2013-01-23_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981008

Home Browse Search

In fact, after I even reclaimed it, I got two years of cutting, baling and stacking hay and GOOD production ., All of these places should have been designated as CROP:AND. We got two and three cuttings of hay and corn and we only used it for grazing during the winter months and fed the cows and sheep right out there. So, your analysis and what you believe to be are all wrong These places should have all had their proper designation and as you can see, they are still cutting two and three cuttings every year sand pasturing their cows during the winter and nothing has changed. What has changed, is several places such as Richards, Lloyds, and Johnsons that have ALWAYS been historically irrigated and cropped have now been deceivingly put into dryland. A technical revision cannot do this, yet they did illegally and before the people even know what is happening, you have 10 days and it's a done deal. All illegal. Mr. Dejoia you do not know how to tell the truth. AS DOCUMENTED BY THE STATE, PRIME FARMLAND INVESTIGATION WAS NEVER DONE IN 15 YEARS AND NO PRIME FARMLAND INVESTIGATION WAS EVER CONDUCTED ON THE MORGAN PROPERTY. You do not have your facts and a soil survey is NOT as prime farmland investigation. It is only 1/6th of an investigation and NRCS NOR USDA, NOR ANYONE WAS EVER CONSULTED REGARDING THE MORGAN PROPERTY. ALL LIES AND MORE LIES. The 1992 letter of Dean Stindts , a site specific letter , which was used also illegally to disqualify every piece of Barx soils in the permit. YOU HAD BETTER READ THE 2000 statement. You know nothing. They used Dean Stindts QUOTE not the 1998 soil survey by Jim Irvine. The 1998 soil survey did not even corne into play until 2008. All your facts are wrong and your information is wrong!!!! AND if you would have read the 1998 soil survey MR. SOIL SCIENTIST, you would have seen that Mr. Irvine states that All of this property was prime farmland according to the National soil survey handbook which was the current issue of 1996 and if they had showed you the REAL 1998 soil survey and not their fabricated version, you would have also seen that it contained a double negative as supplied in court discovery and presented to the Judge and it said it was prime farmland. And if you would have really wanted to know, I talked to him and his wife on the phone and the one I had and was hand delivered by Ross Gubka as also presented in court, was the ONLY ONE HE WROTE FOR OUR PROPERTY AND IT WAS ALL PRIME FARMLAND. SO YOUR ENTRIES INTO THIS Pr_07 are all wrong. More lies and more distorted facts. And if you had really read the Colorado Important Farmland where ROSS GUBKA presented that there was an error you would have seen on the prior page that it is documented correctly and you would have also seen that this ERROR WAS FOR soils 40 inches and less to bedrock, but being a soil scientist, you must have overlooked that. Mr. DeJoia, you should have READ your report before you presented it because WFC gave you the facts and you are only re- writing what you were told, you obviously became senile at one point. You document" pre - investigation inspections" were conducted on the New Horizon at each mine expansion." You should have stuck to trying to be an expert and a soil scientist because as to repeating facts , you are back to your egotistical nursery stage. You Quote "AS part of this permit revision, the additional areas were investigated for prime farmland by Dean Stindt of the local NRCS office. His negative prime farmland determination was based on the ph of potential prime soils above 7.4 since this was the standard in the USDA documentation at that time. It has since been determined that this ph limit was a typo, and should be 8.4 Mr. Stindts letter 22 !Page JoEllen Turner 970 - 864 -7682 p.12