My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR11480
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
1000
>
APPCOR11480
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:31:52 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:20:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980006
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
12/23/1980
Doc Name
KERR NORTH PERMIT APPLICATION FN 80-157 RESPONSES TO 12-05-1980 ADEQUACY REVIEW
From
KERR COAL CO
To
MLRD
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Carol Pahlke <br />December 23, 1980 <br />Page 22 <br />is very poor with the clay content thereof being <br />extremely high. Reference to Table 76, Texture <br />Analysis of Overburden Raw Data, for the entire <br />permit area discloses texture classes for the over- <br />burden of loam, sandy clay and clay, with the clay <br />content of the overburden within the permit area <br />ranging from 158 to 618. In contrast, as shown on <br />Table 42a, Soil Chemical and Physical Properties Lab <br />Analysis Kerr North Area, the clay content of the <br />topsoil and subsoil, respectively, for the Coalmont <br />(X73) soil type within Pit #1 ranges from 508 to <br />738, and 658 to 768, respectively. In addition, as <br />shown in Table 43, Table 73a and Table 76, except <br />for poor texture due to high clay, the topsoil, sub- <br />soil and overburden within Pit #1 do not have <br />restrictive features as a suitable growth medium. <br />Moreover, the clay content of the overburden in Pit <br />#1 is lower than the clay content of either the top- <br />soil or subsoil found in Pit #1. Specifically, <br />average clay content of the overburden in Pit #1 <br />after mixing is about 488 while the clay content of <br />the subsoil in Pit #1 is between 658 and 768. Based <br />upon this data, it is apparent why the decision of <br />Kerr Coal not to salvage the B horizon in Pit #1 was <br />made. Salvaging the B horizon in Pit #1 for redis- <br />tribution would serve only to increase the clay con- <br />tent of the material to be redistributed with no <br />attendant benefit over the overburden to be used to <br />backfill. <br />In regard to Pit #2, reexamination of the materials <br />presented in the Permit Application disclosed that <br />an error was made in calculating the average depths <br />of A and B horizons in Pit #2. The calculation <br />error resulted in incorrect salvage depths for the <br />Coalmont (X73) soil type. Revisions have been made <br />in Tables 57a, 58a, 59 and 69 and in the text under <br />Section 816.22(c) and (d) to remedy the error. The <br />revised tables reveal that approximately 168 more <br />topsoil and subsoil will be salvaged in Pit #2 than <br />previously stated by Kerr Coal. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.