2003-11-10_REVISION - M1978056 (8)

Home Browse Search

Varra Companies, Inc. Office of Special Projects 1431 East 16th Street Greeley. Colorado 80631 Telephone (9701 3 5 3-83 10 Fax (970) 353-4047 Tuesday 26 August 2003 RECEIVE® Bazbaza D. Chiappone Minerals Division Program Assistant II NOV ~ Q Z~Q3 Colorado Division of Minerals &t Geology Division of Minerals and Geology 1313 Sherman St., Ste. 215 Denver, Colorado 80203 Subject: 'Amendment to M78-056: Varra Companies, Inc. -Durham Project. Reply to your correspondence of 9 September 2003. Dear Barb: In reply to your correspondence of 9 September, we trust the following will satisfy your concerns. APPLICATION FORM: It is our understanding that a permit is issued to the `Operator; and as the Operator, have made a benign change to the Operation name. There is to our understanding, no statutory or corresponding mandate of the rules and regulations that would serve to prohibit the change in the Operation name. Since it appears to be a benign desire of the Operator to change the name, is there a substantive objection by the Division to prohibit this change? If so, please state the relevant statute or rule. Further, ff such a change is prohibited, would references to the new name have to be altered throughout the submittal as well, and the entire package reproduced and resubmitted? It is our desire to fully cooperate with the Division on substantive matters comprising the permit that may serve to influence environmental or substantive regulatory considerations and integrity on the ground. If the Operator, and other technical elements of the permit can be changed, it is completely off our radar as to why a change to the operation name merited the concern of the Division. EXHIBIT S -Permanent Man-Made Structures (Rule 6.4.19): A statement by the Engineer was made on the Exhibit S -Map. There is to my knowledge no specific requirement to provide a sepazate text for Exhibit S - as long as the substantive matters are addressed. If qualitative elements of the Engineer s statement appear lacking, this suggests a matter to be addressed under technical review and not as a part of determination for completeness. Regardless, if it would benefit your office for us to do so, we will extract the Engineer's statement from the map and include it on a separate 8.5 x 11 inch paper text. Is there specific language lacking on the map that you aze looking for that is affecting your decision? ADDENDUM 1-Notice Requirements -Affidavit of Posting Notice (Sign) Rule 1.6.2(1)(b)): This appears to be a proper concern expressed by your office. The confusion comes from the nature of the proof. The Division requires that the Notice be Posted and Certified The smaller Notice is intended to Certify that the larger Notice was Posted, since most certainly, the smaller Notice would