My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE112460
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
200000
>
PERMFILE112460
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:08:48 PM
Creation date
11/24/2007 9:32:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981038
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/11/2001
Section_Exhibit Name
VOLUME 9 - SOILS APPENDIX
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.
/
51
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
2.4 YE6ETATION <br />The vegetation of the study area is composed of a variety of trees and <br />shrubs forming dense shrublands and open canopy woodlands. Oakbrush covers <br />much of the area west of East Roatcap creek and east of Stevens Gulch creek. <br />The ridge is covered by a mixture of shrubs including serviceberry, <br />fendlerbush, big sagebrush, snowberry, bitterbrush, squawapple and true <br />mountainmahogany. The southern portion of the ridge is scarcely vegetated by <br />pinyon and juniper. Cottonwood trees occur sporadically along the creeks. <br />3.0 METMODOL06Y <br />3.1 SOIL SURVEY PROCEDURES <br />A soil survey was conducted of the study area in July 1986. Soils were <br />mapped on a 1" = 500 ft. contour map. Soil survey procedures conformed to the <br />standards set forth by the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division and <br />accepted survey methods used by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). Soil <br />profiles were exposed for description and classification by backhoe and hand <br />digging and hand angering. <br />3.2 SOIL SANPLINfi AND ANALYSIS <br />Pedons selected for sampling were sampled by horizon or contrasting <br />• layer to lithic or paralithic contact, or to a depth of 60 inches, whichever <br />was shallowest. When horizons greater than 20 inches depth were encountered <br />they were sampled in 20 inch intervals. Samples were collected from pedons, <br />sealed in clean polyethylene bags and forwarded to Bookcliff Labs, Inc. for <br />chemical and physical analysis. The soil samples were analyzed for those <br />parameters suggested by CMLRD. <br />3.3 TOPSOIL EVALUATION PROCEDURES <br />Individual soil mapping units were rated as to their suitability for <br />reclamation purposes on the basis of the laboratory data and profile <br />descriptions. Ratings of unsuitable, marginal, fair and good were used to <br />evaluate the component soils of each mapping unit according to the criteria <br />set forth in Table 1, Appendix D. <br />The maximum volume of topsoil suitable for use as revegetation material <br />was determined by multiplying the acreage of each soil mapping unit within <br />the boundaries of the proposed disturbance by a minimum depth for limiting <br />characteristics for each soil mapping unit. The amount of topsoil for salvage <br />was determined assuming a 2 ft. salvage depth of soils from the west side of <br />East Roatcap Creek and a return depth of 1 ft. over al l proposed disturbed <br />areas. <br />3.4 PRIME FARMLAND DETERMINATION <br />The SCS has mapped the study area. No SCS soil mapping units designated <br />as prime farmland occur in the area. Soil limitations which eliminate soils <br />from prime farmland consideration include; low annual precipitation, <br />a <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.