HomeMy WebLinkAboutProject 3 - 4 Vol IPREPARED BY
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
' FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
PLANNING DIVISION FL
0
uL H
1
t
LOCAL AREA DRAINAGE PLAN
�
�
PROJECT 3 -4
1
ENGINEERS REPORT
VOLUME #1
OCTOBER 1992
PREPARED BY
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
' FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
PLANNING DIVISION FL
0
uL H
1
t
I. BACxmmm: San Bernardino County's existing Comprehensive Storm Drain
>4 Plan #3, Project 3 -4 depicts a means of intercepting storm flows generated
in the area generally bounded by Interstate 10, Riverside Avenue, Riverside
County Line and Tamarind Avenue, and conducting them to the Santa Ana
to River. The hydrology method used in developing the storm drain plan
predates the County's current methodology. The San Bernardino County Flood
Control District and Cities of Rialto and Fontana recognized the need to
update the hydrology, facility sizes and cost estimates for this storm
drain project, in order to develop a funding mechanism. A steering
committee consisting of major property owners and representatives of the
city of Rialto and Fontana and the county met periodi.callVI to discuss study
results and make recommendations.
II. PURPOSE AM : This study (1) updates the hydrology, drainage
facility sizes and cost estimates for the existing Project 3 -4 facility
alignments (Model #1), (2) evaluates alternate aligrments for conducting
storm flows generated within the Project 3 -4 boundaries to the Santa Ana
River (Models #2 & #3), (3) evaluates the use of detention basins to reduce
total project costs, and (4) determines an equitable developer fee for the
recommended alternate.
ON III. ONS: The recommended plan (Model #1) for regional and local
storm drains is shown on Plate #1. A summary of recommended project costs,
developer fees and funding is as follows:
* *Assumes area is responsible only for costs associated with the percentage of
flows generated within that area.
** *Areas not subject to fees deleted. Includes steep hillsides, parks, schools,
and cemeteries.
0
Total
Subarea "An
Subarea "B"
Facility Costs
$30,700,000
$14,700,000
$16,000,000
Fair Share Costs
$30,700,000
$21,400,000*
$9,300,000 **
it
Total Tributary Area
4,423 ac.
2,423 ac.
2,000 ac.
Adjusted Tributary Area * **
4,017 ac.
2,054 ac.
1,963 ac.
Proposed Fee
$10,419 /ac.
$4,738/ac.
Developable Area
1,709 ac.
776 ac.
933 ac.
Fee Revenue
$12,500,000
$8,100,000
$4,400,000
$4,900,000
Unfunded Costs
$18,200,000
$13,300,000
*Includes $6.7 million increased
facility costs through Subarea
"B"
* *Assumes area is responsible only for costs associated with the percentage of
flows generated within that area.
** *Areas not subject to fees deleted. Includes steep hillsides, parks, schools,
and cemeteries.
0
ODI-- -MMIVE SINI
D}tAN PLAN
PRWBCP 3 -4
EI Demos REPORT
Table of Contents
Volume #1
IM
L I. Backgrow d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
II. Purpose and Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
0
1
n
III.
Hydrology and Facility Sizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 3
IV.
Detention Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 4
V .
VI.
Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Reccazm�ended Iocal
. . 5
Area Drainage Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 5
VII.
Vacant /Developable Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 6
VIII.
Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 8
IX
Rec a miendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 10
X .
Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 11
Plate #1 - Project 3 -4 Model #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 12
Plate #2 - Project 3 -4 Model #2 . . . . . . . .
. . 13
Plate #3 - Project 3 -4 Model #3 . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . 14
Plate #4 - Project 3 -4 Model #1 with Basin . . . . . . . . . . .
15
Plate #5 - Project 3 -4 Model #2 with Basin . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
. . 16
Plate #6 - Project 3 -4 Model #3 with Basin . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 17
Plate #7 - Project 3 -4, Development Distribution . . . . . . . .
. . 18
Plate #8 - Project 3 -4, City Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 19
Plate #9 - Project 3 -4, Suba "B" Facilities Cmparison . . .
. . 20
XI.
Appendix 'A' - Reooamnended Plan Cost Estimate . . . . . . . . .
. . 21
XII.
Appendix 'B' - Detailed Line Cost Breakdown . . . . . . . .
. . 33
0
1
n
C
PROJECT 3 -4
ENGIIG2 IMPORT
Revised May 30, 1991
Revised February 12, 1992
Revised June 1992
I. BACK3ROM
San Bernardino County's existing Comprehensive Storm Drain Plan #3, Project
3 -4, depicts a means of intercepting storm flows generated in the area
generally bounded by Interstate 10, Riverside Avenue, Riverside County Line
and Palmetto Avenue, and conducting them to the Santa Ana River. The hydrology
method used in developing the storm drain plan predates the County's current
methodology. At the February 3, 1988 Zone 2 Advisory Committee budget hearing,
representatives of the City of Rialto and developers in the project area
requested that funds be budgeted to update Project 3 -4 and evaluate
alternatives for conducting storm flows to the Santa Ana River. The Zone
Advisory Committee recommended $25,000 be budgeted for F.Y. 1988/89 for the
requested study.
A steering committee consisting of major property owners and representatives
of the Cities of Rialto and Fontana and the County met periodically to discuss
study results and make reconrendations. Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District was also contacted for their c onwnts and
recxinunendations. The study results and reconnendations were also presented
to the Aqua Mansa Industrial Growth Association.
This study 1) updates the hydrology, drainage facility sizes and cost estimate
for the existing Project 3 -4 facility aligm nts (Model #1), 2) evaluates
alternate aligments for conducting storm flows generated within the Project
3 -4 boundaries to the Santa Ana River (Models #2 & #3), 3) evaluates the use
of detention basins to reduce total project costs, and 4) determines an
equitable developer fee for the recanuended alternate.
0
2
A
The existing Project 3 -4 (Model #1) assumes all storm flows generated within
its boundary will not enter Riverside County, but will be intercepted at the
County Line (E1 Rivino Road) and be Conducted easterly then south along
Riverside Avenue to the Santa Ana River (ref. Plate #1). This required the
storm drain in El Rivino Road to be placed 48 feet below the road surface in
the vicinity of Cactus Avenue.
Based on 1966 contour mapping and 1986 aerial photography, the Project 3 -4
area consists of two distinct drainage areas. Storm flows generated within
the project area westerly of Cedar Avenue (subarea "A" depicted on Plates #2
and #3) have historically continued south Un ugh Riverside County easterly
of Rubidoux Blvd. and Market Street to the Santa Ana River. Presently, during
more frequent storms, these flows enter a borrow pit located on the north side
of El Rivino Road and 300 feet easterly of Rubidoux Blvd. During a major
storm, a portion of the flow could continue south through a cement plant
MIN directly south of the pit, circumventing the basin and the remaining flow
would enter the pit and may overtop E1 Rivino Road then traverse the cement
plant. Model #2 (Plate #2) Subsystem " A " investigates intercepting these flows
at the borrow pit and conducting them easterly to the cement plant's east
boundary then south to the Santa Ana River. Model #3 (Plate #3) investigates
conducting these flows through the cement plant to the Santa Ana River.
Subsystem "B" of Models #2 and #3 intercepts the flows generated east of Cedar
(a natural divide) along the power line corridor and conducts them south
easterly to the Santa Ana River at Riverside Avenue.
III • HYDROLOGY AND FACILI'T'Y SIZING
The County's 1986 rational and hydrograph methods were used to update the peak
flow rates. The rational method was used for Models #1, #2 and #3 without
detention basins. The hydrograph method was used for the detention basin
analyses. Precipitation amounts and intensities were determined from the
isohyetals and charts in the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual, dated
August 1986- Drainage subarea acreage, flow path length and elevation
difference, soil type, land use and routing were taken from the existing
Project 3 -4 calculations except through the Owl Rock properties where a City
s 3
NI-11
of Colton raved 1
aPP grading plan exists. Within Riverside County, aerial
photography and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
1985 topography maps were used to develop this information.
The AES Rational Method cagxiter software version 4.5F and the Flood Routing
caputer software version 2.7C were used for the rational and hydrograph
method routing. Pipe sizes and flow velocities were determined by the caqxzter
assuming a friction slope which was 90% of the natural grade to account for
friction and manhole losses. When channels were ]mown to be required, an
assumed base width was input into the program to determine flow depths and
p•� flaw velocities.
V
The pipe and channel sizes determined by the AES Hydrology programs were
reviewed to determine if sizes were reasonable. Where pipe sizes or channel
flaw depths were excessive, reasonable channel base widths and flow depths
were determined using Manning's formula. Racammended channel heights in this
study include freeboard based on flow velocity in accordance with the "Los
Angeles County Flood Control District Hydraulics Manual ". Roll waves and
super - elevation were not considered. All channels were assumed to be trape-
zoidal except where existing right of way was.a constraint. At these loca-
tions, a rectangular channel was analyzed.
Hydrology and hydraulic calculations for all alternatives are on file in the
San Bernardino County Flood Control District Flood Control Planning and Water
i Resources Divisions.
it
IV. DETENTION BASINS
Detention basins were analyzed along the mainstream of each model. For Model
#1 a 35 acre flow - through basin was analyzed at the confluence of Dines D and
E. The basin was assumed to be 15 feet deep. The outlet was designed such that
100 -year storm flows ponied to a depth of 13 feet (2 feet freeboard). The
basin location is shown on Plate #4 and the reduced downstream facilities are
shown on Plate #4.
4
11
For Models #2 and #3 an existing 15 acre quarry pit was analyzed as both a
flcW-by and flCW- through basin. As a flow -by basin, 750 c.f.s. were assured
not to enter the basin. In each case the basin drain was sized to pond 100 -
year storm flaws to a depth of 14 feet (2 feet freeboard) . Plates #5 and #6
show the reduced downstream facility sizes for Models #2 and #3 respectively.
,. V. COST ESTIMATES
Construction costs for storm drains include the pipe, manholes and excavation.
The costs for concrete channels are based on the cubic yards of concrete and
excavation and right of way acreage. The unit construction costs for both
facility types include 20% engineering, inspection and administration costs.
Unit construction cost tables from Montgomery Engineer's 1987 "Rialto (cannel
Master Plan of Drainage" were updated to May 1988 based on the "Engineering
News Record" construction cost index for Los Angeles. Fee right of way costs
were estimated at $90,000 /ac. except for the borrow pit used in the detention
basin analysis as recommended by the steering coumittee. Since the pit would
need to be filled for any other use, the land value was assumed to be $25, 000.
Where underground culverts were recommended and were not within public rights
of way, it was assumed easement could be purchased at $25,000 /ac. Updated unit
cost tables and itemized cost estimates for each storm drain and channel are
on file in the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, Flood Control
Planning and Water Resources Divisions (Volume V & VI). In order to account
for utility relocations and other construction uncertainties, the total
estimated cost was increased by 15 %. Cost summaries for each model are given
in Table #1. The detailed cost estimate for the reccamnended plan is provided
in the Appendix
VI. RECCHMENDED IOCAL AREA DRAINAGE PLAN
The use of detention basins is not econoantcally feasible as can be discerned
from Table #1.
f
Z 5
0
TABIE #1
Oost OoaQarison of Alternatives
(in millions of dollars)
PM Since Model #1 has the lowest total construction cost of the three models it
is recommended that Model #1, without basin, be adopted as the i0cal Area
Drainage Plan for the Project 3 -4 area.
VII. VACANT /DEVELOPABLE IANDS
In the financial analysis that follows the number of developable acres is
required to determine revenue derived from developer fees to construct new
developments fair share of the required drainage infrastructure. Vacant
acreage was estimated from February 1986 aerial photography and updated using
September 1990 photography. Only minimal development could occur in the
hillside areas in the southwest portion of the study area, therefore, these
areas were not considered vacant. Areas with 90% or more build -out were
assumed not to have any vacant area. The vacant /developable areas are shown
on Plate #7 and summarized by jurisdiction and subarea for the recommended
plan in the following Tables #2 and #3.
s
C
All Storm
Mainline
Alternative
Drains
Only
Model - #1 Without Detention Basin
30.7
23.2
Model- #1 Detention Basin w /ds
33.2
25.4
Model - #1 Detention Basin w /ds Channel
32.2
24.1
Model - #2 Without Detention Basin
37.1
28.6
Model - #2 Flowby Detention Basin
39.6
31.1
Model- #2 Flovthrough Detention Basin
38.8
30.4
Model - #3 Without Detention Basin
34.4
26.2
Model- #3 Flowby Detention Basin
35.3
26.8
Model - #3 Flowthrough Detention Basin
34.9
26.5
PM Since Model #1 has the lowest total construction cost of the three models it
is recommended that Model #1, without basin, be adopted as the i0cal Area
Drainage Plan for the Project 3 -4 area.
VII. VACANT /DEVELOPABLE IANDS
In the financial analysis that follows the number of developable acres is
required to determine revenue derived from developer fees to construct new
developments fair share of the required drainage infrastructure. Vacant
acreage was estimated from February 1986 aerial photography and updated using
September 1990 photography. Only minimal development could occur in the
hillside areas in the southwest portion of the study area, therefore, these
areas were not considered vacant. Areas with 90% or more build -out were
assumed not to have any vacant area. The vacant /developable areas are shown
on Plate #7 and summarized by jurisdiction and subarea for the recommended
plan in the following Tables #2 and #3.
s
C
C
E
E
C
' sumirlaty
' Fontana
! Rialto !
San Bdno !
RE'VISID'DOTAL
Total ' Vacant
Area Ac ! Area Ac
Total
. Area Ac,
' Vacant
Area Ac
Total '
. Area Ac l
Vacantl Total
Area Ac ! Area Ac
' Vacant
! Area Ac
<10% Vacant
1101
-0-
84
—0—
-0-
-0-
1017
-0-
Hillside
297
-0-
226
-0-
-0-
-0-
71
-0- 1
50% Vacant
292
146
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0- (
292
146 1
70% Vacant
1 103
1 72
-0-
1 -0-
0- 1
-0- (
103
( 72 1
80% Vacant
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
( -0-
100% Vacant
630
630
298
298
-0-
-0-
332
332
TOTAL
2423
776
608
298
-0-
-0-
1815
478
Adjustment for
1
I
I
I
I I
1
483
I
Undevelopable
!
i
i
I
Public Lands
37
1 j
Hillside & Public
37 4
I
REVISED TOTAL
I
933 -0- -0-
681 450
1282 483
Lands
' -369
RE'VISID'DOTAL
2054
776 375 298
-0- -0-
1679 478
TABLE #3
DEVELOPMENT DISTRI 3MCN
Model #1 - Subarea 1 W
City of
City of
County of
' Summary
! Fontana !
Rialto '
San Bdno '
Total ' Vacant Total ' Vacant Total ' Vacant Total ' Vacant
!Area Ac.Area Ac Ac Ac Ac.Area AclArea Ac Ac.
<10% Vacant
884
-0- -0- -0-
136 -0-
748 -0-
50% Vacant
I 113
I I
56 -0- -0-
39 19
74 37
70% Vacant
184
(
( 129 1 -0- -0- 1
1
84 59 1
100 70
80% Vacant
355
284 1 -0- -0- 1
252 202 1
103 82
100% Vacant
464
1 . 464 1 -0- -0- 1
170 170 1
294 294
TOTAL
2000
1 93 1 -0-
- 0- 1
1 319
681 450 1
483
Adju for
i
i
i
I
Public Lands
37
1 j
37 4
REVISED TOTAL
1963
933 -0- -0-
681 450
1282 483
7
Due to total project cost, Model #1, without the detention basin, is
reo zuezxled as the local area drainage plan for the Project 3 -4 area (see
map, pg. 22).Since two of the mainlines cross over the subarea bo6ndary and
they both feed into mainline "E", which is entirely within Subarea "B", an
equitable fair share cost allocation for these lines is vital for project
approval. Any lines contained oompletely within a subarea, and unaffected by
flows generated within the other subarea, are entirely the responsibility of
that subarea. r1hus, Subarea " A " is responsible for the entire cost of System
A (Lines A, A2, A3, A4), System B (Dines B, B1, B2), System C (Line C), System
G (Line G) , Mainline D within Subarea " A " and Mainline F within Subarea "A".
Subarea "B" is responsible for the entire cost of Lines El through E4, Lines
D1 through D3 and Mainline E North of the confluence with Mainline D. The
costs for the remaining stretches of Mainline D, Mainline E and Mainline F
were allocated between the two subareas.
� " To determine the cost allocation, the hydrology model was run twice on the
L System. The first run included full participation of both subareas. This
resulted in the Model #1 design discharges (Qs) and total facilities' cost.
The second run included only flows generated from Subarea "B ". This yielded
the Qs which would result if no Subarea " A " flows were allowed into Subarea
"B" (Models #2 and #3).
From these two runs, one can determine the percentages of design discharges
that each subarea is responsible for in each line. These percentages are then
used to determine the fair share cost allocations for each line. For exanple,
Mainline D, between Line D1 and Line D2, is designed to acccawodate 2480 cfs
at a cost of $881,930. Assuming no inflow from Subarea "A ", the design
discharge of this reach is only 285 cfs. Therefore, Subarea "B "'s percentage
of the Model #1 design discharge is 11.5% (= 285/2480) . The corresponding fair
share cost is $101,351. The detailed breakdowns for Lines D, E and F are
tabulated and presented in Appaxiix B.
1 8
0
r
t.
There are 1,963 acres within Subarea "B" Over which the $9.3 million oon-
struction costs (fair share) can be spread, or $4,738 per acre. Unless it can
be shown that new development has not created the need for the required
drainage facilities or that existing development has provided its fair share
of the existing drainage facilities, a $4,738 per acre developer fee would
be equitable for Subarea "B". Based on September 1990 aerial photography there
are app 933 acres of vacant developable land within the subarea
(Plate #7 and Table #3). A developer fee of $4,738 per acre Over Subarea "B"
would then generate approximately $4.4 million of the required $16.0 million
to construct the recommended plan facilities within Subarea "B".
The recommended plan (Model #1) costs $30.7 million. Therefore, Subarea " A "
is responsible for $21.4 million ($30.7 - $9.3 million) of the project costs.
This cost ($21.4 million) spread Over the subarea less undevelcpable hillside
and public lands (2,054 acres) yields a cost of $10,419 per acre. As addressed
above, this could be adopted as an equitable developer fee within Subarea " A " .
A fee in this amount would generate another $8.1 million Over the 776 vacant
acres (Table #2) in Subarea "A ". Depending on the priority of the facilities
and the order in which they are constructed, Subarea "A" may be required to
fund $6.7 million of the estimated $16.0 million facilities costs in Subarea
B , due to the increased flaws generated within Subarea "All.
Developer fees in the above amounts would generate $12.5 million of the
recommended project costs. Table #4 summarizes the revenues derived by
subsystem and jurisdiction for the recomTended plan Model #1.
C�
H�
F��
f:
0
c
IX. RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Model #1 without basin and this report be adopted as the Project 3 -4
Local Area Drainage Plan and drainage fees in the amount of $10,419
pa within Subarea " A " and $4,738 within Subarea "B ", be established within
the unincorporated areas of the County for the construction of the Model
#1 storm drains.
B. This report be provided AMIGA, and the Cities of Fontana and Rialto with
a request for their support of the Project 3 -4 I.Acal Area Drainage Plan
and for them to establish the aforementioned drainage fees within the
Project 3 -4 boundaries and within their jurisdiction for the financing
of this Plan's re=m ended storm drains.
C. The Cities of Rialto and Fontana, AMIGA, County and District evaluate
funding sources for the remaining $18.2 million required to cmplete
the project.
D. New development within the tributary area should continue to be designed
to be protected fraan storm runoff and continue to mitigate any incre-
mental increase in runoff generated by the development until adequate
drainage facilities are constructed.
t
10
C
'INB
Z #4
DEVELOPER FEE 1MVENUES BY JORIBDICTIC)Ld
City of
City of .
County of
Fontana
Rialto
San Bdno Total
Model #1 (total) 3.1
2.1
7.3 $12.5
Subarea " A " 3.1
-0-
5.0 $8.1
Subarea "B" -0-
2.1
2.3 $4.4
If these developer fees were established by the Cities of Fontana and Rialto
and the County of San Bernardino
there would remain
$18.2 million to be funded
by another means.
IX. RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Model #1 without basin and this report be adopted as the Project 3 -4
Local Area Drainage Plan and drainage fees in the amount of $10,419
pa within Subarea " A " and $4,738 within Subarea "B ", be established within
the unincorporated areas of the County for the construction of the Model
#1 storm drains.
B. This report be provided AMIGA, and the Cities of Fontana and Rialto with
a request for their support of the Project 3 -4 I.Acal Area Drainage Plan
and for them to establish the aforementioned drainage fees within the
Project 3 -4 boundaries and within their jurisdiction for the financing
of this Plan's re=m ended storm drains.
C. The Cities of Rialto and Fontana, AMIGA, County and District evaluate
funding sources for the remaining $18.2 million required to cmplete
the project.
D. New development within the tributary area should continue to be designed
to be protected fraan storm runoff and continue to mitigate any incre-
mental increase in runoff generated by the development until adequate
drainage facilities are constructed.
t
10
C
f
C
L
fl
E
L
X. PLATES
11
i�J
v
c
c
v
a
e
0
i
i
PLATE NO.1
PLATE N0.1
0
C
U_
N
// O �/
Z
O
U
m�
O i
O
J to
V_
Z
O
U
O crc
Z `
� c o
Z
Q N
Z
w
W
m
Z
Q
V)
O
0
O
O
to
N
J M
W t
O o
� V
O O
0 0
Oi N
it N
N
II II
O O
v 0
Q m
v v
QS Qt
W N W y
Z w
�<
z Q
LLJ
° Z
o °
W
Z N U
Z Q
Z O d
i
r
U
z
O `-^
W a
O °
OJ N =o
?O
an:
zo�'�� 4E
MU WW� c
W = 4. J o
ED W
zo °
J
a
a
a
PLATE N0.2
m
rt- c
p p Z� a z i
O p p U N Z� La
C 0 p O W a
0-1 g P) W)
N N
M N O�HJ�N
' N Q Z ' O Lbi 9=
W C
it II zo i
W 5 a ' < c
Oa U 9 a
o�
O U Q` Co` O O J
v
as <s z
W y W
Q ` NW yW
ILL I
J \0'x1 \• GC ��� .�
Z
3V-111 At m
O b
V � s.troto t I satrotn oaroto � \ \\ \ �
0 r — AC s it � C
� ! I aroro tro sstroto satroto t _ c
O I surot
ouro at.ot I S 5260 0100 =73r SRG !t
J N f
LA-
ItUDIDOUx ewo �a
cw
aro3� t it 9 t NO i
Z t 3�L__1L a Lt
Slot =Sl � I
II I I
O CL N3pNll N
to �I I Z W
ZZ LL)
O I R ostrot0 AtrotO� s Wtro10 O Q
III o Qf
itri Z ° f lu b` z �' O °
li II ('� f/1 F-••
� S; t T3anrt I W Z U
J J W
Li. III Z Q —'
Q N1 X III / a, Q p CL
CL
Li
Z ' ro l N �34T1
m
o rnv III
I III �
VI I o
vaa3ls
j
0
Pi ATP IJ 7
`'Ofies
C
E3
o2s =7s
186
W
cn a
~ LINE -�
�v F
LEGEND
025 =490 FREQUENCY /PEAK FLOW RATE (c.t.s.)
ZE E MAINLINE STORM DRAIN
7r RCP DIAMETER OR TRAP CHANNEL WIDTH Y DEPTH
LOCAL SYSTEM DRAINS
— — PROJECT DRAINAGE AREA
DETENTION
BASIN
E �
t
O�
LINE
E4
Off'
0 2000 +1.
126
120'
P�
�O
�P
J
P�
Li
Q
z
3
0
m
02
120'
J
J
0
T
O
5
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
/ FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
LOCAL AREA DRAINAGE PLAN
PROJECT 3 -4 MODEL -1
WITH BASIN
SAN BERNARD O COUNTY BY JLD PLANNING FILE N0.
RIVER OUNTY DATE JUL 88 PM —D 1 -1 15 /q
5th 122
4th °°c
0
3rd m
= 19 4//
0100 =2020 1 B,a�b, L � IVINO
Bxd- 10'x8.5' FE 0�� ��
�G
O
f
L
O
L
po N
0 2000 ft.
'' rrrrccAA''nn
J.r�
025 =490 FLOWBY FREOUENCY /PEAK FLOW RATE (c.f.s.)
72' RCP DIAMETER OR TRAP CHANNEL WIDTH x DEPTH
MAINLINE STORM DRAIN
4 FLOWTHROUGH FREQUENCY /PEAK FLOW RATE (c.f.s.)
72� RCP DIAMETER OR TRAP CHANNEL WIDTH x DEPTH
— — — PROJECT DRAINAGE AREA
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE STORM DRAIN PLAN
PROJECT 3 -4 MODEL -2
WITH BASIN
BY JLD PLANNING FILE NO.
DATE JUL 88 PM —D1 -115
I � 1
I I IL i
I
1 �
�
Zz
I
�P o
J I m LO
P I
z l uj
J I Lo Cl�
i� IL
o - co o � O
W - N N x
o
g 11
m 0100 =750
I
pw
16
108' RCP
'
2nd 0100= 0
w
I Q
0
PON Bxd- 0
'
BASIN 9 0O 12a 125 =71 0100 =1506
SAN RNAR 0 C RCp
L z
NTY Bxd= 10'x8'
— — --
RIVERSIDE COUN Otoo
= 19 4//
0100 =2020 1 B,a�b, L � IVINO
Bxd- 10'x8.5' FE 0�� ��
�G
O
f
L
O
L
po N
0 2000 ft.
'' rrrrccAA''nn
J.r�
025 =490 FLOWBY FREOUENCY /PEAK FLOW RATE (c.f.s.)
72' RCP DIAMETER OR TRAP CHANNEL WIDTH x DEPTH
MAINLINE STORM DRAIN
4 FLOWTHROUGH FREQUENCY /PEAK FLOW RATE (c.f.s.)
72� RCP DIAMETER OR TRAP CHANNEL WIDTH x DEPTH
— — — PROJECT DRAINAGE AREA
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE STORM DRAIN PLAN
PROJECT 3 -4 MODEL -2
WITH BASIN
BY JLD PLANNING FILE NO.
DATE JUL 88 PM —D1 -115
I � 1
I I IL i
I
1 �
�
Zz
I
�P o
J I m LO
P I
z l uj
J I Lo Cl�
i� IL
o - co o � O
W - N N x
o
g 11
� II
o
I
Q m
0
m
V)
J
moo'
N '
0
cm o�
m
Y �
M. .--
J25
L
B
C
C
C
E
C
C
C
G
1
1
1
1
E
0
i
i
0
PLATE N0.7
•
•
•
y
i
WE
, -
000000
F
®r,
MN
s
I
-
;
/vEl", po" g oo. y o,
molop/
�'o
i A
`� 77
p",
Flo, a*""
Ho"ploll
�
% �
% � •r'i� %/. %iii �
/ ,, r
�
_
•
•
'
0
0.0
.4
M , mova
01-
/.
0
i
i
0
PLATE N0.7
C
ilk
U _ /�
6L
-
I
O
m
H
Z
O
V m
0 v �
O
O
N
Z
D
O
U
O�
Z `
m�
^ ? e
Q VI
Z
cr-
W
cb
Z
Q
V)
Fr Z
Z- a
�m z
0o ; t 't W
v ccIv
O 2MW
ZO C
air VZ
Lai
mU zCCU
mo Li
Zp
QJ U
O
IV
t
$ o
u �
N
X
d
0
O �
La
�c
W
Ir
C
PLATE N0. 8
w
Ul
Z
W
°
J
V_
? -""
Z
C °
w
0
CL
Cn
Li O
Z
w
r
Q <
Q
D
Z
Li
o
Q
o
W
°
�-
Z
<
a
U
N
° o�,°
Z N
I.-
Z =
LAJ
Z F_-
Z
J
LJ
U
Q J
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
0
o�
s
O
IV
t
$ o
u �
N
X
d
0
O �
La
�c
W
Ir
C
PLATE N0. 8
>- I- _ „
V
ZiE a Z c i
O l
o UO g ' o
°' O a
Z -j X m
m
� i G 0 Ln Y N
H o d �H W a n
z cn W ! z o> Vi
c -3 cr
O ZV o bE Z W =1Z J
(� J J J 0 Z '>, CDC a
U
z F-O� I Q° o F
(� I
-OW W W A I` V bi n
I) aM wo= V, o
W — M �� Z
0 Q 404, +4 h z = o
N
m Z
�o n n W 0Z
� U N Z W h c `��� I�
jx;n W W W m� I `��► Cl w
1� O {i m W x o
F— F o o� a s" 6. ' W I W
P
v -' t Fi >
PR N K 0,1'�
i 7oi acb �`�
1sa trsb �� \ n ✓ '� � � � I
P
� ,.\.\
J `
,:F _
'� \\ v.. ��`' o y t., •�� 'IS OOO#,3313
Z o tAtl A -AI b �I ; 4I
09 M \\k �, CU-0010 3�o I—
OSL -010 Jrlil \`\ \ ti AI9S•OOl0 _ ``�'� G
m '3AV llVH
U \ \\ e e q o \
i .ts ! S \\ W _ .J W L - j
r
0 0 091-010 SMOVJ OU -0 10 • ; Oa833
z N a1
s blob � s I
0 I ��
Of OCI -010 33(lad5 OR-010 Q
Q � A = �F3
14�
A• ® / OO
W OEI.010 HJarl SR n 5 a a
d
(�
r.r� ! 10 a d St OS( SLO B
L _ _ d 5
Q Ail Oitb Ab • �' I ,
/1 MrO
V � StAIKLO � 090 LO 8g � 1 \
o N3O in O Z it
OI O
Z V
u III W13 � O
111 QI o
.D, Iil 7_ in
111 31 � tr
111 ° g ml>
061-RO JalB
rLA I L NU. 9
I
El
N
I
I
I
14
7
6w
I
H
H
9
XI. APPENDIX NA'
Recommended Plan Cost Estimate
21
0
B
1
C
E
E
E
C
E
E I C
J
o Z a 'J
Oy Z ow 4 I
UD �M�
Z -j °
z c � N of Q CS
az M�
�U z ~Z a
U —
o
MC) X: W N e
O apex off,
Zp Cr W
as*
- 0 000 ' Of
d
- W ' N
Ln O
W
W
W
W
M
22
C
MODEL -1 EXISTING ALIGNMENT.PROJECT3 -4
Estimates as of 9- 17 -88, file: Cost
-1a; Revised: 9
-1 -92
DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
UNIT
UNIT PRICE
_ESTIMATED COST
LINE A
72" RCP
1320.00
LF
$214
S282,480
93" RCP
1320.00
LF
$310
$409,200
114" RCP
2640.00
LF
$393
$1,037,520
120" RCP
660.00
LF
$414
$273,240
MANHOLE NO. 2
72"
1.00
Ea
$3,201
$3,201
93"
1.00
Ea
$4,293
S4,293
114" TO 120"
1.00
Ea
$5,774
$5,774
114"
3.00
Ea
$5,620
S16,860
120"
1.00
Ea
$5,928
$5,928
MANHOLE NO. 4
42 TO 72 & 45
1.00
Ea
$4,504
$4,504
45" TO 93" & 72"
51" TO 114" & 93"
1.00
1.00
Ea
Ea
$5,388
$6,978
$5,388
$6,978
120" TO 120" & 48"
1.00
Ea
$6,325
$6,325
L
TOTAL LINE A
S2,061,691
LINE A2
36"
1320.00
LF
$112
$147,840
42"
1320.00
LF
$127
S167,640
MANHOLE NO.2
36" TO 42"
1.00
Ea
$2,185
$2,185
36"
2.00
Ea
$2,185
$4,370
42
1.00
Ea
$2,185
$2,185
TOTAL LINE A2
S324,220
C
LINE A3
.
36"
1320. 00
LF
$112
$147,840
45"
1320.00
LF
$131
S172,920
MANHOLE NO. 2
36" TO 45"
1.00
Ea
$2,185
$2,185
36"
2.00
Ea
$2,185
$4,370
45"
1.00
Ea
$2
$2,263
TOTAL LINE A3
$8
LINE A4
30"
51"
1000.00
2640.00
LF
LF
$101
$139
$101,000
$366,960
MANHOLE NO. 2
30" TO 51"
1.00
Ea
$2,225
$2,225
30"
1.00
Ea
$2,185
$2,185
51"
3.00
Ea
$2,416
$7,248
TOTAL LINE A4
$479,618
SUBTOTAL
$2,874,347
t, t, t, t***, t**, t, r*******, t, t, t, t, t*, t*, t****» t* �******, t, t, r**** i*:, r****, t, t, t*, t**•• r:, t, t*********** i *: *,t * * *,r * *,r,t *,t *,r * * * * *,r,
LINE B
39" RCP
240.00
LF
$123
$29,520
45" RCP
1320.00
LF
$134
$176,880
48" RCP
1320.00
LF
$140
$184,800
120" RCP
3820.00
LF
$413
$1,577,660
MANHOLE NO. 2
45" TO 48"
1.00
Ea
$2,340
$2,340
36"
1.00
Ea
$2,224
$2,224
39"
45"
1.00
1.00
Ea
Ea
$2,224
$2,302
$2,224
$2,302
48"
1.00
Ea
$2,377
$2,377
54"
1.00
Ea
$2,530
$2,530
120"
3.00
Ea
$5,928
$17,784
MANHOLE NO. 4
54" TO 45" & 39"
1.00
Ea
$4,313
$4,313
36" TO 120" & 120"
1.00
Ea
$7,422
$7,422
TOTAL LINE B
$2,012,376
LINE B1
54" RCP
660.00
LF
$148
$97,680
MANHOLE NO. 2
54"
1.00
Ea
$2,530
$2,530
TOTAL LINE B1
$100,210
LINE B2
36" RCP
660.00
LF
$112
$73,920
MANHOLE NO. 2
36"
2.00
Ea
$2,185
$4,370
TOTAL LINE 62
$78,290
SUBTOTAL
$2,190,876
*****, r***, r**•******, r*******, r, r**, r*„ r* �**, t*, t**, r***** e, r,*, r*, t** tr***** *:********* * * * *i *: * * *
* * * *,r * * * * * * * *,r,r * *,
7
LINE C
69" RCP
1380.00
LF
$209
S288,420
78" RCP
1380.00
LF
S249
$343,620
81" RCP
1780.00
LF
$255
$453,900
87" RCP
850.00
LF
5286
$243,100
MANHOLE NO. 2
No
69" TO 78"
1.00
Ea
$3,526
$3,526
78" TO 81"
1.00
Ea
$3,622
$3,622
81" TO 87"
87"
1.00
2.00
Ea
Ea
$3,660
$3,814
$3,660
$7,628
8
4.00
Ea
$3,526
$14,104
OR
78"
69"
1.00
1.00
Ea
Ea
$3,640
$3,297
$3,640
$3,297
63"
1.00
Ea
$2,894
$2,894
16
48"
1.00
Ea
$2,512
$2,512
TOTAL LINE C
$1,373,923
SUBTOTAL
$1,373,923
7
LINE D
T.C.C.
B =10' d =8.5'
3003.38
C.Y.
$298
$895,006
R/W COST
6.92
ACRES
$90,000
$622,800
B =10' d =11'
1820.91
C.Y.
$298
$542,630
R/W COST
3.77
ACRES
$90,000
$339,300
n =.015 Z =1.5:1
SLAB THICKNESS = 6"
108" RCP
2640.00
LF
$364
$960,960
MANHOLE NO. 2
87" TO 108"
1.00
Ea
$3,832
$3,832
108"
5.00
Ea
$5,140
$25,700
TOTAL LINED
$3,390,228
LINE D1
42" RCP
1320.00
LF
$131
$172,920
45" RCP
1320.00
LF
$137
$180,840
48" RCP
1980.00
LF
$142
$281,160
51" RCP
950.00
LF
$146
$138,700
MANHOLE NO. 2
42" TO 45"
1.00
Ea
$2,321
$2,321
45" TO 48"
1.00
Ea
$2,397
$2,397
48" TO 51"
42"
1.00
3.00
Ea
Ea
$2,473
$2,281
$2,473
$6,843
45"
2.00
Ea
$2,359
$4,718
48"
51"
3.00
1.00
Ea
Ea
$2,435
$2
$7,305
$2 512
TOTAL LINE D1
$802
LINE D2
39" RCP
1140.00
LF
$124
$141,360
45" RCP
1320.00
LF
$137
$180,840
48" RCP
1320.00
LF
$142
$187,440
60" RCP
1320.00
LF
$165
$217,800
63' RCP
1070.00
LF
$174
$186,180
j
TOTAL LINE D3 $923,781
SUBTOTAL $6,056,951
* t* t* t** t* t*•*********** r r**** k* t t �* r t********* ti*:******* tr, t, t**•*: it, t*, t**, t, t, t *,t * *i *: * * * * * *,t * * * * * * * * * *t * * �
u
r
n
's
-0
MANHOLE NO. 2
39" TO 45"
1.00
Ea
$2,281
$2,281
45" TO 48"
1.00
Ea
52,397
S2,397
48" TO 60"
1.00
Ea
$2,588
$2,588
60" TO 63"
1.00
Ea
$2,780
$2,780
39"
2.00
Ea
$2,281
$4,562
45"
1.00
Ea
$2,359
$2,359
48"
2.00
Ea
$2,435
$4,870
60"
2.00
Ea
$2,648
$5,296
TOTAL LINE D2
$940,753
LINE D3
39" RCP
45" RCP
1320.00
1320.00
LF
LF
$124
$137
$163,680
$180,840
48" RCP
1320.00
LF
$142
$187,440
51" RCP
57" RCP
1320.00
1100.00
LF
LF
$146
$157
$192,720
$172,700
MANHOLE NO. 2
39" TO 45"
1.00
Ea
$2,281
$2,281
45" TO 48"
1.00
Ea
$2,397
$2,397
48" TO 51"
1.00
Ea
$2,473
$2,473
51" TO 57"
1.00
Ea
$2,588
$2,588
39"
2.00
Ea
$2,281
$4,562
45"
2.00
Ea
$2,359
$4,718
48"
2.00
Ea
$2,435
$4,870
51"
1.00
Ea
$2,512
$2,512
TOTAL LINE D3 $923,781
SUBTOTAL $6,056,951
* t* t* t** t* t*•*********** r r**** k* t t �* r t********* ti*:******* tr, t, t**•*: it, t*, t**, t, t, t *,t * *i *: * * * * * *,t * * * * * * * * * *t * * �
u
r
n
's
-0
e
LINE E
T.C.C.
0
C
0
u
B =10' d =5.5'
1077.21
C.Y.
$298
S321,010
R/W COST
2.98
ACRES
S90,000
$268,200
B =10' d =10'
3778.26
C.Y.
$298
$1,125,921
R/W COST
8.14
ACRES
$90,000
$732,600
B =10' d =11'
2483.05
C.Y.
$298
$739,950
R/W COST
5.14
ACRES
$90,000
$462,600
n =.015 Z =1.5:1
1.00
Ea
$2,512
$2,512
SLAB THICKNESS = 6"
1.00
Ea
$2,648
$2,648
R.C.C.
B =25' d =15' 3800.00 C.Y. $381 $1,447,800
R/W COST 2.77 ACRES $90,000 $249,300
n =.014
WALL & SLAB THICKNESS = 12"
TOTAL LINE E $5,347,381
LINE E1
45"
RCP
1320.00
LF
$137
$180,840
48"
RCP
1320.00
LF
$142
$187,440
51"
RCP
1380.00
LF
$146
5201,480
60"
RCP
1380.00
LF
$165
$227,700
75"
RCP
440.00
LF
$226
$99,440
MANHOLE NO. 2
45" TO 48"
1.00
Ea
$2,397
$2,397
48" TO 51 "
1.00
Ea
$2,473
$2,473
51" TO 60"
1.00
Ea
$2,627
$2,627
60" TO 75"
1.00
Ea
$3,028
$3,028
45"
2.00
Ea
$2,359
$4,718
48"
1.00
Ea
$2,435
$2,435
51"
1.00
Ea
$2,512
$2,512
60"
1.00
Ea
$2,648
$2,648
TOTAL LINE E1 $919
S
LINE E2
42" RCP
1320.00
LF
$131
S172,920
48" RCP
1320.00
LF
$142
$187,440
78" RCP
950.00
LF
$238
S226,100
MANHOLE NO. 2
42" TO 48"
1.00
Ea
$2,359
$2,359
48" TO 78"
1.00
Ea
$3,047
$3,047
42"
2.00
Ea
$2,281
$4,562
48"
2.00
Ea
$2
$4,794
TOTAL LINE E3
TOTAL LINE E2
_
$601.222
LINE E3
TOTAL LINE E4 $433
SUBTOTAL $7,446,196
r*, r**, t****, r, r, t* xx**********, r, r**, r, r,** �*, r* x***, r** x** y* �**, r****, r****•* �******, r*** * * *i *; * * * * * * * *,r * *,r * * * *+r,r *x,
36" RCP
1250.00
LF
$112
$140,000
MANHOLE NO.2
36"
2.00
Ea
$2,185
$4,370
TOTAL LINE E3
$144,370
L LINE
E4
54" RCP
1400.00
LF
$151
$211,400
63" RCP
1200.00
LF
$174
$208,800
go
MANHOLE NO. 2
54" TO 63"
1.00
Ea
$2,703
$2,703
54"
3.00
Ea
$2,588
$7,764
63"
1.00
Ea
$2,818
$2,818
TOTAL LINE E4 $433
SUBTOTAL $7,446,196
r*, r**, t****, r, r, t* xx**********, r, r**, r, r,** �*, r* x***, r** x** y* �**, r****, r****•* �******, r*** * * *i *; * * * * * * * *,r * *,r * * * *+r,r *x,
MANHOLE NO. 2
LINE F
45" RCP
1500.00
LF
$142
S213,000
66" RCP
3320.00
LF
$192
$637,440
90" RCP
1410.00
LF
$300
$423,000
108" RCP
2670.00
LF
$364
$971,880
!
120" RCP
5700.00
LF
$414
S2,359,800
MANHOLE NO. 2
45" TO 66"
1.00
Ea
$2,780
$2,780
90" TO 108"
1.00
Ea
$4,678
$4,678
108" TO 120"
1.00
Ea
$5,620
$5,620
45"
2.00
Ea
$2,512
$5,024
66"
4.00
Ea
$3,047
$12,188
90"
2.00
Ea
$4,139
$8,278
108"
3.00
Ea
$5,140
$15,420
120"
7.00
Ea
$5,928
$41,496
MANHOLE NO. 4
72" TO 90" & 66"
1.00
Ea
$6,421
$6,421
EXCAVATION & HAULING
120" RCP
193414
C.Y
$4
S7
TOTAL LINE F
$5
SUBTOTAL
$5,480,681
TOTAL $26,695,616
15 PERCENT CONTINGENCIES $4,004,342
GRAND TOTAL $30
d
LINE G
54" RCP
510.00
LF
$157
S80,070
69" RCP
1360.00
LF
$202
$274,720
72" RCP
1060.00
LF
$214
$226,840
75" RCP
400.00
LF
$226
$90,400
78" RCP
2380.00
LF
$238
$566,440
MANHOLE NO. 2
54" TO 69"
1.00
Ea
$2,933
$2,933
69" TO 72"
72" TO 75"
1.00
1.00
Ea
Ea
$3,163
$2,359
$3,163
$2,359
75" TO 78"
1.00
Ea
$3,353
$3,353
78" TO 72"
1.00
Ea
$3,316
$3,316
54"
1.00
Ea
$2,740
$2,740
69"
1.00
Ea
$3,124
$3,124
72"
2.00
Ea
$3,201
$6,402
78"
2.00
Ea
$3
$6
TOTAL LINE G
$1,272,642
SUBTOTAL
$1,272,642
TOTAL $26,695,616
15 PERCENT CONTINGENCIES $4,004,342
GRAND TOTAL $30
d
H
I
1;
XII. APPENDIX IBI
Detailed Line Oost Breakdowns
0
d
FIT7
1 33
0
f
0 _
N
t =W
n
O W
W
t 70
C r
1
Z N O O
t � N
� � O
t �
I �4.
Y o °
I �a
t N �
�a
��J
f
I
I
I
W
i
OOO — CO C. I
EA fig f!9 I
N
N
O
b9
I
I N
I
Cn co S
CO
I
I M
LO
Cl N 1
CCC
cc
^^
i �
L
(/)
r- CO
O T (O I
O
M
I O
I CO
N O M
O IT N I
I co
(O
r`
�
Y
ff) EA fH i
69.
i E��9
I
I
I
1
I
I
N
fig
cn
fR
W
Q Cl o
I
O O (O O Il. N I
cwiUn I
er
N
M
I
1 (D
I
1
���
co
cl: 10 10
c`oo_
M
a co
I
I
rn
(�
- r- cnM I N
l
I
O
CDN
f0 ff3 fA 1613 d?
o
Q 69
i
i
i
co
I
i
I
I
I
I
i
OOOOtn O I
MMcomr-r,
(O
N
I O
D7 c) 1
cn
0
I
(
LJO
I N
-r-P- i^
rn
U
( I
(
N
I N
CVO 1
(O
(O
L
��fs6F�� I
M
I M
��� t
o
O
C7
(h
oft
I
I
I
000�nr,r�
I
OOO CC) r�m
W
O o O CO I (O
Z
Z
W
Q
N
O O O M N O rl_
0
0
W W W
}
U
N (O
J J J
000
p
0
Z
Z
222
Q
p
W
Z
J
J
Z
Z
Q Q Q
w
<
J
�
Q
g
O
O
.
O to Ln O (C) In
Cn q O CO Cn
2
� ��
�
N N
N CC')
O
O
(V CM
0
0
U)
O
=
H
p o p
0
0
Q
0
ZZZ
O
O
U
U
U
I—
NtoovOo
�
_J
fA EA ffl ffl 69 fA
Q
W
p
=
0 0 0 0 0 0
M
�r
CO V
CO� C7'
Z�
J
Q J_
W
U
N
` Q
W
Z
J J
cc LA-
(n
UAL � to
WQ
pp
00
O J
E,
M X X X X co
a U
2 2
~ p
0 Co 0 0 Cl
r r
W L J
0 0
J O
F- w
Z Z
Q
UU
�6
U
~
dUUUUU
ww
o� cc
U
U U U U U U
CC
0
U J
CL
v)
<
F-
0
00
Q Z
N
T Un( rticocf)
Q
U
J J
»
OU
O
OO
O
O ( �
p w p w
Z
ZC*
I—
O
c�
00
LL�
OU
o
T I RT � O N O
II II
II 11
II II
W
r
T
O- U
^ N
(~n
0
Z
Z
0
Cr- F -
Z Z
QO
: O
° U
J
�
2
0 0 0 0 0 0
F
O to O O O O
Ur
CO O I� M r� <T
Zv
. - - r — N�
W
F- F- F- H E- Q
W
O Lo O (O to O
I -4t
co N O to
I Lo
O)
0
00
cc
M Wto M u)
N
co
M 2
W
W
0
W W
1 LV
o
i
1� N M
CO
O
Z Z
m
-
N
-
F-
U U
:
CO 1\ O to O)
I
p M
I m
N
'
>
Q
1 O
I O
O)
y
69 69 69 69 69 E9
69 69 f9 69
0 0
F-
Q
OZ
m
W W
I Efl
I
U
I 69
(A
> >
O
I
I
W W
O O
I
I
1
O
F-
LU W !
W
O tt O 1 Ln N
1 co
O O O O
I O
CO
Q
69 O 1- O to lqr
I r�
69 69 69 69
I 69
r-
11 II
U U
II II
�
II
Q
N O7 1" 1l Lo
I -
a: F-
1
O
CIJ
O
N
U
1
(_
(O M to O
I
I
N
N a? N (O O)
I Lo
L'
H
69 69 to EA f9
I
I
(
ENn
I
I
I
I
I
F-
0 C) O Cl) O O
I N
co N O L
1 to
t`
M N O LO O
O
M N CO
0)
O')
O
N O to to
I Cl
t� N M
I O
.-
w
(�
(3) O CO N 1�z
CO CO CO O) O M
i ^
I qzr
O) v
r O CT M
I CO
I O)
(O
�t
r
to qt 1- Lr) N (O
M
M (O — V
O
�t
g
69 69 69 6s r
I Ljr)
69 EA 69 E9
I
d9 t!9
i 6g
CV
( v9
1l-
E9
I
I
I
I
Q
O � M (O N tt
O �Y r 0) 1 % , M
c
Lo LP) q* to LO
W
F-
N N
O
U
M Loo v'It u•)
W
y
CO T O) O ¢t LO
J
W
O
.- N N N
z
W
W
J
U) (n C) U
Ir
J
Z
Z
2 2 2 2
W
Q
CC
N
O to to Lo O O
�S
J
O
O
V
LO
(O m O (D
LL-
W
LL
O M
CV) vvLOLO
O
NM ct
O
O
U)
O
F-
W W W w
U
(n
WWWW
U)
O
Z Z Z Z
O
O
U
U
J J J J
U
U
1\ O O) O7 LO N
0
U-
N to to to -t *-
W
�
Cl) � et V I�t N
��11
_J
F-
69 vi 69 Eg ER r
69
W
0
2
0 0 0 0 0 0
F
O to O O O O
Ur
CO O I� M r� <T
Zv
. - - r — N�
W
F- F- F- H E- Q
J
Z
W
N
U X X X X X X
¢v ooaOCD0
U- N
W
LLB
CL
W
~
U
U U U U U U
Q
F- F- F- H E- Q
LL
Z
N
M et to (O I-- o
W
M M M M M M
0
00
O
Z
a U
N M � to O 1`
W M M Cl) M Cl) M
0
O
Z
U)
W
F-
Q J
LLB
'� N
W
Q
Z
--1 - j
CC
LL
Z
W W
Q
r
a 2
00
a U
M 2
W
W
0
W W
0 0
J
O
F- w
W
Z Z
m
Q
(n U)
F-
U U
:
>
Z
m
>
Q
a a
co
Q J<
0 0
F-
Q
OZ
W 0
W W
U
U —
O
> >
O
Q
O N
W W
O O
�
O
F-
LU W !
O O
O
F-
UO
w a m
CC F-
L- LL
�
U
11 II
U U
II II
�
II
Q
II
U)
a: F-
1
O
O
°
U
J
W
O O O o 0 a a o M o (D I
tT O
1 0
cc
fA 69 EA 69 69 69 69 69 W M
i -
C)
�
i
Q
o o
o
LO
_
VT r� N I
M
r.
I T
C14 cli Cl)
co
I O
y
69 69 69 (
69
69
m
1
I
�
�
I
I
I
1
W
o a(D O O 0 0 0 r N .V 1
(D
O
I Cl)
Q
O O It O O O CD O r O M 1
_
O_ O <T R. O ct I � o W O
C'
� (DD
1 p
=
M ♦T M W M T O (D to In M 1
r
!f M
1 M
CO
T co U) LA (D M O r- Lf) eT M 1
N
to r-
I
y
N C N N T eT tr O (A M N I
to
EA r
(�
69 49 b9 69 69 69 69 r 69 69 69
69
1
Q
69
1 69
I
1
I
1
1
H
O O O O O O o a 0 CD 0 1
(n
O o IT Co O M O O O O
N
O
I o
0
O o V C C V : q t qz� to (D N I
+-
M (D
I O
(�
M G M Ln co T O (D cr� N r I
t(j
CV)
I
r co to to co M O r- r- r- Cl) 1
O
o fl
�
_
N Cl) N N r qcr O Ln M M
Co
►-
I ,
496S 69 69 69 69 69 769 69 69 I
, * 7
69 69
I
6 I
E9
Lr
1 69
I
1
1
I
Q
O O O O O O O O c0 I- M
O O O O O O O O M N O
Cn
o
O O O o 0 0 0 0 M M M
T T T T T
0
VJ U
O
Z
N h
O O O O O O O O o 0 0
W O
� v
Cl) O o
Q
�
LL
Q
O
W
= Q
0
Q U
U
_Z
J
W
m
y
O O O O O O (D U) Ln Ln Ln
W
Q
LO � M M LO M N N N N N
Z
LL
U
N N I- 1- fZ co w m w co
J
(n
Q
J
U
O
O
U
F-
cl
LL
<Y M M O O (D M r T
_J
(A 69 ti9 49 69 69 49 69 49 69 69
a
.
F-
W
2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O N w to to N O O O O
M to M M CO
Z
T N T T N -T
W
W
J
Q
-�
T N
Q
_J
U
Z
m
LL-
N
Z
W W
Q
0 0 0 0 0 N N Z:>
W=
O O
O
J
U�
0 0 N
(o (D M M r T T r r r
a
Ljj
LL-
W
ui
0 0
J
0
► - W
W
_Z _Z
m
m
W
m
(n (n
F-
>
V U
D D
_
L)
F
a a a n. a n. a a a a a
Z Z
a 0
m
U U U U U U U U U U U
O
W W
¢
m
a
ccccmmmmmmmmm
(1U
as
U)
LL
a<
oo
a
o
N
M o m O N M� LA (D r-_ M
o T N N N N N N N M
V 0
> j
()
W
T T T T T T T T T
m O
W W
0
O
Q
0 W
0 0
F-
O
Z
Z *
u
lL
Q
W CC
00
J J
O
0
m F-
LL tL
o
U
�'
o M O M O N M � LA (D I�
11 II
II it
II
11
W
o T N N N N N N N
Q
r T r T T T r T r r r
Q
U U
r N
Q
'^
O
L--
m
0
\
0
Z
�
O Q
U
W
''
I
I
I
I u
I II
I 11
I
I
I
I n
1 II
I ii
F- I
1l- (O Cl) •- M N
I CO r II
M
F - I
f- N
I O N II
N
N
p (
M c0 M M tD (D
I W II
O
O i
p
1 co N II
M
M
U I
raMONCV
I st II
U I
C6&06
1 0 11
U
am
I
f M r M M r-
1 M II
I
I II
I
CO M N f� N
t� M
I II
^
I
� � (D
C O_
I II
M
t0
W
N N r= r M
N r
ti
N
►n
O
m
I
t1? EA to fA f& 69
I 69 II
I
to 3
I EA II
co
Q
I
I II
69
I
i ,9
4 Or)
m
I
I II
I
I II
�
I
I II
I
I II
QQ�
I
m gm
CC
W
I
W w
w w
►-
I
N I
m m �
V
I
C: c r
U
Q Q
Q Q
co c
U) C/)
I
cn
z
C/)
z
wwwzZw
u'
Z
w
co
O
U
O I
1
¢a: a: E¢
��
U
z
zl
O I
cm�
U
z
N
Z
¢ I
p F- 1- H
z Z Z a W Z
1
~ I
0 Z L
_
O
U
O
O 1
w w w w w w
z
p l
w w W
z
Z
►_
d i
_Z z
O
d l
z z
O
O
U
I
J J
o
D
m
1
�
U
I
o
U
Cl)
I
T
I
I
r
I
i
I
I
co
Q i
w i
QmUOLL
i
pww
zz
Z
W
Z i
J
W I
J I
cc I
J I
I
I
m l
I
J
Q
F-
m
O
0
Q
cA I
I
IIIIIII I-IIIIIII In III
SUMMARY OF LINE COSTS AND FAIR SHARE ALLOCATIONS
$30,699,961 $21,413,512 $9,286,449
TOTAL COST
SUBAREA A's
SUBAREA B's
LINE
FOR MODEL 1
FAIR SHARE
FAIR SHARE
A SYSTEM
$2,874,347
$2,874,347
$0
B SYSTEM
$2,190,876
$2,190,876
$0
C SYSTEM
$1,373,923
$1,373,923
$0
D MAINLINE
$3,390,229
$3,009,386
$380,843
D LATERALS
$2,666,723
$0
$2,666,723
E MAINLINE
$5,347,382
$2,520,178
$2,827,204
E LATERALS
$2,098,815
$0
$2,098,815
F SYSTEM
$5,480,681
$5,379,093
$101,588
G SYSTEM
------------------------------
$1,272,642
$1,272,642
$0
$26,695,618
$18,620,445
$8,075,173
15% CONT.
$4,004,343
$2,793,067
$1,211,276
$30,699,961 $21,413,512 $9,286,449