Laserfiche WebLink
<br />WATERSHED MCC CIIRVE # DMG CARVE # REA8ON FOR DMG <br /> BELECTTON <br />35G 88 91 Newly graded <br /> area w/no veg. <br />36A 89 91 Newly graded <br /> area w/no veg. <br />36B 89 91 Newly graded <br /> area w/no veg. <br />36C 89 91 Newly graded <br /> area w/no veg. <br />36E 72 91 Newly graded <br /> area w/no veg. <br />36F 89 91 Newly graded <br /> area w/no veg. <br />*Please note: some curve numbers will be changed once MCC <br />describes the type of surfacing material to be used <br />on the roads and the storage bench. <br />9. Please reevaluate the slope for D2-9B and D2-6C. The Division <br />calculated a 10~ and 13$ slope, respectively, for the two <br />ditches. <br />10. The Division believes that a 15" culvert for C2-5 is <br />undersized. With a flow of 3.92 cfs as calculated by MCC, the <br />culvert is on the border of being undersized. The culvert <br />receives flow from D2-7 and watershed 36E, which the Division <br />calculated to be 4.64 cfs (using MCC's assumption that the <br />curve number for watershed 36E was 72). MCC should reevaluate <br />the flow into this culvert and the adequate size for the <br />culvert. <br />11. Flow from a small portion of watershed 14A, to the south of <br />the main access road, enters into DCW-2. This ditch should be <br />designed for the additional flow. <br />12. MCC should reevaluate flow into ditches and culverts following <br />revision of the above items. Calculations, by the Division, <br />of the flow into the structures (using MCC's results from <br />watershed runs) did not yield the same discharge in most <br />cases. I can be more specific once the above changes are <br />made. <br />BONDING <br />1. The cost estimate prepared by the Division for this revision <br />is enclosed. <br />