Laserfiche WebLink
affected by the 1985 erosion and mass-wasting event should be clearly delineated. <br />Please refer to mapping specifications of Rule 2.06.8(3)(b)(i),(ii) and (iii). <br />4. Map 17 will also need to be updated to accurately depict the current location of <br />cropland, pastureland and undeveloped rangeland. Dryland, subimgated and <br />flood imgated pastureland and cropland areas should be sepazately delineated and <br />identified. <br />5. The narrative in Section 2.06.8 of the application should be updated to reflect <br />current conditions and the results of further investigation associated with the <br />Lower Wilson permit revision. The narrative will need to accurately reflect the <br />current site conditions and will need to be consistent with amended Maps 10 and <br />17. <br />6. The alluvial deposits along Wilson Creek constitute an AVF because !here are <br />enough unconsolidated stream-laid deposits and sufficient water yield to be <br />beneficial for crop irrigation. <br />This excerpt is from the Division's AVF Findings for Wilson Creek. In order for <br />the Division to determine that the segment of the Wilson Creek valley in Area 2 <br />of the Walsh letter does not meet AVF criteria, appropriate information and <br />documentation will need to be provided within the revision application to <br />demonstrate that there are not enough unconsolidated stream-laid deposits or <br />suff dent water yield to be beneficial for crop irrigation. <br />The stream entrenchment and resultant water table lowering would seem to have <br />precluded the possibility for subirrigated agricultural activity along the stream <br />segment in Area 2. However, information in the permit and findings indicates <br />that flood irrigated agriculture was the dominant or only form of irrigation <br />practiced along Wilson Creek, (possibly within the segment in question), and <br />apparently there may still be flood irrigation agriculture upstream and <br />downstream from the Area 2 segment. <br />As such, it would seem that the applicant will need to demonstrate that the Area 2 <br />segment no longer contains a sufficient areal extent of streamlaid deposits to <br />support flood irrigation and farming, based on typical regional practices. <br />Assessment of the extent of irrigated agriculture along similazly entrenched valley <br />segments in the general area, consideration of the 1985 OSM Reconnaissance <br />Report and Maps, and consultation with local NRCS officials and landowners <br />regazding the potential for flood irrigated agriculture along the remnant terraces of <br />the Area 2 segment, would appear to be warranted. <br />7. With respect to the small azea of the undeveloped rangeland AVF on lower <br />Wilson Creek that will be affected by Gossard Haul Road development (Area 3), <br />the permit revision application will need to specifically address the requirements <br />of 2.06.8(4)(a)(i), (ii), (v), and (vi). <br />