2012-06-20_PERMIT FILE - C2010089 ‎(61)‎

• Permit No: C2010089
• IBM Index Class Name: PERMIT FILE
• Doc Date: 6/20/2012
• Doc Name: Energy MineTopsoil Segregation Study
• Section_Exhibit Name: Appendix 2.05.4‎(2)‎‎(d)‎-2
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

INTRODUCTION
The two most expensive aspects of pine
land reclamation are regrading to approximate
original contour and the removal and respreading
of topsoil. In today's depressed economic state
of the mining industry, it is imperative to
examine these two areas for potential operational
cost savings. The results of this study can
he applied to costs associated with topsoil
handling.
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
At (SMCRA) of 1977 established the basic criteria
for revegetating mined land. In order to restore
the land "to a condition capable of supporting
the uses which it was capable of supporting
prior to pining" and to establish "a diverse,
effective and permanent vegetative cover ", it
has long been assumed such goals could only
be obtained with the reapplication of all
Kent A. Crofts Claire E. Semmer and Clem R. Parkin
Abstract.- -The movement and reapplication of topsoil
is one of the most expensive aspects of reclamation of
strip mined land. The purpose of this study, which was
established in 1976 at Colorado Yampa Coal Company (formerly
Energy Fuels), was to evaluate plant successional responses
to four treatments of segregated respread topsoil horizons
and also five treatments of respread topsoil. The segregated
topsoil horizon study involved treatments of A horizon
only. B horizon only, A over 8 horizon and A and B horizons
mixed. The respread topsoil study consisted of treatments
ranging from 0, 10, 20, 30 and 46 cm topsoil depths.
Parameters of cover and production were evaluated in 1979,
1981, 1983 and 1985. Data collected in 1985 indicate total
plant cover does not appear to be affected by either
segregation of soil horizons or thickness of respread
topsoil. Plant biomass and species diversity followed
a similar pattern. If the results of this study were applied
to this operation, or one possessing similar environmental
characteristics, substantial cost savings could be realized.
1 Paper presented at the Billings Symposium
on Surface [Mining and Reclamation in the Great
Plains and Fourth annual Meeting, American Society
for Surface Mining and Reclamation, March 16 -20,
1987. Billings, MT.
2 Range Scientist, IME, Yampa, Colorado
3 1nvirornental Specialist, Yampa Valley
Coal Corporation, Oak Creek, Colorado.
4 Biologist, San Luis County Department
of Agriculture, San Luis Obispo, California.
PLANT SUCCESSIONAL RESPONSES TO TOPSOIL
THICKNESS AND SOIL HORIZONS
available premining soil material and with such
material being segregated as "subsoil" and
"topsoil°.
Topsoil is defined by the Office of Surface
Mining (OSM 1983) as "The A and E [A2] soil
horizon layers of the four master soil horizons ".
Subsoil is defined as the "B horizon, the layer
typically is immediately beneath the E [A2]
horizon ". Section 816.22 of the OSM Permanent
Regulatory Program required separate removal
of all available topsoil and subsoil when
necessary to achieve revegetation. Almost all
western states have identical requirements.
In many western states, the common current
interpretation of this segregation is topsoil
and subsoil must be salvaged and respread in
two distinct lifts (Walsh 1985). OSM justified
this requirement by stating "to mix the various
soil horizons, during removal could be
counterproductive to restoration of the disturbed
area to a level at least equal to the premining
capability" (OSM 1979). Technical documentation
to support this requirement relative to attaining
success standards within the 10 year bonded
liability period is lacking.
Comparatively little research has been
conducted relative to horizon segregation.
Power et. al. (1979) reported the first year
results of topsoil and subsoil segregation studies
on sodic mine spoil in North Dakota. As reported,
maximum plant yields were obtained when topsoil