Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 95

APPENDIX A

DREDGING FEASIBILITY EVALUATION

Technical Memorandum

Dredging Feasibility Evaluation


Morgan Falls Project (FERC No. 2237)

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 Memorandum Author Qualifications........................................... 3

TECHNICAL APPROACH................................................................................... 7
2.1

Overview........................................................................................................... 7

2.2

Small Scenario .................................................................................................. 9

2.3

Medium Scenario............................................................................................ 10

2.4

Large Scenario ................................................................................................ 10

2.5

Organization and Presentation of Cost Information ....................................... 10

FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT ........................................................................... 14


3.1

Small Scenario ................................................................................................ 14

3.1.1

Overall Schedule and Field Effort .............................................................. 14

3.1.2

Site Preparation and Set Up........................................................................ 15

3.1.3

Dredging and Dewatering........................................................................... 16

3.1.4

Transportation and Disposal ....................................................................... 16

3.1.5

Restoration.................................................................................................. 17

3.1.6

Dredging, Transportation, and Disposal Cost............................................. 18

3.1.7

Assumptions and Conditions ...................................................................... 18

3.2
3.2.1

Medium Scenario............................................................................................ 19
Overall Schedule and Field Effort .............................................................. 20
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)


3.2.2

Site Preparation and Set Up........................................................................ 21

3.2.3

Dredging and Dewatering........................................................................... 22

3.2.4

Transportation and Disposal ....................................................................... 24

3.2.5

Restoration.................................................................................................. 26

3.2.6

Dredging, Transportation and Disposal Costs ............................................ 27

3.2.7

Assumptions & Considerations .................................................................. 28

3.3

4.

Large Scenario ................................................................................................ 29

3.3.1

Overall Schedule and Field Effort .............................................................. 29

3.3.2

Site Preparation and Set Up........................................................................ 30

3.3.3

Dredging and Dewatering........................................................................... 31

3.3.4

Transportation and Disposal ....................................................................... 33

3.3.5

Restoration.................................................................................................. 35

3.3.6

Dredging, Transportation and Disposal Costs ............................................ 35

3.3.7

Assumptions and Conditions ...................................................................... 35

3.4

Design and Permitting .................................................................................... 37

3.5

Construction Management and Quality Control/Assurance Services ............ 42

3.6

Marketability of Dredged Materials ............................................................... 42

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 44
4.1

General Feasibility Considerations................................................................. 44

4.2

Cost Estimation Model ................................................................................... 45

4.3

Feasibility Cost Estimates............................................................................... 47

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1

Summary of Project Assumptions and Conditions for the Three Dredging


Scenarios

Table 2

Summary of Medium Scenario Cost Estimates


ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)


Table 3

Regulations Potentially Relevant to Morgan Falls Dredging Feasibility

Table 4

Summary of Unit Costs for Three Dredging Scenarios

Table 5

Summary of Project Costs for Three Dredging Scenarios

LIST OF FIGURES
Chart 1

Estimated Dredging Costs

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

Summary of Unit Costs for Three Dredging Scenarios


Scenario
Small
Medium
Large

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

Excluding Transportation &Disposal


Small
12,000
$1,131,000
Medium
330,000
$12,236,000
Large
1,690,000
$41,073,000
Medium
T&D Alternative 2
(Half)
330,000
$12,371,000
T&D Alternative 3
(None)
330,000
$12,288,000

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.

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

Dredged Volume (CY)

$ /CY (in c l. T&D)

$ /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 Morgan Falls Project consists of a 55-foot-high dam, a powerhouse with a


generating capacity of 16.8 megawatts, and a narrow 673-acre impoundment about 7
miles long and containing 2,250 acre-feet of usable storage (Figure 1). Georgia Power
operates the project in a modified run-of-river mode to re-regulate peaking releases
from Buford Dam (Lake Lanier), located 36 miles upstream of Morgan Falls dam.
Morgan Falls re-regulation produces a steady flow pattern in the Chattahoochee River
for designated downstream uses including drinking water, recreation, fishing, and
wastewater assimilation downstream of the City of Atlanta.
Key features of the project relative to the feasibility and costs of dredging include
the following.

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.

Sediment deposition in the Morgan Falls impoundment originates from


historical agricultural land use practices, stream bank and bed erosion caused by
scouring from Buford Dam peaking releases, and more recent land clearing and
storm water runoff associated with urbanization within the watershed.

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

Technical Memorandum Author Qualifications

1.2.3.1 Principal Authors


Mr. Michael J. Monteleone, P.E. is a Principal with GeoSyntec Consultants.
With over 20 years of experience, Mr. Monteleone has gathered a wide range of
experience in environmental and civil construction projects. Relevant to this project
and one example of his experience, Mr. Monteleone was responsible for the preparation
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

the development of a unique device and procedure for determining constitutive


properties of these extremely soft materials.
Mr. Cargills direct experience related to work similar to the Morgan Falls
impoundment dredging feasibility study includes:

Design engineer-of-record for three dredged material containment areas located


in coastal marsh island areas along the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway near
Darien, Georgia.

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.

Design engineer-of-record for two 150-acre dredged material containment areas


on Elba Island adjacent to Savannah Harbor.

Project manager for the development of a design methodology and simplified


design charts for 44 miles of dikes surrounding dredged material containment
areas at Savannah, Georgia.

2.

TECHNICAL APPROACH

2.1

Overview

GeoSyntec assessed potential dredging unit costs as a part of this technical


memorandum. Based on GeoSyntecs understanding of the evaluation objectives and
the site conditions, three conceptual scenarios were devised to facilitate estimating unit
costs across a wide range of potential dredging alternatives. These scenarios have been
referenced by the terms small, medium, large and in this document. None of the
scenarios are intended to represent specific dredging alternative. For the purposes of
estimating costs, site-specific assumptions utilizing the three scenarios were made based
on known constraints (e.g., limited shoreline access). The details for each particular
scenario have been developed by GeoSyntec to provide flexibility for modification of
dredging quantities within the context of the scenario. Each scenario is summarized
below. Additional details, feasibility assumptions, conditions, and limitations are
discussed in the following sections of this technical memorandum.
Generally each of the scenarios contains similar methodologies and processes, but
varies in the volume of dredging and the disposal options. The basic project operations
are summarized as:

Establishment of sediment staging and dewatering area(s);

Removal of sediments by hydraulic dredging methods;

Conveyance of the sediments to Land Based Staging Area(s) (LBSA);

Dewatering of the staged sediments;

Loadout and transportation of the dewatered sediments off site; and

Site restoration.

In general, each scenario calls for LBSAs to be established at selected locations


along the Morgan Falls impoundment. The LBSAs have been strategically located
along the impoundment at sites assumed to be available for use to a project. The sites
were selected to provide good logistical access for work within the impoundment as
well as access to surface streets for material transport. Currently, none of the LBSA
7

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

The medium scenario involves the dredging of approximately 330,000 CY (204.5


acre-feet) of sediment from the Morgan Falls impoundment. An area of 3,564,000 SF
approximately 82 acres to an average depth of 2.5 feet has been assumed in estimating
this volume. The medium scenario is intended to represent a substantially larger
dredging operation. Specific objectives or locations for dredging under this scenario
have not been defined.

2.4

Large Scenario

The large scenario involves the dredging of approximately 1,690,000 CY (1,047.5


acre-feet) of sediment. An area of 18,252,000 SF approximately 420 acres to an
average depth of 2.5 feet has been assumed in estimating this volume. This scenario is
intended to represent a large-scale dredging operation.

2.5

Organization and Presentation of Cost Information

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

Estimated cost in 2005 dollars.


Schedule is based upon a five-day, 10 hour per day work
week.
No allocation has been made for weather delays.
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.
Cost of bonds is not included in the cost estimate.
No cost is included for the purchase or lease of the
LBSA(s).
The amount of sediment to be dredged under the
scenario (CY)
The LBSA will be located within one-half mile of the
dredging operation.
The dredged sediment contains no environmental
contamination or debris that would preclude disposal at
the proposed landfill.
The proposed landfill is willing and able to accept the
material at the time of disposal.
Hydraulic dredging will be a permit-able and
appropriate methodology.
Maximum rate that dewatered sediments can be
transported off-site (CY/day)

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

The small scenario involves the dredging of approximately 12,000 CY of sediment


from the Morgan Falls impoundment. The small scenario is intended to represent a
limited dredging operation in a single area of the impoundment. The estimated total
cost for the small scenario based on the assumptions below is approximately
$1,860,000.

3.1.1

Overall Schedule and Field Effort

As a part of the feasibility study assessment, GeoSyntec completed a preliminary


cost estimate, including the labor resources, equipment, and other resources necessary
to complete the small scenario as previously defined. The cost estimate includes cost
allocations for design and engineering services, construction management (CM),
contractor costs (inclusive of overhead and profit), and construction quality
assurance/control (CQA/CQC) oversight services and is based on assumptions and
conditions, which are discussed below.
The estimated duration of field operations for the small scenario is seven weeks3.
Certain work activities within the project occur concurrently. The estimated duration of
each project work activity is:

Two weeks for mobilization, site preparation, and set up;

Two weeks for dredging operations;

Four weeks for de-watering;

Approximately two weeks for loadout and transportation off site; and

One week to perform site restoration and demobilization operations.

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

Site Preparation and Set Up

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

Dredging and Dewatering

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

Transportation and Disposal

Following dewatering, sediment would be loaded into over-the-road dump trucks


by conventional equipment. The loaded trucks would travel on public roads to a local
C&D landfill for disposal. For the purposes of this feasibility study, GeoSyntec has
assumed that the over-the-road trucks would have a capacity of 13 CY (bank4). The
loadout, transportation, and disposal rate have been estimated at 1,300 CY per work
day.
4

A bank yard is defined as one cubic yard of natural undisturbed soil, rock or other material. .
16

A representative of the nearby C&D landfill (Waste Managements Chadwick


Road Landfill) has been contacted, and it appears that sufficient capacity is presently
available to accept these materials. This availability could change in the future and
impact the transportation and disposal costs if Chadwick Road Landfill closes or cannot
accept the material. This landfill is located approximately nine miles from the LBSA.
GeoSyntec has estimated that one truck could be loaded and released from the
LBSA every six minutes5. This is the equivalent of transporting 1,300 CY off site
during a 10 hour work day. A total of 925 loaded trucks would be necessary to
transport the estimated 12,000 CY of dredged sediment to the landfill.
Disposal at Chadwick Road Landfill is based on a per ton unit price of $20 per ton.
For the purposes of this feasibility assessment, a volume to weight conversion of 1.6
tons per CY (bank) has been used. The 12,000 CY of dredged sediment is equivalent to
19,200 tons.
During conversations with Waste Management, two disposal alternatives were
identified at the Chadwick Road Landfill. The first alternative considered in this
feasibility assessment is the disposal of the sediments at the Chadwick Road Landfill as
standard waste at the normal tipping fee. In the second alternative, Waste Management
has identified approximately 88 acres at the Chadwick site on which the sediments
could be placed. Use of the 88-acre parcel would eliminate the disposal tipping fee, but
would require the sediments to be spread across and within this 88-acre area by the
project contractor. While it is believed that this second alternative would save a
considerable amount of money in the form of disposal tipping fees currently estimated
at $384,000 it is unlikely that this scenario would still be viable given the anticipated
lengthy period of time between this feasibility assessment and a project execution date.
Therefore, the second disposal alternative has been eliminated from consideration.

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

Dredging, Transportation, and Disposal Cost

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

Assumptions and Conditions

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.

This scenario is estimated in 2005 dollars.

The work schedule is based upon a five-day, 10 hour per day work week.

No allocation has been made for weather delays.

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.

No bonding is included in the cost estimate.

No cost is included for the purchase or lease of the LBSA.

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.

No environmental contamination or debris is in the dredged sediment that


would preclude disposal at the Chadwick Road Landfill. In the event of
environmental contamination the use of alternative methods, personnel
protective equipment, or additional transportation and disposal costs may be
necessary. This will have a significant impact on the cost of the project6.

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.

Hydraulic dredging will be an appropriate methodology and can be permitted.

Dewatered sediments can be transported off-site at a rate of 1,300 CY per day.


That is, a round trip for each truck from the LBSA to the landfill has been
estimated at one hour. Restrictions on this transportation rate will not be
imposed on the project by the State of Georgia Department of Transportation
(GDOT) or others (i.e., maximum use limitations). If a 1,300 CY per day rate
cannot be maintained, projects costs and schedules will be increased due to the
loss of productivity.

Turbidity curtains will be installed at each LBSA to mitigate sedimentation and


runoff impacts to the Morgan Falls impoundment as a result of dredging and
dewatering operations.

Any dredging event is a one time event and no costs are included for
maintenance dredging or re-dredging activities.

Medium Scenario

The medium scenario involves the dredging of approximately 330,000 CY of


sediment from the Morgan Falls impoundment. The medium scenario is intended to
6

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

Summary of Medium Scenario Cost Estimates


Dredging 330,000 CY.
Alternative #1

Transportation and landfill


disposal of 330,000 CY of
dredged sediments.

$32,257,000

Dredging 330,000 CY.


Alternative #2

Transportation and landfill


disposal of 165,000 CY of
dredged sediments.

$22,383,000

Dredging 330,000 CY.


Alternative #3

3.2.1

Transportation and landfill


disposal of 0 CY of dredged
sediments.

$12,288,000

Overall Schedule and Field Effort

As a part of the feasibility assessment for the medium scenario, GeoSyntec


completed a preliminary cost estimate, including the labor resources, equipment, and
other resources necessary to complete the medium scenario as previously defined. The
cost estimate is based on numerous assumptions and conditions, which are discussed
below. The cost estimate includes cost allocations for design and engineering services,
construction management, contractor costs, and construction quality assurance/control
oversight services.

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:

Six weeks for mobilization, site preparation, and set up;

Fifty-one weeks for dredging operations;

Dewatering to occur concurrently with dredging operations;

Fifty-one weeks for loadout and transportation off site (to be started two weeks
after dredging commences); and

Three weeks to perform site restoration and demobilization operations.

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

Site Preparation and Set Up

The medium scenario includes the establishment of a single LBSA to stage


equipment and dredged sediment during the dewatering process and as the loadout area
for the transportation of the dredged sediments off site for disposal.
The LBSA, indicated as LBSA 3 on Figures 1 and 2, is an approximately 36-acre
parcel, currently owned by the City of Roswell, located near the intersection of Willeo
Road and Azalea Drive in Roswell, Georgia. LBSA 3 is currently a shallow mud flat
with wetland vegetation around its margin located off of the main river channel. At the
time it was reconnoitered by GeoSyntec (October 2005) the area contained sediments
and apparent berms or soil peninsulas in and at its periphery. Vegetation was primarily
limited to the periphery and along the berms or soil peninsulas. Large expanses of the
area were open and unvegetated. Overall the area was observed to contain saturated
sediments and soil that would be unsuitable for the operation of most traditional
construction equipment. Standing water was observed. The area was observed to be
21

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.

3.2.3 Dredging and Dewatering


The medium scenario assumes the use of a single hydraulic dredge. The dredge is
assumed to have a production capacity of 1,300 CY per day. The use of more than one
dredge and/or the stockpiling of more than 1,300 CY per day would result in an overaccumulation of sediment at the stockpile. If two or more dredges or dredging of more
than 1,300 CY per day were to occur at a single LBSA, it would necessitate the loadout
and off-site transportation of more than 1,300 CY per day in order to maintain a
production level balanced with the capacity to haul off-site. It is not realistic to estimate
that more than 1,300 CY per day could be transported off the LBSA to the landfill due
22

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

Transportation and Disposal

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

In consideration of the three transportation and disposal alternatives presented


previously, two different restoration options may be used. These restoration options are
briefly described and discussed below.

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.

Option 2: Alternatively, by leaving some or all of the sediments on site, a large


and stable upland area may be created that could have some future use. This is
26

assuming that floodplain storage lost could be compensated by gains in


floodplain storage elsewhere. This future use area would be constructed by
grading the dewatered sediments across the LBSA. The sediment would be
spread using conventional earthmoving equipment such as dozers and graders.
The site would be graded to promote surface water drainage while still
presenting a generally level and functional surface. Following grading, the
sediment would be stabilized by hydroseeding with grass. The result would be
a 25 acre parcel of land that abuts the river.
Based upon a design that incorporates grading of the dewatered sediment across
the 25 acres of available LBSA stockpiling space and leaving one half of the
sediment volume at the LBSA an approximate net elevation increase of four
feet above existing conditions would result. If no dewatered sediment was
removed from the site, the estimated net elevation increase across the 25 acre
area would be approximately eight feet.
The option to leave either some or all of the sediments on site would require
significant regulatory approval (Corps of Engineers, etc.) since the project would result
in the likely elimination of a wetland and could affect the distribution of flood storage
volume.

3.2.6

Dredging, Transportation and Disposal Costs

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

Assumptions & Considerations

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.

This scenario is estimated in 2005 dollars.

The work schedule is based upon a five-day, 10 hour per day work week.

No allocation has been made for weather delays.

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.

No bonding is included in the cost estimate.

No cost is included for the purchase or lease of the LBSA.

The amount of sediment to be dredged under the medium scenario is 330,000


CY.

The dredging operation and LBSA will be located no more than one half mile
of one another.

No environmental contamination or debris is in the dredged sediment that


would preclude disposal at the Chadwick Road Landfill. In the event of
28

environmental contamination the use of alternative methods, personnel


protective equipment, or additional transportation and disposal costs may be
necessary. This will have a significant impact on the cost of the project.

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.

Hydraulic dredging will be an appropriate methodology and can be permitted.

Dewatered sediment, as applicable, can be transported off-site at a rate of 1,300


CY per day. That is, a round trip for each truck from the LBSA to the landfill
has been estimated at one hour. Restrictions on this transportation rate will not
be imposed on the project by the GDOT or others (i.e., maximum use
limitations). If a 1,300 CY per day rate cannot be maintained, projects costs
and schedules will be increased due to the loss of productivity.

Turbidity curtains will be installed at each LBSA to mitigate sedimentation and


runoff impacts to the Morgan Falls impoundment as a result of dredging and
dewatering operations.

Any dredging event is a one time event and no costs are included for
maintenance dredging or re-dredging activities.

3.3

Large Scenario

The large scenario involves the dredging of approximately 1,690,000 CY of


sediment. This scenario is intended to represent a large-scale dredging operation. The
estimated total cost for the large scenario is approximately $140,694,000.

3.3.1

Overall Schedule and Field Effort

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

services, construction management, contractor costs, and construction quality


assurance/control oversight services.
The estimated duration of field operations for the large scenario is one hundred and
fifty-three weeks approximately three years. This time period is generally comprised
of:

Eleven weeks for mobilization, site preparation, and set up;

One hundred and forty-three weeks of dredging operations;

Dewatering to occur concurrently with dredging operations;

One hundred and forty-three weeks for loadout and transportation off site (to be
started after dredging commences); and

Seven weeks to perform site restoration and demobilization operations.

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

Site Preparation and Set Up

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.

3.3.3 Dredging and Dewatering


The large scenario assumes the use of two hydraulic dredging units. The units are
estimated to have a production capacity of 1,300 CY per day per unit. The maximum
daily dredging output is therefore estimated to be 2,600 CY per day with both dredges
in operation. This feasibility assessment assumes that the distance between the
dredging units and LBSA stockpile area would not be more that one-half mile.
Additional distances may require the use of larger dredging units, booster pumps, or
other equipment and controls to move the dredged sediments these additional distances.
31

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

Transportation and Disposal

While multiple transportation and disposal scenarios could be considered in this


feasibility study, only transportation off site and disposal of all dredged sediments has
been considered in the large scenario. Because of the numerous permutations possible
between dredging, transportation, and disposal under the large scenario, an effort to
maintain uniformity among the other scenarios, and in order to offer a means of
comparison between the scenarios, only an off-site transportation and disposal alterative
has been presented. The unit cost model described in Section 4.2 of this technical
memorandum allows for general analysis of costs by cubic yard of dredging both with
and without off-site transportation and disposal costs included.
In the large scenario, all dewatered sediment would be disposed at the Chadwick
Road Landfill. This landfill is located approximately six to nine miles from each of the
LBSAs. GeoSyntec has estimated that one truck could be loaded and released from
each LBSA every six minutes. This is the equivalent of transporting 1,300 CY off of
each LBSA during a 10 hour work day. However, it is likely that a maximum of two
LBSAs would be active for the majority of the project yielding a maximum effective off
site transportation rate of 2,600 CY per day.
Based upon a project volume of 1,690,000 CY, approximately 130,000 truckloads
of dewatered sediment would have to be transported from the LBSAs. This is generally
distributed as 602,000 CY from LBSA 1, 328,000 CY from LBSA 2, 760,000 CY from
LBSA 3. At a maximum rate of 200 truck loads per day (2,600 CY/day), the estimated
duration of sediment transportation and disposal is 130 weeks; however, following the
completion of loadout and transportation activities at LBSA 3, the project-wide off site
transportation rate will drop to 1,300 CY per day as the remainder of LBSA 2 is
transported off site. Therefore, when schedule and work activity durations are balanced
with dredging and dewatering rates, the estimated load out and transportation task
duration is 143 weeks or approximately 2.75 years based upon a five day work week.
2,600 CY per day will be transported off site for approximately 117 weeks followed by
1,300 CY per day of transportation off site for the remaining 26 weeks of project

33

duration. Attachment A provides a graphical illustration of the project sequencing and


interrelationships between the different work activities.
Given the large volume of sediment and the anticipated lead time before this
project may take place, the availability of space at the Chadwick Road Landfill is not
known at this time. The landfill may not, currently or in the future, have the capacity to
receive all of the dredged sediment. If this is the case, alternative disposal options
would have to be considered. As stated earlier, an 88-acre parcel of land may be
available at the landfill for placement of the dredged sediment (1,690,000 CY across 88
acres would have a resulting thickness of 11 to 12 feet) or more likely, an alternative
landfill would have to be secured. Use of an alternative landfill could have significant
cost impact to the project in the form of higher disposal cost, higher transportation costs
(greater distance), or loss of productivity due to a lower number of trucks moving on
and off site each day.
Significant coordination would have to be made with the City of Roswell and local
residents regarding the transportation of the sediment. Roswell Road, Willeo Road, and
Azalea Drive are busy thoroughfares. The additional traffic from a loaded dump truck
departing the LBSAs every six minutes (one would also return every six minutes) may
create intolerable congestion. Furthermore, the likely route to Chadwick Road landfill
would be to travel north up Roswell Road from each of the LBSAs. LBSAs 2 and 3
would access Roswell Road from Azalea Drive. LBSA 1 would access Roswell Road
at the previously described traffic light in Sandy Springs and proceed north on Roswell
Road to cross the Chattahoochee River (Figure 2). The likely effect then is to create
double the previously described amount of project-related truck traffic on Roswell Road
north of the river. The equivalent truck volume would be one truck entering the
Roswell Road traffic north of the river every three minutes with one additional truck
returning from the landfill south on Roswell Road every three minutes. Given the level
of traffic on Roswell Road this level of congestion may be intolerable, but has not been
further analyzed and is beyond the scope of this report.
As with prior estimates within this feasibility assessment, no costs have been
included for public road improvements or repairs. Given the concentration of truck
traffic, vehicle weights, and wear and tear on the roads, it is very likely that there would
be issues with extensive sections of the public roads traversed by the project vehicles
needing significant repairs or replacement.

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

As presented in previous scenarios, LBSAs 1 and 2 are located on uplands above


the river. These areas would be restored by hydroseeding with an acceptable grass seed
following the removal of all of the dredged sediment. LBSA 3 is designed to be
dredged in the large scenario. As such, LBSA 3 would be dredged to below current
elevations and would normally be expected to hold water. As such, no restoration
would be necessary except around the periphery of the LBSA. These areas would be
graded and vegetated with a locally acceptable grass seed and a variety of wetland
vegetation to promote rehabilitation of the area.

3.3.6

Dredging, Transportation and Disposal Costs

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

Assumptions and Conditions

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.

This scenario is estimate in 2005 dollars.

35

The work schedule is based upon a five-day, 10 hour per day work week.

No allocation has been made for weather delays.

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.

No bonding is included in the cost estimate.

No cost is included for the purchase or lease of the LBSAs.

The amount of sediment to be dredged under the medium scenario is 1,690,000


CY.

The dredging operations and LBSAs will be located within one half mile of one
another. Two dredging units are included within the cost estimate.

No environmental contamination or debris is in the dredged sediment that


would preclude disposal at the Chadwick Road Landfill. In the event of
environmental contamination the use of alternative methods, personnel
protective equipment, or additional transportation and disposal costs may be
necessary. This will have a significant impact on the cost of the project.

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.

Hydraulic dredging will be an appropriate methodology and can be permitted.

Dewatered sediment can be transported off-site at a rate of 2,600 CY per day.


That is, a round trip for each truck from the LBSA to the landfill has been
estimated at one hour. Restrictions on this transportation rate will not be
imposed on the project by the GDOT or others (i.e., maximum use limitations).
If a 2,600 CY per day rate cannot be maintained, projects costs and schedules
will be increased due to the loss of productivity.
36

3.4

Turbidity curtains will be installed at each LBSA to mitigate sedimentation and


runoff impacts to the Morgan Falls impoundment as a result of dredging and
dewatering operations.

Any dredging event is a one time event and no costs are included for
maintenance dredging or re-dredging activities.

Design and Permitting

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

The medium scenario for dredging 330,000 CY of sediment would involve a


substantially larger area of the impoundment, much more complex environmental and
logistical issues, and a potentially more diverse group of stakeholders. Many more
stakeholders than are currently involved in the FERC relicensing proceeding would
likely be drawn to a dredging operation of this scale or larger. Significant issues would
likely include water quality, drinking water supply, erosion control, wetland impacts,
cultural resources, truck routes and traffic, noise, conflicts with recreational use, fish
and wildlife habitat, and other effects. NEPA review could require the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement. Based on the anticipated complexity of issues and
high level of involvement of agencies, stakeholders, and affected property owners, it is
estimated that design and permitting of a medium dredging operation could require on
the order of three years and costs of about $1,000,000.
The large scenario for dredging 1,690,000 CY of sediment would involve the
greatest scope of dredging extending the longest time, the most complex and potentially
contentious environmental issues, and the most diverse group of interested stakeholders.
Up to three LBSAs could be involved in such a scenario, including lands owned by
Fulton County (LBSA 1), NPS (LBSA 2), and the City of Roswell (LBSA 3). NEPA
review of such a large-scale dredging operation would require comprehensive
evaluation of the environmental issues and could require an Environmental Impact
Statement involving multiple cooperating federal agencies. The issues involved could
extend beyond metropolitan Atlanta to the interests of other downstream users. Based
on the anticipated level of complexity and high level of stakeholder interest, it is
estimated that design and permitting of a large dredging operation in the Morgan Falls
impoundment could require five years or more and cost on the order of $2,000,000.
In summary, the estimated design and permitting costs for the three scenarios are:

Small scenario: $250,000

Medium scenario (either alternative): $1,000,000

Large scenario: $2,000,000

38

TABLE 3

Environmental Regulations Potentially Relevant to Morgan Falls Dredging Feasibility


Statute

Permitting Requirement

Issuing Agency

Section 10 permit

U.S. Army Corps of


Engineers (Corps)

Notes

FEDERAL:
Rivers and Harbors Act

Required for dredging in navigable waters


Sediment and return water may require testing
following Corps/EPA Inland Testing Manual
Procedures
Sampling and Analysis Plan would require
approval by Corps, EPA, and GEPD

Clean Water Act

Section 404 permit

Corps, U.S. Environmental


Protection Agency (EPA)

Permit may be required for dredge or fill, or if


wetlands are affected
Joint application process with Section 10 permit
above

Section 401 water quality


certification

Georgia Environmental
Protection Division (GEPD),
EPA

Initiated through Corps joint application process

Section 402 NPDES


construction storm water
permit

GEPD

Permit coverage required for operators of


construction activity disturbing > 1 acre of land
Permit requires erosion and sediment control
plan using BMPs to effectively reduce or
prevent the discharge of pollutants into
receiving waters
See Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Act
below

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

EA/EIS

Federal Energy Regulatory


Commission (FERC),
Corps, National Park
Service (NPS)

39

See NPS laws and regulations below

TABLE 3

Environmental Regulations Potentially Relevant to Morgan Falls Dredging Feasibility


Statute
Endangered Species Act

Permitting Requirement

Issuing Agency

Notes

Section 7 consultation

FWS

Responsibility of federal agency issuing permit


Required information available from Morgan
Falls resource study reports

National Historic Preservation Act

Section 106 consultation

Advisory Council on Historic


Preservation, Georgia
Historic Preservation
Division

Flood Disaster Act and National Flood


Insurance Act

National Park
regulations

Service

laws

and

Federal Emergency
Management Agency

Special use permit

NPS

Responsibility of federal agency issuing permit


Required information available from Morgan
Falls resource study reports
100-yr floodplain consideration
Requires compliance with local floodplain
management ordinances
Regulations at 36 CFR Chapter 1
NPS prepares NEPA document for decision on
permit

STATE:
Georgia Rules and Regulations
Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Act

Georgia Planning Act

Secondary trout waters

Section 401 water quality


certification

GEPD

Land disturbing activity


permit

Local issuing authority, Soil


and Water Conservation
Districts, GEPD

Relates to compliance with NPDES


construction storm water permit

Department of Community
Affairs

Requires compliance with local and regional


land use plans and river corridor protection
plans

Buffer zone variance request

Requires compliance with environmental


planning criteria

40

TABLE 3

Environmental Regulations Potentially Relevant to Morgan Falls Dredging Feasibility


Statute
Surface Mining Act

Permitting Requirement

Issuing Agency

Surface mining permit

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

Prior approval for land-clearing and landdisturbing activities within 2,000 ft of


Chattahoochee River
Buffer zone variance

Development permit (if in


area of special flood hazard)

City of Roswell

Traffic control and truck route ordinances may


also apply

Development permit

City of Sandy Springs

Traffic control and truck route ordinances may


also apply

Fulton County ordinances

Land disturbance permit or


grading permit (if within
special flood hazard or flood
prone areas)

Fulton County

Traffic control and truck route ordinances may


also apply

Cobb County ordinances

Development permit (flood


plain management)

Cobb County

Traffic control and truck route ordinances may


also apply

City of Roswell ordinances


City of Sandy Springs ordinances

(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

Construction Management and Quality Control/Assurance Services

In order to ensure the effective coordination of the project, efficient operations


between the clients/owners, engineers, contractors, and regulatory agencies,
construction management (CM) services would be necessary.
Additionally,
construction quality control and quality assurance (CQC/CQA) services would be
necessary to oversee, inspect, and test the various construction elements of the project.
For the purposes of this feasibility study, a flat monthly fee based upon the project field
duration has been used to budget for CM and CQC/CQA services. The fee estimate is
$30,000 per month for the small and medium scenarios and $45,000 per month for the
large scenario. The large scenario requires coordination of CM and CQC/CQA services
at multiple LBSAs and as such requires a higher monthly fee.
The estimated CM/CQC/CQA costs are thus:
Small Scenario....................................................................$53,000
Medium Scenario
T&D Alternative 1.......................................................$434,000
T&D Alternative 2.......................................................$441,000
T&D Alternative 3.......................................................$435,000
Large Scenario...............................................................$1,726,000

3.6

Marketability of Dredged Materials

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

Based on GeoSyntecs understanding of the depositional history of the sediment in


the project area it is likely that the majority of the sediment will contain greater amounts
of silt than represented by the data. Additional processing will be necessary in order to
develop a marketable sand or sand-type material. The economic advantages that would
have been gained by sales of the dredged material would be significantly reduced
should this be the case.
Moreover, the volume of materials contained within the medium and large
scenarios are large. These volumes may be so large as to inundate the local markets for
sand and sand-type products. The result would be saturation of the market and the
eventual loss of the market demand at least in the short term. In order to fully dispose
of the dredge materials via a commercial means (sales or give away), stockpiled
materials may have to be left in place for extended periods of time and then disposed as
the market demand for the product is restored.
At this time, there is insufficient information available upon which to further
evaluate the marketability of the dredged sediment.

43

4.

SUMMARY

4.1

General Feasibility Considerations

Three scenarios indicated as small, medium, and large in this technical


memorandum have been considered by GeoSyntec. Each of these scenarios contains
similar methods of implementation and execution. Any dredging project has scenariospecific challenges to the implementation and execution of the project. The primary
challenges that have been discussed throughout this feasibility assessment include:

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);

Project duration; and

Damage to public use roads.

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

infeasible from the standpoint of significant adverse environmental effects, costs, or


inability to obtain the necessary permits or approvals.

4.2

Cost Estimation Model

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

Dredged Volume (CY)


$ /CY (in c l. T&D)

$ /CY (E xc l. T&D)

Me d iu m (T&D Alte rn a t ive 2 )

Refer to Table 1 for assumptions and conditions critical to the use of this model.
45

Me d iu m (T&D Alte rn a tive 3 )

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

Total Cost ($)

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

Feasibility Cost Estimates

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.

DREDGING COST ESTIMATE DETAILS


Table 5
Summary of Project Costs for Three Dredging Scenarios

SMALL SCENARIO 12,000 CY


Task
No.
1
1a.
1b.
1c.
1d.
1e.
1f.

2
3
4

Task Name

Task Total

Field Operations

$828,000

Prep & Maintain Staging Area


Dredging Prep & Setup
Dredging/Dewatering 12,000 CY
Staging Area Restoration
Contractors Permits
Storm Water Monitoring Program

$334,000
$55,000
$320,000
$63,000
$24,000
$32,000

Transportation & Disposal


Design & Permitting
CM & CQC/CQA Services
TOTAL

47

$729,000
$250,000
$53,000
$1,860,000

MEDIUM SCENARIO - 330,000 CY


MEDIUM SCENARIO - TRANSPORTATION & DISPOSAL OF ALL
DREDGE MATERIALS (ALTERNATIVE 1)
Task
No.
Task Name
Task Total
1

Field Operations
1a.
1b.
1c.
1d.
1e.
1f.

2
3
4

$10,802,000

Prep & Maintain Staging Area


Dredging Prep & Setup
Dredging/Dewatering - 330,300 CY
Staging Area Restoration
Contractor's Permits
Storm Water Monitoring Program

$2,032,000
$52,000
$8,265,000
$163,000
$40,000
$250,000

Transportation & Disposal


Design & Permitting
CM & CQC/CQA Services
TOTAL

$20,021,000
$1,000,000
$434,000
$32,257,000

MEDIUM SCENARIO - TRANSPORTATION & DISPOSAL OF ONE HALF


OF DREDGE MATERIALS (ALTERNATIVE 2)
Task
No.
Task Name
Task Total
1

Field Operations
1a.
1b.
1c.
1d.
1e.
1f.

2
3
4

$10,930,000

Prep & Maintain Staging Area


Dredging Prep & Setup
Dredging/Dewatering- 330,000 CY
Staging Area Restoration
Contractor's Permitting
Storm Water Monitoring Program

$2,033,000
$52,000
$8,284,000
$266,000
$40,000
$255,000

Transportation & Disposal


Design & Permitting
CM & CQC/CQA Services
TOTAL

48

$10,012,000
$1,000,000
$441,000
$22,383,000

MEDIUM SCENARIO - NO TRANSPORTATION & DISPOSAL


(ALTERNATIVE 3)
Task
No.
1

Task Name

Task Total

Field Operations
1a.
1b.
1c.
1d.
1e.
1f.

2
3
4

$10,853,000

Prep & Maintain Staging Area


Dredging Prep & Setup
Dredging / Dewatering - 330,000 CY
Staging Area Restoration
Contractor's Permitting
Storm Water Monitoring Program

$2,033,000
$52,000
$8,210,000
$267,000
$40,000
$251,000

Transportation & Disposal


Design & Permitting
CM & CQC/CQA Services
TOTAL

$0
$1,000,000
$435,000
$12,288,000

LARGE SCENARIO - 1,690,000 CY


Task
No.
1

Task Total

Field Operations
1a.
1b.
1c.
1d.
1e.
1f.
1g.
1h.
1i.
1j.

2
3
4

Task Name

$37,347,000

Prep & Maintain LBSA 1


Prep & Maintain LBSA 2
Prep & Maintain LBSA 3
Dredging Prep & Setup
Dredging /Dewatering - Areas #1
Dredging /Dewatering - Areas #2
Dredging/Dewatering - Areas #3 & Med
Staging Area Restoration
Contractor's Permitting
Storm Water Monitoring Program

$718,000
$886,000
$2,426,000
$99,000
$13,697,000
$5,300,000
$12,567,000
$632,000
$76,000
$946,000

Transportation & Disposal


Design & Permitting
CM & CQC/CQA Services
TOTAL

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

Proposed Truck Routes

R o swell Road

LBSA 3

LBSA 2

140

LBSA 1

1.5

3
Miles

Sandy Springs

Source: ESRI Streetmap USA 2005

Figure 2
Proposed Route to Chadwick Landfill
Morgan Falls Project (FERC No. 2237)

130,000 LOADS

ESTIMATED TRUCK TRAFFIC


= 1,000 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.

GEO SYNTEC C ONSULTANTS


ATLANTA, GEORGIA

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

Bidding & Procurement

60 days

CM & CQC/CQA Services

35 days

Field Work

35 days

Mobilization & Site Set Up

Mobilization of Dredge

Dredging

10 days

Sediment Dewatering

20 days

Loadout, T&D of Sediment

9 days

10

Site Restoration

5 days

11

Project Completed

Project Description: Small Option Schedule


Date: 3/15/06
Rev. 1

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

Design & Permitting

Bidding & Procurement

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

T& D OF ALL DEWATERED SEDIMENT

309 days

CM & CQC/CQA Services

309 days

Field Work

309 days

Mobilization & Site Set Up

Mobilization of Dredge

Dredging

254 days

10

Sediment Dewatering

263 days

11

Loadout, T&D of Sediment

254 days

12

Site Restoration

13

M1

T& D OF ALL DEWATERED SEDIMENT

30 days
5 days

15 days

Project Completed

OR

0 days

14
15

T&D OF ONE HALF OF DEWATERED SEDIMENT

314 days

16

CM & CQC/CQA Services

314 days

17

Field Work

314 days

18

Mobilization & Site Set Up

19

Mobilization of Dredge

20

Dredging

254 days

21

Sediment Dewatering

264 days

22

Loadout, T&D of Sediment

127 days

23

Remaining Sediment Grading and Shaping

132 days

24

Site Restoration

25

T&D OF ONE HALF OF DEWATERED SEDIMENT

30 days
5 days

15 days

Project Completed

OR

0 days

26
27

NO T&D OF DEWATERED SEDIMENT

310 days

28

CM & CQC/CQA Services

310 days

29

Field Work

310 days

30

Mobilization & Site Set Up

31

Mobilization of Dredge

32

Dredging

255 days

33

Sediment Dewatering

255 days

34

Sediment Grading and Shaping

255 days

35

Site Restoration

36

30 days
5 days

15 days

Project Completed

Project Description: Medium Option Schedule (r1


Date: 3/15/06
Rev. 1

NO T&D OF DEWATERED SEDIMENT

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

Design & Permitting

Bidding & Procurement

CM & CQC/CQA Services

631 days

Field Work

767 days

10 days

LBSA 2

15 days

LBSA 3

30 days

Dredging

464 days

12

Dredging with Stockpiles in LBSA 2

253 days

13

Dredging with Stockpiles in LBSA 3

585 days

Sediment Dewatering
LBSA 1

464 days

16

LBSA 2

253 days

17

LBSA 3

585 days

Loadout, T&D of Sediment

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

Project Description: Large Option Schedule(r1)


Date: 3/15/06
Rev. 1

Q10

717 days

15

26

Q9

717 days

Dredging with Stockpiles in LBSA 1

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

Mobilization & Site Set Up

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