Laserfiche WebLink
<br />c) details of efforts and proposals to protect the stability of the fill, <br />pipe, and road. <br />d) details for a stipulated setback from the pipeline/damage area. <br />e) suggested solutions for modifying, maintaining, and altering pit <br />access. <br />f) formalization of surveyed pit boundaries into the Pathfinder Pi[ <br />permit (since the Technical Revision No. 2 application was <br />withdrawn). <br />3)Furthermore, Pathfinder Inc. shall provide data as it becomes available all relevant <br />efforts by other agencies, Courts, and permitting entities re : reveg, slope stability, <br />stormwater management, on areas outside of the pit boundary but as affected by the PSCo <br />pipeline failure. I believe that we have an acknowledgment and concurrence re :the pit <br />boundary as shown in the SITE PLAN-EXHIBIT 25. This common understanding <br />clearly negates the legal basis for the Problem no. 2 as listed in the 11/12/99 inspection <br />report only for the area outside the permit boundary. Problem No. 2 requirements for <br />areas within the permit borrrrdary must be addressed as committed to in item no. 2 (a) - <br />(t7 above. <br />4) Pathfinder understands that any future additions to the affected area or signtficar:t <br />changes to the reclamation plan requires an amerrdme»t to the permit. <br />Please let me know if this is an accurate outline of our understanding. <br />