Laserfiche WebLink
2) Subirrigated indicator species are confined to the <br />extreme channel bottom areas along the gulch. The <br />• remaining parts of the area are apparently <br />non-subirrigated. , <br />3) Although the soils are suited to all crops erommonly <br />grown in the survey area, it is not likely to be used <br />for intensively cultivated crops because of the <br />elevation (7,600 to 7,700 ft.) and the short growing <br />season. <br />4) The areal extent is insignificant. <br /> <br />I •J <br />In September of 1982, the CMIRD determined, based on this information, that <br />this area is not an alluvial valley floor. <br />In addition, the United States Soil Conservation Service (SCS) in their <br />review conducted in October, 1983 concluded that this area is not suitable for <br />cultivated crop production. 'Ivey indicate that no irrigation water is available <br />for supplemental irrigation and the cough topography, steepness of slope and <br />surface stoniness prohibit intensive cultivation on any major scale. <br />Our investigation of this area supports these conclusions. <br />West Roatcap, East Roatcap, and Terror Creeks <br />West Roatcap, East Roatcap and Terror Creeks were the primary focus of <br />attention in this investigation. Of these three major drainages, only East <br />Roatcap Creek is within the permit area boundaries. West Roatcap and Terror <br />Creeks are adjacent to the boundaries on the west and east sides, respectively. <br />The three drainages are discussed together here because of their similarity <br />in development. All occupy steeply incised, gently sinuous to nearly straight <br />canyons. The stream beds contain basaltic boulders of 9 inches to 18 inches in <br />dimension, with minor local deposits of sand and gravel. These sediments are <br />considered dominantly colluvium, deposited in degrading streams with subsequent <br />