2009-04-14_REVISION - C1982056 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Response: The text is in error and has been corrected to reflect that there are three inactive sharp- tailed grouse leks, the closest of which is approximately 0.8 mile (4,200) feet from the closest corner of the 18-Left Shaft disturbance area, and one active sage grouse lek, approximately 1.0 mile (5,280 feet) away. Given that the nearby sharp-tailed grouse leks have been inactive for a number of years, the proposed activities should have no impact on sharp-tailed grouse. Given the distance between the proposed disturbance and the active sage grouse lek, the proposed activities should not impact sage grouse (recommended separation is 0.6 miles or approximately 3,200 feet). Additional mitigating factors, that will minimize any potential impacts on grouse include; proximity of the shaft disturbance area to Routt County Road 27, the shaft disturbance is within an area that has been used as improved (cultivated) pasture, and there is a minor ephemeral drainage separating both the inactive sharp-tailed grouse and the active sage grouse leks from the shaft disturbance area. It should be noted that the Northwest Colorado Sharp-Tailed Grouse Conservation Plan states that "Sharptail leks have been located on reclaimed lands within 0.5 mi (0.8 km) of active mining operations and within 0.25 mi (400 m) of major haul roads. Thus, activity alone may not deter use of suitable habitats." Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Conservation Plan - Routt, Moffat, and Rio Blanco Counties, Northwest Colorado (Richard W. Hoffinan, in cooperation with the Northwest Colorado Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Work Group, April 2001). The CDOW has provided a consultation letter (Exhibit 23) with specific mitigation recommendations that TCC will follow. TCC has also consulted with the CDOW grouse specialist, who indicates that the proposed activities should not impact grouse breeding or nesting activities, therefore, seasonal timing restrictions are not necessary (refer to follow-up consultation letter, included in Exhibit 23). 5) The Division and TCC have been working together to assure that page revisions include all previously approved text, and previously approved revisions are not lost during subsequent revisions. Most of the revised pages submitted with TR66 retain previously approved revisions. Several pages appear to have lost some text. Please assure that previously approved text is retained as appropriate: a) Page xii was incorrectly numbered "ix" This page has the Table of Contents.for Volume H-E. Please resubmit this page with the correct pagination. b) Page 2.05-45.6f, TR62 revised text has been retained but TR61 text has been lost. Please reinstate text approved during TR61 approval. c) 2.05-45.6g the last sentence is cut off after, "the engineering soils characterization by" and the text does not flow to page 2.05-45.6h. Please include the portion of text that has been left off. d) 2.05-45.7 information regarding the 7 North escape shaft information has been retained, but TR61 information regarding the 6MN reservoir has been lost. Please reinstate the 6MN reservoir approved text. e) 2.05-84.4 does not fit with TR61 revised pages. Please assure that information from page 2.05-84.3 flows onto the TR66 revised pages. f) 2.05-84.5 does not fit with TR61 revised pages. Please assure that previously approved text is not lost. Response: The referenced pages have been reviewed, and revised as appropriate, to assure inclusion of all revision text and text continuity. It should be noted that due to extensive revisions of pages 2.05- 76 through 2.05-84.8, TCC has incorporated a complete updated version of these pages in this response submittal. Copies of revised text accompany these responses. 6) Please refer to Exhibit 3, Pond I and Pond 2 Design Detail Sheet. The following inconsistencies were noted. Please review and correct as necessary. a) Pond I cross section C-C' and longitudinal profile D-D' are improperly located on the wrong side of the embankment on the plan view.