Laserfiche WebLink
' 172 <br />1 <br />t 1 analysis would be in the classification of poor, <br /> 2 whereas it appears -- and I have no confirmation by <br />' 3 what I have reviewed -- but it appears that the <br /> 4 applicant used what was considered to be a fair, I <br />t 5 believe it was -- yes, fair canopy cover. <br /> 6 And the difference lies with the <br /> 7 f <br />ll <br />i <br />i <br /> ow <br />o <br />ng: W <br />th a poor canopy cover, it ranges <br />t 8 between zero and 30 percent coverage for pour. And <br /> 9 then for a fair would be between 30 and 70 F~ercent <br />' to cover. <br /> 11 Because of the fact that you have the, <br />' 12 what we could classif <br />h <br />d <br />l <br />i <br />il G <br />D <br /> y as <br />y <br />ro <br />og <br />c so <br />roup <br />' 13 for the valley soils, hydrologic soil Group B for <br /> la the hillside soils, when you put those in there, you <br />' 15 can take the worst case scenario, which would end up <br /> 16 being 130 percent greater peak flows where t:he CN <br />' 17 number turns out to be not 70, but 85, or you could <br /> 18 have the other one, which would be the case where, <br />1 19 i <br /> nstead of being 70, using the poor categor} instead <br /> 20 of fair category would pump it up to 75 being the <br /> 21 CN number, which in turn would make it about. a <br />' 22 30 percent increase in runoff. <br /> 23 So that's what it was based on. <br /> 2a Y <br /> Q <br />ou did establish that range. If you <br />' 25 were to pick one number, what would it be? <br />AGREN, BLANDO & BILLINGS <br /> <br />