GENERAL32470 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i.., • • rr ~~j' C~>arse fragment contents varied widely within and among the profiles sampled. Contents for sample points RC-1 and RC-2 were classed as suitable for all sa.'mple depth increments. These materials are considered to have an acceptable reclamation potential. While exhibiting some depth increments having ~~ ~: marginal or unsuitable coarse fragmerit'conte -o"fu"mes, the overburden materials of sample points RC- l ~` 3, RC-4, RC-9, and RC-10 are considered, overall, to have acceptable WHC values and are therefore i`~i acceptable as topsoil substitute materials in their present state. Sample points RC-5 through RC-8 contain coarse fragment contents considered unsuitable overall as rated by guidelines developed for assessing the suitability of overburden as a topsoil substitute material. These profiles have calculated WHC values reelecting a capability of storing from one and one-half to slightly over two times the average maximum ~, I monthl~~ precipitation incident to the site. While not without value in regard to WHC, these profiles represent materials having a marginal reclamation potential and suitability as a topsoil substitute (Watdren ~:>:• r_ As a cover material "cap" for the refuse material pile, the overburden and soil materials used to cover ~:-: the pile to a four foot depth are considered suitable for this purpose in their entirety. ' 4.2 Recommendations ~~~ ~;, I 1.) Proceed with reclamation activities on all disturbed areas represented by sample points RC-1, RC-2, ~~ RC-3, FIC-4, RC-9, and RC-10. These areas include all regraded slopes east of Borrow Source 2 and the coal refuse pile. ,~ ;; J 2.) Given the marginal nature of the overburden materials represented by sample points RC-5 through ~~"^' RC-8, two basic reclamation alternatives exist for the areas from which these samples were collected. R~ ,:?; Assuming that no additional soil materials are immediately available, a third alternative for resoiling these ~ areas in time for the fall 1994 planting season has been omitted from this discussion. EFMC should E~~ maintain contact with the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology, regardless of the option chosen, to {;~~ ensure Ihat bonding and bond period concerns have been adequately evaluated. 4' Alternative One consists of completing reclamation on the haul road, Borrow Source 1, and the backfilled highwall disturbances without the benefit of additional topsoil materials. The potential for success; can be questioned but, given that therelis no topsoil immediately available, this may be a viable option if the potential for failure is acceptable.' Further, the success requirements of 25 percent plant '`7 cover, c',00 pounds per acre production, and 500 stems shrub stems per acre for this project area may be I'si achievable despite the inherent constraints of the overburden material. It should bey noted that a failure of the initial seeding under this option would likely result in an agency requirement that soil material be found s and applied to these graded areas. The bond period Tor these sites, iT not for the entire project area, -~ would bggin again in this case. The odds for a successful seeding are approximately even, at best. ~, r 1 4 k"c:~