Laserfiche WebLink
Comment No. 3: <br />Page 2.03.11 #9 Dirk Richardson. This is wrong, it should be Dirk Richards. <br />WFC Response: Noted. <br />Comment No. 4: <br />#44 Patty Morgan has not been mined nor is she going to be mined. <br />WFC Response: Noted. <br />Comment No. 5: <br />Page 2.03-28 "no Alluvial valley floors." There are several Alluvial Valley <br />Floors within the permit area and is documented as such. <br />WFC Response: <br />This statement was made by the Office of Surface Mining in its 1983 compliance <br />review, not by WFC. WFC is aware of no contrary documentation, and the <br />commenter does not cite any such documentation. WFC will consider any <br />relevant documentation brought to its attention and will make any appropriate <br />revisions to this statement if required by DRMS. <br />Comment No. 6: <br />2.03-30 How did they get this permit renewal to 2013' The have broken <br />numerous laws and violated rules and regulations, how did they get this <br />permit renewal #5 approved when we objected in 2007 to it and when we <br />have never received a copy of it. And how did they get by with putting "NOT <br />APPLICABLE" when asked if there was any prime farmland? <br />WFC Response: <br />This comment is the first of many that addresses the issue of Prime Farmlands <br />on the Morgan Property. Since 2008, through a combination of PR 05 (approved <br />October 8, 2009) and TR-57 (submitted March 28, 2008 and provisionally <br />approved March 4, 2009), WFC' has been treating all soils salvaged from the <br />Morgan Property as Prime Farmland soils (even before these permitting actions <br />required WFC to do so), and these requirements have all been carried through <br />into the current PR 06. Contrary to the statement made in the comment, no <br />objections were made to PR 05, and the objections of the Morgan family to TR- <br />57 were withdrawn on April 22, 2009, at which point the approval of TR-57 <br />became final. <br />The referenced statement that Prime Farmland requirements were not applicable <br />was based upon the soil surveys available at the time the statement was made, <br />which subsequent investigation established as erroneous. WFC does not agree