My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Board Meeting 09/13/1984 J. William Mcdonald Director and Secretary
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
DayForward
>
2001-3000
>
Board Meeting 09/13/1984 J. William Mcdonald Director and Secretary
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/5/2015 9:22:04 AM
Creation date
1/5/2015 9:10:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
9/13/1984
Description
Minutes, Agenda, Memorandums, Notes September 13,14, 1984
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
J. William McDonald <br /> February 22, 1984 <br /> Page 3 <br /> reseed disturbed areas to prevent erosion. It would <br /> have to be done on any project and not necessarily <br /> related to the project as specified herein. <br /> Spillway -same length and same place ; same riprapped <br /> channel , difference only in type of crest. <br /> RESPONSE: I take that to mean it 's a different type <br /> of spillway. Any engineer anywhere in the world would <br /> require a riprapped channel. The location and length <br /> of this channel would be dictated by fairly standard <br /> engineering logic and formulas and would not be the <br /> unique product of the Water Resources Consultants <br /> study. <br /> Outlet Works -same -plug 1 outlet; renovate the other <br /> outlet with new gates and outlet basis . <br /> RESPONSE: Any project done by anyone on this reservoir <br /> would have necessitated these changes . After all , the <br /> equipment has been in there for 50 years . These are <br /> not engineering decisions resulting from an extensive <br /> study, but simply good housekeeping and maintenance <br /> resulting from an order of the State Engineer. <br /> Embankment Riprap - same <br /> RESPONSE: We don't know how different the riprap <br /> could have been under any conditions and don't find <br /> this as indicating any uniqueness as called out in <br /> the WCB contract. <br /> 4. In your letter, you call out the following as seemingly <br /> minor differences : "The only point of difference <br /> between the rehabilitation and enlargement evaluated <br /> in the feasibility study and the project as built is <br /> that the embankment was placed upon the upstream face <br /> with the ZSA plan rather than upon the downstream face <br /> and a stability berm was placed on the downstream toe <br /> of the existing embankment." I take this to mean <br /> that your position is that the fact that bare ground <br /> had to be seeded and mulched to prevent erosion is <br /> somehow a major point of similarity between WCB <br /> Contract #C153334 and the project as built, while <br /> the fact that the entire dam embankment was built in <br /> a location other than called for in the feasibility <br /> study and the use of an additional berm, running the <br /> length of the embankment and designed to add necessary <br /> stability are minor differences in the projects . Also, <br /> you note that "the chimney drain called for in the <br /> feasibility study by WRC on the downstream slope was <br /> not constructed with the ZSA plan. " This is also put <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.