2016-11-29_REVISION - C1982056 (2)

Home Browse Search

Twentymile Coal, LLC. Page 3 11/29/2016 127.1) to indicate that construction activities for the borehole option east of RCR 27 will not occur within the restricted timeframes specified by CPW. a. TC's Response: The referenced section has been reviewed and revised to clarify the relevant wildlife mitigation considerations. The revised text pages accompany these responses for replacement/insertion in the PAP. b. Division Response: For the Sage Grouse section, TC removed the currently approved mitigation narrative item #7 regarding exploration activities within the permit area and replaced it with a generic statement about how activities will be limited within identified buffer zones for active lek sites and then the reader is referred to project specific consultation letters. TC provided the Division a copy of the consultation letter with CPW for this project, however it is unknown if it was intended to have this letter included as an exhibit to the permit as has been done for other revisions. As an exhibit to the permit, please include the CPW consultation letter and the e-mail confirming with CPW that the timing restriction for the proposed borehole pad option on the west side of RCR 27 does not apply. Or, TC could add a narrative to this section addressing this proposed project to specifically state the required mitigation measures. Based on the CPW letter noted above, they recommended using two specific seed mixtures for re - vegetation. These seed mixtures are similar to the Rangeland Seed mixture (Table 55) approved for the site, however they are not the same. Please note that any change to the seed mixture proposed for the site will need to be processed as a separate revision to the permit. a. W's Response: Given that the CPW reference to seed mix is a recommendation, not a requirement, and given the similarities in the seed mixture, TC plans to use the approved rangeland mix for reseeding. b. Division Response: Resolved Based on the applicant's completeness response, when the application was submitted, the tie-in point was unknown and now the tie-in point will be north of Haul Road C. Proposed revised Map 24 Sheet 1 does not show this tie-in location. Please revise Map 24 Sheet 1 to show where this tie-in location will be. Also, Figure EX49K F 1 shows the thickener underflow pipeline route approved with MR223. Based on the information provided to the Division, the new tie-in location should be in this area depicted by Figure EX49K-F 1, given this, it would be appropriate the update this figure. a. TC's Response: Map 24 has been revised to reflect the tie-in location, and the revised map accompanies these responses for replacement in the PAP. Given that Figure EX49K F 1 is associated with a previously approved revision, we don't agree that it would be appropriate to revise this figure to show the new information as this would establish a very cumbersome precedent for continuous modification/revision of previously approved information.