My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE135176
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
400000
>
PERMFILE135176
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:35:54 PM
Creation date
11/26/2007 3:10:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1973007SG
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
10/23/1991
Doc Name
FN M-73-7 RESONSE TO MR HEIFNERS APPARENT INFERENCE TO DISCREPANCIES IN THE 9/19/91 INSPECTION REPOR
From
MLRD
To
TRANSIT CONCRETE MIX
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.
/
4
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
f <br />Mr, Mark A. Heffner - 2 - October 23, 1991 <br />Item No. ' <br />The inspection report states that the permit covers 110 acres forty acres <br />located east of Academy Blvd. and seventy acres west of the Blvd. This <br />should have been stated as the affected permit area, it was taken out of <br />the Annuai Report which appears to be the same for the last two years. <br />Ir you do not have the copy of the ,4nnual Report we would be glad to <br />provide you a cony. The Division is well a~aare of the fact *_hat the <br />permit was increaseC by 166.2 acres in the 1985 amendment for a total <br />permit area of 325.6 acres. <br />Item No. 2 <br />The inspector estimated 3 million cubic yards of material to be present <br />on the site during the time of the inspection. That is why we have asked <br />for a complete accounting of what is present on site. Once the proper <br />map is submitted we would be able to resolve the matter. Until it is <br />submitted the inspector stands with what was stated in the inspection <br />report. I am well aware of your mathematical abilities and would not <br />question you on that fact. <br />Item No. 3 <br />The inspection report states that in the 1991 Annual Report it was <br />indicated 25 acres were backfilled, 10 acres graded and 3 acres seeded. <br />You Stated in your response that "whether the land is further utilized <br />after backfilling or not does not detract from the fact it has been <br />backfilled". I am at a total ions at what you are trying to say. <br />Please clarify the statement on page 3, paragraph 3, line number 11. Are <br />you saying that you can backfill and grade and redisturb it again? <br />Item No. 4 <br />The inspection report accurately stated that the operator, Mr. Herskind, <br />informed the inspector that no reclamation had taken place. Mr. Herskind <br />never showed me the five acres west of Academy Blvd. neither did he <br />indicate to me that there was any reclamation work that was done on <br />site. I called and talked to him on the telephone and asked him again if <br />there had been any kind of reclamation work done on site that I did not <br />get to see before I sent the inspection report. At which time he <br />indicated again that there was none and informed me to also send a copy <br />of the inspection report to you. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.