My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL46787
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL46787
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:21:07 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 2:54:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1983059
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
8/15/1988
Doc Name
PROPOSED DECISION & FINDINGS OF COMPLIANCE FOR RN1
Permit Index Doc Type
FINDINGS
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.
/
24
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
The application describes the unconsolidated deposit as being <br />composed of colluvial material resulting from mass wasting and <br />slope wash from the steep slopes rising to the north of the permit <br />area (see Map 11 ). The text indicates that, since settlement in <br />the early 1900's, the area was graded to allow construction of the <br />Fire Mountain Canal and accommodate flood irrigation. <br />The affected area occupies a transitional area (mapped as Qc on Map <br />2 of the application) between the flood plain and terrace complex <br />below (mapped as Qa on Map 11 of the application) and the steeper <br />upland slopes to the north of the permit area. It is the <br />Division's opinion that this transitional area is more <br />appropriately considered to be an upland area rather than part of <br />the flood plain and terrace complex as defined in sections <br />1.04(10), (142) and (147) of the Rules and Regulations. <br />Although colluvial deposits can be considered to be part of <br />unconsolidated alluvial deposits in many cases, in this particular <br />instance the deposits are fairly deep and appear to be underlain by <br />bedrock or other fairly consolidated material (on the basis of test <br />pits and observation by Division personnel). The proposed permit <br />area is also on a moderately steep slope (15%) which the applicant <br />suggests was previously graded to accommodate agricultural <br />activity. fie type of irrigation practiced on these colluvial <br />deposits consists of diverting the flow from a nearby irrigation <br />canal into a system of furrows. This type of irrigation is the <br />only feasible practice under such steep slope constraints and is <br />considered to be artificial subirrigation rather than flood <br />irrigation as strictly defined in Rule 1.04 (48 ). <br />Based on these considerations of the nature of the material, <br />steepness of slopes and irrigation practice the Division finds that <br />the permit area is more appropriately considered to be within the <br />upland area relative to the alluvial valley floor, and is not <br />within the flood plain and terrace complex. The Division therefore <br />makes a negative determination for the presence of alluvial valley <br />floors in the specific area of proposed disturbance for the Terror <br />Creek operation. <br />The valley bottom below the proposed disturbance <br />existing railroad grade) is considered to be an <br />floor. The Division, therefore, has to make the <br />for the impact of the disturbance on an adjacent <br />floor. These findings are presented below. <br />(below the <br />alluvial valley <br />required findings <br />alluvial valley <br />-19- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.