You are on page 1of 67

OVERCOMING CHALLENGES FOR REPAIRS TO A TRULY UNIQUE HISTORIC DAM – SOUTH EASTON POND DAM IN NEWPORT, RI

Nils S. Wiberg, P.E., CFM, Fuss & O’Neill, Inc., Providence, RI Philip W. Moreschi, P.E., CFM, Fuss & O’Neill, Inc., Providence, RI Julia A. Forgue, P.E., City of Newport Department of Utilities, Newport, RI Kirk F. Bosma, P.E., Woods Hole Group, Inc., East Falmouth, MA

South Easton Pond is one of the City of Newport, Rhode Island’s nine drinking water supply reservoirs, covering approximately 149 acres. It is encompassed nearly entirely by a 2.2 mile long earthen embankment varying up to 8-feet in height. The 130 year old impoundment was constructed on the site of a tidal marsh and is immediately upgradient to residential neighborhoods, a heavily travelled roadway and the City’s signature oceanfront beach (Figure 1). It was reconstructed in 1939 following substantial damage to the impoundment’s south embankment from the Hurricane of 1938.

Figure 1. Site of the South Easton Pond adjacent to Easton Bay in Newport, RI. A stormwater drainage interception channel (referred to as a “moat channel”) runs along a significant portion of the embankment’s downstream toe before discharging to one of Newport’s most popular ocean-front public beaches. The 6 to 8 foot wide embankment crest has been used by the community for generations as a walking trail around the “Pond”, however this foot traffic has had an impact on the condition of the embankment, as well as raised concerns on potential impacts wastes from pet owners walking on the embankment were having on the quality of this drinking water reservoir.

The Easton Pond Dam is comprised of earthen embankments and a spillway structure enclosing the South Easton Pond (South Pond). An earthen embankment forms the northern boundary of this impoundment from the adjacent North Easton Pond (North Pond). Refer to Figures 2 depicting the approximate limits of repairs to the North and West Embankments currently being undertaken.

Figure 2. North and West Embankments, which are the current focus for design and repair.

2006 Dam Safety Inspection and Planning Recommendations
A visual inspection of the North Pond and South Pond embankment and spillway structures was conducted on November 21, 2006 to assess current conditions and identify deficiencies. Historic engineering and construction records on these dams were also reviewed and current maintenance staff; were interviewed as part of this evaluation. Visual diving inspections of the South Pond spillway structure, South Pond treatment plant intake structure and North Pond treatment plant intake structure were also performed on this date. Some of the primary deficiencies identified during the inspection included the following items, as reflected in the photographs included as Figures 3 - 8: Excessive woody vegetation exists on portions of embankment slopes. Portions of existing upstream slope protection (stone riprap) will not provide adequate protection during major storm event. Portions of upstream slopes are failing and reducing total embankment crosssection. Numerous animal burrows were observed and reported on the embankments. Moat channel is encroaching on the downstream bench and embankment slope in several locations, reducing total embankment cross-section and stability. Concrete spillway structures exhibit moderate deterioration.

Worn footpath has developed on embankment crests due to foot traffic, resulting in areas where stormwater runoff channelizes and damages embankments. Portions of downstream slope and bench are saturated due to the moat channel and seepage through the embankment. Mowing equipment has difficulty operating on portions of embankments due to narrow bench, steep slope and saturated conditions leading to excessive woody vegetation exists on portions of embankment slopes. Excessive vegetation in the North Pond emergency spillway channel reduces the capacity of this structure to convey flood flows from the North Pond, if required.

Figure 3. A footpath has been worn on the embankment crest by recreational walkers, who have enjoyed access to the embankments for generations.

A stormwater drainage channel runs along the downstream toe of the north. Over the years. and in places is now encroaching upon the embankment itself. This photograph shows areas of active erosion along the West Embankment’s toe of slope.Figure 4. west and south embankment slopes. this channel has eroded a soil bench along the embankment. following a significant storm event in April 2007. Figure 5. .

vandalism and ice plucking. . resulting in rutting damage from mowing equipment. Figure 7. Where the soil bench remains along the downstream toe of embankment slopes. Wave action and weak embankment soils have resulted in scarps forming along much of the embankment’s length. Riprap armoring placed along the West Embankment’s upstream face has been lost to wave action. it is saturated by adjacent stormwater channel and seepage through the embankment.Figure 6.

. which includes advantages. where long-term alternatives are those that require significant design and capital improvements. several were identified that that could reduce the continuing deterioration of the dam’s embankments. Short-term alternatives are summarized in Table 1 below. Short-Term Dam Improvement Alternatives While short-term alternatives did not address the most significant deficiencies identified during the 2006 inspection and evaluations. shortening seepage paths through the embankment and restricting equipment access for maintenance and potential emergency repairs. These alternatives include both short. potential implementation issues and order-of-magnitude costs to implement respective items. disadvantages. Scarps formed on the West Embankment have narrowed the crest width from its normal 8’ on to 3’ in some places.Figure 8. A number of alternative remedial measures were identified and evaluated to address the deficiencies found during our investigations. Opinions of cost to implement/construct each alternative were provided to the City of Newport in a preliminary report transmitted to the City in April 2007.and long-term alternatives.

Table 1. Short-Term Alternative Recommendations from 2007 Preliminary Study
Dam STA-1 Clear and Grub Vegetation from Embankment Slopes Implementation Disadvantages Advantages Issues Difficult access to Allows future mowing Does not provide slope portions of as standard protection without embankments maintenance practice additional improvements (reduced Erosion and Permitting required due maintenance costs) sedimentation to stump removal; likely controls Prevents future will not qualify as hazard from maintenance Permitting overturned trees Difficult access to some Allows effective areas visual inspection of embankment surfaces Low engineering cost Dam STA-2 Clear and Grub North Pond Emergency Spillway Channel Implementation Advantages Disadvantages Issues Coordinate access Improves hydraulic Permitting required; likely with normal site capacity of spillway will not qualify as activities channel maintenance Erosion and Facilitates visual Expense for benefit only sedimentation inspection of spillway realized during relatively controls structures rare significant storm events Permitting Low engineering cost Dam STA-3 Repair North Pond Spillway Concrete Structures Implementation Advantages Disadvantages Issues Erosion and Relatively low Temporary measure to sedimentation engineering and extend life of failing controls construction costs structures Control of water No groundwater dewatering, limited Permitting control of surface water required Limited cost to extend life of existing structures Dam STA-4 Conduct Structural Inspection of South Pond Spillway Implementation Issues Disadvantages Advantages Coordinate work Determine condition Limited with low flows at of spillway for future information on actual spillway repairs or limited/full condition (limited replacement number of samples) Opinion of Cost $236,000

Opinion of Cost $21,000

Opinion of Cost $36,000

Opinion of Cost $29 ,000

Dam STA-5 Repair South Pond Spillway Concrete Structures Implementation Opinion of Advantages Issues Disadvantages Cost Erosion and Limited cost to Only delays future need $281,000 sedimentation extend life of existing to replace spillway controls structures structure Control of water No groundwater dewatering, limited Permitting control of surface Research water required waterproofing measures Dam STA-6 Construct Stormwater Channel Along East Embankment Slope Opinion of Implementation Advantages Disadvantages Cost Issues May require Addresses rilling of Possible neighbor access through embankment and opposition due to removal $54,000 adjoining parcel uncontrolled of grassed area (property (otherwise adverse stormwater boundary unknown for access conditions discharge into this study) result) impoundment Erosion and Removes standing sedimentation water at toe of controls embankment slope Control of water Permitting Dam STA-7 Repair North Pond Embankment Settlement Area Implementation Opinion of Advantages Issues Cost Disadvantages Erosion and Limited cost to Surficial measure; $25,000 sedimentation extend life of existing potentially does not controls structure address underlying cause of settlement Control of water No groundwater dewatering, limited Permitting control of surface water required Dam STA-8 Repair East Embankment Settlement Area and Footpath Implementation Opinion of Advantages Issues Disadvantages Cost Erosion and Limited cost to Surficial measure; $14,000 sedimentation extend life of existing potentially does not controls structure address underlying cause of settlement Control of water No groundwater dewatering, limited Permitting control of surface water required

Dam STA-9 Replace Gate Valve in North/South Pond Dividing Embankment Implementation Opinion of Issues Advantages Cost Disadvantages Dewatering Restores ability to May require excavation $45,000 control discharge to controls (dewatering, Possible Shoring South Pond shoring) depending on depth to valve Dam STA-10 Conduct Slope Stability Evaluation Implementation Opinion of Disadvantages Issues Advantages Cost Access for drill rig Evaluates stability of Expense $35,000 embankments following filling activities by the City Dam STA-11 Place Gravel on Bench/Downstream Slope of Accessible Embankments Implementation Opinion of Issues Disadvantages Cost Advantages Erosion and Previous Limited measure to $167,000 sedimentation construction activity, address deficiencies controls knowledge of (does not address procedures by City embankment deficiencies) Able to access bench and downstream slopes from opposite side of moat Dam STA-12 Install Inlet Screens for Treatment Plant Intake Structures Implementation Opinion of Disadvantages Issues Advantages Cost Coordinate access Low cost to protect Requires future $10,000 with normal site structure and plant maintenance to clear activities facilities accumulate debris Prevents animals and debris from being drawn into the treatment plant works. Dam STA-13 Implement Rodent Control Program Implementation Opinion of Advantages Disadvantages Issues Cost Research and Limit damage from Public opposition from $55,000 develop program burrowing animals wildlife enthusiasts opposed to lawful Public education/ Protect future management techniques community investment in Abatement methods need relations embankment repairs/ improvements to be selected Monitoring and and/implemented to reporting safeguard public users if public is not prohibited from embankments during the program.

500 Long-Term Dam Improvement Alternatives Alternatives were also developed to address the dam’s long-term embankment stability issues. and significant capital planning to fund their implementation. which includes primary benefits. . order-of-magnitude opinions of cost. and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE).000 Disadvantages Public opposition from current users.Dam STA-14 Prepare Emergency Action Plan Implementation Advantages Issues Research and Provides a prepared document plan of action in the resources and event of a failure or contacts unanticipated situation. Opinion of Cost $17. and potential implementation issues that would need to be addressed. Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM). These recommendations are more focused on fundamental conditions affecting the overall ability of the embankments and spillways to withstand extreme loadings during significant storm events. These long-term alternatives are listed below in Table 2. Review and update information periodically Dam STA-15 Control Public Access Implementation Advantages Issues Research and Limit damage from develop program foot traffic and vandalism Public education/ community relations Protect public from dangerous structures Monitoring and enforcement future investment in embankment repairs/ improvements Disadvantages Opinion of Cost $5. Permitting agencies referred to below by acronyms are the Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC). design and permitting. each of which would generally require more significant efforts for planning. Develop contingency plans Relatively low cost for various failure for a measure that scenarios could save lives and significant damage to Coordination of the dam and emergency downstream response agencies structures.

repair access. RIDEM and ACOE. Difficult access to some portions of embankments. provide adequate Replaces deficient bench width along slope protection. promotes proper surface drainage from embankment crests.000 Soil-Filled Riprap (vegetated): $4. Provides toe drains to address saturated slope and bench areas.000 Soil-Filled Riprap (vegetated): $2.888.280. Repairs worn footpath. Repairs significant scarps on embankments. Significant erosion and sedimentation controls required due to proximity to adjacent water resources. Dam LTA-2 Replace upstream slope protection on all embankments and widen embankment crest (no horizontal relocation of downstream slopes).000 Cellular Confinement: $4.580.000 Bare Riprap: $4.Table 2.000 Grouted Riprap: $3. Repair width for all upstream slope embankments for protection on other future maintenance/ embankments. Portion of impoundment storage capacity lost due to relocated embankments.412. Erosion and sedimentation controls required due to proximity to .000 Bare Riprap $2.055.122. Provides 3H:1V downstream slopes to facilitate mowing equipment.000 Reinforced Walking Surface (add-alternate): $96.000 Sheet piling and Articulating Control of water required by temporarily lower impoundment or coffer damming around work areas.592. Permits required from CRMC.000 Grouted Riprap: $4. to address Repairs significant significant scarps on deficiencies and embankments. Significant earth volumes to be handled will require stockpiling areas.000 Watertube (addalternate): $640.000 Porta-Dam (addalternate): $750. Long-Term Alternative Recommendations from 2007 Preliminary Study Alternative Description Dam LTA-1 Benefits Addresses woody vegetation on all Realign the East and slopes and adjacent West Embankments to embankments. Provides 12’ crest width for all embankments for future maintenance/ repair access.358. downstream toe of Provides 12’ crest slopes. Provides 10’ wide bench for maintenance access and to facilitate mowing equipment. Replaces deficient slope protection. Provides toe drains Order of Magnitude Costs Articulating Concrete: $7. Articulating Concrete: $5. Small portion of impoundment storage capacity lost due to upstream embankment filling.000 Cellular Confinement: $3.867. Addresses woody vegetation on all slopes and adjacent to embankments.000 Implementation Issues Control of water required by temporarily lowering impoundment or coffer damming around work areas.527.

000 Watertube (addalternate): $120. Order of Magnitude Costs Concrete: $7. Control of water required to maintain dry work area and bypass expected storm flows. Reduces risk of failure to downstream persons and structures. Control of water required to maintain dry work area and bypass expected storm flows. Permits required from CRMC and RIDEM.000 Watertube (addalternate): $640. Addresses observed deficiencies.000 Reinforced Walking Surface (add-alternate): $96. Erosion and sedimentation controls required . Permits required from CRMC and RIDEM.000 Remove and replace downstream apron: $234. does not defer repair. Extends lifetime of existing spillway structure. Dam LTA-5 Replace North Pond concrete spillway weir. Groundwater dewatering system possibly required.Alternative Description Benefits to address saturated slope and bench areas. Difficult access to some portions of embankments. Reduces risk of failure to downstream persons and structures. Permits required from CRMC and RIDEM.000 Dam LTA-6 Rebuild/Regrade all Provides 12’ crest width for all embankments for Rebuild/regrade embankment crests: Control of water required to maintain dry work area and bypass expected storm flows. Addresses observed deficiencies. Dam LTA-3 Demolish and replace South Pond concrete spillway weir.000 Porta-Dam (addalternate): $750. RIDEM and ACOE. Addresses observed deficiencies. does not defer repair. promotes proper surface drainage from embankment crests. Extends lifetime of existing spillway structure. does not defer repair.000 Porta-Dam (addalternate): $140.000 Implementation Issues adjacent water resources. Permits required from CRMC. Dam LTA-4 Demolish and replace South Pond downstream concrete apron. Extends lifetime of existing spillway structure.000 Remove and replace spillway weir: $289.842. Groundwater dewatering system possibly required. Groundwater dewatering system possibly required. Repairs worn footpath. Remove and replace downstream apron: $205.

Prioritized Short-Term Alternatives 1. Benefits future maintenance/ repair access.and long-term alternatives should be implemented in combination or proper sequence in order to be most effective. Dam STA-6: Construct Stormwater Channel Along East Embankment Slope 5.700. Repairs worn footpath. Permits required from CRMC and RIDEM. it was noted that a number of the short. Dam STA-13: Implement Rodent Control Program 6. promotes proper surface drainage from embankment crests. Dam STA-14: Develop an Emergency Action Plan . Dam Evaluation and Improvements Conclusions/Recommendations When discussing the various alternatives with the City of Newport. and sequential/contingency relationships between related alternatives. Permits required from CRMC.Alternative Description embankment crests. Provides reinforced surface for public access Reinforces moat channel banks to prevent or reduce further encroachment into benches and downstream slopes. Dam STA-4: Conduct Structural Inspection of South Pond Spillway 3.and long-term alternatives were developed. ease/relative cost of implementation. Difficult access to some portions of moat channel.000 Implementation Issues due to proximity to adjacent water resources. Dam STA-1: Clear and Grub Woody Vegetation from Embankment Slopes 2.500. Dam LTA-7 Install moat channel scour protection as described in Flood LTA-2 and LTA-6. West and North Embankments. Control of water in moat channels required during work.000 Dam LTA-8 Install embankment toe drains at limited sections of South.000 Install toe drains: $524. Install moat channel scour protection (riprap): $2. RIDEM and possibly ACOE. Upon further discussions with the City staff. RIDEM and ACOE. Difficult access to some portions of embankments. Dam STA-2: Clear and Grub North Pond Emergency Spillway Channel 4. Permits required from CRMC. based on the significance and urgency of the condition being addressed. Difficult access to portions of West Embankment. it the following priority lists of short. Erosion and sedimentation controls required due to proximity to adjacent water resources.000 Install moat channel scour protection (concrete): $3. Addresses benches and downstream slopes areas that are wet or saturated. Order of Magnitude Costs $303.

Dam LTA-2: Replace Upstream Slope Protection 3. Wind-generated waves also developed within the impoundment under steady 20-30 MPH on-shore winds. most severely those closest to the northwest corner of the impoundment. resulting in significant damage to the steeply sloped loose sand embankments. causing breaking waves to crest the embankment. 10. 12. Dam LTA-1: Realign Portions of Embankments 2. 13. Dam STA-7: Dam STA-8: Dam STA-15: Dam STA-5: Dam STA-11: Dam STA-10: Dam STA-9: Dam STA-3: Dam STA-12: Repair North Pond Embankment Settlement Area Repair East Embankment Settlement Area and Footpath Develop and Implement Program to Control/Prohibit Public Access onto Embankments Repair South Pond Spillway Concrete Structures Place Gravel on Bench/Downstream Slope of Accessible Embankments Conduct Slope Stability Evaluation Replace Gate Valve in North/South Pond Dividing Embankment Repair North Pond Spillway Structures Install Inlet Screens for Treatment Plant Intake Structures Prioritized Long-Term Alternatives 1. Storm flows in the drainage channel also caused significant scouring of the embankment’s downstream slope. Dam LTA-7: Install Moat Channel Scour Protection 4. 15. Dam LTA-4: Replace South Pond Downstream Concrete Apron 7. 11. creating high water levels in the impoundment and drainage channel. Dam LTA-5: Replace North Pond Concrete Spillway Weir 8. In addition to this damage from waves and the increased impoundment water surface. . City crews responded during the storm to limit damage and prevent a breach of the embankment by placing sandbags in these eroded areas. 14. The combination of breaking waves. flooding of the moat channel caused significant erosion of the channel banks and scoured portions of the lower embankment slopes.7. reducing crest widths to only 2-feet in some places. Dam LTA-3: Replace South Pond Concrete Spillway Weir 6. The severity of these waves was compounded by high water levels. 9. Photographs showing damage during and after the storm are provided in Figures 9 – 17 below. saturated soil conditions and inadequate slope armoring caused significant erosion on the upstream portions of the embankments. After the storm more formal temporary repairs were constructed by installing riprap gabions on portions of the upstream slopes. This erosion of the channel backs further reduced bench widths along the embankment’s toe of slope. 8. Graphical depictions of the embankment cross-section following the storm are provided as Figures 18 and 19. Dam LTA-6: Rebuild/Regrade Embankment Crest April 2007 Storm Damage A severe nor’easter on April 2007 generated substantial rainfall. where crest widths were reduced to 2’-3’ in some places. Scarps developed on both embankment faces. Dam LTA-8: Install Embankment Toe Drains 5.

A complete breach of this embankment was narrowly averted by the City’s emergency response. loss of upstream slope face armoring and wave conditions resulted in slope failures occurring along the North Embankment. Scarps previously existing on the West Embankment were eroded significantly further. High water levels in the impoundment.Figure 9. reducing crest widths down to 12” in places. saturated embankment conditions. . Figure 10.

. High water levels in the impoundment. including sandbag placement.Figure 11. difficult for City crews. Figure 12. Saturated embankment soils and narrowed embankment crests made implementation of emergency stabilization measures. saturated embankment conditions. loss of upstream slope face armoring and wave conditions also caused pervasive slope failures along the West Embankment.

Sandbags placed by City crews were successful in preventing further worsening of embankment erosion. requiring significant efforts to transport sandbags along the 2. Access could only be gained at one crossing point on the embankment due to high conditions in the stormwater channel.200 long embankment. Wooden planks were placed to allow City crews to transport sandbags by wheelbarrow to far reaches of the embankment.Figure 13. . as winddriven wave conditions continued for a second day. Figure 14.

. further weakening this already unstable embankment. Following the storm.Figure 15. Figure 16. Previously eroded channel banks along the West Embankment’s downstream toe of slope were worsened by the storm. sandbags and wooden planks remained in place as a testifying to the City’s successful emergency response efforts over the last 48 hours.

Figure 18. Typical embankment cross-section prior to April 2007 storm damage. sandbags and wooden planks remained in place as a testifying to the City’s successful emergency response efforts over the last 48 hours.Figure 17. . Following the storm.

Although this would limit turbidity in the impoundment. Preliminary Design Development for North and West Embankment Repairs North Embankment Repairs A general repair approach and sequence of construction was developed for the North Embankment. including those within the impoundment. d.Figure 19. the City would need to continue monitoring raw water supply withdrawals during construction. or as armoring along the moat channel bench). c. would be prepared as well down to the bottom of slope by generally smoothing the ground surface only. resulting in development technical memoranda documenting damage and interim stability of the embankments. A series of follow-up inspections and meetings with the City were conducted in the days following the storm. Other portions of the slope. 2. e. including updated opinions for construction costs for appropriate long-term alternatives developed in the preliminary assessment report. Typical embankment cross-section following April 2007 storm damage. This work would include the following items: . A line of large riprap units would be placed within the impoundment along the bottom of slope to buttress smaller riprap units placed from this line up to the proposed top of slope. evaluating the effectiveness of stabilization measures implemented by the City. This approach minimizes soil disturbances within the impoundment as an excavation to form a soil buttress at the bottom of the reinforcing would not be required. Installing a turbidity curtain in the impoundment along the upstream slope. 1. Raising the embankment crest to increase its elevation and width. Backfilling storm-damaged areas to prepare a suitable subbase. Clearing vegetation and reconstructing armor protection on the upstream slope. Clearing and removing woody vegetation along this embankment. b. Stripping existing riprap slope protection (this would be reused in the project as armor if determined to be appropriately sized for slope protection. and recommending potential alternatives for repairs. as outlined below. The approach to this work would involve the following items: a.

Stripping topsoil from areas to be regraded and temporarily stockpiling at a nearby staging area. Dewatering measures would likely be required for this work. Constructing vegetated riprap reinforcement to reform the moat channel bank along its existing alignment. interference from the impoundment bottom and potential refraction from other embankments (including sheeting on the West embankment) was subsequently performed during later design phases to verify this elevation and specific armoring requirements. d. This work would include the following items: a.000 gallons of impoundment volume would be lost at normal pool. This reinforcement would extend for the width of the bench and continue up the downstream slope to an elevation 2 feet above the bench elevation to provide scour protection. b. in coordination with water diversion measures identified above. A more detailed analysis addressing statistical wind patterns. stone check dams) may be required in downstream locations as work completion progresses.S.g.7. Based upon the current alignment and grading for the proposed embankment. c. Department of Interior incorporating the existing fetch length and assumed wind conditions at the site to minimize the potential for wave overwash.. the downstream slope would be graded to 2H:1V.3. b. Existing crest elevations along the embankment generally vary between EL 11. Installing silt fence along the moat channel bank along the downstream bench. Stripping/temporarily stockpiling topsoil and excavating existing bench soils to a depth of approximately 24 inches below existing grades from the channel bank to the bottom of slope. For example. approximately 85. Placing riprap (imported to the site and/or stripped from the upstream slope) and tracking on the prepared subgrade and continue placement to . c. sandbag berms would be placed 100 feet apart within the moat channel and one or more pumps would divert flow between these locations. In order to accommodate these changes without extending grading into the moat channel bench or further into the impoundment.2 and EL 11. Additional controls (e. Temporarily diverting flow in the moat channel in stages along the embankment as work proceeds.0 and increase the crest width to 12 feet with a 2 percent pitch toward the upstream slope. This slope angle is reflected due to the increased crest width and embankment height being incorporated while minimizing horizontal extension of the grading into the moat channel and impoundment. e. d. This proposed crest elevation was established using guidance tables provided by the U. a. which provides a stable embankment. Installing temporary erosion and sedimentation controls in the channel bench while earthwork is being conducted. Placing compacted controlled fill to form proposed subgrade surfaces to increase the crest by approximately one foot to EL 13. A 3H:1V slope could be provided by reducing the crest width to 10 feet (encroachment into the impoundment would still be required) or maintaining the proposed 12-foot crest allowing the slope by shifted approximately five feet into the impoundment. Replacing removed topsoil over regraded areas and establishing vegetation.

50 feet).e. and pumping water from behind the sealed section of sheeting to provide suitable conditions for subsequent placement of compacted controlled fill material..5 and extend down to bedrock within the impoundment. depending on the City’s preferences for the embankment’s appearance in this populated area and maintenance requirements. Sheeting would be driven to provide a top elevation of EL 13. Upstream Slope Protection Alternative An alternative to using riprap protection on the embankment’s upstream slope face using articulating concrete mats was identified. Installing steel sheeting parallel to the embankment within the impoundment. sealing this section at the advancing end. . Placing topsoil and establishing vegetation on disturbed areas and removing diversion/erosion and sedimentation controls from the moat channel following construction and stabilization. West Embankment Repairs The following measures would be implemented for the West Embankment. 1.0 (increase of approximately one foot) and be pitched 2 percent across the 12foot wide crest toward the 3H:1V downstream slope. A closed-cell system that doesn’t require soil fill to establish vegetation could be specified for this application. Similar to the North embankment. Placing embankment soil material to fill riprap voids and continuing up to the original bench elevation. An anchor trench would be installed along the top of slope to support the system. f. the soil crest elevation would be established at EL 13. the need for large riprap buttressing may be avoided. c. While this would still require a reasonable subbase to be formed within the impoundment. This riprap will provide both scour protection and additional mass for embankment stability. it is assumed that a turbidity curtain would not be required along the embankment. Replacing topsoil and establishing vegetation on portions of the new downstream slope that will not be disturbed by subsequent construction to stabilize these areas as work progresses to the south. This work would involve the following items: a. e. Because the sheeting is serving as a cofferdam separating earthwork from the impoundment. Additional material would be imported to form subgrades in the remaining portion of the embankment adjacent to this section of sheeting. e. b. Installing a limited segment of steel sheeting along the embankment (i. Clearing woody vegetation and stripping topsoil within the work area along this embankment. Sheeting would be installed in stages starting from the north end of the embankment and continuing to the south. Silt fence would be installed along the moat channel bank. d. Excavating existing embankment soils and riprap to proposed slope subgrade elevations and placing as compacted backfill behind sheeting.approximately three inches below the original bench elevation. and adjacent mats would be connected to prevent uplifting or other dislocations.

Once all sheeting has been installed. at which point stiffer soils precluded further advancement using this equipment. Repeating this sequence of driving a limited segment of sheeting. Temporarily diverting flow in the moat channel in stages along the embankment as work proceeds. Placing topsoil and establishing vegetation on disturbed areas and removing diversion/erosion and sedimentation controls from the moat channel following construction and stabilization. Stripping/temporarily stockpiling topsoil and excavating existing bench soils to a depth of approximately 24 inches below existing grades from the channel bank to the bottom of slope. and a manual tripod assembly where the dike was too narrow to allow access to the track-mounted rig. Constructing vegetated riprap reinforcement to reform the moat channel bank along its existing alignment concurrently to the above work or as Phase 2. Soil samples. two borings were performed adjacent to the dike (B-1 and B-7). Placing riprap (imported to the site and/or stripped from the upstream slope) and tracking on the prepared subgrade and continue placement to approximately three inches below the original bench elevation for scour protection and additional mass for embankment stability. Implementing dewatering measures as required for this work. Due to access restrictions to the embankment crests. blow counts and depth to bedrock were obtained for this boring.000 gallons of impoundment storage would be lost at normal pool. Geotechnical Investigations and Evaluations Subsurface Investigation Seven borings were conducted on and adjacent to the embankments in July 2007. Based on the current alignment of the sheeting. f. This work would include the following items: a. The borings were performed using a truck-mounted drill rig in locations adjacent to the dike. f. This reinforcement would extend for the width of the bench and continue up the downstream slope to an elevation two feet above the bench elevation. and tripod assemblies advanced to approximately 13 to 14 feet below ground. excavating and backfilling to form new subgrades. g. approximately 430. primarily to characterize natural soil conditions below the bottom of the embankments and to confirm bedrock elevations. . e. Installing temporary erosion and sedimentation controls in the channel bench while earthwork is being conducted. b. d. c. Three of the seven borings were conducted at two locations on/adjacent to the North embankment: Boring B-2 at the eastern end of the embankment using a hollow stem auger. and replacing topsoil to establish vegetation where appropriate in incremental stages to the south until the end of the proposed work area. place topsoil on the embankment crest and other disturbed areas to establish vegetation. stripping topsoil. as discussed above for the North embankment. a track-mounted drill rig on the dike crest.2. Placing embankment soil material to fill riprap voids and continuing up to the original bench elevation. Truck and track-mounted rigs advanced to approximately 30 feet below ground to evaluate depths to bedrock.

Boring B-7 west of the southern portion of this embankment (adjacent to Old Beach Road) using a hollow stem auger. In boreholes located on the embankment crest.7 feet during drilling. Groundwater was encountered at approximately 8 feet and 3.Borings B-1 and B-6 at the western end of the embankment using a hollow stem auger (B-1 was conducted adjacent to Ellery Road near the intersection with Aborn Street to assess lower portions of the soil formation in this area. Probes were conducted manually advancing a long steel rod into the soils until refusal was encountered. and B-6 was conducted on the crest to assess embankment soil conditions). gravelly sand with cobbles to a depth of approximately 30 feet below the dam crest elevation. the tests were limited to grain size analyses performed in accordance with ASTM D 422 (no hydrometer testing) including classification in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).5 feet below the embankment crest when the borings were completed. In each boring. A two-inch diameter PVC well was installed at B-1 to allow future permeability tests if warranted by the geotechnical evaluation. Soil samples and blow counts were obtained for this boring. The embankment fill consisted of predominantly fine sand with small amounts of silt at the North embankment and silty sand and some gravel at the West embankment. also using a manually operated tripod due to the narrow embankment crest. In general. providing the following general findings: Stone fill is consistently present in the moat along the North embankment at a depth of approximately 12 to 24 inches below the channel bed elevation. . A two-inch diameter PVC well was installed at this location to allow future permeability tests if warranted. Borings were also conducted at four locations on/adjacent to the West embankment: Boring B-3 at the northern end of the embankment using a manually operated tripod due to the narrow embankment crest. In addition to the soil borings. respectively. Soil samples and blow counts were also obtained for these borings. additional subsurface data was collected from the moat by probing soils along the channel bed to assess the presence and depth to riprap/stone fill reportedly placed by the City following a previous geotechnical evaluation in 1991. Standard Penetration Testing per ASTM D 1586 and split spoon sampling was performed continuously in the upper 12 feet and at 5-foot intervals thereafter.0 to 5. Soil samples and blow counts were obtained for this boring. Since all the samples taken were non-cohesive. Groundwater was encountered in the embankment crest borings at depths ranging from 5. Nine representative samples were selected for analytical laboratory index property testing. The deepest borings encountered split spoon refusal into weathered rock at approximately 30 feet below the crest elevation. Soil samples and blow counts were obtained for these borings. the soil profile through the embankment crest and underlying soil consisted of approximately 10 to 12 feet of loose fill underlain by dense to very dense natural glacial till deposits consisting of silty. Visual observation of the embankment fill at eroded areas indicated some cementation of the silty sand. where borings were performed adjacent to the embankment. Borings B-4 and B-5 along the middle portion of the embankment.5 feet below ground surface in borings B-1 and B-7. A two-inch diameter PVC well was installed at this location to allow future permeability tests if warranted. as well as depth to bedrock in boring B-1. groundwater levels reflect the piezometric surface of water seeping through the embankment. The impoundment water surface was approximately 4.

Grain size testing results confirmed the field classifications of both the embankment fill and the underlying glacial till documented in the boring logs. Recommendations were made in this report to improve the stability of the embankments. due to the lower density and lower strength of the embankment material. some of which were reportedly carried out (i.e. Embankment stability analysis was performed using Galena Version 4. below which stiff refusal was encountered (suspected to be firm silt or sand corresponding to the material noted at this depth in the boring logs). placement of rock fill in the moat channel bed). Dense glacial till was assigned an angle of internal friction of 40 degrees and a moist unit weight of 135 pcf. where previous analyses had shown unstable conditions. The soil in the borings indicated a relatively permeable embankment fill overlying a less permeable glacial till. . Sheet pile design and stability analysis were performed for the West embankment. For the purposes of stability modeling.Probes conducted in the channel along the West embankment did not encounter stone fill. as well as the narrow cross-sectional geometry. On the North embankment. Nine samples were submitted for grain size analysis to check field classifications and estimate soil properties for use in stability and seepage analyses. and stability analyses were performed for static and seismic conditions on the moat side of the West embankment. Stability Analyses A previous stability evaluation in 1991 indicated that portions of the North and West Embankments were potentially unstable due to the soil types and densities. Our current evaluation addressed the instabilities reported in the 1991 report as well as the damage caused by the April 2007 storm event. stability analyses were performed for static and seismic conditions for both the reservoir and moat sides of the embankment. Analyses were performed for existing conditions and for proposed repair cross-sections. The samples were obtained from the embankment fill layer and the underlying glacial till layer. potential stability failure pathways will be located in the materials above the glacial till. Riprap reinforcement used to increase stability of slopes was assumed to have an angle of internal friction of 45 degrees and a unit weight of 145 pcf. Rather soft mud was observed for a depth of between four and eight feet below the channel bed elevation. The rock below the till should be considered a confining layer..0 software and Bishop’s Simplified methodology with circular failure surfaces. Parameters assigned to the soil layers were as follows: Embankment soils were assigned an angle of internal friction of 30 degrees and a moist unit weight of 110 pounds per cubic feet (pcf).

West Embankment Sheet Pile Design Analysis A design analysis was performed for the proposed sheet piling configuration in order to create a stable wave/erosion barrier along the West embankment where considerable damage occurred during the April 2007 storm. a geometry that moves the embankment crest toward the reservoir (against the sheet piles) and is raised one foot in elevation. and the design life assumed for the sheet pile wall should be considered conservative. Under the same geometry. creating a worse-case lateral loading condition on the wall. with compacted fill underlain by the abovereferenced glacial till and bedrock on the outside of the wall. and is not acceptable in its current configuration. as in the 1991 study. the location of the maximum moment (maximum stress) of the wall is below the ground surface. and flattening the slope from the moat to the crest to 3H:1V. but the side walls of the West embankment moat are still steep and as deep as reported in the 1991 study. Assumptions for this analysis included a rapid drawdown in the reservoir with high water on the outside of the wall. The design wall exposure considered was 10 feet. We recommended that an AZ-26-shape sheet pile be used to achieve the desired thickness and long-term strength. particularly where waves have severely scoured the embankment. Our proposed improvements to the West embankment were modeled assuming full water conditions in the moat. with static and seismic factors of safety against slope failure less than 1. the factor of safety against slope failure is 1. Our explorations and calculations have corroborated the 1991 findings. In addition. . However. This coefficient is conservative considering the most recent Army Corps of Engineers references recommend a coefficient of 0. This appears to have been done to some extent at the North embankment moat. the 1991 study indicated that the existing embankment is unstable. West Embankment Stability Analysis The West embankment will have the sheet pile wall supporting it on the reservoir side. Sheet pile thickness was increased over the calculated allowable thickness to account for the loss in thickness due to corrosion over the design life of the wall (75 years). Deflection of the top of the wall should not exceed one inch at the end of the design life of the sheet pile wall.5 and an allowable sheet pile maximum moment of greater than 50.09. and using an earthquake coefficient of 0. However. We recommend extending the sheet piles to bedrock to provide additional factor of safety. such as soil cementation. This should result in 30-foot long sheet piles with 20 feet embedment into the dense and very dense glacial till and a ten-foot exposure. and glacial till and bedrock on the reservoir side of the wall.05. The analysis indicates the static stability factor of safety against slope failure is 1.01. The 1991 study recommended buttressing the steep side walls of the moat with coarse gravel fill to increase the factor of safety against slope failure. so the weakest point will not coincide with the highest stress. which is required due to the inability to lower the impoundment water level during construction. The analysis indicated a pile depth of 27 feet below the embankment crest would be needed to achieve a factor of safety of 1. it is possible that the actual static factor of safety is very close to 1. The sheet pile wall also needs to support the lateral earth load imposed by construction of the embankment behind the wall.0. The fact that the slope on the moat side has not failed means there are likely other factors contributing to the stability of the embankment.55. Sheet piling had been previously identified as a viable option since it will also function as a cofferdam during construction. whereas the maximum corrosion will take place at the airwater interface. The current Rhode Island draft dam safety regulations do not address recommended coefficients. on the moat side.6 foot-kips.0.

results in an acceptable static factor of safety against slope failure of 1. which include establishing a 12-foot crest and placing riprap to protect and stabilize the upstream embankment slope. which includes the Army Corps of Engineers. which include constructing a widened and riprap-reinforced bench adjacent to the moat. again under high water conditions. Z-type piling is predominantly used in retaining and floodwall applications where bending strength governs the design. Due to . the seismic factor of safety against slope failure is 1. conservative assumptions were made concerning the embankment soil strength as well as the water level conditions. Vertical permeabilities were estimated for the embankment soil and glacial till based on correlations with gradation data obtained from laboratory testing and density estimates from SPT blow count data. and long service life. also acceptable. Horizontal permeability was assumed to be approximately twice the vertical permeability to account for possible layering effects. The bedrock was considered an impermeable boundary in the model. No sheet piles were proposed for the North Embankment. Our explorations indicated the moat has been filled in the past with granular and/or stone fill material. respectively. relative light weight.38 and 1. as is the case for this site. and assuming full reservoir and moat conditions.instead referring generally to acceptable reference sources for design and evaluation of dams. A number of measures are available to mitigate corrosion. The resulting horizontal permeabilities used for the analysis were 9x10-4 cm/sec for the glacial till and 3. especially in the splash zone between near the normal water surface and where wave action occurs (even considering that the impoundment is a freshwater body).24. Analyzing the moat-side embankment assuming the proposed improvements.77.64. so the stability of the north dike on the reservoir side with the proposed improvements was also checked for stability. so there is no exit gradient. While a number of sections are available.0x10-4 cm/sec for the embankment soil. The analysis also shows that there is no upward gradient caused by the reservoir seepage through the embankment. Again using a conservative earthquake coefficient of 0. among them cathodic protection systems (often required for Army Corps of Engineers installations) or NSF-compliant coatings. North Embankment Stability Analysis The stability of the North embankment was considered for both the impoundment and moat-side embankment. creating a high driving head situation within the embankment. As with the West embankment. The results of the analysis indicate the seepage does not intersect the downstream face of the embankment. Analyzing the slope for static and seismic stability.09. These piles consist of interlocking sheets manufactured by either a hot-rolled or cold-formed process and conforming to applicable standards for marine applications. The life expectancy of the structure will be limited in marine environments due to corrosion. Seepage Analyses A seepage analysis was performed for the North Embankment to check for high upward and high exit gradients assuming high water conditions in the reservoir and dry conditions on the moat side of the embankment. resulting in a more stable existing condition on the moatside along the North embankment than was encountered in the 1991 study. yielded acceptable factors of safety of 2. Sheeting Design Considerations Heavy-gauge steel is the most common material used for sheet pile walls due to its inherent strength.

Different steel alloy compositions have little to no effect on the corrosion rates of immersed steel. or an extended long life span is required. and considerations in selecting protective or compensating measures are driven by what is an acceptable rate of corrosion for the required project lifetime. While vinyl sheet piling is also often considered due to its resistance to corrosion. Some of these alternatives are outlined below. A special consideration for this site might be considered due to the impoundment’s function as a public water supply and the proximity of the sheeting to the submerged intake.5 mg/l of dissolved iron. Unless extremely thin sections are used.000. many references indicate average corrosion rates of 2 to 5 mils per year for the first several years in such environments. steel piling typically receives no further protection. additional protective measures as discussed below may be necessary.g. the life expectancy of sheet pile structures is governed by environmental factors conducive to corrosion. For purposes of planning designs. For this reason and due to the complexities of actual iron transfer rates initially and during the sheeting’s lifetime that are not considered above. it has not been considered further.000 psi vs. which is not appropriate for this application.. Considering that steel is approximately 99 percent iron and assuming approximately one-half of the impoundment volume would be available for dissolution (considering bathymetry and hydraulic turnover separating the eastern portion of the impoundment). with the exception of stainless steel. Fresh water that carries granular materials at high velocities might provoke higher corrosion rates since this natural coating might be abraded.000 psi). with installations well over sixty years old common in the Great Lakes and along fresh water inland rivers. an extremely rough estimation is that the early stages of corrosion would impart approximately 1.the significant cost associated with the electric utilities required for the typical Corps of Engineers system. . Depending on the natural hardness and variability of the raw water from this impoundment. This property would require additional retaining structures to be incorporated into the design (e. Sheet pile structures exposed to fresh water generally have very low corrosion rates and great longevity in service. tie backs). An additional limitation is deflection due to the material’s low Modulus of Elasticity (380. The rate and quantity of iron released by corrosion into the water can be roughly estimated by assuming a conservative sectional loss rate of 5 mils per year in the early stages of corrosion following installation (this decreases significantly with time as scale forms an inhibiting surface coating). this issue should be evaluated further if warranted by the treatment facility operator and coatings should be considered during final design development. Similarly. Barring physical damage during manufacturing and installation. however this condition will not apply at this impoundment. In severe environments or where an extended lifetime is required for the system. sacrificial anode cathodic protection systems are not considered further due to their significant installation costs and maintenance requirements. The rate is approximately the same for all grades. after which the rate decreases to a much smaller amount due to the overlying scale formed by corrosion. steel at 29. it is not considered further here due to limitations to driving it through foundation soils such as those observed at our site. this additional loading might require compensatory adjustments by the treatment plant during this period.

When applied over a poorly prepared surfaces however. however because of the significant costs for this. Values derived from correlations and published sources were used in support of previous embankment stability and seepage evaluations completed under the December 2007 report. Due to this fact and concerns with impacts to water quality. 2009 Fuss & O’Neill conducted slug testing and measurement of groundwater elevations at monitoring wells previously installed on the embankment to assess horizontal hydraulic permeabilities in subsurface soils comprising and underlying the embankments. often less than five years. identified as B-1. and thus are not considered further for this application. Considering that this site is relatively moderate in its potential for corrosion and that cosmetic appearance is not a primary consideration. a great number of organic and synthetic coatings and systems have been developed and tested. 2-part liquid pure epoxy coatings have been successfully used to protect sheet piling in marine environments but requires specialized application equipment for field applications prior to driving into the ground. For example. and the primary purpose of these field measurements was to validate or update previous values and determine what impact. on or adjacent to the North and West Embankments bordering South Easton Pond. these new measurements had on our assessment of the embankment’s overall condition and proposed modifications to remedy identified deficiencies. this design has been developed with bare steel sheeting having a thicker section that will provide a “sacrificial” mass of steel that can be lost to corrosive action and still not result in a structural failure of the sheet system. and B-7. this option is not considered further. but were not considered for this application due to the possibility they may leach small amounts of lead oxides into the water. Field Data Collection and Results Slug tests were conducted at three wells. A limited number of these coatings are available in NSF-approved formulations that can be field applied. galvanizing is not been a common method of protecting steel sheet piling except for small or extremely specialized applications. measured permeability results will support development of appropriate parameters and approaches for groundwater dewatering and control of water to be specified the construction specifications. Subsurface Groundwater Levels and Hydraulic Permeabilities On March 31. Non-metallic coatings are by far the most popular method for protecting steel in hostile environments and have been used in combination with a cathodic protection system to increase the system’s effectiveness. coatings were generally made up of coal-tar pitch solutions that were field applied in thin coats with a brush. Prior to 1950. B-3. Similarly red-lead (litharge) paints and primers are durable and effective.Galvanizing uses a thin coat of molten zinc bonded to the steel to provide a protective surface. Since the introduction of the coal tar and litharge coatings. The coating is typically adhered by hot-dipping the steel in a factory. Well B-1 was located on . if any. In addition to validating these previous modeling studies. their service-life and ultimate value were minimal.

and 20’ for B-7. as the fines would be cleared from the well and permeability would increase with successive tests. which were the observed depths of bedrock refusal when borings were previously conducted to install all three wells. while B-7 was located adjacent to Old Beach Road near the south end of the West Embankment. which modeled the bedrock interface as acting as a confining layer for groundwater flow.the shoulder of Ellery Road adjacent to the intersection of the North and West Embankments. with little silt or gravel. Well B-3 was located on the crest of the North Embankment. Measured permeabilities were generally consistent between the rising and falling tests. the aquifer thicknesses were assumed to be 30’ for B-1 and B-3. This assumption is consistent with the previous analysis. Smaller amounts of silt were also observed in B-1 and B-7. The borehole permeability tests consisted of conventional slug testing using a concretefilled PVC pipe “slug” to displace water in a standard 2-inch PVC monitoring well. The soil density increased across the interval. This interval was characterized as predominantly fine brown sand. This phenomenon was not observed. This interval was characterized as predominantly fine to medium sand. near the west end of this embankment. indicating that the silt did not interfere with the test. and measuring the rate of groundwater recovery to a static level following the displacement. For the test analyses. The boring logs for this well indicated the well interval was characterized by fine sand. The bottom interval (25-27 feet) consisted of weathered rock. Table 3 below summarizes test results at each well expressed in units of feet per day. so the slug was advanced several times prior to testing to clear the well. with small amounts of fine gravel and coarse sand. Three test pairings were conducted at B-1 and B-7. The data was collected using a MiniTroll™ data logger recording water levels measured by a submerged pressure transducer in the well. The Bouwer & Rice methodology was used to calculate permeability at each test location. and was explicitly described as till between 10 and 14 feet. The following conditions were noted as pretext for evaluating the measured permeabilities. The soil density increased across the interval. Blow counts increased significantly from the top of the interval to the bottom. with little silt or gravel. which can drain from the well after the slug is removed and appear to be recharge. Four pairings were conducted at B-3. A large amount of silt was noted in B-3. Three sets of slug test readings were obtained from each location. Well B-1 was screened in the 5-30 foot interval. If the silt in the well were interfering with the tests. there would generally be a wide variation between the first and last tests. . Rising head tests exhibited slightly higher permeabilities (approximately 1. An additional test was conducted to determine whether interference had occurred due to the silt in the well. and increasing amounts of silt with depth.5 times the falling head permeability) which is expected given the fairly large amount of water collected in the sandpack around the well. indicating much denser material with increasing depth. The well at B-7 was screened in the 2-12 foot interval. Well B-3 was screened in the 4-14 foot interval. The slug tests consisted of pairings of falling and rising head tests.

59 Maximum 4. based on grain size correlations for soils observed from boring cuttings.4 to 10. due to a damping condition in this well Falling Head Slug Test Data Interpretation Slug tests performed at the site were conducted at wells with strata comprised of the embankment fill material as loose silty sand with bedrock at approximately 30 feet below the deep acting as a confining layer.7 6.7 feet per day. Groundwater Well Slug Test Results Well Number Test Number Rising Head ft/day 1 4.26 2.6 feet per day to 7.46 3 5. The original seepage and stability analyses performed in December 2007 used a horizontal permeability value of 9 feet per day.85 2 4.Table 3. Wave Modeling Analyses and Design Recommendations An evaluation of fetch. The results of this modeling analysis were used to verify the rule-of-thumb methods previously employed in the December 2007 report to confirm the required height of the reconstructed embankments to prevent overtopping by design-storm waves.89 B-7* 3 NA 4.80 Maximum NA 4.87 4. .75 B-1 3 4.27 4.73 2 NA 2. The results indicated average horizontal permeabilities ranging from 2.75 1 9. Individual tests showed a little more variability. MA using the existing bathymetric survey and assuming critical storm conditions associated with an appropriate return frequency nor’easter storm’s wind direction.7 6.58 Average 4.77 Average NA 3.59 1 NA 3.44 2 4.7 feet per day.29 2. velocity. These results are also being used to determine wave heights generated such that slope protection (riprap or articulating concrete block armoring) can be appropriately sized. and duration. runup and wave generation was completed by Woods Hole Group. The values measured in the field are typical of permeabilities for the observed soil types and the previously used value of 9 feet per day closely matches the highest horizontal permeability calculated from the Bouwer & Rice slug test analysis. The following sections summarize the results of this study and recommendations for the final design.59 Average 7.15 Maximum 10.78 4. (WHG) of East Falmouth.32 2.The rising head tests did not yield usable data. Inc.66 5.77 * .4 2.4 2.69 B-3 4 10. ranging from 2.

data were acquired to characterize the existing local physical processes affecting wave generation. and measured winds.38 feet (NGVD29). South Easton Pond Bathymetry and Defined Fetch Lengths Used for Wind-Generated Wave Modeling Pond Levels: The normal pond level for South Easton Pond is reported to be elevation 8. The bathymetry for South Easton Pond used in this study is shown by color contours below. Figure 20. Waves generated in South Easton Pond are fetch-limited. the fixed . These tasks included: a compilation of existing data an extremal analysis of anticipated wind conditions wind-generated wave modeling The remaining tasks related to the design of the embankments and included computations of wave run-up and overtopping. Inc. The following sections detail the methodologies used in the analysis and the results from the study. Pond levels are affected by raw water withdrawals for the City of Newport’s Station 1 water treatment plant. and assessments of required slope protection. The first three tasks focused on the wave climate in South Easton Pond. In order to simulate the waves generated within the pond. as provided by the City of Newport in 2007. the potential operational pond elevations (normal and maximum). wind-generated local waves. in October 2004. Bathymetry: The local bathymetry data were obtained from a survey completed by Apex Environmental. the pond water level is reported at elevation 9. These data include the bathymetry within South Easton Pond.0 feet (NGVD29) while at full pool.Wave Modeling Results Potential wave conditions were analyzed within South Easton Pond to develop design guidance to strengthen the embankment against further erosion.

Specifically. the wind rose for Newport State Airport indicates that the majority of the winds originate from the South (22. A wind rose depicting the directionality. Wind Rose Analysis Data from Newport State Airport (1975 – 2008) Wind Extremal Analysis In order to derive estimates of the waves within South Easton Pond associated with extreme storm events. and winds are grouped into 22. This is expected at this location due to its southern exposure to Rhode Island Sound where the most unobstructed overwater winds occur. an extremal analysis was conducted on the wind data obtained from the nearby NCDC station. A total of approximately 120.5 degree directional bins. Wind Data: Wind data was obtained from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) for measurements made at the Newport State Airport which is located approximately 2.and 100-years). The most southern directional bin is also where the strongest winds are more frequent (greater than 20 MPH). . The shaded area of the directional bin indicates frequency of occurrence and each directional bin is subdivided to denote the magnitude of the winds which occur in each bin. Wind data from the Newport State Airport was analyzed and used to determine extreme winds for various return periods (2-. In this wind rose figure.8 miles inland of South Easton Pond to the North-Northeast. and frequency of occurrence is shown in Figure 21. 25-. the radial axes extending from the center denote frequency of occurrence. 10-.spillway crest near the southeast corner of the impoundment and a low-level outlet conduit located adjacent to this spillway.000 surface hourly observations of wind speed and direction were obtained over a 33-year period (1975 through 2008). 50. directions are denoted on the outermost radial axis. magnitude.5 directional bin centered on 180°) and winds are primarily within 5 to 10 MPH. Figure 21.

simplified wave growth models provide useful and generally accepted estimates of wave heights and periods. Although wind wave generation and growth incorporates complex physical processes that are not fully deterministic. diffraction.4 32.9 34. in deep and shallow water. In a confined water body such as South Easton Pond. however wave reflection could have a significant impact on wave heights. as will be further detailed below.8 36. In extremal analyses of storm events where an annual series of events are not available. The model is part of the Automated Coastal Engineering System (ACES). reflection and non-linear effects.0 31. A Gumbel distribution was found to be a best fit for the data and the resultant extreme return-period winds are listed below in Table 4. such as South Easton Pond. the GEV methodology is reshaped in the form of a compound Poisson Extremal Value (PEV) distribution. An analytical approach was used to examine the effects of wave reflection.3 Wave Generation Modeling The return period winds and existing bathymetric data were used as input to a windgenerated wave model to predict wave heights and periods within South Easton Pond associated with extreme storm events. the restricted fetch option of the ACES Windspeed Adjustment and . Wind data combined with estimates of fetch and depth were used to estimate wave heights and periods under selected conditions. The program is entitled Wind Speed Adjustment and Wave Growth. The GEV method. 1992) and the Coastal Engineering Manual (USACE. The results are identical to those of an extremal distribution with an average sample interval equal to the number of years covered by the sample divided by the number of data points in the sample. Selecting an appropriate threshold requires judgment in order to ensure the requisite amount of “events” is selected (at least 20 in total). and to exclude any non-extreme events. Two key input parameters to the ACES program are the basin geometry and the average water depth of the fetch (distance over which wind can generate the waves). wave transformation (refraction and diffraction) will not significantly affect the locally generated wind waves. and provides simplified estimates for wave growth over open-water and restricted fetches. Due to the size of South Easton Pond. there is limited fetch over which waves can be generated. the extreme analysis was performed using the Generalized Extreme Value (GEV) method. which includes the Gumbel and Fisher-Tippett distributions. published by the Coastal Engineering Research Center (USACE. The ACES model addresses only wind-generated waves. and does not account for the effects of wave refraction. 2002). Table 4. Wind-generated waves were simulated using a computer model developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). has been shown to be an effective method for extremal analyses of various non-deterministic phenomena. Detailed information regarding the theory of the wave generation analytical computer model used in this investigation can be found in the ACES User’s Guide (USACE. Summary of Extreme Wind Statistics for Newport State Airport (1975 – 2008) Return Period 2-year 10-year 25-year 50-year 100-year Wind Speed (MPH) 29. Therefore for this analysis. Data input for the extremal analysis was selected by the “peak-over-threshold” method. 1992).For the purposes of this study.

Wave Growth module was used to obtain design wave conditions for the various wave approach directions. Table 5 shows the fetch lengths and the associated average full-pond depths. The radial fetch lengths are used to describe the geometry of the South Easton Pond basin. Figure 20 shows the defined fetch lengths (labeled A. . Figure 22 presents an example of the relevant geometric data required for the restricted fetch approach. In order to determine the design wave conditions. and C) to determine design wave conditions for South Easton Pond for waves propagating from the southeast (104° to 144° relative to N).38 feet (NGVD29). The restricted fetch methodology applies the concept of wave development in off-wind directions such that the wave-period (as a function of off-wind direction fetch lengths) is maximized (USACE. The average elevation along each fetch length were converted to an average depth at full-pond level using a full-pond level of 9. the return period wind speeds were directed along each fetch length for South Easton Pond in the ACES model. 1992) Along with the bathymetry. 1992). B. Example of Restricted Fetch Geometry Data (USACE. The fetch lengths were defined using 20° spacing. Figure 22.

. and break at a certain depth. so in this case. overtopping. estimates of the depth-limited breaking waves were computed. For the northwest corner of South Easton Pond. and erosion/structural damage potential. become instable.. waves reach this limit.47 7.58 An analytical approach was used to evaluate regions (i. and is the corner angle in radians. corners) where wave reflection off of the embankments that might contribute to increased incident wave heights resulting in increased wave run-up. Length and Average Depth Used to Determine Design Wave Conditions Fetch ID [from Figure 16] A B C Fetch Direction [°from true North] 144 124 104 Fetch Length [ft] 2511 2892 3896 Full-Pond Average\Depth [ft] 8. 2002). and limits on local wave heights due to water depths.Table 5. Following USACE methodologies and work performed by Goda in 1985 (USACE. The North and West Embankments within South Easton Pond form an 87. the relationship used for estimating increased wave heights at a concave corner formed by two impermeable vertical walls is presented below where Hc is the corner wave height.e. In addition. wave heights at such a location are often limited by their steepness and wave breaking will occur. Fetch Direction. The breaking criterion often used in estimating design waves is that proposed by McCowan in 1891 (USACE. the relationship above provides a conservative estimate of wave heights. Hi is the incident wave height. 2002). Table 6 lists the design wave heights and periods for the north and west embankments as well as the concave northwest corner. Based on the ACES modeled wind-generated waves.93 7. In shallow water regions. The following relationship is used to define the breaking wave condition where HB is the breaking wave height and h is the water depth: Using the water depths (full-pond) adjacent to the proposed configurations for the North and West Embankments. for respective return-period events. This breaking wave depth is defined by a breaking wave criterion. the potential increases in wave heights due to wave reflection. the proposed North Embankment is sloping while the West Embankment is a vertical sheet piling wall.5° angle which was used to compute corner wave heights.

5 Wave Run-up and Overtopping Evaluations Wave run-up and overtopping formulations were used to determine the combined incident and reflected wave run-up potential along the North and West Embankments. Design Waves for the North and West Embankments and the Northwest Corner of South Easton Pond North and West Embankments Return Period 2-year 10-year 25-year 50-year 100-year Wave Height (Hmo.53 0.57 0.66 Wave Period(Tp. labeled as North A and North B.63 2.72 2.35 1. For the West Embankment.47 1. the proposed design and elevation contours were used along with the bathymetry data to define two representative cross-sections to be evaluated. The wave run-up values provide the maximum elevation the water will reach during extreme conditions while the wave overtopping calculations determine the potential volumetric flow rate of water over the top of the structures. .84 Wave Period (Tp.43 1.64 0. based on the design alternatives under consideration. ft) 2. a single cross-section was defined (labeled as West A). The proposed configuration for the North Embankment is structural protection with an average upstream slope at 1:2 (vertical:horizontal) and a downstream slope of 1:3.43 1. The two representative cross-sections are shown in plan-view in Figure 23.47 1.35 1. ft) 0.50 Northwest Corner Wave Height (Hmo.40 1. sec) 1. These parameters were used to design the embankments and the protection methodologies on the upstream slopes. sec) 1.18 2.60 0.40 1. which will be stabilized by vertical steel sheet piling.47 2.Table 6. For the North Embankment. The structural protection was evaluated as either soil-filled riprap or articulating concrete matting.

the concrete pile cap was used as the structure’s maximum elevation which is at elevation 14 feet (NGVD29).15 to 13. 2002). At cross-section North B. the computed total water elevations (TW ELs) for the extreme storms. the larger reflected wave heights computed for the northwest corner of the pond were used to determine run-up and overtopping values. assuming a full-pond level and the 2% wave run-up condition. In evaluating the West Embankment’s vertical sheet pile wall. For wave run-up.09 feet (NGVD29) for the North Embankment. the 2% run-up value was computed which is the level exceeded by 2% of the incoming waves.Figure 23. . For the North A and West A cross-sections. As the crest elevation of the proposed Northern Embank is at elevation 13 feet (NGVD29). As presented in Tables 7 and 8 below. Defined Cross-sections for Analysis of Wave Run-up and Overtopping Wave run-up and overtopping calculations were made for the sloping northern embankment using the Technical Advisory Committee for Water Retaining Structures (TAW) methodologies (van der Meer. the embankment was represented as a smooth impermeable slope. range from 11. For the proposed vertical sheet pile wall on the western embankment. In evaluating the northern sloping embankment (cross sections North A and B). reinforcement overtopping protection for this structure is not required. the modeled extreme wind-generated waves were used in the analysis of wave run-up and overtopping. where there are reduced effects from wave reflection. Tables 7 through 9 present the results of the wave runup and overtopping analyses. overtopping rates were computed using the methodology established by Franco and Franco in 1999 (USACE. which is the most conservative representation. 2002).

039 100-year 0.003 0. if the crest is not reinforced.0 indicated an overwash rate of 0.38 3. Overtopping Rate (ft3/s per linear ft) Embankment EL 14.0 indicated that overtopping rates would result in overtopping at rates predicted to damage the embankment during the 10-year and larger storm events.022 25-year 0. no reinforcing is required.56 12.0 and 14.38 3.013 0.007 0.09 0.57 None 100-year 9.017 . The evaluation at structure elevation 13.43 12.38 2.38 2.017 ft3/s per linear foot of wall for a 100-year wave event (1. Computed Wave Run-up and Overtopping for Profile “North B” Cross-Section North B Return Period Max.77 11.0 Avg.81 None 50-year 9.12 11.049 0. The evaluation at structure elevation 14.15 None 10-year 9.010 10-year 0.67 None The overtopping rates for the West Embankment were evaluated at two potential maximum structure elevations of EL 13.24 12. Overtopping Rate (ft3/s per linear ft) 2-year 9.38 2.010 0. SW EL (ft) 2% Run-up (ft) TW EL (ft) Avg.38 3.38 2.94 None 100-year 9.032 50-year 0. As the predicted overtopping rate for the West Embankment in a 100-year storm is less than the critical value.62 None 25-year 9. Computed Wave Run-up and Overtopping for Profile “North A” Cross-Section North A Return Period Max. Table 9. Guidelines for critical values of average overtopping rates presented in the Coastal Engineering Manual (USACE.99 11.87 12. Overtopping Rate (ft3/s per linear ft) 2-year 0.29 11.6 liters/s per meter).Table 7.50 None 50-year 9. 2002) indicate that for embankments and seawalls.25 None 10-year 9.38 3.71 13. Computed Wave Run-up and Overtopping for Profile “West A” Cross-Section West A Return Period Embankment EL 13.0 (NGVD29). SW EL (ft) 2% Run-up (ft) TW EL (ft) Avg. Overtopping Rate (ft3/s per linear ft) 2-year 9. damage would start to occur with overtopping rates greater than 2 liters/s per meter.38 1.0 Avg.37 None 25-year 9.19 11.001 Table 8.38 1.

Wave-induced Forces for Profile “West A” (Steel Sheet Piling) Cross-Section West A Return Period FH. as these are representative of the worst-case conditions. Force (lb) per lineal foot MH wave-induced moment at structure toe (ft-lb) 2-year 28 10-year 47* 25-year 58* 50-year 66* 100-year 79* 211 352* 431* 496* 467* * computed using depth-limited wave height . As wave overtopping was not predicted to occur for the North Embankment and limited overtopping is predicted for the West Embankment for a 100-year storm event. and scour protection for implementation of protective measures on the upstream slope of the North Embankment. Force (lb) per lineal foot MH wave-induced moment at structure toe (ft-lb) 2-year 2600 10-year 2909* 25-year 2942* 50-year 2967* 100-year 2992* 8595 9580* 9637* 9679* 9721* *computed using depth-limited wave height Table 11. Table 10 presents the wave-induced horizontal forces and associated moments for the West A embankment cross-section where vertical steel-sheet piling is proposed and Table 11 presents the expected wave-induced uplift forces and associated moments for the North A embankment cross-section. Also provided is design guidance for potential armor sizing. The relevant wave-induced forces were computed for the proposed North and West Embankment design for the North A and West A cross-sections. the design wave heights determined for the northwestern corner of the pond (See Table 7) were used.Design Guidance from Wave Generation Modeling Wave data generated above was used to confirm slope protection designs are adequately protective of the structures. no additional reinforcement is required to protect the crest and reverse slope of the embankments. Wave-induced Forces for Profile “North A” Cross-Section North A Return Period FH. In computing the forces and associated moments. as well as the uplift force and moment acting at the impoundment-side toe of the North Embankment due to the predicted waves. wave-induced horz. Table 10. If the design water depth presented conditions where waves were limited by their steepness. The design guidance presented here includes the maximum wave force and resultant moment acting on the West Embankment (vertical sheetpile wall). The hydrostatic pressure distribution from the design water level to the bottom is excluded. wave-induced horz. The resulting forces and moments presented in this section are only for the wave portion of the hydrodynamic loading. the depth-limited wave was used for design.

Articulating matting is proposed on the North Embankment slope. and toe protection. shape and weight. and for riprap protection placed along the moat channel. as well as along the impoundment-side of the moat channel along both embankments. connected by a series of cables. Table 12 lists the stone sizes and layer thicknesses for the North A profile where larger wave heights are expected to occur in the northwestern corner of South Easton Pond due to wave reflection. while the bedding layer prevents the underlying soil from being washed through the armor. The major components of a stone revetment are the armor layer. The Armor Layer stone size was determined using Melby’s stability equation (Melby. Toe protection prevents displacement of the seaward edge of the revetment and protects from undermining. or upland area against erosion. bedding layer. Table 13 lists the same armor and underlayer design parameters for the sections east of the North B profile at STA 3+50 on the North Embankment. scarp. shoreline. A line of large riprap will be placed along this end to support the mats on the slopes and protect against undermining should wave attack occur during a drought period where impoundment water levels are below normal levels. geotextile (filter fabric). For both sections. 2005) which takes into account the structure slope and permeability as well as the design wave conditions. and layer thicknesses for the North Embankment. Model tests have been performed where the mats have been subject to wave attack similar to what is projected along the embankments and have been found to perform adequately with proper design of the support and anchoring systems. The mats are supported on engineered fill supporting layers and geosynthetics to provide proper structural support and ensure filter criteria are met based on incident wave heights. the mats will be laid on the impoundment bottom rather than keyed in a trench due to the fact that placement is occurring in standing water. the matting will be keyed to below the channel bottom to prevent potential undermining scour. These mats are constructed of a flexible interlocking matrix of concrete blocks of uniform size. such as stone or concrete. under layer. which is built to protect an embankment. the under layer supports the armor layer and provides passage of water through the structure. . Tables 12 and 13 present the recommended Armor Layer sizing (median weight and diameter).Slope Armoring Recommendations from Wave Generation Modeling Dam embankments are constructed with a facing of erosion resistant material. The limits of these protective systems will be anchored into the embankment by burying the upgradient ends in a trench that is backfilled with compacted crushed gravel covered by vegetation to protect from erosion. Along the moat channel bank. For riprap protection systems. riprap units will be backfilled with fill and topsoil materials to establish grass in these areas and stabilize the riprap units from plucking by ice action or vandalism. The armor layer provides the basic protection against wave action. Under Layer stone sizing. Specifications and design methodologies for articulating concrete block matting systems were evaluated under the above-noted wave load conditions. Within the impoundment. the 100-year design wave height was sued to determine required thicknesses.

04 Average Unit Diameter Layer Thickness (ft) (ft) 0. it is recommended that the Under Layer stones be used to properly support the lowest submerged Armor Layer stones and offer scour protection. D50 (lbs) 20 2 0.2 Average Unit Diameter Layer Thickness (ft) (ft) 1. The filter cloth should not extend to the outer edge of the toe in order to help protect the structure from undermining.20 0.5 3 0.75 1. A base bid was planned for the articulating concrete block slope protection. 3+50) Average Unit Weight. 3+50) Average Unit Weight.5 1. The December 2007 report reflected a 24-inch thick layer of riprap over bedding stone.5 0. after which reduced sizing and thicknesses would be allowable as reflected below.4 Armor Layer Under Layer Bedding Layer For toe protection at the northern embankment.23 0. which has been increased significantly due to the wave generation analysis recommendations to include the following layers for the portion of the embankment exposed to the largest incident waves (west end adjacent to the interface with the West Embankment) where refractive wave superpositioning is most significant: 36-inch thick layer of stone armoring (D50 = 18-inches) 18-inch thick layer of graded support armoring (D50 = 9-inches) 6-inch crushed stone bedding layer (2-inch size) The above section thicknesses would apply up to Station 3+50.Table 12. Recommended North Embankment Armor and Under Layer Weights and Thicknesses (East of Sta. Public Workshop Feedback and Final Design Modifications North Embankment Slope Protection Slope protection being proposed for the North Embankment will consist of either riprap slope protection or articulating concrete block matting. Both proposed sections described above entail an increase of the total slope protection system thickness which will require more excavation into the embankment as well as significant quantities to be transported to the site. with a bid alternate defined for the riprap section.4 Table 13.75 0.08 0. .5 0. D50 (lbs) Armor Layer 620 Under Layer 62 Bedding Layer 1. 18-inch thick layer of stone armoring (D50 = 6-inches) 9-inch thick layer of graded support armoring (D50 = 4-inches) 6-inch crushed stone bedding layer (1-inch size) Both configurations would require a buttress layer of larger riprap units be placed along the toe of the armor protection to prevent the movement of individual armoring units down the slope and into the impoundment. Recommended North Embankment Armor and Under Layer Weights and Thicknesses (West of Sta. A geotextile filter cloth would be placed beneath the bedding layer and wrapped around the lowest underlayer stone(s) for added stability.

. o Underlying base layer to be 6” R-1 riprap (crushed stone) with geotextile reinforcement underlayment. Block sizes are approximately 17” x 15” x 6”. Alternative reinforcement systems were researched and due to the higher costs for riprap on Aquidnick Island due to transportation costs (bridge weight limits and tolls) and the volume of excavation required for placement.A description of the articulating concrete block slope protection system is provided below. An articulating concrete block slope protection system is to be reflected as the base bid. o Anchor trench along top of slope. o Open cell articulating concrete block Class 50 above the mean high water line and closed cell below the mean water line. riprap buttressing along bottom of slope to provide support while limiting excavation within the impoundment. Figure 24. Typical North Embankment Cross-Section The table below summarizes the advantages and disadvantages between the systems. Immediately below the concrete blocks to be a triangular shaped cell geogrid.

o Infill material within the open cells to be seeded topsoil to establish grass vegetation. Where existing material is unsuitable. Block sizes are approximately 17” x 15” x 5”. minimal degradation Flexible armoring adjusts to potential future embankment settlement Significant depth provides substantial protection from wave attack Articulating Concrete Block Slope Protection Smaller buttress required due to integral connectivity of matting Smaller thickness requires less slope excavation prior to placement Lower transportation costs Can be filled with crushed stone or topsoil to establish vegetation Disadvantages Excavation required (5’ depth including bedding) High cost for transportation and placement Insignificant buttress required at bottom of slope in impoundment Potential future soil erosion could expose riprap to public/freezing conditions resulting in loss of units into impoundment Limited number of competing manufacturers could affect product costs Moat Channel Reinforcement This work will be limited to the impoundment-side of the moat channel bank to protect the embankments impounding the City’s water supply reservoir. with the embankment to be . Alternative reinforcement systems were researched and due to the higher cost of for riprap transportation and placement. A description of the proposed work follows: The moat channel bottom will not be reinforced or otherwise modified as potential for scour in this area is low and would not affect the integrity of the embankment due to key-in depths to be required for the bank protection. the articulating concrete block system will be reflected as the base bid. o Underlying base layers to be R-1 riprap (crushed stone) over a geotextile fabric and compacted existing material under the geotextile. crushed gravel shall be tracked to provide a firm surface. a steel sheet pile bulkhead will be installed within the impoundment east of the existing embankment. o Current Base Bid: Open cell articulating concrete block Class 40 above the mean high water line and closed cell below the mean water line. West Embankment Sheet Pile Bulkhead In order to repair the West Embankment.Table 14. Alternative North Embankment Slope Reinforcement Systems Slope Protection System Vegetated Soilfilled Riprap Advantages Natural stone.

Figure 25. A lockable fencing gate will be positioned at each ladder for secure access at these points. The overall length of the sheet pile bulkhead will be approximately 2. Steel sheet pile shall be ASTM A572 steel: Fy = 60 ksi o ASTM A690 will not be used as the increased resistance to corrosion it offers is related to installations in salt water only and will not significantly increase resistance to corrosion in fresh water.reconstructed along this new facing.2 below. The embankment to the west of the sheet pile bulkhead will be reconstructed after the installation of the bulkhead is complete. The fill behind the steel sheet pile bulkhead will consist of compacted granular fill. A description of the bulkhead system follows: The exposed height of the bulkhead will be approximately 9 feet measured from the existing mud-line within the impoundment to the top of the concrete pile cap. In addition to a fencing system along the sheeting cap. safety access ladders will be attached to the sheeting at 150-foot intervals along the exposed face. A cast-in-place concrete cap will be placed along the top of the bulkhead with a security fence to protect the impoundment and for fall prevention of maintenance personnel and walkway users. o Reconstruction will occur sequentially as backfilling will need to occur provide a platform for the crane as sheeting advances. The steel sheet pile bulkhead will be designed to achieve a service life of 75 years. These will serve to provide emergency access should a person or pet need to be rescued from the pond.3. This sequence is described further in Section 3.200 feet. The approximate depth of embedment below the mud line will be 23 feet. Typical West Embankment Cross-Section .

the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The following items outline the sequential approach to constructing the bulkhead system along the West Embankment. These were developed to meet RIPDES Construction Stormwater Discharge requirements. After backfilling behind the sheeting. thus bare steel sheeting was selected as the current base bid. o Dewatering shall be handled in accordance with erosion and sedimentation control requirements reflected on the drawing. Once construction of a section of the steel sheet pile bulkhead is complete (for example 100-ft) the area behind the bulkhead must be hydraulically isolated by a cofferdam at the open end and dewatered. and the expected minimum thickness at the wet line will be 310 mils after 75 years. There were no concerns with potential impacts to water quality undertaking an approach using steel sheeting with a sacrificial thickness for corrosion protection. Reinforcement used in the concrete cap will be galvanized steel reinforcement meeting the requirements of ASTM A-615 Grade 60: fy = 60.West Embankment Sheet Pile Bulkhead Construction Sequence The project will require the contractor to construct the steel sheet pile bulkhead in sections. the initial sheet thickness will be 375 mils (3/8 inch). The concrete cap was designed at 24 inches in width by 36 inches in height with 28-day compressive strength of 4. The cofferdam will then be installed to isolate the area behind the new sheeting and allow this area to be dewatered and receive compacted fill to form the new embankment. the length of which will be determined by the contractor to best facilitate construction (depending on the reach of its crane. the recommended method of corrosion protection for the steel sheet piling at this time is the use of a sacrificial thickness due to the significant initial costs for the coating system and the maintenance requirements over the life of the bulkhead. West Embankment Sheet Pile Corrosion Protection Information outlining the research findings to date on potential impacts to raw water quality and coating options were reviewed with RI Department of Health and the City’s Water Department. The section loss over the design life of the steel sheet pile bulkhead (75 years) has been estimated to be approximately 65 mils (1/16 inch) based on information from Arcelor RPS. West Embankment Sheet Pile Cap The sheet pile cap was designed with a reinforced cast-in-place concrete cap anchored to the top of the sheet pile bulkhead with shear studs. a pervious granular fill material will be placed and compacted to construct the embankment west of the bulkhead in accordance with the project plans and specifications. the above process will be repeated. based on the anticipated amount of section loss at the end of the required service life.000 psi. Once the area behind the bulkhead has been dewatered. among other factors). A crane will advance to the end of the new fill and additional sheeting will be driven as far as the crane will reach (if not limited by other construction issues). and the Sheet Piling Design Handbook dated March 1994. For this application. will be chosen to account for corrosion.000 psi. . A thickened sheet pile section. Although a NSF-compliant protective coating may be applied to the steel sheet piling to help protect against corrosion.

Rendering of the proposed improvements on the North Embankment presented at a public workshop in January 2010.The cap will extend 12 inches above the top of the embankment (reveal height) to achieve the required height to limit wave overtopping. The proposed view reflects vegetated articulating concrete block slope protection. Renderings developed to present the design approach incorporating a steel sheeting bulkhead along the west embankment and an architectural “low visibility” security/safety fence were developed in order to convey what the proposed improvements would look like within the site context. Figure 26. Public Workshop Feedback and Design Revisions A public workshop was conducted in January 2010 to review the design with a number of neighboring property owners and interested citizens. . and steel sheeting with a concrete cap on the West Embankment in the background. an architectural security/safety fence.

.Figure 27. Rendering of the proposed improvements on the West Embankment presented at a public workshop in January 2010. The proposed view reflects vegetated articulating concrete block drainage channel protection and an architectural security/safety fence on the steel sheeting’s concrete cap.

it was concluded that the following design modifications would be evaluated and incorporated into a revised drawing set: Removal of previously proposed sheeting and pile cap design along the upstream (impoundment) side of the West Embankment. with a goal to provide a more aesthetic design. A number of persons expressed a desire for bare riprap in place of the proposed vegetated articulating concrete block matting. and increased time for construction due to setup and manipulation of a temporary cofferdamming system and the significant quantities of rip rap materials that would need to be imported for the project. as this was a slope protection approach using natural materials preferred by a majority of the public commenting at the workshop. Through subsequent discussions with the City following to this workshop. A number of people expressed a preference for the use of “natural materials. instead of steel sheeting and concrete with safety fencing. This armored slope will be constructed using either a vegetated articulating concrete system (similar to that originally proposed for the North Embankment) or using bare riprap as an alternative. in spite of the increased construction costs. Rendering of the proposed improvements on the West Embankment presented at a public workshop in January 2010. In order to construct the armored slope. The proposed view reflects vegetated articulating concrete block drainage channel protection and an architectural security/safety fence on the steel sheeting’s concrete cap.” such as rock. The West Embankment will be constructed of an armored slope (in lieu of sheet piling) that will extend into the impoundment.Figure 28. temporary cofferdamming will be required within the impoundment to provide a dewatered construction area where .

requires a reduced crest elevation of 13. vegetated articulating concrete block will be identified as the base bid alternative while bare riprap slope protection will be identified as the bid alternate.new compacted embankment fill will be placed. As originally designed. realignment of the embankment has resulted in a reconfiguration of the bench along the moat channel due to a realignment of the embankment resulting from removal of the cofferdam and extension of the embankment slope into the impoundment.0 and 13. and a geotextile fabric. A summary of modifications made or otherwise evaluated in the current redesign effort is outlined below: The articulating concrete protection system was evaluated under design wave conditions with the reconfigured West Embankment and determined to be adequate as previously designed. Alternative upstream (impoundment side) slope angles for the West Embankment were evaluated to identify required configurations for a stable . Any further reduction in the crest elevation would result in overtopping.0. Embankment Design Revisions Slope and channel scour protection being proposed for both sides of the North and West Embankments will consist of either vegetated articulating concrete block matting or bare riprap slope protection. The previous steel sheeting design required a top of sheeting and cap elevation of 14. however. For bidding purposes. Due to concerns from residents and abutters that the fencing would obstruct or otherwise degrade views. The crest elevation required to withstand overtopping during wind-driven wave conditions was re-evaluated under the revised West Embankment configuration at elevations of 12. including six inches of crushed stone (“R-1” riprap) placed beneath a layer of geogrid reinforcement and above a base layer of geotextile fabric. The alternate slope protection system (bare riprap) was evaluated and sized to adequately protect slopes under the reconfigured West Embankment. open-cell articulating concrete will be proposed on embankment slopes above the normal water surface to support vegetation. including surficial armor riprap underlain by a layer of under-armor riprap. A Class 50 concrete block will be used on the upstream side of the embankments while a Class 40 concrete block will be used on the downstream side of the embankments. Removal of the previously proposed fencing and security systems along both embankments.0 (assuming articulating concrete slope protection at a 3H:1V slope).0 to prevent overtopping for up to a 100year wind storm. while below water a closed-cell system will be proposed. security fencing is no longer being proposed. bedding stone. Infill material within the open cell articulating concrete block will consist of seeded topsoil to support grass vegetation on slopes and along the moat channel. as well as concern from the CRMC that fencing would potentially restrict wildlife movement between the impoundment and the moat. This reduction is attributed to the fact that a sloped embankment provides more wave energy dissipation than a vertical wall. While the design approach for the reconstructed downstream (moat side) slope and bench remains as previously proposed. The revised embankment design.

S. Signs indicating closure of remaining portions of the embankment remain proposed at each end of the walking path. and was found to be appropriate under the previous design at 12-feet wide. It is anticipated that construction of the West Embankment will require at least a 180day construction period (an increase over the 120-day construction period expected for the previous steel sheet piling approach). limited cofferdam “cells” will need to be created by constructing cofferdam lines (not steel sheeting) from the main sheeting line toward the West Embankment. However. as well as to allow passage by similar equipment should it be necessary for proper maintenance or emergency repair in the future. This step-wise construction sequence. such that a dewatered area can be established for placement of compacted fill. Department of Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation. which is one of the agencies listed as an authoritative source for design of dams under the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management’s Rules and Regulations for Dam Safety. This bridge would be reflected as an alternate bid item in the drawings.embankment. slopes steeper than 3H:1V do not meet the recommended factors of safety for stability under long-term steady seepage or seismic conditions. subject to review and acceptance by the City Council and available funding when bids are received. A potential pedestrian access bridge structure near the southern end of the West Embankment was added to the drawings as requested by the City. Because access for installation of sheeting can only be gained initially from the North Embankment and subsequently from the north end of the West Embankment. This evaluation determined that a 3H:1V slope is required to meet acceptable factors of safety for embankment stability. Consequently. The alignment of the revised West Embankment was shifted approximately five feet to the west of the previously proposed alignment to reduce the disturbance to and amount of fill placed within this raw water supply impoundment. Public Access and Walking Path Revisions The design of the walking path remains unchanged by the proposed design modifications. reductions in bench widths on the Moat side of the embankment were proposed (where feasible) to minimize the amount of fill placed within the cross section of the Moat. If riprap slope protection is employed in lieu of articulating concrete slope protection. no overtopping would occur under either a 3H:1V or 2H:1V slope configuration or at either crest elevation evaluated. The crest width for both embankments was reconsidered in light of concerns expressed by CRMC. . would be repeated southward until the full West Embankment is in place. This crest width is required to allow passage of construction equipment needed to transport and place fill materials required for this project. As a result. This width is a minimum dimension recommended by the U. however. a 3H:1V is proposed under this scenario. the security fencing along the embankment crest and at each end of the walking path has been removed. where the perpendicular cofferdam lines are driven as segments of the embankment are constructed.

The material is generally comprised of a highly organic top layer underlain by a silty/sandy underlayer. Bathymetric and sediment data was collected at 22 cross-sections along the length of the West Embankment at approximate 100-foot intervals.Supplemental Analyses and Studies The redesign of the embankment required supplemental field investigation/survey and an assessment of sediment conditions where the upstream embankment slope is to be constructed. As discussed with RIDEM’s Office of Water Resources.0 mg/kg threshold). Supplemental Field Survey and Sediment Assessment Existing sediment and bathymetric mapping previously conducted by Apex Environmental in October 2004 were reviewed to assess pond bottom conditions in the area of the West Embankment where design modifications are proposed.05-feet. . Vertical elevations were measured using total station survey equipment to an accuracy of 0. Based on the limited number of depth measurements taken. The field survey was performed using a small boat launched from the Station 1 Treatment Plant adjacent to the North Embankment.to two-foot layer of sediment in the impoundment adjacent to the West Embankment. and an updated analysis of wave conditions acting upon the embankments under alternative armor protection systems and slope angles. Cross-sections extended approximately 50.1 mg/kg (vs. The results of the sediment testing are presented in the following table. Sediment depths were measured by advancing a steel rod until stiff resistance was encountered.to 80-feet into the impoundment from the edge of water along the West Embankment. which measured 8. A supplemental field survey of the area was then performed to supplement this data and to measure bottom elevations and depths of sediment across the area to be filled as part of the embankment slope construction. The field survey also confirmed the presence of a one. it is estimated that approximately 400 CY of sediment is present within the footprint of the proposed embankment. 7. The sediment was tested for the following parameters: PAHs PCBs Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Zinc All parameters were found to be below corresponding Residential Direct Exposure Criteria (R-DEC) listed in RIDEM’s remediation regulations. one sediment sample was collected to characterize this sediment as extension of the new embankment into the impoundment would require this material to be handled and either incorporated into the embankment fill materials or transported for off-site disposal. geotechnical stability and seepage evaluations. with the exception of arsenic.

000.000 10.800 780.100 150 23 1.059 12 48 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < 7.000 43.000 800 7.h]anthracene Benzo[g. This would avoid the need to haul and dispose this material to a disposal facility and reduce the amount of fill that would need to be imported from off-site sources.000 10. However.000 23.000 10.000 900 400 900 900 400 900 400 800 I/C-DEC 7. Updated Seepage Analysis A seepage analysis was performed for the proposed West Embankment configuration to evaluate whether excessive seepage exit gradients would exist under worst-case water conditions (high water in the impoundment).000.d]pyrene Dibenzo[a. For re-use as embankment fill.000 10.000 It is noted that the Residential Direct Exposure Criteria typically cited by the RIDEM when evaluating sediment under Water Quality Certification permitting may affect how the material can be disposed of if it is transported off-site.000 35.000 20.h.000 7.000 40.000 6.000 13.000.000 10.000 10.000 10.000.Table 15.5 feet/day) for .000 54.000 10.0 1.3-c.000.800 800 10.0 39 1.000 10.000 7.000.000 10.000.000 500 610 10.000 10.i]perylene Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg Concentration R-DEC 8.000 123. Horizontal permeabilities obtained from in-situ slug tests along the embankment were documented in the May 2009 design memorandum report as 9x10-4 cm/sec (2.000. this material can also be incorporated into the proposed embankment. resulting in a high hydraulic head across the embankment.000 10.400 3.000.1 ND < 14 51 23 0. It was assumed that flow in the moat channel would be to the top of its banks in this scenario.000 10.000. Summary of Sediment Sampling Results Parameter Total Metals Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Zinc PCBs PAHs Naphthalene 2-Methylnaphthalene Acenaphthylene Acenaphthene Fluorene Phenanthrene Anthracene Fluoranthene Pyrene Benzo[a]anthracene Chrysene Benzo[b]fluoranthene Benzo[k]fluoranthene Benzo[a]pyrene Indeno[1.800 78. the material will need to be blended with imported embankment fill soil at a ratio that results in a soil gradation meeting the criteria specified under the construction documents.000 28. since this conveyance discharges stormwater from the watershed and would be full when adequate runoff occurs to fill the impoundment to the assumed elevation.000 10.2.

05. but.. parameters assigned to the soil layers were as follows: Embankment soils were assigned an angle of internal friction of 30 degrees and a moist unit weight of 110 pounds per cubic foot (pcf).the glacial till and 3. The results of the analysis indicate seepage would exist at the toe of the embankment’s downstream face. which is also acceptable. Department of the Army. but at a low gradient of approximately 0.0 against seismic slope failure can be used with a seismic coefficient of one half the expected earthquake acceleration. even without considering the positive effect of proposed slope protection armor. The proposed articulating concrete block or riprap slope protection will increase the factor of safety slightly and further protect the slope from erosion.4 for static stability under long-term steady seepage conditions. . the seismic coefficient that can be used within Massachusetts and Rhode Island would be 0.8 vs. 1. Franklin.26.55 under steady longterm seepage conditions. The one-second duration horizontal acceleration cited in the Rhode Island and Massachusetts State Building Codes have a horizontal acceleration of 0. Consistent with the previous modeling study.05. The proposed armor protection along the moat channel and lower slope (whether articulating concrete or riprap). with the articulating concrete armoring along the moat channel. the document further references a paper in its bibliography regarding the Seismic Coefficient Method (authored by Mary Hynes-Griffin and Arley G. in order to present worst-case conditions of a shortened seepage path from the high water condition in the impoundment to the lower downstream slope and bench. Although there is no direct guidance for seismic analysis in Rhode Island. This provides an acceptable factor of safety against exceeding a critical exit gradient on the downstream slope (3.0x10-3 cm/sec (9 feet/day) for the embankment soil. Analysis of the downstream embankment slope (along the moat channel) at a 3H:1V slope results in an acceptable static factor of safety against failure of 1. Mississippi).17.1g.09 as in the initial May 2009 evaluation. This paper states that a factor of safety of 1.0 minimum factor of safety). RIDEM’s Rules and Regulations for Dam Safety references ACOE’s Design and Construction of Levees (EM 1110-2-1913) for further guidance. Vicksburg. the underlying bedrock was conservatively considered an impermeable boundary. Glacial till was assigned an angle of internal friction of 40 degrees and a moist unit weight of 135 pcf. The revised embankment geometry was assumed to consist of a 3H:1V slope on both sides of the embankment. Waterways Experiment Station. Using a conservative earthquake coefficient of 0. This verifies Massachusetts’ recommendation of using a minimum seismic factor of safety of 1. Stability analyses were performed for proposed static and seismic conditions for the downstream (moat) side of the embankment. would provide improved protection against internal erosion and control this amount of seepage. Since there is no capability of rapid drawdown of the impoundment with the current outlet works. Instead. the seismic factor of safety against slope failure is 1.0 with a seismic coefficient of 0. Army Corps of Engineers.0 software and Bishop’s Simplified methodology with circular failure surfaces. Updated Stability Analysis The stability analysis performed under the May 2009 design criteria memorandum was updated to evaluate proposed conditions on the West Embankment using Galena Version 4. For purposes of modeling. offers no additional guidance for a recommended factor of safety to use for seismic stability. Therefore. it was not necessary to model slope stability with excessive pore water exit gradients in the upstream direction. ACOE’s document recommends the use of a factor of safety of 1.

wave runup and overtopping rates were assessed along the West Embankment for the two slope armoring alternatives (articulating concrete and bare riprap). The Still Water Elevation (SWEL) of 9. The previous report described the site conditions and included an evaluation of fetch.5H:1V and 2H:1V slope configurations and full-pond conditions. These configurations were evaluated to determine required stone sizing and layer thickness requirements for riprap and to validate the current specification for the articulating concrete matting.0 and 13. it is conservatively assumed that the upstream face is a relatively smooth.0 feet. The analysis accounted for wave conditions at the northwest corner of the impoundment where wave heights are increased by wave reflection.0 feet for return periods of 100-years or less Overtopping is expected to occur with a crest elevation of 12. . velocity. located within the footprint of the impoundment side of the embankment. and a 10% chance that the predicted 10-year wave height will be exceeded in a given year. for two slope configurations (2H:1V and 3H:1V). and duration. Since both slope configurations were unstable under steady seepage conditions. With a 2H:1V slope. It was determined that the static stability factors were 1. Supplemental Wave Modeling Analysis A wave modeling analysis was conducted to supplement the previous analysis completed by WHG included as part of the May 2009 design criteria memorandum. and for two alternative crest elevations (12 feet and 13 feet in reference to NGVD29). respectively. The Total Water Elevation (TWEL) is the sum of the SWEL and 2% run-up. No overtopping is expected to occur for an upstream face slope of 3H:1V and crest elevation of 13. thus eliminating this layer as a potential slip plane. runup and wave generation using existing bathymetric survey data and assuming critical storm conditions associated with an appropriate return frequency nor’easter storm’s wind direction. overtopping is expected to occur with a crest elevation of 13. In these tables the return period is the inverse of the probability that the maximum wave height will be exceeded in a given time interval. For example. there is a 2% chance that the 50-year wave height will be exceeded in a given year. is removed prior to placement of compacted embankment fill material. impermeable surface. This supplemental analysis evaluated sloped embankment design alternatives for the West Embankment in lieu of a vertical sheet pile wall. Acceptable factors of safety for static stability under long-term steady seepage conditions and seismic conditions can only be achieved with an embankment slope of 3H:1V or flatter.38 feet (NGVD29) was used in the May 2009 evaluation and is assumed based on a full operating level in the impoundment (as identified in the 2004 hypsograph prepared for the City).81.0 feet. The 2% run-up value is the level above the SWEL that is exceeded by 2% of the incoming waves.23 and 0. The average overtopping rate is the flow rate over the structure per unit length that is predicted to occur under the given conditions. Overtopping rates were computed for crest elevations of 12. The analyses for each slope scenario assume that the existing accumulated sediment.0 feet (NGVD29). As part of this additional analysis. respectively. indicating slope instability and likely failure for either scenario. To evaluate run-up and overtopping for a revetment faced with articulating concrete mats. The results of the evaluation for 3H:1V and 2H:1V slopes are provided in Tables 16 and 17. seismic analyses were not conducted.Stability analyses were also conducted assuming 2.

38 4.034** Note: ** overtopping rate exceeds USACE guidelines of 2.0 ft.38 2.38 4. Avg.83 0.10 12. Overtopping Rate (ft3/s per linear ft) for Crest Elevation=13.86 12.022 cfs per foot) For a riprap faced revetment structure (embankment) it was conservatively assumed that the structure has a rough impermeable surface. Wave Run-up and Overtopping for West Embankment Assuming Articulating Concrete Slope Protection at 3H:1V Slope Return Period SWEL (ft) 2% Run-up (ft) TWEL (ft) Avg. Overtopping Rate (ft3/s per linear ft) for Crest Elevation=12. Calculations were made using a roughness factor of 0.24 None 50-Year 9. overtopping rates exceed USACE guidelines of 2.38 4.0 litres/s per meter (0.007 0.0 ft.38 2. Wave Run-up and Overtopping for Western Embankment Assuming Articulating Concrete Slope Protection at 2H:1V Slope Return Period SWEL (ft) 2% Run-up (ft) TWEL (ft) Avg.38 4. Avg.59 12.027** 0.38 2.77 None 10-Year 9. run-up is significantly reduced and overtopping is not expected to occur for either 3H:1V or 2H:1V slope configurations.38 2.39 11. 2-Year 9.43 0. Table 16.38 3.97 12.001 0.02 0.003 Table 17.015 0. The results of the evaluation are shown in Tables 18 and 19. .004 50-Year 9.0 feet.70 12. For a riprap-faced structure.29 13.With a 2H:1V slope and crest elevation of 12.97 None 10-Year 9.67 0.022 cfs per foot). 2-Year 9. Overtopping Rate (ft3/s per linear ft) for Crest Elevation=13.48 None 0.05 13.002 0.45 13.35 None 100Year 9.005 100Year 9.002 25-Year 9.022** 0.0 litres/s per meter (0.0 ft.0 ft.64 14.55 assuming two layers of stone on the face of the structure. resulting in likely damage to the structure for return periods greater than 10-years.38 3.007 0.000 0.002 0. Overtopping Rate (ft3/s per linear ft) for Crest Elevation=12.08 None 25-Year 9.

70 11. Table 20.0 ft.38 2. The recommendations are based on wave conditions determined for the 100-year return period wave conditions.83 None 100year 9. Avg.01 None 100year 9. Under Layer.85 0.Table 18.61 None 25-year 9.38 2. therefore the stone sizes provided can be used in the construction of both embankments.0 ft. and Bedding Layer Size. larger stones are required in the corner. and Layer Thickness for 2H:1V Slope at Northwest Corner Average Unit Weight. Weight.55 11.57 10.35 None 10-year 9.38 1.48 10.38 1.5 1.23 11.3 Layer Thickness (ft) 3.38 2.36 11. Tables 20 and 21 summarize required stone sizes and layer thicknesses for the northwest corner of the impoundment where increased wave height due to reflection is expected. Avg. Because increased wave height due to wave reflection is expected in the northwest corner of the pond. Overtopping Rate (ft3/s per linear ft) for Crest Elevation=13.32 10.38 1.38 2. Overtopping Rate (ft3/s per linear ft) for Crest Elevation=13. Recommended Armor Layer. Wave Run-up and Overtopping for West Embankment Assuming Riprap Slope Protection at 2:1 Slope Return Period SWEL (ft) 2% Run-up (ft) TWEL (ft) Avg.5 Armor Layer Under Layer Bedding Layer .38 1.45 11.0 ft.74 None 50-year 9.38 1. 2-year 9.08 None None None None None None Table 19.38 1.86 None 25-year 9.70 None 10-year 9. Stone sizes were determined for two different structure slopes (2H:1V and 3H:1V).93 None None None None None None Riprap Sizing Criteria Recommended minimum stone sizes for riprap armored revetments are provided to supplement the design guidance provided within the May 2009 Design Criteria Memorandum. Wave Run-up and Overtopping for West Embankment Assuming Riprap Slope Protection at 3:1 Slope Return Period SWEL (ft) 2% Run-up (ft) TWEL (ft) Avg.97 11.0 ft. Overtopping Rate (ft3/s per linear ft) for Crest Elevation=12.5 0.0 0. Overtopping Rate (ft3/s per linear ft) for Crest Elevation=12.63 11. D50 (lbs) 900 70 5 Average Unit Diameter (ft) 2. 2-year 9.95 None 50-year 9. Similar conditions are assumed for both the North and West Embankments.

0 0.Table 21. and Bedding Layer Size. and Bedding Layer Size. results in a greater frictional resistance per foot of height of berm and is the reason why a 2H:1V slope is stable for the North Embankment. D50 (lbs) 100 10 5 Average Unit Diameter(ft) 1.5 Armor Layer Under Layer Bedding Layer Current Design Basis Undergoing Permitting Review Based on the results of the geotechnical stability and wave run-up analyses.0 ft to prevent overtopping and to match existing embankment crest elevations at the south end of the West Embankment. Table 22. which was previously identified as a concern by CRMC. Under Layer. and Layer Thickness for 2H:1V or 3H:1V Slope Away from Northwest Corner Average Unit Weight. and Layer Thickness for 3H:1V Slope at Northwest Corner Average Unit Average Unit Weight. On average.3 Layer Thickness (ft) 2. Minimum crest elevation for the articulating concrete slope protection or riprap scenarios is to be constructed at an elevation of 13.8 0. Under the riprap armoring alternative.7 0. Recommended Armor Layer. only a 3H:1V slope would provide adequate stability. while either a 3H:1V or a 2H:1V slope configuration would prevent overtopping. the height of the North Embankment is less than that of the West Embankment.3 Layer Thickness (ft) 1. D50 (lbs) Diameter (ft) 400 1.5 Armor Layer Under Layer Bedding Layer Table 22 summarizes required stone sizes and layer thicknesses for sections away from the northwest corner of the impoundment where wave refraction occurs.45 0. Under Layer. in turn.7 1. North Embankment configuration remains as previously designed with a 2H:1V slope into the impoundment. a final design revision was developed reflecting the following elements.5 0. Weight. This causes the driving force of the weight of soil to be lower at the North Embankment than the West Embankment in relation to the length of the failure circle.5 70 0. Weight. Recommended Armor Layer. which is currently undergoing review by respective permitting agencies: West Embankment is to be constructed with a 3H:1V impoundment slope angle as this slope is required to for embankment stability and will better facilitate potential wildlife movement. .85 5 0. This.

Keeping base riprap and vegetated articulating concrete block slope and channel protection as bid alternates was an important element. These revised designs were presented to residents and the public at a July 2010 workshop.Figure 29. and were well received. Typical revised West Embankment cross-section reflecting articulating concrete block slope protection on a slope to be constructed into the impoundment. as there was significant discussion of construction costs and maintenance concerns associated with riprap. Renderings depicting the proposed improvements are provided below. . A temporary cofferdam will need to be installed and removed for this approach.

.Figure 30. Rendering of the proposed improvements presented at a public workshop in July 2010. The proposed view reflects vegetated articulating concrete block slope and channel protection on both embankments and no security/safety fencing.

Figure 31. The proposed view reflects the bare riprap slope and channel protection alternative on both embankments and no security/safety fencing. Rendering of the proposed improvements presented at a public workshop in July 2010. .

Rendering of the proposed improvements on the West Embankment presented at a public workshop in July 2010.Figure 32. . The proposed view reflects vegetated articulating concrete block slope and channel protection and no security/safety fencing.

.Figure 33. Rendering of the proposed improvements on the West Embankment presented at a public workshop in July 2010. The proposed view reflects riprap slope and channel protection and no security/safety fencing.

. Rendering of the proposed improvements on the West Embankment presented at a public workshop in July 2010. The proposed view reflects vegetated articulating concrete block channel protection and no security/safety fencing.Figure 34.

These costs include a 5% contingency and are considered “definitive. Rendering of the proposed improvements on the West Embankment presented at a public workshop in July 2010. These costs also reflect adjustment of costs for removal of security fencing from the project and addition of a bridge structure on Old Beach Road.Figure 35.” which are expected to be accurate to within plus 15% to minus 5%. . The proposed view reflects riprap channel protection and no security/safety fencing. Estimated Construction Costs Updated opinions of construction costs reflecting vegetated articulating concrete slope protection on both embankments have been prepared and are attached in Appendix C. Changes in costs for respective project construction categories are summarized below in Table 23.

000 $114.000 $40.000 $680.0 and 13.000 $316.000 $1.914.000 -$114.000 May 2009* May 2010** Change PUBLIC ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS Stone Dust Walking Path Safety Fences West Embankment Sheeting Cap ADA Compliant Access Ramp(s) TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS ENGINEERING TOTAL PROJECT COST Notes: $93.000 (for Two Bridges) $188.058. more excavation will be necessary.000 -$414.Table 23.000 $5.108.000 -$355.000 -$217.500 $1.000 $94. . with crest elevations of 12.000 $519.500 $145.000 $34. Consequently.000 $54.000 $5.000 $5. more construction vehicles will be required to transport materials to the site in comparison to articulating concrete slope protection.000 $254.000 $62.500 * Costs presented at August 2009 and January 2010 City Council Workshops.145.000 (for One Bridge) $602.000 $497.500 $6.000 $3. As noted previously.059.000 $4.555.000 $355.428. A table summarizing relative riprap construction costs for each embankment. Summary of Construction Cost Changes for Recommended Articulating Concrete Slope Protection Category EMBANKMENT REPAIRS North Embankment Repairs West Embankment Repairs Moat Channel Repairs TOTAL REPAIRS $485. **Costs updated to reflect revised design layout and current published construction unit costs Approximate opinions of construction costs reflecting the alternate installation of riprap concrete slope protection on both embankments have also been prepared for comparison purposes.0.000 $0 $0 $94.000 $928. and the resulting overall project cost for each scenario is provided below as Table 24. due to the required depth of riprap layers for both embankments.

000 $671.058.000 +$105.500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6.000 $316. which would remain the scenario for the redesigned West Embankment considering that a reconstructed North Embankment would be necessary to provide an adequate travelway for construction materials being transported to the staging area near the Station 1 treatment plant.000 PUBLIC ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS Stone Dust Walking Path $94.000 +$125.000 $188.000 +$372.500 $6.000 $5.505.000 $4.000 $0 $0 $94.Table 24.0) Change in Cost (From Articulating Concrete) Riprap (Crest El.000 $6.500 +$372.877.000 $6. .000 Moat Channel Repairs $928.000 $94.000 Repairs West Embankment Repairs $4. Assuming permitting and bidding in Fall 2010.565.000 Safety Fences $0 $0 West Embankment Sheeting Cap $0 $0 ADA Compliant Access Ramp(s) $94.000 $1.000 $4.000 TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS $188.000 $1. Following establishment of stable vegetation in Spring 2012.000 +$142.000 $624.381.000 $188.000 TOTAL REPAIRS $5.500 +$556. 13.000 +$125.009.0) Change in Cost (From Articulating Concrete) Category EMBANKMENT REPAIRS North Embankment $519.337.053.000 ENGINEERING TOTAL PROJECT COST $316. it is anticipated that the contract would be awarded in early 2011 with mobilization in March 2011 and completion by December 2011.000 +$279.000 +$152.000 +$556. Comparison Summary of Riprap to Articulating Concrete Armor Protection Articulating Concrete Slope Protection Riprap (Crest El.200. pedestrian access bridges would be constructed allowing residents to once more enjoy walking on the embankment in Summer 2012.061.000 $94.000 Current Construction Schedule Previous discussions with the City have planned construction of the North Embankment to occur prior to construction of the West Embankment.500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $94.053. 12.500 $316.