Laserfiche WebLink
Section 779.22 (a) Continued. <br />• These estimates must be used with caution because, according to the <br />past experience of the LiSDA - Agricultural Conservation and Stabili- <br />zation Service, actual yields on these sites are probably lower <br />than those estimated. The only site specific yield figures avail- <br />able for the three wheat areas are for 1978, when Energy Fuels <br />obtained 9 bushels per acre on tract C5. <br />Condition Class of the Proposed Permit Area <br />Field evaluation of areas within the proposed permit area by the <br />Range Scientist of Energy Fuels and representatives of the USDA - <br />Soils Survey Staff in Craig reveals that the premining condition of <br />the range for livestock and wildlife would be rated as: high air <br />and good (mostly good). The trend has improved over much of the <br />area at Mine Ne. 1 due to tl,e exclusion of livestock -razing on the <br />area during the past 17 years when mining has been conducted. The <br />• condition of lands within the proposed permit area for big game was <br />reported by US DI (1976) to be rated as "good" as winter range <br />habitat. <br />Areas where current range condition is rated fair are restricted to <br />the areas near streams and watering ponds in Eckman Park and along <br />Fish Creek. These areas are concentration areas for livestock and <br />are most common to experience range deterioration. The remainder <br />of the unmined lands within the proposed permit area all are in the <br />"good" range condition class. <br />(b) The application shall state whether the proposed mine plan area has <br />been previously mine , and., if so, the follcwii~g information, if avail- <br />able-- <br /> (1) The type of mining method used; <br /> (2) The coal seams or other mineral strata mines; <br />• (3) The extent of coal or other minerals removed; <br />779-314 <br />