Laserfiche WebLink
<br />III. COhIMENTS -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 [hz water flowed into thz zast side of .Armand Dra~.v is near a portion of the pit <br />ramp that takes a sharp [um approximately ore quanzr milt ^orth•.vest of Topsoil Pilz G. T'r,e <br />_ource of the water aepeared to bz from melting snow and ice in thz spoil material east of <br />Topsoil Pile G. The runoff appzared to be carrying a relatively heavy sediment load based on the <br />color of [he dischar_e and thz [hin layer of szdiment depositzd on the wound surface where the <br />water dischazQed into [he east side of Armand Draw. At this [ime during the inspection. Chuck <br />~lcCulloh of SCC was informed that a violation had occurrzd. SCC immzdiately initiatzd <br />mitigation measures to control the drainage. A blade was used to redirect the dischazge via a <br />small ditch back into a disturbed area, which prevented any further dischazse to undisturbed <br />ground. The location where the ditch was originally breached was dammed with spoil material. <br />On lvlazch 23, 1999 the site of the probable violation was inspected again with iVtike Altavilla of <br />SCC. The azea impacted by the dischazge of water and sediment was approximately 40 feet wide <br />and a minimum of I ~0 fee[ lone down the zast 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 dischazse was also noted on [he trunks of brush and trees, where the water <br />flowed over the edge of the slope and down Armand Draw. <br />