Laserfiche WebLink
he tries to in return give as accurate of information that he can with what he <br />was told. Then WFC takes the letter and applies them to any thing that <br />seems to fit. Now, The State, all of them have been told that and in the <br />public meeting if you would listen to the tape, with Jim BOYD sitting right <br />there, I pointed out these letters which were all in the black notebook that I <br />sent to you and everyone was told that these letters have been used illegally <br />and inappropriately. <br />"Therefore. all previous references to prime farmland have been referred to as <br />prime farmland soils." Again, TOO late. This all had to be done BEFORE <br />they could even enter the property. All the properties EAST of 2700 road <br />that had prime farmland soils have already been reclaimed and most of the <br />property West of 2700 road, the mine is 2/3 done and have already <br />destroyed Alluvials as well as millions of dollars worth of prime soils have <br />been stolen. That is like trying to put the cart ahead of the horse. By the <br />way this doesn't work. <br />"It is also demonstrated that the subsoil place in this area meets the <br />suitability criteria outlined by Walsh". This is NOT ACCEPTABLE TO US <br />AND NEVER WELL BE. THE BENCH ONE MATERIAL THAT THEY USED <br />THEY RAISED THE SALT CONTENT AND THEY USED ORNAMENTAL <br />PLANTS FOR THEIR EXAMPLES. SHALLOW PLANTS ARE NOT AFFECTED <br />TOO BAD BY RAISING THE SALT CONTENT, BUT DEEP ROOTED PLANTS <br />AS WE PRODUCE COULD BE. Raising the salt content may not hurt some <br />of our crops, but according to Dave Dearstyne, it may not be the BEST for all <br />that we raise. They stole our Barx Darvey Soils and Barx Darvey soils <br />cannot be duplicated and giving us a replacement of our own soils does not <br />give us back wait we have. They may be able to cover our ground, but we do <br />not have the rich deep Barx Darvey soils that we had. The regulations say <br />that a SUBSTITUTE can be used as a subsoil, but IT MUST BE BETTER <br />THAN WHAT WE HAD AND MUST BE ABLE TO PRODUCE HIGHER <br />YIELDS. Our Bench one material cannot do that and it does not suit us!!!! <br />WFC Response: <br />WFC incorporates by reference its response to Comment No. 6, above. It is <br />unclear to WFC why Ms. Turner considers the use of bench 1 materials to be <br />inappropriate as subsoil - in fact the Morgan family has specifically requested <br />that bench 1 materials from the Morgan property be kept on the Morgan property, <br />and WFC has agreed to do so. In light of this agreement, it is difficult to <br />determine the relevance of this comment. If there are issues with the salt content <br />of this material, WFC will attempt to reach agreement with the Morgan family as <br />to those issues, however neither Ms. Turner nor any other member of the <br />Morgan family has previously raised this issue with WFC, other than to request <br />that bench 1 materials from the Morgan Property be retained on that property, to <br />which WFC has already agreed.