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop badland rock outcrop August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.4 List of miscellaneous component soils NRCS Soil Survey SMU Miscellaneous Component Soil (1) (2) (3) NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 335 340 341 342 343 351 352 355 360 365 375 376 405 415 421 422 460 475 475 477 478 501 504 506 506 508 510 520 521 522 530 531 532 535 540 541 542 542 August 24, 2009 rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop badland badland rock outcrop rock outcrop water rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop badland badland rock outcrop badland badland dams pits quarry dumps pits dumps rubble land rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop badland rock outcrop D-31 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.4 List of miscellaneous component soils NRCS Soil Survey SMU Miscellaneous Component Soil (1) (2) (3) NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 D-32 552 560 565 603 604 605 606 610 612 613 640 645 646 670 673 674 674 700 701 715 721 732 733 750 750 751 753 754 772 775 790 801 805 806 810 810 815 820 rock outcrop rock outcrop badland rock outcrop rock outcrop badland rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rubble land rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop badland rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rubble land rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rubble land rock outcrop rock outcrop August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.4 List of miscellaneous component soils NRCS Soil Survey SMU Miscellaneous Component Soil (1) (2) (3) NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 NV755 UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT 821 830 833 840 850 851 852 853 854 860 885 900 905 911 915 925 930 940 951 952 955 955 955 965 970 970 981 982 998 999 s342 s351 s362 s362 s362 s392 s393 s394 August 24, 2009 rock outcrop rubble land rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop urban land rock outcrop badland rock outcrop rock outcrop badland rock outcrop badland badland badland bluegyp typic torrifolists badland rock outcrop rubble land rock outcrop rock outcrop miscellaneous water water rock outcrop rock outcrop cinder land lava flows rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop D-33 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.4 List of miscellaneous component soils NRCS Soil Survey SMU Miscellaneous Component Soil (1) (2) (3) UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT D-34 s398 s1160 s1185 s1199 s1210 s1232 s1417 s1420 s1420 s1422 s1424 s1435 s1791 s1844 s5228 s5228 s5228 s5229 s5229 s5229 s5484 s5563 s5598 s5742 s5742 s5742 s5878 s7755 s7756 s7758 s7759 s7760 s7760 s7764 s7766 s7770 s7771 s7772 rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop torrifluvents badland rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop water rock outcrop badland rock outcrop water badland gullied land rock outcrop shalcar family rock outcrop rock outcrop badland riverwash rough broken land rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop badland rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.4 List of miscellaneous component soils NRCS Soil Survey SMU Miscellaneous Component Soil (1) (2) (3) UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT s7773 s7773 s7774 s7774 s7776 s7781 s7785 s7794 s7813 s7829 s7832 s7836 s7838 s7847 s7848 s7849 s7850 s7857 s7858 s7867 s7868 s7870 s7870 s7873 s7873 s7874 s7875 s7876 s7878 s7879 s7880 s7881 s7881 s7883 s7883 s7884 s7886 s7888 August 24, 2009 badland rock outcrop badland rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop peteetneet rock outcrop rock outcrop badland rock outcrop badland rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop badland rock outcrop badland rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop badland D-35 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.4 List of miscellaneous component soils NRCS Soil Survey SMU Miscellaneous Component Soil (1) (2) (3) UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT D-36 s7888 s7889 s7890 s7891 s7892 s7893 s7894 s7896 s7899 s7900 s7901 s7902 s7903 s7903 s7904 s7904 s7905 s7906 s7907 s7907 s7908 s7909 s7916 s7917 s7917 s7918 s7918 s7919 s7919 s7921 s7922 s7923 s7923 s7924 s7925 s7925 s7928 s7929 rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop badland water badland rock outcrop badland rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop badland rock outcrop badland rock outcrop badland badland rock outcrop rock outcrop water rock outcrop rubble land rock outcrop rock outcrop badland rock outcrop badland badland rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.4 List of miscellaneous component soils NRCS Soil Survey SMU Miscellaneous Component Soil (1) (2) (3) UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT s7929 s7931 s7932 s7932 s7935 s7939 s7940 s7944 s7946 s7947 s7951 s7952 s7954 s7955 s7957 s7959 s7965 s7967 s7971 s7971 s7972 s7974 s7978 s7979 s7981 s7984 s7990 s7990 s7991 s7992 s7993 s7996 s7997 s8002 s8006 s8006 s8007 s8008 August 24, 2009 rubble land rock outcrop badland rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rubble land badland badland rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop badland badland badland rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rubble land badland rock outcrop rock outcrop badland D-37 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.4 List of miscellaneous component soils NRCS Soil Survey SMU Miscellaneous Component Soil (1) (2) (3) UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT D-38 s8008 s8009 s8009 s8010 s8012 s8015 s8017 s8018 s8020 s8025 s8026 s8028 s8029 s8030 s8031 s8034 s8036 s8037 s8038 s8040 s8052 s8057 s8058 s8059 s8067 s8067 s8068 s8070 s8071 s8072 s8073 s8074 s8075 s8078 s8079 s8082 s8086 s8087 rock outcrop badland rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop haulings rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rubble land rock outcrop rock outcrop rubble land water rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rubble land rock outcrop rock outcrop rubble land rock outcrop rubble land rubble land rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.4 List of miscellaneous component soils NRCS Soil Survey SMU Miscellaneous Component Soil (1) (2) (3) UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT s8088 s8090 s8093 s8102 s8112 s8114 s8119 s8128 s8129 s8132 s8134 s8134 s8146 s8153 s8154 s8155 s8161 s8162 s8163 s8165 s8167 s8167 s8168 s8171 s8173 s8174 s8175 s8176 s8179 s8184 s8184 s8185 s8186 s8187 s8187 s8187 s8188 s8189 August 24, 2009 rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop water rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop badland rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop slickspots kjar peteetneet rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop badland rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop cinder land gullied land rock outcrop rock outcrop badland D-39 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.4 List of miscellaneous component soils NRCS Soil Survey SMU Miscellaneous Component Soil (1) (2) (3) UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT D-40 s8189 s8190 s8190 s8191 s8192 s8193 s8194 s8195 s8196 s8197 s8198 s8201 s8209 s8211 s8212 s8213 s8214 s8217 s8218 s8219 s8228 s8230 s8232 s8233 s8233 s8234 s8235 s8235 s8236 s8239 s8240 s8241 s8242 s8243 s8244 s8249 s8249 s8252 rock outcrop badland rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop blown-out land rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop badland rock outcrop badland badland rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop badland rock outcrop rock outcrop August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.4 List of miscellaneous component soils NRCS Soil Survey SMU Miscellaneous Component Soil (1) (2) (3) UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 s8253 s8254 s8255 s8259 s8260 s8369 s9012 s9016 s9046 304 313 313 314 314 319 330 331 332 345 347 348 350 373 377 385 391 403 405 423 426 428 429 435 438 441 442 448 448 August 24, 2009 rock outcrop rock outcrop haulings gypsum land rock outcrop water rock outcrop rock outcrop tepete riverwash badland rock outcrop badland rock outcrop rock outcrop blown out land riverwash blown out land rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop cinder land dune land poorly drained soils rock outcrop rock outcrop lava flows rock outcrop riverwash rock outcrop riverwash rock outcrop rock outcrop playas rock outcrop rock outcrop dumps pits D-41 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.4 List of miscellaneous component soils NRCS Soil Survey SMU Miscellaneous Component Soil (1) (2) (3) UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT634 UT636 UT636 UT636 UT636 UT636 UT636 UT636 UT636 UT636 UT636 UT636 UT636 UT636 UT636 UT636 UT636 UT636 UT636 UT636 UT636 UT636 D-42 449 459 465 467 467 472 482 493 495 496 497 498 502 503 504 510 518 8 8 9 9 34 39 53 75 76 76 116 122 124 145 149 157 163 173 174 176 177 playas rock outcrop riverwash badland rock outcrop rock outcrop very saline soils rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop playas rock outcrop water badland rock outcrop badland rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop lava flows badland rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rubble land rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop water pits borrow miscellaneous water August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.4 List of miscellaneous component soils NRCS Soil Survey SMU Miscellaneous Component Soil (1) (2) (3) UT641 UT641 UT641 UT641 UT641 UT641 UT641 UT641 UT641 UT641 UT641 UT641 UT641 UT641 UT641 UT641 UT641 UT641 UT641 UT641 UT641 UT641 UT641 UT641 UT641 UT641 UT641 UT641 UT641 UT641 UT641 UT641 UT641 UT641 UT641 UT641 UT686 UT686 BA BA BB BF BP CEF CFD CI CUF DrB DU EA EB FA GA GP HD HG LA LcB MBG MEG MOG NNE PKE RE RI RO RP RR RT RU SY TG W WCF 5004 5004 August 24, 2009 badland badland badland rock land borrow pits riverwash riverwash cinder land rock outcrop poorly drained soils dune land eroded land eroded land riverwash gullied land gravel pit rock land rock land lava flows riverwash rock outcrop rock outcrop rock outcrop riverwash rock outcrop rock land riverwash rock land rock land rock land rock outcrop rough broken land stony colluvial land rock land water rock outcrop navajo sandstone rock outcrop navajo sandstone rock outcrop D-43 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.4 List of miscellaneous component soils NRCS Soil Survey SMU Miscellaneous Component Soil (1) (2) (3) UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 D-44 5007 5019 5020 5026 5027 5028 5029 5031 5032 5038 5042 5043 5060 5061 5063 5069 5071 5077 5081 5081 5087 5092 5095 5096 5097 5100 5104 5105 5106 5108 5109 5117 5118 5121 5129 5136 5137 5139 navajo sandstone rock outcrop page sandstone carmel formation rock outcrop navajo sandstone rock outcrop entrada and carmel formation rock outcrop dakota formation rock outcrop cannonville member entrada formation badland straight cliffs formation rock outcrop morrison formation rock outcrop morrison and entrada formation rock outcrop entrada sandstone rock outcrop carmel formation rock outcrop morrison formation and romano mesa sandstone rock outcrop navajo sandstone rock outcrop navajo sandstone rock outcrop navajo sandstone and carmel formation rock outcrop entrada sandstone rock outcrop morrison formation rock outcrop straight cliffs formation rock outcrop straight cliffs and wahweap formation badland straight cliffs and wahweap formation rock outcrop kayenta formation rock outcrop navajo sandstone rock outcrop straight cliffs formation sandstone rock outcrop straight cliffs formation sandstone rock outcrop wahweap formation rock outcrop wingate formation rock outcrop shinarump member chinle formation rock outcrop shinarump member chinle formation rock outcrop moenkopi formation badland moenkopi formation rock outcrop moenkopi formation rock outcrop carmel and entrada formation badland carmel formation rock outcrop riverwash wahweap formation rock outcrop straight cliffs formation rock outcrop dakota and morrison formation rock outcrop hetz August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.4 List of miscellaneous component soils NRCS Soil Survey SMU Miscellaneous Component Soil (1) (2) (3) UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 UT686 5144 5149 5157 5158 5169 5180 5182 5183 5190 5191 5192 5207 straight cliffs formation burnt sandstone rock outcrop straight cliffs formation rock outcrop wahweap formation rock outcrop timpoweap member moenkopi formation rock outcrop carmel formation rock outcrop navajo sandstone rock outcrop carmel formation rock outcrop navajo sandstone rock outcrop straight cliffs and wahweap formation rock outcrop straight cliffs and wahweap formation rock outcrop straight cliffs and dakota formation rock outcrop riverwash Table D.5 Assignment of XKSAT to miscellaneous component soils XKSAT 2005 1993 DF =1.0 DF =1.1 Include (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Silt "No": 0.10 0.56 0.28 "Yes" Entisols, pg 138 Sand "No": 4.60 2.82 2.00 "Yes" Mollisols, pg 174 Silt loam "No": 0.15 0.44 0.21 "Yes" Mollisols, pg 147 Silt loam "No": 0.15 0.44 0.21 "Yes" Entisols, pg 139 Sand "No": 4.60 2.82 2.00 "Yes" Mollisols, pg 144 Silt loam "No": 0.15 0.44 0.21 "Yes" Entisols Sand "No": 4.60 2.82 2.00 "Yes" Component Name Source of Texture Soil Order Assumed Texture Impervious (1) (2) (3) (4) "alluvial land"' "aquents" "aquic argiustolls" "aquic haplustolls" "aquic ustipsamments" "aquolls" "arents earthen dam" August 24, 2009 Engineering judgement NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook Engineering judgement D-45 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.5 Assignment of XKSAT to miscellaneous component soils XKSAT 2005 Component Name '"argic petrocalcids"' '"aridic argiustolls"' '"aridic haplustalfs"' '"aridic haplustepts"' '"aridic lithic ustorthents"' '"badland"' '"badlands"' '"blown out land"' '"blown-out land"' '"bluegyp"' "borohemists ponded" '"borrow pit"' '"borrow pits"' '"bracken"' '"calcic petrocalcids"' '"calciorthids"' "cannonville member entrada formation badland"' '"carmel and entrada formation badland"' "carmel D-46 Source of Texture Impervious 1993 DF =1.0 Loam "No": 0.25 0.42 0.20 "Yes" Silt loam "No": 0.15 0.44 0.21 "Yes" Loam "No": 0.25 0.42 0.20 "Yes" Inceptisol s, pg 143 Sandy clay loam "No": 0.06 0.31 0.14 "Yes" Entisols, pg 140 Sand "No": 4.60 2.82 2.00 "Yes" loam "No": 0.25 0.42 0.20 "Yes" loam "No": 0.25 0.42 0.20 "Yes" Clay "No": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Clay "No": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Aridisols, pg 137 Silt loam "No": 0.15 0.44 0.21 "Yes" Histosols, pg 142 Loam "No": 0.25 0.42 0.20 "Yes" "No": 0.40 1.34 0.80 "No" Soil Order NV755 NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook Mollisols, pg 174 AZ NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook AZ, UT AZ, UT, AZ701 Engineering judgement Engineering judgement Engineering judgement NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook Engineering judgement Engineering judgement Engineering judgement Assumed Texture DF =1.1 Include Sandy loam Sandy loam Sandy loam Sandy loam Sandy loam "No": 0.40 1.34 0.80 "No" "No": 0.40 1.34 0.80 "Yes" "No": 0.40 1.34 0.80 "Yes" "No": 0.40 1.34 0.80 "Yes" Engineering judgement Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Engineering judgement Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Engineering Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" NV755 Engineering judgement August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.5 Assignment of XKSAT to miscellaneous component soils XKSAT 2005 Component Name formation badland"' '"carmel formation rock outcrop"' "chinle formation badland"' '"cinder land"' "cryaquents" "cryaquolls loamy-skeletal" "cryofibrists" "cryohemists" "cumulic haplaquolls" '"dakota and morrison formation rock outcrop"' '"dakota formation rock outcrop"' '"dam"' '"dams"' '"dumps"' '"dune land"' '"entrada and carmel formation rock outcrop"' '"entrada sandstone rock outcrop"' '"eroded land"' August 24, 2009 Impervious 1993 DF =1.0 Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Sand "No": 4.60 2.82 2.00 "Yes" Entisols, pg 138 Sand "No": 4.60 2.82 2.00 "Yes" Mollisols, pg 144 Silt loam "No": 0.15 0.44 0.21 "Yes" Histosols, pg 141 Loam "No": 0.25 0.42 0.20 "Yes" Histosols, pg 142 Loam "No": 0.25 0.42 0.20 "Yes" Mollisols, aquolls Silt loam "No": 0.15 0.44 0.21 "Yes" Engineering judgement Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Engineering judgement Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Clay "No": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Clay "No": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Clay "No": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Sand "No": 4.60 2.82 2.00 "Yes" Engineering judgement Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Engineering judgement Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Engineering judgement Sandy loam "No": 0.40 1.34 0.80 "Yes" Source of Texture Soil Order Assumed Texture DF =1.1 Include judgement Engineering judgement Engineering judgement AZ, UT NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook Engineering judgement Engineering judgement Engineering judgement Engineering judgement AZ, UT D-47 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.5 Assignment of XKSAT to miscellaneous component soils XKSAT 2005 Component Name "fluvaquentic haplaquoll" "fluvaquentic haplaquolls" "fluvaquentic haplustoll" "fluvaquentic haplustolls" '"fluvaquents"' "fluvaquents frequently flooded" '"gravel pit"' '"gravelly alluvial land"' '"gullied land"' "gypsids shallow"' '"gypsids"' '"gypsiorthids"' '"gypsum land"' "haplaquolls" '"haplocalcids"' '"haplocambids"' "haplofibrists" '"haplogypsids"' D-48 Source of Texture Engineering judgement Engineering judgement NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook UT641 Impervious 1993 DF =1.0 Silt loam "No": 0.15 0.44 0.21 "Yes" Silt loam "No": 0.15 0.44 0.21 "Yes" Mollisols, pg 147 Silt loam "No": 0.15 0.44 0.21 "Yes" Mollisols, pg 147 Silt loam "No": 0.15 0.44 0.21 "Yes" Sand "No": 4.60 2.82 2.00 "Yes" Sand "No": 4.60 2.82 2.00 "Yes" Sand "No": 4.60 2.82 2.00 "No" "No": 0.40 1.34 0.80 "Yes" "No": 0.40 1.34 0.80 "Yes" Soil Order Mollisols, aquolls Mollisols, aquolls UT641 Engineering judgement Engineering judgement Engineering judgement NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook Engineering judgement NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook NV755, AZ701 NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook NRCS Soil Taxonomy Assumed Texture Sandy loam Sandy loam DF =1.1 Include Aridisols, pg 137 Sandy clay loam "No": 0.06 0.31 0.14 "Yes" Aridisols, pg 137 Sandy clay loam "No": 0.06 0.31 0.14 "Yes" Sandy clay loam "No": 0.06 0.31 0.14 "Yes" Aridisols, pg 137 Sandy clay loam "No": 0.06 0.31 0.14 "Yes" Mollisols, pg 144 Silt loam "No": 0.15 0.44 0.21 "Yes" Loam "No": 0.25 0.42 0.20 "Yes" Aridisols, pg 138 Sandy clay loam "No": 0.06 0.31 0.14 "Yes" Histosols, pg 141 Loam "No": 0.25 0.42 0.20 "Yes" Aridisols, pg 137 Sandy clay loam "No": 0.06 0.31 0.14 "Yes" August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.5 Assignment of XKSAT to miscellaneous component soils XKSAT 2005 Component Name "haulings"' Source of Texture Soil Order Handbook Engineering judgement Impervious 1993 DF =1.0 loam "No": 0.25 0.42 0.20 "Yes" Sandy loam "No": 0.40 1.34 0.80 "Yes" Assumed Texture DF =1.1 Include '"hetz"' UT686 "intermittent water" '"kayenta formation rock outcrop"' Engineering judgement Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Engineering judgement Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" "No": 0.04 0.16 0.06 "Yes" "No": 1.20 2.52 1.73 "Yes" Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Clay "No": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Loam "No": 0.25 0.42 0.20 "Yes" NV755 Loam "No": 0.25 0.42 0.20 "Yes" NV755 Sandy loam "No": 0.40 1.34 0.80 "Yes" Sandy clay loam "No": 0.06 0.31 0.14 "Yes" AZ Clay loam "No": 0.04 0.12 0.04 "Yes" AZ Loam "No": 0.25 0.42 0.20 "Yes" AZ, UT Sandy loam "No": 0.40 1.34 0.80 "Yes" NV755 Loam "No": 0.25 0.42 0.20 "Yes" NV755 Loam "No": 0.25 0.42 0.20 "Yes" Sand "No": 4.60 2.82 2.00 "Yes" Loam "No": 0.25 0.42 0.20 "Yes" "kjar"' Engineering judgement "las" muname '"lava flows"' '"lava flows"' '"levee"' '"lithic calciargids"' '"lithic haplargids"' '"lithic haplocalcids"' '"lithic haplocambids"' '"lithic haplustalfs"' '"lithic haplustolls"' '"lithic torriorthents"' '"lithic ustic haplargids"' '"lithic ustic torriorthents"' '"lithic ustorthents family"' '"loamy alluvial August 24, 2009 Silty clay loam Loamy sand Engineering judgement Engineering judgement Engineering judgement NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook Engineering Aridisols, pg 138 Entisols,1 40 D-49 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.5 Assignment of XKSAT to miscellaneous component soils XKSAT 2005 Component Name land"' '"marshes"' '"miscellaneous water"' '"moenkopi formation badland"' '"moenkopi formation rock outcrop"' "mollic fluvaquents" "mollic halaquepts" '"morrison and entrada formation rock outcrop"' '"morrison formation and romano mesa sandstone rock outcrop"' '"morrison formation rock outcrop"' '"navajo sandstone and carmel formation rock outcrop"' '"navajo sandstone rock outcrop"' '"not complete"' '"orthents"' "page sandstone carmel formation rock outcrop"' D-50 Impervious 1993 DF =1.0 Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Engineering judgement Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Engineering judgement Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Entisols, pg 138 Sand "No": 4.60 2.82 2.00 "Yes" Inceptisol s, pg 142 Sandy clay loam "No": 0.06 0.31 0.14 "Yes" Engineering judgement Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Engineering judgement Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Engineering judgement Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Engineering judgement Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Engineering judgement Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Clay "No": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "No" Sand "No": 4.60 2.82 2.00 "Yes" Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Source of Texture Soil Order judgement Engineering judgement Engineering judgement NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook Engineering judgement NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook Engineering judgement Entisols,1 39 Assumed Texture DF =1.1 Include August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.5 Assignment of XKSAT to miscellaneous component soils XKSAT 2005 Component Name "peteetneet"' "pits borrow"' "pits quarry"' '"pits"' "pits gravel" '"pits-dumps complex"' "pits-dumps mine"' '"playa"' '"playas"' '"poorly drained soils"' '"psamments"' "riverwash and water" '"riverwash"' '"rock land"' '"rock outcrop"' '"rockland"' '"rough broken land"' '"rubble land"' '"ruvaquents"' '"sandy alluvial land"' "sandy and gravelly alluvial land"" August 24, 2009 Impervious 1993 DF =1.0 Silty clay loam "No": 0.04 0.16 0.06 "Yes" Clay "No": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "No" Clay "No": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "No" Clay "No": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "No" Sand "No": 4.60 2.82 2.00 "No" Clay "No": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "No" Clay "No": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "No" "No": 0.04 0.16 0.06 "Yes" "No": 0.04 0.16 0.06 "Yes" Loam "No": 0.25 0.42 0.20 "Yes" Sand "No": 4.60 2.82 2.00 "Yes" All surveys Sand "No": 4.60 2.82 2.00 "Yes" All surveys Engineering judgement Engineering judgement Engineering judgement Engineering judgement Engineering judgement NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook Engineering judgement Sand "No": 4.60 2.82 2.00 "Yes" Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Loam "Yes": 0.25 0.42 0.20 "Yes" Sand "No": 4.60 2.82 2.00 "Yes" Sandy loam "No": 0.40 1.34 0.80 "Yes" Sandy loam "No": 0.40 1.34 0.80 "Yes" Source of Texture Soil Order Engineering judgement Engineering judgement Engineering judgement Engineering judgement Engineering judgement Engineering judgement Engineering judgement NV754, UT634 NV754, UT634 Silty clay loam Silty clay loam UT636 NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook Engineering judgement Assumed Texture Entisols,1 38 Entisols,1 38 DF =1.1 Include D-51 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.5 Assignment of XKSAT to miscellaneous component soils XKSAT 2005 Component Name "'shalcar family"' "shinarump member chinle formation rock outcrop"' '"slickspot"' '"slickspots"' '"small depressions"' '"sodic haplocalcids"' "somewhat poorly drained soils" '"stony colluvial land"' '"straight cliffs and dakota formation rock outcrop"' '"straight cliffs and wahweap formation badland"' '"straight cliffs and wahweap formation rock outcrop"' '"straight cliffs formation burnt sandstone rock outcrop"' '"straight cliffs formation rock outcrop"' '"straight cliffs formation sandstone rock outcrop"' "tepete"' D-52 Source of Texture Soil Order Assumed Texture Impervious 1993 DF =1.0 DF =1.1 Include Engineering judgement Silty clay "No": 0.02 0.10 0.03 "Yes" Engineering judgement Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Clay "No": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Clay "No": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Sand "No": 4.60 2.82 2.00 "Yes" Sandy clay loam "No": 0.06 0.31 0.14 "Yes" Engineering judgement Silty clay "No": 0.02 0.10 0.03 "Yes" Engineering judgement Silt "No": 0.10 0.56 0.28 "Yes" Engineering judgement Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Engineering judgement Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Engineering judgement Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Engineering judgement Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Engineering judgement Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Engineering judgement Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Engineering Silty clay "No": 0.04 0.16 0.06 "Yes" Engineering judgement Engineering judgement UT636 NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook Aridisols, pg 137 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.5 Assignment of XKSAT to miscellaneous component soils XKSAT 2005 Component Name "timpoweap member moenkopi formation rock outcrop"' '"torrifluvents"' '"torriorthents"' Source of Texture "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Sand Sandy loam "No": 4.60 2.82 2.00 "Yes" "No": 0.40 1.34 0.80 "Yes" Sand "No": 4.60 2.82 2.00 "Yes" Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" "No": 1.20 2.52 1.73 "Yes" "No": 0.40 1.34 0.80 "Yes" Sand "No": 4.60 2.82 2.00 "Yes" Silt loam "No": 0.15 0.44 0.21 "Yes" Loam "No": 0.25 0.42 0.20 "Yes" "No": 0.40 1.34 0.80 "Yes" "No": 0.40 1.34 0.80 "Yes" "No": 0.40 1.34 0.80 "Yes" Silt loam "No": 0.15 0.44 0.21 "Yes" Loam "No": 0.25 0.42 0.20 "Yes" Entisols,1 38 Sand "No": 4.60 2.82 2.00 "Yes" Entisols,1 39 Sand "No": 4.60 2.82 2.00 "Yes" Histosols, pg 141 Loam "No": 0.25 0.42 0.20 "Yes" AZ, UT NV755, AZ '"typic calciargids"' NV755 '"typic petrocalcids"' "typic psammaquents" '"typic torrifluvents"' '"typic torrifolists"' August 24, 2009 Include Clay muname "typic natraquolls" 1993 DF =1.1 Engineering judgement "tryon" '"typic haplaquolls"' '"typic haplargids"' '"typic haplocalcids"' '"typic haplocambids"' '"typic haplogypsids"' Impervious DF =1.0 loam "tropic formation shale badland"' "typic cryaquents" Assumed Texture judgement NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook Engineering judgement '"torripsamments "' Soil Order NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook NV754, NV613 Entisols,1 39 Loamy sand Sandy loam Entisols, pg 138 NV755 Sandy loam Sandy loam Sandy loam NV755 NV755 NV755 NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook Mollisols, pg 144 NV755 NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook NRCS Soil Taxonomy D-53 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.5 Assignment of XKSAT to miscellaneous component soils XKSAT 2005 Component Name '"typic torriorthents"' '"typic torripsamments"' '"udic haplustolls"' '"urban land"' '"ustic haplargids"' '"ustic haplocalcids"' '"ustic haplocambids"' '"ustic petrocalcids"' '"ustic torriorthents"' '"ustorthents"' '"very saline soils"' '"vitrandic haplocalcids"' '"vitrandic haplocambids"' '"wahweap formation rock outcrop"' '"water"' D-54 Impervious 1993 DF =1.0 Sandy loam "No": 0.40 1.34 0.80 "Yes" Entisols,1 39 Sand "No": 4.60 2.82 2.00 "Yes" Mollisols, pg 174 Silt loam "No": 0.15 0.44 0.21 "Yes" Sandy loam "No": 0.40 1.34 0.80 "Yes" NV755 Loam "No": 0.25 0.42 0.20 "Yes" NV755 Sandy loam "No": 0.40 1.34 0.80 "Yes" Entisols,1 38 Sand "No": 4.60 2.82 2.00 "Yes" Aridisols, pg 137 Sandy clay loam "No": 0.06 0.31 0.14 "Yes" Loam "No": 0.25 0.42 0.20 "Yes" Sand "No": 4.60 2.82 2.00 "Yes" Silt "No": 0.10 0.56 0.28 "Yes" Aridisols, pg 137 Sandy clay loam "No": 0.06 0.31 0.14 "Yes" Aridisols, pg 138 Sandy clay loam "No": 0.06 0.31 0.14 "Yes" Engineering judgement Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.03 0.01 "Yes" Engineering judgement Clay "Yes": 0.01 0.01 0.01 "Yes" Source of Texture Handbook NV754, AZ, AZ701, UT NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook Engineering judgement NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook NV755, UT, AZ701 NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook Engineering judgement NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook NRCS Soil Taxonomy Handbook Soil Order Entisols,1 40 Assumed Texture DF =1.1 Include August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.6 Average XKSAT values for bare ground XKSAT Rawls 1983 Saxton (2005) Texture in/hr in/hr mm/hr 1 2 3 4 Sand 4.60 2.82 71.63 Loamy sand 1.20 2.52 64.01 Sandy loam 0.40 1.34 34.04 Silt 0.10 0.56 14.22 Silt loam 0.15 0.44 11.18 Loam 0.25 0.43 10.92 Sandy clay loam 0.06 0.31 7.87 Silty clay Loam 0.04 0.16 4.06 Clay loam 0.04 0.12 3.05 Silty clay 0.02 0.11 2.79 Sandy clay 0.02 0.04 1.02 Clay 0.01 0.04 1.02 D.2.6 COMPUTATION OF COMPOSITE XKSAT FOR EACH SOIL MAP UNIT The computed composite value of XKSAT for each SMU for both the 1993 and 2005 methods are listed in File 6. The data in File 2 in combination with the data in Files 4 and 5 was used for the computation. The computations were done using equation 1.  ∑ Ai log XKSATi XKSAT = a log  AT      Eqn 1 where: XKSAT = composite bare ground hydraulic conductivity for the SMU (or watershed sub-basin), inches/hour XKSATi = bare ground hydraulic conductivity of the SMU component soil, inches/hour August 24, 2009 Ai = component area in % of SMU from File 2 AT = Total % of the SMU components D-55 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses When the SMU component percentages do not total 100%, the percentages were normalized to total 100%. D.2.7 COMPUTATION OF PSIF AND DTHETA PSIF is the Green and Ampt wetting front capillary pressure term. Per Rawls, Brakensiek and Miller (1983) equation 5, PSIF can be calculated from the estimated Brooks and Corey constants using equation D.1: 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = where: PSIF 𝜆𝜆 𝜓𝜓𝑏𝑏 2𝜆𝜆 + 3 𝜓𝜓𝑏𝑏 � � 2𝜆𝜆 + 2 2 = D.1 wetting front capillary pressure, in inches, = the pore-size distribution index (defined as the slope of the logarithmic tension-moisture curve in Saxton and Rawls, 2005), and = bubbling pressure (defined as the tension at air entry, 𝜓𝜓𝑒𝑒 , in Saxton and Rawls, 2005), in inches of water. The value used for Mohave County is adjusted as shown in the Excel spreadsheet provided by Saxton and Rawls (2005). DTHETA is the Green and Ampt volumetric soil moisture deficit at start of rainfall term (defined as effective porosity, 𝜃𝜃𝑒𝑒 , in Rawls, Brakensiek and Miller, 1983), in cubic inches per cubic inch. Per Rawls, Brakensiek and Miller (1983) equation 6, DTHETA can be calculated using equation D.2: where: 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 = 𝜙𝜙 − 𝜙𝜙𝑟𝑟 DTHETA 𝜙𝜙 𝜙𝜙𝑟𝑟 = D.2 volumetric soil moisture deficit, in cubic inches per cubic inch, = total porosity (defined as the slope of the logarithmic tension-moisture curve in Saxton and Rawls, 2005), and = bubbling pressure (defined as the tension at air entry, 𝜓𝜓𝑒𝑒 , in Saxton and Rawls, 2005), in inches of water. The value used for Mohave County is adjusted as shown in the Excel spreadsheet provided by Saxton and Rawls (2005). The PSIF and DTHETA values for Saxton and Rawls 2005 listed in File 2 for each horizon were used to prepare a relationship with XKSAT as an independent variable and PSIF and DTHETA as D-56 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses dependant variables. A nonlinear regression analysis was performed for each dependant variable. The results are shown on Figure D.1 and Figure D.2 in comparison with the curves from Sabol 1993. The regression equations recommended for computing PSIF and DTHETA are: 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 1⁄(0.06149 − 0.03544 ∗ 𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋 + 0.37264 ∗ 𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋 2 ) 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 = 0.35174 + 0.03787 ∗ log𝑒𝑒 𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋 D.2.8 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 = 0.26309 ∗ 𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋 0.31813 PROPOSED XKSAT METHOD The Saxton and Rawls 2005 Green and Ampt parameter method is accepted for use in surface water hydrology in Mohave County. The values of bare ground XKSAT for each SMU are listed Appendix D.3, organized by NRCS soil survey. August 24, 2009 D-57 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Figure D.1 D-58 PSIF as a function of XKSAT August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Figure D.2 August 24, 2009 DTHETA as a function of XKSAT D-59 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Page Intentionally Left Blank D-60 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses D.3 XKSAT VALUES BY NRCS SOIL SURVEY D.3.1 AZ623 Table D.7 AZ623 Shivwits Area Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1 Akinville-Mokaac association 2 to 20 percent slopes 0.63 0.32 0 2 Albers silty clay 0 to 1 percent slopes 0.03 0.01 0 3 Arada family loamy fine sand 1 to 10 percent slopes 2.00 1.41 0 4 Arizo gravelly sandy loam 1 to 5 percent slopes nonflooded 0.85 0.45 0 5 Arizo very gravelly sandy loam 1 to 5 percent slopes flooded 0.72 0.38 0 6 Badland 0.42 0.20 0 7 Bard family-Tonopah-Arada family association 1 to 10 percent slopes 1.92 1.28 0 8 Barx fine sandy loam 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.09 0.02 0 9 Barx-Strych complex 1 to 10 percent slopes 0.27 0.11 0 10 Berzatic family-Rock outcrop-Goblin complex 35 to 70 percent slopes 0.31 0.14 30 11 Bisoodi-Anasazi family complex 1 to 8 percent slopes 0.48 0.22 0 12 Blind family-Shelley complex 5 to 15 percent slopes moist 0.82 0.44 0 13 Blind family-Shelley complex 5 to 15 percent slopes stony 0.53 0.26 0 14 Boquillas family-Showlow complex 25 to 50 percent slopes 0.05 0.01 0 15 Carrizo complex 1 to 5 percent slopes 1.09 0.63 0 16 Cave-Harrisburg-Grapevine complex 1 to 15 percent slopes 0.85 0.45 0 17 Chic-Teesto-Rock outcrop complex 1 to 30 percent slopes 0.20 0.08 15 18 Childers-Rizno association 4 to 15 percent slopes 0.50 0.24 0 19 Dera very gravelly fine sandy loam 1 to 10 percent slopes 0.40 0.17 0 August 24, 2009 D-61 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.7 AZ623 Shivwits Area Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 20 Dermala family-Guy family-Rock outcrop complex 10 to 40 percent slopes 0.09 0.03 20 21 Disterheff-Natank-Yumtheska complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.15 0.04 0 22 Dutchman-McCullan complex 1 to 10 percent slopes 0.54 0.25 0 23 Goblin gravelly fine sandy loam 15 to 50 percent slopes 0.77 0.40 0 24 Goblin-Gyppocket complex 2 to 10 percent slopes 0.51 0.24 0 25 Goesling loam 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.58 0.29 0 26 Grapevine-Hobcan complex 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.85 0.45 0 27 Grapevine-Shelley complex 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.75 0.40 0 28 Gypill-Badland association 10 to 70 percent slopes 0.54 0.26 0 29 Gypill fine sandy loam 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.70 0.33 0 30 Gypill-Hobog complex 6 to 35 percent slopes 0.63 0.30 0 31 Gypill very cobbly sandy loam 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.64 0.34 0 32 Gypsiorthids-Gypsiorthids shallow complex 1 to 50 percent slopes 0.31 0.14 0 33 Havasupai very gravelly loam 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.28 0.12 0 34 Hindu-Rock outcrop-Gypill complex 35 to 70 percent slopes 0.30 0.12 30 35 Hobcan fine sandy loam 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.81 0.41 0 36 Hobog-Grapevine complex 2 to 35 percent slopes 0.61 0.32 0 37 Hobog-Grapevine complex 2 to 35 percent slopes moist 0.61 0.32 0 38 Hobog-Tidwell family complex 8 to 35 percent slopes 0.46 0.22 0 39 Hobog very gravelly sandy loam 5 to 30 percent slopes 0.49 0.25 0 40 Ivanpatch fine sandy loam 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.53 0.25 0 D-62 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.7 AZ623 Shivwits Area Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 41 Ives loam 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.33 0.13 0 42 Katzine-Rock outcrop-Yumtheska complex 35 to 70 percent slopes 0.36 0.17 25 43 Meadview-Cave complex 2 to 30 percent slopes stony 0.54 0.27 0 44 Meadview very gravelly sandy loam 2 to 18 percent slopes 0.74 0.39 0 45 Mellenthin-Rock outcrop-Torriorthents complex 10 to 70 percent slopes 0.49 0.24 20 46 Mellenthin-Strych complex 4 to 25 percent slopes cool 0.29 0.13 0 47 Mellenthin-Strych complex 4 to 25 percent slopes warm 0.29 0.13 0 48 Mellenthin-Tanbark complex 5 to 50 percent slopes cool 0.44 0.20 0 49 Mellenthin-Tanbark complex 5 to 50 percent slopes dry 0.45 0.21 0 50 Mellenthin-Tanbark complex 5 to 50 percent slopes warm 0.70 0.36 0 51 Meriwhitica-Rock outcrop-Strych complex 35 to 70 percent slopes 0.32 0.14 30 52 Meriwhitica-Rock outcrop-Strych complex 35 to 70 percent slopes warm 0.32 0.14 30 53 Mespun complex 2 to 10 percent slopes 2.00 1.24 0 54 Moenkopie-Goblin complex 5 to 50 percent slopes 0.57 0.26 0 55 Moenkopie-Pennell-Rock outcrop complex 10 to 50 percent slopes 0.61 0.29 20 56 Nikey family-Ruesh family-Rock outcrop complex 10 to 40 percent slopes 0.39 0.18 25 57 Nipton-Rock outcrop-Nickel family complex 10 to 50 percent slopes 0.48 0.22 20 58 Nutter-Gyppocket complex 2 to 20 percent slopes 0.41 0.18 0 59 Padilla silt loam 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.09 0.02 0 60 Pocum-Childers-Ubank complex 1 to 10 percent slopes 0.41 0.18 0 61 Pocum-Spenlo complex 1 to 10 percent slopes 0.38 0.16 0 August 24, 2009 D-63 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.7 AZ623 Shivwits Area Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 62 Pompeii family-Huevi complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.18 0.06 0 63 Radnik loam 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.52 0.24 0 64 Riverwash-Torrifluvents complex 1 to 3 percent slopes 2.00 1.99 0 65 Rizno-Bond-Rock outcrop complex 4 to 25 percent slopes 0.38 0.16 15 66 Robroost fine sandy loam 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.40 0.16 0 67 Ruesh very gravelly fine sandy loam 3 to 20 percent slopes 0.52 0.23 0 68 Sedillo very cobbly loam 1 to 8 percent slopes 0.06 0.01 0 69 Showlow-Thunderbird complex 2 to 25 percent slopes 0.04 0.01 0 70 Showlow very cobbly clay loam 1 to 15 percent slopes 0.08 0.02 0 71 Sponiker loam 1 to 10 percent slopes 0.57 0.30 0 72 Springerville-Delenbaw complex 3 to 25 percent slopes 0.07 0.02 0 73 Strych very gravelly loam 2 to 10 percent slopes 0.28 0.12 0 74 Tanbark family-Strych family-Rock outcrop complex 10 to 40 percent slopes 0.56 0.29 25 75 Tanbark loam 15 to 75 percent slopes 0.72 0.35 0 76 Tassi-Rizno complex 5 to 35 percent slopes 0.41 0.18 0 77 Tonopah gravelly loamy fine sand 1 to 10 percent slopes 2.00 1.57 0 78 Torriorthents-Calciorthids-Rock outcrop complex 10 to 40 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 15 79 Tours silt loam 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.10 0.02 0 80 Tsezhin family-Ashfork family-Rock outcrop complex 10 to 70 percent slopes 0.16 0.06 20 81 Tsezhin very cobbly sandy loam 5 to 15 percent slopes 0.26 0.12 0 82 Twist sandy loam 2 to 10 percent slopes 0.12 0.03 0 83 Twist very cobbly loam 1 to 8 percent slopes 0.08 0.02 0 84 Virgin Peak-Rock outcrop complex 10 to 70 percent slopes 0.38 0.18 30 D-64 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.7 AZ623 Shivwits Area Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 85 Whishey silt loam 1 to 4 percent slopes 0.39 0.18 0 86 Winkel-Rock outcrop complex 2 to 35 percent slopes 0.24 0.10 15 87 Winkel-Rock outcrop complex 2 to 35 percent slopes moist 0.24 0.10 15 88 Winkel very gravelly loam 2 to 25 percent slopes 0.24 0.10 0 89 Winkel very gravelly loam 2 to 25 percent slopes moist 0.24 0.10 0 90 Wutoma-Lozinta complex 15 to 50 percent slopes 0.30 0.13 0 91 Yellowhorse family silty clay o to 3 percent slopes 0.08 0.02 0 92 Yellowhorse-Luzena family complex 1 to 10 percent slopes 0.04 0.01 0 93 Yumtheska-Katzine-Rock outcrop complex 2 to 30 percent slopes 0.43 0.21 20 94 Yumtheska-Katzine-Rock outcrop complex 5 to 50 percent slopes moist 0.40 0.19 15 95 Yumtheska-Natank complex 10 to 45 percent slopes 0.33 0.14 0 96 Yurm family-Meadview association 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.38 0.17 0 97 Yurm family-Meadview association 15 to 40 percent slopes moist 0.38 0.17 0 98 Yurm family very gravelly loam 15 to 35 percent slopes 0.32 0.13 0 99 Yurm family very gravelly loam 15 to 35 percent slopes moist 0.32 0.13 0 August 24, 2009 D-65 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Page Intentionally Left Blank D-66 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses D.3.2 AZ625 Table D.8 AZ625 Mohave County Area, Northeastern Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1 Badland 0.42 0.20 0 2 Barx fine sandy loam 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.99 0.56 0 3 Barx loam 1 to 4 percent slopes 0.30 0.12 0 4 Begay fine sandy loam 1 to 3 percent slopes 1.14 0.66 0 5 Begay fine sandy loam 3 to 12 percent slopes 1.14 0.66 0 6 Bidonia-Bond-Rock outcrop complex 1 to 25 percent slopes 0.42 0.21 15 7 Bond-Bidonia complex 1 to 7 percent slopes 0.96 0.52 0 8 Brinkerhoff-Grieta complex 0 to 5 percent slopes 0.94 0.50 0 9 Campanile clay 1 to 6 percent slopes 0.03 0.01 0 10 Clayhole loam 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.21 0.07 0 11 Curhollow-Prieta complex 4 to 20 percent slopes 0.09 0.02 0 12 Godding gravelly loam 3 to 40 percent slopes 0.48 0.25 0 13 Grieta fine sandy loam 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.83 0.43 0 14 Grieta loam 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.36 0.15 0 15 Gypsiorthids-Gypsiorthids shallow complex 1 to 50 percent slopes 0.31 0.14 0 16 Hatknoll-Kinan complex 1 to 10 percent slopes 0.16 0.05 0 17 Havasupai-Mellenthin complex 2 to 12 percent slopes 0.19 0.07 0 18 Jocity loamy fine sand saline-sodic 1 to 3 percent slopes 2.00 1.26 0 19 Jocity-Clayhole complex 1 to 4 percent slopes 0.07 0.01 0 20 Jocity silty clay loam 1 to 4 percent slopes 0.08 0.02 0 21 Jocity silty clay loam 1 to 2 percent slopes flooded 0.07 0.01 0 22 Kinan gravelly loam 1 to 15 percent slopes 0.36 0.15 0 23 Kinan-Hatknoll-Grieta complex 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.27 0.09 0 24 Kinan-Pennell complex 1 to 20 percent slopes 0.35 0.15 0 25 Klondike sandy clay loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.06 0.01 0 26 Lava flows 0.01 0.01 100 27 Lozinta extremely gravelly loam 1 to 15 percent slopes 0.20 0.08 0 August 24, 2009 D-67 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.8 AZ625 Mohave County Area, Northeastern Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 28 Lozinta extremely gravelly loam 15 to 45 percent slopes 0.20 0.08 0 29 Manikan silty clay loam 1 to 4 percent slopes 0.10 0.03 0 30 Mellenthin-Anasazi complex 1 to 15 percent slopes 0.67 0.35 0 31 Mellenthin-Barx complex 1 to 15 percent slopes 0.32 0.14 0 32 Mellenthin-Progresso complex 1 to 7 percent slopes 0.41 0.19 0 33 Mellenthin very gravelly loam 1 to 25 percent slopes 0.24 0.11 0 34 Mellenthin very gravelly loam 30 to 50 percent slopes 0.24 0.11 0 35 Mellenthin very gravelly loam cool 1 to 25 percent slopes 0.24 0.11 0 36 Mellenthin very gravelly loam warm 1 to 25 percent slopes 0.24 0.11 0 37 Mido fine sand 1 to 10 percent slopes 2.00 1.91 0 38 Mido loamy fine sand 1 to 4 percent slopes gullied 2.00 1.32 0 39 Milok gravelly loam 1 to 15 percent slopes 0.37 0.17 0 40 Moab loam 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.23 0.09 0 41 Moab-Mellenthin complex 1 to 20 percent slopes 0.23 0.10 0 42 Monue fine sandy loam 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.86 0.45 0 43 Padilla-Penistaja-Campanile complex 1 to 6 percent slopes 0.09 0.03 0 44 Palma loamy fine sand 1 to 5 percent slopes 2.00 1.24 0 45 Penistaja fine sandy loam 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.83 0.43 0 46 Pennell-Bacobi complex 1 to 7 percent slopes 0.49 0.21 0 47 Pennell gravelly loam 1 to 12 percent slopes 0.34 0.14 0 48 Poley cobbly silty clay loam 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.05 0.01 0 49 Poley-Moab complex 1 to 10 percent slopes 0.11 0.03 0 50 Radnik fine sandy loam 1 to 5 percent slopes 1.06 0.60 0 51 Riverwash 2.00 1.99 0 52 Royosa fine sand 2 to 10 percent slopes 2.00 1.24 0 53 Royosa-Tonalea complex 1 to 15 percent slopes 2.00 1.76 0 54 Saido-Brinkerhoff complex 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.18 0.05 0 D-68 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.8 AZ625 Mohave County Area, Northeastern Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 55 Sheppard fine sand 1 to 7 percent slopes 2.00 1.33 0 56 Sheppard loamy fine sand 1 to 4 percent slopes gullied 2.00 1.33 0 57 Showlow-Section complex 1 to 15 percent slopes 0.18 0.07 0 58 Showlow-Thimble complex 1 to 15 percent slopes 0.07 0.03 0 59 Showlow very cobbly clay loam 1 to 15 percent slopes 0.08 0.02 0 60 Showlow very cobbly silty clay loam 15 to 35 percent slopes 0.08 0.03 0 61 Sponiker gravelly loam 1 to 15 percent slopes 0.48 0.25 0 62 Sponiker gravelly loam 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.48 0.25 0 63 Torriorthents-Rock outcrop complex 30 to 70 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 45 64 Torriorthents-Rock outcrop complex dry 30 to 70 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 45 65 Torriorthents-Rock outcrop complex warm 30 to 70 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 45 66 Whiskey silt loam 1 to 4 percent slopes 0.40 0.18 0 67 Wukoki-Lomaki complex 15 to 50 percent slopes 0.15 0.05 0 68 Wutoma-Lozinta complex 1 to 15 percent slopes 0.21 0.09 0 69 Wutoma-Lozinta complex 15 to 50 percent slopes 0.21 0.09 0 70 Wutoma-Rock outcrop complex 1 to 15 percent slopes 0.31 0.13 30 71 Yumtheska-Goesling complex 1 to 15 percent slopes 0.32 0.15 0 72 Yumtheska very gravelly loam 4 to 20 percent slopes 0.27 0.13 0 73 Yumtheska very gravelly loam 30 to 50 percent slopes 0.27 0.13 0 August 24, 2009 D-69 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Page Intentionally Left Blank D-70 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses D.3.3 AZ627 Table D.9 AZ627 Mohave County Southern Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1 Akela-Rock outcrop-Rubble land complex 40 to 70 percent slopes 0.30 0.13 40 2 Akela-Rock outcrop-Rubble land complex dry 40 to 70 percent slopes 0.30 0.13 40 3 Alko family cobbly loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.39 0.18 0 4 Alko family cobbly loam dry 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.39 0.18 0 5 Amole sandy loam 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.85 0.45 0 6 Amole sandy loam dry 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.84 0.44 0 7 Anthony-Dudleyville complex 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.95 0.53 0 8 Aquarius-Akela-Rock outcrop complex 1 to 25 percent slopes 0.17 0.06 20 9 Arizo-Franconia-Riverwash complex 1 to 3 percent slopes 1.01 0.62 0 10 Arizo-Franconia-Riverwash complex dry 1 to 3 percent slopes 1.03 0.63 0 11 Bartmus very gravelly sandy loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.18 0.07 0 12 Bonita family very cobbly silty clay loam 2 to 10 percent slopes 0.03 0.01 0 13 Bonita family-Gonzales complex 10 to 35 percent slopes 0.03 0.01 0 14 Brazito family sand 0 to 3 percent slopes 2.00 2.00 0 15 Bucklebar sandy loam 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.93 0.50 0 16 Cacique family extremely gravelly loam 1 to 7 percent slopes 0.13 0.04 0 17 Castaneda extremely gravelly loam 1 to 7 percent slopes 0.06 0.01 0 18 Castaneda extremely gravelly loam dry 1 to 7 percent slopes 0.06 0.01 0 19 Carrizo family very gravelly loamy sand 1 to 3 percent slopes 1.23 0.74 0 20 Carrizo family-Riverwash complex 1 to 3 percent slopes 1.38 0.93 0 August 24, 2009 D-71 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.9 AZ627 Mohave County Southern Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 21 Carrizo-Riverwash complex 3 to 8 percent slopes 1.21 0.76 0 22 Carrizo-Riverwash complex 1 to 3 percent slopes 1.40 0.95 0 23 Cave gravelly sandy loam 10 to 35 percent slopes 0.72 0.38 0 24 Cave gravelly sandy loam dry 10 to 35 percent slopes 0.72 0.38 0 25 Cellar-Rock outcrop complex 20 to 60 percent slopes 0.55 0.28 25 26 Cellar-Rock outcrop complex dry 20 to 60 percent slopes 0.55 0.28 25 27 Cellar-Topock-Rock outcrop complex 5 to 35 percent slopes 0.11 0.07 20 28 Cherioni very cobbly loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.06 0.01 0 29 Chuckawalla-Riverbend complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.23 0.09 0 30 Chuckawalla-Riverbend families complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.22 0.08 0 31 Cipriano very stony loam 2 to 10 percent slopes 0.32 0.14 0 32 Cline very stony loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.12 0.04 0 33 Cline very stony loam dry 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.12 0.04 0 34 Continental-Tres Hermanos complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.12 0.03 0 35 Continental-Tres Hermanos complex dry 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.12 0.03 0 36 Continental-Rillino complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.15 0.04 0 37 Continental-Rillino complex dry 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.15 0.04 0 38 Coolidge-Denure complex 1 to 7 percent slopes 1.10 0.62 0 39 Coolidge-Denure families complex 1 to 7 percent slopes 0.71 0.37 0 40 Courthouse family-Rock outcrop-Rubble land complex 40 to 70 percent slopes 0.36 0.17 40 41 Courthouse family-Rock outcrop-Wagonbow complex 15 to 70 percent slopes 0.21 0.08 30 42 Far-Rock outcrop complex 10 to 45 percent slopes 0.58 0.33 20 D-72 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.9 AZ627 Mohave County Southern Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 43 Dutchflat sandy loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.93 0.50 0 44 Dutchflat fine sandy loam dry 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.13 0.04 0 45 Gadsden silty clay 0 to 1 percent slopes 0.03 0.01 0 46 Gila-Glendale complex 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.37 0.15 0 47 Gila-Glendale complex dry 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.37 0.15 0 48 Goldroad-Rock outcrop complex 20 to 60 percent slopes 0.53 0.27 20 49 Gonzales-Rock outcrop complex 15 to 35 percent slopes 0.03 0.01 25 50 Goodsprings family gravelly sandy loam 1 to 15 percent slopes 0.50 0.23 0 51 Goodsprings family gravelly sandy loam dry 1 to 15 percent slopes 0.50 0.23 0 52 Goodsprings family gravelly sandy loam 10 to 35 percent slopes 0.50 0.23 0 53 Goodsprings family gravelly sandy loam dry 10 to 35 percent slopes 0.50 0.23 0 54 Graham-Arivaca complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.09 0.03 0 55 Graham-Rock outcrop complex 10 to 40 percent slopes 0.13 0.04 20 56 Gunsight very gravelly loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.23 0.09 0 57 Gunsight very gravelly sandy loam 10 to 40 percent slopes 0.62 0.32 0 58 Hassell family-Lampshire-Rock outcrop complex 10 to 30 percent slopes 0.45 0.22 20 59 Holtville silty clay 0 to 1 percent slopes 0.03 0.01 0 60 Huevi very gravelly loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.32 0.14 0 61 Huevi very gravelly loam 10 to 40 percent slopes 0.33 0.15 0 62 Akela-Rock outcrop complex 20 to 60 percent slopes 0.54 0.28 20 63 Hyder-Rock outcrop-Rubble land complex 40 to 70 percent slopes 0.30 0.13 40 64 Indio silt loam 0 to 1 percent slopes 0.16 0.05 0 65 Ireteba family-Arizo complex 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.77 0.41 0 August 24, 2009 D-73 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.9 AZ627 Mohave County Southern Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 66 Kinley gravelly loamy sand 15 to 35 percent slopes 0.94 0.50 0 67 Kinley-Poachie complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.30 0.11 0 68 Kofa silty clay 0 to 1 percent slopes 0.06 0.01 0 69 Dudleyville-Vinton-Riverwash complex 1 to 3 percent slopes 1.40 0.91 0 70 Dudleyville-Vinton-Riverwash complex dry 1 to 3 percent slopes 1.40 0.91 0 71 Lagunita sand 0 to 1 percent slopes 2.00 1.91 0 72 Lagunita-Ripley complex 0 to 3 percent slopes 0.91 0.61 0 73 Lampshire-Rock outcrop complex 20 to 60 percent slopes 0.72 0.40 20 74 Lampshire-Rock outcrop complex cool 30 to 70 percent slopes 0.45 0.23 20 75 Lampshire-Rock outcrop complex 15 to 60 percent slopes stony 0.42 0.22 40 76 Lostman gravelly sandy loam moist 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.62 0.32 0 77 Lostman sandy loam dry 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.88 0.47 0 78 Lostman-Kinley complex 1 to 7 percent slopes 0.81 0.43 0 79 Marshes 0.01 0.01 100 80 Meloland very fine sandy loam 0 to 1 percent slopes 0.75 0.38 0 81 Mohon-Kinley complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.21 0.07 0 82 Mohon-Poachie complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.18 0.05 0 83 Mohon-Poachie complex dry 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.18 0.05 0 84 Nickel-Topawa-Eba families complex 10 to 50 percent slopes 0.31 0.22 0 85 Orwash family sandy loam 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.85 0.45 0 86 Orwash family sandy loam dry 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.85 0.45 0 87 Penthouse-Gonzales complex 5 to 35 percent slopes 0.08 0.02 0 88 Poachie very gravelly loam 1 to 4 percent slopes 0.23 0.09 0 D-74 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.9 AZ627 Mohave County Southern Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 89 Poachie very gravelly loam dry 1 to 4 percent slopes 0.23 0.09 0 90 Quilotosa-Rock outcrop complex 20 to 60 percent slopes 0.53 0.27 20 91 Razorback extremely gravelly sandy loam 15 to 35 percent slopes 0.53 0.27 0 92 Razorback-Rock outcrop complex 1 to 25 percent slopes 0.30 0.13 20 93 Razorback-Rock outcrop complex 15 to 70 percent slopes 0.30 0.13 20 94 Razorback-Rock outcrop complex dry 15 to 70 percent slopes 0.30 0.13 20 95 Razorback-Rock outcrop-Rubble land complex 40 to 70 percent slopes 0.30 0.13 40 96 Razorback-Rock outcrop-Rubble land complex dry 40 to 70 percent slopes 0.30 0.13 40 97 Rillino gravelly loamy sand 15 to 35 percent slopes 0.21 0.08 0 98 Rillino-Tres Hermanos complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.14 0.05 0 99 Ripley silt loam 0 to 1 percent slopes 0.18 0.05 0 100 Riverbend family very cobbly sandy loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.58 0.30 0 101 Riverbend very cobbly sandy loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.54 0.27 0 102 Riverwash-Fluvaquents association 0 to 3 percent slopes 2.00 1.99 0 103 Rock outcrop-Hyder complex 35 to 65 percent slopes 0.30 0.13 45 104 Rock outcrop-Razorback complex 20 to 70 percent slopes 0.30 0.13 65 105 Rock outcrop-Sunrock complex 35 to 65 percent slopes 0.52 0.27 45 106 Romero-Chiricahua-Rock outcrop complex 5 to 35 percent slopes 0.04 0.02 20 107 Romero-Lampshire-Rock outcrop complex 35 to 70 percent slopes 0.18 0.07 15 August 24, 2009 D-75 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.9 AZ627 Mohave County Southern Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 108 Rositas family superstition and torriorthents soils 1 to 60 percent slopes 1.79 1.43 0 109 Rositas superstition family and torriorthents soils 1 to 60 percent slopes 1.82 1.56 0 110 Stagecoach very gravelly loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.33 0.15 0 111 Stagecoach very gravelly loam 10 to 40 percent slopes 0.33 0.15 0 112 Stagecoach very gravelly sandy loam 5 to 35 percent slopes 0.42 0.19 0 113 Stagecoach very gravelly sandy loam dry 5 to 35 percent slopes 0.42 0.19 0 114 Stagecoach-Topawa family-Eba complex 10 to 50 percent slopes 0.09 0.05 0 115 Stagecoach-Topawa family-Eba complex dry 10 to 50 percent slopes 0.09 0.05 0 116 Sunrock extremely gravelly sandy loam 15 to 35 percent slopes 0.49 0.25 0 117 Sunrock-Rock outcrop complex 30 to 65 percent slopes 0.49 0.25 20 118 Tombstone-Caralampi-Eloma complex 10 to 50 percent slopes 0.46 0.23 0 119 Torriorthents 35 to 65 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 0 120 Torriorthents dry 35 to 65 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 0 121 Tumarion very cobbly loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.12 0.04 0 122 Tumarion very cobbly loam dry 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.13 0.04 0 123 Tyro extremely stony sandy loam 3 to 35 percent slopes 0.51 0.26 0 124 Tyro very stony loam 2 to 10 percent slopes 0.30 0.13 0 125 Vekol family gravelly loamy sand 2 to 7 percent slopes 1.53 0.92 0 126 Vekol family gravelly loamy sand dry 2 to 7 percent slopes 1.53 0.92 0 127 Water 0.01 0.01 100 128 Whitehills very gravelly loam 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.22 0.09 0 D-76 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.9 AZ627 Mohave County Southern Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 129 Whitehills very gravelly loam dry 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.22 0.09 0 130 White House family very gravelly loamy sand 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.11 0.04 0 131 White House gravelly loamy sand 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.20 0.07 0 132 Wikieup-Mutang-Rock outcrop complex 5 to 35 percent slopes 0.55 0.29 20 133 Mutang-Wikieup-Rock outcrop complex 3 to 30 percent slopes 0.39 0.17 15 134 Wikieup-Rock outcrop complex dry 20 to 60 percent slopes 0.57 0.29 25 135 Yahana family silty clay loam 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.11 0.03 0 136 Tumarion-Nickel family complex 8 to 35 percent slopes 0.32 0.14 0 137 Valena-Rock outcrop-Carri family complex 1 to 25 percent slopes 0.54 0.26 20 138 Nodman-Rock outcrop complex 15 to 65 percent slopes 0.09 0.02 20 139 Nodman-Romero family complex 15 to 65 percent slopes 0.43 0.21 0 August 24, 2009 D-77 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Page Intentionally Left Blank D-78 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses D.3.4 AZ629 Table D.10 AZ629 Coconino County Area North Kaibab Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr Natural RTIMP, % SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1 Aneth fine sand 2 to 16 percent slopes 1.83 1.10 0 2 Arches-Pensom complex 4 to 12 percent slopes 2.00 1.94 0 3 Arches-Pensom complex cool 4 to 12 percent slopes 2.00 1.95 0 4 Barx gravelly loam 1 to 6 percent slopes 0.35 0.15 0 5 Barx-Pensom complex 1 to 6 percent slopes 1.07 0.66 0 6 Bidonia-Rock outcrop complex 1 to 15 percent slopes 0.43 0.20 15 7 Bison-Curob complex 2 to 6 percent slopes 0.27 0.11 0 8 Clayhole silty clay loam 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.08 0.02 0 9 Clayhole-Torriorthents complex 2 to 25 percent slopes 0.53 0.24 0 10 Curhollow-Mellenthin complex 2 to 12 percent slopes 0.24 0.11 0 11 Curob loamy sand 2 to 10 percent slopes 2.00 1.37 0 12 Curob very gravelly loam 2 to 12 percent slopes 0.21 0.08 0 13 Disterheff very gravelly loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.28 0.13 0 14 Disterheff-Houserock complex 3 to 15 percent slopes 0.43 0.20 0 15 Doak fine sandy loam 1 to 6 percent slopes 0.11 0.03 0 16 Glenyon silty clay loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.06 0.01 0 17 Houserock-Disterheff complex 3 to 15 percent slopes 0.40 0.18 0 18 Jocity clay loam 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.07 0.01 0 19 Jocity silty clay loam 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.07 0.01 0 20 Keeseha loam 1 to 6 percent slopes 0.03 0.01 0 21 Kinan-Pennell complex 4 to 15 percent slopes 0.57 0.28 0 22 Kinan-Pennell complex dry 4 to 15 percent slopes 0.57 0.28 0 23 Klondike sandy clay loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.16 0.05 0 24 Manikan silty clay loam 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.09 0.03 0 25 Mellenthin very gravelly loam 1 to 25 percent slopes 0.24 0.11 0 August 24, 2009 D-79 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.10 AZ629 Coconino County Area North Kaibab Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr Natural RTIMP, % SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 26 Mellenthin very gravelly loam 30 to 60 percent slopes 0.24 0.11 0 27 Monierco clay loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.05 0.01 0 28 Monue sandy loam 1 to 6 percent slopes 0.86 0.45 0 29 Monue-Seeg complex 1 to 6 percent slopes 0.81 0.42 0 30 Needle-Rock outcrop complex 4 to 15 percent slopes 2.00 1.43 15 31 Needle-Sheppard complex 2 to 12 percent slopes 2.00 1.56 0 32 Pagina loamy sand 1 to 3 percent slopes 1.87 1.13 0 33 Pagina-Wahweap complex 3 to 16 percent slopes 1.83 1.10 0 34 Pennell cobbly loam 3 to 10 percent slopes 0.28 0.11 0 35 Pennell gravelly sandy loam 20 to 45 percent slopes 0.53 0.25 0 36 Pennell sandy loam 20 to 45 percent slopes 0.83 0.43 0 37 Pensom fine sand 2 to 16 percent slopes 2.00 1.89 0 38 Pensom-Arches complex 4 to 12 percent slopes 2.00 1.34 0 39 Pensom-Arches complex moist 4 to 16 percent slopes 2.00 1.34 0 40 Pits borrow 0.03 0.01 0 41 Rock outcrop 0.01 0.01 85 42 Rock outcrop-Needle complex 4 to 50 percent slopes 2.00 1.43 55 43 Rock outcrop-Torriorthents complex warm 25 to 65 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 65 44 Sheppard loamy fine sand 1 to 5 percent slopes 2.00 1.85 0 45 Sheppard loamy fine sand 5 to 15 percent slopes 2.00 1.85 0 46 Strych loam 1 to 4 percent slopes 0.24 0.11 0 47 Torriorthents 3 to 50 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 0 48 Torriorthents-Rock outcrop complex 25 to 65 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 30 49 Wahweap loamy sand 0 to 5 percent slopes 1.70 1.02 0 50 Wahweap-Rock outcrop complex 1 to 15 percent slopes 0.76 0.40 35 51 Yumtheska very gravelly loam 4 to 30 percent slopes 0.27 0.13 0 D-80 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.10 AZ629 Coconino County Area North Kaibab Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr Natural RTIMP, % SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 52 Yumtheska-Houserock association 4 to 20 percent slopes 0.31 0.15 0 53 Water 0.01 0.01 100 August 24, 2009 D-81 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Page Intentionally Left Blank D-82 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses D.3.5 AZ631 Table D.11 AZ631 Coconino County Central Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1 Ashfork gravelly clay loam 1 to 15 percent slopes 0.07 0.01 0 2 Aut gravelly loam 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.28 0.12 0 3 Aut-Cross association moderately sloping 0.17 0.07 0 4 Aut-Lynx association gently sloping 0.22 0.08 0 5 Badland-Torriorthents complex moderately steep 0.60 0.31 0 6 Boquillas-Seligman complex 1 to 15 percent slopes 0.17 0.06 0 7 Clovis loamy sand 1 to 8 percent slopes 2.00 1.35 0 8 Cross-Apache complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.09 0.02 0 9 Daze-Deama association moderately steep 0.35 0.15 0 10 Deama gravelly loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.25 0.10 0 11 Deama stony loam 1 to 15 percent slopes 0.20 0.08 0 12 Deama-Rock outcrop complex 8 to 30 percent slopes 0.21 0.08 30 13 Deama-Toqui complex 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.41 0.19 0 14 Deama-Tovar association steep 0.17 0.06 0 15 Disterheff very gravelly sandy clay loam 1 to 15 percent slopes 0.06 0.02 0 16 Disterheff-Kopie association moderately sloping 0.39 0.18 0 17 Epikom very cindery loamy sand 0 to 5 percent slopes 1.17 0.69 0 18 Epikom complex 0 to 15 percent slopes 0.54 0.27 0 19 Epikom-Rock outcrop complex 8 to 60 percent slopes 0.54 0.27 20 20 Faraway-Rock outcrop complex 20 to 80 percent slopes 0.37 0.18 30 21 Keeseha-Poley gravelly sandy loams 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.66 0.34 0 22 Kopie-Servilleta association moderately sloping 0.16 0.05 0 23 Lava flows 0.01 0.01 100 24 Lomaki-Nalaki very cindery loams 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.14 0.05 0 August 24, 2009 D-83 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.11 AZ631 Coconino County Central Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 25 Mespun-Palma complex 1 to 8 percent slopes 1.43 0.95 0 26 Navajo clay 0 to 5 percent slopes 0.02 0.01 0 27 Palma sandy loam 0 to 5 percent slopes 0.81 0.43 0 28 Pastura gravelly loam 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.20 0.07 0 29 Paymaster-Lynx association gently sloping 0.41 0.18 0 30 Poley sandy loam 0 to 5 percent slopes 0.60 0.29 0 31 Poley gravelly loam 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.28 0.12 0 32 Poley-Lynx association gently sloping 0.22 0.08 0 33 Poley-Tusayan association gently sloping 0.28 0.12 0 34 Purgatory gravelly fine sandy loam 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.70 0.36 0 35 Quivera very gravelly loam 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.13 0.05 0 36 Riverwash 2.00 1.99 0 37 Rune silty clay loam 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.17 0.07 0 38 Rune-Disterheff association gently sloping 0.11 0.04 0 39 Servilleta fine sandy loam 1 to 8 percent slopes 0.05 0.01 0 40 Servilleta-Tusayan complex 1 to 8 percent slopes 0.18 0.05 0 41 Showlow gravelly fine sandy loam 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.04 0.01 0 42 Showlow gravelly fine sandy loam 8 to 30 percent slopes 0.04 0.01 0 43 Springerville cobbly clay 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.02 0.01 0 44 Springerville very stony clay 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.02 0.01 0 45 Tajo-Springerville complex 0 to 15 percent slopes 0.07 0.03 0 46 Tenorio very gravelly sandy loam 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.99 0.58 0 47 Thunderbird-Cabezon complex 2 to 30 percent slopes 0.04 0.01 0 48 Thunderbird-Rock outcrop complex 30 to 60 percent slopes 0.04 0.01 30 49 Thunderbird-Springerville association strongly sloping 0.03 0.01 0 50 Torrifluvents saline 2.00 1.99 0 D-84 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.11 AZ631 Coconino County Central Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 51 Tours silty clay loam 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.06 0.01 0 52 Tours-Ives association gently sloping 0.87 0.45 0 53 Tovar complex 2 to 25 percent slopes 0.31 0.13 0 54 Tovar complex 25 to 60 percent slopes 0.27 0.12 0 55 Tusayan-Lynx association gently sloping 0.20 0.07 0 56 Tuweep very gravelly loam 0 to 15 percent slopes 0.14 0.05 0 57 Valle gravelly silt loam 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.25 0.11 0 58 Wilaha cindery loam 2 to 30 percent slopes 0.21 0.08 0 59 Wilaha-Wukoki association steep 0.20 0.08 0 60 Winona gravelly loam 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.15 0.05 0 61 Winona stony loam 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.15 0.05 0 62 Winona-Boysag gravelly loams 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.22 0.08 0 63 Winona-Epikom association gently sloping 0.30 0.12 0 64 Winona-Rock outcrop complex 15 to 30 percent slopes 0.15 0.05 30 65 Winona-Rock outcrop complex 30 to 70 percent slopes 0.15 0.05 30 66 Winona-Tusayan association gently sloping 0.33 0.13 0 67 Wukoki-Rock outcrop complex 5 to 25 percent slopes 0.17 0.07 25 68 Wukoki-Wupatki very cindery loams 15 to 60 percent slopes 0.17 0.07 0 69 Wupatki-Wukoki very cindery loams 0 to 15 percent slopes 0.17 0.07 0 70 Ziegler gravelly loam 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.46 0.22 0 71 Ziegler-Cross association moderately sloping 0.26 0.10 0 72 Ziegler-Wilaha association strongly sloping 0.37 0.17 0 73 Water 0.01 0.01 100 August 24, 2009 D-85 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Page Intentionally Left Blank D-86 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses D.3.6 AZ637 Table D.12 AZ637 Yavapai County Western Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr Natural RTIMP, % SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) AaB Abra gravelly sandy loam 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.55 0.27 0 AbB Abra-Lonti loams 0 to 5 percent slopes 0.39 0.18 0 AeB Abra-Poley loams 0 to 5 percent slopes 0.22 0.08 0 AlC Abra-Balon association rolling 0.22 0.08 0 AlD Abra-Balon association hilly 0.23 0.09 0 AmC Abra-Lynx association rolling 0.31 0.13 0 AnC Abra-Wineg association rolling 0.25 0.10 0 AoC Anthony gravelly loamy sand 8 to 15 percent slopes 0.46 0.22 0 ApB Anthony gravelly sandy loam 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.46 0.22 0 ArA Anthony-Mohave sandy loams 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.57 0.28 0 As Apache gravelly loam 0.20 0.08 0 At Apache very stony loam 0.18 0.07 0 AuC Arp gravelly clay loam 0 to 20 percent slopes 0.03 0.01 0 AvD Arp cobbly clay loam 10 to 25 percent slopes 0.03 0.01 0 AwE Arp very rocky clay loam 20 to 40 percent slopes 0.03 0.01 20 AxD Arp-Moano complex 0 to 30 percent slopes 0.07 0.03 0 AyC Arp-Lynx association rolling 0.07 0.02 0 Badland 0.42 0.20 0 BdC Balon sandy loam 0 to 15 percent slopes 0.59 0.29 0 BgD Balon gravelly sandy clay loam 5 to 30 percent slopes 0.16 0.05 0 BlC Balon-Lynx association rolling 0.15 0.05 0 BmF Barkerville cobbly sandy loam 20 to 60 percent slopes 0.84 0.46 0 BnD Barkerville very stony sandy loam 5 to 25 percent slopes 0.39 0.19 0 BoF Barkerville extremely rocky sandy loam 20 to 60 percent slopes 0.84 0.46 20 BrD Bridge gravelly loam 0 to 25 percent slopes 0.20 0.08 0 Ba August 24, 2009 D-87 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.12 AZ637 Yavapai County Western Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr Natural RTIMP, % SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) BsC Brolliar very stony silt loam 0 to 15 percent slopes 0.46 0.27 0 BsD Brolliar very stony silt loam 15 to 30 percent slopes 0.46 0.27 0 CaD Cabezon-Springerville complex 5 to 25 percent slopes 0.03 0.01 0 CbC Cabezon-Springerville cobbly complex 5 to 15 percent slopes 0.03 0.01 0 CdC Cabezon-Thunderbird complex 5 to 15 percent slopes 0.03 0.01 0 CeE Cabezon soils 8 to 45 percent slopes 0.03 0.01 0 CgC Cave gravelly sandy loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.83 0.45 0 ClD Cave-Continental gravelly sandy loams 2 to 30 percent slopes 0.71 0.37 0 CmD Cellar very gravelly sandy loam 8 to 30 percent slopes 0.16 0.06 0 CnC Cellar very rocky sandy loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.16 0.06 20 CnF Cellar very rocky sandy loam 15 to 60 percent slopes 0.16 0.06 20 CoD Cellar-Chiricahua complex 8 to 30 percent slopes 0.26 0.11 0 CrF Cellar soils 20 to 60 percent slopes 0.16 0.06 0 CsC Continental gravelly sandy loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.55 0.27 0 CtD Continental-Cave gravelly sandy loams 8 to 30 percent slopes 0.64 0.33 0 CuC Continental-Whitlock gravelly sandy loams 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.61 0.31 0 CvB Continental-Loamy alluvial land association sloping 0.50 0.24 0 CwD Continental soils 3 to 30 percent slopes 0.77 0.42 0 Cx Cordes sandy loam 0.86 0.49 0 Cy Cordes fine sandy loam red variant 0.89 0.51 0 CzC Cross Cabezon and Apache soils 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.08 0.03 0 DaF Dandrea gravelly loam 20 to 60 percent slopes 0.30 0.13 0 D-88 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.12 AZ637 Yavapai County Western Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr Natural RTIMP, % SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) DgC Dye gravelly loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.05 0.01 0 DrC Dye very rocky loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.05 0.01 20 FaC Faraway very rocky loam 0 to 15 percent slopes 0.24 0.10 25 FlE Faraway-Luzena complex 20 to 40 percent slopes 0.27 0.12 0 FlF Faraway-Luzena complex 40-60 percent slopes 0.28 0.12 0 Gaddes gravelly sandy loam 3 to 25 percent slopes 0.12 0.04 0 Go Gila soils 0.73 0.37 0 GrB Graham-Rimrock complex 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.06 0.02 0 GsE Graham soils 8 to 45 percent slopes 0.04 0.01 0 HgB Hogg gravelly loam 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.31 0.14 0 HgD Hogg gravelly loam 8 to 30 percent slopes 0.31 0.14 0 HmE House Mountain soils 15-40 percent slopes 0.14 0.05 0 JaC Jacks very rocky loam 3 to 15 percent slopes 0.03 0.01 20 JaD Jacks very rocky loam 15 to 30 percent slopes 0.03 0.01 20 GdD La Latene gravelly sandy loam 0.75 0.38 0 Lc Latene-Mohave complex 0.78 0.40 0 Le Lehmans gravelly clay loam 8 to 45 percent slopes 0.02 0.01 0 Lh Lehmans extremely rocky clay loam 8 to 60 percent slopes 0.02 0.01 40 LkD Lonti gravelly sandy loam 15 to 30 percent slopes 0.81 0.44 0 LlC Lonti gravelly sandy loam high rainfall 0 to 15 percent slopes 0.81 0.44 0 LlD Lonti gravelly sandy loam high rainfall 15 to 30 percent slopes 0.81 0.44 0 LmB Lonti gravelly loam 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.28 0.12 0 LnC Lonti cobbly loam 0 to 15 percent slopes 0.22 0.08 0 LnF Lonti cobbly loam 30 to 60 percent slopes 0.22 0.08 0 LoD Lonti complex 2 to 30 percent slopes 0.22 0.08 0 LpB Lonti-Abra gravelly sandy loams 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.69 0.36 0 LrD Lonti-Abra complex 8 to 30 percent slopes 0.37 0.17 0 August 24, 2009 D-89 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.12 AZ637 Yavapai County Western Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr Natural RTIMP, % SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) LsC Lonti-Pastura complex 0 to 20 percent slopes 0.24 0.09 0 LtB Lonti-Cordes association undulating 0.83 0.46 0 LuC Lonti-Wineg complex 3 to 15 percent slopes 0.46 0.22 0 LvE Lonti-Rock land association hilly 0.28 0.12 35 LwD Luzena cobbly loam 0 to 30 percent slopes 0.20 0.07 0 LxD Luzena very rocky loam 10 to 30 percent slopes 0.16 0.06 25 Ly Lynx soils 0.10 0.03 0 Ly2 Lynx soils eroded 0.10 0.03 0 Lz Lynx soils wet variant 0.10 0.03 0 MbC Mirabal gravelly sandy loam 8 to 20 percent slopes 0.70 0.37 0 MbF Mirabal gravelly sandy loam 20 to 60 percent slopes 0.70 0.37 0 MdF Mirabal-Dandrea complex 20 to 60 percent slopes 0.42 0.19 0 MgD Moano gravelly loam 0 to 30 percent slopes 0.26 0.11 0 MkF Moano very rocky loam 15 to 60 percent slopes 0.26 0.11 20 MoD Moano extremely rocky loam 15 to 30 percent slopes 0.26 0.11 30 MrC Moano-Lynx association rolling 0.28 0.12 0 MsB Moenkopie association undulating 0.90 0.49 0 Mohave sandy loam 0.84 0.44 0 PaB Palma sandy loam 1 to 8 percent slopes 0.86 0.45 0 PcE Palos Verdes gravelly sandy loam 8 to 40 percent slopes 0.08 0.02 0 Pd Partri loam 0.04 0.01 0 Pe Partri gravelly clay loam 0.04 0.01 0 Pf Partri-Abra loams 0.09 0.03 0 PgB Pastura gravelly loam 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.18 0.06 0 PhD Pastura complex 1 to 30 percent slopes 0.18 0.06 0 PlB Pastura-Poley complex 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.14 0.04 0 PmB Pastura-Lynx association undulating 0.22 0.08 0 PnB Pastura-Rune association undulating 0.25 0.10 0 Poley gravelly sandy loam 0.10 0.02 0 Mt Po D-90 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.12 AZ637 Yavapai County Western Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr Natural RTIMP, % SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Pp Poley-Partri loams 0.07 0.02 0 PrC Purner gravelly loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.26 0.11 0 PsC Purner very stony loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.23 0.09 0 PsD Purner very stony loam 15 to 20 percent slopes 0.23 0.09 0 PuC Purner-Boysag complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.12 0.04 0 PvD Purner and Dye soils 2 to 30 percent slopes 0.14 0.04 0 PwD Purner and Moenkopie soils 8 to 30 percent slopes 0.36 0.16 0 ReD Retriever gravelly loam 2 to 30 percent slopes 0.22 0.08 0 Rk Rimrock cobbly clay 0.01 0.01 0 Rm Rimrock-Cave complex 0.04 0.04 0 Rn Rimrock-Graham complex 3 to 15 percent slopes 0.02 0.01 0 Ro Rock land 0.01 0.01 90 Rr Rock land low rainfall 0.01 0.01 90 Rs Rough broken land 0.01 0.01 95 Rt Rune loam 0.49 0.25 0 Sa Sandy and Gravelly alluvial land 1.34 0.80 0 ShB Showlow gravelly sandy loam 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.66 0.35 0 SlB Springerville cobbly clay 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.03 0.01 0 SmB Springerville very stony clay 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.02 0.01 0 SnD Springerville-Cabezon complex 3 to 30 percent slopes 0.03 0.01 0 SpB Springerville-Pastura complex 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.05 0.02 0 StB Springerville-Thunderbird complex 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.02 0.01 0 SuB Springerville-Lonti association undulating 0.08 0.03 0 TaB Tajo gravelly loam 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.21 0.08 0 TcC Tajo-Springerville complex 0 to 15 percent slopes 0.10 0.04 0 TdC Thunderbird cobbly clay loam 0 to 15 percent slopes 0.03 0.01 0 August 24, 2009 D-91 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.12 AZ637 Yavapai County Western Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr Natural RTIMP, % SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) TdE Thunderbird cobbly clay loam 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.03 0.01 0 ThC Thunderbird-Cabezon complex 0 to 15 percent slopes 0.03 0.01 0 TlB Tortugas gravelly loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.30 0.13 0 TmD Tortugas very rocky loam 8 to 30 percent slopes 0.21 0.09 20 TnF Tortugas extremely rocky loam 15 to 60 percent slopes 0.33 0.16 30 Tours loam 0.11 0.03 0 TwC Tres Hermanos-Whitlock gravelly sandy loams 0 to 15 percent slopes 0.34 0.14 0 Vm Vekol-Mohave complex 0.36 0.14 0 VnD Venezia cobbly loam 0 to 30 percent slopes 0.45 0.23 0 VrF Venezia very stony loam 30 to 60 percent slopes 0.39 0.20 0 VsC Venezia-Springerville complex 0 to 20 percent slopes 0.16 0.07 0 VtC Venezia-Thunderbird complex 5 to 15 percent slopes 0.17 0.07 0 VtE Venezia-Thunderbird complex 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.17 0.07 0 Water 0.01 0.01 100 WcC Waldroup-Cabezon association hilly 0.08 0.02 0 WgC Whitlock gravelly sandy loam 0 to 15 percent slopes 0.72 0.38 0 WhC Whitlock-Anthony gravelly sandy loams 0 to 15 percent slopes 0.62 0.32 0 WlF Wilcoxson gravelly loam 30 to 60 percent slopes 0.20 0.08 0 Wm Wineg sandy loam 0.20 0.08 0 Wn Wineg-Abra complex 0.23 0.09 0 Wo Wineg-Lynx association 0.24 0.10 0 Wp Wineg and Poley soils 0.14 0.04 0 To W D-92 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses D.3.7 AZ697 Table D.13 AZ697 Mohave County Central Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr Natural RTIMP, % SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1 Alko family cobbly loam 0 to 25 percent slopes 0.41 0.18 0 2 Alko family gravelly sandy loam 1 to 15 percent slopes 0.41 0.19 0 3 Appleseed-Huevi association 4 to 30 percent slopes 0.39 0.18 0 4 Aridic Argiustolls-Lithic Haplustolls complex 1 to 40 percent slopes 0.43 0.21 0 5 Arizo-Detrital-Nickel complex 2 to 6 percent slopes 0.80 0.43 0 6 Arizo-Franconia-Riverwash complex 1 to 3 percent slopes 1.03 0.63 0 7 Arizo-Riverwash complex 0 to 1 percent slopes 1.59 1.14 0 8 Arizo-Riverwash complex 1 to 4 percent slopes 2.00 1.51 0 9 Arizo-Riverwash complex dry 0 to 1 percent slopes 2.00 1.51 0 10 Arizo-Riverwash complex moist 1 to 3 percent slopes 2.00 1.81 0 11 Azure-Detrital-Antares complex 5 to 30 percent slopes 0.44 0.22 0 12 Birdsbeak very channery loam 10 to 35 percent slopes 0.07 0.02 0 13 Bluebird-Detrital complex 2 to 15 percent slopes very stony 0.40 0.19 0 14 Bluebird-Lostman complex 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.35 0.16 0 15 Carrizo complex 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.40 0.19 0 16 Carrizo-Riverwash complex 0 to 1 percent slopes 1.03 0.62 0 17 Carrizo-Riverwash complex 3 to 8 percent slopes 1.21 0.76 0 18 Chuckawalla-Riverbend complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.23 0.09 0 19 Circular complex 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.48 0.21 0 20 Circular-Dusty complex 0 to 4 percent slopes 0.67 0.33 0 21 Cod gravelly sandy loam 2 to 6 percent slopes 0.57 0.28 0 August 24, 2009 D-93 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.13 AZ697 Mohave County Central Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr Natural RTIMP, % SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 22 Cordes-Manikan-Riverwash complex 1 to 6 percent slopes 1.03 0.59 0 23 Cupel-Rock outcrop complex 35 to 65 percent slopes 0.20 0.08 20 24 Cyclopic very stony loam 3 to 8 percent slopes 0.07 0.02 0 25 Deluge-Gotchell-Sunstroke complex 3 to 7 percent slopes 0.15 0.05 0 26 Detrital-Bluebird complex 2 to 12 percent slopes 0.32 0.14 0 27 Detrital-Nealy complex 1 to 6 percent slopes 0.40 0.17 0 28 Detrital-Nickel complex dry 1 to 6 percent slopes 0.58 0.29 0 29 Detrital-Nickel family complex 1 to 4 percent slopes 0.72 0.37 0 30 Detrital-Skelon family complex 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.42 0.20 0 31 Dusty-Kurstan family complex 1 to 6 percent slopes 0.39 0.16 0 32 Dutchflat sandy loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.93 0.50 0 33 Dye-Tovar-Rock outcrop complex 6 to 25 percent slopes 0.08 0.02 15 34 Faraway-Rock outcrop complex 30 to 70 percent slopes 0.41 0.21 20 35 Fig-Blind-Nodman complex 30 to 70 percent slopes 0.43 0.21 0 36 Filaree gravelly sandy loam 2 to 6 percent slopes 1.26 0.73 0 37 Filaree-Dutchflat complex 2 to 6 percent slopes 1.13 0.64 0 38 Garnet-Dutchflat complex 2 to 6 percent slopes 0.75 0.38 0 39 Goesling family silt loam 3 to 8 percent slopes 0.19 0.06 0 40 Goldroad-Rock outcrop complex 15 to 35 percent slopes 0.46 0.23 10 41 Goldroad-Rock outcrop complex 35 to 65 percent slopes 0.46 0.23 20 42 Gonzales-Rock outcrop complex 15 to 35 percent slopes 0.03 0.01 25 43 Goodsprings family gravelly sandy loam 10 to 35 percent slopes 0.50 0.23 0 D-94 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.13 AZ697 Mohave County Central Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr Natural RTIMP, % SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 44 Gotchell-Sunstroke complex 6 to 35 percent slopes 0.32 0.15 0 45 Graham-Arivaca complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.09 0.03 0 46 Graham-Rock outcrop complex 10 to 40 percent slopes 0.13 0.04 20 47 Grandwash extremely flaggy sandy loam 2 to 25 percent slopes 0.02 0.01 0 48 Greyeagle family extremely gravelly coarse sandy loam 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.26 0.11 0 49 Greyeagle family extremely gravelly sandy loam 35 to 60 percent slopes 0.53 0.27 0 50 Greyeagle family-Cyclopic complex 3 to 12 percent slopes 0.30 0.11 0 51 Greyeagle-Skelon families complex 2 to 12 percent slopes 0.32 0.14 0 52 Greyeagle-Skelon families complex moist 4 to 25 percent slopes 0.54 0.28 0 53 Gypsids 3 to 50 percent slopes 0.31 0.14 0 54 Haplogypsids eroded-Haplogypsids complex 35 to 75 percent slopes 0.31 0.14 0 55 Hassell family-Lampshire-Rock outcrop complex 10 to 30 percent slopes 0.45 0.22 20 56 Hindu-Rock outcrop complex 5 to 45 percent slopes 0.19 0.07 20 57 Hooks-Courtland families complex 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.94 0.50 0 58 Hosta family sandy loam 1 to 8 percent slopes 1.09 0.63 0 59 House Mountain family-Calvista family-Rock outcrop complex 10 to 35 percent slopes 0.31 0.13 20 60 Huevi extremely cobbly sandy loam 2 to 6 percent slopes 0.38 0.18 0 61 Huevi very gravelly loam 10 to 40 percent slopes 0.33 0.15 0 62 Huevi very gravelly sandy loam 15 to 35 percent slopes 0.46 0.23 0 63 Huevi-Carrizo complex 1 to 25 percent slopes 0.23 0.09 0 64 Huevi-Carrwash complex 2 to 75 percent slopes 0.71 0.40 0 August 24, 2009 D-95 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.13 AZ697 Mohave County Central Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr Natural RTIMP, % SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 65 Huevi-Sunrock-Rock outcrop complex 20 to 70 percent slopes 0.34 0.15 10 66 Hulda extremely gravelly sandy loam 20 to 65 percent slopes 0.60 0.32 0 67 Hulda-Rock outcrop complex 20 to 65 percent slopes 0.55 0.28 20 68 Hulda-Rock outcrop complex moist 35 to 70 percent slopes 0.76 0.40 35 69 Ireteba family-Arizo complex 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.77 0.41 0 70 Jagerson very gravelly loam 0 to 4 percent slopes 0.29 0.12 0 71 Jagerson-Nealy complex 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.16 0.05 0 72 Kingtut-Promontory complex 3 to 12 percent slopes 0.15 0.05 0 73 Kinley gravelly loamy sand 15 to 35 percent slopes 0.94 0.50 0 74 Kurstan family-Dusty complex 2 to 6 percent slopes 0.58 0.27 0 75 Lampshire-Rock outcrop complex 20 to 60 percent slopes 0.72 0.40 20 76 Lostman gravelly sandy loam moist 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.62 0.32 0 77 Lostman sandy loam 1 to 4 percent slopes 0.97 0.55 0 78 Luzena-Thunderbird complex 3 to 20 percent slopes 0.06 0.02 0 79 Lykorly gravelly loam 1 to 4 percent slopes 0.25 0.09 0 80 Lykorly silt loam moist 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.51 0.25 0 81 Manikan-Nuffel complex 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.57 0.27 0 82 Mathis family-Riverwash complex 1 to 4 percent slopes 0.89 0.60 0 83 Mayswell-Rock outcrop complex 5 to 40 percent slopes 0.08 0.02 15 84 Meadview extremely gravelly sandy loam 5 to 40 percent slopes 0.39 0.19 0 85 Meadview-Yurm family complex 4 to 25 percent slopes 0.39 0.18 0 D-96 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.13 AZ697 Mohave County Central Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr Natural RTIMP, % SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 86 Meriwhitica-Rock outcrop complex 5 to 35 percent slopes 0.69 0.38 15 87 Mextank very gravelly sandy loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.24 0.10 0 88 Milkweed-Quartermaster-Buckndoe complex 2 to 20 percent slopes 0.22 0.09 0 89 Milok-Pastern complex 4 to 12 percent slopes 0.49 0.23 0 90 Mutang-Dutchflat complex 0 to 3 percent slopes 0.55 0.25 0 91 Mutang-Wikieup-Rock outcrop complex 3 to 30 percent slopes 0.33 0.14 15 92 Nealy-Shamock family complex 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.43 0.19 0 93 Nealy-Skelon family-Detrital complex 3 to 10 percent slopes 0.53 0.26 0 94 Nickel family-Bluebird complex 15 to 45 percent slopes 0.19 0.08 0 95 Nickel-Skelon family-Detrital complex 3 to 10 percent slopes 0.51 0.25 0 96 Nickel-Topawa-Eba families complex 10 to 50 percent slopes 0.31 0.22 0 97 Nodman-Antares complex 3 to 15 percent slopes 0.17 0.06 0 98 Nodman-Courtland family complex 2 to 20 percent slopes 0.21 0.08 0 99 Nodman-Rock outcrop complex 15 to 65 percent slopes 0.09 0.02 20 100 Nodman-Romero family complex 15 to 65 percent slopes 0.43 0.21 0 101 Nolam family-Ustalfic Petrocalcids-Caralampi family complex 1 to 15 percent slopes 0.07 0.02 0 102 Ohaco family-Bluebird complex 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.40 0.18 0 103 Orejano gravelly sandy loam 4 to 35 percent slopes 0.06 0.02 0 104 Pantak family-Taine-Terino family complex 15 to 65 percent slopes 0.06 0.02 0 105 Pastern-Strych complex 4 to 20 percent slopes 0.24 0.10 0 August 24, 2009 D-97 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.13 AZ697 Mohave County Central Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr Natural RTIMP, % SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 106 Peachsprings-Havasupai complex 2 to 35 percent slopes 0.49 0.26 0 107 Pearce extremely stony loam 4 to 15 percent slopes 0.20 0.08 0 108 Pearce-Detrital-Rock outcrop complex 20 to 75 percent slopes 0.24 0.10 10 109 Pearce-Rock outcrop complex 5 to 65 percent slopes 0.19 0.07 15 110 Pedregosa-Tombstone families complex 1 to 15 percent slopes 0.55 0.28 0 111 Pidineen-Tricon families complex 2 to 10 percent slopes 0.49 0.22 0 112 Pits-Dumps complex 0.03 0.01 0 113 Playa 0.16 0.06 0 114 Prieta-Rock outcrop complex 2 to 35 percent slopes 0.08 0.02 15 115 Quagwa silt loam 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.32 0.13 0 116 Razorback extremely gravelly sandy loam 15 to 35 percent slopes 0.53 0.27 0 117 Razorback-Rock outcrop complex 15 to 70 percent slopes 0.30 0.13 20 118 Razorback-Rock outcrop complex 20 to 70 percent slopes 0.23 0.09 30 119 Rift silt loam 0 to 1 percent slopes frequently flooded 0.09 0.02 0 120 Rift silty clay loam 0 to 1 percent slopes 0.07 0.02 0 121 Rillino family-Shamock family-Dutchflat complex 1 to 4 percent slopes 0.86 0.45 0 122 Rock outcrop-Appleseed complex 35 to 75 percent slopes 0.53 0.28 50 123 Rock outcrop-Pearce complex 35 to 75 percent slopes 0.37 0.17 55 124 Rock outcrop-Razorback complex 20 to 70 percent slopes 0.30 0.13 65 125 Rock outcrop-Torriorthents complex 35 to 75 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 50 126 Rock outcrop-Torriorthents cool complex 35 to 75 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 50 D-98 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.13 AZ697 Mohave County Central Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr Natural RTIMP, % SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 127 Rock outcrop-Valena-Kopie family complex 5 to 35 percent slopes 0.63 0.31 50 128 Rolie-Dean complex 2 to 20 percent slopes 0.17 0.06 0 129 Romero-Chiricahua-Rock outcrop complex 5 to 35 percent slopes 0.04 0.02 20 130 Romero-Lampshire-Rock outcrop complex 35 to 70 percent slopes 0.18 0.07 15 131 Rositas sand 4 to 30 percent slopes 2.00 2.00 0 132 Shortbread loamy sand 1 to 4 percent slopes 1.99 1.23 0 133 Shortbread-Kurstan family-Dusty complex 0 to 7 percent slopes 0.85 0.39 0 134 Skelon family-Greyeagle family-Detrital complex 3 to 30 percent slopes 0.53 0.26 0 135 Skelon-Pinaleno families complex 1 to 4 percent slopes 0.38 0.17 0 136 Storybook very gravelly loam 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.44 0.21 0 137 Stronghold-McAllister families complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.23 0.09 0 138 Sunrock extremely gravelly sandy loam 15 to 35 percent slopes 0.49 0.25 0 139 Sunrock-Rock outcrop complex 30 to 65 percent slopes 0.51 0.26 20 140 Superstition family-Carrwash complex 35 to 75 percent slopes 1.31 0.78 0 141 Taine extremely cobbly loam 12 to 35 percent slopes 0.05 0.01 0 142 Thimble-Rock outcrop complex 35 to 65 percent slopes 0.03 0.01 10 143 Tombstone-Caralampi-Nolam families complex 2 to 30 percent slopes 0.44 0.21 0 144 Torriorthents 25 to 75 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 0 145 Torriorthents gypsic-Haplocambids gypsic complex 3 to 15 percent slopes 0.73 0.39 0 146 Torriorthents-Rock outcrop complex 25 to 75 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 15 147 Tovar-Grandwash complex 6 to 25 percent slopes 0.05 0.01 0 August 24, 2009 D-99 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.13 AZ697 Mohave County Central Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr Natural RTIMP, % SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 148 Truxton complex 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.25 0.09 0 149 Tumarion very cobbly loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.12 0.04 0 150 Tumarion-Nickel family complex 8 to 35 percent slopes 0.32 0.14 0 151 Tumarion-Nickel family complex moist 5 to 40 percent slopes 0.32 0.15 0 152 Tyro extremely stony sandy loam 3 to 35 percent slopes 0.46 0.23 0 153 Tyro very gravelly sandy loam 3 to 30 percent slopes 0.49 0.25 0 154 Tyro-Sunrock complex 3 to 15 percent slopes 0.44 0.21 0 155 Urban land-Calvista family complex 2 to 10 percent slopes 0.73 0.37 0 156 Ustorthents-Rock outcrop complex 35 to 90 percent slopes 2.00 1.99 30 157 Valena-Carri complex 3 to 15 percent slopes 0.51 0.24 0 158 Valena-Rock outcrop-Carri family complex 1 to 25 percent slopes 0.54 0.26 20 159 Vekol family gravelly loamy sand 2 to 7 percent slopes 1.53 0.92 0 160 Vekol family loam 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.38 0.16 0 161 Vekol family-Whitehills complex 2 to 7 percent slopes 0.07 0.02 0 162 Vock-Elements-Rock outcrop complex 30 to 65 percent slopes 0.64 0.34 10 163 Vock-Elements-Rock outcrop complex cool 30 to 65 percent slopes 0.63 0.34 10 164 Water 0.01 0.01 100 165 White House gravelly loamy sand 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.20 0.07 0 166 White House family very gravelly loamy sand 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.11 0.04 0 167 Whitehills very gravelly loam 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.22 0.09 0 168 Wodomont-Kydestea complex 5 to 40 percent slopes 0.40 0.19 0 D-100 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.13 AZ697 Mohave County Central Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr Natural RTIMP, % SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 169 Wodomont-Metuck-Rock outcrop complex 25 to 45 percent slopes 0.56 0.29 15 170 Wodomont-Rock outcrop complex 5 to 40 percent slopes 0.22 0.09 20 171 Yahana family silty clay loam 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.11 0.03 0 172 Zibate family extremely gravelly sandy loam 5 to 35 percent slopes 0.05 0.01 0 173 Zibate family very stony loam 12 to 30 percent slopes 0.08 0.02 0 174 Zibate family-Dutchflat-Tumarion complex 4 to 30 percent slopes 0.21 0.07 0 August 24, 2009 D-101 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Page Intentionally Left Blank D-102 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses D.3.8 AZ699 Table D.14 AZ699 Hualapai-Havasupai Area Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1 Albers silty clay loam 0 to 3 percent slopes 0.03 0.01 0 2 Arizo-Lostman complex 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.88 0.49 0 3 Arizo-Riverwash complex 1 to 3 percent slopes 2.00 1.70 0 4 Barx fine sandy loam 1 to 6 percent slopes 0.17 0.05 0 5 Bleumont-Frazwell association 2 to 20 percent slopes 0.27 0.11 0 6 Cowan family-Tobler complex 0 to 3 percent slopes 1.60 1.07 0 7 Curhollow-Puertecito complex 1 to 12 percent slopes 0.12 0.04 0 8 Curhollow-Rolie-Meriwhitica association 1 to 35 percent slopes 0.17 0.06 0 9 Curhollow-Tenderfoot complex 1 to 8 percent slopes 0.11 0.04 0 10 Deama-Rock outcrop complex 25 to 55 percent slopes 0.16 0.06 20 11 Disterheff gravelly fine sandy loam cool 1 to 8 percent slopes 0.22 0.08 0 12 Disterheff gravelly loam 1 to 4 percent slopes 0.22 0.08 0 13 Frazwell-Jacques complex 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.07 0.02 0 14 Grandwash extremely flaggy sandy loam 2 to 25 percent slopes 0.01 0.01 0 15 Havasupai very gravelly loam 1 to 8 percent slopes 0.18 0.06 0 16 Hermshale extremely flaggy fine sandy loam 15 to 35 percent slopes 0.21 0.08 0 17 Hidvalle very fine sandy loam 1 to 6 percent slopes 0.63 0.32 0 18 Hindu-Rock outcrop complex 5 to 45 percent slopes 0.19 0.07 20 19 Lostman family-Harrisburg complex 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.55 0.26 0 20 Luzena-Thunderbird complex 3 to 20 percent slopes 0.08 0.02 0 21 Lykorly gravelly loam 1 to 4 percent slopes 0.13 0.04 0 August 24, 2009 D-103 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.14 AZ699 Hualapai-Havasupai Area Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 22 Lykorly silt loam moist 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.15 0.05 0 23 Metuck-Rock outcrop complex 15 to 60 percent slopes 0.35 0.17 30 24 Mextank-Lykorly-Disterheff complex 2 to 20 percent slopes 0.26 0.11 0 25 Milkweed-Quartermaster-Buckndoe complex 2 to 20 percent slopes 0.22 0.09 0 26 Milok-Pastern complex 4 to 12 percent slopes 0.48 0.22 0 27 Natank-Disterheff-Yumtheska complex 2 to 35 percent slopes 0.05 0.01 0 28 Nickel extremely gravelly sandy loam 2 to 35 percent slopes 0.39 0.19 0 29 Peachsprings-Havasupai complex 2 to 35 percent slopes 0.50 0.26 0 30 Pinntank fine sandy loam 1 to 8 percent slopes 0.65 0.34 0 31 Pinntank-Pocomate-Retsover complex 1 to 30 percent slopes 0.20 0.07 0 32 Plaintank-Barx complex 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.16 0.05 0 33 Pocomate-Rock outcrop complex 15 to 55 percent slopes 0.22 0.10 35 34 Poley loam 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.30 0.12 0 35 Poley-Rolie complex 1 to 8 percent slopes 0.11 0.02 0 36 Prieta-Rock outcrop complex 2 to 35 percent slopes 0.05 0.01 15 37 Quagwa silt loam 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.32 0.13 0 38 Rizno-Rock outcrop complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 1.00 0.56 25 39 Rock outcrop-Torriorthents complex 35 to 120 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 60 40 Rolie-Dean complex 2 to 20 percent slopes 0.17 0.05 0 41 Saemo extremely gravelly sandy loam 2 to 45 percent slopes 0.13 0.04 0 42 Sazi family very gravelly fine sandy loam 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.56 0.29 0 43 Courthouse-Rock outcrop complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.16 0.05 40 44 Sponiker loam 1 to 4 percent slopes 0.30 0.13 0 D-104 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.14 AZ699 Hualapai-Havasupai Area Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 45 Theecan-Pinespring association 2 to 35 percent slopes 0.19 0.07 0 46 Topocoba-Wodomont association 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.27 0.12 0 47 Dye-Tovar-Rock outcrop complex 1 to 15 percent slopes 0.29 0.12 20 48 Toqui-Yumtheska complex 2 to 30 percent slopes 0.07 0.02 0 49 Tovar extremely flaggy fine sandy loam 2 to 25 percent slopes 0.05 0.01 0 50 Tovar very fine sandy loam 1 to 10 percent slopes 0.29 0.12 0 51 Turkeytrack gravelly loam 1 to 6 percent slopes 0.24 0.10 0 52 Ustorthents-Rock outcrop complex 35 to 90 percent slopes 2.00 1.99 30 53 Winona-Curhollow complex 1 to 12 percent slopes 0.10 0.03 0 54 Winona-Rock outcrop complex 15 to 55 percent slopes 0.16 0.05 30 55 Winona-Rock outcrop-Tusayan complex 15 to 55 percent slopes 0.18 0.07 25 56 Wodomont-Coconino complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.26 0.11 0 57 Wodomont-Rock outcrop complex 5 to 40 percent slopes 0.17 0.07 20 58 Wukoki-Lomaki complex 15 to 50 percent slopes 0.12 0.04 0 59 Wyva-Rock outcrop complex 5 to 35 percent slopes 0.06 0.01 25 60 Water 0.01 0.01 100 August 24, 2009 D-105 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Page Intentionally Left Blank D-106 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses D.3.9 AZ701 Table D.15 AZ701 Grand Canyon Area Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1 Albers clay loam 0 to 1 percent slopes 0.14 0.05 0 2 Argic Petrocalcids 8 to 15 percent slopes 0.42 0.20 0 3 Argic Petrocalcids warm 2 to 30 percent slopes 0.42 0.20 0 4 Aridic Haplustalfs-Lithic Haplustalfs complex 2 to 30 percent slopes 0.24 0.10 0 5 Aridic Haplustepts 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.31 0.14 0 6 Aridic Lithic Ustorthents-Rock outcrop complex supai group cool 15 to 55 percent slopes 2.00 1.99 30 7 Arizo very gravelly sandy loam 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.60 0.31 0 8 Bilburc very gravelly loam 2 to 6 percent slopes 0.38 0.19 0 9 Binsin-Bilburc-Yumtheska complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.31 0.16 0 10 Bluepoint-Rock outcrop complex 5 to 15 percent slopes 2.00 2.00 25 11 Bobzbulz extremely gravelly sandy loam 2 to 10 percent slopes 0.41 0.20 0 12 Bobzbulz extremely gravelly sandy loam 30 to 55 percent slopes 0.25 0.09 0 13 Bobzbulz-Snapcan association 0.22 0.09 0 14 Calcic Petrocalcids 2 to 15 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 0 15 Calcic Petrocalcids-Calcic Petrocalcids moderately steep-Rock outcrop complex hermit formation 2 to 50 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 30 16 Calcic Petrocalcids-Rock outcrop complex 15 to 55 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 20 17 Calcic Petrocalcids-Typic Haplocambids complex 15 to 30 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 0 18 Carrizo complex 1 to 5 percent slopes 1.53 0.93 0 19 Carrizo-Carrizo-Riverbend association 1.86 1.61 0 20 Childers-Lava flows association 4 to 15 percent slopes 0.19 0.06 35 21 Chilton-Teesto-Puertecito families complex 15 to 55 percent slopes 0.37 0.16 0 August 24, 2009 D-107 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.15 AZ701 Grand Canyon Area Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 22 Chunkmonk-Wodomont-Houserock families complex 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.23 0.09 0 23 Chunkmonk-Wodomont-Toqui families complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.21 0.08 0 24 Cliffdown moderately steep-Cliffdown families complex 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.27 0.11 0 25 Cliffdown-Izo families complex 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.59 0.29 0 26 Curhollow-Lapoint-Mellenthin families complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.14 0.05 0 27 Curhollow-Mellenthin complex 2 to 25 percent slopes 0.19 0.07 0 28 Curhollow-Meriwhitica complex 2 to 25 percent slopes 0.18 0.06 0 29 Curhollow-Puertecito complex 1 to 12 percent slopes 0.10 0.03 0 30 Curhollow-Puertecito-Mellenthin families complex 2 to 25 percent slopes 0.17 0.07 0 31 Curhollow-Tenderfoot complex 1 to 8 percent slopes 0.11 0.04 0 32 Curob-Whirlo families complex 15 to 30 percent slopes 0.41 0.20 0 33 Deama-Rock outcrop complex 25 to 55 percent slopes 0.16 0.06 20 34 Dera family 15 to 55 percent slopes 0.13 0.04 0 35 Disterheff-Albers association 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.06 0.02 0 36 Disterheff-Yumtheska complex 2 to 6 percent slopes 0.21 0.08 0 37 Elledge family 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.90 0.47 0 38 Elledge family 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.52 0.26 0 39 Firo family-Sandia-Rock outcrop complex 15 to 55 percent slopes 0.70 0.41 15 40 Fluvaquents-Psamments complex 2 to 6 percent slopes 2.00 1.99 0 41 Fluvaquents-Psamments complex warm 2 to 6 percent slopes 2.00 1.99 0 D-108 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.15 AZ701 Grand Canyon Area Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 42 Garr-Zibate families complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.06 0.01 0 43 Gypill fine sandy loam 15 to 40 percent slopes 1.23 0.69 0 44 Gypill-Meadview complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.63 0.31 0 45 Haplocalcids-Rock outcrop complex 1 to 19 percent slopes 0.42 0.20 15 46 Hindu-Rock outcrop complex 5 to 45 percent slopes 0.20 0.07 20 47 Huevi extremely gravelly fine sandy loam 2 to 4 percent slopes 0.54 0.28 0 48 Iceberg-Rock outcrop-Helkitchen association 0.29 0.13 25 49 Kaiparowits gravelly fine sandy loam 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.56 0.31 0 50 Kaiparowits-Plite family complex 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.82 0.48 0 51 Kanabownits fine sandy loam 15 to 40 percent slopes 1.68 1.10 0 52 Kanabownits-Kippers-Kaiparowits complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.74 0.47 0 53 Kanabownits-Kippers-Kaiparowits complex cool 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.59 0.32 0 54 Kanackey family 8 to 15 percent slopes 0.09 0.02 0 55 Kellypoint-Luzena complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.10 0.03 0 56 Kellypoint-Rock outcrop complex 15 to 35 percent slopes 0.11 0.04 15 57 Lava flows-Typic Torriorthents complex 30 to 60 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 80 58 Lithic Haplargids shinumo formation 8 to 15 percent slopes 0.42 0.20 0 59 Lithic Haplargids-Rock outcrop complex redwall formation 2 to 30 percent slopes 0.42 0.20 20 60 Lithic Haplargids-Typic Haplargids-Lava flows complex 2 to 35 percent slopes 0.42 0.20 15 61 Lithic Haplocalcids pakoon limestone 2 to 8 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 0 62 Lithic Haplocalcids-Rock outcrop complex esplanade formation 2 to 15 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 30 August 24, 2009 D-109 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.15 AZ701 Grand Canyon Area Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 63 Lithic Haplocambids-Lithic Haplargids complex bright angel and tapeats formations 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.35 0.16 0 64 Lithic Haplustalfs-Lava flows complex 30 to 60 percent slopes 0.12 0.04 45 65 Lithic Haplustolls-Udic Haplustolls-Rock outcrop complex kaibab torroweap and coconino formations 15 to 55 percent slopes 0.43 0.20 20 66 Lithic Torriorthents-Lithic Calciargids complex bright angel and tapeats formations hyperthermic 2 to 55 percent slopes 1.06 0.61 0 67 Lithic Torriorthents-Lithic Calciargids complex bright angel and tapeats formations thermic 2 to 55 percent slopes 0.95 0.53 0 68 Lithic Torriorthents-Rock outcrop complex dox formation 15 to 60 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 45 69 Lithic Torriorthents-Rock outcrop complex esplanade formation 2 to 8 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 30 70 Lithic Torriorthents-Rock outcrop complex muav and redwall formations 15 to 70 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 30 71 Lithic Torriorthents-Typic Torriorthents-Rock outcrop complex hermit formation 3 to 85 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 20 72 Lithic Ustic Torriorthents-Rock outcrop complex hermit formation 20 to 50 percent slopes 0.42 0.20 40 73 Lithic Ustic Torriorthents-Rock outcrop complex supai group 15 to 55 percent slopes 0.42 0.20 30 74 Lithic Ustic Torriorthents-Udic Haplustolls-Rock outcrop complex kaibab toroweap and coconino formations 15 to 55 percent slopes 0.43 0.20 15 75 Lostman family-Harrisburg complex 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.56 0.26 0 76 Luzena-Kellypoint complex 2 to 35 percent slopes 0.07 0.02 0 77 Lykorly gravelly loam 1 to 4 percent slopes 0.13 0.04 0 78 Lykorly loam 2 to 4 percent slopes 0.48 0.24 0 79 Meadview-Arizo complex 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.61 0.29 0 80 Meriwhitica-Rock outcrop complex 35 to 70 percent slopes 0.39 0.19 30 D-110 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.15 AZ701 Grand Canyon Area Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 81 Meriwhitica-Tassi complex 0 to 33 percent slopes 1.10 0.63 0 82 Metuck family-Rock outcrop complex 8 to 50 percent slopes 0.27 0.11 30 83 Natank-Disterheff-Yumtheska complex 2 to 35 percent slopes 0.05 0.01 0 84 Natank-Yumtheska complex 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.15 0.05 0 85 Nutter-Gyppocket complex 2 to 20 percent slopes 0.37 0.17 0 86 Orrubo very gravelly loam 15 to 35 percent slopes 0.23 0.09 0 87 Orrubo-Meadview-Meadview moderately steep complex 2 to 40 percent slopes 0.33 0.15 0 88 Orthents-Rock outcrop complex 2 to 6 percent slopes 2.00 1.99 20 89 Oxyaquic Torriorthents-Typic Endoaquents association 1 to 4 percent slopes 1.60 0.98 0 90 Phizphre-Rock outcrop complex 8 to 15 percent slopes 0.29 0.13 15 91 Pinntank-Retsover complex 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.45 0.23 0 92 Plite-Canburn families complex 2 to 8 percent slopes 1.00 0.60 0 93 Pocomate-Pinntank complex 15 to 30 percent slopes 0.18 0.07 0 94 Pocomate-Pinntank-Toqui complex 15 to 25 percent slopes 0.16 0.06 0 95 Pocomate-Pinntank-Ustifluvents complex 2 to 30 percent slopes 0.25 0.12 0 96 Pompeii family-Huevi-Huevi moderately steep complex 2 to 25 percent slopes 0.33 0.15 0 97 Puertecito family 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.27 0.11 0 98 Puertecito family 15 to 35 percent slopes 0.23 0.09 0 99 Puertecito-Meriwhitica-Progresso families complex 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.19 0.08 0 100 Robroost fine sandy loam 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.39 0.16 0 101 Rock outcrop-Akela family complex 15 to 60 percent slopes 0.50 0.25 45 August 24, 2009 D-111 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.15 AZ701 Grand Canyon Area Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 102 Rock outcrop-Cellar family complex 15 to 60 percent slopes 1.05 0.61 75 103 Rock outcrop-Lithic Torriorthents complex 15 to 60 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 70 104 Rock outcrop-Lithic Torriorthents complex cardenas formation 15 to 60 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 70 105 Rock outcrop-Lithic Torriorthents complex hakatai formation 15 to 60 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 80 106 Rock outcrop-Lithic Torriorthents complex kaibab toroweap and coconino formations 15 to 60 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 60 107 Rock outcrop-Lithic Torriorthents complex moenkopi kaibab and toroweap formations 15 to 60 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 70 108 Rock outcrop-Lithic Torriorthents complex nankoweap formation 2 to 8 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 70 109 Rock outcrop-Lithic Torriorthents complex supai group 15 to 60 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 60 110 Rock outcrop-Lithic Torriorthents complex vishnu schist formation 15 to 60 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 60 111 Rock outcrop-Lithic Ustic Torriorthents complex esplanade formation 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.42 0.20 60 112 Rock outcrop-Lithic Ustic Torriorthents-Ustic Haplocalcids complex tonto group and redwall formation 30 to 60 percent slopes 0.64 0.33 45 113 Rock outcrop-Skos-Seis families complex 30 to 60 percent slopes 0.46 0.22 40 114 Rock outcrop-Torriorthents complex kaibab formation 15 to 85 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 70 115 Rock outcrop-Torriorthents-Lithic Torriorthents complex supai group and redwall formation 2 to 60 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 50 116 Rock outcrop-Typic Torriorthents complex hermit formation 15 to 60 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 60 117 Rock outcrop-Typic Torriorthents complex tonto group and redwall formation 30 to 60 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 60 118 Rockyroad very cobbly silty clay loam 2 to 10 percent slopes 0.03 0.01 0 D-112 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.15 AZ701 Grand Canyon Area Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 119 Skos family-Rock outcrop complex 15 to 55 percent slopes 0.33 0.15 30 120 Skos family-Sandia-Rock outcrop complex 15 to 55 percent slopes 0.66 0.36 15 121 Tassi gravelly loamy very fine sand 0 to 3 percent slopes 1.25 0.70 0 122 Topocoba family 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.23 0.10 0 123 Topocoba-Wodomont association 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.28 0.13 0 124 Toqui gravelly loam 1 to 8 percent slopes 0.02 0.01 0 125 Toqui-Yumtheska complex 2 to 30 percent slops 0.07 0.02 0 126 Torriorthents-Haplocalcids-Lava flows complex 10 to 40 percent slopes 0.46 0.23 20 127 Torriorthents-Haplogypsids complex muddy creek formation 35 to 75 percent slopes 0.86 0.47 0 128 Torriorthents-Lithic Haplargids-Rock outcrop complex tonto group 15 to 60 percent slopes 0.95 0.53 15 129 Torriorthents-Rock outcrop complex hermit formation 2 to 40 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 30 130 Tovar loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.32 0.14 0 131 Tovar-Toqui-Yumtheska complex 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.23 0.09 0 132 Tunitcha-Valto family-Plite family complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.89 0.49 0 133 Twist very cobbly loam 1 to 8 percent slopes 0.08 0.02 0 134 Typic Calciargids-Lava flows complex 2 to 30 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 30 135 Typic Haplocalcids 2 to 8 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 0 136 Typic Haplocalcids 15 to 55 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 0 137 Typic Haplocalcids-Typic Calciargids complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 0 138 Typic Haplocalcids-Typic Petrocalcids complex 15 to 25 percent slopes 0.84 0.46 0 139 Typic Haplocalcids-Typic Torriorthents complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 0 140 Typic Haplogypsids hermit formation 8 to 15 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 0 August 24, 2009 D-113 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.15 AZ701 Grand Canyon Area Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 141 Typic Petrocalcids-Haplogypsids-Rock outcrop complex hermit formation 8 to 45 percent slopes 0.38 0.18 20 142 Typic Petrocalcids-Rock outcrop complex hermit formation 2 to 50 percent slopes 0.42 0.20 30 143 Typic Torrifluvents 0 to 1 percent slopes 2.00 1.99 0 144 Typic Torrifluvents-Typic Torripsamments complex 0 to 6 percent slopes 2.00 1.99 0 145 Typic Torrifluvents-Typic Torripsamments complex cool 0 to 6 percent slopes 2.00 1.99 0 146 Typic Torriorthents soils and badlands chuar group 15 to 65 percent slopes 0.75 0.40 0 147 Typic Torriorthents 2 to 8 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 0 148 Typic Torriorthents-Typic Haplogypsids complex hermit formation 15 to 40 percent slopes 1.34 0.80 0 149 Ustic Haplargids-Lava flows complex 2 to 20 percent slopes 0.42 0.20 30 150 Ustic Haplocalcids-Ustic Petrocalcids complex 2 to 4 percent slopes 1.00 0.56 0 151 Ustic Haplocalcids-Ustic Petrocalcids-Rock outcrop complex hermit formation 8 to 60 percent slopes 0.87 0.48 15 152 Ustic Haplocambids 1 to 2 percent slopes 2.00 1.99 0 153 Ustic Haplocambids 2 to 15 percent slopes 2.00 1.99 0 154 Ustic Torriorthents soils and badlands chuar group 15 to 65 percent slopes 0.42 0.20 0 155 Ustic Torriorthents 0 to 1 percent slopes 0.42 0.20 0 156 Ustic Torriorthents 2 to 4 percent slopes 0.42 0.20 0 157 Ustic Torriorthents 4 to 15 percent slopes 0.42 0.20 0 158 Ustic Torriorthents-Lithic Ustic TorriorthentsLithic Ustic Haplargids complex tonto group and redwall formation 8 to 60 percent slopes 0.42 0.20 0 159 Valleycity-Berzatic-Seeg families complex 8 to 60 percent slopes 0.24 0.10 0 160 Vitrandic Haplocalcids 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.31 0.14 0 161 Vitrandic Haplocambids-Vitrandic Haplocalcids complex 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.31 0.14 0 162 Water 0.01 0.01 100 D-114 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.15 AZ701 Grand Canyon Area Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 163 Wauquie-Houserock families complex 2 to 65 percent slopes 0.11 0.04 0 164 Winkel family 15 to 55 percent slopes 0.41 0.19 0 165 Winkel-Rock outcrop complex 2 to 12 percent slopes 0.51 0.26 15 166 Winona-Rock outcrop-Tusayan complex 15 to 55 percent slopes 0.18 0.07 25 167 Wodomont-Topocoba-Plumasano families complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.41 0.19 0 168 Wutoma-Lozinta complex 15 to 60 percent slopes 1.11 0.65 0 169 Yellowhorse-Luzena-Sponiker association 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.13 0.04 0 170 Yumtheska-Bilburc association 10 to 45 percent slopes 0.20 0.09 0 171 Yumtheska-Katzine-Rock outcrop complex 2 to 30 percent slopes 0.22 0.09 20 172 Yumtheska-Rock outcrop complex 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.25 0.11 40 173 Yumtheska-Rock outcrop complex 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.28 0.14 15 174 Yumtheska-Rock outcrop complex 15 to 45 percent slopes 0.25 0.12 25 175 Yumtheska-Toqui-Rock outcrop complex 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.27 0.10 15 176 Yumtheska-Toqui-Rock outcrop complex 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.17 0.06 15 177 Zibate family 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.05 0.01 0 August 24, 2009 D-115 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Page Intentionally Left Blank D-116 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses D.3.10 ARIZONA GENERAL SOIL SURVEY Table D.16 AZ STATSGO Arizona General Soils Survey Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) s1126 Tecopa-Rock outcrop-Lithic Torriorthents (s1126) 0.72 0.37 58 s1129 Rositas-Beeline-Badland (s1129) 0.63 0.35 0 s1131 Rock outcrop (s1131) 0.38 0.18 65 s1140 Rillito-Gunsight (s1140) 0.24 0.09 0 s1422 Uzona-Rock outcrop-Myton family-Claysprings (s1422) 0.06 0.01 10 s274 Carrizo-Brios-Antho (s274) 0.81 0.42 0 s275 Rositas-Ripley-Indio-Gilman (s275) 0.25 0.07 0 s276 Denure-Dateland (s276) 0.67 0.34 0 s277 Glenbar-Gadsden-Brios (s277) 0.07 0.02 0 s278 Sasco-Marana-Denure (s278) 0.29 0.10 0 s279 Yahana-Indio-Gadsden (s279) 0.19 0.07 0 s280 Pahaka-Mohall-Laveen-Denure (s280) 0.50 0.21 0 s281 Momoli-Denure-Carrizo (s281) 0.62 0.32 0 s282 Why-Wellton-Gunsight-Growler-Denure (s282) 0.59 0.29 0 s283 Mohall-Denure-Coolidge (s283) 0.48 0.22 0 s284 Mohall-Contine (s284) 0.10 0.02 0 s285 Yahana-Shontik-Casa Grande (s285) 0.48 0.20 0 s286 Tremant-Pinamt-Ebon (s286) 0.07 0.02 0 s287 Suncity-Cipriano-Carefree (s287) 0.11 0.04 0 s288 Rillito-Gunsight-Denure-Chuckawalla (s288) 0.39 0.17 0 s289 Hyder-Coolidge-Cipriano-Cherioni (s289) 0.32 0.14 9 s290 Ligurta-Gunsight-Cristobal (s290) 0.07 0.01 0 s291 Pinamt-Gunsight-Cavelt (s291) 0.21 0.08 0 s292 Pinamt-Momoli-Cipriano (s292) 0.26 0.11 0 s293 Rock outcrop-Quilotosa-Momoli (s293) 0.54 0.28 34 s294 Rock outcrop-Quilotosa-Hyder-Gachado (s294) 0.30 0.12 15 s295 Schenco-Rock outcrop-Laposa (s295) 0.15 0.05 30 s296 Laveen-Kamato-Casa Grande (s296) 0.10 0.02 0 s297 Toltec-La Palma-Casa Grande (s297) 0.40 0.15 0 s298 Mohall-Dateland-Casa Grande (s298) 0.21 0.06 0 s299 Pahaka-Estrella-Antho (s299) 1.00 0.53 0 August 24, 2009 D-117 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.16 AZ STATSGO Arizona General Soils Survey Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) s300 Valencia-Estrella-Cuerda (s300) 0.88 0.47 0 s301 Superstition-Rositas (s301) 2.00 2.00 0 s302 Guest-Glendale-Gila (s302) 0.08 0.02 0 s303 Riveroad-Comoro-Arizo (s303) 0.72 0.37 0 s305 Mohave-Guest-Continental (s305) 0.08 0.03 0 s306 Tres Hermanos-Pajarito-Mohave (s306) 0.39 0.17 0 s307 Sonoita-Hayhook-Continental (s307) 0.69 0.34 0 s308 Sahuarita-Mohave-Cave (s308) 0.31 0.13 0 s309 Cacique-Bucklebar-Alko (s309) 0.88 0.47 0 s310 Stagecoach-Nahda-Delnorte-Agustin (s310) 0.17 0.09 0 s311 Pinaleno-Eba (s311) 0.16 0.06 0 s312 Nickel-Greyeagle-Continental (s312) 0.10 0.04 0 s313 Pinaleno-Palos Verdes-Nickel (s313) 0.17 0.05 0 s314 Tumarion-Rock outcrop-Lehmans-House Mountain-Akela (s314) 0.09 0.04 15 s315 Rock outcrop-Luzena-Faraway (s315) 0.26 0.11 25 s316 Rock outcrop-Lehmans-Gran (s316) 0.01 0.01 30 s317 Rock outcrop-Lajitas-Delthorny-Anklam (s317) 0.27 0.13 25 s318 Torriorthents-Rock outcrop (s318) 1.34 0.80 90 s319 Tovar-Toqui-Deama (s319) 0.31 0.12 0 s320 Santo Tomas-Pima-Comoro (s320) 0.45 0.22 0 s321 Hondale-Gothard-Bluepoint (s321) 0.32 0.13 0 s322 Sontag-Bonita (s322) 0.06 0.01 0 s323 Tubac-Forrest-Enzian-Diaspar (s323) 0.36 0.16 0 s324 Winkel-Harrisburg-Cave (s324) 0.97 0.53 0 s325 White House-Hathaway-Bernardino (s325) 0.11 0.04 0 s326 Tombstone-Stronghold-Jerag (s326) 0.37 0.17 0 s327 Torriorthents-Rock outcrop-Gypill (s327) 0.87 0.49 20 s328 White House-Hathaway-Caralampi-Bernardino (s328) 0.14 0.05 0 s329 Romero-Rock outcrop-Lampshire (s329) 0.32 0.14 31 s330 Zukan-Rock outcrop-Goblin (s330) 1.21 0.68 10 s331 Tanbark-Mellenthin-Calciorthids (s331) 0.23 0.09 0 D-118 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.16 AZ STATSGO Arizona General Soils Survey Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 0 s332 Thunderbird-Collbran-Boquillas (s332) 0.08 0.03 s333 Yumtheska-Natank-Disterheff (s333) 0.08 0.02 0 s334 Sponiker-Rock outcrop-Cross (s334) 0.32 0.14 10 s335 Rock outcrop-Mabray-Lemitar (s335) 0.10 0.03 15 s336 Pennell-Bacobi (s336) 0.56 0.27 0 s337 Tours saline-Sodic-Riverwash-Jocity salineSodic-Ives saline-Sodic-Burnswick (s337) 0.26 0.09 1 s338 Marcou-Jocity saline-Sodic-Burnswick (s338) 0.29 0.12 1 s339 Wepo-Polacca-Jocity-Jeddito (s339) 0.34 0.13 2 s340 Sheppard sodic-Sheppard-Joraibi-Jocity (s340) 0.50 0.22 0 s341 Torriorthents-Tewa-Sheppard-Jeddito (s341) 0.67 0.32 6 s342 Rock outcrop-Moenkopie (s342) 0.92 0.52 50 s343 Nakai-Monue-Blackston (s343) 1.59 1.07 0 s344 Purgatory-Epikom-Claysprings-Badland (s344) 0.18 0.07 3 s345 Sheppard-Nakai-Monue (s345) 1.03 0.56 2 s346 Kinan-Hatknoll-Grieta (s346) 0.50 0.22 0 s347 Torriorthents-Sheppard-Pennell-Monue-JocityClayhole (s347) 0.33 0.12 0 s348 Pennell-Pagina-Kinan (s348) 0.66 0.33 0 s349 Mellenthin-Curhollow (s349) 0.26 0.12 0 s350 Yumtheska-Showlow-Lozinta (s350) 0.19 0.08 0 s351 Wayneco-Sazi-Rock outcrop-Rizno-PalmaMespun (s351) 1.28 0.81 10 s352 Winona-Tenderfoot-Curhollow (s352) 0.13 0.05 0 s353 Rudd-Arches (s353) 0.53 0.25 0 s354 Poley-Palma-Clovis (s354) 0.15 0.04 0 s355 Winona-Tusayan-Boysag (s355) 0.17 0.06 0 s356 Rock outcrop-Needle-Epikom (s356) 0.43 0.20 26 s357 Sheppard-Palma-Hubert-Clovis (s357) 0.86 0.46 0 s358 Strych-Monue-Bison (s358) 0.39 0.18 0 s359 Spenlo-Schmutz-Redbank family-Palma familyNaplene-Lavate-Ildefonso family-Clovis familyCaval (s359) 0.50 0.20 0 s360 Wupatki-Wukoki-Tuweep (s360) 0.16 0.06 0 August 24, 2009 D-119 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.16 AZ STATSGO Arizona General Soils Survey Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) s361 Stagecoach-Hindu (s361) 0.22 0.08 0 s362 Rock outcrop (s362) 0.48 0.22 83 s363 Sheppard-Grieta (s363) 1.02 0.62 0 s364 Ustic Torriorthents-Penistaja-Mido-Begay (s364) 0.69 0.36 7 s365 Milkweed-Deama-Cabezon (s365) 0.08 0.03 0 s366 Ubank-Cerrillos-Barx (s366) 0.31 0.12 5 s367 Rock outcrop-Mellenthin-Leanto-Kech-Bisoodi (s367) 0.37 0.17 30 s368 Nuffel-Kech-Barx (s368) 0.34 0.14 9 s369 Rock outcrop-Deama (s369) 0.17 0.06 42 s370 Toqui-Topocoba-Deama (s370) 0.32 0.14 0 s371 Ziegler-Wilaha-Showlow (s371) 0.19 0.07 0 s372 Virgin Peak-Rock outcrop-Hualapai (s372) 0.39 0.20 15 s373 Moano-Barkerville (s373) 0.57 0.29 0 s374 Tortugas-Purner-Jacks (s374) 0.24 0.09 0 s375 Thunderbird-Rock outcrop-Luzena (s375) 0.11 0.04 15 s376 Typic Haplustalfs (s376) 0.16 0.05 0 s377 Thunderbird-Springerville-Rudd-Cabezon (s377) 0.05 0.02 0 s378 Whitlock-Continental-Cave (s378) 0.68 0.35 0 s379 Springerville-Cabezon (s379) 0.04 0.01 0 s380 Venezia-Thunderbird-Cabezon (s380) 0.06 0.02 0 s381 Poley-Pastura-Partri-Lynx-Abra (s381) 0.10 0.03 0 s382 Lynx-Lonti-Balon (s382) 0.21 0.07 0 s383 Zyme-Tonalea-Kydestea (s383) 0.17 0.06 7 s384 Torriorthents-Badland (s384) 0.95 0.53 3 s385 Telephone-Rock outcrop-Overgaard-Elledge (s385) 0.82 0.46 10 s386 Spudrock-Elledge-Docdee (s386) 0.33 0.14 0 s387 Gordo-Baldy (s387) 0.17 0.03 0 s388 Sponseller-Ess (s388) 0.34 0.16 0 s389 Thunderbird-Showlow (s389) 0.04 0.01 0 s390 Typic Haplustalfs-Rock outcrop-Aridic Haplustalfs (s390) 0.20 0.07 20 s391 Typic Haplustalfs-Lithic Haplustalfs (s391) 0.37 0.15 0 D-120 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.16 AZ STATSGO Arizona General Soils Survey Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) s392 Sogzie-Sheppard-Rock outcrop-Aneth (s392) 1.66 1.19 10 s393 Shedado-Rock outcrop-Mespun-Begay-Anasazi (s393) 1.49 0.99 15 s394 Ustollic Haplargids-Rock outcrop-Namon (s394) 0.79 0.46 30 s395 Abreu (s395) 0.80 0.44 0 s396 Typic Eutroboralfs (s396) 0.33 0.15 0 s397 Typic Eutroboralfs (s397) 0.34 0.16 0 s398 Sheppard-Rock outcrop-Monue-Moepitz (s398) 1.74 1.37 10 s399 Pinamt-Momoli-Hickiwan-Gunsight-Denure (s399) 0.31 0.14 0 s400 Retriever-Calciorthids (s400) 0.20 0.07 0 s401 Vertic Haplustalfs-Aridic Ustochrepts (s401) 0.09 0.02 0 s402 Rock outcrop-Lama-Fragua (s402) 0.36 0.15 30 s403 Winona-Spudrock-Rock outcrop (s403) 0.54 0.28 10 s404 Winona-Spudrock-Rock outcrop (s404) 0.44 0.21 30 s405 Quintana (s405) 0.25 0.10 0 s406 Typic Paleboralfs-Eutric Glossoboralfs (s406) 0.24 0.09 0 s407 Typic Cryoboralfs-Rock outcrop-Eutric Glossoboralfs (s407) 0.21 0.07 20 s408 Rock outcrop-Eutric Glossoboralfs (s408) 0.24 0.10 30 s409 Typic Haplustalfs-Fluventic Ustochrepts (s409) 0.22 0.07 0 s410 Rock outcrop-Aridic Ustochrepts-Aridic Haplustolls (s410) 0.11 0.03 10 s411 Typic Paleboralfs-Typic Cryoboralfs-Rock outcrop (s411) 0.30 0.13 10 s412 Vertic Haplustalfs-Typic Haplustalfs (s412) 0.04 0.01 7 s413 Typic Haplustalfs (s413) 0.79 0.42 0 s414 Typic Haplustalfs (s414) 0.16 0.05 0 s415 Typic Haplustalfs-Rock outcrop-Eutric Glossoboralfs (s415) 0.17 0.06 20 s416 Silkie-Espiritu (s416) 0.20 0.06 0 s417 Wineg-Quintana-Amos (s417) 0.12 0.01 0 s418 Typic Haplustalfs-Lithic Haplustalfs (s418) 0.14 0.04 0 s419 Mollic Eutroboralfs (s419) 0.31 0.14 0 August 24, 2009 D-121 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.16 AZ STATSGO Arizona General Soils Survey Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) s420 Rock outcrop-Mollic Cryoboralfs-Eutric Glossoboralfs (s420) 0.27 0.11 30 s421 Mirand-Derecho (s421) 0.20 0.08 0 s422 Silkie-Mirand (s422) 0.08 0.01 0 s423 Vibo-Casto (s423) 0.32 0.10 0 s424 Typic Haplustalfs-Mollic Eutroboralfs (s424) 0.24 0.09 0 s425 Mirand-Maes (s425) 0.18 0.07 0 s426 Eutric Glossoboralfs (s426) 0.16 0.05 0 s427 Heflin-Casto (s427) 0.08 0.01 0 s428 Rillino-Gila-Continental (s428) 0.25 0.10 0 s429 Tombstone-Romero-Rock outcrop (s429) 0.39 0.18 30 s430 Tubac-Pajarito-Hayhook-Glendale-Bucklebar (s430) 0.53 0.24 0 s431 Tres Hermanos-Pinamt-Artesia (s431) 0.21 0.08 0 s432 Eicks-Eba-Cloverdale (s432) 0.21 0.07 0 s433 Limpia-Graham-Bonita-Atascosa (s433) 0.07 0.03 0 s434 Mabray-Chiricahua-Atascosa (s434) 0.08 0.03 0 s435 Rock outcrop-Mokiak-Faraway (s435) 0.41 0.20 20 s436 Rock outcrop-Luzena-Fallsam (s436) 0.08 0.03 40 s437 Tapco-Peloncillo-Artesia (s437) 0.07 0.01 0 s438 Wampoo-Signal-Bonita (s438) 0.04 0.02 0 s439 Selevin-Eloma-Alsco (s439) 0.04 0.01 0 s440 Yumtheska-Virgin Peak-Rock outcrop-Katzine (s440) 0.35 0.16 22 s441 Rock outcrop-Piute-Bluechief (s441) 1.84 1.25 15 s442 Uzona-Shumbegay-Escavada (s442) 0.18 0.07 0 s443 Millett-Farview-Doakum (s443) 0.68 0.35 0 s444 Mido-Blanding-Arches (s444) 1.27 0.77 0 s445 Tunitcha-Klizhin-Akhoni (s445) 0.99 0.57 0 s446 Abreu (s446) 0.33 0.15 0 s447 Altar (s447) 0.20 0.08 0 s448 Altar (s448) 0.20 0.08 0 s449 Rock outcrop-Garr (s449) 0.06 0.01 40 s450 Ustorthents-Rizno-Metuck (s450) 0.91 0.57 0 D-122 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.16 AZ STATSGO Arizona General Soils Survey Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) s451 Vibo-Ustochrepts-Badland (s451) 0.33 0.11 0 s452 Telescope-Royosa-Augustine (s452) 1.45 0.93 0 s453 Badland-Aridic Ustochrepts-Aridic Haplustolls (s453) 0.15 0.05 0 s454 Shoegame-McNeal-Badland (s454) 0.32 0.13 0 s455 Rock outcrop-Lithic Ustorthents family-Hogris (s455) 1.15 0.85 30 s456 Torriorthents-Cellar (s456) 0.37 0.17 0 s457 Spudrock-Rock outcrop-Cellar (s457) 0.69 0.36 30 s458 Yaqui-Werlog (s458) 0.91 0.49 0 s459 Werlog-Santo Tomas-Riverwash (s459) 0.89 0.52 0 s460 Torriorthents (s460) 0.25 0.11 0 s461 Rock outcrop-Moenkopie (s461) 0.65 0.34 30 s462 Typic Ustifluvents-Fluventic Ustochrepts (s462) 0.74 0.37 0 s463 Fluventic Ustochrepts-Aquic Ustifluvents (s463) 0.54 0.26 0 s464 Vessilla-Rock outcrop (s464) 0.55 0.27 35 s465 Teromote-Kopie (s465) 0.17 0.05 0 s466 Quintana-Kopie (s466) 0.23 0.08 0 s467 Typic Ustochrepts-Typic Haplustalfs-Rock outcrop (s467) 0.41 0.17 25 s468 Shoegame-Badland-Aridic Ustochrepts (s468) 0.32 0.14 0 s469 Ransect (s469) 0.12 0.04 0 s470 Typic Ustochrepts-Lithic Ustochrepts (s470) 0.57 0.28 0 s471 Typic Ustochrepts-Typic Haplustalfs-Rock outcrop (s471) 0.21 0.07 30 s472 Typic Dystrochrepts-Spudrock-Rock outcrop (s472) 0.59 0.31 30 s473 Typic Dystrochrepts-Dystric Cryochrepts (s473) 0.44 0.22 0 s474 Typic Dystrochrepts-Rock outcrop-Dystric Cryochrepts (s474) 0.48 0.24 20 s475 Dystric Cryochrepts (s475) 0.59 0.30 0 s476 Sobega-Quintana-Kopie (s476) 0.40 0.18 0 s477 Dystric Cryochrepts (s477) 0.59 0.30 0 s478 Rock outcrop-Lithic Ustochrepts (s478) 0.49 0.24 30 August 24, 2009 D-123 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.16 AZ STATSGO Arizona General Soils Survey Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) s479 Typic Dystrochrepts-Rock outcrop-Lithic Ustochrepts (s479) 0.46 0.23 30 s480 Quintana (s480) 0.25 0.10 0 s481 Spudrock-Sobega-Rock outcrop (s481) 0.67 0.36 40 s482 Spudrock-Rombo-Rock outcrop (s482) 0.25 0.08 30 s483 Timhus-Quintana-Flugle (s483) 0.33 0.14 0 s484 Riverwash-Prewitt-Lynx (s484) 0.37 0.17 0 s485 Ess-Cundiyo (s485) 0.42 0.21 0 s486 Hereford (s486) 0.16 0.06 0 s487 Vertic Argiborolls (s487) 0.11 0.03 0 s488 Pachic Udic Argiborolls (s488) 0.21 0.08 0 s489 Rock outcrop-Lithic Haplustolls (s489) 0.33 0.15 30 s490 Nakai-Monue-Blackston (s490) 1.59 1.07 0 s491 Ustochreptic Calciorthids (s491) 0.81 0.44 0 s492 Rock outcrop-Bond-Bidonia (s492) 0.78 0.41 15 s493 Winona-Pastura-Cibeque (s493) 0.15 0.05 0 s494 Sponiker-Godding (s494) 0.41 0.20 0 s495 Torriorthents-Calciorthids-Badland (s495) 0.49 0.24 0 s496 Faraway-Barkerville (s496) 0.72 0.39 0 s497 Tours-Showlow-Cibeque (s497) 0.13 0.04 0 s498 Rond-Jacks-Chevelon (s498) 0.21 0.08 0 s499 Tortugas-Roundtop-Rock outcrop (s499) 0.22 0.09 15 s500 Lemitar-Lampshire-Chiricahua (s500) 0.06 0.02 0 s501 Tuloso-Tinaja (s501) 0.48 0.23 0 s502 Riverwash-Prewitt-Pinetop-Lynx (s502) 0.43 0.18 0 s5061 Vertic Haplustalfs-Typic Haplustalfs (s5061) 0.11 0.02 0 s5065 Typic Eutroboralfs-Lithic Haplustalfs (s5065) 0.22 0.08 0 s5068 Typic Haplustalfs-Rock outcrop-Eutric Glossoboralfs (s5068) 0.16 0.05 30 s5085 Typic Ustorthents-Typic Ustochrepts-Typic Udorthents-Rock outcrop (s5085) 0.90 0.49 25 s5087 Typic Ustochrepts-Rock outcrop-Aridic Ustochrepts (s5087) 0.55 0.26 30 s5094 Udic Ustochrepts-Typic Ustochrepts (s5094) 0.41 0.19 0 D-124 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.16 AZ STATSGO Arizona General Soils Survey Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) s5108 Fluventic Haploborolls-Aquic Ustifluvents (s5108) 0.68 0.35 0 s5116 Typic Argiborolls (s5116) 0.25 0.10 0 s5168 Rock outcrop-Flugle-Catman (s5168) 0.51 0.22 13 s5169 Rock outcrop-Nogal (s5169) 0.24 0.10 22 s5170 Teco-Rock outcrop-Montecito-Cabezon-Atarque (s5170) 0.19 0.08 11 s5172 Stout-Kiln-Hesperus (s5172) 0.65 0.34 0 s5173 Telescope-Royosa (s5173) 2.00 1.32 0 s5177 Weska-Travessilla-Rock outcrop-Oelop (s5177) 0.13 0.03 30 s5249 Ojocal-Alicia (s5249) 0.16 0.05 0 s5315 Rock outcrop-Lehmans-Chiricahua-Chamberino (s5315) 0.25 0.10 20 s5325 Rock outcrop-Muzzler-Luzena (s5325) 0.10 0.04 20 s5331 Thunderbird-Rudd-Hubbell-Cabezon (s5331) 0.32 0.14 0 s5333 Mion-Jacee-Goesling-Celacy-Augustine (s5333) 0.45 0.23 3 s5396 Loarc-Guy-Dioxice-Datil (s5396) 0.46 0.22 2 s5397 Manzano-Hickman-Catman (s5397) 0.11 0.03 0 s5573 Water-Virgin River-Toquop-Riverwash-Black Butte-Alluvial land (s5573) 0.46 0.21 10 s5575 Naye-Mormon Mesa (s5575) 0.63 0.32 1 s5576 St. Thomas-Rock outcrop-Kyler (s5576) 0.30 0.13 15 s5577 Cave family-Cave-Ajo (s5577) 0.29 0.12 0 s5578 Harrisburg-Cave-Arizo (s5578) 0.90 0.50 0 s5579 Toquop-Black Butte-Arada (s5579) 0.90 0.54 0 s5580 Tonopah-Colorock-Badland (s5580) 0.38 0.18 1 s5581 Yurm family-Winkel-Torriorthents (s5581) 0.41 0.19 9 s5586 Zeheme-St. Thomas-Rock outcrop (s5586) 0.55 0.27 19 s5587 Zeheme-Virgin Peak-Rock outcrop-Hobog (s5587) 0.40 0.19 14 s5588 Nickel-Bitter Spring-Arizo (s5588) 0.68 0.33 2 s5589 Rositas-Pompeii-Gunsight-Carrizo-Ajo (s5589) 0.35 0.15 0 s5590 Rock outcrop-Hindu-Gypill-Badland (s5590) 0.41 0.18 25 s5592 Rock outcrop-Kanackey-Dedas-Calvista-Breko (s5592) 0.64 0.32 20 August 24, 2009 D-125 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.16 AZ STATSGO Arizona General Soils Survey Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) s5742 Typic Torriorthents-Gypill-Cave-Badland (s5742) 0.59 0.30 5 s7770 Sheppard-Rock outcrop-Oljeto-Neskahi-Mota (s7770) 0.74 0.25 10 s7771 Rock outcrop-Piute-Moenkopie-Hoskinnini (s7771) 0.55 0.26 20 s7774 Rock outcrop-Lithic Torriorthents-Badland (s7774) 0.38 0.17 50 s8181 Tobler-St. George-Nikey-Junction-Harrisburg (s8181) 0.71 0.35 0 s8182 Winkel-Renbac-Hobog-Bermesa (s8182) 0.72 0.40 0 s8184 Shalet-Badland (s8184) 0.34 0.14 5 s8187 Pastura family-Magotsu-Curhollow (s8187) 0.33 0.14 5 s8196 Rock outcrop-Mespun-Arches (s8196) 1.94 1.66 10 s8197 Yarts-Palma-Neville family-Barx-Atchee (s8197) 0.53 0.24 5 s8198 Skos-Rock outcrop (s8198) 0.09 0.03 20 s8369 Water (s8369) 0.01 0.01 100 s9582 Leanto-Bisoodi-Arntz (s9582) 0.68 0.33 4 s9583 Torriorthents-Marcou-Claysprings-BurnswickBadland (s9583) 0.38 0.18 6 s9584 Strych-Rock outcrop-Monue (s9584) 0.51 0.25 18 s9585 Vecont-Trix-Mohall-Denure-Dateland-Casa Grande (s9585) 0.31 0.13 0 s9586 Selevin-Kimrose-Keysto-Caralampi (s9586) 0.07 0.03 0 D-126 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses D.3.11 NV608 Table D.17 NV608 Virgin River Area Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Ad Alluvial land 0.55 0.26 0 Ae Anthony fine sandy loam 0.55 0.26 0 Af Anthony fine sandy loam gravelly substratum 0.55 0.26 0 Ah Anthony fine sandy loam watertable 0.50 0.22 0 AMC Arada fine sand 2 to 8 percent slopes 1.75 1.60 0 AOB Arada fine sand gravelly substratum 0 to 4 percent slopes 1.87 1.77 0 ASC Arada fine sand hardpan variant 2 to 8 percent slopes 2.00 2.00 0 ATA Arizo fine sand 0 to 2 percent slopes 2.00 2.00 0 AVB Arizo gravelly fine sand 2 to 4 percent slopes 2.00 2.00 0 AXC Arizo very gravelly loamy sand 2 to 8 percent slopes 1.74 1.09 0 AYD Arrolime gravelly silt loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.11 0.03 0 Badland 0.42 0.20 0 BFD Bard gravelly fine sand 4 to 15 percent slopes 2.00 2.00 0 BHC Bard gravelly fine sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.52 0.25 0 BLB Blacknat-Arada association 1.90 1.81 0 BMD Bard very gravelly fine sandy loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.52 0.25 0 BNB Bard very stony loam 2 to 4 percent slopes 0.25 0.10 0 BOB Bard-Rough broken land association gently sloping 0.45 0.21 30 Pits borrow 0.03 0.01 0 BRB Bard-Tonopah association gently sloping 0.37 0.16 0 BSG Boxspring-Seralin-Rock outcrop association 0.25 0.11 15 BTC Bitter Spring-Arizo association moderately sloping 0.58 0.26 0 Bu Black Butte silt loam 0.11 0.02 0 Bv Black Butte silt loam watertable 0.11 0.02 0 Bw Bluepoint loamy fine sand 2.00 1.28 0 By Bluepoint fine sandy loam strongly saline 1.31 0.75 0 BD BP August 24, 2009 D-127 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.17 NV608 Virgin River Area Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Boxspring-Zeheme-Rock outcrop association 0.30 0.13 15 Calico fine sandy loam 1.03 0.55 0 Carrizo association 1.88 1.22 0 BZF Ca CAC Cc Calico fine sandy loam drained 1.02 0.54 0 Cd Calico fine sandy loam strongly saline 1.03 0.55 0 CID Crosgrain-Irongold association 0.30 0.13 0 Cm Calico clay loam 0.09 0.02 0 Cn Calico loamy fine sand coarse variant drained 2.00 1.29 0 Co Calico loamy fine sand coarse variant strongly saline 1.87 1.18 0 CRD Carrizo-Carrizo-Riverbend association 1.45 0.92 0 CTC Colorock-Tonopah association moderately sloping 0.25 0.10 0 CYB Crystal Springs gravelly sandy loam 2 to 4 percent slopes 0.69 0.34 0 Eastland gravelly sandy loam 1.03 0.59 0 Ea FLC Flattop gravelly clay loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.08 0.02 0 Gd Gila fine sand 2.00 2.00 0 Ge Gila loam 0.27 0.10 0 Gf Gila loam strongly saline 0.38 0.15 0 GHF Goldroad-Haleburu-Rock outcrop association 0.56 0.28 15 Gm Gila loam water table 0.43 0.19 0 Gn Gila loam water table strongly saline 0.43 0.19 0 Go Glendale fine sand 2.00 2.00 0 GP Pits gravel 0.03 0.01 0 Gr Glendale loam 0.43 0.18 0 Gs Glendale loam strongly saline 0.43 0.18 0 Gv Grapevine loam 0.51 0.22 0 HEE Heleweiser association 0.54 0.27 0 HHD Huevi-Hiller association 0.48 0.23 1 HUF Huevi-Badland association 0.47 0.23 0 HYB Hypoint-Bluepoint-Arizo association 1.22 0.71 0 Ir Ireteba loam 0.45 0.20 0 It Ireteba loam overflow 0.45 0.20 0 D-128 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.17 NV608 Virgin River Area Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) IUC Irongold-Wechech association 0.38 0.17 0 IWD Irongold-Weiser association 0.33 0.14 0 La Land loamy fine sand 2.00 1.51 0 Lc Land silty clay loam 0.12 0.04 0 Ld Land silty clay loam wet 0.12 0.04 0 MAE Moapa-Bluepoint-Rock outcrop association 2.00 1.74 20 MBG Monger-Bard-Typic Torriorthents association 0.72 0.36 0 MMB Mormon Mesa loamy fine sand 0 to 4 percent slopes 0.80 0.41 0 MOB Mormon Mesa fine sandy loam 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.82 0.43 0 NBC Naye-Bitter Spring association 0.58 0.27 0 NIC Nickel-Bitter Spring association 0.46 0.21 0 Oc Overton silty clay 0.06 0.01 0 Oe Overton silty clay slightly saline 0.07 0.02 0 On Overton silty clay strongly saline 0.07 0.02 0 Or Overton clay overwash saline 0.03 0.01 0 Os Overton silt loam loamy variant slightly saline 0.61 0.33 0 Ot Overton silt loam loamy variant strongly saline 0.61 0.33 0 Ox Oxyaquic Torriorthents-Toquop complex 0 to 8 percent slopes 1.02 0.61 0 PL Playas 0.05 0.01 0 PME Pulsipher-Rock outcrop complex 15 to 30 percent slopes 0.35 0.14 20 PPE Pulsipher association hilly 0.18 0.05 0 PRE Pulsipher gravelly clay loam fine variant 15 to 30 percent slopes 0.06 0.01 0 RBG Rock outcrop-Moapa-Bluepoint association 1.95 1.73 45 Riverwash 2.00 1.76 0 RHF Rock outcrop-Redneedle-Heleweiser association 0.74 0.39 35 Ri Re Riverwash-Water complex 0 to 2 percent slopes 1.88 1.59 30 RME Rock land-Moapa association hilly 2.00 2.00 60 RTF Rock land-St. Thomas association very steep 0.28 0.12 60 SAE Sandpan-Rositas association 1.69 1.27 0 August 24, 2009 D-129 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.17 NV608 Virgin River Area Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SEG Seralin extremely gravelly loam 30 to 75 percent slopes 0.24 0.10 4 Spring silty clay loam 0.06 0.01 0 SQE SP St. Thomas association 0.27 0.11 5 STE St.Thomas-Rock outcrop-Zeheme assocation 0.66 0.35 20 STF St. Thomas-Rock outcrop complex 0.29 0.12 20 SWC Sweetspring-Carrizo association 0.22 0.09 0 TAC Teebar-Sandpan association 0.82 0.45 0 Tb Tobler fine sandy loam 0.77 0.40 0 Tc Tobler fine sandy loam strongly saline 0.77 0.40 0 Td Tobler silt loam wet 0.30 0.11 0 Te Tobler clay strongly saline 0.03 0.01 0 TGC Tonopah-Arizo association 0.77 0.41 0 THB Tonopah gravelly sandy loam 0 to 4 percent slopes 0.85 0.45 0 TMD Tonopah very gravelly sandy loam 4 to 15 percent slopes 0.65 0.34 0 TnA Toquop fine sand 0 to 2 percent slopes 2.00 1.94 0 TnB Toquop fine sand 2 to 8 percent slopes 2.00 1.94 0 TqA Toquop complex 0 to 2 percent slope 2.00 1.94 0 TsA Toquop fine sand watertable 0 to 2 percent slopes 2.00 1.78 0 TtA Toquop fine sandy loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 1.28 0.72 0 TuA Toquop fine sandy loam watertable 0 to 2 percent slopes 1.28 0.71 0 TvA Toquop silty clay loam strongly saline 0 to 2 percent slopes 1.31 0.74 0 Typic Torriorthents-Badland association 0.62 0.32 0 UNB Underton extremely gravelly fine sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.32 0.15 0 UPE Upperline very gravelly sandy loam 8 to 30 percent slopes 0.72 0.38 0 USE Upperline-St. Thomas-Upperline association 0.56 0.28 0 UWD Upperline-Weiser-Whitebasin association 0.68 0.36 0 Vinton fine sandy loam 0.70 0.35 0 Ty Vd D-130 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.17 NV608 Virgin River Area Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Virgin Peak-Rock outcrop association 0.42 0.21 15 Vg Virgin River silty clay 0.09 0.03 0 Vn Virgin River silty clay strongly saline 0.09 0.03 0 Vr Virgin River silty clay loam wet variant 0.06 0.01 0 W Water 0.01 0.01 100 WAC Wechech association 0.66 0.34 0 WBE Wechech very gravelly fine sandy loam 8 to 30 percent slopes 0.49 0.23 0 WCE Wechech-Ifteen association 1.91 1.66 0 WDC Wechech-Weiser association 0.52 0.26 0 WEE Weiser cobbly sandy loam 15 to 30 percent slopes 0.65 0.33 0 WFC Weiser-Arizo association 0.77 0.42 0 WGC Weiser-Oldspan-Wechech association 0.46 0.21 0 WHE Whitebasin-Upperline-Hardbasin association 0.93 0.50 0 ZAG Zeheme-Rock outcrop association 0.47 0.23 20 VFG August 24, 2009 D-131 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Page Intentionally Left Blank D-132 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses D.3.12 NV613 Table D.18 NV613 Meadow Valley Area Nevada and Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) ACC Acana gravelly sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.99 0.56 0 ADC Acoma-Decan-Cath association 0.47 0.22 0 Acana-Ursine association 0.79 0.42 0 Aned sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 1.19 0.72 0 Badland 0.42 0.20 0 Brier-Acoma-Bellehelen association 0.35 0.18 0 Badland-Bit association 0.52 0.25 0 BD2 Badland-Buster eroded-Holsine association 0.75 0.43 0 BEB Bellehelen-Brier association 0.46 0.24 0 BKF Basket gravelly fine sandy loam 30 to 50 percent slopes 0.90 0.50 0 BL Basket-Lize-Satt association 0.51 0.25 0 Bm Bicondoa sandy loam 1.23 0.74 0 Bn Bicondoa silty clay loam drained 0.17 0.07 0 Bo Bicondoa complex 0.20 0.08 0 BR Buster-Rough broken land association 1.08 0.62 25 Cath gravelly loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.42 0.20 0 CC Chuska-Checkett gravelly loams 8 to 25 percent slopes 0.22 0.08 0 CD Cedaran-Decan association 0.23 0.09 0 CE Cedaran-Rock outcrop complex 0.35 0.17 35 CG Cliffdown-Geer association 0.78 0.42 0 CR Checkett-Rock outcrop complex 8 to 25 percent slopes 0.23 0.09 15 DA Decan-Uana association 0.14 0.05 0 DC Deerlodge-Checkett gravelly loams 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.21 0.08 0 DCC Decathon gravelly loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.53 0.27 0 DED Decathon-Basket association moderately steep 0.61 0.32 0 DEE Decathon-Basket association steep 0.69 0.37 0 Deerlodge-Ursine association 0.63 0.32 0 Denmark gravelly loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.28 0.12 0 AE ANC BA BAB BB CAC DH DMD August 24, 2009 D-133 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.18 NV613 Meadow Valley Area Nevada and Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) DN Denmark-Linco association 0.39 0.18 0 FAC Fanu gravelly fine sandy loam 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.97 0.56 0 GAB Gabbvally-Brier-Rock outcrop association 0.20 0.09 15 GAR Gabbvally-Rock outcrop association 0.16 0.06 15 GE Geer fine sandy loam gravel substratum 1.03 0.58 0 Gf Geer silt loam 0.39 0.17 0 Gg Geer silt loam slightly saline 0.39 0.17 0 Gh Geer silt loam strongly saline 0.46 0.26 0 Gk Geer silt loam wet 0.46 0.26 0 GM Geer-Heist association 1.02 0.57 0 Gomine-Vennob-Rock outcrop complex 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.10 0.03 15 HA Hamtah-Tica-Rock outcrop association 0.19 0.08 15 HC Hamtah-Udel-Rock outcrop association 0.26 0.12 15 HDC Heist gravelly sandy loam 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.76 0.40 0 HEC Heist gravelly sandy loam sand substratum 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.76 0.40 0 HN Holsine-Usine-Buster association 0.88 0.51 0 HOC Holtle loam 0 to 8 percent slopes 1.06 0.63 0 Holtle-Four Star association 0.95 0.55 0 HSC Homestake gravelly sandy loam 4 to 8 percent slopes 0.75 0.41 0 HTC Homestake very stony sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.64 0.35 0 IND Itca stony clay loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.03 0.01 0 IO Itca-Cedaran-Rock outcrop association 0.07 0.03 25 IR Itca-Rock outcrop association 0.03 0.01 25 JCD Jarab cobbly loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.67 0.37 0 KER Kyler-Eaglepass-Rock outcrop association 0.28 0.12 20 GOV HR KO Kyler-Rock outcrop complex 0.30 0.13 30 KR Kyler-Rock outcrop-Kyler variant association 0.32 0.14 25 LAB Lien gravelly fine sandy loam 2 to 4 percent slopes 0.92 0.51 0 Linco-Acana association 0.84 0.46 0 LC D-134 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.18 NV613 Meadow Valley Area Nevada and Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) LD Linco-Badland association 0.65 0.34 0 LE Lize association 0.72 0.41 0 LT Lize-Tica association 0.42 0.21 0 MO Monroe loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.36 0.16 0 MR Motoqua-Rock outcrop association 0.82 0.48 15 MU Met-Ursine association 0.75 0.38 0 MVC Minu gravelly sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.84 0.46 0 MW Monroe-Wales silt loams 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.25 0.10 0 Minu stony sandy loam 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.59 0.31 0 Nevtah-Rock outcrop association 0.75 0.44 20 NSD Nevu gravelly sandy loam 4 to 15 percent slopes 0.64 0.34 0 OTR Onaqui-Tolman-Rock outcrop complex 15 to 50 percent slopes 0.33 0.16 15 Pa Pahranagat silt loam drained strongly saline 0.56 0.33 0 Pd Pahranagat silt loam strongly saline 0.56 0.33 0 Pe Pahranagat silty clay loam 0.39 0.22 0 Pg Pahranagat silty clay loam drained 0.39 0.22 0 MWC NR PH Patter-Heist association 0.70 0.35 0 Pamsdel gravelly loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.29 0.13 0 PN Patter-Geer association 0.77 0.40 0 PO Patter-Heist-Geer association 0.35 0.14 0 PS Pioche-Rock outcrop complex 0.03 0.01 25 Poorma very fine sandy loam 0 to 4 percent slopes 1.02 0.58 0 PV Poorma variant silt loam 0.38 0.17 0 RB Radec-Bodacious complex 15 to 60 percent slopes 0.25 0.11 0 RO Rock land 0.01 0.01 100 RR Radec-Rock outcrop complex 8 to 25 percent slopes 0.23 0.10 20 Roval gravelly loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.17 0.06 0 Roval-Acana association 0.29 0.12 0 Satt stony sandy loam 4 to 15 percent slopes eroded 0.21 0.08 0 PMC PTB RRD RV SAD2 August 24, 2009 D-135 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.18 NV613 Meadow Valley Area Nevada and Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Slidymtn-Capsus association 0.17 0.07 0 Satt stony fine sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes eroded 0.21 0.08 0 SD Satt association 0.21 0.08 0 SEF Seval extremely gravelly sandy loam 30 to 50 percent slopes 0.73 0.42 0 SGA Stewval-Gabbvally association 0.10 0.03 0 SGD Shroe gravelly loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.34 0.16 0 Shroe-Badland association 0.20 0.08 0 Sierocliff gravelly sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.95 0.54 0 Slickens 0.18 0.04 0 Stewval-Lomoine-Rock outcrop association 0.18 0.05 10 Stampede gravelly loam 0.42 0.20 0 SUD Studhorse gravelly loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.28 0.12 0 SWC Swisbob very stony loam 4 to 8 percent slopes 0.52 0.27 0 SC SCC2 SH SKC SL SLR ST TA Turba-Acti association 0.31 0.18 0 TN Tica-Nevtah-Rock outcrop association 0.36 0.18 30 TR Tica-Rock outcrop association 0.23 0.10 25 TTB Timpahute gravelly loam 0 to 4 percent slopes 0.18 0.07 0 UG Ursine-Geer association 0.32 0.14 0 UK Udel-Rock outcrop association 0.58 0.33 35 UL Ursine-Lomoine association 0.39 0.17 0 Umil gravelly loam 2 to 4 percent slopes 0.22 0.08 0 Ursine association 0.24 0.10 0 URD Ursine gravelly loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.34 0.15 0 URE Ursine gravelly loam 15 to 30 percent slopes 0.34 0.15 0 US Ursine-Badland association 0.36 0.16 0 UT Urtah-Rock outcrop association 0.51 0.28 40 UWD Urwil stony fine sandy loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.15 0.05 0 VBR Vennob-Bodacious-Rock outcrop association 15 to 50 percent slopes 0.07 0.02 15 VCC Vicu stony sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.63 0.33 0 UMB UR D-136 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.18 NV613 Meadow Valley Area Nevada and Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Vil gravelly loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.38 0.18 0 VM Veet-Mosida association 0.60 0.31 0 W Water 0.01 0.01 100 WMF Wilpar very stony sandy loam 30 to 50 percent slopes 0.57 0.30 0 WNG Winu extremely stony loam 50 to 75 percent slopes 0.14 0.04 0 WR Winu-Rock outcrop association 0.14 0.04 20 WS Winz association 0.56 0.30 0 ZOF Zoate cobbly loam 15 to 50 percent slopes 0.03 0.01 0 Zoate-Rock outcrop association 0.03 0.01 30 VGC ZR August 24, 2009 D-137 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Page Intentionally Left Blank D-138 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses D.3.13 NV754 Table D.19 NV754 Lincoln County Nevada South Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1000 Weiser-Tencee-Arizo association 0.56 0.29 0 1001 Weiser-Tencee association 0.43 0.21 0 1010 Tencee-Weiser association 0.42 0.20 0 1016 Tencee association 0.37 0.17 0 1017 Tencee-Bard-Arizo association 0.46 0.22 0 1020 Kurstan-Tencee association 0.58 0.29 0 1021 Kurstan-Knob Hill association 0.88 0.47 0 1030 Arizo-Bluepoint association 1.89 1.19 0 1031 Arizo association 1.85 1.16 0 1040 Akela-Rock outcrop association 0.86 0.48 20 1041 Akela-Rochpah-Rock outcrop association 0.61 0.32 10 1052 Knob Hill-Arizo association 0.94 0.53 0 1060 St. Thomas-Chinkle-Rock outcrop association 0.42 0.19 20 1061 St. Thomas-Zeheme-Rock outcrop association 0.66 0.35 20 1062 Zeheme-Chinkle-Shankba association 0.38 0.16 0 1063 Zeheme-Kanesprings-Rock outcrop association 0.46 0.21 15 1064 Zeheme-Kanackey-Rock outcrop association 0.08 0.05 20 1065 Zeheme-Rock outcrop association 0.44 0.22 35 1066 Zeheme-Boxspring-Rock outcrop association 0.30 0.12 20 1070 Bellehelen-Brier association 0.46 0.24 0 1080 Kaspal-Canutio association 0.09 0.02 0 1090 Logring-Rock outcrop association 0.45 0.23 20 1091 Logring-Eaglepass-Rock outcrop complex 0.37 0.17 15 1100 Geta-Arizo association 0.88 0.46 0 1101 Geta gravelly sandy loam 2 to 4 percent slopes 0.72 0.37 0 1102 Geta-Bluepoint-Arizo association 1.29 0.74 0 1110 Kanesprings-Kanackey-Rock outcrop association 0.14 0.09 15 1111 Nuhelen-Farepeak association 0.53 0.31 0 1113 Kanesprings-Gabbvally association 0.27 0.11 0 1133 Lojet-Qwynn-Littleailie association 1.07 0.59 0 1160 Silent-Koyen association 0.85 0.45 0 August 24, 2009 D-139 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.19 NV754 Lincoln County Nevada South Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1170 Alko-Arizo association 0.66 0.34 0 1172 Alko-Geta assocation 1.31 0.75 0 1180 Acoma-Decan-Cath association 0.48 0.23 0 1190 Minu-Shroe-Acoma association 0.62 0.32 0 1210 Brier-Acoma-Bellehelen association 0.35 0.18 0 1211 Brier-Rock outcrop association 0.62 0.36 30 1220 Lien-Devildog association 0.67 0.36 0 1230 Pahranagat association 0.56 0.33 0 1250 Patter-Heist association 0.70 0.35 0 1260 Hollace-Gabbvally association 0.08 0.02 0 1261 Hollace-Rochpah-Wyva association 0.14 0.05 0 1262 Hollace-Winklo-Wyva association 0.12 0.04 0 1270 Laross-Rock outcrop association 0.66 0.38 20 1300 Mormount-Arizo association 0.87 0.47 0 1302 Mormount very gravelly sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.63 0.33 0 1303 Mormount-Canutio association 0.73 0.38 0 1340 Aymate-Canutio association 0.65 0.33 0 1341 Aymate sandy loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.81 0.42 0 1342 Aymate-Mormount-Arizo association 0.78 0.41 0 1350 Bard gravelly fine sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.53 0.25 0 1360 Canutio-Arizo association 0.74 0.39 0 1370 Mormon Mesa association 0.78 0.40 0 1371 Mormon Mesa-Naye-Dalian association 0.59 0.30 0 1372 Mormon Mesa-Tonopah-Arada association 0.75 0.43 0 1380 Bracken gravelly fine sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 1.06 0.59 0 1390 Shankba-Chinkle-Kanackey association 0.21 0.11 0 1400 Cave-Canutio association 0.38 0.18 0 1401 Cave-Arizo association 0.47 0.24 0 1403 Cave-Tencee association 0.36 0.17 0 1404 Cave-Mormount-Canutio association 0.48 0.23 0 1405 Cave-Zeheme association 0.40 0.19 0 D-140 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.19 NV754 Lincoln County Nevada South Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1406 Cave very gravelly sandy loam 4 to 30 percent slopes 0.36 0.17 0 1420 Kanackey-Rock outcrop association 0.01 0.01 15 1430 Typic Torriorthents-Badland association 0.53 0.26 0 1460 Pintwater-Rochpah association 0.44 0.21 0 1470 Tybo-Keefa-Koyen association 0.70 0.36 0 1471 Tybo-Koyen association 0.76 0.39 0 1472 Tybo-Geer association 0.74 0.38 0 1473 Tybo-Leo association 0.70 0.36 0 1474 Tybo-Delamar association 0.77 0.40 0 1475 Treadwell-Veet association 0.60 0.31 0 1490 Keefa-Penoyer association 0.64 0.28 0 1491 Keefa warm-Penoyer association 0.58 0.25 0 1510 Koyen gravelly sandy loam 2 to 4 percent slopes 0.88 0.48 0 1512 Koyen-Penoyer association 0.36 0.12 0 1520 Geer-Penoyer association 0.61 0.25 0 1530 Delamar-Leo association 1.03 0.58 0 1531 Delamar-Veet association 1.02 0.58 0 1533 Delamar-Tybo-Koyen association 1.05 0.58 0 1534 Delamar-Koyen association 1.08 0.62 0 1535 Delamar gravelly sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 1.13 0.65 0 1540 Oleman-Leo association 0.09 0.02 0 1541 Oleman-Cave association 0.11 0.03 0 1542 Oleman gravelly sandy loam 4 to 15 percent slopes 0.06 0.01 0 1550 Pahroc-Leo association 0.41 0.19 0 1551 Pahroc very gravelly very fine sandy loam 4 to 15 percent slopes 0.38 0.18 0 1570 Kyler-Eaglepass-Rock outcrop association 0.28 0.12 20 1571 Kyler-Logring-Rock outcrop association 0.38 0.18 20 1590 Winklo-Wyva assocation 0.10 0.03 0 1591 Winklo-Rochpah-Rock outcrop association 0.54 0.27 15 August 24, 2009 D-141 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.19 NV754 Lincoln County Nevada South Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1650 Handpah-Veet association 0.16 0.04 0 1660 Dewrust-Veet association 0.64 0.34 0 1680 Rochpah-Hollace-Gabbvally association 0.23 0.09 0 1681 Rochpah-Veet association 0.54 0.27 0 1683 Rochpah-Rock outcrop-Leo association 0.52 0.26 30 1690 Jolan-Geer association 0.69 0.33 0 1700 Sierocliff-Veet association 0.89 0.50 0 1710 Cliffdown gravelly sandy loam 4 to 8 percent slopes 0.73 0.37 0 1730 Cath-Veet association 0.99 0.55 0 1734 Qwynn-Devildog association 0.96 0.53 0 1741 Slaw silt loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.19 0.06 0 1750 Chanybuck-Brier-Rock outcrop 0.62 0.36 15 1761 Wyva-Rock outcrop association 0.07 0.02 20 1762 Wyva-Slidymtn association 0.19 0.07 0 1770 Veet-Mosida association 0.61 0.32 0 1810 Boxspring-Rock outcrop association 0.23 0.09 20 1811 Boxspring-Theriot-Rock outcrop association 0.27 0.11 15 1821 Turba-Acti association 0.31 0.18 0 1830 Zaqua-Winklo association 0.60 0.32 0 1831 Zaqua-Boxspring association 0.49 0.24 0 1832 Zaqua-Winklo-Kanesprings association 0.61 0.32 0 1833 Zaqua-Rock outcrop association 0.62 0.33 30 1850 Rapado-Oleman association 0.26 0.09 0 1851 Rapado-Veet association 0.55 0.30 0 1870 Faleria-Laross association 0.91 0.56 0 1880 Tejabe-Pintwater-Rock outcrop association 0.41 0.20 15 1881 Richinde-Pintwater-Rock outcrop association 0.57 0.29 15 1885 Richinde-Chubard-Richinde very stony association 0.55 0.28 0 1890 Welring-Rock outcrop association 0.31 0.14 20 1900 Glendale-Bluepoint association 0.61 0.28 0 1910 Land silt loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.18 0.06 0 D-142 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.19 NV754 Lincoln County Nevada South Part Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1920 Motoqua-Rock outcrop association 0.82 0.48 15 1921 Motoqua-Thunderbird association 0.56 0.30 0 1940 Chubard stony-Rock outcrop association 0.42 0.21 20 1941 Slidymtn-Capsus association 0.17 0.07 0 1942 Richinde-Chubard association 0.51 0.26 0 1950 Ursine-Lomoine association 0.30 0.13 0 1951 Ursine association 0.26 0.11 0 1952 Ursine-Geer association 0.36 0.16 0 1955 Treadwell-Chuckridge-Handpah association 0.27 0.09 0 1960 Crystal Springs gravelly sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.77 0.40 0 1980 Longjim-Arizo association 0.40 0.17 0 1990 Gabbvally-Rock outcrop association 0.16 0.06 15 1991 Gabbvally-Hollace association 0.13 0.04 0 1992 Gabbvally-Brier-Rock outcrop association 0.20 0.09 15 1993 Richinde-Rock outcrop association 0.60 0.31 15 2000 Playas 0.04 0.01 0 2010 Stewval-Gabbvally association 0.10 0.03 0 2011 Stewval-Lomoine-Rock outcrop association 0.18 0.05 10 2123 Littleailie-Lojet association 1.19 0.68 0 2290 Richinde-Chubard-Rock outcrop association 0.53 0.27 20 2292 Chubard-Richinde association 0.51 0.26 0 2297 Chubard-Richinde-Rock outcrop association steep 0.50 0.25 15 2298 Chubard-Richinde association steep 0.49 0.24 0 2320 Blackcan association 0.38 0.17 0 3192 Saltydog-Ambush-Panacker association 0.50 0.23 0 3193 Ewelac-Playas association 0.08 0.02 0 3194 Ambush-Panacker-Playas association 0.61 0.29 0 3673 Kyler very stony-Rock outcrop-Kyler association 0.61 0.31 25 August 24, 2009 D-143 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Page Intentionally Left Blank D-144 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses D.3.14 NV755 Table D.20 NV755 Clark County Area Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 100 Newera association 0.13 0.04 3 101 Glencarb very fine sandy loam saline 0.64 0.31 0 105 Galehills extremely gravelly fine sandy loam 15 to 50 percent slopes 0.65 0.34 3 106 Galehills-Zeheme association 0.62 0.32 5 107 Galehills-Calwash association 0.30 0.11 0 110 Tenwell-Crosgrain association 0.48 0.22 0 111 Tenwell-Shamock association 0.88 0.47 0 112 Arizo very gravelly loamy sand flooded 0 to 4 percent slopes 1.28 0.76 0 113 Arizo very gravelly fine sandy loam gypsiferous substratum 2 to 8 percent slopes 1.46 0.89 0 115 Whitebasin-Upperline-Hardbasin association 0.47 0.20 0 120 Crosgrain-Tenwell association 0.38 0.16 0 121 Sweetspring-Carrizo association 0.27 0.12 0 125 Bobzbulz-Snapcan association 0.24 0.10 0 134 Newera-Nipton association 0.18 0.07 2 135 Nippeno-Mountmcull-Newera association 0.17 0.06 3 140 Haleburu extremely gravelly sandy loam 4 to 15 percent slopes 0.48 0.24 6 141 Nipton-Haleburu-Rock outcrop association 0.52 0.26 20 143 Haleburu association 0.44 0.21 2 144 Haleburu extremely cobbly-Hiddensun association 0.55 0.28 4 146 Haleburu-Nipton association 0.47 0.23 0 147 Haleburu-Nipton association dry 0.49 0.25 0 148 Haleburu-Seanna association 0.51 0.26 0 150 Hypoint gravelly sandy loam 0 to 4 percent slopes 1.36 0.80 0 151 Bluepoint-Arizo association 1.51 0.97 0 155 Bitterridge-Helkitchen association 0.18 0.06 0 160 Lanip-Kidwell association 0.44 0.20 0 165 Upperline-Weiser-Whitebasin association 0.68 0.36 0 August 24, 2009 D-145 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.20 NV755 Clark County Area Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 167 Upperline-St. Thomas-Upperline association 0.56 0.28 0 168 Upperline very gravelly sandy loam 8 to 30 percent slopes 0.72 0.38 0 170 Tenwell-Lanip association 0.61 0.30 0 175 St. Thomas-Rock outcrop complex 0.29 0.12 20 176 St. Thomas association 0.27 0.11 5 177 St. Thomas-Upperline-Whitebasin complex 0.51 0.24 0 178 St. Thomas-Iceberg-Rock outcrop association 0.29 0.12 25 180 Kidwell-Tenwell association 0.76 0.42 0 185 Lastchance-Commski association 0.32 0.14 0 186 Lastchance-Ferrogold-Commski association 0.34 0.15 0 190 Filaree-Lanip-Nickel association 0.55 0.27 0 191 Bluepoint-Grapevine association 1.82 1.20 0 192 Bluepoint association 1.98 1.25 0 195 Cruzspring-Schader-Rock outcrop association 0.34 0.16 15 200 Commski-Weiser-Threelakes association 0.45 0.21 0 201 Commski extremely gravely loam 8 to 30 percent slopes 0.23 0.09 0 202 Commski-Lastchance association 0.42 0.20 0 203 Commski-Oldspan-Lastchance association 0.48 0.23 0 205 Callville-Badland-Guardian association 0.71 0.36 0 207 Callville association 0.78 0.40 0 210 Nickel-Arizo association 1.05 0.60 0 211 Nickel-Crosgrain association 0.64 0.34 0 220 Haymont-Bluepoint association 0.34 0.12 0 221 Haymont association 0.25 0.07 0 225 Baseline-Callville-Badland association 0.59 0.30 0 226 Baseline extremely gravelly fine sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.55 0.28 0 227 Baseline-Gypwash association 0.56 0.28 0 228 Baseline-Guardian association 0.68 0.35 0 230 Wechech-Weiser association 0.52 0.26 0 231 Wechech very gravelly fine sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.64 0.34 0 D-146 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.20 NV755 Clark County Area Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 232 Wechech-Upperline association 0.67 0.35 0 233 Wechech-Ifteen association 1.91 1.66 0 234 Wechech very gravelly fine sandy loam 8 to 30 percent slopes 0.49 0.23 0 235 Gypwash-Callville-Carrizo association 0.67 0.35 0 237 Wechech association 0.66 0.34 0 240 Crosgrain-Irongold-Nickel association 0.30 0.12 0 241 Crosgrain-Typic Torriorthents-Nickel association 0.42 0.19 4 250 Mormon Mesa-Naye association 0.72 0.38 0 255 Tumarion-Nipton association 0.32 0.14 10 260 Naye-Bitter Spring association 0.58 0.27 0 261 Vace-Jean association 0.86 0.52 0 265 Azureridge very gravelly sandy loam 15 to 50 percent slopes 0.62 0.32 0 270 Bard-Nickel-Limewash association 0.87 0.47 8 271 Moapa-Bluepoint association 1.78 1.40 5 272 Moapa-Bluepoint-Rock outcrop association 2.00 1.74 20 285 Heleweiser-Carrizo-Teebar association 0.59 0.31 0 286 Heleweiser-Carrizo association 0.82 0.45 0 287 Heleweiser association 0.69 0.36 0 288 Heleweiser-Teebar association 0.65 0.34 0 289 Heleweiser-Upperline-Nickel association 0.71 0.37 1 290 Rock outcrop-Moapa-Bluepoint association 1.95 1.73 45 291 Rock outcrop-Highland association 0.29 0.12 50 292 Rock outcrop-Nupper association 0.71 0.37 65 294 Rock outcrop sandstone 0.52 0.26 90 298 Rock outcrop-Redneedle-Heleweiser association 0.74 0.39 35 310 Weiser-Arizo association 0.77 0.42 0 311 Weiser-Threelakes association 0.58 0.30 0 313 Weiser-Oldspan-Wechech association 0.46 0.21 0 314 Weiser-Wechech association 0.59 0.30 0 315 Weiser Association 0.64 0.34 0 August 24, 2009 D-147 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.20 NV755 Clark County Area Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 320 Boxspring-Zeheme-Rock outcrop association 0.30 0.13 15 321 Boxspring-Seralin-Rock outcrop association 0.25 0.11 15 322 Boxspring-Potosi-Rock outcrop association 0.26 0.11 10 323 Boxspring-Scrapy-Rock outcrop association 0.37 0.16 15 325 Sandpan-Rositas association 1.69 1.27 0 330 Ramshead-St. Thomas-Rock outcrop association 0.30 0.13 15 335 Teebar very cobbly fine sandy loam 0 to 4 percent slopes 0.56 0.29 7 336 Teebar-Sandpan association 0.82 0.45 0 340 Zeheme-Rock outcrop association 0.47 0.23 20 341 Zeheme extremely gravelly fine sandy loam 8 to 30 percent slopes 0.46 0.23 4 342 Zeheme-Potosi-Rock outcrop association 0.39 0.19 15 343 Zeheme-Rock outcrop-Boxspring association 0.40 0.19 20 351 Seralin extremely gravelly loam 30 to 75 percent slopes 0.24 0.10 4 352 Seralin-Traley-Rock outcrop association 0.29 0.13 15 355 Seralin-Devilsthumb-Ednagrey association 0.27 0.11 3 360 Bracken-Arizo-Badland association 0.97 0.54 0 365 Callville-Gypwash-Badland association 0.47 0.23 0 375 Iceberg-Rock outcrop-Helkitchen association 0.33 0.14 25 376 Iceberg-St. Thomas-Rock outcrop association 0.36 0.16 20 380 Tonopah-Arizo association 0.83 0.46 0 390 Tipnat-Hypoint-Grapevine association 1.38 0.83 0 391 Tipnat-Bluepoint-Hypoint association 1.72 1.04 0 400 Arizo-Cafetal association 0.80 0.42 0 405 Oxyaquic Torrifluvents-Gypwash association 0.76 0.39 8 411 Bludiamond-Diamondhil association 0.19 0.07 0 415 Valatier-Goldbutte association 0.23 0.09 2 421 Moentria extremely gravelly loam 15 to 50 percent slopes 0.27 0.11 5 422 Moentria-Purob Association 0.29 0.13 2 430 Bluepoint-Tipnat-Grapevine association 1.50 0.96 0 D-148 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.20 NV755 Clark County Area Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 431 Hypoint-Vegastorm association 1.55 0.96 0 441 Corbilt gravelly loamy fine sand 0 to 4 percent slopes 1.68 1.00 0 450 Arizo association 1.09 0.64 0 451 Arizo-Peskah-Crosgrain association 0.46 0.22 0 454 Arizo-Riverwash association 0.85 0.54 0 455 Arizo-Tenwell association 0.51 0.25 0 460 Pahrump-Wodavar-Vegastorm association 0.61 0.30 0 461 Pahrump-Bluepoint association 0.55 0.27 0 470 Filaree-Seanna association 0.63 0.33 0 475 Guardian-Sunrock-Badland association 0.74 0.38 1 477 Guardian-Baseline-Guardian association 0.82 0.43 0 478 Guardian-Baseline association 0.72 0.37 0 480 Vace-Arizo association 0.47 0.21 0 481 Vace-Wechech association 0.48 0.22 0 490 Ifteen extremely gravelly very fine sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.65 0.33 0 500 Playas 0.09 0.02 0 501 Dams concrete 0.03 0.01 0 504 Pits quarry 0.03 0.01 0 505 Pits gravel 2.00 2.00 0 506 Pits-Dumps assocation 0.03 0.01 0 508 Landfill 0.03 0.01 0 510 Railroad association 0.63 0.33 2 520 Nolena-Rock outcrop association 0.38 0.17 35 521 Nolena-Nipton association 0.46 0.23 3 522 Nolena-Meadview association 0.51 0.26 1 523 Nolena association 0.49 0.24 0 530 Seanna-Botleg association 0.26 0.09 7 531 Seanna-Rock outcrop association 0.48 0.23 25 532 Seanna-Goldroad-Rock outcrop association 0.50 0.25 15 535 Blackmesa-Sunrock association 0.78 0.41 3 540 Sunrock-Rock outcrop association 0.55 0.28 25 August 24, 2009 D-149 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.20 NV755 Clark County Area Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 541 Sunrock-Haleburu-Rock outcrop association 0.53 0.27 20 542 Sunrock-Callville-Badland association 0.65 0.34 1 550 Cheme-Riverbend-Carrizo association 0.41 0.19 0 551 Cheme-Carrizo-Huevi association 0.58 0.29 0 552 Cheme-Huevi association 0.43 0.20 1 560 Rositas-Riverbend association 1.88 1.68 5 565 Govwash-Guardian-Badland association 0.49 0.22 0 570 Carrizo association 1.68 1.04 0 571 Carrizo-Carrizo-Riverbend association 1.45 0.92 0 572 Carrizo very cobbly coarse sand 2 to 8 percent slopes 1.76 1.12 0 573 Carrizo-Riverbend association 1.05 0.60 0 574 Carrizo-Sunrock association 1.06 0.60 0 575 Carrizo complex 1 to 5 percent slopes 1.49 0.92 0 581 Threelakes-Weiser association 0.60 0.31 0 590 Riverbend-Carrizo association 1.09 0.63 0 591 Riverbend-Carrwash association 0.88 0.50 0 592 Riverbend-Carrizo frequently flooded association 0.78 0.43 0 593 Riverbend-Cheme-Carrizo association 0.63 0.32 0 600 Huevi-Cheme association 0.41 0.19 0 601 Huevi association 0.51 0.25 0 603 Huevi extremely gravelly sandy loam 8 to 30 percent slopes 0.48 0.24 1 604 Huevi-Hiller association 0.57 0.30 1 605 Huevi-Badland association 0.47 0.23 0 606 Huevi-Huevi-Cheme association 0.57 0.29 2 610 Goldroad-Rock outcrop association 0.57 0.30 25 612 Goldroad-Seanna-Rock outcrop association 0.53 0.27 15 613 Goldroad-Haleburu-Rock outcrop association 0.56 0.28 15 620 Arizo-Lanip association 0.58 0.29 0 621 Orwash gravelly loamy coarse sand 2 to 4 percent slopes 1.43 0.83 0 622 Orwash-Arizo-Lanip association 0.73 0.38 0 D-150 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.20 NV755 Clark County Area Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 630 Tenwell very gravelly sandy loam 2 to 4 percent slopes 0.60 0.31 0 635 Aguachiquita-Azureridge association 0.70 0.36 0 640 Cetrepas-Nolena-Rock outcrop association 0.50 0.25 15 645 Goldbutte-Nolena association 0.52 0.26 2 646 Goldbutte-Jumbopeak-Rock outcrop association 0.73 0.40 20 650 Peskah-Crosgrain association 0.37 0.16 0 651 Peskah-Arizo association 0.51 0.25 0 660 Crosgrain extremely gravelly loam 4 to 15 percent slopes 0.23 0.09 0 661 Crosgrain very stony loam 8 to 30 percent slopes 0.28 0.11 0 662 Crosgrain-Arizo association 0.32 0.13 0 663 Crosgrain-Kidwell-Arizo association 0.42 0.20 0 665 Crosgrain-Vace association 0.31 0.12 0 670 Nipton-Highland-Rock outcrop association 0.42 0.20 15 673 Nolena-Newera association 0.24 0.10 3 674 Nipton-Rubble land-Railroad association 0.55 0.28 27 680 Lanfair-Hoppswell association 0.44 0.21 0 690 Hoppswell-Ustidur association 0.22 0.09 0 691 Hoppswell-Jetmine association 0.27 0.11 0 700 Mountmcull-Nippeno association 0.22 0.09 4 701 Nippeno-Nipton association 0.18 0.07 4 705 Charkiln-Woodspring-Buckspring association 0.73 0.40 0 710 Arizo-Lanfair-Riverwash association 0.73 0.42 0 715 Troughspring-Charkiln-Buckspring association 0.51 0.28 2 716 Troughspring very gravelly loam 4 to 15 percent slopes 0.46 0.26 0 721 Corncreek-Badland-Pahrump association 0.46 0.22 0 723 Corncreek-Haymont association 0.32 0.12 0 725 Mackscanyon-Purob association 0.33 0.15 0 731 Purob-Irongold association 0.31 0.13 0 732 Purob extremely gravelly loam 8 to 30 percent slopes 0.30 0.13 1 August 24, 2009 D-151 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.20 NV755 Clark County Area Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 733 Purob extremely gravelly loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.28 0.12 2 734 Purob-Niavi association 0.59 0.31 0 740 Varwash association 0.25 0.10 0 741 Varwash-Carrizo association 0.33 0.14 0 750 Haleburu-Crosgrain-Rock outcrop association 0.44 0.21 11 751 Nipton-Nolena association 0.41 0.19 3 752 Nipton-Newera association 0.28 0.12 0 753 Nipton-Hiddensun-Haleburu association 0.55 0.28 2 754 Haleburu-Hiddensun association 0.53 0.27 3 760 Searchlight extremely gravelly sandy loam 2 to 4 percent slopes 0.72 0.38 0 772 Lamadre-Robbersfire association 0.34 0.17 3 775 Ladyofsnow-Robbersfire-Maryjane association 0.37 0.19 2 780 Prisonear fine sand 2 to 8 percent slopes 1.66 1.50 0 781 Prisonear-Bluepoint association 1.79 1.63 0 790 McClanahan-Beerbo association 0.17 0.07 6 801 Nippeno-Newera association 0.10 0.03 2 805 Buckspring-Fletcherpeak-Seralin association 0.28 0.12 3 806 Buckspring-Scrapy association 0.44 0.22 2 810 Straycow-Newera-Rubble land association 0.20 0.07 14 815 Wheelerwell-Wheelerpass association 0.15 0.06 5 820 Newera-Rock outcrop association 0.12 0.04 15 821 Helkitchen-St. Thomas complex 15 to 50 percent slopes 0.39 0.18 4 830 Puelzmine extremely gravelly fine sandy loam 4 to 15 percent slopes 0.26 0.11 4 833 Virgin Peak-Rock outcrop association 0.42 0.21 15 840 Potosi-Zeheme-Rock outcrop association 0.34 0.16 10 845 Leecanyon-Goodwater association 0.46 0.22 0 850 Birdspring association 0.27 0.11 6 851 Birdspring-Zeheme-Rock outcrop association 0.31 0.14 15 852 Birdspring-Rock outcrop association 0.64 0.34 20 D-152 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.20 NV755 Clark County Area Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 853 Birdspring-St. Thomas-Rock outcrop association 0.42 0.20 15 854 Birdspring-Birdspring warm-Rock outcrop association 0.59 0.31 20 860 Straycow-Highland association 0.11 0.03 3 865 Mackscanyon very gravelly silt loam 15 to 50 percent slopes 0.33 0.16 0 866 Goodwater-Doespring association 15 to 50 percent slopes 0.51 0.26 0 867 Goodwater very gravelly sandy loam 15 to 50 percent slopes 0.49 0.25 0 868 Mackscanyon-Goodwater association 0.36 0.17 0 870 Irongold extremely gravelly loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.30 0.12 0 871 Irongold-Weiser association 0.33 0.14 0 872 Irongold-Wechech association 0.38 0.17 0 875 Kylecanyon-Goodwater association 0.46 0.22 0 880 Nonamewash-Rositas association 1.89 1.29 0 885 Luckystrike gravelly loam 8 to 30 percent slopes 0.61 0.34 2 890 Ripley-Holtville complex 0.22 0.07 0 900 Urban land-Riverbend-Huevi association 1.05 0.60 0 905 Mountmummy-Thesisters-Maryjane association 0.39 0.21 3 910 Carrwash-Riverbend association 0.86 0.48 0 911 Carrwash association 0.89 0.50 0 915 Maryjane-Robbersfire-Kitgram complex 30 to 75 percent slopes 0.46 0.26 1 916 Maryjane extremely gravelly loam 8 to 30 percent slopes 0.62 0.39 0 920 Tanazza-Wechech-Wodavar association 0.80 0.43 0 925 Lastone association 0.27 0.12 1 930 Cololag-Badland association 0.47 0.23 0 940 Mesabase-Azsand association 1.00 0.66 3 941 Mesabase extremely gravelly sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.73 0.39 0 950 Drygyp association 0.84 0.45 0 August 24, 2009 D-153 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.20 NV755 Clark County Area Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 951 Drygyp-Guardian-Baseline association 0.75 0.39 0 952 Drygyp fine sandy loam 2 to 4 percent slopes 0.95 0.49 0 955 Drygyp-Bluegyp association 0.65 0.32 0 965 Azsand-Mesabase-Rositas association 1.22 0.92 0 970 Rubble land-Charpeak-Rock outcrop complex 0.53 0.28 60 980 Orrubo very gravelly loam 15 to 35 percent slopes 0.25 0.10 0 981 Torriorthents-Haplocalcids-Lava flows complex 10 to 40 percent slopes 0.37 0.17 20 982 Winkel-Rock outcrop complex 2 to 12 percent slopes 0.26 0.11 15 998 Miscellaneous water 0.01 0.01 100 999 Water 0.01 0.01 100 D-154 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses D.3.15 UT634 Table D.21 UT634 Iron-Washington Area Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 300 Abela cobbly loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.35 0.16 0 301 Abela very gravelly sandy loam 8 to 25 percent slopes 0.57 0.31 0 302 Acord extremely cobbly loam 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.19 0.08 0 303 Annabella very gravelly coarse sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.79 0.44 0 304 Annabella very gravelly loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.17 0.06 0 305 Antelope Springs loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.26 0.10 0 306 Antelope Springs silt loam reclaimed 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.25 0.10 0 307 Ashdown clay loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.12 0.04 0 308 Ashdown fine sandy loam 0 to 5 percent slopes 0.65 0.33 0 309 Ashdown loam 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.25 0.09 0 310 Ashdown loam gypsiferous substratum 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.25 0.10 0 311 Ashdown silty clay loam 0 to 1 percent slopes 0.12 0.04 0 312 Baboon very cobbly loam 15 to 50 percent slopes 0.21 0.09 0 313 Badland 0.42 0.20 15 314 Badland-Moondog-Rock outcrop complex 30 to 70 percent slopes 0.17 0.06 15 315 Baird Hollow-Mord complex 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.49 0.28 0 316 Bamos extremely cobbly loam 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.09 0.02 0 317 Bamos extremely gravelly loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.10 0.03 0 318 Bamos-Lucero complex 2 to 25 percent slopes 0.18 0.07 0 319 Bamos-Rock outcrop complex 2 to 25 percent slopes 0.11 0.04 25 320 Bandag loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.27 0.11 0 321 Bannion gravelly loam 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.21 0.08 0 322 Behanin-Ess complex 25 to 60 percent slopes 0.55 0.32 0 August 24, 2009 D-155 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.21 UT634 Iron-Washington Area Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 323 Berent loamy fine sand 0 to 10 percent slopes 2.00 2.00 0 324 Beron-Plegomir gravelly sandy loams 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.46 0.21 0 325 Beryl sandy loam 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.71 0.37 0 326 Bess fine sandy loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 1.01 0.59 0 327 Biblesprings fine sandy loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 1.10 0.62 0 328 Biblesprings loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.34 0.15 0 329 Biblesprings-Bannion complex 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.94 0.52 0 330 Biblesprings-Blown out land complex 0 to 5 percent slopes 0.45 0.30 0 331 Birdow loam 0 to 5 percent slopes 0.43 0.21 0 332 Blown out land 0.03 0.01 0 333 Braffits loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.27 0.11 0 334 Bullion silt loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.18 0.06 0 335 Bullion silt loam 0 to 5 percent slopes 0.39 0.17 0 336 Bullion-Antelope Springs complex 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.20 0.07 0 337 Bullion-Berent complex 0 to 10 percent slopes 0.42 0.21 0 338 Bullion-Biblesprings complex 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.23 0.08 0 339 Bullion-Taylorsflat complex 0 to 5 percent slopes 0.42 0.18 0 340 Bushvalley very stony loam 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.31 0.16 0 341 Calcross loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.25 0.09 0 342 Calcross loam 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.25 0.09 0 343 Calcross silty clay loam 0 to 1 percent slopes 0.12 0.04 0 344 Canburn silty clay loam 0 to 5 percent slopes 0.21 0.09 0 345 Cathedral-Posant-Rock outcrop complex 25 to 60 percent slopes 0.58 0.34 15 346 Checkett gravelly loam 5 to 40 percent slopes 0.21 0.08 0 347 Checkett-Rock outcrop complex 5 to 40 percent slopes 0.21 0.08 25 D-156 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.21 UT634 Iron-Washington Area Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 348 Checkett-Rock outcrop complex 8 to 25 percent slopes 0.23 0.09 15 349 Chuska-Checkett gravelly loams 8 to 25 percent slopes 0.22 0.08 0 350 Cinder land 2.00 1.99 0 351 Cranbay-Winnemucca complex 10 to 60 percent slopes 0.37 0.21 0 352 Crestline gravelly sandy loam 0 to 5 percent slopes 1.06 0.61 0 353 Crestline sandy loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 1.22 0.71 0 354 Crestline-Sevy sandy loams 0 to 2 percent slopes 1.02 0.57 0 355 Dalcan cobbly loam 2 to 25 percent slopes 0.31 0.14 0 356 Dalcan cobbly loam 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.15 0.06 0 357 Decca sandy loam 0 to 5 percent slopes 0.73 0.38 0 358 Deerlodge gravelly loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.22 0.09 0 359 Deerlodge gravelly loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.22 0.08 0 360 Deerlodge gravelly loam 5 to 15 percent slopes 0.22 0.08 0 361 Deerlodge-Bannion complex 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.38 0.18 0 362 Deerlodge-Checkett gravelly loams 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.22 0.09 0 363 Deerlodge-Monox gravelly sandy loams 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.44 0.20 0 364 Denmark gravelly loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.35 0.16 0 365 Denmark loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.32 0.14 0 366 Denmark-Saxby complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.30 0.13 0 367 Dennot very gravelly loam 2 to 10 percent slopes 0.21 0.09 0 368 Detra complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.19 0.07 0 369 Detra fine sandy loam 15 to 40 percent slopes 1.15 0.71 0 370 Dixie gravelly loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.22 0.09 0 371 Dixie-Checkett complex 5 to 40 percent slopes 0.19 0.07 0 372 Doyce loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.15 0.05 0 373 Dune land 2.00 1.99 0 August 24, 2009 D-157 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.21 UT634 Iron-Washington Area Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 374 Elenore gravelly loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.28 0.12 0 375 Escalante sandy loam 0 to 5 percent slopes 1.15 0.67 0 376 Escalante sandy loam 1 to 5 percent slopes 1.19 0.69 0 377 Faim clay loam 4 to 25 percent slopes 0.32 0.16 0 378 Faim clay loam 4 to 40 percent slopes 0.32 0.16 0 379 Festus gravelly sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.67 0.35 0 380 Fughes-Sheckle loams 4 to 25 percent slopes 0.65 0.38 0 381 Garbo gravelly sandy loam 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.88 0.48 0 382 Garbo-Biblesprings complex 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.94 0.52 0 383 Garbo-Deerlodge complex 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.37 0.16 0 384 Garbo-Sevy complex 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.44 0.18 0 385 Gomine-Vennob-Rock outcrop complex 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.10 0.03 15 386 Gordonpoint loam 1 to 10 percent slopes 0.50 0.27 0 387 Hatu silty clay 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.08 0.02 0 388 Hiko Peak gravelly loam 2 to 25 percent slopes 0.27 0.11 0 389 Hiko Peak gravelly sandy loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.83 0.46 0 390 Hoye sandy loam 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.16 0.05 0 391 Ikit-Rock outcrop-Lorhunt complex 25 to 60 percent slopes 0.21 0.08 35 392 Ironco-Quilt complex 25 to 60 percent slopes 0.19 0.08 0 393 Jigsaw silty clay loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.12 0.04 0 394 Junkett cobbly sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.68 0.37 0 395 Kanarra extremely cobbly clay loam 8 to 25 percent slopes 0.09 0.03 0 396 Kanarra sandy clay loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.31 0.13 0 397 Kolob-Detra association 2 to 40 percent slopes 0.49 0.27 0 398 Komo gravelly loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.21 0.08 0 399 Krueger loam 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.56 0.31 0 D-158 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.21 UT634 Iron-Washington Area Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 400 Kunz-Detra complex 2 to 40 percent slopes 0.52 0.29 0 401 Kunz-Ramps complex 8 to 25 percent slopes 1.26 0.79 0 402 Lagnaf-Rypod complex 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.26 0.12 0 403 Lava flows 0.01 0.01 85 404 Lavate very cobbly sandy loam 8 to 25 percent slopes 0.60 0.32 0 405 Lodar-Rock outcrop complex 15 to 50 percent slopes 0.24 0.11 25 406 Lucero gravelly sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.98 0.57 0 407 Lucero-Checkett complex 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.18 0.07 0 408 Magna silty clay loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.12 0.04 0 409 Manderfield gravelly sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.98 0.57 0 410 Manselo loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.63 0.31 0 411 Manselo loam 0 to 3 percent slopes 0.34 0.15 0 412 Manselo-Antelope Springs silt loams 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.22 0.08 0 413 Manselo-Ashdown complex 0 to 5 percent slopes 0.50 0.23 0 414 Manselo-Berent complex 0 to 10 percent slopes 1.23 0.85 0 415 Manselo-Biblesprings complex 0 to 5 percent slopes 0.60 0.30 0 416 Manselo-Sevy loams 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.29 0.10 0 417 Medburn sandy loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.79 0.42 0 418 Medburn sandy loam 2 to 5 percent slopes 1.25 0.73 0 419 Medburn sandy loam saline-alkali 0 to 2 percent slopes 1.28 0.74 0 420 Melling very gravelly loam 8 to 25 percent slopes 0.33 0.17 0 421 Minu gravelly sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.67 0.35 0 422 Monox gravelly sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.26 0.10 0 423 Monroe loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.36 0.16 0 424 Monroe-Wales silt loams 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.25 0.10 0 August 24, 2009 D-159 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.21 UT634 Iron-Washington Area Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 425 Moondog cobbly loam 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.23 0.09 0 426 Moondog-Lorhunt-Rock outcrop complex 30 to 70 percent slopes 0.12 0.04 15 427 Mord gravelly loam 4 to 25 percent slopes 0.53 0.31 0 428 Mosida fine sandy loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 1.05 0.61 0 429 Motoqua-Rock outcrop complex 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.19 0.08 30 430 Muleypoint very cobbly loam 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.27 0.12 0 431 Musinia silty clay loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.19 0.08 0 432 Naplene loam 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.24 0.09 0 433 Ocambee extremely cobbly loam 25 to 40 percent slopes 0.19 0.08 0 434 Ocambee extremely gravelly loam 8 to 25 percent slopes 0.19 0.08 0 435 Onaqui-Tolman-Rock outcrop complex 15 to 50 percent slopes 0.33 0.16 15 436 Orcap very gravelly clay loam 15 to 50 percent slopes 0.17 0.08 0 437 Paragonah silty clay loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.09 0.02 0 438 Parowan silt loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.10 0.02 0 439 Pass Canyon extremely cobbly loam 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.19 0.08 0 440 Pass Canyon-Lucero complex 4 to 40 percent slopes 0.15 0.05 0 441 Pass Canyon-Red Butte-Rock outcrop association 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.22 0.10 20 442 Pass Canyon-Rock outcrop complex 25 to 60 percent slopes 0.23 0.10 25 443 Paunsaugunt extremely stony loam 25 to 60 percent slopes 0.28 0.14 0 444 Paunsaugunt-Kolob gravelly loams 10 to 40 percent slopes 0.18 0.07 0 445 Pavant cobbly loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.28 0.12 0 446 Pavant-Abela complex 2 to 25 percent slopes 0.38 0.18 0 447 Pavant-Lucero cobbly loams 2 to 25 percent slopes 0.28 0.12 0 D-160 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.21 UT634 Iron-Washington Area Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 448 Pits-Dumps complex 0.03 0.01 0 449 Playas 0.16 0.06 0 450 Plegomir gravelly sandy loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.69 0.36 0 451 Plegomir-Deerlodge gravelly sandy loams 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.37 0.16 0 452 Plegomir-Manselo complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.40 0.18 0 453 Plite sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 1.08 0.65 0 454 Pyrat gravelly loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.48 0.23 0 455 Quichipa silty clay loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.10 0.03 0 456 Radec very cobbly loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.05 0.01 0 457 Radec-Bodacious complex 15 to 60 percent slopes 0.25 0.11 0 458 Radec-Checkett association 8 to 25 percent slopes 0.10 0.03 0 459 Radec-Rock outcrop complex 8 to 25 percent slopes 0.23 0.10 20 460 Red Butte extremely gravelly loam 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.19 0.08 0 461 Red Butte very gravelly loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.23 0.10 0 462 Repmis gravelly loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.29 0.13 0 463 Revor gravelly loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.29 0.13 0 464 Ripgut gravelly loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.23 0.09 0 465 Riverwash 2.00 1.99 0 466 Rob Roy extremely cobbly loam 15 to 50 percent slopes 0.22 0.10 0 467 Rock outcrop 0.42 0.20 85 468 Rustico silty clay loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.28 0.13 0 469 Rypod very gravelly loam 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.31 0.15 0 470 Sackett loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.25 0.10 0 471 Sanpete extremely cobbly loam 8 to 25 percent slopes 0.19 0.08 0 August 24, 2009 D-161 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.21 UT634 Iron-Washington Area Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 472 Saxby-Rock outcrop-Checkett complex 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.22 0.09 25 473 Seth loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.57 0.32 0 474 Seth stony loam 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.45 0.25 0 475 Sevy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.12 0.03 0 476 Sevy sandy loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.79 0.42 0 477 Sevy sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.77 0.41 0 478 Sevy-Ardnas complex 0 to 5 percent slopes 0.63 0.31 0 479 Sevy-Taylorsflat complex 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.31 0.11 0 480 Simper gravelly loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.29 0.13 0 481 Siroco cobbly loam 8 to 25 percent slopes 0.15 0.06 0 482 Skumpah silt loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.10 0.02 0 483 Soutin loam 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.24 0.09 0 484 Squawcave silt loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.21 0.07 0 485 Streuling-Fontreen very gravelly loams 15 to 50 percent slopes 0.24 0.11 0 486 Studhorse gravelly loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.29 0.13 0 487 Studhorse gravelly loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.29 0.13 0 488 Syrett-Mudcree complex 25 to 60 percent slopes 0.23 0.09 0 489 Taylorsflat loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.33 0.15 0 490 Taylorsflat loam 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.32 0.14 0 491 Taylorsflat loam saline 0 to 5 percent slopes 0.27 0.10 0 492 Taylorsflat-Escalante sandy loams 2 to 5 percent slopes 1.19 0.70 0 493 Tiki-Kinghorn-Rock outcrop complex 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.20 0.08 15 494 Tolman extremely cobbly loam 4 to 25 percent slopes 0.19 0.08 0 495 Tolman-Dalcan-Rock outcrop complex 25 to 60 percent slopes 0.35 0.17 15 496 Tolman-Rock outcrop complex 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.60 0.32 15 497 Tolman-Rock outcrop-Dalcan complex 15 to 50 percent slopes 0.20 0.08 30 D-162 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.21 UT634 Iron-Washington Area Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 498 Tolman-Waltershow-Rock outcrop complex 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.45 0.23 15 499 Tombar cobbly loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.29 0.13 0 500 Tombar extremely cobbly loam 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.19 0.08 0 501 Trag stony loam 15 to 60 percent slopes 0.45 0.24 0 502 Vennob-Bodacious-Rock outcrop association 15 to 50 percent slopes 0.07 0.02 15 503 Vennob-Rock outcrop complex 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.04 0.01 30 504 Wales loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.27 0.10 0 505 Wales loam 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.12 0.04 0 506 Wales loam flooded 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.27 0.10 0 507 Wales sandy loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 1.25 0.73 0 508 Wales silty clay loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.12 0.04 0 509 Wales very fine sandy loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 1.18 0.68 0 510 Welring-Menefee-Rock outcrop complex 40 to 80 percent slopes 0.27 0.11 15 511 Wenzel cobbly loam 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.42 0.22 0 512 Whiteman very cobbly very fine sandy loam 1 to 6 percent slopes 0.09 0.03 0 513 Winnemucca loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.64 0.37 0 514 Winnemucca-Hoodle association 5 to 30 percent slopes 0.45 0.23 0 515 Woodrow silty clay loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.12 0.04 0 516 Woodrow silty clay loam saline 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.10 0.03 0 517 Wye very gravelly loam 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.19 0.07 0 518 Water 0.01 0.01 100 August 24, 2009 D-163 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Page Intentionally Left Blank D-164 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses D.3.16 UT636 Table D.22 UT636 Panguitch Area Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr Natural RTIMP, % SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1 Ahlstrom-Osote complex 1 to 15 percent slopes 0.30 0.14 0 2 Alldown clay loam 1 to 2 percent slopes 0.10 0.02 0 3 Alldown clay loam 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.10 0.02 0 4 Alldown loam alkali 1 to 2 percent slopes 0.28 0.10 0 5 Alldown clay loam moist 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.10 0.02 0 6 Andys loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.28 0.11 0 7 Andys very cobbly loam 8 to 25 percent slopes 0.35 0.16 0 8 Badland-Cannonville-Rock outcrop complex 30 to 50 percent slopes 0.15 0.06 15 9 Badland-Rock outcrop-Paunsaugunt complex 2 to 20 percent slopes 0.32 0.15 30 10 Baldfield clay 2 to 4 percent slopes 0.03 0.01 0 11 Baldfield clay 2 to 8 percent slopes eroded 0.03 0.01 0 12 Barx fine sandy loam 2 to 10 percent slopes 0.85 0.46 0 13 Bayfield clay 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.03 0.01 0 14 Befar clay 4 to 8 percent slopes 0.03 0.01 0 15 Behanin loam 30 to 70 percent slopes 0.50 0.25 0 16 Blanchard family sand 30 to 70 percent slopes 2.00 2.00 0 17 Borollic Natrargids 0 to 1 percent slopes 0.07 0.01 0 18 Broncho very gravelly sandy loam 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.39 0.18 0 19 Bruman loam 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.43 0.19 0 20 Bruman gravelly loam 2 to 10 percent slopes 0.37 0.16 0 21 Bruman cobbly loam moist 10 to 30 percent slopes 0.41 0.18 0 22 Bruman cobbly loam moist 30 to 50 percent slopes 0.41 0.18 0 23 Bruman very cobbly loam 5 to 30 percent slopes 0.27 0.11 0 24 Bruman very cobbly loam 30 to 50 percent slopes 0.27 0.11 0 25 Brycan very fine sandy loam 1 to 6 percent slopes 1.46 0.91 0 August 24, 2009 D-165 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.22 UT636 Panguitch Area Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr Natural RTIMP, % SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 26 Brycan very fine sandy loam 6 to 15 percent slopes 1.46 0.91 0 27 Bushvalley very stony loam 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.25 0.11 0 28 Callings-Winnemucca association 5 to 15 percent slopes 0.68 0.41 0 29 Cannonville clay 30 to 50 percent slopes 0.03 0.01 0 30 Cannonville very stony clay 30 to 50 percent slopes 0.02 0.01 0 31 Castino-Behanin association 20 to 70 percent slopes 0.46 0.25 0 32 Castino-Tica family complex 20 to 70 percent slopes 0.35 0.18 0 33 Castino-Winnemucca association 5 to 30 percent slopes 0.53 0.30 0 34 Circleville-Rock outcrop complex 25 to 60 percent slopes 0.09 0.03 35 35 Clapper cobbly loam 5 to 30 percent slopes 0.17 0.06 0 36 Clapper cobbly loam 30 to 60 percent slopes 0.17 0.06 0 37 Codley silt loam 1 to 2 percent slopes 0.11 0.03 0 38 Codley silt loam 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.11 0.03 0 39 Comodore-Rock outcrop complex 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.07 0.02 30 40 Crestline fine sandy loam 2 to 4 percent slopes 0.94 0.50 0 41 Dalcan very cobbly loam dry 4 to 25 percent slopes 0.17 0.07 0 42 Descot silt loam dry 1 to 2 percent slopes 0.26 0.10 0 43 Descot silt loam 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.26 0.10 0 44 Dimyaw family gravelly loam 4 to 25 percent slopes eroded 0.18 0.06 0 45 Echard loam 5 to 30 percent slopes 0.42 0.20 0 46 Ess-Callings association 15 to 45 percent slopes 0.91 0.55 0 47 Evanston loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.54 0.26 0 48 Evanston very cobbly loam 4 to 25 percent slopes 0.34 0.16 0 D-166 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.22 UT636 Panguitch Area Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr Natural RTIMP, % SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 49 Frandsen loam dry 1 to 15 percent slopes 0.26 0.11 0 50 Frandsen-Neto association 1 to 8 percent slopes 0.28 0.10 0 51 Frandsen dry-Wiggler complex 15 to 50 percent slopes 0.20 0.08 0 52 Fughes silty clay loam 0 to 4 percent slopes 0.21 0.09 0 53 Gerst family-Rock outcrop complex 20 to 70 percent slopes 0.22 0.08 35 54 Greenhalgh silt loam 1 to 2 percent slopes 0.11 0.03 0 55 Greenhalgh silt loam 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.11 0.03 0 56 Grimm sandy loam 1 to 5 percent slopes 1.08 0.60 0 57 Guben gravelly loam dry 1 to 25 percent slopes 0.45 0.23 0 58 Guben-Showalter complex 2 to 30 percent slopes 0.36 0.17 0 59 Harol very cobbly loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.26 0.12 0 60 Harol very cobbly loam 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.26 0.12 0 61 Harol very cobbly loam moist 25 to 50 percent slopes 0.25 0.12 0 62 Hatch-Pahreah complex 5 to 25 percent slopes 0.09 0.02 0 63 Hatch-Swapps complex 5 to 25 percent slopes 0.11 0.03 0 64 Henrieville sandy loam 1 to 2 percent slopes 0.99 0.54 0 65 Henrieville sandy loam 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.99 0.54 0 66 Henrieville sandy loam 5 to 10 percent slopes 0.99 0.54 0 67 Henrieville sandy loam moist 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.99 0.54 0 68 Hernandez family-Clapper complex 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.20 0.07 0 69 Ipson cobbly loam 8 to 25 percent slopes 0.36 0.17 0 70 Ipson very cobbly loam 25 to 60 percent slopes 0.32 0.15 0 71 Ipson very stony loam dry 5 to 25 percent slopes 0.29 0.13 0 72 Jodero loam 1 to 2 percent slopes 0.38 0.18 0 August 24, 2009 D-167 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.22 UT636 Panguitch Area Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr Natural RTIMP, % SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 73 Jodero loam moist 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.38 0.18 0 74 Kade silt loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.56 0.32 0 75 Lava flows 0.01 0.01 100 76 Lazear-Rock outcrop-Badland complex 8 to 20 percent slopes 0.60 0.30 25 77 Losee gravelly loam 3 to 15 percent slopes 0.46 0.23 0 78 Losee gravelly sandy loam dry 10 to 25 percent slopes 0.99 0.57 0 79 Losee very gravelly loam 30 to 60 percent slopes 0.46 0.23 0 80 Luhon loam 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.20 0.07 0 81 Luhon loam gravelly substratum 1 to 2 percent slopes 0.21 0.07 0 82 Luhon loam gravelly substratum 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.21 0.07 0 83 Luhon loam moist 3 to 15 percent slopes 0.20 0.07 0 84 Luhon very cobbly sandy loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.58 0.30 0 85 Mespun loamy fine sand 1 to 3 percent slopes 1.70 1.20 0 86 Mespun loamy fine sand 3 to 8 percent slopes 2.00 1.59 0 87 Mespun loamy fine sand 8 to 15 percent slopes 2.00 1.59 0 88 Mikim sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.82 0.43 0 89 Mikim loam dry 1 to 2 percent slopes 0.22 0.08 0 90 Mikim loam 2 to 4 percent slopes 0.22 0.08 0 91 Mikim clay loam dry 1 to 2 percent slopes 0.10 0.02 0 92 Mikim clay loam dry 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.10 0.02 0 93 Mitch silt loam 0 to 3 percent slopes 0.38 0.18 0 94 Mitch-Riverwash association 0 to 3 percent slopes 0.22 0.05 0 95 Mivida fine sandy loam 2 to 10 percent slopes 0.98 0.54 0 96 Neto fine sandy loam 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.84 0.44 0 97 Neto very fine sandy loam wet 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.77 0.40 0 98 Notter loam 1 to 4 percent slopes 0.49 0.23 0 D-168 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.22 UT636 Panguitch Area Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr Natural RTIMP, % SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 99 Notter loam moist 1 to 8 percent slopes 0.47 0.22 0 100 Notter loam thick surface 4 to 8 percent slopes 0.25 0.10 0 101 Notter gravelly coarse sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 1.31 0.78 0 102 Notter gravelly loam 8 to 25 percent slopes 0.42 0.20 0 103 Notter very cobbly loam 4 to 25 percent slopes 0.33 0.15 0 104 Notter variant loam 1 to 4 percent slopes 0.29 0.12 0 105 Pahreah-Sheege complex 1 to 20 percent slopes 0.54 0.31 0 106 Pahreah-Sielo complex 2 to 25 percent slopes 0.39 0.20 0 107 Pahreah-Swapps complex 25 to 65 percent slopes 0.35 0.17 0 108 Panguitch-Mitch association 0 to 5 percent slopes 0.75 0.42 0 109 Panguitch-Riverwash association 5 to 15 percent slopes 0.23 0.06 0 110 Paunsaugunt gravelly loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.22 0.09 0 111 Paunsaugunt-Syrett gravelly loams 2 to 20 percent slopes 0.27 0.12 0 112 Playas 0.07 0.01 0 113 Plite sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 1.14 0.70 0 114 Podo loamy sand 1 to 12 percent slopes 2.00 1.27 0 115 Podo-Wiggler complex 10 to 50 percent slopes 0.14 0.05 0 116 Podo-Rock outcrop complex 10 to 40 percent slopes 0.70 0.37 15 117 Quilt very cobbly loam 4 to 25 percent slopes 0.22 0.09 0 118 Quilt very cobbly loam 25 to 40 percent slopes 0.22 0.09 0 119 Redcreek gravelly sandy loam dry 10 to 40 percent slopes 0.52 0.25 0 120 Redcreek cobbly loam 15 to 50 percent slopes 0.18 0.06 0 121 Riverwash 0.12 0.01 0 122 Rock outcrop 0.01 0.01 100 124 Rubble land 0.01 0.01 100 126 Ruko-Podo complex 15 to 60 percent slopes 0.18 0.06 0 August 24, 2009 D-169 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.22 UT636 Panguitch Area Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr Natural RTIMP, % SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 127 Schauson loam 2 to 4 percent slopes 0.69 0.40 0 128 Schauson loam 4 to 15 percent slopes 0.69 0.40 0 129 Sevier-Skutum association 5 to 35 percent slopes 1.25 0.78 0 130 Sheege-Swapps complex 30 to 50 percent slopes 0.26 0.11 0 131 Showalter-Guben complex dry 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.33 0.16 0 132 Shupert silty clay loam wet 0 to 1 percent slopes 0.13 0.05 0 133 Sielo very fine sandy loam 2 to 12 percent slopes 0.74 0.39 0 134 Skutum very fine sandy loam 1 to 6 percent slopes 1.16 0.72 0 135 Skutum fine sandy loam 10 to 35 percent slopes 1.24 0.78 0 136 Swapps gravelly loam 5 to 25 percent slopes 0.41 0.19 0 137 Swapps gravelly loam 25 to 65 percent slopes 0.30 0.13 0 138 Syrett gravelly loam 2 to 12 percent slopes 0.40 0.22 0 139 Syrett-Frandsen association 1 to 12 percent slopes 0.26 0.11 0 140 Syrett-Vanet gravelly loams 20 to 40 percent slopes 0.27 0.12 0 141 Tebbs sandy loam 2 to 5 percent slopes 1.17 0.65 0 142 Tebbs loam 1 to 2 percent slopes 0.22 0.08 0 143 Tebbs loam moist 1 to 2 percent slopes 0.22 0.08 0 144 Tolman very cobbly silt loam 8 to 35 percent slopes 0.14 0.05 0 145 Tolman-Rock outcrop complex 25 to 40 percent slopes 0.30 0.14 25 146 Tridell loam 2 to 4 percent slopes 0.53 0.26 0 147 Tridell gravelly loam moist 4 to 25 percent slopes 0.45 0.22 0 148 Tridell cobbly loam 4 to 25 percent slopes 0.53 0.27 0 149 Tridell moist-Rock outcrop complex 25 to 50 percent slopes 0.19 0.08 15 D-170 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.22 UT636 Panguitch Area Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr Natural RTIMP, % SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 150 Ustic Torrifluvents occasionally flooded 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.95 0.51 0 151 Venture cobbly loam 4 to 30 percent slopes 0.37 0.17 0 152 Venture very cobbly silt loam 4 to 25 percent slopes 0.22 0.10 0 153 Venture cobbly loam dry 8 to 25 percent slopes 0.37 0.17 0 154 Villy family silty clay loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.33 0.17 0 155 Waltershow extremely cobbly loam 8 to 40 percent slopes 0.19 0.08 0 156 Waltershow extremely cobbly loam 40 to 60 percent slopes 0.19 0.08 0 157 Waltershow-Venture-Rock outcrop complex 4 to 40 percent slopes 0.22 0.09 15 158 Whiteman very cobbly very fine sandy loam 1 to 6 percent slopes 0.09 0.03 0 159 Whiteman-Skutum association 10 to 70 percent slopes 0.24 0.10 0 160 Widtsoe gravelly sandy loam 8 to 40 percent slopes 0.51 0.26 0 161 Wiggler channery loam 20 to 50 percent slopes 0.19 0.07 0 162 Wiggler-Guben complex 25 to 50 percent slopes 0.27 0.12 0 163 Wiggler-Rock outcrop-Podo complex 50 to 70 percent slopes 0.12 0.04 25 164 Winetti gravelly sandy loam 2 to 7 percent slopes 0.63 0.29 0 165 Winnemucca-Hoodle association 5 to 30 percent slopes 0.44 0.21 0 166 Yarts loam 1 to 2 percent slopes 0.49 0.22 0 167 Yarts sandy loam 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.74 0.37 0 168 Yarts sandy loam 5 to 10 percent slopes 0.74 0.37 0 169 Yenlo loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.11 0.03 0 170 Zillion very cobbly loam 5 to 25 percent slopes 0.30 0.14 0 171 Zinzer loam 3 to 15 percent slopes 0.29 0.12 0 August 24, 2009 D-171 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.22 UT636 Panguitch Area Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr Natural RTIMP, % SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 172 Zyme very cobbly loam 30 to 60 percent slopes 0.03 0.01 0 173 Zyme-Lazear-Rock outcrop complex 8 to 60 percent slopes 0.10 0.04 15 174 Water 0.01 0.01 100 175 Pits gravel 2.00 2.00 0 176 Pits borrow 0.03 0.01 0 177 Miscellaneous water 0.01 0.01 100 D-172 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses D.3.17 UT641 Table D.23 UT641 Washington County Area Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) BA Badland 0.42 0.20 0 BB Badland very steep 0.42 0.20 0 Bermesa fine sandy loam 1 to 10 percent slopes 1.45 0.87 0 Bermesa-Rock land association 2.00 1.48 20 Bond sandy loam 1 to 10 percent slopes 0.14 0.04 0 Borrow pits 1.34 0.80 0 CaD Caval fine sandy loam 2 to 10 percent slopes 1.13 0.65 0 CEF Cave very gravelly sandy loam 7 to 30 percent slopes 0.54 0.30 0 CFD Cave very gravelly sandy loam low rainfall 2 to 7 percent slopes 0.51 0.27 0 CHF Chilton gravelly loam 5 to 30 percent slopes 0.38 0.17 0 Cinder land 2.00 1.99 0 CoC Clovis fine sandy loam 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.78 0.40 0 CPD Clovis-Pastura complex 1 to 10 percent slopes 0.46 0.20 0 CRF Collbran very cobbly clay loam 2 to 30 percent slopes 0.12 0.04 0 CSE Curhollow very gravelly fine sandy loam 2 to 10 percent slopes 0.99 0.58 0 CUF Curhollow-Rock outcrop complex 10 to 30 percent slopes 0.99 0.58 15 DAG Dagflat-Motoqua complex 30 to 70 percent slopes 0.47 0.24 0 DBD Dalcan cobbly loam 0 to 15 percent slopes 0.20 0.08 0 DKG Detra-Kolob complex 20 to 50 percent slopes 0.56 0.30 0 DrB Draper loam 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.39 0.19 0 DU Dune land 2.00 1.99 0 EA Eroded land-Shalet complex 0.50 0.21 0 EB Eroded land-Shalet complex warm 0.77 0.38 0 FA Fluvaquents and Torrifluvents sandy 2.00 2.00 0 GA Gullied land 1.34 0.80 0 GP Gravel pits 2.00 1.99 0 BED BF BOD BP CI August 24, 2009 D-173 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.23 UT641 Washington County Area Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Hantz silty clay loam 0.09 0.02 0 HbC Harrisburg fine sandy loam 1 to 5 percent slopes 1.64 0.97 0 HD Harrisburg-Rock land association 1.64 0.97 15 HG Hobog-Rock land association 0.26 0.11 40 IAF Isom cobbly sandy loam 3 to 30 percent slopes 0.83 0.46 0 Ib Ivins loamy fine sand 2.00 2.00 0 Ic Ivins loamy fine sand hummocky 2.00 2.00 0 JaB Junction fine sandy loam 1 to 2 percent slopes 1.54 0.91 0 JaC Junction fine sandy loam 2 to 5 percent slopes 1.54 0.91 0 KAE Kinesava fine sandy loam 15 to 25 percent slopes 1.22 0.71 0 KBD Kinesava-Detra fine sandy loams 2 to 15 percent slopes 1.17 0.69 0 KCE Kinesava complex 2 to 30 percent slopes 0.56 0.28 0 Kolob-Detra association 0.93 0.54 0 KHC Kolob-Hogg complex 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.83 0.47 0 KLG Kolob-Paunsaugunt complex 20 to 60 percent slopes 0.56 0.30 0 LA Lava flows 0.01 0.01 100 Lb Lavate sandy loam 1.01 0.57 0 LcB LaVerkin fine sandy loam 1 to 2 percent slopes 1.59 0.96 0 LcC LaVerkin fine sandy loam 2 to 5 percent slopes 1.58 0.94 0 LdB LaVerkin silty clay loam 1 to 2 percent slopes 0.09 0.02 0 LeA Leeds silty clay loam 0 to 1 percent slopes 0.12 0.04 0 Ha KD LeB Leeds silty clay loam 1 to 2 percent slopes 0.12 0.04 0 LeD Leeds silty clay loam 5 to 10 percent slopes 0.12 0.04 0 MAE Magotsu-Pastura complex 2 to 20 percent slopes 0.11 0.04 0 MBG Mathis-Rock outcrop complex 20 to 50 percent slopes 1.84 1.15 20 MEG Menefee-Rock outcrop complex 25 to 60 percent slopes 0.13 0.03 25 D-174 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.23 UT641 Washington County Area Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) MFD Mespun fine sand 0 to 10 percent slopes 2.00 2.00 0 MMG Motoqua-Mokiak very cobbly sandy loams 30 to 70 percent slopes 0.62 0.33 0 MOG Motoqua-Rock outcrop complex 30 to 70 precent slopes 0.40 0.19 15 NaC Naplene silt loam 2 to 6 percent slopes 0.13 0.04 0 NEF Nehar very stony sandy loam 3 to 30 percent slopes 0.73 0.40 0 NIF Nehar-Ildefonso complex 3 to 30 percent slopes 0.64 0.34 0 NkC Nikey sandy loam 1 to 3 percent slopes 1.26 0.72 0 NLE Nikey sandy loam 3 to 15 percent slopes 1.26 0.72 0 NME Nikey very stony sandy loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.89 0.49 0 NNE Nikey-Isom complex 3 to 30 percent slopes 1.07 0.62 0 PAC Palma loamy fine sand 1 to 5 percent slopes 2.00 1.51 0 PbC Palma fine sandy loam 1 to 5 percent slopes 1.75 1.05 0 PcC Pastura loam 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.16 0.05 0 PED Pastura-Esplin complex 0 to 10 percent slopes 0.20 0.07 0 PFG Paunsaugunt gravelly silt loam 30 to 50 percent slopes 0.38 0.20 0 PG Paunsaugunt-Kolob association 0.47 0.25 0 PKE Paunsaugunt-Rock outcrop complex 2 to 30 percent slopes 0.18 0.07 15 PnC Pintura loamy fine sand 1 to 5 percent slopes 1.95 1.18 0 PoD Pintura loamy fine sand hummocky 1 to 10 percent slopes 1.95 1.18 0 PTE Pintura-Toquerville complex 1 to 20 percent slopes 1.97 1.49 0 QMG Quazo-Motoqua very gravelly sandy loams 30 to 70 percent slopes 0.28 0.12 0 RaC Redbank fine sandy loam 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.87 0.46 0 RbA Redbank silty clay loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.09 0.02 0 RE Renbac-Rock land association 0.02 0.01 25 RI Riverwash 2.00 1.99 0 August 24, 2009 D-175 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.23 UT641 Washington County Area Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) RO Rock land 0.01 0.01 80 RP Rock land stony 0.01 0.01 100 RR Rock land-Hobog association 0.07 0.03 40 RT Rock outcrop 0.01 0.01 100 RU Rough broken land 0.01 0.01 100 Sa St. George silt loam 0.23 0.09 0 Sb St. George silt loam strongly saline 0.38 0.16 0 Sc St. George silty clay loam 0.15 0.05 0 Sd St. George silty clay loam moderately saline 0.15 0.05 0 Se St. George silty clay loam shallow water table 0.15 0.05 0 SH Schmutz loam 0.32 0.13 0 SPD Spenlo very fine sandy loam 2 to 10 percent slopes 1.50 0.89 0 SrC Springerville clay 0 to 5 percent slopes 0.03 0.01 0 SY Stony colluvial land 0.56 0.28 0 TAG Tacan very stony sandy loam 30 to 70 percent slopes 1.05 0.65 0 TBF Tobish very cobbly clay loam 5 to 30 percent slopes 0.06 0.01 0 Tc Tobler fine sandy loam 0.85 0.44 0 Td Tobler silty clay loam 0.09 0.02 0 TG Tortugas-Rock land association 0.19 0.07 20 VeA Vekol sandy loam 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.57 0.26 0 VFD Vekol sandy loam 2 to 10 percent slopes 0.57 0.26 0 VHD Veyo-Curhollow complex 3 to 10 percent slopes 0.19 0.05 0 VPD Veyo-Pastura complex 1 to 10 percent slopes 0.09 0.02 0 Water 0.01 0.01 100 WAG Welring-Tortugas very gravelly loams 20 to 70 percent slopes 0.20 0.08 0 WBD Winkel gravelly fine sandy loam 1 to 8 percent slopes 1.28 0.74 0 WCF Winkel-Rock outcrop complex 8 to 30 percent slopes 1.28 0.74 25 YAF Yaki very cobbly loam 3 to 35 percent slopes 0.15 0.05 0 W D-176 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.23 UT641 Washington County Area Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 0.28 0.11 0 YZE Yaki-Zukan complex 1 to 35 percent slopes August 24, 2009 D-177 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Page Intentionally Left Blank D-178 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses D.3.18 UT686 Table D.24 UT686 Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 5001 Mido loamy fine sand 2 to 15 percent slopes 2.00 2.00 0 5002 Dune land 2.00 2.00 0 5003 Milok cool-Barx dry complex 1 to 5 percent slopes 1.23 0.71 0 5004 Rock outcrop (Navajo Sandstone) 0.01 0.01 100 5006 Milok fine sandy loam cool 2 to 8 percent slopes 1.07 0.61 0 5007 Rock outcrop (Navajo Sandstone)-Nalcase complex 2 to 30 percent slopes 2.00 2.00 65 5008 Simel complex 2 to 60 percent slopes 0.08 0.02 0 5009 Wayneco sandy loam dry 2 to 15 percent slopes 1.50 0.90 0 5010 Retsabal-Lemrac complex 2 to 60 percent slopes 0.64 0.31 0 5011 Badland (Carmel Formation)-Rizno cool-Nonip complex 5 to 25 percent slopes 0.19 0.07 0 5012 Santrick-Nalcase-Bispen complex 2 to 30 percent slopes 2.00 1.75 0 5013 Mido-Yarts complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 2.00 1.76 0 5015 Mespun fine sand 2 to 15 percent slopes 2.00 2.00 0 5017 Skos dry-Mido-Arches dry complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 2.00 1.58 0 5018 Skos channery loam dry 5 to 30 percent slopes 0.13 0.05 0 5019 Skos dry-Rock outcrop (Carmel Formation)Arches dry complex 15 to 60 percent slopes 0.34 0.16 30 5020 Rock outcrop (Navajo Sandstone)-MespunNalcase complex 2 to 30 percent slopes 2.00 2.00 40 5021 Milok cool-Anasazi cool complex 2 to 8 percent slopes 1.09 0.62 0 5023 Tsaya channery loam 5 to 25 percent slopes 0.19 0.07 0 5025 Yarts sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.74 0.37 0 5026 Rock outcrop (Entrada and Carmel Formation sandstone) 0.01 0.01 95 August 24, 2009 D-179 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.24 UT686 Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 5027 Badland (Tropic Formation Shale)Cannonville-Rock outcrop (Dakota Formation) complex 30 to 50 percent slopes 0.04 0.01 15 5028 Badland (Entrada Formation) 0.01 0.01 95 5029 Rock outcrop (Straight Cliffs Formation)Atchee family steep-Chilton family complex 50 to 80 percent slopes 0.76 0.43 40 5030 Catahoula-Clapper dry complex 15 to 60 percent slopes 0.41 0.19 0 5031 Moclom-Rock outcrop (Morrison Formation) complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 2.00 2.00 30 5032 Remorris-Kenzo steep-Rock outcrop (Morrison and Entrada Formations) complex 30 to 60 percent slopes 0.23 0.09 25 5033 Yarts fine sandy loam 15 to 40 percent slopes eroded 1.13 0.64 0 5034 Nonip very channery loam 5 to 25 percent slopes 0.11 0.04 0 5035 Earlweed-Mido complex 2 to 30 percent slopes 2.00 2.00 0 5037 Barx fine sandy loam 2 to 10 percent slopes 0.89 0.49 0 5038 Mido-Rock outcrop (Entrada Formation) complex 5 to 40 percent slopes 2.00 2.00 20 5040 Sazi-Milok cool complex 2 to 30 percent slopes 0.99 0.55 0 5041 Seeg warm-Pagina complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 1.62 0.99 0 5042 Moenkopie warm-Moepitz-Rock outcrop (Carmel Formation) complex 10 to 30 percent slopes 2.00 1.63 25 5043 Daklos steep-Rock outcrop (Morrison Formation and Romana Mesa Sandstone) complex 30 to 70 percent slopes 0.68 0.37 40 5044 Dient very stony loam 15 to 50 percent slopes 0.22 0.08 0 5046 Moffat-Sheppard-Nakai complex 2 to 30 percent slopes 1.52 0.96 0 5047 Moffat-Seeg warm-Mack moist complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 1.83 1.13 0 D-180 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.24 UT686 Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 5049 Moffat-Mack moist complex 1 to 5 percent slopes 1.84 1.29 0 5050 Daklos-Arches dry complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.75 0.47 0 5052 Yarts-Suwanee complex 1 to 8 percent slopes 0.46 0.21 0 5053 Milok fine sand 2 to 8 percent slopes 2.00 2.00 0 5055 Mivida-Barx dry complex 1 to 8 percent slopes 1.00 0.55 0 5057 Arches dry-Mident-Yarts complex 2 to 40 percent slopes 2.00 1.82 0 5058 Earlweed-Mivida complex 2 to 20 percent slopes 1.48 0.97 0 5059 Mivida-Yarts moist complex 2 to 8 percent slopes 1.52 0.91 0 5060 Ranion-Suzipon-Rock outcrop (Navajo Sandstone) complex 2 to 30 percent slopes 2.00 1.86 20 5061 Rock outcrop (Navajo Sandstone)-SuziponPeekaboo complex 2 to 30 percent slopes 2.00 1.39 50 5062 Peekaboo-Spooky-Suzipon complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 2.00 1.85 0 5063 Rock outcrop (Navajo and Carmel Formations)-Moenkopie warm-Needle complex 15 to 35 percent slopes 0.70 0.40 40 5065 Trail-Sheppard complex 2 to 10 percent slopes 2.00 1.73 0 5067 Ranion-Peekaboo complex 2 to 20 percent slopes 2.00 1.45 0 5068 Seeg warm-Moffat-Needle complex 2 to 25 percent slopes 2.00 1.86 0 5069 Rock outcrop (Entrada Formation)-Nepalto moist complex 2 to 8 percent slopes 1.41 0.84 60 5071 Somorent-Rock outcrop (Morrison Formation) complex 15 to 40 percent slopes 0.81 0.42 40 5073 Kenzo-Nalcase complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 2.00 1.50 0 5074 Evpark-Vessilla complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 1.24 0.73 0 5075 Shalona sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 1.29 0.79 0 5076 Daklos-Catahoula complex 2 to 30 percent slopes 0.35 0.15 0 August 24, 2009 D-181 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.24 UT686 Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 5077 Gompers family-Rock outcrop (Straight Cliffs Formation)-Sheecal family complex 50 to 80 percent slopes 0.38 0.19 30 5078 Arabrab-Vessilla-Colskel complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.65 0.32 0 5079 Colskel-Arabrab-Vessilla complex 15 to 50 percent slopes 0.48 0.24 0 5080 Moffat-Moepitz complex 2 to 25 percent slopes 0.86 0.45 0 5081 Badland and Rock outcrop (Straight Cliffs and Wahweap Formations)-Kydestea family complex 50 to 80 percent slopes 0.19 0.08 70 5082 Colskel-Menefee-Arabrab complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.34 0.15 0 5083 Colskel-Menefee complex 15 to 50 percent slopes 0.20 0.09 0 5085 Hillburn very channery loam 10 to 70 percent slopes 0.13 0.05 0 5086 Mespun-Bispen-Santrick complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 2.00 2.00 0 5087 Kenzo steep-Rock outcrop (Kayenta Formation) complex 15 to 50 percent slopes 1.42 0.86 25 5088 Calcree-Bowington-Mespun complex 0 to 20 percent slopes 2.00 2.00 0 5089 Bowington-Mespun complex 0 to 15 percent slopes 2.00 2.00 0 5090 Baldfield clay saline 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.03 0.01 0 5091 Brumley fine sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 1.30 0.78 0 5092 Rock outcrop (Navajo Formation)-Navigon complex 30 to 60 percent slopes 2.00 1.42 50 5093 Robay-Strell complex 5 to 30 percent slopes 2.00 1.82 0 5094 Aridic Ustorthents-Yatne complex 15 to 70 percent slopes 0.21 0.09 0 5095 Daklos-Hideout-Rock outcrop (Straight Cliffs Formation) complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.48 0.23 15 5096 Daklos steep-Rock outcrop (Straight Cliffs Formation) complex 15 to 50 percent slopes 0.35 0.17 15 D-182 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.24 UT686 Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 5097 Skyvillage-Daklos saline-Rock outcrop (Wahweap Formation) complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.76 0.39 15 5098 Daklos saline-Skyvillage saline-Cannonville complex 15 to 50 percent slopes 0.47 0.26 0 5100 Rock outcrop (Wingate Formation)-Arches dry complex 2 to 10 percent slopes 0.87 0.46 75 5101 Polychrome family-Badland (Chinle Formation)-Gaddes family complex 15 to 60 percent slopes 0.56 0.26 0 5102 Chinchin-Badland (Chinle Formation) complex 25 to 50 percent slopes 0.10 0.03 0 5103 Barx-Remorris complex 5 to 45 percent slopes 0.70 0.33 0 5104 Rock outcrop (Shinarump Conglomerate)Hideout complex 5 to 50 percent slopes 0.88 0.51 75 5105 Atchee-Lazear dry-Rock outcrop (Shinarump Conglomerate) complex 5 to 60 percent slopes 0.25 0.09 15 5106 Hillburn dry-Badland (Moenkopi Formation) complex 25 to 60 percent slopes 0.10 0.03 35 5107 Simel-Hillburn dry complex 5 to 45 percent slopes 0.10 0.03 0 5108 Hillburn dry-Rock outcrop (Moenkopi Formation) complex 10 to 60 percent slopes 0.07 0.02 25 5109 Nonip dry-Rock outcrop (Moenkopi Formation) complex 15 to 50 percent slopes 0.18 0.07 20 5110 Reef very channery sandy loam 5 to 25 percent slopes 0.24 0.10 0 5111 Nonip extremely channery sandy loam dry 5 to 50 percent slopes 0.08 0.02 0 5112 Barx-Radnik moist-Progresso dry complex 2 to 8 percent slopes 1.14 0.64 0 5114 Meriwhitica moist-Mellenthin complex 5 to 15 percent slopes 0.18 0.07 0 5115 Sanostee warm-Daklos-Hideout complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.87 0.47 0 5116 Stent-Minchey complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.57 0.28 0 5117 Sheppard-Badland (Carmel and Entrada Formations) complex 5 to 30 percent slopes 2.00 1.32 25 August 24, 2009 D-183 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.24 UT686 Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 5118 Mido-Kenzo-Rock outcrop (Carmel Formation) complex 2 to 30 percent slopes 1.06 0.63 15 5120 Pinepoint-Flatnose complex 2 to 8 percent slopes 2.00 1.81 0 5121 Trail-Riverwash complex 0 to 5 percent slopes 2.00 1.82 0 5122 Mido-Mivida complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 2.00 1.71 0 5123 Billings-Jocity saline complex 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.14 0.03 0 5125 Clapper very gravelly loam 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.19 0.07 0 5126 Pinepoint-Parkwash complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 2.00 2.00 0 5127 Skyvillage-Mikim-Badland (Kaiparowits Formation) complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 1.08 0.59 0 5128 Curecanti-Zibetod families complex 30 to 70 percent slopes 0.31 0.14 0 5129 Skyvillage-Rock outcrop (Wahweap Formation) complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 1.45 0.85 35 5130 Progresso-Begay dry complex 1 to 8 percent slopes 0.40 0.16 0 5131 Badland (Kaiparowits Formation)-Lazear steep complex 15 to 60 percent slopes 0.69 0.31 0 5132 Strych-Horsemountain-Barx complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.77 0.40 0 5133 Menefee-Badland (Kaiparowits Formation) complex 5 to 30 percent slopes 0.67 0.33 0 5136 Suzmayne-Colskel-Rock outcrop (Straight Cliffs Formation) complex 10 to 40 percent slopes 0.20 0.08 15 5137 Casmos-Pariette families-Rock outcrop (Dakota and Morrison Formation) complex 2 to 30 percent slopes 0.40 0.17 15 5138 Nakai-Sheppard complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 2.00 2.00 0 5139 Hetz sandy loam 0 to 3 percent slopes 1.27 0.75 0 5140 Green River-Radnik moist-Suwanee saline complex 0 to 5 percent slopes 0.59 0.30 0 D-184 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.24 UT686 Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 5141 Radnik moist-Suwanee saline-Escavada complex 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.83 0.50 0 5142 Alvey-Atrac complex 1 to 15 percent slopes 0.41 0.18 0 5143 Elias-Mikim complex 1 to 7 percent slopes 0.29 0.12 0 5144 Tsaya-Rock outcrop (Straight Cliffs Formation) complex 10 to 60 percent slopes 0.11 0.03 25 5146 Moffat-Pagina-Sheppard complex 2 to 20 percent slopes 1.94 1.30 0 5149 Tsaya saline-Rock outcrop (Straight Cliffs Formation)-Lithic Torriorthents complex 50 to 80 percent slopes 0.09 0.02 30 5150 Chipeta-Hanksville-Badland (Tropic Shale) complex 2 to 30 percent slopes 0.06 0.01 0 5151 Pinepoint dry-Tenneycanyon-Parkwash complex 2 to 25 percent slopes 2.00 1.78 0 5154 Dient-Crotoncanyon complex 15 to 50 percent slopes 0.14 0.05 0 5155 Sanostee warm-Milok-Lazear warm complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 1.52 1.01 0 5156 Daklos steep-Fourmilebench complex 15 to 50 percent slopes 0.15 0.04 0 5157 Daklos family-Rock outcrop (Wahweap Formation) complex 50 to 80 percent slopes 0.20 0.08 35 5158 Mellenthin moist-Rock outcrop (Moenkopi Formation) complex 25 to 60 percent slopes 0.22 0.10 40 5159 Mellenthin moist-Bowdish complex 2 to 30 percent slopes 0.21 0.09 0 5160 Timpoweap-Evpark-Atarque complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.82 0.44 0 5163 Horsemountain fine sandy loam moist 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.74 0.38 0 5164 Badland (Chinle Formation) 0.05 0.01 0 5166 Hillburn dry-Sazi moist complex 2 to 30 percent slopes 0.42 0.22 0 5167 Progresso cool-Atchee family complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.47 0.22 0 5169 Lazear steep-Simel-Rock outcrop (Carmel Formation) complex 20 to 60 percent slopes 0.29 0.13 20 August 24, 2009 D-185 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.24 UT686 Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 5170 Lemrac-Simel-Humbug moist complex 2 to 20 percent slopes 0.31 0.13 0 5171 Kenzo-Retsabal-Progresso cool complex 2 to 30 percent slopes 0.30 0.13 0 5172 Ruinpoint-Barx complex 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.17 0.05 0 5173 Simel-Strych moist-Kenzo complex 2 to 20 percent slopes 0.20 0.08 0 5174 Strych-Sazi moist complex 15 to 50 percent slopes 0.77 0.42 0 5180 Pinepoint-Rock outcrop (Navajo Sandstone)Parkwash complex 15 to 50 percent slopes 2.00 1.81 30 5181 Parkelei-Plumasano moist-Pinepoint complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 1.63 1.12 0 5182 Arabrab-Colskel-Rock outcrop (Carmel Formation) complex 15 to 50 percent slopes 0.95 0.60 20 5183 Parkwash-Rock outcrop (Navajo Sandstone)Vessilla complex 30 to 65 percent slopes 0.89 0.54 30 5185 Nomrah-Upler complex 2 to 15 percent slopes 0.59 0.30 0 5186 Bodot cool-Sili complex 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.07 0.01 0 5187 Zigzag-Aridic Ustorthents complex 15 to 70 percent slopes 0.15 0.05 0 5188 Frandsen loam 1 to 15 percent slopes 0.39 0.18 0 5189 Widtsoe-Emlin complex 5 to 25 percent slopes 0.51 0.25 0 5190 Podo-Rock outcrop (Straight Cliffs and Wahweap Formations) complex 15 to 50 percent slopes 1.10 0.61 40 5191 Ruko-Rock outcrop (Straight Cliffs and Wahweap Formations)-Podo complex 30 to 70 percent slopes 0.16 0.04 30 5192 Gerst family-Cannonville-Rock outcrop (Straight Cliffs and Dakota Formation) complex 20 to 50 percent slopes 0.11 0.04 15 5193 Badland (Kaiparowits Formation) 1.42 0.81 0 5195 Henrieville sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 1.40 0.85 0 5198 Bigpack clay loam 1 to 8 percent slopes 0.13 0.04 0 5199 Quagmeier-Parkelei complex 2 to 30 percent slopes 0.73 0.40 0 D-186 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.24 UT686 Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Utah Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 5200 Sojourn family-Retsabal-Colskel complex 10 to 50 percent slopes 0.53 0.27 0 5201 Sojourn family-Aridic Ustorthents complex 15 to 50 percent slopes 1.69 1.06 0 5203 Wiggler-Curecanti family cool complex 25 to 65 percent slopes 0.19 0.07 0 5205 Curecanti families cool-Widtsoe complex 2 to 25 percent slopes 0.22 0.10 0 5206 Upler cobbly loam 5 to 50 percent slopes 0.32 0.15 0 5207 Winetti-Riverwash complex 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.64 0.37 0 5210 Elpedro moist-Flatnose complex 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.72 0.38 0 5211 Yarts moist-Sazi moist complex 2 to 8 percent slopes 1.13 0.65 0 August 24, 2009 D-187 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Page Intentionally Left Blank D-188 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses D.3.19 UTAH GENERAL SOIL SURVEY Table D.25 UT STATSGO Utah General Soil Survey Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) s1159 Youngston-Willwood-Tipperary-ClapperChroder (s1159) 0.81 0.42 0 s1160 Winona-Travessilla-Schooner-Rock outcropRentsac-Duffymont-Crago (s1160) 0.59 0.29 30 s1161 Zillion-Layoint-Forelle-Emlin-Cathedral (s1161) 0.50 0.25 0 s1185 Rock outcrop-Rentsac-Moyerson-Mikim family-Atchee (s1185) 0.26 0.12 10 s1186 Wallson-Walknolls-Turley-Potts-Penistaja family-Abra (s1186) 0.68 0.34 0 s1199 Ustollic Haplargids-Ustollic Calciorthids-Ustic Torriorthents-Rock outcrop (s1199) 0.75 0.41 30 s1210 Potts-Palma-Kech-Hagerman-Cahona-Begay (s1210) 0.87 0.47 5 s1232 Zyme-Torriorthents-Rock outcrop (s1232) 0.06 0.01 35 s1417 Youngston-Torrifluvents (s1417) 0.23 0.08 0 s1420 Rock outcrop-Redlands-Myton familyMoenkopie-Mack-Farb-Badland (s1420) 0.47 0.21 15 s1422 Uzona-Rock outcrop-Myton family-Claysprings (s1422) 0.06 0.01 10 s1424 Romberg-Rock outcrop-Rizno-LittlenanCragola-Bodot (s1424) 0.08 0.02 15 s1435 Rock outcrop-Rizno-Mido-Ignacio-Begay (s1435) 0.34 0.14 25 s1436 Strych-Redbank-Moab-Begay (s1436) 0.62 0.30 0 s1437 Witt-Northdale-Monticello-Chaseville-Bond (s1437) 0.54 0.26 0 s1778 Richville-Leavitt-Dagan-Cokeville-Boundridge variant (s1778) 0.36 0.17 0 s1791 Windernot-Preston-Kidman (s1791) 0.76 0.44 5 s1811 Manila-Lonigan-Copenhagen-Broadhead (s1811) 0.39 0.19 0 s1815 Parleys-Logan-Langless-Lagonot-Hans-Fridlo (s1815) 0.40 0.20 0 s1826 Ridgecrest-Hondoho (s1826) 0.44 0.23 0 s1834 Strevell-Stanrod-Mellor-Idahome-Declo- 0.37 0.15 0 August 24, 2009 D-189 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.25 UT STATSGO Utah General Soil Survey Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Darkbull (s1834) s1836 Declo-Darkbull (s1836) 0.45 0.20 0 s1844 Rock outcrop-Ola-Itca-Birchcreek-Arbone (s1844) 0.53 0.27 16 s1846 Coalbank-Chen-Bluehill (s1846) 1.26 0.77 0 s1975 Wilsongulch-Tomsherry-CottonthomasCoalbank-Bluehill (s1975) 1.06 0.62 0 s2168 Nielsen-Dranyon-Dra (s2168) 0.35 0.17 0 s2179 Sprollow-Cooley variant-Bezzant (s2179) 0.39 0.18 0 s2180 Zeale-Geneva-Dateman-Aspen (s2180) 0.51 0.28 0 s342 Rock outcrop-Moenkopie (s342) 0.92 0.52 50 s343 Nakai-Monue-Blackston (s343) 1.59 1.07 0 s351 Wayneco-Sazi-Rock outcrop-Rizno-PalmaMespun (s351) 1.28 0.81 10 s359 Spenlo-Schmutz-Redbank family-Palma family-Naplene-Lavate-Ildefonso family-Clovis family-Caval (s359) 0.50 0.20 0 s362 Rock outcrop (s362) 0.48 0.22 83 s392 Sogzie-Sheppard-Rock outcrop-Aneth (s392) 1.66 1.19 10 s393 Shedado-Rock outcrop-Mespun-BegayAnasazi (s393) 1.49 0.99 15 s394 Ustollic Haplargids-Rock outcrop-Namon (s394) 0.79 0.46 30 s398 Sheppard-Rock outcrop-Monue-Moepitz (s398) 1.74 1.37 10 s5228 Tocito-Mesa-Cudei-Badland (s5228) 0.28 0.10 7 s5229 Persayo-Nataani-Littlehat-Awet (s5229) 0.26 0.09 2 s5453 Zadvar-Sanpete-Breko (s5453) 0.57 0.29 0 s5484 Paranat-Equis-Duffer (s5484) 0.14 0.05 0 s5563 Segura-Rock outcrop-Itca family-Cropper (s5563) 0.21 0.09 10 s5571 Tarnach-Cliffdown (s5571) 0.21 0.08 0 s5577 Cave family-Cave-Ajo (s5577) 0.29 0.12 0 s5598 Pioche-Motoqua-Gabbvally (s5598) 0.15 0.06 1 s5742 Typic Torriorthents-Gypill-Cave-Badland (s5742) 0.59 0.30 5 D-190 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.25 UT STATSGO Utah General Soil Survey Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) s5878 Rock outcrop-Podmor family-Logring-KylerFlygare family-Eaglepass (s5878) 0.42 0.21 10 s7755 Waas-Tomasaki-Nortez-Herm-Fivepine-Falcon (s7755) 0.38 0.17 5 s7756 Thedalund family-Shalako-Rock outcropKillpack-Hanksville family (s7756) 0.13 0.04 10 s7757 Toddler family-Redbank family-Ravola familyLeeko (s7757) 0.12 0.03 0 s7758 Shalako-Rock outcrop-Reva family-Falcon family-Dast family (s7758) 0.65 0.33 20 s7759 Utso-Tosca-Sula family-Seeprid-Reva familyRazorba family (s7759) 0.74 0.42 5 s7760 Walknolls-Rock outcrop-Potts-Gaynor-Badland (s7760) 0.26 0.11 15 s7761 Uffens-Mikim family-Clapper (s7761) 0.22 0.08 0 s7762 Yamac-Stunner-Poposhia-McFadden-LuhonGrieves (s7762) 0.34 0.14 0 s7763 Dahlquist variant-Dahlquist-Brownsto variantBrownsto (s7763) 0.74 0.39 0 s7764 Thermopolis-Sinkson-Rock outcrop-DelphillBlazon (s7764) 0.22 0.08 10 s7765 Morset-McFadden-Luhon-Fluetsch (s7765) 0.42 0.18 0 s7766 Uinta-Lail-Gelkie-Barrett-Amsden (s7766) 0.48 0.23 3 s7767 Turner-Fluetsch (s7767) 0.63 0.35 0 s7768 Strych-Sandoval-Persayo-Fruita-Barx-Avalon (s7768) 0.29 0.11 0 s7769 Witt-Sharps-Ruinpoint-Rizno-Cahona (s7769) 0.26 0.09 0 s7770 Sheppard-Rock outcrop-Oljeto-Neskahi-Mota (s7770) 0.74 0.25 10 s7771 Rock outcrop-Piute-Moenkopie-Hoskinnini (s7771) 0.55 0.26 20 s7772 Whit-Sogzie-Sheppard-Rock outcrop (s7772) 0.66 0.34 10 s7773 Rock outcrop-Piute-Pickrell-Badland (s7773) 0.71 0.27 15 s7774 Rock outcrop-Lithic Torriorthents-Badland (s7774) 0.38 0.17 50 s7775 Skumpah-Playas (s7775) 0.12 0.03 0 s7776 Rock outcrop-Promo-Cliffdown (s7776) 0.41 0.19 15 August 24, 2009 D-191 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.25 UT STATSGO Utah General Soil Survey Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) s7777 Lembos-Kunzler-Kawich-Acana (s7777) 0.47 0.22 0 s7778 Tosser-Sitar-Hiko Peak-Bezzant (s7778) 0.40 0.18 0 s7779 Kapod-Fontreen-Donnardo-Collard (s7779) 0.36 0.17 0 s7780 Raftriver-Dahar-Codquin-Bullump (s7780) 0.69 0.37 0 s7781 Rock outcrop-Rexmont-Clavicon (s7781) 0.38 0.19 27 s7782 Tarnach-Cliffdown (s7782) 0.21 0.08 0 s7783 Ridgecrest family-Parkay family-Eyre familyBroad Canyon family-Bickmore family (s7783) 1.10 0.77 0 s7784 Ridgecrest family-Parkay family-Broad Canyon family-Bickmore family (s7784) 0.97 0.66 0 s7785 Sterling-Sheep Creek-Richmond-FoxolElzinga-Agassiz (s7785) 0.37 0.19 5 s7786 Middle-Broad (s7786) 0.47 0.26 0 s7787 Sterling-Samaria (s7787) 0.49 0.26 0 s7788 Timpanogos-Parleys-Kearns-Fielding (s7788) 0.29 0.12 0 s7789 Thiokol-Stingal-Sanpete-Hansel (s7789) 0.35 0.16 0 s7790 Kilburn-Kidman-Fielding (s7790) 0.51 0.25 0 s7791 Thiokol-Mellor-Heydlauff-Bram (s7791) 0.21 0.08 0 s7792 Roshe Springs-Logan-Kirkham-HoneyvilleGreenson-Collett (s7792) 0.30 0.14 0 s7793 Stokes-Placeritos-Lasil-Fridlo-Airport (s7793) 0.27 0.11 0 s7794 Rock outcrop-Ridd-Barton (s7794) 0.77 0.43 25 s7795 Pleasant View-Kilburn-Francis (s7795) 0.89 0.53 0 s7796 Preston-Kidman-Francis (s7796) 1.90 1.73 0 s7797 Timpanogos-Parleys-Kidman (s7797) 0.51 0.24 0 s7798 Layton-Kidman (s7798) 1.45 0.95 0 s7799 Sunset-Steed-Refuge-Martini-Kirkham (s7799) 0.56 0.29 0 s7800 Logan-Leland-Ironton-Harrisville-Draper (s7800) 0.57 0.32 0 s7801 Warm Springs-Syracuse-Layton (s7801) 1.23 0.73 0 s7802 Warm Springs-Syracuse-Payson-Leland (s7802) 0.46 0.21 0 s7803 Salt Lake-Logan-Cardon-Airport (s7803) 0.31 0.15 0 s7804 Trenton-Jordan-Cache (s7804) 0.16 0.06 0 s7805 Roshe Springs-Nibley-Millville-Greenson- 0.30 0.14 0 D-192 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.25 UT STATSGO Utah General Soil Survey Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Collett (s7805) s7806 Quinney-Lewiston-Layton-Kidman (s7806) 1.07 0.61 0 s7807 Wheelon-Mendon-Curtis Creek (s7807) 0.34 0.16 0 s7808 Wheelon-Parleys-Collinston (s7808) 0.20 0.07 0 s7809 Timpanogos-Sterling-Ricks-Parleys-NibleyMcMurdie (s7809) 0.39 0.19 0 s7810 Sterling-Nebeker-Hendricks-Crowshaw (s7810) 0.57 0.33 0 s7811 Yeates Hollow-Obray-LaPlatta-Goring-Ant Flat (s7811) 0.27 0.12 0 s7812 Sheep Creek-Hoskin-Curtis Creek-Agassiz (s7812) 0.35 0.17 0 s7813 Dateman-Bradshaw-Bickmore-Agassiz (s7813) 0.29 0.14 5 s7814 Poleline-Lucky Star-Cluff-Bickmore (s7814) 0.70 0.44 0 s7815 Wader variant-Wader-Saleratus-Bear Lake (s7815) 0.44 0.22 0 s7816 Saleratus-Rich-Cowco (s7816) 0.21 0.07 0 s7817 Cowco-Bockston (s7817) 0.48 0.24 0 s7818 Woodpass-Wiscow-Poposhia-Pancheri-LariatAlhark (s7818) 0.23 0.08 0 s7819 Slinger-Duckree (s7819) 0.54 0.29 0 s7820 Thatcher-Richsum-Kearl-Econ (s7820) 0.28 0.11 0 s7821 Jebo-Dennot-Cutoff (s7821) 0.52 0.28 0 s7822 Solak-Rexmont-Highams variant-GridgeFalula-Ellett (s7822) 0.33 0.15 0 s7823 Yeljack-Lucky Star-Charcol-Baird Hollow (s7823) 0.74 0.45 0 s7824 Sambrito-Lucky Star-Condie (s7824) 0.77 0.47 0 s7825 Utaba-Sunset-Steed-Redola-Pringle-EastcanCrooked Creek-Brownlee (s7825) 0.55 0.29 0 s7826 Stoda-Parleys-Nebeker-Manila-Lamondi (s7826) 0.41 0.20 0 s7827 Ostler-Manila-Hawkins-Donner-Bertag (s7827) 0.33 0.16 0 s7828 Yeates Hollow-Durfee (s7828) 0.34 0.17 0 s7829 Wallsburg-Van Wagoner-Rock outcrop- 0.51 0.27 30 August 24, 2009 D-193 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.25 UT STATSGO Utah General Soil Survey Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Harkers (s7829) s7830 Kilfoil-Isbell-Hades-Croydon (s7830) 0.39 0.20 0 s7831 Yeates Hollow-Guilder-Etchen-Bullnel (s7831) 0.36 0.18 0 s7832 Smarts-Rock outcrop-Horrocks-Durst-Burgi (s7832) 0.43 0.22 10 s7833 Yeates Hollow-St marys-Moweba-HoskinHolmes (s7833) 0.32 0.15 0 s7834 Sessions-Poleline-Patio (s7834) 0.39 0.21 0 s7835 Lucky Star-Charcol (s7835) 0.75 0.46 0 s7836 Rock outcrop-Geertson-Cristo-Broad Canyon (s7836) 0.37 0.18 10 s7837 Yence-Richens-Lucky Star-Herd-Ercan (s7837) 0.33 0.16 0 s7838 Rock outcrop-Patio-Nagisty-Broad Canyon (s7838) 0.39 0.20 25 s7839 Timpanogos-Parleys-Kearns-Fielding (s7839) 0.29 0.12 0 s7840 Picayune family-Lucky Star-Hades-Ant Flat (s7840) 0.52 0.28 0 s7841 Tooele-Timpie-Cliffdown (s7841) 0.46 0.20 0 s7842 Yenrab-Skumpah-Dynal (s7842) 0.29 0.10 0 s7843 Kapod-Donnardo-Borvant-Abela (s7843) 0.42 0.21 0 s7844 Taylorsflat-Medburn-Hiko Peak-Berent (s7844) 0.50 0.24 0 s7845 Skumpah-Saltair-Logan-Kanosh-Bramwell (s7845) 0.27 0.10 0 s7846 Timpanogos-Parleys-Bluffdale-Bingham (s7846) 0.27 0.11 0 s7847 Wallsburg-Rock outcrop-Harkers-BroadAgassiz (s7847) 0.41 0.22 15 s7848 Wallsburg-Rock outcrop-Horrocks-ButterfieldAgassiz (s7848) 0.31 0.15 10 s7849 Rock outcrop-Henefer-Harkers-Gappmayer (s7849) 0.42 0.22 10 s7850 Wasatch-Ridd-Kilburn (s7850) 0.83 0.49 7 s7851 Woodrow-Mellor-Harding-Genola-Cheebe (s7851) 0.12 0.04 0 s7852 Terminal-Saltair-Lasil-Decker-Bramwell variant (s7852) 0.30 0.13 0 D-194 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.25 UT STATSGO Utah General Soil Survey Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) s7853 Taylorsville-Hillfield-Harrisville-BramwellBluffdale (s7853) 0.22 0.09 0 s7854 Wagonbox-Magna-Ironton-Decker-Bramwell (s7854) 0.36 0.17 0 s7855 Welby-Parleys-Kidman (s7855) 0.46 0.21 0 s7856 Wasatch-Knutsen-Kearns-Bingham (s7856) 1.11 0.68 0 s7857 Rock outcrop-Picayune-Emigration-Deer Creek-Brad-Agassiz (s7857) 0.37 0.18 20 s7858 Provo Bay-McBeth-Holdaway-Chipman (s7858) 0.31 0.15 0 s7859 Typic Fluvaquents-Payson-Logan-JordanArave (s7859) 0.29 0.12 0 s7860 Welby-Vineyard-Taylorsville-Bramwell (s7860) 0.25 0.10 0 s7861 Sunset-Pleasant Vale-Martini-KirkhamBenjamin (s7861) 0.50 0.25 0 s7862 Steed-Redola-Provo-Pleasant View-Pleasant Vale-Keigley (s7862) 0.74 0.41 0 s7863 Kirkham-Benjamin (s7863) 0.15 0.06 0 s7864 Pleasant Grove-Kilburn-Cleverly (s7864) 0.84 0.51 0 s7865 Preston-Layton-Lakewin (s7865) 1.22 0.81 0 s7866 Welby-Taylorsville-Hillfield (s7866) 0.29 0.12 0 s7867 Rake-Picayune variant-Picayune (s7867) 0.27 0.12 5 s7868 Towave-Podo-Minnimaud-Cabba family (s7868) 0.29 0.12 5 s7869 Uinta family-Trag-Senchert family-SenchertMidfork family-Croydon (s7869) 0.82 0.51 0 s7870 Walknolls-Casmos-Badland (s7870) 0.20 0.07 5 s7871 Pathead-Guben-Curecanti family (s7871) 0.54 0.29 0 s7872 Trag-Senchert-Midfork family-Falcon-Beje (s7872) 0.48 0.25 0 s7873 Nelman-Lanver-Atchee (s7873) 0.49 0.24 5 s7874 Rock outcrop-Mikim family-Atchee (s7874) 0.51 0.25 10 s7875 Winteridge-Towave-Castner-Atchee (s7875) 0.24 0.09 4 s7876 Whetrock-Towave-Rock outcrop-PatheadCastner-Atchee (s7876) 0.35 0.17 10 s7877 Walknolls family-Thedalund family-Pennell 0.28 0.10 0 August 24, 2009 D-195 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.25 UT STATSGO Utah General Soil Survey Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (s7877) s7878 Thedalund family-Dast family (s7878) 0.21 0.07 5 s7879 Travessilla family-Travessilla-Rock outcropGerst (s7879) 0.34 0.15 25 s7880 Walknolls-Rock outcrop-Casmos-Atchee (s7880) 0.24 0.09 10 s7881 Tipperary-Denco-Badland (s7881) 0.39 0.17 7 s7882 Yeates Hollow-Obrast-Deer Creek-Bagard (s7882) 0.21 0.09 0 s7883 Towave-Tosca-Sheepcan-Badland-Atchee (s7883) 0.27 0.12 5 s7884 Roundy-Fitzgerald-Daybell (s7884) 0.41 0.20 3 s7885 Flygare-Clayburn-Baird Hollow (s7885) 0.73 0.45 0 s7886 Yeates Hollow-Lucky Star-Hoskin-HorrocksGappmayer-Cloud Rim-Bradshaw-Ant Flat (s7886) 0.43 0.22 5 s7887 Trag-Skutum family-Kovich-Coberly variant (s7887) 0.38 0.19 0 s7888 Zillion family-Luhon family-Blazon-Abra family (s7888) 0.31 0.13 3 s7889 Zillion family-Uinta-Senchert-GeertsonCroydon (s7889) 0.55 0.30 4 s7890 Little Pole-Broadhead-Ayoub (s7890) 0.30 0.14 5 s7891 Poleline-Hailman-Fitzgerald (s7891) 0.56 0.31 3 s7892 Yeates Hollow-Wallsburg-Manila-HeneferGappmayer (s7892) 0.42 0.22 3 s7893 Van Wagoner-Rock outcrop-McPhie-Cloud Rim (s7893) 0.63 0.34 13 s7894 Yeates Hollow-Watkins Ridge-Deer CreekClegg (s7894) 0.39 0.19 5 s7895 Rasband-Kovich-Holmes-Center Creek (s7895) 0.64 0.36 0 s7896 Kovich variant-Kovich-Fluventic HaploborollsCudahy-Crooked Creek (s7896) 0.57 0.32 5 s7897 Moweba-Manila-Kovich (s7897) 0.58 0.33 0 s7898 Watkins Ridge-Sowcan-Pringle-Kovich-Irim family-Ant Flat (s7898) 0.89 0.56 0 D-196 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.25 UT STATSGO Utah General Soil Survey Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) s7899 Richsum-Cutoff family-Ayoub (s7899) 0.26 0.11 3 s7900 Starley-Rock outcrop-Poleline (s7900) 0.41 0.21 35 s7901 Tipperary-Nakoy-Hiko Springs-Fruitland (s7901) 1.13 0.66 0 s7902 Turzo-Poganeab-Green River (s7902) 0.14 0.04 1 s7903 Travessilla family-Rock outcrop-MontwelBegay (s7903) 0.51 0.23 10 s7904 Winona-Rock outcrop-Honlu-Clapper (s7904) 0.27 0.12 10 s7905 Travessilla family-Strell-Rock outcrop-Reepo (s7905) 1.26 0.98 30 s7906 Tyzak-Tridell-Atchee (s7906) 0.32 0.14 5 s7907 Tipperary-Nakoy-Montwel-Mivida (s7907) 0.72 0.36 3 s7908 Worland family-Montwel-Gerst-Denco-Badland (s7908) 0.21 0.08 0 s7909 Winona-Tridell-Honlu-Clapper (s7909) 0.27 0.11 4 s7910 Hanksville (s7910) 0.08 0.01 0 s7911 Utaline-Avalon (s7911) 0.31 0.12 0 s7912 Werlog-Turzo-Fruitland (s7912) 0.21 0.07 0 s7913 Morval family-Flynncove-Diagulch (s7913) 0.53 0.28 0 s7914 Zillion family-Namon-Flynncove-Dahlquist family (s7914) 0.35 0.17 0 s7915 Tolman family-Namon-Lap family-Grapit (s7915) 0.31 0.14 0 s7916 Utaline-Minchey-Leeko-Greybull-Avalon (s7916) 0.27 0.10 0 s7917 Walknolls-Rock outcrop-Muff family-MottoCrustown-Casmos (s7917) 0.23 0.09 20 s7918 Vasquez-Shakespeare-Mirror Lake-MarsellDuchesne (s7918) 0.84 0.50 6 s7919 Vasquez-Teewinot-Rubble land-Rock outcropMirror-Haverly (s7919) 0.48 0.20 25 s7920 Sessions family-Mirror Lake-Clark Fork family (s7920) 0.59 0.32 0 s7921 Yarts-Tridell-Travessilla family-Strell-HonluHenrieville-Boxwell family (s7921) 0.60 0.31 5 s7922 Tridell-Flynncove-Dahlquist family-Clapper- 0.52 0.26 2 August 24, 2009 D-197 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.25 UT STATSGO Utah General Soil Survey Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Brownsto (s7922) s7923 Utaline-Uffens-Turzo-Muff family-GreybullBadland (s7923) 0.29 0.11 5 s7924 Greybull-Clapper-Badland-Abra family (s7924) 0.32 0.14 0 s7925 Yarts-Paradox family-Hillto-Clapper-Ashley (s7925) 0.49 0.23 2 s7926 Uinta-Skutum-Lucky Star (s7926) 0.65 0.38 0 s7927 Yarts-Mivida-Henrieville-Gerst-Clapper (s7927) 0.48 0.22 0 s7928 Swissvale-Rentsac family-Circleville-Brownsto (s7928) 0.28 0.12 5 s7929 Windham family-Namon family (s7929) 0.35 0.17 3 s7930 Yarts-Tebbs-Patent family-Mikim familyHenrieville-Glendive-Countryman (s7930) 0.69 0.34 0 s7931 Henefer-Gappmayer-Fitzgerald (s7931) 0.36 0.18 7 s7932 Mespun-Honlu-Hillto-Clapper (s7932) 0.76 0.46 5 s7933 Turzo-Stutzman family-Green River variantGotho-Fruitland (s7933) 0.24 0.08 0 s7934 Menefee-Lockerby-Hovenweep (s7934) 0.13 0.04 0 s7935 Rock outcrop-Montvale-Monticello (s7935) 0.50 0.26 20 s7936 Northdale-Monticello-Hovenweep (s7936) 0.46 0.22 0 s7937 Shay-Northdale-Monticello (s7937) 0.45 0.21 0 s7938 Ruinpoint-Rizno-Cahona (s7938) 0.09 0.02 0 s7939 Rock outcrop-Rizno-Mellenthin-Littlenan-Bodot (s7939) 0.16 0.05 12 s7940 Strych-Rock outcrop-Rizno-MontvaleMonticello (s7940) 0.40 0.19 30 s7941 Strych-Shay-Pack-Menefee-Abajo (s7941) 0.23 0.09 0 s7942 Strych-Pring-Cahona (s7942) 0.77 0.41 0 s7943 Strych-Skos-Bookcliff (s7943) 0.32 0.15 0 s7944 Rock outcrop-Myton family-Moenkopie (s7944) 0.66 0.35 37 s7945 Nakai-Limeridge-Bluechief (s7945) 0.79 0.40 0 s7946 Skos-Rock outcrop-Piute-Mido (s7946) 0.41 0.20 53 s7947 Sheppard-Rock outcrop-Piute (s7947) 2.00 1.61 41 s7948 Strych-Rizno (s7948) 0.31 0.14 0 D-198 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.25 UT STATSGO Utah General Soil Survey Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) s7949 Yarts-Rizno-Barx (s7949) 0.57 0.28 0 s7950 Skos-Rizno-Myton family-Milok (s7950) 0.16 0.06 0 s7951 Rock outcrop-Moenkopie (s7951) 1.61 0.98 78 s7952 Rock outcrop-Moenkopie-Hoskinnini (s7952) 0.82 0.40 22 s7953 Thoroughfare-Sheppard-Nakai (s7953) 0.28 0.14 0 s7954 Ustic Torriorthents-Rock outcrop-Lithic Torriorthents (s7954) 0.92 0.52 26 s7955 Rock outcrop-Rizno-Mido (s7955) 0.49 0.23 65 s7956 Redbank-Moab-Kidman (s7956) 0.61 0.28 0 s7957 Rock outcrop-Rizno (s7957) 0.17 0.06 36 s7958 Hagerman-Cahona-Begay (s7958) 1.19 0.69 0 s7959 Rock outcrop-Rizno (s7959) 0.17 0.06 44 s7960 Ustollic Haplargids-Ustollic Calciorthids-Ustic Torriorthents (s7960) 0.76 0.42 0 s7961 Waas-Tomasaki-Herm-Falcon (s7961) 0.79 0.47 0 s7962 Toone-Tomasaki-Herm-Falcon (s7962) 0.81 0.50 0 s7963 Toone-Skylick-Flygare (s7963) 1.24 0.86 0 s7964 Leighcan-Duchesne-Broad Canyon (s7964) 0.47 0.25 0 s7965 Rubble land-Meredith-Leighcan (s7965) 0.38 0.19 50 s7966 Ravola-Hunting-Billings (s7966) 0.26 0.10 0 s7967 Persayo-Chipeta-Badland (s7967) 0.18 0.06 0 s7968 Ravola-Persayo-Moffat (s7968) 0.37 0.16 0 s7969 Travessilla-Strych-Stormitt (s7969) 0.58 0.28 0 s7970 Strych-Mivida-Hernandez family (s7970) 0.49 0.24 0 s7971 Travessilla-Strych-Gerst (s7971) 0.51 0.25 5 s7972 Travessilla-Rock outcrop-Midfork family (s7972) 0.59 0.33 33 s7973 Podo-Pathead-Beje (s7973) 0.38 0.19 0 s7974 Rock outcrop-Midfork family-Guben (s7974) 0.62 0.38 27 s7975 Yenrab-Uvada family-Uvada-Lynndyl-Hiko Springs family (s7975) 0.96 0.51 0 s7976 Trook-Sagers-Ravola (s7976) 0.26 0.09 0 s7977 Sheppard-Nakai-Moffat (s7977) 2.00 1.58 0 s7978 Sheppard-Rock outcrop-Moenkopie (s7978) 1.31 0.83 29 August 24, 2009 D-199 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.25 UT STATSGO Utah General Soil Survey Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 0.95 20 s7979 Rock outcrop-Moffat-Moenkopie (s7979) 1.45 s7980 Nakai-Moenkopie-Milok (s7980) 1.26 0.70 0 s7981 Casmos-Badland-Antelope Springs (s7981) 0.23 0.09 0 s7982 Sagers-Killpack-Chipeta (s7982) 0.11 0.03 0 s7983 Trachute-Sandbench-Moenkopie (s7983) 1.59 1.10 0 s7984 Stormitt-Chipeta-Badland (s7984) 0.17 0.06 0 s7985 Welring-Strych (s7985) 0.27 0.12 0 s7986 Roshe Springs-Logan-Fridlo-Airport (s7986) 0.44 0.22 0 s7987 Wayneco-Travessilla-Milok (s7987) 1.19 0.68 0 s7988 Mesa-Mack-Chipeta (s7988) 0.48 0.20 0 s7989 Skumpah-Killpack-Blueflat (s7989) 0.11 0.02 0 s7990 Rock outcrop-Moenkopie-Badland (s7990) 0.42 0.20 36 s7991 Rock outcrop-Nakai-Moenkopie (s7991) 0.88 0.46 18 s7992 Rock outcrop-Rizno-Begay (s7992) 0.96 0.53 24 s7993 Rogert family-Myton family-Kamack-Castino family (s7993) 0.42 0.20 2 s7994 Ute-Richens-Kildor-Embargo-Cluff-Castino (s7994) 0.32 0.13 0 s7995 Zeesix-Sessions-Perinos-Pahreah-Adobe (s7995) 0.42 0.22 0 s7996 Repp family-Falcon family-Detra (s7996) 0.27 0.10 5 s7997 Wiggler family-Repp family-Podo-PatheadCaval-Ahlstrom (s7997) 0.28 0.08 5 s7998 Rabbitex family-Guben-Doney family-Datino family (s7998) 0.58 0.31 0 s7999 Senchert family-Pando family-Elwood-Bundo (s7999) 0.68 0.40 0 s8000 Faim-Embargo-Cluff-Clayburn family (s8000) 0.43 0.20 0 s8001 Tolman family-Harpole-Falcon family-CabinBookcliff (s8001) 0.39 0.18 0 s8002 Namon family-Flygare family-Dranyon-Broad Canyon family (s8002) 0.65 0.38 5 s8003 Tomasaki-Sessions-Richens-Harpole-Broad Canyon family (s8003) 0.42 0.22 0 s8004 Sheppard-Moffat-Blackston (s8004) 1.12 0.75 0 D-200 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.25 UT STATSGO Utah General Soil Survey Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) s8005 Sheppard-Robroost-Mivida-Goblin-Farb (s8005) 1.03 0.60 0 s8006 Hanksville-Chipeta (s8006) 0.12 0.04 5 s8007 Pennell-Moenkopie-Farb (s8007) 1.05 0.60 5 s8008 Rock outcrop-Farb-Chipeta-Badland (s8008) 0.39 0.18 20 s8009 Rock outcrop-Moenkopie-Arches (s8009) 1.09 0.66 55 s8010 Rock outcrop-Mido (s8010) 2.00 1.32 90 s8011 Yarts-Wayneco-Moffat-Milok-Mido-Begay (s8011) 1.74 1.15 0 s8012 Wayneco-Moffat-Mido-Mellenthin-BegayArches (s8012) 1.77 1.22 5 s8013 Yarts-Wayneco-Travessilla-Stormitt-Shedado (s8013) 0.81 0.42 0 s8014 Rizno-Chipeta-Begay (s8014) 0.59 0.31 0 s8015 Tolman-Stormitt-Montosa family-CirclevilleBlazon (s8015) 0.29 0.12 5 s8016 Stormitt-Makoti family-Delson-Datino familyCircleville (s8016) 0.36 0.18 0 s8017 Rogert-Rock outcrop-Pando family-Olnes family (s8017) 0.55 0.31 30 s8018 Rock outcrop-Redcreek family (s8018) 0.47 0.22 40 s8019 Riverwash-Neto-Fluvaquents-Bruman (s8019) 0.73 0.38 0 s8020 Parkay-Forsey-Faim (s8020) 0.34 0.16 5 s8021 Parkay-Forsey-Faim (s8021) 0.41 0.20 0 s8022 Dune land-Bushvalley (s8022) 0.94 0.70 0 s8023 Handy-Eldgin (s8023) 0.19 0.07 0 s8024 Watkins Ridge-Wallsburg-Vicking-TroveHenefer-Acord (s8024) 0.34 0.16 0 s8025 Krueger-Haulings-Eldgin-Dacore (s8025) 0.34 0.15 0 s8026 Tolman family-Rock outcrop-PaunsauguntPanguitch-Circleville (s8026) 0.19 0.07 10 s8027 Spager family-Neponset-Goldrun-EtchenDeclo-Crestline (s8027) 0.40 0.18 0 s8028 Vicking-Van Wagoner-Rock outcrop-NoobabHorrocks (s8028) 0.39 0.19 15 s8029 Van Wagoner-Rock outcrop-Pastorius- 0.51 0.27 25 August 24, 2009 D-201 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.25 UT STATSGO Utah General Soil Survey Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) s8030 Vicking-Van Wagoner-Rock outcrop-HorrocksAgassiz (s8030) 0.29 0.13 20 s8031 Saxby-Rock outcrop-Noobab-Lodar familyAgassiz (s8031) 0.15 0.06 40 s8032 Spager family-Noobab-NeponsetMountainville-Hiko Peak family (s8032) 0.21 0.08 0 s8033 Sterling-Mountainville (s8033) 0.44 0.23 0 s8034 Teton-Rubble land-Parkay-Hoosan-ElwoodCondie (s8034) 0.44 0.23 15 s8035 Sessions-Merino family-Hoodle-Herd-FaimCebone (s8035) 0.52 0.29 0 s8036 Zinzer-Youga-Rock outcrop-Redcreek familyPatent family-Evanston family-Cabbart (s8036) 0.36 0.17 10 s8037 Rock outcrop-Redcreek family-Patent familyMayoworth-Luhon family-Grobutte (s8037) 0.29 0.12 10 s8038 Seitz-Rubble land-Namon-Knep-EmbargoBeardall (s8038) 0.26 0.09 10 s8039 Scandard-Rogert family-Hechtman-ElwoodBickmore (s8039) 0.44 0.22 0 s8040 Water-Parkay-Namon-Granile-Forsey (s8040) 0.49 0.25 20 s8041 Kamack-Hourglass-Elwood-Bickmore familyAdel family (s8041) 0.69 0.43 0 s8042 Scandard-Passar-Nielsen family-GranileElwood-Bickmore family (s8042) 0.64 0.37 0 s8043 Parkay-Forsey-Embargo-Croydon-Condie (s8043) 0.27 0.10 0 s8044 Youga-Patent family-Hatch-Faim-Bowen-Almy (s8044) 0.29 0.13 0 s8045 Sanpitch-Poorman-Eoj-Eldgin-DacoreCarstump (s8045) 0.22 0.09 0 s8046 Youga-Skutum-Sessions-Passar-Clayburn family-Bear Basin (s8046) 0.70 0.41 0 s8047 Whitecap-Sessions-Mirror Lake-Merino familyCroydon-Clayburn (s8047) 0.84 0.51 0 s8048 Youga-Ranruff-Neponset-Golsum-Eoj-Eldgin (s8048) 0.35 0.16 0 s8049 Zegro-Teton-Sessions-Faim-Ellett-Duncom 0.37 0.18 0 Horrocks (s8029) D-202 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.25 UT STATSGO Utah General Soil Survey Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (s8049) s8050 Tiki-Sanpitch-Hymas-Hansel family-EllettEldgin (s8050) 0.35 0.16 0 s8051 Siroco-Ellett-Eldgin-Dacore-Agassiz (s8051) 0.17 0.06 0 s8052 Zinzer-Rock outcrop-Redcreek family-Patent family-Mirror Lake-Cabbart (s8052) 0.46 0.21 15 s8053 Kinghorn-Hiko Peak family-Entmoot familyCredo-Alhark-Agassiz (s8053) 0.30 0.13 0 s8054 Namon-Mine-Kamack-Granile-CroydonClayburn (s8054) 0.70 0.40 0 s8055 Nielsen family-Hoodle-Genoa-EmbargoBickmore family (s8055) 0.35 0.14 0 s8056 Swapps-Sula family-Scout family-Orcap-Mirror Lake (s8056) 0.20 0.07 0 s8057 Rock outcrop-Hiko Peak family-Ellett-DacoreBowen-Agassiz (s8057) 0.23 0.09 10 s8058 Tellura-Rock outcrop-Pando family-CeboneBowen-Bickmore (s8058) 0.36 0.17 10 s8059 Rock outcrop-Hiko Peak family-DenayDacore-Agassiz (s8059) 0.26 0.11 15 s8060 Sessions-Mortenson-Kamack-Faim-Behanin (s8060) 0.52 0.28 0 s8061 Sessions-Faim-Embargo-Elwood-Clayburn family-Bickmore family (s8061) 0.42 0.19 0 s8062 Pando family-Herd-Condie-Cluff-CeboneBickmore family (s8062) 0.43 0.22 0 s8063 Passar-Eldgin-Dacore-Bowen-Agassiz (s8063) 0.27 0.11 0 s8064 Tellura-Sessions-Golsum-Gabica (s8064) 0.40 0.20 0 s8065 Scout-Parkay-Hourglass-Condie (s8065) 0.51 0.26 0 s8066 Scout-Granile-Condie-Bickmore family (s8066) 0.48 0.24 0 s8067 Scout-Scandard-Rubble land-Rogert familyRock outcrop-Blanca (s8067) 0.70 0.37 30 s8068 Tatiyee-Rock outcrop-Nielsen family-GolsumCondie (s8068) 0.38 0.18 15 s8069 Nielsen family-Nayped-Golsum-Deer CreekCastino family (s8069) 0.44 0.23 0 s8070 Tellura-Sessions-Rock outcrop-Reywat- 0.31 0.14 10 August 24, 2009 D-203 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.25 UT STATSGO Utah General Soil Survey Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Golsum-Clayburn (s8070) s8071 Scout-Rubble land-Dateman family-Condie (s8071) 0.51 0.26 10 s8072 Tatiyee-Rock outcrop-Nielsen family-GenoaForsey (s8072) 0.46 0.26 35 s8073 Scout-Rubble land-Losee-Blanca (s8073) 0.65 0.34 10 s8074 Scout-Rubble land-Hoodle-Genoa-ForseyCondie (s8074) 0.39 0.18 30 s8075 Scout-Nielsen family-Condie (s8075) 0.51 0.26 5 s8076 Tatiyee-Scout-Forsey-Condie (s8076) 0.47 0.24 0 s8077 Tatiyee-Sessions-Relley-Parkay-Golsum-Faim (s8077) 0.39 0.17 0 s8078 Rock outcrop-Reywat-Promo-Pernty-GolsumDahlquist (s8078) 0.30 0.13 20 s8079 Van Wagoner-Rock outcrop-Relley-GolsumDunford-Belmill (s8079) 0.32 0.12 20 s8080 Reywat-Red Butte-Pharo family-KanarraBowen-Amtoft family (s8080) 0.15 0.05 0 s8081 Sessions-Poorman-Deer Creek-Dateman family-Clayburn-Castino family (s8081) 0.50 0.27 0 s8082 Rock outcrop-Pernty-Genoa-Forsey-ClayburnAgassiz (s8082) 0.18 0.07 15 s8083 Forsey-Faim-Embargo-Dateman familyClayburn-Adel family (s8083) 0.59 0.32 0 s8084 Relley-Golsum-Gabica-Deer Creek-DacoreCastino family (s8084) 0.27 0.10 0 s8085 Reywat-Pernty-Mountainville-Hiko PeakGolsum-Dacore (s8085) 0.20 0.07 0 s8086 Shotwell-Rock outcrop-Ranruff-Puett-PromoEllett (s8086) 0.33 0.15 20 s8087 Pernty-Leaps-Holmes-Dacore-Agassiz (s8087) 0.14 0.04 5 s8088 Rock outcrop-Nielsen family-NamonHourglass-Hoodle-Condie (s8088) 0.63 0.37 15 s8089 Whiteman-Parkay-Nielsen family-NamonElwood-Duchesne (s8089) 0.49 0.27 0 s8090 Rock outcrop-Ranruff-Elwood-Ellett-Condie (s8090) 0.34 0.16 20 D-204 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.25 UT STATSGO Utah General Soil Survey Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) s8091 Yeates Hollow-Snowville-Rake-Ostler-Dunford (s8091) 0.36 0.18 0 s8092 Winnemucca-Passar-Forsey-CondieClayburn-Adel family (s8092) 0.35 0.16 0 s8093 Rock outcrop-Kamack-Hourglass-Eyre familyElwood-Condie (s8093) 0.71 0.42 15 s8094 Yeates Hollow-Pernty-Ostler-Dunford-BowenAgassiz (s8094) 0.25 0.10 0 s8095 Winnemucca-Passar-Forsey-Entmoot familyCondie-Clayburn (s8095) 0.35 0.17 0 s8096 Tatiyee-Parkay-Golsum-Condie (s8096) 0.45 0.23 0 s8097 Vanajo-Poganeab-Green River-FluvaquentsAnco-Abcal (s8097) 0.26 0.10 0 s8098 Logan-Hiko Peak-Bertelson (s8098) 0.54 0.29 0 s8099 Playas (s8099) 0.05 0.01 0 s8100 Yuba family-Uvada family-Playas-Mondey family (s8100) 0.07 0.02 0 s8101 Ursine-Uffens family-Skumpah family (s8101) 0.23 0.08 0 s8102 Skumpah-Saltair-Playas-Dynal (s8102) 0.12 0.03 3 s8103 Swingler family-Penoyer family-Mazuma family-Goshute family (s8103) 0.17 0.05 0 s8104 Tosser-Sitar-Hiko Peak (s8104) 0.49 0.24 0 s8105 Yuba-Yenrab family-Biddleman family (s8105) 0.42 0.18 0 s8106 Yenrab-Uvada family-Uvada-Lynndyl-Hiko Springs family (s8106) 0.96 0.51 0 s8107 Sugarloaf-Nehar-Heist family-Goldrun family (s8107) 1.32 0.88 0 s8108 Uvada family-Papoose family-Goshute familyDera family (s8108) 0.15 0.04 0 s8109 Sanpete family-Dera family (s8109) 0.28 0.11 0 s8110 Shabliss-Red Butte-Hiko Peak (s8110) 0.50 0.25 0 s8111 Robozo-Avalon family (s8111) 0.35 0.15 0 s8112 Rock outcrop-Hiko Peak-Cliffdown-Checkett family-Amtoft (s8112) 0.38 0.17 16 s8113 Lodar family-Amtoft family (s8113) 0.20 0.08 0 s8114 Reywat family-Lodar family-Kyler-Eaglepass 0.37 0.18 9 August 24, 2009 D-205 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.25 UT STATSGO Utah General Soil Survey Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (s8114) s8115 Manassa-Bayfield family (s8115) 0.02 0.01 0 s8116 Yuba-Uvada-Uffens-Playas-Abbott (s8116) 0.11 0.03 0 s8117 Poganeab-Anco-Abraham-Abbott (s8117) 0.13 0.04 0 s8118 Toddler-Saltair-Playas (s8118) 0.09 0.02 0 s8119 Uvada-Rock outcrop-Hiko Springs-CheckettBluewing family (s8119) 0.38 0.16 13 s8120 Yenrab-Drum (s8120) 0.41 0.19 0 s8121 Sheeprock-Hiko Peak-Decca (s8121) 0.48 0.22 0 s8122 Penoyer variant-Kessler-Hiko Peak-EscalanteAntelope Springs (s8122) 0.30 0.12 0 s8123 Ushar-Red Butte-Phage-Manderfield-FlowellDeer Creek (s8123) 0.26 0.11 0 s8124 Ushar-Snake Hollow-Sheeprock-Phage-Blue Star-Blackett (s8124) 0.69 0.35 0 s8125 Ushar-Pharo-Mill Hollow (s8125) 0.21 0.08 0 s8126 Ushar-Mosida-Etta (s8126) 0.43 0.20 0 s8127 Pharo-Pass Canyon (s8127) 0.34 0.15 0 s8128 Shotwell-Oakden-McQuarrie-Firmage (s8128) 0.23 0.09 5 s8129 Paice-Black Ridge (s8129) 0.18 0.06 5 s8130 Deer Creek-Clegg (s8130) 0.34 0.17 0 s8131 Yardley-Wallsburg-Mineral Mountain-Maple Mountain (s8131) 0.27 0.12 0 s8132 Rock outcrop-May Day-Cowers-Bearskin (s8132) 0.79 0.44 40 s8133 Riverwash-Poganeab-James Canyon familyDraper-Chipman (s8133) 0.35 0.17 0 s8134 Rock outcrop-Ravola variant-Hiko PeakBadland (s8134) 0.32 0.13 15 s8135 Rypod-Musinia-McCornick-Ebbs-Boxelder (s8135) 0.35 0.15 0 s8136 Uvada-Hiko Springs-Curdli (s8136) 0.35 0.14 0 s8137 Woodrow-Toddler-Swingler family (s8137) 0.11 0.03 0 s8138 Uvada-Goldrun (s8138) 0.87 0.49 0 s8139 Yenrab-McCornick-Kessler-Kanosh-Goldrun (s8139) 1.00 0.64 0 D-206 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.25 UT STATSGO Utah General Soil Survey Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) s8140 Kanosh-Deseret (s8140) 0.33 0.12 0 s8141 Pavant-Doyce-Donnardo-Borvant (s8141) 0.34 0.16 0 s8142 Yeates Hollow-Rake-Millard-Flowell (s8142) 0.24 0.10 0 s8143 Pavant-Donnardo-Calita (s8143) 0.31 0.14 0 s8144 Ephraim-Calita-Abcal (s8144) 0.23 0.09 0 s8145 Saltair-Roshe Springs-Provo Bay-BramwellBenjamin (s8145) 0.23 0.09 0 s8146 Tridell-Rock outcrop-Comodore-Bruman (s8146) 0.23 0.09 10 s8147 Medburn-Linoyer-Genola (s8147) 0.45 0.20 0 s8148 Truesdale-Linoyer (s8148) 0.74 0.38 0 s8149 Scalade-Medburn-Jericho-Hiko Peak (s8149) 0.58 0.29 0 s8150 Goldrun-Dune land (s8150) 1.56 1.24 0 s8151 Nephi-Juab (s8151) 0.27 0.11 0 s8152 Yenrab-Uvada (s8152) 1.31 1.03 0 s8153 Xeric Torriorthents-Rock outcrop-Lodar (s8153) 0.29 0.12 20 s8154 Wallsburg-Rock outcrop-Broadhead-Agassiz (s8154) 0.30 0.14 25 s8155 Rock outcrop-Parkay-Kitchell-Flygare-Agassiz (s8155) 0.54 0.30 25 s8156 Woodrow-Quaker-Linoyer-Genola (s8156) 0.20 0.07 0 s8157 Sanpete-Lisade-Freedom-Denmark-Arapien (s8157) 0.65 0.32 0 s8158 Stillman-Sigurd-Sanpete (s8158) 0.66 0.34 0 s8159 Moroni-Keigley-Doyce-Collard-Birdow (s8159) 0.46 0.22 0 s8160 Watkins Ridge-Toehead-Manila-Deer CreekAnt Flat (s8160) 0.34 0.16 0 s8161 Lodar-Fontreen-Borvant (s8161) 0.35 0.17 2 s8162 Sanpete-Rock outcrop-Amtoft (s8162) 0.47 0.23 10 s8163 Rock outcrop-Atepic-Amtoft (s8163) 0.16 0.06 50 s8164 Pavant-Mountainville-Doyce-DonnardoBorvant (s8164) 0.42 0.20 0 s8165 Slickspots-Skumpah-Ravola-Mayfield (s8165) 0.06 0.02 0 s8166 Xerofluvents-Quaker-Mellor-Manassa- 0.19 0.06 0 August 24, 2009 D-207 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.25 UT STATSGO Utah General Soil Survey Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Harding-Dyreng (s8166) s8167 Shumway-Poganeab-Peteetneet-KjarFluvaquents-Chipman-Abcal (s8167) 0.28 0.12 0 s8168 Rock outcrop-Mower-Lundy-Lizzant-HamtahAgassiz (s8168) 0.30 0.14 10 s8169 Povey-Pavohroo-Northwater-Hymas-Clayburn (s8169) 0.50 0.26 0 s8170 Zeesix-Toze-Tingey-Skylick-PritchettMortenson (s8170) 0.57 0.32 0 s8171 Starley family-Losee family-Kamack familyCowood family-Bickmore family (s8171) 0.28 0.12 5 s8172 Tatiyee family-Security family-Scout familyQuilt family-Parkay family-Jemez familyHesperus family (s8172) 0.28 0.13 0 s8173 Tingey-Scout family-Namon family (s8173) 0.27 0.11 5 s8174 Windwhistle family-Telephone family-Seleez family-Security family-Rock outcrop-Bond family-Atchee family (s8174) 0.66 0.33 20 s8175 Rock outcrop-Pinitos family-Montez-Canlon family (s8175) 0.35 0.15 40 s8176 Rock outcrop-Olot family-Gralic family-Falcon family-Eyre family (s8176) 0.26 0.10 30 s8177 Pioche family-McQuarrie family-Kanarra family-Indiano family-Decan family-Bodacious family (s8177) 0.22 0.09 0 s8178 Security family-Podmor family-Pastorius family-Fughes family-Dalcan family (s8178) 0.22 0.09 0 s8179 Rock outcrop-Motoqua family-Falcon familyDotsero family-Bernal family (s8179) 0.17 0.05 40 s8180 Wye family-Sampson family-Pastorius familyNehar family-Muzzler family-Mokiak familyBernal family (s8180) 0.10 0.03 0 s8181 Tobler-St. George-Nikey-Junction-Harrisburg (s8181) 0.71 0.35 0 s8182 Winkel-Renbac-Hobog-Bermesa (s8182) 0.72 0.40 0 s8183 Toquerville-Tobler-Pintura-Ivins-Dune land (s8183) 1.81 1.25 0 s8184 Shalet-Badland (s8184) 0.34 0.14 5 D-208 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.25 UT STATSGO Utah General Soil Survey Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) s8185 Mathis-Bond family (s8185) 0.27 0.09 3 s8186 Rock outcrop-Redbank family-Mespun-Caval (s8186) 1.09 0.68 15 s8187 Pastura family-Magotsu-Curhollow (s8187) 0.33 0.14 5 s8188 Walknolls family-Rock outcrop-RiznoMoenkopie (s8188) 0.80 0.42 55 s8189 Rock outcrop-Clapper-Badland (s8189) 0.39 0.17 30 s8190 Rock outcrop-Chipeta-Casmos family-Badland (s8190) 0.16 0.05 10 s8191 Rock outcrop-Mellenthin (s8191) 0.63 0.33 30 s8192 Windwhistle-Rock outcrop-Rizno-Palma (s8192) 0.85 0.45 15 s8193 Skyvillage-Palma-Mellenthin-Clapper-Atchee (s8193) 0.39 0.17 5 s8194 Palma-Gerst family-Barx-Arches (s8194) 0.43 0.20 3 s8195 Rock outcrop-Palma-Mespun-Arches (s8195) 1.43 1.02 25 s8196 Rock outcrop-Mespun-Arches (s8196) 1.94 1.66 10 s8197 Yarts-Palma-Neville family-Barx-Atchee (s8197) 0.53 0.24 5 s8198 Skos-Rock outcrop (s8198) 0.09 0.03 20 s8199 Sedillo-Gaynor-Clapper (s8199) 0.09 0.02 0 s8200 Dune land (s8200) 2.00 2.00 0 s8201 Rock outcrop-Mathis-Krueger-Arches (s8201) 1.44 0.90 60 s8202 Uana family-Nevu family-Minu familyDecathon family-Buster family-Aned family (s8202) 0.37 0.17 0 s8203 Tombar-Pavant-Hiko Peak-Denmark-Bamos (s8203) 0.19 0.06 0 s8204 Garbo-Deerlodge family-Biblesprings (s8204) 0.47 0.22 0 s8205 Unius family-Taylorsflat-Sevy-Manselo-Hiko Peak-Escalante (s8205) 0.40 0.16 0 s8206 Wales-Taylorsflat-Sevy (s8206) 0.39 0.17 0 s8207 Wales-Taylorsflat-Medburn-Kanarra-Ashdown (s8207) 0.23 0.08 0 s8208 Sevy-Manderfield-Komo-Calcross-Ashdown (s8208) 0.18 0.05 0 August 24, 2009 D-209 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.25 UT STATSGO Utah General Soil Survey Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) s8209 Rock outcrop-Ocambee-Kinghorn (s8209) 0.19 0.08 15 s8210 Red Butte-Pavant-Hiko Peak-Dixie-CheckettBamos (s8210) 0.21 0.08 0 s8211 Rock outcrop-Pass Canyon-Bamos-Abela (s8211) 0.18 0.06 12 s8212 Uvada-Manselo-Antelope Springs (s8212) 0.25 0.10 0 s8213 Tolman family-Rob Roy-Doyce (s8213) 0.21 0.08 6 s8214 Wye-Motoqua-Lucero-Ironco (s8214) 0.26 0.11 3 s8215 Rypod-Poorman-Lagnaf-Acord (s8215) 0.32 0.15 0 s8216 Winnemucca-Seth-Faim (s8216) 0.37 0.19 0 s8217 Paunsaugunt-Kolob-Detra-Dalcan (s8217) 0.46 0.22 4 s8218 Welring-Tortugas family-Rock outcrop-Chilton family (s8218) 0.21 0.08 25 s8219 Tobish-Tacan-Nehar-Collbran family (s8219) 0.20 0.06 6 s8220 Villy family-Tebbs-Alldown (s8220) 0.44 0.19 0 s8221 Descot-Codley (s8221) 0.16 0.05 0 s8222 Yarts-Mikim-Henrieville-Befar-Barx (s8222) 0.20 0.08 0 s8223 Playas-Frandsen (s8223) 0.19 0.07 0 s8224 Zillion-Showalter-Panguitch-Notter-Guben (s8224) 0.43 0.21 0 s8225 Yenlo-Mikim-Lazear-Clapper-CannonvilleBayfield (s8225) 0.08 0.03 0 s8226 Venture-Tridell-Notter-Ipson-Bruman (s8226) 0.48 0.22 0 s8227 Zinzer-Yenlo-Tridell-Notter-Luhon (s8227) 0.31 0.12 0 s8228 Tridell-Ipson (s8228) 0.36 0.17 4 s8229 Zillion-Waltershow-Venture-Quilt-Ipson-HarolAndys (s8229) 0.26 0.11 0 s8230 Waltershow-Tolman-Rock outcrop-IpsonComodore (s8230) 0.18 0.07 10 s8231 Tolman-Harol-Fughes-Dalcan-Bushvalley (s8231) 0.28 0.13 0 s8232 Syrett-Swapps-Skutum-Sheege-Ruko-Rock outcrop-Frandsen (s8232) 0.30 0.12 17 s8233 Zyme-Vanet-Syrett-Rock outcrop-Badland (s8233) 0.21 0.08 20 s8234 Syrett-Swapps-Skutum-Pahreah-Badland 0.45 0.22 0 D-210 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.25 UT STATSGO Utah General Soil Survey Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (s8234) s8235 Ruko-Rock outcrop-Podo-Lazear-Dimyaw family-Cannonville-Badland (s8235) 0.22 0.09 15 s8236 Rock outcrop-Circleville-Castino (s8236) 0.30 0.14 29 s8237 Winnemucca-Echard-Callings-BehaninBeardall (s8237) 0.62 0.34 0 s8238 Winnemucca-Tica family-Hoodle-CastinoCallings (s8238) 0.49 0.26 0 s8239 Shedado-Rock outcrop-Mespun-Batterson (s8239) 1.39 0.89 50 s8240 Rock outcrop-Rizno-Chilton family (s8240) 0.43 0.19 25 s8241 Sheppard-Rock outcrop-Arches (s8241) 1.70 1.37 50 s8242 Rock outcrop-Rizno (s8242) 1.26 0.73 70 s8243 Sheppard-Nakai-Monue-Deleco-CataractBluechief (s8243) 1.42 0.91 6 s8244 Yarts-Shedado-Rock outcrop-Rizno-PalmaMivida-Barx (s8244) 0.68 0.34 10 s8245 Uvada-Sevy-McLoughlin-Decca-Crestline (s8245) 0.16 0.04 0 s8246 Rustico-Musinia-Monroe-Hiko Peak-Bandag (s8246) 0.26 0.10 0 s8247 McLoughlin-Hiko Peak-Decca-Avalon (s8247) 0.23 0.09 0 s8248 McLoughlin-Hiko Peak-Decca-Crestline (s8248) 0.34 0.15 0 s8249 Sanpete-Rock outcrop-Hiko Peak-BadlandAmtoft (s8249) 0.33 0.15 10 s8250 Redview-Redfield-Quaker-Naser (s8250) 0.16 0.06 0 s8251 Monroe-Genola-Bertelson-Annabella variant (s8251) 0.38 0.16 0 s8252 Rock outcrop-Red Butte-Logan-Hoye-Hiko Peak (s8252) 0.38 0.19 10 s8253 Rock outcrop-Red Butte-Pernty-Hiko PeakHandy-Dacore (s8253) 0.23 0.09 20 s8254 Rock outcrop-Hiko Peak-Dacore-Checkett (s8254) 0.21 0.08 15 s8255 Poganeab-Linoyer-Haulings-Green RiverFluvaquents-Anco (s8255) 0.39 0.18 0 August 24, 2009 D-211 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix D: Rainfall Losses Table D.25 UT STATSGO Utah General Soil Survey Soil Map Unit Composite XKSAT and RTIMP Values XKSAT , in/hr SMU Soil Map Unit Name DF = 1.0 DF = 1.1 Natural RTIMP, % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) s8256 Tosser-Hiko Peak-Bertelson (s8256) 0.56 0.28 0 s8257 Monroe-Medburn-Green River (s8257) 0.78 0.42 0 s8258 Poganeab-Manassa-Kirkham (s8258) 0.12 0.04 0 s8259 Trook-Gypsum land-Goblin (s8259) 0.48 0.23 0 s8260 Travessilla-Rock outcrop-Gerst (s8260) 0.50 0.24 40 s8369 Water (s8369) 0.01 0.01 100 s9012 Uinta-Scout-Rock outcrop-Miracle-MillpotLeavitt-Chittum (s9012) 0.68 0.36 10 s9014 Turson-Tetonville-Moslander (s9014) 0.52 0.27 0 s9016 Terada-Spool-Rock outcrop-HugustonBlackhall (s9016) 1.22 0.71 40 s9017 Pando-Libeg-Lail-Bear Basin-Amsden variantAmsden (s9017) 0.55 0.29 0 s9046 Outlet-McKinney-Gas Creek-DobrowCanburn-Absher (s9046) 0.46 0.24 0 D-212 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix E: Checklists E. CHECKLISTS E.1 PURPOSE These checklists are intended for two purposes as follows: 1. Internal use by County/District employees as a guide for reviewing drainage studies, reports and construction plans, including those submitted by the public and prepared internally at the County/District and by other agencies. 2. External use by the public for preparing drainage studies, reports and construction plans that will be reviewed by the County/District. This should help expedite the review process and help the public better understand what the County/District will be looking for when performing a review. These checklists are not intended to be applicable for every situation. They are intended to be helpful and not mandatory. Checklist items that do not apply to a given situation should have the “N/A” box checked. The column headed with an “*” should be checked if more information or comments are necessary. Additional information and comments should be placed in the “COMMENTS” section provided at the end of each table, with the appropriate checklist item number listed at the start of the comment. Such additional information or comments may also be provided on additional pages. The engineer is encouraged to provide the appropriate checklist as a part of the study or report, as shown in Section 18. The general intended uses for each checklist are as follows: Checklist 1: Drainage Design Report Checklist. Drainage Design Reports for subdivision preliminary and final plats, street improvement projects and drainage improvement projects. Portions of the checklist may also be appropriate for grading and drainage plans. Checklist 2: Hydrology Specific Checklist. This checklist is to be applied for flood insurance studies, drainage planning studies, and for Drainage Design Reports where new hydrology calculations or modeling is prepared. Checklist 3: HEC-RAS Hydraulics Specific Checklist. This checklist is to be applied for flood insurance studies, drainage planning studies, and for Drainage Design Reports and drainage and grading plans where new hydraulic modeling is done using HEC-RAS (preferable) or HEC-2. Checklist 4: Technical Data Notebook Checklist. This checklist is to be applied for flood insurance studies. August 24, 2009 E-1 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix E: Checklists E.2 Item CHECKLIST 1: DRAINAGE DESIGN REPORT CHECKLIST Checklist 1: Drainage Design Report Checklist Description YES NO N/A * SECTION 1: GENERAL 1 2 PROJECT NAME: REVISION NO: SELECT PROJECT TYPE: Preliminary Plat [ ] Final Plat [ ] Street Imp. [ ] Drainage Design [ ] Grading and Drainage Plan [ ] Other [ ] 3 REVIEWED BY: 4 Is this a complete drainage report, sealed by a professional Civil Engineer currently licensed to practice in Arizona? 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 DATE: Is the Hydrology Specific Checklist included and completed, if appropriate? Is the HECRAS Hydraulics Specific Checklist included and completed, if appropriate? Is this report for floodplain delineation purposes, requiring use of the TDN format and checklist? Does the report discuss whether the site is in a subsidence area or if there are fissures present? If in a subsidence area or fissures are present, are facilities appropriately sited and designed? If a construction project, has an SWPPP been developed and an NOI submitted per ADEQ requirements? If a construction project, has a copy of the SWPPP and NOI been included in the report? Have all permit requirements been met (ie. Floodplain, Drainage Clearance, Right-of-Way, Zoning, Stormwater Quality, 401/404, etc)? Is there a section on Conclusions and Recommendations, and is it adequate? SECTION 2: FIELD SURVEY AND MAPPING 1 2 3 4 5 6 Are company name, project number, and dates of surveying specified? Is the report sealed and signed by a professional Land Surveyor currently registered in the State of Arizona? Are the mapping and map control used in the study fully described? Are both horizontal and vertical mapping datums specified? Are the date of aerial photography, mapping scale, and contour interval specified? Other. SECTION 3: DRAINAGE AREA MAP 1 2 3 4 E-2 Is there a drainage area map at an appropriate scale? Is each sub-basin area delineated and uniquely labeled with alphanumeric characters in a consistent manner on the Drainage Area Map? Are directional drainage arrows shown on all streets, parking lots, paved areas, and vacant land? Is the existing zoning shown on each parcel? August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix E: Checklists Checklist 1: Drainage Design Report Checklist Description YES Item 5 6 7 8 NO N/A * Are existing and proposed catch basins shown and clearly identified? Does each catch basin number correspond to the number of the sub-basin area which contributes to it? Are catch basins numbered, beginning with number 1 as the first catch basin contributing to the storm drain at the upstream end? The following catch basins contributing should be numbered consecutively. Is the same catch basin number used throughout the project – on the drainage area map, in the design report, on the Storm Drain Design Summary Sheet, and on the plans? SECTION 4: STORMWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Is the hydrologic design criteria described and does it match the jurisdiction's requirements? Is the street drainage network described (i.e. longitudinal and cross slopes, curb height, gutter width). Is the storm drain network described (i.e. inlet and catch basin design). Is a Storm Drain Design Summary Sheet included? Is conformance with previous drainage studies checked and differences discussed? Has a Hydraulic & Energy Grade Line Profile been submitted? Is the pipe velocity for 0.5*Qdesign ≥ 3 fps, Qdesign ≥ 5 fps, and ≤ 15 fps? Are dry lane requirements met? Are appropriate drainage runoff volumes and discharges used? Are the diameter, length, slope, and construction material of storm drainpipe (RCP, CMP, or other) specified? Are appropriate clogging factors applied for inlets, in conformance with the jurisdiction's requirements? Is the maximum hydraulic grade line ≥ 1 ft below the grate elevation of all catch basins and inlets? Is the maximum energy grade line at or below the adjacent gutter flow line elevation? Other. SECTION 5: CULVERTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 Is the application described (ie, roadway classification, design setting, erosion/deposition concerns) Is the hydrologic design criteria used described and does it meet or exceed the minimum standards? Is the number, diameter, length, and construction material specified appropriately? (ie, CMP, RCP, or other) For existing condition studies, are appropriate n-values assigned for pipe condition? Are appropriate clogging factors applied for inlets, in conformance with the jurisdiction's requirements? Does the culvert design for Qdesign meet the requirements of Table 6.7? August 24, 2009 E-3 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix E: Checklists Checklist 1: Drainage Design Report Checklist Description YES Item 7 8 9 11 12 Is outlet protection necessary? 13 If a low water crossing is specified, are cut-off walls provided along the upstream and downstream edges of pavement to limits of flow? 14 15 N/A * Does backwater at the inlet overtop adjacent land features and drain elsewhere, other than through the culvert? Does backwater at the inlet affect adjacent parcels of land, requiring ponding easements or establishment of minimum finish floor elevations? Is the outlet velocity ≤ 15 fps? 10 NO Does the inlet headwater elevation for Q100 meet the requirements of Table 6.7? Does the flow depth over the road for Q100 meet the requirements of Table 6.7? Is a profile provided for each culvert depicting length, slope, cover, road side slopes, design headwater elevation, and any utility conflicts? Other. SECTION 6: RETENTION BASINS 10 Is the hydrologic design criteria used described and does it match the jurisdiction's requirements? Have stormwater storage and first flush requirements been met? Are stormwater storage and first flush calculations included and documented in the report? Does the maximum basin depth meet the jurisdiction's criteria? Is an emergency spillway/overflow identified in an appropriate location, and adequately protected from scour? Are side slopes 4:1 or flatter? Are appropriate clogging factors applied for inlets, in conformance with the jurisdiction's requirements? Are debris barriers specified for inlets? Are access barriers specified for outlets 18 inches in diameter and greater? Is an upstream siltation basin included if necessary? 11 Other. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SECTION 7: FCD FLOOD RETARDING STRUCTURES 1 Name of structure(s): 2 Identify phase of FCD Structures Assessment Program and any hydrologic investigations performed as part of the program. 3 4 5 Specify hydrologic design criteria for reservoir, i.e. SPF, 100-yr. Specify inflow design flood for spillway, i.e. 100-yr, or % PMF (dependent on hazard classification). Other. SECTION 8: CANALS 1 E-4 Are any canals located within the project boundaries? August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix E: Checklists Checklist 1: Drainage Design Report Checklist Description YES Item 2 3 NO N/A * Is a discussion of backwater and overtopping issues provided, and are they adequately addressed? Other. SECTION 9: CONSTRUCTION PLANS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Are all underground utilities identified in plan & profile? Is a utility “potholes requested” letter (as needed) for capital improvement projects provided? Are water, and sewer, and natural gas service taps shown in plan & profile? Are all sanitary sewer manhole rim and invert elevations shown on plans? Is any existing Portland Cement concrete pavement underlay shown? Are storm drain conflicts with other utilities identified and addressed? Have SRP, RID, and private irrigation facilities been checked for conflicts? Are waterline thrust block conflicts identified and addressed? Are pipe support locations for sanitary sewer lines above main storm drains identified? Are existing topography and buildings shown at least 30 feet beyond street R.O.W.? Are intersecting side street elevations at least 100 feet beyond curb returns noted on plans? Are potential ponding locations behind sidewalks checked and resolved? Are driveway/catch basin conflicts checked and resolved? Are finished floors appropriately elevated relative to the peak 100year water surface elevations? Is one typical full-street cross-section with storm drain and applicable other underground utilities shown to scale on each storm drain profile sheet? Does the mainline storm drain have a minimum of 5-foot of cover (unless otherwise approved)? Is the farthest upstream catch basin located to meet the flow depth criteria in Table 6.7? Do all catch basins have a maximum spacing meeting the criteria in Table 6.9? Have soil boring(s) extending at least 2 feet below the proposed storm drain been taken and shown on the plans or provided in a report? Are soil boring logs and information including pH and resistivity shown on plans or provided in a report? Are pipe materials designed to accommodate soil conditions? Do existing soil conditions meet requirements for cast-in-place concrete pipe or concrete lined corrugated metal pipe? Are existing and proposed ground elevations shown for all mainline and connector pipe profiles? Is a Storm Drain Key Map included? Is a complete alternate pipe chart included? August 24, 2009 E-5 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix E: Checklists Item 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Checklist 1: Drainage Design Report Checklist Description YES NO N/A * Does the alternate pipe chart show storm drain pipe diameters 6inches larger than designed pre-cast concrete pipe diameters? The calculated pipe wall thickness for cast-in-place pipe is based on the required larger size. Does the alternate pipe chart show cast-in-place concrete pipe to be no smaller than 30 inches in diameter? Check for permanent pipe supports. Are there any ACP waterline crossings? Is there a completed Storm Drain Design Summary sheet included with plans? Are temporary construction easement lines for drainage work shown, if required? Are easement and right-of-way lines shown? Is the type of work on existing facilities indicated? Is the direction of flow indicated for ditches, channels, natural waterways, etc.? Are inlet and outlet elevations shown for all drainage facilities? Are existing ground line (dashed line) and finished grade line (solid line) profiles shown and labeled? Is the design slope of profile lines for drainage facilities (ditch, channel, etc.) shown as decimal in ft/ft? Are pipe culvert material and dimensions labeled? Are inlet and outlet facilities, if any, such as headwalls, wingwalls, cutoff walls and erosion protection shown and dimensioned? Are reinforced concrete box culvert dimensions and number of cells shown coupled with wingwall type/dimensions? Are the type and thickness of drainage facility linings shown? SECTION 10: *ADDITIONAL COMMENTS E-6 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix E: Checklists Item August 24, 2009 Checklist 1: Drainage Design Report Checklist Description YES NO N/A * E-7 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix E: Checklists E.3 Item CKECKLIST 2: HYDROLOGY SPECIFIC CHECKLIST Checklist 2: Hydrology Specific Checklist Description YES NO N/A * SECTION 1: PROJECT DETAILS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 PROJECT NAME: REVISION NO: DATE: SELECT PROJECT TYPE: ADMS[ ] ADMP [ ] WCMP [ ] FDS [ ] Development Review [ ] Regulatory Review [ ] Hydrology Study [ ] Other [ ] REVIEWED BY: Are both hard and electronic copies of HEC-1 input and output files included with submittal? Is the report sealed and signed by a professional Civil Engineer currently licensed to practice in Arizona? REPORT TITLE: CONSULTANT: LIST SOFTWARE, VERSION, and FILE NAMES: Is this a CIP PROJECT? Is the development located in a flood hazard area? Check Category: Floodway[ ] Floodplain: A [ ] AH [ ] AE [ ] AO [ ] X [ ] EHZ [ ] Is there a section on Conclusions and Recommendations, and is it adequate? SECTION 2: HYDROLOGY MAPS Is a map provided that shows study area boundary, sub-basin boundaries, and concentration points? Check the sub-basin delineation. Are areas, soil and land use types, 2 and topography homogenous for each sub-basin? 3 Check sub-basin areas. Are areas measured correctly? Is the naming convention for sub-basins, concentration points, 4 routing reaches, reservoir routes, and flow diversions identified? Is a map provided that shows time of concentration and hydrograph 5 routing paths? 6 Is a map provided that shows soils boundaries? Is a map provided that shows land use boundaries for both existing 7 and developed conditions? Is the basis and method for estimating vegetation cover (existing 8 and developed) described? Is the method appropriate? Was "no contributing runoff" assumed for properties with existing 100-year on-site retention, or properties with plans for 100-year on9 site retention, which have been reviewed and approved by Maricopa County Planning & Development Services? Is there a description of watershed condition and watershed 10 resistance? Is selection of Kb and/or Kn values discussed appropriately in that context? 11 Other. SECTION 3: RATIONAL METHOD 1 1 2 3 E-8 Is the maximum individual basin area less than or equal to 160 acres? If not, then the unit hydrograph method must be used. Are Runoff C Coefficients and Kb values selected appropriately for each land use type per Tables 6.3 and 6.4? August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix E: Checklists Checklist 2: Hydrology Specific Checklist Description Item YES NO N/A * Have existing land-use runoff coefficients been used where contributory land is vacant or developed prior to storm water storage requirements? If the Runoff C Coefficients or Kb values do not match the values for the appropriate land use categories in Tables 6.3 and 6.4, is there appropriate written justification and computations? Are there multiple land use types within individual basins? If so, are Runoff C Coefficients and Kb values area-averaged appropriately? Are site specific Depth-Duration-Frequency (D-D-F) values computed properly using PREFRE, and a printout and digital input/output files provided? Is the Tc path of appropriate location and length on the map? Is the Tc computed using the District's Rational Method computer program? If so, is a printout provided and do the input parameters match the report values? If not, check the iterative computations closely for each basin. Are they correct? Is each Tc value at least 10-minutes? Is the peak discharge for each basin computed properly and are the values reasonable? Is the Rational Method being used to compute peak discharges at intermediate locations within a drainage area less than 160 acres in size? If so, is the procedure outlined in Section 3.6.2 of the Hydrology Manual followed? Other. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 SECTION 4: UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD 1 a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. I. HEC-1 JOB CONTROL RECORDS ID record. Are dates, project name, and modeler’s name specified? Are they consistent with reports? ID record. Are model revisions clearly identified on subsequent ID records? IT record (NMIN). If NMIN has been revised, or changed for different models, were dependent parameters (UI, RM, NSTPS) adjusted appropriately? IT record (NMIN). Is 0.1 Tc ≤ NMIN ≤ 0.25 Tc for the average value of Tc for the watershed, and the maximum and minimum values? Double check sub-basin delineation if extreme values of Tc make NMIN significantly outside the range. IT record (NMIN). Is NMIN < 0.25*Tc for the sub-basin with the shortest Tc? IT record (NMIN). Can NMIN be adjusted so that NMIN is approximately equal to 0.15 Tc for the average value of Tc? IT record (NMIN). Is 60/NMIN an integer? IT record (NMIN). Is NMIN equal to or evenly divisible by JXMIN on the IN record? IT record (NMIN, NQ). Is NMIN*NQ at least as long as the storm duration? August 24, 2009 E-9 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix E: Checklists Item j. k. l. m. n. o. p. q. 2 a. b. c. d. e. f. 3 a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. I. j. 4 a. E-10 Checklist 2: Hydrology Specific Checklist Description YES NO N/A * IN record (JXMIN). Is the IN record used correctly? Is *DIAGRAM specified for at least one HEC-1 model in the study? One for each model with differences other than storm frequency. IO record (IPRT). Is Level 3 or lower output used for at least one HEC-1 model in the study? One for each model with differences other than storm frequency? Level 3 should be used for the model of the largest storm. JP record. Is (NPLAN*NRATIO) < 45? JP record. Is (NPLAN*NRATIO*NQ) < 4800? JD record. Are JD records used and applied appropriately? JD record. When using JD records for FRS volume computation, were the interpolated volumes from each sub-basin used? Other. PRECIPITATION AND RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION Check rainfall frequency and duration in the report and HEC-1 files. Identify the source of rainfall data, i.e. NOAA Atlas 2, HMR-49. Is the source appropriate for the study area and type? PB record. Specify rainfall depth. Is areal reduction applied correctly and discussed in the text? PI and PC records. Were PC or PI records checked against the IN record? PI and PC records. Were PC or PI records checked against distribution patterns? Are design storm distributions applied correctly? Other. RAINFALL LOSSES Are Green-Ampt loss rate parameters specified and are the selected values for IA, DTHETA, XKSAT, PSIF, and RTIMP reasonable? Is the watershed moisture condition assumption described for the selection of DTHETA? Are there different moisture condition land uses present within individual sub-basins (agricultural and natural, for instance)? If so, are the values area averaged appropriately? Is area averaging of Green & Ampt parameters performed using the current version of DDMSW, or by external means or old versions of DDMSW/MCUHP? Check those that use older versions of DDMSW/MCUHP more closely. Check those using external means very closely. Is bare ground XKSAT adjusted for vegetation cover? Is the adjustment appropriate? Does the watershed span multiple NRCS (SCS) Soil Surveys? Are differences in soil texture between adjacent soil surveys discussed in the text and addressed if necessary in the models? Is there a discussion of natural RTIMP present in the watershed? Is natural RTIMP assumed to be hydraulically connected, have any adjustments been made to the percentages listed for the soil types, and are the revisions reasonable and adequately documented? Other. HYDROGRAPHS Specify method of hydrograph generation, i.e. Clark, S-graph. Is the method appropriate? August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix E: Checklists Checklist 2: Hydrology Specific Checklist Description Item b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. 5 a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. 6 a. b. c. d. e. f. YES NO N/A * UC record (Tc). Are Tc parameters L, S, and Kb reasonable? Is Tc < 90 minutes for each sub-basin? Does Tc exceed the duration of rainfall excess for any sub-basin? This should be documented in the text. UC record (R). Is R ≥ 0.5xNMIN? UC record (Tc). Check against similar sub-basins. Are Tc values reasonable? UC record (Tc). Were Tc values checked to ensure that average velocities throughout the watershed are reasonable? HC record. Are hydrographs combined properly? HC record. Is HC ≤ 5? HC record (TAREA). Is total area correct? Was area above the concentration point manually recalculated for diverted hydrographs? Other. CHANNEL/PIPE ROUTING METHODS Are specific channel/pipe routing method(s) specified, i.e. modified Puls, normal depth, Muskingum, Muskingum-Cunge, kinematic wave, and are the methods appropriate? RC record (RLNTH). Check reach lengths. Were lengths measured correctly? RC record (ANL, ANCH, ANR). Were Manning’s “n” values developed using methodology in Estimated Manning’s Roughness Coefficients for Stream Channels and Flood Plains in Maricopa County, Arizona (April 1991)? RC record (ANL, ANCH, ANR). Are Manning's “n” values reasonable? RX and RY records. Are cross sections typical for the routing reach? If not, does the reach need to be broken into multiple reaches? Are NSTPS generally equal to L/(Vavg * NMIN)? Is NSTEP for each reach within +/- 1 of TT/NMIN, where TT is the travel time for the reach computed by HEC-1? Are transmission losses modeled? If so, is there an acceptable discussion of the reasons for modeling losses, and the source of the parameters? Are there questionable routing operations identified above that warrant plotting and visual examination of the hydrograph? Other. RESERVOIR (STORAGE) ROUTING METHODS Are USGS, FCD, NWS, or other rain or stream gages used in hydrologic analysis or model calibration identified and discussed? Are stage-storage relationships modeled correctly? Are stage-discharge relationships modeled correctly? RS record. Are NSTPS = 1? If NSTPS is changed, travel time and attenuation will be affected. RS record (ITYP, RSVRIC). Are starting conditions modeled appropriately? Are rating curves for storage and outflow hydraulics included? Are the rating curves reasonable? August 24, 2009 E-11 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix E: Checklists Item g. h. 7 a. b. c. d. e. Checklist 2: Hydrology Specific Checklist Description YES NO N/A * Is there an acceptable discussion of the basis for estimation of storage and outflow parameters in the text, and a discussion of reservoir routing results? Other. DIVERSION DATA DI/DQ records. Are diversions/split flows modeled correctly? Are hydraulic computations for diversions done appropriately and included in the report? Are rating curves for each diversion plotted and included in the report? Are watershed areas corrected using the HC record where diverted hydrographs are recalled into the model? Other. SECTION 5: HEC-1 OUTPUT 1 a. b. c. d. 2 a. b. c. d. e. 3 a. b. c. 4 a. b. 5 a. b. c. d. e. E-12 ERROR AND WARNING MESSAGES Are there error or warning messages related to hydrograph generation or combination that are not adequately addressed in the test, or are critical? Are there error or warning messages related to routing that are not adequately addressed in the text? Specifically check for peak discharge outside of specified range warnings and lack of hydraulic capacity for the reach cross-section. Have error and warning messages been checked and corrected? Are error and warning messages explained adequately? Other. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM Compare the schematic to the watershed map. Is the structure logical? Are all points labeled clearly? Specify any problems. Are there < 9 hanging hydrographs? Have all of the diverted hydrographs been accounted for? Are all sub-areas attached and combined in the proper sequence? Other. DRAINAGE AREA Has the area associated with all returned diverted hydrographs been returned? Check total drainage area. Is it accurate? Other. RAINFALL LOSSES Check the total rainfall, total losses, and total runoff for each subbasin. Are there zeros or very small numbers? Explain. Other. HYDROGRAPH ROUTING Is outflow peak discharge < inflow peak discharge? Is flow contained within x-sections? Check travel time. Does travel time appear to be too short or too long? If so, check input parameters for routing. Check routing steps in the input against the output velocity. Is attenuation of peak flows reasonable? For kinematic wave routing, is the peak flow attenuated? If so, check model and revise. August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix E: Checklists Checklist 2: Hydrology Specific Checklist Description Item f. d. Other. PEAK RUNOFF Is specific yield (cfs/sq mi) for each sub-basin included in the report? Other. TIME TO PEAK Check the time to peak column in the HEC-1 summary table. Do times to peak increase with increasing drainage area? Are all times to peak very close or identical to one another? If so, NMIN and routing operations may need to be revised. Do all times to peak occur after the most intense period of rainfall (about half the rainfall duration)? Other. a. b. RUNOFF VOLUMES Are runoff volumes reasonable? Other. 6 a. b. 7 a. b. c. 8 YES NO N/A * SECTION 6: MODEL CALIBRATION AND INDIRECT METHODS VERIFICATION 1 a. b. c. 2 a. b. c. d. e. f. INSTRUMENTATION Identify USGS, FCD, NWS, or other rain or stream gages used in hydrologic analysis or model calibration. Have any gages been relocated during the period of record? Discuss. Other. INDIRECT METHODS/STATISTICAL ANALYSES Have statistical analyses been performed and are the results discussed? Are USGS regression equations used, the sources identified, and are they appropriate and implemented correctly? Is the period of record adequate for use with Water Resources Council Bulletin 17B (March 1982)? Are any other Indirect Methods used, the sources identified, and are they appropriate and implemented correctly? Are the model results reasonable based on comparisons with the results of the application of Indirect Methods? Other. SECTION 7: ADDITIONAL COMMENTS August 24, 2009 E-13 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix E: Checklists Item E-14 Checklist 2: Hydrology Specific Checklist Description YES NO N/A * August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix E: Checklists E.4 CHECKLIST 3: HEC-RAS HYDRAULICS SPECIFIC CHECKLIST Checklist 3: HEC-RAS Hydraulics Specific Checklist Description YES Item NO N/A * SECTION 1: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 PROJECT NAME: REVISION NO: DATE: SELECT PROJECT TYPE: ADMS[ ] ADMP [ ] WCMP [ ] FDS [ ] Development Review [ ] Regulatory Review [ ] Hydrology Study [ ] Other [ ] REVIEWED BY: Is there a project description? Does the description include the study name, District contract number, consultant name and address? Does the description include the purpose of the model (floodplain delineation study, channel project, …)? Are the data sources identified? Are general assumptions listed? Are the events being modeled identified (100-year, SPF, multiple year, …)? Is the project file name appropriate for the project? Names like a, b, job 1, and FIS are not acceptable. Is there an adequate map that shows the topography, cross sections, thalwegs, labels, floodplain and floodway limits, and left and right bank locations? Is the version of the hydraulic model used to do the study listed? Is there a section on Conclusions and Recommendations, and is it adequate? SECTION 2: FILES 1 2 3 Note the number of geometry, flow data, and plan files. Should multiple models be created? Are the file names appropriate? Do the file names reflect the project name, and what each file includes? SECTION 3: FLOW DATA Are the changes in discharge input at the correct locations, and are the values correct? For floodplain studies are Floodplain (or FP) and Floodway (or FW) 2 being used for the profile names? For other studies do the profile names reflect what is being modeled 3 (25-yr, 50-yr, …)? Are the upstream and downstream boundary conditions appropriate 4 for the model? Are any internal rating curves or fixed changes in water surface 5 elevations being used? SECTION 4: GEOMETRY FILE 1 1 2 3 4 Are rivers and reaches named correctly? Names like a, b, and Job 1 are not acceptable. Are the junction names acceptable? Are the cross sections identified in river miles for floodplain delineations (feet may be used for Non-FEMA delineations)? Do cross section start and stop locations and length on the map August 24, 2009 E-15 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix E: Checklists Item 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Checklist 3: HEC-RAS Hydraulics Specific Checklist Description YES NO N/A * match the geometry file? Are cross sections oriented with stationing from left to right looking downstream? Are cross sections stationed using 10,000 at the thalweg? Are comments included where appropriate in the cross section descriptions? Are reach lengths measured correctly? They should be measured at the center of the mass of flow. Are the bank station locations appropriate? Bank stations can be different for different events. Are contraction/expansion coefficients appropriate? (note: culverts may use larger values than bridges) Are blocked flow, levees, or ineffective flow being used, and used correctly? Are the n values appropriate? (for design projects there should be a range of n values) Are bridges and culverts being modeled correctly? Is there pressure flow, weir flow, or both? Are any inline weirs or spillways being used? If yes, are weir coefficients acceptable and are they modeled appropriately? Are interpolated cross sections being used? If yes, why? SECTION 5: CALCULATIONS 1 2 3 4 5 Does the plan file have an adequate description? Are the correct flow and geometry files being used? Is an appropriate starting WSEL method used and explained, and is it applied correctly? Are ineffective flow areas identified and addressed appropriately? Are there any breakouts? Are bridges and culverts modeled appropriately, including ineffective flow? Is the correct flow regime (sub, mixed, or super) being used 6 (subcritical only for floodplain studies)? 8 Are encroachments used? If encroachments are used, are they applied properly using the 9 water surface or energy grade line and show < 1.0 foot increases at every cross section? Are the floodplain and floodway delineations done in accordance 10 ADWR State Standards 2-96, 3-94 and 9-02? 11 Is the flow distribution option turned on, if appropriate? Is the appropriate method used for conveyance calculations and the 12 friction slope? SECTION 6: REPORT FILE 6 1 2 3 Does the Report File printouts of all the input data including (geometry, flow, plan)? Are all the profiles included in the output results? Are appropriate summary tables included? SECTION 7: REVIEWING THE RESULTS 1 E-16 Check the Froude numbers, does critical flow (or close to critical August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix E: Checklists Checklist 3: HEC-RAS Hydraulics Specific Checklist Description YES Item NO N/A * flow) occur anywhere? 2 Does at least a portion of the flow occupy the channel? Is the percentage of flow in the main channel less than 25%? 3 Examine model carefully if yes. Are there large changes in depth and/or velocity between cross 4 sections? SECTION 8: ERRORS 1 2 Are there any extended cross sections? Does divided flow occur? SECTION 9: *ADDITIONAL COMMENTS August 24, 2009 E-17 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix E: Checklists E.5 CHECKLIST 4: TECHNICAL DATA NOTEBOOK CHECKLIST Checklist 4: Technical Data Notebook Checklist Item Description YES NO N/A * SECTION 1: COVER SHEET 1 2 Is the Study Name included, and is it correct? Is the date correct? 3 Are revision dates included? 4 Is the consultant's name (address and telephone number) included? 5 Is the District's contract number included? Are the cover and Table of Contents sealed by a professional Civil Engineer currently licensed to practice in Arizona? 6 SECTION 2: DOCUMENT FORMAT AND LAYOUT 1 2 3 4 Is the document prepared in accordance with ADWR SS 1-96? If new topographic mapping, survey notes and data are included, are they sealed by professional Land Surveyor currently licensed to practice in Arizona? Does the TDN Binder include all the labels and logos of the study partners, including FEMA? Are Section Corners labeled on the Study Maps? SECTION 3: MODEL PRINTOUT 1 2 3 4 5 6 Are printouts from the hydrologic and hydraulic models included? Hydrologic and hydraulic models need to be fully documented in a way that isn’t subject to change, therefore printouts of the models must be included in the TDN. Do the printouts include the input data and the results? For HEC-RAS models, is a HEC-RAS generated report included? Do HEC-RAS report files include both the input data and the detailed calculation results? Printouts which contain only HEC-RAS summary tables are not acceptable. Do the units shown on the flood profiles, such as River Miles, match those used in the hydraulic models? Are all modeled reaches included in the Floodway tables? SECTION 4: COMPACT DISKS 1 2 3 4 E-18 Are electronic copies of the hydrologic and hydraulic models included on CD? (mandatory) CDs are the only acceptable mediums at this time. Are all of the input and output files for all computer models used included on CD? (mandatory) In general the input files shouldn’t be zipped, but if space is a problem it is acceptable to zip the output files. Is the CD labeled with such items as the study name, contract number, consultant’s name, date, general description of what is on the CD, the names of all the watercourses studied or the names of all the files on the CD? (mandatory) Is a “README” file included on the CD, and in ASCII text file format? August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix E: Checklists Checklist 4: Technical Data Notebook Checklist Item 5 6 7 8 9 Description YES NO N/A * Does the minimum information in the “README” file include: Name and address of study contractor; name, county and state of the community; name of the hydrologic/hydraulic computer program used; and the name of each input and output file including a model description, stream name and date of creation? The consultant should include additional information as is necessary. Is a printed copy of the “README” file located in the TDN next to the CD? (mandatory) In the case of multiple models, is a simple line diagram included depicting the relative location of the models to each other? Are all file names unique to the project, and worded in a manner related to the project and the scenario(s) being modeled? File names like a, b, c, job 1, floodplain, and FIS are not acceptable types of names and their use should be avoided. Has the consultant included on the CD scanned images of the final (signed and sealed) drawings or exhibits, original CAD files, the TDN in electronic format, and any other electronic files the consultant may have generated? (not mandatory, but preferred) SECTION 5: *ADDITIONAL COMMENTS August 24, 2009 E-19 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix E: Checklists Checklist 4: Technical Data Notebook Checklist Item E-20 Description YES NO N/A * August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods F. DATA FOR INDIRECT METHODS F.1 METHOD 2 USGS DATA LISTING Table F.1 USGS stream gage LP3 data listing Drainage areas between 0.1 and 2,000 square miles. (Source: Pope, Rigas and Smith, 1998) August 24, 2009 Drainage Area, sm USGS Gage Number LP3 Q100 09404310 0.20 237 09384200 0.24 116 09429510 0.30 346 09400200 0.32 1,520 09385800 0.35 672 09478600 0.37 417 09520110 0.44 327 09487140 0.45 987 09483040 0.46 627 09479200 0.51 431 09505900 0.64 619 09424700 0.64 993 09536350 0.65 413 09498600 0.66 348 09503740 0.75 220 09536100 0.76 589 09428545 0.77 296 09401245 0.79 419 09471600 0.79 385 09482330 0.81 560 09468300 0.83 1,690 09504100 0.85 561 09520300 0.90 710 09512420 0.95 2,910 09483010 0.95 1,210 09379980 0.98 2,850 09512700 1.07 1,730 F-1 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.1 USGS stream gage LP3 data listing Drainage areas between 0.1 and 2,000 square miles. (Source: Pope, Rigas and Smith, 1998) F-2 Drainage Area, sm USGS Gage Number LP3 Q100 09504400 1.15 1,430 09483042 1.17 842 09396400 1.22 1,150 09419590 1.23 1,080 09395100 1.28 345 09379060 1.37 301 09379100 1.38 5,880 09520230 1.49 2,130 09489080 1.61 87 09424430 1.70 2,610 09512200 1.75 3,220 09400560 1.78 770 09427700 1.84 1,640 09400680 1.87 413 09429150 1.98 1,270 09520400 1.99 3,930 09424410 1.99 1,090 09483200 2.04 793 09400660 2.06 111 09483250 2.08 2,870 09483030 2.11 7,390 09485950 2.15 1,090 09520160 2.18 1,620 09482950 2.30 2,390 09472400 2.40 6,960 09400740 2.41 293 09483025 2.43 3,360 09519600 2.43 1,670 09487400 2.44 1,300 09496800 2.55 2,850 09429400 2.56 131 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.1 USGS stream gage LP3 data listing Drainage areas between 0.1 and 2,000 square miles. (Source: Pope, Rigas and Smith, 1998) August 24, 2009 Drainage Area, sm USGS Gage Number LP3 Q100 09510170 2.60 950 09471700 2.71 2,270 09485550 2.72 1,920 09517200 2.79 1,240 09403800 2.85 7,350 09482480 2.94 4,460 09404350 3.15 18,400 09403930 3.18 708 09400910 3.28 182 09505600 3.42 573 09483045 3.53 2,260 09383020 3.54 913 09400530 3.57 387 09473200 3.63 7,490 09404050 3.83 449 09473600 4.37 1,460 09510100 4.49 2,670 09510070 4.58 5,530 09520130 4.72 2,380 09507700 4.79 2,480 09485900 4.93 652 09392800 5.22 4,030 09470900 5.25 2,140 09400700 5.52 326 09515800 5.57 7,450 09400580 5.57 2,220 09379560 5.88 3,530 09502700 6.01 6,250 09516600 6.31 5,330 09498900 6.44 4,070 09507600 6.44 8,600 F-3 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.1 USGS stream gage LP3 data listing Drainage areas between 0.1 and 2,000 square miles. (Source: Pope, Rigas and Smith, 1998) F-4 Drainage Area, sm USGS Gage Number LP3 Q100 09400565 6.45 2,150 09484510 6.46 329 09424480 6.95 4,250 09482410 7.24 1,020 09415050 7.27 5,300 09400100 7.85 2,320 09472100 8.02 4,410 09400650 8.11 748 09483000 8.20 4,890 09423760 8.47 4,590 09520100 8.70 5,220 09400290 9.30 3,030 09485570 9.58 7,460 09510080 9.80 8,030 09481700 10.30 2,540 09513820 11.10 6,070 09444100 11.60 667 09487100 11.90 4,400 09520200 12.10 1,490 09488600 12.80 3,340 09519780 12.90 27,600 09424407 13.50 3,130 09484580 14.10 4,480 09503750 14.50 9,820 09428550 14.60 6,170 09423900 14.70 5,290 09489200 14.80 426 09503720 14.90 3,860 09456400 15.00 4,640 09510180 15.20 5,790 09478200 15.60 5,710 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.1 USGS stream gage LP3 data listing Drainage areas between 0.1 and 2,000 square miles. (Source: Pope, Rigas and Smith, 1998) August 24, 2009 Drainage Area, sm USGS Gage Number LP3 Q100 09371100 16.00 1,760 09484200 16.30 1,850 09383600 16.90 485 09482400 23.00 1,900 09501300 24.30 13,900 09505300 24.60 6,290 09482420 26.50 2,310 09397800 27.90 1,070 09383400 29.10 822 09423780 31.30 892 09467120 35.20 6,910 09484000 35.50 10,400 09503000 36.30 7,310 09508300 36.40 18,500 09489070 38.10 1,420 09484570 38.40 15,400 09492400 38.80 1,700 09490800 40.20 535 09483100 43.00 12,300 09485000 44.80 17,100 09517400 47.80 4,560 09505250 48.00 10,900 09400300 49.60 2,320 09484590 50.50 9,340 09400600 51.00 861 09510150 52.30 42,700 09497900 62.10 25,300 09513860 64.60 31,000 09513780 67.30 34,600 09390500 68.60 11,600 09519750 68.80 12,600 F-5 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.1 USGS stream gage LP3 data listing Drainage areas between 0.1 and 2,000 square miles. (Source: Pope, Rigas and Smith, 1998) F-6 Drainage Area, sm USGS Gage Number LP3 Q100 09491000 78.20 2,280 09537200 79.10 9,880 09379030 80.70 4,970 09480000 82.20 11,200 09513800 83.30 37,500 09383500 83.30 1,100 09517280 85.20 6,910 09403000 101.00 4,970 09445500 102.00 4,620 09505200 111.00 16,100 09519760 116.00 11,400 09489700 119.00 6,040 09512300 121.00 20,000 09498870 122.00 35,400 09503800 124.00 6,890 09516800 137.00 32,900 09512100 139.00 16,800 09505350 142.00 38,200 09424200 143.00 11,700 09478500 144.00 46,100 09446000 149.00 10,000 09510200 164.00 51,400 09481750 176.00 17,100 09513835 185.00 41,800 09497980 200.00 27,000 09496000 203.00 33,200 09481500 209.00 15,100 09484500 219.00 29,100 09494300 225.00 11,300 09505800 241.00 30,000 09520170 243.00 11,800 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.1 USGS stream gage LP3 data listing Drainage areas between 0.1 and 2,000 square miles. (Source: Pope, Rigas and Smith, 1998) August 24, 2009 Drainage Area, sm USGS Gage Number LP3 Q100 09486300 250.00 23,900 09502800 255.00 29,200 09397500 271.00 41,000 09484560 289.00 18,500 09497800 295.00 21,800 09489100 315.00 20,500 09513890 317.00 75,100 09398500 317.00 31,100 09513910 323.00 47,100 09507980 328.00 52,800 09504500 355.00 43,700 09404340 370.00 25,300 09446500 377.00 24,600 09515500 417.00 43,000 09514200 420.00 7,840 09498800 430.00 95,500 09496500 439.00 36,400 09388400 456.00 10,100 09484600 457.00 35,000 09486800 465.00 23,600 09395900 493.00 11,200 09444200 506.00 52,300 09480500 533.00 23,600 09473000 537.00 28,200 09489499 560.00 24,500 09535100 569.00 15,200 09401220 579.00 30,200 09512500 585.00 31,700 09485500 602.00 22,600 09447000 613.00 34,200 09399000 621.00 60,900 F-7 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.1 USGS stream gage LP3 data listing Drainage areas between 0.1 and 2,000 square miles. (Source: Pope, Rigas and Smith, 1998) F-8 Drainage Area, sm USGS Gage Number LP3 Q100 09494000 632.00 17,600 09499000 675.00 101,000 09470500 737.00 21,500 09487000 776.00 19,500 09398000 781.00 33,800 09423820 787.00 21,200 09516500 796.00 43,900 09456000 814.00 8,660 09393500 846.00 17,900 09513970 880.00 49,000 09486000 918.00 27,700 09537500 1023.00 5,750 09468500 1026.00 54,500 09403780 1028.00 7,140 09512800 1110.00 182,000 09424900 1128.00 37,900 09487250 1170.00 12,500 09490500 1232.00 97,900 09535300 1250.00 7,250 09382000 1410.00 20,200 09425500 1439.00 69,600 09517000 1470.00 49,200 09401260 1629.00 17,300 09482000 1682.00 36,500 09471550 1730.00 28,000 09488500 1782.00 29,000 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods F.2 METHOD 3 USGS DATA LISTING Table F.2 USGS data for stream gages used for regional regression equations (Source: Blakemore, Hjalmarson, and Waltemeyer, 1997) Gage ID (1) 09415480 09415560 09415600 09415800 09418100 09418150 09418450 09418500 10172700 10172720 10172740 10172760 10172790 10172800 Gage Location (2) White River Tributary near Preston, Nev. White River Tributary near Sunnyside, Nev. Pahragut Valley Tributary near Hiko, Nev. Muddy River Tributary near Alamo, Nev. Patterson Wash Tributary near Pioche, Nev. Caselton Wash near Panaca, Nev. Meadow Valley Wash Tributary near Caliente, Nev. Meadow Valley Wash near Caliente, Nev. Vernon Creek near Vernon, Utah East Government Creek Tributary near Vernon, Utah Rush Valley Tributary near Fairfield, Utah Clover Creek near Clover, Utah Settlement Canyon near Tooele, Utah South Willow Creek near Grantsville, Utah August 24, 2009 Flood Region (3) Record Length, yrs (4) Drainage Area, sm (5) Gage Elev. (6) Mean Annual Evap, in (7) 6 20 26 6,560 43.5 6 15 20 6,240 40 6 18 17 5,750 54.8 6 18 2 3,340 57.6 6 18 5 6,250 43.3 6 19 70.2 5,830 52.4 6 18 0.5 5,970 55 6 32 1,670.00 6,180 55 6 27 25 7,100 40.6 6 10 0.98 6,340 39.7 6 11 0.26 5,850 43.6 6 15 4.45 7,190 40.6 6 11 5.77 7,900 41.2 6 26 4.19 8,370 39.5 F-9 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.2 USGS data for stream gages used for regional regression equations (Source: Blakemore, Hjalmarson, and Waltemeyer, 1997) Gage ID (1) 10172810 10172830 10172835 10172870 10172885 10172890 10172895 10172900 10172902 10172905 10172909 10172913 10172920 10172925 10172940 F-10 Gage Location (2) Mack Canyon near Grantsville, Utah North Fork Muskrat Canyon near Timpie, Utah Skull Valley Tributary near Delle, Utah Trout Creek near Callao, Utah Great Salt Lake Desert Tributary No. 2 near Dugway, Utah Government Creek near Dugway, Utah Deep Creek near Ibapah, Utah Bar Creek near Ibapah, Utah Dead Cedar Wash near Wendover, Utah Great Salt Lake Desert Tributary near Delle, Utah Burnt Creek near Shores, Nev. Loray Wash Tributary near Cobre, Nev. Cotton Creek near Grouse Creek, Utah Great Salt Lake Desert Tributary No. 3 near Park Valley, Utah Dove Creek near Park Valley, Utah Flood Region (3) Record Length, yrs (4) Drainage Area, sm (5) Gage Elev. (6) Mean Annual Evap, in (7) 6 12 2.84 7,200 39.4 6 11 1.78 7,080 40 6 12 1.5 5,780 46.4 6 28 8.8 9,100 44.9 6 12 5.48 5,570 54.1 6 11 59 6,080 42.3 6 10 460 6,100 58.7 6 15 12 5,460 58.7 6 18 5 6,910 40.2 6 11 0.97 6,010 44.2 6 17 10.5 7,320 40 6 18 24 6,590 40.2 6 10 19.1 6,560 40 6 12 10.1 6,120 57.5 6 15 33.2 6,620 40 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.2 USGS data for stream gages used for regional regression equations (Source: Blakemore, Hjalmarson, and Waltemeyer, 1997) Gage ID (1) 10172970 10172990 10242420 10242460 10243240 10243660 10243700 10243950 10244220 10244240 10244360 10244460 10244480 10244490 10244620 Gage Location (2) Rock Creek near Holbrook,Idaho Blue Spring Creek near Snowville, Utah Shoal Creek near Enterprise, Ut.ah Escalante Valley Tributary near Panaca, Nev. Baker Creek at Narrows, near Baker, Nev. Connors Pass Creek near Shoshone, Nev. Cleve Creek near Ely, Nev. Millick Canyon Tributary near Currie, Nev. Maverick Canyon near Oasis, Nev. Clover Valley Tributary near Arthur, Nev. Dixie Valley Tributary near Eastgate, Nev. Rawhide Flats Tributary near Schurz, Nev. Gabbs Valley Tributary near Gabbs, Nev. Finger Rock Wash near Gabbs, Nev. Teels Marsh Tributary at Basalt, Nev. August 24, 2009 Flood Region (3) Record Length, yrs (4) Drainage Area, sm (5) Gage Elev. (6) Mean Annual Evap, in (7) 6 18 44 5,610 40 6 14 78 5,300 40 6 13 19 6,158 48.6 6 18 7.9 6,790 50.1 6 23 16.4 9,500 39.8 6 19 0.45 7,920 39.6 6 29 31.8 8,770 40 6 12 1.4 6,470 45 6 11 3.02 7,150 43.6 6 16 3 6,370 45.1 6 26 11 5,550 40 6 16 0.96 4,770 51.7 6 13 7 5,190 45.7 6 11 207 5,150 49.9 6 16 1.07 6,450 40 F-11 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.2 USGS data for stream gages used for regional regression equations (Source: Blakemore, Hjalmarson, and Waltemeyer, 1997) Gage ID (1) 10244720 10244745 10244950 10245080 10245270 10245450 10245800 10245950 10246000 10246010 10246845 10246846 10246847 10247010 F-12 Gage Location (2) Franklin River near Arthur, Nev. Overland Creek near Ruby Val.ley, Nev. Steptoe Creek near Ely, Nev. Nelson Creek Tributary near Currie, Nev. Drylake Valley Tributary near Caliente, Nev. Illipah Creek Tributary near Hamilton, Nev. Newark Valley Tributary near Hamilton, Nev. Bean Flat Tributary near Austin, Nev. Garden Pass Creek Tributary near Eureka, Nev. Garden Pass Creek near Eureka, Nev. Currant Creek Tributary near Currant, Nev. Little Currant Creek near Currant, Nev. Currant Creek below Little Currant near Currant, Nev. Hot Creek Tributary near Warm Springs, Nev. Flood Region (3) Record Length, yrs (4) Drainage Area, sm (5) Gage Elev. (6) Mean Annual Evap, in (7) 6 19 10.3 8,300 39.9 6 22 9 8,400 40 6 20 11.1 8,940 42.3 6 25 0.7 6,000 44.8 6 15 11 5,910 55 6 25 5.47 7,100 52.4 6 25 157 6,920 49.6 6 21 1.1 6,400 38.7 6 25 2.12 7,010 39.9 6 15 19.2 6,510 39.8 6 20 3.13 6,970 52.7 6 20 12.9 8280 55.3 6 15 30 7,850 54.1 6 17 0.77 5,300 42.9 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.2 USGS data for stream gages used for regional regression equations (Source: Blakemore, Hjalmarson, and Waltemeyer, 1997) Gage ID (1) 10247220 10247230 10247860 10248970 10248980 10249050 10249135 10249140 10249180 10249300 10249411 10249417 Gage Location (2) Black Rock Summit Tributary near Current, Nev. Railroad Valley Tributary near Currant, Nev. Penoyer Valley Tributary near Tempiute, Nev. Stonewall Flat Tributary near Goldfield, Nev. Lida Pass Tributary near Lida, Nev. Sarcobatus Flat Tributary near Springdale, Nev. San Antonio Wash Tributary near Tonopah, Nev. Ralston Valley Tributary near Tonopah, Nev. Saulsbury Wash near Tonopah, Nev. South Twin River near Round Mountain, Nev. Campbell Creek Tributary near Eastgate, Nev. Smith Creek Valley Tributary near Austin, Nev. August 24, 2009 Flood Region (3) Record Length, yrs (4) Drainage Area, sm (5) Gage Elev. (6) Mean Annual Evap, in (7) 6 15 6.35 6,300 40 6 21 0.37 5,200 43.4 6 18 1.48 5,680 55.1 6 20 0.53 5,630 52.9 6 14 1.59 7,990 49.9 6 21 37.1 5,140 55.1 6 19 3.42 6,920 39 6 21 0.2 5,980 45 6 21 56 6,810 41.4 6 22 20 9,130 40 6 22 2.14 7,450 39.6 6 15 0.63 6,440 40 F-13 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.2 USGS data for stream gages used for regional regression equations (Source: Blakemore, Hjalmarson, and Waltemeyer, 1997) Gage ID (1) 10249620 10249680 10249850 10249855 10249900 10325500 10326400 10326650 10326850 10351850 10173450 10174500 10174800 10185000 F-14 Gage Location (2) Big Smokey Valley Tributary near Tonopah, Nev. Big Smokey Valley Tributary near Blair Junction, Nev. Palmetto Wash Tributary near Lida, Nev. Palmetto Wash near Oasis, Calif. Chiatovich Creek near Dyer, Nev. Reese River near lone, Nev. Reese River Tributary near Austin, Nev. Silver Creek near Austin, Nev. Reese River Tributary near Battle Mountain, Nev. Pyramid Lake Tributary near Nixon, Nev. Mammoth Creek above West Hatch Ditch near Hatch, Utah Sevier River at Hatch, Utah Red Canyon Tributary near Bryce Canyon, Utah Antimony Creek near Antimony, Utah Flood Region (3) Record Length, yrs (4) Drainage Area, sm (5) Gage Elev. (6) Mean Annual Evap, in (7) 6 21 2.39 6,100 50.7 6 25 11.4 5,440 49.6 6 14 4.73 7,440 49.4 6 13 0.24 6,090 47.5 6 22 37.3 9,960 38.8 6 30 53 8,800 40 6 14 8.27 6,590 40 6 19 25 7,120 40.3 6 20 0.2 5,200 44.3 6 18 1.94 5,000 44 7 22 105 8,996 40 7 62 340 8,480 40 7 12 2.2 7,860 40 7 21 50.3 9,560 43.7 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.2 USGS data for stream gages used for regional regression equations (Source: Blakemore, Hjalmarson, and Waltemeyer, 1997) Gage ID (1) 10187300 10194999 10205030 10205070 10205700 10208500 10210000 10211000 10215700 10215900 10216300 10216400 10219200 10220300 10224100 Gage Location (2) Otter Creek near Koosharem, Utab Clear Creek (composite) near Sevier, Utah Salina Creek near Emery, Utah Cottonwood Creek near Salina, Utah Salina Creek above Diversion near Salina, Utah Oak Creek near Fairview, Utah Pleasant Creek near Mount Pleasant, Utah Twin Creek near Mount Pleasant, Utah Oak Creek near Spring City, Utah Manti Creek below Dugway Creek, near Manti, Utah Sixmile Creek near Sterling, Utah Twelvemile Creek near Mayfield, Utah Chicken Creek near Levan, Utah Tintic Wash Tributary near Nephi, Utah Oak Creek above Little Creek near Oak City, Utah August 24, 2009 Flood Region (3) Record Length, yrs (4) Drainage Area, sm (5) Gage Elev. (6) Mean Annual Evap, in (7) 7 18 23.5 9,580 39.9 7 60 166 7,880 43.2 7 23 51.8 8,720 40 7 10 7.8 7,470 40.5 7 16 280 7,950 42.4 7 22 11.8 7,560 39.8 7 21 16.4 8,830 40.1 7 12 5.9 8,900 40.1 7 17 8 9,140 40 7 18 26.4 9,080 39.9 7 16 29 8,703 40.5 7 21 59.4 8,570 40.1 7 24 27.9 7,480 45.1 7 14 18 6,070 40.8 7 21 5.58 7,710 40.9 F-15 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.2 USGS data for stream gages used for regional regression equations (Source: Blakemore, Hjalmarson, and Waltemeyer, 1997) Gage ID (1) 10232500 10233000 10233500 10234500 10235000 10236000 10236500 10237500 10240600 10241300 10241400 10241470 09166500 09168100 09172500 09174500 F-16 Gage Location (2) Chalk Creek near Fillmore, Utah Meadow Creek near Meadow, Utah Corn Creek near Kanosh, Utah Beaver River near Beaver, Utah South Creek near Beaver, Utah North Fork North Creek near Beaver, Utah South Fork North Creek near Beaver, Utah Indian Creek near Beaver, Utah Big Wash near Milford, Utah Fremont Wash near Paragonah, Utah Little Creek near Partagonah, Utah Center Creek above Parowan Creek, near Parowan, Utah Dolores River at Dolores, Colo. Disappointment Creek near Dove Creek, Colo. San Miguel River near Placerville, Colo. Cottonwood Creek near Nuela, Colo. Flood Region (3) Record Length, yrs (4) Drainage Area, sm (5) Gage Elev. (6) Mean Annual Evap, in (7) 7 29 58.7 8,020 48.6 7 11 11.6 8,380 46.3 7 17 68 7,400 43.6 7 73 91 9,280 41.1 7 12 15 8,730 40.3 7 18 14.1 8,340 40.2 7 11 23 9,370 39.7 7 13 18.5 8,370 40 7 10 51 6,120 59.1 7 16 120 7,240 39.9 7 21 15.8 7,470 43.9 7 22 11.6 8,450 41.5 8 72 5 9,800 46.1 8 29 147 8,000 45.1 8 49 308 10,20 0 42.1 8 10 38.8 7,700 44.5 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.2 USGS data for stream gages used for regional regression equations (Source: Blakemore, Hjalmarson, and Waltemeyer, 1997) Gage ID (1) 09175500 09175900 09177000 09181000 09182000 09182600 09183000 09184000 09185200 09185500 09186500 09187000 09313000 09313500 09314200 09314280 Gage Location (2) San Miguel River at Naturita, Colo. Dry Creek near Naturita, Colo. San Miguel River at Uravan, Colo. Onion Creek near Moab, Utah Castle Creek above Diversions near Moab, Utah Salt Wash near Thompson, Utah Courthouse Wash near Moab, Utah Mill Creek near Moab, Utah Kane Springs Canyon near Moab, Utah Hatch Wash near La Sal, Utah Indian Creek above Cottonwood Creek near Monticello, Utah Cottonwood Creek near Monticello, Utah Price River near Heiner, Utah Price River near Helper, Utah Miller Creek near Price, Utah Desert Seep Wash near Wellington, Utah August 24, 2009 Flood Region (3) Record Length, yrs (4) Drainage Area, sm (5) Gage Elev. (6) Mean Annual Evap, in (7) 8 53 1,069.00 9,000 45.9 8 12 78.6 7,400 45.2 8 23 1,499.00 8,400 45.6 8 13 18.8 5,702 50.6 8 24 7.58 9,480 45.9 8 15 3.9 5,508 40 8 28 162 4,810 53.7 8 40 74.9 7,170 55.7 8 15 17.8 6,620 51 8 22 378 6,550 51.9 8 22 31.2 8,590 46.3 8 17 115 7,210 51.1 8 37 415 8,160 37.3 8 28 530 7,920 45 8 13 62 7,040 40 8 15 191 5,813 40 F-17 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.2 USGS data for stream gages used for regional regression equations (Source: Blakemore, Hjalmarson, and Waltemeyer, 1997) Gage ID (1) 09314400 09314500 09315150 09315200 09315400 09315500 09315900 09316000 09318000 09324500 09326500 09327600 09328050 09328300 09328500 F-18 Gage Location (2) Coleman Wash near Woodside, Utah Price River at Woodside, Utah Saleratus Wash Tributary near Woodside, Utah Saleratus Wash Tributary No. 2 near Woodside, Utah Saleratus Wash above Creek Wash near Green River, Utah Saleratus Wash at Green River, Utah Browns Wash Tributary near Green River, Utah Browns Wash near Green River, Utah Huntington Creek near Huntington, Utah Cottonwood Creek near Orangeville, Utah Ferron Creek (upper station) near Ferron, Utah Ferron Creek Tributary near Ferron, Utah Dry Wash near Moore, Utah Sids Draw near Castle Dale, Utah San Rafael River near Green River,Utah Flood Region (3) Record Length, yrs (4) Drainage Area, sm (5) Gage Elev. (6) Mean Annual Evap, in (7) 8 10 3.6 5,540 40 8 43 1,540.00 6,490 40 8 15 10 5,070 40 8 15 4.4 5,030 40 8 10 120 5,430 40 8 22 180 5,050 40.5 8 15 3.89 4,300 40 8 19 75 5,220 40 8 71 190 9,000 40 8 52 208 8,940 39.9 8 51 138 8,800 39.9 8 12 0.96 6,300 40 8 15 14 6,320 40 8 15 17.6 6,380 39.6 8 50 1,628.00 6,910 45.1 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.2 USGS data for stream gages used for regional regression equations (Source: Blakemore, Hjalmarson, and Waltemeyer, 1997) Gage ID (1) 09328600 09328700 09328720 09328900 09329900 09330120 09330200 09330300 09330400 09330500 09331500 09333900 09334000 09334400 09334500 09336400 09337000 Gage Location (2) Georges Draw near Hanksville, Utah Temple Wash near Hanksville, Utah Old Woman Wash near Hanksville,Utah Crescent Wash near Crescent Junction,Utah Pine Creek near Bicknell, Utah Sulphur Creek near Fruita, Utah Pleasant Creek at Notom, Utah Neilson Wash near Caineville, Utah Fremont River near Hanksville, Utah Muddy Creek near Emery, Utah Ivie Creek above diversions near Emery, Utah Butler Canyon near Hite, Utah North Wash near Hanksville (Hite), Utah Fry Canyon near Hite, Utah White Canyon near Hanksville, Utah Upper Valley Creek near Escalante, Utah Pine Creek near Escalante, Utah August 24, 2009 Flood Region (3) Record Length, yrs (4) Drainage Area, sm (5) Gage Elev. (6) Mean Annual Evap, in (7) 8 14 6.63 7,010 39 8 10 38.2 5,630 39.3 8 10 17.6 5,450 39.2 8 10 23.3 6,180 39.9 8 16 104 9,300 40.9 8 16 56.7 7,400 39.9 8 14 80.6 7,980 39.6 8 15 22.3 4,830 49.9 8 15 1,900.00 7,450 56 8 43 105 8,850 40 8 24 50 8,870 40.1 8 16 14.7 5,150 54.4 8 21 136 5,400 55.2 8 15 20.9 6,250 50.2 8 20 276 6,090 55.4 8 16 53 7,620 39.9 8 34 68.1 8,890 40 F-19 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.2 USGS data for stream gages used for regional regression equations (Source: Blakemore, Hjalmarson, and Waltemeyer, 1997) Gage ID (1) 09337500 09338900 09339200 09342500 09343500 09345500 09346000 09346200 09346400 09349500 09349800 09350500 09350800 09355000 09355700 09356400 09356520 F-20 Gage Location (2) Escalante River near Escalante, Utah Deer Creek near Boulder, Utah Twentymile Wash near Escalante, Utah San Juan River at Pagosa Springs, Colo. Rito Blanco near Pagosa Springs, Colo. Little Navajo River at Chromo, Colo. Navajo River at Edith, Colo. Rio Amargo at Dulce, N. Mex. San Juan River near Carracas. N. Mex. Piedra River near Piedra. Colo. Piedra River near Arboles. Colo. San Juan River at Rosa. N. Mex. Vaqueros Canyon near Gobernador, N. Mex. Spring Creek .at La Boca. Colo. Gobernador Canyon near Gobernador. N. Mex. Manzanares Canyon near Turley. N. Mex. Burro Canyon near Lindrith. N. Mex. Flood Region (3) Record Length, yrs (4) Drainage Area, sm (5) Gage Elev. (6) Mean Annual Evap, in (7) 8 31 320 8,030 39.7 8 16 63 7,680 39.9 8 10 140 6,170 47.3 8 56 298 9,700 41.2 8 18 23.3 9,400 41.6 8 17 21.9 8,900 38.4 8 36 172 9,200 40.2 8 30 168 7,930 42.4 8 25 1230 8,500 48.4 8 34 371 9,400 43.5 8 24 629 8.3 47.4 8 43 1990 9.8 49.5 8 31 60.5 7.5 51.5 8 36 58 7,300 50.7 8 30 19.8 6.9 53.4 8 30 3.2 7,000 55.1 8 14 9.11 6.965 51.2 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.2 USGS data for stream gages used for regional regression equations (Source: Blakemore, Hjalmarson, and Waltemeyer, 1997) Gage ID (1) 09357200 09361000 09361500 09362000 09363000 09363100 09363500 09364500 09366500 09367400 09367530 09367840 09367860 09367880 Gage Location (2) Gallegos Canyon Tributary near Nageezi, N. Mex. Hermosa Creek near Hermosa. Colo. Animas River at Durango. Colo. Lightner Creek near Durango. Colo. Florida River near Durango. Colo. Salt Creek near Oxford. Colo. Animas River near Cedar Hill, N. Mex. Animas River at Farmington. N. Mex. La Plata River at ColoradoNew Mexico State line La Plata River Tributary near Farmington. N. Mex. Locke Arroyo near Kirtland. N. Mex. Yazzie Wash near Mexican Springs. N. Mex. Chusca Wash near Mexican Springs. N. Mex. Catron Wash near Mexican Springs. N. Mex. August 24, 2009 Flood Region (3) Record Length, yrs (4) Drainage Area, sm (5) Gage Elev. (6) Mean Annual Evap, in (7) 8 35 0.2 6.75 54.6 8 50 172 9.6 40.2 8 63 692 10.2 43 8 22 66 8.4 35 8 45 96 9.9 40.9 8 23 17.7 6,800 48.9 8 52 1090 9.3 51.6 8 73 1360 9.5 55.1 8 66 331 7.712 52.5 8 17 1.03 5.38 54.9 8 35 2.96 5.5 55.3 8 37 2.1 7.4 50 8 29 8.7 6.8 50 8 18 26.9 6.6 50 F-21 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.2 USGS data for stream gages used for regional regression equations (Source: Blakemore, Hjalmarson, and Waltemeyer, 1997) Gage ID (1) 09367900 09368500 09369000 09371000 09372000 09372200 09378630 09378700 09378950 09379000 09379030 09379060 09379100 09379300 09379560 09379800 F-22 Gage Location (2) Black Springs Wash near Mexican Springs, N. Mex. West Mancos River near Mancos. Colo. East Mancos River near Mancos. Colo. Mancos River near Towaoc, Colo. McElmo Creek near ColoradoUtah State line McElmo Creek near Bluff. Utah Recapture Creek near Blanding. Utah Cottonwood Wash near Blanding. Utah Comb Wash near Blanding, Utah Comb Wash near Bluff, Utah Black Mountain Wash near Chinle, Ariz. Lukachukai Creek Tributary near Lukachukai, Ariz. Long House Wash near Kayenta, Ariz. Lime Creek near Mexican Hat, Utah El Capitan Wash near Kayenta, Ariz. Coyote Creek near Kanab, Utah Flood Region (3) Record Length, yrs (4) Drainage Area, sm (5) Gage Elev. (6) Mean Annual Evap, in (7) 8 34 7.05 5.916 50 8 16 39.4 9.3 43 8 15 11.9 9.7 42.8 8 53 526 7.2 55.6 8 36 346 6.3 55.1 8 13 720 6.2 59.8 8 21 3.77 8.88 44.8 8 28 205 6.82 47.3 8 10 10.3 5,760 45.9 8 10 280 6,060 55.9 8 15 80.7 5,920 55.1 8 14 1.37 5,820 55.3 8 15 1.38 6,920 54.7 8 15 67.2 5,360 53.9 8 14 5.88 5,699 54.9 8 14 89 5,110 54.2 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.2 USGS data for stream gages used for regional regression equations (Source: Blakemore, Hjalmarson, and Waltemeyer, 1997) Gage ID (1) 09379820 09379980 09381100 09381500 09381800 09382000 09383020 09403000 09403500 09403600 09403700 09403750 09403780 09403800 09404450 Gage Location (2) Buck Tank Draw near Kanab, Utah Jack Bench Wash Tributary near Page, Ariz. Henrieville Creek at Henrieville, Utah Paria River near Cannonville, Utah Pari a River near Kanab, Utah Paria River at Lees Ferry, Ariz. House Rock Wash Tributary near Marble Canyon, Ariz. Bright Angel Creek near Grand Canyon, Ariz. Kanab Creek near Glendale, Utah Kanab Creek near Kanab, Utah Johnson Wash near Kanab, Utah Sagebrush Draw near Fredonia, Ariz. Kanab Creek near Fredonia, Ariz. Bitter Seeps Wash Tributary near Fredonia, Ariz. East Fork Virgin River near Glendale, Utah August 24, 2009 Flood Region (3) Record Length, yrs (4) Drainage Area, sm (5) Gage Elev. (6) Mean Annual Evap, in (7) 8 10 5.25 5,030 56.5 8 15 0.98 6,180 60.1 8 16 34 7,120 39.7 8 21 220 6,890 39 8 15 668 6,390 54.7 8 63 1,410.00 6,150 62.5 8 13 3.54 5,290 57.7 8 50 101 7,390 55 8 16 72 7,250 41 8 18 198 6,670 53.7 8 16 237 6,300 54 8 15 0.68 5,290 55 8 16 1,085.00 6,100 55.4 8 14 2.85 5,120 55.7 8 20 69.2 7,300 39.5 F-23 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.2 USGS data for stream gages used for regional regression equations (Source: Blakemore, Hjalmarson, and Waltemeyer, 1997) Gage ID (1) 09404500 09405420 09405500 09406000 09406300 09406700 09406800 09408000 9408150 09408200 09408400 09409500 09410000 10242000 10242100 10242440 F-24 Gage Location (2) Mineral Gulch near Mt. Carmel, Utah North Fork Virgin River below Bullock Canyon, near Glendale, Utah North Fork Virgin River near Springdale, Utah Virgin River near Virgin, Utah Kanarra Creek at Kanarraville, Utah South Ash Creek below Mill Creek near Pintura, Utah South Ash Creek near Pintura, Utah Leeds Creek near Leeds, Utah Virgin River near Hurricane, Utah Fort Pierce Wash near St. George, Utah Santa Clara River near Pine Valley, Utah Moody Wash near Veyo, Utah Santa Clara River "above Windsor Dam near Santa Clara, Utah Coal Creek near Cedar City, Utah Shirts Creek near Cedar City, Utah Cottonwood Creek near Enterprise, Utah Flood Region (3) Record Length, yrs (4) Drainage Area, sm (5) Gage Elev. (6) Mean Annual Evap, in (7) 8 14 7.6 6,110 46 8 11 29.6 7,670 39.9 8 63 344 7,350 53.2 8 70 934 6,400 54.2 8 23 9.85 7,950 44.6 8 16 11 7,210 45.6 8 14 14 6,720 55.9 8 23 15.5 6,360 50 8 20 1,499.00 6,350 57.3 8 11 1,650.00 4,870 59.4 8 27 18.7 8,720 43.8 8 15 33 6,070 45.2 8 30 338 5,900 55.2 8 56 80.9 8,640 43.7 8 16 12.8 8,032 45.3 8 11 6 6,110 57.4 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.2 USGS data for stream gages used for regional regression equations (Source: Blakemore, Hjalmarson, and Waltemeyer, 1997) Gage ID (1) 09404310 09404350 09415050 09415100 09417100 09418990 09419590 09419620 09419630 09419640 09419647 09419650 09419663 09419670 Gage Location (2) Yampai Canyon Tributary, near Peach Springs, Ariz. Valentine Wash at Valentine, Ariz. Big Bend Wash Tributary near Littlefield, Ariz. Pulsipher Wash near Mesquite, Nev. Dry Lake Tributary near Nellis Air Force Base, Nev. Weiser Wash near Glendale, Nev .. Detrital Wash Tributary near Chloride, Ariz. Mormon Wells Wash near Las Vegas, Nev. Telephone Canyon near Charleston Park, Nev. Kyle Canyon near Charleston Park, Nev. Las Vegas Wash Tributary near Las Vegas, Nev. Las Vegas Wash at North Las Vegas, Nev. Las Vegas Wash Tributary south of Nellis Air Force Base, Nev. Red Rock Wash near Blue Diamond, Nev. August 24, 2009 Flood Region (3) Record Length, yrs (4) Drainage Area, sm (5) Gage Elev. (6) Mean Annual Evap, in (7) 10 13 0.2 5,360 71.6 10 14 3.15 4,490 59.6 10 13 7.27 2,240 59.6 10 18 4.58 1,950 62.3 10 12 10 2,690 64.5 10 16 43 2,480 64.3 10 15 1.23 3,710 64.4 10 25 115 6,500 54.5 10 25 7.2 7,880 65.2 10 26 35.9 8,020 65.3 10 24 62 3,790 60.2 10 21 700 10 23 1.2 2,510 67.8 10 25 8.09 6,030 67 64.3 F-25 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.2 USGS data for stream gages used for regional regression equations (Source: Blakemore, Hjalmarson, and Waltemeyer, 1997) Gage ID (1) 09419675 09419677 09419680 09419690 09419697 09421800 09423300 09423400 09423760 09423820 09423900 09424050 09427700 09428530 F-26 Gage Location (2) Flamingo Wash at Las Vegas, Nev. Flamingo Wash at Maryland Parkway at Las Vegas, Nev. Cottonwood Valley near Blue Diamond, Nev. Duck Creek at Whitney, Nev. Las Vegas Wash Tributary near Henderson, Nev. Ringbolt Wash near Hoover Dam, Ariz. Piute Wash Tributary at Searchlight, Nev. Tin Can Creek near Needles, Calif. Little Meadow Creek near Oatman, Ariz. Sacramento Wash near Yucca, Ariz. Sacramento Wash Tributary near Topock, Ariz. Chemehuevi Wash Tributary near Needles, Calif. Monkeys Head Wash near Parker, Ariz. Arch Creek near Earp, Calif. Flood Region (3) Record Length, yrs (4) Drainage Area, sm (5) Gage Elev. (6) Mean Annual Evap, in (7) 10 18 86 3,790 76 10 18 106 3,200 75.6 10 26 18.3 5,400 70.1 10 26 239 3,420 75.9 10 18 1.17 2,370 79.1 10 14 1.21 2,590 80.8 10 17 3.4 3,670 74.7 10 15 0.04 2,600 76 10 12 8.47 3,400 71.8 10 12 787 3,400 73 10 14 14.7 1,450 74.2 10 14 2.04 10 14 1.84 1,130 74.9 10 14 1.52 840 79.3 88.4 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.2 USGS data for stream gages used for regional regression equations (Source: Blakemore, Hjalmarson, and Waltemeyer, 1997) Gage ID (1) 09428560 09428570 09429150 09429240 09429250 09429400 09429510 10248490 10248510 10250600 10250720 10251000 10251200 10251220 Gage Location (2) Colorado River Tributary No 2 near Vidal, Calif. Colorado River Tributary near Vidal, Calif. Creosote Wash near Ehrenberg, Ariz. Ogilby Wash near Palo Verde, Calif. Ogilby Wash No.2 near Palo Verde, Calif. Indian Wash Tributary near Yuma, Ariz. Mittry Lake Tributary near Yuma, Ariz. Indian Springs Valley Tributary near Indian Spring, Nev. Eldorado Valley Tributary near Nelson, Nev. Wildrose Creek near Wildrose Station, Nev. Onyx Creek near Ballarat, Nev. Big Dip Creek near Stovepipe Wells, Nev. Spring Creek at Furnace Creek Inn, Nev. Amargosa River near Beatty, Nev. August 24, 2009 Flood Region (3) Record Length, yrs (4) Drainage Area, sm (5) Gage Elev. (6) Mean Annual Evap, in (7) 10 14 0.42 880 74.7 10 14 1.12 10 12 1.98 10 14 0.04 100 10 14 0.01 100 10 15 2.56 1,190 68.7 10 12 0.3 346 73.6 10 22 29 6,140 66 10 18 1.41 2,900 80.1 10 15 23.7 6,400 75 10 11 0.52 10 15 0.95 10 15 0.21 10 19 70 74.5 509 89 75 2,200 62.7 75.1 5,070 59.5 F-27 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.2 USGS data for stream gages used for regional regression equations (Source: Blakemore, Hjalmarson, and Waltemeyer, 1997) Gage ID (1) 10251270 10251271 10251272 10251350 10251400 10251500 10251600 10251980 10252300 10252550 10253000 10253250 10253255 10253350 F-28 Gage Location (2) Amargosa River Tributary near Mercury, Nev. Amargosa River Tributary No. 1 near Johnnie, Nev. Amargosa River Tributary No. 2 near Johnnie, Nev. Horse Thief Creek near Tecopa, Nev. Ibex Creek near Tecopa, Nev Yucca Creek near Yucca Grove, Calif. Salsberry Creek near Shoshone, Calif. Lovell Wash near Blue Diamond, Nev. China Spring Creek near Mountain Pass, Calif. Caruthers Creek near Ivanpah, Nev. Gourd Creek near Ludlow, Calif. Granite Wash near Rice, Calif. Granite Wash No. 2 near Rice, Calif. Fortynine Palms Creek near Twentynine Palms, Calif. Flood Region (3) Record Length, yrs (4) Drainage Area, sm (5) Gage Elev. (6) Mean Annual Evap, in (7) 10 22 110 4,060 75.2 10 18 2.21 3,460 75.4 10 17 2.49 4,640 75 10 10 3.06 10 15 0.2 10 15 0.03 75 10 15 0.01 80.1 10 17 52.8 10 15 0.94 10 23 1.13 6,200 75 10 22 0.3 1,800 80 10 14 0.01 100 10 14 0.01 100 10 18 8.55 75.8 2,150 6,390 80.2 64.8 74.9 4,200 79.7 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.2 USGS data for stream gages used for regional regression equations (Source: Blakemore, Hjalmarson, and Waltemeyer, 1997) Gage ID (1) 10253700 10253750 10253800 10254020 10254475 10255200 10255230 10255650 10255700 10255730 10255800 10255820 10255825 10255850 10255885 10256000 Gage Location (2) Palen Dry Lake Tributary near Desert Center, Calif. Monument Wash near Desert Center, Calif. Coxcomb Wash near Desert Center, Calif. Betz Wash near Salton Beach, Calif. Glamis Wash at Glamis, Calif Myer Creek Tributary near Jacumba, Calif. Myer Creek Tributary No.2 near Coyote Wells, Calif. Chariot Creek near Julian, Calif. San Felipe Creek near Julian, Calif. Pinyon Wash near Borrego Springs Calif. Coyote Creek near Borrego Springs, Calif. Yaqui Pass Wash near Borrego, Calif. Yaqui Pass Wash No.2 near Borrego, Calif. Vallecito Creek near Julian, Calif. San Felipe Creek near Westmorland, Calif. Whitewater River at Whitewater, Calif. August 24, 2009 Mean Annual Evap, in (7) Flood Region (3) Record Length, yrs (4) Drainage Area, sm (5) 10 14 0.04 90.8 10 14 4.29 93.8 10 14 0.03 92.6 10 14 5.95 73.6 10 15 0.6 400 80 10 14 0.11 2,000 61.8 10 14 0.08 1,160 68.6 10 12 7.95 4,000 60.9 10 25 89.2 3,400 59.8 10 14 19.6 2,750 59.7 10 36 144 4,300 59.9 10 14 0.03 60 10 14 0.04 60 10 20 39.7 70.3 10 26 1693 65.4 10 30 57.5 Gage Elev. (6) 5,600 60.6 F-29 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.2 USGS data for stream gages used for regional regression equations (Source: Blakemore, Hjalmarson, and Waltemeyer, 1997) Gage ID (1) 10256400 10256500 10257600 10258000 10258100 10258500 10259000 10259200 10259300 10259500 10259600 10260200 10260400 10261000 F-30 Gage Location (2) San Gornonio River near Whitewater, Calif. Snow Creek near Whitewater, Calif. Mission Creek near Desert Hot Springs, Calif. Tahquitz Creek near Palm Springs, Calif. Palm Canyon Creek Tributary near Anza, Calif. Palm Canyon Creek near Palm Springs, Calif. Andreas Creek near Palm Springs, Calif. Deep Creek near Palm Desert, Calif. Whitewater River at Indio, Calif. Thermal Canyon Tributary near Mecca, Calif. Cottonwood Wash near Cottonwood Spring, Calif. Pipes Creek near Yucca Valley, Calif. Cushenbury Creek near Lucerne Valley, Calif. West Fork Mohave River near Hesperia, Calif. Mean Annual Evap, in (7) Flood Region (3) Record Length, yrs (4) Drainage Area, sm (5) 10 14 154 10 26 10.8 10 18 35.6 10 38 16.9 6,800 61.4 10 12 0.47 5,200 70.8 10 52 93.1 4,500 65.2 10 37 8.65 4,500 63.9 10 24 30.6 4,000 70 10 20 1,073.00 10 14 0.18 10 14 0.71 80.8 10 21 15.1 79.8 10 20 6.36 69.6 10 49 70.3 Gage Elev. (6) 51.3 6,150 58.2 61.1 70 1,700 4,120 80.5 69.3 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.2 USGS data for stream gages used for regional regression equations (Source: Blakemore, Hjalmarson, and Waltemeyer, 1997) Gage ID (1) 10261500 10261800 10262600 10263100 10263500 10263900 10264000 10264520 10264530 10264560 10264605 10264680 10264700 10264750 10264840 10264878 Gage Location (2) Mohave River at Lower Narrows, near Victorville, Calif. Beacon Creek at Helendale, Calif. Boom Creek near Barstow, Calif. ZZYZX Creek near Baker, Calif Big Rock Creek near Valyermo, Calif. Buckhorn Creek near Valyermo, Calif. Little Rock Creek near Little Rock, Calif. Amargosa Creek Tributary near Palmdale, Calif. Pine Creek near Palmdale, Calif. Spencer Canyon Creek near Fairmont, Calif. Joshua Creek near Mohave, Calif. Mescal Creek Tributary at Big Pines, Calif. Peewee Creek near Randsburg, Calif. Pine Tree Creek near Mohave, Calif. Sand Creek near Inyokern, Calif. Ninemile Creek near Brown, Calif. August 24, 2009 Flood Region (3) Record Length, yrs (4) Drainage Area, sm (5) Gage Elev. (6) Mean Annual Evap, in (7) 10 39 513 4,500 80.3 10 17 0.72 2,700 80.3 10 23 0.24 2,350 75.2 10 11 0.23 1,800 80.7 10 64 22.9 6,000 81 10 20 0.48 7,600 79.5 10 47 49 5,600 84 10 15 0.05 3,440 84.6 10 24 1.37 10 21 3.6 3,300 59.3 10 15 3.83 4,300 54.7 10 12 0.05 7,400 77.6 10 15 0.14 80.5 10 20 33.5 71.2 10 15 1.02 3,400 75 10 15 10.4 5,000 71.8 85.2 F-31 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.2 USGS data for stream gages used for regional regression equations (Source: Blakemore, Hjalmarson, and Waltemeyer, 1997) Gage ID (1) 10264900 10264915 09383500 09384000 09384200 09385800 09386100 09387050 09390500 09392800 09393500 09395100 09395400 09395500 09395600 F-32 Gage Location (2) Salt Wells Creek near Westend, Calif. Crust Creek near Westend, Calf. Nutrioso Creek above Nelson Reservoir near Springerville, Ariz. Little Colorado River above Lyman Lake near St. Johns, Ariz. Lyman Reservation Tributary near St. Johns, Ariz. Little Colorado River Tributary near St. Johns, Ariz. Largo Creek near Quemado, N. Mex. Galestena Canyon Tributary near Black Rock, N. Mex. Show Low Creek near Lakeside, Ariz. Long Lake Tributary near Show Low, Ariz. Silver Creek near Snowflake, Ariz. Carr Lake Tributary near Holbrook, Ariz. Milk Rock Canyon near Ft Wingate, N. Mex. Puerco River at Gallup, N. Mex. Wagon Trail Wash near Gamerco, N. Mex. Mean Annual Evap, in (7) Flood Region (3) Record Length, yrs (4) Drainage Area, sm (5) 10 15 61.6 10 14 0.13 1,700 75 11 17 83.4 8,550 44.4 11 46 747 7,760 51.8 11 14 0.24 6,100 52.1 11 14 0.35 6,350 52.3 11 32 151 8,270 48.7 11 30 19 7,100 50.4 11 33 68.6 7,320 49 11 12 5.18 6,700 51.3 11 56 886 6,400 55.7 11 13 1.19 5,420 55.3 11 35 14 8,300 49.7 11 34 558 7,900 50 11 24 0.38 6,500 50 Gage Elev. (6) 75 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.2 USGS data for stream gages used for regional regression equations (Source: Blakemore, Hjalmarson, and Waltemeyer, 1997) Gage ID (1) 09395900 09396400 09397200 09397500 09397800 09398000 09398500 09399000 09399250 09400100 09400200 09400290 09400300 09400530 Gage Location (2) Black Creek near Lupton, Ariz. Dead Wash Tributary near Holbrook, Ariz. Penzance Wash near Joseph City, Ariz. Chevelon Creek below Wildcat Canyon, near Winslow, Ariz. Brookbank Canyon near Heber, Ariz. Chevelon Creek near Winslow, Ariz. Clear Creek below Willow Creek, near Winslow, Ariz. Clear Creek near Winslow, Ariz. Jacks Canyon Tributary No. 2 near Winslow, Ariz. Ganado Wash Tributary near Ganado, Ariz. Steamboat Wash Tributary near Ganado, Ariz. Teshbito Wash Tributary near Holbrook, Ariz. Teshbito Wash near Holbrook, Ariz. Cow Canyon near Winslow, Ariz. August 24, 2009 Flood Region (3) Record Length, yrs (4) Drainage Area, sm (5) Gage Elev. (6) Mean Annual Evap, in (7) 11 19 500 7,500 49.9 11 13 1 5,740 54 11 14 0.17 5,150 55 11 28 275 7,030 54.3 11 13 27.6 6,950 52.3 11 48 794 6,440 55.6 11 39 321 7,100 52.3 11 52 607 6,500 55.6 11 14 31.8 6,530 53.8 11 14 11.1 6,770 51.4 11 12 0.32 6,750 53.8 11 14 16.4 6,420 54 11 14 57.4 6,280 53.7 11 15 3.53 55.5 F-33 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.2 USGS data for stream gages used for regional regression equations (Source: Blakemore, Hjalmarson, and Waltemeyer, 1997) Gage ID (1) 09400560 09400565 09400580 09400590 09400595 09400600 09400650 09400655 09400680 09400730 09400910 09401210 09401220 09401245 09401300 F-34 Gage Location (2) Oraibi Wash Tributary near Oraibi, Ariz. Polacca Wash Tributary near Chinle, Ariz. Castle Butte Wash near Winslow, Ariz. Rio de Flag at Hidden Hollow Road at Flagstaff, Ariz. Schultz Canyon at Flagstaff, Ariz. Rio de Flag at Flagstaff, Ariz. Sinclair Wash at Flagstaff, Ariz. Rio de Flag at 140 at Flagstaff, Ariz. Switzer Canyon at Flagstaff, Ariz. Lockett Fanning Diversion at Flagstaff, Ariz. Fay Canyon near Flagstaff, Ariz. Slate Mountain Wash near Flagstaff, Ariz. Cedar Wash near Cameron, Ariz. Klethla Valley Tributary near Kayenta, Ariz. Hamblin Wash Tributary near Cedar Ridge, Ariz. Flood Region (3) Record Length, yrs (4) Drainage Area, sm (5) Gage Elev. (6) Mean Annual Evap, in (7) 11 14 1.78 6,020 54.9 11 13 6.17 6,890 55 11 13 5.53 5,820 55 11 13 31.5 8,130 44.2 11 11 6.09 8,060 44.1 11 18 51 8,050 44.1 11 11 8.16 7,200 44.2 11 13 82.4 7,840 44.1 11 12 1.87 7,130 44.1 11 12 1.05 8,020 44.1 11 16 2.76 7,000 44.2 11 14 5.43 7,350 51 11 10 556 6,430 55.3 11 15 0.77 6,730 54.4 11 14 0.1 5,860 55 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.2 USGS data for stream gages used for regional regression equations (Source: Blakemore, Hjalmarson, and Waltemeyer, 1997) Gage ID (1) 09401370 09402100 09403930 09404050 09424200 09424407 09424410 09424430 09424470 09424480 09424700 09424900 09425500 09468300 Gage Location (2) Hamblin Wash Tributary No. 2 near Tuba City, Ariz. Forest Boundary Wash near Cameron, Ariz. West Cataract Creek near Williams, Ariz. Spring Valley Wash Tributary, near Williams, Ariz. Cottonwood Wash No.1 near Kingman, Ariz. McGarrys Wash near Kingman, Ariz. Big Sandy River Tributary near Kingman, Ariz. Kaiser Spring Canyon Tributary near Wikieup, Ariz. Kirkland Creek near Kirkland, Ariz. Ash Creek near Kirkland, Ariz. Iron Spring Wash Tributary near Bagdad, Ariz. Santa Maria River near Bagdad, Ariz. Santa Maria River near Alamo, Ariz. Sevenmile Wash Tributary near Globe, Ariz. August 24, 2009 Flood Region (3) Record Length, yrs (4) Drainage Area, sm (5) Gage Elev. (6) Mean Annual Evap, in (7) 11 13 2.16 4,670 55 11 14 0.72 6,810 55.3 11 13 3.18 7,190 49.6 11 14 3.93 6,750 52.2 12 15 143 5,350 53.9 12 12 13.5 4,610 60.5 12 16 1.99 3,700 61 12 16 1.7 3,520 60.9 12 10 109 12 16 6.95 4,680 54.7 12 15 0.64 3,470 54.8 12 19 1,210.00 4,010 62.6 12 28 1,520.00 3,650 63.3 12 16 0.83 4,410 53.1 54.6 F-35 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.2 USGS data for stream gages used for regional regression equations (Source: Blakemore, Hjalmarson, and Waltemeyer, 1997) Gage ID (1) 09468500 09489100 09489499 09489700 09490500 09492400 09494000 09494300 09496000 09496500 09496600 09496700 09496800 09497800 F-36 Gage Location (2) San Carlos River near Peridot, Ariz. Black River near Maverick, Ariz. Black River above Willow Creek Diversion near Point of Pines, Ariz. Big Bonito Creek near Fort Apache, Ariz. Black River near Fort Apache, Ariz. East Fork White River near Fort Apache, Ariz . White River near Fort Apache, Ariz. Carrizo Creek above Corduroy Creek near Show Low, Ariz. Corduroy Creek near mouth near Show Low, Ariz. Carrizo Creek near Show Low, Ariz Cibecue 1 Tributary to Carrizo Creek near Show Low, Ariz. Cibecue 2 Tributary to Carrizo Creek near Show Low, Ariz. Carrizo Creek Tributary near Show Low, Ariz. Cibecue Creek near Chrysotile, Ariz Flood Region (3) Record Length, yrs (4) Drainage Area, sm (5) Gage Elev. (6) Mean Annual Evap, in (7) 12 57 1,027.00 4,480 58.2 12 20 315 8,700 40.4 12 33 560 8,000 44.1 12 24 119 7,920 44.4 12 30 1,232.00 7,200 47.9 12 28 38.8 8,580 40.7 12 29 632 7,400 47.3 12 14 225 6,370 44.7 12 24 203 6,370 44 12 36 439 6,320 44.7 12 14 0.1 5,390 44.6 12 14 0.06 5,240 44.7 12 14 2.55 5,810 44.6 12 28 295 5,700 45.7 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.2 USGS data for stream gages used for regional regression equations (Source: Blakemore, Hjalmarson, and Waltemeyer, 1997) Gage ID (1) 09497900 09497980 09498600 09498800 09498870 09498900 09499000 09501300 09502700 09502800 09503000 09503720 09503740 09503750 09503800 09504100 Gage Location (2) Cherry Creek near Young, Ariz. Cherry Creek near Globe, Ariz. Cristopher Creek Tributary near Kohl's Ranch, Ariz. Tonto Creek near Gisela, Ariz. Rye Creek near Gisela, Ariz. Gold Creek near Payson, Ariz. Tonto Creek above Gun Creek, near Roosevelt, Ariz. Tortilla Creek at Tortilla Flat, Ariz. Crookton Wash near Seligman, Ariz. Williamson Valley Wash near Paulden, Ariz. Granite Creek near Prescott, Ariz. Hell Canyon near Williams, Ariz. Hell Canyon Tributary near Ash Fork, Ariz. Limestone Canyon near Paulden, Ariz. Volunteer Wash near Bellemont, Ariz. Hull Canyon near Jerome, Ariz. August 24, 2009 Flood Region (3) Record Length, yrs (4) Drainage Area, sm (5) Gage Elev. (6) Mean Annual Evap, in (7) 12 16 62.1 6,030 44.5 12 21 200 5,600 47.5 12 11 0.66 6,080 45 12 11 430 5,810 46.2 12 20 122 4,390 54.5 12 15 6.44 4,590 57.1 12 46 675 5,020 57.3 12 18 24.3 2,690 65 12 17 6 5,970 52.7 12 21 255 5,120 52.2 12 16 39.6 5,900 54 12 13 14.9 7,110 46.9 12 10 0.75 5,180 50.4 12 11 14.5 5,310 50.6 12 14 131 7,620 44 12 18 0.91 7,050 52.4 F-37 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.2 USGS data for stream gages used for regional regression equations (Source: Blakemore, Hjalmarson, and Waltemeyer, 1997) Gage ID (1) 09504400 09504500 09504800 09505200 09505220 09505250 09505300 09505350 09505600 09505800 09505900 09507600 09507700 09507980 09508300 F-38 Gage Location (2) Munds Canyon Tributary near Sedona, Ariz. Oak Creek near Cornville, Ariz. Oak Creek Tributary near Cornville-, Ariz. Wet Beaver Creek near Rimrock, Ariz. Rocky Gulch near Stoneman Lake, Ariz. (USFS) Red Tank Draw near Rimrock, Ariz. Rattlesnake Canyon near Rimrock, Ariz. Dry Beaver Creek near Rimrock, Ariz. Dirty Neck Canyon near Clints Well, West Clear Creek near Camp Verde, Ariz. Cottonwood Wash near Camp Verde, Ariz. East Verde River near Pine, Ariz. Webber Creek above West Fork Webber Creek, near Pine, Ariz. East Verde River near Childs, Ariz. Wet Bottom Creek near Childs, Ariz. Flood Region (3) Record Length, yrs (4) Drainage Area, sm (5) Gage Elev. (6) Mean Annual Evap, in (7) 12 16 1.19 6,880 44.2 12 45 357 6,200 51.9 12 15 0.04 3,570 52.8 12 25 111 6,410 50.4 12 24 1.4 7,190 44.3 12 21 49.4 5,910 50.6 12 23 24.6 6,560 46.6 12 26 142 6,220 51.3 12 12 3.42 7,140 44 12 21 241 6,680 51.8 12 14 0.64 3,540 53.1 12 13 6.65 6,430 44.6 12 16 4.92 6,980 44 12 25 328 5,140 54.5 12 19 36.4 4,810 57.8 August 24, 2009 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.2 USGS data for stream gages used for regional regression equations (Source: Blakemore, Hjalmarson, and Waltemeyer, 1997) Gage ID (1) 09510070 09510080 09510100 09510150 09510170 09510180 09510200 09512100 09512200 09512300 09512420 09512500 09512700 09512800 Gage Location (2) West Fork Sycamore Creek above McFarland Creek, near Sunflower, Ariz. West Fork Sycamore Creek near Sunflower, Ariz. East Fork Sycamore Creek near Sunflower, Ariz. Sycamore Creek near Sunflower, Ariz. Camp Creek near Sunflower, Ariz. Rock Creek near Sunflower, Ariz. Sycamore Creek near Fort McDowell, Ariz. Indian Bend Wash near Scottsdale, Ariz. Salt River Tributary in South Mt. Park, at Phoenix, Ariz. Cave Creek near Cave Creek, Ariz. Lynx Creek Tributary near Prescott, Ariz. Agua Fria River near Mayer, Ariz. Agua Fria River Tributary No 2 near Rock Springs, Ariz. Agua Fria River near Rock Springs, Ariz. August 24, 2009 Flood Region (3) Record Length, yrs (4) Drainage Area, sm (5) Gage Elev. (6) Mean Annual Evap, in (7) 12 14 4.58 5,430 58 12 15 9.8 5,260 58.3 12 23 4.49 5,760 58.2 12 15 52.3 4,260 60 12 17 2.6 3,520 63.1 12 10 15.2 3,680 64.1 12 27 164 3,820 65 12 10 139 1,780 65.6 12 26 1.75 1,730 65.6 12 28 121 3,470 62.2 12 10 0.95 5,900 54.2 12 47 588 5,000 60.9 12 18 1.11 2,140 60.2 12 17 1,130.00 4,770 60.5 F-39 Mohave County Drainage Design Manual Appendix F: Data for Indirect Methods Table F.2 USGS data for stream gages used for regional regression equations (Source: Blakemore, Hjalmarson, and Waltemeyer, 1997) Gage ID (1) 09513780 09513800 09513820 09513835 09513860 09513890 09513910 09513970 09515500 09515800 09516500 09516600 09516800 F-40 Gage Location (2) New River near Rock Springs, Ariz. New River at New River, Ariz. Deadman Wash near New River, Ariz. New River at Bell Road, near Peoria, Ariz. Skunk Creek near Phoenix, Ariz. New River at Peoria, Ariz. New River near Glendale, Ariz. Agua Fria River at Avondale, Ariz. Hassayampa River at Box Damsite near Wickenburg, Ariz. Hartman Wash near Wickenburg, Ariz. Hassayampa River near Morristown, Ariz. Ox Wash near Morristown, Ariz. Jack Rabbit Wash near Tonopah, Ariz. Flood Region (3) Record Length, yrs (4) Drainage Area, sm (5) Gage Elev. (6) Mean Annual Evap, in (7) 12 25 67.3 3,970 60.4 12 22 83.3 3,600 60.7 12 20 11.1 1,980 62.3 12 21 187 2,700 65.2 12 26 64.6 2,180 65.2 12 12 317 2,320 65.2 12 21 323 2,130 65.3 12 23 633 12 38 417 4,750 58.6 12 16 5.57 2,690 60.5 12 30 774 3,190 60.8 12 17 6.31 2,290 60.7 12 16 137 2,260 61.4 65.3 August 24, 2009