APPCOR11621

• Permit No: C1981031
• IBM Index Class Name: Application Correspondence
• Doc Date: 9/27/1983
• Doc Name: STIPULATION NO. 2 RESPONSES
• From: J F SATO & ASSOCIATES
• To: MLRD
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

i '• ' .
i
five feet, as per standard practice, even though the type
of soil continued to a greater depth. Soil pits AF 4.1 and
AF 5.1 to 5.3 were not sampled. AF 4.1 was considered
atypical for the Mazano loam, and a closer inspection of
the SCS soils map indicated that the soil boundary as
originally poltted was in error. The correct boundary is
shown on Figure 2.1. Soil pits AF 5.1 to 5.3 were outside
of the limits of the area to be mined.
The determination of topsoil and subsoil depths has
been made in the reply to Stipulation No. 6.