APPCOR10471

• Permit No: C1981039
• IBM Index Class Name: Application Correspondence
• Doc Date: 9/21/1984
• From: RYAN INC
• To: MLRD
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

~ iii riruiriiirrr r» ;
~Y~G~I Ccl>°I'
September 21, 1984
Mr. Dan P]athews
Mined Land Reclamation Division
Department of Matural Resources
State of Colorado
423 Centennial Building, 1313 Sherman St.
Denver, Colorado 80203
Dear Pfr. Mathews:
In response to your analysis file copy of May 8, 1984, regarding backfilling,
grading, topsoiling, and revegetation costs, we would point out the following
regarding the various items set forth in that report:
1. Our overburden quantity based upon load count and field measurements
would still show 291,000 cubic yards, however, the 300,000 cubic yards
you assumed would certainly appear to be reasonable.
2. Sde believe the hourly cost estimates determined by the Caterpillar
Performance Handbook, Edition 12 are more accurate than the 1984
Rental Rate Bluebook for the following reasons:
a. The equipment you show is much newer and larger than that in
our anticipated spread, or likely that of any contractor who
/ff(1 would be interested in performing the earthwork reclamation.
(She newer, larger equipment would be more productive than
our cost estimate would assume and, therefore, the unit cost
would be reduced.)
b. The prices bid on two recent projects in Steamboat have been
~,~LI(I,~ in the $.70 per cubic yard range rather than the $.91 per
~~~~ cubic yard range your revised costs would show.
c. Competitors' rental schedules for outside rent are closer to
the Caterpillar rates.
d. Most users of the Blue Book use a factor around 70% of the
rate as being realistic
e. The Blue Book is based on very short term usage and not
realistic for the longer duration of this project.
3. In conclusion, we think the $162,470.00 is more realistic than the
$273,000.00, particularly if you are going to add a 10% administra-
tion factor.
4. We would agree that 35 acres probably accurately represents the
potential disturbance at Pit 4. Our revegetation costs have been
$267.00, or a total of $9,345.00. '
5. Pit 6 has been reclaimed, so no additional costs need be anticipated.
~, 6. We think it is improper to apply the total $618.00(acre revegetat-
ion cost. l,'e feel a more realistic cost of maintaining the revege-
tation of the 94.3 acres is $9,430.00.
RYAN INCORPORATED OF WISCONSIN 3100 E. 56TH STREET, INDIAN'.SPOLIS, IN 46220 [phone]
;.-~ ~^: