Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Technical Revision No. 67 - PAR 1 <br />February 17, 1994 <br />Page 4 <br />2. The Division received two designs of ditch D2-6C. One design <br />is for an erodible channel, and the other for a shotcrete <br />ditch. Both have the same slope and discharge, and have <br />approximately the same depth and velocity. Which design does <br />MCC plan to implement in the field? <br />3. The Division received two designs of ditch D2-6D. One design <br />is for a shotcrete ditch and the other a riprap channel. Both <br />have the same slope and discharge. Which design does MCC plan <br />to implement in the field? <br />4. Why was base flow of 3.5 cfs omitted from watershed 9D? <br />5. The unit hydrograph response shape for watershed 9E should <br />remain fast, as the area is highly disturbed and denuded of <br />vegetation. <br />6. Please define more clearly the boundary between watershed 36B <br />and 36C. <br />7. From review of Maps SB-101 and SB-102, it appears that <br />watersheds 9A and 36E will be disturbed; however, the curve <br />numbers selected does not reflect this disturbance. Please <br />explain. <br />8. The Division has reviewed curve numbers selected for all <br />watersheds and would suggest that the following be revised to <br />more accurately reflect on-the-ground conditions when the <br />materials storage bench is constructed: <br />WATER6HED MCC CDRVE # DMG CIIRVE ~ REA8ON FOR DMG <br /> SELECTION <br />9A 72 91 Newly graded <br /> area w/no veg. <br />9D 72 81 Herbaceous <br /> cover w/brush <br /> as minor <br /> element <br />9E 72 89 Roadway <br />35A 88 91 Newly graded <br /> area w/no veg. <br />35F 72 91 Newly graded <br /> area w/no veg. <br />