Laserfiche WebLink
Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. <br />Page 3 <br />September 26, 2016 <br /> <br />b. The currently approved Map 2.05.4-5 shows 110.79 acres of IC for the Morgan Property <br />of which 87 acres is designated as Prime Farmland. The proposed Map 2.05.4-5 shows <br />108.07 acres of IC for the Morgan property and does not show that any of these acres are <br />designated prime farmland. <br />c. There is a large drop in Irrigated Pasture (IP) acreage, some of which may be accounted <br />for in the acreage the applicant is proposing to change to Adjacent Support Facilities <br />(ASF). However, this difference is larger than the total area the applicant is proposing to <br />change to ASF. Please explain. <br />d. There is a reduction of .09 acres associated with Pastureland – Irrigated Swales (IPSW). <br />e. There is a .19 acre reduction in the Developed Water Resource (P) acreage. <br />f. There is a 1.58 or 1.56 acre difference in the Commercial Roads (R) acreage. <br />g. The current proposed map legend indicates 15.9 acres are designated for Adjacent <br />Support Facilities (ASF), however three parcels totaling 16.8 acres are shown as ASF. <br />h. The total of all the various Post-mine Vegetation Type parcels shown on the currently <br />approved Table 2.05.4(2)(e)-1 is 827.44 acres and the sum of the all the acres shown on <br />proposed revised map 2.05.4-5 with the parcels and on the legend is 750.12 and 750.34 <br />acres respectively. Now, it appears the applicant is no longer accounting for 62.4 acres of <br />Rangeland that is undisturbed (R-U). Given this, there is approximately 14.92 acres <br />[827.44 (-) 750.12 (-) 62.4] or 14.7 acres [827.44 (-) 750.34 (-) 62.4] of difference <br />between the acreage shown on the currently approved Table 2.05.4(2)(e)-1. Please <br />explain or correct this reduction in disturbed acreage. <br />2. Please update Map 2.05.4-5 to include the Rangeland –Undisturbed areas (R-U) as these areas are <br />discussed in the permit text. <br />3. In accordance with Rule 2.05.5(1)(b) and 4.03.2(1)(g)(ii), the Division must have written <br />documentation from the landowners indicating they desire that the proposed access road and <br />staging and storage areas be left in place. Please submit this documentation to be included as part <br />of the permit. <br />4. On July 17, 2016 the Division received an objection letter to TR-75 from Mr. Jimmy Guire and <br />on August 16, 2016 we received a letter from Mr. Guire with a more detailed explanation of his <br />objection. Based on a conversation with Tony Tennyson, you have a copy of this objection letter. <br />According to this letter, Mr. Guire does not want the proposed access road to remain on his <br />property. Please revise the plan to remove the ASF parcels from Mr. Guire’s property. <br />5. Based on the currently approved Map 2.05.4-5 a portion of the proposed ASF area on Mr. Guire’s <br />property is currently approved to be reclaimed as dryland pasture. Mr. Guire’s objection letter <br />indicates the property should be reclaimed to irrigated pasture. Based on the baseline vegetation <br />Map 2.04.10, the ASF parcel on Mr. Guire’s property was designated as either IPH (Pastureland- <br />Irrigated Hay), IPSW (Pastureland Irrigated Swale) and a small portion as SG (Rangeland – Sage <br />Brush Type). Given this, it appears the majority of the area in question was a type of irrigated <br />pasture prior to mining. Please update Map 2.05.4-5 to reclaim the proposed ASF parcel on Mr. <br />Guire’s property as irrigate pasture or provide justification as to why this area should be <br />reclaimed as dryland pasture.