My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR11647
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
1000
>
APPCOR11647
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:31:58 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:22:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981025
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
4/30/1982
From
SNOWMASS COAL CO
To
MLRD
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Snowmass Coal also does not agree with the Division's recommendation <br />to remove alfalfa from the seed mixtures. At our elevations and pro- <br />posed rates under dryland conditions, it is highly unlikely that <br />stands would be produced which would be dominated by alfalfa. Also, <br />it probably would fix nitrogen at much greater rates than native legumes. <br />Like yellow sweetclover, it will not be a permanent component of the <br />vegetation community. There are a number of problems with the native <br />legumes at the current time. Snowmass intends to try some of these <br />natives in small test areas around the site and will incorporate them <br />into future seed mixes if they show promise. The main problem with the <br />vetches is the lack of source-identified seed. Most of the natives are <br />_ not widely adapted and importing seed from other regions may not produce <br />very successful results. It may also be difficult, if not impossible, <br />to get the right Rhizobium inaculum for these species. <br />Snowmass Coal also strongly disagrees with the Division's recommendations <br />regarding the use of crested wheatgrass. While it may be true that only <br />two mine operations have been approved for reclamation with crested <br />wheatgrass, we know of several others in the state for which approval is <br />pending. We have spoken to Clem Parkin of the Colorado-Yampa Coal Co. <br />in Steamboat Springs and we understand they are using it in their recla- <br />mation work. <br />Snowmass Coal believes the Division's reluctance to approve crested <br />wheatgrass is arbitrary, capricious, and unjustified. If the approxi- <br />mately sixty operating coal mines in Colorado were allowed to use but one <br />grass species for reclamation, that species should undoubtly be crested <br />wheatgrass. It is perhaps the most reliable and widely adapted species <br />available for reclamation in the intermountain West. Certainly many more <br />mining companies in Colorado and elsewhere would be using this species if <br />they were not already brow-heated by the regulatory agencies' dogmatic <br />policies on non-native species. The rates originally given for crested <br />wheatgrass in Snowmass Coal's seed mixtures were not excessive when con- <br />sidered on a PLS per square foot basis. <br />As stated previously, for purposes of permitting expediency, Snowmass Coal <br />will accede to all of the recommendations stated in the 1~larch 12, 1982 memo. <br />Small areas along roadsides may be subject to test plantings on an occa- <br />sional basis to try different species in seed mixes. It is Snowmass Coal's <br />understanding that the Division will not be adverse to a company's trying <br />new species. <br />Thank you for your consideration. <br />Sincerely, <br />V ~~~ZF"_ _ _ `` <br />Craig Sherwood <br />Snowmass Coal Company <br />CS:bt <br />h <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.