PERMFILE114668 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

6-20-1999 11:37AM FROM ADCO/BAYER/CHEROKEE 303 452 45~ p.2 • You said you'd look at the date, but that you thought a 50' to 70' minimum setback would be appropriate without agreement from United Power, or a revised Slope Stability Analysis acceptable to DMG without permission from United Power if a lesser setback is proposed. Therefore, combining all the floodplain and slope stability concerns restrictions, I believe special excavation setback restrictions should be as follows: 1. No mining shall occur within 400' of the proposed channel limits of the adopted Master Plan of the S. Platte River whthout permission from UD&FCD on conditions of mining within this 400' area. If permission from UD&FCD on mining within 400' of the proposed channel limits of the adopted Master Plan of the S. Platte River is obtained, mining within ] 00' of the existing bank along the east side of the River in Phases 1 and 2 shall only occur between October of one year to March of the next year. If permission is obtained from UD&PCD, a copy of said agreement shall be submitted to the DMG. 2. No slurry wall installation across the PSCo. right-of-~vay, nor any mining within 200' of the PSCo. towers shall occur without mutual execution of the license agreement dated June 16, 1999 between CAMAS and PSCo. A copy of this executed license agreement shall be submitted to the DMG. 3. No mining shall occur within 50' of any power poles owned by United Power within adjacent right-of-~vay without agreement by United Power. IE agreement is obtained from United Power, a copy of said agreement shall be submitted to the DMG. 4. No mining shall occur with 200' of the Sinclair gas pipeline without agreement by the Sinclair Pipeline Company, or without permission from liy the DMG of a lesser setback with appropriate conditions based on a revised Slope Stability Analysis. In the event agreement is obtained from the Sinclair Gas Pipeline Company, a copy of said agreement shall be submitted to the DMG. I used 50' setback above in #3, but I'll call on Monday to discuss all of the above and you can let me know if 50' is acceptable. Tom said the setbacks and slurry wall costs are what he was most worried about resolving while he was gone on vacation,'as he felt most of the other- issues were more details of conditions than real problems. I assume you have looked at the representative Soil Cores on the western portion of the property that was included with my last fax to Tom. In both cases they show the depth to shale averages 30± feet. Are these sufficient to establish the slurry wall depth of 35' for bonding purposes, did you get a chance to review the data on costs T also submitted, and are you agreeable to using the $3.00/sq.ft. option? If you are, then we'll use the 20% performance bond option and a lineal footage figure of 14, 168' For bonding, since PSCo. has sent an agreement to allow the sluny wall to traverse their right-of-way in two places.