Laserfiche WebLink
Pikeview Quarry -Decision Notice and FONSI <br />08/30/01 <br />Page 1 I <br />desirable wildlife habitat. While the Forest Service recognizes this concerr>, the <br />purpose of t_he project is to mitigate the visual impact of the existing scarred area. <br />Laying back the slope and revegetating the hillside with native materials which <br />most closely resembles the adjacent forested areas seems to be the best approach. <br />The Forest ,Service and Castle Concrete will work with the Division to make <br />minor changes in the revegetation plan when reasonable, but the intent is to <br />reforest the disturbed slope. An example of a minor change would be to <br />substitute Antelope Bitterbrush, Common Snowberry, Common Winterfat or Wax <br />Current for Rocky Mourrtain Juniper and Gambel's Oak. <br />3. Several issues were identified in a letter from John Himmelreich, Jr. which were <br />considered in the final decision to allow the layback at the Pikeview Quarry. The <br />issue of the}tnstable west high wall was mentioned in the Environmental <br />Assessment but not elaborated on. Mr. IIirmnelreich references the Dames and <br />Moore study of ] 977 as evidence that two slides occurred prior to 1977, At least <br />one of those occurred prior to 1969, the date Castle Concrete acquired the <br />operation ar~td began mining. The Dames and Moore study also points out that <br />this instability is a characteristic of the configuration of the limestone relative to <br />the slope. The report also states that mining at the toe of the slope could result in <br />sliding. The instability problem has existed for a significant period of time and <br />has probablyworsened over recent years. The Forest Service does not feel like ii <br />would be rewarding the Company by allowing the layback onto National Forest <br />System land, but would be allowing for a better reclamation plan to be <br />implemented which would mitigate the visual impact of the quarry. <br />Another iss4te expressed was that the EA was not prepared by a qualified <br />professionaLgeotogist as required by State Law C.R.S. 34-]-202. The EA is <br />required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for submission to the <br />USDA Forest Service for projects proposed on lands administered by the Forest <br />Service. Arl~irrterdisciplinary team composed of specialists including professional <br />geologists grepazed the EA Chapter 6, List of Preparers, acknowledges those <br />who contributed to the prepazation of the EA. <br />Another concern which was identified was that the geologic cross sections in the <br />EA aze located through low points in drainages and reduce the limits of <br />disturbances on the ridges. In addition, cross sections A-A' and B-B' in the EA <br />show a band of shale where limestone should occur. A composite cross section <br />was used to represent the underlying geologic interfaces and determine a mined <br />slope that would be stable. The design top of the slope was determined for both <br />ridges and drainages, and are conservatively contained within the area of <br />disturbance required for the layback. The shale and limestone graphic legends <br />were inadvertently switched in creating the individual cross sections A-A' and B- <br />B' presented in the EA. The predominant material is limestone and not shale. <br />Cross section C-C' is correct and accurately represents the granite and sandstone <br />interfaces. The slope stability analysis, mine design and limits of disturbance are <br />not affected by this error. <br />