APPCOR13110 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

X Topsoil (2.04.9, 2.05.3(5), 2.05.4(2)(d), 4.06) The following problems were identified in the review, With the acceptance by Xerr Coal of one stipulation, the proposed operation is in compliance. 1. MLRD needed more information on the soil sample data submitted by Kerr Coal so that an adequate evaluation of Kerr's proposed topsoil salvage depths could be made. Specific problems identified and re- solved were: A. No site specific soil horizon descriptions and depths were pro- vided for each hole which was sampled for chemical and physical analyses. Kerr responded by providing this information in re- vised Table 42a. Upon review of this table it was found that there was a gap in depth figures for two sample points. Xerr responded satisfactorily by submitting revised Table 42a and explaining that the gaps were due to similaritiesin characteris- tics between two zones such that only one was sampled for chemical and physical analysis and included in the table. B. Soil sample numbers in the Tables were not correlated with locations shown on the soils map, Kerr responded satisfactor- ily by submitting revised map 25a. C. Ranges in topsoil depths for other holes sampled were not pro- vided. Kerr responded by submitting Table 77, Topsoil and Sub- soil Depths from Field Data for Volumetric Calculations, and Table 57 was revised to cross reference Table 77. Upon review of Table 77, it was found that some of the data was missing, and Kerr responded satisfactorily by submitting revised Table 77a which included the relevant missing data. D. Information on salvage depths presented in Table S7 was not clear as to which depths were available salvage depths and which depths were the actual salvage depths. Kerr resolved the problem by submitting revised Table 57a. s. A question arose as to whether the sampling done in the X73 Coalmont area of Pit No. 1 was representative for the entire area, since all sample sites were located near the top of a ridge. Kerr Coal responded satisfactorily by demonstrating that the survey of the area was in fact representative. 2. Based on the information submitted by Kerr Coal in response to the above problems, several questions arose as to the adequacy of Kerr's topsoil salvage plan for Pits No. 1 and 2. Specific problems identi- fied and resolved were: A. Pit No. 2. In reviewing revised Table 77a and revised map 25a, it was found that more X73 Coalmont A and B horizon material was available for salvage than was indicated in Kerr's topsoil salvage plan. .Kerr Coal xesolved the problem by explaining that an error was made in calculating the average depths of A and B horizons, and that revised Tables 57a, 58a, 55 and 69, and revised text under Section 816.22 (c) and (d) were submitted to remedy the error. The revised tables reveal that approximately _l a_