TECHNICAL DATA NOTEBOOK
FOR THE
VENTANA CANYON WASH/ESPERERO WASH

LETTER OF MAP REVISION (LOMR)
PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA

Prepared for:
Pima County Regional Flood Control District
97 East Congress, Third Floor
Tucson, Arizona 85701

By:
JE Fuller / Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.
40 East Helen Street
Tucson, Arizona 85705
520-623-3112

July 8, 2009
Final
September 13, 2010

JE Fuller/Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.

EXPIRES 06/30/2013

TDN – VENTANA CANYON WASH/ESPERERO WASH LOMR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Note: Page numbering does not include the FEMA forms/attachments provided in Section 2.2.)

I.

INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1

II.

ADWR/FEMA Forms..........................................................................................................6
2.1
2.2

III.

MAPPING AND SURVEY INFORMATION....................................................................8
3.1
3.2

IV.

Study Documentation Abstract (LOMR).................................................................6
FEMA MT-2 Forms.................................................................................................7

Field Survey Information.........................................................................................8
Mapping and Records ..............................................................................................8

HYDROLOGY ....................................................................................................................9
4.1

Method Description .................................................................................................9

V.

HYDRAULICS..................................................................................................................10

VI.

SEDIMENT TRANSPORT/EROSION.............................................................................11

VII.

FIS REPORT DATA .........................................................................................................12

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A

References

Appendix B

General Documentation & Correspondence

Appendix C

Site Photographs & Survey Field Notes

Appendix D

Hydrologic Analysis Summary of Supporting Documentation

Appendix E

Hydraulic Analysis Summary of Supporting Documentation

Appendix F

GIS Shape Files

i
JE Fuller/Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.

TDN – VENTANA CANYON WASH/ESPERERO WASH LOMR

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 – Vicinity Map...................................................................................................................3
Figure 2 – Location Map..................................................................................................................4
Work Maps.......................................................................... Section C, FEMA Form 2 Attachment)
Annotated FIRM .................................................................. Section C, FEMA Form 2 Attachment
Watershed Exhibit .........................................................................................................Appendix D

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1

Summary of Applied Discharges with Comparison to Effective.............................5

Table 7.1

Revised FIS Summary of Discharges ....................................................................12

Table 7.2

Floodway Data .......................................................................................................13

ii
JE Fuller/Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.

TDN – VENTANA CANYON WASH/ESPERERO WASH LOMR
I.

Page 1

INTRODUCTION

The Pima County Regional Flood Control District (RFCD) contracted with JE
Fuller/Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. (JEF) to prepare this request for a Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR) for the Ventana Canyon Wash and the Esperero Wash (see Figures 1 and 2).
The Pima County contract number is PO 09019014, and the project manager is Terry Hendricks,
CFM, Chief Hydrologist. A copy of the scope of work is included in Appendix B.
This LOMR will address changes to the regulatory flood plain as currently mapped on
Panels 1655, 1663, and 1665 (Reference 1). This Technical Data Notebook (TDN), which
follows the outline specified in Arizona Department of Water Resources, State Standard 1-97,
contains all the information required in support of this request, including the applicable Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) forms.
The request is based on a more detailed hydrologic analysis of the contributing
watersheds and on updated topographic mapping. It consolidates the numerous Letters of Map
Change (LOMC) that have been issued since the current mapping became effective and includes
revisions to areas affected by private developments. In addition, the effect of one newly
constructed culvert and enlarged bridge are accounted for with the revised mapping.
The project reach for the Ventana Canyon Wash begins at the Tanque Verde Creek
confluence, which is the downstream limit of the effective mapping, and extends approximately
6.6 miles upstream to the boundary of the Coronado National Forest. The majority of the project
reach was previously mapped by detailed methods using HEC-2 (Reference 2) and includes a
combination of Zone AE and shaded Zone X designations. However, approximately 1000 feet
was only mapped by approximate methods (i.e., the effective Zone A areas), and approximately
1000 feet was not previously mapped. The revised mapping of the entire project reach is by
detailed methods. The modeling was performed using HEC-RAS (Reference 3).
The project reach for the Esperero Wash begins at the Ventana Canyon Wash confluence
and extends approximately 1.8 miles. The majority of the project reach was previously mapped
by detailed methods (HEC-2) and includes a combination of Zone AE and shaded Zone X
designations. However, approximately 1900 feet was only mapped by approximate methods
(i.e., the effective Zone A areas), and approximately 800 feet was not previously mapped. The
revised mapping of the entire project reach is by detailed methods (HEC-RAS).
The discharges associated with this request were computed using HEC-1 (Reference 4).
The RFCD provided JEF with a base model that was complied by Tetra Tech, Inc. in 2002 under
contract with the RFCD (Reference 5). However, Tetra Tech's base model was limited to the
100-year return interval. A copy of the Tetra Tech's summary report is provided in PDF format
in Appendix D. As part of this LOMR request, per the Pima County's current hydrologic
modeling criteria, JEF updated the base model to incorporate (1) the new NOAA Atlas Volume
14 data; (2) the 3-hour, upper 90% confidence interval precipitation values from NOAA 14; (3)
the Hydro-40 aerial reduction factors, and (4) the SCS Type II distribution. In addition, JEF
expanded the modeling effort to included the 10-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year return intervals. A
total of ten point-precipitation-value data sets were obtained from the NOAA 14 web site based

JE Fuller/Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.

TDN – VENTANA CANYON WASH/ESPERERO WASH LOMR

Page 2

on the longitude and latitude of the centroid of each the ten major sub-basins. However, since
the range of individual values was narrow, an average value was selected for each return interval.
An areal reduction factor was then applied to define a basin average value for each of the ten
major sub-basins. The results of the HEC-1 analysis are summarized in Table 1.1. In addition,
Table 1.1 provides a comparison between the effective discharges and the revised discharges.
The revised HEC-1 models are provided in Appendix D. A printout of the watershed map is also
provided in Appendix D.
As previously noted, the hydraulic analysis was conducted using HEC-RAS. Using the
results of the HEC-1 modeling, interpolated discharge values were defined at key locations in the
HEC-RAS model in an attempt to maintain the gradually-varied flow assumption while
accounting for the variation in peak discharges in the downstream direction. A combination of
as-built plans and field survey (performed by Stantec Consulting, Inc.) was used to define the
geometry of all bridge openings and/or culvert crossing. The n-values were determined from an
extensive field investigation. The results of that investigation, with supporting documentation
(field photographs), was summarized in a field reconnaissance report (Reference 8). A copy of
the field reconnaissance report prepared by JEF and the field notes from Stantec's survey are
provided in Appendix C. The revised 500-year and 100-year floodplain and floodway
boundaries are shown on the attached work maps.
The topographic information used in conjunction with the re-mapping was based on the
North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). The effective mapping was based on the
National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29). Therefore, both elevations are shown on
the work maps. A tabular listing of water-surface elevations for both datums is also provided in
Appendix E. The difference in elevations is based on a single conversion factor – 2.26 feet (i.e.,
the NAVD 88 elevations are approximately 2.26 feet higher than the NGVD 29 elevations).
The only ties to the effective mapping occur at the Tanque Verde Creek confluence. The
effective base water-surface elevation in the Tanque Verde Creek at the confluence is
approximately 2463.0 (NGVD 29) or 2465.25 (NAVD 88). Since the computed water-surface
elevation for the Ventana Canyon Wash at the confluence is 2467.4 (NGVD or 2469.7 (NAVD),
which is based on critical depth, there is no hydraulic tie between the Tanque Verde Creek and
the Ventana Canyon Wash. Therefore, graphic ties were made between the revised
floodplain/floodway boundaries for the Ventana Canyon Wash and those associated with the
Tanque Verde Creek.

JE Fuller/Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.

TDN - VENTANA CANYON WASH/ESPERERO WASH LOMR

Page 3

TDN - VENTANA CANYON WASH/ESPERERO WASH LOMR

Page 4

Ventana
Canyon
Wash

Esperero Wash

Flooding
Source

Node 4
Node 5
Node 6
Node 8
Node 10
Node 11
Node 6 +11
Node 15

Concentraton
Point

Drainage
Area
(sq mi)
5.9
6.11
6.19
3.85
6.98
7.94
14.14
16.64

Q10
revised
(cfs)
5121
4333
4246
5179
5378
5271
8122
5066

effective
(cfs)
8789
7319
6795
6621
8684
8888
11451
--

Q50
revised
(cfs)
8907
7067
6949
8813
9448
9151
14053
9030

Q100
effective
revised
(cfs)
(cfs)
11037
10762
9116
9170
8440
8898
7836
10596
10770
12044
11082
11484
14775
17753
9371
11527

JE Fuller/Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc.

effective
(cfs)
4239
3350
2947
3304
4172
4140
4952
3217

(with a comparison between the effective and revised discharges)
Q500
effective
revised
(cfs)
(cfs)
19000
15953
16000
13663
14400
13574
13250
14864
19500
17805
18500
17544
27000
27253
17000
18238

Table 1.1 Summary of Applied Discharges for Esperero Wash and Ventana Canyon Wash LOMR

TDN – VENTANA CANYON WASH/ESPERERO WASH LOMR

Page 5

TDN – VENTANA CANYON WASH/ESPERERO WASH LOMR
II.

ADWR/FEMA FORMS

2.1

Study Documentation Abstract (LOMR)

Subsection

Information Requested

Page 6

Response

2.1.1

Date Study Accepted:

Accepted: April 27, 2010
Effective: September 13, 2010.

2.1.2

Study Contractor:
Contact:
Address:

JE Fuller/Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.
Robert L. Shand, P.E., Project Manager
40 E. Helen Street
Tucson, Arizona 85705
520-623-3112
PCRFCD-Ventana_Esperero_LOMR
Baker AECOM

2.1.3

Phone:
Internal Reference Number:
FEMA Technical Review Contractor:
Contact:
Address:

2.1.4

Phone:
Internal Reference Number:
FEMA Regional Reviewer:

2.1.6

Phone:
State Technical Reviewer:
Phone:
Local Technical Reviewer:

2.1.7

Phone:
Reach Descriptions (approximate):

2.1.5

Mounir Boudjemaa, M.S.
c/o LOMC Clearinghouse
6730 Santa Barbara Court
Elkridge, MD 21075
703-317-6295
Case No. 09-09-2406P
Director, Mitigation Division , Dept. of Homeland
Security's FEMA, Oakland, CA
510-627-7175
Brian Cosson, CFM.
602-771-8657
Terry Hendricks, CFM
Chief Hydrologist
520-740-6350
(1) 6.6 miles of the Ventana Canyon Wash beginning at
the Tanque Verde Creek confluence;
(2) 1.8 miles of the Esperero Wash beginning at the
Ventana Canyon Wash confluence.

JE Fuller/Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.

TDN – VENTANA CANYON WASH/ESPERERO WASH LOMR

Subsection
2.1.8

2.1.9
2.1.10

2.2

Information Requested
USGS Quad Sheets:
Digital Mapping provided by Pima
Association of Governments
Unique Conditions and Problems:
Coordination of Peak Discharges:

Page 7

Response
Sabino Canyon., 7.5' quadrangle, 1992
1998 and 2000 topo/photo coverage of study area
None
Pima County concurs with the application of the revised
peak discharges.

FEMA Forms

FEMA MT-2 Forms 1, 2 and 3 are included as attachments to this section. Each form
includes a supplemental information sheet that provides information that could not be placed
within the form structure. The form's section and item number is referenced on this sheet.
Normally, Sections 3 through 7 of the standard TDN provides overflow information that cannot
be placed within the FEMA form structure. If the information requested in Sections 3 through 7
is already provided on the supplemental information sheet, it will be referenced accordingly. In
addition, some of the information requested in Sections 3 through 7 may be provided in one of
the appendices. If that is the case, the location where the information can be found will be
referenced accordingly.

JE Fuller/Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY - FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

O.M.B No. 1660-0016
Expires: 12/31/2010

OVERVIEW & CONCURRENCE FORM
PAPERWORK BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE

Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 1 hour 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.

A. REQUESTED RESPONSE FROM DHS-FEMA
This request is for a (check one):
CLOMR:

A letter from DHS-FEMA commenting on whether a proposed project, if built as proposed, would justify a map revision, or
proposed hydrology changes (See 44 CFR Ch. 1, Parts 60, 65 & 72).

LOMR:

A letter from DHS-FEMA officially revising the current NFIP map to show the changes to floodplains, regulatory floodway or
flood elevations. (See 44 CFR Ch. 1, Parts 60, 65 & 72)

B. OVERVIEW
1.

The NFIP map panel(s) affected for all impacted communities is (are):

Community No.
Ex: 480301
480287
040073

Community Name
City of Katy
Harris County
Pima County Arizona and Incorporated Areas

State
TX
TX
AZ

Map No.
480301
48201C
04019C

Panel No.
0005D
0220G
1655K

Effective Date
02/08/83
09/28/90
02/08/99

040073

Pima County Arizona and Incorporated Areas

AZ

04019C

1663K

04/22/04

2.

a. Flooding Source: Ventana Canyon Wash, Esperero Wash
b. Types of Flooding:

Riverine

Coastal

Alluvial fan

Shallow Flooding (e.g., Zones AO and AH)

Lakes

Other (Attach Description)

3.

Project Name/Identifier: Ventana Canyon Wash/Esperero Wash LOMR

4.

FEMA zone designations affected: A, AE, and X (shaded) (choices: A, AH, AO, A1-A30, A99, AE, AR, V, V1-V30, VE, B, C, D, X)

5.

Basis for Request and Type of Revision:
a.

The basis for this revision request is (check all that apply)
Physical Change

Improved Methodology/Data

Regulatory Floodway Revision

Coastal Analysis

Hydraulic Analysis

Hydrologic Analysis

Weir-Dam Changes

Levee Certification

Alluvial Fan Analysis

New Topographic Data

Other (Attach Description)

Base Map Changes
Corrections
Natural Changes

Note: A photograph and narrative description of the area of concern is not required, but is very helpful during review.
b. The area of revision encompasses the following structures (check all that apply)
Structures:

DHS- FEMA Form 81-89,DEC 07

Channelization

Levee/Floodwall

Bridge/Culvert

Dam

Fill

Other (Attach Description)

Overview & Concurrence Form

MT-2 Form 1 Page 1 of 2

MT-2, Form 1 – Overview and Concurrence (Supplemental Information)
Note: This supplemental information applies either in whole or in part to all flooding sources.

„ Section B – OVERVIEW
• Item 1, Panels Affected/Effective Date – Panels 1655K (effective 02/08/99), 1663K
(effective 02/08/99, LOMR 04/22/04), and 1665 (effective 02/08/33, LOMR 07/24/00).
„ Section C – REVIEW FEE
• This map change request is based on more detailed hydrologic and hydraulic analyses
and is intended to improve upon the information shown on the effective map and within
the effective FIS. In addition, the request provides detailed mapping to replace areas that
were previously mapped by approximate methods.

JE Fuller / Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.

Page 1 of 1

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: Ventana Canyon 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
upstream of Resort Drive

Drainage Area (Sq. Mi.)
3.85

Effective/FIS (cfs)
7836

Revised (cfs)
10596

downstream of Ventana W.

14.14

14775

17753

at Tanque Verde Wash

16.64

9371

11527

3. Methodology for New Hydrologic Analysis (check all that apply)
Statistical Analysis of Gage Records
Regional Regression Equations

Precipitation/Runoff Model HEC-1
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
Was sediment transport considered?
your 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

confluence with Tanque Verde Crk

RS 2, A (effective)

2473.1 NGVD

2472.1 NGVD

Upstream Limit

of detailed study

RS 81

n/a

3220.6 NGVD

2. Hydraulic Method/Model Used
HEC-RAS Version 4

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
NAVD
Other - (attach description)

Floodway Run

Datum

File Name:
Plan Name:
File Name:
Plan Name:
File Name:
Plan Name:
File Name: Ventana Plan Name:

File Name:
Plan Name:
File Name:
Plan Name:
File Name:
Plan Name:
File Name: Ventana Plan Name:

File Name:

File Name:

Plan Name:

Plan Name:

* 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.

2.

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.

For LOMR requests, does this request require property owner notification and acceptance of BFE increases?
Yes
No
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 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: Esperero 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)

d/s of Thimble View Way

5.9

11037

10762

d/s of Sunrise Dr.

6.11

9116

9170

u/s of Ventana Cyn Wash

6.19

8440

8898

3. Methodology for New Hydrologic Analysis (check all that apply)
Statistical Analysis of Gage Records
Regional Regression Equations

Precipitation/Runoff Model HEC-1
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
Was sediment transport considered?
your 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

convfluence Ventana Cyn Wash

RS 1

~2678.9 NGVD

2679.2 NGVD

Upstream Limit

of detailed study

RS 25

n/a

3070.9 NGVD

2. Hydraulic Method/Model Used
HEC-RAS version 4

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
NAVD
Other - (attach description)

Floodway Run

Datum

File Name:
Plan Name:
File Name:
Plan Name:
File Name:
Plan Name:
File Name: Ventana Plan Name:

File Name:
Plan Name:
File Name:
Plan Name:
File Name:
Plan Name:
File Name: Ventana Plan Name:

File Name:

File Name:

Plan Name:

Plan Name:

* 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.

2.

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.

For LOMR requests, does this request require property owner notification and acceptance of BFE increases?
Yes
No
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

MT-2, Form 2 – Riverine Hydrology and Hydraulics (Supplemental Information)
Note: This supplemental information applies either in whole or in part to all flooding sources.

„ Section A, HYDROLOGY
• Item 2, Comparison of Representative Discharges – (see Table 1.1)
• Item 3, HEC-1 Model Submitted – A total of thirty-two (32) individual HEC-1 models
are provided – one for each of the eight key concentration points or nodes and one for
each of the four return intervals (10-, 50-, 100-, 500-year). The file name structure is as
follows (example file name: 100N6-3.dat): 100 identifies the return interval; N6
identifies the concentration point or node; and, 3 denotes the 3-hour thunderstorm. The
only exception is N61 which represents the combination of Node 6 and Node 11. The
individual models, including the output, are provided in Appendix D. A watershed map
showing the location of the concentration points is also provided in Appendix D.
„ Section B, HYDRAULICS
• Item 1, Reach to be Revised – The entire reach of the Ventana Canyon Wash from its
downstream limit at the Tanque Verde Wash confluence to its upstream limit at the
Coronado National Forest boundary, and the entire reach of the Esperero Wash from its
confluence with the Ventana Canyon Wash to a point located just south of the Coronado
National Forest boundary.
• Item 4, Models Submitted – The HEC-RAS project file name is Ventana.prj (see
Appendix E). The project was divided into three reaches described as Esperero Wash
Reach-1, which extends from the Ventana Canyon Wash confluence to the upstream limit
of the study reach); Ventana Canyon Lower Ventana, which extends from the Tanque
Verde Creek confluence to the Esperero Wash confluence; and, Ventana Canyon Upper
Ventana, which extends from the Esperero Wash confluence to the upstream limit of the
study reach. The project file includes two (2) plans. Plan 1 models the 10-, 50-, and 100year discharges and the floodway. Plan 2 models the 500-year discharge.
„ Section D, COMMON REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
• Item 1b and 3, Property Owner Notification – The notification process will begin after
any major concerns with the modeling have been adequately addressed.

Page 1 of 1

Flooding Source

River Sta

Ventana Canyon Wash

0.5
0.75
1
1.5
2
2.25
2.5
3
4
5
5.5
6
7
8
9
9.5
10
10.5
11
11.5
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Cloud Road

River Road

NAVD88
NGVD29
Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Min Ch El W.S. Elev
(cfs)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
Tanque Verde Creek confluence
10186
2460.0
2469.7
2457.7
2467.4
Lat Struct
10209
2460.4
2471.4
2458.1
2469.2
Lat Struct
11099
2463.1
2473.8
2460.8
2471.6
Lat Struct
12058
2465.0
2478.9
2462.7
2476.6
12058
2467.0
2481.9
2464.8
2479.7
12058
2470.4
2482.3
2468.2
2480.1
12414
2473.7
2486.4
2471.5
2484.1
Culvert
12414
2474.2
2487.5
2471.9
2485.2
12414
2477.8
2488.5
2475.5
2486.2
13061
2480.3
2492.9
2478.0
2490.7
13061
2484.8
2496.2
2482.6
2493.9
13061
2486.7
2498.5
2484.4
2496.3
13061
2489.5
2502.9
2487.2
2500.7
13061
2491.3
2504.2
2489.0
2502.0
13613
2493.4
2508.2
2491.2
2506.0
Bridge
13613
2494.0
2513.3
2491.8
2511.1
13613
2498.4
2513.7
2496.1
2511.4
14255
2503.4
2513.9
2501.1
2511.7
14255
2511.7
2520.5
2509.4
2518.2
15070
2515.8
2525.2
2513.5
2523.0
15070
2519.8
2529.9
2517.5
2527.6
15070
2526.2
2534.4
2523.9
2532.2

Flooding Source

River Sta

Ventana Canyon Wash

18
19
20
21
21.5
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35

Sabino Canyon Road

Synder Road dip crossing

NAVD88
NGVD29
Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Min Ch El W.S. Elev
(cfs)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
15070
2526.2
2534.4
2523.9
2532.2
15519
2529.8
2539.9
2527.6
2537.6
15519
2534.0
2544.1
2531.7
2541.8
15939
2537.9
2546.9
2535.6
2544.6
Culvert
15939
2538.6
2549.4
2536.3
2547.1
15939
2544.1
2551.1
2541.8
2548.9
16556
2549.4
2557.3
2547.2
2555.0
16556
2552.9
2562.4
2550.6
2560.2
16556
2557.0
2567.7
2554.8
2565.5
16556
2565.5
2574.4
2563.3
2572.1
16556
2570.9
2581.2
2568.6
2578.9
16556
2577.3
2587.6
2575.0
2585.4
16556
2584.8
2594.1
2582.5
2591.8
16556
2588.8
2600.6
2586.5
2598.3
16556
2593.8
2606.8
2591.5
2604.6
16556
2598.1
2610.9
2595.8
2608.7
16556
2604.1
2612.5
2601.8
2610.3
16556
2611.1
2617.5
2608.8
2615.2

NAVD88
NGVD29
Flooding Source
River Sta Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Min Ch El W.S. Elev
(cfs)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
35
16556
2611.1
2617.5
2608.8
2615.2
Ventana Canyon Wash
36
16968
2613.5
2622.6
2611.2
2620.4
37
16968
2620.0
2628.9
2617.8
2626.6
38
16968
2626.0
2635.3
2623.7
2633.0
39
17342
2634.0
2643.3
2631.8
2641.0
40
17342
2643.5
2650.9
2641.2
2648.6
41
17753
2651.4
2659.6
2649.1
2657.4
42
17753
2657.3
2669.3
2655.0
2667.0
Esperero Wash confluence
43
11484
2666.4
2676.4
2664.2
2674.2
44
11916
2674.5
2683.6
2672.2
2681.3
45
11916
2683.0
2692.5
2680.7
2690.2
46
11916
2693.8
2701.8
2691.5
2699.5
46.5
11916
2696.5
2706.9
2694.3
2704.6
47
11916
2705.4
2714.7
2703.1
2712.5
48
11916
2716.1
2723.6
2713.9
2721.3
49
12044
2725.0
2732.6
2722.7
2730.3
Sunrise Drive
49.5
Bridge
50
12044
2725.0
2738.5
2722.7
2736.3
51
12044
2730.8
2740.0
2728.5
2737.7
Ventana Canyon Wash confluence
1
8898
2676.1
2681.4
2673.8
2679.2
Esperero Wash
2
9049
2683.4
2689.2
2681.1
2686.9
3
9049
2693.2
2699.1
2690.9
2696.8
4
9049
2699.9
2706.6
2697.7
2704.3
5
9170
2709.8
2718.0
2707.5
2715.7
Sunrise Drive
5.5
Culvert
6
9170
2712.9
2723.8
2710.6
2721.5
7
9170
2723.3
2730.5
2721.0
2728.2
8
9637
2735.4
2742.4
2733.1
2740.1
9
9637
2747.4
2754.3
2745.1
2752.0

Flooding Source
Ventana Canyon Wash
Sunrise Drive

Ventana Canyon Drive

River Sta
49
49.5
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
61.5
62
62.5
63
63.5
64
64.5
65
65.5
66

NAVD88
NGVD29
Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Min Ch El W.S. Elev
(cfs)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
12044
2725.0
2732.6
2722.7
2730.3
Bridge
12044
2725.0
2738.5
2722.7
2736.3
12044
2730.8
2740.0
2728.5
2737.7
11100
2744.0
2752.8
2741.8
2750.5
11100
2758.2
2765.1
2755.9
2762.8
11100
2767.6
2776.0
2765.3
2773.8
11100
2777.5
2783.9
2775.3
2781.7
11100
2789.5
2797.2
2787.2
2794.9
11100
2801.1
2809.4
2798.9
2807.1
11100
2812.2
2821.7
2809.9
2819.4
11100
2825.3
2833.6
2823.1
2831.3
11017
2844.0
2850.7
2841.8
2848.5
11017
2850.0
2863.2
2847.7
2861.0
Bridge
11017
2850.9
2866.5
2848.6
2864.2
11017
2857.8
2867.2
2855.6
2864.9
11017
2861.6
2871.4
2859.4
2869.2
10768
2867.7
2878.1
2865.4
2875.8
10768
2876.2
2885.4
2873.9
2883.1
10768
2887.6
2893.5
2885.3
2891.3
10768
2897.1
2906.5
2894.8
2904.3
10768
2904.5
2913.4
2902.2
2911.1
10768
2917.6
2924.0
2915.3
2921.8

Flooding Source

River Sta

Ventana Canyon Wash

64
64.5
65
65.5
66
66.5
67
67.5
68
68.5
69
69.5
70
70.5
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81

Resort Drive

NAVD88
NGVD29
Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Min Ch El W.S. Elev
(cfs)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
10768
2876.2
2885.4
2873.9
2883.1
10768
2887.6
2893.5
2885.3
2891.3
10768
2897.1
2906.5
2894.8
2904.3
10768
2904.5
2913.4
2902.2
2911.1
10768
2917.6
2924.0
2915.3
2921.8
10768
2926.0
2932.4
2923.8
2930.2
10768
2935.6
2942.9
2933.3
2940.7
10768
2943.4
2951.6
2941.2
2949.3
10768
2953.7
2960.3
2951.4
2958.0
10768
2963.0
2968.9
2960.7
2966.6
10768
2970.7
2976.8
2968.4
2974.5
10768
2973.0
2982.3
2970.7
2980.0
10768
2979.6
2991.3
2977.3
2989.0
Culvert
10768
2981.7
2993.3
2979.5
2991.0
10768
2997.8
3007.5
2995.5
3005.2
10596
3010.8
3021.1
3008.5
3018.8
10596
3035.6
3047.9
3033.3
3045.6
10596
3064.9
3074.7
3062.7
3072.4
10596
3089.0
3103.1
3086.8
3100.9
10596
3111.2
3121.8
3108.9
3119.6
10596
3138.2
3147.3
3136.0
3145.0
10596
3158.1
3169.5
3155.9
3167.3
10596
3177.0
3190.2
3174.8
3188.0
10596
3208.5
3222.9
3206.2
3220.6

Flooding Source

River Sta

Esperero Wash

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
17.1
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

NAVD88
NGVD29
Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Min Ch El W.S. Elev
(cfs)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
9637
2747.4
2754.3
2745.1
2752.0
9637
2759.7
2765.7
2757.4
2763.4
10274
2772.0
2780.3
2769.7
2778.1
10274
2787.0
2795.1
2784.7
2792.8
10274
2799.0
2806.6
2796.8
2804.3
10274
2812.0
2819.0
2809.8
2816.8
10762
2829.8
2835.9
2827.5
2833.7
10762
2840.4
2848.8
2838.1
2846.5
10762
2852.3
2861.9
2850.0
2859.7
7094
2857.1
2863.2
2854.8
2860.9
7094
2868.9
2877.6
2866.6
2875.3
7094
2890.9
2899.1
2888.6
2896.9
7094
2917.8
2928.2
2915.5
2926.0
7094
2949.7
2960.8
2947.5
2958.6
7094
2980.8
2994.2
2978.5
2992.0
7094
3013.9
3027.0
3011.6
3024.8
7094
3037.9
3050.0
3035.6
3047.7
7094
3060.2
3073.1
3057.9
3070.9

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: Ventana Canyon 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: Cloud Road culvert
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: at Cloud Road
Downstream Limit/Cross Section: 5
Upstream Limit/Cross Section: 6
2.

Name of Structure: Sabino Canyon Road bridge
Type (check one):

Channelization

Location of Structure: at Sabino Canyon Road
Downstream Limit/Cross Section: 21
Upstream Limit/Cross Section: 22

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
Was sediment transport considered?
Yes
No If Yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport).
If No, then attach your explanation for why sediment transport was not considered.

C. BRIDGE/CULVERT
Flooding Source: Ventana Canyon Wash
Name of Structure: Cloud Road 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
Was sediment transport considered?
Yes
No If yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport).
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
The information requested on Pages 3-10 are not applicable.

MT-2, Form 3 – Riverine Structures (Supplemental Information)
Note:

This supplemental information applies to the Ventana Canyon Wash. No new structures exist
along Esperero Wash flooding source.

„ Section A, GENERAL
• Description of Structures – Ventana Canyon Wash – Structure No. 4: Name:
Resort Drive culvert; Type: Bridge/Culvert; Location of Structure: at Resort Drive;
Downstream Cross Section 70; Upstream Cross Section 71.
„ Section C, BRIDGE/CULVERT
• Item 3, Plans of Structures – The information checked in this section was
obtained from using a combination of the field survey notes, which includes
sketches and an AutoCAD drawing file, and the actual plan sheets. Copies of
this information are provided in Appendix C.

Page 1 of 1

TDN – VENTANA CANYON WASH/ESPERERO WASH LOMR
III.

MAPPING AND SURVEY INFORMATION

3.1

Field Survey

Page 8

Stantec Consulting conducted a field survey to define the geometry of all existing bridge
openings and/or culvert crossings along the project reach. The survey included the following:
(1) cross sections within five feet of the upstream and downstream face of each structure; (2) bed
elevations at the base of each pier along the upstream and downstream face of each bridge; (3)
vertical profiles of the bridge at the each pier, including a definition of the shape and the
associated low cord elevation; (4) cross reference points in common with the Pima Association
of Governments (PAG) topography; and (5) monuments at each structure. The basis of elevation
was the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). Copies of the survey notes and an
AutoCAD drawing file from Stantec Consulting are provided in Appendix C. In addition, a field
reconnaissance was conducted to verify channel characteristics and to collect data for
determining Manning's n-value. Photographs taken at various locations along the study reach are
provided in Appendix C.
3.2

Mapping and Records

The hydraulic analysis was conducted using a combination of 1998 and 2000, 1' = 100',
two-foot contour interval mapping provided by Pima County for this study. The horizontal
control was based on the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 1983). As previously noted, the
vertical control was based on the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 1988).

JE Fuller/Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.

TDN – VENTANA CANYON WASH/ESPERERO WASH LOMR
IV.

HYDROLOGY

4.1

Method Description

Page 9

The regulatory discharges associated with this request were computed using HEC-1
(Reference 4). The base model, which was initially prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. in 2002
(Reference 5), was provided by the RFCD. A copy of the Tetra Tech's summary report is
provided in Appendix D. However, Tetra Tech's base model was limited to the 100-year return
interval. As part of this LOMR request, per the Pima County's current hydrologic modeling
criteria, JEF updated the base model to incorporate (1) the new NOAA Atlas Volume 14 data;
(2) the 3-hour, upper 90% confidence interval precipitation values from NOAA 14; (3) the
Hydro-40 aerial reduction factors, and (4) the SCS Type II distribution. In addition, JEF
expanded the modeling effort to included the 10-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year return intervals. A
total of ten point-precipitation-value data sets were obtained from the NOAA 14 web site based
on the longitude and latitude of the centroid of each the ten major sub-basins. However, since
the range of individual values was narrow, an average value was selected for each return interval.
An areal reduction factor was then applied to define a basin average value for each of the ten
major sub-basins. The results of the HEC-1 analysis are summarized in Table 1.1. In addition,
Table 1.1 provides a comparison between the effective discharges and the revised discharges.
The revised HEC-1 models are provided in Appendix D.
Subsection

Requested Information

4.1

Method Description

4.2

Parameter Estimation

Description/Location
Thirty-two HEC-1 models – separate
models for each return interval at eight
nodes (4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 6-11, 14, and 15).

4.2.1

Drainage Area Boundaries

Watershed Map, Reference 5

4.2.2

Watershed Work Maps

Reference 5

4.2.3

Gage Data

n/a

4.2.4

Statistical Parameters

n/a

4.2.5

Precipitation

Reference 6

4.2.6

Physical Parameters

Reference 5

4.3

Special Problems, Solution, Modeling Messages

none

4.4

Calibration

n/a

4.5

Final Results

4.5.1

Hydrologic Analysis Results

Table 1.1 in Section I

4.5.2

Verification of results

n/a

JE Fuller/Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.

TDN – VENTANA CANYON WASH/ESPERERO WASH LOMR
V.

Page 10

HYDRAULICS

The majority of the information that pertains to this section is provided on FEMA MT-2
Form 2 or on the supplemental information sheet that accompanies that form. Using the outline
provided in State Standard 1-97 – Instructions for Organizing and Submitting Technical
Documentation for Flood Studies, the following table briefly describes the information requested
and/or indicates its location in the TDN.

Subsection

Requested Information

Description/Location

5.1

Method Description

FEMA Forms

5.2

Work Study Maps

Attached to MT-2 Form 2

5.3

Parameter Estimation

5.3.1

Roughness Coefficients

5.3.2

Expansion and Contraction Coefficients

5.4

Cross Section Description

5.5

Modeling Considerations

5.5.1

Hydraulic Jump and Drop Analysis

5.5.2

Bridges and Culverts

5.5.3

Levees and Dikes

5.5.4
5.5.5

Islands and Flow Splits
Ineffective Flow Areas

Reference 8
Typical values for uniform reaches and
bridges were applied.
New placement and orientation along
majority of revised reach. All new sections
from DTM and topographic mapping.
n/a
Special Bridge and Culvert Methods in
HEC-RAS models.
n/a

5.6

Floodway Modeling

n/a
Overbank depressions and/or low areas
and areas immediately upstream and
downstream of bridge crossings
Method 4 followed by Method 1

5.7

Problems Encountered During the Study

none

5.7.1

Special Problems and Solutions

5.7.2

Modeling Warning and Error Messages

none
Only typical messages that are not
significant to results obtained.
n/a

5.8

Calibration

5.9

Final Results

5.9.1

Hydraulic Analysis Results

Appendix E

5.9.2

Verification of Results

n/a

JE Fuller/Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.

TDN – VENTANA CANYON WASH/ESPERERO WASH LOMR
VI.

SEDIMENT TRANSPORT/EROSION
No sediment transport study was conducted for this project.

JE Fuller/Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.

Page 11

TDN – VENTANA CANYON WASH/ESPERERO WASH LOMR
VII.

Page 12

FIS REPORT DATA

Subsection

Requested Information

Description/Location

7.1

Summary of Discharges

See Table 7.1

7.2

Floodway Data

See Table 7.2

7.3

Annotated FIRM

Attachment MT-2 Form 2

7.4

Flood Profiles

Appendix B

Table 7.1 Revised FIS Summary of Discharges

Flooding Source

Esperero Wash

Ventana Canyon
Wash

Location

Drainage
Area
(sq mi)

downstream of Thimble View Way

5.9

5121

8907

10762

15953

upstream of Sunrise Drive

6.11

4333

7067

9170

13663

upstream of confluence with Ventana
Canyon Wash

6.19

4246

6949

8898

13574

3.85
6.98

5179
5378

8813
9448

10596
12044

14864
17805

7.94

5271

9151

11484

17544

14.14
15.87
--

8122
7271
5325

14053
12547
9453

17753
15939
12058

27253
25162
19072

16.64

5066

9030

11527

18238

upstream of Resort Drive
upstream of Sunrise Drive
upstream of confluence with Esperero
Wash
downstream of confluence with
Esperero Wash
upstream of Sabino Canyon Road
downstream of River Road
at confluence with Tanque Verde
Creek

Peak Discharges (cfs)
10-year 50-year 100-year 500-year
(in)
(in)
(cfs)
(cfs)

JE Fuller/Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.

TDN - VENTANA CANYON WASH/ESPERERO WASH LOMR

Page 13

Table 7.2 Floodway Data
Flooding Source
Distance1 Distance1
Cross
Section
(ft)
(mi)
Esperero Wash
1
640
0.121
2
990
0.188
3
1400
0.265
4
1720
0.326
5
2060
0.390
6
2185
0.414
7
2605
0.493
8
3025
0.573
9
3445
0.652
10
3810
0.722
11
4250
0.805
12
4755
0.901
13
5055
0.957
14
5455
1.033
15
5905
1.118
16
6315
1.196
17
6715
1.272
17.1
6750
1.278
18
7125
1.349
19
7525
1.425
20
7940
1.504
21
8350
1.581
22
8765
1.660
23
9205
1.743
24
9545
1.808
25
9855
1.866
Watercourse

1

miles above confluence with Ventana Canyon Wash

JE Fuller/Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc.

Width
(ft)
276
228
267
284
169
681
152
169
177
223
269
154
302
328
223
248
121
89
65
54
98
71
58
87
82
68

Floodway
Section
Area
(sq ft)
938.3
849.6
892.2
932.8
762.0
1894.7
735.6
789.7
807.2
876.4
1060.7
817.5
1049.0
1138.1
947.5
1057.7
800.5
519.3
476.4
438.9
558.4
491.3
457.5
525.8
502.3
472.8

Mean
Velocity
(ft/s)
9.5
10.7
10.1
9.7
12.0
8.1
12.5
12.2
11.9
11.0
9.7
12.6
9.8
9.0
11.4
10.2
13.4
13.7
14.9
16.2
12.7
14.4
15.5
13.5
14.1
15.0

Base Flood Water Surface Elevation
Regulatory
Without
With
Increase
W.S. Elev
Floodway
Floodway
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
2681.4
2681.4
2681.9
0.5
2689.2
2689.2
2689.3
0.2
2699.1
2699.1
2699.1
0.0
2706.6
2706.6
2706.6
0.0
2718.0
2718.0
2718.0
0.0
2723.8
2723.8
2723.8
0.0
2730.5
2730.5
2730.5
0.0
2742.4
2742.4
2742.4
0.0
2754.3
2754.3
2754.3
0.0
2765.7
2765.7
2765.7
0.0
2780.3
2780.3
2780.3
0.0
2795.1
2795.1
2795.1
0.0
2806.6
2806.6
2806.6
0.0
2819.0
2819.0
2819.4
0.4
2835.9
2835.9
2836.2
0.3
2848.8
2848.8
2849.2
0.4
2861.9
2861.9
2862.1
0.2
2863.2
2863.2
2863.5
0.3
2877.6
2877.6
2877.7
0.2
2899.1
2899.1
2899.6
0.5
2928.2
2928.2
2928.2
0.0
2960.8
2960.8
2960.8
0.0
2994.2
2994.2
2994.2
0.0
3027.0
3027.0
3027.0
0.0
3050.0
3050.0
3050.0
0.0
3073.1
3073.1
3073.1
0.0

TDN - VENTANA CANYON WASH/ESPERERO WASH LOMR

Page 14

Table 7.2 Floodway Data

Watercourse

Flooding Source
Distance1 Distance1
Cross
Section
(ft)
(mi)

Ventana Canyon Wash

1

0.5
1
2
2.5
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
9.5
10
10.5
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

0
85
301.69
581.69
806.69
1123.28
1363.28
1438.28
1803.28
2157.67
2391.08
2681.08
3041.08
3351.08
3971.24
4049.37
4429.77
5054.96
5685.82
6157.08
6694.84
7278.79
7792.94
8156.36
8379.5
8443.51
8977
9541.37
10058.71
10530.25
11110.98
11632.31
12133.13

miles above confluence with Tanque Verde Creek

JE Fuller/Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc.

0
0.016
0.057
0.110
0.153
0.213
0.258
0.272
0.342
0.409
0.453
0.508
0.576
0.635
0.752
0.767
0.839
0.957
1.077
1.166
1.268
1.379
1.476
1.545
1.587
1.599
1.700
1.807
1.905
1.994
2.104
2.203
2.298

(ft)

Floodway
Section
Area
(sq ft)

Mean
Velocity
(ft/s)

168
119
128
150
158
115
249
254
108
195
161
111
224
304
558
383
506
223
490
397
357
340
368
292
273
298
320
361
292
319
341
291
315

929.4
806.3
759.1
890.3
1337.0
774.4
1520.4
1715.7
794.0
1116.4
1045.7
961.8
1828.8
1443.6
1976.6
3328.7
4527.1
1303.1
2663.0
1798.5
2082.6
1746.1
1983.5
1603.7
1902.3
2452.3
1601.0
1796.0
1641.6
1705.3
1708.2
1647.6
1733.9

10.8
12.5
14.6
13.5
9.0
15.6
8.2
7.2
15.6
11.7
12.5
13.6
7.1
9.9
6.9
4.1
3.0
10.9
5.4
8.4
7.2
8.6
7.8
9.7
10.2
7.0
10.0
9.2
10.1
9.7
9.7
10.1
9.6

Width

Base Flood Water Surface Elevation
Regulatory
Without
With
Increase
W.S. Elev
Floodway
Floodway
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
2469.7
2471.4
2473.8
2478.9
2481.9
2482.3
2486.4
2487.5
2488.5
2492.9
2496.2
2498.5
2502.9
2504.2
2508.2
2513.3
2513.7
2513.9
2520.5
2525.2
2529.9
2534.4
2539.9
2544.1
2546.9
2549.4
2551.1
2557.3
2562.4
2567.7
2574.4
2581.2
2587.6

2469.7
2471.4
2473.8
2478.9
2481.9
2482.3
2486.4
2487.5
2488.5
2492.9
2496.2
2498.5
2502.9
2504.2
2508.2
2513.3
2513.7
2513.9
2520.5
2525.2
2529.9
2534.4
2539.9
2544.1
2546.9
2549.4
2551.1
2557.3
2562.4
2567.7
2574.4
2581.2
2587.6

2469.9
2471.8
2473.8
2478.9
2481.9
2482.3
2486.4
2488.4
2488.5
2492.9
2496.4
2499.5
2503.0
2504.7
2508.9
2513.5
2514.1
2514.3
2521.4
2525.3
2530.5
2535.1
2540.6
2544.9
2547.7
2550.2
2551.8
2557.8
2563.4
2568.3
2574.5
2582.0
2587.8

0.2
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.9
0.1
0.5
0.7
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.9
0.1
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.1
0.8
0.2

TDN - VENTANA CANYON WASH/ESPERERO WASH LOMR

Page 15

Table 7.2 Floodway Data
Flooding Source
Distance1 Distance1
Cross
Section
(ft)
(mi)
Ventana Canyon Wash
30
12682.51
2.402
(continued)
31
13210.72
2.502
32
13647.69
2.585
33
13948.97
2.642
34
14035.41
2.658
35
14620.63
2.769
36
14927.75
2.827
37
15451.28
2.926
38
15789.69
2.990
39
16283.9
3.084
40
16853.9
3.192
41
17430.17
3.301
42
18020.09
3.413
43
18524.75
3.508
44
18966.38
3.592
45
19600.5
3.712
46
20093.75
3.806
46.5
20352.75
3.855
47
20638.75
3.909
48
21048.38
3.986
49
21298.79
4.034
50
21418.57
4.057
51
21794.69
4.128
52
22361.86
4.235
53
22942.31
4.345
54
23433.88
4.438
55
23853.88
4.518
56
24348.9
4.612
57
24822
4.701
58
25268.97
4.786
Watercourse

1

miles above confluence with Tanque Verde Creek

JE Fuller/Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc.

Width
(ft)
228
224
245
204
229
417
359
244
201
201
319
207
152
145
101
262
254
126
120
142
118
151
174
208
147
160
189
192
118
92

Floodway
Section
Area
(sq ft)
1422.6
1457.0
1545.8
1432.3
1746.2
1680.6
1753.9
1426.9
1355.3
1322.5
1731.2
1397.2
1225.8
977.6
790.3
1239.2
1196.9
824.5
852.1
882.7
809.4
1542.3
977.3
1047.6
841.5
954.2
899.4
994.6
782.5
725.9

Mean
Velocity
(ft/s)
11.6
11.4
10.7
11.6
9.5
9.9
9.7
11.9
12.5
13.1
10.0
12.7
14.5
11.8
15.1
9.6
10.0
14.5
14.0
13.5
14.9
7.8
12.3
10.6
13.2
11.6
12.3
11.2
14.2
15.3

Base Flood Water Surface Elevation
Regulatory
Without
With
Increase
W.S. Elev
Floodway
Floodway
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
2594.1
2594.1
2594.6
0.6
2600.6
2600.6
2601.0
0.5
2606.8
2606.8
2606.9
0.1
2610.9
2610.9
2611.0
0.0
2612.5
2612.5
2613.2
0.7
2617.5
2617.5
2618.2
0.7
2622.6
2622.6
2623.2
0.6
2628.9
2628.9
2629.6
0.7
2635.3
2635.3
2636.2
0.9
2643.3
2643.3
2643.6
0.3
2650.9
2650.9
2651.8
1.0
2659.6
2659.6
2660.6
1.0
2669.3
2669.3
2669.7
0.4
2676.4
2676.4
2677.0
0.6
2683.6
2683.6
2684.1
0.5
2692.5
2692.5
2693.3
0.8
2701.8
2701.8
2702.5
0.8
2706.9
2706.9
2707.4
0.5
2714.7
2714.7
2715.3
0.6
2723.6
2723.6
2724.6
1.0
2732.6
2732.6
2732.6
0.0
2738.5
2738.5
2738.5
0.0
2740.0
2740.0
2740.0
0.0
2752.8
2752.8
2753.4
0.7
2765.1
2765.1
2765.2
0.1
2776.0
2776.0
2776.9
0.9
2783.9
2783.9
2784.2
0.3
2797.2
2797.2
2797.9
0.7
2809.4
2809.4
2810.1
0.7
2821.7
2821.7
2822.4
0.7

TDN - VENTANA CANYON WASH/ESPERERO WASH LOMR

Page 16

Table 7.2 Floodway Data
Flooding Source
Distance1 Distance1
Cross
Section
(ft)
(mi)
Ventana Canyon Wash
59
25775.08
4.882
(continued)
60
26244.94
4.971
61
26512.96
5.021
62
26576.02
5.033
62.5
26781.02
5.072
63
26951.02
5.104
63.5
27164.02
5.145
64
27375.02
5.185
64.5
27650.02
5.237
65
27911.02
5.286
65.5
28163.02
5.334
66
28438.02
5.386
66.5
28622.02
5.421
67
28838.02
5.462
67.5
29062.02
5.504
68
29267.02
5.543
68.5
29530.02
5.593
69
29768.02
5.638
69.5
29883.02
5.660
70
29988.02
5.680
71
30030.02
5.688
72
30500.02
5.777
73
30899.02
5.852
74
31410.02
5.949
75
31935.02
6.048
76
32484.02
6.152
77
32957.02
6.242
78
33462.02
6.338
79
33967.02
6.433
80
34463.02
6.527
81
35011.02
6.631
Watercourse

1

miles above confluence with Tanque Verde Creek

JE Fuller/Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc.

Width
(ft)
195
321
299
372
310
350
200
144
200
313
414
234
332
211
288
253
339
418
271
228
213
133
80
72
111
233
109
182
135
131
110

Floodway
Section
Area
(sq ft)
959.8
1189.2
1471.9
2510.7
1225.8
1367.4
952.5
860.1
909.4
1218.0
1373.7
971.2
1149.0
984.3
1090.1
1046.1
1076.2
1227.3
1047.3
1157.9
1339.4
837.4
674.1
669.7
753.0
1117.5
754.8
918.8
852.0
865.5
800.2

Mean
Velocity
(ft/s)
11.6
9.3
9.2
5.3
9.0
8.1
11.3
12.5
11.8
8.8
7.8
11.1
9.4
10.9
9.9
10.3
10.0
8.8
10.3
9.3
8.0
12.9
15.7
15.8
14.1
9.5
14.0
11.5
12.4
12.2
13.2

Base Flood Water Surface Elevation
Regulatory
Without
With
Increase
W.S. Elev
Floodway
Floodway
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
2833.6
2833.6
2834.3
0.8
2850.7
2850.7
2851.2
0.5
2863.2
2863.2
2863.9
0.7
2866.5
2866.5
2867.4
1.0
2867.2
2867.2
2867.3
0.1
2871.4
2871.4
2872.4
1.0
2878.1
2878.1
2878.3
0.3
2885.4
2885.4
2885.6
0.2
2893.5
2893.5
2894.1
0.5
2906.5
2906.5
2907.1
0.6
2913.4
2913.4
2914.4
1.0
2924.0
2924.0
2924.5
0.5
2932.4
2932.4
2933.0
0.6
2942.9
2942.9
2943.3
0.3
2951.6
2951.6
2951.9
0.4
2960.3
2960.3
2960.7
0.5
2968.9
2968.9
2969.4
0.6
2976.8
2976.8
2977.8
1.0
2982.3
2982.3
2982.6
0.3
2991.3
2991.3
2991.9
0.7
2993.3
2993.3
2994.2
0.9
3007.5
3007.5
3008.4
0.9
3021.1
3021.1
3021.8
0.8
3047.9
3047.9
3048.8
0.9
3074.7
3074.7
3075.1
0.4
3103.1
3103.1
3103.1
0.0
3121.8
3121.8
3121.8
0.0
3147.3
3147.3
3147.3
0.0
3169.5
3169.5
3169.5
0.0
3190.2
3190.2
3190.2
0.0
3222.9
3222.9
3222.9
0.0

TDN – VENTANA CANYON WASH/ESPERERO WASH LOMR

APPENDIX A

References

JE Fuller/Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.

TDN – VENTANA CANYON WASH/ESPERERO WASH LOMR
REFERENCES
1.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Study – Pima County,
Arizona and Incorporated Areas, Pima County, Community Number – 040073, February
8, 1999.

2.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, HEC-2: Water Surface Profiles, Version 4.6.2, May
1991.

3.

US Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center, HEC-RAS River Analysis
System, Version 4, March 2008.

4.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, HEC-1: Flood Hydrograph Package, Version 4.1, June
1998.

5.

Tetra Tech, Inc., Summary of Ventana Canyon Hydrologic Modeling, June 20, 2002.

6.

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the
United States, NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 1, Version 4, extracted October 3, 2008.

7.

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, Depth-Area Ratios in the Semi-Arid
Southwest United States, NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS Hydro-40, August 1984.

8.

JE Fuller / Hydrology and Geomorphology Inc., Ventana Canyon Wash and Esperero
Wash, Letter of Map Revision, Field Reconnaissance Report, August 2005

JE Fuller/Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.

TDN – VENTANA CANYON WASH/ESPERERO WASH LOMR

APPENDIX B
General Documentation & Correspondence

APPENDIX C
Site Photographs & Survey Field Notes

APPENDIX D
Hydrologic Analysis – Summary of Supporting Documentation

APPENDIX E
Hydraulic Analysis – Summary of Supporting Documentation
Appendix F
GIS Shape Files

JE Fuller/Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.