_ENFORCEMENT - C1981017 (12) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

problems existed - the material the company placed in the drain was scooped up with a front end loader at the waste rock pile - therefore it was not sized, it contained fines, and it had not been analysed to insure its durability. The company then dumped the loose material in the gully, without any preparation to the drain and without working the material into the sidewalls. This resulted in a slug of loose material lying in this drain that already had eroded at the interface of material and sidewall, undercutting the sidewalls, and in times of high flow could conceivably completely slide out of the drain. Certainly the fines contained in the material are a source of additional sediment to streamflow in any size rain event. We continued down the haulroad. Some fill slopes have vegetation on them, some are bare. Dan Matthews stated that he thought that some seeding had been done on the upper switchbacks, and certainly some slopes farther down the road were known to have been seeded back in the days of Doug Bowman (roughly 1984) . The seeded slopes later pointed out did look nice. Where there was vegetation on the upper slopes there was evidence of pedestalling, ie the plant was holding the underlying soil in place while sheet and rill erosion lowered the soil surface all around the plants. It did not appear that the ditches followed any apparent design - they deepened and filled as we walked them. Downcutting was evident both in the ditch and in the road surface as run-off formed its own channels. We came to RD-4, another downdrain written in the October violations. It too had been filled with buckets of material from the waste rock pile. According to the company 4-5 feet of material had been placed in the drain which still was deep with meandering vertical sidewalls. It began to rain. The ditch on the inside of the switchback at RD- 3 barely exists - rather than a defined channel, numerous gullies carry the run-off. Farther down the road we come to culvert#5 (C- 5) which carried the runoff from the inside ditch, under the road and down the outside slope. THere was a moderate flow which was tan and opaque. Dan and the company took water samples. No upstream samples could be obtained. We did go down to see the confluence of the unnamed drainage receiving the sampled wastestream and Dutch Creek. Though it had been raining in both watersheds the stormwater from the Dutch Creek watershed had not yet reached that point as the unnamed drainage was turbulent and Dutch Creek was clear. Lew pointed out that we were below 016 discharge to the unnamed drainage. We backtracked to the waste pile area and found the unnamed drainage above 016, approximately where Mitch had sampled last fall. The channel was running semi-cloudy and Dan and the company took samples. The only source of this intermittent stream is the disturbed and undisturbed areas near #4 , so it appeared that the run-off from the roads which was just sampled upstream was being diluted by the undisturbed run- off. Of course several things play a part in the difference in the waters. Factors such as where we were time-wise in relation to the