Laserfiche WebLink
C- 1981 -008 <br />PR -06 AR #5 <br />August 25, 2010 <br />Page 4 of 26 <br />unnecessarily repeated in the final paragraph of amended subsection 10.4, Item 2. Please delete <br />the unnecessary paragraph. <br />Q. Previously Resolved. <br />4K. This item addressed certain apparent discrepancies among text in Sections 2.04.9 and <br />2.05.4(2)(d), and related maps 2.04.9 -2, 2.05.4 -4, 2.05.4 -6, and 2.05.4 -7, with respect to soil <br />replacement. <br />a. This item requested corrected map citation and terminology clarifications. Item Resolved. <br />b. Confusing terminology was revised. Item Resolved. <br />c. Erroneous text was deleted. Item Resolved <br />d. Clarification regarding soil salvage as related to soil replacement commitments was <br />provided. Item Resolved <br />e. Extraneous text was deleted as requested. Item Resolved <br />£ The Division noted that Map 2.05.4 -6 erroneously indicated that Lift B soil had been "all <br />placed as of June 2010" within the 31.68 acre soil replacement Zone 3, on the eastern <br />Morgan property. DRMS requested that the map notation be revised to state, "None Placed <br />as of June 2010 ", to accurately reflect the status of Lift B soil replacement in Zone 3. The <br />map notation was not revised in WFC's initial response submittal to Adequacy Review No. <br />4. However, WFC corrected the oversight and submitted a corrected electronic version of the <br />map with the notation properly revised, on 20 -Aug -2010. Item Resolved <br />g. Various clarifications requested regarding notations on Map 2.04.9 -2 appear to have been <br />made. Item Resolved <br />4L. This item requested clarification of a confusing sentence in subsection 10.1. The same issue is <br />addressed previously in this letter; refer to Item 4D(b), above. <br />4M. In this item, the Division requested clarification of text in the first part of subsection 10.2. In the <br />first paragraph of amended subsection 10.2, WFC properly references Dave Dearstyne's 2111108 <br />letter, now provided in Attachment 2.04.9 -5A. The third paragraph of amended subsection 10.2, <br />however, is confusing. The paragraph references an "August June 27, 2008 letter from Jim Boyd <br />of NRCS...which is also included in Attachment 2.04.9 -5A ". There is a letter of June 27, 2008 <br />from Jim Boyd included in Attachment 2.04.9 -5A, but it designates the Begay soil in the NW <br />corner of the permit area as prime farmland, and notes that small areas of Darvey -Barx and <br />Begay soils in certain specified locations on the Lloyd and Benson properties do not qualify as <br />prime farmlands because they were not historically managed as cropland and lacked sufficient <br />water for irrigation. The letter does not state that "prime farmlands lose this status if an adequate <br />and dependable supply of water does not exist ". The fourth paragraph of subsection 10.2 is now <br />somewhat outdated and confusing, due to the fact that prime farmland determinations that were <br />pending at the time the narrative was originally written, have now been finalized. <br />Our recommendation is that the confusing and outdated third and fourth paragraphs be deleted, <br />and replaced with a statement that: "In the permit narrative, care has been taken to distinguish <br />between prime farmland soils, and areas that have been determined to qualify as prime <br />farmlands ". <br />