Lee's Summit

Sheet 10: • It appears that the upstream riprap channel typical section should end at Sta. 3+30 rather than Sta. 3+36.53. Please verify and revise if needed. • Label Sta. 0+85 in the Profile view. • The word “construction” contains a typo in the woody vegetation note in the Plan view.

Sheet 11: • Sta. 0+85 cross section – There is a gap in the proposed grade. Please revise. • Sta. 1+00 cross section – Label the proposed sanitary sewer.

Sheet 13: • Revise Concrete Ditch Lining Note 8 to refer questions to the design engineer. • Label the concrete thickness in Section A-A downstream of the 10” thick section. • Concrete Ditch Lining Note 2 and Materials General Note under Section A-A seem to contradict each other for required concrete strength required. Please revise accordingly.

Sheet 14: • Revise the text overlapping on the 915 contour label. • Based on the elevations shown in Sections A-A and B-B (911.00 at basin entrance, 914.00 on basin high sides, and 911.50 at basin exit), the energy dissipation basin will have to back up onto the concrete channel in order to exit the basin. Please verify that this is the intent or revise accordingly.

Sheet 17: • Label the flowline elevation of the storm sewer discharging into the West Forebay. • How will the flared end section with toewall be integrated into the west forebay construction? Include details.

Sheet 19: • The Propex Landlok S2 label indicates installation after grading is complete, but the Propex Pyramat 25 does not. If that is not the intent, please revise accordingly.

Sheets 20-21: • Include the Landlok S2 installation details in the plan set.

Submit an Engineer's Estimate of Probable Construction Costs.

Emergency Action Plan – no extensive review, comments should be provided by Jim Eden, as indicated below.

Dam Observation Report – we concur with all the findings and recommendations; we note that the recommendation of monitoring by an Olsson representative of any temporary remediation construction should be required, not just recommended, if temporary remediation activities are performed.

Stormwater Management Study (Updated) - Page 2: It is agreed that the use of soil group C was discussed with City staff. We want to be sure that there is not any misunderstanding – the City was not trying to dictate which soil group should be used, but only asking Olsson to evaluate the appropriateness of the use of soil group C.

Stormwater Management Study (Updated) - Page 5, 2nd paragraph: Flow within the primary spillway will most likely be supercritical, and as such, a rip rap channel installed at grade is most likely not going to be sufficient to manage the discharge without significant erosion issues. Provision of a stilling basin or other energy dissipation measure, which in essence, creates a hydraulic jump where the flow transitions from supercritical to critical to subcritical flow, should be considered.

Stormwater Management Study (Updated) - Page 5, 4th paragraph: According to a separate drawing not contained within the report, it appears the emergency spillway will be located immediately adjacent to the primary spillway. Additional information should be provided regarding the general location of the emergency spillway in relation to the primary spillway, along with general design recommendations (e.g., grass-lined earthen emergency spillway, etc.).