Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Brock Bowles 4- December 6, 2016 <br />SCC: The other test pit, lying east of the power line, is outside the boundary of Figure 14-17 and <br />therefore, not identified. <br />5. DRMS: Further on Page 11 of his October 2016 comments, Mr. Beckwith states that <br />"Additionally, Fontanari hired a local driller to make ten bores to determine the apparent depths of <br />the basaltic materials along the route of the proposed easement. This was the driller to which Mr. <br />Berry referred in his April Report. The bores showed the presence of basaltic material to depths <br />of 50+ feet before hitting the underlying sandstone". We believe it is important that the locations <br />of any of these ten boreholes that may lie with the limits of Figure 14-17 of TR69 be identified on <br />Figure 14-17. If any information as to how these holes were sealed can be obtained, we would <br />appreciate receiving that information as well. <br />SCC: SCC did not receive a copy of Mr. Fontanari's Notice of Intent (NOI) or driller's report. <br />SCC has no information on the location or the procedure used to seal and abandon the ten bore <br />holes or test pits described in Mr. Beckwith's October 2016 comments. <br />6. DRMS: On page 13 of his October 2016 comments, Mr. Beckwith states that "Fontanari has <br />valuable water rights in Rapid Creek which will be lost if Fontanari cannot apply irrigation water to <br />surface crops in Tracts 70 and 71 ". Please be aware that in accordance with Rule 2.04.7(3), we <br />intend to verify this statement with our sister agency the Division of Water Resources. Our <br />interest in not so much as to whether Mr. Fontanari possesses these water rights (we are <br />prohibited from adjudicating property rights disputes, so we have to assume that much is valid), <br />but rather whether it is the lack of application of that water to the ground (as opposed to removal <br />of that water and, for example, storing it in a series of storage tanks) that may result in the loss of <br />those rights. <br />SCC: No response required by SCC. <br />SCC agreed to not request return of any bond monies associated with (SL -08) until the Permit's <br />bond amount is adjusted during the Division's review of this technical revision. The Division is <br />holding $663,429 in excess bond. SCC's revised cost estimate for the hydrologic communication <br />repair plan and the reclamation plan, without the work in Carey's pond, is $34,470. Therefore the <br />Division should release $625,959 ($663,429 - $37,470) with the approval of this technical <br />revision. <br />Enclosed are the following new or revised pages/exhibits: <br />Volume 1, Tab 1: Table of Contents pages vi, viii and ix <br />Volume 5, Tab 14: Tab 14 Table of Contents; <br />Pages 14-33 through 14-36; <br />Figures 14-17 and 14-18; <br />Appendix Pages A14-5-50 through A14-5-68; <br />Appendix 14-16, pages A14-16-1 and A14-6-2 <br />Also enclosed is the revised cost estimate for the repair and reclamation plan. <br />Sincerely, <br />Tonya K. Hammond <br />Owners Representative <br />cc: Mesa County Clerk, BLM, SCC File <br />