Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Those ponds that collect flow Fram smaller, ephemeral basf na (Ponds 002, 003, 004 and 005) <br />have not tli seharged to data. If they were to di acharge a measurable quantity of water, <br />same downstream channel inei Sion would ba expected in the ivmadi ate vi ci n4 ty of the dam. <br />Tha Smpaqts of the sediment ponds on the channel charaetert stica will teat through bond <br />release, and will be of minfmal si gnSfi canoe. Folloxi ng the removal of the aetli meet ponds <br />at bond release, toore will be certain short term lmpaets to the channel reaches, <br />particularly below the location of the removed structures. Sediment loads will <br />temporarily increase as the aeti ve channel widens 1n response to the lncreacetl runoff <br />DotenCial. Cilannal bank vagetati on that has encroached over time in the lmmedf ate <br />downstream reach, and prompt reel aneti on (topaoii reestablishment and revegetation) of the <br />reooved pond strucWre wf 11 provide some stabilS ty dur4~ this short term active Channel <br />readjustment pe rS od. The frequency of the larger runoff events (due fn anowmelt and <br />summer thunderstorms) wi it dictate how raptdly the channels reestablish stable condi ti one. <br />An a11uW al valley floor (AVF) analysis of both Tuttle end Calamity Draws xas performed <br />and the results of the analyses are presented to Tab 16. The analyses determined that <br />Tuttle and Calamity Orawc were not AVF's. Significant obaervattons made in Che analysis <br />• were that the areas of potantia] subs rri gati on were very 1lmitad in extant, and that no <br />historic or present usage of water from the main channels in either draws for flood <br />i rrigatt on purposes has Dnen identified. The inei sad naWra of the main channels in both <br />draws la rgaly Dreeludes any prat ti cal attempts at flood irrlgatf on using only gravity <br />feed. Usage of water froW the main rAannels in either Tuttle or Calamity Draws would only <br />be fnaci ble if pumps ears anpl oyed. <br />Potanti al impacts (water quantity) of the sediment ponds on downstream users along both <br />draws nTll 1nvol ve possible reductions in flow due Co impounded water. Tah 16 presents a <br />discussion an water rlghta in the of ei ntty of both mining areas (NUCla Nine and Nucla <br />East), which includes those surface water rlghta located along both draws bel on the seven <br />aedi meet structures. Peabody currently has rights to a cufficS ant quantity of water (27 <br />shares in the Nighii ne Ditch) W supply all uses aaaoci ated with the mining activities <br />conducted in both erase (see Tab 16 ), plus an additional quantity of water that can be <br />used to mtti gaCe any impact to dormaiream users. A plan has bean developed for augmenting <br />any water rS ght (ground or outface) that may prows to be impacted by mining, end this plan <br />has been included as Attachment 16-7 of Tab 16. Because of the quantity of water righted <br />to Peabody, and the developed augmentation plan to De implemented should water ri ghta be <br />17-77 ~ Ravi sad W/11 /8g <br />• REVISED MARCH 2006 Attachment 2.05.6(3)-2-88 <br />