Laserfiche WebLink
V <br />Mike Boulay -43- April 11, 2011 <br />103. The first paragraph on page 5 states that the proposed load out property clearly <br />overlies alluvium of the historic Colorado River. CAM then questions whether or <br />not this layer contains overbank deposits as well, but only gives an estimate <br />by saying the overbank represents a small portion of the total thickness. <br />What is the exact thickness of the overbank deposits? <br />104. Rule 2.06.8(3)(b)(ii) requires a map of all lands that are currently or were <br />historically flood irrigated. In the first paragraph on page 2 of the AVF report, there <br />is a statement that says the area immediately adjacent to both the east and west <br />sides of Reed Wash do not appear suitable for farming. The last sentence in the <br />first paragraph on page 2 states that based on a review of current aerial photos, <br />agriculture is limited to hay production, irrigated via a series of ditches. It is not <br />clear where the ditches are located in relation to the permit boundary or where the <br />hay production is. Please provide a map showing the hay fields and irrigation <br />ditch system and all lands that are currently flood irrigated. <br />CAM: Please see new Map-22 showing irrigated hay fields and the irrigation ditch <br />system. <br />105. Near the end of the second paragraph on page 6 it is stated that the land on either <br />side of Reed Wash has the potential to be flood irrigated in the future, but there is <br />no indication that these areas were ever used or were suitable for farming in the <br />past. Would the land on either side of Reed Wash be suitable for farming <br />even if it is flood irrigated? Please expand on this statement. Unless <br />otherwise demonstrated, the Division will assume that permit adjacent areas <br />are within the Colorado River AVF. <br />106. Halfway down on page 5 there is a statement that the property has the potential to <br />be flood irrigated: however, this is unlikely because of the residual contamination <br />from industrial uses. Do the non-industrial portions of the permit area have <br />the potential to be flood irrigated? Have they ever been historically? The <br />site description and land use section in 2.04.2 indicates that agriculture was <br />a past land use in the area. <br />107. Rule 2.06.8(3)(b)(iii), requires a map of all lands in the area subject to agricultural <br />activities, showing types and accompanied by measurements of vegetation in <br />terms of productivity and type. The report indicates that agricultural activities are <br />to the north of the proposed permit area and one small area south of the Highway <br />50 just west of Reed Wash. Please provide a map and discussion of <br />agricultural activities including flood irrigated lands, pasture lands and <br />undeveloped rangelands.