APPCOR11480 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Carol Pahlke December 23, 1980 Page 25 The gap in horizon depths for Samples 32 and 41 in Table 42a is due to the following. First, as explained above, these samples are from Cryorthent areas having no horizon designations by definition. Consequently, samples were chosen and submitted for lab analysis on the basis of changes in character- istics of the material. For example, in sample pit 41, field observation resulted in delineation of the top 50" of material into three potential zones including 0"-10", 10"-20", and 20"-60". However, since the zones of 0"-10" and 10"-20" were deter- mined to be very similar, the 0"-10" zone was chosen for lab analysis due to its position at the surface. The zone of 20"-60" was analyzed because it was dif- ferentiated in the field as being different from the surface 20" in the areas of color and reaction. It was therefore determined that the two samples sub- mitted provided sufficient data to characterize the material found at that particular site. Revised Tables: Revised Table 42aa and revised Table 77a are attached hereto and are incorporated herein by reference. Response: Kerr Coal cannot agree with the apparent position of MLRD that because Rule 2.05.3(6)(b) arguably encompasses within its purview temporary as well as permanent overburden stockpiles, MLRD can subject the temporary overburden stockpile within the Kerr Permit Area to the performance standards identified in Rule 4.09. First, Kerr Coal disagrees that the reference in Rule 2.05.3(6)(b) to "removal, if appropriate" sug- gests that Rule 2.05.3(6)(b) was intended to apply to temporary as well as permanent overburden stock- piles. On the contrary, a more reasonable construc- tion of the reference to "removal, if appropriate" would be that such phrase was intended to refer to permanent overburden stockpiles, some portion of which was needed to achieve approximate original contour and some portion of which would remain as a