2009-02-25_PERMIT FILE - M2008010

• Permit No: M2008010
• IBM Index Class Name: PERMIT FILE
• Doc Date: 2/25/2009
• Doc Name: Request for review of reclamation cost estimation
• From: Wasteline Inc.
• To: DRMS
• Email Name: WHE
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Feb 25 09 09:06a KATHY
Memorandum for Kathy Stone, McStone Aggregates 23 February 2009
Copy to: Project File
Re oeS t
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATIONf? o c?s? e st""1O'
Subject: Reclamation Estimate for Mud Creek Pit,'M-2008-010
Reference: Estimate prepared by DRMS
970-565-0276
'WASTE, IN] C.
P.O. Box 3471 Rapid City, SO 57709-3471 [phone]
PO Box 88 Cortez, CO 81321-0088 [phone] CELL [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail] or [e-mail]
P.1
REGE
APR 2 7 2009
Divisioa of Reci;;mation,
Mang and Safety
1. As requested. I had originally done a review and comparison in early 2008, but it
was apparently one of the items lost in a computer crash in August 2008, and I had to
recreate parts of it.
2. The original estimate at Exhibit L was a direct cost of $34,161, based on the
maximum area to be reclaimed during the life of the pit, as planned; and based on 2007
costs. This estimate did not include the additional overhead costs added by the State.
3. The state estimate was a direct cost of $84,470. Additional overhead costs
added were $30,394, for a grand total of $114,864.00.
4. Using a similar overhead and adding it to the original direct cost estimated, the
grand total would be approximately $48;106. (This is assuming only 120 supervisor
hours, down from the 222 in the state estimate.)
5. The major problem with the state reclamation estimate seems to be on page 2,
where an estimate of 55,733 BOY is used as the estimate for bulldozer work to reduce
the highwalls. Although it is stated that the information came from the reclamation plan,
I did not have that number, and was not able to see what assumptions or data were
used to come up with this number. Therefore, I attempted to determine the actual
highwall reduction needed during each year, for the first 10 years (after that, the amount
of headwall and total unreclaimed affected area will drop steadily). The amount of
highwall varies each year based on previous years work and is assumed to be
necessary if all mining stops and the operator walks away.
6. In order to gain a more precise estimate of the amount of highwalls to be
reduced, I did an analysis of the first ten years of reclamation, in which I calculated the .
actual highwall to be reduced during each year. I did this by measuring the perimeter of
each area to be reclaimed. On the "trailing edge" of each area, there is no highwall to
be reduced, since the pit extends on the final floor. On the outside edge" of each area,
the highwall is reduced by the end of each year of mining and reclamation, but for a
given year, the entire length on the outside edge is considered highwall to be reduced.
On the "leading edge," the entire highwall must be reduced if mining is not done the
next year. On the "inside edge," the entire highwall must be reduced if mining is not
done at some time in the future. (For example, the "inside edge" of the area to be
reclaimed in year 2 is not to be mined until year 11.) So the "inside edge" highwalls
continue to accumulate and add to the total of highwalls to be reduced until year 8.
7. 1 also assumed a "worst-case" that the highwalls (inside, outside, and leading
edge) will be 22 feet tall except for the area to be reclaimed in years 9 and 10, (the far
northeast corner) where the terrain means that the highwall height will average 11 feet
(or less).
5006.1-4
23 FEB 09, Page 3