My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE72396
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
800000
>
PERMFILE72396
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:21:59 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 12:16:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1973007SG
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
6/18/1985
Doc Name
RESPONSES TO ADEQUACY LETTER DATED 5/9/85 DANIELS SAND CO PIT 2 YOUR FN 73-007
From
MARK A HEIFNER
To
MLR
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.
/
18
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
• P~ 13 <br />June 18, 1985 <br />Daniel's Pit 2 <br />C. Farrell <br />RESPONSE: lJe do not intend to construct a drainage system that will <br />pass the water on to Fountain Creek and thereby exacerbating an already <br />serious problem. Grading will be done in such a way that most of the <br />~ water will be retained on the site and used to help establish and <br />•l maintain vegetation in the event development is not emminent. On the <br />rather large plant site, drainage problems have rarely occurred. All of <br />this land surface will sit on top of many feet of gravel. Even heavy <br />thunderstorms rarely produce overland flows. We feel that with proper <br />grading to retain and utilize rainfall, the construction of an elaborate <br />drainage system is not necessary. If it is to be developed and most of <br />the area paved, then drainage systems will be needed, but then that will <br />be the developer's problem. Our goal is to reclaim the land to a <br />condition that would be suitable for either industrial development or <br />utilization as greenbelt or grazing or parkland. It is also our opinion <br />that the use of drainage systems on this land is essentially <br />counterproductive to producing the best revegetation. <br />Item 4 - In the discussion concering the fill depth of the <br />northeastern portion of Phase IIe, reference was made to cross-section <br />~~ I-I'. The cross-section J-J' better relates to that area. Please <br />clarify this matter. <br />RESPONSE: You are quite correct. This appears to have been an <br />error on our part. <br />Item 5 - Topsoil replacement should not precede seeding by more than <br />three weeks. Please commit to such, or commit to protecting the topsoil <br />by incorporating crimped mulch into it, maintained until such time as <br />seeding occurs. <br />/ RESPONSE: We do not fully agree with your statement that three <br />weeks is the maximum time that soil should sit before being seeded. <br />Idealy, seeding should be done within a day or two of topsoiling when <br />dealing with most soils. However, the logistics of that tight of a <br />time frame can rarely be met. Therefore, we feel, as stated in the <br />plan, we will strive for a maximum of two to three weeks. If possible, <br />of course, it will be done sooner as it is only to our advantage to do <br />so. That time frame is needed though, because equipment can rarely be <br />drawn from production activities far long periods of time without <br />causing very severe problems in meeting product demands. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.