My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC00195
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC00195
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:55:46 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 7:54:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982057
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Name
Inspection Report
Inspection Date
9/26/2006
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
III. COMMENTS -COMPLIANCE <br />Below are comments on the inspection. The comments include discussion of observations made <br />during the inspection. Comments also describe any enforcement actions taken during the inspection <br />and the facts or evidence supporting the enforcement action. <br />General Comments <br />This was an aerial inspection of the reclaimed areas, active reclamation areas, and support facility areas at <br />Seneca II-W. The flight was on the morning of 9/26/06. Harry Ranney of DRMS obtained 35 oblique and near- <br />vertical digital images. The images were viewed by Dan Mathews of DRMS on 10-03-06. Aground inspection <br />was conducted at the site on 9/27 and 9/28, and site conditions documented in the aerial images were generally <br />consistent with those described in the inspection report dated 9/29/06. However, there were certain features <br />noted on the images that had not been observed on the ground inspection. These features need to be ground <br />checked and appropriate measures need to be taken as warranted. Features to be ground checked include the <br />following: <br />1) Image 0125 appears to depict a small topographic irregularity (possibly a remnant portion of a soil <br />stockpile?)within the 1998 revegetation parcel, approximately five hundred feet north of the upper end <br />of the main substation access road. This feature has not previously been noted, and it possibly could be <br />merely a small hill, which appears to stand out due to shading or vegetative features, but it should be <br />checked on the ground to determine if grading or other measures are warranted. <br />2) Image 0125 also appears to show a short but apparently relatively deep gully near the toe of the east <br />facing reclaimed slope, east of the Ridgeline Road in the 1994 or 1995 revegetated parcel, <br />approximately 100 yards south of the junction of the Substation Road and Ridgeline Road. The gully <br />should be field checked, and stabilized as warranted in accordance with the Rill and Gully Plan. <br />3) On Image 0127, a short gully or recently repaired gully is evident, which appears to feed into Channel <br />006-NE1 at the first channel bend up-gradient of the Oil Well Road crossing. The gully should be field <br />checked, and if not previously repaired, should be stabilized as warranted in accordance with <br />the Rill and Gully Plan. <br />4) Image 0152 shows what appears to be a small area of very dark spoil material, possibly coal or <br />carbonaceous shale, on the slope south of and immediately adjacent to the upper end of Channel PM- <br />1A, in the 017 watershed. This location should be ground checked, and if coal or carbonaceous <br />material is exposed at the surface, it should be buried or properly covered over with suitable <br />spoil. <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.