KS_FLAP_CR1200(1)_Pleasanton_Hydraulics_Memo_FINAL.pdf

Memorandum Project: Pleasanton East Spillway Bridge: KS FLAP CR1200(1) Subject: FINAL Hydraulics Memorandum Date: April 2, 2015

1.0 Introductions

The purpose of this FINAL Hydraulics Memorandum is to provide a summary of the applicable criteria and a summary of proposed design improvements to Pleasanton Spillway on the north side of Pleasanton City Lake East and on 1200th Road in Potosi Township, Linn County, Kansas near the Marais des Cygnes National Wildlife Refuge (NWR).

During the 2013 Kansas Call for Projects efforts for the MAP-21 Forest Lands Access Program (FLAP), the Program Decision Committee (PDC) came to consensus on selecting the Flint Hills Box Culvert Replacement as one of the projects for this program. The funding for this program is based on the City of Pleasanton (City) providing matching funds of 20% of the program costs.

This project is generally described as improving 825 feet of 1200th Road and replacing the Pleasanton Spillway (Spillway) at the Pleasanton City Lake East Dam (Dam). The existing spillway is a concrete slab ford that is deteriorating and has created hazards to drivers.

These hazards have caused multiple accidents and at least one fatality. The Scope of Work (SOW) detailed the following assumptions:

No scour protection will be employed for the steel bridge.

Hydrology and hydraulics will not be conducted to support structure design and to design for scour countermeasures.

Additionally, approximately 1,320 feet of 1200th Road at the site will be raised approximately 7 feet to increase design speeds and sight distance.

The CBC’s and Low Tailwater Crossing were not included in the SOW.

Three options were considered for spillway replacement:

Option A: Concrete Box Culverts (CBC) replacing the existing spillway and raising the roadway profile.

Option B: Pre-fabricated single spanned steel bridge with Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Integrated Bridge System (GRS) abutments spanning the existing spillway and raising the roadway profile.

Option C: Low Tailwater Crossing with horizontal elliptical reinforced concrete pipes (HERCP). This will need concrete approach slabs through the spillway. This option raises the roadway, but will be overtopped in larger storms.

Option A, CBC replacing the existing spillway was used for Final Design.

The Spillway located just northeast of Pleasanton, Kansas as shown in Figure 1-1:

FINAL Hydraulics Memorandum Pleasanton East Spillway Bridge

Figure 1-1: Project Location

Provided by Map data ©2014 Google

2.0 Floodplains

The project lies within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Map Number 20107C0329C with a Zone A where no base flood elevations (BFEs) have been determined.

The City will need to notify the floodplain administrator in regards to the proposed improvements within the floodplains. It is expected that the City will address any floodplain issues associated with these improvement projects.

3.0 East Lake Dam: DLN-0040, KS02497

The Spillway is a service spillway located just west of the East Lake Dam (Dam). During the project development, involvement with the Kansas Department of Agriculture’s Division of Water Resources (DWR) was required as permitting for dam changes is required for any modifications (See Attachments for Application for Permit: Dams, Stream Obstructions, and Channel Changes: KSA 82a-301-305a).

The Dam was constructed in 1968 and is owned and operated as a main water supply for the City. The Dam has been modified at least once in 2001 (See Attachments for the 1999 East Lake Dam Improvements construction plans). This modification added a “curb” to the spillway and modifications to the original inlet structure to detain more water in the reservoir.

The project team has made numerous attempts to acquire the drainage reports and electronic hydrologic models in case the hydrology needs to be revised; however these have not been obtained. Table 3-1 details other relevant spillway and dam facts to be used for design.

1200th

Spillway Location

City of Pleasanton

Table 3-1: Spillway and Dam Facts Description Classification Reference

Dam Size Class 4 KAR 5-40-21 Hazard Class C1 KAR 5-40-20

Precipitation for Design Storm 0.4 PMP KAR 5-40-22 Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) for 6-hour depth 27.9 KAR 5-40-31

1 Based on average daily traffic (ADT) > 200, this is a Hazard Class B; however, this dam is a main water supply for the City. With these 2 hazards, the classification is elevated to Significant and becomes a Hazard Class C

There is a 5 year inspection requirement for the Dam. Past inspection occurred in November 1992, February 1996, April 2004, and May 2009. Based on the May 2009 Inspection Report, an inspection is to occur begin May 2013 and ending April 2014;

however, this has not been produced.

The April 2004 Inspection Report reported artesian flows in the spillway and recommended identify solutions to mitigate erosion in the spillway and repair of artesian flows.

The May 2009 Inspection Report reported the following:

The Dam is in overall fair condition.

Overall, the spillway is in “severe disrepair” and “appears to have been completely neglected for quite some time” “The presence of trees and other obstacles is partly responsible for the headcutting/erosion occurring in the lower portion of the spillway” An emergency action plan is required

In 1999, a downstream landowner composed a letter concerning previous modifications to the spillway. He was using dam water for his cattle. It is assumed, that in response to this concern, a 4 inch polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe was placed underneath the spillway to convey water to the cattle. There was a concern that there could be senior water rights downstream of the spillway. Correspondence with DWR indicates that there is nothing on file; however, should something show up, then water will need to be bypassed to satisfy those rights. See Appendix for email correspondence.

4.0 Criteria References

Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD’s) Federal Lands Highway Project Development and Design Manual (FLH PDDM), January 2014, was considered for hydrologic and hydraulic (H&H) analysis and design work associated with the proposed improvements. This manual provides methods, guidelines, and criteria for design; however, the main hydraulic design element is in regards to dam and spillway routing. As a result, the Kansas Statutes Annotated (KSA) provides guidelines to dam and spillway criteria. KSA references Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) National Engineering Handbook Hydrology Chapters for hydrology.

The following is a summary of hydrologic and hydraulic (H&H) design criteria:

Table 4-1: H&H Design Criteria Description Method Reference

Minimum Freeboard: Spillway to Dam Depth (ft) 3 KAR 5-40-22 Minimum Floor Width of Spillway (ft) 40 KAR 5-40-22

Freeboard for Bridge Span (ft) 2 FLH PDDM 7.4.3.4.1

5.0 Assumptions

With a limited SOW, the following assumptions were made:

1. All modifications occur in the service spillway and the Dam will remain unaltered.

2. The DWR accepts the 1999 East Lake Dam Improvements Construction Plans “Lake and Emergency Spillway Capacity and Discharge Table’s” stage discharges and elevations as existing conditions.

a. With this acceptance, routing the entire reservoir is not required as long as proposed conditions replicated the existing conditions.

b. Hydrologic analysis is not required.

c. Proposed options will evaluate the stage discharges and compare to existing conditions to show no changes in spillway stage discharges.

3. DWR will provide a waiver to the 0.4PMP being used to route discharge through the spillway and permit a 0.3PMP per previous regulation history.

4. The existing and proposed structures are weir controlled and not normal depth controlled. The culvert and channel both behave as weirs. Weir coefficient = 2.55 (Broad crested weir coefficient extrapolated from Brater and King).

5. Channel Modifications: Are negligible as the proposed channel will transition into the existing channel at the ROW

6. All work is to be constructed within existing right-of-way (ROW) and no easements or additional ROW is required.

6.0 Proposed Improvements

In reviewing the current survey and the 1999 East Lake Dam Improvements Construction plans, there was a 2.15’ datum difference. This difference has been applied to the 1999 East Lake Dam Improvements Construction Plans to provide ease of comparison between existing and proposed conditions.

Proposed recommendations includes

9- 10 ft x 5 ft’ CBC’s with headwalls and wingwalls. Placed Class 3 riprap (D50 = 12”) is to be placed at the exit.

The entrance and exit of the spillway is be cleaned up and put on a regular maintenance schedule.

Staged discharges were analyzed using Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) HY-8, Version 7.3, culvert modeling software. DWR freeboard requirements are met for the peak discharges at elevation 826.25 ft (3.6 ft of freeboard) and 826.85 ft’ (3 ft of freeboard).

Stage discharge values for existing and proposed conditions can be found in Table 6-1 below and Figure 6-1 provides a rating curve.

Table 6-1: Existing and Proposed Conditions Results Elevation Existing2 Discharge

(cfs) Proposed CBC Discharge (cfs)

Freeboard (ft)

822.62 0 0 7.2

823.85 0 0 6.0

824.85 201 230 5.0

825.85 645 645 4.0

826.25 866 851 3.6

826.50 1024 990 3.4

826.85 1246 1200 3.0

829.85 Top of Dam Elevation

2 A datum conversion of 2.15 ft has been applied between the 1999 East Lake Dam Improvements Construction Plans and 2014 field survey

Figure 6-1: Existing and Proposed Conditions Rating Curves

7.0 Erosion Control Measures

Erosion control measures will be used during and post construction activities in the form of silt fence, wattles, sediment control logs, check dams, riprap, seeding, and mulching.

0 823.85 824.85 825.85 826.25 826.5

Di sc ha rg e (c fs

Stage (ft)

Existing Spillway Discharge (cfs) Culvert Option Discharge (cfs)

8.0 Developing 95% to 100% Design

The following coordination needs to occur to progress design from 95% to 100%:

1. Assist the City with the DWR Review and Acceptance of Spillway Calculations

Approach: There is an average 60-90 day review period for acceptance. The City will need to initiate and coordinate the acceptance of DWR’s “Dams, Stream Obstructions and Channel Changes (K.S.A 82a-301-305a). See Appendix for a template of this permit.

2. Floodplain Administrator: Notification that the roadway profiles is being raised in a FEMA Zone A area.

9.0 Summary

The proposed recommendation is considered viable because of the similarities in shape of stage discharge curve of the existing spillway. DWR acceptance of this model would require a waiver to allow acceptance of the historically regulated 0.3PMP criteria instead of a 0.4PMP criteria.

The proposed options adhere to DWR’s criteria with the above assumptions. Any changes to the design/planning criteria will be noted in future memorandums.

10.0 References

US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Lands Highway Project Development and Design Manual, January 2014.

KSA: Online detailed index at http://kansasstatutes.lesterama.org/detailedindex.html

NRCS: NEH Hydrology Chapters at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/water/?cid=stelprdb1043063

Kansas Department of Agriculture, Division of Water Resources, https://agriculture.ks.gov/divisions-programs/dwr, August 2014.

FEMA, FIRM: Linn County, Kansas and Unincorporated Areas, Map Number 20107C0329C, November 2, 2010.

Evans-Bierly-Hutchison & Associates, Dam Improvements East Lake Pleasanton, Kansas, June 1999.

DWR, Dam Safety Inspection Report, City of Pleasanton, East Lake Dam, April 2009.

Brater, King, Lindell, Wei, Handbook of Hydraulics, 1976.

FHWA, HY-8, Version 7.3, August 2014.

FHWA, Hydraulic Toolbox 4.1, Version 7.2, July 2013.

USACE, HEC-RAS: River Analysis System, Version 4.0.0, March 2008.

List of Attachments

DWR: Application for Permit: Dam, Stream Obstructions, and Channel Changes FEMA FIRMette 1999 East Dam Improvements Construction Plan HY-8 Results Email Correspondence with DWR

2014.09.18 Approach Methods Email

2014.03.20 4” PVC Pipe and Potential Water Rights kirkbridet Callout Spillway Location

HY-8 Culvert Analysis Report Crossing Discharge Data Discharge Selection Method: Specify Minimum, Design, and Maximum Flow

Minimum Flow: 0 cfs

Design Flow: 866 cfs

Maximum Flow: 1246 cfs

Table 1 - Summary of Culvert Flows at Crossing: Spillway T.O.D. = 529.85

Headwater Elevation

(ft) Total Discharge (cfs) Spillway Culvert

Discharge (cfs) Roadway Discharge

(cfs) Iterations

823.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 1

824.52 124.60 124.60 0.00 1

824.91 249.20 249.20 0.00 1

825.24 373.80 373.80 0.00 1

825.53 498.40 498.40 0.00 1

825.80 623.00 623.00 0.00 1

826.05 747.60 747.60 0.00 1

826.28 866.00 866.00 0.00 1

826.52 996.80 996.80 0.00 1

826.73 1121.40 1121.40 0.00 1

826.93 1246.00 1246.00 0.00 1

830.79 3925.81 3925.81 0.00 Overtopping

Rating Curve Plot for Crossing: Spillway T.O.D. = 529.85

Table 2 - Culvert Summary Table: Spillway Culvert

Straight Culvert

Inlet Elevation (invert): 823.85 ft, Outlet Elevation (invert): 823.71 ft

Culvert Length: 32.50 ft, Culvert Slope: 0.0043

Total Discharge

(cfs) Culvert

Discharge (cfs)

Headwater Elevation

(ft) Inlet

Control Depth (ft)

Outlet Control

Depth (ft) Flow Type

Normal Depth (ft)

Critical Depth (ft)

Outlet Depth (ft)

Tailwater Depth (ft)

Outlet Velocity

(ft/s) Tailwater Velocity

(ft/s)

0.00 0.00 823.85 0.000 0.000 0-NF 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

124.60 124.60 824.52 0.668 0.252 1-S2n 0.330 0.390 0.373 0.300 3.708 2.839

249.20 249.20 824.91 1.060 0.487 1-S2n 0.557 0.620 0.576 0.455 4.809 3.733

373.80 373.80 825.24 1.389 0.689 1-S2n 0.721 0.812 0.745 0.580 5.572 4.378

498.40 498.40 825.53 1.682 0.874 1-S2n 0.885 0.984 0.899 0.688 6.157 4.901

623.00 623.00 825.80 1.952 1.049 1-S2n 1.017 1.142 1.043 0.787 6.639 5.346

747.60 747.60 826.05 2.205 1.217 1-S2n 1.143 1.289 1.178 0.877 7.053 5.740

866.00 866.00 826.28 2.432 1.373 1-S2n 1.263 1.422 1.300 0.958 7.401 6.077

996.80 996.80 826.52 2.665 1.542 1-S2n 1.390 1.562 1.430 1.041 7.744 6.417

1121.40 1121.40 826.73 2.876 1.702 1-S2n 1.498 1.689 1.549 1.117 8.041 6.715

1246.00 1246.00 826.93 3.079 1.860 1-S2n 1.606 1.812 1.665 1.190 8.314 6.994

Culvert Performance Curve Plot: Spillway Culvert

Water Surface Profile Plot for Culvert: Spillway Culvert

Site Data - Spillway Culvert Site Data Option: Culvert Invert Data

Inlet Station: 0.00 ft

Inlet Elevation: 823.85 ft

Outlet Station: 32.50 ft

Outlet Elevation: 823.71 ft

Number of Barrels: 9

Culvert Data Summary - Spillway Culvert Barrel Shape: Concrete Box

Barrel Span: 10.00 ft

Barrel Rise: 5.00 ft

Barrel Material: Concrete

Embedment: 0.00 in

Barrel Manning's n: 0.0130

Culvert Type: Straight

Inlet Configuration: Square Edge (90º) Headwall

Inlet Depression: NONE

Table 3 - Downstream Channel Rating Curve (Crossing: Spillway T.O.D. = 529.85)

Tailwater Channel Data - Spillway T.O.D. = 529.85 Tailwater Channel Option: Trapezoidal Channel

Bottom Width: 145.00 ft

Side Slope (H:V): 4.00 (_:1)

Channel Slope: 0.0200

Channel Manning's n: 0.0330

Channel Invert Elevation: 823.71 ft

Roadway Data for Crossing: Spillway T.O.D. = 529.85 Roadway Profile Shape: Irregular Roadway Shape (coordinates)

Irregular Roadway Cross-Section:

Coord No. Station (ft) Elevation (ft)

0 0.00 832.35

1 62.50 831.40

2 125.00 830.79

Roadway Surface: Gravel

Roadway Top Width: 28.00 ft

Flow (cfs) Water Surface Elev (ft) Depth (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Shear (psf) Froude Number

0.00 823.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

124.60 824.01 0.30 2.84 0.37 0.92

249.20 824.16 0.45 3.73 0.57 0.98

373.80 824.29 0.58 4.38 0.72 1.02

498.40 824.40 0.69 4.90 0.86 1.05

623.00 824.50 0.79 5.35 0.98 1.07

747.60 824.59 0.88 5.74 1.09 1.09

866.00 824.67 0.96 6.08 1.20 1.11

996.80 824.75 1.04 6.42 1.30 1.12

1121.40 824.83 1.12 6.72 1.39 1.14

1246.00 824.90 1.19 6.99 1.48 1.15

Notes:

(1) (2) (3)

Stage (ft)

Existing Spillway Discharge

(cfs)

Culvert Option Discharge

(cfs) 0 0 0

823.85 0 0

824.85 201 230

825.85 645 645

826.25 866 851

826.5 1024 990

826.85 1246 1200 Notes:

(1) Stage assumes existing spillway bottom is at NAVD88 elevation 823.85 per survey results. As-built plans indicate elevation 826, but it is assumed that this is a coordinate datum issue and that there is a -2.15' vertical datum conversion factor between the as-built plan vertical datum and NAVD88.

(2) from June 1999 East Lake Dam Improvement Plans. DWR File No. 43746, DWR Structure No. DLN-0040.

(3) Interpolated from HY-8 analysis results for (9) 10'x5' concrete box culverts.

Table 1 - Stage Discharge Calculations for Existing Spillway and Proposed Spillway Alternative

Kirkbride, Tammy

From: Bristow, Leonard <Leonard.Bristow@KDA.KS.GOV> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 3:01 PM To: Kirkbride, Tammy Cc: Hunninghake, Kimberly; Voigt, Chad Subject: RE: East Lake Dam Spillway Modifications

Tammy, As you requested, I am providing comments to your e-mail regarding our telephone conversation yesterday for proposed modifications to the Pleasanton City Lake dam located in Section 29, Township 21 South, Range 25 East, Linn County, Kansas. This project is referenced by our office as WSNo. DLN-0040. The Appropriation of Water is referenced by our office as #12,233; 40,743; and 43,746.

Assumption #1: We discussed permitting requirements regarding the construction of the 3 different options you listed. I wanted to clarify that any of these options would require a permit as they would be considered a modification to the dam.

Assumption #2: We discussed the hydrology and land usage should be the same as submitted for the plans approved on March 9, 2001, for the modifications to the spillway. However, it should be verified nothing has significantly changed in the watershed to ensure this is still valid.

Assumption #3 and #4: If no significant changes have occurred and assuming the modifications were completed as approved, the “Lake and Emergency Spillway Capacity and Discharge Table” Stage/Discharge calculations should still be valid for a size 4, class B significant hazard dam. During our conversation we discussed the roadway over the dam has a traffic count of approximately 200 vehicles per day. We also discussed this reservoir is used as a water supply, which is considered a public utility serving at a minimum a small number of customers. Due to the changes in the Rules and Regulations (K.A.R. 5-40-1 thru 5-40-106) associated with the Obstructions in Streams Act, specifically K.A.R. 5-40-20(a)(3)(G), it is noted that if two or more individual hazards described in hazard class B will constitute a hazard class C rating for the dam. Therefore, this dam will most likely be upgraded to a hazard class C in the near future. Therefore, any application submitted for modifications to the dam should show information regarding a floodrouting of the dam to verify the structure will pass the design storm for a size class 4, hazard class C dam with adequate freeboard. If the dam will not pass the appropriate design storm with adequate freeboard, a waiver request may be submitted to the Chief Engineer for the inadequate freeboard. However, a request for waiver of this requirement does not necessarily mean the Chief Engineer will grant the waiver and issue approval for the proposed modifications.

Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.

Thanks, Leonard

From: Kirkbride, Tammy [mailto:Tammy.Kirkbride@aecom.com] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 10:10 AM To: Bristow, Leonard Cc: Lang, Corey; Center, Dave; jeffrey.jerome@dot.gov Subject: East Lake Dam Spillway Modifications

Leonard, Thank you for all of your help and responsiveness to inquiries concerning the East Lake Dam’s service spillway. Your willingness to help & quick turnarounds are impressive. As we discussed on the phone, I wanted to summarize our approach with the spillway’s proposed improvements. As we submit our 30% plans, which included 3 options: Concrete Box Culverts, Spanning a bridge, or an improved low tailwater crossing, we are working with the following assumptions that we have previously discussed:

1. No East Lake Dam Modifications

2. Agreement that the contributing dam watershed area’s hydrology, land usage, etc is similar/same

3. With no electronic hydrologic model or drainage report available, it is acceptable to use the approved 1999 Dam Improvement East Lake construction plans (DWR File No 43746) “Lake and Emergency Spillway Capacity and Discharge Table” Stage/Discharge calculations for the spillway.

a. This is accepted as “existing conditions” and proposed conditions are to produce close/similar results.

b. Routing the reservoir and additional hydrologic analysis is not required

4. The regulations have changed since the 1999 plans (previously, this dam was Hazard Class B, requiring a 0.3PMP. Now this dam is elevated to Hazard Class C, requiring a 0.4PMP as there’s a road with ADT < 200 spanning the Dam and the reservoir is the City of Pleasanton’s main water supply). A waiver will be granted that allows to usage of the 0.3PMP with negligible changes in the freeboard requirements (3 ft). Currently, the freeboard of the spillway is 3.6 ft.

Will you please confirm this approach/assumptions by replying to the email? Thank you again for your time & help.

Tammy Eggers (Kirkbride), PE Drainage Engineer, Transportation Tammy.Kirkbride@aecom.com

AECOM

717 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2600, Denver, Colorado 80202 T 303.376.2910 F 303.228.3001 www.aecom.com

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

Eggers, Tammy

From: Bristow, Leonard <Leonard.Bristow@KDA.KS.GOV> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 3:04 PM To: Eggers, Tammy Subject: RE: Pleasanton Spillway

Tammy, I checked our records and the last inspection report we have is from an inspection completed on April 23, 2009. We have not received any others since that time. One is currently due, but I am not sure if this has been completed.

Leonard

From: Eggers, Tammy [mailto:Tammy.Eggers@aecom.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 3:46 PM To: Bristow, Leonard Cc: Foster, Marc Subject: RE: Pleasanton Spillway

Leonard, Hello! I have returned from maternity leave & am able to resume communication with you where Marc had left off.

We are about to finalize the 95% documents and I was curious if you were able to obtain more information on the 4” PVC pipe & associated water rights. As of now, we show this pipe being removed as our proposed improvements replicates the existing stage-discharge curve.

In addition, I have noted that there should be a more recent inspection report for the May 2013 to April 2014 inspection period—is this available for review? We are hoping to provide you with the plans, memo, and calculations soon to obtain DWR permits for construction.

Thank you, Tammy Eggers (Kirkbride), PE 303.376.2910 Drainage Engineer, Transportation

From: Bristow, Leonard [mailto:Leonard.Bristow@KDA.KS.GOV] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 1:44 PM To: Foster, Marc Subject: RE: Pleasanton Spillway

Marc, I did get in touch with the Water Commissioner for the Topeka Field Office. She said the person in our Parsons office has the files for this area as he was completing some inspections recently. He will be returning the files to her next week and she will review this issue then. Sorry for the delay. I wish I could tell you more, but really need for her to review the issue in case there are water right concerns. If you want to discuss this issue further before next week please contact me.

Thanks, Leonard 785/425-6787

From: Foster, Marc [mailto:Marc.Foster@aecom.com] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 5:54 PM To: Bristow, Leonard Subject: RE: Pleasanton Spillway

Leonard, Just wanted to follow up with you to see if you were able to get in touch with the water commissioner.

-Marc

From: Bristow, Leonard [mailto:Leonard.Bristow@KDA.KS.GOV] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 12:11 PM To: Foster, Marc Subject: RE: Pleasanton Spillway

Marc, Thanks for the e-mail regarding the proposed changes to the City of Pleasanton City Lake spillway. I am checking with the water commissioner in the Topeka Field Office regarding any water rights downstream or other issues that may be affected due to this dam and if the pipe may have been a requirement. As soon I get this information I will contact you to discuss.

Leonard

From: Foster, Marc [mailto:Marc.Foster@aecom.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 1:54 PM To: Bristow, Leonard Subject: FW: Pleasanton Spillway

Leonard, I’m working on the Pleasanton City Lake Dam Spillway replacement. We’re moving to 95% design with the concrete box culvert option. With this option, we’ll be replacing the existing concrete ford with a series of 9 concrete box culverts.

We’re trying to determine whether or not it would be necessary to replace the existing 4” PVC pipe that runs beneath the spillway.

From what I understand, the pipe is there for two main reasons:

1. To allow a certain amount of flow to bypass the spillway without overtopping the road.

2. To provide water for a landowner downstream of the dam to water his cattle.

We’d much prefer not to place a new pipe beneath our new culverts. This will make the project more expensive, and also will create a possible failure point in the future for our culverts. Also from what I gather from speaking with local engineers, there is shallow bedrock and concrete all around the area which would make it very difficult for the contractor to install this pipe.

Please let me know your thoughts. I’d love to speak with you on the phone in more detail about this if you have time.

Thanks, Marc J. Foster Engineer D 303-376-2911 C 860-977-3229 Marc.Foster@aecom.com

AECOM

717 17th Street, Suite 2600 Denver, CO 80202 www.aecom.com

This e-mail and any attachments contain AECOM confidential information that may be proprietary or privileged. If you receive this message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain, distribute, disclose or use any of this information and you should destroy the e-mail and any attachments or copies.

THE STATE OF KANSAS

KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES

Jackie McClaskey, Secretary of Agriculture David W. Barfield, Chief Engineer

APPLICATION FOR PERMIT

DAMS, STREAM OBSTRUCTIONS and CHANNEL CHANGES (K.S.A. 82a-301 - 305a)

WATER STRUCTURE NUMBER

(For Office Use Only)

ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT NUMBER

(For Office Use Only)

Application is hereby made for written consent or permit of the Chief Engineer, Division of Water Resources, by

(PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY):

1.Owner:

Agent:

Title:

Mailing Address:

E-Mail Address:

Telephone No.:

FAX No.:

2. Designer:

Firm:

Contact Person:

Mailing Address:

E-Mail Address:

Telephone No.:

FAX No.:

For Office Use Only: Code __________ Fee $______________ TR# __________________ Receipt Date ______________ Check # ____________

DWR 2-100 (Revised 08/25/2011)

3. Description of proposed construction:

Site Name:

Drainage area above project: acres, square miles (Important: required to calculate fees)

a. The project is (check all that apply):

Stream obstruction Channel change dam utility crossing relocation debris removal bridge jetty widening reshaping culvert intake or outfall excavation filling other (describe):

b. The project purpose is (check all that apply):

new construction repair water supply maintenance erosion control modification replacement flood control aggregate production the beneficial use of water (see Appropriation of Water, File No.:

other (describe):

c. The project will (complete all that apply): be feet long, feet high, ____________ feet deep; have :1 side slopes, feet bottom width, cubic yards of fill or cut;

shorten the stream length from feet to feet; constrict the channel and floodplain by %; cause a hydraulic restriction or backwater of feet.

Further description:

4. Legal description of location (use intersection of project centerline and stream centerline where applicable;

otherwise, use geographical center or midpoint of the project):

Quarter of the Quarter of the Quarter of Section , Township South, Range _____________, County, Kansas, across, along, or in (stream or watercourse name):

Additional description:

5. Attach copies of Environmental Reviews, Assessments or Impact Statements, letters of comment and other pertinent information to the Water Projects Environmental Coordination Act, K.S.A. 82a-325 to 327, as amended. The following information should be provided in consultation with biologists, archaeologists, foresters or other professionals.

a. The project will (check all that apply):

fill a channel fill or drain deep pools remove gravel, sand or silt bars disturb or endanger historic sites or structures fill or drain a wetland inundate a stream create deep pools affect threatened and endangered species relocate a channel widen a channel replace a bridge that is years old remove streamside vegetation, including acres of trees and acres of vegetation

b. Describe actions planned to minimize the project impact:

Describe any vegetative strip planned:

Describe erosion control measures to be used during construction:

Describe mitigation or replacement of environmental impacts or values:

Project work will be halted and the Kansas State Historical Society contacted when historical sites or artifacts are encountered: Yes No

Describe other planned activities:

6. The design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the stream obstruction or channel change must conform to the requirements of the rules and regulations adopted by the Chief Engineer.

Applicable regulations are K.A.R. 5-40-1 through 5-43-5. Please visit our web site, http://www.ksda.gov/dwr, or contact our office to obtain those rules and regulations.

7. Progress of construction (check the appropriate line and enter requested date):

Construction on: .

Construction has not begun. Planned date to begin construction: .

http://www.ksda.gov/dwr

8. By signing this application, I hereby certify that the information contained in this application is true, correct and complete, and that I am the owner or I am authorized by the owner to make this application.

Signature of Owner or Agent:

Date: Title:

INSTRUCTIONS

1. Incomplete applications will be returned to applicant. Make sure you have filled in all applicable blanks, signed the application, and included the required fee (see below). Plans and other materials listed in item 6 must accompany application for it to be complete.

2. If the owner is a governmental entity, please identify on the first page the governmental unit responsible for construction and maintenance.

3. Questions regarding environmental impacts may be referred to the following environmental review agencies:

Kansas Corporation Commission Kansas Biological Survey Kansas Dept. Of Health & Environment State Conservation Commission Kansas State Historical Society Kansas Forest Service Kansas Dept. Of Wildlife and Parks

FEE SCHEDULE

effective July 1, 2002

Applications for New Dams and Dam Modification Applications

Pre-construction Construction in Progress*

$200 $500

Applications for Stream Obstructions and Channel Changes

Drainage Area Pre-construction Construction in Progress*

Drainage area < 5 sq. miles $100 $200

Drainage area between 5 and 50 sq. miles $200 $400

Drainage area > 50 sq. miles $500 $1,000 *“Construction in progress” fees apply to projects where construction began before the project was approved by the Chief Engineer. These fees are in addition to any other penalties applicable under law.

Make checks payable to the Kansas Department of Agriculture

Mail application, check, and all supporting documents to:

Kansas Department of Agriculture Division of Water Resources 1320 Research Park Drive Manhattan, Kansas 66502 Telephone: (785) 564-6654 Fax: (785) 564-6779