Powerline Plan and Environ. Assessment Jan. 2013 - Flood Control ...
Powerline Plan and Environ. Assessment Jan. 2013 - Flood Control ...
Powerline Plan and Environ. Assessment Jan. 2013 - Flood Control ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Powerline</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Retarding Structure<br />
Pinal County, AZ<br />
Draft Supplemental Watershed <strong>Plan</strong><br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>Environ</strong>mental <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
potential costs are captured in the planning level cost estimate that could be incurred by the<br />
project to meet regulatory approval requirements.<br />
The installation of a new filter system with the addition of a downstream geotextile would<br />
mitigate FM-1 <strong>and</strong> FM-5. Extending the filter into competent soils would mitigate FM-3;<br />
however, a filter match between the filter material <strong>and</strong> all encountered foundation soils would be<br />
needed to mitigate FM-2 <strong>and</strong> a filter match between the embankment materials <strong>and</strong> all<br />
foundation soils would be needed to mitigate FM-4. The use of a central filter does not mitigate<br />
FM-2 unless there is a filter match between the filter material <strong>and</strong> all foundation soils, which<br />
would be very difficult to design <strong>and</strong> construct. In addition, the presence of coarse-grained<br />
material in contact with the embankment materials in the upstream cutoff trench may result in<br />
piping <strong>and</strong> loss of material upstream of the filter. In order to mitigate FM-4, filter matches would<br />
be required between the embankment material <strong>and</strong> all foundation soils <strong>and</strong> the filter material <strong>and</strong><br />
all foundation soils.<br />
4.3. Filter Alternatives<br />
Filters can be constructed several ways. Based on experience with similar flood retarding<br />
structures, the most likely alternatives for the PVR structures are a central filter or an upstream<br />
sloping filter. While both systems have the capability of mitigating the potential failure modes<br />
presented, each system has unique advantages <strong>and</strong> disadvantages <strong>and</strong> is highly dependent on the<br />
existing embankment <strong>and</strong> foundation conditions. In addition, it is noted that the upstream sloping<br />
filter concept for the PVR dams has been developed as part of this study <strong>and</strong> taken through the<br />
Failure Modes <strong>and</strong> Effects Analysis (FMEA) process. No potential failure modes for the<br />
upstream sloping filter concept were identified. If the central filter concept is to be carried<br />
forward into the final alternative selection phase of this study, it is recommended that the central<br />
filter concept first be brought to the same level of study as the upstream sloping filter concept.<br />
4.3.1. Central Filter<br />
Central Typical Design<br />
The typical design of a central filter at the PVR structures would consist of two components. The<br />
first component is a granular material designed in accordance with NEH-633, Chapter 26 (NRCS<br />
1994) to be filter matched to the embankment soils. The granular material would be placed in a<br />
loose condition in areas of existing embankment <strong>and</strong> compacted in areas of new embankment.<br />
The second component is a nonwoven geotextile placed on the downstream side of the granular<br />
material. The filter would generally be placed vertical along the centerline of the entire structure<br />
<strong>and</strong> extend from the required freeboard elevation to the elevation of competent foundation soils.<br />
In the case of the PVR FRSs, the existing central filter trenches would be excavated through to<br />
remove the existing filter material <strong>and</strong> extend the trench down to competent foundation soils.<br />
Competent foundation soils along the PVR FRSs are considered to be those soils with Stage II<br />
cementation or greater, which are commonly considered to be Late Pleistocene soils in the PVR<br />
area.<br />
In addition, the required freeboard elevation for the PVR FRSs will require a crest raise. In order<br />
to facilitate this raise, a portion of central filter near the existing crest would be extended<br />
upstream, horizontally for a short distance before extending vertically at the new centerline.<br />
During a February 16, 2012 FMEA, it was suggested that the horizontal portion of the filter<br />
could be eliminated by overlapping the two vertical sections of filter. This would result in an<br />
USDA- NRCS <strong>Jan</strong>uary <strong>2013</strong><br />
Kimley-Horn <strong>and</strong> Associates, Inc. Page 25