PERMFILE45698

• Permit No: C1980007A
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 6/2/2006
• Doc Name: pg 2.05-200 to 2.05-300
• Section_Exhibit Name: 2.05.6 Mitigation of Surface Coal Mining Operation Impacts Part 2
• Media Type: D
• Archive: Yes

West Elk Mine
(i.e. "natural augmentation" of measured (actual) flows). In addition, the majority of the adjudicated
water resources on Jumbo Mountain are located down-dip of the proposed mining and outside the
permit area. No effect to these resources from mining is projected as water migrating down-dip
through the B-Seam would still enter the colluvium of the ancient landslide on the north slope of the
mountain. The colluvium in this area will not be mined under, as no minable B-Seani exists. The
overburden is generally greater than 370 feet, as well, and no impact is anticipated. In any case, if
effected, Mountain Coal Company will repair the water right resource to measured flows or storage
amounts or enhance the right within and up to the decreed amount.
ylvester Gulch
Engineering analysis indicate that there is a small probability that the mining in the Apache Rocks
and Box Canyon permit revision azeas will deplete Sylvester Gulch flows (see Section 2.05.6
(3)(b)(iii & viii), Surface N'ater Quantity E,/fects. There are three decreed water diversion systems
in the Sylvester Gulch drainage (Table 44). All of these rights aze owned and controlled by MCC.
MCC realizes that there may be injury to these rights and will accept that possibility and does not
plan to augment them within the Sylvester Gulch basin. However, depletions that may occur to
Sylvester Gulch flow could affect senior North Fork water rights if a call for junior Sylvester Gulch
water rights is made. (See North Fork Gunnison River below). Call records for the North Fork aze
presented later in this section. As discussed below, MCC has a significant North Fork water rights
portfolio that is available to cover Sylvester Gulch depletions, if necessary (Table 45).
North Fork Gunnison River
Though unlikely, subsidence may potentially reduce North Fork flows due to disrupfion of
streamflows, springs, and groundwater, each of which are discussed below.
Table 44
S Ivester Gulch Water Ri hts
Name of Right Appropriation Adjudication Case District Decreed
(Structure) Date Date Amount (1) No. Priority No. Use (2)
WalterGallob 06/01!1908 08/16/1936 0.75 3503 J-126 I
absolute
Chipmunk 06/10/1917 05/28/1937 0.9 2563 H-109
Ditch absolute I
06/01/1937 03/20/1954 0.57 5080 J-226 ~
absolute
Tony Bear 03!20/1954 08/01/1937 0.43 5080 J-226 M,D
Pipeline absolute
Notes:
(1) MCC owns 100 percent of each decree.
D =Domestic I = I ration M =Minim - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I
1. Streamflow -Normally, the limited natural runoff from this area (estimated at 200 acrefeet per
square mile per yeaz for water rights purposes) does not reach the North Fork except during high
snowmelt or rainfall-runoff periods (when there is no "call" for water in the river). Furthermore,
. as discussed in Section 2.05.6 (3)(b)(iii & viii), Streams, surface flow losses will be small. A
conservative projection of the average annual streamflow "lost" to crack infiltration in the North
2.05-1 /2 Revised June 1005 PR70; Rev. March 2006; Rev. Apri[ 2006 PRIO; May 1006 PRIG