|
distance were taken using an abney level and pacing, to estimate approximate soil volumes available for
<br />reclamation use at CRDA-I. CRDA-2, and Ute Nonh Portal Facilities disturbance areas. Specific
<br />stockpiles checked were Piles 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, plus Ute sediment stored in Ute pcnnanent channel, and Ute
<br />stockpile of sediment previously removed from Utc channel, stored near Piles 1 and 2. I did not attempt to
<br />verify the permit projection of in-place soil in CBA-2 borrow area, or to quantify the volume of soil
<br />available in the area to be excavated for CRDA-2 upper diversion.
<br />Although there was significant variation between my rough estimates and Table 14-2 projections for certain
<br />individual stockpiles, my over-all estimate of Ute soil available from Ute specified sources was witlun 1"/" of
<br />Ute total volume for Ute corresponding sources listed in the Table. For Stockpiles I and 2 combined, I
<br />estimated 43,368 cy; Table 13-2 total is 44,100 cy. For Stockpiles 7, 8, 9, and the channel sources, 1
<br />estimated a total of 10,332 cv; Table 14-2 total is 8,200 cy (which did not include ch•mnel sources). For
<br />Stockpile 3, I estimated 12,120 cy; Table 14-2 volume is I5,100 cy. In total, I estimated an available
<br />volume of 66,830 cy, compared to Table IS-2 total of 67,400 cy. For practical purposes, 1 Utink the can
<br />assume that the permit projections are reasonabl}' accunle, and Ute following excavation/replacement
<br />projections are based on Utat assumption.
<br />Cover Soil and TopdressinQ Projections for CRDA Refuse Areas and Nortlt Portal Facilities Area
<br />Based on consideration of the information presented in Ute referenced permit tables, along wiUt current
<br />permit requirements, Ute following projections can be made:
<br />For CRDA-l, the actual topsoil volume required for the area not currently reclaimed is 13,500 cy. This
<br />could be obtained from Stockpile 2, leaving a balance of 14,300 cy still in Ute stockpile. For CRDA-2, Ute
<br />actual topsoil volume required is 14,900 cy. This quantity could be obtained by using Ute remainder of Ute
<br />soil in Stockpile 2, along with the remaining soil in Stockpile 7 and Stockpile 9. Reclamation of Ute
<br />Roadside Nortlt Facilities Area will require 22,829 cubic yards, wlticlt can be obtained by using all of
<br />Stockpile 1 (assume 16,300 cy) and 6529 yards of soil from Stockpile 3, leaving 8571 cY in Pile 3.
<br />Refuse cover soil (subsoil) volume required for the currently unreclaitned portion of CRDA-1 is 23,700
<br />cubic yards, all of which could be obtained from CBA-2 Borrow Area, leaving approximately 25,300 cy of
<br />material in the borrow area. 42,100 cubic yards of subsoil is required for Ute currenU}' unreclaimed portion
<br />of CRDA-2. 8,571 yards could be obtained from Stockpile 3; 5,600 yards from Stockpile 8; and the
<br />remaining 25,300 yards front CBA-2. The apparent shortage of approximately 2629 yards of material
<br />(enough for approximately I acre) could be made up from sediment excavated from Coal Creek permanent
<br />diversion during rock check removal, and from soil excavated during conswction of the proposed CRDA-2
<br />upper diversion ditch.
<br />[ reviewed the relevant "on Ute ground" estimate task items with Ute above projections in mind. I also
<br />reviewed, in less detail, all of Ute task items listed in Ute "on Ute ground" estimate, and have the following
<br />comments.
<br />Comments On Scecific Cost Estimate Task Items
<br />Task O I S. The initial volume of 66,066 cy is extremely conservative. It assmnes 18" of cover (subsoil)
<br />over the entire CRDA-1 disturbed area, rotifer titan Ute necessary 12" of cover over Ute remaining bare
<br />refuse. Actual volume required, and available, is 23,700 cy, from CBA-2. The extremely conservative
<br />volume projection Wray in effect compensate for Ute difficult s<•ilvage conditions presented by the numerous
<br />large sandstone boulders wiUtin Ute borrow area. The nunerous boulders would likely necessitate
<br />wck/loader or wck/shovel salvage and would significantly reduce equipment production (see Steve
<br />Renner's memo of 2/8/01). If the material volumes are reduced to reflect actual conditions, Ute
<br />assumptions regarding salvage and haulage meUtods and production may need to be re-assessed. Also, l
<br />did not check actual haul distance and grade against Ute cost estimate assumptions, but Ute haul would be
<br />
|