North Peoria Area Drainage Master Plan - Flood Control District of ...
North Peoria Area Drainage Master Plan - Flood Control District of ... North Peoria Area Drainage Master Plan - Flood Control District of ...
hard pan, typically less than two feet. Additionally,these soils typically occur on steepslopes. The steep terrain associated with thesesoils combined with the shallow depth to bedrockresults in physical conditions that are notsuitable to the traditional technique for providingretention. As a result, the retention/detention requirement for development siteswith these characteristics has, in the past,often been waived; however, the presence ofsuch physical characteristics does not meanthat alternative methods of retention/detentionshouldn’t be investigated or required.Therefore, two alternative methods for reducingor decreasing the effects of increased runoffdue to development are evaluated for thisstudy area. These methods are in-stream, offlineretention and in-stream, in-line detention.ALTERNATIVE EVALUATIONFlood control management alternatives areevaluated on how well each alternative meetsthe goals of the North Peoria ADMP. The evaluationsof the alternatives are based onweighted elements of four criteria. The criteriaare Public Safety, Social Impacts, EnvironmentalImpacts, and Economic Impacts. Aweighting factor was developed by the steeringcommittee that represents the “relativeimportance” of each element in the evaluationprocess. The weighting factors were measuredon a scale of 1 to 10, where a factor of 10represented highest importance. Weighingfactors of 10, 3, 6, and 4 were used for PublicSafety, Social Impacts, EnvironmentalImpacts, and Economic Impacts, respectively.Each criterion is made up of several elementsthat are individually rated. A rating system isused to measure the effectiveness of eachalternative at meeting the elements of each criterion.The rating system ranges from 1 to 5.A value of 1 represents a “very low” rating atmeeting the criteria element, a value of 2 representsa “low” rating, a value of 3 representsa “moderate” rating, a value of 4 represents a“high” rating, and a value of 5 represents a“very high” rating. Rated values for each elementare averaged to obtain an average valuefor the criterion. The average rating value is15then multiplied by the appropriate weightingfactor to obtain a score for the criterion. Scoresdetermined from the four criterion are thenadded together to obtain an overall score forthe alternative.Public Safety CriterionThe public safety criterion is based on evaluatingthe threat for loss of human life, possibledamage to structures and property andimpacts to water quality resulting from implementationof a given alternative. This criterionis an indicator of how well the proposedalternative will succeed in reducing or eliminatinglife threatening, or potentially lifethreatening, flood and erosion related hazards,as well as reducing the potential forflood and erosion related damage to publicand private properties. The evaluation of thepublic safety criterion is based on the effectivenessof each alternative in satisfying thetwo elements of the Public Safety Criterion.The two elements are Protect Life and Propertyand Water Quality.Protect Life and Property. Historically, societyhas experienced loss of life and property dueto flooding and erosion that is associated witha stormwater runoff event. This element ratesthe function of the alternative to keep the publicout of harms way during a 100-year stormevent while minimizing potential downstreamimpacts to life, property and structures.Water Quality. Federal guidelines mandatethat communities develop Best ManagementPractices (BMPs) to promote water quality.This element accounts for the impacts of analternative on water quality.Social CriterionThe evaluation of the social impact criterion isbased on the effectiveness of each alternativein satisfying the elements of CommunityAcceptance, Multiple-use Opportunities, andCompatibility with Other Plans.Community Acceptance. This element accountsfor the input received from the public involve-
NORTH PEORIAAREA DRAINAGE MASTER PLANment process. There is a nationwide trendtowards promoting non-structural approachesand ecosystem preservation, as witnessed bythe removal of flood control structures inmany parts of the country. Federal agenciessuch as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers andthe U.S. Bureau of Reclamation have, in recentyears, significantly changed their focus fromhard engineering solutions to include nonstructuralalternatives, preservation of naturalhydrologic functions, and ecosystem restoration.The specific input from the publicinvolvement process was that the preservationof watercourses and their associated habitat ismore important than maximizing developableland by destroying the natural hydrologic processes,which results from encroaching intowatercourses.Multiple-use Opportunities. This element is anindicator of the multiple-use opportunities ofan alternative. Examples of such usesincluded passive and active recreation, trails,and open space. The effectiveness of the criterionis based on the extent of multi-use opportunitiesthat result from implementing a givenalternative.Compatibility with Other Existing Plans. Thiselement is an indicator of the compatibility ofa proposed alternative with planning policiescited in other existing planning documents.Planning documents reviewed are, ComprehensivePlan-Maricopa County’s Eye to theFuture 2020 (1997), and White Tank/GrandAvenue Area Plan (December 6, 2000); MAG’sDesert Spaces Plan (1995) and ESDA (June2000); and the City of Peoria’s General Plan(June 2001), Desert Lands Conservation MasterPlan (Auusst 1999), Lake Pleasant/NorthPeoria Area Plan (November 1999) and TrailsMaster Plan (January 1999).Environmental CriterionThe evaluation of the Environmental Criterionis based on the effectiveness of each alternativein satisfying the three elements of EnvironmentalImpacts, Visual Resources andAesthetic Compatibility, and Impacts on CulturalResources.16Environmental Impacts. This element consists oftwo sub elements: complexity of environmentalpermitting and impacts on biologicalresources. Complexity of Environmental Permittingfocuses on the acquisition of the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permits and 401Water Quality Certifications. The alternativesare measured based on the potential for needinga 404 Permit, the level of 404 Permitrequired (Nationwide vs. Individual), and thelevel of mitigation necessary to gain federalapproval to construct the alternative. To evaluatethis element, it is assumed that alternativeswith structural features will causedisturbance to the land within the Waters ofthe United States. The more extensive thestructural features, the lower the rating. As anexample, constructing a wide, rectangular,concrete channel would place fill within theWaters of the United States, require an Individual404 Permit and 401 Water Quality Certification,and require extensive mitigationmeasures to replace the relatively high-valuehabitat and vegetation associated with theundisturbed desert riparian wash. Impacts onbiological resources accounts for the potentialimpact on biological resources by the proposedalternatives and how well the proposedmanagement alternative will succeed in preservingor restoring the natural riparian environmentfound along the study watercourses.The most important indicator of this is theability of a given alternative to preserve wildlifehabitat or minimize disruption to existinghabitat.Visual Resource and Aesthetic Compatibility.This element evaluates the relative degree ofcontrast between the various components ofthe alternatives and their setting in the landscape.Visual contrast is based on spatialdominance, visual compatibility, color, line,and form.Impact on Cultural Resources. This elementaccounts for the potential impact on culturalresources by a given alternative. It is also anindicator of how well the alternatives will succeedin preserving cultural resources.
- Page 2 and 3: TABLE OF CONTENTSPreface ..........
- Page 4: PREFACEAt the request of the City o
- Page 8 and 9: LIST OF TABLESTable 1: Regional and
- Page 10 and 11: INTRODUCTIONThe natural physical ch
- Page 12 and 13: minimize the effect of urbanization
- Page 14 and 15: Peoria General PlanThe Peoria Gener
- Page 16 and 17: HYDRAULICS8QQDPHG:DVK%LJ6SULQJHydra
- Page 18 and 19: FLOOD AND EROSION HAZARD ZONESWith
- Page 20 and 21: ing them before they are destroyed
- Page 22 and 23: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENTAn integral part
- Page 26 and 27: Economic CriterionThe evaluation of
- Page 28 and 29: Table 4Summary of Evaluation Result
- Page 30 and 31: INTRODUCTIONRULES OF DEVELOPMENTCom
- Page 32 and 33: Objective EH1.3Identify erosion haz
- Page 34 and 35: the purpose of watershed and waterc
- Page 36 and 37: the North Peoria ADMP. Users of the
- Page 38 and 39: (short, constricted reaches), backw
- Page 40 and 41: • Collect hydrologic data - peak
- Page 42 and 43: • Basin Outlet (Culvert). The bas
- Page 44 and 45: Low Impact Structural AlternativeFo
- Page 46 and 47: ack at the natural channel bed. In
- Page 48 and 49: stability, and to assure structure
- Page 50 and 51: developed for the Estrella Roadway,
- Page 52 and 53: gabion mattressA gabion mattress is
- Page 54 and 55: Maricopa County, August 21, 1993, H
- Page 70 and 71: 100-year W.S. ElevationBufferFEMA 1
- Page 72 and 73: NORTH PEORIA AREA DRAINAGE MASTER P
hard pan, typically less than two feet. Additionally,these soils typically occur on steepslopes. The steep terrain associated with thesesoils combined with the shallow depth to bedrockresults in physical conditions that are notsuitable to the traditional technique for providingretention. As a result, the retention/detention requirement for development siteswith these characteristics has, in the past,<strong>of</strong>ten been waived; however, the presence <strong>of</strong>such physical characteristics does not meanthat alternative methods <strong>of</strong> retention/detentionshouldn’t be investigated or required.Therefore, two alternative methods for reducingor decreasing the effects <strong>of</strong> increased run<strong>of</strong>fdue to development are evaluated for thisstudy area. These methods are in-stream, <strong>of</strong>flineretention and in-stream, in-line detention.ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION<strong>Flood</strong> control management alternatives areevaluated on how well each alternative meetsthe goals <strong>of</strong> the <strong>North</strong> <strong>Peoria</strong> ADMP. The evaluations<strong>of</strong> the alternatives are based onweighted elements <strong>of</strong> four criteria. The criteriaare Public Safety, Social Impacts, EnvironmentalImpacts, and Economic Impacts. Aweighting factor was developed by the steeringcommittee that represents the “relativeimportance” <strong>of</strong> each element in the evaluationprocess. The weighting factors were measuredon a scale <strong>of</strong> 1 to 10, where a factor <strong>of</strong> 10represented highest importance. Weighingfactors <strong>of</strong> 10, 3, 6, and 4 were used for PublicSafety, Social Impacts, EnvironmentalImpacts, and Economic Impacts, respectively.Each criterion is made up <strong>of</strong> several elementsthat are individually rated. A rating system isused to measure the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> eachalternative at meeting the elements <strong>of</strong> each criterion.The rating system ranges from 1 to 5.A value <strong>of</strong> 1 represents a “very low” rating atmeeting the criteria element, a value <strong>of</strong> 2 representsa “low” rating, a value <strong>of</strong> 3 representsa “moderate” rating, a value <strong>of</strong> 4 represents a“high” rating, and a value <strong>of</strong> 5 represents a“very high” rating. Rated values for each elementare averaged to obtain an average valuefor the criterion. The average rating value is15then multiplied by the appropriate weightingfactor to obtain a score for the criterion. Scoresdetermined from the four criterion are thenadded together to obtain an overall score forthe alternative.Public Safety CriterionThe public safety criterion is based on evaluatingthe threat for loss <strong>of</strong> human life, possibledamage to structures and property andimpacts to water quality resulting from implementation<strong>of</strong> a given alternative. This criterionis an indicator <strong>of</strong> how well the proposedalternative will succeed in reducing or eliminatinglife threatening, or potentially lifethreatening, flood and erosion related hazards,as well as reducing the potential forflood and erosion related damage to publicand private properties. The evaluation <strong>of</strong> thepublic safety criterion is based on the effectiveness<strong>of</strong> each alternative in satisfying thetwo elements <strong>of</strong> the Public Safety Criterion.The two elements are Protect Life and Propertyand Water Quality.Protect Life and Property. Historically, societyhas experienced loss <strong>of</strong> life and property dueto flooding and erosion that is associated witha stormwater run<strong>of</strong>f event. This element ratesthe function <strong>of</strong> the alternative to keep the publicout <strong>of</strong> harms way during a 100-year stormevent while minimizing potential downstreamimpacts to life, property and structures.Water Quality. Federal guidelines mandatethat communities develop Best ManagementPractices (BMPs) to promote water quality.This element accounts for the impacts <strong>of</strong> analternative on water quality.Social CriterionThe evaluation <strong>of</strong> the social impact criterion isbased on the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> each alternativein satisfying the elements <strong>of</strong> CommunityAcceptance, Multiple-use Opportunities, andCompatibility with Other <strong>Plan</strong>s.Community Acceptance. This element accountsfor the input received from the public involve-
Change language