Laserfiche WebLink
C-1981-008 <br />PR-06 <br />July 23, 2010 <br />Page 8 of 31 <br />wording of the note to specifically identify any acreages not covered by the 1998 soil survey, <br />and refer to "Permit Revision No. 5" rather than "permit amendment". <br />4V. Narrative in Subsection 12 states that soil profile data sheets for the 1998 survey are found in <br />Attachment 2.04.9-9. In fact, Attachment 2.04.9-9 is Soil Map Unit Descriptions; soil profile <br />field data sheets and laboratory data are provided in Attachment 2.04.9-7. Please correct the <br />reference. Also, note that page numbers in the amended Attachment 2.04.9-6 "NRCS Prime <br />Farmland Evaluation Letters", are erroneously listed as "Attachment 2.05.4(2)(e)...". Please <br />revise the page numbers as appropriate. <br />4W. Amended narrative in Subsection 13 states that "the entire 1988 [soil] survey is included as <br />Attachment 2.04.9-1 & 2". This is not the case. Please correct the reference, and include the <br />referenced survey in the permit application, properly referenced in the text and the table of <br />contents. <br />4X. In amended Subsection 15 and various other sections of the narrative and attachments, "pH" <br />was erroneously changed to "PH", possibly a "global" typographical error. Please correct the <br />error. <br />4Y. In the 6th paragraph of amended Subsection 15, there is a reference to Barx/Darvey soil in the <br />original permit area related specifically to the October 1992 NRCS letter. The NRCS reference <br />in the letter was specifically to the Barx fine sandy loam soil type, not to the Darvey-Bari <br />complex map unit. A couple sentences later there is an erroneous reference to Attachment <br />2.04.9-10. The attachment is not included in the permit section or table of contents; the correct <br />reference is Attachment 2.04.9-6. Please correct the references. <br />4Z. The final sentence of the paragraph noted in 4Y should be revised for clarity, as follows: "As of <br />February 15, 2008, the entire acreage within the permit area ...is considered prime farmland <br />since it is...". <br />4AA. Reference to 90% recovery of prime farmland soils near the end of Subsection 15 should be <br />revised to 93%, for consistency with other permit sections. <br />4AB. In Subsection 16, the narrative comparing projected stripping thicknesses in various locations to <br />actual stripping thicknesses is confusing. Statements indicating that the actual thicknesses were <br />"confirmed" by premine survey data are contradicted by the stripping thicknesses listed, which <br />are substantially less (for combined lifts) than projected by survey. Also, references to <br />placement of subsoil "to a depth of in the first couple paragraphs would be more correctly <br />stated as "at a thickness of'. Please revise the section as warranted. <br />4AC. Tables 2.04.9-7A and 7B are confusing in a number of respects. 98A areas are listed in 7A, <br />with 0 acres disturbed, but with substantial volume salvaged, and the same is true for 98B and <br />98C soils. What is the explanation for this? Pond 13 is listed on the Table 7A although it is not <br />in the area covered by the table. For certain units, such as 98E , Lift 1 volume is greater than <br />Lift 2 volume, although Lift 2 is thicker than Lift 1. Footnotes to the various map units are in <br />many cases no longer applicable. On 7B, disturbance acreage is listed for Pond 13 in 98A and