Laserfiche WebLink
At this point, the Division does not have enough information to make findings <br />on backfilling and grading. Further information is needed on the alluvial <br />valley floor to determine its extent. Also, since the Division must operate <br />within the context of the Regulations we cannot modify the requirements of <br />Rule 4.14.2. TCC will have to rewrite this section so that it complies with <br />Rule 4.14.1 and 4.14.2. <br />Larry Damrau <br />-2- <br />In section III of the draft findings document the Division has determined that <br />an AVF exists on a portion of the area where the fill was constructed. This <br />being the case, TCC must restore the essential hydrologic functions of flood <br />irrigation and subirrigation. The fill would have to be removed. <br />Maps <br />The rail spur is not contained within the permit boundary. This needs to be D~! <br />included in the legal description and shown on the maps. \ <br />Hydrology Description <br />The following items need to be clarified. Any changes that are needed must be <br />made and incorporated into the permit application. <br />1. Plonitor 4Jells IJos. 08-77-42, 08-77-43 and 08-77-53 are referenced on ~ ~~ <br />page 2.04-20 as being shown on hlap 5, Fish Creek Tipple Hydrology. These <br />wells ar•e not located on this map. <br />7.. Table 31, Ground 4later t•tonitoring Data does not show any wells flowing ~ I/ <br />water at ttre surface as referenced on page 2.04-20. This table also does not (~ <br />r_ nt;=~ riata she~-i:'ir,ally related to dells 08-7;r-^.2, OS-?7-43 and 08-77-58. <br />3 .I, ~~:'ountl l:d i. el' ,'IJnICJ''~:1 ..'.d. <br />January 23, 1985 <br /> <br />4. In the first paragraph of page 2.04-21 it states "the alluvium is <br />generally less than 20 feet" while in the second paragraoli St states "the d <br />thickness of the alluvium varies from 8 to 35 feet." Please clarify. <br />5. The last sentence on page 2.04-23 is incorrect in view of the fact that ~ 7~ <br />Fish Creek is a perennial stream with base flow sustained by ground water. <br />6. It is noted that, as mentioned in the text, surface water upstream is <br />of lrhe calcium bicarbonate type, however, the data indicates that in the early <br />spr g the upstream surface water is of a sodium sulfate type. Is this a <br />result of runoff from reclaimed areas of Energy No. 2 above the upstream <br />site? See also comment 10 below. <br />