APPCOR11515

• Permit No: C1981015
• IBM Index Class Name: Application Correspondence
• Doc Date: 5/7/1986
• Doc Name: REVIEW OF BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL DATA FRUITA MINE COMPLEX
• From: MLRD
• To: STEVE RENNER PETER OCONNOR JOHN DOERFER
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Monthly flow and field water quality sampling will commence in early
March, 1983. Data should be submitted to the Division on a monthly basis
in order to facilitate interpretation of the data. The number of
sampling sites may be reduced by the Division after the collection of a
full year of baseline data.
After collection of adequate baseline data, the operator must reevaluate
the description of existing surface water conditions and the potential
impacts of the mining operation.
Dry Gulch, draining the Central Lease, has not been addressed in the
permit application, The baseline water chemistry, flow and geology of
the drainage should be described. This drainage should also be addressed
in the "Probable Hydrologic Consequences" section.
On page 61 of the permit application, the operator states that data
collected by the U,S. Bureau of Reclamation on the Big Salt Wash had SAR
values ranging from 2.77 to 70.03. The data presented in Table 2.04.7-20
does not substantiate this statement. The data collected by the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation for quality from March, 1983 to February, 1984
should be provided in the applications. Further clarification is needed
as to the location of this sampling site in relation to the confluence of
Dry Gulch and Lipan Wash with the Big Salt Wash.
On page 83 of the permit application, it is stated that the water quality
of Lipan and Layton Washes should be similar to Garvey Canyon and Coal
Gulch due to similar geology and vegetation. Aerial photos show a
difference in vegetation and elevation. The geologic map submitted shows
widely different geology underlying the drainages off the front of the
Bookcliffs as compared to Coal gulch and Garvey Canyon. This statement
should be reevaluated.
Response: See Vol, I-A, Sec. 2.04.7(2)
Numerous stockponds are shown on the map south of the Central Lease
surface facilities on Dry Gulch. The permit application states that
"many of the stockponds identified are no longer functional." Those
stockponds that are still functional should be identified and any impact
on their supply or quality should be addressed. Mitigative measures
should be described as needed.
Response: See Vol. II-A, Sec. 2.05.6(3)
Alluvial Valley Floors:
On page 5 of Section 2.06.8, Volume 9, it is stated that "Garvey Canyon
has an active channel smaller than 3 feet in width, thus eliminating it
from further consideration as an AVF." From aerial photos on file at the
Division, it is evident that the lower portion of Garvey Canyon has an
active channel in excess of three feet in width. Therefore, Dorchester
must further address the AVF potential of the lower portions of Garvey
Canyon.
Information on seasonal variations in flow in Little Salt Wash is
insufficient to determine whether or not water availability is sufficient
for flood irrigation. In addition, this drainage was not mentioned in