_INSPECTION - C1982057 ‎(33)‎

• Permit No: C1982057
• IBM Index Class Name: INSPECTION
• Doc Name: Inspection Report
• Inspection Date: 10/14/2009
• Email Name: DTM
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

e i
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.
may be necessary). One of these gully locations down-slope from the PM-14 culvert is depicted
in Photo SL2-35.
Further to the north on the same slope, above the RMRS aspen test plot area, there are small
areas of concentrated rills and patchy vegetation, where minor scarification and interseeding
would appear to be warranted (Photo SL2-36).
The riprapped upper segment of the 006 Channel (above the Ridgeline Access Road) appeared to
be stable. TRM was installed along the 006 tributary that drains through Culvert PM-17, located
north of the aspen test plots, within the last couple years. This channel appears stable, although
due to the recent disturbance, vegetation is not yet well established along the channel
construction corridor.
006 Gulch (Ridgeline Access Road to 006-E1 Confluence)
Upper slopes along the channel,particularly on the north side between the 006 Channel and
TRM channel downslope from Culvert PM-17, are poorly vegetated and rilled (Photo SL2-50).
Minor scarification and interseeding may be warranted.
The riprapped 006 Channel appears to be stable along the reach, with the exception of a short
segment just upstream of Stock Pond T-5, where riprap has been washed out exposing the
underliner, and there is incipient head-cutting. Maintenance is warranted in this location; detail
view is shown in Photo SL2-51, and the location of the scoured zone is shown in Photo SL2-53.
Rill development was noted along the former maintenance route adjacent to the channel. Upon
completion of maintenance in the scour zone, the maintenance route will need to be properly
reclaimed, with water bars or dips as warranted to prevent flow concentration along the route.
The channel segment downstream of the T-5 embankment to the 006-E 1 confluence was stable.
A minor settling crack was observed on the hillslope south and slightly west of T-5, but there
was no evident displacement and repair does not appear to be warranted.
006 Gulch (006-E1 Confluence to 006-NE2 Confluence)
There were several concerns regarding drainage maintenance noted for this channel segment in
the June 2006 inspection. Most of the concerns appear to have been addressed. However, one
issue has not been fully addressed. The 2006 report described a severely eroded segment(gullied
2' to 4' deep), extending upstream from the 006-NE2 confluence. Based on observation made
during the SL-2 inspection, the gully was repaired;however the channel was not properly re-
15