2011-05-13_REVISION - C1981008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

page 3 of the report, " The Bio-Logic sampling crew was on site at the time of the inspection, and had initiated sampling within the irrigated pasture reclamation areas the previous day. If later, in a bond release submittal, we had known that expensive sampling we were doing in 2007 was going to be rejected, we should have been told this during the inspection. In fact, in IIL,Compliance section of the report, it states that the IP reclaimed areas were inspected and no mention of compliance issues were raised with the timing of the study. The fact is that everyone knew all along that the 1 st year vegetation study in 2007 would be kept in reserve until the reference area was approved. 6. At the end of the summer of 2007, Bio-Logic compiled their data from the 2007 vegetation study on both the proposed IP reference area and reclaimed IP areas. This was provided to Dan Mathews for review and a problem was identified with the statistical sampling of the reference area. We discussed it and Dan responded with the e-mail shown in Exhibit E. In it, he states, "A possible solution might be to re-sample reference area cover ASAP, and this time sample it to meet sample adequacy............ This approach may be the only possible way to salvage this year's reclaimed area data, since the sample size in both the reclaimed area and the reference area was too small to allow for the reverse null comparison, under Rule 4.15.11(2)c ". It is obvious from this language that it was acceptable to the Division to use the 2007 study later on for bond release, provided that there were no problems with statistical issues of the reference area. Timing of the studies was not an issue. Later, the statistical sampling issue was easily resolved. 7. In November of 2007, TR-55 was submitted which basically focused on converting the IP technical standard to the reference area. The 2007 sampling data for the reference area was included and additional adjustment factors were worked out with the NRCS for all soils in the reclaimed lands and the reference area. This is substantiated in an e-mail from Dan Mathews to Sandy Brown dated December 7, 2007. This is included as Exhibit F. 8. On December 11, 2007, DRMS issued an adequacy letter for TR-55 agreeing to the change from the IP standard to the reference area. However, in January of 2008, prime farmland was determined on the Morgan property and it was determined by DRMS that all issues should be addressed in an all- encompassing permit revision called PR-06. The immediate priority was prime farmland topsoil handling procedures, since this was an ongoing issue. It was agreed by all parties that this had to be addressed ASAP in technical revision TR-57. All efforts now focused on this issue and the IP reference area was put on hold. TR-57 was submitted in March of 2008. 9. In June of 2008, Bio Logic performed the 2°d year of vegetation studies for the IP reclaimed lands and for the IP reference area. Prior to any of the site work, Bio Logic consulted with Dan Mathews of the Division. 10. In July of 2008, Greg Lewicki and Associates submitted bond release application SL-11, which did include IP areas. In an e-mail from Sandy Brown to Dan Mathews and Shawn Conner (from Bio Logic) dated August 19, 2008, Sandy states "For SL-11, the bond release application deemed complete on August 2, 2008, Western Fuels will need to use the currently approved technical standard for the cover success comparison. This technical standard will remain in place until another standard, such as reference are, is approved. The standard must be approved BEFORE a bond release application is submitted." It does not say that vegetation studies must be conducted AFTER the reference area is approved. The regulations state that the earliest that vegetation studies can be done is in years 9 and 10 after initial reclamation. The e-mail foes on to state "So, if Western Fuels is planning to submit another