2016-12-07_REVISION - C1982056 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

proposed pipeline would be a double HDPE pipe system. Please clarify, if the proposed pipeline will be a double HDPE system, please revise the plan to indicate this. Or, explain what criteria will be used to determine if an area is "critical " and thus warranting the installation of a double HDPE system. Response: Given the location of the proposed pipeline and proximity to Foidel Creek, the entire pipeline will be installed as a double -pipe system. The relevant text has been reviewed and revised to reflect this consideration, and the revised text pages accompany these responses for replacement/insertion in the PAP. 5. Thank you for forwarding the comment letter from the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) regarding the proposed project. Based on this letter, CPW recommends restricting activities by March 15 and that revegetation of affected areas be complete by March 1. 1 have confirmed with Kris Middledorf with CPW that this restriction does not apply to the proposed borehole pad option on the west side of RCR 27. Please update section 2.05.6(2) of the permit (page 2.05-127.1) to indicate that construction activities for the borehole option east ofRCR 27 will not occur within the restricted timeframes specified by CPW. 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. For the Sage Grouse section, TC removed the currently approved mitigation narrative item & 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 the reader is referred to project - specific consultation letters. As an exhibit to the permit, please include the CPW consultation letter and the email confirnnnng that the liming restrnclion for the proposed borehole pad option on the west side of RC'R27 does not apply. Or TC could add a narrative to this section addressing this proposed project to specifically stale the required mitigation measures. Response: Exhibit 23C has been combined with Exhibit 23B (now 23B) to include wildlife consultation documentation. Copies of the CPW consultation letter for TR16-86 and the page from the County Planning Report documenting the conversation with CPW confirming that the timing restriction does not apply for the pad option on the west side of RCR27 accompany these response for insertion in Exhibit 23B (note that we did not attempt to get a confinnation entail from CPW on the timing restriction since it has been confirmed by both the County and CDRMS, and the County Planning report provides documentation). 6. 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. Response: Given that the CPW reference to seed mix is a recommendation, not a requirement, and given the similarities in the seed mixes, TC plans to use the approved rangeland mix for reseeding. Maps 7. Based on the applicant's completeness response, when the application was submitter, the tie-in point was unknown and now the tie-in point will be north of Haul Road C. Proposed revised Map 24 Sheet I 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-FI shows the thickener undertow 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-FI, given this, it would be appropriate the update this figure. 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-F1 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.