Laserfiche WebLink
Transit Mix Concrete Co. <br /> elevations shown on the G-G' section line on Figure 1. For example, on Figure 1, the G-G' <br /> section line intersects the quarry edge at an elevation of 7,040 feet. However, on the G <br /> sections, the quarry edge is shown at an elevation of approximately 7,000 feet. The Figure <br /> 1 G-G' section line shows elevations mainly decreasing west of the quarry edge to a final <br /> elevation of approximately 7,010 feet at the G' edge of section line. However, on the G <br /> sections, the ground surface past the quarry edge rises to approximately 7,050 feet in <br /> elevation, then drops off slightly to 7,025-7,030 feet in elevation at the G' edge of section <br /> line. Please make the necessary corrections so that Figures G1.1 through G2.2 correlate <br /> with Figure 1. <br /> Response: The G-G' section lines are correct. The fines stockpile slopes to the west until <br /> reaching the highwall at the pit extents. A ridge of undisturbed land will remain between <br /> the pit and the creek and road. When this area is backfilled with the F2 stockpile, this <br /> ridge/stockpile interface will be graded to remove essentially the entire rock outcropping as <br /> discussed in Comment #30. Figure 1 has been revised to remove the reclamation hatching, <br /> which obscures the "ridge" at the pit extents. <br /> 126) In the Pit Wall Geotechnical Assessment, the Applicant mentions the six new monitoring <br /> wells and piezometer installed on site in July 2017, stating that although they were <br /> primarily intended to provide information on groundwater levels, they do provide <br /> information on rock types, rock quality, and other geotechnical information in the area. <br /> These 7 wells are listed in Table 1 —Borehole Details along with the 13 boreholes that were <br /> drilled previously. Please clarify whether information from the 2017 wells was used in the <br /> pit wall geotechnical assessment. <br /> Response: Data from the 2017 drilling program were included in the data used in the pit <br /> wall geotechnical assessment. <br /> 127) On page 13 of the Pit Wall Geotechnical Assessment, the Applicant states that a Limit <br /> Equilibrium "LE" analysis has been carried out for a cross-section for the highest section of <br /> the Phase 1 pit wall which is approximately 200 feet in height. However, in Exhibit D, the <br /> Applicant states the total pit depth during Phase 1 will be 300 feet. Please explain this <br /> discrepancy or make any necessary corrections. If the 200 feet height is incorrect, please be <br /> sure to make any necessary changes to the "L-E" analysis. <br /> Response: The road between the Plant and fines stockpile F1 was revised to address other <br /> comments, and the road now travels up the southwest pit wall providing a large bench <br /> within the pit wall slopes. The Phase I pit wall has an overall height of 310 feet; however, <br /> the road crosses this area twice, reducing the actual the pit wall slopes. The maximum pit <br /> wall between the roads is 150 feet high; therefore, the 200-foot analysis exceeds the <br /> expected conditions. The text in the Exhibit 6.5 reports and in Exhibit D have been revised <br /> to discuss the revised pit and road configurations. <br /> 128) On page 13 of the Pit Wall Geotechnical Assessment, the Applicant states the ultimate wall <br /> heights for the proposed quarry range from approximately 300 feet to 500 feet. However, in <br /> Exhibit D, the maximum pit depth during mining phase IV is 590 feet. Please explain this <br /> discrepancy or make any necessary corrections. <br /> Hitch Rack Ranch Quarry(M-2017-049) <br /> Response to Comments—March 9,2018 <br />