Laserfiche WebLink
III. COI~AIENTS - C~LLANCE <br />Below are comments on the inspection. The comments include discussion of <br />observations made during the inspection. Comments also describe any enforcement <br />actions taken during the inspection and the facts or evidence supporting the <br />enforcement action. <br />This was a complete inspection. In advance of the upcoming mid-term permit <br />review, part 3 of the Coal Bond Compliance Inspection was also conducted. <br />Tom Kaldenbach represented CDMG and Karl Koehler represented the operator. <br />The ground was dry and the weather was warm. <br />Draglines were in operation in D pit (No Name drainage), F pit (East Pyeatt <br />drainage),and A-E pit(Middle Flume drainage). <br />AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS <br />The records checklist is attached. All required records were available in <br />Trapper's office. <br />SIGNS AND MARKERS <br />Mine i.d. and blasting warning signs were properly displayed at public entrances <br />to the permit area. Permit boundary markers and topsoil markers were displayed <br />at the numerous locations inspected. <br />ROADS <br />The surfaces of haul roads, access roads, and light duty roads were in good <br />condition. <br />Haul road embankments and cut-slopes showed minimal erosion. Ditches next to <br />roads appeared to have design capacity. <br />HYDROLOGIC BALANCE <br />Ditches and Culverts - The perimeter ditches on the south side of Trapper in Ute <br />Gulch are in good condition. <br />No maintenance problems were found with culverts. <br />Pond inspection - Ponds are summarized in Table 1. The slopes and length of the <br />embankment of the recently constructed Middle Flume #1 pond were measured and <br />will be compared with the as-built design. Inslope was 608, outslope 308, and <br />the (paced) length of the top of the embankment was 170 ft. <br />Pond discharges and conditions - Precipitation had not occurred for a few days. <br />Snowmelt was contributing to flows in drainages. Pit pumping may have <br />contributed some flow in No Name and East Pyeatt. Ponds were discharging in only <br />the actively mined drainages: No Name, Johnson, and~,~,,E~~~~as~~~Pyeatt. The operator's <br />representative collected samples at NPDES outfalls ih~t°h'(ise drainages,aa~~K <br />____.._ ^•_1_h _____- `s= ?_°°°-_~'_^-. All pond inslopes and embankments appeared <br />stable and were not Bullied. Where visible, each pond appears to have at least <br />608 of its capacity available for sediment storage, consistent with the permit <br />application. East Pyeatt #1 pond has a small delta near its inlet and appears to <br />contain considerable sediment, althouoh it. has not yet reached the 608 level. <br />Page 3 <br />