Laserfiche WebLink
n .y• - '• <br /> k <br /> 4) Conclusions and Comments <br /> The above estimates have been made from past experience with <br /> various site reclamation projects in Colorado, consultation with <br /> company employees familiar with the site, construction, maintenance <br /> and environmental compliance, and Caterpillar Equipment Company <br /> regarding equipment owning and operating costs . <br /> I recommend that the equipment present on site be used as needed <br /> for the reclamation work . Not only is this cost approximately <br /> $50,000 less than fully contracting the work , but the equipment <br /> sale prices will not depreciate much after one or two more seasons <br /> of work . <br /> I believe the plan is reasonable because it makes efficient use of <br /> a relatively small complement of equipment , yet accomplishes a <br /> considerable amount of reclamation. The Colorado Division of <br /> Minerals and Geology would be pleased to see this amount of work <br /> done in the 1994 season . Also, extra time has been allocated for <br /> the sale of valuable equipment at Mines #1 and #2 , the rock tunnel <br /> area and the main mine yard area. <br /> Although it is an intangible item, I firmly believe that <br /> accomplishing this work would have real effects on the strained <br /> relationship with CDMG. <br /> It is possible to reduce costs further through a number of items : <br /> - manual seeding & mulching and getting a good price on straw or <br /> hay . <br /> - using the existing 10 yard dump trucks on site , if possible. <br /> - If topsoil borrow areas are not feasible for the roads and mine <br /> portals , costs for the loader and trucks would be reduced. <br /> It is also possible that costs could be increased by the following <br /> items : <br /> - unknown major maintenance items such as the Dutch Creek Flume <br /> - major equipment repairs <br />