2013-01-23_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981008

Home Browse Search

JoEllen Turner 970 - 864 -7682 p.10 rangeland versus cropland" First off, 'ALL AVAILABLE TOPSOIL MUST BE SALVAGED AND MUST BE "SITE SPECIFIC' THESE ARE THE RULES. AND IF IT INVOLVES THE USE OF THE "C" STATA, BENCH ONE, THEN IT ALSO MUST BE SALVAGED AND SEGREGATED AND PROTECTED. And they made it a part of their submittals when they decided to on their own, use it as a suitable subsoil, again against all rules and regulations. Our soils were ROCK FREE, ROCK FREE. It's WFC that tries to give us back rocks in the soils instead of doing what he wrote to MR. Berry. Stating that any of the bench one since we had no rocks in our topsoil are to be placed in the bottom of the pit along with the nastier spoil and then the rockier bench one and then the GOOD bench one which they stole most of it and put it on Bud Benson WEST, and on WFC properties which were Lloyds and Johnsons April 2010, and then they brought us BACK NASTY BLACK ROCKY SPOIL from their property, and even close to the surface This is even on the property that is suppose to be protected and put back according to soil profiles which they had in hand. Jim Irvines was a class one soil survey stating our soils were prime farmland and showing each and every profile according to the National Soil Survey Handbook and it shows the depth of our soils and even when FROZEN in February and "FROZEN" as documented by him, he was able to obtain depths and show our BARX soils. He also stated to me, Ross Gubka, Todd LaFevre, and Brent, and all us that WFC would be entering PRIME FARMLAND and a lot of it right there on the road when he was coming out. We were also given the "ORIGINAL" soil survey which we presented in court and not the fabricated version that WFC gave to you in 2008 which in ALL their permits was the FIRST time that this soil survey was ever mentioned. The JUDGE caught on very quickly and stated immediately Not considered as Not being prime, a double negative, meaning a positive. The same things as they done presenting the State with Mr -51 and MR -57 doing tremendous damages to our property. Deliberate attempts to distort the facts and the truth. And the Judge only heard it once and knew exactly what it really said. No one told him, he said it without any help. The 1988 soil survey documented 3 areas on the Morgan property to be BARX soils and stated in a a letter that ALL Barx soils if irrigated was prime farmland as did Dean Stindts letter, and if they had CONSULTED with NRCS or USDA at any point or pulled up the website or MADE ONE PHONE CALL, ANY ONE OF THESE, THEY WOULD HAVE SEEN THAT ALL OF OUR PROPERTY WAS CONSIDERED PRIME FARMLAND. 10 years later is illegal. 10 years later is against all rules and regulations. 10 years later after mining is completed is not acceptable. DRMS has guaranteed us in documentations that OUR entire MORGAN 107.9 acres will be reclaimed and restored to prime farmland. The letter of 2008 written by ROSS GUBKA states that our entire property will be returned to prime farmland, and the BOARD guarantees our property will be restored to Prime farmland and OSM has stated in many documents that all of our property will be restored to prime farmland. IT WAS PRIME FARMLAND PRIOR TO MINING AND CONTAINED MORE THAN 67% BARX IRRIGATED SOILS AND IT MUST BE PUT BACK "as good as or better than it was, TO EQUIVALENT USES OR HIGHER USES. By Greg Lewickie using prior documentation and opening prior permits and revisiting prior determination before the 2008 meeting when a prime farmland investigation was never done is also illegal as I was told at the pre - conference hearing and also have documentation given to the pre - conference hearing office, Bruce Stover, that NO documentation can be changed or revisitied or re- opened to show even back 101Pege