Laserfiche WebLink
C- 1981 -008 August 25, 2010 <br />PR -06 AR #5 Page 6 of 26 <br />4W. The last sentence of subsection 13 was revised in response to this request. The revised sentence <br />states that the entire 1988 survey boundary is included in Attachment 2.04.9 -1. It would appear <br />that the correct reference should be to Map 2.04.9 -1, rather than Attachment 2.04.9 -1. Please <br />address the apparent discrepancy and revise as warranted. <br />4X. A typographical error appearing in numerous locations was corrected, as requested. Item <br />Resolved <br />4Y. This item referred to incorrect soil type references in the 6 th paragraph of subsection 15. The <br />amended paragraph still contains a number of erroneous references, and contains a misleading <br />narrative in one location. For clarity, please insert "Darvey -Bari" in parentheses following the <br />initial reference to Map Unit 98E at the beginning of the paragraph. "Darvey -Bari" at the <br />beginning of the 8 th sentence should be changed to "Bari ". The sentence that states "Darvey- <br />Barx is a prime farmland soil in San Miguel County..." should be changed to "The Darvey and <br />Barx soil types are both prime farmland soils in San Miguel County... ". The reference to the <br />Montrose County MRCS letter in Attachment 2.04.9 -5a should instead reference Attachment <br />2.04.9 -6. The two references to Darvey -Bari soils in the original permit area should instead <br />apply solely to Barx soils, since the Darvey -Barx complex was identified only in the PR -5 <br />revision area. For clarity, the reference to "this unit" in the next to last sentence of the paragraph <br />should be changed to "the Darvey -Bari map unit ". <br />4Z. Language was amended as requested, but further clarification is requested in the final sentence of <br />Item 4Y, above. <br />4AA. The Division requested that reference to 90% recovery for prime farmland topsoils near the end <br />of subsection 15, be changed to 93% recovery, for consistency with other permit sections. An <br />incorrect reference to 90% recovery remains in the amended text near the end of subsection 15. <br />Please correct the reference. <br />4AB. This item requested certain clarifications regarding pre -2008 soil lift stripping thicknesses as <br />described in subsection 16. The first paragraph of the subsection was properly revised, with <br />respect to Benson and Lloyd properties. However, the confusing language regarding <br />"confirmation" of mixed lift thickness, and reference to replacement depth rather than <br />replacement thickness remains unchanged in the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph of subsection <br />16. Please delete the 2 nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph. <br />4AC. This item noted numerous discrepancies on Tables 2.04.9 -7A and 2.04.9 -7B. The tables address <br />soil salvage acreages and volumes projected for the various soil map units on, respectively, the <br />Morgan property and the properties north of BB Rd and West of 2700 Rd. Most of the <br />discrepancies appear to have been corrected, but we have a remaining question regarding an <br />unnumbered footnote at the bottom of each table, which indicates that the table acreages do not <br />accurately represent the actual area of disturbance (due to limited areas not covered by the 1998 <br />soil survey). However, Table 7A acreage total listed is 107.96 acres, which corresponds with the <br />total Morgan property disturbance acreage listed in other sections of the application. For the area <br />north of BB and West of 2700 Rd., the area covered by the 1998 survey was very close to the <br />entire disturbance area. Presumably, the acreage totals for the various map units were adjusted <br />in both tables to correspond to total disturbance acreage for the subject areas, which would <br />