My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-10-31_REVISION - M1980244
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1980244
>
2008-10-31_REVISION - M1980244
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 5:52:20 PM
Creation date
11/10/2008 10:28:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980244
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
10/31/2008
Doc Name
CC&V Cost Model
From
DRMS-jrs
To
DRMS-bmk
Type & Sequence
AM9
Email Name
BMK
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.
Page 1 of 1
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 COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY M-1 qW -a ([?+ <br />Department of Natural Resources l ((//VV T <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 215 q COLORADO <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 D IV IS I ON OF <br />Phone: (303) 866-3567 RECLAMATION <br />FAX: (303) 832-8106 MINING <br />SAF ETY <br /> <br />INTEROFFICE Bill Ritter, Jr. <br /> Governor <br />MEMORANDUM Harris D. Sherman <br /> Executive Director <br /> Ronald W. Cattany <br />TO: Berhan Keffelew Division Director <br /> Natural Resource Trustee <br />FROM: Jim Stark <br />SUBJECT: CC&V Cost Model <br />DATE: 31 October 2008 <br />As requested, I have given the Cripple Creek and Victor Gold Mining Company <br />Reclamation Cost Model a preliminary review. This review included a review of unit <br />costs for equipment, demolition, revegetation and indirect costs. This review did not <br />include a review of relevant reclamation tasks, reclamation areas or volumes or a side-by- <br />side Division estimate. <br />A review of the equipment costs show that they are either the same or slightly higher than <br />those used by the Division. If all of the volumes used in the estimate are correct, these <br />unit costs will give an accurate estimate of the earthwork costs. <br />Demolition costs were taken from the 2008 edition of the RS Means cost guides. As <br />such, they are deemed to be accurate by the Division. The costs included in the estimate <br />were the same as those listed in Means. Per instructions, none of the structure <br />dimensions were verified by the Division. <br />The revegetation costs used for the estimate are either the same or slightly higher than <br />those used by the Division. Again, assuming that the correct acreages have been used, an <br />accurate reclamation cost should be obtained. None of the acreages were independently <br />verified by the Division. <br />The indirect cost portion of the estimate contains all of the necessary items with the <br />exception of a job superintendent. The job superintendent cost would possible push the <br />total indirect costs above the allowable limit of 23.5% (Rule 6.3.4(c)). It is up to the <br />Minerals Program to determine how to handle this issue. <br />Office <br />Office of of <br />Mined Land Reclamation Denver • Grand Junction • Durango Active and Inactive Mines
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.