Laserfiche WebLink
5. Thank you for forwarding the comment letter from the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) regarding the <br />proposed project. Based on this letter, CPW recommends restricting activities by March 15 and that <br />revegetation of affected areas be complete by March 1. 1 have confirmed with Kris Middledorf with CPW <br />that this restriction does not apply to the proposed borehole pad option on the west side of RCR 27. <br />Please update section 2.05.6(2) of the permit (page 2.05-127.1) to indicate that construction activities for <br />the borehole option east of RCR 27 will not occur within the restricted timeframes specified by CPW. <br />Response: The referenced section has been reviewed and revised to clarify the relevant wildlife mitigation <br />considerations. The revised text pages accompany these responses for replacement/insertion in the PAP. <br />6. Based on the CPW letter noted above, they recommended using two specific seed mixtures for re - <br />vegetation. These seed mixtures are similar to the Rangeland Seed mixture (Table 55) approved for the <br />site, however they are not the same. Please note that any change to the seed mixture proposed for the site <br />will need to be processed as a separate revision to the permit. <br />Response: Given that the CPW reference to seed mix is a recommendation, not a requirement, and given the <br />similarities in the seed mixes, TC plans to use the approved rangeland mix for reseeding. <br />Maps <br />7. Based on the applicant's completeness response, when the application was submitted, the tie-in point was <br />unknown and now the tie-in point will be north of Haul Road C. Proposed revised Map 24 Sheet 1 does <br />not show this tie-in location. Please revise Map 24 Sheet I to show where this tie-in location will be. <br />Also, Figure EX49K-FI shows the thickener underflow pipeline route approved with MR223. Based on <br />the information provided to the Division, the new tie-in location should be in this area depicted by Figure <br />EX49K-Fl, given this, it would be appropriate the update this figure. <br />Response: Map 24 has been revised to reflect the tie-in location, and the revised map accompanies these <br />responses for replacement in the PAP. Given that Figure EX49K-F1 is associated with a previously approved <br />revision, we don't agree that it would be appropriate to revise this figure to show the new information, as this <br />would establish a very cumbersome precedent for continuous modification/revision of previously approved <br />information. <br />Cow F.ctimate <br />8. The Division has conducted a reclamation cost estimate for the proposed revision. The estimate is <br />attached please let the Division know if you concur with the cost estimate. <br />Response: We have reviewed the Division's cost estimate, and accept it as a reasonable representation of the <br />associated project reclamation costs. <br />