GENERAL40535 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII DATE: January 29, 2001 TO: ]im Stark FROM: Dan Mathews I~~ ~ RE: Memo From David Berty regarding Roadside Cost Estimate request Item 1) Existing Approved Bond Estimate For the "existing approved bond estimate'", I am asswning the starting point is the mid-term estimate, which we will update to incorporate recent cost changes, and other appropriate adjustments based on Ure currently approved reclamation plan. [n going back over the nrid-term estimate, and comparing it to the 1998 RN-03 estimate and requirements of the approved reclamation plan, 1 noticed a few items that may need to be incorporated. a) The January 1998 cost estimate prepared for RN-03 included a task item for backfilling Ute North Decline Area. Direct cost was $35,749.00. The mid-term estimate apparently did not include this item. Although the area ltas been backfilled and graded, Utere lras been no bond release, and so Ute cos[ should be retained in the existing approved estimate. ~ r b) Unless it was included as a componeN of NoNt Portal Facilities item, backt"illing of Pond 12 ~1 ~Qy,~ (minewater pond) was not included, and should be included in the estimate. P1=o(t2-31 ~, f~ .~~j c) The RN-03 estimate included an Item 51, 2 West Portals & Roads, direct cost of $23,978.00, which was apparently not included in the mid-term estimate. The reclamation of this area was recently completed, but like the North Decline Area, there Itas been no bond release approval, and the item should be included in the existing approved bond estimate. d) The RN-03 estimate includes 4 separate rip-rap installation items (110 through 114) totalling $68, 808.00 which were apparently not incorporated in Ute nud-term estimate. Items 112 and 113 address CRDA-1 and CRDA-2 perimeter ditches, and should still be valid. Item 110 addresses Coal Creek channel rip-rap, which would have been amended by TR-32 (but Utere should still be a cost item for Coal Creek Channel rip-rap). Item 11 I is rip-rap for Ute Roadside RSRDA south side reclaimed drainage. This item should be included in Ute existing approved estimate, but will be amended by revised riprap channel designs for the various South Portal and RSRDA drainages in TR-35. e) Item 052 backfilling costs for [he Roadside Portal and Conveyor entry are based on backfill volume of 175 ry and 60 cy, respectively. In actuality, these portals have been sealed approximately 100' inby , portal. As such, required backfill volumes would be 889 c}~ and 296 cy, respectively. f) The RN-03 estimate included a cost For site maintenance over a l0 year period (P.69). Apparently, no such cost was included in the mid-term estimate, but probably should be. g) In the mid-tens estimate, you included costs associated with Refuse Area CRDA-3, Uten itemized those costs so they could be subtracted from Ute over-all total. Since CRDA-3 is no longer approved and has been withdrawn from Ure permit, it would be appropriate and more straightforward to simply delete the CRDA-3 costs from the estimate altogether.