AD-Ai43 977 NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR INSPECTION OF NON-FEDERAL DAMS i/iTULLER RESSERVOIR DAM..(U) CORPS OF ENGINEERS WALTHAMMA NEW ENGLAND DIV SEP 88

UNCLASSIFIED F/G 13/13 NL

EllEEllEEEllII llflflflfllll.....EIEllllEEEEEEEI IEBhEilIIEIIEIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlffl.

IIIIIII

111I" Q28 [2511111W I.V aa _

- 3 63

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHARTNATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS-1963-A

CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN]SIMSBURY, CONNECTICUT

TULLER RESERVOIR DAMCT 00275AI

IiIi

PHASE I INSPECTION REPORT

NATIONAL DAM INSPECTION PROGRAMw

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

>- NEW ENGLAND DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS

0 WALTHAM, MASS. 02154 DTIC"J I ~ELF- '- -:

SEPTEMBER, 1980 AUG 9 984DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT AApproved for public relesei D

Distribution Unlimited I

84 08 08 070_ .*4 " . . ., . -, -. .. .% ," . . . . , . . . . -. . .'. . . ,. ', 3

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (mWe Does kneedj

REPOT DCUMNTATON AGEREAD INSTRUCTIONSREPOT DCUMNTATON AGEBEFORE COMPLETING FORM

% I. REPORT NUMBER GOTACCESSION NO. A. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

4. TIT L (and Sublife) S4 . TYPE OF REPORT a PERIOD COVERED-*Tuller Reservoir Dam INSPECTION REPORT

* NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR INSPECTION OF NON-FEDERALS.PROMNRGREOTNME7. AUT4ORgaJ IS. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMSER(o)

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERSNEW ENGLAND DIVISION

9PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASKAREA A WORK UNIT NUMBERS

11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME ANO ADDRESS 12. RESPORT OAT6

DEPT. OF THE ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS September 1980NEW ENGLAND DIVISION, NEDED 13. NUMBER OF PAGES -I

424 TRAPELO ROAD, WALTHAM, MA. 02254 Sri______________1.MONITORING AGENCY NAME A ADDRESS(II diferent from Coma,.U10t1 011#60) Is. SECURITY CLASS. (of timp fep) A

UNCLASSIFIEDIS. ECLAISIFICATION/ONGRAING

SCNEDu La .

1S. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Aoporsj

APPROVAL FOR PUBLIC RELEASE: DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the. abotroo rt me.d In W~eek 20. SO OiMrent fru POPeet)

1111. 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 of

Non-Federal Dams; use cover date for date of report.

19. KEY WORDS (CORSeuue On Feworeeeldo 01ROG6eewvmE A0411400000O 6Fec RibknMH)

DAMS, INSPECTION, DAM SAFETY,Conn. River BasinSimsbury, Conn. We

20. A DSTR01ACT (Cmiftue an fewe* side. if R0...ewi And 04000#10Y &F b00e Iftsbet)

The Tuller Reservoir Dam is an earth embankment built about 1900 and impounding HopBrook in Simsbury, Conn. The dam is approx. 240 ft. in length (not including thespillway)., 7 ft. wide at the top, 45.5 ft. in height and has a maximum impoundment

capaityof 75 cre-eet Inaccrdane wth he rmy orp ofEngneer GudelnIs

Tuller Reservoir Dam is classified as a significant hazard, intermediate size dam.The test flood for Tuller Reservoir Dam is selected as equivalent to the PMF. Based

* upon the visual inspection at the site and past performance of the dam, the projectis judged to be in poor condition.

DD01RAN7s 1473 1TIon OF I Nov 056Is 0USOLEIE

,AA DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYNEW ENGLAND DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS

_ j iI'P~~ 424 TRAPELO ROAD

WALTHAM. MASSACHUSETTS 02254

D REPLY TOATTENTION OF:

NEDED DC 19* -, ! .41*'9

Honorable Ella T. GrassoGovernor of the State of ConnecticutState CapitolHartford, Connecticut 06115

Dear Governor Grasso:

Inclosed Is a copy of the Tuller Reservoir Dan (CT-00275) Phase IInspection 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 performance

- and a brief hydrological study of the dam. A brief assessment IsIncluded at the beginning of the report. I have approved the report

. and support the findings and recommendations described In Section 7 andask that you keep me informed of the actions taken to implement them.This follow-up action Is a vitally Important part of this program.

A copy of this report has been forwarded to the Department of Environ-mental Protection, the cooperating agency for the State of Connecticut.

, In addition, a copy of the report has also been furnished the owner,Village Water Company, Simbury, Conn.

Copies of this report will be made available to the public, upon

- request, by this office under the Freedom of Information Act. In the% case of this report the release date will be thirty days from the date

of this letter.

I wish to take this opportunity to thank you and the Department of* :Environmental Protection for your cooperation In carrying out this

program.

* V. Sincerely,

--" Incl LI OSN

As stated Colon , Corps of Engineers

Acti Division Engineer

Sicrey

CoLr

I..

U CONNECTICUT RIVER BASINAccessi "" SIMSBURY, CONNECTICUT

f. -TIS GA&II XTULLER RESERVOIR DAMC16 DTIC TAB

o _____ CT 00275.Justt fication-C 027

DistributionK Avflilat ii~y Codes o

Dit Ava i Iald/ore o

PHASE I INSPECTION REPORT

NATIONAL DAM INSPECTION PROGRAM

Na

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYNEW ENGLAND DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS

WALTHAM, MASS. 02154

DTICEI- CTe. W3%

SEPTEMBER, 1980 AUG Q8

D IS M I B U T I O N S T A T E M FN T AApproved foz public relewloDDistribution Unlimited "_

BRIEF ASSESSMENT

V PHASE I INSPECTION REPORT

NATIONAL PROGRAM OF INSPECTION OF DAMS

Name of Dam: TULLER RESERVOIR DAMInventory Number: CT 00275State Located: CONNECTICUTCounty Located: HARTFORDTown Located: SIMSBURYStream: HOP BROOKOwner: VILLAGE WATER COMPANYDate of Inspection: MAY 9, 1980Inspection team: PETER M. HEYNENf P.E.

MIRON PETROVSKYJAY. A. COSTELLOMURALI ATLURU, P.E..JEFFREY 0. BORNE

'The Tuller Reservoir Dam is an earth embankment built about. 1900 and impounding Hop Brook in Simsbury, Connecticut. The dam isS"approximately 240 feet in length (not including spillway), seven

(7) feet wide at the top, 45.5 feet in height and has a maximumimpoundment capacity of 175 acre-feet. The spillway is a concretelined channel cut into bedrock at the right end of the dam. Itconsists of an 18 foot long, trapezoidal shaped concrete weir, aconcrete training wall on the left side and a vertical rock cut onthe right side. A gatehouse with a concrete foundation and bricksuperstructure is located at the central portion of the upstream

, slope. The low-level outlet is an 18 inch cast iron pipe extendingthrough the gatehouse to the upstream slope. Three intake pipesallow water into a chamber in the gatehouse foundation which drainsthrough the low-level outlet. The slopes and top of dam are covered

- .with grass, dense brush, and tree saplings. A footpath extendsalong the top of the dam for the entire length.

In accordance with the Army Corps of Engineers Guidelines,Tuller Reservoir Dam is classified as a significant hazard, inter-mediate size dam. The test flood range is from one-half theProbable Maximum Flood (1/2 PMF) to the Probable Maximum Flood(PMF). The test flood for Tuller Reservoir Dam is selected asequivalent to the PMF. -Peak inflow to the reservoir at the testflood is 1750 cubic feet per second (cfs) and peak outflow is 1630cfs with the dam overtopped 1.4 feet. The spillway capacity withthe lake level to the top of the dam is 415 cfs, which is 25% of therouted test flood outflow..

Based upon the visual inspection at the site and past per-i ~ formance of the dam, the project is judged to be in poor condition.

There are areas requiring repair, maintenance and monitoring suchas concrete deterioration, slope erosion, brush on the slopes and aseep on the downstream slope.

" "I .' * *i" . -. - •~ **? -' *' * . . -* .. . .. -- . ", ". " . . . . . . . .. .

It is recommended that the owner retain the services of ahydraulic/hydrologic engineer to analyze in more detail the ade-quacy of the existing project discharge and overtopping potential.Other items of importance are inspection of the low-level outlet,evaluation of a depression area at the top of the dam, origin ofseepage on the downstream slope, concrete repair, slope erosion and

- regrading of the top of the dam. Recommendations should be made bythe engineer and implemented by the owner.

The above recommendations and frther remedial measures whichare discussed in Section 7, sh .,.In stituted within one (1)year, of the owner's receipt o b.

~~ e er .Hey en, P.E. *&9NA~Project Manager - GeotechnicalCahn Engineers, Inc.

SM."r4C-,

C. Michael Horton, P.E.Department Head

Cahn Engineers, Inc. AL

Of

le I

NCZIZZfI.eJ

iii

*o *. - ?- W .. *

'- - - - -7-7 - T 79 M. V ... . . . . . _ . 1 . .. .- 7-7...7"

This Phase I Inspection Report on Tuller Reservoir Dam

has been reviewed by the undersigned Reviev Board mebers. In ouropinion, the reported findingse, conclusions, end recommnudations are

consistent with the Recomaended Guidelines for Safety Inspection ofSDam, and with good engineering Judgment and practice, and io hereby

submitted for approval.

CARNEY M. TERZIAN, MEMBERDesign BranchEngineering Division

RICHARD DIB.ONO

Water Control BranchEngineering Division

7 -. ARAMAST MAHTESIAN, CHAIRMAN

Geotechnical Enqineering BranchIP Engineering Division

.. :..AL

F"" hPPROV, AL

Chief ftlinoeerlig Division

,, .-. vv*-*- .- ~~v-

PREFACE

- This report is prepared under guidance contained in the Recomn-mended Guidelines for Safety Inspection of Dams, for Phase IInvestigatikrns. Copies of these guidelines may be obtained from

. the Off ice o 17hief of Engineers, Washington, D.C. 20314. Thepurpose of a iase I Investigation is to identify expeditiouslythose dams wh- j may pose hazards to human life or property. Theassessment of the general condition of the dam is based uponavailable data and visual inspection. Detailed investigation, andanalyses involving topographic mapping, subsurface investigations,

~ testing, and detailed computational evaluations are beyond thescope 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 thereported condition of the dam is based on observations of tieldconditions at the time of inspection along with data available tothe inspection team. In cases where the reservoir was lowered ordrained prior to inspection, such action, while improving thestability and safety of the dam, removes the normal load on thestructure and may obscure certain conditions which might otherwisebe detectable if inspected under the normal operating environmentof the structure.

it is important to note that the condition of a dam depends on* numerous and constantly changing internal and external conditions,

and is evolutionary in nature. It would be incorrect to assue thatvthe present condition of the dam would necessarily represent the

condition of the dam at some point in the future. Only throughcontinued care and inspection can there be any chance that unsafeconditions will be detected.

Phase I inspections are not intended to provide detailed.4hydrologic and hydraulic analyses. In accordance with the esta-~* blished Guidelines, the Spillway Test Flood is based on the esti-

4 mated "Probable Maximum Flood" for the region (greatest reasonablypossible storm runoff), or fractions there of. Because of themagnitude and rarity of such a storm event, a finding that aspillway will not pass the test flood should not be interpreted asneccessarily posing a highly inadequate condition. The test floodprovides a measure of relative spillway capacity and serves as anaid in determining the need for more detailed hydrologic andhydraulic studies, considering the size of the dam, its generalcondition and the downstream damage potential.

iv

" The Phase I Investigation does not include an assessment of theneed for fences, gates, no-trespassing signs, repairs to existingfences and railings and other items which may be needed to minimizetrespass and provide greater security for the facility and safetyto the public. An evaluation of the project for compliance withOSHA rules and regulations is also excluded.

- The information contained in this report is based on thelimited investigation described above and is not warranted toindicate the actual condition of the dam. The integrity of the damcan only be determined by a means of a monitoring program and/or adetailed physical investigation. The accuracy of available data isassumed where not in obvious conflict with facts observable during

* .the visual inspection.

i' .,o

.. .

%,

-C

"-.

.9

IM -7

~. > TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Letter of Transmittal

Brief Assessment i, iiReview Board Signature Page iPreface iv, vTable of Contents vi-viiiOverview Photo ixLocation Map x

- 1SECTION 1: PROJECT INFOR~MATION

1.1 General ...................... 1-

a. Authorityb. Purpose of Inspection Programc. Scope of Inspection Program

1.2 Description of Project....... .............. 1-2

a. Locationib. Description of Dam and AppurtenancesC. Size Classificationd. Hazard Classificatione . Ownershipf. Operatorg. Purpose of Dam

*h. Design and Construction History 1i. Normal Operational Procedures

a. Drainage Areab. Discharge at DamsiteC. Elevationsd. Reservoire. Storagef. Reservoir Surfaceg . Damh. Diversion and Regulatory Tunneli. Spillwayj. Low Area at Service Roadk. Regulating Outlets

* SECTION 2: ENGINEERING DATA

2.2 Construction Data ....... .. .. . .. .. . ... .. . ... 2-1

2.3 Operation Data .. ........................ ~ 2-1

vi

2.4 Evaluation of Data.............................2-1

a. Availabilityb. AdequacyC. Validity

SECTION 3: VISUAL INSPECTION

31Findings................................ 3-1

a. Generalb. DamC. Appurtenant Structuresd. Reservoir Areae. Downstream Channel

3.2 Evaluation ...................................... 3-2

SECTION 4: OPERATIONAL AND MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES

%4.1 Operational Procedures .......................... 4-1

a. Generalb. Description of Any Warning System

In Effect

4.2 Maintenance Procedures ...................... 4-

a. General Vb. Operating Facilities .

4.3 Evaluation.................................. 4-1

SECTION 5: EVALUATION OF HYDRAULIC/HYDROLOGICFEATURES

rn5.1 General................................... 5-1

5.2 Design Data ..................................... 5-1

5.3 Experience Data............................. 5-1

5.4 Test Flood Analysi s .......................... 5-1

5.5 Dam Failure Anal s ............... 5-1

SECTION 6: EVALUATION OF STRUCTURAL STABILITY6.1 Visual Observations ............................. 6-1

6.2 Design and Constructions ............. 6-1

6.3 Post Construction Data.................... 6-1

6.4 Seismic Stability............................ 6-1

vii -

NW7

SECTION 7: ASSESSMENT, RECOMMENDATIONS & REMEDIAL MEASURES

7.1 Dam Assessment.................................. 7-1

a. Conditionb. Adequacy of InformationC. Urgency

____ ____ ____ _ 7-7.2 Recommendations ......................... 7-

7.3 Remedial Measures....................... 7-2

a. Operation and Maintenance Procedures

7.4 Alternatives................................ 7-2

7 APPENDICES

Page

APPENDIX A: INSPECTION CHECKLIST A-i to A-5

APPENDIX B: ENGINEERING DATA AND CORRESPONDENCE

Dam Plan, Profile and Sections Sheet B-1List of Existing Plans B-1Summary of Data and Correspondence B-2

U Data and Correspondence

APPENDIX C: DETAIL PHOTOGRAPHS

Photograph Location Plan Sheet C-iPhotographs C-1 to C-5

APPENDIX D: HYDRAULIC/HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS

Drainage Area Map Sheet D-1Computations D-1 to D-22Preliminary Guidance for EstimatingMaximum Probable Discharges i to viii

APPENDIX E: INFORMATION AS CONTAINED IN THE E-1NATIONAL INVENTORY OF DAMS

viii

iIt-V U.-7;

LLIU

zi

In

4 4

0

'4,C- 0-

*~ DoSSr

0 0I

* SI ~ o 2E

0. 0 0

CL WE

0 L

IIL

4 0.

*.. .LX

*.*- * KaoA.. /n

.1*1

~~Ab

w -wz ~

PHASE I INSPECTION REPORT

TULLER RESERVOIR DAM4

SECTION I - PROJECT INFORMATION

*.* 1.1 GENERAL

.4a. Auhrt - Public Law 92-367, August 8, 1972, authorizedthe Secretary of the Army, through the Corps of Engineers, toinitiate a National Program of Dam Inspection throughout the UnitedStates. The New England Division of the Corps of Engineers has beenassigned the responsibility of supervising the inspection of damswithin the New England Region. Cahn Engineers, Inc. has been

* retained by the New England Division to inspect and report onselected dams in the State of Connecticut. Authorization andnotice to proceed were issued to Cahn Engineers, Inc. under a

~ letter of April 14, 1980 from William E. Hodgson, Jr., Colonel,.4Corps of Engineers. Contract No. DACW 33-80-C-0052 has been~ * assigned by the Corps of Engineers for this work.

b. Purpose of Inspection Program - The purposes of the program- ~ are to:

~. *1. Perform technical inspection and evaluation of non-federaldams to identify conditions requiring correction in atimely manner by non-federal interests.

2. Encourage and prepare the States to quickly initiateeffective dam inspection programs for non-federal dam.

'3. To update, verify and complete the National Inventory ofDams.

c. Scope of Iseton Program -The scope of this Phase Iinspection report includes:

.~..1. Gathering, reviewing and presenting all available data ascan be obtained from the owners, previous owners, the state

and other associated parties.

S2. A field inspection of the facility detailing the visualcondition of the dam, embankments and appurtenantstructures.

3. Computations concerning the hydraulics and hydrology of thefacility and its relationship to the calculated flood

~ through the existing spillway.

4. An assessment of the condition of the facility and cor-rective measures required.

It should be noted that this report passes judgement only onthose factors of safety and stability which can be determined by avisual surface examination. The inspection is to identify thosevisually apparent features of the dam which evidence the need forcorrectIve action and/or further study and investigation.

AAL -i

1DESCRIPTION OFPROJECT

Rive Location - The dam is located on Hop Brook (ConnecticutjRvrBasin) in a rural area of the Town of Simsbury, County of

*Hartford, State of Connecticut. The dam is shown on ToiarrifvilleUSGS Quadranqle Map having coordinates latitude N41 53.0' and

.~. .. :longitude W72u52.1'.

b. Description of Dam and Appurtenances - As shown on Sheet B-- 1, the dam is an earth embankment which is 45.5 in height and has a

total length'of 240 feet, including a 30 foot section at the leftend which is less than 10 feet in height. There is a concrete linedspillway at the right end of the dam. This spillway length is notincluded in the total length of dam given above. All elevations arebased on an assumed datum (spillway crest = 100.0) and are notN.G.V.D. elevations.

-. The dam is probably founded on rock and is 7 to 8 feet inwidth at the top, which at elevation 103.8, is 3.8 feet above thespillway crest. Low eroded areas, caused by a footpath extendingthe length of the dam, make the top of the embankment quiteirregular. A concrete wall is exposed at the right end of the damand extends from the left spillway training wall to the gatehouse,flush with the top of the embankment (See Sheet B-1, Photos 2 and7).

The upstream slope is inclined at 2.5+ (horizontal) to 1(vertical) and is entirely stabilized with grasses and weeds aboveelevation 102.0. Below this elevation there is hand-laid riprapextending the length of the dam. The downstream slope is alsocovered with grasses and weeds with some small saplings. There is a7-8 foot wide berm approximately halfway up the slope and extendingthe length of the dam. This berm runs on a slight downward slantfrom elevation 91+ at the spillway wall to elevation 84+ at the leftend (See Sheet B-1). The downstream slope is iniclined at 2horizontal to 1 vertical above the berm and 3 horizontal to Ivertical below the berm. There is a gravel service road which runsalong the left abutment of the dam to the shore of the reservoir.

The spillway consists of a 160 foot long concrete lineddischarge channel which runs along the right abutment with a con-crete weir at the upstream end. The weir has a trapezoidal cross-section (2' wide at the crest and 4 feet wide at the base), a crestelevation of 100.0 and is 18 feet in length. A concrete trainingwall extends the length of the left side of the discharge channeland is 5 feet above the weir crest and 6-9 feet above the channel.The entire spillway is founded on bedrock, which also forms theleft spillway wall (See Sheet B-1, Photos 5,6,7 and overview).

The gatehouse is a 14 foot square structure with a concrete. *' foundation and a brick superstructure, and is located at the

central portion of the embankment. As reported by the owner, thelow-level outlet is an 18 inch cast iron pipe exten~ding through theembankment from the upstream slope. This pipe outlets to a smallpool at the toe of the dam (invert el. 58.3) at the end of the

1-2

41 y 7 Iwv ~~v N le - - *'W J~ 7\d . .~ . r .

spillway discharge channel (See Sheet B-i) There are 3 otherinlet pipes (valves located in the chamber in the gatehouse) which.1 extend from the gatehouse to the upstream slope. These inlets aresituated so that there are two pipes (one at the right and left side

-: of gatehouse) approximately 22 feet below the spillway crest and~* -. one pipe 6 feet below spillway crest. The two lower pipes are

reported to be approximately 16 inches in diameter and the upperpipe 6 inches in diameter. All three pipes inlet to a chamber inthe gatehouse foundation which can be drained through the low-leveloutlet. An abandoned 12 inch supply line to the filter plant isclosed at the gatehouse with a section removed just before thefilterplant.

The inlet structure is of concrete construction and unknowndimensions, located on the upstream slope. This structure has

* grates and is used only for the lower 16 inch inlet pipes. The 6inch upper level pipe and low-level outlet have separate inletstructures of unknown construction.

c. Size Classification - INTERMEDIATE - The dam impounds 175acre-feet of water withthe reservoir level at the top of the dam,which at elevation 103.8, is 45.5 feet above the streambed of Hop

-. Brook. According to Recommended Guidelines, a dam with this heightis classified as intermediate in size.

d. Hazard Classification - SIGNIFICANT - If the dam were1 breached, there is potential for loss of less than a few lives at

three houses, located 3300+ feet downstream. These houses could beflooded by up to 1.5+ feet of water and are located as follows:

-1 house on Hop Brook south of Route 309 (opposite

Hedgehog Lane) with first floor 11.5 feet above stream-bed.

-Two (2) houses located at southeast corner of Route 309and Hedghog Lane.

e. Ownership - Village Water CompanyBox 186

- Simsbury, Conn.Mr.* Wentworth Hamilton (Superintendent)(203) 658-6707

f. Operator -Mr. Gerald BonadiesVillage Water Company

'4. *.(203) 658-6707

1-3

P!'

977%.7-

g. Purpose of Dam - The dam was constructed in the late 1920'sto provide municipal water service to the Town of Simsbury. At thepresent time however the reservoir and its water treatment facili-ties are abandoned as a public water supply source.

h. Design and Construction History - The dam was constructedin the late 1920's. Plans for the dam construction could not befound although the owner reports that the name associated with thefilter plant is "Singleton". In 1955, a portion of the spillwaywashed out and was replaced by the Village Water Company.

i. Normal Operational Procedures - The reservoir is no longerused for water supply, and has not been since 1970. At that time,

-. **: the Village Water Company changed to groundwater wells for itsmunicipal water supply.

.. At the present time, the upper level six (6) inch inletpipe is open and provides the entire flow observed at the outletpipe. The two lower inlet pipes are closed. When major storms(such as hurricanes) are anticipated, the low-level (18 inch) pipeis also opened.

The dam site is inspected daily by water company personnel.On occasion, when unauthorized recreational activity becomes tooactive or vandalism acute, the lower or mid-level valves are openedand the lake lowered 8-10 ft. to discourage trespassing.

* A pipe which at one time conveyed water from the reservoir. to the treatment works below the dam, has been terminated, and is no

*., . longer operational.

1.3 PERTINENT DATA

- a. Drainage Area - 0.73 square miles of sparsely developed,rolling, wooded terrain in the Connecticut River Basin.

b. Discharge at Damsite - Normal discharge is over the spill-way and through the low-level outlet pipe. Elevations listed are

"" based on an assumed datum, spillway crest = 100.0.

1. Outlet works (conduits):

18 inch cast iron low-leveloutlet at downstream invertel. 58.3: 60 cfs

2. Maximum flood at damsite: Unknown

3. Ungated spillway capacity@ top of dam el. 103.8: 415 cfs

u 4. Ungated spillway capacity@ test flood el. 105.2: 670 cfs.

1-4

"' ,5. Gated spillway capacity@ normal pool el.: N/A

6. Gated spillway capacity @test flood el.: N/A

7. Total spillway capacity @test flood el. 105.2: 670 cfs

i 8. Total project discharge @top of dam el. 103.8: 475 cfs.

9. Total project discharge @test flood el. 105.2: 1630 cfs

c. Elevations - (Elevations are not NGVD. Elevations based77 on an assumed datum; spillway crest = 100.0).

1. Streambed at toe of dam: 58.3

2. Bottom of cutoff: N/A

. 3. Maximum tailwater: Unknown

4. Normal pool: 100.0

5. Full flood control pool: N/A

. 6. Spillway crest (ungated): 100.00

".1" ' 7. Design surcharge (original

~ "design): Unknown

8. Top of dam: 103.8

9. Test flood surcharge: 105.2

d. Reservoir (Length in feet)

e 1. Normal pool: 2,300 ft.

Z. 2. Flood control pool N/A

: & 3. Spillway crest pool 2,300 ft

4. Top of dam: 2,400 ft.

* 5. Test flood pool: 2,500 ft.

e. Storage (Acre-feet)

" L~ 1. Normal pool: 134 acre-ft.

.1 .- 5:' .i

Is I-5

a

.4-F

2. Flood control pool: N/AI3. Spillway crest pool: 134 acre-ft.

4. Top of dam: 175 acre-ft.

5. Test flood pool: 190 acre-ft.

f. RsrorSurface (Acres)

1 1. Normal pool: 10 acres

. .2. Flood control pool: N/A

3. Spillway crest pool: 10 acres

4. Top of dam: 12 acres

5. Test flood pool: 12 acres

g. Dam

1. Type: Earth embankment

2. Length: 240 ft.

3. Height: 45.5 ft.

4. Top width: 7-8 ft.

5. Side slopes: 2.5H to lV Upstream2H to lV Downstream (above 2berm)3H to lV Downstream (below

berm)

*\.-.;6. Zoning: N/AI7. Impervious core: Unknown

8. Cutoff: N/A

9. Grout curtain: N/A

10. Other: Berm along d/s slope

h. Diversion and Regulating Tunnel - N/A

-. 1. Spillway .

1. Type: Ungated concrete linedchannel with concretebroad-crested trapezoidalwei r

1-6.

2. Length of weir: 18 ft.

3. Crest elevation: 100.0

4. Gates: N/A

5. Uptream channel: gravel, rock, gently sloping

6Downstream channel: concrete lined dischargechanel aongright abutment

7. Geeral Spilwaycut into bedrock,concrete left trainingwall, rock ledge alongright side.

cstj. Regulating Outlets - (The only outlet is an 18 inchcatiron low-level outlet pipe).

1. Invert: 58.3 (d/s)

2. Size: 18"

3. Description: Cast iron V

4. Control Mechanism: Hand operated floor standat gatehouse.

5. Other: 3 inlet pipes valved in gate-house. Two 16 inch lowerlevel pipes at 22 feetbelow spillwvay crest. one6 inch pipe at 6 feetbelow spillway crest.

1-7

SETO :ENGINEERING DATApln shwgte

Th available drawings consist of a set ofplnshwgtewater treatment facility at the toe of the dam. These include thelocation of the gate house and abandoned supply line and areavailable at the Village Water Company. No engineering values,assumptions, test results or calculations are available for the

original design of the dam.

2.2 CONSTRUCTION

2.3 r OEAiON ]odt vial o h riia osrcino hdam or subsequent repairs to the spillway after a flood in 1955.

The dam and reservoir are presently abandoned as a water supplyfacility and therefore, no formal operation data exists. Personnelfrom the Village Water Company visit the dam daily to make a visualinspection and patrol the grounds. Lake level readings are notformally recorded, but are visually noted during the daily visits.

2.4 EVALUATION

a. Availability - Existing data was provided by the State ofConnecticu-tand verbally by Mr. Wentworth Hamilton, Superintendent,'the Village Water Company. Mr. Hamilton made the project availablefor visual inspection.

b. Adequacy - The limited amount of engineering data availableis inadequate to perform an in-depth assessment of the dam, there-fore, the assessment of this dam must be based on visual inspec-tion, hydraulic computations, hydrologic judgements and informationprovided verbally by water company personnel.

C. Validity - A comparison of the available information andvisual observations reveals no observable significant discrepanciesin the record data.

2-1

to

SECTION 3: VISUAL INSPECTION

3.1 FINDINGS

I a. General - The condition of the dam is poor, based on thevisual inspection performed on May 9, 1980. The inspectionrevealed items requiring various levels of maintenance, monitoringand repair. The reservoir was at elevation 100.2 with a smallamount of water flowing over the spillway.

b. Dam

Top of Dam - The top of the damn is irregular and appearsto be in poor condition. Several areas are eroded from a footpathwhich traverses its length (Photo 2). Erosion of the crest andupstream slope has revealed what appears to be a concrete cut-offwall at the right end of the dam (Photo 7). This wall is visiblefrom the spillway to the gatehouse, and is flush with the top of thedam in this area. The top of the dam is vegetated with grasses and

* weeds (Photo 2). The rear of the gatehouse is located on the top of* the dam. A shallow depression was observed in the vicinity of the

gatehouse at the downstream side of the top of the dam (Photo 2).

J Upstream Slope - The upstream slope of the darn is in fair.4 .'condition. The hand-laid riprap protection is in good condition,however, weeds and small shrubs are growing between the stones. Alarge area of erosion was noted at the right end of the dam near the

bconcrete spillway training wail. There is no slope protection inthis area (Photo 7). The existing slope protection is weeds andgrasses with some small trees in several areas (Photos 1 and 2).

Downstream Slope - The downstream slope is somewhatirregular and is overgrown with weeds, brush and saplings. In thearea just below the gatehouse, there is some slight sloughing. Awet area exists at the right side of the slope at the berm. This isprobably caused by runoff being caught in tire tracks on the berm.

-4 .. A seep with a flow of 15+ gpm was noted at the toe of the embankmentnear the low-level outlet (See Sheet B-1) . There is some erosion ofthe slope in the area of the seep (Photo 10). Water emanating fromthis seep was clear at the time of the inspection. Erosion of theleft end of the slope is occurring due to a foot path up the slopein this area (Photo 4). Erosion from runoff is also occurring alongthe service road at the left abutment (Photo 4).

* Spillway - The concrete weir has a large crack in theright end with horizontal movement of about 3 inches (Photo 5).

- ~ There is also severe spalling and deterioration of the concretewith several pieces having cracked and fallen off. The concretetraining wall at the left side of the spillway is damaged with someareas having exposed aggregate and reinforcement bars (Photo 7,Photo 8, Photo 9). The discharge channel has several areas where

~ I. ~ the lining is eroded, the largest of which appears in Photo 6. Thebedrock forming the right spillway wall is visible in Photo 6 and 7.

3-1

c. Appurtenant Structures - The gatehouse features a concretefoundation and brick superstructure. The brick appears to be ingood condition with no visible cracks. The gate house is presentlyboarded up for protection from recent vandalism and could not beS inspected inside. The concrete foundation has severe erosion ofthe concrete (with exposed reinforcing bars) visible at the

* " waterline. Erosion in this area measured approximately 1.5 feet inwidth, 6 inches deep and extended completely around the foundation.

The outlet structure is a concrete headwall at the down-Cstream end of the left spillway training wall (See Sheet B-l, Photo

9).

d. Reservoir Area - The area surrounding the reservoir issteep-sided, wooded and undeveloped.

e. Downstream Channel - The downstream channel runs in thenatural bed of Hop Brook. It flows through undeveloped wooded areato Route 309 and the initial impact area.

3.2 EVALUATION

Based upon the visual inspection, this dam is assessed as beingin poor condition. The following features which could influencethe future condition and/or stability of the dam were identified.

1. Erosion, spalling and cracks in the concrete at the gate-house, spillway training wall, and downstream face of theweir will lead to further instability of these structures.

2. Seepage at the toe of the embankment could result in daminstability if material is carried from the embankment.

3. The growth of brush and small trees could, if unchecked,result in root penetration and weakening of the dam byuprooting or providing seepage paths through the embank-ment.

4. The gatehouse entrance should be more accessible for"- emergency operation of valves.

" 5. Continued erosion of the cover material along the footpaths at the top of the dam, upstream slope, downstreamslope, and along the service road at the left end of the damcould lead to instability should the dam be overtopped.

-°

3-2

Zi

SECTION 4: OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES IS 4.1 REGULATING PROCEDURES

a. General - No formal operation procedure exists although

water company personnel visit the site daily to inspect the dam andgrounds. The high-level inlet valve is left open and maintainsflow through the dam. The mid-level inlets are opened when, on

b. Description of any Warning System in Effect -No formalwarning system is in effect.

- -4.2 MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES

a. General - There is no formal maintenance program. However,brush is cut and debris removed from spillway on an as needed basis,and the dam is patrolled daily during the week.

b. Operating Facilities - No formal program for maintenance ofoperating facilities is in effect. However, the owner reports thatgreasing of the valves is performed as needed.

4.3 EVALUATION

A formal program of operation and maintenance procedures shouldbe implemented, including documentation of lake levels for futurereference. Also, a formal warning system should be developedwithin the time frame indicated in Section 7.1(c). Remedialoperation and maintenance recommendations are presented in Section7.

4-

SECTION 5: EVALUATION OF HYDRAULIC/HYDROLOGIC

5.1 GENERAL

The watershed is 0.73 sq. miles of rolling and wooded terrain,of which a significant portion is undeveloped. The TullerReservoir Dam is basically a low spillage - high storage typeproject located on Hop Brook in the Connecticut River Basin. Themaximum impoundment to the top of dam (El. 103.8) is estimated to be175 Ac. Ft. The dam is classified as Intermediate in size and hasa hazard classification of Significant.

The elevations used for the computations in Appendix D areN.G.V.D. so as to facilitate downstream flood routing computations.All elevations in this section have been converted to the assumeddatum elevation to maintain unity in the text of this report. The

* assumed datum is based on the spillway crest = 100.0.

5.2 DESIGN DATA

No hydraulic/hydrologic design data or computations are avail-able for this dam.

5.3 EXPERIENCE DATA

No information on any serious problem situations arising at thedam or downstream reaches of the dam was found although there wassome repair to the spillway after the 1955 flood. The maximum

* -- previous discharge at this dam is unknown and it is reported thatthe dam had not been overtopped during the 1955 flood.

5.4 TEST FLOOD ANALYSIS

Based upon the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers "Preliminary

Guidance For Estimating Maximum Probable Discharges" dated March,1978; the watershed classification (rolling) and the drainage areaof 0.73 square miles, a PMF of 1950 cfs or 2400 cfs per square mileis estimated at the damsite. The dam is classified as a significanthazard, intermediate size dam. Therefore, the test flood is in theProbable Maximum Flood (h PMF) to the full PMF range. Based on

the degree of economic loss and potential for loss of life, the testflood for Tuller Reservoir Dam is selected as eqivalent to the PMF.The peak inflow is estimated at 1750 cfs and the peak outflow is1630 cfs with the maximum stage in the reservoir at elevation105.2, or 1.4 feet over the top of the dam. The spillway capacityis estimated to be 415 cfs with the pool to top of dam, which is 25%of the routed test flood outflow.

5.5 DAM FAILURE ANALYSIS

Utilizing the Corps of Engineers April 1978 "Rule of ThumbGuidance for Estimating Downstream Dam Failure Hydrographs", thepeak failure outflow due to a breach of the dam is estimated to be25,200 cfs with an estimated flood depth of 20 ft. immediatelydownstream of the dam. The prefailure flow in the stream is

." .' estimated to be 475 cfs.

-. 5-1= -S

* The estimated peak flow rates and peak flood depth at threecritical sections downstream of the dam resulting from a damfailure are:

*Section Flow Flood Depth Velocity

(Ft. D/S of Dam) (CFS) (Ft.) (FPS)I

At Dam 26,200 20

*2500 13,900 10 83300 11,250133

4250 8,200 8.5 9

!P: A flood of this magnitude could wash out the culverton Rt. 309 and flood one house located 11.5 feet above Hop Brook(south of Rt. 309 and opposite of Hedgehog Lane) with 1.5+ Ft.of water. The water in the stream in this area is expected torise from a depth of 3.4 feet just before the breach to a depth 9

of 13.0 feet just after the breach, a raise in flood stage of8.7 feet. In addition, two culverts downstream are expectedto be impacted by this flood. However, if the culvert on Rt.309 remains intact, then flood waters will follow Rt. 309, therebyimpacting at least two houses, located at the corner of Hedgehog

~1Lane and Rt. 309 with 1+ ft. of water. The culvert on West MountainRoad would also be impacted (Sheet D-1, Appendix D-19 & 20).

Based on the hydraulic/hydrologic analysis and the potential* .~ for loss of less than a few lives at failure, the dam has a signi-

ficant hazard classification.

I-p

LA

5-2

* --. -- 7 7- 7777 -J. V6.-. - 5.~' '.~,*7. ~ -

Li

SECTION 6: EVALUATION OF STRUCTURAL STABILITY

6.1 VISUAL OBSERVATIONS

The dam is an earth embankment with a slope inclination of 2horizontal to 1 vertical upstream and a berm along the center of thedownstream slope. Above the berm the slope is 2 horizontal to 1

Y. vertical and below the berm it is 3 horizontal to 1 vertical. Theexistance of a corewall is unknown, although the top of a 2 footwide concrete wall is visable on the top of the dam from the left

*spillway training wall to the gatehouse. The upstream slope hasriprap protection to 2.0 feet below the top of the dam and has agrass cover on the remainder of the embankment. No evidence of toe

- drains, piezometers or other seepage control and monitoring deviceswere found at the dam.

The visual inspection revealed a depression area on the top ofthe dam with some slight sloughing of the slope just below thisarea. A seep of 15± gpm exists at the toe of the embankment(seepage is clear) near the low-level outlet. There are also areasof erosion along the top of dam and deterioration of the concretestructures as described in Section 3. Recommendations are made inSection 7 for the above mentioned items and other items described

* in Section 3.

6.2 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION DATA

* There is not enough design and construction data available toU permit an in-depth assessment of the structural stability of the

dam.

6.3 POST CONSTRUCTION CHANGES

The only post construction changes are the repairs to thespillway after the 1955 flood. No plans are available for these

* changes.

6.4 SEISMIC STABILITY

* The dam is in Seismic Zone 1 and according to the Recommended* Guidelines, need not be evaluated for seismic stability.

6-

a.%

SECTION 7: ASSESSMENT, RECOMMENDATIONS AND REMEDIAL MEASURES

7.1 DAM ASSESSMENT

a. Condition - Based upon the visual inspection of the siteand past performiance, the dam is judged to be in poor condition.There are items which require repair, maintenance and monitoring.These include concrete repair, regrading slopes, removal of brushand seepage monitoring.

Based upon "Preliminary Guidance for Estimating maximumProbable Discharge" dated March, 1978 and hydraulic/hydrologiccomputations, peak inflow to the reservoir is 1750 cubic feet persecond; peak outflow is 1630 cubic feet per second with the damovertopped 1.4 feet. . The spillway capacity to the top of the dam(El. 103.8) is 415 cfs, which is equivalent to approximately 25% ofthe routed test flood outflow.

b. Adequacy of Information - The information available is such.~-x *~.that an assessment of the condition and stability of the dam must be

based solely on visual inspection, history of the dam, and soundengineering j udgement.

* c. Urgency - It is recommended that the measures presented inSection 7.2 and 7.3 be implemented within 1 year of the owner's

- receipt of this report.

1 7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

N.:. It is recommended that further investigation be made by aregistered professional engineer qualified in dam design andinspection pertaining to the following items. Recommendationsshould be made by the engineer and implemented by the owner.

1. A detailed hydraulic/hydrologic analysis to determine theadequacy of the project discharge and the overtoppingpotential.

2. Inspection of gate valve facilities at the gatehouse and 18inch low level outlet pipe. This examination should checkto see that the valves can be seated properly, that thereis no seepage into the outlet pipe from the embankment, andevaluate the condition of the gate house chamber.

3. Evaluation of the depression area on the top of the em-bankment and possible sloughing of the downstream slope inthe area just below the gate house.

4. Origin and significance of seepage at the toe of theembankment near the low-level outlet. A monitoring programto evaluate variations of flow in this seep during varying

* reservoir levels should be developed and implemented. Theerosion of the slope at this seep should be evaluated as

'4 well.

7-1

./ ~S. The origin and significance of the wet and soft area at theright portion of the berm on the downstream slope should beinvestigated.a6. Development of a program for rehabilitation of damaged

~. :~concrete at the spillway weir, spillway training wall and~. ~*.gatehouse foundation.

7. Regrade the top of the dam and fill the area of erosion atthe right end of the embankment near the spillway andvisible concrete wall. Proper slope protection should be

* 7.3 REMEDIAL MEASURES

a. Operation and Maintenance Procedures - The followingmeasures should be undertaken within the time period indicated in

.~ ~CSection 7.1c, and continued on a regular basis.

~..*. ~1. A formal program of operation and maintenance proceduresshould be instituted and fully documented to provideaccurate records for future reference. A program formonthly inspection by the owner or owner representativeshould be developed and include proper documentation.

2. A comprehensive program of inspection by a registeredprofessional engineer qualified in dam design and in-

U spection should be instituted on a biennial basis.

.~3. The owner should develop and implement a formal emergency.. action plan and a downstream warning system, so in the

event of emergencies at the dam, evacuation may be im-plemented in a prompt and organized manner.

4. Erosion on the downstream slope (foot path) and the serviceroad at the left abutment should be regraded and proper

* slope protection place.

5. The seepage on the downstream slope should be monitored inaccordance with the program recommended in Section 7.2.4.

6. Brush and small trees on the slopes should be removed.

7. The gatehouse should be restored to an accessible con-dition, but resistant to repeated vandalism.

-7.4 ALTERNATIVES

One alternative to the above recommendations is to drain thereservoir and remove the dam.

7-2

.-.. .-... .- ' -0

*- 0 .

*-!Q--,

I;

-,o

.%'

i:

'., .0

V

VISUAL INSPECTION CHECK LIST

PARTY ORGANIZATION

PROJECT -7,] 'r Rn.€ -vo r 1¢n v DATE: 14 a. , /9 8

TIME: 9:c'QAAI-/A.'A0, o4'

WEATHER: _Jr 7o°F

W.S. ELEV. /010 _ __ U.S.

____________U.S.

PARTY: INITIALS: DISCIPLINE:

1. Pcitr as k~n,1 'j _________ cnikA.b :-2. :.7::; A ____4c___/_oe_

- e' x . PorI kie)ur'4 (1 AM______ _ -7t

6. (Oik-o kdeW24 (Mm-j 7'kre-iA.

.-. :..3 Vua, ) '. Hl TC -l/-doo

Q6. ,. ( ,Ar- suj . .

i PROJECT FEATURE INSPECTED BY REMARKS

1. Fkrrmr, ?MAIT4KJ--TK A-2

PU4 M4 TZ A -3

4. 6~akeAotc PM4. ,R

6.,..8.

10.

12.

I;o

.1*5

PERIODIC INSPECTION CHECK LIST"". Page,,-

PROJECT 7LIA'r kcs - j~ DATE_ 1

PROJECT FEATURE k ,,,e yn BY_,..T

AREA EVALUATED CONDITION

DAM EMBANKMENT

Crest Elevation /k38

Current Pool Elevation

Maximum Impoundment to Date

Surface Cracks

" Pavement Condition

Movement or Settlement of Crest

lateral Movment

Vertical Alignment Appars

Horizontal Alignment

-4 ' -/' Condition at Abutment and at Concrete . e(oIC c"

Structures .1,P./jW4L Yraln1'i WO//

SIndications of Movement of Structural yo/ e obser%,CdItems on Slopes

Trespassing on Slopes

Sloughing or Erosion of Slopes or s'.'~' 0 o,,,,o'I1 , s% h'

IAbutments e

Rock Slope Protection-Riprap Failures

Unusual Movement or Cracking at or Io nf.Near Toes

Unusual Embankment or DownstreamSeepage

0-06 Piping or Boils

Foundation Drainage Features M/ove. ob,srvc

,.0. Toe Drains

Instrumentation System

.- -,t- ".t t. -. , -, , . - . *,- . ..

- -.. " ': ,,.: , , . - . . . ,-, , .. ,' ..". . , -... . ..-. , ..• ,., ,,, , ,..>,'-,'- "* '

PERIODIC INSPECTION CHECK LIST%"." PageA-

* PROJECT FE~JATRy PROJECT FEATURE ., -/GBY P4kj]-.

4

4,. "--.. . . - '" . . = -' c N

. AREA EVALUATED CONDITION

qmXJLET WORKS-SPILLEAY WEIR, PROCAND DISCHARGE CHANNELS

a) Approach Channel

General Condition Go

Loose Rock Overhanging Channel t cb5,e ej

Trees Overhanging Channel

. .-. Floor of Approach Channel 3and, 9 ra 'C/, bcdrock- 2 ood

.4 Ib) Weir and Training Walls. y /rc~1 de~~d~~

, -~ General Condition of Concrete

I Rust or Staining NO ne-

,': .. " 3ea - r,,, -PiI1Spalling w~ 'd*r'~~~f

Any Visible Reinforcing

Any Seepage or Efflorescence

Drain Holes A/One.

* *' c) Discharge Channel

General Condition P iodl

Loose Rock Overhanging Channel jo- a e.'C,

*[ Trees Overhanging Channel

Floor of Channel

Other Obstructions 1O0 v~srv'd

h AS

* . 4', ". ' -. - . .. . - -. , ...-. ., '4 . . . . . . . . . * .~~~~~~~~~~~. . . .. . . . . . . ......... "- " - ... . -. , .. ".. .. ".'....4 4*4

PERIODIC INSPECTION CHECK LIST:4 Page -

PROJECT j CTrJJ Sn.. .,oC,,, d .. ,

PROJECT FEATURE_j Lt.t. .. BY ?Ai4 4rA

.. AREA EVALUATED CONDITION

OUT LET WORKS-OUTLET STRUCUPE ANDOUTLET CHANNEL

iGeneral Condition of Concrete Foor,

Rust or Staining A/,

Spalling J s -ou*)e+ py-

Erosion or Cavitation

*".. I Visible Reinforcing

Any Seepage or Efflorescence

Condition at Joints"-,

" Drain Holes

Channel "er

Loose Rock or Trees Overhanging ,S

Condition of Discharge Channel Poor- dDr"- /sc ,,

°4-I

.* US.

,= ..

"I' ..

'I.:,

I 5,.

PERIODIC INSPECTION CHECK LIST

|ROJ.TTL'/e ....... Q~k )Up. No ...i ' -.

k PROJECT PEATURE , __ _____ iy .

" AREA EVALUATED CONDITION

OUTPLET WORKS-CONTJOL TOWER

a) Concrete and Structural

General Condition r

Condition of Joints

Spalling 4

Visible Reinforcing

Rusting or Staining of Concrete "

', .', Any Seepage or Efflorescence

Joint Alignment

Unusual Seepage or Leaks in Gate /oneC)f O VedChamber

Cracks 0 M -

"Rusting or Corrosion of Steel

b) Mechanical and ElectricalAir Vents

_ ' Float Wells

crane Hoistii. -+.. o + ,

Elevator hoHydraulic System

Service Gates

Emergency Gates

Lightning Protection System

Emergency Power System

Wiring and Lighting Systm

PS I "",,-•.: . , .., o .,, .. .':. r. .-,"','-'-" ,:, ." .:..,,! ,.,. 'L.... . -. .-. -. . . .. . .

1J.

I-p

I

I;

APPENDIX B

- ENGINEERING DATA A~ID CORRESPONDENCE

'.Jw\I. ~

b

I

'I

-

.p

Li

LI-. * * s~ *..~%j~.: 4 %. .~ .~ .* -

TULLER RESERVOIR DAM

5 NEXISTING PLANS

None Available.

,bM

- sV

2..

".% ..

, "4

a;.: ~-

',.a ,,'. V .",',,'' .. ''ie; ,'". . , .,, ' , '..': -,,- .-....-.,. .,..i. .-..-o. .-., .- -•" " ".,.''''"

-: -s . .. . - b - . - -. - . . - - . ~-.

* 4

5,. -.5

5,

5,. *.?

SUMMARY OF DATA AND CORRESPONDENCE

**Js~~ '.,.

~ *~: No information is available.*5~~

i-i

55

~.' ,.'

S.'...

.. 5***

~s

*55

-S

.p.

r..

5**..* 5~

J55

~'-S

J.

.J.%~

5-. *±4 *~

S.'.. ~

B-2

~'1

'S

S., ..J*.4-

~ -,, APPENDIX C

DETAIL PHOTOGRAPUS

.~ S.4 -

U-'pS...

*5~

~ S.~S.. -

P

*%' *'%*~%.* ?.,~

S.SW S.

*4*

t '~

-~;4*

'p.

*,%'%' ~ ~ ........ S*'p S. -- *~ * S % % * **.~**.* ~

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

z ~TI~ o(J, .,.

jI-'-)0LaJ

c4

Va.

'I.

I -

w.

hi I 2- -- ~

Ii

I..a

Fl

I Ii I3;

*-. IT.

.3:

44

4-4-

E 0)

4- 00--447

40c

0 0

*Q 41, 4.)

US ARMY ENGINEER DIV. NEW ENGLAND Tuller Reservoir DamCORPS OF ENGINEERS NATIONAL PROGRApM OIF

WALHA, MSSINSPECTION OF Simsbury, CTCABIN ENGINEERS INC.CE2785K

WALLINGFORD, CONN. NONED DAM 7AEet18PAE C-ENGINEER NONFD.DAS________98 PGE C-

I,. -

• '"

Photo 3 - Downstream slope from right abutment. Berm is

,:- 0

.. barely visable parallel to top of dam along center of

%photo, (May, 1980).

L.* L'

Photo 4 Foot Path on left end of downstream slope anderosion at service road along left abutment, (May, 1980).

US ARMY ENGINEER DIV. NEW ENGLAND NATIONAL Tuller Reservoir DamCORPS GNSAPROGRAM OFWALTHAM , MASS. Hop Brook

, CAHN ENGINEERS INC. INSPECTION OF Simsbur C4 4,; WALLINGFORO, CON. NON- FED. DAMS CE#et 185 C-

,..~~DT EmcnITSept. 1980PA( -C-2

.-. " -. .. .. ; . " . ' ' . . ' -.. ., - ,

-- - - - - -& - - - . . ~ .b- - . -. . .. ~ * .. - *. . .' IM 4.-

S-4Lmi

t* 4

.44.

'~ ~ .~)0 GI

4j .1 -LW

j. 4* 0 0-n

N- 0N5

o.+ 0 S- E

10 00U4J

41) 4J r

. 45) 0'

CJf04) 0.

r- 0

US ARMY ENGINEER DIV. NEW ENGLAND Tuller Reservoir DamCORPS Of EN4GINEERS NATIONAL PROGRAM OFHoBrk

WALTHAM , MASS.HDBroINSPECTION OF Simisbury, CT

CANNENGINEERS INC.CE 2785EENGLINEERN NON- FED. DAMS DAT et.QaAG E C-

".-

°'"

' 'Photo 7-Left spillway training wall and right end of. embankment. Note concrete deterioration of training wall

and visable concrete wall extending along crest from training

ofchnnl,(M,1980).

+'C-, .B4,

• +"'p .

' > Photo 8 - Deterioration of left training wall along spillway'.. ' discharge channel. Ledge In background Is at opposite side

~5 of channel, (May, 1980).

-- tG4IRDV EWEGADNATIONAL PROGRAM OF Tuller Reservoir Dam4 WALTHAM, MAIS,.HD ro

cANN ENGINEERS INC. INSPECTION OF Simsbury, CTWALLISOID, CONN. NON- FED DAMS ce27 785 KE

IeUNON- DTED. DAMS PAGE C-4_ ___ __

-'.e

E 9D

44

.00

0

E) 0

A4 0)4a, 4 -) E~

0. 0-

40'- &-o 06~

o- 0.

US ARMY ENGINEER DIV. NEW ENGLAND NAINA RGA F Tuller Reservoir DamCORPS OF ENGINEERS NAONA BrookM O

WALTMAN, MASS.HoBrk

CAI4 ENINERS NC.INSPECTION OF Simsbury, CTJ WALLINGFORD, COPAN. NNF.DAS CE* 27 78 KE

EwerneNON FED.____ DAMS____I DATE~jj=PAGE jSC

I.W W- V . .77-

EM'~V k',r

L ~ Y' .2: A~7~ RAINAGE AREA0.7 SO.[ i

131

TLALLRRESERVOIR

'I.t

QUPROIARANLEMIS OFF~COLLINDASVLLE 1 ,~/~,wwAE

NE HRTOR 156~,,~ ULEREEVOIR C AM

-o CANN /NItf 'sw' '..jAWAL.MW Coeo4vw~

195

OWERSFIED TECHNOLOGIES CORP CONSULIN ENGW*EESNORTH HAVEN. CONN.

PROECTNON FEDERAL DAM INSPECTION POETN~iD5UETOI

NEW ENGLAND DIVISION COPTDYDAE/..4

TULLER RESERVOIR DAM "ICEB ~E___

-CHECKEDi By ---Qi_0T

r? A T7A 2- Z ion 9R;O ki LD RA if -

A Irc~b C4461 I cA -e tiA' PtiQ

~±~- S-ri. )0/5 LIS.. .9

OF Ioz$o! i f~. cm &

l - jr4j 5 67 4 Icd6

-r' FoR4m'

NAl P. k ?w c E- fin44

"4i A1 -rilv r A OF- irRi F -rl. A fr _

IFL VAl NAD*- 41; ~ vlD_

DIVERSIIED TECHNOLOGIES COR CONSULTING ENGM8

4 NORTH HAVEN, COdNK

PROJECT NON FEDERAL DAM INSPECTION PROJECT No. 80-10 -15 SHEET I- OFi L

NEW ENGLAND DIVISION COMPUTED BY MAOATEL....

I -T---.r- REEVI DAICEKE yDT

Ia ly AID

A- i54. '4 70

7

.14

k oia1 w ::iP1i of

-0 - 7

IA u ccS Fr -rp G6p'~ ra~&±,7eTULL.4R _Z54RA I6R.~ -Z:rlt S S riLICE

-u 4 10Aw ( Io' ArcP < lao") I'- fUriJ

I rr

Sp1

iV 7.1 -17 7i 7<- T_.~p i77

I~~~~ 7 1C4 /ij

r ,f-

*'... 41 4

4~ i L:4~4kL

20~~ 4-'.- ~ I

-J if ,1

I I

07--

*~-U j-. ~ .

is ft.v to t' inch

DMVMSIIED TECHNOLOGIES CORP. CONSULMOJ ENGINEERS

PROJECT NON FEDERAL DAM INSPECTION PROJECTmo NO8OKLO15_91EETJ.tOFA!_-.NEW ENGLAND DIVISION _COMPUTED BY DATE ~,~e

TULLER RESERVOIR DAM - CHECKED BY _ yjrE 4121

TV1ECANT a~s*D oa hIA

kkI 72*4N L4'i A .6 eusi

L-y s~~- 'z7A ~ia P . _xfJ6L

N. 7 0rr51 F4944 rkr- 0 LD -Plip R ri t~ ~

4F N&A _ufI--..

Arvsou.D tp__a T'424i 414 jQPT 3 1 -1 A C -

_____ -- 0"' e r']

*-7-

_5u 9 C dA Ro4 (9

*DIVFED TECHNOLOGIES COW COMMEGNOWNHAVE COO

P~c NON FEDERAL DAM INSPECTION 80-10-15 ETJP.&.

NEW ENGLAND DIVISION C~DY..~LLr3 ~TPLIER RESERVOIR R~M e~cnv.~ D T /I"f

--- I- -T7HSCOM

-i IA V i A

_f)J 14

J- #let 7 CE j -

C 4 Al

11-24-

fin , c 1. clAiI

INI

DIVERSIFIED TECHNOLOGIES COR. CONSULMT ENOERs4l IL NORTH HAVEN. CNN.

PROJECT NON FEDERAL DAM INSPECTION PROJECT NO 80-10-15SHEET.AOF.._NEW ENGLAND DIVISION COMPUTED BY \4Te.- ,'•

TULLER RESERVOIR DAM CHECKED By TE

__, __, j ' ' 'j I " -

If .. 7Lf-.' PP - W V 14 I PI . I s 1,

-,. . . ~ ~ ...- L± ~ ~ Atf A!j I.i', ' ,!.i ¢ c_...

!A.HiD , - '4 K i43 V _-C ...

4- f'. 63 453

"-,.I A ' 0 o 01

4. 0 0 0

11 4"1 3 -1 _ ' . -0- -4A 44 4.3

, 7. ) .. 2' 1 L..644e_ 5 7 1 46 2 42-

24 1 d, 'f

I95i

5 ' 1i, .... ... :. ...... ........... ........................ ...-,t , ...

-,,.

jr..

vz -ti

LA+" 20sut*tnttw

DIVSIFIED TECHNOLOGIES COAP CONSMTING ENOWEUSNORTH HO CONK

POEC NON FEDERAL DAM INSPECTION -C 01 0 -1 5. ' P -+P R O J E C T P R O J E C T ~ O . u -.i t -.j j S H E E T 3_ O M.A L ..

NEW ENGLAND DIVISION cOM JD BY DATt It1i-

STULLER RESERVOIR DAM __Cm_ By WE

,4 , I. , , -., , I -- -.. .. _ , ,-=. . ' IA

-F

,,,,...... .. _*... ._._..... ...... .. .. .: ..... . + .!" I r I

......... +.' I--4- --

F l6rvfS CI~ ~ ~ lv- 5 -rI"Rs i~f0A.v*- aw~~

-pad , , j , s - 6 c i \ k_ R

":.': -" " : + SI-- - i"]. : / --,-.t U !. .... -I . -"-- .. -r - . .. , t,+.: ... ......... ,...... ... . ..., _"* +!- +.....t -- ...... . --. . --- ---.. ...................... ....... -...............

I.~~~ Et Mscm l ~ Ew

, 5 b II

2A2-

7* IFZ ;4 5 3! L?

_. ' ,, ,a . 4, io - ,-. r .5-, . B ' [ I ./b 4 - : ', -

-I . I .

-.. -- -:2 - ' - . 5 ,

"v , .. ....... ....... . . I ' I .2 1 _ _:i " ° i '

+:M' -. ... ...... .. f '' ,. . il -1 1 - -I. ., "I..

S.5 +

S.

.- ,', * -oo - C o" w.r % i . ,-', •' " w wt V -.. r *.. - , " . - -.", . .i . % D l,

OIVSFED TECHNOOGIES CORP CONSULtiM ENGnE0ERsNOT AVEN, COWN

PROJECT NON FEDERAL DAM INSPECTION PROJECT NO.8 0 - 1 0 - 1 5 -_SHEETC OF_;4...

NEW ENGLAND DIVISION COMPUTED BY NDATE 6/ oTULLER RESERVOIR DAM CHECKED by I frodD

Yig- L o" I-' I

_o-f a p..r I c.-. mA

d Q

ft44 I~

ill ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 L) .... _.: C) S.... I?. t..'., 14 5 , I -. . ..

I 1i---- , ._ , . _ . .- .- - ---i . .4___7_ 7

72&,-,L FS

.~ C. ~ ~ ~. ..~. , .L~.

' I :' :' Il L .. .... , i-:-K

, .... , . .,, .. ..' .... i .. .. ... . ', _ i - _ .-\

4t:t

_o a _ --i I _ 44

...... A A iJ i . / . -,," -- . . . . . . . . . .--.. -, ,- i i ',-.-,

.:.:- ,~-A - . .. , . . , :-,

i " : : " .. . . : - -' .,t . -, . ,.,'.

- ' .._.i . ~ l-i II .-

... " . ... ..." . .. .;F -"

'. .I -

, .. .. i .f o..17 77<,' ' i ' 44

OWSIEDTECHNO0LOGIES CORP comsumw ENowamI* NORTH HAVEN. 00m4.

NON FEDERAL DAM INSPECTION 80-10-15PROJEC PROJECT NO. SHEET .. iOui92L.

NEW ENGLAND DIVISION_________AE..L&...________________________COMPUTED BYDT

TULLER RESERVOIR DAM DAT

-~ BgE~L~uCHECKEDb BY

LA. ig AL~ 4.b. g_0t)N 4 f1.F1

Y. _ -j ,0 5: -

1-ialiA.u co~. -1 R& 4iS../ ___ _ ell1h -Mi 4

urn* .aa .7p . I

-~tu~~ CL -to ro

AJ~ FM DAM( 5O O~~, 1A ~'

f Oi t.1sW.)-a IrA-0c ? -A1 &dk

f , -- la c. .I....

'rL' ci4&iL....AiI4'L a

A fe ..

.1. 10* I s

A 17 ;&If1117 -~ II w F M;1I4-. pa .

If * w .10 w;

t ...

DEWEDI TECI4NOLOGES CORPOW COSLTNG EMOMPS

PRJETNON FEDERAL DAM INSPECTION 80-10-15 EJL

______________________ROJECT NO. 1ET O-

NEW ENGLAND DIVISION _CMPUTlED BY__________

UTULLER RESERVOIR DAM CHCEDB DT7 . - -- 7--1--- - - - ~

I

9 Z -

-A 1

-Jh -PIP#A

-7'1,4A4 F41 (

v T'

I- s-- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i~ NJ .. f.....

I - - .. - -e 'I 21

I -

'.2.LJJF-LOD ~ZM k ~iri~~J Ai k~il~ 0-d'T

71~ 1A~A ~cjr %4 ' 7

u--- kLi AT5fC 11 I- 7 _ 14--

5 A&-I7sili6t A G 7

lb P~ f:7 'C44i.A A

[ ~Lk II ui L Jb ! IF5 Hi. o Ift~4' LJi.4ay :i10 -r 14

ij 4 - - - - -

'.4 . U

F I-IN-,T

ii 141 _1 i4

_7 __; TT I t1FJ4_T

t~~~F ..- F ~ii$III~-4 --- tH 4 r IB

11

I~ ~~ ~ V It- ~ t

- 0-

TN *,- i-- i

C4i -1'7 4T-' T I; I_

'44 %a

4-4

N-I 4I rl -0'- 11 1 4

IA 1 II 71#i- r

%il 4-_ W ,--- 1 -%± ;jj~r TF~Fh1.~~ijT~jN I:1vv _ -

.;2~*i~i:LHI~4Ji

I 11 1,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _0

R -- -4 1 . .

- -M

Hi

f 4 . 4-1

IJ;~r

U.T

t F4'LJ! -t~IL* i~rA

0.j tf_

i-i I - Ii I-~ 1$-2~ K~~~

I4 .4Itdlll

o x 1 -1

Id

r! A-..S.

- S.- i r : OJy%~~~.~7 7As.

*S

O I~lFED TECHNOLOGIES CORR CONSULTING E NWWRNORTH iAVEI CONK.

PROJECT NON FEDERAL DAM INSPECTION PROJECT NO. 80-10-15 SHEET JI OF-PI

NEW ENGLAND DIVISION COMPUTED BY DATE bi4 '

- -TULLER RESERVOIR DAM -"CHCKD B.Y.am

41 '96 ^-I A:,I-3. 1 14.-.

Sz II

• " I -/ ! .. . ...

... 0 .--

.34.0 j '1 2 0.2? I I

PCR ,3 Al o. - '-r 42. ... .. ... ... .

10 1 / 4 A I.." " .1 ' i- ' ; -I...-

r P. , ,o r L rt VA 3 470 M

r a, _,cJ 4 - 4 tcF

* III ; ,

I-E0- 0 iti

- I Fi -'_, 1IV : I I i I , I

_',,,.i-. , - . i. .

"" " , ' i4 )3 Fi ft7W 'O! .

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

7W,, - I -

-. ~~4 1TT1T 4T2 11. L I '444i

4-V~ ;L. . 7 ;T : 1 - 1. - I-4.17 i--~ - -7-I4M 1

-- I.- T --

. - -

-.F -1 -- - - *1

-- 1 _1-- T--- - r

- ml

-I It -

H-4 -47-

-~~ -t+444~

1- 14 HI--*

44.

T,,V i 17H-t1 -i1 - r

A+_ 44-L4_ - v1__*____* ~~ ~t *T-.H; C w+ ; z~ ~ & ~ i

.4-4

~ 1-i =

4- +

4-4

4, 4-

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

~1-1---- I

I LI

Of ti1-..............................

'h.~~4 if I~ -Vi.--fj

so ~ L~I j F-1 n 44-4i i4H 4 444+

~~ J_

tL~t 4?~i44L.

I I* I L %* -d .vA. 1 -1..

L. DIV8FE TECHNOLOGIES COjRP, CONSLI EGW*M8

PROJECT NON FFDFRAL DAM INSPECTION PROJECT N. 8 0 K01 5 SNEET Z 7OF-ZYZ.NEW FNCI ANn nTvTqT)N -COMPUTED BY DATE___

TULLER RESEFRVOIR DAM -a.HECM E

-04

V DD

'o -p A-sm , -- ~ ~

va A( F'-'-

0- tj 124 -

41 -j# c4'44g~~(---A.-~ I

-I-r rT

-1 + 4-

4-

1 1

44r

47

I I

'4

LA4

1-4 --

44-+

17 -V I -

I

4-,4 -4-. , ++

L-4 I*~~~~~~

Ti"±7F: 4Li

+Ft-~+ I r-rhI J+I

r t4 1 Titr

IT

_______wji i *+

* ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -* -- - ' - ' -

I -t "

it~fj4 44K 4 -kil

44-

h7-F

77- - I

r. T- 4-1

- 4t

II i t-

L; L I -4---

I i i6 .F i 1 1

T b* 111H 44:4 -f44.1:hrf-LT I -r M T I I%, I-IIII III i I l!

_-T.W J n~

L4L4M- .- Vr-

h.qr - * - .i

." .-

DIVEWSIED TECHNOLOGIES CORP coNsuLT ENGNEERNORTH HAVEN, t0*W

NON FEDERAL DAM INSPECTION pROJECTNo0-0- 1 5 SHEET .QOF&..PROJECT- RJC O SET2 FI

NEW ENGLAND DIVISION COMPUTED AY ,TE______

TULLER RESERVOIR DAM CHECKED BY. .. IDTE J 4/

f r.

0 .Ac *!, D ' ' r c'1 I Ij aj

AA.. . 1 1 - -- - 1

7 K)340 kau !-4 n V 1.*,:'4. . . r

S I, I rII

14 ' A' i ' A''" ~I] -pv-II-Il.I -' : 9 7

I.." k 0 .-1 K 7h: 804-46-Pl .i ..... J-4& 4- .lk_,-". ,.. oo i.*47 O, ,0.1'

I -I! ' ' k ' ,' ' ,, vaI .r I,' '9v,

'C4 FAJ4 A4 C4

.. 1.4-4 Lfj __, F

L-.a' VA ,i A --4--

5 IA A4 A +LkL4P- -

: 7 ._ II , , ---- F1-. -i,-f t--,

I. ~ ~4 ~~c G17I I "L- F,

I ", IIIiI fI• .

11-" "" " " . . .-,", L,, u .' ' ', ;. ,: "-:-,.--r ,,

.IVS, IPED TECHNOLOGIES CORP. CONSULwo ENGINEERSNORTH HAEN. COWN

PROJECT NON FEDERAL DAM INSPECTION PROJECT NO. 8 0 1 0 1 5 SHEET ___OF-12_

NEW ENGLAND DIVISION COMPUTED BY DATE 4,111t,

TULLER RESERVOIR DAM CHECKEDBY T, D_______

A cm I *i I I IPA.4 gr a-I A4? 71J$S'AA

I -FZ Dk11 U

,, I T7 aF ,ijc

- ' - _.-a- -"4,,7Lf~oa ' +z~k

~~k-1

~~~~~~~~k ripFA~ I~~OE 1'1I ~

,w:: . ..... . .... . ......

s uR c o E ,

... I'. .. ; . . , i . . . i+! , -I I I

0ijl _kLo IA-. 7i -0N - -5?~

,r).I4 AI-l. C . ~r

__.'.____.. .. . . .. . " .. . .. . . .. . ... ,. .....

' --. ...: 4 ....... _ .

J Jo

... .. ...i - : . .. *- - - *; *~ l- -i -i-

.A DIVERSIFIED TECHNOLOGIES CORP CONSULING ENGINEERSNORTH HAVEN, CONN.

PROJECT NON FEDERAL DAM INSPECTION PROJECT NO.&801015.SHEET '_ -OFp".a

* NEW FNGI AND DIVISION COMPUTED BY DATE-__

TULI FR RFSERVOIR DAM CHECKED BY DATE ..

SUMMARY- HYDRAULIC/HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS

TEST FLOOD PEAK INFLOW PMF 1750CFS(Parallel computations have been performed for PMFpeak inflow and results are summarized below)

PERFORMANCE AT PEAK FLOOD CONDITIONS: PMF k PMFPEAK INFLOWS CFS 1750 900PEAK OUTFLOWS CFS 1630 785SPILLCAPTO TOP OF DAM (EL.453.8 NGVD) 415 415SPILLCAP. TO TOP OF DAM % OF PEAK OUTFLOW 25 53

SPILLCAP. TO PEAK FLOOD ELEVN. 670 510*- SPILL. CAP. TO PEAK FLOOD ELEVN. % OF PEAK OUTFLOW 40 65

PERFORMANCE:

,. MAXIMUM POOL ELEVATION NGVD 455.24 454.36MAXIMUM SURCHARGE HEIGHT ABOVE SPILL.CREST FT. 5.24 4.36NON-OVERFLOW SECTION OF THE DAM OVERTOPPED FT, 1.44 0.56

DOWNSTREAM FAILURE CONDITIONS:.. PEAK FAILURE OUTFLOW CFS 26,200

FLOOD DEPTH IMMEDIATELY D/S FROM DAM 20 FT

*, *. CONDITIONS AT INITIAL IMPACT AREA, (FOR RT.309 CULVERT

WASHED OUT CONDITION)

ESTIMATED STAGE BEFORE FAILURE WITH 476*CFS 334.3NGVD

, ESTIMATED STAGE AFTER FAILURE WITH REACH OUTFLOW 11250CFS343 NGVD

ESTIMATED RAISE IN STAGE AFTER FAILURE Y'. 8.7±FT

CONDITIONS AT SECONDARY IMPACT AREA:4%. SEE FAILURE ANALYSIS DISCUSSION SHEETS 20 & 21 OF

H & H COMPUTATIONS FOR CONDITION WHERE RT.309 CULVERT

a- STAYS AS WELL AS FOR SECONDARY IMPACTS

.*Includes spillway and 18" outlet discharges

i°

PRELIMINARY GUIDANCE

FOR ESTIMATING~MAXIMUM PROBABLE DISr!LARGES

IIN

PHASE I DAM SAFETY

INVESTIGATIONS

-.

New England DivisionCorps of Engineers

March 1978

%o4'

a

w . %

.i

MAXIMJM PROBABLE FLOOD INFLOWSNED RESERVOIRS

Project D.A. MPF*(cfs) (sq. mi.) cfs/sq. mi.

I. Hall Meadow Brook 26,600 17.2 1,5462. East Branch 15,500 9.25 1,675

. 3. Thomaston 158,000 97.2 1,6254. Northfield Brook 9,000 5.7 1,5805. Black Rock 35,000 20.4 1,715d6. Hancock Brook 20,700 12.0 1,7257. Hop Brook 26,400 16.4 1,6108. Tully 47,000 50.0 9409. Barre Falls 61,000 55.0 1,1091 " 10. Conant Brook 11,900 7.8 1,525

11. Knightville 160,000 162.0 98712. Littleville 98,000 52.3 1,87013. Colebrook River 165,000 118.0 1,40014. Mad River 30,000 18.2 1,65015. Sucker Brook 6,500 3.43 1,895

16. Union Village 110,000 126.0 87317. North Hartland 199,000 220.0 904

::18. North Springfield 157,000 158.0 99419. Ball Mountain 190,000 172.0 1,10520. Tovnshend 228,000 106.0(278 total) 820

21. Surry Mountain 63,000 100.0 63022. Otter Brook 45,000 47.0 95723. Birch Hill 88,500 175.0 50524. East Brimfield 73,900 67.5 1,095

V 25. Westville 38,400 99.5(32 net) 1,200

T 26. West Thompson 85,000 173.5(74 net) 1,15027. Hodges Village 35,600 31.1 1,14528. Buffumville 36,500 26.5 1,37729. Mansfield Hollow 125,000 159.0 78630. West Hill 26,000 28.0 928

31. Franklin Falls 210,000 1000.0 210% 32. Blackwater 66,500 128.0 520

i 33. Hopkinton 135,000 426.0 31634. Everett 68,000 64.0 1,062

V 35. MacDowell 36,300 44.0 825

6 " ii

,~

MAXIMM PROBABLE FLOWSBASED ON TWICE THE

STANDARD PROJECT FLOOD(Flat and Coastal Areas)

River SPF D.A. MPF--- (cfs) (sq. mi.) (cfs/sq. mi.)

.41 1. Pawtuxet River 19,000 200 190

2. Mill River (R.I.) 8,500 34 500

3. Peters River (R.I.) 3,200 13 490

'e 4. Kettle Brook 8,000 30 530

5. Sudbury River. 11,700 86 270

4. 6. Indian Brook (Hopk.) 1,000 5.9 340

7. Charles River. 6,000 184 65

8. Blackstone River. 43,000 416 200

,, 9. Quinebaug River 55,000 331 330

I.

led

'p•

iiiq .

4.

ESTIMATING EFFECT OF SURCHARGE STORAGE

ON MAXIMUM PROBABLE DISCHARGES

, ! INFLOW p

/ -S

Q P2

VT OUTFLOW /

T

STEP 1: Determine Peak Inflow (Qpi) from GuideCurves.

STEP 2: a. Determine Surcharge Height To Pass:-- _ .. Q ,,

b. Determine Volume of Surcharge(STORi) In Inches of Runoff.

; c. Maximum Probable Flood Runoff In NewEngland equals Approx. 19", Therefore:

• "I STORIQp2 = Qp1 x (1 - T

STEP 3: a. Determine Surcharge Height and

"STOR2" To Pass "Qp2 '

b. Average "STORi" and "STOR2" and

Determine Average Surcharge and

Resulting Peak Outflow "Qp3".iv

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

t 1 4q I T.IIt

200

La. j~.

I4LL

a.f !1s-%

0Z

1;- 4

*!- ~t* J4* - j- It'

:14,

T,4Y4.:

* . S ' *

0I !

0b 0 C

SIS 3i O/S~ N I j 'd N

L

* iSURCHARGE STORAGE ROUTING SUPPLEMENT

. STEP 3: a. Determine Surcharge Height and

3. "STOR2" To Pass "QQP2

- b. Avg "STORi" and "STOR2" and

:, .'.Compute "Qp3"

c. If Surcharge Height for Qp3 and

STORAVG agree O.K. If Not:U

STEP 4: a. Determine Surcharge Height and

. %4 "STOR3' To Pass "Qp3"

b. Avg. "Old STORAvG" and "STOR 3 "

and Compute "Qp4"

9' c. Surcharge Height for Qp4 and"New STOR Av" should Agree

.4

S1 closely- " vi

do

*6

v or:"

SURCHARGE STORAGE ROUTING ALTERMAT

4'-

Qp2 QP1 X (1 19J2

Qp2 (Qpl - Qpl TOR3! FORKNOWN19)

FOR KNOWN QpiAND 19" R.O.

Qp2 STOR EL.

r* 4*-" --

r4

EL.

4. ivii

RULE OF THUMB" GUIDANCE FOR ESTIMATINGDOWNSTREAM DAM FAILURE HYDROGRAPHS

aT

Ts

.,-----P

STEP I DETERMINE OR ESTIMATE RESERVOIR STORAGE (S) IN AC-FT AT TIME OF FAILURE.

STEP 2: DETERMINE PEAK FAILURE OUTFLOW (Q(T).QPl= 7 W Y0

Wb= BREACH WIDTH - SUGGEST VALUE NOT GREATER THAN 40% OF DAMLENGTH ACROSS RIVER AT MID HEIGHT.

Yo = TOTAL HEIGHT FROM RIVER BED TO POOL LEVEL AT FAILURE.

STEP 3: USING USGS TOPO OR OTHER DATA, DEVELOP REPRESENTATIVE STAGE-DISCHARGE

" " RATING FOR SELECTED DOWNSTREAM RIVER REACH.

STEP 4: ESTIMATE REACH OUTFLOW (Qp2) USING FOLLOWING ITERATION.

A. APPLY Qpi TO STAGE RATING, DETERMINE STAGE AND ACCOPMANYING

" VOLUME (V1) IN REACH IN AC-FT. (NOTE: IF V1 EXCEEDS 1/2 OF S,

SELECT SHORTER REACH.)

B. DETERMINE TRIAL Qp2"i QP,(TRIAL)

= Op , ( I-.

C. COMPUTE V2 USINGp2 (TRIAL).

D. AVERAGE V1 AND V2 AND COMPUTE Qp2'

QP2 = Op, (I- 1

STEP 5: FOR SUCCEEDING REACHES REPEAT STEPS 3 AND 4.

APRIL 1978

-'. viii1'

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

p

U

APPENDIX B p

.5.

INFORMATION AS CONTAINED INTHE NATIONAL INVENTORY OF DAMS

S~m

Up

SS~ .5.

.55

~1~

SSi

Sc

S~.

b

S

Ko -- 7--- - . . . . . . ;. . . .

Li

.4 NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS TINE

*7

L eV,

.4t

4,0,