Laserfiche WebLink
NRCS DOES NOT KNOW YOUR RULES NOR DO THEY KNOW YOUR EXACT <br />TERMINOLOGY. AND JIM BOYD SAYS HE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO LEARN ALL <br />OF THIS!!!! <br />Page 2.04.9 -21 The area East of 2700 Road and north of BB Road has been fully reclaimed with <br />topsoil and subsoil prior to the prime farmland determination of 2008" If the State continues to <br />allow them to use the 2008 date, I am going to proceed with my law suit and contact the Federal <br />government again. They already knew the soils were prime in 1992, and 1 996 and they had an <br />official Class 1 soil survey done in 1998 which on the map even without the interpretations show <br />ALL areas Prime farmland that they are trying to hide with this 200$ date. 'None of these area <br />were managed as prime farmland prix to mining." Again, management is NOT a PART OF THE <br />DETERMINATION FRO PRIME FARMLAND AND IT WAS HISTORICALLY CROPPED <br />AND HAD A DEPENDABLE WATER SUPPLY WITH THE CC DITCH. <br />The Federal and State laws are very specific and strict regarding entering and rni.ning areas <br />containing Prime farmland SOILS. None of these laws or rules and regul.atiom were followed by <br />the State or by WFC. HOW DID THEY GET A PERMIT RENEWAL? ?? <br />2.04.9 -21 The total amount of Prime Farmland is again a wrong Figure. So, at this point all <br />charts, maps, and documentation of such need to be changed to reflect the actual acres and the <br />LABELING of all Maps and charts are incorrect and need to reflect the ACTUAL Cropland on. <br />the Morgan property in the pre-mine and post mine state. The proper labeling according to rules <br />and regulations which is CROPLAND and CROPLAND DOES NOT HAVE TO BE PRIME <br />SOILS OR PRIME FARMLAND. PRIME FARMLAND MUST BE CROPLAND BUT NOT <br />VICE- VERSA. And cropland does not have to be irrigated!!! So, IC and I.P, and Hayland. And <br />Irrigated swales are all. wrong! ! t It's either cropland, pasture, swales, dryland, rangeland, forest, <br />residential, according to rule 1.04. <br />2.04.9 -22 "These suitability criteria were approved by DRMS " the entire paragraph is not <br />acceptable. First off TR57 is ILLEGAL!!! YOU cannot use a TECHNICAL REVISION for <br />ANY MAJOR CHANGES!!!! Second off, WE DID NOT APPROVE THIS AND WERE NOT <br />EVEN ALLOWED AT THE MEETING AND THE SALT CONTENT IS TOO HIGH FOR <br />WHAT ALL WE RAISE. NOT .ACCEPTABLE. AND THE DEPTHS ARE NOT AGREED <br />ON BECAUSE THEY THINK IF THEY MEET A MINIMUM THAT'S ENOUGH AND THE <br />LAW STATES A MINIMUM OR TO THE DEPTH OF THE NATURAL SOILS AND WE <br />WANT THE DEPTH OF THE NATURAL SOILS!!!! They used ornamental plant studies and <br />MR. Dearstyne said, that the threshold for salt is OKAY for SHALLOW plants but may not do <br />for all that we raise_ SOMEONE HAD BETTER DISCUSS THIS WITH US BEFORE THEY <br />KEEP MINING AND REPLACING WITH WHAT WE DO NOT ACCEPT. <br />2.04.9 -23 "THE ACTUAL MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE SALT LEVEL WILL DEPEND ON <br />THE PLANT SPECIES" We grow may things that will not qualify and they are not going to set <br />us back 30 years in farming! ! !! <br />2.04.9 -24 Dave Dearstyne gave some data and WFC has interpreted and changed these around to <br />