APPENDIX 3 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE REPORT 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 Yuma Parkrvay Corridor Feasibility Study Salome Highway to Palo Verde Road Contract No.: 2O1O-055 Froject No.: TT005 FINAL Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report Prepared by: 7-fl f-f/ \ August 201 rrrmleY-norn anoAbsoctares, rnc. 1 091337133 Copyright @ 201 1 Kimley-Hom and Associates, lnc. F-x?t*tI 7fo/zot+ - TABLE OF CONTENTS CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE REPORT 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2. EXISTING STUDIES AND OTHER DATA SOURCES ............................................................................. 4 2.1 2.2 3. Topography and Geology .............................................................................................. 9 Soils ................................................................................................................................ 12 Existing Land Use ........................................................................................................ 14 Flooding Hazards ......................................................................................................... 14 Existing Drainage Structures ...................................................................................... 20 EXISTING HYDROLOGY ................................................................................................................... 22 4.1 4.2 5. Summary of Drainage Studies ...................................................................................... 4 Summary of Other Documents and Data ..................................................................... 7 WATERSHED FEATURES .................................................................................................................... 9 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4. Background and Study Need ......................................................................................... 1 Study Area ...................................................................................................................... 1 Document Purpose and Scope ....................................................................................... 2 Design Drainage Criteria ............................................................................................... 2 Summary of Hydrology Methods................................................................................ 22 Offsite Hydrology Results ............................................................................................ 26 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................ 29 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report i Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE REPORT LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Study Area ................................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2 – Area Drainage Studies .............................................................................................................. 5 Figure 3 – Slope Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 10 Figure 4 – Hydrologic Soil Groups .......................................................................................................... 13 Figure 5 – Regulatory Floodplains ........................................................................................................... 16 Figure 6 – Offsite Hydrology Workmap .................................................................................................. 24 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Significant Offsite Drainage Crossings .................................................................................... 23 Table 2 – Offsite Hydrology Results ........................................................................................................ 28 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix TM3-01: Appendix TM3-02: Appendix TM3-03: Appendix TM3-04: Appendix TM3-05: Appendix TM3-06: Appendix TM3-07: Appendix TM3-08: Appendix TM3-09: Appendix TM3-10: Appendix TM3-11: Data Collection Summary Existing Geologic Mapping Subsidence and Earth Fissure Documentation Tonopah Uplift Documentation Drainage Field Photos Recommended Area Drainage Master Plan Improvements Recent Erosion and Sedimentation in Hassayampa River Existing Erosion Hazard Mapping Sand and Gravel Mining Documentation Existing Drainage Structure Documentation Existing Hydrology Results Excerpts 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report ii Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 1. INTRODUCTION Technical Memorandum 3 (TM 3), entitled Conceptual Drainage Report, identifies and summarizes the existing drainage conditions, features, and hydrologic characteristics for the Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study – Salome Highway to Palo Verde Road (hereafter referred to as “the study”). The purpose of TM 3 is to identify known drainage opportunities and constraints for developing feasible corridor alignments. Offsite concentration points and flow magnitudes prepared in previous studies and reports within the study area for the 100-year storm event were compiled and are presented in this report. TM 3 is based on a review of available existing information including previous drainage master plans and studies, floodplain delineation studies, roadway drainage reports, discussions with several stakeholders, and field observations. Additional detailed information about the study is included in the following companion documents: Existing and Future Corridor Features (TM 1), Environmental Overview (TM 2), Development and Evaluation of Candidate Alternative Alignments (TM 4), and Detailed Preferred Alignment (TM 5). 1.1 Background and Study Need In July 2008, the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) completed the Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study (known as the Hassayampa Framework Study), that recommended a comprehensive roadway network to meet the future traffic demands that result when the area west of the White Tank Mountains is completely developed (hereafter referred to as buildout travel demand). This long-range regional transportation network includes the “Arizona Parkway” as a new facility type to supplement more traditional roadway classifications in meeting projected travel demand. The Arizona Parkway utilizes a distinct intersection treatment that prohibits left turns at major cross-street intersections and controls intersection traffic movements with two-phased traffic signal control. Left-turn movements are made indirectly using directional left-turn crossovers in the median immediately downstream of cross-street intersections. The typical right-of-way width for an Arizona Parkway is 200 feet. The Hassayampa Framework Study recommended Yuma Parkway as an “Arizona Parkway” to meet buildout travel demands and provide a continuous parkway network. Although today’s land development and travel demands in the study area do not warrant a major new high capacity roadway in the short-term, the buildout forecast for future land development and travel demands does warrant a major new high capacity roadway in the long-term future. Plans are already underway to convert some of the vacant lands within the study area to land uses that will generate future traffic. The scope of work for this study includes the preparation of a corridor feasibility report that will provide Maricopa County, the Town of Buckeye, area property owners, developers, and other stakeholders with guidelines to preserve a 200-foot-wide right-of-way corridor to accommodate the typical Arizona Parkway design. This will require significant coordination with various governing bodies, other public agencies, development interests, and the general public. 1.2 Study Area The Yuma Parkway study area is approximately 13 miles long and two miles wide and is generally centered on the Buckeye Road/Yuma Road section line, from one-half mile west of 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report 1 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 Salome Highway to one-half mile east of Palo Verde Road. The study area boundary is shown in Figure 1. 1.3 Document Purpose and Scope The purpose of the Conceptual Drainage Report is to describe the existing drainage conditions in the study area. The drainage study was limited to the collection and review of existing drainage reports and studies, existing geologic and groundwater mapping, limited discussion with stakeholders, and field observations of existing drainage patterns and structures included in and adjacent to the study area. Hydrologic information from previous drainage and floodplain studies was compiled to present watershed subbasins and previously determined peak flow rates draining to the study area. This information provides an overview of the physical features of the study area pertaining to drainage and will be used in the development of feasible alignment alternatives. 1.4 Design Drainage Criteria Drainage design for the proposed parkway will follow criteria outlined in the Drainage Policies and Standards for Maricopa County, Arizona (Maricopa County, 2007) and Chapter 4.7 of the Roadway Design Manual (Maricopa County, 2004). A draft version of an update to the Drainage Policies and Standards for Maricopa County was distributed by Maricopa County for public review and comment in July 2010. 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report 2 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 Figure 1 – Study Area 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report 3 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 2. EXISTING STUDIES AND OTHER DATA SOURCES Numerous drainage, geologic, groundwater studies and other drainage-related documents have been prepared within or adjacent to the study area. A complete list of the existing documents reviewed is included in Appendix TM3-01. Summaries of the most relevant documents are provided in the following sections. The general order of presentation and discussion is from west to east. 2.1 Summary of Drainage Studies A map depicting the major drainage studies that are in the general vicinity of the study area is provided as Figure 2 at the end of this section. The drainage studies shown in Figure 2 that have direct relevance to the Yuma Parkway study area are briefly discussed below. These drainage studies were reviewed for descriptions of existing hydrology, drainage features, and existing drainage patterns. Most of these drainage studies were completed for the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC). 2.1.1 Palo Verde Watershed Detailed Floodplain Delineation Study Technical Data Notebook (Draft 2010) This FCDMC study aims to establish and refine 100-year flooding limits. The Palo Verde Watershed extends from the Big Horn Mountains to just east of Wickenburg Road. This study is a refinement of the 2003 Zone A Floodplain Delineation Study for the same watershed. The detailed study is not yet complete, but the draft hydrology report was available for review. Six of the studied washes cross the Yuma Parkway study area: Four Mile Wash, T1N-R6W-S17E, T1N-R6W-S08, T1N-R6W-S16, T1S-R6W-S27, and T1NR6W-S22N. 2.1.2 Hydrologic Study Report for Luke Wash Zone AE Floodplain Delineation Study (2008) The purpose of this FCDMC study was to develop detailed 100-year hydrologic models to delineate 85 linear miles of Zone AE floodplains and floodways. The analysis focused on Luke Wash and nearby tributaries of the Hassayampa and Gila Rivers, with six washes that cross the Yuma Parkway study area: T1S-R5W-S17, Phillips Wash, Dickey Wash, Luke Wash, T1N-R5W-S22, and T1N-R5W-S15. 2.1.3 500 kV Electric Transmission Structures Hassayampa River Hydrologic Engineering Services (2010) The Salt River Project (SRP) initiated the 500kV Electric Transmission Structures Hassayampa River Hydrologic Engineering Services (ETS report) in response to the January 2010 flood that exposed the foundations of transmission towers in the Yuma Parkway study area. The report included scour and lateral stream bank migration analyses for the Hassayampa River, and provided mitigation recommendations for the tower foundations. 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report 4 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 Figure 2 – Area Drainage Studies 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report 5 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 2.1.4 500 kV Electric Transmission Structures Hassayampa River Phase 3 Hydrologic Engineering Services (2011) This SRP report was completed after a single ring dike was chosen as the preferred alternative from the 2010 report. The ring dike would consist of a raised structure surrounding the power pole foundations and elevated above the floodplain. The ring dike would incorporate scour protection measures such as riprap, gabion mattresses or soil cement that would extend below the river bed to protect the tower foundations from scour and lateral migration of the river banks. This report provided additional hydraulic impacts and scour design for the selected option. 2.1.5 FLUVIAL-12 Modeling of Sand Mining Impacts for Lower Hassayampa River (2009) This study was prepared to assist the FCDMC with managing erosion and flooding hazards due to sand and gravel mining in the Lower Hassayampa River. The study presents a sediment transport model that simulates river bed changes in the vertical and horizontal direction. 2.1.6 Lower Hassayampa Watercourse Master Plan Phase 1 (2006) The FCDMC prepared Phase 1 of the Lower Hassayampa Watercourse Master Plan (LHWMP) to formulate technical guidance for managing flooding hazards, lateral migration of the watercourse, and cumulative impacts of existing and future development into the floodplain of the Hassayampa River. The river crosses the Yuma Parkway study area within River Reach 2, which extends from the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Bridge to just downstream of Interstate 10 (I-10). Phase 1 is complete and contains seven volumes; Phase 2 is currently under development and should be made available in the near future. Volume 2 contains hydrologic documentation – an analysis of stream gage records, a simplified HEC-1 model, and multiple previous studies were compared to examine peak discharges for the river. Volume 5 contains river behavior analysis – compiled and presented historical and existing fluvial processes in the river. 2.1.7 Hydrologic Analysis of the Hassayampa River in Maricopa County, Arizona (1988) This report was prepared for FEMA in order to estimate the 100-year discharge of the Hassayampa River for use in the corresponding FEMA Flood Insurance Re-Study. The study limits comprise approximately 53 stream miles from the Yavapai/Maricopa County line to the confluence with the Gila River. The Hassayampa River crosses the Yuma Parkway study area within this reach. 2.1.8 Buckeye Flood Retarding Structure #1 Rehabilitation Project (Ongoing) This project is currently under development by FCDMC. Buckeye FRS #1 is located along the north side of I-10 for 7.1 miles, extending from approximately the Hassayampa River to Oglesby Road (287th Avenue). The planning phase was completed in 2008, with overall rehabilitation being selected as the alternative to move forward into final design. 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report 6 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 2.1.9 Buckeye/Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Study (2006) This FCDMC Area Drainage Master Study (ADMS) identified drainage, flooding, and erosion hazards within the Buckeye/Sun Valley area and developed preliminary guidelines for development to be used as a basis of stormwater management. The Buckeye/Sun Valley study limits extend from the Hassayampa River to approximately the White Tank Mountains and Dean Road alignment. This overall watershed was subdivided into four hydrologically distinct areas, with the Yuma Parkway study area falling within Area 1, named the Buckeye Area. 2.1.10 Buckeye Area Drainage Master Plan Recommended Design Report (2009) This Area Drainage Master Plan (ADMP) was prepared for the FCDMC as a follow-up to the ADMS process described previously. The master plan study area extends from I-10 south to the Gila River, and from Airport Road west to the Hassayampa River. The Yuma Parkway study area crosses the ADMP study area. The ADMP provides regional drainage recommendations, including two proposed north-south channels: the Palo Verde Channel follows Palo Verde Road and the Johnson Channel follows an alignment ½ mile east of Johnson Road. However both of these proposed 100-year channels begin at the Roosevelt Irrigation District (RID) canal, which is located south of the Yuma Parkway study area. The ADMP also recommends constructing a regional retention basin one-half mile east of Johnson Road on the north side of the RID canal (outside the Yuma Parkway study area). The recommended master plan drainage improvements are shown in Appendix TM3-06. 2.2 Summary of Other Documents and Data In addition to drainage studies, data sources such as geologic investigations and groundwater records were reviewed for information on other regional physical processes that could potentially impact the Yuma Parkway study area. A summary of the most relevant data sources is provided below. 2.2.1 Geologic Map of the Wintersburg 7.5’ Quadrangle, Maricopa County, Arizona (2006) The AZGS produced digital geologic mapping and descriptions of the Wintersburg 7.5’ Quadrangle. This quadrangle encompasses the study area from 383rd Avenue to just west of the Hassayampa River. The descriptive map legend describes surficial and bedrock geology, geologic hazards and aggregate resources. 2.2.2 Geologic Map of the Buckeye NW 7.5’ Quadrangle, Maricopa County, Arizona (2004) The AZGS produced digital geologic mapping and descriptions of the Wagner Wash Well 7.5’ Quadrangle. This quadrangle encompasses the study area from the Hassayampa River to Oglesby Road (287th Avenue). 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report 7 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 2.2.3 Earth Fissure Map of Maricopa County, Arizona (2009) The AZGS produced a map summarizing the earth fissure mapping that had been completed in Maricopa County. It presents a graphical overview of the eight areas that have been found to have active earth fissures. 2.2.4 A New Earth Fissure near Wintersburg, Maricopa County, Arizona (2001) The AZGS produced a report on an earth fissure located approximately three miles south of the study area near Wintersburg. The report presents maps, photos, geologic setting, groundwater history, and discussion of the fissure formation. 2.2.5 Additional Giant Desiccation Cracks near Wintersburg, Maricopa County, Arizona (2003) The AZGS produced a report on giant desiccation cracks located approximately one-half mile south of the study area near Wintersburg. The report presents maps, photos, and history of development of the cracks. 2.2.6 Active Land Subsidence Areas in Arizona Based on ADWR InSAR Data (2009) This working document shows active land subsidence areas monitored by the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR). Interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) technology is used to measure temporal elevation changes in the Earth’s surface. The map covers the entire state of Arizona. 2.2.7 Land Subsidence Areas in the Buckeye Area, Western Maricopa County (2008) This ADWR map shows subsidence in an area roughly bounded by Johnson Road and Miller Road. Some of the active subsidence area is within the Yuma Parkway study corridor. The exhibit presents InSAR measurements of land subsidence between February 2007 and April 2008. 2.2.8 Uplift in the Vicinity of the Tonopah Recharge Facility (2010) This ADWR working document shows the extent of uplift, or elevation of the Earth’s surface, caused by the Tonopah Desert Recharge Project. The recharge facility is located approximately nine miles northwest of the study area adjacent to the Central Arizona Project (CAP) Canal. 2.2.9 Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI) (2011) The GWSI is ADWR’s primary repository for statewide groundwater data. It contains historical well levels and other background information for each well in the database, including the wells within the study area. The GWSI is an online product that is continuously updated as new field data is collected. 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report 8 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 3. WATERSHED FEATURES 3.1 Topography and Geology Most of the study area is fairly flat, particularly west of the Hassayampa River and north of the Salome Highway. The Hassayampa River, which crosses the study area roughly between the 315th Avenue and 331st Avenue alignments, is surrounded by rolling terrain, particularly on the east side of the river. A land form slope analysis map is provided in Figure 3. The region west of the Hassayampa River is described as Piedmont Alluvium in the Geologic Map of the Wintersburg 7.5’ Quadrangle, Maricopa County, Arizona (AZGS, 2006). This piedmont contains areas of young deposits associated with active or recently active fluvial systems and areas of older intermediate deposits associated with extensive relic alluvial fans. Wash channels are typically located less than two meters (6.6 feet) below adjacent surfaces. These areas without much local relief are of particular concern because of the potential for widespread inundation and changes in channel positions during floods. In the southwest corner of the study area, south of the Salome Highway, basalt lava flows cap several hills known as the Palo Verde Hills. These hills represent the greatest local relief within the study area, but are not expected to influence the alignment of Yuma Parkway since the future roadway will tie into the Salome Highway. The region around the Hassayampa River contains more undulating terrain and steeper slopes. The incised, sandy river channel width varies between approximately 500 feet to 2000 feet within the study area. The unit descriptions in the Geologic Map of the Buckeye NW 7.5’ Quadrangle, Maricopa County, Arizona (AZGS, 2004) suggest that the current Hassayampa River channel is 15 to 20 meters (49 to 66 feet) below the terraces formed by the maximum aggradation of the river. These terrace surfaces are dissected by tributary drainages and have been substantially modified by erosion. Within the study area, the higher terraces are much more preserved on the east side of the Hassayampa River than on the west side. Undulating terrain near river The region east of the Hassayampa River is described as Piedmont Alluvium in the Geologic Map of the Buckeye NW 7.5’ Quadrangle. This piedmont contains areas of young deposits associated with active or recently active fluvial systems and areas of older intermediate deposits associated with extensive relic alluvial fans. Local topographic relief varies from 0.5 m to 6 m (1.6 feet to 20 feet). The Arizona Geological Survey (AZGS) maps pertaining to the study area have been included as Appendix TM3-02. 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report 9 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 Figure 3 – Slope Analysis 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report 10 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 3.1.1 Land Subsidence and Earth Fissures ADWR has mapped an active land subsidence feature in the Buckeye Area based on measurements obtained between February 2007 and April 2008. The map entitled Land Subsidence in the Buckeye Area, Western Maricopa County (ADWR, 2008) indicates that there has been up to 0.5 cm (0.2 inches) of subsidence within the study area east of Palo Verde Road. South of the study area between Johnson Road and Palo Verde Road, up to three centimeters (1.2 inches) of subsidence has been documented. The extent of the land subsidence is included in Appendix TM3-03. Land subsidence in Arizona typically occurs due to groundwater drawdown. While subsidence is not considered to be a significant issue within the study area at this time, as water demand changes with future development, the increased potential for land subsidence (or uplift) should be considered when building infrastructure. ADWR is also monitoring an active uplift area caused by the Tonopah Desert Recharge Project. The recharge facility is located adjacent to the CAP Canal approximately nine miles northwest of the study area. As of March 2010, the facility’s groundwater plume and associated ground uplift had extended as far east as 355th Avenue and as far south as Buckeye Road. ADWR provided an exhibit called Uplift in the Vicinity of the Tonopah Recharge Facility (ADWR, 2010) that is included in Appendix TM3-04. This map shows that up to one centimeter (0.4 inches) of uplift occurred within the study area between 2006 and 2010. A review of recent well logs from the Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI) (ADWR, 2011) did not indicate a marked increase in groundwater elevation within the study area. These hydrographs and a map showing the four well sites have been included in Appendix TM3-04. However, the plume may continue to expand as groundwater travels towards the Hassayampa River and Gila River. The recharge project will probably not impact the selection of a Yuma Parkway alternative, but uplift or subsidence in this area should be monitored in future design phases, especially if the Tonopah Desert Recharge Project modifies the rate of groundwater recharge. The nearest documented earth fissure is located approximately three miles south of the study area near the intersection of the 363rd Avenue and Baseline Road alignments. Earth fissures are large cracks associated with differential basin subsidence, largely due to groundwater drawdown. Earth fissures pose a serious danger to roadways: extensive underground fissures can develop below the surface before anything is apparent on the surface, and filling exposed fissures is often only a temporary solution. A location map and photo of the fissure, where it crosses Baseline Road is included in Appendix TM3-03. More detailed information can be found in A New Earth Fissure near Wintersburg, Maricopa, Arizona (AZGS, 2001). No surface evidence of fissures has been found in the study area, but this does not guarantee that hidden or future earth fissures are not present. Giant desiccation cracks have also been found in the area, with the closest documented features approximately one-half mile south of the study area immediately west of Wintersburg Road. A location map and photos of the cracks, excerpted from Additional Giant Desiccation Cracks near Wintersburg, Maricopa County, Arizona (AZGS, 2003), are included in Appendix TM3-03. Desiccation cracks are formed by the drying out of finegrained soils. These cracks are not the same as earth fissures, but there is some evidence that desiccation cracks may significantly advance the development of nearby earth fissures. While no giant desiccation cracks have been identified within the study area, prolonged drought conditions may increase the probability for these cracks to occur within the area. 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report 11 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 3.2 Soils The National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) assigns soil map unit components to hydrologic soil groups to broadly indicate soils groups that have similar runoff characteristics. These hydrologic soil groups are shown in Figure 4. Most of the study area falls within Group B: soils that have moderately low runoff potential when thoroughly wet. These areas typically have a large proportion of sands and allow unimpeded transmission of water through the soil. However, the land west of the Hassayampa River contains significant areas that fall within Hydrologic Group C: soils with moderately high runoff potential. Soils in Group C typically have between 20 to 40 percent clay and less than 50 percent sands. Water movement through the soil is expected to be somewhat restricted. Three areas fall within Hydrologic Group D: soils with high runoff potential when thoroughly wet. One area is the exposed bedrock of the Palo Verde Hills southwest of the Salome Highway. The second area is the residential area bounded by Power Butte Road and 315th Avenue, and the third is a small area within the Buckeye Municipal Airport. Water movement in these soils is restricted or very restricted. Soils in Group D typically have greater than 40 percent clay or the depth to a water impermeable layer (such as rock) is less than 20 inches. Descriptions of the hydrologic soil groups were taken from Chapter 7 of the NRCS National Engineering Handbook Part 630 Hydrology (2007). Contributing watersheds that contain Hydrologic Group D soils should be carefully analyzed when designing downstream structures or roadways since precipitation events may result in very quick runoff responses. The LHWMP River Behavior Report (FCDMC, 2006) documented soil pit analyses (average depth of 6.6 feet) that were taken from the Hassayampa River floodplain within the study area. Pit results indicated that sediments were alternating loamy sand and sand, with the lower profile more sandy. Gravel was less than 10% throughout the profile, and no clay was present. Evidence suggested a geologically young surface with historically frequent inundation and no resistance to lateral erosion. Soil borings in the same area were also taken for the ETS report (SRP, 2010). These borings showed more than 30 feet of refuse depth before encountering bedrock. 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report 12 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 Figure 4 – Hydrologic Soil Groups 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report 13 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 3.3 Existing Land Use Technical Memorandum 1 (TM 1) presents a discussion of land ownership, zoning, existing land use, future land use, existing and planned developments, and existing and future transportation networks. The land use descriptions below are abbreviated versions of the TM 1 descriptions that pertain to drainage design. 3.3.1 Existing Land Use The predominant existing land use within the study area is natural desert open space, but there are large clusters of single family residential land uses west of the Hassayampa River. Appendix TM3-05 provides photographs taken during field visits of the study area land uses and major drainage features. Photo 650 (in Appendix TM3-05) shows undeveloped desert landscape that is typical of the land around the Hassayampa River, and photo 687 shows typical low density residential development along Buckeye Road west of the river. A few clusters of agriculture use are also present, with a large dairy farm located east of Johnson Road. The Buckeye Municipal Airport is located near the southeast corner of the study area. A limited network of two-lane paved roadways and unpaved roadways serve the existing properties, but there is not an existing Typical land use along Buckeye Road roadway that connects the east and west sides of the Hassayampa River within the study area. 3.3.2 Future Land Use According to Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) general plan GIS data provided by Public Works of Maricopa County (May 2009), existing vacant land within the study area is anticipated to be converted to primarily residential land use at buildout. The land west of the Hassayampa River is primarily planned to have low density single family residential uses. The study area east of the Hassayampa River is planned to have more medium/high density residential and multi-family uses. There are large areas of retail, office, and industrial land uses planned at major intersections throughout the study area, particularly near the Town of Wintersburg and within the Buckeye Municipal Planning Area Boundary (east of the Hassayampa River). These future land use patterns incorporate the land use plans for the large master planned communities in the study area vicinity. 3.4 Flooding Hazards 3.4.1 Regulatory Floodplains Floodplain and floodway delineations were based on the Flood Insurance Study, Maricopa County, Arizona and Incorporated Areas, FIS No. 04013CV001A (Federal Emergency 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report 14 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 Management Agency, 2005). Numerous FEMA floodplains drain through the study area. Figure 5 provides a map of the 100-year floodplain areas and also displays the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels containing the effective floodplain mapping. Both FEMA effective and FCDMC (typically pending FEMA approval) floodplain limits are shown on this exhibit. The watercourses west of 371st Avenue drain south to Centennial Wash, which is a tributary of the Gila River. Washes between 363rd Avenue and 339th Avenue drain south directly to the Gila River. Watercourses between 339th Avenue and Johnson Road drain to the Hassayampa River, which discharges into the Gila River. The study area east of Johnson Road does not contain any regulatory floodplains. The study area contains 15 regulatory floodplains. Floodplain encroachment is a consideration for the parkway alternatives, especially when crossing major watercourses like the Hassayampa River. The Hassayampa River 100-year floodplain is approximately 3,000 feet wide at the section line. Detailed hydraulic and sediment transport studies will be necessary to develop appropriate crossing alternatives for this highly dynamic river. Hassayampa River floodplain The crossings of Four Mile Wash and the drainage system near 371st Avenue also deserve further attention when developing alignment alternatives because each has a very wide floodplain. The Four Mile Wash 100year floodplain is approximately 3,300 feet wide. An eastern tributary of Four Mile Wash historically joined Four Mile Wash immediately north of the Palo Verde Hills, but the Salome Highway now acts as a partial barrier and forces the ponding of flood flows upstream of the elevated highway. This backwater flood zone is located at the intersection of Salome Highway and the Buckeye Road alignment, so it may be possible to avoid the floodplain with a Yuma Parkway alignment that ties into the Salome Highway further east (south of the section line). Four Mile Wash floodplain The regulatory 100-year floodplain of the drainage system near 371st Avenue is approximately 3,200 feet wide at the Buckeye Road alignment. There is little topographic relief in this area and the wash system may be distributary with multiple branching flowpaths. 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report 15 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 Figure 5 – Regulatory Floodplains 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report 16 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 Per discussions with the FCDMC Project Manager for the Palo Verde Detailed Floodplain Delineation Study, which is currently being developed, there will be three mapped flooding sources at this location: the wash known as T1S-R6W-S25 and two split flows of this wash. The detailed delineation study may result in three distinct floodplains with islands in between the flood hazard areas; however, it may also result in a single very wide floodplain, as currently shown on FCDMC mapping. 3.4.2 Alluvial Fans No active alluvial fans have been identified within the Yuma Parkway study area. Active alluvial fans are extensively documented north of I-10 near the White Tank Mountains, but the Buckeye Flood Retarding Structures effectively block the alluvial fans from extending south into the study area. 3.4.3 Scour and Sedimentation Scour and sedimentation associated with the Hassayampa River was analyzed as part of the LHWMP River Behavior Report (FCDMC, 2006). The Yuma Parkway crossing occurs in Reach 2 of the Hassayampa River, which extends from just downstream of the I-10 Bridge to just upstream of the UPRR Bridge. Total scour (not including local scour) in Reach 2 was estimated to be approximately 10 feet for the 10-year event and 15 feet for the 100-year event. The largest component of calculated scour was bend scour due to the sharp bends in the active river channel. Degradation of the Hassayampa River channel bed was not expected to be limited by the development of an armored layer of larger materials. Scour was also calculated for the transmission lines crossing within the study area as part of the ETS report (SRP, 2010). The report stated a total estimated scour of 9.5 feet and 11 feet respectively for the 25- and 100-yr flood events. A UPRR bridge located approximately four miles downstream of the study area is the nearest downstream bridge on the Hassayampa River. The LHCMP documented evidence of scour between one to three feet deep at the upstream face of three (of 12) piers, and no significant erosion of the abutments. The I-10 bridges located approximately 3,000 feet upstream of the study area are the nearest upstream bridges. The LHCMP found no evidence of scour at any of the 28 piers. The abutments were protected by rock riprap held in place by I-beam rails and chain link fencing, but a large scour hole on the east and a small cutbank on the west were encroaching on the upstream abutments. During the March 2010 field work conducted for the ETS report, some scour was observed around the west bridge abutment. Despite the large amount of sediment moving through the Hassayampa River system, historical channel slopes have been relatively constant, suggesting that the system is near sediment balance equilibrium (FCDMC, 2006). This equilibrium could readily change in the future if sand and gravel mining in the river or other disturbances reduce the sediment supply. Increased pressure to mine the Hassayampa River channel for sand and gravel is likely as development occurs in the area. The LHWMP River Behavior Report plotted historical river profiles and found that Reach 2 showed net aggradation between 1988 and 2004. In contrast, a HEC-RAS sediment transport model that was completed for the ETS report suggested that the long-term river behavior tended towards degradation, with a maximum degradation of 1.4 feet over the entire simulation period. The authors noted that the one-dimensional HEC-RAS model does not account for horizontal erosion processes; 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report 17 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 this is important in the Hassayampa River since lateral migration should tend to limit vertical erosion. Sediment issues are expected to be a potential maintenance concern for any Yuma Parkway culvert, especially since very high sediment loads have been associated with the Hassayampa River. The FCDMC provided photos of a significant flood event that occurred in January of 2010. One of these photos showing sediment deposition of the Hassayampa River near the Tonopah-Salome Highway has been included in Appendix TM3-07. Water can be seen flowing through the main channel in the background of the photo, and the foreground shows the overbank where slowing flows deposited approximately six feet of sediment. Photo 722 in Appendix TM3-05 shows the typical sedimentation that can be expected in Yuma Parkway culverts. 3.4.4 Sand and Gravel Mining Numerous active sand and gravel mining operations are present in the Hassayampa River. According to FCDMC records (2010), the nearest upstream mining permit is approximately 8,000 feet north of the Yuma Parkway study area near Indian School Road. The nearest downstream mining permit is along the southern boundary of the study area near the Lower Buckeye Road alignment. These and other active mining permits in the area are shown in an exhibit in Appendix TM3-09. Sand and gravel mines create deep pits in the flow channel – during a flood event sediment that is suspended in the water tends to deposit in the pits, leaving the water starved of sediment. This leads to degradation in the reaches downstream of large mining pits, such as the reach that passes through the study area. It is also possible that a headcut from the downstream pit along Lower Buckeye Road could propagate upstream during erosive flood events. Results from the FLUVIAL-12 Modeling of Sand Mining Impacts for Lower Hassayampa River (FCDMC, 2009) further document that sand and gravel mines in the Hassayampa River have the potential to greatly impact the long-term channel bed. According to the FLUVIAL-12 study, the model that includes all approved pits exhibits a bed degradation that is one foot more than the existing conditions model during a single 100-year flood event, and eight feet more degradation during the long-term flood series. Both of these values were taken at river station 9.45, which is the closest cross section to the Yuma Road section line. Additional results and plotted bed profiles from the FLUVIAL-12 study are included in Appendix TM3-09. It is expected that as development occurs in the region, pressure to further mine the Hassayampa River will increase. Ultimate mining pit configurations should be carefully considered when determining toe-down depths of any structure, such as a bridge or culverts, in the Hassayampa River. 3.4.5 Lateral Erosion Bank erosion from flood events is a critical concern for potential Yuma Parkway infrastructure. The LHWMP River Behavior Report (FCDMC, 2006) concluded that rather than undergo significant vertical changes in bed elevation in response to changes in flow or sediment supply, the river tends to migrate laterally. Both the LHWMP and the ETS report provide detailed analyses of river morphology within the study area. The active channel in Reach 2 was listed as varying between 100 to 600 feet wide. 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report 18 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 Vertical cutbanks within the limits of the study area, evidence of lateral migration, varied between two to eight feet at the time of the LHWMP field investigation. Cutbanks were typically located on the outside of large bends in the active channel. Bank materials in cutbanks were found to be composed of noncohesive, highly erodible fine-grained alluvium. Photos 662 and 663 in Appendix TM3-05 show wash banks in the study area that have recently eroded into near vertical cut banks. These banks are unstable and may continue to erode during successive flood events until a more resistant soil layer is encountered. Appendix TM3-07 presents photos and map exhibits showing the extent of bank erosion of the Hassayampa River during the recent January 2010 flood event. As shown in the map exhibit, the three SRP transmission line towers near the Yuma Road section line were originally built above the bank of the Hassayampa River. The bank of the river eroded approximately 265 feet during this single storm event, exposing the tower footings as shown in the photos and providing yet another indicator of the extremely erosive nature of the Hassayampa River. Analysis of historical lateral migration events in the ETS report indicate that internal forces such as pore water pressure likely played a larger factor in bank migration than external scour forces such as bend scour. Sloughed material at the toe of the banks, as seen in the photo at left, supports this conclusion. Vertical cutbanks Avulsions (when flows abandon a previously established channel in favor of a new drainage path) can unexpectedly form when some manmade or natural changes are made in the floodplain terrain. Yuma Parkway improvements should minimize changes to existing flow paths as much as possible, and provide adequate structural protection of the roadway at all wash crossing locations. Photo 700 in Appendix TM3-05 shows an example of bank stabilization measures that have been constructed within the study area. The LHWMP classified the Hassayampa River as having a naturally braided pattern, with the active channel pattern consisting mostly of a single channel within the study area. The river is subject to extreme rates of lateral erosion during small and large flood events. The active flow channel moves laterally on a frequent basis, except at confluences with major tributaries. The maximum reported change in channel position during a single storm event was 1,300 feet. The LHWMP included the delineation of Hassayampa River erosion hazard zones to safeguard future development from river bank movement. Existing erosion hazard maps and historical channel locations are shown in Appendix TM3-08. The ETS report redefined floodway and erosion hazard zones after the primary flow channel moved in the January 2010 storm event. These revised erosion hazard figures can be found in Appendix TM3-07. Wherever possible, care must be taken to locate foundations and structures, such as proposed bridge abutments, outside of the erosion hazard zones that have been delineated for the Hassayampa River. This system is highly dynamic and has a history of rapidly 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report 19 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 changing channels. If structures must be placed inside the erosion hazard zones, the ETS report provided some potential mitigation options: bank protection (such as soil cement), ring dikes, grade control structure or dumped riprap, training devices (such as bendway weirs), and detention ponds. The follow-up report, 500 kV Electric Transmission Structures Hassayampa River Phase 3 Hydrologic Engineering Services (SRP, 2011) provided further technical analysis for the selected mitigation measure: a single ring dike around the three transmission towers. As the proposed Yuma Parkway will likely cross the Hassayampa River near these existing towers, any design improvements in the area will need to consider both the existing towers and any associated scour countermeasures. 3.5 Existing Drainage Structures 3.5.1 Culverts East of the Hassayampa River, the existing paved Yuma Road contains numerous cross culverts. These culverts are typically corrugated metal pipe (CMP) with concrete headwalls. The design storm of these culverts is not known, but based on field observations they are only capable of containing relatively small flows. Erosion protection at outlets was not observed; however, little evidence of inlet or outlet scour was seen in the field. There are also twin reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) culverts at the Four Mile Wash crossing of the Salome Highway. These culverts appear to have grouted riprap instead Culvert near Palo Verde Road of headwalls at the pipe inlet and outlet. At the present time, there is little evidence of scour. Sedimentation does appear to be a maintenance issue for culverts in this area. 3.5.2 At-Grade Crossings The existing Buckeye Road features at-grade dip crossings instead of culverts at the eight study crossing locations west of the Hassayampa River. The larger washes have concrete aprons on the upstream and downstream sides of the at-grade crossings. Evidence of downstream undercutting of this apron, as shown in the photo at right, was found at the Dickey Wash crossing. As the intent of drainage design for Yuma Parkway will be to maintain existing flow patterns to the extent feasible, it is expected that more detailed hydraulic calculations will 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report 20 Dickey Wash crossing Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 be required if culverts are proposed at a future date. Care must be exercised to avoid adverse flooding impacts on upstream adjacent properties if the proposed roadway is raised for a dry crossing, and to avoid adverse flooding impacts on downstream properties by concentrating sheet flows at crossing locations. 3.5.3 Channels The only drainage channels observed during the field visit were at Stotz Dairy and Phillips Wash. An earthen channel has been constructed south of Yuma Road through the dairy property. This channel likely has been designed to convey both offsite flows and local onsite runoff from the dairy land. As with all the drainages east of the Hassayampa River, little offsite flow is expected due to the Buckeye FRS #1. The partial channelization of Phillips Wash occurs downstream of Buckeye Road. The wash bed is at the natural location, but a vertical gabion wall has been constructed along the east bank to protect 355th Avenue Stotz Dairy channel from lateral migration of the wash. This gabion wall is displayed in Photo 700 of Appendix TM3-05. 3.5.4 Buckeye Flood Retarding Structure #1 Buckeye Flood Retarding Structure (FRS) #1 is located immediately east of the Hassayampa River and north of I-10. This earthen embankment was constructed in 1974 to provide flood protection for the interstate and downstream properties. The embankment is approximately seven miles long and outlets west into the Hassayampa River. Yuma Parkway will not impact the Buckeye FRS #1, but the dam impacts offsite flows that reach the study area. The structure intercepts offsite flows that historically traveled south through the study area east of the Hassayampa River. This runoff is instead retained behind the dam; with excessive flows from large storm events being discharged directly to the Hassayampa River. If the earthen embankment were to fail when water is impounded, the entire study area east of the Hassayampa River could potentially be at risk of inundation. The potential inundation areas and flood depths/velocities from the Emergency Action Plan for the Buckeye Structures (FCDMC, 2007) are included in Appendix TM3-09. The FCDMC is currently in the design phase of a rehabilitation project for Buckeye FRS #1. Overall rehabilitation has been chosen as the alternative to move forward into final design. Based on conversations with the FCDMC Project Manager (2011), this alternative does not represent a significant change from existing conditions. The principal spillway capacity is approximately 400 cfs, which is much less than flood flows within the Hassayampa River. The emergency spillway is utilized only for events greater than the 500-year flood. 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report 21 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 4. EXISTING HYDROLOGY Various hydrologic studies have been completed that together encompass the entire study area. These existing studies were not necessarily performed to the same level of detail. Some studies, typically those intended for planning purposes, focused on broad drainage trends, featuring large subbasins and a limited number of concentration points. On the other hand, studies intended for floodplain delineation purposes typically used small subbasins and a large number of concentration points. To present a consistent level of hydrologic analysis throughout this study, offsite flows were reported at each location where a regulatory 100-year floodplain or a United States Geological Survey (USGS) “blue line” stream crossed the study corridor centerline. Regulatory floodplains can be FEMA effective floodplains or 100-year floodplains that have been recognized by FCDMC. USGS “blue lines” refer to intermittent and perennial streams that are shown (in blue) on the commonly referenced USGS primary series quadrangle maps. Table 1 presents an overview of the offsite hydrology concentration points examined for this report. The location of each offsite drainage crossing is provided in Figure 6. Drainage crossings 1-9 are located in the region west of the Hassayampa River. Crossings 10-13 are in the Hassayampa River region and Crossings 14-18 are located in the region east of the Hassayampa River. Six named washes exist in the study area. 4.1 Summary of Hydrology Methods Existing hydrology data for the study area was extracted for each of the 18 offsite concentration points from the following five studies: ƒ Palo Verde Watershed Detailed Floodplain Delineation Study Hydrology Study (FCDMC, Draft 2010); ƒ Hydrologic Study Report for Luke Wash Zone AE Floodplain Delineation Study (FCDMC, 2008); ƒ Hydrologic Analysis of the Hassayampa River in Maricopa County, Arizona (FEMA, 1988); and ƒ Buckeye Area Drainage Master Plan Existing Conditions Hydrology Update (FCDMC, 2008). Figure 6 shows the subbasins within each of these watersheds grouped by color. Concentration points in existing studies were used directly if located near the study corridor. If a crossing was not near a published concentration point, the peak flow was calculated as the contributing area weighted portion of the next downstream published value. The methodology used in each existing study is summarized as follows. The watersheds are discussed from a west to east direction. 4.1.1 Palo Verde Watershed The 100-year, 6-hour and 24-hour storm events were modeled for the Palo Verde Watershed using HEC-1 software, in conjunction with methods and procedures described by FCDMC. Drainage Design Management System for Windows (DDMSW) software was utilized to prepare the input parameters for the HEC-1 models. ArcGIS was utilized to prepare parameters for modeling purposes. 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report 22 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 Table 1 – Significant Offsite Drainage Crossings Crossing ID Nearest Cross Street Watercourse Name FEMA / FCDMC Regulatory Floodplain USGS "Blue Line" Four Mile Wash 388th Ave Yes Yes T1N-R6W-S17E th 387 Ave Yes No T1N-R6W-S08 th 379 Ave Yes No T1N-R6W-S16 th 377 Ave Yes No T1S-R6W-S27 th 376 Ave Yes Yes T1S-R5W-S17 rd 363 Ave Yes Yes Phillips Wash th 355 Ave Yes Yes 8 Dickey Wash th 350 Ave Yes Yes 9 Luke Wash 343rd Ave Yes Yes T1N-5W-S22 th 336 Ave Yes Yes 11 T1N-5W-S15 rd 333 Ave Yes Yes 12 Hassayampa River N/A Yes Yes 13 Unnamed Tributary to Hassayampa River Powers Butte Rd 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 14 Unnamed Tributary to Hassayampa River Yes Yes th 315 Ave Yes Yes th 15 White Tanks Wash 309 Ave Yes Yes 16 Unnamed Tributary to Gila River Johnson Rd No Yes 17 Unnamed Tributary to Gila River N/A No Yes 18 Unnamed Tributary to Gila River Palo Verde Rd No Yes 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report 23 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 Figure 6 – Offsite Hydrology Workmap 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report 24 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas 14 rainfall data was used to estimate the design rainfall depth for this study. FCDMC 6-hour local storm distributions for the 6-hour model and the SCS Type II precipitation distribution for the 24-hour model were used for HEC-1 rainfall distributions. The Green and Ampt infiltration equations were utilized for the estimation of rainfall losses. Topography used for the study consisted primarily of 10-foot contour interval mapping north of the CAP Canal and 2-foot contour interval data south of the CAP Canal. Aerial mapping (2008) was used to adjust subbasin delineations as appropriate. Normal depth channel routing methodology was utilized in the hydrologic model to route surface runoff through subbasins, and the Modified Puls method with stage-storagedischarge relationships was used for storage routing. Rating tables to determine flow splits were based on normal depth hydraulic calculations. The longitudinal slopes were estimated with ArcGIS based on existing topography, and Manning’s “n” values were based on field reconnaissance and aerial photography. Events were modeled for two separate conditions: a “With Levee” scenario that accounts for the effects of structures such as the CAP Canal, I-10, Palo Verde Power Plant, and Salome Highway, and a “Without Levee” scenario that ignores the embankments (FCDMC, 2010). Of particular relevance to the Yuma Parkway study, the Salome Highway near Four Mile Wash is one of the non-certified levees that is modeled differently in the two scenarios. In the “Without Levee” models the full flow is routed directly across the highway, but in the “With Levee” models some of the flow is diverted east. 4.1.2 Luke Wash Watershed The 100-year, 6-hour and 24-hour storm events were modeled for the Luke Wash watershed using HEC-1 software, in conjunction with methods and procedures described by FCDMC. Watershed Modeling System (WMS) software was used to develop the preliminary subbasin boundary delineations. DDMSW software was utilized to prepare the input parameters for the HEC-1 models. ArcGIS was applied to transfer databases available from FCDMC to prepare parameters for modeling purposes. Surface runoff from the subbasins has the potential to concentrate at more than one point. It was assumed that the concentration point was located at the hydrologic low point of the subbasin (FCDMC, 2008). NOAA 14 rainfall data was used to estimate the design rainfall depth for this study. FCDMC 6-hour local storm distributions for the 6-hour model and the SCS Type II precipitation distribution for the 24-hour model were used for HEC-1 rainfall distributions. The Green and Ampt Method was utilized for the estimation of rainfall losses. The SGraph method was used for the development of unit hydrographs. Normal depth channel routing methodology was utilized in the hydrologic model to route surface runoff through subbasins. An eight-point composite channel cross-section was developed to represent typical wash cross-section conveyance using 2-foot contour mapping. The longitudinal slopes were estimated based on general existing wash slopes, and Manning’s “n” values were based on field reconnaissance estimates. 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report 25 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 4.1.3 Hassayampa River Peak discharges at three existing stream gage locations were calculated using a Log-Pearson Type III statistical analysis of each site’s gage records. Yuma Parkway is upstream of gage station 95170 (Arlington) and downstream of gage station 95165 (Morristown), which had 22 and 30 years of recorded data, respectively. The study recommended using a 100-year peak discharge of 74,100 cfs at the Arlington gage station and 61,600 cfs at the Morristown gage station. The original published discharge (FEMA, 1988) nearest the study area was the Hassayampa River at I-10 with a 100-year peak of 74,800 cfs. Flow rates for locations between the previously described reference stations were calculated by interpolation using an attenuation rate per stream mile. 4.1.4 Buckeye Area Watershed The 100-year and 10-year, 6-hour and 24-hour storm events were modeled for the Buckeye Area Watershed using HEC-1 software, in conjunction with methods and procedures described by FCDMC. DDMSW software was utilized to prepare the input parameters for the HEC-1 models. The primary goal of this hydrology update was to update existing land uses in the hydrologic model. NOAA 2 rainfall data was used to estimate the design rainfall depth for this study. Rainfall distributions for the 6-hour storm were taken from the FCDMC Hydrology Manual. SCS Type II precipitation distributions were used for 24-hour models. The Green and Ampt Method was utilized for the estimation of rainfall losses. The S-Graph method was used for the development of unit hydrographs. Normal depth channel routing methodology was used to route runoff through subbasins. An eight-point composite channel cross-section was obtained from field surveys to represent typical wash cross-section conveyance. Some routing channels were expanded if they were incapable of conveying the 100-year peak discharge. Retention basin information of existing developments was collected from drainage reports or estimated from Buckeye’s 100-year, 2-hour retention requirement and accounted for in the storage routing. 4.2 Offsite Hydrology Results Detailed hydrologic analysis was not performed as part of this study. The existing peak 100-year flows for each major wash crossing of the study area are listed in Table 2. The wash information presented previously is also included to provide a comprehensive summary of the offsite hydrology at each crossing. Note that the contributing basins shown in Figure 6 have been trimmed at the section line, and the drainage areas reported in Table 2 reflect these revised areas. Table 2 indicates if the peak flow was taken directly from an existing study or if the discharge was calculated as a contributing area weighted portion of a published value. The concentration point or subbasin identification and storm duration used in each existing study are also presented. Excerpts from the original source documents of each respective hydrologic study are included in Appendix TM3-10. The regional watercourse within the study area is the Hassayampa River (Crossing 12). The peak flows presented for these large crossings in Table 2 reflect the effective FEMA discharges, but it should be noted that these values have been the subject of significant debate. A limited record of stream gage measurements were available when the peak flows were calculated for FEMA in 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report 26 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 1988 and new statistical analyses continue to be performed as more gage data becomes available. An analysis completed for the FCDMC as part of the LHWMP Hydrology Report (FCDMC, 2005) presented peak discharges that were much lower than the effective peak discharges. For instance, the Hassayampa River 100-year flow rate at I-10 was calculated as 39,000 cfs. The 100-year flow presented in the original 1988 FEMA report was 74,100 cfs, and the most recent FEMA effective flow is 75,164 cfs at this location. The USGS is also conducting a statistical analysis of their Hassayampa River gage records and should present results soon. However, despite the varying results it is unlikely that FCDMC and FEMA will adopt different regulatory flows for these reaches in the near future. The recommended design flows for the Hassayampa Rivers is the FEMA effective flow shown in Table 2. 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report 27 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 Table 2 – Offsite Hydrology Results FEMA / Drainage FCDMC Area Regulatory (mi2) Floodplain USGS "Blue Line" Calculation Method Existing Study Name Existing Study ID Storm Duration Peak 100Year Flow (cfs) Yes Yes published value Palo Verde FDS C760M 24-Hour 3,659 1.86 Yes No published value Palo Verde FDS C770C 24-Hour 1,674 379th Ave 0.73 Yes No published value Palo Verde FDS S800A 6-Hour 800 T1N-R6W-S16 377th Ave 0.10 Yes No published value Palo Verde FDS S800B 6-Hour 360 5 T1S-R6W-S27 376th Ave 5.53 Yes Yes published value Palo Verde FDS C910J 24-Hour 848 6 T1S-R5W-S17 363rd Ave 6.03 Yes Yes published value Luke Wash FDS C20h 24-Hour 1,045 7 Phillips Wash 355th Ave 8.34 Yes Yes published value Luke Wash FDS C40c 24-Hour 2,107 8 Dickey Wash 350th Ave 4.98 Yes Yes published value Luke Wash FDS C60b 24-Hour 1,571 9 Luke Wash 343rd Ave 1.09 Yes Yes published value Luke Wash FDS 36c 24-Hour 702 10 T1N-5W-S22 336th Ave 0.28 Yes Yes published value Luke Wash FDS 80b 24-Hour 404 11 T1N-5W-S15 333rd Ave 0.51 Yes Yes published value Luke Wash FDS 81b 24-Hour 495 12 Hassayampa River 1,450 Yes Yes published value FEMA FIS At I-10 6-Hour 75,164 13 Unnamed Tributary to Hassayampa River Powers Butte Rd 1.07 Yes Yes partial area pro-rate Buckeye ADMP A1 6-Hour 1,040 14 Unnamed Tributary to Hassayampa River 315th Ave 0.83 Yes Yes partial area pro-rate Buckeye ADMP E1 6-Hour 774 15 White Tanks Wash 309th Ave 0.53 Yes Yes partial area pro-rate Buckeye ADMP E2 6-Hour 342 16 Unnamed Tributary to Gila River Johnson Rd 0.87 No Yes partial area pro-rate Buckeye ADMP 1 6-Hour 308 17 Unnamed Tributary to Gila River 0.50 No Yes partial area pro-rate Buckeye ADMP 2 6-Hour 556 18 Unnamed Tributary to Gila River 0.07 No Yes partial area pro-rate Buckeye ADMP 2 6-Hour 76 Crossing ID Watercourse Name Nearest Cross Street 1 Four Mile Wash 388th Ave 17.92 2 T1N-R6W-S17E 387th Ave 3 T1N-R6W-S08 4 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report Palo Verde Rd 28 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The purpose of TM 3 is to provide an overview of the existing drainage conditions and patterns, including peak flows, for the study area based on available studies and data. The findings of this memorandum will help determine the preferred alignment for the proposed Yuma Parkway. Drainage structures and features in and around the study area have been identified and should be considered during the design of the future parkway. Peak flows reported in this memorandum have been compiled for planning purposes only. Discharges should be evaluated based on FCDMC drainage criteria during final design of the parkway. The impacts of crossing the numerous washes in the study area should be a significant consideration when developing and evaluating potential parkway alignment alternatives. Drainage structures, such as bridges and box culverts, necessary to convey flood flows under the proposed parkway will play a considerable role in both the cost and impacts of the project. Structures that are too large will result in unnecessary capital costs for the project; however, structures that are too small can cause substantial adverse impacts to adjacent properties and the environment and also result in increased maintenance costs. As a result, the two overarching goals of drainage design for Yuma Parkway are to minimize the impacts of the proposed parkway on existing drainage patterns, and to minimize the impacts of drainage on the parkway. Four Mile Wash is a major wash crossing that may be avoided with an adjustment of the proposed alignment for Yuma Parkway. The Four Mile Wash floodplain is approximately 3,300 feet wide at the intersection of the Salome Highway and the Buckeye Road alignment. If the Yuma Parkway alignment were to tie into the Salome Highway further east (south of the section line), the crossing could be avoided completely. Due to the nature of the study area, most wash crossings, unlike Four Mile Wash, are unavoidable regardless of the proposed alignment. At these locations, Yuma Parkway could cause incremental increases in inundation upstream of the road as well as increased flow velocities downstream of the road. As a result, the configuration and size of the drainage structures at these crossings are vital to avoiding adverse impacts to upstream and downstream properties. Avoiding adverse floodplain impacts are particularly important for the multiple drainage systems where flood flows are not contained in a well-defined channel, such as the drainage system near 371st Avenue. These watercourses typically have wide floodplains with shallow flow depths, and existing roadway crossings mainly consist of atgrade dip crossings. Concentrating flows to provide improved dry crossings of Yuma Parkway must be done carefully to avoid adverse impacts upstream and downstream of the project. The most critical drainage crossing within the study corridor is at the Hassayampa River. In addition to floodplain impacts, the location and size of this proposed bridge crossing should take into account the highly dynamic nature of the watercourse. The river has demonstrated a significant potential for lateral migration of the river channel, especially within the Yuma Parkway study area, as evidenced by the January 2010 flood which eroded the river bank and exposed the footings of several SRP transmission line towers. If possible, proposed bridge abutments and other structures, should be located outside of the erosion hazard zones that have been delineated for the river. In addition, while the river appears to be in dynamic equilibrium (i.e., no trends toward significant aggradation or degradation) any potential changes to the sediment supply, such as increased sand and gravel mining operations, could cause longterm changes to river bed elevation and further impact the proposed bridge crossing. 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report 29 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 Sedimentation is another factor that should be taken into account when designing proposed drainage structures. The high sediment loads associated with the Hassayampa River and its tributaries should be considered when sizing culverts. Undersized culverts can become easily clogged with sediment, which in turn can cause flooding problems upstream and possibly cause degradation downstream. Culverts should be sized appropriately to allow for the conveyance of sediment-laden flows, thereby maintaining the existing sediment continuity of the system. In summary, the most important drainage issue to be considered during the alignment alternatives analysis is the location of crossings at the Hassayampa River and other major washes. The location, configuration and size of these crossings will play a substantial role in determining both the capital and long-term costs of the Yuma Parkway project as well as the impacts to existing conditions. If properly designed, the drainage structures will meet the two-fold goal of minimizing the impacts of Yuma Parkway on drainage and minimizing the impacts of drainage on Yuma Parkway. 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report 30 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 APPENDIX TM3-01 DATA COLLECTION SUMMARY 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 Summary Table of Documents Reviewed - Kimley-Horn and Associates AZGS = Arizona Geological Survey ADOT = Arizona Department of Transportation ADWR = Arizona Department of Water Resources FCDMC = Flood Control District of Maricopa County FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency KHA = Kimley-Horn and Associates MAG = Maricopa Associated Governments MC - Maricopa County MCDOT - Maricopa County Department of Transportation LIBRARY KHA No. 500 kV Electric Transmission Structures Hassayampa River Hydrologic Engineering Services 76 500 kV Electric Transmission Structures Hassayampa River Phase 3 Hydrologic Engineering Services 79 A New Earth Fissure near Wintersburg, Maricopa, Arizona 80 3 7 68 67 74 8 9 61 Drainage Document Inventory ITEM Title 75 2 Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Data Collection Summary Description Author KHA Project No. 091337133 K:\PHX_Systems\091337133-MCDOT Yuma Parkway\Data Collection\Data Collection Summary.xls Discipline Source Aug 2010 WEST pdf BML Drainage Feb 2011 WEST pdf BML Drainage Nov 2001 AZGS pdf BML Geology ADWR Jul 2009 ADWR pdf BML Water AZGS Nov 2003 AZGS pdf BML Geology ADWR Mar 2009 ADWR CD BML Water ERTEC IInc. ERTEC, M 1981 Mar FCDMC df pdf BML D i Drainage INCA Engineers Oct 1997 FCDMC pdf BML Drainage Cannon & Associates Jul 1996 FCDMC pdf BML Drainage Dibble Engineering Mar 2008 FCDMC pdf BML Drainage Dibble Engineering Jun 2009 FCDMC pdf BML Drainage McLaughlin Kmetty Engineers Jul 1992 FCDMC pdf BML Drainage FCDMC Apr 1994 FCDMC pdf BML Drainage Examines hydraulics, scour, and sediment transport of Hassayampa River as it relates to the WEST Consultants tower foundations along the banks. Also presents mitigation alternatives Describes ring dike scour protection measures for selected alternative at transmission tower WEST Consultants foundations report, maps, geology, + photos on earth fissure and nearby giant desiccation cracks, Open-File AZGS Report 01-10 Active Land Subsidence Areas in Arizona Based map showing active subsidence areas on ADWR InSAR Data Additional Giant Desiccation Cracks near report, maps, + photos on cracks, Open-File Wintersburg, Maricopa County, Arizona Report 03-07 Shapefiles: recharge points, industry points, ADWR GIS Data CD-ROM depth to water and water level elev (Phoenix AMA only), irrigation polygons, hardrock as-built inspection report for 4.5 miles of 17.5' As-Built Report p Buckeye y Site 1 Drain Maricopa p d b k td i ttrench h for f Buckeye B k deep embankment drain FRS County, Arizona #1, includes plans at end of document Bridge Scour and Design of Corrective Measures presents 3 alternatives for scour for Old U.S. 80 Highway Bridge over countermeasures Hassayampa River Bridge Scour Assessment Reports for 16 Maricopa County Bridges Volume II Structure assesses scour failure for superflood at Old US Numbers 9427, 9588, 9999, 8038, 7818, 9154, 80 Bridge over Hassayampa River 9142, 7553 updates HEC-1 models from ADMS with newer Buckeye Area Drainage Master Plan Existing (existing) land use and limited retention basin Conditions Hydrology Update information describes various plan components to manage Buckeye Area Drainage Master Plan runoff. Study area is south of I-10. Also includes Recommended Design Report Conceptual Design Plans for recommended channels and detention basins. FEMA report to estimate 100-yr peak flows for Buckeye Area Flood Delineation Study Hydrology floodplain delineation. Study area is south of I-10 Report so not esp. pertinent to NP. documentation notebook for detailed floodplains Buckeye Area Flood Delineation Study Public along RID Canal, SPRR, and Buckeye Canal Notification and FEMA Forms RSD-1 Document embankments TRACKING Format/ Collected File Type By Date 1 of 4 Summary Table of Documents Reviewed - Kimley-Horn and Associates AZGS = Arizona Geological Survey ADOT = Arizona Department of Transportation ADWR = Arizona Department of Water Resources FCDMC = Flood Control District of Maricopa County FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency KHA = Kimley-Horn and Associates MAG = Maricopa Associated Governments MC - Maricopa County MCDOT - Maricopa County Department of Transportation LIBRARY KHA No. 84 66 64 62 63 65 10 11 12 13 70 14 15 58 Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Data Collection Summary Drainage Document Inventory ITEM Title Description Buckeye Flood Retarding Structure No. 1 study currently under development (in final design Rehabilitation Project phase) to fully rehab embankment Buckeye/Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Study Geomorphic Evaluation and Landform Stability focuses on areas 3/4 -- not relevant Assessment presents existing regulations, potential Buckeye/Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Study flooding/erosion impacts due to development, Guidelines for Development and proposed guidelines Buckeye/Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Study Technical Data Notebook Volume IV-B: Area 2 See title (Area 2 is from Hassayampa River to Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Floodplain Johnson Rd) Delineation Report Buckeye/Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Study Technical Data Notebook Volume V-A2: Area 3 Area 3 is north of I-10, so probably not relevant Hydrology Report Buckeye/Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Study short memos and erosion hazard setback Technical Memorandum T2.6.5 Delineation of mapping for area 2 and 3 Erosion Hazard Setbacks B k /S V ll A i M t St d overview i th project j t and d th Buckeye/Sun Valley Area D Drainage Master Study off the the ffour areas Volume I: Master Document Summary included. References the other eight volumes Buckeye/Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Study description of hydrologic methods and results for Volume III-A: Area 1 Hydrology Report Area 1 Buckeye/Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Study description of hydrologic and hydraulic methods Volume IV-B: Area 2 Floodplain Delineation and results for Area 2 Report maps showing groundwater conditions in the D.W.R. Hydrologic Map Series Report No. 10 Hassayampa Sub-basin of the Phoenix Active Management Area maps showing groundwater conditions in the West Salt River, East Salt River, Lake Pleasant, D.W.R. Hydrologic Map Series Report No. 12 Carefree and Fountain Hills Sub-basins of the Phoenix AMA maps showing groundwater conditions in the D.W.R. Hydrologic Map Series Report No. 27 Phoenix Active Management Area maps showing groundwater conditions in the D.W.R. Hydrologic Map Series Report No. 35 Phoenix Active Management Area Data Collection and Modeling Approach for Selected River Mechanics Tasks of Phase II of topo and hydraulic/sediment transport models, the Lower Hassayampa Watercourse Master mining photos Plan KHA Project No. 091337133 K:\PHX_Systems\091337133-MCDOT Yuma Parkway\Data Collection\Data Collection Summary.xls Author TRACKING Format/ Collected File Type By Discipline Date Source FCDMC pending FCDMC phone BML Drainage Ayres Associates Jul 2005 FCDMC pdf BML Drainage PBS&J Jan 2006 FCDMC pdf BML Drainage PBS&J Feb 2006 FCDMC pdf BML Drainage PBS&J Feb 2006 FCDMC pdf BML Drainage Ayres Associates May 2005 FCDMC pdf BML Drainage PBS&J Jun 2006 FCDMC pdf AOM Drainage PBS&J Aug 2006 FCDMC pdf AOM Drainage PBS&J Feb 2006 FCDMC pdf AOM Drainage ADWR 1982 ADWR pdf BML Water ADWR 1983 ADWR pdf BML Water ADWR 1992 ADWR pdf BML Water ADWR Nov 2002Feb 2003 ADWR pdf BML Water FCDMC Nov 2010 FCDMC CD BML Drainage 2 of 4 Summary Table of Documents Reviewed - Kimley-Horn and Associates AZGS = Arizona Geological Survey ADOT = Arizona Department of Transportation ADWR = Arizona Department of Water Resources FCDMC = Flood Control District of Maricopa County FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency KHA = Kimley-Horn and Associates MAG = Maricopa Associated Governments MC - Maricopa County MCDOT - Maricopa County Department of Transportation LIBRARY KHA No. 19 82 20 81 60 108 22 109 17 18 25 71 83 27 29 73 Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Data Collection Summary Drainage Document Inventory ITEM Title Description Earth Fissure Map of Maricopa County, Arizona AZGS Mar 2006 AZGS CD BML Geology FCDMC Apr 2007 FCDMC pdf BML Drainage AZGS Dec 2009 AZGS pdf BML Geology AZGS Feb 2009 AZGS pdf BML Geology LTM Engineering Jun 2007 FCDMC CD BML Drainage FEMA Sep 2005 FEMA jpg BML Drainage FEMA Sep 2005 KHA pdf BML Drainage FCDMC May 2009 FCDMC pdf BML Drainage AZGS Nov 2004 AZGS CD BML Geology AZGS Mar 2006 AZGS CD BML Geology ADWR Jul 2009 ADWR CD BML Water historical groundwater levels at four sites: B-01ADWR 05 10BBC, 33254111, 33263411, and 33264811 May 2011 ADWR pdf BML Water mapping of earth fissures location map of nearest earth fissure, Digital Map Series-Earth Fissure Map 10 flowcharts and downstream inundation exhibits for frs #1, #2, #3 effective FIRMs: panels 1980, 1985, 1990, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020 FIS No. 04013CV001A: description of general Flood Insurance Study Maricopa County, Arizona flooding issues in county, effective discharges, and Incorporated Area and flood profiles mobile boundary sediment transport model FLUVIAL-12 Modeling of Sand Mining Impacts for comparing existing conditions and scenario Lower Hassayampa River where all active mining permits are exercised G l i M k NW 7 5' Geologic Map off th the B Buckeye 7.5' DGM-37 Quadrangle, Maricopa County, Arizona Geologic Map of the Wintersburg 7.5' DGM-47 Quadrangle, Maricopa County, Arizona Access database of Groundwater Site Inventory: GWSI Database CD-ROM well ownership, historic water levels, construction data, etc. Hydrologic Analysis of the Hassayampa River in Maricopa County, Arizona Hydrologic Study Report for Luke Wash Zone AE Floodplain Delineation Study Hydrologic/Hydraulic Design Analysis of Proposed Sun Valley Parkway Crossing of the Buckeye Watershed Structure Land Subsidence in the Buckeye Area, Western Maricopa County 02/10/2007 to 04/05/2008 Discipline Source Earth Fissure Map of the Wintersburg Study Area: Maricopa County, Arizona Emergency Action Plan for the Buckeye Structures Flood Insurance Rate Map Maricopa County, Arizona and Incorporated Areas GWSI Hydrographs TRACKING Format/ Collected File Type By Date DI-05: Geologic Data for the Phoenix South 30' x 1:100,000 digital map of OFR93-18, in jpg and 60' Quadrangle shp formats Drainage Policies and Standards for Maricopa drainage standards County, Arizona Author hydrology for jackrabbit wash and hassayampa river completed for FIS Contains only the hydrology documentation (Section 4) of a larger study FEMA May 1988 FCDMC pdf BML Drainage Wood, Patel & Associates Sep 2008 KHA pdf BML Drainage summary of the analysis of the proposed improved interchange on the Buckeye FRS #1 Collar, Williams & White Engineering Aug 1987 FCDMC pdf BML Drainage map showing 1.2 yr subsidence (0 to 3 cm) ADWR Apr 2008 ADWR pdf BML Water KHA Project No. 091337133 K:\PHX_Systems\091337133-MCDOT Yuma Parkway\Data Collection\Data Collection Summary.xls 3 of 4 Summary Table of Documents Reviewed - Kimley-Horn and Associates AZGS = Arizona Geological Survey ADOT = Arizona Department of Transportation ADWR = Arizona Department of Water Resources FCDMC = Flood Control District of Maricopa County FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency KHA = Kimley-Horn and Associates MAG = Maricopa Associated Governments MC - Maricopa County MCDOT - Maricopa County Department of Transportation LIBRARY KHA No. 72 31 28 32 38 78 Drainage Document Inventory ITEM Title Land Subsidence in the Buckeye Area, Western Maricopa County 02/25/2006 to 04/05/2008 Lower Hassayampa Watercourse Master Plan Phase I Luke Wash Watershed Zone AE Floodplain Delineation Study Technical Data Notebook Maricopa County Drainage Policies and Standards National Engineering Handbook Part 630 Hydrology Palo Verde Watershed Detailed Floodplain Delineation Hydrology Draft GIS Subbasins 77 Palo Verde Watershed Detailed Floodplain Delineation Hydrology Study (DRAFT) 39 P l V d W t h dZ d l i Palo Verde Watershed Zone A Fl Floodplain Delineation Study Technical Data Notebook 40 Phoenix Active Management Area 47 69 Roadway Design Manual Special Provisions for Palo Verde Road T.I. Uplift in the Vicinity of the Tonopah Recharge Facility 57 Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Data Collection Summary Description map showing 2-yr subsidence (0 to 4 cm) Author ADWR seven technical reports intended to develop FCDMC guidance for managing the river floodplain 4 volumes. Report, survey field notes, supporting Wood, Patel & documentation, and exhibits. Associates TRACKING Format/ Collected File Type By Discipline Date Source Apr 2008 ADWR pdf BML Water Apr 2006 FCDMC pdf AOM Drainage Mar 2009 FCDMC pdf BML Drainage drainage guidelines MC Jan 2007 KHA pdf BML Drainage Chapter 7 Hydrologic Soil Groups NRCS May 2007 NRCS pdf BML Drainage Entellus Sep 2010 FCDMC gdb BML Drainage Entellus Sep 2010 FCDMC zip BML Drainage Entellus May 2003 FCDMC pdf BML Drainage ADWR Sep 2003 ADWR pdf BML Water MCDOT ADOT Apr 2004 Jul 1987 KHA FCDMC pdf pdf BML BML Roadway Roadway ADWR Mar 2010 ADWR pdf BML Water ArcGIS files showing hydrology schematics for With and Without Levee models documents hydrology for palo verde watershed detailed study - includes report, exhibits, and DDMSW/HEC-1 files. Study is still open and this Is not the final version 7 volumes. Hydrology, hydraulics, and floodplain d li ti ffor approx. 400 miles il off washes; h A delineation Area C and Area D cover western portion of NP study area. maps shows major infrastructure and grandfathered water rights guidelines for standard roadway design special provisions for bid document map showing ground uplift from 2006 to 2010 due to recharge plume KHA Project No. 091337133 K:\PHX_Systems\091337133-MCDOT Yuma Parkway\Data Collection\Data Collection Summary.xls 4 of 4 APPENDIX TM3-02 EXISTING GEOLOGIC MAPPING 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 Arizona Geological Survey DGM-47 (Wintersburg) Qi 3 Qi2 Qi 3 Qy2 Qy1 Qi 2 Qi 2 Qi3 Qy2 Qy1 Qi3 Qi3 Qi 3 Qy2 Qy1 Qy2 Qi3 Qi2 Qy Qi 3 Qi2 Qi2 Qy Qy2 Qi3 Qy1 Qi 3 Qi3 Qy1 Qi2 Qi Qi 3 Qi3 Qi 3 Qi 2 QTs Qi1 Qi 3 QTs Qy2 Qi3 Qi3 Qy Qi2 Qi 3 Qi 2 Qi 2 Qi3 Qi3 Qi3 Qy1 Qi 3 Qy1 Qi 3 Qy1? Qi 3 Qyf Qy1 Qi 3 Qy1 Qi2 Qy1 Qyf Qi3 Qi 2 Qyf Qy2 Qy1 Qi2 Qyf Qy Qi2 Qy2 Qi2 Qy1 Qi3 Qi 3 Qyf Qi3 Qy1 Qi 3 Qy1 Qi 3 Qy1 Qy1 Qy1 Qi3 Qi3 Qi3 Qi3 Qy Qi3 Qi1 Qi3 Qi 3 Qyc Qy1 Qi3 Qi2 Qi3 Yuma Parkway Study Area Qy1 Qi 3 Qy1 Qi 3 Qi3 Qi 3 Qy1 Qy1 Qi3 Qi 3 Qy2 Qy1 Qy1 Qi3 Qy1 Qy2 Qy1 Qy2 Qy1 Qy2 Qy2 Qy1 Qi 3 Qy Qy1 Qi 3 Qi2 Qtc Qy1 Qtc Qi3 @ Tbu @ Tbl Tbu Qy1 Qy1 Qi3 Qy1 Qy2 Qy1 Qy2 Qy1 Tbu Qy2 Tbu Qy1 Qi3 Tb Qtc Qy1 Qy1 Qy2 Qi3 Tb Qi2 Qy1 Qi2 Qi2 d Qy2 Qi3 Qi2 Qi2 Qi3 Qy1 Qy2 Qi3 Qi3 earth fissure Qy2 Qy1 Qi3 Qy1r Qi 2r Middle Pleistocene river terrace deposits – High intermediate terraces about 5 m above the Holocene floodplain of the Hassayampa River. Terrace surfaces typically are dissected by small tributary drainages but are smooth away from the drainages. Terrace deposits are a mix of river sand, gravel, and silt and clay, but surfaces typically are covered with relict gravel deposits. Soil development is moderately strong, consisting primarily of stage II to III calcic horizons. Qi 1r Early to middle Pleistocene river deposits – Deposits associated with the highest terraces along the Hassayampa River that record the maximum aggradation of the river. Terrace surfaces are broadly rounded, and the deposits are moderately to deeply dissected by tributary drainages and the river and have been substantially modified by erosion. Exposures are poor, but subangular to well-rounded gravel is evident at the surface. Terrace surfaces are also typically covered with litter from underlying indurated stage IV petrocalcic soil horizons. Qi1r terrace surfaces are more extensive than any of the younger Pleistocene terraces. Terrace surfaces range from about 10 to 15 m above the active river channel, and rise slightly to the north across the quadrangle. Qy2 QTsr Qy2r Qy2 QTsr Qy1 Qy2 Qy2 Qy1 Qy1 d d Qy1r Qy2r Qi3 Qy1 Qi 1r Qy1 Qi1 Qy Qy1 Qi 3 QTsr Qy2 Qi3 Qy1 Qy2 Qy1 Qi1r Qy1 Qy1 QTs Qy1 Qy1 Qy1 Qy1 Qy1 Qi3 Qy1 Qy2 Qy2 Qi3Qy2 Qy1 Qy1 Qi3 Qy2 Qy2 Qy Qi 3 Qy1 Qy1 Qy2 Qy1 Qy1 Qy1 Qi3 Qy1 Qy1 Qy1 Qi3 Qi2 Qy Qi 3r Qy1r Qy1 Qi2 Qy1 Qy2 Qi3 Qy1 Qi3 Qy1 Qy1 Qi2 QTsr Qy2 Qy1 Qy2 Qy1 QTs Qy2 Qi1r Qi2 Qy1 Qy1 Qi2 Qy2 Qi 3 Qy Qi 2 1 Tb Qi3 Qi3 QTs Qy1 Qi2 Qi 3r Late Pleistocene river terrace deposits – Deposits associated with low intermediate terraces inset about 3 m above the Holocene floodplain of the Hassayampa River. Deposits consist of sand, silt, and gravel, with weak to moderate soil carbonate (Stage I-II) accumulation. Terrace surfaces typically are smooth and are covered with fine-grained floodplain deposits, but relict gravel bars and lenses are found locally. Qi 2r Qy Qy2 Qy1 Qi 3 Qy1 Qy1 Qy1 Qi3 Qtc Older Holocene river terrace deposits – Sand, silt, and gravel deposits associated with slightly higher terraces along the Hassayampa River. Terrace surfaces typically are flat but rounded around their margins and are less than 3 m above the active channel. Terrace surfaces typically are covered with a fine gravel lag where wellpreserved but are quite fine-grained where eroded. Qi3r Qy1 Qy1 Qi 3 Qy1r Qy2r Qir Qy1 d Qy1 Topographic base from USGS Wintersburg 7.5' quadrangle. Compiled from aerial photographs taken 1960; Field checked 1983; Map edited 1984; Projection: Transverse Mercator, datum: NAD 27, UT M zone 12. Contour interval 10 feet. Magnetic declination 11½º east of true north. Qy2 Qy1 Qy1 Qi3 Qy1 Qi3 Qy1 Qy2 Qy1 Tb Qy1 Qir QTsr Qy2 Qy1 Qi 3 Qy Qi3 Qy2 Qy1 Qy1 Qi3 Qy1 Qi3 Qy1 QTs QTs area of dessication cracks Qy1 Qy1 Qi2 Late Holocene floodplain deposits – Sand, silt, and gravel deposits associated with the floodplain and low terraces along the Hassayampa River. Qy2r surfaces typically are smooth and are less than 2 m above the active channel. Terrace surfaces typically are covered with fine-grained floodplain deposits, but relict gravel bars and lenses are common. Qy2r Qy2 Qy1 Qi 2 Qi3 Qy1 Qy1 Tb Qy1 Qy2 Qy2 Qy1 d Qir Qy2 Qy1 Qy1 Qy2r QTsr Qy1 Qy2 Qy1 Qy1 Qycr Qi3 Qi3 Qy1 Qy1 Qy2 Qy1 Qy1 Qy2 Qi2 Qi 3 Qy2 Qy1 Qycr Active river channel deposits – Moderately to poorly sorted sand, gravel and minor silt in recently active channels and lightly vegetated bars of the Hassayampa River. Gravel consists mainly of pebbles with some cobbles; clasts range from subangular to well-rounded. QTsr Qy1 Qi 3 Qy1 Qy1 Qy1 Qi3 Qy1 Qy1 Tb Qtc Qi3r Qy2 Qy Qy2 Qy1 Qi 3 Qy1 Qyc Qy2 Qi 3 Qy Qi 3 Qi 3? Qy1 QTsr Qi3 Qy1 Qi 3 Quaternary and late Tertiary piedmont deposits associated with the Hassayampa cover the eastern margin of the Wintersburg quadrangle. Clast lithologies are quite diverse, but are principally mixed fine-grained volcanic rocks and granite. Clasts range from well-rounded to subangular in shape. Deposits range in age from modern to Pliocene. Qy2r Qi2 Qy2 Qy2 Qi3 Qy2 Qy1 Qi 3 Qi3 Qi 3 Qi3 Qy2 Qir QTsr SCALE 1:24,000 1 0 ½ 1 Mile s ^ MN Stratigraphic Correlation Qycr Location Index Map 1,000 500 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 0 ½ Qyc d Qyf Qy1 Holocene Qtc 1 Kilo meters # WICKENBURG TONOPAH # # NEW RIVER # CAREFREE PHOENIX # # BUCKEYE Qi3r contour interval 10 feet 200 6 MAGN ETIC NORTH DECL IN ATION Hassayampa River Deposits Qi3 Qir Qi Qi2r Qi2 Qi1r Qi1 Piedmont Deposits Qtc Pleistocene TORTILLA FLAT S # Map Symbols # GILBERT Pliocene to early Pleistocene river deposits – A sequence of old river deposits of unknown thickness that underlies the Qi1r terrace deposits. These deposits consist of river sand, gravel and silt with a substantial component of tributary sand and gravel. Local zones of substantial carbonate accumulation may represent moderately to strongly developed buried soils. Other Units d MARICOPA COUNTY QTsr Qts Disturbed areas – Much of the quadrangle has been disturbed by human activities, particularly agricultural activities. This unit designation is used only in areas of substantial excavation or anthropogenic deposition, for example, major flood-control levees. Quaternary hillslope talus and colluvium – Thin, steeply to moderately sloping, weakly bedded hillslope deposits mantling the middle and lower slopes of basalt hills. Deposits are locally derived and very poorly sorted, consisting of angular to subangular basalt cobbles and boulders with a matrix of sand, silt and clay. Older hillslope deposits have darkly varnished cobble and boulder mantles and relatively clay-rich soils. Bedrock Units contact, accurately located Wi ntersbu rg 7.5' Qu adra ngl e is loca te d in no rth western Ma ricop a Cou nty. Pliocene contact, approximately located # SENT INEL # GILA BEND @ @ @ @ earth fissure Upper basalt – Basalt lava containing 3-7% 1-2 mm mafic phenocrysts (pyroxene and/or iddingsite altered olivine), and 5-10% 1-4 mm plagioclase phenocrysts (samples: CAF-2-10637, 10638, 10639, 10643, 10649, 10650, 11343, 11344, 11345, 11346, and 11348) Tbl Lower basalt – Basalt lava containing 3-7%, 1-3 mm mafic phenocrysts (pyroxene and/or iddingsite altered olivine), and sparse 1-2 mm plagioclase phenocrysts (samples: CAF-2-10640, 10644, 10646, 10648) Tb Basalt lava, undifferentiated – Basalt lava containing 2-7%, 0.5-3 mm mafic phenocrysts (pyroxene and/or iddingsite altered olivine) with sparse plagioclase phenocrysts <2 mm (samples: CAF-2-10622, 10626, 10631, and 10635). Shafiqullah et al., (1980) report a whole rock, K/Ar age of 20.7 + 0.6 Ma for this unit, making it the oldest known lava from the Palo Verde lava field. Miocene Tbu area of desiccation cracks Arizona Geological Survey 416 W. Congress Street, Suite 100 Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 770-3500 www.azgs.az.gov Tbu fault; concealed, hypothetical Tb Tbl Geologic Map of the Wintersburg 7.5' Quadrangle, Maricopa County, Arizona by Philip A. Pearthree and Charles A. Ferguson and Raymond C. Harris Arizona Geological Survey Digital Geologic Map 47 (DGM -47), version 1.0 March 2006 Citation for this map: Pearthree, P. A., Ferguson, C.A., Harris, R. C., 2006, Geological map of the Wintersburg 7.5’ Quadrangle, Maricopa County, Arizona: Tucson, Arizona Geological Survey Digital Geologic Map 47 (DGM-47), version 1.0, 1 CD-ROM with 1 Adobe Acrobat file (1 sheet, layout scale 1:24,000). Not to be reproduced for commercial purposes Research supported by the U.S. Geological Survey, National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, under USGS award number #04HQAG0072. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Government. Acknowledgments The Flood Control District of Maricopa County provided high -resolution digital orthophotos that were used to accurately locate surficial geologic unit boundaries. Stevan Gyetvai was the cartographer for version 1.0 of DGM-47. Introduction The Wintersburg 7½' quadrangle is located 40 to 50 miles (70-80 km) west of downtown Phoenix. The map area covers much of the piedmont between the Palo Verde Hills and the Hassayampa River and a 7 mile (11 km) reach of the Hassayampa River. The quadrangle includes a portion of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) and Interstate Highway 10. It has experienced some suburban development associated with the PVNGS and is currently on the outer fringe of the greater Phoenix metropolitan area, so more development is likely in the near future. The small bedrock hills in the southwestern quarter of the quadrangle were mapped by Charles Ferguson in the spring of 2005. Surficial deposits that cover most of the quadrangle were mapped by Philip Pearthree using color aerial photos from 1979, high-resolution digital color orthophotos provided by the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC), and topographic information. Field checking was done in the spring, summer and fall of 2005. This mapping was done in conjunction with geologic mapping of the Flatiron Mountain 7½' quadrangle (Spencer et al, 2005) to the north, and this quadrangle map is one of eight 1:24,000 scale geologic maps covering most of the Hassayampa Valley that have been produced in 2004 - 2006. This mapping was completed under the joint State-Federal STATEMAP program, as specified in the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992. Surficial Geology The Wintersburg quadrangle is almost entirely covered with surficial deposits laid down by the Hassayampa River or numerous smaller tributary stream systems. These surficial deposits were mapped primarily using stereo pairs of color aerial photos taken in 1979 for the Bureau of Land Management, high-resolution digital orthophotos provided by the FCDMC, and topographic information obtained from the 7½' United States Geological Survey quadrangle map. Mapping interpretations were verified by field observations during the spring, summer and fall of 2005; unit characteristics were described and unit boundaries were spot-checked in the field. The physical characteristics of Quaternary alluvial surfaces (channels, alluvial fans, floodplains, stream terraces) evident on aerial photographs and in the field were used to differentiate their associated deposits by age and source. This mapping was compiled over a digital orthophoto base from 2003 provided by the FCDMC. Mapping was done in a GIS format and the final linework was generated from the digital data. Several characteristics evident on aerial photographs and on the ground were used to differentiate various alluvial surfaces and deposits associated with them by age and source. The color of alluvial surfaces is primarily controlled by soil color, desert pavement development and rock varnish, and vegetation type and density. Significant soil development begins beneath an alluvial surface after it becomes isolated from active flooding and deposition (Gile et al., 1981, Birkeland, 1999). Holocene soils typically have relatively subtle horizons and generally are brown or gray in the field and on aerial photographs. More distinct, relatively obvious soil horizons develop over thousands to tens of thousands of years. Typical soil horizons in Pleistocene alluvial sediments of Arizona are reddish brown argillic horizons (zones of clay accumulation) and white calcic horizons (zones of calcium carbonate and silica accumulation). In arid areas such as the lower Hassayampa Valley, clay accumulation and reddening associated with argillic horizon development tend to be relatively weak even on old alluvial surfaces. On color aerial photographs and on the ground, older alluvial surfaces characteristically appear slightly redder or distinctly whiter (on more eroded surfaces) than younger surfaces. Dark rock varnish and gravel pavements also develop with time on stable alluvial surfaces, so well-preserved older surfaces typically have a dark brown color. Differences in the drainage patterns between surfaces also provide clues to surface age. Young alluvial surfaces commonly display distributary (branching downstream) or anastomosing (branching and rejoining) channel patterns. Areas adjacent to active channels commonly have little channel development because unconfined shallow flooding predominates. Dendritic tributary (joining downstream) drainage patterns are characteristic where modern drainages are incised into older surfaces. Topographic relief between adjacent alluvial surfaces and the depth of entrenchment of channels can be determined using stereo-paired aerial photographs and topographic maps. Young surfaces are minimally dissected and are less than 1 m above channel bottoms. Active channels are entrenched 1 to 5 m below Pleistocene alluvial surfaces, and the older surfaces typically have been moderately to severely rounded by erosion. Ages of various surficial deposits of the map area were roughly estimated based on regional correlations to similar surficial deposits in southern Arizona. Variations in the distribution of surfaces of different ages and sources and concomitant variations in dissection across the quadrangle provide evidence regarding the recent geologic evolution of this area. Generally, areas along the Hassayampa River are moderately to deeply dissected. The highest terrace remnants of the Hassayampa River (unit Qi1r) record the level of the river bed in the early to middle Quaternary. Qi1r terraces cap a several hundred meter thick aggradational sequence that was deposited during late Tertiary to early Quaternary (units QTs and QTsr) (Shoustra et al., 1976). Adjacent piedmont areas to the west and north were aggrading in the late Pliocene and early Quaternary as well (unit QTs). At that time the river was probably was depositing sediment across a fairly broad floodplain in the eastern part of the quadrangle, and distal alluvial fans on both sides of the river were interfingering with the river floodplain. Since then the Hassayampa River has downcut 10 to 15 m, with incision increasing slightly to the north. Preservation of Pleistocene river terraces recording intermediate levels of the Hassayampa River is poor. The valley bottom along the Hassayampa River consists almost entirely of modern channel deposits (unit Qycr) and late Holocene floodplain deposits (Qy2r). Tributary washes immediately west and east of the Hassayampa River have downcut in response to incision of the river, and late Quaternary deposits are quite limited in extent along these drainages. In the western 2/3 of the quadrangle, piedmont washes drain to the south to the Gila River or Centennial Wash, a sizable tributary of the Gila River. Much of this piedmont is mantled by Pleistocene tributary deposits (units Qi1, Qi2, or Qi3). Older Pleistocene deposits (Qi1 and Qi2) have been eroded into broadly rounded ridges. The relatively small tributary washes that drain this area are incised less than a few meters below adjacent Pleistocene alluvial surfaces. Even though the amount of net incision is modest, there is enough topographic confinement of active fluvial systems that late Pleistocene deposits typically are found on the fringes of the eroded middle Pleistocene ridges, and Holocene deposits are found on valley bottoms. Agricultural activity, more recent residential development, aggregate pits and the PVNGS have modified the landscape to greater or lesser degrees. Areas are mapped as “disturbed” where the surficial deposits are profoundly altered (gravel pits, nuclear plant, interstate highway); surficial deposits other areas with less profound disturbance are depicted with concealed (dotted) contacts. Bedrock Geology Basalt lava flows cap several hills in the southwest corner of the map area. The basalt is part of an extensive lava field known as the Palo Verde Hills lava field. The flows were sampled extensively in and around the PVNGS prior to its construction. The lavas range in age from 16.9 to 20.7 Ma (Shoustra et al., 1976; Shafiqullah et al., 1980). In general, the lavas are gently dipping, but locally, dips of up to 70 degrees have been reported for lavas to the west of this map area (Shafiqullah et al., 1980). The westernmost hills, which lie directly north of the PVNGS, are divided into two map units. A gently northeast-dipping contact between the units, concealed by colluvium, is interpreted to be present on the westernmost hill. The upper lava contains abundant mafic (pyroxene and/or olivine), and plagioclase phenocrysts (Tbu). The lower lava contains only mafic phenocrysts (Tbl). Similar units are found in the low hills just to the east. Two interpretations are possible for the volcanic stratigraphy and structure of this area. The simplest interpretation, which is depicted on the map, shows the sequence of upper and lower lavas repeated by a southwest-side-down normal fault with modest (50-100 m) displacement. An alternative interpretation is that there is no fault, but that the volcanic stratigraphy is more complex, with intertonguing flows of different composition. The pair of hills lying to the east of the PVNGS are composed of amalgamated flows of mafic phenocrystporphyritic basaltic lava (Tb) that appear to dip moderately to the southwest. These lavas were interpreted by Shafiqullah et al. (1980) to represent the oldest in the area. This sequence may correlate with the Tbl map unit, but since there are no other types of lava in the area, and since the flows dip in the opposite direction these rocks are mapped as undifferentiated basalt lava (Tb). The difference in dip between the eastern and western hills implies that an intervening structure may exist. Geologic Hazards and Aggregate Resources The geomorphology and surficial geology of the quadrangle provide clues to the extent and character of flood hazards and the availability of aggregate resources. Geologically young fluvial deposits (units Qy c, Qy2, and locally Qy1 along tributary washes and units Qycr, Qy2r along the Hassayampa River) record recent fluvial activity. The Hassayampa River is incised and flooding is restricted to the valley bottom. The fact that the valley bottom is covered almost entirely by late Holocene deposits strongly suggests that the valley bottom is the floodplain, and all portions of it have been subjected to recent inundation and deposition. Flooding is restricted to relatively narrow corridors along the incised tributary was hes that drain directly to the Hassayampa. Flood-prone areas are somewhat more extensive in the western 2/3 of the quadrangle where incision is modest. Valley bottoms covered with young deposits but channels are quite small, implying that shallow sheet flooding and bank erosion along channels are the principal flood hazards. Although valley bottoms are fairly wide, there are no major distributary channel networks or active alluvial fans on the piedmont. Aggregate resources were extracted from several small pits in piedmont surficial deposits near Interstate Highway 10, probably for construction of the highway. Two larger aggregate operations are currently active along the Hassayampa River north of Interstate 10. These operations are apparently mining aggregate primarily from Holocene river deposits, but they may be drawing upon older river deposits as well. The potential for useful aggregate resources in older river deposits that flank the modern floodplain is not known because the thickness of these deposits is uncertain. Pleistocene river deposits, undifferentiated. Qy2 Qy Qy1r 11½º 1 Qy2r 7,000 Fe et Middle and late Pleistocene alluvial deposits, undifferentiated. undiff f erentiated. Early Pleistocene to Pliocene alluvium – Unit QTs is composed of eroded alluvial fan deposits, locally overlain by younger Quaternary units. QTs deposits typically are poorly exposed on ridge slopes, in wash banks, and in channels as strath terraces. The thickness of QTs deposits is variable, but certainly is at least tens of meters (Shoustra et al., 1976). In the shallow subsurface, unit QTs includes an extensive clay-rich unit (the Palo Verde clay) that is older than 2 Ma (Shoustra et al., 1976). Surface exposures of QTs include poorly sorted, subangular to subrounded, carbonate cemented, tan, pebble to cobble conglomerates, moderately to well sorted, subangular to subrounded, moderately indurated, cross-bedded, red, pebbly sandstones, and buried paleosols. Hassayampa River Alluvium QTsr Qy1 Qy2 Qi 3 Qi3 Qi3 Qy2 Qy2 Qi 3r Qi Qi 3 Qy1 Qi3 Qi 3 Qi 3 Qi 3 @ Qy Qy2 Qy1 Qi3 Qy2r Qy2 QTsr Qi1r Qi1 Qi3 Qy1 Qy1 Qy1 Qy1 QTsr Qi3 Qi 3 Qyc Qi3 Qy1 Qi3 Qtc Qi3 @ Qtc Qi 3 Qy1 Qi3 Qi2 Qi3 Tbu Tbl @ QTsr Qi 3 Qy1 Qi 3 Qi3 Qycr Qy1 Qy2 Qi 3 Qy1 Qy2 Qi 3 Qy1 Qi 3 Qi 3 Tbu Qy1 Qy Qi 3r Qy2 Qi 3 Qi3 Qi 3 Qi 3 Qi 3 Qy2 Qi 3 Qi 3 Qi 3 Qi 3 Qy2 Qy1 Qy1 Qy2 Qi QTs QTsr Qi 3 Qi3 Qi 3 Qi3 Qy1 Qy1 Qy2 Qy2 Qy1 Qy1 Qy1 Qi 3 Qy Qi 3 Qi3 Qy2 Qy1 Qy1 Qi 3 Qy Qi 3 Qi3 Qy1 Middle Pleistocene alluvium – Unit Qi 2 is composed of moderately dissected relict alluvial fans and terraces with moderate soil development. Qi 2 surfaces are drained by broad swales and well-developed, moderately incised tributary channel networks; channels are typically 1-2 meters below adjacent Qi 2 surfaces. Well-preserved, planar Qi2 surfaces are smooth with pebble and cobble pavements; surface color is reddish brown; surface gravel clasts are moderately to strongly varnished. More eroded, rounded Qi2 surfaces are characterized by strongly varnished, scattered, cobble to pebble lags. Soils associated with planar surface remnants typically contain reddened (5 to 7.5 YR), clay loam argillic horizons, with clay coatings and subangular blocky structure. Underlying soil carbonate development is typically stage III with areas to stage IV, and abundant carbonate through at least 1 m of the soil profile. In more eroded locations, argillic horizons have been removed and soils are cal cic throughout. Qy1 Qy1 Qy1 Qy2r QTsr Qi1 Qi1 Qy2 Qi 3 Qi 3 Qi2 Qy1 Qy1 Qy2r Qi3 Qy1 Qy1 Qy1 Tbl Qy2r Qi 1r QTsr Qi3 Qi3 Qi2 Tbu Qyc QTsr Qi3r Qi1 Qy1 Qi3 Qy1 Qi 1r Qi Qy2 Qi 3 Qy2 Qy1 Qy1 Qi3 QTsr Qy1 Qy2 Qy2 Qi3 Qy Qi3 Qi 3 Qy2 Qy2 Qi3r Qy2 Qyc Qy2 Qi 3 Qy1 Qi3 Qy1 Qy1 Qtc Qy1 Qi 3 Qi 2 Qy1 Qi3 Qy1 d Qi2 Qy1 Qy1 Qi 3 Qy1 Qy1 Qy1 Qy2 Qy2 Qi 3 Qi3 Qi 3 Qy2 Qy1 Qi2 Qi 1 Qi3 Qi3 Qy1 Qi 3 Qy1 QTsr Qy1 Qy2 Qy1 Qy1 Qi 3 Qi 3 Qy2r QTsr Qy2 Qy1 Qy1 Qy2 Qy2 QTs Qi 3 Qi 3 Qy1 Qy1 Qy2r Qi 3 Qy1 Qy Qy1 Qy2 Qy1 Qi 3 Qi 3 Qy1 Qi 3 QTsr Qi 3 Qi 2 Qy Qy1 Qy1 Qy2 Qy1 Qy1 Qy1 Qy1 Qy2 Qy2r Qi2r Qi1 Qy2 Qi1 Qyc QTs Qi 3 Qy1 Qy2 Qy1 Qy1 Qi1r Qy2r Qy2 Qy1 Qi 3 Qy1 Qi1 Qi3 Qy2 Qy1 QTsr Qi 3 Qy2 Qy2 Qi3 Qy2 Qi2 Qy1 Qy1 Qi 3 QTsr Qy2r Qi 3 Qi1 Qy1 Qi3 Qi 3 Qy1 Qy1 Middle to late Pleistocene alluvium – Unit Qi2 is composed of moderately dissected relict alluvial fans and terraces with moderate soil development. Qi 2 surfaces are drained by broad swales and well-developed, moderately incised tributary channel networks; channels are typically 1-2 meters below adjacent Qi 2 surfaces. Wellpreserved, planar Qi 2 surfaces are smooth with pebble and cobble pavements; surface color is reddish brown; surface gravel clasts are moderately to strongly varnished. More eroded, rounded Qi 2 surfaces are characterized by strongly varnished, scattered, cobble to pebble lags. Soils associated with planar surface remnants typically contain reddened (5 to 7.5 YR), clay loam argillic horizons, with clay coatings and subangular blocky structure. Underlying soil carbonate development is typically stage III with areas to stage IV, and abundant carbonate through at least 1 m of the soil profile. In more eroded locations, argillic horizons have been removed and soils are calcic throughout. Qi1r Qy1 Qy2 undiff f erentiated. Holocene alluvial deposits, undifferentiated. Qi 2 QTsr Qy2r Qy1 Qy1 Qi2 Qy1 Qy1 QTs Fine-grained Holocene alluvium – Thin, fine-grain Holocene alluvial deposits formed in swales on ridges of mid-Pleistocene fan deposits. These deposits are very thin, typically less than 0.5 m thick, but locally may be 1 m or more thick. Sediment typically is brown (7.5 YR) mainly silt and sand, with occasional deposits of open, unvarnished, fine gravel lag. Soil development is minimal, with substantial disseminated carbonate but little visible carbonate accumulation. Qi3 Qy1 Qi3 Qy1 Qi 3 Qy1 Qy1 Qi3 Qi3 Qy2 Qy Qy Qy2 Holocene alluvium – Older Holocene terrace deposits found mostly along the margins of incised drainages throughout the map area. Qy 1 surfaces are higher and less subject to inundation than adjacent Qy 2 surfaces. Qy1 terraces are generally planar but local surface relief may be up to 1 m where gravel bars are present. Qy 1 surfaces are <2 m above adjacent active channels. Surfaces typically are sandy but locally have unvarnished open fine gravel lags or pebble and cobble deposits. Qy1 soils typically are brown in color (7.5 to 10 YR) with weakly developed stage I calcium carbonate accumulation (see Machette, 1985, for description of stages of calcium carbonate accumulation in soils). Late Pleistocene alluvium – Unit Qi3 is composed of slightly dissected relict alluvial fans and terraces. Active channels are incised up to about 2 m below Qi 3 surfaces, and Qi3 fans and terraces generally are lower in elevation than adjacent older surfaces. Qi3 deposits consist of pebbles, cobbles, and finer-grained sediment. Qi 3 surfaces commonly are fairly smooth with weak bar and swale topography and loose to moderately packed pebble and cobble pavements. Surface gravel clasts typically exhibit weak to moderate brown rock varnish but some surfaces in the northern part of the quadrangle that are mainly composed of fine-grained volcanics are more darkly varnished. Qi3 soils are moderately developed, with brown loamy (7.5 YR) nearsurface horizons and stage II calcium carbonate accumulation. Qi2 Qy1 Qy1 Qy1 Qy2 QTsr Late Holocene alluvium – Young, typically fine-grained deposits in floodplains, low terraces and small channels. Along the larger drainages, unit Qy 2 sediment is generally poorly to very poorly sorted silt, sand, pebbles, and small cobbles; floodplain and terrace surfaces typically are mantled with sand and finer sediment. On lower piedmont areas and in smaller tributary washes young deposits consist predominantly of moderately sorted sand and silt, with some pebbles and cobbles in channels. Soils are pale brown in color (10 YR), and soil development is very weak, consisting of slight carbonate accumulation. Channels generally are incised less than 1 m below adjacent young surfaces, but locally incision may be as much as 2 m. Channel morphologies generally consist of a single- or multi-threaded channels with gravel bars adjacent to low flow channels. Channels are flood prone and may be subject to deep, high velocity flows in large flow events. Substantial lateral bank erosion may occur in these deposits, and flood flows may significantly change channel morphology and flow paths. Local relief varies from fairly smooth channel bottoms to undulating bar-and-swale topography that is characteristic of coarser deposits. Terraces have planar surfaces, but small channels are common. Qi 3 Qi 2r Qi3 Qyc Qy Qy2 Qi3 Qy Qi1r Qyc Qy1 Qi1 Qi 3 Qy1 Qy1 Qi3 Qy1 Qi3 Qy2 Qi 2 Qi2 Qi 3 Qy1 Qy2r QTsr Qi3 Qy1 Qy2 Qy1 Qy1 d QTsr Qy2r Qy2 Qy2 Qy2 Qi3 Qi 1r Qi1r Qy Qy2 Qi2r Qi3 Qy2 Qi3 Qi2 Qy2 Qy1 Qy2 Qy1 Qi3 Qy1 QTsr Qy1r Qy2 Qi 3 Qy2 d QTs QTs Qy1 Qi 1r Qy2 d Qy2 d Qy2 Qi1 Qi3 Qi2 Qy2 Qi3 Qi1 Qy1 Qi3 Qyf Qy Qy2r Qy1 Qy2 Qy2 Qi3 Qy1 Qy1 Qi Modern stream channel deposits – Active channel deposits composed of very poorly-sorted sand, pebbles, and cobbles with some boulders to moderately-sorted sand and pebbles. Channels are generally incised 0.5 to 2 m below adjacent Holocene terraces and alluvial fans, but may be incised as much as 4 m below adjacent Pleistocene deposits. Channel morphologies generally consist of a single thread, relatively deep channel or multi-threaded smaller, shallower channels with gravel bars. Channels are extremely flood prone and are subject to deep, high velocity flow in moderate to large flow events. Areas adjacent to Qy c deposits may be prone to lateral bank erosion. QTsr Qy2 Qy1r Qy2r d Qy2 Qi2 Qi3 Qy1r Qy1 Qi2 Qi 3 Qy2 Qy1 Qy Qy1r Qy2 Qyc Qi 3 Qi 3 Qi 3 Qy1 Qy1 Qi3 Qi3 Qyf Qi3 Qy1 Qi 2 Qyc Qi3 Qy2 Qi 3 Qi3 Qy1 Qi3 Qy Qy2r Qy1 QTs Qi1 Qy2 Qy2 Qi 3 Qy1 Qy2 Qyc QTs QTs Qi 3 Qi2 Qi 3 Qy1 Qy2 Qy2 Qi 3 Qi 3 Qi 1 Qy2 Qy1 Qy1 Qy1 Qy2 QTs Qi 2 Qy2 Qi3 Qi1 Qy1 Qi 3 Qi 3 Qy1 Qi 3 Qi 3 Qi 3 Qi 3 Qy2r QTsr Qi3 Qi2 Qy2r Qi 3 Qi2 Qi 3 Qi 3 Qi3 Qi 3 Qi3 Qi 3 Qyc Qyf Qi 3 Qi3 Qyf Qy1 Qi 3 Qi3 Qy1 Qy2 Qi3 Qi 3 Qy1 Qy1 Qi3 Qyf Qi3 Qy2r Qy2r Qi 3 Qi3 Qyf Qy1r Qy1 Qy2 Qi 3 Qi 3 Qy1 QTs Qy Qy1r Qy2r Qy2 Qi 3 QTs Qi 3 Qi 3 Qi 3 Qi 3 Qy1 Qy1 QTsr Qy1 d Qi2 Qi 3 Qi2 Qi 3 d Qi3 Qy2 Qi2 d Qi 2 Qi2 Qi 3 Qi3 Qy1r Qy2r Qy1 Qi3 Qyf Qi3 Qyf QTs Qi 3 Qi 3 Qi3 Qi 3 Qi3 Qi3 Qi 2 Qi3 Qi3 QTs Qycr Qy1 Qy2 Qi3 Qy2 Qy2r Qy2 Qy1r Qy2 Qi3 Qy1 Qy1 Qi 3 d Qi3 Qi3 Qyf Qi 2 Qi 3 Qyf Qy2 Qi3 Qi 3 Qy2 Qy1 Qy2 Qy1 Qi2 Qy2r Qyc Qy2 Qy2 Qi3 Qi3 Qi 2 Qy2r Qy1r Qi 3 Qi 3 Qi3 Qi3 Qi 2 Qy1 Qy2r Qy1 Qy2 Qy1 Qi3 Qi3 Qy1 Qy1 Qi1 QTs Qi2 Qi 3 Qi 2 QTs Qi 3 Qy2 Qi2 Qi3 Qyf Qi 3 Qi 3 Qi3 Qi 3 Qi3 Qyf Qi 2 Qi3 Qi 3 Qy1 Qi 3 Qi3 Qy1 Qy1 Qy2 Qi3 QTs Qi 3 Qi2 Qi3 Qi2 Qi2 Qi 2 Qy1 Qyf Qy1 Qy1 Qi3 Qy2 Qyf Qi 3 QTs Qi3 Qi2 Qyc Qy1 Qy1 Qy1 Qi 3 d Qy1 Qyc Qi3 Qy1 Qi3 Quaternary and late Tertiary piedmont deposits from the Belmont Mountains to the north cover the western 2/3 of the Wintersburg quadrangle. This alluvium was deposited primarily by larger tributary streams that head to the north of the quadrangle; these larger streams and smaller streams that in this quadrangle have eroded and reworked some of these deposits. Clast lithologies include basalt and felsic volcanic rocks with lesser amounts of granite. Deposits range in age from modern to Pliocene. Abbreviations used are ka, thousands of years before present, and Ma, millions of years before present. Qy1 Qy Qi3 Qy1 Qi 3 Qy2r Qy2 Qy1 Qi3 Qy2 QTsr Qyc Qy2 Qi 3 Qy2 Qy1 d Qy2 QTs Qi3 Qi3 Qi 3 Qi2 Qi 2 Qy1 Qi 2 Qy1 Piedmont Alluvium Qy1 Qy1 Qy1 Qi1 Qi2 Qi 3 Qi 2 QTs Qy2 Qy1 Qi 3 Qy Qy1 Qi 3 Qi2 Qi 2 Qi 3 Surficial Units QTs Qi2 Qy1 Qi3 Qi3 Qy2 Qyf Qi3 Qi 3 Qi3 Qi 2 Qy1 Qi3 Qi 2 Qi2 Qi3 Qyf d Qi2 QTs QTs Qi 3 Qi2 Qy2 Qy2 Qyf Qi2 Qy1 Qy1 Qi 2 Qy1 d Qi 2 Qy1 Both earth fissures (Harris, 2001) and giant desiccation cracks (Harris, 2003) have been recognized in the southwestern portion of the quadrangle. A new earth fissure opened in the summer of 2000 about 3 miles (5 km) southeast of Wintersburg. The fissure trends nearly north-south and is about 1,150 ft (350 m) long. The fissure is very young, with narrow, steep sides and a highly irregular apparent depth ranging from <1 foot to >8 feet over short distances. In two locations the fissure is en echelon, with NW-SE steps. There is no discernable vertical offset across the fissure. The location of the fissure, at the edge of the Palo Verde basin and somewhat in line with the trend of a small hill, suggests that a shallow buried bedrock ridge may extend south of the hill beneath the trace of the fissure. If this scenario is correct, the crack may represent fissuring due to compaction and subsidence on either or both sides of the buried ridge. Adjacent to the new earth fissure is an area of giant desiccation cracks that opened at the same time as the earth fissure. Alignments of established vegetation in some portions of the polygonal desiccation crack network demonstrate that cracking has occurred periodically in the past. Additional areas of giant desiccation cracks were mapped by Harris (2003) immediately west and south of the Wintersburg quadrangle. References rd Birkeland, Peter W., 1999, Soils and Geomorphology (3 Ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 429 p. Gile, L.H., Hawley, J.W., and Grossman, R.B., 1981, Soils and geomorphology in the basin and range area of southern New Mexico – guidebook to the Desert Project: New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources Memoir 39, 222 p. Harris, R.C., 2001, A new earth fissure near Wintersburg, Maricopa County, Arizona: Arizona Geological Survey OFR 01-10, 23 p. Harris, R.C., 2003, Additional giant desiccation cracks near Wintersburg, Maricopa County, Arizona: Arizona Geological Survey OFR 03-07, 17 p. Machette, M.N., 1985, Calcic soils of the southwestern United States: in Weide, D.L., ed., Soils and Quaternary Geology of the Southwestern United States: Geological Society of America Special Paper 203, p. 1-21. Shafiqullah, M., Damon, P. E., Lynch, D. J., Reynolds, S. J., Rehrig, W. A., and Raymond, R. H., 1980, K -Ar geochronology and geologic history of southwestern Arizona and adjacent areas, in Jenney, J. P. and Stone, C., (eds.), Studies in western Arizona: Arizona Geological Society Digest 12, p. 201 -242. Shoustra, J. J., Smith, J. L., Scott, J. D., Strand, R. L., and Duff, D., 1976, Geology and seismicity, site lithologic conditions and Appendix 2Q (Radiometric age), in Paleo Verde Nuclear Generating Stations 1, 2, and 3, Preliminary safety analysis report: Arizona Public Service Commission, v. no. 2, Section 2.5; v. no. 8, Appendix 2Q. Spencer, J.E., Youberg, Ann, and Ferguson, C.A., 2005, Geologic map of the Flatiron Mountain 7½' Quadrangle, Maricopa County, Arizona: Arizona Geological Survey Digital Geologic Map DGM-46, scale 1:24,000. Arizona Geological Survey DGM-47 (Wintersburg) Arizona Geological Survey DGM-37 (Buckeye NW) 112º 45' 33º 30' 42' 30" 40' 112º 37' 30" 33º 30' Unit Descriptions Piedmont Alluvium Qy2 Qy1 Late Holocene deposits in active stream channels, low terraces, and alluvial fans – V ery young depos its as sociated with active or recently active fluvial sys tems . C hannel depos its typically cons is t of s and and pebbles with s ome cobbles and s mall boulders in middle and upper piedmont areas , and s and and s ome pebbles lower on the piedmont. T errace and fan depos its typically cons is t of s and and s ilt with some gravel lenses . F an and terrace s urfaces typically are planar where deposits are fine and gently undulating where depos its are coars er, with gravel bars and finer-grained s wales. Des ert pavement development is minimal and rock varnish is very light or nonexis tent. S oil development is weak. S urface dis section is minimal and is ass ociated with channels that are incis ed up to 1.5 m below adjacent fans or terraces . C hannel patterns are variable, including anas tamosing or dis tributary linked channels and separate s mall tributary channels feeding into larger channels . Older Holocene deposits on alluvial fans and terraces – Y oung deposits ass ociated with recently active alluvial fans and terraces . In middle and upper piedmont areas, depos its are poorly sorted, cons isting s and, s ilt, pebbles , and cobbles; in lower piedmont areas , deposits are typically s and and s ilt with minor gravel. S urface relief varies with particle s ize, with relict bar and s wale topography where depos its are gravelly and relatively s mooth s urfaces where s and and silt predominate. S oil development is weak, with s ome s oil s tructure and minor carbonate accumulation. S urfaces typically are brown to gray, with common gravel litter but minimal desert pavement and light brown rock varnish. Holocene alluvial deposits, undifferentiated, undiff f erentiated, primarily in areas disturbed by agricultural activity Qy Qi3 Qi2 Late Pleistocene alluvial fan and terrace deposits – Y ounger intermediate depos its ass ociated with inactive alluvial fans and terraces along was hes . Depos its typically are poorly s orted mixtures of s ilt, s and, pebbles and cobbles . S urfaces are moderately dis s ected by tributary drainages that head on the s urfaces and through-going dis tributary channels. Local s urface topographic varies from about 0.5 to 2 m. S oil development is moderate, with minimal clay accumulation and s oil reddening and weak to moderate calcic horizon development. R ock varnis h on s urface clas ts varies from light to dark brown. Middle Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits – Older intermediate depos its ass ociated with extens ive relict alluvial fans . Depos its are poorly s orted, including sand, pebbles and cobbles , with minor s ilt and clay. S urfaces are moderately to deeply dis sected, with local topographic relief varying from about 0.5 to 6 m. Original depos itional topography typically is not pres erved, and s urfaces are quite s mooth where not eroded. Qi1 surfaces are drained by extensive tributary drainage networks . Interfluve areas between drainage vary from quite flat to broadly rounded. S oils have weak to moderate clay accumulation and s light reddening in the upper 30 cm beneath the s urface, and calcic horizons show obvious vis ible carbonate accumulation. undiff f erentiated Middle and late Pleistocene alluvial fan and terrace deposits, undifferentiated Qi Qi1 27' 30" Middle to early Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits – Old relict alluvial fans with moderately s trong soil development. Depos its are poorly s orted, including sand, pebbles , cobbles , and s mall boulders with minor s ilt and clay. S urfaces typically are moderately diss ected with up to 6 m of local relief, but interfluve s urfaces are quite s mooth and have dark, s trongly developed pebble-cobble desert pavements . S oils have moderate clay accumulation and obvious reddening and abundant carbonate accumulation res ulting in weak cementation. 27' 30" Hassayampa River Alluvium Qycr Qy2 r Qor QTsr Active river channel deposits – Moderately to poorly s orted s and, gravel and minor s ilt in recently active channels and lightly vegetated bars of the Hass ayampa R iver. G ravel includes subangular to well-rounded clas ts of divers e lithology. Late Holocene to modern floodplain deposits – S and, s ilt, and gravel deposits ass ociated with s lightly higher terraces along the Hass ayampa R iver. T errace s urfaces typically are s mooth and are less than 3 m above the active channel. T errace s urfaces typically are covered with fine-grained floodplain depos its , but relict gravel bars and lenses are common. Early Pleistocene river deposits – Depos its ass ociated with the high terraces along the Has s ayampa R iver that record the maximum aggradation of the river. T errace s urfaces are fairly flat or or broadly rounded, but all terrace s urfaces are moderately to deeply dis sected by tributary drainages and the river and have been s ubs tantially modified by erosion. E xpos ures are poor, but well-rounded gravel is evident at the s urface. T errace s urfaces are also typically covered with litter from underlying petrocalcic s oil horizons. T errace s urfaces range from about 15 to 20 m above the active river channel, and ris e s lightly to the north across the quadrangle. Pliocene to early Pleistocene river deposits – A moderately thick s equence of old Has s ayampa R iver depos its that underlies the Qor terrace/fan depos its . T hes e deposits consis t of river s and, gravel and s ilt with a s ubs tantial component of tributary s and and gravel. Local zones of subs tantial carbonate accumulation may repres ent moderately to s trongly developed buried s oils. Other Units Qtc Yuma Parkway Study Area Holocene and Pleistocene colluvium and talus – V ery poorly sorted, weakly s tratified, hills lope depos its mantling bedrock slopes . Disturbed areas – Much of the quadrangle has been dis turbed by human activities , particularly agricultural activities. T his unit des ignation is used only in areas of substantial excavation or anthropogenic deposition, for example, major flood-control levees . d Bedrock map units TKm TKq YXp Xg 25' 25' Xgd Xa Xp Mafic dikes (Tertiary – Cretaceous) – Dark-colored, fine-grained to very fine-grained dioritic dikes with sparse 1-4 mm plagioclase and mafic phenocrysts . Rhyolite porphyry (Cretaceous) – Quartz-phyric rhyolite porphyry dikes and s mall intrus ions with variable phenocrys t content. T he rhyolite porphyry is characterized by light gray, commonly flowfoliated aphanitic matrix and contains between 5% and 20% 1-6 mm quartz, potas sium felds par, and plagioclase phenocrys ts with s pars e biotite, hornblende, and other mafics. In general, grain s ize and the abundance of acces s ory mafic minerals increas es with phenocrys t content. T he rhyolite porphyry correlates with the intrus ive rocks (unit T i) of R eynolds et al. (2002). Pegmatite and leucogranite complex (Middle and Early Proterozoic) – Medium- to coars e-grained pegmatite and heterogenous texture, banded, muscovite leucogranite. Granite (Early Proterozoic) – W eakly foliated, fine- to medium-grained 10-20% biotite granite or quartz monzonite (Xg) that appears to be younger than the granodiorite (Xgd). Granodiorite (Early Proterozoic) – Medium-grained, weakly to s trongly foliated granodiorite to quartz monzodiorite containing between 15-40% mafics . T he granodiorite correlates with the undifferentiated metamorphic rocks (Xm), granitic rocks and pegmatite (Xgr), and tonalite (Xt) units of R eynolds et al. (2002). GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE BUCKEYE NW 7.5' QUADRANGLE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA by John J. Field, Philip A. Pearthree and Charles A. Ferguson Arizona Geological Survey Digital Geologic Map 37 (DGM-37), version 1.0 November, 2004 Citation for this map: Field, J.J., Pearthree, P.A., and Ferguson, C.A., 2004, Geologic Map of the Buckeye NW 7.5' Quadrangle, Maricopa County, Arizona: Arizona Geological Survey Digital Geologic Map 37 (DGM-37), 1 sheet, scale 1:24,000. Not to be reproduced for commercial purposes Research supported by the U.S. Geological Survey, National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, under USGS award #03HQAG0114. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. government. Introduction The Buckeye NW 7.5' quadrangle is located approximately 35 miles (60 km) west of downtown Phoenix, Arizona. The map area covers the southwestern piedmont of the White Tank Mountains which merges to the south into Buckeye Valley and to the west into Hassayampa Plain. Bedrock was mapped in April, 2004, and Quaternary geology, modified from Field and Pearthree (1991), was supplemented with new mapping and aerial photograph interpretation using high-resolution digital images provided by the Flood Control District of Maricopa County. This map is one of six 1:24,000 scale geologic maps covering much of the Hassayampa Plain area that were produced for this study. Mapping was done as part of a multiyear mapping program directed at producing complete geologic map coverage for the Phoenix-Tucson metropolitan corridor, and was done under the joint State-Federal STATEMAP program, as specified in the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992. Surficial Geology Surficial geology was mapped primarily using aerial photos taken in 1979 for the Bureau of Land Management. Unit boundaries were spot-checked in the field, and mapping was supplemented by field observations during the spring of 2004. The physical characteristics of Quaternary alluvial surfaces (channels, alluvial fans, floodplains, stream terraces) evident on aerial photographs and in the field were used to differentiate their associated deposits by age and source. This mapping was transferred to a digital orthophotoquad base from 2002 provided by the Flood Control District of Maricopa County. Mapping was compiled in a GIS format and the final linework was generated from the digital data. Surficial deposits of the map area were then correlated with regional deposits to roughly estimate their ages. The mapping of Field and Pearthree (1991) was incorporated into this map with contacts modified extensively in some parts of the map based on reinterpretation of geologic relationships and the higher-quality digital aerial photo base that is currently available. Characteristics evident on aerial photographs and on the ground were used to differentiate and map various alluvial surfaces. The color of alluvial surfaces depicted on aerial photographs is primarily controlled by soil color, and to a lesser extent, rock varnish. Significant soil development begins on an alluvial surface after it becomes isolated from active flooding and depositional processes (Gile et al., 1981, Birkeland, 1999). Over thousands of years, distinct soil horizons develop. Two typical soil horizons in Pleistocene alluvial sediments of Arizona are reddish brown argillic horizons and white calcic horizons. As a result, on color aerial photographs older alluvial surfaces characteristically appear redder or whiter (on more eroded surfaces) than younger surfaces. Older surfaces have a dark brown color where darkly varnished desert pavements are well preserved. Differences in the drainage patterns between surfaces provide clues to surface age and potential flood hazards. Young alluvial surfaces that are subject to flooding commonly display distributary (branching downstream) or braided channel patterns; young surfaces may have very little developed drainage if unconfined shallow flooding predominates. Dendritic tributary drainage patterns are characteristic of older surfaces that are not subject to extensive flooding. Topographic relief between adjacent alluvial surfaces and the depth of entrenchment of channels can be determined using stereo-paired aerial photographs and topographic maps. Young flood-prone surfaces appear nearly flat on aerial photographs and are less than 1 m above channel bottoms. Active channels are typically entrenched 1 to 10 m below older surfaces. Comparisons of calcic horizon development on the White Tank Mountains piedmont with other soil sequences in the western United States provide one of the few methods of estimating the ages of the different alluvial surfaces (Gile et al, 1981; Machette, 1985). Calcic horizon development varies from fine white filaments of calcium carbonate in young soils to soil horizons completely plugged with calcium carbonate (caliche) in very old soils. Variations in the distribution of surfaces of different ages and sources and concomitant variations in dissection across the quadrangle provide evidence regarding the recent geologic evolution of this area and the distribution of flood hazards. Generally, areas near the Hassayampa River are moderately to deeply dissected, whereas dissection in middle piedmont areas varies substantially across the quadrangle. Very old terraces of the Hassayampa River (unit Qor) record the level of the river bed in the early Quaternary. Qor terraces cap a substantial aggradational sequence that was deposited during the late Tertiary to early Quaternary. At that time the river was not entrenched and probably was depositing sediment across a fairly broad floodplain in the western part of the quadrangle. Since then the Hassayampa River has downcut up to 20 m, with dissection increasing slightly to the north. The effects of this downcutting are expressed by incision of tributary drainages near the western margin of the quadrangle. In the eastern and southern part of the quadrangle, piedmont drainages turn to the southwest and south before eventually joining the Hassayampa or Gila rivers. Incision along these drainages generally is less than a few meters, and most drainages have major expansion reaches with distributary channel networks and extensive, thin young deposits in the middle piedmont. These areas are of particular concern because of the potential for widespread inundation and changes in channel positions during floods (Field and Pearthree, 1992). The southern part of the map area is mantled by relatively fine-grained Pleistocene and Holocene distal fan deposits that merge to the south with floodplain deposits of the Gila River (south of the quadrangle). Surfaces in this southern area have been profoundly modified by agriculture activity, and age estimates and mapping are based on interpretation of an NRCS soil survey (Hartman, 1977). Bedrock Geology Bedrock units are dominated by Early Proterozoic granodiorite (Xgd). The granodiorite intrudes amphibolite schist (Xa) and biotite sericite schist (Xp). Collectively, these rocks comprise a widespread metamorphic complex that is present throughout the White Tank Mountains (Reynolds et al., 2002; Ferguson et al., 2004). Other rocks include a small stock of pegmatite (YXp) that probably correlates with a series of Middle Proterozoic pegmatite stocks associated with a coarsegrained, potassium feldspar porphyritic granite found to the north. A series of mostly north-striking mafic (Tb, TKm), intermediate (TKap), and quartz porphyry (TKq) dikes are correlated with similar dikes in the northerly adjacent Wagner Wash Quadrangle (Ferguson et al., 2004). The early to middle Tertiary (TK) and middle Tertiary (T) ages for these rocks are based on cross-cutting relationships the dikes display with respect to a widespread granitic unit (TKg of the northerly adjacent map area) in the northern White Tank Mountains that has been dated at 56.2 ± 14 Ma (U-Pb zircon, Spencer et al., 2003). Schistosity in Early Proterozoic supracrustal rocks (Xa, Xp) and a weakly developed foliation in the Early Proterozoic granodiorite (Xgd) is generally steeply dipping and northeast striking. These fabrics are cut by the Middle Proterozoic, and middle to early Tertiary stocks and dikes, and are therefore not considered to be related to middle Tertiary extensional deformation. At the southern edge of the bedrock exposures, however, a pervasive, gently southeast-dipping protomylonitic fabric is present in the granodiorite (Xgd). This fabric is similar to pervasive fabrics described in the eastern White Tank Mountains that cut middle Tertiary rocks (Brittinghham, 1985), and is possibly related to middle Tertiary extension. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Steve Reynolds for introducing us to the bedrock geology of the White Tank Mountains. The Flood Control District of Maricopa County provided support for the initial surficial geologic mapping of this quadrangle (Field and Pearthree, 1991) and provided high-resolution digital orthophotos that were used to accurately locate surficial geologic unit boundaries. Erin M. Moore designed the map layout. References rd Birkeland, Peter W., 1999, Soils and Geomorphology (3 Ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 429 p. Amphibolite schist (Early Proterozoic) – F ine- to medium-grained amphibolite schis t and banded, mafic-rich orthogneis s with less er amounts of biotite schis t, s ericite s chis t and ps ammitic s chis t. T he amphibolite schis t correlates with the undifferentiated metamorphic rocks (Xm), and tonalite (Xt) units of R eynolds et al. (2002). Brittingham, P.L., 1985, Structural geology of a portion of the White Tank Mountains, central Arizona: Tempe, Arizona State University, unpublished M.S. thesis, 106 p. Pinal Schist (Early Proterozoic) – F ine- to medium-grained, light gray biotite schis t, sericite s chis t, and ps ammitic s chist. T he P inal S chis t map unit represents a zone of metamorphic rocks void of amphibolite schis t. Ferguson, C.A., Spencer J.E., Pearthree, P.A., Youberg, A., and Field, J.J., 2004, Geologic map of the Wagner Wash Well 7½’ Quadrangle, Maricopa County, Arizona: Arizona Geological Survey Digital Geologic Map 38, 1 sheet, scale 1:24,000. Field, J.J., and Pearthree, P.A., 1991, Surficial geology around the White Tank Mountains, central Arizona [Daggs Tank, White Tank Mts. NE, McMicken Dam, Buckeye NW, White Tank Mts. SE, Waddell, Buckeye NW, Valencia, and Perryville 7.5’ quadrangles]: Arizona Geological Survey Open-File Report 91-08, 7 p., 9 sheets, scale 1:24,000. Field, J.J., and Pearthree, P.A., 1992, Geologic mapping of flood hazards in Arizona – An example from the White Tank Mountains area, Maricopa County, Arizona: Arizona Geological Survey Open-File Report 91-10, 16 p., 4 sheets, scale 1:24,000. Stratigraphic Correlation diagram Gile, L.H., Hawley, J.W., and Grossman, R.B., 1981, Soils and geomorphology in the basin and range area of southern New Mexico -- guidebook of the Desert Project: New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources Memoir 39, 222 p. Qycr Qy2 Qy2 r Qy1 Hartman, G.W., 1977, Soil survey of Maricopa County, central part: Soil Conservation Service, USDA, 117 p., 131 sheets, scale 1:20,000. Qy Qtc Machette, M.N., 1985, Calcic soils of the southwestern United States, in, Weide, D.L., ed., Soils and Quaternary Geology of the Southwestern United States: Geological Society of America Special Paper 203, p. 1-21. Piedmont deposits Qi3 Hassayampa River deposits Qi Qi2 Quaternary Reynolds, S.J., and DeWitt, Ed, 1991, Proterozoic geology of the Phoenix region, central Arizona, in, Karlstrom, K.E., ed., Proterozoic geology and ore deposits of Arizona: Arizona Geological Society Digest 19, p. 237-250. Reynolds, S.J., Woods, S.E., Pearthree, P.A., and Field, J.J., 2002, Geologic map of the White Tank Mountains, central Arizona: Arizona Geological Survey Digital Geologic Map 14, scale 1:24,000. Qi1 Spencer, J.E., Isachsen, C.E., Ferguson, C.A., Richard, S.M., Skotnicki, S.J., Wooden, J., and Riggs, N.R., 2003, U-Pb isotope geochronologic data from 23 igneous rock units in central and southeastern Arizona: Arizona Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-08, 40 p. Qor QTsr Pliocene Map Legend TKm Cretaceous early Tertiary 33º 22' 30" 112º 45' 42' 30" Topographic base from USGS Buckeye NW 7.5' quadrangle, compiled from photogrammetric methods from aerial photos taken 1955 and by planetable surveys 1958. UTM zone 12, NAD 27. Reprojected to NAD 83. Magnetic declination 13º east of true north. Contour interval 10 feet. 33º 22' 30" 112º 37' 30" 40' 44 Bedding, accurate Contact, approximate 55 Generic foliation 75 Schistosity 61 Irregular or contorted inclined foliation Contact, concealed TKq Tertiary andesite porphyry dikes YXp SCALE 1:24,000 MN 1 0.5 25 0 1 Location Index Map Xg Xgd Miles WICKENBURG 13º 1,000 500 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 NEW RIVER CAREFREE 7,000 Feet 1 Arizona Geological Survey 416 W. Congress Street, Suite 100 Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 770-3500 www.azgs.az.gov Contact, accurate 0.5 0 1 TONOPAH BUCKEYE Kilometers contour interval 10 feet GILA BEND Proterozoic Lineation in cumulate rocks Tertiary basaltic dikes 15 Protomylonite Tertiary - Cretaceous mafic dikes Xa Xp 38 Fault attitude TORTILLA FLATS PHOENIX GILBERT Buckeye NW 7.5' quadrangle is located in central Maricopa County. SENTINEL Arizona Geological Survey DGM-37 (Buckeye NW) APPENDIX TM3-03 SUBSIDENCE AND EARTH FISSURE DOCUMENTATION 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 Turner Rd eH Arlington School Rd 319th Ave Dean Rd Rainbow Rd Apache Rd 7th St Miller Rd Rooks Rd Broadway Rd Wilson Ave Elliot Rd Yuma Rd Lower Buckeye Rd d Bruner Rd dR War wy Watson Rd Salo m Baseline Rd 309th Ave Dobbins Rd McDowell Rd Southern Ave 331st Ave wy Palo Verde Rd Johnson Rd 339th Ave Rd nburg Wicke 355th Ave Buckeye Rd Sa lom eH Ton opa h $ a " ! Van Buren St 371st Ave Wintersburg Rd Yuma Parkway Study Area Beloat Rd Hazen Rd Old US 80 Narramore Rd Ocotillo Rd En te rp ris Riggs Rd e Rd x r 85 Patterson Rd © ESA 2007 - 2008 Land Subsidence in the Buckeye Area, Western Maricopa County Based on ADWR EnviSat Time-Series InSAR Data Time Period of Analysis: 1.2 Years 02/10/2007 To 04/05/2008 Subsidence Feature Subsidence Hardrock -2.0 To -3.0 cm ! ! Decorellation/No Data ! 02/10/2007 To 04/05/2008 CAP Canal 1:173,025 Arizona Highways and Interstates -1.5 To -2.0 cm Interstate -1.0 To -1.5 cm US -0.5 To -1.0 cm State 0 To -0.5 cm Railway Roads 0 1 μ 2 4 Decorrelation (white areas) are areas where the phase of the received satellite signal changed between satellite passes, causing the data to be unusable. This occurs in areas where the land surface has been disturbed (i.e. bodies of water, snow, agriculture areas, areas of development, etc). 6 Miles 8 A NEW EARTH FISSURE NEAR WINTERSBURG, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA Arizona Geological Survey Open-File Report 01-10 Raymond C. Harris Arizona Geological Survey November 2001 22 pages ARIZONA’S NEWEST EARTH FISSURE A new earth fissure has been reported southeast of Wintersburg, about 75 km (50 miles) WSW of Phoenix (Figure 1). The fissure was reported to AZGS in early September and was visited several times through early November. Field mapping was done with a hand-held GPS. This fissure appeared over the past summer, probably during a heavy rainstorm in July. The earth fissure and adjacent desiccation cracks are plotted on a topographic base (Figure 2) and an aerial photo base (Figure 3). The fissure is nearly north-south and is 307 m (1007 ft) long (Figure 4). The fissure is very young, with narrow, steep sides and a highly irregular apparent depth ranging from <1 foot to >8 feet over short distances. In two locations the fissure is en echelon (Figure 5), with NW-SE steps. There is no discernable vertical offset across the fissure. At the time of the first visit in mid September, little material had sloughed off into the fissure, only enough to open a narrow trench. Erosional downcutting of 4-12 inches has created miniature badlands up to 10 feet wide on the uphill (east) side of the crack (Figure 6). At the time of a follow-up visit in early November, the edges of fissure were noticeably rounded off from a small rainstorm the previous day. Much of the fissure had been partially filled in but there had not been enough runoff to enlarged it. Both ends of the fissure are characterized by a gradual fading of the trench to miniature grabens and then to a hairline crack. The final 50 feet of both ends are slightly curved. Typical segments of the fissure are shown in Figures 7 and 8. It is common for earth fissures to seemingly appear “overnight” following severe rainfall. Heavy rain softens the surficial material, allowing it to cave into the underlying fissure. The surface expression of the fissure probably formed in response to heavy rain associated with a monsoon storm in July. At depth, the precursor fissure may have been forming for years or even decades. The location of the fissure, at the edge of the basin and somewhat in line with the trend of a small hill, suggests that a shallow buried bedrock ridge may extend south of the hill beneath the trace of the fissure. If this scenario is correct, the crack may represent fissuring due to compaction and subsidence on either or both sides of the buried ridge. This mechanism of differential subsidence due to buried topography has been proposed for earth fissure development in other areas of the state (Jachens and Holzer, 1982). 1 Figure 1. Location of new earth fissure near Wintersburg. 2 Figure 3. Aerial photo showing location of earth fissure and desiccation cracks. 4 Figure 5. En echelon section of earth fissure crossing Baseline Road, looking NW. Fissure is 6-12 inches wide here. Second earth fissure crosses road at far left (arrow). Figure 6. Section of earth fissure north of Baseline Road, showing erosion on uphill (east) side. Fissure is 12-18 inches wide, 1-6 feet deep in this section. 6 ADDITIONAL GIANT DESICCATION CRACKS NEAR WINTERSBURG, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA by Raymond C. Harris Arizona Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-07 November 2003 Arizona Geological Survey 416 W. Congress, Suite #100, Tucson, Arizona 85701 AREAS OF ADDITIONAL GIANT DESICCATION CRACKS Giant desiccation cracks have been discovered in two areas near the settlement of Wintersburg (Figure 1) on detailed aerial photos obtained from Maricopa County Flood Control District. One area is one mile southwest of Wintersburg. The second area is about one mile south-southeast of the intersection of Wintersburg Road (379th Ave.) and Elliot Road, about 6 miles south of Wintersburg. 1 DESICCATION CRACKS SOUTHWEST OF WINTERSBURG Giant desiccation cracks have been discovered one mile southwest of Wintersburg (Figure 1) on detailed aerial photos obtained from Maricopa County Flood Control District. These cracks are immediately west of Wintersburg Road and south of a small hill (Figures 2 and 3). Previously, a new earth fissure and nearby giant desiccation cracks were reported three miles southeast of Wintersburg in the late Summer 2001 (Harris, 2001). Two clusters of cracks are present. The larger northern group (main cluster) extends from within a few ten of meters of a small outlier of the Palo Verde Hills southward nearly 700 meters. Another cluster, consisting of a single crack about 250 meters long, with minor splays, lies 400 meters south of the main cluster. 2 7 8 APPENDIX TM3-04 TONOPAH UPLIFT DOCUMENTATION 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 ! . ! . ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! . ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Wicken burg R d ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! . ! ! . ! . ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 387th Ave 411th Ave 419th Ave ! ! ! . I 10 Fron t Indian School Rd ! . ! . ! . 355th Ave ! . ! . Van Buren St Buckeye Rd 371st Ave McDowell Rd Wintersburg Rd Courthouse Rd 395th Ave Thomas Rd Lower Buckeye Rd Sa lom eH wy Yuma Parkway Study Area Broadway Rd © ESA 2006 - 2010 Uplift in the Vicinity of the Tonpah Recharge Facility Based on ADWR EnviSat Time-Series InSAR Data Time Period of Analysis: 2.8 Years 03/13/2006 To 03/06/2010 Tonopah Recharge Basins CAP Canal Area of Uplift ! MCDOT GDACS Monuments ! ! ! . Hardrock Highways and Interstates μ 03/13/2006 To 03/06/2010 1:136,676 Uplift Interstate Decorrelation/No Data US 0 To 1 cm State 1 To 2 cm Roads 2 To 3 cm Railway 3 To 4 cm 0 0.5 1 2 3 Miles 4 Decorrelation (white areas) are areas where the phase of the received satellite signal changed between satellite passes, causing the data to be unusable. This occurs in areas where the land surface has been disturbed (i.e. bodies of water, snow, agriculture areas, areas of development, etc). GWSI Web Map Page 1 of 1 Arizona Department of Water Resources - Groundwater Data Water Resource Data GIS Data Map FAQs ADWR Feedback Map Scale 1:100000 Legend Satellite Map Help 0 16813362 6724 10086 13448 Feet Hydrographs were printed for the four wells shown within the red box above. https://gisweb.azwater.gov/gwsi/Default.aspx 5/13/2011 GWSI Hydrograph Well Info Map Page 1 of 1 Reset Graph Email Auto Site Hydrograph Help Arizona GroundWater Monitoring Site Hydrograph Set x-axis Local ID B-01-05 10BBC Site ID 332648112454301 Registry ID Latitude NAD27 614389 33° 26' 47.5" Longitude NAD27 Alt. (ft amsl) 112° 45' 45.0" 1012.88 Water Use UNUSED Case Well Dia. Depth (ft) (in) 0 16 Drill Date Latest WL Date 3/17/2011 DTW (ft) WL Elv. (ft) 45.67 967.21 Set y-axis Measurement Remarks GWSI is ADWR's technical database of well locations, construction data, and water levels. https://gisweb.azwater.gov/gwsi/Hydrograph.aspx?SiteID=332648112454301 Created on 5/13/2011 5/13/2011 GWSI Automated Hydrograph Well Info Map Page 1 of 2 Reset Graph Email Standard Hydrograph Help Arizona Automated GroundWater Monitoring Site Hydrograph Set x-axis Local ID B-01-05 10BBC Site ID 332648112454301 Registry ID Latitude NAD27 614389 33° 26' 47.5" Longitude NAD27 Alt. (ft amsl) 112° 45' 45.0" 1012.88 Water Use UNUSED Case Well Dia. Depth (ft) (in) 0 16 Drill Date Latest WL Date DTW (ft) WL Elv. (ft) 3/17/2011 45.67 967.21 Set y-axis Measurement Remarks GWSI is ADWR's technical database of well locations, construction data, and water levels. Created on 5/13/2011 ResetGraph https://gisweb.azwater.gov/gwsi/HydrographAuto.aspx?SiteID=332648112454301 5/13/2011 GWSI Hydrograph Well Info Map Page 1 of 1 Reset Graph Email Auto Site Hydrograph Help Arizona GroundWater Monitoring Site Hydrograph Set x-axis Local ID B-01-05 15CBB1 Site ID 332541112454501 Registry ID Latitude NAD27 636568 33° 25' 35.0" Longitude NAD27 Alt. (ft amsl) Water Use 112° 45' 44.3" 980 UNUSED Case Well Dia. Depth (ft) (in) 140 12 Drill Date Latest WL Date DTW (ft) WL Elv. (ft) 12/10/2007 39.3 940.7 Set y-axis Measurement Remarks GWSI is ADWR's technical database of well locations, construction data, and water levels. https://gisweb.azwater.gov/gwsi/Hydrograph.aspx?SiteID=332541112454501 Created on 5/13/2011 5/13/2011 GWSI Hydrograph Well Info Map Page 1 of 1 Reset Graph Email Auto Site Hydrograph Help Arizona GroundWater Monitoring Site Hydrograph Set x-axis Local ID B-01-05 08DAB Site ID 332634112470001 Registry ID Latitude NAD27 800303 33° 26' 33.6" Longitude NAD27 Alt. (ft amsl) Water Use 112° 46' 59.3" 1056.8 UNUSED Case Well Dia. Depth (ft) (in) 304 16 Latest WL Date DTW (ft) WL Elv. (ft) 1/1/1956 12/10/2007 95.8 961 Drill Date Set y-axis Measurement Remarks GWSI is ADWR's technical database of well locations, construction data, and water levels. https://gisweb.azwater.gov/gwsi/Hydrograph.aspx?SiteID=332634112470001 Created on 5/13/2011 5/13/2011 GWSI Hydrograph Well Info Map Page 1 of 1 Reset Graph Email Auto Site Hydrograph Help Arizona GroundWater Monitoring Site Hydrograph Set x-axis Local ID B-01-06 11BCA Site ID 332648112504401 Registry ID Latitude NAD27 629598 33° 26' 46.8" Longitude NAD27 Alt. (ft amsl) 112° 50' 44.0" 1040.69 Water Use IRRIGATION Case Well Dia. Depth (ft) (in) Drill Date Latest WL Date DTW (ft) WL Elv. (ft) 12/10/2007 90.6 950.09 Set y-axis Measurement Remarks GWSI is ADWR's technical database of well locations, construction data, and water levels. https://gisweb.azwater.gov/gwsi/Hydrograph.aspx?SiteID=332648112504401 Created on 5/13/2011 5/13/2011 APPENDIX TM3-05 DRAINAGE FIELD PHOTOS 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 Study Area 355th Ave Camelback Rd Photo Location/Number Flood Retarding Structure Indian School Rd Hwy 0 Wa sh ile 722 r Buck 720 1 704 717 696 687 700 670 690 2 Miles eye F RS # 638 Buckeye Rd 0.5 Hassay amp aR i ve Canal lome 1 644 662 654 650 663 Sun Valley Pkwy Van Buren St h-Sa rm McDowell Rd Wash Tono pa Fo u Coyote Wash Thomas Rd 339th Ave Phillips Wash Dickey Wash River 624 Yuma Rd 631 678 Lower Buckeye Rd Roos eve l t Southern Ave Sa lo me Hw y Irrigation Dis Luke Wash Winters Wash Wintersburg Rd Broadway Rd trict Can a l Southern Ave Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Bucke al ye Can Turner Rd Wilson Ave Palo Verde Rd Bruner Rd Johnson Rd 315th Ave 323rd Ave 331st Ave 339th Ave 347th Ave 355th Ave 363rd Ave 371st Ave 379th Ave 387th Ave Dobbins Rd 395th Ave Baseline Rd Maricopa County, Arizona TM3-05 Drainage Field Photo Locations 624: Culvert near Palo Verde Rd 631: D/S Channel through Stotz Dairy 638: U/S at I-10 Culvert 644: Erosion SE of Johnson Rd crossing of I-10 650: W towards Hassayampa River valley 654: D/S at Hassayampa River tributary 662: D/S along Hassayampa River R Bank 663: U/S along Hassayampa River R bank 670: D/S towards recent lateral migration of Hassayampa River 678: Hassayampa River floodplain 687: W towards Dickey Wash crossing 690: U/S at Dickey Wash crossing 696: D/S at Phillips Wash crossing 700: D/S at gabion lining along L Bank of Phillips Wash 704: U/S at Phillips Wash 717: U/S at wash crossing near Wintersburg Rd 720: D/S at tributary to Fourmile Wash crossing 722: D/S at Fourmile Wash culverts APPENDIX TM3-06 RECOMMENDED AREA DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN IMPROVEMENTS 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 Yuma Parkway Study Area APPENDIX TM3-07 RECENT EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION IN HASSAYAMPA RIVER JANUARY 2010 STORM 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 Overview of channel at SRP poles Lateral bank migration at SRP poles Channel erosion at SRP poles Overview of SRP remedial fill Sediment deposition at Tonopah Salome Highway Bank erosion at Tonopah Salome Highway 1978 embankment BUCKEYE BUCKEYE BUCKEYE BUCKEYE 2009 embankment PV-WW1 T144 265’ PV-WW2 T144 PV-Rudd T28 Eroded 2010 ( 18,500 cfs flow 1/21/10) Exhibit courtesy of WEST Consultants           500KVELECTRICTRANSMISSIONSTRUCTURES HASSAYAMPARIVER HYDROLOGICENGINEERINGSERVICES  PreparedfortheSaltRiverProject August2010 FinalReport   Yuma Parkway Study Area (north boundary)  Figure8.ErosionHazardZones 26|P a g e     Figure31.Erosionhazardzonesaroundthetributaries 55|P a g e    5 SiteConditions OnMarch9,2010,personnelfromWESTconductedafieldreconnaissanceoftheHassayampaRiver neartheelectricaltransmissiontowers.Severalchangesfromthe2005conditionsunderwhichthe LHWCMPwasdevelopedwerenotedandsummarizedinFigure32.Themostobviousobservation duringthesitevisitwasthelateralmigrationoftheriverandscourthathadoccurredaroundthe foundationsofelectricaltransmissionlines(seeFigure33).Therewereseveralareaswherevertical, unstablebankswerepresent(seeFigure34andFigure35).Inaddition,aminorflowsplitnorthofthe electricaltransmissionlinecrossinghasnowbecomeamajorconveyorofwater.Finally,therewas somescourobservedaroundtherightabutmentoftheI10Bridge(seeFigure36).Thesoilmaterial presentinthechannelappearedtobesimilartothematerialdescribedinthesedimentgradation curvesforthesedimenttransportmodelingoftheLHWCMP.Thus,itwasdeterminedthatnonewsoil analyseswereneededforthisstudy.  Yuma Parkway Study Area (north boundary)  Figure32.Areasofobservedchangesduringthefieldvisit 58|P a g e    Yuma Parkway Study Area (north boundary)  Figure34.AreasalongtheHassayampaRiverwithobservedverticalbanks  60|P a g e   APPENDIX TM3-08 EXISTING EROSION HAZARD MAPPING 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ APPENDIX TM3-09 SAND AND GRAVEL MINING DOCUMENTATION 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 FA01-113 Celtic Visions LLC/Hassayampa Properties LLC SG08-001 Pioneer Landscaping Materials Inc. 355th Ave Camelback Rd Indian School Rd Permit data from FCDMC database (July 2010) 0 0.5 1 2 Miles FA96-032A Hanson Sun Valley Pkwy McDowell Rd Sand and Gravel Permit Sites er R iv Hassaya Thomas Rd m pa 339th Ave SG03-002 CEMEX Construction Materials South, LLC Study Area Van Buren St Buckeye Rd Tono pa h-Sa lome Hwy Yuma Rd Lower Buckeye Rd SG06-005 ABC/Dave Waltemath ti o rig a n Distric t Ca n Roosev elt Ir al Southern Ave y Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study e Canal Buckey Turner Rd Wilson Ave Palo Verde Rd Bruner Rd Johnson Rd 315th Ave SG07-001 Western Aggregates/Todd Hall 339th Ave 347th Ave 355th Ave 363rd Ave 371st Ave 379th Ave 387th Ave Dobbins Rd Hw FA04-050 Roy Ogg 395th Ave Baseline Rd me 323rd Ave Southern Ave Sa lo 331st Ave Wintersburg Rd Broadway Rd Maricopa County, Arizona Appendix TM3-09. Sand and Gravel Mining Permits Vt**n 4r, Y** þ,*.T1,!*r. T/l A'hShlrih+rJ ' ì* .ir.¿h Ft,uvlAl.-ízrudd.nog of Sand uHiog rmpacrs For Lower Hassayampa River Prepared for Engineering Application Development and River Mechanics Engineering Division Flood Control District of Maricopa County May 2009 Gll[]10 Gonsufltants Hydraulic and Hydrologic Engineering Erosion and Sedimentation P.O. Box 9492 6001 Avenida Alteras Rancho Santa Fe, CA92067-4492 TEL: (858) 756-9050, (858) 692-0761 FAX: (858) 7s6-9460 ?k"1 l6'J.¡r'lall Iorrgtttdlnel Protrles Durlng l0lÞyr Flood I 100 i a ; i*w.s.athalftinæ bed 1020 fi*1¡úIat ¡ i-Bedatpeakflow gsd at erid of flood ! e80 E 1060 I .€ e4o É) EI L 5 6 7 8- I Ctrum€l statiorl river milcs t400 -TI 1360 t320 t280 ioW.S. atlalftinp tt -P "+ InitÍal bed i '-Brd atpeak flow -i-,_:: le4_g[_9nd_9[fl oog i a) € d G a) t2?10 1200 f¡¡ I r60 ll20 1080 1040 19 20 2t 22 23 Channel statiorL river miles 24 25 26 Fig. 6. Simulated lvater-surface and channel bed profile changes during 100-yr flood for existing conditions l9 27 Longltudln¡l Prtflles During lO&yr Flood for 1000 990 980 I 'ow.s. 970 f-' 960 950 ü e4o .ä e30 atpeakflow ;ìiitl I -+Initial bed ! I flow ¡: -* Bed at Deakofflor Bed at end l--l t-'-- '-l-- I -- i- - . i--_-l e2o E E¡ 9lo 900 890 880 870 860 850 Longltudlnal Proflles Durlng I Ol)-yr Flood for Pmposed Condtlons I 180 I t60 I 140 ' *- {l i I 120 Bed at peak Bed at end flow i offlood: & i.d (t r r00 q) I f¡l r080 t060 1040 t020 I1.5 t2 t2.5 13 13.5 t4 14.5 15 15.5 16 ló.5 l7 t7.5 Channel stat¡on, river miles Fig. 13. Water-surface and ohannel-bed profïle changes during 100-yr flood for proposed conditions 18 I Lo4gltudiml Prufiles Duúng Flood Series for Proposed 970 960 950 jE 940 co 930 6 920 -È fÍ¡ 9r0 900 890 880 870 860 4.5 6.5 7 5 7.5 8 Channel statior¡ ríver miles Longitudinel P¡ofiles During Flood Series for Proposed Conditiorc I 180 ,i l¡,t I 160 -FW.S. atpeakflow -# I140 .-_1 (t ' i i__-_-l_______l ii,t c¡ .{) 4) time I + Bed at end of flood l-i-; .-Bed : tt20 co Initial bed athalf I i t00 t080 fr¡ 1060 iI 1040 1020 1000 I r r r.5 12 12.5 t3 13.5 l4 14.5 15 r5.5 16 16.5 t7 t7.5 Channel station, river miles Fig. l4 (continued). Water-surface and channeþbed profile changes during flood series for proposed conditions 28 l8 Table 5. Comparison of changes in sediment budget related to mining project River reach River miles **ìp M: Channel reach with instream mining N: Channel reaches without instream m Change in sediment Change in sediment storage for proposed storage for existing conditions conditions Impacts of sand mining on sediment budget* Million tons Million tons Million tons +1.10 +0.88 0.s4 - 0.82 (M) +0.22 0.82 - s.57 (N) +1.01 +0.14 -0.87 s.s7 -6.14 (M) -0.06 +2.07 +2.13 6.14 - 7.37 (N) +0.13 -0.24 -0.37 7.37 -8.22(M) +0.29 +1.75 +1.40 12.09 (N) +0.01 -1.40 -t.4t - 12.85 (M) r2.8s - 13.r3 (N) 13.13 - r4.83 (M) 14.83 - 1s.02 (N) rs.02 - r5.87 (M) +1.57 +0.78 +0.79 +0.09 -0.33 -0.42 -0.02 +1.52 +1.54 -0.01 -0.23 -0.22 -0.01 +1.52 +1.53 8.3212.09 15.87 - 26.38 (N) -1.5 t -4.38 -2.87 26.38 - 27.8e (N) +0.83 +1.10 +0.27 tA negative value indicates increased erosion due to sand mining for channel reach *A positive value indicates decreased erosion due to sand mining for channel reach 35 Table t (continued). Channel List of minimum bed elevations at end of events 100-yr flood Station Existing River miles Feet 7.75 944.62 7.84 948.89 7.94 949.52 8.03 953.1s 8.13 954.97 100-yr flood Proposed Feet Flood series Existing Feet 943.18 945.44 942.31 947.72 949.06 951.47 953.98 944.67 945.37 950.7t Flood serres Proposed Feet 939.83 942.45 943.6 945.64 946.64 I 950.53 8.32 8.41 8.51 8.6 957.74 960.37 961.42 964.92 966.96 968.87 951.6r 9s4.35 954.95 9s6.72 959.42 961.66 962.39 963.74 964.93 967.52 968.83 971.25 973.52 974.87 977.53 979.77 981.41 983.41 98s.81 987.94 989.68 951.4 953.7 9s6.06 992.51 983. r 5 995.19 985.r 987.39 988.75 990.56 10.21 993.4 995.18 998.6 1002.7 960.46 962.62 965.3s 967.83 970.92 973.38 974.99 979.66 982.09 987.28 988.77 990.25 992.08 993.79 99s.53 999.05 997.26 996.ss 998.4s 10.31 r003.67 1003.01 1000.84 r006.8 10.59 1006.79 1009.94 8.1 8.79 8.89 8.98 9.08 9.17 9.27 9.36 9.45 9.55 9.64 9.74 9.83 9.93 10.02 10. l2 970.t9 972.15 974.67 976.66 978.97 981.22 984.3 986.97 989.7t 990. l8 99t.87 t0.4 10.5 958.2t 9s9.94 961.76 963.68 965.25 966,73 968.39 970.38 972.25 973.83 975.8 977.58 979.58 981.38 I "_.,!-aH¿ 1009.7t 1004.47 1008.32 992.22 993.46 10.69 l0 I 1.37 l0tl.86 r009.38 994.61 10.73 10t2.92 10t2.79 1013.07 994.57 t0.77 1013.32 l0r3.0s l0 10.87 1015.06 1014.87 0.98 1015.t6 l0l5. t5 I l.0t I t.09 1018.7 1017.93 1014.54 1015.94 r 016.98 1018.77 ll.l6 1021.85 1018.74 1021.7 10 11.24 1022.83 t022.82 1021.12 r 13. l3 996.1 997,82 999.46 999J6 l0l8.7l 69 r 9.98 I 999.43 r 001.26 1002.68 Table 2 (continueQ. List of bed elevations reached by malrimum scour during events flood flood Flood series Flood series Station Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Channel River 100-yr miles Feet 7.84 7.94 8.03 8.13 100-yr Feet Feet Feet 945 944.4 947.5 949.8 950.3 929.2 931.4 936.7 936.6 957.5 960,2 946.7 949.7 955.2 956.6 8.51 96t.3 8.6 8.7 8.79 964.8 966.1 947.8 950.2 954.8 968 9æ.4 944.2 946.2 948.4 951.7 954.2 956.4 8.89 8.98 9.08 9,17 9.27 9.36 9.4s 9.55 9.64 9,74 9.83 9.93 970 964 948.9 949.6 937 95t.3 94t 954.t 8.41 8.32 972 973.5 975.8 978.1 980.3 98t.5 939 957.5 962 964.2 965.8 967.5 969.t 971 972.t 973 966.7 969.7 972.8 974.7 978.9 980.5 985.4 987.5 976.2 978.5 963 965.4 967.8 969.9 n0.5 974.2 982.6 984.4 988 988.3 990.8 994.6 996.4 997.7 n6.3 10.r2 10.2t 100r.7 994.s 998.4 1001.7 10.31 1003,3 r003.5 10.59 1008.5 r008.r 10.69 1009.9 1009.1 1001.6 1004.6 r006.9 10.02 991.7 993.2 958.2 960.4 981 985.4 987.4 989.8 991.7 993.2 994.5 998.4 990 : 976.4 978.8 98t.6 983.7 984.4 986.1 987.2 988.1 10.73 t0r2.7 1012.6 10.77 1012.8 l0r3.l 1007 987.8 990.2 990.8 991.8 10.87 l0l5 t007.2 994.1 10.98 I l.0l l0l5.s 1014.8 1014.7 1009.2 1017.6 r.09 l0t8.t r016.8 r017.3 I0t3.7 t0t6.7 I Lr6 t02t.7 102t.4 1017.8 996.3 997.2 998 999.5 n.24 t023 t022.6 r018.9 r00t.4 I 1.33 t025.3 1025.3 1020.2 1000.4 r 77 APPENDIX TM3-10-1 EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DOCUMENTATION I-10 CULVERTS (PALO VERDE WATERSHED) 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 Excerpted from Palo Verde Watershed Zone A Floodplain Delineation Study Appendix E.2 (FCDMC, 2003) Methodology for 1-10 Impoundment Analysis The culvert analysis along 1-10 deal with types of culverts ranging from Box Culverts, CMP7s,RGRCP7s,and CMP Arch's. All culverts less than 24" in diameter were ignored since they cannot convey significant amount of flow. Flows reaching 1-10 either cross the roadway at the numbered culverts within the study area, or flow mostly southeast along the roadway embankment. Therefore, the analysis was started at the west side and proceed eastward. The area contributing flow to each culvert was determined based on topographic information and delineation of upstream basins. These areas, shown in acres, are seen on the spreadsheet in the "Area Associated to Culvert Inlet" column. In addition, any flow from adjacent culverts flowing along the embankment towards the culvert were added in column "Total Accumulated Area." An aerial photo plot along with contours are shown for each culvert and it's associated sub-basin. This plot shows the associated area and calculates flow based on AredRunoff Relationship [Flow=510 x Area (s.mi)], (see Section 4). There is an additional aerial photo plot that shows a close up of the culvert being analyzed, this plot was used to approximate the general slope around the culvert. From reviewing survey and aerial photographs, the best approach to the analysis of the culverts bypass flow was selected from either Manning's Equation or Weir Analysis (due to a berm or obstruction). FHWA Inlet Control Nomographs were used to estimate the flows through the culvert. Flow along the roadway (bypass) was based on a cross section representing either the typical conveyance path or the weir configuration. These cross sections are provided at each analysis point along with relevant calculations. Along the two Traffic Interchanges (T.I.) located within the study area, additional analysis was required because the access ramps crossings have less capacity than the freeway crossings. The analysis sheets for these locations explain the procedures used. Excerpted from Palo Verde Watershed Zone A Floodplain Delineation Study Appendix E.2 (FCDMC, 2003) Excerpted from Palo Verde Watershed Zone A Floodplain Delineation Study Appendix E.2 (FCDMC, 2003) Excerpted from Palo Verde Watershed Zone A Floodplain Delineation Study Appendix E.2 (FCDMC, 2003) Interstate 10 Flow Calculations for Culverts Excerpted from Palo Verde Watershed Zone A Floodplain Delineation Study Appendix E.2 (FCDMC, 2003) Culvert ID Culvert Type Contributing Area from the north (acres) Wsel 65 1-42" RGRCP Contributing Area from the west (acres) Total Area Contributing to Culvert (acres) Target Flow (cfs) 1095 1098 1099 1100 1101 1101.5 1102 = 1098 30 0 30 2-8' x 31' RCB 1-8' x 40' RCB 8221 0 8221 1-36 CMP 1-42" CMP 20 0 20 6551 1-42" CMP 2-8' X 10' RCB 5938 0 Weir Flow over obstruction Manning's Equation for flow along highway Weighted Cross Section Wetted Normal Depth Avg. :?eight Length H'N (L2) Avg Head (H) Perimeter (fl) Q (cfs) Area (s.fl) (fl) (ft) bottom width (ft) 0.00 1100 normal depth at elev > 35 50 61 70 75 80 -- - 83.00 186.75 332.00 166.09 249.13 332.17 37.88 111.70 240.58 2 2.3 4 6 7 0.57 0.66 1.14 1.71 2.00 - i31.30 $8.90 31.30 4732 Wsel = 1099.5 (See Analysis for Culverts 67 through 78 together below) Culvert @ 1088 Box is @ 1086.8 Weir is 1097 Top EL of Weir Look at Culverts 78 through 71 for more Hydraulic Calculations Q-total (cfs) 35 50 61 108 187 321 21 26 60 95 105 1100 normal depth at elev > ** .10.60 2.2 0.28 4 0.50 24.00 6 0.75 54.00 7 0.88 55.00 li6.00 8.00 1.00 '70.00 8.50 1.06 82.00 1.19 9.50 **This is a three box culvert, with different dimensions 1075.9 2436 4466 5582.5 6699 7105 8323 36"CldP 42"Ch 2 11)27 0.67 2.5 2!5 39 0.83 3 52 3! 1.00 5 1.67 60 90 6 2.00 70 106 7 118 8? 2.33 7.5 8? 123 2.50 8.5 8fj 129 2.83 **These flows are added to~etherfor both culverts, look at spreadsheet for individual culvert flows '1 0.00 Bottom Width (fl) HWID for box 1086 1086.8 1090.8 1094.8 1097 1097.5 1098 1099 Q-east (cfs) 1100.00 20.5 26 60 95 105 - weir flee-th at elev > 1096.80 (Just east of Culverts 69 and 70) 4 8 10.2 10.7 11.2 12.2 Cfs1fo;lt Box 1.14 2.29 2.91 3.06 3.20 3.49 172.00 182.00 190.00 15!6.00 ** 46 65 87 150 176 198 205 215 46 65 87 205 weir flow depth at elev > 42"CMP ** 131 136 144 540 1623 3440 3640 4036 4064 1076 2436 4466 5583 6699 - 16 1092 1094 1094.5 1095 1097 1098 1099 1099.5 1100.5 5938 1.OO 1.33 1.67 2.00 2.17 2.33 Bottom Width 1 (fl) Bottom Width 2 (fl) Bottom Width 3 (fl) 1091 1093.2 1095 1097 1098 1099 1099.5 1100.5 Wsel = 1099.5 (See Analysis for Culverts 67 through 78 together below) 69 and 70 (19) 3 4 5 6 6.5 7 Q-culvert (Cfs) weir flow depth at elev > 1091 1093 1093.3 1095 1097 1098 Wsel = 1099.5 (There i s a berm at EL=1100 West of Culvert 66, s o there is no flow mixing with Culvert #65) 67 68 Culvert lilow Chart 2 or 8 Chart 8 HWID QIB (cfslfl) 24 Wsel = 1093.3 (Berm t o the east preventing flow from going to Culvert #6bj 66 (18A) Elevation (fl) HW (fl) 13800 cfs + 136 for 42" 13920 cfs + 144 for 42" 1096.80 08 960 1 OZ 1 PZt OZ L P11 ZO 1 ZE asnmaq palqnop aJe SMOU asayl,, 00 Z9 00'09 00 LS 00 1s 0091 OZ E OO'E 08 Z OP Z 08 0 8 9'L L 9 Z *1 0011 96601 660 1 860 1 P60 1 Z60 1 160C @ lJaAln3 ( ~ o l a ~aqla6ol q 8~ 4 6 n o ~ y~g l spayn3 JOJ s!sAleuy aas) S'660L = lasM ( M o w s!sAteuv ( LL v a ~ l n 3 40 lsnr) c Aala le yjdap n?U JlaM 80LZ 9P9Z 0 LL q 6 n o ~ q8~ l svawn3 ass d W 3 ,,OEZ SP9Z EL sl~a~ln o 3q aJe aJaqj asnmaci palqnop ale SMOU asau,, OZ 1 PZ 1 OZ L PI 1 ZO 1 99 ZE 00 Z9 00'09 00 LC 00 1s 00 8Z 00 91 OZ E OO'E 08 Z OP Z OZ 1 08 0 8 9'F L 9 6 Z *.* 0011 S 6601 660 1 860 1 960 1 P60 1 Z60 1 1601. @ 1.la~ln3 (Molaq ~aqla6ol8~ q 6 n o ~ q~g j spanln3 JOJ s!sAleuv aas) S'6601 = lasM l sva~ln3 ass (Molaq s!sAleuv LL y 6 n o ~ q8~ - dW3 ,,OE-l dW3 ,,OE-1 PL Pue 9L ( LL v a ~ 1 n403 $seaw r ) 08 960 1 S1 < Aala 1e yldap MOD JlaM 61 0 61 syaAln3 OMJ aJe aJaw asnaaq palqnop ale SMOU asayl,, 99 1 9L 1 99 1 09 1 OP 1 OL 8E 00 88 OFF8 00 08 00 OL 00 SE 00 61 L9 Z OS'Z EE Z 00 Z 00 1 L9 0 - - 8 S'L L 9 E Z *+ S43 Mold ( 1~).la~ln3 40 1c hala je yldap 08'960 1 ( LL v a ~ 1 n403 1 ~ ~ ~ sn3 r) < hala le yldap ~ i o Jy I ~ M 08 960 1 0011 Zi 6601 660 1 860 1 S60 1 P60 1 Z60 1 L ( ~ o l a~ qayjaSoj8 y~ 6no~ql~ sp ga ~ l n 3 JOJ s!sAleuy aas) S'660C = lasM dW3 04 aIMH LL q6nolw 8~ s v a ~ 1 nass 3 ( ~ o l a s!sA~euy q LZtr ZLOl OOL1 88PC OPZ1 ZlOL OZL OPZ +* 1snr) JI~M PEZP 6PLP 00 POZ 00 OOZ PSt 6P1 (141s~~) 910 ($43) 1~a~ln3-0 8 MOM LL '2 E9'E Z El LZ1 a/MH 8 JO zveu3 (u) MH 0 619 SMOU lJaAIn3 lenpl~lpu~ J O 13ayspea~ds ~ 1e yo01 'sl~a~ln3 OW JOJ ~aylabol pappe a ~ SMOU e asaq~, 00 09 09 1 8 S ZO11 00 8P OP' 1 L S 1011 00 OP OZ 1 9 90011 9'6601 OO'ZZ 00'1 E S 8601 08 0 P OP 0 z s 9601 S P601 ( ~ o l a Jayla60l q 8~ q 6 n o ~ q~g j spay113 6ZS dW3 ,,9E-Z 9L J O sfsAleuy ~ aasj S'ZOLL = lasM 00 SS 00 8r7 00 Ot* OWEr 00 Pz 00 8 xog xoq JOJ (u) dW3,,0E 10041s43 aIMH MH SMOU 1~a~ln3 le yo01 'sva~ln3 IenplAlpul JOJ 13aqspea~ds aaJyl JOJ Jaylatjol pappe ale SMOU asaul,, ,,ZPJO4 VG 1 + S43 080PI 6PLP (U) (44) 'Y) (~$3) 0 (u) JalaUlJad (U s) e a ~ v (SP) (~43) (H) PeaH 6 ~ v ( ~ 1 ) A~H p a l y 6 l a ~ q16ua1 1q61az466v wdaa I ~ W J O N pal la^ uolpag s s o ~ 3 l e ~ o l - b $sea-r) ~ JOJ uo11enb3s,6uluue~ h e ~ y 6 1Gy U O MOU UOlpnJlSqO JaAO Mold JlaM S'ZO L L s! aQePnSPeotl L60 1 @ lJaAln3 9'P60L @ Sl XOS 68 111 (~olaq s!sAleuv CL q 6 n o ~ q8~ l sva~ln3 ass 0 9 3 t l ,O1 x ,S-E dW3 ,,OE-1 111 (OZ) LL Pue 8L LL v a ~ l n 3s p ~ e ~~U!MOIJ ol 'adols (+) e uo a ~ (CL e o l 8 ~s)p a ~ l n 3BU!MOIIOJa41 0011 S6601 (u) UOlleAal3 (543) MOI j ja6~el (sa~3e) (sa~3e) v a ~ l n 301 6ullnql~luo3 1saM ayl UOJJ eaJv 6ullnql~luo3 ea~v 1e1ol (88138) uvou aul wo~4 eaJv 6ullnql~luo=) adAl vaAln3 a1 I J ~ A I ~ ~ IJ~AIKI Excerpted from Palo Verde Watershed Zone A Floodplain Delineation Study Appendix E.2 (FCDMC, 2003) Excerpted from Palo Verde Watershed Zone A Floodplain Delineation Study Appendix E.2 (FCDMC, 2003) Culvert ID Culvert Type Contr~but~ng Area from the north (acres) Contribut~ngArea from the west (acres) Total Area Contr~but~ng to Culvert (acres) Target Flow (cfs) Elevat~on (ft) HW (ft) Culvert Flow Chart 2 or 8 Chart 8 HWlD QIB (cfsfslft) Q-culvert (Cfs) We~rFlow over obstruct~on Mann~ng'sEquat~onfor flow along hlghway We~ghted Q-east Wetted Normal Depth Avg he~ght Length Cross Sect~on HW (L2) Avg Head (H) (cfs) Per~meter(ft) Q (cfs) Area (s ft) (ft ) (ft) (ft) Q-total (cfs) there are two culverts 72 2-30" CMP 56 0 56 45 welr flow depth at elev > (Just East of Culvert 71) 1096 80 Lencjth (L) of berm (ft) welr flow depth at elev > s~deslope (r~ght)[Z I ] 292 00 1096 80 255 00 Lencth (L) of berm (ft) welr flow depth at elev > s~deslope (nght) [Z I ] 292 00 1096 80 255 00 See Culverts 78 through 71 Analysis below) Wsel = 1099.5 (See Analysis for Culverts 67 through 78 together below) 1092 1094 1096 1098 1099 1099.5 1100 Culvert @ 1092 71 2-30" CMP 210 0 210 ** 2 0.80 16 00 4 1 60 38.00 6 2 40 51.OO 7 2 80 57.00 7.5 3 00 60 00 8 3 20 62 00 **These flows are doubled because there are two culverts 32 76 102 114 120 124 120 168 See Culverts 78 through 71 Analysis below) Wsel = 1099.5 (See Analysis for Culverts 67 through 78 together below) Culvert @ 109; Hydraulic Analys~sTor Lulverts 78 through 71 78 1-30" CMP 111 3-5' x 10' RCB 77 (20) 76 2-36" CMP 529 19 75 1-30" CMP 74 1-30" CMP 73 2-30" CMP 2645 56 72 2-30" CMP 210 71 2-30" CMP 0 3570 1092 1094 1095 1098 1099 1099 5 1100 ** 2 0.80 16.00 3 1 20 28 00 6 2 40 51.OO 57 00 7 2 80 7.5 3 00 60 00 8 3 20 62 00 **These flows are doubled because there are two culverts 2845 32 56 102 114 120 124 120 6012 00 ** 1091 1092 1094 1 1096 1096 8 4 1.60 657.8 4.8 1 92 907 3 **These flows are added f o ~Culverts 78 to 71, see spreadsheet In Analys~sSheets The Hydraul~cCalculations at EL > 1096 8 (Wh~cha now a submerged Dyke) IS shown below 67 and 68 69 and 70 78 to 71 1-36" CMP 1-42" CMP 42" CMP and 2-8' x 10' RCB 0 3802 3029 1370 ** 5 2 00 1097 6 2.40 -1098 7 2 80 1099 **These flows were added t& lether for tl culverts, ~nd~v~dual flows are snown on a separate spreadsheet 2431 Wsel=l098 ( T h ~ sWsel is for Culverts 67 through 78) normal depth at elev > The follow~ngtwo culverts 79 t o 81) are o n a (-) Slope, flowing towards Culvert 81 79 3-30" CMP 27 0 Wsel = 1103.5 (See Analysis for Culverts 79,80, and 81 together below) 013 0 80 1 47 3167- 27 51.00 306 00 561 00 0 19 76.75 1 00 1603 27 1.72 5184 83 3244 5275 9357 1105 22 1101 1103 11035 1104 ** 2 0.80 1.OO 2.5 3 1 20 **These flows are tr~pledbecause 48 66 84 48 66 84 Excerpted from Palo Verde Watershed Zone A Floodplain Delineation Study Appendix E.2 (FCDMC, 2003) Culvert ID 81 (21) and 80 Culvert Type Contr~but~ng Area from the north (acres) 4-7' x 10' RCB 2-30" CMP Total Area Contr~but~ng to Culvert (acres) Contr~but~ng Area from the west (acres) Target Flow (cfs) 6343 6343 5054 Elevat~on (ft) HW (fl) Culvert Flow Chart 2 or 8 Chart 8 HWID QIB (c.fs/ft) there are three culverts Bottom W~dth(ft) Q-culvert (cfs) Mann~ng'sEquat~onfor flow along h~ghway We~rFlow over obstruct~on We~ghted Q-east Cross Sect~on Wetted Normal Depth Avg he~ght Length Area (s fl) Per~meter(fl) Q (cfs) (L2) Avg Head (H) (cfs) HW (fl) (fl) )!( weir flow depth at elev > 10 00 1089 2 - ** 1093 1095 1100 1101 1103 22 00 952 38 054 41 00 1740 5.8 0 83 08 00 3670 154 108 95 00 3960 1 69 11.8 106 00 4420 138 1 97 **These flows are added together for two culverts, look at spreadsheet for ~nd~v~dual culvert flows 1089.2 1103.5 11036 ** Q-total (cfs) 111000 952 1740 3670 3960 4420 0 0 0 The Hydraul~cCalculat~onsat EL > 1103 (Wh~chIS now a rnlxed flow w ~ t h Culvert 79) a shown below 79 81 and 80 3-30" CMP 4-7' x 10' RCB 2-30" CMP 796 634 796 Wsel=l103.5 (This Wsel is for Culverts 79,80, and 81) 204 11000 14.3 144 206 11300 **These were added for nlnr: culverts -. normal depth at elev > The following culverts (85 t o 83 and an existing box cul\rert) are on a (+) Slope, flowing towards Culvert E 85 3-36" CMP 118 0 150 120 1099 1103 1105 1106 Wsel = 1107.8 (If Wsel > 1107.8, then culvert analsis will be analyzed as a mix flow with Culvert 83) 83 2 - 6 ' ~IO' RCB 1636 1636 I 1304 1091.1 1094 1095 1100 1101 1105 1107 8 Wsel = 1100 (If Wsel > 1107.8, then culvert analsis will be analyzed as a mix flow with Culvert 85) Box Culvert (2-8' x 10') 281 1 (No Survey for th~sculvert) (Flow is coming directly from Culvert #83) Wsel 0 281 1 2240 1086 1090 1093 1095 1098 1100 = 1100 1-30" CMP 24 Wsel 0 4 1.33 !6 00 6 2 00 70 00 7 2 33 76 00 **These flows are tr~pledbecause there are three culverts Bottom W~dth(ft) I0 00 36 = 1104.3 86 & 87 are a comb~nedsystem 87 1-24" CMP 11 Wsel = 1102 0 138 210 228 138 210 228 welr flow depth at elev > 16 1102 11035 1104 11043 1105 280 460 1320 1460 1900 2180 280 460 1320 1460 1900 2180 welr flow depth at elev > 1110.00 ** 0.50 24.00 4 7 0 88 55 00 9 113 75 00 12 1 50 103 00 1.75 125.00 14 **These flows are doubled because there are two box culverts 480 1100 1500 2060 2500 480 1100 1500 2060 2500 15 2 2.3 3 0.60 0.80 0 92 1 20 10 16 20 28 normal depth at elev > 2 1 00 1106 10 16 20 28 13 1100 1102 1110.00 ** 2.9 0 48 14 00 3.9 0 65 23 00 8.9 1.48 66.00 99 1 65 73 00 139 2 32 900 2 78 109 00 167 **These flows are doubled because there are two box culverts Bottom Wldth (fl) 10 00 normal depth at elev > 45 1108 ** The following culverts (86 t o 89) are on a (-) Slope, flowing towards Culvert 89 86 4648 4776 4648 4776 13 1103 13 Excerpted from Palo Verde Watershed Zone A Floodplain Delineation Study Appendix E.2 (FCDMC, 2003) Culvert ID 88 (23A) Culvert Type Contributing Area from the north (acres) 5-5' x 10' RCB Contributing Area from the west (acres) 2570 Total Area Contributing to Culvert (acres) 0 2560 Target Ffow (cfs) 3-36" CMP 167 270 436 3 Q-culvert (cfs) 1.50 Bottom Width (ft) 1096.5 1098 1099 1100 1100.3 1100.4 1100.5 1101 1102 1103.5 1105 The Road elevation is 1105 89 Elevation (ft) 1103 2040 Wsel = 1104.5 Culvert Flow Chart 2 or 8 Chart 8 HW/D QIB (cfslft) HW (ft) Length (L) of berm (ft) weir flpw depth at elev > side slope (right) [Z:1] ** 275 600 975 1100 1125 1185 1400 1825 2400 2900 0.07 0.13 0.47 1.13 normal depth at elev > 2 3 4 5 1-6'xIO'RCB 245 0 245 195 1-36" 89 3-36" LMY 1097.3 1100 1101 1102 1103.3 41 0 167 270 213 Bottom Width (ft) 10.00 2.7 3.7 4.7 6 13.00 21.00 30.00 43.00 0.45 0.62 0.78 1.OO 275 600 975 1100 1137 1220 1715 3666 0 0 , bottom slope side slope (right) [Z:1] side slope (left) [Z:1] bottom width (ft) normal depth at elev > (Same invert from as-builts) 1103.90 130 210 300 430 130 210 300 430 170 1094 1096 1096.5 1097 1098 0.10 11.55 0.18 35.17 0.58 314.56 1.28 1841.24 0.67 1.OO 1.33 1.67 weir flow depth at elev > Wsel = 1101 90 20.20 40.40 141.40 343.40 125.00 1100.30 202.00 1095.5 The following culverts 90 t o 91) are on a (+) Slope, flowing towards Culvert 90 91(24) Q-total (cfs) 20 .I 0.00 1.5 0.30 5.50 2.5 0.50 i2.00 3.5 0.70 19.50 0.76 22.00 3.8 3.9 0.78 22.50 . 4 0.80 23.70 .:!8.00 4.5 0.90 5.5 1.10 36.50 7 1.40 48.00 8.5 1.70 58.00 **These flows are multiplied.by 5 because there are five box culverts 1095 1097 1098 1099 1100 Q-east (cfs) 20 348 Wsel=l098 (See Analysis for Culverts 89 and 90 together below) Weir Flow over obstruction Manning's Equation for flow along highway Weighted Cross Section Wetted Normal Depth Avg. height Length HvV (L2) Avg Head (H) Perimeter (ft) Q (cfs) Area (s.ft) (1t) (ft) (ft ) 0.001 205.000 6.000 0.00 1095.5 ** p p Wsel = 1098 (This Wsel is for Culverts 89 and 90) - 2 0.67 2.5 0.83 3 1.OO 4 1.33 **These flows are multiplied by 4 because there are four identical culverts 74 104 140 200 26.38 105.50 237.38 659.38 105.54 211.09 316.63 527.71 7.58 48.1 5 141.99 554.53 - 82 152 282 755 APPENDIX TM3-10-2 EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DOCUMENTATION I-10 CULVERTS (LUKE WASH WATERSHED) 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 I D 'lo FCDMC Contract 2007C020 Task - Luke Wash Watershed Zone AE Floodplain Delineation Study Structure Detail Worksheet Wood/Patel Project #073087 @ TypeofStructure: L * ~ P z - qr" File Name: L O ~ E wrs5n Description Name: rr - 10 L~UIER J -0 ( D - ....-.-..-..... N : iS ; ! R . , E . > A 2 M). .Photo . . . _ . _O . Taken _ _ . .. . . . . . . ..-..W .... . ; - ..-.; ..T . , __ _ _ , . _ _ ... . .... , . . ; Partychief: s ~ a .5,256 +so General Condition of Structure . r -ro- zuo 8 Date: . .. .. . , .. . . , _ .. , .. 8 . . , . . . . . . . . . . / .. . I .. I . . . -.,... . , , , , , , I . , . ,..... . , . , ) .. A . . . . : ! 8.. .......... .'........ ". ....-. . - ...--. . .......--'j. * , , . S . . . . . a ' , ! I I . : 3 -1 -. . 3 , , L.- . , , . I * . , , . / . : . : , : , C&~I.~..-F~K<~T . . . s . ; . , . : , . ( . : , . a . , I I I , . , ( . . 8 I I . . !-......a L._.-_.i , 3 t . . +.-..-A,.. ^ . . , $ . . , . . : s1 # r . . .i I % s . I . .;.......................... . . ...... <.. . ......................... !....... .....,... ........ .,.............? .............. -....-...- .., ...-..! .- , , ..; i i i :. : , . .. ,. .. ,. 5. , ., .. , . -----. . . . - . , , , , . ,...-...--.... * '. . ,,. .- , ,,: . . . , , , . . , . * . .' , . . , . - i.. -..-. j.. . . I -.-... i . !. . . ...+!%.:..6.! .... . . ......i. . - .i i ............ :.... :.i ....,,........ . -... .t r: . : : : " , . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . _. . . ..:. ................ .,I iro. _ .i. Fwd .... &....$c! I.%. . .qfi.y!..:.j ..... I......;.... .;......i -... I.. . . - \ ..... ...... :......;....... :...... :... ... ,! , , , . , , , . . , : , . ; : # , ,, ,. ,, . ,. . ; ['._._. ;' .................... : : : ; * i ....... . . . :. . . . .- . . , ......... -- ....... -... . ., . . ..... .. ., ..... _ _ _ ...._ _ , ......... ,.-.. .......... ..-.__.... .......................... . , . . . ....... > -. . .>I . L . . General Condition of Structure .a,.. LooD ., -s , , 4. . €2 -I ~ TZD 12 FCDMC Contract 2007C020 Task - Luke Wash Watershed Zone AE Floodplain Delineation Study Structure Detail Worksheet WoodIPatel Project #073087 Type of Structure: File Name: - L M J ~z 3 0 t Date: /-24-~a~0 L~ltfi ~ f i s t i Description Name: -C- 10 s74. S - Z ~ B +so General Condition of Structure Party Chief: n f F MLLI EL T D FCDMC Contract 2007C020 Task - Luke Wash Watershed Zone AE Floodplain Delineation Study Structure Detail Worksheet Wood/Patel Project #073087 Type of Structure: &r File Name: w KC z- CQI,J,C~ - I ts - m s Date: I F 5' &AS H 52% t 25 Description Name: .c-10 .. ., !... : 1)I1. . Photo . . . . . . . . . .Taken ..................... . ...... .. .$.. . , ..-.: . ....: a : I . . . ..: ..... I / . . < . , :.. " .:.... r ... ' .L... Photo ...................... . I , ., , , . . , . . , . . I Taken ...................... I . , ! . * ..................................... , , . ,. .. .. .......... . . ........................... . . . . . . , . :. . ! . .. . , / . , , . , , 3 . . I . I : - .. .. ................... ,. ,. . .. ............ . , I . . .: , . , . ; (UPSTREAM) : I . . . 9 . . . LAW EL a . ~.............-.... . e ., . , . . ., . . . .., . . . .,.. . . ! , . ...................... . . . . a . :...... : ..... :... ..:. ........... ....... i, . - . . ..........--... , . / 3 I . . . ! . I I .... . / . 6000 ..I._ _ _ _ . I . . , ....... ..................... . a Party Chief: S F , ........................................... , ? ' .. . . .,a.' ... : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . General Condition of Structure . I ,-zc ~TA. . . . . < . , . i , . . , I..... , $ m ... * .: .: .: . : . : . s % . . - '..... ..'-.-., , . .! ,. ,. .. , , ..................... .. .. : ,........................... .:...... ,........ . , , , : ;* ; : . : : ; ; : , , . , , # ! ...................... :... .. : ... :....--:-.-...a. . . . . . . . . -:..-..: ....- ;.-- - - - : , . , itW')j,~ : : :10<8,731 i.......... I . ,i ...........-.-....... j : .' .'. I , . , . * / , , S @OWSTREAM) . ... i , .. , I J... 8 . , i l . s # . , . , I < . / . , , , l . I , . I , / . / ' TFs 1 % FCDMC Contract 2007C020 Task - Luke Wash Watershed Zone AE Floodplain Delineation Study Structure Detail Worksheet Wood/Patel Project #073087 TypeofStructure: L ~ P 3- jd" File Name: ~ 4 LJ~E s Description Name: x - 10 - Date: I 29-zoo E3 Party Chief: x ~ f&4LU64 rd. -5-316 + Talten . . . . .. . . . . .. . . Photo .... ., . . ,. . . -. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(UPSTREAM). .... ....,!d%%7rt:. . . . . . . . I . . - .; ........................................... , , . , . * ,, : , , . ,: ,; , . . 1 : : : . ..........:......5,. . . . ;.. . . . . :. . . . . . . .:...... :...... .:..:.. .. :. .......................................... . ; .........I...... ; . . . . . . . .. . . . .r\ ..... . , . . . , . ) ' c . I . I , , .: & . m , , I , . . . . I . . . . s l ' ;. , . . , . , . . . . I . . . . / . ..--. .. ; . General Condition of Structure .... , . . i % ..... : ..i-. n .......... , , ' 8 2 : * . , , I s d , , i . / , . ' . , : : ; , I , , . , , . ; , , . . :............ / / s / , . : . . . : : ':'. . .: ........ ." ..! . , ,' . ,1 :! / r ! , . ,# . ,, / , . . .; I ' , t , ; ' . - ..: i.. . .. , ! , , :--..-.-! .-.....I b o o ............. Taken ..;..... ,.,....Photo .... .'. . ...<... ___................._..... . .: ,. ,. .,. ,. . - - .................. , . , I , , . .--.-. I , , . .i. .!..$!;+&,., . . ,. , . , ..........:.. ..I -... ;.. .. : . . . ;. 1.. - :. Ed..$$,& -..+t?q.. ...; ;. ... ;- ....................................‘. .. .. .. .. .. ., .. .. . , . , . ' . ..... .. ,. --..-.----..----.-.. .. . -..A..... ----.-.:-.-,-. , . ........-.. : .. ....._.i.-.. .:........L ............... !.--.......... ...................... ....-..;.... <-<.... , . 1 : . a . . ,. . . ., . . , . . , , . , . . . ........... , ................. . , .. . . . . . . . . : . / + ~ j- ,- SY,'LI. w)5).y$ 4J2E ..... ..:... ,, ..-L , . ,:... , ' . ,, . . , , , , . . , . , . . . . ' i.."' ..;.....; * . . . . . . . p d ~ 3 " . ; . ~ o . .:... . 1,, ................................ , ! : ; m , . . . .. . < . ...... ,, . , . .. . . c . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . , . . 0 , , . 2 . , . .:...... : ... .:. . . :. . . . .So-:. @P.WSTF.W.. ! . ... :. . . . I... ..: . , , ! t , 8 ...... :......... ' , > i : ; a , , . , , . t ........................-........................ . I S o > a , , m , , ' . # , . - , , .., ..........................- . ..,A .. ......... ..... ...... '.-. ............. :. . . ...... ..... ... .... ...... .---. .... ..... -.. i . ........... , . -.-.. . r... , .... ................... , . . . . . . ,.... . . .... .... . .# . ..... I .......... ..-.. - - . . ..... 7. .. ...: .... .... ,, . .......... .... General Condition of Structure h . 0 ... ..... .. . . . . .... ..... ( .. ..: . . .:. 3 I . , . , , ....:... ..: .....:.....: €2-4 I D 20 FCDMC Contract 2007C020 Task - Luke Wash Watershed Zone AE Floodplain Delineation Study Structure Detail Worksheet WoodPatel Project #073087 Date: Type of Structure: ~ n p rr " File Name: LJKE Description Name: NI-~CH s-10 57~1. . a , , . . , (.. . , # .: , s . . ....I.. . . , . , , WP , . I . I , ; ; : ; ..,...... ? : .... '. ., .. ,, ........ . .... . . : , . . . . : . . . . . .. . . . . . . . , . .' !... ................-...-.-...-... .... ,, ' :I 1 : . l : t . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . ., _ . :, - OF -1 .. ,. .. .. .............. , , , < ; : ,, . . . .'. - ..:. ! : : :8 . I : , ! * : .."".i":.. I , : ................. . . . ; . . . ,...Mu~L..:. I ER BEUT Photo Taken (DOWNSTREAM) .,............. .................................................................................. . ., ; .................. . r t ~ fLA L& Party Chief: 5319 + zo General Condition of Structure mp , I - 29--6 : , : t . .%s9%-..--.-... %--, , . , , ! I. I ,..... _,_ ........................... ......--.a . I ............................................... . : ,: :/ :, : . : . , , . 8 8 I ( . , , / , . , , 'I , ) : .................. : : ; * ..--..-. . , I , &;i.. . ....&. I .&.. - I . ...$o. .&* . &..$j,,w . 1 7 i. : .' . .... . : , , ......... 8 . ' 8 . . . . .. . . . , , ....... a ; , , . , , . i . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . ,. . . . . . . .. , , . , , . ! . . . , . ,. .. , , --..,.-.-.. ............................... w)qf.. .. ..;... .:..: ..... : .....; ...... ;.. .... :...... :...... :........... ..:.. .. ,...-..,.-.... , , . , . . . , . # . , I , , . , , ; / . , . . . . . . , . .,............ . .,. ........._................... ......;...... :....- :-.-....(.......... ..L .......... ..!..... :...... :... .:...... yi... . ' ; ......i ...... . . . . . . . . . .'... . . , . . , .. . . . . .. . . . . . 1 , , : . : : : . . . . . ... . ..:. ..... :,r .... ; ...... j . . . :............. .....: ..... : ..... i . C ....... .... . ... :.... .:: .... ,............. . :I ............. . .. . ,, .. ., ' . . /. ; : ! < . . . , . . ! : . : . i ; . . . . , , , . I / . , , ................. ..... . ...........-.-................................... .....,. ............................................ ..,. ........... ;........i...... :.... ..: ......:...... : . , / / a , . 3. , a I . . / . . , . . . .. . . ., . . .. . . , . . ;. ' . . L j I , , a . , , . : , : , . , , : ; a 3 . . . . - a - . I , I % / , ' . ! < 3 , . a / A I 2 m . ' I . , . I L.. 4 , , * .I.._ 3 . , , , . , , . . . : a . h . . . , . ..I . 4. n. I . ' I , , .. , , , . / , 2 . I i.._...,... , , 1. I. , L , I . -4. , . . 8 , I . ' / S , . , , , 0. General Condition of Structure .. E 2.5 Z D 2b FCDMC Contract 2007C020 Task - Luke Wash Watershed Zone AE Floodplain Delineation Study Sh-ucture Detail Worksheet WoodIPatel Project #073087 Type of Structure: File Name: L J ICE cub60 r- ,a$%2 Date: I - 2 9-m 8 HASH Description Name: :S-10 5345 -52 s r ~ s3 . qst s r General Condition of Structure Goo0 Party Chief: TEFF LALLIJ~Q T O 28 FCDMC Contract 2007C020 Task - Luke Wash Watershed Zone AE Floodplain Delineation Study Structure Detail Worksheet Wood/Patel Project #073087 Type of Structure: File Name: LUKE YB" m P Date: I-LL-Z~O~ c r l f ~ ~ 53f7-+50 . Description Name: 2-lo 5714. 5 3 ~ +so 4 General Condition of Structure GWD Party Chief: Tiff ULLIER FCDMC Contract 2007C020 Task - Luke Wash Watershed Zone AE Floodplain Delineation Study Structure Detail Worksheet WoodPatel Project #073087 Type of Structure: File Name: c ~ w ~ Z6 $x LJ ICE Photo Taken . ., . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ -z 1-22 ~ e I.+ s,~, Description Name: r-I o . Date: IU'KJ' ., . .' . . . . . . .,. . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . , , ) . (UPSTREAM) . . . . . s ( . . , Party Chief: JEFF s J S 3+ YO . , " , . , -. ' DQ=+ ..; .... , .......... . , , . . , , . . . . . ,,. ........................ , , . MU,E~ .-.;...... . . ;... . ;. e . . Ir . . ......../ . . ! ' . . .............. . , . . . . . .,, . . . . ... . . . ./ ,... I , % ' ! I . General Condition of Structure Photo Taken .......................... , ...................................... .. . . . .. 5 , .. , . . . . . a . s . . . , , . . , . . . ., . . . , . . . ,. . . .. . . . . . .. . . .. . . . + I . . General Condition of Structure Y:\SurveyV;CDMC Fonn2.doc . . . . a . , . . . . . . . . . !..... .; ,< . . . . @OWNSTREREAM). . ..XbtiTA;. . . , a . . . . .. . . . ,. . . . ,. . . . ,. . . . .. . ... 1.. , , ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . < . , , , 0 . a , , / , I . l .............. # . . .,. . . . . . .. . . . . . .*. . . . . . . , . , , , . . .I . . . I ! E 2-8 &D I . , . I D 32 FCDMC Contract 2007C020 Task - Luke Wash Watershed Zone AE Floodplain Delineation Study Structure Detail Worksheet Wood/Patel Project #073087 Type of Structure: goy - t ~ ~ ~ i n -I r Description Name: r-10 General Condition of Structure l o e s s s w . g36ot- 50 &.I) Date: Party Chief: I -22-2008 TEFF LA L L I E ~ T O 36 FCDMC Contract 2007C020 Task - Luke Wash Watershed Zone AE Floodplain Delineation Study Structure Detail Worksheet Wood/Patel Project #073087 Type of Structure: File Name: Description Name: Ibr c ~ w w IO'XS' Date: I-U-W~ WAS/-t 5 - lo S T ~ . 5 Y o L 1-36 General Condition of Structure Goo0 Party Chief: TGPF &f-64 FCDMC Contract 2007C020 Task - Luke Wash Watershed Zone AE Floodplain Delineation Study Structure Detail Worksheet Wood/Patel Project #073087 Type of Structure: File Name: 72." L ~ P LL/W 1-tz-zao8 WASH - Description Name: x r o I Date: 57~1. General Condition of Structure JL(os+. 30 hi) Party Chief: JEFF MLIEA FCDMC Contract 20076020 Task - Luke Wash Watershed Zone AE Floodplain Structure Detail Worksheet Wood/Patel Project #073087 Type of Structure: l u Kc File Name: Date: ~4 ~f 6 ' I + 00 s r ~ SY . 70 Photo Taken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , , . . . . I . ... . . , . . . .. . . . .. . . ., . . . . . . . .:. -.:. .. -: ... . . . . , j m . . . . . ,. . . . . .'. . . . . .,: . . . . . I. .. . .... ,. . . ..: . : I : ....:. .. . ,, . . , .' 3 >.. 1 . . . .......... , I . . . '. , , . .... . " ' ; i. . . ' i .j '. ,, . . . ...-:.. -.. . , , , . , ........ . . , t / , , . ! ; ..... ... . ,. : ; . . .:.. . ; I . ..: {&,?-0;l I . . .. . , , ...a......,.... . . . ....... . ..... ..:, .....,! , , r , . . . ;. ......... , % ........... .. : . ...... , . . . ... . . . . . ...: . . . . . . . , ..... -.. . . I . . . . . . . :. . . . . .. . . A . . .... s , .; . . .* , . .... _ I _ _ _ _ , . ,, ................................... . s . , ., . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . ,. .. I . I , . . LALL~CR ,, ,, .' , . .: . : , . :, . . . ., . . . . .: . .,. . !,. . .. . . :,- - . . .., I : - 2 . .?2rtwdk. . . - . ................ , t . . . ... . . . . . ......... ,. . : . - 3 . ~ . Party Chief: T E F ~ . . . . . . . . . . . (UPSTREAM) , . I A . - / . . . ' I-zt-zoo8 &PSI+ Description Name: r-10 . .. . el in eat ion Study . . , , . ,. ,, .'. , 0 . ..... ,I . - - , !.. . .. . . ... . . . ........ , . ! . . . : . . : ..... 2 , .. , . > . ' ..:. . . ' . . . . : . . . . . . . . ,i, . . . ,. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ..--.:,....... L . ,. . . .. ! I . , ., . , ,, ....,,...... ,.. . , , . ... ; . . . .! . . , . .: . . . i , . . . . . I . . . . . .,. . . . . . ., . . . . . .,. . ..... . , . , ! .!.. ...... : . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 !. . . . .: . . , . ! . . . . : . , ; : , i - , . _: . . .! ' , . s , . , . . . . . . . . ;........... , . . , . .' , ............ . . . ,, , . : : '. - ..' . * .. . , , . ; . . , '.... ...... 1 ............................ ., . . . ... . . . .. . . . . .. . . . '. . . . . . . - . . . - ~ . . . . .a . . . . , . . . . .. . . . .. . . . i ..... , : . . . ! . . ..:.. . > . . , . . . ! . . . , .. , . . . . , , . . . . . . s s , . . , . : ! . . . . . . . . . .: . . . :. ..................... . -:.. . . . . . . . . . .,.. . . . . . . . ................................................ *... ,..- ................ , .. >. ., .. . . . . . . .. .. . . , , .. . , . . . . . .. . . . . ., . . . ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . .... . . . . .,,. . . . . ..,. . . . .' ., . . . .;. . . . . :. . . . . .' . . . . , . . . . . . _ . ,*. . . .. . . _ . . . . ;.. . . . . . . I . . .. / ,, I . . . . , . ,, . , ,. ,, . , , / b . .... .--. . . . . . . . . , I . I . :........ i. . ...: l I . : * . . . l ' L . 3 , ' I , . , , I . I . , . z , I . . s s / . / 8 . . ( , % . ...... i.. General Condition of Structure I .A. ' I . . . t . . , , . . . :. . . . . . !. . . . . . .'.) . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 : .. .., ..... .... ............ . . , . ., .: . . . . . * : : ; : . . / . , , . . : .......................... : : ; : ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . . . . . . -._.: ...... .......,. , . . . . .s , . . , j . , > . , . m . . . . . ..................... , , ." , , , * , ............... , ..-/ .......... -. .-... ..,* .! ,:. / .. , .... 1 . .................... s , , . , L. . , .t I , , I . . . , . I . 2 8 . . ' . I , . . . L.. 8- I 3 ..- I _____: / i _.# 2 . -,-+ Goo0 ? , + ..+-i FCDMC Contract 2007C020 . . . . . . Task - ~ u k Wash e Watershed Zone AE Floodplain Delineation Study Structure Detail Worksheet WoodIPatel Project #073087 . ., Type of Structure: File Name: . Date: CUNELT &% ( -21-2008 wfi~ E Description Name: T- 10 Party ChieE J ~ F . 55oq +YO General Condition of Structure LAUE.Q &ZOO Photo Taken . , . . a . a . . , . . . . ..* . . .:... ,.--................... ............. . . . .,. .. . - b . -/ . . . . . , , ,. . . _ _ . _ . . .,, . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . ,. . . . . .' . . . , .. , , . . - ,, - . # . . ' U . ; . 3 , General condition of structure , . . . . . L . . . . 6000 / , 1....... , .......... :.. . . . . . . I . ... . . . .. 0 I / 1 . .-. , . , .... '.;-".." .... :....,..: ., ,. . ,& :. . ........ , r ... , a .......... ;. , , i : , . , . - " '& .. ,, J. I L ........................... . , . i . I. , .....'.'.. A , .._.. j,.. .;... : . ; .... . , ;. . :. , < / .. ,., . ..... ,.. .; : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . .., . l 1 i , . < a -, ; 4 < ,* ; Ez-/b 8 ! : .: 1 APPENDIX TM3-10-3 EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DOCUMENTATION BUCKEYE FRS #1 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 Flood Control District of Maricopa County Emergency Action Plan For the Buckeye Structures Rev. June 2007 Prepared by: JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc. Revised by: LTM Engineering, Inc. 6/30/2007 Buckeye Structures EAP Rev. June 2007 Exhibit A-3 - Emergency Spillway & Dambreak Inundation Areas – FRS #1 West (lower crest) End of FRS #1 Yuma Parkway Study Area Buckeye Structures EAP Appendix A – Inundation Exhibits 34 Rev. June 2007 Exhibit A-4 - Emergency Spillway & Dambreak Inundation Areas – FRS #1 Between West End and Johnson Road Yuma Parkway Study Area Buckeye Structures EAP Appendix A – Inundation Exhibits 35 Rev. June 2007 Exhibit A-5 - Emergency Spillway & Dambreak Inundation Areas – FRS #1 Between Johnson Road and Sun Valley Parkway Yuma Parkway Study Area Buckeye Structures EAP Appendix A – Inundation Exhibits 36 Rev. June 2007 Exhibit A-6 - Emergency Spillway & Dambreak Inundation Areas – FRS #1 East of Sun Valley Parkway Yuma Parkway Study Area Buckeye Structures EAP Appendix A – Inundation Exhibits 37 Rev. June 2007 Tables - Emergency Spillway & Dambreak Inundation Hydraulics – FRS #1 Emergency Spillway Discharges LOCATION DEPTH (Feet) VELOCITY (Feet/Second) TIME (Hours) Full Emergency Spillway Discharge (50,700 cfs) Below FRS 6-10 10-15 - I-10 6-10 10-15 < 0.25 2/3 Emergency Spillway Discharge (33,800 cfs) Below FRS 5-7 10-13 - I-10 5-7 10-13 < 0.25 1/3 Emergency Spillway Discharge (16,900 cfs) Below FRS 4-6 6-10 - I-10 4-6 6-10 < 0.25 LOCATION DEPTH (Feet) VELOCITY (Feet/Second) TIME (Hours) Below FRS 20-25 4-12 -- I-10 10-15 4-12 < .25 Lower Buckeye Road 4-5 4-9 .25-.5 Broadway Road 3-4 4-7 .5-75 Baseline Road 2-3 4-8 .75-1.5 Gila River 2-3 2-5 1.5-2 Dam Failure Buckeye Structures EAP Appendix A – Inundation Exhibits 38 Rev. June 2007 APPENDIX TM3-11-1 EXISTING HYDROLOGY RESULTS EXCERPTS FROM PALO VERDE FDS 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 Without Levee Concentration Point Controlling Storm Duration 7 of 9 Concentration Point Drainage Area (sq mi) Peak Flow (cfs) Controlling Storm Duration C760GL C760H C760I C760K C760KL C760L C760LL C760M C760O C770C C770D C770DL C770E C770F C770G C780C C780D C790B C790C C790D C790E C790ER C800A C800D C800E C800H C800HR C800I C800J C800L C800M C800MR C800N C800O C800P C800PL C800R C800U C800V 2.34 3.33 60.30 60.76 0.46 64.08 61.17 64.45 64.91 1.93 67.01 2.10 236.46 237.04 242.40 12.61 13.41 2.83 3.66 4.66 270.24 262.21 1.32 2.00 2.51 3.20 2.81 3.47 4.64 6.12 6.82 5.33 7.31 8.03 270.86 270.71 271.53 2.31 274.49 348 402 3312 3312 362 3358 3284 3340 3329 1109 3333 1045 16800 16767 18147 3951 3661 2145 2218 1913 18236 18154 1025 913 694 1080 410 1018 1038 917 1693 798 1758 1632 18217 18218 18183 1029 18148 6-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 6-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 6-Hour 24-Hour 6-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 24-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 6-Hour 24-Hour With Levee Concentration Point Controlling Storm Duration 7 of 10 Concentration Point Drainage Area (sq mi) Peak Flow (cfs) Controlling Storm Duration C740D C740E C750B C750C C750CL C750D C750E C750F C750G C750H C750I C750IL C750J C750L C750M C750N C760B C760C C760E C760F C760G C760GL C760H C760I C760K C760KL C760L C760LL C760M C760N C760O C770C C770D C770DL C770E C770F C770G C780C C780D 60.77 61.04 3.55 3.88 3.71 2.07 4.23 4.64 5.28 5.78 65.23 6.10 65.60 0.64 0.99 66.85 0.97 1.35 0.54 0.94 2.73 2.34 3.33 70.47 70.93 0.46 74.26 71.34 74.62 73.13 90.79 76.57 92.89 76.74 237.24 237.82 243.18 12.61 13.41 768 734 1050 1516 1043 687 1516 1599 1570 1642 2009 1596 1976 376 383 2063 570 299 464 398 551 348 402 2028 2031 362 2142 1976 2096 379 424 1674 1715 1338 7847 7822 8840 3951 3661 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 24-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 6-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 6-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour Sub Basin Controlling Condition Summary 8 of 11 Sub Basin S770E S770F S770G S780A S780B S780C S780D S780E S790A S790B S790C S790D S790E S800A S800B S800D S800E S800F S800G S800H S800I S800J S800K S800L S800M S800N S800O S800P S800Q S800R S800S S800T S800U S800V S800W S800X S810A S820A S820B S820C Area (sq mi) Peak Flow (cfs) 0.70 0.57 1.00 7.58 3.72 1.31 0.80 0.86 1.33 1.50 0.83 1.00 0.88 1.01 0.31 0.69 0.51 0.29 0.23 0.16 0.27 1.17 1.26 0.22 0.70 0.49 0.72 0.47 0.15 0.67 1.85 0.15 0.32 0.64 0.23 0.23 0.26 0.38 0.94 0.24 694 444 705 4251 3085 850 927 947 1354 1193 896 1181 899 800 360 1021 951 391 406 246 335 964 909 303 694 529 815 630 310 895 1011 344 496 886 426 506 472 466 655 317 Controlling Storm Duration 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour With Levee Concentration Point Controlling Storm Duration 9 of 10 Concentration Point Drainage Area (sq mi) Peak Flow (cfs) Controlling Storm Duration C900I C900IR C910B C910D C910E C910F C910G C910GL C910J C910K C910KR C910L C910N C910O C920B C920BR C920D C920E C920F C920H C920J C920L C920M C920N C920R C920S C920U C920W C930B C930D C930DL C930E C930H C930I C930J C940B C940C C940F C940H 5.76 4.87 0.38 0.51 6.10 6.56 6.95 6.75 8.46 9.85 8.81 1.42 10.14 10.63 0.93 0.67 11.90 12.27 12.75 13.97 14.16 0.41 14.73 15.29 16.35 17.32 17.94 0.54 0.35 1.61 1.26 1.85 2.64 21.04 22.36 0.55 1.45 1.59 0.83 843 772 391 340 822 830 821 821 848 1093 840 643 990 982 701 514 1274 1273 1224 1203 1196 374 1221 1211 1213 1190 1175 211 331 718 653 618 906 1632 1372 477 1183 1167 690 24-Hour 24-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 6-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 6-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour 6-Hour APPENDIX TM3-11-2 EXISTING HYDROLOGY RESULTS EXCERPTS FROM LUKE WASH FDS 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 Evaluation ofManninn's n-Value on Peak Flows The selection of Manning's "n" values impacts both hydrologic and hydraulic modeling results. In order to evaluate the impact of Manning's n-value on the peak flows, a sensitivity analysis was conducted by reducing the n-values from 0.005 to 0.01 for the channel routing operations in the HEC-1 model for both shallow-and-wide and welldefined wash cases. The modeling results were listed in Appendix D6 which shows that the n-value reduction has more significant impact on the peak flows for shallow-and-wide washes than well-defined washes. 4.5 Final Results 4.5.1 Hydrologic Analysis Results Eight HEC-1 hydrologic models were developed for four (4) scenarios (without dike, with both dikes, with 1-10 only, and with UPRR only); and two (2) storm durations (100-year, 24-hour, and 100-year, 6-hour). Peak flows from all of the 8 models are summarized in Table 4.3 on the following pages. The maximum flow at each of the concentration points and the representative model that produces the 0 maximum flow is identified. Note that if the maximum flow is generated by more than one model the selection order is as follows: 24-hour model first, then without dike model, and finally, with both dikes. The maximum peak flows for the 100-year storm are also shown in Exhibit A6. The output files for all of the HEC-1 models are presented in the Appendix D7. The HEC-1 model names are summarized below: Condition 100-year, 24-hour 100-year, 6-hour No Dike EC24NODK.DAT EC06NODK.DAT With Dike (1-10 & UPRR) EC24DIKE.DAT EC06DIKE.DAT With 1-10 Dike EC24IlO.DAT EC06110.DAT With UPRR Dike EC24UPRR.DAT EC06UPRR.DAT The electronic files for the HEC-1 models are provided on the CD in Exhibit A7 (inside front cover). WOODIPATEL 17 Hydrologic Study Report for Luke Wash Watershed FDS Contract No. FCD 2007C020 Table 4.3 Peak Flow Summary Table WOODIPATEL 18 Hydrologic Study Report for Luke Wash Watershed FDS Contract No. FCD 2007C020 -- I Table 4.3 Peak Flow Summary Table (continued) Hydrologic Modeling Peak Flow Summary M o d e l => EC24DIICE ~ECOCDIKE 1 ~ ~ 2 4 1 1 0I ~ c 0 6 1 1 0 Hydrograph (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) Name 268 359 268 359 44b 614 723 614 723 C44b 44a 452 568 452 568 615 678 615 67 8 C44a 1 WOODIPATEL I I IEC~~UPRR I 20 ~ECOCUPRR ~ E C Z ~ N O D K~ECOCNODK lMaximum (cfs) 268 614 452 615 I -(cfs) 359 723 568 678 I (cfs) 268 614 452 615 1 (cfs) 359 728 5 68 684 I Maximum Flow Flow (Cfs) Model 359 ECOGNODK 728 ECOGNODK 568 ECOGNODK 6 8 4 ECOGNODK Hydrologic Study Report for Luke Wash wafers)& FDS Contract No. FCD 2007C020 Table 4.3 Peak Flow Summary Table (continued) I I Hydrologic Modeling Peak Flow Summary WOODIPATEL 22 Hydrologic Study Report for Luke Wash Watershed FDS Contract No. FCD 2007C020 APPENDIX TM3-11-3 EXISTING HYDROLOGY RESULTS EXCERPTS FROM BUCKEYE ADMP 091337133, 2010-055, TT005 Technical Memorandum 3 Conceptual Drainage Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study August 2011 BUCKEYE ADMP EXISTING CONDITIONS HYDROLOGY UPDATE - PARAMETERS SUMMARY TABLE 100 Year, 6 Hour Storm SUB BASIN ADMP ADMS 83 83 % INCREASE UNIT DISCHARGE DISCHARGE (cfs/sq mi) AREA SLOPE Length (sq mi) (ft/mi) (ft) LCA (ft) IA (in) DTHETA PSIF (in) XKSAT (in/hr) RTIMP (%) Tp (hrs) S-GRAPH TYPE Kn Lag (min) DISCHARGE (cfs) 0.675 0.675 0.93 0.93 0.25 0.341 0.250 0.375 5.4 5.44 0.270 0.214 30.00 2.8 4.5 4.75 Phoenix Valley Desert Rangeland 0.05 0.05 39 39 1010 781 AREA SLOPE Length (sq mi) (ft/mi) (ft) LCA (ft) IA (in) DTHETA PSIF (in) XKSAT (in/hr) RTIMP (%) Tp (hrs) S-GRAPH TYPE Kn Lag (min) DISCHARGE (cfs) 1.626 1.626 34.9 34.86 2.61 2.61 1.54 1.54 0.54 0.347 0.320 0.329 4.3 4.33 0.400 0.398 1.00 5.88 5.25 5 Desert Rangeland 0.079 Desert Rangeland 0.05 98.3 62 576 1004 -43% 354 617 1.233 1.233 45.9 45.95 2.02 2.02 0.86 0.86 0.36 0.338 0.330 0.339 3.95 3.99 0.440 0.443 9.00 5.58 4.25 4.75 Desert Rangeland 0.035 Desert Rangeland 0.05 30 43 1381 1048 32% 1120 850 1.648 1.648 39.2 39.22 2.04 2.04 1.39 1.39 0.32 1 0.320 0.298 4 4.03 0.490 0.546 13.00 4.13 4.5 5 Desert Rangeland 0.033 Desert Rangeland 0.05 35.2 53 1474 715 106% 894 434 0.549 0.549 40.7 40.65 1.38 1.38 0.74 0.74 0.32 0.306 0.320 0.332 3.95 4.02 0.400 0.485 14.00 14.55 4.25 4.75 Desert Rangeland 0.032 Desert Rangeland 0.05 23 36 956 614 56% 1741 1118 1.172 1.172 49 49.05 1.75 1.75 1.16 1.16 0.32 0.333 0.310 0.342 4.3 4.33 0.440 0.387 19.00 5.98 4.25 4.75 Desert Rangeland 0.038 Desert Rangeland 0.05 34.2 45 1230 1008 22% 1049 860 0.576 0.576 38.7 38.66 1.73 1.73 1.08 1.08 0.36 0.318 0.350 0.336 4.5 4.61 0.320 0.319 1.00 10.55 4.25 4.75 Desert Rangeland 0.028 Desert Rangeland 0.05 25.5 46 913 602 52% 1585 1045 0.588 0.588 34.6 34.58 1.45 1.45 0.48 0.48 0.37 0.358 0.330 0.324 4.4 4.42 0.390 0.391 4.00 2.37 4.25 4.5 Desert Rangeland 0.036 Desert Rangeland 0.05 23 32 943 711 33% 1604 1209 0.816 0.816 11 11.02 1.63 1.63 0.82 0.82 1 1 0.250 0.249 4.1 4.1 0.540 0.541 0.00 0.37 6.75 7 Agriculture Agriculture 0.2 0.2 203.9 204 114 114 0% 140 140 0.951 0.951 25 24.99 2.00 2.00 1.37 1.37 0.28 0.208 0.250 0.25 4.35 4.4 0.440 0.438 47.00 45.68 4.75 5 Phoenix Valley Phoenix Valley 0.048 0.05 55 57 1075 1049 2% 1130 1103 0.607 0.607 16.9 16.84 1.43 1.43 0.71 0.71 0.25 1 0.250 0.25 4 4.02 0.550 0.465 30.00 0.17 4.5 6.5 Phoenix Valley Agriculture 0.05 0.02 42.3 169 781 118 562% 1287 194 0.796 0.796 31 30.99 1.81 1.81 0.75 0.75 0.25 1 0.250 0.291 4.15 4.13 0.520 0.479 30.00 0.12 4.5 6.5 Phoenix Valley Agriculture 0.05 0.02 42.1 168 987 136 626% 1240 171 64.7 64.69 1.72 1.72 29% 1496 1157 MODEL FRW 100-yr, 6-hr SUB BASIN ADMP ADMS 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5A 5A 5B 5B 15A 15A 15B 15B 16 16 17 17 18 18 Page 5 of 10 % INCREASE UNIT DISCHARGE DISCHARGE (cfs/sq mi) BUCKEYE ADMP EXISTING CONDITIONS HYDROLOGY UPDATE - PARAMETERS SUMMARY TABLE 100 Year, 6 Hour Storm SUB BASIN ADMP ADMS 68 68 AREA SLOPE Length (sq mi) (ft/mi) (ft) LCA (ft) IA (in) DTHETA PSIF (in) XKSAT (in/hr) RTIMP (%) Tp (hrs) 0.413 0.413 0.33 0.33 0.52 0.374 0.290 0.334 4.35 4.37 0.370 0.374 4.00 0 4.5 4.5 AREA SLOPE Length (sq mi) (%) (ft) LCA (ft) IA (in) DTHETA PSIF (in) XKSAT (in/hr) RTIMP (%) Tp (hrs) 1.628 1.630 33 32.98 2.96 2.96 1.73 1.73 0.35 0.343 0.350 0.347 4.45 4.498 0.340 0.339 0.00 2.145 4.33 5 0.300 0.300 57.2 57.24 1.34 1.34 0.66 0.66 0.35 0.35 0.350 0.35 4.6 4.624 0.320 0.315 0.00 0 0.947 0.950 41.6 41.6 2.65 2.65 1.06 1.06 0.35 0.35 0.350 0.35 4.65 4.669 0.310 0.311 0.687 0.690 41.1 41.1 2.05 2.05 0.98 0.98 0.35 0.35 0.350 0.35 4.65 4.642 1.466 1.470 27.9 27.95 3.19 3.19 1.81 1.81 0.35 0.343 0.350 0.347 1.223 1.220 27.5 27.48 2.97 2.97 1.67 1.67 0.41 0.348 0.943 0.940 25.9 25.93 2.72 2.72 0.99 0.99 0.740 0.740 29 28.98 2.00 2.00 1.24 1.24 45.6 45.58 0.96 0.96 S-GRAPH TYPE Kn % INCREASE UNIT DISCHARGE DISCHARGE (cfs/sq mi) Lag (min) DISCHARGE (cfs) 37.8 22 458 694 Lag (min) DISCHARGE (cfs) Desert Rangeland 0.025 Desert Rangeland 0.05 34.5 69 1587 929 71% 975 570 4.08 4.42 Desert Rangeland 0.025 Desert Rangeland 0.05 15.9 31 668 422 58% 2227 1407 0.00 0 4.25 4.67 Desert Rangeland 0.025 Desert Rangeland 0.05 26.3 52 1301 758 72% 1374 798 0.320 0.317 0.00 0 4.25 4.58 Desert Rangeland 0.026 Desert Rangeland 0.05 24.1 46 1072 646 66% 1560 936 4.35 4.362 0.360 0.364 0.00 2.082 4.42 5.08 Desert Rangeland 0.025 Desert Rangeland 0.05 37.2 75 1375 772 78% 938 525 0.340 0.343 4.4 4.461 0.350 0.354 1.00 2.288 4.75 5 Desert Rangeland 0.043 Desert Rangeland 0.05 60.6 70 792 713 11% 648 584 0.78 0.402 0.270 0.306 4.25 4.245 0.440 0.444 1.00 1.589 6.33 4.75 Desert Rangeland 0.145 163.9 Desert Rangeland 0.05 56 650 1095 -41% 689 1165 0.56 0.389 0.300 0.324 4.15 4.185 0.420 0.421 1.00 0 5.25 4.75 Desert Rangeland 0.089 Desert Rangeland 0.05 310 559 -45% 419 755 Desert Rangeland 0.084 Desert Rangeland 0.05 -34% 1109 1680 MODEL AREA 2 100-yr, 6-hr SUB BASIN ADMP ADMS A1 A1 B1 B1 C1 C1 D1 D1 E1 E1 E2-a2 E2-a2 E3-a2 E3-a2 E4 E4 Page 10 of 10 S-GRAPH TYPE Kn 95.5 53 % INCREASE UNIT DISCHARGE DISCHARGE (cfs/sq mi)