2003-09-19_REVISION - M1978056

• Permit No: M1978056
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 9/19/2003
• Doc Name: Reply to your correspondence of 09/09/03
• From: Varra Companies Inc.
• To: DMG
• Type & Sequence: AM1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Varra Companies, Inc.
Office of Special Projects
1431 East 16`" Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
Tuesday 26 August 2003 RECEIVED
Barbara D. Chiappone SEP 1 92003
Minerals Division Program Assistant IDivision of Minerals and Geolo
Colorado Division of Minerals &r Geology
1313 Sherman St., Ste. 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Subject: Amendment to Ma8-056: Varra Companies, Inc. -Durham Project.
Reply to your correspondence of 9 September 2003.
C/asst ~evision Tde-St~, ~ ~wf- /
Dear Bazb:
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 prol-,ibit this change? if so, please state the relevant statute or rule.
Further, if such a change is prohibited, would references to the new name have to be altered
throughout the submittal as well, and th_ 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 radaz 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 separate text for Exhibit S - as long as the substantive matters aze addressed.
If qualitative elements of the Engineer's statement appeaz lacking, this suggests a matter to be
addressed under technical review and not as a part of determination for completeness. Regazdless, $ 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 sepazate 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