Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 of 3 <br />b. The permit language was changed in PR6 (July 2, 2010 response) to say: "The expected <br />application rate of water: Water will be applied to the reference area based on the ratio <br />used for the reclaimed irrigated pasture on the Lloyd property." <br />For SL12, it is not clear what version of the permit GLA is attempting to verify for WFC, nor is the <br />discussion on the rate of irrigation clear in the June 6 response. In the response, GLA says that 0.34 <br />shares /acre were applied to the reclaimed area in 2007 and 0.31 shares /acre were applied in 2008. <br />However, the Division has questions regarding the irrigation for Reclaimed Irrigated Pasture <br />(shares /acre) calculations provided by GLA. Please explain the following: <br />c. How many acres is the reclaimed irrigated pasture(s)? The pasture size varies between <br />2007 and 2008. Please provide a separate map for 2007 and 2008 showing the reclaimed <br />pasture. Please explain how the pasture size and location are determined each year. <br />d. How was the irrigation volume for each year determined? Is the total volume determined at <br />the end of the irrigation season or was this a predetermined volume? <br />e. Please explain how the CCC ditch flow is determined and document the source of the <br />information. <br />f. In the equation, the measured units are not consistent. The equation is calculating volume <br />(ac -ft) per time (season) to determine cf /s. One variable in the equation (12 in/1 ft) is a <br />linear measurement. Please explain the purpose of this variable. <br />g. The variable `450 gpm/1ac *ft/in' is unclear. Please explain the purpose of this variable. <br />h. The final calculation given for each year (cf /s) was checked against the yearly irrigation <br />volume and the calculated volume is not consistent with the yearly volume. Please explain <br />the discrepancies in the total volumes. <br />1) Given 2007 volume = 602.3 ac- ft/season; calculated volume with given cf /s: (2.48 <br />cf/s)(3600 s/hour)(120 hours /week)(21.8 weeks /season) /(43,560 f1 = 537.65 a- <br />f /season. <br />2) Given 2008 volume = 608.1 ac- ft/season; calculated volume with given cf/s: (2.5 <br />cf /s)(3600 s/hour)(120 hours /week)(21.8 weeks /season) /(43,560 ft /a -f) = 541.98 a- <br />f/season <br />Item #4: The permit on the management practices for haying and grazing is poorly written and <br />will need to be revised. The discussion does not include any information on the haying activities (see <br />response to Item #5). However, it is clear that the reclaimed area was hayed and grazed while the <br />reference area was not hayed but grazed in an attempt to simulate the haying/grazing in the reclaimed <br />area. The data and explanations addressing the grazing and haying management of the reclaimed and <br />reference areas are not adequate for the Division to determine if the two areas were managed in a <br />similar manner. Please document the management practices utilized for both the reclaimed and <br />reference areas. It should be demonstrated that the grazing management was similar to the haying <br />management. Some of the issues that should be addressed are: <br />a) forage production for each area; <br />b) quality of forage /pasture in each area; <br />c) location of hay cutting; <br />d) number of hay cuttings /field by year; <br />e) consumption of cattle (or cow /calf pairs) grazing the reference area, <br />fl timing and number of days grazed, <br />g) how many days are allowed between irrigation and hay cutting, <br />