Laserfiche WebLink
11 11 <br />DAUB 8 ASSOCIATES -_ DAUB 8 ASSOCIATES <br />CONSULTING GEOLOGISTS .~'':J'!~~'%'".9Ki~~-•• - <br />~• :~' r"' !';I" S ~"` 1980 SOUTH BROAD WAY CONSULTING GEOLOGISTS i~"i «.':'''.>'~:~yZ <br />. - ~- _ ti h. ....,~ .: • '1.r... ,'":. J: ..., ~t.~~"' t9BO SOUTH BROAD WAY <br />,.r. <br />/.~~4/".I.Y V'i '~~ '' •~' ,rn~.,l.""'~-~'"^~7Y~ ": ~~ ~ GRAND JUNCTION, CO Bt503~959J '~~ -• '~~'=• ""' lFj":.::~ t,T~-~ ~ "' GRA ND JU NCTON,CO Bt50]~959] <br />... 1]0]124t.09fi4 <l A`-f:".. :F'.'.c>': 'Y :.q i. '". Lam... ': :_> . <br />130312ot~096< <br />P[, S geed in( Pf{h_ I Sen t_ 1 CoeeeH!• Pia ~ Headly{ Pr(h_ ~ Sent. J <br />the espandly{ {rorth period end <br />developeent of vueerou• soar{y <br />related DroJect• rhi<h ere not lv $9 <br />operation and/or {re et ly re doted <br />Lodey. Hesellne date i• probably <br />eieh. <br />/-19 4.9.3 3 2 On whet dots t• the HLM basin{ the <br /> 20-40% reduction in floc for <br /> Yellow CreeN? bow rare these <br /> fl{urea telculeted? IL 1• <br /> doubtful thst Yellow Creek x111 <br /> •ee each reduced flora. <br /> Tha wstar needs for the co wereiq <br />N -scale operet loo rare revised evd <br />~ rri{ht Meter {n{hears, Ina. <br /> •ubeitted a rev Led •treu <br /> depletion report doted Mereh 31, <br /> 1986. The revised rater <br /> requiresent• ere bw ed on I09 {pe <br /> for yeer• 3 throw{h 30 for the <br /> proposed ectloe snd 43fi {pe for <br /> years 3 throw{h 30 for the 500,000 <br /> 7PY operetioo. Iv the draft <br /> 6.LS. the au oeieted strew <br /> depletion for the •urroundln{ eras <br /> were based on 150 sod 600 {pe rhea <br /> they should be beeed on 109 end <br /> 436 {pe. Thus the reduction iv <br /> flora of the •urrouvdL{ strews <br /> rill be less than that has been <br /> reported 1v the draft {.I.3. <br />4-19 4.9.3 / 3 Oe that det• t• the HLM basin{ the <br /> HO% reduction Iv flow for Yellor <br /> CreekY How rare thaw fl{ores <br /> ce 1<uleted? <br /> the refer naa ds for the eowercisl <br /> -s ee le operetlon rare rev lead sod <br /> Mri{ht Meter ev{lveers, Lc. <br /> •ubeitted a revised stress <br /> depleti0v report dated Mereh 31, <br /> 1986. The rev Lad rater <br /> requireeevt• ere bu ad on 109 gpe <br /> 19 <br />1-19 1.9.3 6 <br />4-20 1.9.5 1 <br />1-20 1.9.6 2 <br />56, <br />6$ <br />1-20 1.9.6 3 <br />/-20 4.9.6 3 <br />l <br />2 <br />~9eesHS{ <br />far yeer• 3 through 30 for the <br />proposed action evd 436 {pe for <br />ye era 3 thr0u{h 30 for the 500,000 <br />TPY operetioo. Iv the draft <br />6. L3. the eu oeieted •tre ee <br />'~pl~tior. __ 'he aurrnu.-.d i:.: :ree j6 <br />were besed•on L50 •nd 600 {pe whet/ 6g <br />they should be based ov 109 snd <br />43fi {pe. Thu• the reduction iv <br />floe O[ the •urroundin{ •t re u• <br />rill be les• then whet hs• been <br />reported lv the draft H.I.S. <br />Hor rw the 50 ye ' Rcher{e ~56 <br />figure reached. that date ru 69 <br />the 50 yeer rip " e figure based. <br />~r <br />Mhst i• the 9LM referriv{ to rhe~ <br />they state "sll the projects l0 9, <br />this ere •"? Hor any other 49 <br />projee t• •r< there? <br />3 On that were the 20-40% reductioe• <br />bw ed? Hor rare these fl{ure• <br />derived? see De[e 1-19, 1.9.7, 4, <br />3 which refer to the revised <br />refer cons wptiov veluw. <br />56 <br />3 On that were the 70-60% reductioe• 6$ <br />beeed? Hor rare these fl{ure• <br />derived? On whet 1• the stet went <br />"floc eu entislly ebwvt froe July <br />lhrou{h Septeeber" bead? Saa <br />p•{a 4-19, 4.9.3, 1, 3 rhlch <br />refers to the rev Led rater <br />eonsueDt ion veluee. <br />5 Hor re• the fl{ure of 20 yeer• ~56 <br />telculeted? On that 1• the 20 6C <br />yeer figure based? <br />20 <br />