AD-A091 488 GAI CONSULTANTS INC MONROEVILLE PA F/G 13/13

NATIONAL DAM INSPECTION PROGRAM. TOTEM DAM (NOI IoD0 NUMBER PA ---ETC(U)AUG 80 B M MIHALCIN DACW31-80-C0016

UNCLASSIFIED NL*2 lllflfl~lfllfllflEElhlllEEEEEEEIIIIIIIIIIIIEIIIEE---IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

iii _ L., ILl 6 = L

11111 -0 11120111.8

1(111 L25 -411 1.4 II

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS %lRF A

CAMPS CREEK, BRADFORD COUNTY U

0011.14-- ... - -, .. P. - .I

O JENNDER I.D. W. 8-8)..

fJL'

LHASE I INSPECTION -REPORT____ OAL DM INSECtION PR AM

] ~ NOV 10

"- ... PREPARED FOR

DEPAIXTMENT OF THE ARMY

Baltimore District, Corps of EngineersBaltimore, Maryland 21203

vorlpinil COntnifls coot .a

pla €.:: Ail DiiC rr !rouor - -. r .pu i ' .us bee ispprojos ,-I - be in bI.ok i-li PREPARED BY o pubic r,,i as dsae its

r ) hji distribution is unlimited.S whitta

'| GAI CONSULTANTS, INC.

570 BEATTY ROAD

MON=OEV.' N IA 15146

8011 03 045a

DISCLAIMER NOTICE

THIS DOCUMENT IS BEST QUALITYPRACTICABLE. THE COPY FURNISHEDTO DTIC CONTAINED A SIGNIFICANTNUMBER OF PAGES WHICH DO NOTREPRODUCE LEGIBLY.

PREFACE

This report is prepared under guidance contained in theRecommended Guidelines for Safety Inspection of Dams, forPhase I investigations. Copies of these guidelines may beobtained from the Office of Chief of Engineers, Washington,D. C. 20314. The purpose of a Phase I investigation is toidentify expeditiously those dams which may pose hazards tohuman life or property. The assessment of the generalcondition of the dam is based upon available data and visualinspections. Detailed investigation and analyses involvingtopograhic mapping, subsurface investigations, testing, anddetailed computational evaluations are beyond the scope of aPhase I investigation; however, the investigation is intendedto identify any need for such studies.

In reviewing this report, it should be realized that thereported condition of the dam is based on observations offield conditions at the time of inspection along with dataavailable to the inspection team.

It is important to note that the condition of a dam dependson numerous and constantly changing internal and externalconditions, and is evolutionary in nature. It would beincorrect to assume that the present condition of the damwill continue to represent the condition of the dam at somepoint in the future. Only through frequent inspections canunsafe conditions be detected and only through continuedcare and maintenance can these conditions be prevented orcorrected.

.1 Phase I inspections are not intended to provide detailedhydrologic and hydraulic analyses. In accordance with theestablished guidelines, the spillway design flood is basedon the estimated "Probable Maximum Flood" for the region(greatest reasonably possible storm runoff), or fractionsthereof. The spillway design flood provides a measure ofrelative spillway capacity and serves as an aid in deter-mining the need for more detailed hydrologic and hydraulicstudies, considering the size of the dam, its general con-dition, and the downstream damage potenti al~

"Original contains acplorplates: All DTIC reproduct-ions will be in black an(dwhitao

Is ____

PHASE I INSPECTION REPORTNATIONAL DAM INSPECTION PROGRAM

ABSTRACT

Totem Dam: NDI I.D. No. PA-00042

Owner: Colin M. Townsend

State Located: Pennsylvania (PennDER I.D. No. 8-8)

County Located: Bradford

Stream: Camps Creek

Inspection Date: 24 April 1980

Inspection Team: GAI Consultants, Inc.570 Beatty RoadMonroeville, Pennsylvania 15146

Based on a visual inspection, operational history, andhydrologic and hydraulic analysis, the dam is considered tobe in fair condition.

The size classification of the facility is small and itshazard classification is considered to be high. In accor-dance with the recommended guidelines, the Spillway DesignFlood (SDF) for the facility ranges between the 1/2-PMF(Probable Maximum Flood) and the PMF. Due to the highpotential for damage to downstream structures and loss oflife that could be associated with a sudden embankmentbreach, the SDF is considered to be the PMF. Results of thehydrologic and hydraulic analysis indicate the facility willpass and/or store only two percent of the PMF prior toembankment overtopping.

The embankment has, in fact, been overtopped at least threetimes in the past decade. However, due to its unusual con-figuration, damage has been limited to scouring of the em-bankment and downstream roadway. Breach analyses performedin this study indicate that there are conditions for floodsof less than 1/2-PMF magnitude during which the embankmentcould possibly fail and result in an increased potential fordamage and loss of life downstream. Thus, the spillwaysystem is considered to be seriously inadequate and thefacility unsafe, non-emergency.

It is recommended that the owne mmediately:

Il

'3mm M 'i .,''-- .w.. "•L

a. Develop a formal emergency warning system for thenotification of downstream residents in the event hazardousconditions develop. Included in the plan should be provi-sions for around-the-clock surveillance of the facilityduring periods of unusually heavy precipitation.

b. Have the facility evaluated by a registered pro-fessional engineer experienced in the hydraulics and hydro-logy of dams to further assess the adequacy of the spillwayand take remedial measures deemed necessary to make thefacility hydraulically adequate.

c. Repair concrete deterioration wherever necessaryincluding along the crest and downstream spillway face.

d. Check the present operability of the outlet conduitcontrol valve and initiate repairs, if necessary. In addition,the conduit should be operated on at least an annual basisand preventive maintenance performed concurrently.

e. Formalize manuals of operation and maintenance toensure propei futue care of the facility.

GAI Consultants, Inc. Approved by:

Bernard M. M F, Ac, P.E. JAMES W. PECKoColonel, Corps of Engineers

1EDistrict Engineer

A0

IT

URENARD M.II4AL0~4

20371-E

Da te , Dat [LL_

iii

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

-, p4

00

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE ................................. i

ABSTRACTR ACT......................... i

OVERVIEW PHOTOGRAPH ... .................... iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS .... ....................... v

SECTION 1 - GENERAL INFORMATION ................... 1

1.0 Authority oo.................... 11.1 Purpose . ............. 11.2 Description of Project. ..... ............ 11.3 Pertinent Data. o.................. 1

SECTION 2 - ENGINEERING DATA. . . .............. 6

2.1 Design ............. ............. . 62.2 Construction Records.. o........ ............. 72.3 Operational Records. .............. 72.4 Other Investigations. ..... ............ 72.5 Evaluation. . .................. 7

SECTION 3 - VISUAL INSPECTION ...... ............. 8

3.1 Observations ....................... 83.2 Evaluation. . . . . . . ............. 9

SECTION 4 - OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES ..... ........... 10

4.1 Normal Operating Procedure ..... .......... 104.2 Maintenance of Dam ....... ............. 104.3 Maintenance of Operating Facilities .. ..... 104.4 Warning System. ................. . . . 104.5 Evaluation. . . ................. 10

SECTION 5 - HYDROLOGIC/HYDRAULIC EVALUATION ........ ..11

5.1 Design Data .................. 115.2 Experience Data ................ 115.3 Visual Observations . . . . . . . . 115.4 Method of Analysis . . . . . . . . . o 15.5 Summary of Analysis ................ 115.6 Spillway Adequacy . ............. 14

SECTION 6 - EVALUATION OF STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY . .. . 15

6.1 Visual Observations o.. .... . . . 156.2 Design and Construction Techniques. . . . 156.3 Past Performance . . . .. . ........ 156.4 Seismic Stability ................... 16

SECTION 7 - ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FORREMEDIAL MEASURES .... ............... 17

7.1 Dam Assessment. o............... . . . 177.2 Recommendations/Remedial Measures . . . . . . 17

v

RR,

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDIX A - VISUAL INSPECTION CHECKLIST AND FIELD SKETCHES

j APPENDIX B - ENGINEERING DATA CHECKLIST

APPENDIX C - PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX D - HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS ANALYSES

APPENDIX E - FIGURES

APPENDIX F - GEOLOGY

vi

PHASE I INSPECTION REPORTNATIONAL DAM INSPECTION PROGRAM

TOTEM DAMNDI# PA-00042, PENNDER# 8-8

SECTION 1GENERAL INFORMATION

1.0 Authority.

The Dam Inspection Act, Public Law 92-367, authorizedthe Secretary of the Army, through the Corps of Engineers,to initiate a program of inspection of dams throughout theUnited States.

1.1 Purpose.

The purpose is to determine if the dam constitutes ahazard to human life or property.

1.2 Description of Project.

a. Dam and Appurtenances. Totem Dam is a very oldstructure of unusual configuration. Limited data indicatethat the embankment is an earth-rockfill type structure,curved in plan, with a concrete, upstream wall providingslope protection and a concrete capped crest (see OverviewPhotograph). The structure is approximately 12 feet highand 151 feet long, including spillway. The spillway weir isa small, uncontrolled, semi-circular, concrete channellocated near the center of the embankment. Flow over theweir enters a rock lined discharge channel and is directedthrough a 5-foot diameter culvert under the roadway im-mediately downstream which eventually buttresses or formsthe downstream embankment slope. Facilities for reservoirdrawdown are provided via an 18-inch diameter outlet conduitwith inlet located along the upstream embankment face anddischarge outlet located at the lower left spillway channelsidewall. Flow through the pipe is regulated by means of an18-inch diameter slide gate that is manually operated fromatop the embankment crest.

b. Location. Totem Dam is located on Camps Creek inHerrick TownshipBradford County, Pennsylvania, 3.3 milesupstream of the community of Camptown, Pennsylvania. Thedam, reservoir, and watershed are contained within theLe Raysville and Rome, Pennsylvania, U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute

1

topographic quadrangles (see Figure 1, Appendix E). Thecoordinates of the dam are N410 45.6' and W760 14.6'.

C. Size Classification. Small (12 feet high, 132acre-feet storage capacity at top of dam).

d. Hazard Classification. High (see Section 3.1.e).

e. Owner. Colin M. TownsendBox 107Camptown, Pennsylvania 18815

f. Purpose. Private recreation.

g. Historical Data. Available information containedin PennDER fles concerning Totem Dam dates back to 1919.At that time, the structure was referred to as an "old dam"owned by William Camp of the nearby community of Rummisfield,Pennsylvania, and was appropriately called Camp Dam. Infor-mation is sketchy; however, correspondence indicates thatthe facility was owned for at least a decade by members ofthe Connell family from Pottsville and Herrickville,Pennsylvania. In 1958, the facility was acquired from MaryT. Connell by an investment group from Towanda, Pennsylvaniaconsisting of Donald Rueter, Morton Kalin, James R. Strong,and A. B. Duvall who planned to develop the area around thelake as a real estate venture. Until this time, no apparentmodifications had ever been made to the facility. Theinvestors proceeded to rehabilitate the facility (withPennDER approval), constructing the upstream concrete walland crest cap and installing the outlet conduit. The pro-posed development apparently was unsuccessful and was soldin its entirety in 1966 to its present owner, Colin M.Townsend, who renamed the facility Totem Lake.

Correspondence and discussions with the present ownerindicate that the facility has been overtopped at leastthree times in the last decade. A newspaper clipping fromPennDER files, dated June 1972, shows the facility beingovertopped and workmen attempting to sandbag the crest.Photographs (also from PennDER files), dated July 1972,indicate that extensive damage from erosion was suffered bythe paved roadway section at the toe of the dam but thatonly minor damage occurred along the major portion of theembankment.

The owner also stated that the embankment overtopped onApril 5, 1980, about three weeks prior to the Phase I fieldinspection. Minor damage was observed and apparently limitedto undercutting of the downstream roadway culvert (see

2

Photograph 9).

1.3 Pertinent Data.

a. Drainage Area (square miles). 1.1.

b. Discharge at Dam Site.

Discharge Capacity of Outlet Conduit -discharge

curves are not available.

Discharge Capacity of Spillway at Maximum Pool Z30 cfs (see Appendix D, Sheet 8).

C. Elevation (feet above mean sea level). The fol-lowing elevations were obtained through field measurementsbased on the elevation of normal pool at 1212.0 feet (seeAppendix D, Sheets 1 and 2).

Top of Dam 1213.0 (design).1213.3 (field).

Maximum Design Pool Not known.Maximum Pool of Record 1215 (June

1972; estimate).Normal Pool 1212.0Spillway Crest 1212.0Upstream Inlet Invert 1206.0 (design).Downstream Outlet Invert 1202.0 (design).

1204.8 (field).Streambed at Dam Centerline Not known.fMaximum Tailwater Not known.

d. Reservoir Length (feet).

Top of Dam 3000

Normal Pool 3000

e. Storage (acre-feet).

Top of Dam 132Normal Pool 92

Design Surcharge Not known.

f. Reservoir Surface (acres).

Top of Dam 36Normal Pool 34Maximum Design Pool Not known.

3

g. Dam.

Type Earth-rockfill.

Length 144 feet (exclud-ing spillway).

Height 12 feet (fieldmeasured;embankmentcrest to invertof spillwaychannel at roadculvert).

Top Width 2 feet.

Upstream Slope 4H:1V (estimatedfrom Figure 2).

Downstream Slope l0H:lV (top ofdam to top ofroad); lH:lV(top of road tostream invert).

Zoning Dry rubble wallwith earth fillon downstreamside and con-crete facing(1958) on up-stream side(see Figure 4).

Impervious Core None indicated.

Cutoff None indicated.

Grout Curtain None indicated.

h. Diversion Canal andRegulating Tunnels. None.

i. Spillway.

Type Uncontrolled,semi-circular,concrete channel.

4

Crest Elevation 1212.0 feet(stop-log inplace). 1211.0feet (stop-logremoved).

Crest Length 7.2 feet (topof semi-circle).

j. Outlet Conduit.

Type 18-inch diameterconcrete pipe.

Length 100 feet (esti-mated).

Closure and RegulatingFacilities Control is

provided by 18-inch diameterslide gatemounted on theupstream faceof the facingwall and oper-ated from theembankmentcrest.

Access The manualoperator iseasily acces-sible by footalong theembankmentcrest.

5!

i5

SECTION 2

ENGINEERING DATA

2.1 Design.

a. Design Data Availability and Sources. No formaldesign reports or calculations are available for any aspectof this facility. Design drawings and specifications rela-tive to modifications made in 1959-1960 are contained inPennDER files.

b. Design Features.

1. Embankment. Information concerning thedesign, construction, and/or composition of this facility isvery limited. No drawings of the embankment cross-sectionare available. Information gathered from the owner andinferred from available correspondence indicate the embank-ment is an earth-rockfill type structure, with earth com-prising the downstream portion and a dry rubble rock wallthe upstream portion. The concrete wall and crest capconstructed along the curved embankment centerline wereadded as a modification to the original facility in 1959(see Figure 2). There is no indication that the wall wasdesigned to serve any purpose other than upstream slopeprotection (see Figure 4). Contours of the reservoir nearthe dam were apparently recorded and drafted when the reser-voir was drawndown in 1959 during rehabilitation. Thecontours (shown on Figure 2) imply that there is a 4H:lVslope upstream of the rubble wall, presumably of soil, orthat the reservoir is an incised natural lake.

2. Appurtenant Structures.

a. Spillway. The spillway is a small,uncontrolled, semicircular, concrete channel located nearthe center of the embankment (see Figure 2). The smallflows capable of being discharged through the structure areregulated by a 12-inch stop-log that serves as a small weir.The discharge channel is constructed of concrete with hand-placed, unmortared, rock sidewalls. No spillway details areavailable.

b. Outlet Conduit. The outlet conduitreportedly consists of an 18-inch diameter concrete pipe.The conduit was installed in 1959-1960, prior to which therewas no means for drawing down the reservoir other than bycontrolled breaching. Figures 2 through 4 depict the pro-posed installation of the conduit; however, visual observa-

6

tions made during the inspection indicate the drawings donot represent as-built conditions.

c. Specific Design Data and Criteria. No designdata or information relative to design procedures is available.

2.2 Construction Records.

No construction records are available for the facilitypertaining to either its original construction or the modi-fication work performed in 1959-1960.

2.3 Operational Records.

No records of the day-to-day operation of the facilityare maintained.

2.4 Other Investigations.

There are no available records concerning formal stud-ies or investigations of Totem Dam other than several rou-tine state inspection reports contained in PennDER filesdating back to 1915. Eleven photographs dating to 1919 areavailable from PennDER files which provide some historicalinsight.

2.5 Evaluation.

Available data relative to Totem Dam is very limited.There are no drawings available that formally depict thecross-section and internal features of the facility. Thus,an assessment of the overall design or, moreover, the integ-rity of the structure during overtopping is highly specu-lative. Outlet conduit details presented on availabledrawings differ with field observed site conditions.

7

SECTION 3VISUAL INSPECTION

3.1 observations.

a. General. The overall appearance of the facilitysuggests the damand its appurtenances are currently in faircondition.

b. Embankment. Observations made during the visualinspection 'indicate the embankment is in good condition.The most visually apparent deficiency observed concernedcracking of the upstream concrete wall and crest cap. A 25-foot longitudinal crack is located several feet from theleft abutment (see Photograph 3) while an additional area ofbroken concrete is located about 10 feet from the rightabutment (see Photographs 2 and 4). Minor cracking was alsoobserved along the wall below the pool level between thespillway and right abutment.

The downstream portion of the embankment appears to becomprised primarily of rockfill covered with a thin turflayer. The recent overtopping incident removed small patchesof the turf exposing the rock below. The condition was par-ticularly evident along the areas adjacent to the spillwaychannel sidewalls. The owner has backfilled these areas ofopen flow erosion with rock and, consequently, the conditionis not considered a major deficiency.

C. Appurtenant Structures.

1. Spillway. The visual inspection revealed thespillway is in fair condition. Cracking along its down-stream face was observed, but, is not considered significantat this time (see Photograph 5 and 6). A crack observed atthe contact of the spillway downstream face and dischargechannel floor appeared to be leaking; however, it is notedthat leakage at this contact area has been consistently

~ 1 noted in previous state inspection reports dating as farback as 1919. Outflow from the spillway is directed througha 5-foot diameter highway culvert prior to discharging intoCamps Creek (see Photographs 6, 9, and 10). It was notedthat the outlet endwall had been undercut and is subject tofurther erosion.

2. Outlet Conduit. The outlet conduit is con-sidered to be in fair condition. The conduit was not oper-ated in the presence of the inspection team. Furthermore,the conduit reportedly has never been opened by the present

owner who acquired the facility in 1966. Consequently, itsoperability is questionable. The gate control along the up-stream embankment face appears securely mounted; however,some surficial corrosion was observed (see Photograph 7).minor leakage was observed at the discharge end of the con-duit, but, was not measurable (see Photograph 8). The ap-parent plan of the outlet conduit does not conform to thedesign drawings.

d. Reservoir Area. The general area surrounding thereservoir is composed of moderate to steep slopes that areprimarily wooded (see Photograph 1). The entire watershedis about 50 percent wooded as shown in Figure 1.

e. Downstream Channel. The channel downstream ofTotem Dam is characteried as steep and narrow with steepconfining slopes. The stream passes through the communityof Camptown, Pennsylvania approximately 3.3 miles down-stream. Here at least 12 structures, including two churches,a hardware store, a post office and several homes, are lo-cated sufficiently near the stream to possibly be affectedby the high waters associated with an embankment breach. Itis estimated that 25 to 100 lives could be lost and signifi-cant economic damage incurred as the result of an embankmentbreach.

3.2 Evaluation.

The overall condition of the facility is consideredfair. Specific deficiencies noted by the inspection teaminclude concrete deterioration associated with the facingwall, crest cap, and downstream spillway face; possibleleakage under the spillway slab; and a possibly inoperableoutlet conduit. Remedial action is recommended to rectifyeach of the above conditions.

9

SECTION 4

OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

4.1 Normal Operating Procedure.

Totem Dam is essentially a self-regulating facility.Excess inflow is automatically discharged through the uncon-trolled spillway and directed downstream. The outlet con-duit is currently closed and its operability questionable.No formal operating manual is available.

4.2 Maintenance of Dam.

The embankment is maintained on an unscheduled andinformal basis. Basic maintenance such as mowing the embank-ment, keeping the spillway clear, and repairing minor flooddamage is performed by the owner as needed at his conve-nience. No formal maintenance manual is available.

4.3 Maintenance of Operating Facilities.

The outlet conduit has not been operated since thepresent owner acquired the facility in 1966. No preventivemaintenance has been performed on this appurtenance by thepresent owner.

4.4 Warning System.

No formal warning system is in effect.

4.5 Evaluation.

:1 Routine maintenance of the facility appears adequate;however, restoration of the outlet conduit and repairs tothe concrete embankment crest are required. Formal manualsof maintenance and operation are also recommended to ensurethat all needed maintenance is identified and performed reg-ularly. In addition, a formal warning system for the pro-tection of downstream inhabitants should be developed. In-cluded in the plan should be provisions for around-the-clocksurveillance of the facility during periods of unusuallyheavy precipitation.

10

SECTION 5HYDROLOG IC/HYDRAULIC EVALUATION

5.1 Design Data.

No formal design reports, calculations, or mniscel-laneous design data are available for the facility.

5.2 Experience Data.

Totem Dam has a history of infrequent incidents ofovertopping. Within the last 10 years the facility has beenovertopped at least three times; June 1972, October 1975,and most recently on April 5, 1980 (19 days prior to thisinspection).

The inspection team observed no apparent damage fromthe most recent incident.*1 Photographs documenting the aftermath of the flood ofJune 1972, as well as a newspaper clipping showing the em-bankment being overtopped, are contained in PennDER files.once again, apparently no significant damage to the embank-ment occurred although water was unofficially reported to beflowing in excess of two feet over the embankment crest.The bituminous roadway immediately below the dam was par-tially washed out.

No other records of past performance are available.

5.3 Visual Observations.

On the date of the inspection, no conditions were ob-served that would indicate the spillway could not functionsatisfactorily during a flood event, within the limits ofits design capacity. Undercutting of the downstream endwallof the highway culvert was observed, indicating the poten-tial for erosion of the downstream area under large flows.

5.4 Method of Analysis.

The facility has been analyzed in accordance with pro-cedures and guidelines established by the U. S. Army, Corpsof Engineers, Baltimore District, for Phase I hydrologic andhydraulic evaluations. The analysis has been performedusing a modified version of the HEC-l program developed by

the U. S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic EngineeringCenter, Davis, California. Analytical capabilities of theprogram are briefly outlined in the preface contained inAppendix D.

5.5 Summary of Analysis.

a. Spillway Design Flood (SDF). In accordance withthe procedures and guidelines contained in the NationalGuidelines for Safety Inspection of Dams for Phase I Invest-igations, the Spillway Design Flood (SDF) for Totem Damranges between the 1/2-PMF (Probable Maximum Flood) and thePMF. This classification is based on the relative size ofthe dam (small), and the potential hazard of dam failure todownstream developments (high). Due to the high potentialfor damage to downstream structures and possibly loss oflife, the SDF for this facility is considered to be the PMF.

b. Results of Analysis. Totem Dam was evaluatedunder normal operating conditions. That is, the reservoirwas initially at its normal pool or spillway elevation of1212.0 feet, with the spillway weir discharging freely. Theoutlet conduit was assumed to be non-functional for the pur-pose of analysis, since the flow capacity of the conduit isnot such that it would significantly increase the totaldischarge capabilities of the dam and reservoir. The spill-way consists of a concrete free overfall structure, withdischarges regulated by a wooden stop-log. The spillwaydischarge is conveyed through the roadway embankment im-mediately downstream of the dam via a 5-foot diameter CMPculvert. All pertinent engineering calculations relative tothe evaluation of Totem Dam are provided in Appendix D.

Overtopping analysis (using the Modified HEC-1 ComputerProgram) indicated that the discharge/storage capacity ofTotem Lake Dam can accommodate only about two percent of thePMF (SDF) prior to embankment overtopping. It is also notedthat the downstream roadway embankment can accommodate onlyabout 11 percent of the PMF prior to overtopping. Under PMFconditions, the top of Totem Dam was inundated by depths ofup to 3.0 feet, and by depths of up to 1.9 feet under 1/2-PMF conditions (Appendix D, Summary Input/Output Sheets,Sheet H). Since the SDF for Totem Lake Dam is the PMF, itcan be concluded that this dam has a high potential forovertopping, and thus, for breaching under floods of lessthan SDF magnitude.

12

As Totem Dam cannot accommodate floods of at least 1/2-PMF magnitude, the possibility of embankment failure underfloods of less than 1/2-PMF intensity was investigated (inaccordance with Corps directive ETL-1110-2-234). The modi-fied HEC-l Computer Program was used for the breachinganalysis, with the assumption that the downstream channelbed was dry prior to the occurrence of the dam outflows.The major concern of the breaching analysis is with theimpact of the various breach discharges on increasing down-stream water surface elevations above those to be expectedif breaching did not occur.

The portion of Totem Dam which is most likely to faildue to overtopping is the area around the spillway structure,due to the possible erosion and collapse of the rock wallslining the spillway channel (see Photographs 5, 6). Like-wise, the roadway embankment is most likely to fail in thearea of the culvert, as the downstream face is unprotectedand highly erodible by overtopping water.

Two breach models were analyzed for Totem Dam, involv-ing one breach section and two possible failure times. Thebreach section chosen was considered to be an average pos-sible section at the spillway structure. The two failuretimes (total time for breach section to reach its finaldimensions) were assumed to be a rapid time (0.5 hours) anda prolonged time (4.0 hours), so that a range of this mostsensitive variable might be examined. It was assumed thatthe downstream roadway embankment had breached significantlyprior to the failure of the main dam, or breached simulta-neously with the main dam, so that it could be ignored inthe analysis.

The breaching analysis was made under 0.15 PMF con-ditions, and it was assumed that the failure would begin as

II the depth of overtopping reached about 0.5 feet. The peakbreach outflows ranged from about 940 cfs for the prolonged

* time scheme to about 2350 cfs for the rapid failure scheme,IL compared to the non-breach 0.15 PMF peak outflow of about380 cfs (Appendix D, Sheet 25).

The principal center of damage investigated is locatedalong the banks of Camps Creek in the downstream communityof Camptown (Sections 4, 5; see Figure 1). Within thisreach, the 0.15 PMF non-breach outflows remained within thebanks of the stream. However, the maximum water surfaceelevations (at Section 5) corresponding to the breach out-flows were about 2.1 and 3.2 feet above the stream banks,and thus, well above the damage levels of the nearby struc-tures (Appendix D, Sheet 25).

13

The consequences of dam failure can better be envision-ed if not only the increase in the height of the floodwaveis considered, but also the great increase in momentum ofthe larger and probably swifter moving volume of water.Therefore, the failure of Totem Dam would most likely leadto increased property damage and possibly to loss of life inthe downstream community.

5.6 Spillway Adequacy.

As presented previously, Totem Dam can accommodate onlyabout two percent of the PMF (SDF) prior to embankmentovertopping. In addition, the roadway embankment immedi-ately downstream of the dam can accommodate only about 11percent of the PMF prior to overtopping. It has been shownthat should a 0.15 PMF or larger event occur, the dam wouldbe overtopped and could possibly fail, endangering down-stream residences and increasing the potential for loss oflife in the downstream regions. Therefore, the spillway isconsidered to be seriously inadequate.

14

SECTION 6EVALUATION OF STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY

6.1 Visual Observations.

a. Embankment. Based on visual observations, theembankment i's in good condition. The major deficiency ob-served by the inspection team concerned cracking associatedwith the concrete upstream wall and crest cap. Since thewall was designed to serve as slope protection against waveaction and not as an impervious internal boundary or struc-tural revetment, the deterioration is considered minor.Nevertheless, the condition does require remedial attention.

b. Appurtenant Structures.

1. Sp-iliway. The spillway is considered to bein fair condition. Cracking observed in the structureshould be repaired although it does not appear to present athreat to the stability of the structure at this time.Under normal flow conditions the dry rubble walls of thespillway channel appear to be sufficiently stable; however,under overtopping conditions (which are not unusual) it ispossible that the walls could collapse, endangering theintegrity of the embankment. In addition, erosion fromovertopping appears possible on the downstream (outlet) sideof the roadway embankment which in effect acts as a buttressto the dam. To preclude failure from overtopping, it wouldappear prudent to adequately support and protect the spill-way walls and downstream roadway slope from erosion.:12. Outlet Conduit. The condition of the outletconduit is considered fair although its current operabilityis questionable. The operation of the conduit should bechecked at least once a year and repairs made annually, ifneeded.

6.2 Design and Construction Techniques.

No information is available that details the methods ofdesign and/or construction.

6.3 Past Performance.

Totem Dam has a history of infrequent incidents ofovertopping. within the last 10 years the facility has beenovertopped at least three times; June 1972, October 1975,

and most recently on April 5, 1980 (19 days prior to this

The inspection team observed no apparent major damageIfrom the most recent incident.

Photographs documenting the aftermath of the flood ofJune 1972, as well as a newspaper clipping showing the em-bankment being overtopped, are contained in PennDER files.once again, apparently no significant damage to the embank-ment occurred although water was unofficially reported to beflowing in excess of two feet over the embankment crest.The bituminous roadway immediately below the dam was par-tially washed out.

No other records of past performance are available.

6.4 seismic Stability.

The dam is located in Seismic Zone No. 1 and is subjectto minor earthquake induced dynamic forces. As the facilityappears sufficiently stable, it is believed that it canwithstand the expected dynamic forces; however, no calcula-tions and/or investigations were performed to confirm thisopinion.

16

SECTION 7ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REMEDIAL MEASURES

7.1 Dam Assessment.

a. Safety. The results of this investigation indicatethe dam is considered to be in fair condition.

The size classification of the facility is small andits hazard classification is considered to be high. Inaccordance with the recommended guidelines, the SpillwayDesign Flood (SDF) for the facility ranges between the1/2-PMF (Probable Maximum Flood) and the PMF. Due to thehigh potential for damage to downstream structures and lossof life that could be associated with a sudden embankmentbreach, the SDF is considered to be the PMF. Results of thehydrologic and hydraulic analysis indicate the facility willpass and/or store only two percent of the PMF prior toembankment overtopping.

The embankment has, in fact, been overtopped at leastthree times in the past decade. However, due to its unusualconfiguration, damage has been limited to scouring of theembankment and downstream roadway. Breach analyses per-formed in this study indicate that there are conditions forfloods of less than 1/2-PMF magnitude during which the em-bankment could possibly fail and result in an increasedpotential for damage and loss of life downstream . Thus,the spillway system is considered to be seriously inadequateand the facility unsafe, non-emergency.

b. Adequacy of Information. The available data areconsidered sufficient to make a reasonable Phase I assess-ment of the facility.

c. Urgency. Recommendations listed below should beimplemented immediately.

d. Necessity for Additional Investigation. Additionalstudies to assess the hydraulic adequacy and/or integrity ofthe embankment under conditions of overtopping are considerednecessary.

7.2 Recommendations/Remedial Measures.

It is recommended that the owner immediately:

17

L.. ..... l

a. Develop a formal emergency warning system for thenotification of downstream residents in the event hazardousconditions develop. Included in the plan should be provi-sions for around-the-clock surveillance of the facilityduring periods of unusually heavy precipitation.

b. Have the facility evaluated by a registered pro-fessional engineer experienced in the hydraulics and hydro-logy of dams to further assess the adequacy of the spillwayand take remedial measures deemed necessary to make thefacility hydraulically adequate.

C. Repair concrete deterioration wherever necessary,including along the crest and downstream spillway face.

d. Check the present operability of the outlet conduitcontrol valve and initiate repairs, if necessary. In addi-tion, the conduit should be operated on at least an annualbasis and preventive maintenance performed concurrently.

e. Formalize manuals of operation and maintenance toensure proper future care of the facility.

181

APPENDIX A

VISUAL INSPECTION CHECKLIST AND FIELD SKETCHES

0 IL44 0

Nw0 < L0

pq LU

0 >

z ~ a.

IL U U aN ui LU

J 0. -. I-a U cc

CL LU

0.0

No o Z

-4

-4 L:U j-4 u 4 0U LU2 aL

a0 -

< 0 LU Z u (

'4 0 'Q0

CL < LU< 0 0.Lu

0ZLU LU C

-LUwIUJ

IL

v -n - C

4' 1El '0

4 0 UI

go .4.4$

54 WW 4W~ 41 04 =I

O0 0Q 2

M $4 El

Z 1 .14 U.4 -Z 0 010 0 c.

a)04 10 0

14 14041(

o 4r.4to 0

$4 WW 4jo . 41 rV 0

0 r-4 X ) oW0 0a ) B1.1

z .0 0 4Q

U 4c 0 41

LU V U 4 041a

0 tO $4o~E)04 $4 C2 .

.4 00244000 -

0 - 4 44 H C:W

54 0 10 WVL)1 WO 4440

ZC40.0 O6 00r.-W 4 U 4. 4 E00 U t

$4 w004V 14 .4 114-V 4) 0 d) 0 -t 'U)

:%. V .04. U .4) ' f r 0'I 4j (D $4.-4 00

* 0 44 1.) 41 4) 4-4 4.' 00 'U V4

w.010 > UW1 0

%0 r-4 .0 U 41

0140 >.>.U 00 z- - 0 a 0 0Lr o

M

-- -P -

0.j a.

z

wz0Pw

0

( uJ*U LE-

0W Q 0oA 0 0 090

00

LU

00

>1 '>

0 04

4 02 0$4 -I

0 .0C-

$4 0 4

Z 0 A0002

4J r4.4-4

cc04 1 0400 > 01

Ic I -4 cN$2 -$ 411o 0 1

r- r4 .902 0 0 1

0 $4-Z 41

P A1 0- 04r.0 0 0>

41 $1 0 0'*4 0

0 0 4J01 ( 00 0

W0 :5 41 0 c

44 4J 00 r_ 'a 4

0 c r4 IVP0 t

4 to 41 0

0 00. 0 A .,4

M- 0 02 0U 410II

$4 . 41 0 LL

.0 41 CC 0 =1

w wiY.J

I. j

0.0~ LAS4~

ot 00u

-H >0

4 0)~ 0 5'4 0

0 00

$4 U 10 1>

i4-j C;; f)iu

o 40 0r 0) 0a) 0 -> -M

2 004

0U > 3 '0$4 W) 000

0 '.4 0 4.J

4 0 430020 4

-4 H 00 -44 WW to 4 0

4 r.44

21 41o ) 04 0 0 41

4 0 0 10mcc*a r a 0 0 )04

0 00 040 4*U 1 00

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - $4t CC_ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _

u 0 0 q

$z 9 to 0004 jZF- 0

z C0m ~ L -

00

z

w

UULU

cc

wU

z

z I. U)

4c0

z miQ zU

z CCw 00

'LI-

L Mw

CO

z l

CC4

m- >a Ujw 4o

UA

4' W44.

41

o4 a.

o 0%

04 .C0 to 001

0 $4 04 01: 0) 0 0

0' 1 44 4

cc 4'

$4 $4

E 004Is4-4 to 04U2 tcc 040 A

C)00 r. 0z a 4 4) 0 a.-

or V c 00w 4.0 0, U

cc 4c 4) >02NV 04 0) V- 4

w to . 0

M d) 0 -.4' 00cc0Z to 4'140

1 MU 41440

00 4

z 4'z 0 4

CC 0

*0 6 020c> cr 00 m4 0'

C2 00 a ;ar

0.C 0 0

0 cr ty04

ui

woww

U)

W-i

J<

Lu

00 w ILZ4 0- LLIOUJ w U) U) crIL)X 4 J.-.9

If49

L ji

Id

oil uj

tj

cr0 w cr ILcr LL. 4>

U. iaIL 4w 0

LL V)0w _j 44

CO ui

z z

0 w IT

OW

00

ww

U)

cc

cr

I

APPENDIX B

ENGINEERING DATA CHECKLIST

q. .-o 0.1 1.

0 4100 .1

44 r-4

0 0~0 .0

41- tp 0-4 -4

U 3:0 to40

F 00 01 a(

410

rq4)-4 -4

r.4 4 14J0

I -I 20u2W(J 44 j -40 ()'00 4)1

02 01.4 I to

M- 01. 4 0 44'0 '0.2=u LO 00.

-' C) CD2-OC0 w I

0U = 010 0 to

U) .- 4 414 C) (a 4

Moto- Cl)010 10 C '

z 0 = 0 40 4 0- ) 1 12

4i 4

U

00

00

U).

us LU0.00C

44

z

*1 44-

9-0 00 L L

fpsO Z

Z < 0 r cc 0

_j -J L) .- P Lz0 0 0 .0LF(U LU L(U < (U 0o m I <l-

')0 HC H H H1Z > 2~r -LU U(U)> m

0 0 0 0 U 0 0L

zj co~9- -o Cboj

0400

1 4)>40

0

$4)U

4)0

0 4) 4)

>-0 n404

9 0> 43,

0 $w 4) >4)-

u0-H 0

414

dg O :04 0

0~ 0c 0

~>0 41$J Z W= 0 00

-02 00 4-p 0

0 V a0

0Z 4) %0

00

00 a)41ONU) ) a%0.

*$4 )4)A' $4

0 V ~ '10 4 ww

0a 00U4 0 r.44)~~ 04( 4 z4((

0 0 0U) U).. LL9? ~~~~3 z___________ U ____________ Z___________ Z 0__________

0 2 a-

0 544

$U4

04J4)

.0 wu0

4j.

ri Q) 4 t~-4

$4-4>

O~4J *-4

$4 0L 0 4

00- ON I_

.4 - D : 4(00

0 40t

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC.

CHECK LIST NDI ID # PA-00042

HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC PENNDER ID # 8-8ENGINEERING DATA

SIZE OF DRAINAGE AREA: 1.1 square miles.

ELEVATION TOP NORMAL POOL: 1212.0 STORAGE CAPACITY: 92 acre-feet.

ELEVATION TOP FLOOD CONTROL POOL: - STORAGE CAPACITY:

ELEVATION MAXIMUM DESIGN POOL: - STORAGE CAPACITY: -

ELEVATION TOP DAM: 1213.3 STORAGE CAPACITY: 132 acre-feet.

SPILLWAY DATA

CREST ELEVATION: 1212.0 feet.

TYPE: Uncontrolled, semi-circular concrete channepl

CREST LENGTH: 7.2 feet at top of semi-circle.

CHANNEL LENGTH: 60 feet.

SPILLOVER LOCATION: Center of dam.

NUMBER AND TYPE OF GATES: None.

OUTLET WORKS

TYPE: 18-inch diameter concrete pipe.

LOCATION: near left abutment.

ENTRANCE INVERTS: 1206.0 feet (desicn).

EXIT INVERTS: 1202.0 feet (design); 1204.8 (field).

EMERGENCY DRAWDOWN FACILITIES: 18-inch diameter slide gate at inlet.

HYDROMETEOROLOGICAL GAGES

TYPE: None,

LOCATION:

RECORDS:

MAXIMUM NON-DAMAGING DISCHARGE: Overtopped by about 2 feet inJune 1972.

PAGE 5 OF 5

APPENDIX C

PHOTOGRAPHS

uJ40 W404

040.

WV

-4-U

39 W

Z- WC>0 W

00

0 41 s

0 $

4J 04.1

0 0 4) 0.000- 00g

4-4 4-44 .. 4 4-4 41

0 0~ 00 0.40 0410 0$4

(d 0 04

0410 U 4010 . ~ $0 $4C

0r- 41** 014 402$ 01'4 0 $

$4 40z 0 $41 41

4* 041

41 0~$% 44-4 $4 4-4 4

0 U0 0 4

> a> 0 > 41

i-I C.'1P4

A..

... ~ ~s5~

4 * -~ p,

1**

.1

4

'I

ii .<- . -

014d) 4J a)-4

rm 4) 41 1: .-I 4

4J0M4J V 0m > 4014 .4

4 4J . C .4 401 E-4 I 4 -r44J

4JO 0J4U C:'0 4J O $'4J4

.4 44-=4 4 .) V8 $401 Q -44) VO

014 0)~ 0 ( r 4J 014.4

14 03 r4 ) Jf

>1 1 Im I94 0 *0. -A

~;;b ~.'co

I in

AI

0-41

0) 0 -i4

0 ~41 R $4 0

o1 ' 4) 841A 44 C: t

a)4 40U 44

0 > $0

4.' 4-4 01%0o '4.4 5 a -M

$4-04M 41 0%

41 r. A 0%f

$4 0 41U ~ 14.) l p-IA

to0 04 - 0-V40

00 to41ra4

a)*..0 F400 0

.4 .h $40

0 31 0 14J ( 4

0 0 P V J'

> > > 006

04. 04 4

I

7

I'I

0 gif-4

-Eu

I'

I~.

I

APPENDIX D

HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS ANALYSES

PREFACE

The modified HEC-l program is capable of performing twobasic types of hydrologic analyses: 1) the evaluation ofthe overtopping potential of the dam; and 2) the estimationof the downstream hydrologic-hydraulic consequences result-ing from assumed structural failures of the dam. Briefly,the computational procedures typically used in the dam over-topping analysis are as follows:

a. Development of an inflow hydrograph(s) to thereservoir.

b. Routing of the inflow hydrograph(s) through thereservoir to determine if the event(s) analyzed would over-top the dam.

c. Routing of the outflow hydrograph(s) from thereservoir to desired downstream locations. The resultsprovide the peak discharge(s), time(s) of the peak dis-charge(s), and the maximum stage(s) of each routed hydro-graph at the downstream end of each reach.

The evaluation of the hydrologic-hydraulic consequencesresulting from an assumed structural failure (breach) of thedam is typically performed as shown below.

a. Development of an inflow hydrograph(s) to thereservoir.

b. Routing of the inflow hydrograph(s) through thereservoir.

c. Development of a failure hydrograph(s) based onspecified breach criteria and normal reservoir outflow.

d. Routing of the failure hydrograph(s) to desireddownstream locations. The results provide estimates of thepeak discharge(s), time(s) to peak and maximum water surfaceelevations of failure hydrographs for each location.

D-1

HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSISDATA BASE

NAME OF DAM: TOTEM LAKE DAM

PROBABLE MAXIMUM PRECIPITATION (PMP) - 22.2 INCEES/24 HOURS

STATION 1 2 3

TOTEM LAKESTATION DESCRIPTON DAM

F

DRAINAGE AREA (SQUARE MILES)

CUMULATIVE DRAMIAGE AREA(SQUARE MILES)

ADJUS IENT OF PM' FORDRAInaGE AREA LOCATION (0)

6 HOURS 1131.2 OURS 12224 OURS 13148 OURS 13772 HOURS 139

SNYDER HYDROGRAPH PARAMETERS

ZONE (2) 11Cp (3) 0.62Ct (3) 1.50L (M=-S) (4) 1. 8

Lca (MILES) (4)0.8tp - Ct (L.LCa)0"3 (HOURS) 1.67

SPILLWAX DATA

CREST NGTH (FEET) 5.2FREEOARD (FEET) 1. 3

(1 YDRMTErOLCGCL ..-O1T - 40, U.S. WEATHER BUREAU, 1965.

(2)HYDROLOGIC ZONE OD I.N= BY CORPS CF ENGIERS, 3ALTINCP DZITRICT, ?CRDETEMINATIOT OF SYDER COER.FCI.,"NT.S (C AM W.

(3) S,DMER COMTZC--TS

(4)L , LENGTH CF LONGEST WATERCOURSE FROM DAM TO BASIN DIVI1DE.Lea -LENGTH CT LONGEST WATERCOURSE FRCM DAM TO POINT OPPOSITE BASIN CENr.C:.

D-2

________ ___ ___ __ ___ ___ ___ __CONSULTANTS, f

BY 77r DATE 4-i-gnt: PROJ.NO. 792_ (4 TIN

CHKD.8 By -T ZV DATE - -SHEET NO. OF~ Engineers * Geologists a Planners- ~ Environmental Specialists

DA~M STTISTICS/

- ' as ,c- Z>~ 0' V-jOf -'0 r

/AL4)P 47S".4'AY L$ 1*

-ta~4 /a G- C6W, 0 0Y4

/-04,VL rp45 -0 /0 ',A

~olk ryo V"e

- 1AOAJ~d~A'~4 // '.?.~,'* './;/-1J 0~'*~x A V.dO 2 v- ; ow

0.0I

0 4~ J)AJJ~ A

u7l-rZ.vxl fe P:

ZbIIIXMWW O'rAr IAIIAW -(DIJICV 1;2-

ro'P 7- 1(JOw

A'O ~ 4141,X r o~'o (e.-,i',oM I)

IBJECT DAM .5-APETY FT~1H

7 6,rw-m LAvcw D~AM LBy_____ DAT_____-s______NO___Ck I CONSULTANTS, IN(

-$0 Engineers * Geologists * PlannersCHICO. BY________ DATE 13 I3- SHEET NO. OF 2SL.. Environmental Specialists

1,4Jr 0 AM:- /70 Jre-5'V'4r10A AS O J~ A) 49

~ ~(011 O~ ~ f0<SO 7MC /4A'LV7 -W ove,~ f3 ?7VA

?Y.07 6cj ' j e0C.4r-V "/ ~7 a~c 77C- 0j6A1

7NAS AA 44,r4S 4e1f CM4ID6-P IWO APeX .var -v~.s a

DA.MCLAS51WI CAMTION7

HYt)ROGRA?I- P.RA~mETERS/

Z aQAVJ&/I aJ

r77N

IJBJECT DlAM SAFFTY TMS1P5CTWJf~Ir2TZSrvis LAvr- T)Am

IBy DATE _ _____ PROJ. NO. -79 -11- -C - CO SLA TS, IN-

C______ BYDTE3EE O Engineers *Geologists * PlannersCHIC. B W' V ATE _________ SHET N. 3.........OF Z 5... Environmental Specialists

C, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ) o. yMAiA 'ti~~ M

(I A'r 1W~eW~iAPA V*R7,40&-P LaPYA' $',,,uW s I*.*--Y'~'.

4 , D Z-- RA. V, AA

rap6 71W 00- £aV1 ~cLJAA12J ~//3?(' ~r?

6'r e/AAL-41 jvA75~'-4r/GAJ %SAQ. e ue-. /p/i3X J~3C 4Ir

W~re~A Sj,,0 hAC&~ A4- CV~~ AWU tl- 4~-

--low~V~ x~7~o.r-~A

-UBJECT DAM SAIEFTY 7MSPr-CT1OMKIF71)

BY DATE PROJ.NO. COSI M IN,Engineers e Geologists *Planners

CHICO. 13Y v~jfDATE 7-3 1- 90 SHEET NO. OF Environmental Specialists

,q~-lit 9

/0Am- qr 7-4--soi AjAJ 0 (Sr, As. 9j 9,Uo AC07r ~ e

ELEVATION- STORAGE RFLATIONSMP,

I'Vre-2,A~y /, tv "4E,t-1 I CY Asj~- OI 7W& COAJ C

,qz 0"V'~ Aw 5,bm ./Vm=A AVD~~ J~io~-Ae

*UBJECT Ot~A -rAFE-T' ThLSP97CTM

By DL.... ATE 6-/7 ,? PROJ. NO. -04' M, IN(CHKD SY 'N '/ DTE - 3- S s,.urrNO...~..... ~ ? ~Engineers * Geologists *PlannersCHKO BYDAT -7-1-s SHET N. S OF IS- Environmental Specialists

PMP CPLCULATIONS/

osbW'A A 9~ ~ . Q 0 4W L' R 4 4UC A'01 A A9~4Sf)A.

- A~ C0,VX-77MJ ACIVI Oe-7)

I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PAr.W/eA (W) ~qJ, qj 95

AR Aa* Aciua (qrJrIv W XVI'J .r," 19IV-O 7W9e

e4U~rRq W&I"AM'4o aaw A J"M-C J""..L C&-7-# 04'f A 4At*L

'UmJgCT DAM~ .SAFEY 7 TOr L11By W I DATE TO-rFM. M , IN(~

CHC.B1V-V DT 3 1 HE O FEngineers *Geologists * PlannersCHIC. ~ DATE __________ SHET N. ~ F ~Environmental Specialist

SPILLWAY CX'ACITY 7

esav. ~ ~a/

r,,,J "o~

] gCbUL4T(D OY 4 AOM 217-Z0t zz 0f-iqvvr mAr fr#k'?We 1'4~J ZMC- AVqY %0e4 rrWP*C-V

AW tVVAV~ r, Ir 4#4 AV' ASA6 rw4- 0MOWt7~~ WIAI. W & VM I

I. wle 00J Pt . I-Wf, .: jWVrV f ZQA~fr'~

JBJECT nAtN -SkFETY M4hSPFCT1t4T~T.. I " 3

By 2-7:5 DATE &~... PROI.NO. -IA-'4301 1 7CNSLATSCHK. S______ DAE ~72~I -Engineers *Geologists *Planners

________ _______DATE_ SHEET NO. -7 OF Z5 Environmental Specialists

,* e W #416 .WS;0UAY VfS'r4,a MST,-J V1 /f-Cr $ 0"J 77Y6 j'MP-dOC

/Jr &A*/'tOf49CO. IWO FkYU ft'E .4 CWCS-JCrQA1 ~so rA7~

a"-/L*4 OA..

Qr

4.P Qs, Vs I A ,r' vmcr #'Sw*C V5nOaw7 ACMD .'m' z ua v-eoge Wt-f.

74t *#AmQ ameP' w mpP ow fw- jP--gor (dev. *'/.o) ,o 7-wE

roP ACe %A4( 3W" (JWV. IS4 3) 'M Aa0 n Adf A*,i0XMW4'iYV Y% UO4-V

XM4J Vw7 Am - M ' P' zwQw" M AM~r 3 P ox. sw~. /

Ar 5* ,r

A47 4- 17. / (A'Jmfs4wbe ji'~'3J I.7

SUBJECT DAM KAFF1N' M InIFiIQMTe,5rrvm LAw P)AJ

my - z 'y DATE -1-xC) PROJ. NO. "1ok- "3( - CONSULTANTS, IN(

Engineers e Geologists * PlannersCHK. BY "V DATE 7-31-'3"3. SHEET NO. OF -Environmental Specialists

! ~e,,ewrOM

(%G)

fPr. (--) rVKS0 (ra') CA" r'

0 C - - 0

1.3. /. 8 /i. 7 To/al-. '3 A J-' /r. ,.3 70

7 ,r //Y.6 /001;1,r 3 -.1 960 /7.2 /3 .".0

/',,. 0 , //? '"-I.&I 6

Al. 3 IA13 7.1 go/.7 /?O/ a;./1 ,!i' 0-., t,: 33.3 9730

1;17. /4 27 4 31.9 ;60

0 (3~ Ja.5-) (579)

o AmP1 Jv,-'r 7.

6DW.... ....... ..... . sP g'.

IUSJECT DlAM -4;ATFTY ThNSPECTO\1 ilT L*k Dv

Mr AE~PO.N.~ypj CONSULTANTS, IN

CHIO. Y~j DAT 7-~ g- ~ , ~ OFEngineers e Geologists 9 Planners.1... ~ Environmental Specialists

FMBAN4KMENT FATIN~G TABLE,

I JM -C&CM-W &Wq &.* XrAZ. 71ZIRS ;WI

C-A4f CJC ZIPr~ '~ %Wde .AMrAAMJ.VV1/

IA- 1-7-. IA., f4'/lS C4f- r A. qt4r WWAQ

drr~r0AO AY9 CJE6WNc

~FAA01Z' 3o. V0A4V 2ZAA~

:16/O,''.0 a

AV/7YJ pw IRC46 ',

JBJCTDAm SAFFTY TbNSPFTTI1)f

Tev-rnM LA.,Yy rt)Am

By MTV.. DATE .. ,.21 .0.. PROJ.NO. i-19-cv1Qr' COSUTATS, INBY ______ DA! ___________ HEE NO j* OF aSEngineers *Geologists *Planners

CI4KD. By ____ ___DAE _________SWETO.__COF ZS Environmental Specialists

;'' a 4AtA,' A.*, WO9WAr~9 k 4&X4' a- ,-o a M4O

0g 4- -r &- - - -

1wi.3 5 0-dwrlUS 7-V 7 V-eAaC- A0.-,4V e*-A7V- -;-S=~ /0 /O OS 7 78 0.5~ /3 3.0 /Y

Csi'. ,,s 44~ W., 7b4 O. .Z .O

/V/1.9 160 /%U 0.5y 783 78s 057 o/3 3.09 /170

//9's 734 5, 0.S /3 X;7/ / . 0.3 3.09 F10.s

IVIT. I~Z 03S a,; 0. I 1 f7/ A0 a-SO 3-09 ;V3D

1-76. P70A 0.5 /J/ 2Ar 7 048 3.0C1 370

/9/7.3 .'90 -70 02 /1/'0 16r 3-0 0. 7, 3.0? 4660

G A, L 4.[ ~

1 ~er"~ CoP CqqCT zj 4 r (wsoTnA OF CM.C

®9 C f~w' 13,t os~ i.~

uBJECT QXM SAI'ETY "]"-.ICTIC)M" l

Torrt. LAIw rDAmdBY 27'1 DATE 4-,oY,. PROJNO. "TS, IN

Engineers *Geologists *Planners

CHKD. BY _ ._. DATE _ 7-_ - _O_ SHEET NO. OF Environmental Specialists

Tzma RN, mG CU -- 010dAQQ

00/2 g/.0g o

S330

Iv / 1. "0 170 470

70 /600

1/&0

/40 49 49910

16 7120 3700 393096)460 '/9"0

SUBJECT DlAM SA.FETY INS~PECTION

By arT DATE .. 2.2..PROJ.NO. 4~ pj OSLATS, INCHKD. BY WZNI DATE 7SHEET NO. /;Z OF S' Engineers *Geologists *Planners

_________ Environmental Specialists

EM13ANKM1ENT RATING? CURVE -R0AVLwAY

AJV4,-W1 7744r h~ r J.'e44) r7Z/r V3wM47YWM, -IDH 7;,01- -fl.-;

~4G')O~'/GOCV?,S. 77',V 7-W- V~rK- 0&4--, 7W&F 1924WA I CAAJ

0

0 -- 1 -. 9 - - 30

ii 9S* 5o O.S 31 Lill 0-- .03 13c

vaslls %S- O.S G5t 0-016o.Q 3.09 C11

ia'. 4 1-0S 1-45 o.ST -let I4. 1 0.-043 -04 9 (S00121,3.9I noS 1 0.3 9 . 0.0- 3.04 ZGQ

IS z 4. as S O.S l.%a o.0S 3.0s oto(,

IaOO I$. V0 -60 O.Qb4S4 -P a-( 3.0s a90o

o)3~l 0 *? 01AZ as131 613 'l.'t 0.0- 3.05' 31 oQ

% WS- W 7s - 0 .-T - 4 31 -49 00 30 ,9

By DATE... PROJ.NO. -lot %Q'I -0-a COSLAT, IN________ DTE 7- - SEETNO. ~ O ~5Engineers *Geologists * Planners

____. BY_ __ __ _ DAE HE N.O -, Evronmena peciais ts

^Le 1A'A- ,e 3 IWmAJ ZKJo /'1, .'. _V r 4-C- 7~iAZWZ07N,7 7 Ajr

XorU 4,WvQ -WWb., CAAJ ZL V4&

A7/, ew~ ~7. 0

.1J7 7. 0?

A'3.7 -

A RUMOA.J OX 03AJ.! -LV oczuz/ aNAMI-S .4PAM rYIO Z4 15~e~.1 C -244.07Z- 1IC-' AVZrNA As

A /4D A rAt.i -$4L'7 -1!-7 cdr ~31i'

SUBJECT [)Am SAV'FTY TSFTO

By ZL. DATE 4-y-0 PROJ.NO. -1i-A~-43 - CONSULTANTS, INCHKD BY L~Z ATE -~-31- HEE NO.~ O ~ . Engineers * Geologists e Planners

_____BW7\._DAEHEENO___OF 7- Environmental Specialists

CULVEP5- CAPACTY

-Z;IY0VZY Ib~h71V?7A1j a-~ 72V,- JP1I..,'1 71' -

QAJPS:V1/-toVA7F1R /20oeV /4A oa Cc4V4Rv7O

S, CM?~

I01

Q.v Poo. Y

(4)CCO (A20. r-,) 6____

101 00 0 1119 ,/ 3 P ao

/00.I S.0 40O /30 4-1.' 0.1.3 .99

/got 0 .9 / y 70 Ai-J 9' ? 8 A 6 300.9 /8 /,,/C)13/.3 197 75

SUIJECT tDAd sA5ETV y

By DATE _________ PROJ. NO. C . ~ONSULTANTS, ft~

CI4KD.BY W(-7V DATE -7- 3t- 30 SHEET NO. OF___ Engineers o Geologists aPlanners_________ Environmental Specialists

too , -10,000Is$ 5,8000 EXAMPLE ()CHART 5

-3:-6.000 0 36 Inches 13.0 f**1(

14 5.000 Q. 96 of$ (3)

4-OO0 4 (1* 8.0 5

-10

44.

40.w 2.

1.55,el

.7 ..7

-. 0

11-~IT -1LE CONTROLTANC,6- SCALE~a TYP

SUBJECT flAt SAF=-Y T1SPIECTICIACn

To-m L.frE OAm HIBY~ =S OATE -Y-J PROJ. NO. nc CONSULTANTS a L , IN

Engineers * Geologists * PlannersCHKD. BY !.... DATE 7 -SHEET NO. 16 OF ZS Environmental Specialists

-zr)~ ~ ~ */hr or~l

Z - *VWU Sl?0fV O t Af //yr.

______rzop____ I-____________ 61 p./y

= .0(3~#~ c~,~ra.uT

A'-A*7s'j4WVJp1ir

SUBJECT Dt AEYT~PCTt

By ... ~....DATE rn; YL2 PROJ. NO. -~ ElOSUTNTl

CHKD. ~~2 B____ OT 7-1- SETN 7 OF Engineers e Geologists * Planners

CH Y W-TV DATE __SHEETNO._17 Environmental Specialists

) C

A' "

#We&IV 71'J171

Cut~e ~A,$.7r~

~~~~~~r 7r 44l.SS~$~A~S

* A'OD~.*6

CTrAAJV( zr rr /S.7 X

_,4 '?

BY L DATE _-_-_PROJ. NO. WII" 03 - q j CONSUL T AN TS, IN

Engineers e Geologists * PlannersCHKD. BY 'A TV' DATE "1-1'1-S11 SHEET NO. / OF 2 niomna ~cait

1'A4W4.46 0 ' 0$ -, a - oA'rL-,006r (.'- /SAf

,la

iL

4 /'' A / /0d 4-

WCqAb*J 20 0.0

i'I : o.,s -/ '15a- ,,,r.',;e .,o6" _.._.

%F Z zo,,, ,w ' " Ja

e) oq' 3 AA 7 9k 0 +*-0 (YJ-7) I# /O f0c

/9" /I h.-S-

A"r A~

IA /0 Ror ___Jb110

ISUGJECT DAM SkyFFTV TNSCPFTWnI3

By 0XV1 DATE 6-~SI PRJN. OSLATS. IN?0FJI NO. Engineers * Geologists * Planners

CHCO.SY Y DATE *1 ~~ SHEET NO. OF ___ Environmental Specialists

CC /4r/er rev) (A. CA) 6-7) ~ L

00 /n3 7.7 - / /0./0

OYO 173 /0o - Ts %r. 0~2 /010//3

;Ar 0 Z. /'74/0 i:Z-. , ,rr -- c-

"Irei41~ .4 o& L7, (sV rrI CY3~ ~ P*~ . Al

rY -owx Ai - jA r-4% ,c qA7* .r(rtr ) ic~,e h~/

W1t Z-e V5./AS'V AVAV IWC* 02C7~e .... ~ At

14Jrr 0r zn-v 7%A ..'9.47I-

* 4 ~~W4.A~ J~5A4TAGJ 4WJ/. Xr /-, /5q~a J

C N /77C A IL W 4 2 - 4 5 Z? 02Ci r 0,- r W A 1S # x4 A d C 'A-0 7 - ..

riq (,,rd tswr -,wwtrr, /. o , i> wo@ Oiy"P~,- Af &W,94. 4aC 7R'evi .'rr 7 9 r* li.4)M J-

@ ~ C~ MPAICV,Er;

SUBJECT DAM SAFFTY TNSPCTION.

-rrm Lkyum- EnA-l

BY .... L.. . DATE 6- -) PROJ.NO. -3-'CONSLTANTS, IN

CHKD. BY VJ-,V DATE -7- 31-90 SHEET NO. PC OF ZEnvironmentalers Geologists Planners

70144 A'-.iz'c CV~tu_ -1U~4

-Oe7(A) QC w..,.7

101.I -/ 0

/Ro(. / /30 - /30/a.0/90 - iqo

/oe. 0 1'90 - 9,,0

ROAD~s 0

/Q I. M O1o 01,71/.9 9r /o0 300

! m.?300 L160 1660

t121 /aY /90 31 0/0

J/0 4,.700 90

jvs- JAPO rx

Jq1

Fml a

- SUBJECT AFEM Ty'TNSPFCTOtII

I ~B DATE PRO___________________________________ Engineers * Geologists * PlannersCHKD. BY 2PJ -T DATE SHEET NO. 712.... OF -~~- Environmental Specialists

,4CC0,V7r. 4,7oE,4 7' 4 i~i~. 414"X4 471'A ;W l~4 iSVW~f~

ZAC ..d!-I UR$4'o j Z4L aA. ..4vaf raro- Af,44

(sdr) (40)

ADA/. 0 4 ;eS d rd

/0001,

4b.

t: :1

7- 7::-

n:-77 - . . . . .

I __-7-. _- 7

ThiNMEL7i~

IL A__4_-,1 -

* H..

SUBJECT SAF7 W11 '' ~i

i~j...........DAT 'I~~?~PRO. NO ~C~ ~CONSULTANTS, INc~o y V~~fl/ DAT 7 - 0 -~ 0Engineers * Geologists e Planners

______Y_____DATE_7_0 _ SHEET NO. .. L.. or- ~ Environmental Specialists

DREPCH- APSSUIPTIONS4

,C~? 4LF &NormJG

A+ -'Asy G-X

/96?-/ fA/' L~Q~CAQV~ ~VA~~7/JZV~J7: * 1j

7XP*4IC4Vt-4rI A77 i- r4 4i'~o~

4 1 ,q~~~~~~i~~~. V olf/7ct &&...MA"4/rZ.1r Jr-A '&Jw ''±

- ~ ~* V (~svIt"~

aW A5,FAC111V6 AV YCIJ 2-N-1) 7 7

fAR2-4 VOL& ~ ~r#CA M AS.V :F o&f

e7'OAI'M Rac &,&£ 4 . 14.sm,* rW rPz", flg y~ -X&/4r Aw*A49 T7/u/J 4"6) 4

*~~~~~~~ xrOtea 6,s oA1GP"A rt 1^O"9P.4iV 314'V*- 117.-JcbV11A/ JY

:veA'8~4A P#' AA41 ('& *j rg, ,o~' wr-7 '~4 a-~' 'A))rgor e /d/V(~o

rA$ 0VZ040"rIATJ OAM 7,A-

/7 ,(J Af1-% PE ao r'~f4 .'*W, /rI. P?4Y4M -170,40--V OY-4 A VW Xt-.P PMY '

SUBJECT QlAM- 'CArE-Y T"NnlPT1TQW f11i

By D ATE 2-73-90 PROJ. NO. -7* - CONSUQVQLTANTS, INd

CHKD avdT'f-- .~- Engineers *Geologists * PlannersCK.B -V DATE -73 -V SHEET NO. ), OF Environmental Specialists

MEC-I _DAM ZRSACI4AING AN.A.'ZIS cZQTPUT

PdAAA -C TV's I- Ca4J'W~.6 1AJ171/2P0,4)2) Q45'?VG Acd4 PS@4C *A~4J~ lI .

.M.4L5 4)( -reow r/YS09AW 1/ *o/ -,S g4ol zw UfA

________ __ __ __ ow4)( 4___ __A -W

DOWNSREAM .OUTNG T Ico VAo.iSP'F cA.or)

77o-IJ rcw /-O/ r &,ZA U44V44

Ou? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-Wf cco J"C-Y3cC 'aO /.8 ~ .~~~9:____

AM &/I 774-4;f&AV~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f~r~7A Qvir =A3A CO. V40~ 4.~~~?_____

'r .Ahw 7XY. 73.

0

/4 ~~4d4P~#N/~A~l(~ ''bAU-yz,.'s,/ 4 v~ 0 6 ~ ~ ~ .~ N

047a j 6V rl..r 0~ "711 A.rvm~ &S Ao *- y

0 O.,cr iE&4G4 J* 16901 WZS 47ac'uno .

SUBJECT QiAfA SAFET"Y MkISP~ECTT-oTOT EM LA KE NiA A

DATE 7-30 ~p ~ ~g~a~-042NSULTANEngineers 9 Geologists * PI

C*4KD. BY...L.. DATE 27T Sc SHEET NO. 4 OF 0Q - Environmental Speialists

-SQM\AA9,( 7JUPT/OU7-PQTr SETS

0~ so

z aJ

10 g -

4 .iS C.

1. 44

:a 13, uc 1=4 IW 40. 0 a . .

U40 a -914 a. P 30

IL 0* zz

1- 5-0 ba It I- 4 .61 ~ ~ L R O- aw 0:t i

Q. of . NWhi -- 05 0 o-~.K

a z-

hiP K.0 4. -4L @0 A- -

w -to yA

LL U -Z P. .43 4. cc(a 44 aU 92K . -a i 0 i .N 4 4 ' I

.4 IL 0 AID r-- 0Q M*U

V9.I a 1 0 N 4

0.304 ld 0@ *

430~~ ~ Uai=- -.3.3 40 0 .. 4i~ .4. .

.403 A...S U £0 3 K.N..ntA20 4 Mi 3 0 .0 0 * i h hiPP.A83~ ~~~ C .- . n A

SUBJECT D~AM~ SAEET- U~S PC C7 X-0

TrO1rM LAKE 6~A /sv.L~..OT -30- Aci PROJ. NO. -71 - 20A )4 2 X CNSULTANI

Engineers 9 Geolo0gists * P;C,4KD.Y...L... DATS SHEET NO. OF....L... L)- Environmental Specialists

LIL.

Q. ~ 4 0*U.

f;61 0 0

-1 N

aw. 0. &00

46JN3

0-0 o- a, 0

x lap 4w: N Nm

-f 010-0

14 at .1

N9 -O C6 90 .-~ ~ ~ 1 .0 160* h* O **U ~

SN~~~ 92 z o4 40 *.4 a 0 0 1444 0-.2 .

b. zLax 0.NNV a - 4

-12 UZ W2 Vhi 44~4 4z ZU

oz -9 9. 0

-u, - .9 5-

U** N. -*9* 5 .0

0. .i>4 jOO 0.

5 o~.~ 0 *.N 0 *44 SI~e

S I - ~ z OJN IN N4 * *NH

............ .. AT....... . S E .O . O

lY OATE 7-30- Ao PROJ. NO. 7I-2O- 04 ONSULTANI

Engineers * Geologists * PlaCH K D . B Y _ O' ' A T E -J - 0SH E ET N O . O F :E n ro e t l S ec l stEnvironmental Specialists

LLL

0 a.G o

4 4

E. M-

IIn

L. °. 1, 5 1--

3- .... :* .P,*3 =, *.o

* = ' - I N

44

-e o . ... o e:--

" " = = = ON9- 3 I= A .. ~,

U.

ACAI

44 ,. 4*P.*n.

" "39 **N N*.m9. 3 3

, * --*.,,

4 ~~~SUBJECT tA~SFT( ~ EP

ro7m LAKE tANEDEBy DATE 7-30- AO PROJ. NO. 71 --2o i - 142 CONSULTAN

Engineers a Geologists * PIeCHKD. BY _ ,J DATE -7- 9 SHEET NO. OF Environmental Specialists

U.

00 0 0

It Ma . .. .e

*~. in°o°=

a 0 .- ,

NO 0 6

N I2

* l0 .2 .t .

1- w a 8 003

.o 120 5-0 9

I -Is

02 c a 0

9- 5

12Q 'A K I-

-I - .03.

f- 0 .0 2 I*wK1

S0 ,

= * ..

"1 °° A

"* " E -." 4 440 00

SUBJECT DAIA t-AFE97Y TkSPtc9rraT0j"OTEM LAKE bA/A

By W- DV DATE 7-30- AQ PROJ. NO. -1- C42 ONSULTAN"

CHKO. BY________ DATE 77 8 SHEET NO. E OF 0 Engineers * Geologists * IC"EEnvironmental Specialists

p 14 ,. W e t o t o

4U

.- ,- ale " 4

,. "q.=i .. 4i°

0 0X

hi 1. = . . . . . . .

*-0 z, . ° A a..n ,- rnv

sO o, * . . . ,

.3 * 1.2 z O 1 .

41 0

.-04 .. ..

0..= = ..A= ,, U),. ;,,,- 80 - q 44= • P*

46•

CC .0 4 . .

Q 4.. 0 14 %90 jo

,= • ; .- ,1 -- (4,

4© ..: WS• ,

4-c 01m

1 4, .aaa, Iw 4 " 00 an 41.1 w a

00. **00 -I- - -,

I 0 0 5

A. 0 0 4=.. ." . -w !

,4 - ,.o00= "o ,- -~ 0

* 0 .,U

2 cc ~ h. d0o 2 -- -

a~ In ai VI a 012

*- U) ,. U 3••0 "Sa *0 0 -0

0 Go• o 00 0

€3

a --

4 .eo

00 -r

006 31. 3-.- S .0 .•= .. : = , :Li Jz4 . U U 0 0(4,,. 4m ~4 (4

U. 3 . a o . -= 0 q *0 s,- en

% =o0 •0 IL

I o 14

A' 0

-2 '*

...... ... ... ..... .U. NO OS 04

SUJECT bAtA SAEET Y PCTr~CH'r"VEM LADE AO OF

BY DATE 7-30- 9O PROJ. NO. -7i-2e - - 042 CONSULTAN

Engineers * Geologists e PlCHICO. BY "j DATE oSHEET NO. O Environmental Specialists

too o

N 40 V NA w 4 s

.08- 90 0

V 8A C6 2

94 0

9,4 a N -0 -

*. - qN 8-. 96 90

;0 *N. "4 0.. ..4 9• •-o4° ,N, ,,, -- ,, == ,

* .. o ; ,,6

-an.we W: wO,0

121.30.3 A(a a2 0 860 Z IL 4

C!. " * 8-9 M 4WS C a'

mo " - 2 0 . t 10

*~.0 f% Ao 12

*t 10 t.l tll2~ 0

cc= 0 a

99 0: 0 C: 4 3 0

0 f- 0. a C, C% 0

A. OK 02 !!0 0 4 N 06 ; A. 0a n t 0 us.N 40 .- I

I- A P. a0 us -- 8- 40.0w 1* 0 0- 000 2 1

w 10 4 x 32 WO - a . O 2

IN~ &. bi~14 N 40 U 0 . P. 3~4P

400 N . 10 A -.a34 I20 ;w 12N 0010 U

V "N .3.88-d I 4 In--U .00f4

126 00

12 A. WO . 8-A3 90 No @.O 1 A.- lugJ

0~~~ ~~~~ : .1 2 0 4 N N N.£ 3

SUBECT t)A/A $SAFEr-Y:01049T-Ok

TEA LAKE t5AAMIBy W-S DATE 7-30- AID PROJ. NO. 7- 042 CONSULTANEngineers e Geologists

CHICO. BY V= DATE 7 -.70- Jv SHEET NO. G OF . Environmental Specialists

**~w to- 6.0.it

... w .

C C - 0 - -- *

0 0 C C 00 o & 0 "0

F...o ..5,F. .•- .- a.a

(a

0i 0 • gF

--"C~ 0 ES cp, Zr It le

s o M• w0r 1*.

.30C -aO Cr4 a~ t g p

to 00 w V"

- C A 0 : Q

0- .0 ins C;e 4; 3.

r. id V.

• *o , -•hi. • •

• C *'.s. U- .

5- p.

. . . . . 5 0 inCI 10.,

0 Woo0 0. £

it ~ ~ ~ ~ C I,05 55 050* i

P- o- io n i 2 I 0

goe 0- t-

02 145, ION ON3 0 N OC .A5- 0C ~C ~'

O - '0 51= - * i. 1- - 0 4 .

.30 -~ : ~ i@'a MC0

J ~SUUJECT bA- SAF97r us*cYro~707 EM LA KE tbA /

By DATE 7-30- AO PROJ. NO. -71-2l- 04_ CONSULTAN

Engineers * Geologists *PCHIKO. BY . DATE "-"o -a) SHEET NO. L- OF -a- Environmental Specialists

a,-l,9 ihdu~s.

*WV

• . V . %40

- r* . . 33 @000-43 • •-0:) 000

*in0

:W=

i 4)l ,4m 0h 0 0004 r

a W1 *a o * *vo ho *0.

m s. 13 . ., 0 5 090

.2* 0 0

9h6 4 =

- .. 0 o°4

cc

4M 4s .2 0

ca

,. . o 453 ,-

-, -: I43 40. WO,

00 Z - 310 u0

3 o. ~.z0

10TF?4 -LAK.E 6~AA

By DATE 7-3o- Ao PROJ. NO. 17-2fl -14- CO-7 "AEngineers * Geologists * PI

CHIO. BY D ATE -77 0'4 SHEET NO. I OF Environmental Specialists

4 43o i

' i

I am

!!a

ts.* .C P4 C% 1

:3 0 0

*~ a0 K~ MIS a - m ...11 ...0616.0 - ..L I

IoVI.- .. . 1.0 0404 434

.4 a 4

a.~ I.I-aVI 0 10

SUBJECT AJA A T~ upCrajTOTEM -LAK(.E t.AM

By DATE 1-30 C PROJ. NO. 7i,2t - 042 CONSULTAN'Engineers • Geologists * Pla

CHIO. BY OATS SHEET NO. OF Environmental Specialists

1~

* ..30,= .

a 4C; w0 a t if

AI,,4 ? 4f- u -- 9

9 * 4 cu p

V,,I =,

i. a" oa

""" -° i mc

so 69 a w 0

Zt 21 4 ft 0

20 W;;: .

10 wago ibL = 1. a a k 0

ac~ . .9 a a

a~4 - o 0i 0

* 10

.0 1a

10.35 0 . baook-

SUEJECT t)ALA SAFET"Y MkISPEC.TrP

70FFM LAKE tbA/ACI

Bv.YJ.L... DATE 7-'30- 90 PROJ. NO. -74-201- 042CNSLAEngineers * Geologists e*i

_______ DAE ~ ~ SHEET NO. K O ~- - Environmental Specialists

IjIa a

.60b

w 2Z 1A #u:

4 4

aO~ a-

2Kb.

160 C

ON 3 1U ; m-,

Ue

29-0

sa3.b I A

70T-EM LA&E bA/ABY DATE 7-30 - AD PROJ. NO. "71-2 - 04 ONSULTAN

Engineers * Geologists * P!________. AT_-_-S TN - - Environmental Specialists

. . . .

* . . •

.: .. . . .... . .

1 61

,. •* . . a

0 .2

. . . .o . o .. . . . .

" 61 P, 00 g,-e:,,M

-- o * I

WI * * *0 .

• € •

.. . . . .......... .;...... :.............. ... • . .....

-- . • : U.

5, .I::

=2- • * •

' ..

' .: o : :

" .. . .. . .. . ............... ....... .... i •••:

** C I ..1

©~~~~~. . . . . . ..• . . ... ... . . . . . ... . .. . .CaI ! * - * : : .

*1 * •,

* ANNA•=m •:A = ' 1 " I.

AW 4S @ AWU N p-A@Wj.Sl @ WSp AA UI•~A

** UU U ** W. **p,600S O - - - - A ,A fA AA A

eaeeooeao-------------------------------*@ w 4q q, v• q.•q~q4# ~ qwq .~~q~~

SUBJECT bAtA IAFr-y 'ErI~SPE MEOW

-7OTEM LAKE t6AMey2 1L . DATE --- 30 AQ PROJ. NO. '74-261- 042- OSLA

CI4K. S Z~5 DTE -~Q~g~ SN~ N ~*****~***** Q ****~ Engineers *Geologists *PI

CHD B kr AT HETN. % O nvrnena Seiait

. ....i00 0 07 7 0 4; 4; eeeoeoeeee; 4;o; e;4;e;o;oC 4;e4;eo ; o;C;oeeoe 1 4; ; e ;1e 4

CNNN 0U4N U~in UUSS COO NNN NWMM"NM

-- - -- - -- --- - ------------- NN N N N N

0 I@2 O @N 2 O OO NNcc@N N N=. .

It dR m

'd

4jN00 *444w44 44 ,r. 99 S qg S U N

a .

a-8

Z X 2 . W 1 2Ne J N . . N ~ . N a O . N ~ . N e E N O d a -

af a

DUO ama a "

I- -.

. aBy DAE 73-0 P.N. '7-21 042

. L /

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

IL I-

4. . *

ala

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

I :1

2 : . .

*-r:,. " = : V " I* : * - v.

i ]e~~ e • • • • • oi • • • • le e • e e • o e o• e e • i r qil. . . . . • 4• • fe

Ii*@@# qyqqq=q.qqqq=qy5 ~qqqq

SUBJECT t)/\~ E~ TFJSlI09C-rropju

TOMEA LA&E C~AMw w

By IDATE 7-30 - Ao PROJ. NO. -7-20 - 42 CONSULTANT

Engineers * Geologists 9 Plar.

CHKD. BY ATE -SHEET NO. OF a Environmental Specialists

kA

1 0 0

I VII w.

Vi)

2 '2~O 0 0

00

II go o 2JI- %u

b: A J14

* .. , .- , . 1

_.s c -. '.A+ +

40. = *I

"11

z a I.

C. K 3m

- s - Ole

*A j

IL

w =. w . -.. . . .. . . ............ .... 1. .. .... .. .. to

il a,

.

h. . -I~~ - 0 4 -- 1(4

LIST OF REFERENCES

1. "Recommended Guidelines for Safety Inspection of Dams,"prepared by Department of the Army, Office of the Chiefof Engineers, Washington, D. C. (Appendix D).

2. "Unit Hydrograph Concepts and Calculations," by Corpsof Engineers, Baltimore District (L-519).

3. "Seasonal Variation of Probable Maximum PrecipitationEast of the 105th Meridian for Areas from 10 to 1,000Square Miles and Duration of 6, 12, 24, and 48 Hours,"Hydrometeorological Report No. 33, prepared by J. T.Riedel, J. F. Appleby and R. W. Schloemer, HydrologicService Division Hydrometeorological Section, U. S.Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington,D. C., April 1956.

4. Design of Small Dams, U. S. Department of the Interior,Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, D. C., 1973.

5. Handbook of Hydraulics, H. W. King and E. F. Brater,McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 1963.

6. Standard Handbook for Civil Engineers, F. S. Merritt,McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 1968.

7. Open-Channel Hydraulics, V. T. Chow, McGraw-Hill, Inc.,New York, 1959.

8. Weir Experiments, Coefficients, and Formulas, R. E.Horton, Water Supply and Irrigation Paper No. 200,Department of the Interior, United States GeologicalSurvey, Washington, D. C., 1907.

9. "Probable Maximum Precipitation Susquehanna RiverDrainage Above Harrisburg, Pennsylvania," Hydrometeoro-logical Report 40, prepared by H. V. Goodyear and J. T.Riedel, Hydrometeorological Branch Office of Hydrology,U. S. Weather Bureau, U. S. Department of Commerce,Washington, D. C., May 1965.

10. Flood Hydrograph Package (HEC-I) Dam Safety Version,Hydrologic Engineering Center, U. S. Army, Corps of

*Engineers, Davis, California, July 1978.

11. "Simulation of Flow Through Broad Crest Navigation Damswith Radial Gates," R. W. Schmitt, U. S. Army, Corps ofEngineers, Pittsburgh District.

12. "Hydraulics of Bridge Waterways," BPR, 1970, DischargeCoefficient Based on Criteria for Embankment ShapedWeirs, Figure 24, page 46.

13. Ap~lied Hydraulics in Engineering, Morris, Henry M. andWiggert, James ., Virginia Polytechnic Institute andState University, 2nd Edition, The Ronald Press Com-pany, New York, 1972.

14. Standard Mathematical Tables, 21st Edition, The Chemi-cal Rubber Company, 1973, page 15.

15. Engineering Field manual, U. S. Department of Agricul-ture, Soil Conservation Service, 2nd Edition,Washington, D. C. 1969.

16. Water Resources Engineering, R. K. Linsley and J. B.Franzini, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 1972.

17. Engineering for Dams, Volume 2, W. P. Creager, J. D.Justin, J. Hinds, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York,1964.

1S. Roughness Characteristics of Natural Channels, H. H.Barnes, Jr., Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1849,Department of the Interior, United States GeologicalSurvey, Arlington, Virginia, 1967.

19. "Hydraulic Charts for the Selection of Highway Cul-verts," Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 5, Bureau ofPublic Roads, Washington, D. C., 1965.

AD-A091 488 GAI CONSULTANTS INC MONROE VILLE PA F/G 13/13NATIONAL DAM INSPECT ION PROGRAM. TOTEM DAM (NDI I;D0 NUMBER PA -- ETC U)

AUG 80 B M MIHALCIN DAC31-80-C-0016

UNCLASSIFIED NL

j~* [251.6

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHARTNATIONAI HIMF AUt Of STAN(ARDS 13 A

APPEN~DIX E

F IGUES

LIST OF FIGURES

Fiur Description/TitleJ1 Regional Vicinity and Watershed Boundary Map

2 Site Plan

3 Outlet Conduit Details

4 Profile of Outlet Conduit

E- 1

WATERSHED BOUNDAR FIGUREIRGIONAL VICINITY

I ATRHED BOUNDARY MAP

Cb Totem LakeTOTEM DAM,),

3tq

8baen\ ROME, PA. ( ERAYSVILLE, PA. ''

*1 ~ ~N4145-W7615/7.5 N44145-W60.55,'/

1967 1967P I VISE) 1978 V" I 1

WALUSING, PA. ILE AE/4 MOPIROETON14 ITQUADRA HOLE 'a

N4137.5-W7615/7 5 N4137.5-W7607.5/7.5

11945

ItA

- ii! ~-~J

0 CENTROID OF DRAINAGE AREA

4

'1 ~ t

1

ANTS INC

IFI 1 RI 2

"cq -/

.~//

ONSUTNS INC.

FIGuRE 2

e ... .. . N

I i

:. •- .

iI.

- -c.. -

I I III

.s~ fl.

* S

- s*~~a I

-a-

L

-

Il

I.

- -

ii

-- - - -- - - - - a

iiU CONSULTANTS, INC.

- t2 ~ - - -.

I-

~ C

L

'~ ~.--

21

-I

- -1 ~-±--- - - - -,--------. .-.

-L - -- -----t-------- ( ~ - _____

-. ~-- -. _

* I* I --. ,., I

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

1: - wr -f~>~-n---

- ... 4-~.U......jI* . -

/

------------ -

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

1 1,0 n 'ATS INC

FIGRE4

APPENDIX F

GEOLOGY

Geology

Totem Lake Dam is located approximately 3.0 milesnorthwest of Camptown within the eastern third of BradfordCounty. Geographically, the site is situated within theglaciated portion of the Low Plateaus section of the Ap-palachian Plateaus province. The area surrounding the damand watershed is blanketed with a veneer of glacial soildeposited during the most recent period of continentalglaciation. Glacial drift generally consists of clayey orsilty soils with cobbles and boulders. Overlying the glacialdeposits are recent alluvial deposits and small deposits ofwater-laid drift which mantle the slopes, ridgetops, andmany valley bottoms. Exposed thickness of till ranges froma few to about 40 feet with maximum inferred thickness ofmor6 than 100 feet. Exposed thickness of colluvium rangesfrom a few to 15 feet.

Bedrock underlying the dam and reservoir consists ofpredominantly shale, sandstone, and a few thin beds ofimpure limestone of the Chemung formation of Upper Devonianage. The sandstone is in part calcareous and fossiliferous.

Structurally, the site lies just south of the axialtrace of the Le Raysville anticline, a gentle fold strikingin a southwest-northeast direction with little surfaceexpression in the vicinity of the site. Bedrock, therefore,dips gently to the southeast.

Denney, Charles S., Surficial Geology and Soils of theElmira-Williamsport Region, New York and Pennsylvania:United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 379 -Washington D. C., 1963.

F-l

.. .. . . . ..- . . .. . "-,,2. .' 2 . .. . . . 2 _ : "

")'Aa y F o ro rtio

n

FRmrIu 1,snrd Rein 1,-1 as Eg, 1Osnou nut roved

7~ ~~~OE LAKEil Domto uqeAn au

Marine hed

*~~~Lbt TulyLieson a bse

ScalLGELOGNMA

STo-ia COMOWEdT OPois PNArDP. OP, nAFFAIRS. ,DATD q. SCAL - sadl. CO SU TA TS1IC