HYDRO26590

• Permit No: M1985026
• IBM Index Class Name: Hydrology
• Doc Date: 10/10/2003
• Doc Name: Correspondence re: TSSP
• From: WSI
• To: DMG
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS, INC.
Inc
February 5, 2001
Mr. Peter Wayland
Sugnet and Associates
1422 Delgany Street, Suite 47
Denver, Colorado 80202
Premiere Building
625 Delaware Ave., Suite 500
Longmont, CO 80501
[phone]
Metro [phone]
FAX [phone]
(first initial, last Home)@long.rmcco.com
Re: Request for Additional Information far CF.a!lene r oit Substitute \Nater 5::pp1y P;an.
DMG M-85-026
Dear Mr. Wayland:
Rocky Mountain Consultants, Inc. is reviewing substitute water supply plan applications for the
State Engineer's Office. The following information will be required before we can complete the
review of the referenced application.
Credit against replacement obligations can be taken for historic depletions of groundwater
or precipitation at the site. Therefore, historic consumptive use of precipitation can be
deducted from the replacement obligations you have calculated based on gross
evaporation, reducing the overall obligation. For these plans, historic consumptive use of
precipitation is normally considered to be 70 percent of total precipitation.
2. Please provide a copy of a recent aerial photograph so that we can check the claimed water
surface areas. We are aware that in earlier plans 13 acres of water surface were described
with the statement that some of that acreage was being backfilled. We need to make certain
that the' S acres claimed in your plan is appropriate.
3. The plan does not mention water to be used for reclamation irrigation, however, the
accounting form does. If water is to be used for this purpose it rnust be replaced t 0u
percent. The reduction in replacement obligation allowed by Item labove may free up
some of the Loveland (ease. water allowing for some irrigation use.
4. The plan does not lag evaporation and mining depletions relying on a distance of 100 feet
to call the depletions instantaneous. However, Figure 2 shows that the nearest water surface
is at least 200 feet from the river. Please provide lagging for the mine depletions.
5. Based on review of ditch diversion records from 1950-1985 (provided with one of the
earlier plans for this site), Hill and Brush diversions fall off to less than halt of their average
during dry years such as 1954, 1977 and 1981. You should commit enough shares and dry
up acreage to this plan to provide adequate replacement in dry years. Please provide a dry
year water budget in addition to the average year. Please revise the average year water
budget to consider a longer period of record rather than 198&1998.
CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING PLANNING