Laserfiche WebLink
groundwater have been committed. The SEO will then notify the Division of their acceptance of <br />such a plan. <br />Operator may provide evidence of a court-approved permanent augmentation plan for exposed <br />groundwater at the site. <br />Obviously this new policy will have a major impact on bonding costs for a site such as this one. Please <br />indicate which of the above options will be selected, and provide an appropriate detailed cost estimate <br />for that option for bond calculation purposes. <br />We met with the State Engineer's Office on March 31, 2010 to discuss potential options. We <br />have chosen to dedicate permanent replacement water rights to the site via documentation <br />from the State Engineer's Office. Our current Substitute Water Supply Plan (SWSP) states in <br />Condition 17 that we have met this requirement (attached). Our current SWSP expires on July <br />31, 2010 and the renewal will also include Condition 17. The following renewal (July 31, 2011) <br />will require that a legal instrument be provided for the dedication of permanent replacement <br />water rights. <br />Cost to implement the USACOE Approved Wetlands Mitigation Plan should also be broken down and <br />included in the revised reclamation estimate. <br />This is included in the revised and attached version of Exhibit L <br />EXHIBITS -Permanent Man-Made Structures (Rule 6.4.19): Who owns all the "'ranch"' structures <br />currently on site, and is there a damage compensation agreement in place for them? (operator?) <br />A damage compensation agreement with Everist Land Holdings is attached to this submittal. <br />Are there any underground utilities along the Hwy 9 ROW that require damage waiver agreements? It <br />would appear that there may be at least a phone line shown on the map near the SE comer of the site. <br />Does this line go overhead onto the Xcel poles where they are adjacent to the site? <br />It is our understanding that Xcel is the only easement holder and we have obtained a damage <br />compensation agreement from them. <br />The Operator will have to provide proof that the COOT concerns have been adequately addressed, and <br />that an appropriate damage waiver agreement is in place before the amendment can be approved. <br />An agreement with CDOT is already in place from the original permit application. The new area <br />to be permitted is not within the 200 foot boundary. A representative from CDOT is reviewing <br />the information we provided to respond to their comments. We will submit the new agreement <br />when it is received. <br />Additional Information: You will also need to provide the Division with proof of notice publication. <br />Included with this submittal <br />Please do not hesitate to contact me with any additional questions. We look forward to our upcoming <br />decision date.