ACD 31 ADDENDUM TO THE REPAIR REPORTF68A5205-A996... · 2015. 12. 16. · 45+06 Private 15"x20' CMP...

ACD 31 ADDENDUM TO THE REPAIR REPORT

Maple Grove, MN | HEI No. 5555-230 April 8, 2015

Anoka County Ditch 31 Repair Report Addendum

for the

Rice Creek Watershed District

4325 Pheasant Ridge Drive Suite 611

Blaine, Minnesota 55449-4539 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report, was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Christopher C. Otterness Minn. Reg. No. 41961 Date: April 8, 2015 Houston Engineering, Inc. Suite 140 6901 East Fish Lake Road Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369 763.493.4522 (Phone) 763.493.5572 (Fax) www.houstonengineeringinc.com HEI Project No. R145555-230

http://www.houstonengineeringinc.com/

Anoka County Ditch 31 Addendum to Repair Report

RCWD Account No. 60-17 HEI Project No. R145555-230 April 8, 2015 Addendum to the ACD 31 Repair Report Page 1 of 10

ANOKA COUNTY DITCH 31

ADDENDUM TO THE REPAIR REPORT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This document is an addendum to the report titled Anoka County Ditch 31 Repair Report.

This report (hereinafter referred to as the “Repair Report”), identified and evaluated four repair

alternatives for the Anoka County Ditch 31 (ACD 31) legal drainage system, for the purposes of

serving present agricultural drainage, current and future municipal stormwater, ecological and

water quality needs. The alternatives ranged from use of the existing system conveyance and minor

maintenance (“do nothing” alternative) to a repair to the as-constructed and subsequently improved

condition (“full repair” alternative). Each alternative was evaluated using hydrologic and hydraulic

modeling, evaluated against a set of design criteria, and then evaluated with regard to cost and

relative benefit.

Houston Engineering, Inc. (the “Engineer”) completed the Repair Report on February 17,

2010 and subsequently orally presented the report to the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD)

Board of Managers. The four alternatives analyzed included:

Alternative 1: Existing System Conveyance Alternative (see Figure A-1),

Alternative 2: As-Constructed and Subsequently Improved Alternative (see Figure

A-2),

Alternative 3: Active Agricultural Repair Alternative (see Figure A-3), and

Alternative 4: Resource Management Plan Alternative (see Figure A-4)

The Engineer’s Recommended Alternative based upon the ability to achieve the design

criteria, was the Resource Management Plan Alternative (#4). No action was taken by the Board

to execute said alternative at that time (circa 2010).

Subsequent to the completion of the Repair Report, the RCWD completed several public

drainage system repair projects with a scope of work similar to the Engineer’s Recommended

Alternative for ACD 31. Based on the experiences from the completion of these projects, District

staff and the Engineer have progressively gained a better understanding of project costs and

regulatory challenges associated with public drainage system repair projects. Consequently, the



RCWD Board of Managers requested the Engineer to revise the project costs detailed in the Repair

Report and revisit the conclusions based on these costs.

The purpose of this addendum is to provide updated analysis and recommendations of the

four alternatives evaluated within the Repair Report, based on:

1. Refinement of the lateral drainage effects analysis and wetland mitigation

requirements;

2. Updated cost information pertaining to construction, easements, and land

acquisition; and

3. The recently completed Historical Review Memorandum Addendum, which

includes test pit analysis confirming As Constructed and Subsequently Improved

Condition (ACSIC).

This addendum updates the wetland impacts analysis and Preliminary Opinion of Probable

Construction Costs (POPCC) for each alternative and revisit conclusions based on the factors to

provide a new preferred alternative. It is intended that this addendum, coupled with the findings

of the Repair Report, will be used by the Board to order a project containing the components

outlined in their preferred alternative.

2.0 WETLAND IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

The wetland impacts of the four alternatives were previously assessed using the methods

described in Section 3.0 of the Repair Report. This methodology for determining the lateral

drainage effects in the wetland impact assessment is identical to that used in two subsequent repair

reports (ACD 10-22-32 and ACD 53-62) completed by the District. However, these subsequent

repair reports added an additional step in verifying the impacts – namely, utilizing recent wetland

delineations to confirm the assumptions used in the lateral effects calculations. Comparing the

delineated Type 3, 4, and 5 wetlands to the calculated lateral drainage effects revealed that the

drainable porosity and/or hydraulic conductivity of the underlying soils at several locations was

far different than the standard (“book”) values for these soils. Notably, the repair report

determined that highly organic soils (e.g. peat and muck) adjacent to the public drainage system

exhibited far less permeability than would be expected from those soils based on soils parameters

detailed in the national soils database (SSURGO). Therefore, it could be concluded that no repair



or modification to the public drainage system in these locations would result in lateral drainage

effects.

To evaluate the validity of the wetland impact assessment in the ACD 31 Repair Report,

the lateral drainage effects previously calculated for existing (2009) conditions were compared to

the 2009 wetland delineation (see Figure A-5). The lateral effects analysis indicates that every

Type 3, 4, or 5 wetland bisected by or adjacent to the ACD 31 public drainage system would be

partially or wholly drained assuming standard porosity and hydraulic conductivity values for the

underlying soils (peat). This indicates that soils at each of these locations has a much lower

permeability than indicated in the soils database, and that these wetlands will not be drained by

any of the four alternatives. Since the calculated lateral effects for the three “repair” alternatives

do not extend into any other wetland complexes beyond that of existing conditions, it can be

concluded that none of the alternatives will result in impacts to Type 3, 4, or 5 wetlands and

therefore require mitigation.

3.0 PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST

The Preliminary Opinions of Probable Construction Cost (POPCCs) presented in the

Repair Report have been updated for each of the four alternatives, using unit prices from recent

RCWD public drainage system projects. The POPCC for each repair alternative also now includes

replacement of every corrugated metal culvert (CMP) within the portions of the public drainage

system to be repaired. Recent public drainage system repairs completed by the RCWD revealed

that existing CMPs along the public drainage system almost universally exhibited severe corrosion,

sedimentation, and eminent failure. These culverts are identified in Table A-1. Thus, these

projects include replacement of all of the CMPs, regardless of whether the existing culverts were

properly sized or at the proper elevation. Likewise, the updated POPCC assumes excavation will

be required at all locations of the public drainage system designated for repair, and not solely at

locations where the open channel bottom is above the ACSIC. Finally, the wetland replacement

acreage was updated based on the refined lateral drainage effects analysis used to determine

wetland mitigation requirements.

A full tabulation of individual item quantities and costs is included in Appendix A. An

overall financial comparison of costs is tabulated in Table A-2 The POPCC indicates that each of

the repair alternatives (#2, 3, &4) have “similar” construction costs (i.e. within 10% of each other).



Table A-1 – Culvert Crossings

Existing Structure Data (b) Crossing Data Required Replacements

Station (a) Reach Size and Type Description Alternative 2 Alternatives 3 & 4

Existing Structures 38+81 Main Trunk 36"x88' CMP Kettle River Blvd. (C.R. 62) Replace in kind (c) Replace in kind (c) 56+46 Main Trunk 36"x52' HDPE 167th Ave. Replace in kind (c) Replace in kind (c) 74+31 Main Trunk 24"x15' CMP Field crossing Replace w/30" HDPE Replace w/30" HDPE 75+31 Main Trunk 18"x24' RCP 170th Ave. Replace w/30" Replace w/30"

79+15 Main Trunk 30"x21' CMP Field crossing Replace with HDPE, Raise field road

Replace with HDPE, Raise field road





110+77 Main Trunk 48"x65' CMP W. Broadway Ave. (CSAH 18) Replace with RCP Replace with RCP

45+01 Branch 1 36"x23' CMP Field crossing Replace with HDPE (c), raise field road

Replace with HDPE (c), raise field road

60+40 Branch 1 27"x43"x49' CMP Arch W. Broadway Ave. (CSAH 18) Replace with RCP Replace with RCP 13+65 Branch 2 36"x40' CMP Driveway Replace with HDPE (c) Replace with HDPE (c)

48+98 Branch 2 30"x30' CMP Driveway Replace with HDPE (c), raise field road

Replace with HDPE (c), raise field road

52+96 Branch 2 24"x50' CMP Notre Dame St. Replace in kind (c) Replace in kind (c) 6+37 Branch 5 18"x25' RCP Driveway ok ok 0+53 Branch 6 36"x53' CMP Furman St. Replace in kind (c) Replace in kind (c) 12+09 Branch 6 24"x32' CMP Driveway Replace with HDPE (c) Replace with HDPE (c) 1+89 Branch 7 24"x26' CMP Driveway Replace with HDPE (c) Replace with HDPE (c) 9+16 Private 36"x110' CMP Kettle River Blvd. (C.R. 62) ok Replace in kind (c) 14+91 Private 30"x70' CMP Field crossing ok Replace with HDPE (c)



Existing Structure Data (b) Crossing Data Required Replacements

Station (a) Reach Size and Type Description Alternative 2 Alternatives 3 & 4

20+50 Private 24"x13' CMP Field crossing ok Replace w/30" HDPE, raise field road

31+01 Private 36"x11' CMP Field crossing ok Replace with HDPE (c) 33+69 Private 36"x51' CMP Notre Dame St. ok Replace in kind (c) 36+40 Private 36"x41' CMP Driveway ok Replace with HDPE (c) 41+16 Private 36"x29' CMP Driveway ok Replace with HDPE (c) 43+18 Private 36"x30' CMP Driveway ok Replace with HDPE (c) 45+06 Private 15"x20' CMP Driveway ok Replace w/36" HDPE 55+65 Private 36"x21' CMP Field crossing ok Replace with HDPE (c) Proposed Structures 15+10 Branch 1 24"x30' HDPE Field crossing Install Install

a)Based on upstream invert b) Based on 2008 HEI survey or 2005 EOR survey c) Lower grade



Table A-2 – Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Costs

Alternative

Description

Alternative 1 Existing System

Conditions

Alternative 2 As-Constructed and

Subsequently Improved

Alternative

Alternative 3 Active

Agricultural Repair

Alternative

Alternative 4 Resource

Management Plan Alternative

Public Drainage System Infrastructure $59,831 $422,471 $211,246 $211,246 Land for Infrastructure (Easement and Land Acquisition)* $270,000 $0 $225,000 $225,000

Public Drainage System Wetland Mitigation** $0 $0 $0 $0

Infrastructure at Public Roadways $0 $76,072 $87,704 $87,704

Engineering/Legal/Admin $78,449 $209,854 $181,145 $181,145

Contingency $11,966 $99,709 $59,790 $59,790

Total $420,246 $808,106 $764,885 $764,885 *See Appendix G of the Repair Report for identification and location of required easement acquisitions.

** Assumes COE will concur that no mitigation is required per the Clean Water Act



4.0 PROJECT FEASIBILITY AND ENGINEER’S RECOMMENDATION

4.1 Basis for the Recommendation

As outlined in the Repair Report, the determination of project feasibility is based upon

several criteria including:

• The ability to attain the agricultural drainage, municipal stormwater conveyance, and

ecological and natural resource design criteria as presented in Section 2.0 of the Repair

Report (Description of Alternatives), and to provide the desired level of service for

agricultural drainage and future stormwater management consistent with these criteria;

• The relative magnitude of the potential adverse environmental impacts, opportunities

for ecological and natural resource enhancement, and the likelihood of obtaining the

necessary regulatory approvals and permits;

• Implementing and constructing the repair in a manner, which allows repairs made to

serve the immediate agricultural drainage need and to also serve the future stormwater

management needs associated with development;

• The relative benefits and the Preliminary Opinions of Probable Construction Cost; and,

• The perceived constructability and maintainability of the project.

It is the objective of the Engineer’s recommendations to seek a balance between all of the

needs identified by the Board of Managers, including agricultural and municipal stormwater needs,

ecological and natural resource conservation and enhancement, and financial obligations while

balancing the items discussed within the section. Table A-3 presents a ranking of the alternatives

based on the level of service for agricultural drainage and flood protection, ecological impacts,

and both initial (construction) cost and long term maintenance.


RCWD Account No. 60-17 HEI Project No. R145555-230 March 23, 2015 Addendum to the ACD 31 Repair Report Page 8 of 10

Table A-3 Relative Ranking of the Alternatives

Alternative

Level of Service / Function

Relative Negative Impact to Resource

Ranking of Cost (Low to High)*

Agricultural Drainage

Overland Surface

Water Outlet Wetlands Construction

Cost

Future Maintenance

Cost

Alternative 1: Existing System Conveyance Low Low Low 1 4

Alternative 2: As Constructed and Subsequently Improved High High Low 2 1

Alternative 3. Active Agricultural Repair

Moderate / High Moderate Low 2 2

Alternative 4. Resource Management Plan Moderate Moderate Low 2 3

*For the purposes of this ranking, estimated costs within 10% of each other are considered “identical”.



The feasibility of an alternative is rarely based solely on cost, and considerable caution is

needed when reviewing and using the Opinions of Probable Construction Costs, especially with

regard to the selection of a preferred alternative by the Board of Managers. The direct comparison

of the Opinions of Probable Construction Costs is challenging because of the potential additional

or “hidden costs.” For instance, alternatives that repair only a portion of the system (or no repairs

at all) will likely have much greater long-term maintenance costs than complete repair of the entire

public drainage system.

In addition to the technical criteria (i.e., design goals) the Engineer’s recommendation to

the Board of Managers also includes and considers several factors unrelated to performance of the

public drainage system, but to various non-technical factors. Many of these factors are “intangible”

and the result of discussions with the landowners on site and at public meetings. The importance

and weight of these various factors should be deliberated by the Board of Managers when reaching

an independent conclusion about the recommended repair alternative.

4.2 Engineer’s Recommendation

Alternative 1 (Existing System Conditions) does not provide a restoration of drainage

function to lands historically drained by the ACD 31 public drainage system, and thus does not

meet the repair objectives and is not recommended. The three remaining alternatives (#2, 3, & 4)

each have a similar construction cost (within 10%). However, Alternative 2 repairs over twice as

much length in the public drainage system, and provides a greater level of drainage function (up

to a foot lower water surface levels for the 2-year, 24-hour rainfall event) than the other

alternatives. Likewise, long term maintenance costs for this alternative will likely be substantially

less than for Alternatives #3 and #4 because Alterative 2 repairs the entire public drainage system,

not just a portion of it.

Based upon the design criteria established in the Repair Report and the relative benefits

and costs, the Engineer recommends construction of the As-Constructed and Subsequently

Improved Alternative (ACSIA), aka Alternative #2. The recommended alternative is expected to

restore agricultural drainage function to the ACD 31 system (see Figure A-2). As noted above,

Alternative 2 will not result in the drainage of wetlands requiring mitigation.



The Engineer concludes that the repairs represented by implementing the Alternative 2 are

necessary to meet current agricultural drainage based on considerations presented within this

Repair Report, and that the repairs are in the best interest of the property owners.

The repairs are expected to return the capacity of the system, to serve the original intended

purpose of providing agricultural drainage, provide the infrastructure (upon replacement) for the

future management of stormwater runoff resulting from urbanization of the landscape. The

recommended alternative is believed to balance the need to provide serviceable drainage to

agricultural land, the future need to manage stormwater runoff, and the desire to minimize

environmental impacts while implementing the best value alternative.

The Board of Managers retains the decision whether to accept, reject or modify the

Engineer’s Recommendation. The repairs recommended by the Engineer are consistent with the

objectives and policies identified with the current Watershed Management Plan, dated January

2012, approved by the Board of Water and Soil Resource.

GrWX

GsWX

GÈWX

Lamprey Pass State Wildlife Refuge

Columbus

Private

Private

Branch

3

Branch

5

Private

Branch 6

Bran

ch 7

Private

PrivateBranch 1

Branch 1

Branch

1

Branch 2Branch 2

Main Trunk

Main Trunk

Main

Trunk

Rice CreekWatershed District

ACD 31Repair Report

0 0.25 0.50.125Miles

¶Notes: Hydrology reflects current land use. The agricultural polygons were digitized and classifiedfrom 2006 Twin Cities aerials and FSA 2008 aerials.Sources: TLG, RCWD, MN DOT

Anoka County

Flow DirectionPublic Through RealignmentPublic System Out of District Boundary

Private Open ChannelPublic Open ChannelSubwatershedsN

N N

N

N NNN

N

N

NN N

NNN NN

N NN

NNN

NN

NN

N

NNNN

N

N

NNN

NN

NN

N

NN

N

N

N

N

NN N

NNN

NNNN

N

N

N

N

N

N N

N

N

NN

NN

N

NN

NNN Grass Hay/ Pasture

CultivatedCounty RoadsColumbus RMP BoundaryRCWD Boundary (2009)State/Local ParksLakes

Anoka

WashingtonHennepin

RamseyProject

Location Map

Figure A-1 ACD 31 Existing System Conveyance Alternative (#1)Scale: Drawn by: Checked by: Project No.: Date: Sheet:AS SHOWN SMW 5555-060.17 8/06/2009

GrWX

GsWX

GÈWX


Columbus

Branch

3

Branch

5

PrivateBranch 6

Bran

ch 7

Private

PrivateBranch 1

Branch

1

Branch 2Branch 2

Main Trunk

Main

Trunk


ACD 31Repair Report

0 0.25 0.50.125Miles

¶Note: Hydrology reflects current land use. The agricultural polygons were digitized and classifiedfrom 2006 Twin Cities aerials and FSA 2008 aerials.Sources: TLG, RCWD, MN DOT

Anoka County

NNN

NNN

N

N

N

NNN

NN

N NNN

NN

N

NNNN

N

N

N

N

N

N

NNN

NN

NN

N N

NN

NNNN

N

NNN

NN N

N N

N N

Flow DirectionRepair to ACSIC - Outside Current RCWD Bndry

Repair to As Constructed ProfilePrivate Open Channel - No Repairs Public Spot Maintenance to Existing Profile

SubwatershedsCounty RoadsColumbus RMP BoundaryRCWD Boundary (2009)Grass Hay/ PastureCultivatedLocal ParksLakes

Anoka

WashingtonHennepin

RamseyProject

Location Map

Figure A-2 ACD 31As Constructed and Subsequently Improved Alternative (#2)Scale: Drawn by: Checked by: Project No.: Date: Sheet:AS SHOWN SMW 5555-060.17 8/12/2009

GrWX

GsWX

GÈWX

RiceCree

k


Columbus

Private

Branch

3

Branch

5

Private

Branch 6

Bran

ch 7

PrivateBranch 1

Branch

1

Branch 2Branch 2

Main Trunk

Main

Trunk


ACD 31Repair Report

0 0.25 0.50.125Miles

¶Note: Hydrology reflects current land use. The agricultural polygons were digitized and classifiedfrom 2006 Twin Cities aerials and FSA 2008 aerials.Sources: TLG, RCWD, MN DOT

Anoka County

NN

N

N

N

NN

N

N

NN

N

NNNN

N

N

NNN

N NN

N

NNN

NN

NN NNNN

NN

NNN

N

NN

NN

NN

NN

N

N

N

NN

N

N

NN

NN

N

Flow DirectionHigh Spots in Open Channel to be Repaired

Private to become publicTo become Administered by RCWDPublic System Outside Current RCWD Bndry

Public Spot Maintenance to Existing Profile

Repair to As Constructed ProfilePrivate Open Channel - No RepairsPublic Open Channel - No Repairs

SubwatershedsGrass Hay/ PastureCultivatedCounty RoadsColumbus RMP BoundaryRCWD Boundary (2009)Local ParksLakes

Anoka

WashingtonHennepin

RamseyProject

Location Map

Figure A-3 ACD 31 Active Agricultural Repair Alternative (#3)Scale: Drawn by: Checked by: Project No.: Date: Sheet:AS SHOWN SMW 5555-060.17 11/10/2009

To becomeAdministered

by RCWD-Spot Repair

GrWX

GsWX

GÈWX

RiceCree

k

Lamprey Pass StateWildlife Refuge

Main

Trunk

Branch 1

Branch 2Pr

ivate

Bran

ch 7

Private

Columbus


ACD 31Repair Report

0 0.25 0.50.125Miles

¶Note: Hydrology reflects current land use. Sources: TLG, RCWD, MN DOT

Anoka County

Outlet Control StructuresFlow DirectionHigh Spots in Open Channel to be Repaired

Private to become publicTo become Administered by RCWD

Public System Outside Existing RCWD Bndry

Public Spot Maintenance to Existing Profile

Repair to As Constructed ProfilePrivate Open Channel - No RepairsPublic Open Channel - No Repairs Wetland Management Corridor à

ààà à

à

àà

à àPotential Wetland Restoration AreasSubwatershedsCounty RoadsColumbus RMP BoundaryRCWD Boundary (2009)State/Local ParksLakes

Anoka

HennepinRamsey

Washington

ProjectLocation Map

Figure A-4 ACD 31 Resource Management Plan Alternative (#4)Scale: Drawn by: Checked by: Project No.: Date: Sheet:AS SHOWN SMW 5555-060.17 8/12/2009

To becomeAdministered

by RCWD-Spot Repair

GrWX

GÈWX

Columbus

Bran

ch 7

Priva

tePrivate

Branch 3

Branc

h 5

Private

Priva

te

Branch 6

Functional Branch

(Not of Record)Branch 1

Branch 1

Branch 2

Branch 2

Main

Trunk

Main Trunk

Main

Trunk

ACD 31Repair Report

Calculated Lateral Drainage Zone

0 1,000 2,000500Feet

¶Sources: TLG, RCWD, MN DOT

Anoka County

Lateral Drainage ZoneLakesPrivate Open Channel - No RepairsRepair to As Constructed ProfileSubwatershedsCounty RoadsColumbus RMP BoundaryRCWD Boundary (2010)

Wetland Type3,4, and 5 Wetland Types

Anoka

Washington

Hennepin

RamseyProject

Location Map

Figure A-5 Calculated Lateral Drainage ZoneScale: Drawn by: Checked by: Project No.: Date: Sheet:AS SHOWN SMW 5555-230 3/17/2015CCO

Est'd Quantity

ExtensionEst'd

Quantity Extension

Est'd Quantity

ExtensionEst'd

Quantity Extension

Public Drainage System InfrastructureMobilization Lump Sum $15,000 0 $0.00 1 $15,000.00 1 $15,000.00 1 $15,000.00 Traffic Control Lump Sum $10,000 0 $0.00 1 $10,000.00 1 $10,000.00 1 $10,000.00 Remove & Dispose of Inplace Culvert Linear Foot $15 0 $0.00 229 $3,435.00 434 $6,510.00 434 $6,510.00 Excavation of Existing Trench Linear Foot $9 0 $0.00 28473 $256,257.00 5263 $47,367.00 5263 $47,367.00 Temporary and Permanent Relocations Lump Sum $5,000 0 $0.00 1 $5,000.00 1 $5,000.00 1 $5,000.00 Tree Clearing Acre $7,500 4.8 $35,898.76 4.8 $35,898.76 4.8 $35,898.76 4.8 $35,898.76 24" GS Apron Each $475 0 $0.00 4 $1,900.00 4 $1,900.00 4 $1,900.00 30" GS Apron Each $750 0 $0.00 6 $4,500.00 10 $7,500.00 10 $7,500.00 36" GS Apron Each $760 0 $0.00 8 $6,080.00 20 $15,200.00 20 $15,200.00 24" HDPE Culvert Linear Foot $60 0 $0.00 58 $3,480.00 58 $3,480.00 58 $3,480.00 30" HDPE Culvert Linear Foot $70 0 $0.00 66 $4,620.00 149 $10,430.00 149 $10,430.00 36" HDPE Culvert Linear Foot $80 0 $0.00 105 $8,400.00 257 $20,560.00 257 $20,560.00 Patch Existing Gravel Surface Lump Sum $300 0 $0.00 8 $2,400.00 13 $3,900.00 13 $3,900.00 Seeding and Mulch Acre $5,000 4.8 $23,932.51 13.1 $65,500.00 5.7 $28,500.00 5.7 $28,500.00

Public Drainage System Infrastructure Subtotal $59,831.00 $422,471.00 $211,246.00 $211,246.00

Land for Infrastructure (Easement and Land Acquisition)Permanent Easement Costs (private ditch consolidation)1 Acre $25,000 10.8 $270,000.00 0 $0.00 9.0 $225,000.00 9.0 $225,000.00

Land for Infrastructure Subtotal $270,000.00 $0.00 $225,000.00 $225,000.00

Public Drainage System Wetland MitigationWetland Mitigation (from Existing Bank) Acre $20,000 0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00

Public Drainage System Natural Resource Mitigation Subtotal $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Infrastructure at Public RoadwaysRemove & Dispose of Inplace Culvert Linear Foot $12 0 $0.00 492 $5,904.00 653 $7,836.00 653 $7,836.00 27"x43"x49' Arch RCP Apron Each $1,500 0 $0.00 2 $3,000.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 30" RCP Apron Each $1,300 0 $0.00 2 $2,600.00 2 $2,600.00 2 $2,600.00 48" RCP Apron Each $1,500 0 $0.00 2 $3,000.00 2 $3,000.00 2 $3,000.00 24" GS Apron Each $475 0 $0.00 2 $950.00 2 $950.00 2 $950.00 36" GS Apron Each $760 0 $0.00 6 $4,560.00 10 $7,600.00 10 $7,600.00 24" CMP Culvert Linear Foot $40 0 $0.00 50 $2,000.00 50 $2,000.00 50 $2,000.00 36" CMP Culvert Linear Foot $60 0 $0.00 193 $11,580.00 354 $21,240.00 354 $21,240.00 36" HDPE Culvert Linear Foot $80 0 $0.00 52 $4,160.00 52 $4,160.00 52 $4,160.00 27"x43"x49' Arch RCP Culvert Linear Foot $200 0 $0.00 49 $9,800.00 49 $9,800.00 49 $9,800.00 30" RCP Culvert Linear Foot $120 0 $0.00 24 $2,880.00 24 $2,880.00 24 $2,880.00 48" RCP Culvert Linear Foot $150 0 $0.00 49 $7,350.00 49 $7,350.00 49 $7,350.00 Roadway Repair Each $6,000 0 $0.00 3 $18,000.00 3 $18,000.00 3 $18,000.00 Erosion Control Blanket Cat. 3 Square Yard $4 $0.00 72 $288.00 72 $288.00 72 $288.00

Public Infrastructure (Others) Subtotal $0.00 $76,072.00 $87,704.00 $87,704.00

Engineering/Legal/AdminEngineering/Project Management Dollars $1 38966 $38,966.20 140000 $140,000.00 120000 $120,000.00 120000 $120,000.00 Legal Services Dollars $1 20000 $20,000.00 20000 $20,000.00 20000 $20,000.00 20000 $20,000.00 District Administration Dollars $1 19483 $19,483.00 49854 $49,854.00 41145 $41,145.00 41145 $41,145.00

Engineering/Legal/Admin Subtotal $78,449.20 $209,854.00 $181,145.00 $181,145.00

Contingency Percent 20% $11,966.00 $99,709.00 $59,790.00 $59,790.00

Grand Total $420,246.20 $808,106.00 $764,885.00 $764,885.00

1 Required easement widths are assumed at a 50 foot width along public road rights of way, and 100 foot width elsewhere

Alternative 3Active Agricultural Repair

Alternative(AARA)

Appendix APreliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Details

Unit Price

Alternative 1 Existing System

Conditions (ESCA)

Alternative 4Resource Management Plan

Alternative(RMPA)

Description Units

Alternative 2As-Constructed and

Subsequently Improved Alternative (ACSIA)

ACD 31 ADDENDUM TO THE REPAIR REPORTF68A5205-A996... · 2015. 12. 16. · 45+06 Private 15"x20' CMP...

Documents

Transcript of ACD 31 ADDENDUM TO THE REPAIR REPORTF68A5205-A996... · 2015. 12. 16. · 45+06 Private 15"x20' CMP...