Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 of 6 <br />15A. On page 2.05-59 of the April]], 2011 submittal, the first sentence states that the Colorado <br />River will not be monitored. Please correct this statement since the river is part of the water <br />monitoring program. <br />16. Due to its proximity to the Colorado River, please describe in Section 2.04. what the historical <br />record is for flooding or having an elevated ground water- table in the permit area. <br />The Division has no further concerns. Permit text page 2.04-18 was revised in the April 11, <br />2011 submittal to include a discussion of the possible effect of flooding of the Colorado River <br />on the loadout. <br />17. In Section 2.04.7(4)(b) of page 2.04-26, it is stated that the current surface water users are the <br />landowners who irrigate the land west of Loma Drain and north of State Highway 6 & 50. <br />However, there does not appear to be a map that shows who these landowners are. Map 02, <br />"Surface Ownership ", does not show sufficient aerial extent to the west and north. Please <br />revise Map 02 to show all relevant surface water users. <br />The Division has no further concerns. Map 02 and permit text pages 2.03-4, 5 and 6 were <br />revised in the submittal dated April 11, 2011. <br />18. Referring to Map 08, "Hydrologic Monitoring Locations ", please explain why surface water <br />monitoring stations US-LD and DS-LD are located as far upstream as they are. US-LD is <br />located about 3, 000 feet upstream from the permit boundary and DS-LD is located not even <br />midway along the western edge of the permit boundary. The downstream Loma Drain surface <br />water sample location (DS-LD) is actually located upstream of all disturbance areas proposed <br />for the loadout. Please clarify this or provide justification for this site selection. It appears that <br />a better site for downstream sampling on Loma Drain would be further to the south where it <br />exits the permit boundary similar to the site selection for downstream Reed Wash (DS-R W). <br />The Division has no further concerns. CAM has added a lower downstream surface water <br />monitoring station, L-DS-LD, as shown on the April 11, 2011 submittal of revised Map 08. The <br />upper surface water monitoring station US-LD can't be moved closer to the loadout due to a <br />lack of right of entry. <br />19. Referring to Map 08, "Hydrologic Monitoring Locations "for Rule 2.05.6(3)(b)(iv), please <br />explain why surface water monitoring station DS-CR is located where it might be influenced by <br />the adjacent gravel pits and by the flow from the upriver Grand Valley Canal. <br />In the submittal dated April 11, 2011, CAM responded that the adjacent gravel quarry should <br />not be a problem since it is 80 feet higher in elevation than the river and is dry. CAM also <br />responded that the water monitoring sampler will note if the Grand Valley Canal is flowing. <br />This may still be a problem since noting the flow does not eliminate the problem of <br />contaminating the river sample with irrigation water. Please consider moving the river