Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> 11/12 <br />Response: The bond cost estimate includes reclamation of both Bear Creek Quarry and Red <br />Creek Quarry. Exhibits C2.1 series maps depict the various stages of reclamation due to <br />contemporaneous reclamation during mining and acreage release in 1990 of 51 acres. During <br />preparation of Bear Creek Quarry maps, it was discovered that the actual acreage on the ground <br />is 1,326.89 acres. This is approximately 200 acres less than described in the 1977 112 <br />Application Exhibit A. Holcim commits to submitting a request for acreage reduction to correct this <br />discrepancy soon after the Division issues a decision regarding this amendment application. <br /> <br />32. Chain Linked Fence: Task 002 lists five miles of chain linked fence and posts to be <br />removed, presumably along the MTAC. Task 002 also lists 6.5 miles of conveyor system <br />to be removed/demolished. As a follow-on to Comment No. 15 above, it would seem the <br />length of fence would either be 6.5 miles or 13 miles (if on both sides of the conveyor ). <br />Please explain why only five miles of fence require removal. <br /> <br />Response: Task 002 is revised to reflect 13 miles of chain linked fence and posts. <br /> <br />6.4.13 Exhibit M- Other Permits and Licenses <br /> <br />33. Red Creek Crossing: As discussed during the November 2nd inspection, and as indicated <br />in Exhibit M, permitting requirements for the MTAC crossing Red Creek are in process <br />with the US Army Corps of Engineers. Depending on USACE requirements a technical <br />revision or amendment will be required to finalize the creek crossing. No response is <br />required at this time. <br /> <br />Response: Holcim continues to work with USACE regarding Red Creek Crossings. A technical <br />revision will be submitted upon final approval of the crossings from USACE. <br /> <br />6.4.19 Exhibit S- Permanent Man-Made Structures <br /> <br />34. Hwy 96: Rule 6.4.19 requires a damage compensation agreement for permanent man- <br />made structures within 200 feet of the affected area boundary. As the access road from <br />Hwy 96 is to be improved, it qualifies as affected area. The State Highway Access Permit <br />Application may serve as notice to CDOT as the owner of Hwy 96, but does not address <br />potential damages related to mining activities. If no damage compensation agreement <br />can be obtained from CDOT, Rule 6.4.19(a) requires an “an appropriate engineering <br />evaluation that demonstrates that such structure shall not be damaged by activities <br />occurring at the mining operation”. As no excavation or blasting are planned for over a <br />mile from Hwy 96, a short paragraph explaining the separation distance from mining and <br />blasting should be sufficient. <br /> <br />Response: No excavation or stockpiling of material will occur within a mile of Hwy 96 and no <br />planned access road improvements will raise or lower the existing, essentially flat terrain by more <br />than a foot or two. As such the planned earthworks pose no potential hazard to Hwy 96. <br /> <br />35. Blasting Impacts: Rules 6.5(3) and (4) require the DRMS to evaluate potential <br />geotechnical risks to highwalls where blasting might affect the stability of geological <br />structures during mining and after reclamation. As discussed in Comment No. 22, please <br />provide an assessment of the effect of quarry blasting on the stability of the existing Red <br />Creek canyon walls. <br /> <br />Response: The assessment of the effect of quarry blasting on the stability of the Red Creek <br />canyon walls is included in Section 7: Blasting Best practices of Appendix 4.1 Blasting Plan. <br /> <br />Additional Amendment Application Revisions