18 Responses to “Pictures of Forest Hill Lake Restoration V”

1. posted by Cait at June 25, 2009 1:02 pm [#]:
   

   I wish we’d get some side-by-side, before-and-after shots, maybe? I see trucks coming and going, but these photos don’t look too much different from the last batch…? Can we get Hathcock up on a boom and take some ariel shots? Just some (ludicrous) ideas.

   Also, where’s all that silt going, just out of curiosity?

2. posted by Richard.H at June 25, 2009 2:38 pm [#]:
   

   Cait I will try to put together a side by side, before and after shot.

3. posted by David at June 25, 2009 2:52 pm [#]:
   

   Just watch that boom talk, missy. The silt will go to landfills in the East End. Some of it (about 17,000 cubic yards), is contaminated with peroleum residenue, etc. It will go to one landfill. The rest, about 23,000 yards, will go to another landfill where it may end on available for topical application to farm fields.

4. posted by Richard.H at June 25, 2009 5:40 pm [#]:
   

   Cait I have posted my first attempt at showing the progression. Going to try some more later.

5. posted by Cait at June 25, 2009 9:15 pm [#]:
   

   Nice, A+ work for the guy in the fez!

6. posted by tvnewsbadge at June 25, 2009 10:55 pm [#]:
   

   posted by David
   “The silt will go to landfills in the East End. Some of it (about 17,000 cubic yards), is contaminated with peroleum residenue, etc.”

   Tvnewsbadge ahead of the curb again. I wondered aloud what poison would be lurking in the mud, but everyone looked at me like I had two heads when I raised the issue.

   Someone was joking about “ariel shots”, but that is not a bad idea.
   Even from a fixed wing, the fella could get some nice shots and surely someone knows a local pilot who flys for fun.
   Another suggestion is some panoromic shots… easy to do with modern software.

   While these are good looking picture, they’re not telling the story the way a good panorama or two would do.

   I’d also suggest bi-weekly tours where average citizens can be taken down to the site en-mass to see for themselves what is going on.
   This would not be a problem because I’m sure not more than 4 or 5 folks would sign up at any one time so the fella in charge will not have to fear he’ll be herding cats and providing the standard City of Richmond Official Padow’s box lunch will not be a drain on his wallet.

7. posted by Stephanie at June 26, 2009 2:16 pm [#]:
   

   There were many, many of us who were concerned about contaminants in the mud, but we were assured by Mr. Pope (who had been informed by DEQ or some such agency that had done testing) that the contaminant levels were not cause for alarm. Given the amount of runoff that ends up in Reedy Creek after any given storm, some petroleum residue was inevitable.

8. posted by David at June 26, 2009 2:22 pm [#]:
   

   As I understand it, it’s not hazardous or toxic, it’s just contaminated with everything wahed into the creek for miles upstream.
   And the site is a constructio0n zone. It’s not safe; citizens going into the site are potentially in violation of OSHA regulations.

9. posted by Cait at June 26, 2009 5:42 pm [#]:
   

   I remember there being a car in reedy creek for a good bit after Gaston. So… yeah.

10. posted by tvnewsbadge at June 26, 2009 10:00 pm [#]:
    

    I understand the safety concerns, but I often have reason to visit construction and industrial sites and it’s simply a matter of complying with regulations, generally in terms of clothing and protective gear such as hard hats, proper footwear, eye protection and what not ( under Mayor Wilder, we actually went into the massive tunnels built to solve the battery Park issue and that was far more dangerous than anything going on down by the lake).

    I don’t think OSHA would be a problem here, but of course, it might be too much trouble to arrange these tours and I’m not sure very many people would be all that interested anyway.
    It’d still be a nice gesture and a positive move from a P.R. standpoint.

11. posted by tvnewsbadge at June 26, 2009 10:07 pm [#]:
    

    posted by Stephanie:
    ” Given the amount of runoff that ends up in Reedy Creek after any given storm, some petroleum residue was inevitable.”

    My concern is that it wasn’t so many years ago that there was a lot more “stuff” routinely dumped in our environment. Remember that transformer dump by Maury Cemetery ? As they dig down, and start exposing soil left there 20,30 years ago, will any of these poisons hatch out? Probably not, but you never know.

12. posted by Stephanie at June 27, 2009 10:48 am [#]:
    

    There are plenty of Cassandras involved in this project, but very few of them seem to voice their opinions until after the fact.

13. posted by tvnewsbadge at June 27, 2009 4:24 pm [#]:
    

    posted by Stephanie :
    “There are plenty of Cassandras involved in this project, but very few of them seem to voice their opinions until after the fact.”

    I agree. people need to sound off loud and early when they have concerns.
    I was shocked today when I made an inspection of the park and found mounds of dirt exposed to the elements and people serving food in that shelter right next to it, but it’s too late to do anything about that now.

14. posted by tvnewsbadge at July 1, 2009 10:54 am [#]:
    

    Update:
    “There were many, many of us who were concerned about contaminants in the mud, but we were assured by Mr. Pope (who had been informed by DEQ or some such agency that had done testing) that the contaminant levels were not cause for alarm.”

    Just an update. I am currently efforting a story on this issue and have been informed by DEQ that the contractor, not DEQ, is doing the testing.
    The contractor then sends the results to DEQ. I am awaiting a call back from DEQ with the info.

15. posted by David at July 1, 2009 12:13 pm [#]:
    

    Just curious: when did effort become a verb?

16. posted by PageH at July 1, 2009 12:54 pm [#]:
    

    Having just toured the work site (with plans to post here on H&H about it) I’m not sure what sorts of contaminants you think are going to be floating around. I think contaminants were brought up mostly because people were talking about using the sediment as compost which poses a liability that no city municipality would want to take on. I expect the contaminants are no worse than what are running off of each and every yard in the neighborhood. While they are not totally benign, they are no worse than what we are already exposing ourselves to on a daily basis.

17. posted by tvnewsbadge at July 1, 2009 6:21 pm [#]:
    

    David asked: “Just curious: when did effort become a verb?”

    Glad you asked. It’s one of those colorful terms used by newsmen and women from the old school.
    here’s a link.

18. posted by tvnewsbadge at July 1, 2009 9:59 pm [#]:
    

    PageH says ” expect the contaminants are no worse than what are running off of each and every yard in the neighborhood. While they are not totally benign, they are no worse than what we are already exposing ourselves to on a daily basis.”

    That’s exactly the point. Take those contaminants, multiply them by every single residence in the Forest Hill Park watershed, add storm runoff from the nearby streets and byways, seepage from underground heating oil tanks, maybe even even some industrial waste, and you have a situation that should be monitored.

    That said, I got my call back from DEQ today and based on that I am confident that nothing has turned up that presents any danger to the locals so for the time being, I am satisfied with the progress of this project.

Leave a Comment