Laserfiche WebLink
changed weekly. This occurred even on lands where Peabody had a reasonable <br />level of control. Crop rotations or pasture and hayland renovation could easily <br />eliminate or change the nature of a reference area at the time of bond release <br />evaluations. Personal management objectives and methods are highly variable for <br />the various landowners or lessees. lrrigation water management, fertilization <br />programs (if any), harvest period, hay/pasture management, cropping, and grazing <br />management were different for nearly all landowners contacted. The end result of <br />the above is a situation of no guarantees. Guarantees of long term and somewhat <br />consistent management are a critical element that must be reasonably assured <br />when using reference areas. Therefore, Peabody has developed alternate <br />reclamation standards as allowed for under 4.1 S. 7(2) (d) of the Regulations. <br />The OMLR, in past permitting decisions for New Horizon, had found these azguments for <br />the use of technical standards to be persuasive, and has approved technical standards in <br />lieu of reference azeas. The production standards for imgated cropland and irrigated <br />pastureland were previously lowered via revision, based largely on documentation <br />consisting of letters from the NRCS Area Resource Conservationist and three local <br />farmers in 1998, attesting to the fact that the original standazds were excessive, and not <br />reflective of local soil conditions and agricultural practices. <br />Within the current TR-54, the operator is proposing to further lower the production <br />standard for irrigated pasturelands within a portion of the permit area. A letter signed by <br />two of the landowners in the area east of 2700 road was provided in support of the <br />proposed change, along with a letter from the NRCS Resource Conservationist, Jim Boyd, <br />supporting a proposed standard of "one ton/acre of baled hay in June (first cutting)". <br />According to a letter provided by Ross Gubka of WFC, two other landowners within the <br />reclaimed azea east of 2700 Road were contacted, and "agreed in principle to the <br />reasoning of the standards change", but would not sign the letter supporting the change <br />due to concerns "which have nothing to do with the standards change". <br />In the letters signed by Jim Boyd and the two local landowners, primary reasons cited for <br />the proposed reduction are predominance of shallow soil types, generally southerly aspect, <br />and the fact that irrigation water is often not made available by the ditch company as early <br />in the growing season as would be desirable. Jim Boyd notes in his letter that the soil <br />types are not typically irrigated in the Nucla azea, and as a result production records are <br />limited for the types under irrigated conditions. Based on previous discussion with Mr. <br />Boyd, there apparently is no published information regazding typical production levels <br />that could be expected under irrigated conditions for any of the soil types in the permit <br />area, because the soils are rarely irrigated (except, apparently in the immediate vicinity of <br />the New Horizon Mine). <br />Unfortunately, given the rather unique set of environmental and land use conditions in the <br />permit area vicinity, Rule 4.15.7(2)(d) does not in actuality authorize success standards for <br />vegetative cover or herbaceous productivity to be based on technical standards, unless <br />documents upon which the standazds are based are approved by the Director of OSM. The <br />only comparison methods authorized by the regulations that would be applicable to the <br />6 <br />