Laserfiche WebLink
West Elk Mine <br />relevant Dry Fork acreage covered by the augmentation plan. Therefore, the current augmentation <br />plan will provide much 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. The 1981 Minnesota Creek Protection Plan (Exhibit 58) requires MCC to return any <br />waters from the Dry Fork that enter the mine workings back to the basin. Due to the conservative <br />nature of the water augmentation plan (Exhibit 52), the potential loss of these waters from the Dry <br />Fork basin is of no consequence to downstream vested water rights as they aze fully protected. <br />Svlvester Gulch <br />Engineering analysis indicate that there is a small probability that the mining in the Apache Rocks <br />and Box Canyon pemut revision azeas will deplete Sylvester Gulch flows (see Section 2.05.6 <br />(3)(b)(iii & viii), Surface Water Quantity Ejects. There are three decreed water diversion systems <br />in the Sylvester Gulch drainage (Table 44). All of these rights are owned and controlled by MCC. <br />MCC realizes that there may be injury to these rights and will accept that possibility and does not <br />plan to augment them within the Sylvester Gulch basin. However, depletions that may occur to <br />Sylvester Gulch flow could affect senior North Fork water rights if a call for junior Sylvester Gulch <br />water rights is made. (See North Fork Gunnison River below). Call records for the North Fork aze <br />presented later in this section. As discussed below, MCC has a significant North Fork water rights <br />portfolio that is available to cover Sylvester Gulch depletions, if necessary (Table 45). <br />North Fork Gunnison River <br />Though unlikely, subsidence may potentially reduce North Fork flows due to disruption of <br />streamflows, springs, and groundwater, each of which are discussed below. <br />Table 44 <br />S ivester Gulch Water RI hts <br />Name of Right Approprladon Adjudication Case District Decreed <br />(SWCture) Date Date Amount (1) No. Priority No. Use (2) <br />WafterGailob 06/01/1908 08/16/1936 0.75 3503 J-126 I <br /> absolute <br />Chipmunk 06/10/1917 05/28/1937 0.9 2563 H-109 <br />Ditch absolute I <br /> 06/01/1937 03/20/1954 0.57 5080 J-226 <br /> absolute <br />Tony Bear 0320/1954 06/01/1937 0.43 5080 J-226 M,D <br />Pipeline absolute <br />Notes: <br />(1) MCC owns 100 percent of each decree. <br />2 D =Domestic I = Irri adon M = Minin <br />1. Streamjlow -Normally, the limited natural runoff from this azea (estimated at 200 acrefeet per <br />square mile per yeaz for water rights purposes) does not reach the North Fork except during high <br />1.05-177 Revised June 1005 PRIO <br />