2013-01-23_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981008

Home Browse Search

and also this was done in February when we had freezing temperatures. He states it himself in his report. Plus WFC has removed our soils while frozen, and WFC has removed our A lift while pouring down rain, and WFC has stockpiled our lifts while frozen. Mr. Lewicki isn't here, we are. And no matter how they deny everything, it happens and 1 have pictures of it happening. And even more ironic is that I called the weather station and turned in my complaint and they used the Uravan weather station for the results and would you like me to send my reply that I got from the State? It says that URAVAN is so far away that WFC felt that this was not a reliable source, yet now they use it for themselves. Amazing!! And this reply was written by you Mr. Berry and sent to OSM. The Uravan weather station is not reliable because it is17 miles away and does not accurately reflect the weather in Nucla. Yet here it is, in their revision and now it's reliable. It sounds to me like WFC talks out of BOTH sides of their mouth. If it is a benefit to them, they use it, if it shows they are in the wrong, then they discredit it. The weather station that WFC has was already discredited by NRCS long ago in the first permitting because of how it is set up and is not accurate and they said that I absolutely could not use Uravan and now here it is!! You might want to read the reply given to me by your office and given to OSM regarding the Uravan sight which we have always acknowledged. It does not matter what WFC sees as significant or not on saturation or snow fall. It is what the rules state and prime top soil cannot be removed and stockpiled in saturated conditions. It also states that it is very hard on these soils anyway and the less compaction, and disturbance and contamination, the better these soils will remain. They will never be quite as good because it is hard on them. What WFC thinks is not important, the law and what it says they HAVE to do is what is important. All lies about our property. About the acreages under cultivation, and about what they "ASSUME" Their assumptions are not worth a pile of beans. This farms has always been historically irrigated and cropped and the entire 107.9 acres was under cultivation and irrigation LONG BEFORE THE MINE WAS HERE. HIS SAP REPORT CAN BE THROWN IN THE TRASH BECAUSE IT IS NOTHING BUT LIES. He has not a clue as to what he is talking about. And 1.04 is very very clear as to how these properties should have been classified. Just because WFC did not classify them correctly, just as that JUDGE said, it was up to WFC to make sure the information was correct, not the consultants or the ones preparing the reports, but it was up tp WFC to provided accurate and correct information. Let's discuss these rules CROPLAND IS HISTORICALLY USED AS CROPLAND FOR 5 OUT OF 10 years. IF THEY ARE GOING TO READ AND QUOTE RULES, THEN HAVE Hem LEARN THEM ALL BECAUSE ALL AND I MEAN ALL THE RULES WORK HAND IN HAND, SO DON'T JUST STOP AT WHAT YOU THINK IT SAYS READ ALL OF THEM. It did not matter if a farmer let his property go fallow for a couple of years, which we did not, if he produced crops which was anything being harvested fro production, IT WAS AND STILL IS CROPLAND. CROPLAND NOT PASTURELANDS. And they have No rights changing the terminologies to suit themselves. Any one anywhere if they are reading these rules and regulations should be reading EXACTLY what you are reading, not these made up definitions and interpretations. I have leased and farmed this place since 1993 as Mr. Morgan testified to and 1 have continuously irrigated and cropped this place since then putting up 1560 plus ten par year and 700 tons of corn silage. LONG I3EFORE THE 39 Page JoEllen Turner 970 -864 -7682 p.8