Laserfiche WebLink
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 />.~~.+. }I~a ~c~ce <br />in length, varying from 6 inches to 7 feet ide (Photos 752 through 755). Photos 732 <br />through 743 are progressively upstream along the main channel and its south fork. Photos <br />744 through 750 are of the north fork o the channel and the adjacent hillslope. Of note is <br />a nickpoint just above the junction with the south fork. There is an old headcut 10 to 12 <br />feet high that has healed over with grasses and shrubs, but with evidence of recent cutting <br />along one side of the original headcut, with anon-vegetated vertical scarp 3 to 4 feet high. <br />Photo 748 shows the headcut, and Photo 749 is the channel segment just above. There <br />would appear to be high potential for further headword erosion at this location. <br />Bob shevling indicated that the operator is planning to submit a technical revision within the <br />next couple weeks, and he agreed to include within the technical revision application a plan <br />to minimize the potential for excessive erosion of the subject channel reach. A possible <br />approach we discussed would include temporary diversion of drainage from the portion of <br />the "D" Pit reclaimed area located south of the "G" road and "G" road extension through <br />the reclamation. The temporary diversion would route drainage via properly stabilized road <br />ditches to the riprapped down-drain above Pond 005. Additionally, Mr. shevling indicated <br />that consideration would be given to enlarging and modifying the lower "D" Pit stock tank <br />impoundment to accommodate storage and controlled release of storm flows. <br />Hydrologic Balance <br />Pond 005 water level was approximately 4 feet below the top of the riser; no inflow or <br />outflow. <br />Pond 006 water level was approximately 2 feet below the top of the riser; no inflow or <br />discharge. The water level was below the seal between the original riser pipe and the 18" <br />extension, so it was not readily apparent whether the seal had been effectively repaired. <br />Bob shevling was uncertain whether the work had been completed. The "B" Pit pre-settling <br />basin remains in place. <br />Backfillina and Gradin <br />Progress had been made in backfilling the "bathtub" pit along the ridge at the eastern end of <br />the "A" Pit Area, but the assigned dozer was at the time in the shop for repair. A track- <br />ho~ and dozer were moving spoil to reduce a steep drainage side slope in the lower "A" Pit <br />area across from the oil well pad. <br />Topsoil <br />Topsoil had been placed in the aspen study plot area, including both the roto-clear topsoil <br />and the standard dozer-brushed topsail treatments. The topsoil had not yet been graded <br />and roughened in preparation for tree planting and shrub/forb seeding. Topsoil had also <br />been recently redistributed on the regraded "D" Pit spoils within the 005-E1 watershed area, <br />south of the "G" road extension. Operator was reminded of the permit commitment to <br />