Laserfiche WebLink
not been provided for deletion of Saturation % as a parameter of concern, nor for deletion <br />of Table 2.04.6-2, which was based on suspect levels listed in current Wyoming DEQ <br />guideline documents, and which was used to define the extent of suitable/unsuitable <br />materials in evaluation of baseline geochemistry data for PR-2. <br />Unless technical justification based on applicable current literature or research is <br />provided to support the changes, please retract the deletion of Table 2.04.6-2 and <br />associated text references. Also, please provide appropriate mice plan detail to <br />clarify how the overburden handling plan described on page 2.05-8 narrative will be <br />accomplished for excess spoil fills and pit backfill areas in the South Taylor project <br />area. <br />Rule 2.04.9 Soils Resource Information <br />Lower Wilson <br />14. Item Resolved. <br />South Taylor <br />15. One copy of the Walsh (1984) "Soil Inventory Danforth Hills Project" was submitted to <br />the Division, however it was not incorporated into the permit application package. <br />Please include the Walsh report as an Exhibit, Figure, or other type of addendum to <br />the permit application package. <br />16. Text listing of salvage criteria was properly amended on revised ST/LW Rule 2, page 52. <br />Tables 2.04.9-6 and 2.04.9-7 were not amended to reflect soil salvage from Map Unit <br />NBD, despite lack of limitations in profile (other than slope grade). 11"avg. salvage depth <br />listed for Map Unit WRD on Table 2.04.9-6 appears to be in error. Table 2.04.9-7 and <br />Exhibit 9.6 indicate average salvage depth of 18" for the unit, and there are no limitations <br />listed in upper profile on Table 2.04.9-6. <br />Please address the apparent discrepancies and amend the tables as warranted. <br />17. The Division's specific requests were not addressed. Information in the 1984 Walsh <br />report, particularly data presented by individual soil series components of the soil complex <br />map units, may be helpful in explaining the issue of "within map unit variability", and may <br />allow for more accurate projection of salvage volumes within each map unit. For example, <br />Table 2.04.9-6 indicates 0" of available salvage from Map Unit JBB. One of the sample <br />sites listed for this unit shows excess clay levels throughout the profile, while the other <br />sample site shows no salvage limitations to a depth of 53 inches, with loamy upper <br />horizons and clay loam lower horizons. It seems likely that these two sample sites were <br />