ENFORCE32931 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~J INTRODUCTION ' The following represents Castle Concrete Company's response to the Letter of adequacy from the MLRD dated November 7, 1989, contained in the preceding section, and included by reference herein. The response has been prepared by all parties responsible for preparation of the CAP. ' The Operator commits to the CAP and the revisions contained in this Response. The corrective action has begun in accordance with the schedule ' contained in the CAP. Work is Intended to continue as per that schedule through the winter months to optimize the Spring planting season. The schedule is still somewhat contingent upon the weather conditions as work progresses. PHASE I RESPONSE ' The Phase I CAP addressed an area that was cited In the Notice of Violation in the vicinity of the West side of the existing quarry operation, ' knbwn as the Williams Canyon area. The Pollowing six Items correspond to the referenced Adequacy Letter. ITEM NO. 1 RESPONSE: The off-site disturbances in Williams Canyon ' total 0.63 acres. The map included In the Appendix of this submittal shows the disturbed land. The acreage was determined by measuring the amount of disturbed land outside the Mining Limit. Approximately 2.200 ' square feet of this disturbance is included in the land between the Mining Limit and the Permit Boundary. The breakdown of the acreage shows that 0.33 acres is on Castle ' Concrete land and 0.3 acres is on Cave of the Winds land. Please keep in mind that the Mining Limit is the boundary of the land that was expe~:ted to be mined in the original plan. In fact, the "on-the-ground" mining limit ' was established somewhat Inside the designed mining limit boundary. 'Chis was because of encountering certain rock conditions that prevented further mining. However, the land between where the mining limit was actually ' established and where it was designed was also disturbed as a result of'the slides. We do not interpret this as part of the violation a~'ea as the land was originally designed to be mined. However, this disturbed land betW~een the actual mining limit and the designed mining limit will be reclaimed in ' the same fashion as the land outside the designed mining limit and included in the violation. ' ITEM NO. 2 RESPONSE: This submittal contains a map in the Appendix that shows the land described !n response to Item 1. This map is a photocopy of a portion of the current permit map for the quarry. The boundaries of the disturbed area were established through on-site ' inspection, examination oP serial and ground based photos, and coordination with the surveyed permit boundary line and property lines. - 1