My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR12875
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
2000
>
APPCOR12875
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:33:14 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:35:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1992081
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Name
RESPONSE TO PAR HAYDEN GULCH LOADOUT C-92-081
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
~~/ 5. The costs have been revised to reflect single shifts. <br />V 6. Peabody will use the Division's water truck cost and therefore the same size truck. <br />REVEGETATION <br />V 1. Harrowing should not be included in preparation of seedbeds. The seedbed should be <br />left as rough as possible and still be able to drill seed or hydroseed. Harrowing <br />further reduces the soil structure end increases the chances for wind and water <br />erosion. <br />2. A SOX failure rate ~in Routt County is extreme, and would indicate more problems than <br />mother nature. A new rate of~was agreed to during a telephone conversation on <br />3-03-93 between the Division and Peabody. <br />FACILITIES <br />1. Culvert removal costs were provided on page 23-3-9 of the application. Since that <br />information was submitted to DMBG additional culvert information has become <br />available. Maps of the rail spur indicate that several culverts are located near the <br />junction of the spur and the main line. Yeather prohibits verification of this data <br />but it appears that these maps may be valid. Based on this information Peabody has <br />included these for demolition. Peabody is also in receipt of the Division's culvert <br />demolition costs. These costs are ver conservative. The assumption is made that the <br />removal costs ere similar to instellet ion costs. This is not the case. Precautions <br />ere not taken when removing culverts, especially Yhen no salvage is anticipated, to <br />remove the culvert undamaged. This greatly increases the speed of removal. The other <br />assumption that the Division made was that the trench would have to be backfilled. <br />Normally when a culvert is removed, the drainage way is restablished and therefore <br />eliminating any backfill costs. Peabody tried to duplicate the costs given for <br />removal of a 60" die. culvert (see attached) but couldn't arrive at the same costs <br />as the Division. The Divisions costs were f 34.24 while Peabody's were f 25 using <br />the same cost reference (1992 Site York computer program from NEANS). In the <br />interest of resolving [he bond issues, Peabody will use the Divisions' costs for <br />this exercise- <br />13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.