Laserfiche WebLink
• i <br />in the 90-acre tract immediately above Minnesota Reservoir. It is <br />conceivable that the unconsolidated deposits contained within the <br />90-acre tract of land on the Dry Fork of Minnesota Creek are the direct <br />result of artificial water availability, specifically the Minnesota <br />Reservoir Dam and the Deep Creek Diversion Ditch. However, based on the <br />high elevation, short growing season, reduced soil conditions, poor <br />grazing conditions, and information submitted by the Delta Soil <br />Conservation District, the Division has made a negative alluvial valley <br />floor determination for the 90-acre tract on the Dry Fork of Minnesota <br />Creek. <br />The applicant has delineated those areas along the main stem of <br />Minnesota Creek where agricultural activities are supported by <br />irrigation or flood irrigation. For these areas the flow regime of <br />Minnesota Creek is totally controlled by a series of reservoirs and <br />diversion ditches. Beaver Reservoir effectively regulates spring runoff <br />on the East Fork as it is being filled. Reservoir releases regulate <br />stream flow during late summer. Minnesota (Monument) Reservoir <br />effectively regulates spring runoff from Dry Fork with reservoir <br />releases controlling late summer flows. Additionally, the Deep Creek <br />Ditch, an inter-basin diversion, supplies water to Minnesota Reservoir <br />to satisfy the Reservoir Company's refill right. However, mapping was <br />stopped at the west section line of Section 2, T14S, R90W, a point over <br />two miles from the permit boundary and downstream of the headgates of <br />the Turner Ditch and Minnesota Ditch. During low flows (i.e., <br />irrigation demand periods) these two ditches effectively dry up <br />Minnesota Creek. Below this point return flow utilization, if any, is <br />the water source for activities during low flows. <br />One of the concerns raised during the initial adequacy review of the <br />permit renewal application was that there may be water depletion effects <br />in the Minnesota Creek basin from the mining operation under worst case <br />projections. If this were to occur, the effects could be felt down to <br />and including the Turner and Minnesota Ditches. Because of this, a <br />request was made of the applicant to identify all known AYF's that may <br />derive their water supply from these ditches and to revise Exhibit <br />2.8.4.6 to include alluvial deposits and agricultural areas along <br />Iinnesota Creek to the confluence of the North Fork near Paonia. <br />Agricultural areas were to be identified as either subirrigated or flood <br />irrigated. This information was needed by the Division to make the <br />finding that no material damage would result to downstream water users <br />as a result of future or anticipated mining by WECC. <br />West Elk Coal Company responded by stating that as the augmentation plan <br />insures that there is no injury to water rights served by the Minnesota <br />Creek basin and the point of augmentation is to be the Turner Ditch <br />headgate, then the only possible area of the Minnesota Creek basin that <br />could be affected lies above the Turner Ditch headgate. The Division <br />rejects this rational and, because of the lack of information submitted, <br />must assume that all alluvial deposits along Minnesota Creek from the <br />west section line of Section 2, T14S, R90W to the confluence of the <br />North Fork near Paonia fit the criteria of an alluvial valley floor. <br />25 <br />