REV12615 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PAR - C-80-007 - 7 - March 31, 1986 27. Exhibit 2.8.4.6 should be revised to include alluvial deposits and agricultural areas along Minnesota Creek to the confluence of the North Fork near Paonia. Alsa, agricultural areas should be identified as either subirrigated or flood irrigated. 28. Provide maps and tables and a narrative of all water rights adjudicated in the WECC lease and all affected areas (past, present and future). ,~29. Provide a narrative discussion of how water consumption was managed r ~r~et the mine during the past 5 years. Specifically, indicate how r much water was withdrawn for each month, and when withdrawals were a ~ stopped due to calls in priority. ~'_ 30. The water balance information was based on limited data collected in 1977 to 78. This analysis should be revised to include several years of more current, and complete data to show the reliability and variations in the prediction. 31. A water balance or budget of the affected tributaries of the Minnesota Creek drainage should be calculated on a per watershed basis to describe how important ground water, springs, runoff, and diversions are to streamflow. The budget should be calculated on monthly basis to show the seasonal variations in water contribution. The predicted watershed yield should be compared to actual stream flow data to assess the reliability of the prediction. The water balance assessment is necessary in order to show the significance of the watersheds affected to streamflow which is relied upon by downstream users. 32. WECC should provide a discussion of hydrologic sampling methodology employed by the mine. Include information on evacuation of wells, ' '~ hydrologic filtering methods, preservation, and other procedures C~~~ used to take representative samples. Alluvial Valley Floors (AVF) 1. The AVF discussion identifies a 90 acre tract of land on the Dry Fork that contains unconsolidated stream laid deposits. Of the 90 acres 20 percent or 18 acres is wetland due to the high water table adjacent to the reservoir. This leaves 72 acres as having a potential to qualify as an AVF. In light of the acreage involved it appears necessary that this area be given further study. The application should contain a more detailed evaluation of the Dry Fork area. A large scale map of the area should be provided that shows precise boundaries of the alluvial areas under consideration (include both the 18 acre and 72 acre tracts). A discussion of the extent of subirrigation present, soil type, available information on the depth of alluvium, and water available for flood irrigation (excluding transbasin diversions) should be included along with a map of these features. It is important for this information to be developed early so that an AVF determination can be made and material damage assessments completed prior to permit decision