Laserfiche WebLink
7/23/10 supports WFC's contention that the intent of Table 2.05.4(2)(d)-1 was developed for <br />determining topsoil suitability. <br />I then reviewed the section of the New Horizon Permit entitled "Regraded Spoil Monitoring Program" <br />that Mr. Lewicki provided on 7/23/10, and which Mr. Gubka also provided on 7/26/10. It appears that <br />the version Mr. Gubka provided is the more up-to-date version. I agree with WFC that Permit Page <br />2.05.4(2)(d)-8 indicates that spoil testing parameters are boron, pH and EC. However, in the section of <br />the permit entitled "Topsoil Replacement -1998/1999 Study Area", there is a section on Permit Page <br />2.05.4(2)(d)-34 entitled "Prime Farmland" and a subsequent sub-section on Permit Page 2.05.4(2)(d)-36 <br />entitled "Non-Prime Farmland". In the sub-section entitled "Non-Prime Farmland", Permit Page <br />2.05.4(2)(d)-36 states "for the remaining areas north of BB Road and west of 2700 Road on the Lloyd <br />and Benson properties, the replacement thicknesses for this area are 14" to 20" of mixed A&B material <br />over app..,,. approximate _30" ^f Bench 1 r?itaulc subsoil Thi$ ala'terI WIII WC tC$tCU dJ ureyiouslv ' described <br />. ,11,,1 1. J - <br />(my emphasis) to verify subsoil suitability." <br />It is unclear whether the phase "will be tested as previously described" refers to the testing of Bench 1 <br />material in accordance with the manner described in the immediately preceding section entitled "Prime <br />Farmland", or in accordance with the manner described in the even earlier section entitled "Regraded <br />Spoil Monitoring Program". It would appear that DRMS chose the more stringent interpretation of this <br />phrase; that is, DRMS chose to interpret the phrase "will be tested as previously described" to mean <br />that Bench 1 material placed within the Non-Prime Farmland "Lloyd Property" should have been tested <br />for suitability in the same manner as Bench 1 material placed within the Prime Farmland "Morgan <br />Property", and thus in accordance with the requirements of Table 2.05.4(2)(d)-1. While I understand <br />WFC's position, I also understand DRMS's decision to interpret the language of the permit in the manner <br />in which it did, and therefore concur with DRMS with regard to this issue. WFC may, however, wish to <br />further discuss its position at Assessment Conference. <br />Regarding Part Three of the NOV: <br />DRMS contends that for Bench 1 suitable subsoil on the Morgan Property, WFC failed to (1) separately <br />analyze and tabulate results as necessary to document total coarse fragment percentage, and (2) utilize <br />the approved soil classification. While not cited in the NOV, it should be noted that WFC did not <br />perform the required spoil sampling on the Morgan Property until DRMS brought it to WFC's attention, <br />and then when WFC conducted the sampling, the results were reported incorrectly. WFC contends that <br />Part Three of the NOV should not be considered a violation, as the information cited in the NOV as <br />missing was not required to be submitted in the 2009 ARR. However, the NOV was not written for <br />WFC's failure to provide the cited information in the 2009 ARR, but rather for WFC's failure to <br />adequately provide all required information. WFC seemingly agrees with DRMS in part, stating in WFC's <br />letter submitted on 7/12/10 that "Yes, the Course Fragment % and soil classification are not correct, but <br />WFC is taking steps to gather and report the data as required in Table 2.05.4(2)(d)-1 of the PAP". Given <br />this, it appears that the Part Three of this NOV was appropriately written.