Laserfiche WebLink
-t <br /> Sunlight— This site is located immediately adjacent to a county road. Steep slopes, an open <br /> portal and rotten cribbing pose an immediate safety hazard for the public. We <br /> need more than the $5,000 proposed to address this site. <br /> GEC— This location is subject to extensive erosion. The East Pit site is not erosionally <br /> stable and engineering methods such as extensive riprap are probably needed <br /> here. Erosion at the East Pit is causing damage to a private road which accesses <br /> a local home and the Southfield Mine fan facility. Some of the gully <br /> development poses a significant hazard due to the depth and severity of the <br /> gullies. Sediment yield is also occurring to Magpie Creek. We probably need <br /> more than the $50,000 originally proposed. Additional money should be devoted <br /> to this site. <br /> Jewel— This site exhibits exposed highwall areas, and extensive onsite erosion and <br /> offsite sediment delivery. While this site is not easily accessed by the public, it <br /> does pose a severe safety hazard to those that do access the property. Effective <br /> highwall reduction may involve expenditure needs beyond the originally <br /> proposed$50,000. <br /> Coal Gulch— This site could be further refined,but I don't believe that his location should <br /> receive priority consideration. Additional highwall elimination could occur, and <br /> such reduction could reduce potential safety problems; however, our previous <br /> reclamation work was reasonably successful in this regard. The area exhibits <br /> inherently steep topography, and although some scarps do remain, our previous <br /> work reasonably blends most of the highwalls. <br /> Any further reclamation at this location might be complicated by the presence of <br /> a landowner's development at the entrance to the site. There is now a <br /> construction material yard located on approximately one acre of ground at the <br /> entrance to the site. The landowner has placed fill against the toe of the site <br /> sediment pond, blocking the spillway outlets. Harry Ranney informs me that the <br /> landowner has also buried a culvert installation provided by DMG during the <br /> previous reclamation thus diverting the Coal Gulch drainage around the one acre <br /> fill area, into a small culvert under the site entry. This landowner is also placing <br /> fill close to the inlet of the a CDOH concrete culvert under Highway 160. The <br /> location of this development effectively prevents any improvement of drainage <br /> through the Coal Gulch site. In fact, this individual will likely experience flood <br /> damage at some point in the future due to his location at the mouth of Coal <br /> Gulch. <br /> If we chose to do additional highwall work, the material would come from the <br /> spoil located between the site and Highway 160. We could probably access the <br /> site around and above the construction material yard. After viewing the site, <br /> however, I am concerned that such work would be expensive, without achieving <br /> much improvement over the work already completed. <br /> MAoss\jrc\revoked sites.doc <br />