Laserfiche WebLink
New Horizon Mine C-1981-008 <br />March 26, 2008 Meeting w/ landowners <br />(regardless of thickness), followed by separate salvage of 2"a lift material (with the top of the <br />2"a lift generally defined for the Prime Farmland soil by the calcic horizon). Dan read an <br />excerpt from his memorandum notes of the meeting which addressed this issue. JoEllen <br />requested a copy of the memo, which we provided to her. <br />The Morgans indicated that WFC had used better topsoil handling practices in previous <br />phases of the mining, further to the east. In these areas, topsoil was stripped and stockpiled <br />separately, with the u~~e of scrapers. Now that WFC is on Morgan property, which is prime <br />farmland, they have used bulldozers and the large shovel to remove the topsoil, which has not <br />resulted in the same level of care and precision. In addition, some topsoil has been handled <br />when wet or frozen, a practice which is detrimental to the properties of the soil. <br />JoEllen worked under contract to WFC for 13 years and accomplished the field finishing, <br />vegetation and irrigation of numerous properties affected by earlier phases of the mining. She <br />has a very thorough recollection of the management practices that were used in previous <br />years. <br />Mike Morgan displayed an NRCS soil survey map which he said showed that much of James <br />Johnson's former ground (now owned by WFC and apparently destined to be dryland pasture <br />post-mining), had been incorrectly mapped by WFC, and that much of it was actually <br />Progresso soil type. 11~Iike said that Progresso was a Prime Farmland soil, and as such almost <br />all of the old Johnson property should be reclaimed to Prime Farmland standards, not just the <br />3.5 acre parcel of Nyswonger soil in the northwest corner. The map print was too small for us <br />to focus and interpret under the conditions. Dan said he would follow up on that. Based on <br />the Soils map in the permit, there was quite a bit of the Progresso soil that was mined east of <br />2700 road, but there vas never any mention that Progresso might potentially be a Prime <br />Farmland soil. The snnall parcel in the northwest corner is identified as Begay soil, in the <br />permit, and is a Prime Farmland Soil. The list of Prime Farmland soils from the most recent <br />San Miguel Soil SurvE~y provided by NRCS at our February 15 meeting does not list the <br />Progresso soil as Prime Farmland. Dan later inquired with Jim Boyd of NRCS, and Mr. Boyd <br />confirmed that the Progresso soil is not classified as Prime Farmland in the San Miguel Area <br />Soil Survey: <br />The question of how nnuch alfalfa cropland could reasonably be irrigated with 50 shares of <br />water was discussed at length. JoEllen is steadfast that all 100 or so acres can be properly <br />irrigated with 50 sharers, and she indicated that Jim Boyd's estimate that 70+ acres would be a <br />reasonable figure was incorrect for a whole list of reasons and would not be acceptable. She <br />feels like the "irrigable/improved pasture" idea is basically just dryland pasture by another <br />name, and it is not acceptable. Dan asked Mr. Morgan directly if he felt the 70 acres of <br />irrigated land would be a reasonable compromise, or if he agreed with JoEllen that there was <br />no room for compromise on the issue. He seemed to be not quite as adamant on the issue as <br />JoEllen, but his over-a.ll response was that there was no reason the 100 acres could not be <br />irrigated with 50 shares. He and the others also stated that they had offered (during their <br />meeting with Ross folilowing our 2/15/08 meeting) to lease an additional 10 shares to WFC, <br />but Ross had declined the offer. <br />-3- <br />