REV12567 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

J .~: ,. ~I 11. Due to the remote location of resource No.7 in the upper area of a branch of Gribble - ~.r:!+~ ~.!e~. ~ '• `Gulch, access was limited. Wilcox Reservoir (resource No. 6) was difficult to differentiate from ' ~•, e "`., o-~ e~r~d Wilcox Reservoirs Nos. 1 & 2, as they are all located close together and are in disrepair. Copies ~'pt~ P,~y~v:..- ~;, ofthe original water right filings were obtained and since, each has been positively identified in ~ the field. Data obtained from resources Nos. 6 & 7 are at~t[ached. ~ ~~lnti~"S t-ll'~r j'0-i ~~'9'7 ~2t' (.,~ s~ r~L~,:; ~ ~~r~C,"~; ~'.'1 ~E ~1%<<'~. ,~ J15. As mentioned in response No. 10, above, no historical flows documenting historical use rUV w~'dl~~~~t ~ were on record with the Division of Water Resources for any of the water rights identified in the Jumbo Mountain tract. As such, MCC questions whether this water has "legitimate uses" to be addressed by Rule 2.04.7(3). MCC's consultant has also determined that the physical water supply (per monitoring data to date is only a fraction of the decreed diversion rate. Of the eight decreed ponds and reservoirs with a surface source (in part), the cumulative flows measured are approximated by the total annual precipitation on the north side of Jumbo Mountain (i.e. natural augmentation of measured (actual) Flows). The statement on page 2.04-81 reiterates MCC's commitment to comply with the intent ofthe rules. By repairing or enhancing the physical collection facilities a source of water with a "legitimate" use (i.e. increasing physical flows and/or storage), MCC will be responsible for damage under the rule, as required by law. - P~- 2ro~I x~ I•~rls ilvr~~~ `~ ir,.,.,iY ct~r~:•n.a ~,•::,'~i/~ "•f z ;16. MCC believes that the Division may be under the erroneous impression that inflows in the ~' ~ ~ ~ West Elk Mine are both continuous and cumulative. In fact, MCC's inflow experience to date is _~..~ that inflows are typically small (approximately 5 g.p.m. or less) and short in duration (approximately two weeks to one month). As such, no flooding of the mine works at cessation of operations is anticipated. Historically, the mine water quality has been good (per the MB-1 and Sylvester Gulch NPDES discharge analyses), and most times better than the in-stream quality of the North Fork of the Gunnison River. No toxic oracid-forming constituents have been identified in the seam, roof or floor material and no significant difference from the baseline mine water quality data presented in Tables 20 and 21 is expected. These tables contain baseline information and more current data are provided in the annual hydrology reports incorporated by referenceJn the permit document. ! ; ht r~ p %' ~ ~I t'i,(d '.' i' ~ ;. ~, r) S e : ~ . ' • ~ ' -IN1Nl.(vy(®WS S(ti:lZ : rr, - ~ ~y, Z,f7L,• (;,'+(p Fish and Wildlifel2.04.11) -.((~~•S /19 ~{~{b~;~E D~ ~4. The original rare and endangered species discussions from the permit text have been O.'~placed in Exhibit 38 and are referenced in the revised text (see attached). ~>~, l d ~~ , (~ Operation Plan !2.05.21 1. MCC has highlighted the existing roads on Maps 34 and 34A which may be used to access monitoring sites. Per definition in the Rules, these roads will be designated as existing, light-use roads. ~~ :':~`J,~ IOc~c~S f~~ ~:it~trlt 1 ~~-1 e(~i`~~ ~ ,,~