Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~~t~-. O,.~h <br />v,,~,G~.vt,~ <br />DATE: February 1, 2001 <br />TO: ]im Stark <br />FROM: Dan Mathews <br />RE: Roadside Cost Estimate <br />~ 7? ~~J <br />iii iiiiiiiiiiiii iii <br />999 <br />in my memo of January 29, I had listed 9 reclamation tasks (a Utrough i) that Itad been included in Ute <br />current approved estimate, but "were no longer needed" because Ure specified reclamation work has been <br />performed. I have subsequently evaluated two additional questions I had regarding Irovv accurately the RN- <br />03 estimate assumptions reflected current conditions. <br />First, I wanted to verify that the reclamation acreage assumed in Ute RN-03 cost estimate for revegetation <br />purposes was accurate. The cost estimate assumed a total area of 236 acres to be revegetated. This figtrre <br />matches up very closely with the actual disturbed area acreage of 242.6 acres from Permit Table l2-I. <br />which was updated in March 2000 by TR-31. The small apparent discrepancy would be accounted for by <br />road disturbances approved for permanent retention. The revegetation cost assumptions could be <br />considered somewhat conservative, because approximately 46 acres of Ute total have previously been <br />permanently revegetated. However, Utis acreage Itas not been released from bond, and inmost cases Ure 10 <br />year liability period since initial seeding Iras not passed. Recent monitoring and observations indicate Ural a <br />number of the reclaimed areas would likely not meet all of Ute revegetation success standards, at Utis time. <br />For these reasons, I believe Ute acreage figures used in Ure RN-03 revegetation cost tasks are appropriate. <br />Second, I wanted to take a closer look at the non-toxic refuse cover and topsoil calculations for the CRDA- <br />1 and CRDA-2 refuse areas. I felt the RN-03 cost figures might be overly conservative, for two reasons. <br />First, it appeared that the cost asswnptions were based on outdated requirements (3 feet of cover and 1 foot <br />of topsoil). Ctrtrent requirements are 1 foot of cover and 6 inches of topsoil on CRDA-I; with 18" of cover <br />and 6" of topsoil on CRDA-2. Second, it appeared that Ute estimate did not reflect Ute fact that I 1 acres of <br />CRDA-1 and 7.6 acres of CRDA-2 had been covered, topsoiled, and stabilized in 1994. Compliance with <br />cover/topsoil replacement thickness has previously been verified by DMG. <br />Information regarding material volumes, and disturbed and reclvtned acreages for the CRDA refuse areas, <br />CBA-2 borrow area, and the NorUt Portal Facility Area is presented in Table l4-lof Ute PAP. Relevant <br />acreages correspond closely to acreages specified in Table 12-1. Topsoil Stockpile volume information is <br />presented in Table 14-2 of Ure PAP. Based on consideration of the information presented in these tables <br />along with current permit requirements, the Collovving projections can be made: <br />For CRDA-1, the actual topsoil volume required for Ute area not currently reclaimed is 13,500 cubic yards. <br />This could be obtained from Stockpile 2, leaving a balance of 14,300 cubic yards still in the stockpile. For <br />CRDA-2, the actual topsoil volume required is 14,900 cubic yards. This quantity could be obtained by <br />using the remainder of the soil in Stockpile 2, along wiUt Ute remaining soil in Stockpile 7 and Stockpile 9. <br />Reclamation of the Roadside NortJr Facilities Area will require 22,829 cubic yards, which can be obtained <br />by using the remainder of the soil in Stockpile I, and 6529 yards of soil from Stockpile 3, leaving 8571 <br />yards of soil in Pile 3. <br />Refuse cover soil (subsoil) volume required for Ute currently unreclaimed portion of CRDA-I is 24,700 <br />cubic yards, all of wlticlt could be obtained from CBA-2 Borrow Area, leaving approximately 25,300 yards <br />of material in Ute borrow area. 42,100 cubic yards of subsoil is required for the currently unreclaimed <br />