Laserfiche WebLink
farmland." It is unclear how many samples are required to be taken since "in all directions" <br />could be interpreted to mean perhaps 4 points ?? Or maybe more ?? As understood to have been <br />discussed in the permit, if any of these 2nd phase sample points exceed the suitability criteria, the <br />permit addresses the requirement by stating: "If 2nd phase sampling shows an exceedence <br />follow -up sampling will take place to delineate the area of exceedence. Delineated areas of <br />exceedance that are larger than 0.1 acres for prime farmland." It is unclear how the follow -up <br />sampling is to occur, the number of samples to be taken, the sample frequency and distances to <br />be employed and how the 0.1 acre unsuitable area will be delineated. According to the permit if <br />a 0.1 acre area has exceeded the suitability requirements during the 2 ❑d phase sampling, the mine <br />operator has an opportunity to resample a 3 time to test the material for meeting suitability <br />requirements, but this 3 apparent phase of sampling is not further defined. Accordingly to <br />OSM's understanding of this confusingly written mitigation sampling plan, the strategy is not <br />clear and does not seem to represent a plan that adequately minimizes the potential for biased <br />sampling. <br />If the sampled spoil/soil material continues to not comply with the suitability criteria after the 3rd <br />round of sampling, the following mitigation plan is required to be implemented as per the <br />permit: "For remediation any area identified above which exceeds the acreages stipulated <br />above for unsuitable topsoil material will be placed at least eight feet below the final <br />soil surface. New soil material will be used in its place. This material will be tested <br />according to the original grid 1 hole per 2.5 acres on prime farmland, 1 hole per 5 <br />acres on nonprime farmland to confirm its suitability." As required in the permit, if unsuitable <br />prime soil is encountered, the soil will be buried 8 feet below the final reclaimed landscape <br />surface. It is noteworthy that, should any of the prime B horizon soils that have been extensively <br />mixed with the lower quality C horizon materials, be found to be unsuitable through this <br />sampling, these B horizon soils will be buried and permanently lost as a formerly protected <br />national resource. Should these prime soil materials be contaminated (via excessive calcium <br />carbonates and rock) to a point of needing to be buried, there does not appear to be any provision . <br />within the permit that would address the question of from what source would the replacement <br />soil come from for restoring the yield capability of these prime farmlands ? The potential for <br />ever needing to implement such a `burial plan' and answer such a question could be avoided by <br />requiring that the soil materials and substitutes that are planned for use in reclamation be <br />sampled/tested for suitability criteria compliance prior to salvaging and placement as a mix in a <br />stockpile and of course prior to redistribution. <br />Approving the implementation of sampling plans for use in demonstrating the suitability of <br />soil/spoil used for reclaiming prime farmlands, that are unclear and have not appropriately <br />minimized the opportunity for yielding biased and /or inaccurate results, cannot be <br />interpreted as an approval in compliance with State Program regulation requirements at <br />4.05.8(1) and 2.06.6(4)(c). <br />The language below appears in the approved permit. <br />`In the event that a parameter average threshold value for a particular landowner is exceeded <br />based on the sample points for a given year the outlier sample point will be further sampled as <br />an individual point of exceedance. The second phase and further sampling would be applied to <br />19 <br />