Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Terry Debin <br />Mr. Tom Japhet <br />November 24, 2010 <br />Page 8 of 9 <br />D. Conclusion <br />We request that NRCS re- examine and re- evaluate the November 16, 2010 reports in light of the <br />actual soil reclamation practices set forth in PR -06. Those reports are relevant not only to the <br />above- mentioned lawsuit, but also may be relevant if deemed admissible should the objectors <br />seek judicial review of the Board's decision concerning PR -06. There is therefore a strong need <br />to have the record corrected and clarified. The objectors have 30 days from the date of the <br />Board's decision to seek judicial review. <br />If the materials provided with this correspondence, which are only excerpts from PR -06, are <br />insufficient for this review, WFC would be happy to make the entire permit file available. If a <br />site - specific inspection is needed, we only ask that a representative of WFC and/or the Division <br />be present for safety reasons and to ensure the accuracy of the information being provided. I do <br />not believe NRCS has any kind of procedure whereby the results of the inspection could be <br />appealed to a higher level within NRCS, and WFC remains confident that Mr. Boyd and Mr. <br />Dearstyne can conduct this re- evaluation in a fair and objective manner. As it has in the past, <br />WFC will consider any permit revisions that are deemed appropriate by the Division based upon <br />NRCS recommendations. <br />WFC again emphasizes that it has always cooperated in every way with both NRCS and OSM, <br />and in fact made substantial efforts to solicit the input of NRCS during the permit process. <br />Going back further in the permit history, when NRCS first determined in February 2008 that the <br />Morgan property contained Prime Farmland soil, WFC responded immediately by implementing <br />every practice NRCS recommended, without waiting to be required to do so and while working <br />on the drafting and approval of TR -57 which first required these practices. In light of this <br />exemplary record of cooperation, WFC simply does not understand the conduct of either agency <br />and objects again in the strongest possible terms to both the way this inspection was conducted <br />and the reports that were generated as a result. We ask that each agency renew its efforts to <br />communicate and cooperate with WFC as each has in the past, in order to prevent these kinds of <br />mistakes from being repeated in the future. <br />