Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Preliminary Design Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and
DETAIL REPORT
Project type: Project Name: COR P1 Replacement Alt 1 Existing PS Location Rev 3 Estimator: Nick Cavalleri/RDD Job Size: Project Number: W8Y06200 Revision/Date: 3 / Mar 1, 2022 Duration: Design Stage: Feasibility Estimate Class: 4
Area Facility Work Pkg WorkActiv Unit Price Description Takeoff Quantity Labor Cost/Unit Equip Cost/Unit Material Cost/Unit Sub Cost/Unit Other Cost/Unit Direct Total Cost/Unit Direct Total Grand Total Price Grand Total with Markups
01 Alt 1: Existing PS1 Location
001 Mobilization/Demobilization
01.0 General Requirements
01.00.000 Mobilization and Demobilization
01.01.05.00 General Conditions, Other
Mobilization and Demobilization Allowance 1.00 LS 0.00 /LS - 0.00 /LS - 518,000.00 /LS 518,000.00 /LS 518,000 518,000.00 /LS 518,000
01.01.05.00 General Conditions, Other 1.00 LS /LS /LS /LS /LS 518,000.00 /LS 518,000.00 /LS 518,000 518,000.00 /LS 518,000
01.00.000 Mobilization and Demobilization 1.00 LS /LS /LS /LS /LS 518,000.00 /LS 518,000.00 /LS 518,000 518,000.00 /LS 518,000
01.0 General Requirements 1.00 LS /LS /LS /LS /LS 518,000.00 /LS 518,000.00 /LS 518,000 518,000.00 /LS 518,000 001 Mobilization/Demobilization 1.00 LS /LS /LS /LS /LS 518,000.00 /LS 518,000.00 /LS 518,000 518,000.00 /LS 518,000 002 Bonding/Insurance
01.0 General Requirements
01.00.002 Bonds and Insurances
01.01.05.00 General Conditions, Other
Bonds and Insurances 1.00 LS 0.00 /LS - 0.00 /LS - 386,800.00 /LS 386,800.00 /LS 386,800 386,800.00 /LS 386,800
01.01.05.00 General Conditions, Other 1.00 LS /LS /LS /LS /LS 386,800.00 /LS 386,800.00 /LS 386,800 386,800.00 /LS 386,800
01.00.002 Bonds and Insurances 1.00 LS /LS /LS /LS /LS 386,800.00 /LS 386,800.00 /LS 386,800 386,800.00 /LS 386,800
01.0 General Requirements 1.00 LS /LS /LS /LS /LS 386,800.00 /LS 386,800.00 /LS 386,800 386,800.00 /LS 386,800 002 Bonding/Insurance 1.00 LS /LS /LS /LS /LS 386,800.00 /LS 386,800.00 /LS 386,800 386,800.00 /LS 386,800 003 Site Clearing/Grubbing
31.0 Earthwork
31.15.000 Pumping Plant Site Clearing and Grubbing
31.15.01.00 Site Preparation, Clearing and Grubbing
Clear and Gub Site 15,000.00 SF 0.72 /SF 0.17 /SF 0.10 /SF - - 0.99 /SF 14,851 1.39 /SF 20,812 Haul and Disposal 6.00 ld 398.60 /ld 461.24 /ld 450.00 /ld - - 1,309.85 /ld 7,859 1,862.17 /ld 11,173 Load Spoils for Disposal 1.00 ls 990.35 /ls 353.95 /ls - - 1,344.30 /ls 1,344 1,873.06 /ls 1,873 Erosion Controls Allowance 1.00 ls - 5,000.00 /ls - 5,000.00 /ls 5,000 6,966.62 /ls 6,967
31.15.01.00 Site Preparation, Clearing and Grubbing 15,000.00 SF 0.95 /SF 0.38 /SF 0.28 /SF 0.33 /SF /SF 1.94 /SF 29,054 2.72 /SF 40,825
31.15.000 Pumping Plant Site Clearing and Grubbing 1.00 LS 14,198.98 /LS 5,698.73 /LS 4,156.31 /LS 5,000.00 /LS /LS 29,054.02 /LS 29,054 40,824.61 /LS 40,825
31.0 Earthwork 1.00 LS 14,198.98 /LS 5,698.73 /LS 4,156.31 /LS 5,000.00 /LS /LS 29,054.02 /LS 29,054 40,824.61 /LS 40,825 003 Site Clearing/Grubbing 1.00 LS 14,198.98 /LS 5,698.73 /LS 4,156.31 /LS 5,000.00 /LS /LS 29,054.02 /LS 29,054 40,824.61 /LS 40,825 004 Site Improvements
32.0 Exterior Improvements
31.30.000 Permanent Sheet Pile Training Walls
31.16.01.00 Earthworks, Sheeting and Shoring
Unload and Inventory Sheet Piles 469.40 ton 18.60 /ton 12.52 /ton - - 31.12 /ton 14,607 43.36 /ton 20,352 Drive Sheet Pile 469.40 TON 338.25 /TON 289.99 /TON - - 628.24 /TON 294,895 875.34 /TON 410,885 On Site material handling from storage area to Point of Use. 469.40 ton 9.64 /ton 9.74 /ton - - 19.38 /ton 9,098 27.00 /ton 12,676 Cutoff Sheet Piles, Freash Head 450.00 lf 26.85 /lf 1.53 /lf - - 28.39 /lf 12,775 39.55 /lf 17,799 Misc. Items Allowance, spacers, bolts, & nuts 1.00 ls 130,000.00 /ls - - 130,000.00 /ls 130,000 191,857.35 /ls 191,857 Waler Beams double C15 x 33.9 450.00 lf 15.98 /lf 16.73 /lf 50.00 /lf - - 82.71 /lf 37,218 119.36 /lf 53,712 Secure Sheet Pile During and Remove After Cuttoff 6.80 ton 73.53 /ton 63.04 /ton - - 136.57 /ton 929 190.29 /ton 1,294 Purchase Sheet Piles, AZ26-700 469.40 ton - - - 2,000.00 /ton 2,000.00 /ton 938,800 2,786.65 /ton 1,308,054 Sheet piling, steel, tie rod, 1-3/4" excludes wales 5.33 ton 1,237.95 /ton 294.96 /ton 2,100.00 /ton - - 3,632.91 /ton 19,363 5,235.08 /ton 27,903
31.16.01.00 Earthworks, Sheeting and Shoring 469.40 TON 422.67 /TON 334.02 /TON 348.73 /TON /TON 2,000.00 /TON 3,105.42 /TON 1,457,684 4,355.63 /TON 2,044,533
31.30.000 Permanent Sheet Pile Training Walls 469.40 TON 422.67 /TON 334.02 /TON 348.73 /TON /TON 2,000.00 /TON 3,105.42 /TON 1,457,684 4,355.63 /TON 2,044,533
32.00.000 Site Improvements
32.40.04.00 Site Improvements, Paving, Gravel Surfacing Site Surfacing 36,500.00 SF 0.00 /SF - 0.00 /SF 3.00 /SF - 3.00 /SF 109,500 4.18 /SF 152,569
32.40.04.00 Site Improvements, Paving, Gravel Surfacing 36,500.00 SF /SF /SF /SF 3.00 /SF /SF 3.00 /SF 109,500 4.18 /SF 152,569
32.50.02.00 Site Improvements, Guard Rails
Vehicle guide rails, corrugated steel, galvanized steel posts, steel posts 6'-3" O.C, 6" x 8" posts
450.00 LF 5.59 /LF 1.28 /LF 15.00 /LF - - 21.87 /LF 9,843 31.71 /LF 14,271 Vehicle guide rails, corrugated steel, galvanized steel posts, install end section, wrap-around, corrugated steel
4.00 ea 17.80 /ea 3.46 /ea 60.00 /ea - - 81.26 /ea 325 118.17 /ea 473
32.50.02.00 Site Improvements, Guard Rails 450.00 LF 5.75 /LF 1.31 /LF 15.53 /LF /LF /LF 22.59 /LF 10,168 32.76 /LF 14,744
32.00.000 Site Improvements 1.00 LS 2,586.19 /LS 591.52 /LS 6,990.00 /LS 109,500.00 /LS /LS 119,667.71 /LS 119,668 167,312.76 /LS 167,313
32.0 Exterior Improvements 1.00 LS 200,988.59 /LS 157,380.03 /LS 170,683.00 /LS 109,500.00 /LS 938,800.00 /LS 1,577,351.62 /LS 1,577,352 2,211,845.88 /LS 2,211,846 004 Site Improvements 1.00 LS 200,988.59 /LS 157,380.03 /LS 170,683.00 /LS 109,500.00 /LS 938,800.00 /LS 1,577,351.62 /LS 1,577,352 2,211,845.88 /LS 2,211,846 005 Intake and Pumping Plant
03.0 Concrete Work
03.00.000 Electrical Room Concrete Slab 12" Thick Includes Thickened Perimeter
03.10.05.12 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Slabs on Grade, 12" thick C.I.P. concrete forms, slab on grade, edge, wood, over 12", 4 use, includes erecting, bracing, stripping and cleaning
51.00 sfca 7.57 /sfca - 1.43 /sfca - - 9.00 /sfca 459 14.01 /sfca 715 Reinforcing Steel, in place, slab on grade, #3 to #7, A615, grade 60, incl labor for accessories, excl material for accessories
1.70 ton 1,200.62 /ton - 1,500.00 /ton - - 2,700.62 /ton 4,591 4,291.68 /ton 7,296 Reinforcing in place, unloading & sorting, add to above - slabs 1.70 ton 41.72 /ton 6.69 /ton - - - 48.41 /ton 82 74.72 /ton 127 Struct concrete,ready mix,normal wt,4500 psi,includes local aggregate,sand,portland cement and water,delivered,excludes all additives and treatments
19.00 cy - - 133.00 /cy - - 133.00 /cy 2,527 216.24 /cy 4,108 Structural concrete, placing, slab on grade, pumped, over 6" thick, includes strike off & consolidation, excludes material
18.00 CY 21.18 /CY 5.71 /CY - - - 26.89 /CY 484 41.50 /CY 747 Cfnsh,flrs,for spcf rndm accs flrs aci clss 1,2,3 and 4,achv a cmps ovrl flr fltn&lvln val f35/25,bull flt,mchn flt&stl trwl (wlk-bhn),excl plcn,strkn
338.00 sf 0.88 /sf 0.03 /sf - - - 0.91 /sf 307 1.40 /sf 474 Curing, sprayed membrane curing compound 3.38 csf 9.74 /csf - 12.20 /csf - - 21.94 /csf 74 34.87 /csf 118 Fine grading, fine grade for slab on grade, machine 22.84 sy 1.02 /sy 0.70 /sy - - - 1.72 /sy 39 2.65 /sy 61
03.10.05.12 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Slabs on Grade, 12" thick 18.00 CY 179.65 /CY 7.75 /CY 288.40 /CY /CY /CY 475.80 /CY 8,564 758.10 /CY 13,646
03.00.000 Electrical Room Concrete Slab 12" Thick Includes Thickened Perimeter
18.00 CY 179.65 /CY 7.75 /CY 288.40 /CY /CY /CY 475.80 /CY 8,564 758.10 /CY 13,646
03.00.004 Pump Station Electrical Room Equipment Pads
03.10.13.06 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Equipment Pads, 6" thick Concrete surface treatment, bonding agent, epoxy resin, 80 S.F. per gallon, 4 gallon case, includes material only
1.50 gal - - 62.50 /gal - - 62.50 /gal 94 101.64 /gal 152 C.I.P. concrete forms, slab on grade, edge, wood, to 6" high, 4 use, includes erecting, bracing, stripping and cleaning
49.00 lf 5.54 /lf - 0.45 /lf - - 5.99 /lf 294 9.29 /lf 455 Reinforcing Steel, in place, slab on grade, #3 to #7, A615, grade 60, incl labor for accessories, excl material for accessories
0.25 ton 1,200.64 /ton - 1,500.00 /ton - - 2,700.64 /ton 675 4,291.72 /ton 1,073 Reinforcing in place, unloading & sorting, add to above - slabs 0.25 ton 41.70 /ton 6.68 /ton - - - 48.40 /ton 12 74.68 /ton 19 Struct concrete,ready mix,normal wt,4500 psi,includes local aggregate,sand,portland cement and water,delivered,excludes all additives and treatments
3.00 cy - - 133.00 /cy - - 133.00 /cy 399 216.24 /cy 649 COR P1 Replacement Alt 1 Site Rev 3 3/1/2022 4:36 PM
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Preliminary Design Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and
DETAIL REPORT
Project type: Project Name: COR P1 Replacement Alt 1 Existing PS Location Rev 3 Estimator: Nick Cavalleri/RDD Job Size: Project Number: W8Y06200 Revision/Date: 3 / Mar 1, 2022 Duration: Design Stage: Feasibility Estimate Class: 4
Area Facility Work Pkg WorkActiv Unit Price Description Takeoff Quantity Labor Cost/Unit Equip Cost/Unit Material Cost/Unit Sub Cost/Unit Other Cost/Unit Direct Total Cost/Unit Direct Total Grand Total Price Grand Total with Markups
03.10.13.06 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Equipment Pads, 6" thick Structural concrete, placing, slab on grade, pumped, over 6" thick, includes strike off & consolidation, excludes material
2.50 CY 21.18 /CY 5.71 /CY - - - 26.89 /CY 67 41.51 /CY 104 Cfnsh,flrs,for spcf rndm accs flrs aci clss 1,2,3 and 4,achv a cmps ovrl flr fltn&lvln val f35/25,bull flt,mchn flt&stl trwl (wlk-bhn),excl plcn,strkn
120.00 sf 0.88 /sf 0.03 /sf - - - 0.91 /sf 109 1.40 /sf 168 Curing, sprayed membrane curing compound 1.20 csf 9.74 /csf - 12.20 /csf - - 21.94 /csf 26 34.87 /csf 42
03.10.13.06 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Equipment Pads, 6" thick 2.50 CY 301.10 /CY 7.69 /CY 361.78 /CY /CY /CY 670.57 /CY 1,676 1,064.76 /CY 2,662
03.00.004 Pump Station Electrical Room Equipment Pads 2.50 CY 301.10 /CY 7.69 /CY 361.78 /CY /CY /CY 670.57 /CY 1,676 1,064.76 /CY 2,662
03.00.006 Pump Station HVAC Pad
03.10.05.06 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Slabs on Grade, 6" thick C.I.P. concrete forms, slab on grade, edge, wood, to 6" high, 4 use, includes erecting, bracing, stripping and cleaning
32.00 lf 4.25 /lf - 0.45 /lf - - 4.70 /lf 150 7.28 /lf 233 Reinforcing Steel, in place, slab on grade, #3 to #7, A615, grade 60, incl labor for accessories, excl material for accessories
0.15 ton 1,200.60 /ton - 1,500.00 /ton - - 2,700.60 /ton 405 4,291.73 /ton 644 Reinforcing in place, unloading & sorting, add to above - slabs 0.15 ton 41.70 /ton 6.67 /ton - - - 48.40 /ton 7 74.53 /ton 11 Struct concrete,ready mix,normal wt,4500 psi,includes local aggregate,sand,portland cement and water,delivered,excludes all additives and treatments
1.50 cy - - 133.00 /cy - - 133.00 /cy 200 216.25 /cy 324 Structural concrete, placing, slab on grade, pumped, over 6" thick, includes strike off & consolidation, excludes material
1.25 CY 21.18 /CY 5.71 /CY - - - 26.89 /CY 34 41.49 /CY 52 Cfnsh,flrs,for spcf rndm accs flrs aci clss 1,2,3 and 4,achv a cmps ovrl flr fltn&lvln val f35/25,bull flt,mchn flt&stl trwl (wlk-bhn),excl plcn,strkn
64.00 sf 0.88 /sf 0.03 /sf - - - 0.91 /sf 58 1.40 /sf 90 Curing, sprayed membrane curing compound 0.64 csf 9.75 /csf - 12.20 /csf - - 21.95 /csf 14 34.91 /csf 22 Fine grading, fine grade for slab on grade, machine 7.11 sy 1.02 /sy 0.70 /sy - - - 1.72 /sy 12 2.65 /sy 19
03.10.05.06 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Slabs on Grade, 6" thick 1.25 CY 334.87 /CY 11.90 /CY 357.37 /CY /CY /CY 704.14 /CY 880 1,116.18 /CY 1,395
03.00.006 Pump Station HVAC Pad 1.25 CY 334.87 /CY 11.90 /CY 357.37 /CY /CY /CY 704.14 /CY 880 1,116.18 /CY 1,395
03.00.008 Pump Station Switchgear Pad
03.10.05.12 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Slabs on Grade, 12" thick C.I.P. concrete forms, slab on grade, edge, wood, over 12", 4 use, includes erecting, bracing, stripping and cleaning
86.00 sfca 7.57 /sfca - 1.43 /sfca - - 9.00 /sfca 774 14.01 /sfca 1,205 Reinforcing Steel, in place, slab on grade, #3 to #7, A615, grade 60, incl labor for accessories, excl material for accessories
1.05 ton 1,200.63 /ton - 1,500.00 /ton - - 2,700.63 /ton 2,836 4,291.70 /ton 4,506 Reinforcing in place, unloading & sorting, add to above - slabs 1.05 ton 41.71 /ton 6.70 /ton - - - 48.41 /ton 51 74.70 /ton 78 Struct concrete,ready mix,normal wt,4500 psi,includes local aggregate,sand,portland cement and water,delivered,excludes all additives and treatments
12.50 cy - - 133.00 /cy - - 133.00 /cy 1,663 216.24 /cy 2,703 Structural concrete, placing, slab on grade, pumped, over 6" thick, includes strike off & consolidation, excludes material
12.00 CY 21.18 /CY 5.71 /CY - - - 26.89 /CY 323 41.50 /CY 498 Cfnsh,flrs,for spcf rndm accs flrs aci clss 1,2,3 and 4,achv a cmps ovrl flr fltn&lvln val f35/25,bull flt,mchn flt&stl trwl (wlk-bhn),excl plcn,strkn
306.00 sf 0.88 /sf 0.03 /sf - - - 0.91 /sf 278 1.40 /sf 429 Curing, sprayed membrane curing compound 3.06 csf 9.75 /csf - 12.20 /csf - - 21.94 /csf 67 34.88 /csf 107 Fine grading, fine grade for slab on grade, machine 34.00 sy 1.02 /sy 0.70 /sy - - - 1.72 /sy 58 2.65 /sy 90
03.10.05.12 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Slabs on Grade, 12" thick 12.00 CY 212.02 /CY 8.98 /CY 283.15 /CY /CY /CY 504.15 /CY 6,050 801.43 /CY 9,617
03.00.008 Pump Station Switchgear Pad 12.00 CY 212.02 /CY 8.98 /CY 283.15 /CY /CY /CY 504.15 /CY 6,050 801.43 /CY 9,617
03.0 Concrete Work 33.75 CY 205.91 /CY 8.33 /CY 294.52 /CY /CY /CY 508.76 /CY 17,171 809.48 /CY 27,320
04.0 Masonry
04.00.000 Pumping Station Exterior CMU Walls
04.00.02.08 Masonry Concrete Masonry Units, 8"
Grout, door frames, 3' x 7' opening, 2.5 C.F. per opening 2.00 opng 34.16 /opng 2.19 /opng 13.85 /opng - - 50.19 /opng 100 78.61 /opng 157 Grout, door frames, 6' x 7' opening, 3.5 C.F. per opening 1.00 opng 45.54 /opng 2.92 /opng 19.40 /opng - - 67.86 /opng 68 106.32 /opng 106 Grout, for bond beams, lintels and concrete masonry unit (CMU) cores, C476, includes material only
1,715.88 cf 5.86 /cf 0.37 /cf 5.55 /cf - - 11.78 /cf 20,213 18.64 /cf 31,981 Reinforcing, steel bars A615, placed horizontal, average #4 bar 1,647.46 lb 1.26 /lb - 0.40 /lb - - 1.66 /lb 2,731 2.59 /lb 4,269 Masonry reinforcing bars, #3 and #4 reinforcing steel bars, placed vertically, ASTM A615
1,715.88 lb 1.62 /lb - 0.62 /lb - - 2.24 /lb 3,838 3.50 /lb 6,010 Masonry reinforcing bars, truss type steel joint reinforcing, mill standard galvanized, 12" wide
54.11 clf 28.29 /clf - 29.50 /clf - - 57.79 /clf 3,127 91.62 /clf 4,958 Concrete block, decorative, split face or scored split face, 2000 psi, 8" x 8" x 16", excludes scaffolding, grout and reinforcing 6,865.00 SF 8.74 /SF - 5.60 /SF - - 14.34 /SF 98,421 22.59 /SF 155,068 Angle framing, structural steel, 2"x2"x1/4", field fabricated, incl cutting & welding
34.00 lf 22.81 /lf 1.24 /lf 2.52 /lf - - 26.57 /lf 903 41.21 /lf 1,401 Silicone water repellants, sprayed on CMU, 2 coat 13,730.00 sf 0.19 /sf - 0.81 /sf - - 1.00 /sf 13,691 1.61 /sf 22,047 Reglet, zinc and copper alloy, 20 ounce 362.00 lf 2.53 /lf - 2.87 /lf - - 5.40 /lf 1,956 8.58 /lf 3,105 Reglet, counter flashing for zinc and copper alloy, 20 ounce, 12" wide
362.00 lf 4.39 /lf - 5.25 /lf - - 9.64 /lf 3,491 15.32 /lf 5,545
04.00.02.08 Masonry Concrete Masonry Units, 8" 6,865.00 SF 12.00 /SF 0.10 /SF 9.54 /SF /SF /SF 21.64 /SF 148,540 34.18 /SF 234,647
04.00.000 Pumping Station Exterior CMU Walls 6,865.00 SF 12.00 /SF 0.10 /SF 9.54 /SF /SF /SF 21.64 /SF 148,540 34.18 /SF 234,647
04.00.002 Pumping Station Interior CMU Walls
04.00.02.08 Masonry Concrete Masonry Units, 8"
Grout, door frames, 3' x 7' opening, 2.5 C.F. per opening 1.00 opng 34.16 /opng 2.19 /opng 13.85 /opng - - 50.20 /opng 50 78.62 /opng 79 Reinforcing, steel bars A615, placed horizontal, average #4 bar 169.80 lb 1.26 /lb - 0.40 /lb - - 1.66 /lb 281 2.59 /lb 440 Masonry reinforcing bars, #3 and #4 reinforcing steel bars, placed vertically, ASTM A615
124.85 lb 1.62 /lb - 0.62 /lb - - 2.24 /lb 279 3.50 /lb 437 Concrt block,high strngt,hollow,3500 psi,8"8"16",includs mortar and horzntl joint rnfrcng every other course,excluds scffldn,grout and verticl rnfrcng
500.00 SF 7.28 /SF - 4.16 /SF - - 11.44 /SF 5,720 18.00 /SF 9,000 Angle framing, structural steel, 2"x2"x1/4", field fabricated, incl cutting & welding
8.00 lf 22.81 /lf 1.24 /lf 2.52 /lf - - 26.57 /lf 213 41.21 /lf 330 Silicone water repellants, sprayed on CMU, 1 coat 1,000.00 sf 0.14 /sf - 0.40 /sf - - 0.54 /sf 540 0.87 /sf 867
04.00.02.08 Masonry Concrete Masonry Units, 8" 500.00 SF 8.83 /SF 0.02 /SF 5.32 /SF /SF /SF 14.17 /SF 7,084 22.30 /SF 11,152
04.00.002 Pumping Station Interior CMU Walls 500.00 SF 8.83 /SF 0.02 /SF 5.32 /SF /SF /SF 14.17 /SF 7,084 22.30 /SF 11,152
04.0 Masonry 7,365.00 SF 11.78 /SF 0.10 /SF 9.25 /SF /SF /SF 21.13 /SF 155,624 33.37 /SF 245,799
05.0 Metals
05.00.004 Fish Screen, Furnish and Install Screen Panels
05.00.99.00 Metals, Other
SST Fish Screens w/ Frames and Reinforcement 10.00 EA 605.27 /EA 167.10 /EA 17,700.00 /EA - - 18,472.37 /EA 184,724 27,198.28 /EA 271,983 SST Spare Fish Screens w/ Frames and Reinforcement
(Purchase only)
1.00 ea 17,700.00 /ea - - 17,700.00 /ea 17,700 26,122.11 /ea 26,122 Offload of equipment to be stored onsite, including spare screens 1.00 ls 503.02 /ls 491.12 /ls - - 994.14 /ls 994 1,385.16 /ls 1,385 Porosity Plates Allowance 10.00 EA 605.27 /EA 167.10 /EA 17,700.00 /EA - - 18,472.37 /EA 184,724 27,198.28 /EA 271,983 COR P1 Replacement Alt 1 Site Rev 3 3/1/2022 4:36 PM
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Preliminary Design Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and
DETAIL REPORT
Project type: Project Name: COR P1 Replacement Alt 1 Existing PS Location Rev 3 Estimator: Nick Cavalleri/RDD Job Size: Project Number: W8Y06200 Revision/Date: 3 / Mar 1, 2022 Duration: Design Stage: Feasibility Estimate Class: 4
Area Facility Work Pkg WorkActiv Unit Price Description Takeoff Quantity Labor Cost/Unit Equip Cost/Unit Material Cost/Unit Sub Cost/Unit Other Cost/Unit Direct Total Cost/Unit Direct Total Grand Total Price Grand Total with Markups
05.00.99.00 Metals, Other
Spare Porosity Plates Alloowance (Purchase only) 2.00 ea 17,700.00 /ea - - 17,700.00 /ea 35,400 26,122.12 /ea 52,244
05.00.99.00 Metals, Other 1.00 LS 12,608.46 /LS 3,833.12 /LS 407,100.00 /LS /LS /LS 423,541.58 /LS 423,542 623,717.11 /LS 623,717
05.00.004 Fish Screen, Furnish and Install Screen Panels 20.00 EA 630.42 /EA 191.66 /EA 20,355.00 /EA /EA /EA 21,177.08 /EA 423,542 31,185.86 /EA 623,717
05.00.006 Fish Screen, Furnish and Install Solid Panels
05.00.99.00 Metals, Other
Solid Epoxy Coated Panel - Above Fish Screen Panels 10.00 EA 605.27 /EA 167.10 /EA 8,600.00 /EA - - 9,372.37 /EA 93,724 13,768.27 /EA 137,683 Spare Solid Epoxy Coated Panels (Purchase only) 2.00 ea 8,600.00 /ea - - 8,600.00 /ea 17,200 12,692.10 /ea 25,384 Offload of equipment to be stored onsite, including spare panels 1.00 ls 503.02 /ls 491.12 /ls - - 994.14 /ls 994 1,385.16 /ls 1,385
05.00.99.00 Metals, Other 1.00 LS 6,555.74 /LS 2,162.12 /LS 103,200.00 /LS /LS /LS 111,917.86 /LS 111,918 164,452.02 /LS 164,452
05.00.006 Fish Screen, Furnish and Install Solid Panels 10.00 EA 655.57 /EA 216.21 /EA 10,320.00 /EA /EA /EA 11,191.79 /EA 111,918 16,445.20 /EA 164,452
05.0 Metals 1.00 LS 19,164.20 /LS 5,995.24 /LS 510,300.00 /LS /LS /LS 535,459.44 /LS 535,459 788,169.13 /LS 788,169
07.0 Thermal and Moisture Protection
07.00.000 Pumping Station Roof Framing and Roofing
07.00.99.00 Thermal & Moisture Protection, Other
Pump Station Roof Framing and Roofing Allowance 4,185.00 SF - 30.00 /SF - 30.00 /SF 125,550 46.30 /SF 193,765
07.00.99.00 Thermal & Moisture Protection, Other 4,185.00 SF /SF /SF /SF 30.00 /SF /SF 30.00 /SF 125,550 46.30 /SF 193,765
07.00.000 Pumping Station Roof Framing and Roofing 4,185.00 SF /SF /SF /SF 30.00 /SF /SF 30.00 /SF 125,550 46.30 /SF 193,765
07.0 Thermal and Moisture Protection 4,185.00 SF /SF /SF /SF 30.00 /SF /SF 30.00 /SF 125,550 46.30 /SF 193,765
08.0 Openings
08.00.000 Pump Station Openings
08.10.01.00 Openings, Doors, Frames and Hardware
Steel frms, knock down, 14 ga., to 8-3/4" throat, to 3'-0" x 7'-0", single
3.00 EA 76.03 /EA - 430.00 /EA - - 506.03 /EA 1,518 816.44 /EA 2,449 Steel frames, knock down, 14 ga., to 8-3/4" throat, to 6070, pair 1.00 EA 95.03 /EA - 455.00 /EA - - 550.03 /EA 550 886.41 /EA 886 Doors, commercial, steel, insulated, full panel, 18 ga., 3'-0" x 7'-0" x 1-3/4" thick
5.00 ea 76.03 /ea - 560.00 /ea - - 636.03 /ea 3,180 1,027.80 /ea 5,139 Average Door Hardware 5.00 ea 71.27 /ea 15.00 /ea 650.00 /ea - - 736.27 /ea 3,681 1,189.93 /ea 5,950 Doors, rolling service, steel, manual, 20 gauge, 10' x 12' high, incl. hardware
1.00 EA 1,089.43 /EA - 1,250.00 /EA - - 2,339.43 /EA 2,339 3,713.64 /EA 3,714 Doors, rolling service, steel, manual, for weatherstripping, extruded rubber, jambs, add
20.00 lf - - 19.45 /lf - - 19.45 /lf 389 31.62 /lf 632
Doors, rolling service, steel, manual, for weatherstripping, hood, extruded rubber, add
10.00 lf - - 9.25 /lf - - 9.25 /lf 93 15.04 /lf 150
Doors, rolling service, steel, manual, motor operators for, to 14' x 14' opening
1.00 ea 261.46 /ea - 1,150.00 /ea - - 1,411.46 /ea 1,411 2,273.22 /ea 2,273
08.10.01.00 Openings, Doors, Frames and Hardware 5.00 EA 482.10 /EA 15.00 /EA 2,135.30 /EA /EA /EA 2,632.40 /EA 13,162 4,238.81 /EA 21,194
08.00.000 Pump Station Openings 5.00 EA 482.10 /EA 15.00 /EA 2,135.30 /EA /EA /EA 2,632.40 /EA 13,162 4,238.81 /EA 21,194
08.0 Openings 5.00 EA 482.10 /EA 15.00 /EA 2,135.30 /EA /EA /EA 2,632.40 /EA 13,162 4,238.81 /EA 21,194
13.1 Structure Complete
13.00.000 Intake Structure
13.00.02.00 Fabricated Structures
Intake Structure Complete, Based on Previous In River Fish Screen Intakes, Excludes Screens, and Pumps, Includes Sed Jetting and Screen Cleaner
5,600.00 SF - 320.00 /SF - 320.00 /SF 1,792,000 445.86 /SF 2,496,840
13.00.02.00 Fabricated Structures 5,600.00 SF /SF /SF /SF 320.00 /SF /SF 320.00 /SF 1,792,000 445.86 /SF 2,496,840
13.00.000 Intake Structure 5,600.00 SF /SF /SF /SF 320.00 /SF /SF 320.00 /SF 1,792,000 445.86 /SF 2,496,840
13.1 Structure Complete 5,600.00 SF /SF /SF /SF 320.00 /SF /SF 320.00 /SF 1,792,000 445.86 /SF 2,496,840
22.0 Plumbing
22.00.000 Pumping Station Plumbing
22.00.01.00 Mechanical, Plumbing
Pumping Station Plumbing Allowance 4,185.00 SF - 10.00 /SF - 10.00 /SF 41,850 15.93 /SF 66,681
22.00.01.00 Mechanical, Plumbing 4,185.00 SF /SF /SF /SF 10.00 /SF /SF 10.00 /SF 41,850 15.93 /SF 66,681
22.00.000 Pumping Station Plumbing 4,185.00 SF /SF /SF /SF 10.00 /SF /SF 10.00 /SF 41,850 15.93 /SF 66,681
22.0 Plumbing 4,185.00 SF /SF /SF /SF 10.00 /SF /SF 10.00 /SF 41,850 15.93 /SF 66,681
23.0 HVAC
23.00.000 Pumping Station HVAC
23.00.02.00 Mechanical, HVAC
Pumping Station HVAC Allowance 4,185.00 SF - 25.00 /SF - 25.00 /SF 104,625 39.83 /SF 166,702
23.00.02.00 Mechanical, HVAC 4,185.00 SF /SF /SF /SF 25.00 /SF /SF 25.00 /SF 104,625 39.83 /SF 166,702
23.00.000 Pumping Station HVAC 4,185.00 SF /SF /SF /SF 25.00 /SF /SF 25.00 /SF 104,625 39.83 /SF 166,702
23.0 HVAC 4,185.00 SF /SF /SF /SF 25.00 /SF /SF 25.00 /SF 104,625 39.83 /SF 166,702
26.0 Electrical Work
26.00.004 Intake Structure Electrical
26.00.99.00 Electrical, Other
Variable frequency drives, custom-engineered, 460 volt, 800 HP motor size
5.00 ea 5,415.66 /ea 506.03 /ea 75,000.00 /ea - - 80,921.68 /ea 404,608 139,168.18 /ea 695,841 MCC Allowance 1.00 LS 6,282.16 /LS 146.75 /LS 15,000.00 /LS - - 21,428.91 /LS 21,429 36,452.16 /LS 36,452 Electrical Fitout Allowance, Includes Conduit, Conductors, and Appurtenances
1.00 ls 37,669.44 /ls 4,000.00 /ls 125,000.00 /ls - - 166,669.44 /ls 166,669 284,204.68 /ls 284,205
26.00.99.00 Electrical, Other 1.00 LS 71,029.88 /LS 6,676.89 /LS 515,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 592,706.77 /LS 592,707 1,016,497.76 /LS 1,016,498
26.00.004 Intake Structure Electrical 1.00 LS 71,029.88 /LS 6,676.89 /LS 515,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 592,706.77 /LS 592,707 1,016,497.76 /LS 1,016,498
26.0 Electrical Work 1.00 LS 71,029.88 /LS 6,676.89 /LS 515,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 592,706.77 /LS 592,707 1,016,497.76 /LS 1,016,498
31.0 Earthwork
31.30.002 Temporary Soldier Pile Cofferdam
31.30.07.00 Site Specialties, Cofferdams
Piling special costs, pre-augering up to 30' D, avg soil, 24" diam 1,820.00 lf 89.93 /lf 38.02 /lf - - - 127.96 /lf 232,879 178.28 /lf 324,476 Unload and Inventory Sheet Piles 98.28 ton 16.69 /ton 11.23 /ton - - 27.92 /ton 2,744 38.91 /ton 3,824 On Site material handling from storage area to Point of Use. 98.28 ton 22.25 /ton 44.94 /ton - - 67.19 /ton 6,603 93.62 /ton 9,201 Misc. Items Allowance, spacers, bolts, & nuts 1.00 ls 50,000.00 /ls - - 50,000.00 /ls 50,000 73,791.28 /ls 73,791 Waler Beams double C15 x 33.9 364.00 lf 15.98 /lf 16.73 /lf 50.00 /lf - - 82.71 /lf 30,105 119.36 /lf 43,447 Coffrd,soldr beams&laggng,h piles with sheet piles betwn piles,hydrst head,4 lines braces,3"wood s36'45',14"hgh,includs installation only
10,920.00 SF 29.68 /SF 11.21 /SF 38.00 /SF - - 78.89 /SF 861,499 113.06 /SF 1,234,583
31.30.07.00 Site Specialties, Cofferdams 10,920.00 SF 45.55 /SF 18.61 /SF 44.25 /SF /SF /SF 108.41 /SF 1,183,830 154.70 /SF 1,689,322
31.30.002 Temporary Soldier Pile Cofferdam 10,920.00 SF 45.55 /SF 18.61 /SF 44.25 /SF /SF /SF 108.41 /SF 1,183,830 154.70 /SF 1,689,322
31.30.004 Cofferdam Dewatering
31.15.02.00 Cofferdam Dewatering
Cofferdam Dewatering Allowance 8.00 MO - 50,000.00 /MO - 50,000.00 /MO 400,000 69,666.28 /MO 557,330
31.15.02.00 Cofferdam Dewatering 8.00 MO /MO /MO /MO 50,000.00 /MO /MO 50,000.00 /MO 400,000 69,666.28 /MO 557,330
31.30.004 Cofferdam Dewatering 8.00 MO /MO /MO /MO 50,000.00 /MO /MO 50,000.00 /MO 400,000 69,666.28 /MO 557,330
31.30.006 Temporary Sheet Pile Wall
31.16.01.00 Earthworks, Sheeting and Shoring
Temporary Sheet Pile Cofferdam Wall, 80 LF Long 4,800.00 SF - 54.00 /SF - 54.00 /SF 259,200 75.24 /SF 361,150
31.16.01.00 Earthworks, Sheeting and Shoring 84.00 TON /TON /TON /TON 3,085.71 /TON /TON 3,085.71 /TON 259,200 4,299.41 /TON 361,150
31.30.006 Temporary Sheet Pile Wall 80.00 LF /LF /LF /LF 3,240.00 /LF /LF 3,240.00 /LF 259,200 4,514.38 /LF 361,150 COR P1 Replacement Alt 1 Site Rev 3 3/1/2022 4:36 PM
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Preliminary Design Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and
DETAIL REPORT
Project type: Project Name: COR P1 Replacement Alt 1 Existing PS Location Rev 3 Estimator: Nick Cavalleri/RDD Job Size: Project Number: W8Y06200 Revision/Date: 3 / Mar 1, 2022 Duration: Design Stage: Feasibility Estimate Class: 4
Area Facility Work Pkg WorkActiv Unit Price Description Takeoff Quantity Labor Cost/Unit Equip Cost/Unit Material Cost/Unit Sub Cost/Unit Other Cost/Unit Direct Total Cost/Unit Direct Total Grand Total Price Grand Total with Markups
31.0 Earthwork 1.00 LS 497,408.08 /LS 203,262.03 /LS 483,160.00 /LS 659,200.00 /LS /LS 1,843,030.11 /LS 1,843,030 2,607,801.89 /LS 2,607,802
40.9 Instrumentation & Controls
40.90.000 I&C
40.90.99.01 I&C, Other
I&C Allowance 1.00 LS 37,669.44 /LS 5,600.00 /LS 75,000.00 /LS - - 118,269.44 /LS 118,269 200,542.72 /LS 200,543
40.90.99.01 I&C, Other 1.00 LS 37,669.44 /LS 5,600.00 /LS 75,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 118,269.44 /LS 118,269 200,542.72 /LS 200,543
40.90.000 I&C 1.00 LS 37,669.44 /LS 5,600.00 /LS 75,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 118,269.44 /LS 118,269 200,542.72 /LS 200,543
40.9 Instrumentation & Controls 1.00 LS 37,669.44 /LS 5,600.00 /LS 75,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 118,269.44 /LS 118,269 200,542.72 /LS 200,543
41.0 Material Processing and Handling Equipment
41.00.000 Bridge Crane
41.00.02.01 Material Handling, Bridge Cranes
Overhead Bridge Cranes, under hung hoist, electric operating 1.00 EA 3,358.40 /EA 647.17 /EA 45,000.00 /EA - - 49,005.57 /EA 49,006 71,993.23 /EA 71,993 Structural Metals for Bridge Crane 1.00 ls 3,000.00 /ls 2,000.00 /ls 5,000.00 /ls - - 10,000.00 /ls 10,000 14,345.75 /ls 14,346
41.00.02.01 Material Handling, Bridge Cranes 1.00 EA 6,358.40 /EA 2,647.17 /EA 50,000.00 /EA /EA /EA 59,005.57 /EA 59,006 86,338.98 /EA 86,339
41.00.000 Bridge Crane 1.00 EA 6,358.40 /EA 2,647.17 /EA 50,000.00 /EA /EA /EA 59,005.57 /EA 59,006 86,338.98 /EA 86,339
41.0 Material Processing and Handling Equipment 1.00 EA 6,358.40 /EA 2,647.17 /EA 50,000.00 /EA /EA /EA 59,005.57 /EA 59,006 86,338.98 /EA 86,339
43.0 Process Gas and Liquid Handling Equipment
44.00.000 Vertical Turbine Pumps, 800 HP
44.05.42.05 Vertical Turbine Pump: 501hp-1000hp
Functional Testing, Pumps, 501-1000 hp 5.00 ea 526.62 /ea - 100.00 /ea - - 626.62 /ea 3,133 975.32 /ea 4,877 Align Pump & Motor, 501-1000 hp 5.00 ea 526.62 /ea - - 1,400.00 /ea - 1,926.62 /ea 9,633 2,973.40 /ea 14,867 Vibration Testing, Pumps, 501-1000 hp 5.00 ea 263.31 /ea - - 700.00 /ea - 963.31 /ea 4,817 1,486.70 /ea 7,433 Sleeved anchor bolts - Large 50.00 ea 32.91 /ea - 28.00 /ea - - 60.91 /ea 3,046 96.32 /ea 4,816 Anchor bolts for leveling pump cans 20.00 ea 65.83 /ea - 20.00 /ea - - 85.83 /ea 1,717 134.11 /ea 2,682 Non-Shrink Machine Grout 60.00 cuft 62.54 /cuft - 74.00 /cuft - - 136.54 /cuft 8,192 216.82 /cuft 13,009 Grease, Oil, and Lube Pumps, 501-1000 hp 5.00 ea 263.31 /ea - 150.00 /ea - - 413.31 /ea 2,067 650.24 /ea 3,251 FURNISH Vertical Turbine Pump, SS, 501 - 1000 hp 5.00 EA - - 700,000.00 /EA - - 700,000.00 /EA 3,500,000 1,138,077.98 /EA 5,690,390 Set base plate @ 16 hrs / each 5.00 ea 1,053.23 /ea - 50.00 /ea - - 1,103.23 /ea 5,516 1,706.77 /ea 8,534 Set pump head & soleplate @ 72 hrs / each 5.00 ea 4,739.54 /ea - 50.00 /ea - - 4,789.54 /ea 23,948 7,395.95 /ea 36,980 Set motor @ 40 hrs / each 5.00 ea 2,633.08 /ea - 50.00 /ea - - 2,683.08 /ea 13,415 4,144.99 /ea 20,725 Set pump can @ 1.5 hrs / lf 220.00 lf 98.74 /lf - 10.00 /lf - - 108.74 /lf 23,923 168.65 /lf 37,102
44.05.42.05 Vertical Turbine Pump: 501hp-1000hp 5.00 EA 15,693.16 /EA /EA 702,088.00 /EA 2,100.00 /EA /EA 719,881.16 /EA 3,599,406 1,168,933.34 /EA 5,844,667
44.00.000 Vertical Turbine Pumps, 800 HP 5.00 EA 15,693.16 /EA /EA 702,088.00 /EA 2,100.00 /EA /EA 719,881.16 /EA 3,599,406 1,168,933.34 /EA 5,844,667
43.0 Process Gas and Liquid Handling Equipment 5.00 EA 15,693.16 /EA /EA 702,088.00 /EA 2,100.00 /EA /EA 719,881.16 /EA 3,599,406 1,168,933.34 /EA 5,844,667 005 Intake and Pumping Plant 41,240.00 SF 19.55 /SF 5.46 /SF 126.88 /SF 66.29 /SF /SF 218.18 /SF 8,997,858 333.71 /SF 13,762,317 006 Conveyance Pipelines and Surge Tank
33.0 Utilities
33.20.002 42" Dia Pipeline
32.40.04.90 Site Improvements, Surface Restorations
Surface Restorsation Allowance 5,200.00 SF - 3.00 /SF - 3.00 /SF 15,600 4.18 /SF 21,736
32.40.04.90 Site Improvements, Surface Restorations 5,200.00 SF /SF /SF /SF 3.00 /SF /SF 3.00 /SF 15,600 4.18 /SF 21,736
33.00.04.42 Buried Pipe, Ductile Iron, 42"
42" DI Piping 130.00 LF 38.78 /LF 22.17 /LF 280.20 /LF - - 341.15 /LF 44,350 498.45 /LF 64,799 Piping Excavation and Backfill Allowance 1.00 ls - 26,000.00 /ls - 26,000.00 /ls 26,000 36,226.47 /ls 36,226 Miscellaneous Items Allowance 1.00 ls 2,825.00 /ls 2,825.00 /ls 5,650.00 /ls - - 11,300.00 /ls 11,300 16,210.72 /ls 16,211 Erosion Controls Allowance 1.00 ls 1,250.00 /ls 1,250.00 /ls 2,500.00 /ls - - 5,000.00 /ls 5,000 7,172.87 /ls 7,173
33.00.04.42 Buried Pipe, Ductile Iron, 42" 130.00 LF 70.12 /LF 53.52 /LF 342.89 /LF 200.00 /LF /LF 666.54 /LF 86,650 956.99 /LF 124,409
33.20.002 42" Dia Pipeline 130.00 LF 70.12 /LF 53.52 /LF 342.89 /LF 320.00 /LF /LF 786.54 /LF 102,250 1,124.19 /LF 146,145
33.0 Utilities 130.00 LF 70.12 /LF 53.52 /LF 342.89 /LF 320.00 /LF /LF 786.54 /LF 102,250 1,124.19 /LF 146,145
43.0 Process Gas and Liquid Handling Equipment
44.00.002 Surge System
44.05.83.10 Surge System
Surge System, Complete, Includes Tank, Piping, and All
Appurtenances
1.00 EA - 260,000.00 /EA - 260,000.00 /EA 260,000 401,264.69 /EA 401,265
44.05.83.10 Surge System 1.00 EA /EA /EA /EA 260,000.00 /EA /EA 260,000.00 /EA 260,000 401,264.69 /EA 401,265
44.00.002 Surge System 1.00 EA /EA /EA /EA 260,000.00 /EA /EA 260,000.00 /EA 260,000 401,264.69 /EA 401,265
43.0 Process Gas and Liquid Handling Equipment 1.00 EA /EA /EA /EA 260,000.00 /EA /EA 260,000.00 /EA 260,000 401,264.69 /EA 401,265 006 Conveyance Pipelines and Surge Tank 1.00 LS 9,116.15 /LS 6,957.49 /LS 44,576.00 /LS 301,600.00 /LS /LS 362,249.64 /LS 362,250 547,409.26 /LS 547,409 007 Electrical Improvements
26.0 Electrical Work
26.00.002 Duct Bank and Electrical Sevice Entrance
26.10.03.00 Site Electrical, Duct Bank
Electrical Duct Bank from Existing Point of Connect to Project Site, Complete
110.00 LF - 150.00 /LF - 150.00 /LF 16,500 246.50 /LF 27,115 Connections at Existing Electrical Supply 1.00 ls 1,570.54 /ls 146.75 /ls 15,000.00 /ls - 16,717.29 /ls 16,717 28,709.46 /ls 28,709
26.10.03.00 Site Electrical, Duct Bank 110.00 LF 14.28 /LF 1.33 /LF 136.36 /LF 150.00 /LF /LF 301.98 /LF 33,217 507.49 /LF 55,824
26.00.002 Duct Bank and Electrical Sevice Entrance 1.00 LS 1,570.54 /LS 146.75 /LS 15,000.00 /LS 16,500.00 /LS /LS 33,217.29 /LS 33,217 55,824.32 /LS 55,824
26.00.006 Temporary Removal and Replacement of Emergency Generator
26.00.99.00 Electrical, Other
Temporary Removal, Storage, and Replacement of Emergency Generator for Portions of New Site Construction
1.00 LS 16,004.16 /LS 1,332.20 /LS 5,000.00 /LS - - 22,336.36 /LS 22,336 37,118.42 /LS 37,118
26.00.99.00 Electrical, Other 1.00 LS 16,004.16 /LS 1,332.20 /LS 5,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 22,336.36 /LS 22,336 37,118.42 /LS 37,118
26.00.006 Temporary Removal and Replacement of Emergency Generator
1.00 LS 16,004.16 /LS 1,332.20 /LS 5,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 22,336.36 /LS 22,336 37,118.42 /LS 37,118
26.0 Electrical Work 1.00 LS 17,574.70 /LS 1,478.95 /LS 20,000.00 /LS 16,500.00 /LS /LS 55,553.65 /LS 55,554 92,942.74 /LS 92,943 007 Electrical Improvements 1.00 LS 17,574.70 /LS 1,478.95 /LS 20,000.00 /LS 16,500.00 /LS /LS 55,553.65 /LS 55,554 92,942.74 /LS 92,943 008 Site Utilities
26.0 Electrical Work
26.00.002 Duct Bank and Electrical Sevice Entrance
26.10.03.90 Site Electrical, Service Entrance
Electrical Service to Project Site 1.00 LS 3,141.07 /LS 293.50 /LS 25,000.00 /LS - - 28,434.57 /LS 28,435 48,789.76 /LS 48,790
26.10.03.90 Site Electrical, Service Entrance 1.00 LS 3,141.07 /LS 293.50 /LS 25,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 28,434.57 /LS 28,435 48,789.76 /LS 48,790
26.00.002 Duct Bank and Electrical Sevice Entrance 1.00 LS 3,141.07 /LS 293.50 /LS 25,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 28,434.57 /LS 28,435 48,789.76 /LS 48,790
26.0 Electrical Work 1.00 LS 3,141.07 /LS 293.50 /LS 25,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 28,434.57 /LS 28,435 48,789.76 /LS 48,790 008 Site Utilities 1.00 LS 3,141.07 /LS 293.50 /LS 25,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 28,434.57 /LS 28,435 48,789.76 /LS 48,790 012 Existing Pump Station 1 Demolition
02.0 Existing Conditions
02.00.000 Existing Pump Station 1 Demolition
02.01.02.00 Pump Station Demolition
Demolition of Existing PS 1, Allowance Based on Crew and Duration
1.00 LS 217,998.14 /LS 169,692.22 /LS 20,000.00 /LS - - 407,690.36 /LS 407,690 569,695.44 /LS 569,695
02.01.02.00 Pump Station Demolition 1.00 LS 217,998.14 /LS 169,692.22 /LS 20,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 407,690.36 /LS 407,690 569,695.44 /LS 569,695
02.00.000 Existing Pump Station 1 Demolition 1.00 LS 217,998.14 /LS 169,692.22 /LS 20,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 407,690.36 /LS 407,690 569,695.44 /LS 569,695
02.0 Existing Conditions 1.00 LS 217,998.14 /LS 169,692.22 /LS 20,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 407,690.36 /LS 407,690 569,695.44 /LS 569,695 012 Existing Pump Station 1 Demolition 1.00 LS 217,998.14 /LS 169,692.22 /LS 20,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 407,690.36 /LS 407,690 569,695.44 /LS 569,695 013 River Trail Restoration Post Construction
32.0 Exterior Improvements
COR P1 Replacement Alt 1 Site Rev 3 3/1/2022 4:36 PM
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Preliminary Design Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and
DETAIL REPORT
Project type: Project Name: COR P1 Replacement Alt 1 Existing PS Location Rev 3 Estimator: Nick Cavalleri/RDD Job Size: Project Number: W8Y06200 Revision/Date: 3 / Mar 1, 2022 Duration: Design Stage: Feasibility Estimate Class: 4
Area Facility Work Pkg WorkActiv Unit Price Description Takeoff Quantity Labor Cost/Unit Equip Cost/Unit Material Cost/Unit Sub Cost/Unit Other Cost/Unit Direct Total Cost/Unit Direct Total Grand Total Price Grand Total with Markups
32.50.008 River Trail Restoration Post Construction
32.50.06.00 Site Improvements, Other Improvements
River Trail Restoration Post Construction, Allowance 1.00 LS 14,855.36 /LS 3,539.52 /LS 25,000.00 /LS - - 43,394.88 /LS 43,395 62,525.71 /LS 62,526
32.50.06.00 Site Improvements, Other Improvements 1.00 LS 14,855.36 /LS 3,539.52 /LS 25,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 43,394.88 /LS 43,395 62,525.71 /LS 62,526
32.50.008 River Trail Restoration Post Construction 1.00 LS 14,855.36 /LS 3,539.52 /LS 25,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 43,394.88 /LS 43,395 62,525.71 /LS 62,526
32.0 Exterior Improvements 1.00 LS 14,855.36 /LS 3,539.52 /LS 25,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 43,394.88 /LS 43,395 62,525.71 /LS 62,526 013 River Trail Restoration Post Construction 1.00 LS 14,855.36 /LS 3,539.52 /LS 25,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 43,394.88 /LS 43,395 62,525.71 /LS 62,526 01 Alt 1: Existing PS1 Location 1.00 LS 1,284,108.36 /LS 570,282.85 /LS 5,542,071.01 /LS 3,166,325.00 /LS 1,843,600.00 /LS 12,406,387.22 /LS 12,406,387 18,241,150.76 /LS 18,241,151 COR P1 Replacement Alt 1 Site Rev 3 3/1/2022 4:36 PM
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Preliminary Design Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and
DETAIL REPORT
Project type: Project Name: COR P1 Replacement Alt 1 Existing PS Location Rev 3 Estimator: Nick Cavalleri/RDD Job Size: Project Number: W8Y06200 Revision/Date: 3 / Mar 1, 2022 Duration: Design Stage: Feasibility Estimate Class: 4
Estimate Totals
Description Amount Totals Hours Rate
Labor 1,284,108 18,621.262 hrs
Material 5,542,071
Subcontract 3,166,325
Equipment 570,283 6,137.267 hrs
Subtotal Direct Costs 10,562,787 10,562,787
Material Sales Tax 457,221 8.250%
Subtotal W/ Sales Tax 457,221 11,020,008
Concrete Work I,OH&P 2,576 15.000%
Masonry Work I,OH&P 23,344 15.000%
Architectural (Div 6-12)I,OH&P 20,807 15.000%
Mechanical Work I,OH&P 29,295 20.000%
Electrical Work I,OH&P 169,174 25.000%
Process Piping I,OH&P 20.000%
Instruments & Controls I,OH&P 29,567 25.000%
Process Equipment I,OH&P 578,911 15.000%
Subtotal W/ Subcontractor OH&P 853,674 11,873,682
General Conditions 712,421 6.000%
Subtotal W/ General Conditions 712,421 12,586,103
Prime Contractor Overhead 1,510,332 12.000%
Prime Contractor Profit 845,786 6.000%
Subtotal W/ Prime Markups 2,356,118 14,942,221
Non Markup Items 1,843,600
Subtotal W/ Non Markup Items 1,843,600 16,785,821
Escalation 1,455,331 8.670%
Subtotal W/ Escalation 1,455,331 18,241,152
Design Contingency 4,560,288 25.000%
Subtotal W/ Design Contingency 4,560,288 22,801,440
Construction Contingency 3,420,216 15.000%
Subtotal W/ Construction Contingency 3,420,216 26,221,656 Total Construction Cost 26,221,656
COR P1 Replacement Alt 1 Site Rev 3 3/1/2022 4:36 PM
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Preliminary Design Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Cost Estimating - Escalation Calculation Report
Escalation report prepared: 2/28/2022
Escalation Model Used: AVE
Project:
Event Date
Data Date 1/1/2021
Start Date 5/1/2025
Mid Point 5/1/2026
End Date 5/1/2027
Value Calculation
Escalation1
8.670%
Years2
5.3 Rate Per Annum3
1.573%
Historical4
2.9%
Volatility5
5.0%
Notes:
Forecasts are based on data provided by IHS Markit though 2021-Q4 with model weighting as given below:
4.3843% - PPI324110AY2.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Diesel Fuel
1.9523% - WPIP1321.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Sand Gravel and Crushed Stone
3.343% - PPI327320P.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Ready-Mix Concrete
1.3109% - PREBAR.Q.FOS - USA, Spot Price, Reinforcing Bar (Rebar) Steel
0.6176% - WPIP08.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Lumber and Wood Products
0.8038% - WPIWP133.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Concrete Products
0.1949% - PPI331318.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Other Aluminum Rolling Drawing and Extruding
2.5468% - PPI3311107.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Hot Rolled Bars Plates and Structural Shapes
0.3362% - WPIP081.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Lumber
2.1699% - PPI3241221.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Roofing Asphalts, Pitches, Coatings, Cements
1.3843% - PPI332321.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Metal Window and Door
0.902% - PPI327420.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Gypsum Wallboard
0.902% - PPI325510.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Paints and Coatings
0.434% - WPIS30S.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Finished Goods
6.1449% - WPIP11.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Machinery and Equipment
0.4685% - PPI337214.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Office Furniture
0.344% - PPI334516.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Laboratory Analytical Instruments
0.344% - PPI3353141.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Relay and Industrial Controls
0.0442% - WPIP1144.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Industrial Material Handling Equipment
5.1446% - PPI331511.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Iron Foundries
2.8158% - WPIP0721.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Plastic Construction Products (Primarily Pipe)
14.0085% - PPI332996.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Fabricated Pipe and Fittings
1.8242% - PPI335929D.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Building Wire and Cable
1.132% - PPI335313.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Switchgear and Switchboard Apparatus
8.9795% - PPI331210.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Iron/Steel Pipe and Tube Mfg From Purch Steel
0.9327% - PPI3339121.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Air and Gas Compressors
0.4664% - WPIP07.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Rubber and Plastic Products
2.7982% - PPI333911.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Pumps and Pumping Equipment
0.4664% - PSTAINSHEET304.Q.FOS - USA, Spot Price, Stainless Coil Steel, Grade 304
32.8041% - CEU2000000008.Q.FOS - USA, Average Hourly Earnings, Construction - Average Project
1 - Escalation begins with the data date and assumes equal spending from project start to end dates 2 - Years is the duration from the Data (Estimate) date to the mid point of the project 3 - Rate Per Annum is the annual rate of escalation which when compounded over Years, equal Escalation 4 - Historical is the annual rate of escalation for the weighted model from 2015/Q1 to 2021/Q2 5 - Volatility is the std. deviation of the model's Historical annual rates of escalation, equivalent to a p=0.84 value COR PS1 Replacement
100.000
106.642
108.670
110.746
90 95
100
105
110
115
Data Date Start Date Mid Point End Date
Escalation1, Data Date = 100
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Preliminary Design Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C-8541)
Packet Pg. 420
Attachment: Preliminary Design Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Estimate Class
LEVEL OF PROJECT
DEFINITION Expressed
as a % of complete
definition
END USAGE Typical
Purpose of Estimate
METHODOLOGY
Typical estimating
method
EXPECTED
ACCURACY RANGE
Typical variation in low
and high ranges [a]
L: -20% to -50% H: +30% to +100% L: -15% to -30% H: +20% to +50% L: -10% to -20% H: +10% to +30% L: -5% to -15% H: +5% to +20% L: -3% to -10% H: +3% to +15%
PREPARATION
EFFORT Typical
degree of effort relative
to least cost index of 1
[b]
REFINED CLASS
DEFINITION
END USAGE DEFINED
ESTIMATING
METHODS USED
EXPECTED
ACCURACY RANGE
EFFORT TO PREPARE
(for US$20MM project):
ANSI Standard
Reference Z94.2-1989
name; Alternate
Estimate Names,
Terms, Expressions,
Synonyms:
Definitive Estimate; Full detail, release, fall-out, tender, firm price,bottoms-up, final, detailed control, forced detail, execution phase,master control, fair price, definitive, change order estimate.
Order of Magnitude Estimate; Ratio, ballpark, blue sky, seat-ofpants, ROM, idea study, prospect estimate, concession licenseestimate, guesstimate, rule-of thumb.
Budget Estimate; Screening, top-down, feasibility,authorization, factored, pre-design, pre-study.
Budget Estimate; Budget, scope, sanction, semi-detailed,authorization, preliminary control, concept study, development,basic engineering phase estimate, target estimate.
Definitive Estimate; Detailed Control, forced detail, executionphase, master control, engineering, bid, tender, change orderestimate.
Typical accuracy ranges for Class 1 estimates are -3% to -10% on the low side, and +3% to +15% on the high side,depending on the technological complexity of the project,appropriate reference information, and the inclusion of anappropriate contingency determination. Ranges could exceedthose shown in unusual circumstances.
As little as 1 hour or less to prepare to perhaps more than 200hours, depending on the project and the estimatingmethodology used.
Typically, as little as 20 hours or less to perhaps more than300 hours, depending on the project and the estimatingmethodology used.
Typically, as little as 150 hours or less to perhaps more than1500 hours, depending on the project and the estimatingmethodology used.
Typically, as little as 300 hours or less to perhaps more than3000 hours, depending on the project and the estimatingmethodology used. Bid Estimates typically require more effortthan estimates used for funding or control purposes Class 1 estimates require the most effort to create, and as suchare generally developed for only selected areas of the project, orfor bidding purposes. A complete Class 1 estimate may involveas little as 600 hours or less, to perhaps more than 6,000 hours,depending on the project and the estimating methodology used.Bid estimate typically require more effort than estimates used forfunding or control purposes.
Typical accuracy ranges for Class 5 estimates are -20% to -50% on the low side, and +30% to +100% on the high side,depending on the technological complexity of the project,appropriate contingency determination. Ranges could exceedthose shown in unusual circumstances.
Typical accuracy ranges for Class 4 estimates are -15% to -30% on the low side, and +20% to +50% on the high side,depending on the technological complexity of the project,appropriate reference information, and the inclusion of anappropriate contingency determination. Ranges could exceedthose shown in unusual circumstances.
Typical accuracy ranges for Class 3 estimates are -10% to -20% on the low side, and +10% to +30% on the high side,depending on the technological complexity of the project,appropriate reference information, and the inclusion of anappropriate contingency determination. Ranges could exceedthose shown in unusual circumstances.
Typical accuracy ranges for Class 2 estimates are -5% to -15% on the low side, and +5% to +20% on the high side,depending on the technological complexity of the project,appropriate reference information, and the inclusion of anappropriate contingency determination. Ranges could exceedthose shown in unusual circumstances.
Class 1 estimates are typically prepared to form a current controlestimate to be used as the final control baseline against which allactual coasts and resources will now be monitored for variationsto the budget, and form a part of the change/variation controlprogram. They may be used to evaluate bid checking, to supportvendor/contractor negotiations, or for claim evaluations anddispute resolution.
Class 5 estimates virtually always use stochastic estimatingmethods such as cost/capacity curves and factors, scale ofoperations factors, Lang factors, Hand factors, Chilton factors,Peters-Timmerhaus factors, Guthrie factors, and otherparametric and modeling techniques.
Class 4 estimates virtually always use stochastic estimatingmethods such as cost/capacity curves and factors, scale ofoperations factors, Lang factors, Hand factors, Chilton factors,Peters-Timmerhaus factors, Guthrie factors, the Miller method,gross unit costs/ratios, and other parametric and modelingtechniques.
Class 3 estimates usually involve more deterministicestimating methods that stochastic methods. They usuallyinvolve a high degree of unit cost line items, although thesemay be at an assembly level of detail rather than individualcomponents. Factoring and other stochastic methods may beused to estimate less-significant areas of the project.
Class 2 estimates always involve a high degree ofdeterministic estimating methods. Class 2 estimates areprepared in great detail, and often involve tens of thousands ofunit cost line items. For those areas of the project stillundefined, an assumed level of detailed takeoff (forced detail)may be developed to use as line items in the estimate insteadof relying on factoring methods.
Class 1 estimates involve the highest degree of deterministicestimating methods, and require a great amount of effort. Class 1estimates are prepared in great detail, and thus are usuallyperformed on only the most important or critical areas of theproject. All items in the estimate are usually unit cost line itemsbased on actual design quantities.
Class 5 estimates are prepared for any number of strategicbusiness planning purposes, such as but not limited to marketstudies, assessment of initial viability, evaluation of alternateschemes, project screening, project location studies,evaluation of resource needs and budgeting, long-rangecapital planning, etc.
Class 4 estimates are prepared for a number of purposes,such as but not limited to, detailed strategic planning, businessdevelopment, project screening at more developed stages,alternative scheme analysis, confirmation of economic and/ortechnical feasibility, and preliminary budget approval orapproval to proceed to next stage.
Class 3 estimates are typically prepared to support full projectfunding requests, and become the first of the project phase"control estimate" against which all actual costs and resourceswill be monitored for variations to the budget. They are used asthe project budget until replaced by more detailed estimates. Inmany owner organizations, a Class 3 estimate may be the lastestimate required and could well form the only basis forcost/schedule control.
Class 2 estimates are typically prepared as the detailed controlbaseline against which all actual costs an resources will nowbe monitored for variation to the budget, and form a part of thechange/variation control program. 5 to 100
Class 5 estimates are generally prepared based on verylimited information, and subsequently have very wide accuracy ranges. As such, some companies and organizations haveelected to determine that due to the inherent inaccuracies,such estimates cannot be classified in a conventional andsystematic manner. Class 5 estimates, due to therequirements of end use, may be prepared within a verylimited amount of time and with very little effort expended -sometimes requiring less than 1 hour to prepare. Often, littlemore than proposed plant type, location, and capacity areknown at the time of estimate preparation.
Class 4 estimates are generally prepared based on verylimited information, and subsequently have very wide accuracyranges. They are typically used for project screening,determination of feasibility, concept evaluation, and preliminarybudget approval. Typically, engineering is from 1% to 5%complete, and would comprise at a minimum the following:plant capacity, block schematics, indicated layout, process flowdiagrams (PFDs) for main process systems and preliminaryengineered process and utility equipment lists. Level of ProjectDefinition Required: 1% to 15% of full project definition.
Class 3 estimates are generally prepared to form the basis forbudget authorization, appropriation, and/or funding. As such,they typically form the initial control estimate against which allactual costs and resources will be monitored. Typically,engineering is from 10% to 40% complete, and wouldcomprise at a minimum the following: process flow diagrams,utility flow diagrams, preliminary piping and instrumentdiagrams, utility flow diagrams, preliminary piping andinstrument diagrams, plot plan, developed layout drawings,and essentially complete engineering process and utilityequipment lists. Level Of Project Definition Required: 10% to40% of full project definition.
Class 2 estimates are generally prepared to form a detailedcontrol baseline against which all project work is monitored interms of cost and progress control. For contractors, this classof estimate is often used as the "bid" estimate to establishcontract value. Typically, engineering is from 30% to 70%complete, and would comprise at a minimum the following:Process flow diagrams, utility flow diagrams, piping andinstrument flow diagrams, heat and material balances, finalplot plan, final layout drawings, complete engineered processand utility equipment lists, single line diagrams for electrical,electrical equipment and motor schedules, vendor quotations,detailed project execution plans, resourcing and work forceplans, etc.
Class 1 estimates are generally prepared for discrete parts orsections of the total project rather than generating this level ofdetail for the entire project. The parts of the project estimated atthis level of detail will typically be used by subcontractors for bids,or by owners for check estimates. The updated estimate is oftenreferred to as the current control estimate and becomes the newbaseline for cost/schedule control of the project. Class 1estimates may be prepared for parts of the project to comprise afair price estimate or bid check estimate to compare against acontractor's bid estimate, or to evaluate/dispute claims. Typically,engineering is from 50% to 100% complete, and would comprisevirtually all engineering and design documentation of the project,and complete project execution and commissioning plans. Levelfor Project Definition Required: 50% to 100% of full projectdefinition. 1 2 to 4 3 to 10 4 to 20
Check Estimate or Bid / Tender
Capacity Factored, Parametric Models,
Judgment, or Analogy Equipment Factored or Parametric Models Semi-Detailed Unit Costs with Assembly Level Line Items Detailed Unit Cost with Forced Detailed Take-Off Detailed Unit Cost with Detailed Take-Off Concept Screening Study or Feasibility Budget Authorization, or Control 10% to 40% 30% to 70% 50% to 100%
Class 5 Class 4 Class 3 Class 2
Control or Bid / Tender
Class 1
0% to 2% 1% to 15%
Packet Pg. 421
Attachment: Preliminary Design Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Estimate Class Class 5 Class 4 Class 3 Class 2 Class 1
Estimate Input
Checklist and
Maturity Index
GENERAL PROJECT
DATA
Project ScopeDescriptionPlant Production / Facility
CapacityPlant LocationSoils & HydrologyIntegrated Project PlanProject Master ScheduleEscalation StrategyWork BreakdownStructureProject Code ofAccountsContracting Strategy
ENGINEERING
DELIVERABLES:
Block Flow DiagramsPlot PlansProcess Flow Diagrams(PFDs)Utility Flow Diagrams(UFDs)Piping & InstrumentDiagrams (P&IDS)Heat and MaterialBalancesProcess Equipment ListUtility Equipment ListElectrical One LineDrawingsSpecifications andDatasheetsGeneral EquipmentArrangement DrawingsSpare Parts ListsArchitectural Details /SchedulesStructural DetailsMechanical DisciplineDrawingsElectrical DisciplineDrawingsSystem DisciplineDrawingsCivil/Site DisciplineDrawingsDemolition Details Class 5 Class 4 Class 3 Class 2 Class 1
Started / Preliminary
Started
Started Preliminary / Complete Complete CompleteStarted Preliminary / Complete CompleteStarted Preliminary / Complete Complete Preliminary / Complete
Started Preliminary Preliminary / CompleteStarted Preliminary CompleteComplete
Preliminary / Complete
Started Preliminary Preliminary / Complete
Preliminary
Complete
Started / Preliminary Preliminary Complete
Started Preliminary / CompleteStarted Complete
Started
Preliminary / Complete
CompleteComplete
Complete
CompleteCompleteCompleteComplete
Complete
Started / Preliminary Complete
Preliminary / CompletePreliminary / CompletePreliminary / CompletePreliminary / CompletePreliminary / CompletePreliminary / Complete Started / PreliminaryStarted / Preliminary
Preliminary / Complete
CompleteComplete
DefinedDefined
Specific
DefinedDefined
CompleteComplete
DefinedDefined
Complete
DefinedDefinedDefined
DefinedDefinedDefined
Complete
Preliminary / Complete
CompleteCompleteCompleteCompleteCompleteComplete
DefinedDefinedDefinedDefinedDefinedDefinedSpecific
DefinedDefinedDefined
Preliminary
DefinedDefined
Specific
DefinedDefinedDefined
Started
Preliminary / Complete
Started
Started / Preliminary
PreliminaryPreliminary
Assumed
PreliminaryPreliminary
Approximate
PreliminaryPreliminaryPreliminaryPreliminary
None
Assumed
Started / Preliminary
NoneNoneNoneNone
General
Assumed
General
None
Class 5 Class 4 Class 3 Class 2 Class 1
Packet Pg. 422
Attachment: Preliminary Design Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and
SUMMARY REPORT
Project type: Project Name: COR P1 Replacement Alt 2 New River Trail Location Rev 3 Estimator: Nick Cavalleri/RDD Job Size: Project Number: W8Y06200 Revision/Date: 3 / Mar 1, 2022 Duration: Design Stage: Feasibility Estimate Class: 4
Area Facility Description Takeoff Quantity Labor Cost/Unit Equip Cost/Unit Material Cost/Unit Sub Cost/Unit Other Cost/Unit Direct Total Cost/Unit Direct Total Grand Total Price Grand Total with Markups
02 Alt 2: New River Trail Location
001 Mobilization/Demobilization 1.00 LS /LS /LS /LS /LS 484,000.00 /LS 484,000.00 /LS 484,000 484,000.00 /LS 484,000 002 Bonding/Insurance 1.00 LS /LS /LS /LS /LS 364,200.00 /LS 364,200.00 /LS 364,200 364,200.00 /LS 364,200 003 Site Clearing/Grubbing 1.00 LS 9,517.28 /LS 3,791.72 /LS 2,800.00 /LS 2,500.00 /LS /LS 18,609.00 /LS 18,609 26,393.86 /LS 26,394 004 Site Improvements 1.00 LS 129,637.93 /LS 99,722.39 /LS 113,144.00 /LS 24,645.00 /LS 588,300.00 /LS 955,449.32 /LS 955,449 1,352,624.99 /LS 1,352,625 005 Intake and Pumping Plant 1,850.00 SF 408.83 /SF 106.92 /SF 3,202.89 /SF 188.78 /SF /SF 3,907.43 /SF 7,228,737 6,311.00 /SF 11,675,341 006 Conveyance Pipelines and Surge Tank 1.00 LS 43,953.35 /LS 31,726.56 /LS 260,471.00 /LS 402,600.00 /LS /LS 738,750.91 /LS 738,751 1,099,117.63 /LS 1,099,118 007 Electrical Improvements 1.00 LS 1,570.54 /LS 146.75 /LS 15,000.00 /LS 231,000.00 /LS /LS 247,717.29 /LS 247,717 411,438.89 /LS 411,439 008 Site Utilities 1.00 LS 3,141.07 /LS 293.50 /LS 25,000.00 /LS 269,500.00 /LS /LS 297,934.57 /LS 297,935 428,044.95 /LS 428,045 009 Site Access 1.00 LS 71,390.30 /LS 57,868.26 /LS 50,273.62 /LS 3,500.00 /LS /LS 183,032.18 /LS 183,032 261,477.20 /LS 261,477 010 Jenny Creek Fish Ladder 1.00 LS 37,223.83 /LS 13,464.95 /LS 90,910.00 /LS 22,800.00 /LS /LS 164,398.78 /LS 164,399 238,632.52 /LS 238,633 011 Jenny Creek Culvert Rehabilitation 1.00 LS 45,247.61 /LS 13,823.52 /LS 57,719.30 /LS /LS /LS 116,790.43 /LS 116,790 168,960.48 /LS 168,960 012 Existing Pump Station 1 Demolition 1.00 LS 217,998.14 /LS 169,692.22 /LS 20,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 407,690.36 /LS 407,690 574,832.29 /LS 574,832 013 River Trail Restoration Post Construction 1.00 LS 14,855.36 /LS 3,539.52 /LS 25,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 43,394.88 /LS 43,395 63,072.47 /LS 63,072 02 Alt 2: New River Trail Location 1.00 LS 1,330,869.04 /LS 591,873.33 /LS 6,585,667.72 /LS 1,305,795.00 /LS 1,436,500.00 /LS 11,250,705.09 /LS 11,250,705 17,148,136.25 /LS 17,148,136 Estimate Totals
Description Amount Totals Hours Rate
Labor 1,957,898 18,663.892 hrs
Material 10,715,983
Subcontract 1,959,151
Equipment 839,798 6,692.827 hrs
Subtotal W/ Escalation 15,472,830 15,472,830
Non Markup Items 1,675,306
Subtotal W/ Non Markup Items 1,675,306 17,148,136
Design Contingency 4,287,034 25.000 %
Subtotal W/ Design Contingency 4,287,034 21,435,170
Construction Contingency 3,215,276 15.000 %
Total Construction Cost 3,215,276 24,650,446
COR P1 Replacement Alt 2 Site Rev 3 3/1/2022 4:35 PM
Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: Preliminary Design Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and
DETAIL REPORT
Project type: Project Name: COR P1 Replacement Alt 2 New River Trail Location Rev 3 Estimator: Nick Cavalleri/RDD Job Size: Project Number: W8Y06200 Revision/Date: 3 / Mar 1, 2022 Duration: Design Stage: Feasibility Estimate Class: 4
Area Facility Work Pkg WorkActiv Unit Price Description Takeoff Quantity Labor Cost/Unit Equip Cost/Unit Material Cost/Unit Sub Cost/Unit Other Cost/Unit Direct Total Cost/Unit Direct Total Grand Total Price Grand Total with Markups
02 Alt 2: New River Trail Location
001 Mobilization/Demobilization
01.0 General Requirements
01.00.000 Mobilization and Demobilization
01.01.05.00 General Conditions, Other
Mobilization and Demobilization Allowance 1.00 LS 0.00 /LS - 0.00 /LS - 484,000.00 /LS 484,000.00 /LS 484,000 484,000.00 /LS 484,000
01.01.05.00 General Conditions, Other 1.00 LS /LS /LS /LS /LS 484,000.00 /LS 484,000.00 /LS 484,000 484,000.00 /LS 484,000
01.00.000 Mobilization and Demobilization 1.00 LS /LS /LS /LS /LS 484,000.00 /LS 484,000.00 /LS 484,000 484,000.00 /LS 484,000
01.0 General Requirements 1.00 LS /LS /LS /LS /LS 484,000.00 /LS 484,000.00 /LS 484,000 484,000.00 /LS 484,000 001 Mobilization/Demobilization 1.00 LS /LS /LS /LS /LS 484,000.00 /LS 484,000.00 /LS 484,000 484,000.00 /LS 484,000 002 Bonding/Insurance
01.0 General Requirements
01.00.002 Bonds and Insurances
01.01.05.00 General Conditions, Other
Bonds and Insurances 1.00 LS 0.00 /LS - 0.00 /LS - 364,200.00 /LS 364,200.00 /LS 364,200 364,200.00 /LS 364,200
01.01.05.00 General Conditions, Other 1.00 LS /LS /LS /LS /LS 364,200.00 /LS 364,200.00 /LS 364,200 364,200.00 /LS 364,200
01.00.002 Bonds and Insurances 1.00 LS /LS /LS /LS /LS 364,200.00 /LS 364,200.00 /LS 364,200 364,200.00 /LS 364,200
01.0 General Requirements 1.00 LS /LS /LS /LS /LS 364,200.00 /LS 364,200.00 /LS 364,200 364,200.00 /LS 364,200 002 Bonding/Insurance 1.00 LS /LS /LS /LS /LS 364,200.00 /LS 364,200.00 /LS 364,200 364,200.00 /LS 364,200 003 Site Clearing/Grubbing
31.0 Earthwork
31.15.000 Pumping Plant Site Clearing and Grubbing
31.15.01.00 Site Preparation, Clearing and Grubbing
Clear and Gub Site 10,300.00 SF 0.72 /SF 0.17 /SF 0.10 /SF - - 0.99 /SF 10,197 1.40 /SF 14,419 Haul and Disposal 4.00 ld 398.61 /ld 461.25 /ld 450.00 /ld - - 1,309.85 /ld 5,239 1,878.68 /ld 7,515 Load Spoils for Disposal 1.00 ls 495.18 /ls 176.98 /ls - - 672.16 /ls 672 945.01 /ls 945 Erosion Controls Allowance 1.00 ls - 2,500.00 /ls - 2,500.00 /ls 2,500 3,514.81 /ls 3,515
31.15.01.00 Site Preparation, Clearing and Grubbing 10,300.00 SF 0.92 /SF 0.37 /SF 0.27 /SF 0.24 /SF /SF 1.81 /SF 18,609 2.56 /SF 26,394
31.15.000 Pumping Plant Site Clearing and Grubbing 1.00 LS 9,517.28 /LS 3,791.72 /LS 2,800.00 /LS 2,500.00 /LS /LS 18,609.00 /LS 18,609 26,393.86 /LS 26,394
31.0 Earthwork 1.00 LS 9,517.28 /LS 3,791.72 /LS 2,800.00 /LS 2,500.00 /LS /LS 18,609.00 /LS 18,609 26,393.86 /LS 26,394 003 Site Clearing/Grubbing 1.00 LS 9,517.28 /LS 3,791.72 /LS 2,800.00 /LS 2,500.00 /LS /LS 18,609.00 /LS 18,609 26,393.86 /LS 26,394 004 Site Improvements
32.0 Exterior Improvements
31.30.000 Permanent Sheet Pile Training Walls
31.16.01.00 Earthworks, Sheeting and Shoring
Unload and Inventory Sheet Piles 294.15 ton 18.60 /ton 12.52 /ton - - 31.12 /ton 9,154 43.75 /ton 12,869 Drive Sheet Pile 294.15 TON 338.25 /TON 289.99 /TON - - 628.24 /TON 184,796 883.26 /TON 259,810 On Site material handling from storage area to Point of Use. 294.15 ton 9.64 /ton 9.74 /ton - - 19.38 /ton 5,701 27.25 /ton 8,015 Cutoff Sheet Piles, Freash Head 282.00 lf 26.85 /lf 1.53 /lf - - 28.39 /lf 8,005 39.91 /lf 11,255 Misc. Items Allowance, spacers, bolts, & nuts 1.00 ls 82,000.00 /ls - - 82,000.00 /ls 82,000 122,050.89 /ls 122,051 Waler Beams double C15 x 33.9 282.00 lf 15.98 /lf 16.73 /lf 50.00 /lf - - 82.71 /lf 23,323 120.40 /lf 33,954 Secure Sheet Pile During and Remove After Cuttoff 4.25 ton 73.53 /ton 63.04 /ton - - 136.57 /ton 580 192.01 /ton 816 Purchase Sheet Piles, AZ26-700 294.15 ton - - - 2,000.00 /ton 2,000.00 /ton 588,300 2,811.85 /ton 827,106 Sheet piling, steel, tie rod, 1-3/4" excludes wales 3.34 ton 1,237.95 /ton 294.96 /ton 2,100.00 /ton - - 3,632.91 /ton 12,134 5,280.85 /ton 17,638
31.16.01.00 Earthworks, Sheeting and Shoring 16,920.00 SF 7.35 /SF 5.81 /SF 6.09 /SF /SF 34.77 /SF 54.02 /SF 913,994 76.45 /SF 1,293,514
31.30.000 Permanent Sheet Pile Training Walls 294.15 TON 422.67 /TON 334.02 /TON 350.55 /TON /TON 2,000.00 /TON 3,107.24 /TON 913,994 4,397.46 /TON 1,293,514
32.00.000 Site Improvements
32.40.04.00 Site Improvements, Paving, Gravel Surfacing Site Gravel Surfacing 8,215.00 SF - 3.00 /SF - 3.00 /SF 24,645 4.22 /SF 34,649
32.40.04.00 Site Improvements, Paving, Gravel Surfacing 8,215.00 SF /SF /SF /SF 3.00 /SF /SF 3.00 /SF 24,645 4.22 /SF 34,649
32.45.01.00 Fencing, Chain Link
Fence, chain link industrial, aluminized steel, 2" posts @ 10' OC, 3 strands barb wire, 9 ga. wire, 6' high, includes excavation, & concrete
160.00 lf 5.96 /lf 0.97 /lf 26.50 /lf - - 33.43 /lf 5,349 49.19 /lf 7,870 Fence, chain link industrial, double swing gates, 8' high, 20' opening, includes excavation, posts & hardware in concrete
2.00 opng 1,387.57 /opng 478.08 /opng 750.00 /opng - - 2,615.65 /opng 5,231 3,739.28 /opng 7,479
32.45.01.00 Fencing, Chain Link 200.00 LF 18.65 /LF 5.55 /LF 28.70 /LF /LF /LF 52.90 /LF 10,580 76.74 /LF 15,348
32.50.02.00 Site Improvements, Guard Rails
Vehicle guide rails, corrugated steel, galvanized steel posts, steel posts 6'-3" O.C, 6" x 8" posts
270.00 LF 5.59 /LF 1.28 /LF 15.00 /LF - - 21.87 /LF 5,906 31.99 /LF 8,637 Vehicle guide rails, corrugated steel, galvanized steel posts, install end section, wrap-around, corrugated steel
4.00 ea 17.80 /ea 3.46 /ea 60.00 /ea - - 81.26 /ea 325 119.20 /ea 477
32.50.02.00 Site Improvements, Guard Rails 270.00 LF 5.85 /LF 1.33 /LF 15.89 /LF /LF /LF 23.08 /LF 6,231 33.75 /LF 9,114
32.00.000 Site Improvements 1.00 LS 5,309.46 /LS 1,471.31 /LS 10,030.00 /LS 24,645.00 /LS /LS 41,455.77 /LS 41,456 59,111.20 /LS 59,111
32.0 Exterior Improvements 1.00 LS 129,637.93 /LS 99,722.39 /LS 113,144.00 /LS 24,645.00 /LS 588,300.00 /LS 955,449.32 /LS 955,449 1,352,624.99 /LS 1,352,625 004 Site Improvements 1.00 LS 129,637.93 /LS 99,722.39 /LS 113,144.00 /LS 24,645.00 /LS 588,300.00 /LS 955,449.32 /LS 955,449 1,352,624.99 /LS 1,352,625 005 Intake and Pumping Plant
03.0 Concrete Work
03.00.000 Pump Station Concrete Slab 12" Thick Includes Thickened Perimeter
03.10.05.12 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Slabs on Grade, 12" thick C.I.P. concrete forms, slab on grade, edge, wood, over 12", 4 use, includes erecting, bracing, stripping and cleaning 287.00 sfca 7.57 /sfca - 1.43 /sfca - - 9.00 /sfca 2,584 14.13 /sfca 4,054 Reinforcing Steel, in place, slab on grade, #3 to #7, A615, grade 60, incl labor for accessories, excl material for accessories
8.00 ton 1,200.62 /ton - 1,500.00 /ton - - 2,700.62 /ton 21,605 4,325.72 /ton 34,606 Reinforcing in place, unloading & sorting, add to above - slabs 8.00 ton 41.72 /ton 6.69 /ton - - - 48.41 /ton 387 75.32 /ton 603 Struct concrete,ready mix,normal wt,4500 psi,includes local aggregate,sand,portland cement and water,delivered,excludes all additives and treatments
93.00 cy - - 133.00 /cy - - 133.00 /cy 12,369 217.91 /cy 20,266 Structural concrete, placing, slab on grade, pumped, over 6" thick, includes strike off & consolidation, excludes material
90.00 CY 21.18 /CY 5.71 /CY - - - 26.89 /CY 2,420 41.84 /CY 3,766 Cfnsh,flrs,for spcf rndm accs flrs aci clss 1,2,3 and 4,achv a cmps ovrl flr fltn&lvln val f35/25,bull flt,mchn flt&stl trwl (wlk-bhn),excl plcn,strkn
1,850.00 sf 0.88 /sf 0.03 /sf - - - 0.91 /sf 1,682 1.41 /sf 2,618 Curing, sprayed membrane curing compound 18.50 csf 9.74 /csf - 12.20 /csf - - 21.94 /csf 406 35.15 /csf 650 Fine grading, fine grade for slab on grade, machine 205.56 sy 1.02 /sy 0.70 /sy - - - 1.72 /sy 353 2.67 /sy 550
03.10.05.12 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Slabs on Grade, 12" thick 90.00 CY 178.22 /CY 8.47 /CY 277.83 /CY /CY /CY 464.52 /CY 41,807 745.68 /CY 67,111
03.00.000 Pump Station Concrete Slab 12" Thick Includes Thickened Perimeter
90.00 CY 178.22 /CY 8.47 /CY 277.83 /CY /CY /CY 464.52 /CY 41,807 745.68 /CY 67,111
03.00.002 Pump Station Equipment Pads
03.10.13.12 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Equipment Pads, 12" thick Concrete surface treatment, bonding agent, epoxy resin, 80 S.F. per gallon, 4 gallon case, includes material only
1.60 gal - - 62.50 /gal - - 62.50 /gal 100 102.40 /gal 164 COR P1 Replacement Alt 2 Site Rev 3 3/1/2022 4:36 PM
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: Preliminary Design Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and
DETAIL REPORT
Project type: Project Name: COR P1 Replacement Alt 2 New River Trail Location Rev 3 Estimator: Nick Cavalleri/RDD Job Size: Project Number: W8Y06200 Revision/Date: 3 / Mar 1, 2022 Duration: Design Stage: Feasibility Estimate Class: 4
Area Facility Work Pkg WorkActiv Unit Price Description Takeoff Quantity Labor Cost/Unit Equip Cost/Unit Material Cost/Unit Sub Cost/Unit Other Cost/Unit Direct Total Cost/Unit Direct Total Grand Total Price Grand Total with Markups
03.10.13.12 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Equipment Pads, 12" thick C.I.P. concrete forms, slab on grade, edge, wood, 7" to 12" high, 4 use, includes erecting, bracing, stripping and cleaning 100.00 sfca 10.87 /sfca - 1.14 /sfca - - 12.01 /sfca 1,201 18.78 /sfca 1,878 Reinforcing Steel, in place, slab on grade, #3 to #7, A615, grade 60, incl labor for accessories, excl material for accessories
0.50 ton 1,200.62 /ton - 1,500.00 /ton - - 2,700.62 /ton 1,350 4,325.68 /ton 2,163 Reinforcing in place, unloading & sorting, add to above - slabs 0.50 ton 41.72 /ton 6.70 /ton - - - 48.42 /ton 24 75.38 /ton 38 Struct concrete,ready mix,normal wt,4500 psi,includes local aggregate,sand,portland cement and water,delivered,excludes all additives and treatments
5.50 cy - - 133.00 /cy - - 133.00 /cy 732 217.91 /cy 1,199 Structural concrete, placing, slab on grade, pumped, over 6" thick, includes strike off & consolidation, excludes material
5.00 CY 21.18 /CY 5.71 /CY - - - 26.89 /CY 134 41.84 /CY 209 Cfnsh,flrs,for spcf rndm accs flrs aci clss 1,2,3 and 4,achv a cmps ovrl flr fltn&lvln val f35/25,bull flt,mchn flt&stl trwl (wlk-bhn),excl plcn,strkn
125.00 sf 0.88 /sf 0.03 /sf - - - 0.91 /sf 114 1.41 /sf 177 Curing, sprayed membrane curing compound 1.25 csf 9.74 /csf - 12.20 /csf - - 21.94 /csf 27 35.16 /csf 44
03.10.13.12 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Equipment Pads, 12" thick 5.00 CY 387.24 /CY 7.06 /CY 342.15 /CY /CY /CY 736.45 /CY 3,682 1,174.10 /CY 5,870
03.00.002 Pump Station Equipment Pads 5.00 CY 387.24 /CY 7.06 /CY 342.15 /CY /CY /CY 736.45 /CY 3,682 1,174.10 /CY 5,870
03.00.004 Pump Station Electrical Room Equipment Pads
03.10.13.06 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Equipment Pads, 6" thick Concrete surface treatment, bonding agent, epoxy resin, 80 S.F. per gallon, 4 gallon case, includes material only
1.50 gal - - 62.50 /gal - - 62.50 /gal 94 102.40 /gal 154 C.I.P. concrete forms, slab on grade, edge, wood, to 6" high, 4 use, includes erecting, bracing, stripping and cleaning
49.00 lf 5.54 /lf - 0.45 /lf - - 5.99 /lf 294 9.36 /lf 459 Reinforcing Steel, in place, slab on grade, #3 to #7, A615, grade 60, incl labor for accessories, excl material for accessories
0.25 ton 1,200.64 /ton - 1,500.00 /ton - - 2,700.64 /ton 675 4,325.80 /ton 1,081 Reinforcing in place, unloading & sorting, add to above - slabs 0.25 ton 41.70 /ton 6.68 /ton - - - 48.40 /ton 12 75.28 /ton 19 Struct concrete,ready mix,normal wt,4500 psi,includes local aggregate,sand,portland cement and water,delivered,excludes all additives and treatments
3.00 cy - - 133.00 /cy - - 133.00 /cy 399 217.91 /cy 654 Structural concrete, placing, slab on grade, pumped, over 6" thick, includes strike off & consolidation, excludes material
2.50 CY 21.18 /CY 5.71 /CY - - - 26.89 /CY 67 41.84 /CY 105 Cfnsh,flrs,for spcf rndm accs flrs aci clss 1,2,3 and 4,achv a cmps ovrl flr fltn&lvln val f35/25,bull flt,mchn flt&stl trwl (wlk-bhn),excl plcn,strkn
120.00 sf 0.88 /sf 0.03 /sf - - - 0.91 /sf 109 1.41 /sf 170 Curing, sprayed membrane curing compound 1.20 csf 9.74 /csf - 12.20 /csf - - 21.94 /csf 26 35.13 /csf 42
03.10.13.06 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Equipment Pads, 6" thick 2.50 CY 301.10 /CY 7.69 /CY 361.78 /CY /CY /CY 670.57 /CY 1,676 1,073.20 /CY 2,683
03.00.004 Pump Station Electrical Room Equipment Pads 2.50 CY 301.10 /CY 7.69 /CY 361.78 /CY /CY /CY 670.57 /CY 1,676 1,073.20 /CY 2,683
03.00.006 Pump Station HVAC Pad
03.10.05.06 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Slabs on Grade, 6" thick C.I.P. concrete forms, slab on grade, edge, wood, to 6" high, 4 use, includes erecting, bracing, stripping and cleaning
32.00 lf 4.25 /lf - 0.45 /lf - - 4.70 /lf 150 7.34 /lf 235 Reinforcing Steel, in place, slab on grade, #3 to #7, A615, grade 60, incl labor for accessories, excl material for accessories
0.15 ton 1,200.60 /ton - 1,500.00 /ton - - 2,700.60 /ton 405 4,325.80 /ton 649 Reinforcing in place, unloading & sorting, add to above - slabs 0.15 ton 41.70 /ton 6.67 /ton - - - 48.40 /ton 7 75.20 /ton 11 Struct concrete,ready mix,normal wt,4500 psi,includes local aggregate,sand,portland cement and water,delivered,excludes all additives and treatments
1.50 cy - - 133.00 /cy - - 133.00 /cy 200 217.91 /cy 327 Structural concrete, placing, slab on grade, pumped, over 6" thick, includes strike off & consolidation, excludes material
1.25 CY 21.18 /CY 5.71 /CY - - - 26.89 /CY 34 41.83 /CY 52 Cfnsh,flrs,for spcf rndm accs flrs aci clss 1,2,3 and 4,achv a cmps ovrl flr fltn&lvln val f35/25,bull flt,mchn flt&stl trwl (wlk-bhn),excl plcn,strkn
64.00 sf 0.88 /sf 0.03 /sf - - - 0.91 /sf 58 1.42 /sf 91 Curing, sprayed membrane curing compound 0.64 csf 9.75 /csf - 12.20 /csf - - 21.95 /csf 14 35.17 /csf 23 Fine grading, fine grade for slab on grade, machine 7.11 sy 1.02 /sy 0.70 /sy - - - 1.72 /sy 12 2.67 /sy 19
03.10.05.06 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Slabs on Grade, 6" thick 1.25 CY 334.87 /CY 11.90 /CY 357.37 /CY /CY /CY 704.14 /CY 880 1,125.07 /CY 1,406
03.00.006 Pump Station HVAC Pad 1.25 CY 334.87 /CY 11.90 /CY 357.37 /CY /CY /CY 704.14 /CY 880 1,125.07 /CY 1,406
03.00.008 Pump Station Switchgear Pad
03.10.05.12 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Slabs on Grade, 12" thick C.I.P. concrete forms, slab on grade, edge, wood, over 12", 4 use, includes erecting, bracing, stripping and cleaning
86.00 sfca 7.57 /sfca - 1.43 /sfca - - 9.00 /sfca 774 14.13 /sfca 1,215 Reinforcing Steel, in place, slab on grade, #3 to #7, A615, grade 60, incl labor for accessories, excl material for accessories
1.05 ton 1,200.63 /ton - 1,500.00 /ton - - 2,700.63 /ton 2,836 4,325.73 /ton 4,542 Reinforcing in place, unloading & sorting, add to above - slabs 1.05 ton 41.71 /ton 6.70 /ton - - - 48.41 /ton 51 75.31 /ton 79 Struct concrete,ready mix,normal wt,4500 psi,includes local aggregate,sand,portland cement and water,delivered,excludes all additives and treatments
12.50 cy - - 133.00 /cy - - 133.00 /cy 1,663 217.91 /cy 2,724 Structural concrete, placing, slab on grade, pumped, over 6" thick, includes strike off & consolidation, excludes material
12.00 CY 21.18 /CY 5.71 /CY - - - 26.89 /CY 323 41.84 /CY 502 Cfnsh,flrs,for spcf rndm accs flrs aci clss 1,2,3 and 4,achv a cmps ovrl flr fltn&lvln val f35/25,bull flt,mchn flt&stl trwl (wlk-bhn),excl plcn,strkn
306.00 sf 0.88 /sf 0.03 /sf - - - 0.91 /sf 278 1.41 /sf 433 Curing, sprayed membrane curing compound 3.06 csf 9.75 /csf - 12.20 /csf - - 21.94 /csf 67 35.15 /csf 108 Fine grading, fine grade for slab on grade, machine 34.00 sy 1.02 /sy 0.70 /sy - - - 1.72 /sy 58 2.67 /sy 91
03.10.05.12 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Slabs on Grade, 12" thick 12.00 CY 212.02 /CY 8.98 /CY 283.15 /CY /CY /CY 504.15 /CY 6,050 807.78 /CY 9,693
03.00.008 Pump Station Switchgear Pad 12.00 CY 212.02 /CY 8.98 /CY 283.15 /CY /CY /CY 504.15 /CY 6,050 807.78 /CY 9,693
03.00.009 Can Pump, Can Foundation Slab
03.10.05.08 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Slabs on Grade, 8" thick C.I.P. concrete forms, slab on grade, edge, wood, 7" to 12" high, 4 use, includes erecting, bracing, stripping and cleaning
60.00 sfca 9.06 /sfca - 1.14 /sfca - - 10.20 /sfca 612 15.96 /sfca 957 Reinforcing Steel, in place, slab on grade, #3 to #7, A615, grade 60, incl labor for accessories, excl material for accessories
0.50 ton 1,200.62 /ton - 1,500.00 /ton - - 2,700.62 /ton 1,350 4,325.72 /ton 2,163 Reinforcing in place, unloading & sorting, add to above - slabs 0.50 ton 41.72 /ton 6.70 /ton - - - 48.42 /ton 24 75.34 /ton 38 Struct concrete,ready mix,normal wt,4500 psi,includes local aggregate,sand,portland cement and water,delivered,excludes all additives and treatments
4.25 cy - - 133.00 /cy - - 133.00 /cy 565 217.91 /cy 926 Structural concrete, placing, slab on grade, pumped, over 6" thick, includes strike off & consolidation, excludes material
4.00 CY 21.18 /CY 5.71 /CY - - - 26.89 /CY 108 41.84 /CY 167 Cfnsh,flrs,for spcf rndm accs flrs aci clss 1,2,3 and 4,achv a cmps ovrl flr fltn&lvln val f35/25,bull flt,mchn flt&stl trwl (wlk-bhn),excl plcn,strkn
160.00 sf 0.88 /sf 0.03 /sf - - - 0.91 /sf 146 1.41 /sf 226 Curing, sprayed membrane curing compound 1.60 csf 9.74 /csf - 12.20 /csf - - 21.94 /csf 35 35.14 /csf 56 COR P1 Replacement Alt 2 Site Rev 3 3/1/2022 4:36 PM
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Preliminary Design Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and
DETAIL REPORT
Project type: Project Name: COR P1 Replacement Alt 2 New River Trail Location Rev 3 Estimator: Nick Cavalleri/RDD Job Size: Project Number: W8Y06200 Revision/Date: 3 / Mar 1, 2022 Duration: Design Stage: Feasibility Estimate Class: 4
Area Facility Work Pkg WorkActiv Unit Price Description Takeoff Quantity Labor Cost/Unit Equip Cost/Unit Material Cost/Unit Sub Cost/Unit Other Cost/Unit Direct Total Cost/Unit Direct Total Grand Total Price Grand Total with Markups
03.10.05.08 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Slabs on Grade, 8" thick Fine grading, fine grade for slab on grade, machine 17.78 sy 1.02 /sy 0.70 /sy - - - 1.72 /sy 31 2.67 /sy 48
03.10.05.08 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Slabs on Grade, 8" thick 4.00 CY 356.01 /CY 10.76 /CY 350.79 /CY /CY /CY 717.56 /CY 2,870 1,145.41 /CY 4,582
03.00.009 Can Pump, Can Foundation Slab 4.00 CY 356.01 /CY 10.76 /CY 350.79 /CY /CY /CY 717.56 /CY 2,870 1,145.41 /CY 4,582
03.00.010 Flow Meter Vault Concrete
03.10.05.12 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Slabs on Grade, 12" thick C.I.P. concrete forms, slab on grade, edge, wood, over 12", 4 use, includes erecting, bracing, stripping and cleaning
55.00 sfca 7.57 /sfca - 1.43 /sfca - - 9.00 /sfca 495 14.13 /sfca 777 Reinforcing Steel, in place, slab on grade, #3 to #7, A615, grade 60, incl labor for accessories, excl material for accessories
0.75 ton 1,200.63 /ton - 1,500.00 /ton - - 2,700.63 /ton 2,025 4,325.71 /ton 3,244 Reinforcing in place, unloading & sorting, add to above - slabs 0.75 ton 41.72 /ton 6.69 /ton - - - 48.41 /ton 36 75.33 /ton 57 Struct concrete,ready mix,normal wt,4500 psi,includes local aggregate,sand,portland cement and water,delivered,excludes all additives and treatments
7.25 cy - - 133.00 /cy - - 133.00 /cy 964 217.91 /cy 1,580 Structural concrete, placing, slab on grade, pumped, over 6" thick, includes strike off & consolidation, excludes material
7.00 CY 21.18 /CY 5.71 /CY - - - 26.89 /CY 188 41.84 /CY 293 Cfnsh,flrs,for spcf rndm accs flrs aci clss 1,2,3 and 4,achv a cmps ovrl flr fltn&lvln val f35/25,bull flt,mchn flt&stl trwl (wlk-bhn),excl plcn,strkn
188.00 sf 0.88 /sf 0.03 /sf - - - 0.91 /sf 171 1.41 /sf 266 Curing, sprayed membrane curing compound 1.88 csf 9.75 /csf - 12.20 /csf - - 21.95 /csf 41 35.16 /csf 66 Fine grading, fine grade for slab on grade, machine 20.89 sy 1.02 /sy 0.70 /sy - - - 1.72 /sy 36 2.67 /sy 56
03.10.05.12 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Slabs on Grade, 12" thick 7.00 CY 243.13 /CY 9.25 /CY 312.98 /CY /CY /CY 565.37 /CY 3,958 905.49 /CY 6,338
03.10.06.06 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Straight Walls, 6" thick Forms in place, wall, steel framed plywood, to 16' high, 3 use/month
784.00 sfca 6.35 /sfca - 5.40 /sfca - - 11.75 /sfca 9,213 18.73 /sfca 14,685 Form oil, coverage varies greatly, maximum, includes material only
2.09 gal - - 21.50 /gal - - 21.50 /gal 45 35.22 /gal 74 Reinforcing Steel, in place, walls, #3 to #7, A615, grade 60, incl labor for accessories, excl material for accessories
0.70 ton 1,200.63 /ton - 1,500.00 /ton - - 2,700.63 /ton 1,890 4,325.73 /ton 3,028 Reinforcing in place, unloading & sorting, add - walls, cols, beams 0.70 ton 41.71 /ton 6.69 /ton - - - 48.40 /ton 34 75.30 /ton 53 Struct concrete,ready mix,normal wt,4500 psi,includes local aggregate,sand,portland cement and water,delivered,excludes all additives and treatments
8.00 cy - - 133.00 /cy - - 133.00 /cy 1,064 217.91 /cy 1,743 Structural concrete, placing, walls, pumped, 15" thick, includes strike off & consolidation, excludes material
7.50 CY 32.65 /CY 8.81 /CY - - - 41.46 /CY 311 64.51 /CY 484 Concrete finishing, walls, burlap rub with grout, includes breaking ties and patching voids
784.00 sf 1.17 /sf - 0.04 /sf - - 1.21 /sf 946 1.88 /sf 1,475
03.10.06.06 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Straight Walls, 6" thick 7.50 CY 934.55 /CY 9.43 /CY 856.52 /CY /CY /CY 1,800.50 /CY 13,504 2,872.11 /CY 21,541
03.10.10.12 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Elevated Decks, 12" thick C.I.P. concrete forms, elevated slab, flat plate, plywood, to 15' high, 4 use, includes shoring, erecting, bracing, stripping and cleaning
161.00 sf 5.95 /sf - 1.87 /sf - - 7.82 /sf 1,260 12.33 /sf 1,985 Cip concrete forms,elevated slab,box-out for shallow slab openings,over 10 sf (use perimeter),includes
shoring,erecting,bracing,stripping and cleaning
16.00 lf 5.56 /lf - 2.56 /lf - - 8.12 /lf 130 12.84 /lf 205 C.I.P. concrete forms, elevated slab, edge forms, to 6" high, 4 use, includes shoring, erecting, bracing, stripping and cleaning
51.00 lf 4.35 /lf - 0.34 /lf - - 4.69 /lf 239 7.32 /lf 373 Reinforcing Steel, in place, elevated slabs, #4 to #7, A615, grade 60, incl labor for accessories, excl material for accessories
0.55 ton 828.02 /ton - 1,250.00 /ton - - 2,078.02 /ton 1,143 3,336.38 /ton 1,835 Reinforcing in place, unloading & sorting, add to above - decks 0.55 ton 41.70 /ton 6.69 /ton - - - 48.40 /ton 27 75.29 /ton 41 Struct concrete,ready mix,normal wt,4500 psi,includes local aggregate,sand,portland cement and water,delivered,excludes all additives and treatments
6.50 cy - - 133.00 /cy - - 133.00 /cy 865 217.91 /cy 1,416 Structural concrete, placing, elevated slab, pumped, over 10" thick, includes strike off & consolidation, excludes material
6.00 CY 21.77 /CY 5.87 /CY - - - 27.64 /CY 166 43.00 /CY 258 Finishing elev slab, bull float, manual float & manual steel trowel 161.00 sf 1.20 /sf - - - - 1.20 /sf 193 1.86 /sf 300 Curing, sprayed membrane curing compound, elevated decks 1.61 csf 9.75 /csf - 12.45 /csf - - 22.19 /csf 36 35.56 /csf 57
03.10.10.12 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Elevated Decks, 12" thick 6.00 CY 347.75 /CY 6.49 /CY 321.90 /CY /CY /CY 676.14 /CY 4,057 1,078.58 /CY 6,471
03.00.010 Flow Meter Vault Concrete 20.50 CY 526.71 /CY 8.51 /CY 514.45 /CY /CY /CY 1,049.66 /CY 21,518 1,675.64 /CY 34,351
03.00.012 Concrete Wall at Tee Screens
03.10.02.24 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Continuous Footings, 24" thick C.I.P. concrete forms, footing, continuous wall, dowel supports, 1 use, more than 20' below grade, includes erecting, bracing, stripping and cleaning
40.00 lf 6.79 /lf - 1.56 /lf - - 8.35 /lf 334 13.12 /lf 525 C.I.P. concrete forms, footing, keyway, tapered wood, 2" x 6", 4 use, includes erecting, bracing, stripping and cleaning
40.00 lf 3.56 /lf - 0.53 /lf - - 4.09 /lf 164 6.41 /lf 257 Reinforcing Steel, in place, footings, #4 to #7, A615, grade 60, incl labor for accessories, excl material for accessories
3.25 ton 1,200.63 /ton - 1,500.00 /ton - - 2,700.63 /ton 8,777 4,325.72 /ton 14,059 Reinforcing steel, unload and sort, add to base 3.25 ton 41.71 /ton 6.69 /ton - - - 48.41 /ton 157 75.32 /ton 245 Reinforcing steel, crane cost for handling, average, add 3.25 ton 45.34 /ton 7.27 /ton - - - 52.62 /ton 171 81.87 /ton 266 Struct concrete,ready mix,normal wt,4500 psi,includes local aggregate,sand,portland cement and water,delivered,excludes all additives and treatments
38.00 cy - - 133.00 /cy - - 133.00 /cy 5,054 217.91 /cy 8,281 Structural concrete, placing, continuous footing, deep, pumped, includes strike off & consolidation, excludes material
37.00 CY 24.49 /CY 6.61 /CY - - - 31.09 /CY 1,150 48.38 /CY 1,790
03.10.02.24 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Continuous Footings, 24" thick
37.00 CY 148.79 /CY 7.83 /CY 270.61 /CY /CY /CY 427.23 /CY 15,808 687.07 /CY 25,422
03.10.06.18 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Straight Walls, 18" thick Forms in place, wall, steel framed plywood, >16' high, 3 use/month
1,000.00 sfca 7.33 /sfca - 5.45 /sfca - - 12.78 /sfca 12,779 20.33 /sfca 20,332 Form oil, coverage varies greatly, maximum, includes material only
2.67 gal - - 21.50 /gal - - 21.50 /gal 57 35.23 /gal 94 Reinforcing Steel, in place, walls, #3 to #7, A615, grade 60, incl labor for accessories, excl material for accessories
2.50 ton 1,200.62 /ton - 1,500.00 /ton - - 2,700.62 /ton 6,752 4,325.72 /ton 10,814 Reinforcing in place, unloading & sorting, add - walls, cols, beams 2.50 ton 41.72 /ton 6.69 /ton - - - 48.41 /ton 121 75.32 /ton 188 Reinforcing, crane cost for handling, add to above, walls, cols, beams
2.50 ton 45.34 /ton 7.27 /ton - - - 52.62 /ton 132 81.86 /ton 205 Struct concrete,ready mix,normal wt,4500 psi,includes local aggregate,sand,portland cement and water,delivered,excludes all additives and treatments
29.00 cy - - 133.00 /cy - - 133.00 /cy 3,857 217.91 /cy 6,319 COR P1 Replacement Alt 2 Site Rev 3 3/1/2022 4:36 PM
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Preliminary Design Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and
DETAIL REPORT
Project type: Project Name: COR P1 Replacement Alt 2 New River Trail Location Rev 3 Estimator: Nick Cavalleri/RDD Job Size: Project Number: W8Y06200 Revision/Date: 3 / Mar 1, 2022 Duration: Design Stage: Feasibility Estimate Class: 4
Area Facility Work Pkg WorkActiv Unit Price Description Takeoff Quantity Labor Cost/Unit Equip Cost/Unit Material Cost/Unit Sub Cost/Unit Other Cost/Unit Direct Total Cost/Unit Direct Total Grand Total Price Grand Total with Markups
03.10.06.18 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Straight Walls, 18" thick Structural concrete, placing, walls, pumped, 15" thick, includes strike off & consolidation, excludes material
28.00 CY 32.65 /CY 8.81 /CY - - - 41.46 /CY 1,161 64.50 /CY 1,806 Concrete finishing, walls, burlap rub with grout, includes breaking ties and patching voids
1,000.00 sf 1.17 /sf - 0.04 /sf - - 1.21 /sf 1,207 1.88 /sf 1,881
03.10.06.18 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Straight Walls, 18" thick 28.00 CY 451.03 /CY 10.05 /CY 469.80 /CY /CY /CY 930.88 /CY 26,065 1,487.14 /CY 41,640
03.10.06.30 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Straight Walls, 30" thick Forms in place, wall, steel framed plywood, >16' high, 3 use/month
2,760.00 sfca 7.33 /sfca - 5.45 /sfca - - 12.78 /sfca 35,269 20.33 /sfca 56,117 Form oil, coverage varies greatly, maximum, includes material only
7.36 gal - - 21.50 /gal - - 21.50 /gal 158 35.23 /gal 259 Reinforcing Steel, in place, walls, #3 to #7, A615, grade 60, incl labor for accessories, excl material for accessories
11.20 ton 1,200.62 /ton - 1,500.00 /ton - - 2,700.62 /ton 30,247 4,325.72 /ton 48,448 Reinforcing in place, unloading & sorting, add - walls, cols, beams 11.20 ton 41.72 /ton 6.69 /ton - - - 48.41 /ton 542 75.32 /ton 844 Reinforcing, crane cost for handling, add to above, walls, cols, beams
11.20 ton 45.34 /ton 7.27 /ton - - - 52.62 /ton 589 81.87 /ton 917 Struct concrete,ready mix,normal wt,4500 psi,includes local aggregate,sand,portland cement and water,delivered,excludes all additives and treatments
132.00 cy - - 133.00 /cy - - 133.00 /cy 17,556 217.91 /cy 28,764 Structural concrete, placing, walls, pumped, 15" thick, includes strike off & consolidation, excludes material
128.00 CY 32.65 /CY 8.81 /CY - - - 41.46 /CY 5,307 64.50 /CY 8,257 Concrete finishing, walls, burlap rub with grout, includes breaking ties and patching voids
2,760.00 sf 1.17 /sf - 0.04 /sf - - 1.21 /sf 3,331 1.88 /sf 5,191
03.10.06.30 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Straight Walls, 30" thick 128.00 CY 328.50 /CY 10.03 /CY 388.02 /CY /CY /CY 726.55 /CY 92,999 1,162.47 /CY 148,797
03.00.012 Concrete Wall at Tee Screens 193.00 CY 311.83 /CY 9.61 /CY 377.38 /CY /CY /CY 698.81 /CY 134,871 1,118.44 /CY 215,858
03.0 Concrete Work 328.25 CY 286.66 /CY 9.18 /CY 354.14 /CY /CY /CY 649.98 /CY 213,355 1,040.53 /CY 341,555
04.0 Masonry
04.00.000 Pumping Station Exterior CMU Walls
04.00.02.08 Masonry Concrete Masonry Units, 8"
Grout, door frames, 3' x 7' opening, 2.5 C.F. per opening 2.00 opng 34.16 /opng 2.19 /opng 13.85 /opng - - 50.19 /opng 100 79.24 /opng 158 Grout, door frames, 6' x 7' opening, 3.5 C.F. per opening 1.00 opng 45.54 /opng 2.92 /opng 19.40 /opng - - 67.86 /opng 68 107.19 /opng 107 Grout, for bond beams, lintels and concrete masonry unit (CMU) cores, C476, includes material only
895.90 cf 5.86 /cf 0.37 /cf 5.55 /cf - - 11.78 /cf 10,554 18.79 /cf 16,831 Reinforcing, steel bars A615, placed horizontal, average #4 bar 860.06 lb 1.26 /lb - 0.40 /lb - - 1.66 /lb 1,426 2.61 /lb 2,246 Masonry reinforcing bars, #3 and #4 reinforcing steel bars, placed vertically, ASTM A615
895.90 lb 1.62 /lb - 0.62 /lb - - 2.24 /lb 2,004 3.53 /lb 3,163 Masonry reinforcing bars, truss type steel joint reinforcing, mill standard galvanized, 12" wide
28.25 clf 28.29 /clf - 29.50 /clf - - 57.79 /clf 1,633 92.35 /clf 2,609 Concrete block, decorative, split face or scored split face, 2000 psi, 8" x 8" x 16", excludes scaffolding, grout and reinforcing 3,584.00 SF 8.74 /SF - 5.60 /SF - - 14.34 /SF 51,383 22.77 /SF 81,603 Angle framing, structural steel, 2"x2"x1/4", field fabricated, incl cutting & welding
34.00 lf 22.81 /lf 1.24 /lf 2.52 /lf - - 26.57 /lf 903 41.54 /lf 1,412 Silicone water repellants, sprayed on CMU, 2 coat 7,167.20 sf 0.19 /sf - 0.81 /sf - - 1.00 /sf 7,147 1.62 /sf 11,599 Reglet, zinc and copper alloy, 20 ounce 189.00 lf 2.53 /lf - 2.87 /lf - - 5.40 /lf 1,021 8.65 /lf 1,634 Reglet, counter flashing for zinc and copper alloy, 20 ounce, 12" wide
189.00 lf 4.39 /lf - 5.25 /lf - - 9.64 /lf 1,823 15.44 /lf 2,918
04.00.02.08 Masonry Concrete Masonry Units, 8" 3,584.00 SF 12.12 /SF 0.11 /SF 9.56 /SF /SF /SF 21.78 /SF 78,061 34.68 /SF 124,282
04.00.000 Pumping Station Exterior CMU Walls 3,584.00 SF 12.12 /SF 0.11 /SF 9.56 /SF /SF /SF 21.78 /SF 78,061 34.68 /SF 124,282
04.00.002 Pumping Station Interior CMU Walls
04.00.02.08 Masonry Concrete Masonry Units, 8"
Grout, door frames, 3' x 7' opening, 2.5 C.F. per opening 1.00 opng 34.16 /opng 2.19 /opng 13.85 /opng - - 50.20 /opng 50 79.24 /opng 79 Reinforcing, steel bars A615, placed horizontal, average #4 bar 169.80 lb 1.26 /lb - 0.40 /lb - - 1.66 /lb 281 2.61 /lb 443 Masonry reinforcing bars, #3 and #4 reinforcing steel bars, placed vertically, ASTM A615
124.85 lb 1.62 /lb - 0.62 /lb - - 2.24 /lb 279 3.53 /lb 441 Concrt block,high strngt,hollow,3500 psi,8"8"16",includs mortar and horzntl joint rnfrcng every other course,excluds scffldn,grout and verticl rnfrcng
500.00 SF 7.28 /SF - 4.16 /SF - - 11.44 /SF 5,720 18.14 /SF 9,072 Angle framing, structural steel, 2"x2"x1/4", field fabricated, incl cutting & welding
8.00 lf 22.81 /lf 1.24 /lf 2.52 /lf - - 26.57 /lf 213 41.54 /lf 332 Silicone water repellants, sprayed on CMU, 1 coat 1,000.00 sf 0.14 /sf - 0.40 /sf - - 0.54 /sf 540 0.87 /sf 874
04.00.02.08 Masonry Concrete Masonry Units, 8" 500.00 SF 8.83 /SF 0.02 /SF 5.32 /SF /SF /SF 14.17 /SF 7,084 22.48 /SF 11,242
04.00.002 Pumping Station Interior CMU Walls 500.00 SF 8.83 /SF 0.02 /SF 5.32 /SF /SF /SF 14.17 /SF 7,084 22.48 /SF 11,242
04.0 Masonry 4,084.00 SF 11.71 /SF 0.10 /SF 9.04 /SF /SF /SF 20.85 /SF 85,145 33.18 /SF 135,524
07.0 Thermal and Moisture Protection
07.00.000 Pumping Station Roof Framing and Roofing
07.00.99.00 Thermal & Moisture Protection, Other
Pump Station Roof Framing and Roofing Allowance 1,850.00 SF - 30.00 /SF - 30.00 /SF 55,500 46.68 /SF 86,354
07.00.99.00 Thermal & Moisture Protection, Other 1,850.00 SF /SF /SF /SF 30.00 /SF /SF 30.00 /SF 55,500 46.68 /SF 86,354
07.00.000 Pumping Station Roof Framing and Roofing 1,850.00 SF /SF /SF /SF 30.00 /SF /SF 30.00 /SF 55,500 46.68 /SF 86,354
07.0 Thermal and Moisture Protection 1,850.00 SF /SF /SF /SF 30.00 /SF /SF 30.00 /SF 55,500 46.68 /SF 86,354
08.0 Openings
08.00.000 Pump Station Openings
08.10.01.00 Openings, Doors, Frames and Hardware
Steel frms, knock down, 14 ga., to 8-3/4" throat, to 3'-0" x 7'-0", single
3.00 EA 76.03 /EA - 430.00 /EA - - 506.03 /EA 1,518 822.82 /EA 2,468 Steel frames, knock down, 14 ga., to 8-3/4" throat, to 6070, pair 1.00 EA 95.03 /EA - 455.00 /EA - - 550.03 /EA 550 893.35 /EA 893 Doors, commercial, steel, insulated, full panel, 18 ga., 3'-0" x 7'-0" x 1-3/4" thick
5.00 ea 76.03 /ea - 560.00 /ea - - 636.03 /ea 3,180 1,035.81 /ea 5,179 Average Door Hardware 5.00 ea 71.27 /ea 15.00 /ea 650.00 /ea - - 736.27 /ea 3,681 1,199.21 /ea 5,996 Doors, rolling service, steel, manual, 20 gauge, 10' x 12' high, incl. hardware
1.00 EA 1,089.43 /EA - 1,250.00 /EA - - 2,339.43 /EA 2,339 3,743.12 /EA 3,743 Doors, rolling service, steel, manual, for weatherstripping, extruded rubber, jambs, add
20.00 lf - - 19.45 /lf - - 19.45 /lf 389 31.87 /lf 637
Doors, rolling service, steel, manual, for weatherstripping, hood, extruded rubber, add
10.00 lf - - 9.25 /lf - - 9.25 /lf 93 15.16 /lf 152
Doors, rolling service, steel, manual, motor operators for, to 14' x 14' opening
1.00 ea 261.46 /ea - 1,150.00 /ea - - 1,411.46 /ea 1,411 2,291.01 /ea 2,291
08.10.01.00 Openings, Doors, Frames and Hardware 5.00 EA 482.10 /EA 15.00 /EA 2,135.30 /EA /EA /EA 2,632.40 /EA 13,162 4,271.98 /EA 21,360
08.00.000 Pump Station Openings 5.00 EA 482.10 /EA 15.00 /EA 2,135.30 /EA /EA /EA 2,632.40 /EA 13,162 4,271.98 /EA 21,360
08.0 Openings 5.00 EA 482.10 /EA 15.00 /EA 2,135.30 /EA /EA /EA 2,632.40 /EA 13,162 4,271.98 /EA 21,360
14.0 Conveying Equipment
14.00.000 Jib Crane
14.00.03.00 Hoists & Cranes
COR P1 Replacement Alt 2 Site Rev 3 3/1/2022 4:36 PM
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Preliminary Design Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and
DETAIL REPORT
Project type: Project Name: COR P1 Replacement Alt 2 New River Trail Location Rev 3 Estimator: Nick Cavalleri/RDD Job Size: Project Number: W8Y06200 Revision/Date: 3 / Mar 1, 2022 Duration: Design Stage: Feasibility Estimate Class: 4
Area Facility Work Pkg WorkActiv Unit Price Description Takeoff Quantity Labor Cost/Unit Equip Cost/Unit Material Cost/Unit Sub Cost/Unit Other Cost/Unit Direct Total Cost/Unit Direct Total Grand Total Price Grand Total with Markups
14.00.03.00 Hoists & Cranes
Jib Crane, 20' Span 1.00 EA 2,686.72 /EA 161.79 /EA 10,000.00 /EA - - 12,848.51 /EA 12,849 18,889.04 /EA 18,889
14.00.03.00 Hoists & Cranes 1.00 EA 2,686.72 /EA 161.79 /EA 10,000.00 /EA /EA /EA 12,848.51 /EA 12,849 18,889.04 /EA 18,889
14.00.000 Jib Crane 1.00 EA 2,686.72 /EA 161.79 /EA 10,000.00 /EA /EA /EA 12,848.51 /EA 12,849 18,889.04 /EA 18,889
14.0 Conveying Equipment 1.00 EA 2,686.72 /EA 161.79 /EA 10,000.00 /EA /EA /EA 12,848.51 /EA 12,849 18,889.04 /EA 18,889
22.0 Plumbing
22.00.000 Pumping Station Plumbing
22.00.01.00 Mechanical, Plumbing
Pumping Station Plumbing Allowance 1,850.00 SF - 10.00 /SF - 10.00 /SF 18,500 16.06 /SF 29,710
22.00.01.00 Mechanical, Plumbing 1,850.00 SF /SF /SF /SF 10.00 /SF /SF 10.00 /SF 18,500 16.06 /SF 29,710
22.00.000 Pumping Station Plumbing 1,850.00 SF /SF /SF /SF 10.00 /SF /SF 10.00 /SF 18,500 16.06 /SF 29,710
22.0 Plumbing 1,850.00 SF /SF /SF /SF 10.00 /SF /SF 10.00 /SF 18,500 16.06 /SF 29,710
23.0 HVAC
23.00.000 Pumping Station HVAC
23.00.02.00 Mechanical, HVAC
Pumping Station HVAC Allowance 1,850.00 SF - 35.00 /SF - 35.00 /SF 64,750 56.21 /SF 103,984
23.00.02.00 Mechanical, HVAC 1,850.00 SF /SF /SF /SF 35.00 /SF /SF 35.00 /SF 64,750 56.21 /SF 103,984
23.00.000 Pumping Station HVAC 1,850.00 SF /SF /SF /SF 35.00 /SF /SF 35.00 /SF 64,750 56.21 /SF 103,984
23.0 HVAC 1,850.00 SF /SF /SF /SF 35.00 /SF /SF 35.00 /SF 64,750 56.21 /SF 103,984
26.0 Electrical Work
26.00.000 Pump Station Electrical
26.00.99.00 Electrical, Other
Variable frequency drives, custom-engineered, 460 volt, 800 HP motor size
5.00 ea 5,415.66 /ea 506.03 /ea 75,000.00 /ea - - 80,921.68 /ea 404,608 140,187.78 /ea 700,939 MCC Allowance 1.00 LS 6,282.16 /LS 146.75 /LS 15,000.00 /LS - - 21,428.91 /LS 21,429 36,722.18 /LS 36,722 Electrical Fitout Allowance, Includes Conduit, Conductors, and Appurtenances
1.00 ls 37,669.44 /ls 4,000.00 /ls 75,000.00 /ls - - 116,669.44 /ls 116,669 199,383.40 /ls 199,383
26.00.99.00 Electrical, Other 1.00 LS 71,029.88 /LS 6,676.89 /LS 465,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 542,706.77 /LS 542,707 937,044.50 /LS 937,045
26.00.000 Pump Station Electrical 1.00 LS 71,029.88 /LS 6,676.89 /LS 465,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 542,706.77 /LS 542,707 937,044.50 /LS 937,045
26.0 Electrical Work 1.00 LS 71,029.88 /LS 6,676.89 /LS 465,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 542,706.77 /LS 542,707 937,044.50 /LS 937,045
31.0 Earthwork
31.25.000 Eathworks
31.25.01.00 Earthworks, Structural, Excavation
Excavating, trench or continuous footing, common earth, 3/4 C.Y. excavator, 10' to 14' deep, excludes sheeting or dewatering 820.00 CY 6.60 /CY 4.63 /CY - - - 11.23 /CY 9,207 15.79 /CY 12,944 Stockpile Excavated Spoils 820.00 cy 2.02 /cy 2.71 /cy 0.00 /cy - - 4.73 /cy 3,879 6.65 /cy 5,454
31.25.01.00 Earthworks, Structural, Excavation 820.00 CY 8.62 /CY 7.34 /CY /CY /CY /CY 15.96 /CY 13,086 22.44 /CY 18,398
31.25.02.00 Earthworks, Structural, Import Aggregates (Slab) Fill, gravel fill, compacted, under floor slabs, alternate pricing method, 12" deep
110.00 CY 13.16 /CY 0.78 /CY 44.50 /CY - - 58.44 /CY 6,428 85.83 /CY 9,441
31.25.02.00 Earthworks, Structural, Import Aggregates (Slab) 110.00 CY 13.16 /CY 0.78 /CY 44.50 /CY /CY /CY 58.44 /CY 6,428 85.83 /CY 9,441
31.25.03.00 Earthworks, Structural, Backfill Native Fill Fill, from stockpile, 130 H.P., 2-1/2 C.Y., 300' haul, spread fill, with front-end loader, excludes compaction
7,000.00 CY 1.18 /CY 1.95 /CY - - - 3.13 /CY 21,907 4.40 /CY 30,800 Purchase and Deliver Native Fill Material 6,180.00 cy 2.77 /cy 3.20 /cy 5.00 /cy - - 10.97 /cy 67,802 15.84 /cy 97,874 Fill from Stockpile 820.00 cy 2.02 /cy 2.71 /cy - - 4.73 /cy 3,879 6.65 /cy 5,454
31.25.03.00 Earthworks, Structural, Backfill Native Fill 7,000.00 CY 3.86 /CY 5.09 /CY 4.41 /CY /CY /CY 13.37 /CY 93,588 19.16 /CY 134,127
31.25.03.01 Earthworks, Structural, Backfill CLSM
CLSM Backfill 1,560.00 CY 1.06 /CY 1.75 /CY 45.00 /CY - - 47.81 /CY 74,581 70.93 /CY 110,648
31.25.03.01 Earthworks, Structural, Backfill CLSM 1,560.00 CY 1.06 /CY 1.75 /CY 45.00 /CY /CY /CY 47.81 /CY 74,581 70.93 /CY 110,648
31.25.03.10 Earthworks, Structural, Compaction
Compaction, 4 passes, 6" lifts, riding, sheepsfoot or wobbly wheel roller
7,000.00 CY 1.18 /CY 2.13 /CY - - - 3.31 /CY 23,176 4.65 /CY 32,584 Compaction, water for, 3000 gallon truck, 3 mile haul 7,000.00 cy 0.60 /cy 0.48 /cy 1.19 /cy - - 2.27 /cy 15,881 3.29 /cy 23,014
31.25.03.10 Earthworks, Structural, Compaction 7,000.00 CY 1.78 /CY 2.61 /CY 1.19 /CY /CY /CY 5.58 /CY 39,057 7.94 /CY 55,599
31.25.000 Eathworks 9,490.00 LS 5.23 /LS 6.62 /LS 12.05 /LS /LS /LS 23.89 /LS 226,741 34.59 /LS 328,212
31.30.002 Temporary Soldier Pile Cofferdam
31.30.07.00 Site Specialties, Cofferdams
Piling special costs, pre-augering up to 30' D, avg soil, 24" diam 840.00 lf 89.93 /lf 38.02 /lf - - - 127.96 /lf 107,482 179.90 /lf 151,112 Unload and Inventory Sheet Piles 45.36 ton 16.69 /ton 11.23 /ton 0.00 /ton - - 27.92 /ton 1,267 39.26 /ton 1,781 On Site material handling from storage area to Point of Use. 45.36 ton 22.25 /ton 44.94 /ton 0.00 /ton - - 67.19 /ton 3,048 94.46 /ton 4,285 Misc. Items Allowance, spacers, bolts, & nuts 1.00 ls 24,000.00 /ls - - 24,000.00 /ls 24,000 35,722.21 /ls 35,722 Waler Beams double C15 x 33.9 168.00 lf 15.98 /lf 16.73 /lf 50.00 /lf - - 82.71 /lf 13,895 120.40 /lf 20,228 Coffrd,soldr beams&laggng,h piles with sheet piles betwn piles,hydrst head,4 lines braces,3"wood s36'45',14"hgh,includs installation only
5,040.00 SF 29.68 /SF 11.21 /SF 38.00 /SF - - 78.89 /SF 397,615 114.05 /SF 574,817
31.30.07.00 Site Specialties, Cofferdams 5,040.00 SF 45.55 /SF 18.61 /SF 44.43 /SF /SF /SF 108.59 /SF 547,306 156.34 /SF 787,945
31.30.002 Temporary Soldier Pile Cofferdam 5,040.00 SF 45.55 /SF 18.61 /SF 44.43 /SF /SF /SF 108.59 /SF 547,306 156.34 /SF 787,945
31.30.004 Cofferdam Dewatering
31.15.02.00 Cofferdam Dewatering
Cofferdam Dewatering Allowance 4.00 MO - 50,000.00 /MO - 50,000.00 /MO 200,000 70,296.27 /MO 281,185
31.15.02.00 Cofferdam Dewatering 4.00 MO /MO /MO /MO 50,000.00 /MO /MO 50,000.00 /MO 200,000 70,296.27 /MO 281,185
31.30.004 Cofferdam Dewatering 4.00 MO /MO /MO /MO 50,000.00 /MO /MO 50,000.00 /MO 200,000 70,296.27 /MO 281,185
31.0 Earthwork 1.00 LS 279,209.91 /LS 156,592.08 /LS 338,245.00 /LS 200,000.00 /LS /LS 974,046.99 /LS 974,047 1,397,342.74 /LS 1,397,343
40.0 Process Pipe
40.00.000 Pumping Plant Process Piping
40.00.99.02 Process Pipe, 42" RW Manifold
42" RW Manifold Complete, Allowance 36.00 LF 211.04 /LF 120.67 /LF 2,361.11 /LF - - 2,692.82 /LF 96,941 4,519.25 /LF 162,693
40.00.99.02 Process Pipe, 42" RW Manifold 36.00 LF 211.04 /LF 120.67 /LF 2,361.11 /LF /LF /LF 2,692.82 /LF 96,941 4,519.25 /LF 162,693
40.10.01.18 Process Pipe, Ductile Iron, 18"
18" pipe, DI 60.00 lf 19.78 /lf 11.31 /lf 68.40 /lf - - 99.50 /lf 5,970 165.44 /lf 9,926 18" Fabricated DI Spool, FxG, 4' 0" - FURNISH 1.00 ea - - 1,333.00 /ea - - 1,333.00 /ea 1,333 2,250.67 /ea 2,251 18" Fabricated DI Spool, FxG, 6' 0" - FURNISH 1.00 ea - - 1,724.00 /ea - - 1,724.00 /ea 1,724 2,910.84 /ea 2,911 18" Fabricated DI Spool, FxG, 4' 0" - INSTALL 1.00 ea 740.18 /ea - - - - 740.18 /ea 740 1,188.69 /ea 1,189 18" Fabricated DI Spool, FxG, 6' 0" - INSTALL 1.00 ea 824.98 /ea - - - - 824.98 /ea 825 1,324.84 /ea 1,325 18" DI, Ell, 90 3.00 ea 708.13 /ea - 1,017.00 /ea - - 1,725.13 /ea 5,175 2,854.34 /ea 8,563 Valving and Appurtenances Allowance 1.00 ls 2,500.00 /ls 2,500.00 /ls 5,000.00 /ls - - 10,000.00 /ls 10,000 16,471.76 /ls 16,472
40.10.01.18 Process Pipe, Ductile Iron, 18" 70.00 LF 105.38 /LF 45.41 /LF 217.32 /LF /LF /LF 368.11 /LF 25,768 609.08 /LF 42,636
40.10.01.24 Process Pipe, Ductile Iron, 24"
24" Fabricated DI Spool, FxF, 1' 6" - FURNISH 10.00 ea - - 1,933.00 /ea - - 1,933.00 /ea 19,330 3,263.73 /ea 32,637 24" Fabricated DI Spool, FxMJ, 6' 0" - FURNISH 5.00 ea - - 2,519.00 /ea - - 2,519.00 /ea 12,595 4,253.14 /ea 21,266 24" Fabricated DI Spool, FxF, 1' 6" - INSTALL 10.00 ea 1,192.72 /ea - - - - 1,192.72 /ea 11,927 1,915.42 /ea 19,154 24" Fabricated DI Spool, FxMJ, 6' 0" - INSTALL 5.00 ea 1,128.40 /ea - - - - 1,128.40 /ea 5,642 1,812.12 /ea 9,061 24" DI, FL, Ell, 90 5.00 ea 936.36 /ea - 2,051.10 /ea - - 2,987.46 /ea 14,937 4,966.85 /ea 24,834 24" DI, Dismantling Joint 5.00 ea 1,250.56 /ea 70.00 /ea 8,215.00 /ea - - 9,535.56 /ea 47,678 15,991.13 /ea 79,956 Install butterfly valve, Flgd, DIP, 24" 5.00 ea 969.18 /ea - - - - 969.18 /ea 4,846 1,556.44 /ea 7,782 COR P1 Replacement Alt 2 Site Rev 3 3/1/2022 4:36 PM
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: Preliminary Design Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and
DETAIL REPORT
Project type: Project Name: COR P1 Replacement Alt 2 New River Trail Location Rev 3 Estimator: Nick Cavalleri/RDD Job Size: Project Number: W8Y06200 Revision/Date: 3 / Mar 1, 2022 Duration: Design Stage: Feasibility Estimate Class: 4
Area Facility Work Pkg WorkActiv Unit Price Description Takeoff Quantity Labor Cost/Unit Equip Cost/Unit Material Cost/Unit Sub Cost/Unit Other Cost/Unit Direct Total Cost/Unit Direct Total Grand Total Price Grand Total with Markups
40.10.01.24 Process Pipe, Ductile Iron, 24"
FURNISH Butterfly valve, iron body, Flgd, MTR OPER, 150#, 24" 5.00 ea - - 7,830.00 /ea - - 7,830.00 /ea 39,150 13,220.37 /ea 66,102 Install check valve, Flgd, DIP, 24" 5.00 ea 969.18 /ea - - - - 969.18 /ea 4,846 1,556.44 /ea 7,782 FURNISH Check valve, iron body, swing check, flgd, 150#, 24" 5.00 ea - - 16,000.00 /ea - - 16,000.00 /ea 80,000 27,014.81 /ea 135,074 Gasket and bolt set, for flanges, 150 lb., 24" pipe size 35.00 ea 353.75 /ea - 273.00 /ea - - 626.75 /ea 21,936 1,029.04 /ea 36,016
40.10.01.24 Process Pipe, Ductile Iron, 24" 45.00 LF 1,123.93 /LF 7.78 /LF 4,710.23 /LF /LF /LF 5,841.94 /LF 262,887 9,770.32 /LF 439,664
40.10.01.30 Process Pipe, Ductile Iron, 30"
30" DI Pipe 100.00 LF 30.07 /LF 17.20 /LF 156.60 /LF - - 203.87 /LF 20,387 340.32 /LF 34,032 Pump Can Connection 5.00 ea 2,215.89 /ea 181.00 /ea 8,500.00 /ea - - 10,896.90 /ea 54,484 18,200.85 /ea 91,004 42" Dia Manifold Connection 5.00 ea 2,215.89 /ea 181.00 /ea 8,500.00 /ea - - 10,896.90 /ea 54,484 18,200.86 /ea 91,004
40.10.01.30 Process Pipe, Ductile Iron, 30" 100.00 LF 251.66 /LF 35.30 /LF 1,006.60 /LF /LF /LF 1,293.56 /LF 129,356 2,160.40 /LF 216,040
40.00.000 Pumping Plant Process Piping 136.00 LF 667.04 /LF 83.84 /LF 3,035.53 /LF /LF /LF 3,786.41 /LF 514,952 6,331.13 /LF 861,034
40.0 Process Pipe 1.00 LS 90,717.07 /LS 11,402.41 /LS 412,832.74 /LS /LS /LS 514,952.22 /LS 514,952 861,033.62 /LS 861,034
40.9 Instrumentation & Controls
40.90.000 I&C
40.90.99.01 I&C, Other
I&C Allowance 1.00 LS 37,669.44 /LS 5,600.00 /LS 75,000.00 /LS - - 118,269.44 /LS 118,269 202,032.88 /LS 202,033
40.90.99.01 I&C, Other 1.00 LS 37,669.44 /LS 5,600.00 /LS 75,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 118,269.44 /LS 118,269 202,032.88 /LS 202,033
40.90.000 I&C 1.00 LS 37,669.44 /LS 5,600.00 /LS 75,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 118,269.44 /LS 118,269 202,032.88 /LS 202,033
40.9 Instrumentation & Controls 1.00 LS 37,669.44 /LS 5,600.00 /LS 75,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 118,269.44 /LS 118,269 202,032.88 /LS 202,033
41.0 Material Processing and Handling Equipment
41.00.000 Bridge Crane
41.00.02.01 Material Handling, Bridge Cranes
Overhead Bridge Cranes, under hung hoist, electric operating 1.00 EA 3,358.40 /EA 647.17 /EA 45,000.00 /EA - - 49,005.57 /EA 49,006 72,610.68 /EA 72,611 Structural Metals for Bridge Crane 1.00 ls 3,000.00 /ls 2,000.00 /ls 5,000.00 /ls - - 10,000.00 /ls 10,000 14,471.77 /ls 14,472
41.00.02.01 Material Handling, Bridge Cranes 1.00 EA 6,358.40 /EA 2,647.17 /EA 50,000.00 /EA /EA /EA 59,005.57 /EA 59,006 87,082.45 /EA 87,082
41.00.000 Bridge Crane 1.00 EA 6,358.40 /EA 2,647.17 /EA 50,000.00 /EA /EA /EA 59,005.57 /EA 59,006 87,082.45 /EA 87,082
41.0 Material Processing and Handling Equipment 1.00 EA 6,358.40 /EA 2,647.17 /EA 50,000.00 /EA /EA /EA 59,005.57 /EA 59,006 87,082.45 /EA 87,082
43.0 Process Gas and Liquid Handling Equipment
44.00.000 Can Pumps, 800 HP
44.05.42.05 Vertical Can Pump: 501hp-1000hp
Functional Testing, Pumps, 501-1000 hp 5.00 ea 526.62 /ea - 100.00 /ea - - 626.62 /ea 3,133 983.21 /ea 4,916 Align Pump & Motor, 501-1000 hp 5.00 ea 526.62 /ea - - 1,400.00 /ea - 1,926.62 /ea 9,633 2,997.67 /ea 14,988 Vibration Testing, Pumps, 501-1000 hp 5.00 ea 263.31 /ea - - 700.00 /ea - 963.31 /ea 4,817 1,498.83 /ea 7,494 Sleeved anchor bolts - Large 50.00 ea 32.91 /ea - 28.00 /ea - - 60.91 /ea 3,046 97.09 /ea 4,854 Anchor bolts for leveling pump cans 20.00 ea 65.83 /ea - 20.00 /ea - - 85.83 /ea 1,717 135.19 /ea 2,704 Non-Shrink Machine Grout 60.00 cuft 62.54 /cuft - 74.00 /cuft - - 136.54 /cuft 8,192 218.54 /cuft 13,113 Grease, Oil, and Lube Pumps, 501-1000 hp 5.00 ea 263.31 /ea - 150.00 /ea - - 413.31 /ea 2,067 655.45 /ea 3,277 FURNISH Vertical Turbine Pump, SS, 501 - 1000 hp 5.00 EA - - 700,000.00 /EA - - 700,000.00 /EA 3,500,000 1,146,897.87 /EA 5,734,489 Set base plate @ 16 hrs / each 5.00 ea 1,053.23 /ea - 50.00 /ea - - 1,103.23 /ea 5,516 1,720.67 /ea 8,603 Set pump head & soleplate @ 72 hrs / each 5.00 ea 4,739.54 /ea - 50.00 /ea - - 4,789.54 /ea 23,948 7,456.30 /ea 37,281 Set motor @ 40 hrs / each 5.00 ea 2,633.08 /ea - 50.00 /ea - - 2,683.08 /ea 13,415 4,178.80 /ea 20,894 Set pump can @ 1.5 hrs / lf 220.00 lf 98.74 /lf - 10.00 /lf - - 108.74 /lf 23,923 170.02 /lf 37,404
44.05.42.05 Vertical Can Pump: 501hp-1000hp 5.00 EA 15,693.16 /EA /EA 702,088.00 /EA 2,100.00 /EA /EA 719,881.16 /EA 3,599,406 1,178,003.73 /EA 5,890,019
44.00.000 Can Pumps, 800 HP 5.00 EA 15,693.16 /EA /EA 702,088.00 /EA 2,100.00 /EA /EA 719,881.16 /EA 3,599,406 1,178,003.73 /EA 5,890,019
44.00.004 Tee Screen
44.05.34.42 Tee Screens
Furnish and Install Tee Screens 42" Dia, Includes all
Appurtenances
2.00 EA 22,925.52 /EA 5,619.68 /EA 450,000.00 /EA - - 478,545.20 /EA 957,090 781,705.70 /EA 1,563,411
44.05.34.42 Tee Screens 2.00 EA 22,925.52 /EA 5,619.68 /EA 450,000.00 /EA /EA /EA 478,545.20 /EA 957,090 781,705.70 /EA 1,563,411
44.00.004 Tee Screen 2.00 EA 22,925.52 /EA 5,619.68 /EA 450,000.00 /EA /EA /EA 478,545.20 /EA 957,090 781,705.70 /EA 1,563,411
43.0 Process Gas and Liquid Handling Equipment 7.00 EA 17,759.55 /EA 1,605.62 /EA 630,062.86 /EA 1,500.00 /EA /EA 650,928.03 /EA 4,556,496 1,064,775.72 /EA 7,453,430 005 Intake and Pumping Plant 1,850.00 SF 408.83 /SF 106.92 /SF 3,202.89 /SF 188.78 /SF /SF 3,907.43 /SF 7,228,737 6,311.00 /SF 11,675,341 006 Conveyance Pipelines and Surge Tank
33.0 Utilities
33.20.002 42" Dia Pipeline
32.40.04.90 Site Improvements, Surface Restorations
Surface Restorsation Allowance 14,200.00 SF - 3.00 /SF - 3.00 /SF 42,600 4.22 /SF 59,892
32.40.04.90 Site Improvements, Surface Restorations 14,200.00 SF /SF /SF /SF 3.00 /SF /SF 3.00 /SF 42,600 4.22 /SF 59,892
33.00.04.42 Buried Pipe, Ductile Iron, 42"
42" DI Piping 500.00 LF 38.78 /LF 22.17 /LF 280.20 /LF - - 341.15 /LF 170,576 502.75 /LF 251,375 Piping Excavation and Backfill Allowance 1.00 ls 0.00 /ls - 0.00 /ls 100,000.00 /ls - 100,000.00 /ls 100,000 140,592.55 /ls 140,593 42" DI, MJ, red. tee, 42" x 18" 1.00 ea 1,527.38 /ea 873.34 /ea 22,413.00 /ea - - 24,813.72 /ea 24,814 36,735.32 /ea 36,735 42" DI, MJ, red. tee, 42" x 24" 5.00 ea 1,527.38 /ea 873.34 /ea 13,431.60 /ea - - 15,832.33 /ea 79,162 23,367.18 /ea 116,836 Miscellaneous Items Allowance 1.00 ls 10,000.00 /ls 10,000.00 /ls 20,000.00 /ls - - 40,000.00 /ls 40,000 57,887.03 /ls 57,887 Erosion Controls Allowance 1.00 ls 5,400.00 /ls 5,400.00 /ls 10,800.00 /ls - - 21,600.00 /ls 21,600 31,258.98 /ls 31,259
33.00.04.42 Buried Pipe, Ductile Iron, 42" 500.00 LF 87.91 /LF 63.45 /LF 520.94 /LF 200.00 /LF /LF 872.30 /LF 436,151 1,269.37 /LF 634,685
33.20.002 42" Dia Pipeline 500.00 LF 87.91 /LF 63.45 /LF 520.94 /LF 285.20 /LF /LF 957.50 /LF 478,751 1,389.15 /LF 694,577
33.0 Utilities 500.00 LF 87.91 /LF 63.45 /LF 520.94 /LF 285.20 /LF /LF 957.50 /LF 478,751 1,389.15 /LF 694,577
43.0 Process Gas and Liquid Handling Equipment
44.00.002 Surge System
44.05.83.10 Surge System
Surge System, Complete, Includes Tank, Piping, and All
Appurtenances
1.00 EA - 260,000.00 /EA - 260,000.00 /EA 260,000 404,540.65 /EA 404,541
44.05.83.10 Surge System 1.00 EA /EA /EA /EA 260,000.00 /EA /EA 260,000.00 /EA 260,000 404,540.65 /EA 404,541
44.00.002 Surge System 1.00 EA /EA /EA /EA 260,000.00 /EA /EA 260,000.00 /EA 260,000 404,540.65 /EA 404,541
43.0 Process Gas and Liquid Handling Equipment 1.00 EA /EA /EA /EA 260,000.00 /EA /EA 260,000.00 /EA 260,000 404,540.65 /EA 404,541 006 Conveyance Pipelines and Surge Tank 1.00 LS 43,953.35 /LS 31,726.56 /LS 260,471.00 /LS 402,600.00 /LS /LS 738,750.91 /LS 738,751 1,099,117.63 /LS 1,099,118 007 Electrical Improvements
26.0 Electrical Work
26.00.002 Duct Bank and Electrical Sevice Entrance
26.10.03.00 Site Electrical, Duct Bank
Electrical Duct Bank from Existing Point of Connect to Project Site, Complete
1,540.00 LF - 150.00 /LF - 150.00 /LF 231,000 248.39 /LF 382,519 Connections at Existing Electrical Supply 1.00 ls 1,570.54 /ls 146.75 /ls 15,000.00 /ls - 16,717.29 /ls 16,717 28,920.09 /ls 28,920
26.10.03.00 Site Electrical, Duct Bank 1,540.00 LF 1.02 /LF 0.10 /LF 9.74 /LF 150.00 /LF /LF 160.86 /LF 247,717 267.17 /LF 411,439
26.00.002 Duct Bank and Electrical Sevice Entrance 1.00 LS 1,570.54 /LS 146.75 /LS 15,000.00 /LS 231,000.00 /LS /LS 247,717.29 /LS 247,717 411,438.89 /LS 411,439
26.0 Electrical Work 1.00 LS 1,570.54 /LS 146.75 /LS 15,000.00 /LS 231,000.00 /LS /LS 247,717.29 /LS 247,717 411,438.89 /LS 411,439 007 Electrical Improvements 1.00 LS 1,570.54 /LS 146.75 /LS 15,000.00 /LS 231,000.00 /LS /LS 247,717.29 /LS 247,717 411,438.89 /LS 411,439 008 Site Utilities
26.0 Electrical Work
26.00.002 Duct Bank and Electrical Sevice Entrance
26.10.03.90 Site Electrical, Service Entrance
Electrical Service to Project Site 1.00 LS 3,141.07 /LS 293.50 /LS 25,000.00 /LS - - 28,434.57 /LS 28,435 49,148.03 /LS 49,148
26.10.03.90 Site Electrical, Service Entrance 1.00 LS 3,141.07 /LS 293.50 /LS 25,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 28,434.57 /LS 28,435 49,148.03 /LS 49,148 COR P1 Replacement Alt 2 Site Rev 3 3/1/2022 4:36 PM
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: Preliminary Design Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and
DETAIL REPORT
Project type: Project Name: COR P1 Replacement Alt 2 New River Trail Location Rev 3 Estimator: Nick Cavalleri/RDD Job Size: Project Number: W8Y06200 Revision/Date: 3 / Mar 1, 2022 Duration: Design Stage: Feasibility Estimate Class: 4
Area Facility Work Pkg WorkActiv Unit Price Description Takeoff Quantity Labor Cost/Unit Equip Cost/Unit Material Cost/Unit Sub Cost/Unit Other Cost/Unit Direct Total Cost/Unit Direct Total Grand Total Price Grand Total with Markups
26.00.002 Duct Bank and Electrical Sevice Entrance 1.00 LS 3,141.07 /LS 293.50 /LS 25,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 28,434.57 /LS 28,435 49,148.03 /LS 49,148
26.0 Electrical Work 1.00 LS 3,141.07 /LS 293.50 /LS 25,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 28,434.57 /LS 28,435 49,148.03 /LS 49,148
33.0 Utilities
33.20.004 Potable Water Line Extension
33.00.50.91 Utilities, Water
Potable Water Line Extension to Alt 2 Site, Includes Connections to Existing
1,540.00 LF - 175.00 /LF - 175.00 /LF 269,500 246.04 /LF 378,897
33.00.50.91 Utilities, Water 1,540.00 LF /LF /LF /LF 175.00 /LF /LF 175.00 /LF 269,500 246.04 /LF 378,897
33.20.004 Potable Water Line Extension 1,540.00 LF /LF /LF /LF 175.00 /LF /LF 175.00 /LF 269,500 246.04 /LF 378,897
33.0 Utilities 1,540.00 LF /LF /LF /LF 175.00 /LF /LF 175.00 /LF 269,500 246.04 /LF 378,897 008 Site Utilities 1.00 LS 3,141.07 /LS 293.50 /LS 25,000.00 /LS 269,500.00 /LS /LS 297,934.57 /LS 297,935 428,044.95 /LS 428,045 009 Site Access
31.0 Earthwork
31.15.000 Pumping Plant Site Clearing and Grubbing
31.15.01.00 Site Preparation, Clearing and Grubbing
Clear and Gub Site 27,600.00 SF 0.72 /SF 0.17 /SF 0.10 /SF - - 0.99 /SF 27,406 1.40 /SF 38,758 Haul and Disposal 6.00 ld 398.60 /ld 461.24 /ld 450.00 /ld - - 1,309.85 /ld 7,859 1,878.67 /ld 11,272 Load Spoils for Disposal 1.00 ls 495.18 /ls 176.98 /ls - - 672.16 /ls 672 945.01 /ls 945 Erosion Controls Allowance 1.00 ls - 3,500.00 /ls - 3,500.00 /ls 3,500 4,920.72 /ls 4,921
31.15.01.00 Site Preparation, Clearing and Grubbing 27,600.00 SF 0.83 /SF 0.28 /SF 0.20 /SF 0.13 /SF /SF 1.43 /SF 39,437 2.03 /SF 55,896
31.15.000 Pumping Plant Site Clearing and Grubbing 1.00 LS 22,790.10 /LS 7,686.71 /LS 5,460.00 /LS 3,500.00 /LS /LS 39,436.81 /LS 39,437 55,895.67 /LS 55,896
31.20.000 Access Road Eathworks Cut and Fill
31.20.07.00 Earthworks, Sitework, Cut/Fill
Access Road Earthworks Cut and Fill 27,540.00 SF 1.54 /SF 1.66 /SF - - 3.20 /SF 88,145 4.50 /SF 123,925
31.20.07.00 Earthworks, Sitework, Cut/Fill 27,540.00 SF 1.54 /SF 1.66 /SF /SF /SF /SF 3.20 /SF 88,145 4.50 /SF 123,925
31.20.000 Access Road Eathworks Cut and Fill 27,540.00 SF 1.54 /SF 1.66 /SF /SF /SF /SF 3.20 /SF 88,145 4.50 /SF 123,925
31.20.002 Access Road Paving
32.40.02.00 Site Improvements, Paving, Bituminous Asphalt Fine grading, for roadway, base or leveling course, large area, 6,000 S.Y. or more
1,235.56 sy 0.53 /sy 0.36 /sy - - - 0.89 /sy 1,104 1.26 /sy 1,553 Base course drainage layers,aggregate base course for
roadways and large paved areas,crushed stone
base,compacted,crushed 1-1/2"stone base,8"deep
1,235.56 sy 0.96 /sy 1.14 /sy 11.85 /sy - - 13.95 /sy 17,231 20.58 /sy 25,433 Base course drainage layers, prepare and roll sub-base, small areas to 2500 S.Y.
1,235.56 sy 1.10 /sy 0.98 /sy - - - 2.09 /sy 2,578 2.93 /sy 3,625 Bituminous-stabilized base courses, for roadways and large paved areas, liquid application to gravel base, asphalt emulsion 247.11 gal 0.19 /gal 0.15 /gal 5.10 /gal - - 5.44 /gal 1,344 8.07 /gal 1,994 Plant-mix asphalt paving, for highways and large paved areas, binder course, 3" thick, no hauling included
1,235.56 SY 1.12 /SY 0.52 /SY 11.15 /SY - - 12.79 /SY 15,808 18.91 /SY 23,361 Plant-mix asphalt paving, for highways and large paved areas, wearing course, 3" thick, no hauling included
1,235.56 sy 1.25 /sy 0.58 /sy 12.25 /sy - - 14.07 /sy 17,385 20.79 /sy 25,691
32.40.02.00 Site Improvements, Paving, Bituminous Asphalt 1,235.56 SY 5.00 /SY 3.61 /SY 36.27 /SY /SY /SY 44.88 /SY 55,451 66.09 /SY 81,657
31.20.002 Access Road Paving 1,235.56 SY 5.00 /SY 3.61 /SY 36.27 /SY /SY /SY 44.88 /SY 55,451 66.09 /SY 81,657
31.0 Earthwork 1.00 LS 71,390.30 /LS 57,868.26 /LS 50,273.62 /LS 3,500.00 /LS /LS 183,032.18 /LS 183,032 261,477.20 /LS 261,477 009 Site Access 1.00 LS 71,390.30 /LS 57,868.26 /LS 50,273.62 /LS 3,500.00 /LS /LS 183,032.18 /LS 183,032 261,477.20 /LS 261,477 010 Jenny Creek Fish Ladder
32.0 Exterior Improvements
32.50.000 Jenny Creek Crossing Retaining Wall
32.50.01.00 Site Improvements, Retaining Walls
Jenny Creek Crossing CMU Retaining Wall, Complete, Includes Foundation and Earthwork
570.00 SF - 40.00 /SF - 40.00 /SF 22,800 56.24 /SF 32,055
32.50.01.00 Site Improvements, Retaining Walls 570.00 SF /SF /SF /SF 40.00 /SF /SF 40.00 /SF 22,800 56.24 /SF 32,055
32.50.000 Jenny Creek Crossing Retaining Wall 38.00 LF /LF /LF /LF 600.00 /LF /LF 600.00 /LF 22,800 843.56 /LF 32,055
32.50.002 Jenny Creek Crossing Bridge
32.50.04.00 Site Improvements, Bridges
Jenny Crossing Bridge Allowance, Complete 352.00 SF - 105.00 /SF - - 105.00 /SF 36,960 156.28 /SF 55,012
32.50.04.00 Site Improvements, Bridges 352.00 SF /SF /SF 105.00 /SF /SF /SF 105.00 /SF 36,960 156.28 /SF 55,012
32.50.002 Jenny Creek Crossing Bridge 352.00 SF /SF /SF 105.00 /SF /SF /SF 105.00 /SF 36,960 156.28 /SF 55,012
32.50.006 Jenny Creek Crossing Packaged Fish Ladder
32.50.06.00 Site Improvements, Other Improvements
Furnish and Install Packaged Fish Ladder, Allowance 1.00 LS 18,993.24 /LS 10,860.16 /LS 40,000.00 /LS - - 69,853.40 /LS 69,853 101,508.68 /LS 101,509
32.50.06.00 Site Improvements, Other Improvements 1.00 LS 18,993.24 /LS 10,860.16 /LS 40,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 69,853.40 /LS 69,853 101,508.68 /LS 101,509
32.50.006 Jenny Creek Crossing Packaged Fish Ladder 1.00 LS 18,993.24 /LS 10,860.16 /LS 40,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 69,853.40 /LS 69,853 101,508.68 /LS 101,509
32.0 Exterior Improvements 1.00 LS 18,993.24 /LS 10,860.16 /LS 76,960.00 /LS 22,800.00 /LS /LS 129,613.40 /LS 129,613 188,575.98 /LS 188,576
33.0 Utilities
32.50.004 Jenny Creek Crossing Culvert Modifications
33.00.50.00 Buried Pipe, Other
Structural Culvert Lining Allowance 228.00 LF 65.12 /LF 1.27 /LF 43.86 /LF - - 110.25 /LF 25,136 158.62 /LF 36,164 Remove Portion of Culverts, Includes Excavation 62.00 LF 23.96 /LF 5.71 /LF 8.06 /LF - - 37.73 /LF 2,339 53.72 /LF 3,330 Haul and Disposal of Demolished Material 1.00 ld 398.60 /ld 461.24 /ld 450.00 /ld - - 1,309.84 /ld 1,310 1,878.67 /ld 1,879 Miscellaneous Items Allowance 1.00 ls 1,500.00 /ls 1,500.00 /ls 3,000.00 /ls - - 6,000.00 /ls 6,000 8,683.05 /ls 8,683
33.00.50.00 Buried Pipe, Other 290.00 LF 62.86 /LF 8.98 /LF 48.10 /LF /LF /LF 119.95 /LF 34,785 172.61 /LF 50,057
32.50.004 Jenny Creek Crossing Culvert Modifications 290.00 LF 62.86 /LF 8.98 /LF 48.10 /LF /LF /LF 119.95 /LF 34,785 172.61 /LF 50,057
33.0 Utilities 290.00 LF 62.86 /LF 8.98 /LF 48.10 /LF /LF /LF 119.95 /LF 34,785 172.61 /LF 50,057 010 Jenny Creek Fish Ladder 1.00 LS 37,223.83 /LS 13,464.95 /LS 90,910.00 /LS 22,800.00 /LS /LS 164,398.78 /LS 164,399 238,632.52 /LS 238,633 011 Jenny Creek Culvert Rehabilitation
32.0 Exterior Improvements
32.50.006 Jenny Creek Crossing Packaged Fish Ladder
32.50.06.00 Site Improvements, Other Improvements
Furnish and Install Packaged Fish Ladder, Allowance 1.00 LS 18,993.24 /LS 10,860.16 /LS 40,000.00 /LS - - 69,853.40 /LS 69,853 101,508.68 /LS 101,509
32.50.06.00 Site Improvements, Other Improvements 1.00 LS 18,993.24 /LS 10,860.16 /LS 40,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 69,853.40 /LS 69,853 101,508.68 /LS 101,509
32.50.006 Jenny Creek Crossing Packaged Fish Ladder 1.00 LS 18,993.24 /LS 10,860.16 /LS 40,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 69,853.40 /LS 69,853 101,508.68 /LS 101,509
32.0 Exterior Improvements 1.00 LS 18,993.24 /LS 10,860.16 /LS 40,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 69,853.40 /LS 69,853 101,508.68 /LS 101,509
33.0 Utilities
32.50.004 Jenny Creek Crossing Culvert Modifications
33.00.50.00 Buried Pipe, Other
Structural Culvert Lining Allowance 290.00 LF 81.91 /LF 1.60 /LF 43.86 /LF - - 127.37 /LF 36,937 182.69 /LF 52,980 Miscellaneous Items Allowance 1.00 ls 2,500.00 /ls 2,500.00 /ls 5,000.00 /ls - - 10,000.00 /ls 10,000 14,471.75 /ls 14,472
33.00.50.00 Buried Pipe, Other 290.00 LF 90.53 /LF 10.22 /LF 61.10 /LF /LF /LF 161.85 /LF 46,937 232.59 /LF 67,452
32.50.004 Jenny Creek Crossing Culvert Modifications 290.00 LF 90.53 /LF 10.22 /LF 61.10 /LF /LF /LF 161.85 /LF 46,937 232.59 /LF 67,452
33.0 Utilities 290.00 LF 90.53 /LF 10.22 /LF 61.10 /LF /LF /LF 161.85 /LF 46,937 232.59 /LF 67,452 011 Jenny Creek Culvert Rehabilitation 1.00 LS 45,247.61 /LS 13,823.52 /LS 57,719.30 /LS /LS /LS 116,790.43 /LS 116,790 168,960.48 /LS 168,960 012 Existing Pump Station 1 Demolition
02.0 Existing Conditions
02.00.000 Existing Pump Station 1 Demolition
02.01.02.00 Pump Station Demolition
COR P1 Replacement Alt 2 Site Rev 3 3/1/2022 4:36 PM
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: Preliminary Design Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and
DETAIL REPORT
Project type: Project Name: COR P1 Replacement Alt 2 New River Trail Location Rev 3 Estimator: Nick Cavalleri/RDD Job Size: Project Number: W8Y06200 Revision/Date: 3 / Mar 1, 2022 Duration: Design Stage: Feasibility Estimate Class: 4
Area Facility Work Pkg WorkActiv Unit Price Description Takeoff Quantity Labor Cost/Unit Equip Cost/Unit Material Cost/Unit Sub Cost/Unit Other Cost/Unit Direct Total Cost/Unit Direct Total Grand Total Price Grand Total with Markups
02.01.02.00 Pump Station Demolition
Demolition of Existing PS 1, Allowance Based on Crew and Duration
1.00 LS 217,998.14 /LS 169,692.22 /LS 20,000.00 /LS - - 407,690.36 /LS 407,690 574,832.29 /LS 574,832
02.01.02.00 Pump Station Demolition 1.00 LS 217,998.14 /LS 169,692.22 /LS 20,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 407,690.36 /LS 407,690 574,832.29 /LS 574,832
02.00.000 Existing Pump Station 1 Demolition 1.00 LS 217,998.14 /LS 169,692.22 /LS 20,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 407,690.36 /LS 407,690 574,832.29 /LS 574,832
02.0 Existing Conditions 1.00 LS 217,998.14 /LS 169,692.22 /LS 20,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 407,690.36 /LS 407,690 574,832.29 /LS 574,832 012 Existing Pump Station 1 Demolition 1.00 LS 217,998.14 /LS 169,692.22 /LS 20,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 407,690.36 /LS 407,690 574,832.29 /LS 574,832 013 River Trail Restoration Post Construction
32.0 Exterior Improvements
32.50.008 River Trail Restoration Post Construction
32.50.06.00 Site Improvements, Other Improvements
River Trail Restoration Post Construction, Allowance 1.00 LS 14,855.36 /LS 3,539.52 /LS 25,000.00 /LS - - 43,394.88 /LS 43,395 63,072.47 /LS 63,072
32.50.06.00 Site Improvements, Other Improvements 1.00 LS 14,855.36 /LS 3,539.52 /LS 25,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 43,394.88 /LS 43,395 63,072.47 /LS 63,072
32.50.008 River Trail Restoration Post Construction 1.00 LS 14,855.36 /LS 3,539.52 /LS 25,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 43,394.88 /LS 43,395 63,072.47 /LS 63,072
32.0 Exterior Improvements 1.00 LS 14,855.36 /LS 3,539.52 /LS 25,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 43,394.88 /LS 43,395 63,072.47 /LS 63,072 013 River Trail Restoration Post Construction 1.00 LS 14,855.36 /LS 3,539.52 /LS 25,000.00 /LS /LS /LS 43,394.88 /LS 43,395 63,072.47 /LS 63,072 02 Alt 2: New River Trail Location 1.00 LS 1,330,869.04 /LS 591,873.33 /LS 6,585,667.72 /LS 1,305,795.00 /LS 1,436,500.00 /LS 11,250,705.09 /LS 11,250,705 17,148,136.25 /LS 17,148,136 COR P1 Replacement Alt 2 Site Rev 3 3/1/2022 4:36 PM
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: Preliminary Design Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and
DETAIL REPORT
Project type: Project Name: COR P1 Replacement Alt 2 New River Trail Location Rev 3 Estimator: Nick Cavalleri/RDD Job Size: Project Number: W8Y06200 Revision/Date: 3 / Mar 1, 2022 Duration: Design Stage: Feasibility Estimate Class: 4
Estimate Totals
Description Amount Totals Hours Rate
Labor 1,330,869 18,663.892 hrs
Material 6,585,668
Subcontract 1,305,795
Equipment 591,873 6,692.827 hrs
Subtotal Direct Costs 9,814,205 9,814,205
Material Sales Tax 543,318 8.250%
Subtotal W/ Sales Tax 543,318 10,357,523
Concrete Work I,OH&P 32,003 15.000%
Masonry Work I,OH&P 12,772 15.000%
Architectural (Div 6-12)I,OH&P 10,299 15.000%
Mechanical Work I,OH&P 16,650 20.000%
Electrical Work I,OH&P 204,715 25.000%
Process Piping I,OH&P 102,990 20.000%
Instruments & Controls I,OH&P 29,567 25.000%
Process Equipment I,OH&P 722,474 15.000%
Subtotal W/ Subcontractor OH&P 1,131,470 11,488,993
General Conditions 689,340 6.000%
Subtotal W/ General Conditions 689,340 12,178,333
Prime Contractor Overhead 1,461,400 12.000%
Prime Contractor Profit 818,384 6.000%
Subtotal W/ Prime Markups 2,279,784 14,458,117
Escalation 1,253,519 8.670%
Subtotal W/ Escalation 1,253,519 15,711,636
Non Markup Items 1,436,500
Subtotal W/ Non Markup Items 1,436,500 17,148,136
Design Contingency 4,287,034 25.000%
Subtotal W/ Design Contingency 4,287,034 21,435,170
Construction Contingency 3,215,276 15.000%
Subtotal W/ Construction Contingency 3,215,276 24,650,446 Total Construction Cost 24,650,446
COR P1 Replacement Alt 2 Site Rev 3 3/1/2022 4:36 PM
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Preliminary Design Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Cost Estimating - Escalation Calculation Report
Escalation report prepared: 2/28/2022
Escalation Model Used: AVE
Project:
Event Date
Data Date 1/1/2021
Start Date 5/1/2025
Mid Point 5/1/2026
End Date 5/1/2027
Value Calculation
Escalation1
8.670%
Years2
5.3 Rate Per Annum3
1.573%
Historical4
2.9%
Volatility5
5.0%
Notes:
Forecasts are based on data provided by IHS Markit though 2021-Q4 with model weighting as given below:
4.3843% - PPI324110AY2.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Diesel Fuel
1.9523% - WPIP1321.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Sand Gravel and Crushed Stone
3.343% - PPI327320P.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Ready-Mix Concrete
1.3109% - PREBAR.Q.FOS - USA, Spot Price, Reinforcing Bar (Rebar) Steel
0.6176% - WPIP08.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Lumber and Wood Products
0.8038% - WPIWP133.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Concrete Products
0.1949% - PPI331318.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Other Aluminum Rolling Drawing and Extruding
2.5468% - PPI3311107.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Hot Rolled Bars Plates and Structural Shapes
0.3362% - WPIP081.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Lumber
2.1699% - PPI3241221.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Roofing Asphalts, Pitches, Coatings, Cements
1.3843% - PPI332321.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Metal Window and Door
0.902% - PPI327420.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Gypsum Wallboard
0.902% - PPI325510.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Paints and Coatings
0.434% - WPIS30S.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Finished Goods
6.1449% - WPIP11.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Machinery and Equipment
0.4685% - PPI337214.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Office Furniture
0.344% - PPI334516.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Laboratory Analytical Instruments
0.344% - PPI3353141.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Relay and Industrial Controls
0.0442% - WPIP1144.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Industrial Material Handling Equipment
5.1446% - PPI331511.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Iron Foundries
2.8158% - WPIP0721.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Plastic Construction Products (Primarily Pipe)
14.0085% - PPI332996.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Fabricated Pipe and Fittings
1.8242% - PPI335929D.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Building Wire and Cable
1.132% - PPI335313.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Switchgear and Switchboard Apparatus
8.9795% - PPI331210.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Iron/Steel Pipe and Tube Mfg From Purch Steel
0.9327% - PPI3339121.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Air and Gas Compressors
0.4664% - WPIP07.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Rubber and Plastic Products
2.7982% - PPI333911.Q.FOS - USA, PPI, Pumps and Pumping Equipment
0.4664% - PSTAINSHEET304.Q.FOS - USA, Spot Price, Stainless Coil Steel, Grade 304
32.8041% - CEU2000000008.Q.FOS - USA, Average Hourly Earnings, Construction - Average Project
1 - Escalation begins with the data date and assumes equal spending from project start to end dates 2 - Years is the duration from the Data (Estimate) date to the mid point of the project 3 - Rate Per Annum is the annual rate of escalation which when compounded over Years, equal Escalation 4 - Historical is the annual rate of escalation for the weighted model from 2015/Q1 to 2021/Q2 5 - Volatility is the std. deviation of the model's Historical annual rates of escalation, equivalent to a p=0.84 value COR PS1 Replacement
100.000
106.642
108.670
110.746
90 95
100
105
110
115
Data Date Start Date Mid Point End Date
Escalation1
, Data Date = 100
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: Preliminary Design Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C-8541)
Packet Pg. 434
Attachment: Preliminary Design Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Estimate Class
LEVEL OF PROJECT
DEFINITION Expressed
as a % of complete
definition
END USAGE Typical
Purpose of Estimate
METHODOLOGY
Typical estimating
method
EXPECTED
ACCURACY RANGE
Typical variation in low
and high ranges [a]
L: -20% to -50% H: +30% to +100% L: -15% to -30% H: +20% to +50% L: -10% to -20% H: +10% to +30% L: -5% to -15% H: +5% to +20% L: -3% to -10% H: +3% to +15%
PREPARATION
EFFORT Typical
degree of effort relative
to least cost index of 1
[b]
REFINED CLASS
DEFINITION
END USAGE DEFINED
ESTIMATING
METHODS USED
EXPECTED
ACCURACY RANGE
EFFORT TO PREPARE
(for US$20MM project):
ANSI Standard
Reference Z94.2-1989
name; Alternate
Estimate Names,
Terms, Expressions,
Synonyms:
Definitive Estimate; Full detail, release, fall-out, tender, firm price,bottoms-up, final, detailed control, forced detail, execution phase,master control, fair price, definitive, change order estimate.
Order of Magnitude Estimate; Ratio, ballpark, blue sky, seat-ofpants, ROM, idea study, prospect estimate, concession licenseestimate, guesstimate, rule-of thumb.
Budget Estimate; Screening, top-down, feasibility,authorization, factored, pre-design, pre-study.
Budget Estimate; Budget, scope, sanction, semi-detailed,authorization, preliminary control, concept study, development,basic engineering phase estimate, target estimate.
Definitive Estimate; Detailed Control, forced detail, executionphase, master control, engineering, bid, tender, change orderestimate.
Typical accuracy ranges for Class 1 estimates are -3% to -10% on the low side, and +3% to +15% on the high side,depending on the technological complexity of the project,appropriate reference information, and the inclusion of anappropriate contingency determination. Ranges could exceedthose shown in unusual circumstances.
As little as 1 hour or less to prepare to perhaps more than 200hours, depending on the project and the estimatingmethodology used.
Typically, as little as 20 hours or less to perhaps more than300 hours, depending on the project and the estimatingmethodology used.
Typically, as little as 150 hours or less to perhaps more than1500 hours, depending on the project and the estimatingmethodology used.
Typically, as little as 300 hours or less to perhaps more than3000 hours, depending on the project and the estimatingmethodology used. Bid Estimates typically require more effortthan estimates used for funding or control purposes Class 1 estimates require the most effort to create, and as suchare generally developed for only selected areas of the project, orfor bidding purposes. A complete Class 1 estimate may involveas little as 600 hours or less, to perhaps more than 6,000 hours,depending on the project and the estimating methodology used.Bid estimate typically require more effort than estimates used forfunding or control purposes.
Typical accuracy ranges for Class 5 estimates are -20% to -50% on the low side, and +30% to +100% on the high side,depending on the technological complexity of the project,appropriate contingency determination. Ranges could exceedthose shown in unusual circumstances.
Typical accuracy ranges for Class 4 estimates are -15% to -30% on the low side, and +20% to +50% on the high side,depending on the technological complexity of the project,appropriate reference information, and the inclusion of anappropriate contingency determination. Ranges could exceedthose shown in unusual circumstances.
Typical accuracy ranges for Class 3 estimates are -10% to -20% on the low side, and +10% to +30% on the high side,depending on the technological complexity of the project,appropriate reference information, and the inclusion of anappropriate contingency determination. Ranges could exceedthose shown in unusual circumstances.
Typical accuracy ranges for Class 2 estimates are -5% to -15% on the low side, and +5% to +20% on the high side,depending on the technological complexity of the project,appropriate reference information, and the inclusion of anappropriate contingency determination. Ranges could exceedthose shown in unusual circumstances.
Class 1 estimates are typically prepared to form a current controlestimate to be used as the final control baseline against which allactual coasts and resources will now be monitored for variationsto the budget, and form a part of the change/variation controlprogram. They may be used to evaluate bid checking, to supportvendor/contractor negotiations, or for claim evaluations anddispute resolution.
Class 5 estimates virtually always use stochastic estimatingmethods such as cost/capacity curves and factors, scale ofoperations factors, Lang factors, Hand factors, Chilton factors,Peters-Timmerhaus factors, Guthrie factors, and otherparametric and modeling techniques.
Class 4 estimates virtually always use stochastic estimatingmethods such as cost/capacity curves and factors, scale ofoperations factors, Lang factors, Hand factors, Chilton factors,Peters-Timmerhaus factors, Guthrie factors, the Miller method,gross unit costs/ratios, and other parametric and modelingtechniques.
Class 3 estimates usually involve more deterministicestimating methods that stochastic methods. They usuallyinvolve a high degree of unit cost line items, although thesemay be at an assembly level of detail rather than individualcomponents. Factoring and other stochastic methods may beused to estimate less-significant areas of the project.
Class 2 estimates always involve a high degree ofdeterministic estimating methods. Class 2 estimates areprepared in great detail, and often involve tens of thousands ofunit cost line items. For those areas of the project stillundefined, an assumed level of detailed takeoff (forced detail)may be developed to use as line items in the estimate insteadof relying on factoring methods.
Class 1 estimates involve the highest degree of deterministicestimating methods, and require a great amount of effort. Class 1estimates are prepared in great detail, and thus are usuallyperformed on only the most important or critical areas of theproject. All items in the estimate are usually unit cost line itemsbased on actual design quantities.
Class 5 estimates are prepared for any number of strategicbusiness planning purposes, such as but not limited to marketstudies, assessment of initial viability, evaluation of alternateschemes, project screening, project location studies,evaluation of resource needs and budgeting, long-rangecapital planning, etc.
Class 4 estimates are prepared for a number of purposes,such as but not limited to, detailed strategic planning, businessdevelopment, project screening at more developed stages,alternative scheme analysis, confirmation of economic and/ortechnical feasibility, and preliminary budget approval orapproval to proceed to next stage.
Class 3 estimates are typically prepared to support full projectfunding requests, and become the first of the project phase"control estimate" against which all actual costs and resourceswill be monitored for variations to the budget. They are used asthe project budget until replaced by more detailed estimates. Inmany owner organizations, a Class 3 estimate may be the lastestimate required and could well form the only basis forcost/schedule control.
Class 2 estimates are typically prepared as the detailed controlbaseline against which all actual costs an resources will nowbe monitored for variation to the budget, and form a part of thechange/variation control program. 5 to 100
Class 5 estimates are generally prepared based on verylimited information, and subsequently have very wide accuracy ranges. As such, some companies and organizations haveelected to determine that due to the inherent inaccuracies,such estimates cannot be classified in a conventional andsystematic manner. Class 5 estimates, due to therequirements of end use, may be prepared within a verylimited amount of time and with very little effort expended -sometimes requiring less than 1 hour to prepare. Often, littlemore than proposed plant type, location, and capacity areknown at the time of estimate preparation.
Class 4 estimates are generally prepared based on verylimited information, and subsequently have very wide accuracyranges. They are typically used for project screening,determination of feasibility, concept evaluation, and preliminarybudget approval. Typically, engineering is from 1% to 5%complete, and would comprise at a minimum the following:plant capacity, block schematics, indicated layout, process flowdiagrams (PFDs) for main process systems and preliminaryengineered process and utility equipment lists. Level of ProjectDefinition Required: 1% to 15% of full project definition.
Class 3 estimates are generally prepared to form the basis forbudget authorization, appropriation, and/or funding. As such,they typically form the initial control estimate against which allactual costs and resources will be monitored. Typically,engineering is from 10% to 40% complete, and wouldcomprise at a minimum the following: process flow diagrams,utility flow diagrams, preliminary piping and instrumentdiagrams, utility flow diagrams, preliminary piping andinstrument diagrams, plot plan, developed layout drawings,and essentially complete engineering process and utilityequipment lists. Level Of Project Definition Required: 10% to40% of full project definition.
Class 2 estimates are generally prepared to form a detailedcontrol baseline against which all project work is monitored interms of cost and progress control. For contractors, this classof estimate is often used as the "bid" estimate to establishcontract value. Typically, engineering is from 30% to 70%complete, and would comprise at a minimum the following:Process flow diagrams, utility flow diagrams, piping andinstrument flow diagrams, heat and material balances, finalplot plan, final layout drawings, complete engineered processand utility equipment lists, single line diagrams for electrical,electrical equipment and motor schedules, vendor quotations,detailed project execution plans, resourcing and work forceplans, etc.
Class 1 estimates are generally prepared for discrete parts orsections of the total project rather than generating this level ofdetail for the entire project. The parts of the project estimated atthis level of detail will typically be used by subcontractors for bids,or by owners for check estimates. The updated estimate is oftenreferred to as the current control estimate and becomes the newbaseline for cost/schedule control of the project. Class 1estimates may be prepared for parts of the project to comprise afair price estimate or bid check estimate to compare against acontractor's bid estimate, or to evaluate/dispute claims. Typically,engineering is from 50% to 100% complete, and would comprisevirtually all engineering and design documentation of the project,and complete project execution and commissioning plans. Levelfor Project Definition Required: 50% to 100% of full projectdefinition. 1 2 to 4 3 to 10 4 to 20
Check Estimate or Bid / Tender
Capacity Factored, Parametric Models,
Judgment, or Analogy Equipment Factored or Parametric Models Semi-Detailed Unit Costs with Assembly Level Line Items Detailed Unit Cost with Forced Detailed Take-Off Detailed Unit Cost with Detailed Take-Off Concept Screening Study or Feasibility Budget Authorization, or Control 10% to 40% 30% to 70% 50% to 100%
Class 5 Class 4 Class 3 Class 2
Control or Bid / Tender
Class 1
0% to 2% 1% to 15%
Packet Pg. 435
Attachment: Preliminary Design Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Estimate Class Class 5 Class 4 Class 3 Class 2 Class 1
Estimate Input
Checklist and
Maturity Index
GENERAL PROJECT
DATA
Project ScopeDescriptionPlant Production / Facility
CapacityPlant LocationSoils & HydrologyIntegrated Project PlanProject Master ScheduleEscalation StrategyWork BreakdownStructureProject Code ofAccountsContracting Strategy
ENGINEERING
DELIVERABLES:
Block Flow DiagramsPlot PlansProcess Flow Diagrams(PFDs)Utility Flow Diagrams(UFDs)Piping & InstrumentDiagrams (P&IDS)Heat and MaterialBalancesProcess Equipment ListUtility Equipment ListElectrical One LineDrawingsSpecifications andDatasheetsGeneral EquipmentArrangement DrawingsSpare Parts ListsArchitectural Details /SchedulesStructural DetailsMechanical DisciplineDrawingsElectrical DisciplineDrawingsSystem DisciplineDrawingsCivil/Site DisciplineDrawingsDemolition Details Class 5 Class 4 Class 3 Class 2 Class 1
Started / Preliminary
Started
Started Preliminary / Complete Complete CompleteStarted Preliminary / Complete CompleteStarted Preliminary / Complete Complete Preliminary / Complete
Started Preliminary Preliminary / CompleteStarted Preliminary CompleteComplete
Preliminary / Complete
Started Preliminary Preliminary / Complete
Preliminary
Complete
Started / Preliminary Preliminary Complete
Started Preliminary / CompleteStarted Complete
Started
Preliminary / Complete
CompleteComplete
Complete
CompleteCompleteCompleteComplete
Complete
Started / Preliminary Complete
Preliminary / CompletePreliminary / CompletePreliminary / CompletePreliminary / CompletePreliminary / CompletePreliminary / Complete Started / PreliminaryStarted / Preliminary
Preliminary / Complete
CompleteComplete
DefinedDefined
Specific
DefinedDefined
CompleteComplete
DefinedDefined
Complete
DefinedDefinedDefined
DefinedDefinedDefined
Complete
Preliminary / Complete
CompleteCompleteCompleteCompleteCompleteComplete
DefinedDefinedDefinedDefinedDefinedDefinedSpecific
DefinedDefinedDefined
Preliminary
DefinedDefined
Specific
DefinedDefinedDefined
Started
Preliminary / Complete
Started
Started / Preliminary
PreliminaryPreliminary
Assumed
PreliminaryPreliminary
Approximate
PreliminaryPreliminaryPreliminaryPreliminary
None
Assumed
Started / Preliminary
NoneNoneNoneNone
General
Assumed
General
None
Class 5 Class 4 Class 3 Class 2 Class 1
Packet Pg. 436
Attachment: Preliminary Design Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Appendix E
Preliminary Implementation Schedule
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: Preliminary Design Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C-8541) ID Task
Mode
Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors
1 Start Phase 1 Contract (RFP May 2020) 1 day Wed 05/13/20 Wed 05/13/20 2 Phase 1 - Preliminary Design Phase Services 622 days Thu 05/14/20 Fri 09/30/22 3 Task 1.1 Project Management, Meetings, and
Quality Control
622 days Thu 05/14/20 Fri 09/30/22
4 Project Execution Plan and QA/QC Plan 7 days Thu 05/14/20 Fri 05/22/20 1 5 Kickoff Workshop 1 day Tue 06/02/20 Tue 06/02/20 4FS+6 days 6 Project Site Walk - Criteria and Concepts Discussion1 day Wed 06/24/20 Wed 06/24/20 5FS+10 days 7 Project Stakeholder Workshop - Present Pre-Final
PDR and Next Steps
1 day Thu 06/09/22 Thu 06/09/22
8 Task 1.2 Data Collection and Review 413 days Wed 06/03/20 Fri 12/31/21 17 Collector Well Pumping Test (Task 2.5) 260 days Mon 10/04/21 Fri 09/30/22 18 Monitor Well Construction 15 days Mon 10/04/21 Fri 10/22/21 19 Pumping Well Construction 20 days Wed 07/20/22 Tue 08/16/22 20 Collector Well Report 33 days Wed 08/17/22 Fri 09/30/22 19 21 Task 1.3 Preliminary Environmental Review 42 wks Mon 07/26/21 Fri 05/13/22 15SF 22 Task 1.4 Construction Funding Evaluation 42 wks Mon 07/26/21 Fri 05/13/22 15SF 23 Task 1.5 Preliminary Design Report 250 days Mon 08/23/21 Fri 08/05/22 24 Production of Draft PDR 145 days Mon 08/23/21 Fri 03/11/22 30 Production of Pre-Final PDR 60 days Mon 03/14/22 Fri 06/03/22 29 35 Production of Final PDR 45 days Mon 06/06/22 Fri 08/05/22 34 36 Production of Final PDR 35 days Mon 06/06/22 Fri 07/22/22 37 COR Final Acceptance 2 wks Mon 07/25/22 Fri 08/05/22 36 38 Submit Phase 2 Scope to COR 15 days Mon 08/08/22 Fri 08/26/22 37 39 Phase 2 - Final Design, Bid, and Construction Phase
Services
1240 days Mon 08/29/22 Fri 05/28/27 38
Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration-only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start-only
Finish-only
External Tasks
External Milestone
Deadline
Progress
Manual Progress
Project: Pump Station No. 1
Date: Sun 07/10/22
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: Preliminary Design Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C-8541) Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report
City of Redding Pump House No. 1 Replacement Project
City of Redding Department of Public Works – Water Utility
Document no: PPS0126221137RDD
November 2022
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report
Client name: City of Redding Department of Public Works – Water Utility Project name: City of Redding Pump House No. 1 Replacement Project Client reference: City of Redding Project no: W8Y06200
Document no: PPS0126221137RDD Project manager: Kim Hein, P.E.
Revision no: 0 Prepared by: Jacobs
Date: November 1, 2022
Document History and Status
Revision Date Description Author Checked Reviewed Approved Distribution of Copies
Revision Issue approved Date issued Issued to Comments
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
2525 Airpark Drive
Redding, CA 96001-2443
United States
T +1.530.243.5831
F +1.530.243.1654
www.jacobs.com
Copyright Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. @ 2022.
All rights reserved. Reproduction and redistribution without written permission is prohibited. Jacobs, the Jacobs logo, and all other Jacobs trademarks are the property of Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
NOTICE: This document has been prepared exclusively for the use and benefit of Jacobs’ client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility for any use or reliance upon this document by any third party.
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report
PPS0126221137RDD i
Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations.........................................................................................................................................iii
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................1-1
2. Overview of Previous Investigations .............................................................................................................2-1
2.1 Potential Horizontal Collector Well Locations...........................................................................................2-1
2.2 Geophysical Survey ..............................................................................................................................................2-2
2.3 Geotechnical Borings and Short-term Pumping Tests...........................................................................2-2
2.4 Preferred Location for Additional Testing...................................................................................................2-2
3. Monitoring Well Installation ...........................................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Borehole Drilling and Well Construction.....................................................................................................3-1
3.2 Well Development and Transducer Installation .......................................................................................3-1
4. Test Well Installation........................................................................................................................................4-1
4.1 Borehole Drilling and Well Construction.....................................................................................................4-1
4.2 Well Development................................................................................................................................................4-3
5. Pumping Tests....................................................................................................................................................5-1
5.1 Overview of Pumping Test.................................................................................................................................5-1
5.2 Pumping Test Monitoring and Background Data.....................................................................................5-1
5.3 Variable-rate Test .................................................................................................................................................5-3
5.4 Constant-rate Test................................................................................................................................................5-3
5.5 Microscopic Particle Analysis ...........................................................................................................................5-5
6. Horizontal Collector Well Yield Analysis......................................................................................................6-1
6.1 Pumping Test Analysis........................................................................................................................................6-1
6.2 Potential Collector Well Yield ..........................................................................................................................6-2
7. Summary of Findings and Recommendations ...........................................................................................7-1
7.1 Summary of Findings...........................................................................................................................................7-1
7.2 Recommendations................................................................................................................................................7-1
8. References...........................................................................................................................................................8-1 Appendices
A City of Redding Surface Geophysical Survey Investigations Summary and Recommendations Technical Memorandum
B City of Redding Horizontal Collector Well Borehole Investigations Summary and Recommendations Technical Memorandum
C Shasta County Well Permits
D Lithologic Logs
E Monitoring Well Water Level Data
F Photographs
G Contractor Field Material Submittals
H Microscopic Particulate Analysis
I Pumping Test Graphs
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report
ii PPS0126221137RDD
Tables
3-1 Summary of Monitoring Well Construction Information................................................................................. 3-1 4-1 Summary of Test Well Construction Information .............................................................................................. 4-1 5-1 Summary of Pumping Tests Conducted on BP-TW1 ........................................................................................ 5-1 6-1 Aquifer Hydraulic Parameters from BP-TW1 Pumping Tests........................................................................ 6-2 6-2 Estimated Well Yields at Bike Park Location ........................................................................................................ 6-4 Figures
1-1 Collector Well Locations .............................................................................................................................................. 1-2 3-1 Test Well, Monitoring Well, and Boring Locations ............................................................................................. 3-2 4-1 Cross-section through Bike Park Test Well ........................................................................................................... 4-2 5-1 Sacramento River Discharge at Keswick Station and Approximate Stage at Bike Park ...................... 5-2 5-2 Sacramento River Temperature at Keswick Station .......................................................................................... 5-3 5-3 Drawdown, River Level, and Pumping Rates ........................................................................................................ 5-4 Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report
PPS0126221137RDD iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
°F degree(s) Fahrenheit
ACID Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District
City City of Redding
DO dissolved oxygen
gpm gallon(s) per minute
HCW horizontal collector well
Location 1 Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District
Location 2 Rodeo Grounds
Location 3 Bike Park
Location 4 Turtle Bay
Location 5 east side of State Route 44 bridge
mgd million gallon(s) per day
MPA microscopic particulate analysis
NTU nephelometric turbidity unit
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
PDR Preliminary Design Report
PS1 Pump House (Pump Station) No. 1
PVC polyvinyl chloride report Collector Well Feasibility Report rpm revolutions per minutes
VFD variable-frequency drive
Yellow Jacket Yellow Jacket Drilling Services
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report
PPS0126221137RDD 1-1
1. Introduction
In July 2022, Jacobs submitted the Final Preliminary Design Report (PDR) for the Pump House No. 1 Replacement Project (project) to the City of Redding (City) (Jacobs 2022). One of the alternatives presented in the PDR, Alternative 3, considered the construction of horizontal collector wells (HCWs).
Based on discussions with the City on January 14, 2022, an evaluation of Alternative 3 would be presented as a stand-alone technical memorandum, separate from the PDR, because it would not provide the required buildout capacity of 42 million gallons per day (mgd) and field analysis was still being conducted.
Alternative 3, however, could provide supplemental water for the City and a suitable water source to Foothill Water Treatment Plant during the winter months, when river turbidity is a concern. HCWs consist of caissons that are constructed into the saturated zone with well screens that extend latterly from the caisson into the aquifer. Some of the benefits of HCWs are higher yields when compared to traditional vertical wells and the need for less treatment relative to surface water sources.
The PDR identifies five potential sites for HCWs between Turtle Bay and the existing pump station, Pump House (Pump Station) No. 1 (PS1), as follows:
Location 1 (Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District [ACID]) Location 2 (Rodeo Grounds)
Location 3 (Bike Park)
Location 4 (Turtle Bay)
Location 5 (east side of State Route 44 bridge)
Figure 1-1 shows the locations of the potential sites. The PDR also includes reports that summarize the findings of geophysical surveys and subsurface investigations that were used to screen the feasibility of HCWs at these locations. Based on those findings and input regarding infrastructure requirements, the City identified one potential location, Location 3 (Bike Park), for further evaluation. The additional feasibility evaluation at Location 3 involved the installation of a test well, monitoring wells, pumping tests, and water quality sampling.
This Collector Well Feasibility Report (report) documents the findings of the additional field investigations and testing and presents an evaluation of the potential yield for an HCW installed at Location 3. It also includes summaries and associated documentation for the previous phases of HCW investigations, compiling all of this information in one document.
The report is organized as follows:
Section 1: Introduction – Presents an introduction and overview of the scope of the report. Section 2: Overview of Previous Investigations – Summarizes the results of the previous HCW feasibility investigations.
Section 3: Monitoring Well Installation – Describes the installation of the monitoring wells. Section 4: Test Well Installation – Describes the installation of the test well. Section 5: Pumping Tests – Describes the pumping tests that were conducted and water quality sampling.
Section 6: Horizontal Collector Well Yield Analysis – Presents analyses of the pumping test data and an evaluation HCW yield.
Section 7: Summary of Findings and Recommendations – Presents the overall findings and recommendations.
Section 8: References
Supporting information and the results of the previous HCW investigations are included as appendices.
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Lake Redding
Existing Pump House No.1
Benton Drive
N. Court Street
West Street
River Trail
Overhill Drive
Eureka Way/State Route 299
State Route 44
N. Market Street/State Route 273
Sacramento River
Location 3 (Bike Park)
Location 4 (Turtle Bay)
Location 5 (Eastside of
Highway 44 Bridge)
Foothill Water
Treatment Plant
ACID Diversion Dam
Diestelhorst Bridge
SP (Boat Ramp)
Location
Location 1 (ACID) Location 2 (Rodeo
Grounds)
North
0 800 1,600
Approximate scale in feet
Flow Direction of River
Potential HCW Location - Selected for Further Evaluation Potential HCW Location - Eliminated from Further Evaluation HCW = Horizontal Collector Well
LEGEND
Figure 1-1. Collector Well Locations
Collector Well Feasibility Report
City of Redding Pump House No. 1 Replacement Project
Redding, California
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report
PPS0126221137RDD 2-1
2. Overview of Previous Investigations
HCW investigations are typically conducted with a series of sequential steps, proceeding if favorable results are obtained from the previous step. The HCW investigation for this project included the following steps:
Review available information including hydrogeology, land uses, and property access. Conduct a surface geophysical survey to identify areas with potential suitable lithology. Drill exploratory borings, coupled with short-term pumping tests, at sites with potential suitable lithology to confirm and calibrate the geophysical survey results. Install a test well with associated monitoring wells and conduct pumping tests to measure response in surrounding monitoring wells and estimate the aquifer hydraulic parameters at the sites proven from the exploratory borings.
Estimate the potential HCW yield of the locations that are subject to the pumping tests.
The first three steps were conducted previously and reported in the PDR. This section provides a summary of this previous work.
2.1 Potential Horizontal Collector Well Locations
The general area along the river reach between Turtle Bay and existing PS1 was evaluated to identify potential sites for HCWs. Based on a review of existing geologic mapping, property availability, property size, and other logistical factors, five potential sites for HCWs were identified (Locations 1 through 5) (Figure 1-1). Based on mapping by Hollister and Evans (1965), each of these locations is underlain by Quaternary alluvium, and based on the proximity to the river, the saturated alluvium in these areas was suspected to be transmissive an in hydraulic connection to the river.
To refine the number of sites for further evaluation, Redding Electric Utility provided general information regarding the feasibility of establishing electrical service for an HCW at those locations; summarized as follows:
Location 1 (ACID): Most viable location for dual feeds from different substations; one feed exists onsite; an additional feed would need to be installed along the dirt access road from Court Street; floodplain limits could pose an issue.
Location 2 (Rodeo Grounds): Infrastructure in proximity but only one circuit; this area is served radially by one circuit from the State Route 44 crossing; a circuit would need to be extended from Park Marina across State Route 44 that is approximately 2,500 feet with a highway overpass crossing to obtain a second feed; not a preferred location.
Location 3 (Bike Park): Dual-circuit feed possible but from same the substation (different transformer banks); circuits would need to be extended about 1,500 to 2,000 feet down Traveled Way. Location 4 (Turtle Bay): Similar limitations as Location 2 but with additional circuit extension due to remote location; accessibility would need to be improved; possible floodplain issues. Location 5 (east side of State Route 44 bridge): No infrastructure in proximity; nearest tie point is the end of Palisades. Circuit would need to be upgraded; no dual feed possibility; extreme terrain variations from tie point to well location; not a preferred location.
Based on review of existing information and input regarding the feasibility of establishing electrical service, on July 30, 2020, the City removed Location 5 from further consideration. The remaining sites were retained for geophysical investigation.
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report
2-2 PPS0126221137RDD
2.2 Geophysical Survey
The surface geophysical investigation conducted for this project included Frequency Domain Electromagnetics and Electrical Resistivity Tomography. These geophysical methods map the resistivity structure of the subsurface, which can correlate with variations in lithology, including the depth to bedrock; water saturation; fluid conductivity, as well as porosity and permeability.
Collier Geophysics, LLC conducted the geophysical survey in September 2020 at four locations: Location 1 (ACID), Location 2 (Rodeo Grounds), Location 3 (Bike Park), and Location 4 (Turtle Bay). The findings were summarized in Jacobs’ City of Redding Surface Geophysical Survey Investigations Summary and Recommendations Technical Memorandum, dated October 22, 2020 (Appendix A).
Based on the results of the geophysical surveys, the City decided on December 2, 2020, to proceed with geotechnical investigations at Location 1 (ACID), Location 3 (Bike Park), and Location 4 (Turtle Bay) because the most favorable lithologies for water production were observed at these locations.
2.3 Geotechnical Borings and Short-term Pumping Tests
In addition to Locations 1, 3, and 4, where geophysical surveys indicated conditions were favorable for an HCW, exploratory borings were also advanced at Location 5 at the City’s request and at a location near a Southern Pacific Railroad well on the north side of the Sacramento River to confirm lithologic conditions.
Shasta County permits were approved for each of the exploration borings. A 1600/Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement permit was not required from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife via email confirmation on November 16, 2020.
Yellow Jacket Drilling Services (Yellow Jacket) drilled a total of 12 boreholes and conducted pumping test in four of those boreholes in February 2021. Boreholes were continuously cored using a rotary sonic drill rig and were advanced to bedrock to verify the thickness of alluvium at each location. Short duration, low-capacity pumping tests were conducted within select boreholes by constructing a temporary well within the drill casing and pumping water from the borehole with a submersible pump. Soil samples were collected from boreholes in which low-capacity pumping tests were performed and submitted for a particle-size distribution sieve analysis. The results of the pump tests and estimates of hydraulic conductivity obtained from partial size analysis were used to calculate rough estimates of HWC yield at those locations. The testing at Location 3 (Bike Park) resulted in the highest yields from the short-term pumping tests. Shallow bedrock was encountered at Location 5 and the drilling site near the railroad, and those locations were removed from further consideration.
Jacobs’ City of Redding Horizontal Collector Well Borehole Investigations Summary and Recommendations Technical Memorandum, dated March 12, 2021 (Appendix B), documents the results of the additional geotechnical drilling, pumping tests, and sieve analyses. Based on the findings of that work, Jacobs proposed the installation of test wells, monitoring wells, and further pump testing at two locations:
Location 1 (ACID) and Location 3 (Bike Park).
2.4 Preferred Location for Additional Testing
After further evaluation of the investigation results and other factors, the City decided on May 11, 2021, to install a test well and monitoring wells and to conduct pumping testing at Location 3 (Bike Park) only.
The following sections of this report will refer to Location 3 or Bike Park only.
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report
PPS0126221137RDD 3-1
3. Monitoring Well Installation
This section describes the installation of the monitoring wells that were conducted as shown on Figure 3-1. Yellow Jacket provided borehole drilling and development.
3.1 Borehole Drilling and Well Construction
Five boreholes were advanced to complete four monitoring wells (MW-1, MW-2, MW-3, and MW-4) in October 2021. Each borehole was advanced using the rotary sonic drilling technique with a Terra Sonic TSI 150T truck-mounted drill rig. Sonic was selected as the preferred drilling method to facilitate collection of a continuous core and detailed characterization of subsurface lithology. Each borehole was advanced to bedrock, which consisted of siltstone of the Franciscan Formation. During drilling, a 9-inch-diameter sonic casing was advanced to the total borehole depth to facilitate well construction.
Shasta County well permits for the monitoring wells are included in Appendix C. The lithologic logs for the monitoring wells are included in Appendix D.
Monitoring wells were completed with 2-inch-diameter Schedule 80 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) well casing and factory slotted, 0.060-inch aperture, well screen. After installing well casing, filter pack was installed to a depth a few feet above the well screen, followed by installation of an approximately 2-foot-thick upper bentonite seal and a cement grout seal to ground level. One borehole (BP-B-4) was drilled and not completed as a well because a higher percentage of clay and silt content was observed in the continuous core at this location; the borehole BP-B-4 was abandoned with cement grout. Monitoring wells were completed with a 12-inch-diameter belowground traffic-rated vault. Monitoring well completion details are summarized in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1. Summary of Monitoring Well Construction Information Well/Location Well Type
Total Borehole
Depth
(feet bgs)
Total Well
Depth
(feet bgs)
Casing
Diameter
(inches)
Screened
Interval
(feet bgs)
MW-1 Monitoring Well 43 39 2 14 to 39
MW-2 Monitoring Well 46 43 2 14 to 44
MW-3 Monitoring Well 46 43 2 16 to 41
MW-4 Monitoring Well 41 40 2 20 to 40
bgs = below ground surface
3.2 Well Development and Transducer Installation
The monitoring wells were developed using a combination of surging and bailing. Development proceeded until there was minimal production of filter pack material or formation solids in the well.
After completing well development, each monitoring well was equipped with an In Situ Level TROLL 700 data-logging transducer, rated to 30 pounds per square inch (gauge pressure). Transducers were set to record the water level in each monitoring well every 15 to 30 minutes to monitor background water level fluctuation before installing the test well. Background water level data from the monitoring wells is included in Appendix E.
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- MW-2
MW-3
MW-4
A'
Parking Lot from
Arboretum Drive
Arboretum Drive
Sacramento River
MW-1
River Monitoring Location
Storm Drain Inlet
Storm Drain Outlet
BP-B-1
BP-B-4
TEST WELL
A
North
0 30 60
Approximate scale in feet
Figure 3-1. Test Well, Monitoring Well, and Boring Locations Collector Well Feasibility Report
City of Redding Pump House No. 1 Replacement Project
Redding, California
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report
PPS0126221137RDD 4-1
4. Test Well Installation
This section describes the test well installation and the pumping tests conducted in July and August 2022 and as shown on Figure 3-1. Yellow Jacket provided well installation, development, and testing services.
Photos of the work are shown in Appendix F.
4.1 Borehole Drilling and Well Construction
Test well BP-TW1 was drilled and constructed in July 2022. The borehole for BP-TW1 was drilled using dual rotary drilling techniques with a Foremost DR-14HD truck-mounted drill rig. Dual rotary was selected as the preferred drilling method to facilitate drilling and advancing casing while drilling that prevents collapse of loose overburden and allows for installation of large diameter well casing. The boring was advanced to a total depth of 47 feet bgs. Drill cuttings were collected at 2-foot intervals from the cyclone for lithologic description. The lithology observed at BP-TW1 generally corresponded to the lithologic log from the adjacent monitoring well MW-2. The lithologic logs for BP-TW1 and the monitoring wells are included in Appendix D.
BP-TW1 was constructed using 12-inch inside diameter, 0.25-inch wall thickness ASTM A139 Grade B low carbon steel well casing to a total depth of 44 feet bgs, including 29 feet of 0.100-inch aperture Ful Flo louvered casing from 15 to 42 feet bgs. All well casing materials were manufactured by Roscoe Moss Company. The borehole annulus was backfilled with 3/8 by 1/8 gravel supplied by Tacna Sand & Gravel (from 15 to 47 feet bgs) and Axner Excavating, Inc. (from 12 to 15 feet bgs). Based on quantity of gravel used, a large void was present near the top of the well screen. Initial well development was performed using a trash pump to settle gravel pack and remove high solids water prior to installing a bentonite seal.
Approximately 1,000 gallons of groundwater was pumped during initial development. Medium bentonite chips were placed from 7.5 to 12 feet bgs and hydrated before placing cement bentonite grout to 2.5 feet bgs. The test well was equipped with a blind flange to cap the well and 2- by 2-foot square traffic rated vault installed in a cement pad at grade. Table 4-1 presents a summary of well completion details for BP-TW1.
Table 4-1. Summary of Test Well Construction Information Well/Location Well Type
Total Borehole
Depth
(feet bgs)
Total Well
Depth
(feet bgs)
Casing
Diameter
(inches)
Screened
Interval
(feet bgs)
BP-TW1 Test Well 47 44 12 15 to 44
Sacramento River Stilling Well River gauge NA NA 4 NA
NA = not applicable
Well casing details, well casing mill test reports, and sieve analysis results for gravel supplied by Tacna Sand & Gravel are provided as Appendix G.
An east-west cross-section through test well BP-TW1 and the four monitoring wells is shown on Figure 4-1. Based on the continuous core collected while drilling the monitoring wells, fill material was encountered in the upper 10 to 13 feet at each location. Below the fill consists primarily of sand and gravel, with some finer-grain materials observed to the west and is underlain by bedrock (siltstone) interpreted to be the Franciscan Formation. The bedrock surface was relatively flat though the area, with the depth to bedrock ranging from 39 to 43 feet bgs.
Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- MW-1
MW-2BP-TW-1MW-3MW-4
AA'
Depth (feet)
10 20
30 40
500
FRANCISCAN FORMATION
FILL
Soil Boring Interval
Well Screen Interval
Vertical Exaggeration = 2x
LEGEND
Fill
Gravel
Sand
Clay
Bedrock
Figure 4-1. Cross-section through Bike Park Test Well
Collector Well Feasibility Report
City of Redding Pump House No. 1 Replacement Project
Redding, California
Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report
PPS0126221137RDD 4-3
4.2 Well Development
Well development for BP-TW1 was completed in August 2022 and consisted of mechanical and pumping development. Well development water was discharged to land surface in the open area east of the wells.
4.2.1 Mechanical Development
Mechanical development was completed for approximately 6 hours and was performed over 2 days.
The process involved swabbing and airlifting using a dual-swab tool with 12-inch-diameter swabs separated by 2 feet of perforated pipe. Due to the shallow depth of the well, airlifting was only effective when there was maximum submergence of the swab tool near the bottom of the well. Therefore, dual-swab airlift development consisted of airlifting from the bottom of the well and periodically swabbing the well screen for approximately 10-minute intervals, followed by lowering the dual-swab tool back to the bottom of the well until the discharge cleared. Mechanical development proceeded until there was minimal solids production after swabbing (that is, formation sand and filter pack material) and the turbidity was less than 50 nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs).
4.2.2 Pumping Development
Yellow Jacket installed a temporary test pump to conduct pumping development in BP-TW1. The test pump was a 40 horsepower 6-inch Grundfos 1100S400-1 submersible pump, rated for 1,100 gallons per minute (gpm). The pump was placed in a PVC shroud and lowered on 6-inch-diameter drop pipe to an initial pump setting depth of 37.5 feet bgs. The pump was controlled using a Franklin Electric variable-frequency drive (VFD) to allow for operating the pump over a range of pumping rates. The flow rate was measured using a McCrometer Dura Mag DM06-1011 inline flow meter installed 25 feet from the wellhead with 5 feet of 6-inch-diameter hard pipe upstream and downstream of the meter. The remainder of the discharge was flexible or lay flat 6-inch-diameter hose. Two 1-inch-diameter PVC temporary sounding tubes were installed along the drop pipe, terminating at the top of the pump, to facilitate installing a pressure transducer and to collect manual water level measurements during pumping.
Pumping development was performed for a total of 4 hours with a total of approximately 150,000 gallons pumped. Drawdown, flow rate, turbidity, temperature, pH, oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), dissolved oxygen (DO), electrical conductivity, and sand content were monitored during pumping development.
In addition, water levels were recorded using In Situ Level TROLL 700 model data-logging pressure transducers deployed in BP-TW1 and each of the monitoring wells. Development was performed at successively higher pumping rates, starting at approximately 300 gpm up to a maximum rate of 1,280 gpm. Surge pumping (turning the pump on and off) was conducted at the maximum discharge rate for the final hour of pumping development until turbidity was less than 50 NTU when the pump was turned on.
Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report
PPS0126221137RDD 5-1
5. Pumping Tests
Pumping tests were conducted at BP-TW1 in August 2022 following the completion of well development activities. Following pumping development, Yellow Jacket performed the following:
Lowered the pump intake 5 feet to approximately 42.5 feet bgs to allow for additional drawdown during the pumping tests.
Rerouted the discharge conveyance to the nearby storm drain southwest of the test well.
Otherwise, pumping tests were completed using the same pumping equipment previously described for pumping development.
5.1 Overview of Pumping Test
The pumping tests conducted on test well BP-TW1 consisted of pumping the test well while monitoring water levels in the test well, the four onsite monitoring wells, and the Sacramento River. The testing consisted of the following:
Variable-rate Test – The first test was a variable-rate test, during which BP-TW1 was pumped for four 2-hour steps at successively higher pumping rates. Constant-rate Test – The second test was a constant-rate test where the test well was pumped at a constant rate for 3 continuous days.
The dates, times, rates, and durations of the tests are listed in Table 5-1. Monitoring and background data collection activities, the variable-rate test, and constant-rate test are described in the following sections.
Section 6 presents an analysis of the pumping test results.
Table 5-1. Summary of Pumping Tests Conducted on BP-TW1 Date Step Time
Representative
Rate (gpm)
Duration
(minutes)
Volume
Extracted
(gallons)
Drawdown at
End of Step/
Test (feet)
Specific
Capacity
(gpm/ft)
Variable-rate Pumping Test
8/14/2022 1 9:10 274 120 29,000 1.17 234
2 11:10 590 120 70,000 3.77 156
3 13:10 1,000 120 120,000 8.08 124
4 15:10 1,228 120 147,000 11.92 103
End 17:10 0 NA NA NA NA
Constant-rate Pumping Test
8/15/2022 Start 8:00 1,000 4,323 4,327,000 10.9 92
8/18/2022 End 8:03 0 NA NA NA NA
gpm/ft = gallons per minute per foot
5.2 Pumping Test Monitoring and Background Data
During the pumping tests, Jacobs monitored drawdown, flow rate, turbidity, temperature, pH, ORP, DO, electrical conductivity, and sand content in BP-TW1; and drawdown in the monitoring wells. In addition, periodic turbidity measurements were taken in the Sacramento River where the water from the storm drain outlet entered the river, as well as upstream and downstream of the discharge, to verify there were no increases in river turbidity as a result of the discharge. Turbidity readings at the point of discharge were ±2 NTU of upstream and downstream readings.
Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report
5-2 PPS0126221137RDD
Before the pumping tests, Jacobs installed a temporary stilling well in the Sacramento River south of the test well BP-TW1 and equipped it with a pressure transducer. The stilling well was used to monitor fluctuations in river stage over the course of the pumping tests.
In addition to the monitoring previously described, flow and temperature flow and temperature data were obtained for the Sacramento River at the Keswick Station, which is operated by the U.S. Geological Survey/Bureau of Reclamation and located in the Sacramento River approximately 3.35 miles upstream of the Bike Park. Figure 5-1 shows the daily discharge data at the Keswick Station from 2015 to present and the corresponding approximate stage at the Bike Park which was calculated. Under normal conditions, the stage at the Bike Park only varies seasonally by approximately 2 feet. Figure 5-2 shows the temperature in the Sacramento River at the Keswick Station from late 2020 to present. The temperature plot indicates the temperature in the river may fluctuate up to approximately 14 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) seasonally.
Figure 5-1. Sacramento River Discharge at Keswick Station and Approximate Stage at Bike Park Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report
PPS0126221137RDD 5-3
Figure 5-2. Sacramento River Temperature at Keswick Station
5.3 Variable-rate Test
An initial (failed) variable-rate pumping test, planned for four 2-hour steps at successively higher pumping rates. At the beginning of Step 3, 4 hours into the test, a faulty setting on the VFD resulted in the pump shutting off and the test was terminated. The remainder of the day was spent troubleshooting the issues with the pump and the VFD.
The successful variable-rate pumping test was conducted for 8 hours and consisted of four steps lasting 120 minutes (2 hours) each. Steps were completed in order of increased pumping rate and included representative flow rates of 274; 590; 1,000; and 1,228 gpm (rates represent average during step after flow adjustments were completed), for a total of 366,000 gallons (1.12 acre-feet) of water extracted.
The static water levels in BP-TW1 and the monitoring wells were measured before the onset of pumping.
Table 5-1 summarizes the representative flow rates, total volume pumped, the drawdown, and the specific capacity measured at the end of each step. Figure 5-3 displays the measured drawdown at BP-TW-1 and the monitoring wells and the river level’s fluctuations during step testing activities.
5.4 Constant-rate Test
A 72-hour constant-rate test was conducted at an average pumping rate of 1,000 gpm, and a total of 4,320,000 gallons (13.26 acre-feet) of water extracted. The cumulative drawdown and specific capacity at the end of the test were 10.9 feet and 92 gpm per foot, respectively. Figure 5-3 displays the measured drawdown at BP-TW1 and the monitoring wells and the river levels fluctuations during the constant-rate pumping test. Static groundwater levels and the maximum drawdown observed during the test at BP-TW1 and the monitoring wells are presented in Table 5-1. Groundwater level recovery was monitored at the conclusion of the test, and greater than 99% recovery in the pumping well was achieved approximately 22 hours after the conclusion of the constant-rate test.
Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
1,100
1,200
1,300
0 1,400
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
8/12/2022 8/13/2022 8/14/2022 8/15/2022 8/16/2022 8/17/2022 8/18/2022 8/19/2022 8/20/2022 Date
BP-TW1 MW-1 MW-2
MW-3 MW-4 River Level (normalized)
Pumping
Development
Variable Rate
Test 1 (failed)
Variable Rate
Test 2
72-hour
Draw
d
o
w
n and
Riv
er Le
v
el (feet)
Pum
pin
g
Rtae (g
p
m)
Figure 5-3. Drawdown, River Level, and Pumping Rates
Collector Well Feasibility Report
City of Redding Pump House No. 1 Replacement Project
Redding, California
Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report
PPS0126221137RDD 5-5
5.5 Microscopic Particle Analysis
Groundwater samples were collected during the last 17 hours of the constant-rate pumping test.
The samples were submitted to CH Diagnostic and Consulting Service, Inc. of Berthoud, Colorado, for microscopic particulate analysis (MPA) using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) consensus method (EPA 1992) and analysis for the presence of giardia and cryptosporidium by EPA Method 1623.
The MPA sample was collected using the apparatus outlined in the consensus method with approximately 937 gallons of water run through the filter in the apparatus. The sample for analysis of giardia and cryptosporidium was collected as a 10-gallon grab sample at the end of the constant-rate test that was filtered in the lab for analysis. The laboratory results for the MPA, giardia, and cryptosporidium analysis are included as Appendix H.
MPA is a tool typically used to identify whether a groundwater source is under the direct influence of surface water as defined by EPA’s Surface Water Treatment Rule. In this investigation, the analysis looks for and identifies surface water biota that may have traveled through the riverbank sediments and ultimately be present in the pumped groundwater. The microscopic analysis is conducted looking for the following surface water indicators:
Amorphous Debris
Diatoms – Particular group of living algae
Algae – Chlorophyll containing filamentous, colonial and unicellular divisions of algae Rotifers – Near microscopic animals common in freshwater environments Plant Debris – Undigested fecal matter from herbivorous animals Plant Pollen – All pollen
Nematodes – Nematodes and their eggs
Crustaceans
Other Anthropoids
Free-living amoeba
Ciliates – Free-living protozoa
Flagellates – Plant like protozoa
Other – Any other biota found in the sample
The occurrence of the aforementioned indicators is counted, and the results used to evaluate whether a groundwater source is under the direct influence of surface water as defined by EPA’s Surface Water Treatment Rule. Indicators found in the four samples are as follows:
The MPA analysis identified amorphous debris and nematodes (14 counts per 100 gallons). Neither giardia nor cryptosporidium were detected.
Based on the results of MPA, giardia, and cryptosporidium analysis, the pumped groundwater was at low risk for the influence of surface water after 3 days of pumping.
Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report
PPS0126221137RDD 6-1
6. Horizontal Collector Well Yield Analysis
This section presents the analysis of pumping test data and the estimated HCW yield.
6.1 Pumping Test Analysis
Plots of the well drawdown versus time for the pumping tests conducted at the BP-TW1 site are shown in Appendix I.
The variable-rate pumping test was analyzed to obtain an initial transmissivity, a storage coefficient, and well loss coefficients using the methods developed by Cooper-Jacob (1946) and Jacob (1947a).
Transmissivity is a measure of how easily water can flow though the aquifer. The storage coefficient is a measure of how much water is released from the aquifer pore space due to elastic expansion of the water and elastic compression of the pore space from the changing aquifer water levels. Well loss coefficients are headlosses resulting from water flowing into the well and are further defined in this section.
The Cooper-Jacob analysis (1946) was used to obtain aquifer transmissivity and storage values from the first variable-rate step. This method was applied to the first step in the variable-rate test as subsequent steps at increasing rates violate the assumptions of the analysis method. Jacob’s method (1947a) was then used to determine well loss coefficients from all four of the steps.
Jacob’s method (1947a) was used to determine well losses, with the wellhead losses defined through the well-loss coefficients “B” and “C.” These coefficients were calculated for well BP-TW1 and are defined as follows:
The drawdown in the well was assumed to be represented by Jacob (1947a):
s = AQ + BQ + CQ2
where:
s = Total drawdown in the pumping well (feet)
AQ = Aquifer drawdown following a Theis (1935) response (feet) BQ = Linear headlosses caused by the water flowing from the aquifer into the gravel pack and well screen (well losses, feet)
CQ2 = Power function headlosses caused by the water flowing from the aquifer into the gravel pack and well screen (well losses, feet)
Q = Power function headlosses caused by the water flowing from the aquifer into the gravel pack and well screen (well losses, feet)
The “B” and “C” coefficients represent the additional drawdown (well losses) that will be seen beyond the Theis response in the well due to the headloss across the well screen, gravel pack, and face of the aquifer.
For a constant-rate pumping test with no borehole changes over pumping time, the well losses should be constant across pumping time and evident by the plotted drawdown data shifting up relative to the theoretical drawdown plot as predicted by the Theis response.
The constant-rate pumping test was analyzed using image well theory (Lohman 1972) adjusted for unconfined aquifer conditions with the Depuit correction (Jacob 1947b). Image well theory relies on the principle of superposition and imaginary wells to simulate aquifer boundaries. Calculated drawdowns at and around the pumping well are summed to provide a resulting aquifer response. In this case, an image well was located the distance “2a” from the pumping well and was simulated as a recharge well. The result Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report
6-2 PPS0126221137RDD
is a simulated recharge boundary (the river) a distance “a” from the pumping well. The distance “a” is defined as the distance to the “zero drawdown line” and physically is the distance from the pumping well toward the river where the drawdown from pumping becomes zero. The zero-drawdown line should lie somewhere under the river when a good hydraulic connection between the river and the pumping well exists, and farther away from the pumping well if lower quality hydraulic connections exist.
The cone of depression continued to expand through the 3-day test. Complete equilibrium was not reached. This is not unusual, as cited in Walton (1962), “Considerable time elapses before a cone of depression stabilizes, water is no longer taken from storage within the aquifer, and a new state of approximate equilibrium is established.” However, in this case, only very subtle signs of equilibrium were observed, which casts some uncertainty on the calculated potential yields.
As seen in the plots for BP-TW1 in Appendix I, although river effects were seen shortly after the test began, the cone of depression continued to slowly expand throughout the test. This expansion was generally uniform surrounding the test well.
Analyses of the pumping tests provided the aquifer hydraulic parameters shown in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1. Aquifer Hydraulic Parameters from BP-TW1 Pumping Tests Parameter MW-1 MW-2 MW-3 MW-4 BP-TW1
Variable-rate Pumping Test
Transmissivity (gpd/foot) NA NA NA NA 350,000
Storage Coefficient NA NA NA NA 0.15
“B” Well-Loss Coefficient (feet/gpm) NA NA NA NA 0
“C” Well-Loss Coefficient (feet/gpm2) NA NA NA NA 5.2E-6 Constant-rate Pumping Test
Transmissivity (gpd/foot) 140,000 135,000 150,000 140,000 180,000 Storage Coefficient 0.0003 0.0003 0.00013 0.0004 0.10
“B” Well-Loss Coefficient (feet/gpm) NA NA NA NA 0
“C” Well-Loss Coefficient (feet/gpm2) NA NA NA NA 2.2E-6 Measured Distance to the edge of the river “a” NA NA NA NA 275 Calculated Distance (feet) to Zero Drawdown Line “a” 8,000 2,000 4,700 5,000 600 feet/gpm = feet per gallons per minute
feet/gpm2 = feet per gallons per minute squared
gpd/foot = gallons per day per foot
6.2 Potential Collector Well Yield
The potential yield to a radial collector well was calculated using the methods of Hantush and Papadopulos (1962). The distance to the line of recharge for the radial collector (the “a” distance) was taken as a map-measured distance, and also with the one calculated. The most favorable calculated value is the lowest as the river recharge equilibrium then occurs more rapidly. For comparison, the potential yield from a conventional vertical well relying on bank filtration wells is presented.
The potential yield to a radial collector well was first calculated using the methods of Hantush and Papadopulos (1962). The formulation is as follows:
Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report
PPS0126221137RDD 6-3
𝑠𝑠 ≥ � 𝑄𝑄
2𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋� 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
⎝
⎜
⎛𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
⎝
⎛ �𝜋𝜋𝑟𝑟𝑤𝑤
�
2 2 �1 − cos
𝜋𝜋 (2𝑧𝑧 + 𝑟𝑟𝑤𝑤)�
⎠
⎞
𝑏𝑏
4𝑙𝑙
⎠
⎟
⎞
where:
s = Drawdown in collector well
Q = Yield of collector well
K = Hydraulic conductivity
b = Saturated thickness of aquifer
a = Effective distance to a line of recharge
l = Average length of laterals
r = Radius of collector caisson
e = (2a-2r-l)/l
rw = Effective radius of each lateral
z = Depth of each lateral below static water level
p = (2(a-r))/l
The data were reviewed by a third-party HCW contractor, and their estimated yield falls between 2.4 and
4.8 mgd. The range of the calculated values was attributed to the uncertainties in the distance to the zero drawdown, and that range included in their calculations used an “a” distance between 275 and 2,075 feet.
To estimate the number of collector laterals required, the calculated collector well yield considered limits to the approach velocity through the aquifer sediments toward the collector well laterals. The approach used was to limit the approach velocity to the well screen to a value that is a function of the aquifer hydraulic conductivity. This empirical approach was tested by several researchers and found to be limited to the following empirical relationship (Williams 1981). Velocities exceeding the maximums were observed to lead to longer-term sediment plugging in the aquifer near the laterals.
Maximum approach velocity = 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 = √
110
using a factor of safety of 1.0
Maximum approach velocity = 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 = √
220
using a factor of safety of 2.0
where:
K = Aquifer hydraulic conductivity in gpd/foot (gallons per day per foot) 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 = Approach velocity, (feet per minute)
The maximum capacity of the collector is then calculated based on the approach velocity using the total screened surface area of the lateral horizontal bore, and laterals 200 feet long.
Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report
6-4 PPS0126221137RDD
Maximum Capacity = 𝑄𝑄 = 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 ∗ 𝜋𝜋 ∗ 𝑑𝑑 ∗ 𝐿𝐿
With consistent units:
Q = Collector well capacity, (volume/time)
𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 = Approach velocity, (length/time)
π = pi (3.1416)
d = Diameter of lateral bore, (length)
L = Total length of all laterals, (length)
Table 6-2 summarizes the estimated yields for HCWs and conventional vertical wells for measured and calculated distances to the line of recharge. The calculation suggests for a maximum capacity of 5.2 mgd, two 12-inch laterals, 200 feet long, are required to limit the approach velocity to an acceptable value.
In practice, at least four or five laterals would need to be installed because all laterals may not be able to be pushed out the full 200 feet. The design should also include blank ports for additional laterals.
Table 6-2. Estimated Well Yields at Bike Park Location
Test Boring Selected Device Estimated Yield (gpm) Estimated Yield (mgd) TW-1 Calculateda HCW 3,600 5.2
TW-1 Measureda HCW 4,200 6
TW-1 Calculateda Vertical Well 1,260 1.8
TW-1 Measureda Vertical Well 1,380 2.0
a Effective distance to a line of recharge
6.2.1 Effects of River Stage and Water Temperature
The water level in the river affects the ultimate collector capacity because the static water levels in the test well and ultimate collector would be higher with a higher river stage, and lower with a lower river stage.
As discussed in Section 5, the river stage at the Bike Park site can vary seasonally by about 2 feet. In response to a river stage change of 2 feet, the collector yield could vary by ±0.2 mgd.
The temperature of the water pumped also affects the ultimate collector capacity as water temperature affects the water viscosity, which is proportional to hydraulic conductivity. As discussed in Section 5, the water temperature can vary seasonally by about 14°F. In response to a river temperature change of 2 feet, the collector yield could vary by ±0.5 mgd.
6.2.2 Discussion of Collector Calculated Potential Yield As discussed previously, the pumping test drawdowns never reached equilibrium. This hinders the ability to analyze the test results for the collector potential yield as the collector yield calculations assume steady state (equilibrium) aquifer behavior. The well yield calculated was based on the lowest distance to zero drawdown calculated from the pumping test data and should only be considered an approximate interpretation because of this.
Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report
PPS0126221137RDD 7-1
7. Summary of Findings and Recommendations
This section summarizes the major findings and recommendations from the drilling, construction, and testing of BP-TW1 and analysis of a potential HCW at the Bike Park.
7.1 Summary of Findings
The results of the investigations and the subsequent analysis of the collected data lead to the following findings:
Of the five locations investigated for the feasibility of HCWs between Turtle Bay and the existing PS1 location, the Bike Park site appears to have the highest yield potential, with an expected HCW yield in the range of 2 to 5 mgd from one HCW.
The constant-rate pumping test at the Bike Park site did not reach equilibrium or a steady-state condition which hinders the zero-drawdown analysis (“a” distance), and there is uncertainty in the calculated yield of a HCW under this condition. Completing a longer constant-rate pumping test could reduce the uncertainty in the anticipated yield of an HCW at the Bike Park. The aquifer transmissivity values calculated are considered accurate and are high enough to support a collector well.
The results of the MPA, giardia, and cryptosporidium analyses from the water sample collected at the end of the constant-rate test indicate a low risk to the influence of surface water after 3 days of pumping.
7.2 Recommendations
Based on the results of this study, Jacobs recommends the following regarding the feasibility of an HCW at the Bike Park.
7.2.1 Option 1 (Horizontal Collector Well Yield Too Low) If an HCW with a yield in the range of 5 mgd is too low to be considered further, the test well could be permitted and equipped as a non-potable production well and used at the Bike Park site for maintenance, irrigation, etc. Alternatively, the test well and monitoring wells could be left in place until the City decides the fate of the test well (all the current wells have been capped and secured). In this case, the transducers in the monitoring wells should be removed and returned to the City.
7.2.2 Option 2 (Horizontal Collector Well Yield Acceptable) If an HCW yield of 5 mgd (or possibly more) is of interest to the City, an extended pumping test (60 days or more) using the existing test well and monitoring wells should be performed. The most cost-effective method is for the City to purchase a 1,000 gpm submersible well pump and install it in the test well with a flowmeter, throttling valve, and discharge piping to the storm drain; power connections would be required for the pump. The details of these activities are outlined as follows:
The water level transducers should be left in the monitoring wells and reprogramed to record data every 15 minutes until a new pump and discharge piping can be installed. The test well should be equipped with a City-purchased pump, drop pipe, and temporary discharge piping to transmit the pumped water to the storm drain onsite. After installation of a pump and discharge piping, a longer-term pumping test should be completed.
Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report
7-2 PPS0126221137RDD
Because the equipment for the testing is only temporary, the most economical choice for the pump, motor, and equipment that still provides all the functionality for the test should be selected.
Suggested components include the following:
– A single-stage, 3,600 revolutions per minute (rpm) submersible pump such as a single-stage Goulds 10RJMC and a Goulds manufacturer recommended-sized 3,600-rpm motor. – Install the pump on 8-inch steel, threaded and coupled drop pipe, in standard wall thickness set to 43 feet bgs. Set a 1-inch PVC pipe down to the top of the pump for water level access. Install a pressure transducer in that pipe to the bottom of the PVC. – Equip 10-inch aboveground discharge piping with a sampling tap, flowmeter, and throttling valve.
Ensure there is a minimum upstream and downstream distance of straight pipe before and after the flowmeter of 100 inches, or more, if required by the flowmeter manufacturer. The discharge piping should be of material that can be exposed in a public park setting. Obtain surveyed elevation measurements of the water level measurement locations (top of the well casing) and at the ground surface at the test well and each monitoring well. Locate the previous river level monitoring location for the testing and obtain an elevation of riverbank edge and river elevation. Before beginning the pumping test, record all static water levels in the wells and reprogram the transducer probes to obtain a water level reading every 1 minute. Maintain this frequency for one complete day of the pumping test, then after one complete day, increase the measurement frequency to 15 minutes. Download the transducer data weekly and review. Consider collecting additional water quality samples from the test well and the Sacramento River during the extended pumping test. Suggested sampling includes the following:
– Samples could be taken at different times as the test progresses to identify changes in water quality indicative of the influence from surface water. – A sample should be collected and submitted for MPA near the end of the pumping test. – To the extent practical, daily field water quality data should be collected, such as pH, electrical conductivity, DO, and ORP.
Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report
PPS0126221137RDD 8-1
8. References
Cooper, H.H., and C.E. Jacob. 1946. “A Generalized Graphical Method for Evaluating Formation Constants and Summarizing Well Field History.” Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union. Vol. 27, pp. 526– 534.
Hantush, M.S., and I.S. Papadopulos. 1962. “Flow of Groundwater to Collector Wells.” Journal of the Hydraulics Division. American Society of Civil Engineers.
Hollister, V.F., and J.R. Evans. 1965. Geology of the Redding quadrangle, Shasta County, California.
NGMDB Product Description Page (usgs.gov). https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_308.htm.
Jacob, C.E. 1947a. “Drawdown Test to Determine Effective Radius of Artesian Well.” Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Vol. 112, pp. 1047–1070.
Jacob, C.E. 1947b. Notes on Determining Permeability by Pumping Tests under Watertable Conditions.
US Geologic Survey Open File Report.
Jacobs. 2022. City of Redding Final Preliminary Design Report (PDR) for the Pump House No. 1 Replacement. July 2022.
Lohman, S.W. 1972. Ground-Water Hydraulics. Geological Survey Professional Paper 708.
Theis, C.V. 1935. “The Relation Between the Lowering of the Piezometric Surface and the Rate and Duration of Discharge of A Well Using Groundwater Storage.” Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union. Vol. 16, pp. 519–524.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992. Consensus Method for Determining Groundwaters Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water Using Microscopic Particulate Analysis (MPA). EPA 9109-92-029. October.
Walton, William C. 1962. “Selected Analytical Methods for Well and Aquifer Evaluation.” Bulletin 49.
State of Illinois, Department of Registration and Education.
Williams, E.B. 1981. “Fundamental Concepts of Well Design.” Groundwater. September.
Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Appendix A
City of Redding Surface Geophysical
Survey Investigations Summary and
Recommendations Technical
Memorandum
Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Draft Memorandum
2525 Airpark Drive
Redding, CA 96001
United States
T +1.530.243.5831
F +1.530.243.1654
www.jacobs.com
PPS1022201721RDD 1
Subject City of Redding Surface Geophysical Survey Investigations Summary and Recommendations Attention City of Redding, Public Works
From Kevin Bral/Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (Jacobs)
Date October 22, 2020
1. Purpose and Scope
Jacobs proposed surface geophysical surveys to the City of Redding (City) in a memorandum titled Horizontal Collector Well Investigation (July 23, 2020). The geophysical surveys are a prudent step into assessing the suitability of the lithology of proposed horizontal collector well (HCW) sites. Subsequent steps in the investigation include soil borings and hydraulic testing, followed by design, construction, and testing of an HCW if found feasible.
The geophysical survey commenced September 22, 2020, and was completed September 26, 2020. Four geophysical lines were surveyed using both the frequency domain electromagnetic (FDEM) and electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) methods. Collier Geophysics (Collier) conducted the survey and provided a draft report titled City of Redding River Intake Geophysical Investigation (October 9, 2020), attached hereto.
This technical memorandum has been prepared to provide recommendations for the next step of the investigation, which involves rotosonic soil borings to confirm and calibrate the geophysical survey results.
If the results are favorable, small-scale pumping of select borings should be performed to identify if certain locations should be further investigated through full-scale pumping tests.
2. Geophysical Survey
In the Horizontal Collector Well Investigation memorandum, Jacobs recommended six geophysical lines be run along the Sacramento River to investigate the thickness and nature of the alluvial deposits in areas that were selected from an earlier data review. These six lines were named as follows:
Line 1: ACID Line
Line 2: Bike Park Line
Line 3: Rodeo Line
Line 4: Auditorium Line
Line 5: Turtle Bay Line
Line 6: HW 44 Line
The lines ranged from 630 feet in length to 2,100 feet in length and were accessible from nearby trails or bike paths. At the City’s request, the Rodeo Line (Line 3) and HW 44 Line (Line 6) were removed from the investigation, and the Auditorium Line (Line 4) was shortened during the scope of work development.
Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- City of Redding Surface Geophysical Survey Investigations Summary and Recommendations 2 PPS1022201721RDD
The geophysical survey began using FDEM methods over all selected lines as a screening survey to estimate depth to any shallow bedrock and eliminate any area with very shallow bedrock that could not support an HCW. None of the lines were eliminated from the FDEM work because in many places the bedrock depth exceeded the depth limitation (25 to 30 feet) of the FDEM method. The geophysical survey then continued, and the ERT method was used to create resistivity profiles along the lines to a depth of 100 feet.
The resistivity profiles as presented in the Collier report were used to identify areas with possible thick, coarse gravels and/or cobbles that would have the capacity to transmit large quantities of water to an HCW. The profiles were provided as color plots of the resistivity values along the depth and length of each line. Distance along the line is represented as the profile x-axis, which is divided into 200-foot-length markers. The colors in the plot represent the resistivity value, with dark red indicating the highest resistivities grading through shades of orange, yellow, green, and blue, and dark blue indicating the lowest resistivity. High resistivity values are desired for an HCW application and are represented by possible sands, gravels, and cobbles. Collier provided the general color interpretation listed below. Red and Yellow – sand and gravel with the coarsest and most permeable material in dark red Green – could be weathered rock or finer sand
Blue – very low resistivity and is interpreted as the shale bedrock
2.1 Existing Borings and Wells
Seven previously constructed borings and wells in the area were in the vicinity of the geophysical lines and were used to initially compare the resistivity values measured by the geophysical survey to actual field data. Subsequent soil borings will be needed directly on the geophysical line to fully calibrate the geophysical data and interpret the results. Table 1 lists these seven borings and wells with the relative geophysical line, boring depth, and proximity of the length markers on the Collier plots.
Table 1. Existing Borings and Wells near the Geophysical Lines Boring or Well
Geophysical
Line
Depth
(Feet) Comments
B-2 ACID 13 300 feet north of Length Marker 1800. Sand and gravel to 13 feet; shale at 13 feet.
B-5 ACID 9.5 250 feet northeast of Length Marker 1800. Sand and cobbles to 9.5 feet; shale at 9.5 feet.
B-4 ACID 20 300 feet east of Length Marker 1800. Sand, gravel, cobbles to 20 feet; shale at 20 feet.
853 N. Market Street Well Bike Park 52 750 feet north of Length Marker 600. Sand, gravel, boulders to 52 feet. Shale not penetrated.
DH-2 Bike Park 40 300 feet east of Length Marker 1600. Sand and gravel to 40 feet. Siltstone at 40 feet.
SB-1 Auditorium 34 300 feet east of Length Marker 600. Sand, gravel, cobbles to 34 feet. Chico Formation at 34 feet.
SB-2 Turtle Bay 34 150 feet south of Length Marker 0. Sand, gravel, cobbles to 34 feet. Chico Formation at 34 feet.
A brief discussion of the characteristics of the ERT follows for each line surveyed. The discussion is presented starting with the geophysical line that shows the most promise with thicker and coarser Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- City of Redding Surface Geophysical Survey Investigations Summary and Recommendations PPS1022201721RDD 3
sediments followed by those lines that may consist of thinner and finer sands and gravels. The reader is referred to the attached City of Redding River Intake Geophysical Investigation, Figure 5.
Bike Park Line (Line 2) – The Bike Park Line is located on the northern side of the river east of the ACID and runs from the S. Market Street bridge 1,700 feet to the east. The western side of the Bike Park Line is seen to contain highly resistive material and depths close to 40 feet. The eastern side of the line has lower resistivity values suggesting finer material but at depths up to 50 feet. An existing well log located at 853 N. Market Street indicates that 52 feet of sand and gravel exist there; however, it is located about 750 feet north of Length Marker 600 feet. Another soil boring was previously constructed about 300 feet east of the eastern edge of the Bike Park Line and indicates sand and gravels exist there to 40 feet.
Turtle Bay Line (Line 4) – The Turtle Bay line is located on the southern side of the river east of the Sundial Bridge and runs about 1,700 feet east to where the Sacramento River bends south. The Turtle Bay Line is seen to exhibit highly resistive sediments to over 35 feet in some locations, with the western side of the line showing the coarser and thicker sediments. Existing well logs from an area near the Turtle Bay Museum indicate sand and gravels down to 34 feet and correlate well with the resistivity values observed.
ACID Line (Line 1) – The ACID Line is located on the southern side of the river and runs from Benton Drive to the ACID fish ladder. A railroad trestle crosses the river on the western end of this line, and geophysical data could not be obtained over about 75 feet upstream and downstream of the trestle. The western side of the ACID line is seen to contain shallower bedrock and finer sand than the eastern side of the line. The eastern side of the line appears to be of thicker and coarser sediments. However, actual soil borings near the fish ladder do not confirm the geophysics results. The borings in that area were about 250 to 300 feet from the geophysical line.
Auditorium Line (Line 3) – The Auditorium Line is located on the southern side of the river just west of the Sundial Bridge and runs about 630 feet to the west. The western area of this line indicates unconsolidated deposits as deep as about 70 feet and thins to the east to 20 to 40 feet. However, the resistivity values appear to indicate the sediments are mostly sand and fine sand, not coarse sands and gravels. Some of the resistivity values in the eastern part of this line indicate coarser sands; however, they are less than 20 feet in thickness. An existing boring about 300 feet to the east of the eastern edge of the line indicates sand and gravels down to 34 feet.
3. Recommendations
The geophysical results indicate there are deposits in the Sacramento River alluvium that may support an HCW with the targeted 10-million-gallon-per-day capacity. Therefore, Jacobs recommends the City proceed with the next investigation step, which is the construction of soil borings along the geophysical lines. Jacobs recommends proceeding with soil borings starting at the most promising lines. As the borings are advanced, the lithology will be logged and compared to the geophysical resistivity results to better define the resistivity values, and understanding of the local area hydrogeology can then be interpreted from the resistivity values. In selected borings, a temporary small well will be installed; and short, low-capacity pumping tests will be performed. These low-capacity pumping tests will enable a rough estimate to be made of future HCW capacities that may be available at the location.
Two borings on each line are proposed to meet the above goals. Table 2 lists the proposed boring locations.
Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- City of Redding Surface Geophysical Survey Investigations Summary and Recommendations 4 PPS1022201721RDD
Table 2. Proposed Soil Borings
Geophysical Line Recommended Boring Locations Comments
Bike Park Two soil borings. One at Length Marker 600
and another at Length Marker 1800 (400 feet
past the western end of the line).
Guided by existing N. Market Street
well and the DH-1 soil boring and the
presence of very high resistivity.
Turtle Bay Two soil borings. One at Length Marker 200
and another at Length Marker 450.
Guided by existing soil boring SB-2 and
the presence of very high resistivity.
ACID Two soil borings. One at Length Marker 1600
and another at Length Marker 1800.
Guided by the favorable location of this
site for an HCW and the higher
resistivity values seen in the eastern
portion of this line.
Auditorium Two soil borings. One at Length Marker 150
and another at Length Marker 900.
Although the resistivity values are not
seen to be very high along this line,
these borings will complete the
correlation of the resistively values to
actual local hydrogeology.
Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Attachment
City of Redding River Intake Geophysical
Investigation
Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- 7711 W. 6th Ave., Ste G/H | Lakewood, CO 80214 | (720) 487-9200 A Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) October 9, 2020
Kimberly Hein, P.E.
Project Manager
JACOBS Engineering Group, Inc.
2525 Airpark Drive
Redding, CA
VIA Email: [email protected]
RE: Draft Geophysical Letter Report | Project #20-151
City of Redding River Intake Geophysical Investigation
Redding, CA
Collier Geophysics, LLC (Collier) conducted a geophysical investigation on behalf of JACOBS Engineering Group, Inc. (JACOBS), located in Redding, CA. The objective of the investigation was to map the depth to bedrock (i.e., the Chico Formation siltstone), and determine the soil stratigraphy in the upper 60 feet of the subsurface along the Sacramento River. The project has a special emphasis on areas of deeper sand and gravel deposits that are likely to be hydraulically connected to the Sacramento River. A two phased survey was conducted first using Frequency Domain Electromagnetics (FDEM) and then follow-on Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT).
The geophysical survey was conducted across three sites along the Sacramento River (ACID, Bike Park, and Turtle Bay, See Figure 1). The final survey locations were determined in the field with onsite communication with the client. The survey was performed September 22nd through 26th, 2020. The survey was led by Collier geophysicists Jacob Sheehan and Kristen Marberry. The following report presents results from the geophysical investigation and summarizes the site conditions, field methods, data acquisition, and interpretation procedures.
For further information regarding the details of FDEM and ERT techniques, Collier can submit method addenda upon request.
Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- City of Redding River Intake Geophysical Investigation Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.
Project #20-151
October 9, 2020
Geophysical Letter Report 2 Collier Geophysics, LLC
Figure 1: Site location and line layout
Site Conditions
The sites were located along the Sacramento River along bike paths, non-public roads and trails.
The weather was warm and dry. The only complicating factor to data collection was the public nature of the Bike Park and Turtle Bay sites. This required placing one of the geophysical crew members at the end of the line to warn people not to touch the system and to answer many questions about the data collection. No safety issues occurred around this issue. The subsurface geology is thought to be alluvial sands and gravels overlying the Chico Formation Siltstone.
Figure 2. Site conditions during data acquisition.
Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- City of Redding River Intake Geophysical Investigation Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.
Project #20-151
October 9, 2020
Geophysical Letter Report 3 Collier Geophysics, LLC
Data Acquisition
Frequency Domain Electromagnetics
An FDEM instrument consists of at least one pair of transmitting and receiving coils. A primary magnetic field of a constant frequency is generated using an alternating current in the transmitter coil, and a secondary magnetic field is detected in the receiving coil as a result of the interaction of the primary field with the subsurface. The FDEM instrument allows for simultaneous measurements of both the in-phase and quadrature (orthogonal phase) components of the secondary magnetic field. The in-phase component is measured in parts-per-thousand (ppt) of the amplitude of the primary magnetic field. The in-phase response is primarily sensitive to magnetic susceptibility, generally due to the presence of metallic or ferromagnetic material in the subsurface. The quadrature component (90-degrees out of phase with the primary signal) is primarily sensitive to electrical conductivity, due to changes in lithology, moisture, and/or fines (clay) content. The quadrature response is calibrated and measured as apparent bulk conductivity in millisiemens per meter (mS/m). Note that these are the primary sensitivities, but that both components can be affected by buried metal or geologic features. For this project, the results have been used model an earth resistivity model based on the bulk conductivity values.
FDEM data were acquired using a CMD-Explorer, by GF Instruments (see inset photo right). The CMD-Explorer consists of a boom with three sets of FDEM coil pairs, at three separations; 1.4 m (4.5 ft), 2.8 m (9.2 ft), and
4.5 m (14.8 ft). The effective depth of sensitivity of the FDEM method is a function of the antenna spacing between the transmitter and receiver, the antenna orientation, the frequency of the primary field, and the bulk electromagnetic properties of the subsurface. Data were acquired using a vertical dipole orientation, which results in the greatest depth of investigation. The depth of investigation is not precise, but as a rule of thumb when using a vertical dipole orientation, is approximately equal to the antenna spacing. In this case of the CMD-Explorer the values recorded would correspond to the bulk electromagnetic properties in the upper 5 feet, 10 feet, and 15 feet, of the subsurface respective to each antenna separation. CMD-Explorer data were collected at a rate of 10 Hz, using a primary field frequency of 10 kHz at all three antenna spacings simultaneously.
Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT)
The electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) method is used to characterize subsurface lithology and/or materials in terms of electrical resistance. The electrical resistivity method incorporates the injection of an electrical current into the ground through a pair of electrodes (current electrodes) while simultaneously measuring the potential or voltage between an offset electrode pair (potential electrodes) in contact with the ground. The subsurface resistance or apparent resistivity is then calculated from the measured voltages, according to electrode geometry.
Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- City of Redding River Intake Geophysical Investigation Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.
Project #20-151
October 9, 2020
Geophysical Letter Report 4 Collier Geophysics, LLC
The apparent resistivity (ρ) represents the bulk resistance of earth materials where the majority of injected current flows and subsequent potential measurements exceed noise levels and fall within the dynamic range of the field equipment. The geometry between two current electrodes and two or more potential electrodes define an array. The distance between the potential electrodes is directly related to resistivity measurements with depth. The amount of current injected and distance between the current electrodes determines the depth potential, i.e., larger spacing forces more available current to flow at depth.
The ERT survey was performed using an Advanced Geophysical Systems Inc. (AGI) Super Sting R8 8-channel multiple electrode resistivity imaging system (the Sting, see inset photo to the right).
The survey equipment consisted of a transmitter/receiver and cables capable of utilizing up to 84-takeouts for electrodes. The line locations and orientations were measured with a Trimble Geo7x, a handheld global positioning system (GPS) unit with subfoot precision. Optimum array geometry was determined by satisfying four requirements: time efficiency, data quality, vertical/horizontal resolution capacities, and desired investigative depth.
The ERT survey utilized the combination of the strong gradient array and dipole-dipole array.
The dipole-dipole array is more sensitive to horizontal changes in the subsurface such as would be expected from the presence of faults and fractures and from karst features.
The electrode spread geometry was controlled by the internal transmitter switching system of the Sting. Multiple measurements were made along each line to measure the lateral and vertical changes in subsurface resistivity. The array geometry for the surveys was limited by the length of the resistivity cables, electrode spacing, and equipment parameters. The array geometry and the geology limit the instruments depth of penetration.
Data Processing
Frequency Domain Electromagnetic
Raw FDEM data were exported in tabular format using CMD Data Transfer, version 1.6.1, by GF Instruments. Positions for each measurement are interpolated for each record from GPS positions using the data transfer software. The data were then processed using Geosoft Oasis montaj, version 9.3 (Geosoft), a processing and data visualization software suite used for analysis of geophysical data sets. Data were checked for quality then gridded using a minimum curvature method. The in-phase response was inspected and used to understand where data was affected but utilities and other cultural features.
Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- City of Redding River Intake Geophysical Investigation Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.
Project #20-151
October 9, 2020
Geophysical Letter Report 5 Collier Geophysics, LLC
Example of FDEM data from this project showing conductivity values for coils 1, 2, and 3 as green, red, and blue lines, respectively
Aarhus Workbench, version 5.9.3.0 was used to generate an earth resistivity model based on the FDEM bulk conductivities values. This process includes: decoupling the recorded EM response from surface features by removing affected data, using a 4-meter moving-window average to generate a pseudo-FDEM sounding every 25 cm along the acquired transects, and geophysical inversion of the processed pseudo-soundings. The geophysical inversion process iteratively fits a subsurface electrical resistivity model to each of the pseudo-soundings generated from the first processing steps, subject to lateral smoothing constraints (i.e., along data collection profiles).
Resistivity model from the geophysical inversion are then exported in x-y-z-v format (3D position and value) to Geosoft for final visualization.
Electrical Resistivity Tomography
The resistivity data were downloaded from the Sting and converted for analysis using Advanced Geosciences Inc. (AGI) software, Supersting Administrator, after the completion of each line.
The data was then checked for errors and completion before moving the equipment to another location. Data was processed using AGI’s 2D EarthImager software package for inversion. The data is processed by completing a forward model from the measured resistivity data. The forward data is then inverted to model resistivity values at depth. The data was inverted using a smooth inversion scheme. Starting from a static background model, a calculated apparent resistivity pseudosection is generated using the parameters of the survey and the resistivity values recorded. This section is compared to the measured section, creating a difference matrix which is used to iteratively change the terrain model until the best fit (minimum difference between measured and calculated apparent resistivity values) is achieved. Multiple models are generated subject to different parametric smoothing constraints to achieve the best fit model to the measured data, ground truth, and geologic conditions. One important measure of data quality is the Root Mean Square (RMS) error between the processed field data and the inversion model.
Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- City of Redding River Intake Geophysical Investigation Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.
Project #20-151
October 9, 2020
Geophysical Letter Report 6 Collier Geophysics, LLC
The modeled soundings exhibited an RMS error in the range of 8%-10%. It was possible to get the RMS values lower, but at the expense of model stability and smoothness.
Results and Discussion
Many factors can affect the bulk resistivity of geologic materials. Some known factors pertinent to this site include: varying particle size and/or mineral distribution in the unconsolidated soils overlying bedrock; varying degree of saturation (i.e., vadose zone and phreatic surface); interconnectivity of pore space; and, and elevated total dissolved solids (TDS). Clay has lower resistivity than mixtures of sand, gravel and cobbles. Saturated soil and rock will typically have lower resistivity than unsaturated soil and/or rock of the same composition. Increasing the fluid filled pore volume and interconnectivity of pore spaces will typically lower the bulk resistivity.
The resistivity of ground water varies considerably depending on the salinity and TDS concentration in the water, such that clean distillate water has high resistivity and high TDS brine water will have very low resistivity. The bulk resistivity measured with a surface ERT survey for identification or delineation of the lithologic units is then influenced by some or all of these factors. Table 1, below, shows typical ranges resistivity (and conductivity) for various soil types. For this project, we expect to the soil to be primarily composed of sand and gravel.
Table 1: Typical resistivity values by soil type
Figure 4, attached as a large format 11x17 plate to the end of this report, shows the results of the FDEM survey along with a plan map of the survey area. The Phase 1 FDEM data were collected to potentially eliminate or modify the locations where the ERT data would then be collected in Phase 2. Although there are variations in the modeled resistivity values from the FDEM, there Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- City of Redding River Intake Geophysical Investigation Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.
Project #20-151
October 9, 2020
Geophysical Letter Report 7 Collier Geophysics, LLC
was no clear evidence that suggested modifications or alternative positioning to the ERT field survey plan (i.e., the four lines shown in Figure 1).
Figure 5 shows the results from the resistivity survey. The site map at the bottom of the figure shows both the line locations and the distances down the line that correspond to the horizontal axis for each ERT line. Note that the resistivity scale is logarithmic to better visualize the range of resistivities obtained at this site.
Some sections of the ERT profile line were negatively affected by cultural features, including buried metallic or energized utilities. The in-phase response from the FDEM confirms the presence of these features. The measured responses from these cultural features create anomalies that can mask the response due to geology. The effect of these utilities has been minimized by removing data points that appear to be affected by them. One area that shows the most interference is when crossing beneath the railroad bridge on the western side of Line 1. This area has been blanked out on the results.
As anticipated, the alluvial sands and gravels are resistive compared to the siltstone rock. This agrees well with the trends observed in the ERT results shown on Figure 5. A dotted orange line has been placed on the results from each line to represent the interpreted boundary between the undifferentiated alluvial materials and the siltstone bedrock.
There are two valuable pieces of information that can be gleaned from these results. First, within the interpreted alluvial deposits, higher resistivity values are likely to correspond to clean sands and gravel deposits, while lower resistivity likely indicates more fine grained materials are present in the soil matrix. For example, along Line 2 (the line located within the Bike Park) the first 750 feet of the line has higher resistivity values within the interpreted alluvium layer than the remainder of this line. This could mean that from 750 feet down the line to the end there is increased fines content in the soils compared to the start of the line. The same is true when comparing the alluvial deposits along all of Line 4 (the Turtle Bay area) with those along all of Line 1 and the eastern end of Line 2.
Second the thickness of the alluvium deposits varies across the area. For example, the western end of Line 1 shows about 40 feet of alluvium, which then decreases to less than 20 feet about 385 feet down the line. From there, it deepens to the east, where it could be as thick as 100 feet at a downline distance of about 1,550 feet. Line 2 results reveal less variability in the alluvial thickness, but still show the alluvial soil thickness varies between about 30 and 55 feet. Line 3 shows a thickness of about 65 feet at the west end of the line, which then decreases to about 20 feet at a distance of about 400 feet down the line. Line 4 shows an alluvium thickness of about 35 feet on the west side, shallowing to about 20 feet on the eastern side of the line, which is the most consistent thickness observed along any of the ERT lines.
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- City of Redding River Intake Geophysical Investigation Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.
Project #20-151
October 9, 2020
Geophysical Letter Report 8 Collier Geophysics, LLC
These two factors are likely to be relevant toward selecting favorable collector well sites. In general areas with thick alluvium and more permeable alluvium will produce higher well yields.
The areas with the thickest alluvium are not generally the same as the areas with the most permeable alluvium as estimated from the resistivity data. This will require additional investigation in the form of soil borings and pumping tests to determine which locations are the most favorable for a well.
The interpreted contact between the alluvium and the siltstone has been used to generate a plan view map of estimated alluvium thickness (Figure 6). This map clearly shows which areas have thicker alluvium deposits (red, pink and orange) compared to thinner deposits (blue and green).
Based on this map, there is an obvious effect on the data when passing underneath the railroad bridge on the western end of Line 1. The thickest deposits are on the eastern side of Line 1 and the western end of Line 3.
Figure 6: Estimated Alluvium Thickness based on ERT results.
Closure
The geophysical methods and field procedures defined in this report were applicable to the project objectives and have been successfully applied by Collier geophysicists to investigations of similar size and nature. However, sometimes field or subsurface conditions are different from those anticipated and the resultant data may not achieve the investigation objectives. Collier warrants that our services were performed within the limits prescribed for this project, with the usual thoroughness and competence of the geophysical profession. Collier conducted this project using the current standards of the geophysical industry and utilized in house quality control standards to produce a precise geophysical survey.
The overall quality of the data acquired during this investigation was fair to good. The quality of the data yields a high degree of confidence in the results obtained and presented in this report. If you have any questions regarding the field procedures, data analyses, or the interpretive results presented herein, please do not hesitate to contact us. We appreciate working with you and look forward to providing Jacobs with geophysical services in the future.
Respectfully Submitted,
Line 1
Line 2
Line 3 Line 4
Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- City of Redding River Intake Geophysical Investigation Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.
Project #20-151
October 9, 2020
Geophysical Letter Report 9 Collier Geophysics, LLC
Collier Geophysics, LLC
____________________________ ___________________________ Jacob Sheehan John Jansen
Senior Geophysicist Senior Geophysicist
(1 copy e-mailed PDF format)
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C-8541) Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Appendix B
City of Redding Horizontal Collector
Well Borehole Investigations Summary
and Recommendations Technical
Memorandum
Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Memorandum
2525 Airpark Drive
Redding, CA 96001-2443
United States
T +1.530.243.5831
F +1.530.243.1654
www.jacobs.com
PPS0311211259RDD 1
Subject City of Redding Horizontal Collector Well Borehole Investigation Summary and Recommendations Attention City of Redding, Public Works
From Ryan Alward, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (Jacobs) Kevin Bral, Jacobs
Date March 12, 2021
1. Purpose and Scope
Jacobs conducted a subsurface investigation to evaluate the feasibility of using horizontal collector wells (HCWs) as a source for City of Redding water supply. A total of twelve boreholes at five different sites in Redding, California, were drilled and logged from January 30 to February 17, 2021. Collier Geophysics performed a geophysical investigation in September 2020 as the first step in assessing the suitability of sites for HCWs. A subsurface investigation with boreholes was the second step in assessing the suitability of the investigated sites for HCWs. Electrical resistivity tomography and electromagnetic methods were used to assess the potential thickness of coarse sediments. Yellow Jacket Drilling Services of Rancho Cucamonga, California, drilled the boreholes using a truck-mounted rotary sonic drill rig. The purpose of each borehole was to drill through the alluvium and into the bedrock to determine the thickness, lithologic description, and saturation of the alluvial sediments. Borehole depths ranged from 21 to 46 feet below ground surface (bgs). The alluvial sediments were the only water-bearing sediments encountered; the bedrock is a barrier to groundwater flow and was dry where encountered.
For boreholes that were determined to be potentially suitable for operation of an HCW, short low-capacity pumping tests were conducted within the borehole by constructing a temporary well within the drill casing and pumping water from the borehole with a submersible pump. Four such tests were conducted— three 2-hour step tests and one 2-hour constant-rate test.
This technical memorandum was prepared to present the results of the borehole investigation and lowcapacity pumping tests, and to identify recommended sites suitable to move forward with the third and final step of the investigation, full-scale pumping tests.
2. Borehole Investigation
Boreholes were drilled at a total of five sites, which were designated as follows:
1) Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District (ACID) (four boreholes) 2) Bike Park (BP) (three boreholes)
3) Turtle Bay (TB) (two boreholes)
4) Highway 44 (HW 44) (two boreholes)
5) Southern Pacific (SP) (one borehole)
Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- City of Redding Horizontal Collector Well Borehole Investigation Summary and Recommendations
2 PPS0311211259RDD
The location of each borehole for the ACID, Bike Park, and Turtle Bay sites was selected using the results from the geophysical investigation. Geophysical investigation was not conducted at the Highway 44 or Southern Pacific site. The HW 44 borehole locations were selected after performing a site visit to determine suitable locations for the drill rig near the river and after review of historical nearby borehole logs. The borehole location for the Southern Pacific site was selected by the City given its proximity to an existing irrigation well operated by the City.
The following sections describe the borehole details observed at each site including the borehole location, depth of each borehole, thickness of the alluvium, thickness of saturated sediments, and depth to bedrock.
Figure 1 shows the location of all the boreholes drilled as part of the subject investigation. Attachment 1 contains the borehole logs for each borehole.
Figure 1. Borehole Locations
2.1 Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District Boreholes
Four boreholes were drilled at the ACID site. Low-capacity pumping tests were performed in boreholes ACID-B-1, ACID-B-2, and ACID-B-3, but not ACID-B-4. The ACID-B-1 and ACID-B-2 boreholes are within about 200 feet of each other on the eastern end of the site. The geophysical resistivity was highest around these two boreholes, and the depth to bedrock was measured at 34.5 and 37.0 feet bgs, respectively. The boreholes also had a saturated thickness of 19 and 21 feet, respectively. The ACID-B-3 borehole was drilled at the western edge of the site to compare the observed lithology with the geophysical Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- City of Redding Horizontal Collector Well Borehole Investigation Summary and Recommendations
PPS0311211259RDD 3
investigation, which showed a lower resistivity, potentially indicating finer sediments. The ACID-B-3 borehole did have finer sediments than observed in ACID-B-1 and ACID-B-2, and the low-capacity pumping test results for all the boreholes at this site are described in the following section. The fourth borehole at the site, ACID-B-4, was drilled about 400 feet east of the train trestle, between ACID-B-3 and ACID-B-2. The location of this borehole was selected because the geophysical investigation indicated higher resistivity values than near borehole ACID-B-3 and to help define the extent of the higher resistivity observed near boreholes ACID-B-1 and ACID-B-2. ACID-B-4 borehole had a shallower depth to bedrock than both boreholes to the east of it and was deeper than ACID-B-3 to the west. The saturated thickness in ACID-B-4 was 11 feet and was the thinnest of all four boreholes at this site. ACID-B-3 had the most saturated thickness; however, it was likely due to a creek approximately 20 feet to the west that was draining into the Sacramento River. This allowed for higher saturation, but the sediments that were saturated were much finer grained and consisted of fine sand and clay. Table 1 summarizes details pertaining to the boreholes at the ACID site, and Figure 2 shows the locations of the boreholes.
Table 1. Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District Site Boreholes Borehole
Name
Total Depth
(feet bgs)
Depth to Bedrock
(feet bgs)
Saturated Thickness
(feet)
Low-capacity Pumping
Test Performed
(Yes/No)
ACID-B-1 40.5 34.5 19.0 Yes
ACID-B-2 43.0 37.0 21.0 Yes
ACID-B-3 36.0 32.0 26.0 Yes
ACID-B-4 32.0 27.0 11.0 No
Figure 2. Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District Borehole Locations Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- City of Redding Horizontal Collector Well Borehole Investigation Summary and Recommendations
4 PPS0311211259RDD
2.2 Turtle Bay Boreholes
A total of two boreholes were drilled at the Turtle Bay site, and no low-capacity pumping tests were performed. The depth to bedrock at the Turtle Bay boreholes was shallower than anticipated based on the geophysical investigation. Part of this discrepancy can be explained by the borehole at TB-B-1 being drilled at a lower elevation than the bike trail upon which the geophysical survey was conducted.
A lithologic log near TB-B-1 indicated that gravels were observed up to 30 feet bgs, and bedrock was encountered in TB-B-1 at 15.5 feet bgs. However, TB-B-2 was drilled upon the bike trail, and bedrock was encountered at 16.5 feet bgs. The paleo topography of the site, combined with any previous gravel mining/dredging, can change the thickness of gravel deposits and create varying gravel thickness. Based on the results of the boreholes at this site, we do not recommend further investigation of the Turtle Bay site for a collector well. Table 2 summarizes details pertaining to the boreholes at the Turtle Bay site, and Figure 3 shows the locations of the boreholes.
Table 2. Turtle Bay Site Boreholes
Borehole
Name
Total Depth
(feet bgs)
Depth to Bedrock
(feet bgs)
Saturated Thickness
(feet)
Low-capacity Pumping
Test Performed
(Yes/No)
TB-B-1 21 15.5 <1 No
TB-B-2 26 16.5 <1 No
Figure 3. Turtle Bay Borehole Locations
Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- City of Redding Horizontal Collector Well Borehole Investigation Summary and Recommendations
PPS0311211259RDD 5
2.3 Bike Park Boreholes
Three boreholes were drilled at the Bike Park site, and one low-capacity pumping test was performed. The first borehole, BP-B-1, was drilled in the parking lot near the southeast corner of the site. The depth to bedrock was 42 feet bgs, the deepest of any borehole during this investigation. The saturated thickness was 27 feet, which was the thickest of any borehole during this investigation. A low-capacity pumping test was conducted on this borehole, and the results are presented in Section 3.1.
The second borehole, BP-B-2, was drilled in a location that showed the highest resistivity based on the geophysical investigation, therefore, the highest potential for coarse sediments at the site. However, bedrock was encountered at 21 feet bgs, and there was only a 6-foot-thick saturated section, so a lowcapacity pumping test was not conducted. A third borehole, BP-B-3, was drilled to determine how far to the west the coarse sediments observed in BP-B-1 extend. The borehole was drilled approximately 300 feet west of BP-B-1. The observed lithology at BP-B-3 indicates the depth to bedrock was 34 feet, shallower than observed at BP-B-1. The saturated thickness was also less at 19 feet; therefore, a lowcapacity pumping test was not conducted in this borehole. Table 3 summarizes details pertaining to the boreholes at the Bike Park site, and Figure 4 shows the locations of the boreholes.
Table 3. Bike Park Site Boreholes
Borehole
Name
Total Depth
(feet bgs)
Depth to Bedrock
(feet bgs)
Saturated Thickness
(feet)
Low-capacity Pumping
Test Performed
(Yes/No)
BP-B-1 46 42 27 Yes
BP-B-2 26 21 6 No
BP-B-3 38 34 19 No
Figure 4. Bike Park Borehole Locations
Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- City of Redding Horizontal Collector Well Borehole Investigation Summary and Recommendations
6 PPS0311211259RDD
2.4 Highway 44 Boreholes
This site was selected based on historical lithologic boreholes across the river. Geophysical investigation was not conducted at this site. Two boreholes were drilled at the HW 44 site, and bedrock was encountered between 20 and 24 feet. This resulted in not having enough saturated sediments to perform a lowcapacity pumping test. Table 4 summarizes details pertaining to the boreholes at the Highway 44 site, and Figure 5 shows the locations of the boreholes.
Table 4. Highway 44 Site Boreholes
Borehole
Name
Total Depth
(feet bgs)
Depth to Bedrock
(feet bgs)
Saturated Thickness
(feet)
Low-capacity Pumping
Test Performed
(Yes/No)
H44-B-1 26 24 8 No
H44-B-2 35 20 5 No
Figure 5 – Highway 44 Borehole Locations
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- City of Redding Horizontal Collector Well Borehole Investigation Summary and Recommendations
PPS0311211259RDD 7
2.5 Southern Pacific Borehole
This site was selected by the City as an additional location to assess subsurface conditions because the City currently operates a nearby well that is nearing the end of its useful lifespan and has experienced a reduction in the production rate over time. This site was investigated to determine if it would be suitable for a collector well or a replacement vertical well. Geophysical investigation was not performed at this location. The depth to bedrock was 19.5 feet bgs, and the saturated thickness was minimal; therefore, a low-capacity pumping test was not performed. Table 5 summarizes details pertaining to the borehole at the Southern Pacific site, and Figure 6 shows the location of the borehole.
Table 5. Southern Pacific Site Borehole
Borehole
Name
Total Depth
(feet bgs)
Depth to Bedrock
(feet bgs)
Saturated Thickness
(feet)
Low-capacity Pumping
Test Performed
(Yes/No)
SP-B-1 22 19.5 3.5 No
Figure 6. Southern Pacific Borehole Location
3. Low-capacity Pumping Tests and Sieve Analyses
For this investigation, up to six short, low-capacity pumping tests were planned. Having the option of six tests allowed for at least one half of the 12 selected boreholes to be subjected to a low-capacity pumping test, if determined to be necessary. The decision to perform the low-capacity pumping test was made by Jacobs hydrogeologists at the time the borehole was drilled and logged by assessing the thickness of the coarse sediments encountered, depth to bedrock, and the overall thickness of saturated sediments. Four boreholes were selected for low-capacity pumping tests, and they were performed on three boreholes at Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- City of Redding Horizontal Collector Well Borehole Investigation Summary and Recommendations
8 PPS0311211259RDD
the ACID site and one borehole at the Bike Park site. The boreholes drilled at the Turtle Bay, Highway 44, and Southern Pacific sites were determined to not be suitable for conducting a low-capacity pumping test because the sites lack a thick saturated section and relatively thin coarse sediments and shallow depth to bedrock.
Soil samples were collected from boreholes in which low-capacity pumping tests were performed and delivered to Materials Testing, Inc. of Redding, California, for a particle-size distribution sieve analyses using method American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D6913. The samples were collected from discrete depth intervals from the boreholes to determine the gradation of the sediments in areas with coarse, water-bearing sediments. Some samples were also collected from boreholes where lowcapacity pumping tests were not performed to assess the gradation of sediments that were not hydraulically tested but are near sites that were. The results of the sieve analyses were used to estimate the horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the sediments using the Hazen (1911) and Kozeny-Carman (Carrier 2003, Kozeny 1927, and Carman 1937 and 1956) methods.
3.1 Low-capacity Pumping Test Results
The results of the low-capacity pumping tests combined with the estimated hydraulic conductivity of the sediments are the basis for our recommendation to proceed with additional large-scale low-capacity pumping tests.
The low-capacity pumping tests performed enable a rough estimate to be made of potential HCW yield capacities that might be available at that location. The rough estimate was based on an analysis using both the low-capacity pumping tests and the sieve analyses results. To perform the analysis, a transmissivity value was first estimated from the first step of the low-capacity pumping test using a Cooper-Jacob analysis (Driscoll 1986). Then a bulk hydraulic conductivity of the screened aquifer section was calculated by dividing by the aquifer saturated thickness. This hydraulic conductivity and that obtained from the sieve analysis hydraulic conductivity were then used to estimate the potential yield of a future HCW using the formulation developed by Hantush and Papadopulos (1962). The potential yield of a vertical well at the two locations was also estimated using a Cooper-Jacob analysis (Driscoll 1986).
From the analyses, it would appear that it is realistic that either site (east side of both the ACID and the Bike Park sites) could result with a collector well in the 5- to 10-mgd range, with the Bike Park site likely being closer to the 10-mgd capacity due to its greater saturated thickness. In comparison, a largediameter conventional vertical well at those two sites would be expected to yield up to 1 mgd at the ACID site, and up to 2 mgd at the Bike Park site.
Table 6 summarizes the data collected during each of the low-capacity pumping tests. For ACID-B-1, ACID-B-2, and BP-B-1, a 2-hour step test was performed. This consisted of pumping each borehole for four 30-minute steps, each with a different pumping rate. To determine the rates, the maximum pumping rate was established and then it was divided into four pumping rates as closely spaced as possible. The flow rate was controlled by a ball valve that made it difficult to achieve precise flow rate steps. For ACID-B-3, the borehole did not produce a high enough flow rate to divide the flow into four steps. Instead, a 2-hour constant-rate test was performed at a rate deemed sustainable for the 2-hour test without breaking suction on the pump. Attachment 2 shows the low-capacity pumping test drawdown plots.
Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- City of Redding Horizontal Collector Well Borehole Investigation Summary and Recommendations
PPS0311211259RDD 9
Table 6. Low-capacity Pumping Tests
Borehole
Name Step
Pumping Rate
(gpm)
Static
Water Level
(feet bgs)
Pumping
Water Level
(feet bgs)
Drawdown
(feet bgs)
Specific
Capacity
(gpm/foot)
ACID-B-1 1 6 13.4 13.67 0.27 22.22
2 18 13.4 14.07 0.67 26.87
3 28 13.4 14.89 1.49 18.79
4 42 13.4 16.02 2.62 16.03
ACID-B-2 1 7 13.75 13.81 0.06 116.67
2 16 13.75 14.03 0.28 57.14
3 31 13.75 14.28 0.53 58.49
4 42 13.75 14.69 0.94 44.68
ACID-B-3 Constant Rate 15 14.70 26.45 9.75 1.5
BP-B-1 1 5 12.35 12.36 0.01 500.00
2 17 12.35 12.41 0.06 283.33
3 25 12.35 12.45 0.10 250.00
4 41 12.35 12.52 0.17 241.18
Notes:
Each step was 30 minutes in duration, for a 2-hour test. The ACID-B-3 constant-rate test was 2 hours in duration. gpm = gallons per minute
3.2 Sieve Analyses Results
The sieve analyses results were used to estimate the aquifer hydraulic conductivity using the methods of both Hazen, and Kozeny and Carman. The estimation of hydraulic conductivity from grain-size distribution provides a rough value of hydraulic conductivity due to its empirical nature and lack of consideration of other significant parameters such as fluid temperature, electrochemical reactions, and the coarse particle sizes commonly relied on in collector well construction. However, combined with the low-capacity pumping tests conducted, these methods provide a good guide on the overall suitability of collector well operation.
The Hazen formulation relies on one grain-size data point, the 10 percent passing particle size, and assumes a uniform sand size particle. The Kozeny-Carman formulation relies on the entire particle distribution and, therefore, is considered a more accurate representation of the sand and gravel sizes encountered during this investigation.
For reference, a hydraulic conductivity value in feet/day of several hundred to over one thousand feet/day is considered very good for a collector well application, and the larger saturated thickness locations are also more desirable. When an HCW is pumping, the water level needs to remain above the intake laterals, and a thicker section of saturated sediments allows for more drawdown, therefore, more production.
A minimum pumping level of 3 feet above the center line of the laterals should be maintained as a safety factor.
Table 7 shows the hydraulic conductivity results calculated from the Hazen and Kozeny-Carman methods using the sieve results from this investigation. Attachment 3 contains the sieve analyses lab results.
Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- City of Redding Horizontal Collector Well Borehole Investigation Summary and Recommendations
10 PPS0311211259RDD
Table 7. Sieve Analysis Hydraulic Conductivities
Borehole
Name
Depth
Interval
(feet bgs)
Hazen K
(feet/day)
KozenyCarman K
(feet/day)
USCS
Soil Type Visual Description
ACID-B-1 18.5–19 359.5 60.2 SP Brown sand with gravel
19–21 NA 1001.8 GW Brown gravel
21–23.5 445.9 90.7 GP Brown gravel with sand
23.5–26 340.7 87.3 GW Brown gravel with sand
26–28.5 362.3 132.0 GW-GM Brown gravel with silt and sand ACID-B-2 18.5–21 368.6 214.2 GW Brown gravel with sand
21–23.5 778.3 95.5 GP Brown gravel with sand
24–25 255.1 82.4 GP-GM Brown gravel with silt and sand
28.5–31 NA 673.8 GW Brown gravel
31–33.5 1,274.8 161.8 GP Brown gravel with sand
33.5–36 780.1 139.5 GP-GM Brown gravel with silt and sand ACID-B-3 10–12 NA 5.6 CL Brown sandy clay
20–22 NA 3.5 SC Gray clayey sand
22–26 110.6 228.6 GW-GM Reddish brown gravel with silt and sand 26–28 732.2 440.5 GP Brown gravel with sand
28–30 395.4 385.8 GP-GM Brown gravel with silt and sand 30–32 548.5 269.6 GW Grayish brown gravel with sand
ACID-B-4 21–22.5 584.8 282.5 GW-GM Grayish brown gravel with silt and sand BP-B-1 16–19 533.7 263.0 GW Brown gravel with sand
19–21 802.9 156.4 GW Brown gravel with sand
28–30 5,631.6 389.5 GW Brown gravel with sand
23.5–26 340.7 87.3 GW Brown gravel with sand
26–28 2,952.1 297.7 GP Brown gravel with sand
30–32 781.3 201.8 GP Brown gravel with sand
38–40 4,720.1 332.3 GP Brown gravel with sand
40–42 1,869.5 179.2 GP Brown gravel with sand
BP-B-3 15–17 379.7 236.2 GW-GM Brown gravel with silt and sand SP-B-1 13–16 1,209.8 371.3 GW Reddish brown gravel with sand Notes:
Hazen K results are not applicable (NA) for D10 approaching or greater than 3.
CL = inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity
GM = silty gravels
GP = poorly graded gravels
GW = well-graded gravels
K = hydraulic conductivity
SC = clayey sands
SP = poorly graded sands
USCS = Unified Soil Classification System
Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- City of Redding Horizontal Collector Well Borehole Investigation Summary and Recommendations
PPS0311211259RDD 11
4. Summary
Our review of the geophysical investigation indicated there might be deposits in the Sacramento River alluvium to support an HCW with the targeted 10-million-gallon-per-day (mgd) capacity. The investigation conducted and reported herein took those results a step further and sampled and tested those areas to assess the local hydraulic conductivity. Testing results reveal locations where it appears the sediments would support a collector well.
In summary:
§ The location investigated at the west side of the ACID site, the location investigated at the Southern Pacific site, the locations on the west side of the Bike Park site, and the locations investigated at the Highway 44 site were found to be either too shallow or too low in hydraulic conductivity to support the feasibility of a collector well.
§ The east side of both the ACID site and the farthest east side of the Bike Park appear to have suitable hydraulic conductivity, although the saturated thickness is on the low side for an HCW when accounting for the minimum pumping level being maintained at least 3 feet above the center line of the laterals.
§ However, either of the two sites (east side of both the ACID and Bike Park sites) appears to be likely candidates for a collector well. At this point in the investigation, it is realistic that either site (east side of both the ACID and Bike Park sites) could support a collector well in the 5- to 10-mgd range, with the Bike Park site likely being closer to the 10-mgd capacity because of its greater saturated thickness.
In comparison, a large-diameter conventional vertical well at those two sites would be expected to yield up to 1 mgd at the ACID site and up to 2 mgd at the Bike Park site.
5. Recommendations
Based on the results of the subject investigation, consideration should be given to conducting up to two long-term (approximately 48 to 96 hours) high-capacity pumping tests. Each pumping test would consist of a 12-inch pumping well and four 2-inch monitoring wells. The monitoring wells would be spaced parallel and perpendicular to the river, and would test an area about 250 feet wide parallel to the river and about 100 feet wide perpendicular to the river. These long-term high-capacity pumping tests will provide further validation of the feasibility of a collector well at each site and a sound foundation to design the full-size collector wells should that option be selected by the City. The proposed long-term high-capacity pumping test locations are listed in Table 8.
Table 8. Proposed Long-term Test Locations
Site Recommended Long-term Pumping Test Locations Comments ACID Recommend a long-term high-capacity pumping
test between ACID-B-1 and ACID-B-2.
Both ACID-B-1 and ACID-B-2 boreholes were
suitable for future testing. Sediments thin and
bedrock shallows toward the western edge of
the site.
Bike Park Recommend a long-term high-capacity pumping
test near BP-B-1.
An HCW facility would have to be factored
into the current Bike Park design to minimize
impact to the current plans.
Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- City of Redding Horizontal Collector Well Borehole Investigation Summary and Recommendations
12 PPS0311211259RDD
6. References
Carman, P.C. 1937. “Fluid Flow through Granular Beds.” Transactions, Institution of Chemical Engineers, London. 15:150-166.
Carman, P.C. 1956. Flow of Gases through Porous Media. Butterworths, London.
Carrier III, W. David. 2003. “Goodbye, Hazen; Hello, Kozeny-Carman.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. Vol. 129. No. 11, November 1.
Driscoll, F.G. 1986. “Groundwater and Wells.” Johnson Filtration Systems, Inc. Technical Book.
Hantush, M.S., and I.S. Papadopulos. 1962. “Flow of Groundwater to Collector Wells.” Journal of the Hydraulics Division. ASCE.
Hazen A. 1911. “Discussion: Dams on Sand Foundations.” Trans Am Soc Civ Eng. 73:199–203.
Kozeny, J. 1927. “Ueber kapillare Leitung des Wassers im Boden.” Sitzungsber Akad. Wiss., Wien. 136(2a):271-306.
Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Attachment 1
Borehole Logs
Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- moist sediments
S-1
S-2
S-3
5.0 11.0
10.0 10.0
FILL
Hand Auger. Fill, gravel, sand
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW)
Reddish brown. 80-85% rounded to subrounded gravel from 0.25" to 3", 15% subrounded to angular sand, trace silty fines.
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW)
Grayish brown. 80% rounded to subrounded gravel up to 6". Metamorphic clasts, 20% subrounded to angular sand with trace silt.
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW)
Grayish brown. 70% rounded to subrounded gravel up to 6". Metamorphic clasts, 20-25% fine to medium sand sand with 5% silty fines
SILTY SAND (SM)
Brown. 80% fine to coarse angular to subrounded sand, 20% silty fines, trace clayey fines
WELL GRADED GRAVEL (GW)
Brown. 90% .25"-2" subrounded to subangular gravel, 10% medium to coarse subangular sand, trace clayey fines
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)
Brownish black. 90% fine to coarse subrounded sand 5-10% fine gravel. Fines upwards with some fine gravel at base
WELL GRADED GRAVEL (GW)
Brown. 80% rounded coarse gravel to 6". Some layers up to 0.5 foot thick with 20% coarse sand and trace low plasticity fines
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SAND (GW-GM)
Brown. 60% gravel with 30% sand and 10% silty fines
DEPTH BELOW
GROUND SURFACE
(ft)
5 10
15 20
25 30
DRILLING CONTRACTOR AND DRILL RIG : Yellow Jacket Drilling, Sonic BORING NUMBER:
ACID-B-1
WATER LEVEL : ---
LOCATION : Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District
ELEVATION : pending
PROJECT NUMBER:
START : 1/29/2021
SHEET 1 OF 2
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT : Sonic
Borehole Log
W8Y06200
COORDINATES : pending
PROJECT : Pump Station #1 - Collector Well Borings
END : 1/29/2021 LOGGER : Ryan Alward/SAC
COMMENTS / SAMPLE IDs
CORE #
RECOVERY (ft)
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL,
COLOR, MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE
DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY, SOIL
STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY
Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Dry - bedrock
S-3
S-4
10.0 4.5
Weathered bedrock, siltstone
Boring terminated at 40.5 ft bgs.
DEPTH BELOW
GROUND SURFACE
(ft)
35 40
45 50
55 60
DRILLING CONTRACTOR AND DRILL RIG : Yellow Jacket Drilling, Sonic BORING NUMBER:
ACID-B-1
WATER LEVEL : ---
LOCATION : Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District
ELEVATION : pending
PROJECT NUMBER:
START : 1/29/2021
SHEET 2 OF 2
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT : Sonic
Borehole Log
W8Y06200
COORDINATES : pending
PROJECT : Pump Station #1 - Collector Well Borings
END : 1/29/2021 LOGGER : Ryan Alward/SAC
COMMENTS / SAMPLE IDs
CORE #
RECOVERY (ft)
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL,
COLOR, MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE
DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY, SOIL
STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY
Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Saturated sediments
S-1
S-2
S-3
6.0 10.0
8.0 8.5
FILL
Hand Auger. Gravel, sand, silt
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)
Brown. Fine to medium grained angular to subrounded sand, trace silty fines
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW)
Brown. 80-85% subrounded to rounded gravel from fine to 4", 15-20% subangular to rounded fine to coarse sand. From 14'-16' average gravel size is a little smaller but there is a 6" clast.
NO RECOVERY
No Recovery
WELL GRADED SAND WITH CLAY (SW-SC)
Brown. 75% fine to very coarse angular sand, 15% angular to subrounded fine gravel and 10% low-plasticity clayey fines.
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW)
Brown. 80-85% gravel from fine to 6", 15-20% fine to coarse angular to subrounded sand, some trace silt stringers in gravel matrix
NO RECOVERY
No Recovery
WELL GRADED GRAVEL (GW)
Brown. Fine to coarse gravel to 4", trace clayey fines
DEPTH BELOW
GROUND SURFACE
(ft)
5 10
15 20
25 30
DRILLING CONTRACTOR AND DRILL RIG : Yellow Jacket Drilling, Sonic BORING NUMBER:
ACID-B-2
WATER LEVEL : ---
LOCATION : Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District
ELEVATION : pending
PROJECT NUMBER:
START : 1/31/2021
SHEET 1 OF 2
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT : Sonic
Borehole Log
W8Y06200
COORDINATES : pending
PROJECT : Pump Station #1 - Collector Well Borings
END : 1/31/2021 LOGGER : Ryan Alward/SAC
COMMENTS / SAMPLE IDs
CORE #
RECOVERY (ft)
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL,
COLOR, MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE
DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY, SOIL
STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY
Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Dry - bedrock
S-3
S-4
8.5 6.0
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW)
Brown. Fine to coarse rounded gravel up to 5", some mixed layers 0.5' thick with 40% medium to coarse angular sand, mostly 80-85% gravel.
Gley, Weathered bedrock, siltstone
Boring terminated at 43 ft bgs.
DEPTH BELOW
GROUND SURFACE
(ft)
35 40
45 50
55 60
DRILLING CONTRACTOR AND DRILL RIG : Yellow Jacket Drilling, Sonic BORING NUMBER:
ACID-B-2
WATER LEVEL : ---
LOCATION : Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District
ELEVATION : pending
PROJECT NUMBER:
START : 1/31/2021
SHEET 2 OF 2
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT : Sonic
Borehole Log
W8Y06200
COORDINATES : pending
PROJECT : Pump Station #1 - Collector Well Borings
END : 1/31/2021 LOGGER : Ryan Alward/SAC
COMMENTS / SAMPLE IDs
CORE #
RECOVERY (ft)
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL,
COLOR, MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE
DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY, SOIL
STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY
Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Water. Hole is adjacent to creek. Water
level corresponds to creek water level
Color change from brown to black
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
4.0 2.0
9.0 11.0
10.0 FILL
Hand Auger. Fill, gravel, sand, silt, clay
CLAYEY SAND (CL)
Brown. 85% clayey fines with 15% fine sand, saturated. Some roots and organics
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC)
Brown. 85-90% medium to fine sand with 10% low-plasticity clayey fines, some roots/organics
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)
Black/Gray. Fine grained sand, trace clayey fines
CLAYEY SAND (SC)
Gray. 80% clayey fines with 20% sand
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SAND (GW-GM)
Brown. 60% angular to subrounded gravel, 30% fine to coarse sand, 10% silty fines.
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW)
Brown. 70% rounded gravel to 3", 25% fine to coarse angular sand, 5% clayey fines
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW)
Brown. 55% angular to subrounded gravel to 3", 40% fine to coarse angular sand, 5% clayey fines
DEPTH BELOW
GROUND SURFACE
(ft)
5 10
15 20
25 30
DRILLING CONTRACTOR AND DRILL RIG : Yellow Jacket Drilling, Sonic BORING NUMBER:
ACID-B-3
WATER LEVEL : ---
LOCATION : Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District
ELEVATION : pending
PROJECT NUMBER:
START : 2/14/2021
SHEET 1 OF 2
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT : Sonic
Borehole Log
W8Y06200
COORDINATES : pending
PROJECT : Pump Station #1 - Collector Well Borings
END : 2/14/2021 LOGGER : Ryan Alward/SAC
COMMENTS / SAMPLE IDs
CORE #
RECOVERY (ft)
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL,
COLOR, MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE
DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY, SOIL
STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY
Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C-
10.0 S-4
Gley, Weathered bedrock, siltstone
Boring terminated at 36 ft bgs.
DEPTH BELOW
GROUND SURFACE
(ft)
35 40
45 50
55 60
DRILLING CONTRACTOR AND DRILL RIG : Yellow Jacket Drilling, Sonic BORING NUMBER:
ACID-B-3
WATER LEVEL : ---
LOCATION : Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District
ELEVATION : pending
PROJECT NUMBER:
START : 2/14/2021
SHEET 2 OF 2
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT : Sonic
Borehole Log
W8Y06200
COORDINATES : pending
PROJECT : Pump Station #1 - Collector Well Borings
END : 2/14/2021 LOGGER : Ryan Alward/SAC
COMMENTS / SAMPLE IDs
CORE #
RECOVERY (ft)
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL,
COLOR, MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE
DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY, SOIL
STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY
Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Saturated sediments
Dry - bedrock
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
4.5 1.5
8.0 2.0
6.0 6.0
FILL
Hand Auger, Brown, fine sand
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY (SP)
Brown. 85% medium to fine sand with 10% low plasticity clayey fines
NO RECOVERY
No Recovery
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY (SP)
Brown. 85% medium to fine sand with 10% low plasticity clayey fines
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND (GW-GC)
Brown. 60% gravel to 5" with 20% sand and 20% med plasticity clayey fines
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW)
Brown. 60% rounded gravel, with 35% fine to coarse angular sand, 5% clayey fines
NO RECOVERY
No Recovery
CLAYEY SAND (SC)
Brown. Fine sand with 15% low plasticity clayey fines
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SAND (GW-GM)
Brown. 65% rounded gravel, to 3", 30% fine to coarse sand, 10% silty fines Weathered bedrock, Siltstone
DEPTH BELOW
GROUND SURFACE
(ft)
5 10
15 20
25 30
DRILLING CONTRACTOR AND DRILL RIG : Yellow Jacket Drilling, Sonic BORING NUMBER:
ACID-B-4
WATER LEVEL : ---
LOCATION : Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District
ELEVATION : pending
PROJECT NUMBER:
START : 2/17/2021
SHEET 1 OF 2
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT : Sonic
Borehole Log
W8Y06200
COORDINATES : pending
PROJECT : Pump Station #1 - Collector Well Borings
END : 2/17/2021 LOGGER : Ryan Alward/SAC
COMMENTS / SAMPLE IDs
CORE #
RECOVERY (ft)
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL,
COLOR, MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE
DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY, SOIL
STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY
Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C-
6.0 S-5
Boring terminated at 32 ft bgs.
DEPTH BELOW
GROUND SURFACE
(ft)
35 40
45 50
55 60
DRILLING CONTRACTOR AND DRILL RIG : Yellow Jacket Drilling, Sonic BORING NUMBER:
ACID-B-4
WATER LEVEL : ---
LOCATION : Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District
ELEVATION : pending
PROJECT NUMBER:
START : 2/17/2021
SHEET 2 OF 2
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT : Sonic
Borehole Log
W8Y06200
COORDINATES : pending
PROJECT : Pump Station #1 - Collector Well Borings
END : 2/17/2021 LOGGER : Ryan Alward/SAC
COMMENTS / SAMPLE IDs
CORE #
RECOVERY (ft)
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL,
COLOR, MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE
DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY, SOIL
STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY
Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Some moist sediments, didn't encounter
fully saturated zone
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
3.0 2.0
3.0 4.0
5.0 FILL
Hand Auguer, fill. Gravel, sand and silt
WELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (SW-SM)
Brown. 60% fine to coarse angular to subrounded sand, 25-30% fine to 1" rounded to subrounded gravel, 10% silty fines
POORLY GRADED FINE SAND (SP)
Black. 85-90% fine sand with 10-15% rounded gravel from 1/2" to 3"
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL)
Brown. 35% fine sand with some coarse sand, some orange and gray streaks, very saturated like mud.
SILT (ML)
Brownish blue, organics with sticks and roots.
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW)
Gray. Gravel to 1" with 20% fine sand.
NO RECOVERY
No Recovery - 1' cobble was stuck in core barrel
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW)
Gray. Same as 6-8' Another cobble blocked core barrel
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW)
Same as 12-14.5' but with some clay in matrix
POORLY GRADED FINE SAND (SP)
Black. 80% fine to coarse subrounded sand with 15% fine to medium rounded gravel, some silty fines.
Glay. Weathered siltstone bedrock
Boring terminated at 21 ft bgs.
DEPTH BELOW
GROUND SURFACE
(ft)
5 10
15 20
25 30
DRILLING CONTRACTOR AND DRILL RIG : Yellow Jacket Drilling, Sonic BORING NUMBER:
TB-B-1
WATER LEVEL : ---
LOCATION : Turtle Bay
ELEVATION : pending
PROJECT NUMBER:
START : 2/2/2021
SHEET 1 OF 1
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT : Sonic
Borehole Log
W8Y06200
COORDINATES : pending
PROJECT : Pump Station #1 - Collector Well Borings
END : 2/3/2021 LOGGER : Ryan Alward/SAC
COMMENTS / SAMPLE IDs
CORE #
RECOVERY (ft)
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL,
COLOR, MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE
DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY, SOIL
STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY
Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- From top to 8 feet the sediments were
moist. Then they became dry
Some moisture at 16-16.5 feet then
bedrock is dry
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
3.0 2.0
1.0 4.0
3.0 10.0
Hand Auger, Fill
WELL GRADED GRAVEL (GW)
80% gravel with 20% sand
NO RECOVERY
No Recovery
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW)
Brown to light gray. 70% gravel from fine to coarse with some cobbles up to 8", 30% sub angular to rounded fine to coarse sand
Glay. Weathered siltstone bedrock, friable, dry
Boring terminated at 26 ft bgs.
DEPTH BELOW
GROUND SURFACE
(ft)
5 10
15 20
25 30
DRILLING CONTRACTOR AND DRILL RIG : Yellow Jacket Drilling, Sonic BORING NUMBER:
TB-B-2
WATER LEVEL : ---
LOCATION : Turtle Bay
ELEVATION : pending
PROJECT NUMBER:
START : 2/3/2021
SHEET 1 OF 1
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT : Sonic
Borehole Log
W8Y06200
COORDINATES : pending
PROJECT : Pump Station #1 - Collector Well Borings
END : 2/3/2021 LOGGER : Ryan Alward/SAC
COMMENTS / SAMPLE IDs
CORE #
RECOVERY (ft)
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL,
COLOR, MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE
DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY, SOIL
STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY
Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Large cobble in bit pushed through
sample
Large cobble in bit pushed through
sample
S-1
S-2
S-3
4.5 11.0
4.5 6.0
FILL (GW)
Hand Auger. Fill, Sand, Gravel
WELL GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL (GW)
60% Coarse gravel up to 8", 35% fine to coarse sand and silty fines. May be fill.
NO RECOVERY
No Recovery
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW)
Brown. 70% Rounded coarse gravel, 20% coarse sand, 10% silty fines
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW)
50-60% Rounded gravel from fine to 6", 30-35% fine to coarse angular to subrounded sand, 5-10% silty fines, some layers cleaner than others. At 38' & 40' thin layers of poorly sorted sand with gravel.
DEPTH BELOW
GROUND SURFACE
(ft)
5 10
15 20
25 30
DRILLING CONTRACTOR AND DRILL RIG : Yellow Jacket Drilling, Sonic BORING NUMBER:
BP-B-1
WATER LEVEL : 16.0 ft bgs
LOCATION : Bike Park
ELEVATION : pending
PROJECT NUMBER:
START : 2/10/2021
SHEET 1 OF 2
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT : Sonic
Borehole Log
W8Y06200
COORDINATES : pending
PROJECT : Pump Station #1 - Collector Well Borings
END : 2/10/2021 LOGGER : Ryan Alward/SAC
COMMENTS / SAMPLE IDs
CORE #
RECOVERY (ft)
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL,
COLOR, MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE
DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY, SOIL
STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY
Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- S-3
S-4
6.0 12.0
NO RECOVERY
No Recovery
POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GP)
Brown. 65% rounded gravel up to 6", 30% med to coarse sub angular sand, 5% silty fines
SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND (GM)
Brown. About 45% med to coarse rounded gravel, 35% fine sand with 20% silty fines.
Transition to Chico Fm. Some bedrock rip-up clasts in matrix.
Weathered siltstone bedrock
Boring terminated at 46 ft bgs.
DEPTH BELOW
GROUND SURFACE
(ft)
35 40
45 50
55 60
DRILLING CONTRACTOR AND DRILL RIG : Yellow Jacket Drilling, Sonic BORING NUMBER:
BP-B-1
WATER LEVEL : 16.0 ft bgs
LOCATION : Bike Park
ELEVATION : pending
PROJECT NUMBER:
START : 2/10/2021
SHEET 2 OF 2
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT : Sonic
Borehole Log
W8Y06200
COORDINATES : pending
PROJECT : Pump Station #1 - Collector Well Borings
END : 2/10/2021 LOGGER : Ryan Alward/SAC
COMMENTS / SAMPLE IDs
CORE #
RECOVERY (ft)
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL,
COLOR, MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE
DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY, SOIL
STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY
Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Sediments saturated
From 16-18', driller said he thinks seds
are similar to 15-16' based on drilling.
Cobble in bit may have caused loss of
recovery
S-1
S-2
S-3
2.5 3.5
7.0 8.0
FILL
Hand Auger. Fill, sand and gravel
FILL
Same as 0-2.5'
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW)
Black. Rounded gravel to 3", fine to coarse angular sand, very dark in color
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM)
Dark gray with brown mottling, 50% sand, 35% silty fines, 15% fine rounded gravel
NO RECOVERY
No Recovery
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM)
Dark gray with brown mottling, 50% sand, 35% silty fines, 15% fine rounded gravel
SILTY SAND (ML)
Black with brown mottling, 60% fine sand, 35% sility fines, 5% rounded gravel to 1"
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW)
Brown, rounded fine gravel to cobbles up to 6", 40% medium to coarse subangular sand, some clayey fines.
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW)
Brown. rounded gravel up to 2", 45% medium to coarse subangular sand, cleaner, less fines than 11-15.
NO RECOVERY
No Recovery
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP)
Blackish brown, 75% subangular to angular medium to coarse sand, 20-25% subangular fine gravel, trace fines.
SILTY GRAVEL WIH SAND (GM)
Brown. 50% rounded gravel up to 6", 30-5% fine to medium subangular sand, 15-20% silty fines
Glay. Weathered bedrock, siltstone
Boring terminated at 26 ft bgs.
DEPTH BELOW
GROUND SURFACE
(ft)
5 10
15 20
25 30
DRILLING CONTRACTOR AND DRILL RIG : Yellow Jacket Drilling, Sonic BORING NUMBER:
BP-B-2
WATER LEVEL : 15.0 ft bgs
LOCATION : Bike Park
ELEVATION : pending
PROJECT NUMBER:
START : 2/9/2021
SHEET 1 OF 1
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT : Sonic
Borehole Log
W8Y06200
COORDINATES : pending
PROJECT : Pump Station #1 - Collector Well Borings
END : 2/9/2021 LOGGER : Ryan Alward/SAC
COMMENTS / SAMPLE IDs
CORE #
RECOVERY (ft)
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL,
COLOR, MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE
DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY, SOIL
STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Saturated sediments start
23-24' Dry sediments
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
4.0 1.0
8.0 2.0
8.0 8.0
FILL
Hand Auguer. Fill, cobble, sand and clay
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND (GW-GC)
Brown. 60% rounded gravel, 40% rounded fine to medium snad, 10% low plasticity clayey fines.
NO RECOVERY
No Recovery
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW)
Brown. 70% rounded gravel to 8", 25% fine to medium sand, 5% fines
WELL GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL (SW)
Brown. 60% fine to coarse angular to subrounded sand, 35% rounded gravel to 5", 5% silty fines
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND (GW-GC)
Light orangish brown. 60% rounded gravel, 40% fine to coarse angular to subrounded sand, 10% low plasticity clayey fines. Gravle clasts, metavolcanics, oxidized orange mottling in clay
CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND (GC)
Brown, grey. 50% subrounded gravel, highly weathered metavolcanic clasts. Fractured clasts with oxidation, 30% fine to coarse angular sand, 20% medium plasticity clayey fines with trace grey silt.
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND (GW-GC)
Brown. 60% rounded gravel, 30% fine to coarse angular sand, 10% clayey fines
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SAND (GW-GM)
Light orange/gley. 60% subangular gravel, clast cored that was 1' long, subrounded weathered siltstone clasts, oxidized. 30$ angular fine to coarse sand, 10% silty fines
DEPTH BELOW
GROUND SURFACE
(ft)
5 10
15 20
25 30
DRILLING CONTRACTOR AND DRILL RIG : Yellow Jacket Drilling, Sonic BORING NUMBER:
BP-B-3
WATER LEVEL : ---
LOCATION : Bike Park
ELEVATION : pending
PROJECT NUMBER:
START : 2/13/2021
SHEET 1 OF 2
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT : Sonic
Borehole Log
W8Y06200
COORDINATES : pending
PROJECT : Pump Station #1 - Collector Well Borings
END : 2/13/2021 LOGGER : Ryan Alward/SAC
COMMENTS / SAMPLE IDs
CORE #
RECOVERY (ft)
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL,
COLOR, MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE
DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY, SOIL
STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Dry at beginning of bedrock
S-5
S-6
8.0 5.0
Weathered bedrock, siltstone
Boring terminated at 38 ft bgs.
DEPTH BELOW
GROUND SURFACE
(ft)
35 40
45 50
55 60
DRILLING CONTRACTOR AND DRILL RIG : Yellow Jacket Drilling, Sonic BORING NUMBER:
BP-B-3
WATER LEVEL : ---
LOCATION : Bike Park
ELEVATION : pending
PROJECT NUMBER:
START : 2/13/2021
SHEET 2 OF 2
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT : Sonic
Borehole Log
W8Y06200
COORDINATES : pending
PROJECT : Pump Station #1 - Collector Well Borings
END : 2/13/2021 LOGGER : Ryan Alward/SAC
COMMENTS / SAMPLE IDs
CORE #
RECOVERY (ft)
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL,
COLOR, MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE
DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY, SOIL
STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY
Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Saturated sediments
Dry at bedrock
S-1
S-2
S-3
3.0 3.0
7.0 6.0
FILL
Hand Auger. Cobbles, sand and clay
FILL
Cobbles, sand and clay
NO RECOVERY
No Recovery
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW)
Brown. 70% rounded gravel to 7", fine to coarse angular sand, 5% silty fines
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)
Brown. Fine to coarse sand, some rounded gravel.
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW)
Brown. 70% rounded gravel to 3" with 25% fine to coarse angular sand with silty fines.
WELL GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL (SW)
Brown. 80% fine to coarse angular sand with 15% rounded gravel to 2" with some silty fines
NO RECOVERY
No Recovery - Large cobble displaced sediments
Glay, Weathered bedrock, siltone. Transition from gravel to siltstone Boring terminated at 26 ft bgs.
DEPTH BELOW
GROUND SURFACE
(ft)
5 10
15 20
25 30
DRILLING CONTRACTOR AND DRILL RIG : Yellow Jacket Drilling, Sonic BORING NUMBER:
H44-B-1
WATER LEVEL : ---
LOCATION : Highway 44
ELEVATION : pending
PROJECT NUMBER:
START : 2/11/2021
SHEET 1 OF 1
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT : Sonic
Borehole Log
W8Y06200
COORDINATES : pending
PROJECT : Pump Station #1 - Collector Well Borings
END : 2/11/2021 LOGGER : Ryan Alward/SAC
COMMENTS / SAMPLE IDs
CORE #
RECOVERY (ft)
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL,
COLOR, MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE
DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY, SOIL
STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY
Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Saturated
Bedrock is different than other borings. It
is siltstone mixed with gravel and some
clay
S-1
S-2
S-3
10.0 10.0
10.0 FILL
Fill - gravel, sand, silt
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP)
Brown. 80% fine to med sand with 20% fine to medium rounded gravel
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)
Brown. Fine to medium sand
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP)
Brown. 80% fine to med sand with 20% fine to medium rounded gravel
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW)
Brown. 75% rounded gravel up to 8", 20% fine to coarse sand with 5% clayey fines
WELL GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL (SW)
Borwn. 75% coarse sand with 20% gravel up to 2", 5% clayey fines
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND (GW-GC)
Brown. Transistion to bedrock, rounded gravel to 6" with 20% fine sand, 5-10% clayey fines towards the bottom
Glay, Weathered Bedrock, siltstone with some gravel
DEPTH BELOW
GROUND SURFACE
(ft)
5 10
15 20
25 30
DRILLING CONTRACTOR AND DRILL RIG : Yellow Jacket Drilling, Sonic BORING NUMBER:
H44-B-2
WATER LEVEL : ---
LOCATION : Highway 44
ELEVATION : pending
PROJECT NUMBER:
START : 2/12/2021
SHEET 1 OF 2
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT : Sonic
Borehole Log
W8Y06200
COORDINATES : pending
PROJECT : Pump Station #1 - Collector Well Borings
END : 2/12/2021 LOGGER : Ryan Alward/SAC
COMMENTS / SAMPLE IDs
CORE #
RECOVERY (ft)
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL,
COLOR, MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE
DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY, SOIL
STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY
Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C-
10.0 S-3
Boring terminated at 35 ft bgs.
DEPTH BELOW
GROUND SURFACE
(ft)
35 40
45 50
55 60
DRILLING CONTRACTOR AND DRILL RIG : Yellow Jacket Drilling, Sonic BORING NUMBER:
H44-B-2
WATER LEVEL : ---
LOCATION : Highway 44
ELEVATION : pending
PROJECT NUMBER:
START : 2/12/2021
SHEET 2 OF 2
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT : Sonic
Borehole Log
W8Y06200
COORDINATES : pending
PROJECT : Pump Station #1 - Collector Well Borings
END : 2/12/2021 LOGGER : Ryan Alward/SAC
COMMENTS / SAMPLE IDs
CORE #
RECOVERY (ft)
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL,
COLOR, MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE
DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY, SOIL
STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY
Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Moist, water present
Dry at bedrock
S-1
S-2
5.0 7.0
10.0 FILL (GW)
Hand Auger. Fill. Gravel, sand, clay.
SILTY SAND (SM)
Brown. Fine sand with 20% silty fines. Trace fine gravel. Rounded
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SAND (GW-GM)
Brown. 60% rounded gravel, 20% angular fine to coarse sand and 10% silty fines
SILTY SAND (SM)
Brown. 80% fine sand and 20% silty fines
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW)
Brown. 65% angular gravel up to 4", 30% medium to coarse sand with clayey fines
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND (GW-GC)
Brown. 60% fine to coarse gravel, 30% fine to coarse sand, 10% clayey fines
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW)
Brown. 50% gravel to 4", 45% fine to coarse sand, 5% clayey fines
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND (GW-GC)
Brown. 60% fine to coarse gravel, wiht 30% fine to coarse sand and 10% clayey fines Weathered siltstone bedrock
Boring terminated at 22 ft bgs.
DEPTH BELOW
GROUND SURFACE
(ft)
5 10
15 20
25 30
DRILLING CONTRACTOR AND DRILL RIG : Yellow Jacket Drilling, Sonic BORING NUMBER:
SP-B-1
WATER LEVEL : 16.0 ft bgs
LOCATION : Southern Pacific
ELEVATION : pending
PROJECT NUMBER:
START : 2/16/2021
SHEET 1 OF 1
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT : Sonic
Borehole Log
W8Y06200
COORDINATES : pending
PROJECT : Pump Station #1 - Collector Well Borings
END : 2/16/2021 LOGGER : Ryan Alward/SAC
COMMENTS / SAMPLE IDs
CORE #
RECOVERY (ft)
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL,
COLOR, MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE
DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY, SOIL
STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY
Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Attachment 2
Drawdown Plots
Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- 0 0.02
0.04 0.06
0.08 0.1
0.12 0.14
0.16 0.18
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Drawdown (ft bgs)
Elapsed Time (minutes)
BP-B-1 Step-test
5 gpm
17 gpm
25 gpm
41 gpm
Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting 0 0.51
1.52 2.53
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Drawdown (ft bgs)
Elapsed Time (minutes)
ACID-B-1 Step-test
6 gpm
18 gpm
28 gpm
42 gpm
Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting 0 0.1
0.2 0.3
0.4 0.5
0.6 0.7
0.8 0.91
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Drawdown (ft bgs)
Elapsed Time (minutes)
ACID-B-2 Step-test
7 gpm
16 gpm
31 gpm
42 gpm
Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting 02468
10 12
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Drawdown (ft bgs)
Elapsed Time (minutes)
ACID-B-3 Constant-rate Test
15 gpm
Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting Attachment 3
Sieve Analyses Lab Results
Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Appendix C
Shasta County Well Permits
Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 552
Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 553
Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 554
Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 555
Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 556
Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 557
Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 558
Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 559
Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 560
Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 561
Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 562
Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 563
Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 564
Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 565
Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 566
Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 567
Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 568
Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 569
Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 570
Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 571
Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 572
Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 573
Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 574
Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 575
Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 576
Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 577
Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 578
Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 579
Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 580
Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 581
Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 582
Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 583
Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 584
Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 585
Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Appendix D
Lithologic Logs
Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Red rock stuck in core barrel (just as in
BP-B-1)
23-31 Not very saturated
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
S-7
S-8
S-9
5.0 2.0
2.0 2.0
2.0 1.0
2.0 2.0
2.0 2.0
FILL
Hand auger. Fill, cobbles, gravel, sand and silt.
NO RECOVERY
No Recovery.
FILL
Cobbles, gravel, sand silt.
NO RECOVERY
No Recovery
FILL
Cobbles, gravel, sand and silt
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)
Brown. 90% fine sand, 10% silty fines
NO RECOVERY
No Recovery (possibly very fine saturated sand as below)
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)
Same as 13-14
WELL GRADED GRAVEL (GW)
Brown. 80% Gravel up to 2", Subrounded, 10% fine sand , ~10% silty fines
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)
Brown/Black. 95% med. to coarse sand, coarsening downwards, ~5% silty fines, subangular sand clasts.
WELL GRADED GRAVEL (GW)
Same as 18-21
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND (GW-GC)
Brown. 70% subrounded to subangular fine to coarse gravel, clasts up to 6". 15% fine to coarse subangular sand, 15% low plasticity clay and silty fines
DEPTH BELOW
GROUND SURFACE
(ft)
5 10
15 20
25 30
DRILLING CONTRACTOR AND DRILL RIG : Yellow Jacket Drilling, Sonic BORING NUMBER:
BP-B-4
WATER LEVEL : ---
LOCATION : Bike Park
ELEVATION : pending
PROJECT NUMBER:
START : 10/9/2021
SHEET 1 OF 2
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT : Sonic
Borehole Log
W8Y06200
COORDINATES : pending
PROJECT : Pump Station #1 - Collector Well
END : 10/9/2021 LOGGER : Ryan Alward/SAC
NEW SOIL BORING LOG; (LHC)-NEW_SOIL_BORING_LOG.GLB; LAKEHAVASUCITY_EXPLORATORY-WELL-DRILLING.GPJ; CH2M GEOTECH_12.GDT; 11/29/21 COMMENTS / SAMPLE IDs
CORE #
RECOVERY (ft)
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL,
COLOR, MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE
DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY, SOIL
STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY
Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- 31-34, reduced environment?
34-36, oxidized layer?
Bedrock. Dry
S-10
S-11
S-12
S-13
S-14
S-15
S-16
S-17
1.0 3.0
2.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
2.0 2.0
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND (GW-GC)
Gley, otherwise same as 23-31
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND (GW-GC)
Orange, otherwise same as 31-34
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND (GW-GC)
Same as 31-34
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND (GW-GC)
Same as 23-31
Gley. Weathered Bedrock, siltstone
Boring terminated at 44 ft bgs.
DEPTH BELOW
GROUND SURFACE
(ft)
35 40
45 50
55 60
DRILLING CONTRACTOR AND DRILL RIG : Yellow Jacket Drilling, Sonic BORING NUMBER:
BP-B-4
WATER LEVEL : ---
LOCATION : Bike Park
ELEVATION : pending
PROJECT NUMBER:
START : 10/9/2021
SHEET 2 OF 2
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT : Sonic
Borehole Log
W8Y06200
COORDINATES : pending
PROJECT : Pump Station #1 - Collector Well
END : 10/9/2021 LOGGER : Ryan Alward/SAC
NEW SOIL BORING LOG; (LHC)-NEW_SOIL_BORING_LOG.GLB; LAKEHAVASUCITY_EXPLORATORY-WELL-DRILLING.GPJ; CH2M GEOTECH_12.GDT; 11/29/21 COMMENTS / SAMPLE IDs
CORE #
RECOVERY (ft)
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL,
COLOR, MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE
DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY, SOIL
STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY
Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C-
24.5 - 26 dry
26-27, wet
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
5.0 3.0
7.0 3.0
6.0 6.0
FILL
Fill, dry. Hand auger
FILL
Brown. Fill, rounded and fractured gravel with fine sand and silt.
NO RECOVERY
No Recovery
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SAND (GW-GM)
Brown. 60% fine to coarse sand, clasts up to 4", 25% fine to coarse sand, 15% silty fines
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SAND (GW-GM)
Same as 11-15 with 20% silt and 20% sand
NO RECOVERY
No Recovery, cobble in bit
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM)
Brown. Fine to medium sand with 10% silt
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW)
Brown. 50-60% rounded gravel up to 6", 30-35% fine to med. sand, ~10% silty fines
CLAYEY SAND (CL)
Gley, Claystone with fine gravel and sand, very weathered, oxidized and dry.
POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GP)
Brown. ~70% fine gravel, 25% fine to med. sand, ~5% silty fines
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SAND (GW-GM)
Brown. ~60% gravel, 25% fine to med. sand, 15% silty fines, some oxidized silt that appears somewhat dry.
POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GP)
Same as 26 - 27 with 10% silty fines
DEPTH BELOW
GROUND SURFACE
(ft)
5 10
15 20
25 30
DRILLING CONTRACTOR AND DRILL RIG : Yellow Jacket Drilling, Sonic BORING NUMBER:
MW-1
WATER LEVEL : ---
LOCATION : Bike Park
ELEVATION : pending
PROJECT NUMBER:
START : 10/7/2021
SHEET 1 OF 2
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT : Sonic
Borehole Log
W8Y06200
COORDINATES : pending
PROJECT : Pump Station #1 - Collector Well
END : 10/8/2021 LOGGER : Ryan Alward/SAC
NEW SOIL BORING LOG; (LHC)-NEW_SOIL_BORING_LOG.GLB; LAKEHAVASUCITY_EXPLORATORY-WELL-DRILLING.GPJ; CH2M GEOTECH_12.GDT; 11/29/21 COMMENTS / SAMPLE IDs
CORE #
RECOVERY (ft)
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL,
COLOR, MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE
DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY, SOIL
STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY
Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Bedrock. Dry
S-5
S-6
S-7
6.0 6.0
5.0 POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)
Brown. 95% fine to med. sand, <5% silty fines
POORLY GRADED GRAVEL (GP)
Brown. 80% gravel clasts from 1-2", 15% coarse sand, 5% silty fines.
POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SAND (GP-GM)
Brown. 70% gravel, 15% sand, 15% silty fines
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL AND SILT (SP-SM)
Brown. 60% fine sand, 25% gravel, 15% silty fines
Gley. Weathered Bedrock, siltstone
Boring terminated at 43 ft bgs.
DEPTH BELOW
GROUND SURFACE
(ft)
35 40
45 50
55 60
DRILLING CONTRACTOR AND DRILL RIG : Yellow Jacket Drilling, Sonic BORING NUMBER:
MW-1
WATER LEVEL : ---
LOCATION : Bike Park
ELEVATION : pending
PROJECT NUMBER:
START : 10/7/2021
SHEET 2 OF 2
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT : Sonic
Borehole Log
W8Y06200
COORDINATES : pending
PROJECT : Pump Station #1 - Collector Well
END : 10/8/2021 LOGGER : Ryan Alward/SAC
NEW SOIL BORING LOG; (LHC)-NEW_SOIL_BORING_LOG.GLB; LAKEHAVASUCITY_EXPLORATORY-WELL-DRILLING.GPJ; CH2M GEOTECH_12.GDT; 11/29/21 COMMENTS / SAMPLE IDs
CORE #
RECOVERY (ft)
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL,
COLOR, MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE
DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY, SOIL
STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY
Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Borehole is near former BP-B-1 boring
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
S-7
S-8
5.0 2.0
4.0 2.0
3.0 2.0
3.0 1.0
3.0 FILL
Fill, hand cleared
FILL
Fill, gravel, cobbles, sand, silt
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SAND (GW-GM)
Brown. 60% fine to coarse gravel, 25% fine to coarse sand, 15% silty fines
NO RECOVERY
No Recovery
WELL GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL (SW)
Brown. 80% coarse sand, 15% gravel, <5% silty fines
WELL GRADED GRAVEL (GW)
Brown. 85% fine to coarse gravel, 10% sand, <5% silty fines
NO RECOVERY
No Recovery
WELL GRADED GRAVEL (GW)
Brown. 70% gravel from fine to coarse, 20% sand, 10 silty fines, interbedded with 90% gravel, 5% sand and < 5% silty fines.
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)
Black. 95% fine to med. sand, coarsening downwards to coarse sand
WELL GRADED GRAVEL (GW)
Same as 23 - 26 with larger gravel clasts
DEPTH BELOW
GROUND SURFACE
(ft)
5 10
15 20
25 30
DRILLING CONTRACTOR AND DRILL RIG : Yellow Jacket Drilling, Sonic BORING NUMBER:
MW-2
WATER LEVEL : ---
LOCATION : Bike Park
ELEVATION : pending
PROJECT NUMBER:
START : 10/10/2021
SHEET 1 OF 2
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT : Sonic
Borehole Log
W8Y06200
COORDINATES : pending
PROJECT : Pump Station #1 - Collector Well
END : 10/11/2021 LOGGER : Ryan Alward/SAC
NEW SOIL BORING LOG; (LHC)-NEW_SOIL_BORING_LOG.GLB; LAKEHAVASUCITY_EXPLORATORY-WELL-DRILLING.GPJ; CH2M GEOTECH_12.GDT; 11/29/21 COMMENTS / SAMPLE IDs
CORE #
RECOVERY (ft)
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL,
COLOR, MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE
DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY, SOIL
STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY
Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Bedrock. Dry
Borehole collapsed from 44 to 46 prior to
constructing MW-2
S-9
S-10
S-11
S-12
S-13
S-14
S-15
1.0 4.0
2.0 2.0
2.0 2.0
2.0 NO RECOVERY
No recovery, but most likely gravel as above
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SAND (GW)
Brown. 60 - 70% coarse rounded gravel with 15-20% fine to coarse sand and 15% silty fines
WELL GRADED GRAVEL (GW)
Brown. 85% gravel, 10% sand, < 5% silty fines
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW)
Brown. 60% fine to med. gravel, 35% fine to coarse sand, <5% silty fines.
Gley. Weathered Bedrock, siltstone
Boring terminated at 46 ft bgs.
DEPTH BELOW
GROUND SURFACE
(ft)
35 40
45 50
55 60
DRILLING CONTRACTOR AND DRILL RIG : Yellow Jacket Drilling, Sonic BORING NUMBER:
MW-2
WATER LEVEL : ---
LOCATION : Bike Park
ELEVATION : pending
PROJECT NUMBER:
START : 10/10/2021
SHEET 2 OF 2
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT : Sonic
Borehole Log
W8Y06200
COORDINATES : pending
PROJECT : Pump Station #1 - Collector Well
END : 10/11/2021 LOGGER : Ryan Alward/SAC
NEW SOIL BORING LOG; (LHC)-NEW_SOIL_BORING_LOG.GLB; LAKEHAVASUCITY_EXPLORATORY-WELL-DRILLING.GPJ; CH2M GEOTECH_12.GDT; 11/29/21 COMMENTS / SAMPLE IDs
CORE #
RECOVERY (ft)
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL,
COLOR, MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE
DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY, SOIL
STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY
Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
S-7
S-8
S-9
S-10
5.0 1.0
2.0 2.0
3.0 3.0
3.0 3.0
3.0 3.0
2.0 FILL
Brown. Fill, hand augered. Dry, sand, gravel silt
FILL
Same as 0 - 5
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP)
Black. 90% fine sand with <10% silty fines, from ~9 - 11 color is brown. 11 - 14.5 color is dark gray/black. 14.5 - 15 is brown. Sand is moist, some orange oxidized layers in brown sections, some fine rootlets in black section
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT (GW)
Brown. 60 - 70% rounded gravel to 6", 20-30% fine to coarse subangular sand, ~10% silty fines
NO RECOVERY
No Recovery
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT (GW)
Same as 16 - 19
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT (GW)
70% fine to coarse gravel, 20% sand, ~10% silty fines. Gravel clasts up to 3" but overall, much finer gravel than 15 - 26.
DEPTH BELOW
GROUND SURFACE
(ft)
5 10
15 20
25 30
DRILLING CONTRACTOR AND DRILL RIG : Yellow Jacket Drilling, Sonic BORING NUMBER:
MW-3
WATER LEVEL : ---
LOCATION : Bike Park
ELEVATION : pending
PROJECT NUMBER:
START : 10/9/2021
SHEET 1 OF 2
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT : Sonic
Borehole Log
W8Y06200
COORDINATES : pending
PROJECT : Pump Station #1 - Collector Well
END : 10/10/2021 LOGGER : Ryan Alward/SAC
NEW SOIL BORING LOG; (LHC)-NEW_SOIL_BORING_LOG.GLB; LAKEHAVASUCITY_EXPLORATORY-WELL-DRILLING.GPJ; CH2M GEOTECH_12.GDT; 11/29/21 COMMENTS / SAMPLE IDs
CORE #
RECOVERY (ft)
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL,
COLOR, MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE
DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY, SOIL
STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY
Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Bedrock. Dry
S-10
S-11
S-12
S-13
S-14
S-15
S-16
S-17
2.0 2.0
3.0 2.5
2.5 1.0
2.0 2.0
WELL GRADED GRAVEL (GW)
Brown. 90% rounded gravel from fine to coarse, some sand, some silty fines.
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW)
Brown. 60 - 70% subangular to subrounded fine to coarse gravel. 25% med to coarse sand, ~5% silty fines
Gley. Weathered Bedrock, siltstone
Boring terminated at 46 ft bgs.
DEPTH BELOW
GROUND SURFACE
(ft)
35 40
45 50
55 60
DRILLING CONTRACTOR AND DRILL RIG : Yellow Jacket Drilling, Sonic BORING NUMBER:
MW-3
WATER LEVEL : ---
LOCATION : Bike Park
ELEVATION : pending
PROJECT NUMBER:
START : 10/9/2021
SHEET 2 OF 2
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT : Sonic
Borehole Log
W8Y06200
COORDINATES : pending
PROJECT : Pump Station #1 - Collector Well
END : 10/10/2021 LOGGER : Ryan Alward/SAC
NEW SOIL BORING LOG; (LHC)-NEW_SOIL_BORING_LOG.GLB; LAKEHAVASUCITY_EXPLORATORY-WELL-DRILLING.GPJ; CH2M GEOTECH_12.GDT; 11/29/21 COMMENTS / SAMPLE IDs
CORE #
RECOVERY (ft)
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL,
COLOR, MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE
DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY, SOIL
STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY
Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Sediments moist at 13
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
S-7
S-8
S-9
S-10
S-11
S-12
S-13
5.0 1.0
3.0 2.0
1.0 2.0
2.0 2.0
3.0 1.0
3.0 2.0
1.0 2.0
FILL
Fill. Hand auger
FILL
Brown. Gravel, sand, silt, unconsolidated
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)
Brown. 90-95% med to coarse sand, <5% silty fines
WELL GRADED GRAVEL (GW)
Brown. 85% rounded gravel, 10% coarse sand, ~ 5% silty fines
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)
Brownish-black. 95% med. to coarse subrounded sand, <5% silty fines.
NO RECOVERY
No Recovery. Bit probably pushed through sand
WELL GRADED GRAVEL (GW)
Brown. 85% gravel, 10% sand, 5% silty fines
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)
Brown. 95% med. to coarse sand, <5% silty fines
DEPTH BELOW
GROUND SURFACE
(ft)
5 10
15 20
25 30
DRILLING CONTRACTOR AND DRILL RIG : Yellow Jacket Drilling, Sonic BORING NUMBER:
MW-4
WATER LEVEL : ---
LOCATION : Bike Park
ELEVATION : pending
PROJECT NUMBER:
START : 10/11/2021
SHEET 1 OF 2
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT : Sonic
Borehole Log
W8Y06200
COORDINATES : pending
PROJECT : Pump Station #1 - Collector Well
END : 10/12/2021 LOGGER : Ryan Alward/SAC
NEW SOIL BORING LOG; (LHC)-NEW_SOIL_BORING_LOG.GLB; LAKEHAVASUCITY_EXPLORATORY-WELL-DRILLING.GPJ; CH2M GEOTECH_12.GDT; 11/29/21 COMMENTS / SAMPLE IDs
CORE #
RECOVERY (ft)
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL,
COLOR, MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE
DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY, SOIL
STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY
Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Bedrock. Dry
S-13
S-14
S-15
S-16
S-17
2.0 1.0
2.0 2.0
2.0 WELL GRADED GRAVEL (GW)
Brown. 90% gravel 1 - 2", with 5% sand and <5% silty fines
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)
Brownish-black. 90-95% med. to coarse subrounded sand, with <5% silty fines
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW)
Brown. 70% rounded gravel, 25% med. to coarse sand, <5% silty fines
NO RECOVERY
No Recovery
WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW)
Same as 34 - 36
Gley. Weathered Bedrock, siltstone
Boring terminated at 41 ft bgs.
DEPTH BELOW
GROUND SURFACE
(ft)
35 40
45 50
55 60
DRILLING CONTRACTOR AND DRILL RIG : Yellow Jacket Drilling, Sonic BORING NUMBER:
MW-4
WATER LEVEL : ---
LOCATION : Bike Park
ELEVATION : pending
PROJECT NUMBER:
START : 10/11/2021
SHEET 2 OF 2
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT : Sonic
Borehole Log
W8Y06200
COORDINATES : pending
PROJECT : Pump Station #1 - Collector Well
END : 10/12/2021 LOGGER : Ryan Alward/SAC
NEW SOIL BORING LOG; (LHC)-NEW_SOIL_BORING_LOG.GLB; LAKEHAVASUCITY_EXPLORATORY-WELL-DRILLING.GPJ; CH2M GEOTECH_12.GDT; 11/29/21 COMMENTS / SAMPLE IDs
CORE #
RECOVERY (ft)
GRAPHIC LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL,
COLOR, MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE
DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY, SOIL
STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY
Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Adding water to control dust. Start drill at 11:00
Fines washed from 10-12' sample
12:00 stopped, 12:50 resumed. Rig chatter,
either cemented gravel or cobbles.
13:40 while advancing casing driller said we
broke through cobble or boulder
15:55
16:25 finished for day. Resumed 7/20 6:45
Well-graded gravel with sand (GW): brown (10YR
4/3), 80% fine to coarse gravel (up to 1"), 20%
medium to coarse sand, gravel angular to subrounded.
Poorly-graded gravel with sand (GP): dark yellow
brown (10YR 4/4), 70% fine to coarse gravel , 25%
fine to coarse sand, 5% silt.
Poorly-graded gravel with sand (GP): dark yellow
brown (10YR 4/4), 50% fine gravel , 30% medium to
coarse sand, 15% fine sand, 5% fines. Sands and
gravel mostly dark lithic fragment.
Well-graded sand with gravel (SW): dark yellowish
brown (10YR 4/4), 60% medium to coarse sand, 25%
fine gravel, 15% fines.
Silty sand with gravel (SM): dark yellowish brown
(10YR 4/4), 50% fine to medium sand, 30% coarse
sand and fine gravels, 20% fines.
Poorly-graded sand (SP): very dark grayish brown
(6YR 3/2), 80% medium to coarse sand, 10% fine
gravel, 10% fine sand. All dark lithic fragments.
Poorly-graded sand (SP): very dark grayish brown
(6YR 3/2), transitions to poorly-graded sand with
gravel. 50% medium to coarse sand, 40% fine gravel,
10% fine sand.
Poorly-graded sand with gravel (SP): very dark
grayish brown (10YR 3/2), 70% fine to coarse sand,
25% fine gravel, 5% fine sands and fines. appear to
be from larger cobbles or boulders.
Well-graded gravel with sand (GW): very dark
grayish brown (10YR 3/2), 65% fine to coarse gravel,
30% medium to coarse sand, 5% fine sand and fines.
Gravel up to 1", some appear to be from larger cobbles
or boulders.
Well-graded sand with gravel (SW): very dark
grayish brown (10YR 3/2), 50% medium to coarse
sand, 30% fine gravel, 20% fine sand.
Well-graded sand with gravel (SW): very dark
grayish brown (10YR 3/2), 50% medium to coarse
sand, 30% fine gravel, 20% fine sand. Gravel up to 1".
5 5
15 20
5 5
20 25
45 60
50 90
60 70
30 70
70 80
70 50
25 30
10 40
25 65
30 30
INTERVAL (ft)
START : 7/19/2022 END : 7/21/2022
SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL, COLOR,
MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITY OR
CONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY
RECOVERY (ft)
PROJECT NUMBER:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Yellow Jacket Drilling
LOCATION : Bike Park
SOIL BORING LOG
#TYPE
BP-TW1
COMMENTS
APPROXIMATE ELEVATION :
LOGGER : BJ Lechler
BORING NUMBER:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SHEET 1 OF 2
APPROXIMATE WATER LEVEL : 12.0 ft below ground surface
W8Y06200
PROJECT : City of Redding Horizontal Collector Well, Redding, CA DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT : Foremost DR-14HD, Dual Rotary DEPTH BELOW GROUND SURFACE (ft)
GRAVEL (%)
SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
GRAPHIC LOG
DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATE,
DRILLING FLUID LOSS, TESTS, AND
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
SAND (%)
FINES (%)
5 10
15 20
25 Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- 11:00
12:00
Hole heaved sand and gravel when drilling
between 36-38'. Sand around 10' into cased
hole.
Advanced casing to near anticipated bedrock
contact drilling from 38-43' was slough from
casing advance.
Borehole stopped producing water when casing
advanced into bedrock.
Well-graded sand with gravel (SW): very dark
grayish brown (10YR 3/2), 50% medium to coarse
sand, 40% gravel up to 1.5", 10% fine sand. Larger
gravels are broken from cobbles.
Well-graded gravel with sand (GW): very dark
grayish brown (10YR 3/2), 60% fine to coarse gravel
(up to 1.5"), 30% medium to coarse sand, 10% fine
sand.
Well-graded gravel with sand (GW): very dark
grayish brown (10YR 3/2), 60% fine to coarse gravel
(up to 1.5"), 30% medium to coarse sand, 10% fine
sand.
Well-graded gravel with sand (GW): very dark
grayish brown (10YR 3/2), 60% fine to coarse gravel
(up to 2"), 30% medium to coarse sand, 10% fine
sand.
Well-graded sand with gravel (SW): very dark
grayish brown (10YR 3/2), 60% medium to coarse
sand, 25% fine sand, 15% fine gravel.
Well-graded gravel with sand (GW): very dark
grayish brown (10YR 3/2), 70% fine to coarse gravel
(rounded), 20% coarse sand, 10% fine to medium
sand. Sample may be influenced by heaving
conditions.
Well-graded gravel with sand (GW): very dark
grayish brown (10YR 3/2), 60% fine to coarse gravel
(up to 1.5") mostly rounded, 35% medium to coarse
sand, 5% fine sand and fines.
Bedrock: siltstone/mudstone: very dark gray (5Y 3/1).
Bottom of Hole at 47.0 ft below ground surface
5 60
40 40
40 85
30 35
40 60
60 60
15 70
60 INTERVAL (ft)
START : 7/19/2022 END : 7/21/2022
SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL, COLOR,
MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITY OR
CONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY
RECOVERY (ft)
PROJECT NUMBER:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Yellow Jacket Drilling
LOCATION : Bike Park
SOIL BORING LOG
#TYPE
BP-TW1
COMMENTS
APPROXIMATE ELEVATION :
LOGGER : BJ Lechler
BORING NUMBER:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SHEET 2 OF 2
APPROXIMATE WATER LEVEL : 12.0 ft below ground surface
W8Y06200
PROJECT : City of Redding Horizontal Collector Well, Redding, CA DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT : Foremost DR-14HD, Dual Rotary DEPTH BELOW GROUND SURFACE (ft)
GRAVEL (%)
SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
GRAPHIC LOG
DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATE,
DRILLING FLUID LOSS, TESTS, AND
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
SAND (%)
FINES (%)
30 35
40 45
50 Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Appendix E
Monitoring Well Water Level Data
Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- 10 10.5
11 11.5
12 12.5
13 Depth to Water (ft btoc)
Date
MW-1
Transducer Manual
Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting 10 10.5
11 11.5
12 12.5
13 Depth to Water (ft btoc)
Date
MW-2
Transducer
Manual
Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting 10 10.5
11 11.5
12 12.5
13 Depth to Water (ft btoc)
Date
MW-3
Transducer Manual
Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting 9 9.5
10 10.5
11 11.5
12 Depth to Water (ft btoc)
Date
MW-4
Transducer Manual
Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting Appendix F
Photographs
Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Site Photographs
F-1
Appendix F. Site Photographs
Test Well Field Work (June through August 2022)
Photograph 1: Yellow Jacket Rig for Test Well
Construction
Photograph 2: Bike Park Site
Photograph 3: Steel Drill Casing
Photograph 4: Drill Bit
Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Site Photographs
F-2
Photograph 5: Setup for Water Discharge
Photograph 6: Installing the Drilling Casing
Photograph 7: Well Casing
Photograph 8: Test Well Vault
Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Site Photographs
F-3
Photograph 9: Staff Gauge in the River
Photograph 10: Set Up for Pumping Test
Photograph 11: Top of Test Well
Photograph 12: Discharge Piping and
Instrumentation
Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Site Photographs
F-4
Photograph 13:Water Discharge Through
Storm Drain
Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Appendix G
Contractor Field Material Submittals
Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C-
SUBMITTAL SHEET
Yellow Jacket Drilling
DATE 06/20/22 SUBMITTAL No.: 4
TO: BJ Lechler CONTRACT No.:
JOB No.: 20-0120CA
ATTENTION: BJ Lechler
PROJECT NAME: Redding Test Well
LOCATION: 991 N Market
MATERIAL: Casing and Screen Manufacture
USE: 12” Casing
SUPPLIER: YJD
MANUFACTURER:
MODEL NUMBER:
COMMENTS:
12” casing certs
ATTACHMENTS: CUT SHEET: 1 MSDS: SAMPLE: Brochure
BY: Joe Villegas
SIGNATURE: Joe Villegas
DATE: 06/20/22
ACTION: APPROVED __________ REVISE: __________ REJECTED: __________ Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 612
Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and PROJECT: DATE:
LOCATION: SAMPLE NO.:
MATERIAL: SAMPLE FROM:
TESTED BY:
FRACTION
EQUIVALENTS
US
STANDARD
OPENING
INCHES
PERCENT
WEIGHT
PERCENT
RETAINED
PERCENT
PASSED SPECS
3/4" 3/4" 0.750
1/2" 1/2" 0.500
3/8" 3/8" 0.375 0.0 0.0 100.0
5/16" 5/16" 0.312 16.4 16.4 83.6
1/4" 1/4" 0.250 47.9 64.3 35.7
3/16" #4 0.187 31.2 95.5 4.5
1/8" #6 0.132 4.3 99.8 0.2
3/32" #8 0.0937
#10 0.0787
#12 0.0661
#14 0.0555
#16 0.0469
#18 0.0394
#20 0.0331
#30 0.0234
#40 0.0165
#50 0.0117
#60 0.0098
PAN 0.2 100.0
TOTAL
TACNA SAND & GRAVEL
SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS
Hole Products 6/15/22
SUBMITTED BY: David Burau
3/8 x 1/8 STOCK
DAVE BURAU
Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Appendix H
Microscopic Particulate Analysis
Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- Appendix I
Pumping Test Graphs
Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: Draft Collector Well Feasibility Report (9.11(c)--Authorize Fifth Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract C- City of Redding Pumping Test Graphs at Bike Park
August 2022