Laserfiche WebLink
September 17, 2014 C- 1981 - 014 /Southfield Mine RDZ <br />The culverts that are inlets into Pond 5 appear to be clear of sediment, however one of these (the 30" CMP to the <br />south) cannot be fully inspected due to a kink in the pipe. No sediment was seen in the 24" CMP to the north. <br />ROADS — Rule 4.03 <br />Construction 4.03.1(3)/4.03.2(3) <br />Drainage 4.03.1(4)/4.03.2(4) <br />Surfacing and Maintenance4.03.1(5) and (6)/4.03.2(5) and (6) <br />Reclamation 4.03.1(7)/4.03.2(7): <br />A reach of County Road 92 that is adjacent to, but outside of, the Southfield boundary was observed <br />because of sediment loading onto this road. The reach in question is near the Southfield entrance that is just north <br />of Pond 5. Dr. Corley and Mr. Robeda suggested that sediment loads onto the road (and subsequently into the <br />nearby receiving water) are the result of three primary sources: <br />The GEC spoil pile, which is eroding onto the road since this sediment has filled a ditch and sediment <br />pond. <br />Erodible material in the ditch on the west side of the road (this material is wash plant reject placed by <br />Dorchester per Dr. Corley). <br />Grading practices performed by EFCI in the past — namely the construction of water bars that direct the <br />runoff improperly. <br />Per the September 17, 2014 inspection as well as previous inspections, two of the points by the landowner appear <br />to be accurate: erosion from the GEC spoil pile and erosion from the ditch on the west side of the road are <br />contributing significant sediment loads onto the road. Several rills and gullies can be seen on the spoil pile. The <br />ditch on the west side of the road is up to fifteen feet deep as measured from the uphill (west) side. It is less clear if <br />the grading practices by EFCI have made a significant impact, either positive or negative, on the sedimentation <br />problem. <br />RECLAMATION SUCCESS - Rule 4.15, Rule 3: <br />At the portal area, RDA, loadout, and other reclaimed areas of the site no large bare spots, erosion, or <br />weed patches were seen. The RDA was inspected from the road/track along the toe. <br />The erosion control practices (BMPs) at the portal area were inspected. Near the gravel lot, there are some rills <br />that need to be monitored, sediment should be removed from behind the wattles, and more wattles are <br />recommended. At the northwest corner of the truck tunnel, maintenance has been performed (wattles cleaned) and <br />more silt fence has been added. The area looks good, but the evidence of sediment on the apron is a reminder that <br />this area should be continually monitored. <br />REVEGETATION — Rule 4.15 <br />Vegetative Cover; Timing: <br />In a submittal by EFCI requesting that the Division approve the reclamation of the loadout ponds, an <br />analysis of sediment loading was provided. In this analysis the reclamation areas at the loadout were characterized <br />Number of Partial Inspection this Fiscal Year: 2 <br />Number of Complete Inspections this Fiscal Year: 1 <br />Page 3 of 11 <br />