Laserfiche WebLink
Candace Thompson <br /> August 4, 1986 <br /> Page three <br /> If $1000 per portal sealing is added for the cinderblock <br /> walls as Jeff Deckler suggests, the portals need not be filled <br /> with 25 feet of materials. A wall and 15 feet of materials <br /> should be sufficient. If $1000 per portal is added for the wall <br /> construction some reduction in the cost of filling the portals <br /> should be realized. <br /> Post Mining Land Use of the Loadout Area <br /> With respect to the post-mining land use of the coal rail <br /> loadout area near Carbondale, Mid-Continent believes that the <br /> reclamation costs should be based upon the primary post-mining <br /> land use rather than on the alternate use. See page 61 of the <br /> MLRD August 1984 Findings Document where the Division approves <br /> the industrial post-mining land use. Also, see explanation of <br /> the approved reclamation plan in Volume 7, Chapter V, page 16. <br /> If mining should cease within the next several years, the highest <br /> and best use of the loadout property, less the actual coal <br /> handling facilities, would be to retain the buildings and utilize <br /> them for other industrial purposes. A letter has been requested <br /> from the Garfield County Commissioners attesting to their intent <br /> that the area remain as an industrial park. A copy will be <br /> forwarded to MLRD when it is received. <br /> Indirect Costs <br /> Indirect costs of reclamation should include only those <br /> overhead costs that can be fully justified by MLRD. For instance, <br /> if the cost data taken from such data books as Means Building <br /> Construction Cost Data and the Rental Rate Blue Book include <br /> Overhead & Profit (O&P) or equipment ownership and operating <br /> costs, then they should not also be included in the blanket <br /> indirect costs percentage. In discussing this item with Fred <br /> Banta and Jim Pendleton, I have been assured that MLRD will <br /> prepare something on indirect reclamation costs that the operators <br /> will have the opportunity to comment upon. Until this item is <br /> agreed upon, we believe a 10% indirect costs factor is reasonable. <br /> I 'm not sure whether or not the enclosure provided with Jeff <br /> Deckler' s July 14th Memorandum is the formal proposal that will <br /> go to the Board. In any case, I am having our construction <br /> contractors review it. <br /> Revegetation Costs <br /> The revegetation plans are covered in Chapter V, pages 29-46 <br /> and have been approved by MLRD and OSM. I am getting additional <br /> cost data from a local company that accomplishes revegetation of <br /> reclaimed commercial areas in the vicinity of Coal Basin. This <br /> company could be hired by MLRD should it be required to accomplish <br /> revegetation in this area. The issue here is what cost factor <br /> per acre is reasonable - our $1250 or MLRD' s $2500. <br />