Laserfiche WebLink
y <br />III IIIIIIIIIIIII III <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Dapadmcnl of Nalu~al Kc~ourc c~ <br />111 4 tihcrman $I , Konm ! I S <br />Drnvcr, Colorado HU?(I i <br />Phone (Nlll Hlrb- {56.' <br />FA%~ I fllA H SL-7fII)D <br />DATE: January 10, 1996 <br />TO: Dan Mathews <br />FROM: Susan Burgmaier <br /> <br />RE: Red Canyon Mine (C-81-034) <br />Midterm Review <br />Reclamation Cost Estimate <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />I~~~ <br />DEPARTMENT OF <br />NATURAL <br />RESOURCES <br />Koy Knmrr <br />G...arnor <br />lamr. S Lnchhcad <br />C.r~ ul Ise Durnro <br />mu harlB long <br />rn.~~.~nn Durru„ <br />Per your request, 1 have completed an update of the Red Canyon Mine reclamation cost <br />estimate. Your memo to Larry Routten, requesting this update, noted that the reclamation <br />liability had not changed since the last update. Therefore, you assumed the update would <br />consist primarily of equipment and labor cost updates. There was, however, one exception which <br />you noted in your memo. The previous estimate included only seed and reseeding costs for <br />disturbed areas which have been revegetated. You questioned the omission of seedbed <br />preparation, fertilization, and mulch. I believe those costs should have been included in the <br />1993 estimate, and as such have included them in this update. i also applied those costs to the <br />areas which have yet to be seeded. <br />I also noted a few minor items which should not have been updated solely for equipment and <br />labor costs. Those are as follows: <br />1. The previous estimate included several tasks for which costs were estimated based on the <br />use of a Caterpillar 225B hydraulic excavator. Hourly costs for that excavator have been <br />dropped from our cost estimating references. A Caterpillar 325 excavator was used for <br />this estimate. The change in cost was minor, and was favorable to the operator. <br />2. The previous estimate based the costs for reclamation of the sediment pond on the use <br />of a Caterpillar D8N with a universal blade. I previously researched the applicability of <br />this blade type for grading sediment ponds and other similar disturbances. [found that <br />it is more common to use asemi-universal blade in those applications. I adjusted this <br />estimate accordingly, resulting in an increase of the total removal cost. <br />3. The cost for removal of culverts is lower in this estimate. The Division recently compiled <br />cost data for culvert removal, and those costs were considerably lower than estimated in <br />1993. <br />4. There were no calculations for the estimated cost to install riprap in the reconstructed <br />diversion (Task 3a in the 1993 estimate). My calculations, based on your estimate of the <br />dimensions and current materials cost, were considerably lower than in 1993. Since there <br />