Laserfiche WebLink
width, or 4320 yd'assuming a 20' width. (See Attachment E). The source area <br /> identified at the pre-bid meeting �s along cr adjacent to the channel of Dutch <br /> Creek. It is doubtful that such a large voiume of material can be removed <br /> without adverse impacts on Dutch Creek. <br /> Mr. Lewicki notes that riprap of D-50= 10" (bid package design specification) is <br /> inadequate for the type of storm event which the ditch size (either 10 or 20' <br /> width) seems to anticipate. The practical effect would be that a large storm <br /> event would wash away the riprap material. <br /> The approved design (TR-25) for final ditches around the Sutey pile specified <br /> use of fabric instead of riprap because of the negative effects of obtaining riprap <br /> and hauling it to the site, and also because riprap is not effective when the <br /> underlying soil is quite erosive, as is the case at this site. <br /> An additional problem with Channel A is that it appears to occupy the present <br /> road which is used by an adjacent property owner, Mr. Willison, to reach his <br /> property. Mr. Willison holds a guaranteed right-of-way, and there is no apparent <br /> plan to put in another road. In addition, future use of the lower Sutey topsoil <br /> stockpile for other areas of the mine will require a road. <br /> Comments re. Channel B: Channel 6 is to be situated on the refuse pile itself. <br /> The diagram accompanying the bid package does not show it as being a <br /> channel, as there is no indication of where or whether flows are intended to <br /> drain. <br /> If the runoff is not directed off the pile, then the effect of ponding the water would <br /> be to saturate the refuse beneath. This would tend to de-stabilize the pile and is <br /> contrary to regulatory requirements: <br /> 4.09 Disposal of Excess Spoil (8). The final configuration of the fill shall be <br /> suitable for postmining land uses approved in accordance with 4.16, except that <br /> no impoundments shall be allowed in the completed fill <br /> Directing the flows toward the east side, or Channel C, if that's what's intended, <br /> would be equally unwise. The area in which Channel C is indicated is steep, <br /> and has erosive soils. The east collector ditch located in this area has required <br /> extensive maintenance, and has been reconstructed several times in the last few <br /> years, due to these factors. <br /> It was the specific objective c1 TR-25 to re-direct flows away from the east <br /> collector ditch. To achieve this, and also to prevent erosion and gullying along <br /> the face of the refuse pile, TR-25 calls for installation of two contour ditches, <br /> strategically placed to intercept runoff, and re-direct flows to the west side, which <br /> MCR Objections/DMG Bid <br /> Page 5 <br />