Laserfiche WebLink
Page 5 of 6 <br /> <br /> WFC: The four SEDCAD runs included with this submittal have been revised <br />using a control factor “C” of 0.9. <br /> <br /> DRMS: Response accepted. <br /> 8. The spillway configurations and dimensions used in the revised SEDCAD designs appear to conflict with those shown on Map 2.05.3(4)-6 and the <br />photographs taken by the Division on December 12, 2012. <br /> <br />a. Map 2.05.3(4)-6 indicates that the length of the primary spillway barrel is 100’. The SEDCAD run is based on a length on 150’. Please revise the map and/or design as necessary to reflect the actual length of the <br />barrel. <br /> <br />b. Map 2.05.3(4)-6 indicates that the diameter of the primary spillway barrel is 24”. The SEDCAD run is based on an 18” diameter. Please revise the map and/or design as necessary to reflect the actual diameter of the <br />barrel. <br /> <br />c. The location of the primary spillway outfall is unclear on Map 2.05.3(4)-6. <br />Please revise Map 2.05.3(4)-6 to indicate the outfall of the primary spillway. <br /> <br />d. WFC, in its response to item 4, indicates that the primary spillway location <br />was moved to correspond to the county road culvert. Is the primary spillway connected to the county road culvert? If the primary spillway barrel is connected to the county road culvert, please revise the <br />designs accordingly. <br /> <br />e. The SEDAD designs indicate that the riser height is 8’. Photographs of the riser taken by the Division on December 12, 2012 (below) would indicate that the riser is less than 8’ high. Please revise the design <br />based on the actual height of the riser. <br /> <br />Division photographs taken December 12, 2012 – riser height indicated in blue. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />