INSPEC13113

• Permit No: C1994082
• IBM Index Class Name: Inspection
• Doc Date: 8/15/2001
• Doc Name: MINE SITE EVALUATION
• From: OSM
• Inspection Date: 7/18/2001
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

August 8.2001
Seneca Coal Company
P. O. Box 670
Hayden, CO 81639
Yoast Mine
Complete, oversight inspection
July 18, 2001
Participants:
Roy Karo, Seneca Coal Co.
Michael Boulay, Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology (DMG)
Henry Austin, Office of Surface Mining (OSM)
I participated in a routine, complete, oversight inspection of the Yoast Mine as indicated above. This mine
was selected for inspection dnrine evaluation year 2001 by the join[ DMG/OSM oversight team. Weather
conditions were ho[ and dry, with very localized thunderstorms in the area recently. Ground conditions
were very dry throughout the areas inspected. The primary focus of the inspection was to evaluate offsi[e
impacts.
We began the inspection on July 17, 2001, and Mr. Boulay conducted a very thorough review of permit
and environmental monitoring records at the mine office. There was a March 6, 2001, permit renewal at the
mine with three stipulations. The permittee is currently incompliance with the stipulations. Technical
Revisions (TR) 17 and l8 are currently under review by DMG and the permittee recently submitted the
information necessary for these revisions. The following records were also reviewed and found [o be in
compliance: bonding amounts; liability insurance; annual hydrological report submittal; NPDES/DMR's
for the first two quarters of 2001; quarterly sediment pond inspections; and the blasting schedule
publication. Sediment pond and haul road certifications are contained in the permit; as is the SPCC and
storm water management plans. This concluded our records review and no problems were noted.
We began the field inspection on July 18 with stops and observations of the following:
Annand Draw and the East Pit where a recent heavy thunderstorm has caused sediment deposition at [he
draw culvert and erosion on rough graded areas that will be corrected by the permittee. We discussed
possibly designing a permanent drainage channel into the final grading of [his East Pit area where recent
surface runoff was naturally flowing through the current rough graded area(s). Auguring was occurring in
the South area and topsoil removal in the South area extension. The permittee is utilizing direct topsoil haul
back/replacement whenever possible. We reviewed various topsoil piles and protection berms/ditches that
were well maintained; and we inspected the topsoil removal at the sediment pond 14 construction site. We
reviewed and discussed [he landslide adjacent to haul road D and sediment pond 12. TR 18 mentioned
above proposes a remediation plan and stability analysis for this slide area. Pond 11 needed some minor
maintenance that was pointed out by Mr. Boulay, the pond areas were stable and not discharging. We
inspected the culverts along haul road D and again, Mr. Boulay identified minor maintenance for a few
areas. We inspected Pond 10 that had only a trickle discharge and the pond embankment/surrounding areas
were stable.
Generally the haul road ditches, surfacing, and dust suppression appear well maintained and functioning as
designed. We inspected the former dragling relocation route that was stable and revegetated. No offsite
impacts were identified during the inspection.
Please address any questions concerning this inspection report to Henry Austin at [e-mail] or to
[phone] x1466.