My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2009-05-11_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981028
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981028
>
2009-05-11_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981028
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:46:20 PM
Creation date
5/12/2009 11:54:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981028
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
5/11/2009
Doc Name
Bond Release Tracking for SL1, SL2, and SL3
From
Janet Binns
To
Susan Burgmaier
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Email Name
SLB
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.
/
3
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
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM <br />TO, SUSAN BURGMAIER <br />FROM: JANET BINNS <br />SUBJECT: ACREAGE RELEASES KEENESBURG MINE <br />DATE: MAY 11, 2009 <br />CC: SANDY BROWN, DAN HERNANDEZ <br />Thank you for your memo dated April 30, 2009, regarding an apparent discrepancy in bond release acreage at the <br />Keenesburg Mine (C1928-028). The Keenesburg Mine is operated by Coors Energy Company (CEC). CEC has been <br />approved for phased bond releases on portions of the reclaimed mine through three bond release applications, <br />SL1, SL2, and SL3. CEC has recently submitted SL4 requesting phase III bond release on portions of the mine <br />previously approved for phase I and II bond releases. <br />Your memo is very timely as the Division continues to process phased bond releases at reclaimed mine sites. You <br />had identified several reclaimed parcels that had apparently received phase II bond release without having been <br />approved for phase I bond release. Specific parcels were identified as a portion of Area 3, all of Areas 14, 18 and <br />21. You also illustrate in your maps of bond released areas, that some areas received phase I bond release twice. <br />I researched the SL1, SL2 and SL3 records and found that there actually is not a problem. My records showed that <br />I had researched this concern previously, in July 2006. 1 had constructed an excel table and have printed the <br />pertinent portion. I have also gone back to the bond release applications, and findings of decision for each of the <br />three bond releases in order to confirm which parcels were released with each bond release. <br />The GIS is an awesome tool that aids the Division in catching apparent errors. Fortunately, the discrepancy in this <br />case is in the way that the bond release maps illustrate the bond release areas. The maps included in the bond <br />releases do not do a good job illustrating which parcels received phased bond releases previously, versus which <br />parcel are being requested in the pertinent application. Blending the maps with the bond release applications, <br />and the Division's findings documents, clarifies the situation. <br />I will give you the SL1, SL2, and SL3 bond release maps, along with the portion of the applications that clarify <br />which parcels are considered for each permitting action. I will also give you the portions of the findings that <br />document the Division's approvals. Thank you for your sharp eye in ferreting out a potential problem. Thankfully, <br />resolving the potential problem should be fairly easy once additional information is provided.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.