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 />location where the water flowed into the east side of Armand Draw is near a portion of the pit <br />ramp that takes a sharp tum approximately one quarter mile northwest of Topsoil Pile G. The <br />source of the water appeared to be from melting snow and ice in the spoil material east of <br />Topsoil Pile G. The runoff appeared to be carrying a relatively heavy sediment load based on the <br />color of the dischazge and the thin layer of sediment deposited on the ground surface where the <br />water dischazged into the east side of Armand Draw. At this time during the inspection, Chuck <br />McCulloh of SCC was informed that a violation had occurred. SCC immediately initiated <br />mitigation measures to control the drainage. A blade was used to redirect the discharge via a <br />small ditch back into a disturbed area, which prevented any further dischazge to undisturbed <br />ground. The location where the ditch was originally breached was dammed with spoil material. <br />On Mazch 23, 1999 the site of the probable violation was inspected again with Mike Altavilla of <br />SCC. The area impacted by the dischazge of water and sediment was approximately 40 feet wide <br />and a minimum of 150 feet long down the east slope of Armand Draw. Rills had developed up to <br />an estimated 8 to 12 inches deep in some locations of previously undisturbed ground. Staining <br />indicating the depth of discharge was also noted on the trunks of brush and trees, where [he water <br />flowed over the edge of the slope and down Armand Draw. <br />