Laserfiche WebLink
Overall, the stability checks on the embankment showed good <br />results. Vegetation had taken a good hold on all required <br />areas and no erosion problems were found. The Waterman <br />canal gate for the dewatering pipe was found to be in good <br />condition. I was unable to verify the construction of seep <br />collars or the keyway, however, visual inspection showed no <br />signs of problems with seepage or shifting of the <br />embankment. <br />Pond B <br />1) Constructed Elevations The same elevations checked <br />for Pond A were checked for Pond B and found to be <br />within 0.3 feet of the design. In some pond designs, <br />this may not be adequate, but in this case, because the <br />pond is significantly over-designed, it is not a <br />concern. <br />2) Width of Spillway Design: 30 feet. Measured: 30 <br />feet. <br />3) Height of Embankment Design: 10 feet. Measured: 10 <br />feet. <br />4) Slope of Dam Design: 2.5H:1.OV. Measured: 3.OH:1.OV <br />5) Width of Top of Dam Design: 10 feet. Measured: 10 <br />to 15 feet <br />6) Rip-Rap alone Curtis-Creek Embankment Design: <br />Durable Class I rip-rap (508 + 6" size) on entire <br />embankment along Curtis Creek. Measured: as specified. <br />7) Topsoil and Vegetation Removal could not be <br />verified, however, it appeared that the proper measures <br />were taken. Soil was replaced on all non-rip-rap <br />areas. <br />8) Embankment Compaction Design: 958 of density <br />determined from proctor method AASHTO designation T-99. <br />Measured: could not be determined although the <br />embankment was free of cracking, bulging, sliding and <br />seepage. <br />9) Gabion Construction on Spillway Design: see map <br />titled Sediment Pond Details of May 19, 1979, <br />submittal. Measured: as specified. <br />