REV03955 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

42 to attempt to degrade the process to the level of a witch hunt, lad~:n with color a3 words, exaggerations and distortions. 44 as It is in fact the Office's opinion that each and every one of the C:ity's original ab arguments manufactured in its correspondence of 21 April 1995, "are a7 unfounded." It is Varra's intent is to support the Office's opinion on both logical a8 and technical merit relative to the City's arguments. 49 so Further, we do not believe that the problems encountered at this site are st unusual or uncommon. tt is our understanding that the Techni~:al Revision sz process is intended to better allow for changes due to the unforeseen, ss unexpected, accidental and otherwise essential changes in field operations. s4 The "minor" changes required by these forces might otherwise encumber and ss overwhelm the Amendment process at considerable expense Ind minimal 56 benefit to all concerned. 57 58 Finally, it is Varra's intent to show that several of the issues at play in the City's 59 concerns were evident as early as the 1981 Amendment, and the remedies 6o included in the Technical Revision were necessary for Varra to respond bt favorably to Option I of the Division's Inspection Report of 2/21/95. In an effort 6z to effect enhancements to the older permit designs, and in order to attend to 63 issues neglected by previous submittals, the Technical Revision volunteered 6a certain activities and technical improvements above and b~ayond that 65 requested or overlooked by the Office. 66 67 Time and again, Varra has met the Office's concerns with respect for every 68 issue, even where we disagree. Varra has met every deadline, done the hard 69 work first, and made its very best effort to orchestrate its activities with the full 7o participation and inclusion of the Office. Where problems have been evident, 71 Varra has not pointed the finger to others in some vain attempt to avoid 7z responsibility. In every way, and in spite of present day circumstances, Varra 73 will continue to conduct its affairs with full cooperation, good faith, .and sincere 7a desire for a successful and favorable outcome. 75 76 77 78 Arguments in favor and support of the Technical Revision: 79 80 8t How technical issues surfaced, and how and why they were attended to, can sz reveal a great deal in defense of the terms present in the approved technical 83 revision. The following is a technical defense of the TR relative to the Correspondence to Bruce Humphries, Colorado Office of Mined land Reclamation, of 2] July 1995 2 for Varra Companies, Inc. from Bradford Janes, Professional Forester.