Laserfiche WebLink
addressed within the above cited state regulations, a demonstration needs to be provided, via <br />scientific data, studies, chemical & physical analyses, field trials, and/or green house tests, to <br />reasonably support substituting overburden materials for B horizon soils that existed prior to <br />mining on prime farmlands. In the case at hand, the need for complying with this demonstration <br />requirement is magnified considering that these B horizon materials were previously deemed to <br />be prime soils by the NRCS prior to mining with the NRCS opining that the Bench 1 materials <br />do not have the yield capability of the subsoils that existed prior to mining <br />The States apparent sole reliance upon the above cited `Walsh report' as justification for <br />accepting the Bench 1 material as an adequate substitute for the B horizon soils that existed prior <br />to mining, is lacking practical substance since, among other things, the referenced report simply <br />does not include data or opinions affirming that the Bench 1 overburden is as capable of a <br />growth medium as the B horizon soils. This lack of reasonable justification is particularly <br />troubling considering that prime farmlands have been defined as a national resource worthy of <br />special environmental protection performance standards When comparing the EC and rock <br />content of the B horizon soils that existed prior to mining, with the Bench 1 EC and rock content <br />levels, it is highly evident that the Bench 1 overburden is obviously a poor substitute for the B <br />horizon soils. The state regulations clearly require that the soil medium on reclaimed prime <br />farmlands be at least as capable as those that existed prior to mining The fact that the B horizon <br />soils were not salvaged during mining due to an error on the part of DRMS, and that no other <br />better quality materials are any longer available on the mine site, does not excuse the <br />requirements of the state regulations for ensuring that yield potential is restored to these prime <br />farmlands by whatever other practical means may be available. <br />Regarding the substitution approved within the permit, in the absence of a demonstration <br />documenting that the Bench 1 materials are a reliable source of materials for restoring the <br />yield potential of the prime farmlands that existed prior to mining in Zones 1 and 2, OSM's <br />review has determined that the approved use of this substitute is in violation of sections <br />4.253(2), 2.06.6(2)(d), 2.04.9(3), and 4.06.2(4)(a) of the Colorado state program regulations. <br />Post February 2008 <br />According to the permit, in February 2008, there were 54.3 acres of prime farmland on the <br />permitted Morgan property that had not yet been disturbed/mined. The Order 1 Soil Survey <br />indicated the average combined A and B horizon soil depth available for salvage (93% recovery) <br />to be 54.5 inches. As discussed above, according to the limited soil sampling data available, C <br />horizon materials are not suitable for salvage and use in prime farmland reclamation, due to <br />excessive calcium carbonates and rock content. <br />Table 4 (Attachment A) indicates a combined average A/B soil horizon + a portion of the C <br />horizon, for a permitted salvage depth (93% recovery) of 54.5 inches. From this data it is <br />4 The NRCS's San Miguel County Soil Survey <br />5 NRCS's November 16, 2010, letter "To Whom It May Concern". <br />6 30 CFR Part 823 <br />11 <br />