2011-06-21_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2010088

Home Browse Search

Corey Heaps CAM Colorado LLC June 21, 2011 Page 26 narrative in Exhibit 5. However, since the DRMS is of the opinion that Alkali Seepweed was observed on this site, we have added this species to the revised plant species list as a species that was observed as present on this site, please see revised Table 1. Division Response: A thorough and detailed description of Alkali seepweed and Gray Molly was included in the adequacy response. Many reliable sources were quoted giving credibility to the fact that the plant in question could be Gray Molly. What lacked in the adequacy response was a detailed description, photograph or a dried specimen of the plant species in question from the Fruita Loadout site. Without knowing what the species in question actually looks like, the Division cannot properly confirm the identity of the plant. The Division suggests that a third party qualified botanist be consulted for the identification of this plant such as the herbarium at the University of Colorado or Colorado State University. 31. In the third paragraph of page 8, Exhibit 5, the relative cover of greasewood is listed as 7.12 %. This would appear to be an error, and presumably should be 37.95 %. Please correct the error. CAM Response: Please see the revised third paragraph on page 11. Division Response: Response accepted. 32. The reference to "15" shrub density belt transects under "Shrub Density ", on page 8, Exhibit 5 is an apparent error, and should be "25 ". Please correct the error. CAM Response: "15" was changed to "25 ". Please see revised page 11 of Exhibit 5. Division Response: Response accepted. 33. Under the "Irrigated Wetland" heading on page 9 of Exhibit 5, near the end of the first paragraph, the fact that a very limited extent of disturbance would occur to the irrigated wetland type is referenced, but it is stated that "the actual amount of disturbance planned for this type is currently unknown... ". Based on the rail corridor as depicted on Map 3, it appears that planned cumulative disturbance to the Irrigated Wetland type would be limited to approximately 0.5 acres or less. Please update the subject narrative to accurately reflect the planned extent of disturbance to the type. Also, given the very limited disturbance to this community type, it would be appropriate that it be addressed within Exhibit 5 under "Description of Minor Predisturbance Area Vegetation Types ", rather than "Major Predisturbance Area Vegetation Types ". CAM Response: Page 12 has been revised to show approximate planned disturbance to the Irrigated Wetland vegetation type.