My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR11209
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
1000
>
APPCOR11209
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:31:36 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:18:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982056
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
2/17/1983
Doc Name
CYCCS RESPONSE TO ADEQUACY REVIEW FOIDEL CREEK MINE
From
MLRD
To
SANDY EMRICH & ED BISCHOFF
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
-a- <br />Items 4, 5, and 6 relate to yround water monitoring and should <br />be reviewed by Roy. • <br />VIII. Nlluvial Valley Floors <br />Foidel Creek <br />Althouyh not required in our preliminary adequacy review, the applicant <br />has chosen co provide additional infunuatiun and discussion with regard <br />to the proposed Alluvial Valley Floor determination for Foidel Creek. <br />1) The applicant points out tfrat the second area of unconsolidated <br />strea~nlaid deposits along Foidel Creek is outside of the permit <br />area and is not on the CYCC property, therefore no e~nperical <br />data exist. The applicant should be reminded that he is <br />responsible for providiny sufficient information to make the <br />required determinations for the per~ait area and adjacent areas. <br />The Division will attempt to make the required finainys using <br />information now availaole. Conservative assumption may be used <br />to fill data yaps. However, if critical data yaps exist, the <br />applicant is responsible for providing sufficient information. <br />2) The applicant has provided additional discussion concerning the <br />capability for flood irrigation. The two-acre foot criteria <br />discussed by the applicant was superseded in June, 19fiU. The <br />preamble to the June 11, 1980 OSI~h Alluvial Valley Floor <br />Guideline indicates that the two-acre oot acre between Ptay 1 <br />and September 15 criteria was being abandoned in favor of water <br />availability based upon water use requirements characteristic of <br />the region where the assessment is made. The Leonard Rice study <br />was based upon local water requirements (2.11 acre-ft/acre) and <br />regional irrigation practices (i~npound~uent of spring runoff). <br />This study concluded that there was an adequate physical supply <br />of water for flood irrigation in the Foidel Creek drainage. <br />The Leonard Rice study goes on, using the flood irrigation <br />system they desiyned, to conclude that flood irriyation of the <br />area studied is not economically feasible. I do not necessarily <br />disagree with this conclusion. However, economic feasibility is <br />not an appropriate criteria for the identification of alluvial <br />valley floors. As discussed in my January 6th memo (attached), <br />the capability for flood irriyation should be based upon <br />physical considerations. <br />fused upon the information provided thus far, it appears that <br />the Foidel Creek study area is capable of flood irriyation. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.