Laserfiche WebLink
• regulations substantiates this intrepretation, i.e. assess the entire <br />area as opposed to isolated areas. <br />MLRD C0~^.t^E NT: <br />Engineering Analysis <br />The study conducted by WET, Inc. identifies only channel segments 41-1, <br />9/10-1, 7-2(51), 9/10-1(51E) and 9/10-2(51E) as having characteristics that <br />are erosive and could lead to channel instability. General measures are <br />presented to mitigate the potential erosion. <br />From the drainage profiles provided in the report, it appears that several <br />other stream segments have been oversteepened, notably segments of 31-2 <br />31-2(51W), and 7-1(51W) the latter two of which are at the toe of the <br />reclaimed slopes adjacent to the confluence with S. Foidel Creek. The <br />consultant used average slope of all stream segments to identify potentially <br />unstable areas. This method did not identify short oversteepened areas that <br />• may be above the permissible velocity (chosen as 6 fps). <br />Also, from the drainage profiles, two segments were noted as having distinct <br />nick points; 7-1 and 9 & 10-3. These segments also have short oversteepened <br />slopes associated with the nick points. <br />The use of average slope vs. maximum slope in the calculations of channels <br />exceeding permissible velocity has led to these specific areas not being <br />identified. If the same analysis is done focusing on the short <br />oversteepened segments, the following erosive velocities result. <br />Segment Discharge Slope Velocity Shear Stress <br />31-2 12.9 25% 6.9 2.27 <br />31-1 (S1tJ) 32.6 14% 8.1 2.52 <br />7-1 (51W) 24.2 14% 7.3 2.13 <br />7-1 14.3 25% 7.1 2.40 <br />9/10-3 13.1 25% 6.9 2.29 <br />• RESPONSE: <br />