Laserfiche WebLink
Treatment of edits is divided into two phases. The first phase treatments are <br />generally simpler and lower cost. They would be applied initially and evaluated for <br />effectiveness_ The first phase also includes more detailed investigations of complex <br />edits, such as the Paradise portal on the 1Vliddle Fork of Mineral Creek Although costs <br />would be incurred, no improvements would be anticipated for these few specific sites_ <br />Phase 2 treatments would be implemened if phase 1 treatme~s proved partially or <br />completely unsuccessful. These additional treatments are generally more costly but <br />should be more effective in reducing metals. <br />The estimated cost of remediation of each site is listed as a range in Appendix 1 i <br />of the UAA (and Appendices l0E and lOF ). For average costs see Table 11.1 and 11.2 <br />of this Plan_ Estimates are based on professional judgment given the technology that <br />could be used and the size and complexity of the site. Accessibility affects both cost and <br />the remediation technique selected. <br />As discussed in Section II of this plan, the cost analysis is a first approximation <br />and uses four cost categories, each with a broad numerical range. The costs for <br />remediation for each site listed in Table 11.1 below is the mid-point of the range for each <br />cost category. One million dollars was used as an estimate for sites whose costs are <br />greater than 5500,000_ These cost estimates do not include engineering desigq <br />operatioq or maintenance costs that may be needed. <br />~~ <br />Metal Reduction Scenarios <br />Using the information from Tables 11.1 and 11.2 and Appendix 11A of the UAA, <br />the results of several different remediation scenarios can be estimated. The scenarios <br />shown on Table 11.3 include phase 1 treatment of the top 33 edits and of the top 78 edits, <br />phase 2 treatment of the top 33 edits and of the top 78 edits, phase 1 treatment of the top <br />32 mine waste piles and of the top 127 mine waste piles. Costs listed under phase 2 <br />include the costs of both phase 1 and phase 2 treatments since phase 2 would not be <br />implemented until after phase 1 had been tried. <br />For the edit scenarios, loading figures are derived from low-flow samples because <br />that time period is of most concern. Out of 174 edits sampled, only 133 had meastuable <br />drainage during low flow samplings. <br />The cost estimates listed on the tables above and in Appendix 11A of the UAA do <br />not include engineering desigq operatioq or maintenance costs. Remediation experience <br />in the Basin has shown that administration costs are substantial and cost overruns have <br />been encountered owing to larger than expected vohunes of material or other <br />una~icipated problems_ The scenarios listed below include a 30'/o administration cost <br />and a 20% contingency cost added to the sum of the individual site costs. <br />Table 11.3 Summary of metal loads from edits and combined mine waste for the <br />Animas Basin above A72. <br />Adits 1Vrume waste <br />Low flow loans <br />Total load of Al, Cd, Cb„ Fe, Mn and Zn in po~unds/year <br />21 <br />