Laserfiche WebLink
Interoffice Memo: <br />To: Tom Kal90P <br />From: Janet BinR E: Peabody clamation Cost Estimate <br />Date: May 7, 2 I have re-evaluated t <br />he Reclamation Cost Estimate (RC E) for the proposed Peabody Sage Creek Mine application, <br />with consideration of PSCM's comments on the April 29, 2010 estimate forwarded to the operator . <br />PSCM had questions regarding the Division's tasks: 75, 51, 55, 63, 46, 50, 81, 86, and 88, as well as the Reclamation <br />Management percentage. After review of these tasks the Division has revised our initial estimate as follows: <br />Task 51: The Division used the haul distance from the center of the coal storage pile to the centroid of the portal face- <br />up, Map 2.05.3 M12.05.3 MIA, 900 ft., to calculate disposal of coal stockpile footprint. The Division assumed <br />the footprint is 3 ft. thick of coal material. (Division policy) This task has been recalculated for a total of <br />$17,605.00. This revised task 51 will result in recalculating the mob/demob costs as well. <br />Tasks 52 through 56: PAP page 2.05-36 (12/17/09) states that "a portion" of the fill used to construct the facilities <br />area will be used to backfill the portal area. The Division contends that all of the excavated spoil material used to <br />construct the facilities pad needs to be returned to the excavated portal pit. The proposed post-mining topography <br />reflects return of all the excavated material to the portal face-up area. <br />Initially I had distributed the excavated material from the face up proportionally between all of the south facility <br />areas. PSCM's comment that the explosives area will not be constructed from the excavated face up material but only <br />cut and fill at that location, makes it necessary to recalculate costs associated with return of the excavated material <br />from the remaining facility areas. Therefore, tasks 052, 053, 054, 055, and 056 have all been recalculated in order to <br />reassign the material volume. <br />Task 55 will be revised to a regrading task. Assume 1.5' material over the 1.5 acre pad = 3630 cy. <br />Task 75 was recalculated removing costs associated with manure application. The north facilities do not have topsoil <br />to replace due disturbance of this area prior to the permanent program requirements to salvage topsoil. When I <br />initially estimated the task for reseeding of the North Facilities area, I thought I had seen a commitment in the PAP to <br />conduct testing for soil fertility. Going back through the PAP, I am unable to locate where I thought I had seen this <br />reference. Therefore, application of soil amendments has been removed from task 75. Additionally, I had included a <br />cost for weed control in Task 75. At PSCM observation, the Division concurs thatthis task is better pulled out of the <br />revegetation task, and estimated separately over the liability time period. Weed control over the 10 year liability is <br />included in task 94. <br />Task 63 was recalculated to remove the weed control costs, and although no fertilizer was included in the task, the <br />form had erroneously retained costs associated with fertilizer application. The fertilizer spreader costs were removed <br />in the revised task 63.