The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8.a. Set Budget Meeting Schedule (�' "`rl � 1. � F'n Fi(1X f,�n �� :: � '� � � ��f� � � � � � � � i'€tl,`� 1•1!it�tt `;1 W � � � � � ,�,,,�?a �� ,,,�.�-, R��FMt:�UNT�. MINNF;;��fn ,St)r,� � � at 619 ..t?3 q:�1 1 � �� f �- ��,��:�y��c��,�c a��l �� #' � �� ._ � . ��-.. � � ��, �� T0: Mayor Hoke Councilmembers Napper 4xborough alsh Wigpermann FROM: Steve Jilk DATE: October 13, 1989 RE: 1990 Budget Reva,ewjAdoption Proeess With the Governor' s approval of the revised tax b%11, there have . been significant changes in the arnount of local gove�nment aid we will receive, the laws affecting levy Iimits and those afEect3,ng "truth in taxation" requirements on the budget hearings and notifieations we must meet. Updated numbers on local Government Aid (LGA) and levy lirnifis will be coming out to cities by October 23 from the state, At that time, staff will revise the proposed budget, as presented to you previously, and be prepared to continue discussian on �he 1990 budgets. At this point, preliminary numbers indicate that a potential, additional loss of some $200,000 in LGA will be c�ffset by the city' s ability to increase its levy by that amount. Tf this action would be taken, this should be offset by a drap in the school distarict's levy but we will need tQ clarify that before we decide on our levy. In the meantime, I would request that we cc�nsider the following to continue our process and be prepared to hold our public hearing for the proposed budget either November 21 or December 5 depending on the county's coordination and date determination �or these hearings as is now required under state law. Qn November 7 have the next budget discussion with staff and determine our preliminary budget and proposed levy to be certified to the county (by November 15). Determine if additional work sessions are necessary prior to the public hearing and schedule that if necessary. I then wzll have firm directzon on what we need to do to complete the proeess . In addition, on November 21 , I will be presenting information regarding benefits/salary adjustments for 1990 for your consideration. With no objections to this process, I will pro�eed with the schedule. dw , ' TABLE OF CONTENTS - Paqe ISECTION 1 : EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1 � SECTION 2 : WATERSHED OVERVIEW 2-1 � SECTION 3 : STUDY ACTIVITIES 3-1 � 3 . 1 Data Collection 3-1 3 . 2 Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis 3-1 ' 3 . 2 . 1 Identification and Planning of Long-Range Land Use 3-2 3 . 2 . 2 Identification of Watershed Divides and Stormwater ' Storage Areas 3-3 3 . 2 . 3 Watershed Modeling 3-4 3 . 2 . 4 Assumptions Made In ' Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis 3-6 ' SECTION 4 : DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS 4-1 � SECTION 5 : IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS 5-1 5. 1 Drainage Plan Review and Revision 5-1 ' S. 2 Compliance With Drainage Requirements 5=3 5 . 3 Land Use Changes 5-4 5. 4 Final Design and Cost of Sewer System 5-5 � 5 . 5 Storage Basin Options 5-5 5 . 6 Slopes In and Near Basins 5-6 5. 7 Low Floor Elevations Near Basins 5-6 ' 5. 8 Low Floor Elevations Near Swales and Ditches 5-7 5 . 9 Secondary Floodplain Uses 5-7 5. 10 Specific Watershed ' Design Considerations 5-8 5 . 10. 1 MeMenomie Drainage District 5-8 , 5 . 10. 2 White Lake Drainage District 5-9 5 . 10. 3 Gun Club Lake Drainage District 5-9 5 . 10 . 4 Sieg Pond Drainage District 5-11 ' S. 10. 5 Apple Valley Drainage District 5-11 5 . 10. 6 Shannon Oaks Drainage District 5-11 ' 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS i � � , TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page ' : 5 . 10 . 7 Birger Pond Drainage District 5-11 5 . 10 . 8 Daly Pond Drainage District 5-12 5. 10 . 9 Schwarz Pond Drainage District 5-12 ' S . 10 . 10 Reegan Lake Drainage District 5-12 5 . 10 . 11 O'Rourke Drainage District 5-12 5 . 10. 12 Rosemount Woods , Drainage District 5-13 5 . 10 . 13 Minea Drainage District 5-13 5 . 10. 14 Murmane Drainage District 5-13 , 5 . 10 . 15 Industrial Drainage District 5-13 5 . 10 . 16 Erickson Park Drainage District 5-14 5 . 10 . 17 Hawkins Pond Drainage District 5-14 � 5 . 10. 18 Vermillion River Drainage District 5-14 5 . 10. 19 Wachter Pond Drainage District 5-15 , APPENDIX � APPENDIX A: REFERENCES A-1 , APPENDIX B: THE BARR HYDROGRAPH METHOD B-1 APPENDIX C: TABLES � APPENDIX D: FIGURES ' , ' � ' � � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS ii � ' � DRAINAGE PLAN �- WEST DRAINAGE AREA ' ' SECTION 1 : EXECUTIVE SUMMARY , This Drainage Plan was prepared as a combined effort of the Rosemount City Council, City staff, a citizens advisory � committee, and Barr Engineering Co. It is intended to be a dynamic working tool for implementing the stormwater control and management system for the western third of the City. This area , � is shown in Figure 1 (Appendix D) . The Drainage Plan will be used for designing and constructing main stem facilities, and , for reviewing new development proposals for compatibility with the identified drainage requirements. Many op�tions are ' available when considering location, type, and size of the system' s components . The nature and number of these options , requires this Plan to be flexible and dynamic . ' It is therefore essential that the users of the Plan understand its intent, design parameters, controlling factors, � and special considerations for implementation. To assist Plan users, this document is divided into five sectionsc Watexshed � Overview, Study Activities, Drainage Requirements, Implementation Considerations, and Appendix. Also, the study , area has been divided into 19 distinct drainage districts for considering drainage patterns and system improvements . These ' drainage districts are shown in Figure 2 (Appendix D) . , The "Watershed Overview° section discusses the West Drainage Area and its presently developed state. � ' 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS 1-1 � � � The "Study Activities" section describes the process of Plan development, _including: � ■ Data Collection ' ■ Long-Range Land Use Planning ■ Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis ' in and addressin Data collection activities involved meet g g watershed specifics with City staff, reviewing preliminary ' development proposals, and obtaining existing storm sewer information. Long-range land use planning was necessary for the � hydrologic/hydraulic analysis . The planning process involved the combination of existing development information, proposed � development plans for undeveloped and underdeveloped areas, and the judgment of City and Barr Engineering staff. This resulted � in preparing a long-range Tand use plan which was the basis from which stormwater runoff computations were made. This land use � plan is summarized in Figure 3 (Appendix D) . � The hydrologic/hydraulic analysis included determining drainage patterns and the critical 100-year storm flows and � volumes. Drainage patterns (Figure 4, Appendix D) were developed by a joint effort of a citizens advisory committee and , City and Barr Engineering staff. The citizens advisory committee also provided insight and historical information � specific to local areas which, in many cases, would not have been considered otherwise. Efforts by the citizens advisory , committee have made this Plan more comprehensive and useful . The stormwater runoff analysis was conducted through the use of the "Barr Hydrograph Method° computer model . � � I2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS 1-2 f � � Included in the "Drainage Requirements" section are the specific design parameters for the trunk system to accommodate � the 100-year storm event. These parameters are: � ■ Design Flows at Key Locations ■ Storage Basin Requirements -- storage volume, normal � pond elevation, flood level elevation, and so on. � A summary of this information is provided in Tables 1 through 19 (Appendix C) . � She "Im lementation Considerations" section recommends P stormwater management improvements and system costs, and � addresses concerns regarding storage basins, slopes, land use changes, and specific subwatersheds. This section also details , the rationale and policy for requirements of low floor elevations in the vicinity of stormwater storage basins . � Specifically, it requires that low floor elevations near landlocked basins be at least 5 feet above the basin' s projected � flood level. Similarly for outletted basins, low floor elevations must be at least 2 feet above the projected flood � level. Additionally, this section discusses the need for the City to periodically examine the Plan and revise it when � necessary. It suggests that the City set a date each year to perform this work. � ^ The "Implementation Considerations" section refers to ' Appendix C, which contains tables summarizing system design components for each subwatershed. Tables 1 through 19 list � design criteria for each of the 19 drainage districts . Tables 20 through 38 list recommended improvements and their costs. � Figure 5 (Appendix D) shows the locations of existing and anticipated trunk storm sewer systems. � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS 1-3 � i 1 "Appendix A" contains a list of references used for Plan � preparation. ��Appendix B" contains a discussion of the Barr Hydrograph Method, which was used for determining flow rates and � storage basin requirements . "Appendix C° contains summary tables and "Appendix D" contains figures . � � � � � � � ' � � , � � � _ 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS 1 4 � � � SECTION 2 : WATERSHED OVERVIEW � This Plan involves the West Drainage Area of Rosemount. � Figure 1 (Appendix D) shows the limits of this 6, 900-acre drainage area. This area includes the City' s main business center, Rosemount Senior High School, City Hall, and several � churches . It is projected as an area of rapid residential expansion and presently is experiencing a high degree of � development pressure. The City has prepared this Drainage Plan to accommodate development while managing the increased ,� stormwater and snowmelt runoff from the developing areas . � This widely rolling area of Rosemount is dotted by over 200 wetlands, lakes, and other low areas where water collects. The � City values this area for these water resources and is committed to maintaining its aesthetic and interpretative nature. � Virtually all of the lakes, wetlands, and lowlands are � presently landlocked. This has not been a major problem in the past because the drainage area tributary to each water � collection site was largely undeveloped and the subsoils are coarse. Stormwater and snowmelt runoff has infiltrated into the � ground or evaporated and has not negatively impacted upland vegetation, homes, and other facilities . However, increased � development brings increased runoff and increased sediment. If not properly managed, the increasing runoff and sediment will negatively impact area residents, businesses, permanent � improvements, and upland vegetation. � Because most of the runoff in this drainage area has largely remained within the legal boundaries of the City of Rosemount, � communities and lands downstream have not had to handle this � 2319132 ROSEDP.WP PLS 2-1 / / � _ � �' runoff or experience negative impacts from it. Therefore, this Drainage Plan incorporates both the need to manage the flows � internally and the need to maintain minimal impact on downstream communities and land. To meet these concerns, the West Drainage � Area was divided into 19 drainage districts; � 1 . McMenomie 2 . White Lake � 3 . Gun Club Lake 4. Sieg Pond � 5 . Apple Valley 6 . Shannon Oaks 7. Birger Pond � 8. Daly Pond 9. Schwarz Pond � 10. Keegan Lake il . O'Rourke � 12 . Rosemount Woods 13 . Minea � 14. Murmane 15 . Industrial � 16 . Erickson Park 17. Hawkins Pond � 18 . Vermillion River 19. Wachter Pond � The location of these districts is shown in Figure 2 (Appendix � D) . Fifteen of these districts (McMenomie, White Lake, Sieg Pond, Shannon Oaks, Birger Pond, Daly Pond, Schwarz Pond, Keegan � Lake, O' Rourke, Rosemount Woods, Minea, Murmane, Exickson Park, Hawkins Pond, and Wachter Pond) are planned to contain their � runoff in at least one landlocked basin. The other four � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS 2-2 � � �' districts are all planned to have outlets and drain to the City of Eagan, th� City of Apple Valley, or the Vermillion River. � Several subwatersheds lie in each of the 19 drainage � districts . These subwatersheds are shown on Figure 4 (Appendix D) . � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 2 1 1 2 R EDP WP PLS 2-3 3 9 3 / OS . / � � � SECTION 3 : STUDY ACTIVITIES � The initial activities performed to meet the objectives of � this study involved data collection. The collected data were then compiled, verified, and used for a hydrologic/hydraulic � analysis of the West Drainage Area. The following paragraphs discuss both the data collection and the hydrologic/hydraulic � analysis . 3 . 1 DATA COLLECTION � An extensive amount of data was collected for plan � development. The information was obtained from City staff, developers proposing new development, and Barr Engineering Co. ' s � in-house resources . The data collected included: ` ■ Land use zoning maps ■ Topographic maps � ■ Various grading and development plans ■ As-built storm sewer plans � ■ Other proposed storm sewer plans for anticipated future development � This information was field-verified when it was uncertain if the � information obtained was correct, complete, or current. � 3 . 2 HYDROLOGZC/HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS � A hydrologic/hydraulic analysis using the collected data was then performed to determine rainfall runoff volumes, flood � levels, and critical 100-year discharges . This was done to 1 ) assess the adequacy of the existing drainage facilities, � 2314132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS 3-1 � � � 2) identify areas where improvements are needed, and 3) determine preliminary trunk system size and location for � facilities not presently developed. The analysis results were also used to help identify areas where stormwater detention � basins are or will be necessary to control excess flows and minimize downstream flooding and impacts on downstream � communities and lands . Section 5 of this Plan discusses these basins and provides specific design information necessary for � developing the basins and the anticipated cost for the trunk storm sewer system. Major steps for the hydrologic/hydraulic � analysis are described in Sections 3 . 2 . 1 through 3 . 2 . 4 below. � � 3 . 2 . 1 Identification and Planning of Long-Range Land Use � Projected land uses within the West Drainage Area were estimated from land use and zoning maps and proposed development plans initially obtained from the City' s Planning Department. � They were then refined through the judgment of City and Barr Engineering Co. staff. Land uses are shown in Figure 3 � (Appendix D) . The watershed was divided into six types of land uses: 1 ) industrial, 2) commercial, 3) multiple residential, � 4) single-family residential, 5) parks and open space, and 6) public . The runoff characteristics vary for each of these � land uses; therefore, the area of each type of land use within each subwatershed at ultimate development was determined. The �_ characteristics of runoff that vary between land use types include the amount of impervious area,' land slope, and in � certain cases, drainage facilities (e.g. , stormwater sewer versus ditch) . � � � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS 3-2 � � � 3 . 2 . 2 Identification of Watershed Divides and Stormwater Storage Areas � The first step in analyzing the West Drainage Area was to � identify existing watershed divides and stormwater storage areas . The divides were first delineated using available � topographic maps, storm sewer maps, proposed development plans, and preliminary plats. These divides were then field-verified � and adjustments were made when discrepancies were found. Tn undeveloped areas, it was generally assumed that the natural drainage patterns would not be appreciably altered by new � develo ment. However where ro osed develo ment lans or P . P P P P � preliminary plats were available, divides were modified to reflect anticipated development. � The field verification and watershed divide adjustment process also involved the efforts of a citizens advisory � committee consisting of residents who were familiar with sections of the study area and knowledgeable about the history � of the region. Members of the committee were Mr. Steven Toombs, Mr. Wesley Hasbrouck, Mr. Harry Willaox, Mr. Arnie Jensen, Mr. � Forest Rrough, and Mr. Ray Barton. The West Drainage Area was divided among the committee members. Each member checked all � the preliminary drainage divides and the availability of stormwater storage basins within their designated area. The � committee then reported their findings to the City staff and the Barr Engineering project engineer. These findings included � discrepancies and suqgested changes based on anticipated development and judgment of how the area might develop. � The West Drainage Area and its 19 major drainage districts � are shown in Figure 2 (Appendix D) . Subwatershed divides, �- 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS 3-3 � � � drainage patterns, and stormwater storage basins within the West Drainage Area are shown on Figure 4 (Appendix D) . � 3 . 2 . 3 Watershed Modeling � The Barr Engineering Co. Hydrograph Method was used for � performing the hydrologic/hydraulic analysis . This computer model simulates drainage in each of the 232 subwatersheds and � the West Drainage Area as a whole. Some of the data produced are pond detention :storage volumes, flood levels, and discharge � requirements of outlet conveyors . The model considers parameters such as land use, drainage area, watershed slope, � infiltration losses, interception losses, depression storage losses, and rainfall intensity. Pond elevation-storage discharge relationships and the flow length and average flow � velocity of the conveyors (e.g. , ditches, pipes, swales) are also input to the model . This model is further discussed in � APPendix B. � The hydrologic/hydraulic analysis was based on storm events that have a l0 percent and a 1 percent probability of occurring � in any given year. In layman' s terms, these storms are commonly called the " 10-year" and " 100-year" events, respectively. � However, the terms " 10-year" and " 100-year" somewhat misrepresent the storms analyzed. They are not storms that one � should exgect to see once every 10 years or once every 100 years. Rather, they are storms that have a statistical � probability of occurring every year, and that probability is 10 percent and l percent, respectively. � The rainfall amounts for these storms were obtained from the � U.S. Department of Commerce and Weather Bureau Technical Papers � _ 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS 3 4 � � '� TP-40 and TP-49. The Bureau has determined rainfall amounts and their probabilities of occurring by statistically interpreting � actual rainfall data collected since 1940 over the entire country. The results of the Bureau' s findings are printed on �' maps of the United States that show each county in each state. It is the rainfall amounts shown in these documents that are � used by hydrologists throughout the engineering community for designing storm sewers and stormwater detention basins . � The majority of all basins within the West Drainage Area are � presently landlocked, resulting in very little runoff leaving the City' s corporate boundary. Therefore, to minimize '� downstream impacts, a major consideration during the analysis was to maximize stormwater detention and minimize peak outflow � discharges for most basins . � Because each detention basin is unique, a complete range of 100-year events was analyzed to determine the most critical situation for each area. The 100-year rainfall event of the � 1/2-hour, 1-hour, 2-hour, 3-hour, 6-hour, 12-hour, l-day, 2-day and 4-day durations and the 10-day duration snowmelt event were � analyzed using the Barr Hydrograph Method. � Also, the total average annual xunoff was analyzed in the case of basins planned to be developed as landlocked storage � areas. In these cases, long-term infiltration and evaporation were also considered. In every case, the total annual runoff � was found to be less critical than the 104-year events because the sandy subsoils had a high infiltration capacity. � � � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS 3-5 � � � 3 . 2 . 4 Assumptions Made In Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis � The best available information at the time of this study was used to estimate pond elevation-storage-discharge relationships . � Most of the basins analyzed presently do not have constructed outlets . The 1971 topographic maps proposed for the City showed � water surface locations at the time they were prepared. Therefore, basins that did not have standing water shown on the � topographic maps were assumed to have outlets constructed at the bottom of the basin. These basins would normally be dry except during and immediately after rainfall and snowmelt events . �I Basins which did have standing water were assumed to have � outlets constructed at the water level elevations shown on the topographic maps . � Ultimate develo ment conditions were assumed throu hout the P g hydrologic/hydraulic analysis for this Plan so that the long- � term post-development drainage needs could be estimated. Ultimate development assumes that the watershed is developed in :� the manner shown in Figure 3 (Appendix D) . � � � � � � � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS 3-6 � � � _ SECTION 4 : DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR 100-YEAR LEVEL OF PROTECTION � � This Drainage Plan has been designed to provide the West � Drainage Area with 100-year flood protection -- that is, protection from the storm that has a 1 percent chance of '� occurring in any given year. Tables 1 through 19 (Appendix C) show the 100-year drainage requirements for each drainage � district. Figure 4 (Appendix D) shows drainage patterns and " planned storage basins, and Figure 5 shows the existing and � anticipated trunk storm sewer systems. � To provide 100-year protection, the Drainage Plan maximizes stormwater storage while using smaller pipes . This kind of � system is usually substantially less expensive than systems with few basins and larger pipes . The West Drainage Area is unique � in that it has literally hundreds of lakes, wetlands, and lowlands . The Drainage Plan takes advantage of nearly all of � these areas to store runoff from storms and snowmelts . For the most part, water is detained in these basins and allowed to � slowly drain through small outlets to flow downstream. The Plan also includes 15 landlocked basins with no outlet. All the � storage basins were designed to detain as much of the 100-year flows as possible without adversely affecting valuable � vegetation, homes, and other improvements . Where possible, the basin outlets were designed to be 12 � inches in diameter. This size is large enough that it is not easily plugged while small enough to minimize outflows. The � pipe ' s upstream or intake end in the basin should have a trash guard to prevent large debris from entering and plugging the � pipe. However, the common "flared end section° with a trash guard is not advisable for 12-inch pipes because they are easily � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS 4-1 . � � � plugged with debris and therefore require much maintenance. The recommended intake is shown in Figure 6 (Appendix D) . This � intake is a standard design that minimizes plugging and therefore requires less maintenance. � All trunk storm sewer pipes connecting one storage basin to another have been preliminarily designed to pass the peak 100- � year flows from the basins in addition to the 10-year flows for the downstream subwatershed. This is a standard design for � storm sewer facilities in Minnesota ' s metropolitan areas . It does promote some overland flow for storms larger than the 10- � year event. Therefore, an integral part of the Drainage Plan, as with any drainage system, is the provision of overland flow # through street gutters, ditches, and overflow swales above the storm sewers. All overflow swales and ditches � should be rdesigned to carry the excess flows from a 1-hour duration 100- year storm. � This Drainage Plan also strives to achieve benefits besides � 100-year flood protection. First, as stated earlier, maximizing stormwater storage while reducing pipe size saves costs . Another tbenefit achieved by stormwater basins is water quality enhancement. Because basins slow the flow of water, sediments � and nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) can settle out; otherwise, they could flow further downstream� to valuable lakes � and streams where they could reduce water clarity and promote algal and weed growth. Protecting and optimizing stormwater � storage areas will also help ensure that the West Drainage Area maintains its unique aesthetic nature. � Tables l through 19 list the 100-year drainage requirements � for each subwatershed in the 19 drainage districts. For each subwatershed, these drainage requirements include the storage � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS 4-2 . � � � volume, the normal elevation, and the 100-year peak flood elevation and discharge. The "critical 100-year event" causes � the highest flood elevation and di�scharge. Many 100-year events were analyzed, ranging from the 1/2-hour duration storm to the � 4-day storm and the 10-day snowmelt. � The critical event for one basin may differ from another basin. However, the most common critical event for � subwatersheds with outletted basins were the 1-hour and 12-hour - � storms . The critical event for landlocked basins was the 10- � day snowmelt. Also, landlocked basins will experience continually fluctuating water surface elevations. Most of the � basins were assumed to be dry except during or immediately after storm events . However, basins where standing water was observed � during preparation of the City' s 1971 topographic maps were assumed to have outlets constructed at the observed water. � levels . � It is essential that future development comply with the drainage requirements listed in Tables 1 through 19 and shown on Figure 4 . This compliance is essential to control peak rates of � runoff and flood levels and to minimize the size of downstream conveyance facilities . The design of portions of the drainage � system can be invalidated if storage and channel capacity commitments elsewhere are abandoned. � � � � � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS 4-3 � ' ' SECTION 5 : IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS ' A number of considerations should be addressed when implementing this Drainage Plan. These eonsiderations are ' summarized in the following list and described in this section. � 1 . Drainage Plan Review and Revision , The Plan should be reviewed annually and revised and updated as necessary in response to changing land use, final design ' of basins and trunk sewer systems, and other factors . , 2 . Compliance with Drainaqe Requirements � Future development in the West Drainage Area must comply with the drainage requirements given in the most recent ' version of the Drainage Plan. , 3 . Land Use Changes , Proposed changes to the land use plan shown in Figure 3 (Appendix D) should be considered in terms of their effect ' on drainage . If adverse effects are indicated, the proposed development and/or the Drainage Plan should be modified to , maintain 100-year flood protection. ' 4 . Final Desian and Cost of Sewer Systems The preliminary design and cost of the anticipated trunk , sewer systems (Figure 4 in Appendix D) should be refined ' before construction. ' � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS 5-1 ' , ' S . Storaqe Basin Options ' Because of the many options available for developing stormwater storage, pond levels should be refined when final � development plans are prepared, and Tables i through 19 and the computer model should be adjusted accordingly. � 6 . Slopes In and Near Basins ' Slopes in or near basins must be no steeper than 3 : 1 and , preferably 4 : 1 or flatter. � 7 . Low Floor Elevations Near Basins ' Low floor elevations near landlocked basins should be at least 5 feet above the basin' s 100-year flood level; floor ' elevations near outletted basins should be at least 2 feet above the 100-year flood level . ' hould be monitored Also, water levels for landlocked basins s � and emergency action procedures established in response to overtopping. ' 8 . Low FToor Elevations Near Swales and Ditches ' Low floor elevations near swales and ditches should be at least. l foot and preferably at least 2 feet above the 100- ' year flood level of the swale or ditch. , ' ' , . 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS 5-2 ' e ' 9 . Secondary Floodplain Uses � � Where possible, floodplains should be developed to serve secondary uses as well . For most cases, the appropriate � secondary use will be open space . , 10 . S4ecial Subwatershed Design Considerations � Several stormwater basins have special design considerations . Many were designed to combine and act as ' one basin during flood events . Others were designed to overcome problems such as undersized outlets . These many specific considerations are detailed in Section 5 . 10 . � 5 . 1 DRAINAGE PLAN REVIEW AND REVISION ' This Plan is intended to aid the City for years to come as � it develops . A good plan is one that can be revised when necessary because what may be agpropriate today may not be � appropriate in the future. Therefore, it is important for the Plan to be regularly examined and upgraded and revised when rnecessary. Such revisions may reflect change in policy, assumptions, land use, and so on. The City should examine the rPlan annually as long as the City continues to grow� rapidly. A checklist of assumptions, policies, and other concerns could be , prepared to help ensure a thorough examination. � 5 .2 COMPLIANCE WITH DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS ' As noted in Section 4 , it is essential that future development comply with the drainage requirements given in the � most recent version of this Drainage Plan. Tables 1 through 19 (Appendix C) list the drainage requirements for the 100-year , 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS 5-3 , � , level of protection for each subwatershed in each drainage district. Figure 4 (Appendix D) shows the drainage patterns and ' planned storage basins . Compliance with these drainage requirements is essential to control peak rates of runoff and ' flood levels and to minimize the size of downstream conveyors . The design of portions of the drainage system can be invalidated , if storage and channel capacity commitments elsewhere are abandoned. ' 5 . 3 LAND USE CHANGES ' As described in Section 3 . 2 . 1 , the runoff volumes and � discharges used in the development of this Plan were based on the Long-Range Land Use Plan shown in Figure 3 (Appendix D) . ' The quantity and rate of runoff vary depending on the land use.. For example, a larger quantity of water is usually expected to � run off an industrial area than from a single-family housing development of equal size. Similarly, the rate at which water � flows from land would be faster as well . : Therefore, when a change in land use is proposed, it will be � extremely important to analyze the effect the proposed change ' will have on the drainage system. In certain cases, a minor r e v i s i o n t o t h e d r a i n a g e s y s t e m m a y b e a l l t h a t i s r e q u i r e d t o ensure system compatibility. However, construction of an ' additional storage basin or providing added capacity in other facilities downstream may be necessary. Another option is � modifying the proposed development. � i � 1 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS 5-4 , . � , 5 . 4 FINAL DESIGN AND COST OF SEWER SYSTEMS � Tables 20 through 38 provide itemized lists of remaining � trunk system facilities necessary for each drainage district. � The facilities listed in Tables 20 through 38 must be considered preliminary. A final d�tailed design must be completed for each , of these system. Also included in Tables 20 through 38 are the preliminary costs for construction, engineering, and � contingencies . The tables do not include costs for project financing, easements, legal fees, and administration. � 5 . 5 STORAGE BASIN OPTIONS � The flood level and normal level for most basins were based on existing topography. For the majority of these basins, there ' are many options available for developing the required storage. volumes . Therefore, the pond levels should be considered rpreliminary and should be refined when final development plans are prepared. When they are refined, the tables in this Plan , should also be revised to reflect the changes and keep the Plan updated. , In some subwatersheds it may be more advantageous to provide � storage in two or more basins, as opposed to a single basin at the outlet of the subwatershed. Also, the critical storm event , for individual basins in a drainage district may be different than ,the event critical for the entire district. Therefore, , when new development options are proposed, the computer model developed for this study should be modified to analyze the , effect of alternative ponding proposals on downstream basins . , � � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS 5-5 � � � 5 . 6 SLOPES IN AND NEAR BASINS � For safety and maintenance considerations, slopes within or in the vicinity of any stormwater storage basin must be no , steeper than 3 feet of horizontal distance in l foot of vertical rise (3 : 1 ) . Whenever possible, 4 : 1 slopes or flatter are ' preferred. � 5 . 7 LOW FLOOR ELEVATIONS NEAR BASINS � Low floor elevations of permanent buildings and other improvements that can be damaged by flood waters must be � carefully planned. Tables 1 through 19 show the low floor elevations required for structures near stormwater storage � basins . Where bui-ldings and other improvements are to be- constructed near a basin with an outlet, the low floor elevation � should be at least 2 feet above the basin' s 100-year flood level . However, for a landlocked basin with no outlet, the low � floor elevation should be at least 5 feet above the basin' s 100- year flood level . This greater variance is necessary beeause landlocked basins are subject to fluctuating water levels where � the normal water level is not easily predictable or maintained. � Because of the otential for fluctuating water levels in P landlocked basins, the City must adopt a procedure for � monitoring water �evels and taking emergency action when necessary. A water level gauge should be installed at each � landlocked basin so the water levels can be periodically monitored. An elevation for initiating emergency action should � be established for each of these basins . Buildings, valuable vegetation, and water depth should be considered when iestablishing the specific emergency action elevation for each basin. Such actions might include pumping water to a � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS 5-6 � ' � subwatershed with an outlet, cooperative action with neighboring communities, and evacuation. , � 5 . 8 LOW FLOOR ELEVATIONS NEAR SWALES AND DITCHES ' As discussed in Section 4, all overflow swales and ditches � should be designed to carry the excess flows from a 1-hour duration 100-year 'storm. The 100-year channel elevations of � these swales and ditches are considered flood zones . Therefore, all low floor elevations should be constructed, if at all � possible, 2 feet above this level . In no case should low floor elevations be constructed less than 1 foot above the computed � 100-year channel elevation, � 5 . 9 SECONDARY FLOODPLAIN USES The primary use for storage basins and floodway areas is for � the management and control of stormwater runoff. However, these areas frequently serve multiple uses . For example, they can be � used for wildlife habitat, water quality treatment, interpretive park areas, and buffers for development. In cases where ponds � have outlets to drain them completely, the most appropriate use of the floodplain could be parkland, such as open space, � wildlife habitat, walking and biking trails, and athletic facilities . In other cases, it may be more appropriate to allow � secondary uses such as parking areas and utilities . � A major assumption in developing this Plan was that it should be designed to preserve, as much as possible, the unique � and aesthetic nature of the West Drainage Area. As a result, ponds and floodway areas are located largely where natural � ponding and storm flows oacur. In these areas the most � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS 5-7 � � � appropriate secondary use af the floodplain will likely be open space. � . 5 . 10 SPECIAL SUBWATERSHED DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS � Summarized next are special design considerations for ° � certain subwatersheds within the 19 major drainage districts . These special considerations focus on stormwater storage, � particularly concerning basins that combine to act as one basin during the critical storm event. The subwatersheds discussed � here are marked with asterisks in Tables l through 19. � 5 . 10 . 1 McMenomie Drainage District � Subwatershed MCM15 is planned as a landlocked basin, with� Subwatersheds MCM4 , MCM7, MCM9, MCM105 and MCM146 draining ta. - � it. However, at its computed peak fload level (Elevation 915 . 8) , water will be forced baek to these subwatersheds . Therefore, for the critical event all five subwatersheds will � act as one large landlocked basin. � The flood level of MCM15 can be lowered to Elevation 915 . 0 if a water level equalizing system is constructed to connect the � five subwatersheds . To adequately act as an effective equalizing facility, a 24-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) � storm sewer is necessary. Until such an equalizing system is constructed, the. flood level of Subwatershed MCM15 should be � considered Elevation 915 . 8 . � , The normal level of the basin in Subwatershed MCM10S assumes a storm sewer outlet will be constructed at Elevation 899 . 5 , � thereby providing a gravity flow system between MCM105 and � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS 5-8 � � � MCM15 . This level is 2 . 8 feet higher than its water level at the time the City' s 1971 topographic maps were prepared. � 5 . 10 . 2 White Lake Drainage District � Subwatershed WLD19, WLD24, WLD20, and WLD99 will , under most � storms, act as one landlocked basin. However, for critical 100- year events, a 12-inch RCP safety outflow is planned to connect � Subwate�sheds WLD19 and WLD99 to Subwatershed WLD20 . The invert of the outlet of WLD19 should be placed at Elevation 965 . 2 . � This will ensure that the flood level for basins in WLD19, WLD24, WLD20, and WLD99 will not exceed Elevation 967 . 9 . � 5 . 10 . 3 Gun Club Lake Drainage District � ; The natural outlet of Subwatershed GCL126 would direct flows � to KEE120 (Keegan Lake) . However, this Drainage Plan directs flows from GCL126 to GCL125 . The normal level for GCL126 shown in Table 3 assumes the outlet pipe elevation is 952 . 1 , which is � higher than its present normal water level . � Subwatershed GCL91 is lanned to be landlocked with P Subwatersheds GCL121 , GCL124, GCL87, and GCL83 draining to it. � During long-duration 100-year storms, water will be forced to Subwatersheds GCL121 , GCL124, and GCL87, making these basins and � GCL91 act as one large landlocked basin. � Basins in Subwatersheds GCL48 and GCL49 are also planned to act as one basin. A water level equalizing pipe is required to � connect these basins in order for them to act as one basin. � � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS 5-9 , 1 � The depression in Subwatershed GCL34 was assumed to be filled. All excess stormwater runoff would then be stored in � Subwatershed GCL36 . • � The normal level for the basin in Subwatershed GCL78 assumes the outlet pipe is constructed at Elevation 936 . 6 to provide a � gravity outlet to Subwatershed GCL38 . This elevation is approximately i . i feet above the existing normal water level . � The normal level for Subwatershed GCL87 assumes an outlet � pipe is constructed at Elevation 946. 0 to provide gravity flow to Subwatershed GCL81 . This elevation is 2 . 8 feet above the � water level shown on the City' s topographic maps. Subwatershed GCL83 lies between Subwatersheds GCL87 and GCL81 . The amount of � storage available in GCL83 is limited, and as such it cannot handle additional runoff from GCL87 . Therefore, if the outlet: � of GCL83 is designed to discharge into the pipe connecting GCL87 and GCL81 , a flow restriction device should be provided at that connection. That deviee should work like a "flap gate, ° which � would allow the discharge of water from GCL83 into the system but prevent the backflow of water from the system into GCL83 . � As planned, the water level in GCL87 will rise 2 . 8 feet � before it starts to flow ta GCL81 . This will also result in water pooling in ponds in Subwatersheds GCL91 , GCL121 , and � GCL124 . These three basins and the basin in GCL87 will act as one basin under the critical storm event, all with the same � flood level of 946. 0 . The outlet from GCL87 is planned to prevent water levels from rising higher than 946 . 0 (which is � possible without an outlet) . � � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS 5-10 � . � � 5 . 10 . 4 Sieg Pond Drainage District � � • The storage basin in Subwatershed SIE46 is planned as a landlocked basin with no outlet. � . 5 . 10 . 5 Apple Va11ey Drainaqe District � The normal level for the basin in Subwatershed APV67 assumes � its outlet pipe is constructed at Elevation 985 . 0 to provide a gravity flow system to Subwatershed APV57 . This elevation is � approximately 2 feet above the existing normal water level . � 5 . 10 . 6 Shannon 0aks Drainage District � Basins in Subwatersheds SHA73A and SHA73B are planned to act as one basin. This requires a 24-inch water level equalizer� � pipe connecting the two basins . Subwatershed SHA75 is planned to be a landlocked basin. � 5 . 10 . 7 Birger Pond Drainage District � The basin in Subwatershed BIR142 (Birger PondJ is planned as � a landlocked basin. Under the critical event for this basin, water will back up through the pipes that drain basins in � Subwatersheds BIR139 and BIR143A. As a result, the flood level for BIR139 is identical to BIR142 . However, the flood level for � BIR143A will be 3 . 2 feet higher (Elevation 907 . 5) due to the more critical effects from a short-duration 100-year storm. ' � � � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS 5-11 � � � 5 . 10 . 8 Daly Pond Drainage District � The basin in Subwatershed DAL129 is planned to be landlacked with a flood level elevation of 940 . 3 . This level wi11 affect � basins in Subwatersheds DAL130 and DAL128 such that they will also act as landlocked basins with the same flood level . � However, the flood level for DAL128 would be at 940 . 9 due to the more critical effect from a short-duration 100-year storm. � _ 5 . 10 . 9 Schwarz Pond Drainage District � The basin in Subwatershed SCH151 is planned as a landlocked � basin. Under the critical event for this basin, water will back up through the pipes from the basins in Subwatersheds SCH178 and , SCH180A. At that point, the three areas will act as one landlocked basin with a flood level elevation of 935 . 0 . � � 5 . 10 . 10 Keegan Lake Drainage Distric_t � KEE120 will act as one Basins in Subwatersheds KEE118 and landlocked basin for the critical 100-year storm. Therefore, � the flood level for the two basins is Elevation 940 . 3 . The pipe between KEE118 and KEE120 is planned as a water level equalizer.: � 5 . 10 . 11 0' Rourke Drainage District � The two basins in Subwatersheds OR0163 and OR0114 will act ias one basin through the use of a water level equalizing pipe. Therefore, the peak flood level for both basins will be � Elevation 950 . 0 . � Subwatershed OR0107 is planned as a landlocked basin with a peak flood level of Elevation 937 . 9 . This flood level wi11 also � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS 5-12 � � � affect the basin in Subwatershed ORO100 such that the two basins will act as one landlocked basin. A water level equalizing � system connecting the two basins is required. � 5 . 10 . 12 Rosemount Woods Drainage District � The basin in Subwatershed ROS155 is planned as a landlocked basin. Under the critical event for this basin, water will back � up through the pipes from the basins in Subwatersheds ROS161 , ROS159, and ROS156 . All four of these basins will then act as � one large landlocked basin. Water level equalizing pipe facilities are planned between these basins to minimize flood � level fluctuations . If the planned equalizing facilities are not placed before Subwatershed ROS155 is developed (as shown in � the Long-Range Land Use Plan) , the peak flood level elevation of 947 . 4 for ROS155 should be planned, and the low floor. � elevation should be limited to 952 . 4 . � 5 . 10 . 13 Minea Drainage District The storage basin in Subwatershed MIN165 is planned as a � landlocked basin. � 5 . 10 . 14 Murmane Drainage District � The storage basin in Subwatershed MUR170 is planned as a landlocked basin. � 5 . 10 . 15 Industrial Drainage District � The normal level shown in Table 15 for Subwatershed IND193 � assumes an outlet pipe is placed at Elevation 951 . 4 for gravity flow to Subwatershed IND192 . This level is 2. 9 feet higher than � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS 5-13 � � � the water level at the time the City' s topographic maps were - prepared. � 5 . 10 . 16 Erickson Park Drainage District � The storage basin in Subwatershed ERN190 is planned as a � landlocked basin. � 5 . 10 . 17 Hawkins Pond Drainage District � The storage basin in Subwatershed HAW183 (Hawkins Pond} is planned as a landlocked basin. Under the critical event for � this basin, water will back up into Subwatershed HAW182 so that both areas will act as one landlocked basin. � 5 . 10 . 18 Vermillion River Drainage District � VER205 VER207 The west watershed divide for Subwatersheds , , � and VER209 assumes a north/south road will be constructed along the Rosemount/Apple Valley border to create the divide. It also assumes that a storm sewer will be constructed to direct runoff � from Subwatershed VER205 to Subwatershed VER207 . Another option is to discharge this water into Apple Valley, but this option � was not considered for this Drainage Plan. If the City wishes to pursue this option, it must be coordinated with Apple Valley. � The normal level shown in Table 18 for the basin in � Subwatershed VER205 assumes an outlet pipe is placed at Elevation 944 . 5 for gravity flow to Subwatershed VER207. This � level is 0 . 8 feet higher than the water level at the time the City' s topographic maps were prepared. � � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS 5-14 � � � The normal level shown in Table 18 for Subwatershed VER213 assumes an outlet pipe is placed at Elevation 923 . 8 for gravity I�! flow to Subwatershed VER214 . This level is 3 . 1 feet higher than the water level at the time the City' s topographic maps were �� prepared. � 5 . 10 . 19 Wachter Pond Drainaqe District � The storage basin in Subwatershed WAC202 (Wachter Pond) is planned as a landlocked basin. � � � � � � � � � � � � 2319i32/ROSEDP.WP/PLS 5-15 � � � APPENDIX A• R EFERENCES � 1 . Barr Engineering Co. , "Hydrolo ic Analysis of Lakes and Open 5 Space in Ramsey County, ° 1975 . �; 2 . Linsley, R.K. , M.A. Rohler, and J.L.H. Paulhus, Hydrology for Engineers, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY, � 1982 . 3 . National Weather Service HYDRO-35, "Five- to 60-Minute , Precipitation Frequency for the Eastern and Central � United States, ° 1977 . 4 . National Weather Service Technical Paper No. 49, "Two- and � Ten-Day Precipitation for Return Periods of 2 to 100 Years in the Contiguous United States, " 1964. � 5 . National Weather Service Technical Paper No. 40, "Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States, " 1961 . � 6 . Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Hydrology Guide for Minnesota, " St. Paul, Minnesota, 1977 . � � � � � � � � � � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS A-1 � � � , APPENDIX B. THE BARR HYDROGRAPH METHOD � This appendix describes the Barr Hydrograph Method, which was used in the hydrologic/hydraulic analysis of Rosemount ' s � West Drainage Area. The following description includes steps unique to the Rosemount study. � BARR HYDROGRAPH METHOD � The Barr Hydrograph Method was developed in the late 1950s. � The model has been modified and computerized through its years of use in urban watershed management. The Barr Hydrograph � Method is an example of a practical urban runoff model . It works with each part of the rainfall-runoff process to estimate � stormwater discharges and volumes. The procedures focus on simulating the storage effects accurring throughout the process of runoff. � The model has four basic components : 1 ) the hyetograph; 2) � the abstractions from the hyetograph -- interception, infilt�ation, and depression losses; 3) overland flow routing; � and 4) routing to account for flow through swales or ditches, street gutters, and storm sewers to the subwatershed outlet. � Rainfall Distribution and Duration � The first step in the Hydrograph Method is to determine the � characteristics of the design storm. This requires determining both the amount of precipitation and the intensity distribution � of the precipitation. Technical Papers No. 4O and 49, published by the National Weather Service, were used to determine the � amount of precipitation. A synthetic hyetograph is developed to � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS B-1 � � _ � represent the intensity of rainfall versus time. Three synthetic hyetographs were used in the Rosemount study. � For short duration storms (3 hours or less) , a synthetic � hyetograph is developed from data in a paper entitled, "Relation of Hourly Mean Rainfall to Actual Intensities, " published in � CiviZ Engineering magazine in May 1940. This hyetograph is shaped similar to the storm pattern shown by C.J. Keifer and � H.H. Chu in a paper entitled, "Synthetic Storm Pattern for Drainage Design, " published in the Proceedings of the American � Society of Civil Engineers, August 1957. The hyetograph is also very similar to the second quartile hyetograph discussed in a paper by F.A. Huff entitled, "Time Distribution of Rainfall in � Heavy Storms, " published in Water Resources Research, Fourth Quarter, 1967. � The rainfall intensity distribution developed for longer � duration storms was, for the Rosemount study, developed from Huff' s third and fourth quartile, 50 percent probability � hyetographs for the 12-hour and 4-day storms, respectively. These hyetographs are also discussed in Huff ' s paper. � The storm duration that is critical for a subwatershed is � dependent on the subwatershed size and slope, the volume of storage available in the system, and the autlet capacity. The � critical duration is determined by routing several different duration storms of a given frequency and determining which � duration produces the greatest peak discharge or ponding elevation. A small subwatershed with little available storage � will have a critical storm of smaller duration than a large subwatershed with abundant storage. � � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS B-2 � � � Estimation of Losses � After the hyetograph is developed, the various losses that occur after the rain reaches the ground are estimated. The � three major losses are interception, infiltration, and depression storage. � Interception is the portion of the rainfall captured and � held on leaves, blades of grass, and similar items . This water is returned to the atmosphere by evaporation. In the Rosemount � West Drainage Area, the interception loss was estimated to be 0 . 01 inches to 0 . 25 inches depending on the storm duration and � land use type . Information and data concerning interception losses can be found in the textbook, Hydrology for Engineers, by Linsley, Kohler, and Paulhus, published in 1982 . � The next loss considered is the infiltration of water into � the soil . The method used to determine the infiltration is outlined in Technical Manual of Engineering -Practice No. 28, � published by the American Society of Civil Engineers in 1949. This procedure uses a standard infiltration curve which depends ;� on soil types and ground cover. The standard infiltration curve is adjusted to account far low intensity rainfall in the early � parts of a storm. � Once interception and infiltration losses are removed from the hyetograph, the remaining water is runoff. However, gart of � this runoff is often collected by depressions along the drainage route and never reaches the primary collection system (e.g. , � gutters and swales) . The amount of water stored in depressions is dependent on the area' s slope and grading, It is estimated � that the total depression storage for the West Drainage Area ranges from approximately 0. 1 to 0. 7 inches depending on the � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS B-3 � � '`� storm duration and land use type. This estimate was partially based on data in the book, Hvdrology for Engineers . After all � three types of losses have been deducted, the average point runoff is known. � Devel_opment of Unit Hydrograph � The next step in the rainfall-runoff process is the � conversion of the remaining hyetograph to a unit hydrograph. This consists of routing runoff from the point on which it lands � as rainfall to the primary collection system. The overland flow process has the effect of attenuating and lagging the point � runaff due to detention of the water on the land surface. The overland flow distance and the slope of the land affect the rate that water from a given area reaches a collection system. � The method outlined by W.W. Horner and S.W. Jens in a paper � entitled, "Surface Runoff Determination From Rainfall Without Using Coefficients, " published in the Transactions of the � American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol . 107, is used as a basis for the overland flow routing. Synthetic unit hydrographs � are developed for impervious and pervious areas as well as water surfaces from the outflows of the overland flow routing. � The computations up to this point in the Barr Hydrograph � Method generate five runoff hydrographs: one for impervious areas, one for water surfaces, and three for pervious areas that � account for three separate choices in the general range of slope and flow lengths in the overland flow process. Given the � percentage of the total subwatershed included in each of these areas, these hydrographs are multiplied by this percentage and � summed to give a composite runoff hydrograph. � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS B-4 � � � Routing Through Primary Drainage System +� The composite runoff hydrograph is routed through the subwatershed' s conveyance system to develop the outflow runoff +� hydrograph for the downstream end of the subwatershed. This system is made up of swales, ditches, street gutters, and storm � sewers. The average velocity and the longest flow length of the primary conveyance system are used in a storage routing � procedure to generate the hydrograph at the outlet of the subwatershed. The method used for channel routing is outlined � in Technical Manual of Engineering Practice No. 28, published by the American Society of Civil Engineers. An option of not � routing the water surface hydrograph through the conveyance system is provided in the Barr Hgdrograph Method. This option � is used if the water surface is at the outlet of the subwatershed, which is commonly the case in urban watershed analysis. � Outflow Hydrograph � The output of the Barr Hydrograph Method gives the outflow � hydrograph of the subwatershed, the peak flow, the time of peak, and the volume of runoff. These data are then input to a � separate routing program which sums hydrographs from adjacent subwatersheds and routes them through storage basins and � conveyance systems to downstream watersheds . � � � � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS B-5 � � IT A B L E 1 DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS � McMENOMIE DISTRICT � 100-Year � Subwatershed Drainage Normal Peak Peak Storage Low Fioor Area Elevation Elevation Discharge Volume Building (acres) (ft) (ft) (cfs) (ac-ft) Elevatian � MCMI 22.6 922.0 927.9 9:2 3.0 929.9 � MCM2 47.5 914.3 922.9 11 6.9 924.9 MCM5 40.2 935.2 937.9 6.1 5.9 939.9 MCM6 4.5 -- -- 28 _. -- NCM3 8.5 -- -- 70 -- -- � MCM7* 24.5 903.6 915.Or 14 32 920.0 MCM4' 15.8 909.2 915.0* 8.5 3.6 920.0 MCM106* 59.2 901.3 915.0" 9.1 34 920.0 � MCM103 11.3 936.9 938.9 4.d 1.5 940.9 MCM104 21.7 929.6 93A.7 8.5 3.0 936.7 MCM105" 66.0 899.5 915.0* 26 57 920.0 � MCM13 28.4 945.5 946.7 2.6 4.5 948.7 MCM8 29.0 940.4 944:4 7.5 d.5 946.4 NCM10 5.4 -- -- 39 - � MCM9* 10.5 907.8 915.0* 6.1 12 920.0 MCMIi 1.6 11 MCMi2 1.9 -- -- 14 -- -- MCM14 22.4 917.5 921.1 7.1 3.6 923.1 � MCM17 9.8 965.9 967.1 3. 1 1.4 969.1 MCMiS* 74.6 898.5 915,8• 0.0 130 920.8 � . � � ' See Section 5. 10.1 for further information: � � � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � ' ' T A B L E 2 DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS � WHITE LAKE DISTRICT � 100-Year Subwatershed Drainage Normal Peak Peak Storage Low Floor � Area Elevation Elevation Discharge Uolume Building (acres) (ft) (ft) (cts) (ac-ft} Elevation � WLD95 13.6 979.0 981.4 5.3 1.8 983.4 WLD24" 28.0 964.9 967.9* 6.6 4.2 972.3 � WLD19* 6.4 465.2 967.3* 0.9 4.5 972.3 WLD99* 12.9 965.2 967.3* 4.5 1.8 972.3 WLD20* 86.9 964.2 967.3* 0 64 972.3 � � � " See Section 5. 10.2 for further information. � , � � � � � � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � ' , T A B L E 3 DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS � GUN CLUB LAKE DISTRICT 100-Year , Subwatershed Drainage Normal Peak Peak Storage Low floor Area Elevation Elevation Discharge Volume Buitding � (acres) (ft) (ft) (cfs) (ac-ft) Elevation � 6CL18 3.7 -- -- 23 -- -- GCL16 15.2 964.8 966.4 3.5 2.6 968.4 GCL22 24.0 967.0 968.2 2.7 3.6 970.2 GCL21 27.4 961.8 963.8 4.9 4.4 965.8 � GCL23 19.9 953.0 958.7 9.1 2.8 960.J GCL26A 12.0 -- -- 58 •- -- GCL26B 15.2 950.0 955.9 26 2.8 957.9 � GCL94 17.9 979.6 985.9 9.4 2.3 987.9 GCL93 24.4 962.1 964.4 5.0 5.8 966.d GCL90 12.1 967.1 970.7 7.1 1.3 912.1 ' GCL89 14.4 961.3 966.5 8.6 1.1 968.5 GCL92 18.3 937.5 940.0 6.0 9.6 942.0 GCL126* 10_6 952.1 953.7* 2.2 2.4 955.T � GCL125* 5.6 951.1 952.2* 1.9 1.5 954.2 GCL87* 39.6 943.2 946.0" 22 948.0 GCL91* 22.8 935.5 946.0* -- 52 948.0 ' 6CL121* 4.8 937.6 946.0* -- 9 948.0 GCL124* 75.8 935.5 946.0• 0,1 89 948.0` GCL83* 14.4 947.0 947.8" 2.2 1.7 949.8 GCL88 8.8 966.5 967.7 2.4 1.3 969.7 � GCL81* 27.3 945.5 9d6.7* 2.8 8.3 948.7 GCL79 13.0 949.4 950.7 2.8 2.0 952.7 GCL78* 19.8 936.6 931.6 6.5 3. 1 939.6 � GCL38* 18.7 935.6 937.5 4.4 8.1 939.5 GCL40 12.3 -- -- 66 -- -- 6CL25 8.7 -- -- 43 -- � GCL30 6.3 971.4 974.0 6.1 2.1 976.0 GCL29 2.7 971.4 973.0 3.4 1.0 975.0 6CL28 4.4 963.5 965.0 3.2 1.0 967.0 � GCL27 5.6 963.5 964.5 i.8 0.8 966.5 GCL31 8.6 962.5 964.9 5.3 1.3 966.9 GCL32 18.8 950.8 954.5 7.3 2.7 956.5 � GCL33 10.6 -- -- 55 -- -- GCL34' 8.1 45 GCL36" 49.5 94&.4 949.6 2.9 25 951:6 � � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS r ' ' T A B L E 3 (continued) ' 100-Year Subwaterahed Drainage Normal Peak Peak Storage Low Floor � Area Elevation Elevation Discharge Volume Building (acres) (ft) (ft) (cfs) (ac-ft) Elevatian , GCL37 4.2 -- - 28 �- �- GCL44 7.3 43 GCL43 15.4 928.2 930.9 5.7 59 932.9 ' 6CL41 23. 1 926.3 929. 1 5.6 25 931. 1 GCL51 16.9 937.9 940.2 5.7 2.d 942.2 6CL48' S3.3 923.8 925.1 --* 4.3 927.1 GCL49* 21.5 923.8 925.1 3.4' 15 927.1 ' GCL35 14.5 940.8 942.2 3.3 2.1 944.2 GCL39 28.9 935.1 936.6 3.2 5.1 938.6 GCL50 16.0 956.9 959.0 4.0 2.3 961.0 � GCL47 24.6 923.2 924.4 2.1 4.6 926.4 GCL42 6.5 923.0 924.4 3.0 0.9 926.4 GCL54 19.9 954.8 956.7 4.0 3.1 958.7 , _ � • See Sectiort 5.10.3 for further information. � , � , ' � ' ' 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS ' , , T A B L E 4 DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS , SIEG POND DISTRICT � 100 Year , Subwatershed Drainage Normai Peak Peak Storage Low flaar Area Elevation Elevation Discharge Volume Buiiding (acres) (ft) (tt) (cfs) (ac•it) E�evation � � SIE74 35.0 -- -- 150 -- -- S I E45 8.7 924.8 926.3 3.2 1.2 929.3 S I E46* 22.7 913.1 924.3 0 33 929.3 ' ' ' * See Section 5. 10.4 for fur#her information. ' � � ' � � ' ' 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS ' � ' T A B L E 5 DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS ' APPLE VALLEY DISTRICT ' 100-Year Subwatershed Orainage Normal Peak Peak Storage Low Floor , Area Elevation Elevation Discharge Volume Building (acres) (ft) (it) (cis) (ac-ft) Elevatian � APV63 5.3 -• -- 29 -- -- � APV65 32.9 �- :: 140 -- -- APY141 49.9 180 APV70A 9.2 1013.4 1016.4 6.5 1.1 1018.4 ' APV67* 10.3 985.0* 986.9 14 1.3 988.9 APV57* 6.0 984.0* 987.8 7.1 1.7 989.8 APV58 6.3 981.2 983.6 4.2 3.2 485.6 ' APV61 8.4 -- -- 36 -- .. APU60 17.9 980.2 983.5 6.4 3.9 985.5 APV55 7.8 918.1 982.0 7.5 0.9 98d.0 APV59 30.0 915.Q 977.3 5.0 9.7 979.3 ' APV62 23.1 972.8 978.3 8.8 3.3 980.3 APV69 10.0 1024.6 1030.3 8.9 1.1 1032.3 APV66 25.3 996.5 iQ00.6 7.6 4.3 1002.6 � APV64 36.7 984:8 988:7 2 7 4.7 990.7 � � * See Section 5. 10.5 for further information � � ' ' ' 2 1 1 3 9 32/ROSEDP.WP/PLS i � � T A B L E 6 ' DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS SHANNON OAKS DISTRICT ' 100-Year � Subwatershed Drainage Normal Peak Peak Storage low fioor Area Elevation Elevation Discharge Volume Buiiding (acres) (ft) {ft) (cfs) (ac-ft) Elevation � � SHA56 17.2 970. 1 971.3 2.9 2.8 973.3 SHA52A 23.4 951.8 954.0 5.5 3,6 956.0 SHA526 32. 1 942.3 946.5 7.7 5.9 948.5 � SHA53 13.3 932.0 936.2 34 0.9 938.2 SHA68 12.3 60 SHp736* 29.6 931.5 938.4 --* 6.7 9dQ.4 ' SHA73A* 9.4 927.7 938.4 9.9 5.6 940.4 SHA706 8.3 50 SHA71 43.0 921.7 927.3 8.5 l7 929.3 SHA133 23.7 935.8 938.5 4.i 3.5 940.5 � SHA13d 4.7 -• -- 26 -- -- SHA132 30.2 974.7 979.7 8.4 5.1 981.7 SHA131 32.3 942. 1 946.3 7.5 6.1 948.3 � SHA72 28.3 -- -• 120 -- " SHA76 14.2 963.2 966.0 6.3 1.1 968.0 SHA77 11.4 -- -- 57 -- -- � SHA80 10.3 942.2 945.6 6.7 3.4 947.6 2HA82 32.8 932.5 935.6 6.3 6.7 931.6 SHA75* 118.5 908.5 924.1 0 250 929.1 � ' " See Section 5. 10.6 for further iniormation. ' ' � ' 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS ' ' IT A B L E 7 ' DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS BIRGER POND DISTRICT , 100-Year Subwatershed Drainage Normal Peak Peak Storage Law Floor , Area Elevation Elevation Discharge Yolume Building (acres) (it) (ft) (cfs) (ac-ft) Elevation , B I R148 10.4 958. 1 959.6 2.8 1.5 961.6 BIRld9 42.6 946.0 954.7 11 5.8 956.7 � BIR147 30.8 -- -- 100 -- -- BIR145 16.3 67 81R146 167.9 924.6 934.4 12 41 936.4 � BIR135 13.9 •- -• 41 -- -- 81 R137 32.6 946.3 952.5 9.3 6.7 954.5 BIR138 7.1 935.0 938.2 6.7 2.9 940.2 � BIR139x 18.6 899.5 904.3" 5:5 6.2 909.3 BIR136 29.2 928.4 931.1 5.3 4.9 933.1 � 81R140 56.3 -- -• 240 -- -- 81R144 21. 1 920.3 923.6 B.4 2.9 925.6 � BIR1438 13.5 916.0 918.8 5.4 1.8 920.8 BIR143A* 21.6 900.0 907.5" 30 2. 1 909.5 BIR142" I8.6 888.3 904.3* 0 270 909.3 , � � * See Section 5. 10.7 for further information. � � , ' � 2319132/R03EDP.WP PLS / � ' ' T A B L E 8 DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS , DALY POND DISTRICT , 100-Year Subwatershed Drainage Normal Peak Peak Storage low Floor � Area Elevation Elevation Discharge Volume Building (acres) (it) (tt) (cts) (ac-ft) Elevation � DAL86 10.5 970.9 971.4 1.1 1_6 973.4 , DAL85 38.6 941.2 943.2 3.5 6.4 945.2 DAL130" 54.2 930.0 940.3" 9.9 14 945.3 DAL154 13.5 957.4 960.8 6.9 2.4 962.$ ' DAL127 16.7 955.5 962.5 9.7 3.7 964.5 OAL128* 40.5 935.0 940.9* 9.0 9.3 945.3 DAL129* 112.8 928.0 940.3* 0 120 945.3 � _ , * See Section 5. 10.8 for Turther information. � , , � , , � , 2319132 ROSEDP.WP PLS / / ' ' ' T A B L E 9 � DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS SCHWARZ POND DISTRICT , 100-Year Su6watershed Drainage Normal Peak Peak Storage Low Floor , Area Elevation Elevation Oischarge Volume Building (acres) (it) (it) (cts) (ac-ft) Elevation � SCH180A* 17.6 926.0 935.0 6.1 2.0 940.0 SCH181B 18.4 936. 1 938.2 4.0 2.6 940.2 � SCH1808 28.0 -- -- 84 -- -- SCH178" 71.4 424.8 935.0 160 19 940.0 SCH150 18.6 954. i 957.6 6.7 2.4 959,6 ` , SCH152 24.d 961.0 964.A 7.0 3.4 966.4 SCH153 I8.0 954.1 957.0 5.6 4.5 959.1 SCH151* 151.4 921.5 935.0 0 140 940.2 - � , ,� See Section 5. 10.9 for further iniormation. , � , � ' � . r � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS ' r � T A B L E 10 DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS � KEEGAN LAKE DISTRICT � 100-Year , Subwatershed Drainage Narmal Peak Peak Storage Low Floor Area Elevation Elevation Discharge Volume Building (acres) (ft) (ft) (cfs) (ac-ft) Elevation � KEE117 27. 1 952.3 955.6 5.2 4.0 957.6 � KEE158 25.7 950.0 955.6 8.9 3,3 957.6 KEE119 2$.6 941.8 944.7 6.2 8.6 946.7 KEE123 16.7 954.6 951.7 6.4 3.5 959.7 KEE115 14.8 959.0 960.A 3.0 2.1 962.4 � KEE118" 74.8 938.1 940.3* 4.7 16 9d5.3 KEE122 7.1 -- -- . 39 -- -- KEE120= 69.7 936.2 940.3' 0 120 945.3 � _ 1 ' See Section 5. 10.10 for further information. � � ' 1 , � � � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS , , � T A B L E 11 � DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS 0'ROURKE DISTRICT � 100-Year ' Subwatershed Drainage Normal Peak Peak Storage Low floor Area Elevation Elevation Discharge Volume Building � (acres) (ft) (ft) (cfs) (ac-ft) Elevation � OR0163* 41.6 948.3 950.0 -- il 452.0 OR0116 16.2 961.5 963.2 4.0 2.3 965.2 Oft0114* 41.8 948.3 950.0 4.1 8.2 952.0 � OR0113 14.7 947.2 949.1 3.3 5.5 951.1 ORO110 15.3 948.3 949.4 1.8 2.3 95i.4 Oft0108 10.-0 944.5 946.6 4.2 2.9 948.6 � OR0109 36.3 954.7 957.5 5.8 5.2 959.5 OR0112 6.8 958.8 960.8 4.3 0.9 962.8 OR097 7.2 956.5 958.0 3.6 1.0 960.0 OR098 17.3 953.2 955.2 4.5 2.8 957.2 1 ORO101 5.i 951.5 952.J 2.6 0.7 954.7 ORO100* 29.8 935.6 937.9* 4.1 8.0 942.9 OROIII 6.0 946.5 948.1 3.8 0.8 950.i � OR0102 3.5 -- -- 23 -- -- ORO107" 61.1 929.7 931.9* 0 150 942.9 � � x See Section 5. 10.11 far further information. , � � � � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � � � T A B L E 12 � DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS ROSEMOUNT WOODS DISTRICT � 100-Year � Subwatershed Drainage Normal Peak Peak Storage Low Fiaor Area Eleuation Elevation Discharge Volume Building � (acres) (ft) (ft) (cfs) (ac-it) Elewatian � ROS161* 46.1 941.4 947.4* 4.7 24 952.4 ROS159* 11.7 940.4 947.4* 3.6 22 952.4 ROS157 21.4 -- -- 80 -- -- � ROS156• 5.6 939.4 947.4' 8.7 7.4 952.4 ROS160 17.5 72 ROS155" 74.8 938.4 9d7.4 0 55 952.4 � � * See Section 5. 10.12 for turther information. � � � , � � � � . 2 1 1 2 3 9 3 /ROSEDP.WP/PLS , � ' T A B L E 13 � DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS MINEA DISTRICT � 100-Year � Subwatershed Drainage Normal Peak Peak Storage Low Floor Area Etevation Elevation Discharge Volume Building � (acres) (ft) (ft) (cfs) (ac-ft) Elevation � M I N172 17.9 969.9 972:5 6.1 1.9 974.5 MIN173 6. 1 17 MIN162 42.6 950.6 951.7 2.2 7.2 953.7 � MIN171 d4.7 -- -- 120 -- •- MIN164 11.9 951.4 952.9 3.5 1.7 954.9 MIN165* 149.8 917.6 930.3* 0 140 935.3 � _ � * See Section 5. 10.13 for furt her information. � � � � � � � � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � � � T A B L E 14 DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS _ � MURMANE DISTRICT � 100-Year iSubwatershed Drainage Nnrmal Peak Peak Storage Low Floor Area Elevation Elevatfon Discharge Volume Building � (acres) (it) (it) (cis) (ac-ft) Elevation MUR166 42.8 -- -- 100 -- -- � MUR168 25.8 -- -- 74 -- -- MUR167 111.4 933.8 939.8 14 26 941.8 MUR170* 85.9 910.9 925.8* 0 130 930.8 � � * See Section 5. 10:14 for further iniormation. � � � � � � � � , 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � � , T A B L E 15 DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS � INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT � 100-Year � Subwatershed Drainage Normal Peak Peak Storage Low Floor Area Elevation Elevation Discharge Volume Building (acres) (ft) (ft) (cfs) (ac-tt) Elevation � IND169A 60.9 900.9 904.6 6.2 9.2 906.fi � IND1696 20.9 920.3 921.9 2.1 3.2 923.9 IND169C 72.9 945.2 947.9 6.2 12 949.9 IND169D 17.2 -- -- 57 -- -- � IND194 40.6 959.2 963.9 29 9.5 965.9 IND195A 24.3 953.0 955.9 16 16 957.9 IND169E 4. 1 -- -- 23 -- -- IND193* 20:I 951.4* 955.3 7.2 5.2 957.9 � IND192' 6.8 950.4" 955.7 8.5 2.1 957.9 IND196 51.9 929.7 938. 1 11 14 940.1 IND195B 66.1 -- 230 -- -- � � * See Section 5. 10.15 for further information. � � � � � _ � � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � � , T A B L E 16 DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS � ERICKSON PARK DISTRICT 1 � 100-Year Subwatershed Drainage Narmal Peak Peak Storage Law F�oor Area Elevation Elevation Discharge Volume Building � (acres) (ft} (ft) (cfs) (ac-tt) Elevation � ERN174 29.2 969.9 972.4 5.9 3.2 974.4 ERN175 19.9 38 ERN177 33.5 933.5 939.4 8.8 5.8 941.4 � ERN176 28.2 -- -- 86 -- -- ERN190* 119.0 920.8 940.7* 0 110 945.7 � " See Section 5. 10.16 for further information. � � � � � � � � � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � � � T A B L E 17 � DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS IiAWKINS POND DISTRICT � 100-Year � Subwatershed Draina e Normal Peak Peak Stora e Low floor 8 8 Area Elevation Elevation Diacharge Volume Building � (acres) (tt) (it) (cts) (ac-ft) Elevation � HAW1868 37.4 458.3 960.2 11 4.3 962.2 HAW1846 29.9 957.3 959.8 7.7 6.3 961.8 HAW184A 49.3 950.0 961.6 13 7.7 963.6 � HAWi82* 30.7 930.6 935.0* 5.7 8.5 940.0 HAW185A 6.0 955.7 956.5 1.9 1.0 958.5 HAWi858 35.5 950.1 957.5 48 1.2 959.5 � HAW183* 81.8 910.0 935.0" 0 140 940.0 � * See Section 5. 10.17 for further information. i � � � i � � � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � � � T A B L E 18 DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS � VERMILLION RIVER DISTRICT � 100-Year Subwatershed Drainage Normal Peak Peak Storage Low Floor � Area Elevation Elevation Discharge Volume Building (acres) (ft) (ft) (cfs) (ac•ft) Efevation � VER205* 104.0 944.5 947.1 5.6 19 949:0 � VER207" 33.6 .. __ 60 -. VER208 38.3 64 VER209* 92.8 909.5 920.8 13 24 922 8 � VER206 15.6 -- -- 71 -- -- VER2108 16.0 62 VER210A 57.5 922.2 929.9 10 13 931.9 VER211 39.5 -- 120 -- -- � VER212 23.0 918.6 925.3 10 13 930.1 VER213* 45.9 923.8* 927.8 1. 1 6.7 929.8 VER214* 26.5 922.8* 926.2 5.7 7.2 928.2 � � * See Section 5. 10. 18 for further information. � � � � � � � 2319132/ROSEUP.WP/PLS � � � T A B L E 19 DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS � WACHTER POND DISTRICT � ' 100-Year � Subwatershed Oraina e Normal Peak Peak Stora e Low Fioor B B Area Elevation Elevation Oischarge Volume Building � (acres) (ft) (ft) (cfs) (ac-ft) Elevation � WAC181A 18. 1 -- .. 14 -- -- WAC187A 19.7 140 WAC179 48. 1 -- -- 130 -- -- � WAC188D 0.6 951.7 952.0 0.8 0. 1 954.0 WAC188B 15.7 48 WAC188A $0.8 -- -- 430 -- -- WAC188C 14.1 948.1 952.2 6.5 1.9 954.2 � WAC191 31.1 -- -- 120 .. .. WAC189 100.4 -- -- 280 -- -- WAC201A 40.6 -• -- 78A -- -- � WAC2018 7.0 .. -- 21 .. .. WAC1876 15:4 956.8 958.3 3.3 2.7 960.3 WAC186A 55.7 949.0 952.1 42 2.5 954.0 � WAC204 58.8 927.2 933.4 9.3 11 935.4 WAC203A 35.3 934.0 938.3 7.8 5.9 940.3 WAC2038 22.8 -- •- 71 -- -- � WAC200 12.8 -- -- 49 -- -- WAC198 9.4 38 WAC199 26.4 -- -- 170 -- - � WAC215 12.8 940.0 946.3 7.5 I1 948.3 WAC202* 78.5 904.7 937.3 0 350 942.3 � � * See Section 5. 10.19 for further information. � � � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � � T A B L E 20 � RECOMMENDED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS McMENOMIE DISTRICT* � SUBWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT UNIT UAQ NTITY UNIT COST TOTAL MCM1 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 � 12" RCP L.F 50 24 i,200 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 MCM2 � 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 150 24 3,600 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � MCM3 18" RCP L.F 300 36 10,800 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,OOQ � 18" RCP L.F 300 36 10,800 �I.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 18" RCP L.F 400 36 14,d00 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 � 24" RCP L F 200 48 9,600 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 blCbl4 � 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 150 24 3,600 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � MCMS 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L F 100 24 2,400 � M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 MCM6 18" RCP L.F 500 36 18,000 � M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 MCM7 33" RCP L.F 200 66 13,200 � M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 36" RCP L.F 350 72 25,200 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � 36" RCP fES EA 1 1700 1,700 r i prap C.Y 6.6 40 264 f i I t e r C.Y 6.6 40 264 15" RCP FES fA 1 700 700 � 15" RCP L.F 2Q0 30 6,000 M.HlC.B EA i 3000 3,000 MCM8 � 21" RCP L.F 400 42 16,800 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 24" RCP L.F 200 48 9,600 � # The sizes, quantities and costs must be considered preliminary. TAe actual size, quantity and cost may vary at finai design. � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS ' � � T A B L E 20* (continued) � SUBWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT UNIT UANTITY UNIT COST TOTAI _ 4- � MCM8 (continued) 24"RCP FES EA 1 1, 150 1, 150 riprap C.Y 3.5 40 140 filter C.Y 3.5 40 140 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 � 12" RCP L.F 300 24 7,200 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � MCM9 24" RCP L.F 250 48 12,000 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 24" RCP FES EA 1 1150 1,150 � riprap C.Y 3.5 40 140 - fi lter C.Y 3.5 40 140 12" RCP FES EA i 600 600 � 12" RCP L.f 200 24 4,800 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 MCM10 � 15" RCP L.F 200 30 6,000 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 18" RCP L F 200 36 7,200 M.H/G.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � MCM13 12" RCP fES EA 1 600 600 � T2" RCP L F 200 24 4,800 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 MCM14 � 12" RCP L.F 150 24 3,600 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 riprap C.Y 1.3 40 52 � f i l t e r C.Y 1.3 40 52 12" RCP L.f 150 24 3,600 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 � riprap C.Y 1.3 40 52 filter C.Y 1.3 40 52 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 � 12" RCP L.f 150 24 3,600 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 MCMi5 � 15" RCP L.F 150 30 4,500 15" RCP fES EA 1 700 700 r i p r ap C.Y 1.7 40 68 fitter C:Y i.7 40 68 � * The sizes, quantities and costs must be considered preliminary. The actual � size, quantity and cost may vary at final design. 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � � � T A B L E 20%� (continued) � SUBWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT UNIT UA� NTITY UNIT COST TOTAL MCM15 (continued) � 24" RCP L.F. 300 48 14,400 M.H./C.B. EA 1 3000 3,000 24" RCP fES EA 1 1150 1, 150 r i prap C.Y. 3.5 40 1d0 � fi Iter C.Y. 3.5 40 140 12" RCP L.F 200 24 4,800 M.H/C.8 EA 2 3000 6,000 ' 18" RCP L F 450 36 16,200 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 27° RCP L.f 600 54 32,400 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 � 27" RCP FES EA i 1300 i,300 riprap C.Y 4.1 40 164 f i l t er C.Y 4.1 40 164 � MCMi7 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP �.F 50 24 1,200 � MCM103 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12° RCP L F 200 24 4,800 � M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 MCM1Q4 21" RCP L.F 200 42 &,400 � 21" RCP FES EA 1 1000 1,000 r i prap C.Y 2.8 40 112 filter C.Y 2.8 40 112 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 � 12" RCP L F 50 24 1,200 M.H/C.8 EA 1 3000 3,000 MCM105 � 21" RCP L.F 250 42 10,500 21" RCP FES EA 1 1000 1,000 riprap C.Y 2.8 40 112 � fi Iter C.Y 2.8 40 112 18" RCP L.F 200 36 7,200 18" RCP FES EA 1 850 850 r i prap C.Y 2.2 40 88 fi lter C.Y 2.2 40 88 15" RCP L.F 200 30 6,000 N.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 27" RCP L.f 400 54 21,600 � M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 fi,000 33" RCP L.F 750 66 49,500 M.H/C.B EA 3 3040 9,000 � * The sizes, quantities and costs must be considered preliminary. The actual site, quantity and cost may vary at final design. � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PL5. . � � � T A B L E 20* (continued) � SUBWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT UNIT UANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL MCM105 (continued} 33" RCP FES EA i 1600 1,600 � r i prap C.Y 5.8 40 232 f i I t e r C.Y 5.8 40 232 21" RCP FES EA 1 1150 1, 150 21" RCP L.f 200 42 8,400 � M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 MCM106 � 24" RCP L.F 200 48 9,600 M.H/C.B EA 1 30A0 3,Q40 36" RCP L.F 450 72 32,400 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � 36" RCP FES EA 1 1700 1, 700 r i p r ap C.Y 6.6 40 264 f i I t e r C.Y 6.6 40 264 � 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 200 24 4,800 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � Sub-total 601, 100 Mobilization 15% 40,200 Tatal Construction 691,300 � Contingencies 20% 120,200 Engineering 20% 120,200 � Total Cost* f 931,700 � � � � � � " The sizes, quantities and costs must be considered preliminary. The actuai � aize, quantity and cost may vary at final design. 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � � tT A B L E 21 � RECOMMENDED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WHITE LAKE DISTRICT* � SUBWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT UNIT UAQ NTITY UNIT COST TOTAi WLD20 � 24" RCP L.F 200 48 9,600 24" RCP fES , EA i 1150 1, 150 riprap C.Y 3.5 40 140 � ti lter C.Y 3.5 40 140 WLD24 � 21" RCP L F 300 42 12,600 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 21" RCP FES EA 1 1000 1,000 � r i prap C.Y 2.8 40 112 iilter C.Y 2.8 40 112 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 � 12" RCP L.F 300 24 7,200 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 � WLD95 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 20Q 24 4,800 � M.N/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 Sub-total • 50,100 Mobilization 15% 7,500 � • Total Construction 57,600 � Contingencies 20% 10,000 Engineering 20% 10,040 � Tatal Cost* S 7J,600 � � � ' The sizes, quantities and costs must be considered preliminary. The actual size, quantity and cost may vary at final design. � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � � T A B L E 22 � RECOMMENDED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS GUN CLUB LAKE DISTRICT* � SUBWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT UNIT UANTITY UNIT COST TOTAt � 6CL16 24" RCP L.F 400 48 19,200 M.H/C.B EA 3 3000 9,000 � 30" RCP L.F 400 60 24,000 6A.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 30" RCP FES EA 1 1450 1,450 r i pr ap C.Y 5.0 40 200 � f i l t e r , C.Y 5.0 40 200 ' 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L F 300 24 7,200 � M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,OQO GCL21 12" RCP FES EA 1 fi00 600 � 12" RCP L.F 200 24 4,800 �I.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 30" RGP L.f 300 60 18,000 M.H/C.8 EA 1 3000 3,Q00 � GCL22 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 � 12" RCP L.F 200 24 4,800 12" RCP fES EA 1 600 600 riprap C.Y 1.3 40 52 filter C.Y 1.3 40 52 � GCL23 30" RCP L.F 200 60 12,000 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � 30" RCP FES EA 1 145U 1,450 r i p r ap C.Y 5.0 40 200 f i I t e r C.Y 5.0 40 Z00 � 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 100 24 2,400 GGL266 � M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 30" RCP L.F 100 60 6,000 30" RCP fES EA i 1450 i,A50 r i p r ap C.Y 5.0 40 200 � f i I t e r C.Y 5.0 40 200 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 100 24 2,40D � i . The sizes, quantities and costs must be cansidered prefiminary. The actual size, quantity and cost may vary at final design. � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � � � � � � T A B L E 22* (continued) 1 SUBWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT UNIT UAQ NTITY UNIT COST TOTAL GCL27 � 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.f 100 24 2,400 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � GCL28 27" RCP L:F 2Q0 54 10,800 27" RCP FES EA 1 1300 1,300 r i p r ap C.Y 4.1 40 164 ' Tilter C.Y 4.1 40 164 t2" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 50 24 1,200 ' GCL29 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.f 100 24 2,400 � M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 GCL30 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 , 27" RCP L.F 100 54 5,400 27" RCP FES EA 1 1300 1, 300 r i p r ap C.Y 4.1 40 164 f i I t e r C.Y 4. 1 40 164 � 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 6U0 12" RCP L.F 10 24 240 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 � r i prap C.Y 1.3 40 52 fitter C.Y 1.3 40 52 6C13i � 24" RCP L.F 350 48 16,800 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 fi,000 12" RCP L.F 100 24 2,400 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 � r i prap C.Y 1.3 40 52 f i I t e r C.Y i.3 40 52 12" RCP fES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 250 24 6,000 � M.H/C.B EA i 3000 3,000 GCL32 � 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L F 200 24 4,800 M.H/C:8 EA 1 3000 3,000 � GCL34 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L F 200 24 4,800 M.H/C.B Ep i 3000 3,000 � * The sizes, quantities and costs must be considered preliminary. The ackual � size, quantity and cost may vary at final design. 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS i ' ' T A B L E 22* (continued) ' SUBWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT UNIT UAQ NTITY UNIT COST TOTAL GCL35 ' 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 150 24 3,600 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � GGL3fi 18" RCP L.F 300 36 10,800 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 18" RCP FES EA 1 850 850 ' riprap C.Y 2.2 40 88 filter C.Y 2.2 40 88 18" RCP L F 250 36 9,000 18" RCP fES EA 1 850 850 � r i pr ap C.Y 2.2 40 88 fiiter C.Y 2.2 40 88 24" RCP L.F 300 48 14,400 , M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 24" RCP FES EA 1 1150 1, 150 riprap C.Y . 3.5 40 140 filter C.Y 3.5 40 140 ' 33" RCP L.F 400 66 26,400 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 33" RCP fES EA i 1600 1,600 riprap C.Y 5.8 d0 232 � filter C.Y 5.8 40 232 21" RCP L.F 200 d2 8,400 21" RCP FES EA 1 1000 1,000 riprap C.Y 2.8 40 112 ' filter C.Y 2.8 40 112 12" RCP fES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L F 10 24 240 � 18" RCP L.F 390 36 14,040 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 GCL37 , 21" RCP L.F 200 42 8,400 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 GCL38 , 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 200 24 4,800 M.H/C.B EA i 3000 3,000 ' 27" RCP L.F 200 54 30,800 M.H/C.B EA 1 30Q0 3,000 GCL39 ' 12" RCP L.F 100 24 2,400 12" RCP FES EA l 600 600 r i p r ap C.Y 1.3 40 52 f i i t e r C.Y i.3 40 52 , * The sizes, quantities and casts must be considered preliminary. The actual � size, quantity and cost may vary at finai design. 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS ' ' T A B L E 22* (continued) , , SUBWATfRSNED INPROVEMENT UNIT UAQ NTITY UNIT COST TOTAL GCL39 (continued) 12" RCP FES EA i 600 600 ' 12" RCP L F 100 24 2,400 cc�ai 12" RCP FES EA . 1 600 600 � 12" RCP L.F 100 24 2,400 GCL42 , 12" RCP fES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 100 24 2,400 GCL43 � M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 33" RCP L F 200 66 13,200 33" RCP FES EA 1 1600 1,600 r i p r ap C.Y 5.8 40 232 , f i l t er C.Y 5.8 40 232 24" RCP L:f 400 48 19,200 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 24" RCP FES EA i 1150 1,150 , r i pr ap C.Y 3.5 40 140 filter C.Y 3.5 40 140 30" RCP L.F 250 60 15,000 � 30" RCP FES EA 1 1450 1,450 r i prap C.Y 5.0 40 200 f i I t e r C.Y 5.0 40 200 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 ' 12" RCP L.F 120 24 2,880 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 r i p r a p C.Y 1.3 40 52 filter C.Y 1.3 40 52 , GCL47 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 150 24 3,600 � GCL48 12" RCP L.F 200 24 4,&00 � 12" RCP fES EA 1 600 600 r i p r ap C.Y 1.3 40 52 fi Iter C.Y 1.3 40 52 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 � 12" RCP L.f 200 24 4,800 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,OQO 18" RCP L.F 400 36 14,400 M.H/C.8 EA i 3000 3,d00 � � * The sizes, quantities and costs must be considered pretiminary. The actual size, quantity and cost may vary at final design. � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � � ' T A B L E 22* (continued} ' SUBWATERSHED IMPftOVEMENT UNIT UAQ NTITY UNIT COST TOTAL GCL49 � 12° RCP L F. 150 24 3,600 M.H./C.B. EA 1 3000 3,000 21" RCP L F 100 42 4,200 21" RCP fES EA 1 1000 1,000 1 riprap C.Y 2.8 40 112 fiiter C.Y 2.8 40 112 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 ' 12" RCP L.f 150 24 3,600 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 GCL50 ' 12" RCP fES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 150 24 3,600 GCL51 , 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 50 24 1,200 GCL54 ' 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 200 24 4,800 ' GCU8 15" RCP L F 300 30 4,000 M.H/C.B EA i 3000 3,000 15" RCP fES EA 1 700 700 � r i p r a p G.Y 1.7 40 68 fi Iter C.Y 1.7 40 6& 18" RCP L.F 300 36 10,800 M.H/C.B EA i 3000 3,000 � 18" RCP FES EA i 850 850 riprap C.Y 2.2 40 88 filter C.Y 2.2 40 8& � 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 50 24 1,200 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 r i p r ap C.Y 1.3 40 52 � fiiter C.Y 1.3 40 52 GCL79 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 � 12' RCP l.F 200 24 4,800 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 GCL81 ' 12" RCP L.F 100 24 2,400 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 24" RCP L.f 400 48 19,200 � * The sizes, quantities and costs must be considered preliminary. The actual size, quantity and cost may vary at finai design. ' 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � , T A B L E 22* (continued) , � SUBWATER3HED IMPROVEMENT UNIT UAQ NTITY UNIT CO3T TOTAL GCL81 (continued) M.H./C.B. EA 1 3000 3,000 ' 24" RCP FES EA i 1150 1, 150 r i pr ap C.Y. 3.5 40 140 tilter C.Y 3.5 40 140 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 � 12" RCP L.F 200 24 4,800 M.H/C.B EA 1 30D0 3,000 , GCL83 30" RCP L.F 400 60 24,000 M.H/C.8 EA 1 3000 3,000 30" RCP FES EA 1 1450 1,450 � r i prap C.Y 5.0 40 200 f i I t e r C.Y 5.0 40 200 12° RCP FES EA 1 600 600 , 12" RCP L F 200 24 4,800 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 S00 r i prap C.Y 1.3 40 52 tiiter , C.Y 1.3 40 52 ' GCL81 27" RCP L.F 200 54 10,800 ' M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 36" RCP L.f 300 72 21,600 M.H/C.8 EA 1 3000 3,000 36" RCP FES EA 1 1700 1,700 ' r i prap C.Y 6.6 40 264 f i I t e r C.Y 6.6 40 264 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 150 24 3,600 , M.N/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 GCL88 ' 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 100 24 2,400 GCL89 � 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 100 24 2,400 GCL90 � 12" RCP L.F 100 24 2,400 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,OQO 18" RCP L.F 400 36 14,400 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 ' 18° RCP fES EA 1 850 850 riprap C.Y 2.2 40 88 filter C.Y 2.2 40 88 r ' The sizes, guantities and costs must be considered preliminary. The actual size, quantity and cast may vary at final design. ' 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS ' � � T A B L E 22* (continued) � SUBWATERSHEO IMPROVEMENT UNIT UAQ NTITY UNIT COST TOTAL GCL90 (continued) 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 � 12" RCP L.F. 150 24 3,600 M.H/C.B. EA 1 3000 3,000 1 GCL91 12" RCP L.F 75 24 1,800 12" RCP FES EA i 600 600 r i prap C.Y 1.3 40 52 � fi lter C,Y 1.3 40 52 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L F 50 24 1,200 � GCL92 18" RCP L F 400 36 14,400 M.N/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 2A" RCP L.F 400 48 19,200 � M.H/C.B EA i 3000 3,000 24" RCP FES EA 1 1150 1, 150 r i prap C.Y 3.5 40 140 ' fi lter C.Y 3.5 40 140 12" RCP L.F 100 24 2,400 M.H/C.8 EA 1 3000 3,000 18" RCP L.f 400 36 14,400 � M.H/C.8 EA 2 3000 6,000 21" RCP l.F 250 42 10,500 21° RCP FES EA 1 1000 1,000 riprap C.Y 2.8 40 112 , filter C.Y 2.8 40 112 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L F 75 24 1,800 � GCL93 30° RCP L F 300 60 18,000 M.H/C.8 EA 1 3000 3,000 , 30" RCP FES EA 1 1450 1,450 r i p r ap C.Y 5.0 40 200 f i I t e r C.Y 5:0 40 200 12" RCP FES EA i 600 600 � 12" RCP L.F 100 24 2,400 GCL94 , 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 200 24 4,$00 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,040 21° RCP L.F 200 42 8,400 � M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 27" RCP L.F 200 54 10,800 M.H/C.8 EA i 3000 3,000 � * The sizes, quantities and costs must be considered preliminary. The actual � size, quantity and cost may vary at final design. 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS ' ' � T A B L E 22* (continued) ' SUBWAtERSHED IMPROVEMENT UNiT UAQ NTITY UNIT COST TOTAL GCL121 , 12" RCP L F. 100 24 2,400 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 r i prap C.Y. 1.3 40 52 filter C.Y. 1.3 40 52 , 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 100 24 2,400 GCL12d ' 12" RCP L.F 100 24 2,400 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 r i prap C.Y 1.3 40 52 � fi lter C.Y 1.3 40 52 12" RCP L.f 150 24 3,600 M.HIC.B EA 1 3000 3,000 18° RCP L.f 350 36 12,600 � M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 18" RCP fES EA 1 850 850 r i p r ap C.Y 2.2 40 88 filter C.Y 2.2 40 88 , 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 100 24 2,400 Ai.H/C.8 EA 1 3000 3,000 � GCL125 12" RCP L.F lOR 24 2,400 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 ' 18" RCP l.F 200 36 7,200 18" RCP FES EA 1 850 850 riprap C.Y 2.2 40 88 filter C.Y 2.2 40 88 ' 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 50 24 1,200 GCL126 , 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 100 24 2,400 � Sub-total 918,100 IAobilization 15% 137, 700 Total Construction 1,055,800 , Contingencies 20% 183,600 Engineering 20% 183,600 , Total Cost* = i,423,000 � * The sizes, quantities and costs must 6e considered preliminary. The actual � size, quantity and cost may vary at final design. 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS ' ' ' T A B L E 23 � RECOMMENDED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS SIEG POND DISTRICT* ' SU6IMATERSHED IMPROVEMENT �UNIT UANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL � SIE45 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 fi00 12" RCP L F 50 24 i,200 , SIE46 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 42" RCP l.f 100 84 8,400 � 42" RCP FES EA 1 2000 2,000 r i p r ap C.Y 8.2 40 328 f i l t er C.Y 8.2 40 328 � 12" RCP L.F 100 24 2,400 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 21" RCP L.F 150 42 6,300 ' 21" RCP FES EA 1 1000 1,000 riprap C.Y 2:8 40 112 filter C.Y 2.8 40 112 ' Sub-total 28,800 I�obilization 15% 4,300 ' Total Construction 33,100 ' Cantingencies 20% 5,800 Engineering 20% 5,800 ' Total Cost* E 44,100 , , ' � ' The sizes, quantities and coats must be considered preliminary. The actual size, quantity and cost may vary at final design. � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � r T A B L E 24 � RECOMMENDED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS APPLE VALLEY DISTRICT* ' SUBWATERSHED IMPROYEMENT UNIT UAQ NTITY UNIT COST TOTAL , APV55 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 100 24 2,400 � APV57 24" RGP L.F 50 48 2,404 24" RCP FES EA 1 1150 1, 150 r i prap C.Y 3.5 40 140 , fi lter C.Y 3.5 40 146 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L F 200 24 4,800 � M.H/C.8 EA 1 3000 3,000 APV58 21" RCP L.F 150 24 3,600 , 21" RCP fES EA i 1000 1,000 riprap C.Y 2.8 40 112 filter C.Y 2.8 40 112 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 ' 12" RCP l.f 100 24 2,400 APV59 , 12" RCP L.F 100 24 2,400 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 21" RCP L.f 200 42 8,400 21" RCP FES EA 1 3000 1,000 � r i prap C.Y 2.8 40 112 filter C.Y 2.8 40 112 24" RCP L.F 400 48 19,200 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � 24" RCP fES EA 1 115Q 1, 150 r i pr ap C.Y 3.5 40 140 tilter C.Y 3.5 40 140 � 12" RCP fES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.f 200 24 4,800 M.H/C.8 EA 1 3000 3,000 24" RCP L.f 200 48 9,600 � M.N/C.B EA i 3000 3,000 APV60 M.H/G 8 EA 1 3000 3,000 � 27" RCP L.F 200 54 10,800 27" RCP FES EA 1 1300 1,300 riprap C.Y 4.1 40 164 tilter C.Y 4. 1 40 16d ' 12" RCP L.f 100 24 2,400 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 21" RCP L.F 200 42 8,400 � , The sizes, quantities and costs must be considered preliminary. The actual size, quantity and cost may vary at final design. � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS , � � T A B L E 24* (continued) SUBWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT UNIT UANTI7Y UNIT COST TOTAL , AVP60 (continued) 27" RCP L.F 400 54 21,600 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 , 27" RCP FES EA 1 1300 1,300 r i prap C.Y 4. 1 40 164 Ti lter C.Y 4.1 40 164 12" RCP F£3 EA 1 600 600 � 12" RCP L.F 50 24 1,200 M.H/G.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � APV62 30" RCP L.F 300 60 18,000 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 - 30" RCP FES EA 1 1450 1,450 � r i prap C.Y 5.0 40 200 i i I t e r C.Y 5.0 40 200 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 300 24 7,200 � M:H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000. APV64 18" RCP L.F 200 36 7,200 � M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 24" RCP L.F 200 48 9,600 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � 30" RCP L.f 200 60 12,000 30" RCP fES EA 1 1450 1,450 r i p r ap C.Y 5.0 40 200 filter GY 5.0 40 200 � 24" RCP FES EA 1 1150 1, 150 24" RCP L.F 150 48 7,200 APV66 � 18" RCP L F 350 36 12,600 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 21" RCP L.F 200 42 8,400 � 21" RCP FES EA 1 1000 i,000 riprap C.Y 2.8 40 112 fi lter C.Y 2.8 40 112 12" RCP FES EA I 600 600 � 12" RCP L.F 250 24 6,000 M.H/C.B EA 1 30A0 3,000 APV67 � 12" RCP L.F 100 24 2,400 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 18" RCP L.F 200 36 7,200 18" RCP FES EA 1 850 850 � r i p r ap C.Y 2.2 40 88 fiiter C.Y 2.2 40 88 � • The sizes, quantities and costs must be cnnsidered preliminary. The actual size, quantity and coat may vary at final design. � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � � � T A B L E 24� (continued) � SUBWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT UNIT UAQ NTITY UNIT COST TOTAL APV67 (cantinued) � 24" RCP fES EA 1 1150 1, 150 24" RCP L.F. 100 48 4,800 APV69 � 12° RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 150 24 3,600 M.H/C.B EA i 3000 3,000 , APV70A 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L,F 100 24 2,400 � Sub-total 289,200 Mobilization 15% 43,400 � Totai Construction 332,600 Contingencies 20% 57,800 Engineering 20% 57,800 � Total Cost* $ 448,200 � � _ � � � , � � ` The sizes, quantities and costs must be considered preliminary. The actual size, quantity and cost may va�y at final design. , 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � � T A B L E 25 � RECOMMENDED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS SHANNON OAKS DISTRICT* � SUBWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT UNIT UAQ NTITY UNIT COST TOTAt SHA52A � 12° RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L F 150 24 3,600 SHA528 � 12" RCP L.F 50 24 1,200 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 r i prap C.Y 1.3 40 52 � filter C.Y 1.3 40 52 21" RCP L.F 400 d2 16,800 M.H/C.8 EA 2 3000 6,000 24° RCP L.F 400 48 19,200 � M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 2d" RCP FES EA 1 1150 i, 150 riprap C.Y 3,5 40 140 filter C.Y 3.5 40 140 � 12" RCP fES EA i 600 600 12" RCP L.F 150 24 3,600 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 27" RCP L.F 400 5� 21,600 � M.H/C.B _ EA 2 3000 6,000 SHA53 � 30" RCP L.F 400 60 24,000 M.H/C.8 EA i 3000 3,000 30" RCP fES EA i 1450 I,450 r i prap C.Y 5.0 40 200 � f i I t e r C.Y 5.0 40 200 27" RCP FES EA 1 1300 1,--300 27" RCP L.F 50 54 2,700 � SHA56 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 , 600 12" RCP L.F 200 24 4,800 � M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 SHA71 30" RCP L.F 500 60 30,000 � M.HIC.B EA 4 3000 12,000 42" RCP L.F 500 84 42,000 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 42° RCP FES EA 1 2000 2,000 , 30" RCP L.F 500 60 30,000 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 30" RCP FES EA i 1450 1,450 r i prap C.Y 5.0 40 200 � filter C.Y 5.0 40 200 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 � * The sizes, quantities and costs must be considered preJiminary. The actual size, quantity and cost may vary at final des�gn. � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � � T A B L E 25* (continued) � � SUBWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT UNIT UAQ NTITY UNIT COST TOTAL SHA71 (continued) 12" RCP L F 200 24 4,800 � M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 SHA73A 27" RCP l.f 150 54 8, 100 � 27° RCP FES EA 1 1300 1, 300 r i prap C.Y 4.1 40 164 f i l t e r C.Y 4.1 40 164 � 24" RCP fES EA 1 1150 i, 150 24" RCP L.F 100 48 4,800 SHA738 � 24" RCP L.F 100 48 4,800 24" RCP FES EA 1 1150 1, 150 riprap C.Y 3.5 40 140 fi lter G.Y 3.5 40 140 � 33" RCP l.f 400 66 26,400 M.H/C.B EA 3 30Q0 9,000 36" RCP L.F 400 72 28,800 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � 36" RCP FES EA 1 1700 1,700 r i p r a p C.Y 6.6 40 264 f i I t e r C.Y 6.6 40 264 � 12" RCP FES EA i 600 600 12" RCP l.f 150 24 3,600 M.H/C.B EA i 3000 3,000 24" RCP L.F 150 48 7,200 � M.H/C.B EA i 3000 3,000 SHA75 21" RCP L.F 400 42 16,800 � M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 21" RCP FES EA 1 1000 i,000 riprap C.Y 2.8 40 112 � filter C.Y 2.8 40 112 42" RCP L.F 500 84 42,000 M.H/C.B EA 3 3000 9,000 42" RCP FES EA 1 2000 2,000 � r i prap C.Y 8.2 40 328 f i I t er C.Y 8.2 40 328 27" RCP L.F 400 54 21,600 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 � 30" RCP L.f 400 60 24,000 M.H/C.B EA i 3000 3,000 30" RCP FES EA 1 1450 1,450 r i prap C.Y 5.0 40 200 � i i I t e� C.Y 5.0 40 200 � * The sizes, quantities and costs must be considered preliminary. The actual size, quantity and cost may vary at final design. � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS , � � T A B L E 25* (continued) � SUBWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT UNIT UAQ NTITY UNIT COST TOTAL SHA75 (continued) 24" RCP L.F. 800 48 38,400 � M.H/C.B EA 3 3000 9,000 2A" RCP FES EA 1 1150 1,150 riprap C.Y 3.5 40 140 filter C.Y 3.5 40 140 � 21" RCP L.f 550 42 23, 100 M.H/C.B EA 3 3000 9,000 27" RCP L F 400 54 21,600 � M.H/C.8 EA 2 3000 6,000 36" RCP L f 400 72 28,800 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 36" RCP FES EA 1 170Q 1,700 � r i p r a p C.Y 6.6 40 264 f i F t e r C.Y 6.6 40 264 SHA76 � 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 50 24 1,200 SHA77 � 12" RCP L.F 150 24 3,600 M.H/C.8 EA 1 3000 3,OOU 18" RCP L F 200 36 7,200 � M.N/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 24" RCP L F 150 48 7,200 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � SHA80 24" RCP L F 300 48 1d,400 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 24" RCP FES EA 1 1150 1, 150 � r i prap C.Y 3.5 40 1d0 f i lter C.Y 3.5 40 1d0 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 � 12" RCP L.F 100 24 2,400 SHA82 12" RCP L F 50 24 1,200 � M.H/C.8 EA 1 3000 3,000 18" RCP L.F 150 36 5,400 18" RCP FES EA 1 850 850 r i prap C.Y 2.2 40 88 � filter C.Y 2.2 40 88 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 150 24 3,600 M.H/C.8 EA 1 3000 3,000 � � * The sizes, quantities and costs must be considered preliminary. The actual size, quantity and cost may vary at finai design. � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS 1 � � T A B L E 25* (continued) � SUBWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT UNIT UANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL SHA131 � 21 L.F. 400 42 i6,800 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 21" RCP L.f. 400 54 21,600 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 � 33" RCP L.F 400 66 26,400 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 33" RCP FES EA 1 1600 1,600 r i pr ap C.Y 5.8 40 232 � f i t t e r C.Y 5.8 40 232 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 100 24 2,400 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � 18" RCP L.F 150 36 5,400 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � SHA132 24" RCP L.F 350 48 16,800 M.H/C.B EA 3 3000 9,000 33" RCP L.F 350 66 23,100 � M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 33" RCP FES EA 1 1600 i,600 riprap C.Y 5.8 40 232 fi lter C.Y 5.8 40 232 � 12" RCP fES EA 1 600 600 12" RGP L.F 150 24 3,600 N.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � SHAi33 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.f 100 24 2,400 � M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 24" RCP L.F 400 48 19,20Q M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 � Sub-t�tal 906,342 Mobilization 15% 135,900 Total Construction 1,042,200 � Contingencies 20% 180,300 Engineering 20% 180, 300 � Totai Cost• $ 1,404,800 � � * The sizes, quantities and costs must be considered preliminary. The actual size, quantity and cost may vary at final design. � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � � � T A B L E 26 RECOMMENDED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BIRGER POND DISTRICT* � SUBWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT UNIT UANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL � BIR136 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L,f 100 24 2,d00 � N.H/C.B EA i 3000 3,000 BIR137 27" RCP L.f 200 54 10,800 � N.H/C:B EA 2 3000 6,400 36" RCP L.f 200 72 14,404 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � 42" RCP L.F 250 84 21,000 42" RCP FES EA 1 2000 2,000 r i prap C.Y 8.2 40 328 f i I t e r C.Y 8.2 40 328 � 12" RC� fES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.f 50 24 1,200 BIR138 � 12" RCP L.F 250 24 6,D00 ki.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 r i p r ap C.Y 1.3 44 52 � filter C.Y 1.3 40 52 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L F 50 24 i,200 � BIR139 12" RCP L.f 150 24 3,600 M.H/C.8 EA 1 3000 3,000 � 24" RCP L.F 400 48 19,200 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 24" RCP FES EA 1 1150 1, 150 r i p r ap C.Y 3.5 40 140 � filter C.Y 3.5 40 140 BIR140 � 21" RCP L F 250 42 10,500 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3;000 36" RCP L.f 350 72 25,200 M:H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 � 42' RCP L.f 500 8A 42,000 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 27" RCP L.F 650 54 35,100 M.N/C.8 EA 3 3000 9,000 � BIR142 12" RCP FES EA i 600 600 12" RCP L.F 150 24 3,600 � ' The sizes, quantities and costs must he considered preliminary. The actual � size, quantity and cost may vary at final design. 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � � � T A B L E 2b* (continued) � SUBWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT UNIT UAQ NTITY UNIT COST TOTAL BIR142 (continued) � M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 18" RCP L.f 300 36 10,800 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 18" RCP FES EA 1 850 850 � r i p r ap C.Y 2.2 40 88 filter C.Y 2.2 40 88 27" RCP L.F 350 54 18,900 M.H/C.8 EA 1 3000 3,000 � 27" RCP fES EA 1 1300 1,300 r i p r ap C.Y 4.1 40 164 filter C.Y 4.1 40 164 48" RCP L F fi00 96 57,600 � M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 48" RCP FES EA 1 2300 2,300 r i p r ap C.Y 10.1 40 404 � f i l t e r C.Y 10.1 40 404 21" RCP L.F 650 54 35, 100 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 21" RCP FES EA 1 1300 1,300 � riprap C.Y 4.1 40 164 fi Iter C.Y 4.1 40 164 BIR143A � 36" RCP L.f 1104 72 79,200 M.H/C.B EA 6 3000 18,000 42" RCP L.f 700 84 58,800 � M.H/C.B EA 3 3000 9,000 42" RCP fES EA 1 2000 2,000 r i pr ap C.Y 8.2 40 328 f i I t er C.Y 8.2 40 328 � 18" RCP L.f 300 36 10,800 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 18" RCP FES EA 1 850 850 riprap C.Y 2.2 40 88 � filter C.Y 2.2 40 88 21" RCP fES EA 1 1000 1,000 21" RCP L F 150 42 6,300 � M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 BIR1438 12" RCP FES EA i 600 " 600 � 12" RCP L.F 200 24 4,800 IA.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 BIR146 � 30" RCP L.F 400 60 24,000 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 36" RCP L.F 500 72 36,400 � " The sizes, quantities and casts must 6e considered preliminary. The actual � size, quantity and cost may vary at final design. 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS . � � � T A B L E 26* (continued) � SUBWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT UNIT UAQ NTITY UNIT COST TOTAL BIR146 (continued) � M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 36" RCP FES EA 1 1700 1,700 r i pr ap C.Y 6.6 40 264 f i l t e r C.Y 6.6 40 264 � 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L F 300 24 7,200 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 27" RCP L f 200 54 10,800 � M.H/C.8 EA 1 3000 3,000 BIR147 18" RCP L F 300 36 10,800 � M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 24" RCP L.f 200 48 9,600 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � 30" RCP L F 200 60 12,000 M.H/C.8 EA 1 3000 3,000 61 R148 � 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 200 24 4,800 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � Sub-total 755,000 MoGilization 15% 1i3,300 � Total Construction 868,300 Contingencies 20% 151,000 Engineering 20% 151,000 � Total Cost* ; 1, 170,300 � � � � � * The sizes, quantities and costs must be considered preliminary. The actuai � size, quantity and cost may vary at final design. 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � � � T A B L E 27 RECOMMENDED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS DALY POND DISTRICT* � SUBWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT UNIT UAQ NTITY UNIT COST TOTAL � DAL85 21" RCP L F 200 42 8,d00 M.H/C.$ EA 1 3000 3,000 24" RCP L.F 200 48 9,600 � 24" RCP FES EA 1 1150 1, 150 r i pr ap C.Y 3.5 40 140 tilter C.Y 3.5 40 140 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 � 12" RCP L F 100 24 2,400 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 DAL86 � 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 100 24 2,400 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � DAL127 12" RCP L.F 100 24 2,400 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 � r i pr ap C.Y 1.3 40 52 filter C.Y 1.3 40 52 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.f i00 24 2,400 � DAL128 12" RCP L.F 100 24 2,400 � M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 18" RCP L.F 150 36 5,400 18" RCP FES EA 1 850 850 r i prap C.Y 2.2 40 88 � fiiter C.Y 2.2 40 88 12" RGP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.f 300 24 7,200 AI.H/C.8 EA 2 3000 6,000 � DAL129 48" RCP L.F 900 96 86,400 � M.H/C.8 Ep 4 3000 12,000 48" RCP FES EA 1 2300 2,300 27" RCP L.F 750 54 40,500 r i pr ap C.Y 10.1 40 40d � t i i t e r C.Y 10.1 40 404 M.H/C.B EA 4 3000 12,000 33" RCP L.F 500 66 33,000 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 � 33" RCP FES EA i 1600 1,600 r i prap C.Y 5.8 40 232 f i l t er C.Y 5.8 40 232 30" RCP L.F 400 60 24,000 � M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 ' The sizes, quantities and costs must be considered preliminary. The actual � size, quantity and cost may vary at final design. 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � � T A B L E 27* (continued) � � SUBWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT UNIT UANTITY UN17 COST TOTAL DAL129 (continued) 36" RCP L.F 400 72 28,800 � M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 36" RCP FES EA 1 1700 1,700 r i pr ap C.Y 6.6 40 264 filter C.Y 6.6 dD 264 i� DAL130 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 200 24 4,800 � M.H/C.8 Ep 1 3000 3,000 42" RCP L.F 200 84 i6,800 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � DAL154 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L F 50 24 1,200 � Sub-total 355,300 Nobilization 15% 53,300 � Totai Construction 408,600 Contingencies 20% 71,100 � Engineering 20% 71, 100 Totai Cost" $ 550,800 � � � � � � � �, ' The sizes, quantities and costs must be considered preiiminary. The actuai size, quantity and cost may �ary at final design. � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � � � T A B L E 28 RECOMMENDED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS SCHWARZ POND DISTRICT%�' � SUBWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT UNIT UANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL � SCH150 12" RCP fES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 150 24 3,600 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � SCH151 24" RCP L.F 350 48 16,800 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 � 30" RCP L.F 900 60 54,000 M.H/C.B Ep 4 3000 12,000 30" RCP FES EA 1 1450 i,450 � r i p r a p C.Y 5.0 40 200 f i I t e r C.Y 5.0 40 200 27" RCP L F 400 54 21,600 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 � 30" RCP L.F 600 60 36,000 M.N/C.8 EA 2 3000 6,000 30" RCP FES EA 1 1450 i,459 r i prap C.Y 5.0 40 200 � f i I t e r C:Y 5.0 40 200 SCH152 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 � 12" RCP L F 100 24 2,400 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � SCH153 18" RCP L.f 200 36 7,20A 18" RCP FES ER i 850 850 riprap C.Y 2.2 40 88 � f i l t e r C.Y 2.2 40 88 12" RCP fES EA i 600 600 12" RCP L.F 200 24 4,800 N.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � SCH178 48" RCP L.F 400 96 38,400 � M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,400 48" RCP FES EA 1 2300 2,300 r i pr ap C.Y. 10.1 40 404 iilter C.Y 10.1 40 404 � 42" RCP FES EA 2 2000 4,-000 42" RCP L.F 400 84 33,600 42" RCP FES EA 2 2000 4,000 r i p r a p C.Y 8.2 40 328 � f i I t e r C.Y 8.2 40 328 � * The sizes, quantities and costs must be considered preliminary. The actuai � size, quantity and cost may vary at final design. 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � � � T A B L E 28 (continued) � SUBWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT UNIT UAQ NTITY UNIT COST TOTpL SCH180A � 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 100 24 2,400 M.H/C.8 EA 1 3000 3,OQO � SCH180B 36" RCP L.f 550 72 39,600 � M.H/C.B EA 3 3000 9,000 48" RCP L F 600 96 57,600 M.H/C.B EA 3 3000 9,000 � � Sub-total 399,900 Mobilization 15% 60,000 � Total Construction 459,900 � Contingencies 20% 80,000 Engineering 20% 80,000 Total Cost* = 619,900 � � � � � � � � * The sizes, quantities and costs must be cansidered preliminary. The actuai srze, quantity and cosf may vary at finai design. � 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � � . � T A B L E 29 RECOMMENDED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS KEEGAN LAKE DISTRICT* � SUBWATERSHED INPROVEMENT UNIT UANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL KEE115 � 12" RCP fES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L F 200 24 4,800 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � 18" RCP L.F 300 36 10,800 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 KEE117 � 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 150 24 3,600 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � KEE118 24" RCP L.f 200 48 9,640 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 30" RCP L.F 400 60 24,000 � M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 30" RCP FES EA 1 1450 1,450 r i prap C.Y 5.0 40 200 � f i I t e r C.Y 5.0 40 200 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 1 2" R C P L.F 1 0 0 2 4 2,4 0 0 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 � r i p r ap C.Y 1.3 40 52 filter C.Y 1.3 48 52 KEE119 � 12" RCP L F 100 24 2,400 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 18" RCP L.F 200 36 7,200 18" RCP fES EA 1 850 850 � r i prap C.Y 2.2 40 88 filter C.Y 2.2 40 88 18" RCP L F 200 36 7,200 � M.H/C.8 EA 1 3000 3,000 27" RCP L.F 400 54 21,600 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,008 � 27" RGP FES �A 1 1300 1,300 r i pr ap C.Y 4.1 40 164 filter C.Y 4.1 40 164 12° RCP FES EA 1 6Q0 600 � 12" RCP L.F 200 24 4,800 12' RCP FES EA 1 600 600 r i p r ap C.Y 1.3 40 52 filter C.Y 1.3 AO 52 � KEE120 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 27° RCP L.F 200 54 10,800 � * The sizes, quantities and costs must be considered preliminary. The actual � size, quaqtity and cost may vary at final design. 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � � � T A B L E 29* (continued) SUBWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT UNIT UAQ NTITY UNIT COST TOTAL � KEE120 (continued) 27" RCP FES EA 1 1300 1, 300 r i p r ap C.Y A.i 40 164 � Tilter C.Y 4.1 40 164 24" RCP L.F 400 48 19,200 M.Hf C.6 EA 1 3000 3,000 � 24" RCP FES EA 1 1150 1, 150 r i prap C.Y 3.5 40 140 filter C.Y 3,5 40 140 � � KEE123 � � � 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 640 12" RCP L.F 100 24 2,400 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,Q04 � KEE158 12" RCP fES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 100 2d 2,400 � Sub-total 181,800 Mobilization 15% 27,300 � Totai Construction 209, 100 Contingencies 20% 36,400 � Engineering 2096 36,400 Total Cost* ; 281,900 � � � � � � � * The sizes, quantities and casts must be considered preliminary. The actual � size, quantity and cost may vary at tinai design. 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � � � . T A B L E 30* (continued) � SUBWA?ERSHED IMPROVEMENT UNIT UANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL ORO107 (continued) r i p r a p C.Y. 2.8 40 112 � filter C.Y 2.8 40 112 18" RCP L.F 500 36 18,000 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 18" RCP FES EA 1 $50 850 � r iprap C.Y 2.2 40 88 filter C.Y 2.2 40 88 27" RCP L.F 600 54 32,400 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 � 27" RCP FES EA 1 1300 1,300 r i prap C.Y 4.1 40 164 filter C.Y 4.1 40 164 24" RCP L.F 650 48 31,Z00 � M.H/C.8 EA 3 3000 9,000 27" RCF L.F 400 54 2t,600 M.H/C.8 EA 2 3000 6,000 � 33" RCP L.F 550 66 36,300 M.N/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 - 33" RCP FES EA 1 1600 1,600 riprap C.Y 5.8 40 232 f i f t er C.Y 5.8 d0 232 �� OR0108 18" RCP L.F 200 36 1,200 � 18" RCP fES EA 1 850 850 r i prap C.Y 2.2 40 88 fi lter C.Y 2.2 40 88 :� 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12° RCP L:F 300 24 7,200 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 18" RCP L.F 400 36' 14,400 � M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,Q00 21" RCP L F 100 42 4,200 M.H/C.B EA i 3000 3,000 � OR0109 12" RCP fES EA 1 600 604 12" RCP L.F 200 24 4,800 � M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 21" RCP L.F 200 42 8,400 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � ORO110 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 200 24 4,800 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � � * The sizes, quantities and costs must be considered preliminary. The actual size, quantity and cost may vary at final design. �. 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � � T A B L E 30%� (continued) � SUBWATERSHED IMPftOVEMENT UNIT UANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL ORO111 � 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F. 200 24 4,800 M.H/C.8 EA 1 3000 3,-000 � OR0112 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 200 24 4,800 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � OR0313 24" RCP L.F 150 48 7,200 � 2d" RCP fES EA 1 1150 1, 150 riprap C.Y 3.5 40 140 fi Iter C.Y 3.5 40 140 12° RCP fES EA 1 600 600 � 12" RCP L.F 150 24 3,600 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 OR0114 � 21" RCP L.f 400 42 16,800 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 30" RCP L.F 400 60 24,000 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � 30" RCP FES EA 1 1450 1,450 r i prap C,Y 5.0 40 200 f i I t er C.Y 5.0 40 200 � 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 200 24 4,800 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � OROil6 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.f 100 24 2,400 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � OR0163 24" RCP FES EA 1 1150 1,150 � 24" RCP L.F 100 48 4,800 24" RCP FES Ep 1 1150 1, 150 r i pr ap C.Y 3.5 40 140 filter C.Y 3.5 00 140 � Sub-total 495,482 Mobilization 15% 74,300 � Total Construction 569,800 Contingencies 20% 99,100 Engineering 20% 99,100 � Total Cost* $ 168,000 � * The sizes, quantities and costs must be considered preliminary. The actual size, quantity and cost may vary at final design. � 23],9132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � � � � � T A B L E 31 RECOMMENDED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ROSEMOUNT WOODS DISTRICT* jSUBWATERSHED IMPROYEMENT UNIT UAQ NTITY UNIT COST TOTAL � ROS155 42" RCP L.F 500 84 42,000 M.H/C.6 EA 3 3000 9,000 42" RCP FES EA 1 2000 2,000 � r i prap C.Y 8.2 40 328 f i I t er C.Y 8.2 40 328 12" RCP L.F 350 24 8,400 M.H/C.8 EA 1 3000 3,000 � 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 riprap C.Y 1.3 /0 52 filter C.Y 1.3 40 52 � ROS156 42" RCP L.F 300 84 25,200 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 � 42° RCP FES EA 1 2000 2,000 r i prap C.Y 8.2 40 328 f i I t er C.Y 8.2 40 328 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 � 12" RCP L.F 50 24 1,200 ROS159 12° RCP L.F 150 24 3,600 � 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 r i p r ap C.Y L 3 40 52 fiiter C.Y 1.3 40 52 � 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 150 24 3,600 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 r i p r ap C.Y 1.3 40 52 � filter C.Y 1.3 40 52 ROS161 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 � 12" RCP L.F 150 24 3,600 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 - Sub-total 117,800 � Mobilization 15% 11,700 Totat Construction 135, 500 � Cont ingenc i es 2096 23,600 Engineering 20% 23,600 � Total Cost* S 182,700 � * The sizes, quantities and costs must be considered preliminary. The actual � size, quantity and cost may vary at finai design. 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � � � T A B L E 32 RECOMMENDED DRAINAG� IMPROVEMENTS MINEA DISTRICT* , SUBWATERSHED 1MPROYEMENT UNIT UAQ NTITY UNIT COST TOTAL MIN162 � 12° RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 350 24 8,400 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 � MIN164 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP l.F 150 24 3,600 � M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 MIN165 33" RCP L:F 400 66 26,400 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 � 36" RCP L.F 600 72 43,200 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 36" RCP FES EA 1 1J00 1,700 � r i pr ap C.Y 6.6 40 264 f i I t e r C.Y 6.6 40 264 21" RCP L.F 400 42 16,800 � M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 33" RCP L.F 400 66 26,400 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 42" RCP L.F 400 84 33,600 � M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 42" RCP FES EA 1 2000 2,000 r i pr ap C.Y 8.2 40 328 f i I t e r C.Y 8.2 40 328 � MIN171 21" RCP L.F 600 42 25,200 M.H/C.B EA 4 3000 12,000 � 18" RCP L.F 600 36 21,600 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 24" RCP L.f 600 48 28,800 � M.H/C.B EA 3 3000 9,Oa0 27" RCP L.F 400 54 21,500 M.H/C.8 EA 2 3000 6,000 21" RCP L.F 700 42 29,400 � M.H/C.B EA 3 3000 9,000 30" RCP L.F 200 60 12,000 M.H/C.B EA 1 3400 3,000 � � '� * The sizes, quantities and costs must be considered preliminary. The actual � size, quantity and cost may vary at final design. 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � � � T A B L E 32* (continued) � SUBWATERSHED II�PROVEMENT UNIT UAQ NTITY UNIT COST TOTAL MIN172 � 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 100 24 2,400 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � Sub-total 390, 100 Mobilization 15% 58,500 Total Construction 448,600 � Contingencies 20% 18,000 Engineering 20% 18,000 � Total Cost* $ 604,600 � � � � � � � � � � * The sizes, quantities and costs must be considered�preliminary. The actuai � size, quantity and cost may vary at final design. 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS 1 ' � T A B L E 33 RECOMMENDED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS MURMANE DISTRICT%" ' SUBWATERSNED IMPROVEMENT UNIT UANTITY UNIT COST T07AL ' MUR167 42" RCP L.f 1750 84 147,000 N.HIC.B EA 10 3000 30,000 ' 48" RCP L.F 1000 96 96,000 M.H/C.B EA 5 3000 15,000 54" RCP L.f 700 iQ8 75,6A0 M.H/C.B EA 3 3000 9,000 ' 54" RCP FES EA 1 2600 2,600 riprap C.Y 11.9 40 476 tilter C.Y 11.9 40 476 ' 36" RCP L F 600 72 43,200 M.H/C.8 EA 3 3000 9,000 36" RCP FES EA 1 1100 1, 700 r i prap C.Y 6.6 40 264 ' i i I t e r C.Y 6.6 40 264 15" RCP FES EA 1 700 700 15" RCP l.F 200 30 6,000 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � MUR170 24" RCP L.F 600 48 28,800 M.H/C.B EA 3 3000 9,004 � 30" RCP L.F 700 60 42,OQO M.H/C.8 EA 3 3000 9,000 30" RCP FES EA 1 1450 i,450 r i prap C.Y 5.0 40 200 � f i I t e r C.Y 5.0 40 200 ' Sub-total 530,900 Mobilization 15% 79,600 Total Construction 610,500 � Contingencies 20% 106,200 Engineering 20% 106,200 � Total Cost* Z 822,900 ' � ' * The sizes, quantities and costs must be cansidered preliminary. The actual � size, quantity and cost may vary at final design. 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � ' ' T A B L E 34 RECOMMENDED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT* � SUBWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT UNIT UAQ NTITY UNIT COST TOTAL ' IND169A 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 10 24 240 M.H/C.B EA 1 300Q 3,000 � 27" RCP L.F 490 54 26,460 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 IND1698 � 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.f 30 24 720 , IND169C 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 30 2/ 720 ' IND192 21" RCP L.F 210 42 8,820 21" RCP FES EA 1 1000 1,000 r i prap C.Y 2.8 d0 112 � filter C.Y 2.8 40 112 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 10 24 240 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 , IND193 21" RCP L.F 500 42 21,000 ' M.H/C.8 EA 2 3000 6,000 27" RCP L.f 500 54 27,000 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 27" RCP FES EA 1 1300 1,300 ' r i pr ap C.Y 4.1 40 164 f i I t er C.Y d. 1 40 164 12" RCP fES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 10 24 240 � M.H/C.8 EA 1 3000 3,000 IND194 ' 33" RCP L.F 1120 66 73,920 M.H/C.B EA 5 3000 15,000 33" RCP fES EA 1 1600 1,600 riprap C.Y 5.8 40 232 � filter C.Y 5.8 40 232 2d" RCP FES EA 1 1150 1, 150 24° RCP L.f 10 48 480 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 ' IN0195A 27" RCP L.F 700 54 37,800 ' M:H/C.B EA 3 3000 9,000 * The sizes, quantities and costs must be considered preliminary. The actual ' size, quantity and cost may vary at final design. 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS ' , ' T A B L E 34* (continued) � SUBWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT UNIT UAQ NTITY UNIT COST TOTAL IND195A (continued) � 27" RCP FES EA i 1300 1,300 r i pr ap C.Y 4.1 40 164 f i l t e r C.Y 4.1 40 164 21" RCP fES EA 1 1000 1,000 � 21" RCP L.F 10 42 420 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,OUO 24" RCP L.f 90 48 4,320 ' IND196 27" RCP L.f 825 5d 44,550 M.HIC.B EA 4 3000 12,000 36" RCP L.F 825 72 59,400 ' M.H/C.B EA 3 3000 9,000 36" RCP FES EA 1 1700 1, 700 r i prap C.Y 6.6 40 264 , t i l t e r C.Y 6.6 40 264 12" RCP fES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 20 24 480 � Sub-total 393,300 Mob i l i za t i on 1596 59;000 Total Construction 452,300 , Contingencies 20% 78,700 Engineering 20% 78,700 , Total Cost* $ 609,700 � ' � � � � " The sizes, quantities and costs must be considered preliminary. The actual � size, quantity and cost may vary at final design. 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � ' T A B L E 35 � RECOMMENDED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ERICKSON PARK DISTRICT* � SUBWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT UNIT UANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL ERN174 � 12" RCP fES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 10 24 240 M.H/C.B EA i 3000 3,000 15" RCP L.F 390 30 11,700 ' M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 ERN175 21" RCP L F 800 42 33,600 , M.H/C.B EA 4 3000 12,000 27" RCP L F 600 54 32,400 �1.H/C.8 EA 3 3000 9,000 � ERN1)6 30" RCP L F 400 60 24,000 M.H/C.8 EA 2 3000 6,000 ' . 42" RCP L.F 300 84 25,200 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 ERN177 � 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP l.f 10 24 240 M.H/C.B EA i 3A00 3,000 � 18" RCP L.F 140 36 5,040 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 ERN190 � 42" RCP L F 400 84 33,600 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 42" RCP FES EA 1 2000 2,000 r i prap C.Y 8.2 40 328 � filter C.Y 8.2 40 328 27" RCP L,F 1000 54 54,000 M.H/C.B EA 4 3000 12,000 27" RCP FES EA 1 1300 1,300 � r i prap C.Y 4.1 d0 164 filter C.Y 4.1 40 164 � Sub-totai 285,500 Mobilizatian 15% 42,800 Total Construction 328,3d0 � Contingencies 20% 57,100 Engineering 20% 57,100 � Totai Cost* ; 442,500 � ` The sizes, quantities and custs must he considered preliminary. The actual � size, quantity and cost may vary at final design. 2319132/ROSEDF.WP/PLS � , T A B L E 36 ' RECOMMENDED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS HAWKINS POND DISTRICT* , SUBWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT UNIT UAQ NTITY UNtT COST TOTAL , HAW184A 12" RCP fES EA i 600 600 , 12" RCP L.F. 200 24 4,&00 M.H/C.B EA 8 3000 24,000 21" RCP L.F. 1600 42 67,200 21" RCP FES EA 1 1000 i,000 , HAW1848 15" RCP FES EA 1 700 700 � 15" RCP L.F 1200 30 36,000 M.N/C.B EA 5 3000 15,000 ' HAW185A 12" RCP FES EA 1 b00 600 12" RCP L.F 10 24 240 M.NJC.8 EA 1 3000 3,000 � HAW1856 27" RCP fES EA 1 1300 i,300 , 27" RCP L.F 100 54 5,400 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 HAW1868 � 21" RCP FES EA 1 1000 1,000 21" RCP L.F 300 42 12,fi00 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 21" RCP FES EA 1 1000 1,000 � r i prap C.Y 2.8 40 112 filter C.Y 2.8 40 112 Sub-totai 180,700 ' Mobilization 15% 27,100 Total Construction 207,800 � Contingencies 20% 36,140 Engineering 20% 36,100 ' Total Cost* t 280,000 � � ' The sizes, quantities and costs must be considered preliminary. The actual � si2e, quantity and cast may vary at final design. 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � � T A B L E 37 ' RECOMMENDED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS VERMILLION RIVER DISTRICT* ' SUBWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT UNIT UAQ NTITY UNIT COST TOTAL VER205 � 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L F 300 24 7,200 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 I VER207 21" RCP l.F ' 600 42 25,200 M.H/C.B EA 3 3000 9,000 24" RCP L.F 600 48 28,800 � M.H/C.B EA 3 3000 9,000 27" RCP L.f 500 54 27,000 M.H/C.B EA 3 3000 9,000 ' YER209 33" RCP L.F 1000 66 66,000 hl.H/C.B EA 4 3000 12,000 � 33" RCP FES EA 1 1600 1,600 r i p r ap C.Y 3.5 40 140 fi lter C.Y 3.5 d0 140 24" RCP L.F 530 48 25,440 � M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 24" RCP FES EA 1 1150 1, 150 riprap C.Y 3.5 40 140 � filter C.Y 3.5 d0 140 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 10 24 240 21" RCP L.F 570 42 23,940 � M.H/C.B EA 3 3000 900 VER210A 18" RCP FES EA 1 850 850 � 18" RCP L.F 100 36 3,600 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � VER211 21" RCP L.F 250 42 14,500 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 30" RCP L.F 250 60 15,000 � VER212 36" RCP L.F 500 12 36,000 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � 36" RCP FES EA 1 1700 1,700 � � " The sizes, quantities and costs must be considered preliminary. The actual ' size, quantity and cost may vary at final design. 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � , T A B L E 37* (continued) � � SUBWATERSHED IMPROVEINENT UNIT UAQ NTITY UNIT COST TOTAL VER212 (continued) r i prap C.Y. 6.6 40 264 � f i i t e r C.Y 6.6 40 264 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L F 10 24 240 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � 27" RCP L F 390 54 21,O60 M.H/C.8 EA i 3000 3,000 VER213 � 12" RCP fES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 10 24 240 M.H/C.B EA i 3000 3,000 ' 24" RCP L.F 310 48 14,880 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 VER214 � 24" RCP L.f 650 48 31,200 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 24" RCP FES EA 1 1150 1, 150 r i prap C.Y 3.5 40 140 � filter C.Y 3.5 40 140 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L.F 10 24 240 � M.H/C.B EA i 3000 3,000 24" RCP L.F 190 d8 9, 120 Sub-total 641,600 � Mobilization 1596 66,200 Tatal Canatruction 507,800 � Contingencies 20% 88,300 Engineering 20% 88,300 Total Cost* $ 684,400 � � � � ' * The sizes, quantities and costs must be considered preliminary. The actual ' size, quantity and cost may vary at final design. 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS � � T A B L E 38 � RECOMMENDED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WACHTER POND DISTRICT* � SUBWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT UNIT UAQ NTITY UNIT COST TOTAL , WAC188B 18""RCP L.F 300 36 10,800 M.H/C.8 EA 2 3000 6,000 � 21" RCP L.F 300 42 12,600 M.H/C.B EA 2 3000 6,000 27" RCP L.F 500 54 27,000 M.H/C.B EA 3 3000 9,000 � WAC188C 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 ' 12" RCP L.F 10 24 240 M.H/C.B EA 1 3U00 3,000 18" RCP L.F 720 36 25,920 M.H/C.B EA 3 3000 9,000 � WAC188D 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 12" RCP L F 20 24 480 � M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 WAC199 27" RCP L F 550 54 29,70Q � 48" RCP L.F 550 96 52,800 M.H/C.B EA 5 3000 15,000 � WAC202 21" RCP L.F 380 42 15,960 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 21" RCP FES EA 1 1000 1,000 � riprap C.Y 2.8 40 112 filter C.Y 2.8 40 112 12" RCP L.f 200 24 4,800 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 � i5" RCP L.F 200 30 6,400 15" RCP FES EA 1 700 700 riprap C.Y 1.7 40 68 , filter C.Y 1.7 40 68 WAC204 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 , 12" RCP L.F 10 24 240 21" RCP L.F 600 42 25,200 M.H/C.B EA 4 3000 12,000 ' WAC215 d8" RCP L F 300 96 28,800 48" RCP FES EA 1 2300 2,300 � r i p r ap C.Y 10,1 40 A04 * The sizes, quantities and costs must be cunsidered preliminary. The actuat � size, quantity and cost may vary at iinal design. 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS , � T A B L E 38 (continued) � SUBWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT UNIT UAQ NTITY UNIT COST TOTAL � WAC215 (continued) f i l t e r C.Y 10. 1 40 404 12" RCP FES EA 1 600 600 � 12" RCP L.F 10 24 2A0 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 15" RCP L.F 90 30 2, 700 M.H/C.B EA 1 3000 3,000 , Sub-total 326,000 Mobilization 15% 48,900 � Totai Construction 374,900 Contingencies 20% 65,200 � Engineering 20% 65,200 Total Cost* $ 505,300 � � � � . � � � � � � * The sizes, quantities and costs must be considered preliminary. The aetual ' size, quantity and cost may vary at final design. 2319132/ROSEDP.WP/PLS ,