ve workshop final report

8/6/2019 Ve Workshop Final Report

1/133

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.


2/133


3/133

Doing the right things, not just doing things right!

17 May 2011

Mr. Les StermanChief 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:

drca mp ion@yahoo .com

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


4/133


5/133

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 & RecommendationsValue 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 sheets2. Plan sheets for each of the four principal levee distracts and

Profiles illustrating basic features under study

3. Preliminary cost estimate4. AMEC value engineering/design optimization items5. AMEC project overview and status presentation6. VE Team Written Comments/Questions and AMEC Responses


6/133

Value Engineering Workshop Report Page 2 of 14C 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 theworkshop. 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 andmay 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, hopscotch 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 stratumis 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 forstorm 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.


7/133


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 adoptedand 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 BreakdownStructured 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 theuncertainties 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 Councils 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


Suzanne Goldak, P.E. Hydrology and Hydraulics


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.)


8/133


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)


9/133


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. FEMAannounced 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 requiredto 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 floodinsurance, 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


10/133


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 Councils 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.


11/133


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 costalternative 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 1st, and its quick perusal by Les Sterman, the Councils

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 AMECs 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.


12/133


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 districto Metro-East Sanitary Drainage and Levee Districto 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 itemso Clay caps solution, if and when applicableo Relief wells, if and applicableo Seepage berms, if and when applicableo Cutoff walls, if and when applicableo 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 workshops 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.


13/133


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 inshowing 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 thiswork. 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 Councils financial

consultant, Mr. Roy Toykelson, who contributed to the discussion as regards financial planning.


14/133


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 Teams 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 wellsappear 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 HydrologicModeling 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.


15/133


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 concernwhere 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 tomitigate 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. Meansto 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 toevaluate 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/orclosely 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 atEarth 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


16/133


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 gageflows. 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 wouldnt it be appropriate to atleast 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 asto 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 someareas 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 Station1350+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 actualflood 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 thatno 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 benecessary 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 tailwater was not the controlling factor, are all of the improvements shown near the ends of the flank

levees necessary for the 100 year certification?


17/133


WRAPUP AND NEXT STEPS

On the closing day the VE Team met with Les Sterman, Councils Chief Supervisor of Construction and

the Works, and AMECs 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 isenough 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 orblast 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 whetheror 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 certainsituations.

In Prairie Du Pont/Fish Lake

o Item # 2 will have AMEC sending additional information (which it did send and isincluded 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 Teams belief that a more

consistent design wherein a uniform berm depth (distance from the levee) combined with relief wells


18/133


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 differentroadway 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 theCorps 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.


19/133

A

PPENDIX1


20/133


21/133

Agenda Rev02 Page 1

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/Locationd. Risks Assessed

10:30 AM 4. Q&A

11:00 AM B. Metro-East Sanitary District (MESD)






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)






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


22/133

Agenda Rev02 Page 2


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


C. Understanding of proposed AMEC technical solutions to address deficiencies and theapplication 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



23/133

Agenda Rev02 Page 3


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


12:15 PM V. EVALUATION OF COST ESTIMATE (continued)

2:00 PM VI. V.E. TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS DEVELOPMENT



24/133

Agenda Rev02 Page 4


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


12:30 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


25/133

AttendanceProject:Location:

Southwestern Illinois Flood Protection District Council LeveeMetro-East Park & Recreation District

Item:Date:

Va I ~ e E n g i n ~ e r i . . r ! g W o r ~ s h ~ ____ ...Page: / ;,/7 I

...~ - - . - - ...~

6 1 ~ Q . r -

No. Name Company Email Telepbone NumberIUH'P ' f ~ - J'....,.., . If- " '.. . Ai 3/f ' -33t - ; , ~ 1 J ~ ~ " ~ . U/ClrL_ - :0:.1'(I/S:';_ ) ~ ~ 4 z % ; ~ ; - : ~ f S "

I ~ r ~ 1 - - ~ - 1 Z ~ : r t \ 0 7 . J _ t : ; ; ~ ~ ; ; ; - ~ ~ e ~ 1 3 I C- ~ ~ s . . ! m ~ ~ ; J c.'j1""'_._!_ _ _ ....m___ ....__4 I 'iiwL. ; I o M l l l " : ' r J m _ ~ m ___m__ l ~ = ~ ; : ~ 6 : ' o + : ! f } l / ~ _ ~ J _ m : ~ ~ = ~ m 2 4 - ~

I s ;m -W 8 ,v 'r ; " ' ~ 5'foldahil~ J ~ 2 : ~ __ G ~ ' - t ? - f r - - - ~ ~ ! ' : t u f ~ ~ O " ' 1 ( ' I f-m l . tM l r __ ~ __ + n r W N - W e . - - , ~ blt-Cf31-f.b!,. 0

! ;;"17 IV-< l i ~ ~ ~ + + - E ' A . 1 ~ " 4 i ) , ,. -3 -/~ j ) ( 1 ~ _ K orTf M f f t V . ! : : : ! ~ ____ c . ( " J i e 1 / U l d ~ ~ i r o t 1 ~ ~ M ~ S f l . < J . l , , 6 / ~ m ~ ~ x : f I 4, () ! ~ l c5krmt:t n -+R O ~ __ .._+_ ..._ ... __.J11 h . I tfvu{;t'.+ _____ ~ _ ! _ - _ - - ...--

1 ~ t < . " J ' - - 1 , - - - - ~ - - - ~ J.------- - i , - - - - ~ - 15 I __i -- j. J J 2 _ - - J Y d L ~ - - - - - .. - - - ~ + - - - - - - ~ - - - ~ ..-16 I 10v!:J ' S ~ ~ b r L - - + ___ ~ + __ ,___ ..__m_._ - + - _ - ~ m - ....--l~ 4 J f k Y ' L Q - - ~ vk ; .. - l - - - + - - - - - - + - ~ _ ..._-m.m .... .. .......j18 I lltA 'J-L. vS

e v e e Project V.E. Workshop Mar. 28-31, 2011,. .",-" N ; , ; .I ~ . I \ . C C ~ ~isnici~ Y V ' t SC-tp Ie ,

'UJ kd y C ( r " ~ 11


26/133

Attendance Project: Southwestern Illinois Flood Protection District Council Levee __Location: Metro-East Park & Recreation DistrictItem: .VallIe E . ! 1 g i n ~ r i n g Workshop_ .. _ ~ ~ . _ _ _ _ . ... ._..... ...____Date: _ ~ ~ ~ L L ~ _ Page: _I.. dJ l.

I Company Email Telephone Numbero. Name

1 ?lIttL hf,J/1I/Nri , /,J,._,:; 1.-::-lM!-6


27/133

AttendanceProject: Southwestern Illinois Flood Protection District Council Levee .....n . . . . . .tLocation: Metro-East Park & Recreation District Item: Date: Page: I

INo. Name Company Email Telepbone Number

Levee Project V.E. Workshop Mar. 28-31, 2011


28/133

AttendanceProject: Southwestern Illinois Flood Protection District Council Levee P ..........-+ Location: Me!ro:Eas! Park & Recreation District ~ ' ' ' ' e ' ...____.. ..____...___ .. Item: Value F:ngineering Workshop Date: Page:--.L_p..:1J_ ....__

NO" Name . ~ ~ : ; - a n y ~ ~ ~ \ [ T e l e P h o n ~ ~ u m b e ~ .';-'" /1* , I.. i ~ ! y C ' t i J * 1 ' / ' O ' J @ . . .~ I ' - I . 7 ! i ' ~ , / ' . < ~ 5

1 I {",It> utf ~ I I vt-l ..____-+ .. c6" L LC; i ' f ~ M j " V 1 . J . : ~ .._U ~ l ~ ~ ~ o l l ~ . - ...- . . I ~ ~ ~ q ' ; U : ..... l i ~ f ~ ~ I ~ ; ~ ~ - ~ " I- I cotS '11


29/133

A

PPENDIX2


30/133


31/133

Metro East Sa

W

Prairie Du Pont & Fish Lake

273+98

260+00

250+00

240+00

230+00

220+00

210+00

200+00

190+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

0+00

80+00

70+00

60+00

50+00

40+00

30+00

20+00

10+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+0021

0+00200

+00190+

00180+

00170

+00160

+00

150+00

140+00

130+00

120+00

110+00

100+00

0+00

90+00

80+00

70+00

60+00

50+00

40+00

30+00

20+00

10+00

146+06140+

00130+

00109+

00

100+00

700+17

690+00

680+00

670+00

660+00

650+00

640+00

630+00

620+00610+00

600+00

590+00

580+00

570+00

560+00

90

+008

0+007

0+00

60

+005

0+004

0+00

30

+00

20+00

180

+00

170

+001

60

+00

150

+00

140

+00

130+

00

120

+00

110

+00

100

+00

SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOODPREVENTION DISTRICT COUNCIL

3800 EZELL RDNASHVILLE,SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION INITIATIVE

FEMA CERTIFICATION - PROGRESS SOLUTIONS

WOOD RIVER DRAINAGE & LEVEE DISTRICT

DRAWN BY: MDP

MARCH 17, 2011

WR-1

Legend

deep cutoff w

shallow cutoff

riverside clay

new relief we

excluded reac

levee centerli

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 4,0002,000

Feet


32/133

Metro East Sa

W


230+00

220+00

210+00

200+00

190+00

7+00

90

+00

80

+00

70

+00

60

+00

50

+00

40

+00

30

+00

20

+00

10

+00

180

+00

170

+00

160

+00

150

+00

140

+00

130

+00

120

+00

110

+00

100

+00





DRAWN BY: MDP

MARCH 17, 2011

WR-2

Legend

deep cutoff w

shallow cutoff

riverside clay

new relief we

excluded reac

levee centerli

seepage berm

soil fill

riprap

water berm

UPPER WOOD RIVER

0 1,500750

Feet

SHALLOW CUTOFF WALLelev. 400; approx. 48' deep)

SHALLOW CUTOFF WALL(to elev. 400; approx. 48' deep)

11 NEW D-TYPE WELLS(in addition to 17 existingor proposed COE wells)

MEL PRICE EXCLUDED REACH - C.O.E. CONTROL(certification must consider / approve COE solution)

MEL PRICELOCK & DAM

MSRIVER

11 NEW T-TYPE WELLS

5 NEW T-TYPE WELLS

rely on proposed COE wells

SEEPAGE BERM


33/133

Metro East Sa

W


273+98

270+00

260+00

250+00

240+00

230+00

220+00

210+00

200+00

190+00

80+00

70+00

60+00

50+00 20

+00

10+00

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

180

+00

+00





DRAWN BY: MDP

MARCH 17, 2011

WR-3

Legend

deep cutoff w

shallow cutoff

riverside clay

new relief we

excluded reac

levee centerli

seepage berm

soil fill

riprap

water berm

SEEPAGEBERM

PPER WOOD RIVER

LOWER WOOD RIVER

0 1,500750

Feet

MSRIVER

2 NEW T-TYPE WELLS

DEEP CUTOFF WALL(avg. 160' to bedrock)

SOIL FILL

WOODRIVE

R

4 NEW D-TYPE WELLS

rely on proposed COE wells

ROCK FILTER / BALLAST &MAINTAIN SET WATER ELEVATION


34/133

Metro East Sa

W


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





DRAWN BY: MDP

MARCH 17, 2011

WR-4

Legend

deep cutoff w

shallow cutoff

riverside clay

new relief we

excluded reac

levee centerli

seepage berm

soil fill

riprap

water berm

LOWER WOOD RIVER

0 1,500750

Feet

MS

RIVER

9 NEW T-TYPE WELLS

MAINTAIN WATER IN DITCH


35/133

Metro East Sa

W


550

+00

540+00

530

+00

520+00

510

+00

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





DRAWN BY: MDP

MARCH 17, 2011

WR-5

Legend

deep cutoff w

shallow cutoff

riverside clay

new relief we

excluded reac

levee centerli

seepage berm

soil fill

riprap

water berm

LOWER WOOD RIVER

0 1,500750

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


36/133

Scale: NoneDrawn by: MGDate: March 16, 2011AMEC File No. 5-6317-0001

LEVEE ILLUSTRATION

Levee

Aquifer

Semi-pervious

Blanket

Aquifer

Semi-pervious

Blanket

Levee


37/133

Scale: NoneDrawn by: LSDate: March 16, 2011AMEC File No. 5-6317-0001

WOOD RIVER

PLANS AND CROSS SECTIONS

CUTOFF WALLS- Narrowslots filled with slurry.

BEDROCK

DEEP CUTOFF WALLS-

Penetrate through theaquifer to bedrock

SHALLOW CUTOFF WALLS-

Partially penetrate the aquifer


38/133


WOOD RIVER


SEEPAGE BERM

Adds weight to landsidesurface.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.


39/133


WOOD RIVER


T-TYPE RELIEF WELLS

Water flows from the relief well to acollector pipe below ground.Collector connects several relief wells

D-TYPE RELIEF WELLS

Water flows directly from the relief well.


40/133


WOOD RIVER


SOIL FILL IN DITCHES BESIDE RAILROAD

Raises land surface above flood elevation.

Avoids building a new levee (set-back levee)


41/133

Deep Cutoff Wall

Shallow Cutoff Wall

Deep Cutoff Wall

Deep Cutoff Wall

Clay Blanket

Excluded Reach

Berms

Berms

Relief Well

Relief Wells

Relief WellRelief Wells

Berm

Berms

Berm

Relief Wells

MESD North Flank Le

MESD River Front Levee

MESD South Flank Levee

Relief Wells

Relief Wells

Relief Wells

Relief Wells

Relief Wells Relief Well

BermsBerms


SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION INITIATIVE

FEMA CERTIFICATION - PROGR

METRO EAST SANITARY DISTRICT DRAINA


42/133

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

Deep Cutoff WallBeginning Station: 780+55 Ending Station: 790+67Total Length: 1012 ftDepth to Clay: 100 ft

24 New T-Type

9 New D-Type Wells

6 New D-Type Wells

1 New

Chain of Rocks Excluded Reach - C.O.E. Control(certification to be provided by C.O.E.)

Venice Pump

Madison Pump

Old U.E. Pow

Granite Cit

G.C.E.D. Pump Statio

G.C.E.D. Pump Statio

G.C.E.D. Pump Station No. 2

900+00

890+00

880+00

870+00

850+00

840+00

830+00

820+00

810+00

910+00

860+00

790+00

780+00

800+00






43/133

[

ShallowBeginn inTotal Len

Seepage Berm

North Pump St

990+00

980+00

970+00

960+00

950+00

940+00

930+00

920+00

1050+0

0

1030+0

0

1020+0

0

1010+0

0

1040+0

0

1000+0

0






44/133

[

[

Deep Cutoff WallBeginn ing Station : 1209+69 Ending Stat

Total Length: 998 ftAverage Depth to Rock: 142.9 ft

Clay Blanket

Seepage Berm

1 New D-Type Well

5 New D-Type Wells

1 New D-Type Well

10 New D-Ty

8 New D-Type Wells

Seepage Berm

Seepage Berm

Seepage Berms

Old Monsanto P.S.

Phillips Reach Pump Station

1130+0

0

1120+0

0

1260+0

0

1220+0

0

1210+0

0

1200+0

0

1190+0

0

1150+0

0

1140+0

0

1250+00

1240+0

0

1230+0

0

1270+0

0

1180+0

0

1170+0

0

1160+00






45/133

[

[

[

[

Deep Cutoff Wall

Beginn ing Station : 1304+00 Ending Station: 1319+00Total Length: 1500 ftDepth to Rock : 125 ft

Seepage Berms

1 New D-Type Well

4 New D-Type Wells

Seepage Berms

38 New T-Type Wells

Cahokia Pump Station

Seepage Berms

Pairie Du Pont East PSFalling Springs Pump Station

Blue Waters Ditch Pump Station136

0+00

1350+0

0

1340+0

0

1330+0

0

1320+0

0

1490+

1480+0

0147

0+00

1460+0

0

1450+0

0

1410+0

0

1400+0

0139

0+00138

0+00

1370+0

0

0+00

1300+0

0

1290+0

0

1440+0

0

1430+0

0

1420+0

0

1280+0

0

1270+0

0






46/133


47/133


48/133


49/133


50/133


51/133

Metro East Sa

W


_

_

_

__

__

_

_

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

809

+00

800

+00

790

+00

780

+00

770

+00

760

+00

750

+00

740

+00

730

+00

720

+00

710

+00

700

+00

690

+00

0+00 1

0+00

90

+00

80

+00

70

+00

60

+00

50

+00

40

+00

30

+00

20

+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


3800 EZELL RNASHVILLESOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS FLOOD PREVENTION INITIATIVE


PRAIRIE Du PONT & FISH LAKE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICTS

DRAWN BY: MDP

MARCH 10, 2011

PdP-1

Legend

riverside clay

new relief we

levee centerli

_ 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 5,0002,500

Feet

CLAY CAPS

PRAIRIE Du PONT

FISH LAKE


52/133

Metro East Sa

W


_

_

_

0

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





DRAWN BY: MDP

MARCH 10, 2011

PdP-2

Legend

riverside clay

new relief we

levee centerli

_ pump station

seepage berm

0 1,000500

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

MSRIVE

R

PRAIRIE Du PONT

EXISTING PUMP STATION(Prairie Du Pont West)

EXISTING PUMP STATION


53/133

Metro East Sa

W


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





DRAWN BY: MDP

MARCH 10, 2011

PdP-3

Legend

riverside clay

new relief we

levee centerli

_ pump station

seepage berm

PRAIRIE Du PONT

0 1,500750

Feet

CLAY CAP

2 NEW D-TYPE WELLS

CLAY CAP

SEEPAGE BERMS

SEEPAGE BERMS

MS

RIVER

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


54/133


55/133

Metro East Sa

W


_

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

770

+00

760

+00

750

+00

740

+00

730

+00

720

+00

710

+00

700

+00

690

+00





DRAWN BY: MDP

MARCH 10, 2011

PdP-5

Legend

riverside clay

new relief we

levee centerli

_ pump station

seepage berm

0 1,000 2500

Feet

FISH LAKE

MS

RIVER

12 NEW D-TYPE WELLS

20 NEW D-TYPE WELLS

2 NEW D-TYPE WELLS

SEEPAGE BERM

SEEPAGE BERM

EXISTING PUMP STATION(Palmer Creek)


56/133


57/133

A

PPENDIX3


58/133


59/133

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


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


Estimate

30% Design

Estimate

Increase

(Decrease)

Clay Cap - Flush & Protruding LF 0 1,700 1,700

Cutoff Wall - Shallow SF 0 0 0Cutoff Wall - Intermediate SF 0 0 0

Cutoff Wall - Deep SF 0 0 0


Relief Well - New EA 192 133 (59)

Seepage Berm CY 314,105 359,966 45,861


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 - 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


60/133

Prelim Cost Estimate Escalation Page 1 o

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 4Q12Jan - 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 xEscalation

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


61/133


Improvement SubtotalConstruction 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



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$


Grand Total: 68,608,356$ 75,469,192$


Improvement SubtotalConstruction Estimate (includesMobilization 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$




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$


Grand Total: 137,617,511$ 151,379,262$


COST SUMMARY

WOOD RIVER

MESD

PdP & FISH LAKE

TOTAL - WOOD RIVER, MESD, PdP & FISH LAKE


62/133


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 $ 254,000.0022 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


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 $ 370,800.0035 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


42 Slip-Line - 18-Inch Pipe LF 125.00$ 2,340.0 $ 292,500.00





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


63/133



1 Clay Cap - Flush LF 500.00$ 0.0 $ -


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 $ 76,200.0022 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


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 $ 370,800.0035 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









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


64/133



1 Clay Cap - Flush LF 500.00$ $ -


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$ $ -








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 Pedest