Laserfiche WebLink
~ III IIIIIIIIIIIII III • <br />999 <br />August 30, 1993 <br />TO: File No. M-82-020 <br />FROM: Allen Sorenson ~~ <br />RE: Bond Re-calculation and Rational <br />In a phone conversation during the week of August 23, 1993, the <br />operator, Melvin (Bill) Gydesen stated that he would contour the <br />waste pile at the Lucky Strike to its reclamation configuration, if <br />the Division would eliminate the cost to place the coarse waste <br />over the tailings from the required bond. I agreed to do so <br />because: <br />1. Early in the life of the mine there will be a great deal of <br />material from the breach of the lower dam to allow for a total <br />of two feet of cover for the tails (one ft. breach material, <br />one foot topsoil). <br />2. As the tailing pond fills up, the material available from the <br />dam breach will decrease, and so will the cost to breach the <br />dam. The money available from the bond to breach the dam will <br />gradually be transferred to movement of waste rock, or other <br />material, to ensure a two foot cover. <br />Mr. Gydesen had stated early on, that he felt a D8 would be a more <br />appropriate piece of equipment for reclamation of the site than a <br />D9 (I had used a D9 because Mr. Gydesen had stated that a D9 had <br />been used to construct the ponds). For this second bond estimate, <br />a D8N dozer was selected. <br />Also, for this re-calculation, 15.8 percent indirect cost was used, <br />rather than 18 percent. This is based on discussions during <br />mineral staff meetings regarding changes needed in indirect cost <br />percentage because of the requirement to deposit 5 percent of <br />revoked bonds in the emergency response fund. It was agreed that <br />we would use 15.8 percent until a policy is developed. <br />