2013-02-01_REVISION - C1981041 ‎(8)‎

• Permit No: C1981041
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 2/1/2013
• Doc Name: Proposed Decision & Findings
• From: DRMS
• To: Snowcap Coal Company
• Type & Sequence: RN6
• Email Name: MPB
• Email Name: SB1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

CRDA -2
Data indicates that CRDA -2 subsoil was relatively high quality, with only 1 minor
exceedance of the EC subsoil criteria out of 15 samples (avg. EC =8.0), and no exceedances
of the SAR subsoil criteria (avg. SAR =6.9). Texture was silt loam or silty clay loam.
Sample data for the 6 inch respread topsoil layer at CRDA -2 indicates that, in general, the
topsoil was similar or lower quality growth medium than the subsoil. There were 5
exceedances of the EC topsoil criteria out of 15 samples (avg. EC =7.1), and 4 exceedances
of the SAR topsoil criteria (avg. SAR= 10.8).
CRDA -1
CRDA -1 respread soils data reflect sampling of the entire 18 inch cover soil thickness
(subsoil and topdressing combined). The material in general meets the subsoil criteria (only
three of 16 samples exceeded either EC or SAR criteria). However, 12 of the 16 samples
exceeded the topsoil criteria for either or both parameters. Average EC value was 11.0,
average SAR value was 11.7. Soil salvaged from CBA -2 and replaced on CRDA -1 appears
to have been somewhat higher quality than the soil available in Soil Stockpile 2, marginally
lower quality than than Stockpile 1, and comparable to the soil available from Stockpile 3
(see table below).
Sampled Area EC (avg.) SAR (avg.)
CRDA -1 Cover Soil
11.0
11.72
Topsoil Pile 1
7.8
11.54
Topsoil Pile 2
13.3
18.01
Tonsoil Pile 3
8.0
14.0
There would appear to have been no appreciable benefit gained from using some combination of
available topsoil stockpiles for topdressing, as opposed to use of the CBA -2 borrow material.
(Topsoil Pile 1 was marginally higher quality, but use of Topsoil Pile 1 would have "robbed"
the material from the North Portal Reclamation project, and various other areas to be reclaimed).
Original permit projections regarding the availability of sufficient material meeting "topsoil'
criteria within approved stockpiles and designated borrow areas in the vicinity of the North
Portal and CRDA refuse areas were apparently erroneous.
RSRDA
Roadside borrow area pre - salvage soils data indicated comparatively high quality soils, with all
16 sampled zones meeting subsoil quality criteria for both EC and SAR, and only 4 of the 16
marginally exceeding quality criteria for topsoil. Average values for EC and SAR were well
below the permit specified criteria for topsoil. Re- spread sample data verify the generally high
quality of the salvaged soils; EC and SAR levels were lower than the topsoil quality threshold in
all 11 samples.
Based on review of the information provided, the Division concludes that permit compliance was
demonstrated for CRDA -2 subsoil quality, CRDA -1 subsoil quality, and RSRDA subsoil and topsoil
35