AD -154 666 NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR INSPECTION OF NON-FEDERL DAMS

L/2LAKE GARFIELD DAM (MA .(U) CORPS OF ENGINEERS WALTHAMMR NEW ENGLAND DIV MRR 8

UNCLRSSIFIED F/G 13/13 NLEihIhlhhElhhhEmOhlhEE/hhhhhIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEIIIIEEIIIEIIIIIEIIIIIIImIIIIIIIEEIIhEE

1111I 0 LL11. L 3L., M3 2.

k4 T "~ I S ( HART

AN A

HOUSATONIC RIVER BASINMONTEREY, MASSACHUSETTS

LAKE GARFIELD DAMIn

PHASE I INSPECTION REPORT

NATIONAL DAM INSPECT ION PROGRAM

a omaDTIC

SJUN 101985

LLJ DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYfta NEW ENGLAND DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS

LL-. WALTHAM, MASS. 02154

MARCH 1980

APPioved for public releasogDistrbion Unliminted

85~ 20 179

" iINCI ASS-TTFnSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Dai &nieed)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONSBEFORE COMPLETING FORM

I. REPORT NUMBER 1. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

MA 00249 AD-AI"./ ._4. TITLE (and Subtitle) S. TYPE OF REPORT I PERIOD COVERED

INSPECTION REPORT

Lake Garfield DamNATIONAL PROGRAM FOR INSPECTION OF NON-FEDERAL S. PERFORMINGORG. REPORT NUMBERDAMS ".

7. AuTHOR(m) S. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(&)

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERSNEW ENGLAND DIVISION,

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASK

AREA 6 WORK UNIT NUMBERS

I. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

DEPT. OF THE ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS Miroh 1Qn.

NEW ENGLAND DIVISION, NEDED 13. NUMBEROFPAGES

424 TRAPELO ROAD, WALTHAM, MA. 02254 13014. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(It differen fram Controlling Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of thl report)

UNCLASSIFIEDIla. DECL ASSI FICATION/DOWNGRADING

SCHEDULE

1. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of hi. ,eportj

APPROVAL FOR PUBLIC RELEASE: DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED

"'" 17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract antered In Block 20. It diffeMl hhom Rw.t)

It. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Cover program reads: Phase I Inspection Report, National Dam Inspection Program;however, the official title of the program is: National Program for Inspection ofNon-Federal Dams; use cover date for date of report.

IS. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse ald It necessary and identify by block nIm"ber)

DAMS, INSPECTION, DAM SAFETY,Housatonic River BasinMonterey, MassachusettsKonkapot River (Tributary to Housatonic River)

20 ABSTRACT (Continu. an revers.e ide If nece.ary and Identif by bleck I.iob ..)

-The dam is an earthfill embankment about 350 in length, and 19.5 feet in height.

The overall dam condition assessment has been rated as good. The size is

intermediate and the hazard classification is high. There are recommended

remedial measures for things such ad erosion protection in the report.

DD I,7 1473 E0,iTiON OF I-ov.6 Is O.sOL.E

. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ni iIuiUIE.EPUU..I1111 I Ii.- . . .

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYNEW ENGLAND DIVISION. CORPS OF ENGINEERS

424 TRAPELO ROADWALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS 02254

REPLY TOATTENTION OF*

NEDED Jpb C C 12E1

Honorable Edward J. KingGovernor of the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts- State House

Boston, Massachusetts 02133 I

Dear Governor King:

Inclosed is a copy of the Lake Garfield Dam (MA-00249) Phase I .Inspection Report, which was prepared under the National Program forInspection of Non-Federal Dams. This report is presented for your useand is based upon a visual inspection, a review of the past performanceand a brief hydrological study of the dam. A brief assessment isincluded at the beginning of the report. I have approved the report andsupport the findings and recommendations described in Section 7 and askthat you keep me informed of the actions taken to implement them. Thisfollow-up action is a vitally important part of this program.

A copy of this report has been forwarded to the Department of Environ-mental Quality Engineering, the cooperating agency for the Commonwealth

* of Massachusetts. In addition, a copy of the report has also beenfurnished the owner, Town of Monterey, Mass.

Copies of this report will be made available to the public, uponrequest, by this office under the Freedom of Information Act. In the

case of this report the release date will be thirty days from the dateof this letter.

I wish to take this opportunity to thank you and the Department ofEnvironmental Quality Engineering for your cooperation in carrying out

*- this program.

' I

Sincerely, .,,i

Incl WILLIAM N . "As stated Colon. Corps of EnneersActin Division Engineer I

LAKE GARFIELD DAM

MA 00249

HOUSATONIC RIVER BASINMONTEREY, MASSACHUSETTS

PHASE I INSPECTION REPORTNATIONAL DAM INSPECTION PROGRAM

NTIS C-AA-1

DTIC 7 B

aDustibu tion

Avail-,bl).±ty 004-0-

la

NATIONAL DAM INSPECTION PROGRAMPHASE I INSPECTION REPORT

Identification No.: MA 00249 6Mass. D.P.W. No.: 1-2-193-6Name of Dam: Lake Garfield DamTown MontereyCounty and State: Berkshire County, MassachusettsStream: Konkapot River (Tributary to Housatonic River)Date of Inspection: November 14, 1979

BRIEF ASSESSMENT

The Lake Garfield Dam, No. MA 00249, is located on the headwaters ofthe Konkapot River a tributary to the Housatonic River. The dam islocated in the Town of Monterey, Massachusetts. The dam site is 9 .approximately 0.85 miles upstream of the Village of Monterey and islocated off of Beartown Mountain Road. The dam is a multiple purposerecreation and flood protection facility which is owned by the Town ofMonterey and is under the responsibility of the Board of Selectmen. Itwas designed by the consulting firm of R.G. Brown & Associates ofPittsfield, Massachusetts and constructed by the firm of Petricca Construc- .tion Company of Pittsfield, Massachusetts. Supervision of constructionwas by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Public Works, -.

Division of Waterways, District No. 1. The dam was completed in 1973. - -

The dam is an earthfill embankment about 350 feet in length, and 19.5feet in height, and has a reinforced concrete principal spillway whichmaintains the recreation pool level and controls the release of stored 6floodwater. The facility has a 130 foot wide earth excavated emergencyspillway channel around the left abutment. The dam impounds approxi-mately 3660 acre feet at top of dam elevation 1295.08 NGVD.

The dam and appurtenances were found to be in good condition, andthe emergency spillway channel was found to be in fair condition due to -sloughing of the left excavated embankment, and inadequate erosionprotection of the right training embankment. The condition of theemergency spillway is not considered to be critical and does not affectthe floodwater discharge characteristics. Therefore the overall damcondition assessment has been rated as GOOD. Some maintenance andminor remedial work is required as listed in Section 7. S

The test flood for this dam has been determined to be the ProbableMaximum Flood, based on a classification of Intermediate size and HIGHhazard. The drainage area is approximately 4.0 square miles and thetest flood inflow (PMF) is 9,200 CFS. Routing the test flood throughthe reservoir, with the initial pool level at the principal spillway overflow Sweir crest, results in a test flood outflow of 4,450 CFS from the dam ata pond stage of 1293.4 ft. NGVD. Lake Garfield Dam has a combinedspillway capacity of 6,800 CFS which allows a remaining free board of1.7 feet to the top of the dam with the test flood flow. The spillwaycapacity is 152% of the routed test flood outflow from the reservoir. S

•II

....... .................................... I'/ .....--...... i.... .. i ..

Prior to the assumed breach with the flood pool at the test flood eleva-tion of 1,293.4 ft. NGVD, there is a threat to approximately 18 houses,1 store, and 18 culverts. Failure of the dam would pose a seriousthreat to approximately 1 additional house, plus 17 of the houses floodedby pre-failure flows, and most of the culverts. The effects of the damfailure, therefore, add significantly to the damage anticipated andindicate the HIGH hazard classification is appropriate.

The recommended remedial measures as listed in Section 7 including theadditional erosion protection along the right training embankment of theemergency spillway, maintenance of the downstream embankment, andclearing of vegetation from the downstream channel, should be imple-mented within two years of receipt of this report by the Owner.

1S

L4

John W. Powers

Massachusetts Registration 23106

O . .

0-""ii

S-.--:

S

S

I.?i -

S

This Phase I Inspection Report on Lake Garfield Damhas been reviewed by the uanders igned Review Board members.* In ouropinion, the reported findings, conclusions, and recommendations areconsistent with the Recomended Guidelines for Safety ldection ofLame, and with good engineering judgment and practice, and is herebysubmitted for approval.

0

ARAMAST MAHTESIAN, MEMBERGeotechnical Engineering Branch 9'Engineering Division

CARNEY M. TERZIAN, MEMBERDesign BranchEngineering Division

RICHARD CWater Control BranchEngineering Division

hP3VAL UCOMVKDEDt

64E . MAtyR •Chief, Engineering Division

......................................................

• .. .:... ... .... ... .... . . .: .. .. ..,........... ,....... ..... :.... --.....L...:.... .. ........ .... ... ,........ .. :.... ,

PREFACE

This report is prepared under guidance contained in the RecommendedGuidelines for Safety Inspection of Dams for Phase I Investigations.Copies of these guidelines may be obtained from the Office of Chief ofEngineers, Washington, D.C. 20314. The purpose of a Phase I Investi-gation is to identify expeditiously those dams which may pose hazardsto human life or property. The assessment of the general condition ofthe dam is based upon available data and visual inspections. Detailedinvestigation, and analyses involving topographic mapping, subsurface 0investigations, testing, and detailed computational evaluations are beyondthe scope of a Phase I investigation; however, the investigation isintended to identify any need for such studies.

In reviewing this report, it should be realized that the reported conditionof the dam is based on observations of field conditions at the time ofinspection along with data available to the inspection team. In caseswhere the reservoir was lowered or drained prior to inspection, suchaction, while improving the stability and safety of the dam, removes thenormal load on the structure and may obscure certain conditions whichmight otherwise be detectable if inspected under the normal operatingenvironment of the structure.

It is important to note that the condition of a dam depends on numerousand constantly changing internal and external conditions, and is evolution-ary in nature. It would be incorrect to assume that the present conditionof the dam will continue to represent the condition of the dam at somepoint in the future. Only through continued care and inspection canthere be any chance that unsafe conditions be detected.

Phase I inspections are not intended to provide detailed hydrologic andhydraulic analyses. In accordance with the established Guidelines, theSpillway Test flood is based on the estimated "Probably Maximum Flood"for the region (greatest reasonably possible storm runoff), or fractionsthereof. Because of the magnitude and rarity of such a storm event, afinding that a spillway will not pass the test flood should not be inter-preted as necessarily posing a highly inadequate condition. The testflood provides a measure of relative spillway capacity and serves as anaide in determining the need for more detailed hydrologic and hydraulicstudies, considering the size of the dam, its general condition, and the Sdownstream damage potential.

The Phase I Investigation does not include an assessment of the needfor fences, gates, no-trespassing signs, repairs to existing fences andrailings and other items which may be needed to minimize trespass andprovide greater security for the facility and safety to the public. An "evaluation of the project for compliance with OSHA rules and regulationsis also excluded.

S -A

S_

IT-ABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page .

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

BRIEF ASSESSMENT

REVIEW BOARD SIGNATURE SHEET

PREFACE i

TABLE OF CONTENTS ii-iv

OVERVIEW PHOTO v

LOCUS PLAN 1 vi

LOCUS PLAN 2 vii

REPORT

1. PROJECT INFORMATION

1.1 General I--

a. Authority 1-Ib. Purpose of Inspection 1-1c. Scope 1-1

1.2 Description of Project 1-1

a. Location 1-1b. Description of Dam and Appurtenances 1-2c. Size Classification 1-4d. Hazard Classification 1-4e. Ownership 1-5f. Operator 1-5g. Purpose of Dam 1-5h. Design and Construction History 1-5i. Normal Operational Procedure 1-5

1.3 Pertinent Data 1-6

a. Drainage Area 1-6b. Discharge at Dam Site 1-6c. Elevation 1-7d. Reservoir 1-7e. Storage 1-7 .-

f. Reservoir Surface 1-8g. Dam 1-8h. Diversion and Regulating Tunnel 1-9i. Spillway 1-9 .-

j. Regulating Outlets 1-9i i ii"

- -_

Section Page

2. ENGINEERING DATA

2.1 Design Data 2-1

2.2 Construction Data 2-1

2.3 Operation Data 2-1

2.4 Evaluation of Data 2-1

a. Availability 2-1b. Adequacy 2-1c. Validity 2-1

3. VISUAL INSPECTION

3.1 Findings 3-1

a. General 3-1b. Dam 3-1 Sc. Appurtenant Structures 3-2d. Reseroir Area 3-3e. Downstream Channel 3-3

3.2 Evaluation 3-3 t

4. OPERATIONAL AND MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES

4.1 Operational Procedures 4-1

a. General 4-1b. Description of any Warning System

in Effect 4-1

4.2 Maintenance Procedures 4-1

a. General 4-1b. Operating Facilities 4-1

4.3 Evaluation 4-1

5. EVALUATION OF HYDRAULIC/HYDROLOGIC FEATURES

5.1 General 5-1

5.2 Design Data 5-1

5.3 Experience Data 5-2

5.4 Test Flood Analysis 5-2

5.5 Dam Failure Analysis 5-3

III

a a. . ~ -. -

Section Page

6. EVALUATION OF STRUCTURAL STABILITY

6.1 Visual Observation 6-1

6.2 Design and Construction Data 6-1

a) Embankment 6-1b) Appurtenant Structures 6-1 0

6.3 Post-Construction Changes 6-1

6.4 Seismic Stability 6-1

7. ASSESSMENT, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND REMEDIAL aMEASURES

7.1 Dam Assessment 7-1

a. Condition 7-1b. Adequacy of Information 7-1 6c. Urgency 7-1

7.2 Recommendations 7-1

7.3 Remedial Measures 7-1

7.4 Alternatives 7-1

APP END IC ES

APPENDIX A -INSPECTION CHECKLIST

APPENDIX B - ENGINEERING DATA

APPENDIX C - PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX D - HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULICCOMPUTATIONS a

APPENDIX E INFORMATION AS CONTAINED IN THENATIONAL INVENTORY OF DAMS

iv

- - . . -. . -. - . - :': - -L ..- .. " ' . - : - : - "S

414

SECTION 3 - VISUAL INSPECTION

3.1 Findings

(a) General

The Lake Garfield Dam, No. MA 00249 was in GOOD conditionat the time of the inspection.

(b) Dam

1) Earth Embankment (See photos 1, 3 & 4)

The upstream embankment, top of the dam, and downstreamembankment were all found to be in very good condition. Noapparent movement, sloughing, slides or settlement was visible.The washed gravel surface of the upstream embankment wasin good condition and extends up the embankment to anelevation of approximately 2 feet above the recreation poollevel.

The grass growth areas, which cover all portions of thedam embankment except for the upstream face below elevation1283.33, were found to be well groomed and well maintained.The grass growth was very well developed with a healthy,thick growth being found on all areas except portions of thelower downstream embankment where some broadleaf weedgrowth occurs. There was one small area of damaged grassarea on the downstream embankment to the right of the principalspillway conduit outlet and just below the horizontal bermsection. This damaged area appears to be due to pedestriantype traffic on the embankment. Also, in this same area wasan animal burrow approximately 10 inches in diameter and 6 to8 inches deep.

At the time of the inspection, the pond was drained.The downstream toe was found to be slightly wet along mostof the right side of the dam. This appears to be due tosur face drainage and the impervious soil conditions. Rainfalldid occur during the night and morning before the inspection.There was no visible seepage throughout the entire length ofthe downstream toe, with the pond being drained.

The foundation drain outlets were found to submergedby the stilling basin water level, therefore, a determination ofwater flow from the drains could not be made.

2) Emergency Spillay (See photos 11, 12, 13 & 14)

The emergency spillway channel is in fair condition.The floor ol the approach channel was found to be very wet,with standina water 1 to 2 inches deep. Most of the approachch-innel .as covered xith a heavV growth of grass and legumes,ho,,e\ er, some rePd growth ,,as found.

3-1

SECTION 2 - ENGINEER!NG DATA

2.1 Desiqn Data

The design data for the Lake Garfield Dam includes hydrology and - -.-

hydraulic computations, soil mechanics, structural designs, survey com-putations, and quantity computations. The design data is in the filesof R.G. Brown Associates, Inc. of Pittsfield, Massachusetts, who werethe design consultants for the projc-ct. The design of the dam andappurtenances was completed during 1970 and 1971.

This design data was reviewed and found to be based on soundengineering practice.

2.2 Construction Data

"As Built" record drawings are not available for the Lake GarfieldDam. Discussions with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Departmentof Public Works, who were responsible for the construction supervision,indicated that except for the 4 inch change in elevation as discussed inSection 1.2, paragraph h, the dam was constructed essentially in accord-ance with the design drawings. The design drawings have been reviewedand found to show good agreement with the visual inspection.

Appendix B contains copies of the design drawings. These copieshave been made from a set of design drawings provided by the designconsultants on behalf of the Town of Monterey Board of Selectmen.

2.3 Operational Data

The dam is self-regulating, therefore, no operational data is available.Under normal conditions the hydraulics of the principal spillway maintaina recreation pool. The impoundment may be lowered via a sluice gatecontrolled pond drain conduit located at the dam and an ungated ponddrain conduit located at Tyringhan Road. The pipes invert elevationsare 1277.5 and 1277.6 ft. NGVD, respectively.

2.4 Evaluation of Data

(a) Availability

Sufficient data is available to permit an evaluation of the damwhen combined with lindings of the visual inspection.

(b) Adequacy

There is sufficient design and construction data to permit anassessment of dam safety when combined with the visual inspection,past performance, and sound engineering judgment.

(c) Validity

Since the observations of the inspection team generally confirmthe available data, a satisfactory evaluation for validity is indicated.

2-1

spillway riser structure with its invert at elevation 1277.5. Thefloor stand operator is located on the top of the principal riserwhich can only be accessed by boat when the reservoir pool is atthe flood stage level. The gate is a Rodney Hunt, non seatinghead type, with a rising stem operator having the following identifica-tion:

27291-2S-5002

The gate is normally in the closed position, and usuallyopened to drain the pond during the fall of each year. The ponddrain has a maximum capacity of 169 CFS with the water level atthe top of the dam.

At Tyringham Road there is a 36 inch dia. low level ponddrain at invert elevation 1277.6 ft. NGVD. The drain is ungatedand serves to hydraulically connect the impoundment areas to theinvert elevation of the pipe.

1-10

(h) Diversion and Regulating Tunnel

Not applicable

(i) Spillways

1) Type:

a) Principal spillway: Reinforced concrete dropinlet

b) Emergency spillway: Grass and legume coveredearth excavated channelwith level control section

2) Length of weir:

a) Principal spillway weirs: 2 @ 15 ft. = 30 ft.

b) Emergency spillway: 130 feet

3) Crest Elevation

a) Principal spillway weirs: 1286.3

b) Emergency spillway: Control section-1288.33

4) Gates: None

5) Upstream channel:

a) Principal Spillway: Reservoir

b) Emergency Spillway: Grass and legume coveredearth excavated channel.150± ft. to control section.

6. Downstream Channel:

a) Principal Spillway: Riprapped stilling basindischarging to the naturalstream channel.

b) Emergency Spillway: Grass and legume covered,earth excavated channel125t ft. to natural streamchannel directly downstreamof dam.

(j) Regulating Outlets

The regulated outlet from the dam is the pond drain.which iscontrolled by a manually operated 36 inch sluice gate. The gate islocated on the inside face of the pond side wall of the principal

1-9

..- .- .. .. -. .- .- ., .. .- ...: .-- : .: .- - ..- .,..: .. .-....... .-.. ... .-.. . . . . ... .... .:.: ,:- . :.: .. .- :. , .. - . -. ..-. , .

3) Spillway crest pool

a) Principal spillway crest - 1,100

b) Emergency spillway crest - 1,650

4) Top of dam - 3,600

5) Test flood pool - 3,250

(f) Reservoir Surface (acres)

1) Normal pool - 260

2) Flood-control pool - 278 (Design High Water)

3) Spillway crest

a) Principal spillway crest - 260

b) Emergency spillway crest - 270

4) Test flood pool - 298

5) Top of dam - 306

(g) Dam

1) Type - Earth embankment

2) Length - 350 feet

3) Height - 19.5 feet

4) Top Width - 13.5 feet

5) Side Slopes - Upstream face 4 horizontal on 1 verticalto elevation 1236, 3 horizontal on 1 vertical from 1286 totop of dam. Downstream embankment - 3 horizontal on 1vertical with horizontal berm at elevation 1287.0.

6) Zoning - A combination of impervious borrow and pervioussand borrow.

7) Impervious Core - Yes

8) Cutoff - Variable width and depth, impervious earthfillcutoff trench.

9) Grout curtain - None

1-8

. .. . ..... ,.. °.-...... ,-l, L , "b" 1- " " ' " " ' ~r u" ,t """ -" '

' ' ' " •...

"

I

5) Gated spillway capacity at normal pool elevation - None

6) Gated spillway capacity at test flood elevation - None

7) Total spillway capacity at test flood elevation - 4450 cfs atelevation 1293.40 ft. NGVD (same as No. 4)

8) Total project discharge (principal and emergency spillway) attop of dam - 6800 cfs at elevation 1295.08 ft. NGVD(same as No. 3)

9) Total project discharge at test flood elevation - 4450 cfs atelevation 1293.40 ft. NGVD (1.7 feet of free board remaining)

(c) Elevation (feet NGVD)

1) Streambed at toe of dam - 1275.50

2) Bottom of cutoff - 1271.7± (low point)

3) Maximum tailwater - Unknown

4) Normal pool - 1286.03 (principal spillway crest)

5) Full flood control pool - 1288.33

6) Emergency spillway crest elevation 1288.33

7) Design surcharge - 1289.5

8) Top of dam - 1295.08

9) Test flood surcharge - 1293.40 (1.7 feet of free boardremaining)

(d) Reservoir (Length in feet)

1) Normal pool 10,300± feet

2) Flood Control pool - 10,650± feet (Design High Water)

3) Emergency spillway crest pool - 10,500± feet

4) Top of dam - 10,750± feet

5) Test flood pool - 10,700± feet

(e) Storage (acre-feet)

1) Normal pool - 1,100

2) Flood control pool - 2,000 (Design High Water)

1-7

1.3 Pertinent Data

(a) Drainage Area

The drainage area for the Lake Garfield Dam covers approxi-mately 4.0 square miles. Nearly all of the drainage area is mountain-ous type wood land. There are a number of secondary type roadslocated within the watershed area with some development of homesalong these routes. Major portions of the watershed area, however,are undeveloped woodland areas.

The Konkapot River, on which the Lake Garfield Dam islocated, originates at the dam which is the only outlet from LakeGarfield. The river which originates at the Lake Garfield Dam,and flows to the Housatonic River, has many tributary streamswhich add to the flow downstream of the dam. The major tributarydownstream confluences are with Loom Brook, Rawson Brook, andSwann Brook.

(b) Discharge at Dam Site

Normal discharge at the site is via the principal spillwaythrough the 60 inch diameter outlet conduit to the downstreamchannel. If flood flows occur of sufficient magnitude and durationto fill the flood water storage available, then excess flow will bedischarged around the dam via the emergency spillway channel.The impoundment may be lowered to elevation 1277.6 ft. NGVDupstream of Tyringham Road and 1277.5 ft. NGVD downstream ofTyringham Road via a sluice gate controlled, 36 inch diameter ponddrain located at the dam and an ungated 36 inch diameter ponddrain located at Tyringham Road.

1) Outlet Works:Pond drain, 36 inch dia. RCP, invert elev. 1277.5 ft. NGVD,maximum capacity 169 CFS.

2) Maximum known flood at dam site - Unknown

3) Ungated spillway capacity at top of dam -

With the water level at the top of the dam (elev. 1295.08 ft.NGVD) spillway capacities are as follows:

principal spillway 600 CFSemergency spillway 6200 CFS

Total 6,800 CFS

4) Ungated spillway capacity at test flood elevation -

With the water level at the test flood elevation (1293.40 ft.NGVD) spillway capacities are as follows:

principal spillway 450 CFSemergency spillway 4,000 CFS

Total 4,450 CFS

1-6

- • . ... .. . - . .. . . - . .. .. . . , .,.- • . . . . . . . • . .•. . . .• " -

(e) Ownership

The Lake Garfield Dam is owned by the Town of Monterey,Massachusett, and is under the responsibility of the Board ofSelectmen.

(f) Operator

The operation of the Lake Garfield Dam is the responsiblity ofthe Town of Monterey, Massachusetts, through the Board of Selectmen.

(g) Purpose of Dam

The Lake Garfield Dam is a multiple purpose dam which maintainsa recreation pool level and provides some flood storage capacity toreduce downstream flooding from the dam's drainage area. Storedflood water is gradually released through the principal spillwaystructure.

(h) Design and Construction History

The Lake Garfield Dam was designed by the Consulting Firmof R.G. Brown Associates, Inc., of Pittsfield, Massachusetts. Thedam was constructed by the firm of Petricca Construction Companyof Pittsfield, Massachusetts and supervision of construction was bythe Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Public Works,Division of Waterways, District No. 1. The dam was completed in1973 and has been in operation since that time. There have beenno modifications to the dam since the original construction wascompleted. However, during the construction of the dam, thenormal recreation pool level was increased by 4 inches. Theincrease in the pond level is reported to have been the result of apetition from lake front property owners which was made duringconstruction. This resulted in raising the principal spillwayoverflow weirs, the top of the impervious borrow within the embank-ments, the top of the dam, and the control section of the emergencyspillway, all by four inches. No other modifications to the originaldesign are known to have been made during or after constructionof this dam.

(i) Normal Operation Procedure

The Lake Garfield Dam is normally self-regulating with theonly controlled outlet being the gated pond drain located at thedam. The impoundment area is divided by the Tyringham Roadcrossing. At this location, an ungated low level pond drain hasbeen provided at invert elevation 1277.6 ft. NGVD. The gatedpond drain located at the dam is at invert elevation 1277.5 ft.NGVD. The gated pond drain is normally opened during the fallof each year to drain the impoundment to the level of the ponddrain pipes. This is done to allow persons owning camps andresidences along the impoundment to repair dock facilities, beaches,retaining walls, etc.

1-5

3) Emergency Spillway (See B-2, B-3 & B-5)

The emergency spillway consists of a legume coveredearth channel excavated through natural ground on the leftabutment of the dam. The spillway channel has a controlsection approximately at elevation 1288.33 which is 130 feetwide and 30 feet long. The spillway approach channel has aslope of 2% upwards towards the control section and is approxi-mately 150 feet in length. The discharge channel has a

U downward slope of 3% and is approximately 125 feet in length.The emergency spillway channel curves to the right on theapproach and discharge sides and discharges into the originalstream channel of the headwaters of the Konkapot River justdownstream of the dam. The side slopes of the spillwayexcavation are 2 horizontal on 1 vertical. The control sectionis 6.75 feet below the top of the dam.

4) Foundation and Embankment Drainage (See B-6)

A trench drain consisting of gravel extends into thet foundation material beneath the downstream embankment. The

trench drain extends from the principal spillway about 236feet right with about 156 feet of 8" diameter perforated A.C.pipe. The trench drain extends from the principal spillwayabout 35 feet left with about 13 feet of 8" diameter perforatedA.C. pipe. Both of the drainage pipes discharge into thei K stilling basin at invert elevation 1275.8.

A blanket drain of pervious fill material extends verticallybetween the two zones of impervious fill and horizontallyalong the foundation of the downstream embankment. Thisallows drainage of accumulated seepage to be conveyed to thefoundation drain trench.

For additional details of the drainage features, refer to pagesB-3 and B-6 of Appendix B.

(c) Size Classification

The dam has a maximum impoundment (computed to the top ofthe dam) of about 3660 acre-feet and a structural height of approximately19.5 feet. The dam is therefore in the INTERMEDIATE size classificationdue to impoundment size in accordance with the Corps of EngineersRecommended Guidelines.

(d) Hazard Classification

The hazard potential classification for this dam is HIGH becauseof the potential for loss of more than a few lives and significantproperty damage which may occur in the event of a dam failureduring a PMF occurrance. There is a potential for severely damaging1 homes as well as 1 store and 1 culverts crossing roadways.

1-4

I. --- . ., L "1 .' . - - .-" .T .. '-- .. .' 4 .? -, ' -? -. - ._. .' - -." 1 ., ' . ." • . - • ,. -.. ... ..--

2) Principal Spillway (See B-4, B-7, B-8 & B-9)

The principal spillway consists of a reinforced concretedrop inlet structure with a sluice gate controlled pond drainpipe at invert elevation 1277.50. The drop inlet structurehas two uncontrolled overflow weirs at elevation 1286.03 whichcontrol the recreation pool level of the impoundment. Theoutlet conduit from the principal spillway is a 60 inch diameterreinforced concrete pipe with an inlet invert elevation of1276.50.

The riser structure is 13 feet 3/8 inches in height fromthe base of the foundation to the top of the structure. Theinside dimensions are 8 feet x 15 feet with 12 inch thickreinforced concrete walls. The inside bottom elevation of theriser structure is elevation 1276.50. The overflow weirs areformed by the top of the riser section side-wall, and each hasa length of 15 feet for a total of 30 feet of weir crest atelevation 1286.03. The top of the riser structure is a solidreinforced concrete slab with a 2 foot diameter access openingcovered by a cast iron manhole cover. The overflow weirsare protected by a trash rack system consisting of a galvanizediron frame with vertical and horizontal bars located above thecrest elevation, and 4-2 inch diameter pipes located horizontallyacross the structure below the crest elevation, For additionaldetails regarding the reinforced concrete structure and trashrack system refer to pages B4, B-7 and B-8 of Appendix B.

The sluice gate which controls the 36 inch diameter ponddrain is a Rodney Hunt sluice gate, mounted on a type F wallthimble, and is a 36 inch, non-seating head sluice gate locatedon the inside of the upstream face of the principal spillwayriser. The. gate is operated by a rising stem, manual crankoperated floorstand located on the top of the riser structure.

The pond drain pipe consists of about 16 feet of 36 inchdiameter reinforced concrete conduit with a reinforced concreteheadwall structure. The headwall structure has a trash racksystem consisting of horizontal reinforcing bars embedded intothe concrete over the inlet to the pipe. The pond drain pipeenters the structure through the upstream face.

The principal spillway structure has a 60 inch diameteroutlet conduit to a stilling basin located at the downstream toeof the dam. The 60 inch diameter conduit consists of about120 feet of reinforced concrete pipe with a continuous concretebedding and four anti-seep collars. The pipe has an inletelevation of 1276.50 and an outlet elevation of 1275.50 providinga slope of 0.0083 feet per foot.

The stilling basin is constructed of an excavated basinfrom natural ground and is lined with riprap. The 60 inchdiameter outlet conduit does not have a headwall at its outletend.

1-3

. . .. .. ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... .. - : -

*- . . ° - v . , - . . .. :. -.; - . -l i I I I . i- p ; r -. I.m" ,p .-," .-- ., , .- ; -"_ " - _- ...

- -. 2 ."r - -

Monterey. The dam impounds the headwater of the Konkapot Riverwhich is a tributary to the Housatonic River. The dam and impound-ment is located off of Beartown Mountain Road and is approximately0.9 miles from the center of Monterey.

The dam is located on U.S.G.S. Monterey, Mass., quadrangle- at longitude E 73'-12'-50 ' and latitude N 42'-11'-26". Refer to the

location plans, and Appendix B for additional information.

1 (b) Description of Dam and Appurtenances

The dam consists of an earthfill embankment, a principalspillway consisting of a reinforced concrete inlet structure, a 60"diameter reinforced concrete outlet conduit, and an earth excavatedstone-lined stilling basin at the conduit outlet. An emergencyspillway is located on the left abutment and consists of a legumeand grass covered channel, excavated in natural ground.

1) Embankment (See B-2, B-3, & B-4)

The following information has been taken from the construc-tion drawings dated 1971, and verified where possible by thevisual inspection.

The dam embankment is approximately 350 feet long andhas a maximum structural height of approximately 19.5 feetabove the original stream channel at the downstream toe.The upstream slope of the embankment is 4 horizontal on 1vertical from the upstream toe to elevation 1286. From elevation1286 to the top of the dam the upstream slope is 3 horizontalon 1 vertical. The upstream slope is covered with a blanketof 2 inch washed gravel from the toe to elevation 1288.33,and is grass covered from this point to the top of the dam.

The downstream slope is 3 horizontal on 1 vertical andhas a berm (horizontal section) at elevation 1287. The entiredownstream slope and top of the dam is grass covered.

The earthfill material consists of basically three materialswhich are impervious borrow, sand borrow, and gravel. Themajor portions of the earthfill material below elevation 1288.33consists of the impervious borrow material. Above elevation1288.33, the earthfill material is pervious consisting mainly ofsand borrow. The impervious borrow material has beenplaced in two separate sections with the downstream sectionbeing separated from the upstream section by a verticalsection of sand borrow material. The sand borrow also isplaced under the impervious borrow material on the downstreamembankment, to allow drainage of accumulated seepage fromthe central portion of the embankment. The upstream embank-

*ment and the top of the upstream impervious borrow sectionhas been covered with a gravel blanket. For further details_.regarding the earthfill material of the dam embankment, referto page B-3 of Appendix B.

1-2

. . -. -:,

NATIONAL DAM INSPECTION PROGRAMPHASE I INSPECTION REPORT

rk LAKE GARFIELD DAM

SECTION 1

PROJECT INFORMATION

*1.1 General

(a) Authority

Public Law 92-367, August 8, 1972, authorized the Secretaryof the Army, through the Corps of Engineers, to initiate a NationalProgram of Dam Inspection throughout the United States. TheNew England Division of the Corps of Engineers has been assignedthe responsibility of supervising the inspection of dams within theNew England Region. Tighe & Bond/SCI has been retained by theNew England Division to inspect and report on selected dams inMassachusetts. Authorization and notice to proceed were issued toTighe & Bond/SCI under a letter of October 24, 1979 from ColonelWilliam E. Hodgson, Jr., Corps of Engineers. Contract No. DACW-33-80-C-0005 has been assigned by the Corps of Engineers for thiswork.

I(b) Purpose

1) Perform technical inspection and evaluation of non-federaldams to identify conditions which threaten the public safetyand thus permit correction in a timely manner by non-federalinterests.

2) Encourage and prepare the states to initiate quicklyeffective dam safety programs for non-federal dams.

3) Update, verify, and complete the National Inventory ofDams.

(c) Scope

The program provides for the inspection of non-federal damsin the high hazard potential category based upon location of thedams, and those dams in the significant hazard potential categorybelieved to represent an immediate danger based on condition of Lthe dams.

1.2 Description of Project

* (a) Location

The Lake Garfield Dam is located within the Town of Monterey,Massachusetts, about 0.85 miles upstream from the Village of

1-1

• .. . . - . ,- *. . . -.. %- .- o. . . . . . . •. . . . . ,% . -• - . .° . . ,,.". .. . .

M L

~' Ij'~ '~ NjN, 7

H~J LI.F * I

LAKE GARFIELD DAM _r

~. 1vVo

-A

-~, Mtn

R I. N

S.AI;;ntiLAKE-~

- GARFIELD*.0

........ .....

* ~ \NYjI il~L

HaliLOCUS PLA 2 '

QEASRANGM LOCATMASBERKSHAELCOANT MASS.CUET

I ISCALE: AS NOTED

DATE: MARCH 1980

.7 . .

22 a -wi~go 'u,,. R . .. I~Ot~l~. n..,s

..... ...

R A

P,,

rAK DGRiL DAMS)1 1 4k ~ Hlyo 9

4., t6.-,

u, I'd. ,K\... -

/* /V I ! '

sN... jh

~N-' t

LAKHE 8 BOND! Sc DSA~MYNIERVNWNL

SCALE, INMIE

LOCUSh PLA I

MAP~~~~~~~~~~etl d~ro~~LK AFEDDM(A029 OTR

6 BERKHIRE OUNTYSCALE AS MASACHU ETTdA

DATE MARC 198

..................................

The floor of the discharge channel was found to begenerally dry, with a good growth of grass and legumes.The excavated embankment, on the left side of the emergencyspillway discharge channel was found to have sloughingoccurring about 108 feet downstream of the control section.The sloughing is occurring along the toe of the embankment,and also -pproximately 20 feet up the embankment. Thegrass growth has been established over the ent;re area with

if no exposed earth areas being visible, therefore, it appearsthat this embankment movement occurred at least a few yearsago and has scmewhat stablized since that time. The slopemovement appears to have been caused by a combination ofthe impervious material in this area and side hill seepage fromthe right abutment area. This condition does not appear tobe critical and does not endanger the capacity of the emergencyspillway.

The entire emergency spillway channel was found to befree of debris and did not have any overhanging trees orchannel obstructions.

The downstream embankment of the dam is protectedfrom the emergency spillway flow by a training embankmentalong the right side of the emergency spillway channel. Theembankment essentially forms a berm between the principalspillway and the downstream area of the dam. The embankmentis only about 4 to 5 feet above the spillway channel, and hasa cross sectional shape which is nearly triangular. Thetraining embankment does not have any erosion protectionother than the grass cover, and due to its design, couldquite easily be eroded by flood flows through the emergencyspillway. Some animal borrows were found within the training

* embankment on the emergency spillway side.

(c) Appurtenant Structures

1) Drop Inlet Principal Spillway (See photos 5, 6, 7 & 8)

The principal spillway riser was found to be in goodcondition. The structure appeared to be structurally soundwith no visible cracking, spalling, seepage, or efflorescence.

The interior of the riser structure was found to be freeof any debris or blockage. The sluice gate operator appearsto be in good condition, and was found in the open positionwith the pond drained.

2) Pond Drain Inlet Pipe (See photos 7 & 8)

At the time of the inspection, the pond was drained,therefore, the inlet pipe and headwall structure were visiblefor inspection. Both the pipe and reinforced concrete headwallwere found to be in very good condition. The trash racksystem over the inlet to the pond drain was free of any largedebris or blockages, and was free flowing.

3-2

3) Outlet Conduit (See photos 9 & 10)

The 60 inch diameter conduit was found to be in goodcondition. All joints visible from the outlet end were foundto have good alignment and appeared to be dry above theflow line. The interior of the conduit is in good conditionwith no visibile spalling, cracking, or efflorscence.

i 4) Stilling Basin (See photo 9 & 10)

The stilling basin at the outlet of the principal spillwayoutlet conduit, was found to be in good condition. Riprapprotection on the embankments was in good condition, and thebasin did not appear to have accumulated any visible sediment.The stilling basin was clear of debris with free unobstructedoutflow in the downstream channel.

(d) Impoundment Area (See photo 2, 15, 16, 17)

The shoreline of the impoundment area formed between TyringhamRoad, which is the location of the original dam, and the presentlocation of the Lake Garfield Dam, was found to be in very good

.] stable condition.

At the time of the Lake Garfield Dam construction, TyringhamRoad was reconstructed, and the old masonry dam replaced withthree, 84 inch diameter ACCMP culverts, and a 36 inch diameterpond drain for the reservoir area upstream of Tyringham Road.The triple 84 inch diameter culverts were found to be in good

-. condition with good alignment, no erosion, and no unusual wear.Both the inlet and outlet end of the three culverts contained alarge amount of stones, which apnear to have been dropped intothe pipe from the roadway above by children. Both the inlet endand outlet end of the 36 inch diameter pond drain has a reinforcedconcrete headwall with vertical reinforcing bars embedded in the

. concrete over the inlet and outlet of the pipe. The inlet end hada large accumulation of weeds and debris but the flow was notseriously impeded. The roadway embankments on both the upstreamand downstream sides of the ACCMP culverts were protected byriprap. The riprap was found to be in good condition and did notshow any signs of settlement, movement, or sloughing.

(e) Downstream Channel (See photo 10)

The downstream channel is in fair condition with a substantialamount of vegetation growth just downstream of the stilling basin.The channel was free of any debris, fallen trees, or other obstructions,except for the vegetation growth.

3.2 Evaluation

The dam is generally in good condition with the following deficienciesnoted:

3-30

"" ":-' ' "- - "" - ""K " "- :. .. ...... .. ... ... .... ,*",- ' *" -" ."-: i' "' " - "n-- "u

II

(a) Small animal hole and patch of damaged turf on the lowerportion of the downstream embankment just to the right of theprincipal spillway outlet conduit. I

(b) The emergency spillway right training berm area lacks adequateerosion protection.

(c) The channel downstream of the stilling basin has a substantialamount of vegetation growth which reduces the flow capacityof the channel.

t.

3-4

- ......................... I.........

SECTION 4 - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES

4.1 Operational Procedures

(a) General

No written operation procedures are available for this dam.The dam is normally self-regulating. The sluice gate on the ponddrain is normally in the closed position and is annually opened tolower the pond during the fall of each year.

(b) Description of Warning System in Effect

There is no written warning system in effect.

4.2 Maintenance Procedures

(a) General

The Town of Monterey is responsible for the maintenance ofthis facility. Maintenance items routinely conducted by the Towninclude mowing of the embankments and removal of debris from the

. -principal spillway riser structure.

The dam and appurtenant features were inspected by theCommonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Public Works, Divisionof Waterways, on March 7, 1974. Included in Appendix B is acopy of the inspection report. In 1976 jurisdiction over the non-

• federally owned dms in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts wastransferred to the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering.The Commonwealth of Massachusetts DEQE has not established aprogram of routine inspection for the dams under their jurisdication.No inspection reports are available other than the 1974 reportincluded in Appendix B.

(b) Operational Facilities

The only facility requiring routine operation is the pond drainsluice gate located within the principal spillway riser. This facilityis routinely operated on an annual basis for draining the pond.

4.3 Evaluation

A formal, written downstream emergency flood warning systemshould be developed for the dam. A routine program of annual inspections Lshould be started with formal written reports and a listing of requiredmaintenance items.

4-1

SECTION 5 - EVALUATION OF HYDRAULIC/HYDROLOGIC FEATURES

5.1 General

The Lake Garfield Dam, No. MA 00249, is a multiple purposerecreation and flood water storage facility which was designed by theconsulting firm of R.G. Brown & Associates and is owned by the Townof Monterey, Massachusetts.

The dam is located on the headwaters of the Konkapot River, andforms the beginning of the river with the Lake Garfield drainage areabeing the source. The Konkapot River flows to the Housatonic Riverand the Lake Garfield dam is located approximately 19 miles upstream ofthe Housatonic River confluence. Many small streams converge with themain flow of the Konkapot River between its source, Lake Garfield andthe Housatonic River.

The drainage area upstream of the dam is approximately 4.0 square* miles (2,550 acres) and consists mainly of wooded, mountainous terrain.

Development within the watershed consists of a number of secondary* back roads with a moderate number of single-family residences and ar few farms.

The dam itself is about 350 feet long and 19.5 feet high and is anearthfill embankment having both impervious and pervious fill zones.The facility has a principal spillway which maintains a recreation pool

I level and discharges all normal flows via a 60 inch diameter conduitIthrough the dam. An emergency spillway, consisting of a 130 foot wide

earth channel, excavated in natural soil with a legume and grass cover," .carries flood flows which exceed the storage capacity of the impoundment

around the dam to the downstream channel.

The impoundment area is divided by Tyringham R6ad which traversesacross the lake upstream of the dam. A major portion of the impoundmentis upstream of the roadway embankment. The two sections of the lakeare hydraulically connected by three, 84 inch diameter culverts andone, 36 inch diameter pond drain. A major portion of the watershed

-.runoff flows through the road culverts prior to reaching the dam.Flood flows are attenuated upstream of the Tyringham roadway accordingto the surcharge storage characteristics of the upstream impoundmentand the hydraulic capacity of the culverts.

5.2 Design Data

A review of the design data for the Lake Garfield Dam, indicates thatthe "Upper Darby Method" of flood routing was utilized for the hydraulicanalysis of the facility. The top of the dam elevation was based on adesign rainfall of 22.8 inches which resulted in 18.4 inches of runoff over

- the drainage area. The design computations assumed a pool elevation of1285.7 ft. at the beginning of the test storm. This elevation was theoriginal normal pool design level. The peak design inflow was approxi-mately 12,800 CFS which resulted in a peak spillway outflow of approxi-mately 7000 CFS at a pond elevation of 1294.75. The emergency spillwaycrest has been designed to provide impoundment storage to retard a 100 year

5-1

frequency design storm without discharge occurring from the emergencyspillway. The design normal recreation pool level was maintained at thelevel of the previously existing Lake Garfield formed by the old damwhich was located at the Tyringham Road crossing. This elevation wasincreased by 4 inches during the construction of the dam. Raising thenormal recreation pool level resulted in raising the crest of the principalspillway weirs, the crest of the emergency spillway control section andthe top of the dam, all by 4 inches over the design elevations.

5.3 Experience Data

No records of flow or stage are known to be available for the LakeGarfield Dam.

5.4 Test Flood Analysis

The selection of the test flood is based on the Corps of Engineers"Recommended Guidelines for Safety Inspection of Dams," dated November1976. These guidelines state that dams classified as "INTERMEDIATE" ..in size, and HIGH in hazard potential be tested against the ProbableMaximum Flood (PMF).

The determination of the PMF for the Lake Garfield Dam is basedon the Corps of Engineers "Preliminary Guidance for Estimating MaximumProbable Discharges in Phase I Dam Safety Inspections" dated March1978. For a drainage area of 4.0 square miles using the mountainousterrain condition, a unit discharge of 2,350 cfs per square mile isobtained from the guidance curves. This results in a PMF test flood of L9,200 cfs.

The purpose of this Phase I inspection is to assess the dams over-topping potential and its ability to store and/or discharge the testflood. This requires determining the storage characteristics of the

- U impoundment area and the stage vs. discharge characteristics of thespillways. These computations have been performed and are includeo inAppendix D.

The test flood has been routed through the reservoir using theiteration process as outlined in the Corps of Engineers "PreliminaryGuidance for Estimating Probable Maximum Discharges in Phase I DamSafety Inspection."

Two test flood routing analyses were made as follows:

a) Routing including the effects of Tyringham Road locatedupstream of the dam.

b) Routing assuming the Tyringham Road embankment is removed.

The results of routing the test flood assuming Tyringham Road isin place, indicate that the storage capacity of the impoundment area willreduce the test flood inflow of 9,200 CFS to a reservoir outflow ofapproximately 4200 CFS at a pond storage of 1293.1 feet NGVD. Thisassumes that the level of the pond is at the recreation pond level of1236.03 at the start of the test storm.

5-2

. . - .. . . o ,• - - - - • - , .

rr-r rv- .r.... - -"--

This analysis indicates that Tyringham Road will be overtopped atthe culvert location by approximately 2 feet and is, therefore, subjectto substantial damage potential. Breaching of the roadway will reducethe attenuation effects and increase the test flood outflow. The worstcase for routing purposes would be with the roadway embankmentcompletely removed.

The results of routing the test flood assuming the roadway embank-ment completely removed indicate that the test flood inflow of 9,200 CFSwould be reduced to a reservoir test flood outflow of 4,450 CFS at apond stage of 1293.4 feet NGVD.

The combined spillways have a discharge capacity with the waterlevel at the top of the dam of about 6,800 CFS. Using the "worst case"analysis for test flood routing, the reservoir test flood outflow is 4450CFS. The combined spillways have a capacity of 152% of this test floodoutflow, and will alow a remaining freeboard of approximately 1.7 feetto the top of the dam with a test flood pond stage of 1293.4 feet NGVD.

With a capacity to discharge the PMF test flood outflow of thereservoir while maintaining freeboard of 1.7 feet, the dam is concludedto have adequate spillway capacity.

5.5 Dam Failure Analysis

A dam failure analysis using the procedures in the Corps of Engineers"Rule of Thumb Guidance for Estimating Downstream Failure Hydrographs"dated April 1978, was performed for the Lake Garfield Dam. Theassumed conditions are as follows:

1. The water level of the impoundment prior to breech occurringis at the test flood elevation of 1293.40.

2. Stream flow at the time of breech is the spillway test floodoutflow.

3. For determining the storage volume available to sustain damfailure flow, the "worst case" analysis assuming that TyringhamRoad is either breached by flood flows or removed has beenused. This provides the entire impoundment storage belowthe test flood pond stage for dam failure flow analysis.

For an assumed breech equal to 40 percent of the dam widthcomputed at half height, the breached width is approximately 95 feet.The resulting dam failure flow using a water depth of 18.2 feet is12,400 cfs.

The first damage area impacted by dam failure flow is directlydownstream of the dam. The Lest flood flow prior to the dam breachoccurring is 4,450 cfs resulting in a river stage of about 5.5 feet.Dam failure flow is 12,400 cfs resulting in a river stage of about 7.5feet. There are no structures or development directly downstream ofthe dam, therefore, any damage will not be significant.

5-3

. .'

.. •- .... . .. .- ... .,s .,' p, '. a.., .; m ... . . . . . ... ..

The second damage area impacted by dam failure flow is at thecrossing of Beartown Mountain Road about 400 feet downstream of thedam. There is one culvert at this location. Prior to dam breach, testflood flow is ,,450 cfs resulting in a river stage of about 5.5 feet.The culvert has a capacity with the water level at the roadway elevationof approximately 260 cfs, therefore, it will be inundated and the roadwayovertopped by about 4 feet. The dam failure attenuated flow is 12,400cfs resulting in a river stage of about 7.5 feet. This will increase thedepth of flow over the roadway by about 3.5 feet and significantlyincrease the probability of severe damage to the roadway.

I

The third damage area impacted by the dam failure flow is theVillage of Monterey and a crossing of Route 23 in the center of theVillage, which is located about 4,500 feet downstream of the dam.There is one culvert at this location. Prior to dam breach, the testflood flow is 4,450 cfs resulting in a river stage of about 10 feet. Theculvert has a surcharged capacity of approximately 1,200 cfs, therefore,it will be inundated and the roadway overtopped by about 1.5 feet.The pre-failure flood stage will result in about 5 homes plus 1 storebeing flooded by about 1.5 feet. The dam failure attenuated flow is12,100 cfs resulting in a river stage of about 14 feet. This will increasethe depth of flow over the roadway by About 4 feet, to a depth of 5.5feet. The 5 homes plus 1 store flooded by pre-failure flow will beflooded an additional 4 feet, resulting in 5 homes plus 1 store floodedby 5.5 feet, and 1 additional home flooded by 5.5 feet. This will, ineffect, significantly increase the probability of severe damage to theprimary roadway, and to all of the flooded structures.

The fourth damage area impacted by dam failure flow is a crossingof Curtis Road about 14,000 feet downstream of the dam. There is oneculvert at this location. Prior to dam breach, the test flood flow is4,450 cfs, which results in a river stage of approximately 8 feet. Theactual capacity of the Curtis Road culvert is unknown, but it is definitelymuch less than the pre-failure flood flow, and a river stage of 8 feetwill result in the roadway being overtopped by about 2 feet. The damfailure attenuated flow is 12,100 cfs resulting in a river stage of approxi-mately 12.5 feet. The increased flooding of approximately 4.5 feet willsignificantly add to the potential for damage to the roadway.

The fifth downstream area impacted by dam failure flow is justdownstream of the confluence of the Swann Brook which is approximately15,000 feet downstream of the dam. The Konkapot River at this locationflows parallel to the Route 23 roadway, and a number of homes arelocated in the area. Prior to dam breach, the test flood flow is 4,450cfs resulting in a river stage of about 8 feet. Pre-failure flood levelswill not result in a significant hazard potential. Dam failure attenuatedflow is 11,600 cfs resulting in a river stage of about 12 feet. This willresult in all flood levels being increased by about 4 feet, but will notsignificantly add to the dam failure damage potential.

The sixth downstream area impacted by dam failure flow is theVillage of Hartsville, which is approximately 27,000 feet downstream ofthe dam. There is one culvert at this location. Prior to dam breach,

5-4

same"

the test flood flow is 4,450 cfs, which results in a river stage of approxi-mately 3 feet. The Route 57 roadway culvert capacity will be exceededand the roadway overtopped by about 1 foot. The pre-failure floodingwill result in about 13 homes being flooded approximately 1 foot. Thedam railure attenuated flow is 11,100 cfs resulting in a river stage ofapproximately 5 feet. This will increase the depth of flow over theroadway to a depth of 3 feet. The 13 homes flooded by pre-failure flowwill be flooded an additional 2 feet, resulting in a flooded depth of 3feet. This will, in effect, significantly increase the probability ofsevere damage to the primary roadway, and the structures flooded.

The seventh downstream area impacted by dam failure flow is theVaillage of Mill River, which is located about 50,000 feet downstream ofthe dam. There are three roadway culverts at this location. Prior todam breach, the test flood flow is 4,450 cfs resulting in a river stageof about 5.5 feet. The pre-failure flood flow will exceed the capacityof each culvert and overtop the roadways by about 4.5 feet. No homeswill be flooded by pre-failure flood levels. Dam failure attenuated flowis 8,000 cfs resulting :n a river stage of about 10 feet. This willresult in an increase flooding of about 5.5 feet over the roadways andsignificantly add to the probability of severe damage to the primaryroadways. No structure damage is anticipated.

The eight downstream area impacted by dam failure flow is thereach of the Konkapot River downstream of the Vilage of Mill River tothe confluence with the Housatonic River. This reach is approximately55,000 feet in length and includes ten roadway culverts. Prior to dambreach, the test flood flow is 4,450 cfs, resulting in a river stage of Labout 7 feet. Pre-failure flooding is expected to exceed the capacity ofall the roadway culverts. Most of the culverts are located at fairlybroad flood plain areas, therefore, flooding will be shallow and probablyin the order of 1 foot. Just upstream of the Village of Clayton, thereis one house which will be flooded by pre-failure flows to about a depthof 5 feet. The dam failure attenuated flow is 7,600 cfs and results in ariver stage of about 9.5 feet. This will increase all flood levels by 2.5feet and only slightly increase the damage potential.

Downstream of the confluence with the Housatonic River, damfailure flows will not constitute a significant increase in the flood damagepotential.

L

5-5

............................................. .i.

*0

-. I , _ i . t -! U)'m

o) 0 ,O - - W-

" 0 " -- . 4-,- - - - " .C om 0 LLn i 0

4- L a). ,,- ,M,. > ,. -- 4 -o4 - 0 )

o) m ou Cu 0,-- o

00 4- Mcca)- ." C - CL o Lo 4 o o.- a Q) fu (a C

c CU C aU 'aU~~~~~~~4 0)M4 0a V )0 ca3: ~ ~ ~ ~ .44S- ) )a

_o 0 0 04- r o Q 4-- G0)00 4- 0 00 0 -'

a) m o .)> 0 a)~ 0 0 W0 00L.

4-- -O

.LL I

' 0)0l -S .T

o)3 0 - n >0 0 Y

U- co o o""C 4-IL T

S L

Cu

U_) U ' 0 0 0 0

0

,.. TTo -

0 4-

.L L

-1 -

0 E) a)0 0) )4 m U> _O _

L.- 0' ""+4

4E L-- C I

>' ,,, ,>- > ->.-

m ) (D 00if

0- .- u_ u -

fl 0

4_ L

o':

z0

00

0) 0)0) Cum

U) (nL V)) 0 - c

0 )

o ~-Cu C0 CC Lu- =->-

_ -) 2) :

C0 ~ 0~' cO Q

0U) ) OLO0l C) *L 0 Cu6

Cu a) 0 .T u (

C)~ ~ -N N 0)l

"' • ' , " "+-..". . . . . . . . . ..-. .". .-.- '. ". ." . . . . . "" . . . .""-" ' '-'-'" . ..... "-'" .. . ......... .." : "," -- "+,",-:":- ' ' " " ".. .'. .-.... ."." '. .".".. . . . . .". .".. . .,- -.:

4-

a) LflL * 4-.

_0 LflVa) 0 -

0 04a) o O (1) - 0 L

C~ L4 04 S00a

E -

44- ()

0 a

n LL f

LL W COLL

E

LL C)0a) u f

4-0) 0

C (V

tLn U-)

L-o o coE a) . II

CO

u LO d)0

4 -S- S

E -sj - 7

E a) a)

0 4-

a) a)

00- -0

Z 0 0 )00 u

0 0) 0

0) vi .~c -

c 0o

4-

V) L. U)

L. 04-- E

4-

0Q 0 0C

CD) a) w-.2 CDa 0 D )

U 00

-- 7

QDAM ~--- ~0: 400' D. S. BEARTOWN MTN. ROAD pj ~- ' y

4,500' D. S. RTE. 2-3 8, VILLAGE2OF MONTEREY3

14,000' D. S. CURTIS ROAD

©~15, 000' D. S. ALONG RTE. 23®:27,000' D. S. RTE. 57 a VILLAGE

OF HARTSVILLE_:50,000' D. S. VILLAGE OF MILL RIVER '

5CQ'D. S. TO CONFLUENCE WITH500'HOUSATONIC RIVER '. - 'z--

~~t4.

I -J,

14,\

SCLE TIGH a OD SIUSARYEGNE IV E NLN

4..ULIN ENO<EER \L.4.. ORP OF El O .-. -

0- "oo 4'p

4'd %m , 1,0.4ASH M TN.W S .kL M .M S

NATONA PRORA OF INPCTO F

MILE MILS ED DA iSLOCTIO AN DOWSTEA

HAAR MA

'....-'LAK GARFIEL DA (M> ~8~A 00249). MONTEREY-QV-IAtf LOATO BEKHR CONT MASSACHUSETTS~"

SCL :AIOEIFAE ARH18

SECTION 6 - EVALUATION OF STRUCTURAL STABILITY

6.1 Visual Observation

The visual inspection of the dam embankments did not identify anyconditions indicating instability of the slopes. No settlement, sloughing,or piping was observed, and no cracking of the surface could be detected.

6.2 Design and Construction Data

(a) Embankment

Analyses carried out during the design by the design consultantincluded embankment slope stability analysis. Our review of thisinformation indicates that the embankments are designed based onsound engineering practice.

(b) Appurtenant Structures

A review of the structural calculations for the design of theprincipal spillway structure and the outlet conduit indicated thatthese structures have been designed on 'he basis of sound engi-neering practice.

6.3 Post-Construction Changes

There are no known post-construction modifications to the LakeGarfield Dam.

6.4 Seismic Stability

The Lake Garfield Dam is located in seismic zone 1. According tothe recommended Corps of Engineers Guidelines, a seismic analysis isnot warranted.

6-1

. . - . . .-

SECTION 7 - ASSESSMENT, RECOMMENDATIONSAND REMEDIAL MEASURES

I

7.1 Dam Assessment

(a) Condition

The dam and its appurtenances are in GOOD condition.

(b) Adequacy of Information

There is sufficient design and construction data to permit anassessment of dam safety. In general, available data, past perform-ance of the dam, and sound engineering judgement were sufficientto conduct the analyses presented in this report.

(c) Urgency

The remedial measures described herein should be implementedby the Owner within two years of receipt of this Phase I inspectionreport.

7.2 Recommendations

The recommendations of this Phase I investigation are that noadditional studies are required.

7.3 Remedial Measures

The recommendations of this Phase I investigation are that thefollowing remedial and/or maintenance items be carried out:

(a) The animal hole and damaged grass area on the downstreamembankment area should be repaired.

(b) The small animal burrows in the right training embankment ofthe emergency spillway channel should be filled in and ad.:tionalerosion protection should be provided on this training embankment.

(c) The downstream channel should be cleared of all vegetationand growth.

(d) Institute a program of annual technical inspection by a registeredprofessional engineer qualified in dam design and inspection.

(e) Develop an "Emergency Action Plan" that will include aneffective preplanned downstream warning system, locations ofemergency equipment, materials and manpower, authorities tocontact and potential areas that require evacuation.

7.4 Alternatives

There are no practical alternatives to the above reccmmendations.

7-1

£~A

Co'n-str~am Fzcc of D~:Cornition: 1. Cood .2. Fincr FRcrairs x-

3. Voor F.Er ir s 4~. Urc-,-t Pc-Pairs

E71c.r~carTcy Sp ~~~ Codition: 1. (7ood x 2. 11 n o r P,--,rra___rs

3. "ajor R scairs *.Urgont Ri-pi~rs_

t~.c kvc m ic of i rs c t ion 0.3 .ft. nlovc t A 2Ou____

ton of in______

u --7,1r v of D -ficicncifts NotcW :

C ro,,'j [TrccLs a~id Brush] onEn'knnt__________

Ari!7,1 Furrco.s ;-nd W, shouts_______ ___

>.mctn slor..,s cr torn of ~~__ _ __ __

Cr,-,c!I:cd cr P'no,,gA. '!,sonrv__

Evid-ncL of Sxi

Ev i dncz of P i inr _ _____- - - - - __

Trash i,-d/cr c"Lris fmcdn flow

Cl oaQ;d cr Ico. sF11 1 \22v

Ot ,r__

CI,'SPECTCON PEPORT -DA."S AND RESERVOIPS

LLca tion: tM/Trwn Montere _. Dain No. 1-2-19,?,6 .

N ,e of earn Lake Garfield ___ Isop-cte- by: HDJordan-F-ev Ie.

-rr/s: per: Assessors_____

Pegj. of Dri, s _____- Pars. Cncit.ct__________

1. Town of M:onterey ___ Monteray, MA ~*.~

C-.. To CI' . ?n

St. r. I.Ci t y/ To (7. TOl . i!

rtf by zitsc~f -

c.of Pictur~ ; s

Dc roc c f I azord: I cdv i-,, . 11r fa i r

1. ~nor 2._ o__ d 2. t

3. Scverc x 4. Disastrous ___ __

*Tkis ratinci may c!,cinoa as land USO C:, ~S [futurc d.cvalo, mcnt]

Ojtct Control Au to mc t ic 14,3;-, u I x

CnP: ra t i ve X _ycs. _________n.

ThstrLQ-m Fpacc o' r" CancAJi ion:

3. 'airPc'<iJrs ___. 4. rytwri'__

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX B

ENGINEERING DATA

INDEX

S. Design and Construction Records:

The following design records are kept on file by the consultingfirm of R.G. Brown Associates of Pittsfield, Massachusetts. Theiroffice is located in the Berkshire Commons Complex on the third floor:

Preliminary Report Titled "Report of Study, Lake Garfield, Monterey,Massachusetts", dated January 20, 1970.

Hydrology and HydraulicsSoil MechanicsStructural DesignSurvey CalculationsQuantity Computations

Construction records consisting of correspondence, soil testingreports, and pay estimates are kept on file by the Commonwealth ofMassachusetts, DPW, Division of Waterways, District 1, located at270 Pittsfield Road in Lenox, Massachusetts.

2. Inspection Reports (appended)

Date Inspection Agency

3/7/74 Mass. DPW, Divisionof Waterways, District 1

3. Design Drawings

Page No. Description

B-I Title Sheet and IndexB-2 Plan of Dam and LakeB-3 Section - Profile - Seeding Plan of DamB-4 Plan - Profile Principal Spillway

B-5 Dam Sections - MiscellaneousB-6 Details - DrainageB-7 Details - RiserB-8 Details - Trash Racks

B-9 Details - Dam - MiscellaneousB-10 Plan - Profile - Road Relocation -

Sta. 38+50 to 48+00B-l1 Plan - Profile - Road Relocation -

Sta. 48+00 to 53+00B -12 Profile Culverts - Pond Drain1-13 Details - Seeding Plan of Road RelocationB-14 Log of Test Pits and Borings IB-15 Log of Test Pits and Borings 11B-16 Log of Test Pits and Bo:ings III

B--i

"- : . . -. . - -. .' . . '- .- . - . . . . ." . . . - ' -" " -.. " - '. - - . ' : . . . ', i .

APPENDIX B

ENGINEERING DATA

... ....

WSCTCox C.-:2CX L=ZT

- .~:Like Garfield Dam r T

- ~ -- N/A

Genra-l2 Conditlcn of Concrete

A-::roac:- to Br:1--id

C -i t f ,aec-:

pBJZV' Lake Garfield Dam --

0- -.---. ""4--:

- .>Cj......________-- __________

D _SLUJ C

Emergency Spillway

C-nera Cc n Heavy grass and legumes with some reedtype growth

Lose Rock Cverhanging Cnanne! N/A

T'rees &:erhanging Cha:nel None

:.oor of Approach. C-ar-.e. Very wet, standing water l"-2" deep over

most of approach.~ ~ n 'ei al" :.. ....g a1s N/A

Genera! Condition of Concrete

or Stainirzs

r 1y ile Reirforcing

Any Seer2e or Efflorescence

Dra-. Holes

c. Dizcrarre Charnel

Heavy grass and legumes, left side em-

Cr-2. Cb::dition hankment sloughing about 108 ft. H.S.of control section.

Lc:se Rack ,,Over-an - ng Car-nel None

Trees Ocrhanging C-anne! None

Mostly dry, but left side embankment toeF 0c of C' ......1........ area is wet

Cbr..... ions None

Notes : "

1. Left embankment sloughing appears to 3. The right side training embuankment

to have occurred a number of years ago should have additional erosion protection.

4and now stablized. 4. Small animal burrow found in right2. Side-hill seepage from left abutment training embankment.appears to be cauqe of wet conditions tin m k t

.. ~EZ Lake Garfield Darn _______________

ALY :A E- L::.TED) cciT-c=1 1 -II

C-ee~~ ~ of Conce-_ N/A

N/A

Erosion or Cavit.ation N/A

%7z~l 4einforci. N/A

Any- See-aGe or ZDf-forescence N/A

Cond.:;ion at Joints 60"0 pipe joints appear good

Dinholes N/A

C,-~~ Riprap lined stilling basin good condition

!Lo:zze 3:.ock or Trees Orverbnangi..gC-a n-ne None

Cond-ition of" Discharge Crharuie2. Some vegetation growth in channeldownstream of stilling basin

Note: Stilling basin is 38+ feet wideand 80+ feet long. No sedimentationvisible on bottom.

O Kc Lake Garfield Damn DA_________________

rA. 'EVLTUTEDccs'c

60" RC.P.Conduit

Gen-eralE2 Condi.tion: cf Cocre- e Pipe Very Good

z.ust or sa 4rn4r-c on. Corcrete * None Visible

S p I IinzNone Visible

or oS iOn or Ca-;--tF.z--Or None

Crae~r~zNone

* Aigrz~r~tof Mno~fthsGood

* ~ ~ -- ~-~ ~Good alignment -dry joints

c r f o*.-th N/A

~7.jC~Lake Garfield Dam D~_______________

D ~ :Sl!A~ I

'7 -:-_/ C .7 7 60" 0R.C.P. Conduit

G-eneral2 Czrndit-Ls. cf Cnre-te Pipe Very Good

CZ3tr~ or Concree None Visible,

S p~.None Visible

Er -:3ic n or Ca*;.taz-.or.c None

C ra c'- None

A~t0' L-thSGood

A1 Of Good alignment -dry joints

uz~ri~of Anth N/A

.[PETI.:;C----C : LIZT_

•.:- Lake Garfield Dam AT "

D- C = --

A?2A -VA"U"TiJnZ

"' ......... ~(Principal Spillway)

' a. Concrete and Structuza

-eneral Condition Very Good

Condition of joints Very Good

S ralling None

........e .e ..forc-g None

..s... or Sza-i.;n-g of Concrete None

S S eeaorEf '-B!res ce ce None

j 9JoLnt ig r.t Very Good

. Seeage or Leas In Gate The gate was open at the time of in-

: ha:b e r spection

Crackz None

uz ting or Ccrrosicn of Steel None

.a.d ..Icctrca No Electrical

8Pond Drain Sluice Gate:

.-l... 1. Rodney Hunt 27291-2S-5002

gate operating mechanism looks good andhas been operated by the Owner to drainthe pond.

None: There are no other Mechanical orS ---,i G s Electrical features.

- -. -6ft5 -.9

Fow i... .

... -- l*** -..- h - .-o** - . ,.. . -'

.7-

[ -< - -. < -l ' .-; '. ' i <, '-> l" '" -' .[ ;- , .- . .. . .,. ."- -. --' .". ".. . -.,. ,".-. -.' .-.. * ., --- . ,, . ., . - , .. . _

. ~ . . . . . . . .

~~ Lake Garfield Dam I)A=_______________

a. A2-:roach- o::a'---l N/A

Blcttaa C=-diioi

Roc'v Sl-i-,.es or Falls

LZZ- Boom

I Condition of Con~crete Lin-ffig

t. .u e Str ttze

* Condition of Cz-cete

S tp ,zand SlIots

r~s~~:~;CYECK LrT

?~2JZi Lake Garfield Dam T_______________

AFL% £VALUI: TED ccITDIONcS

Crest FE1e':ati.on 1295.08 -from Construction Records

Ct, rrent zz..... valr Pond Drained

1=::a-r-d~et to Date Unknown

Surface Cracks None Visible

1: vernent Ccndition N/A

-overnent or Sett2.ent, of' Crest None Apparent

Laeral. Movement None Apparent

__Vetcal Alignzent "ood

Hcrizcnza2A-'n Good

Cznz'-itio'n at Abutment and at Concrete Good3 Structuares

Ln i L - a c.-,ons of Movement, of Structural None ApparentItems on Slorjes

Tresoas sing on Slcpez Slight dLrnage to turf on D.S. embankmentVegitation on Slopes Well groomed grassSl~hngor Erosion of Slopes or None ApparentAbutner.n ;z

Rock Slcope Protection,- Ri-prap Faillures U.S. embankmient has 2" washed gravelSurface - good condition

Unusual Yovener- or Cracking- at or N- iilnlear Toes n iil

Unusual nak'e:o 'u iil

N.oneviil

-- '~ ~Foundation drains to stilling basin.* I IDrain outlets submerged in stilling

Tac :a: -ha-, in.

IN'ISPECTION CHECK~ LIST -, p

JC~2~Lake Garfield Dam -MA00249 11/14/79

TZ 11:00 A.M.

~4EA'2?Cloudy-40 0 F

W.S. --1-v. _____U.S.

PAT: Tigh~e & Bond/SCI

-. John W. Powers, P.E., Proj. Manager 0.*

Hydrology/2. George H. McDonnell, P.E., Hydraulics 7.

3. Edward A. Moe, P.E., Soils/Hydraulics 8

Omer H. Dumais, Jr., P.E., Civil 9 __ _______________

All project features were inspected by all party members

2.

I

APPENDIX A

INSPECTION CHECKLIST

K

3

... t. .. . .. . -. -,.,., .- .., .. . . ,.-. , ... • .. . .-.. .-

L-V B -3 - D/I iiO. 1-2-1 3-6

12. Rmarks t. PLccr-n dations: [Fully Exrlain]

E In general, the dam is in very good condition. The earthen emergency spillway is

covered with a good turf cover. The embankments are stable, showing no signs of

settlement or sloughing.

There is one minor deficiency located on the downstream slope. An area extending

UD the slope and about six feet wide has had all the turf removed. by motor bil:e

wheels. Th"s strip is subject to erosion and should be reshaped and reseeded as

early as possible.

It was noted that there is no protective cover on the drawdown gate stem. The

to,-n should be advised to cover the stem to protect the mechanism from the ele:nents.

The town should also be advised to "exercise" the gate periodically to insure

proper functioning in case of an emergency.

In my opinion, the dam , in its present condition, is safe.

A description of the structure was submitted in 1972. There are no changes to be

noted.

For location see Topo 6-A.

U/

13.

0v~rall Condition:

1. f - X

2. iinor rco-irs nc~ded

3. ,inditi, ly sc - maior repairs nceeded -

.- -~~. Lnsafc_. . . . . .. . .._

5. P.sorv-ir i r.,n'nm nt no' lCnger ixis .s [explain]

,c , nc rj'_v-l "rcm insr.cti n li st

• ... -- --, - - -.-- -

8. 1' Id :*wi d d it

8 8

0 0

b-I

u-u

L9 b

LAI

I '4 4 ~ ICh 4 I~ ~41 ~ ., -~

,J /

'.~.. .~'

.7,1/ ~-

~ ~

II'.4 II, 1 4 4 A 'I

)4 -~ ~ ~

\) ~ f-I /'N..-1' ///~/ 7

\ YJ~ ... \ ~ '~

* '~~yl '~.'4..'42,,~*4~,,'--

~ '

-.. \4

-~

---.

S ' /

S , ii ,i. / ,Ii\

I' ~ ~ ~ * r / ~Q.. -' //

-- N.~. 4'

* .4 -,

'4* S

* I) ~ A, 0 4

4 itp ~I

'N

- - .- .

S ______________ ___________________

ti I I

- ____ ~I ~ I' "

* 14- 2

II- I .' ~ -

i1~-

f 1~: ~ K.

A /

* *.* * ...

.-.-- -- I

____

e .1I.

'S

I ~ -~

-S 'I

-7.1 ~ - VI,' -'Ii

I ii] 2N

0 'A

f I

~ j~I I

- 7 I~ -I~I ~.

~ i

141

.1..i0

I

S

7A

7... * * .,27 - *.> 2.. 2 2.. 2 -. ~..

* -.. *..-

S.'a

L41

Ila it -.~L1 . fill

-__,

1 l*. ,

I

',"II

U )

:- :

---

I

...

-.-!

I

I

S.

.

.

--.

*

*I

0.

".

*'*4

•

-

.-

- ...

"

.

.,.-.

;.-.'.()

'L

-

," "-_

--

I -

".-

..

",,-.

I-to"

."

.'-

: -

-7

--.

-_._J

-',_;_'.

''-'"'"

" '"'.

-.

•

~ .; - *

* .

3 II

I JI

i

r

~

S

're: St~99

I I (4.)II ~ 'i-i I -.

'4-

. ~* ~ I. a I,*1 ____

1, ~ I

* ~ - . ~ 2

I 1'eI~] ~I*) .

~ ~i i I r

I \~ "~'~ 4t I -

1 I .~ II

~ I\~'~ ~

.' I'

.-. :1_______ K-

_______________ /

I j/i'..I I

- . ~A ~ K

i41. - '13,P

-I..- 00 '--UI

--.. 15 W ,N M FAI

v~rm . - - - . - .. - . -

* -. - A

*~1 It

2 it --.. -0

:;~ ~

I

K I 'k''

1~.It ___ II'I -~

It ~b 4 4 1

4"- n' U

F------'K* V3 V

'~k 'itI Id

241.

C- .14-1

* *d9

Kjib. *l

* - 'ia-b _____

'I

'1) Ii

C

K' I '--'I, \

<K ,~J /7Ii' 1< /

~.r r -.

Si. * . . -

* -. -. '. .---.- ,

A =

4

I ~ -~ *'~2*~::~~ ,i~,*4

I.. I L..ij

.4..i I -~

II I---.. -' - ~

.1

I -~

IS I

..--..--..------.-.- , II i 'LI-,

i I I- *~.'. -- I

.. * .4

II

V --

VI

:~zz ~'_I I . -

~

Ht~I1 -- __________

* .~ .

It~' 0

~

~ --

I~~3

,.~

/ ~

'42 / ___

'~ ~' ~hs1 ~

' '~'II; 4~

~ -y

-' -~2):~~ ~

I, ~ *1~

I 1..

~ .~ I ~ ~;

i~ .I~'j ccI I I I I

'I''

-I --,.---

..;. ~ I'

~ ( ~kI

~' 'i / I

I

~ t - ----- ~-

I V

I ja

I ~* ' ./~ ~I?

I - a~

'I I..i~i~

~: ~

T ~Ii - ii ~jI.

**1 t ~ -

A

~ LI ".4:~ ~'ii V

~ ~

.JJlJ

~; .u.~2 -~

'-''I

*I*t ...i I -':.~'i '~

.~.a~~-'------~, _ ii

. .~'* 11 .1 ~

I I, 1 1~ ~i

INI!, I

- If~

,~ N

C, ~-,. o~i~ i ri

I-- f -I 1-"I

* ~A. I(,4 -

A~ -:'~~

4, '''~")OiJdJr? ..

P~I~ ~~ I~ I,

~

i~ I -~

.flDhs - A1~'~ -- I ~'~ ji..(

;JIL *4I ~

2 1hi' [~ -

I L

z;~d 1.1

'.~ Ij ~ i* ti ~ ii II fl Li

a I.,

N -

Ii i ~tlz I~.~ ).~

~ 9 ~~ \~

-' -, ~1I* ~. *1* I

- , - I

~ .1

Ii

} . IJI,.. I ~.I I 2.4

I.

_________________ *1-... -..-- '-*;*-*-*.-*----**

pA 1 I ~ A0 * *S~a. 'a IL':

A~ I' t

~~

44a '44! 41

'1 '4:

-. ~;:~ ..* ~1 ~ Iv"4i.

'I Iii

r -f j>-~ I<2 'i-4v---'

itt 1 ~4. . '4 '4I Lii

'4 ~~S' -~jlHitj

F '

.4~ ; 14

h-V

~K{~ ~'3 ~jV- I

-ix--

L ~ ____'-4 ~------ -

K -- --

It'4 I

144I.

S.

F*L F

~ 'D -70

APPENDIX D

HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS

id,2 of tril v ~ rr

OfX C L-iP)IC hCrrul

:. ;. 1)f '1,r Lin,.'ham c

rL., toward.; Jarn

I n. (dai-i net in hio

Pto12

71, iii rgncy s;pillway channel1eft side excavated embank-

44 ~ ment!p Not(- Sloughing occurring :

bLI not ViSifblo in jphoto

Photo 13

Emergency spillway rightside training embankmentand left side of dam.

*~ Photo 14

Emergency spillway'low, discharge channel

looking from top of

nciital spillway outlet;tiIat, stilling basin.

1(J1

ba in nd dischargelooking downstream >

OU~le- -t-.iit

spi Ilway approachUkigfrom left

1i hsciarge channel,.

Photo 7

Pond drain inlet conduit and

upstream side of principal

spillway drop inlet structure.

Photo 8

Pond drain control sluice gatelocated in principal spillwaydrop inlet structure.

.

.sr;membankmentiiw (wards; lef t

...fLtrom right

* Icfl soillWay drop

.~of principal q-

* :ydrop !n~vt

L.,r c

~ ,~' .

. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Photo 1

Top of dam lookingtowards right abutmentfrom left side

Photo 2

Overview of impoundmentarea with pond drained.Tyringham Road crossing

in upper photo.

Photo 3

IU 'stream embankment look- .ing towards right abutmentfrom left side.

W--E

BREWERLAKE

LAK

TIGH4E S BOND/ SCI U.S.ARMY ENGINEER DIV. NEW ENGLANDCONSULTING ENGINEERS I CORP$ or ENGINEERS

I A IT14A MPVOts, NAS$. WALTHAM. MABS.

NATIONAL PROGRAM OF INSPECT ION OF NON- FED. DAMS

APPENDIX C LOCATION AND ORIENTATIONOF PHOTOS 2

LAKE GARFIELD DAM (MA 00249) MONTEREYBERKSHIRE COUNTY MASSACHUSETTS

SCALE: NONE

OATE: MARCH 1980

-. u

W E

BREWERLAKE

I rcPI

IPLW~

I.0

'0

APPNNISCLCTIOGN~ ANDP ORIENTA INR

* OF PHOTOS I

LAKE GARFIELD DAM (MA00249) MONTEREYBERKSHIRE COUNTY MASSACHUSETTS

SCALE: NONEODATE : MARCH 1980

LI

1~

I APPENDIX C

PHOTOGRAPHS

ii

I.

I __

I

I

-~

-A

'IIt

jadi

0 I.-.'A

~ ~ a -a.,

I i 0j~FK~'~ ___aa

' -

~

ai*j ;ij - ~..t

~ a*. 1 ~~

-f ~!~!iA IILLI_________

ffl~_ A_

~.jJt.ta ~ ~ a ~. ~, ~ .

-a II' t

~ .

_______ .*'~Ail1a

* '~'i

a' I I

a a a . ~ ]~ a j j

.5-. S

FI ..g .11Ii Cai.~ ~1I4I P1 v

0a j . I

1 * I~iI_________

aI~ ______

-- a a .t

Ti7~i~L9III7{. {7f~-- '''S. 'S . 'S 'S

ft'S I

., I fdllh~ _____ - u-il U

_____ ~!~ ~ .- ______ - ___ I ~

_________________________ _______ ___ -~ ~ 11111191

S

0

0

0z.

7ii~iz11 .'

. ',I~ 1~i~!

if I I - ~~11-1 '1

I I

~ ~ I ~i~i±~

_______ ____ t~rihIi

~ *'

1 h

w~i ~i~: ii- _________

'-I ~~. ~

I~ ~

*

- II ** ~j[.. - - - --

~fI ~ .1 -'-~~ ~

~ II *I~ ~.:; I* I ~t~ ~I~iI ~ ." i ~ILiI~ I

ig 7V - -7 L

31

I

- .&COS

• -t-,ogt z s

~. C.

.." .' -." ...." - ' .- 5 " .' " ' - " .-. ' ."., - --._ .. .-._ _ _ - -. . , ._ . -. - _ : . ... . , .- .. . . . " - .- 2 i i - L i -" " - . "1 0 " . "

W2.If

____ ____ ___ ____ ___ j _

0o P-A t- IO '

-~Z I ij;--)

&~OI~M CC) +00 3(xo-~

'I--..

,4l~e - - - - -

~ - M~4-Q ?,,-& Z~ 1A/o ~

?~&~

* ?~ V~v,.

'--''V 777V7] Xflu ir- - I,Ltr~~~ ~ a'

lIii

F I I ~ -~

II!,, Ii FIII II~IiII~~I

1 . ___________

______________________ I I -1:-~ ~T~. ii7Zir~

-i ~I -_____ ___

[ -~--~--2--~~ ______~~~ ~ I

,L....... _________________ I' iii - .1 -.----..- ,--, 4

.-~---t-+~ Ki* ~-------~ . -

_______ ~ ..i..j.~I *~---i-1 -~

_________ I. ~ - . I

i ~ , I

I

I ooo ~OOO 3000 4ooo gooo

DOD < 3.(Do '- k < ol Do o J-p4

-- "-

A"9414

l-%AA

! -

{). ,kF..:..

'-2 " -'". ''"-".' ' ""'' -": "&" .-"A.:'.i - O -'-'- ' . '-:-..:- .i4 ..-. " - .i :.t.:. '-" ".' --' ... -: -' i.2.:.b i-: . -

"-* -- ' " " W Q QA"d'" '" '-k "m' " ~ '" u mr'h "m mlm' F ' " " ' " " -- " " " 'Q-

L) -1 .)-

Ld G 2 $AA6

soi..A'~ -0~v4

?M.F 5,00D* C +4?,&

L

"" tt--NN

N

N TN

, A -K

R) NAG

LAKE GARFIELD '6ANA AlE

TIGHE 8 BOND/ SCI UES.ARAY ENGINEER DiV.NEW ENGLANO~

-SCALE-Qood 0 000' 2000' 3000' 4000* NATIONAL PROGRAM OF INSPECTION OF NON-FED. DAMS

FROM: U.S.G.S. MONTEREY,MASS.

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

LAKE GARFIELD DAM (MA 00249) MONTEREYBEDVNGtLCAINRKSHIRE COUNTY MASSACHUSETTS,

SCALE: AS NOTED

DATE :MARCH 1980

Ok'VD~f2~~(LO

LL. LU

LL 1 0 I

- LI

0 0 W ... ... 7v

~ J O LL) --.-----

0LUL

SL!

UlU)

-i-_ __ _ _ __ _ C 2

NL

12 }$ 9r ~

A A I51

t 7 ot .0 ~_

zG~ 199 2.

I ~ z a9

5 2.1a. .2 c f:

o .o7c !

TI'~TL

(,0 120

o V'

14 L 7. 0 1

4ZA-- Fr? o .

.--. . .9... .....

'J. J:-

0-0+

2.

~3. o-g

3 OAAJ ( -7

Do: cc

Gxo oIo~~ of-)g

~ ~ ))

4l3.07 LH

I c3)'a 0.75 -70?

-3-0

'I. ~~1I

_ _ _ _ __

_ _ -. llf

lo

_ _ _--4o - - -- - -

4Tzic'oc7:

-c1 F

-3a0 RcA'

TO?' K~b4 A tfj IoAiM I2P Z! 94 ZZ

_ _ _INNA PbA Cr-AD

INV.. 12S3...

TITC~

a~D.

C, +

= ~~o.'! +o., - -

z..•.-

VV

57

1Z5 - 57c) 1t ..-

~{- ~oYv ~S0 -,

RD-R154 666 NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR INSPECTION OF NON-FEDERAL DAMS 2/2LAKE GARFIELD DAM (MA..(U) CORPS OF ENGINEERS WRLTHAMMR NEW ENGLRND DIV MAR 88

UNCLASSIFIED F/0 13/13 ML

mhhEtttthhtthtthtthIIIEIIIEEIIIIIEIIEIIEEEIIIIIIIIII..II

-...............

U

111 1.0 'An 32.8 1.5I~~llI Lg L3 ~ 11 .2

1111!25 1

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHARTNATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS 1963-A

to ~ ~ ~ ~ F ZoO OVE ____ ___ i_ _ ~ ~ _ _ _ _ .- ~-

1- - --.-.- - -.-- Z9

rm -v-~z

C LJL vE~J5; IA9L? Z3

-0 -

2 -

~.. ... ...... . . . . .

I __ ___ ___ ____ __ .. .-- ___ ___--.- --- ---

_ _ _ ___ _--- -- ' -* __ _L

* -. .... .I. ~ * -I *.~JJI Iu. 111 iii-IE W lL•

II

,..' - IC2. P,,.,-

-~z 3(,1'77CF

T £ - . -

iA

~ .

0. co

$,j- lc-'+ 2~- .i

,-..-

z&6.-- .3. 1 -7 F.

2- 5 '5 --DJ P :-

C)L

T~~~ C+ f= z'o

o ,-

-Do

95.,,2-

- - z Pa .

L5)II

I

A" A

2i- 7~s _o-,,

..- . ". -..,. _ .-.'.-'.- ... ......-. -. . -] •- ..'. -.. . .. . .. .. .'[ ..] • ..- ... . .. . . .: -....

. . . . ",,' "--', / - " -_,_-,,,,'_ _ a '_' _ _- " - '- ""__ _" "a. . .. . . . ".

Ii

'-I - -o~4~________________________________----.--.-

I -- -.---.-- '

9

>717. zz

___ I ~ ---

__ _ ____ .ilx.i.IfLZL

- - - a--- 1c'1F~L 5To~A~- - Nor~4~~-PooL------

-

) - - 4 .2

- . 2- - 7iii.i7L~§i1. -. - -_________ -

xa~o~ 3ccc 4oto

- - -----

- ?0TA~ ~5.

* ...--. %..........................

+ C) C..

~~CZ0 5?1OC0f 2kZ) .9C4C

C.~W 2 595~cr5

~~ Z.9 4 3. Z.

5Cr + T

~~~5- VI~A) ze ~ O~~j- - ~ i ~

O nD N QW P5

l<Q. 4( 4(

= 5a00 (4-1)4-( F

i-~F11 i e%,j. 44I f

+"- FI - ,t L(3. -jb Z-);

2 55

44K <,~~ 4-Lcr

4-..-

44~ 174O z~z~ c- i=

z(7/

I~ "'

4-~

i1-" : iaAi2~QO CF!

. . " ..

-- ~ --- L---- __ a-Q - +D Q

*1D -

Abc.

C,, F5

Q ~ ~~-1-5 OF$

C- r-

CICPS

9 ~ (5L~

be

i2~ 6 ~ ~A~&~A

~ Z~

-~ a~i- ~ 4/~9 ~

<A ~2#~QAA~I ~~44 {&tIJ.

AAA~ 2~-Q~

~

A.) .L

P~A2&~

S t~-~y~

R~- ~&)J~~k~ 2 ~9U i 5. IL..

1-I -x ~ - ~AZ<~ K~ 7Y~ ~ ~

fly 1~

7 <A~-.. 9 '~

- -t K~ () A .96<

~-4 ~-~'-k~-&' p ~-L~fti74 ~JQ

30

-O F 01

i0

-06

7 oj

- -09

EU;7 C T -

LID ~2 F

Fg* F,"

A )lD 5c)4D 4A~

Z 4 c JCCe5 -

ItI

-T-.

I

"at

4/4

o .+

15

aK~-Q. 3~,_.o: , ,.

1- -x 'CC? .7o CF.

* -V

/ .. - -(cz'\'C)

--- --

--~.----.

.7 -~ -

"-'-~-~--~ ,' -

-- N

,-

Sr~ -

I ~ N.~

~ -~>

I

~

I I

-C

Th, ~ ~ N

* -# -~

(

-,.-

*.41.

--.. , I

N_

I

- -- '---'--- I

.4T~

O.K~4 kI

-- ~/ /

7

-(

/ I \N, -' -~-' -~ /

I N /

""'

'~,

2 N~(~

Co

_____

/ A ,,..'~ ~

C

-

, I~ ~''~

J

* -'IN

J) A~ I p

_

~1.~~~-.

I' / I -'

'-IC ~ /~ I *

I-

< - ~ * -:

-~

-~

-'

.,,

[-N~ 7',2~-*~-

N

K -'-2' II//I

/1

"74/v, %/

6 1,P

TZ 1/0

"1 -, J, ~

Hilt/

N..-. -. Ram '.. N I ~ /0

- ,.,

RC)A

N

N ~

-

7 '~\ /

~> 7~ \/ ; K ~&7 ~ '7

> q-

~ \ \ * N

N " ~ (\ ~ ~ 'SK

~N " r -~ '7-~K ~ -. 2

) K ~-2

\<\ V\ N ~ -

-

~ ~ ~' K N 1? ~EK\&SL

NN'-

-is

x~

'~ A----

'-

~ N) j~ S *'~

~ KN '1

N'

,- -'

'N~NIN~NVN

~

05. ' I~~~ Z 17.

C-Li

. .--. 7

,II

* 2C A V~/•L . . -

•., -

&t~ ~~L~t~k)2r) ~,JtZ I ~2'°

- >: I

LT J-

13~.AA~A~~~A*~O ~4

~1

QDAM RA0: 400' D. S. BEARTOWN MTN. ROADp4 '.

0 4,500' D. S. RTE. 23 2 ILGE ~5OF MIONTEREY

®14,000' D. S. CURTIS ROAD -

®:15, 000' D. S. ALONG RTE. 23 4

©:27,000' D. S. RTE. 57 a VILLAGE NOF HARTSVILLE

W©: 50,000' D. S. VILLAGE OF MILL RIVER 7 Kj.~

P ®:55,000' D. S. TO CONFLUENCE WITH jHOUSATONIC RIVER .

_____________________________________________P,

_44'

t: -. -

7. 71%., 7\A N'

ILI

1 MILE LS NATIONAL PROGRAM OF INSPECT ION OF NON-FED. DAIMS

LOCATION AND DOWNSTREAMHAZARD MAP

.f.LAKE GARFIELD DAM (MA 00249) MONTEREY

~ tcsB ERKSH IRE COUNTY MASSACHUS ETT SSCALE :AS KOTFO

MARC14~ILI~ 1080__

* *~r. ~.. -'.. . ~.........

0

-' AAP-.y--.. - .4~7)(QOQ 0F5 -

0

AAC~A,~ 1~

JO-S...

&Q~Q. pp

~-A~~J~- t Q ~2-~-r~9 a

~A~* <o~~~2c~vL u~ ~o

kQ~Zz~ c3Y'~&

c~-~ c~ ~e-~S

~ ~* I.

3

. .

- ~ - -. -.

i I.

~ . ____________ ____________------*- ___-*---____ ____________

i --

.13

& -- c~t ~jjjF

I 44S0 ~~ct. 1 Z~A~

*;4 SO

* . Dr A-5

*~~C C fl4i6

/7.,

~~e0 ?1 40 a a

4. +

U),: -7

A*-, 3o..

Z~ ~ ~ 5- 7 3 5-4-1ao F? .

m. ' t-5 -

oo

5 50

To~ 50~ 44OC30

N)7 c DFptI$ ,{

C- tu

Vs-V ~3 F~P

2U Jo -O ~

IF 0030 )-

-06

04

-05 9l ,

C2 2

009 < -

006 -jC-0

______________V_ 0 0

EOUATIN: V -1.486Ri S7.

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _n

_ -_ - - - - - . -- - - - - . -c

____ ~IF S-Z 7 ------------------ - -

* od~c.vt ,lEb ot'C

C-F

too.

* 42),0

0. o I+

L p

o+I

I- 'I-l-"

,14o

A,.,.,,,.- ,0 -14-0 x - a£ . .

• "l •

SRAA 1?$40,- 3.o -t

9-.'545- 3 5:.F5

. . .•."...-.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ..

_____ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1C z___ ______ __________0_----

13 Fn

WO ?IS~)C>C

TtI

V-2A- IP I -'

L

I 30- -

01

08 5 20

05

-7 '

____________________-00

t ~ ~ ~ 0 -9_______

r _____________________0

___________ QUATON V----R0S

fLI

___ __ _ _ _0

_009 __ C)

5~zyzzz ii _00_

4i2~Z~DO? u ~7i 00I77 Y~~ 6J0

_ -.-.- - - - -I--.........

CL~

O t7J 7j? /. --- .- --. - -7 -

v,~.E C- eI=

Z 0

-~o o

- 3

C. F:

1. Z 3. 5

O~4 dLVjo

3.5 7-C-,r-

S', 4 xzs -7 00 - r-

,-%.. .9- 5o1-330 ×I - }

7 .--. -,

- %12 .jS

HC zb I O C z - P5

-rot

14,

--q

Co- 1'0 "

A- : £.o F : -

Q>. C.4' Z 9o Z Isg, c F5 ' .

,- 4o+-o-, --,

z _ .. .?S

~3S) ~4h~iS') A1e~e /

I I I I - - -:1 -II I' - I~'. - I

II 'I .i,

I I - -

I -

S___ S

0

S

_____ ______ ___ S

___ _____ ___- --.--- ----- -- -------- ~---- S

___ 1112

-__- 1717 XIIIIZI7iIIiI 177 p -

____ ____ 0

B

_- ~-U---~---------I---------------------~-- --

~~7Z737 211171Q iZI~I7117Z:§iL ~or -__ __ S

D-~( S

.~.........~........... . .

- 42 571'r---, .~ ---

~K1r Ci~h ~

iS

-- 6 LL

C) - 9C)

w ~

-2

I'.J1IC~V -- ~-n

MOYAOCRAPH FOR SOLUTIONOF MvANNING EQUATION 9

coob-8

V7 F2n lQ er- 12,430 C-f =5

,2 70'

SJT-8.o

-ma o C

a4--S

I * . I I I . -

~ ~ 0

~

Ow 0hc,

S

~ SI~z.

S

S

5A~xj2

I

UO ±-tY~ /

pc, 6 o - o~-C-~ -V.'I

o)(.-,'--~- K) .~- ThC&Q C~5

O~-,,V) ~ J A

~ f~~ZOC)4 ~c 7>OQ C?5'I

It~. -

. . . . . . . . .

03 9~

U,)

C a -

U) 004 0-C-

*002EOATON 1. L8 6 R, S,,

n

c- F5

C- 0 1 Z:::.

V,9 4 1- P 2

)t - 5c,7o

VAl

~'~ 7'6~'~ 57& Cf~

. -. ..

,c.:: __.O,4o?...

I -72 -;.

DO , ..-.t

'd FF

N a o~o

'

7__)

.. ........................................

Ji~c'Q~(jg )- 95o0CF>

SC,~.~ ~ -C'j, SD + 85

a+ODO 5.

. - -.- J - -C_ p 5

~~~~ -,oICs o c o

7S

121-0

- 4,70 C~

-0- Lu

6D 7

C - C7

-

cco)9 NOMOGRAPH FOR SOLUTIOrlL 0

OF MANNING EQUATION

AA

105,15

(~J.

VA F- P '7

Q 3,4- xZ c 4-V 10, OD F,

F-P2e &-%

000 CF=

~~ LOIZI.I5% OOPS

390$

*1(o (I - 1 000 C-'r 5

43, -5-C

~~ 5100 cQ - 5RS

00,

020

030

0-2

-~~U 0.j~oJ00

* C)

Le .0 -i .J

-77'

Uiz

Tat

AA~O

ctct~~13. PA - 5Z-= c

at~

I1 0

qz 2~1100 10, Io7eC C F' 5

~5d i- Icc,x 4.J)c7coO - 13$ ~

*~ F.e,-~'.r I.2)CQ (ij~j) il/aGO (yr,

*Li

-I

I

I -

a

* i

I

I

* - - -J - rr.-.--w--~---~- - - - r--.--- .- I * .. I I I I -~ . -

I

-~2-~-t K)

* .

I,

* C~Q~

J~zU U

q~ ~ 6 j~J I

* L~ 0 tt~~~-c-~ 2t~

~ot~L~ P-~~~t-e--x~ -

* J~~4 ~7 .AAQQ-~ ~ I

I

I

I

I

I".

-v-

IL

a~~0 0 2'3 l

11.

At,5~c(e F

UJ

QCM Th9.

APPENDIX E

INFORMATION AS CONTAINED IN THENATIONAL INVENTORY OF DAMS

...

--------- ~ - - r C.

S

L.

0

SNOT AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME

I -S

I

S

'I

FILMED

7-85

DTIC