INSPEC28066

• Permit No: C1981010
• IBM Index Class Name: Inspection
• Doc Date: 3/3/1992
• Doc Name: FAX COVER
• From: MLRD
• To: OSM
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

F'A~~f_ 5
rmq!rirr_m~;nrs '~f the Si_5 s+,andard=_= will Lie .vnciuctr-:d.
At tl-~e Derringer F`it we ~=•bserved e{dditional SCS stc~c4.: pcmds, and
wal4.:r?d pc,rts ~~f the revevetated ~tr-eas. The 3CS stoc4: ponds .?.r-r•?
siti.rated in the Cr,yr~te i.,u].ch drainage. The drainar~e i~~ receiving
di=•_hargra r:•f pit wa+.er from th~a D~=?cringer Pit. The pit water flaw-s
~~.'-~r•:•~!.~1h Fr-, r. ~I'J pond=_ before-~ di=~-har!7i.nq to the drainage and
i-rltimately _:oy~:~te Dam. The pond=__ in this 1,:=ati~~n arc al s. relativr?J.y
new. They appeared tc~ be in q~~ad repair. The discharge .,f such
v•-:1~!m,e=_ ,f -i!.r faro water did not appear tc~ be having a det r-cmental
eff~~=±. Maintenance giver time hc~wcver will more than 1i4::ely b°
necessary. There is also ~c~mr-• question on the part _~f the Di vi=_~i!~n
that the pond= should handle inflow apart from runc•ff. Specific=ally,
thm que=tion is what thr. structures were designed to a•:~:ommodat~a and
i.s this enouuh Gf a departure from their intended purpose` to warr~~nt
mc~di ficatic~ns to thF approved design-'
bL, aJ,so wal.l..nd a revcgetated area rr-.ferred t~=, as 1`+c~ F: range Sitt,s P
and C. W~ for-end that *.he pa.r-ts =~~f the Yr-?yor~ni:ai:nrj ~:l~~pr-'=_= tha{:. we
wa14.:r•d {ppeared to b~ in noc~d repair. We al.s~~ c~bserv~d a largs•
~?ro~aional feature apparently forming the br~undary b!atwr-ren 3iLc~• C< and
C. The op~ere:~tor indicated that the site was reclaimed in 19^o:i. The
i~rosional Feature has been fc~rminq sim:~a that time--:•, The erosional.
feat~.ire is _i gully. Tt is at least °, to 6 feet deep anri as wide. The
channe' i= meandr-?ring, and the banbs are being r-rndercut. 4Jithout
~etabili.;ation additi.~=~na1 down cutting _~f the channel. bottom is also
1i4~,1y. The :operator indica.tc~d that the gr-{lly is ac:tua.lly a drainage
channel •=over~d ~_rnder the Rill and Gully Flan. 41e researc4-~ecJ tl-~e Rill
::nd G~rlly Flan in the apprc,ved p_rmit, t•lc were not ,-?bls t~~ .lc~~::,:le
r.nf~~~rmation whi•-h relate=_. t. the lied of featur=_• ..._ observed at tl'~e
si{-~?. We ~.1s. revie,„~,-d C~~.lor-ado'c .1•-+85 Pill and Gully F~_•1ic~.
'?.}:{'I.QmE-?nt. +1~ d;. s~_us=ed +he si.t{.rati.~~n as eel at e5 tr the i.s<_auan~_e _•f a
fd~;ti~=r_• of Violaticm vn the part of the Division. The Di vi=ion
YepY 45ent a$1 Ve el e'.ted not t~'~ ta4'e an ~~~n f~~r ~_=~ment acti. can. I therE~fcrr ,~
a~l•iised ':he Division a=> well as the ~:oerat~;r i:h.:at a. Tr.-gin-Day fd_~ti~_e
,.~_•~il.a ht~ i=sued open my return t~:~ the P~FCJ. I di.=~•_~!.ssed the -i.tuatic~n
with thca Division again c•n 1~/?!87. The P,i•:~ision ~.:as advised ,gain
t,~::,r, :,. TDf•1 would be issued. The TDN wa=_5 isr_ur_d from thca c•ffice •~i.a.
•=!~r{-ifi.ed mail # F' ~b1 ~9 X77 on December 7. 15^7. It was issued for
failure tom; divert _.urface runoff using prote•=.ted •=he{nnel or pip=_~s
tin-~~ugh disturbed areas sc~ as n_•t to eau-e additional crc•=_=i~~n. The
TDrI •_i ted F:ule ~}. rJ@~_tlc~n '~. OJ. J.
Cl _:se-Dl i t Meet i nq
Tf~2 •=1OSS^=~Lrt meeting ~das ba=i~_a.lly a rei*~r ati c~r~ _•f tl-~e inspection.
In addiL-ivn I advised the Division reprrsr-:ntatives and the ~~perat_~r-
of the fol.lowinq issues:
The possi.bili.ty ..f a Ten-Day r•lotice for the prin~=ipa1 and emergency
=_pillways being cc,mbined ir-~wne ci.is_~_har'gc structure.
M1ddi.tic~nal. revicrw relative '..,~ the _c~nstruc`..ion _~f SCS st~...4:: ponds.
AdtiiLi!~na.l review relative to 1;fre disposal =~f as4i a.t the r,shmor~~ F'i1: