Laserfiche WebLink
ThechannelbottomwascalculatedusingtheSEDCAD+Version3.Ocomputerprogram. The channel <br />width was increased to insure that the peak velocity was below the limiting velocity. The typical <br />trapezoidal channel section was selected for design purposes only for the entire length of the <br />reclaimed channel. "Reclaimed Drainage Channel Design"onthefollowingpagescontainsthespecific <br />design information of the reclaimed drainage channel in the New Horizon 2 permit area. <br />The reclaimed drainage channels will be topsoiled and revegetated according to Sections 2.05.4(2) (d) <br />and (e) respectively. <br />Slides and Other Damage <br />WFC does not anticipate any problems with slidesat New Horizon 2 Mine during the term of mining <br />and reclamation activities. <br />/ \// Postmining Pond Retention <br />//J~` WFC has received a letter from San Miguel Power requesting that three mine detention ponds remain <br />• after reclamation as grazing stock ponds. These ponds are Ponds, 1, 6 and 7. Pond 7 is the only <br />pond within the New Horizon 2 Mine area. The other ponds are on the older Peabody mine site. The <br />ponds do retain water while the remaining land is dry, although there may be times when the ponds <br />are also dry. Pond 7 on the New Horizon 2 land will likely not go dry during the year. Existing water <br />test data provided to the DMG show that this water meets effluent standards and that the water is <br />suitable for livestock use. Access to the ponds are easy since mild slopes are present at all sites. <br />The ponds also will enhancewildlife use ofthe land after reclamation, since the surrounding rangeland <br />is very dry and the wet areas provide areas for varied habitat. The letter from San Miguel Power is <br />enclosed on the following page. <br />Ponds 8 and 10 will also remain as stock ponds after reclamation at the request of the landowners. <br />These ponds are also likely to contain water during many periods when the surrounding land isdry. <br />There is no reason to believe that the water quality in these ponds will be any differentfrom the quality <br />of Pond 7, which has been tested to be of good quality. Pond 8 is on land owned by Mr. Burbridge and <br />Pond 10 is on land owned by J. Johnson. A letter from both Mr. Burbridge and J Johnson requesting <br />that these ponds remain is included in this section. <br />i (Revised 2/00) 2.05.4(2)(C)- 8 <br />