_INSPECTION - C1994082 ‎(67)‎

• Permit No: C1994082
• IBM Index Class Name: INSPECTION
• Doc Name: Inspection Report
• Inspection Date: 4/29/2010
• Email Name: DTM
• Email Name: SB1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

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.
General Comments
This was a monthly DRMS partial inspection, conducted by Dan Mathews of the Division's Grand Junction
office. I was accompanied on the inspection by Dennis Bugay of Seneca Coal Company(SCC).
Weather was cloudy and cool, with occasional light snow flurries on 4/29. Snowpack accumulated over the
winter had largely melted off reclaimed areas in the last couple weeks, but there were snow flurries in the area
on 4/28 through 4/30. Lower portions of the Pond 12, Pond 13, and Pond 14 watersheds (accessed from the
Sage Creek county road)were walked on 4/29;fresh snow cover in the areas averaged 3"-4"deep. Due to
muddy conditions, the main mine entrance road was not passable, and mine areas in the Pond 10, 11, and
upper Pond 12 watersheds could not be accessed. Pond 11 on Grassy Creek was inspected on 4/30.
Signs and Markers
The Mine I.D. sign had not yet been updated with the correct SCC physical address and phone#as requested
in the previous inspection. Operator indicated that stickers with the corrected information were on order and
would be applied to Mine I.D. signs as soon as possible upon receipt.
Roads
Due to muddy conditions on Road "A", which provides access from Routt County Road 27 into the interior of the
permit area, the road was impassable. As a result, most road segments in the permit area could not be
accessed. It is likely that typical spring maintenance activity will be warranted along the roads as soon as
conditions dry sufficiently to allow for-equipment access and maintenance activity. Please refer to discussion
regarding additional documentation that will be required for permanent road retention, in the previous inspection
report.
Hydrologic Balance
Soils were saturated from recent melt of the winter snowpack and additional moisture from rain and snow within
the few days prior to the inspection, and there was flow in the larger permanent channels. Pond 12 which is
impacted by runoff from the landslide just up-gradient, as well as spoil spring inflow and runoff from the a large
acreage of reclamation, was checked twice during the course of the day on 4/29,first at approximately 8:45 and
later at approximately 12:30 p.m. Discharge through the primary spillway weep hole was clear on both
occasions. Embankment appeared stable, although 4" snow cover prevented detailed observations. Dennis
Jones, SCC hydrologist indicated that the peak flows this year have been lower than last spring, likely due to
both the lower snowpack and cooler temperatures during the primary snowmelt runoff period.
Pond 12A is located up-drainage from Pond 12 to provide additional settling in the watershed (and partially in
response to the landslide on the ridge northeast of Pond 12). Pond 12A was inspected around 11:30 a.m. The
pond contained a pool of water approximately 2.5' below the elevation of the top of the primary spillway riser,
with inflow from permanent channel YPM 6-2. 12A was not discharging when observed; embankment appeared
stable although 4" snow cover prevented detailed observations.
Pond 14 was discharging clear flow over the top of the primary riser when observed at approximately 9 a.m.
Pond 13 was also discharging clear flow over the top of the primary riser when observed at approximately 10:45
a.m. Embankments appeared stable, although 4"snow cover prevented detailed observations.
The small area exemption area on top of the ridgeline northeast of Pond 12, extending from the Topsoil
Stockpile"L"area to the west end of the ridge, north of Pond 12 was walked. Straw wattle alternative sediment
controls had been staked in place in series along the ridgeline, in accordance with the design depicted on
Figure 13-12.4-1. The area appears to have been properly bermed and graded, so that drainage from the
3