REV12615

• Permit No: C1980007
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 3/28/1986
• Doc Name: MT GUNNISON 1 MINE PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION PRELIMINARY ADEQUACY REVIEW FN C-80-007
• From: MLRD
• To: WEST ELK CO
• Type & Sequence: RN1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

PAR - C-80-007
10. Page 9. How realistic
week to implement miti
present at WECC during
streamflow is expected
for implementation?
- 10 - March 31, 1986
and how effective is your prediction of one
la tive plans? Will equipment and supplies be
the time of need? How much loss in
if mitigative plans require several weeks
11. Page 9. Fora dry year when all the flow is captured in Minnesota
Reservoir a 10 percent loss in streamflow would be significant.
What is your water augmentation plan to make up for this loss?
12. Page 9. How did you arrive at the 19 percent and 27 percent loss
figures for Horse Creek and South Prong for the worst case scenario
of mine subsidence impacts on streamflow?
13. Page 9. Quantify the volumes involved and loss estimates fora dry
year. Assume all the creeks are impacted fora dry year and that
repairs can not be made or they will fail. What is the total
volume of water that could be impacted? Does WECC have enough
water to mitigate? Where will the water come from, how will it be
transported, and what will be its water quality?
14. Page 12 states that 71-foot square pillars will remain stable for
the long term. Quantify in years the "long term."
15. Page 15. In reference to your subsidence monitoring plan when will
the 4 foot parshall flume be installed on the East Fork above its
confluence with the Dry Fork of Minnesota Creek?
16. Page 16. Provide an update on the selection of a control
watershed(s). Has WECC located and/or chosen a control
watershed(s). If so, provide a comparative analysis of the
affected and the control watershed. Has any baseline data been
collected for the Lick Creek, South Prong, Horse Creek, and East
Fork watersheds which will be used for calibration?
17. The intervention analysis proposed on Page 17 needs to be better
addressed. Provide a list of the data needed for such an analysis
and how it will be collected. Provide articles by Box and Tiav
(1975) and Hipel, et, al (1978) so that MLRD may understand your
approach. Provide a detailed interpretation of the intervention
analysis procedure, what it will do, what data is needed, why this
method was chosen over other alternative statistical procedures,
what your other alternative statistical procedures were and their
advantages and disadvantages.
18. Page 20. Should subsidence occur along the Dry Fork, Horse Creek,
or South Prong how does WECC plan to gain access to these areas in
order to drill and case a hole from the surface to a sump in the
mine. Do you have evidence that there will be no significant
change in water quality? Will a 36" culvert be available on site?
19. Page 22. Provide an update of the detailed engineering study of
the water rights in the Minnesota Creek basin. When will the study
being conducted by Wright Water Engineers be completed. What is
the status of the finalized augmentation plan?