Laserfiche WebLink
ANTONIA VORSTER -2- 15 September 1989 <br /> for next fiscal year 1990. The Navy did state, however, that the '90 budget is <br /> still subject to revision and NAVCOM is attempting to obtain some funding. I <br /> stated, and Jim Pinasco concurred, that NAVCOM appears to be a site with <br /> relatively minor impacts based on present data and natural hydrologic controls. <br /> Accordingly, if NAVCOM could verify some basic assumptions and/or conditions <br /> discussed in our 23 August memo, we (the RB and DHS) would consider this a low <br /> priority site. Essentially, some money spent now for verification could justify <br /> a slower total RI/FS expenditure. <br /> In conclusion, the Navy has not responded to our 23 August memorandum, although <br /> they are aware of our concerns and do plan to eventually submit a work plan. <br /> Whether they will have funding to actually implement the to-be-submitted work <br /> plan is questionable. A 31 October 1989 deadline for a work plan which addresses <br /> the concerns in our 23 August 1988 memorandum is reasonable. If an acceptable <br /> work plan, with appropriate time schedule, is not received, I recommend we <br /> initiate formal action by the Board. <br /> GAR:ej <br /> Attachments <br />