Laserfiche WebLink
<br />BENDELOW & DARLING, v.c. <br />Attorneys at Law <br />Mr. Larry Oehler <br />September 5, 1996 <br />Page 4 <br />Furthermore, the soils information in Exhibit I was provided only with respect to the originally <br />permitted area, and cannot be identified to the remainder of the site. Exhibit I consists of (a) page <br />1, only, of a multi-page letter to Ruth Gray of Skelton, Inc. dated 3-16-88 concerning a "potential <br />expansion' which is not described by acreage or location; (b) an attached "grass planned seeding" work <br />sheet, and (c) the "soils inventory referred to above. The letter refers to a map of the area which was <br />not attached to Exhibit I. The existing vegetation is described as "basically a sagebrush community" <br />(sic), and there is no reference to any pinion juniper woodland. This woodland is shown on the revised <br />Pre-Mining Map as encompassing most of the proposed expansion area, and therefore Exhibit I doesn't <br />provide complete soils information as to the entire expansion area. Such information cannot satisfy <br />the completeness requirement of Construction Materials Rule 6.4.9 (1). <br />We acknowledge that a February 23, 1996 letter from NCRS conservationist Dean Stindt re soils is <br />included in Exhibit H, Wildlife Information (maybe this explains why the DOW did not comment on <br />this application -the information has been mixed-up). The Applicant has only elected to comply with <br />the seeding plan and has not presented the Stindt letter as its "soils information." The Stindt letter <br />discusses the Radersburg and Callan loam discussed above, however, it also discusses a new soil, the <br />Nortez soil, which has even less topsoil. To the extent that this letter constitutes Applicant's soils <br />information, it provides further basis to question Applicant's topsoil "balance'. <br />In summary, it is clear that the applicant failed to provide consistent, accurate or comprehensive <br />information with respect to the soils on the azea. This, coupled with the applicant's complete failure <br />to provide any meaningful climate data, call in to question the entire reclamation plan. Given the <br />extremely large size of the request that the applicant be required to revise its soils data and topsoil <br />analysis based upon asite-specific inspection by a qualified consultant pursuant to CMR 6.4.9 (2), and <br />resubmit such information for purposes of receiving an appropriate recommendation from the Natural <br />Resource Conservation Service. We make this recommendation because it is clear that the Division <br />staff is not interested in conducting any independent, meaningful evaluation of the reclamation <br />potential for this site. <br />We have previously pointed out that the Divisions's own records document the Permit holders <br />unauthorized removal of topsoil from the original permit azea. The current Permit holder, Skelton, Inc., <br />and the Applicant as the current operator will be rewarded, not punished, for this egregious violation <br />if the Board accepts the recommended decision without requiring restoration of this topsoil and a <br />reliable soil balance. <br />Deletion of Proposed Berm. In ¶ 6 of its Response the Applicant states that it has withdrawn its <br />proposal to provide a visual and sound bamer by placing topsoil along the perimeter of the Affected <br />