Laserfiche WebLink
Item Mine #3 Mine #4 Mine #5 Comments <br /> Approx. 35,000 cy 30,000 cy 54,000 cy Mine #5 involved considerably more <br /> Earthwork earthwork than the other two mines. <br /> Volume <br /> Avg. Push 350' 290' 320' Very similar at all sites. <br /> Distance <br /> Avg. Push +10% +10% +10% Very similar at all sites. <br /> Grade <br /> Concrete Minor Minor Minor Some blasting took place at Mines #3 and #4 <br /> Removal although the costs were not a significant part <br /> of the total. Efforts needed for concrete <br /> removal at all three sites were similar <br /> although they were slightly less at Mine #5. <br /> Portal Seal No No Yes One mine portal at Mine #5 had a continuous <br /> w/water discharge and NPDES permit. Reclamation of <br /> discharge this portal required a special seal and a pipe <br /> pipe buried in the reclaimed area w/sample pool. <br /> Topsoil None None 3630 cy For Mine #5, the soil was moved using <br /> Volume loader and trucks. This cost is significant. <br /> Topsoil None None 600' The borrow area for the soil was along the <br /> Move lower part of the disturbed area near the <br /> Distance road. <br /> Topsoil None None 20% Although the dozer pushed the soil up the <br /> Move steep grades, the trucks also traveled uphill. <br /> Grade <br /> Side Yes Yes No Furrows are desirable on reclaimed slopes. <br /> Furrows on The cost to install them is not significant and <br /> Slopes does not affect the comparison. <br /> Silt Fence Yes Yes No The necessity of this cost is questionable and <br /> its cost is not significant, as demonstrated by <br /> the DMG bids. <br /> Acreage 7.7 8.8 8.8 The Mine #5 was broadcast seeded and <br /> Reseeded& mulched while #3 and #4 were hydroseeded <br /> Mulched & mulched. More downspoil areas were done <br /> on #3 and #4 although the acreages are <br /> similar at all three sites. <br /> 8 <br />