PERMFILE46483 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

17. There are no known wells in the vicinity of this operation. 18. As addressed in Item No. 12, an application for a Well Permit is being prepared and shall be submitted prior to June 1, 1990. 19. Consumptive use of water can be cataloged in the following manner: (1) Fugitive Dust Control. Offsite water will be used for dust control on haul roads. During crushing operations, an approximate 9,000 ~''' gallons/day will be used for dust control. :°'~'~, . ,r~'~ arc>; (2) Evaporative Loss. As per the State Engineers Office, it is most ~'~~,~,1+''" ~~'iv probable that augmentation of water will not be necessary since the u,, ~"~' fr ~,• "~~''" site is located where the Colorado River is not over-appropriated. ,,~,••.t 'fY'... Ni~'' 20. United Companies owns eleven shares of water in the Grand Valley Irrigation System. In the event that augmentation is necessary, we will investigate the possibility of converting this water right. However, the State Engineer hes indicated that augmentation will not be necessary. We have not filed an application Por a Plan of Augmentation. 21. The inventory of current vegetative cover is pretty well confined to alfalfa. The entire site was previously an alfalfa field: however, it has n+tt been tended to for several years and has become extremely stunted and sparse. This condition has given roam for kochia and thistle. 22. It is our estimate that the $8,850 bond that was provided upon us making F~~„'~ application is adequate, given our knowledge of the local costs for doing 1 4 A+~' 1L• 5 ~~~ 'r { h+~ ~,~+~)'~ADDITIONAL COMMENTS (RE: Tom Schreiner - May 9, 1990) ~~td~~4~O~ ~F reclamationothat calls forefi111n Pandislosine excavation slo esgassthee It y g P g P Y ~6~„~'~ are completed, no more than 5 acres, at any time, should be in various ~ ~ .~u••~f~l`~~.„ arceetablerwithmation other than revegetation. However, if this is not h~r~is/'Lt I~ p your Division, we would ask that you specify such. nr"kf"~~,~4a~ '~-;~"a~"` We feel that $2,000 to $3,000 is excessive. If 5 acres were in need of s d reclamation at a given time, $1,700 per acre would be available. At ~~ S~t~,:(1(•iy~•sv least, the previously offered reclamation schedule of costs is our best \ai~' 5~,~~ ~,;r'' estimation, using current local costs. ,"i4 ~ - of ~y. ~~+'Y't n~Y+" 23. Cross sections that have been requested are enclosed. 5a. The 40' buffer zone between the Grand Junction Drainage Ditch and the proposed excavation will certainly be maintained. This subject is specifically adressed in our Mesa County Permit. C- The Grand Junction Drainage District was signatory to the Mesa County Utilities Coordinating Committee that give its approval of this project on the Mesa County Permit.