10B_097 river rd Chartpak Dam inspection reportCOMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS da�o M
W EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS y
d DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT is
° 50 AL MANS
P.O. BOX 173, OLD COMMON RD., LANCASTER, MA 01523 PHONE "8- 792 -7716
FAX 792 -7718
NOTICE OF INSPECTION
Argeo Paul Cellucci
GOVERNOR August 27, 1998
Trudy Coxe CPG International
SECRETARY c/o Richard Carlson
Peter C. Webber One River Road
COMMISSIONER Leeds, MA 01053
Dear Mr. Carlson:
The Office of Dam Safety performed a visual inspection on the
Chartpak Dam, in Northampton as prescribed by the established
by 302 CMR 10.00 - Dam Safety Rules and Regulations adopted
under M.G.L. Chapter 253, S. 44 -50.
Our inspection Summary and Recommendations are attached for
your information as the record owner of this dam. Also
enclosed is a copy of 302 CMR 10.00 - Dam Safety Rules and
Regulations.
The Chartpak Dam is now in a partially breached condition.
Deficiencies listed in the attached report must be attended
to at your earliest opportunity to remove it from its
designated Class I - High Hazard classification.
No specific response is required to this Notice. However, if
you have any questions, please contact the Office of Dam
Safety.
Thank you for your cooperation.
R. David Clark, Acting Director
Office of Dam Safety
lA
Bbd' printed on recycled paper
f -
I t
CIO
� f t
�
� w
�� �TAL MANP
Department of Environmental Management
Office of Dam Safety
Inspection/ Evaluation Report
Dam Nam
Dam ID# : 2 -8- 214 -11
Army Corp ID # : MA 00758
Town NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS
Consultant HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
Date of Inspection: 20 MARCH 1998
s
am
MW
UM
PREFACE
The purpose of this report is to identify expeditiously those dams that may pose hazards to
human life or property. The assessment of the general condition of the dam is based upon
available data and visual inspections. Detailed investigation and analyses involving
topographic mapping, subsurface investigations, testing and detailed computational
evaluations are beyond the scope of this report.
In reviewing this report, it should be realized that the described condition of the dam is based
on observations of field conditions at the time of inspection, along with other data available to
the inspection team. In cases where the reservoir was lowered or drained prior to inspection,
such action, while improving the stability and safety of the dam, removes the normal load on
the structure and may obscure certain conditions that might otherwise be detectable if
inspected under normal operating environment of 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 assume that the present condition of the dam will continue to represent the
condition of the dam at some point in the future. Only through continued care and inspection
can there be any chance that unsafe conditions will be detected.
SIGNED --
Consulting Engineer
r
aw
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE
i
... I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
1
1.1 General
1
— 1.2 Project Description
1
1.3 Engineering Data
3
II. VISUAL INSPECTION
5
_. 2.1 General
5
2.2 Operation and Maintenance
g
2.3 Hydraulic /Hydrologic Evaluation
g
III. ASSESSMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND REMEDIAL MEASURES
9
3.1 Assessments
9
3.2 Recommendations
9
— 3.3 Remedial Measures
9
3.4 Alternatives
10
3.5 Cost Estimates
10
REFERENCES
12
— APPENDIX A - Drawings
APPENDIX B - Photograph Location Plan and Photographs
APPENDIX C - Visual Inspection Checklist
11
NW
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
1.1 General
A. Authority
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management (DEM) contracted
Haley & Aldrich, Inc. to perform inspections and develop reports for a number of
dams within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The inspection report for the
Chartpak Dam was conducted in accordance with that contract and also under the
Authority of Chapter 253, Sections 44 -50 of the Massachusetts General Law.
B. Purpose of Work
The purpose of this investigation is to inspect and evaluate the present condition of
the dam and appurtenant structures. More specifically, it is to compare the existing
structural and hydraulic conditions of the dam to the conditions reported during
previous inspections, and to re- evaluate hazard and size classifications as they relate
to present Massachusetts 302 CMR 10.00 Dam Safety Rules and Regulations. DEM
will use this report to determine which owners have undertaken remedial action since
the last inspection and to determine if conditions have worsened since the last
inspection.
C. Scope
The investigation is divided into four parts: 1) obtain and review readily available
reports, investigations, and data pertaining to the dam and appurtenant structures;
2) perform a visual inspection of the site; 3) evaluate the status, and need for an
emergency action plan for the site; 4) prepare and submit a final report presenting
the evaluation of the retention structure, including recommendations, remedial actions
and associated costs.
1.2 Project Description
A. Location
Chartpak Dam is located in the Town of Northampton, Massachusetts. It creates an
impoundment on the Mill River in Leeds Village. A general location of the dam is
shown on Figure 1 in Appendix A. The U.S.G.S. reference coordinates for the dam
are N42 °21.3' and W72 °42.1'.
There is no readily available information concerning the original construction of the
dam or its history. Some engineering data was available from prior inspections
(References 1 through 6). A sketch of the plan layout of the dam is included
herewith as Figure 2, Appendix A.
r
ow B. Ownership and Purpose of the Dam
The owner's name and address are given below:
CPG International
1 River Road
Leeds, MA 01053
—' Attention: Mr. Richard Carlson
Chartpak Dam is an old stone masonry dam which has been slowly deteriorating over
the years. Its original purpose was not included in the available information
concerning the dam.
C. Description of the Dam and Appurtenances
The dam consists of a primary cut stone masonry spillway, a secondary masonry
spillway, masonry training walls, and outlet works. The primary spillway is about
95 ft. long, and its crest is currently about 23 ft. above the river channel. A
secondary cut stone masonry spillway which is capped with concrete at the crest and
on the upstream side, is about 75 ft. long, and has a crest level about 4 ft. higher
than the primary spillway.
The original crest stones and the entire top row of cut masonry blocks were missing
from the primary spillway at the time of the site visit. About three- quarters of the
next row of blocks was also missing. Removal of these stones has exposed the
rounded rubble stone interior of the dam. Wooden planking on the upstream face of
the dam was visible through the water in some locations. Cut stone masonry
abutment walls are present on the left and right sides of the spillways. These walls
extend about 7 ft. above the primary spillway.
A mortared cut stone wall extended approximately 35 ft. from the spillway into the
right abutment. Cut stone walls also formed training walls downstream of the
r
spillway on the right and left sides. The cut stone wall on the right side varied from
about 6 to 10 ft high, and was about 35 ft. long. The cut stone wall on the left side
was approximately 24 ft. high, and extended downstream several hundred feet.
A 4 -ft. diameter outlet gate was present on the right side of the primary spillway,
and discharged onto a bedrock outcrop immediately downstream of the right
abutment. A 2 ft. wide by 3 ft. high sluiceway was also present beneath the
primary spillway on the right side. No control mechanisms were observed for either
the gate or sluice structures.
Bedrock was exposed in both the right and left abutment areas, and within the river
channel downstream of the dam.
2
r
D. Normal Operational Procedure
A letter prepared by Tighe & Bond dated 20 March 1989 (Reference No. 6) included
a 1 -pg. operations and maintenance plan. The plan included the following items:
❑ Inspections to be made every two years.
❑ Brush and tree growth to be cut three times annually.
❑ The right abutment outlet to be kept clear of any debris and inspected once
every two weeks, more often in heavy runoff time, and records maintained.
❑ The access pathway to be maintained in a passable condition.
❑ Professional quality photographs to be taken once every two years.
❑ Changed conditions to be reported to the plant director.
❑ Inspection reports to be filed with the Office of Dam Safety.
E. DEM Size Classification
The DEM size classification is INTERMEDIATE based on a total height of 31 ft.
and 180 acre -ft. of storage.
F. DEM Hazard Classification
The DEM hazard classification is HIGH due to the potential for loss of life and
serious damage to homes, industrial facilities and bridges located downstream.
1.3 Engineering Data
A. Design and Construction Records
There was no information on design and construction of the dam.
B. Drainage Area
Drainage area for the dam is approximately 40 square miles.
C. Reservoir Area
Reservoir area is approximately 7 acres.
D. Storage
Storage is approximately 6 acre -ft. at normal pool and 180 acre -ft. at maximum pool.
3
r
E. Post - Construction Changes
There was no information on post - construction changes.
4
r
ow
II. VISUAL INSPECTION
2.1 General
The condition of the dam has been deliberately allowed to deteriorate over the years. At the
time of the site visit, the capstones were missing from the center of the spillway crest; the
outlet gate had been removed allowing full flow through the sluiceway. Previous reports
have summarized similar conditions at the dam.
The reports have also documented recommendations for either reconstruction or breaching of
the dam. Selected portions of these recommendations contained in the DEM files are
summarized below:
1979 Army Corps of Engineers Safety Inspection - A 1979 Army Corps of
Engineers safety inspection of the dam identified the following primary deficiencies:
❑ Missing stones from the spillway crest (2 layers).
❑ Inadequate spillway capacity.
❑ Inoperable outlet works.
❑ Considerable brush present at the spillway approach.
❑ Considerable debris within the major spillway.
❑ Sides of the channel overgrown with trees and brush.
The 1979 Corps of Engineers recommended that the owner engage a registered professional
engineer to:
1. Reconstruct the spillway to its original crest elevation, and perform a
hydrologic- hydraulic evaluation to confirm its adequacy.
2. Repair the outlet works and operations mechanisms.
3. Establish a formal maintenance and operation procedure.
4. Establish an Emergency Action Plan (EAP).
Alternatives identified by the Corps included:
❑ Performing all of the recommended items.
❑ Rebuilding the spillway crest at the existing low point, providing protection
to the rubble core, and Corps recommendations 3 and 4 noted above.
❑ Breaching the dam.
1988 Massachusetts DEM Safety Inspection - In late 1988 the Dam Safety Office conducted
another safety inspection of the dam. They found that the deficiencies identified in the 1979
Corps of Engineers inspection and the recommendations made were still valid.
1989 Tighe & Bond Safety Inspection - In March 1989, Tighe & Bond Consulting
Engineers performed an inspection of the dam on behalf of Chartpak. In their 20 March
1989 summary letter Tighe & Bond indicated that Chartpak had no interest in spending the
5
money to restore the dam. The 20 March 1989 letter made the following recommendations
NW and conclusions:
"(Tighe & Bond) recommends that the Dam Safety Office be asked to allow the dam to
remain as existing, to let nature, from time to time, loosen and remove a spillway stone block
and that ( Chartpak) submit a Formal Operation & Maintenance Procedure that will keep trees
and brush growth cut down at the dam, both up and downstream and at both abutment areas,
and that debris as well as brush be kept from blocking the openings into the right abutment
outlet works. Also an Emergency Action Plan be prepared and filed with the Dam Safety
Office.
The dam was built many years ago at a time when construction equipment consisted of
animal and human efforts, stones probably were slowly hand cut and design did not include
present day knowledge and expertise. Still much of the dam stands, except for the top of the
stone spillway section, and most stone blocks of the structure remain in contact with adjacent
blocks as placed decades ago. The dam is a monument, though somewhat dilapidated, to the
efforts of a century ago. "
The following paragraphs present a description of the conditions observed during this
inspection. In addition, refer to the photographs and checklist form included in Appendices
B and C, respectively, for additional information and comments.
A. Dam
On 20 March 1998 the Chartpak Dam was determined to be in a partially breached
_ condition. Based on similar comments made in several previous safety inspections,
this old stone masonry dam has been deteriorating at a slow rate (i.e., a few blocks
dislodged every year).
The spillway capstones, an entire row of spillway stones, and most of the next row of
spillway stones were missing. Unraveling of the spillway has exposed the rubble
stone interior, and has resulted in a lowered pool level which has exposed the timber
planking on the upstream slope. With the lower level, the top sections of the wood
planking have been exposed and have started to rot away.
B. Appurtenant Structures
At the time of inspection, water was flowing about half of the depth of the 4 -ft.
diameter outlet conduit located on the right side of the dam. Concrete at the outlet of
the sluice gate on the downstream side of the dam appeared to be spalled and
deteriorated. Further deterioration of the sluice gate over time, is likely followed by
loosening of adjacent masonry blocks due to localized heavy water flow; this
deterioration will lead to an eventual breach of the adjoining spillway.
C. Downstream Area
The river channel downstream of the dam is formed in bedrock; several industrial
facilities and bridges are located downstream.
6
%W
No
D. Evaluation of Observations
This assessment of Chartpak Dam is based on a review of the previous Phase I
inspections and a visual inspection performed on 20 March 1998. Information
developed for this evaluation is adequate to assess current conditions at the dam.
The following conditions were identified during the inspection:
0 The primary spillway capstones were entirely missing. One entire row of
spillway blocks was missing, and most of the next row was also missing.
The current configuration of the spillway tends to trap floating logs, brush
and other debris behind the remaining blocks.
o The rubble core of the primary spillway was exposed due to the loss of
capstones and two rows of masonry blocks.
o The upper portion of the timber planking on the upstream side of the spillway
appeared to be rotted.
o There was a considerable amount of logs, branches and other debris present
at the crest of the spillway, caught by some of the remaining spillway stones.
_ o Grass was growing in many of the joints on the downstream face of the
spillway.
o The 4 ft. diameter concrete outlet in the sluice on the downstream side of
the spillway appeared to be spalled. Concrete at the invert appeared to be
broken.
o No closing mechanisms were observed for the gate or sluice structures.
ft-
o Several masonry blocks at the right abutment were missing.
o Masonry block walls on the right abutment and downstream of the right
abutment require repointing. One masonry block was observed to be missing
on the right side training wall, downstream of the spillway.
o A considerable amount of brush and trees were present within masonry block
wall joints and behind the walls.
o The concrete facing on the upstream side of the secondary spillway on the
left side of the dam was cracked, and contained holes in a number of
locations. Trees and brush were growing out of the cracks.
7
%W
O There were no security or protective measures to prevent unauthorized access
to the dam.
0 There was considerable tree growth within the river channel downstream of
the dam.
•— 2.2 Operation and Maintenance
A. General
An Operation and Maintenance program was established providing for removal of
brush and debris from the dam and outlet works. The plan anticipates the gradual
—. deterioration of the dam; routine inspections, bi- annual inspection by an engineer
and photographic records shall be used to confirm the changing condition of the dam.
B. Emergency Action Plan
An Emergency Action Plan has been established.
C. Evaluation of Operation and Maintenance
Maintenance of the dam is consistent with the Operation and Maintenance program.
2.3 Hydraulic/Hydrologic Evaluation
No hydraulic/hydrologic evaluation has been performed for Chartpak Dam.
8
VW
III. ASSESSMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND REMEDIAL MEASURES
3.1 Assessments
Based on observation of conditions on 20 March 1998, the condition of Chartpak Dam is
judged to be poor. The dam has been deliberately allowed to deteriorate; repair of the dam
would now involve major reconstruction of the spillway, upstream slope and outlet controls.
Chartpak Dam is now in a partially breached condition. Based on prior observations, this old
stone masonry dam has been deteriorating at a slow rate (i.e., a few spillway stone blocks
dislodged every year). It is important to the safety of the dam that the breaching process
continue to occur very slowly. If the breach could suddenly accelerate, or if a more rapid
-- breach is possible, the dam should be considered unsafe.
3.2 Recommendations
Many of the deficiencies identified in the 1979 Corps of Engineers and 1988 DEM
inspections were identified during the current inspection. Recommendations for repair of the
dam would be in direct conflict with the Owner's plans to allow the dam to deteriorate.
Applicable recommendations would include the regular evaluation of the dam to establish that
no unacceptable or unsafe conditions have developed.
In 1989, Tighe & Bond recommended that the dam be allowed to deteriorate over time.
They believed that the dam would fail very slowly, rather than suddenly and catastrophically.
Tighe & Bond's opinion regarding the rate at which failure would occur appeared to be based
on visual observations and engineering judgement.
As more of the rubble fill interior of the dam becomes exposed, the dam could become more
susceptible to a sudden, catastrophic -type failure. This condition should be evaluated.
3.3 Remedial Measures
The remedial measures below are separated into two categories. The first category will
require the owner to hire a qualified engineer to prepare documents prior to implementing the
remedial measures. The second category can, if desired, be undertaken by the owner without
the assistance of an engineer. This work may require state, local or government permits that
should be investigated prior to starting work.
Remedial measures requiring assistance from a qualified engineer:
o Engage a qualified Professional Engineer to review the current condition of
the dam to determine whether 1. the dam should be breached or 2. that the
monitored /controlled deterioration can continue and that a catastrophic failure
of the dam will not occur. Complete an assessment of the effects of a dam
failure.
9
Nor
Remedial measures that can be undertaken by the owner:
aw ❑ The Tighe & Bond operations and maintenance plan included completion of
inspections every two years, taking professional photographs of the dam,
removing brush, and other items. We recommend that all items on the
operation and maintenance plan be completed, and documentation of their
completion be submitted to the Dam Safety Office for review.
❑ The Tighe & Bond Emergency Action Plan (EAP) should be updated, as
appropriate, to reflect current conditions downstream of the dam. The EAP
should incorporate the conclusions of the breaching or deterioration plan, as
appropriate.
❑ Protective fencing should be provided to reduce the likelihood of
unauthorized access to the dam.
3.4 Alternatives
Repair of the dam is not reasonable; therefore continued observation of the rate of
deterioration or else breaching of the dam are the two options for consideration.
3.5 Cost Estimates
The costs given- below- are broken -into the same categories -used for the - remedial measures -
shown above. Please note that the construction costs, including estimated labor and material
costs, are based on limited investigations and are provided for general information only.
Actual construction costs will vary.
Remedial measures requiring assistance from a qualified engineer:
REMEDIAL MEASURE APPROXIMATE COST
Evaluate deterioration/breaching of the dam $4,500
Dam break/downstream flooding analysis $5,500
Subtotal $10,000
Engineering and Construction Contingencies (20%) $2,900
Total $12,000
10
Remedial measures that can be undertaken by the owner:
REMEDIAL MEASURE APPROXIMATE COST
Implement O &M Plan $1,000
Upgrade Emergency Action Plan $1,000
Install fencing $4,500
Subtotal $6,500
Contingencies (20%) $1,300
Total $7,800
Total estimated repair cost for Chartpak Dam is approximately $19,800
11
VW
REFERENCES
1.
Letter from Tighe & Bond Consulting Engineers to Massachusetts Department of
Public Works dated 15 October 1970.
2.
"Inspection Report - Dams and Reservoirs", R.C. Salls, P.E., 9 November 1974.
3.
"Inspection Report - Dams and Reservoirs", Harold T. Shumway, 18 August 1976.
4.
Letter from Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Environmental
--
Affairs, Department of Environmental Management, to C.P.G. International, dated
17 January 1989, and attached "Dam Inspection Checklist, Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Management, Division of Dam Safety", Jerzy Pietrzak, dated 21
�-
December 1988.
5.
Letter from Chartpak to Massachusetts Dam Safety Program, dated 2 February 1989.
6.
Letter from Chartpak to Massachusetts Dam Safety Program, dated 28 March 1989,
with attached letter from Tighe & Bond Consulting Engineers, dated 20 March 1989.
F:\12070\005\F1NAL\12070005.WPF
..
.W
..
12
Im
ON
rr
APPENDIX A
Drawings
%m
i
4
1-
4-
SITE COORDINATES. 42'21'18'N 72'42'08'W
.� O - N—
O
I
c ad
Vow N U.S.GS. QUADRANGLE: EASTHAMPTON, MA
V—
DEM DAM INSPECTIONS
CHARTPAK DAM
NORTHAMPTON. MASSACHUSETTS
PROJECT LOCUS
ENONEMM
soumam APPRO)OMATE SCALE: 1:25,000
JUNE 1958
FIGURE 1
r,.
N
Q
LO
O
O
I
O
0
O
N
1401
w
CD
4w
«W
APPENDIX B
Photograph Location Plan and Photographs
NM
Imw
llVM 138
llb'M '138 A8NOSVV4 3NO1S
r
Q
0
a
A8NOSVV4
3NO1S
0
J
0
L '
�
A
O
=
,
d
w
z
D
z
w
O
Z
0
F W
C
O
J
J
¢ CF)
O
N
CL
O
Y
¢
U
�-
.�
m
W
j
Z
O
Q
1� Z
W
X �
U
Z
w W
¢
U
d Y
Z
O
U
w
Z
N
O
U
O
Z J
O
Z
O
pro
J
N
f
Z
-
ciao
J
a
W
Q
CL
o
Z
O
M
W
F-
Z
O
N z
w
cn
O
Z oo
CL
\
W O
a
Z
p
U
w
mw
F_
O
o
F
O
F-
_
� �d�
D o Z
O
F
O
Z
N
O zw
`
O
Z
N O
I Y a
V
N
w O
O
_
Z
O
O
az�
L
C7
Z
yo
O
LO
N
¢
Z
(n
Y
O
J
O
W
a
_
w w
m <
O
w
ww
m
F'
a
��
N /
pN
w
F=
�
?,
z
CL
w—
o
O
I
o
3F
� N
_a
�
W O
N
W
Z
9—
to
U
� w
0 o
O
N
N
�.iy
OD
—
—
i
: • 1\
[�
O �Sp
X g LO
a
...
Lr)
77yM ANNpsb
0
CD
W 3 Np1S
o
_
CD
N
llVM 138
x
Q
0
a
A8NOSVV4
3NO1S
0
J
0
L '
�
A
O
=
,
d
w
z
D
z
O
Z
0
F W
¢ CF)
O
LL_
O
F=
U
Q
X �
U
w W
¢
d Y
LL_
>
�w J
Z J
F
Z
O
pro
J
w
(1)
Z
W
ciao
J
a
�
=
Q
CL
Z
O
W
F-
Z
O
N z
w
cn
Z oo
CL
O
a
Z
p
U
w
iii
o��
F_
O
o
F
O
F-
� �d�
D o Z
=
F
O
Z
N
V
az�
L
N
¢
Y
O
W
O
W
_
m <
w
a
��
N /
pN
w
� z
?,
z
CL
w—
o
O
w
¢ z
Q
3F
W O
N
W
Z
U
� w
0 o
N
N
�.iy
Y Lu W
�N�
[�
w
x
w
a
O
J
0
0
A
O
=
,
w
o
z
O
F W
¢ CF)
CF)
O
U
X �
w W
¢
d Y
>
�w J
Z J
F
Z
O
pro
(M)
ciao
%a
an
lt*4
1. LOOKING FROM THE LEFT ABUTMENT AT THE GATE STRUCTURE ON THE RIGHT
%„ SIDE.
2. LOOKING DOWNSTREAM AT A HOLE IN THE SECONDARY SPILLWAY.
NOTE THE THREES AND BRUSH PRESENT ON THE SPILLWAY.
um
bw
s
mw
ti
0-
z s s f
K143�
f ` x 17�� t e 4 T
y t
3. LOOKING LEFT FROM THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PRIMARY
SPILLWAY AT THE
SECONDARY SPILLWAY.
4. LOOKING RIGHT ACROSS THE PRIMARY SPILLWAY FROM THE SECONDARY
SPILLWAY.
an
%
..
5. LOOKING UPSTREAM AT THE DAM FROM THE DOWNSTREAM RIGHT RIVERBANK.
6. LOOKING LEFT ACROSS THE PRIMARY SPILLWAY FROM ABOVE THE GATE
STRUCTURE ON THE RIGHT SIDE.
ft-
r
` 7
mm
7. LOOKING UPSTREAM AT THE RIGHT ABUTMENT AREA AND GATE STRUCTURE.
L
..
8. LOOKING UPSTREAM AT THE GATE STRUCTURE AND SPILLWAY ON THE RIGHT
SIDE.
m
\.
ft-
4
« c
� � o
o
o 0
v a M one
ID so oc
E■ v Q ° W C c COL z
W ` I N e o t\ o
T
b w r^
V
(7 ,, a 3 r� c W
Z Z a �4- b e= z
° e w
° ° U
c ow
Q } ,`� q o Z 2 CC J Z f.. Q r o O
Y W W •.
U Y. C c
w
Z E �, ° oc
w a �o
_ 0-
� Cl) v
U = � o
> c C 0 3
Z w S V °�
0 \' N O ° }t ° °
_ = O l• w
F- G LL, `� + ° a � °
U w
F
aW Z y 1 � `
c f ) Z h Z
Z O O
Q ' n E
W e
; .. W .
o a
o
a ?
ui
cn z a
co tz
a w 3 O
a
CO a= J W
Z CO J Z O w
U. o a cc
a �. Z = �
w a v CO > C o= c
U W w d
a O LL3 = J w t W
Z J D a w a o;
rM4
W"
\O
yINd3M
1s
'�
v c
3J,V :)
Z.
Z -
I.CS3ANI
MOlINOR
�
..., W
t-
.�
C
i""'
rZr
z
•� O
Z
D
F-
V
F
Z
z
of O
W
4
=
O
z
W
z
W 0
'�J
} 4
\
Y
to
W
2
�
...
J J
Z
►.
C
Z
Q
G
U
Cep
•.�
uj
W
�
^.
a
o z
in
O
O
— =
Y
CV
p
Z
�+•
—
Q
�n :�
Z
0
m
Z
3
z
F U
O
'ON
Wc
a
W"
\O
L
►r
IIL
Z.
3
Z
�
.�
►F..
i""'
rZr
Z
D
�
F
Z
z
of O
=
O
00
.�
W
z
W 0
'�J
Z
Y
to
�
�
U
J J
Z
►.
C
E
G
U
•.�
2
O
v
�
^.
a
o z
p
�+•
x
�.
�n :�
Z
0
z
Z
3
z
F U
O
'ON
a
s
,n o
...
W
<
0 3103d8N1
" =
V3uv
193HO
W"
\O
L
►r
Z.
3
Z
�
.�
►F..
i""'
rZr
Z
D
�
Z
Y
to
�
�
�
►.
•.�
to
:n
�
m >
C
E
Z
0
3dOIS
NIV3wiedn
a
a
52
I
C
t'� J
i
1
i
1
1
1
i
r
1
r
gy p '
K
r'
D
LL
Q
W
2
t
z
Ei
r,.
H I VC13i1
x =_
- I.LS4.%NI
a z
dnJ.INOW
u
t
e
J
L
z
_O
t
Z IZ
W
W
"'
0
O
' ZN
Q
-
_
M
W
a
J
a
ui
a
6
o
�
w
O
a
.
z
D
S
H
z
o
z
�
m
>
w
,;
H
H
Z
Z
Z
C
V
w
Z
T
Z
Z
z
n
O
O_
Z
to
oG
+
gu
7
Z
1]
►
F fs7
Ll
a
z
O
0 3133d8N1
H
V3!!V
3dOI8
nV3Wl8NMO0
N0I1V1N3nnwi8N1
a
Ei
r,.
54
�m
a lvd3
... z c
3.Ld0
-IIS3ANI
a z
VOIINOW
z
z
00
W
Z
_
0
v
\�
t
\�
Q
W
m
O
�
C A41
_
O
kA
_
W
a
z w
c
iq
z
C
�
z
O 0
z e
4
F
Q
r-
i
C
Z O cn
t
0
z
y
F to U
U
O
cc O
0
-
W
'
ON 1 :3Z I r
�
Z
C
.- z
03103d8N1
V3UV nV3!l18NMO0
9n03NVII3081N1
V3WV
_
54
�m
i
i
i
r
n
�i
t
c
0
W
<
o.
2
in
tow
bo
..
H IVdl?l
3.LVJ
ti
Q
mom
- IIS3AN
ti
< z
HO.LINOW
U e
F-
6
cr
G
z
O
f-
o
�..
W
d
H
H
oy
h
z
F
�
z
O
�.
cc
a
l
W
go
O
_
CL
_
o
Y
W
p
p E-.
.j
's7
Y
H
C
zi
W
0
W
56
w
9
a
z �
E
0
z
z
v
U e
6
cr
v
vi
o
H
oy
h
�
F
56
w
9
a
z �
E
0
z
z
U e
o
�
F
_
a
o
v
CL
Y
p
p E-.
's7
Y
H
C
zi
W
W
{i
..
H
V1
A.
J1
J O
vi
O
ON W31I
W
r_
3
<
I
0 3103d8N1
=
V3UV
8MUOM
1311no
56
w
9
a
z �
E
0
z
z
ut�tia i
NM
-
IA IN I NI
" ? - 31V;;
. � - LLS3AP +I
HOIINOW
l
z w
o CO
IL `
_
a
°
N > u
06 Im t
z W
O O I
z "
W � v, Jr a
LLI
Cc
J , '), :N Q� %\ a
i
� Z
O N .0)
H V
_ _ z z z y w O
ht ° o `z o o .. E- - z o z z z
= Z' > Q C rr i
O `� z S T ° z z a .�
V c v < z
z z
v < a c• < rn `�
.. a
� < v w
z
ON ti3LI x �O o v. �, T a a a T a T $ o 0 0 a
w <
2 0 3103d8N1 30VA 3ard o
"` z V3MV W1/3d18dn WY3d18NMOa 183l1a o
r s
.. DAM SAFETY INFORMATION SHEET
prepared by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
for
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management
Office of Dam Safety
w
Chartpak Dam
Description:
.,71
w
National ID No:
MA00758
State ID No:
2 -8- 214 -11
Name of Dam:
Chartpak Dam
Name of Impoundment:
Mill River
River / Stream Name:
Mill River
Owner:
Name:
CPG International
Address:
One River Road, Leeds, MA 01053
Telephone No.:
413 - 584 -5446
Type of Ownership:
Private
Contact Person/
Caretaker:
Name:
Mr. Richard Carlson
Address:
One River Road, Leeds, MA 01053
Telephone No:
413 - 584 -5446
Site Information:
Hazard Classification:
High
Size Classification:
Intermediate
Type of Dam:
Stone Masonry
Purpose of Dam:
None
Structural Height:
31 ft.
Hydraulic Height:
23
Crest Length:
170 ft.
Drainage Area:
40 mile s
:sq
Normal Impoundment:
6 acre -ft.
Maximum Impoundment: 1180
acre -ft.
Year Completed:
1890
Spillway Information:
Type:
Stone Masonry Broad Crested Weir
Width:
Primary: 95 ft.; Secondary: 75 ft.
Capacity:
6200 cfs (total)
Page 1 of 2
.w
DAM SAFETY INFORMATION SHEET
prepared by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
for
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management
Office of Dam Safety
Chartpak Dam
Location:
Latitude:
142 ° 21.3'
Longitude:
72 0 42.1'
Town:
Northampton
USGS Quadrangle:
Easthampton, MA
Inspection Information:
0"
s
Inspection Condition:
Poor
Last Inspection Date:
20 March 98
Consultant:
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Army Phase 1:
Yes
DEM Phase 1:
Yes
Evaluation Information:
E1
Type of Design:
3
E7
Low Level Outlet Condition:
1
E2
Level of Maintenance:
1
E8
Spillway Discharge Capacity:
1
E3
Emergency Action Plan:
4
E9
General Condition:
1
E4
Condition of Embankment:
5
E10
Estimated Repair Cost:
$19,800
E5
Condition of Concrete:
1
E11
Roadway:
No
E6
Low Level Outlet Capacity:
1
E12
Bridge:
No
F: \ 12070 \005\FINA UDA MSA FE. wPF
Page 2 of 2