REV98387 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BENDELOW & DARLING, P.c. Attorneys at Law Mr. Larry Oehler September 5, 1996 Page 3 Of more significant concern is that the applicant continues to propose to place topsoil in "an 8 inch to 12 inch lens", without any overburden. The original permit, however, provided for placement of topsoil at a depth of 12 inches, with 18 inches of overburden. As acknowledged by Division staff in its Memo of 7-16-96 to Paul E. McGehee, this appears to be "substantial downgrade" from the current permit. The Division appears willing to accept the Applicant's proposal contained within its Response that there will be 2-3 feet of subsoil overburden placed below the topsoil, but with the lessened amount of topsoil. What is shocking is the acknowledgement at page 2 of the Response that the original application by United Companies identified 2 to 5 feet of topsoil on the site, when it turns out that a much smaller quantity is now claimed to be on the site. Ms. Altshulet questions the accuracy of the revised information, particularly since it was included in narrative form in a letter and was not submitted as part of any independent consultant study or report. Furthermore, the applicant's proposed figure of 14 inches of topsoil on the area (average) is not consistent with the soils information provided in Exhibit I (an unidentified excerpt from a document presumably referred to by the Applicant in its Response as the soils inventory) which discusses two soil types (Radersburg, and Callan loam). The Radersburg is described as a "dark brown gravelly loam about 7 inches thick", together with a "yellowish brown very cobbly clay loam" subsoil (which may or may not be part of the "topsoil"} as being about 5 inches thick. This means that according to the soils inventory, there are only 7 to 12 inches of topsoil on the Radersburg soil portions of the expansion area. When I inquired of Mr. Oehler on 9-4-96 as to whether he considered the Radersburg 5" subsoil as part of the topsoil, he had not even considered the issue and could not state whether it was or wasn't part of the topsoil on site. Presumably he also could not characterize the Callan Loam topsoil components ("brown loam 4 inches thick, with a subsurface layer of 4" and a"subsoil" or dazk brown clayey loam 14" thick) as 4", 8" or 18" thick total. What is even more shocking is that Mr. Oehler acknowledged to the undersigned on 9-4-96 that he had not inquired about the Applicant's "recent study" as to author, date, location of test holes, etc., nor had he ever spoken with the local soil conservation officer about the ability of the site to support the proposed reclamation. At the Inforttal Conference in Norwood, Mr. Oehler acknowledged, in response to our objection that the Applicant had not presented meaningful or available climate data, that he was not familiar with the available climate data for the azea. Presumably, the average annual precipitation, number of frost free days, temperature data, and the like bears some relationship to the probable success of a reclamation plan.