Laserfiche WebLink
Revised Kay, 1984 <br />~ • within a three mile radius of the proposed permit area, it vas <br />estimated that these pastures would have produced 1822 AUM's in 1980 <br />or 1.62 acres per AUM. This high grazing capacity is attributed to <br />534 acres of land distributed over four of the five pastures, which <br />is capable of being cut for hay. In actuality, 18Z of the surface <br />area, that is areas which can be cut for hay, was producing 54X of <br />the useable forage. A conservative estimate of the increased <br />postmining grazing capacity for these five pastures is 2979 AQM's or <br />0.99 acres per AUM. This results in 37X of the surface area <br />producing 72X of the useable forage. <br />Pastureland differs from rangeland in that the pastureland is <br />actively managed for grazing, browsing and for occasional hay <br />• production. Management is directed to seeded fields and improved <br />meadows some of which have been irrigated and fertilized from time <br />to time. Grazing of natural plant communities within the boundaries <br />of these pastures is incidental to the management objectives of the <br />pasture. Rangeland, on the other hand, is land which is valuable <br />principally for forage. Grazing practices are essentially the same <br />on both rangeland and pastureland but the pastureland, as <br />encountered in the permit area, is managed principally For improved <br />species and increased hay and forage production. As indicated <br />above, these improved lands amount to 18Z of the surface area but <br />produce 54X of the available forage. <br />. The postmining land use will continue to be [hat of <br />pastureland. Reclaimed land will increase the grazing capacity of <br />12.04-4b' <br />