My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC04856
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC04856
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:59:35 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 8:18:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980224
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Name
NOTICE OF INSPECTION & INSPECTION REPORT
Inspection Date
5/8/1985
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.
/
5
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
<br />INSPECTION REPORT - Page 2 <br />File No. 80-224 <br />Date: May 8-9, 1985 <br />OBSER4ATIONS OF IMPORTANCE <br />1. The operation was active during the inspection. <br />2. A portion of the southern permit boundary was backfilled, graded and <br />sloped (between 2:1 and 3:1). <br />a. Weed species constituted the vegetation cover. <br />b. Gully erosion was evident. <br />c. Differential settling seemingly caused a separation between the <br />original highwall face and the unconsolidated backfill material. The <br />highwall was up to one foot higher than the settled backfill material. <br />Water apparently flowed into the "separation crack zone," draining <br />vertically until it reached a point where it flowed horizontally, <br />daylighting further downslope. Head-cutting is evident at the crest of <br />the slope in some of the gullies, and may be moving outside of the <br />permit boundary. <br />3. Topsoil was present on•the undisturbed overburden directly above the <br />currently active highwall face, i.e., no buffer between stripped topsoil <br />and the highwall face exists. <br />4. The topsoil stockpile was partially graded, but not seeded. Erosion of <br />the topsoil stockpile was evident. <br />a. Approximately 3,600 cy of topsoil was estimated (by pacing). <br />5. Asphalt and concrete waste was dumped in piles on the northern boundary <br />of Phase 2. <br />a. It appears topsoil was not salvaged from this area. <br />b. Edges of this area are also sloughing onto the adjacent Santa Fe <br />road. <br />6. Concrete waste was dumped downslope along the northern boundary of <br />Phase 2. <br />a. Topsoil was not salvaged from this site. <br />7. Approximately 30 automotive batteries, at least one containing liquid <br />(perhaps acid), were piled on the site along with myriad other junk. <br />8. An outlet from the on-site concrete batch plant was dispensing a small <br />amount of water, which, after running over the "processing area" floor, <br />proceeded downslope, creating an erosional gully. <br />9. Along the northern slope, concrete waste was poured downslope to <br />stabilize various erosional gullies. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.