My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE107947
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
100000
>
PERMFILE107947
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:00:25 PM
Creation date
11/24/2007 4:01:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1999034
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
6/30/1999
Doc Name
FAX COVER ADDITIONAL RESPONSE TO 5/19/99 ADEQUACY REVIEW LETTER PN M-99-034
From
ADCO CONSULTING
To
DMG
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.
/
4
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
_ 06/30/99 WED 14:30 FAX 303 452 4515 ADCO/CHEROKEE/BAYER ~J 002 <br />• ~ ~ • • <br />S <br /># 18 - Exhibit G - Water Information will include a spedfic statement that CAMAS will <br />demonstrate written compliance to the DMG with all permitting requirements of <br />the Office of the State Engineer (OSE) prior to exposure of groundwater. <br />#21 - Exhibit G -Water Information will include a specific statement that mounding <br />effect of the slurry wall is not expected to cause any flooding of basements, or <br />adversely impact any wells in the azea. Furthermore in Exhibit G, CAMAS will <br />commit to monitor adjacent wells (where allowed by an adjacent well owners) <br />wells and will install appropriate new monitoring wells in the azea in accordance <br />with a Monitoring Plan that will be submitted to and approved by OSE. Said <br />Monitoring Plan will also include proposed measures to be undertaken, in the <br />event data from existing wells (where monitoring is allowed) and new monitoring <br />wells in accordance with a Monitoring Plan approved by OSE, determines that the <br />operation is having any demonstrated adverse affect on adjacent wells or <br />basements. <br />#26 - A revised Exhibit L -Reclamation Costs aze included on the next page. These <br />calallat.ions are based on the 20% bonding for the entire slurry wall through the <br />PSCo. right-of-way and the maximum disturbance that could even be present at <br />one time. This would occur when Phase 1 B hasn't had any backfilling or topsoil <br />replacement, you would need to worry about removal of the conveyor system and <br />the Plant Site facilities, the last half of Phase 2 and the first half of Phase 3 <br />needed baclcfilling and topsoil replacement, and Phases 1 B, 2, and 3 need total <br />revegetation. <br />Assuming the above is acceptable, I will incorporate all the changes from this FAX and <br />previous ones into the appropriate revised Exhibit, and submit all of these revised <br />Exhibits at the latest by July 9. This should allow both of us plenty of time to agree on <br />any final changes prior to Boazd hearing. We also understand that you may not have <br />time today to review th'e reclamation costs, which we can finalize when I prepare the <br />revised Exhibits for submittal to you by July 9. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.