Laserfiche WebLink
<br />5 <br />Furthermore, the historic irrigation of the field, as well as the <br />potential future irrigation mentioned by the land owner, was <br />accomplished with use of a reservoir. Assuming a flow of 1 cfs, a <br />4 acre-foot reservoir could be filled in 2 days. Three inches of <br />water could be applied to a 16 acre field from this reservoir. <br />Thus, four 16-acre fields (or 84 acres) could be irrigated on an 8 <br />day rotation. <br />The Seneca II-W PAP and the Division's Findings for the Seneca II-W <br />permit identify this area as an AVF. Unless sufficient information <br />is provided to demonstrate that the potential for the area to be <br />flood irrigated for agricultural use does not exist, the PAP should <br />be revised to indicate the flood irrigated alfalfa hay field(s) in <br />Section 30 is an AVF. The PHC will also need to be revised to <br />address Rule 2.06.8(4) by documenting, <br />1. the characteristics of the AVF which are essential <br />hydrologic functions (flood and/or subirrigation), <br />2. whether mining operations will interrupt, discontinue, or <br />preclude farming operations, <br />3. whether mining operations will result in material damage <br />to the quality of surface water supplying the AVF, and <br />4. a monitoring system for verifying these projections. <br />Based on the discussion above and a review of the revised <br />information in Tabs 16 and 17 of the PAP, the Division has the <br />following questions. <br />Tab 16- Protection of the Hydrologic Balance <br />1. The conclusion section of Attachment 16-3 (on pages 16-3-7 and <br />8) appears to be the conclusion of the AVF study for the Seneca II- <br />W Mine. This section needs to be revised to address AVF's in <br />hydrologic communication with the Yoast Mine. Page 16-3-3 includes <br />a discussion of Hubberson Gulch which could be deleted. <br />2. The discussions of the "subirrigated hay field in Section 18 <br />on Sage Creek (p.16-3-5; page 12 of Tab 16) may need to be revised <br />to account for flood irrigation of the field, as discussed in Item <br />III above. <br />3. The discussion of the potentially irrigated alfalfa field in <br />Section 30 should be revised to address the potential for flood <br />irrigation with regard to the historic reservoir in that field (Tab <br />16, page 13; page 16-3-6), as discussed in Item IV above. <br />