Laserfiche WebLink
WFC, Her comments do not appear to raise any "live" controversies of <br />significance that have not already been settled, and to the extent they do WFC <br />will continue to work with the Morgan family to resolve <br />prior permit Process <br />more <br />Nevertheless, FC will continue to try family. <br />?ftv agreement on any outstanding unresolved issues with the Morgan family. <br />the <br />ft. ,,„ For the sake of completeness, and as required byd bM Ms. Turresponds <br />n hers two <br />attached document, to each of the points ai y <br />Attachment 1 hereto (containing Ms. <br />comment letters of June 4, 2010, See, <br />?. <br />Turner's comments and WFC s responses). The primary recurring micable theme maws of Ms. <br />Turner's comments is that WFC is in violation of numerous app relied upon 1998 so <br />surVey IN C regulations due to the misclassification ne ativen term natianjl as to the presence <br />by WFC and by, nRAaA ,n reaching ?---? error was retracted in <br />of Prime Farmland Soils on the Morgan Property. That re Prime <br />Farmland the organ Property as <br />2008, and since that time WFC has <br />techniques, and has. <br />? Farmland including the use of Prime <br />d tales <br />reached the above-listed agreements with the Morgan family, T. ,-bo-U a is <br />De am e?lav?s,?tles .°r <br />soil classification process an11111::11. tll , n some <br />requirements were ' e ermmt rocess ?tern <br />respects. Spy teponce I tter fr©m Afien AKlein en t 8 hereto. `-nn`- n <br />Region 0S to JoEllen Turner dated Jun nl the ultimate conclusion CAM <br />er's comments are inconsisten P <br />------------ <br />reached, but also the factual and legal analysis of the S1tA i Anse fo ?.. <br />has onl had e e M inte_nm„i-esp-_ _. ..,_._.. <br />letter.__.? .?,ec .,?+ r?1/tPWAd it in detail WFC penrally agrees with he,-OS <br />-. <br />Y _ <br />buted to an improvement' the fine! <br />for Although these Ms. (ands, Turner and in that correctly sense identifcontria deficiency in the <br />t + <br />d ? reclamation plan, her tendency to engage in personal attacks on WFC and <br />DRMS employees and to make reckless, inflammatory statements has madmuch <br />? process of landowner coordination and consent with the MorgMsf Turner has <br />? - ? re difficult than is usual or necessary. In addition, recently, <br />and y family in <br />" . ,..., _ the Morgan <br />??.. , - ? <br />{ t see Attar .,.., ert and hasdI' <br />spite of <br />ses <br />erself av ' ace- o? ace meetin s with WFC re resentaai?d ra <br />Attachments ? and 6). <br />analysis. <br />ents in <br />In responding to Ms. Turner's comments, WFC will not respond to commoeother <br />the nature of personal attacks on its Ie ofan t e or?i area irrelevant ?o PR OG, <br />comments that are inflammatory, contain p y <br />For reference, Ms. Turner's comment letters are attached as Attachments 9 and <br />10, respectively, to this letter, 10 <br />•A } lc- 'L C Lz `acs l