Laserfiche WebLink
RECEIVE 999��������� <br /> CONOVER, MCCLEARN & HEPPENSTALL FEB 19 1995 <br /> PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION <br /> ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW SUITE 2600 MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION <br /> 1775 SHERMAN STREET Colo. Dept. of Natural Resources TELEPHONE(303) 837-9222 <br /> OENVER,COLORADO 80203-4322 TELECOPIER(303)837-8975 <br /> February 15 , 1985 <br /> MICHAEL S.McCARTHY <br /> Mr. David C. Shelton , Director <br /> Mined Land Reclamation Division <br /> 1313 Sherman Street , Room 423 <br /> Denver, Colorado 80203 <br /> Re: Nottingham Sand and Gravel Company/Eagle Pit <br /> Amendment/File No. 78-352/Request for Technical <br /> Revision <br /> Dear Mr. Shelton: <br /> Nottingham Sand and Gravel Company ( "NS&G" ) hereby re- <br /> quests a technical revision for its amended Eagle Pit permit , <br /> pursuant to Rule 1 .9. <br /> Specifically, NS&G requests that the term of its permit <br /> requiring reapplication of "12 inches of overburden fines and <br /> 4 inches of topsoil to all disturbed areas," be revised to re- <br /> quire reapplication of all suitable overburden fines and top- <br /> soil to establish an adequate plant growth medium with a mini- <br /> mum depth of 4 inches. <br /> In support of this requested technical revision NS&G <br /> states that test boring conducted at the Eagle Pit by the Soil <br /> Conservation Service has established that there are no more <br /> than 4 to 6 inches of acceptable topsoil and overburden avail- <br /> able at the site for purposes of reapplication to establish <br /> plant growth medium. This is substantiated by the August 31 , <br /> 1984 of Mr. Rick Olson , the District Conservationist for the <br /> Soil Conservation Service, a copy of which is attached hereto. <br /> We believe that the inclusion of the present topsoil and <br /> overburden reapplication requirement results from a misunder- <br /> standing of statements made by Mr. Randy Nottingham at the <br /> permit amendment hearing before the Board on June 27 , 1984. <br /> In fact, an examination of the permit amendment application <br /> demonstrates that there are insufficient materials on site to <br /> satisfy the present reapplication requirement. That require- <br /> ment could be met only by importation of topsoil or overburden <br /> fines. Significantly, the Board made clear at its June 27 <br />