My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV97855
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV97855
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 3:22:06 AM
Creation date
11/22/2007 12:13:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981018
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
10/16/1991
Doc Name
DESERADO MINE PROPOSED BOND REDUCTION C-81-018
From
MLRD
To
OSM NEW MEXICO
Type & Sequence
SR1
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.
/
2
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
2 <br />2. Table V-9 of the application contains a breakdown of <br />revegetation costs for specific areas at the mine. Unit per acre <br />costs for three different treatments on appropriate areas are used <br />to arrive at the total revegetation cost estimate. The original <br />bond estimate was based on a unit cost of $875/acre which is higher <br />than the unit costs for most of the acreage in the new estimate. <br />The $875/acre figure included unrealistically high costs for jute <br />netting which were revised to reflect actual costs in the state for <br />use of jute netting. This accounts for some of the difference in <br />cost. <br />Please note also that fence removal costs in the new estimate are <br />listed separately on Table V-9 and are not included in the <br />revegetation costs, as they were in the original estimate. <br />Similarly, contour furrowing costs which were a part of the <br />original revegetation estimate have been moved to the earthwork <br />section of the new estimate. <br />3. The new estimate contains Mr.un project management cost <br />estimates based on an estimate of 1000 man/hours at $20/hour. <br />Based on our experience, the Division feels that this is an <br />adequate allocation of staff time for bid preparation and job <br />supervision for this project. <br />AFO also expressed concern that the Division was using optimum <br />efficiency ratios in its calculations and not bonding for <br />contingencies as there is no legal basis for this. The cost <br />estimate does however provide sufficient conservancies such that <br />contingency costs are effectively built in to individual tasks. It <br />is true that the Division does not bond for contingencies. <br />However, please note that the tables in the application include job <br />efficiency and productivity correction factors for all earthwork <br />tasks. Optimum efficiency ratios were not used. <br />I hope the information above answers your questions. We would <br />appreciate a response to this letter as soon as possible since the <br />public comment on the proposed bond reduction ends on October 18, <br />1991. If you have any additional questions or need additional <br />information, please contact me. <br />Sincerely, <br />Steven G. Renner <br />Coal Program Supervisor <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.