Peplow Road over Tributary to Union Ditch No. 3 · needed to replace the existing Peplow Road over Tributary to Union Ditch No. 3 and to stabilize approximately ½ mile of the tributary,

of 2

Request for Statement of Interest (SOI)

Peplow Road over Tributary of Union Ditch No. 3 The Kane County Division of Transportation is in need of professional services from a qualified engineering firm to provide engineering services as detailed in the attached preliminary scope of work. The County anticipates initiating this work in late September, 2013. A Statement of Interest shall be submitted VIA KDOTQBS no later than 4:00 P.M. on June 7th, 2013, and should be addressed to Michael Zakosek, P.E., Senior Project Manager. Statements of Interest received will be used by County engineering staff to develop a short-list of three (3) firms. The County will then submit a Request for Proposal (RFP) and schedule interviews with the short-listed firms. For more information regarding the SOI, such as content and format of these items, please reference the QBS document found at http://www.co.kane.il.us/dot/consultant/selectionProcess.pdf . Also, the SOI shall be submitted in PDF format viewable with the latest version of Adobe reader. If the respondent plans to utilize a sub-consultant for any portion of this work please note this on the submitted Statement of Interest. Short-listed firms will be posted at www.co.kane.il.us/dot. Click on the link labeled Consultant Selection, then click on the link labeled Consultant Selection Summary Table. A Statement of Interest (SOI) received after the above noted deadline will not be considered.
http://www.co.kane.il.us/dot/consultant/selectionProcess.pdfhttp://www.co.kane.il.us/dot

of 2

Peplow Road over Tributary to Union Ditch No. 3 Scope of Work PROJECT DESCRIPTION/PRELIMINARY SCOPE OF SERVICES This work consists of phase II design, permitting, and plat preparation services needed to replace the existing Peplow Road over Tributary to Union Ditch No. 3 and to stabilize approximately mile of the tributary, where it is adjacent to Peplow Road. A design report describing the project is attached. The selected consultant will design a replacement structure carrying Peplow Road over the tributary. The consultant will also value engineer all alternatives, as suggested in the report, to address the creek bank/roadway embankment issues. The consultant will then prepare final design plans and coordinate the permitting for the chosen alternative. It is likely the construction of this project will be phased. The bridge construction will be the first phase, followed by several phases of creek work. The selected consultant must demonstrate experience with creek stabilization/relocation, using natural and engineered (hard) methods.

Final Phase I Report

Peplow Road over Tributary of Union Ditch No. 3

Kane County Division of Transportation

December 2012

of 11


Table of Contents

LOCATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................ 2

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT ................................................................................................................... 3

RIGHT-OF-WAY ......................................................................................................................................... 6

FLOODPLAIN ENCROACHMENT ........................................................................................................... 6

ENVIRONMENTAL .................................................................................................................................... 9

MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC AND PROJECT STAGING .................................................................... 9

RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 10

SUMMARY OF ATTACHMENTS ........................................................................................................... 11

of 11

Location and Existing Conditions

a. Location The project is located in unincorporated Kane County approximately 2 miles north of the Village of Virgil. The study limits extend from Ramm Road on the south to north of the crossing of Tributary of Union Ditch No. 3. The roadway project length is 3695 feet (0.70 miles). The bridge is located about 0.5 miles north of Ramm Road in Burlington Township. See location map (Exhibit 1-1) and photos (Exhibit 1-2).

b. Description of Existing Facility Peplow Road is classified as a Minor Arterial and is under the jurisdiction and maintenance of Kane County. Ramm Road is classified as a Minor Arterial and is also under the jurisdiction and maintenance of Kane County. The Peplow Road right-of-way width is 60 throughout the project limits, centered at the centerline of the roadway. Land use around Peplow Road is agricultural with sparse residential. The intersection of Peplow Road with Ramm Road is a 4-way stop controlled intersection. Peplow Road within the project limits consists of two 12-foot wide lanes (one lane in each direction). There is an aggregate shoulder, approximately 2 feet in width on both sides of the road. There is steel plate beam guardrail on the east side of the roadway from Ramm Road to the Tributary of Union Ditch No. 3 crossing. See Exhibit 2-1 for Existing Typical Section. Guardrail also protects all four corners of the existing bridge over the Tributary. The Peplow Road alignment is on a tangent throughout the project limits with a very small (less than degree) kink point just south of the bridge. The Peplow Road alignment also kinks by approximately 1.5 at the intersection with Ramm Road. The existing Peplow Road profile is flat throughout the project limits, with slight variations in the centerline elevation. The existing speed limit on Peplow Road is 55 mph. No parking is currently allowed on either side of Peplow Road. According to pavement cores, Peplow Road currently consists of 8 to 9 of bituminous concrete over 1 to 3 of bituminous treated aggregate. The roadway base consists of 8 to 12 of gravel and sand. Drainage for the west side of Peplow Road consists of roadside ditches. On the east side of Peplow Road Virgil Ditch No. 3 runs parallel to the roadway and carries water south to a culvert under Ramm Road. The side slopes of Virgil Ditch No. 3 are as steep as 1:1 (H:V) in some locations. The Tributary of Union Ditch No. 3 crosses under Peplow Road approximately 2,600 north of Ramm Road and connects to Virgil Ditch No. 3. There is also an existing 36 corrugated metal pipe that crosses under Peplow Road approximately 500 north of Ramm Road and carries water from the roadside ditch to Virgil Ditch No. 3. The existing Peplow Road structure carrying the Tributary of Union Ditch No. 3 only passes the 2-year storm event and overtops the bridge at or above the 10-year storm event. The overtopping is due to the tailwater impacts created by Virgil Ditch No. 3 downstream of the bridge. There is significant channel bank erosion downstream of the structure on the east and west banks of the Tributary of Union Ditch No. 3. The only known utilities in the area are on the east side of Peplow Road. A copper cable owned by AT&T runs underground except at the bridge where it transitions to an aerial line.

of 11

Near where the transition to an aerial line occurs, there is also a pole mounted solar panel and what appears to be a cable box located. A handhole with IDOT stamped in the lid and a cabinet are also located on the east side of Peplow Road just north of the bridge. See Exhibits 8-1 to 8-4 for Utility Correspondence.

c. Traffic Data Current ADT: 600 (2010) 4.2% Trucks 2030 ADT: 7,000

d. Structures The structure is located on Peplow Road over the Tributary of Union Ditch No. 3 and is approximately 0.5 miles north of Ramm Road. There is no existing or proposed structure number.

Proposed Improvement

a. Purpose and Need The existing bridge is in poor condition and in need of replacement. The channel has also overtopped the road on numerous occasions. The east and west banks of Virgil Ditch No. 3 also exhibit slope stability issues. The purpose of this project is the replace the aging structure with one that is functionally within current standards and to improve roadway drainage as much as possible.

b. Design Guidelines Posted Speed Limit: 55 mph Design Speed: 60 mph Hydraulic Criteria: Per the direction of Kane County, 1 of freeboard must be provided over the 30 year HWE at the bridge and the bridge must pass the 50 year event.

c. Proposed Improvements The Peplow Road bridge over the Tributary of Union Ditch No. 3 will be replaced. The proposed bridge will be a single span structure consisting of a cast in place reinforced concrete slab. A concrete slab bridge was selected since it provides a low structural depth. The proposed bridge will have two 12 lanes and two 4 or 8 shoulders. The shoulder width will be selected at a later date depending primarily on budgetary constraints. The proposed width of the bridge deck will be either 32 or 40. The bridge deck elevation will be raised by approximately 3.8 over existing to provide 1 of clearance over the 30 year high water elevation. Peplow Road will be reconstructed and raised so that the edge of pavement will be at or above the 50-year high water mark from just north of Ramm Road to approximately 600 north of the bridge, at which point the channel turns and ceases to be adjacent to the roadway. Five alternatives were evaluated with various methods of addressing impacts to the drainage channel on the east side of Peplow Road:

of 11

Alternative 1 Alternative 1 included relocation of the existing channel to the east in order to accommodate the roadway profile adjustment and improve the channel side slopes to 3:1. The roadway side slopes will be constructed at 4:1 within the 30 clear zone to eliminate the need for a roadside barrier. The channel bottom will be widened from approximately 8 to 12. These proposed dimensions, with the more gentle side slopes and wider bottom, will provide a more stable channel cross-section than existing conditions. A geotechnical analysis was performed (report included as Appendix A) indicating that slope stability should not be an issue with the proposed relocated channel. However, a compacted clay layer is recommended for the surface of the channel to protect the channel from extensive surface erosion. Due to regulatory requirements, the new channel would need to be constructed and vegetated prior to receiving active flow. The new channel was designed so that it could be constructed while leaving the existing channel in place and providing 2 of freeboard above the normal water surface elevation. Constructing the new channel while maintaining the old channel in place up to the 2-year water surface elevation was not feasible due to the high elevation of the 2-year event. The exact details of the proposed channel requirements will require coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers during the permitting process. Early coordination with the Army Corps is recommended. The channel will be relocated from Ramm Road to just south of the bridge. From the bridge to the north, the existing channel is located too far east to make relocation feasible without severe ROW impacts. Where the existing channel will not be relocated, the upper edge of the east bank of the channel will be regraded to provide compensatory storage. Guardrail and approximately 230 of retaining wall will be provided near the bridge to avoid impacts to the existing channel. Guardrail will also be provided on the west side of the road to protect traffic from the bridge parapets. This option was only evaluated with 8 wide shoulders since the required grading east of the road will be largely independent of the shoulder width. See Exhibit 2-1 for a Typical Section and Exhibit 3-1 for the Roadway Plan and Profile. Alternatives 2 & 3 Alternatives 2 and 3 avoid impacting the drainage channel through the use of guardrail and retaining walls with either 4 or 8 shoulders. To avoid impacting the channel, installation of approximately 2,460 of retaining wall would be necessary from just north of Ramm Road to just north of the bridge. Guardrail will be needed on the east side of the roadway to shield the wall from traffic. The upper edge of the east bank of the channel will be regraded to provide compensatory floodplain storage. The profile design would remain the same as the channel relocation alternative. See Exhibit 2-1 for a Typical Section and Exhibit 3-2 for the Roadway Plan and Profile. Alternatives 4 & 5 Alternatives 4 and 5 involve shifting the centerline of Peplow Road 10 to the west with either 4 or 8 shoulders. By shifting the roadway away from the existing channel, the amount of retaining wall necessary to avoid impacts to the existing channel would be reduced. With this alternative, approximately 630 of retaining wall would be required to construct 8 wide shoulders. If 4 wide shoulders were used, approximately 210 of wall would be necessary. The wall lengths were determined by analyzing the cross sections for channel impacts. This alternative would require more ROW on the west side of the road than the alternatives using the existing centerline. Additional ROW on the east side of the road would still be necessary so that the upper edge of the east bank of the channel could be regraded to provide compensatory floodplain storage. The profile design would remain the same as the channel relocation alternative.

of 11

The centerline shift could be accomplished either by the use of kink points or by large diameter horizontal curves. The kink point method would increase the degree of kink at the Ramm Road intersection and then provide an additional kink point to bring the alignment back to the existing centerline north of the bridge. Other than the kink point at the stop controlled Ramm Road intersection, the kinks would all be less than 1 degree. If horizontal curves were used instead of kink points, IDOTs Bureau of Local Roads and Streets Manual specifies a minimum curve radius of 10,810 to avoid superelevation and a minimum curve length of 400 for a 60 mph design speed. In order to eliminate the kink points and meet the curve design criteria, the alignment shift would need to begin approximately 140 south of the Ramm Road centerline. The curved alignment would require more space than the kinked alignment to reach the full 10 shift, which would reduce the effectiveness of the shift near Ramm Road. The curved alignment shift would require approximately 100 more retaining wall and 160 more reconstructed pavement verses the kinked alignment. See Exhibit 2-1 for Typical Section and Exhibit 3-3 for the Roadway Plan and Profile using the kink point shift. See Exhibit 4-3 for a summary of the proposed alternatives. Two types of retaining wall were evaluated for use with all of the alternatives. A steel sheet pile wall was selected for use since it was found to be more cost effective than a soldier pile wall. Due to the possibility of continued erosion of the existing channel, the sheet piling was designed so that it extends below the bottom of the existing channel. Additional channel protection and stabilization could be considered as part of this or a future project but has not been included here in an effort to minimize impacts to the channel. The retaining wall will serve the purpose of protecting the roadway embankment from erosion damage. For all of the alternatives, an existing 36 CMP under the roadway located 500 north of Ramm Road will be removed and replaced and the ditches on the west side of the road will be regraded. One existing field entrance north of the bridge on the west side of Peplow Road will need to be raised to match the new roadway profile. See the Floodplain Encroachment section below for discussion of compensatory storage improvements.

d. Design Exceptions The proposed roadway profile is flatter than the 0.3% recommended minimum grade. Due to the ditches on both sides of the roadway, this should not present any drainage problems as long as curb and gutter is not anticipated in the future.

e. Current cost estimate The cost of the project depends on the option chosen. See Exhibit 4-3 for a summary of the alternatives including cost and see Exhibits 4-1 and 4-2 for detailed cost estimates of each alternative.

f. Proposed improvements being considered in adjacent segments The existing roadway and culvert carrying Virgil Ditch No. 3 under Ramm Road just east of Peplow Road will be improved as part of a separate future project. As part of this project, the culvert opening will likely be enlarged to allow for improved flow.

of 11

Right of Way a. Describe the right-of-way taking:

The existing channel on the east side of Peplow Road is outside of the existing ROW, so any modifications to the channel will require an easement or additional ROW. Right of way on the west side of the road will also need to be acquired to accommodate the profile change and/or centerline shift. An additional area of proposed ROW will be necessary to provide the appropriate amount of compensatory storage. The additional ROW for providing compensatory storage is proposed to come from the area north of the channel on the east side of the road. The total amount of proposed ROW varies from 8.23 acres to 9.19 acres depending on the alternative. The proposed ROW will impact existing farmland on the east and west sides of the road. No people, businesses or farms will be displaced by the proposed ROW take. See Exhibit 4-3 for a summary of the proposed ROW.

Floodplain Encroachment

a. Floodplains and floodways The majority of the improvement is located in a floodplain. Per Kane County ordinance, compensatory storage is required at a minimum 1:1 ratio for the 0-10 year floodplain elevation range and 10-100 year range, with a minimum 1.5:1 ratio required for the total floodplain fill. The extra 50% can be provided in either the 0-10 year range or the 10-100 year range or a combination of both. Throughout the length of the project the existing ground is below the 10-year floodplain elevation. Therefore, meeting the required compensatory storage for the 10-100 year floodplain elevation range is not feasible within the project limits. Either a variance from the compensatory storage requirements will be needed or the storage will need to be provided outside of the project limits. From a review of the aerial survey, there does not appear to be readily available existing ground above the 10-year floodplain elevation near Peplow Road even beyond the project limits. This makes meeting the floodplain compensatory storage requirements difficult.

Floodplain fill and compensatory storage volumes are summarized below: Alternative 1 With 8 shoulders and channel relocation, the total required compensatory storage for the 0-100 year floodplain elevation is 35,025 Cubic Yards and the provided compensatory storage is 35,512 Cubic Yards. The total compensatory storage requirements were met by excavating additional area north of the channel on the east side of Peplow Road (see exhibit 3-1). Compensatory storage was also obtained by cutting back the east bank of the channel above the normal water surface elevation. While the 1:1 ratio requirement is not met for the 10-100 year elevations, the overall total ratio of 1.5:1 is met by the excess storage provided in the 0-10 year range.

Proposed 24 wide roadway (two lanes) and 8 shoulders with relocated channel

Floodplain Fill

(cu.yd.)

Compensatory Storage

Requirement (cu. yd.)

Provided Compensatory

Storage (cu.yd.)

Additional Storage Needed (cu.yd.)

0 to 10-Year 17,612 17,612 (100%) 35,318

10 to 100-Year 5,738 5,738 (100%) 194 5,545

Total 23,350 35,025 (150%) 35,512

of 11

Alternative 2 With 4 shoulders and retaining wall protecting the channel, the estimated total required compensatory storage for the 0-100 year floodplain elevation is 17,078 Cubic Yards and the provided compensatory storage is 17,903 Cubic Yards. Again, although compensatory storage for the 10-100 year floodplain elevation range cannot be met, the total compensatory storage requirement is met by excavating additional area north of the channel on the east side of Peplow Road and cutting back the east bank of the channel above the normal water surface elevation.

Proposed 24 wide roadway (two lanes) and 4 shoulders with retaining wall

Floodplain Fill

(cu.yd.)




Storage (cu.yd.)


0 to 10-Year 6,264 6,264 (100%) 17,709

10 to 100-Year 5,121 5,121 (100%) 194 4,927

Total 11,385 17,078 (150%) 17,903 Alternative 3 With 8 shoulders and retaining wall protecting the channel, the estimated total required compensatory storage for the 0-100 year floodplain elevation is 21,377 Cubic Yards and the provided compensatory storage is 17,765 Cubic Yards. Due to the additional fill for the wider roadway embankment, the compensatory storage provided by excavating additional area north of the channel on the east side of Peplow Road and cutting back the east bank of the channel is not enough to satisfy the 1:1 requirement of the 10-100 year range or the overall 1.5:1 requirement. To meet the total compensatory storage requirement, off-site grading would be required.

Proposed 24 wide roadway (two lanes) and 8 shoulders with retaining wall

Floodplain Fill

(cu.yd.)




Storage (cu.yd.)


0 to 10-Year 8,288 8,288 (100%) 17,571

10 to 100-Year 5,963 5,963 (100%) 194 5,769

Total 14,251 21,377 (150%) 17,765 3,612

of 11

Alternative 4 With 4 shoulders, a 10 centerline shift to the west and retaining wall where necessary, the total required compensatory storage for the 0-100 year floodplain elevation is 20,134 Cubic Yards and the provided compensatory storage is 20,272 Cubic Yards. The total compensatory storage requirements were met by excavating additional area north of the channel on the east side of Peplow Road (see exhibit 3-3). Compensatory storage was also obtained by cutting back the east and west banks of the channel above the normal water surface elevation. While the 1:1 ratio requirement is not met for the 10-100 year elevations, the overall total ratio of 1.5:1 is met by the excess storage provided in the 0-10 year range.

Proposed 24 wide roadway (two lanes) with 10 centerline shift and 4 shoulders

Floodplain Fill

(cu.yd.)




Storage (cu.yd.)


0 to 10-Year 8,193 8,193 (100%) 20,054

10 to 100-Year 5,230 5,230 (100%) 218 5,013

Total 13,423 20,134 (150%) 20,272

Alternative 5 With 8 shoulders, a 10 centerline shift to the west and retaining wall where necessary, the total required compensatory storage for the 0-100 year floodplain elevation is 23,036 cubic yards and the provided compensatory storage is 17,802 cubic yards. Due to the additional fill for the wider roadway embankment, the compensatory storage provided by excavating additional area north of the channel on the east side of Peplow Road and cutting back the east bank of the channel is not enough to satisfy the 1:1 requirement in the 10-100 year range or the overall 1.5:1 requirement. To meet the total compensatory storage requirement, off-site grading would be required.

Proposed 24 wide roadway (two lanes) with 10 centerline shift

and 8 shoulders Floodplain

Fill (cu.yd.)




Storage (cu.yd.)


0 to 10-Year 9,463 9,463 (100%) 17,607

10 to 100-Year 5,894 5,894 (100%) 195 5,699

Total 15,357 23,036 (150%) 17,802 5,234

of 11

b. Floodplain Permit Requirements The project will require a permit in accordance with the Kane County Stormwater Management Ordinance and a permit from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Office of Water Resources for work in the floodplain.

Environmental a. Wetlands

Wetland delineation was performed for the project, according to the Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and applicable supplements. One wetland site was identified in the project limits. This wetland follows Virgil Ditch from the south end of the project through to the north end of the project. This same wetland extends through the Peplow Road bridge and along the tributary to the west project limits. Approximately 1.39 acres of wetlands within the project limits will be disturbed if the channel is relocated (Alternative 1). Approximately 0.44 acres of wetlands would be disturbed for Alternatives 2-5 (no channel relocation). The wetlands will be mitigated by purchasing credits at an approved wetland bank. A 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers will be required prior to construction. Alternative 1 would require an individual permit, while Alternatives 2-5 should meet regional permit requirements. The individual permit would include a much more lengthy permitting process and require a 5-7 year maintenance and monitoring period after construction is completed.

b. Stream modification The increase in the proposed pavement width and the proposed profile raise will impact the existing channel. If no guardrail, alignment shift or retaining wall is used, stream realignment will be necessary to provide room for the proposed roadway. The stream modifications will also improve the geometry of the channel. The bank slopes will be flattened to increase bank stability and the overall shape will improve flow characteristics, reducing the water surface elevations along the stream and through the bridge. The 10 shift and retaining wall alternatives are provided to maintain the channel on its existing alignment. The only channel modifications in these options involve cutting back the east and/or west bank of the channel to provide compensatory storage.

c. Special waste Due to the agricultural nature of the project area, special waste is not anticipated during construction of this project.

Maintenance of Traffic and Project Staging It is anticipated that construction of the project will be completed under a road closure. The proposed detour route will use Ramm Road, McGough Road and Ellithorpe Road. These roads are all county routes and are two way, two lane roadways. See Exhibit 3-4 for the Detour Plan. If necessary, one lane of traffic could remain open during construction. This would require the construction of temporary pavement. The lane of traffic could serve one direction or could be bi-directional with a temporary traffic signal. Due to the proximity of Ramm Road to the work zone, a temporary traffic signal would likely need to be installed at all four quadrants of the Ramm Road/Peplow Road intersection.

of 11

If channel relocation is required, regulatory agencies mandate that the new channel be constructed and vegetated prior to active flow being directed into the channel. This work will likely require the relocated channel be constructed in one construction season with the remaining road and bridge work being completed in the following construction season. Separating the bridge improvements from the road and channel work would be desirable in order to expedite the bridge construction schedule. However, due to the considerable profile change at the bridge and the need to provide compensatory storage prior to adding fill in the floodplain, separation of the roadway, channel and bridge improvements is not feasible. Recommendations The five evaluated alternatives were:

1. Using the existing alignment with 8 wide shoulders and relocating the channel 2. Using the existing alignment with 4 wide shoulders and retaining wall 3. Using the existing alignment with 8 wide shoulders and retaining wall 4. Shifting the alignment 10 to the west with 4 wide shoulders and limited retaining wall 5. Shifting the alignment 10 to the west with 8 wide shoulders and limited retaining wall

Of the five alternatives, Ciorba Group recommends Alternative 4 shifting the road to the west and using 4 wide shoulders. This option will significantly reduce the retaining wall, earthwork and compensatory storage required for the project and therefore reduce the cost associated with the project. If using kink points to shift the roadway is unacceptable, large horizontal curves could be used instead with a minimal cost increase. Using the curved alignment would require the improvements to extend south of Ramm Road however. The amount of retaining wall required to avoid impacts to the channel is very high if the existing centerline is used, which makes alternatives 2 and 3 the most expensive options. Alternatives 2 and 3 do require the least amount of ROW however. If the County desires to have 8 wide shoulders on Peplow Road relocating the channel (Alternative 1) is a favorable alternative. Alternative 1 is the only 8 shoulder alternative that would not require additional ROW beyond the project limits to meet the total compensatory storage requirements. Additional benefits of Alternative 1 include reduced guardrail, correction of channel erosion, enhanced aesthetics and environmental restoration. The downsides of Alternative 1 are its relatively high cost, large ROW take, lengthy permitting and construction time and post construction maintenance and monitoring requirements. It is important to note that due to existing ground elevations, compensatory storage requirements in the 10-100 year floodplain elevation range cannot be met regardless of the alternative chosen. The proposed roadway profile would remain the same for all the options. See Exhibit 4-3 for an alternative summary.

of 11

Summary of Attachments: Exhibit 1-1 Location Map Exhibit 1-2 Photos Exhibit 1-3 Flood Insurance Rate Map Exhibit 2-1 Existing and Proposed Typical Sections Exhibit 3-1 Plan and Profile Sheets Existing Centerline and Channel Relocation Exhibit 3-2 Plan and Profile Sheets Existing Centerline and Retaining Wall Exhibit 3-3 Plan and Profile Sheets Shifted Centerline Exhibit 3-4 Detour Plan Exhibit 4-1 Structural Cost Estimates Exhibit 4-2 Total Cost Estimates Exhibit 4-3 Alternative Summary Exhibit 6-1 Meeting Minutes Kane County (6/8/2011) Exhibit 6-2 Meeting Minutes Kane County (1/11/2012) Exhibit 7-1 Email Kane County (2/10/2011) Exhibit 7-2 Email Kane County (3/8/2011) Exhibit 7-3 Email Kane County (3/8/2011) Exhibit 8-1 Letter AT&T Response (12/7/2009) Exhibit 8-2 Letter Verizon Response (11/18/2009) Exhibit 8-3 Email ComEd Response (12/7/2009) Exhibit 8-4 Email - Nicor Response (12/7/2009) Appendix A Geotechnical Investigation Report Soil and Material Consultants, Inc.

PROJECT LOCATION MAP PEPLOW ROAD OVER TRIBUTARY OF UNION DITCH NO. 3

Exhibit 1-1

Project Location


Exhibit 1-2

Looking southeast at the Peplow Road/Ramm Road intersection

Looking north at the Peplow Road/Ramm Road intersection


Exhibit 1-2

Looking north on Peplow Road north of Ramm Road

Looking north at the Tributary of Union Ditch No. 3 culvert


Exhibit 1-2

Looking east at the Tributary to Union Ditch No. 3 culvert

Looking west at the Tributary to Union Ditch No. 3 culvert

DMM

PROJECT LOCATION

COUNTY

ILLINOIS

KANE

TOTAL

SHEETS

SHEET

NO.

N:\

PR

OJ\3

374\3

374.0

2\R

eports

\Drain

age_R

ept\

Hydrauli

c_R

ept\

Exhib

it\3

374.0

2-F

EM

A M

ap.d

gn

USER NAME =

PLOT SCALE = 2000.0000 / IN.

PLOT DATE = 6/15/2011 DATE

DESIGNED

CHECKED

DRAWN

-

-

-

-

REVISED -

-

-

-

REVISED

REVISED

REVISED4/25/2011FIL

E N

AM

E =

mthomas

Ciorba Group, Inc.

5507 North Cumberland Avenue, Suite 402

Chicago, Illinois 60656

Tel. 773.775.4009 Fax 773.775.4014 SCALE: SHEET NO. OF SHEETS STA. TO STA.

KANE COUNTY

PEPLOW ROAD OVER TRIBUTARY OF UNION DITCH NO. 3

EXHIBIT 1-3

FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP

RJR

RJR

1"=2000

EXISTING TYPICAL SECTION

~ PEPLOW ROAD

~ PEPLOW ROAD

12 122 & VARIES 2 & VARIES

EXISTING PGL

LOOKING NORTH

8" TO 9" BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT

1" TO 3" BITUMINOUS TREATED AGGREGATE

8" TO 12" SAND AND GRAVEL BASE

EX

IST

ING

R.O

.W.

EX

IST

ING

R.O

.W.

30 30

PROPOSED PGL

EX

IST

ING

R.O

.W.

30

12 12

30

EX

IST

ING

R.O

.W.

3:1

4:14:13:1 PROPOSED HOT MIX ASPHALT PAVEMENT

PROPOSED AGGREGATE SUBGRADE

PROPOSED HOT MIX ASPHALT SHOULDER

30 CLEAR ZONE

12

2

EMBANKMENT

PR

OP

OS

ED

R.O

.W.

PR

OP

OS

ED

R.O

.W.

VARIES 15-40 VARIES 15-90

2.0%4.0% 4.0%

2.0%

4 OR 8

STEEL PLATE BEAM GUARDRAIL

AGGREGATE SHOULDER

NOTES:

SHOULDER WIDTH AND PAVEMENT DESIGN TO BE

DETERMINED DURING PS&E STAGE

12

EXISTING AND PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTIONS

EXHIBIT 2-1

VIRGIL DITCH NO. 3

AGGREGATE BASE COURSE4:1 &

VARIES

3:1

1

2

NORMAL WATER SURFACE ELEVATION

LOOKING NORTH

STA. 203+00 TO 226+00

4:1

LOOKING NORTH

STA. 226+00 TO 233+00

3:1

2

3:1


EMBANKMENT

AGGREGATE BASE COURSE

PROPOSED HOT MIX ASPHALT PAVEMENT


PROPOSED RETAINING WALL

PR

OP

OS

ED

R.O

.W.

EX

IST

ING

R.O

.W.

EX

IST

ING

R.O

.W.

PR

OP

OS

ED

R.O

.W.

3030VARIES 15-40 VARIES 15-90

4 OR 8 12 12

4.0%2.0% 2.0%

PROPOSED PGL

~ PEPLOW ROAD

44

AGGREGATE SHOULDERS, TYPE B

8

8

PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION USING EXISTING CENTERLINE WITH CHANNEL RELOCATION (ALT 1)

PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION USING EXISTING CENTERLINE WITH CHANNEL RELOCATION (ALT 1)

SECTION COUNTY

ILLINOIS FED. AID PROJECT

KANE

TOTAL

SHEETS

SHEET

NO.RTE.

CONTRACT NO.

\\S

VR

202\P

ubli

c\P

RO

J\0

003374.0

0\0

003374.0

2\D

esig

n\P

roposedP

lan\3

374_02-T

ypS

ec.d

gn

USER NAME =

PLOT SCALE = 10.0000 / IN.


DESIGNED

CHECKED

DRAWN

-

-

-

-

REVISED -

-

-

-

REVISED

REVISED

REVISED

July 2011FIL

E N

AM

E =

mthomas

Ciorba Group, Inc.




F.A.P.

FED. ROAD DIST. NO. 1

KANE COUNTY

DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION

PEPLOW ROADOVER TRIBUTARY OF UNION DITCH No. 3

LOOKING NORTH

PROPOSED PGL

EX

IST

ING

R.O

.W.

12 12

30

4:13:1

PROPOSED HOT MIX ASPHALT PAVEMENT



2

EMBANKMENT

PR

OP

OS

ED

R.O

.W.

VARIES 15-50

2.0%4.0% 4.0%

2.0%

4 OR 8 4 OR 8

EX

IST

ING

R.O

.W.

3:1

VARIES 15-80

~ EXISTING

PEPLOW ROAD

~ PROPOSED

PEPLOW ROAD

VARIES 0-10


VARIES 20-30

EXHIBIT 2-1

2 2

~ PEPLOW ROAD

PROPOSED PGL

EX

IST

ING

R.O

.W.

30

12 12

30

EX

IST

ING

R.O

.W.

4:13:1 PROPOSED HOT MIX ASPHALT PAVEMENT


PROPOSED HOT MIX ASPHALT SHOULDER2

EMBANKMENT

PR

OP

OS

ED

R.O

.W.

VARIES 15-40 VARIES 15-85

2.0%4.0% 4.0%

2.0%

4 OR 8 4 OR 8


LOOKING NORTH

PR

OP

OS

ED

R.O

.W.

4


4:1

4

4:1

PR

OP

OS

ED

R.O

.W.

NOTES:

SHOULDER WIDTH AND PAVEMENT DESIGN TO BE


PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTIONS

PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION USING EXISTING CENTERLINE WITH RETAINING WALL (ALT 2 & 3)

PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION WITH 10 CENTERLINE SHIFT (ALT 4 & 5)

SECTION COUNTY


KANE

TOTAL

SHEETS

SHEET

NO.RTE.

CONTRACT NO.

\\S

VR

202\P

ubli

c\P

RO

J\0

003374.0

0\0

003374.0

2\D

esig

n\P

roposedP

lan\3

374_02-T

ypS

ec.d

gn

USER NAME =



DESIGNED

CHECKED

DRAWN

-

-

-

-

REVISED -

-

-

-

REVISED

REVISED

REVISED

July 2011FIL

E N

AM

E =

mthomas

Ciorba Group, Inc.




F.A.P.

FED. ROAD DIST. NO. 1

KANE COUNTY


PEPLOW ROADOVER TRIBUTARY OF UNION DITCH No. 3

850

855

860

865

870

875

880

885

850

855

860

865

870

875

880

885

8

12

12

8

PROPOSED R.O.W.

EXISTING R.O.W.

EXISTING R.O.W.

PROPOSED R.O.W.

~ PEPLOW ROAD

PROPOSED CHANNEL BOTTOM

EXISTING GROUND PROFILE

PROPOSED GROUND PROFILE

MA

TC

HL

INE

ST

A. 207+

00

SE

E S

HE

ET

2

BEGIN PROJECT

STA. 202+30

RA

MM

RO

AD

REMOVE EXISTING GUARDRAIL

1

LOW POINT = 870.84

181%%d3650"

15

30

30

90

40

NOTES:

SHOULDER WIDTH TO BE


PROPOSED DITCH

EXHIBIT 3-1

TREE REMOVAL (TYP.)

EXISTING CHANNEL BOTTOM

VIRGIL DITCH NO. 3

PROPOSED HMA PAVEMENTPROPOSED HMA SHOULDER

85

PLAN AND PROFILE - EXISTING CENTERLINE (CHANNEL RELOCATION)

201 202

PO

T S

ta 2

02+

09.0

6

203 204 205+00 206 207

X X

X X X X

VP

I S

TA

. 203+

00.0

0

EL

EV

AT

ION

872.1

2

+0.51% +0.71%

871.7

7

VP

I S

TA

. 205+

00.0

0

EL

EV

AT

ION

873.5

5

+0.71% -0.22%

180.00 V.C.

K = 193

ex = -0.21

SSD = 1248

+1

0.0

0 E

L.

87

2.9

1

+90.0

0 E

L. 873.3

5

201+00 201+50 202+00 202+50 203+00 203+50 204+00 204+50 205+00 205+50 206+00 206+50 207+00

871.5

2

871.5

4

871.7

0

871.7

9

871.8

5

87

2.0

9

872.2

8

872.2

1

871.9

6

871.7

2

871.5

4

871.3

4

871.2

2

871.8

7

872.1

2

872.4

8

872.8

3

873.1

5

873.3

4

87

3.4

0

873.3

3

873.2

3

873.1

2

SU

RV

EY

ED

PL

OT

TE

D

BY

DA

TE

NO

TE

BO

OK

NO

.

PL

AN

AL

IGN

ME

NT

CH

EC

KE

D

RT

. O

F W

AY

CH

EC

KE

D

CA

DD

FIL

E N

AM

E

PR

OF

ILE

SU

RV

EY

ED

PL

OT

TE

D

GR

AD

ES

CH

EC

KE

D

B.M

. N

OT

ED

ST

RU

CT

UR

E N

OT

AT

NS

CH

KD

BY

DA

TE

NO

TE

BO

OK

NO

.

SECTION COUNTY


KANE 7

TOTAL

SHEETS

SHEET

NO.RTE.

CONTRACT NO.

\\S

VR

202\P

ubli

c\P

RO

J\0

003374.0

0\0

003374.0

2\D

esig

n\P

roposedP

lan\3

374.0

2-P

NP

01.d

gn

USER NAME =



DESIGNED

CHECKED

DRAWN

-

-

-

-

REVISED -

-

-

-

REVISED

REVISED

REVISED

July 2011FIL

E N

AM

E =

mthomas

Ciorba Group, Inc.




F.A._.

FED. ROAD DIST. NO. _

PEPLOW ROADKANE COUNTY


OVER TRIBUTARY OF UNION DITCH No. 3

850

855

860

865

870

875

880

885

850

855

860

865

870

875

880

885

2

MA

TC

HL

INE

ST

A. 213+

00

SE

E S

HE

ET

3

MA

TC

HL

INE

ST

A.

20

7+

00

SE

E S

HE

ET

1

8

12

12

8

PROPOSED R.O.W.

EXISTING R.O.W.

EXISTING R.O.W.

PROPOSED R.O.W.

~ PEPLOW ROAD




890 890


25

30

30

85

40

30

30

85

NOTES:

SHOULDER WIDTH TO BE DETERMINED DURING PS&E STAGE

PROPOSED DITCH

EXHIBIT 3-1


VIRGIL DITCH NO. 3

EXISTING 36" CMP TO BE

REMOVED AND REPLACED

PROPOSED HMA PAVEMENT PROPOSED HMA SHOULDER


207 208 209 210+00 211 212 213

X

VP

I S

TA

. 208+

00.0

0

EL

EV

AT

ION

87

2.9

0-0.22% +0.01%

207+00 207+50 208+00 208+50 209+00 209+50 210+00 210+50 211+00 211+50 212+00 212+50 213+00

871.2

2

871.0

3

870.9

6

87

0.8

4

87

0.9

2

871.0

5

871.2

8

871.5

4

871.8

2

872.1

5

872.3

4

872.4

1

872.3

8

873.1

2

873.0

1

87

2.9

0

87

2.9

0

872.9

1

872.9

1

872.9

2

872.9

2

872.9

3

872.9

3

872.9

3

872.9

4

872.9

4

SU

RV

EY

ED

PL

OT

TE

D

BY

DA

TE

NO

TE

BO

OK

NO

.

PL

AN

AL

IGN

ME

NT

CH

EC

KE

D

RT

. O

F W

AY

CH

EC

KE

D

CA

DD

FIL

E N

AM

E

PR

OF

ILE

SU

RV

EY

ED

PL

OT

TE

D

GR

AD

ES

CH

EC

KE

D

B.M

. N

OT

ED

ST

RU

CT

UR

E N

OT

AT

NS

CH

KD

BY

DA

TE

NO

TE

BO

OK

NO

.

SECTION COUNTY


KANE 7

TOTAL

SHEETS

SHEET

NO.RTE.

CONTRACT NO.

\\sv

r2

02

\p

ub

lic\p

ro

j\0

00

33

74

.00

\0

00

33

74

.02

\d

esig

n\p

ro

po

sed

plan

\3

37

4.0

2-P

NP

02

.dg

n

USER NAME =



DESIGNED

CHECKED

DRAWN

-

-

-

-

REVISED -

-

-

-

REVISED

REVISED

REVISED

July 2011FIL

E N

AM

E =

mthomas

Ciorba Group, Inc.




F.A._.





TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

850

855

860

865

870

875

880

885

850

855

860

865

870

875

880

885

MA

TC

HL

INE

ST

A. 219+

00

SE

E S

HE

ET

4

PROPOSED R.O.W.

EXISTING R.O.W.

EXISTING R.O.W.

PROPOSED R.O.W.

8

12

12

8




~ PEPLOW ROADM

AT

CH

LIN

E S

TA

. 213+

00

SE

E S

HE

ET

2

3

890 890


25

30

30

85

NOTES:


PROPOSED DITCH

EXHIBIT 3-1


VIRGIL DITCH NO. 3



213 214 215+00 216 217 218 219

VP

I S

TA

. 2

15

+0

0.0

0

EL

EV

AT

ION

872.9

6

+0.01% +0.00%

213+00 213+50 214+00 214+50 215+00 215+50 216+00 216+50 217+00 217+50 218+00 218+50 219+00

872.3

8

87

2.3

0

872.2

8

872.2

7

872.2

1

872.2

2

872.1

8

87

2.0

5

871.9

6

871.9

6

87

2.0

7

87

2.0

4

871.8

6

872.9

4

872.9

5

872.9

5

872.9

6

872.9

6

872.9

6

872.9

6

872.9

7

872.9

7

872.9

7

872.9

7

872.9

7

872.9

8

SU

RV

EY

ED

PL

OT

TE

D

BY

DA

TE

NO

TE

BO

OK

NO

.

PL

AN

AL

IGN

ME

NT

CH

EC

KE

D

RT

. O

F W

AY

CH

EC

KE

D

CA

DD

FIL

E N

AM

E

PR

OF

ILE

SU

RV

EY

ED

PL

OT

TE

D

GR

AD

ES

CH

EC

KE

D

B.M

. N

OT

ED

ST

RU

CT

UR

E N

OT

AT

NS

CH

KD

BY

DA

TE

NO

TE

BO

OK

NO

.

SECTION COUNTY


KANE 7

TOTAL

SHEETS

SHEET

NO.RTE.

CONTRACT NO.

\\svr202\public\proj\0003374.0

0\0003374.0

2\design\proposedplan\3374.0

2-P

NP

03.d

gn

USER NAME =



DESIGNED

CHECKED

DRAWN

-

-

-

-

REVISED -

-

-

-

REVISED

REVISED

REVISED

July 2011FIL

E N

AM

E =

mthomas

Ciorba Group, Inc.




F.A._.






850

855

860

865

870

875

880

885

850

855

860

865

870

875

880

885

8

12

12

8

PROPOSED R.O.W.

EXISTING R.O.W.

PROPOSED R.O.W.

EXISTING R.O.W.


~ PEPLOW ROAD

85

30

30

25



MA

TC

HL

INE

ST

A.

22

5+

00

SE

E S

HE

ET

5

MA

TC

HL

INE

ST

A. 219+

00

SE

E S

HE

ET

3

4

890 890


NOTES:


PROPOSED DITCH

EXHIBIT 3-1


VIRGIL DITCH NO. 3



219 220+00 221 222 223 224 225+00

+6

0.0

0 E

L.

87

3.0

0

219+00 219+50 220+00 220+50 221+00 221+50 222+00 222+50 223+00 223+50 224+00 224+50 225+00

871.8

6

871.8

4

87

2.0

2

87

2.0

7

872.2

5

872.3

4

872.4

3

872.3

2

872.2

3

872.3

9

872.4

5

872.1

5

871.8

6

872.9

8

872.9

8

872.9

8

872.9

8

872.9

8

872.9

8

872.9

9

872.9

9

872.9

9

872.9

9

872.9

9

87

3.0

0

87

3.0

5

SU

RV

EY

ED

PL

OT

TE

D

BY

DA

TE

NO

TE

BO

OK

NO

.

PL

AN

AL

IGN

ME

NT

CH

EC

KE

D

RT

. O

F W

AY

CH

EC

KE

D

CA

DD

FIL

E N

AM

E

PR

OF

ILE

SU

RV

EY

ED

PL

OT

TE

D

GR

AD

ES

CH

EC

KE

D

B.M

. N

OT

ED

ST

RU

CT

UR

E N

OT

AT

NS

CH

KD

BY

DA

TE

NO

TE

BO

OK

NO

.

SECTION COUNTY


KANE 7

TOTAL

SHEETS

SHEET

NO.RTE.

CONTRACT NO.

\\sv

r2

02

\p

ub

lic\p

ro

j\0

00

33

74

.00

\0

00

33

74

.02

\d

esig

n\p

ro

po

sed

plan

\3

37

4.0

2-P

NP

04

.dg

n

USER NAME =



DESIGNED

CHECKED

DRAWN

-

-

-

-

REVISED -

-

-

-

REVISED

REVISED

REVISED

July 2011FIL

E N

AM

E =

mthomas

Ciorba Group, Inc.




F.A._.





225+00 226 227

PO

T S

ta 2

27+

40.0

0

228 229 230+00 231

VP

I S

TA

. 2

25

+5

0.0

0

EL

EV

AT

ION

87

3.0

0+0.00% +1.08%

180.00 V.C.

K = 167

ex = 0.24

VP

I S

TA

. 2

28

+5

0.0

0

EL

EV

AT

ION

876.2

5

+1.08% -0.64%

265.00 V.C.

K = 154

ex = -0.57

SSD = 758

+40.0

0 E

L. 873.9

8

+1

7.5

0 E

L.

87

4.8

1

+8

2.5

0 E

L.

87

5.4

0

225+00 225+50 226+00 226+50 227+00 227+50 228+00 228+50 229+00 229+50 230+00 230+50 231+00

871.8

6

871.7

1

871.7

4

871.7

2

871.6

9

871.8

2

871.8

4

871.8

7

871.6

9

871.6

4

871.6

0

871.6

2

871.6

5

87

3.0

5

873.2

4

873.5

9

87

4.0

8

874.6

3

875.1

3

875.4

9

875.6

8

875.7

1

875.5

7

875.2

9

874.9

6

874.6

4

SU

RV

EY

ED

PL

OT

TE

D

BY

DA

TE

NO

TE

BO

OK

NO

.

PL

AN

AL

IGN

ME

NT

CH

EC

KE

D

RT

. O

F W

AY

CH

EC

KE

D

CA

DD

FIL

E N

AM

E

PR

OF

ILE

SU

RV

EY

ED

PL

OT

TE

D

GR

AD

ES

CH

EC

KE

D

B.M

. N

OT

ED

ST

RU

CT

UR

E N

OT

AT

NS

CH

KD

BY

DA

TE

NO

TE

BO

OK

NO

.

SECTION COUNTY


KANE 7

TOTAL

SHEETS

SHEET

NO.RTE.

CONTRACT NO.

\\sv

r2

02

\p

ub

lic\p

ro

j\0

00

33

74

.00

\0

00

33

74

.02

\d

esig

n\p

ro

po

sed

plan

\3

37

4.0

2-P

NP

05

.dg

n

USER NAME =



DESIGNED

CHECKED

DRAWN

-

-

-

-

REVISED -

-

-

-

REVISED

REVISED

REVISED

July 2011FIL

E N

AM

E =

mthomas

Ciorba Group, Inc.




F.A._.





AAATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

850

855

860

865

870

875

880

885

850

855

860

865

870

875

880

885

MA

TC

HL

INE

ST

A. 231+

00

SE

E S

HE

ET

6

EXISTING R.O.W.

PROPOSED R.O.W.

PROPOSED R.O.W.

PROPOSED R.O.W.

EXISTING R.O.W.

~ PEPLOW ROAD

MA

TC

HL

INE

ST

A.

22

5+

00

SE

E S

HE

ET

4

85

30

30

40

8

12

12

8




5

40-0"


REMOVE EXISTING GUARDRAIL 25

30-YEAR H.W.E. = 872.70

LOW CHORD ELEV. = 873.70

179%%d5755"

25

80

NOTES:


PROPOSED DITCHTRIBUTARY OF UNION DITCH NO. 3

PROPOSED CAST IN PLACE REINFORCED

CONCRETE SLAB BRIDGE

EXHIBIT 3-1


VIRGIL DITCH NO. 3

PROPOSED HMA PAVEMENTPROPOSED HMA SHOULDERUTILITIES TO BE RELOCATED BY OTHERS

MATCH EXISTING CHANNEL

PROPOSED RETAINING WALLPROPOSED RETAINING WALL


231 232 233 234 235+00 236 237

VP

I S

TA

. 232+

00.0

0

EL

EV

AT

ION

87

4.0

0-0.64% -0.05%

180.00 V.C.

K = 304

ex = 0.13

VP

I S

TA

. 234+

00.0

0

EL

EV

AT

ION

87

3.9

0

-0.05% -0.22%

+10.0

0 E

L. 874.5

8

+9

0.0

0 E

L.

87

3.9

6

231+00 231+50 232+00 232+50 233+00 233+50 234+00 234+50 235+00 235+50 236+00 236+50 237+00

871.6

5

871.6

7

871.7

2

871.7

7

871.7

9

87

2.0

7

872.3

8

872.4

4

87

2.5

0

872.6

5

872.4

5

872.6

4

873.0

1

874.6

4

874.3

5

874.1

3

87

4.0

0

873.9

5

873.9

3

87

3.9

0

873.7

9

873.6

9

873.5

8

873.4

7

873.3

6

873.2

5

SU

RV

EY

ED

PL

OT

TE

D

BY

DA

TE

NO

TE

BO

OK

NO

.

PL

AN

AL

IGN

ME

NT

CH

EC

KE

D

RT

. O

F W

AY

CH

EC

KE

D

CA

DD

FIL

E N

AM

E

PR

OF

ILE

SU

RV

EY

ED

PL

OT

TE

D

GR

AD

ES

CH

EC

KE

D

B.M

. N

OT

ED

ST

RU

CT

UR

E N

OT

AT

NS

CH

KD

BY

DA

TE

NO

TE

BO

OK

NO

.

SECTION COUNTY


KANE 7

TOTAL

SHEETS

SHEET

NO.RTE.

CONTRACT NO.

\\sv

r2

02

\p

ub

lic\p

ro

j\0

00

33

74

.00

\0

00

33

74

.02

\d

esig

n\p

ro

po

sed

plan

\3

37

4.0

2-P

NP

06

.dg

n

USER NAME =



DESIGNED

CHECKED

DRAWN

-

-

-

-

REVISED -

-

-

-

REVISED

REVISED

REVISED

July 2011FIL

E N

AM

E =

mthomas

Ciorba Group, Inc.




F.A._.





TTTTTTTTTT

850

855

860

865

870

875

880

885

850

855

860

865

870

875

880

885

PROPOSED R.O.W.PROPOSED R.O.W.

PROPOSED R.O.W.

EXISTING R.O.W.

EXISTING R.O.W.

~ PEPLOW ROAD

8

12

12

8

MA

TC

HL

INE

ST

A.

23

9+

00

SE

E S

HE

ET

7



MA

TC

HL

INE

ST

A. 231+

00

SE

E S

HE

ET

5

6

25

30

30

80

PROPOSED R.O.W.

1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY

NOTES:


PROPOSED DITCH

EXHIBIT 3-1


VIRGIL DITCH NO. 3


30

30

15

85

PROPOSED GUARDRAIL


PROPOSED BOTTOM OF

COMPENSATORY STORAGE DITCH

237 238 239

PO

T S

ta 2

40

+0

0.0

0

VP

I S

TA

. 238+

00.0

0

EL

EV

AT

ION

87

3.0

4-0.22% +0.39%

180.00 V.C.

K = 297

ex = 0.14

873.5

3

+10.0

0 E

L. 873.2

3

+90.0

0 E

L. 873.3

9

237+00 237+50 238+00 238+50 239+00

873.0

1

872.8

4

87

3.0

4

87

3.0

3

873.3

7

873.2

5

873.1

7

873.1

8

873.2

6

873.4

3

SU

RV

EY

ED

PL

OT

TE

D

BY

DA

TE

NO

TE

BO

OK

NO

.

PL

AN

AL

IGN

ME

NT

CH

EC

KE

D

RT

. O

F W

AY

CH

EC

KE

D

CA

DD

FIL

E N

AM

E

PR

OF

ILE

SU

RV

EY

ED

PL

OT

TE

D

GR

AD

ES

CH

EC

KE

D

B.M

. N

OT

ED

ST

RU

CT

UR

E N

OT

AT

NS

CH

KD

BY

DA

TE

NO

TE

BO

OK

NO

.

SECTION COUNTY


KANE 7

TOTAL

SHEETS

SHEET

NO.RTE.

CONTRACT NO.

\\sv

r2

02

\p

ub

lic\p

ro

j\0

00

33

74

.00

\0

00

33

74

.02

\d

esig

n\p

ro

po

sed

plan

\3

37

4.0

2-P

NP

07

.dg

n

USER NAME =



DESIGNED

CHECKED

DRAWN

-

-

-

-

REVISED -

-

-

-

REVISED

REVISED

REVISED

July 2011FIL

E N

AM

E =

mthomas

Ciorba Group, Inc.




F.A._.





850

855

860

865

870

875

880

885

890

850

855

860

865

870

875

880

885

890

END PROJECT

STA. 239+25

EXISTING R.O.W.

PROPOSED R.O.W.

8

12

12

8



~ PEPLOW ROADM

AT

CH

LIN

E S

TA

. 2

39

+0

0

SE

E S

HE

ET

6

7


NOTES:


PROPOSED DITCH

EXHIBIT 3-1

PROPOSED HMA PAVEMENT

PROPOSED HMA SHOULDER

30

30

15

PROPOS

ED R.O.W

.

15


PROPOSED BOTTOM OF

COMPENSATORY STORAGE DITCH

201 202

PO

T S

ta 2

02+

09.0

6

203 204 205+00 206 207

X X

X X X X

VP

I S

TA

. 203+

00.0

0

EL

EV

AT

ION

872.1

2

+0.51% +0.71%

871.7

7

VP

I S

TA

. 205+

00.0

0

EL

EV

AT

ION

873.5

5

+0.71% -0.22%

180.00 V.C.

K = 193

ex = -0.21

SSD = 1248

+1

0.0

0 E

L.

87

2.9

1

+90.0

0 E

L. 873.3

5

201+00 201+50 202+00 202+50 203+00 203+50 204+00 204+50 205+00 205+50 206+00 206+50 207+00

871.5

2

871.5

4

871.7

0

871.7

9

871.8

5

87

2.0

9

872.2

8

872.2

1

871.9

6

871.7

2

871.5

4

871.3

4

871.2

2

871.8

7

872.1

2

872.4

8

872.8

3

873.1

5

873.3

4

87

3.4

0

873.3

3

873.2

3

873.1

2

SU

RV

EY

ED

PL

OT

TE

D

BY

DA

TE

NO

TE

BO

OK

NO

.

PL

AN

AL

IGN

ME

NT

CH

EC

KE

D

RT

. O

F W

AY

CH

EC

KE

D

CA

DD

FIL

E N

AM

E

PR

OF

ILE

SU

RV

EY

ED

PL

OT

TE

D

GR

AD

ES

CH

EC

KE

D

B.M

. N

OT

ED

ST

RU

CT

UR

E N

OT

AT

NS

CH

KD

BY

DA

TE

NO

TE

BO

OK

NO

.

SECTION COUNTY


KANE 7

TOTAL

SHEETS

SHEET

NO.RTE.

CONTRACT NO.


0\0003374.0


2-P

NP

01-W

all.d

gn

USER NAME =



DESIGNED

CHECKED

DRAWN

-

-

-

-

REVISED -

-

-

-

REVISED

REVISED

REVISED

July 2011FIL

E N

AM

E =

mthomas

Ciorba Group, Inc.




F.A._.





AAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

850

855

860

865

870

875

880

885

850

855

860

865

870

875

880

885

8

12

12

8

PROPOSED R.O.W.

EXISTING R.O.W.

EXISTING R.O.W.

PROPOSED R.O.W.

~ PEPLOW ROAD



MA

TC

HL

INE

ST

A. 207+

00

SE

E S

HE

ET

2

BEGIN PROJECT

STA. 202+30

RA

MM

RO

AD


1

LOW POINT = 870.84

181%%d3650"

15

30

30

70

40

NOTES:

SHOULDER WIDTH TO BE


PROPOSED DITCH

EXHIBIT 3-2

TREE REMOVAL (TYP.)


VIRGIL DITCH NO. 3

PROPOSED HMA PAVEMENTPROPOSED HMA SHOULDER PROPOSED GUARDRAIL PROPOSED RETAINING WALL

BEGIN PROPOSED

RETAINING WALL STA. 204+50

PLAN AND PROFILE - EXISTING CENTERLINE (RETAINING WALL)

207 208 209 210+00 211 212 213

X

VP

I S

TA

. 208+

00.0

0

EL

EV

AT

ION

87

2.9

0-0.22% +0.01%

207+00 207+50 208+00 208+50 209+00 209+50 210+00 210+50 211+00 211+50 212+00 212+50 213+00

871.2

2

871.0

3

870.9

6

87

0.8

4

87

0.9

2

871.0

5

871.2

8

871.5

4

871.8

2

872.1

5

872.3

4

872.4

1

872.3

8

873.1

2

873.0

1

87

2.9

0

87

2.9

0

872.9

1

872.9

1

872.9

2

872.9

2

872.9

3

872.9

3

872.9

3

872.9

4

872.9

4

SU

RV

EY

ED

PL

OT

TE

D

BY

DA

TE

NO

TE

BO

OK

NO

.

PL

AN

AL

IGN

ME

NT

CH

EC

KE

D

RT

. O

F W

AY

CH

EC

KE

D

CA

DD

FIL

E N

AM

E

PR

OF

ILE

SU

RV

EY

ED

PL

OT

TE

D

GR

AD

ES

CH

EC

KE

D

B.M

. N

OT

ED

ST

RU

CT

UR

E N

OT

AT

NS

CH

KD

BY

DA

TE

NO

TE

BO

OK

NO

.

SECTION COUNTY


KANE 7

TOTAL

SHEETS

SHEET

NO.RTE.

CONTRACT NO.


0\0003374.0


2-P

NP

02-W

all.d

gn

USER NAME =



DESIGNED

CHECKED

DRAWN

-

-

-

-

REVISED -

-

-

-

REVISED

REVISED

REVISED

July 2011FIL

E N

AM

E =

mthomas

Ciorba Group, Inc.




F.A._.






850

855

860

865

870

875

880

885

850

855

860

865

870

875

880

885

2

MA

TC

HL

INE

ST

A. 213+

00

SE

E S

HE

ET

3

MA

TC

HL

INE

ST

A.

20

7+

00

SE

E S

HE

ET

1

8

12

12

8

PROPOSED R.O.W.

EXISTING R.O.W.

EXISTING R.O.W.

PROPOSED R.O.W.

~ PEPLOW ROAD



890 890


25

30

40

30

30

70

NOTES:


PROPOSED DITCH

EXHIBIT 3-2


VIRGIL DITCH NO. 3

EXISTING 36" CMP TO BE

REMOVED AND REPLACED


PROPOSED GUARDRAIL



213 214 215+00 216 217 218 219

VP

I S

TA

. 2

15

+0

0.0

0

EL

EV

AT

ION

872.9

6

+0.01% +0.00%

213+00 213+50 214+00 214+50 215+00 215+50 216+00 216+50 217+00 217+50 218+00 218+50 219+00

872.3

8

87

2.3

0

872.2

8

872.2

7

872.2

1

872.2

2

872.1

8

87

2.0

5

871.9

6

871.9

6

87

2.0

7

87

2.0

4

871.8

6

872.9

4

872.9

5

872.9

5

872.9

6

872.9

6

872.9

6

872.9

6

872.9

7

872.9

7

872.9

7

872.9

7

872.9

7

872.9

8

SU

RV

EY

ED

PL

OT

TE

D

BY

DA

TE

NO

TE

BO

OK

NO

.

PL

AN

AL

IGN

ME

NT

CH

EC

KE

D

RT

. O

F W

AY

CH

EC

KE

D

CA

DD

FIL

E N

AM

E

PR

OF

ILE

SU

RV

EY

ED

PL

OT

TE

D

GR

AD

ES

CH

EC

KE

D

B.M

. N

OT

ED

ST

RU

CT

UR

E N

OT

AT

NS

CH

KD

BY

DA

TE

NO

TE

BO

OK

NO

.

SECTION COUNTY


KANE 7

TOTAL

SHEETS

SHEET

NO.RTE.

CONTRACT NO.


0\0003374.0


2-P

NP

03-W

all.d

gn

USER NAME =



DESIGNED

CHECKED

DRAWN

-

-

-

-

REVISED -

-

-

-

REVISED

REVISED

REVISED

July 2011FIL

E N

AM

E =

mthomas

Ciorba Group, Inc.




F.A._.






850

855

860

865

870

875

880

885

850

855

860

865

870

875

880

885

MA

TC

HL

INE

ST

A. 219+

00

SE

E S

HE

ET

4

PROPOSED R.O.W.

EXISTING R.O.W.

EXISTING R.O.W.

PROPOSED R.O.W.

8

12

12

8



~ PEPLOW ROADM

AT

CH

LIN

E S

TA

. 213+

00

SE

E S

HE

ET

2

3

890 890


25

30

30

70

NOTES:


PROPOSED DITCH

EXHIBIT 3-2


VIRGIL DITCH NO. 3


PROPOSED GUARDRAIL



219 220+00 221 222 223 224 225+00

+6

0.0

0 E

L.

87

3.0

0

219+00 219+50 220+00 220+50 221+00 221+50 222+00 222+50 223+00 223+50 224+00 224+50 225+00

871.8

6

871.8

4

87

2.0

2

87

2.0

7

872.2

5

872.3

4

872.4

3

872.3

2

872.2

3

872.3

9

872.4

5

872.1

5

871.8

6

872.9

8

872.9

8

872.9

8

872.9

8

872.9

8

872.9

8

872.9

9

872.9

9

872.9

9

872.9

9

872.9

9

87

3.0

0

87

3.0

5

SU

RV

EY

ED

PL

OT

TE

D

BY

DA

TE

NO

TE

BO

OK

NO

.

PL

AN

AL

IGN

ME

NT

CH

EC

KE

D

RT

. O

F W

AY

CH

EC

KE

D

CA

DD

FIL

E N

AM

E

PR

OF

ILE

SU

RV

EY

ED

PL

OT

TE

D

GR

AD

ES

CH

EC

KE

D

B.M

. N

OT

ED

ST

RU

CT

UR

E N

OT

AT

NS

CH

KD

BY

DA

TE

NO

TE

BO

OK

NO

.

SECTION COUNTY


KANE 7

TOTAL

SHEETS

SHEET

NO.RTE.

CONTRACT NO.


0\0003374.0


2-P

NP

04-W

all.d

gn

USER NAME =



DESIGNED

CHECKED

DRAWN

-

-

-

-

REVISED -

-

-

-

REVISED

REVISED

REVISED

July 2011FIL

E N

AM

E =

mthomas

Ciorba Group, Inc.




F.A._.





850

855

860

865

870

875

880

885

850

855

860

865

870

875

880

885

8

12

12

8

PROPOSED R.O.W.

EXISTING R.O.W.

PROPOSED R.O.W.

EXISTING R.O.W.

~ PEPLOW ROAD

70

30

30

25



MA

TC

HL

INE

ST

A.

22

5+

00

SE

E S

HE

ET

5

MA

TC

HL

INE

ST

A. 219+

00

SE

E S

HE

ET

3

4

890 890


NOTES:


PROPOSED DITCH

EXHIBIT 3-2


VIRGIL DITCH NO. 3


PROPOSED GUARDRAIL



225+00 226 227

PO

T S

ta 2

27+

40.0

0

228 229 230+00 231

VP

I S

TA

. 2

25

+5

0.0

0

EL

EV

AT

ION

87

3.0

0+0.00% +1.08%

180.00 V.C.

K = 167

ex = 0.24

VP

I S

TA

. 2

28

+5

0.0

0

EL

EV

AT

ION

876.2

5

+1.08% -0.64%

265.00 V.C.

K = 154

ex = -0.57

SSD = 758

+40.0

0 E

L. 873.9

8

+1

7.5

0 E

L.

87

4.8

1

+8

2.5

0 E

L.

87

5.4

0

225+00 225+50 226+00 226+50 227+00 227+50 228+00 228+50 229+00 229+50 230+00 230+50 231+00

871.8

6

871.7

1

871.7

4

871.7

2

871.6

9

871.8

2

871.8

4

871.8

7

871.6

9

871.6

4

871.6

0

871.6

2

871.6

5

87

3.0

5

873.2

4

873.5

9

87

4.0

8

874.6

3

875.1

3

875.4

9

875.6

8

875.7

1

875.5

7

875.2

9

874.9

6

874.6

4

SU

RV

EY

ED

PL

OT

TE

D

BY

DA

TE

NO

TE

BO

OK

NO

.

PL

AN

AL

IGN

ME

NT

CH

EC

KE

D

RT

. O

F W

AY

CH

EC

KE

D

CA

DD

FIL

E N

AM

E

PR

OF

ILE

SU

RV

EY

ED

PL

OT

TE

D

GR

AD

ES

CH

EC

KE

D

B.M

. N

OT

ED

ST

RU

CT

UR

E N

OT

AT

NS

CH

KD

BY

DA

TE

NO

TE

BO

OK

NO

.

SECTION COUNTY


KANE 7

TOTAL

SHEETS

SHEET

NO.RTE.

CONTRACT NO.


0\0003374.0


2-P

NP

05-W

all.d

gn

USER NAME =



DESIGNED

CHECKED

DRAWN

-

-

-

-

REVISED -

-

-

-

REVISED

REVISED

REVISED

July 2011FIL

E N

AM

E =

mthomas

Ciorba Group, Inc.




F.A._.





AAATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

850

855

860

865

870

875

880

885

850

855

860

865

870

875

880

885

MA

TC

HL

INE

ST

A. 231+

00

SE

E S

HE

ET

6

EXISTING R.O.W.

PROPOSED R.O.W.

PROPOSED R.O.W.

PROPOSED R.O.W.

EXISTING R.O.W.

~ PEPLOW ROAD

MA

TC

HL

INE

ST

A.

22

5+

00

SE

E S

HE

ET

4

70

30

30

40

8

12

12

8



5

40-0"


REMOVE EXISTING GUARDRAIL 25

30-YEAR H.W.E. = 872.70

LOW CHORD ELEV. = 873.70

179%%d5755"

25

85

NOTES:


PROPOSED DITCHTRIBUTARY OF UNION DITCH NO. 3

PROPOSED CAST IN PLACE REINFORCED

CONCRETE SLAB BRIDGE

EXHIBIT 3-2


VIRGIL DITCH NO. 3

PROPOSED HMA PAVEMENT

PROPOSED HMA SHOULDERUTILITIES TO BE RELOCATED BY OTHERS

PROPOSED GUARDRAIL



PROPOSED GUARDRAIL


231 232 233 234 235+00 236 237

VP

I S

TA

. 232+

00.0

0

EL

EV

AT

ION

87

4.0

0-0.64% -0.05%

180.00 V.C.

K = 304

ex = 0.13

VP

I S

TA

. 234+

00.0

0

EL

EV

AT

ION

87

3.9

0

-0.05% -0.22%

+10.0

0 E

L. 874.5

8

+9

0.0

0 E

L.

87

3.9

6

231+00 231+50 232+00 232+50 233+00 233+50 234+00 234+50 235+00 235+50 236+00 236+50 237+00

871.6

5

871.6

7

871.7

2

871.7

7

871.7

9

87

2.0

7

872.3

8

872.4

4

87

2.5

0

872.6

5

872.4

5

872.6

4

873.0

1

874.6

4

874.3

5

874.1

3

87

4.0

0

873.9

5

873.9

3

87

3.9

0

873.7

9

873.6

9

873.5

8

873.4

7

873.3

6

873.2

5

SU

RV

EY

ED

PL

OT

TE

D

BY

DA

TE

NO

TE

BO

OK

NO

.

PL

AN

AL

IGN

ME

NT

CH

EC

KE

D

RT

. O

F W

AY

CH

EC

KE

D

CA

DD

FIL

E N

AM

E

PR

OF

ILE

SU

RV

EY

ED

PL

OT

TE

D

GR

AD

ES

CH

EC

KE

D

B.M

. N

OT

ED

ST

RU

CT

UR

E N

OT

AT

NS

CH

KD

BY

DA

TE

NO

TE

BO

OK

NO

.

SECTION COUNTY


KANE 7

TOTAL

SHEETS

SHEET

NO.RTE.

CONTRACT NO.

\\sv

r2

02

\p

ub

lic\p

ro

j\0

00

33

74

.00

\0

00

33

74

.02

\d

esig

n\p

ro

po

sed

plan

\3

37

4.0

2-P

NP

06

-W

all.d

gn

USER NAME =



DESIGNED

CHECKED

DRAWN

-

-

-

-

REVISED -

-

-

-

REVISED

REVISED

REVISED

July 2011FIL

E N

AM

E =

mthomas

Ciorba Group, Inc.




F.A._.





TTTTTTTTTT

850

855

860

865

870

875

880

885

850

855

860

865

870

875

880

885

PROPOSED R.O.W.PROPOSED R.O.W.

PROPOSED R.O.W.

EXISTING R.O.W.

EXISTING R.O.W.

~ PEPLOW ROAD

8

12

12

8

MA

TC

HL

INE

ST

A.

23

9+

00

SE

E S

HE

ET

7



MA

TC

HL

INE

ST

A. 231+

00

SE

E S

HE

ET

5

6

25

30

30

80

PROPOSED R.O.W.


NOTES:


PROPOSED DIT

Documents

Peplow Road over Tributary to Union Ditch No. 3 · needed to replace the existing Peplow Road over Tributary to Union Ditch No. 3 and to stabilize approximately ½ mile of the tributary,