My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV12417
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV12417
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 1:23:24 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:32:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981036
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
9/18/1987
Doc Name
BOND REVIEW MEMO
From
MLRD
To
CATHY BEGEJ
Type & Sequence
MT1
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.
/
4
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
STATE OF <br />Roy Romer, Governor <br />\! ~ 4 j <br />DEPARTMENT OFNATURAL RESOURCES <br />MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION <br />DAVID C. SHELTON, Olrector <br />DATE: September 18, 1987 <br />T0: Cathy Begej <br />FROM: Susan Mowry ~~,~,~~ <br />RE: FISH CREEK TIPPLE BOND REVIEW FOR MID-TERM REVIEW <br />Following are my adequacy comments from the review of bonding calculations for <br />the Fish Creek Tipple: <br />1, Removal of stockpile feeders, the truck dump, conveyors and all other <br />below ground facilities and mechanisms are not addressed in the <br />reclamation plan and the bond calculations. These should be addressed, <br />2. Information concerning the length, width, and depth or thickness of <br />concrete slabs and foundations should be submitted. <br />3. Does fencing need to be installed in order to achieve revegetation <br />success? If so, installation and removal costs should be submitted, <br />4, The backfilling and grading plan does not adequately address where <br />materials scraped up from the haul road and yard area are to be disposed <br />of. <br />5, TCC is proposing to leave steep side slopes facing the railroad track and <br />sediment pond. Wi11 these slopes be stable (has static safety factor <br />been demonstrated) can they be successfully revegetated, and do they meet <br />ADC? <br />6, The bonding calculations need to be amended to include estimates for <br />removal of the sediment pond and mobilization and demobilization. <br />7, The equipment operating costs used by TCC appear to be somewhat low for <br />both the D10 and 16G, TCC proposes a two shift day as the basis for the <br />rental cost estimating. On such a small project I am not certain if two <br />shifts/day is warranted or would be used. The production estimates are <br />slightly higher than mine for the D10 dozer - 510 Acy versus 660 ,lcy. <br />8, The bond which I calculated includes the items manticned above in Nos. 6 <br />and 7. Amore accurate estimate could be made if these adequacy issues <br />were responded to. Worksheets for my estimate are attached. <br />MLRD = 5122,915.00 <br />TCC = $173,700,00 <br />srs <br />2394 <br />COLON III IIIIIIIIIIIIIII~ <br />999 <br />423 Centennial Building, 1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203-2273 Tel. (303) 866-3567 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.