You are on page 1of 133

VALUE

ENGINEERING
WORKSHOP
March 28-31, 2011

WORKSHOP
FINAL
REPORT

FOR THE


SOUTHWESTERN
ILLINOIS FLOOD
PREVENTION
DISTRICT COUNCIL
Submitted By: Campion Group, LLC
In Association With: Thouvenot, Wade & Moerchen, Inc.
and Shively Geotechnical, a Division of
Environmental Operations, Inc.

“Doing the right things, not just doing things right!”






17 May 2011

Mr. Les Sterman
Chief Supervisor of Construction and the Works
Southwestern Illinois Flood Prevention District Council
104 United Drive
Collinsville, Illinois 62234

Subject: Value Engineering Workshop Report - Final

Reference: Levee System Design and Construction

Dear Mr. Sterman:

I am pleased to submit the final report summarizing the Value Engineering Workshop held
March 28-31, 2011. An electronic version of this report will also be provided.

The workshop went very well, I believe, and the method used proved to be most productive as it
engaged the designer not only at the opening and exit, but also during the actual value
engineering activities. Furthermore, using the last day to seek closure on each and every item
paid dividends and was only possible by having collaborated with the designer through written
comments and questions to them during the workshop, and their quick responses.

We will, with your approval, make this report available to the designer in electronic form. Please
advise me whatever number of hard copies, if any, you may desire.

Sincerely,



Douglas R. Campion
Owner/Principal

Enclosure
P.O. Box 31515
St. Louis, Missouri 63131
Phone: 314.783.7233
E-mail:
drcampion@yahoo.com


Ca mp i o n Gr o u p , L L C




Value Engineering Workshop Report Page 1 of 14

C a m p i o n G r o u p , L L C

REPORT OF THE
VALUE ENGINEERING WORKSHOP
Southwestern Illinois Flood Prevention District Levees
March 28-31, 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2
Findings & Recommendations
Value Engineering Team
PROJECT DESCRIPTION & BACKGROUND 5
VALUE ENGINEERING OBJECTIVES 7
VALUE ENGINEERING PROCESS 7
Information – Design Documents
Information – Designer Presentation
VE Review – Team’ Developed Comments & Questions
WRAP UP AND NEXT STEPS 13

APPENDICES
1. Workshop Agenda & Attendance sheets
2. Plan sheets for each of the four principal levee distracts and
Profiles illustrating basic features under study
3. Preliminary cost estimate
4. AMEC value engineering/design optimization items
5. AMEC project overview and status presentation
6. VE Team Written Comments/Questions and AMEC Responses






Value Engineering Workshop Report Page 2 of 14



C a m p i o n G r o u p , L L C
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Findings & Recommendations
The Value Engineering (VE) Team was pleased with the cooperation and collaborative and professional
conduct exhibited by the designer, AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. (AMEC) through the course of the
workshop. The tone was very collegial and with the best interests of the project at the forefront.
This report, inclusive of its Appendices, provides details on what the objectives were for the workshop
and the findings and recommendations developed for consideration now or in the early stages of the
final design phase. It is never too early to value engineer every project. While saying that, it is expressly
understood that AMEC is very early into the design and it is not uncommon for further analysis to find
reasonable alternatives that may significantly reduce scope, and costs, without harming functionality.
Also, more detailed design will also uncover opportunities to reduce scope, and consequent costs, when
it is clearer what solutions may accomplish the prime objective, that being certification for the 100 year
flood level of protection rather than a higher level.
The key recommendations from this VE Workshop include the following:
1. Reduction and/or elimination altogether of cutoff walls. These are very expensive solutions and
may be replaced through further analysis of hybrid relief well/ seepage berm solutions, or relief
well/ pond (water berm) solutions. This is particular the case at Wood River. The length of
currently proposed cutoff wall solutions and depths as much as 160 feet are of concern. It is
believed these can be reduced, at a minimum, and information already suggests a significant
reduction in the required cutoff wall along Wood River. More analysis should be done, using 3-
D modeling as well.
2. A hybrid relief wells/seepage berm solution may better fit the need than the disjointed, hop
scotch pattern currently laid out in many areas, thereby also reducing the amount of real estate
acquisition otherwise required. This alternative could prove very cost-effective and still perform
the functional requirements.
3. In some locations, e.g., the southern flank of Prairie Du Pont/ Fish Lake, where the top stratum
is very thin and the required berms are very long and/or closely spaced relief wells are used, an
option would be to excavate a pond or lake to relieve seepage, store seepage and storm water,
and convey water to pump stations. This was done at Earth City, Missouri. To control the exit
gradient these ponds should be excavated into the sand aquifer. The gradient can best be
determined using a program such as Seep/W. The water berm or permanent lake idea (like
Earth city), not only provides seepage pressure relief, but also provides a potential location for
storm water runoff storage, a borrow source for seepage berms or clay cap fill elsewhere on the
project, and may create new wetlands to offset wetlands losses elsewhere. The pond must be
set back from the levee or berm to maintain an adequate slope stability factor of safety. A
gravel filter blanket can be added to the bottom of the pond if there is a concern about small
boils forming in the pond.



Value Engineering Workshop Report Page 3 of 14



C a m p i o n G r o u p , L L C
4. It is not too soon to begin to investigate and identify sources of material for seepage berms,
especially the source(s) to obtain the clay material needed for both berms and clay caps. This
will be a major item of expense and there are concerns about where the amount of material will
come from, including the potential for long hauling costs.
5. Specifications that mirror the U.S. COE specifications should wherever appropriate be adopted
and used. Where there is debate about the use of such specification, this should be resolved as
quickly as possible by presentation of the alternate to the Corps and seeking immediate closure
on acceptance, before design progresses too far.
6. Cost estimating ought to immediately begin to correlate to both a definitive Work Breakdown
Structured project and to proposed contractual specifications to be utilized. Without such care
there is too much a potential to inadvertently mask scope and cost creep, as well as miss
elements of work that costs are not developed for.
7. There must be a reasoned cost and schedule contingency analysis developed that reflects the
uncertainties inherent in such a project. Some of this contingency will be allocated to line items
of cost or specific time to perform issues with certain construction, as it should be. But there
also must be unallocated contingency available to handle the real unknowns that too often crop
up on capital projects. The existing 7% total contingency (presumably both allocated and
unallocated) is simply believed to be far too little at this early stage of design.

Value Engineering Team
The value engineering team was assembled by the Council’s project management oversight consultant,
Campion Group, LLC. The VE workshop was led by Douglas R. Campion, serving both as the facilitator
and an active participant. The other members of the VE Team were:
MEMBER/ AFFILIATION VE CONCENTRATION
Craig D. Brauer, P.E. Environmental; Real Estate Costs
(Thouvenot, Wade & Moerchen, Inc.)
Paul K. Homann, P.E. Hydrology and Hydraulics
(Thouvenot, Wade & Moerchen, Inc.)
Suzanne Goldak, P.E. Hydrology and Hydraulics
(Thouvenot, Wade & Moerchen, Inc.)
John E. Shively, P.E. Geotechnical; Construction
(Shively Geotechnical, a Division of Environmental Operations, Inc.)
John S. Kottemann, P.E. Geotechnical
(Shively Geotechnical, a Division of Environmental Operations, Inc.)
Christopher B. Groves, P.E. Geotechnical; Levee Design
(Shannon & Wilson, Inc.)



Value Engineering Workshop Report Page 4 of 14



C a m p i o n G r o u p , L L C
Gregory Bertoglio USACE Requirements; Prairie Du Pont/Fisk Lake districts
(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
James Worts USACE Requirements; Levee Construction
(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)




Value Engineering Workshop Report Page 5 of 14



C a m p i o n G r o u p , L L C
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND

According to FEMA and the Corps of Engineers, five levees in the Metro East are at risk of failing due to
structural deficiencies in the levees. These levees extend from Wood River south to Prairie Du Pont and
Fish Lake. Most of the American Bottoms from the Mississippi River to Bluff Road is at risk. FEMA
announced that its intention is to disaccredit the five Mississippi River levees and, therefore, no longer
certify the levees as capable of protecting the region from a 100 year flood.

While the first concern is public safety and the
increased risk of catastrophic flooding, there are
significant economic consequences that will cloud
future economic growth in a large area of
southwestern Illinois. The 100 year flood map revision
will determine which homes and businesses will be
potentially subject to flooding and therefore required
to buy costly flood insurance. The probability of levee
decertification will cause massive costs to existing
individuals and businesses and cripple economic
growth and investment in our region. Federally
regulated financial institutions may not be able to issue
loans to homeowners or businesses that don't carry
adequate flood insurance, and communities will need
to adopt development ordinances that include strict
requirements for building in flood zones. Many
homeowners may not be able to afford flood
insurance, even at the current favorable rate, putting
them at future financial risk.

This potential action will affect almost a third of the
population of the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area and many critical businesses that are the
foundation of our local economy. The consequences will be felt not only by areas that could be in
jeopardy of flooding, but also by all communities that have a stake in the economic vitality of our region.
This region represents the second largest concentration of population in the Mississippi Corridor (after
New Orleans) and a collaborative effort should be successful in obtaining the funds necessary to
improve the levees.

The Corps of Engineers describe their goal as to "Assess, Communicate Risk, and Solve" the problem.
Their risk analysis looked at design height and under-seepage problems. It is the under seepage, plus old
pumps and drainage tiles (Wood River Levee built 1938) that led the Corps to determine the levees are
not adequate and need repair to be certified. The Corps of Engineers is still working to define actual



Value Engineering Workshop Report Page 6 of 14



C a m p i o n G r o u p , L L C
costs to improve the levees, but costs could range from $120 -150 million. Current policy of the federal
government is that all Corps projects require a 35 percent local match.

Not knowing if and when the Corps might get Congressional authorization and appropriations to
undertake the requisite levee repairs, the region was able to secure state legislation enabling it to
establish a .25 percent sales tax within the three affected southwestern Illinois counties. This tax went
into effect January 1, 2009. With these funds, and other funding from the impacted levee districts, the
Southwestern Illinois Flood Prevention District Council (SWIFPDC) was formed and staffed. Its goal is to
investigate the levees for deficiencies, undertake the design and construction to repair them, and have
the resultant levees certified to FEMA that they meet the 100 year flood protection requirement.

The SWILFPDC procured the services of AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. (AMEC), a qualified consulting
firm, to undertake the necessary analyses of the levees to determine where there were deficiencies,
perform preliminary engineering and final design for repairing the levees, assist in contracting for the
construction of the repairs, provide construction management services, and ultimately certify the
repaired levees as able to meet the 100 year flood protection criteria of FEMA.

The SWILFPDC also procured the services of Campion Group, LLC, to support the Council’s Chief
Supervisor of Construction and the Works by way of providing project management oversight of AMEC
and future construction contractors through to FEMA acceptance of the levees as being 100 year flood
protection certified.

A key component of the project management oversight services is the conduct of a value engineering
program, inclusive of a workshop to bring qualified technical specialists together to review the design
plans and supporting design analysis in an attempt to both validate the proposed design solutions as
well as strive to find less costly solutions without adversely affecting the functionality of the designed
repairs. This report provides a summary of the Value Engineering Workshop held on March 28-31, 2011
at which time the VE Team met and performed its review of the design progress material provided by
AMEC.






Value Engineering Workshop Report Page 7 of 14



C a m p i o n G r o u p , L L C
VALUE ENGINEERING OBJECTIVES

The principal objective of value engineering is the effective and efficient identification of unnecessary
cost in a project. . It focuses the attention of engineering and purchasing on one objective – equivalent
performance for lower cost. It results in the orderly utilization of low cost alternative materials, low cost
alternative processes including new processes, and abilities of specialized suppliers to procure items at
lower costs.
In this instance, the VE Workshop was not set up to look deeply into the progress design documentation
because it was not as far along as would provide greater details. Nor was the VE Team to look at life-
cycle cost, an element of many such value engineering programs. Rather, the charge for this Team was
the identification of the general validity of the design analysis program, the evidence of sound input
data, the general review of the solutions proposed and where, the constructability of those solutions,
and the relative cost of the proposed solutions. Also, the Team was to review the proposed contract
packaging and the proposed delivery methods.
From the review of material and discussions with the designer, and any desired field visits, the VE Team
is to provide its assessment of the design analysis approach being used by AMEC, and then its
recommendations for less costly solutions which the Council could adopt and in turn direct AMEC to
investigate further and, provided a solution meets the functional requirements for levee repair, adopt
for final design.

VALUE ENGINEERING PROCESS

INFORMATION – DESIGN DOCUMENTS
In advance of Workshop AMEC provided a progress set of drawings (plans and profiles of most, but not
all, of the levees) depicting areas where deficiencies were found and solutions were recommended.
Most solutions are one of three major types: relief wells, seepage berms or cutoff walls. These drawings
were prepared and submitted to the Council on March 1, 2011.
AMEC also provided a cost estimate for the proposed solutions; this also was provided on March 1,
2011.
With AMEC bringing this information in on March 1
st
, and its quick perusal by Les Sterman, the Council’s
Chief Supervisor of Construction and the Works and Doug Campion, Campion Group, the project
management oversight consultant, led both to conclude that the scope of the solutions inferred a
potential and sizable increase in cost compared with AMEC’s earlier, and even more preliminary,
estimate of cost. Consequently, AMEC was advised then to initiate a more thorough review of its work
to seek its own identification of value engineered opportunities to reduce scope and, hence, cost.
Because of this forewarning, AMEC was also able to bring to this VE Workshop for the VE Team to
review what it refers to as Value Engineering/Design Optimization Items.



Value Engineering Workshop Report Page 8 of 14



C a m p i o n G r o u p , L L C
The AGENDA for the workshop can be found at Appendix 1. Included here are the attendance sheets for
each of the four workshop days.
At Appendix 2 can be found the following material MEC provided in advance of the workshop:
Plan sheets for each of the four principal levee distracts
o Wood River Drainage & Levee district
o Metro-East Sanitary Drainage and Levee District
o Prairie Du Pont Drainage and Levee and Fish Lake Drainage and Levee districts
(combined)
Profiles illustrating: basic levee with and without landside ditch; cross section depicting cutoff
walls (shallow and deep); cross sections depicting seepage berm and a soil fill of low areas
adjacent to levee; relief wells, types D and T; and soil fill of ditches beside railroad
At Appendix 3 can be found the preliminary cost estimate AMEC prepared for the design solutions
depicted in the progress drawings. Provided here are only the following pieces of an otherwise large
electronic file which also contains back-up estimating material.
Comparison of quantities by improvement type for the levees, with comparison being between
what AMEC had in its proposal and where their analysis suggests quantities as of March 1, 2011.
Construction cost escalation rate calculation
Cost summary for each levee district and a total for all
Detailed summary of unit cost and quantities for 57 work items across all the levees
Levee-by-levee summaries for each principal levee district, with Prairie Du Pont and Fish Lake
combined as one, with following breakdowns for major work:
o Summary for total of 57 work items
o Clay caps solution, if and when applicable
o Relief wells, if and applicable
o Seepage berms, if and when applicable
o Cutoff walls, if and when applicable
o Civil improvements, if and when applicable
At Appendix 4 can be found the AMEC value engineering/design optimization items developed ahead of
the VE Workshop and provided to the VE Team. There is one sheet for Wood River, Metro-East, and
Prairie Du Pont/Fish Lake.

INFORMATION – DESIGNER PRESENTATION
On the morning and into the early afternoon of the workshop’s first day, AMEC managers, Messrs. Jay
Martin, Project Manager, and Jon Omvig, both assisted by other staff via telephone, presented an
overview of the project. At their request, the presentation did not follow precisely the Agenda but
covered the items requested of them.



Value Engineering Workshop Report Page 9 of 14



C a m p i o n G r o u p , L L C
At Appendix 5 can be found the presentation made using PowerPoint. There are a total of 30 slides
presented here two per sheet.
AMEC was very open and candid in describing their work to-date and identified several issues which
indicated both some delay in gathering all the data they needed and the status of first and second level
analysis intended to have been done but was not. Their demeanor was and has been cooperative and in
showing they understood and appreciated the need to search for less costly solutions.
It was pointed out and certainly agreed to by the VE Team that the design was at only a preliminary level
of detail. Yes, most of the data needed to do the hydraulic and hydrology, and geotechnical analyses
had been gathered and resultant first level screening produced the currently proposed solutions shown
on the drawings and their cost in the estimate. AMEC, however, and as shown in the value
engineering/design optimization sheets provided, has begun to look at alternative treatments for
problems found and has initiated 3-D analyses particularly at corners.
AMEC was responsive to questions raised so as to further develop for the VE Team the necessary
information base upon which the workshop would proceed to evaluate. It was agreed that the VE Team
would use the balance of this day and early next to prepare follow-up questions or requests for
additional information. In turn, this material would e provided to AMEC and AMEC would get responses
back as soon as practicable. AMEC staff was kept on alert so as to be able to respond quickly.
The contract packaging and delivery methods were briefly touched upon. Essentially AMEC has
proposed at this time that most of the work be delivered using conventional design-bid-build (D-B-B)
method of contracting. In the case where cutoff walls remain required, they recommend using the
design-build (D-B or D/B) contracting method. With respect to packaging the work, they are not far
enough into design to fully lay out a specific plan at this time. It appears advisable that like-work, such
as relief wells be packaged in large enough segments to achieve economies of scale for bidding this
work. There is also the possibility, to avoid contractors running into each other, that some packages
may best be put out that include a mix of work and be geographically related, e.g., relief wells, seepage
berms, miscellaneous civil improvements.
AMEC presented a brief discussion on its cost estimating approach and further stated its intent to vet
the estimate as design proceeded and alternatives were identified and resolved.
At this time it was also brought up by the VE Team and concurred in by AMEC that the cash flow funding
capability will play a significant part in determining both packages and bidding dates, as well as
contractual time to complete. In attendance during the presentation was the Council’s financial
consultant, Mr. Roy Toykelson, who contributed to the discussion as regards financial planning.



Value Engineering Workshop Report Page 10 of 14



C a m p i o n G r o u p , L L C
VE TEAM REVIEW COMMENTS & QUESTIONS AND DESIGNER RESPONSE

Based on the documentation provided the VE Team in advance, the AMEC project status overview
presentation, and the responses provide to written comments and questions developed by the Team,
the value engineering process proceeded for two days.
The first matters to be dealt with related to the field investigation and the analysis techniques utilized by
AMEC. The objective here was to validate the geotechnical work and design basis used, and the
hydrology and hydraulics design basis. Following are the VE Team’s opinion on these matters.
The issues presented in the available drawings and the 30 percent progress presentation by AMEC
appears to indicate that under seepage is the most significant design issue. Through seepage is an issue
at a few locations. There is no indication that slope stability is a significant issue after under seepage
and through seepage issues are addressed.
The under seepage issue is addressed with seepage berms, relief wells, and cutoff walls. Relief wells
appear to be the least expensive method followed by seepage berms, and finally by cutoff walls. The
analysis performed to-date appears to use one of the above methods in most cases. A combination of
berms and relief wells does not appear to have been used except in a few locations. The analysis might
look at several different berm lengths and the corresponding spacing for relief wells required to control
exit gradients. A cost study may show that there is an optimum berm length and well spacing to address
the seepage resulting from the one percent probability flood.
Upon review of the hydrologic/hydraulic approach taken for this project, we find it consistent with
standard engineering practice that would be undertaken for a project of this type. The design team
utilized the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Hydrologic Engineering Center Hydrologic
Modeling System (HEC-HMS) to derive precipitation-runoff values for the various watersheds at the 10,
25, 50, 100 and 500-year frequency events. The flows derived from this analysis were then calibrated
against stream gage flows where available. The AMEC report states that the calibration of flows was
adjusted to correspond with gage flows within a range of fifteen (15) percent.

After development of these flows for the various storm events, the flows were then utilized within the
USACE, Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) computer modeling system to
derive peak water surface elevations for the 10, 25, 50, 100, and 500-year frequency events. Once again
this methodology is consistent with standard engineering practice.

To assess the flooding that would occur in the areas on the land side of the levee, the AMEC team
utilized PCSWMM modeling to analyze the probable one-percent recurrence flood event. This
methodology would be one possible alternative of assessing flooding in these areas and is a viable
methodology.



Value Engineering Workshop Report Page 11 of 14



C a m p i o n G r o u p , L L C
Having generally satisfied itself that the design approach relative to geotechnical and hydrology and
hydraulics was in keeping with sound engineering practice and followed accepted practice of the U.S.
Corps of Engineers, the VE Team developed questions and comments to immediately share with the
designer. Because AMEC had prepared and shared its value engineering/design optimization items in
matrix format, numbered sequentially for each levee district, many questions were developed and
correlated to those tables so as to better enable AMEC to quickly respond. In several instances
telephone calls were placed with AMEC design staff to best ensure understanding of the comments and
questions.
Appendix 6 contains the written comments submitted to AMEC as well as their responses thereto within
the time available. These were developed as:
General Comments and Questions (13 comments/questions in total)
MESD Comments (13 comments/questions in total)
Wood River (10 comments/questions in total)
Prairie Du Pont/Fish Lake (8 comments/questions n total)
In addition to the comments and questions, the VE Team developed additional ones for follow-up by
AMEC in the near future. Following are the observations and resulting comments/questions discussed
by the VE Team during the course of the workshop and put into writing afterwards. In many instances,
these were discussed with AMEC to some extent during the closing day.
A. It appears that the impact of berm construction on wet lands may be significant. This is a concern
where berm fill covers wet land and where borrow is required for construction of the berm.
B. Deep cutoff walls are very expensive and the designers should look at cost issues and means to
mitigate construction costs. Three dimension seepage analyses for the cutoff wall sections are
recommended to evaluate flow around the ends of the wall and methods to tie-in the ends. Means
to mitigate the number and length of cutoff walls appears to hold the greatest potential for cost
savings.
C. Pump testing with the measurement of upward flow velocity in the well was recommended to
evaluate the hydraulic conductivity of the foundation sand as a function of the position in the soil
profile. This issue appears to be less significant after reviewing the D10 values and the pump test is
no longer recommended. The D10 values appear to indicate that the most permeable sand layers
appear to be at about mid-depth in the soil profile.
D. In some locations where the top stratum is very thin and the required berms are very long and/or
closely spaced relief wells, one option will be to excavate a pond or lake to relieve seepage, store
seepage and storm water, and convey water to pump stations. This is similar to what was done at
Earth City, Missouri. To control the exit gradient these ponds should be excavated into the sand
aquifer. The gradient can best be determined using a program such as Seep/W. The water berm or
permanent lake idea (like Earth city), not only provides seepage pressure relief, but also provides a
potential location for storm water runoff storage, a borrow source for seepage berms or clay cap fill
elsewhere on the project, and may create new wetlands to offset wetlands losses elsewhere. The
pond must be set back from the levee or berm to maintain an adequate slope stability factor of



Value Engineering Workshop Report Page 12 of 14



C a m p i o n G r o u p , L L C
safety. A gravel filter blanket can be added to the bottom of the pond if there is a concern about
small boils forming in the pond.
E. We believe a clarification should be made in regard to adjustment of computed flows versus gage
flows. The AMEC summary report stated that computed flows were adjusted to the range of within
fifteen (15) percent of gage flows. We would suggest clarification be offered as to the criteria for
the selection of the fifteen (15) percent value.
F. Since some of the computed flows are less than actual gage value wouldn’t it be appropriate to at
least set the flows at the actual gage flow readings rather than utilize some computed flows that are
as much as six (6) percent below the gage flows. (or are the gage readings not that accurate).
G. We would also want to confirm that a check was made to verify that, in addition to the gage flows,
the gage elevation was compared to the actual computed hydraulic grade line that was derived for
the various frequency events.
H. In our value engineering discussion, a geotechnical representative brought up a significant point as
to where the levees would actually be overtopped in the event of a storm event greater than what is
to be certified by the AMEC team. We understand that this is not in the scope of work that is to be
undertaken by the AMEC team, but we believe this is an important part of the levee system
certification to understand where the levees could be overtopped to avoid un-wanted catastrophic
damage from overtopping of the system in an inappropriate location.
I. In regard to flooding behind the levee system, it appears that significant fill may be required in some
areas to control seepage behind the levee system. We would want to ensure that this additional fill
is included in the analysis of the flood elevation that will be established on the land side of the levee
system, and that this fill will not significantly increase existing flood elevations that presently occur
in these areas.
J. In some areas of the levee system, particularly in the MESD system from Station 1339+00 to Station
1350+00, there is significant drainage piping (in this area a 12’ x 5’ box culvert system). We would
like the AMEC team to look into these types of areas in depth to assess whether areas like these can
be re-routed by ditching or other means to eliminate the cost of these expensive structures.
K. We would suggest at the next submittal of the plans that it would be beneficial to see the actual
flood elevation gradient on the river and the flood elevations behind the levee system so that these
can be evaluated for their impact.
L. We understand that the NIFP requires that engineering analyses be submitted to demonstrate that
no appreciable erosion of the levee embankment can be expected as a result of either currents or
waves during the base flood, and that anticipated erosion will not result in failure of the levee. The
analyses for any conditions that may affect the erosion of the embankment (i.e. flow velocities or
wind and wave action) should be included.
M. Are the levee closures owned and operated by the COE or by the levee districts? Will it be
necessary to certify that the gates are adequate and operable?
N. Given the statement that the 100 year flood levels lowered in most areas where Mississippi tail
water was not the controlling factor, are all of the improvements shown near the ends of the flank
levees necessary for the 100 year certification?




Value Engineering Workshop Report Page 13 of 14



C a m p i o n G r o u p , L L C
WRAPUP AND NEXT STEPS

On the closing day the VE Team met with Les Sterman, Council’s Chief Supervisor of Construction and
the Works, and AMEC’s Jay Martin and Jon Omvig to present the findings in person. As necessary,
additional AMEC staff was available via telephone.

The Team reviewed the Comments and Questions which had been written and provided AMEC, together
with the AMEC responses thereto. (See Appendix 6). For the most part, AMEC accepted the VE Team
comments and assured that it would address each one that had not been brought to closure in their
responses. In several instances it was determined that items may not be any longer relevant, others will
be revisited, and in one case the item is disagreed with by AMEC. Following is a recap of such items:
In General Comments and Questions
o Item # 6 is dropped. The VE Team after reviewing boring logs determined there is
enough information without conducting the otherwise recommended test per ASTM
guidelines.
o Item # 10 will be looked into further by AMEC as it had not considered either fly ash or
blast furnace slag for fill. Some concern about the environmental acceptability of fly
ash, particularly due to U.S. EPA inclinations in this area.
o Item # 12 was found to be a matter not considered by AMEC up until now, but they
understand that haul roads not on major thoroughfares and highways will need to be
considered and costs for repairs included in estimate during final design and
construction planning.
In MESD Comments
o Item # 12 will look to see whether or not the stationing is correct and therefore whether
or not the recommended actions it proposed is appropriate here. There is possibility of
simply a typo with respect to the stationing.
In Wood River
o Item # 6 will be revisited with further look at possible use French drains in certain
situations.
In Prairie Du Pont/Fish Lake
o Item # 2 will have AMEC sending additional information (which it did send and is
included with Appendix 6).
o Item # 4 has AMEC agreeing to utilize a 3-D analysis.

Much of the discussion revolved around two major proposed design solutions, use of cutoff walls and
berms. In the former, the VE Team stressed the potential of reducing if not altogether eliminating cutoff
walls through the use of hybrid solutions wherein a combination of relief wells and seepage berms could
be evaluated for solving the under seepage issues and thereby reduce the size of berms and
corresponding land acquisition requirements to save cost. Another possibility, particularly at Wood
River might be the hybrid relief wells and berms on the river flank, and a combination of relief wells and
actual ponding (flooding) of the low area across highway 143 for the Mississippi reach rather than the
deep cutoff walls. Already AMEC has done additional flow analysis and believes some 2,500 feet of wall
might be eliminated along the Wood River reach. They agree this is a big ticket item and will look closer
with 3-D analysis and see what the resultant solution could best serve the need.

One last point on the use of the hybrid relief wells/berm was the VE Team’s belief that a more
consistent design wherein a uniform berm depth (distance from the levee) combined with relief wells



Value Engineering Workshop Report Page 14 of 14



C a m p i o n G r o u p , L L C
could be lead to a far simpler, therefore less expensive, construction. This in conjunction with reducing
land acquisition costs.

A good deal of time was used to address matters of cost throughout the review of comments and
questions which AMEC addressed. It was also a point to specifically review the unit costs in the
estimate; the Detailed Summary – Wood River, MESD, PdP & Fish Lake prepared by AMEC was used (See
Appendix 3). For the most part the unit prices have been developed in a parametric manner, though the
background information provided does contain some bottoms up estimating, though that too relies on
general figures arrived at from various sources. The VE Team did identify several items where the unit
prices look to the Team as needing revision, as follows (the item numbers correlate to the AMEC
Detailed Summary):
Item #1 – The unit of measure might better be developed as cubic yards rather than linear feet
so as to reflect the actual design depth(s) for specific clay cap solutions.
Item # 3 - Clearing and grubbing quantities seem to be included in other line items such as
drainage for shallow ditch, drainage for deep ditch, and drainage for creek relocation. At the
next submittal this should be clarified.
Item # 13 – The quantity (6,000 lf) could not be resolved; possibly a typo.
Item # 15 – The VE Team believes this item should be broken down further to reflect different
roadway work, such as new or improved roadway, repair of damaged roadways used for hauling
material and/or equipment (local roads), etc.
• Item # 36 - The cost of rip rap bank protection seems somewhat excessive as compared to the
Corps of Engineers typical cost. Please review.
Item # 39 – Right-of-way cost appears low; suggest based on VE Team knowledge that $7-7,500
per acre may be more in line with what the land costs for agricultural property may be.
Item # 48 – The unit price for wetlands mitigation appears too much of an allowance; whether
reasonable or not, per se, there ought to be an investigation of potential wetlands development
in the watershed area whereby the project might be able to bid such a development to get the
wetlands needed. Also, this line item should be broken down into sub-items, e.g., hardwood
wetland mitigation, etc.
Item # 56 – The VE Team believes that mobilization should be assigned to specific work items as
presumed to be packaged rather than as a simple multiplier across all the other cost items;
mobilization cost will vary of course by the type of construction, access, etc., and consideration
must also be given to demobilization, especially if weather conditions should cause stopping and
starting, with even temporary demobilization to avoid flood waters (a risk).
Item # 57 – A contingency in work such as this, and given the early design status, is likely to be
required at much more than the 7% presumed by AMEC. Without trying to provide a specific
figure, the VE Team recommends first that some contingency will naturally result during the
estimating, that is, there will or should be allocated contingency to various work types and
geographic locations of the work. Such allocated contingency should be clearly identified.
Additional contingency will of necessity be required to really take into consideration the real
uncertainties that may befall such a project.

The VE Workshop adjourned with all parties comfortable that issues were out on the table and being
further addressed immediately or planned for early action in the final design phase. As it stands, there
may be another VE activity during the final design phase, perhaps at approximately the 60% level of
completion, before detailed design and plans are too far along, but after contract packing and delivery
methods identified, and real estate acquisition requirements are reasonably close to being final.


A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X

1


Agenda Rev02 Page 1 of 4
LEVEE PROJECT VALUE ENGINEERING WORKSHOP
March 28-31, 2011
AGENDA
DAY 1 (03-28-2011)
9:30 AM I. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF WORKSHOP - Doug Campion
9:45 AM II. PRESENTATION BY DESIGNER OF 30% ANALYSES & RECOMMENDATIONS - AMEC (Jon Omvig/ Jay Martin)
- - Overview of Levee Project and Primary Objectives
10:00 AM A. Wood River Drainage and Levee District (Wood River)
1. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis (H&H)
2. Geotechnical Engineering Analysis
3. Findings & Recommendations
a. Deficiencies and Recommended Solutions
b. Contract Packaging & Delivery Method
c. Cost Estimate Basis,Allocated Contingency and Total Cost, by Type/Location
d. Risks Assessed
10:30 AM 4. Q&A
11:00 AM B. Metro-East Sanitary District (MESD)
1. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis (H&H)
2. Geotechnical Engineering Analysis
3. Findings & Recommendations
a. Deficiencies and Recommended Solutions
b. Contract Packaging & Delivery Method
c. Cost Estimate Basis,Allocated Contingency and Total Cost, by Type/Location
d. Risks Assessed
11:30 AM 4. Q&A
12:00 PM WORKING LUNCH
12:30 PM C. Prairie du Pont Drainage and Levee District & Fish Lake Drainage and Levee District (PdP/Fish Lake)
1. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis (H&H)
2. Geotechnical Engineering Analysis
3. Findings & Recommendations
a. Deficiencies and Recommended Solutions
b. Contract Packaging & Delivery Method
c. Cost Estimate Basis,Allocated Contingency and Total Cost, by Type/Location
d. Risks Assessed
1:00 PM 4. Q&A
1:30 PM III. FIELD VISITS {Key Problem Areas ONLY}
5:00 PM ADJOURN FOR THE DAY
Agenda Rev02 Page 2 of 4
LEVEE PROJECT VALUE ENGINEERING WORKSHOP
March 28-31, 2011
AGENDA
DAY 2 (03-29-2011)
8:30 AM IV. V.E. PANEL DISCUSSIONS
A. Follow- Up information/Data Needs from AMEC based on Day 1 Presentation and Field Visits
1. Identification of information/data needed
2. Request to be made of AMEC by DRC
3. AMEC provides Requested Information/Data Needs of Panel by Noon today
9:00 AM B. Levee-by-Levee: Sense of AMEC Seepage Analysis, Landside Drainage Analysis & Deficiency findings
1. Wood River
2. MESD
3. PdP/Fish Lake
12:00 PM WORKING LUNCH
C. Understanding of proposed AMEC technical solutions to address deficiencies and the
application appropriatness
1. Seepage blankets (berms)
2. Relief Wells
3. Slurry Walls
4. Pump Stations
5. Gravity Drains
6. Freeboard & Embankment Protection
7. Other
D. Land Acquisition requirements and issues
1. As required for technical solution
2. As required for Wetlands mitigation
E. Environmental and Other matters
1. Conformance with current commitments - Phase I assessments, Cultural resources
2. Permitting - 404, 401
3. Utilities - Access, relocation
5:00 PM ADJOURN FOR THE DAY
Agenda Rev02 Page 3 of 4
LEVEE PROJECT VALUE ENGINEERING WORKSHOP
March 28-31, 2011
AGENDA
DAY 3 (03-30-2011)
8:30 AM IV. PANEL DISCUSSIONS - REVIEW & IDENTIFY CRITICAL ISSUES/OPPORTINITIES
F. REVIEW & IDENTIFY CRITICAL ISSUES/OPPORTINITIES
9:15 AM V. EVALUATION OF COST ESTIMATE
A. By Proposed Solution Type
1. Seepage blankets (berms)
2. Relief Wells
3. Slurry Walls
4. Pump Stations
5. Gravity Drains
6. Freeboard & Embankment Protection
7. Other
B. By Contract Packaging, Delivery Method and Levee
C. V.E. Opportunities
12:00 PM WORKING LUNCH
12:15 PM V. EVALUATION OF COST ESTIMATE (continued)
2:00 PM VI. V.E. TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS DEVELOPMENT
5:00 PM ADJOURN FOR THE DAY
Agenda Rev02 Page 4 of 4
LEVEE PROJECT VALUE ENGINEERING WORKSHOP
March 28-31, 2011
AGENDA
DAY 4 (03-31-2011)
9:00 AM VII. V.E. TEAM PRESENTATION & OPEN DISCUSSION
A. Alternatives for Consideration

B. Construction Implications
C. Cost Implications
12:00 PM WORKING LUNCH
12:30 PM VIII. RISKS IDENTIFICATION
A. Design phase
B. Procurement
C. Construction
D. Certification
E. Operations & Maintenance
F. Unallowability of Expenses as Local Share
3:00 PM IX. CONCLUSIONS
4:00 PM X. LOOK AHEAD SCHEDULE - IMPLEMENTATION
5:00 PM END OF WORKSHOP
Attendance
Project:
Location:
Southwestern Illinois Flood Protection District Council Levee
Metro-East Park & Recreation District
Item:
Date:
V ____...
Page: / ;,/7 I
... ...
6
No. Name Company Email Telepbone Number
IUH'P J'....,.., •. If- "'... Ai 3/f'-33t
1 U/ClrL_ - :0:.1' (I/S:';_
I
3 I C- • c.'j1""'_._!___....m___....__
4 I 'iiwL. ___m__
I s;m-W8,v'r; 5'foldahil
__ ('If-ml.tMlr
__ __ blt-Cf3
1
-f.b!,. 0
! ;;"17 IV-< i) , ,. -3 -/­
orTf M ____ 1
, () l<AJ.J/)y. c.0($.@! , 3 3"'-3'B00
.... ...___ ... '7:-.m- ... _ ....
. ;::b-v.
DMI/I b 9 ;:::;;;;:4
___________.
,ANu;;,c-,
____ __mm....

... _ __..._.... __m ___mm_.----t___.

e-::> c5krmt:t n -+R __.._+_..._ .... __
.J11 h . I tfvu{;t'.+_____ ...--­
J J.-------
15 I __i --j .. ..-­
16 I 10v!:J ___ __,___..__m_._ ....--l
vk ; .. ..._-m.m.... .. ........j
18 I lltA 'J-L. vS
Project V.E. Workshop Mar. 28-31, 2011
,. .",-" N ; ,;.

Oisnici
SC-tp Ie

,
'UJ kd
y

11
Attendance
Project: Southwestern Illinois Flood Protection District Council Levee __
Location: Metro-East Park & Recreation District
Item:
.VallIe Workshop_.. ____ . .... ._..... ...____
Date:
Page: _I.. dJ l.­
I
Company Email Telephone Number No. Name
1 ?lIttL hf,J/1I/Nri , /,J,._,:;1.-:: -lM!-6 <Y -#&f
..... ..... - .....- .....-. I ..- ....­
• ! fw ­
_2 _IJ,JIcL._ r6G<f tlR
...___..... ___
, 4 __ . . J9t 11.14_
f-- 5 __.__ .... __.. l'
· COG:J-«-J.c,r.v-.-:t jlq-JJ'/-J-').""
c--
6
• U/Q-yfs..___ .. j'Y,. J/y-
Id - . JKOTt(AI\.:. ...
2>
_ 7 ---', oilN_ Ka
I avvyJ ...-.-.... ...- T---····­
..----- ..
I
10
11
12
13
1----­
14
15
I
!
16
17
I
18 i i I
Levee Project V.E. Workshop Mar. 28-31, 2011
IHittf;i..

.. -·_A
Fll)od
lJNriCl {".,;,,,!
Attendance
Project: Southwestern Illinois Flood Protection District Council Levee .....n ......t
Location: Metro-East Park & Recreation District
Item:
Date: Page: I
I
No. Name Company Email Telepbone Number
Levee Project V.E. Workshop Mar. 28-31, 2011
Attendance
Project: Southwestern Illinois Flood Protection District Council Levee P ..........-+
Location: Me!ro:Eas! Park & Recreation District ...____.. ...____...___..
Item: Value F:ngineering Workshop
Date:
Page:--.L_p...:1J_....__
NO" Name . [
.';-'" /1*, I.. ..
1 I {",It> utf I vt-l ..____-+ .. c6" L LC; i .._
...-.. I ..... I
- I cotS '11<---- IS,W_ I. J7Y.,:il
4
'17
!
I tl.f / .e, ber1":f1,d:
E --
• I ! J ...,...- rho\Vllt\'" J i
U I l'tUL.. tt"oWlf\IJfJ_.________ _ 1If"AI\ -til''''' _""",' (. Zf_-<1488
--r- S:,c,l d. ti. «::. @ I <J. . .
6 I WH .COli1.1 r::,Zi/'- </-q?!'t
" - 1-­
. t< .:7! VI 1\ (l) i
7 I tI) tJ 1«a1'"Q ;vlII-(V/v_ i ,JI-IIv &1..'1-- 3, \'-141 +_
_ __-lSj14yai IHt
0 ... /
9 . ",,1//10 C. i I
.-----...­
-1..u ...1/1 I '" . II
!O I 1M1e:c- !
11
:
I

I
--.........

. ....
12iii
r--···_····
}3 ..... ... ____.... __....____.... ___....._ _J.i- ... ----_....._ .. ...___.____.....: ...._­
[
14 j
...
15
I··
16
17
18
Levee Project VE. Workshop Mar. 28-31, 2011
!!!innI4
..
fiQ\':d'
OtStriet (:-:-tl.flrl!


A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X

2


Metro East Sanitary District
Wood River
Prairie Du Pont & Fish Lake
273+98
260+00
250+00
240+00
230+00
220+00
210+00
200+00
190+00
5
5
0
+
0
0
5
4
0
+
0
0
5
3
0
+
0
0
5
2
0
+
0
0
5
1
0
+
0
0
5
0
0
+
0
0
4
9
0
+
0
0
4
8
0
+
0
0
4
7
0
+
0
0
4
6
0
+
0
0
4
5
0
+
0
0
4
4
0
+
0
0
4
3
0
+
0
0
4
2
0
+
0
0
0
+
0
0
8
0
+
0
0
7
0
+
0
0
6
0
+
0
0
5
0
+
0
0
4
0
+
0
0
3
0
+
0
0
2
0
+
0
0
1
0
+
0
0
400+00
390+00
380+00
370+00
360+00
350+00
340+00
330+00
320+00
310+00
300+00
290+00
280+00
270+00
260+00
250+00
240+00
230+00 220+00 210+00 200+00 190+00 180+00 170+00
160+00
150+00
140+00
130+00
120+00
110+00
100+00
0
+
0
0
9
0
+
0
0
8
0
+
0
0
7
0
+
0
0
6
0
+
0
0
5
0
+
0
0
4
0
+
0
0
3
0
+
0
0
2
0
+
0
0
1
0
+
0
0
1
4
6
+
0
6 1
4
0
+
0
0
1
3
0
+
0
0
1
0
9
+
0
0
1
0
0
+
0
0
700+17
690+00
680+00
670+00
660+00
650+00
640+00
630+00
620+00
610+00
600+00
590+00
580+00
570+00
560+00
7
+
0
0
9
0
+
0
0 8
0
+
0
0
7
0
+
0
0
6
0
+
0
0 5
0
+
0
0 4
0
+
0
0
3
0
+
0
0
2
0
+
0
0
1
8
0
+
0
0
1
7
0
+
0
0 1
6
0
+
0
0
1
5
0
+
0
0
1
4
0
+
0
0
1
3
0
+
0
0
1
2
0
+
0
0
1
1
0
+
0
0
1
0
0
+
0
0
SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD
PREVENTION DISTRICT COUNCIL
3800 EZELL RD, SUITE 100
NASHVILLE, TN 37211
SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION INITIATIVE
FEMA CERTIFICATION - PROGRESS SOLUTIONS
WOOD RIVER DRAINAGE & LEVEE DISTRICT
DRAWN BY: MDP
MARCH 17, 2011
Ü
WR-1
Legend
deep cutoff wall
shallow cutoff wall
riverside clay blanket
new relief wells
excluded reach
levee centerline
seepage berm
soil fill
riprap
water berm
SHALLOW CUTOFF WALL
SHALLOW CUTOFF WALL
RELIEF WELLS
RELIEF WELLS
BERM
RELIEF WELLS
DEEP CUTOFF WALL
SOIL FILL
RELIEF WELLS &
SOIL FILL
SOIL FILL & RELIEF WELLS
RELIEF WELLS
EXCLUDED REACH
UPPER WOOD RIVER
LOWER WOOD RIVER
EAST FORK OF WOOD RIVER
(no deficiencies noted)
RELIEF WELLS
WATER BERM & RIPRAP
WATER FILLED DITCH
BERMS & RELIEF WELLS
BERM
RIPRAP
(potential scour area)
CLAY CAP
SOIL FILL
0 4,000 8,000 2,000
Feet
Metro East Sanitary District
Wood River
Prairie Du Pont & Fish Lake
230+00
220+00
210+00
200+00
190+00
7
+
0
0
9
0
+
0
0
8
0
+
0
0
7
0
+
0
0
6
0
+
0
0
5
0
+
0
0
4
0
+
0
0
3
0
+
0
0
2
0
+
0
0
1
0
+
0
0
1
8
0
+
0
0
1
7
0
+
0
0
1
6
0
+
0
0
1
5
0
+
0
0
1
4
0
+
0
0
1
3
0
+
0
0
1
2
0
+
0
0
1
1
0
+
0
0
1
0
0
+
0
0
SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD
PREVENTION DISTRICT COUNCIL
3800 EZELL RD, SUITE 100
NASHVILLE, TN 37211
SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION INITIATIVE
FEMA CERTIFICATION - PROGRESS SOLUTIONS
WOOD RIVER DRAINAGE & LEVEE DISTRICT
DRAWN BY: MDP
MARCH 17, 2011
Ü
WR-2
Legend
deep cutoff wall
shallow cutoff wall
riverside clay blanket
new relief wells
excluded reach
levee centerline
seepage berm
soil fill
riprap
water berm
UPPER WOOD RIVER
0 1,500 3,000 750
Feet
SHALLOW CUTOFF WALL
(to elev. 400; approx. 48' deep)
SHALLOW CUTOFF WALL
(to elev. 400; approx. 48' deep)
11 NEW D-TYPE WELLS
(in addition to 17 existing
or proposed COE wells)
MEL PRICE EXCLUDED REACH - C.O.E. CONTROL
(certification must consider / approve COE solution)
MEL PRICE
LOCK & DAM
M
S
R
IV
E
R
11 NEW T-TYPE WELLS
5 NEW T-TYPE WELLS
rely on proposed COE wells
SEEPAGE BERM
Metro East Sanitary District
Wood River
Prairie Du Pont & Fish Lake
273+98
270+00
260+00
250+00
240+00
230+00
220+00
210+00
200+00
190+00
8
0
+
0
0
7
0
+
0
0
6
0
+
0
0
5
0
+
0
0 2
0
+
0
0
1
0
+
0
0
90+00
230+00
220+00
210+00
200+00
190+00
180+00
170+00
160+00
150+00
140+00
130+00
120+00
110+00
100+00
1
8
0
+
0
0
1
7
0
+
0
0
SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD
PREVENTION DISTRICT COUNCIL
3800 EZELL RD, SUITE 100
NASHVILLE, TN 37211
SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION INITIATIVE
FEMA CERTIFICATION - PROGRESS SOLUTIONS
WOOD RIVER DRAINAGE & LEVEE DISTRICT
DRAWN BY: MDP
MARCH 17, 2011
Ü
WR-3
Legend
deep cutoff wall
shallow cutoff wall
riverside clay blanket
new relief wells
excluded reach
levee centerline
seepage berm
soil fill
riprap
water berm
SEEPAGE
BERM
UPPER WOOD RIVER
LOWER WOOD RIVER
0 1,500 3,000 750
Feet
M
S
R
IV
E
R
2 NEW T-TYPE WELLS
DEEP CUTOFF WALL
(avg. 160' to bedrock)
SOIL FILL
W
O
O
D

R
I
V
E
R
4 NEW D-TYPE WELLS
rely on proposed COE wells
ROCK FILTER / BALLAST &
MAINTAIN SET WATER ELEVATION
Metro East Sanitary District
Wood River
Prairie Du Pont & Fish Lake
5
2
0
+
0
0
5
1
0
+
0
0
5
0
0
+
0
0
4
9
0
+
0
0
4
8
0
+
0
0
4
7
0
+
0
0
4
6
0
+
0
0
4
5
0
+
0
0
4
4
0
+
0
0
4
3
0
+
0
0
4
2
0
+
0
0
410+00
400+00
390+00
380+00
370+00
360+00
350+00
340+00
330+00
320+00
310+00
300+00
290+00
280+00
SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD
PREVENTION DISTRICT COUNCIL
3800 EZELL RD, SUITE 100
NASHVILLE, TN 37211
SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION INITIATIVE
FEMA CERTIFICATION - PROGRESS SOLUTIONS
WOOD RIVER DRAINAGE & LEVEE DISTRICT
DRAWN BY: MDP
MARCH 17, 2011
Ü
WR-4
Legend
deep cutoff wall
shallow cutoff wall
riverside clay blanket
new relief wells
excluded reach
levee centerline
seepage berm
soil fill
riprap
water berm
LOWER WOOD RIVER
0 1,500 3,000 750
Feet
M
S

R
I
V
E
R
9 NEW T-TYPE WELLS
MAINTAIN WATER IN DITCH
Metro East Sanitary District
Wood River
Prairie Du Pont & Fish Lake
5
5
0
+
0
0
5
4
0
+
0
0
5
3
0
+
0
0
5
2
0
+
0
0
5
1
0
+
0
0
700+17
690+00
680+00
670+00
660+00
650+00
640+00
630+00
620+00
610+00
600+00
590+00
580+00
570+00
560+00
SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD
PREVENTION DISTRICT COUNCIL
3800 EZELL RD, SUITE 100
NASHVILLE, TN 37211
SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION INITIATIVE
FEMA CERTIFICATION - PROGRESS SOLUTIONS
WOOD RIVER DRAINAGE & LEVEE DISTRICT
DRAWN BY: MDP
MARCH 17, 2011
Ü
WR-5
Legend
deep cutoff wall
shallow cutoff wall
riverside clay blanket
new relief wells
excluded reach
levee centerline
seepage berm
soil fill
riprap
water berm
LOWER WOOD RIVER
0 1,500 3,000 750
Feet
SOIL FILL
SEEPAGE BERM &
9 NEW T-TYPE WELLS
5' THICK CLAY CAP FOR THROUGH SEEPAGE
(intermittent as needed)
4 NEW D-TYPE WELLS
SOIL FILL IN LOW AREAS
8 NEW D-TYPE WELLS
SMALL SEEPAGE BERM &
2 NEW T-TYPE WELLS
SOIL FILL IN LOW AREA
SOIL FILL BOTH RR DITCHES
(so RR no longer acts as levee)
RIPRAP (scour protection)
SEEPAGE BERM &
5 NEW T-TYPE WELLS
SEEPAGE BERM
Scale: None
Drawn by: MG
Date: March 16, 2011
AMEC File No. 5-6317-0001
LEVEE ILLUSTRATION
Levee
Aquifer
Semi-pervious
Blanket
Aquifer
Semi-pervious
Blanket
Levee
Scale: None
Drawn by: LS
Date: March 16, 2011
AMEC File No. 5-6317-0001
WOOD RIVER
PLANS AND CROSS SECTIONS
CUTOFF WALLS- Narrow
slots filled with slurry.
BEDROCK
DEEP CUTOFF WALLS-
Penetrate through the
aquifer to bedrock
SHALLOW CUTOFF WALLS-
Partially penetrate the aquifer
Scale: None
Drawn by: LS
Date: March 16, 2011
AMEC File No. 5-6317-0001
WOOD RIVER
PLANS AND CROSS SECTIONS
SEEPAGE BERM
Adds weight to landside
surface.
Abuts the levee.
Slopes away from levee.
SOIL FILL IN LOW SPOTS
Raises land surface.
Used to fill in ditches, borrow pits etc.
May not abut the levee.
Scale: None
Drawn by: LS
Date: March 16, 2011
AMEC File No. 5-6317-0001
WOOD RIVER
PLANS AND CROSS SECTIONS
T-TYPE RELIEF WELLS
Water flows from the relief well to a
collector pipe below ground.
Collector connects several relief wells
D-TYPE RELIEF WELLS
Water flows directly from the relief well.
Scale: None
Drawn by: LS
Date: March 16, 2011
AMEC File No. 5-6317-0001
WOOD RIVER
PLANS AND CROSS SECTIONS
SOIL FILL IN DITCHES BESIDE RAILROAD
Raises land surface above flood elevation.
Avoids building a new levee (set-back levee)

Deep Cutoff Wall
Shallow Cutoff Wall
Deep Cutoff Wall
Deep Cutoff Wall
Clay Blanket
Excluded Reach
Berms
Berms
Relief Well
Relief Wells
Relief Well
Relief Wells
Berm
Berms
Berm
Relief Wells
MESD North Flank Levee
MESD River Front Levee
MESD South Flank Levee
Relief Wells
Relief Wells
Relief Wells
Relief Wells
Relief Wells
Relief Well
Berms Berms
SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD
PREVENTION DISTRICT COUNCIL
3800 EZELL RD, SUITE 100
NASHVILLE, TN 37211
SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION INITIATIVE
FEMA CERTIFICATION - PROGRESS SOLUTIONS
METRO EAST SANITARY DISTRICT DRAINAGE & LEVEE DISTRICT
DRAWN BY: DJC
MARCH 10, 2011
MESD-1
Prairie Du Pont & Fish Lake
Metro East Sanitary District
Wood River
Chain of Rocks
Ü
Legend
New Relief Wells
Excluded Reach
Riverside Clay Blanket
Deep Cutoff Wall
Shallow Cutoff Wall



Seepage Berms
Levee Centerline
0 11,000 22,000 5,500
Feet
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
Deep Cutoff Wall
Beginning Station: 780+55 Ending Station: 790+67
Total Length: 1012 ft
Depth to Clay: 100 ft
24 New T-Type Wells
9 New D-Type Wells
6 New D-Type Wells
1 New D-Type Well
Chain of Rocks Excluded Reach - C.O.E. Control
(certification to be provided by C.O.E.)
Venice Pump Station
Madison Pump Station
Old U.E. Power Plant P.S.
Granite City Pump Station
G.C.E.D. Pump Station No. 3
G.C.E.D. Pump Station No. 1
G.C.E.D. Pump Station No. 2
9
0
0
+
0
0
8
9
0
+
0
0
8
8
0
+
0
0
8
7
0
+
0
0
8
5
0
+
0
0
8
4
0
+
0
0
8
3
0
+
0
0
8
2
0
+
0
0
8
1
0
+
0
0
9
1
0
+
0
0
8
6
0
+
0
0
7
9
0
+
0
0
7
8
0
+
0
0
8
0
0
+
0
0
S O U T H W E S T E R N I L L I N O I S F L O O D
P R E V E N T I O N D I S T R I C T C O U N C I L
3 8 0 0 E Z E L L R D , S U I T E 1 0 0
N A S H V I L L E , T N 3 7 2 1 1
S O U T H W E S T E R N I L L I N O I S F L O O D P R E V E N T I O N I N I T I A T I V E
F E M A C E R T I F I C A T I O N - P R O G R E S S S O L U T I O N S
M E T R O E A S T S A N I T A R Y D I S T R I C T D R A I N A G E & L E V E E D I S T R I C T
D R A W N B Y : D J C
M A R C H 1 0 , 2 0 1 1
M E S D - 2
Prai rie Du Pont & Fish Lake
Met ro East Sanit ary Dist ri ct
Woo d R iver
Chain of Rocks
Ü
L e g e n d
[ Pump Stati on
New R el i ef Wel l s
Excl uded R each
Ri versi de C l ay B l anket
Dee p Cu toff Wal l
Shal l ow C utoff Wal l


Seepa ge Be rms
Levee C enterl i ne
0 1, 5 0 0 3, 0 0 0 75 0
Fe e t






[
Shallow Cutoff Wal l
Beginning Station: 987+02 Ending Station: 1013+47
Total Length: 2645 ft
Seepage Berm
North Pump Stati on
9
9
0
+
0
0
9
8
0
+
0
0
9
7
0
+
0
0
9
6
0
+
0
0
9
5
0
+
0
0
9
4
0
+
0
0
9
3
0
+
0
0
9
2
0
+
0
0
1
0
5
0
+
0
0
1
0
3
0
+
0
0
1
0
2
0
+
0
0
1
0
1
0
+
0
0
1
0
4
0
+
0
0
1
0
0
0
+
0
0
S O U T H W E S T E R N I L L I N O I S F L O O D
P R E V E N T I O N D I S T R I C T C O U N C I L
3 8 0 0 E Z E L L R D , S U I T E 1 0 0
N A S H V I L L E , T N 3 7 2 1 1
S O U T H W E S T E R N I L L I N O I S F L O O D P R E V E N T I O N I N I T I A T I V E
F E M A C E R T I F I C A T I O N - P R O G R E S S S O L U T I O N S
M E T R O E A S T S A N I T A R Y D I S T R I C T D R A I N A G E & L E V E E D I S T R I C T
D R A W N B Y : D J C
M A R C H 1 0 , 2 0 1 1
M E S D - 3
Prai rie Du Pont & Fish Lake
Met ro East Sanit ary Dist ri ct
Woo d R iver
Chain of Rocks
Ü
L e g e n d
[ Pump Stati on
New R el i ef Wel l s
Excl uded R each
Ri versi de C l ay B l anket
Dee p Cu toff Wal l
Shal l ow C utoff Wal l


Seepa ge Be rms
Levee C enterl i ne
0 1, 5 0 0 3, 0 0 0 75 0
Fe e t


[
[
Deep Cutoff Wal l
Beginning Station: 1209+69 Ending Station: 1219+67
Total Length: 998 ft
Average Depth to Rock: 142.9 ft
Clay Bl anket
Seepage Berm
1 New D-Type Wel l
5 New D-Type Wel ls
1 New D-Type Wel l
10 New D-Type Wells
8 New D-Type Wel ls
Seepage Berm
Seepage Berm
Seepage Berms
Old Monsanto P.S.
Phil lips Reach Pump Station
11
3
0
+
0
0
1
1
2
0
+
0
0
1
2
6
0
+
0
0
1
2
2
0
+
0
0
1
2
1
0
+
0
0
1
2
0
0
+
0
0
1
1
9
0
+
0
0
1
1
5
0
+
0
0
11
4
0
+
0
0
1
2
5
0
+
0
0
1
2
4
0
+
0
0
1
2
3
0
+
0
0
1
2
7
0
+
0
0
1
1
8
0
+
0
0
11
7
0
+
0
0
1
1
6
0
+
0
0
S O U T H W E S T E R N I L L I N O I S F L O O D
P R E V E N T I O N D I S T R I C T C O U N C I L
3 8 0 0 E Z E L L R D , S U I T E 1 0 0
N A S H V I L L E , T N 3 7 2 1 1
S O U T H W E S T E R N I L L I N O I S F L O O D P R E V E N T I O N I N I T I A T I V E
F E M A C E R T I F I C A T I O N - P R O G R E S S S O L U T I O N S
M E T R O E A S T S A N I T A R Y D I S T R I C T D R A I N A G E & L E V E E D I S T R I C T
D R A W N B Y : D J C
M A R C H 1 0 , 2 0 1 1
M E S D - 4
Prai rie Du Pont & Fish Lake
Met ro East Sanit ary Dist ri ct
Woo d R iver
Chain of Rocks
Ü
L e g e n d
[ Pump Stati on
New R el i ef Wel l s
Excl uded R each
Ri versi de C l ay B l anket
Dee p Cu toff Wal l
Shal l ow C utoff Wal l


Seepa ge Be rms
Levee C enterl i ne
0 1, 5 0 0 3, 0 0 0 75 0
Fe e t

[
[
[
[
[
[
Deep Cutoff Wal l
Beginning Station: 1304+00 Ending Station: 1319+00
Total Length: 1500 ft
Depth to Rock: 125 ft
Seepage Berms
1 New D-Type Wel l
4 New D-Type Wel ls
Seepage Berm
Seepage Berms
38 New T-Type Well s
Cahokia Pump Station
Seepage Berms
Pairie Du Pont East PS
Falling Springs Pump Station
Blue Waters Ditch Pump Station
South Pump Station
Canal No. 1 Pump Station
1
5
3
0
+
0
0
1
5
2
0
+
0
0
1
5
6
0
+
0
0
1
5
5
0
+
0
0
1
3
6
0
+
0
0
1
3
5
0
+
0
0
1
3
4
0
+
0
0
1
3
3
0
+
0
0
1
3
2
0
+
0
0
1
5
0
0
+
0
0
1
4
9
0
+
0
0
1
4
8
0
+
0
0
1
4
7
0
+
0
0
1
5
4
0
+
0
0
1
4
6
0
+
0
0
1
4
5
0
+
0
0
1
4
1
0
+
0
0
1
4
0
0
+
0
0
1
3
9
0
+
0
0
1
3
8
0
+
0
0
1
3
7
0
+
0
0
1
3
1
0
+
0
0
1
3
0
0
+
0
0
1
2
9
0
+
0
0
1
5
1
0
+
0
0
1
4
4
0
+
0
0
1
4
3
0
+
0
0
1
4
2
0
+
0
0
1
2
8
0
+
0
0
1
2
7
0
+
0
0
S O U T H W E S T E R N I L L I N O I S F L O O D
P R E V E N T I O N D I S T R I C T C O U N C I L
3 8 0 0 E Z E L L R D , S U I T E 1 0 0
N A S H V I L L E , T N 3 7 2 1 1
S O U T H W E S T E R N I L L I N O I S F L O O D P R E V E N T I O N I N I T I A T I V E
F E M A C E R T I F I C A T I O N - P R O G R E S S S O L U T I O N S
M E T R O E A S T S A N I T A R Y D I S T R I C T D R A I N A G E & L E V E E D I S T R I C T
D R A W N B Y : D J C
M A R C H 1 0 , 2 0 1 1
M E S D - 5
Prai rie Du Pont & Fish Lake
Met ro East Sanit ary Dist ri ct
Woo d R iver
Chain of Rocks
Ü
L e g e n d
[ Pump Stati on
New R el i ef Wel l s
Excl uded R each
Ri versi de C l ay B l anket
Dee p Cu toff Wal l
Shal l ow C utoff Wal l


Seepa ge Be rms
Levee C enterl i ne
0 1, 5 0 0 3, 0 0 0 75 0
Fe e t
Metro East Sanitary District
Wood River
Prairie Du Pont & Fish Lake
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
680+00
670+00
660+00
650+00
640+00
630+00
620+00
610+00
600+00
590+00
580+00
570+00
560+00
550+00
540+00
530+00
520+00
510+00
500+00
490+00
480+00
470+00
460+00
450+00
440+00
430+00
420+00
410+00
400+00
390+00
380+00
370+00
360+00
350+00
340+00
330+00
320+00
310+00
300+00
290+00
280+00
270+00
260+00
250+00
240+00
230+00
220+00
8
0
9
+
0
0
8
0
0
+
0
0
7
9
0
+
0
0
7
8
0
+
0
0
7
7
0
+
0
0
7
6
0
+
0
0
7
5
0
+
0
0
7
4
0
+
0
0
7
3
0
+
0
0
7
2
0
+
0
0
7
1
0
+
0
0
7
0
0
+
0
0
6
9
0
+
0
0
0
+
0
0 1
0
+
0
0
9
0
+
0
0
8
0
+
0
0
7
0
+
0
0
6
0
+
0
0
5
0
+
0
0
4
0
+
0
0
3
0
+
0
0
2
0
+
0
0
2
1
0
+
0
0
2
0
0
+
0
0
1
9
0
+
0
0
1
8
0
+
0
0
1
7
0
+
0
0
1
6
0
+
0
0
1
5
0
+
0
0
1
4
0
+
0
0
1
3
0
+
0
0
1
2
0
+
0
0
1
1
0
+
0
0
1
0
0
+
0
0
SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD
PREVENTION DISTRICT COUNCIL
3800 EZELL RD, SUITE 100
NASHVILLE, TN 37211 SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION INITIATIVE
FEMA CERTIFICATION - PROGRESS SOLUTIONS
PRAIRIE Du PONT & FISH LAKE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICTS
DRAWN BY: MDP
MARCH 10, 2011
Ü
PdP-1
Legend
riverside clay blanket
new relief wells
levee centerline
^_ pump station
seepage berm
SEEPAGE BERM
SEEPAGE BERMS &
RELIEF WELLS
RELIEF WELLS
RELIEF WELLS &
SEEPAGE BERMS
RELIEF WELLS
RELIEF WELLS
SEEPAGE BERM
SEEPAGE BERM
0 5,000 10,000 2,500
Feet
CLAY CAPS
PRAIRIE Du PONT
FISH LAKE
Metro East Sanitary District
Wood River
Prairie Du Pont & Fish Lake
^_
^_
^_
320+00
310+00
300+00
290+00
280+00
270+00
260+00
250+00
240+00
230+00
220+00
2
1
0
+
0
0
2
0
0
+
0
0
1
9
0
+
0
0
1
8
0
+
0
0
1
7
0
+
0
0
1
6
0
+
0
0
1
5
0
+
0
0
SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD
PREVENTION DISTRICT COUNCIL
3800 EZELL RD, SUITE 100
NASHVILLE, TN 37211 SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION INITIATIVE
FEMA CERTIFICATION - PROGRESS SOLUTIONS
PRAIRIE Du PONT & FISH LAKE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICTS
DRAWN BY: MDP
MARCH 10, 2011
Ü
PdP-2
Legend
riverside clay blanket
new relief wells
levee centerline
^_ pump station
seepage berm
0 1,000 2,000 500
Feet
SEEPAGE BERM
SEEPAGE BERMS
16 NEW D-TYPE WELLS
10 NEW D-TYPE WELLS
CLAY CAP
17 NEW D-TYPE WELLS
1 NEW D-TYPE WELL
2 NEW D-TYPE WELLS
1 NEW D-TYPE WELL
3 NEW D-TYPE WELLS
M
S

R
I
V
E
R
PRAIRIE Du PONT
EXISTING PUMP STATION
(Prairie Du Pont West)
EXISTING PUMP STATION
Metro East Sanitary District
Wood River
Prairie Du Pont & Fish Lake
470+00
460+00
450+00
440+00
430+00
420+00
410+00
400+00
390+00
380+00
370+00
360+00
350+00
340+00
330+00
SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD
PREVENTION DISTRICT COUNCIL
3800 EZELL RD, SUITE 100
NASHVILLE, TN 37211 SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION INITIATIVE
FEMA CERTIFICATION - PROGRESS SOLUTIONS
PRAIRIE Du PONT & FISH LAKE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICTS
DRAWN BY: MDP
MARCH 10, 2011
Ü
PdP-3
Legend
riverside clay blanket
new relief wells
levee centerline
^_ pump station
seepage berm
PRAIRIE Du PONT
0 1,500 3,000 750
Feet
CLAY CAP
2 NEW D-TYPE WELLS
CLAY CAP
SEEPAGE BERMS
SEEPAGE BERMS
M
S

R
I
V
E
R
7 NEW D-TYPE WELLS
5 NEW D-TYPE WELLS
2 NEW D-TYPE WELLS
9 NEW D-TYPE WELLS
7 NEW D-TYPE WELLS
Metro East Sanitary District
Wood River
Prairie Du Pont & Fish Lake
550+00
540+00
530+00
520+00
510+00
500+00
490+00
480+00
SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD
PREVENTION DISTRICT COUNCIL
3800 EZELL RD, SUITE 100
NASHVILLE, TN 37211 SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION INITIATIVE
FEMA CERTIFICATION - PROGRESS SOLUTIONS
PRAIRIE Du PONT & FISH LAKE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICTS
DRAWN BY: MDP
MARCH 10, 2011
Ü
PdP-4
Legend
riverside clay blanket
new relief wells
levee centerline
^_ pump station
seepage berm
0 750 1,500 375
Feet
PRAIRIE Du PONT
6 NEW D-TYPE WELLS
7 NEW D-TYPE WELLS
4 NEW D-TYPE WELLS
SEEPAGE BERMS
SEEPAGE BERM
Metro East Sanitary District
Wood River
Prairie Du Pont & Fish Lake
^_
680+00
670+00
660+00
650+00
640+00
630+00
620+00
610+00
600+00
590+00
580+00
570+00
560+00
7
7
0
+
0
0
7
6
0
+
0
0
7
5
0
+
0
0
7
4
0
+
0
0
7
3
0
+
0
0
7
2
0
+
0
0
7
1
0
+
0
0
7
0
0
+
0
0
6
9
0
+
0
0
SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD
PREVENTION DISTRICT COUNCIL
3800 EZELL RD, SUITE 100
NASHVILLE, TN 37211 SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION INITIATIVE
FEMA CERTIFICATION - PROGRESS SOLUTIONS
PRAIRIE Du PONT & FISH LAKE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICTS
DRAWN BY: MDP
MARCH 10, 2011
Ü
PdP-5
Legend
riverside clay blanket
new relief wells
levee centerline
^_ pump station
seepage berm
0 1,000 2,000 500
Feet
FISH LAKE
M
S

R
I
V
E
R
12 NEW D-TYPE WELLS
20 NEW D-TYPE WELLS
2 NEW D-TYPE WELLS
SEEPAGE BERM
SEEPAGE BERM
EXISTING PUMP STATION
(Palmer Creek)



A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X

3


Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1
Improvement Type Unit Proposal
Estimate
30% Design
Estimate
Increase
(Decrease)
Clay Cap - Flush & Protruding LF 0 6,600 6,600
Cutoff Wall - Shallow SF 136,000 83,500 (52,500)
Cutoff Wall - Intermediate SF 0 0 0
Cutoff Wall - Deep SF 773,800 880,000 106,200
Relief Well - Existing - Rehab EA 18 6 (12)
Relief Well - New EA 54 77 23
Seepage Berm CY 68,000 565,940 497,940
Improvement Type Unit Proposal
Estimate
30% Design
Estimate
Increase
(Decrease)
Clay Cap - Flush & Protruding LF 4,500 6,400 1,900
Cutoff Wall - Shallow SF 109,240 105,600 (3,640)
Cutoff Wall - Intermediate SF 0 95,600 95,600
Cutoff Wall - Deep SF 357,600 366,471 8,871
Relief Well - Existing - Rehab EA 36 38 2
Relief Well - New EA 82 107 25
Seepage Berm CY 1,175,579 1,223,292 47,713
Improvement Type Unit Proposal
Estimate
30% Design
Estimate
Increase
(Decrease)
Clay Cap - Flush & Protruding LF 0 1,700 1,700
Cutoff Wall - Shallow SF 0 0 0
Cutoff Wall - Intermediate SF 0 0 0
Cutoff Wall - Deep SF 0 0 0
Relief Well - Existing - Rehab EA 88 33 (55)
Relief Well - New EA 192 133 (59)
Seepage Berm CY 314,105 359,966 45,861
Improvement Type Unit Proposal
Estimate
30% Design
Estimate
Increase
(Decrease)
Clay Cap - Flush & Protruding LF 4,500 14,700 10,200
Cutoff Wall - Shallow SF 245,240 189,100 (56,140)
Cutoff Wall - Intermediate SF 0 95,600 95,600
Cutoff Wall - Deep SF 1,131,400 1,246,471 115,071
Relief Well - Existing - Rehab EA 142 77 (65)
Relief Well - New EA 328 317 (11)
Seepage Berm CY 1,557,684 2,149,198 591,514
QUANTITY COMPARISON
WOOD RIVER
MESD
PdP & FISH LAKE
TOTAL - WOOD RIVER, MESD, PdP & FISH LAKE
Prelim Cost Estimate Escalation Page 1 of 1
Construction Cost Escalation Rate Calculation for Southwestern Illinois Flood Prevention Initiative
Estimate Reference Date: 4/1/2011
Mid-point of 3 years: 9/30/2012
Assumptions:
1. Reference year = 2011
2. Quarterly cost indexes were taken from Table A-1 of Reference 1 assuming feature code 11 (Levees and Floodwalls)
3. Quarterly escalation indices can be calculated for the quarter of interest by dividing its cost index by that of the preceding quarter
2Q11 3Q11 4Q11 1Q12 2Q12 3Q12 4Q12
Jan - Mar April - Jun Jul - Sep Oct - Dec Jan - Mar April - Jun Jul - Sep
Cost Index, Base year = 1967: 740.23 742.25 745.3 748.84 751.85 754.87 757.88
Escalation Index: 1.00273 1.00411 1.00475 1.00402 1.00402 1.00399
Quarter x
Escalation
Index
4/1/2011 to 6/30/2011 1 1.00273
7/1/2011 to 9/30/2011 1 1.00411
10/1/2011 to 12/31/2011 1 1.00475
1/1/2012 to 3/31/2012 1 1.00402
4/1/2012 to 6/30/2012 1 1.00402
7/1/2012 to 9/30/2012 1 1.00399
Compound Escalation = 1.0238439 or 2.38%
Reference:
1. Civil Works Construction Cost Index System, US Army Corps of Engineers, Tables Revised as of 30 September 2010 (EM-1110-2-1304)
Period
Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1
Improvement Subtotal
Construction Estimate (includes
Mobilization and Contingency)
Clay Caps 1,626,750 $ 1,789,425 $
Cutoff Walls 34,656,700 $ 38,122,370 $
Relief Wells 4,288,450 $ 4,717,295 $
Seepage Berms 13,659,785 $ 15,025,764 $
Civil Improvements 2,528,430 $ 2,781,273 $
Grand Total: 56,760,115 $ 62,436,127 $
Proposal $33.7M $39.9M
Improvement Subtotal
Construction Estimate (includes
Mobilization and Contingency)
Clay Caps 3,377,700 $ 3,715,470 $
Cutoff Walls 26,532,217 $ 29,185,439 $
Relief Wells 5,964,405 $ 6,560,846 $
Seepage Berms 31,257,084 $ 34,382,792 $
Civil Improvements 1,476,950 $ 1,624,645 $
Grand Total: 68,608,356 $ 75,469,192 $
Proposal $50.6M $59.6M
Improvement Subtotal
Construction Estimate (includes
Mobilization and Contingency)
Clay Caps 408,000 $ 448,800 $
Cutoff Walls - $ - $
Relief Wells 5,411,000 $ 5,952,100 $
Seepage Berms 6,362,840 $ 6,999,124 $
Civil Improvements 67,200 $ 73,920 $
Grand Total: 12,249,040 $ 13,473,944 $
Proposal $15.0M $17.9M
Improvement Subtotal
Construction Estimate (includes
Mobilization and Contingency)
Clay Caps 5,412,450 $ 5,953,695 $
Cutoff Walls 61,188,917 $ 67,307,809 $
Relief Wells 15,663,855 $ 17,230,241 $
Seepage Berms 51,279,709 $ 56,407,679 $
Civil Improvements 4,072,580 $ 4,479,838 $
Grand Total: 137,617,511 $ 151,379,262 $
Proposal $99.3M $117.4M
COST SUMMARY
WOOD RIVER
MESD
PdP & FISH LAKE
TOTAL - WOOD RIVER, MESD, PdP & FISH LAKE
Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1
Item # Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total
1 Clay Cap - Flush LF 500.00 $ 6,400.0 $ 3,200,000.00
2 Clay Cap - Protruding LF 240.00 $ 8,300.0 $ 1,992,000.00
3 Clear & Grub AC 6,000.00 $ 416.7 $ 2,500,200.00
4 Cutoff Wall - Shallow SF 12.00 $ 189,100.0 $ 2,269,200.00
5 Cutoff Wall - Intermediate SF 32.00 $ 95,600.0 $ 3,059,200.00
6 Cutoff Wall - Deep SF 37.00 $ 1,246,471.0 $ 46,119,427.00
7 Cutoff Wall - Hazardous Waste Premium SF 30.00 $ 215,836.0 $ 6,475,080.00
8 Cutoff Wall - Special Waste Premium SF 15.00 $ 78,634.0 $ 1,179,510.00
9 Drainage - Enclosed - 12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert LF 1,330.00 $ 1,400.0 $ 1,862,000.00
10 Drainage - Enclosed - 60" Pipe LF 220.00 $ 1,220.0 $ 268,400.00
11 Drainage - Enclosed - 72" Pipe LF 320.00 $ 3,477.0 $ 1,112,640.00
12 Drainage - Surface - Shallow Ditch LF 150.00 $ 6,990.0 $ 1,048,500.00
13 Drainage - Surface - Deep Ditch LF 275.00 $ 6,000.0 $ 1,650,000.00
14 Drainage - Surface - Creek Relocation LF 650.00 $ 3,500.0 $ 2,275,000.00
15 Improved Roadway LF 150.00 $ 2,429.0 $ 364,350.00
16 Potable Water Well - Raise at Berm EA 75,000.00 $ 2.0 $ 150,000.00
17 Relief Well - Existing - Abandon EA 2,000.00 $ 96.0 $ 192,000.00
18 Relief Well - Existing - Convert to Type "T" EA 6,000.00 $ 62.0 $ 372,000.00
19 Relief Well - Existing - Rehabilitate EA 12,000.00 $ 77.0 $ 924,000.00
20 Relief Well - Existing - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 48,700.00 $ 3.0 $ 146,100.00
21 Relief Well - Existing - Special Waste Premium EA 12,700.00 $ 20.0 $ 254,000.00
22 Relief Well - Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) LF 40.00 $ 5,384.0 $ 215,360.00
23 Relief Well - Manifold Manhole EA 6,000.00 $ 28.0 $ 168,000.00
24 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) LF 50.00 $ 1,980.0 $ 99,000.00
25 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) LF 60.00 $ 1,820.0 $ 109,200.00
26 Relief Well - New - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 61,950.00 $ 8.0 $ 495,600.00
27 Relief Well - New - Special Waste Premium EA 17,125.00 $ 75.0 $ 1,284,375.00
28 Relief Well - New Type "D" EA 30,000.00 $ 205.0 $ 6,150,000.00
29 Relief Well - New Type "T" EA 34,000.00 $ 112.0 $ 3,808,000.00
30 ROW Acquisition - Agricultural AC 6,500.00 $ 297.6 $ 1,934,400.00
31 ROW Acquisition - Commercial AC 30,000.00 $ 12.5 $ 375,000.00
32 ROW Acquisition - Governmental AC 25,000.00 $ 0.1 $ 2,500.00
33 ROW Acquisition - Industrial AC 30,000.00 $ 62.8 $ 1,884,000.00
34 ROW Acquisition - Residential AC 18,000.00 $ 20.6 $ 370,800.00
35 ROW Acquisition - Vacant/Undeveloped AC 23,000.00 $ 98.0 $ 2,254,000.00
36 RipRap Bank Protection CY 160.00 $ 7,943.0 $ 1,270,880.00
37 Seepage Berm Fill - Dredged CY 10.00 $ 1,176,055.0 $ 11,760,550.00
38 Seepage Berm Fill - Hauled CY 12.00 $ 973,142.8 $ 11,677,713.60
39 Seeding AC 1,650.00 $ 392.5 $ 647,625.00
40 Slip-Line - 12-Inch Pipe LF 48.00 $ 175.0 $ 8,400.00
41 Slip-Line - 15-Inch Pipe LF 70.00 $ 60.0 $ 4,200.00
42 Slip-Line - 18-Inch Pipe LF 125.00 $ 2,340.0 $ 292,500.00
43 Slip-Line - 24-Inch Pipe LF 240.00 $ 2,870.0 $ 688,800.00
44 Slip-Line - 27-Inch Pipe LF 260.00 $ 960.0 $ 249,600.00
45 Slip-Line - 36-Inch Pipe LF 290.00 $ 835.0 $ 242,150.00
46 Slip-Line - 42-Inch Pipe LF 325.00 $ 580.0 $ 188,500.00
47 Slip-Line - 48-Inch Pipe LF 350.00 $ 3,190.0 $ 1,116,500.00
48 Wetland Mitigation AC 25,000.00 $ 201.3 $ 5,032,250.00
49 Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) EA 2,500,000.00 $ 1.0 $ 2,500,000.00
50 Utility Relocation - Power Pole EA 10,000.00 $ 51.0 $ 510,000.00
51 Utility Relocation - High Tension Power (Raise) EA 200,000.00 $ 9.0 $ 1,800,000.00
52 Utility Relocation - Underground Communication LF 100.00 $ 9,340.0 $ 934,000.00
53 Utility Relocation - Underground Communications Pedestal EA 5,000.00 $ 2.0 $ 10,000.00
54 Utility Relocation - Natural Gas LF 250.00 $ 7,030.0 $ 1,757,500.00
55 Utility Relocation - Various Buried Facilities LF 250.00 $ 1,450.0 $ 362,500.00
Subtotal: 137,617,510.60 $
56 Mobilization (3%) LS 4,128,525.32 $ 1.0 4,128,525.32 $
57 Contingency (7%) LS 9,633,225.74 $ 1.0 9,633,225.74 $
Construction Estimate: 151,379,261.66 $
DETAILED SUMMARY - WOOD RIVER, MESD, PdP & FISH LAKE
Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1
Item # Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total
1 Clay Cap - Flush LF 500.00 $ 0.0 $ -
2 Clay Cap - Protruding LF 240.00 $ 6,600.0 $ 1,584,000.00
3 Clear & Grub AC 6,000.00 $ 114.7 $ 688,200.00
4 Cutoff Wall - Shallow SF 12.00 $ 83,500.0 $ 1,002,000.00
5 Cutoff Wall - Intermediate SF 32.00 $ 0.0 $ -
6 Cutoff Wall - Deep SF 37.00 $ 880,000.0 $ 32,560,000.00
7 Cutoff Wall - Hazardous Waste Premium SF 30.00 $ 6,580.0 $ 197,400.00
8 Cutoff Wall - Special Waste Premium SF 15.00 $ 26,320.0 $ 394,800.00
9 Drainage - Enclosed - 12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert LF 1,330.00 $ 0.0 $ -
10 Drainage - Enclosed - 60" Pipe LF 220.00 $ 1,220.0 $ 268,400.00
11 Drainage - Enclosed - 72" Pipe LF 320.00 $ 3,477.0 $ 1,112,640.00
12 Drainage - Surface - Shallow Ditch LF 150.00 $ 3,190.0 $ 478,500.00
13 Drainage - Surface - Deep Ditch LF 275.00 $ 0.0 $ -
14 Drainage - Surface - Creek Relocation LF 650.00 $ 0.0 $ -
15 Improved Roadway LF 150.00 $ 1,389.0 $ 208,350.00
16 Potable Water Well - Raise at Berm EA 75,000.00 $ 2.0 $ 150,000.00
17 Relief Well - Existing - Abandon EA 2,000.00 $ 0.0 $ -
18 Relief Well - Existing - Convert to Type "T" EA 6,000.00 $ 7.0 $ 42,000.00
19 Relief Well - Existing - Rehabilitate EA 12,000.00 $ 6.0 $ 72,000.00
20 Relief Well - Existing - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 48,700.00 $ 0.0 $ -
21 Relief Well - Existing - Special Waste Premium EA 12,700.00 $ 6.0 $ 76,200.00
22 Relief Well - Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) LF 40.00 $ 2,209.0 $ 88,360.00
23 Relief Well - Manifold Manhole EA 6,000.00 $ 18.0 $ 108,000.00
24 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) LF 50.00 $ 1,130.0 $ 56,500.00
25 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) LF 60.00 $ 0.0 $ -
26 Relief Well - New - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 61,950.00 $ 0.0 $ -
27 Relief Well - New - Special Waste Premium EA 17,125.00 $ 34.0 $ 582,250.00
28 Relief Well - New Type "D" EA 30,000.00 $ 27.0 $ 810,000.00
29 Relief Well - New Type "T" EA 34,000.00 $ 50.0 $ 1,700,000.00
30 ROW Acquisition - Agricultural AC 6,500.00 $ 81.5 $ 529,750.00
31 ROW Acquisition - Commercial AC 30,000.00 $ 12.5 $ 375,000.00
32 ROW Acquisition - Governmental AC 25,000.00 $ 0.1 $ 2,500.00
33 ROW Acquisition - Industrial AC 30,000.00 $ 15.7 $ 471,000.00
34 ROW Acquisition - Residential AC 18,000.00 $ 20.6 $ 370,800.00
35 ROW Acquisition - Vacant/Undeveloped AC 23,000.00 $ 34.6 $ 795,800.00
36 RipRap Bank Protection CY 160.00 $ 7,943.0 $ 1,270,880.00
37 Seepage Berm Fill - Dredged CY 10.00 $ 0.0 $ -
38 Seepage Berm Fill - Hauled CY 12.00 $ 565,940.0 $ 6,791,280.00
39 Seeding AC 1,650.00 $ 114.7 $ 189,255.00
40 Slip-Line - 12-Inch Pipe LF 48.00 $ 175.0 $ 8,400.00
41 Slip-Line - 15-Inch Pipe LF 70.00 $ 60.0 $ 4,200.00
42 Slip-Line - 18-Inch Pipe LF 125.00 $ 860.0 $ 107,500.00
43 Slip-Line - 24-Inch Pipe LF 240.00 $ 1,710.0 $ 410,400.00
44 Slip-Line - 27-Inch Pipe LF 260.00 $ 960.0 $ 249,600.00
45 Slip-Line - 36-Inch Pipe LF 290.00 $ 835.0 $ 242,150.00
46 Slip-Line - 42-Inch Pipe LF 325.00 $ 270.0 $ 87,750.00
47 Slip-Line - 48-Inch Pipe LF 350.00 $ 390.0 $ 136,500.00
48 Wetland Mitigation AC 25,000.00 $ 20.3 $ 507,750.00
49 Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) EA 2,500,000.00 $ 0.0 $ -
50 Utility Relocation - Power Pole EA 10,000.00 $ 16.0 $ 160,000.00
51 Utility Relocation - High Tension Power (Raise) EA 200,000.00 $ 5.0 $ 1,000,000.00
52 Utility Relocation - Underground Communication LF 100.00 $ 700.0 $ 70,000.00
53 Utility Relocation - Underground Communications Pedestal EA 5,000.00 $ 0.0 $ -
54 Utility Relocation - Natural Gas LF 250.00 $ 1,750.0 $ 437,500.00
55 Utility Relocation - Various Buried Facilities LF 250.00 $ 1,450.0 $ 362,500.00
Subtotal: 56,760,115.00 $
56 Mobilization (3%) LS 1,702,803.45 $ 1.0 1,702,803.45 $
57 Contingency (7%) LS 3,973,208.05 $ 1.0 3,973,208.05 $
Construction Estimate: 62,436,126.50 $
WOOD RIVER - SUMMARY
Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1
Item # Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total
1 Clay Cap - Flush LF 500.00 $ $ -
2 Clay Cap - Protruding LF 240.00 $ 6,600.0 $ 1,584,000.00
3 Clear & Grub AC 6,000.00 $ $ -
4 Cutoff Wall - Shallow SF 12.00 $ $ -
5 Cutoff Wall - Intermediate SF 32.00 $ $ -
6 Cutoff Wall - Deep SF 37.00 $ $ -
7 Cutoff Wall - Hazardous Waste Premium SF 30.00 $ $ -
8 Cutoff Wall - Special Waste Premium SF 15.00 $ $ -
9 Drainage - Enclosed - 12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert LF 1,330.00 $ $ -
10 Drainage - Enclosed - 60" Pipe LF 220.00 $ $ -
11 Drainage - Enclosed - 72" Pipe LF 320.00 $ $ -
12 Drainage - Surface - Shallow Ditch LF 150.00 $ $ -
13 Drainage - Surface - Deep Ditch LF 275.00 $ $ -
14 Drainage - Surface - Creek Relocation LF 650.00 $ $ -
15 Improved Roadway LF 150.00 $ $ -
16 Potable Water Well - Raise at Berm EA 75,000.00 $ $ -
17 Relief Well - Existing - Abandon EA 2,000.00 $ $ -
18 Relief Well - Existing - Convert to Type "T" EA 6,000.00 $ $ -
19 Relief Well - Existing - Rehabilitate EA 12,000.00 $ $ -
20 Relief Well - Existing - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 48,700.00 $ $ -
21 Relief Well - Existing - Special Waste Premium EA 12,700.00 $ $ -
22 Relief Well - Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) LF 40.00 $ $ -
23 Relief Well - Manifold Manhole EA 6,000.00 $ $ -
24 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) LF 50.00 $ $ -
25 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) LF 60.00 $ $ -
26 Relief Well - New - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 61,950.00 $ $ -
27 Relief Well - New - Special Waste Premium EA 17,125.00 $ $ -
28 Relief Well - New Type "D" EA 30,000.00 $ $ -
29 Relief Well - New Type "T" EA 34,000.00 $ $ -
30 ROW Acquisition - Agricultural AC 6,500.00 $ $ -
31 ROW Acquisition - Commercial AC 30,000.00 $ $ -
32 ROW Acquisition - Governmental AC 25,000.00 $ $ -
33 ROW Acquisition - Industrial AC 30,000.00 $ $ -
34 ROW Acquisition - Residential AC 18,000.00 $ $ -
35 ROW Acquisition - Vacant/Undeveloped AC 23,000.00 $ $ -
36 RipRap Bank Protection CY 160.00 $ $ -
37 Seepage Berm Fill - Dredged CY 10.00 $ $ -
38 Seepage Berm Fill - Hauled CY 12.00 $ $ -
39 Seeding AC 1,650.00 $ $ -
40 Slip-Line - 12-Inch Pipe LF 48.00 $ $ -
41 Slip-Line - 15-Inch Pipe LF 70.00 $ $ -
42 Slip-Line - 18-Inch Pipe LF 125.00 $ $ -
43 Slip-Line - 24-Inch Pipe LF 240.00 $ $ -
44 Slip-Line - 27-Inch Pipe LF 260.00 $ $ -
45 Slip-Line - 36-Inch Pipe LF 290.00 $ $ -
46 Slip-Line - 42-Inch Pipe LF 325.00 $ $ -
47 Slip-Line - 48-Inch Pipe LF 350.00 $ $ -
48 Wetland Mitigation AC 25,000.00 $ 1.7 $ 42,750.00
49 Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) EA 2,500,000.00 $ $ -
50 Utility Relocation - Power Pole EA 10,000.00 $ $ -
51 Utility Relocation - High Tension Power (Raise) EA 200,000.00 $ $ -
52 Utility Relocation - Underground Communication LF 100.00 $ $ -
53 Utility Relocation - Underground Communications Pedestal EA 5,000.00 $ $ -
54 Utility Relocation - Natural Gas LF 250.00 $ $ -
55 Utility Relocation - Various Buried Facilities LF 250.00 $ $ -
Subtotal: 1,626,750.00 $
56 Mobilization (3%) LS 48,802.50 $ 1.0 48,802.50 $
57 Contingency (7%) LS 113,872.50 $ 1.0 113,872.50 $
Construction Estimate: 1,789,425.00 $
WOOD RIVER - CLAY CAPS
Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1
Item # Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total
1 Clay Cap - Flush LF 500.00 $ $ -
2 Clay Cap - Protruding LF 240.00 $ $ -
3 Clear & Grub AC 6,000.00 $ $ -
4 Cutoff Wall - Shallow SF 12.00 $ 83,500.0 $ 1,002,000.00
5 Cutoff Wall - Intermediate SF 32.00 $ $ -
6 Cutoff Wall - Deep SF 37.00 $ 880,000.0 $ 32,560,000.00
7 Cutoff Wall - Hazardous Waste Premium SF 30.00 $ 6,580.0 $ 197,400.00
8 Cutoff Wall - Special Waste Premium SF 15.00 $ 26,320.0 $ 394,800.00
9 Drainage - Enclosed - 12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert LF 1,330.00 $ $ -
10 Drainage - Enclosed - 60" Pipe LF 220.00 $ $ -
11 Drainage - Enclosed - 72" Pipe LF 320.00 $ $ -
12 Drainage - Surface - Shallow Ditch LF 150.00 $ $ -
13 Drainage - Surface - Deep Ditch LF 275.00 $ $ -
14 Drainage - Surface - Creek Relocation LF 650.00 $ $ -
15 Improved Roadway LF 150.00 $ $ -
16 Potable Water Well - Raise at Berm EA 75,000.00 $ $ -
17 Relief Well - Existing - Abandon EA 2,000.00 $ $ -
18 Relief Well - Existing - Convert to Type "T" EA 6,000.00 $ $ -
19 Relief Well - Existing - Rehabilitate EA 12,000.00 $ $ -
20 Relief Well - Existing - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 48,700.00 $ $ -
21 Relief Well - Existing - Special Waste Premium EA 12,700.00 $ $ -
22 Relief Well - Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) LF 40.00 $ $ -
23 Relief Well - Manifold Manhole EA 6,000.00 $ $ -
24 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) LF 50.00 $ $ -
25 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) LF 60.00 $ $ -
26 Relief Well - New - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 61,950.00 $ $ -
27 Relief Well - New - Special Waste Premium EA 17,125.00 $ $ -
28 Relief Well - New Type "D" EA 30,000.00 $ $ -
29 Relief Well - New Type "T" EA 34,000.00 $ $ -
30 ROW Acquisition - Agricultural AC 6,500.00 $ $ -
31 ROW Acquisition - Commercial AC 30,000.00 $ $ -
32 ROW Acquisition - Governmental AC 25,000.00 $ $ -
33 ROW Acquisition - Industrial AC 30,000.00 $ $ -
34 ROW Acquisition - Residential AC 18,000.00 $ $ -
35 ROW Acquisition - Vacant/Undeveloped AC 23,000.00 $ $ -
36 RipRap Bank Protection CY 160.00 $ $ -
37 Seepage Berm Fill - Dredged CY 10.00 $ $ -
38 Seepage Berm Fill - Hauled CY 12.00 $ $ -
39 Seeding AC 1,650.00 $ $ -
40 Slip-Line - 12-Inch Pipe LF 48.00 $ $ -
41 Slip-Line - 15-Inch Pipe LF 70.00 $ $ -
42 Slip-Line - 18-Inch Pipe LF 125.00 $ $ -
43 Slip-Line - 24-Inch Pipe LF 240.00 $ $ -
44 Slip-Line - 27-Inch Pipe LF 260.00 $ $ -
45 Slip-Line - 36-Inch Pipe LF 290.00 $ $ -
46 Slip-Line - 42-Inch Pipe LF 325.00 $ $ -
47 Slip-Line - 48-Inch Pipe LF 350.00 $ $ -
48 Wetland Mitigation AC 25,000.00 $ $ -
49 Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) EA 2,500,000.00 $ $ -
50 Utility Relocation - Power Pole EA 10,000.00 $ 4.0 $ 40,000.00
51 Utility Relocation - High Tension Power (Raise) EA 200,000.00 $ 1.0 $ 200,000.00
52 Utility Relocation - Underground Communication LF 100.00 $ $ -
53 Utility Relocation - Underground Communications Pedestal EA 5,000.00 $ $ -
54 Utility Relocation - Natural Gas LF 250.00 $ 250.0 $ 62,500.00
55 Utility Relocation - Various Buried Facilities LF 250.00 $ 800.0 $ 200,000.00
Subtotal: 34,656,700.00 $
56 Mobilization (3%) LS 1,039,701.00 $ 1.0 1,039,701.00 $
57 Contingency (7%) LS 2,425,969.00 $ 1.0 2,425,969.00 $
Construction Estimate: 38,122,370.00 $
WOOD RIVER - CUTOFF WALLS
Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1
Item # Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total
1 Clay Cap - Flush LF 500.00 $ $ -
2 Clay Cap - Protruding LF 240.00 $ $ -
3 Clear & Grub AC 6,000.00 $ 114.7 $ 688,200.00
4 Cutoff Wall - Shallow SF 12.00 $ $ -
5 Cutoff Wall - Intermediate SF 32.00 $ $ -
6 Cutoff Wall - Deep SF 37.00 $ $ -
7 Cutoff Wall - Hazardous Waste Premium SF 30.00 $ $ -
8 Cutoff Wall - Special Waste Premium SF 15.00 $ $ -
9 Drainage - Enclosed - 12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert LF 1,330.00 $ $ -
10 Drainage - Enclosed - 60" Pipe LF 220.00 $ 1,220.0 $ 268,400.00
11 Drainage - Enclosed - 72" Pipe LF 320.00 $ 3,477.0 $ 1,112,640.00
12 Drainage - Surface - Shallow Ditch LF 150.00 $ 3,190.0 $ 478,500.00
13 Drainage - Surface - Deep Ditch LF 275.00 $ $ -
14 Drainage - Surface - Creek Relocation LF 650.00 $ $ -
15 Improved Roadway LF 150.00 $ 1,389.0 $ 208,350.00
16 Potable Water Well - Raise at Berm EA 75,000.00 $ 2.0 $ 150,000.00
17 Relief Well - Existing - Abandon EA 2,000.00 $ $ -
18 Relief Well - Existing - Convert to Type "T" EA 6,000.00 $ $ -
19 Relief Well - Existing - Rehabilitate EA 12,000.00 $ $ -
20 Relief Well - Existing - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 48,700.00 $ $ -
21 Relief Well - Existing - Special Waste Premium EA 12,700.00 $ $ -
22 Relief Well - Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) LF 40.00 $ 2,209.0 $ 88,360.00
23 Relief Well - Manifold Manhole EA 6,000.00 $ 18.0 $ 108,000.00
24 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) LF 50.00 $ 1,130.0 $ 56,500.00
25 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) LF 60.00 $ $ -
26 Relief Well - New - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 61,950.00 $ $ -
27 Relief Well - New - Special Waste Premium EA 17,125.00 $ $ -
28 Relief Well - New Type "D" EA 30,000.00 $ $ -
29 Relief Well - New Type "T" EA 34,000.00 $ $ -
30 ROW Acquisition - Agricultural AC 6,500.00 $ 35.8 $ 232,700.00
31 ROW Acquisition - Commercial AC 30,000.00 $ 0.5 $ 15,000.00
32 ROW Acquisition - Governmental AC 25,000.00 $ 0.1 $ 2,500.00
33 ROW Acquisition - Industrial AC 30,000.00 $ 15.7 $ 471,000.00
34 ROW Acquisition - Residential AC 18,000.00 $ 0.6 $ 10,800.00
35 ROW Acquisition - Vacant/Undeveloped AC 23,000.00 $ 34.6 $ 795,800.00
36 RipRap Bank Protection CY 160.00 $ $ -
37 Seepage Berm Fill - Dredged CY 10.00 $ $ -
38 Seepage Berm Fill - Hauled CY 12.00 $ 565,940.0 $ 6,791,280.00
39 Seeding AC 1,650.00 $ 114.7 $ 189,255.00
40 Slip-Line - 12-Inch Pipe LF 48.00 $ $ -
41 Slip-Line - 15-Inch Pipe LF 70.00 $ $ -
42 Slip-Line - 18-Inch Pipe LF 125.00 $ $ -
43 Slip-Line - 24-Inch Pipe LF 240.00 $ $ -
44 Slip-Line - 27-Inch Pipe LF 260.00 $ $ -
45 Slip-Line - 36-Inch Pipe LF 290.00 $ $ -
46 Slip-Line - 42-Inch Pipe LF 325.00 $ $ -
47 Slip-Line - 48-Inch Pipe LF 350.00 $ $ -
48 Wetland Mitigation AC 25,000.00 $ 18.6 $ 465,000.00
49 Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) EA 2,500,000.00 $ $ -
50 Utility Relocation - Power Pole EA 10,000.00 $ 12.0 $ 120,000.00
51 Utility Relocation - High Tension Power (Raise) EA 200,000.00 $ 4.0 $ 800,000.00
52 Utility Relocation - Underground Communication LF 100.00 $ 700.0 $ 70,000.00
53 Utility Relocation - Underground Communications Pedestal EA 5,000.00 $ $ -
54 Utility Relocation - Natural Gas LF 250.00 $ 1,500.0 $ 375,000.00
55 Utility Relocation - Various Buried Facilities LF 250.00 $ 650.0 $ 162,500.00
Subtotal: 13,659,785.00 $
56 Mobilization (3%) LS 409,793.55 $ 1.0 409,793.55 $
57 Contingency (7%) LS 956,184.95 $ 1.0 956,184.95 $
Construction Estimate: 15,025,763.50 $
WOOD RIVER - SEEPAGE BERMS
Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1
Item # Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total
1 Clay Cap - Flush LF 500.00 $ $ -
2 Clay Cap - Protruding LF 240.00 $ $ -
3 Clear & Grub AC 6,000.00 $ $ -
4 Cutoff Wall - Shallow SF 12.00 $ $ -
5 Cutoff Wall - Intermediate SF 32.00 $ $ -
6 Cutoff Wall - Deep SF 37.00 $ $ -
7 Cutoff Wall - Hazardous Waste Premium SF 30.00 $ $ -
8 Cutoff Wall - Special Waste Premium SF 15.00 $ $ -
9 Drainage - Enclosed - 12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert LF 1,330.00 $ $ -
10 Drainage - Enclosed - 60" Pipe LF 220.00 $ $ -
11 Drainage - Enclosed - 72" Pipe LF 320.00 $ $ -
12 Drainage - Surface - Shallow Ditch LF 150.00 $ $ -
13 Drainage - Surface - Deep Ditch LF 275.00 $ $ -
14 Drainage - Surface - Creek Relocation LF 650.00 $ $ -
15 Improved Roadway LF 150.00 $ $ -
16 Potable Water Well - Raise at Berm EA 75,000.00 $ $ -
17 Relief Well - Existing - Abandon EA 2,000.00 $ $ -
18 Relief Well - Existing - Convert to Type "T" EA 6,000.00 $ 7.0 $ 42,000.00
19 Relief Well - Existing - Rehabilitate EA 12,000.00 $ 6.0 $ 72,000.00
20 Relief Well - Existing - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 48,700.00 $ $ -
21 Relief Well - Existing - Special Waste Premium EA 12,700.00 $ 6.0 $ 76,200.00
22 Relief Well - Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) LF 40.00 $ $ -
23 Relief Well - Manifold Manhole EA 6,000.00 $ $ -
24 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) LF 50.00 $ $ -
25 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) LF 60.00 $ $ -
26 Relief Well - New - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 61,950.00 $ $ -
27 Relief Well - New - Special Waste Premium EA 17,125.00 $ 34.0 $ 582,250.00
28 Relief Well - New Type "D" EA 30,000.00 $ 27.0 $ 810,000.00
29 Relief Well - New Type "T" EA 34,000.00 $ 50.0 $ 1,700,000.00
30 ROW Acquisition - Agricultural AC 6,500.00 $ 44.0 $ 286,000.00
31 ROW Acquisition - Commercial AC 30,000.00 $ 12.0 $ 360,000.00
32 ROW Acquisition - Governmental AC 25,000.00 $ $ -
33 ROW Acquisition - Industrial AC 30,000.00 $ $ -
34 ROW Acquisition - Residential AC 18,000.00 $ 20.0 $ 360,000.00
35 ROW Acquisition - Vacant/Undeveloped AC 23,000.00 $ $ -
36 RipRap Bank Protection CY 160.00 $ $ -
37 Seepage Berm Fill - Dredged CY 10.00 $ $ -
38 Seepage Berm Fill - Hauled CY 12.00 $ $ -
39 Seeding AC 1,650.00 $ $ -
40 Slip-Line - 12-Inch Pipe LF 48.00 $ $ -
41 Slip-Line - 15-Inch Pipe LF 70.00 $ $ -
42 Slip-Line - 18-Inch Pipe LF 125.00 $ $ -
43 Slip-Line - 24-Inch Pipe LF 240.00 $ $ -
44 Slip-Line - 27-Inch Pipe LF 260.00 $ $ -
45 Slip-Line - 36-Inch Pipe LF 290.00 $ $ -
46 Slip-Line - 42-Inch Pipe LF 325.00 $ $ -
47 Slip-Line - 48-Inch Pipe LF 350.00 $ $ -
48 Wetland Mitigation AC 25,000.00 $ $ -
49 Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) EA 2,500,000.00 $ $ -
50 Utility Relocation - Power Pole EA 10,000.00 $ $ -
51 Utility Relocation - High Tension Power (Raise) EA 200,000.00 $ $ -
52 Utility Relocation - Underground Communication LF 100.00 $ $ -
53 Utility Relocation - Underground Communications Pedestal EA 5,000.00 $ $ -
54 Utility Relocation - Natural Gas LF 250.00 $ $ -
55 Utility Relocation - Various Buried Facilities LF 250.00 $ $ -
Subtotal: 4,288,450.00 $
56 Mobilization (3%) LS 128,653.50 $ 1.0 128,653.50 $
57 Contingency (7%) LS 300,191.50 $ 1.0 300,191.50 $
Construction Estimate: 4,717,295.00 $
WOOD RIVER - RELIEF WELLS
Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1
Item # Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total
1 Clay Cap - Flush LF 500.00 $ $ -
2 Clay Cap - Protruding LF 240.00 $ $ -
3 Clear & Grub AC 6,000.00 $ $ -
4 Cutoff Wall - Shallow SF 12.00 $ $ -
5 Cutoff Wall - Intermediate SF 32.00 $ $ -
6 Cutoff Wall - Deep SF 37.00 $ $ -
7 Cutoff Wall - Hazardous Waste Premium SF 30.00 $ $ -
8 Cutoff Wall - Special Waste Premium SF 15.00 $ $ -
9 Drainage - Enclosed - 12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert LF 1,330.00 $ $ -
10 Drainage - Enclosed - 60" Pipe LF 220.00 $ $ -
11 Drainage - Enclosed - 72" Pipe LF 320.00 $ $ -
12 Drainage - Surface - Shallow Ditch LF 150.00 $ $ -
13 Drainage - Surface - Deep Ditch LF 275.00 $ $ -
14 Drainage - Surface - Creek Relocation LF 650.00 $ $ -
15 Improved Roadway LF 150.00 $ $ -
16 Potable Water Well - Raise at Berm EA 75,000.00 $ $ -
17 Relief Well - Existing - Abandon EA 2,000.00 $ $ -
18 Relief Well - Existing - Convert to Type "T" EA 6,000.00 $ $ -
19 Relief Well - Existing - Rehabilitate EA 12,000.00 $ $ -
20 Relief Well - Existing - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 48,700.00 $ $ -
21 Relief Well - Existing - Special Waste Premium EA 12,700.00 $ $ -
22 Relief Well - Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) LF 40.00 $ $ -
23 Relief Well - Manifold Manhole EA 6,000.00 $ $ -
24 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) LF 50.00 $ $ -
25 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) LF 60.00 $ $ -
26 Relief Well - New - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 61,950.00 $ $ -
27 Relief Well - New - Special Waste Premium EA 17,125.00 $ $ -
28 Relief Well - New Type "D" EA 30,000.00 $ $ -
29 Relief Well - New Type "T" EA 34,000.00 $ $ -
30 ROW Acquisition - Agricultural AC 6,500.00 $ 1.7 $ 11,050.00
31 ROW Acquisition - Commercial AC 30,000.00 $ $ -
32 ROW Acquisition - Governmental AC 25,000.00 $ $ -
33 ROW Acquisition - Industrial AC 30,000.00 $ $ -
34 ROW Acquisition - Residential AC 18,000.00 $ $ -
35 ROW Acquisition - Vacant/Undeveloped AC 23,000.00 $ $ -
36 RipRap Bank Protection CY 160.00 $ 7,943.0 $ 1,270,880.00
37 Seepage Berm Fill - Dredged CY 10.00 $ $ -
38 Seepage Berm Fill - Hauled CY 12.00 $ $ -
39 Seeding AC 1,650.00 $ $ -
40 Slip-Line - 12-Inch Pipe LF 48.00 $ 175.0 $ 8,400.00
41 Slip-Line - 15-Inch Pipe LF 70.00 $ 60.0 $ 4,200.00
42 Slip-Line - 18-Inch Pipe LF 125.00 $ 860.0 $ 107,500.00
43 Slip-Line - 24-Inch Pipe LF 240.00 $ 1,710.0 $ 410,400.00
44 Slip-Line - 27-Inch Pipe LF 260.00 $ 960.0 $ 249,600.00
45 Slip-Line - 36-Inch Pipe LF 290.00 $ 835.0 $ 242,150.00
46 Slip-Line - 42-Inch Pipe LF 325.00 $ 270.0 $ 87,750.00
47 Slip-Line - 48-Inch Pipe LF 350.00 $ 390.0 $ 136,500.00
48 Wetland Mitigation AC 25,000.00 $ $ -
49 Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) EA 2,500,000.00 $ $ -
50 Utility Relocation - Power Pole EA 10,000.00 $ $ -
51 Utility Relocation - High Tension Power (Raise) EA 200,000.00 $ $ -
52 Utility Relocation - Underground Communication LF 100.00 $ $ -
53 Utility Relocation - Underground Communications Pedestal EA 5,000.00 $ $ -
54 Utility Relocation - Natural Gas LF 250.00 $ $ -
55 Utility Relocation - Various Buried Facilities LF 250.00 $ $ -
Subtotal: 2,528,430.00 $
56 Mobilization (3%) LS 75,852.90 $ 1.0 75,852.90 $
57 Contingency (7%) LS 176,990.10 $ 1.0 176,990.10 $
Construction Estimate: 2,781,273.00 $
WOOD RIVER - CIVIL IMPROVEMENTS
Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1
Item # Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total
1 Clay Cap - Flush LF 500.00 $ 6,400.0 $ 3,200,000.00
2 Clay Cap - Protruding LF 240.00 $ 0.0 $ -
3 Clear & Grub AC 6,000.00 $ 231.0 $ 1,386,000.00
4 Cutoff Wall - Shallow SF 12.00 $ 105,600.0 $ 1,267,200.00
5 Cutoff Wall - Intermediate SF 32.00 $ 95,600.0 $ 3,059,200.00
6 Cutoff Wall - Deep SF 37.00 $ 366,471.0 $ 13,559,427.00
7 Cutoff Wall - Hazardous Waste Premium SF 30.00 $ 209,256.0 $ 6,277,680.00
8 Cutoff Wall - Special Waste Premium SF 15.00 $ 52,314.0 $ 784,710.00
9 Drainage - Enclosed - 12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert LF 1,330.00 $ 1,400.0 $ 1,862,000.00
10 Drainage - Enclosed - 60" Pipe LF 220.00 $ 0.0 $ -
11 Drainage - Enclosed - 72" Pipe LF 320.00 $ 0.0 $ -
12 Drainage - Surface - Shallow Ditch LF 150.00 $ 2,600.0 $ 390,000.00
13 Drainage - Surface - Deep Ditch LF 275.00 $ 6,000.0 $ 1,650,000.00
14 Drainage - Surface - Creek Relocation LF 650.00 $ 3,500.0 $ 2,275,000.00
15 Improved Roadway LF 150.00 $ 0.0 $ -
16 Potable Water Well - Raise at Berm EA 75,000.00 $ 0.0 $ -
17 Relief Well - Existing - Abandon EA 2,000.00 $ 69.0 $ 138,000.00
18 Relief Well - Existing - Convert to Type "T" EA 6,000.00 $ 55.0 $ 330,000.00
19 Relief Well - Existing - Rehabilitate EA 12,000.00 $ 38.0 $ 456,000.00
20 Relief Well - Existing - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 48,700.00 $ 3.0 $ 146,100.00
21 Relief Well - Existing - Special Waste Premium EA 12,700.00 $ 14.0 $ 177,800.00
22 Relief Well - Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) LF 40.00 $ 3,175.0 $ 127,000.00
23 Relief Well - Manifold Manhole EA 6,000.00 $ 10.0 $ 60,000.00
24 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) LF 50.00 $ 850.0 $ 42,500.00
25 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) LF 60.00 $ 1,820.0 $ 109,200.00
26 Relief Well - New - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 61,950.00 $ 8.0 $ 495,600.00
27 Relief Well - New - Special Waste Premium EA 17,125.00 $ 41.0 $ 702,125.00
28 Relief Well - New Type "D" EA 30,000.00 $ 45.0 $ 1,350,000.00
29 Relief Well - New Type "T" EA 34,000.00 $ 62.0 $ 2,108,000.00
30 ROW Acquisition - Agricultural AC 6,500.00 $ 35.7 $ 232,050.00
31 ROW Acquisition - Commercial AC 30,000.00 $ 0.0 $ -
32 ROW Acquisition - Governmental AC 25,000.00 $ 0.0 $ -
33 ROW Acquisition - Industrial AC 30,000.00 $ 47.1 $ 1,413,000.00
34 ROW Acquisition - Residential AC 18,000.00 $ 0.0 $ -
35 ROW Acquisition - Vacant/Undeveloped AC 23,000.00 $ 63.4 $ 1,458,200.00
36 RipRap Bank Protection CY 160.00 $ 0.0 $ -
37 Seepage Berm Fill - Dredged CY 10.00 $ 1,176,055.0 $ 11,760,550.00
38 Seepage Berm Fill - Hauled CY 12.00 $ 47,237.0 $ 566,844.00
39 Seeding AC 1,650.00 $ 206.8 $ 341,220.00
40 Slip-Line - 12-Inch Pipe LF 48.00 $ 0.0 $ -
41 Slip-Line - 15-Inch Pipe LF 70.00 $ 0.0 $ -
42 Slip-Line - 18-Inch Pipe LF 125.00 $ 1,480.0 $ 185,000.00
43 Slip-Line - 24-Inch Pipe LF 240.00 $ 880.0 $ 211,200.00
44 Slip-Line - 27-Inch Pipe LF 260.00 $ 0.0 $ -
45 Slip-Line - 36-Inch Pipe LF 290.00 $ 0.0 $ -
46 Slip-Line - 42-Inch Pipe LF 325.00 $ 310.0 $ 100,750.00
47 Slip-Line - 48-Inch Pipe LF 350.00 $ 2,800.0 $ 980,000.00
48 Wetland Mitigation AC 25,000.00 $ 174.9 $ 4,372,000.00
49 Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) EA 2,500,000.00 $ 1.0 $ 2,500,000.00
50 Utility Relocation - Power Pole EA 10,000.00 $ 15.0 $ 150,000.00
51 Utility Relocation - High Tension Power (Raise) EA 200,000.00 $ 4.0 $ 800,000.00
52 Utility Relocation - Underground Communication LF 100.00 $ 2,640.0 $ 264,000.00
53 Utility Relocation - Underground Communications Pedestal EA 5,000.00 $ 0.0 $ -
54 Utility Relocation - Natural Gas LF 250.00 $ 5,280.0 $ 1,320,000.00
55 Utility Relocation - Various Buried Facilities LF 250.00 $ 0.0 $ -
Subtotal: 68,608,356.00 $
56 Mobilization (3%) LS 2,058,250.68 $ 1.0 2,058,250.68 $
57 Contingency (7%) LS 4,802,584.92 $ 1.0 4,802,584.92 $
Construction Estimate: 75,469,191.60 $
MESD - SUMMARY
Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1
Item # Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total
1 Clay Cap - Flush LF 500.00 $ 6,400.0 $ 3,200,000.00
2 Clay Cap - Protruding LF 240.00 $ $ -
3 Clear & Grub AC 6,000.00 $ 24.2 $ 145,200.00
4 Cutoff Wall - Shallow SF 12.00 $ $ -
5 Cutoff Wall - Intermediate SF 32.00 $ $ -
6 Cutoff Wall - Deep SF 37.00 $ $ -
7 Cutoff Wall - Hazardous Waste Premium SF 30.00 $ $ -
8 Cutoff Wall - Special Waste Premium SF 15.00 $ $ -
9 Drainage - Enclosed - 12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert LF 1,330.00 $ $ -
10 Drainage - Enclosed - 60" Pipe LF 220.00 $ $ -
11 Drainage - Enclosed - 72" Pipe LF 320.00 $ $ -
12 Drainage - Surface - Shallow Ditch LF 150.00 $ $ -
13 Drainage - Surface - Deep Ditch LF 275.00 $ $ -
14 Drainage - Surface - Creek Relocation LF 650.00 $ $ -
15 Improved Roadway LF 150.00 $ $ -
16 Potable Water Well - Raise at Berm EA 75,000.00 $ $ -
17 Relief Well - Existing - Abandon EA 2,000.00 $ $ -
18 Relief Well - Existing - Convert to Type "T" EA 6,000.00 $ $ -
19 Relief Well - Existing - Rehabilitate EA 12,000.00 $ $ -
20 Relief Well - Existing - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 48,700.00 $ $ -
21 Relief Well - Existing - Special Waste Premium EA 12,700.00 $ $ -
22 Relief Well - Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) LF 40.00 $ $ -
23 Relief Well - Manifold Manhole EA 6,000.00 $ $ -
24 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) LF 50.00 $ $ -
25 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) LF 60.00 $ $ -
26 Relief Well - New - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 61,950.00 $ $ -
27 Relief Well - New - Special Waste Premium EA 17,125.00 $ $ -
28 Relief Well - New Type "D" EA 30,000.00 $ $ -
29 Relief Well - New Type "T" EA 34,000.00 $ $ -
30 ROW Acquisition - Agricultural AC 6,500.00 $ $ -
31 ROW Acquisition - Commercial AC 30,000.00 $ $ -
32 ROW Acquisition - Governmental AC 25,000.00 $ $ -
33 ROW Acquisition - Industrial AC 30,000.00 $ $ -
34 ROW Acquisition - Residential AC 18,000.00 $ $ -
35 ROW Acquisition - Vacant/Undeveloped AC 23,000.00 $ $ -
36 RipRap Bank Protection CY 160.00 $ $ -
37 Seepage Berm Fill - Dredged CY 10.00 $ $ -
38 Seepage Berm Fill - Hauled CY 12.00 $ $ -
39 Seeding AC 1,650.00 $ $ -
40 Slip-Line - 12-Inch Pipe LF 48.00 $ $ -
41 Slip-Line - 15-Inch Pipe LF 70.00 $ $ -
42 Slip-Line - 18-Inch Pipe LF 125.00 $ $ -
43 Slip-Line - 24-Inch Pipe LF 240.00 $ $ -
44 Slip-Line - 27-Inch Pipe LF 260.00 $ $ -
45 Slip-Line - 36-Inch Pipe LF 290.00 $ $ -
46 Slip-Line - 42-Inch Pipe LF 325.00 $ $ -
47 Slip-Line - 48-Inch Pipe LF 350.00 $ $ -
48 Wetland Mitigation AC 25,000.00 $ 1.3 $ 32,500.00
49 Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) EA 2,500,000.00 $ $ -
50 Utility Relocation - Power Pole EA 10,000.00 $ $ -
51 Utility Relocation - High Tension Power (Raise) EA 200,000.00 $ $ -
52 Utility Relocation - Underground Communication LF 100.00 $ $ -
53 Utility Relocation - Underground Communications Pedestal EA 5,000.00 $ $ -
54 Utility Relocation - Natural Gas LF 250.00 $ $ -
55 Utility Relocation - Various Buried Facilities LF 250.00 $ $ -
Subtotal: 3,377,700.00 $
56 Mobilization (3%) LS 101,331.00 $ 1.0 101,331.00 $
57 Contingency (7%) LS 236,439.00 $ 1.0 236,439.00 $
Construction Estimate: 3,715,470.00 $
MESD - CLAY CAPS
Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1
Item # Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total
1 Clay Cap - Flush LF 500.00 $ $ -
2 Clay Cap - Protruding LF 240.00 $ $ -
3 Clear & Grub AC 6,000.00 $ $ -
4 Cutoff Wall - Shallow SF 12.00 $ 105,600.0 $ 1,267,200.00
5 Cutoff Wall - Intermediate SF 32.00 $ 95,600.0 $ 3,059,200.00
6 Cutoff Wall - Deep SF 37.00 $ 366,471.0 $ 13,559,427.00
7 Cutoff Wall - Hazardous Waste Premium SF 30.00 $ 209,256.0 $ 6,277,680.00
8 Cutoff Wall - Special Waste Premium SF 15.00 $ 52,314.0 $ 784,710.00
9 Drainage - Enclosed - 12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert LF 1,330.00 $ $ -
10 Drainage - Enclosed - 60" Pipe LF 220.00 $ $ -
11 Drainage - Enclosed - 72" Pipe LF 320.00 $ $ -
12 Drainage - Surface - Shallow Ditch LF 150.00 $ $ -
13 Drainage - Surface - Deep Ditch LF 275.00 $ $ -
14 Drainage - Surface - Creek Relocation LF 650.00 $ $ -
15 Improved Roadway LF 150.00 $ $ -
16 Potable Water Well - Raise at Berm EA 75,000.00 $ $ -
17 Relief Well - Existing - Abandon EA 2,000.00 $ $ -
18 Relief Well - Existing - Convert to Type "T" EA 6,000.00 $ $ -
19 Relief Well - Existing - Rehabilitate EA 12,000.00 $ $ -
20 Relief Well - Existing - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 48,700.00 $ $ -
21 Relief Well - Existing - Special Waste Premium EA 12,700.00 $ $ -
22 Relief Well - Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) LF 40.00 $ $ -
23 Relief Well - Manifold Manhole EA 6,000.00 $ $ -
24 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) LF 50.00 $ $ -
25 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) LF 60.00 $ $ -
26 Relief Well - New - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 61,950.00 $ $ -
27 Relief Well - New - Special Waste Premium EA 17,125.00 $ $ -
28 Relief Well - New Type "D" EA 30,000.00 $ $ -
29 Relief Well - New Type "T" EA 34,000.00 $ $ -
30 ROW Acquisition - Agricultural AC 6,500.00 $ $ -
31 ROW Acquisition - Commercial AC 30,000.00 $ $ -
32 ROW Acquisition - Governmental AC 25,000.00 $ $ -
33 ROW Acquisition - Industrial AC 30,000.00 $ $ -
34 ROW Acquisition - Residential AC 18,000.00 $ $ -
35 ROW Acquisition - Vacant/Undeveloped AC 23,000.00 $ $ -
36 RipRap Bank Protection CY 160.00 $ $ -
37 Seepage Berm Fill - Dredged CY 10.00 $ $ -
38 Seepage Berm Fill - Hauled CY 12.00 $ $ -
39 Seeding AC 1,650.00 $ $ -
40 Slip-Line - 12-Inch Pipe LF 48.00 $ $ -
41 Slip-Line - 15-Inch Pipe LF 70.00 $ $ -
42 Slip-Line - 18-Inch Pipe LF 125.00 $ $ -
43 Slip-Line - 24-Inch Pipe LF 240.00 $ $ -
44 Slip-Line - 27-Inch Pipe LF 260.00 $ $ -
45 Slip-Line - 36-Inch Pipe LF 290.00 $ $ -
46 Slip-Line - 42-Inch Pipe LF 325.00 $ $ -
47 Slip-Line - 48-Inch Pipe LF 350.00 $ $ -
48 Wetland Mitigation AC 25,000.00 $ $ -
49 Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) EA 2,500,000.00 $ $ -
50 Utility Relocation - Power Pole EA 10,000.00 $ $ -
51 Utility Relocation - High Tension Power (Raise) EA 200,000.00 $ $ -
52 Utility Relocation - Underground Communication LF 100.00 $ 2,640.0 $ 264,000.00
53 Utility Relocation - Underground Communications Pedestal EA 5,000.00 $ $ -
54 Utility Relocation - Natural Gas LF 250.00 $ 5,280.0 $ 1,320,000.00
55 Utility Relocation - Various Buried Facilities LF 250.00 $ $ -
Subtotal: 26,532,217.00 $
56 Mobilization (3%) LS 795,966.51 $ 1.0 795,966.51 $
57 Contingency (7%) LS 1,857,255.19 $ 1.0 1,857,255.19 $
Construction Estimate: 29,185,438.70 $
MESD - CUTOFF WALLS
Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1
Item # Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total
1 Clay Cap - Flush LF 500.00 $ $ -
2 Clay Cap - Protruding LF 240.00 $ $ -
3 Clear & Grub AC 6,000.00 $ 5.2 $ 31,200.00
4 Cutoff Wall - Shallow SF 12.00 $ $ -
5 Cutoff Wall - Intermediate SF 32.00 $ $ -
6 Cutoff Wall - Deep SF 37.00 $ $ -
7 Cutoff Wall - Hazardous Waste Premium SF 30.00 $ $ -
8 Cutoff Wall - Special Waste Premium SF 15.00 $ $ -
9 Drainage - Enclosed - 12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert LF 1,330.00 $ $ -
10 Drainage - Enclosed - 60" Pipe LF 220.00 $ $ -
11 Drainage - Enclosed - 72" Pipe LF 320.00 $ $ -
12 Drainage - Surface - Shallow Ditch LF 150.00 $ $ -
13 Drainage - Surface - Deep Ditch LF 275.00 $ $ -
14 Drainage - Surface - Creek Relocation LF 650.00 $ $ -
15 Improved Roadway LF 150.00 $ $ -
16 Potable Water Well - Raise at Berm EA 75,000.00 $ $ -
17 Relief Well - Existing - Abandon EA 2,000.00 $ $ -
18 Relief Well - Existing - Convert to Type "T" EA 6,000.00 $ 55.0 $ 330,000.00
19 Relief Well - Existing - Rehabilitate EA 12,000.00 $ 38.0 $ 456,000.00
20 Relief Well - Existing - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 48,700.00 $ 3.0 $ 146,100.00
21 Relief Well - Existing - Special Waste Premium EA 12,700.00 $ 14.0 $ 177,800.00
22 Relief Well - Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) LF 40.00 $ $ -
23 Relief Well - Manifold Manhole EA 6,000.00 $ $ -
24 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) LF 50.00 $ $ -
25 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) LF 60.00 $ $ -
26 Relief Well - New - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 61,950.00 $ 8.0 $ 495,600.00
27 Relief Well - New - Special Waste Premium EA 17,125.00 $ 41.0 $ 702,125.00
28 Relief Well - New Type "D" EA 30,000.00 $ 45.0 $ 1,350,000.00
29 Relief Well - New Type "T" EA 34,000.00 $ 62.0 $ 2,108,000.00
30 ROW Acquisition - Agricultural AC 6,500.00 $ 6.0 $ 39,000.00
31 ROW Acquisition - Commercial AC 30,000.00 $ $ -
32 ROW Acquisition - Governmental AC 25,000.00 $ $ -
33 ROW Acquisition - Industrial AC 30,000.00 $ 4.0 $ 120,000.00
34 ROW Acquisition - Residential AC 18,000.00 $ $ -
35 ROW Acquisition - Vacant/Undeveloped AC 23,000.00 $ $ -
36 RipRap Bank Protection CY 160.00 $ $ -
37 Seepage Berm Fill - Dredged CY 10.00 $ $ -
38 Seepage Berm Fill - Hauled CY 12.00 $ $ -
39 Seeding AC 1,650.00 $ 5.2 $ 8,580.00
40 Slip-Line - 12-Inch Pipe LF 48.00 $ $ -
41 Slip-Line - 15-Inch Pipe LF 70.00 $ $ -
42 Slip-Line - 18-Inch Pipe LF 125.00 $ $ -
43 Slip-Line - 24-Inch Pipe LF 240.00 $ $ -
44 Slip-Line - 27-Inch Pipe LF 260.00 $ $ -
45 Slip-Line - 36-Inch Pipe LF 290.00 $ $ -
46 Slip-Line - 42-Inch Pipe LF 325.00 $ $ -
47 Slip-Line - 48-Inch Pipe LF 350.00 $ $ -
48 Wetland Mitigation AC 25,000.00 $ $ -
49 Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) EA 2,500,000.00 $ $ -
50 Utility Relocation - Power Pole EA 10,000.00 $ $ -
51 Utility Relocation - High Tension Power (Raise) EA 200,000.00 $ $ -
52 Utility Relocation - Underground Communication LF 100.00 $ $ -
53 Utility Relocation - Underground Communications Pedestal EA 5,000.00 $ $ -
54 Utility Relocation - Natural Gas LF 250.00 $ $ -
55 Utility Relocation - Various Buried Facilities LF 250.00 $ $ -
Subtotal: 5,964,405.00 $
56 Mobilization (3%) LS 178,932.15 $ 1.0 178,932.15 $
57 Contingency (7%) LS 417,508.35 $ 1.0 417,508.35 $
Construction Estimate: 6,560,845.50 $
MESD - RELIEF WELLS
Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1
Item # Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total
1 Clay Cap - Flush LF 500.00 $ $ -
2 Clay Cap - Protruding LF 240.00 $ $ -
3 Clear & Grub AC 6,000.00 $ 201.6 $ 1,209,600.00
4 Cutoff Wall - Shallow SF 12.00 $ $ -
5 Cutoff Wall - Intermediate SF 32.00 $ $ -
6 Cutoff Wall - Deep SF 37.00 $ $ -
7 Cutoff Wall - Hazardous Waste Premium SF 30.00 $ $ -
8 Cutoff Wall - Special Waste Premium SF 15.00 $ $ -
9 Drainage - Enclosed - 12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert LF 1,330.00 $ 1,400.0 $ 1,862,000.00
10 Drainage - Enclosed - 60" Pipe LF 220.00 $ $ -
11 Drainage - Enclosed - 72" Pipe LF 320.00 $ $ -
12 Drainage - Surface - Shallow Ditch LF 150.00 $ 2,600.0 $ 390,000.00
13 Drainage - Surface - Deep Ditch LF 275.00 $ 6,000.0 $ 1,650,000.00
14 Drainage - Surface - Creek Relocation LF 650.00 $ 3,500.0 $ 2,275,000.00
15 Improved Roadway LF 150.00 $ $ -
16 Potable Water Well - Raise at Berm EA 75,000.00 $ $ -
17 Relief Well - Existing - Abandon EA 2,000.00 $ 69.0 $ 138,000.00
18 Relief Well - Existing - Convert to Type "T" EA 6,000.00 $ $ -
19 Relief Well - Existing - Rehabilitate EA 12,000.00 $ $ -
20 Relief Well - Existing - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 48,700.00 $ $ -
21 Relief Well - Existing - Special Waste Premium EA 12,700.00 $ $ -
22 Relief Well - Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) LF 40.00 $ 3,175.0 $ 127,000.00
23 Relief Well - Manifold Manhole EA 6,000.00 $ 10.0 $ 60,000.00
24 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) LF 50.00 $ 850.0 $ 42,500.00
25 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) LF 60.00 $ 1,820.0 $ 109,200.00
26 Relief Well - New - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 61,950.00 $ $ -
27 Relief Well - New - Special Waste Premium EA 17,125.00 $ $ -
28 Relief Well - New Type "D" EA 30,000.00 $ $ -
29 Relief Well - New Type "T" EA 34,000.00 $ $ -
30 ROW Acquisition - Agricultural AC 6,500.00 $ 29.7 $ 193,050.00
31 ROW Acquisition - Commercial AC 30,000.00 $ $ -
32 ROW Acquisition - Governmental AC 25,000.00 $ $ -
33 ROW Acquisition - Industrial AC 30,000.00 $ 43.1 $ 1,293,000.00
34 ROW Acquisition - Residential AC 18,000.00 $ $ -
35 ROW Acquisition - Vacant/Undeveloped AC 23,000.00 $ 63.4 $ 1,458,200.00
36 RipRap Bank Protection CY 160.00 $ $ -
37 Seepage Berm Fill - Dredged CY 10.00 $ 1,176,055.0 $ 11,760,550.00
38 Seepage Berm Fill - Hauled CY 12.00 $ 47,237.0 $ 566,844.00
39 Seeding AC 1,650.00 $ 201.6 $ 332,640.00
40 Slip-Line - 12-Inch Pipe LF 48.00 $ $ -
41 Slip-Line - 15-Inch Pipe LF 70.00 $ $ -
42 Slip-Line - 18-Inch Pipe LF 125.00 $ $ -
43 Slip-Line - 24-Inch Pipe LF 240.00 $ $ -
44 Slip-Line - 27-Inch Pipe LF 260.00 $ $ -
45 Slip-Line - 36-Inch Pipe LF 290.00 $ $ -
46 Slip-Line - 42-Inch Pipe LF 325.00 $ $ -
47 Slip-Line - 48-Inch Pipe LF 350.00 $ $ -
48 Wetland Mitigation AC 25,000.00 $ 173.6 $ 4,339,500.00
49 Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) EA 2,500,000.00 $ 1.0 $ 2,500,000.00
50 Utility Relocation - Power Pole EA 10,000.00 $ 15.0 $ 150,000.00
51 Utility Relocation - High Tension Power (Raise) EA 200,000.00 $ 4.0 $ 800,000.00
52 Utility Relocation - Underground Communication LF 100.00 $ $ -
53 Utility Relocation - Underground Communications Pedestal EA 5,000.00 $ $ -
54 Utility Relocation - Natural Gas LF 250.00 $ $ -
55 Utility Relocation - Various Buried Facilities LF 250.00 $ $ -
Subtotal: 31,257,084.00 $
56 Mobilization (3%) LS 937,712.52 $ 1.0 937,712.52 $
57 Contingency (7%) LS 2,187,995.88 $ 1.0 2,187,995.88 $
Construction Estimate: 34,382,792.40 $
MESD - SEEPAGE BERMS
Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1
Item # Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total
1 Clay Cap - Flush LF 500.00 $ $ -
2 Clay Cap - Protruding LF 240.00 $ $ -
3 Clear & Grub AC 6,000.00 $ $ -
4 Cutoff Wall - Shallow SF 12.00 $ $ -
5 Cutoff Wall - Intermediate SF 32.00 $ $ -
6 Cutoff Wall - Deep SF 37.00 $ $ -
7 Cutoff Wall - Hazardous Waste Premium SF 30.00 $ $ -
8 Cutoff Wall - Special Waste Premium SF 15.00 $ $ -
9 Drainage - Enclosed - 12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert LF 1,330.00 $ $ -
10 Drainage - Enclosed - 60" Pipe LF 220.00 $ $ -
11 Drainage - Enclosed - 72" Pipe LF 320.00 $ $ -
12 Drainage - Surface - Shallow Ditch LF 150.00 $ $ -
13 Drainage - Surface - Deep Ditch LF 275.00 $ $ -
14 Drainage - Surface - Creek Relocation LF 650.00 $ $ -
15 Improved Roadway LF 150.00 $ $ -
16 Potable Water Well - Raise at Berm EA 75,000.00 $ $ -
17 Relief Well - Existing - Abandon EA 2,000.00 $ $ -
18 Relief Well - Existing - Convert to Type "T" EA 6,000.00 $ $ -
19 Relief Well - Existing - Rehabilitate EA 12,000.00 $ $ -
20 Relief Well - Existing - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 48,700.00 $ $ -
21 Relief Well - Existing - Special Waste Premium EA 12,700.00 $ $ -
22 Relief Well - Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) LF 40.00 $ $ -
23 Relief Well - Manifold Manhole EA 6,000.00 $ $ -
24 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) LF 50.00 $ $ -
25 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) LF 60.00 $ $ -
26 Relief Well - New - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 61,950.00 $ $ -
27 Relief Well - New - Special Waste Premium EA 17,125.00 $ $ -
28 Relief Well - New Type "D" EA 30,000.00 $ $ -
29 Relief Well - New Type "T" EA 34,000.00 $ $ -
30 ROW Acquisition - Agricultural AC 6,500.00 $ $ -
31 ROW Acquisition - Commercial AC 30,000.00 $ $ -
32 ROW Acquisition - Governmental AC 25,000.00 $ $ -
33 ROW Acquisition - Industrial AC 30,000.00 $ $ -
34 ROW Acquisition - Residential AC 18,000.00 $ $ -
35 ROW Acquisition - Vacant/Undeveloped AC 23,000.00 $ $ -
36 RipRap Bank Protection CY 160.00 $ $ -
37 Seepage Berm Fill - Dredged CY 10.00 $ $ -
38 Seepage Berm Fill - Hauled CY 12.00 $ $ -
39 Seeding AC 1,650.00 $ $ -
40 Slip-Line - 12-Inch Pipe LF 48.00 $ $ -
41 Slip-Line - 15-Inch Pipe LF 70.00 $ $ -
42 Slip-Line - 18-Inch Pipe LF 125.00 $ 1,480.0 $ 185,000.00
43 Slip-Line - 24-Inch Pipe LF 240.00 $ 880.0 $ 211,200.00
44 Slip-Line - 27-Inch Pipe LF 260.00 $ $ -
45 Slip-Line - 36-Inch Pipe LF 290.00 $ $ -
46 Slip-Line - 42-Inch Pipe LF 325.00 $ 310.0 $ 100,750.00
47 Slip-Line - 48-Inch Pipe LF 350.00 $ 2,800.0 $ 980,000.00
48 Wetland Mitigation AC 25,000.00 $ $ -
49 Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) EA 2,500,000.00 $ $ -
50 Utility Relocation - Power Pole EA 10,000.00 $ $ -
51 Utility Relocation - High Tension Power (Raise) EA 200,000.00 $ $ -
52 Utility Relocation - Underground Communication LF 100.00 $ $ -
53 Utility Relocation - Underground Communications Pedestal EA 5,000.00 $ $ -
54 Utility Relocation - Natural Gas LF 250.00 $ $ -
55 Utility Relocation - Various Buried Facilities LF 250.00 $ $ -
Subtotal: 1,476,950.00 $
56 Mobilization (3%) LS 44,308.50 $ 1.0 44,308.50 $
57 Contingency (7%) LS 103,386.50 $ 1.0 103,386.50 $
Construction Estimate: 1,624,645.00 $
MESD - CIVIL IMPROVEMENTS
Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1
Item # Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total
1 Clay Cap - Flush LF 500.00 $ 0.0 $ -
2 Clay Cap - Protruding LF 240.00 $ 1,700.0 $ 408,000.00
3 Clear & Grub AC 6,000.00 $ 71.0 $ 426,000.00
4 Cutoff Wall - Shallow SF 12.00 $ 0.0 $ -
5 Cutoff Wall - Intermediate SF 32.00 $ 0.0 $ -
6 Cutoff Wall - Deep SF 37.00 $ 0.0 $ -
7 Cutoff Wall - Hazardous Waste Premium SF 30.00 $ 0.0 $ -
8 Cutoff Wall - Special Waste Premium SF 15.00 $ 0.0 $ -
9 Drainage - Enclosed - 12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert LF 1,330.00 $ 0.0 $ -
10 Drainage - Enclosed - 60" Pipe LF 220.00 $ 0.0 $ -
11 Drainage - Enclosed - 72" Pipe LF 320.00 $ 0.0 $ -
12 Drainage - Surface - Shallow Ditch LF 150.00 $ 1,200.0 $ 180,000.00
13 Drainage - Surface - Deep Ditch LF 275.00 $ 0.0 $ -
14 Drainage - Surface - Creek Relocation LF 650.00 $ 0.0 $ -
15 Improved Roadway LF 150.00 $ 1,040.0 $ 156,000.00
16 Potable Water Well - Raise at Berm EA 75,000.00 $ 0.0 $ -
17 Relief Well - Existing - Abandon EA 2,000.00 $ 27.0 $ 54,000.00
18 Relief Well - Existing - Convert to Type "T" EA 6,000.00 $ 0.0 $ -
19 Relief Well - Existing - Rehabilitate EA 12,000.00 $ 33.0 $ 396,000.00
20 Relief Well - Existing - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 48,700.00 $ 0.0 $ -
21 Relief Well - Existing - Special Waste Premium EA 12,700.00 $ 0.0 $ -
22 Relief Well - Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) LF 40.00 $ 0.0 $ -
23 Relief Well - Manifold Manhole EA 6,000.00 $ 0.0 $ -
24 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) LF 50.00 $ 0.0 $ -
25 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) LF 60.00 $ 0.0 $ -
26 Relief Well - New - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 61,950.00 $ 0.0 $ -
27 Relief Well - New - Special Waste Premium EA 17,125.00 $ 0.0 $ -
28 Relief Well - New Type "D" EA 30,000.00 $ 133.0 $ 3,990,000.00
29 Relief Well - New Type "T" EA 34,000.00 $ 0.0 $ -
30 ROW Acquisition - Agricultural AC 6,500.00 $ 180.4 $ 1,172,600.00
31 ROW Acquisition - Commercial AC 30,000.00 $ 0.0 $ -
32 ROW Acquisition - Governmental AC 25,000.00 $ 0.0 $ -
33 ROW Acquisition - Industrial AC 30,000.00 $ 0.0 $ -
34 ROW Acquisition - Residential AC 18,000.00 $ 0.0 $ -
35 ROW Acquisition - Vacant/Undeveloped AC 23,000.00 $ 0.0 $ -
36 RipRap Bank Protection CY 160.00 $ 0.0 $ -
37 Seepage Berm Fill - Dredged CY 10.00 $ 0.0 $ -
38 Seepage Berm Fill - Hauled CY 12.00 $ 359,965.8 $ 4,319,589.60
39 Seeding AC 1,650.00 $ 71.0 $ 117,150.00
40 Slip-Line - 12-Inch Pipe LF 48.00 $ 0.0 $ -
41 Slip-Line - 15-Inch Pipe LF 70.00 $ 0.0 $ -
42 Slip-Line - 18-Inch Pipe LF 125.00 $ 0.0 $ -
43 Slip-Line - 24-Inch Pipe LF 240.00 $ 280.0 $ 67,200.00
44 Slip-Line - 27-Inch Pipe LF 260.00 $ 0.0 $ -
45 Slip-Line - 36-Inch Pipe LF 290.00 $ 0.0 $ -
46 Slip-Line - 42-Inch Pipe LF 325.00 $ 0.0 $ -
47 Slip-Line - 48-Inch Pipe LF 350.00 $ 0.0 $ -
48 Wetland Mitigation AC 25,000.00 $ 6.1 $ 152,500.00
49 Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) EA 2,500,000.00 $ 0.0 $ -
50 Utility Relocation - Power Pole EA 10,000.00 $ 20.0 $ 200,000.00
51 Utility Relocation - High Tension Power (Raise) EA 200,000.00 $ 0.0 $ -
52 Utility Relocation - Underground Communication LF 100.00 $ 6,000.0 $ 600,000.00
53 Utility Relocation - Underground Communications Pedestal EA 5,000.00 $ 2.0 $ 10,000.00
54 Utility Relocation - Natural Gas LF 250.00 $ 0.0 $ -
55 Utility Relocation - Various Buried Facilities LF 250.00 $ 0.0 $ -
Subtotal: 12,249,039.60 $
56 Mobilization (3%) LS 367,471.19 $ 1.0 367,471.19 $
57 Contingency (7%) LS 857,432.77 $ 1.0 857,432.77 $
Construction Estimate: 13,473,943.56 $
PdP & FISH LAKE - SUMMARY
Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1
Item # Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total
1 Clay Cap - Flush LF 500.00 $ $ -
2 Clay Cap - Protruding LF 240.00 $ 1,700.0 $ 408,000.00
3 Clear & Grub AC 6,000.00 $ $ -
4 Cutoff Wall - Shallow SF 12.00 $ $ -
5 Cutoff Wall - Intermediate SF 32.00 $ $ -
6 Cutoff Wall - Deep SF 37.00 $ $ -
7 Cutoff Wall - Hazardous Waste Premium SF 30.00 $ $ -
8 Cutoff Wall - Special Waste Premium SF 15.00 $ $ -
9 Drainage - Enclosed - 12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert LF 1,330.00 $ $ -
10 Drainage - Enclosed - 60" Pipe LF 220.00 $ $ -
11 Drainage - Enclosed - 72" Pipe LF 320.00 $ $ -
12 Drainage - Surface - Shallow Ditch LF 150.00 $ $ -
13 Drainage - Surface - Deep Ditch LF 275.00 $ $ -
14 Drainage - Surface - Creek Relocation LF 650.00 $ $ -
15 Improved Roadway LF 150.00 $ $ -
16 Potable Water Well - Raise at Berm EA 75,000.00 $ $ -
17 Relief Well - Existing - Abandon EA 2,000.00 $ $ -
18 Relief Well - Existing - Convert to Type "T" EA 6,000.00 $ $ -
19 Relief Well - Existing - Rehabilitate EA 12,000.00 $ $ -
20 Relief Well - Existing - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 48,700.00 $ $ -
21 Relief Well - Existing - Special Waste Premium EA 12,700.00 $ $ -
22 Relief Well - Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) LF 40.00 $ $ -
23 Relief Well - Manifold Manhole EA 6,000.00 $ $ -
24 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) LF 50.00 $ $ -
25 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) LF 60.00 $ $ -
26 Relief Well - New - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 61,950.00 $ $ -
27 Relief Well - New - Special Waste Premium EA 17,125.00 $ $ -
28 Relief Well - New Type "D" EA 30,000.00 $ $ -
29 Relief Well - New Type "T" EA 34,000.00 $ $ -
30 ROW Acquisition - Agricultural AC 6,500.00 $ $ -
31 ROW Acquisition - Commercial AC 30,000.00 $ $ -
32 ROW Acquisition - Governmental AC 25,000.00 $ $ -
33 ROW Acquisition - Industrial AC 30,000.00 $ $ -
34 ROW Acquisition - Residential AC 18,000.00 $ $ -
35 ROW Acquisition - Vacant/Undeveloped AC 23,000.00 $ $ -
36 RipRap Bank Protection CY 160.00 $ $ -
37 Seepage Berm Fill - Dredged CY 10.00 $ $ -
38 Seepage Berm Fill - Hauled CY 12.00 $ $ -
39 Seeding AC 1,650.00 $ $ -
40 Slip-Line - 12-Inch Pipe LF 48.00 $ $ -
41 Slip-Line - 15-Inch Pipe LF 70.00 $ $ -
42 Slip-Line - 18-Inch Pipe LF 125.00 $ $ -
43 Slip-Line - 24-Inch Pipe LF 240.00 $ $ -
44 Slip-Line - 27-Inch Pipe LF 260.00 $ $ -
45 Slip-Line - 36-Inch Pipe LF 290.00 $ $ -
46 Slip-Line - 42-Inch Pipe LF 325.00 $ $ -
47 Slip-Line - 48-Inch Pipe LF 350.00 $ $ -
48 Wetland Mitigation AC 25,000.00 $ $ -
49 Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) EA 2,500,000.00 $ $ -
50 Utility Relocation - Power Pole EA 10,000.00 $ $ -
51 Utility Relocation - High Tension Power (Raise) EA 200,000.00 $ $ -
52 Utility Relocation - Underground Communication LF 100.00 $ $ -
53 Utility Relocation - Underground Communications Pedestal EA 5,000.00 $ $ -
54 Utility Relocation - Natural Gas LF 250.00 $ $ -
55 Utility Relocation - Various Buried Facilities LF 250.00 $ $ -
Subtotal: 408,000.00 $
56 Mobilization (3%) LS 12,240.00 $ 1.0 12,240.00 $
57 Contingency (7%) LS 28,560.00 $ 1.0 28,560.00 $
Construction Estimate: 448,800.00 $
PdP & FISH LAKE - CLAY CAPS
Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1
Item # Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total
1 Clay Cap - Flush LF 500.00 $ $ -
2 Clay Cap - Protruding LF 240.00 $ $ -
3 Clear & Grub AC 6,000.00 $ $ -
4 Cutoff Wall - Shallow SF 12.00 $ $ -
5 Cutoff Wall - Intermediate SF 32.00 $ $ -
6 Cutoff Wall - Deep SF 37.00 $ $ -
7 Cutoff Wall - Hazardous Waste Premium SF 30.00 $ $ -
8 Cutoff Wall - Special Waste Premium SF 15.00 $ $ -
9 Drainage - Enclosed - 12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert LF 1,330.00 $ $ -
10 Drainage - Enclosed - 60" Pipe LF 220.00 $ $ -
11 Drainage - Enclosed - 72" Pipe LF 320.00 $ $ -
12 Drainage - Surface - Shallow Ditch LF 150.00 $ 1,200.0 $ 180,000.00
13 Drainage - Surface - Deep Ditch LF 275.00 $ $ -
14 Drainage - Surface - Creek Relocation LF 650.00 $ $ -
15 Improved Roadway LF 150.00 $ $ -
16 Potable Water Well - Raise at Berm EA 75,000.00 $ $ -
17 Relief Well - Existing - Abandon EA 2,000.00 $ $ -
18 Relief Well - Existing - Convert to Type "T" EA 6,000.00 $ $ -
19 Relief Well - Existing - Rehabilitate EA 12,000.00 $ 33.0 $ 396,000.00
20 Relief Well - Existing - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 48,700.00 $ $ -
21 Relief Well - Existing - Special Waste Premium EA 12,700.00 $ $ -
22 Relief Well - Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) LF 40.00 $ $ -
23 Relief Well - Manifold Manhole EA 6,000.00 $ $ -
24 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) LF 50.00 $ $ -
25 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) LF 60.00 $ $ -
26 Relief Well - New - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 61,950.00 $ $ -
27 Relief Well - New - Special Waste Premium EA 17,125.00 $ $ -
28 Relief Well - New Type "D" EA 30,000.00 $ 133.0 $ 3,990,000.00
29 Relief Well - New Type "T" EA 34,000.00 $ $ -
30 ROW Acquisition - Agricultural AC 6,500.00 $ 130.0 $ 845,000.00
31 ROW Acquisition - Commercial AC 30,000.00 $ $ -
32 ROW Acquisition - Governmental AC 25,000.00 $ $ -
33 ROW Acquisition - Industrial AC 30,000.00 $ $ -
34 ROW Acquisition - Residential AC 18,000.00 $ $ -
35 ROW Acquisition - Vacant/Undeveloped AC 23,000.00 $ $ -
36 RipRap Bank Protection CY 160.00 $ $ -
37 Seepage Berm Fill - Dredged CY 10.00 $ $ -
38 Seepage Berm Fill - Hauled CY 12.00 $ $ -
39 Seeding AC 1,650.00 $ $ -
40 Slip-Line - 12-Inch Pipe LF 48.00 $ $ -
41 Slip-Line - 15-Inch Pipe LF 70.00 $ $ -
42 Slip-Line - 18-Inch Pipe LF 125.00 $ $ -
43 Slip-Line - 24-Inch Pipe LF 240.00 $ $ -
44 Slip-Line - 27-Inch Pipe LF 260.00 $ $ -
45 Slip-Line - 36-Inch Pipe LF 290.00 $ $ -
46 Slip-Line - 42-Inch Pipe LF 325.00 $ $ -
47 Slip-Line - 48-Inch Pipe LF 350.00 $ $ -
48 Wetland Mitigation AC 25,000.00 $ $ -
49 Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) EA 2,500,000.00 $ $ -
50 Utility Relocation - Power Pole EA 10,000.00 $ $ -
51 Utility Relocation - High Tension Power (Raise) EA 200,000.00 $ $ -
52 Utility Relocation - Underground Communication LF 100.00 $ $ -
53 Utility Relocation - Underground Communications Pedestal EA 5,000.00 $ $ -
54 Utility Relocation - Natural Gas LF 250.00 $ $ -
55 Utility Relocation - Various Buried Facilities LF 250.00 $ $ -
Subtotal: 5,411,000.00 $
56 Mobilization (3%) LS 162,330.00 $ 1.0 162,330.00 $
57 Contingency (7%) LS 378,770.00 $ 1.0 378,770.00 $
Construction Estimate: 5,952,100.00 $
PdP & FISH LAKE - RELIEF WELLS
Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1
Item # Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total
1 Clay Cap - Flush LF 500.00 $ $ -
2 Clay Cap - Protruding LF 240.00 $ $ -
3 Clear & Grub AC 6,000.00 $ 71.0 $ 426,000.00
4 Cutoff Wall - Shallow SF 12.00 $ $ -
5 Cutoff Wall - Intermediate SF 32.00 $ $ -
6 Cutoff Wall - Deep SF 37.00 $ $ -
7 Cutoff Wall - Hazardous Waste Premium SF 30.00 $ $ -
8 Cutoff Wall - Special Waste Premium SF 15.00 $ $ -
9 Drainage - Enclosed - 12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert LF 1,330.00 $ $ -
10 Drainage - Enclosed - 60" Pipe LF 220.00 $ $ -
11 Drainage - Enclosed - 72" Pipe LF 320.00 $ $ -
12 Drainage - Surface - Shallow Ditch LF 150.00 $ $ -
13 Drainage - Surface - Deep Ditch LF 275.00 $ $ -
14 Drainage - Surface - Creek Relocation LF 650.00 $ $ -
15 Improved Roadway LF 150.00 $ 1,040.0 $ 156,000.00
16 Potable Water Well - Raise at Berm EA 75,000.00 $ $ -
17 Relief Well - Existing - Abandon EA 2,000.00 $ 27.0 $ 54,000.00
18 Relief Well - Existing - Convert to Type "T" EA 6,000.00 $ $ -
19 Relief Well - Existing - Rehabilitate EA 12,000.00 $ $ -
20 Relief Well - Existing - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 48,700.00 $ $ -
21 Relief Well - Existing - Special Waste Premium EA 12,700.00 $ $ -
22 Relief Well - Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) LF 40.00 $ $ -
23 Relief Well - Manifold Manhole EA 6,000.00 $ $ -
24 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) LF 50.00 $ $ -
25 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) LF 60.00 $ $ -
26 Relief Well - New - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 61,950.00 $ $ -
27 Relief Well - New - Special Waste Premium EA 17,125.00 $ $ -
28 Relief Well - New Type "D" EA 30,000.00 $ $ -
29 Relief Well - New Type "T" EA 34,000.00 $ $ -
30 ROW Acquisition - Agricultural AC 6,500.00 $ 50.4 $ 327,600.00
31 ROW Acquisition - Commercial AC 30,000.00 $ $ -
32 ROW Acquisition - Governmental AC 25,000.00 $ $ -
33 ROW Acquisition - Industrial AC 30,000.00 $ $ -
34 ROW Acquisition - Residential AC 18,000.00 $ $ -
35 ROW Acquisition - Vacant/Undeveloped AC 23,000.00 $ $ -
36 RipRap Bank Protection CY 160.00 $ $ -
37 Seepage Berm Fill - Dredged CY 10.00 $ $ -
38 Seepage Berm Fill - Hauled CY 12.00 $ 359,965.8 $ 4,319,589.60
39 Seeding AC 1,650.00 $ 71.0 $ 117,150.00
40 Slip-Line - 12-Inch Pipe LF 48.00 $ $ -
41 Slip-Line - 15-Inch Pipe LF 70.00 $ $ -
42 Slip-Line - 18-Inch Pipe LF 125.00 $ $ -
43 Slip-Line - 24-Inch Pipe LF 240.00 $ $ -
44 Slip-Line - 27-Inch Pipe LF 260.00 $ $ -
45 Slip-Line - 36-Inch Pipe LF 290.00 $ $ -
46 Slip-Line - 42-Inch Pipe LF 325.00 $ $ -
47 Slip-Line - 48-Inch Pipe LF 350.00 $ $ -
48 Wetland Mitigation AC 25,000.00 $ 6.1 $ 152,500.00
49 Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) EA 2,500,000.00 $ $ -
50 Utility Relocation - Power Pole EA 10,000.00 $ 20.0 $ 200,000.00
51 Utility Relocation - High Tension Power (Raise) EA 200,000.00 $ $ -
52 Utility Relocation - Underground Communication LF 100.00 $ 6,000.0 $ 600,000.00
53 Utility Relocation - Underground Communications Pedestal EA 5,000.00 $ 2.0 $ 10,000.00
54 Utility Relocation - Natural Gas LF 250.00 $ $ -
55 Utility Relocation - Various Buried Facilities LF 250.00 $ $ -
Subtotal: 6,362,839.60 $
56 Mobilization (3%) LS 190,885.19 $ 1.0 190,885.19 $
57 Contingency (7%) LS 445,398.77 $ 1.0 445,398.77 $
Construction Estimate: 6,999,123.56 $
PdP & FISH LAKE - SEEPAGE BERMS
Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1
Item # Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total
1 Clay Cap - Flush LF 500.00 $ $ -
2 Clay Cap - Protruding LF 240.00 $ $ -
3 Clear & Grub AC 6,000.00 $ $ -
4 Cutoff Wall - Shallow SF 12.00 $ $ -
5 Cutoff Wall - Intermediate SF 32.00 $ $ -
6 Cutoff Wall - Deep SF 37.00 $ $ -
7 Cutoff Wall - Hazardous Waste Premium SF 30.00 $ $ -
8 Cutoff Wall - Special Waste Premium SF 15.00 $ $ -
9 Drainage - Enclosed - 12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert LF 1,330.00 $ $ -
10 Drainage - Enclosed - 60" Pipe LF 220.00 $ $ -
11 Drainage - Enclosed - 72" Pipe LF 320.00 $ $ -
12 Drainage - Surface - Shallow Ditch LF 150.00 $ $ -
13 Drainage - Surface - Deep Ditch LF 275.00 $ $ -
14 Drainage - Surface - Creek Relocation LF 650.00 $ $ -
15 Improved Roadway LF 150.00 $ $ -
16 Potable Water Well - Raise at Berm EA 75,000.00 $ $ -
17 Relief Well - Existing - Abandon EA 2,000.00 $ $ -
18 Relief Well - Existing - Convert to Type "T" EA 6,000.00 $ $ -
19 Relief Well - Existing - Rehabilitate EA 12,000.00 $ $ -
20 Relief Well - Existing - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 48,700.00 $ $ -
21 Relief Well - Existing - Special Waste Premium EA 12,700.00 $ $ -
22 Relief Well - Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) LF 40.00 $ $ -
23 Relief Well - Manifold Manhole EA 6,000.00 $ $ -
24 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) LF 50.00 $ $ -
25 Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) LF 60.00 $ $ -
26 Relief Well - New - Hazardous Waste Premium EA 61,950.00 $ $ -
27 Relief Well - New - Special Waste Premium EA 17,125.00 $ $ -
28 Relief Well - New Type "D" EA 30,000.00 $ $ -
29 Relief Well - New Type "T" EA 34,000.00 $ $ -
30 ROW Acquisition - Agricultural AC 6,500.00 $ $ -
31 ROW Acquisition - Commercial AC 30,000.00 $ $ -
32 ROW Acquisition - Governmental AC 25,000.00 $ $ -
33 ROW Acquisition - Industrial AC 30,000.00 $ $ -
34 ROW Acquisition - Residential AC 18,000.00 $ $ -
35 ROW Acquisition - Vacant/Undeveloped AC 23,000.00 $ $ -
36 RipRap Bank Protection CY 160.00 $ $ -
37 Seepage Berm Fill - Dredged CY 10.00 $ $ -
38 Seepage Berm Fill - Hauled CY 12.00 $ $ -
39 Seeding AC 1,650.00 $ $ -
40 Slip-Line - 12-Inch Pipe LF 48.00 $ $ -
41 Slip-Line - 15-Inch Pipe LF 70.00 $ $ -
42 Slip-Line - 18-Inch Pipe LF 125.00 $ $ -
43 Slip-Line - 24-Inch Pipe LF 240.00 $ 280.0 $ 67,200.00
44 Slip-Line - 27-Inch Pipe LF 260.00 $ $ -
45 Slip-Line - 36-Inch Pipe LF 290.00 $ $ -
46 Slip-Line - 42-Inch Pipe LF 325.00 $ $ -
47 Slip-Line - 48-Inch Pipe LF 350.00 $ $ -
48 Wetland Mitigation AC 25,000.00 $ $ -
49 Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) EA 2,500,000.00 $ $ -
50 Utility Relocation - Power Pole EA 10,000.00 $ $ -
51 Utility Relocation - High Tension Power (Raise) EA 200,000.00 $ $ -
52 Utility Relocation - Underground Communication LF 100.00 $ $ -
53 Utility Relocation - Underground Communications Pedestal EA 5,000.00 $ $ -
54 Utility Relocation - Natural Gas LF 250.00 $ $ -
55 Utility Relocation - Various Buried Facilities LF 250.00 $ $ -
Subtotal: 67,200.00 $
56 Mobilization (3%) LS 2,016.00 $ 1.0 2,016.00 $
57 Contingency (7%) LS 4,704.00 $ 1.0 4,704.00 $
Construction Estimate: 73,920.00 $
PdP & FISH LAKE - CIVIL IMPROVEMENTS



A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X

4


Item Description Potential Benefits Likely Concerns
1
Reduce berm slopes form 2% to max 1.33& or to actual
berm shape (levee-wide)
Reduce volume of berm material required Possible water ponding in some areas
Reduce square footage of cutoff reducing cost.
If cutoff wall is moved a clay cap may be required, reducing
cost savings.
Working area may affect local businesses.
Reduce berm, culvert and relief well abandonment costs. Must maintain drainage ditch flowlines.
Reduce potential wetlands impacts.
Reduce berm sizes. Avoid abandoning wells.
USACE relief wells would have to be installed by the time of
certification.
Avoid realigning and raising power lines.
5
LWR - Multi-phase approach to a high cost area. Deep
Cutoff wall, Sta. 132+00 to 194+50.
Potential significant cost savings by reducing wall size. Alternative may not be subject to COE cost sharing.
5a Use 2D modeling to reduce or eliminate wall. Potential significant wetlands impacts.
5b Examine possibility of moving cutoff wall to toe of levee.
Constructibility and cost issues in crossing highway with
cutoff wall.
Potential to weaken existing levee where cutoff wall is on the
land side.
6 Reduce berm sizes. Current limits of construction overlap residential lots.
Potentially avoid installing new relief wells.
Reduce or eliminate clay cap.
Avoid some wetlands impacts.
Reduce berm size. May require hybrid solution and T-Type wells
Avoid contruction limits/limits of disturbance impacting
neighboring residences.
Reduce berm and culvert cost Pond bottom elevation is unknown.
Avoid or reduce wetlands impact. Berm reduces storm water storage.
10
LWR - Use 2D analysis to reduce/eliminate cost of ditch fill
and new 72-inch culvert. Sta 594+00 to 608+00
Reduce cost of expensive culvert. Current flow in exisitng ditch must not be restricted.
8
9
LWR - Use 2D modeling to reduce /eliminate berm and new
relief wells, stations 569+00 to 577+00.
2
4
3
LWR - Use 2D modeling to eliminate/reduce large berm and
72" culvert. Sta. 595+00
Wood River Value Engineering/Design Optimization Items
UWR - Use 2D finite element modeling to examine
alternatives to reduce or eleminate berms and relief wells at
stations 213+00 to 222+50.(South of water treatment plant).
LWR - Use 2D modeling and assume that planned USACE
relief wells are installed to reduce/elimate berms. Sta.
195+00 to 207+00
LWR - Use 2D modeling to reduce/elimate berms and relief
wells 548+00 to 569+00
LWR - Reexamine flooding elevations, hydrology and
hydraulics, and potentially use 2D modeling to reduce or
eliminate clay cap from about 565+00 to 630+00.
7
Examine feasibility of moving cutoff wall to riverside toe of
the levee. Stations 21+00 to 32+00 and 54+55 to 118+00
MESD Value Engineer/Design Optimization Items
Note the value engineering/design optimization alternatives generally require modeling or, in a few cases, additional field information
At the time of preparing this list, boring data is being collected for reaches from Sta. 987-1013, 1209-1219, 1305-1320,
Finite Element (either 2D or 3D) modeling is ongoing in most of the identified items
Item Description Potential Benefits Likely Considerations
1
Revised unit cost for Deep Cutoff Walls may be set to $32/sf (Reference Line 6 of
Cost Est.)
Reduce overall cost of cutoff walls in MESD by $1.8M
2 Reduce berm slopes from 2% to max. 1.33% or to actual berm shape Reduce volume of berm material required possible water ponding in some areas
3
Deep cutoff wall 781-791; evaluate with SEEP/W to see if gradients necessitate
cutoff wall
Reduction in quantity of cutoff wall by 100,000 SF Add 12 D-type RWs over this reach
Plan for Rehab of 30% of existing RWs
4
Replace Deep cutoff wall between Stations 1209-1219 with a Berm/RW hybrid
solution
Reduction in quantity of cutoff wall by 140,000 SF
Addition of Seepage Berm over this 1000-ft length including land acquisition and
negotiations with industry
Addition of T-type Relief wells
Additional consideration of surface water conveyance
5
Use 2D modeling to reduce the berm widths/depths at Dead Creek; Sta. 1291+40,
1298+09, 1304+55
Reduce volume of berm material required may require hybrid solution with T-type wells
Reduce acreage of wetland impacts
Reduce acreage of land acquisition
Reduce or eliminate cost for relocation of Dead Creek
Maintain water storage areas
6 Use 2D modeling to reduce the berm widths/depths bwteen Sta. 1320 and 1349 Reduce volume of berm material required may require hybrid solution with T-type wells
Reduce acreage of land acquisition
Maintain water storage areas
Eliminate/reduce need to put blue water ditch in a box culvert
7 Use 2D modeling to reduce the berm widths/depths bwteen Sta. 1219 and 1239 Reduce volume of berm material required may require hybrid solution with T-type wells
Reduce acreage of land acquisition
Maintain water storage areas
Reduce need to route surface water and remove need to relocate Phillips Pump
Station
Possibly eliminate need to relocate power poles
8 Use 2D modeling to reduce the berm widths/depths bwteen Sta. 1268 and 1344 Reduce volume of berm material required
Reduce acreage of wetland impacts
Reduce acreage of land acquisition
Maintain water storage areas
9 Use 2D modeling to reduce the berm widths/depths bwteen Sta.962 and 972 Reduce volume of berm material required
Reduce acreage of wetland impacts
Reduce acreage of land acquisition
Maintain water storage areas
10
Re-evaluate using 2D finite element model the effectiveness of 40' cutoff between
Stations 987 and 1013 in light of identified section of toe drain and new field data to
confirm existence or absence of clay layer at 40'
Possible reduction in length of cutoff wall Seepage controls may require additional relief wells
Existing relief wells and toe drain may require rehabilitation
11 Use 2D modeling to reduce the berm widths/depths at Sta. 1492 Eliminate need for berm to provide seepage control in this area Seepage control may require rehabilitation of existing relief wells
12 Use 2D or 3D modeling to reduce the number of relief wells at Sta. 1499+54 Reduce number of new relief wells required
13
Move cutoff wall from crest of levee to river side toe of levee between Sta. 1304 and
1319
Reduce quantity of deep cutoff wall quantity by approximately 37,500 SF Additional wetland impacts
Additional land acquisition
Requires flush clay cap construction along additional ±500 LF
Note the value engineering/design optimization alternatives generally require modeling or, in a few cases, additional field information
Finite Element (either 2D or 3D) modeling is ongoing in most of the identified items
Item Description Potential Benefits Likely Considerations
1
Reduce berm slopes from 2% to max. 1.33% or to
actual berm shape (levee-wide)
Reduce volume of berm material required possible water ponding in some areas
Reduce volume of berm material required
Reduce acreage of wetland impacts
Reduce acreage of land acquisition
Reduce or eliminate cost for relocation of Dead Creek
Maintain water storage areas
Active vs Passive flood control
Increased maintenance cost for syphon/pump for
district with small O&M budget
PdP/FL Value Engineer/Design Optimization Items
may require hybrid solution
Eliminate need for berm/well solution
Use 2D finite element modeling to underseepage
control in North/South Elbow and at Stations 467+95 -
471+25
2
3 Water berm solution from Station 560+00 to 620+00



A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X

5


SWIFPDC
VALUE ENGINEERING WORKSHOP
March 28-31, 2011
2
Value Engineering Workshop Outline
 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
 Geotechnical Engineering Analysis
 Findings & Recommendations
 Risk Assessment
 Contract Packaging / Delivery Method
 Wood River (WR) Levee Discussion
–Deficiencies & Solutions
–Value Engineering Considerations
 Metro East Sanitary District (MESD) Levee Discussion
–Deficiencies & Solutions
–Value Engineering Considerations
 Prairie du Pont / Fish Lake (PDP/FL) Levee Discussion
–Deficiencies & Solutions
–Value Engineering Considerations
3
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
 From 44 CFR 65.10
4
Hydrology and Hydraulics –
Overview
 Two Specific H&H Analyses were Conducted:
 Hydraulic Evaluation and Freeboard Report to establish FEMA’s 1% (100-yr) Water Surface
Elevation on the wet-side of levees for Flank Tributaries.
 Interior Drainage Analysis to map predicted ponding areas on the dry-side of the levees
during a 1% flood event.
2. Interior Analysis (Dry-Side) 1. Freeboard Analysis (Wet-Side)
5
Hydrology and Hydraulics –
BFE and Freeboard Study (Wet-Side)
 Study Limits
The USACE Upper Mississippi River System Flood Frequency Study (Nov 2003)
was used to establish 1% flood elevations for the Mississippi River.
Wood River
Cahokia Creek
Indian Creek
PdP Canal
Carr Creek
6
Hydrology and Hydraulics –
BFE and Freeboard Study (Wet-Side)
 Study Approach
 Hydrologic Analysis to establish new 1% flood discharges was performed using the USACE
hydrologic computer model HEC-HMS.
 Hydrologic models were developed using existing conditions parameters for land-use and soils.
 Calibration targets were available from USGS gage data on Indian Creek and Cahokia Creek
(also transferable to the Wood River system)
 No calibration information was available for PdP Canal or Carr Creek.
 Hydraulic Analysis to establish new 1% flood elevations, based on the new discharges, was
performed using the USACE hydraulic computer model HEC-RAS.
 In all cases relied on newly collected field survey.
 The new flood elevations from the HEC-RAS models were only adopted if the resulting elevation
was greater than the 1% flood backwater from the Mississippi River.
 Assumed free-flowing conditions (industry standard).
7
Hydrology and Hydraulics –
BFE and Freeboard Study (Wet-Side)
 Study Results
Study Stream
1% Discharge
Comparison to FEMA
1% Flood Elevation
Comparison to FEMA
Freeboard
Implications
Wood River System
4% to 45% Reduction
0 to 4 feet lower No Impact to Freeboard
Cahokia and Indian
Creek
15% to 53% Reduction 1 ft to 5 ft lower No Impact to Freeboard
PdP Canal 7% Reduction 0.2 feet higher No Impact to Freeboard
Carr Creek 12% to 19% Increase 0 to 4 feet higher
No Impact to Freeboard
8
Hydrology and Hydraulics –
Interior Drainage (Dry-Side)
 Study Limits
 Wood River System (28 square miles of drainage area)
 MESD (212 sq. miles – includes much of Chain of Rocks)
 PdP / Fish Lake (30 square miles of drainage area)
9
Hydrology and Hydraulics –
Interior Drainage (Dry-Side)
Study Approach
1. Exterior 1% flood elevations
taken from previous study
(HEC-RAS on wet-side)
2. Interior Flooding Conditions
simulated using PC-SWMM
computer model (unsteady
flow, continuous simulation)
10
Hydrology and Hydraulics –
Interior Drainage (Dry-Side)
 Study Approach (cont.)
3. Joint Probability Analysis is Conducted to Establish 1% Scenario
11
Hydrology and Hydraulics –
Interior Drainage (Dry-Side)
 Study Approach (cont.)
4. Floodplains Plotted
12
Geotechnical Engineering Analysis
 From 44 CFR 65.10
13
Geotechnical Engineering Analysis
 Analysis Methodology: “Leaky Blanket” & Finite Element
 Design Flood: 1% Chance Exceedence
(Base Flood)
– MS RIVER: UMRSFFS (USACE)
– Tributary: UMRSFFS & New Hydraulic
Analyses
 Factors of Safety: Sliding Factor
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0 4 8 12 16 20
F
a
c
t
o
r

o
f

S
a
f
e
t
y

(
F
O
S
)
Distance from Levee Toe / Levee Height (X/H)
FOS=1.6 FOS=1.0
14
Geotechnical Engineering Analysis
 Embankment/Foundation Stability/Seepage:
 Load Cases:
» Normal Pool – Landside & Riverside
» Normal Pool w/ Pseudo-static Load – Landside & Riverside
» Base Flood – Landside & Riverside
» Sudden Drawdown – Riverside only
 Through-Seepage/Stability
15
Geotechnical Engineering Analysis
 Underseepage
16
Geotechnical Engineering Analysis
 Underseepage Solution Decision Process
Control
Needed?
Select Relief Wells
Are RW
Adequate?
Is spacing
> 50 feet
Are Berms
Adequate?
** Significant
Constraints?
Select Berms
Use Cutoff Walls
**Constraints refer to physical features
No Action
Yes
No
No
No
Yes Yes Yes
Yes
No
No
17
Underseepage: Relief Wells
Findings & Recommendations –
Risk Assessment
Pros:
 Low capital cost
 Least impact to wetlands
 Least impact to cultural
resources
 Small footprint
Cons:
 May require control of
discharge
 O&M cost
18
Underseepage: Seepage Berms
Findings & Recommendations –
Risk Assessment
Pros:
 Controls higher seepage
gradients
 Low maintenance costs
Cons:
 Higher capital cost
 Potential wetlands impact
 Potential cultural resources
impact
 Restricts land use
19
Underseepage: Cutoff Walls
Findings & Recommendations –
Risk Assessment
Pros:
 Continuous underseepage
protection
 No maintenance costs
Cons:
 Highest capital cost
 Potential impact to
wetlands/cultural resources
 Performance – Levee/Wall
20
Through-seepage: Clay Caps
Findings & Recommendations –
Risk Assessment
Pros:
 Most cost-effective solution
Cons:
 Requires construction on
existing embankment
21
Findings & Recommendations –
Contract Packaging/Delivery Method
 Prequalification of relief well contractors
 Design-build for cutoff walls
 Design-bid-build for specific contract packages
 Owner supplied materials
22
Wood River
 Freeboard: No Issue
 Interior Drainage: Sliplined culverts (~5,000 LF)
 Through-seepage: 3 areas require solution
–UWR: 2 shallow cutoff wall
–LWR: 1 area with clay cap
 Underseepage: 40% of levee requires
control
–Solution(s): Berms, relief wells, cutoff walls
and/or water-
filled ditches
Findings & Recommendations –
Deficiencies & Solutions
23
Findings & Recommendations –
Deficiencies & Solutions
24
Findings & Recommendations –
Value Engineering
Considerations
Item Description Potential Benefits Likely Concerns
1
Reduce berm slopes form 2% to max 1.33& or to actual
berm shape (levee-wide)
Reduce volume of berm material required Possible water ponding in some areas
Reduce square footage of cutoff reducing cost.
If cutoff wall is moved a clay cap may be required, reducing
cost savings.
Working area may affect local businesses.
Reduce berm, culvert and relief well abandonment costs. Must maintain drainage ditch flowlines.
Reduce potential wetlands impacts.
Reduce berm sizes. Avoid abandoning wells.
USACE relief wells would have to be installed by the time of
certification.
Avoid realigning and raising power lines.
5
LWR - Multi-phase approach to a high cost area. Deep
Cutoff wall, Sta. 132+00 to 194+50.
Potential significant cost savings by reducing wall size. Alternative may not be subject to COE cost sharing.
5a Use 2D modeling to reduce or eliminate wall. Potential significant wetlands impacts.
5b Examine possibility of moving cutoff wall to toe of levee.
Constructibility and cost issues in crossing highway with
cutoff wall.
Potential to weaken existing levee where cutoff wall is on the
land side.
6 Reduce berm sizes. Current limits of construction overlap residential lots.
Potentially avoid installing new relief wells.
Reduce or eliminate clay cap.
Avoid some wetlands impacts.
Reduce berm size. May require hybrid solution and T-Type wells
Avoid contruction limits/limits of disturbance impacting
neighboring residences.
Reduce berm and culvert cost Pond bottom elevation is unknown.
Avoid or reduce wetlands impact. Berm reduces storm water storage.
10
LWR - Use 2D analysis to reduce/eliminate cost of ditch fill
and new 72-inch culvert. Sta 594+00 to 608+00
Reduce cost of expensive culvert. Current flow in exisitng ditch must not be restricted.
8
9
LWR - Use 2D modeling to reduce /eliminate berm and new
relief wells, stations 569+00 to 577+00.
2
4
3
LWR - Use 2D modeling to eliminate/reduce large berm and
72" culvert. Sta. 595+00
Wood River Value Engineering/Design Optimization Items
UWR - Use 2D finite element modeling to examine
alternatives to reduce or eleminate berms and relief wells at
stations 213+00 to 222+50.(South of water treatment plant).
LWR - Use 2D modeling and assume that planned USACE
relief wells are installed to reduce/elimate berms. Sta.
195+00 to 207+00
LWR - Use 2D modeling to reduce/elimate berms and relief
wells 548+00 to 569+00
LWR - Reexamine flooding elevations, hydrology and
hydraulics, and potentially use 2D modeling to reduce or
eliminate clay cap from about 565+00 to 630+00.
7
Examine feasibility of moving cutoff wall to riverside toe of
the levee. Stations 21+00 to 32+00 and 54+55 to 118+00
25
MESD
 Freeboard: No Issue
» Bathtub bridge will require MOU with RR
 Interior Drainage: Sliplined culverts (~5,470 LF)
Relocation of pump station
 Through-seepage: 1 area requires solution
 Underseepage: 25% of levee requires
control
–Solution(s): Berms, Relief Wells, Cutoff
Walls
Findings & Recommendations –
Deficiencies & Solutions
26
Findings & Recommendations –
Deficiencies & Solutions
27
Findings & Recommendations –
Value Engineering
Considerations
MESD Value Engineer/Design Optimization Items
Note the value engineering/design optimization alternatives generally require modeling or, in a few cases, additional field information
At the time of preparing this list, boring data is being collected for reaches from Sta. 987-1013, 1209-1219, 1305-1320,
Finite Element (either 2D or 3D) modeling is ongoing in most of the identified items
Item Description Potential Benefits Likely Considerations
1
Revised unit cost for Deep Cutoff Walls may be set to $32/sf (Reference Line 6 of
Cost Est.)
Reduce overall cost of cutoff walls in MESD by $1.8M
2 Reduce berm slopes from 2% to max. 1.33% or to actual berm shape Reduce volume of berm material required possible water ponding in some areas
3
Deep cutoff wall 781-791; evaluate with SEEP/W to see if gradients necessitate
cutoff wall
Reduction in quantity of cutoff wall by 100,000 SF Add 12 D-type RWs over this reach
Plan for Rehab of 30% of existing RWs
4
Replace Deep cutoff wall between Stations 1209-1219 with a Berm/RW hybrid
solution
Reduction in quantity of cutoff wall by 140,000 SF
Addition of Seepage Berm over this 1000-ft length including land acquisition and
negotiations with industry
Addition of T-type Relief wells
Additional consideration of surface water conveyance
5
Use 2D modeling to reduce the berm widths/depths at Dead Creek; Sta. 1291+40,
1298+09, 1304+55
Reduce volume of berm material required may require hybrid solution with T-type wells
Reduce acreage of wetland impacts
Reduce acreage of land acquisition
Reduce or eliminate cost for relocation of Dead Creek
Maintain water storage areas
6 Use 2D modeling to reduce the berm widths/depths bwteen Sta. 1320 and 1349 Reduce volume of berm material required may require hybrid solution with T-type wells
Reduce acreage of land acquisition
Maintain water storage areas
Eliminate/reduce need to put blue water ditch in a box culvert
7 Use 2D modeling to reduce the berm widths/depths bwteen Sta. 1219 and 1239 Reduce volume of berm material required may require hybrid solution with T-type wells
Reduce acreage of land acquisition
Maintain water storage areas
Reduce need to route surface water and remove need to relocate Phillips Pump
Station
Possibly eliminate need to relocate power poles
8 Use 2D modeling to reduce the berm widths/depths bwteen Sta. 1268 and 1344 Reduce volume of berm material required
Reduce acreage of wetland impacts
Reduce acreage of land acquisition
Maintain water storage areas
9 Use 2D modeling to reduce the berm widths/depths bwteen Sta.962 and 972 Reduce volume of berm material required
Reduce acreage of wetland impacts
Reduce acreage of land acquisition
Maintain water storage areas
10
Re-evaluate using 2D finite element model the effectiveness of 40' cutoff between
Stations 987 and 1013 in light of identified section of toe drain and new field data to
confirm existence or absence of clay layer at 40'
Possible reduction in length of cutoff wall Seepage controls may require additional relief wells
Existing relief wells and toe drain may require rehabilitation
11 Use 2D modeling to reduce the berm widths/depths at Sta. 1492 Eliminate need for berm to provide seepage control in this area Seepage control may require rehabilitation of existing relief wells
12 Use 2D or 3D modeling to reduce the number of relief wells at Sta. 1499+54 Reduce number of new relief wells required
13
Move cutoff wall from crest of levee to river side toe of levee between Sta. 1304 and
1319
Reduce quantity of deep cutoff wall quantity by approximately 37,500 SF Additional wetland impacts
Additional land acquisition
Requires flush clay cap construction along additional ±500 LF
28
Prairie du Pont & Fish Lake
 Freeboard: No Issue
» Bathtub bridge will require MOU with RR
 Interior Drainage: Sliplined culverts (~280 LF)
 Through-seepage: 3 areas require clay caps
 Underseepage: 40% of levee requires
control
–Solution(s): Berms and/or Relief Wells
Findings & Recommendations –
Deficiencies & Solutions
29
Findings & Recommendations –
Deficiencies & Solutions
30
Note the value engineering/design optimization alternatives generally require modeling or, in a few cases, additional field information
Finite Element (either 2D or 3D) modeling is ongoing in most of the identified items
Item Description Potential Benefits Likely Considerations
1
Reduce berm slopes from 2% to max. 1.33% or to
actual berm shape (levee-wide)
Reduce volume of berm material required possible water ponding in some areas
Reduce volume of berm material required
Reduce acreage of wetland impacts
Reduce acreage of land acquisition
Reduce or eliminate cost for relocation of Dead Creek
Maintain water storage areas
Active vs Passive flood control
Increased maintenance cost for syphon/pump for
district with small O&M budget
PdP/FL Value Engineer/Design Optimization Items
may require hybrid solution
Eliminate need for berm/well solution
Use 2D finite element modeling to underseepage
control in North/South Elbow and at Stations 467+95 -
471+25
2
3 Water berm solution from Station 560+00 to 620+00
Findings & Recommendations –
Value Engineering
Considerations


A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X

6


General Comments and Questions

1. Seepage berm slope. Request clarification from COE concerning changing the 2% to
minimum 1.33% slope or sloped to drain requirement?
Answer: AMEC’s design will use a minimum slope of 1V:75H (1.33%) on the surface of
the berms, in accordance with our design criteria and COE design manuals.
2. Sliding Factor of Safety – related to uplift. Figure 1 of AMEC geotech handout, pg 3/5.
The term ‘sliding’ is misleading. Suggest replacing ‘sliding’ with ‘variable’. Related
comment: Should four times ‘levee height’ be four times ‘hydraulic height’?
Answer: We can consider using “variable.” AMEC’s design used 4 times net levee
grade.
3. Comment referencing Richard Bird with URS about factor of safety applied to horizontal
permeability, k
h
, - may not be COE policy. Suggest not publishing this as it may
eliminate federal matching funds as it may not align with COE policy. Suggest a
‘conservative factor of safety’ was used.
Answer: This seems reasonable.
4. Wood River section deep cutoff wall – Will relief wells work? It withstood the 1993
flood with remedial action. Can a narrative on design and decision making be provided?
Answer: Analysis shows relief wells will not work for the majority of this wall alignment.
We are re-evaluating several areas and options. See attached sheet for more information
on this topic.
5. Does the cutoff wall tie into something at the ends to cut off all of the highly permeable
material at depth.
Answer: This question relates to end effects (flow around the ends of the walls). We are
currently conducting 3-D modeling to further evaluate end effects. At this time, the
design includes either overlapping or adjacent underseepage controls at each end of a
cutoff wall. The need for, and length of, these will be revisited based on modeling results.
6. LWR: We suggest that drawdown tests be done – we will try to find the ASTM test
procedure. Measure velocity of water entering the screen. Bottom layer above the top of
rock may be highly conductive. Relief wells set at this level might sufficiently modify
hydraulic gradients. This test may permit more accurate 3-d modeling to be performed.
Answer: This is not currently planned, but we will consider the suggestions.
7. In stretches where alternating relief wells and berms are used, have you considered using
a more uniform solution, say, a combination of wells and berms with a constant berm
width with variable well spacing?
Answer: As we conduct our value engineering, we are looking a hybrid berm/well
solutions, as well as re-evaluating berm sizes using 2-D models.
8. Can stick logs/x-sections with boring info, and plan and profiles be provided for critical
areas – zones with cut off walls and/or closely spaced relief wells?
Answer: We will send some examples cross sections under separate cover.
9. We see relief wells being grouting and abandoned; and replaced with seepage berms. Can
you use or rehabilitate the wells and add new wells at a lower cost?
Answer: We are evaluating hybrid solutions which might utilize existing wells along with
a berm. If this is feasible, existing wells may continue to be utilized. Otherwise, where
relief well solutions are not adequate and berms are planned, we have assumed this
places the wells officially out of service, requiring proper abandonment under state
regulations.
10. Has the use of flyash, bottom ash or blast furnace slag been considered for use for fill for
the berms?
Answer: Ash (and other general debris fills) were discussed and rejected as options
because of the environmental concerns associated with EPA potentially classifying this
material as RCRA regulated waste. Blast furnace slag was not discussed.
11. What is the confidence level for the cost of the disposal of cuttings for the cutoff wall in
MESD Sauget, IL? Please provide a description of how you arrived at the $6,000,000
figure.
Answer: We have significant environmental documentation of superfund sites along the
levee alignment in this area and determined we should include a budget for handling of
hazardous and special waste streams. Within MESD, the budget number for Hazardous
Waste and Special Waste was determined based on a (conservative) expected quantity of
cutoff wall located within the Sauget area (levee reach south of Poplar St. Bridge to PdP
Canal). Within MESD this includes two sections of proposed cutoff wall- one about 1000
feet long adjacent to Phillips Pipline Co,. and about 800 feet of the southernmost cutoff
wall along the MS riverfront levee. An assumed split of 80% hazardous waste and 20%
special waste was used for pricing.
12. What is the ‘roadway work’ item included in the estimate and how will these funds be
used?
Answer: The current cost estimate does not include a line item for restoration of roads
damaged as part of the levee improvement construction. We do not anticipate that a
significant number of private/levee roads will be traveled. We will evaluate haul routes
as part of the next submittal and add a line item for restoration of private/levee roads if
appropriate. If load limit restrictions are observed by the contractor, they will not be
responsible for restoration of public roads.
13. Carr Creek freeboard determination - upper end needs to be one half foot higher - see
freeboard criteria hydraulic page 5 for each reach. Please clarify as to where overtopping
should occur. We suggest that the text clearly state that levee overtopping occur at the
downstream end of the levee segment first. How does the levee relate to the hydraulic
gradient?
Answer: Per the analysis, Carr Creek meets FEMA requirements throughout the study
reach for freeboard requirements against the 1% event. FEMA requires an additional
1.0 feet of freeboard in and around constrictions, such as bridges, and ½ foot of
freeboard at the upstream end of a levee system to build conservatism into these locations
where there is inherently some uncertainly due to contraction. AMEC’s analysis, for the
purposes of certification, only looked at the frequency events up to the 500-year event
(0.2% event). We did not perform an overtopping analysis, so we cannot predict which
portions of the levee system would be overtopped first in an extreme event without more
analysis.
The hydraulic gradient throughout is relatively flat, except at locations of head
differential upstream and downstream of bridge crossings. The delta between computed
water surface elevation and energy grade line for Carr Creek ranges from 0.07 feet to
1.45 feet.


Further information for question 4
Lower Wood River “elbow” - Station 132+00 to 194+50. Underseepage controls are needed.
Four repair options have been evaluated during the 30% design phase. These are all being re-
evaluated using more detailed computer models. In addition, we are re-evaluating the upper end
of the wall in view of the COE plan to remediate using relief wells.

Option 1 is to construct a slurry cutoff from the levee crest from Sta. 132+00 to 187+00 about
155 to 160 ft deep (5 ft into shale bedrock). The approximate face area of this cutoff is about
880,000 sq ft [(18,700-13,200)*(160)]. If a cutoff is constructed, no additional seepage control
measures are required. The existing relief wells could either be abandoned or left as they are. A
variation of this option is to install the slurry cutoff from the riverside toe of the levee, which
would decrease the construction cost of the wall by reducing the depth of the cutoff by 20 to 25
ft, and the face area by about 124,000 sq ft [(18,700-13,200)*22.5)], potentially reducing the
cost. The feasibility of the riverside cutoff option is being further evaluated.
Option 2 consists of filling a large portion of the low ground landward to the levee to about El.
424. All of the existing wells would be abandoned. No other seepage control measures would be
required. The fill extents and elevations will be refined in final design. The top area of the fill is
about 80 acres. Assuming El. 410 is the average elevation of the low area, the approximate
volume of fill required to El. 424 is 1.8 million cy.
Option 3 consists of filling the low ground to El. 418 and raising the outlets of the existing 39
relief wells to El. 418. New wells would be installed between the existing wells from Sta.
155+00 to 178+00 (approximately 20 new wells). The number of new wells and the elevations of
the fill will be refined in final design. Assuming El. 410 is the average elevation of the low area,
about 1,000,000cy of fill are required to fill to El. 418. The estimated difference in the quantity
of fill required for Option 2 (El. 424) and the fill required for Option 3 (El. 418) is about
800,000 cy. A variation of this would be to discharge the wells lower into a collector pipe in
order to decrease the required fill elevation and volume. The property requirement for Option 3
will be about the same as that required for Option 2.
Option 3 consists of filling the low ground to El. 418 and raising the outlets of the existing 39
relief wells to El. 418. New wells would be installed between the existing wells from Sta.
155+00 to 178+00 (approximately 20 new wells). The number of new wells and the elevations of
the fill will be refined in final design. Assuming El. 410 is the average elevation of the low area,
about 1,000,000cy of fill are required to fill to El. 418. The estimated difference in the quantity
of fill required for Option 2 (El. 424) and the fill required for Option 3 (El. 418) is about
800,000 cy. A variation of this would be to discharge the wells lower into a collector pipe in
order to decrease the required fill elevation and volume. The property requirement for Option 3
will be about the same as that required for Option 2. Like Option 2, this option requires further
research and evaluation.
Option 4 consists of relocating the levee around the low area and degrading the Wood River
flank levee to open the low area to the river. The grade of the existing highway would be raised
to the authorized flood protection grade riverward of the relocated levee. Advantages of this
option compared to Options 2 and 3 include minimizing wetland mitigation, land acquisition
costs, and fill volume. Earth resulting from the levee degrading could be used in the new levee,
minimizing offsite borrow costs. The existing 39 wells would be filled and abandoned.
Wood River
1. Addressed previously in comments sent this morning.
2. No comments offered.
3. Reexamine logs and determine why treatment plant has no berm or relief wells and
the area to the south of the WTP needs a substantial berm at a higher elevation. It
appears that the berm impacts the existing drainage significantly. Can we reduce the
berm height and length, and/or the culvert length? Can we add relief wells instead?
Answer: We are reexamining this area as part of our VE work and it appears an
aggregate drain in the ditches near the levee, possibly in conjunction with relief
wells, may provide control of underseepage, thereby eliminating the berm and
culvert.
4. Can we count on the COE to install the relief wells when we need them? Otherwise,
no comments offered.
Answer: The COE has awarded this contract, although the work has not yet started.
In general, we are coordinating closely with the COE to determine how their
solutions and timing will dovetail with AMEC solutions.
5. Addressed previously in comments sent this morning.
6. Agree to 2D modeling. Avoid filling wetlands and associated mitigation. Use relief
wells and limited berms. If the sand is shallow, consider a French drain instead of
relief wells.
Answer: We are re-evaluating these areas currently, and it appears a narrow
drainage berm may be capable of replacing some of these berms.
7. If clay cap is needed, consider reducing the thickness of the clay cap from 5 feet to 2
feet.
Answer: Based on new information, the clay cap is not needed.
8. No comments offered.
9. and 10. Fill less of the pond and use more relief wells. Filling the pond will involve
mitigation of wetlands. Also, look at sta. 590 +00 west of Canal road – could this be
a scour area? (Geomorphology and a boring or two?)
Answer: We are currently conducting VE analyses at the pond area to see if the pond
fill can be limited. The area from the pond north is being reviewed and it appears an
aggregate drain in the ditch may be able to replace the culvert. We have not seen
evidence of scour at 590+00 but will review as a precaution.
Additional Thoughts:
10. Sta 613+00 to 623+00. Do we need to fill in this area on the west side of the RR?
What is the basis for the recommendation to fill this area? What is the design water
surface elevation (flood condition) from Sta 600+00 to 660+00, and the related
ground surface elevation?
Answer: There are low areas (ditch, borrow pit) landside between 613 and 623 that
drive the exit gradients above the allowable levels and require underseepage
controls. From 630 to 661, the design water surface elevation is approximately equal
to the elevation at the top of the ditches along the embankment. Therefore, filling the
ditches means there will be no floodwater against the embankment.

Prairie du Pont
1. Item 1. Addressed previously in comments sent this morning.
2. Station 225+00 – what geologic info did you use to locate the proposed seepage
berm where it is? (Item 2.) 467+00 to 471+00 same question.
Answer: Subsurface information for these two reaches is being sent as an
attachment.
3. Item 3. Water berm solution requires further study.
Additional thoughts:
4. 685+00 elbow – need a 3-D analysis for underseepage. Think about where you want
to have the low section breach, perhaps at about 700+00?
Answer: We are considering a 3-D analysis for this area.
5. What do you have planned for 700+00 – COE had sand boils at this location in 1993.
Answer: The information about sand boils was recently provided to AMEC. The
underseepage analysis does not show that controls are needed (of course, the FEMA
event is a different water surface than 1993), but we will re-evaluate this area in
view of the new data.
6. Do you need for a clay cap between 310+00 and 320+00, and from 375+00 to
382+00?
Answer: The clay cap from 310 to 320 is being removed, and a cap is being added at
station 180 based on new information from district personnel. The cap from 375 to
382 is needed, based on historical reports from district personnel.
7. Sta 285+00 to 300+00 - In stretches where alternating relief wells and berms are
used, have you considered using a more uniform solution, say, a combination of
wells and berms with a constant berm width with variable well spacing? Same
question from sta 425+00 to 471+00.
Answer: As we conduct our value engineering, we are looking a hybrid berm/well
solutions, as well as re-evaluating berm sizes using 2-D models.
8. Sta 380+00 to 470+00 numerous sand boils occurred in 1993 per COE.
Answer: Our understanding is these were pin boils in 1993. We have relief wells
and berms in this general area, and we are looking at the feasibility of a water berm.

MESD Comments (Our item numbers below correspond to AMEC’s Design Optimization Items)
1. Allocate difference to contingency. No comments offered.
2. No new comment offered.
3. If your SeepW analyses conclude you need a cutoff wall, then perform a 3-D analysis at this
location.
Answer: We will consider this if cutoff wall remains part of design.
4. No comments offered.
5. Alternative to box culvert – would it be less expensive to relocate drainage around the berm,
especially if the berms are reduced in size? Cost of box culvert is $1.8 million. Create a
lagoon/lake here to relieve hydrostatic pressure at the end of berm?
Answer: The box culvert is at stations 1339 to 1349, and we are evaluating alternative solutions.
Re-routing the draining is an option; as we re-evaluate berm sizes through modeling it also may
be that less culvert will be required.
6. No comments offered.
7. No comments offered.
8. Abandoned WWTP demo is not in the estimate. Relief wells are being abandoned, berm added –
can you add relief wells, reduce or eliminate the berm, and avoid WWTP demolition. Follow up
and verify what MESD folks stated as to the presence of a cutoff wall in this vicinity. There is
concern about the partial filling of Cahokia pump station number 4 bay.
Answer: Portions of the WWTP may not need to be demolished. The berm fill can be modified to
avoid filling the pump station bay. In addition, the berms in this area are generally being re-
evaluated using 2-D models and may shrink. As we conduct our value engineering, we are
looking a hybrid berm/well solutions, as well as re-evaluating berm sizes using 2-D models. If the
reference is to the COE slurry wall at about sta 1322, it is about 900 feet long and was installed
from the crest to the bottom of the levee.
9. No comments offered.
10. Sta 987+50 to 1013+90. Assuming geology supports this approach, we agree with this approach.
We would like to see the basis for the design. Is the cutoff wall too far to the river side to create a
seal with the flood wall? Do you have enough borings to be confident the clay layer at 40 feet is
there continuously? Review construction drawings – there may be sheet pile walls at this
location.
Answer: We provided cross sections earlier today. The position of the cutoff wall relative to
centerline will be the subject of further review. Additional borings are pending. The
construction drawings and information we have reviewed to date indicate where sheet piles were
used they were generally not very deep (12 feet or thereabouts); all available information for this
area (including information to be obtained about the current conditions of the toe drain and relief
wells) will be considered during the next design phase.
11. No comments offered.
12. Nothing shown on plan. We do not understand this comment. Is the station number presented an
error?
Answer: It is not an error. Initial calculations showed a need for new relief wells at 1499.
Seepage modeling at an adjacent reach showed a significantly lower gradient for similar
conditions, so in the belief these wells will not be needed, they were not added to the plans. The
judgment needs to be confirmed with modeling.
13. Perform SeepW to see if you can move the cutoff wall to the toe. Because of the corner, we
suggest you perform 3-D analysis.
Answer: We are currently conducting 3-D analysis for end effects, and intend to follow with a 3-
D analysis to evaluate corner effects.
Additional thoughts:
14.

Campion Group,

LL C

P.O. Box 31515 St. Louis, Missouri 63131 Phone: 314.783.7233 E-mail: drcampion@yahoo.com

17 May 2011 Mr. Les Sterman Chief Supervisor of Construction and the Works Southwestern Illinois Flood Prevention District Council 104 United Drive Collinsville, Illinois 62234 Subject: Reference: Value Engineering Workshop Report - Final Levee System Design and Construction

Dear Mr. Sterman: I am pleased to submit the final report summarizing the Value Engineering Workshop held March 28-31, 2011. An electronic version of this report will also be provided. The workshop went very well, I believe, and the method used proved to be most productive as it engaged the designer not only at the opening and exit, but also during the actual value engineering activities. Furthermore, using the last day to seek closure on each and every item paid dividends and was only possible by having collaborated with the designer through written comments and questions to them during the workshop, and their quick responses. We will, with your approval, make this report available to the designer in electronic form. Please advise me whatever number of hard copies, if any, you may desire. Sincerely,

Douglas R. Campion Owner/Principal Enclosure

“Doing the right things, not just doing things right!”

.

2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Findings & Recommendations Value Engineering Team PROJECT DESCRIPTION & BACKGROUND VALUE ENGINEERING OBJECTIVES VALUE ENGINEERING PROCESS Information – Design Documents Information – Designer Presentation VE Review – Team’ Developed Comments & Questions WRAP UP AND NEXT STEPS APPENDICES 1. Workshop Agenda & Attendance sheets 2. Plan sheets for each of the four principal levee distracts and Profiles illustrating basic features under study 3. AMEC value engineering/design optimization items 5. AMEC project overview and status presentation 6. LLC Value Engineering Workshop Report Page 1 of 14 .REPORT OF THE VALUE ENGINEERING WORKSHOP Southwestern Illinois Flood Prevention District Levees March 28-31. VE Team Written Comments/Questions and AMEC Responses PAGE 2 5 7 7 13 Campion Group. Preliminary cost estimate 4.

(AMEC) through the course of the workshop. AMEC Earth & Environmental. Also. This alternative could prove very cost-effective and still perform the functional requirements.. but also provides a potential location for storm water runoff storage. hop scotch pattern currently laid out in many areas. In some locations. The key recommendations from this VE Workshop include the following: 1. where the top stratum is very thin and the required berms are very long and/or closely spaced relief wells are used. The pond must be set back from the levee or berm to maintain an adequate slope stability factor of safety. not only provides seepage pressure relief. e. It is never too early to value engineer every project. This report. and convey water to pump stations. Missouri. 2. it is expressly understood that AMEC is very early into the design and it is not uncommon for further analysis to find reasonable alternatives that may significantly reduce scope. at a minimum. and information already suggests a significant reduction in the required cutoff wall along Wood River. To control the exit gradient these ponds should be excavated into the sand aquifer. This was done at Earth City. A gravel filter blanket can be added to the bottom of the pond if there is a concern about small boils forming in the pond. the southern flank of Prairie Du Pont/ Fish Lake. This is particular the case at Wood River. or relief well/ pond (water berm) solutions. and costs. It is believed these can be reduced. inclusive of its Appendices.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Findings & Recommendations The Value Engineering (VE) Team was pleased with the cooperation and collaborative and professional conduct exhibited by the designer. thereby also reducing the amount of real estate acquisition otherwise required. and consequent costs. using 3D modeling as well. more detailed design will also uncover opportunities to reduce scope. without harming functionality. a borrow source for seepage berms or clay cap fill elsewhere on the project. More analysis should be done. Reduction and/or elimination altogether of cutoff walls. These are very expensive solutions and may be replaced through further analysis of hybrid relief well/ seepage berm solutions. The water berm or permanent lake idea (like Earth city). when it is clearer what solutions may accomplish the prime objective. Campion Group. A hybrid relief wells/seepage berm solution may better fit the need than the disjointed. LLC Value Engineering Workshop Report Page 2 of 14 . While saying that. that being certification for the 100 year flood level of protection rather than a higher level. Inc. provides details on what the objectives were for the workshop and the findings and recommendations developed for consideration now or in the early stages of the final design phase. and may create new wetlands to offset wetlands losses elsewhere. an option would be to excavate a pond or lake to relieve seepage. The tone was very collegial and with the best interests of the project at the forefront. 3. The gradient can best be determined using a program such as Seep/W.g. store seepage and storm water. The length of currently proposed cutoff wall solutions and depths as much as 160 feet are of concern.

Where there is debate about the use of such specification. The VE workshop was led by Douglas R. 7. This will be a major item of expense and there are concerns about where the amount of material will come from. Geotechnical.) Christopher B. It is not too soon to begin to investigate and identify sources of material for seepage berms. before design progresses too far.E.E. Inc. P. P. Some of this contingency will be allocated to line items of cost or specific time to perform issues with certain construction. There must be a reasoned cost and schedule contingency analysis developed that reflects the uncertainties inherent in such a project. (Shannon & Wilson. especially the source(s) to obtain the clay material needed for both berms and clay caps. Wade & Moerchen. serving both as the facilitator and an active participant. LLC. Homann.4. LLC Value Engineering Workshop Report Page 3 of 14 .E.E. The other members of the VE Team were: MEMBER/ AFFILIATION Craig D. Kottemann.) VE CONCENTRATION Environmental.) Geotechnical. Specifications that mirror the U. Real Estate Costs Hydrology and Hydraulics Hydrology and Hydraulics John E. But there also must be unallocated contingency available to handle the real unknowns that too often crop up on capital projects. (Thouvenot. P.S. Campion Group. P. Inc. P. Inc.) John S. Campion. Groves. Wade & Moerchen.) Suzanne Goldak. P. (Thouvenot. 6. this should be resolved as quickly as possible by presentation of the alternate to the Corps and seeking immediate closure on acceptance. as it should be. COE specifications should wherever appropriate be adopted and used.E. Brauer. Shively. The existing 7% total contingency (presumably both allocated and unallocated) is simply believed to be far too little at this early stage of design. a Division of Environmental Operations. including the potential for long hauling costs.) Paul K. Geotechnical (Shively Geotechnical. Levee Design Campion Group. a Division of Environmental Operations. as well as miss elements of work that costs are not developed for.E. Inc. 5. Construction (Shively Geotechnical. Wade & Moerchen. Value Engineering Team The value engineering team was assembled by the Council’s project management oversight consultant. Inc. (Thouvenot. Cost estimating ought to immediately begin to correlate to both a definitive Work Breakdown Structured project and to proposed contractual specifications to be utilized. Inc. Without such care there is too much a potential to inadvertently mask scope and cost creep.

Prairie Du Pont/Fisk Lake districts USACE Requirements.S.Gregory Bertoglio (U. LLC Value Engineering Workshop Report Page 4 of 14 . Levee Construction Campion Group. Army Corps of Engineers) James Worts (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) USACE Requirements.

Their risk analysis looked at design height and under-seepage problems. The Corps of Engineers is still working to define actual Campion Group. but also by all communities that have a stake in the economic vitality of our region. therefore. LLC Value Engineering Workshop Report Page 5 of 14 . This region represents the second largest concentration of population in the Mississippi Corridor (after New Orleans) and a collaborative effort should be successful in obtaining the funds necessary to improve the levees. These levees extend from Wood River south to Prairie Du Pont and Fish Lake. plus old pumps and drainage tiles (Wood River Levee built 1938) that led the Corps to determine the levees are not adequate and need repair to be certified. The probability of levee decertification will cause massive costs to existing individuals and businesses and cripple economic growth and investment in our region. FEMA announced that its intention is to disaccredit the five Mississippi River levees and. and communities will need to adopt development ordinances that include strict requirements for building in flood zones. The 100 year flood map revision will determine which homes and businesses will be potentially subject to flooding and therefore required to buy costly flood insurance. five levees in the Metro East are at risk of failing due to structural deficiencies in the levees. no longer certify the levees as capable of protecting the region from a 100 year flood. Most of the American Bottoms from the Mississippi River to Bluff Road is at risk. there are significant economic consequences that will cloud future economic growth in a large area of southwestern Illinois. even at the current favorable rate. This potential action will affect almost a third of the population of the Illinois portion of the St. putting them at future financial risk. It is the under seepage. Many homeowners may not be able to afford flood insurance. The consequences will be felt not only by areas that could be in jeopardy of flooding. Communicate Risk.PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND According to FEMA and the Corps of Engineers. and Solve" the problem. While the first concern is public safety and the increased risk of catastrophic flooding. The Corps of Engineers describe their goal as to "Assess. Louis area and many critical businesses that are the foundation of our local economy. Federally regulated financial institutions may not be able to issue loans to homeowners or businesses that don't carry adequate flood insurance.

a qualified consulting firm. and have the resultant levees certified to FEMA that they meet the 100 year flood protection requirement. The SWILFPDC procured the services of AMEC Earth & Environmental. LLC Value Engineering Workshop Report Page 6 of 14 . the Southwestern Illinois Flood Prevention District Council (SWIFPDC) was formed and staffed. LLC. 2011 at which time the VE Team met and performed its review of the design progress material provided by AMEC. perform preliminary engineering and final design for repairing the levees.25 percent sales tax within the three affected southwestern Illinois counties. provide construction management services. but costs could range from $120 -150 million. undertake the design and construction to repair them. Inc. This report provides a summary of the Value Engineering Workshop held on March 28-31. 2009. Not knowing if and when the Corps might get Congressional authorization and appropriations to undertake the requisite levee repairs. to undertake the necessary analyses of the levees to determine where there were deficiencies. This tax went into effect January 1. to support the Council’s Chief Supervisor of Construction and the Works by way of providing project management oversight of AMEC and future construction contractors through to FEMA acceptance of the levees as being 100 year flood protection certified. and other funding from the impacted levee districts. Current policy of the federal government is that all Corps projects require a 35 percent local match. the region was able to secure state legislation enabling it to establish a . (AMEC). and ultimately certify the repaired levees as able to meet the 100 year flood protection criteria of FEMA. A key component of the project management oversight services is the conduct of a value engineering program. The SWILFPDC also procured the services of Campion Group. inclusive of a workshop to bring qualified technical specialists together to review the design plans and supporting design analysis in an attempt to both validate the proposed design solutions as well as strive to find less costly solutions without adversely affecting the functionality of the designed repairs. Its goal is to investigate the levees for deficiencies. With these funds. assist in contracting for the construction of the repairs.costs to improve the levees. Campion Group.

LLC Value Engineering Workshop Report Page 7 of 14 . Because of this forewarning. of the levees) depicting areas where deficiencies were found and solutions were recommended. Also. adopt for final design. Consequently. Nor was the VE Team to look at lifecycle cost. Rather. It results in the orderly utilization of low cost alternative materials. provided a solution meets the functional requirements for levee repair. VALUE ENGINEERING PROCESS INFORMATION – DESIGN DOCUMENTS In advance of Workshop AMEC provided a progress set of drawings (plans and profiles of most. and abilities of specialized suppliers to procure items at lower costs. the Team was to review the proposed contract packaging and the proposed delivery methods. 2011. the general review of the solutions proposed and where. and then its recommendations for less costly solutions which the Council could adopt and in turn direct AMEC to investigate further and. seepage berms or cutoff walls. Campion Group. AMEC was advised then to initiate a more thorough review of its work to seek its own identification of value engineered opportunities to reduce scope and. and its quick perusal by Les Sterman. estimate of cost. and any desired field visits. led both to conclude that the scope of the solutions inferred a potential and sizable increase in cost compared with AMEC’s earlier. hence. and even more preliminary. Most solutions are one of three major types: relief wells. but not all. the charge for this Team was the identification of the general validity of the design analysis program. 2011. AMEC also provided a cost estimate for the proposed solutions. an element of many such value engineering programs. the Council’s Chief Supervisor of Construction and the Works and Doug Campion. low cost alternative processes including new processes. AMEC was also able to bring to this VE Workshop for the VE Team to review what it refers to as Value Engineering/Design Optimization Items. These drawings were prepared and submitted to the Council on March 1. the constructability of those solutions. this also was provided on March 1. It focuses the attention of engineering and purchasing on one objective – equivalent performance for lower cost. the evidence of sound input data. With AMEC bringing this information in on March 1st. the project management oversight consultant. cost. the VE Workshop was not set up to look deeply into the progress design documentation because it was not as far along as would provide greater details. From the review of material and discussions with the designer. .VALUE ENGINEERING OBJECTIVES The principal objective of value engineering is the effective and efficient identification of unnecessary cost in a project. In this instance. the VE Team is to provide its assessment of the design analysis approach being used by AMEC. Campion Group. and the relative cost of the proposed solutions.

The AGENDA for the workshop can be found at Appendix 1. Included here are the attendance sheets for each of the four workshop days. At Appendix 2 can be found the following material MEC provided in advance of the workshop: Plan sheets for each of the four principal levee distracts o Wood River Drainage & Levee district o Metro-East Sanitary Drainage and Levee District o Prairie Du Pont Drainage and Levee and Fish Lake Drainage and Levee districts (combined) Profiles illustrating: basic levee with and without landside ditch; cross section depicting cutoff walls (shallow and deep); cross sections depicting seepage berm and a soil fill of low areas adjacent to levee; relief wells, types D and T; and soil fill of ditches beside railroad At Appendix 3 can be found the preliminary cost estimate AMEC prepared for the design solutions depicted in the progress drawings. Provided here are only the following pieces of an otherwise large electronic file which also contains back-up estimating material. Comparison of quantities by improvement type for the levees, with comparison being between what AMEC had in its proposal and where their analysis suggests quantities as of March 1, 2011. Construction cost escalation rate calculation Cost summary for each levee district and a total for all Detailed summary of unit cost and quantities for 57 work items across all the levees Levee-by-levee summaries for each principal levee district, with Prairie Du Pont and Fish Lake combined as one, with following breakdowns for major work: o Summary for total of 57 work items o Clay caps solution, if and when applicable o Relief wells, if and applicable o Seepage berms, if and when applicable o Cutoff walls, if and when applicable o Civil improvements, if and when applicable At Appendix 4 can be found the AMEC value engineering/design optimization items developed ahead of the VE Workshop and provided to the VE Team. There is one sheet for Wood River, Metro-East, and Prairie Du Pont/Fish Lake.

INFORMATION – DESIGNER PRESENTATION On the morning and into the early afternoon of the workshop’s first day, AMEC managers, Messrs. Jay Martin, Project Manager, and Jon Omvig, both assisted by other staff via telephone, presented an overview of the project. At their request, the presentation did not follow precisely the Agenda but covered the items requested of them. Campion Group, LLC Value Engineering Workshop Report Page 8 of 14

At Appendix 5 can be found the presentation made using PowerPoint. There are a total of 30 slides presented here two per sheet. AMEC was very open and candid in describing their work to-date and identified several issues which indicated both some delay in gathering all the data they needed and the status of first and second level analysis intended to have been done but was not. Their demeanor was and has been cooperative and in showing they understood and appreciated the need to search for less costly solutions. It was pointed out and certainly agreed to by the VE Team that the design was at only a preliminary level of detail. Yes, most of the data needed to do the hydraulic and hydrology, and geotechnical analyses had been gathered and resultant first level screening produced the currently proposed solutions shown on the drawings and their cost in the estimate. AMEC, however, and as shown in the value engineering/design optimization sheets provided, has begun to look at alternative treatments for problems found and has initiated 3-D analyses particularly at corners. AMEC was responsive to questions raised so as to further develop for the VE Team the necessary information base upon which the workshop would proceed to evaluate. It was agreed that the VE Team would use the balance of this day and early next to prepare follow-up questions or requests for additional information. In turn, this material would e provided to AMEC and AMEC would get responses back as soon as practicable. AMEC staff was kept on alert so as to be able to respond quickly. The contract packaging and delivery methods were briefly touched upon. Essentially AMEC has proposed at this time that most of the work be delivered using conventional design-bid-build (D-B-B) method of contracting. In the case where cutoff walls remain required, they recommend using the design-build (D-B or D/B) contracting method. With respect to packaging the work, they are not far enough into design to fully lay out a specific plan at this time. It appears advisable that like-work, such as relief wells be packaged in large enough segments to achieve economies of scale for bidding this work. There is also the possibility, to avoid contractors running into each other, that some packages may best be put out that include a mix of work and be geographically related, e.g., relief wells, seepage berms, miscellaneous civil improvements. AMEC presented a brief discussion on its cost estimating approach and further stated its intent to vet the estimate as design proceeded and alternatives were identified and resolved. At this time it was also brought up by the VE Team and concurred in by AMEC that the cash flow funding capability will play a significant part in determining both packages and bidding dates, as well as contractual time to complete. In attendance during the presentation was the Council’s financial consultant, Mr. Roy Toykelson, who contributed to the discussion as regards financial planning.

Campion Group, LLC Value Engineering Workshop Report Page 9 of 14

VE TEAM REVIEW COMMENTS & QUESTIONS AND DESIGNER RESPONSE

Based on the documentation provided the VE Team in advance, the AMEC project status overview presentation, and the responses provide to written comments and questions developed by the Team, the value engineering process proceeded for two days. The first matters to be dealt with related to the field investigation and the analysis techniques utilized by AMEC. The objective here was to validate the geotechnical work and design basis used, and the hydrology and hydraulics design basis. Following are the VE Team’s opinion on these matters. The issues presented in the available drawings and the 30 percent progress presentation by AMEC appears to indicate that under seepage is the most significant design issue. Through seepage is an issue at a few locations. There is no indication that slope stability is a significant issue after under seepage and through seepage issues are addressed. The under seepage issue is addressed with seepage berms, relief wells, and cutoff walls. Relief wells appear to be the least expensive method followed by seepage berms, and finally by cutoff walls. The analysis performed to-date appears to use one of the above methods in most cases. A combination of berms and relief wells does not appear to have been used except in a few locations. The analysis might look at several different berm lengths and the corresponding spacing for relief wells required to control exit gradients. A cost study may show that there is an optimum berm length and well spacing to address the seepage resulting from the one percent probability flood. Upon review of the hydrologic/hydraulic approach taken for this project, we find it consistent with standard engineering practice that would be undertaken for a project of this type. The design team utilized the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Hydrologic Engineering Center Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS) to derive precipitation-runoff values for the various watersheds at the 10, 25, 50, 100 and 500-year frequency events. The flows derived from this analysis were then calibrated against stream gage flows where available. The AMEC report states that the calibration of flows was adjusted to correspond with gage flows within a range of fifteen (15) percent. After development of these flows for the various storm events, the flows were then utilized within the USACE, Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) computer modeling system to derive peak water surface elevations for the 10, 25, 50, 100, and 500-year frequency events. Once again this methodology is consistent with standard engineering practice. To assess the flooding that would occur in the areas on the land side of the levee, the AMEC team utilized PCSWMM modeling to analyze the probable one-percent recurrence flood event. This methodology would be one possible alternative of assessing flooding in these areas and is a viable methodology.

Campion Group, LLC Value Engineering Workshop Report Page 10 of 14

The gradient can best be determined using a program such as Seep/W. numbered sequentially for each levee district. LLC Value Engineering Workshop Report Page 11 of 14 . The pond must be set back from the levee or berm to maintain an adequate slope stability factor of Campion Group. The D10 values appear to indicate that the most permeable sand layers appear to be at about mid-depth in the soil profile. D. but also provides a potential location for storm water runoff storage. Because AMEC had prepared and shared its value engineering/design optimization items in matrix format. To control the exit gradient these ponds should be excavated into the sand aquifer. These were developed as: General Comments and Questions (13 comments/questions in total) MESD Comments (13 comments/questions in total) Wood River (10 comments/questions in total) Prairie Du Pont/Fish Lake (8 comments/questions n total) In addition to the comments and questions. C. Missouri. Deep cutoff walls are very expensive and the designers should look at cost issues and means to mitigate construction costs. It appears that the impact of berm construction on wet lands may be significant. In many instances. and convey water to pump stations. the VE Team developed additional ones for follow-up by AMEC in the near future. Corps of Engineers. Means to mitigate the number and length of cutoff walls appears to hold the greatest potential for cost savings. The water berm or permanent lake idea (like Earth city). many questions were developed and correlated to those tables so as to better enable AMEC to quickly respond. and may create new wetlands to offset wetlands losses elsewhere. store seepage and storm water. Following are the observations and resulting comments/questions discussed by the VE Team during the course of the workshop and put into writing afterwards. the VE Team developed questions and comments to immediately share with the designer. Pump testing with the measurement of upward flow velocity in the well was recommended to evaluate the hydraulic conductivity of the foundation sand as a function of the position in the soil profile. one option will be to excavate a pond or lake to relieve seepage. B. In some locations where the top stratum is very thin and the required berms are very long and/or closely spaced relief wells. In several instances telephone calls were placed with AMEC design staff to best ensure understanding of the comments and questions. A. This issue appears to be less significant after reviewing the D10 values and the pump test is no longer recommended.S. these were discussed with AMEC to some extent during the closing day. Three dimension seepage analyses for the cutoff wall sections are recommended to evaluate flow around the ends of the wall and methods to tie-in the ends. Appendix 6 contains the written comments submitted to AMEC as well as their responses thereto within the time available. a borrow source for seepage berms or clay cap fill elsewhere on the project. This is similar to what was done at Earth City.Having generally satisfied itself that the design approach relative to geotechnical and hydrology and hydraulics was in keeping with sound engineering practice and followed accepted practice of the U. This is a concern where berm fill covers wet land and where borrow is required for construction of the berm. not only provides seepage pressure relief.

are all of the improvements shown near the ends of the flank levees necessary for the 100 year certification? Campion Group. We believe a clarification should be made in regard to adjustment of computed flows versus gage flows. The analyses for any conditions that may affect the erosion of the embankment (i. safety. (or are the gage readings not that accurate). I. Are the levee closures owned and operated by the COE or by the levee districts? Will it be necessary to certify that the gates are adequate and operable? Given the statement that the 100 year flood levels lowered in most areas where Mississippi tail water was not the controlling factor. N. the gage elevation was compared to the actual computed hydraulic grade line that was derived for the various frequency events. We would like the AMEC team to look into these types of areas in depth to assess whether areas like these can be re-routed by ditching or other means to eliminate the cost of these expensive structures. in addition to the gage flows. a geotechnical representative brought up a significant point as to where the levees would actually be overtopped in the event of a storm event greater than what is to be certified by the AMEC team. L. LLC Value Engineering Workshop Report Page 12 of 14 . particularly in the MESD system from Station 1339+00 to Station 1350+00. We would suggest at the next submittal of the plans that it would be beneficial to see the actual flood elevation gradient on the river and the flood elevations behind the levee system so that these can be evaluated for their impact. there is significant drainage piping (in this area a 12’ x 5’ box culvert system). it appears that significant fill may be required in some areas to control seepage behind the levee system. F. We would want to ensure that this additional fill is included in the analysis of the flood elevation that will be established on the land side of the levee system. We would also want to confirm that a check was made to verify that. In some areas of the levee system. flow velocities or wind and wave action) should be included. but we believe this is an important part of the levee system certification to understand where the levees could be overtopped to avoid un-wanted catastrophic damage from overtopping of the system in an inappropriate location. We would suggest clarification be offered as to the criteria for the selection of the fifteen (15) percent value. We understand that the NIFP requires that engineering analyses be submitted to demonstrate that no appreciable erosion of the levee embankment can be expected as a result of either currents or waves during the base flood. In our value engineering discussion. H. Since some of the computed flows are less than actual gage value wouldn’t it be appropriate to at least set the flows at the actual gage flow readings rather than utilize some computed flows that are as much as six (6) percent below the gage flows.E. K. and that anticipated erosion will not result in failure of the levee. J. G. and that this fill will not significantly increase existing flood elevations that presently occur in these areas. The AMEC summary report stated that computed flows were adjusted to the range of within fifteen (15) percent of gage flows. A gravel filter blanket can be added to the bottom of the pond if there is a concern about small boils forming in the pond.e. M. We understand that this is not in the scope of work that is to be undertaken by the AMEC team. In regard to flooding behind the levee system.

o Item # 12 was found to be a matter not considered by AMEC up until now. (See Appendix 6). Another possibility. and AMEC’s Jay Martin and Jon Omvig to present the findings in person. particularly due to U. As necessary. The VE Team after reviewing boring logs determined there is enough information without conducting the otherwise recommended test per ASTM guidelines. Some concern about the environmental acceptability of fly ash. and in one case the item is disagreed with by AMEC. Already AMEC has done additional flow analysis and believes some 2.500 feet of wall might be eliminated along the Wood River reach. and a combination of relief wells and actual ponding (flooding) of the low area across highway 143 for the Mississippi reach rather than the deep cutoff walls. In Wood River o Item # 6 will be revisited with further look at possible use French drains in certain situations. The Team reviewed the Comments and Questions which had been written and provided AMEC. In MESD Comments o Item # 12 will look to see whether or not the stationing is correct and therefore whether or not the recommended actions it proposed is appropriate here. AMEC accepted the VE Team comments and assured that it would address each one that had not been brought to closure in their responses. Council’s Chief Supervisor of Construction and the Works. For the most part. LLC Value Engineering Workshop Report Page 13 of 14 . In Prairie Du Pont/Fish Lake o Item # 2 will have AMEC sending additional information (which it did send and is included with Appendix 6). In several instances it was determined that items may not be any longer relevant. Following is a recap of such items: In General Comments and Questions o Item # 6 is dropped. but they understand that haul roads not on major thoroughfares and highways will need to be considered and costs for repairs included in estimate during final design and construction planning. together with the AMEC responses thereto.S. others will be revisited. o Item # 10 will be looked into further by AMEC as it had not considered either fly ash or blast furnace slag for fill. o Item # 4 has AMEC agreeing to utilize a 3-D analysis. One last point on the use of the hybrid relief wells/berm was the VE Team’s belief that a more consistent design wherein a uniform berm depth (distance from the levee) combined with relief wells Campion Group. In the former. EPA inclinations in this area. the VE Team stressed the potential of reducing if not altogether eliminating cutoff walls through the use of hybrid solutions wherein a combination of relief wells and seepage berms could be evaluated for solving the under seepage issues and thereby reduce the size of berms and corresponding land acquisition requirements to save cost. Much of the discussion revolved around two major proposed design solutions.WRAPUP AND NEXT STEPS On the closing day the VE Team met with Les Sterman. use of cutoff walls and berms. They agree this is a big ticket item and will look closer with 3-D analysis and see what the resultant solution could best serve the need. additional AMEC staff was available via telephone. There is possibility of simply a typo with respect to the stationing. particularly at Wood River might be the hybrid relief wells and berms on the river flank.

there ought to be an investigation of potential wetlands development in the watershed area whereby the project might be able to bid such a development to get the wetlands needed. the Detailed Summary – Wood River. though that too relies on general figures arrived at from various sources. and drainage for creek relocation. and given the early design status. e. there may be another VE activity during the final design phase. Without trying to provide a specific figure.g. The VE Workshop adjourned with all parties comfortable that issues were out on the table and being further addressed immediately or planned for early action in the final design phase. drainage for deep ditch. Item # 15 – The VE Team believes this item should be broken down further to reflect different roadway work. especially if weather conditions should cause stopping and starting. there will or should be allocated contingency to various work types and geographic locations of the work. per se. For the most part the unit prices have been developed in a parametric manner. repair of damaged roadways used for hauling material and/or equipment (local roads). Item # 13 – The quantity (6. access. • Item # 36 . such as new or improved roadway.500 per acre may be more in line with what the land costs for agricultural property may be. A good deal of time was used to address matters of cost throughout the review of comments and questions which AMEC addressed. It was also a point to specifically review the unit costs in the estimate. etc. LLC Value Engineering Workshop Report Page 14 of 14 . Item # 39 – Right-of-way cost appears low. as follows (the item numbers correlate to the AMEC Detailed Summary): Item #1 – The unit of measure might better be developed as cubic yards rather than linear feet so as to reflect the actual design depth(s) for specific clay cap solutions. whether reasonable or not.. with even temporary demobilization to avoid flood waters (a risk). Additional contingency will of necessity be required to really take into consideration the real uncertainties that may befall such a project.000 lf) could not be resolved. Campion Group. hardwood wetland mitigation. therefore less expensive. MESD.. is likely to be required at much more than the 7% presumed by AMEC. Item # 48 – The unit price for wetlands mitigation appears too much of an allowance. PdP & Fish Lake prepared by AMEC was used (See Appendix 3). Also. Item # 3 . etc. suggest based on VE Team knowledge that $7-7. construction. possibly a typo. The VE Team did identify several items where the unit prices look to the Team as needing revision. Item # 56 – The VE Team believes that mobilization should be assigned to specific work items as presumed to be packaged rather than as a simple multiplier across all the other cost items. This in conjunction with reducing land acquisition costs. this line item should be broken down into sub-items. mobilization cost will vary of course by the type of construction. Such allocated contingency should be clearly identified.Clearing and grubbing quantities seem to be included in other line items such as drainage for shallow ditch.The cost of rip rap bank protection seems somewhat excessive as compared to the Corps of Engineers typical cost. and real estate acquisition requirements are reasonably close to being final. the VE Team recommends first that some contingency will naturally result during the estimating. that is. Please review. etc. and consideration must also be given to demobilization. Item # 57 – A contingency in work such as this. before detailed design and plans are too far along. though the background information provided does contain some bottoms up estimating. perhaps at approximately the 60% level of completion.could be lead to a far simpler. As it stands. but after contract packing and delivery methods identified. At the next submittal this should be clarified.

APPENDIX 1 .

.

Allocated Contingency and Total Cost. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis (H&H) 2. Findings & Recommendations a. by Type/Location d. by Type/Location d. Prairie du Pont Drainage and Levee District & Fish Lake Drainage and Levee District (PdP/Fish Lake) 1. Deficiencies and Recommended Solutions b. Findings & Recommendations a. Q&A 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 11:30 AM 12:00 PM 12:30 PM 1:00 PM 1:30 PM III. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF WORKSHOP . PRESENTATION BY DESIGNER OF 30% ANALYSES & RECOMMENDATIONS . Cost Estimate Basis. Deficiencies and Recommended Solutions b. Risks Assessed 4. Contract Packaging & Delivery Method c. Wood River Drainage and Levee District (Wood River) 1. Cost Estimate Basis. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis (H&H) 2. Geotechnical Engineering Analysis 3. Geotechnical Engineering Analysis 3.. by Type/Location d. Q&A B.AMEC (Jon Omvig/ Jay Martin) . Q&A WORKING LUNCH C. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis (H&H) 2. Risks Assessed 4.Overview of Levee Project and Primary Objectives A. Geotechnical Engineering Analysis 3. 2011 AGENDA DAY 1 (03-28-2011) 9:30 AM I.LEVEE PROJECT VALUE ENGINEERING WORKSHOP March 28-31.Doug Campion 9:45 AM 10:00 AM II. FIELD VISITS {Key Problem Areas ONLY} 5:00 PM ADJOURN FOR THE DAY Agenda Rev02 Page 1 of 4 . Cost Estimate Basis. Risks Assessed 4.Allocated Contingency and Total Cost. Metro-East Sanitary District (MESD) 1. Contract Packaging & Delivery Method c.Allocated Contingency and Total Cost. Contract Packaging & Delivery Method c. Deficiencies and Recommended Solutions b. Findings & Recommendations a.

As required for Wetlands mitigation E. Freeboard & Embankment Protection 7. Seepage blankets (berms) 2. Utilities . 401 3.E. PdP/Fish Lake 12:00 PM WORKING LUNCH C. As required for technical solution 2.Access. Other D. Gravity Drains 6. Relief Wells 3. PANEL DISCUSSIONS A. Environmental and Other matters 1. Levee-by-Levee: Sense of AMEC Seepage Analysis. V. MESD 3. Request to be made of AMEC by DRC 3.LEVEE PROJECT VALUE ENGINEERING WORKSHOP March 28-31. Pump Stations 5. Landside Drainage Analysis & Deficiency findings 1. Slurry Walls 4.Phase I assessments. Identification of information/data needed 2. relocation 5:00 PM ADJOURN FOR THE DAY Agenda Rev02 Page 2 of 4 . Conformance with current commitments . Understanding of proposed AMEC technical solutions to address deficiencies and the application appropriatness 1. Cultural resources 2. Follow. Wood River 2. Permitting .404. Land Acquisition requirements and issues 1. 2011 AGENDA DAY 2 (03-29-2011) 8:30 AM IV. AMEC provides Requested Information/Data Needs of Panel by Noon today 9:00 AM B.Up information/Data Needs from AMEC based on Day 1 Presentation and Field Visits 1.

Opportunities 12:00 PM WORKING LUNCH 12:15 PM V. Seepage blankets (berms) 2. Relief Wells 3.LEVEE PROJECT VALUE ENGINEERING WORKSHOP March 28-31. V. 2011 AGENDA DAY 3 (03-30-2011) 8:30 AM IV. Other B. EVALUATION OF COST ESTIMATE (continued) 2:00 PM VI. Slurry Walls 4. Pump Stations 5. V. TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS DEVELOPMENT 5:00 PM ADJOURN FOR THE DAY Agenda Rev02 Page 3 of 4 . By Contract Packaging. Freeboard & Embankment Protection 7. REVIEW & IDENTIFY CRITICAL ISSUES/OPPORTINITIES 9:15 AM V.REVIEW & IDENTIFY CRITICAL ISSUES/OPPORTINITIES F.E. Gravity Drains 6. PANEL DISCUSSIONS .E. Delivery Method and Levee C. By Proposed Solution Type 1. EVALUATION OF COST ESTIMATE A.

Alternatives for Consideration B. Procurement C. LOOK AHEAD SCHEDULE . RISKS IDENTIFICATION A. Construction D. V. TEAM PRESENTATION & OPEN DISCUSSION A. Design phase B. CONCLUSIONS 4:00 PM X.E. Certification E. Unallowability of Expenses as Local Share 3:00 PM IX. 2011 AGENDA DAY 4 (03-31-2011) 9:00 AM VII. Cost Implications 12:00 PM WORKING LUNCH 12:30 PM VIII. Operations & Maintenance F.LEVEE PROJECT VALUE ENGINEERING WORKSHOP March 28-31.IMPLEMENTATION 5:00 PM END OF WORKSHOP Agenda Rev02 Page 4 of 4 . Construction Implications C.

COO~~..@! '3~ ..W 8 .. () !~.:4 ___________.._ _. .­_ _ 15 I i 9 .t'. . .. .c-. Workshop Mar..I\. . 1 ~l~tJPY .. . I tfvu{.-:~fS"~ !m~~. .. c. Name Company Email Telepbone Number 1 I 3 I C..-~~e~1 ~~s.l.IoMlll":'rJm_~m___m l~=~."'.J'.------." J '--1.__ ___. _ .____m_.. Oisnici 11 'UJ ~YV't SC-tp Ie kd y C(r"~ ~ evee Project V. ~~_:_~~m m . ~_ .. U/ClrL_ . . @~._ )~~4z%. •... ~L e-::> c5krmt:t n -+RO~~ __. ..::b-v.~_ ~ ~ r~1--~-1Z~:rt\07.-¥-. ---~+------~---~ . .. 3 3"'-3'B00 c. . v ' r .-i. m . 28-31."17 IV-< li~~~++-E'A.-" N ....._ .!:::!~____c..~.~--. _-m. .m_m_m ..r!g Wor~sh~____.~ 4 I I 'iiwL. 0 ~J~2:~__G~'-t?-fr ---~~!':tuf ~ ~~O"'1 6 .----t___. ._~__mm. .~~. Ai 3/f'-33t -.m ..... --j 16 I 10v!:J 'S~~brL--+___ ~+.:::..+_____~_!_-_-.. _ '7:-..l .r- __ ~~ _ +nrWN-£We.m. -::~~:L~~~J_--~~~..1' (I/S:'.b!.J11 ~V h 1~t<..~... .'j1""'_.6/~m-3 ~~x:fI4 ! 1~Q.--... -l---+------+-~_..___.:0:.._ __~~t=L_. If..~ blt-Cf31 i) . .I~~/ .JJ2_--JYdL~----..:~6 :'o+:!f}l/~_~J_m:~~=~m24-~ __ s .<J.Cc#t m_~m__m DMI/I b ___mm_. J~~"~. --­ .J_ t:.0($.._ -+-_-~m. . CC~~ .----~---~ J... ~VIC:.j ~4JfkY'LQ--~ vk ..J/)y._!___. l<AJ. 5'foldahil IUH'P 'f~.ANu. Location: Metro-East Park & Recreation District No.__m_. "'~ ('If-ml.tMlr -f.~:3 ~ .("Jie1/Uld~~irot1~~M~Sfl.Attendance Project: Item: Date: Southwestern Illinois Flood Protection District Council Levee VaI~e Engin~eri. ~ 18 I lltA 'J-L.. _ __..~.e'~·3'86-3 ..".. vS ._ +_. ~~../7 .. Page: . ..1~"4 -/­ ~j)(1~_K orTf M fftV. ..ifi~£.. . 2011 ~n I~.E. .J • c.-·---····~-··· ._.

VallIe E.-~-----.... . jlq-JJ'/-J-').~ =­ lJNriCl {". . _~ __.'s-~ce~~~ j'Y..E.'-~._....::h:~Wf/' I~JI7-5lA-eJlJ •J~- J~ ~'oL+ ._ ~~~c" Isqold~A. ____ ..__ . 28-31.~~ l r6G<f ~-~ ..-::. f-- _2 5 1 • . --l~-- 12 1----­ 13 14 15 I ! 16 17 18 i I i ~" IHittf.J.. .£C~IJ._..}I~~ ~ _IJ. ._~i.I~~.:\~r:ti. ~ I 'ifA/j'J..- Telephone Number M!-6 <Y -#&f. ~-'" '- .i. ­ tlR 4 __ Lhr/~_ko.____ Page: I Location: Metro-East Park & Recreation District _~~~LL~_ Name Company Email _I...! . dJ l. ­ .--~! .·~--4.!1gin~ring Workshop_. ~. J-.. I Levee Project V. . -.IJu. _~ ·CA:~~rWJe..---lb!! · COG:J-«-J.~~vl. ..- ... 2011 Fll)od rr.~-._~~. .jn . ."" J/y- ~: I ~D'? 10 11 _ 7 ---'.....-:t JKOTt(AI\.~ .v-. -----.:k"'4!d-J98'~I'lH" 2> avvyJ - .'~. _ __. oilN_ Ka TTEM~NtJ~_fIlIVf {t-_F'II'~t.- I T---····­ . Workshop Mar.Attendance Project: Item: Date: Southwestern Illinois Flood Protection District Council Levee __ .. 1.---..:.r l' lC.-.~.___~!C8MVS .Ja-Ll~s~ .14_ P~L "~..JIcL.J/1I/Nri ~ ~ ~ ...-e4f2~__.f.:. ___ 1V!~~~e. .. ----~--.c.c.r.­ No.)~ c-.6 Id ~ U/Q-yfs. ... _&. ... .@ fw /.. . ?lIttL hf...... _~ .. . -·_A .~ J9t 11..

.. 28-31..t Location: Metro-East Park & Recreation District Item: Date: Page: I No.Attendance Project: Southwestern Illinois Flood Protection District Council Levee . Workshop Mar....E. Name I Company Email Telepbone Number Levee Project V.n . 2011 ....

...i.________ _ I WH 7 _ J!1)~J. __ NO" Name .<~5 i q~'f~M ~j"V1.. Location: Me!ro:Eas! Park & Recreation District ~''''e' Item: Date: Value F:ngineering Workshop Page:--.e.. _ ­ .. Workshop Mar..' "'~~.~:z-L 3"v:=~-~ ~ ~--fLL. _ _ .COli1.. J7Y...OA. . . / 4m~c C.~ .s~ ~c ~ I i ~":~~'NtJlt IHt J4'(..flrl! . Zf_-<1488 i ~ ~.. .._.:7! ~ 1\ (l) i VI S:.-any~ ~~~\ [ TelePhon~ ~umbe~ .d: ~~_~~~!~!~3Li~:i~L:. ____. .~ (.vl II-(V/v_ I~ .It> utf ~~ ~I' /1*.. .u ... \'-141 +_ 0 ".-~- ~..I cotS '11<---.~i-.~T! i --.. . 6" L LC. ___.1//10 ..:~ . ber1":f1. ./'.</-q?!'t " . I~~~q'.--11 .f / ! I {"....' . ..U: . 15 I·· ···~·--=----_-L----=-j---J. ..l d.3..... 16 17 18 !!!innI4 fiQ\':d' OtStriet (:-:-tl. 2011 . ...~I'-I..-r0~ "3doo-~~-..::..-----..W_ I......~~-~" I ..____..~~ T:--:--~····-····- I : I m-~_----+-.: ··--+-~----------~--T--m---I---····--}3 . 12i i _~: r--···_···· .JI-II v &1. «::..'J-Y----~~~---- U 6 • ~ I ! J {~ E -... @ I ~.. . ...1/1 I '" !O I ~+----L~£~Vj:~--... ____-+ .ff-J5H{l(~....~£'_==--~~30(.-'" 1 ~3 U~l~~~oll~. _ [ 14 j _J._ _ _ _.. .c. . . 28-31.-...____..... ~._ _ _... i .7!i'~.-+ .­ -1. (~ Levee Project VE... I ~~:.. tt"oWlf\IJfJ_.IS. .W.Attendance Project: Southwestern Illinois Flood Protection District Council Levee P .'1-- ti.c-7__ -lSj14yai 9 ._ _ _. ____.1 r::.1If"AI\ --r- ~leJ"{Y . rho\Vllt\'" J -til''''' _ """.:il4 '17 'Ja. c i~!yC'tiJ*1'/'O·'J@. vt-l I.J..1-­ t< ~ ..-H~S W~___ I~ tl...··~"~(:.._ ·~~VS-Ge-Oc.'. ... ! 1M1e:c- II ('g4~.~~ .. li~f~~ I~. .Zi/'. :1J_... <J. I tI) ~ItJ 1«a1'"Q ._ ..X6L3_ I l'tUL.. +~ll\e ..L_p.

APPENDIX 2 .

.

2011 WR-1 .PROGRESS SOLUTIONS WOOD RIVER DRAINAGE & LEVEE DISTRICT DRAWN BY: MDP MARCH 17.000 Feet 8.UPPER WOOD RIVER SHALLOW CUTOFF WALL RELIEF WELLS SHALLOW CUTOFF WALL 0 7+ 0 + 60 10 + 00 Wood River 00 30 + 14 0 14 6 +0 0 0 90 + 0 0 0+ + 10 0 +0 6 70 + 00 40 +0 0 50 00 0 0+ 20 + 0 13 0 +0 +0 10 9 + 30 80 + 00 1 + 0 00 0 +0 + 20 00 00 60 + 0 EAST FORK OF WOOD RIVER (no deficiencies noted) Metro East Sanitary District + 40 00 + 50 00 00 00 00 20 + 30 + 00 EXCLUDED REACH 00 50 + 00 60 + 00 00 273 + 00 98 + 70 00 40 + 260 + 250 + 00 + 80 RELIEF WELLS Prairie Du Pont & Fish Lake 00 00 00 70 + 80 + 00 240 + 00 00 + 00 100 +0 110 + 120 00 00 0 +0 0 BERM 00 11 0+ 0 +0 12 0 +0 0 230 + 220 + 00 90 + 00 10 0 210 + 13 0 +0 00 + 130 + 140 + 150 + 160 RELIEF WELLS 200 + +0 0 15 0 +0 0 14 0 00 00 190 + 0 +0 0 0 00 00 17 0 +0 00 + 170 00 + 180 00 + 190 00 200 + 00 + 210 SOIL FILL 00 0 2.000 4. SUITE 100 NASHVILLE.000 16 0 RELIEF WELLS 18 0 WATER BERM & RIPRAP + 220 00 + 230 00 + 240 00 00 00 00 0 Legend + 260 DEEP CUTOFF WALL + 250 deep cutoff wall shallow cutoff wall riverside clay blanket + 270 +0 280 + 290 + 300 + 310 00 00 RELIEF WELLS 00 RIPRAP (potential scour area) BERM SOIL FILL SOIL FILL & RELIEF WELLS BERMS & RELIEF WELLS 610 + 620 + 00 00 700 + 690 + 00 17 new relief wells excluded reach WATER FILLED DITCH + 320 00 LOWER WOOD RIVER 680 + 00 00 00 670 + levee centerline seepage berm soil fill riprap water berm + 00 330 + 00 340 + 350 00 00 650 + 640 + 630 + 00 00 660 + 00 + 360 + 370 38 00 0 0+ 0 00 + 390 + 400 RELIEF WELLS & SOIL FILL 490+ 0 430+ 0 460+ 0 480+ 0 500+ 0 440+ 0 450+ 0 470+ 0 510+ 0 520+ 0 530+ 0 540+ 0 0 600 + 590 + 580 + 570 + 560 + 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 420+ 0 0 0 550+ 0 CLAY CAP 00 Ü 3800 EZELL RD. TN 37211 SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION DISTRICT COUNCIL SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION INITIATIVE FEMA CERTIFICATION .

SUITE 100 NASHVILLE.C. CONTROL (certification must consider / approve COE solution) 11 NEW T-TYPE WELLS 220 + 00 11 0+ 00 Legend deep cutoff wall shallow cutoff wall riverside clay blanket rely on proposed COE wells 12 0 +0 0 14 0 +0 MEL PRICE LOCK & DAM 13 0 +0 0 5 NEW T-TYPE WELLS 0 210 + 00 new relief wells 0 200 + 15 0 +0 00 excluded reach levee centerline 16 0 +0 0 190 + 00 seepage berm soil fill 17 0 +0 0 MS R 18 0 +0 riprap water berm IVE R 0 Ü DRAWN BY: MDP MARCH 17. TN 37211 SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION DISTRICT COUNCIL SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION INITIATIVE FEMA CERTIFICATION . 48' deep) Metro East Sanitary District 11 NEW D-TYPE WELLS (in addition to 17 existing or proposed COE wells) 40 + 00 20 + 00 00 UPPER WOOD RIVER Prairie Du Pont & Fish Lake 30 + 50 + 00 70 + SHALLOW CUTOFF WALL (to elev.Wood River 10 + 00 7+ 00 SHALLOW CUTOFF WALL (to elev. approx. 400.000 SEEPAGE BERM +0 0 10 0 230 + 00 MEL PRICE EXCLUDED REACH .500 Feet 3. approx. 48' deep) 60 + 00 00 80 + 00 0 90 + 00 750 1.E. 400. 2011 WR-2 3800 EZELL RD.PROGRESS SOLUTIONS WOOD RIVER DRAINAGE & LEVEE DISTRICT .O.

+ 50 00 + 20 00 + 10 00 Wood River + 60 00 273 + 98 270 + + 70 4 NEW D-TYPE WELLS 00 00 260 + 00 + 80 00 Metro East Sanitary District UPPER WOOD RIVER 250 + 00 0 90+ 0 240 + 00 + 100 Prairie Du Pont & Fish Lake 00 230 + 00 +0 110 SEEPAGE BERM 220 + 00 + 120 0 LOWER WOOD RIVER 2 NEW T-TYPE WELLS 0 750 1. SUITE 100 NASHVILLE. 2011 WR-3 3800 EZELL RD.PROGRESS SOLUTIONS WOOD RIVER DRAINAGE & LEVEE DISTRICT .500 Feet 3. 160' to bedrock) riverside clay blanket new relief wells excluded reach 17 0 +0 0 18 0 +0 0 + 160 00 levee centerline 17 0 0+ 0 +0 180 0 SOIL FILL rely on proposed COE wells seepage berm soil fill MS R IVE R + 190 00 + 200 00 + 210 00 + 220 00 00 ROCK FILTER / BALLAST & MAINTAIN SET WATER ELEVATION riprap water berm + 230 Ü DRAWN BY: MDP MARCH 17.000 00 210 + 00 + 130 00 Legend 200 + 00 R RIV E + 140 00 deep cutoff wall shallow cutoff wall 190 + 00 WO OD 15 0 0+ 0 DEEP CUTOFF WALL (avg. TN 37211 SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION DISTRICT COUNCIL SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION INITIATIVE FEMA CERTIFICATION .

2011 WR-4 3800 EZELL RD. TN 37211 520+ 0 + 410 460+ 0 500+ 0 0 00 Ü 0 0 0 0 490+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .500 Feet 3. SUITE 100 NASHVILLE.000 + 350 00 Legend + 360 00 deep cutoff wall LOWER WOOD RIVER + 370 00 shallow cutoff wall riverside clay blanket new relief wells excluded reach + 380 00 levee centerline seepage berm + 390 00 soil fill riprap water berm + 00 400 420+ 0 430+ 0 450+ 0 470+ 0 480+ 0 510+ 0 440+ 0 SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION DISTRICT COUNCIL SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION INITIATIVE FEMA CERTIFICATION .+ 280 00 Wood River + 290 00 9 NEW T-TYPE WELLS + 300 00 Metro East Sanitary District + 310 00 MS R IVER + 320 00 Prairie Du Pont & Fish Lake MAINTAIN WATER IN DITCH + 330 00 + 340 00 0 750 1.PROGRESS SOLUTIONS WOOD RIVER DRAINAGE & LEVEE DISTRICT DRAWN BY: MDP MARCH 17.

SUITE 100 NASHVILLE. TN 37211 . 2011 SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION DISTRICT COUNCIL SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION INITIATIVE FEMA CERTIFICATION .700 + 17 Wood River 690 + 00 RIPRAP (scour protection) 680 + 00 Metro East Sanitary District SOIL FILL IN LOW AREA 670 + 00 660 + 00 Prairie Du Pont & Fish Lake LOWER WOOD RIVER 650 + 00 SOIL FILL BOTH RR DITCHES (so RR no longer acts as levee) 640 + 00 0 750 1.000 SOIL FILL IN LOW AREAS 630 + 00 620 + 00 SEEPAGE BERM & 5 NEW T-TYPE WELLS SMALL SEEPAGE BERM & 2 NEW T-TYPE WELLS Legend deep cutoff wall shallow cutoff wall 610 + 00 600 + 00 riverside clay blanket 4 NEW D-TYPE WELLS 590 + 00 5' THICK CLAY CAP FOR THROUGH SEEPAGE (intermittent as needed) new relief wells excluded reach levee centerline 580 + 00 SEEPAGE BERM SEEPAGE BERM & 9 NEW T-TYPE WELLS seepage berm soil fill SOIL FILL 570 + 00 riprap water berm 510+ 0 0 0 520+ 0 530+ 0 540+ 0 0 560 + 550+ 0 0 0 00 8 NEW D-TYPE WELLS Ü DRAWN BY: MDP MARCH 17.500 Feet 3.PROGRESS SOLUTIONS WOOD RIVER DRAINAGE & LEVEE DISTRICT WR-5 3800 EZELL RD.

2011 AMEC File No.Semi-pervious Blanket Levee Aquifer Semi-pervious Blanket Levee Aquifer Scale: None Drawn by: MG Date: March 16. 5-6317-0001 LEVEE ILLUSTRATION .

CUTOFF WALLS- Narrow slots filled with slurry.

DEEP CUTOFF WALLSPenetrate through the aquifer to bedrock

SHALLOW CUTOFF WALLSPartially penetrate the aquifer

BEDROCK
Scale: None Drawn by: LS Date: March 16, 2011 AMEC File No. 5-6317-0001

WOOD RIVER PLANS AND CROSS SECTIONS

SEEPAGE BERM Adds weight to landside surface. Abuts the levee. Slopes away from levee.

SOIL FILL IN LOW SPOTS Raises land surface. Used to fill in ditches, borrow pits etc. May not abut the levee.

Scale: None Drawn by: LS Date: March 16, 2011 AMEC File No. 5-6317-0001

WOOD RIVER PLANS AND CROSS SECTIONS

D-TYPE RELIEF WELLS Water flows directly from the relief well.

T-TYPE RELIEF WELLS Water flows from the relief well to a collector pipe below ground. Collector connects several relief wells
Scale: None Drawn by: LS Date: March 16, 2011 AMEC File No. 5-6317-0001

WOOD RIVER PLANS AND CROSS SECTIONS

SOIL FILL IN DITCHES BESIDE RAILROAD Raises land surface above flood elevation. Avoids building a new levee (set-back levee) Scale: None Drawn by: LS Date: March 16. 5-6317-0001 WOOD RIVER PLANS AND CROSS SECTIONS . 2011 AMEC File No.

2011 MESD-1 Ü 3800 EZELL RD.PROGRESS SOLUTIONS METRO EAST SANITARY DISTRICT DRAINAGE & LEVEE DISTRICT DRAWN BY: DJC MARCH 10.000 Feet 22. TN 37211 .000 Legend New Relief Wells Excluded Reach Riverside Clay Blanket Relief Wells Relief Wells Relief Well Relief Wells Clay Blanket Relief Wells Berms Berms Relief Wells Deep Cutoff Wall Shallow Cutoff Wall Seepage Berms Levee Centerline Deep Cutoff Wall Berms Relief Well Deep Cutoff Wall Berm MESD South Flank Levee SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION DISTRICT COUNCIL SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION INITIATIVE FEMA CERTIFICATION . SUITE 100 NASHVILLE.MESD North Flank Levee Wood River Chain of Rocks Metro East Sanitary District Excluded Reach Prairie Du Pont & Fish Lake MESD River Front Levee Relief Wells Deep Cutoff Wall Relief Wells Relief Wells Berm Relief Well Shallow Cutoff Wall 0 5.500 11.

Pump Station No. TN 37211 . 2011 MESD-2 Ü 3800 EZELL RD. 3 [ 00 Legend [ Pump Station New Relief Wells + 850 6 New D-Type Wells +00 860 Madison Pump Station [ Excluded Reach Riverside Clay Blanket Deep Cutoff Wall +00 870 Shallow Cutoff Wall Seepage Berms +00 880 1 New D-Type Well Venice Pump Station [ Levee Centerline + 890 00 +00 900 Old U. SUITE 100 NASHVILLE.C.E.Chain of Rocks Excluded Reach .D. Pump Station No.O.PROGRESS SOLUTIONS METRO EAST SANITARY DISTRICT DRAINAGE & LEVEE DISTRICT DRAWN BY: DJC MARCH 10. [ + 910 00 SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION DISTRICT COUNCIL SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION INITIATIVE FEMA CERTIFICATION . Pump Station No.E. Control (certification to be provided by C.E. 1 Metro East Sanitary District 9 New D-Type Wells 80 0 0+0 + 810 00 G.C.D.500 Feet 3.000 +00 840 G. 2 [ Prairie Du Pont & Fish Lake +00 820 +00 830 24 New T-Type Wells 0 750 1.C.D.E.C. Power Plant P.O.E.) Wood River Deep Cutoff Wall Beginning Station: 780+55 Total Length: 1012 ft Depth to Clay: 100 ft Ending Station: 790+67 +00 790 + [00 780 Granite City Pump Station [ Chain of Rocks G.S.E.

000 Shallow Cutoff Wall +00 990 Beginning Station: 987+02 Total Length: 2645 ft Ending Station: 1013+47 Legend [ Pump Station New Relief Wells 0 0+0 100 Excluded Reach North Pump Station 0 0+0 101 Riverside Clay Blanket Deep Cutoff Wall Shallow Cutoff Wall Seepage Berms [ 10 00 20+ Levee Centerline 0 0+0 103 0 0+0 104 0 0+0 105 SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION DISTRICT COUNCIL SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION INITIATIVE FEMA CERTIFICATION . SUITE 100 NASHVILLE.500 Feet 3. TN 37211 .+ 920 00 Wood River + 930 00 Chain of Rocks +00 940 Metro East Sanitary District +00 950 Prairie Du Pont & Fish Lake + 960 00 Seepage Berm + 970 00 0 +00 980 750 1.PROGRESS SOLUTIONS METRO EAST SANITARY DISTRICT DRAINAGE & LEVEE DISTRICT DRAWN BY: DJC MARCH 10. 2011 MESD-3 Ü 3800 EZELL RD.

S.9 ft Legend [ Pump Station New Relief Wells Excluded Reach 0 0+0 121 0 0+0 122 Riverside Clay Blanket Deep Cutoff Wall 1 New D-Type Well 12 [ 00 30+ Phillips Reach Pump Station Seepage Berms Seepage Berm Seepage Berm Shallow Cutoff Wall Seepage Berms 5 New D-Type Wells 0 125 0 0+0 124 Levee Centerline +00 Clay Blanket 0 0+0 126 1 New D-Type Well 0 127 +00 Seepage Berm SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION DISTRICT COUNCIL SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION INITIATIVE FEMA CERTIFICATION .000 0 0+0 120 Deep Cutoff Wall Beginning Station: 1209+69 Ending Station: 1219+67 Total Length: 998 ft Average Depth to Rock: 142. Prairie Du Pont & Fish Lake 0 0+0 117 0 0+0 118 0+ 119 00 0 750 1.PROGRESS SOLUTIONS METRO EAST SANITARY DISTRICT DRAINAGE & LEVEE DISTRICT DRAWN BY: DJC MARCH 10. TN 37211 .0+ 112 00 0 0+0 113 10 New D-Type Wells Wood River 8 New D-Type Wells 0 0+0 114 Chain of Rocks 0 0+0 115 Metro East Sanitary District [ 0 0+0 116 Old Monsanto P. 2011 MESD-4 Ü 3800 EZELL RD.500 Feet 3. SUITE 100 NASHVILLE.

000 Legend Blue Waters Ditch Pump Station 0 0+0 137 0+0 138 0 13 00 90+ 0 0+0 140 14 00 10+ 0 0+0 142 0 0+0 143 [ Pump Station New Relief Wells Excluded Reach Riverside Clay Blanket [ 0+0 144 0 0 0+0 145 0 0+0 146 0 0+0 147 [ 0 0+0 148 0 0+0 149 0+0 150 0 Seepage Berm Falling Springs Pump Station Pairie Du Pont East PS [ South Pump Station [ [ 0 0+0 152 +00 0 154 +00 +00 Deep Cutoff Wall Shallow Cutoff Wall Seepage Berms Levee Centerline Canal No.500 Feet 3. 1 Pump Station 0 0+0 151 0 153 0 155 0 0+0 156 SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION DISTRICT COUNCIL SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION INITIATIVE FEMA CERTIFICATION . SUITE 100 NASHVILLE. 2011 MESD-5 Ü 3800 EZELL RD. TN 37211 .PROGRESS SOLUTIONS METRO EAST SANITARY DISTRICT DRAINAGE & LEVEE DISTRICT DRAWN BY: DJC MARCH 10.0+0 127 0 1 New D-Type Well Seepage Berms Wood River 0 0+0 128 4 New D-Type Wells Chain of Rocks 0 0+0 129 0 0+0 130 Seepage Berms Deep Cutoff Wall Beginning Station: 1304+00 Total Length: 1500 ft Depth to Rock: 125 ft Ending Station: 1319+00 Metro East Sanitary District 13 00 10+ [ 0 Prairie Du Pont & Fish Lake 0+0 132 0 0+0 133 Cahokia Pump Station 38 New T-Type Wells 0 0+0 134 Seepage Berms 0 0 0+0 135 0+0 136 0 750 1.

.

.

.

.

.

TN 37211 SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION DISTRICT COUNCIL SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION INITIATIVE 800+00 809+00 FEMA CERTIFICATION . 2011 PdP-1 3800 EZELL RD.500 5. SUITE 100 NASHVILLE.000 540 + 550 + 560 + 570 + 00 00 Legend riverside clay blanket new relief wells levee centerline SEEPAGE BERM 600 + 610 + 620 + 630 + 640 + 650 + 660 + 670 + 00 00 00 580 + 590 + 00 00 00 _ ^ RELIEF WELLS _ ^ pump station seepage berm 00 00 FISH LAKE 710+00 720+00 730+00 740+00 700+00 750+00 690+00 760+00 770+00 780+00 00 00 00 790+00 680 + SEEPAGE BERM Ü DRAWN BY: MDP MARCH 10.16 0 +0 00 +0 280 + 290 + 300 + 310 + 320 + 00 00 00 00 17 0 SEEPAGE BERMS & RELIEF WELLS +0 270 + 00 18 0 +0 260 + 19 0 +0 250 + 00 20 0 00 +0 0 240 + 00 21 0 0 00 +0 SEEPAGE BERM 0 220 + 230 + 00 _ ^ Wood River 0 0 0 0 15 0 _ ^ +0 ^ _ 0 +0 00 13 0 50 + 40 + +0 110 + 0 0 10 + 00 RELIEF WELLS 10 0 90 + 20 + _ ^ 60 + 30 + 80 + 12 0 70 + 00 ^ _ 00 00 +0 00 00 00 00 00 0 _ ^ 14 0 0 _^ ^_ Metro East Sanitary District CLAY CAPS 350 + 360 + 370 + 380 + 390 + 400 + 410 + 420 + 430 + 440 + 450 + 460 + 470 + 480 + 490 + 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 330 + 340 + 00 00 00 0+ 0 RELIEF WELLS Prairie Du Pont & Fish Lake PRAIRIE Du PONT 00 00 00 00 500 + 510 + 520 + 530 + RELIEF WELLS & SEEPAGE BERMS 00 00 00 00 00 0 2.000 Feet 10.PROGRESS SOLUTIONS PRAIRIE Du PONT & FISH LAKE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICTS .

000 Legend 2 NEW D-TYPE WELLS riverside clay blanket new relief wells levee centerline 300 + 00 _ ^ 310 + 00 1 NEW D-TYPE WELL EXISTING PUMP STATION 3 NEW D-TYPE WELLS PRAIRIE Du PONT _ ^ pump station seepage berm 320 + 00 CLAY CAP Ü FEMA CERTIFICATION .16 NEW D-TYPE WELLS Wood River RI VE R SEEPAGE BERM 21 0 220 + 00 +0 0 M S _ ^ 20 0 +0 0 230 + 00 Metro East Sanitary District 240 + 00 250 + 17 NEW D-TYPE WELLS 00 19 0 +0 0 Prairie Du Pont & Fish Lake 260 + 00 1 NEW D-TYPE WELL +0 0 17 0 10 NEW D-TYPE WELLS 270 + 00 16 0 EXISTING PUMP STATION (Prairie Du Pont West) 280 + 00 18 0 +0 0 +0 0 ^ _ 15 0 +0 0 SEEPAGE BERMS 290 + 00 0 500 1.PROGRESS SOLUTIONS PRAIRIE Du PONT & FISH LAKE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICTS DRAWN BY: MDP MARCH 10.000 Feet 2. TN 37211 SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION DISTRICT COUNCIL SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION INITIATIVE . 2011 PdP-2 3800 EZELL RD. SUITE 100 NASHVILLE.

PROGRESS SOLUTIONS PRAIRIE Du PONT & FISH LAKE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICTS . SUITE 100 NASHVILLE.000 430 + 00 Legend riverside clay blanket new relief wells levee centerline SEEPAGE BERMS 440 + 00 9 NEW D-TYPE WELLS _ ^ 450 + pump station seepage berm 00 460 + 00 SEEPAGE BERMS 470 + 00 7 NEW D-TYPE WELLS Ü DRAWN BY: MDP MARCH 10. 2011 PdP-3 3800 EZELL RD.500 Feet 3. TN 37211 SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION DISTRICT COUNCIL SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION INITIATIVE FEMA CERTIFICATION .330 + 00 CLAY CAP Wood River 340 + 00 350 + 00 Metro East Sanitary District 360 + 00 2 NEW D-TYPE WELLS 370 + 00 Prairie Du Pont & Fish Lake 380 + 00 CLAY CAP 7 NEW D-TYPE WELLS 390 + 00 IVE R MS R 400 + 00 5 NEW D-TYPE WELLS 410 + 00 2 NEW D-TYPE WELLS 420 + 00 PRAIRIE Du PONT 0 750 1.

TN 37211 SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION DISTRICT COUNCIL SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION INITIATIVE . 2011 PdP-4 3800 EZELL RD.480 + 00 Wood River 6 NEW D-TYPE WELLS 490 + 00 Metro East Sanitary District 500 + 00 Prairie Du Pont & Fish Lake SEEPAGE BERMS 7 NEW D-TYPE WELLS 510 + 00 PRAIRIE Du PONT 520 + 00 0 375 750 Feet 1.500 Legend 530 + 00 SEEPAGE BERM 4 NEW D-TYPE WELLS riverside clay blanket new relief wells levee centerline _ ^ 540 + 00 pump station seepage berm 550 + 00 Ü FEMA CERTIFICATION . SUITE 100 NASHVILLE.PROGRESS SOLUTIONS PRAIRIE Du PONT & FISH LAKE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICTS DRAWN BY: MDP MARCH 10.

000 Feet 2. SUITE 100 NASHVILLE. 2011 PdP-5 3800 EZELL RD.PROGRESS SOLUTIONS PRAIRIE Du PONT & FISH LAKE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICTS . TN 37211 SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION DISTRICT COUNCIL SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION INITIATIVE FEMA CERTIFICATION .560 + 00 Wood River 570 + 00 Metro East Sanitary District 580 + 00 SEEPAGE BERM 590 + 00 12 NEW D-TYPE WELLS 600 + 00 Prairie Du Pont & Fish Lake 610 + MS R IVER 00 620 + 00 _ ^ 630 + 00 EXISTING PUMP STATION (Palmer Creek) FISH LAKE 0 500 1.000 640 + 00 20 NEW D-TYPE WELLS Legend 650 + 00 riverside clay blanket new relief wells 660 + 00 levee centerline _ ^ 670 + pump station seepage berm 2 NEW D-TYPE WELLS 00 710+00 720+00 730+00 740+00 700+00 750+00 760+00 SEEPAGE BERM 690+00 00 770+00 680 + Ü DRAWN BY: MDP MARCH 10.

.

APPENDIX 3 .

.

400 142 328 1.600 1.240 0 1.500) 0 106.131.713 PdP & FISH LAKE Improvement Type Clay Cap .800 18 54 68.861 TOTAL .600 95.Flush & Protruding Cutoff Wall .198 Increase (Decrease) 10.Deep Relief Well .Rehab Relief Well .600 8.871 2 25 47.071 (65) (11) 591.New Seepage Berm Unit LF SF SF SF EA EA CY Proposal Estimate 4.292 Increase (Decrease) 1. PdP & FISH LAKE Improvement Type Clay Cap .Flush & Protruding Cutoff Wall .684 30% Design Estimate 14.Deep Relief Well . MESD.900 (3.600 366.Intermediate Cutoff Wall .579 30% Design Estimate 6.WOOD RIVER.940 Increase (Decrease) 6.500 245.Intermediate Cutoff Wall .Deep Relief Well .Existing .700 0 0 0 33 133 359.175.140) 95.500 109.Intermediate Cutoff Wall .Shallow Cutoff Wall .Flush & Protruding Cutoff Wall .200 (56.105 30% Design Estimate 1.600 36 82 1.New Seepage Berm Unit LF SF SF SF EA EA CY Proposal Estimate 4.400 105.Rehab Relief Well .000 0 773.000 6 77 565.940 MESD Improvement Type Clay Cap .471 38 107 1.Existing .000 30% Design Estimate 6.Deep Relief Well .240 0 357.Existing .Rehab Relief Well .600 (52.New Seepage Berm Unit LF SF SF SF EA EA CY Proposal Estimate 0 136.600 83.Flush & Protruding Cutoff Wall .149.223.600 115.700 0 0 0 (55) (59) 45.700 189.Rehab Relief Well .246.100 95.500 0 880.640) 95.Shallow Cutoff Wall .Intermediate Cutoff Wall .Shallow Cutoff Wall .514 Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1 .966 Increase (Decrease) 1.557.Existing .QUANTITY COMPARISON WOOD RIVER Improvement Type Clay Cap .200 (12) 23 497.New Seepage Berm Unit LF SF SF SF EA EA CY Proposal Estimate 0 0 0 0 88 192 314.471 77 317 2.Shallow Cutoff Wall .

Construction Cost Escalation Rate Calculation for Southwestern Illinois Flood Prevention Initiative Estimate Reference Date: 4/1/2011 Mid-point of 3 years: 9/30/2012 Assumptions: 1. Reference year = 2011 2. Quarterly cost indexes were taken from Table A-1 of Reference 1 assuming feature code 11 (Levees and Floodwalls) 3. Quarterly escalation indices can be calculated for the quarter of interest by dividing its cost index by that of the preceding quarter 2Q11 Jan - Mar 740.23 3Q11 April - Jun 742.25 1.00273 x 4Q11 Jul - Sep 745.3 1.00411 Escalation Index 1.00273 1.00411 1.00475 1.00402 1.00402 1.00399 2.38% 1Q12 Oct - Dec 748.84 1.00475 2Q12 Jan - Mar 751.85 1.00402 3Q12 April - Jun 754.87 1.00402 4Q12 Jul - Sep 757.88 1.00399

Cost Index, Base year = 1967: Escalation Index: Period 4/1/2011 7/1/2011 10/1/2011 1/1/2012 4/1/2012 7/1/2012 to to to to to to 6/30/2011 9/30/2011 12/31/2011 3/31/2012 6/30/2012 9/30/2012

Quarter 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.0238439

Compound Escalation =

or

Reference: 1. Civil Works Construction Cost Index System, US Army Corps of Engineers, Tables Revised as of 30 September 2010 (EM-1110-2-1304)

Prelim Cost Estimate

Escalation

Page 1 of 1

COST SUMMARY
WOOD RIVER
Improvement Clay Caps Cutoff Walls Relief Wells Seepage Berms Civil Improvements Grand Total: Proposal $ $ $ $ $ $ Subtotal 1,626,750 $ 34,656,700 $ 4,288,450 $ 13,659,785 $ 2,528,430 $ 56,760,115 $ $33.7M Construction Estimate (includes Mobilization and Contingency) 1,789,425 38,122,370 4,717,295 15,025,764 2,781,273 62,436,127 $39.9M

MESD
Improvement Clay Caps Cutoff Walls Relief Wells Seepage Berms Civil Improvements Grand Total: Proposal $ $ $ $ $ $ Subtotal 3,377,700 $ 26,532,217 $ 5,964,405 $ 31,257,084 $ 1,476,950 $ 68,608,356 $ $50.6M Construction Estimate (includes Mobilization and Contingency) 3,715,470 29,185,439 6,560,846 34,382,792 1,624,645 75,469,192 $59.6M

PdP & FISH LAKE
Improvement Clay Caps Cutoff Walls Relief Wells Seepage Berms Civil Improvements Grand Total: Proposal $ $ $ $ $ $ Subtotal 408,000 $ $ 5,411,000 $ 6,362,840 $ 67,200 $ 12,249,040 $ $15.0M Construction Estimate (includes Mobilization and Contingency) 448,800 5,952,100 6,999,124 73,920 13,473,944 $17.9M

TOTAL - WOOD RIVER, MESD, PdP & FISH LAKE
Improvement Clay Caps Cutoff Walls Relief Wells Seepage Berms Civil Improvements Grand Total: Proposal $ $ $ $ $ $ Subtotal 5,412,450 $ 61,188,917 $ 15,663,855 $ 51,279,709 $ 4,072,580 $ 137,617,511 $ $99.3M Construction Estimate (includes Mobilization and Contingency) 5,953,695 67,307,809 17,230,241 56,407,679 4,479,838 151,379,262 $117.4M

Prelim Cost Estimate

Page 1 of 1

DETAILED SUMMARY - WOOD RIVER, MESD, PdP & FISH LAKE
Item # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Cost Item Clay Cap - Flush Clay Cap - Protruding Clear & Grub Cutoff Wall - Shallow Cutoff Wall - Intermediate Cutoff Wall - Deep Cutoff Wall - Hazardous Waste Premium Cutoff Wall - Special Waste Premium Drainage - Enclosed - 12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert Drainage - Enclosed - 60" Pipe Drainage - Enclosed - 72" Pipe Drainage - Surface - Shallow Ditch Drainage - Surface - Deep Ditch Drainage - Surface - Creek Relocation Improved Roadway Potable Water Well - Raise at Berm Relief Well - Existing - Abandon Relief Well - Existing - Convert to Type "T" Relief Well - Existing - Rehabilitate Relief Well - Existing - Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well - Existing - Special Waste Premium Relief Well - Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) Relief Well - Manifold Manhole Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) Relief Well - Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) Relief Well - New - Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well - New - Special Waste Premium Relief Well - New Type "D" Relief Well - New Type "T" ROW Acquisition - Agricultural ROW Acquisition - Commercial ROW Acquisition - Governmental ROW Acquisition - Industrial ROW Acquisition - Residential ROW Acquisition - Vacant/Undeveloped RipRap Bank Protection Seepage Berm Fill - Dredged Seepage Berm Fill - Hauled Seeding Slip-Line - 12-Inch Pipe Slip-Line - 15-Inch Pipe Slip-Line - 18-Inch Pipe Slip-Line - 24-Inch Pipe Slip-Line - 27-Inch Pipe Slip-Line - 36-Inch Pipe Slip-Line - 42-Inch Pipe Slip-Line - 48-Inch Pipe Wetland Mitigation Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) Utility Relocation - Power Pole Utility Relocation - High Tension Power (Raise) Utility Relocation - Underground Communication Utility Relocation - Underground Communications Pedestal Utility Relocation - Natural Gas Utility Relocation - Various Buried Facilities Subtotal: Mobilization (3%) Contingency (7%) Construction Estimate: Unit LF LF AC SF SF SF SF SF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA EA LF EA LF LF EA EA EA EA AC AC AC AC AC AC CY CY CY AC LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF AC EA EA EA LF EA LF LF LS LS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Unit Cost 500.00 240.00 6,000.00 12.00 32.00 37.00 30.00 15.00 1,330.00 220.00 320.00 150.00 275.00 650.00 150.00 75,000.00 2,000.00 6,000.00 12,000.00 48,700.00 12,700.00 40.00 6,000.00 50.00 60.00 61,950.00 17,125.00 30,000.00 34,000.00 6,500.00 30,000.00 25,000.00 30,000.00 18,000.00 23,000.00 160.00 10.00 12.00 1,650.00 48.00 70.00 125.00 240.00 260.00 290.00 325.00 350.00 25,000.00 2,500,000.00 10,000.00 200,000.00 100.00 5,000.00 250.00 250.00 4,128,525.32 9,633,225.74 Quantity 6,400.0 8,300.0 416.7 189,100.0 95,600.0 1,246,471.0 215,836.0 78,634.0 1,400.0 1,220.0 3,477.0 6,990.0 6,000.0 3,500.0 2,429.0 2.0 96.0 62.0 77.0 3.0 20.0 5,384.0 28.0 1,980.0 1,820.0 8.0 75.0 205.0 112.0 297.6 12.5 0.1 62.8 20.6 98.0 7,943.0 1,176,055.0 973,142.8 392.5 175.0 60.0 2,340.0 2,870.0 960.0 835.0 580.0 3,190.0 201.3 1.0 51.0 9.0 9,340.0 2.0 7,030.0 1,450.0 1.0 1.0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total 3,200,000.00 1,992,000.00 2,500,200.00 2,269,200.00 3,059,200.00 46,119,427.00 6,475,080.00 1,179,510.00 1,862,000.00 268,400.00 1,112,640.00 1,048,500.00 1,650,000.00 2,275,000.00 364,350.00 150,000.00 192,000.00 372,000.00 924,000.00 146,100.00 254,000.00 215,360.00 168,000.00 99,000.00 109,200.00 495,600.00 1,284,375.00 6,150,000.00 3,808,000.00 1,934,400.00 375,000.00 2,500.00 1,884,000.00 370,800.00 2,254,000.00 1,270,880.00 11,760,550.00 11,677,713.60 647,625.00 8,400.00 4,200.00 292,500.00 688,800.00 249,600.00 242,150.00 188,500.00 1,116,500.00 5,032,250.00 2,500,000.00 510,000.00 1,800,000.00 934,000.00 10,000.00 1,757,500.00 362,500.00 137,617,510.60 4,128,525.32 9,633,225.74 151,379,261.66

Prelim Cost Estimate

Page 1 of 1

WOOD RIVER .500.000.000.Creek Relocation Improved Roadway Potable Water Well .00 30.002.000.00 1.400.0 0.00 370.000.00 208.580.00 56.Existing .Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well .0 0.0 6.0 565.250.00 1.115.200.00 507.800.45 3.27-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .5 0.0 0.00 197.00 34.0 1.00 2.00 6.Convert to Type "T" Relief Well .200.00 30.000.0 1.000.00 150.00 12.00 87.Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) Relief Well .750.000.Deep Cutoff Wall .477.00 375.00 1.000.500.0 880.000.0 0.00 471.0 27.000.00 70.0 Total $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1.Flush Clay Cap .Various Buried Facilities Subtotal: Mobilization (3%) Contingency (7%) Construction Estimate: Unit LF LF AC SF SF SF SF SF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA EA LF EA LF LF EA EA EA EA AC AC AC AC AC AC CY CY CY AC LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF AC EA EA EA LF EA LF LF LS LS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Unit Cost 500.0 20.00 60.00 160.0 60.710.Special Waste Premium Relief Well .00 2.00 688.36-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .Natural Gas Utility Relocation .00 15.00 240.Intermediate Cutoff Wall .208.950.000.0 50.500.000.Surface .000.12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert Drainage .00 582.00 10.00 1.Shallow Cutoff Wall .700.00 18.436.0 700.New .00 108.000.00 1.000.00 362.00 240.000.0 1.0 34.360.00 2.50 Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1 .0 3.00 32.Surface .Abandon Relief Well .Existing .Shallow Ditch Drainage .000.7 175.00 30.00 100.500.112.200.00 23.150.00 70.Power Pole Utility Relocation .0 2.Enclosed .000.00 150.Existing .00 50.00 275.400.00 242.Special Waste Premium Drainage .0 81.650.Underground Communication Utility Relocation .220.00 350.389.00 107.280.Existing .Deep Ditch Drainage .0 2.750.00 290.00 150.1 15.Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) Relief Well .48-Inch Pipe Wetland Mitigation Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) Utility Relocation .60" Pipe Drainage .0 6.0 6.750.00 6.0 26.00 268.6 34.00 410.00 37.0 960.15-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 8.24-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .700.500.702.0 0.0 835.5 12.00 478.000.0 18.943.00 136.00 30.Residential ROW Acquisition .Underground Communications Pedestal Utility Relocation .00 249.973.500.Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) Relief Well .0 1.791.Existing .00 325.0 1.00 88.00 4.00 250.12-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 1.00 650.00 250.126.000.00 48.Enclosed .00 25.208.0 6.00 56.0 0.500.500.000.450.400.000.00 260.0 1.600.800.High Tension Power (Raise) Utility Relocation .000.0 114.SUMMARY Item # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Cost Item Clay Cap .000.00 810.00 189.0 0.803.00 394.702.000.00 795.00 25.42-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .Commercial ROW Acquisition .00 125.209.130.7 20.Raise at Berm Relief Well .00 1.0 3.Agricultural ROW Acquisition .00 48.Hazardous Waste Premium Cutoff Wall .350.000.760.Rehabilitate Relief Well .500.72" Pipe Drainage .Enclosed .940.320.330.Manifold Manhole Relief Well .Hauled Seeding Slip-Line .0 390.Industrial ROW Acquisition .00 1.0 5.000.00 1.640.00 61.00 12.Dredged Seepage Berm Fill .Vacant/Undeveloped RipRap Bank Protection Seepage Berm Fill .600.125.Protruding Clear & Grub Cutoff Wall .18-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .0 0.000.00 529.00 200.750.05 62.000.0 1.803.0 0.6 7.000.00 6.00 76.00 40.00 10.270.0 7.00 160.880.973.Special Waste Premium Relief Well .Surface .190.584.000.0 860.00 437.05 Quantity 0.0 16.Governmental ROW Acquisition .000.800.000.00 75.000.New Type "D" Relief Well .3 0.0 114.700.00 320.255.400.New Type "T" ROW Acquisition .00 42.7 83.00 72.00 12.0 0.00 12.00 6.0 1.00 17.00 6.00 220.45 3.00 5.0 270.New .Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well .00 32.560.500.

Intermediate Cutoff Wall .00 60.Various Buried Facilities Subtotal: Mobilization (3%) Contingency (7%) Construction Estimate: Unit LF LF AC SF SF SF SF SF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA EA LF EA LF LF EA EA EA EA AC AC AC AC AC AC CY CY CY AC LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF AC EA EA EA LF EA LF LF LS LS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Unit Cost 500.000.Existing .WOOD RIVER .Rehabilitate Relief Well .50 Quantity 6.000.330.872.60" Pipe Drainage .00 6.00 48.000.000.00 30.Residential ROW Acquisition .00 200.00 240.000.00 70.00 2.700.00 100.0 1.00 12.00 290.7 1.000.12-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .27-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 150.00 32.626.New Type "T" ROW Acquisition .Creek Relocation Improved Roadway Potable Water Well .000.00 1.00 160.00 650.872.789.000.000.00 30.Governmental ROW Acquisition .Surface .00 50.CLAY CAPS Item # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Cost Item Clay Cap .00 61.Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) Relief Well .00 6.Existing .New Type "D" Relief Well .Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well .000.Surface .00 1.Shallow Ditch Drainage .00 15.Power Pole Utility Relocation .00 12.00 6.00 150.00 12.000.00 275.00 125.Convert to Type "T" Relief Well .00 250.750.000.0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total 1.00 17.Existing .Deep Cutoff Wall .750.48-Inch Pipe Wetland Mitigation Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) Utility Relocation .Industrial ROW Acquisition .Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) Relief Well .Existing .00 48.Enclosed .Commercial ROW Acquisition .500.Special Waste Premium Relief Well .00 10.72" Pipe Drainage .00 1.50 113.00 48.00 42.00 48.425.00 18.000.00 325.00 320.00 30.36-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert Drainage .50 1.650.00 240.Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) Relief Well .High Tension Power (Raise) Utility Relocation .0 Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1 .00 1.18-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 40.00 260.00 34.Flush Clay Cap .00 350.00 25.Enclosed .24-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .Surface .Special Waste Premium Drainage .Existing .42-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 250.Special Waste Premium Relief Well .Shallow Cutoff Wall .50 113.00 220.500.Natural Gas Utility Relocation .Agricultural ROW Acquisition .000.Underground Communications Pedestal Utility Relocation .15-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .Manifold Manhole Relief Well .Hauled Seeding Slip-Line .New .000.600.125.00 25.000.700.802.00 75.00 23.Deep Ditch Drainage .00 5.Raise at Berm Relief Well .00 10.00 2.000.Underground Communication Utility Relocation .00 6.00 37.Enclosed .Hazardous Waste Premium Cutoff Wall .Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well .00 12.802.950.000.000.Vacant/Undeveloped RipRap Bank Protection Seepage Berm Fill .Abandon Relief Well .00 30.New .Dredged Seepage Berm Fill .Protruding Clear & Grub Cutoff Wall .584.

60" Pipe Drainage .CUTOFF WALLS Item # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Cost Item Clay Cap .Abandon Relief Well .000.0 Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1 .00 37.701.00 200.Deep Ditch Drainage .00 150.72" Pipe Drainage .00 75.656.New .0 1.Residential ROW Acquisition .969.00 325.48-Inch Pipe Wetland Mitigation Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) Utility Relocation .00 18.Flush Clay Cap .00 34.Underground Communications Pedestal Utility Relocation .00 5.000.500.000.00 1.Protruding Clear & Grub Cutoff Wall .WOOD RIVER .000.Dredged Seepage Berm Fill .Raise at Berm Relief Well .370.Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) Relief Well .00 12.00 125.00 350.800.Existing .00 30.00 12.00 12.Special Waste Premium Drainage .42-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .500.039.0 1.Surface .00 240.00 2.Various Buried Facilities Subtotal: Mobilization (3%) Contingency (7%) Construction Estimate: Unit LF LF AC SF SF SF SF SF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA EA LF EA LF LF EA EA EA EA AC AC AC AC AC AC CY CY CY AC LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF AC EA EA EA LF EA LF LF LS LS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Unit Cost 500.00 50.320.00 6.000.00 62.Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well .00 150.00 48.002.000.Underground Communication Utility Relocation .Shallow Ditch Drainage .330.Surface .15-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 160.0 880.00 30.00 6.00 83.Creek Relocation Improved Roadway Potable Water Well .Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) Relief Well .Manifold Manhole Relief Well .Deep Cutoff Wall .Enclosed .00 220.00 197.00 2.00 1.00 240.Existing .000.00 100.000.500.00 10.0 26.950.New .700.00 394.00 34.00 10.122.Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) Relief Well .00 2.27-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 60.000.Shallow Cutoff Wall .0 6.00 650.New Type "D" Relief Well .New Type "T" ROW Acquisition .00 250.Enclosed .00 40.12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert Drainage .000.000.00 260.0 4.0 1.400.Special Waste Premium Relief Well .00 1.000.0 800.Convert to Type "T" Relief Well .Enclosed .Special Waste Premium Relief Well .00 320.000.000.00 32.00 275.00 30.Power Pole Utility Relocation .0 250.700.Existing .18-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .000.00 2.Industrial ROW Acquisition .00 200.560.500.00 30.12-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .000.00 17.Hazardous Waste Premium Cutoff Wall .Hauled Seeding Slip-Line .425.00 23.Vacant/Undeveloped RipRap Bank Protection Seepage Berm Fill .00 38.00 1.Commercial ROW Acquisition .00 61.700.125.000.000.000.425.000.000.24-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 32.00 200.Existing .00 70.Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well .039.Natural Gas Utility Relocation .00 250.Governmental ROW Acquisition .00 25.00 6.High Tension Power (Raise) Utility Relocation .580.Existing .Intermediate Cutoff Wall .00 15.00 40.00 6.Surface .00 Quantity $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total 1.Agricultural ROW Acquisition .00 48.650.36-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 12.000.00 290.701.00 25.000.000.Rehabilitate Relief Well .969.

659.00 260.0 Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1 .950.0 18.00 30.00 30.00 61.Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well .00 268.00 2.00 60.000.791.Deep Cutoff Wall .000.7 18.00 650.55 956.00 150.00 15.00 6.1 15.00 70.000.00 48.477.Existing .New .025.60" Pipe Drainage .000.640.00 150.00 478.00 6.00 409.Shallow Ditch Drainage .00 189.000.12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert Drainage .00 320.0 1.7 0.Special Waste Premium Relief Well .00 240.184.500.00 465.0 1.000.Special Waste Premium Drainage .Enclosed .Flush Clay Cap .00 232.763.0 3.Vacant/Undeveloped RipRap Bank Protection Seepage Berm Fill .6 12.000.000.00 10.00 5.200.000.42-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 208.00 6.209.00 2.112.Convert to Type "T" Relief Well .00 18.00 375.350.00 250.000.36-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .12-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 70.New .00 325.000.700.785.Shallow Cutoff Wall .Various Buried Facilities Subtotal: Mobilization (3%) Contingency (7%) Construction Estimate: Unit LF LF AC SF SF SF SF SF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA EA LF EA LF LF EA EA EA EA AC AC AC AC AC AC CY CY CY AC LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF AC EA EA EA LF EA LF LF LS LS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Unit Cost 500.00 13.95 15.000.Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well .27-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 1.7 1.Creek Relocation Improved Roadway Potable Water Well .00 120.940.125.500.00 12.000.24-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .0 4.Governmental ROW Acquisition .000.00 125.0 114.Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) Relief Well .00 15.50 114.Existing .000.Surface .650.15-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .8 0.255.00 240.Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) Relief Well .00 17.000.Hazardous Waste Premium Cutoff Wall .000.00 40.00 10.389.0 2.00 56.000.0 35.00 795.Existing .00 150.400.SEEPAGE BERMS Item # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Cost Item Clay Cap .Rehabilitate Relief Well .000.00 12.130.Enclosed .48-Inch Pipe Wetland Mitigation Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) Utility Relocation .0 2.New Type "D" Relief Well .00 409.WOOD RIVER .00 25.18-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .5 0.00 200.793.6 34.0 3.95 Quantity $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total 688.Underground Communication Utility Relocation .00 1.Special Waste Premium Relief Well .Industrial ROW Acquisition .Commercial ROW Acquisition .00 30.0 650.000.00 50.000.500.Residential ROW Acquisition .00 6.360.Agricultural ROW Acquisition .00 1.Raise at Berm Relief Well .184.72" Pipe Drainage .New Type "T" ROW Acquisition .Deep Ditch Drainage .700.00 6.00 88.00 350.000.00 34.00 800.00 275.00 48.Enclosed .Natural Gas Utility Relocation .190.00 100.000.00 2.0 700.Manifold Manhole Relief Well .6 565.Surface .0 1.Hauled Seeding Slip-Line .000.00 30.00 160.220.Dredged Seepage Berm Fill .Power Pole Utility Relocation .High Tension Power (Raise) Utility Relocation .793.00 12.Abandon Relief Well .00 10.00 162.00 23.00 12.500.000.500.800.00 290.0 1.Intermediate Cutoff Wall .55 956.Existing .00 32.Underground Communications Pedestal Utility Relocation .00 108.000.280.330.0 1.00 220.000.Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) Relief Well .00 37.00 471.00 75.800.Protruding Clear & Grub Cutoff Wall .Existing .00 250.00 25.Surface .500.700.500.

00 70.0 34.00 275.00 220.00 76.191.Various Buried Facilities Subtotal: Mobilization (3%) Contingency (7%) Construction Estimate: Unit LF LF AC SF SF SF SF SF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA EA LF EA LF LF EA EA EA EA AC AC AC AC AC AC CY CY CY AC LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF AC EA EA EA LF EA LF LF LS LS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Unit Cost 500.Existing .00 12.00 30.0 50.Flush Clay Cap .50 300.717.0 27.000.00 10.Special Waste Premium Relief Well .0 1.00 1.Hauled Seeding Slip-Line .Rehabilitate Relief Well .Special Waste Premium Drainage .00 12.Deep Cutoff Wall .00 25.00 200.000.Shallow Ditch Drainage .Manifold Manhole Relief Well .653.00 75.WOOD RIVER .00 18.00 23.00 160.000.Governmental ROW Acquisition .00 290.000.500.000.0 6.00 10.000.000.New Type "D" Relief Well .00 150.000.Enclosed .Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) Relief Well .00 30.12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert Drainage .00 32.000.00 250.00 50.New .00 240.00 12.00 34.00 250.RELIEF WELLS Item # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Cost Item Clay Cap .200.00 48.00 2.Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) Relief Well .00 30.000.Surface .00 40.00 650.12-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .Agricultural ROW Acquisition .295.Special Waste Premium Relief Well .Hazardous Waste Premium Cutoff Wall .Enclosed .Residential ROW Acquisition .250.00 100.18-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .000.450.60" Pipe Drainage .00 6.500.Existing .650.000.0 6.Commercial ROW Acquisition .000.00 15.Existing .New .00 4.700.Creek Relocation Improved Roadway Potable Water Well .00 582.00 6.00 320.000.950.00 6.Raise at Berm Relief Well .00 260.0 1.000.72" Pipe Drainage .50 300.27-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .Existing .Shallow Cutoff Wall .Underground Communications Pedestal Utility Relocation .00 350.653.00 37.700.000.Surface .000.Industrial ROW Acquisition .Existing .00 325.288.000.50 4.Protruding Clear & Grub Cutoff Wall .000.Enclosed .00 6.00 360.36-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 2.Vacant/Undeveloped RipRap Bank Protection Seepage Berm Fill .00 125.0 12.Underground Communication Utility Relocation .125.000.00 17.Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) Relief Well .700.000.00 128.42-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .0 20.00 61.Convert to Type "T" Relief Well .00 30.Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well .00 360.000.00 286.48-Inch Pipe Wetland Mitigation Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) Utility Relocation .00 7.00 1.Surface .00 128.00 72.000.Dredged Seepage Berm Fill .0 44.00 12.New Type "T" ROW Acquisition .Deep Ditch Drainage .000.Natural Gas Utility Relocation .50 Quantity $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total 42.00 1.Intermediate Cutoff Wall .0 Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1 .00 48.24-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .000.191.00 810.High Tension Power (Raise) Utility Relocation .00 150.00 25.00 60.Power Pole Utility Relocation .Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well .330.15-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 5.00 240.Abandon Relief Well .

00 34.000.24-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .Existing .00 125.60" Pipe Drainage .00 6.00 40.Flush Clay Cap .000.00 242.00 1.00 61.Dredged Seepage Berm Fill .700.000.0 60.0 960.7 7.27-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 200.Commercial ROW Acquisition .000.0 270.New .Abandon Relief Well .00 15.Enclosed .High Tension Power (Raise) Utility Relocation .00 160.000.00 150.Hazardous Waste Premium Cutoff Wall .400.12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert Drainage .Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) Relief Well .00 220.00 12.Rehabilitate Relief Well .00 240.00 75.330.00 30.00 290.000.00 12.00 12.00 320.000.270.48-Inch Pipe Wetland Mitigation Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) Utility Relocation .00 2.00 275.New Type "D" Relief Well .00 32.750.200.00 75.Power Pole Utility Relocation .500.00 30.000.00 30.00 410.0 390.WOOD RIVER .15-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 250.00 249.943.710.36-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .781.00 10.Enclosed .00 1.000.00 1.00 50.00 325.0 1.Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) Relief Well .00 150.Special Waste Premium Relief Well .90 176.Existing .00 48.90 176.Various Buried Facilities Subtotal: Mobilization (3%) Contingency (7%) Construction Estimate: Unit LF LF AC SF SF SF SF SF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA EA LF EA LF LF EA EA EA EA AC AC AC AC AC AC CY CY CY AC LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF AC EA EA EA LF EA LF LF LS LS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Unit Cost 500.Industrial ROW Acquisition .00 25.42-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .Creek Relocation Improved Roadway Potable Water Well .10 2.00 17.Underground Communications Pedestal Utility Relocation .650.00 4.000.CIVIL IMPROVEMENTS Item # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Cost Item Clay Cap .0 Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1 .000.00 87.18-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .852.00 6.Underground Communication Utility Relocation .Existing .Deep Cutoff Wall .400.950.00 136.Special Waste Premium Drainage .00 650.990.00 350.Governmental ROW Acquisition .000.0 1.0 835.125.000.Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well .600.Existing .00 2.00 75.Surface .Intermediate Cutoff Wall .Surface .10 Quantity $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total 11.0 175.72" Pipe Drainage .00 30.Deep Ditch Drainage .Enclosed .Surface .000.Natural Gas Utility Relocation .New .000.500.00 10.New Type "T" ROW Acquisition .990.Existing .000.Convert to Type "T" Relief Well .500.Special Waste Premium Relief Well .700.430.00 23.00 100.00 6.00 2.Manifold Manhole Relief Well .00 1.00 260.00 240.00 48.00 25.00 107.Hauled Seeding Slip-Line .852.Raise at Berm Relief Well .Vacant/Undeveloped RipRap Bank Protection Seepage Berm Fill .00 250.12-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .Agricultural ROW Acquisition .000.Shallow Cutoff Wall .Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) Relief Well .0 1.00 5.0 860.150.500.Shallow Ditch Drainage .00 8.Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well .00 70.273.00 6.Residential ROW Acquisition .00 60.00 18.050.528.00 37.000.00 12.Protruding Clear & Grub Cutoff Wall .880.

00 2.469.7 0.00 275.0 2.000.000.92 75.650.42-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .High Tension Power (Raise) Utility Relocation .18-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 6.0 206.00 30.000.Underground Communication Utility Relocation .00 12.000.0 63.0 4.Commercial ROW Acquisition .000.175.00 48.200.00 390.386.Special Waste Premium Relief Well .00 15.256.0 95.0 69.00 1.00 10.200.000.000.Special Waste Premium Drainage .00 650.00 320.00 456.00 127.00 6.0 2.0 1.Flush Clay Cap .12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert Drainage .0 62.Enclosed .00 1.00 330.000.00 177.60" Pipe Drainage .00 784.0 55.Creek Relocation Improved Roadway Potable Water Well .00 1.0 0.Residential ROW Acquisition .Hauled Seeding Slip-Line .Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) Relief Well .00 1.00 32.00 250.000.0 6.600.862.125.0 1.237.00 566.0 2.000.Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well .00 2.000.48-Inch Pipe Wetland Mitigation Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) Utility Relocation .314.New Type "D" Relief Well .0 8.550.Existing .0 45.200.000.Intermediate Cutoff Wall .00 232.Enclosed .058.00 250.00 150.000.000.24-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .950.00 2.00 1.275.600.0 38.500.Surface .00 2.72" Pipe Drainage .00 6.608.584.00 25.000.000.00 146.0 1.00 240.000.760.700.Rehabilitate Relief Well .00 60.00 34.00 37.000.Raise at Berm Relief Well .00 150.640.471.0 310.00 1.Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well .250.00 495.Enclosed .Existing .0 0.000.00 1.600.750.0 41.00 17.250.000.68 4.0 14.844.000.00 1.000.00 6.15-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .0 0.00 60.00 23.00 70.00 260.00 264.Deep Ditch Drainage .00 18.000.Abandon Relief Well .Existing .267.050.055.92 Quantity 6.800.00 61.Shallow Ditch Drainage .8 0.125.320.00 325.000.559.00 30.100.0 3.0 0.Existing .0 231.00 150.00 12.000.SUMMARY Item # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Cost Item Clay Cap .0 0.480.00 75.Dredged Seepage Berm Fill .0 10.Shallow Cutoff Wall .00 211.Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) Relief Well .00 10.200.Natural Gas Utility Relocation .00 125.00 2.00 2.0 47.0 35.000.0 52.584.0 105.Vacant/Undeveloped RipRap Bank Protection Seepage Berm Fill .00 1.Surface .Underground Communications Pedestal Utility Relocation .00 13.000.00 240.176.800.000.0 0.Deep Cutoff Wall .00 200.00 12.00 185.0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total 3.Governmental ROW Acquisition .Hazardous Waste Premium Cutoff Wall .427.00 100.200.00 3.350.820.MESD .000.0 5.00 6.00 42.Power Pole Utility Relocation .00 350.Industrial ROW Acquisition .400.600.00 800.220.00 50.0 209.059.0 3.000.058.Various Buried Facilities Subtotal: Mobilization (3%) Contingency (7%) Construction Estimate: Unit LF LF AC SF SF SF SF SF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA EA LF EA LF LF EA EA EA EA AC AC AC AC AC AC CY CY CY AC LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF AC EA EA EA LF EA LF LF LS LS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Unit Cost 500.000.00 30.650.00 702.000.00 220.00 100.00 40.00 12.00 1.0 1.68 4.0 15.36-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .New .372.500.0 3.000.Surface .0 0.00 138.Existing .330.000.413.00 160.0 850.0 366.710.200.00 4.0 174.12-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .000.000.700.000.00 68.000.00 109.000.9 1.458.Protruding Clear & Grub Cutoff Wall .500.00 290.4 0.280.Manifold Manhole Relief Well .0 47.500.1 0.0 1.00 11.Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) Relief Well .0 880.0 0.Agricultural ROW Acquisition .27-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .New .802.191.00 980.Special Waste Premium Relief Well .00 2.277.000.356.00 5.802.0 0.0 1.00 341.Convert to Type "T" Relief Well .0 0.000.60 Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1 .500.00 25.680.New Type "T" ROW Acquisition .400.00 48.108.00 30.0 0.

00 12.000.500.000.Hauled Seeding Slip-Line .00 125.439.Surface .36-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 150.00 48.00 150.00 260.000.72" Pipe Drainage .700.000.Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well .Special Waste Premium Relief Well .000.650.MESD .439.Vacant/Undeveloped RipRap Bank Protection Seepage Berm Fill .330.Hazardous Waste Premium Cutoff Wall .715.15-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 236.00 25.400.00 1.Raise at Berm Relief Well .0 1.Special Waste Premium Drainage .Deep Cutoff Wall .Rehabilitate Relief Well .New .Shallow Cutoff Wall .377.00 37.00 6.00 32.200.00 101.00 18.12-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 10.950.00 32.00 160.00 75.200.00 30.000.500.331.12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert Drainage .00 320.60" Pipe Drainage .Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) Relief Well .00 101.Enclosed .Convert to Type "T" Relief Well .00 60.3 1.00 2.00 250.48-Inch Pipe Wetland Mitigation Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) Utility Relocation .000.00 48.Existing .New .Surface .Agricultural ROW Acquisition .00 23.00 650.700.00 5.CLAY CAPS Item # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Cost Item Clay Cap .500.Enclosed .00 12.000.00 10.Deep Ditch Drainage .Existing .00 34.High Tension Power (Raise) Utility Relocation .00 30.24-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .000.Protruding Clear & Grub Cutoff Wall .Existing .New Type "T" ROW Acquisition .00 6.700.00 240.00 325.00 Quantity 6.00 70.Existing .Natural Gas Utility Relocation .Surface .00 61.00 50.00 145.00 15.00 200.Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well .00 12.00 275.00 25.000.000.00 12.00 236.00 250.00 240.00 3.00 350.27-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .Existing .0 Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1 .00 6.Flush Clay Cap .000.Underground Communication Utility Relocation .Power Pole Utility Relocation .Enclosed .00 6.00 290.00 3.Various Buried Facilities Subtotal: Mobilization (3%) Contingency (7%) Construction Estimate: Unit LF LF AC SF SF SF SF SF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA EA LF EA LF LF EA EA EA EA AC AC AC AC AC AC CY CY CY AC LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF AC EA EA EA LF EA LF LF LS LS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Unit Cost 500.Dredged Seepage Berm Fill .00 1.New Type "D" Relief Well .470.0 24.00 17.331.Industrial ROW Acquisition .Governmental ROW Acquisition .Special Waste Premium Relief Well .000.000.00 2.42-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .Shallow Ditch Drainage .Manifold Manhole Relief Well .Commercial ROW Acquisition .000.Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) Relief Well .00 100.000.18-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .Underground Communications Pedestal Utility Relocation .Intermediate Cutoff Wall .000.00 30.Abandon Relief Well .00 30.Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) Relief Well .000.000.00 40.00 1.Residential ROW Acquisition .125.Creek Relocation Improved Roadway Potable Water Well .00 220.2 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total 3.

00 48.857.Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well .Dredged Seepage Berm Fill .Creek Relocation Improved Roadway Potable Water Well .Raise at Berm Relief Well .Surface .255.966.00 220.Shallow Cutoff Wall .125.000.Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) Relief Well .00 30.12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert Drainage .0 2.00 70.0 95.00 6.24-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 1.700.Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) Relief Well .000.19 29.600.Convert to Type "T" Relief Well .00 6.256.Hauled Seeding Slip-Line .680.Existing .314.Industrial ROW Acquisition .700.500.Enclosed .966.Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well .Existing .Various Buried Facilities Subtotal: Mobilization (3%) Contingency (7%) Construction Estimate: Unit LF LF AC SF SF SF SF SF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA EA LF EA LF LF EA EA EA EA AC AC AC AC AC AC CY CY CY AC LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF AC EA EA EA LF EA LF LF LS LS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Unit Cost 500.000.00 264.000.42-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .0 366.00 260.00 1.00 32.280.650.Existing .15-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .27-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .12-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 150.000.000.00 15.00 26.00 17.200.710.0 1.00 240.00 290.Protruding Clear & Grub Cutoff Wall .267.00 275.640.48-Inch Pipe Wetland Mitigation Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) Utility Relocation .00 75.00 200.00 48.00 60.00 6.00 5.72" Pipe Drainage .427.471.00 25.Enclosed .Vacant/Undeveloped RipRap Bank Protection Seepage Berm Fill .00 12.00 12.Existing .00 795.00 250.000.Deep Ditch Drainage .00 650.70 105.255.New .00 250.Natural Gas Utility Relocation .Shallow Ditch Drainage .Power Pole Utility Relocation .Enclosed .Underground Communication Utility Relocation .000.51 1.Manifold Manhole Relief Well .Residential ROW Acquisition .000.000.Surface .New Type "T" ROW Acquisition .00 3.00 6.60" Pipe Drainage .Governmental ROW Acquisition .Rehabilitate Relief Well .00 2.320.00 12.Underground Communications Pedestal Utility Relocation .00 6.00 150.Hazardous Waste Premium Cutoff Wall .Flush Clay Cap .00 240.000.559.200.Special Waste Premium Drainage .0 Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1 .000.000.00 13.MESD .217.059.00 10.500.00 784.00 30.Abandon Relief Well .000.00 40.New .00 125.00 23.New Type "D" Relief Well .00 34.Special Waste Premium Relief Well .Existing .00 325.532.High Tension Power (Raise) Utility Relocation .00 320.00 160.000.000.000.00 1.51 1.00 2.00 30.18-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .0 209.00 61.00 37.19 Quantity $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total 1.Agricultural ROW Acquisition .00 10.277.00 18.00 795.Deep Cutoff Wall .857.00 12.0 52.Commercial ROW Acquisition .438.Surface .00 25.Special Waste Premium Relief Well .330.00 50.36-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .Intermediate Cutoff Wall .185.CUTOFF WALLS Item # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Cost Item Clay Cap .Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) Relief Well .00 100.600.950.0 5.000.0 1.000.00 350.000.00 30.

0 Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1 .0 14.Various Buried Facilities Subtotal: Mobilization (3%) Contingency (7%) Construction Estimate: Unit LF LF AC SF SF SF SF SF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA EA LF EA LF LF EA EA EA EA AC AC AC AC AC AC CY CY CY AC LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF AC EA EA EA LF EA LF LF LS LS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Unit Cost 500.00 240.00 6.00 350.000.New Type "T" ROW Acquisition .Existing .000.560.36-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .405.00 1.Residential ROW Acquisition .000.00 330.200.00 150.00 48.Surface .108.00 32.00 18.000.00 5.800.00 290.Abandon Relief Well .00 120.000.00 495.00 30.000.00 15.00 2.00 160.Surface .000.12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert Drainage .42-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .New .0 41.15-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .0 3.00 250.Existing .964.000.2 55.12-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 220.00 23.000.0 38.000.000.72" Pipe Drainage .00 50.000.500.35 6.Protruding Clear & Grub Cutoff Wall .932.700.00 100.00 8.000.Existing .0 1.00 1.00 178.00 6.Hazardous Waste Premium Cutoff Wall .00 25.0 62.00 12.000.Manifold Manhole Relief Well .00 125.Power Pole Utility Relocation .00 250.Enclosed .00 177.Convert to Type "T" Relief Well .000.0 45.0 4.00 320.Underground Communication Utility Relocation .00 40.24-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .Enclosed .Special Waste Premium Relief Well .35 Quantity $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total 31.Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) Relief Well .Commercial ROW Acquisition .Existing .Existing .00 30.00 25.Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well .00 10.000.845.650.700.18-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .000.000.00 70.00 1.Shallow Ditch Drainage .00 5.Vacant/Undeveloped RipRap Bank Protection Seepage Berm Fill .00 37.00 2.00 325.0 5.15 417.Industrial ROW Acquisition .Surface .00 60.60" Pipe Drainage .High Tension Power (Raise) Utility Relocation .0 8.125.000.Intermediate Cutoff Wall .330.Special Waste Premium Relief Well .Deep Cutoff Wall .Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) Relief Well .50 5.Shallow Cutoff Wall .2 1.125.00 75.Hauled Seeding Slip-Line .00 30.00 39.Natural Gas Utility Relocation .950.00 10.508.00 178.000.00 17.Enclosed .00 146.00 702.Special Waste Premium Drainage .500.932.00 12.Rehabilitate Relief Well .Underground Communications Pedestal Utility Relocation .00 650.000.00 30.00 200.000.508.Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) Relief Well .00 150.00 240.00 2.00 48.00 6.27-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 456.15 417.350.00 260.Governmental ROW Acquisition .580.000.Raise at Berm Relief Well .Creek Relocation Improved Roadway Potable Water Well .Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well .48-Inch Pipe Wetland Mitigation Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) Utility Relocation .New .RELIEF WELLS Item # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Cost Item Clay Cap .00 6.New Type "D" Relief Well .Agricultural ROW Acquisition .600.Deep Ditch Drainage .00 34.00 12.Dredged Seepage Berm Fill .00 61.Flush Clay Cap .0 6.00 275.100.000.MESD .00 12.

000.36-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .Hauled Seeding Slip-Line .176.712.00 320.00 937.00 60.0 1.055.400.Underground Communications Pedestal Utility Relocation .00 150.000.650.00 1.000.000.00 48.00 290.00 332.00 6.72" Pipe Drainage .New .MESD .00 109.000.Surface .00 2.Hazardous Waste Premium Cutoff Wall .500.Existing .0 Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1 .Manifold Manhole Relief Well .200.6 1.0 69.Various Buried Facilities Subtotal: Mobilization (3%) Contingency (7%) Construction Estimate: Unit LF LF AC SF SF SF SF SF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA EA LF EA LF LF EA EA EA EA AC AC AC AC AC AC CY CY CY AC LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF AC EA EA EA LF EA LF LF LS LS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Unit Cost 500.862.000.500.New Type "D" Relief Well .Deep Cutoff Wall .000.60" Pipe Drainage .18-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .Special Waste Premium Drainage .00 240.187.458.084.New .000.500.Power Pole Utility Relocation .Residential ROW Acquisition .Surface .Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well .00 25.00 40.00 2.Enclosed .12-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 60.Deep Ditch Drainage .792.650.00 325.00 250.Protruding Clear & Grub Cutoff Wall .760.00 12.500.257.175.950.Industrial ROW Acquisition .00 1.00 10.7 43.00 566.Flush Clay Cap .200.15-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 127.500.Existing .600.Surface .00 2.88 34.00 30.237.00 4.00 31.0 6.500.00 34.0 15.0 201.Natural Gas Utility Relocation .Existing .000.00 260.Special Waste Premium Relief Well .00 220.00 17.125.000.712.00 48.00 12.00 937.00 2.Vacant/Undeveloped RipRap Bank Protection Seepage Berm Fill .700.00 6.Special Waste Premium Relief Well .000.339.52 2.000.0 47.High Tension Power (Raise) Utility Relocation .000.00 10.00 32.995.00 11.00 200.00 1.4 1.00 30.Agricultural ROW Acquisition .844.Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) Relief Well .24-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .0 4.00 12.Shallow Ditch Drainage .00 61.Rehabilitate Relief Well .00 650.000.000.330.187.Intermediate Cutoff Wall .0 1.0 3.293.820.88 Quantity $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total 1.00 1.Underground Communication Utility Relocation .00 350.Existing .Abandon Relief Well .00 160.00 25.Enclosed .Dredged Seepage Berm Fill .00 37.00 250.0 29.Enclosed .209.000.52 2.275.000.0 1.00 100.40 201.00 30.Existing .000.Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well .00 6.Shallow Cutoff Wall .00 5.0 2.27-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .Governmental ROW Acquisition .42-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 75.New Type "T" ROW Acquisition .000.000.00 150.Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) Relief Well .6 1.000.6 173.Commercial ROW Acquisition .00 23.00 240.0 850.Raise at Berm Relief Well .050.00 42.000.00 12.0 3.48-Inch Pipe Wetland Mitigation Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) Utility Relocation .00 125.SEEPAGE BERMS Item # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Cost Item Clay Cap .00 800.000.000.000.000.Creek Relocation Improved Roadway Potable Water Well .640.00 390.000.382.00 1.550.00 70.00 275.000.995.0 10.00 193.00 18.1 63.700.000.00 138.600.00 1.00 6.Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) Relief Well .00 150.000.00 50.00 30.00 15.12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert Drainage .Convert to Type "T" Relief Well .

386.60" Pipe Drainage .000.Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well .Residential ROW Acquisition .000.00 211.0 880.000.00 17.0 1.New .Existing .000.00 48.00 37.00 150.42-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .50 1.Deep Cutoff Wall .CIVIL IMPROVEMENTS Item # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Cost Item Clay Cap .000.Vacant/Undeveloped RipRap Bank Protection Seepage Berm Fill .12-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .000.00 220.Natural Gas Utility Relocation .48-Inch Pipe Wetland Mitigation Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) Utility Relocation .Governmental ROW Acquisition .00 12.00 10.950.200.000.Special Waste Premium Relief Well .00 30.00 650.Hauled Seeding Slip-Line .00 980.00 250.000.0 310.00 44.00 160.000.Existing .00 10.50 103.Manifold Manhole Relief Well .480.Flush Clay Cap .00 34.00 350.000.Deep Ditch Drainage .00 6.00 30.Intermediate Cutoff Wall .High Tension Power (Raise) Utility Relocation .Creek Relocation Improved Roadway Potable Water Well .27-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 50.00 12.50 Quantity $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total 185.800.Convert to Type "T" Relief Well .24-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .386.00 2.00 240.476.500.Enclosed .00 150.00 12.Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) Relief Well .950.308.00 6.00 12.50 103.Surface .00 275.000.000.000.500.Rehabilitate Relief Well .Raise at Berm Relief Well .Hazardous Waste Premium Cutoff Wall .00 250.36-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .000.00 48.Dredged Seepage Berm Fill .12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert Drainage .750.000.00 125.00 25.18-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 320.00 15.308.Various Buried Facilities Subtotal: Mobilization (3%) Contingency (7%) Construction Estimate: Unit LF LF AC SF SF SF SF SF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA EA LF EA LF LF EA EA EA EA AC AC AC AC AC AC CY CY CY AC LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF AC EA EA EA LF EA LF LF LS LS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Unit Cost 500.Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well .New .00 5.MESD .Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) Relief Well .Surface .Underground Communications Pedestal Utility Relocation .00 1.New Type "T" ROW Acquisition .Existing .00 290.Shallow Cutoff Wall .Surface .Commercial ROW Acquisition .00 30.Existing .00 100.00 6.00 75.15-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .Enclosed .Protruding Clear & Grub Cutoff Wall .00 61.Underground Communication Utility Relocation .72" Pipe Drainage .000.Existing .00 1.Industrial ROW Acquisition .00 260.00 18.Abandon Relief Well .125.330.00 60.000.Special Waste Premium Relief Well .Enclosed .0 Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1 .0 2.700.00 200.00 325.Shallow Ditch Drainage .00 1.00 23.645.New Type "D" Relief Well .000.00 25.624.00 6.000.00 240.00 30.700.00 44.Agricultural ROW Acquisition .00 2.00 40.Special Waste Premium Drainage .00 1.00 100.Power Pole Utility Relocation .650.00 32.000.Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) Relief Well .0 1.00 70.

8 71.Commercial ROW Acquisition .500.473.00 1.0 0.00 18.000.00 5.00 180.00 30.943.00 12.990.650.000.0 0.950.0 1.12-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 67.0 0.Special Waste Premium Relief Well .0 359.0 33.00 6.00 200.Existing .0 0.00 10.00 156.00 200.Underground Communication Utility Relocation .00 6.0 6.00 290.00 48.0 71.Existing .172.Existing .Intermediate Cutoff Wall .15-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .18-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .0 1.589.200.000.48-Inch Pipe Wetland Mitigation Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) Utility Relocation .000.00 32.PdP & FISH LAKE .039.0 0.Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) Relief Well .0 0.000.0 1.00 100.0 0.60 117.000.600.00 396.500.0 0.00 240.00 12.00 34.New .Enclosed .SUMMARY Item # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Cost Item Clay Cap .Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) Relief Well .000.330.Agricultural ROW Acquisition .Dredged Seepage Berm Fill .00 48.965.Manifold Manhole Relief Well .0 0.0 1.New Type "T" ROW Acquisition .0 0.0 0.Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well .0 0.00 60.Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) Relief Well .00 2.0 0.000.Hauled Seeding Slip-Line .Special Waste Premium Relief Well .000.00 2.0 0.0 0.000.00 150.19 857.0 0.00 220.00 75.000.0 1.Surface .040.00 10.0 0.Existing .00 54.Hazardous Waste Premium Cutoff Wall .0 0.00 17.00 367.471.0 0.00 650.72" Pipe Drainage .New .00 150.Residential ROW Acquisition .00 152.Abandon Relief Well .000.Shallow Cutoff Wall .000.Flush Clay Cap .200.000.12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert Drainage .00 12.00 125.Natural Gas Utility Relocation .00 15.19 857.00 30.60 367.0 0.700.000.Industrial ROW Acquisition .0 0.0 0.Deep Ditch Drainage .1 0.0 0.00 350.000.42-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 23.77 13.00 250.0 0.Shallow Ditch Drainage .150.0 133.Surface .000.56 Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1 .319.432.Rehabilitate Relief Well .00 160.471.0 0.00 260.36-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .000.00 1.24-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .000.0 0.27-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .249.000.00 25.Enclosed .0 0.0 0.700.Special Waste Premium Drainage .00 426.00 275.00 10.Surface .000.00 12.00 600.000.Vacant/Undeveloped RipRap Bank Protection Seepage Berm Fill .0 0.00 70.00 40.000.125.00 50.700.High Tension Power (Raise) Utility Relocation .0 27.00 4.00 325.0 0.0 0.00 30.0 Total $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 408.0 0.432.0 0.00 6.00 12.Deep Cutoff Wall .New Type "D" Relief Well .00 25.00 37.Power Pole Utility Relocation .0 6.Raise at Berm Relief Well .0 180.Governmental ROW Acquisition .00 30.00 250.0 0.00 6.Creek Relocation Improved Roadway Potable Water Well .00 240.00 1.0 0.0 0.00 61.000.0 0.000.0 20.Convert to Type "T" Relief Well .Existing .0 280.000.000.Various Buried Facilities Subtotal: Mobilization (3%) Contingency (7%) Construction Estimate: Unit LF LF AC SF SF SF SF SF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA EA LF EA LF LF EA EA EA EA AC AC AC AC AC AC CY CY CY AC LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF AC EA EA EA LF EA LF LF LS LS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Unit Cost 500.Underground Communications Pedestal Utility Relocation .0 2.Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well .00 3.000.77 Quantity 0.Enclosed .00 320.Protruding Clear & Grub Cutoff Wall .000.4 0.60" Pipe Drainage .500.

36-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 40.700.00 12.00 250.18-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 12.Special Waste Premium Drainage .CLAY CAPS Item # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Cost Item Clay Cap .000.000.Agricultural ROW Acquisition .000.00 37.Flush Clay Cap .72" Pipe Drainage .00 1.00 30.00 23.00 12.000.00 125.00 2.Vacant/Undeveloped RipRap Bank Protection Seepage Berm Fill .Deep Ditch Drainage .00 Quantity 1.00 18.00 17.00 32.Hazardous Waste Premium Cutoff Wall .Surface .00 200.Governmental ROW Acquisition .0 1.800.Existing .High Tension Power (Raise) Utility Relocation .Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) Relief Well .00 6.700.Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) Relief Well .Raise at Berm Relief Well .PdP & FISH LAKE .00 48.700.00 325.00 1.Dredged Seepage Berm Fill .Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well .950.00 28.00 70.000.Existing .500.48-Inch Pipe Wetland Mitigation Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) Utility Relocation .000.New Type "D" Relief Well .Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) Relief Well .Shallow Cutoff Wall .000.00 60.00 12.000.00 240.00 6.New Type "T" ROW Acquisition .000.Surface .000.0 Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1 .00 220.000.000.Shallow Ditch Drainage .Power Pole Utility Relocation .00 448.000.500.Underground Communications Pedestal Utility Relocation .Special Waste Premium Relief Well .Underground Communication Utility Relocation .24-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .Creek Relocation Improved Roadway Potable Water Well .000.240.Existing .New .000.00 30.00 1.000.Natural Gas Utility Relocation .00 25.00 6.Existing .12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert Drainage .42-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 240.000.Protruding Clear & Grub Cutoff Wall .560.Enclosed .00 30.000.00 12.00 50.Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well .00 100.00 61.60" Pipe Drainage .000.Abandon Relief Well .Enclosed .00 650.Hauled Seeding Slip-Line .0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total 408.00 320.560.00 260.00 48.Surface .00 15.00 275.00 28.Special Waste Premium Relief Well .15-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .Various Buried Facilities Subtotal: Mobilization (3%) Contingency (7%) Construction Estimate: Unit LF LF AC SF SF SF SF SF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA EA LF EA LF LF EA EA EA EA AC AC AC AC AC AC CY CY CY AC LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF AC EA EA EA LF EA LF LF LS LS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Unit Cost 500.Rehabilitate Relief Well .Industrial ROW Acquisition .00 150.Intermediate Cutoff Wall .27-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 12.00 250.Convert to Type "T" Relief Well .Residential ROW Acquisition .000.00 408.Enclosed .00 160.650.Existing .00 5.00 350.00 2.00 75.New .330.00 30.00 290.00 10.125.00 6.00 10.Deep Cutoff Wall .12-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 150.Commercial ROW Acquisition .00 25.00 34.240.Manifold Manhole Relief Well .

00 250.00 50.000.Flush Clay Cap .42-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 6.0 Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1 .000.00 125.18-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .Shallow Ditch Drainage .Special Waste Premium Relief Well .700.Various Buried Facilities Subtotal: Mobilization (3%) Contingency (7%) Construction Estimate: Unit LF LF AC SF SF SF SF SF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA EA LF EA LF LF EA EA EA EA AC AC AC AC AC AC CY CY CY AC LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF AC EA EA EA LF EA LF LF LS LS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Unit Cost 500.Enclosed .000.00 Quantity $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total 180.0 33.New .Manifold Manhole Relief Well .Surface .00 320.00 32.Surface .New .000.000.Existing .Special Waste Premium Relief Well .0 1.000.00 350.Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well .Deep Ditch Drainage .000.00 30.00 325.00 150.00 12.00 37.Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) Relief Well .330.990.00 12.27-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .Industrial ROW Acquisition .Rehabilitate Relief Well .411.Power Pole Utility Relocation .00 12.00 5.00 17.00 1.00 260.Existing .00 34.72" Pipe Drainage .00 10.000.00 5.000.Residential ROW Acquisition .Natural Gas Utility Relocation .Abandon Relief Well .000.00 12.00 6.0 130.Enclosed .00 6.00 1.770.Special Waste Premium Drainage .Existing .000.000.Existing .0 1.500.Existing .000.00 378.00 1.000.952.Vacant/Undeveloped RipRap Bank Protection Seepage Berm Fill .00 60.00 30.00 70.Protruding Clear & Grub Cutoff Wall .PdP & FISH LAKE .00 275.000.36-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .New Type "D" Relief Well .00 25.Underground Communication Utility Relocation .0 133.48-Inch Pipe Wetland Mitigation Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) Utility Relocation .00 6.00 23.00 2.Dredged Seepage Berm Fill .00 15.Enclosed .Shallow Cutoff Wall .00 220.125.Agricultural ROW Acquisition .000.24-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 48.000.00 3.000.00 240.00 30.Deep Cutoff Wall .00 40.Commercial ROW Acquisition .Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) Relief Well .00 5.00 162.00 48.00 30.Raise at Berm Relief Well .000.330.Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well .00 290.000.00 10.00 845.100.00 162.650.00 18.770.950.00 650.Surface .00 25.200.12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert Drainage .Underground Communications Pedestal Utility Relocation .00 200.00 378.Convert to Type "T" Relief Well .00 250.00 2.High Tension Power (Raise) Utility Relocation .00 61.00 240.Hauled Seeding Slip-Line .00 160.Hazardous Waste Premium Cutoff Wall .00 100.60" Pipe Drainage .00 396.000.Intermediate Cutoff Wall .500.Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) Relief Well .New Type "T" ROW Acquisition .00 75.RELIEF WELLS Item # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Cost Item Clay Cap .Creek Relocation Improved Roadway Potable Water Well .Governmental ROW Acquisition .000.700.12-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 150.15-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .000.330.

00 240.00 25.00 10.00 30.48-Inch Pipe Wetland Mitigation Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) Utility Relocation .SEEPAGE BERMS Item # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Cost Item Clay Cap .000.00 30.000.Surface .Deep Cutoff Wall .00 156.00 10.Underground Communications Pedestal Utility Relocation .00 320.000.125.24-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .19 445.950.00 220.965.Enclosed .00 275.60 190.Power Pole Utility Relocation .Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) Relief Well .0 Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1 .0 1.0 1.Dredged Seepage Berm Fill .00 325.000.Residential ROW Acquisition .000.00 150.000.589.00 100.500.4 359.00 6.398.000.PdP & FISH LAKE .650.839.60" Pipe Drainage .00 350.00 12.Natural Gas Utility Relocation .500.60 117.040.00 6.999.Special Waste Premium Drainage .000.Raise at Berm Relief Well .00 15.Hauled Seeding Slip-Line .362.New .Existing .Hazardous Waste Premium Cutoff Wall .700.Enclosed .Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well .00 1.12-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .Various Buried Facilities Subtotal: Mobilization (3%) Contingency (7%) Construction Estimate: Unit LF LF AC SF SF SF SF SF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA EA LF EA LF LF EA EA EA EA AC AC AC AC AC AC CY CY CY AC LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF AC EA EA EA LF EA LF LF LS LS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Unit Cost 500.Vacant/Undeveloped RipRap Bank Protection Seepage Berm Fill .00 30.Special Waste Premium Relief Well .Manifold Manhole Relief Well .000.Protruding Clear & Grub Cutoff Wall .000.00 23.Rehabilitate Relief Well .19 445.00 152.000.77 Quantity $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total 426.00 4.Existing .Shallow Ditch Drainage .00 5.00 6.00 48.0 1.00 600.000.000.Abandon Relief Well .Intermediate Cutoff Wall .150.Convert to Type "T" Relief Well .00 2.Governmental ROW Acquisition .Commercial ROW Acquisition .885.00 240.000.00 250.00 125.42-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .High Tension Power (Raise) Utility Relocation .000.00 150.00 61.Surface .885.00 32.00 25.Special Waste Premium Relief Well .Enclosed .New Type "T" ROW Acquisition .Deep Ditch Drainage .0 27.00 18.00 6.000.36-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 17.000.00 200.Underground Communication Utility Relocation .00 290.00 250.1 20.398.00 54.00 48.00 12.18-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .0 6.330.New Type "D" Relief Well .00 60.00 37.Industrial ROW Acquisition .00 12.00 70.Flush Clay Cap .00 6.00 34.0 50.8 71.000.56 71.00 30.00 200.Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) Relief Well .77 6.0 2.Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) Relief Well .600.00 260.000.00 650.00 1.000.00 75.New .000.500.27-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .Shallow Cutoff Wall .00 160.00 40.000.00 190.15-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 12.00 10.72" Pipe Drainage .700.Existing .Creek Relocation Improved Roadway Potable Water Well .12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert Drainage .00 2.Existing .123.Surface .00 327.Existing .0 6.Agricultural ROW Acquisition .000.Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well .000.00 50.319.000.

Natural Gas Utility Relocation .Agricultural ROW Acquisition .000.00 2.Industrial ROW Acquisition .Surface .00 75.000.00 12.Creek Relocation Improved Roadway Potable Water Well .Hauled Seeding Slip-Line .0 Prelim Cost Estimate Page 1 of 1 .00 25.00 60.00 280.00 250.500.00 250.000.00 25.00 275.Intermediate Cutoff Wall .0 1.New Type "D" Relief Well .00 2.00 290.920.72" Pipe Drainage .00 61.000.000.48-Inch Pipe Wetland Mitigation Pump Station Relocation (15 MGD) Utility Relocation .00 12.PdP & FISH LAKE .00 2.00 30.Special Waste Premium Relief Well .Abandon Relief Well .000.Deep Ditch Drainage .Convert to Type "T" Relief Well .000.15-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .Shallow Ditch Drainage .00 70.00 240.000.704.Hazardous Waste Premium Cutoff Wall .00 18.Manifold Manhole Relief Well .00 50.650.Existing .00 23.00 650.00 48.Residential ROW Acquisition .00 10.00 5.00 220.000.125.12-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .Deep Cutoff Wall .200.12'W x 5'H RC Box Culvert Drainage .00 10.00 34.Various Buried Facilities Subtotal: Mobilization (3%) Contingency (7%) Construction Estimate: Unit LF LF AC SF SF SF SF SF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA EA LF EA LF LF EA EA EA EA AC AC AC AC AC AC CY CY CY AC LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF AC EA EA EA LF EA LF LF LS LS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Unit Cost 500.00 6.00 4.00 150.00 67.000.700.Raise at Berm Relief Well .000.00 73.Underground Communication Utility Relocation .00 325.0 1.00 6.00 260.High Tension Power (Raise) Utility Relocation .Shallow Cutoff Wall .Lateral Pipe (8-Inch) Relief Well .950.00 48.Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well .Protruding Clear & Grub Cutoff Wall .704.000.Vacant/Undeveloped RipRap Bank Protection Seepage Berm Fill .CIVIL IMPROVEMENTS Item # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Cost Item Clay Cap .00 4.00 37.000.00 6.330.00 150.000.00 350.Power Pole Utility Relocation .00 30.00 1.000.36-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .Existing .000.00 320.New .Special Waste Premium Drainage .Existing .00 160.Hazardous Waste Premium Relief Well .Existing .00 32.00 17.Existing .Commercial ROW Acquisition .Surface .Enclosed .016.42-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .60" Pipe Drainage .18-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .New .Enclosed .00 40.00 30.Rehabilitate Relief Well .00 12.500.00 200.New Type "T" ROW Acquisition .016.00 6.Dredged Seepage Berm Fill .Surface .00 100.27-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .Enclosed .Flush Clay Cap .200.00 12.00 240.Governmental ROW Acquisition .700.00 125.00 1.Manifold Pipe (12-Inch) Relief Well .Special Waste Premium Relief Well .000.24-Inch Pipe Slip-Line .00 30.00 Quantity $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total 67.Underground Communications Pedestal Utility Relocation .Manifold Pipe (18-Inch) Relief Well .000.00 2.00 15.

.

APPENDIX 4 .

.

Potential to weaken existing levee where cutoff wall is on the land side. and new 72-inch culvert.Use 2D modeling to reduce /eliminate berm and new Avoid contruction limits/limits of disturbance impacting relief wells. Sta. Use 2D modeling to reduce or eliminate wall. stations 213+00 to 222+50. Sta. 195+00 to 207+00 LWR .Use 2D modeling to reduce/elimate berms and relief wells 548+00 to 569+00 LWR . Sta 594+00 to 608+00 May require hybrid solution and T-Type wells Pond bottom elevation is unknown. LWR . 4 USACE relief wells would have to be installed by the time of certification. Working area may affect local businesses. Avoid abandoning wells. 5 5a 5b Alternative may not be subject to COE cost sharing. Stations 21+00 to 32+00 and 54+55 to 118+00 Potential Benefits Reduce volume of berm material required Reduce square footage of cutoff reducing cost.Use 2D modeling and assume that planned USACE relief wells are installed to reduce/elimate berms.Use 2D finite element modeling to examine alternatives to reduce or eleminate berms and relief wells at Reduce potential wetlands impacts. 132+00 to 194+50. reducing cost savings. hydrology and hydraulics. stations 569+00 to 577+00.(South of water treatment plant). LWR . Examine possibility of moving cutoff wall to toe of levee. culvert and relief well abandonment costs. UWR . 8 9 10 Reduce berm size. 595+00 LWR . Berm reduces storm water storage. Avoid some wetlands impacts. Sta. Reduce or eliminate clay cap. Potential significant cost savings by reducing wall size. neighboring residences. Potential significant wetlands impacts. Constructibility and cost issues in crossing highway with cutoff wall.Use 2D modeling to eliminate/reduce large berm and Reduce berm and culvert cost Avoid or reduce wetlands impact. 6 7 LWR .Use 2D analysis to reduce/eliminate cost of ditch fill Reduce cost of expensive culvert. 3 Reduce berm. Avoid realigning and raising power lines.33& or to actual berm shape (levee-wide) Examine feasibility of moving cutoff wall to riverside toe of the levee. and potentially use 2D modeling to reduce or eliminate clay cap from about 565+00 to 630+00. Current limits of construction overlap residential lots. Must maintain drainage ditch flowlines. Reduce berm sizes. Deep Cutoff wall.Multi-phase approach to a high cost area. 72" culvert. Reduce berm sizes.Reexamine flooding elevations. Likely Concerns Possible water ponding in some areas If cutoff wall is moved a clay cap may be required. Current flow in exisitng ditch must not be restricted.Wood River Value Engineering/Design Optimization Items Item 1 2 Description Reduce berm slopes form 2% to max 1. LWR . . Potentially avoid installing new relief wells.

000 SF cutoff wall 4 Replace Deep cutoff wall between Stations 1209-1219 with a Berm/RW hybrid solution Reduction in quantity of cutoff wall by 140. 987-1013. 1304+55 Reduce volume of berm material required Reduce acreage of wetland impacts Reduce acreage of land acquisition Reduce or eliminate cost for relocation of Dead Creek Maintain water storage areas Reduce volume of berm material required Reduce acreage of land acquisition Maintain water storage areas Eliminate/reduce need to put blue water ditch in a box culvert Reduce volume of berm material required Reduce acreage of land acquisition Maintain water storage areas Reduce need to route surface water and remove need to relocate Phillips Pump Station Possibly eliminate need to relocate power poles Reduce volume of berm material required Reduce acreage of wetland impacts Reduce acreage of land acquisition Maintain water storage areas Reduce volume of berm material required Reduce acreage of wetland impacts Reduce acreage of land acquisition Maintain water storage areas Possible reduction in length of cutoff wall 6 Use 2D modeling to reduce the berm widths/depths bwteen Sta. 1492 12 Use 2D or 3D modeling to reduce the number of relief wells at Sta. boring data is being collected for reaches from Sta.8M 1 Cost Est. Finite Element (either 2D or 3D) modeling is ongoing in most of the identified items Item Description Potential Benefits Revised unit cost for Deep Cutoff Walls may be set to $32/sf (Reference Line 6 of Reduce overall cost of cutoff walls in MESD by $1. 1268 and 1344 9 Use 2D modeling to reduce the berm widths/depths bwteen Sta. 1499+54 Move cutoff wall from crest of levee to river side toe of levee between Sta. 1305-1320.MESD Value Engineer/Design Optimization Items Note the value engineering/design optimization alternatives generally require modeling or. 1298+09. in a few cases. 1.) 2 Reduce berm slopes from 2% to max.500 SF . additional field information At the time of preparing this list.33% or to actual berm shape Reduce volume of berm material required Deep cutoff wall 781-791. Sta. 1304 and 13 1319 Seepage controls may require additional relief wells Existing relief wells and toe drain may require rehabilitation Seepage control may require rehabilitation of existing relief wells Additional wetland impacts Additional land acquisition Requires flush clay cap construction along additional ±500 LF Eliminate need for berm to provide seepage control in this area Reduce number of new relief wells required Reduce quantity of deep cutoff wall quantity by approximately 37.000 SF Likely Considerations possible water ponding in some areas Add 12 D-type RWs over this reach Plan for Rehab of 30% of existing RWs Addition of Seepage Berm over this 1000-ft length including land acquisition and negotiations with industry Addition of T-type Relief wells Additional consideration of surface water conveyance may require hybrid solution with T-type wells 5 Use 2D modeling to reduce the berm widths/depths at Dead Creek. 1219 and 1239 may require hybrid solution with T-type wells 8 Use 2D modeling to reduce the berm widths/depths bwteen Sta. evaluate with SEEP/W to see if gradients necessitate 3 Reduction in quantity of cutoff wall by 100. 1291+40. 1209-1219.962 and 972 Re-evaluate using 2D finite element model the effectiveness of 40' cutoff between 10 Stations 987 and 1013 in light of identified section of toe drain and new field data to confirm existence or absence of clay layer at 40' 11 Use 2D modeling to reduce the berm widths/depths at Sta. 1320 and 1349 may require hybrid solution with T-type wells 7 Use 2D modeling to reduce the berm widths/depths bwteen Sta.

PdP/FL Value Engineer/Design Optimization Items Note the value engineering/design optimization alternatives generally require modeling or. additional field information Finite Element (either 2D or 3D) modeling is ongoing in most of the identified items Item Description Potential Benefits Likely Considerations Reduce berm slopes from 2% to max.Reduce acreage of wetland impacts Reduce acreage of land acquisition 471+25 Reduce or eliminate cost for relocation of Dead Creek Maintain water storage areas Water berm solution from Station 560+00 to 620+00 Eliminate need for berm/well solution 2 may require hybrid solution 3 Active vs Passive flood control Increased maintenance cost for syphon/pump for district with small O&M budget . 1. in a few cases.33% or to Reduce volume of berm material required possible water ponding in some areas 1 actual berm shape (levee-wide) Reduce volume of berm material required Use 2D finite element modeling to underseepage control in North/South Elbow and at Stations 467+95 .

.

APPENDIX 5 .

.

2011 .SWIFPDC VALUE ENGINEERING WORKSHOP March 28-31.

Value Engineering Workshop Outline  Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis  Geotechnical Engineering Analysis  Findings & Recommendations  Risk Assessment  Contract Packaging / Delivery Method  Wood River (WR) Levee Discussion – Deficiencies & Solutions – Value Engineering Considerations  Metro East Sanitary District (MESD) Levee Discussion – Deficiencies & Solutions – Value Engineering Considerations  Prairie du Pont / Fish Lake (PDP/FL) Levee Discussion – Deficiencies & Solutions – Value Engineering Considerations 2 .

Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis  From 44 CFR 65.10 3 .

Freeboard Analysis (Wet-Side) 2. Interior Drainage Analysis to map predicted ponding areas on the dry-side of the levees during a 1% flood event. 1. Interior Analysis (Dry-Side) 4 .Hydrology and Hydraulics – Overview  Two Specific H&H Analyses were Conducted:   Hydraulic Evaluation and Freeboard Report to establish FEMA’s 1% (100-yr) Water Surface Elevation on the wet-side of levees for Flank Tributaries.

Hydrology and Hydraulics – BFE and Freeboard Study (Wet-Side)  Study Limits PdP Canal Wood River Indian Creek Carr Creek Cahokia Creek The USACE Upper Mississippi River System Flood Frequency Study (Nov 2003) was used to establish 1% flood elevations for the Mississippi River. 5 .

 Calibration targets were available from USGS gage data on Indian Creek and Cahokia Creek (also transferable to the Wood River system)  No calibration information was available for PdP Canal or Carr Creek.  In all cases relied on newly collected field survey. was performed using the USACE hydraulic computer model HEC-RAS.  Hydraulic Analysis to establish new 1% flood elevations. 6 .  Hydrologic models were developed using existing conditions parameters for land-use and soils.  The new flood elevations from the HEC-RAS models were only adopted if the resulting elevation was greater than the 1% flood backwater from the Mississippi River.Hydrology and Hydraulics – BFE and Freeboard Study (Wet-Side)  Study Approach  Hydrologic Analysis to establish new 1% flood discharges was performed using the USACE hydrologic computer model HEC-HMS.  Assumed free-flowing conditions (industry standard). based on the new discharges.

Hydrology and Hydraulics – BFE and Freeboard Study (Wet-Side)  Study Results 1% Discharge Comparison to FEMA 4% to 45% Reduction 1% Flood Elevation Comparison to FEMA Freeboard Implications Study Stream Wood River System Cahokia and Indian Creek PdP Canal 0 to 4 feet lower No Impact to Freeboard 15% to 53% Reduction 1 ft to 5 ft lower No Impact to Freeboard 7% Reduction 0.2 feet higher No Impact to Freeboard Carr Creek 12% to 19% Increase 0 to 4 feet higher No Impact to Freeboard 7 .

Hydrology and Hydraulics – Interior Drainage (Dry-Side)  Study Limits  Wood River System (28 square miles of drainage area)  MESD (212 sq. miles – includes much of Chain of Rocks)  PdP / Fish Lake (30 square miles of drainage area) 8 .

Interior Flooding Conditions simulated using PC-SWMM computer model (unsteady flow. continuous simulation) 9 . Exterior 1% flood elevations taken from previous study (HEC-RAS on wet-side) 2.Hydrology and Hydraulics – Interior Drainage (Dry-Side)  Study Approach 1.

) 3. Joint Probability Analysis is Conducted to Establish 1% Scenario 10 .Hydrology and Hydraulics – Interior Drainage (Dry-Side)  Study Approach (cont.

) 4.Hydrology and Hydraulics – Interior Drainage (Dry-Side)  Study Approach (cont. Floodplains Plotted 11 .

Geotechnical Engineering Analysis  From 44 CFR 65.10 12 .

6 FOS=1.2 0 0 4 8 12 16 20 Distance from Levee Toe / Levee Height (X/H) FOS=1.6 0.0 Sliding Factor 13 .Geotechnical Engineering Analysis  Analysis Methodology:  Design Flood: (Base Flood) – MS RIVER: – Tributary: Analyses “Leaky Blanket” & Finite Element 1% Chance Exceedence UMRSFFS (USACE) UMRSFFS & New Hydraulic  Factors of Safety: Factor of Safety (FOS) 1.4 0.4 1.8 0.8 1.6 1.2 1 0.

Geotechnical Engineering Analysis  Embankment/Foundation Stability/Seepage:  Load Cases: » Normal Pool – Landside & Riverside » Normal Pool w/ Pseudo-static Load – Landside & Riverside » Base Flood – Landside & Riverside » Sudden Drawdown – Riverside only  Through-Seepage/Stability 14 .

Geotechnical Engineering Analysis  Underseepage 15 .

Geotechnical Engineering Analysis  Underseepage Solution Decision Process Control Needed? Yes Are RW Adequate? Yes Is spacing > 50 feet Yes Select Relief Wells No No No No Action Are Berms Adequate? Yes ** Significant Constraints? No Select Berms No Yes Use Cutoff Walls **Constraints refer to physical features 16 .

Findings & Recommendations – Risk Assessment Underseepage: Relief Wells Pros:  Low capital cost  Least impact to wetlands  Least impact to cultural resources  Small footprint Cons:  May require control of discharge  O&M cost 17 .

Findings & Recommendations – Risk Assessment Underseepage: Seepage Berms Pros:  Controls higher seepage gradients  Low maintenance costs Cons:  Higher capital cost  Potential wetlands impact  Potential cultural resources impact  Restricts land use 18 .

Findings & Recommendations – Risk Assessment Underseepage: Cutoff Walls Pros:  Continuous underseepage protection  No maintenance costs Cons:  Highest capital cost  Potential impact to wetlands/cultural resources  Performance – Levee/Wall 19 .

Findings & Recommendations – Risk Assessment Through-seepage: Clay Caps Pros:  Most cost-effective solution Cons:  Requires construction on existing embankment 20 .

Findings & Recommendations – Contract Packaging/Delivery Method  Prequalification of relief well contractors  Design-build for cutoff walls  Design-bid-build for specific contract packages  Owner supplied materials 21 .

cutoff walls and/or water-  Interior Drainage:  Through-seepage: – UWR: – LWR:  Underseepage: control – Solution(s): filled ditches 22 . relief wells.Findings & Recommendations – Deficiencies & Solutions Wood River  Freeboard: No Issue Sliplined culverts (~5.000 LF) 3 areas require solution 2 shallow cutoff wall 1 area with clay cap 40% of levee requires Berms.

Findings & Recommendations – Deficiencies & Solutions 23 .

UWR . Reduce or eliminate clay cap.Reexamine flooding elevations. 24 . Likely Concerns Possible water ponding in some areas If cutoff wall is moved a clay cap may be required.Use 2D modeling to eliminate/reduce large berm and Reduce berm and culvert cost Avoid or reduce wetlands impact. Potential to weaken existing levee where cutoff wall is on the land side. Avoid some wetlands impacts. Reduce berm sizes. Sta. Sta. Current flow in exisitng ditch must not be restricted. and new 72-inch culvert. 3 Reduce berm. Use 2D modeling to reduce or eliminate wall. Deep Cutoff wall. Potential significant cost savings by reducing wall size.Use 2D analysis to reduce/eliminate cost of ditch fill Reduce cost of expensive culvert. 5 5a 5b Alternative may not be subject to COE cost sharing. Potential significant wetlands impacts. 72" culvert. hydrology and hydraulics. Potentially avoid installing new relief wells. LWR .Use 2D modeling and assume that planned USACE relief wells are installed to reduce/elimate berms. 195+00 to 207+00 LWR .Multi-phase approach to a high cost area. Avoid realigning and raising power lines. neighboring residences. Stations 21+00 to 32+00 and 54+55 to 118+00 Potential Benefits Reduce volume of berm material required Reduce square footage of cutoff reducing cost.Use 2D finite element modeling to examine alternatives to reduce or eleminate berms and relief wells at Reduce potential wetlands impacts. Must maintain drainage ditch flowlines. Working area may affect local businesses. stations 213+00 to 222+50.33& or to actual berm shape (levee-wide) Examine feasibility of moving cutoff wall to riverside toe of the levee. 8 9 10 Reduce berm size. Current limits of construction overlap residential lots.(South of water treatment plant). 4 USACE relief wells would have to be installed by the time of certification. Examine possibility of moving cutoff wall to toe of levee. Sta. culvert and relief well abandonment costs. Reduce berm sizes. LWR . Sta 594+00 to 608+00 May require hybrid solution and T-Type wells Pond bottom elevation is unknown.Use 2D modeling to reduce/elimate berms and relief wells 548+00 to 569+00 LWR . and potentially use 2D modeling to reduce or eliminate clay cap from about 565+00 to 630+00. 595+00 LWR . 6 7 LWR .Findings & Recommendations – Value Engineering Considerations Wood River Value Engineering/Design Optimization Items Item 1 2 Description Reduce berm slopes form 2% to max 1. LWR . reducing cost savings. stations 569+00 to 577+00. 132+00 to 194+50. Berm reduces storm water storage. Constructibility and cost issues in crossing highway with cutoff wall.Use 2D modeling to reduce /eliminate berm and new Avoid contruction limits/limits of disturbance impacting relief wells. Avoid abandoning wells.

470 LF) Relocation of pump station 1 area requires solution 25% of levee requires Berms. Cutoff 25 .Findings & Recommendations – Deficiencies & Solutions MESD  Freeboard: No Issue » Bathtub bridge will require MOU with RR  Interior Drainage:  Through-seepage:  Underseepage: control – Solution(s): Walls Sliplined culverts (~5. Relief Wells.

Findings & Recommendations – Deficiencies & Solutions 26 .

1305-1320. Sta. 1298+09.000 SF Likely Considerations possible water ponding in some areas Add 12 D-type RWs over this reach Plan for Rehab of 30% of existing RWs Addition of Seepage Berm over this 1000-ft length including land acquisition and negotiations with industry Addition of T-type Relief wells Additional consideration of surface water conveyance may require hybrid solution with T-type wells 5 Use 2D modeling to reduce the berm widths/depths at Dead Creek. 1209-1219.8M 1 Cost Est. boring data is being collected for reaches from Sta. 1304+55 Reduce volume of berm material required Reduce acreage of wetland impacts Reduce acreage of land acquisition Reduce or eliminate cost for relocation of Dead Creek Maintain water storage areas Reduce volume of berm material required Reduce acreage of land acquisition Maintain water storage areas Eliminate/reduce need to put blue water ditch in a box culvert Reduce volume of berm material required Reduce acreage of land acquisition Maintain water storage areas Reduce need to route surface water and remove need to relocate Phillips Pump Station Possibly eliminate need to relocate power poles Reduce volume of berm material required Reduce acreage of wetland impacts Reduce acreage of land acquisition Maintain water storage areas Reduce volume of berm material required Reduce acreage of wetland impacts Reduce acreage of land acquisition Maintain water storage areas Possible reduction in length of cutoff wall 6 Use 2D modeling to reduce the berm widths/depths bwteen Sta. evaluate with SEEP/W to see if gradients necessitate 3 Reduction in quantity of cutoff wall by 100. 1. 1304 and 13 1319 Seepage controls may require additional relief wells Existing relief wells and toe drain may require rehabilitation Seepage control may require rehabilitation of existing relief wells Additional wetland impacts Additional land acquisition Requires flush clay cap construction along additional ±500 LF Eliminate need for berm to provide seepage control in this area Reduce number of new relief wells required Reduce quantity of deep cutoff wall quantity by approximately 37.962 and 972 Re-evaluate using 2D finite element model the effectiveness of 40' cutoff between 10 Stations 987 and 1013 in light of identified section of toe drain and new field data to confirm existence or absence of clay layer at 40' 11 Use 2D modeling to reduce the berm widths/depths at Sta. additional field information At the time of preparing this list. Finite Element (either 2D or 3D) modeling is ongoing in most of the identified items Item Description Potential Benefits Revised unit cost for Deep Cutoff Walls may be set to $32/sf (Reference Line 6 of Reduce overall cost of cutoff walls in MESD by $1. 1219 and 1239 may require hybrid solution with T-type wells 8 Use 2D modeling to reduce the berm widths/depths bwteen Sta.000 SF cutoff wall 4 Replace Deep cutoff wall between Stations 1209-1219 with a Berm/RW hybrid solution Reduction in quantity of cutoff wall by 140.33% or to actual berm shape Reduce volume of berm material required Deep cutoff wall 781-791.Findings & Recommendations – Value Engineering Considerations MESD Value Engineer/Design Optimization Items Note the value engineering/design optimization alternatives generally require modeling or. 1492 12 Use 2D or 3D modeling to reduce the number of relief wells at Sta. 1499+54 Move cutoff wall from crest of levee to river side toe of levee between Sta. 987-1013.500 SF 27 . 1268 and 1344 9 Use 2D modeling to reduce the berm widths/depths bwteen Sta. 1320 and 1349 may require hybrid solution with T-type wells 7 Use 2D modeling to reduce the berm widths/depths bwteen Sta. 1291+40. in a few cases.) 2 Reduce berm slopes from 2% to max.

Findings & Recommendations – Deficiencies & Solutions Prairie du Pont & Fish Lake  Freeboard: No Issue » Bathtub bridge will require MOU with RR  Interior Drainage:  Through-seepage:  Underseepage: control – Solution(s): Sliplined culverts (~280 LF) 3 areas require clay caps 40% of levee requires Berms and/or Relief Wells 28 .

Findings & Recommendations – Deficiencies & Solutions 29 .

1. additional field information Finite Element (either 2D or 3D) modeling is ongoing in most of the identified items Item Description Potential Benefits Likely Considerations Reduce berm slopes from 2% to max.Findings & Recommendations – Value Engineering Considerations PdP/FL Value Engineer/Design Optimization Items Note the value engineering/design optimization alternatives generally require modeling or.33% or to Reduce volume of berm material required possible water ponding in some areas 1 actual berm shape (levee-wide) Reduce volume of berm material required Use 2D finite element modeling to underseepage control in North/South Elbow and at Stations 467+95 . in a few cases.Reduce acreage of wetland impacts Reduce acreage of land acquisition 471+25 Reduce or eliminate cost for relocation of Dead Creek Maintain water storage areas Water berm solution from Station 560+00 to 620+00 Eliminate need for berm/well solution 2 may require hybrid solution 3 Active vs Passive flood control Increased maintenance cost for syphon/pump for district with small O&M budget 30 .

APPENDIX 6 .

.

we have assumed this . Does the cutoff wall tie into something at the ends to cut off all of the highly permeable material at depth. Answer: This question relates to end effects (flow around the ends of the walls). 8. 5. 3.33%) on the surface of the berms. and length of. have you considered using a more uniform solution. pg 3/5.General Comments and Questions 1. 4. . and replaced with seepage berms. but we will consider the suggestions. these will be revisited based on modeling results. as well as re-evaluating berm sizes using 2-D models. we are looking a hybrid berm/well solutions. The need for. Seepage berm slope.33% slope or sloped to drain requirement? Answer: AMEC’s design will use a minimum slope of 1V:75H (1. Answer: This is not currently planned. kh. 7. Relief wells set at this level might sufficiently modify hydraulic gradients. say. See attached sheet for more information on this topic. Otherwise. Related comment: Should four times ‘levee height’ be four times ‘hydraulic height’? Answer: We can consider using “variable. The term ‘sliding’ is misleading. in accordance with our design criteria and COE design manuals. If this is feasible. Comment referencing Richard Bird with URS about factor of safety applied to horizontal permeability. We are re-evaluating several areas and options. and plan and profiles be provided for critical areas – zones with cut off walls and/or closely spaced relief wells? Answer: We will send some examples cross sections under separate cover. Measure velocity of water entering the screen. Suggest replacing ‘sliding’ with ‘variable’. Bottom layer above the top of rock may be highly conductive. the design includes either overlapping or adjacent underseepage controls at each end of a cutoff wall. 2. At this time. This test may permit more accurate 3-d modeling to be performed. Suggest not publishing this as it may eliminate federal matching funds as it may not align with COE policy. Sliding Factor of Safety – related to uplift.” AMEC’s design used 4 times net levee grade. We are currently conducting 3-D modeling to further evaluate end effects. LWR: We suggest that drawdown tests be done – we will try to find the ASTM test procedure. a combination of wells and berms with a constant berm width with variable well spacing? Answer: As we conduct our value engineering.may not be COE policy. Can stick logs/x-sections with boring info. Figure 1 of AMEC geotech handout. Suggest a ‘conservative factor of safety’ was used. existing wells may continue to be utilized. We see relief wells being grouting and abandoned. In stretches where alternating relief wells and berms are used. Request clarification from COE concerning changing the 2% to minimum 1. 9. where relief well solutions are not adequate and berms are planned. Can a narrative on design and decision making be provided? Answer: Analysis shows relief wells will not work for the majority of this wall alignment. Can you use or rehabilitate the wells and add new wells at a lower cost? Answer: We are evaluating hybrid solutions which might utilize existing wells along with a berm. Wood River section deep cutoff wall – Will relief wells work? It withstood the 1993 flood with remedial action. Answer: This seems reasonable. 6.

Has the use of flyash. Answer: We have significant environmental documentation of superfund sites along the levee alignment in this area and determined we should include a budget for handling of hazardous and special waste streams.000. and about 800 feet of the southernmost cutoff wall along the MS riverfront levee. An assumed split of 80% hazardous waste and 20% special waste was used for pricing. so we cannot predict which portions of the levee system would be overtopped first in an extreme event without more analysis. 12. We do not anticipate that a significant number of private/levee roads will be traveled. Carr Creek meets FEMA requirements throughout the study reach for freeboard requirements against the 1% event. Within MESD. If load limit restrictions are observed by the contractor. We did not perform an overtopping analysis. except at locations of head differential upstream and downstream of bridge crossings. and ½ foot of freeboard at the upstream end of a levee system to build conservatism into these locations where there is inherently some uncertainly due to contraction. The hydraulic gradient throughout is relatively flat.000 figure.2% event).0 feet of freeboard in and around constrictions. the budget number for Hazardous Waste and Special Waste was determined based on a (conservative) expected quantity of cutoff wall located within the Sauget area (levee reach south of Poplar St. . such as bridges. Blast furnace slag was not discussed. they will not be responsible for restoration of public roads. 10. AMEC’s analysis.upper end needs to be one half foot higher . bottom ash or blast furnace slag been considered for use for fill for the berms? Answer: Ash (and other general debris fills) were discussed and rejected as options because of the environmental concerns associated with EPA potentially classifying this material as RCRA regulated waste. FEMA requires an additional 1. Bridge to PdP Canal).one about 1000 feet long adjacent to Phillips Pipline Co. Carr Creek freeboard determination . IL? Please provide a description of how you arrived at the $6. Within MESD this includes two sections of proposed cutoff wall.07 feet to 1. 11. What is the ‘roadway work’ item included in the estimate and how will these funds be used? Answer: The current cost estimate does not include a line item for restoration of roads damaged as part of the levee improvement construction. How does the levee relate to the hydraulic gradient? Answer: Per the analysis. We suggest that the text clearly state that levee overtopping occur at the downstream end of the levee segment first. We will evaluate haul routes as part of the next submittal and add a line item for restoration of private/levee roads if appropriate.45 feet. 13. What is the confidence level for the cost of the disposal of cuttings for the cutoff wall in MESD Sauget.places the wells officially out of service. only looked at the frequency events up to the 500-year event (0. Please clarify as to where overtopping should occur.see freeboard criteria hydraulic page 5 for each reach. requiring proper abandonment under state regulations. The delta between computed water surface elevation and energy grade line for Carr Creek ranges from 0.. for the purposes of certification.

5)]. All of the existing wells would be abandoned. The estimated difference in the quantity of fill required for Option 2 (El. These are all being reevaluated using more detailed computer models. The number of new wells and the elevations of the fill will be refined in final design. No other seepage control measures would be required. Four repair options have been evaluated during the 30% design phase.Station 132+00 to 194+50. In addition. 418 and raising the outlets of the existing 39 relief wells to El. 418. A variation of this option is to install the slurry cutoff from the riverside toe of the levee.700-13. Underseepage controls are needed. If a cutoff is constructed. and the face area by about 124. The estimated difference in the quantity of fill required for Option 2 (El.700-13.200)*22. New wells would be installed between the existing wells from Sta. about 1. 424) and the fill required for Option 3 (El. Option 3 consists of filling the low ground to El.8 million cy. New wells would be installed between the existing wells from Sta. The fill extents and elevations will be refined in final design. Assuming El. about 1. 424 is 1. 418 and raising the outlets of the existing 39 relief wells to El.000. 424) and the fill required for Option 3 (El. Option 2 consists of filling a large portion of the low ground landward to the levee to about El. which would decrease the construction cost of the wall by reducing the depth of the cutoff by 20 to 25 ft. Option 1 is to construct a slurry cutoff from the levee crest from Sta.Further information for question 4 Lower Wood River “elbow” . A variation of this would be to discharge the wells lower into a collector pipe in order to decrease the required fill elevation and volume. 155+00 to 178+00 (approximately 20 new wells). Assuming El. .000. 418) is about 800. The number of new wells and the elevations of the fill will be refined in final design. potentially reducing the cost. The property requirement for Option 3 will be about the same as that required for Option 2. The top area of the fill is about 80 acres. The approximate face area of this cutoff is about 880. The property requirement for Option 3 will be about the same as that required for Option 2. 424.000cy of fill are required to fill to El. 132+00 to 187+00 about 155 to 160 ft deep (5 ft into shale bedrock). A variation of this would be to discharge the wells lower into a collector pipe in order to decrease the required fill elevation and volume. 418. we are re-evaluating the upper end of the wall in view of the COE plan to remediate using relief wells. The existing relief wells could either be abandoned or left as they are. 418. 418) is about 800. 410 is the average elevation of the low area. The feasibility of the riverside cutoff option is being further evaluated. 410 is the average elevation of the low area.200)*(160)].000cy of fill are required to fill to El. 155+00 to 178+00 (approximately 20 new wells). Assuming El. 410 is the average elevation of the low area.000 cy. this option requires further research and evaluation. 418. Like Option 2. Option 3 consists of filling the low ground to El. no additional seepage control measures are required.000 sq ft [(18.000 cy.000 sq ft [(18. the approximate volume of fill required to El.

The grade of the existing highway would be raised to the authorized flood protection grade riverward of the relocated levee. land acquisition costs. Advantages of this option compared to Options 2 and 3 include minimizing wetland mitigation. Earth resulting from the levee degrading could be used in the new levee. minimizing offsite borrow costs. . and fill volume. The existing 39 wells would be filled and abandoned.Option 4 consists of relocating the levee around the low area and degrading the Wood River flank levee to open the low area to the river.

From 630 to 661. Answer: The COE has awarded this contract. Sta 613+00 to 623+00. 7. Filling the pond will involve mitigation of wetlands. It appears that the berm impacts the existing drainage significantly. 590 +00 west of Canal road – could this be a scour area? (Geomorphology and a boring or two?) Answer: We are currently conducting VE analyses at the pond area to see if the pond fill can be limited. consider reducing the thickness of the clay cap from 5 feet to 2 feet. No comments offered. Agree to 2D modeling. Item 1. 4. Answer: We are re-evaluating these areas currently. In general. Additional Thoughts: 10. and/or the culvert length? Can we add relief wells instead? Answer: We are reexamining this area as part of our VE work and it appears an aggregate drain in the ditches near the levee. although the work has not yet started. Can we reduce the berm height and length. Addressed previously in comments sent this morning. filling the ditches means there will be no floodwater against the embankment. the clay cap is not needed. Reexamine logs and determine why treatment plant has no berm or relief wells and the area to the south of the WTP needs a substantial berm at a higher elevation. Also. look at sta. may provide control of underseepage. 8. Prairie du Pont 1. we are coordinating closely with the COE to determine how their solutions and timing will dovetail with AMEC solutions. No comments offered. possibly in conjunction with relief wells. the design water surface elevation is approximately equal to the elevation at the top of the ditches along the embankment. and 10. Avoid filling wetlands and associated mitigation. and it appears a narrow drainage berm may be capable of replacing some of these berms. The area from the pond north is being reviewed and it appears an aggregate drain in the ditch may be able to replace the culvert. Answer: Based on new information. 2. Therefore. Fill less of the pond and use more relief wells. thereby eliminating the berm and culvert. no comments offered. borrow pit) landside between 613 and 623 that drive the exit gradients above the allowable levels and require underseepage controls. 3. If the sand is shallow. We have not seen evidence of scour at 590+00 but will review as a precaution.Wood River 1. and the related ground surface elevation? Answer: There are low areas (ditch. consider a French drain instead of relief wells. If clay cap is needed. 9. Addressed previously in comments sent this morning. . 6. 5. Addressed previously in comments sent this morning. Use relief wells and limited berms. Can we count on the COE to install the relief wells when we need them? Otherwise. Do we need to fill in this area on the west side of the RR? What is the basis for the recommendation to fill this area? What is the design water surface elevation (flood condition) from Sta 600+00 to 660+00.

Answer: Our understanding is these were pin boils in 1993. based on historical reports from district personnel.2. What do you have planned for 700+00 – COE had sand boils at this location in 1993. as well as re-evaluating berm sizes using 2-D models. Additional thoughts: 4. 685+00 elbow – need a 3-D analysis for underseepage. and we are looking at the feasibility of a water berm. and a cap is being added at station 180 based on new information from district personnel. Water berm solution requires further study. 5.) 467+00 to 471+00 same question. we are looking a hybrid berm/well solutions. have you considered using a more uniform solution. 8. Do you need for a clay cap between 310+00 and 320+00. . The cap from 375 to 382 is needed. 6. Item 3. Sta 285+00 to 300+00 . 7. Station 225+00 – what geologic info did you use to locate the proposed seepage berm where it is? (Item 2. the FEMA event is a different water surface than 1993). and from 375+00 to 382+00? Answer: The clay cap from 310 to 320 is being removed. Answer: As we conduct our value engineering. Think about where you want to have the low section breach. Answer: Subsurface information for these two reaches is being sent as an attachment. say. Sta 380+00 to 470+00 numerous sand boils occurred in 1993 per COE. but we will re-evaluate this area in view of the new data. 3. perhaps at about 700+00? Answer: We are considering a 3-D analysis for this area.In stretches where alternating relief wells and berms are used. Answer: The information about sand boils was recently provided to AMEC. We have relief wells and berms in this general area. The underseepage analysis does not show that controls are needed (of course. a combination of wells and berms with a constant berm width with variable well spacing? Same question from sta 425+00 to 471+00.

.

.

.

.

.

5. Follow up and verify what MESD folks stated as to the presence of a cutoff wall in this vicinity. The berm fill can be modified to avoid filling the pump station bay. No comments offered. 2. No new comment offered. If the reference is to the COE slurry wall at about sta 1322. Answer: We provided cross sections earlier today. Assuming geology supports this approach. reduce or eliminate the berm. The construction drawings and information we have reviewed to date indicate where sheet piles were used they were generally not very deep (12 feet or thereabouts). Abandoned WWTP demo is not in the estimate. No comments offered. Sta 987+50 to 1013+90. 7.8 million. we are looking a hybrid berm/well solutions. As we conduct our value engineering. No comments offered. Answer: We will consider this if cutoff wall remains part of design. 3. the berms in this area are generally being reevaluated using 2-D models and may shrink. as we re-evaluate berm sizes through modeling it also may be that less culvert will be required. In addition. There is concern about the partial filling of Cahokia pump station number 4 bay. then perform a 3-D analysis at this location. Allocate difference to contingency. Answer: Portions of the WWTP may not need to be demolished. No comments offered. it is about 900 feet long and was installed from the crest to the bottom of the levee. Re-routing the draining is an option. berm added – can you add relief wells. 6. as well as re-evaluating berm sizes using 2-D models. Alternative to box culvert – would it be less expensive to relocate drainage around the berm. we agree with this approach. 10. Relief wells are being abandoned. Is the cutoff wall too far to the river side to create a seal with the flood wall? Do you have enough borings to be confident the clay layer at 40 feet is there continuously? Review construction drawings – there may be sheet pile walls at this location. 11. No comments offered. No comments offered.MESD Comments (Our item numbers below correspond to AMEC’s Design Optimization Items) 1. 8. The position of the cutoff wall relative to centerline will be the subject of further review. If your SeepW analyses conclude you need a cutoff wall. especially if the berms are reduced in size? Cost of box culvert is $1. and avoid WWTP demolition. 9. 4. . all available information for this area (including information to be obtained about the current conditions of the toe drain and relief wells) will be considered during the next design phase. Additional borings are pending. We would like to see the basis for the design. and we are evaluating alternative solutions. Create a lagoon/lake here to relieve hydrostatic pressure at the end of berm? Answer: The box culvert is at stations 1339 to 1349.

. Additional thoughts: 14. Seepage modeling at an adjacent reach showed a significantly lower gradient for similar conditions.12. Because of the corner. they were not added to the plans. Perform SeepW to see if you can move the cutoff wall to the toe. Nothing shown on plan. Is the station number presented an error? Answer: It is not an error. and intend to follow with a 3D analysis to evaluate corner effects. Answer: We are currently conducting 3-D analysis for end effects. We do not understand this comment. so in the belief these wells will not be needed. The judgment needs to be confirmed with modeling. we suggest you perform 3-D analysis. 13. Initial calculations showed a need for new relief wells at 1499.