Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Michael Cunningham - February 15, 2011 <br />Page Two <br />AGC RESPONSE. As discussed during the December 22, 2011 site inspection, and <br />absent field confirmation one way or the other, AGC would like to remove/close the raise <br />feature regardless of its specific location relative to the permit boundary. It was <br />apparently constructed as a raise (circa 2006) to satisfy MSHA requirements during the <br />initial stages of development of the Cash 3`d level adit, and is believed by AGC to be no <br />longer required. Accordingly, AGC is committed to closure and reclamation of the <br />feature in general accordance with DRMS AML program design guidelines for shaft <br />closure, or equivalent. <br />Due to safety concerns associated with working on a steep slope (under snow cover <br />conditions) and construction quality control concerns (frost line, etc.), AGC would prefer <br />to accomplish the closure during more favorable weather conditions. Allowing for design <br />considerations, contractor bid/award, and other factors, AGC respectfully requests an <br />extension for completion of the corrective action to August 31, 2011. <br />2) Problem: Incorrect financial warranty bond form on file. <br />Corrective Action: Provide a fully executed BLM bond form. <br />AGC RESPONSE. This situation apparently evolves from prior (pre-AGC) operations <br />wherein there was an apparent failure to provide copies of and/or properly inform all <br />known/identified underlying and adjacent landowners (i.e., BLM), most recently during <br />the Permit No. M1983-141 Amendment 02 application process. Such action would have <br />triggered standard project permitting requirements consistent with the National <br />Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), culminating in the proper bond format. <br />AGC discussed this outstanding issue with BLM (Ms. Stephanie Carter - Canon City <br />Field Office) and DRMS personnel on June 20, 2010 during a joint agency onsite <br />meeting. At that time, AGC was informed that (and in agreement with) posting of <br />adequate financial warranty with BLM as joint obligee (with DRMS) should occur in <br />conformance with NEPA procedures and policies wherein bond amount is determined <br />subsequent to completion of the Plan of Operations (POO) and Environmental <br />Assessment (EA) process. Accordingly, AGC was prepared to resolve the issue with <br />upcoming permit modifications which would by law incorporate the requisite NEPA <br />components. Regardless, AGC has no problem addressing this issue at this juncture, so <br />long as BLM is cognizant of the fact that bonding is being put in place for a project <br />encompassing (in part) BLM surface and that has not yet fulfilled NEPA requirements. <br />In this regard, we have subsequently discussed this aspect with BLM (Ms. Stephanie <br />Carter), and BLM has indicated that posting of the joint bond at this time is the preferred <br />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 replacing