Laserfiche WebLink
areas are located in Sections 34 and the third is located in Section 21, TSN, R88W. <br />The first area is southeast of proposed Pond 017; the second area is northwest of the <br />proposed Pond 017; and the third area is south of two irrigated hay fields. All three <br />fields are long, narrow bands of alluvial deposits covering less than one acre total. <br />These areas were determined not to be AVF's. The areas are in narrow reaches of the <br />canyon with a sinuous, incised channel. Flood irrigation and farm production would no[ <br />be economically feasible in these areas. <br />Dry Creek Section 9 Exclusion <br />The small area of alluvium on Dry Creek in Section 9 was originally determined <br />by the Division to be an alluvial valley floor. However, based on amended <br />vegetation mapping and narrative presented in TR-50 (amended Tab 17 pages 129 <br />through 129c, and new Map 1 Attachemnt to Exhibit 16-3, Sht. 2) the Division <br />has revised its original determination. <br />Based on the information presented in TR-50, the Division fords that the <br />subirrigated parcels on Dry Creek in Section 9 do not meet AVF criteria. Native <br />wetlands dominated by species that are not agriculturally useful comprise the <br />major portion of the northern parcel in the vicinity of We reservoir embankment. <br />Meadow grass types potentially enhanced by subirrigation occur in the southern <br />parcel, and as a minor type in the northern parcel. The grass meadows may have <br />been tnaaaged for hay production in the past, but the report indicates that there is <br />no evidence of management for hay production in recent years. Further, the <br />largest contiguous acreage of potentially subirrigated grass meadow owned by a <br />single landowner is 1.1 acres. Estimated production from the 1.1 acre field would <br />support less than 3 animal unit months (AUM's). <br />The Division concludes that the Dry Creek Section 9 parcels do not constitute an <br />alluvial valley floor. This fording is based on the fact that the native wetland <br />community does not support agriculturally useful vegetation and as such does noY <br />meet AVF criteria. Further, the meadow parcels, due to small size, split <br />ownership, and limited production potential do not play a significant role in <br />support of an economically viable ranching or farming operation, nor do they <br />serve a special role in agricultural land use in the region. As such, the meadow <br />parcels do not meet AVF criteria. <br />Seneca II-W Findings Document 63 June l2, 2006 <br />Permit Renewal No. 5 <br />