Laserfiche WebLink
Spring maintenance of the reclamation work completed in 1995, and <br /> of the lower portion of the mine site was indicated after snowmelt. <br /> The Sutey and Old Refuse Piles experienced some degree of erosion <br /> during the spring run off. The Sutey suffered minor rilling and <br /> gullying below Ditch 2, which traverses the face of the facility. <br /> More extensive gullying occurred along Ditch 8, which flows down <br /> the steep southern face of the pile. Run off short circuited the <br /> ditch in a number of areas. Further, additional ditch construction <br /> just west of the top of Ditch 8 to help maintain the integrity of <br /> the ditch was warranted. The Sutey access road also experienced <br /> some erosion in the vicinity of Ditch 4 and the lower portion of <br /> the lower topsoil stockpile. <br /> The Old Refuse Pile experienced moderate gullying on the north <br /> facing slope at the previous location of the belt line. Gullying <br /> occurred both directly down slope and to the west, over the hill <br /> toward the lower pond. <br /> A dozer was used to repair the Sutey ditches, or to build new berms <br /> and ditches as indicated. A dozer also constructed new cross slope <br /> ditches on the face of the Old Refuse Pile to help alleviate the <br /> gullying. <br /> Normal maintenance of the road side ditch and culvert system was <br /> undertaken from the Rock Tunnel to the mine gate. The outlet of <br /> the 009 pond, located about half way up the Old Refuse Pile, was <br /> frequently clogged by sticks and straw mulch. Maintenance of this <br /> structure was undertaken regularly. <br /> It was noted that Dutch Creek was eroding the embankments of two <br /> sediment ponds during high water. The 010 pond, located adjacent <br /> to Dutch Creek just south of the first switchback of Road A has <br /> experienced erosion of the embankment by Dutch Creek. Resources <br /> placed large diameter rip rap in the creek in the fall of 1995 in <br /> an attempt to stabilize the embankment. The ponds located just <br /> south of the lower (M) coal stockpile area adjacent to Dutch Creek <br /> are experiencing the same threat as the 010 pond, however there is <br /> more embankment remaining at this pond than at the 010 pond. <br /> Resources has been made aware of these conditions. Appreciable <br /> erosion of the embankments was not evident throughout the spring <br /> and summer. <br /> Early in the spring, Resources and the demolition contractor, <br /> Machinery and Equipment (M&E) became involved in a dispute, the end <br /> result being that the demolition and salvage operation was delayed <br /> significantly. In fact, even after resolution of the dispute, work <br /> did not begin in earnest until mid-June. This delay caused the <br /> loss of about four to six weeks of useable work time in the spring. <br /> Another delay of two to three weeks occurred again in the late <br /> summer when the crew left the site. Although M&E and the salvage <br /> sub-contractor repeatedly stated that the demolition work would be <br /> completed in 1996, it was not. In early December, the salvage <br /> 7 <br />