FINAL REPORT
RECEIVED
DEC 2 0 1991
STATE LANDS
FRENCH COULEE CONSTRUCTED WETLAND
DSL/AM RB 90-010
November 27, 1991
DATE DUE
SEP 2!
f-vtry
GAYLORD
MINT ED IN U S A
Schafer and Associates
Bozeman, Montana
*• .
% v i ' -r<
Ur
M ’ »« *• *•
■ * . * • ...
/# »
,S •* i *• . w
* ^ ?
...
h.-.* - — ' c.
• ;'. «rS'
ft* , ■ •
... .
■j' ■ 1'
■>.- .. . .
^ •
c •
■ .— ■ *r *^> $ A
<•
* if ‘
• • .L me
,}i\: ..
' -i*. • . • '»«*•»
.
.* " * • *
> .1
* * » . . i i * *.
* . v. .Cl ; _
*/ ^ . _ r*
* ■*“»
^ .
. « m. .. . f*r
- - ." ' * . -..r,
,1* . • •*.' \
•< -a;'. ■ ■■ ••> cl js^jv
;• ' & t'-n.>:il9n '4:1 >'
‘k *
.1 mir
* • • . *
■ ■ ' ' ' * *■
,,.... . ... v vntt j* ?
*•-
■; ’
r ‘•Jj'i.-TO or ,rr.0d
- :t£ei:&q?x
•8 " 3 , 3 V r ^ ;-{j
■'•b . .
i firrs u +
I *!
' 'jc.QT.C
o * 1 . ■* .-
^ 1 . • W . t % * ’w
f
/
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Project/Site Description 1"1
1.2 Site Problems and Project Objectives 1-1
2.0 RESPONSIBLE PARTIES 2-1
2.1 Contractor 2-1
2.2 Engineer 2-1
2.3 AMRB Manager 2-1
3.0 CONTRACT INFORMATION 3-1
3.1 Bidding and Pre-Construction Administration 3-1
3.2 Construction Administration 3-2
3.3 Equipment and Methods 3-2
4.0 COST SUMMARY
4.1 Summary of Pay Items 4-1
4.2 Job Unit Costs and Cost Comparisons 4-2
5.0 Project Summary 5-1
5.1 Site Conditions at Project Completion 5-1
5.2 Comments and Suggestions 5-1
5.3 Maintenance Follow-up 5-2
r-
i
: >
'■ f ' . 3 i
* -..'jr-ihijs •
}'„ . . -V
i.;> .V
■ I - ' t t j
, - i,
•J it :
v3
v - i*. "
- • tv/.
.. * » . .
*r
7K-
7*
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1:
ATTACHMENT 2:
ATTACHMENT 3f:
ATTACHMENT 4:
ATTACHMENT 5:.
ATTACHMENT 6:
ATTACHMENT 7:
Bid Tabulation
Change Orders
Payment Requests
Analysis of Consultant Costs Incurred
As-Built Drawings
Photographs and Slides
Other Project Documents
i
V
T>
^5; '
/ - .
- • . - ‘ - '
(r $■> ?i- ■’
y. i . ■ .
:J r^£*.
*r . .
w . . 1. V : >,*£C
v ~--i
■ - a c i hii \
■- *
n •» r • - » -
1 . TgiEj-. ,
l «, .
■\t; ^c.r
. ; .
r-;
f - vJr •■
• « p -•
: • ' : •* ■
’ • ■ . ' ■ | V •:
-
’T v t* ,rp 0ft) df ■
-A-
- 'in
SOs'
I . J- > V
r- 1
Ki
?. t ■>
L.I.
€r
> -
, r
• A l- -
V •**
'•* 'y i . 'iL' i
• : . -Q.. .. r'v ; i
?"
*.>. * • . .
; .C*
;\ri
i.; ;h n •
lP r'
,H.
S:
. " •'
• « 1
.3
.
• j-dr
- :^fn,i :-
j.-. rsi
■t
.,r Vt
A *'
-i ' p
'/r-.r
'■»» 'W
V\
'V.
-Ti -
,1-
j r * *-
f-
•w K„r
■ ?c f
“’ir"
4
%>
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project/Site Description
The project area is located at the mouth of French Coulee, in the NW1/4, SE1/4,
Sec 26, T19N, R6E on the Belt, MT, 7.5 minute USGS topographic quadrangle (Figure 1).
It lies approximately 0.5 miles south of Belt, Montana between Anaconda Road to the
southwest and the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks to the northeast. Landowners
include Mayme Ballatore and Mary and Ken Martin of Belt, Beatrice MacLeod of Langly,
Washington, Harriet Stanton of Tulsa, Oklahoma and the Burlington Northern Railroad.
The physiography of the Belt area is characterized by flat, benchlike uplands
dissected by numerous creeks and coulees. Mississippian, Jurassic and Cretaceous
sedimentary rocks are exposed in the area and are responsible for the majority of
prominent landforms. The Cretaceous Kootenai sandstone serves as a caprock as well
as a local and regional aquifer. The Kootenai non-conformably overlays the Jurassic
Morrison Formation, the top of which contains a 4 to 1 5 foot zone of black, carbonaceous
shale and bituminous coal (Osborne et al 1987). It is this coal seam which was mined
extensively in the Belt area and French Coulee until the 1940’s, at which time the demand
for coal to fuel railroad engines was significantly diminished as a result of the advent of
the diesel engine.
Surface water and precipitation infiltrating through soils and groundwater leaking
through fractures in the overlying Kootenai into the abandoned mine workings results in
the oxidation and hydrolysis of pyrite found in the coal and associated waste rock and
leads to the formation of acid mine drainage (AMD).
Prior to construction, AMD from French Coulee was piped under a highway fill (MT
Highway 87) and into 2 collection boxes located immediately west of Anaconda Road.
From these boxes AMD entered a 6 inch clay pipe and flowed east under Anaconda
Road and then north for approximately 1000 feet to a point where it discharged from the
pipe into a drainage ditch and again flowed overland to the east under the BN tracks into
a rip-rap ditch, joining with a much larger discharge of AMD from the old Anaconda mine
and eventually flowing into Belt Creek.
1.2 Site Problems and Project Objectives
From the beginning of the project, the French Coulee Constructed Wetland was
planned as an experimental project. Although wetlands have been used to treat AMD at
eastern coal mines, success there has not been universal and much remains to be
learned about the mechanisms and design parameters for successful application of the
1-1
' 'V ,
v . ‘
- *
; \
* - v. J
f *
••
/•'I
; . - : .
. • . •- ■"?' -
' 'T~ \ .
- - < . - —
' ■ -J- ■ ■■ ’
, : • ' v : ■■■:■!• ■*'.
• • ••
v '% ' *
* . . !
i,
■ .
, \
■
vf~; -r
s& ’•
.. s
-?
/" f
v
t 1
r.
PROJECT AREA.
Figure 1. French Coulee Wetland Site Location
1-2
- J
1
\
r<i -
i»4V •-
"i; r - -c
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2015
https://archive.org/details/frenchcouleecons1991scha
technology. Sulfate reducing bacteria are believed to play an important role in removing
both sulfate and dissolved metals in the form of metal sulfides. Maintenance of reducing
conditions in the wetland is required for these bacteria to be active. This means an
abundance of decaying organic matter must be present and oxygen should be excluded
to the greatest extent possible. Application of wetland treatment technology to western
sites has not been as common as it has been in the east. AMD at western sites is
typically more acidic and higher in iron than that found in the east and this makes
treatment more difficult. Consequently, the principal objective of the project was to
provide a large scale platform to test the effectiveness of a wetland for treatment of AMD.
With this in mind, the project was designed for flexibility in controlling water distribution
to the treatment cells. Any cell can be operated for either upflow mode through the
substrate, downflow mode through the substrate or crossflow mode over the substrate
surface.
Even though the area was the subject of previous AMR work, it was still impacted
by problems related to the AMD and previous mine operations. The collection boxes
installed for interception and diversion of mine drainage showed evidence of periodic
plugging and overflow producing burnouts on residential property. The drainage ditch
leading to the culvert under the BN tracks also overflowed periodically with extensive
areas of acid burnout in the area where cell 2 was located. In addition there were areas
of coal spillage throughout the site which had been used for loading railcars during the
era of active mining.
1-3
2.0 RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
2.1 Contractor
The prime contractor for the project was Ed Boland Construction, Inc. of Great
Falls, Montana. Earthwork on the project was done by W S Repair of Great Falls as a
temporary employee of Boland Construction. Formwork and concrete work was done
by Tom Skovron of Great Falls, also as a temporary employee of Boland. Subcontractors
to Boland were Northwest Fence of Great Falls for fencing and Western Industries of
Miles City for HDPE liner and geofabric installation.
2.2 Engineer
Both design and construction supervision for the project were provided by Schafer
and Associates of Bozeman, Montana. Project Manager was Ed Spotts. The
responsibilities for Construction Inspector and project administration were shared jointly
by Mr. Spotts and Mr. Tom Hudson.
2.3 AMRB Manager
Montana AMRB Project Manager for the French Coulee Constructed Wetland was
Mr. Stu Levit.
2-1
s
3.0 CONTRACT INFORMATION
3,1 Bidding and Pre-Construction Administration
In January of 1990, Schafer and Associates was retained by the Montana
Department of State Lands - Abandoned Mine Reclamation Bureau to design a wetland
to treat acid mine drainage (AMD) emanating from abandoned coal mines in French
Coulee. A bid package was prepared and advertisements were placed in major Montana
newspapers for a period of three weeks by Montana DSL-AMRB. The bid period was
opened on June 10, 1990 and closed on June 28, 1990. A pre-bid conference was held
on June 19, 1991. Two bids were received and are shown below. A complete Bid
Tabulation is provided in Attachment 1.
1. Ed Boland Construction, Inc. 2. Schumaker Construction
Great Falls, MT. Great Falls, MT.
$ 592,253.16 $ 689,643.63
Both bids were higher than the Engineer’s estimate of $ 409,730.00. Contractors
bids were substantially higher than the engineer’s estimate in the areas of sand and
gravel substrate placement, soil anchor mat placement and in the some of the piping
items. Boland typically was most competitive on items related to piping while Schumaker
provided the most competitive bid on cell construction and material placement in the
cells. This may be a reflection of the particular area of strength of each bidder. Boland
does a great deal of piping contract work while Schumaker’s strength is in earthwork.
There were significant variations for unit prices on some items. Schumaker was
over three times as high for excavation and embankment, a lump sum item. We believe
that the level of effort put forth by Boland in this area was not covered by the bid amount.
Schumaker was also three times higher for the Parshall flume construction. Again, we
do not feel that the bid covered Boland’s costs in this area. Finally, Schumaker was
substantially higher for cattail planting, Pay Item 27. This is an area in which neither
bidder had much experience to draw on. Boland’s bid was probably fairly close to the
mark.
The bid tabulation seems to indicate that Boland put substantially more effort into
the preparation of its bid. Schumaker’s bid is characterized by unit costs which are
round numbers. For example, unit costs between $ 1.00 and $ 10.00 are all in even
dollar amounts and those over $ 1 0.00 are rounded to the nearest $ 5.00. Boland on the
other hand appears to have worked up a unit cost for each item and carried it out to two
or three significant digits. This may have allowed Boland to make a more competitive bid
than Schumaker.
3-1
A contract for $ 592,253.16 was awarded on July 5, 1990 to Boland Construction
and an Agreement was executed with DSL on August 15th, 1990. A Notice to Proceed
was issued on August 28, 1990 and construction start-up commenced the same day.
3.2 Construction Administration
A pre-construction meeting was held at the site on August 13th, 1990 with Barry
Boland, Don Hanson and Matt Weingart of Boland Construction, Tom Hudson and Ed
Spotts of Schafer and Associates and Stu Levit of AMRB in attendance. However,
because of some late concerns of Mr. Frank Ballatore (on behalf of Mayme Ballatore)
regarding resurveying of existing property boundaries, construction start-up was delayed
until August 28th. Resurveying revealed that the existing fenceline between property
owned by Mrs. Ballatore and the Martins was improperly located by approximately 40
feet, confirming the belief of all landowners involved. The survey conducted was difficult
because of the lack of useable monuments but boundaries were closed with an accuracy
of approximately 4 feet. The survey was recorded in the public record so that it would
be of use to the public in the future.
The project benefited from exceptionally good weather which resulted in relatively
few delays. Although a work stoppage was not issued, work was delayed on November
5th and 6th due to inclement weather. Work was stopped for the winter on December
14th with only a few minor tasks outstanding. This consisted primarily of completion of
fencing, seeding, cattail planting, wetland flooding and tying in AMD collection points to
the 8 inch main. These tasks were completed during the period of April 22, 1991 to May
9, 1991. Change Order No. 4, issued on May 22, 1991, provided for the planting of
shrubs on wetland berms and other areas at the request of Stu Levit of AMRB. Because
of the onset of warm weather it was deemed advisable to delay planting of shrubs until
the fall. The final payment request provided funds ($ 2,000.00) for this work. Payment
was held by AMRB until completion of the work. The planting was done on October 17th
and 18th, 1991.
3.3 Equipment and Methods
Construction of the French Coulee Wetland required careful sequencing of events
in order that the project could be completed without delays. The sections below describe
the major activities of the project and equipment used to do the work. The design of the
project, utilizing three separate cells, was a distinct asset in the construction phase
because it made it possible to maintain three levels of completion so that a delay on one
cell would not cause the entire project to slow down.
3-2
3.3.1 Earthwork
Excavation and embankment work was done with a 5 cy Wagner scraper-
hauler where there was no evidence of the presence of coal waste. Topsoil was
salvaged from excavation and fill areas whenever there was no evidence of coal
waste and stockpiled in separate areas according to property ownership for
measurement and payment. Salvaged topsoil was used to provide for some of the
project’s topsoil needs although substantial additional topsoil purchases from more
distant sources were required. Berms forming the cell were constructed from
material excavated from the bottom of the cells and from a borrow area nearby.
The borrow area identified and purchased from landowners was a knob near
Anaconda Road on the property boundary between Ballatore’s and Martin’s.
There was sufficient material on hand here to complete the earthwork. The leveling
of the knob was also a major improvement to the land in that it provided more
useable land for hay production and improved the view of residences across the
street. An aging utility pole located on the knob was replaced by Montana Power
and Light at no cost to the project.
Berms were constructed with continuous compaction provided by a
Caterpillar D-4 tractor pulling a sheepsfoot. Water was applied periodically for dust
control and to aid in compaction. A 1000 gallon truck with spray bar was sufficient
for this task. Each load delivered by the scraper-hauler was followed by
compaction with the sheepsfoot and periodic watering as required. Compaction
testing by Chen-Northern verified that greater than 95 percent compaction was
achieved. The D-4 was also used for initial clearing and grubbing. However, a
D-7 was found to be more effective for most clearing because of its greater power
and blade width.
Occasional areas of extensive coal spillage were encountered. When this
occurred, the material was stockpiled for measurement and payment. The coal
waste stockpile was eventually relocated next to the BN tracks between cell 2 and
cell 3. In this position it provided the base for a roadway extending the full length
of the project providing access for project maintenance and railroad maintenance
as well.
A road grader was also operated on the site for establishment of final
grades on berms and on roadways.
3.3.2 Pipe Installation
The initial trenching operation for pipe installation was for the 1 8 inch culvert
between cells 1 and 2. This was attempted with a small Ford tractor with backhoe.
However, soils in this area were cemented from years of exposure to AMD and the
3-3
backhoe was not capable of doing the job. A Caterpillar C225 trackhoe was
brought to the site and this proved to be a much more capable machine, although
the AMD impacted area was nearly too severely consolidated for this machine as
well. The project nearly required a blasting operation in order to complete the
culvert installation. Most subsequent pipe installations utilized the C225 for
excavation. This included installation of 8 inch main piping, 8 inch bypass piping,
manifold installations in the berms, and excavations into the berms for placement
of 4 inch stubs to which the perforated piping in the cell bottoms would eventually
be connected. The C225 remained on site for most of the job duration and was
utilized for a wide range of other applications described below.
The selection of PVC pipe made pipe installation fast and relatively low in
equipment demands. Small pipe was positioned and joined manually; pipe 8 inch
and larger required the trackhoe and cable lift to aid in pipe joining. The trackhoe
was used for initial excavation, placement of bedding material, and trench backfill.
Rock-free bedding material was located on site and delivered as required with one
of two frontend loaders on site, a Case W1 4 with 1 -1 /2 yard bucket or a John Deer
JD544B tractor with a 2 yard bucket. Initial compaction of pipe installations was
done with a small handheld gas engine tamper. However, the compaction needs
of the project were too extensive and a Bulldog compactor was brought on the
project for completion of pipe installations in trenches.
The 8 inch main was filled and pressure tested on July 2, 1991 prior to
introduction of AMD to the wetland and found to have no measurable rate of
leakage.
3.3.3 Soil/Bentonite Liner
Bentonite was delivered to the site in nominal 1 ton bags. Actual weight
based on bills of lading averaged 2500 pounds. A 200 mesh grade was used.
The bags proved to be a convenient and clean way of receiving, storing and using
the product for a job of this size. The C225 backhoe was used to unload bags
from the flatbed delivery trucks and again to empty bags into the hoppers of
vehicles used for spreading.
Locating suitable soil for a soil/bentonite liner was a problem. No materials
were available on site. The engineer’s estimate and all bids were based on
incorporating bentonite into the existing soils and fill material used for berm
construction. However, the excavated site was completely unsuitable. Some
areas were very rocky. Others were impacted by mine drainage and coal spillage.
The old railroad bed was exposed in one area and at least one building foundation
was unearthed. The fill material identified on site was essentially free of rocks but
tested too high in calcium to be suitable without high rates of bentonite; it was also
3-4
certain to be exhausted before meeting our needs. A search was conducted for
offsite soils and a large area of suitable material was identified near Highway 87
about a mile from the site. This area was cleared with the scraper-hauler and
excavated with a 2 yd frontend loader. The excavated material was delivered to
the site with a 12 yard dump truck.
The plan for liner construction was to spread soil material uniformly on the
inside face of berms, apply bentonite, and rototill in. The cell bottom would be
done last. However, an initial test of the equipment indicated that the bentonite
spreader could not be maneuvered reliably even on 3:1 grades, especially with a
full load. This was an especially severe problem in cell 1 which was narrow and
difficult to work in. An alternative method of operation was developed in which
material was mixed in the cell bottom and dozed into place on the berms. This
method proved to be satisfactory although it was more difficult to produce a
uniform liner thickness. In-place liner measurements varied from 6 inch thick to 1 1
inch thick against a target of 8 inches.
The soil delivered to the site was all taken from near the surface.
Consequently, during October, the moisture content was very low. It was
necessary to bring moisture content to the optimum compaction value of 16 to 18
percent prior to bentonite application. This required the use of two water trucks
applying water from the top of the berm and a rototiller mixing the water in.
Multiple passes were required to get uniform consistency of the wetted soil. The
water trucks were 1000 and 1500 gallon capacity and equipped with two inch
hoses with nozzles. The rototiller was 8 feet wide and had a maximum tilling depth
of 12 inches. The rototiller was hydraulically positioned for proper depth but the
tines were driven by PTO. An Allis Chalmers 7045 farm tractor was used to pull
it. Water application was an expensive and time consuming operation, not fully
appreciated before the job began. There were discussions about wetting the soil
before excavation but it was felt this would create problems with excavation and
difficulty in emptying the truck efficiently.
The 200 mesh bentonite was difficult to work with. A modified fertilizer
spreader which had been used previously for bentonite application was rented by
Boland Construction. The unit was equipped with a constant speed hydraulically
driven apron feeder and an adjustable height gate on the discharge end. The
material fed to a 1 foot diameter slinger disk which was driven by PTO from the
tractor drive train. A rubber shroud 8 feet wide, 2 feet deep, 2 feet high and 6
inches off the ground was intended to contain material in order to minimize dust
loss.
There were several problems with this unit. First, uniform application rates
could only be achieved at constant speed. Rates were controllable only through
3-5
adjustment of the gate height and then were only valid at a specific rate of speed.
This spreader was tested with fill material and this produced a uniform rate of
application. On a level surface this method would probably have been workable
but on sideslopes the spreader could not be pulled reliably because of poor
traction. Using the bentonite material other problems surfaced as well. Dusting
was severe even with the rubber shroud so that losses were significant and the
dust was a potential nuisance to residents. Bridging in the hopper was also a
problem. It was not possible to keep a steady flow of material to the slinger
without two men with dust masks and shovels riding the hopper to assure
continuous flow from the apron feeder. This method was felt to be too dangerous
and inefficient to continue.
An alternative method was devised which worked reasonably well. Sufficient
soil was moved into the bottom of the cell to provide liner for one or two panels
of the cell liner. The necessary soil material was determined by area
measurement. Loose yards to produce an 8 inch compacted liner were estimated
to be that area times 1 1 inches thick. Soil was hauled into the cell and spread
loosely with dozers to 1 1 inches depth in an area adjacent to the panel to be lined.
The scraper-hauler was then used to spread the bentonite. A calculated number
of 2500 pound bags (based on application rates for the soil developed from
laboratory test data) plus 33 percent to account for inconsistencies of the
spreading method and dust losses were applied to the surface of the soils. This
varied from 3 bags on the end panels of cell 1 to 16 bags on the floor of cell 2.
Occasionally, especially at the start of a spreading run, the scraper would apply
bentonite too heavy. These areas were respread by a small dozer or raked out
by hand. Once moving, though, the scraper achieved a surprisingly uniform rate
of application. Two passes were necessary to spread the required quantity of
bentonite over the area being treated. Although dust loss was still a factor, it was
much less than with the spreader. This operation is recommended only with a
very experienced operator.
The rototiller followed the spreader and tilled the bentonite into the soil.
Initial passes were relatively shallow and this helped to redistribute the bentonite
for even more uniform coverage. Multiple passes were required to mix the
bentonite in to full depth. Complete mixing was indicated by the development of
a uniform soil color. On a large area (10000 square feet or more) this took up to
two hours of tilling. Occasionally, additional water would be added as the soil mix
tended to dry out under such extended and vigorous mixing.
When mixing was complete dozers were used to push the soil/bentonite mix
up the side of the berm panel(s) to be lined. In order to expedite this operation
three dozers were often used on the larger panels. A Caterpillar D-7 and D-3 and
a small Fiat-Allis dozer were available for this. Berms were staked in order to
3-6
control depth of application. This was only partially effective. There was a
tendency to get especially thick application at the bottom of the berms where they
met the floor of the cell.
The first attempts to compact the bentonite were with a small conventional
roller. It was very difficult to operate on the 3:1 slopes with this machine. There
was a lot of slipping and a tendency to create an uneven surface. Part of this was
due to some overwetting of the surface. It is important to keep water trucks away
from mixed material. However, even properly wetted material provides very poor
traction. A Dynapac vibratory roller with tired drive wheels was brought on the job.
This did an excellent job of compaction and produced a smooth finished surface.
Water application was made twice daily to completed liner panels to prevent
cracking until the synthetic liner was applied. Care should be exercised in water
application at this stage since drainage is very poor. Synthetic liner installation is
more difficult over a damp surface producing a higher rate of burnouts on seams
which must then be located and repaired individually.
Following bentonite liner placement, buried stubs of the distribution piping
were excavated by hand and extended into the finished cell bottom. Bentonite
material was set aside and reused to fill the areas around the extended pipes.
3.3.4 Geomembrane Liner
The geomembrane liner installation was a relatively rapid process compared
to the bentonite liner. An entire cell could be lined with HDPE in a single day.
Geofabric liner and Enkamat erosion fabric installation took another day. HDPE
was supplied in 20 foot wide rolls. A front end loader was used to bring rolls to
the work area and to suspend the roll in the air for rapid unspooling of the
required lengths. Sections were laid across the cells in a transverse direction.
Seams were made with an electrically heated automatic seaming machine with
power delivered from a portable generator. The ends of the cells tended to
produce noticeable folds in the material as a result of trying to fit a flat surface
onto an angular one. When these folds were large enough to suggest creasing
they were cut diagonally at the corner of the cell from the top to the bottom,
trimmed and seamed manually. All seams were pressure tested (the seams are
made with a double weld that leaves an air pocket) to establish the integrity of the
weld. Questionable welds were tested with a spark tester to locate leaks which
were then repaired manually.
Boots were fabricated on site for sealing pipe penetrations. The HDPE was
cut around each pipe, a boot was slipped over the pipe and welded to the liner.
Silicone cement was applied liberally to the inside of the boot prior to fitting to
make a seal to the pipe. Stainless steel hose clamps completed the boot
3-7
installation.
Geofabric installation was similar to the HDPE operation except that joints
were sewn. Cell 1 was installed with seams up. This was satisfactory but a
cleaner looking seam was made on cells 2 and 3 by seaming on the bottom side
and then folding that panel down. Uneven coverage on the ends of cells was not
considered to be a problem; excess material was simply folded over.
Enkamat erosion fabric was used to provide a rough surface for applied
topsoil to prevent it from sloughing from sideslopes. Installation was facilitated by
surveying the final substrate grade and marking this line on the geofabric.
Enkamat was cut to extend past this mark into the cell by 3 feet which provided
1 foot of embedded depth. Three inches of overlap was required; sections were
joined with plastic ties. All three materials were anchored in a "V" trench at the top
of the berm. Tires and sandbags were used to hold liners in place until the trench
could be backfilled. The Enkamat was particularly subject to damage from wind.
Sandbags were applied and remained in place until substrate material placement
was completed in order to keep this material in place.
3.3.5 Substrate Placement
The selection of substrate materials was altered during the coarse of
construction to include a 12 inch lift of aged cow manure immediately above the
gravel replacing part of the 18 inches of Eko-Compost originally planned in this lift.
This decision was prompted by late results from column testing showing better
performance in columns with readily available organic matter. Construction was
somewhat more difficult in that it required proper sequencing of loads of manure
and compost.
Elevations of various lifts of material were surveyed in and painted on the
geofabric prior to material placement. Initial access to the cell bottom was
provided by placing a small area of 1 to 3 inch gravel subbase by hand in a
corner of each cell to a depth of 8 inches. A temporary ramp of Eko-Compost 1-
1/2 feet thick was built down to the bottom onto this starter area. Sheets of 3/4
inch plywood were laid over the gravel in the starter area to evenly distribute the
weight of equipment which would bring additional material into the cell. Two
loaders were used to bring materials into the cells. Plywood was extended the
entire length of the cell and moved laterally as required to provide access to new
work areas. Loads were emptied and backdragged for rough spreading. Two
laborers provided finished grade control with shovels and rakes. When 1 to 3 inch
gravel placement was complete, 3/4 inch gravel was brought in and placed in a
similar manner removing the plywood as material was placed.
3-8
When all gravel was in place, the plywood was relaid to the far end of the
cell and coconut fiber mat was installed over the gravel. The C225 trackhoe was
brought into the cell to assist with material spreading. This had the effect of
reducing loader cycle times and the amount of manual labor for finishing. The
coconut mat would be extended over the gravel to provide new work areas as
required. Manure and Eko-Compost were brought into the cell alternately as
needed for the first lift of organic substrate. Loaders would bring sufficient manure
to provide an initial 12 inch lift. The trackhoe spread this material by swinging its
bucket back and forth across the cell. Loaders dumped loads of Eko-Compost
onto leveled areas of manure and this was spread by the trackhoe in a similar
manner to the required depth with the assistance of manual labor for final leveling.
This operation retreated to new work areas until the first substrate interval was in
place over the entire cell floor. A second layer of coconut fiber mat was placed
over the first substrate interval to prevent intermingling with a 6 inch sand layer
above it which is intended to help redistribute water flow. The sand layer was
applied with loaders and spread with the D-4. The second and final lift of
substrate consisting of 18 inches of Eko-Compost was placed over the sand. This
lift used the same methods of operation for material placement and spreading
described above.
One particular problem was identified pertaining to the sand placement. As
sand was placed, the weight of vehicles running on the plywood bringing material
into the cell and the weight of the sand itself tended to compact the loose
substrate below. The result was an overfilling of cell 1 and 2 with sand. Instead
of getting a 6 inch thickness a 10 inch layer resulted. This was compensated for
in cell 3 by overfilling the first substrate interval with four additional inches of
manure ( 16 inches total) plus the 12 inches of Eko-Compost then compacting by
running the D-7 over it before placing sand.
Large quantities of material were delivered to and stockpiled on the site.
It was a constant concern to keep material of the proper kind coming so work
could continue. Manure was supplied with a 1 2 yard dump truck and 1 0 yard pup
trailer with 2 foot high wooden extensions for additional haul capacity. Sand and
gravel were delivered in single loads in twelve yard dump trucks. Eko-Compost
was delivered in 25 to 35 yard loads by either a long bed end dump trailer and
truck or by a walking floor trailer and truck. The walking floor trailer carried larger
loads and was easier to unload. One end dump trailer was destroyed when it
tipped over on site bending the frame and aluminum box and damaging the
hydraulic dump mechanism. Apparently, the back portion of the load emptied but
the front portion did not, leaving the trailer top heavy and off balance.
3.3.6 Parshall Flumes
3-9
Parshall flume construction was done late in the construction sequence after
installation of the liners. The HDPE liner was notched in a rectangular shape
where the flume was to be located and folded back. A trench was excavated
either by hand or with the assistance of the trackhoe if access permitted.
Trackhoe trenching was possible on all flumes except the connecting flume
between cell 1 and 2. Trenching exposed stubbed off piping which was buried in
the berms to provide the required pipe connections to the flumes. Bedding
material was placed in the floor of the trench and hand labor was used to trim the
trench floor to the elevations required by plans.
Epoxy coated rebar was assembled and wooden forms were built around
the rebar and the pipe stubs. The Parshall flumes and weir gates were positioned
in the floor and walls to be cast in place. Because it was necessary to bring in
imported material for bentonite liner construction after the berms were constructed,
the open ends of the flumes had to be extended 2 to 3 feet longer than shown in
plans in order to penetrate the completed cell. Consequently, the flumes were
built to fit and dimensions vary somewhat from plans.
Concrete pouring and finishing was straightforward using sulfate resistant
concrete as called for in specifications. Forms were removed after two or three
days and inside surfaces were touched up for a smooth finish surface. Exposed
pipe stubs were cut off and ground flush with the inside concrete wall. Inside
concrete surfaces were painted with epoxy paint for improved acid resistance.
Stop plates were installed over pipe openings by bolting to the walls with
expansion bolts and sealed with silicone. Stainless steel screens with 1/2 inch
openings were fitted over pipe openings to prevent debris from washing into the
piping system. The excavation was then backfilled and the bentonite liner was
replaced and compacted with a hand tamper. The HDPE liner was trimmed and
refitted to the outside flume walls. Cuts at the corners were heat welded back
together. The fitted liner was then sealed to the flume using neoprene rubber
cement and held tightly to the wall with stainless steel battens bolted to stainless
steel anchor bolts in the concrete.
3.3.7 Topsoil
Imported and salvaged topsoil was applied to all disturbed areas and to the
inside of the cell berms to cover the synthetic liner according to specifications.
Subsoils were scarified using a scarifier attached to the road grader prior to topsoil
placement and soils were disked prior to seeding in areas where this was
possible. Front end loaders delivered soil to a work area and dozers spread it to
the required depth. Material placed on the inside of the cells had to be spread by
hand to prevent damage to the liner by equipment.
3-10
-
3.3.8 Seeding
Seeding was done using a hydroseeder in two applications. The initial
application consisted of the seed and a light mulch. The second application was
with fertilizer and a heavy mulch. Seeding of the disturbed areas around the
collection boxes was done by hand. No mulch was applied in these areas.
3.3.9 Cattail Planting and Wetland Flooding
Cattails were hand planted in a random pattern for uniform distribution. The
substrate surface was raked into ridges to provide areas of high and low water
which was intended to minimize short circuiting of water flow as well as providing
a variety of water depths for the cattails. The cells were flooded from the bottom
up using water pumped from the diversion channel and delivered to the
appropriate cell by a hose. This procedure resulted in a considerable amount of
floating bark chips from the Eko-Compost and the uprooting of some of the
cattails especially in areas of deeper water.
3.3.10 Rip-rap
Rip-rap was placed in two locations at the site: in the stream diversion from
Anaconda Road to the end of cell 3 and in the storm drainage leading to the 18
inch culvert buried in the berm between cell 1 and 2. Rip-rap was difficult to find
in this area. However, a source was located on a Hutterite farm south of the
project site. Rocks had been removed from the fields on this farm and were
stockpiled. Rip-rap size and angularity was acceptable. Rip-rap was placed with
the trackhoe. Material placed in the bottom of the stream channel was embedded
using pressure on the trackhoe bucket.
3.4 Planning and Design
A number of planning and design considerations were alluded to in the
discussions of paragraph 3.3. Future projects should provide for the following to facilitate
smooth project execution:
• Identification and testing of soils for bentonite/soil liners before bid solicitations.
The project was slowed by the sampling, testing and price negotiating for alternate
soil sources.
• Consider the physical capabilities of construction equipment during design. Cell
1 , which was small and narrow, was very difficult to work in. Unfortunately, it was
always the first to be worked on as well which made it that much more difficult.
3-11
Construction of the larger cells seemed to go so much smoother.
• More detailed design work needed to go into the flumes, which are actually fairly
complex structures to build. For example, because of the short design phase of
the project vendor drawings of stop plates were not available. The use of screens
for debris removal was an afterthought in the field which proved its worth when the
cells were flooded.
• It may make more sense to construct the flumes prior to installation of lining
materials. This was not possible in our case because we needed the plastic
flumes, stop plates and weir guide inserts before concrete could be poured and
these required fairly long delivery times and vendor drawing certification prior to
fabrication. We simply could not delay major elements of the project waiting for
these items.
• The project schedule was too optimistic. Because of the nature of the cell
construction, sequencing of events was critical. Neither bidder took exception to
the 60 day project completion period. However, Boland Construction did express
concern over the tightness of the schedule from the first day of the project even
though intending to complete it within the permitted time frame if possible. The 60
day completion period was set somewhat arbitrarily without development of a
formal schedule or a critical path analysis. A short design period, which was
barely adequate for completion of design drawings, probably contributed to this
problem. Activities which normally depend on a complete set of drawings (bid
document preparation, schedule development and cost estimate) suffered as a
result.
• Pipe sizing for the 12 inch manifold appears to be too large. However, in light of
the problems of screen fouling at the openings of these manifolds this oversizing
may still be justified. The 8 inch main also appears to be oversized. Again,
however, it may be best to wait until a maintenance history is established to
determine whether a smaller pipe size is justified.
• Methods of filling cells with substrate could be more efficient, particularly on larger
projects. Conveyor systems were considered by Boland but rejected. Future
projects should reconsider methods for substrate placement.
3-12
4.0 COST SUMMARY
4.1 Summary of Pay Items
The final payment form, Payment Request No. 5, is included in Attachment 3. This
form lists the original 43 pay items which were the basis for the bid submittals. Pay items
44 through 57 were added during the execution of the project as the result of change
orders, work directives and additions to the scope of work.
Quantities used varied somewhat from original estimates. Earthwork and cell fill
materials were most often subject to this. The need to go offsite for soil materials suitable
for bentonite liner construction has already been mentioned. There was also a design
error in cell 2 which when corrected resulted in excavation which was 1.5 feet less
material than shown on the plans. This had the effect of increasing the quantity of backfill
required from other sources. It also resulted in a cell floor which was wider than shown
on the plans. Consequently, the quantities of fill materials were all higher than planned.
Sand use was also higher than anticipated because of the compaction problem noted
above. Three-quarter by one-half inch gravel usage was substantially higher than
anticipated. We suspect that there was a tendency for some of this material to fill voids
in the top of the 3 inch gravel on which it was placed.
One area in which quantities were lower than anticipated was in the cell liner
installation. Original plans were to have this installation running up the hill on the
southwest sides of cells 1 and 2. As built, the liner was terminated at an elevation from
2 to 3.5 feet higher than the top of the substrate. This was done to accommodate a
temporary access road on that side of the project which was necessary for both
earthwork and for cell filling.
Some items of work were eliminated or substantially reduced. Summer erosion
control was never required. The lined ditch was never built. Instead, a buried 8 inch pipe
was installed in the coal waste storage area to bring water from cell 2 to cell 3. This
eliminated the costs for the ditch but increased the quantity of 8 inch pipe required.
Much of the unlined ditch construction on the southwest of cells 1 and 2 was eliminated
as well. It was felt that the areas being drained were not sufficiently large and were
adequately vegetated such that runoff would not be a problem.
Change orders were generally under control on the project totalling $ 40,165.67.
The single biggest change order, Pay Item No. 45 for $ 19,600.00, was for the supply of
offsite soils for bentonite liner. This accounted for about one-half of the total change
orders. Some change orders were at the direction of AMRB. These included Pay Items
47, 48, and 56. Most of the other change orders are related to details of flume
construction and piping. We felt that drawings and plans for these items were not
sufficiently clear to define exactly what was required of the contractor.
4-1
4.2 Job Unit Costs and Cost Comparisons
Unit costs for this project can be found in the final pay request in Attachment 1.
However, as noted earlier some items varied substantially between the two bids submitted
so it would be advisable to take this into account if these unit costs are to be used for
estimating future jobs.
Useful measures of comparative costs for this project are not easily defined. One
must bear in mind that the site was constructed as an experimental testbed and this
resulted in a more complex design than might otherwise be the case. The following
capital cost ratios, based on 15 gpm design flow rate, 700 ppm iron content, 1.52 acres
of treatment area and an estimated 20 year useful life, may provide a guide for future
projects of this type:
Cost per gpm of mine drainage treated:
$
45,000.00
Cost per K gallon of mine drainage, 20 year life:
$
4.30
Cost per pound of Fe removed annually:
$
14.00
Cost per pound of Fe removed, 20 year life:
$
0.70
Cost per acre of wetland treatment area:
$
445,000.00
Initially defined pay items (1 through 43) were brought in at $ 637,221.81 or 7.6
percent over original plan. Change orders on the project were $ 40,1 65.67 or 6.8 percent
above original plan.
A summary of the design costs and construction supervision costs is found in
Attachment 4.
4-2
5.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
5.1 Site Conditions at Project Completion
In mid-July, 1991, water from the two intercepted sources was being successfully
treated at an influent rate of approximately 1 4 gpm producing effluent at pH 7. Discharge
from cells 1 and 2 was running decidedly acid (pH 3), however. Initial analytical results
indicated that the first two cells were functioning primarily for metal removal and doing
an effective job at this.
Cattails were established in all of the cells but were flourishing best in cell 3.
Aquatic organisms were observed in all of the cells but only in cell 3 was a diverse culture
apparent. During the summer hundreds of dragon flies and damsel flies inhabited the
area; several different species were noted. Killdeer were seen around cell 3 though it was
not established whether they had successfully nested there. One duck was observed on
cell 3. Birds seemed to avoid the more acidic areas of cells 1 and 2.
The seeding produced an abundance of wild mustard. Apparently this was
brought in with the topsoil. The mustard was cut down before going to seed. There was
some debate whether this was appropriate action. Some felt that the mustard would be
a beneficial nurse crop for germinating grasses and would best be left in place.
Ultimately the grasses should dominate again.
There was some problem with plugging of screens with floating debris. This may
be only an initial problem which will subside with time or it may require either a permanent
remedy or a maintenance program to keep screens clean.
In general, the overall appearance of the area was much improved. As-built
drawings of the project are provided in Attachment 5.
5.2 Comments and Suggestions
Most of the problems on the job were related to inadequate or insufficient
information in design documents. In particular, definition of soil sources, flume details
and piping details were not entirely adequate. As noted earlier, this was due to a very
short design schedule. Nonetheless, these problems were not beyond resolution in the
field and did not result in major cost impacts on the project. Additional design work
would probably not have resulted in substantially lower project costs but could have
produced a somewhat shorter construction schedule, a more accurate project cost
estimate and fewer change orders.
5-1
One design improvement has been identified now that the ceils have been flooded
and are operational. All flumes are sloped to provide for drainage away from the Parshall
flume inserts. However, because there is a two inch lip on the stopplate frames, and
because of the tendency for screens to plug, the slope provided is not sufficient to
prevent flooding of the flume inserts. Thus, meaningful flow data are difficult to obtain.
These measurements can be made at the inlet of all three cells by lifting the downstream
weirs and allowing the flume to discharge to the surface of the cell until a reading is
made. On the discharge flumes from cells 2 and 3 this technique cannot be used. These
flumes cannot be used for measurement as installed. Future designs should provide for
additional slope or a depressed drainage box to provide better drainage in the area of
the Parshall insert.
5.3 Maintenance Follow-up
A program of regular sampling is being conducted to gather data on the wetland
performance. This should ultimately include sampling of substrate material to determine
mechanisms of metal removal. This sampling program together with operating and
maintenance requirements was described in an Operating and Maintenance Plan
submitted to AMRB on September 16, 1991.
It is too early to assess the need for action to deal with the observed problem of
screen plugging. This problem may subside with continued use. Possible remedies,
should the problem persist, include the following:
• Removal of screens when floating debris subsides,
• Operation of the cells in downflow mode which will cause the substrate to act as
a filter media,
• Modification of flume inlets to provide for effective screening there rather than at
the inlets to pipe openings,
• Installation of flume covers to prevent wind blown debris from collecting in the
flumes. This may also be beneficial if winter operations indicate a problem with ice
formation, and
• Initiation of a permanent maintenance program to inspect and clean flume
structures on a regular basis.
5-2
ATTACHMENT 1
BID TABULATION
FRENCH COULEE WETLAND
ENGINEER’S ESTIMATE
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNITS
ITEM DESCRIPTION
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
PRICE
1
LUMP SUM
MOBILIZATION
xxxxx
30,000.00
1
LUMP SUM
DEBRIS REMOVAL
xxxxx
2,000.00
5,060
BCY
EXCAVATION AND EMBANKMENT
2.40
12,144.00
5,820
BCY
PROVIDE BACKFILL
3.00
17,460.00
2,840
BCY
HAUL
1.40
3,976.00
1,165
BCY
PROVIDE TOPSOIL
7.00
8,155.00
89,550
SF
SOIL-CLAY LINER
0.30
26,865.00
103,650
SF
GEOMEMBRANE LINER
0.55
57,007.50
103,650
SF
PROTECTIVE GEOFABRIC
0.20
20,730.00
86,900
SF
UNDERIAYMENT FABRIC
0.21
18,249.00
44,300
SF
SOIL ANCHOR MAT
0.25
11,075.00
690
CY
1.5/3 INCH GRAVEL
5.00
3,450.00
365
CY
0.5/0.75 INCH GRAVEL
5.00
1,825.00
4,460
CY
ORGANIC SUBSTRATE
24.00
107,040.00
740
CY
SAND SUBSTRATE
5.00
3,700.00
5
EACH
PARSHALL FLUME
2,000.00
10,000.00
2,590
LF
8 IN PVC (MAIN/BY-PASS)
4.00
10,360.00
200
LF
12 IN PVC (MANIFOLD)
20.00
4,000.00
200
LF
6 IN PVC (MANIFOLD)
16.00
3,200.00
180
LF
8 IN SCH 80 DOWN-FLOW PIPE
6. 00
1,080.00
2,065
LF
4 IN PVC SCH 80
1.40
2,891.00
4,455
LF
4 IN PVC SCH 80 (PERFORATED)
1.70
7,573.50
5
EACH
6 IN ACID-RESIST. VALVE
400.00
2,000.00
1.95
ACRES
FERTILIZE, SEED, AND MULCH
1,000.00
1,950.00
1.30
ACRES
LIME APPLICATION - 25 T/AC
1,200.00
1,560.00
1.95
ACRES
SUMMER EROSION CONTROL
600.00
1,170.00
1.49
ACRES
PROVIDE CATTAILS
10,000.00
14,900.00
615
LF
UNLINED DRAINAGE DITCH
2.50
1,537.50
375
LF
LINED DRAINAGE DITCH
4.50
1,687.50
320
CY
RIP-RAP
16.00
5,120.00
160
LF
18 IN CULVERT
10.00
1,600.00
1,220
LF
GRAVEL COURSE
1.20
1,464.00
112
KGAL
PROVIDE WATER
14.00
1,568.00
590
KGAL
FLOOD WETLAND
8.00
4,720.00
680
LF
REMOVE FENCE
1.00
680.00
2,420
LF
F-4 FARM FENCE
0.85
2,057.00
9
EACH
CORNER PANELS
95.00
855.00
4
EACH
SINGLE PANELS
70.00
280.00
4
EACH
F-4 GATES
100.00
400.00
1
LUMP SUM
BACKFILL AND COMPACT WELL
XXXXX
500.00
1
LUMP SUM
CLEAN OUT COLLECTION BOX/PIPE
XXXXX
400.00
1
LUMP SUM
INST. MANIFOLD IN COLLECT. BOX
XXXXX
500.00
1
LUMP SUM
REMOVE AND REPLACE STRUCTURE
xxxxx
2,000.00
409,730.00
FRENCH COUI.EE DSL/AMRB 90-010
CASCADE COUNTY, MONTANA DATE JUNE 28, 1990
BID TABULATIONS
Ed Boland Construction
Great Falls, MT
Schumaker Contracting
Great Falls, MT
Item
Number
Estimated
Quantity
Unit
Description
Unit
Price
Total
Price
i.
i
LS
Mobilization
30,000.00
30,000.00
30,500.00
30,500.00
0.00
0.00
2.
1
LS
Debris Removal
1,250.00
1,250.00
500.00
500.00
0.00
0.00
3.
1
LS
Excavation and
Embankment
15,560.00
15,560.00
51,000.00
51,000.00
0.00
0.00
4.
5,820
CY
Provide Backfill
4.30
25,026.00
6.00
34,920.00
0.00
0.00
5.
2,840
CY
Haul
1.53
4,345.20
2.00
5,680.00
0.00
0.00
6.
1,165
CY
Provide Topsoil
12.30
14,329.50
6.00
6,990.00
0.00
0.00
7.
89,550
SF
Soil/Clay Liner
0.33
29,551.50
0.50
44,775.00
0.00
0.00
8.
103,650
SF
Geomembrane Liner
0.73
75,664.50
0.45
46,642.50
0.00
0.00
9.
103,650
SF
Protective Geofabric
0.23
23,839.50
0.20
20,730.00
0.00
0.00
10.
86,900
SF
Underlayment Fabric
0.27
23,463.00
0.20
17,380.00
0.00
0.00
11.
44,300
SF
Soil Anchor Mat
0.65
28,795.00
1.00
44,300.00
0.00
0.00
12.
690
CY
l.5'/3.0" Gravel
33.21
22,914.90
20.00
13,800.00
0.00
0.00
13.
365
CY
0.5"/0.75" Gravel
33.21
12,121.65
20.00
7,300.00
0.00
0.00
14.
4,460
CY
Organic Substrate
25.21
112,436.60
25.00
111,500.00
0.00
0.00
15.
740
CY
Sand Substrate
32.59
24,116.60
25.00
18,500.00
0.00
0.00
16.
5
EACH
Pars hall Flume
2,927.00
14,635.00
8,500.00
42,500.00
0.00
0.00
17.
2,590
LF
8-inch PVC (Main/by-pass
pipe)
9.84
25,485.60
15.00
38,850.00
0.00
0.00
BID TABULATIONS
Ed Boland Construction
Great Falls, MT
Schumaker Contracting
Great Falls, MT
Item
Number
Estimated
Quantity
Unit
Description
Unit
Price
Total
Price
18.
105
LF
8-inch PVC Down Flow
Pipe
9.84
1,033.20
15.00
1,575.00
0.00
0.00
19.
200
LF
12-inch PVC manifold
13.53
2,706.00
20.00
4,000.00
0.00
0.00
20.
200
LF
6-inch PVC Manifold
7.38
1,476.00
20.00
4,000.00
0.00
0.00
21.
2,065
LF
4-inch PVC Sch. 80
3.80
7,847.00
7.00
14,455.00
0.00
0.00
22.
4,455
LF
4-inch PVC Sch. 80 Perf.
4.70
20,938.50
7.00
31,185.00
0.00
0.00
23.
5
EACH
Acid-resistant Valve
1,110.00
5,550.00
2,000.00
10,000.00
0.00
0.00
24.
1.95
ACRES
Fertilizer, Seed and Mulch
500.00
975.00
2,000.00
3,900.00
0.00
0.00
25.
1.95
ACRES
Lime Application (25 T/A)
4,045.00
7,887.75 V
2,000.00
3,900.00
0.00
0.00
26.
1.3
ACRES
Summer Erosion Control
1,600.00
2,080.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
27.
1.49
ACRES
Provide Cattails
8,254.00
12,298.46
20,000.00
29,800.00
0.00
0.00
28.
615
LF
Unlined Drainage Ditch
5.55
3,413.25
1.00
615.00
0.00
0.00
29.
375
LF
Lined Drainage Ditch
6.55
2,456.25
20.00
7,500.00
0.00
0.00
30.
320
CY
Rip-Rap
22.15
7,088.00
30.00
9,600.00
0.00
0.00
31.
160
LF
18-inch Culvert
22.75
3,640.00
30.00
4,800.00
0.00
0.00
32.
1,220
LF
Gravel Course
9.06
11,053.20
10.00
12,200.00
0.00
0.00
33.
112
KGAL
Provide Water
5.00
560.00
0.01
1.12
0.00
0.00
34.
590
KGAL
Flood Wetland
5.00
2,950.00
10.00
5,900.00
0.00
0.00
35.
680
LF
Remove Fence
0.65
442.00
1.00
680.00
0.00
0.00
36.
2,420
LF
Farm Fence F-4M
2.00
4,840.00
1.25
3,025.00
0.00
0.00
BID TABULATIONS
Ed Boland Construction
Great Falls, MT
Schumaker Contracting
Great Falls, MT
Item
Number
Estimated
Quantity
Unit
Description
Unit
Price
Total
Price
37.
9
EACH
Comer Panels
160.00
1,440.00
100.00
900.00
0.00
0.00
38.
4
EACH
Single Panels
100.00
400.00
80.00
320.00
0.00
0.00
39.
64
LF
Farm Fence Gates Type F-4
(16 ft/gate)
8.50
544.00
5.00
320.00
0.00
0.00
40.
1
LS
Backfill and Compact Well
400.00
400.00
100.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
41.
1
LS
Clean Out Collection Box/
Pipe
2,850.00
2,850.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
0.00
0.00
42.
1
LS
Install Manifold in
Collection Box
2,350.00
2,350.00
1,500.00
1,500.00
0.00
0.00
43.
1
LS
Remove and Replace
Structure
1,500.00
1,500.00
2,500.00
2,500.00
0.00
0.00
592,253.16
689,643.63
0.00
0.00
G:\RECLAM\AMRB\FRENCH.BID
ATTACHMENT 2
CHANGE ORDERS
CHANGE ORDER
ORDER NO:
# 1
,9.v
PROJECT TITLE: FRENCH COULEE WETLAND/ACID MINE
DRAINAG
e^cqntMl .
MONT A/E or DSL-AMRB: DSL/ANRB 90-010
CONTRACT DATE: JUNE 28 r 1990
OWNER: MONTANA DEPT. OF STATE LANDS - AMR
BUREAU
CONTRACTOR: ED BOLAND CONST. GT . FALLS. MT .
59401
Change Orders must be accompanied by an itemized cost breakdown. You are hereby requested to
comply with the following changes from the Contract Documents. (Show separate costs for materials,
labor, equipment, and miscellaneous. Show percent where applicable.)
COST OF CHANGES
ITEM
NO.
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES - ESTIMATED
QUANTITIES 4 UNITS
MATTS.
LABOR
EQUIP.
MISC.
TOTAL
UNIT
COST
TOTAL
COST
35
Remove additional fence
750 l.f. @ $.65 per LF
$487. f
TOTAL COST - MATERIALS. LABOR. EQUIPMENT 4 MISC.
OVERHEAD 4 PROFIT @ %
GRAND TOTAL - THIS CHANGE ORDER
Original Contract Price $442.00
Current Contract Price Adjusted by Previous Change Order
Cost this Change Order (+ or -J + $487 . 50
New Contract Price including this Change Order $q?q , sn
CO - 1
Rev. 7/90
The completion date as set forth in the Contract Documents shall be ({unchanged)) increased, decreased)
by • — calendar days.
The date for completion of all work will be
t K ;
Description and Justification for Change:
■f. /v» Co L, /Itc
/°<L c-T — /-?
■fc<x /v k£<i_ cl\ jo. h
J
eJo J ?
d cri'> 3 /}- o
SURETY CONSENT
The Surety hereby consents to the aforementioned Contract Change Order and agrees that its bond or
bonds shall apply and extend to the Contract as thereby modified or amended per this Change Order. The
Principal and the Surety further agree that on or after execution of this consent, the penalty of the
applicable Performance Bonds or Bonds is hereby increased by $ V 3 ~7~ tT c (100% of the
Change Order amount) and the penalty of the applicable Labor and Material Bond or Bonds is hereby
increased by $ V P7. (100% of the Change Order amount).
COUNTERSIGNED BY MONTANA SURETY
RESIDENT AGENT
By:
Seal
Dlls '
Dale
—
Date
CO -2
Rev. 7/90
CHANGE ORDER
ORDER NO: NO. 2
PROJECT TITLE: FRENCH COULEE WETLAND/ACID MINE DRAINAGE CONTROL
MONT A/E or DSL-AMRB: DSL-AMRB 90-01 0
CONTRACT DATE: JUNE 28. 1990
OWNER: MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANDS - AMR BUREAU
CONTRACTOR: ED BOLAND CONSTRUCTION. GREAT FALLS, MT 59401
Change Orders must be accompanied by an itemized cost breakdown. You are hereby requested to
comply with the following changes from the Contract Documents. (Show separate costs for materials,
labor, equipment, and miscellaneous. Show percent where applicable.)
ITEM
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES - ESTIMATED
COST OF CHANGES
TOTAL
NO.
QUANTITIES & UNITS
MAT’LS
LABOR
EQUIP
MISC
TOTAL
UNIT
COST
COST
44
(new)
Provide off-site soil materials suitable for
construction of bentonite liners. Work item to
include purchase, loading, hauling, stockpiling,
and placement in wetland cells. Estimated
quantity is 3,000 cu yds measured loose in
trucks.
$3.50
$1.50
$1.50
$.50
$7.00
+21 ,000
4
Reduction in backfill locally provided. 2,000
compacted yards estimated.
$4.30
- 8,600
TOTAL COST - MATERIALS, U\BOR, EQUIPMENT & MISC. $ 12,400.00
OVERHEAD & PROFIT $ % Included
GRAND TOTAL - THIS CHANGE ORDER $ 12,400.00
Original Contract Price
Current Contract Price Adjusted by Previous Change Order
Cost this Change Order (+ or -)
New Contract Price including this Change Order
$ 590.690.91
$ 591.178.41
$ +12.400.00
$ 603,578.41
CO - 1
Rev. 7/90
The completion date as set forth in the Contract Documents shall be (unchanged, increased, decreased)
by 10 calendar days.
The date for completion of all work will be November 5, 1990 .
Description and Justification for Change:
1. Materials suitable for bentonite liner construction were not available within the immediate
area. Excavation materials had either too much rock, too much coal waste, or too much
calcium. This necessitated a time consuming search for alternate materials off-site and
testing of same. Purchase price of suitable material is substantially higher than on site
material. Piping work was completed in Cell 1 on Saturday, September 22, 1990. Allowing
another day (Monday, September 24, 1990) to trim Cell to final contours makes the first
available date for lining September 25, 1990, a ten (10) calendar day delay based on the date
of this Change Order.
SURETY CONSENT
The Surety hereby consents to the aforementioned Contract Change Order and agrees that its bond or
bonds shall apply and extend to the Contract as thereby modified or amended per this Change Order.
The Principal and the Surety further agree that on or after execution of this consent, the penalty of the
applicable Performance Bond or Bonds is hereby increased by $ (100% of the
Change Order amount) and the penalty of the applicable Labor and Material Bond or Bonds is hereby
increased by $ (100% of the Change Order amount).
COUNTERSIGNED BY MONTANA
RESIDENT AGENT
SURETY
Bv:
/ /
Recommended by: /
\ (1 1 /7 \ lori lTwalker Seal ATTY-IN.FACT
i /0/V /9D
1 Engineer / Date
Accepted by:_
Contractor
Date
5^
Approved by:_
Owner
Date
REF: WP1 20/CO-02.WET
CO - 1
Rev. 7/90
CHANGE ORDER
ORDER NO: NO. 3A
PROJECT TITLE: FRENCH COULEE WETLAND/ACID MINE DRAINAGE CONTROL
MONT A/E or DSL-AMRB: DSL-AMRB 90-010
CONTRACT DATE: JUNE 28, 1990
OWNER: MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANDS - AMR BUREAU
CONTRACTOR: ED BOLAND CONSTRUCTION. GREAT FALLS. MT 59401
Change Orders must be accompanied by an itemized cost breakdown. You are hereby requested to
comply with the following changes from the Contract Documents. (Show separate costs for materials,
labor, equipment, and miscellaneous. Show percent where applicable.)
ITEM
NO.
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES - ESTIMATED
QUANTITIES & UNITS
COST OF CHANGES
TOTAL
COST
MAT'LS
LABOR
EQUIP
MISC
TOTAL
UNIT
COST
47
Provide for Richard Chartier to remove and
dispose of debris and provide weed control at
DSL Chartier Mine Fire Project site. All (100%)
labor and materials provide by R. Chartier
under subcontract to Ed Boland Construction,
Inc. of Great Falls, Montana. All work to be
completed by January 31, 1991.
500.00
TOTAL COST - MATERIALS, LABOR, EQUIPMENT & MISC. S 500.00
OVERHEAD & PROFIT $ %
GRAND TOTAL - THIS CHANGE ORDER $ 500.00
Original Contract Price S 592,253.16
Current Contract Price Adjusted by Previous Change Order $ 605,140.66
Cost this Change Order (+ or -) $_± 500.00
New Contract Price including this Change Order $ 605,640.66
CO - 1
Rev. 7/90
The completion date as set forth in the Contract Documents shall be (unchanged, increased, decreased)
by calendar days.
The date for completion of all work will be January 31 . 1991
Description and Justification for Change:
1. Owner directed change.
SURETY CONSENT
The Surety hereby consents to the aforementioned Contract Change Order and agrees that its bond or
bonds shall apply and extend to the Contract as thereby modified or amended per this Change Order.
The Principal and the Surety further agree that on or after execution of this consent, the penalty of the
applicable Performance Bond or Bonds is hereby increased by § (100% of the
Change Order amount) and the penalty of the applicable Labor and Material Bond or Bonds is hereby
increased by $ (100% of the Change Order amount).
COUNTERSIGNED BY MONTANA SURETY
RESIDENT AGENT
REF: WP1 25/CO-3A.WET
CO - 1
Rev. 7/90
CHANGE ORDER
ORDER NO: NO. 04
PROJECT TITLE: FRENCH COULEE WETLAND/ACID MINE DRAINAGE CONTROL
MONT A/E or DSL-AMRB: DSL-AMRB 90-010
CONTRACT DATE: JUNE 28. 1990
OWNER: MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANDS - AMR BUREAU
CONTRACTOR: ED BOLAND CONSTRUCTION. GREAT FALLS. MT 59401
Change Orders must be accompanied by an itemized cost breakdown. You are hereby requested to
comply with the following changes from the Contract Documents. (Show separate costs for materials,
labor, equipment, and miscellaneous. Show percent where applicable.)
ITEM
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES -
COST OF CHANGES
TOTAL
NO.
ESTIMATED QUANTITIES & UNITS
MAT’LS
LABOR
EQUIP
MISC
TOTAL
UNIT
COST
COST
52
Build and install locking caps on all PVC
cleanouts
485.69
585.00
1070.69
53
Install 1/2 inch stainless steel screens over
all pipe openings in flumes. Replace all
factory bolts for stop plates with stainless
steel. Install steel chain and locks on all
stop plates and all-thread hold down on
redwood weir gates.
1216.49
774.00
1990.49
54
Clean and manifold all existing in-flow
pipes to south collection box.
279.00
450.00
138.00
867.00
55
Batten and seal HDPE liner to all concrete
flumes.
3935.29
56
Plant native shrubs on site.
665.00
1075.00
1740.00
1740.00
57
Install walk-through swing gates for school
children access across site.
350.00
350.00
*0/H and profit on items 52, 53, 54, 56
TOTAL COST - MATERIALS, LABOR, EQUIPMENT & MISC. $ 9,953.47
OVERHEAD & PROFrT $ 15* % S 850.23
GRAND TOTAL - THIS CHANGE ORDER S 10,803.70
Original Contract Price $ 592,253.16
Current Contract Price Adjusted by Previous Change Order S 605,640.66
Cost this Change Order (+ or -) $ 10,803.70
New Contract Price including this Change Order S 616.444,36
CO - 1
Rev. 7/90
The completion date as set forth in the Contract Documents shall be (unchanged, increased, decreased)
by * calendar days. *see explanation below.
The date for completion of all work will be June 1, 1991 .
Description and Justification for Change:
1. All work was approximately 95% complete on December 18, 1990 and had been performed
in a timely manner. On this date, a severe winter storm hit. Subsequent poor winter weather
lead to the discontinuance of work. It had been decided that the planting of cattails, seeding/
fertilizing/mulching, flooding of the wetland and completion of ail remaining incidental tasks
should commence at the earliest possible date in the Spring of 1991, and be completed in
a timely manner. Work commenced again on 4/22/91. The date of completion for all work,
with the exception of the planting of shrubs anticipated in Fall, 1 991 , shall be June 1 , 1 991 .
SURETY CONSENT
The Surety hereby consents to the aforementioned Contract Change Order and agrees that its bond or
bonds shall apply and extend to the Contract as thereby modified or amended per this Change Order.
The Principal and the Surety further agree that on or after execution of this consent, the penalty of the
applicable Performance Bond or Bonds is hereby increased by $ 10,803.70 (100% of the Change
Order amount) and the penalty of the applicable Labor and Material Bond or Bonds is hereby increased
by $ 10,803.70 (100% of the Change Order amount).
COUNTERSIGNED BY MONTANA SURETY
RESIDENT AGENT
By:
Recommended by:
Accepted by:
Approved by:
Contractor
Owner
Seal
g /
Date
Date
Date
REF:WP1 46/73CO-04. F-C
CO
1
Rev. 7/90
ATTACHMENT 3
PAYMENT REQUESTS
PAYMENT REQUEST NO.
FROM 28 AUG 90 TO 28 SEPT 90
PROJECT TITLE: FRENCH COULEE WETLAND/ACID MINE DRAINAGE CONTROL
LOCATION: BELT, MONTANA MONT A/E or DSL-AMRB: 90-010
NAME OF CONTRACTOR: ED BOLAND CONSTRUCTION. INC.
ADDRESS: 2608 NINTH AVENUE NORTH. GREAT FALLS. MT 59405
CHANGE ORDERS
CONTRACT STATUS
No.
Description
Amount
Total
Amount
Completed
Amount
Uncompleted
Amount
Percent
Complete
1
Additional Fence
Removal
487.50
590,691 .00
161,737.00
42e, 954.00
27.4
2
Off-Site Soils
5,250.00
Total Change Orders 5,737.50
CONTRACT TO DATE INCLUDING
CHANGE ORDERS $ 161,736.58
COMPLETED TO DATE
PLUS MATERIALS ON SITE
TOTAL COMPLETED TO DATE
CHANGE ORDERS TO DATE
TOTAL AMOUNT EARNED TO DATE
LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENTS
AMOUNT DUE THIS PAYMENT
LESS 1% TAX
TOTAL DUE CONTRACT
$ 75,783.23
$ 85,953.35
*for use only when securities are on deposit in lieu
of retainage
TOTAL RETAINAGE $
SECURITIES ON DEPOSIT $
ADJUSTED RETAINAGE $
$ 161,736.58
$ 16,173.66
$ 145,562.92
$ 0.00
$ 145,562.92
$ 1 ,455.63
$ 144,107.29
I certify that this claim is correct and just in all
respects and that payment or credit has not been APPROVED BY:
received.
BOLAND CONSTRUCTION, INC. DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANDS - AMR BUREAU
Contractoi^ Owner
By /'Y t By
Date 9^ Date S
RECOMMENDED BY:
SCHAFER AND ASSOCIATES
^ Y
I ' LtngineCT
Bv / vA,
l
'7/ —
Date X V i
/V/Xo
/ \ /
7^
PR - 1
Rev. 7/90
ITEMIZATION OF QUANTITIES AND COSTS
Estimated
Plan
Unit
Price
Units of
Work
Completed
Total
Cost of
Completed
Percent
Item
Description
Quantity
Bid
To Date
Work
Complete
1
Mobilization
L.S.
30,000.00
L.S.
30,000.00
100
2
Debris Removal
L.S.
1 ,250.00
L.S.
1,250.00
100
3
Excavation and
Embankment
L.S.
15,560.00
90%
14,364.00
90
4
Provide Backfill
5,820 CY
4.30
4.300 CY
18,490.00
74
5
Haul (revised as of today,
9/27/90)
2,840 CY
1.53
741 CY
1,133.73
75
31
18" culvert
160 LF
22.75
104 LF
2,366.00
65
33
Provide Water
K-GAL
5.00
20,000 G
100.00
17
35
Remove Fence
(see CO#1)
680 LF
0.65
680 LF
442.00
100
40
Backfill and Compact
Well
L.S.
400.00
L.S.
400.00
100
43
Remove and Replace
Structure
L.S.
1 ,500.00
L.S.
1 ,500.00
100
CO#1
Remove Additional Fence
750 LF
0.65
750 LF
487.50
100
CO#2
Provide off-site soil
materials for bentonite
liner (50% prepayment to
Landowner)
3,000 YD
(loose)
7.00
-0-
5,250.00
0
TOTAL
$ 75,783.23
PR - 1
Rev. 7/90
SCHEDULE OF MATERIAL ON SITE
PROJECT TITLE: -French coulee /wetlands acid mine drainage control
DSL-AMRB: 90-010
CONTRACTOR: ed boland const, great falls, Montana 59401
Item 8 Material Delivered cfomfmr'ranf tjhfp
M&efl&MXE&S# WESTERN INDUSTRIES INC.
Material on Site 1 0 3,650 sq.ft. $30,071 . 25
Item 1 1 Material Delivered SOIL ANCHOR MAT.
Item
1 0
iftatertekiHgtesK American fxcft.stor
Material on Site 44,300 sq.ft.
Material Delivered UNDERPAYMENT FABRIC
MACON SUPPLY
Material on Site 86,900 sq.ft.
Material Delivered pfotfcttvf (Ifdf&rp t c
ROSCOE STEEL
Material on Site 103,650 sq.ft.
Item 17-18 Material Delivered 8in. P.V.C. PIPE
Item 9
Item 9
DANA. .KEPNEE
Material on Site 27 4 0 LF
Material Delivered ]_2 in. P.V.C. PIPE
DANA KEPNER
Item 2 0
Material on Site 200 LF
Material Delivered 6 in. P.V.C. PIPE
MatoratroRteca dana kfpnfr
Material on Site 200 LF
TOTAL MATERIAL ON SITE
(Attach applicable invoices or bills ol lading )
$1 9 ,009.36
$12,960.00
$14,054.94
$7,946.00
$1 , 537.80
$374 .00
$85,953.35
Requested by: ed boland const. 2608 9th ave. no. Gt. Falls, mt. 59401
(Contractor)
To be included in Payment Request No.
-1 -
Rev 3/90
PAYMENT REQUEST NO. _=2r
RbCtiVtD !,:oV
FROM 29 SEPT 90 TO 31 OCT 90
PROJECT TITLE: FRENCH COULEE WETLAND/ACID MINE DRAINAGE CONTROL
LOCATION: BELT, MONTANA MONT A/E or DSL-AMRB: 90-010
NAME OF CONTRACTOR: ED BOLAND CONSTRUCTION. INC.
ADDRESS: 2508 NINTH AVENUE NORTH. GREAT FALLS. MT 59405
PR - 1
Rev. 7/90
ITEMIZATION OF QUANTITIES AND COSTS
Description
Estimated
Plan
Unit
Price
Units of
Work
Completed
Total
Cost of
Complete
Percent
Item
Quantity
Bid
to Date
Work
Complete
1
Mobilization
LS.
30,000.00
100%
30,000.00
100
2
Debris Removal
L.S.
1 ,250.00
100%
1,250.00
100
3
Excavation and
Embankment
LS.
15,560.00
90%
14,364.00
90
4
Provide Backfill
5,820 CY
4.30
5,340 CY
22,962.00
100
5
Haul
2,840 CY
1.53
988 CY
1,511.64
100
6
Provide Topsoil
1,165 CY
12.30
111 CY
1,365.30
10
7
Soil-Clay Liner
89,550 SF
.33
79,621 SF
26,274.93
95
8
Geomembrane
103,650 SF
.73
90,327 SF
65,938.71
95
9
Geofabric
103,650 SF
.23
90,327 SF
20,775.21
95
10
Underlayment
86,900 SF
.27
0
0.00
0
11
Anchormat
44,300 SF
.65
42,000 SF
27,300
100
12
3 x 1-1/2 Gravel
690 CY
33.21
0
0.00
0
13
1-3/4 x 1/2 Gravel
365 CY
33.21
0
0.00
0
14
Organic Substrate
4,460 CY
25.21
0
0.00
0
15
Sand Substrate
740 CY
32.59
0
0.00
0
16
Parshall Flume
each
2,927.00
0
0.00
0
17
8‘ PVC Main/Baypass
2,590 LF
9.84
1,990 LF
19,581.60
80
18
8‘ Downflow (Sch 80)
105 LF
9.84
0
0.00
0
19
12" PVC Manifold
200 LF
13.53
211 LF
2,854.83
100
-20
6“ PVC Manifold
200 LF
7.38
120 LF
885.60
100
21
4‘ Sch 80 PVC
2,065 LF
3.80
1,361 LF
5,171.80
65
22
4" Sch 80 Perf PVC
4,455 LF
4.70
2,806 LF
13,188.20
65
23
Acid Resist Valves
5 each
1,110.00
2 each
2,220.00
40
24
Fertilize, Seed, Mulch
1.95 acre
500.00
0
0.00
0
25
Lime Application
1 .95 acre
4,045.00
.24 acre
970.80
15
26
Summer Erosion
Control
1.3 acre
1,600.00
0
0.00
0
27
Cattails
1.49 acre
8,254.00
0
0.00
0
28
Unlined Ditch
615 LF
5.55
0
0.00
0
29
Lined Ditch
375 LF
6.55
0
0.00
0
30
Rip-Rap
320 CY
22.15
220 CY
4,873.00
100
31
18‘ Culvert
160 LF
22.75
104 LF
2,366.00
65
32
Gravel Course
1,220 LF
9.06
1,100 LF
9,966.00
80
SUBTOTAL
273,819.62
PR - 2
Rev. 7/90
fTEMIZATION OF QUANTITIES AND COSTS
Item
Description
Estimated
Plan
Quantity
Unit
Price
Bid
Units of
Work
Completed
to Date
Total
Cost of
Complete
Work
Percent
Complete
33
Provide Water
112 KGAL
5.00
220,000 G
1,100.00
90
34
Flood Wetland
590 KGAL
5.00
0
0.00
0
35
Provide Fence
680 LF
.65
680 LF
442.00
100
36
Farm Fence
2.420 LF
2.00
0
0.00
0
37
Corner Panel
9 each
160.00
0
0.00
0
38
Single Panel
4 each
100.00
0
0.00
0
39
Gates
64 LF
8.50
0
0.00
0
40
Backfill Well
L.S.
400.00
100%
400.00
100
41
Clean-out Cell Box
LS.
2,850.00
100%
2,850.00
100
42
Manifold Box
L.S.
2,350.00
100%
2,350.00
100
43
Remove Structure
L.S.
1,500.00
100%
1 ,500.00
100
44
Additional Fence
(CO#1)
750 LF
.65
750 LF
437.50
100
45
Off-Site Soils
(CO#2)
3,000 YD
7.00
2,800.00
19,600.00
100
SUBTOTAL
28,729.50
GRANO TOTAL
302.549.12
REF: WP1 25/PR-02.WET
PR-3
Rev. 7/90
SCHEDULE OF MATERIAL ON SITE
PROJECT TITLE: FRENCH COULEE WETLAND/ACID MINE DRAINAGE CONTROL
DSL-AMRB: 90-010
CONTRACTOR:
ED BOLAND CONSTRUCTION
Item 8
Material Delivered Geomembrane Liner
Material in Place 90,327 sq. ft.
Material on Site 23,000 sq. ft.
$
5,692.50
Item 9
Material Delivered Protective Geofabric
Material In Place 90,327 sq. ft.
Material on Site 13,323 sq. ft
$
1,806.60
Item 1 0
Material Delivered Underlayment Fabric
Material in Place 0
Material on Site 86,900 sq. ft.
s
12,960.00
Item 12
Material Delivered 3' Gravel
Material in Place 0
Material on Site approx. 670 CY
$
8,612.33
Item 14
Material Delivered Orqanic Substrate
Material in Place 0
Material on Site 410 CY
s
6,970.00
Item 16
Material Delivered Parshall Flume
Material in Place 5 each
Material on Site 5 each
$
3,625.00
Item 17
Material Delivered 8* PVC
Material in Place 1990 ft.
Material on Site 742 ft.
$
2.151.80
Item 19
Material Delivered 12“ PVC Pipe
Material in Place 211 ft.
Material on Site 8 ft.
$
55.92
Item 20
Material Delivered 6“ PVC Pipe
Material in Place 120 ft. installed
Material on Site 100 ft.
$
170.00
Item 23
Material Delivered Acid Resistive Valve, Valve Box, Riser and Stem Extension
Material in Place 2 each
Material on Site 1 each
$
732.00
Item 31
Material Delivered 18" Culvert
Material in Place 104 ft. installed
Material on Site 56 ft.
$
581.70
TOTAL MATERIAL ON SITE
(Attach applicable invoices or bills of lading)
$43,357.85
Requested by:
Ed Boland Construction
(Contractor)
To be included in Payment Request No. 2 .
REF: WP1 25/SCHPR-02.WET
PAYMENT REQUEST NO.
FROM 01 NOV 90 TO 07 DEC 90
PROJECT TITLE: FRENCH COULEE WETIjXND/ACID MINE DRAINAGE CONTROL
I OCAT1QN: BELT. MONTANA MONT A/E or DSL-AMRB: 90-0_lQ_
NAME OF HONTR ACTOR: FD BOLAND CONSTRUCTION, INC.
ADDRESS: 2608 NINTH AVENUE NORTH. GREAT FALLS, MT 59405
CHANGE ORDERS
No.
Description
Amount
1
Additional Fence Reimb
487.50
2
Offsite Soils
12,400.00
3A
Chartier Mine Fire
500.00
Total Change Orders 13,387.50
CONTRACT TO DATE INCLUDING
CHANGE ORDERS $ 605,640.66
‘for use only when securities are on c
of retainage
TOTAL RETAINAGE $
SECURITIES ON DEPOSIT 5
ADJUSTED RETAINAGE 5
eposit in lieu
CONTRACT STATUS
Toted
Amount
605,640.66
Completed
Amount
595,215.63
Uncompleted
Amount
52,458.38*
Percent
Complete
91.9
‘INCLUDES OUTSTANDING WORK DIRECTIVE CHANGES
COMPLETED TO DATE
PLUS MATERIALS ON SITE
TOTAL COMPLETED TO DATE
RETAINAGE (10%)
TOTAL AMOUNT EARNED TO DATE
LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENTS
AMOUNT DUE THIS PAYMENT
LESS 1% TAX
TOTAL DUE CONTRACT
S 595.215.63
S 16,541,92
S 611,757,55
S 61,175.75
S 550,581,30
S 312,771 30
S 237,810.50
S 2,378.10
S 235,432.40
I certify that this claim is correct and just in all
respects and that payment or credit has not been
received.
BOLAND CONSTRUCTION. INC.
Contractor
APPROVED BY:
DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANDS - AMR BUREAU
Date
Date
RECOMMENDED BY:
SCHA ASSOCIATES
■D
'x v .■> .3
V . -
PR - 1
Rev. 7/90
ITEMIZATION OF QUANTITIES AND COSTS
Estimated
Plan
Unit
Price
Units of
Work
Completed
Total
Cost of
Complete
Percent
Item
Description
Quantity
Bid
to Date
Work
Complete
1
Mobilization
LS.
30,000.00
100%
30,000.00
100 +
2
Debris Removal
LS.
1,250.00
100%
1 ,250.00
100 *•
3
Excavation and
Embankment
LS.
15,560.00
100%
15,560.00
100 ^
4
Provide Backfill
5,820 CY
4.30
5,340 CY
22,962.00
— L
o
o
5
Haul
2,840 CY
1.53
988 CY
1,511.64
100 *
6
Provide Topsoil
1,165 CY
12.30
1366 CY
16,801.80
95 /
7
Soil-Clay Liner
89,550 SF
.33
79,621 SF
26,274.93
100 51
8
Geomembrane
103,650 SF
.73
90,327 SF
65,938.71
95 >u
9
Geofabric
103,650 SF
.23
90,327 SF
20,775.21
100 ^
10
Underlayment
86,900 SF
.27
76,788 SF
20,732.76
100
11
Anchormat
44,300 SF
.65
42,000 SF
27,300.00
100
12
3 x 1-1/2 Gravel
690 CY
33.21
861 CY
28,593.81
100
13
1-3/4 x 1/2 Gravel
365 CY
33.21
596 CY
19,793.16
. — L
o
o
Y
14
Organic Substrate
4,460 CY
25.21
5392 CY
1 35,932.32
100 *
15
Sand Substrate
740 CY
32.59
1 ,454 CY
47,285.86
100 X
16
Parshail Flume
5 each
2,927.00
2 @ 75%
4,390.50
30 >
17
8‘ PVC Main/Baypass
2,590 LF
9.84
2,350 LF
23,124.00
80
18
8' Downflow (Sch 80)
105 LF
9.84
140 LF
1,377.60
100 »
19
12* PVC Manifold
200 LF
13.53
211 LF
2,854.83
100
20
6' PVC Manifold
200 LF
7.38
120 LF
885.60
100 s
21
4‘ Sch 80 PVC (solid)
2,065 LF
3.80
1,721 LF
6,539.80
100
22
4* Sch 80 Perf PVC
4,455 LF
4.70
4,456 LF
20,943.20
100
23
Acid Resist Valves
5 each
1,110.00
2 each
2,220.00
40
24
Fertilize, Seed, Mulch
1 .95 acre
500.00
0
0.00
0
25
Lime Application
1.95 acre
4,045.00
.24 acre
970.80
15
26
Summer Erosion
Control
1.3 acre
1 ,600.00
0
0.00
0
27
Cattails
1 .49 acre
8,254.00
0
0.00
0
28
Unlined Ditch
615 LF
5.55
0
0.00
0
29
Lined Ditch
375 LF
6.55
0
0.00
0
30
Rip-Rap
320 CY
22.15
220 CY
4,873.00
100
31
18' Culvert
160 LF
22.75
104 LF
2,366.00
100
32
Gravel Course
1,220 LF
9.06
1,430 LF
12,955.80
100
SUBTOTAL
564,313.33
PR - 2
Rev. 7/90
ITEMIZATION OF QUANTITIES AND COSTS
Item
Description
Estimated
Plan
Quantity
Unit
Price
Bid
Units of
Work
Completed
to Date
Total
Cost of
Complete
Work
Percent
Complete
33
Provide Water
112 KGAL
5.00
220,000 G
1,100.00
90
34
Flood Wetland
590 KGAL
5.00
0
0.00
0 ^
35
Remove Fence
680 LF
.65
680 LF
442.00
100 J
36
Farm Fence
2,420 LF
2.00
0
0.00
0
I 37
Corner Panel
9 each
160.00
0
0.00
0
■ -
38
Single Panel
4 each
100.00
0
0.00
0
39
Gates
64 LF
8.50
0
0.00
0
40
Backfill Well
LS.
400.00
100%
400.00
100 7
41
Clean-out Cell Box
LS.
2,850.00
100%
2,850.00
100 v
42
Manifold Box
LS.
2,350.00
100%
2,350.00
100 ;
43
Remove Structure
LS.
1 ,500.00
100%
1 ,500.00
100 1 1
44
Additional Fence
(CO#1)
750 LF
.65
750 LF
487.50
100 \j
45
Off-Site Soils
(CO#2)
3,000 YD
7.00
2,800.00
19,600.00
100 /
46
4' Main Piping
(WD-04)
170 ft
9.84
170 ft
1 ,672.80
100
47
Chartier Mine Fire
(CO #3)
LS.
500.00
100%
500.00
100 /
SUBT
OTAL
30,902.30
| GRAND TOTAL
595,215.63
1
REF: WP1 25/PR-03.WET
PR-3
Rev. 7/90
X.
PAYMENT REQUEST NO. -4-
FROM 08 DEC 90 TO 31 DEC 90
PROJECT TITLE: FRENCH COULEE WETLAND/ACID MINE DRAINAGE CONTROL
LOCATION: BELT, MONTANA MONT A/E or DSL-AMRB: 90-010
NAME OF CONTRACTOR: ED BOLAND CONSTRUCTION. INC.
ADDRESS: 2608 NINTH AVENUE NORTH. GREAT FALLS. MT 59405
PR - 1
Rev. 7/90
ITEMIZATION OF QUANTITIES AND COSTS
Units of
Total
Estimated
Unit
Work
Cost of
Plan
Price
Completed
Complete
Percent
Item
Description
Quantity
Bid
to Date
Work
Complete
1
Mobilization
L.S.
30,000.00
100%
30,000.00
100
2
Debris Removal
LS.
1,250.00
1 00%
1 ,250.00
100
3
Excavation and
Embankment
L.S.
15,560.00
100%
15,560.00
100
4
Provide Backfill
5,820 CY
4.30
5,340 CY
22,962.00
100
5
Haul
2,840 CY
1.53
988 CY
1,511.64
100
6
Provide Topsoil
1,165 CY
12.30
1642 CY
20,196.60
100
7
Soil-Clay Liner
89,550 SF
.33
79,621 SF
26,274.93
100
8
Geomembrane
103,650 SF
.73
90,327 SF
65,938.71
100
9
Geofabric
103,650 SF
.23
90,327 SF
20,775.21
100
10
Underlayment
86,900 SF
.27
76,788 SF
20,732.76
100
11
Anchormat
44,300 SF
.65
42,000 SF
27,300.00
100
12
3 x 1-1/2 Gravel
690 CY
33.21
861 CY
28,593.81
100
13
1-3/4 x 1/2 Gravel
365 CY
33.21
596 CY
19,793.16
100
14
Organic Substrate
4,460 CY
25.21
5392 CY
135,932.32
100
15
Sand Substrate
740 CY
32.59
1 ,454 CY
47,385.86
100
16
Parshall Flume
5 each
2,927.00
5 @ 90%
13,171.50
90
17
8" PVC Main/Baypass
2,590 LF
9.84
2,864 LF
28,181.76
100
18
8‘ Downflow (Sch 80)
105 LF
9.84
140 LF
1,377.60
100
19
12“ PVC Manifold
200 LF
13.53
211 LF
2,854.83
100
20
6' PVC Manifold
200 LF
7.38
120 LF
885.60
100
21
4" Sch 80 PVC (solid)
2,065 LF
3.80
1,721 LF
6,539.80
100
22
4" Sch 80 Perf PVC
4,455 LF
4.70
4,456 LF
20,943.20
100
23
Acid Resist Valves
5 each
1,110.00
11 each
12,210.00
100
24
Fertilize, Seed, Mulch
1.95 acre
500.00
0
0.00
0
25
Lime Application
1.95 acre
4,045.00
.52 acre
2,103.40
100
26
Summer Erosion
Control
1 .3 acre
1 ,600.00
0
0.00
0
27
Cattails
1 .49 acre
8,254.00
0
0.00
0
28
Unlined Ditch
615 LF
5.55
105 LF
582.75
100
29
Lined Ditch (Deleted)
30
Rip-Rap
320 CY
22.15
255 CY
5 648.75
95
31
18* Culvert
160 LF
22.75
104 LF
2,366.00
100
32
Gravel Course
1 ,220 LF
9.06
1 ,430 LF
12,955.80
100
SUBTOTAL
594,027.99
PR - 2
Rev. 7/90
ITEMIZATION OF QUANTITIES AND COSTS
Item
Description
Estimated
Plan
Quantity
Unit
Price
Bid
Units of
Work
Completed
to Date
Total
Cost of
Complete
Work
Percent
Complete
33
Provide Water
112 KGAL
5.00
220,000 G
1,100.00
90
34
Flood Wetland
590 KGAL
5.00
0
0.00
0
35
Remove Fence
680 LF
.65
680 LF
442.00
100
36
Farm Fence
2,420 LF
2.00
725
1 ,450.00
30
37
Corner Panel
9 each
160.00
7
1,120.00
78
38
Single Panel
4 each
100.00
13
1 ,300.00
80
39
Gates
64 LF
8.50
0
0.00
0
40
Backfill Well
L.S.
400.00
100%
400.00
100
41
Clean-out Cell Box
L.S.
2,850.00
100%
2,850.00
100
42
Manifold Box
L.S.
2,350.00
100%
2,350.00
100
43
Remove Structure
L.S.
1 ,500.00
100%
1 ,500.00
100
44
Additional Fence
(CO#1)
750 LF
.65
750 LF
487.50
100
45
Off-Site Soils
(CO#2)
3,000 YD
7.00
2.800YD
19,600.00
100
46
4“ Main Piping
(WD-04)
170 ft
9.84
170 LF
1 ,672.80
100
47
Chartier Mine Fire
(CO #3)
L.S.
500.00
100%
500.00
100
48
Railroad Insurance
L.S.
3,030.00
100%
3,030.00
100
49
Flume Dimensional
Changes
3.66 CY
400.00
3.66 CY
1 ,464.00
100
50
Restocking Charges
L.S.
1500.48
100%
1500.48
100
51
Extraordinary Freight
(Special Orders)
L.S.
1107.80
100%
1107.80
100
41,874.58
GRAND TOTAL
635,902.57
REF: WP1 34/PR-04.WET
PR-3
Rev. 7/90
SCHEDULE OF MATERIAL ON SITE
PROJECT TITLE: FRENCH COULEE WETLAND/ACID MINE DRAINAGE CONTROL
DSL-AMRB: 90-010
CONTRACTOR: ED BOLAND CONSTRUCTION
Item 7
Item 8
Item 9
Item 10
Item 19
Item 20
Item 23
Material Delivered Bentonite
Material in Place 79,621 sq. ft.
Material on Site 6.5 tons w/baqs $ 593.00
Material Delivered Geomembrane Liner
Material in Place 90,327 sq. ft.
Material on Site 9,000 sq. ft. $ 2,226,60
Material Delivered Geofabric
Material in Place 90,327 sq. ft.
Material on Site 1 ,21 5 sq. ft. $ 139.72
Material Delivered Underlayment Fabric
Material in Place 85,320 sq. ft.
Material on Site 1 ,080 sq. ft, $ 146.45
Material Delivered 12' PVC Pipe
Material in Place 21 1 ft.
Material on Site 8 ft, $ 55.92
Material Delivered 6* PVC Pipe
Material in Place 120 ft. installed
Material on Site 100 ft. $ 170.00
Material Delivered Acid Resistive Valve, Valve Box, Riser and Stem Extension
Material in Place 1 1 each
Material on Site 1 each $ 732.00
TOTAL MATERIAL ON SITE $ 4,063.69
(Attach applicable invoices or bills of lading)
Requested by: Ed Boland Construction
(Contractor)
To be included in Payment Request No. 4 ,
Rev. 3/90
PAYMENT REQUEST NO. -5
£X Swtii,
FROM 01 JAN 91 TO 01 JUNE 91
PROJECT TITLE: FRENCH COULEE WETLAND/ACID MINE DRAINAGE CONTROL
I QCATION: BELT. MONTANA MONT A/E or DSL-AMRB: 90-010
NAME OF CONTRACTOR: ED BOLAND CONSTRUCTION. INC.
ADDRESS: 2608 NINTH AVENUE NORTH, GREAT FALLS. MT 59405
PR - 1
Rev. 7/90
ITEMIZATION OF QUANTITIES AND COSTS
Units of
Total
Estimated
Unit
Work
Cost of
Plan
Price
Completed
Complete
Percent
Item
Description
Quantity
Bid
to Date
Work
Complete
1
Mobilization
LS.
30,000.00
100%
30,000.00
100
2
Debris Removal
L.S.
1 ,250.00
100%
1,250.00
100
3
Excavation and
Embankment
LS.
15,560.00
100%
15,560.00
100
4
Provide Backfill
5,820 CY
4.30
5,340 CY
22,962.00
100
5
Haul
2,840 CY
1.53
988 CY
1,511.64
100
6
Provide Topsoil
1,165 CY
12.30
1722 CY
21,180.60
100
’ 7
Soil-Clay Liner
89,550 SF
.33
79,621 SF
26,274.93
100
8
Geomembrane
103,650 SF
.73
90,327 SF
65,938.71
100
9
Geofabric
103,650 SF
.23
90,327 SF
20,775.21
100
10
Underlayment
86,900 SF
.27
76,788 SF
20,732.76
100
11
Anchormat
44,300 SF
.65
42,000 SF
27,300.00
100
12
3 x 1-1/2 Gravel
690 CY
33.21
861 CY
28,593.81
100
13
1-3/4 x 1/2 Gravel
365 CY
33.21
596 CY
19,793.16
100
14
Organic Substrate
4,460 CY
25.21
5392 CY
135,932.32
100
15
Sand Substrate
740 CY
32.59
1 ,454 CY
47,385.86
100
16
Parshall Flume
5 each
2,927.00
5
14,635.00
100
17
8' PVC Main/Baypass
2,590 LF
9.84
2,904 LF
28,575.36
100
18
8* Downflow (Sch 80)
105 LF
9.84
140 LF
1,377.60
100
19
12' PVC Manifold
200 LF
13.53
211 LF
2,854.83
100
20
6" PVC Manifold
200 LF
7.38
120 LF
885.60
100
21
4‘ Sch 80 PVC (solid)
2,065 LF
3.80
1,721 LF
6,539.80
100
22
4' Sch 80 Perf PVC
4,455 LF
4.70
4,456 LF
20,943.20
100
23
Acid Resist Valves
5 each
1,110.00
1 1 each
12,210.00
100
24
Fertilize, Seed, Mulch
1 .95 acre
500.00
3.19
1,595.00
100
25
Lime Application
1 .95 acre
4,045.00
.52 acre
2,103.40
100
26
Summer Erosion
Control (Deleted)
27
Cattails
1 .49 acre
8,254.00
1.93
15,930.22
100
28
Unlined Ditch
615 LF
5.55
105 LF
582.75
100
29
Lined Ditch (Deleted)
30
Rip-Rap
320 CY
22.15
255 CY
5,648.25
100
31
18* Culvert
160 LF
22.75
104 LF
2,366.00
100
32
Gravel Course
1 ,220 LF
9.06
1 ,430 LF
12,955.80
100
SUBTOTAL
614,393.81
PR -2
Rev. 7/90
ITEMIZATION OF QUANTmES AND COSTS
Item
Description
Estimated
Plan
Ouantity
Unit
Price
Bid
Units of
Work
Completed
to Date
Total
Cost of
Complete
Work
Percent
Complete
33
Provide Water
112 KGAL
5.00
220,000 G
1,100.00
100
34
Flood Wetland
590 KGAL
5.00
590,000 G
2,950.00
100
35
Remove Fence
680 LF
.65
680 LF
442.00
100
36
Farm Fence
2,420 LF
2.00
3018
6,036.00
100
37
Corner Panel
9 each
160.00
13
2,080.00
100
38
Single Panel
4 each
100.00
16
1,600.00
100
39
Gates
64 LF
8.50
128
1088.00
100
40
Backfill Well
L.S.
400.00
100%
400.00
100
41
Clean-out Cell Box
L.S.
2,850.00
100%
2,850.00
100
42
Manifold Box
L.S.
2,350.00
100%
2,350.00
100
43
Remove Structure
L.S.
1,500.00
100%
1 ,500.00
100
44
Additional Fence
(CO#1)
750 LF
.65
750 LF
487.50
100
45
Off-Site Soils
(CO#2)
3,000 YD
7.00
2.800YD
19,600.00
100
46
4" Main Piping
(WD-04)
170 ft
9.84
170 LF
1 ,672.80
100
47
Chartier Mine Fire
(CO #3)
L.S.
500.00
100%
500.00
100
48
Railroad Insurance
L.S.
3,030.00
100%
3,030.00
100
49
Flume Dimensional
Changes
3.66 CY
400.00
3.66 CY
1,464.00
100
50
Restocking Charges
LS.
1,500.48
100%
1500.48
100
51
Extraordinary Freight
(Special Orders)
LS.
1,107.80
100%
1107.80
100
52
Locking Caps for
Cleanouts
L.S.
1,231.69
100%
1 ,231 .69
100
53
Flume Screens-Wier
Gate Bolts/Locks
L.S.
2,289.06
100%
2,289.06
100
54
Clean and Manifold
South Collection Box
L.S.
997.05
100%
997.05
100
55
Flume/Liner Sealing
L.S.
3,935.29
100%
3,935.29
100
56
Shrub Planting
L.S.
2,000.00
100%
2,000.00
100
57
Install Walk-Through
Gates
2
175.00
2
350.00
100
62,561 .67
GRAND TOTAL
676,955.48
REF: WP134/PR-04.WET
PR-3
Rev. 7/90
PAY REQUEST NO. 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PROJECT TITLE: FRENCH COULEE WETLAND/ACID MINE DRAINAGE CONTROL
MONT A/E or DSL-AMRB: DSL-AMRB 90-010
CONTRACT DATE: JUNE 28. 1990
OWNER: MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANDS - AMR BUREAU
CONTRACTOR: ED BOLAND CONSTRUCTION. GREAT FALLS. MT 59401
CHANGE ORDERS
NO.
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
(dollars)
1
Additional fence reimbursement
487.50
2
Off-site soils
12,400.00
3A
Chartier mine fine
500.00
4
Flume finishing and security/south collection box
10,803.70
TOTAL CHANGE ORDERS
24,191.20
CO - 1
Rev. 7/90
SCHEDULE OF MATERIAL ON SITE
PROJECT TITLE: FRENCH COULEE WETLAND/ACID MINE DRAINAGE CONTROL
DSL-AMRB: 90-010
CONTRACTOR: ED BOU\ND CONSTRUCTION
Item 23 Material Delivered Acid Resistive Valve, Valve Box, Riser and Stem Extension
Material in Place 1 1 each
Material on Site 1 each $ 732.00
TOTAL MATERIAL ON SITE $ 732.00
(Attach applicable invoices or bills of lading)
Requested by: Ed Boland Construction
(Contractor)
To be included in Payment Request No. 5 .
Rev. 3/90
ATTACHMENT 4
ANALYSIS of CONSULTANT COSTS INCURRED
ANALYSIS OF CONSULTANT COSTS INCURRED
FOR THE MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANDS
ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION BUREAU
DSL/AMRB PROJECT NUMBER: 90-010
DATE OF PREPARATION: NOVEMBER 27, 1991
Engineering Service
Amount
Design Engineering
1989 AMR Contract $
78,574.91
SUBTOTAL DESIGN ENGINEERING COST: $
78,574.91
Construction Engineering and Project Administration Cost
1990 Subcontract to Peccia and Associates
1991 AMR Contract
60,034.32
1 ,982.00
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION ENG. COST: $
62,116.32
PROJECT ENGINEERING COST: $
140,691.23
CONSTRUCTION COST: $
677,687.48
Design Engineering/Construction Cost Ratio:
1 1 .6 %
Construction Engineering/Construction Cost Ratio:
9.2 %
Total Engineering Cost/Construction Cost Ratio:
20.8 %
ATTACHMENT 5
AS-BUILT DRAWINGS
ELEVATION ( FEET )
TOP OF BERM
EL 3557 5
EL . 3554.5
OUTLET 8 INCH PIPE
INV EL 58.7
SYMBOL LEGEND
CLEAN-OUT
O' —
ACTIVE RAIL L INE
AMD INFLUENT PIPE
SOIL BORING
OVERHEAD POWER LINE
I POLES SHOWN)
FENCE
U/G TELEPHONE
Schafer and Associates
r o Box 6188
Bozafton Mr 68716
(808) 687-8678
RECF»VED
DEO 2 0 1991
STATE LANDS
FRENCH COULEE WETLAND
CASCADE CO. . MT
SHEET t: PLAN AND PROFILE. AS BUILT
CLIENT MT DEPT. OF STATE LANDS (81-12) I LOCATION : NU I 74 SEI 74 SECT 76. TI9N. R6E
SHEET I OF 6 I DAAVINQ NUMBER: FC5/CA0D63 I REVISION NUMBER: 2
OATE: Nov- 36 1931 | SCALE' | in : 50 fi loftAWBT: OB/TH
I CHECKED BY
1 INCH PARSHALL FLUME -
LEVEL OF INLET 2 FEET BELOW
TOP OF BIRM
TOPSOIL OUTSIDE FACE. TOP AND
INSIDE OF CELL TO LEVEL OF SUBSTRATE
WITH 8 INCH LIFT
NOTE: BASE GRADE CORRSPONDS
TO TOP OF SOIL -CLAY LINER
ACCESS ROAD - MAINTAIN
20 FOOT MINIMUM CLEARANCE
FROM C.L. OF RAIL (SEE
TYPICAL DETAIL)
CELL EMBANKMENT (SEE
DETAIL SHEET 6 FOR
PIPE AND FLUME PLACEMENT
AND GRADE
OUTLET 6 INCH PIPE
INV. EL 56.7
TYPICAL CELL CROSS-SECTION
(STATION 6 1 70 )
6 INCH COMPACTED SOIL-CLAY
(MAXIMA* K< I 0 CM/SEC)
S IN LAYER OF 1-3
ORAVEL UNDER ORA IN
ACCESS ROAD DETAIL
FEET (HORIZONTAL)
SCALE
0 30 50
FEET
SYMBOL LEGEND
ACTIVE RAIL LINE
AMD INFLUENT PIPE
SOIL BORING
o **- OVERHEAD POWER LINE
I POLES SHOWN )
* FENCE
too U/G TELEPHONE
RECEIVED
DEC 2 0 I99J
STATE LANDS
FRENCH COULEE WETLAND
Schafer and Associates
CASCADE CO. . MT
Boj 8 man UT 53715
(400) 687-J478
Scha/ep|
SHEET 2 :
CELL
PLAN. AS BUILT
Cl IFNT: MT DEPT OF STATE LANDS
LOCATION NVI /A . SEl/4 SeOt 26. T 1 9N , R6E
SHEET 2 OF 6 L
DRAWING NUMBER
in : 30 ft
FC4/CADD63 1 REVISION NU*ER: 2
I NSTALL-
1 8 I NCH C I P '
AND TIE INTO -l
EXIST CULVERT]
UNDER RAIL
ACTIVE RAIL L INE
AMD INFLUENT PIPE
SOIL BORING
OVERHEAD POWER LINE
(POLES SHOWN)
4 INCH PVC SCH. 80
PERFORATED PIPE 5 FEET
CENTERS (SEE DETAIL SHEET 6)
TYPICAL CELL CROSS-SECTION
(STATION 6*70)
RAIL AND BALLAST -
8 IN GRAVEL COURSE
TYPICAL!
PERFORATED 4 IN
SCHEDULE 80 PVC
8 INCH COt*> ACTED SOIL -CLAY
(MAXIMUM K< 1 0 CM/SEC)
FEET (HORIZONTAL)
ACCESS ROAD DETAIL
TRACK
V
TRACK AND BALLAST
MAINTAIN JO FOOT
MINIMUM CLEARANCE FROM
EDGE OF ROAD TO CENTERLINE
OF TRACKS MAINTAIN ROAO
J FEET MINIMUM BELOV
GRADE OF TRACK
EXISTING GRADE
FEET (HORIZONTAL)
RECEIVED
DEC 80 1991
STATE LAUDS
Schafer and Associates
p o Box eiee
Soiaaan MT SS7I6
(408) 887-1478
FRENCH COULEE WETLAND
CASCADE CO. . MT
SHEET 3
CELL 2
PLAN. AS BUILT
CLIENT MT. DEPT. OF STATE
LANDS
LOCATION NVt/4. SEl/4 Seot 26 T 1 9N R6E
SFEET 3 OF 6
| DRAWING NUMBER
FC2/CADD64 | REVISION NL»»ER 2
DATE i Nov 28. 1991
CELL EMBANKMENT ( SEE DETA I L
ACCESS ROAD - MAINTAIN 20 FOOT
CLEARANCE FROM C.L. OF RAIL
(SEE TYPICAL DETAIL)
NOTE: BASE GRADE CORRESPONDS
TO TOP OF SOIL -CLAY LINER
1 INCH PARSHALL FLUME ■
LEVEL OF INLET 2 FEET
BELOW TOP OF BIRM
UNLINED DRAINAGE
DITCH 17. GRADE
ACCESS ROAD DETAIL
TRACK
V
TRACK AND BALLAST
MAINTAIN 20 FOOT
MINIMUM CLEARANCE FROM
EDGE OF ROAD TO CENTERLINE
OF TRACKS MAINTAIN ROAO
2 FEET MINIMUM BELOW
GRADE OF TRACK
EXISTING GRADE
FEET (HORIZONTAL!
RECc-»'/irr>
DEC 20 1991
®EA|£
FRENCH COULEE WETLAND
CASCADE CO. . MT
Schafer and Associates
P 0 Box fllflfl
Bozoaan UT 59718
(400) 697- j478 |Scha/er|
SHEET 4: CELL 3 PLAN. AS BUILT
CLIENT MONT. DEPT. OF STATE LANDS 4 1-12 I LOCATION : SWl / 4 . SEl /4 SECT 26. Tl9N. R6E
SHEET 4 OF 6 | DRAWING NUMBER FC3/CADD63 | REVISION NUMBER 2
DATE: Nov 26. 1991
SCALE | | N : 30 FT | PRAWN Br DA/TH
PLAN VIEW
1 YPlf Al PIPING HI TWFfN PONDS
..1^
TOP OF UPPER BERM
TOP OF LOWER BERM
TOP OF Substrate
-IT—— -
:6 Q!
SEC. B-B
NOTE THE fLOWUNE OF All OPENINGS IN THE CmANNEi
WALL FOH MANIFOLD PIPE, BY-PASS PIPE, ETC ,
SHALL BE SET 2" ABOVE THE BOTTOM OF THE
CHANNEL
B
C
’ P » HE HV
'OP f S’ (j ORATE
4 Hi<-FnC A0> r 4". ? CROSSES
1 l
SEC. A-A
Schajer and Associates
P 0 Box 61 80
Bozoman U T 59715
(109) 5 97 317$
client: MON.T J - STATE . ANDS
i>*EiT 9)f 8 r PNAVINr. ~ v.-
DATE : WAY 30 . T - . |_ SCALE
FRENCH COULEE WETLAND
CASCADE CO. . MT
HYDRAULICS DETAILS
TlOCAt ion: CASCADE COUNTY MT
j REVISION ‘•LAiBER
To^a- :r _RC I CHECKED BY
!T“
i 1
©
©
©
ii * —
i i i
ij j
—
SCALE - I : 60
DRENCH COULEE WETLAND
‘kll!8L ^ps.
SUPPL. DWG. la: CELL 1 INFLUENT FLUME
Schafer
NOVEMBER 20. 1991
CADD65/IA
FRENCH COULEE WE LAND
SUPPL. DWG. lb: CELL 2 INFLUENT FLUME
Scha/er|
NOVEMBER 20. 1991
CADD65/IB
;muwu«iiL‘.i!"rJBrr7
CELL 3 INFLUENT
MANFOLD
i »
X
ncm-ATE <
i
| UEF GATE 2
1 L
I
i
L-I
STOPPLATE 2
WER GATE 1
STOPR-ATE 3
nil
ro
STOPFLATE 1 l
pd pd
CELL 3
BYPASS PIPE
CELL 3
NLET PPE
©
r i
©
©
i i
■ i
i , r- - “
II ' |
J
SCALE * I : 60
r —
ERENCH COULEE WE LAND
SUPPL. DWG. Id: CELL 3 INFLUENT FLUME
Schafer
NOVEMBER 20. 1991
CADD65/ID
CELL 3 EFFLUENT
MANFOLD
STOPPLATE 2
STOPPLATE 1
WER GATE 1
CELL 3
DISCHARGE PPE
1
1
1
1
r i
©
U ^ u
SCALE * 1 : 60
FRENCH COULEE WE LAND
_ ||
SUPPL. DWG. I<
d: CELL 3 EFFLUENT FLUME
Schafer
NOVEMBER 20. 1991
CADD65/IE
ATTACHMENT 6
PHOTOGRAPHS and SLIDES
LIST OF PHOTOS
A1 Allis Chalmers 7045 tractor pulling the rototiller.
A2 Wagner scraper-hauler used for earthwork, bentonite application and road
construction.
A3 Dynapac vibratory compactor finishing compaction of a cell floor.
A4 The Dynapac works on the end of cell 1 while a backhoe excavates buried
manifold prior to tying in 8 inch main.
A5 A Case W14 loader used for cell substrate placement here shown delivering
topsoil.
A6 A JD544-B bringing gravel into a cell.
A7 An end dump longbed trailer used to haul Eko-Compost from Missoula. This
trailer tipped over while emptying and was destroyed.
A8 A walking floor trailer carried larger loads and was much safer to operate for Eko-
Compost delivery.
B1 200 mesh bentonite was delivered in nominal one ton bags and stored on site.
B2 Bags were emptied into the hopper of the scraper hauler using the C225 trackhoe.
B3 The scraper hauler applying bentonite to a mix area. A spreader proved to be
unworkable because of a tendency to bridge in the hopper and severe dusting
during application.
B4 It was possible to get fairly uniform bentonite application using a scraper hauler
for application. Total application thickness was approximately 3/4 inch. An
experienced operator was essential to obtain uniform application.
B5 Areas getting too heavy application were respread with a small dozer or raked out
by hand.
B6 Rototilling bentonite into the soil.
B7 Water application to get moisture content up to optimum before bentonite
application.
B8 Dozing bentonite-soil mixture into place on a sideslope.
Cl Sampling coarse gravel.
C2 Moisture testing of soil prior to bentonite application.
C3 Soil-bentonite layer is clearly visible over an excavated distribution pipe stub.
C4 Measuring liner installation.
C5 Excavating buried distribution piping after soil bentonite liner placement.
C6 Exposed distribution piping from a manifold ready for extension into the cell
bottom.
C7 Perforated piping installed in the bottom of cell 2.
C8 A close-up of perforated (and unperforated) 4 inch PVC pipe used for distribution
piping.
D1 Backfilling a "V" trench following liner installation.
D2 Unspooling a sheet of HDPE liner for installation over the soil-bentonite liner.
D3 Making a seam between two sheets of HDPE liner with an automatic seaming
machine.
D4 Close-up of a manually welded joint in HDPE.
D5 Distribution pipe extensions were sealed with an HDPE boot, silicone cement and
a stainless steel hose clamp.
D6 Protective geofabric installed over the HDPE liner.
D7 Fabricating an HDPE boot.
D8 A finished boot seal.
El "V" trench for anchoring liner materials.
E2 Sandbags were used to hold materials in place.
E3 Cell 1 ready for distribution pipe installation. Note that wind has damaged
Enkamat erosion fabric because of a lack of sandbagging.
E4 Fitting boots over pipe.
E5 Manual welding for completion of a boot installation.
E6 Fabricating an HDPE boot.
E7 Seaming two sections of geofabric.
E8 Compacting the backfill in a liner trench.
FI Starting the substrate filling process in a corner of a cell with a temporary ramp
and coarse gravel.
F2 Extending the temporary ramp into the cell bottom.
F3 Requirements for materials storage areas were considerable during the cell filling
process.
F4 Bringing the first lift of gravel into the cell.
F5 Fine gravel installation completed in cell 2.
F6 Cell 1 was constructed somewhat differently than the other cells in that several lifts
of material were under construction at the same time. Here one can see coarse
gravel, fine gravel, coconut fiber mat, manure and Eko-Compost.
F7 A loader emptying a load of substrate materials.
F8 C225 trackhoe spreading substrate.
G1 The liner was cut and folded back to provide access for flume construction.
G2 Establishing grades for flume construction.
G3 Formwork for flume construction.
G4 Parshall flume insert and other embedments and pipe penetrations were placed
prior to concrete pour.
G5 Pouring concrete into a form.
G6 End view of a form showing two pipe penetrations.
G7 A stopplate with screen covering the opening.
G8 A finished flume.
HI A temporary ramp access to one of the cells.
H2 An overview of cell 2 during construction.
H3 Materials storage area during the peak of cell construction.
H4 A laser is used to hold grade during bypass pipe installation.
H5 Cells 1 and 2 nearing completion.
H6 The storage area and cell 3 nearing completion.
H7 Scarifying an area that had been heavily compacted during construction.
H8 The liner was attached to the flume with stainless steel battens and sealed with
neoprene rubber sealant.
11 A view of cell 3 during liner installation with rip-rapped channel to the right.
12 Rip-rapped channel leaving the construction area on the east side of the project.
13 A view of the rip-rapped channel on the south side of cell 3.
14 C225 trackhoe placing rip-rap.
15 Installation of a manifold in cell 1 .
16 Using a Bulldog compactor to consolidate fill in a pipe trench.
17 A completed manifold installation.
18 Installing perforated pipe in the bottom of cell 1.
J1 Small dikes were constructed on the surface of cells to minimize short circuiting
of water across the surface.
J2 Hand planting cattails in the substrate.
J3 Cattails were planted 4 to 6 inches below the surface.
J4 An overview of cattail planting.
J5 Cell 2 is flooded.
J6 An overview of the site at completion of the project.
J7 Mustard, carried in with topsoil, emerged along with the grasses which were
seeded.
J8 Typical fence installation on the project.
Pholo*Sover A
Made in U S A. TITLE
.
Made in U.S.A. TITLE
-\e*‘
Made in U.S.A. TITLE
Made in U S A. TITLE
LU
Made in U.S.A. TITLE
Photo*Saver A
Made in U.S.A. TITLE
Z
'
Made in U.S.A. TITLE
Made in U.S.A. TITLE
ATTACHMENT 7
OTHER PROJECT DOCUMENTS
RECEIVED
M ' V 0
I In i U
U
CITY OF BELT
BELT, MONTANA 59412
PHONE 277-3621
MAY 4, 1990
Ed Spotts
Schafer & Associates
P.O. Box 6186
Bozeman, Montana 59715
Dear Ed:
The attached Right of Entry Form is sent per your recent request. We do understand
that the Town of Belt still reserves the right to review and approve all final plans
and locations prior to the letting of bids and/or start of any construction on the
proposed wetlands .
stance in this project.
RUSSELL E.LZAMD
TOWN OF BELT
CONSENT FOR RIGHT OF ENTRY/RECLAMATION
I/We, city of belt , the Owner(s) of
record of the following described property:
do hereby grant to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S.
Department of the Interior (Office) and the Montana Department of State Lands (Depart-
ment), their agents, employees, or contractors, the right to enter upon the above-
described property:
® to DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF adverse effects of past fx] coal □ hard rock mining prac-
tices and to determine the feasibility of restoration, reclamation, abatement, control, or prevention
of such adverse effects. I/We give this consent for the length of time necessary to complete the
EXPLORATORY WORK subject to my/our continued ownership and use of the property.
[X] to RESTORE, RECLAIM, ABATE, CONTROL OR PREVENT the adverse effects of past □ coal
□ hard rock mining practices and to do all things necessary or expedient to protect the public
health, safety, or general welfare. I/We give this consent for the length of time as set forth in the
"Work Description" necessary to complete the RECLAMATION described on the "Work Descrip-
tion" attached hereto subject to my/our continued ownership and use of the property.
Entry and exploratory or reclamation and abatement work, if any, performed by the Of-
fice and/or the Department, their agents, employees, or contractors, is pursuant to the
authority granted in Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977,
30 USC 1231 etseq. and Section 82-4-239 MCA (Montana Code Annotated).
i/We understand that:
0 there will be no lien placed against my/our above-described property for reclamation work and that
reclamation work is to be performed at no cost to me/us. I/We represent that l/we did not consent
to, participate in or exercise control over the mining operation which necessitated the reclamation
work. (Land mined for coal and deed acquired before 5/2/77; land mined for hard rock minerals)
□ a iien may be placed on my/our property if the reclamation work performed results in an increase
in the market value of my property. The lien, if appropriate, will be determined and filed in accord-
ance with Section 408 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 and 30 CFR
882.13 and 30 CFR 882.14 of the rules, Section 82-4-239(5) MCA and ARM (Administrative Rules
of Montana) 26.4.1242. (Land mined for coal and deed acquired after 5/2/77)
In giving my/our consent to this entry, l/we do not waive any rights conferred upon
me/us by virtue of the language contained in Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1 977, 30 USC 1231, et seq. or Section 82-4-239 MCA.
/ / ^
Dated this r w' day of
Owner of Record
Rev. 3/90
CONSENT FOR RIGHT OF ENTRY/RECLAMATION
I/We,
RICHARD BALLATORE
j the Owner(s), Claimant(s), Lessee(s), Rentor(s) .
of record of the following described property:
All holdings in SW1/4, SE1/4, Section 26, T19N, R6E Montana Meridian including
specifically Lot 17 of Castner's Fourth Addition tothe town of Belt.
do hereby grant to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S.
Department of the Interior (Office) and the Montana Department of State Lands (Depart-
ment), their agents, employees, or contractors, the right to enter upon the above-
described property to DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF AND TO RESTORE,
RECLAIM, ABATE, CONTROL OR PREVENT the adverse effects of past>0 coal □ hard
rock mining practices and to do all things necessary or expedient to protect the public
health, safety, or general welfare. I/We give this consent for the length of time as set
forth in the "Work Description" necessary to complete the RECLAMATION described on
the "Work Description" attached hereto subject to my/our continued ownership and use
of the property.
Entry and exploratory or reclamation and abatement work, if any, performed by the Of-
fice and/or the Department, their agents, employees, or contractors, is pursuant to the
authority granted in Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977,
30 USC 1231 et seq. and Section 82-4-239 MCA (Montana Code Annotated).
I/We understand that:
EE there will be no lien placed against my/our above-described property tor reclamation work and that
reclamation work is to be pertormed at no cost to me/us. I/We represent that l/we did not consent
to, participate in or exercise control over the mining operation which necessitated the reclamation
work. (Land mined tor coal and deed acquired before 5/2/77; land mined tor hard rock minerals)
□ a lien may be placed on my/our property if the reclamation work pertormed results in an increase
in the market value of my property. The lien, if appropriate, will be determined and filed in accord-
ance with Section 408 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 and 30 CFR
882.13 and 30 CFR 882.14 of the rules, Section 82-4-239(5) MCA and ARM (Administrative Rules
of Montana) 26.4.1242. (Land mined for coal and deed acquired after 5/2/77)
In giving my/our consent to this entry, l/we do not waive any rights conferred upon
me/us by virtue of the language contained in Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1 977, 30 USC 1 231 , et seq. or Section 82-4-239 MCA.
Dated this c£ 7 day of . 19^0 .
Owner of Record
Owner of Record
Rev. 7/90
CONSENT FOR RIGHT OF ENTRY/RECLAMATION
I/We,
MAYME BALLATORE
, the Owner(s), Claimant(s), Lessee(s), Rentor(s)
of record of the following described property:
All holdings in SW1/4, SE1/4, Section 26, T19N, R6E, Montana Meridian including
specifically Lots 18 through 20 of Castner's Fourth Addition to the town of Belt
and a piece of property immediately NW of Lot 17 bounded by the BN Railroad to the NE,
the center section line to the NW, Anaconda Road to the SW and Lot 17 to the SE.
do hereby grant to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S.
Department of the Interior (Office) and the Montana Department of State Lands (Depart-
ment), their agents, employees, or contractors, the right to enter upon the above-
described property to DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF AND TO RESTORE,
RECLAIM, ABATE, CONTROL OR PREVENT the adverse effects of past y<coal □ hard
rock mining practices and to do all things necessary or expedient to protect the public
health, safety, or general welfare. I/We give this consent for the length of time as set
forth in the "Work Description" necessary to complete the RECLAMATION described on
the "Work Description" attached hereto subject to my/our continued ownership and use
of the property.
Entry and exploratory or reclamation and abatement work, if any, performed by the Of-
fice and/or the Department, their agents, employees, or contractors, is pursuant to the
authority granted in Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977,
30 USC 1231 et seq. and Section 82-4-239 MCA (Montana Code Annotated).
I/We understand that:
0 there will be no lien placed against my/our above-described property for reclamation work and that
reclamation work is to be performed at no cost to me/us. I/We represent that l/we did not consent
to, participate in or exercise control over the mining operation which necessitated the reclamation
work. (Land mined for coal and deed acquired before 5/2/77; land mined for hard rock minerals)
□ a lien may be placed on my/our property if the reclamation work performed results in an increase
in the market value of my property. The lien, if appropriate, will be determined and filed in accord-
ance with Section 408 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 and 30 CFR
882.13 and 30 CFR 882.14 of the rules, Section 82-4-239(5) MCA and ARM (Administrative Rules
of Montana) 26.4.1 242. (Land mined for coal and deed acquired after 5/2/77 )
In giving my/our consent to this entry, l/we do not waive any rights conferred upon
me/us by virtue of the language contained in Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1 977, 30 USC 1 231 , et seq. or Section 82-4-239 MCA.
Dated this <^,*7 day of _
Owner tff Record
Owner of Record
Rev. 7/90
CONSENT FOR RIGHT OF ENTRY/RECLAMATION
I/We, MRS. BEATRICE MacLEOD
, the Owner(s), Claimant(s), Lessee(s), Rentor(s)
of record of the following described property:
Lot E on the Cascade County Assesors Sec 26, T19N, R6E Plat, located in the
NE1/4, SWl/4 and NWl/4, SEl/4, Sec 26, T19N, R6E on the USGS Belt, Montana
7.5 minute topographic quadrangle
do hereby grant to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S.
Department of the Interior (Office) and the Montana Department of State Lands (Depart-
ment), their ayenis, employees, or contractors, the right to enter
Upt'i i u i o auJvg"
described property to DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF AND TO RESTORE,
RECLAIM, ABATE, CONTROL OR PREVENT the adverse effects of past 0 coal □ hard
rock mining practices and to do all things necessary or expedient to protect the public
health, safety, or general welfare. I/We give this consent for the length of time as set
forth in the "Work Description" necessary to complete the RECLAMATION described on
the "Work Description" attached hereto subject to my/our continued ownership and use
of the property.
Entry and exploratory or reclamation and abatement work, if any, performed by the Of-
fice and/or the Department, their agents, employees, or contractors, is pursuant to the
authority granted in Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977,
30 USC 1231 et seq. and Section 82-4-239 MCA (Montana Code Annotated).
I/We understand that:
[xk there will be no lien placed against my/our above-described property (or reclamation work and that
reclamation work is to be performed at no cost to me/us. I/We represent that l/we did not consent
to, participate in or exercise control over the mining operation which necessitated the reclamation
work. (Land mined (or coal and deed acquired before 5/2/77; land mined for hard rock minerals)
□ a lien may be placed on my/our property if the reclamation work performed results in an increase
in the market value of my property. The lien, if appropriate, will be determined and filed in accord-
ance with Section 408 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 and 30 CFR
882.13 and 30 CFR 882.14 of the rules, Section 82-4-239(5) MCA and ARM (Administrative Rules
of Montana) 26.4.1242. (Land mined for coaland deed acquired after 5/2/77)
In giving my/our consent to this entry, l/we do not waive any rights conferred upon
me/us by virtue of the language contained in Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977, 30 USC 1231, et seq. or Section 82-4-239 MCA.
. . 4
Dated this,^, f day ot ,
, 19_22Z.
ner of Record
hL
/
■ s
Owner oLRecord
c/
./L-.
/
Rev. 7/90
CONSENT FOR RIGHT OF ENTRY/RECLAMATION
I/We, GEORGE DRGA , the Owner(s) of
record of the following described property:
NEl/4 of SWl/4 and SEl/4 NWl/4, Sec 26/ T19N, R6E; East of Anaconda Road
and West of BN railroad trayete. or! tine 7.5 minute U.S^.S^Bglt / Montana
topographic quadrangle. eZl_j22-^
do hereby grant to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S.
Department of the Interior (Office) and the Montana Department of State Lands (Depart-
ment), their agents, employees, or contractors, the right to enter upon the above-
described property:
EE to DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF adverse effects of past £3 coal 0 hard rock mining prac-
tices and to determine the feasibility of restoration, reclamation, abatement, control, or prevention
of such adverse effects. I/We give this consent for the length of time necessary to complete the
EXPLORATORY WORK subject to my/our continued ownership and use of the property.
K to RESTORE, RECLAIM, ABATE, CONTROL OR PREVENT the adverse effects of past £2 coal
□ hard rock mining practices and to do all things necessary or expedient to protect the public
health, safety, or general welfare. I/We give this consent for the length of time as set forth in the
"Work Description" necessary to complete the RECLAMATION described on the "Work Descrip-
tion" attached hereto subject to my/our continued ownership and use of the property.
Entry and exploratory or reclamation and abatement work, if any, performed by the Of-
fice and/or the Department, their agents, employees, or contractors, is pursuant to the
authority granted in Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977,
30 USC 1231 et seq. and Section 82-4-239 MCA (Montana Code Annotated).
i/We understand that:
£3 there will be no lien placed against my/our above-described property for reclamation work and that
reclamation work is to be performed at no cost to me/us. I/We represent that l/we did not consent
to, participate in or exercise control over the mining operation which necessitated the reclamation
work. (Land mined for coal and deed acquired before 5/2/77; land mined for hard rock minerals)
□ a lien may be placed on my/our property if the reclamation work performed results in an increase
in the market value of my property. The lien, if appropriate, will be determined and filed in accord-
ance with Section 408 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 and 30 CFR
882.13 and 30 CFR 882.14 of the rules, Section 82-4-239(5) MCA and ARM (Administrative Rules
of Montana) 26.4.1242. (Land mined for coal and deed acquired after 5/2/77)
In giving my/our consent to this entry, l/we do not waive any rights conferred upon
me/us by virtue of the language contained in Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1 977, 30 USC 1231, et seq. or Section 82-4-239 MCA.
Rev. 3/90
J
CONSENT FOR RIGHT OF ENTRY/RECLAMATION
I/We, MR. ANT~) MRS. KENNETH MARTIN , the Owner(s) Of
record of the following described property:
SWl/4 of SE 1/4, Sec 26, T19N, R6E on the Belt, Montana 7.5 Minute USGS
Topographic Quadrangle
do hereby grant to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S.
Department of the Interior (Office) and the Montana Department of State Lands (Depart-
ment), their agents, employees, or contractors, the right to enter upon the above-
described property:
S3 to DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF adverse effects of past EE coal □ hard rock mining prac-
tices and to determine the feasibility of restoration, reclamation, abatement, control, or prevention
of such adverse effects. I/We give this consent for the length of time necessary to complete the
EXPLORATORY WORK subject to my/our continued ownership and use of the property.
E3 to RESTORE, RECLAIM, ABATE, CONTROL OR PREVENT the adverse effects of past □ Coal
□ hard rock mining practices and to do all things necessary or expedient to protect the public
health, safety, or general welfare. I/We give this consent for the length of time as set forth in the
"Work Description" necessary to complete the RECLAMATION described on the "Work Descrip-
tion" attached hereto subject to my/our continued ownership and use of the property.
Entry and exploratory or reclamation and abatement work, if any, performed by the Of-
fice and/or the Department, their agents, employees, or contractors, is pursuant to the
authority granted in Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977,
30 USC 1231 etseq. and Section 82-4-239 MCA (Montana Code Annotated).
i/We understand that:
£3 there will be no lien placed against my/our above-described property for reclamation work and that
reclamation work is to be performed at no cost to me/us. I/We represent that l/we did not consent
to, participate in or exercise control over the mining operation which necessitated the reclamation
work. (Land mined for coal and deed acquired before 5/2/77; land mined for hard rock minerals)
□ a lien may be placed on my/our property if the reclamation work performed results in an increase
in the market value of my property. The lien, if appropriate, will be determined and filed in accord-
ance with Section 408 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 and 30 CFR
882.13 and 30 CFR 882.14 of the rules, Section 82-4-239(5) MCA and ARM (Administrative Rules
of Montana) 26.4.1242. (Land mined for coal and deed acquired after 5/2/77)
In giving my/our consent to this entry, l/we do not waive any rights conferred upon
me/us by virtue of the language contained in Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977, 30 USC 1231, et seq. or Section 82-4-239 MCA.
Rev. 3/90
CONSENT FOR RIGHT OF ENTRY/RECLAMATION
1/We, MRS. BETTY M. VOYTOSKI
, the Owner(s), Claimant(s), Lessee(s), Rentor(s)
of record of the following described property.
rots 25 and 25A of Castner's Fourth Addition to the town of Belt, Montana, located
in the SW1/4, SE1/4, Sec 26, T19N, R6E on the Belt 7.5 Minute USGS topographic
quadrangle
do hereby grant to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S.
Department of the Interior (Office) and the Montana Department of State Lands (Depart-
ment) their agents, employees, or contractors, the right to enter upon the above-
described property to DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF AND TO RESTO ,
RECLAIM ABATE CONTROL OR PREVENT the adverse effects of past 0 coal □ hard
rock mining practices and to do all things necessary or expedient to protect the public
health safety, or general welfare. I/We give this consent for the length of time as set
forth in the "Work Description" necessary to, complete the RECLAMATION described on
the "Work Description” attached hereto subject to my/our continued ownership and use
of the property.
Entry and exploratory or reclamation and abatement work, if any, performed by the Of-
fice and/or the Department, their agents, employees, or contractors, is pursuant to the
authority granted in Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 19 ,
30 USC 1231 et seq. and Section 82-4-239 MCA (Montana Code Annotated).
I/We understand that:
® there will be no lien placed against my/our above-described property (or reclamation work and that
reclamation work is to be performed at no cost to me/us. I/We represent that 1/we did not consent
to, participate in or exercise control over the mining operation which necessitated the reclamation
work. (Land mined for coal and deed acquired before 5/2/77; land mined for hard rock minerals}
□ a lien may be placed on my/our property if the reclamation work performed results in an increase
in the market value of my property. The lien, if appropriate, will be determined and filed in accord-
ance with Section 408 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 and 30 ChH
882.13 and 30 CFR 882.14 of the rules, Section 82-4-239(5) MCA and ARM (Administrative Rules
of Montana) 26.4.1242. (Land mined for coal and deed acquired after 5/2/77)
In giving my/our consent to this entry, l/we do not waive any rights conferred upon
me/us by virtue of the language contained in Title IV of the Surface Mining Control an
Reclamation Act of 1977, 30 USC 1231, et seq. or Section 82-4-239 MCA.
Rev. 7/90
CONSENT FOR RIGHT OF ENTRY/RECLAMATION
I/We,
MR. AND MRS. GEORGE STANTON
j the Owner(s), Claimant(s), Lessee(s), Rentor(s)
of record of the following described property:
Lots 24A and 25A of Castner's Fourth Addition to the town of Belt, located in
the SWl/4, SEl/4, Sec 26, T19N, R6E on the USGS Belt, Montana 7.5 minute
topographic gradrangle
do hereby grant to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S.
Department of the Interior (Office) and the Montana Department of State Lands (Depart-
ment), their agents, employees, or contractors, the right to enter upon the above-
described property to DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF AND TO RESTORE,
RECLAIM, ABATE, CONTROL OR PREVENT the adverse effects of past EKcoal □ hard
rock mining practices and to do all things necessary or expedient to protect the public
health, safety, or general welfare. I/We give this consent for the length of time as set
forth in the "Work Description" necessary to complete the RECLAMATION described on
the "Work Description" attached hereto subject to my/our continued ownership and use
of the property.
Entry and exploratory or reclamation and abatement work, if any, performed by the Of-
fice and/or the Department, their agents, employees, or contractors, is pursuant to the
authority granted in Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977,
30 USC 1231 et seq. and Section 82-4-239 MCA (Montana Code Annotated).
I/We understand that:
}Q there will be no lien placed against my/our above-described property for reclamation work and that
reclamation work is to be performed at no cost to me/us. I/We represent that I /we did not consent
to, participate in or exercise control over the mining operation which necessitated the reclamation
work. (Land mined for coal and deed acquired before 5/2/77; land mined for hard rock minerals)
□ a lien may be placed on my/our property if the reclamation work performed results in an increase
in the market value of my property. The lien, if appropriate, will be determined and filed in accord-
ance with Section 408 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 and 30 CFR
882.13 and 30 CFR 882.14 of the rules, Section 82-4-239(5) MCA and ARM (Administrative Rules
of Montana) 26.4.1242. (Land mined for coal and deed acquired after 5/2/77)
In giving my/our consent to this entry, l/we do not waive any rights conferred upon
me/us by virtue of the language contained in Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977, 30 USC 1231, et seq. or Section 82-4-239 MCA.
Rev. 7/90
2.7 NOTICE TO PROCEED
TO: Ed Boland Construction. Inc
-4601 — 7th Avenue South
Great Falls. MT 59601
Date: August28, 1990
Project: French Coulee Wetland/
Acid Mine Drainage Control
■ DSL AMRR_2fl=fllfl .
You are hereby notified to commence
August 15 , 19 90, no later than
Work within fio consecutive calendar
therefore, October 20 , 90
Work in accordance with the Agreement, dated
August 28 , ,9 90, and you are lo complete the
days thereafter. The date of completion of all Work is,
OWNER: DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANDS
By: _
Title:
LARRY MARSHALL, CHl Ef
Abandoned Mina RedamatJon Bureau
ACCEPTANCE OF NOTICE
Receipt of Ihe above Nolice lo Proceed is hereby acknowledged Ihis^S^dav of ^r. 19
CONTRACTOR
Title
SECTION 2.7
l
l
Rev. 4/89
2.4 AGREEMENT
STATE OF MONTANA
DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANDS
FORM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN CONTRACTOR AND OWNER
This Agreement made on August 15 , 19 90, between Ed Boland
Construction, Inc. , hereinafter called the "Contractor", and the STATE OF
MONTANA acting by and through the Commissioner, DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANDS, hereinafter
called the "Owner".
WITNESSETH, that the Contractor and the Owner for the consideration hereinafter named agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1. SCOPE OF WORK
The Contractor shall furnish all the materials and perform all of the work for the general portion of the
Contract as shown on the Drawings and described in the Specifications entitled French Coulee Wetland/ Acid
Mine Drainage Control. DSL/AMRB 90-010, and shall do everything required by the Contract Documents.
ARTICLE 2. TIME OF COMPLETION
The work to be performed under this Contract shall be commenced on or before a date set forth by the
Owner in a written "Notice to Proceed" and shall be completed within sixty (60) calendar days.
Liquidated damages are Four Hundred Dollars (S400.00) per calendar day.
ARTICLE 3. THE CONTRACT SUM
The Owner shall pay the Contractor for the performance of the Contract, subject to additions and
deductions provided, in current funds as follows:
FlVO Hundred nirpt-v hjn t-hnucanH t-yo hundred -Fifty thrpp rlnll3rs..a.nri
sixteen cents. (592'. 253.16)
ARTICLE 4. PROGRESS PAYMENTS
The Owner shall make payments on account of the Contract as follows: ninety (90) percent of the value,
based on the Contract prices of labor and materials incorporated in the work and of materials suitably stored
at the project site or at some other location agreed upon in writing, up to the last day of the month, less
the aggregate of the previous payments.
ARTICLE 5. ACCEPTANCE AND FINAL PAYMENT
Final payment shall be due thirtv (30) days after completion and acceptance of the work, provided the work
is fully completed and the Contract is fully performed. Upon receipt of written notice that the work is ready
for final inspection and acceptance, the Owner shall promptly make his inspection; and when he finds the
work acceptable under the Contract and the Contract fully performed, he shall promptly issue a final
certificate, over his own signature, stating the work provided for in this Contract has been completed and
is acceptable by him under its terms and conditions and that the entire balance fouhd to be due the
Contractor and noted in the final certificate is due and payable.
SECTION 2.4
1 - 3
Form No. HOB
Rev. 4/01/86
Before issuance of a final certificate. the Contractor shall submit evidence satisfactory to the Owner that ail
payrolls, materials bills, and other indebtedness connected with the work have been paid. If the work has
been substantially completed and the Owner certrlies that full compieuon thereof fc materially delayS
through no fault of the Contractor the Owner shall, without terminating the Contract, make payment of
the balance due for the pomon of the work fully completed and accepted. Payment shall be made S the
terms and conditions goyeming final payment, except that It shall not constitute a waiver of clainT
ARTICLE 6. NO DAMAGES FOR DELAY - OTHER CONTRACTORS
It shall be the affirmative duty of each and every Contractor on the project to cooperate and coordinate the
scheduling and progress of its work with that of ail other Contractors. Under no circumstances shall the
State of Montana be liable for any damages for delay caused by the acts or omissions of another Contractor
and each Contractor expressly consents to suit by other Contractors for each and every claim for delay by
said Contractors performing work on the aforementioned project. It is further stipulated' and agreed that the
terms of this provision shall govern over any other Contract document as defined in Article 7, infra
ARTICLE 7. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
The Bid Documents, together with this Agreement, form the Contract; and they are as totally a pan of the
Contract as if hereto attached or herem repeated. The following is an enumeration of the Bid Documents:
Hie Invitation for Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Proposal, Bid Bond, Notice of Award, Performance
Bond or Letter 0f Credit, Labor and Material Bond or Letter of Credit, Notice to Proceed, Work
Directive Change, Change Order, Affidavit on Behalf of Contractor, General Conditions,
Special Provisions, Technical Specifications, Plans and Wage Rates.
ARTICLE 8. STANDARD PREVAILING RATE OF WAGES AND PREFERENCE OF MONTANA
JL-AmJK
The Contractor and Subcontractors shall pay the standard prevailing rate of wages, including fringe benefits
for health and welfare and pension contributions and travel allowance provisions in effect and applicable
to the county or locality in which the work is being performed. These prevailing wage rates will be
y ^Ifussloner of Ubor and Industry, State of Montana in accordance urtth 18-2-401 and
18-2-407, Montana Code Annotated, and will be attached to the Specifications and are incorporated herem
SECTION 2.4
2 - 3
Form No. HOB
Rev. 4/01/86
ARTICLE 9. VENUE
In the event of litigation concerning the Contract, venue shall be the First Judicial District in and for the
County of Lewis and Clark, Montana, and the agreement shall be interpreted according to the laws of
Montana.
WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement, the day and year first above written.
CONTRACTOR: £"9 &‘*/£T#t/c7y*'J ~7~7j
(Signature)
r> - 7
(Typed/Printed Name and Title)
OWNER:
STATE OF MONTANA
Date
SECTION 2.4
3
3
Form No. HOB
Rev. 4/01/86
•V
J
23 NOTICE OF AWARD
TO:
Ed Boland Construction, Inc .
4601 7th Avenue South
Great Falls, MT 59401
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: French Coulee Wetland/Acid Mine Drainage Control, Cascade County,
Montana, DSUAMRB-90-010.
The Owner has considered the Bid submitted by you for the above-described Work in response to its
Advertisement for Bids dated June l n 19 90 and Information for Bidders.
You are hereby notified that your bid has been accepted for items in the amount of S 592 .253.16
You are required by the Information for Bidders to execute the Agreement and furnish the required
Contractor’s Performance Bond, Labor and Material Bond, and certificates of insurance within ten (10)
calendar days from the date of this Notice to you.
If you fail to execute said Agreement and to furnish said Bonds within ten (10) days from the date of this
Notice, said Owner will be entitled to consider all your rights arising out of the Owner’s acceptance of your
Bid as abandoned and as forfeiture of your Bid Bond. The Owner will be entitled to such other rights as
may be granted by law.
You are required to return an acknowledged copy of this Notice of Award to the Owner.
Dated 5 day of July , 19 90 .
OWNER: DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANDS
Title: ^iaot*0ned Reclamation Bur«au
ACCEPTANCE OF NOTICE
Receipt of the above Notice of Award is hereby acknowledged this dav of
19_Z£
To 4 s-/
T
CONTRACTOR: To go (^oiJsTRUcTIqJ -Ta-
Title: / p e 1~
SECTION 23
I - 1
Rev. A/19
'.hen-Northern, Inc.
A member of the IHIHl group of companies
528 SMELTER AVENUE
P. O. BOX 949
GREAT FALLS, MT 59403
(406) 453-1641
FAX (406) 727-2070
REPORT TO:
BOLAND CONSTRUCTION
4601 - 7TH AVENUE SOUTH
GREAT FALLS, MT 59405
i 4-5 sc,
T
(2)
SHEET: 1 OF 2
INVOICE NO.: 88680
report OF: Field density tests of compacted backfill material for Cells 1, 2 and
3, Belt Mine Reclamation
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION:
Attached are the results of field density tests performed on the above-referenced project on
the dates and at the locations shown. Unless otherwise noted, our personnel utilized the nuclear
densometer method of testing in accordance with ASTM D2922. In accordance with our quality
control procedures, occasional routine correlation tests are performed using sand cone methods
in accordance with ASTM D1556.
Contractor: Boland Construction
Test Locations were selected by: Chen-Northern personnel at random locations
Minimum required in-place density: 35^ Qf the maximum 1 aboratory density
Maximum density as determined by: ASTM D698
Remarks:
Reviewed
Distribution:
AS A MUTUAL PROTECTION TO CLIENTS. THE PUBLIC ANO OURSELVES. ALL REPORTS ARE SUBMITTED AS THE CONFIDENTIAL PROPEFTTY OF OUR CLIENTS AND AUTHORIZATION FOR
PUBLICATION OF STATEMENTS. CONCLUSIONS OR EXTRACTS FROM OR REGARDING OUR REPORTS IS RESERVED PENDING OUR WRITTEN APPROVAL. SAMPLES WILL BE OISPOSED
OF AFTER TESTING IS COMPLETED UNLESS OTHER ARRANGEMENTS ARE AGREED TO IN WRITING.
/Pnv 1 /RQ) CNU114A
Belt Mine Reclamation
Boland Construction
Great Falls, Montana
October 18, 1990
Job No. 79-358
Sheet: 2 of 2
TEST RESULTS:
Field Maximum Percent
Moisture Field Dry Lab Dry Maximum
Test Date Lab No. Content, % Density, pcf Density, pcf Obtained
10/10/90
45739
11.8
106.9
108.5 (a)
98.5
Location:
Cell #1, Sta. 2+95, 22'
toward Cell
#1
from railroad
track.
at
subgrade.
10/10/90
45740
10.8
113.9
119.0 (b)
95.7
Location:
Cell #2,
Sta. 6+03,
19'
toward
Cell
#2 from railroad
[ track.
at
subgrade.
(/,
10/10/90
45741
15.7
97.4
100.0 (b)
97.4
Location:
Cell #3, Sta. 13+00, 33'
toward Cell
#3
from railroad
track.
at
subgrade.
(a) Maximum Density
Curve - Performed
by Braun Engineering
(b) Maximum Density
Curve - Performed by Braun Engineering
(c) Maximum Density
Curve - Lab No
. 44981
Chen#Northern. Inc.
Consulting tntjmeers ,nn Scientists
WYO-BEN, INC.
RECEIVED OCT 2 4 1990
>
October 22, 1990
Mr. Edward S potts
Schafer & Associates
P. O. Box 6186
Bozeman, MT 59715
Dear Ed:
I have attached copies of the soil tests we performed on the seven
samples from the French Coulee Project. The samples are numbered in order
of reception. The respective sample locations, as I understand, are as follows:
Sample
Source Location
1
2
4
5
6
7
Cell 1 - In Situ
Cell 2 - In Situ
Cell 3 - In Situ
Local Clay Pit
Lalich Alfalfa Field
Belidore North
Belidore South
Apparently sample 5 was ultimately used for the soil-bentonite mem-
brane. The other samples were either too clayey or contained unacceptable
amounts of carbonate and/or sulfate.
The data sheets are self-explanatory except for the first sheet on
samples 1, 2, and 3. These first sheets are comparisons of the respective
French Coulee samples with similar samples previously tested by Wyo-Ben.
3044 Hesper Road • P.O. Box 1979 • Billings. Montana 59103 • 406-052-0351 • Telex 31-9430 • Telefax 406-656-0748
Mr. Edward Spotts
October 22, 1990
Page 2
>
m
v .A. ^
lUUn-BBd
If you need clarification of the data or additional information, please
let me know. Thank you for the business, and if you have a current or future
project in which you feel our bentonite products may be applicable, please let
me know.
Best regards,
Ronald J. Wells
Sales Representative
RJW/jdm
rjw\3poits«d
:S044 Hesper Road • P.O. Box HIT!)
Hillings. Montana liSlllKi • 40(>-t>r>U-l>nr> 1
telex :U-!l4:i() • Telefax 40li-r>56-0748
1\\ \ I i I 1 1/ >J
r '
f
I
7
m
A1 O/C
iSC[-C
f>e.vw\ T-yTc,
<6^<vr
^L-C.od^-/~
L ?/ % .... ,_./.o> ^
i/d
■7
~?<?d
PluS
iMeL „c<t.
^/3 #,. tf L[ (. ^1 7L L{.n lOjySL i-3L_Z 3 J YS-O—
/1-JLiCUiSAL-ky.
\&/}^{ji&nf. 33* 6
Z2_
h/dLc_^£f.-.
iD,/j 4 6/yr?i£./..i% y u&-
13-
tSfz&x&.FkT:
ohcf^ft.i uo /x-
-/Q /-7/c^
y~
by 6 f/d
r*t
-to
7>,c1 /sc?
r “7
ScuiA-g ,
if-% :- ~
~s/.2 ibs/j^l'
-JP,?l^y+SL
2-lIr
O-
2-c? &
Hfjy s<o
_r_ro_ If..
S~/'o f
-&cj V,.
—
QUALITATIVE SOILS ANALYSIS
JOB ■ F/V.^a C i'x Cfyrflr i/
DATE 9
'?o
ENGINEER/ CONTRACTOR :
SOIL SAMPLE I.D. rt&frerlO 1
r rrT'.
MOISTURE CON l'ENT (% dry weight:, as received)
Tare wt:
Wet Gross:
(#6 ) 7?. g/
13?%^
Dry Gross: ~2 <■/£
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
• _ Gravel (+10) Test
. .• . Tare wt: (#£ ) 7^- 'if
Wet Net: </%
Dry Net: > w7.gr MC wt:
//.s
7.
Wet Gross Wt. Whole Sample 23/ 3-fr' Wet Net Wt. Whole Sample 1^2, P?
Wet Net Wt. Whole Sample X^lOO — \p Dry Net Wt. Whole Sample J H<0 . £(-,
^ ^ ' ioo ' ~
Tare Wt: (# £ ) ?7<Zh
Dry Gross Wt. +10 Sample OQ, a Q Dry Net Wt. +10 Sample
Dry Net Wt. +10 Sample-^ Dry Net Wt. Whole Sample = +10
Hydrometer Test
l.r°i
Lr.
A0 sec
120 min.
Reading (gms) Temp. (°F) Corr. (0.2g/°F) Corr. (Reading (gm) Tine off
3 I
=)
Wt(gms)
%( Screened sample)
%( Whole Sample)
>5"
■><$■
+10 Mesh
i.%
Apparent Organic Material (Roots, etc. ) : f*)
Mica ( type , relative amount ) :
Textural Soil Description:
y
u
—10 Mesh Sand
176
3r- z
-%( • • z
Silt
*/l,6 7-
Ml? 7*
3 2. y
Clay
/ <2 6
21.^
C-d
7.
7.)
fflQsr\
pH
7» VOIDS
Proctor Results (from
X=MDD
C°3: 0122®
S04: 91234
lb./ftT@
Y=Dry wt. of test sample
Z=Volume of test sample
% MC.
gm.
cc
Vs=Volume of Solids in X
V=Volume of 1 ft.3 = 28317 cc.
- Z = V ( 1
V - V
s -7a Voids •
28317-
V
23317
-
LABORATORY DATA SHEET
COMPACTION PERMEABILITY TEST
est Cell #
3
Test Date:_
Job: rT'e^c!^. C-Cxpl G'S'7~ F-^rffS. PXTT
— - /
Contractor^ /^r7 /0'>ncL C- Cry\ S 7~-
Sofl Sample I.D.: o9Vd ( ' JL-)
Test # )
of
Bentonite: <^-0C) (^/r ro 7 Amt. ^ A-
Soils Data 1
Proctors: Max Dry Density /r)*'? Ib./cu.ft.3 Optimum Moisture Content ^
Proctor Maximum Dry Density Adjustment For Added Bentonite
Bentonite % 123/4/56789 10
Proctor M.D. Density Decrease (lb./cu.fL) 1 1.4 1.8 (2.Z 2.7 3.1 3.6 4.0 4.4 4.8
Net Maximum Dry Density i 0 Ib./cu.ft.
Ib./cu.ft.
%
Particle Size Analysis +10 //*% %; -10 Sand 3 4, <3 %; Silt % %; Clay 7^- S3 %
Calcium: CaC03 (Acid Reaction) 0 1 2m) CaS04 (BaS04 Reaction) ffD 12 3
pH (Sat. Paste by Strip): Moisture Content (As Received): ( f, 5/ %
Project Specifications -s
Permeability: K= / X 10" ^ ,cm/&e6' or, Hydraulic Conductivity: 1
Compaction: ‘v/l %(TSumdard/Modified) Membrane Thickness:
Compaction Moisture Content ^ — % over Optimum
kTest Parameters
Constants: 6" Cell Diameter = 15.24; Cross Sectional Area = 182.41 cm2
2" Membrane Volume = 0.03272 ft3.
Head
Membrane Composition
Total Dry Wt: VoLo^X^X ft3 x Net MDD /O^. . 16/ft3 x 453.6 gm/lb = / 5~ ~5T 7 gm
Compaction Spec. Total Dry Wt: Compact Spec. % x Total Dry Wt Ar — ~
Bentonite @ 0% MC: Comp. Spec. Dry Wt. of Memb. / J — - am x Bentonite % H
Bentonite @ Product MC ( <v *7 %1: Bent. Dry Wt. rV, fr gm + ( 100-Bent. MC % 7
( __ 100
Soil @ 0% MC: Comp. Spec. Dry Wt. of Memb. / 3> > 2, .1^ gm - Dry Wt. of Bent, b li 9
Soil @ Received MC (_//£__%): Dry Soil Wt •' v/ ?. * gm + (100 - Soil MC
gm
:/OU
cm
= 5-
cm
= 6CD. X
.cm.
=W i
cm
->
)
ml
( 100
Water Additions to Achieve Compaction Moisture Content (CMC%)
Bentonite: Bent. @ 0% MC cV 9 gm + (100 - CMC%c^n 1 - Bent. @ Product MC bO- % gm = 9~, 3
Soil: Soil @ 0% MC / 3/ //. ^ gm + (100 - CMC% 1 - Soil @ Received MC m *0-? gm = /5~ j , ] — ml
( 100 )
Total Water Addition: Bentonite <r~. "< ml + Soil / T-X 2^ ml = /ft ml + 2.5% = //t; 5 ml
Test Membrane Specs.
Membrane Volume: Membrane Thickness /. ?</ x 28.274 in2 + 1728 in3/ft3 = j ft3
Compacive Effort: #Hammer Blows /9 x 15 ft lb/blow + Memb. Vol. U ft3 = Q U r ■ <-. X ft lb/ft3
Calculated % Compaction: Expected Memb. VoL . ft 3 + Calculated Memb. Vol. / / ft3 x
(100 - Specified Compaction ^7 0 %) = c/> ^ %
( 2100 )
• Soil Lost (Dry Wt): gm (Tare [# ] , Wet grs. , Dry grs. , MC = %)
Net Calculated Dry Membrane Wt: Total Memb. Dry Wt. gm - Soil Lost gm = gm
Membrane Wt/ft3: Net Calc. Dry Memb. Wt. / 3 ?3> 1. gm ♦ 453.6 gm/lb + Memb. Vol. In '/ ft3 = :rY^ * lb/ft3
Test Cell #
-
Hydration
Time
Date
Pressure
Begin
)r>\
9 -to -9o
Change 1
91 oo
*7
Change 2
9 - o
//v
Change 3
0 \ rd Ar stf A
> v-*46^/
Change 4
rCj d <xJ
9 - iG-'jcd
^93/^;
Change 5
1
End
TESTS
K (cm./sec.) =
Outflow fmO x Memb. Thickness ('em)
Head Pressure (cm Water) x Memb. Area (cm2) x Time (Secs)
Time Date Pressure
Test 1
K =
Test 2
/■
K =
Test 3
tl
K =
Test 4
Begin ;
End 3 •
K =
Test 5
Begin
End
K =
’0-y 7
Jo ^
1-,
0-°)O O/
-1
f
ml x
U H
cm
cm x
'N/
'Xbneo
secs
,%Y7'
A
w?-9o
C..--0 ->r.3
9./
ml x
U A ^
cm
cm x
/ V+, h /
cm2x ^5-7£c)
secs
-x ) ^
6,/£
-
io\^
ml x
u,cai '
cm
cm x
cm2x 'XVIOQ
secs
■o \ ' 1
Cf - 2, i I-Cjz,
^ yj
ml x
UU'1
cm
cm x
IV- h/
cm2x2.5'3 £0
secs
ml x
cm
cm x
cm2 x
secs
rt
= 2.1 Yro
Outflow
9,0 ml
cm/sec
^ / ml
cm/sec
/£?£ ml
cm/scc
?.CP
cm/sec
ml
ml
cm/sec
*2
&
ZP'tOS-'rtfy
1 -Cc&/'Cy
._ . D/l.U-/^-//n>‘7-c>
W\ OjP
MC
jm.km-
Tv/e
Jo?..
J2-2r\ —
( i^o
-?
2<>0.
?YY>s
v-*
-c?.
Ccwt~Cy^i ao&Z
-4.13 ity-N-*
2.8
Q^i3^l&r.^/.f^6 1-0-0 200H 6- XscMl .O-AT^sl 6 _
c.^iHo
-d>^2a (<o a &f/0/ 1/3 s-v jr 14js: _ — : — : i/-o _3—
/:: ?rOO
zLI&vuL-
%o/ vo-s / O* ^ ms~^oc°._ r lo-xta '2'
QUALITATIVE SOILS ANALYSIS
DATE 9~P~$ o
JOB ' s\rl*\ Cr&l-e-V
E^INEER/CONIRACTOR : Q^)o^A-
SOIL SAMPLE I.D. ^g,^</oy
MOISTURE CONTENT (% dry weight, as received)
Tare wt: (# 1)
Wet Gross: ZL.*?y.6&
Dry Gross: ^S'./X-
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
■ _ Gravel (+10) Test
I'..- . Tare wt: (# r\ 1 )
Wet Net: /7r;-7y
Dry Net:
MG wt:
r /
3,7
7.
Wet Gross Wt. Whole Sample ''P-B" 7/ Wet Net Wt. Whole Sample l')CD. 7 7
Wet Net Wt. Whole Sample X7100 - MC70 ;l, l\= Dry Net "Wt. Whole_Sanple /uj, 3 5"
Tare Wt: (# 3 ) <z:t/ c/>-
100
Dry Gross Wt. +10 Sample Dry Net Wt. +10 Sample /.^ /
Dry Net Wt. +10 Sample -f- Dry Net Wt. Whole Sample = +10
Hydrometer Test
7
7.
Reading (gms)
40 sec. I
120 min. / [7
Wt(gms)
7o( Screened sample)
%( Whole Sample)
Temp. (°F) Corr. (0.2g/°F) Corr. (Reading (gm) Time off
-7;
+10 Mesh
w
-10 Mesh Sand
'C
/,2_ 7,
«7 :'7.,?^7.( ■ • 1,0 7.
Apparent Organic Material (Roots, etc.): ^
Mica ( type , relative amount ) :
Textural Soil Description: —
»./?
Silt
37^
£1/ 7*
/y.5
Clay
IV, 6
7-% 17.
3
12
pH
7. VOIDS
Proctor Results (from
X=MDD
C°3: 01234?
/ C/G y/ / ^0
S04: 012347
lb. /ft3
Y=Dry wt. of test sample
Z=Volume of test sample
Vs=Volume of Solids in X
7o MC.
gm.
^ U
1 7 ^
£/•/ w-
cc
V=Volume of 1 ft.3 = 28317 cc.
( ) =
- Z = V
V - V
s = 7» Voids •
28317-
V
28317
LABORATORY DATA SHEET
COMPACTION PERMEABILITY TEST
^Test Cell # H
Job: (C-rvi/V-
Test Date:
¥-
rtrir&tfk COT
Contractor: Pp&fa'rtsi Csryi £ / ,
Soil Sample I.D.: O ji -5^7 0 V _ ail
Test # of Bentonite: 12.00 >^n- -f* Amt. V % = 3 L_
Soils Data
Proctors: Max Dry Density_
lb./cu.fu
left
/ /y/
■5/7 .
lb./cu.ft.3 Optimum Moisture Content /t^
%
Proctor Maximum Dry Density Adjustment For Added Bentonite
Bentonite % 12 3
Proctor M.D.Density Decrease (lb./cu.fL) 1 1.4 1.8
Net Maximum Dry Density JO-S"" ■ P lb./cu.ft.
Particle Size Amalysis + 10 D
%■ -10 Sand /, X-
Calcium: CaC03 (Acid Reaction),
pH (Sat. Paste by Strip):
7o\ -1U bam
0 1 20)
6 7
8 9
10
Ll LI
3.1 3.6
4.0 4.4
4.8
%; Silt
%; Clay
2-?0
%
CaS04 (BaS04 Reaction)
Moisture Content (As Received-): 3 > jL
0 1 2/2)
%
Project Specifications
Permeability: K= _
Compaction: 'jO
X 10
?
cm/sec or, Hydraulic Conductivity:
Head
% (Standard/Modified) Membrane Thickness:
Compaction Moisture Content ' / *? % = ^ — % over Optimum
Test Parameters
Constants: 6" Cell Diameter = 15.24; Cross Sectional Area = 182.41 cm2
2" Membrane Volume = 0.03272 ft3.
Membrane Composition
Total Dry Wt: VoL .^33.7 ^-ft3 x Net MDD tOT./ 16/ft3 x 453.6 gm/lb = /5~ 3 cm
Compaction Spec. Total Dry Wt: Compact Spec. '^O % x Total Dry Wt /ft'/fl, ^ gm =
Bentonite @ 0% MC: Comp. Spec. Dry Wt. of Memb. /Hid.. ~X_ gm x Bentonite % <■->
Bentonite @ Product MC ( %): Bent. Dry Wt. gm + ( 100-Bent. MC ^ 7 %)
( 100
Soil @ 0% MC: Comp. Spec. Dry Wt. of Memb. ■ gm - Dry Wt. of Bent. ,5'&- 5 gm
Soil @ Received MC ( 3-t. 3 %): Dry Soil Wt / 3 t£. ~) gm + (TOO - Soil MC 3. 1 %) = / VQgyo
( 100 )
Water Additions to Achieve Compaction Moisture Content (CMC%)
Bentonite: Bent. @ 0% MC gm + (100 - CMC% !c t' 1 - Bent. @ Product MC 67- , / gm = 7 ml
: Nl\ X.
cm
=
cm
= ^ /
cm
= 13£i-7
cm
_gm
_ ( 100 )
Soil: Soil @ 0% MC 'L- -w gm + TOO - CMC% / *3 1 - Soil @ Received MC /!Q\n am = TO/. 7
?/.9 ml = ^-?7, zT ml + 2.5% = (C
ml
( 100 )
Total Water Addition: Bentonite'?- / ml + Soil
ml
Test Membrane Specs.
Membrane Thickness: T - Mold Freeboard )r^.Q1
Membrane Volume: Membrane Thickness _ l. 9 >-.
Compacive Effort: #Hammer Blows
_cm = cm ( /• 9
x 28.274 in2 + 1728 in3/ft3 =
")
ft3
x 15 ft lb/blow Memb. Vol ft3 = 3 -2 ft lb/ft3
Calculated % Compaction: Expected Memb. VoL -col 'r-71
n00 - Specified Compaction *7 7 %) = 9 3. 71
■l
ft 3 + Calculated Memb. Vol. ■r> —
’ %
ft3 x
(
Soil Lost (Dry Wt):
2100
_gm (Tare [# ]_
)
Wet grs._
Net Calculated Dry Membrane Wt: Total Memb. Dry Wt. ,
Membrane Wt/ft3: Net Calc. Dry Memb. Wt. W'L A gm + 453.6 gm/lb + Memb. Vol. . 'O ft3 = ^ , X lb/ft3
Dry grs._
gm - Soil Lost
MC_
_gm =
%)
gm
7.1
Test Cell # L/
^ ,/C'
;> / /- tH /&C
f
Hydration
Time
Date
'n
Pressure
Begin
3 O
Change 1
y.oO
h'<’i-cr n
■)" j. Ups/
Change 2
Change 3
(* \ sx\ cl (JtJ /
Zfr-S'l -S ^
7 'Vs
Change 4
Til)
9' If'? O
Change 5
\
$
End
TESTS
K (cm./sec.) =
Outflow (mD x Memb. Thickness ('em)
Test 1
Begin ^ ( (
Head Pressure (cm Water) x Memb. Area (cm2) x Time (Secs)
Time Date Pressure
L. *-i.S
K =
ml x
<4 &
cm
Test 2
End
Q
cm x
/ ‘C'X.jJ
cm2
x^?<SO
secs
: V7 ,
«ri
)0 <-/
V
1 h
9-
V o
ml x
w %%
cm
= ? ft VO
7 vc. 3
cm x
lcCO.((f
cm Z*l/T3CG secs
Test 3
^ Begin
7
cc'.OU -
11/50
9
£-33
End
K = <?". rO
ml x
liZC
cm
3>7P-y
cm x
I'O.i J
cm2 x / T c £ C? secs
Test 4
'O Begin
’^o,) End
IV 33 x
a
3 A
5~ / ? ir i.
V
K =
ml x
cm
Test 5
JTyO.l
cm x
19X41
cm2 x /£ secs
= w !o^o
■?
=
= 2
rS
Begin
End
K =
ml x
cm
cm x
cm2 x
Outflow
V ml
cm/sec
/cy ml
cm/scc
?.Om[
cm/sec
9,3 ml
cm/scc
ml
cm/scc
secs
/y\ c.
_ l._
— ?- ^/m y** y (Y ~
/<V<Q (% IvO ^ 2cc£? ^-2r%p
Z.S%
- - ^,61 /ty-ft*
h^l^±/f±^
0 ^dSLG=t ,. - —
._C>/J U. <Tj'l y / , 2=-^-
/6C.^ /% ) 3 *■?*<- ^-/^d —
QUALITATIVE SOILS ANALYSIS
ENGINEER/ CONTRACTOR : Q
SOIL SAMPLE I.D. d"?rb9o.
t“DISTURE CONTENT (7o dry weight, as received)
Tare wt: (#/ 7 )
Wet Gross : ON/A?/
Dry Gross: rujg. gR
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
• _ Gravel (+10) Test
. Tare wt: (# f) )
Wet Gross Wt. Whole Sample / 9- Wet Net Wt. Whole Sample <T~, •
Wet Net Wt. Whole Sample X/100 - MC7, X%^)\= Dry Net 'Wt. Whole_ Sample )y/, ? ^
') ^ ' 100 '
Tare Wt: O ) 0O'-
DATE 9- 5~-9 O
JB
Wet Net: 9-^
Dry Net:
r \
I <-7*7.)
n
MC wt:
‘-V £,/ b
7 7.
Dry Gross Wt. +10 Sample 5 3 Dry Net Wt. +10 Sample
Dry Net Wt. +10 Sample -r- Dry Net Wt. Whole Sample = +10 7 <7
Hydrometer Test
HQ
7.
Reading (gms) Temp. (°F) Corr. (0.2g/°F) Corr. (Reading (gm) Time off
40 sec.
120 min.
3o
h
Wt(gms)
%( Screened sample)
%( Whole Sample)
+10 Mesh
/, ‘/
/, 7 :z
Apparent Organic Material (Roots
Mica ( type , relative amount ) :
Textural Soil Description:
<v- !
7»(
46
7.6
-10 Mesh Sand
Silt
Clay
/<?.€
P + 1
7'
/5T
■ w 7-
-/}■.? 7*
no Z)
:.): 3 -V
■?
u
^6
M/
}/*cr r\
s\
pH
7o VOIDS
Proctor Results (from
X=MDD
C03: (01234
S°4:^l234
lb./ft @
Y=Dry wt. of test sample
Z=Volume of test sample
7» MC.
gm.
cc
V =Volume of Solids in X
V=Volume of 1 ft. = 28317 cc.
- Z = V ( )
V - V
s = 7o Voids
28317-
V
28317
LABORATORY DATA SHEET
COMPACTION PERMEABILITY TEST
|st Cell # /
Job: C<Z&t-ev CisT fcilfe,
Contractor:, £ 7*~
Soil Sample I.D.: /g* 5" C IS ^ 3
Test # ^L. of Bentonite: O^SULl
Test Date: ~ /*/- ^ ^
Amt. ^ %
lb./cu.fL
Soils Data
Proctors: Max Dry Density iCK> lb./cu.ft.3 Optimum Moisture Content
Proctor Maximum Dry Density Adjustment For Added Bentonite
Bentonite % /l""')2 3 4 5 6 7
Proctor M.D.Density Decrease (lb./cu.fL) f 1/ 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.7 3.1 3.6
Net Maximum Dry Density /o 3 lfr/cu.ft.
Particle Size Analysis + 10 ~P. 'V %^-10 Sand 3^/ 3 %; Silt
Calcium: CaC03 (Acid Reaction) ^0-1 2 3 CaS04 (BaS04 Reaction)
pH (Sat. Paste by Strip): Moisture Content (As Received!: 3. 3
(V
8 9 10
4.0 4.4 4.8
%: Clay ! Q O
/0)l 2 3
%
%
%
Project Specifications
Permeability: K= / X 10' cm/sec or. Hydraulic Conductivity: @ Head
Compaction: 7^> % (gtgndarB/Modified) Membrane Thickness: "
Compaction Moisture Content / '-j % = l % over Optimum
'est Parameters
Constants: 6" Cell Diameter = 15.24; Cross Sectional Area = 182.41 cm2
2" Membrane Volume = 0.03272 ft3.
Membrane Composition
Total Dry Wt: VoL ft3 x Net MDD _ 16/ft3 x 453.6 gm/lb = IS’ZZ. / gm
Compaction Spec. Total Dry Wt: Compact Spec. % x Total Dry Wt / 5~7 7- / gm = m^r?. 3 gm
Bentonite @ 0% MC: Comp. Spec. Dry Wt. of Memb. LLLlZiJl gm x Bentonite % I = ? gm
Bentonite @ Product MC ( % . v %): Bent. Dry Wt. In. ?, gm + ( 100-Bent. MC ^ 3 %) = / 57 groC
( 100 )
Soil @ 0% MC: Comp. Spec. Dry Wt. of Memb. ! 7^*?, 3 gm - Dry Wt. of Bent. / ^ S gm = O gm
Soil @ Received MC ( 3. 7, %): Dry Soil Wt r? gm + (100 - Soil MCT. 1 %) = /V43.3 gm
( 100 )
Water Additions to Achieve Compaction Moisture Content (CMC%)
Bentonite: Bent. @ 0% MC gm + (100 - CMC% •' ~ ) - BenL @ Product MC / 5*1 ? gm = C7 ml
( 100 )
Soil: Soil @ 0% MC ' ^5", ^9 gm + (100 - CMC% 1 - Soil @ Received MC f U C* 7 gm = <, ml
(100 )
Total Water Addition: Bentonite " ^ ml + Soil ml =
^ ? 5*7 £ ml + 2.5% =0/?^. % ml
Test Membrane Specs.
Membrane Thickness: 7" - Mold Freeboard 12. j> cm = C~, Z-CC cm ( CL r>7 ")
Membrane Volume: Membrane Thickness o ^ f " x 28.274 in2 + 1728 in3/ft3 = • n'1-, <-j ^3 _ft3
Compacive Effort: #Hammer Blows ' c / x 15 ft lb/blow + Memb. VoL ./ ri~l> ft3 = — ft lb/ftJ
Calculated % Compaction: Expected Memb. VoL ■ ~ -? ft 3 + Calculated Memb. VoL . ^ ■/ r-~\ ft3x
(TOO - Specified Compaction %1 = %£. %
( 2100 )
Soil Lost (Dry Wt): gm (Tare [# ] , Wet grs. , Dry grs. , MC = %)
Net Calculated Dry Membrane Wt: Total Memb. Dry Wt. gm - Soil Lost gm = gm
Membrane Wt/ft3: Net Calc. Dry Memb. Wt. 7 gm ♦ 453.6 gm/lb «■ Memb. VoL, ft3 = ^ ^ lb/fl3
\.i
V*"
Test Cell #
6,cL.vi.H /bc(r
r — — —
Hydration
Time
Date
Pressure
Begin
UUo
o
?"
Change 1
</: F\
L
7 //^ ’
Change 2
Change 3
Change 4
Change 5
End
TESTS
K (cm./sec.) =
Test 1
Begin
End l O'. 02—
7
Outflow fmO x Memb. Thickness (cm)
Head Pressure (cm Water) x Memb. Area (cm2) x Time (Secs)
Time Date Pressure
i 5",7f J- /.Q
K = //
ml x
S >7
cm
i^Test 2
^ Begin 7 : ;
• End lO'.O 7 \
cm x
/ $ 5-. H/
cm2 x yO 'HJ secs
(T
ll
ml x
5. 3y
cm
? ^ Test 3
Begin ,V7 ^ ^
End ( 0 Si ' ^
cm x
1 YX. '//
cm2x 77r7 secs
. 4 / -tit??
c>
II
W
ml x
r.>c/
cm
WL.0
cm x
1 1>, <//
cm2 x (q yyo secs
Test 4
%o Besin c?9 —j 7
pS) End / 1 : O 7
K =
IzS t- t,o>
(
ml x
cm
77.6
cm x
/ ?X<r/
cm2 x 0 secs
-1
= 3,7 }V0
-7
= H,(P W
-7
Outflow
// ml
cm/sec
9.3 ml
cm/scc
I l.f ml
cm/sec
1.0 111
9. % O WO cm/sec
Test 5
Begin
End
ml
ml x
cm
K =
cm x
cm* x
secs
cm/sec
Hydration
Time
Date
Pressure /
Begin
Cf'l->J70
/
Change 1
<{'■0(0
V'3-5o
:>'W /
Change 2
7 <-(> c<ya )
*7 * f'l~K 7 0
^x ^ /
Change 3
Co STJ i.UClf
7- /VA?
v, o,<^/
Change 4
i]
Change 5
End
TESTS
K (cm./sec.) =
Outflow fmO x Memb. Thickness (cm)
. _ - . . ■>.
0**10 6.&TO S“
Head Pressure (cm Water) x Memb. Area (cm2) x Time (Secs)
Time Date Pressure
Test 1
Begin ft \0 °) ^
End 3:3/ ^
K = mix
^ cm x cm2x^g secs
Outflow
cm
Test 2
Besin?:>?
, End i * 33 - ^ ^
P''
K =
ml x
°f- 1°) - °f o
£9 ~i £/.
2_
cm
VX-V cmx /%X.qf cm2x secs
Test 3
5,1 Begin ^
End
K = 7. 7, ml x C, f C
cm
cmx
Test 4 /
Begin f ^p— "p 6
!p End £( '-0^
/ tX,i(/ cm2x ^ > x&0 secs
K =
7 9 ml
cm
'lOL<rC{ CmX
Test 5
Begin } r. T & 7
y (
}C3 End
K = ^ ?
ml x
r()-.c(( cm2x secs
a.oi—' -«/
9 A
cm
cm2 x 3, 5~5" 6 C? secs
fT ml
7 £ Zt'cA cm/sec
= ^. r 7^9
= 7 7,.
= _2 v7 >77
*
<9 ml
-r cm/scc
7?
ml
cm/scc
7,7 mI
cm/scc
ml
7, o3. G
cm x
/ 2 - «■! /
cm/sec
LABORATORY DATA SHEET
COMPACTION PERMEABILITY TEST
Cell # 3— Test Date: °7 ~~ !?- ~ ^ O
Job: FTSa/'. ^ !a, CsOrlifl V fo S T. F*-/ / 4 >Mtl
Contractor: R r? 4? h d' C/vyo 5T / - — — —
Soil Sample TP- f^'3 ) . —
Test # / of Bentonite: C—-PQ Amt. ^ ■ 7 % = lb./cu.fL
Soils Data
Proctors: Max Dry Density
Proctor Maximum
Bentonite %
lo ^
Ib./cu.ft.3 Optimum Moisture Content,
i a
Dry Density Adjustment For Added Bentomte
1 2 P-/3
Proctor M.D.Density Decrease (lb./cu.fL)
Net Maximum Dry Density /Oh ‘/
1 lJlj/l.S
lb./cu.fL
4
2.2
5
LI
6
3.1
7
3.6
8
4.0
9
4.4
10
4.8
Particle Size Analysis + 10 ^ X
Calcium: CaC03 (Acid Reaction)_
pH (Sat. Paste by Strip): r — -
%i -10 Sand
W 1
_%; Silt,
2 3
CaS04 (BaS04 Reaction)
%• Clay_
/q) 1 2
/V
Moisture Content (As Received):,
%
Project Specifications n
Permeability: K= ) X 10~ cm/sec or, Hydraulic Conductivity:
Compaction: clO %^gtafldard/Modified) Membrane Thickness
Compaction Moisture Content
IX-
% =
% over Optimum
Jest Parameters
Constants: 6" Cell Diameter = 15.24; Cross Sectional Area = 182.41 cm2
2" Membrane Volume = 0.03272 ft3.
%
%
Head
■l
C?-tW
Membrane Composition _<-
Total Dry Wt: Vol^cdL? ft3 x Net MDD • / 16/ft3 x 453.6 gm/lb = / o J— gm
Compaction Spec. Total Diy Wt: Compact Spec. fp % x Total Dry Wt / .gm = / V lmLJ gm
Bentonite @ 0% MC: Comp. Spec. Dry Wt. of Memb. IH2~I,3 gm x Bentonite % = 7 f-.Sl Sm
Bentonite @ Product MC ( ^ *7 %): Bent. Dry Wt. t, ~ gm * ( 100-Bent. MC & 'y %) = 3 gm
( 100 )
Soil @ 0% MC: Comp. Spec. Dry Wt. of Memb. / H Lb 3 gm - Dry Wt. of Bent. 3 ‘T, gm = IJ ? Sm
Soil @ Received MC f 3-3 %): Dry Soil Wt A ^57,7 gm + (TOO - Soil MC 3-3%) = N3J-/ gm
( 100 )
Water Additions to Achieve Compaction Moisture Content (CMC%) .
Bentonite: Bent. @ 0% MC Tgm + (TOO - CMC% /? ) - Bent. @ Product MC Q gm = VjJL ml
( 100 )
Soil: Soil @ 0% MC ?> gm ♦ 6100 - CMC% j 7 ) - Soil @ Received MC iWbl./ gm = ml
( i°0 ) __ .
Total Water Addition: Bentonite ml + Soil ml = ^-9 "X- £> ml + 2.5% = -2-*$ 7. & ml
Test Membrane Specs.
Membrane Thickness: 7" - Mold Freeboard f 7^. 6 cm = 5~1 /£_ _cm (_
Membrane Volume: Membrane Thickness rj1-/ " x 28.274 in2 + 1728 in3/ft3 = >g3 3 fi
Compacive Effort: #Hammer Blows !% x 15 ft lb/blow + Memb. Vol. >0333 c(? ft3 = ^ 0rcr£-7_ ft lb/ft ^
Calculated % Compaction: Expected Memb. VoL • O 3>-7 1— ft 3 + Calculated Memb. Vol. 3 ft3x
6100 - Specified Compaction *7 O %) = %
( 2100 )
Soil Lost (Dry Wt): gm (Tare [# ] , Wet grs. , Dry grs. , MC = %)
Net Calculated Dry Membrane Wt: Total Memb. Dry Wt. gm - Soil Lost __Sm =
Membrane Wt/ft3: Net Calc. Dry Memb. Wt. 3 gm + 453.6 gm/lb + Memb. Vol. 7 ft3 lb/ft3
PERMEABILITY CURVE
QUALITATIVE SOILS ANALYSIS
DATE 7
JOB r 4\ vV J -/
ENGINEER/CQNi'RAClOR : /* TL* dins' P / .
SOIL SAMPLE I.D.^7a/9rl.
MOISTURE CONTENT (% dry weight:, as received)
/
Tare wt: (#5” ) C U. ? cl
Wet Net: |7>,/7
Thy Net:
MC wt:
n>
ii
Wet Gross
Dry Gross: 7-H'£ . J £
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS * . .
Gravel (+10) Test
, . Tare wt: (# ^
Wet Gross Wt. Whole Sample t. Wet Net Wt. Whole Sample 773-/7
'• 'Wet Net Wt. Whole Sample X/’lOO — MC7o ? / \= Dry Net’Wt. Whole Samole
. • ; - _ [ = ;
: : ; - N loo ‘
Tare Wt: (#f ) <2*4 •
Dry Gross Wt. +10 Sample / Dry Net Wt. +10 Sample / {C<T
7.
Dry Net Wt. +10 Sample -f- Dry Net Wt. Whole Sample = +10
Hydrometer Test
/
7.
Reading (gms) Temp. (°F) Corr. (0.2g/°F) Corr. (Reading (gm) TLne ofi
40 sec.
120 min.
7 6
3 3^
Wt(gms)
%( Screened sample)
%( Whole Sample) f
? r
+10 Mesh
! 7. Of? 7»( .
Apparent Organic Material (Roots, etc.) £7
Mica (type, relative amount): O
Id
-10 Mesh Sand
3.o
£ 7.
5:7 7»
Silt
1 3. <3
0-7,6 7.
R7.3 7-
c(7
3 XX
Clay
3 0--
££</ 7-
65:7 7,)
/L.O </
Textural Soil Description: Q
pH
7» VOIDS
Proctor Results (from
X=MDD
C03: (0>234
SO, : @034
lb./ftT@
_ Y=Dry wt. of test sample
Z=Volume of test sample
V =Volume of Solids in X
V=Volume of 1 ft. = 28317 cc.
X
7» MC.
gm.
cc
Z = V
Y s
(
)
V - v
s = 7» Voids •
28317-
V
28317
LABORATORY DATA SHEET
COMPACTION PERMEABILITY TEST
£kt Cell #
Tnh- coolly GrT
Test Date: *7 ^ ^
Contractor: Cst^STZ.
Soil Sample T.D.: r? ^ ^ / ‘VQ ^
Test # L of Bentonite: Q_
Amt. O % = C3
lb./cu.fL
Soils Data
Proctors: Max Dry Density
32L
lb./cu.ft.3 Optimum Moisture Content
Proctor Maximum" Dry Density Adjustment For Added Bentonite
Bentonite % & + ^ ^ ^
2J.
%
5 6 7 8 9 10
Proctor M.D.Density Decrease (lb./cu.fL) ( jwl U-4 1.8 2.2 2.7 3 .y 3.6 4.0 4.4 4.8
Net Maximum Dry Density Z_7_ "u5./cu.
Particle Size Analysis + 10
Calcium: CaC03 (Acid Reaction).
pH (Sat. Paste by Strip): _
%; -10 Sand
'iO 1 2 3
%; Silt
\\ CaS04 (BaS04 Reaction)
Moisture Content (As Received): 7 U
%; Clay
fa 1 2 3
U
%
%
Project Specifications ~l \
Permeability: K= / X 10-___ cm/sec or. Hydraulic Conductivity: d
Cnmnaction* Or- %'T‘Staodard/Modified) Membrane Thickness. _ —
Compaction Moisture Contend" % = L-X % over Optimum
Head
/ \-
'est Parameters / \\
Constants: 6” CeU Diameter = 15.24; Cross Sectional Area = 182^41 cm*
2" Membrane Volume = 0.03272 ft3. /
Membrane Composition
Total Dry Wt: Vol. .^7-7 2
ft3 x Net MDDjVS 16/ft3 x 453.6 gm/lb = / — 8m 9 p
Compaction Spec. Total Dry Wt: Compact Spec. % xVTotal Dry Wt ?_sm = m
Bentonite @ 0% MC: Comp. Spec. Dry Wt. of Memb. 1 7 W gm x Bentomte %_^Z gm
Bentonite @ Product MC ( %): Bent. Dry Wt. O gm + ( 100-Bent. MC %) - Q gm
)
/ \ ( 100 , _
Soil @ 0% MC: Comp. Spec. Dry Wt. of Memb. IX£'C,C7^ gm - DryW of Bent. ^ gm = _[2=_£±j2j1 m
Soil @ Received MC f / V //%): Dry Soil Wt • ,L£rf,?7 gm + ^ flOO - Soil MO. */.%) - (ZtfUl Sm
// \ ( 100 }
Water Additions to Achieve Compaction Moisture Content (CMC%) \ > p>
Bentonite: Bent. @ 0% MC/ am + (100 - CMC%2.^ .) - Bent. @ Product MC_0 gm = ml
( 100 ) \ r-/ —
Soil: Soil @ 0% MC am + HOP - CMC% 7-O-J - Soil @ Received MC f 5 ^ gm = ml
Soil: Soil @ 0% MC n/-7 > gm + flOO - CMC% — 1— J - i>ou kcccivcu ~
~~7 ( 100 ) .. /■ s - (-y
Total Water AdditioipBentonite Tv ml + Soil P-Y o. ml = LJll ml + 2.5% - A
. rk : h
ml
Test Membrane Specs.
Membrane Thickness: 7" - Mold Freeboard ! ^ O
Membrane Volume: Membrane Thickness
Compacive Effort: #Hammer Blows. Ar
cm =
cm
( (j/J
" x 28.274 in2 + 1728 in3/ft3 =
")
ft3 =
x 15 ft lb/blow + Memb. Vol..
Calculated % Compaction: Expected Memb. VoL ft 3 + Calculated Memb. Vol.
(TOO - Specified Compaction %) = %
ft3
_ft lb/ftJ
ft3 x
(
^ Soil Lost (Dry Wt): gm ( lare [# ] , wet grs. , u-iy —
0 Net Calculated Dry Membrane Wt: Total Memb. Dry Wt. gm - Soil Lost
. . .. . .. 1 __ - j /it \ ~
2100
_gm (Tare [# ]
)
, Wet grs..
Dry grs._
MC
_gm =
Membrane Wt/ft3: Net Calc. Dry Memb. Wt
gm + 453.6 gm/lb + Memb. Vol.
ft3 =
_%)
_ gm
lb/ft3
A
_So',/_ JLSZ'b'lOl
die
Ct-O-l i'cl% o^faJj^
SJ-'./o^Jq _5o (,^.6%i?o.s)
c Jlu_. Z j-~
'... i . ?.-0 “/ '• •£-. ~ - /, - / C. — ■ o' -
if
Zoo
t —
\
'
QJALITAXIVE SOILS ANALYSIS
DATE *7-Xb -*? Q
Wet Net: /
Dry Net: lPl,f,/
MG wt: 17, . °1
uy
SOIL SAMPLE I.D. ^*7 3- 3^
1DISIURE CONTENT (% dry weight, as received)
Tare wt: (# /?')
1 /
Wet Cross: 'Xt<r tr<~~
Dry Gross: -7.1 /,<7,5~> .
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS • •
Gravel (+10) Test
.. _ Tare wt: (# /7 ) ■ j
Wet Gross Wt. Whole Sarnie Wet Net Wt.. Whole Sample
:/• '-wet Net Wt. Whole Sample X^lOO - M -Dry KefWt. /Whqlg^Sanple XZt u±
7.
100
Tare Wt: {£ P ) V' ' '
Dry Gross Wt. +10 Sample<s~C7 Dry Net Wt. +10 Sample
Dry Net Wt. +10 Sample +- Dry Net Wt. Whole Sample = +10_
Hydrometer Test
,63
7.
p Jmm — O W
Reading (gens) Term. (°F) Corn. (0.2g/°F) Com. (Reading^)
Time off
40 sec.
120 min.
P <Y
+10 Mesh
u
// £
-10 Mesh Sand
Wt(gms)
7»( Screened sarroLe)
p(.i
2^.c/
7»(Whole Sample) , (/ . 7« .7% 7«(
Apparent Organic Material (Roots, etc . ) : t/’ - </
Mica (type, relative amount) : O
Textural Soil Description:
7.
7.
Silt
+ 7
7-
7.
1X6
U. 6
Clay
ux
7J
fnr>
'.sSS
pH
C°3: 01234
S04: (91234
7. VOIDS
Proctor Results (from
X=MDD lb. /ft3 @
7. MC.
Y=Dry wt. of test sample
gm.
Z=Volume of test sample
cc
Vs=Volume of Solids in X
V=Volume of 1 ft.3 = 28317 cc.
- Z = V ( )
V “ Vs = 7. Voids
28317-
V
23317
QJALITATIVE SOILS ANALYSIS
JOB
L cc' a/ 0'S
DATE /C> " / - 9c>
ENGINEER/CONIRACIOR :
SOIL SAMPLE I-D. cfj^r/%r/ (
roiSTURE CONTENT (% dry weight, as received)
Tare wt: (#1 ) 77- g7 /
Wet Gross: /&3~S?—
Dry Gross: /£?-,/7
Wet Net: D/
Dry Net: 7*4 3^
MG wt:
L/,o
7.
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS . .
• _ Gravel (+10) Test
, , Tare wt: (#^ ) 7 7- /
Wet Gross Wt. Whole Sample /CtTTJ— Wet Net Wt. Whole Sample *^2 z7/
'• _ ; Wet Net Wt. Whole Sample X/100 — Y£Jai/ ,Q \= .Dry Net"Wt. Whole_Sample <7V Q,
. .V> \ ' 100 *
77. Tl" ■
o
Tare Wt: (# £ }
Dry Gross Wt. +10 Sample 72/"^ Dry Net Wt. +10 Sample
Dry Net Wt. +10 Sample -f- Dry Net Wt. Whole Sample = +10
Hydrometer Test
A
7.
Reading (gms)
40 sec. Y/
. 120 min. ( 0
Wt(gms)
7o( Screened sample)
%(Whole Sample)
Temo. (°F) Corr. (0.2g/°F) Corr. (Reading (gm)
4?
+10 Mesh
\T.,0OK
-10 Mesh Sand
1,1
°I°
7.
Silt
3a A
6 U 7.
7.
'O
Clay
to
>0 7.
7.)
Time off
o:&
Apparent Organic Material (Roots, etc.): y-y
Mica (type, relative amount): X-<(
,~c
Textural Soil Description: / T~ /a)G-.^
pH
7a VOIDS
Proctor Results (from
X=MDD
CO-,: 0123&
u~
SO
4-
(P
1234
lb. /ft3
__ Y=Dry wt. of test sample
Z=Volume of test samole
1
;/» mc.
gm.
cc
V =Volume of Solids in X
V=Volume of 1 ft. = 28317 cc.
- Z = V
V - V
s = 7, Voids •
28317-
V
28317
QUALITATIVE SOILS ANALYSIS
DATE lO-l-yp
JOB • /> — f Lf / f/ £ y'
ENGINEER/CCNIRACTOR : rj
SOIL SAMPLE I.D.c?*7 %-*'cTO>
ct
cr ^
4
/+• , ? -i
l-DISTURE CONTENT (% dry weight, as received)
Tare w t: (#7' ) 7, 1 /
Wet Gross: ji<l, JS Wet Net:
Dry Gross: 79 c-, 3 7
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
• _ Gravel (+10) Test
_ Tare wt: (# 71 ) 7Z3/
.1.02
Dry Net: //9V;4 MG wt: 7. os
Z , ^
7.
Wet Gross Wt. Whole Sample J7
Wet Net Wt.. Whole Sample /
; Wet Net Wt. Whole Sample X^lOO - MC7»Z/j y= -Dry Net"Wt. Whole_ Sample iQ.^J
100
Tare Wt: (#7 ) ■
Dry Gross Wt. +10 Sample £Z. X I Dry Net Wt. +10 Sample
Dry Net Wt. +10 Sample -f- Dry Net Wt. Whole Sample = +10 4. 1_
Hydrometer Test
99
7.
Reading (gms) Temp. (°F) Corr. (0.2g/°F)
40 sec.
120 min.
Li /
IV
Wt(gms)
7«( Screened sample)
%( Whole Samole)
C ~7
b'b
+10 Mesh
4. 7- :'7.,9iZ77.(
Apparent Organic Material (Roots, etc.)
Mica (type, relative amount): V
Textural Soil Description:
-.Z
<T
-10 Mesh Sand
^ Z
!?. Z
•a ?
Corr. ( Reading (gm)
7.
7.
Silt
le-X
GC Q 7.
rV/ 7.
7
Clay
Id
ZcP 7.
•Z Z 7.)
TLne off
IV-
pH
7, VOIDS
Proctor Results (from
X=MDD
C03: 0123g)
SO, : fft-234
7 <7
1
ib ,/fcJ @ ~
Y=Dry wt. of test sample
Z=Volume of test sample
Vs=Volume of Solids in X
V= Volume of 1 ft:.3 = 28317 cc.
< ) =
7. MC.
gm.
cc
— 2 = v
V - V
s = 7o Voids
28317-
V
28317
2.3 WORK DIRECTIVE CHANGE
I
No. /V? /
PROJECT' 6 CHCjS-tS- date OF ISSUANCE: tyA- /fo
OWNER: MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANDS - AMR BUREAU
CONTRACTOR: lP'&VT.
CONTRACT FOR: Mine Reclamation
OWNER’S PROJECT NO: DSL/AMRB-90-QQ9
ENGINEER: $j
>
ENGINEER’S PROJECT NO. O 7? - OJA
You arc directed to proceed promptly with the following changc(s):
Description . &As? /-P/o^Ac— ^ ^ _
& ££&**£ r&JctL SoSa oZ)p£S jfoJ.WejM &*4-o A , Jr/ f w. ^
K' ..... . _. . „ i-T/z/t-t Qs /=v^>»7 rAfi*-*A-P 6/7/cs rt- A><
Purpose ot Work Directive Change: ^ j sfP/0/5 /57/1
pitc* I Pc c3.A'S">P-t< C7/J P /pr.t sid!iS .0 /cl yfpPtP ^’AcAP.'c<- A
Attachments: (list documents supporting change)
. AP A ccP' if Op P /LA '/I'cPf ( Pi/Ach £+l'f P/rA Pt-Art, J
y
~ /Z-P rrpjj/cO-A
■s zrf/L . ,
T<~> csipA-Ac/'zJ
vC C APAAPcO p
a Change Order based thereon will involve one
of the following methods of determining the effect of the
change(s).
Method of determining change in
Contract Price:
Method of determining change in
Contract Time:
f— 1 Time and Material
□
Contractor
® Unit prices (5$Co- -<*AV p/ir < f )
□
Contractor’s records
D Cost plus fixed fee
□
Engincers’s records
1 Other
Other
Estimated increase (decrease) in Contract Price:
S
If the change involves an increase,
the estimated amount is not to be
exceeded without further authorization.
Estimated increase (decrease) in Contract Time:
( O ’i days. If the change in-
involvcs an increase, the estimated
time is not be to exceeded without
further authorization.
RECOMMENDED;/
'By — L }.pr
/
Engineer
AUTHORIZED:
By .
Owncr^
SECTION 2.8
I - 2
Rev. 4/89
w .
A *
WORK DIRECTIVE CHANGE
No. 002
(Instructions on Reverse Side)
PROJECT: French Coulee Wetland DATE OF ISSUANCE: September 24, 1990
AMD Control
CONTRACTOR:
(Name,
Address)
Ed Boland Construction
4601 7th Ave South
Great Falls, MT 59405
OWNER: Montana Department of State Lands
AMR Bureau
MONT A/E or DSL-AMRB:
CONTRACT FOR: Mine Reclamation
ENGINEER: Schafer and Associates
You are directed to proceed promptly with the following change(s):
Description: 1) Excavate bottom of Cell #2 to 3547.5 feet; place edge of berm on E side of all cells
a minimum of 28 feet from west rail of tracks. Over excavate Cells 1 and 2 8" to allow
for bentonite liner. Excavate and build berms for all Cells at location, grades and
elevations shown on amended plans.
Purpose of Work Directive Change:
1) To fit Cells to existing topography and drainage while maintaining integrity of piping
system.
Attachments: (list documents supporting change)
See amended plans.
If a claim is made that the above change(s) have affected Contract Price or Contract Time, any claim for a
Change Order based thereon will involve one of the following methods of determining the effect of the
change(s).
Method of determining change in Contract Price:
[ ] Time and Materials
[ ] Unit Prices
[ ] Cost Plus Fixed Fee
[ ] Other N/A
Estimated increase (decrease) in Contract Price:
S N/A . If the change involves an increase, the
estimated amount is not to be exceeded without further
authorization.
Method of determining change in Contract Time:
[ ] Contractor’s Records
[ ] Engineer’s Records
[ ] Other N/A
Estimated increase (decrease) in Contract Time: 0 days.
If the change involves an increase, the estimated time is not to
be exceeded without further authorization.
UOC - 1
Rev. 7/90
I
•Jf-it fc. . ? : ji
«
<■ i
WORK DIRECTIVE CHANGE
(Instructions on Reverse Side)
PROJECT:
/
French Coulee Wetland
DATE OF ISSUANCE: September 24, 1990
AMD Control
CONTRACTOR:
Ed Boland Construction
OWNER:
Montana Department of State Lands
(Name,
4601 7th Ave South
AMR Bureau
Address)
Great Falls, MT 59405
MONT A/E or
DSL-AMRB:
CONTRACT FOR:
Mine Reclamation
ENGINEER:
Schafer and Associates
You are directed to proceed promptly with the following change(s):
Description: 1) Change location of 8" PVC main line as shown on Supplemental Drawing 2.
2) Change 4” main cleanout design and location as shown on Supplemental Drawing 4.
3) change from use of butterfly valves (2) to ten (10), 4” acid resistant ball valves as
shown on Supplemental Drawing Nos. 2, 3, and 4.
Purpose of Work Directive Change:
1) To maintain designed head in main line, provide for easier access and cleanout of main
line and reduce overall depth of main burial.
Attachments: (list documents supporting change)
See Supplemental Drawing Nos. 2, 3, and 4.
If a claim is made that the above change(s) have affected Contract Price or Contract Time, any claim for a
Change Order based thereon will involve one of the following methods of determining the effect of the
change(s).
Method of determining change in Contract Price:
[ ] Time and Materials
[X] Unit Prices
[ ] Cost Plus Fixed Fee
[ ] Other
Estimated increase (decrease) in Contract Price:
$ . If the change involves an increase, the
estimated amount is not to be exceeded without further
authorization.
Method of determining change in Contract Time:
[ ] Contractor's Records
Engineer’s Records
[ ] Other
Estimated increase (decrease) in Contract Time: 1 days.
If the change involves an increase, the estimated lime is not to
be exceeded without further authorization.
AUTHORIZED:
By
Owner
By
Contractor
woe - 1
Rev. 7/90
• - .
< >
1
*-
r
'! . ..
*1
ir..i .
.
« l v .
WORK DIRECTIVE CHANGE
No. 004
(Instructions on Reverse Side)
PROJECT:
French Coulee Wetland DATE OF ISSUANCE: September 24, 1990
AMD Control
CONTRACTOR:
(Name,
Address)
Ed Boland Construction
4601 7th Ave South
Great Falls, MT 59405
OWNER: Montana Department of State Lairds
AMR Bureau
MONT A/E or DSL-AMRB:
CONTRACT FOR: Mine Reclamation
ENGINEER: Schafer and Associates
You are directed to proceed promptly with the following change(s):
Description: 1) Connect and tie into 8" main, a 4" PVC pipe discharging AMD located on west side
project area between Cells 1 and 2.
Purpose of Work Directive Change:
1) To treat this source of AMD in wetland.
Attachments: (list documents supporting change)
See Supplemental Drawing 2.
If a claim is made that the above change(s) have affected Contract Price or Contract Time, any claim for a
Change Order based thereon will involve one of the following methods of determining the effect of the
change(s).
Method of determining change in Contract Price:
[ ] Time and Materials
[X] Unit Prices
[ ] Cost Plus Fixed Fee
[ ] Other N/A
Estimated increase (decrease) in Contract Price:
S N/A • If the change involves an increase, the
estimated amount is not to be exceeded without further
authorization.
Method of determining change in Contract Time:
[ ] Contractor’s Records
[X] Engineer’s Records
[ ] Other
Estimated increase (decrease) in Contract Time: 1 days.
If the change involves an increase, the estimated time is not to
be exceeded without further authorization.
RECOMMENDED:
Z
By_
ACCEPTED:
By
Engineer
Contractor
AUTHORIZED:
By
Owner
WDC - 1
Rev. 7/90
. • -
> jj " j!.1
G > \
£?■ j
-f- ,V
1 > ", . ^
■ • — * •
M
r> i r
'u
tr
•’ » . JL ' T * '?•*
*»'<• u; i.
•WVr-.
(/r
WORK DIRECTIVE CHANGE
(Instructions on Reverse Side)
PROJECT: French Coulee Wetland
AMD Control
CONTRACTOR:
Lands
(Name,
Address)
Ed Boland Construction
4601 7th Ave South
Great Falls, MT 59405
CONTRACT FOR: Mine Reclamation
No. _005
DATE OF ISSUANCE: September 24, 1990
OWNER: Montana Department of State
AMR Bureau
MONT A/E or DSL-AMRB:
ENGINEER: Schafer and Associates
You are directed to proceed promptly with the following change(s):
Description: 1)
Build flumes and associated piping (manifolds, bypass, etc.) as shown on
Supplemental Drawing la, 1b, 1c, and Id. Change number of stopplates and
other material quantities as per drawings.
Purpose of Work Directive Change: . .
1) To make individual flume design consistent with As-Built main and piping/plumbing.
Attachments: (list documents supporting change)
See Supplemental Drawing Nos. la, 1b, 1c and Id.
If a claim is made that the above change(s) have affected Contract Price or Contract Time, any claim for
a Change Order based thereon will involve one of the following methods of determining the effect of the
change(s).
Method of determining change in Contract Price:
[ ] Time and Materials
[ ] Unit Prices
[ ] Cost Plus Fixed Fee
[ ] Other N/A
Estimated increase (decrease) in Contract Price:
$ N/A . If the change involves an increase, the
estimated amount is not to be exceeded without further
authorization.
Method of determining change in Contract Time:
[ ] Contractor’s Records
[ ] Engineer’s Records
[ ] Other N/A
Estimated increase (decrease) in Contract Time: — 0 — days.
If the change involves an increase, the estimated time is not
to be exceeded without further authorization.
AUTHORIZED:
By
Owner
By
Contractor
WDC - 1
Rev. 7/90
WORK DIRECTIVE CHANGE
INSTRUCTIONS
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
This document was developed for use in situations involving changes in the Work which, if not processed
expeditiously, might delay the Project. These changes are often initiated in the field and may affect the
Contract Price or the Contract Time. This is not a Change Order, but only a directive to proceed with
Work that may be included in a subsequent Change Order.
For supplemental instructions and minor changes not involving a change in the Contract Price or the
Contract Time, a Field Order may be issued.
B. COMPLETING THE WORK DIRECTIVE CHANGE
Engineer initiates the form, including a description of the items involved and attachments.
Based on conversations between Engineer and Contractor, Engineer completes the following:
METHOD OF DETERMINING CHANGE, IF ANY, IN CONTRACT PRICE: Mark the method to be used
in determining the final cost of Work involved and the net effect on the Contract Price. If the change
involves an increase in the Contract Price and the estimated amount is approached before the
additional or changed work is completed, another Work Directive Change must be issued to change
the amount of Contractor may stop the changed Work when the estimated time is reached. If the
Work Directive Change is not likely to change the Contract Price, the space for estimated increase
(decreased) should be marked “Not Applicable".
METHOD OF DETERMINING CHANGE, IF ANY, IN CONTRACT TIME: Mark the method to be used
in determining the change in Contract Time and the estimated increase or decrease in Contract Time.
If the change involves and increase in the Contract Time and the estimated time is approached before
additional or changed Work is completed, another Work Directive Change must be issued to change
the time or Contractor may stop the changed Work when the estimated time is reached. If the Work
Directive Change is not likely to change the Contract Time, the space for estimated increase
(decrease) should be marked “Not Applicable”.
Once Engineer has completed and signed the form, all copies should be sent to Owner for authorization
because Engineer alone does not have authority to authorize changes in price or time. Once authorized
by Owner, a copy should be sent by Engineer to Contractor.
Once the Work covered by this directive is completed for final cost and time determined, Contractor
should submit documentation for inclusion in a Change Order.
THIS IS A DIRECTIVE TO PROCEED WITH A CHANGE THAT MAY AFFECT THE CONTRACT PRICE OR
THE CONTRACT TIME. A CHANGE ORDER, IF ANY, SHOULD BE CONSIDERED PROMPTLY.
WDC - 1
Rev. 7/90
■■ <v •- -
. I. -'. I
r.
..v_ .0:4
~ 7s757.7
. . »r^ #i
> Zi -
vV jr
- 'i
aLri .! e.rsio !o 4:^ g.i.'moM
jS5*-jc R.7.A
:R. it '.W '.
o rc -ce • r -.ma • jsc =,\A sot s
IN
d£X ■■ ,z. Lrt£ ••'..vn- S :'"rr .ic » i“
"j: »;r
(2 ri
*? ri- e .75: *. • rtirr* , o:
A' . u9 :.o . .•:!
■> ;:q ~’\
ri . ’ . ?9h. •
3
- 1
' a .’clc'-L . -,v>
“c;'*..- t ^ g* t. Jirm nc!"- :o; p-s.rub* P;\i tr
v * £ .1 . .• . Sl \ *_■>£. dcu t . 7 1 1 . 7 . : -J.'i.lf
t-c • ost;u y;:: . hl*ds*’, :cf. 'M\; ?r • h .V;cJ
.£9* s;'’: :c:5Ai' ccaops "9 o
l iC ..r-V
: :> •!
r.jjic J! At
it> :’c.-c f>
e ::'c c . .<
•Ci 'G y.
9i‘ j: -?.%■
■rr T .C- if.~0 ':■
■r ~r,nt. r
v tgf nv.ot.
•Of i*x
•ic t: !";
- T • C 05 r.. i- r..,m.
» ». »
*: n
J3
*r:. c--
i»®- *. c
f. T •- *■'1 ,m • :
• * • if * . . ; .?• * • /..‘•/nr t
:i tf. • . jc*t • d *
• ?i v •;
-1 , . ...
.23: sri.i
WORK DIRECTIVE CHANGE
(Instructions on Reverse Side)
PROJECT:
No. WP-07
CONTRACTOR:
(Name,
Address)
CONTRACT FOR:
French Coulee Wetland
AMD Control
Ed Boland Construction
4601 7th Ave South
Great Falls, MT 59401
Mine Reclamation
OWNER: Montana Dept of State Lands
AMR Bureau
MONT A/E or DSL-AMRB: 90-010
ENGINEER: Schafer and Associates
You are directed to proceed promptly with the following change(s):
Description- Install approximately 350 feet of 8 inch PVC pipeline buried to a minimum depth of 4
Description. ^ ff0 PPCe|| 2 d|Scharge flume to Cell 3 inlet flume in lieu of lined ditch.
Purpose of Work Directive Change.
The lined ditch will tend to collect wind-blown debris which may require frequent
cleanout and increases the possibility for introducing foreign matter to the wetland
buried distribution piping, in addition school children use this area when going to
an^ffo^the bus stop on Anaconda Road. A pipe will not require the development
of a footbridqe or culvert to maintain easy access across this area.
Method of determining change in Contract Price:
Method of determining change in Contract Time:
[ ] Time and Materials
[X] Unit Prices
[ ] Cost Pius Fixed Fee
[ ] Other .
Estimated increase (decrease) in Contract Price:
$ 900.00 If the change involves an increase,
the estimated amount is not be exceeded without further
authorization.
[ ] Contractor’s Records
[X] Engineer's Records
[ ] Other
Estimated increase (decrease) in Contract Time: _0_ days
tf the change involves an increase, the estimated time is not
to be exceeded without further authorization.
RECOMMENDED:
Ru
Engineer
ACCEPTED:
By
Contractor
AUTHORIZED:
By
Owner
WDC - 1
i
I
•*
(
l
n
I :
li
. i
inf.
.-./vfK i y
. ftg f ■
i vs.
. . . ii^n* .At
/q:~
r * : , .
WK /
i » ; / a r
• * *i . r : 1 ' : >
<•&
. , 1»> I JO?."
■ i
i;
1 .*
^ * - 1 • *• i 2 < * .
• * . 3^*> n * * a* * i ‘ . *• j . r j { v "• >
. - . ' ' a . - r f
• -"*• 4 ' .‘w'l * 1 /. •
! ' ;c < r /*- ; • s • * • * • i
* I «» !/>•. :A«iw. , *,,../ 2 ■ -
, ; ‘ • •' ^ v - •** * s4 3ft? : «i
v-l jaw j • . * *
*•**9
t
V •• * ■;*
i. % .*
•V
< -v
■ i/i
«- 4. i.* j.«r; -
’ : T •:* . r \ »' s :i- -
\rt» -h ■* . • ■ ’ ; * *-
. *1 < . v? *
« i
t „ . / 1
i!
■- ~.j ' $9 "
* I
i -J~
» ■ * - 3 ■
- = -w
/ 1 . i
- *+m ' • •*
• • ,*• > •
K
l
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11