Laserfiche WebLink
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 -SA). Please revise the erroneous reference. <br />The attachment reference in question has been corrected. <br />4R. Language was revised as requested. Resolved. <br />4S. Outdated language was deleted as requested. 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 l I 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 I I" 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 2.04.94. <br />Please review the text and amend the wording as appropriate. <br />The text in question has been replaced with the DBMS recommended narrative shown <br />above. <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. 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 />The page numbering in Attachment 2.04.9 -6 has been corrected. <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 />The reference has been corrected to Map 2.04.9 -1. <br />4X. A typographical error appearing in numerous locations was corrected, as requested. <br />Resolved. <br />4Y. This item referred to incorrect soil type references in the 6" 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 -Barx" at the <br />beginning of the 8 1° sentence should be changed to'Barx ". 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 NRCS letter in Attachment 2.04.9 -5a should instead reference Attachment <br />