Laserfiche WebLink
Mike Boulay <br />-4- August 26, 2011 <br />G. In Exhibit 2, please clarify whether the Cultural Resource Survey Form for the <br />Tavistock parcel should be removed or retained in the PAP. <br />CAM: Cultural Resource Survey form pertaining the Tavistock borrow area <br />should be removed from Exhibit 2. <br />H. In Exhibit 7, the explanatory text for sample TLO -4 refers to the construction material <br />stockpile area. The intended verbiage would have been "borrow" rather than <br />"stockpile ". However, now that the Tavistock parcel has been removed from the <br />application, perhaps the wording here should be revised altogether. <br />CAM: Please insert revised page 'On March 1, 2011....' into Exhibit 7, the <br />explanatory text for sample TLO -4. CAM elects to keep the explanation in the <br />report and has modified it accordingly. <br />I. In Exhibit 14, the AVF study, a revised Page 3 was provided under a previous <br />response. The wording on this page no longer appears to "flow" with that of pages 2 <br />and 4. Please review, and revise as appropriate. <br />CAM: Please see revised page 3 of Exhibit 14. <br />PAP Maps <br />J. Map 02 Surface Ownership — Please add a property line delineating the boundary <br />between the Union Pacific right -of -way and parcels 01 and 04. <br />CAM: Please see revised Map -02 <br />K. Map 03 Vegetation Map — The acreages listed in the Existing Vegetation Types table <br />total 208.33 acres, and appear to be derived from an earlier version of the proposed <br />permit boundary. Please revise the vegetation acreages to reflect the current permit <br />boundary encompassing 215.6 acres. <br />CAM: The 208.33 acres is based on the study area, not the permit boundary. <br />No map revision required. This discrepancy is explained in Exhibit 5. New <br />permit acreage has been added to page 2 of Exhibit 5, <br />L. Map 07 Pre /Post Mining Land Use — The UP railroad mainline right -of -way, <br />specifically that within the permit boundary, appears to be classified as "Fish & <br />Wildlife ". Should it possibly be termed "Industrial ", instead? <br />CAM: Please see revised Map -07 <br />