Laserfiche WebLink
this outlier point to determine the area of influence. Once additional points were added a new <br />average of the parameter will be calculated for the landowner in question. In the event that <br />remediation is determined to be necessary over an area to bring the parameter average to <br />within the threshold topsoil that has already been sampled and demonstrated compliant will be <br />added to the outlier area. The outlier sample would then be sampled again following <br />remediation to determine the success of remediation." <br />OSM's read and multiple re -reads of the language above cannot discern an accurate <br />meaning of what is to be understood, accomplished, or is being required in these <br />statements. OSM's review fmds the content of these statements .very confusing; and has <br />therefore determined that such language within the permit is not in accord with the <br />obligation that the permit be written in a clear and concise manner as required in the <br />Colorado State Program regulations at 2.03.3 <br />This review has found there are sections within State Permit C- 008 -81 that are not in compliance <br />with the Colorado State Program regulations. The non - compliant areas related to the soils <br />sampling and handling plans within the permit are illustrated in bold type throughout this <br />technical evaluation report, and are listed below as bullet points. <br />• OSM's review finds that relying on the chemical analysis taken from only 2 test pit <br />locations is insufficient data for determining that the C horizon is suitable for <br />salvage and redistribution; and that use of these soil materials will not likely inhibit <br />plant growth or reduce the water holding capacity of the reclaimed soil (4.25.4(1)(a) <br />and (b)). Colorado Rule 2.04.9(1) (a) contains the following language: "Description, <br />sampling and analysis of soil horizons in sufficient detail to determine the horizons <br />suitable for salvage'. OSM's review finds that the permit lacks sufficient detail to <br />determine that the C horizon is suitable for salvage and use in prime farmland <br />reclamation; therefore the permit is not in accord with the requirements of the <br />regulations at 4.25.3(2) and 2.04.9(1). <br />• For prime farmland reclamation, the practice of mixing the A and B horizons (as <br />opposed to segregating these two horizons) is not in accord with these regulatory <br />requirements, unless: 1) Other soil materials are available for use in creating a <br />reclaimed soil that has greater productive capacity, or 2) It has been demonstrated <br />that salvaging both the A and B horizons in a combined lift will not be detrimental <br />to the yield potential of the reclaimed prime farmland. Based on OSM's review of <br />the permit, no other such soil materials have been identified and /or demonstrated to <br />have a greater productive capacity as a segregated layer of topsoil than the A <br />horizon present on the Morgan property prior to mining disturbance. It has not <br />been determined that the practice of extensively mixing the A and B horizons as <br />opposed to segregating and redistributing the A and B horizons in separate lifts, will <br />not degrade the productive capacity of the growth medium when compared to <br />handling these horizons individually. Therefore, the current approved permit is not <br />in compliance with the requirements of the cited state regulation (4.25.3.1). <br />20 <br />