Laserfiche WebLink
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