Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Technical Memorandum
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
1255 Roberts Boulevard, NW, Suite 200
Kennesaw, Georgia 30144
March 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... iv
1.
2.
3.
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
1.1
Objectives ......................................................................................................... 1
1.2
Background....................................................................................................... 2
1.2.1
Project Setting............................................................................................... 2
1.2.2
Consultation.................................................................................................. 3
1.2.3
TECHNICAL APPROACH................................................................................... 7
2.1
Overview........................................................................................................... 7
2.2
2.3
Medium Scenario............................................................................................ 10
2.4
2.5
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
3.1.5
Restoration.................................................................................................. 17
3.1.6
3.1.7
3.2
3.2.1
Medium Scenario............................................................................................ 19
Overall Schedule and Field Effort .............................................................. 20
i
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.2.5
Restoration.................................................................................................. 26
3.2.6
3.2.7
3.3
4.
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.3.4
3.3.5
Restoration.................................................................................................. 35
3.3.6
3.3.7
3.4
3.5
3.6
SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 44
4.1
4.2
4.3
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
Table 4
Table 5
LIST OF FIGURES
Chart 1
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Site Map
Proposed Truck Route to Chadwick Landfill
Estimated Truck Traffic
ATTACHMENT A
Small Scenario Schedule
Medium Scenario Schedules
Large Scenario Schedule
ATTACHMENT B
Geotechnical Data
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This technical memorandum was developed by GeoSyntec Consultants
(GeoSyntec) at the request of Georgia Power in order to develop unit cost information
and for evaluating the feasibility and costs of dredging, transporting, and disposing of
sediment from the Morgan Falls impoundment (Bull Sluice Lake) located on the
Chattahoochee River in metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia, in Fulton and Cobb Counties.
Georgia Power is not proposing dredging activities as a part of relicensing the Morgan
Falls Project, but some stakeholders have suggested that alternatives for addressing
sedimentation should consider dredging options. The objectives of this technical
memorandum are to: (i) develop a unit cost model for evaluating the feasibility and
costs of dredging and disposing of sediments from the Morgan Falls impoundment; and
(ii) identify feasibility considerations and constraints.
The unit costs for dredging the Morgan Falls impoundment were estimated by
evaluating three dredging scenarios. The three dredging scenarios, defined as small,
medium, and large, are broadly based upon the quantity of material to be removed,
ease of access for land-based operations, sediment handling and disposal logistics, and
disposal site location. While Georgia Power is not proposing to conduct a particular
dredging project, the three dredging scenarios are designed to bracket a wide range of
potential dredging options. The scenarios are designed to offer insight to the feasibility
considerations and constraints that may be a part of any specific dredging alterative.
Cost estimates derived from these three scenarios were derived using a combination
of locally obtained labor rates, quotes and estimates from local vendors and suppliers,
and commercially available estimating documents.
The three cost scenarios have been graphically presented with and without
transportation and disposal (T&D) costs included as a part of the estimated costs and
subsequently extrapolated unit rates (cost per yard). This allows the user to easily
identify the total estimated cost of a specific dredging alternative while being able to
readily identify the contribution T&D impart to the total project or unit rate cost of a
specific dredging alternative that may be considered. This use of this differentiation is
further illustrated during discussion of the three T&D alternatives presented within the
medium scenario.
The following table summarizes the total estimated project cost for each scenario as
well as presents the extrapolated cost per cubic yard of dredging for each of the three
scenarios:
iv
Estimated Dredging
Volume (CY)
Total Cost ($)
Including Transportation & Disposal
12,000
$1,860,000
330,000
$32,257,000
1,690,000
$140,694,000
Unit Rate
($/CY)
$155.00
$97.75
$83.25
$94.25
$37.08
$24.30
$37.49
$37.24
The cost estimates for each scenario were graphed versus the volume of dredged
material. This graph provides a unit cost model to assist with interpolating unit rates for
dredging alternatives that might be identified in the future (in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act), but are not specifically addressed in this study.
$/CY
$150.00
$125.00
$100.00
$75.00
$50.00
$25.00
$0.00
0
00
0,
80
1,
0
00
0,
60
1,
0
00
0,
40
1,
0
00
0,
20
1,
0
00
0,
00
1,
0
00
0,
80
0
00
0,
60
0
00
0,
40
0
00
0,
20
$ /CY (E xc l. T&D)
While this technical memorandum addresses many of the technical and feasibility
considerations and constraints that dredging the Morgan Fall impoundment would
entail, the cost model does not include consideration for indirect, intangible, and other
non-economic impacts to the river system, surrounding properties, neighborhoods,
roads, or items outside of those issues detailed in the body of this technical
memorandum. As such, any use of this unit cost model must also consider these
indirect, intangible, or other non-economic impacts.
vi
1.
INTRODUCTION
This technical memorandum develops unit cost information for evaluating the
feasibility and costs of dredging, transporting, and disposing of sediment from the
Morgan Falls impoundment (Bull Sluice Lake) located on the Chattahoochee River in
metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia, in Fulton and Cobb Counties. Georgia Power tasked
GeoSyntec Consultants (GeoSyntec) to perform this dredging feasibility analysis as part
of the Geology and Soils Study for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
relicensing of the Morgan Falls Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2237). The estimated
costs of dredging documented in this technical memorandum will facilitate the analysis
of any dredging alternatives identified for consideration in Georgia Powers license
application or in FERCs subsequent National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
document.
1.1
Objectives
The objectives of this technical memorandum are to develop a unit cost model for
evaluating the feasibility and costs of dredging and disposing of sediments from the
Morgan Falls impoundment and to identify feasibility considerations and constraints.
Estimated unit costs of dredging are plotted against the volume of dredged material to
provide a tool for evaluating the costs of specific dredging alternatives that may be
identified for consideration in the license application or NEPA document. The unit
costs were estimated by evaluating three dredging scenarios that bracketed a range of
potential dredging options. The three scenarios were defined broadly by the quantity of
material to be removed, ease of access for land-based operations, sediment handling and
disposal logistics, and disposal site location. The scenarios presented are not intended
to represent specific dredging alternatives but they offer insight to the feasibility
considerations and constraints involved in any specific dredging project. At this time,
Georgia Power does not plan to propose dredging activities as part of its proposed
project for relicensing the Morgan Falls Project.
1.2
Background
1.2.1
Project Setting
The flow of the Chattahoochee River is regulated primarily by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) Buford Dam, which controls 76 percent of the
drainage area upstream of Morgan Falls dam.
The river between Buford Dam and Peachtree Creek in the City of Atlanta is
managed as a trout fishery.
The Chattahoochee River between Buford Dam and Morgan Falls dam drains
high density areas of northern metropolitan Atlanta, receiving sediment and
other pollutants associated with urban storm water runoff. The cities of
Roswell and Sandy Springs are located north and southeast of the project,
respectively.
Current land uses surrounding the project boundary are mostly residential,
resulting in use of the impoundment for recreation and as a scenic viewshed.
Parks and recreation facilities along the shorelines of the impoundment include
the Island Ford, Vickery Creek, and Gold Branch units of the Chattahoochee
2
River National Recreation Area (CRNRA), four parks and a riverwalk operated
by the City of Roswell, the Chattahoochee Nature Center, and three private
rowing clubs.
Further development and certain land disturbing activities within the 2,000-ft
buffer riparian corridor are limited by standards adopted by the Atlanta
Regional Commission (ARC) as a Chattahoochee Corridor Plan pursuant to the
Metropolitan River Protection Act (MRPA).
The National Park Service (NPS) manages the CRNRA, consisting of the river
and its bed together with 16 land units along the river, to preserve and protect
the 48-mile corridor from Buford Dam to Peachtree Creek and its associated
natural and cultural resources.
Two major drinking water intakes for metropolitan Atlanta are located in a 12mile segment downstream of Morgan Falls dam.
1.2.2 Consultation
During study plan development, several stakeholders expressed concern regarding
sedimentation issues related to the Morgan Falls impoundment. Some stakeholders
suggested that alternatives for addressing sedimentation should consider a range of
dredging options in the Morgan Falls impoundment, while others maintained that FERC
relicensing is not the proper forum for considering dredging. The information
developed in this technical memorandum regarding dredging feasibility and costs will
identify reasonable and feasible alternatives for the NEPA document, which comes later
in this relicensing proceeding, of which this analysis is only a part.
1.2.3
and implementation of sediment investigation and removal work plans for tidally
influenced creek sediments, wetlands and an associated industrial outfall ditch. Located
in coastal Georgia, the site was adjacent to residential communities. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Georgia Environmental Protection
Division (GEPD) were the regulatory bodies overseeing the removal action. During
this project, approximately 20,000 cubic yards of sediment impacted with toxaphene
were required to be removed from nine removal areas. Mr. Monteleone was responsible
for the preparation and evaluation of multiple removal options and prepared the removal
action work plan and the design and bid packages for the impacted sediment within the
removal zones. The project design was approved in the winter of 1998, construction
began in the summer of 1999, and was completed in May 2000. Mr. Monteleone was
responsible for construction management of the project and also served as the Engineerof-Record to certify construction completion.
Mr. Monteleone was also responsible for the evaluation and design of sediment
removal options from within impacted wetlands adjacent to a permitted solid waste
facility in Athens, Georgia. Mr. Monteleone was responsible for overseeing the
wetlands mitigation plan preparation and prepared the Corps 404 permit to conduct the
work. On this project, approximately 2,000 cubic yards of cover soil material washed
off the closed portion of the facility into the adjacent wetlands. Various removal
options were considered. The final solution was to enhance the wetland plants that
were beginning to re-emerge after the soil deposition, and perform limited sediment
removal and revegetation.
Locally, Mr. Monteleone designed and managed the dredging of a private lake in
Stone Mountain, Georgia. In 1998, as a commercial property was developed along
Highway 78 in Stone Mountain, Gwinnett County, Georgia, storm water runoff from
the property resulted in a release of soil material into a private lake that was held and
managed by a homeowners association. The material was transported down a small
tributary stream and deposited in a cove area of Lake Lucerne. The remedial actions
consented to required the property owner to enhance (i) the existing storm water basin,
(ii) the existing onsite wetland and (iii) create a new wetland stream channel. The
objectives were to protect downstream uses and receptors by improving the storm water
basins sediment retention, enhancing the existing wetlands and creating a new wetland.
In addition, the order required the owner to remove the sediment deposited in the lake
cove down to the natural lake bottom. Mr. Monteleone was responsible for evaluating
the nature and extent of the sediment impact to the lake, design and permit all elements
4
required under the site owners consent agreement with EPA, as well as implementation
of the design in accordance with terms of the consent agreement. Approximately 3,000
cubic yards of sediment was dredged from the lake. The material was pumped nearly a
mile to a staging area, located on the property under development, where it was
dewatered and later used on site for grading purposes.
Mr. Scott Elder, MBA is GeoSyntecs Southeast Regional Construction Services
Manager. Mr. Elder has a Masters in Business Administration (MBA) from Georgia
State University and 16 years of environmental and enviro-civil experience. Mr.
Elders project experience includes more than 150 projects in capacities ranging from
contractor oversight/support services on Federal Superfund sites to managing envirocivil construction and remediation projects. His project experience includes the public
and private sector work within the residential, industrial, and commercial community.
Mr. Elder has been directly responsible for issues concerning contract compliance, cost
and budget tracking, adherence to health and safety standards, resource allocation and
scheduling, labor and subcontractor procurement, and management on multi-million
dollar projects across the Southeast.
As a project manager with an Atlanta-based environmental contractor, Mr. Elder
bid and managed projects under design-build, design-bid, and traditional hard bid
mechanisms. He has first-hand knowledge of construction materials and methods
provides valuable design/construction insight, identification of potential construction
conflicts, contractor management, as well as value engineering and solution
implementation, including projects requiring dredging, wetlands encroachment, or
wetland reconstruction in Georgia, Louisiana, and Puerto Rico.
1.2.3.2 Principal Technical Reviewer
Mr. Ken Cargill, P.E., as a Principal Researcher in the Geotechnical Laboratory at
the Corps Waterways Experiment Station (WES), did pioneering work on soft soil
consolidation and extended the finite strain theory to the prediction of settlements of
dredged material in confined disposal areas. He quickly became the Corps' expert on
soft soil consolidation and was responsible for the development of long-term disposal
area design procedures still in use today. The work involved writing and documenting
expedient computer solutions to the complex equation governing a multitude of loading
and boundary conditions (to include a desiccated surface), new consolidation charts for
hand calculations, validation of the prediction method through monitored field sites, and
5
Project manager and design engineer-of-record for a new ship turning basin in
Savannah Harbor for the Southern Liquid Natural Gas ship off-loading facility.
The project is comprised of the relocation of approximately 2,000 feet of
dredged material containment area dikes, construction of 4,500 feet of armored
protection for the shoreline of the turning basin, and dredging of 4,000,000
cubic yards to merge the turning basin and the river channel.
Special consultant to a major consulting firm for the analysis and evaluation of
the long-term storage capacity of the dredged material containment area to be
constructed by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District in
Wilmington Harbor.
2.
TECHNICAL APPROACH
2.1
Overview
Site restoration.
locations are located on Georgia Power property, and as such, negotiations would have
to be undertaken with the current owners to determine availability to (assumed to be
available for this analysis) purchase or lease these parcels for use during the project.
Georgia Power does not own any lands within the project boundary capable of being
used for LBSAs as envisioned in the dredging scenarios. The area owned by Georgia
Power adjacent to Morgan Falls dam is not considered suitable for the operations,
because the terrain is hilly and the area is utilized by Georgia Power for operation and
maintenance of the Morgan Falls Project.
It is also assumed that the selected LBSA sites could be modified to accommodate
the staging and dewatering of dredged sediment, equipment operations, and loadout and
off-site transportation of dewatered sediment. LBSAs would be cleared of trees and
undergrowth as necessary to establish open work areas. The LBSA would be fenced for
security purposes, and the necessary sediment and erosion control measures would be
installed at each LBSA. Three LBSAs have been identified and are presented in Figure
1. It is envisioned that any of the sites could be used alone or in combination with
others, depending on the actual location and volume of sediment removal. The LBSA
or LBSA combination assumed for each scenario is described in the discussion of each
scenario.
Figure 1 shows the Morgan Falls impoundment, the potential LBSAs, and the
general area of the impoundment being evaluated for dredging feasibility between the
Roswell Road bridge and the Morgan Falls dam. The specific LBSA locations1 and
dredging areas are estimated based on GeoSyntecs current understanding of current
land use and field reconnaissance. It is important to note that for the purposes of
developing conceptual level costs, a specific LBSA site was identified. However, the
magnitude of operations and costs could apply similarly to other LBSA locations within
the impoundment area. If a dredging project were to proceed, the actual LBSAs and
specific dredging areas and depths would be defined during the design and permitting of
the project. The feasibility and costs developed in this technical memorandum are
based on certain assumptions about land availability and permitting of the LBSAs. The
assumptions are provided in subsequent discussions for each scenario.
Sediment would be removed by hydraulic dredge and pumped as a slurry to the
selected LBSA. For the purposes of this technical memorandum, sediment removal
1
LBSAs are numbered 1 through 3 from closest proximity to the dam (#1) and proceeding upriver to the
furthest location (#3).
8
thickness has been assumed to average 2.5 feet, although project-specific end use may
require dredging to greater or lesser depths. An example of a possible dredge for the
project is the 370 HP Ellicott Dragon shown in the inset photograph. It is operated by a
diesel engine that is rated for up to 320 cubic yards (CY) per hour of dredging
production, is modular, and is
considered generally easy to
transport.
Once conveyed to the LBSAs,
the sediments would be deposited
in stockpiles for dewatering.
Dewatering would occur primarily
via gravity. Because the LBSAs
are in close proximity to the rivers
edge, it is assumed that water
drained from the sediment could be Photo from Ellicott, a division of Baltimore Dredges, LLC
(www.dredge.com/ld_dragon.htm
conveyed by gravity or pumped
back to the river. Water would be
filtered by at least two lines of silt fence, floating turbidity curtains, or other methods to
remove suspended particles. Following dewatering, the sediments would be loaded into
over-the-road trucks and transported off site for disposal in a local Construction and
Demolition (C&D) debris landfill2.
2.2
Small Scenario
The small scenario involves the dredging of approximately 12,000 CY (7.4 acrefeet) of sediment from the Morgan Falls impoundment. An area of 129,600 square feet
(SF) approximately three acres to an average depth of 2.5 feet has been assumed in
estimating this volume. The small scenario is intended to represent a limited dredging
operation in a single area of the impoundment.
A C&D landfill typically receives any one or more of the following types of solid waste: roadwork
materials, excavated materials, demolition waste, construction/renovation waste and site clearance
waste, but not hazardous waste or industrial solid waste (40 CFR Part 257).
9
2.3
Medium Scenario
2.4
Large Scenario
2.5
Conceptual level cost estimates have been generated for each of the aforementioned
scenarios for the purpose of deriving unit costs related to the volume of material
removed. The estimated scenario costs are presented in summary in Section 3 of this
technical memorandum along with a more detailed operational description of each
scenario. A more detailed discussion of cost is provided in Section 4.
Section 4 also presents the unit cost model that has been derived from the
conceptual level cost estimates. This unit cost model can be used to estimate cost for a
wide variety of conceptual project scenarios by enabling the user to associate a cost per
cubic yard for projects of similar scope and conditions. The estimated cost per cubic
yard can be used to calculate a total estimated project cost for a given dredging volume.
Critical to the use of the dredging unit cost model are the conditions, assumptions,
and limitation upon which the model is based. Modification to these conditions or
assumptions and exceeding the limitations of the unit cost model will decrease its
accuracy and functionality. Scenario-specific conditions and assumptions are presented
within Sections 3 and 4 of this technical memorandum. The general conditions and
assumptions are summarized in Table 1.
10
TABLE 1
Summary of Project Assumptions and Conditions for the Three Dredging Scenarios
Item
Assumption
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Medium
Scenario
Alternative #1
Medium
Scenario
Alternative #2
Medium
Scenario
Alternative #3
12,000
330,000
330,000
330,000
1,690,000
1,300
1,300
1,300
1,300
2,600
Small
Scenario
11
Large
Scenario
TABLE 1
Summary of Project Assumptions and Conditions for the Three Dredging Scenarios
Item
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
27
28
29
30
31
32
Assumption
A round trip for each truck from the LBSA to the
landfill has been estimated at one hour. Restrictions on
this transportation rate (i.e., maximum use restrictions)
will not be imposed on the project
Amount of dredged material transported to landfill (CY)
Number of dredges used
Number of LBSA to be used
The method to transport dredged materials to the landfill
is over-the-road trucks
Transport truck capacity (CY/truck)
Rate of truck loading at LBSA is 6 minutes/truck
Disposal cost at landfill is $20/ton
Volume to weight conversion is 1.6 ton/CY
Dredging and dewatering occur as concurrent operations
Dewatering of dredged sediments via gravity (passive
dewatering)
Dewatering of dredged sediments by a combination of
gravity and specially constructed drainage Systems (i.e.,
sumps and active dewatering)
Turbidity curtains are utilized at the LBSA(s) to mitigate
sediment transport and/or migration
Dredging quantities includes the area occupied by the
LBSA (LBSA 3)
The project is completed by for-profit entities (i.e., firms
outside of Georgia Power)
Cost estimate includes project overhead, profit,
insurance, general and administrative expenses, and
contractors contingency
Medium
Scenario
Alternative #1
Medium
Scenario
Alternative #2
Medium
Scenario
Alternative #3
12,000
1
1
330,000
1
1
165,000
1
1
0
1
1
13
13
13
13
Small
Scenario
Large
Scenario
1,690,000
2
3
12
TABLE 1
Summary of Project Assumptions and Conditions for the Three Dredging Scenarios
Item
33
34
Assumption
No cost or effort is included for repair or replacement of
the public use roads.
No costs are included for future maintenance dredging
or re-dredging of the project
Medium
Scenario
Alternative #1
Medium
Scenario
Alternative #2
Medium
Scenario
Alternative #3
Small
Scenario
13
Large
Scenario
3.
FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT
3.1
Small Scenario
3.1.1
Approximately two weeks for loadout and transportation off site; and
For the purposes of this report, a week is defined as the standard work week presented in this report (i.e.,
five work days, Monday through Friday). As example, seven weeks is calculated as 35 work days.
14
A Gantt chart summarizing the major work activities, estimated durations, and
relationships to the other elements of the project is included in Attachment A.
3.1.2
The small scenario includes the establishment of a single LBSA. The LBSA is
used to stage equipment, stockpile dredged sediment during the dewatering process, and
as the loadout area for the transportation of the dredged sediments off site for disposal.
The small scenario LBSA, indicated as LBSA 1 on Figures 1 and 2, is an
approximately 11-acre parcel located on property owned by Fulton County just above
the Morgan Falls dam. During a reconnaissance by GeoSyntec in October 2005, the
parcel was noted to contain moderate to steeply sloped areas interspersed with larger
level or gently sloped areas. The area was moderately vegetated primarily with smaller
trees, stands of bamboo, scrub undergrowth, and grass. As a part of the small scenario,
the 11 acres would be cleared of vegetation and gravel access roads would be
constructed into and throughout the LBSA to allow truck and equipment access.
The LBSA is located at the end of a narrow surface street and is approximately 1.2
miles from Roswell Road. Access to Roswell Road is controlled by a traffic signal.
The street appears to be of light to medium duty asphalt and does show signs of
cracking and wear. It is likely that the number of trucks (approximately 925 loaded
trucks) that would pass across this road during the course of transporting the 12,000 CY
of sediment off site would cause additional damage to the road and likely require repair
or replacement of significant portions of the road. A cost and effort allocation for repair
or replacement of the road has not been included in this feasibility assessment.
Based upon the assumption that 75 percent of the cleared land (11 acres) could be
utilized for sediment stockpiling and dewatering, approximately 8 acres would be
available for sediment storage and dewatering. Based upon an assumed stockpile height
and the available laydown area, all 12,000 CY could be stored on site at a single time.
Dredging, dewatering, and loadout for transportation off site would not have to be as
closely coordinated as would be necessary under the medium and large scenarios.
Dredging and dewatering activities could be completed prior to loadout and
transportation off site. For the purpose of this feasibility study, two weeks have been
scheduled for sediment dewatering followed by loadout and transportation off site of the
dewatered sediments.
15
3.1.3
The small scenario assumes the use of a single hydraulic dredging unit with an
assumed minimum production capacity of 1,300 CY per day, based upon dredging
equipment production charts and an estimation of a sustainable off-site transportation
rate of the dewatering dredged materials. This feasibility study assumes that the
distance between the dredge and the LBSA stockpile area would not be more that onehalf mile. Additional distances may require the use of a larger dredge, booster pumps,
or other equipment and controls to move the dredged sediments these additional
distances. The need for additional equipment or controls would have a direct impact to
the cost of the project. Using the assumed minimum dredge production capacity, the
12,000 CY of sediments could be removed and stockpiled for dewatering in 10 work
days.
Dewatering would be accomplished by, stockpiling, and turning the slurried
dredged sediments after placement in the LBSA. The piles would be turned using
conventional construction equipment (e.g., trackhoe, dozer) to facilitate dewatering.
Most residual water would be removed by gravity drainage of the stockpiles. The
sediment dewatering rates are based on past project experience and the geotechnical
data contained in Attachment B. GeoSyntec has estimated that it would take
approximately two weeks from the time the sediments are dredged and placed into a
stockpile until sufficient water is removed from the sediments to permit transportation
off site. If the sediments do not drain readily, other dewatering methods may have to be
employed. These other methods would add cost and may add time to the project
schedule.
3.1.4
A bank yard is defined as one cubic yard of natural undisturbed soil, rock or other material. .
16
3.1.5
Restoration
Following the removal of sediment from the LBSA, the LBSA would be restored to
prevent erosion and ensure long-term stability. It is proposed that at the conclusion of
The estimate is based upon commercial heavy equipment production tables and GeoSyntec project
experience.
17
project activities, the active work areas of the LBSA (stockpile, loadout areas, etc)
would be stabilized by hydroseeding with grass.
3.1.6
Of the total estimated cost of $1,860,000 for the small scenario, the estimated costs
directly associated with dredging, transportation, and disposal costs are approximately
$1,557,000. Approximately, $729,000 can be directly attributed to the loadout,
transportation, and disposal of the dewatered sediments. Further discussion and tables
illustrating the cost allocations are included in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of this technical
memorandum.
3.1.7
As stated earlier, this scenario is based upon a set of assumptions and conditions.
Those assumptions and conditions include, but may not be limited, to the following list.
The work schedule is based upon a five-day, 10 hour per day work week.
No allocation has been made for schedule overruns, delays, or change orders
that may arise as the result of unknown conditions.
The cost estimate includes a reasonable allocation for the contractors insurance
costs. Special policies or limits beyond industry standards have not been
included.
The amount of sediment to be dredged under the small scenario is 12,000 CY.
18
3.2
The dredging operation and LBSA will be located within one-half mile of one
another.
Chadwick Road Landfill is willing and able to accept the material at the time of
disposal; if not, then significant increases to the transport and disposal costs
will be realized.
Any dredging event is a one time event and no costs are included for
maintenance dredging or re-dredging activities.
Medium Scenario
The presence of environmental contamination in the dredged sediments could increase transportation
and disposal costs by a factor of two or more due to greater transportation distances to a permitted
disposal facility and higher tipping fees at the disposal facility.
19
represent a substantially larger, yet undefined, dredging operation. The estimated total
cost for the medium scenario is presented in below. Each cost is inclusive of field
operations, transportation, disposal (as applicable), design, permitting, construction
management and construction quality assurance services.
TABLE 2
$32,257,000
$22,383,000
3.2.1
$12,288,000
20
The estimated duration of field operations for the medium scenario is sixty-two
weeks. Certain work activities within the project occur concurrently. The estimated
duration of each project work activity is:
Fifty-one weeks for loadout and transportation off site (to be started two weeks
after dredging commences); and
Due to some work activities occurring concurrently, the overall project duration
may not be the sum of each respective work activity duration, but instead the overall
project duration is based upon the relationships between and the duration of each work
activity. A Gantt chart summarizing the major work activities, estimated durations, and
relationships to the other work activities of the project is included in Attachment A.
3.2.2
largely level with only minor elevation changes at the area periphery or at the berms or
peninsulas.
In order to be functional for the project, soil structure improvements would have to
be made to these saturated soils in order to provide a functional LBSA. As a part of the
feasibility review and cost estimate, it has been assumed that approximately two acres
of the LBSA would be improved by the placement of geosynthetic reinforcement, fill
soil, and a gravel surface. The two acre area would serve as an equipment staging,
truck access and egress route, and general project staging location. Gravel access roads
would be constructed throughout the remaining 34 acres of LBSA to provide truck and
other equipment access to and from the two-acre staging area.
Based upon the assumption that 75 percent of remaining LBSA 3 area (34 acres)
could be utilized for sediment stockpiling and dewatering, approximately 26 acres
would be available for active LBSA use. Of this, it is estimated that 33 percent of the
available 34 acre area (approximately eight acres) would be dedicated to access roads,
stockpile spacing, and generally unavailable for staging and dewatering operations. The
remaining area available for sediment stockpiling and dewatering is therefore 18 acres.
Based upon an assumed stockpile height and available stockpile area, the anticipated
330,000 CY would have a calculated vertical height of approximately 11 to 12 feet if all
of the material were dredged and stockpiled at one time. This is feasible from a layout
and stockpiling scenario, but unfeasible from a scheduling and project duration point of
view. In order to effectively manage the cost of the project, dredging, dewatering, and
loadout for transportation off site should be conducted concurrently, with close
coordination in order to achieve a sustainable balance between the three major site
activities.
to truck cycle times (i.e., transportation to and from the landfill from the LBSA) and
access to and use of the public roads.
This feasibility study assumes that the distance between the dredge and LBSA
stockpile area will not be more that one-half mile. Additional distances may require the
use of a larger dredge, booster pumps, or other equipment and controls to move the
dredged sediments these additional distances. The need for additional equipment or
controls would have a direct impact to the cost of the project.
Under this assumption, the 330,000 CY of sediment could be removed and
stockpiled for dewatering in approximately 254 work days. Sediment would be
conveyed by the dredge directly to the LBSA stockpile areas. GeoSyntec has assumed
in this feasibility analysis that the stockpiles would be constructed directly on top of the
existing sediment and soil in the LBSA. No improvement to the saturated sediment or
soil would be made. A combination of physical barriers, low ground pressure
equipment, and gravel access roads would be used to develop areas access, site
administrative areas, and stockpile areas. Physical barriers would mitigate surface or
river water flow into the LBSA. Low ground pressure equipment is designed to operate
in areas of soft soils and would therefore be applicable to this situation. The
construction of strategically placed gravel access roads throughout the LBSA would
permit truck and other non-low ground pressure equipment to move from the LBSA
staging area to the stockpiles for loading.
Dewatering would be accomplished by stockpiling the sediment in the LBSA. In
contrast to the small scenario, the medium scenario would require a more active
dewatering effort. This is largely due to the fact that LBSA 3 is a level parcel of land
consisting of saturated soil and sediment at an elevation near that of the river. The
combination of level terrain and low elevation would reduce the effectiveness of gravity
dewatering. Instead, GeoSyntec has assumed that the tops of the stockpiles would be
able to be dewatered by gravity, but the lower area of the stockpiles would remain
saturated or nearly saturated without additional dewatering efforts. To this end, the
construction of a sand drainage layer and perforated pipe dewatering system with sumps
equipped with pumps has been included within this feasibility analysis. The sumps
would be constructed of perforated pipe and connected to a gallery of pipe laid in a one
foot layer of permeable sand under each of the stockpiles. As the pile dewatered via
gravity, the water would be conveyed via the perforated pipe to the sumps. At the
sumps, the collected water would be lifted by pump and conveyed away from the pile
and discharged back into the river. A turbidity curtain would be installed at the river to
23
assist with managing any sediment that may be conveyed during the stockpile
dewatering. In order to assist the gravity dewatering, the upper sections of the
stockpiles would be turned using conventional construction equipment (e.g., trackhoe,
dozer).
The sediment dewatering rates are based on past project experience and the
geotechnical data contained in Attachment B. GeoSyntec has estimated that it would
take approximately two weeks from the time the sediment is dredged and placed into a
stockpile until sufficient water is removed from the sediment to permit transportation
off site. If the sediment does not drain readily, other dewatering methods may have to
be employed. These other methods would add cost and may add time to the project
schedule.
3.2.4
GeoSyntec has considered three alternatives under the medium scenario pertaining
to transportation and off-site disposal (T&D) of the dredged sediments. The three
alternatives are summarized in the following bullets.
All dredged sediment is transported off site for disposal (T&D Alternative 1).
Approximately one half of the dredged sediment volume is transported off site
while one half of the sediment volume would remain on site and be graded and
stabilized by revegetation (T&D Alternative 2).
All of the dredged sediment is left in the LBSA with grading and vegetative
stabilization (T&D Alternative 3).
T&D Alternative 1
As presented in the small scenario, dewatered sediment would be loaded into overthe-road dump trucks by conventional equipment. The loaded trucks would travel on
public roads to a local C&D landfill for disposal. It has been assumed that the over-theroad trucks would have a capacity of 13 CY and the loadout, transportation, and
disposal rate would be 1,300 CY per work day.
The dewatered sediment would be disposed at the Chadwick Road Landfill. This
landfill is located approximately six miles from the LBSA. GeoSyntec has estimated
24
that one truck could be loaded and released from the LBSA every six minutes. This is
the equivalent of transporting 1,300 CY off of the site during a 10 hour work day.
Based upon a project volume of 330,000 CY, approximately 25,400 truckloads of
dewatered sediment would have to be transported off the site. At a rate of 100 truck
loads per day (1,300 CY/day), the estimated duration of sediment transportation and
disposal is 254 work days or approximately one year based upon a five day work week.
Significant coordination would have to be made with the City of Roswell and local
residents regarding the transportation of the sediment. Willeo Road and Azalea Drive
are busy thoroughfares. The additional traffic load of a loaded dump truck departing
the site every six minutes (one would also return every six minutes) may create
intolerable congestion. Moreover, Azalea Drive has significant public use from
pedestrians, bikers, and has a major recreation use area on it. The anticipated volume of
truck traffic, noise and other factors may not be permissible for this road. A graphical
illustration of the estimated volume of truck traffic for each scenario (small, medium,
and large) is included as Figure 3 to this technical memorandum.
The estimated portion of the total project cost associated with loadout,
transportation, and disposal is $20,021,000.
T&D Alternative 2
Similar to T&D Alternative 1, dewatered sediment would be loaded into over-theroad dump trucks by conventional equipment. The loaded trucks would travel on public
use roads to a local C&D landfill for disposal. It has been assumed that the over-theroad trucks would have a capacity of 13 CY (bank) and the loadout, transportation, and
disposal rate would be 1,300 CY per work day.
Rather than transporting all 330,000 CY off the site, only half of the sediment
would be transported off the site. The initial 165,000 CY of sediment would be
dewatered, loaded out, and transported off site for disposal. The remaining 165,000 CY
of sediment would be dewatered, left on site and graded. More information regarding
the use of the remaining sediment is discussed in the Restoration section of this report.
The dewatered sediment would be disposed at Chadwick Road Landfill. This
landfill is located approximately six miles from the LBSA. Based upon one truck being
loaded and released from the LBSA every six minutes, the daily equivalent is 1,300 CY
per 10 hour work day. One-half of the project volume is 165,000 CY or approximately
25
12,700 truckloads. At a rate of 100 truck loads per day (1,300 CY/day), the estimated
duration of sediment transportation and disposal is reduced from 254 work days (1 year)
to approximately 127 days or six months, based upon a five day work week.
The same considerations presented in T&D Alternative 1 pertaining to road use,
noise, and truck traffic remain valid and must be considered. However, the duration of
truck traffic is significantly reduced.
The estimated portion of the total project cost associated with loadout,
transportation, and disposal for T&D Alternative 2 is $10,012,000.
T&D Alternative 3
Under T&D Alternative 3, all dredged sediment would remain at the LBSA and
transportation and disposal would not be required. As a result, for T&D Alternative #3,
there are no costs associated with transportation and disposal of the dredged sediment.
3.2.5
Restoration
Option 1: If all of the sediments are removed from the LBSA, the LBSA would
be returned to near pre-dredging elevations. As such, saturation of the soils,
flooding, and water intrusion from the river would be restored as the river is
allowed to return to pre-dredging, normal levels. Restoration of the LBSA
would include some grading to restore the original topography across the LBSA
and wetland plantings within the LBSA to assist with the restoration of the
LBSA to a pre-dredging condition. The LBSA would be left in a condition
similar to currently existing conditions a mud flat bordered by wetlands with
wide, shallow water retention and ponding. The two acre LBSA staging area
would remain in place and could be considered stable as a result of the large
volume of gravel placed over the area as part of the project.
3.2.6
Of the $32,257,000 total estimated cost for Alternative 1 of the medium scenario,
approximately $30,823,000 can be directly attributed to dredging, transportation and
disposal. Approximately, $20,021,000 of the $32,257,000 can be directly attributed to
the loadout, transportation, and disposal of all of the dewatered sediment.
Of the $22,383,000 total estimated cost for Alternative 2 of the medium scenario,
approximately $20,942,000 can be directly attributed to dredging, transportation and
disposal. Approximately, $10,012,000 can be directly attributed to the loadout,
transportation, and disposal of the dewatered sediment. In the cases of Alternative 2,
the volume of dewatered sediment loaded out, transported off site, and disposed of is
165,000 CY.
27
Of the $12,288,000 total estimated cost for Alternative 3 of the medium scenario,
approximately $10,853,000 can be directly attributed to dredging activities. There are
no loadout, transportation, or disposal costs associated with Alternative 3.
Further discussion and tables illustrating the cost allocations are included in
Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of this technical memorandum.
3.2.7
As stated earlier, the medium scenario is based upon a set of assumptions and
conditions. Those assumptions and conditions include, but may not be limited, to the
following list.
The work schedule is based upon a five-day, 10 hour per day work week.
No allocation has been made for schedule overruns, delays, or change orders
that may arise as the result of unknown conditions.
The cost estimate includes a reasonable allocation for the contractors insurance
costs. Special policies or limits beyond industry standards have not been
included.
The dredging operation and LBSA will be located no more than one half mile
of one another.
Chadwick Road Landfill is willing and able to accept the material at the time of
disposal, if not then significant increases to the transport and disposal costs
could be realized.
Any dredging event is a one time event and no costs are included for
maintenance dredging or re-dredging activities.
3.3
Large Scenario
3.3.1
As a part of the feasibility assessment for the large scenario, GeoSyntec completed
a preliminary cost estimate, including the labor resources, equipment, and other
resources necessary to complete the large scenario as previously defined. The detailed
cost estimate includes numerous assumptions and conditions upon which the estimate is
predicated. The cost estimate also includes cost allocations for design and engineering
29
One hundred and forty-three weeks for loadout and transportation off site (to be
started after dredging commences); and
A Gantt chart summarizing the major work activities, estimated durations, and
relationships to the other activities of the project is included in Attachment A.
3.3.2
The large scenario includes the establishment of three LBSAs to be used to stage
equipment, dredged sediment during the dewatering process, and as the loadout area for
the transportation of the dredged sediment off site for disposal. Multiple areas have to
be used in order to support simultaneous operations and in order to provide LBSAs
within an acceptable distance from the actual dredging location (currently limited to
one-half mile).
The LBSAs, indicated as LBSA 1 and LBSA 3 on Figures 1 and 2 are the same
LBSAs as described in the small and medium scenarios. Preparation of these areas
would be identical to that presented in each of the previous scenarios.
LBSA 2 would be an additional staging area constructed for the large scenario
(Figures 1& 2). LBSA 2 is a parcel of land approximately 28 acres in size located south
of the mouth of Willeo Creek on the Gold Branch Unit of the CRNRA (Figure 1). This
land is owned and managed by the NPS. LBSA 2 is accessed off of Timber Ridge Road
30
and Lower Roswell Road in Roswell, Georgia. LBSA 2 is currently a heavily wooded
parcel of land above the shoreline of the Morgan Falls impoundment. At the time it was
reconnoitered (October 2005), LBSA 2 was a wooded area with a mixture of pine and
hardwood trees, brush, and underbrush. The area was observed to be generally sloping
from Lower Roswell Road toward the river. Grades in some areas were gentle with
significant steep grades in localized areas throughout the parcel. Some of the more
steeply sloped areas are apparent storm water conveyances and as such could not be
blocked or easily re-directed. A single-lane, light duty asphalt road was observed
leading from Lower Roswell Road into LBSA 2.
In order to be functional for the project, significant land clearing operations would
need to be undertaken, including the felling and removal of trees, brush, and
undergrowth, across the LBSA. With planning, it may be possible to leave strategically
important trees (i.e., older growth) on site. Gravel access roads would be constructed
throughout the LBSA to provide truck and other equipment access across the LBSA.
Based upon the assumption that 75 percent of LBSA 2 (28 acres) could be utilized
for sediment stockpiling and dewatering, approximately 21 acres would be available for
active LBSA use. Of this, GeoSyntec estimates that 33 percent of the available area
(approximately 7 acres) would be dedicated to access roads, stockpile spacing, and
generally unavailable for staging and dewatering operations. The remaining area
available for sediment stockpiling and dewatering is, therefore, approximately 14 acres.
In order to cost effectively manage the project, dredging, dewatering, and loadout
for transportation off site should be performed concurrently and with close coordination
in order to achieve a sustainable balance between the three major site activities of
dredging, dewatering, and transportation off site.
The need for additional equipment or controls would have a direct impact to the cost of
the project.
Sediment would be conveyed by each dredge directly to a LBSA stockpile area.
One dredge would be responsible for dredging the lower reaches of the river and
depositing the sediment in LBSAs 1 and 2. The other dredge would be responsible for
dredging the middle and upper reaches of the river and depositing the sediments at
LBSA 3. Dredging with placement in LBSA 1 and LBSA 2 will be conducted by one
of the dredging units and is anticipated to take 143 weeks. The dredging and placement
of sediment in LBSA 3 will be conducted by the second dredging unit and will occur
concurrently with the other dredging operation. It is estimated that the second dredges
operations will take 117 weeks. After completing dredging and placement at LBSA 3,
the second dredging unit would be demobilized from the site. Dredging and placement
into a single LBSA can not be conducted by two dredges simultaneously as it will
overwhelm the rate at which the sediments can be dewatered and transported off site.
Therefore, the overall work activity duration for the dredging of 1,690,000 CY of
sediments is 143 weeks.
As with the previous scenarios, it has been assumed in this feasibility analysis that
the sediment stockpiles would be constructed directly on top of the existing sediment
and soil in the LBSAs. No improvement to the saturated sediment or soil would be
made in LBSA 3. A combination of physical barriers, low ground pressure equipment,
and gravel access roads would be used to develop useable stockpile areas.
The large scenario differs from the medium scenario in one significant
consideration. Namely, the medium scenario left the soil and sediment under LBSA 3
undisturbed, that is, they were not to be dredged. The large scenario includes dredging
of the sediments underlying LBSA 3 to achieve removal of the targeted volume of
sediment. This results in the removal of LBSA 3 during the dredging activities.
Dewatering in LBSAs 1 and 2 would occur via gravity. Dewatering in LBSA 3
would be via the manner described in the medium scenario with accommodations made
for a modified dewatering procedure during the cannibalization of LBSA 3.
The sediment dewatering rates are based on past project experience and the
geotechnical data contained in Attachment B. GeoSyntec has estimated that it would
take approximately two weeks from the time the sediment is dredged and placed into a
stockpile until sufficient water is removed from the sediment to permit transportation
32
off site. If the sediment does not drain readily, other dewatering methodologies may
have to be employed. These other methods would add cost and may add time to the
project schedule.
3.3.4
33
34
Figure 3 graphically illustrates the quantity of truck traffic (loaded trucks only) that
would travel from the LBSAs to the Chadwick Road Landfill under each of the
scenarios (small, medium (T&D Alternative 1 and T&D Alternative 2), and large).
The estimated portion of the total project cost associated with loadout,
transportation, and disposal is approximately $99,621,000.
3.3.5
Restoration
3.3.6
Of the $140,694,000 total estimated cost for the large scenario, approximately
$136,968,000 is attributable to dredging, transportation, and disposal. Approximately,
$99,621,000 can be directly attributed to the loadout, transportation, and disposal of the
dewatered sediment.
Further discussion and tables illustrating the cost allocations are included in
Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of this technical memorandum.
3.3.7
As stated earlier, the large scenario is based upon a set of assumptions and
conditions. Those assumptions and conditions include, but may not be limited to those
summarized in the following bullets.
35
The work schedule is based upon a five-day, 10 hour per day work week.
No allocation has been made for schedule overruns, delays, or change orders
that may arise as the result of unknown conditions.
The cost estimate includes a reasonable allocation for the contractors insurance
costs. Special policies or limits beyond industry standards have not been
included.
The dredging operations and LBSAs will be located within one half mile of one
another. Two dredging units are included within the cost estimate.
Chadwick Road Landfill is willing and able to accept the material at the time of
disposal, if not then significant increases to the transport and disposal costs
could be realized.
3.4
Any dredging event is a one time event and no costs are included for
maintenance dredging or re-dredging activities.
Significant effort would be required to design and permit a dredging project at the
Morgan Falls impoundment. Permits from federal, state, and local authorities would be
required, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Georgia Environmental
Protection Division (GEPD), National Park Service (NPS), and others. These efforts
would require significant time, public involvement, and regulatory interaction. Table 3
summarizes the environmental statutes and regulations potentially applicable to
dredging at the Morgan Falls Project. As a recent example, the proposed location of
LBSA 3 was used by north-migrating sandhill cranes (February 2005) and whopping
cranes (March 2006).
For the purposes of feasibility assessment, estimates of design and permitting costs
were derived for each scenario in consideration of the scope of the dredging operation
(i.e., quantity of material and general location), the complexity of environmental and
logistical issues potentially involved, the range of agencies, stakeholders, and affected
property owners potentially involved, and the time necessary to resolve these issues.
Agreements would also be required for access and use of the LBSAs. These factors
would all dictate the permitting schedule. Permitting processes would be conducted
jointly and coordinated among agencies to the extent practicable.
The small scenario for dredging 12,000 CY of sediment would involve the most
limited scope of dredging and be staged from land owned by Fulton County in the City
of Sandy Springs (LBSA 1). This site was previously permitted as part of a proposed
commercial dredging operation of the Morgan Falls impoundment in 1992 by Atlanta
Sand and Supply Company, Inc., a proposal that was later abandoned. It is estimated
that design and permitting of the dredging operations required for the small scenario in
the Morgan Falls impoundment could require about nine to twelve months and cost on
the order of $250,000.
37
38
TABLE 3
Permitting Requirement
Issuing Agency
Section 10 permit
Notes
FEDERAL:
Rivers and Harbors Act
Georgia Environmental
Protection Division (GEPD),
EPA
GEPD
EA/EIS
39
TABLE 3
Permitting Requirement
Issuing Agency
Notes
Section 7 consultation
FWS
National Park
regulations
Service
laws
and
Federal Emergency
Management Agency
NPS
STATE:
Georgia Rules and Regulations
Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Act
GEPD
Department of Community
Affairs
40
TABLE 3
Permitting Requirement
Issuing Agency
GEPD
Notes
Requires application with a Surface Mining
Land Use Plan
Permit required for each mile segment targeted
for dredging
Application requirements overlap with other
federal and state permits
REGIONAL/LOCAL(a):
Metropolitan River Protection Act
Chattahoochee Corridor
Plan
Atlanta Regional
Commission, Fulton and
Cobb Counties, Cities of
Roswell and Sandy Springs
City of Roswell
Development permit
Fulton County
Cobb County
(a)
Potentially applicable regional/local approvals are identified depending upon the exact nature of a project and the entity undertaking the project. Under
Georgia or Federal law, regional and local approvals may not be required in this instance.
41
3.5
3.6
The assumptions used in this report regarding the nature of the dredged sediment
are based on a gradation test performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1992
as indicated in the test data included in Attachment B to this feasibility study. If these
test data are indicative of the sediment actually dredged and there are no environmental
contamination issues with the dredged sediment, it is possible that the stockpiled
material could be sold locally as construction fill material. There is currently a smallquantity sand and gravel mining operation (Ace Sand Company) at River Mile 317.8,
just upstream of the general area considered for potential dredging in this feasibility
study. Should a commercialization of the project be possible, the estimated costs
contained within these feasibility study scenarios may be offset. However, it should be
noted that a proposal by Atlanta Sand and Supply Company in 1992 to commercially
dredge 150 acres of the lower reach of the Morgan Falls impoundment was abandoned.
42
43
4.
SUMMARY
4.1
Environmental permitting;
Access to and use of, via lease or purchase, LBSA areas from Fulton County,
National Park Service, or others.
Noise impact to the City of Roswell and/or the City of Sandy Springs and in
particular to local residents near the operations;
Traffic impact to the City of Roswell and/or the City of Sandy Springs in
particular to local residents near the operations;
Impacts to local and migratory wildlife within the project areas (i.e., sandhill
cranes);
Evaluation of these three scenarios indicates that any size dredging project in the
Morgan Falls impoundment would involve, to some degree, each of the challenges
listed above. As a project increases in scale from a lesser dredging volume to greater
dredging volume, the effects of these impacts would be expected to become more
pronounced. As an example, local residents may be willing to accept project-related
truck traffic on Roswell Road for a few weeks as a part of a smaller scale dredging
scenario, but may not be willing to tolerate the multiple years of heavy truck traffic that
would occur as the result of a larger scale dredging operation. While certain dredging
alternatives may appear to be technically feasible based upon the assumptions in this
report, this report does not include detailed evaluation of the feasibility considerations
identified above. Impacts to local residents, traffic patterns, natural and cultural
resources, and other aforementioned factors may render a dredging alternative
44
4.2
This technical memorandum provides a unit cost model (Chart 1) that can be used
to estimate costs for many dredging alternatives. The model allows the user to estimate
the financial cost relative to the volume of sediment dredged, transported, and disposed
of. The unit cost model can provide the user with an estimated cost per cubic yard for
scenarios ranging in scope between the small and large scenarios evaluated in this
technical memorandum. The three scenarios presented in this technical memorandum
represent three distinct sediment volumes that could be dredged from the impoundment.
Based upon further evaluation and considerations, areas may be added to or subtracted
from the project and change the estimated dredging volumes. The intent of using the
terms small, medium, and large is to provide general ranges for feasibility
assessment and cost projections based upon three widely varying scenarios.
Chart 1
Estimated Dredging Cost
$200.00
$175.00
$/CY
$150.00
$125.00
$100.00
$75.00
$50.00
$25.00
$0.00
0
00
0,
80
1,
0
00
0,
60
1,
0
00
0,
40
1,
0
00
0,
20
1,
0
00
0,
00
1,
0
00
0,
80
0
00
0,
60
0
00
0,
40
0
00
0,
20
$ /CY (E xc l. T&D)
Refer to Table 1 for assumptions and conditions critical to the use of this model.
45
During use of the model, the estimated cost per cubic yard can be multiplied by the
estimated total volume of a potential project scenario to provide an estimated total
project cost for a given dredging alternative.
Table 4 indicates the estimated total cost per cubic yard of dredging for each of the
three dredging scenarios.
TABLE 4
Summary of Unit Costs for Three Dredging Scenarios
Scenario
Small
Medium
Large
Small
Medium (T&D
Alternative 1) (All)
Large
Medium
T&D Alternative 2
(Half)
T&D Alternative 3
(None)
Estimated Dredging
Volume (CY)
Including T&D
12,000
330,000
1,690,000
Unit Rate
($/CY)
$1,860,000
$32,257,000
$140,694,000
$155.00
$97.75
$83.25
Excluding T&D
12,000
$1,131,000
$94.25
330,000
1,690,000
$12,236,000
$41,073,000
$37.08
$24.30
330,000
$12,371,000
$37.49
330,000
$12,288,000
$37.24
Graphing the data in Table 4 (estimated dredging volume by unit rate) provides a
unit cost model (Chart 1) to assist with interpolating unit rates for scenarios which
might be considered but are not specifically addressed in this study. This chart includes
a plot of the cost of dredging excluding the cost for transportation and disposal as well
as a plot of the estimated project costs, inclusive of transportation and disposal.
The cost model does not include consideration for indirect, intangible, and other
non-economic impacts to the river system, surrounding properties, neighborhoods,
roads, or items outside of those items detailed in this technical memorandum. Critical
to the use of the unit cost model are the conditions, assumptions, and limitations upon
which the model is based. Modification to these conditions or assumptions and
exceeding the limitations of the unit cost model will decrease the accuracy and
functionality of the unit cost model.
46
4.3
The feasibility cost estimates have been derived using a combination of locally
obtained labor rates, quotes and estimated form local vendors, and commercially
available estimating reference documents. The cost estimates presented are generally
consistent with other dredging projects of similar scope and complexity.
Table 5 summarizes the estimated costs, inclusive of site setup and maintenance,
dredging, stockpiling and dewatering, transportation and disposal (as required), site
restoration, design and permitting, construction management (CM), and Construction
Quality Control (CQC)/Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) services for the
aforementioned scenarios.
2
3
4
Task Name
Task Total
Field Operations
$828,000
$334,000
$55,000
$320,000
$63,000
$24,000
$32,000
47
$729,000
$250,000
$53,000
$1,860,000
Field Operations
1a.
1b.
1c.
1d.
1e.
1f.
2
3
4
$10,802,000
$2,032,000
$52,000
$8,265,000
$163,000
$40,000
$250,000
$20,021,000
$1,000,000
$434,000
$32,257,000
Field Operations
1a.
1b.
1c.
1d.
1e.
1f.
2
3
4
$10,930,000
$2,033,000
$52,000
$8,284,000
$266,000
$40,000
$255,000
48
$10,012,000
$1,000,000
$441,000
$22,383,000
Task Name
Task Total
Field Operations
1a.
1b.
1c.
1d.
1e.
1f.
2
3
4
$10,853,000
$2,033,000
$52,000
$8,210,000
$267,000
$40,000
$251,000
$0
$1,000,000
$435,000
$12,288,000
Task Total
Field Operations
1a.
1b.
1c.
1d.
1e.
1f.
1g.
1h.
1i.
1j.
2
3
4
Task Name
$37,347,000
$718,000
$886,000
$2,426,000
$99,000
$13,697,000
$5,300,000
$12,567,000
$632,000
$76,000
$946,000
49
$99,621,000
$2,000,000
$1,726,000
$140,694,000
FIGURES
Chadwick Landfill
372
old
Arn
lR
Mi l
92
Woodstock
o ad
140
Alpharetta
19
LEGEND
Landfill
Land Based Soil Area (LBSA)
Roswell
GA
40
R o swell Road
LBSA 3
LBSA 2
140
LBSA 1
1.5
3
Miles
Sandy Springs
Figure 2
Proposed Route to Chadwick Landfill
Morgan Falls Project (FERC No. 2237)
130,000 LOADS
ALTERNATIVE-1
25,400 LOADS
ALTERNATIVE-2
12,700 LOADS
925 LOADS
SMALL
(12,000 CY)
MEDIUM
(330,000 CY)
LARGE
(1,690,000 CY)
DREDGING OPTIONS
FIGURE NO.
PROJECT NO.
DOCUMENT NO.
FILE NO.
3
GK3595-01
GA060034
TRUCKS.cdr
ATTACHMENT A
ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULES
SMALL OPTION
Estimated Project Schedule
Morgan Falls Dredging Feasibility Study
ID
1
Task Name
Design & Permitting
Duration
260 days
60 days
35 days
Field Work
35 days
Mobilization of Dredge
Dredging
10 days
Sediment Dewatering
20 days
9 days
10
Site Restoration
5 days
11
Project Completed
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
M8
M9
M10
M11
M12
M13
M14
10 days
5 days
0 days
Task
Milestone
External Tasks
Split
Summary
External Milestone
Progress
Project Summary
Deadline
Page 1
M15
M16
M17
M18
M19
M20
MEDIUM OPTIONS
Estimated Project Schedule
Morgan Falls Dredging Feasibility Study
ID
1
Task Name
PRE_CONSTRUCTION / ENGINEERING / PERMITTING
Duration
M-1
840 days
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
M8
M9
M10 M11 M12 M13 M14 M15 M16 M17 M18 M19 M20 M21 M22 M23 M24 M25 M26 M27 M28 M29 M30 M31 M32 M33 M34 M35 M36 M37 M38 M39 M40 M41 M42 M43 M44 M45 M46 M47 M48 M49 M50 M51 M52 M53 M54 M55 M56 M57
780 days
60 days
309 days
309 days
Field Work
309 days
Mobilization of Dredge
Dredging
254 days
10
Sediment Dewatering
263 days
11
254 days
12
Site Restoration
13
M1
30 days
5 days
15 days
Project Completed
OR
0 days
14
15
314 days
16
314 days
17
Field Work
314 days
18
19
Mobilization of Dredge
20
Dredging
254 days
21
Sediment Dewatering
264 days
22
127 days
23
132 days
24
Site Restoration
25
30 days
5 days
15 days
Project Completed
OR
0 days
26
27
310 days
28
310 days
29
Field Work
310 days
30
31
Mobilization of Dredge
32
Dredging
255 days
33
Sediment Dewatering
255 days
34
255 days
35
Site Restoration
36
30 days
5 days
15 days
Project Completed
0 days
Task
Split
Progress
Milestone
Summary
Page 1
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone
Deadline
LARGE OPTION
Estimated Project Schedule
Morgan Falls Dredging Feasibility Study
ID
Task Name
Duration
Q1
631 days
Field Work
767 days
10 days
LBSA 2
15 days
LBSA 3
30 days
Dredging
464 days
12
253 days
13
585 days
Sediment Dewatering
LBSA 1
464 days
16
LBSA 2
253 days
17
LBSA 3
585 days
Year 4
Q11 Q12
Q13
Q14
Year 5
Q15 Q16
Q17
Q18
Year 6
Q19 Q20
Q21
Q22
Year 7
Q23 Q24
716 days
19
LBSA 1
464 days
20
LBSA 2
253 days
21
LBSA 3
585 days
22
Site Restoration
267 days
23
LBSA 1
5 days
24
LBSA 2
15 days
25
LBSA 3
15 days
Project Completed
Q10
717 days
15
26
Q9
717 days
18
Year 3
Q7
Q8
5 days
11
14
Q6
55 days
LBSA 1
10
Q5
60 days
Mobilization of Dredges
Year 2
Q3
Q4
1300 days
Q2
0 days
Task
Progress
Summary
External Tasks
Split
Milestone
Project Summary
External Milestone
Page 1
Deadline
Q25
Q26
Year 8
Q27 Q28
Q29
Q30
Year 9
Q31 Q32
Q33
Q34
Year 10
Q35 Q36
ATTACHMENT B
GEOTECHNICAL DATA
APPENDIX B
SHORELINE RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY
FIELD DATA FORMS