2011-12-02_PERMIT FILE - M2011014 ‎(2)‎

• Permit No: M2011014
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 12/2/2011
• Doc Name: New Schmidt Bond
• From: Nathan Barton
• To: DRMS
• Email Name: KAP
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Pickford, Kate
From: ; [e-mail] on behalf of Nathan Barton [sdliberty @aol.com]
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 4:37 PM
To: Pickford, Kate /
Subject: Re: New Schmidt bond
Attachments: Schmidt estimate for4914- 42.pdf; Schmidt Map 3a -E3 -5 Immed Rec.pdf
Dear Kate:
I still have not been able to talk with Dale, I think he is on the road.
Here is what I have come up with, as far as an "initial year (2011 -12) action that will let him do this. It would
need to'include a commitment until additional bonding is posted to:
1. NOT expand the House Pad (currently at 1,000 SF) at all.
2. NOT excavate any further (depth or width) in the Cove area.
3. NOT excavate within 15 feet of the current highwalls in the Parking and Loading Pad (the big area) AND
Limit further excavation in that 10,100 SF available to a 3:1 slope down to the planned final floor elevation.
This WOULD allow him to go ahead and reclaim the lower highwall areas (on the north, east, and west sides of
the Parking and Loading Pad), and the roadways, which will further reduce the reclamation bond required, and
give him a chance to get the funds necessary to post the full bond as you calculated. If necessary, the
reclaiming of specific areas could be included in the commitment letter. By the way, do you have an example
of such a letter?
Reducing the affected area on the House Pad makes a big difference on total area and volumes. I come up with
a current 0.62 acres affected. The affected area will have to expand, doing the traditional cut - and - push -down.
Assuming a conservative 20 -ft and 15 -ft AVERAGE cut for the highwalls (which would NOT increase during
this period), I come up with a total affected area of 0.89 acres, of which only 0.50 acres has to be revegetated,
because the rest is in roads and parking/storage area, for which the rock is already on -site. I find a total of 4900
CY in- place, all of which are being pushed an overall average distance of 15 feet, and at a downhill slope of at
least 25 %. This should greatly increase the productivity of the D5, and thus cut costs a lot.
I think that the seed will need to be broadcast, rather than drilled: this will increase seed costs but eliminate one
of those mobilization items. There seems to be a conflict, anyway as it is listed as broadcast in one place but a
seeder is part of the mobilization cost (about $1000 if I understand it right).
I had n noticed that the state overhead rate has gone up to 17.10 %.
I'm attaching both a drawing and my printout of the spreadsheet with assumptions. As I said, this is a
conservative estimate: I can refine it further, which will reduce the volume to be moved even more.
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Pickford, Kate <[e-mail]> wrote:
Let me know what they want to do.
DEC 1 2 2011
Division ci + ,
REC8VED
DEC 0 2 2011
Durango Field Office
Division Mgt Reclamation,
�