My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-08-04_ENFORCEMENT - C1981008 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Coal
>
C1981008
>
2011-08-04_ENFORCEMENT - C1981008 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:36:31 PM
Creation date
8/11/2011 2:21:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981008
IBM Index Class Name
ENFORCEMENT
Doc Date
8/4/2011
Doc Name
OSM Tech Review of PR6 Primeland Reclam, Soil Salvage & Redistribution, Graded Spoil & Soil Sampling
From
OSM
To
DRMS
Email Name
MLT
SB1
DAB
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
that only 3 of the 24 soil pit locations sampled are located on the Morgan Property. The <br />chemical and physical data relevant to the Morgan property (3 of the 24 soil survey sites) is <br />shown in Table 2 (Attachment A). Based on the two samples (taken from the three sample pits) <br />that did contain chemical data for the C horizon, one of the C horizon samples exhibited a <br />calcium carbonate percentage of 36.1, which approached but did not exceed the permit limit of <br />40; while the other sample had a calcium carbonate percentage of 49.4, which significantly <br />exceeded the-maximum allowed in the permit The third location sampled did not contain data <br />for the C horizon, thus it appears that salvage volumes for the C horizon were determined by <br />DRMS based on a total of two samples. Further, based on the sampling and chemical analysis <br />present within the permit and the attachments to the permit, it appears DRMS determined that <br />the operator had the technical capability to restore the yield potential of the Morgan's prime <br />farmland, in accordance with the requirements at 2.06.6(2)(ii), by relying upon insufficient data. <br />The regulation at 2.06.6(2) (a) (ii) reads as follows: <br />2.06.6(2) (a) (ii) <br />The soil survey shall include descriptions of soil mapping units and representative soil <br />profiles. Descriptions of soil mapping units and representative profiles shall include such <br />necessary information as determined by the U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation <br />Service, including, but not limited to, depth, pH, and range of density of soil horizons, <br />determined in accordance with National Cooperative Soil Survey Standards as <br />established under Rule 2.06.6(2) (a), for each prime farmland soil to be disturbed by <br />mining. Soil profile descriptions of representative profiles from the locality may be used <br />to comply with the requirements of this section if the use of such descriptions is approved <br />by the U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service. The Division may request the <br />operator to provide information on other physical and chemical soil properties as <br />needed to make a determination that the operator has the technological capability to <br />restore the prime farmland within the permit area to the soil reconstruction standards <br />of Rule 4.25. <br />Tables 3 and 4 (Attachment A), show the depths of soil that was approved in PR -6 for salvage on <br />the Morgan property and the depth that was identified to be available for salvage according to the <br />field notes from the Order 1 Soil Survey. This information can be found in Table 2.04.9 -3 of the <br />permit. Table 3 in Attachment A shows the approved salvage depths for areas that were stripped <br />as a single lift (pre- February 2008) and Table 4 (Attachment A) shows the approved salvage <br />depths . for areas that were approved as a two lift operation (post- February 2008). Page 2.04.9 -17 <br />of the permit discusses the evaluation requirements for determining the soil salvage depths at the <br />New Horizon Mine. The permit states that WFC relied upon Table 2.04.9 -2 of the permit <br />(Criteria for Evaluating Suitability) for determining which sampled horizons are suitable for <br />salvage. <br />2 OSM's review has not specifically addressed DRMS's rational behind the 40% calcium carbonate limit established <br />within the permit, however it is worthy of note that this percentage significantly exceeds the maximum limit of <br />30% contained within OSM's topsoil substitute suitability guidelines for this parameter. <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.