My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2013-09-19_PERMIT FILE - M2012052 (4)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2012052
>
2013-09-19_PERMIT FILE - M2012052 (4)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:25:14 PM
Creation date
9/25/2013 8:16:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2012052
IBM Index Class Name
PERMIT FILE
Doc Date
9/19/2013
Doc Name
Response
From
Braun Environmental, Inc.
To
DRMS
Email Name
TC1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
The road banks have a slope as steep as 1:1 on rock faces and a portion above the portal does approach <br />a 25% grade. However, using the flow rates shown in the engineering drawing, the associated velocities <br />are anticipated to be less than 1.5 fps, which should not cause any significant scouring following <br />mobilization of the surface fines. If we use the DRMS reviewer's value of 1.55 cfs (which is incorrect) at <br />the 25% grade, then the water velocity calculates to be greater than the than our target velocity of 3 fps. <br />However, since the portion of the road surface that is to carry the runoff is located at or very near <br />bedrock, the water would only scour to the top of the bedrock surface and then flow along it. Any <br />removed material would be deposited at the grade reduction point farther down the road and would be <br />returned back to the area that it was removed as part of normal road maintenance following the storm. <br />To once again to summarize, a flow rate of 0.02 cfs would produce a flow velocity of 1.5 fps, not enough <br />to do any significant scouring. <br />Thanks for the clarification on the Manning numbers. It appeared in the last response that DRMS was <br />suggesting the use of certain values, even though they may not fit the physical characteristics of the site. <br />It is good that the regulations allow us to have sufficient flexibility to make larger scale plan views and <br />sections of the standard base map, and we will continue to take advantage of that allowance. Thanks <br />once again for passing on the channel calculator spreadsheet. It saves quite a bit of effort as the <br />standard old method relies on multiple estimates to reach the proper solution. <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.