GENERAL54873

• Permit No: C1980007
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 6/23/1981
• Doc Name: Proposed Decision and Findings of Compliance
• Permit Index Doc Type: Findings
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

9
very junior right and could only be used during snow-melt runoff or in the
non-irrigation season, and that ARCO would have to provide additional
storage to meet project reeds dur_nc aerlcds o' ~..-Lnistrat_c.^.. .:3C;
responded satisfactcrily by stating that two fresh c/ater ponds each
containing 10 AF have been proposed (section 3.3.5 of the application),
and that :a!:en conditional :,,ater _ ~-tt .~-2'82 is --. -,.-- _--~ ..-, .._--
r,2 .i11ed .._rect_y `=or.. t.._ ':ort'^. °cr.:. .>-..._ _,.__..__ ;_ate.. _.-_= c..e ..==e-
in the ponds is projected to be suf'icient to r.,eet the .._eds or rr:a .-_-.~
during periods of administration.
During the review, it was found that there was no up-to-date complete
list of water rights owned by ARCO. The water rights owned by ARCO were
shown on three different tables, each of which having different water
rights shown. ARCO responded satisfactorily by submitting revised table
2.8.5.2.a which Zists ARCO's current water rights for both the North Fork
drainage and Minnesota Creek Drainage.
The following problems have not been satisfactorily resolved and will
require stipulations before a finding of compliance can be made.
Several problems were identified during the review concerning the effect of
ARCO's mining operation on the hydrologic balance and consequently water
rights of the Minnesota Creek drainage basin. The Division of Plater Resources
and several concerned citizens have raised questions with regard to the
adequacy of ARCO's proposed plan for augmentation, and have requested that
ARCO provide more detailed information on t?:e auT-entaticn plan a...: twat
a determination be made on which :eater rights :;~i11 be affected bu the
operation, and to what extent. In addition, it has been requested that
ARCO submit this plan for augmentation with the proposed methods of mitigating
losses as soon as possible to the Fla ter Court.
ARCO has provided additional information on the augmentation and mitigation
plans in response to the informational requests, but at present ARCO has
not adequately responded to all concerns. However, ARCO will not be mining
under this drainage basin during the first 5-year permit term and the
Minnesota Creek basin is hydrologically separated from the extent of mining for
the first 5 years by both a surface and gourd water divide. Consequently, no
impacts are expected within the initial 5-year permit term. Due to the
seriousness of the concern, however, the Division will require the following
stipulations to resulve the water issues before application is made for the
`second five-year permit term.
(,~~ Stipulation; THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT TO THE DIVISION COPIES OF THE
REPORTS, EXHIBITS RND ALL SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE GUNNISON
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, TITLED PROTECTION OF MINNESOTA CREEK L9ATER SUPPLY.
THIS h1ATERIAL SHALL BE SUBMITTED ZN A F0R1S WHICH CAN BE INSERTED INTO THE
PERI~fIT APPLICATION AND REFERENCED IN THE TEXT SECTION 2.8.5.2, AS REQUIRED
UNDER RULE 2.04.7(3), ALTERNATIVE C7ATER SUPPLY INFORPtATZON.
~ Stipulation; THE MONITORING PLAN PROPOSED BY ARCO COAL COMPANY TO
GUNNISON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD BE INCLUDED [^7ITHIN THE APPLICATION
SECTION 4. 9, SURFACE AND GROUND WATER MONITORING. ALL DATA AND REPORTS