My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC26917
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC26917
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:30:48 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 10:07:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982057
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Name
Inspection Report
Inspection Date
6/29/2006
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.
/
22
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 />regrading, riprap installation, and revegetation as necessary to stabilize the channels and comply with <br />approved design specifications. <br />Due to the fact that many of the 005 and 006 watershed channel segments have only recently been constructed, <br />and due further to the fact that even the older channel segments have continued to require periodic repair and <br />maintenance, approval of a Phase 1 bond release for the channel corridors would appear to be premature. It is <br />too early to judge whether or not the channels have stabilized. Until such time that the channels have proven to <br />be stable, with minimal maintenance required over a period of several years, my recommendation would be that <br />bond monies associated with permanent channel construction and riprap installation be retained in full. <br />Backfillina and Grading <br />The primary focus of this inspection was apparent stability of the permanent channel segments inspected, and <br />conformance with approved designs. Numerous gradient measurements were taken; in most cases gradients <br />appeared to be in general conformance with design profile gradients, although there was at least one location <br />where gradient appeared to exceed design profile by a significant margin (006-Si ). Channel profiles will be <br />reviewed in the context of the phase 1 bond release application, which was recently submitted. <br />In various locations, hill slope gullies were apparent in the vicinity of the permanent channel sections inspected, <br />and these gullies were noted in the text of the report. Most of these gullies appear to have been delineated on <br />the 2006 Rill and Gully Map, but there may be a few that were not. Operator should ensure any additional gullies <br />that were noted are properly addressed, as required by the approved rill and gully plan. Some of the permanent <br />channel segments noted in this report as needing repair were marked on the Rill and Gully Map, but a number <br />were not delineated on the map, including the significant gully along the 006 Gulch channel, between the E1 and <br />NE2 confluences. <br />11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.