Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Michael Cunningham - February 15, 2011 <br />Page Five <br />(Ms. Stephanie Carter), and BLM has indicated that posting of the joint bond at this time <br />is the preferred route regardless of the project's NEPA status. <br />Accordingly, AGC contacted DRMS personnel during the week of January 17, 2011 to <br />determine the proper Financial Warranty Form for joint agency bonding. That form has <br />been provided by DRMS, and AGC is in the process of completing the form and <br />replacing the financial warranty that was filed on or about August 2, 2010. AGC will <br />maintain direct contact with the DRMS bonding specialist (Ms. Johanna Cramer) as <br />necessary, and we anticipate that this issue (while not completed prior to the February <br />15, 2011 corrective action date) will be resolved in the very near future and presumably <br />prior to February 28, 2011. <br />4) Problem: The permit boundary was inadequately marked. <br />Corrective Action: Install sturdy markers at each change in boundary direction. <br />AGC RESPONSE. Prior lath staking has presumably been subject to disturbance <br />and/or loss during prior (pre-AGC) operations, or, to the extent such staking may have <br />remained present when AGC assumed permittee/operator status, it did not survive the <br />September 2010 Four Mile Canyon Fire. AGC will commit to having the permit boundary <br />adequately staked by a Colorado Registered Land Surveyor utilizing steel "T" posts or <br />an equivalent durable staking material. Due to the irregular shape of the permit area, <br />stake spacing will define all significant directional changes and where irregular <br />alignments are present between significant changes in direction the staking will occur at <br />nominal 150-ft. intervals. Again, due to seasonal conditions and depth of snow cover, <br />scheduling of field performance of the survey must be deferred to a later date in order to <br />ensure accuracy of the survey and integrity of staking. As such, AGC respectfully <br />requests an extension for completion of the field survey/installation portion of the <br />corrective action to July 31, 2011. <br />GOLD HILL MILL (Permit No. M-1994-117) <br />(December 22, 2010 Inspection Report) <br />No other specific Problem/Possible Violation citations were contained on the Gold Hill Mill <br />(Permit No. M-1994-117) Inspection Report. Applicable items are addressed within and in <br />response to the January 12, 2011 letter notification (above). <br />AGC understands the significance of these compliance concerns, and AGC remains committed <br />to establishing compliant operations at the Gold Hill Mill while working through this difficult <br />period of transition. We trust that the foregoing responses address the outstanding compliance <br />concerns associated with the Gold Hill Mill (Permit No. M-1994-141). If you have any questions <br />or require further information in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned