ADA099 670 NEW JERSEY DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TRENTON F/S 13/13NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PRO6RAM. UPPER KESWICK DAM (NJ-OOORT), ATLA-ETC(U)MAY 81 J P TALERICO DACW61-Tg-C-0011

UNCLASSIFIED DAEN/NAP-53842/NJO007-81/ RIfllflfl...lflflfluIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEIIEEIIIIIEE

EEEE.EEEIIEEEEEEEEEE/lIEEE

1 .25 -1.4~ BBIIL6~

MICROCOPY RESOLUIlON ItSI CHARTN'i' NA iI hi

:t L, - I ' ANI ,Al> , -

IL.

- -~ 1

O ATLANTIC COASTAL -BASIN,LWRANGEL BROK, OCEAN COUNTYI

N>EW JERSEY

4,1UPPER KESrWICK DAMNJ- 000 47.

PHASE 1 INS-PECTION REPORTNATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM

TorUIO UNLIMITE.T~lL'>F~ ~"~NI~L ~ ALTTY PRACTICABLIC,

TW2 ~ ~~DC CNFY IS l 0:) T A I NED ARERsUC LEiL.SIGNIFICANT NUJMBER OF PAG.ES WHICH DO NOT

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYPhiladelphia DistrictCorps oF Engineers

Philacdeip PennsIwl~ i8

AA. lMAY7W811

i~i _ 81 6 03 0 960---

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (lmt, Data Eatemt__READ DIMRUc-ONS

REPORT DOUENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETDIG FORM1. REPORT NUMBER GGVT ACCESSION NO: 3. RECIPIENT*S CATALOG NUMBER

DAEN/NAP-53842/NJ00047-81/05 0f 0 1 1 __ _ _

4. TITLE (and Saul), S. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

Phase I Inspection ReportNational Dam Safety Program FINALUpper Keswick Dam, NJ00047 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBEROcean County, N.J.

7. AUTHOR(a) a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(a)

DAcw6i-79-C-0011Talerico, John P. P.E.

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

Harris ECO Associates AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

453 Amboy Ave.Woodbridge, N.J. 07095

NTROLLINGOFFIENAMAN12. REPORT DATEof Ev~ro 'T~ ProteCtionD~c4epartent o Envi ronentas Nt)eto ay, 1981

Division of Water ResourcesP.O. Box CN029 13. NUMBER OF PAGES

Trenton, NJ 08625 4014. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(fdi /femt ba Canllho Offie) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of hIb "peft)U.S. Army Engineer District, PhiladelphiaCustom House, 2d & Chestnut Streets UnclassifiedPhiladelphia, PA 19106 , . OECLASSIFICATION/OOWNGMADiNG

SCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (a# dito RJae)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (0- 0 albaa wid It 5 42. If 860&80t M ner iw m)

,S. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Copies are obtainable from National Technical Information Service,Springfield, Virginia 22151.

IS. KEY WORDS (Conmekse a emee .I I lleeaem' ad Idmityf AV beek mawbw)

Dams National Dam Safety ProgramEmbankments SpillwaysVisual Inspection Outlet worksStructural Analysis Embankment

20 AYRT AC? (iee -m -tt~ MkN msumt dI~l a, I~h& Jmlm)

This report cites results of a technical investigation as to the dam's adequacy.The inspection and evaluation of the dam is as prescribed by the National DamInspection Act, Public Law 92-367. The technical investigation includes visualinspection, review of available design and construction records, and preliminarystructural and hydraulic and hydrologic calculations, as applicable. Anassessment of the dam's general condition is included in the report.

) I ICJ '3 CLSIICoO O THIV (a DatOLETe a -0

SECumiTY CLASSMIFICATIOM OtP TI~tS PAGE (lllam Data EaJooEO

sacuamTV LAIUPICAI 0r THS PA"(10140 Do"ese

SCUalY CLAMIPICATION 0' THIS PAOC(IOha Dsto EnieeeE)

NOTICE

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED

FROM THE BEST COPY FURNISHED US BY

THE SPONSORING AGENCY. ALTHOUGH IT

IS RECOGNIZED THAT CERTAIN PORTIONSARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS BEING RELEASED

IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAILABLE

AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE.

'Vi

DISCLAIMER NOTICE

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

.iia°

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYPHILADELPHIA DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS

CUSTOM HOUSE-a D & CHESTNUT STREETSPHILADELPHIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19106

IN REPLY NEFER TO

NAPEN-N

is W"Honorable Brendan T. ByrneGovernor of New JerseyTrenton, New Jersey 08621 A-,. : D Y. -

I ~s~~j .L"ASE;DISTm: UNhAJ UNLIMITED.Dear Governor Byrne:

inclosed is the Phase I Inspection Report for Upper Keswick Dam in OceanCounty, New Jersey which has been prepared under authorization of the DamInspection Act, Public Law 92-367. A brief assessment of the dam's

condition is given in the front of the report.

Based on visual inspection, available records, calculations and past opera-

tional performance, Upper Keswick Dam, a high hazard potential structure, is

judged to be in good overall condition. The dam's spillway is considered

inadequate because a flow equivalent to 43 percent of the Spillway Design

Flood - SDF - would cause the dam to be overtopped. (The SDF, in this in-

stance, is one half of the Probable Maximum Flood). The decision to consider

the spillway "inadequate" instead of "seriously inadequate" is based on the

determination that dam failure resulting from overtopping would not signifi-

cantly increase the hazard to loss of life downstream from the dam from that

which would exist just before overtopping failure. To ensure adequacy of

the structure, the following actions, as a minimum, are recommended:

a. The spillway's adequacy should be determined by a qualified

professional consultant engaged by the owner using more sophisticated

methods, procedures and studies within twelve months from the date of

approval of this report. Within three months of the consultant's findings

remedial measures to ensure spillway adequacy should be initiated.

b. The following remedial actions should be initiated within twelve

months from the date of approval of this report:

(1) The flow of seepage should be monitored monthly to determine

its volume and whether it presents a problem to Lhe safty 01 the dam.

(2) Construct a concrete headwall and apron at the outlet end ol

the discharge pipe.

(3) Fill in the eroded area oi t.c embankment with suiLable

material and seed the bection.

(4) All trees and brush should be removed from the side slopes to

avoid problems which may develop from roots. The embankment face stiould

then be reseeded to develop a growth of grass for surface erosion protection.

* NAPEII-NHonorable Brendan T. Byrne

(5) Determine the size of the sluice gate and whether or not it isoperable, and if not, institute remedial action to make it operable.

(6) Investigate the embankment for animal burrows and fill in anyburrow holes with imiervious material.

c. The owner should develop an emergency action plan (if one is notalready available) outlining actions to be taken by the operator to minimizedownstream effects of an emergency and establish a flood warning system forthe downstream communities within three months from the date of approval ofthis report.

d. The owner should develop written operating procedures and a periodicmaintenance plan to ensure the safety of the dam, within one year from thedate of approval of this report.

A copy of the report is being furnished to Mr. Dirk C. Hofman, New JerseyDepartment of Environmental Protection, the designated State Office contactfor this program. Within five days of the date of this letter, a copy willalso be sent to Congressman Hughes of the Second District. Under theprovision of the Freedom of Information Act, the inspection report will besubject to release by this office, upon request, five days after the date ofthis letter.

Additional copies of this report may be obtained from the National TechnicalInformation Services (NTIS), Springfield, Virginia 22161 at a reasonablecost. Please allow four to six weeks from the date of this letter for NTISto have copies of the report available.

An important aspect of the Dam Inspection Program will be the implementationof the recommendations made as a result of the inspectLion. We accordinglyrequest that we be advised of proposed actions takrn by thc St:te toimplement our recommendations.

Sincere ly,

~ '61'' ~AccessoI Incl KENNETH R. MuSgR For

As stated Major, Corps of Engineerst PTIC A

Acting District Engineer

Copies furnished: t iMr. Dirk C. Hofman, P.E., Deputy DirectorDivision of Water ResourcesN.J. Dept. of EnvironmentaL Protection --Distributton/P.O. Box CN029 Avail CondeoTrenton, NJ 05b25 A va_ ndo'

specialMr. John O'Dowd, AcLing Chief A Peeia.Bureau of Flood Plain RegulatiouDivision of Water ResourcesN.J. Dept. of Environmental ProtectionP.O. Box CN029Trenton, NJ 06625 i

UPPER KESWICK DAM (NJOO47)

CORPS OF ENGINEERS ASSESSMENT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS

This dam was inspected on 8 January 1981 by Harris-ECI Associates undercontract to the State of New Jersey. The State, under agreement with theU.S. Army Engineer District, Philadelphia, hau this inspection performed inaccordance with the National Dam Inspection Act, Public Law 92-367.

Upper Keswick Dam, a high hazard potential structure, is judged to be ingood overall condition. The dam's spillway is considered inadequate becausea flow equivalent to 43 percent of the Spillway Design Flood - SDF - wouldcause the dam to be overtopped. (The SDF, mn this instance, is one half ofthe Probable Maximum Flood). The decision to consider the spillway

"inadequate" instead of "seriously inadequate" is based on the determinationthat dam failure resulting from overtopping would not significantly increasethe hazard to loss of life downstream from the dam from that which wouldexist just before overtopping failure. To ensure adequacy of the structure,the following actions, as a minimum, are recommended:

a. The spillway's adequacy should be determined by a qualified

pr.essional consultant engaged by the owner using more sophisticatedmethods, procedures and studies within twelve months from the date of

approval of this report. Within three months of the consultant's findingsremedial measures to ensure spillway adequacy should be initiated.

b. The following remedial actions should be initiated within twelvemonths from the date of approval ot this report:

(1) The flow of seepage should be monitored monthly to determine

its vojume and whether it presents a problem to the safety of the dam.

(2) Construct a concrete headwall and apron at the outlet end ofthe discharge pipe.

(3) Fill in the eroded area of the embankment with suitablematerial and seed the section.

(4) All trees and brush shoulu be removed from the side slopes toavoid problems which may develop irom roots. The embankment face should

then be reseeded to develop a growth of grass for surface erosion protection.

(5) Determine the size of the sluice gate and whether or not it isoperable, and if not, institute remediai action to make it operable.

(b) Investigate the embankment for animal burrows and tiii in anyburrow holes with impervious material.

c. The owner should develop an emergency action plan (if one is notalready available) outlining actions to be taken by the operator to minimizedownstream effects ot an emergency and establish a flood warning system torthe downstream communities within three months trom the date ot approval ofthis report.

d. The owner should develop written operating procedures and a periodic

* '~ maintenance plan to ensure the safety of the dam, within one year from thedate of approval of this report.

APPROVED:KENNETh R. MOSER

Major, Corps of EngineersActing District Engineer

DATE: 9'

! .

* '6

ATLANTIC COASTAL BASIN

WRANGEL BROOK, OCEAN COUNTY

NEW JERSEY

UPPER KESWICK DAM

NJO0047

PHASE I INSPECTION REPORT

NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19106

4MAY, 1981

PHASE I INSPECTION REPORT

NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM

Name: Upper Keswick Dam, I.D. NJ 00047State Located: New JerseyCounty Located: Ocean CountyStream: Wrangel BrookRiver Basin: Atlantic Coastal BasinDate of Inspection: January 8, 1981

~Assessment of General Conditions*Upper Keswick Dam is an earthfill dam with a paved roadway along the crest

and a concrete capped timber drop inlet as a spillway. The overall* condition of the dam is good. There are no major signs of distress orinstability in the embankment. Minor seepage was observed at threedifferent locations along the downstream toe. One location was to theleft of the downstream channel and the others at each end of the dam.The low-level outlet was not open at the inspection and is not used. Thehazard potential is rated as "high".

Upper Keswick Dam is considered inadequate in view of its lack of spillwaycapacity to pass the SDF (1/2 PMF) without overtopping the dam. The spill-way is capable of passing a flood equal to 21 percent of the PMF (42 percentof the 1/2 PMF), and is assessed as "inadequate".

At present, the engineering data available is not sufficient to make adefinitive statement on the stability of the dam, but based on the findingsof the visual inspection, the preliminary assessment of static stability isthat it is satisfactory. AThe following actions are recommended along witha timetable for their completion. All recommended actions should beconducted under the super ision of an Engineer who is experienced in thedesign, construction and nspection of dams.

I. Carry out a more p ecise hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of thedam within twelve months, to determine the need and type ofmitigating measures necessary. Based on the results of thesestudies, remedial measures should be instituted. This should in-clude the installation of a tailwater gage.

2. The flow of seepage should be monitored monthly to determine itsvolume and whether it presents a problem to the safety of thedam.

3. Construct a concrete headwall and apron at the outlet end of thedischarge pipe. This work should be completed within twelve months.

4. Fill in eroded area of embankment with suitable material and seedthe section within twelve months.

5. All brush and trees should be removed from the downstream andupstream slopes to avoid problems which may develop from roots.The embankment face should then be seeded to develop a growthof grass for surface erosion protection. This program shouldbe started within twelve months.

6. Determine the size of the sluice gate and if it is operable. If not,institute remedial action to make it operable within twelve months.

7. Investigate embankment for animal burrows and fill in any burrowholes with imoervious material.

8. The owner should develop an emergency action plan (if one is notalready available) outlining actions to be taken by the operatorto minimize downstream effects of an emergency and establisha flood warning system for the downstream communities within threemonths.

Furthermore, while of a less urgent nature, the following additional actionis recommended and should be carried out within twelve months.

The owner should develop, within one (1) year after formalapproval of the report, written operating procedures and aperiodic maintenance plan to insure the safety of the dam.

#7

John P. Talcrico, P.E.HARRIS-ECl Associates

I

-

0 .

'4--

>10

C CC0)

-

0-

0 C0) J 0

PREFACE

This report is prepared under guidance contained in the RecommendedGuidelines for Safety Inspection of Dams, for Phase I Investiga-tions. Copies of these guidelines may be obtained from the officeoftheChief of Engineers, Washington, D.C. 20314. The purpose of aPhase I Investigation is to identify expeditiously those damswhich may pose hazards to human life or property. The assessmentof the general condition of the dam is based upon available dataand visual inspections. Detailed investigation, and analyses in-volving topographic mapping, subsurface investigations, testing,and detailed computational evaluations are beyond the scope of aPhase I investigation; however, the investigation intended toidentify any need for such studies.

In reviewing this report, it should be realized that the reportedcondition of the dam is based on observations of field conditionsat the time of inspection along with data available to the inspec-tion team. It is important to note that the condition of a damdepends on numerous and constantly changing internal'and externalconditions, and is evolutionary in nature. It would be incorrectto assume that the present condition of the dam will continue torepresent the condition of the dam at some point in the future.Only through continued care and inspection can there be any chancethat unsafe conditions be detected.

Phase I inspections are not intended to provide detailed hydrologicand hydraulic analyses. In accordance with the established Guide-lines, the Spillway Test flood is based on the estimated "ProbableMaximum Flood" for the region (greatest reasonably possible stormrunoff), or fractions thereof. The test flood provides a measureof relative spillway capacity and serves as an aide in determiningthe need for more detailed hydrologic and hydraulic studies, con-sidering the size of the dam, its general condition and the down-stream damage potential.

i

• ,*

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ASSESSMENT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS

OVERVIEW PHOTO

PREFACE Page

SECTION 1 PROJECT INFORMATION ............................. 1

1.1 General ................................. 11.2 Description of Project .................... 21.3 Pertinent Data ............................ 5

SECTION 2 ENGINEERING DATA................................. 7

2.1 Design .................................... 72.2 Construction ............................... 72.3 Operation ................................. 7

2.4 Evaluation ................................ 7

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

3.1 Findings................................

SECTION 4 OPERATION PROCEDURES ............................. 10

4.1 Procedures ................................ 104.2 Maintenance of Dam ......................... 104.3 Maintenance of Operating Facilities ........ 104.4 Evaluation ............................. 10

SECTION 5 HYDRAULIC/HYDROLOGIC ................ r ......... 11

5.1 Evaluation of Features ..................... 11

SECTION 6 STRUCTURAL STABILITY ............................ 13

6.1 Evaluation of Structural Stability ......... 13

SECTION 7 ASSESSMENT/REMEDIAL MEASURES .................... 14

7.1 Dam Assessment ............................. 147.2 Remedial Measures ......................... 14

-

TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED

PLATES No.

KEY MAP ..................................................... I

VICINITY MAP .......................................... 2

GEOLOGIC MAP ................................................ 3

DRAWINGS OF DAM ............................... ............. 4-6

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A - CHECK LIST - VISUAL OBSERVATIONS 1-1iCHECK LIST - ENGINEERING, CONSTRUCTION,

MAINTENANCE DATA

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX C - SUMMARY OF ENGINEERING DATA I

APPENDIX D - HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS 1-20

ii ,!

PHASE I INSPECTION REPORTNATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM

UPPER KESWICK DAM, I.D. NJ 00047

S E C T I 0 N 1

1. PROJECT INFORMATION

1.1 General

a. Authority

The National Dam Inspection Act (Public Law 92-367, 1972) provides for theNational Inventory and Inspection Program by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.This inspection was made in accordance with this authority under ContractC-FPM No. 35 with the State of New Jersey who, in turn, is contracted tothe Philadelphia District of the Corps of Engineers, and was carried outby the engineering firm of Harris-ECI Associates of Woodbridge, New Jersey.

b. Purpose of Inspection

The visual inspection of Upper Keswick Dam was made on January 8, 1981.The purpose of the inspection was to make a general assessment as to thestructural integrity and operational adequacy of the dam embankment and itsappurtenant structures.

c. Scope of Report

The report summarizes available pertinent data relating to the project; pre-sents a summary of visual observations made during the field inspection; presentsan evaluation of hydrologic and hydraulic conditions at the site; presents anevaluation as to the structural adequacy of the various project features; andassesses the general condition of the dam with respect to safety.

1

1.2 Description of Project

a. Description of Dam and Appurtenances

Upper Keswick Dam is an earthfill dam 296 feet long and 12.4 feet high witha 21 foot wide paved roadway along the top of the dam. There is a 9.3 footby 6.5 foot concrete capped timber drop inlet with a timber trash rackacross the top located 177 feet from the left end of the dam. The crest ofthe lake side section of the inlet is 3 inches below the sidewalls and 2.3 feetbelow the top of ioadway. The flow from the spillway discharges into thedownstream channel through a 60-inch by 66-inch reinforced concrete pipewhich also serves as the low-level outlet.

The embankment has a top width of 30 feet with approximate slope of 3.5H:IV onboth faces. The upstream slope has a timber bulkhead extending from thespillway 30 feet to the left and 15 feet to the right.

The low-level outlet consist of the 60-inch x 66-inch reinforced concrete pipe thatcarries the discharge from the spillway. The low-level flow into the pipeis controlled by a small rising stem sluice gate located on the upstreamface of the drop inlet. The gate is raised manually by turning a handwheelattached to the top of the frame that sits on a timber platform attachedto the lakeside face of the spillway.

The outlet end of the pipe discharges into the downstream channel approximately45 feet from the inlet. The downstream channel continues for a distanceof 600 feet where it crosses under a timber roadway bridge and enters intoLower Keswick Lake. The bridge is 42 feet long and has five short spans,with the height from the bottom of the bridge to the water varying from 4.7feet at the center to 2.7 feet at the abutments.

A generalized description of the soil conditions is contained in Report No. 8Ocean County, Engineering Soil Survey of New Jersey by Rutgers University.The report dated 1953, indicates the immediate area of the lake and damto be stratified recent alluvium, with the surrounding areas being alluvialstratified materials underlaid with marine stratified materials. Recentalluvium can be described as materials usually assorted by water-action andranging in size from silt with some clay, to silt and fine sand with gravel.Alluvial stratified materials can be described as assorted, relativelyhomogeneous materials composed predominantely of gravel and sand sizes.Marine is described as assorted homogeneous materials, ranging in texturefrom a uniform medium to coarse sand. The depth to bedrock in these despositsis greater than 100 feet. Geologic Overlay Sheet 32 describes the bedrockaround the lake as the Tertiary formation of Cohansey Sand.

4

2

4

b. Location

Upper Keswick Lake Dam is located in Keswick Grove, which is an AlcoholicRehabilitation Center, on Wrangel Brook, in the Township of Manchester,Ocean County, New Jersey. It is accessible from Route 70 at Whiting by wayPinewald-Keswick Road (Route 530) to Congasia Road at Keswick Grove.

c. Size Classification

According to the "Recommended Guidelines for Safety Inspection of Dams"by the U.S. Department of the Army, Office of the Chief Engineers, thedam is classified in the dam size category as being "small", since itsstorage volume of l23acre-feet is less than 1,000 acre-feet. The damis also classified as "small" because its height of 12.4 feetis lessthan 40 feet. The overall size classification of Upper Keswick Dam is"small"

d. Hazard Classification

A hazard potential classification of "high" has been assigned to the damon the basis that a hypothetical failure would result in excessive damageto the main dining hall and the chapel located within the flood reach alongLower Keswick Lake, and to the six other buildings located, also withinthe flood reach, downstream of the Lower Lake. Therefore, the possibilityexists of the loss of more than a few lives in the event of dam failure.

e. Ownership

Upper Keswick Dam is owned by:

America's KeswickKeswick GroveWhiting, NJ 08759

Attention: Mr. William A. RawsGeneral Director(201) 350-1187

f. Purpose

Upper Keswick Dam is presently used for recreation purposes only.

i-3

4

g. Design and Construction History

Upper Keswick Dam was constructed in 1898. On March 30, 1938, the spillwayfailed by undermining and settling, washing out a 60 foot section of theembankment. No records exists as to whether or not there was damage down-stream due to the failure. In rebuilding the embankment timber sheeting wasdriven along the length of the failure to a depth 12 feet below the spillwayinvert to prevent future undermining. The reconstruction of the dam was com-pleted in August, 1938.

h. Normal Operating Procedures

The discharge from the lake is unregulated and allowed to naturally balancethe inflow into the lake. According to the center's resident engineer,the low-level outlet is not used.

i4 if:I

1.3 Pertinent Data

a. Drainage Area 0.89 sq. mi.

b. Discharge at Dam Site

Ungated spillway capacity at 486 (96.66 NGVD)elevation of top of dam:

Total spillway capacity at 1,541 (97.5 NGVD)maximum pool elevation (SDF):

c. Elevation (Feet above NGVD)

Top of dam: 96.66

Maximum pool desigr; 4urch .rge (SDF): 97.5

Recreation pool.- 93.4

3pillway crest: 93.4

Streambed at centerline of dam: 83.3 (Estimated)

Maximum tailwater: 88 (Estimated)

d. Reservoir

Length of maximum pool: 2,250 feet (Estimated)

Length of recreation pool: 1,300 feet (Estimated)

e. Storage (acre-feet)

Spillway Crest: 54

Top of dam: 123

Maximum pool (SDF): 148

f. Reservoir Surface (acres)

Top of dam: 26

Maximum pool (SDF): 31

Recreation pool: 16.5

Spillway crest: 16.5 (93.44 NGVD)

5

g. Dam

Type: Earthfill with concrete cappedtimber drop inlet

Length: 296 ft.

Height: 12.4 ft.

Top width: 30 ft.

Side slopes - Upstream: 3.5H:lV- Downstream: 3.5H:lV

Zoning: Unknown

Impervious core: None

Cutoff: None

Grout curtain: None

h. Diversion and Regulating Tunnel

N/A

i. Spillway

Type: Concrete capped timber drop inletwith notched front side

Length of weir: 25.0 ft.

Crest elevation: 93.44 (NGVD)

Gates : None

U/S Channel: Upper Keswick Lake

D/S Channel: Natural Channel

J. Regulating Outlets

Low level outlet: 60-inch x 66-inch R.C.P.

Controls: Manually controlled smallsluice gate

Emergency gate: None

Outlet: 83.4 NGVD

6

4

SECTION 2

2. ENGINEERING DATA

2.1 Design

A drawing showing the new outlet pipe and timber sheeting details for thereconstruction of the Upper Keswick Dam in 1938 and a drawing showing detailsof the spillway, prepared in 1973 by the Center's Resident Engineer, areavailable in his files at America's Keswick, Keswick Grove, Whiting, NJ.No data from soil borings, soil tests, design computations, or othergeotechnical data is available to assess the stability properly. Dataconcerning the hydraulic capacity of the spillway is also unavailable.

2.2 Construction

Data is not available concerning the as-built construction or reconstructionof the dam. No data exists of construction methods, borrow sources, orother data pertinent to the construction of the dam.

2.3 Operation

Formal operation records are not kept for the dam and reservoir. The lakeis allowed to operate naturally without regulation.

2.4 Evaluation

a. Availability

The availability of engineering data is poor. The stated drawings are avail-able from the owner.

b. Adequacy

The engineering data available, together with that obtained in the field,was adequate to perform hydrologic and hydraulic computations. The datawas insufficient to perform a stability analysis, but preliminary evaluationcould be made based on visual observations.

c. Validity

Information contained in the drawings and checked by limited field measure-ments appears to be valid.

4.-

7 __

SECTION 3

3. VISUAL INSPECTION

3.1 Findings

a. General

The visual inspection of Upper Keswick Dam revealed the dam and spillwayto be in good condition, but in need of repairs. At the time of inspectionthe lake level was just above the crest of the spillway.

b. Dam

The earth embankment appears sound. Minor surface cracking on the pavementwas noted, but cracks are tight. No cracking at the toe was noted. Onearea of erosion approximately 55 feet left of outlet was noted on thedownstream slope. No misalignment of the embankment in the horizontalor vertical plane was evident. Minor seepage in the way of ponding andwet ground was noticed at the downstream toe of the embankment in threedifferent locations. The seepage was occuring along an 18 foot wide sectionapproximately 120 feet left of the spillway; a 15 foot wide section approxi-mately 40 feet left and at a point approximately 160 feet right of the spill-way. Numerous trees are growing on the downstream face of the embankmentand a few trees and brush are growing on the upstream slope. No evidenceof burrowing by animals was observed; however, the embankment was coveredwith snow and therefore the possibility does exist that there may be burrowholes.

c. Appurtenant Structures

1. Spillways

The spillway is in good condition. No cracks in the concrete caps werenoted only spalling. The timber trash rack appeared in good condition.

2. Outlet Works

The low-level outlet works is also the spillway. It consists of the dropinlet with a small rising stem sluice gate, operated by a handwheelattached to the top of the frame at the upstream face of the inlet, anda 60-inch by 66-inch reinforced concrete pipe that discharges the flow intothe downstream channel. There is a concrete headwall at the inlet of thepipe and timber headwall across the top and at the right side of the outlet.There is some spalling of the concrete headwall, while the lower part of thetimber wall on the side is missing resulting in erosion of the slope alongthe pipe.

8

d. Reservoir Area

The side slopes surrounding the reservoir are flat and sandy with a densecover of pine trees. There is no indication of slope instability.

e. Downstream

The downstream channel from the spillway to the lower lake is in goodcondition. The channel widens from approximately 10 feet at the outletto 40 feet plus/minus at the timber bridge located 600 feet downstreamfrom the outlet. There are some tree stumps and timber branches along thebottom of the channel. The side slopes are flat and heavily wooded. Thearea is used for nature walks as there are timber plank walks and bencheson both sides of the channel.

There are two buildings located above the flood plain left of the downstreamchannel. On the right bank of the lower lake are the main dining hall andchapel as well as six other camp buildings just downstream of the lower lakethat are within the flood plain.

9

SECTION 4

4. OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

4.1 Procedures

Upper Keswick Dam is used to impound water for recreational activities.The level of the lake is maintained through the unregulated flow over themain spillway.

4.2 Maintenance of the Dam

There is no regular inspection and maintenance program for the dam andappurtenant structures. America's Keswick is responsible for the main-tenance of the dam.

4.3 Maintenance of Operating Facilities

The low-level outlet operating facilities consist of one manually operatedsmall sluice gate. At the time of inspection, the operation of thegate was not 'emonstrated. According to the resident engineer, the gatehas never been open in the ten years he-has been at the center, thereforehe does not know if the gate is operable.

4.4 Evaluation

The present operational and maintenance procedures are fair with the damand spillway being maintained in a serviceable condition.

4

10

Lz. .. ... .... . . ; " ' " - .. .... .... . .. . ... . .a L"Lg.\ .. .. ~ i .... .. " ' '- i-. . . . . . .

raI,

SECTION 5

5. HYDRAULIC/HYDROLOGIC

5.1 Evaluation of Features

a. Design

The drainage area above Upper Keswick Dam is approximately 0.89 square miles.A drainage map of the water shed of the dam site is presented on Plate 1,Appendix D.

The topography within the basin is generally mildly sloped. Elevationsrange from approximately 167 feet above NGVD at the north end of the water-shed to about 93 feet at the dam site. Land use patterns within the water-shed are mostly woodland.

The evaluation of the hydraulic and hydrologic features of the dam wasbased on criteria set forth in the Corps guidelines and additional guidanceprovided by the Philadelphia District, Corps of Engineers. The SDF for theDam falls in a range of 1/2 PMF to PMF. In this case, the low end of therange, 1/2 PMF, is chosen since the factors used to select size and hazardclassification are on the low-side of their respective ranges.

The Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) was calculated from the probable maximumprecipitation using Hydrometeorological Report No. 33 with standard reduc-tion factors. Due to the small drainage area, the SCS triangular hydrcgraphtransformed to a curvilinear hydrograph was adopted for develoving theunit hydrograph, with the aid of the HEC-l-DB Flood Hydrogr? Crnmputer rrgram.

Initial and constant infiltration loss rates were applied to the ProbableMaximum Precipitation to obtain rainfall excesses. The rainfall excesseswere applied to the unit hydrograph to obtain the PMF and various ratiosof PMF utilizing program HEC-l-DB.

The SDF peak outflow calculated for the dam is 1,541 cfs. This value isderived from the half PMF, and results in overtopping of the dam, assumingthat the lake was originally at the spillway crest elevation.

The stage-outflow relation for the spillway was determined from thegeometry of the spillway and dam utilizing HEC-I Dam Safety Version Program.

The reservoir stage-storage capacity relationship was computed directlyby the conic method, utilizing the HEC-l-DB program. The reservoir surfaceareas at various elevations were measured by planimeter from a U.S.G.S.Quadrangle topographic map. Reservoir storage capacity included surcharge

4. levels exceeding the top of the dam, and the spillway rating curve was based

411

on the assumption that the dam remains intact during routing. The spillwayrating curve is presented in the Hydrologic Computation, Appendix D.

A breach analysis indicates that the stage of the stream where it crossesthe center's road at the beginning of the Lower Lake is 2 feet higher,due to dam failure from overtopping at 0.3 PMF than it would be withoutfailure at 0.3 PMF. This does not jeopardize the road downstream signi-ficantly more than without failure. The discharge facility is thus rated"inadequate".

Drawdown calculations could not be done due to the size of the gate is

unknown and could not be determined at the time of inspection.

b. Experience Data

No records of reservoir stage or spillway discharge are maintained forthis site.

c. Visual Observations

The downstream channel is in good condition. It widens from 10 feet atthe outlet to approximately 40 feet at the timber bridge at the beginningof the Lower Lake. The side slopes are flat and heavily wooded. Thearea is also used for nature walks.

There are two buildings on the right shore of the Lower Lake and six othersimmediately downstream.

The side slopes surrounding th . reservoir are flat and sandy with a densecover of pine trees. There is no indication of slope instability.

d. Overtopping Potential

A storm of magnitude equivalent to the SOF would cause overtopping of thedam to a height of 0.84 feet. Computations indicate that the dam can passapproximately 21 percent of the PMF without overtopping the dam crest.Since the 1/2 PMF is the Spillway Design Flood (SOF) for this dam, accord-ing to the Recommended Guidelines for Safety Inspection of Dams by theCorps of Engineers, the spillway capacity of the dam is assessed as "inadequate".

12

SECT I ON 6

6. STRUCTURAL STABILITY

6.1 Evaluation of Structural Stability

a. Visual Observations

There are no major signs of distress in the embankment of the Upper KeswickDam. Minor seepage was observed along the toe of slope at three differentlocations; at the left and right ends of the embankment and approximately40 feet left of the downstream channel. The seepage has not been monitoredand no information was uncovered concerning its flow rates. The numeroustrees growing on both sides of the embankment could pose a threat tostability. The spillway was in good condition.

b. Design and Construction Data

No design computations relating to stability were uncovered during thereport preparation phase. No embankment or foundation soil parametersare available for carrying out a conventional stability analysis on theembankment.

c. Operating Records

No operating records are available relating to the stability of the dam.

d. Post-Construction Changes

There are no known post-construction changes since the dam was rebuilt in1938.

e. Static Stability

A static stability analysis was not performed for Upper Keswic't Dam becausethe lack of data on which to base assumptions of material prooertieswithin embankment zones might produce misleading results, but based onthe findings of the visual inspection, the preliminary assessment of staticstability is that it is satisfactory.

f. Seismic Stability

The dam is located in Seismic Zone 1, as defined in Recommended Guidelinesfor Safety Inspection of Dams, prepared by the Corps of Engineers. In general,projects located in Seismic Zones 0, 1 and 2 may be assumed to present nohazard from earthquake, provided the static stability conditions are satis-factory and conventional safety margins exist, and based on the findings ofthe visual inspection, the preliminary assessment of the static and seismic-stabilities is that they are satisfactory.

13

SECT I ON 7

7. ASSESSMENT/REMEDIAL MEASURES

7.1 Dam Assessment

a. Safety

The dam has been inspected visually and a review has been made of theavailable engineering data. This assessment is subject to the limitationsinherent in the visual inspection procedures stipulated by the Corps ofEngineers for a Phase I report.

Upper Keswick Dam is inadequate because the dam does not have the spillwaycapacity to pass the SDF, one half of the PMF, without overtopping. Over-topping of the dam carries with it the danger of a likely progressivefailure of the dam. The present spillway capacity of the dam is approximately21 percent of the PMF.

No definitive statement pertaining to the safety of the embankment can bemade without acquisition of embankment material engineering properties,but based on the findings of the visual inspection, preliminary assessmentof the static stability is that it is satisfactory.

b. Adequacy of Information

The information uncovered was adequate to perform hydrologic and hydrauliccomputations. The data was insufficient to perform even an approximatecomputation of the stability of the dam. A preliminary assessment of thedam could be made by visual observation only.

c. Urgency

The remedial measures and recommended actions along with a timetable fortheir completion are detailed below. All recommended action should beconducted under the supervision of an engineer who is experienced in thedesign, construction and inspection of dams.

7.2 Remedial Measures

a. Alternatives for Increasing Spillway Capacity

Alternatives for increasing spillway capacity are as follows:

1. Increase the embankment height of the dam thus permitting a* .' higher discharge to pass.

14

A

2. Lower the spillway crest elevation.

3. Increase the effective spillway crest length.

4. A combination of any of the above alternatives.

b. Recommendations

1. Carry out a more precise hydrologic and hydraulic analysis ofthe dam within twelve months, to determine the need and typeof mitigating measures necessary. If required, conduct astudy of the means of increasing spillway discharge capacityand develop alternative schemes for construction. This shouldinclude the installation of headwater and tailwater gages.The ability of the dam to withstand overtopping should alsobe studied.

2. The flow of seepage should be monitored monthly to determineits volume and whether it presents a problem to the safetyof the dam.

3. Construct a concrete headwall and apron at the outlet end of thedischarge pipe within twelve months.

4. Fill in eroded area of the embankemnt with suitable materialand seed the section within twelve months.

5. All trees and brush should be removed from the side slopesto avoid problems which may develop from roots. The embankmentface should then be reseeded to develop a growth of grass forsurface erosion protection. This program should be startedwithin twelve months.

6. Determine the size of the sluice gate and whether or not itis operable, and if not, institute remedial action to makeit operable within twelve months.

7. Investigate embankment for animal burrows and fill in any

burrow holes with impervious material.

The following additional action is recommended:

The owner should develop an emergency action plan (if oneis not already available) outlining actions to be taken bythe operator to minimize downstream effects of an emergencyand establish a flood warning system for the downstream com-munities within three months.

c. 0 & M Procedures

The owner should develop, within one (1) year after formal approval of thereport, written operating procedures and a periodic maintenance plan toinsure the safety of the dam.

15

PI

* UPPER KESWICK DAMMANCHESTER TOWNSHIPOCEAN COUNTY, N. J.

NEW YORK

SUSE ,PASSAIC/z

> WARRENRGEM sORRtIS

floe ESSEX(.- HUDSON

z/Wu HUNTEROON5 -

C- $ OMER-\

M hIDDLE-/~ f...-/SEX/

PHILADELPHIA-- % \

\LOUCESTAMDEj9\ I

CAPE Scale in Miles (Approx.)

KEY MAPPLATE I

~ N

Scale SnFe Apo.

VICINITY MAP 1LATEMY

N

PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD

'PINE WALD-KESWICK ROAD

Tchg UPPER KESWICK DAM

39*-561 I

00

Scale: I"= I Mile

LEGEND

QUATERNARY

Qg Grovel

TERTIARY

Tch Cohansey Sand

GEOLOGIC MAPUPPER KESWICK DAM

PLATE 3

. .~~~' A 'p ' --

* ~ - - - ~ 4 ~ - - - - - - ~ - - -1

UPPER.

LAKE

C'. V% -*

a A.

. .

I '~.i..- . It

t, 4--f

5 b ., -- I

4b-~

. M W . or!9

- ."V2

5' ) .l Sit-

---4

- ----- - .-z,--

..

I,. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .,._ -2 ~*'

... -- , .

• - l..0-- ;

-LA

* Art

'Aa t

-- - m x. -9. l *. -

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

, o-

}Jl

,., 9•

- - . , t = > ., .; ;

• .:,4 - ,.1 / -

• • y c . \

Vy,." / . ' / "\ t :..

-.,, - 4 - --- . .-- . ,..

- -. '- , - - l. .. .,w v .,

4 ..- .-- -..... 9;-..•

4..'.-..a.,

AA

411 +

A.-.4

rL-t

- N 4t

LOC~rON SKTCH :fj'I

or-W'

IP&~L

P&.L OpRAOW

I I*IV

I -

I.I

-~ - --------------

A -A

IIn

'K E

S3 -

I~MAN

6C ' ! Mow T. .~ i ttPi.

*1.

A-

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

A~~~~~ . tieA-A

PLANS OFREINF CONC. PIPE CULVERT.

ATKESWICK - GROVE

MANCHESTER TOWNSHIPOCEAN COUNTY

SCALES AS SHOWN MAY 193SHARRY C sN cowNry EMNciE

I PLtATE

~~~T7~~ 'I~~~ '~ t

I J

ii 40

I0 A - -

4A-

4.. ~ ~- -A *~'p

4 4, *.A 4,

~ ',&;~

2~

*

4- .'~. I41

4. L_ _ _ U '1

.- W ~ - ~ ~ ~- - - - - -

If b~tz# 4. -~- - - - - ~- - -- - -~

i5.

1.

b.~- I-i --i ~-~= ~-=~ -2-I *1

4

Jo

~-4,, -,

-----4

-J

I:

K9- 4. -~ - .- -- .

* *4

4M.4

6 1 1

77 441

IL!,

AVivtN

V ~ IFie

.If

*A

40 I-

I-AI A- 21.

ICE=

til -m 1;,

AA

-WI

Cata

~~~ V . ..- &

APPENDIX A

CHECK LIST - VISUAL OBSERVATIONS

CHECK LIST - ENGINEERING, CONSTRUCTION

MAINTENANCE DATA

lf

00

0-I

0

oo

4-I-

= = L

CL (au a))

C)~ CIn-

001-o

ea 0

= ~ u4A- co.

(L) 1 C

od cocir

4J. 1- .- L 0ca D

FE 0)

mj a) m CA0.)Uv.44) = e U ) ,

+j - 0A) A(AjQ 'o . 0~ 3 -M CO 0-(

C z C> XNC 3c

-~S &J

W L.L

4n.

4-3

0-

U. 411.

0) I0

3D4.Ln 0 C

w 0 L-" -- 0 Dw - 4.

gml Iq 0.

>-C- 0&._w3 0 1 .co 1E C.)

LU m

A E03

'4-

od > 413C

I 'U

03 03 3:

U) 4.) CL

S- (A 4-

03

0 0 3-

0C 0-0 4- 0W

0-* U CI.. 03<%'nn

CL

L4 4.1

0 EUe-+

0 r_ '.

S- - 10 0 fa 03N-

C(

EU (U -w4.9-

(C .0 "0 1

-~ 1- 04- -

4- 0CID LJ ( 0 0

.0 0 -j UQ 40.~ 41'.

39 to~ LW - 4)coL U V 04 UtM c

S.. *s41C)= 0LA - C 03(A 4 Ic C) 0 .at3030 *'L 0C4- L.

1. = . oV -C )(

2t :I EA r U c <% u3_rU.SZZ C 3 ; A S- 0 ~

LAJ LaiI 0 0.i 0Ili~ V) toLn C

w 0

>40

3c '

000

EE'

S.. to -

CA

S- U 0.

*- 0 0.-

3)

0) 4- 00 0~

a) a)E 4- S

eo Q -0

-r MU

00

ei 4-' 0 6 0-LLI4) 0. -

CD U U

U 4-)

'4-

0 4-'

o~( (A01 ) )(nLA CL a

'U r_ 0.

a) CL

%- t-

(A cU - (A3 4 zLU 30 - 0 9-_L

- ~ ~ ~ 4 ~L . .Z 0 0~U "a0'J O - ~ - (AU O'S- 00 Z04-) o to t

tici

00

(a,

tn. Un4cc,

aj4-)

00

- 0

~S C

V (o 0~-

LA.QV

4) C 0o

4- 4-0i

0. 0 .4-

(A 0. S.U,

o m & 0 .

= (A CL It

CL 0 0t Q-

U top) 0 o c

W-.0

L:J

LnJ

LLI

-

IL

CDA

uj

Cl w

I-I

V)A

0 o0 -J 0

Zv - --. S)

CD7

LiJ

IL __ _

V,

o4-)

4-

0 U,0

4 J L

a- 41'a0

(A~

C.C)

LiJ

C/IIfu

u-oE. 0

-0 C.. S_0

:3c a 4 4-) C

C I a a

(A 4-3S - V0- u c-S

(- 0. --.eOr4 I 4.)

o~4 ' u43

4-- to 4

a) V 4-

f0lS

Ea 0

S ~ a0 c -4-a

Cr- a; 00 0.C

1)~~o 0 dLI 4

0v CL) u Ca)EuO Otu. Sc AC. n- C.)R tv 4)

E a

u9

4-)

(L. 0

-D 00

L 3

Lai > M- 4-

to tA -_,

zz C)Cc

u- 4 J t0I3 t to LlW ~ ~ . 00S- (0 (

C).0 o toI

4-) (a4-o

2;- c .- 4- r A - 4J 4

0 >S- 0 >- a) 030 0 0

-0~V vi-.7 7

-~u V). *7d<*-

00c

ILtAC __

4c-

LA.;

D a.-

JI I

I- ~* *~ - ~ e*

4i;-lE 7-

10

CU

>0=

0

V)- 4Jz-

4)i L.Z 4-)

- ~ 4 a.)C.C' r_

>~ 0

LLI

-'->3

00

4) cVIV

L")~- vS * 4) VII-t--cw LL* 4

=~-0 LL Ln L4)

4)CL ~ CL 9-4

Ln CD V) CM 2: u-~w 0i >-> 0 0 C7

411

aw(A

C

4--;V))

to

:11

CDC

00

V)

CDC

1-0L CD -4II-- UO U

-C Oa I-fl ca 0C)(

-f) Ll atolo u0 . D C

LJLJC Li. -o 4A n L L)LL61 M d= .(/)LJ L

CD to) CL

Li.L.

CD

LaiLn.

C) I-l - L. u

0.- ~ ~ ~ C 1-V-a V-l i

APPENDIX B

PHOTOGRAPHS

(Taken on January 8, 1981)

UPPER KESWICK DAM

Photo 1 - View of spillway, lake and upstream slope of damlooking to the right. Note brush and small treeson slope.

i "iPhoto 2 - View of spillway, lake and upstream slope of dam

looking to the left. Note brush and trees on slope.

UPPER KESWICK DAM

Photo 3 - View of spillway from top of dam.

Photo 4 - View of downstream slope looking from right of dis-charge channel (at bottom of picture). Note treeson slope.

UPPER KESWICK-DAM

1%

3I,

Photo 5 - Seepage area at downstream toe approximately 40 feetleft of spillway.

Photo 6 - Seepage area at downstream toe at left end of dam.View is looking towards discharge channel with theembankment on the right.

UPPER KESWICK DAM

1.0

Photo 7 - View of low-level outlet (60-inch x 66-inch R.C.P.)Note deterioration of timber headwall and erosionat the left side of pipe.

"I

Photo 8 - View of downstream channel from top of embankment.Note roadway bridge in center.

S_

UPPER KESWICK DAM

I

I

PhoLo 9 - View of timber bridge where the downstream channelenters the lower lake.

i'

[

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY OF ENGINEERING DATA

,~it

CHECK LISTHYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC DATA

ENGINEERING DATA

Name of Dam: UPPER KESWICK DAM

Drainage Area Characteristics: 0.89 square miles

Elevation Top Normal Pool (Storage Capacity): 93.4 NGVD (54 acre-feet)

Elevation Top Flood Control Pool (Storage Capacity): N/A_

Elevation Maximum Design Pool: 97.5 NGVD (SDF pool 148 acre-feet)

Elevation Top Dam: 96.66 NGVD (123 acre-feet)

SPILLWAY CREST:

a. Elevation 93.4 NGVD

b. Type Concrete Capped Timber Drop Inlet with notched front side.

c. Width 9.25 feet

d. Length 25.0 feet

e. Location Spillover Both sides and front

f. No. and Type of Gates None

OUTLET WORKS:

a. Type 60-inch x 66-inch R.C.P.

b. Location At spillway

c. Entrance Inverts 84.61 NGVD

d. Exit Inverts 83.43 NGVD

e. Emergency Draindown Facilities small sluice gate-60"x66" R.C.P.

HYDROMETEOROLOGICAL GAGES:

a. Type None

b. Location None

c. Records None

MAXIMUM NON-DAMAGING DISCHARGE: 486 cfs at elevation 96.66 NGVD

APPENDIX D

HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS

PLATE I, APPENDIX D

M. 0

2,000 2,00 4,00

DRAIAINGEBAI

PRC Harris,, Inc. uejecr--- lILI- SMC9T -

CONSULTING UNOOI49909 To oPI~~CauPUTWO ID - i....C 4 G K D------- ------------- AY J.L&Z1

LA -. ,.. Ci7 I I

V IO /LCS Ac - C 11 -

&T ey, A 1. , dA

57

Ay-tA(e- 3 2-~e

r_-S y0aV *000B ydA

P R C H a rris , In c . suu .cc .. -_ . . ..... S :EET N o.... ,, o . - .

CONSULTI. ...NG.... _ . . J o °.. L ..Ji7 : _..COIMPUrComy ------ D GY.-----------------DATE ---- .L~.--------

--- C

-MA.. P- IT

2kr /7...i-

t i& - - ------

PRC Harris, Inc. SUJECT S No..---Z ---- --- of.-

CONSUL.... -OINE-e' - 4 ArK---- -I MAM . J. 1_ orT --- SF A- T--N- CHE.. B --

-- 0 147 i. Ox IV-,± _ _ _ , -...

--" TO_ 2 2'2- Y 80 0to _A" 4S X1 r 8 ,

- Tc- " +L II

• -- :::..._

TC 2.2 LA S._2..to a f -\ 0& . v *-VA

Te-~ y~ 2 4A

~~'qI -eX.

- ~ t38

IH~~~~~~ LetS. ~.4*~ 7

4V

PRC Harris, Inc. SuuJECT. SMuCCTN@

COMPUTCOm - i my ----------- A .- L---

c-, ~ ~ keya:- O-

Ab ve --- t J

e3. 1 729 -t

~ ~Z

3 -- - _ _

I ~~~ Z.mi~i 2-8 ii i

PRC Harris, Inc. Sunjgcy . SMCiT No- . 51--a0.---

Iose.y~ NG #4099S ..... A ..C.Y JoeCOMPUrgO m.. .. J~ .. WCE my.--------------------.I~

CA~ 1-14e?*e. ka 0,'4x w,4

64(r CL

V

tL2'7 VA

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

PRC Harris, Inc. sUJ _9CTJ J . .e .. _. SI-N o .... --_-- orCONSULTNG tee-- - -- - Joe

COMPUTED Or --- .. ,_S CC.. my-------------.. 4 .... .

-_SPILL04N'I 10 NT T hP7 .L

7 7 , I

(07 2 Z 1?Z4 ),08

pe

PRC Harris, Inc. --- -- N-----

SCONSIUL 1TlfIN G isngm ir onI I

COMPUT... .. ..- my.--------------- ATE C- .... ..

i ,.,r- 4;l wl,

1 0 3 181 -"6- +34l 12-146 7 t 41 -78 -1

105"~~~~ .97 .3 ...........113

:5?

TcA.+.

-+ F..--

J0

- zi.

ISB

3t -- -- ------

PRC Harris, Inc. suejecT. SZ ----.o

CONSULaywss 6UN~efts ----- A~t JoeNo L7.d.-- COMPUT91 m t _2S_..CwuCaco my -------------- DATg.--F--c

CTOSOr r Os. 12SR4~4'AOV

70 0

PRC Ilarris, Inc. suiacr 141ZiA ~ S~~iN.CO~~su~vrne t iewumg Joe NO-O =1L71:At..... -

COMPUrl Y .T..C EICO sy.------------------- OAt

01

0OUTFLOW - CFs

04 0, e -UT-

PRC Harris, Inc. su.., c.i,^ '_ .. . __ s No. .A . o------

CON SULT~IG IEN46IE~RS CO4._ ., ._! , _ _t , .,o.,,,,,.. MY ----------- _ DA..

..., - k

'~~lp VOt

E~9~eA o~ ~Oj-A a1 70^ FDI S2 0

~a K2. -m. TVA

i .T

t

1I

Ki 5 I j c V

I t !w

fI C S g

i tI

-. " 4116 anan

* I IIi

IM a

C' 7!: " 1i '

-i t= 0. .

U i

% 0

W ! - .. ..

I 9 'C-- ° - o - .

'' -' . :1 ..,1';: I a o: ....

= --. .'. .:: " - " :

C. In~

"-* I I *-I - --

: - - ,, , .

.'..**i i.

- -' ; :'

II. 0 -I 'r- *'" I 0*,

*_ _ _ . _ _ _ L I . : t ,I 'Cl . J K 1 ~4i*

4 r, ia! 1

* 1

I * I a

I .

t, 4 '1,

0 •o. .. .. .. .... .O .. ... .. .c

-; - ------ -SI .' e

z ci

.. cC.... ,f I~

ev-I ,it .

.. . . . . .. .- , I . *1 .- p.-' " .

.P~r ......... ........ '................

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

1 , I: / -I. ,-

1~ ~ .. r"1 on c. o - "

........-I~ ... c... e ... . . a. . . I. ... ,•0

Cv I . * , "5

It I I -- -j o. -

O•i 1I40r . C . .:

0 . - - , - i .~ I. ... .. ... ii 0i l ... ..' 0 - . .. ....

/5

____ L - -~ - -.____ ________ * ~

I I I

I II 'I I

I . I ii1 1I I I I

I .

I f I ~

t I

2 J I

- I A

t ''

'..A' j I '-N ~.. N ~ IC.D.~Aa. N~ II

L ~- ~ L SN

P DA 0 ~ I I- LA -~IbA I' QI I - hjCOI'~ 4)0

I. uA.AAfl~ ~ Io I -~ I-~ I .5% * .1.

I *~ - - -. *~AAAECPjC ~ ~

a N -i Jrt~ S *A*-I."- - ~J.O.I.60~ r C .2CC - ~ZA. r.rr-,-.C'

- -c ~ r ,rAL J L ~ I.1 i

,~ ~ I .

L. -,r 2A

.4I...CtA~ A.c~--I

I. .d 1%

on- Awl. usfs C.AA*

I" 41

C

-~ [ ~ I ~ ,~

I' *~ *~ F I .- ~ .,=-~ ~ -~ fCAL *~ P * .,Lctacn,,c.I*vI* I Ij-I I~) I,-~ -,* -,

A ~

If.'AO ~A~* -- 4*~ F-~ I A-44 -F -h 3 I

-~ j :1

''I I -'* ~. a. I II ;I *I .<L

- I -~ A~

A:: F :~ .~

-i Ii-~ F

A * -I.21I -.~ A

j ~, I A-II FI Ii

-. r

q - '~ - - -.

:I.

* ° .

a I

-" i t $, 7- C

' - - o 0

* I

-' . a.-."C

• - .- C. Cit.,4 .

. *ailj .iill, _" .- " ,

17

44

.,Ix (L

06~

C, 44JI

.aI .o% L I m(' -9Lf lde

- 0 ' ,

I I~'" '-

o E ,

212 -I LoL "I

.

f. I 1 1

2 t ItW: d om sie

SI

g I

I; I I

I I

*~~~~~~~~~~ ,--..0... - -g. -,r.. or - - - - -

i I t i

a av I' a a; S Si ** SS t t~ ** **+ *4ti .t 0 0

30 ~ ~ 1 = 003 r, dl -P 000 30 0 4000 0 ol00 r30 p00 r0 000

!. .i 4 .. ..in , .. . -. - ta m. a a on w _ I* ... o. . .. ....... . ..

. I ; , ' P. I

.. . .. , .. ,...o..,..,,,,,., .. .. ',,,...,,"oe C .....=~ .,. C ... o, 4 L,, . .. v

+o + o +..... . . ... . +. +.. ++ + + :.+. + + : ++ -o o.:+l:S. . .. E'.. NN. o.. . . +oo:.. . . :..o c+OOCJ m o o C C-- 00- 00,,o C ~oo oo o o0m C C o o 00 oCoCo o k'0 .. .. .

I K . L

I !- 1 1., ::1":!g-ooI oo i . -C +ON~ /~C oc *1 . - : '

r'0 In wIw

F + 0 00C , F. bW F - , ,t . . ,

I I i I .T I I -+ + oao m. k I.* a 1.ta

.. a. a V.- ,

1 ~ ~~~~ ~~ ir 1. 1+ . . .,.

10 1 - I 1 '.8 .1 -1 k- r . W . r w .1! I

0" r .* c .. ' m W Z " f- . _ i-• • • • • :• • .p • - -- - -I . -I - •- - - l - - I - - I * , I .- -P - -,' - - ,.+.,

...... ..~~~~~~ ~~~~ -Ail 1s;. v°[ ' +I ° ... .°[ ' ° i ° + '' -+ -...+-.++..~ ~~ ~~~~~~'i ... ::... I. .+ ... I:

1

4

.. . .q .. .

o ..

0 :j . . .

.1 c

CL N

011

. .~ . .... 1. .

. . . . .I - 0: ..

..

- i~~;i I

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

a..

.7 IK

If p

z FI

I. to

I

r.