REV13243

• Permit No: M1977393
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 5/3/1995
• Doc Name: STATUS OF THE REVISION VARRA COMPANIES INC JENKINS SITE TR-001 PN M-77-393
• From: DMG
• To: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
• Type & Sequence: TR2
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Letter to Joseoh de Raismes 3 Mav 3. 1995
Land Reclamation Board unless the Division's decision or handling of
the revision is appealed by the operator or other interested party.
It is also stated in item number i of the City of Boulder's concerns
that the technical revision is written in such ec way as to
effectively destroy "any real future utility of the Permit". It is
the Division's view that our letter dated April 7, 19~~5 adequately
eliminates concerns with overly general language in t:he technical
revision application. It is also important to note that any revised
permit would continue to subject the operator to reclamation
requirements for site grading and vegetation establishment that
would return the Jenkins Pit to the selected beneficial post mining
land use of rangeland. All technical revision approval letters
issued by the Division include the following wording:
The terms of the Technical Revision, TR-XXX, approved by the
Division are hereby incorporated into Permit No. M-XX-XXX. All
other conditions and requirements of Permit No. M-.KX-XXX remain
in full force and effect.
Hence, only terms specifically included in a technical revision
modify what has been previously approved in a permit, .end all other
permit terms maintain their future utility.
Item Number 2 in the list of concerns enumerated in your April 21,
1995 letter states that:
The hasty, ill-advised approval of the Technical Revision
deprives the City of Boulder of its right to submit objections.
To reiterate, the Division has not yet approved the technical
revision dated April 5, 1995, and the Division has and +,~ill continue
to consider all written comments on the technical revision that are
submitted. It is the City of Boulder's contention, as explained in
your letter, that the April 5, 1995 submittal from the operator
should be an amendment rather than a technical revision. Also, in
a letter from Mr. Daniel R. Frost of Fairfield and Woods, P.C.,
dated April 21, 1995 and written on behalf of the Cit;~ of Boulder,
a demand is made for a hearing on the issue of whether the April 5,
1995 submittal from Varra Companies is a technical revision or an
amendment. The stated basis for the demand for a hez+ring is Rule
1.7.1 of the Mineral Rules and Regulations. It is the Division's
view that this issue would be more appropriately be res~~lved through
the Declaratory Order process detailed in Rule 2.5 01' the Mineral
Rules and Regulations. The Declaratory Order process is designed to
terminate controversies or remove uncertainties as to the
applicability of any statutory provision of or any rule or order of
the Board made pursuant to the Mined Land Reclamation .Act. To this
end, the Division has scheduled the City of Boulder's concern over
the status of the April 5, 1995 Varra Companies submittal for
consideration by the Mined Land Reclamation Board at their May 24-