Laserfiche WebLink
West Elk Mine <br />parameters in Exhibit 60B. <br />The hydrologic monitoring plan (Exhibit 71} in the SOD permit application goes beyond the plan <br />contemplated in the Protection Plan. In addition to the Upper and Lower Dry Fork stations, gages are <br />proposed for the Deep Creek Ditch prior to dumping into Dry Fork and for Dry Fork at the inlet to <br />Minnesota Reservoir. <br />The mitigation plan in the pemrit application incorporates the two main components included in the <br />Protection Plan. Disruption of flow as a result of mining activities will be mitigated using culverts to <br />convey flows across the impacted channel section in the short term, until more long-term measures, such <br />as sealing the channel with bentonite, can be implemented. Tn the unlikely scenario that surface flows enter <br />the mine workings, water may be pumped to the surface and discharged above Minnesota Reservoir in <br />accordance with the Mountain Coal Company, LLC (MCC) discharge permit. Water quality, primarily <br />total dissolved solids, will be monitored to ensure suitability for the downstream imgation use. <br />The Minnesota Creek water augmentation plan (Exhibit 52) was predicated upon the conservative <br />assumption that all surface flows generated in the Dry Fork basin within the mining area may need <br />to be replaced. MCC is able to protect downstream vested water rights with a portfolio of water <br />rights comprising a historic annual yield of 1,632 acre-feet. The South of Divide pemut revision <br />azea is approximately 70 percent of the relevant Dry Fork acreage and the Apache Rocks azea is <br />approximately 20 percent covered by the augmentation plan. Therefore, the current augmentation <br />plan will provide more than adequate protection from senior water rights in the Dry Fork and <br />• Minnesota Creek basins. <br />An important consideration relative to North Fork depletions is that, due to the regional dip of the <br />bedding planes, inflows from streams, springs, and/or groundwater which enters the mine workings <br />from the Dry Fork watershed could ultimately be dischazged into the North Fork, rather than the <br />Dry Fork. MCC will return any waters from the Dry Fork that enter the mine workings back to the <br />basin. Due to the conservative nature of the water augmentation plan (Exhibit 52), the potential loss <br />of these waters from the Dry Fork basin is of no consequence to downstream vested water rights as <br />they are fully protected. <br />Jumbo Mauutalu <br />Three of the nine water resources undermined in the Jumbo Mountain tract are adjudicated water <br />rights (Reference Nos. 7-11 & 16-19 on Map 37A). One of the three, Raymond Wilcox Reservoir <br />No. 2, was found to be dry with no spring inflow during the summer of 1993. No flows were <br />measured as well, from five of the remaining six (non-adjudicated) resources identified above areas <br />proposed to be mined. Investigation of the Division of Water Resources records in 1994 showed no <br />documentation of historical flows and, thus, no beneficial use, for any of the Jumbo Mountain water <br />rights. <br />Based on monitoring data obtained during anine-month period (September 1993 through May, <br />1994), the physical water supply is only a fraction of the decreed diversion rate. Of the eight <br />decreed ponds and "reservoirs" with a surface source (at least in part), the cumulative flows <br />measured are approximated by the total annual precipitation on the north side of Jumbo Mountain <br />1.05-111 Revised June 2005 PRIO; Rev. March 2006; Rev. Apri12006 PRIG; May 1006 PRIG <br />