My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2003-11-10_REVISION - M1978056 (11)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1978056
>
2003-11-10_REVISION - M1978056 (11)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 2:15:25 PM
Creation date
3/12/2009 1:33:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1978056
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
11/10/2003
Doc Name
Exhibit M to Public Notice
From
Varra Companies, Inc.
To
DMG
Type & Sequence
AM1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Varna Companies, Inc. <br />Office of Sp6cial Projects <br />1431 East 16`h Street Greeley Colorado 80631 Telephone (970). tVE 353-4047 <br />Tuesday 26 August 2003 <br />SEP 18! 2003 <br />Barbara D. Chiappone Division of Minerals and Geology <br />Minerals Division Program Assistant II <br />Colorado Division of Minerals Est Geology <br />1313 Sherman St., Ste. 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Subject: Amendment to M78-056: Varra Companies, Inc. - Durham Project. <br />Reply to your correspondence of 9 September 2003. <br />Dear Barb: <br />In reply to your correspondence of 9 September, we trust the following will satisfy your concerns. <br />APPLICATION FORM: <br />It is our understanding that a permit is issued to the `Operator,' and as the Operator, have made a <br />benign change to the Operation name. There is to our understanding, no statutory or corresponding <br />mandate of the rules and regulations that would serve to prohibit the change in the Operation name. <br />Since it appears to be a benign desire of the Operator to change the name, is there a substantive <br />objection by the Division to prohibit this change? If so, please state the relevant statute or rule. <br />Further, if such a change is prohibited, would references to the new name have to be altered <br />throughout the submittal as well, and the entire package reproduced and resubmitted? <br />It is our desire to fully cooperate with the Diiision on substantive matters comprising the permit that <br />may serve to influence environmental or substantive regulatory considerations and integrity on the <br />ground. If the Operator, and other technical elements of the permit can be changed, it is completely <br />off our radar as to why a change to the operation name merited the concern of the Division. <br />EXHIBITS - Permanent Man-Made Structures (Rule 6.4.19): <br />A statement by the Engineer was made on the Exhibit S - Map. There is to my knowledge no specific <br />requirement to provide a separate text for Exhibit S - as long as the substantive matters are addressed <br />If qualitative elements of the Engineer's statement appear lacking, this suggests a matter to be <br />addressed under technical review and not as a part of determination for completeness. Regardless, if it <br />would benefit your office for us to do so, we will extract the Engineer's statement from the map and <br />include it on a separate 8.5 x 11 inch paper text. Is there specific language lacking on the map that you <br />are looking for that is affecting your decision? <br />ADDENDUM 1- Notice Requirements - Affidavit of Posting Notice (Sign Rule 16 2(1)(b)): <br />This appears to be a proper concern expressed by your office. The confusion comes from the nature of <br />the proof. The Division requires that the Notice be Posted and Certified. The smaller Notice is <br />intended to Certify that the larger Notice was Posted, since most certainly, the smaller Notice would
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.