Laserfiche WebLink
REG � <br />MAR 06 tom <br />pivision of RedZ , <br />Mining and SAW <br />I am faxing this, but I am also mailing one <br />y with. pictures. Thank you for your time. <br />Dear Mr. Berry: This is not an objection to TR -62, but it is an objection to a couple of things in <br />TR -62 that we would request be taken out. First, there is one part of TR -62 that states the word <br />"suitable" subsoil. We do not mind the word bench one subsoil, but the word "suitable ", we will <br />not accept. The bench one material was put down and called suitable by Western Fuels long <br />before any testing was ever performed. The testing by Walsh that was done was for prime <br />farmland with a higher rock fragment content as well as a raised salt content. None of these test <br />were done in comparison to the 200,000 cubic yards of Barx 2E soils that were stolen from us <br />and removed off this place and given to the neighbors. As the rules and regulations state, if a <br />material is to be used as a substitute, it must be segregated separately and proven to be better than <br />what was in the natural existence. Also, there were no sample results given from the testing of <br />the three pits that were dug. They are still operating under permit number 5 with a permit <br />revision of Pr -06 that is under appeal at court. Permit number 5 states that all soils had to be <br />done in a two lift operation and segregated separately. It also specifically states that ALL <br />available topsoil must be salvaged. The rules for non- primefarmland, general topsoil removal <br />,4.06.1, must still be done in a two lift operation and all materials segregated separately. We had <br />Barr 2E soils in places on that portion of our property was 20 feet thick.. We are never going to <br />accept the bench one material as a suitable subsoil. It is not as good as or better than what we <br />had and the Barx 2E soils cannot be duplicated. Pictures enclosed. <br />The next part is the results of the TP01 and TPO1A. We have samples that were given to us by <br />the soil scientist when the samples were taken. We will be sending them in to have them <br />sampled this week for the EIC results. Either these samples that they did were contaminated, lab <br />failure, inclusive contamination, or mixed up with the salty soils they already had in the back of <br />their truck from Delta, or something is wrong with those. In 77 soil samples that were taken, <br />even the ones on our place, we never , ever had over 4 for a result. Most of them were 0. <br />Something or 1. Something, but even at different depths, they were never high like that. We will <br />not accept those results of that pit. Also, the conversion does not match even in the results. So, <br />we are objecting to that one sample for these two pits. We have never seen EIC this high ever on <br />this place in all these years. TP01 and TPOIA also are very different even in the conversions and <br />the EIC are also very different. <br />We already knew that our soils were Barx 2E soils and the large quantity. What we were told <br />was that this testing would show that the subsoil is not suitable. The only results that we were <br />given was the pits that were dug on our non - disturbed portions back in November. <br />TIt 62 mostly just states that we were all involved, and this sampling took place. We already <br />knew that the soils were segregated from 2008 on and we already knew that our soils were rock <br />free unlike the substitute soils. But, we have not received any results from all of the sampling <br />and testing and you have objections to what we did receive. The changes in protocol had to do <br />with the topsoil stockpiles and did not have to do with the undisturbed area. We had no results <br />from the stockpiles to compare to the undisturbed areas. Why? TR -62 only showed us what we <br />already knew and we were suppose to be able to do comparisons. <br />