INSPEC33311 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

III. COMMENTS -COMPLIANCE Below are comments on the inspection. The comments include discussion of observations made during the inspection. Comments also describe any enforcement actions taken during the inspection and the facts or evidence supporting the enforcement action. cleanout level marker. The spillway outslope was riprapped and showed no signs of erosion. There were a few cows grazing near and on the pond embankment and the operator stated that they would call the owner of the cows and have the cows removed from the property. The water level in Johnson no. 10R, NPDES site no. 001, was one foot below discharge. There was a continuous recorder on the flume. The concrete single open channel spillway and the pond embankment were functional. A sediment cleanout level marker indicated no problems with the sediment level in the pond. The spillway outslope was well grassed. No Name no. 5, the NPDES point no. 002, was discharging at about five gpm. The discharge was clear. There was a continuous recorder on the flume. During the inspection the operator changed the recorder graph paper and scraped a small amount of mud from the bottom of the flume. The embankment appeared to be stable and the concrete single open channel spillway was functional. No erosion was evident at the riprapped spillway outslope. The sediment cleanout level marker was present and showed that cleanout was not necessary. A small seep was present below the pond and flume. The water level in the Coyote pond, NPDES site no. 005, was about three to four feet below discharge. The gate on the primary d}scharge tube spillway was partially open. The open channel emergency spillway was functional. The survey stakes for determining the sediment cleanout level were present. The embankment appeared to be stable. The outfall of the primary spillway was concreted. The flume for the Coyote drainage was located about 200 feet below the Coyote dam primary spillway outfall and about 30 feet below a spring. The flow from the spring was less than 5 gpm, as observed at the flume. The flume was accounting for all of the flow. There was no continuous recorder on the flume. OSM personnel observed that the flume was not level. The Division responded that the operator had been informed of this earlier but had not fixed the flume at the time of the inspection. OSM also noted that the lowest level of the staff gauge could only record 4.48 gpm. At the present time, Trapper is not required to do water quality monitoring on natural springs, only spoil springs. However, if the Division requires water sampling of this natural spring in the future, an out-of-level flume might not give an accurate reading of flow. 5