Laserfiche WebLink
Colowyo, C1981 -019, PR3 adequacy No. 3 27 July 22, 2011 <br />8. On the SEDCAD model overview sketch (figure entitled Network Sketch 7 -23A), should the <br />long natural channel drain to structure 5 rather than structure 6? <br />The response is adequate. <br />9. Regarding the Subwatershed Hydrology Detail table, the following questions/comments should <br />be addressed: <br />a) It appears that subwatersheds for structures 5 and 6 were interchanged. In <br />particular, it appears that Area A -2c was erroneously included in portion of model <br />for structure 6 and Area A -35 was erroneously included in portion of model for <br />structure 5. <br />I he response i, sdequate. <br />b) Was Area A -39a excluded from the model? Perhaps it should be included in portion <br />of model for structure 43. <br />The responsc i, Jd yuatc. <br />c) Area A -30 should extend to Structure 39 (aka D7 /D8) <br />I ha response i, adeq u,ue. <br />d) The undisturbed portion of Area A -6 appears to have been excluded from the model. <br />Please clarify or add this portion to model. <br />The response is adequate. <br />9. Regarding the Subwatershed Time of Concentration Details table, it appears that subwatersheds <br />for structures 5 and 6 were interchanged (related to issue above). This error impacts the times <br />of concentration. <br />The response is adequate. <br />11. Regarding Figure A -1, the following questions /comments should be addressed, and any <br />associated changes in the SEDCAD model should be made: <br />a) It appears that Structure 40 (aka Dl) and its drainage area do not extend far enough <br />to the west. On the figure, the channel is truncated at the ridgeline, however, the <br />disturbed area extends beyond the ridgeline, and runoff from part of the disturbed <br />area would not be captured by the drainage system and would not be treated by the <br />sediment pond. <br />The response is adaluute. <br />