My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE20316
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE20316
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:24:33 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 9:46:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977210
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
5/14/1991
Doc Name
DIV RESPONSE TO LETTER OF MAY 1 1991 SNYDER QUARRY FN M-77-210
From
MLRD
To
G M NAGEL ENGINEERING
Violation No.
MV1990070
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.
/
2
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
<br />Response: Tagging was not required by the approved Corrective Action <br />Plan. The Division will be able to determine success in the <br />fifth growing season without referencing tags. <br />D. Has reseeding occurred at areas two, three and four? If so, why <br />does erosion still appear prevalent in these areas? If we are <br />expecting a future germination date, what is that date? <br />Response: Yes - The Division has not observed unacceptable levels of <br />erosion at these sites. The seed has already starred to <br />germinate. <br />E. Why is an eroded area still highly visible and without innprovement <br />200 feet down the road from area four? This area appear~> to be 80 <br />feet in length and 40 feet in width from the road shoulder. <br />Response: Thank you for bringing this problem to the Division's <br />attention. Our inspection of May 2, 1991 confirmed your <br />concern. The operator has been notified of the problem and <br />the necessary corrective action, and given a date of <br />compliance. <br />F. Silt fences in area one appear in disarray. Should they not be <br />rebuilt? <br />Response: The Division confirmed this concern during our May 2, 1991 <br />inspection. The operator has been notified of this; problem <br />and given a date by which to have the silt fences cleaned and <br />repaired or replaced. <br />G. Would it appear prudent to add silt fences or blankets to steep and <br />highly eroded areas at locations two and three? <br />Response: The Division inspection of May 2, 1991 did not indicate that <br />this action is necessary. The establishing grass should keep <br />soil loss at an acceptable ]evel. <br />Please contact the Division if you have questions regarding these responses. <br />Sincerely, <br />Larry D. Oehler <br />Reclamation Specialist <br />LDO/eke <br />5563E <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.