Laserfiche WebLink
<br />are devoted to such uses under the augmenffition plan. The remaining 13 shazes apparently <br />were used at the time of the decree for the irrigation of 35 acres of the 74-acre historically <br />irrigated tract See Decree ~ 6.C.(2)(d). However, the decree permits water use for <br />industrial, mitigation indaugmentationpurposes to be increased underthe augmenffifionplan <br />by devoting some or all of the additional 13 shazes to such uses and by removing from <br />agricultural irrigation 2.7 acres of the historically irrigated tract for each share so devoted: <br />"Applicant shall be entitled to increase its use of water overdte amounts set forth in Table <br />1 by devoting additional shares out of the subject 27 shares to this plan, and reducing <br />irrigation ofthe 74-acre tract by 2.7 acres for each share so used, as necessary, or by utilizing <br />the excess consumptive use creditsshowninTablel." DecrceQ6.C.(2xd). SeeafsaDecree <br />y¶ S.F. and 6.C.(2)(c). <br />II. WEIETHER THE AUGMENTATION PLAN NEEDS TO BE AMENDED <br />Viewed broadly, we have identified two primary concerns regarding whether the <br />existing augmentation plan needs to be amended: (1) a geographic concern and (2) a <br />-quantitative concern. Given the different geogmphicel location of the active mine site, dte <br />geographic concern focuses upon the question of whether dte contemplated scope of the <br />augmentation phui decreed for the former Nucla end Nucla East Mines can be considered <br />geographically coextensive with and applicable to the current mining operations at NH-2. <br />Given the large active mine pit, and the addition of new Ponds 008-015 to the mining <br />operarion, the quantitative concem focuses upon the question of whether the additional <br />• _ anticipated water depletions associated with NH-2 are within the range of consumptive use <br />permitted by the plan. <br />The geographic concem can be adequately addressed with existing information; <br />however, the quantitative coadem is harder to address because of a lack of wnsumptive use <br />estimates for anticipated depletions associated with pit dewatering and evaporative depletions <br />from Ponds 008-015 at NH-2. Based on information in our possession, following is a . <br />discussionofbothtltegeographicandquantitativeconcemsintheconte~ttofargumentsboth <br />for and against intending the existing augmentation plan. <br />A. Arguments Against the Need to Amend the Augmentation Plan <br />(1) Geographic Concern <br />The decree de[ermitted that since the Nucla and Nucla East Mines were within the <br />"historical service area" of the High Line Canal, no change in place of use or point of <br />diversion of the subject shares was required (as discussed in Section IA., above). While the <br />decree does not de5ne what encompasses dtehistorical service area ofthe HIgh Line Canal, <br />• <br />REVISED MARCN 2006 Attachment 2.05.3(3}-16-15 <br />