My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE101440
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
100000
>
PERMFILE101440
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:55:43 PM
Creation date
11/24/2007 7:56:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1992069
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
8/19/1992
Doc Name
ADEQUACY REVIEW 83RD JOINT VENTURE RESOURCE FN M-92-069
From
MLRD
To
TUTTLE APPLEGATE INC
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Mr. Gary Tuttle 4 August 19, 1992 <br />be provided concurrent with the monitoring program. Monitoring well <br />locations should be mapped and provided to the Division. <br />The proposed mitigation program of modifying existing wells or drilling new <br />wells to produce water of the same quality and quantity should include all <br />wells under agreement with well owners. Determination of mitigation based <br />on abandonment or "prior beneficial use' needs to be addressed by the <br />operator and the well owner. Please contact the Office of the State <br />Engineer if you have a problem. <br />In Exhibit G, information on recharge ponds as mitigation to impacted well <br />owners is inadequate. A design by a professional engineer should be <br />submitted with discussion of the following specifications and capabilities: <br />embankment stability, materials and slope; holding capacity in acre-feet; <br />rates of transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity and recharge rate to impacted <br />wells. Projected locations should be given. <br />11. In Exhibit L you have calculated major disturbance reclamation costs for this <br />phased operation to be 537,763. I have calculated these costs at <br />560,051.91 which includes the costs of mobilization and demobilization of <br />equipment to the site, plus 15.8% to indirect costs. This figure does not <br />include costs to reclaim recharge ponds proposed in your mitigation plan to <br />adjacent well owners. When the Division receives specifications for these <br />ponds a new financial warranty will be calculated. <br />12. Proof of actual delivery or proof of mailing by certified mail to Weld County <br />Commissioners and the Soil Conservation district cannot be verified by the <br />receipts for certified mail. You need to submit stamped or signed return <br />receipts as proof of mailing by certified mail (Rule 2.1,21181, Exhibit R-. <br />13. Rule 2.2.2(4)(6) requires that immediately after the first publication of the <br />public notice copies be mailed to a) all owners of record of surface rights to <br />the affected land, and b) all owners of record of lands that are within two <br />hundred feet of the boundary of the affected land. Proof of a publication <br />and proof of mailings by either return receipt of a certified mailing or proof of <br />personal service must be provided to the Division before the application can <br />be approved. <br />To adequately review your responses to the adequacy review, the Division must <br />receive the required information by September 8, 1992. If we do not receive all <br />the required information by that date, a new date may be set for consideration of <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.