Laserfiche WebLink
999 <br /> February 21 , IM <br /> Robert J. Sten,redel , Jr. <br /> P.O. Box 1143 <br /> Eagle, Colorado P1641 <br /> RE: Letter of Objection to Nottingham Sand and 'ravel Eagle Pit <br /> File No. 79-;512 <br /> Dear Mr. Stemwedel : <br /> Thank you for your letter of February 1C , 1970, outlining the basis <br /> for your objection. The legOer will he handled as ner our conversation <br /> on February 17, 1:17^ , th3t 1s , sent to the opyrntnr and nresentc' to <br /> the Board. <br /> I would like to indicate that your letter is so vague I an not at all <br /> sure exactly what you are referring to. Rulc 2. 1", states t;iat tl'e basis <br /> of the objection should be stated as concisely as possible. Your letter <br /> certainly does not , In my opinion, do that. I would very such like <br /> to know what facts you believe are incorrect , tihy you believe the aapli- <br /> cation is incomplete, whbthl&aw issuance of the permit would violate, and <br /> why and how the operation will cause inrepatle injury to the land. <br /> One of the reasons the Board likes to have 8dtail in the letter is to <br /> help reduce their tine in condidereeing the case. With the inforcation <br /> often the staff can help resolve any problems prior to the Coard ,�_eting <br /> possibly reducing a three or four hour legal presentation to a ten minute. <br /> non-controversial oresentatlon. If you could more peecisaly detail your <br /> objections I am sure the Board would greatly appreciate it. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> Mark A. Heifner <br /> Supervising Reclamation Specialist <br /> MAH:cj <br />