James Turner/R6/USEPA/US 

05/09/2007 04:22 PM 

To Rebamburg@aol.com 

cc Shawn Ghose/R6/USEPA/US@EPA 

bcc ' 

Subject Re: Graham/Rogers Road legalQ 

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 

Bob, I have fonwarded the 1.38 acre legal description to our site Remedial Project Manager to review. I . 

believe we are Ok with the legal on the larger tract, I have corrected the typos you noted in the draft 

document, and will await your information on the ownership changes, 

I stiil need to have a description of current uses to attach as an exhibit to the instrument and will be happy 

to draft something up for you to review and revise, if you prefer. 

On the Sub-Para 4(a) ground water use restrictions, as Ihe document is written, those operate as to the 

whole 20+ acre tract with the exception for non-agncultural watering on the big tract (i.e. the grass, 

gardens, trees, etc.). If he needs to have some additonal water uses, let's discuss what we're talking 

about as it may well be possible to further adjust these provisions to his satisfaction. The residential use 

is the chief concern. I would assume they may have municipal or other water service hook-ups, but in any 

event we can discuss further tailoring of this provision as necessary. 

James L. Turner 

Senior Attorney 

Office of Regional Counsel (6RC-S) 

U.S. EPA Region 6 

1445 Ross Avenue, Ste. 1200 

Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 

E-Mail: Turner,James@epa.gov 

Ph: (214)665-3159 

Fax:(214)665-6460 

Rebamburg@aoLc6m 

9050340 

llllilllilllllllllillllliiillillll 

Rebamburg@aol.com 

05/09/2007 08:54 AM To James Turner/R6/USEPA/US@EPA 

cc 

Subject Graham/Rogers Road legal 

Jim: 

Sorry for the delay; I'm swamped and couldn't find our electronic version in our computers and had to 

have it retyped to send this to you electronically. Thought that would be easier. 

Here's the legal for the fenced in portion as provided by the City's consulting, sun/eyor/engineer, I've also 

got a more detailed legal from the acreage overall, but thought you had that one. If not, let me know and 

I'll forward it as well. Both are now in the computer where we can find them, 

I forwarded your redline draft of easement restrictions to Frederick for review. His father has since passed 

away, and he tells me the property was included in a probate to transfer everything into just his Mom's 

002309
name. If not, we have an easy method of doing so in Arkansas that will cause no delays or problems. 

He's to review and let me know this week or next their thoughts or questions. 

As a resulL there will be a few changes needed to the document, and correction of a typo or two. We'll 

need to take Mr Gentry's name off of the document and have it to be approved by Mrs, Gentry only. As 

welt, I believe that the restriction in 4(a) of the document is intended for the fenced in portion, not the full 

property. If not, it's going to render the remaining property virtually useless. As well, 4 (c), (d), and (e) 

have typos in them in the word describe. 

Let me know if you need anything else; and I'll let you know when I hear from Frederick after his review. 

Thanks, 

Bob 

ROBERT E, BAMBURG 

City Attorney 

CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS 

P, O, Box 5913 

Jacksonville, AR 72078 

(501)982-6303 

(501) 982-2280 (fax) 

See what's free at AOL,com, DESCgeniry doc 

002310