Section 1 Introduction ........................................................................................5 1.1 Propose .......................................................................................................5 1.2 Project Authority ..........................................................................................5 1.3 Project Location...........................................................................................6 1.3 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Methods..............................................................6 1.4 Acknowledgment .........................................................................................7 1.5 Study Results ..............................................................................................7 Section 2 FEMA Forms.....................................................................................11 2.1 Study Documentation Abstract for FEMA submittals.................................11 2.1.1 Date Study Accepted ..........................................................................11 2.1.2 Study Contractor.................................................................................11 2.1.3 Local Technical Reviewer ...................................................................11 2.1.4 Reach Description ..............................................................................11 2.1.8 USGS Quad Sheets............................................................................11 2.1.9 Unique Conditions and Problems .......................................................12 2.1.10 Coordination of Peak Discharges .....................................................12 2.2 FEMA Forms .............................................................................................12 Section 3 Survey and Mapping Information ...................................................12 3.1 Field Survey Information ...........................................................................12 3.2 Mapping ....................................................................................................12 Section 4 Hydrology .........................................................................................13 4.1 Method Description ...................................................................................13 4.2 Parameter Estimation................................................................................13 4.2.1 Drainage Area.....................................................................................13 4.2.2 Watershed Work Map .........................................................................14 4.2.3 Gage Data ..........................................................................................14 4.2.4 Spatial Parameters .............................................................................14 4.2.5 Precipitation ........................................................................................14 4.2.6 Physical Parameters ...........................................................................14 4.3 Problems Encountered During the Study ..................................................16 4.3.1 Special Problems and Solutions .........................................................16 4.3.2 Modeling Warning and Error Messages..............................................16 4.4 Calibration .................................................................................................17 4.5 Final Results ..........................................................................................17 2 Section 5 Hydraulics.........................................................................................18 5.1 Method Description ...................................................................................18 5.2 Work Study Maps ......................................................................................19 5.3 Parameter Estimation................................................................................19 5.3.1 Roughness Coefficients ......................................................................19 5.3.2 Expansion and Contraction Coefficients .............................................20 5.4 Cross-Section Description .........................................................................20 5.5 Modeling Consideration.............................................................................20 5.5.1 Hydraulic Jump and Drop Analysis .....................................................20 5.5.2. Bridges and Culverts..........................................................................20 5.5.3 Levees and Dikes ...............................................................................20 5.5.4 Island and Flow Splits .........................................................................20 5.5.5 Ineffective Flow Areas.........................................................................20 5.6 Floodway Modeling ...................................................................................21 5.7 Problems Encountered ..............................................................................21 5.7.1 Special Problems and Solutions .........................................................21 5.7.2 Model Warnings and Errors ................................................................22 5.8 Calibration .................................................................................................22 5.9 Final Results..............................................................................................22 5.9.1 Hydraulic Analysis Results..................................................................22 5.9.2 Verification of Results .........................................................................22 Section 6 Erosion and Sediment Transport ...................................................22 Section 7 Draft FIS Report Data.......................................................................23 7.1 Summary of Discharges ............................................................................23 7.2 Floodway Data ..........................................................................................23 7.3 Annotated Flood Insurance Rate Map.......................................................23 7.4 Flood Profiles ............................................................................................23 List of Tables Table 1 Methods used for a HEC-HMS analysis.............................................................. 15 Table 2 Methods used for a PC-Hydro analysis ............................................................... 16 Table 3 Physical Parameters for Subbasins ...................................................................... 16 Table 4 Summary of the Hydrologic Analysis Results for Subbasins (HEC-HMS) ........ 17 Table 5 Summary of the Hydrologic Analysis Results at the Concentration Points (HECHMS)................................................................................................................................. 17 Table 6 Summary of the Hydrologic Analysis Results at the Concentration Points (PCHydro) ............................................................................................................................... 17 Table 7 Comparison of Peak Discharges .......................................................................... 18 3 List of Figures Figure 1.1 Watershed Map.................................................................................................. 8 Figure 1.2 Study Limit........................................................................................................ 9 Figure 1.3 Soil Classification............................................................................................ 10 Appendix A: References Appendix B: General Documentation and Correspondence Appendix C: Survey Field Notes Appendix D: Hydrologic Analysis, Supporting Documents Appendix E: Hydraulic Analysis, Supporting Documents Appendix F: Erosion Analysis, Supporting Documents Exhibit Exhibit 1 100-yr Floodplain Limit Map for the Campbell Wash Exhibit 2 Annotated Flood Insurance Rate Map 4 Section 1 Introduction 1.1 Propose This Technical Data notebook (TDN) has been prepared for a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) application for a portion of the Campbell Wash located in Pima County, Arizona. The objective of the TDN and LOMR submission is provide regulatory discharge rates and floodplain limits along the Campbell Wash using better topographic, hydrologic, and hydraulic data. This TDN was prepared in accordance with the “Instructions for Organizing and Submitting Technical Documentation for Flood Studies” prepared by the Arizona Department of Water Resources, Flood Mitigation Section (Arizona State Standard, SSA 1-97) and FEMA Guideline. FEMA LOMR forms are included in Appendix B. 1.2 Project Authority The State of Arizona has delegated the responsibility to each county flood control district to adopt floodplain regulations designed to promote the public health, safety and general welfare of its citizenry as provided under the Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 48, Chapter 21, Article 1, Sections 48-3601 through 3627. More specifically, A.R.S. 3609 directs county flood control districts to adopt floodplain regulations that: A. Regulate all development of land, construction of residential, commercial or industrial structures or uses of any kind which may divert, retard or obstruct flood water and threaten public health or safety or the general welfare; and B. Establish minimum flood protection elevations and flood damage prevention requirements for uses, structures and facilities which are vulnerable to flood damage; and C. Comply with state and local land use plans and ordinances, if any. In conformance with A.R.S. 3609, this ordinance provides for protection of the public health safety and welfare by regulation of flood and erosion hazard areas to control flood hazards and prevent repetitive loss from flood damage. D. The flood hazard areas of Pima County are subject to periodic inundation which may result in loss of life and property, create health and safety hazards, disrupt commerce and governmental services, require extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impair the tax base, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare. E. These flood losses are caused by the cumulative effect of obstructions in areas of special flood hazards which increase flood heights, flow velocities, and cause flood and erosion damage. Uses that are inadequately flood-proofed, elevated, or otherwise protected from flood damage, also contribute to the flood loss. (Ord. 2005 FC-2 § 2 (part), 2005). 5 Section 16 of the Pima County Ordinance describes the provisions for floodplain regulation in Pima County. This study has been prepared by the Pima County Regional Flood Control District (RFCD): Pima County Regional Flood Control District 97 East Congress, Tucson, AZ 85701 The project was prepared by: Akitsu Kimoto, Ph.D., C.F.M., Principal Hydrologist. Pima County Regional Flood Control District 97 East Congress, Tucson, AZ 85701 1.3 Project Location The study reach of the Campbell wash is located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-designated “Zone A” flood-hazard area, as depicted on FIRM Map Panel Numbers 04019C1635K, 1637 K and 1645K (February 8, 1999). No documented hydraulic analyses were found to determine the “Zone A”, and the existing “Zone A” depiction is not consistent with current topography. The objective of the TDN and LOMR submission is to provide regulatory discharge rates and floodplain limits along the Campbell Wash using better topographic, hydrologic, and hydraulic data. The study reach of the Campbell Wash is located primarily east of Campbell Ave., Pima County, Arizona (Fig.1). The proposed map covers portions of Sections 08, 09, 17, 19 and 20 of Township 13, Range 14. The study reach was divided into three segments in the study limit for the Campbell Wash LOMR (Fig.1). The western reach of the Campbell Wash enters study limit from the northeast and flows southwest until it converges with the eastern reach. The eastern reach of the Campbell Wash enters the study limit from the northeast and flows southwest until it converges with the western reach. The eastern and western reaches converge immediately south of Camino Juan Paisano. After the junction of the western and eastern reaches, the wash flows down until it converges with Rillito River, in Section 19 of Township 13 South, Range 14 East. The downstream limit for the study is approximately 1930 feet upstream of the downstream end of the study area (Fig.2). 1.3 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Methods Hydrologic analysis was preformed to estimate regulatory discharge rate at concentration points along the Campbell Wash. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Computer Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS) Version 3.4 and PC-Hydro Version 5.4.2 (PC-Hydro) 6 were used to estimate regulatory discharge rate. HEC-HMS was applied to CPs with a contributing area larger than 1 square mile (CPs A and B), while PC-Hydro was applied to CPs with a contributing area smaller than 1 square mile (CPs C and E). The proposed regulatory discharges are flow rates that have a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded each year (“100-year” discharge rates). Hydraulic analysis was performed to delineate floodplain limits along the study reach of the Campbell Wash using U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Computer Backwater Model, HEC-RAS and FLO-2D. A flow split occurs approximately 1930 feet upstream of the downstream end of the study area. FLO2D was used to delineate a floodplain limit in the downstream area. HEC-RAS was used to map a floodplain in the upstream of the flow split. 1.4 Acknowledgment This study relied on assistance of RFCD GIS staff, who were integral to the development of the models and maps. 1.5 Study Results The estimated regulatory discharge rates are 2864 cubic feet per second (cfs) with a drainage area of 2.14 square mile at CP A, 2160 cfs at CP B with a drainage area of 1.34 square miles, 1841 cfs with a drainage area of 0.75 square miles at CP C, and.1336 cfs with a drainage area of 0.62 square miles at CP E. A 100-year Campbell Wash floodplain was mapped as Zone AE and Zone X-Shaded in this LOMR study. Zone X-shaded floodplain is not subject to FEMA floodplain regulations or mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements. However, Pima County regulates Zone X-Shaded floodplain as part of 100-year special flood hazard area. The requirements for Zone X-Shaded floodplain are similar to the Special Flood Hazard areas such as Zone A, AO or AE. The floodplain limit obtained by this study was compared to the existing FEMA floodplain limit. The floodplain limit of this study was extended to the south of Sunrise Dr. The existing FEMA floodplain does not appear to follow the floodplain topography along the Campbell Wash. The existing FIRM shows some uphill houses are within a floodplain. The proposed floodplain limit tends to follow the floodplain topography. This suggests that the proposed floodplain limit is reasonable based on the topography of the Campbell Wash. 7 Figure 1.1 Watershed Map Campbell Wash INA ! ( INA Discharge Point Contour 10 foot River Subbasins CMB A CMB B CMB C CMB D SKYLINE ORANGE GROVE CMB E Aerial : 2008 Pima Association of Governments Topo: 2008 Pima Association of Governments ! ( Datum: NAVD 1988 CA MP BE LL 1ST CP C CP B ! ( ! ( Pima County Index Map SUNRISE SUNRISE SWAN CP E Index Map Scale 1:5,250,000 The information depicted on this display is the result of digital analyses performed on a variety of databases provided and maintained by several governmental agencies. The accuracy of the information presented is limited to the collective accuracy of these databases on the date of the analysis. The Pima County Regional Flood Control Department makes no claims regarding the accuracy of the information depicted herein. This product is subject to the Department of Transportation Technical Services Division's Use Restriction Agreement. Pima County Regional Flood Control District 1,000 500 0 RIVER RI VE R ! ( CP A 11/2010 \\gislib\rfcd\projects\imd\xavi\mxd\AKITSU\Campbell_wash_Watershed_Fig1_1.mxd 1,000 Feet Figure 1.2 Study Limit Campbell Wash INA INA ( ! CMB C Discharge Point River Subbasin Existing FEMA Floodplain CMB D ZONE A ZONE AE ZONE X - SHADED SKYLINE ORANGE GROVE SU NR I Aerial : 2008 Pima Association of Governments SE CMB E ( ! CP C CA MP BE LL 1ST CMB B Pima County Index Map ( !! ( CP B CP E SUNRISE SWAN CMB A Index Map Scale 1:5,250,000 The information depicted on this display is the result of digital analyses performed on a variety of databases provided and maintained by several governmental agencies. The accuracy of the information presented is limited to the collective accuracy of these databases on the date of the analysis. The Pima County Regional Flood Control Department makes no claims regarding the accuracy of the information depicted herein. This product is subject to the Department of Transportation Technical Services Division's Use Restriction Agreement. Pima County Regional Flood Control District RI VE R 1,1 00 550 0 Study Limit RIV E R ( ! CP A 11/2010 \\gislib\rfcd\projects\imd\xavi\mxd\AKITSU\Campbell_wash_Watershed_Fig1_2.mxd 1,1 00 Fe et Figure 1.3 Soil Classification Campbell Wash INA INA CMB C Subbasin Soil Classification Soil Group: A (100%) Soil Group: B (100%) CMB D Soil Group: B (82%) C (18%) Soil Group: C (47%) D (53%) Soil Group: D (100%) Aerial : 2008 Pima Association of Governments SKYLINE ORANGE GROVE SU NR I SE CMB E CA MP BE LL 1ST CMB B Pima County Index Map SUNRISE SWAN CMB A Index Map Scale 1:5,250,000 The information depicted on this display is the result of digital analyses performed on a variety of databases provided and maintained by several governmental agencies. The accuracy of the information presented is limited to the collective accuracy of these databases on the date of the analysis. The Pima County Regional Flood Control Department makes no claims regarding the accuracy of the information depicted herein. This product is subject to the Department of Transportation Technical Services Division's Use Restriction Agreement. Pima County Regional Flood Control District 1,000 500 0 RI VE R RIV E R 11/2010 \\gislib\rfcd\projects\imd\xavi\mxd\AKITSU\Campbell_wash_Watershed_Fig1_3.mxd 1,000 Feet Section 2 FEMA Forms 2.1 Study Documentation Abstract for FEMA submittals 2.1.1 Date Study Accepted: ___________________ 2.1.2 Study Contractor: Planning and Development Division, Pima County Regional Flood Control District 97 East Congress, Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 243-1800 Prepared by Akitsu Kimoto, Ph.D, C.F.M., Principal Hydrologist. 2.1.3 Local Technical Reviewer: Bill Zimmerman, Division Manager and Terry Hendricks, Chief Hydrologist Planning and Development Division, Pima County Regional Flood Control District 97 East Congress, Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 243-1800 2.1.4 Reach Description The study reach of the Campbell Wash is located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-designated “Zone A” flood-hazard area, as depicted on FIRM Map Panel Numbers 04019C1635K, 1637K and 1645K (February 8, 1999). The study reach of the Campbell Wash is located primarily east of Campbell Ave., Pima County, Arizona (Fig.2). As previously mentioned, the study reach was divided into three segments in the study limit for the Campbell Wash LOMR (Fig.2). The study reach of the Campbell Wash is primarily composed of sand channels and the bottom of the reach is mostly clean, while there is vegetation in the channel where the channel width becomes wider. The overbank of the reach is covered with scattered desert brush. 2.1.8 USGS Quad Sheets The Campbell Wash mapping area is in the Tucson North USGS 1:24.000 Quad Sheet (3388). 11 2.1.9 Unique Conditions and Problems None. 2.1.10 Coordination of Peak Discharges The 100-year regulatory discharge rates at the concentration points along the study reach were computed using HEC-HMS and PC-Hydro, assuming no base flow in the watersheds and no transmission loss within the reaches. Methods followed recommended methods of Pima County Regional Flood Control Technical Policies 018 (Tech 018). The Tech 018 is included in Appendix A. 2.2 FEMA Forms The FEMA MT-2 forms are included in Appendix B. Section 3 Survey and Mapping Information 3.1 Field Survey Information A survey data for the CMP culvert on the eastern reach is included in Appendix C. 3.2 Mapping The topographic data was obtained using ArcGIS. Digital Elevation Model (DEM) derived from 2008 Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data was used to create 2-foot interval contour map. The documentation showing that this Lidar data set is FEMAcompliant is included in Appendix C. The following data was used in this TDN; The aerial photo: 2008 PAG aerial photo Projection: UTM, Zone 12 Units: International feet The contour interval of the topographic map is 2 feet. 12 Section 4 Hydrology 4.1 Method Description HEC-HMS, version 3.4 was applied to CPs with a contributing area larger than 1 square mile, while PC-Hydro, version 5.4.2 was applied to CPs with a contributing area smaller than 1 square mile. The 100-year peak discharges at CPs A and B were calculated using HEC-HMS. The HEC-HMS model requires the parameters regarding rainfall, topography, soil, vegetation, and channel characteristics to determine runoff volume and peak discharge. Those parameters were determined according to the Pima County Regional Flood Control District Technical Policy 018 (Tech-018). Tech-018 is included in Appendix A. The 100-year peak discharges at CPs C and E were calculated using PC-Hydro. PCHydro uses a semi-empirical method, which is similar to the Rational Formula. The method is unique to Pima County. Pima County has been using the Pima County Hydrology Procedures (PC-Hydro method) for over 30 years for a floodplain management. The method has been deemed as a FEMA-accepted hydrologic method for prediction of 100-yr peak discharge in Pima County. The method was used for the Friendly Village LOMR (case# 08-09-0473P) and it was approved by FEMA. The PCHydro method generally produces higher discharge values compared to HEC-HMS or USGS Regression equations. Peak discharge values produced by the PC-Hydro would be conservative, compared to using HEC-HMS or USGS Regression equations. The PCHydro model requires the parameters regarding rainfall, topography, soil, and vegetation to determine peak discharge. Those parameters were determined following the PC-Hydro User Guide (Arroyo Engineering, 2007). The HEC-HMS and PC-Hydro models are included in Appendix D. 4.2 Parameter Estimation 4.2.1 Drainage Area Subbasin boundaries were delineated using the hydrology function of ArcGIS with 2008 Lidar Data. A 2-ft contour map was used to make sure if the subbasin delineation was reasonable. 13 4.2.2 Watershed Work Map A watershed work map is included in Exhibit 1. 4.2.3 Gage Data No gage data were used in this TDN. 4.2.4 Spatial Parameters No spatial parameters were used in this TDN. 4.2.5 Precipitation As previously described, HEC-HMS was used to estimate the peak discharges at CPs A and B, while PC-Hydro was used for CPs C and E. According to the Tech-018, the 3-hour storm shall be used as rainfall data in the HECHMS model in case that a time of concentration (Tc) is equal or less than three hours. A 3-hour storm was selected for a peak discharge calculation for the Campbell Wash, since Tc was less than 3 hours in all the subbasins. A point 3-hour rainfall depth at the coordinates of the centroid of the watershed was obtained from NOAA Atlas 14, upper 90% confidence interval precipitation frequency estimate (NOAA 14 rainfall). Areal reduction factor was applied to watersheds larger than 1 square mile, as described in Tech-018. The 3-hour rainfall depths are 3.20 inches for CP A and 3.28 inches for CP B. The areal reduction factor of 0.94 was applied to estimate peak discharge at CP A, while the factor of 0.96 was applied to CP B. One-hour rainfall was used to estimate 100-year peak at CPs C and E. No area reduction factor was applied to calculate the discharges at CPs C and E. Rainfall intensities at time of concentration are 5.31 inch/hour for CP C and 5.12 inch/hour for CP E. 4.2.6 Physical Parameters Table 1.1 summarizes the method used for a HEC-HMS analysis. The SCS Curve Number (CN) method was utilized as a rainfall loss method in the HEC-HMS model. The CN was determined using the Curve Number tables and Hydrologic Soils Group maps associated with the PC Hydro User Guide (Arroyo Engineering, 2007). Hydrologic Soil Group Map is shown in Fig.3. The CN was not adjusted for rainfall intensity or antecedent moisture conditions. A soil map for the Campbell Wash is shown in Fig.3. The SCS Unit Hydrograph method was used as a transform method. Impervious cover 14 was determined by determining parcel size and relative assessment of the 2008 PAG aerial photograph. The combination of the kinematic wave time of concentration method and the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) segmented Time of Concentration (Tc) calculation (USDA-NRCS, 1986) was used to determine Tc, based on the recommendation on Tech-018. The Tc was calculated by summing the travel time for overland flow, shallow concentrated flow and channel flow. The Tc for overland flow was estimated using the kinematic wave equation. Manning’s roughness coefficient for sheet flow was obtained using Table 3-1 in Technical Release 55, Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds (USDA-NRCS, 1986). The detail of the Tc calculation is included in Appendix D. Runoff from subbasins was routed using the Modified-Puls method. A storage-discharge table for the channel routing was developed using the cross sections and slopes derived from HEC-RAS. The detail of the calculation of the storage-discharge relations is included in Appendix D. The number of subreaches was calculated using the following method: Vw  1.5 * Vave .........eq.1 K L ...................eq.2 Vw Therefore, K N  ..................eq.3 t where V ave is average flow velocity, L is reach length, V w is velocity of flood wave (a conversion factor of 1.5 is used for natural channels), K is hydrograph travel time, Δt is the time interval for computations in the model, and N is the number of steps in the reach routing. Eq.4 was obtained from eq.1, 2, and 3. The detail of the calculation of the number of subreach is included in Appendix D. Table 1 Methods used for a HEC-HMS analysis Rainfall Depth Rainfall Distribution Rainfall Loss Time of Concentration Transform Routing Selected Method NOAA 14, upper 90% Confidence Interval 3-hr SCS Type II Storm SCS Curve number SCS Segmental Method SCS Unit Hydrograph Modified-Puls Table 1.2 summarizes the method used for a PC-Hydro analysis. The PC-Hydro model calculates runoff coefficients using adjusted Curve Number (CN), which has been developed based on the results of the USDA-ARS research. This procedure assumes that high intensity, short duration storms result in raindrop impacts causing the surface of soils to seal up, resulting in reducing infiltration (Caliche Effect). The CN in the PC15 Hydro model increases with increasing rainfall depth and intensity. The detail of the method was described in PC-Hydro User Guide (Arroyo Engineering, 2007). Table 2 Methods used for a PC-Hydro analysis Rainfall Depth Rainfall Loss Time of Concentration Selected Method NOAA 14, upper 90% Confidence Interval Adjusted SCS Curve number Pima County Hydrology Procedure The physical parameters for the sub-basins and reaches of the HEC-HMS model and PCHydro model were summarized in Table 2. Table 3 Physical Parameters for Subbasins Sub-Basin CMB A CMB B CMB C CMB D CMB E Area (sq mi) 0.19 0.1 0.75 0.49 0.62 CN 84.0 84.1 88.8 86.6 85.9 Impervious Area (%) 10.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Vegetation Cover (%) 30 30 30 30 30 4.3 Problems Encountered During the Study 4.3.1 Special Problems and Solutions There were no problems with the hydrologic modeling. 4.3.2 Modeling Warning and Error Messages The time interval of the rainfall data used in this study is 5 minutes, while the simulation time interval is 1 minute. The HEC-HMS model interpolated the 5-minute time interval of the rainfall data to 1-minute time interval. The following note was produced in the HEC-HMS;   Meteorologic model "100-yr for CP A" needs to be computed. Meteorologic model "100-yr for CP B" needs to be computed. 16 4.4 Calibration No calibration was conducted in this study. 4.5 Final Results 4.5.1 Hydrologic Analysis Results The 100-year peak discharges at the concentration points along the Campbell Wash were determined using the HEC-HMS and PC-Hydro. The results are summarized in Tables 4, 5 and 6. Table 4 Summary of the Hydrologic Analysis Results for Subbasins (HEC-HMS) Sub-Basin CMB A CMB B CMB C CMB D CMB E Area (sq mi) 0.19 0.1 0.75 0.49 0.62 Rainfall Depth (in) 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 Runoff Volume (in) 1.86 1.87 2.26 2.07 2.01 Peak Discharge (cfs) 316.4 193.4 1418.8 844.8 830.6 Table 5 Summary of the Hydrologic Analysis Results at the Concentration Points (HEC-HMS) Concentration Point Location CP A CP B East of Campbell Terrace South of Juan Paisano Q100 Time to Area (sq Rainfall Runoff Peak mile) Depth (in) Volume HMS (cfs) (hr:min) (in) 2.15 1.34 3.38 3.25 1.91 1.99 2879 2160 2:08 1:51 Table 6 Summary of the Hydrologic Analysis Results at the Concentration Points (PC-Hydro) Concentration Point Location Area (sq mile) CP C CP E South of Camino de Bravo East of Camino Juan Paisano 0.75 0.62 Rainfall Runoff Q100 PCTime of Rate at Rate at Hydro (cfs) Concentration Tc (in/hr) Tc (in/hr) (Tc) (min) 5.31 5.12 3.80 3.34 1841 1336 24 25 4.5.2 Verification results According to the “Pima County Regional Flood Control District Table of Regulatory Discharges”, 100-year peak discharge at the confluence of the Campbell Wash with 17 Rillito River is 2899 cfs. The confluence is located approximately 270 feet southwest (downstream) of this study limit (downstream end of the study area, CP-D). The peak discharge value has been officially accepted as 100-year regulatory design discharge, and has been used for floodplain management purposes. The 100-year discharge from this study was 2864 cfs at the downstream end of the study area. The comparison of the 100year discharges showed that the 100-year peak discharge from this study was slightly higher but reasonable. The calculated 100-year peak discharge was also compared with the peak discharge obtained from USGS Regression Equation 13 (RRE; Thomas et al., 1997) (Table 5). The comparison shows that the peak discharge from the HMS-derived peak discharge was higher than the ones derived from the RRE, while the peak discharges derived from the PC-Hydro was higher than the ones obtained from the RRE. Table 7 Comparison of Peak Discharges Concentration Point Location CP A CP B CP C CP E East of Campbell Terrace South of Juan Paisano South of Camino de Bravo East of Camino Juan Paisano Area (sq Q100 HMS Q100 mile) or PC-Hydro RRE (cfs) (cfs) 2.15 2879 2053 1.34 2160 1526 0.75 1841 1035 0.62 1336 906 RRE: USGS Regression Equation 13 Section 5 Hydraulics 5.1 Method Description The hydraulic modeling for the Campbell Wash was performed using Hec-RAS, Version 4.1 (HEC-RAS), HEC-GeoRAS, Version 4.2.93 (HEC-GeoRAS), ArcGIS, Version 9.3, and FLO-2D (Version 2007-6). Hydraulic analysis was performed in the area currently mapped as FEMA Zone A to revise the existing floodplain limit. Steady flow analysis was performed to determine 100-year water surface elevations of the western reach, eastern reach, and part of downstream reach (from the confluence of the western and eastern reaches to approximately 1930 feet from the downstream end of the study area) by using HEC-RAS. The HEC-RAS model includes three pieces: the western reach, eastern reach, and part of downstream reach. Corrected HEC-RAS model is proposed in this study. The model name is CMP, and the plan name is Plan 01. The locations of the stream centerline, cross-sections, and bank of the Campbell Wash were 18 determined using the 2-ft contour map and 2008 PAG aerial photos. The geometric data, including stream centerline, flow paths and cross-sections, were digitized in HECGeoRAS. The digitized data was exported to create geospatially referenced geometric data (cross section, reach profile) in HEC-RAS. Other parameters for the steady-state analysis in HEC-RAS, such as Manning’s n-values, expansion and contraction coefficients, boundary condition, and ineffective flow areas were manually input into HEC-RAS. The hydraulic data obtained from HEC-RAS were imported into HECGeoRAS to delineate a floodplain boundary for the Campbell Wash. Normal depth of 0.024 was assumed for a downstream boundary condition. The hydraulic data obtained from HEC-RAS were imported into HEC-GeoRAS to delineate a floodplain boundary for the Campbell Wash. FLO-2D was used for part of the downstream area (from approximately 1930 feet from tee downstream end of the study area to the downstream end of the study area). Geometric data for the FLO-2D model were derived from the 2008 Lidar data. Grid cell size of 10 feet was used to map a floodplain in the downstream area. The time interval used for the computation was 1 minutes. The model does not include infiltration or rainfall. A hydrograph from the HMS at CP A was used as inflow. The hydrograph from the HMS was evenly distributed among four cells located at the upstream of the flow split (FLO-2D grid cell ID 36161, 38229, 39022 and 40350). 5.2 Work Study Maps The work study map for the Campbell Wash is included in Exhibit 2. As shown on Exhibit 2, a proposed 100-year Campbell Wash floodplain was Zone AE and Zone XShaded. The area where HEC-RAS was applied (the western reach, eastern reach, and part of downstream reach) was mapped as Zone AE. The area where FLO-2D was applied and inundation depth is over 1 foot was also mapped as Zone AE. The rest of the FLO-2D study area with the average inundation depth of less than 1 foot was mapped as Zone X-Shaded. Exhibit 1 shows flood depth, 100-year base flood elevation, and the boundary of the proposed floodplain. 5.3 Parameter Estimation 5.3.1 Roughness Coefficients Manning’s n values were determined by a combination of a site visit and 2008 PAG aerial photo. Manning’s n value of 0.055 was assigned to overbank with desert brush along the Campbell Wash, while 0.04 was assigned to a channel with scattered vegetation in the HEC-RAS model. In the FLO-2D model, selected Manning’s n values are 0.045 for a natural channel, 0.035 for an artificial channel (490 feet upstream of the downstream end of the study area) and road (Campbell Ave), and 0.055 for the overbank area. 19 5.3.2 Expansion and Contraction Coefficients In the HEC-RAS model, the channel of the Campbell Wash is assumed to have generally gradual transitions with minimum curvature. The expansion coefficient of 0.30 and contraction coefficient of 0.10 were used for the study reach except immediately upstream or downstream of the culvert. The expansion coefficient of 0.50 and contraction coefficient of 0.30 were used for the cross sections immediately upstream or downstream of the culverts. 5.4 Cross-Section Description A 2-foot interval contour map was used to select the location of cross sections. Crosssection locations were determined primarily based on the channel topography. The crosssection lines were drawn to be perpendicular to flow paths in HEC-GeoRAS. 5.5 Modeling Consideration 5.5.1 Hydraulic Jump and Drop Analysis No hydraulic, drop analyses or adjustment of the floodplain was conducted in this study. 5.5.2. Bridges and Culverts There is one road crossing with six CMP culverts on Via Palomita. Survey data for the culverts are included in Appendix C. 5.5.3 Levees and Dikes There are no levees or dikes located within the study limit. 5.5.4 Island and Flow Splits At approximately 1930 feet upstream of the downstream end of the study area, the flow splits into two flow paths. 5.5.5 Ineffective Flow Areas 20 Ineffective flow option was modeled in the following situation; 1. upstream or downstream of the CMP culverts located on Via Palomita; 2. hydraulically disconnected area. Ineffective area was determined using a standard modeling guideline described in a HEC-RAS manual. 5.6 Floodway Modeling No floodway modeling was performed in this study. 5.7 Problems Encountered 5.7.1 Special Problems and Solutions The top widths of the base floodplain computed in the HEC-RAS model around Cross Sections # 7264.037, 5935.501, 2698.355, and 2611.834 (these are on a downstream reach); Cross Sections # 13980.66, 13844.19, 13503.26, 8408.898, 8298.936, and 8226.115 (these are on a western upstream reach); Cross Sections # 4244.214, 4159.874, and 4031.313 (these are on a eastern upstream reach) do not match floodplain widths at those cross sections on Exhibit 1. There are small islands around those cross sections, but the upstream sides of the islands are hydraulically connected. The reason for the difference in the floodplain widths is that the islands around the cross sections were removed from the floodplain. There are relatively large islands located in a geological floodplain. The islands were removed because of their geographic locations. The cross sections with those islands are Sections # 7688.689, 7688.641, 7568.488 (these are on a downstream reach), and Sections # 11036.81, 10943.39, 10845.28, 9596.788, 9468.564, 9339.894, 9278.7 (these are on a western upstream reach). The HEC-RAS top widths of those cross sections do not match with the floodplain widths on the cross sections on Exhibit 1. There is a flow split in downstream of the Campbell Wash LOMR study area (1930 feet upstream of the downstream end of the study area). The downstream area with split flow was modeled with FLO-2D. As mentioned above, the area where HEC-RAS was applied (the western reach, eastern reach, and part of downstream reach) was mapped as Zone AE. The area where FLO-2D was applied (part of the downstream reach) and inundation depth is over 1 foot was also mapped as Zone AE. The rest of the FLO-2D study area with the average inundation depth of less than 1 foot was mapped as Zone X-Shaded. The FLO-2D results showed small islands (“dry cells”) in the downstream study area. The small islands were filled as part of a 100-year floodplain because they are too small to identify at a FRIM mapping scale. Zone X-shaded floodplain is not subject to FEMA floodplain regulations or mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements. However, Pima County regulates Zone X-Shaded 21 floodplain as part of 100-year flood hazard area. The requirements for Zone X-Shaded floodplain are similar to another flood prone areas such as Zone A, AO or AE. 5.7.2 Model Warnings and Errors No errors occurred. The following warning messages occurred: Divided flow Energy loss greater than 1.0 Energy equation could not be balanced and defaulted to critical. Cross-section extended vertically. Multiple critical depths calculated. Conveyance ratio is less than 0.7 or greater than 1.4. Inspection indicated that the modeling is accurate given the steep channel conditions. Most of these errors force a critical solution which is reasonable for these steep watercourses. 5.8 Calibration The model was not calibrated in this study. 5.9 Final Results 5.9.1 Hydraulic Analysis Results The HEC-RAS and FLO-2D modeling results are shown in Exhibits 1 and 2. 5.9.2 Verification of Results The floodplain limit obtained by this Campbell Wash LOMR study was compared to the existing FEMA floodplain limit. The existing FEMA floodplain does not appear to follow the floodplain topography along the Campbell Wash. The existing FIRM shows some uphill houses are within a floodplain. The proposed floodplain limit tends to follow the floodplain topography. This suggests that the proposed floodplain limit is reasonable based on the topography. Section 6 Erosion and Sediment Transport No erosion and sediment transport study was conducted in this study. 22 Section 7 Draft FIS Report Data 7.1 Summary of Discharges The calculated 100-year peak discharges are 2879 cfs at CP A, 2160 cfs at CP B, 1841 cfs at CP C, and 1336 cfs at CP E. 7.2 Floodway Data Not applicable. 7.3 Annotated Flood Insurance Rate Map An annotated Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) is included in Exhibit 2. 7.4 Flood Profiles Flood profiles are available in HECRAS model included in Appendix E. Flow depth and base flood elevation shape files are included in Appendix E and “GIS data” folder. 23 A.1 Data Collection Summary Aldridge, B. and J. Garrett. 1973. Roughness Coefficients for Stream Channels in Arizona. US Department of the Interior Geological Survey. Tucson, AZ. Arizona Department of Water Resources, Flood Mitigation Section “Instruction for Organization and Submitting Technical Document for Flood Studies” SSA1-97, November 1997 Arizona Department of Water Resources, Flood Mitigation Section “Requirements for Flood Study Technical Documentation” SS1-97, November 1997 Arroyo Engineering. 2007. PC-Hydro User Guide. Pima County Regional Flood Control District City of Tucson (COT), Department of Transportation, 1989. Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management in Tucson, Arizona. Revised in 1998. National Weather Service. 1984. Depth-Area Ratios in the Semi-Arid Southwest United States, NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS Hydro-40 Phillips, J., and S. Tadayon. 2006. Selection of Manning’s roughness coefficient for natural and constructed vegetated and non-vegetated channels, and vegetation maintenance plan guidelines for vegetated channels in central Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5108, 41 p. Phillips, J., and T. Ingersoll. 1998. Verification of Roughness Coefficients for Selected Natural and Constructed Stream Channels in Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1584. Pima County Regional Flood Control District “Pima County Mapguide Map”, 2008 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). 1998. HEC-1 Flood Hydrograph Package, Users Manual, CPD-1A, Hydraulic Engineering Center, Davis, CA. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). 2001. HEC-RAS, River Analysis System, Hydraulic Reference Manual, CPD-69, Hydraulic Engineering Center, Davis, CA. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). 2003. Geospatial Hydrologic Modeling Extension HEC-GeoHMS, (v 1.1) CPD-77, Hydraulic Engineering Center, Davis, CA. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). 2006. HEC-HMS, Hydrologic Modeling System User’s Manual, (v. 3.1.0) CPD-74A, Hydraulic Engineering Center, Davis, CA. U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, Technical Release 55. Washington, DC. A 2. Referenced Documents Arroyo Engineering. 2007. PC-Hydro User Guide. Pima County Regional Flood Control District Eychaner, J.H., 1984. Estimation of magnitude and frequency of floods in Pima County, Arizona, with comparisons of alternative methods: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 84-4142, 69 p. Haan, C.T., Barfield, B.J., Hayes, J.C. 1994. Design Hydrology and Sedimentology for Small Catchments, Academic Press. Thomas, B.E., H.W. Hjalmarson, and S.D. Waltemeyer. 1997. Methods for Estimating Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in the Southwestern United States. USGS Water Supply Paper 2433. 195 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, Technical Release 55. Washington, DC. Appendix B FEMA MT-2 Form, General Documentation and Correspondence U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY - FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY RIVERINE HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULICS FORM O.M.B No. 1660-0016 Expires: 12/31/2010 PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 3.25 hours per response. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing, reviewing, and submitting the form. You are not required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB control number appears in the upper right corner of this form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collections Management, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Washington DC 20472, Paperwork Reduction Project (1660-0016). Submission of the form is required to obtain or retain benefits under the National Flood Insurance Program. Please do not send your completed survey to the above address. Flooding Source: Campbell Wash Note: Fill out one form for each flooding source studied A. HYDROLOGY 1. Reason for New Hydrologic Analysis (check all that apply) Not revised (skip to section B) No existing analysis Improved data Alternative methodology Proposed Conditions (CLOMR) Changed physical condition of watershed 2. Comparison of Representative 1%-Annual-Chance Discharges Location Drainage Area (Sq. Mi.) Effective/FIS (cfs) Revised (cfs) East of Campbell Terrace. 2.15 N/A 2879 South of Juan Paisano 1.34 N/A 2160 South of Camino de Bravo. 0.75 N/A 1841 3. Methodology for New Hydrologic Analysis (check all that apply) Statistical Analysis of Gage Records Regional Regression Equations Precipitation/Runoff Model Other (please attach description) Please enclose all relevant models in digital format, maps, computations (including computation of parameters) and documentation to support the new analysis. 4. Review/Approval of Analysis If your community requires a regional, state, or federal agency to review the hydrologic analysis, please attach evidence of approval/review. 5. Impacts of Sediment Transport on Hydrology Yes No If yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport) of Form 3. If No, then attach your Was sediment transport considered? explanation for why sediment transport was not considered. B. HYDRAULICS 1. Reach to be Revised Description Cross Section Water-Surface Elevations (ft.) Effective Proposed/Revised Downstream Limit 1300 ft north of River Rd NA NA NA Upstream Limit South of Sunrise Dr. St# 14048.79 NA 2694.48 2. Hydraulic Method/Model Used HEC-RAS DHS - FEMA Form 81-89A, DEC 07 Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form MT-2 Form 2 Page 1 of 2 B. HYDRAULICS (CONTINUED) 3. Pre-Submittal Review of Hydraulic Models DHS-FEMA has developed two review programs, CHECK-2 and CHECK-RAS, to aid in the review of HEC-2 and HEC-RAS hydraulic models, respectively. These review programs may help verify that the hydraulic estimates and assumptions in the model data are in accordance with NFIP requirements, and that the data are comparable with the assumptions and limitations of HEC-2/HEC-RAS. CHECK-2 and CHECK-RAS identify areas of potential error or concern. These tools do not replace engineering judgment. CHECK-2 and CHECK-RAS can be downloaded from http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/fhm/frm_soft.shtm. We recommend that you review your HEC-2 and HEC-RAS models with CHECK-2 and CHECK-RAS. Review of your submittal and resolution of valid modeling discrepancies may result in reduced review time. 4. Natural Run Models Submitted Duplicate Effective Model* Corrected Effective Model* Existing or Pre-Project Conditions Model Revised or Post-Project Conditions Model Other - (attach description) File Name: File Name: File Name: File Name: File Name: N/A CMP N/A N/A N/A Plan Name: N/A Plan Name: Plan 01 Plan Name: Plan Name: Plan Name: Floodway Run File Name: N/A File Name: File Name: File Name: File Name: Datum Plan Name: Plan Name: Plan Name: Plan Name: Plan Name: NAVD88 * For details, refer to the corresponding section of the instructions. Digital Models Submitted? (Required) C. MAPPING REQUIREMENTS A certified topographic map must be submitted showing the following information (where applicable): the boundaries of the effective, existing, and proposed conditions 1%-annual-chance floodplain (for approximate Zone A revisions) or the boundaries of the 1%- and 0.2%-annual-chance floodplains and regulatory floodway (for detailed Zone AE, AO, and AH revisions); location and alignment of all cross sections with stationing control indicated; stream, road, and other alignments (e.g., dams, levees, etc.); current community easements and boundaries; boundaries of the requester's property; certification of a registered professional engineer registered in the subject State; location and description of reference marks; and the referenced vertical datum (NGVD, NAVD, etc.). Digital Mapping (GIS/CADD) Data Submitted Note that the boundaries of the existing or proposed conditions floodplains and regulatory floodway to be shown on the revised FIRM and/or FBFM must tie-in with the effective floodplain and regulatory floodway boundaries. Please attach a copy of the effective FIRM and/or FBFM, annotated to show the boundaries of the revised 1%- and 0.2%-annual-chance floodplains and regulatory floodway that tie-in with the boundaries of the effective 1%- and 0.2%-annual-chance floodplain and regulatory floodway at the upstream and downstream limits of the area of revision. Annotated FIRM and/or FBFM (Required) D. COMMON REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS* 1. For LOMR/CLOMR requests, do Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) increase? Yes No a. For CLOMR requests, if either of the following is true, please submit evidence of compliance with Section 65.12 of the NFIP regulations:  The proposed project encroaches upon a regulatory floodway and would result in increases above 0.00 foot.  The proposed project encroaches upon a SFHA with or without BFEs established and would result in increases above 1.00 foot. b. 2. Yes No For LOMR requests, does this request require property owner notification and acceptance of BFE increases? If Yes, please attach proof of property owner notification and acceptance (if available). Elements of and examples of property owner notification can be found in the MT-2 Form 2 Instructions. Does the request involve the placement or proposed placement of fill? Yes No If Yes, the community must be able to certify that the area to be removed from the special flood hazard area, to include any structures or proposed structures, meets all of the standards of the local floodplain ordinances, and is reasonably safe from flooding in accordance with the NFIP regulations set forth at 44 CFR 60.3(a)(3), 65.5(a)(4), and 65.6(a)(14). Please see the MT-2 instructions for more information. 3. For LOMR requests, is the regulatory floodway being revised? Yes No If Yes, attach evidence of regulatory floodway revision notification. As per Paragraph 65.7(b)(1) of the NFIP Regulations, notification is required for requests involving revisions to the regulatory floodway. (Not required for revisions to approximate 1%-annual-chance floodplains [studied Zone A designation] unless a regulatory floodway is being added. Elements and examples of regulatory floodway revision notification can be found in the MT-2 Form 2 Instructions.) 4. For LOMR/CLOMR requests, does this request have the potential to impact an endangered species? Yes No If Yes, please submit documentation to the community to show that you have complied with Sections 9 and 10 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Section 9 of the ESA prohibits anyone from “taking” or harming an endangered species. If an action might harm an endangered species, a permit is required from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service under Section 10 of the ESA. For actions authorized, funded, or being carried out by Federal or State agencies, please submit documentation from the agency showing its compliance with Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. * Not inclusive of all applicable regulatory requirements. For details, see 44 CFR parts 60 and 65. DHS - FEMA Form 81-89A, DEC 07 Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form MT-2 Form 2 Page 2 of 2 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY - FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY RIVERINE STRUCTURES FORM O.M.B No. 1660-0016 Expires: 12/31/2010 PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 7 hours per response. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing, reviewing, and submitting the form. You are not required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB control number appears in the upper right corner of this form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collections Management, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Washington DC 20472, Paperwork Reduction Project (1660-0016). Submission of the form is required to obtain or retain benefits under the National Flood Insurance Program. Please do not send your completed survey to the above address. Flooding Source: Campbell Wash Note: Fill out one form for each flooding source studied A. GENERAL Complete the appropriate section(s) for each Structure listed below: Channelization ............... complete Section B Bridge/Culvert ................ complete Section C Dam/Basin ..................... complete Section D Levee/Floodwall ............. complete Section E Sediment Transport........ complete Section F (if required) Description Of Structure 1. Name of Structure: Culvert #1 Type (check one): Channelization Bridge/Culvert Levee/Floodwall Dam/Basin Bridge/Culvert Levee/Floodwall Dam/Basin Bridge/Culvert Levee/Floodwall Dam/Basin Location of Structure: Via Palomita Downstream Limit/Cross Section: East of Via Palomita Upstream Limit/Cross Section: West of Via Palomita 2. Name of Structure: Type (check one): Channelization Location of Structure: Downstream Limit/Cross Section: Upstream Limit/Cross Section: 3. Name of Structure: Type (check one) Channelization Location of Structure: Downstream Limit/Cross Section: Upstream Limit/Cross Section: NOTE: For more structures, attach additional pages as needed. DHS - FEMA Form 81-89B, DEC 07 Riverine Structures Form MT-2 Form 3 Page 1 of 10 B. CHANNELIZATION Flooding Source: Name of Structure: 1. Accessory Structures The channelization includes (check one): Levees [Attach Section E (Levee/Floodwall)] Superelevated sections Debris basin/detention basin [Attach Section D (Dam/Basin)] Other (Describe): 2. Drop structures Transitions in cross sectional geometry Energy dissipator Drawing Checklist Attach the plans of the channelization certified by a registered professional engineer, as described in the instructions. 3. Hydraulic Considerations The channel was designed to carry (cfs) and/or the -year flood. The design elevation in the channel is based on (check one): Subcritical flow Critical flow Supercritical flow Energy grade line If there is the potential for a hydraulic jump at the following locations, check all that apply and attach an explanation of how the hydraulic jump is controlled without affecting the stability of the channel. Inlet to channel Outlet of channel Other locations (specify): 4. At Drop Structures At Transitions Sediment Transport Considerations Yes No If Yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport). Was sediment transport considered? If No, then attach your explanation for why sediment transport was not considered. C. BRIDGE/CULVERT Flooding Source: Campbell Wash Name of Structure: Culvert #1 (Existing culvert) 1. This revision reflects (check one): Bridge/culvert not modeled in the FIS Modified bridge/culvert previously modeled in the FIS Revised analysis of bridge/culvert previously modeled in the FIS 2. Hydraulic model used to analyze the structure (e.g., HEC-2 with special bridge routine, WSPRO, HY8): HEC-RAS If different than hydraulic analysis for the flooding source, justify why the hydraulic analysis used for the flooding source could not analyze the structures. Attach justification. 3. Attach plans of the structures certified by a registered professional engineer. The plan detail and information should include the following (check the information that has been provided): Dimensions (height, width, span, radius, length) Shape (culverts only) Material Beveling or Rounding Wing Wall Angle Skew Angle Distances Between Cross Sections 4. Erosion Protection Low Chord Elevations – Upstream and Downstream Top of Road Elevations – Upstream and Downstream Structure Invert Elevations – Upstream and Downstream Stream Invert Elevations – Upstream and Downstream Cross-Section Locations Sediment Transport Considerations Yes No If yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport). Was sediment transport considered? If No, then attach your explanation for why sediment transport was not considered. DHS - FEMA Form 81-89B, DEC 07 Riverine Structures Form MT-2 Form 3 Page 2 of 10 D. DAM/BASIN Flooding Source: Name of Structure: 1. This request is for (check one): Existing dam New dam Modification of existing dam 2. The dam was designed by (check one): Federal agency State agency Local government agency Private organization Name of the agency or organization: 3. The Dam was permitted as (check one): Federal Dam a. State Dam Provide the permit or identification number (ID) for the dam and the appropriate permitting agency or organization Permit or ID number Permitting Agency or Organization Local Government Dam b. Private Dam Provided related drawings, specification and supporting design information. 4. Does the project involve revised hydrology? Yes No If Yes, complete the Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form (Form 2). Was the dam/basin designed using critical duration storm? Yes, provide supporting documentation with your completed Form 2. No, provide a written explanation and justification for not using the critical duration storm. 5. Does the submittal include debris/sediment yield analysis? Yes No If yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport). If No, then attach your explanation for why debris/sediment analysis was not considered. 6. Does the Base Flood Elevation behind the dam or downstream of the dam change? Yes No If Yes, complete the Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form (Form 2) and complete the table below. Stillwater Elevation Behind the Dam FREQUENCY (% annual chance) FIS REVISED 10-year (10%) 50-year (2%) 100-year (1%) 500-year (0.2%) Normal Pool Elevation 7. Please attach a copy of the formal Operation and Maintenance Plan DHS - FEMA Form 81-89B, DEC 07 Riverine Structures Form MT-2 Form 3 Page 3 of 10 E. LEVEE/FLOODWALL 1. System Elements a. This Levee/Floodwall analysis is based on (check one): upgrading of an existing levee/floodwall system a newly constructed levee/floodwall system reanalysis of an existing levee/floodwall system b. Levee elements and locations are (check one): Station Station Station earthen embankment, dike, berm, etc. structural floodwall Other (describe): c. to to to Structural Type (check one): monolithic cast-in place reinforced concrete reinforced concrete masonry block sheet piling Other (describe): d. Has this levee/floodwall system been certified by a Federal agency to provide protection from the base flood? Yes No If Yes, by which agency? e. 2. Attach certified drawings containing the following information (indicate drawing sheet numbers): 1. Plan of the levee embankment and floodwall structures. Sheet Numbers: 2. A profile of the levee/floodwall system showing the Base Flood Elevation (BFE), levee and/or wall crest and foundation, and closure locations for the total levee system. Sheet Numbers: 3. A profile of the BFE, closure opening outlet and inlet invert elevations, type and size of opening, and kind of closure. Sheet Numbers: 4. A layout detail for the embankment protection measures. Sheet Numbers: 5. Location, layout, and size and shape of the levee embankment features, foundation treatment, floodwall structure, closure structures, and pump stations. Sheet Numbers: Freeboard a. The minimum freeboard provided above the BFE is: Riverine 3.0 feet or more at the downstream end and throughout 3.5 feet or more at the upstream end 4.0 feet within 100 feet upstream of all structures and/or constrictions Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes No Coastal 1.0 foot above the height of the one percent wave associated with the 1%-annual-chance stillwater surge elevation or maximum wave runup (whichever is greater). 2.0 feet above the 1%-annual-chance stillwater surge elevation E. LEVEE/FLOODWALL (CONTINUED) DHS - FEMA Form 81-89B, DEC 07 Riverine Structures Form MT-2 Form 3 Page 4 of 10 2. Freeboard (continued) Please note, occasionally exceptions are made to the minimum freeboard requirement. If an exception is requested, attach documentation addressing Paragraph 65.10(b)(1)(ii) of the NFIP Regulations. If No is answered to any of the above, please attach an explanation. b. Yes Is there an indication from historical records that ice-jamming can affect the BFE? No If Yes, provide ice-jam analysis profile and evidence that the minimum freeboard discussed above still exists. 3. Closures a. exists Openings through the levee system (check one): does not exist If opening exists, list all closures: Channel Station Left or Right Bank Opening Type Highest Elevation for Opening Invert Type of Closure Device (Extend table on an added sheet as needed and reference) Note: Geotechnical and geologic data In addition to the required detailed analysis reports, data obtained during field and laboratory investigations and used in the design analysis for the following system features should be submitted in a tabulated summary form. (Reference U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] EM-1110-2-1906 Form 2086.) 4. Embankment Protection a. The maximum levee slope landside is: b. The maximum levee slope floodside is: c. The range of velocities along the levee during the base flood is: (min.) to (max.) d. Embankment material is protected by (describe what kind): Velocity e. Riprap Design Parameters (check one): Attach references Reach Sta to Sta to Sta to Sta to Sta to Sta to Sideslope Flow Depth Velocity Curve or Straight Tractive stress Stone Riprap D100 D50 Thickness Depth of Toedown (Extend table on an added sheet as needed and reference each entry) DHS - FEMA Form 81-89B, DEC 07 Riverine Structures Form MT-2 Form 3 Page 5 of 10 E. LEVEE/FLOODWALL (CONTINUED) 4. Embankment Protection (continued) Yes No f. Is a bedding/filter analysis and design attached? g. Describe the analysis used for other kinds of protection used (include copies of the design analysis): Attach engineering analysis to support construction plans. 5. Embankment And Foundation Stability a. Identify locations and describe the basis for selection of critical location for analysis: Overall height: Sta. ; height ft. Limiting foundation soil strength: Sta. strength , depth = slope: SS = to degrees, c = (h) to psf (v) (Repeat as needed on an added sheet for additional locations) b. Specify the embankment stability analysis methodology used (e.g., circular arc, sliding block, infinite slope, etc.): c. Summary of stability analysis results: Case Loading Conditions Critical Safety Factor Criteria (Min.) I End of construction 1.3 II Sudden drawdown 1.0 III Critical flood stage 1.4 IV Steady seepage at flood stage 1.4 VI Earthquake (Case I) 1.0 (Reference: USACE EM-1110-2-1913 Table 6-1) d. Was a seepage analysis for the embankment performed? Yes No If Yes, describe methodology used: e. Was a seepage analysis for the foundation performed? Yes No f. Were uplift pressures at the embankment landside toe checked? Yes No g. Were seepage exit gradients checked for piping potential? Yes No h. The duration of the base flood hydrograph against the embankment is hours. Attach engineering analysis to support construction plans. DHS - FEMA Form 81-89B, DEC 07 Riverine Structures Form MT-2 Form 3 Page 6 of 10 E. LEVEE/FLOODWALL (CONTINUED) 6. Floodwall And Foundation Stability a. Describe analysis submittal based on Code (check one): UBC (1988) b. or Other (specify): Stability analysis submitted provides for: Overturning c. Sliding If not, explain: Loading included in the analyses were: Lateral earth @ PA = psf; Surcharge-Slope @ Wind @ Pw = , Pp = surface psf psf Seepage (Uplift); d. psf Earthquake @ Peq = 1%-annual-chance significant wave height: ft. 1%-annual-chance significant wave period: sec. %g Summary of Stability Analysis Results: Factors of Safety. Itemize for each range in site layout dimension and loading condition limitation for each respective reach. Criteria (Min) Sta To Sta To Overturn Sliding Overturn Sliding Loading Condition Overturn Sliding Dead & Wind 1.5 1.5 Dead & Soil 1.5 1.5 Dead, Soil, Flood, & Impact 1.5 1.5 Dead, Soil, & Seismic 1.3 1.3 (Ref: FEMA 114 Sept 1986; USACE EM 1110-2-2502) (Note: Extend table on an added sheet as needed and reference) e. Foundation bearing strength for each soil type: Bearing Pressure Sustained Load (psf) Short Term Load (psf) Computed design maximum Maximum allowable f. Foundation scour protection is, is not provided. If provided, attach explanation and supporting documentation: Attach engineering analysis to support construction plans. DHS - FEMA Form 81-89B, DEC 07 Riverine Structures Form MT-2 Form 3 Page 7 of 10 E. LEVEE/FLOODWALL (CONTINUED) 7. Settlement a. Has anticipated potential settlement been determined and incorporated into the specified construction elevations to maintain the Yes No established freeboard margin? b. The computed range of settlement is c. Settlement of the levee crest is determined to be primarily from : ft. to ft. Foundation consolidation Embankment compression Other (Describe): d. Differential settlement of floodwalls has has not been accommodated in the structural design and construction. Attach engineering analysis to support construction plans. 8. Interior Drainage a. Specify size of each interior watershed: Draining to pressure conduit: Draining to ponding area: b. acres acres Relationships Established Ponding elevation vs. storage Ponding elevation vs. gravity flow Differential head vs. gravity flow Yes Yes Yes No No No c. The river flow duration curve is enclosed: Yes No d. Specify the discharge capacity of the head pressure conduit: e. Which flooding conditions were analyzed?     Gravity flow (Interior Watershed) Common storm (River Watershed) Historical ponding probability Coastal wave overtopping cfs Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No If No for any of the above, attach explanation. f. Interior drainage has been analyzed based on joint probability of interior and exterior flooding and the capacities of pumping and outlet Yes No facilities to provide the established level of flood protection. If No, attach explanation. g. The rate of seepage through the levee system for the base flood is h. The length of levee system used to drive this seepage rate in item g: DHS - FEMA Form 81-89B, DEC 07 cfs ft. Riverine Structures Form MT-2 Form 3 Page 8 of 10 E. LEVEE/FLOODWALL (CONTINUED) 8. Interior Drainage (continued) i. Yes Will pumping plants be used for interior drainage? No If Yes, include the number of pumping plants: For each pumping plant, list: Plant #1 Plant #2 The number of pumps The ponding storage capacity The maximum pumping rate The maximum pumping head The pumping starting elevation The pumping stopping elevation Is the discharge facility protected? Is there a flood warning plan? How much time is available between warning and flooding? Will the operation be automatic? Yes No If the pumps are electric, are there backup power sources? Yes No (Reference: USACE EM-1110-2-3101, 3102, 3103, 3104, and 3105) Include a copy of supporting documentation of data and analysis. Provide a map showing the flooded area and maximum ponding elevations for all interior watersheds that result in flooding. 9. Other Design Criteria a. The following items have been addressed as stated: is is not a problem Liquefaction is is not a problem Hydrocompaction Heave differential movement due to soils of high shrink/swell b. is is not a problem For each of these problems, state the basic facts and corrective action taken: Attach supporting documentation c. If the levee/floodwall is new or enlarged, will the structure adversely impact flood levels and/or flow velocities floodside of the structure? Yes No Attach supporting documentation d. Sediment Transport Considerations: Yes No If Yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport). Was sediment transport considered? If No, then attach your explanation for why sediment transport was not considered. DHS - FEMA Form 81-89B, DEC 07 Riverine Structures Form MT-2 Form 3 Page 9 of 10 E. LEVEE/FLOODWALL (CONTINUED) 10. Operational Plan And Criteria Yes No a. Are the planned/installed works in full compliance with Part 65.10 of the NFIP Regulations? b. Does the operation plan incorporate all the provisions for closure devices as required in Paragraph 65.10(c)(1) of the NFIP regulations? Yes No c. Does the operation plan incorporate all the provisions for interior drainage as required in Paragraph 65.10(c)(2) of the NFIP regulations? Yes No If the answer is No to any of the above, please attach supporting documentation. 11. Maintenance Plan a. 12. Are the planned/installed works in full compliance with Part 65.10 of the NFIP Regulations? If No, please attach supporting documentation. Yes No Operations and Maintenance Plan Please attach a copy of the formal Operations and Maintenance Plan for the levee/floodwall. F. SEDIMENT TRANSPORT Flooding Source: Name of Structure: If there is any indication from historical records that sediment transport (including scour and deposition) can affect the Base Flood Elevation (BFE); and/or based on the stream morphology, vegetative cover, development of the watershed and bank conditions, there is a potential for debris and sediment transport (including scour and deposition) to affect the BFEs, then provide the following information along with the supporting documentation: Sediment load associated with the base flood discharge: Volume acre-feet Debris load associated with the base flood discharge: Volume acre-feet Sediment transport rate (percent concentration by volume) Method used to estimate sediment transport: Most sediment transport formulas are intended for a range of hydraulic conditions and sediment sizes; attach a detailed explanation for using the selected method. Method used to estimate scour and/or deposition: Method used to revise hydraulic or hydrologic analysis (model) to account for sediment transport: Please note that bulked flows are used to evaluate the performance of a structure during the base flood; however, FEMA does not map BFEs based on bulked flows. If a sediment analysis has not been performed, an explanation as to why sediment transport (including scour and deposition) will not affect the BFEs or structures must be provided. DHS - FEMA Form 81-89B, DEC 07 Riverine Structures Form MT-2 Form 3 Page 10 of 10 Appendix C: Survey Field Notes (supporting information is provided digitally in the TDN disk) Appendix D: Hydrologic Analysis Supporting Documentation (models, spreadsheets and supporting information is provided digitally in the TDN disk) Appendix E: Hydraulic Analysis and As-Built Drawings for Hydraulic Structures (models, spreadsheets and supporting information is provided digitally in the TDN disk) Appendix F: Erosion and Sediment Transport Analysis Supporting Documentation None Exhibit 2.1 Annotated Flood Insurance Rate Map 04019C1687 L Campbell Wash DESA VIA CO N L UZ CAM I NO AD A O DE SE C ZONE X SHADED The information depicted on this display is the result of digital analyses performed on a variety of databases provided and maintained by several governmental agencies. The accuracy of the information presented is limited to the collective accuracy of these databases on the date of the analysis. The Pima County Department of Transportation Technical Services Division makes no claims regarding the accuracy of the information depicted herein. This product is subject to the Department of Transportation Technical Services Division's Disclaimer and Use Restrictions. ES CU NIZ O CE CA MI N CA LLE RE AL AL " ) NC CA 0 çç ç ç ç ç ç ç ç 260 520 çç ç ç ç ç ç çç AM çç ç 23 Streets N IO " ) çç O RI UNNAMED CA MI N O AK " ) UNNAMED 23 çç ç ç 37 ç 23 ç ç ç ç ç ç 38 çç çç ç 23 RIVER ç ç ç ç 46 çççç AJ " ) TUCSON çç çç ç ç ç ç ç ç çç ç ç ç 2333 ZONE X SHADED RIVER GROVE MAINARD ATFIELD PROSPECT 20 ç ç ç ç 39 ç çç CAMPBELL 23ççç çç ç ç çç ç 4 ç çç 4 çç VIA VILLAS FREMONT FORTUNE SORREL LIMBERLOST ZONE AE MOUNTAIN PALOMINO SANTA RITA COLT BAY PARK PINTO A CA LLE " ) AI çç ç ç ç ç ç ç çççççççççççççççç ç ç ç ç ç ç ç çç 2329 23 ç ç ç ç ç ç ç çç 2326 5 ç ç ç ç ç2 ç ç çç ççç çç çç çç AH " ) AG " ) çççç ççç ç ZONE X MUSTANG ROAN ZONE A CAMINITO DE LA PUERTA ALT IV CA LL E ISA VIA ENTRADA CAL LE LAM PAR A ON R Proposed Zone X Shaded EL A VIA S ER E MAS Proposed Zone A ZONE X SHADED 19 17 PIMA COUNTY VIA S ZONE A ZONE X E LO NI DA D R SOB 18 A EL çç ç ç LOUIS RIVER ZONE X LL CA Proposed 100 year Floodplain ZONE AE AV EL 1,040 Feet FIRM X-Sections ç ç ç ç ç Base Flood Elevations Proposed Flood Zones A Proposed Floodplain Zone AE Floodplain Zone X Shaded Sections FIRM - Flood Insurance Rate Map Jurisdictions Pima County Index Map Existing Floodplain Zone A AE Pima County Regional Flood Control 97 East Congress Street - 3rd Floor Tucson. Arizona 85701-1207 (520)243-1800 - FAX (520)243-1821 http://www.rfcd.pima.gov AO X X (SHADED) gislib\rfcd\projects\imd\xavi\mdx\AKITSU\Campbell\Campbell_Exh2_1_Anno_FIRM8X11_1645K.mxd ZONE X UE LA Proposed 100 year Floodplain ZONE AE 09 CA AL VIA E LD PIMA COUNTY EP S EL AD T S UE OL 16 17 A LOS VIE UEL A CA MIN O ESC RT CO CAMINO EL EN A PA LO M IT A VI A ZONE X ZONE A CAMINO MIRAVAL O AN O ESPINA 08 JU AN IS A P VI A VI ST A IN M CA CAMINO REAL CA MP BE LL PIE DR A SE VA LV ER D E CA Exhibit 2.2 Annotated Flood Insurance Rate Map 04019C1652 L Campbell Wash NTOS SO L ILL A AD EL CA ST ND DE ID A ANT ON IO A IT M HA CIE LA LO CAM I NO ZONE A CA LLE AN G OS TA ZONE X AV EN CALLE COLMADO CAM I NO ESC ZONE X The information depicted on this display is the result of digital analyses performed on a variety of databases provided and maintained by several governmental agencies. The accuracy of the information presented is limited to the collective accuracy of these databases on the date of the analysis. The Pima County Department of Transportation Technical Services Division makes no claims regarding the accuracy of the information depicted herein. This product is subject to the Department of Transportation Technical Services Division's Disclaimer and Use Restrictions. Streets 0 250 500 1,000 Feet FIRM X-Sections ç ç ç çç Base Flood Elevations Proposed Flood Zones A Proposed Floodplain Zone AE Sections FIRM - Flood Insurance Rate Map Jurisdictions Pima County Index Map Existing Floodplain Zone A AE AO Pima County Regional Flood Control 97 East Congress Street - 3rd Floor Tucson. Arizona 85701-1207 (520)243-1800 - FAX (520)243-1821 http://www.rfcd.pima.gov X X (SHADED) gislib\rfcd\projects\imd\xavi\mdx\AKITSU\Campbell\Campbell_Exh2_2_Anno_FIRM8X11_1645K.mxd BEN IN GW O OD 05 G SP RI N EO N S TO AL N ZONE X PID G S LO O LAND R IDGE LE AL D CANYO 04 H FOOT Proposed 100 year Floodplain ZONE AE PIMA COUNTY AVENID A DE PUE A VI ILLS DA EA SP A J SA N BLO SU N RO QU AB IE RT O ZONE X RI SE CA MP O SK YL INE EVANS M O UNTAIN C S N NA VEN TA SUTHE R TO AL U G SE CAMPBELL Exhibit 2.3 Annotated Flood Insurance Rate Map 04019C1695 L Campbell Wash E ZONE X 09 ZONE A 08 This product is subject to the Department of Transportation Technical Services Division's Disclaimer and Use Restrictions. ILV ES TR VI AP AL OM AS EC PR O CA MI N VIA PALO MITA A SE C RA The information depicted on this display is the result of digital analyses performed on a variety of databases provided and maintained by several governmental agencies. The accuracy of the information presented is limited to the collective accuracy of these databases on the date of the analysis. The Pima County Department of Transportation Technical Services Division makes no claims regarding the accuracy of the information depicted herein. PI ED ZONE X IA DO VI ST A ZONE A E VA LV ER D CAM I NO E ESC ALA NT E MINA VISTA AVENIDA DE POSADA 0 Streets 250 500 1,000 Feet FIRM X-Sections ç ç ç çç Base Flood Elevations Flood Zones A Proposed Floodplain Zone AE Sections FIRM - Flood Insurance Rate Map Jurisdictions Pima County Index Map Existing Floodplain Zone A AE Pima County Regional Flood Control 97 East Congress Street - 3rd Floor Tucson. Arizona 85701-1207 (520)243-1800 - FAX (520)243-1821 http://www.rfcd.pima.gov AO X X (SHADED) gislib\rfcd\projects\imd\xavi\mdx\AKITSU\Campbell\Campbell_Exh2_3_Anno_FIRM8X11_1635K.mxd