Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OQ23...3 <br /> <br />would be $9,538 ([50AF . 12AF} x $251IAF) instead of $14,050, The revised <br />estimated cost of this project would be $15,137 ($9,538 + 1776 + 3823). If these <br />revisions were made an underestimation of $2,463 would result. However, In Ihe <br />real life scenario atlhis pond, a minimum pool of JAF remained which resulted <br />in a pumping cost of approximately $11,790 l[50AF - 3AFJ x 52511AF), not 59,538 <br />or $14,050 (see Consideration of Assumptions. Pumping without Three-Phase <br />Service Onsite - Minimum Pool), Also, due 10 a porous berm ber....een the river <br />and the pond a minimum pool of 12AF was actually treatae With chemicals <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />C 'd " fA r" ~ '.. <br />onso era Ion 0 ssu~mp 'o~s ./' <br /> <br /> <br />E.~lim".ll'-!lMn.n.P.epJb <br />The depth of small ponds with ~ 1,0 SA ....h~me 'to~be four feel. Similarly, <br />ponds with :>- 1.0 to 5.0 SA and'" 5.0 SA were asstJmoo to have mean depths of <br />six and 10 feet respectively If thes-*"viilUe;.were app~edlo'Delta Gravel Pit #1 <br />and 22 3/4 Road Pond, their estl!l."2iad wean'd~pths w~.ldhave been 10 and SIX <br />feet respectively The actua~eantf:de t!1, of bottLponds is greater than the <br />estimated mean depth. T , fore, I 01" ~se~.an underestimation of pond <br />volume would have res It In a deresli atlon of pumpmg and chemical <br />costs. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Erequencv of Trea~nt... <br />~I,*timates ~Uili; port ar ba~.egp the assumption that each pond Will be <br />..:!'eclm':led ont~~nce. dditlo B/.:lrlatmenl of Individual ponds, remvaded With <br />-"imde.slr3gte rls~w~l 'r~ult in an underestimation of the overalltolal cost to <br />reCh:lIm alThj1Jdy arb;pon(j~lt can be expected ponds Within the 10 year "cod <br />plam}.ill raq'thr.,i trea'?iiileJi1aTleast once every 10 years. Similarly ponds within <br />_;~arn~ lainUityplcallyrequlretreatmenteverylwoyears <br /> <br />VniCWililllild Pon9J! <br />Nearly all wa ted in thiS report were identified by Mitchell (1995) from aenal <br />photograph owever, aerial photographs were not available in the sludy area <br />from Rift Palisade on the Colorado River and therefore have not been <br />includJl.li: this report Similarly, a number of waters have been identified that <br />~rlooked in the Mitchell report For example, Horsethlef State Wildlife <br />- Arel(SWA) has seven additional ponds which were not inCluded in the Mllchell <br />report While any additional ponds identified to date were included in Ihls report, <br />other ponds may exist which have not been identified. Reclamation efforts on <br />umdentlfied ponds would result in an underestimation of the overall cost of <br />treating ponds in the study area. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />4 <br />