Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> 41 C1981-041 RN7 findings <br />criteria (only three of 16 samples exceeded either EC or SAR criteria). However, 12 <br />of the 16 samples exceeded the topsoil criteria for either or both parameters. Average <br />EC value was 11.0, average SAR value was 11.7. Soil salvaged from CBA-2 and <br />replaced on CRDA-1 appears to have been somewhat higher quality than the soil <br />available in Soil Stockpile 2, marginally lower quality than than Stockpile 1, and <br />comparable to the soil available from Stockpile 3 (see table below). <br /> <br />Sampled Area EC (avg.) SAR (avg.) <br /> <br /> CRDA-1 Cover Soil 11.0 11.72 <br /> Topsoil Pile 1 7.8 11.54 <br /> Topsoil Pile 2 13.3 18.01 <br /> Topsoil Pile 3 8.0 14.0 <br /> <br />There would appear to have been no appreciable benefit gained from using some <br />combination of available topsoil stockpiles for topdressing, as opposed to use of the <br />CBA-2 borrow material. (Topsoil Pile 1 was marginally higher quality, but use of <br />Topsoil Pile 1 would have “robbed” the material from the North Portal Reclamation <br />project, and various other areas to be reclaimed). Original permit projections <br />regarding the availability of sufficient material meeting “topsoil” criteria within <br />approved stockpiles and designated borrow areas in the vicinity of the North Portal <br />and CRDA refuse areas were apparently erroneous. <br /> <br />RSRDA <br /> <br />Roadside borrow area pre-salvage soils data indicated comparatively high quality <br />soils, with all 16 sampled zones meeting subsoil quality criteria for both EC and <br />SAR, and only 4 of the 16 marginally exceeding quality criteria for topsoil. Average <br />values for EC and SAR were well below the permit specified criteria for topsoil. Re- <br />spread sample data verify the generally high quality of the salvaged soils; EC and <br />SAR levels were lower than the topsoil quality threshold in all 11 samples. <br /> <br />Based on review of the information provided, the Division concludes that permit <br />compliance was demonstrated for CRDA-2 subsoil quality, CRDA-1 subsoil quality, <br />and RSRDA subsoil and topsoil quality. Quality of topdressing material was marginal <br />on CRDA-2, and did not meet the suitability criteria on CRDA-1. <br /> <br />With PR-5 SCC requested that the remaining portion of Topsoil Pile 2 at the North <br />Portal area be left in place due to guy wire anchors supporting transmission power <br />poles buried in the remnant of Topsoil Pile 2. The Topsoil Pile 2 location was <br />inspected by the Division to assess SCC’s proposal to leave the remaining topsoil in <br />place. This was deemed the appropriate course of action given the high cost of <br />relocating the guy wires. The pile is stable and well vegetated; it blends into the <br />surrounding terrain reasonably well, and does not impede the drainage pattern of the <br />surrounding terrain or impound water. <br />