2013-03-22_REVISION - C1981008 (2)

Home Browse Search

deference by this Court. Citizens for Clean Air & Water, 181 P.3d at 397 (holding substantial deference is owed where the agency resolves issues within its particular area of authority and expertise); Bodaghi, 995 P.2d at 303 (An agency's factual determination reasonably supported by the record is entitled to deference.) Plaintiffs' Opening Brief is misleading regarding PR -6's approved use of Bench 1 material as a suitable replacement subsoil by implying that PR -6 allows WFC to utilize Bench 1 materials as a replacement subsoil on the entirety of the 108 -acre Morgan Property (Opening Brief p. 23 -28), which is simply not true. The Board considered evidence from both the Division and WFC that only the easternmost 20 -acres of the Morgan Property would be reclaimed using the Bench 1 material as a suitable replacement subsoil. R: 7319, 7370, 7374, 7388, 7854. For the eastern 20 acres reclaimed with Bench 1 materials, this material was only used as subsoil replacement for Lift B, and ultimately will be covered with mixed topsoil to achieve prime farmlands reclamation standards. Id. The Board considered testimony that, for the easternmost 20 acres, final reclaimed soil depths would exceed 48 inches (21 inches of mixed topsoil on top of 33 inches of Bench 1 subsoil substitute), which complies with the soil depth standards of the Act and Rules. R: 7320, 7856. Finally, the Board considered testimony that the remaining 88 acres of the Morgan Property would be reclaimed utilizing a two -lift (A and B) segregated, topsoil replacement plan and that none of the Bench 1 material would be utilized. R: 7370. The Board also considered evidence that, as part of the extended soil suitability testing required under PR -6, a remediation plan was implemented to remove unsuitable soil or subsoil from the entire 108 -acre Morgan Property. R: 8442. The Board considered information that all 21