My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP48672
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP48672
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 12:52:28 AM
Creation date
11/27/2007 12:22:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
12/10/2001
Doc Name
Evaluation of Sly Gulch Roadway Construction Feasibility
From
Buckhorn Geotech
Permit Index Doc Type
STABILITY REPORT
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.
/
31
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
Appendix A <br />SYLVESTER GULCH DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS: <br />ROAD EXTENSION <br />November 2001 <br />CALCULATIONS: <br />The drainage for the upper Sylvester Gulch was divided into two subdrainages as shown <br />on the attached sketch. The total drainage azea for the new road design is 1.36 square <br />miles. The upper basin is 0.83 square miles and the lower basin is 0.53 squaze miles. <br />The HEC-1 hydrograph model developed by the U.S. Army Corps was used for <br />estimating peak runoff from the 24-how Type I I Distribution for the 100 year and 25 yeaz <br />events. Total precipitation of 3-inches for the 100 year event and 2.5 inches for the 25 <br />yeaz event were used based on NOAA maps. <br />The Runoff Curve Number (RCN) method was used for estimation of runoff. Slopes on <br />the north side of the drainage are bedrock with minimal vegetation and little to no natural <br />detention, these were modeled as soils group D with RCN of 90. Slopes on the southerly <br />side of the drainage aze deeper soils with moderate drainage, fair to good vegetative <br />cover, and some natwal detention, RCN used was 50. An overall RCN of 60 was used. <br />The lag times were estimated using velocity charts for slope and vegetative cover and <br />checked using the SCS Curve number method. Lag time for the upper basin was <br />estimated at 0.9 hows and for the lower basin 0.6 hows. <br />Model results were as follows: <br />Upper basin: 100-yeaz event peak flow of 43 cfs. <br />Upper basin: 25-yeaz event peak flow of 17 cfs. <br />Upper basin combined with lower basin: 100-yeaz event peak flow of 70 cfs. <br />Upper basin combined with lower basin: 25-yeaz event peak flow of 27 cfs. <br />DESIGN: <br />For open channel design we recommend design for the 100-yeaz event. <br />The proposed average channel design is 2-foot bottom width and 2-foot water depth with <br />side slopes of 2:1 in fill and 1.5:1 in cut. At the lowest slope of 7-percent this channel <br />will carry in the order of 100-cfs (using Manning open channel estimation). This <br />provides some free-boazd over the estimated 100-yeaz combined peak flow. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.