Laserfiche WebLink
C- 1981 -008 <br />PR -06 AR #5 <br />August 25, 2010 <br />Page 5 of 26 <br />4N. The Division requested modification of the language in what is now the last paragraph of <br />subsection 10.2. The language regarding the Bench 1 substitute subsoil material testing was <br />amended as requested. However, the paragraph seems to be out of place in its present location in <br />the text, and would appear to ft more closely in context if it were moved to the very end of <br />subsection 10.4, Item 2. Please consider this revision to the text. <br />40. WFC clarified contradictory language regarding handling of prime farmland soils. Item <br />Resolved <br />4P. Cover letter states that, "language was changed per DRMS request," but in fact the language was <br />not changed. The last sentence of Item 1, Subsection 10.3, lacks clarity and improperly refers to <br />prime farmland as a land use. Please revise as follows: "If adequate water is available and other <br />definitional requirements are met, the subject area is classified as prime farmland." <br />4Q. In this item, the Division requested that subsection 10.4, Item 3, be amended to cite a 6/27/08 <br />NRCS letter, and that the text be revised to include reference to the letter in Attachment 2.049 -6. <br />In addition, the Division requested proper references to appropriate NRCS letters be included at <br />the end of Item 4, and the end of Item 5. In the amended text, the Item 3 reference was <br />erroneously listed as 2.04.0 -5A (should be 2.04.9 -5A). Please revise the erroneous reference. <br />4R. Language was revised as requested. Item Resolved <br />4S. Outdated language was deleted as requested. Item Resolved <br />4T. The Division requested discrepancies regarding the stated use of weighted average soil thickness <br />values for soil map units be corrected in various tables and in the text of the last sentence of <br />subsection 11. Table references to weighted averages were properly revised; however, the <br />narrative at the end of subsection 11 is still misleading. The amended text indicates that <br />recommended topsoil salvage depths for each map unit are based on average soil depths for each <br />component soil included within a map unit. In actuality, the recommended salvage depths for <br />each map unit appear to have been based on the average of all depth samples taken for the map <br />unit, without regard to individual soil components within the unit. Please address this apparent <br />discrepancy. If our assumption is correct, please amend the narrative to state: "The <br />recommended topsoil salvage depth for each map unit is based on the average of all depth <br />samples taken for the map unit." Similar apparently erroneous statements regarding weighted <br />average depths and volumes appear in the 11 paragraph of amended subsection 15, in reference <br />to Table 2.04.9 -3, and in the final paragraph of the subsection, in reference to Table 2.04.9 -4. <br />Please review the text and amend the wording as appropriate. <br />4U. This item pointed out nomenclature and volume discrepancies in Table 2.04.9 -4. The table <br />values appear to have been properly revised. Item Resolved <br />4V. This item noted a problem with an attachment reference, and also noted that page numbering in <br />Attachment 2.04.9 -6 was erroneous. The attachment reference was corrected, but there are still <br />page numbering problems in Attachment 2.04.9 -6 (the first two pages are incorrectly numbered <br />and the third page is not numbered). Please correct the page numbering in Attachment 2.04.9 -6. <br />