2011-05-13_REVISION - C1981008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Arguments to Accept SL-12 with Vegetation Studies as Performed 1. In early 2006, WFC began looking at the need to convert the numeric standard for bond release of Irrigated Pasture areas (IP) to a reference area. In fact, the DRMS was pushing us to change the standard. Exhibit A shows an E-mail from Dan Mathews to Greg Lewicki on May 5, 2006, stating that GSM's rule changes will require a reference area for vegetation analysis; a technical numeric standard was strongly discouraged. DRMS was pushing WFC to convert the Irrigated Pasture standard to a reference area as early as 2006. We agreed. 2. WFC and Greg Lewicki had discussions with NRCS concerning the validity of the then existing standard of 1.5 tons of live perennial vegetation per acre. Exhibit B shows that the local NRCS expert, Jim Boyd, agreed in a letter dated July 11, 2006, that the existing IP standard was too high and proposed a standard of 1.0 tons per acre for those lands east of 2700 Road, due to poorer soils. Again, this was written well before any vegetation studies in 2007 and 2008. It shows there was substantial basis to change the standard; it was not simply a desire of WFC to make it easier to get bond release. 3. In November of 2006, WFC requested a change from the technical productivity standard of 1.5 tons per acre to 1.0 tons per acre. DRMS requested that WFC revise the permit to use a reference area. 4. In a followup e-mail of November 22, 2006, Dan Mathews stated that "Use of an appropriate reference area, even if adjusted mean values are used for higher production cropland and lower production less productive soil type pastureland, would put us on much firmer ground from a regulatory perspective, than use of standards based on limited premine data and recommendations of NRCS and local farmers. " A major advantage of the reference area as opposed to a technical standard (as long as consistent management can be applied to the reference areas and reclaimed areas), is that the reference area automatically adjusts for year to year climatic variations ". This letter is enclosed as Exhibit C. This further reinforces the fact that the DRMS was strongly in favor of the revision to change the standard to the reference area. 5. In early June of 2007, WFC arranged a meeting on the site with Greg Lewicki, Dan Mathews and Steve Boyle (who was head of Bio-Logic Environmental) and whose team was conducting vegetation studies on the IP reclaimed areas and reference area at the time of the visit. On June 8, 2007, Dan Mathews sent a report of the Inspection to Greg Lewicki by e-mail. This report is enclosed as Exhibit D. The report states in Page 3 that "The primary purpose of the inspection was to view the proposed irrigation pasture reference area, as well as various dryland pasture and irrigated pasture areas that are being considered for inclusion in upcoming Phase 2 or Phase 2&3 bond release applications." Under Permitting and Bond Release Issues, the report further states "Prior to submittal of Phase 2 or Phase 3 bond release a tions it will essa or WFC to submit an o tain approva o technical revision application (presumably TR-55), addressing a o t e outstan ing vege a d use concerns that were identified abut not resolved in TR-54. It will further be necessary for WFC to provide necessary documentation for the proposed irrigated pasture reference area........ The reference- area will need to be approved prior to submittal of a Phase 2 or Phase 3 bond release application applicable to irrigated pasture reclaimed areas ". This language states specifically that the IP reference area needs to be approved prior to any IP bond release applications but it does not state that the vegetation studies must be done after approval of the reference area. In fact, it was well known that Bio- Logic was actually conducting the studies of the IP reclaimed areas during the site visit. As stated on