Laserfiche WebLink
102. In the narrative regarding groundwater on page 3, please provide language to meet the <br />following questions. Does it meet the geomorphic criteria? Are portions of the site flood <br />irrigable? Please include a discussion and map on the capability of this area to be flood <br />irrigated as required by Rule 2.06.8(3)(b)(i). <br />Response is adequate. <br />103. The first paragraph on page 5 states that the proposed load out property clearly overlies <br />alluvium of the historic Colorado River. CAM then questions whether or not this layer <br />contains overbank deposits as well, but only gives an estimate by saying the overbank <br />represents a small portion of the total thickness. What is the exact thickness of the <br />overbank deposits? <br />Response is adequate. <br />104. Rule 2.06.8(3)(b)(ii) requires a map of all lands that are currently or were historically <br />flood irrigated. In the first paragraph on page 2 of the AVF report, there is a statement <br />that says the area immediately adjacent to both the east and west sides of Reed Wash do <br />not appear suitable for farming. The last sentence in the first paragraph on page 2 states <br />that based on a review of current aerial photos, agriculture is limited to hay production, <br />irrigated via a series of ditches. It is not clear where the ditches are located in relation to <br />the permit boundary or where the hay production is. Please provide a map showing the <br />hay fields and irrigation ditch system and all lands that are currently flood irrigated. <br />Response is adequate <br />105. Near the end of the second paragraph on page 6 it is stated that the land on either side of <br />Reed Wash has the potential to be flood irrigated in the future, but there is no indication <br />that these areas were ever used or were suitable for farming in the past. Would the land <br />on either side of Reed Wash be suitable for farming even if it is flood irrigated? Please <br />expand on this statement. Unless otherwise demonstrated, the Division will assume that <br />permit adjacent areas are within the Colorado River AVE <br />Response is adequate. <br />106. Halfway down on page 5 there is a statement that the property has the potential to be <br />flood irrigated: however, this is unlikely because of the residual contamination from <br />industrial uses. Do the non - industrial portions of the permit area have the potential to be <br />flood irrigated? Have they ever been historically? The site description and land use <br />section in 2.04.2 indicates that agriculture was a past land use in the area. <br />Response is adequate. <br />