2005-07-26_REVISION - M1980249 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(Page 2) MINE ID / OR PROSPECTING ID / M-80-Y 69 INSPECTION DATE 12/13/96 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS ~$~ 1. The Houchin Pit was inspected ee part of the normal inspection and enforcement program. The Pit Le permitted for 3 acres of disturbance with a financial warranty of 53,500. The operator hopes to lovel Che property and reclaim to a future business site. 2. No significant mining or reclamation activity has taken place at the site since the previous inspection by Jim Dillie on January 14, 1993. Mr. Houchin indicated that he is considering starting reclamation et the Bite. Review of the annual report file indicates thaC activity at the site has been intermittent at least since 1990. For the operator's benefit, it seems appropriate to either file a request for temporary cessation in accordance with the provisions of Rule 1.13 (see attached copy) or begin final reclamation o[ the pit during 1997. Once final reclamation has begun, the operator has a period of 5 years co demonstrate achievement of reclamation according to the approved plan. 3. A significant portion of the permit arse !e currently disturbed. The operator has regraded the working face of the pit to a long continuous elope estimated to b® between 2:1 and 3:1 and 500 feet long. This inspector expressed concern to Hr. Houchin regarding tho potential foe erosion of the regraded elope when eontiqured to a 3:1 during final reclamation. The elope currently exhibits characterietice of rill erosion and appears to have a strong potential for developing more serious eroelon due to the erodibllity oC the overburden material plus the long elope length. The overburden materiel appears to be e highly erodable fine sand. These soil characterietice end those of the surrounding landscape Lndicate that establishment of a vegetative cover is critical to elope stability. The operator has selvaged and stockpiled the small volume of topsoil evaile6le at the site. However, It appears that there will not be enough topsoil to provide a cover of at least 6 inches over the entire regraded area. It le this inspector's opinion that a topsoil cover of lase than 6 inches will not be adequate for establishment of grasses and shrubs and will therefore result in significant eroelon et the site. This potential scenario will requiro a substantial effort on the part of the operator to make necessary repairs and ultimately achieve financial warranty release. 4. The current reclamation plan is comprised of s list of recomnendatione written by e District Coneervationiet from the EI Pneo Soil Coneervntion District in 1980. The list Includes grading elopes to 3:1 or lase, replacing topsoil at a thickness of 2-4" after grading, installing terraces and other grade control structures ae neceeeary, seeding, and applying fertilizer and mulch. The Division has accepted and approved this plan; however, this inspector suggests that Hr. Houchin clarify this plan and modify ae neceeeary In order to achie:•e stable elopes during reclamation. This correepondance can be sent to the Division and treated ae a technical revision. 5. The Houchin Plt ie adjacent to a pit that has been previously reclaimed and released from reclamation reeponeibility by the Division in 1994. The adjacent pit contains a aeries of highwalle and vegetated benches. This elope configuration appears to contain minimal eroelon and a vegetative cover equal or greater In extent than the surrounding landscape. The Division would welcome such a elope configuration et the Houchin Pit. Other alternatlvee for reclamation at the Houchin Pit include application of surface grading techniques that create furrows, small basins, or other structures to "roughen" the surface and break up the long elope length. Attached le information on reclamation equipment that ten be used during grading to create such structures. I & E Contact Addreae cc: ^ CH NAME C'I~.a•~I.~a 'r.. _,u chin ^ BL OPHRATOR ~!. ~ :.. ~ . ..... ^ FS