Laserfiche WebLink
Date: August 20, 2003 <br />To: Michael E. Grantenbein, Holcim (US) Inc. <br />From: Larry D. Oehler <br />RE: Second Adequacy Review, AM-1, Portland Limestone Quarry, Permit No. M-1977-344 <br />The items listed are items from the original adequacy review that require additional response. <br />The numbers are the same as listed in the original review. If an item number from the original <br />review does not appeaz in the list, that item was adequately addressed in your first response. <br />Exhibit C -Mining Plan Map <br />Item No. 2 <br />Your response to this item was "The Exhibit C maps have been redrawn to draw a clear <br />distinction between those azeas that are or will be disturbed and azeas within the permitted area <br />that will remain undisturbed." It is obvious that there is still some confusion on this issue. The <br />Figure C-2 map needs further clarification. On the map, there aze areas that it appears are not <br />planned to be affected; however, they are not sepazated entirely from land to be affected by a <br />boundary line. One such azea is immediately south of Cut 19. The south boundary of cut 19 is <br />useful in determining the boundary between affected and unaffected land. However, there is no <br />boundary line between the south end of the northwest quarry and the area to be leR undisturbed. <br />There is another area north of the area released in 1990, which is not entirely separated from <br />areas to be affected by an affected land boundary line <br />An area where it appears land will be affected but is not identified as such on an Exhibit C map, <br />is the area around the lower reach of Bear Creek within the permit boundary. This is an area <br />bounded by a haul road; the west boundary of cuts 2, 3 and part of 4 and the south permit <br />boundary. Figure F-1 appears to show that this area will be affected by grading as part of the <br />overall site grading plan. The reclamation plan map contours for this area are quite different <br />from the contours on the mining plan map. The area is not included within an affected land <br />boundary. Please include it within an affected land boundary or explain why it is not within such <br />a boundary. <br />The Division assumes that the entire fault zone area will be affected by construction activities of <br />diverting Bear Creek. Please show by an affected land boundary that all of this azea is expected <br />to be disturbed, unless you do not agree with this assumption. If you wish to identify portions of <br />the fault zone area that will not be disturbed, please show them by exclusion using affected land <br />boundaries for those areas to be disturbed. <br />