Laserfiche WebLink
To: Jodi Villa; Deb Gonima (E-mail) <br />Cc: Tyler Packard (E-mail); Brad Davis (E-mail); Fred Tafoya (E-mail); Levi Denton (E- <br />mail); Mount, Carl; Rowe, Chris; Wenzel, Richard; Schreiner, Tom <br />Subject: RE: DMG Letter (3811-DMG) <br />Jodi, <br />Please address the questions we posed at the meeting regarding the slurry wall off-site <br />effects (to the south and east), the concerns we have about the ground water monitoring <br />plan, and well placement ONLY as part of the second adequacy review. <br />Currently the above items are NOT considered potentially significant enough to warrant <br />consideration as an amendment, and should not be addressed in relation to the letter faxed <br />to you yesterday. However, you are correct in your understanding that these items will <br />need to be addressed as part of our second adequacy review. <br />These second adequacy review comments will be prepared by Friday June 30, 2006, and will <br />specify the information necessary. <br />In response to your other email - a pre-construction meeting is not required. However, <br />given the complexities of this permit, a meeting may be helpful to ensure continued clear <br />communication and that all requirements 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:JVi11a~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 Denton (E- <br />mail) <br />Subject: DMG Letter (3811-DMG) <br />Deb, <br />I received the letter that you faxed yesterday. The affect of the slurry wall on the east <br />side was not listed as one of the reasons that the application is being considered and <br />"amendment to the amendment". Is this still the case and do we need to clarify it for the <br />DMG immediately, or 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 />Jodi Villa, P.E. <br />Project Manager <br />Meurer & Associates, Inc. <br />Engineers ~ Designers ~ Consultants <br />143 Union Boulevard, Suite 600 <br />Lakewood, CO 80228 <br />TEL: 303-985-3636 <br />2 <br />