Laserfiche WebLink
Camille "'. Farrell <br />February 13, 1989 <br />Page 3 <br />20. The Division's revised reclamation cost estimates contained in <br />your letter give t total va_ue of $74,000 plus costs for construction of <br />drop structures. upon re:•i-4 0: the Division's costs, it appears as though <br />one of the est.-:ates is somewhat high. Also, overhead costs should not be <br />considered as ar.ditioral costs. <br />The rate of $]o-.G8/h:. for a D-9 dozer given by the Division includes <br />an operator cost of r}_.23!hr. L: ~ealit}', operators are paid about a <br />third that much. Thy applicant is in the business of owning, operating and <br />renting heave eyuipmeat and feels that a total cost of about $140/hr. would <br />be more realistic, and includes operator and apezating costs, profit, <br />in~u:ante and wo:l.-ai.'s compensation. A revised total for this task would <br />then be about $F,4Uu. <br />Profit, liab:_ity and won}:-.an's compensation. are already included in <br />the cost esti^~ates provided. T:.ese are ti,e required costs of dojng <br />business ::nd are assumed in the estimates. <br />T'inally, as ind'_cated in the attached correspondence from Water and <br />Envircnr.:ental S_:stem< Techr~~iopc, Inc., the estimated costs for <br />cor.structicn of a dre^ struc_•.::es is given to be around $1,500 each, and <br />about 56`~` per plunge basin. ~.ssuming a drop structure and four plunge <br />basins or. the east iriuutary. end possibly one each on the main tributary, <br />this would add about 56,:25 tv the bond. W_ih the above corrections, the <br />total revised estimate is about 570,435, rounded to $70,450, and is the <br />amount proposes b•: the operator for the financial warranty. <br />Information Not Specifically Requested in the Division's Letter <br />The operator has received copies of correspondence sent to the <br />Division expressing concerns with regard to blasting. The operator had a <br />blasting anal_csis conducted b}' Schnabel Engineerine Associates to assess <br />tiie impact of blasting relative to the Cave of the Winds. Attached is a <br />cope of the information. Additionally it should be noted that the <br />management for the Cave o` the Winds has no objections (refer to the <br />attached letter). The operator has also contacted Castle Concrete Company <br />and will coordinate efforts with operations relative to the Snyder Quarry <br />to eliminate concerns regarding simultaneous blasting. Also attached is a <br />copy cf a letter to *_he D?vision cf P.ighways pertaining the road. <br />