|
Fw E1 k River Landfi 11 .. Review of Phase ITI Report for Msw Expansion , txt
<br />From: Matthew ~edvina ~mlledvinaC~nrginc,com~
<br />sent: Thursday, ~u1y.~~, X004 0~~1. AM ,
<br />To : ddehnC~wm, cam; j e~ dem~geomat r~ x ,cam; t~ ohnson~~wm, com
<br />cc; srohlf~c-i.elk~river.mn.us
<br />subject ; Fw ~ ~1 k River ~.andfi 11 o Review of Phase ~/x~ Report for Msw Expansion
<br />~ am farward~ ng my original commends i from May concerning the Hydra eo Report for the
<br />south expans~an area. These were ~n~t~ally sent to the MPCA and s erburne county.
<br />z apologize for not sending these to you directly before this time.
<br />Terry, Thanks far meeting yesterday, I think we need to discuss a phased approach
<br />to LF moni tors ng i n more deta~ 1, I woul d 1 i ke to a1 so have the benefit of john
<br />E1 ks' api ni on on the topic, Maybe a conference ca11 i s appropriate .
<br />.. ... ... w...wrwr w w.a.w rr w.ww.wwwww.. .w r. r.+rea .w r.. r..rrro.. .. ...w v..rwr.~.o~. radww....ps.~w.~w rrwrr.. .. r.wr. .. a.. .,. ..
<br />Matt ~.edvi na, P , E ,
<br />m11 e~dvi naC~nrgi nc. com
<br />01.x, ~~9, ~~~6 ai tact
<br />61~,~~5,8~89 cell
<br />61.~,~47,67~0 Fax
<br />r.. w«rwwww~r a. wwAw~w...r.•ww rw w... w....-~~+w «+.. ..., ... .. .. .., w. w... ..w .+.. w. ,~... ~~.......... ... .~.. .r ~.r .. .. .. .r r».. ww wr .. w.w w.r ... w+w.a .e. .wwwu+rw
<br />r.rrw
<br />From: Matthew Ledvina
<br />sent, Tuesday, May 1.1, Za04 Z:S~ PM _
<br />Ta; dave,l ucasC~ca, sherburne~.mn,us; Curti Ss,haffmanG~pca, state,mn, us; icathy
<br />Holland--Manson ~ Ewmai 1 ~ ; ' john . e1 ksC~pca ,state . mn , us'
<br />cc: s rohl foci , e1 kw ri ver, mn . us ; Rebecca Naug ~ rhaugC~ci , e1 I<~-river , mn . us)
<br />subject; E1 ~c River ~.andfi 11 ~- Review of Phase ~/~z Report fQr Msw ~xpansi an
<br />Steve Roh1f requested that Y provide comments to you concerning the Phase ~/~T
<br />Repor~~ for Msw E~ ansion, The report was prepared by,GeoMatrix for wMZ, Thy city
<br />level aped a deta~ ed comment 1 after ~9/~4/0~~ concerns ng the work Plan far the s
<br />effort, Although wM2 never formally responded to the comments provided, the scope
<br />of the field work was expanded to address concerns expressed, AS requested, the
<br />number of borings was expanded from ~~ to ~~ and the depth of set act bore ngs was
<br />increased to establish an extensive soil baring data set. The physical testing,
<br />program was greats expande~ to verify the subtle differentiation of soi 1 depas~ is .
<br />z am comfortable t at the f~e1d pro ram has substantially met the goals intended and
<br />the site has been characterized wi t a few except? ons noted herein.
<br />The eo1 ogy of the site i s complex , The report does a very food job of presenting
<br />the ~i e1 d rasa co acts wa e ~ n he level a ment of
<br />1ts,, A11 the data that was 11 d s us d t p ,
<br />the hydrageolag~c ~nterpretatians presented. Future work efforts at the site wi11
<br />bridge the data gaps that have been identified. The inter retatians contained in
<br />the re ort are comprehensive and are presented in a straig t~forward meaningful way
<br />with t e use of conceptual models and dimensional graphics.
<br />specific comments;
<br />page T, surface water: several statements are made concerning the surface water
<br />management . ~t ~i s indicated that the wetland i n the southwest portion of the site
<br />Page ~.
<br />
|