AZ FLAP 202(1)_Final Hydraulics Memo.pdf

Hydraulics Technical Memorandum FHWA CFLHD – Red Cloud Mine Road

Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP)

AZ FLAP 202(1)

Red Cloud Mine Road

Hydraulics Technical Memorandum with

Off-Site Hydrology

Yuma County, Arizona

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Central Federal Lands Highway Division IDIQ Contract No. DTFH70-15-D-00004

Task Order No. 0076

September 2018

Prepared by:

101 North First Avenue, Suite 2600 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Project No. W3X71249 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

I. Project Description and Location A. Description B. Location

II. Drainage Basins A. Major Basins B. Minor Basins

III. Drainage Design Criteria A. General Criteria B. Hydrologic Criteria C. Hydraulic Criteria

IV. Hydrology A. Major Basins B. Minor Basins

V. Hydraulics A. Bank Protection B. Cattle Guard Design C. Pipe Culvert Design D. Pipe Culvert, Cattle Guard and Ditch Protection

VI. Conclusion

VII. References

Figures

1 - Location Map 2 – Vicinity Map 3 – Major Basins 4a – Minor Basins 4b – Minor Basins Soil Cement Embankment Protection ii

Appendices

Appendix A Rainfall Data – NOAA 14 Appendix B HEC-1 Hydrology Data Appendix C HEC-1 Analyses Appendix D Rational Method Hydrology Appendix E Culvert HY-8 Computations Appendix F Cattle Guard and Ditch Computations Appendix G Outlet Protection Computations

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

A. DESCRIPTION

Located north of Yuma and east of the Colorado River, Red Cloud Mine Road provides access to residents, a military recreation area and the USFWS Imperial National Wildlife Refuge.

Currently, the roadway is a gravel road with at grade crossings of four major washes. These washes range from approximately 900 to 2,400 feet in width. The road will be improved from the intersection of Martinez Lake Road to the intersection of Wildlife Way, a distance of approximately three miles. By elevating the road slightly through the washes, and constructing easily maintainable cattle guard drainage crossings as trench drains (easy to remove the grate and dispose of deposited sediment as opposed to clogging up pipes), providing a soil cement cap (both sides and top of embankment) and paving the surface, improved access and reduced maintenance will be provided to these federal facilities.

A realignment alternative that removes the road from the northern most wash and locates the road on higher ground where the washes are narrower and slightly steeper is also being considered. Other factors beyond hydraulic performance, including environmental and Refuge operations will weigh into the final decision.

Any attempt to construct the existing road to a 50-year design event would be cost prohibitive.

The current roadway can become impassible and require frequent maintenance during the monsoon season. The goal of the project is to provide an improved drainage solution within the budgeted funds available.

The existing roadway has been evaluated for two primary criteria: passing the 5-year event and passing the 100-year event with equal to or less than 12 inches of overtopping. For the three southernmost washes overtopping was found to be the determining factor for the number of cattle guard drainage structures required. In the fourth northern most wash the 5-year event governed.

As the realignment alternative is new construction, this section of the project was designed to the 50-year event and the 100-year overtopping requirement of Yuma County. For the existing road, the profile was maintained as low as possible with the smallest of culverts used to convey the drainage under the roadway (18-inch), with banks of 18’s used when necessary.

B. LOCATION

Red Cloud Mine Road lies in the northwestern portion of Yuma County, Arizona approximately

27.7 miles north of Yuma and immediately east of Martinez Lake. See Figure 1 – Location Map.

In the project area, Red Cloud Mine is oriented generally north-south. It is located east of the Colorado River within Sections 16 and 19 of Township 6 South, Range 21 West. The project extends from Station 100+00 to Station 353+00. See Figure 2 – Vicinity Map.

Project Location

Figure 1 – Location Map

Project Limits

Figure 2 – Vicinity Map

II. DRAINAGE BASINS

A. MAJOR BASINS

Five major basins on the east side of Red Cloud Mine Road drain across the road to the Colorado River. The watersheds extend east to the Castle Dome Mountains and vary in elevation from 180’ elevation at Martinez Lake to 2,400’ elevation at the peaks of Castle Dome Mountains. All watersheds ultimately discharge to the Colorado River. These major basins drain to Red Cloud Mine Road and vary in area from 0.47 square miles to 60.75 square miles. See Figure 3 – Major Basins. Note that Basins I, J and K have been divided into subbasins based on their topography.

J3

J1

J2

J4

J5

K1

K2

J6

I1I2

J7 L

G

Figure 3 – Major Basins

H

B. MINOR BASINS

For the realignment option, eleven minor basins, designated Basins M thru V, drains to Red Cloud Mine Road. These basins are located on the east side of the road and have been delineated using aerial mapping and USGS topographical mapping (7.5 minute quadrant maps).

The point of concentration is located at the proposed drainage culverts. These minor basins have areas from 5.7 acres to 107.0 acres. See Figures 4a and 4b – Minor Basins. For the existing road option (with no realignment) the subbasins between the existing Red Cloud Mine Road and the realignment have been designated Basin 1 to Basin 7 and Basin MM to Basin VV.

Figure 4a – Minor Basins

Figure 4b – Minor Basins

2 3

5 6

MM

NN LL

QQ

SS

TT UU VV

OO PP

RR

R S

T

U

V

Q

L PON

M

III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA

A. GENERAL CRITERIA

Drainage criteria for the Red Cloud Mine Road project was generally based on the guidelines outlined in FHWA Hydraulic Design Series No. 2 Second Edition, No. 4 Fourth Edition and No.

5 Third Edition. Site specific criteria were based on guidelines of Yuma County and the Arizona Department of Transportation.

B. HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA

MAJOR BASINS

Basins larger than 100 acres were considered major basins. Peak discharges were computed using the Corps of Engineers’ HEC-1 Version 4.1 Flood Hydrograph package. Rainfall data was derived from NOAA Atlas 14. Since access to information about the Yuma Proving Grounds was limited, data for soil type and vegetation growth had to be estimated based on observations along the roadway and by experience from similar projects in the area. Topography was obtained from aerial mapping and from USGS topographic maps. The 5-year, 50-year and 100-year peak discharges were computed. See Appendix C for detailed calculations and program outputs. To confirm the accuracy of the analyses, the results were compared to other projects in the area and checked with Regression Equations and Peak Discharge Relations and Envelop Curves.

MINOR BASINS

Minor basins are those with drainage areas less than 100 acres. Runoff computations were based on the Hydraulic Design Series No. 2, Highway Hydrology, Rational Method. This method relies on basin parameters such as soil cover, hydrologic soils group, vegetation, area, length, slope, rainfall and time of concentration. In accordance with project criteria, the design storm for the realignment alternative is the 50-year event with checking the 100-year peak discharges for overtopping. At existing road wash crossing locations, the design storm is the 5-year event with the 100-year event being checked to ensure overtopping does not exceed 12”. Rainfall intensities were obtained from NOAA Atlas 14. Soil characteristics were estimated as described in the PDDM for major basins and are conservative. Topography was obtained from aerial mapping and from USGS topographic maps. See Appendix D for the minor basin hydrology computations.

C. HYDRAULIC CRITERIA

Based on a current ADT of 500 and projected ADT of 700, Red Cloud Mine Road is classified as a Rural Minor Collector. Therefore, all drainage structures were designed to meet the following criteria, if the criteria was achievable. As noted earlier, in some large crossing locations, cattle guards used as trench drains were provided at known low flow crossing locations, with the balance of the design event flowing over the roadway.

Agency Criteria Storm Event Yuma County Flow Passes under Roadway 25-year FHWA Flow Passes under Roadway 50-year Yuma County Overtop Roadway Less than 12” 100-year

IV. HYDROLOGY

A. MAJOR BASINS

HEC1- RAINFALL RUNOFF MODELING

This methodology was used to model the 5-year, 50-year and 100-year storms for the major drainage basins contributing to Red Cloud Mine Road crossings. Due to differences in topography, the major basins were subdivided into sub-basins with routing performed. All analyses were run for the 24-hour rainfall duration using SCS Type II distribution. Rainfall depths were obtained from NOAA Atlas 14 for the basin located at Latitude 33.05° Longitude -114.33°.

The rainfall depths were 1.81” for the 5-year event, 3.61” for the 50-year event and 4.26” for the 100-year event.

GREEN AND AMPT INFILTRATION LOSSES

The HEC-1 models use the Green-Ampt method to determine the infiltration losses. Since the available information was restricted on US Army land, soil types are not documented in the maps provided by the National Resources Conservation Service. Based on inspections of the soil near the roadway, it was assumed the predominant soil type is sandy loam. The highland areas have numerous, non-contiguous rock outcrops, which were not modeled as they are not representative of the overall topography; therefore, the percent impervious was 0%. The soils are all assumed to be Hydrologic Soil Group C.

The bare-soil saturated hydraulic conductivity, XKSATbare was taken from Arizona Department of Transportation Highway Drainage Design Manual (HDDM) Table 3-2 and weighted based on area. Therefore, a XKSAT value of 0.40 was used. The initial abstraction is based on land use best described by the ADOT classification “Desert and Rangeland, Flat Slope” and “Desert and Rangeland, Hill Slope” resulting in IA equal to 0.35 and 0.15. Only minor development exists in the basin so the percent impervious area, RTIMP, was assumed to be zero. DTHETA was determined to be 0.35 based on the soil types. PSIF was weighted based on area and set at

4.30. The rainfall loss parameters that apply to the existing watershed are expected to be valid for the future.

CLARK UNIT HYDROGRAPH

The Clark Unit Hydrograph is used to model the basin outflow hydrograph. It has two parameters;

time of concentration, Tc and storage coefficient, R. As the HEC-1 modeling used the default HEC-1 time-area relationship, no change will occur. The default Time-Area relationship was used.

TIME OF CONCENTRATION

The desert/mountain time of concentration equation was used.

Tc = 2.4 * A0.1 * L0.25 * Lca 0.25 * S -0.2 (HDDM Equation 4-1)

Where:

A is area (sq mi)

L is watercourse length (mi)

Lca is watercourse length to perpendicular from area centroid

S is average watercourse slope (ft/mi)

Based on the topography, the basin area was measured along with the watercourse length and the length to perpendicular from area centroid. Using high point elevations and low point elevations from USGS mapping, the slope was computed in feet per mile.

STORAGE COEFFICIENT

The storage coefficient is a Clark Unit Hydrograph that relates the effects of direct runoff storage in the watershed to the unit hydrograph shape. The Storage Coefficient, R was calculated using the equation:

R = 0.37 * Tc

1.11 * L 0.80 * A-0.57 (HDDM Equation 4-4)

R was computed for each sub-basin.

Therefore, the parameters determined for the major basins have been listed in the following table. Also shown are the results of the HEC-1 modeling. See the Appendix B for detailed data.

HEC-1 BASIN PARAMETERS

Sub-Basin Area (sq mi) IA DHETA PSIF XKAT RTIMP Tc (hr) R (hr) G 0.47 0.35 0.35 4.30 0.40 0 1.36 1.74 I-1 4.86 0.15 0.35 4.30 0.40 0 1.78 0.79 I-2 5.78 0.35 0.35 4.30 0.40 0 2.41 1.29 J-1 5.18 0.15 0.35 4.30 0.40 0 0.97 0.25 J-2 18.58 0.35 0.35 4.30 0.40 0 3.53 1.73 J-3 1.53 0.15 0.35 4.30 0.40 0 0.70 0.20 J-4 25.12 0.35 0.35 4.30 0.40 0 3.55 1.31 J-5 0.92 0.15 0.35 4.30 0.40 0 1.19 0.68 J-6 4.00 0.35 0.35 4.30 0.40 0 2.27 1.24 J-7 5.42 0.35 0.35 4.30 0.40 0 2.67 1.93 K-1 10.41 0.15 0.35 4.30 0.40 0 2.27 0.74 K-2 17.39 0.35 0.35 4.30 0.40 0 3.90 1.93 L 0.71 0.35 0.35 4.30 0.40 0 1.14 0.95

HEC-1 MAJOR BASIN RESULTS

Basin Area (sq mi) Q 5 (cfs) Q 50 (cfs) Q 100 (cfs) G 0.47 4 51 81 I 10.64 93 826 1,322 J 60.75 316 3,765 6,970 K 27.80 173 1,552 2,525 L 0.71 8 115 188

B. MINOR BASINS

For the Rational Method computations, the time of concentration was computed for each basin.

In accordance with design criteria, the minimum value was set at 10 minutes. Peak discharge rates were calculated using the following equation:

Q = C I A where

C = runoff coefficient based on soil type, one hour rainfall, vegetation cover

I = rainfall intensity (inches per hour)

A = basin area (acres)

RESULTS

The Rational Method computations are included in the Appendix D. The results are summarized in the following table.

RATIONAL METHOD BASIN RESULTS

Basin Area (acres) Q 5 (cfs) Q 50 (cfs) Q 100 (cfs) H 46.0 8.2 36.6 50.5 M 13.6 3.6 15.8 28.0 N 5.7 1.6 7.0 10.0 O 12.8 2.5 10.3 16.1 P 6.9 2.7 10.3 17.4 Q 6.2 2.7 11.2 16.2

R+S 107.0 18.5 82.1 116.4 T 6.3 2.5 11.0 15.8 U 7.1 2.7 12.1 15.6 V 25.0 6.6 30.9 43.9 1 0.8 0.5 1.7 2.4 2 1.5 1.0 3.6 4.9 3 1.2 0.7 2.7 3.8 4 2.3 1.5 5.4 7.5 5 1.4 0.9 3.3 4.5 6 1.0 0.6 2.2 3.0 7 4.9 2.9 11.3 15.6

MM 6.8 3.8 15.6 21.6

NN 10.5 5.0 21.8 30.6

OO 0.7 0.4 1.5 2.1

LL 22.0 6.3 28.3 42.9

PP 1.8 1.2 4.2 5.7

QQ 7.9 2.3 10.8 14.0

RR 1.5 0.8 3.5 4.8

SS 23.2 7.8 37.0 50.9

TT 5.9 2.5 11.2 16.2

UU 2.6 1.3 5.5 7.8

VV 1.6 0.8 3.5 5.0

V. HYDRAULICS

The proposed drainage improvements along Red Cloud Mine Road will consist of roadside ditches, cross culverts, end sections, cattle guards, soil cement and riprap. The proposed drainage design will accomplish the following objectives:

• Provide improved roadway drainage capacity with earthen lined and soil cement lined emabankment and riprap lined ditches.

• Intercept flows from off-site drainage basins and convey under the roadway through culverts or cattle guards.

• Provide outlet protection at the proposed culverts or cattle guards with riprap.

• Develop an all‐weather roadway for the improved transportation of the area.

• Design improvements to meet the project goals in an environmentally sound manner.

A. BANK PROTECTION

Bank protection is required at Basin I, J, K and L crossings to protect the roadway embankment.

The roadway embankment acts as a channel bank as the flows approach the roadway. Proposed cattle guards have been located at low points in the washes, however project flows will travel along the embankment before reaching the cattle guards. Since it is not possible to provide total passage of 100-year design flows will overtop the roadway. To protect the embankment, soil cement will be placed on both sides of the road and on top of the road in accordance with Figure 5 – Soil Cement Bank Protection.

Figure 5 – Soil Cement Bank Protection

B. CATTLE GUARD (Trench Drain) DESIGN

It is proposed to provide cattle guards at the three major basins indicated (and the fourth basin if the realignment alternative is not pursued.

Cattle Guards were proposed rather than traditional vented low-water crossings because the span of the basin floor was over 1000-ft in width. The desire was to keep a flat roadway profile rather than a dipped section to promote a uniform flow over the roadway if the capacity of the vent (CG) was exceeded. To make the largest vent possible, with a removable grate for removal of sediment, a CG was proposed.

The proposed cattle guards will be constructed in accordance with ADOT Standard Details C-

11.10 and C-11.20 with a continuously lined floor and sidewalls. The design capacities were based on Manning’s Equation with the flow estimated with the cattle guard flowing full. To estimate the overtopping flow depth, the design flow is the total runoff minus the cattle guard capacity. The overtopping calculations were in accordance with HDS No. 5. The depths were maintained at 12” or less for the 100-year event. See Appendix F for these hydraulic computations. A summary of the results is shown below. Basins with multiple cattle guards will have the cattle guards spaced to provide the best drainage at the lowest points identified by the mapping.

CATTLE GUARD DESIGN RESULTS

Cattle Guard Cattle Guard Roadway Overtopping Station Q 5 (cfs) Q 100 (cfs) Capacity (cfs) Number Flow (cfs) Flow (cfs) Depth (ft) 136+85 93 1,322 157 1 157 1,165 0.63 185+60 316 6,970 117 9 1,053 5,917 0.99 197+60 173 2,525 106 6 636 1,889 1.00 311+75 8 42 160 1 8 0 0.00 314+00 17 108 156 1 108 0 0.00 318+25 67 561 147 1 147 414 0.29

C. PIPE CULVERT DESIGN

This section generally refers to the realignment potion of the project. Minor basins will be drained by corrugated metal pipe culverts (CMP) of various sizes. A minimum of 12” of cover will be provided at all culverts. Concrete headwalls will be provided for all pipe culverts 48” diameter and larger. Smaller pipe culverts will have end sections. The pipes were designed using HY8.

Tailwater depths were set at 0.5 pipe diameter. The results including computed HW/D are summarized in the following table. The final design will be performed after pipe profiles are established. The pipe culvert sizes, slopes and lengths were established using HY-8. End treatments will consist of end sections or headwalls. Again headwater depths were based on the PDDM. Overtopping depths were computed for the 100-year peak discharge and limited to 12 inches or less per Yuma County Standards. Due to topography, Basins O and R will be conveyed to Basins N and S by roadside ditches.

PIPE CULVERT RESULTS

Basin Station Diameter Q 50 (cfs) HW/D Q 100 (cfs)

G 113+80 4@24 51.0 1.28 81.0 H 121+60 3@24 36.6 1.01 50.5

- 9+63 18 off-site nuisance runoff

M 17+80 24 15.8 1.76 28.0 N + O 20+60 24 17.3 1.96 26.1

L 27+80 54 115.0 1.30 188.0 P 33+75 24 10.3 1.78 17.4 Q 37+00 24 11.2 1.04 16.2

R + S 42+00 42 82.1 1.75 116.4 T 48+50 24 11.0 0.97 15.8 U 51+30 24 12.1 1.13 15.6 V 54+90 30 30.9 1.49 43.9

D. PIPE CULVERT, CATTLE GUARD AND DITCH PROTECTION

PIPE CULVERTS

To protect against erosion and scour, it is proposed to construct riprap aprons at the outlets.

These aprons have been designed in accordance with HEC-14, Hydraulic Design of Energy Dissipators for Culverts and Channels and standard CFLHD plans. The 50-year peak discharges were considered the design flow. Following is a summary of the proposed riprap aprons. It is recommended to size and depth in the table below as a minimum. If the calculated apron length extends beyond the natural drop off of the wash, the apron would be terminated at that point.

See Appendix G for detailed computations.

RIPRAP APRON RESULTS

Basin Station D 50 (in) L A (ft) Apron Depth Width (3D) W A (ft) Vol (cu yd) G 113+80 6 8 2.00 14 19 10 H 121+60 6 8 2.00 11 19 9 M 17+80 6 8 2.00 6 11 5 N+O 20+60 6 8 2.00 6 11 5 L 27+80 10 18 3.00 14 26 40

P 33+75 6 8 2.00 6 11 5 Q 37+00 6 8 2.00 6 11 5 R+S 42+00 14 10 4.00 11 20 23 T 48+50 6 14 2.00 6 11 9 U 51+30 6 8 2.00 6 11 5 V 113+80 10 10 3.00 8 14 12

DITCHES

Roadside ditches will be constructed as unlined trapezoidal or vee ditch sections with 4:1 sideslopes and 5 foot bottom width (for flat bottom ditches). Riprap was required because without protection the ditch capacities and depths of flow provide velocities of more than 4 feet per second. The computations were based on riprap with D50 = 6” and a Mannings n value of 0.069 per ADOT standards.

Beginning Station Ending Station Slope (ft/ft) Q50 (cfs) Depth (ft) Velocity (fps)

22+10, RT 20+60, RT 0.0287 10.3 0.63 2.19

38+30, RT 42+00, RT 0.0243 82.1 1.84 3.64

VI. CONCLUSION

The proposed improvements to Red Cloud Mine Road require extensive upgrades to the existing drainage system. The existing roadside ditches and wash crossings within the project limits were inadequate to properly drain the roadway. The drainage recommendations detailed in this report will greatly improve drainage conditions along the roadway once construction is complete. An all-weather roadway facility will be provided and greatly improve transportation considerations in the project vicinity. These proposed improvements are based on using current hydrologic and hydraulic methodologies.

VII. REFERENCES

1. Federal Lands Highway, Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM), Federal Highway Administration, January 2014

2. Scoping Summary, AZ FLAP 14(1), Red Cloud Mine Lake Road Jacobs Engineering, July

3. Highway Drainage Design Manual, Arizona Department of Transportation, January 2007

4. NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 1, Version 5, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

5. 7.5 min. series, Topographic Maps, US Geological Survey, 2011

6. Federal Highway Administration Hydraulic Design Series No. 2, Highway Hydrology, latest revision

7. Federal Highway Administration HY-8 ver 7.2, August 23, 2011

8. Drainage Design Manual for Maricopa County, Volume 2, January 28, 1996

9. Erosion and Sediment Control, Surface Mining in the Eastern US, US Environmental Protection Agency, 1976

APPENDIX A

RAINFALL DATA – NOAA 14

�c d�� ��ed�� ��f� !d�g

��f ���d�h e�����W d���+�� ��W �d�� d�V�� �U��d�i �"�j��� "�kd�� "��X����d�����" ��l �d�W �"�l�k� d�j ��m� �d�Y�������n��� �d�� �"�n�����d�g (i�� ��i���d�j���� �e�+�kd�o����l �pqrrd�p "�s� �d�� ��d�W ��t��� ��

"�t�W

"�Z_�/1u801;ZvEMu12:G�w7<=/�w;:@<w</1/<7=�R;:x8:=@y�:2/<91/:2�z</{�|J}�@7=R<G:=@:�<=/:;O102�~<=�<=@{:2�3v8;1/<7= .O:;1L:�;:@8;;:=@:�<=/:;O10�~y:1;2�3 � > 3J �> >J 3JJ �JJ >JJ 3JJJ>M9<= JI3�4����������)%� JI3QJ����%������%� JI�>|�����%���%%�� JIHH>�����)���)%�� JI44P���%��������� JI>4Q���)�&����&�� JI��3���&�������%� JIQ|H����������%� 3IJJ����&)���)�� 3I3|������������3JM9<= JI3PP����)�������� JI�>P���������%��� JIH|>���%)����&�%� JI>J|���))�������� JI�P�������������� JIPHH����%�����)� 3IJ3���������)�� 3I�3����&������ 3I>����%������� 3IPJ���&�������3>M9<= JI�HH������������� JIH�J����&����%�%� JI4|J���)�������)� JI�H3���&&&������� JIP4�����&�����)� 3IJH���������)�� 3I�>���������)� 3I>J���%�����%� 3IP|���������&� �I�4������%�%%�HJM9<= JIH34����)&���%�%� JI4H3���%)����&�&� JI�>|���&������)�� JIP4|����)������� 3I34��������&)� 3IH|����%������ 3I�P���)����%&� �IJ�����&������ �I>4������%���� HIJ3���&��)�)���JM9<= JIHPP���%�)���))�� JI>HH���)%�����%�� JIP3�����������)� 3IJ>�����)���%�� 3I43����&������ 3IQ����&%���%�� �IJP����%������ �I4|������%�&&� HI34������)�&�� HIQH�%����&�&)��M{; JI4>P���%�%���&�&� JI�4J���&�&������� 3IJH����)������� 3IH������������ 3IP����)������� �IHJ����������� �IPJ����&�%�)�� HIHP���&)�)���� 4I�P�%����&�%&� >IJP�%�&����))�HM{; JI>J|���)��������� JIQJP���&��������� 3I3����������%�� 3I4Q����������� 3I||��������)�� �I44����%����&� �I|����%��%�&�� HI>�������)�%)� 4I>J�%�%��&�&%� >IH>�%��%�������M{; JI��J���&������%�� JIP>>������������ 3IH���������&�� 3IQ3���)�����%� �I�Q����������� �IQ4������%�%�� HI�P������%��&� HIPQ�%����)���� 4IP��%����&���� >I�P�)�������&�3�M{; JIQHJ�����������%� 3IJ3����&������� 3I>����%�����%� 3I||��������%%� �I�J������%���� HI3H���&��%���� HI�|������)�%�� 4IH3�%�)%�&��&� >I���)��)���%�� �IJP�)������))��4M{; JIP�P����)������� 3I3|��������)�� 3IP3���&&����%� �IH3����������� HIJ����&)�%�&)� HI�3�%����)���� 4I���%�)��&��&� 4I|Q�)����&���� >I||�)�������&� �IP>�&������)���MG1y JI|3H������������ 3I�>��������)�� 3IPP����������� �IHQ����������� HIJQ���&��%�&�� HI�H�%����)���� 4IHJ�%�&%�&���� >IJ3�)��&�&���� �IJ>�)������%�� �I|��&�%)���)��HMG1y JI|4������)������ 3I�|��������&�� 3I|H����)����)� �I4������������ HI3�����%�%��)� HI�|�%����)�%%� 4IH4�%�&��&���� >IJ��)��������� �IJP�)������%�� �I|>�&�%����&%�4MG1y JI|QJ����%�����%� 3IH�����)���&)� 3I|Q����������� �I4Q����������� HI3P������%���� HIQ>�%��%�)�%�� 4IHQ�%����&��)� >IJH�)�������%� �I33�)������)�� �I||�&�%����&��QMG1y 3IJ>������������ 3I4H����%����&� �I33��������))� �I�H����)�%��)� HIH�����)�%���� HI|H�%����)�&�� 4I>>�%����&�%%� >I�J�)��&����&� �I3>�)��%���)&� QIJ��&�)�����&�3JMG1y 3IJ|����%������� 3I4|���������%� �I����������&�� �IQP���%��%���� HI>��%����)��%� 4I�J�%�&��)���� 4IPP�)��%�&��%� >I�J�)�&�����)� �I�H�&��������� QI4��&��)�������JMG1y 3I�>��������)&� 3IQ3���)������� �I>>���������&� HI3P������%���� 4IJ��%�)%�)���� 4IQ��%����&�&)� >I4|�)�&&���)%� �I���&������)�� QIH4�&�������%� PI�3���)�������HJMG1y 3I4����������%� 3I|4���������%� �IP4���))�%���� HI>J�%����)���� 4IH|�%��)�&��%� >IJP�)����&��&� >IQ|�)��&������ �I>>�&�)������� QI�J����������� PI4>�����������4>MG1y 3I>Q���%)������ �I3>����)���)�� HI3�������%��%� HI|3�%�%)�)�)�� 4I|3�)����&��&� >I�P�)������&�� �I4P�&�)����&)� QI�|��������&&� PI4J����������� |I�Q���)��������JMG1y 3IQH���)������� �IHP����)����%� HI>3�%����)���� 4IH��%����)��&� >IH|�)�&������� �I�3�&��)������ QIJ>�&��������� QI|3���&)������ |IJ����%������� |I|>����������������

���������p�!+����

"��j������+ ��&���T�� ������� �� k��� �����W������ ���W��� ������������pqrr�r�" ��� n k����j��

,-�./0123405

7����8��901:�;�0</305:=>055�:405<�?<//03@

,-./0�12-30�40..-56

,-./0�12-30�7-8

,-./0�12-30�-0.5-3

9:;<7=75 9:>??<7@?75 9:>??<7@?75

"�2 � ���3�!������ �3�!

���1 "�4� ��1 "�4 ����0�������%�&�5 ���4����6 ��7�8����9���:���� ���#��6��0�:����

<=>??@AB?AC

APPENDIX B

HEC-1 HYDROLOGY DATA

Project: Red Cloud Mine Road By:

Subject: Hydrology Date:

HEC-1 Parameters Checked:

Drainage Areas Jacobs Project No.:

1 sq. in. = 0.64 sq. mi.

Area in. in. sq.in. sq. mi.

G 0.50 0.80 0.30 0.12 0.08

1.00 0.30 0.30 0.09 0.06

1.00 0.95 0.30 0.29 0.18

1.00 0.55 0.25 0.14 0.09

1.00 0.50 0.20 0.10 0.06

TOTAL 0.47

1 sq. in. = 41.84 acres

Area in. in. sq.in. acres

H 0.50 1.80 0.20 0.18 7.53

1.00 1.40 0.40 0.56 23.43

1.00 0.45 0.60 0.27 11.30

0.50 0.30 0.60 0.09 3.77

TOTAL 46.02

1 sq. in. = 0.64 sq. mi.

Area in. in. sq.in. acres

I1 1.00 1.50 0.25 0.38 0.24

1.00 1.10 0.20 0.22 0.14

1.00 0.90 1.25 1.13 0.72

1.00 1.25 2.05 2.56 1.64

1.00 1.20 2.20 2.64 1.69

1.00 0.35 1.90 0.67 0.43

TOTAL 4.86

Area in. in. sq.in. acres

I2 1.00 2.10 0.20 0.42 0.27

1.00 0.25 0.50 0.13 0.08

1.00 1.60 1.50 2.40 1.54

JPF

8/31/18

W3X71249

HEC-1 Parameters Checked:

Drainage Areas Jacobs Project No.:

JPF

8/31/18

W3X71249

0.50 2.30 0.80 0.92 0.59

1.00 0.20 4.10 0.82 0.52

1.00 0.95 2.00 1.90 1.22

0.50 4.25 1.15 2.44 1.56

TOTAL 5.78

J1 0.50 1.50 0.70 0.53 0.34

1.00 0.40 0.90 0.36 0.23

1.00 0.60 1.50 0.90 0.58

1.00 1.10 1.60 1.76 1.13

1.00 1.30 2.00 2.60 1.66

1.00 0.40 2.10 0.84 0.54

1.00 0.65 1.00 0.65 0.42

0.50 0.70 1.30 0.46 0.29

TOTAL 5.18

J2 0.50 0.90 0.35 0.16 0.10

1.00 0.50 1.35 0.68 0.43

1.00 0.50 2.50 1.25 0.80

1.00 1.70 3.60 6.12 3.92

0.50 1.30 0.50 0.33 0.21

1.00 1.15 1.20 1.38 0.88

1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.32

0.50 0.70 0.15 0.05 0.03

1.00 3.90 2.70 10.53 6.74

1.00 2.50 0.30 0.75 0.48

0.50 1.35 1.25 0.84 0.54

1.00 0.30 0.90 0.27 0.17

0.50 1.35 4.00 2.70 1.73

1.00 3.95 0.60 2.37 1.52

0.50 0.85 2.60 1.11 0.71

TOTAL 18.58

Area in. in. sq.in. sq. mi.

J3 0.50 0.70 0.85 0.30 0.19

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.64

1.00 0.40 0.80 0.32 0.20

HEC-1 Parameters Checked:

Drainage Areas Jacobs Project No.:

JPF

8/31/18

W3X71249

0.50 0.50 0.70 0.18 0.11

1.00 0.80 0.45 0.36 0.23

0.50 0.95 0.50 0.24 0.15

TOTAL 1.53

J4 0.50 0.40 0.50 0.10 0.06

1.00 0.35 0.30 0.11 0.07

1.00 2.85 2.65 7.55 4.83

0.50 1.25 1.75 1.09 0.70

0.50 2.65 2.90 3.84 2.46

0.50 2.60 2.90 3.77 2.41

0.50 0.90 4.20 1.89 1.21

1.00 1.85 4.70 8.70 5.56

1.00 1.10 4.30 4.73 3.03

1.00 1.30 3.80 4.94 3.16

0.50 1.30 3.90 2.54 1.62

TOTAL 25.12

J5 0.50 0.60 0.95 0.29 0.18

1.00 0.70 0.45 0.32 0.20

1.00 0.90 0.80 0.72 0.46

0.50 0.20 1.20 0.12 0.08

TOTAL 0.92

J6 1.00 0.50 0.25 0.13 0.08

1.00 1.20 0.35 0.42 0.27

1.00 1.90 0.40 0.76 0.49

1.00 1.30 0.80 1.04 0.67

1.00 1.15 0.35 0.40 0.26

1.00 1.50 0.85 1.28 0.82

1.00 1.15 0.55 0.63 0.40

1.00 1.05 0.95 1.00 0.64

1.00 0.55 1.10 0.61 0.39

TOTAL 4.00

Area in. in. sq.in. sq. mi.

J7 1.00 0.45 0.60 0.27 0.17

0.50 0.30 0.80 0.12 0.08

HEC-1 Parameters Checked:

Drainage Areas Jacobs Project No.:

JPF

8/31/18

W3X71249

1.00 1.10 0.70 0.77 0.49

1.00 1.05 1.00 1.05 0.67

1.00 2.20 1.25 2.75 1.76

0.50 0.45 1.30 0.29 0.19

1.00 0.60 1.10 0.66 0.42

0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.32

0.50 2.10 0.95 1.00 0.64

1.00 1.05 0.90 0.95 0.60

0.50 0.25 0.90 0.11 0.07

TOTAL 5.42

K1 0.50 0.95 2.20 1.05 0.67

1.00 0.70 2.35 1.65 1.05

1.00 0.95 2.25 2.14 1.37

1.00 1.15 2.75 3.16 2.02

1.00 0.85 2.95 2.51 1.60

1.00 0.55 3.10 1.71 1.09

1.00 0.80 2.85 2.28 1.46

1.00 0.70 2.55 1.79 1.14

TOTAL 10.41

Area in. in. sq.in. sq. mi.

K2 0.50 1.30 1.15 0.75 0.48

0.50 2.15 1.30 1.40 0.89

1.00 0.35 2.00 0.70 0.45

1.00 0.90 2.00 1.80 1.15

1.00 1.15 2.00 2.30 1.47

1.00 1.20 1.90 2.28 1.46

1.00 1.75 1.25 2.19 1.40

0.50 5.50 4.00 11.00 7.04

0.50 4.00 1.40 2.80 1.79

1.00 0.60 0.95 0.57 0.36

0.50 0.60 0.70 0.21 0.13

1.00 1.60 0.40 0.64 0.41

0.50 0.40 0.25 0.05 0.03

1.00 0.50 0.45 0.23 0.14

HEC-1 Parameters Checked:

Drainage Areas Jacobs Project No.:

JPF

8/31/18

W3X71249

1.00 0.20 0.50 0.10 0.06

1.00 0.30 0.55 0.17 0.11

TOTAL 17.39

L 0.50 0.30 0.20 0.03 0.02

1.00 0.75 0.65 0.49 0.31

1.00 0.53 0.70 0.37 0.24

0.50 0.90 0.43 0.19 0.12

0.50 0.30 0.10 0.02 0.01

0.50 0.12 0.30 0.02 0.01

TOTAL 0.71

Area sq. mi.

G 0.47

I1 4.86

I2 5.78

J1 5.18

J2 18.58

J3 1.53

J4 25.12

J5 0.92

J6 4.00

J7 5.42

K1 10.41

K2 17.39

L 0.71

Summary

HEC-1 Parameters Checked:

Data Jacobs Project No.:

HEC‐1 Basin Parameters

ID

Area, sq.mi. IA DHETA PSIF XKSAT High Pt Low Pt L Lca S RTIMP Tc (hr) R (hr)

G 0.47 0.35 0.35 4.3 0.4 345 210 2.64 1.24 51 0 1.36 1.74

I‐1 4.86 0.15 0.35 4.30 0.40 880 560 3.60 1.60 89 0 1.78 0.79

I‐2 5.78 0.35 0.35 4.30 0.40 560 200 4.89 3.20 74 0 2.41 1.29

I 10.64

J‐1 5.18 0.15 0.35 4.30 0.40 2400 1800 2.04 0.64 294 0 0.97 0.25

J‐2 18.58 0.35 0.35 4.30 0.40 1800 800 9.60 6.24 104 0 3.53 1.73

J‐3 1.53 0.15 0.35 4.30 0.40 1820 1520 1.04 0.53 288 0 0.70 0.20

J‐4 25.12 0.35 0.35 4.30 0.40 1520 800 8.32 5.60 87 0 3.55 1.31

J‐5 0.92 0.15 0.35 4.30 0.40 870 800 1.60 0.80 44 0 1.19 0.68

J‐6 4.00 0.35 0.35 4.30 0.40 800 600 3.92 2.72 51 0 2.27 1.24

J‐7 5.42 0.35 0.35 4.30 0.40 600 200 6.72 3.04 60 0 2.67 1.93

J 60.75

K‐1 10.41 0.15 0.35 4.30 0.40 920 680 4.08 2.00 59 0 2.27 0.74

K‐2 17.39 0.35 0.35 4.30 0.40 680 200 8.64 6.40 56 0 3.90 1.85

K 27.80

L 0.71 0.35 0.35 4.30 0.40 400 200 2.12 1.06 94 0 1.14 0.95

Without data from NRCS soils maps, it was assumed all soils are sandy loam. Soil condtions are assumed to be dry.

Tc = 2.4 * A^0.1 * L^0.25 * Lca^0.25 * S^-0.20

JPF

8/31/18

HEC-1 Parameters Checked:

Routing Subbasins Jacobs Project No.:

Routing

RT I1 25 nl nm nr l s

RS 0.06 0.035 0.06 30400 0.0118

RX 0 300 600 800 1200 1400 1700 2000

RY 480 475 469 466 466 469 475 480

RT J1 42 nl nm nr l s

RS 0.06 0.035 0.06 50700 0.0197

RX 0 150 300 500 1500 1700 1850 2000

RY 1215 1210 1205 1200 1200 1205 1210 1215

RT J3 39 nl nm nr l s

RS 0.06 0.035 0.06 46500 0.0155

RX 0 300 600 800 1200 1400 1700 2000

RY 1013 1008 1003 1000 1000 1003 1008 1013

RT J15 17 nl nm nr l s

RS 0.06 0.035 0.06 20700 0.0097

RX 0 100 200 400 1600 1800 1900 2000

RY 715 710 705 700 700 705 710 715

RT J16 29 nl nm nr l s

RS 0.06 0.035 0.06 34600 0.0116

RX 0 100 200 400 1600 1800 1900 2000

RY 415 410 405 400 400 405 410 415

RT K1 42 nl nm nr l s

RS 0.06 0.035 0.06 49800 0.0096

RX 0 200 400 700 1300 1600 1800 2000

RY 415 410 405 400 400 405 410 415

using 5 minute interval and average velocity of 4 fps

JPF

8/5/18

APPENDIX C

HEC–1 ANALYSES

1*****************************************

* FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) * * U.S. ARMY CORPS OF

ENGINEERS *

* JUN 1998 * * HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING

CENTER *

* VERSION 4.1 * * 609 SECOND STREET

* * * DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616

* RUN DATE 05SEP18 TIME 13:41:08 * * (916) 756-1104

X X XXXXXXX XXXXX X

X X X X X XX

X X X X X

XXXXXXX XXXX X XXXXX X

X X X X X X X X X X X

X X XXXXXXX XXXXX XXX

THIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC-1 KNOWN AS HEC1 (JAN 73), HEC1GS, HEC1DB, AND HEC1KW.

THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES -RTIMP- AND -RTIOR- HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE USED WITH THE 1973-STYLE INPUT

STRUCTURE.

THE DEFINITION OF -AMSKK- ON RM-CARD WAS CHANGED WITH REVISIONS DATED 28 SEP 81. THIS IS THE FORTRAN77 VERSION NEW OPTIONS: DAMBREAK OUTFLOW SUBMERGENCE , SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION, DSS:WRITE STAGE FREQUENCY, DSS:READ TIME SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULATION INTERVAL LOSS RATE:GREEN AND AMPT INFILTRATION

KINEMATIC WAVE: NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM

1 HEC-1 INPUT PAGE 1

LINE ID.......1.......2.......3.......4.......5.......6.......7.......8.......9

1 ID Red Cloud Mine Road 4R

2 ID AZ FLAP 14(1)

3 ID

4 ID

5 ID EVENT: 5 YEAR - 24 HOUR

6 ID RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION: PER ADOT Manual 7 ID TIME OF CONCENTRATION: PER ADOT Manual

8 ID INPUT FILE NAME: RCMR-5.TXT

9 ID DATE: September 2018

10 ID

11 ID PREPARED BY John Patrick Fyie; Jacobs 12 ID ADDRESS: 101 N. First Ave, SUITE 2600 13 ID Phoenix, ARIZONA 85003

14 ID TEL: 602.530.1667

15 ID

16 IT 5 300

17 IO 5

18 KK G

19 KM Runoff from Sub-basin G

20 BA 0.47

21 KM Area 5-min 15-min 1-hr 2-hr 3-hr 6-hr 12-hr 24-hr

22 PH 100.35 0.26 0.49 0.82 1.03 1.12 1.32 1.56 1.81

23 KM IA DTheta PSIF XKsat % IMP

24 LG 0.35 0.35 4.30 0.40 00

25 KM L = 2.64 MI; Lca = 1.24 MI; S = 51 FT/MI(2.1 %)

26 UC 1.36 1.74

27 KM

28 KK I-1

29 KM Runoff from Sub-basin I-1

30 BA 4.86

31 LG 0.15 0.35 4.30 0.40 00

32 UC 1.78 0.79

33 KM

34 KK RI-1

35 KM Route through I-2

36 RS 25 FLOW 0

37 RC 0.06 0.035 0.06 30400. 0.0118

38 RX 0.0 300. 600. 800. 1200. 1400. 1700. 2000.

39 RY 480. 475. 469. 466. 466. 469. 475. 480.

40 KM

41 KK I-2

42 KM Runoff from Sub-basin I-2

43 BA 5.78

44 LG 0.35 0.35 4.30 0.40 00

45 UC 2.41 1.29

46 KM

47 KM Combine Hydrographs

1 HEC-1 INPUT PAGE 2

LINE ID.......1.......2.......3.......4.......5.......6.......7.......8.......9

48 KK C-I12

49 HC 2

50 KM

51 KK J-1

52 KM Runoff from Sub-basin J-1

53 BA 5.18

54 LG 0.15 0.35 4.30 0.40 00

55 UC 0.97 0.25

56 KM

57 KK RJ-1

58 KM Route through J-2

59 RS 42 FLOW 0

60 RC 0.06 0.035 0.06 50700. 0.0197

61 RX 0.0 150. 300. 500. 1500. 1700. 1850. 2000.

62 RY 1215. 1210. 1205. 1200. 1200. 1205. 1210. 1215.

63 KM

64 KK J-2

65 KM Runoff from Sub-basin J-2

66 BA 18.58

67 LG 0.35 0.35 4.30 0.40 00

68 UC 3.53 1.73

69 KM

70 KM Combine Hydrographs

71 KK C-J12

72 HC 2

73 KM

74 KK J-3

75 KM Runoff from Sub-basin J-3

76 BA 1.53

77 LG 0.15 0.35 4.30 0.40 00

78 UC 0.70 0.20

79 KM

80 KK RJ-3

81 KM Route through J-4

82 RS 39 FLOW 0

83 RC 0.06 0.035 0.06 46500. 0.0155

84 RX 0.0 300. 600. 800. 1200. 1400. 1700. 2000.

85 RY 1013. 1008. 1003. 1000. 1000. 1003. 1008. 1013.

86 KM

87 KK J-4

88 KM Runoff from Sub-basin J-4

89 BA 25.12

90 LG 0.35 0.35 4.30 0.40 00

91 UC 3.55 1.31

92 KM

93 KM Combine Hydrographs

1 HEC-1 INPUT PAGE 3

94 KK C-J34

95 HC 2

96 KM

97 KK J-5

98 KM Runoff from Sub-basin J-5

99 BA 0.92

100 LG 0.15 0.35 4.30 0.40 00

101 UC 1.19 0.68

102 KM

103 KM Combine Hydrographs

104 KK C-J15

105 HC 3

106 KM

107 KK RJ-15

108 KM Route through J-6

109 RS 17 FLOW 0

110 RC 0.06 0.035 0.06 20700. 0.0097

111 RX 0.0 100. 200. 400. 1600. 1800. 1900. 2000.

112 RY 715. 710. 705. 700. 700. 705. 710. 715.

113 KM

114 KK J-6

115 KM Runoff from Sub-basin J-6

116 BA 4.00

117 LG 0.35 0.35 4.30 0.40 00

118 UC 2.27 1.24

119 KM

120 KM Combine Hydrographs

121 KK C-J16

122 HC 2

123 KM

124 KK RJ16

125 KM Route through J-7

126 RS 29 FLOW 0

127 RC 0.06 0.035 0.06 34600. 0.0116

128 RX 0.0 100. 200. 400. 1600. 1800. 1900. 20000.

129 RY 415. 410. 405. 400. 400. 405. 410. 415.

130 KM

131 KK J-7

132 KM Runoff from Sub-basin J-7

133 BA 5.427

134 LG 0.35 0.35 4.30 0.40 00

135 UC 2.67 1.93

136 KM

137 KM Combine Hydrographs

1 HEC-1 INPUT PAGE 4

138 KK C-J17

139 HC 2

140 KM

141 KK K-1

142 KM Runoff from Sub-basin K-1

143 BA 10.41

144 LG 0.15 0.35 4.30 0.40 00

145 UC 2.27 0.74

146 KK RK-1

147 KM Route through K-2

148 RS 42 FLOW 0

149 RC 0.06 0.035 0.06 49800. 0.0096

150 RX 0.0 200. 400. 700. 1300. 1600. 1800. 2000.

151 RY 415. 410. 405. 400. 400. 405. 410. 415.

152 KM

153 KK K-2

154 KM Runoff from Sub-basin K-2

155 BA 17.39

156 LG 0.35 0.35 4.30 0.40 00

157 UC 3.90 1.85

158 KM

159 KM Combine Hydrographs

160 KK C-K12

161 HC 2

162 KM

163 KK L

164 KM Runoff from Sub-basin L

165 BA 0.71

166 LG 0.35 0.35 4.30 0.40 00

167 UC 1.14 0.95

168 ZZ

1*****************************************

* FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) * * U.S. ARMY CORPS OF

ENGINEERS *

* JUN 1998 * * HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING

CENTER *

* VERSION 4.1 * * 609 SECOND STREET

* * * DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616

* RUN DATE 05SEP18 TIME 13:41:08 * * (916) 756-1104

Red Cloud Mine Road 4R

AZ FLAP 14(1)

EVENT: 5 YEAR - 24 HOUR

RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION: PER ADOT Manual TIME OF CONCENTRATION: PER ADOT Manual

INPUT FILE NAME: RCMR-5.TXT

DATE: September 2018

PREPARED BY John Patrick Fyie; Jacobs ADDRESS: 101 N. First Ave, SUITE 2600 Phoenix, ARIZONA 85003

TEL: 602.530.1667

17 IO OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES

IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL

IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL

QSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE

IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA

NMIN 5 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL

IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE

ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME

NQ 300 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES

NDDATE 2 0 ENDING DATE

NDTIME 0055 ENDING TIME

ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK

COMPUTATION INTERVAL .08 HOURS

TOTAL TIME BASE 24.92 HOURS

ENGLISH UNITS

DRAINAGE AREA SQUARE MILES

PRECIPITATION DEPTH INCHES

LENGTH, ELEVATION FEET

FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET

SURFACE AREA ACRES

TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT

RUNOFF SUMMARY

FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES

PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF

OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK AREA STAGE MAX STAGE

+ 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR

HYDROGRAPH AT

+ G 4. 13.33 1. 0. 0. .47

HYDROGRAPH AT

+ I-1 97. 13.42 29. 7. 7. 4.86

ROUTED TO

+ RI-1 80. 15.83 29. 7. 7. 4.86

+ 466.05 15.83

HYDROGRAPH AT

+ I-2 41. 14.00 18. 5. 4. 5.78

2 COMBINED AT

+ C-I12 93. 15.75 46. 12. 11. 10.64

HYDROGRAPH AT

+ J-1 227. 12.75 31. 8. 8. 5.18

ROUTED TO

+ RJ-1 138. 15.50 31. 8. 8. 5.18

+ 1200.03 15.50

HYDROGRAPH AT

+ J-2 93. 14.92 54. 15. 14. 18.58

2 COMBINED AT

+ C-J12 223. 15.50 85. 22. 22. 23.76

HYDROGRAPH AT

+ J-3 89. 12.58 9. 2. 2. 1.53

ROUTED TO

+ RJ-3 38. 15.83 9. 2. 2. 1.53

+ 1000.02 15.83

HYDROGRAPH AT

+ J-4 140. 14.75 76. 20. 19. 25.12

2 COMBINED AT

+ C-J34 153. 15.33 85. 22. 21. 26.65

HYDROGRAPH AT

+ J-5 25. 13.00 6. 1. 1. .92

3 COMBINED AT

+ C-J15 376. 15.42 175. 46. 44. 51.33

ROUTED TO

+ RJ-15 339. 17.00 174. 46. 44. 51.33

+ 700.08 17.00

HYDROGRAPH AT

+ J-6 30. 13.92 12. 3. 3. 4.00

2 COMBINED AT

+ C-J16 342. 17.00 182. 49. 47. 55.33

ROUTED TO

+ RJ16 314. 19.42 180. 49. 47. 55.33

+ 400.07 19.42

HYDROGRAPH AT

+ J-7 30. 14.33 16. 4. 4. 5.42

2 COMBINED AT

+ C-J17 316. 19.42 185. 53. 51. 60.75

HYDROGRAPH AT

+ K-1 183. 13.67 63. 16. 15. 10.41

ROUTED TO

+ RK-1 146. 17.75 63. 16. 15. 10.41

+ 400.07 17.75

HYDROGRAPH AT

+ K-2 80. 15.17 49. 14. 13. 17.39

2 COMBINED AT

+ C-K12 173. 17.67 105. 29. 28. 27.80

HYDROGRAPH AT

+ L 8. 13.08 2. 1. 1. .71

*** NORMAL END OF HEC-1 ***

1*****************************************

* FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) * * U.S. ARMY CORPS OF

ENGINEERS *

* JUN 1998 * * HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING

CENTER *

* VERSION 4.1 * * 609 SECOND STREET

* * * DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616

* RUN DATE 31AUG18 TIME 13:05:19 * * (916) 756-1104

X X XXXXXXX XXXXX X

X X X X X XX

X X X X X

XXXXXXX XXXX X XXXXX X

X X X X X X X X X X X

X X XXXXXXX XXXXX XXX

THIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC-1 KNOWN AS HEC1 (JAN 73), HEC1GS, HEC1DB, AND HEC1KW.

THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES -RTIMP- AND -RTIOR- HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE USED WITH THE 1973-STYLE INPUT

STRUCTURE.

THE DEFINITION OF -AMSKK- ON RM-CARD WAS CHANGED WITH REVISIONS DATED 28 SEP 81. THIS IS THE FORTRAN77 VERSION NEW OPTIONS: DAMBREAK OUTFLOW SUBMERGENCE , SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION, DSS:WRITE STAGE FREQUENCY, DSS:READ TIME SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULATION INTERVAL LOSS RATE:GREEN AND AMPT INFILTRATION

KINEMATIC WAVE: NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM

1 HEC-1 INPUT PAGE 1

LINE ID.......1.......2.......3.......4.......5.......6.......7.......8.......9

1 ID Red Cloud Mine Road 4R

2 ID AZ FLAP 14(1)

3 ID

4 ID

5 ID EVENT: 50 YEAR - 24 HOUR

6 ID RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION: PER ADOT Manual

7 ID TIME OF CONCENTRATION: PER ADOT Manual

8 ID INPUT FILE NAME: RCMR-50.TXT

9 ID DATE: August 2018

10 ID

11 ID PREPARED BY John Patrick Fyie; Jacobs 12 ID ADDRESS: 101 N. First Ave, SUITE 2600 13 ID Phoenix, ARIZONA 85003

14 ID TEL: 602.530.1667

15 ID

16 IT 5 300

17 IO 5

18 KK G

19 KM Runoff from Sub-basin G

20 BA 0.47

21 KM Area 5-min 15-min 1-hr 2-hr 3-hr 6-hr 12-hr 24-hr

22 PH 100.35 0.55 1.03 1.72 2.30 2.44 2.74 3.13 3.61

23 KM IA DTheta PSIF XKsat % IMP

24 LG 0.35 0.35 4.30 0.40 00

25 KM L = 2.64 MI; Lca = 1.24 MI; S = 51 FT/MI(2.1 %)

26 UC 1.36 1.74

27 KM

28 KK I-1

29 KM Runoff from Sub-basin I-1

30 BA 4.86

31 LG 0.15 0.35 4.30 0.40 00

32 UC 1.78 0.79

33 KM

34 KK RI-1

35 KM Route through I-2

36 RS 25 FLOW 0

37 RC 0.06 0.035 0.06 30400. 0.0118

38 RX 0.0 300. 600. 800. 1200. 1400. 1700. 2000.

39 RY 480. 475. 469. 466. 466. 469. 475. 480.

40 KM

41 KK I-2

42 KM Runoff from Sub-basin I-2

43 BA 5.78

44 LG 0.35 0.35 4.30 0.40 00

45 UC 2.41 1.29

46 KM

47 KM Combine Hydrographs

1 HEC-1 INPUT PAGE 2

48 KK C-I12

49 HC 2

50 KM

51 KK J-1

52 KM Runoff from Sub-basin J-1

53 BA 5.18

54 LG 0.15 0.35 4.30 0.40 00

55 UC 0.97 0.25

56 KM

57 KK RJ-1

58 KM Route through J-2

59 RS 42 FLOW 0

60 RC 0.06 0.035 0.06 50700. 0.0197

61 RX 0.0 150. 300. 500. 1500. 1700. 1850. 2000.

62 RY 1215. 1210. 1205. 1200. 1200. 1205. 1210. 1215.

63 KM

64 KK J-2

65 KM Runoff from Sub-basin J-2

66 BA 18.58

67 LG 0.35 0.35 4.30 0.40 00

68 UC 3.53 1.73

69 KM

70 KM Combine Hydrographs

71 KK C-J12

72 HC 2

73 KM

74 KK J-3

75 KM Runoff from Sub-basin J-3

76 BA 1.53

77 LG 0.15 0.35 4.30 0.40 00

78 UC 0.70 0.20

79 KM

80 KK RJ-3

81 KM Route through J-4

82 RS 39 FLOW 0

83 RC 0.06 0.035 0.06 46500. 0.0155

84 RX 0.0 300. 600. 800. 1200. 1400. 1700. 2000.

85 RY 1013. 1008. 1003. 1000. 1000. 1003. 1008. 1013.

86 KM

87 KK J-4

88 KM Runoff from Sub-basin J-4

89 BA 25.12

90 LG 0.35 0.35 4.30 0.40 00

91 UC 3.55 1.31

92 KM

93 KM Combine Hydrographs

1 HEC-1 INPUT PAGE 3

94 KK C-J34

95 HC 2

96 KM

97 KK J-5

98 KM Runoff from Sub-basin J-5

99 BA 0.92

100 LG 0.15 0.35 4.30 0.40 00

101 UC 1.19 0.68

102 KM

103 KM Combine Hydrographs

104 KK C-J15

105 HC 3

106 KM

107 KK RJ-15

108 KM Route through J-6

109 RS 17 FLOW 0

110 RC 0.06 0.035 0.06 20700. 0.0097

111 RX 0.0 100. 200. 400. 1600. 1800. 1900. 2000.

112 RY 715. 710. 705. 700. 700. 705. 710. 715.

113 KM

114 KK J-6

115 KM Runoff from Sub-basin J-6

116 BA 4.00

117 LG 0.35 0.35 4.30 0.40 00

118 UC 2.27 1.24

119 KM

120 KM Combine Hydrographs

121 KK C-J16

122 HC 2

123 KM

124 KK RJ16

125 KM Route through J-7

126 RS 29 FLOW 0

127 RC 0.06 0.035 0.06 34600. 0.0116

128 RX 0.0 100. 200. 400. 1600. 1800. 1900. 20000.

129 RY 415. 410. 405. 400. 400. 405. 410. 415.

130 KM

131 KK J-7

132 KM Runoff from Sub-basin J-7

133 BA 5.427

134 LG 0.35 0.35 4.30 0.40 00

135 UC 2.67 1.93

136 KM

137 KM Combine Hydrographs

1 HEC-1 INPUT PAGE 4

138 KK C-J17

139 HC 2

140 KM

141 KK K-1

142 KM Runoff from Sub-basin K-1

143 BA 10.41

144 LG 0.15 0.35 4.30 0.40 00

145 UC 2.27 0.74

146 KK RK-1

147 KM Route through K-2

148 RS 42 FLOW 0

149 RC 0.06 0.035 0.06 49800. 0.0096

150 RX 0.0 200. 400. 700. 1300. 1600. 1800. 2000.

151 RY 415. 410. 405. 400. 400. 405. 410. 415.

152 KM

153 KK K-2

154 KM Runoff from Sub-basin K-2

155 BA 17.39

156 LG 0.35 0.35 4.30 0.40 00

157 UC 3.90 1.85

158 KM

159 KM Combine Hydrographs

160 KK C-K12

161 HC 2

162 KM

163 KK L

164 KM Runoff from Sub-basin L

165 BA 0.71

166 LG 0.35 0.35 4.30 0.40 00

167 UC 1.14 0.95

168 ZZ

1*****************************************

* FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) * * U.S. ARMY CORPS OF

ENGINEERS *

* JUN 1998 * * HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING

CENTER *

* VERSION 4.1 * * 609 SECOND STREET

* * * DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616

* RUN DATE 31AUG18 TIME 13:05:19 * * (916) 756-1104

Red Cloud Mine Road 4R

AZ FLAP 14(1)

EVENT: 50 YEAR - 24 HOUR

RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION: PER ADOT Manual TIME OF CONCENTRATION: PER ADOT Manual

INPUT FILE NAME: RCMR-50.TXT

DATE: August 2018

PREPARED BY John Patrick Fyie; Jacobs ADDRESS: 101 N. First Ave, SUITE 2600 Phoenix, ARIZONA 85003

TEL: 602.530.1667

17 IO OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES

IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL

IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL

QSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE

IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA

NMIN 5 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL

IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE

ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME

NQ 300 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES

NDDATE 2 0 ENDING DATE

NDTIME 0055 ENDING TIME

ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK

COMPUTATION INTERVAL .08 HOURS

TOTAL TIME BASE 24.92 HOURS

ENGLISH UNITS

DRAINAGE AREA SQUARE MILES

PRECIPITATION DEPTH INCHES

LENGTH, ELEVATION FEET

FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET

SURFACE AREA ACRES

TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT

RUNOFF SUMMARY

FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES

PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF

OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK AREA STAGE MAX STAGE

+ 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR

HYDROGRAPH AT

+ G 51. 13.33 20. 5. 5. .47

HYDROGRAPH AT

+ I-1 772. 13.42 234. 59. 56. 4.86

ROUTED TO

+ RI-1 633. 15.83 234. 59. 56. 4.86

+ 466.40 15.83

HYDROGRAPH AT

+ I-2 584. 14.00 254. 65. 62. 5.78

2 COMBINED AT

+ C-I12 826. 15.67 482. 123. 119. 10.64

HYDROGRAPH AT

+ J-1 1780. 12.75 250. 62. 60. 5.18

ROUTED TO

+ RJ-1 1095. 15.50 250. 62. 60. 5.18

+ 1200.21 15.50

HYDROGRAPH AT

+ J-2 1333. 14.83 769. 208. 201. 18.58

2 COMBINED AT

+ C-J12 2317. 15.42 1019. 271. 261. 23.76

HYDROGRAPH AT

+ J-3 691. 12.50 74. 18. 18. 1.53

ROUTED TO

+ RJ-3 298. 15.83 74. 18. 18. 1.53

+ 1000.17 15.83

HYDROGRAPH AT

+ J-4 2005. 14.75 1084. 282. 271. 25.12

2 COMBINED AT

+ C-J34 2060. 15.00 1158. 300. 289. 26.65

HYDROGRAPH AT

+ J-5 194. 13.00 44. 11. 11. .92

3 COMBINED AT

+ C-J15 4334. 15.33 2218. 582. 560. 51.33

ROU