Laserfiche WebLink
RULE 2 PERMITS <br />2) Distribution, suitability, and average salvage depths of soils within the disturbed area associated <br />with the South Taylor mining area; and, <br />3) Quantity of salvageable suitable soil material for use in the reclamation of the disturbed area <br />associated with the South Taylor mining area. <br />Detailed Soils Resource Information — The site-specific soils resource information described below <br />pertains to the disturbed area associated with the South Taylor mining area shown on Map 5B. <br />Detailed soils information was collected to determine the spatial distribution, suitability, salvage depths <br />and volume of soils available within the disturbed area associated with the South Taylor mining area. In <br />addition, the mass balance in salvageable soil materials were calculated to assure an adequate supply of <br />suitable soil would be available for reclamation of the surface disturbance associated with the South <br />Taylor mining area. An overall mass topsoil balance is presented in Volume 1, Table 2.05-1. <br />A previous soils inventory which encompassed the majority of the disturbed area associated with the <br />South Taylor mining area was performed by Consolidation Coal Company (CCC, 1984). The CCC soil <br />inventory report includes soil series and map unit descriptions, soil map unit boundary delineations, <br />physicochemical properties, and recommended soil salvage depths within the South Taylor mining area, <br />with the exception of the southern portions of T3N, R93 W Section 16 and 17. A copy of the Soil <br />Inventory Danforth Hills Project Rio Blanco & Moffat Counties is included in Volume 13, Exhibit 9, Item <br />7. Soils information presented in the existing permit document were used for the portions of T3N, R93 W <br />Section 16 and 17 that were not included in the CCC report. <br />The soils were mapped according to the standards of the National Cooperative Soil Surveys. Soil series <br />were described and sampled in locations that were typical of the series. Soil sample collection was based <br />on profile characteristics such as texture, horizon arrangement and depth, coarse fragment, and other <br />diagnostic characteristics. Sample locations are shown on Map 5B. <br />Soil samples were analyzed for the following parameters: <br />• pH; <br />• Electrical Conductivity; <br />• Saturation percentage; <br />• Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR); <br />• Boron; <br />• Selenium; <br />• Particle size (texture); <br />• Coarse Fragments (in the field) <br />• Organic Matter; and <br />• Soluble Ca, Mg, and Na. <br />The soil laboratory and field data were compared with the topsoil and substitute topsoil suitability criteria <br />shown on Table 2.04.9-5, Soil and Soil Substitute Suitability Criteria, to determine the suitability of each <br />horizon and map unit. These suitability criteria were developed based on a review of Wyoming <br />Department of Environmental Quality (1996) and Montana Department of State Lands (1983) topsoil and <br />overburden suitability guidelines in conjunction with operational and sound reclamation practices for <br />mined land reclamation. <br />The soils data representing the soil series were compared to the suitability criteria provided on Table <br />2.04.9-5. Based on these comparisons, soil horizons that exceeded the criteria provided on the table were <br />South Taylor/Lower Wilson — Rule 2. Page 31 Revision Date: 4/7/17 <br />Revision No.: RN -07 <br />