My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE106392
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
100000
>
PERMFILE106392
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:59:07 PM
Creation date
11/24/2007 1:43:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1989120
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
2/20/1990
Doc Name
ADEQUACY ITEMS FILE M-89-120
From
TUTTLE APPLEGATE INC
To
MLRD
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.
/
20
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 />=_-_ <br />__ __ <br />TUTTLE APPLECATE, INC. <br />.~~ Consultants for Land and Resource Development <br />Mr. Michael Boyd <br />Reclamation Specialist <br />Mined Land Reclamation Division <br />February 20, 1990 <br />Page 7 <br />17. Enclosed is a copy of the agreement signed by CCWCD with the <br />original property owner, Harold Baumgartner. This agreement is <br />still in force with C & M Companies. Please refer to Paragraph 4 <br />in the agreement. This gives the property owner the right to <br />relocate the wells at his expense anywhere he chooses as long as <br />CCWCD still obtains their water. In addition, we have offered to <br />reach further agreements with CCWCD about their wells. Although <br />the y have protested the mining permit, they originally indicated <br />to us that the well field was in the process of being abandoned <br />and had not been used since 1982. We will agree to maintain a <br />200 foot setback from their wells until this matter is settled. <br />RECLAMATION COSTS E%HIBIT L <br />18. The cost estimate has been modified for mobilization and <br />demobilization. In the event of a default, the Operator would <br />most. likely remove his crushing and screening plant from the <br />site. There maybe some equipment and buildings abandoned on the <br />site and we have included $1,000.00 to remove these. <br />This. requirement for 156 additional for indirect costs is handled <br />inconsistently by the Division. In fact Mike, you are the only <br />specialist who asks for it. The 156 can amount to a considerable <br />amount of money. Without arguing the merits of it now, we <br />believe the Division should have a policy on indirect reclamation <br />costs and apply the policy consistently to all applicants. <br />Mike, this response answers all of the questions raised in your <br />adequacy letter. If you have any additional questions or <br />concerns, please do not hesitate to call. We look forward to <br />working with you. <br />Cordially, <br />TUTTLE APPLEGATE, INC. <br />Mike Applegate, P.E. <br />MA/cr <br />Encs. <br />cc: File #89-132 <br />Bob Allen, C & M Companies <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.