APPCOR12152 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BONDING The applicant has proposed a reclamation bond of X572,000, based on overburden movement, topsoil replacement, and revegeta- tion. The year 1981 is correctly identified as the worst case year for purposes of setting a bond because of the volume of overburden stockpiled. Revegetation costs are essentially con- stant until 1985 when they are reduced by half. The applicant's cost estimate can not be verified for sever- al reasons. The estimate is based on Tables 1 and 2, which are internally inconsistant (see Backfilling and Grading discussion in Chapter III of this TEA. There is no topsoil stripping/re- placement schedule, nor maps showing topsoil movement (see Top- soil discussion in Chapter III of this TEA). Consequently, haul distances for overburden and topsoil movement cannot be checked, but certainly are more than the 1000 feet used in the appli- cant's proposal. Additionally, it is not possible to verify that topsoil will be available in sufficient quantities during each year of the permit term although sufficient topsoil is apparently available. Therefore, the stipulation concerning a topsoil stripping schedule proposed in the Topsoil discussion in Chapter III is also necessary for the bonding analysis. Other problems with the applicant's cost estimate include the apparently low (40~/cy) unit cost for overburden and topsoil movement using scrapers. This is evidently due to the production assumptions chosen (1,000 foot haul distance, O% grade and 6% rolling resistance). Rather than assume one haul condition for the entire reclamation operation, the applicant, using accepted engineering practice, should estimate reclamation costs based on real haul distances over existing or proposed ponds and real grades. It is expected that the unit costs derived thereby could increase by as much as 20 percent. -101-