Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Memorandum <br />November 22, 1978 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />i" <br /> <br />14. "Detailed sub-basin breakout" is not contigious for the <br />urbanized area. Figure I is fine for analyses of the specific <br />problem areas but a comprehensive sub--basin breakout will be <br />necessary for application of the rational formula at other <br />locations. <br /> <br />15. The study by design is based on existing development. Where <br />are the draft "recorrunendations and review criterion for future <br />development" to be provided to the city. <br /> <br />B. In reviewing the Hydraulic Addendum text, we have <br />the following additional questions and corrunents: <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />16. <br />the <br />such <br /> <br />(page 1). A discharge profile would be helpful in describing <br />hydrology used in the HEC-2 runs. Please consider including <br />a diagram in the final report.. <br /> <br />17. (page 8). The small irrigation resE!rvoir appears to be <br />located in the Northeast lo of Section 3, T48N, R9:',:, New Nexico <br />Principal Meridian. What is your estimate of t,he st_o_rage capacity <br />of this small reservoir? We could not, find a water rigmor plan <br />listed for it in the office of the Sta'te Engineer. <br /> <br />18. (page 14). What weir formula was used in t:he overflow calculations? <br />No sample calculation was provided. <br /> <br />19. (page 14). The differences in tlle map versus digitizE!d <br />elevations appears to be overstated and the text casts shadows <br />of unnecessary,doubt on the technical accuracy of the study. <br /> <br />20. (page 15). Where is Table 4? <br /> <br />21. (page 15). We do not agree that thi=,re was a "lack of pointal <br />density in the invert area of the digi,tized section" and fail to <br />see how such ground elevations would "reflect the location of <br />vegetation or other impediments present,." <br /> <br />22. (page 19). Where is Figure 3? Is it the map identified as <br />Figure II? <br /> <br />23. (page 19). In the calculation appendix, the 5-year frequency <br />discharge is shown on a graph as 175 cts by extEmding the curve. <br />The text lists the 5-year discharge rounded up t:o 180 cfs. In <br />checking with separate snowmelt and rain flood frequency discharge <br />curves for Montrose Arroyo in the Hydraulic Addendum, the 5-year <br />frequency storm runoff can be computed mathematically by statistically <br />combining the snowmelt and rain flood curves. (sE,e attached calculation <br />and curve). A combined runoff of 220 cfs will be read for the <br />5-year frequency. This is 22-percent more than what was routed <br />(180cfs) and greater than the minimum (200 <':fs) capacity of the <br />crossing under the Montrose Hospital. <br />