My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-02-06_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981008
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981008
>
2008-02-06_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:22:17 PM
Creation date
2/7/2008 9:53:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981008
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
2/6/2008
Doc Name
Response to DRMS Concerning Topsoil Salvage and Redistribution
From
Western Fuels-Colorado
To
DRMS
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
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.
/
10
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
5) For the area north of BB Road and west of 2700 Road, WFC has seen thin soils <br />that cannot practically be stripped in two lifts. WFC agrees that the area south of BB <br />Road and west of 2700 Road (the Morgan property) needs to be stripped and placed <br />in two lifts. <br />6) WFC commits to rock picking all soils upon stripping or re-distribution for irrigated <br />lands. This will not be done for those lands designated as dryland pasture and dry <br />rangeland. <br />7) The existing permit contains a discussion of the management practices of the <br />landowners regarding irrigation on their land during the pre-mine surveys. This is <br />important since it sets the standard far the level of management for the post-mine <br />land and it also helps determine what the ratio is for the amount of land can be <br />returned to irrigation use per number of CC Ditch shares that a particular landowner <br />may have. This discussion is taken from Section 2.04.10 Vegetation: <br />The varying management objectives and level of inputs are best illustrated by <br />summarizing information provided by the various operators during 1987. Goforth <br />makes a conscientious effort towards irrigation water management, fertilizes with <br />approximately 150 pounds/acn: of 18-4fr0 fertilizer and occasionally with 150 <br />poundsfacre of potash, and does not over-utilize the aftermath in the hay fields during <br />the non-growing season_ The fields are also periodically renovated. <br />Periodic renovation and application of phosphorous fertilizer on a n,gular basis <br />maintains a good alfalfa component in a stand which significantly increases yields <br />and forage quality (Heath et al. 1985 and Schumaker of a/. 1967). By comparison, <br />the Morgan hay fiefds (San Miguel property) were grazed heavily by livestock during <br />the late winter and into the early spring after growth had started. Morgan does not <br />fertilize regularly and alfalfa composition in the stand is low, while poorer producing <br />species, such as Kentucky bluegrass and buckhom plantain, have a high <br />composition. Several rock ridges with shallow soils also occur in these fields, further <br />reducing potential production. Burbridge, who does not fertilize his hay fields, has <br />little alfalfa in the stand, and sign cant areas of shallow soils with rock ridges. <br />Combined, these result in a potentially low level of productivity in his hay fields. <br />However the hay production from this field is adequate to meet Burbridge's needs <br />and thus the incentive for more intensified management is not there. It should be <br />pointed out that Burbridge's cut hay was rained on twice and turned twice before <br />baling which will reduce both the yield and quality of hay. Staafs` hay production <br />values, though higher than most first cuttings, still does not reflect the potential <br />production. Because of land leveling on Staafs` fields, cut areas (exposing subsoil <br />materials with lower production potential) have lower overall yields, though irrigation <br />water management is benefitted. Staafs' fields (in the proposed permit area) north of <br />Calamity Draw are not intensively managed because of more productive and easier <br />managed fields south of Calamity Draw, and an already adequafe hay base provided <br />from these latter fields. Staats' fields which were included in this study are not <br />fertilized on a regular basis, imgation water application is not consistent during the <br />growing season, and the fields are grazed during the non-growing season. This <br />Page 4 of 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.