HYDRO26590 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Peter Wayland ~~~ February 5, 2001 Page 2 6. Please describe how the Hill and Brush Ditch credits will be obtained. Water should be diverted, measured and returned to the Big Thompson. 7. Please provide Table Al which is referenced but seems to be missing from the report. 8. In Table 2.2-1, Col (3), Pro-Rata Diversions Less Ditch Loss, was calculated using 1 percent instead of 10 percent as stated in the report. Also, previous plans reported the ditch loss as 20 percent. Please provide documentation from the Hill & Brush Ditch Company as to the ditch losses they experience and revise the table accordingly. 9. Return flows from historic ditch seepage loss need to be maintained either as a return flow obligation or by running the pro-rata water in the ditch and allowing the seepage to return as it did historically. 10. It appears from your analysis that all irrigation excess is being lagged. It is difficult to believe that there no component of surface returns to the river from this farm. Please provide evidence if there was not. If there was, please incorporate it in the analysis. 11. Lagged timing of historic i«igation return flows would be more adequately represented if the distance used in the stream depletion model was the distance from the center of the farm to the river, instead of from the near edge to the river. According to one of the previous plans this distance is approximately 500 feet. 12. Also in Table 2.2-1, Col (10) Historic Net Stream Depletions should be calculated as pro- ratadiversions from the Big Thompson, less lagged irrigation return flows. Please send the requested information to this office as soon as possible. This review will continue after receipt of the items requested. Sincerely, ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS, INC. ~,~ b' ',>~"" Yijun Jin, P.E. Water Resources Engineer Mark A. McLean, P.E. Project Manager cc: Kathleen Sullivan, SEO G:~0904 OIO.mmN+IB5026 1.LTR