Laserfiche WebLink
i~ ~ • <br />report made by John Nelson was included with this appeal. <br />This report indicates that it was completed on July 20, 1994 <br />and turned in on July 25, 1994. The July 20, 1994 date <br />appears twice on this report. Based on the hand written <br />report, I believe the inspection was made on July 20th. It is <br />my opinion that the inspection was completed within the <br />specified time and that the written report was not typed up <br />until July 25th, henceforth the discrepancy. <br />The riprap at the entrance gate, which is of issue here, was <br />inspected by me on April 27, 1995 for the purpose of trying to <br />determine, if at all possible, the proper amount and size of <br />riprap which had been placed. The site conditions at that time <br />were extremely muddy, yet we were able to dig in an area <br />towards the south end near the entrance road. At that <br />location the ditch was heavily silted with similar conditions <br />in both directions for up to 10'-20'. We dug down to <br />approximately 3'-4' below the top of the stones along the <br />adjacent side walls. we found very little evidence of stones <br />larger than 1 y" to 2", and no stones in the 6" range as <br />would have been required by the contract. A visual inspection <br />of the ditch provided evidence of severe erosion near the <br />north end prior to leaving the area boundary. Within the <br />erosion area there were a few (half dozen or so)large stones <br />that may have been from the bottom of the ditch or from the <br />sides, otherwise the ditch was eroded down several feet with <br />no evidence of riprap. Later the contractor and myself <br />walked a length of approximately 50 yards or more beyond the <br />site boundary to determine if and how much riprap might have <br />been washed down stream. There was evidence of- some stone of <br />similar color which was mostly 2" or less. It would be <br />extremely difficult to determine if this was some of the <br />riprap or whether this was stone that had come from the <br />immediate area or had washed down stream before the .ditch was <br />placed. From what I have read and seen, I am more inclined to <br />base my final decision on a photo that was taken upon the <br />completion of the ditch and on the field inspection that was <br />completed shortly thereafter. The photo, that was taken by <br />Energy Fuels Mining Company, would indicate that the ditch was <br />completed with some riprap on the sides and with little or no <br />evidence of riprap in the bottom area. In fact the photo <br />shows a ditch with a wide flat bottom, which appears to be <br />flatter and wider than expected. <br />The contractor then goes on to explain that due to delaxs in <br />