Laserfiche WebLink
-19- <br />X. Topsoil Rules 2.04.9, 2.05.3(5), 2.05.4(2)(d), 4.06 <br />The following concerns were identified in the original permit review. The <br />permittee has subsequently committed to the requirements of the original <br />stipulation and resolved the concern. <br />ML RD needed more information on the soil sample data submitted by Kerr Coal so <br />that an adequate evaluation of Kerr's proposed topsoil salvage depths could be <br />made. Specific problems identified and resolved were: <br />A. No site specific soil horizon descriptions and depths were <br />provided for each hole which was sampled for chemical and physical <br />analyses. Kerr responded by providing this information in revised <br />Table 42a. Upon review of this table it was found that there was <br />a gap in depth figures for two sample points. Kerr responded <br />satisfactorily by submitting revised Table 42a and explaining that <br />the gaps were due to similarities in characteristics between two <br />zones such that only one was sampled for chemical and physical <br />analysis and included in the table. <br />B. Soil sample numbers in the Tables were not correlated with <br />locations shown on the soils map. Kerr responded satisfactorily <br />by submitting revised map 25a. <br />C. Ranges in topsoil depths for other holes sampled were not <br />provided. Kerr responded by submitting Table 77, Topsoil and <br />Subsoil Depths from Field Data for Volumetric Calculations, and <br />Table 57 was revised to cross reference Table 77. Upon review of <br />Table 77, it was found that some of the data was missing, and Kerr <br />responded satisfactorily by submitting revised'Table 77a which <br />included the relevant missing data. <br />D. Information on salvage depths presented in Table 57 was not clear <br />as to which depths were available salvage depths and which depths <br />were the actual salvage depths. Kerr resolved the problem by <br />submitting revised Table 57a. <br />E. A question arose as to whether the sampling done in the X73 <br />Coalmont area of Pit No. 1 was representative for the entire area, <br />since all sample sites were located near the top of a ridge. Kerr <br />Coal responded satisfactorily by demonstrating that the survey of <br />the area was in fact representative. <br />Based on the information submitted by Kerr Coal in response to the above <br />problems, several questions arose as to the adequacy of Kerr's topsoil salvage <br />plan for Pits No. 1 and 2. Specific problems identified and resolved were: <br />A. Pit No. 2. In reviewing revised Table 77a and revised map 25a, it <br />was found that more X73 Coalmont A and B horizon material was <br />available for salvage than was indicated in Kerr's topsoil salvage <br />plan. Kerr Coal resolved the problem by explaining that an error <br />was made in calculating the average depths of A and B horizons, <br />