Laserfiche WebLink
-----Original Message----- <br />From: Gonima, Deb [mailto:deb.gonima~state.co.us] <br />Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 8:52 AM <br />To: Jodi Villa; Deb Gonima (E-mail) <br />Cc: Tyler Packard (E-mail); Brad Davis (E-mail); Fred Tafoya (E-mail); <br />Levi Denton (E-mail); Mount, Carl; Rowe, Chris; Wenzel, Richard; <br />Schreiner, Tom <br />Subject: RE: DMG Letter (3811-DMG) <br />Jodi, <br />Please address the questions we posed at the meeting regarding the slurry <br />wall off-site effects (to the south and east), the concerns we have about <br />the ground water monitoring plan, and well placement ONLY as part of the <br />second adequacy review. <br />Currently the above items are NOT considered potentially significant enough <br />to warrant consideration as an amendment, and should not be addressed in <br />relation to the letter faxed to you yesterday. However, you are correct in <br />your understanding that these items will need to be addressed as part of our <br />second adequacy review. <br />These second adequacy review comments will be prepared by Friday June 30, <br />2006, and will specify the information necessary. <br />In response to your other email - a pre-construction meeting is not <br />required. However, given the complexities of this permit, a meeting may be <br />helpful to ensure continued clear communication and that all requirements <br />continue to be met. <br />-Deb <br />Deb Gonima <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman Street, Rm 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />www.mining.state.co.us <br />ph. 303-866-4179 <br />fax 303-832-8106 <br />-----Original Message----- <br />From: Jodi Villa [mailto:JVilla@Meurer.com] <br />Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 6:52 AM <br />To: Deb Gonima (E-mail) <br />Cc: Tyler Packard (E-mail); Brad Davis (E-mail); Fred Tafoya (E-mail); Levi <br />Denton (E-mail) <br />Subject: DMG Letter (3811-DMG) <br />Deb, <br />I received the letter that you faxed yesterday. The affect of the slurry <br />wall on the east side was not listed as one of the reasons that the <br />application is being considered and "amendment to the amendment". Is this <br />still the case and do we need to clarify it for the DMG immediately, or <br />shall we include our response to this when we get your second adequacy <br />review comments? <br />Can we expect your second adequacy review comments on Monday? <br />Thanks, <br />Jodi <br />3 <br />