Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 2 <br />December 11, 1989 <br />Response to Dec. 6 memo <br />Hernandez and Renner <br />FURTHER RESPONSE TO ITEM 18: Castle agrees to create a <br />"shallow concavity" as described in your letter. In all <br />likelihood this would probably occur anyway simply as a <br />result of the way it is graded, but in light of your concern <br />such will be done. <br />FURTHER RESPONSE TO ITEM 19: No response necessary. <br />FURTHER RESPONSE TO ITEM 20: We fully understand why you <br />needed the information you requested in your original <br />adequacy response to the corrective action plan, but we hope <br />you can understand why we could not provide some of the <br />information you requested. Precise volumes of material to <br />be moved or filled simply cannot be determined because there <br />is no suitable mapping available of the predisturbance <br />condition which can be used to calculate volumes. What maps <br />are available have contour intervals which are too wide to <br />be of much use and most of those maps have too much margin <br />of error to allow the calculation of even approximate <br />volumes. <br />In accordance with our past experience, we are sure the bond <br />calculation figures you will produce will be reasonable. <br />Furthermore, as the bond will be a rather short term one, at <br />least for the earthwork, the cost will probably not be <br />unacceptable, although we wish to reserve the right to <br />negotiate if we feel your costs are unacceptably high. <br />Thank you. <br />Respectfully, <br />~~ ~~~ <br />Mark A. Heffner <br />cc: Gordon Morgan <br />Scott Briggs <br />Roland Obeying <br />