Laserfiche WebLink
Sent Message List <br />Permit #: M1977247 Confidential?: NO <br />Doc. Type: email exchange <br />From: DRMS-acs To: FILE <br />Doc. Name: Requirement and costs to remove rail siding <br />~ Message is not flagged. [ Flag for Follow Up ] Doc. Date: 9-18-2006 <br />Date: Mon Sep 18 17:15:14 2006 Specialist: ACS <br />From: Allen Sorenson <allen.sorenson@excite.com> <br />[ Add to Address Book I Block Address 1 Report as Spam ] <br />To: <BSHAJAR@GAPAC.com> <br />Subject: RE: coaldale bond <br />Bob, I just re-read the April 9, 2006 letter and can see where the confusion is coming from. W hen I said that <br />the siding could remain if the rail company stated it could, what I meant was that the siding could remain if it <br />had some use to the railroad, not just that it wouldn't interfere with the railroad. As to the bond amount, the <br />estimated cost far siding removal is about $30,000, but there are other costs associated with that propertry <br />that bring the total required bond to $46,000, including removal of the load out structure, removal of some <br />concrete foundations, minor grading work, and vegetation establishment. <br />-Allen <br />--- On Mon 09/18, Shajary, Bob < BSHAJAR@GAPAC.com > wrote: <br />From: Shajary, Bob [mailto: BSHAJAR@GAPAC.com] <br />To: allen.sorenson@excite.com <br />Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 15:20:07 -0500 <br />Subject: RE: coaldale bond <br />I totally agree with you as far as working toward the goal of removingthe old siding and in fact we have a <br />different plans for this smallparcel and that is at some point to remove the track and build possiblea house <br />there, what I was trying to do is no different that what youwrote to me on your April 9th 2006 letter and also <br />on that letter youmentioned my bond for this partial would be around $30,000 but on yourrecent letter you <br />are suggesting a bonding of $46,000 dollars and thiswas main reason to start exploring to your original <br />suggestion, I woulddo what you ask me to do but please be aware that my goal doesn'tdeviate from your <br />when restoration of land is concerns,Bob-----Original Message-----From: Allen Sorenson <br />[mailto:allen.sorenson@excite.com] Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 3:54 PMTo: Shajary, BobSubject: <br />RE: coaldale bond8ob, The goal of the reclamation permit is to assure that land isreturned to a beneficial <br />use, such as rangeland or wildlife habitat.The fact that <br />the siding does not interfere with railroad operationsdoes not meet this goal. What is needed is for the siding <br />to be removedand the land vegetated.Hope this helps,-Allen --- On Mon 09/18, Shajary, Bob < <br />BSHAJAR@GAPAC.com > wrote:From: Shajary, Bob [mailto: BSHAJAR@GAPAC.com]To: <br />allen.sorenson@excite.comDate: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 13:58:26 -0500Subject: RE: coaldale bondHl Allen,lf I <br />secure a letter similar to this from Union Pacific whomthey havecontrol over the main line at coaldale, would <br />this besatisfactory foryou to leave the siding remain on my property?Regards,BobMr. Philip PenkrotGeneral <br />Manager Logistics Development &ComplianceGeorgia-Pacific Corporation55 Park Place 12th FloorAtlanta <br />GA30303September 16, 2006Dear Mr. Penkrot:This is to confirm that thesiding owned by GP Gypsum, <br />located atCoaldale, Fremont County, Colorado,can remain in place as is, where is,without impeding <br />railroadoperations. Sincerely,Union Pacific Railroad <br />Company Join Excite! -http://www.excite.comThe <br />most personalized portal on the Web! <br />Join Excite! -http://www.excite.com <br />The most personalized portal on the Web! <br />I of 2 11/29/2006 6:23 PM <br />