Table of Contents:
Section 1: Introduction ..........................................................................................4
1.1 Purpose .......................................................................................................4
1.2 Project Authority ..........................................................................................4
1.3 Project Location...........................................................................................4
1.4 Methodologies Used for Hydrology and Hydraulics.....................................5
1.5 Acknowledgements .....................................................................................5
This study relied on assistance of RFCD GIS staff, who were integral to the
development of the models and maps...............................................................5
1.6 Study Results ..............................................................................................5
Section 2.0 Summary of Key Facts.......................................................................9
Section 2.1: General Information.......................................................................9
Section 2.2: Mapping Information......................................................................9
Section 2.3: Hydrology ......................................................................................9
Section 2.4: Hydraulics......................................................................................9
Section 2.5: Additional Study Information:.........................................................9
Section 3: Survey and Mapping Information .......................................................10
3.1 Field Survey Information ...........................................................................10
3.2 Mapping ....................................................................................................10
Section 4: Hydrology...........................................................................................10
4.1 Method description. ...................................................................................10
4.2 Parameter estimation. ...............................................................................11
4.3 Problems encountered during the study. ...................................................14
4.4 Calibration. ................................................................................................14
4.5 Final results. ..............................................................................................14
Section 5: Hydraulics ..........................................................................................15
Section 5: Hydraulics ..........................................................................................16
5.1 Method description ....................................................................................16
5.2 Work study maps.......................................................................................16
5.3 Parameter estimation. ...............................................................................16
5.5 Modeling considerations............................................................................17
5.6 Floodway modeling ...................................................................................17
5.7 Problems encountered during the study. ...................................................18
5.8 Calibration. ................................................................................................18
5.9 Final results. ..............................................................................................18
Section 6: Erosion and Sediment Transport .......................................................18

2

List of Figures:
Figure 1.1 Watershed Map ...................................................................................6
Figure 1.2 Study limit Figure 1.3 Soil Classification ..............................................7
Figure 1.3 Soil Classification.................................................................................8
Figure 4.1 Flow Chart of Mapping Process........................................................12
List of Tables:
Table 4.1 - Methods used for a PC-Hydro analysis.............................................11
Table 4.2 - Watershed Characteristics................................................................14
Table 4.3 – Summary of 100-yr Peak Discharge Values ....................................15
Table 4.4 – Comparison of 100-yr Peak Discharge Values ................................15
Exhibit
Exhibit 1 100-yr Floodplain Limit Map
Exhibit 2 Annotated Flood Insurance Rate Map
Attached CD
Castle Wash TDN with supporting models and GIS data.

3

Section 1: Introduction
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this study is to provide flood and erosion hazard information for Castle
Wash for use by the Pima County Regional Flood Control District (District) in floodplain
use permitting and floodplain management. More specifically, it provides:
• discharge values for sub-basins and important concentration points;
• floodplain mapping for channels with contributing areas greater than 20 acre
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).
Section 16 of the Pima County Ordinance describes the provisions for floodplain
regulation in Pima County.
1.3 Project Location

4

The study was performed to provide drainage information for the Castle Wash. The site
includes Sections 25, 26, 34, 35 and 36 of Township 13 South, Range 15 East, Sections 2
and 3 of Township 14 South, Range 15 East, Pima County, Arizona. Entire watershed of
the Castle Wash is in FEMA Zone X, as shown on the current Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) number 04019C-1670K.
The Castle Wash watershed is partially located within the City of Tucson. This study
focused on an area located outside of the city limit, upstream of Tanque Verde Rd. The
study area was divided into twelve subbasins (Fig.1.1). Per Section 16 of the Pima
County Ordinance, regulatory floodplain is an area where the 100-year peak discharge is
100 cfs or greater. Regulatory floodplains along the Castle Wash and its tributaries were
mapped in this study, assuming watersheds greater than 20 acre produce 100-year peal
discharge of 100 cfs or greater. The study limits extends from Tanque Verde Rd. to
Kleindale Rd. (Fig.1.2).
1.4 Methodologies Used for Hydrology and Hydraulics
Hydrologic analysis was preformed to estimate regulatory discharge rate at the
Concentration Points (CPs) using PC-Hydro Version 5.4.2 (PC-Hydro). The parameters
for PC-Hydro, such as rainfall intensity and subbasin characteristics (e.g. soil, vegetation,
slope, flow distance, roughness), were selected using PC-Hydro User Guide (Arroyo
Engineering, 2007). The proposed regulatory discharges are flow rates that have a 1percent chance of being equaled or exceeded each year (“100-year” discharge rates).
Hydraulic analysis was performed to delineate floodplain limit along the study reach of
the Unnamed Wash 1 using U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Computer Backwater Model,
HEC-RAS.

1.5 Acknowledgements
This study relied on assistance of RFCD GIS staff, who were integral to the development
of the models and maps.

1.6 Study Results
The modeled discharge at the downstream end of the Castle Wash (on Tanque Verde Rd.)
is 2559 cfs, where the contributing area is 772 acre. The 100-year peak discharges at the
CPs were compared to the peak discharge computed using USGS Regression Equation.
The comparison showed that the PC-Hydro produced higher discharges. Regulatory
floodplains along the Castle wash and its tributaries were mapped in this study. The study
found many homes are at risk for flooding during the 100-yr flood.

5

Figure 1.1
Watershed Map
Castle Wash
( Discharge Point
!

CP H
(
!
CP G

CST_River
Contour 10 foot
Castle Wash Subbasins
CST B
CST C
CST D
CST E
CST F
CST G
CST H
CST I
CST J
CST K
CST L
CST M

CP I CP J
!
(

(
!

Aerial : 2008 Pima Association of Governments
Topo: 2008 Pima Association of Governments
Datum: NAVD 1988

CP E CP F
CP K

!
(
(
!
(
!

Pima County Index Map

Index Map Scale 1:5,250,000

CP C

CP L
(
!

! CP D
(
(
!

CP M
(
!

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

500

250

0

CP B
(
!
08/30/2010
\\gislib\rfcd\projects\imd\xavi\mxd\AKITSU\Castle_Wash\Castle_wash_Fig1_1.mxd

500 Miles

HARRISON

Figure 1.2
Study Limit
Castle Wash

PRINCE

(
!

Discharge Point
River

CST I
IN

CST J

A

CST H

CST G

ZONE AE
ZONE X - SHADED

FORT LOW ELL

CST K

Areial Photo 2008 Pima Association of Governments
Topo: 2008 Pima Association of Governments
Vertical Datum: NAVD 1988

!
(

(
!
(
!

Existing FEMA Floodplain
ZONE A

HOUGHTON

L
TA
CA

Subbasins

CST E
CST F

CST L

!
(

Pima County Index Map

(
!

CST C

CST M

Index Map Scale 1:5,250,000

CST D
TA
N

QU

E

VE

RD

E

CST B

This product is subject to the Department of Transportation
Technical Services Division's Use Restriction Agreement.

!
(
(
!

(
!
(
!

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.

Pima County Regional Flood Control District

400 200

0

(
!

Study Limit
Study Limit

08/30/2010

Study Limit
\\gislib\rfcd\projects\imd\xavi\mxd\AKITSU\Castle_wash_Fig1_2.mxd

400 Feet

HARRISON

Figure 1.3
Soil Classification
Castle Wash

PRINCE

Subbasins

CST I

Soil Classification
IN

CST J

A

CST H

CST G

Soil Group: B (100%)
Soil Group: B (82%) C (18%)

HOUGHTON

L
TA
CA

Soil Group: C (47%) D (53%)
Soil Group: C (53%) D (47%)
FORT LOW ELL

Aerial : 2008 Pima Association of Governments

CST K

CST E
CST F

CST L

Pima County Index Map

CST C

CST M

Index Map Scale 1:5,250,000

CST D
TA
N

QU

E

VE

RD

E

CST B

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

500

250

0

09/2010
\\gislib\rfcd\projects\imd\xavi\mxd\AKITSU\Castle_wash_Fig1_3.mxd

500 Feet

Section 2.0 Summary of Key Facts
Section 2.1: General Information
2.1.1 Community: Pima County Regional Flood Control
2.1.2 Community Number: NFIP Community Number 04019C
2.1.3 County: Pima
2.1.4 State: Arizona
2.1.5 Date Study Accepted: Not Accepted –
2.1.6 Study Contractor: Pima County Regional Flood Control District – Akitsu Kimoto
2.1.7 State Technical Reviewer: Not Applicable
2.1.8 Local Technical Reviewer: Suzanne Shields
2.1.9 River or Stream Name: Castle Wash
2.1.10 Reach Description: Castle Wash
2.1.11 Study Type: Hydrology and Hydraulics study of a Riverene System
Section 2.2: Mapping Information
2.2.1 FIRM Panels: 04019C-1670K
2.2.2 Mapping for Hydrologic Study: Lidar based on 2008 flight used to derive 2’
contour interval maps using ARC-GIS 9.2
2.2.3 Mapping for Hydraulic Study: Lidar based on 2008 flight used to derive a DEM
(5-ft cell size) for use with GeoRAS
Section 2.3: Hydrology
2.3.1 Model or Method Used: PC-Hydro, version 5.3.1
2.3.2 Storm Duration: NA
2.3.3 Hydrograph Type: NA
2.3.4 Frequencies Determined: 100 yr
2.3.5 List of Gages used in Frequency Analysis or Calibration: None
2.3.6 Rainfall Amounts and Reference: NOAA 14 Upper 90% Confidence Interval
2.3.7 Unique Conditions and Problems: None
2.3.8 Coordination of Q’s: Comparison with previous studies on file with RFCD and
discharge estimates
Section 2.4: Hydraulics
2.4.1 Model or Method Used: HEC-RAS 4.0, GeoRAS to parameterize
2.4.2 Regime: Modeled as subcritical
2.4.3 Frequencies for which Profiles were Computed: 100 yr
2.4.4 Method of Floodway Calculation: No Floodway
2.4.5 Unique Conditions and Problems: Boundary set at normal depth.
Section 2.5: Additional Study Information:
None

9

Section 3: Survey and Mapping Information
3.1 Field Survey Information
No field survey was used.
3.2 Mapping
The 2008 Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data was used for the analysis.
Coordinates were in Pima County projection:
Projection = State Plane, Arizona Central Zone
Datum = NAD83 HARN
Units = International Feet
North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD, 1988)
The LiDAR was used to derive a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) and a contour map.
DEM derived on 5’ centers provided the basis for delineating the watershed and subbasins. DEM was also used to characterize the topography along channels used for the
floodplain mapping process. Contour map derived from the DEM allowed modelers to
visualize topographic differences in making decisions on how to model different areas.

Section 4: Hydrology
4.1 Method description.
For the floodplain mapping, a 100-yr discharge is required. The 100-year peak discharges
at the CPs of the Castle Wash and its tributaries (CP B to CP M; Figure 3) were
calculated using PC-Hydro, version 5.3.1. The PC-Hydro 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 FEMAaccepted 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 PC-Hydro 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. In general, PC-hydro program is applied determine peak discharge
for watersheds with areas less than 1 square mile. HEC-HMS is applied to watersheds
with areas greater than 1 square mile. The study area of the Castle Wash main channel is
1.2 square mile. This study only used PC-Hydro to estimate the 100-year peak discharges
for the Castle Wash and its tributaries. Therefore, the estimated peak discharge at the
downstream end of the study area is expected to be conservative.

10

The PC-Hydro 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 PC-Hydro model is included in
Appendix D.
4.2 Parameter estimation.
Methods are summarized in Table 4.1. The data processing methods are summarized in
Fig. 4. The PC-Hydro uses adjusted Curve Number (CN), which has been developed
based on the results of the USDA-ARS research. The PC-Hydro procedure assumes that
high intensity, short duration storms result in raindrop impacts causing the surface of
soils to real up, resulting in reducing infiltration (Caliche Effect). The CN in the PCHydro procedure increases with increasing rainfall depth and intensity. The detail of the
method was described in PC-Hydro User Guide (Arroyo Engineering, 2007).
Table 4.1 - 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

4.2.1 Drainage area boundaries.
The limits of this study are shown in Fig.1.2. The study site includes Sections 25, 26, 34,
35 and 36 of Township 13 South, Range 15 East, Sections 2 and 3 of Township 14 South,
Range 15 East, Pima County, Arizona. Entire study area is in FEMA Zone X, as shown
on the current Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) number 04019C-1670K.
The Castle Wash watershed is partially located within the City of Tucson. This study
focused on an area located outside of the city limit, upstream of Tanque Verde Rd. The
study area was divided into twelve subbasins (Fig.1.1). Per Section 16 of the Pima
County Ordinance, regulatory floodplain is an area where the 100-year peak discharge is
100 cfs or greater. The study limits extends from Tanque Verde Rd. to Kleindale Rd.
(Fig.1.2).
4.2.2 Watershed work maps
The boundary of the watershed and internal sub-basins were determined using Hydrology
function in ArcGIS (Fig.1.1) with DEM derived from the 2008 Lidar. The sub-basins
reflected predominant topographic, soils, cover and development conditions, so that the
sub-basins would represent hydrologic response from the sub-basin. The locations of the
stream centerline, cross-sections, culverts, and other physical attributes of the wash were
determined by using the 2-ft interval contour map and 2008 aerial photo.

11

Figure 4.1 Flow Chart of Mapping Process

Topographic Data Preparation using ArcGIS with
TIN or DEM

Hydrologic Analysis using PCHydro

Geometric Data Preparation using
ArcMap and Hec-GeoRAS
(stream network, stream centerlines,
cross sections, river banks, culverts,
and/or block obstruction)

Hydraulic Analysis using HEC-RAS
(Manually input the following data; Manning’s nvalues, culvert data, expansion and contraction
coefficients, normal depth boundary condition,
ineffective flow areas, adjustment of reach length if
necessary)

Floodplain Delineation using HecGeoRAS

12

4.2.3 Gage Data.
None Available
4.2.4 Statistical parameters
None Available
4.2.5 Precipitation.
Rainfall depth was selected from the NOAA 14 Upper 90% rainfall data used in PC
Hydro.
4.2.6 Physical parameters.
The entire study area is covered with Desert brush. Hydrologic Soil Groups C and D are
the dominant soil types in the Castle Wash watershed.
The Pima County Hydrology Procedure uses the Curve Number (CN) adjustment
procedure. The CN adjustment procedure was developed based on the research at the
USDA-ARS Walnut Gulch experimental watershed near Tombstone. 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 (know as “Caliche Effect”,
Mike Zeller, personal communication, 2006). Adjusted CN increased with increasing
rainfall depth and intensity. The CN charts in the PC Hydro Manual (Arroyo
Engineering, 2007) were the basis for original CN selection. A vegetation cover density
of 30% was used to select the SCS Curve Number for the hydrologic calculation of the
mountainous watersheds. Impervious cover percentage from 10-15%, were selected
using the 2008 aerial photo and the tables in the PC Hydro manual. The detail of the CN
calculation is included in Appendix D.
The hydraulically most distant point on the sub-basin and slope break points along the
longest water course were identified using a contour map. The length between slope
break points was measured using ArcGIS.

13

Table 4.2 - Watershed Characteristics
Concentration Points
CP B
CP C
CP D
CP E
CP F
CP G
CP H
CP I
CP J
CP K
CP L
CP M

Area
(acre)
772
499
241
187
200
45
116
97
47
133
117
53

Impervious Area
(%)
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
13.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0

Vegetation Cover
(%)
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30

Weighted Runoff Coefficient
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6

4.3 Problems encountered during the study.
None
4.3.1 Special problems and solutions
4.3.2 Modeling warning and error messages
None
4.4 Calibration.
No Calibration
4.5 Final results.
4.5.1 Hydrologic analysis results
The 100-year peak discharges at the concentration points along the Castle Wash and its
tributaries were estimated using PC-Hydro. The 100-year peak discharges are
summarized in Table 4.3.

14

Table 4.3 – Summary of 100-yr Peak Discharge Values
Concentration Points

Area
(acre)
772
499
241
187
200
45
116
97
47
133
117
53

CP B
CP C
CP D
CP E
CP F
CP G
CP H
CP I
CP J
CP K
CP L
CP M

Time of Concentration (Tc)
(min)
28.9
27.9
27.9
19.3
19.3
10.8
15.4
13.9
13.1
17.7
12.1
10

Rainfall Intensity at Tc
(in/hr)
4.67
4.74
4.74
5.82
5.81
7.91
6.68
7.03
7.22
6.13
7.48
8.16

Runoff Supply Rate at Tc
(in/hr)
3.29
3.33
3.39
4.14
4.19
5.66
4.61
5.06
5.19
4.41
4.81
5.18

Peak Discharge
(cfs)
2554
1674
823
780
844
257
539
495
246
591
567
277

4.5.2 Verification of results.
Computed 100-year peak discharges were compared to the discharge calculated using
USGS Regression Equation 13 (Thomas et al, 1997) and existing regulatory discharge
values. The equation 13 results were generally lower than the PC-Hydro results, which
would be expected, because these steep watersheds could be expected to produce higher
than average discharge. Existing regulatory discharge is slightly higher than the PCHydro discharge.
Table 4.4 – Comparison of 100-yr Peak Discharge Values
Concentration Points

Loaction

CP B
CP C
CP D
CP E
CP F
CP G
CP H
CP I
CP J
CP K
CP L
CP M

Tanque Verde Rd.
Around 530 ft north of Tanque Verde Rd.
Around 370 ft north of Tanque Verde Rd.
South of Placita Cresta Verde
South of Placita Cresta Verde
East of Placita Cresta Mia
East of Placita Cresta Mia
South of Fort Lowell Rd.
South of Fort Lowell Rd.
Glenn St.
Tanque Verde Rd.
Tanque Verde Rd.

Area
(sq mile)
1.21
0.78
0.38
0.29
0.31
0.07
0.18
0.15
0.07
0.21
0.18
0.08

Q100 PCHydro
(cfs)
2554
1674
823
780
844
257
539
495
246
591
567
277

Q100
RRE
(cfs)
1425
1063
630
519
546
156
354
306
162
396
357
181

Regulatory Q100
(cfs)
2148
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

15

Section 5: Hydraulics

5.1 Method description
The hydraulic modeling for the Castle Wash 1 was performed using Hec-Ras, Version
4.0 (HEC-RAS), HEC-GeoRAS, Version 4.1.1 (HEC-GeoRAS), and ArcGIS, Version
9.3. Corrected model is proposed in this study.
As previously mentioned, DEM derived from 2008 LiDAR data was used to create a 5foot contour map. The locations of the stream centerline, cross-sections, and bank of the
Castle Wash were determined using the contour map and 2008 PAG aerial photos. The
physical attributes of the wash were digitized in ArcGIS using the HEC-GeoRAS
extension and then exported to HEC-RAS to create geospatially referenced geometric
data (cross section, reach profile). Other parameters for the steady-state analysis, such as
Manning’s n-values, expansion and contraction coefficients, boundary condition, and
ineffective flow areas were manually added in the HEC-RAS model. The hydraulic data
obtained from HEC-RAS were then imported into HEC-GeoRAS to delineate a
floodplain boundary of the Castle Wash.
Steady flow analysis was performed to determine 100-year water surface elevations in the
study area by using HEC-RAS with the discharge obtained from PC-Hydro.
5.2 Work study maps
The work study map for the Castle Wash is included in Exhibit 2.
5.3 Parameter estimation.
5.3.1 Roughness coefficients.
Manning’s roughness coefficients for the channel and the over-bank areas were
determined based on a 2008 aerial photo and a site visit. Bank stations were determined
based on the topography and a 2008 aerial photo. The roughness used in this study is
0.035 for channel and 0.055 for overbank areas. Differentiation of channel and overbank
‘n’ values should be done only when channel flow is at least twice as deep as overbank
flow (Phillips and Tadayon, 2006). There are many reaches that are wide with several
flow paths. Rather than assign a channel and overbank Manning’s n, an average n for the
whole cross-section of 0.045 was assigned.
5.3.2 Expansion and contraction coefficients.
Default HEC RAS expansion (0.3) and contraction (0.1) coefficients were used for the
most cross sections. The expansion coefficient of 0.5 and contraction coefficient of 0.3
were used for the cross sections immediately upstream or downstream of culverts.

16

5.4 Cross section description.
A 2-foot interval contour map derived from 2008 LiDAR data was used to select the
location of cross sections. Cross-section locations were determined primarily based on
the channel topography. The cross-section lines were drawn to be perpendicular to flow
paths in HEC-GeoRAS.
5.5 Modeling considerations.
5.5.1 Hydraulic Jump and drop analysis.
No Hydraulic Jumps were encountered.
5.5.2 Bridges and culverts.
There are four culverts along the study reach of the Castle Wash and its tributaries. The
photos of the culverts are included in Appendix E.
5.5.3 Levees and dikes.
None.
5.5.4 Islands and flow splits.
None.
5.5.5 Ineffective flow areas.
Ineffective flow areas were noted on the study reach of the Castle Wash and its
tributaries. In general these ineffective flow areas were disconnected overbank areas that
would not convey flow to the next downstream cross-section or immediately upstream or
downstream of culverts. Contraction rate of 1:1 and expansion rate of 1:3 were used to
determine ineffective areas immediately upstream and downstream of road crossings.
5.5.6 Supercritical flow.
No super critical flow
5.6 Floodway modeling
No encroachment calculations were performed.

17

5.7 Problems encountered during the study.
5.7.1 Special problems and solutions.
Lateral structures were used in HEC-RAS where flows breakout over banks. The
breakout flow was calculated using an optimization function of lateral structures in HECRAS. The peak rates for the breakouts are shown in the Exhibit 1.

5.7.2 Modeling warning and error messages.
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. A summary of errors is available in Appendix E.
5.8 Calibration.
None.
5.9 Final results.
5.9.1 Hydraulic analysis results.
The HEC-RAS modeling results were summarized in Appendix E.
5.9.2 Verification of results.
Existing floodplain maps are not available along the Castle Wash. The new map tends to
follow the floodplain topography. The results suggest that the mapping is reasonable.
Section 6: Erosion and Sediment Transport
6.1 Method description.
None – not applicable
6.2 Parameter estimation.
None – not applicable
6.4 Modeling considerations.

18

None – not applicable
6.5 Problems encountered during the study.
6.5.1 Special problems and solutions.
None – not applicable
6.5.2 Modeling warning and error messages.
None – not applicable
6.6 Calibration.
None – not applicable.
6.7 Final results.
6.7.1 Erosion and sediment transport analysis results.
None – not applicable
6.7.2 Verification of results.
None – not applicable

19

INA

2660

j

j

2650

j

IN
A

CO
L

2650

AC
OL
DE
L

264
0

NA
VE
NID
A

j

N JACS PL

LA

DE

2540

V
U
2430

V
U

26
1

26
0

2603.519

9.7
23

37

U
V
V
U

4070

39

62

97

Pima County Index Map
E RUSTY SPUR DR

05

46

26
1

0.5

5

5

E SUNDANCE CI

8.5
95

E FLINTLOCK TR

01
7.7

V
U
29

7

.
2606

38

85

1
2606.34

0
1.

Index Map Scale 1:1,500,000

05

V
U

28

2604.24

3.
1

4.
5

5.
6

6.7

4274

261
9.6
22

V
U

270

58

9

73

0
261

2491

2589

V
U
U
V

41

LN

10
26

E RANCHO DEL ESTE DR

2600

26
10

9
6.

5
5.

59

06

2580

26
1

V
U

262
0.15
2

261
8.7
84

7.7
58

31

1
4.

Y
D
A
SH

K
C
RO

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.
Pima County Regional Flood Control District

0

100

200

400
Feet

00
26

2590
742

V
U
66

V
U
9

25
70

26
1

26
11
.4

0
26

2620

2621
.5

87

62

64
1.4

N TOMAHAWK TR

N BONANZA AV

2622.2
71

90

26
1

65

V
U
18

2623.348

2600

3.
4

58

477

N CALLE DE MAURER

998

2624.26
2

63

0
26

4
2.57
260

0
26

27

9
25

9
25

25
90

2626
.

CP K

26
1

V
U

N GOLDEN WEST AV

3

262
8.12
6

90

72

1952

95

89

LYD
IA

32

2655

2

46

V
U

2597.655

45

E

29

9
4.

51
4.3

ACI
TA

263
2.0
98

24

N PL

263
7.0
01

9
25
1
3.

06

N JEANETTE AV

64

V
U

234

22

V
U

262
0

RD
TR
AC
K
R
DE
E
N

Datum: NAVD 1988

0
263

42

V
U

2680

07
9.4

52
7.1

77
5.8

2597.669

2
2.
42
0.5

87
9.5

23

5.
4

263
5.3
28

263
8.2
36

2.7
44

0.8
49

09

0
26

0
26

0
26

99

78

9
25

9
25
9
25

8
25
4
8.

8
25

9
2581.

25
60

.9
11
26

26
0.8

78
0.3

1
26

1
26

77

70

17

16

74

67

5

8
25

25
8

6.
0

7.
3

26
3

0

85

V
U

41

39

38

42
3.9

V
U
U
V

15

V
U
U
V
14

00
26

V
U
25
8

80
25

387

25
7

83

25
8

29
3.1

53

7.
4

9

V
U
U
V

CP B

1.
1

CP D

81

2599.311 2599.609

2041
1970
25
9

Topo: 2008 Pima Association of Governments

65

25
7

67

2

811

.6
2580

2.
8

5.
0

2578
.

2579.378

25
7

4.
2

79

1

8
25

56

25
7

581

5

258

V
U

25
7

95

85

CP C

4

V
U
V
U
V
U

577

9

228

V
U

257
8.1
35

2579
.

222

2581
.

294

2580

2

257
8.42
7

2580
.

V
U

257
7.3
18

17

8

836

28

52

9.0
23

25

39

25

114

32

46

0.4
66

CP M

V
VU
U
V
U
V
U

917

42

8

966

19

40

97

2583.5

04

V
U

2052

10

41

48

93

1116

1046

1108

75

2

VU
U
V
V
U

Aerial : 2008 Pima Association of Governments

264
1.5
06

263
9.8
16

262
9.9
29

42

26
0

V
U
211

8

02

1

V
U

80

260
0.6
22

72

V
U

120

7.
5

8.0
13

683

2584.0

2582
.3

928

258
8.4
1

25
8

21

05

V
U

1287

93

2584
.

5

U
V
V
U
V
U U
V
V
VU
U
V
U
3
6.

257
5.9
54

1388

71

179

257

6.6

53

144

7
25

EC
OU
NT
RY
CT

280

25
8

2.
0

E MARTIN DR

5
5.

25
70

3

3.
1

V
U

1499

7
25

110

25
8

8.
2

9.
7

2.0

U
V
V
U
V
U

0

84

25
8

25
9

25
8

4.
8

7.0
79

5.2
14

6

1520

57

U
V
V
CP L U
V
U
138

U
V
V
U
V
U
38

5

25
9

1

25
8

25
8

25
9

8.5

259
3.6
75

7

25
8

4

2

3

47

25

25
9

2588
.

258

9.5
92

5

38

55

5

76

259

19

46

2577.5
46

66

260
1.3
97

V
U
U
V

2579.26

85

9

2589
.7

185

30

V
U

304

U
V
V
VU
U
V
U
V
U

260
2.7
13

3

V
U
34

259
1.5

0
258

2580.484

96

8

V
U
35

V
U

5

2

U
V
V
U
V
U
37

U
V
V
U

292

Proposed 100-yr Floodplain

264
3.0
97

9

26
3

4356

31

813

1

U
V
V
U
V
U
V
U
36

259
2.1
01

2218

112

9

263
4.1
87

4463

2.8
47

17

15

8

73

2582.6

259

1
6.

123

072

345

9

2646
.

264
4.7
09

2625.8
52

259
3.7
98

8
25

2584
.

3

6

Contour 10 foot

4684

259
4.5
83

2004

51

2590

1

566

2

39

V
U

259
5.4
35

2590
.

V
U

13

258
7.8
11
2586
.

156

14

259
0.5
53

V
U

167

1353

65

259
2.5
94

696

259
6.1
73

2620

175

259
8.7
13

591

580

4804

3

71

E GLENN ST

259
7.0
43

8

466

4.9
93

38

259
9.2
56

8

262
9.03
1

415

259
8.0
9

1

490

CP E

9

3

510

54

536

52

558

2630
2.
9

2647.821

2

13

259
9.7
65

9

2590
.

16

2595
.4

U
V
V
U
U U
V
V
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U

0
26

2160

64

228

2

6

2094

74

37

236

7

69

245

260
1.4
75
260
1.0
59

6
3.

254

CP F

8

0
26

262

2

36

270

334

42

614

8

Contour 2 foot

4552

36

2597
.1

60

47

35

34

V
U
U
V

83

95

258
9.4
09

257
5.67
4

277

2598.81

817

2576.
2

285

2183

1

214

293

2347

2600.63

113
0

390

E BISNAGA DR

U
V
V
U

2602.837

1252

515

V
U

303

1470

942

31

312

1558

103

73

2604.7

1694

U
V
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U

21

2606
.6

1781

0
3.

2608
.3

210

320

98

2604.726

2603.879
2603.511

248

78

84

78
2606.1

319

053

68

26
1

48

Cross Sections

6924

2649.14

054

284

73

26
1

405

328

260
9.87
9

1874

60

V
U

1959

475

30

2612.8

5

32

E MORRILL WY

55

9
2608.24

V
U
V
U
U
V

3
26

2614
.2

2611
.5

V
U

13

2616.5
77
2615.3

655

16
2607.5

2618.3
07

2266

203

37
0.5

2620.
8

2407

2125

3
26

2622
.

2490

U
V
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U

78
7.7
262

2583

2608.246

626

499

67

2616
.

575

499

4.8
26

262
3.3
2

2635

726

875

037

3
2608.90

972

23

0

637

2618.28
6

2617.
2

43

88

1

26
2

9

087

45

40

V
U
U
V
270

78

681

263
6.0
8

4.
5

4740

09
0.3
261

4.4
75

2651.803

2650.36

6518

6675

5.3
69

2619.461

4830

V
U

14
31

293

2637
.

2660

2640
.

26
3

U
V
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U

2670

2641
.

3311

27

1

609
11.

26
3

2660

6866

6.1
41

2621.002

4927

26

7
116

264
5.03
4

3390

254

26
3

2652.173

6951

UU
V
V
V
U
7085
7057

2654.716

261
0

1

6

26
3

1044

7.3
22

2622.194

5041

79
2.7
261

1159 7057

2644.874

83

7.9
69

2623

5145

65
3.6
261

134

4

3457

438

CF
S

2656.282

24 CFS

6781

9.4
21

2623.648

5231

04
4.6
261

0

2656.283

7134

2620

90
26

1

2700

355

1

539

12

958

2624.749

5302

11
5.7
261

483

V
U

2656.247

7215

954

NI
DA

5
160

76

Discharge Point

2656.576

7311

0
264

U
V
V
U
V V
U
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
UV
V V
U
U
V
U
V
U
VU
U
V
VU
U
V
V
VU
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
VU
U
V
U
V
U
V
U

26
3

2657.578

7379

9

9 CFS

2625.576

5368

2617.18
1

157

26

2649.214

AV
E

89

0
172

2627.
2

5441

6
6.5
261

5

N

194

2618.574

2619.953

V
U

51

2658.104

7444

261
0

5

57
8.3
261
63
7.5
261

2628
.

2605.234

2630

27
30
2720

324

94

602

5525

U
V
V
CP G U
V
U

26
3

2659.017

7525

2649.26
8

264
1.6
33
26
40
.58
2

9

55

15

2630.426

5624

2621.258

2649.
2

2642
.

6

79
3.3
263

2720

183

73
0.2
262

7

CP H

54
8.9
261

886

26
3

738

2

8
1.18
262

016

62

.
2631

E WAR BONNET LN

67

2631.269

5858

2622.8
95

75

2631.99

5925

97

550

73
21.8

0
262

4
211

2624.
2

2636.637

345

205

26

5986

641

26
22.9

6361

268

U
V
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U

40
26

2700

2750

26

V
U

15 CFS 1029

V
U
U
V

N BONANZA AV

5
231

761

2625.76

2638.387

2633.101

6058

2650.
3

2645.211

2633.759

6112

2626.758

850

2651
.2

6432

2634.904

6173

1441

1137

2635.763

6243

2628.864

983

1
3.63
262

2

6307

2604.66

N BONANZA AV
0
268 690
2

0
276

U
V
V
U

2629.809

1064

3
4.74
262

192

U
V
V
U
V
U
V
U

U
V
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U

2626.513

4
5.68
262

6

2630

2626.803

2640.904

2639.248

6371

2640

2652
.4

2659.99

7581

401

2653
.5

1517

65 CFS 2649.242

2640.906

U
V
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U

265
5.59
1
2654
.

Exhibit 1
100-yearFloodplain
with cross sections
Castle Wash

REACH KD

952

U
V
VU
U
V
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
VU
U
V
U
V
V
U
V
U
U
V
V
U
V
U
V
U
U
V
V
VU
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
U
V
V
U
V
U
CP I CP J
V
U
V
U
V
U
V U
U
V
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U

2640.911

6443

1633

2656
.

7

1240

2640.934

6508

2627.369

6685

2640.997

6576

2628.583

2496

240

V
U

263
0

2629.384

169

REACH J

1309

N HOUGHTON RD

26
50

10
27

6639

1769

1379

2642.433

6735

2630.28
1

2598

70
6
2

U
V
V
U
V
U
V
U

6806

2641.565

2688

E FORT LOWELL RD

2643.487

U
V
V
U

U
V
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U

PL

2644.732

6868

093

85

7134

j

2631
.

2648.698

2650

U
V
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U

4.4
31

7247

2649.673

2647.
4

7359

2645.875

6940

263
1.7
75

2791

0
276

26
3

263
2.6
04

2943

2650.128

U
V
V
U
VE VACA
U

2646.558

7000

8

20

0
267

8

2650.812

7067

5.7
64

97

197

2651.90
3

7190

6.8
11

39

2660

26
3

7.7
23

78

79

2652.793

7296

8.9
48

89

5

9.5
03

79

V
U

74

V
VU
U

2653.394

7403

1.2
76

91

80
6
2

1.3

26
3

2860

40
27

27
20

26
3

26
4

7464

3928

2.3
34

2654
.

52

302

26
3

0.3
57

U
V
V
U

6
0.

PL

U
V
V
U

26
3

97

321

309

99

26
4

6
26

32

2690

SH
U
EB

U
V
V
U

26
4

7517

3976

28

5.7
17
265
5.4
38

06

2710

81

2643.
3

6
26

2720

92

2644.138

86

26
5

4

6.
5

67

33

38

26
5

6
9.

U
V
V
U
34

L
HIL

35

V
U

67

26

7.
5

7
8.

273
0

5
26

36

44

758

13

26
5

5
26

0
270

38

73

37

45

71

76

V
U
U
V
U
V
V
U

E KLEINDALE RD

V
U

76

78

2630

E

L
A
T
A
C

77

HY

A
IN

U
V
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U
V
U

259
0

2610

E TANQUE VERDE RD
00
6
2

00
26

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

08/2010

gislib\rfcd\projects\imd\xavi\mdx\AKITSU\Castle_wash_100yr_exh1.mxd

ZONE D

10

09

"
)
"
) ççççç "
)
çççççç
" çççççç "
)
)
ççççç
" çççççççç çç çççç
)
ççççç
ççççççççç
"
)ççççççççççççççççççççççççççç
çççç
"
)
ç
ç
ç
ç
ç
ç
ç
ç
ç
ç
ç
ç
ç
çççç
16çç
"
)
çççççç
8

çç çç çç
ç266

CREOSOTE CANYON

IN
D
AR

TA
M

HI
LL
S
O
AR

IN
U
SH

VIA MOLINO

DO
NA
O
RI
NC
VI
A

MELPOMENE

DE
RA

DRAKE

D
YW

OO

ZE
P

LU

H

YR

MO

CHESTNUT

EL
SE
KE

ET

IB
IT
O
KA

RO
O
DE
NA

CA
TA
LI
NA

SA

GU

CORD
TE

ALTA
TIER R
A

NN

HOLSTER

SU

N
OO
M
LF
HA

NA

LA LU

CALLE ENTRADA

HASH KN
IFE

LYNFORD

AVENIDA DEL OTERO

LYNFORD

WENDELL

DRAKE

NID
AVE
FLINTLOCK

A

NE

UI S
TAD
NQ
CO
EL

AV
E

AD

çççç

ç ççç

çç çç

ç çç ç

ççç2ç630
ççç ç
ç ç çç

ççç ç

ççç ç

çç ç ç

çç çç

31

ççç ç

ççççç

çççç

çç

çççç
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.

çççç çç

çççç 26
çççç26
ççç

çç2çç622 RUSTY S çççççç
PUR çç
çççç
ç çç
çççç
çççç
ç çç
SçU
N
ççDçç ANCE
ççç

This product is subject to the Department of Transportation
Technical Services Division's Disclaimer and Use Restrictions.

"
)
"
)

"
)

"
)

1,000

500

0

REBECCA

MESQUITE THICKET

WOOD
AMBER

CO

OR

AVENIDA DEL CONEJO

A
LIN
CO
LA
DE

JACS
TOMAHAWK

BONANZA

CALLE DE MAURER

SHOWDOWN

DRAKE

BONANZA
ST
AR
NI
NG
MO
R

GOLDEN WEST

JEANETTE

ST
OG

VIA D
E

CK
TR
A
ER
DE
IST
A
KV
EE

ççççç
çççççç
ç
çççççç
ç

ç ççç

ççççç
çççç

çççççç
çççççç

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

gislib\rfcd\projects\imd\xavi\mdx\AKITSU\Castle_Wash\Castle_wash_Anno_FIRM_1670K_28X40.mxd

ççç ç
ç
çççç
çççç

çççç
çç

"
)

çççç
ççç ç
ç ççç
çç çç
ç ççç
çç ç

çç
çççç

ççç

çç

ç

çç

ç
çççç

çççç

çç ç çç

ççç ç

ç
çççç

ç
çççç

çççç
çççç

çççç

ç
çççç

çççç
çççç

çççç

ççç ç

ç
çççç

çç çç

çççç

çççççççççççççççççççç

NI
DA

SANTA ANA
RD E
A VE

O TI
E RR
PAS
E
U

TANQUE VERDE ACRES

"
)

UNNAMED

çççç
çç

ççççç

ççççç
ç

ç ççç

ç ç çç
çççç

çççççççççççççççççç
ççççç
çççççççççççç
çççççççççç çççççççççç ç 25
çç 3
çççççç
çç ççççç ç çççç7çç
çççççç2ç 538
çççççç
çççç ççççç ç
ç ç ç ç ç ç çç çç
ç çççç ççç ççç ç
çççççççççççç CASTLE ROCK
çççç

ççççççç2ç 534
ç ç ç ç ç ççç
çWOODLAND

çç ç ç

çççç
ç

ç ç ççç

çç

çç çç

çççç

ççççççççççç
ç

çççç

ççççç
ç

ççç ç

çççç

ççççççççççç

ççççç ççç

çççççç 25
ççççç30
çççççç
çççççç
çç

çççççç
çççççç
ç

çççç
ç

ç ççç

ççççç

ç ççç

ççççççç

çççç

ç
ççç

çççççççç ç

ççç

ç

ç
çççç
çççç
ççç
çççç
çççç
ç ççç

çç ç

ççç

çç4çç

çççç2ç 640
ççççç
ççç

çççç

ççç

ç çç

ççç

ççç

çç

ççç

ççç

ç çç

ç çç ç
çççç

ç çç çç

26
4

çççç2ç616
çççç
ççççç
çç2çç610
ç
ç
ç
ç
çççç SUNDANCE
ççççç
çççç
N
ç
çççç
çççç
ççç ç
çççç
M
ççççç MELPOMENE
çççç
çççç
çç çç
ççççç
çççç
çç çç
ç ççç
ççç
çççç
çççç ZONE AE
ççç ç
ççççç
çç
R
çççç
ç
ç
ççççç
çç çç
ç ççç
çççç
ç
ç
ç
ç
ç
çççç 26
ççççç
ç
çççç
çççç
çççç08 ççççççç
ç çç VALLEY
ççççç
çççç
MESQUçITE
ç
ç
ç
ç
çççç
çç çç
ççç ç
çççç
Q
ç
ç
ç ççç
ç
çççç
ççç ç
çççç
çççç
çççç
ç
çççç 26
ç ççç
çççç
çççç
çççç14
ççç ç
çççç 2
çççç
çççç
ç
ç ççç
çççç605
çççç
ççç
çç çç
ç ççç
çççç
ç
P
ç
çççç
çç çç
çç çç
çççç
çç çç
ç ççç
ççç
çççç
ççç ç
ççç ç
ç ç çç
VERDE
çççTANQUE
çççç
ç
O
ZONE X
çççç
ç
ç
çççç
çç çç
Lçççç
ç
ç
06
çççç
çççç
01
çç çç
çç ç ç
ççç ç
çç ç ç
çççç
ççççç
çççç
çççç
ççççç
çççç
çççç
çççç
ç
çççç
çççç
çççç
ççç
ç
ç
ç
ç
çççç
çççç
ç
ççç
ç
çççç
çççç
ççç
çççç
çççç
çççç
ççç
ç
ç
ç
çççç
ç
ç
ç
ç
ç ç çç
çççç
ç ççç
çççç
ççç
çççç
ççç ç
çç çç
çç çç
çççç
çç çç
ççç ç
ççç ç
çççç
çç çç
ççç ç
çç çç
ççç
ç ççç
çççç
çç çç
ç
ç
çççç
çç çç
çççç
çç çç
çççç
çççç
ç ççç
ççç ç
çççç
ççç ç
ççç ç
çççç
ççç ç
ççç ç
çççç
çç çç
ç
ç ççç
çççç
ç ççç
ç ççç
çççç
ç ççç
çççç
çççç
ç
çççç
ççç
ççç
ççç
ççç
ççç
ççç
çç

çççç

ççç

ççç ç

ççççç

ççç

ççç

çç çç

ççç

ççç

çç

çççç

ççç ç

çççç
çççç
ç

GLENN

ç

G

ç ççç

ç
0 3 ççç
26çççç

"
)

A

I

NG
DI
IN
W

CK

çççç

ççç ç

ççç

DG E

"
)

RO

ççççç

RUSTY SPUR

çççç

ç ççç

ç ççç

ççç

FLOWER

çç
88ççç
25ççç

02

K RI

SH

DY

ç
ççç

RO C

çççç
ç

ççç ç

ççç ççççç ç
ç
ççç

DESERT

çççç263
çççç4
ççç

çç ç ç

çççç 263
çççç 8
çççç
çç

çççç

GO

S

O
MING
AN DO
S
E
L
L

çççç
ç

K

MARTIN

"
)
"
)

çç çç

T

"
")
)

HAWK HILL

çççç

ççççççç

çççç

çççç

ç ç çç

ç çç

RUSTY SPUR

J

A

ççççççç

çççç

U

GLENN

36

"
)

çççççç2ç5çç27
çççççç ççç
ç

"
)
"
)

X

ç

GIANT CACTI

STAR WATER

"
")
)

W

CA

çç
ç
ççç
ççç
çççç
ç ççç
ççç
çççç
çççç
ççç
ççç
ç
9 7 çç
ç
ççç
25çç ççç
ççç
ççç
çççç
çç çç
çç ç
çççç
çççç
ç
ççç
ç
4
çççç
ççç
59 çççç
ççç
ç2ççç
çççç
ççç
çççç
ç çç
ççç
çççç
çççç
ççç
92 ççç
ççç
25ççççç
ççç
çççç
çççç

NG
NI

çç çççççç

"
)
Y

"
)

Pima County Index Map

Z

ç
çççç
çç çç

BISNAGA

35

AR
M

QU ICK DR
AW

A

PLACITA CRESTA VERDE

"
)

HT

ççççççççççç

30

KLEINDALE

OW

T

R IL
L

INB

"
)
G
LI

çççç çç ççç çç ççç çç ç

PRINCE

LOMR Case 99-09-1302P
Effective Date 7/24/2000

S
CA

RA

R

HAVETUER

STETSON

PLACITA CRESTA FELIZ

WER

"
)

CALLE VAQUEROS

ççç

FEATHER

WAR BONNET

CACTU S FLO

H
PAT

çç çç ç

MELPOMENE

CORONADO VISTAS

TS
IG
H

HE
OE
S

RI
O

H

BUSH HILL

VAC

PLACITA CRESTA MIA

OR ANGE

TA
IL

AN
A CO P
PLACIT

N

S

LOMR Case 99-09-1302P
Effective Date 7/24/2000

GS

MESQUITE

SAHUARO CANYON

RIDG
RW
AY
FA
I

AUBURN

CITY VIEW
WOLFORD

AVENIDA DE NIEVA

YO N
C AN
PRINGS
SABINO S

BONANZA

AVENIDA DEL CONEJO

RIS

E SP
RI NG

E

IGH
TS

PLACITA DEL SOL

SIERR A MADRE

Proposed
100 year
Floodplain

C
MO

SPRIN

TT
O

GUNSHOT

V

INDIAN

S
AR
BE

"
)

O

ROGER

ççç

çç

08 ççç
25çççç

ççççç

34

çççççç252
ççççç2
çççççç
ççççç
çççççç
çççççç
çç

25

EAGLE FEATHER

C

LIMBERLOST

Y

R IL
L

MO
R

X - (SHADED)

RE

SONORAN VISTA

IN

33

SMO

FORT LOWELL

DAWN POST

ç çç çç

WA
S

AT
C

TT
ON
CO

MO
R

DUN

X
PROSPECT

FORT LOWELL

SUNSET POST

çç çç çç

A

ZONE X-(SHADED)
LOMA LIN DA

C ASE
SHOW

TUCSON

N
LU
LA

TA
IL

IO

AO

çç

H

çççççç

WIND RIDGE

D

IND

AE

19

KLEINDALE
DA

E

CAMINO MIRAMONTE

CALLE DESCANSO

IO

LOMA LIN

A

MA

DR

ççç

"
)

ççç çç
ç

G HE

HARRISON
H
AT
C

BEN

IAN

VI
A

ççç

BEAR CANYON

IND

Existing Floodplain Zone

ZONE X

W
AS

WA
LD

PAS

LA COLINA

IND

AR
HONEYBE

çç çç
çççç
çççç
çççç
çççç
çççç
çççç
çççç
çç ç ç
çççç
çççç
çççç
ççç ç
ç ççç
çççç
çççç
çççç
çççç
ç çç ç
ççç
ç
çç ç ç
çççç
çççç
ç
ç
çççç
ç çç ç
çççç
çççç
ç çç ç
çççç
çççç
ç
çççç
çç
ç ççç
çççç
çççç
ç
çççç251 ççççç
çççç 2
çççç
ç ç çç 2
çççç 51
çççç
ç ççç
çççç3
çççç 251
ç
çççç
çççç 5
Q
çççç
çççç
ççç
çççç
çççç
çççç
çç

CHIA

VIA TRANQUILLA

SI
ER

M
SU

PLACITA ROCA
O
PELLEGR IN

26
CH
SAT
WA

NITTAN

DE

Jurisdictions

PLACITA METATE

CAMINO PALO VERDE

24

Sections

E

CALLE VAQUEROS

ZONE X

G

"
)

GUNNISON

NAMBE

CAMINO SECO

I

AN YON

"
)

çççççççççççççç
çç ç ç
ç

CITA

Floodways

KEY

HIDDEN COVE

BONANZA

çççç 25
ççç ç 1 0
ççç ç
ççç
çç

PLA

AVENIDA DE

çççççççççççççççççççççççç
2512
ççççççççççççççççççç

ççç

OAKWOOD

NN
YA
RA

VISTA MONTANAS

INDIAN C

I

A NT

R D O BA

V
CHO F O

27

"
)

T PL
EAS
O
VIA DE C

EA

PRINCE

çç

MOU
N

YAL

BEAR

TRES LOMAS

E
GL

K

çç çç

2513

çççç2ç511
ççççç
ççç

H

PIMA COUNTY

HARRISON PARK

TANO

EE

ççççççççççççççç251
çççç4ççççççççççççççç

US

K

I

VIA

CR

çççç

CH

T RO

ç

N

O
AH

TOLANI

AR

J
CLOUD

RB

BUC

ARMADA

N
MOU

O
ABIN
ITA S
PLAC

Q

8

ççç2ç 51
çççç6
ççç

GA

OAKWOOD

CAMINO TESOTE

ZONE A

BE

25
1

R LIN
STE

T
ACLE
E

S

L

K

SU

ST
A

ZONE X

LASON

ER
M

TWILIGHT

BANYON TREE

TR
E

DEERFIELD

KAYENTA

ZONE X

T

R

çççççççççç25
ççç28
ç çç çç

252
1

çççç

PINN

TONALEA

SUPAI

TO

VI

FIRM - Flood Insurance Rate Map

SPEARHEAD

SNYDER CREE

WILD JAVELINA

H

BROOKHILL

"
)
"
)

UNNAMED 10231

BAUXITE

E
MALI
N
TOUR

PALISADES

BEAR CLAW

ON

D
BI

"
)
"
)
"
)

M

çççç

VERYL

ITA

NC

EN

EL
M

V

254çç8ç çççç çç
ç
ççç45
çççççççççççç çççç25
ç
ç
ç
ç
ççççççç ççççççççç
ççççççççç

" çççç
)
"
)
çççççç
ç
28
çççççç
"
)
çç
" çççççççççççççç ççç
)
ççççç
çç çç
ç
ççç ç
çççç
"
)

çççç
ç

E
FIRE AGAT

RI
O

SIERR

RA

2551

çççççççç25
ççç42
ç çç çç çç çç

çççççç

O

2522

EE

23

SH

ççççççççççççççççççççççççççç

çççççççç 253
çççççç2ç
ççççççç

"
)
"
)

çç

EE

ON

"
)
"
)

W
GL
H
U EN
N
TS VIE
W
W
O
O
U
D
SH
AD
OW
SID
E
HILLWOOD

P

ççç

TR

Proposed Floodplain
MOUNTAIN GATE

PROSPECT

çççççççç25
ççç36
ççççççççççç

ççç

QU IET

SUMMER

ççççççççççççççç
çççççççççç2556

ççççççç25
ççç39
çç çç çç çç

ççççç

TR

NY

D

ççç çç çç çç çç ç ç ç ç

H

CA

X

2560

C

Y

R
BI

22 2563
çççççççççççççç

W

21

OR

T

BAY TREE

DO

ç ççççç ççç

R
O

BI
AI

A
ME

Z

DESERT VIEW

LF
MI

NU

K

RIEGA

AA

25ç6ç8ççç çççç çç

ZONE X

E
RE

73

çç çç ççç ç
ççç25

SOLAR

ROCKCLIFF

I

W
AL

A
W

CHEYENNE

AB

TT

KA

Base Flood Elevations
LOMR Case Studies

VIA NO

U
LN

NA

ççççççççççççççççç

E

O
M

D

PI

REE

C

D

AC

OO
TW
RIF

E

O
NK

BE C

U

ç çç ççç ç

D
KBOAR

FIRM X-Sections

R

BUC
2578ç çç ççç ç

AD

AE

E

ç ççççç ççç

ST

ADO

PLUMERIA

18

SP

25ç8ç3ç ççççç ççç

SNYDER

AN

OCOTILLO

CADILLAC

BAMBOO

O
ER

AF

ç

ES
W

AG

ç ç çç

D
ISA
PAL

ç çç
çç çç

IS
L

AH

PLACITA SANTOLINA

J

A

)"

Y

ET
HY

ç

ç
8 8 ççç
25çç ççç

AI

AM

çççç

OR

CREOSOTE

SURRE

25

ç
92 ççç

N
SO

CANYON

ççç

"
)
çç
ç
ç
ç
ç
çççç
çççç
"
)
"
)
"
)
"
)
" ç çç
)
"
)
"
) çç çç
"
)
"
)
çççççççç
"
)
ç çççç ççç
"
)
çççç

ON

NY

CA

G
WIND SON

98 ç
25ççççç

BEAR CREEK

INA

AK

ç
çççç

PLACITA LIRIO

2603 ç ç

çççççççç

IDE

CASTLE RIDGE

RAWH

PLACITA MIMOSA

SADDLEBACK

AL

13

CO L

AM

ZONE X
BOWES

ççççççççççççç
ççç2608
ç çç çç çç ç

VALLARTA

NS

E LA

BEARS CIRCLE

2610

EE

IDA D

ZONE A

IN
SAB

R
OG

HOUGHTON

"
)

2 AN
61ççç
2
ç
ç
çç ç ç

CALLE TOBOSA

"
)
"
)
"
)
"
)

SP

14
A
CALLE PRIMUL

çççç

AO

15

AP

6
26ç1çççç

OCOTILLO

NG
RI

RI
DG
E
W
E
VI

N
AVE

AQ

2625

2622 çç

CALLE ESTREL
LA

S

RAVINE

2632

çç ç
ççççç

RI
NG

SABINO HILLS

2634

AR

TA
TE

SANCTUARY

2637

SP

POIN

N

ES

O

NO

D

CR

ççç

SH

AN

ZONE X

MESQUITE CANYON

AS

AU

2644

BI

ZONE X

SA

AV

2652

çç

SABINO HIG
HLAND S

AX

9
26ç5çç ç
ç 6
AW 265

AT

07

12

CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST

11

Exhibit 2
Annotated Flood
Insurance Rate Map
04019C1670 K
Castle Wash

1,000 Feet

Appendix A: References
A.1 Data collection summary.
Include a list of previous studies, other applicable studies, published and unpublished
historical
flood information, and research contacts.
A.2 Referenced documents.
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
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.
National Weather Service. 1984. Depth-Area Ratios in the Semi-Arid Southwest
United States, NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS Hydro-40
NOAA, 2006. NOAA Atlas 14, Precipitation Frequency Atlas for the United States:
Volume 1 - Version 4.0 The Semiarid Southwest. National Weather Service,
Hydrometeorological Design Studies Center. Available on the internet at:
http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/ hdsc/pfds/sa/az_pfds.html
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.
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. 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). 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.