Laserfiche WebLink
• One historically flood irrigated field was identified along lower Sage Creek in Section <br />30, T6N, R87W. Only five to ten acres of the field could be flood irrigated by pumping <br />from Sage Creek because of the limited streamflow. Attempts at flood irrigating were <br />abandoned in 7992 because of the lack of water availability. This has been substantiated <br />by SCC streamflow monitoring at Site WSSF3 and personal communication with the landowner <br />during which he stated Sage Creek dries up in early June. This historically flood <br />irrigated five to ten acres is of no significance to the agriculture of the region or to <br />the owner's farming and is not an AYF. Spoil discharges from SCC's Yoast Mine will not <br />preclude the only use of the limited streamf low in Sage Creek at Section 30. That use is <br />livestock drinking water. <br />1992-7993 AYF Investigation Summary. No existing flood irrigated fields were identified <br />in the study. One potentially flood irrigated field (25 to 30 acres near the confluence <br />of Little Grassy and Grassy Creek) was identified based on soil suitability. Flow <br />monitoring data for Grassy Creek substantiate there is insufficient flow in Grassy Creek <br />during [he growing season io irrigate at least ten acres of land, and the cost of a dam <br />cannot be justified considering the small increase in production that would be realized. <br />• All but two of the subirrigated areas identified during the 1992 and 1993 study are <br />associated with wetlands that are not farmable (native rangeland). In the first case, <br />approximately 72 acres out of a 2,000-acre dryland farmed field (Sections 28 and 33, T6N, <br />R87w) were identified as potentially subi rrigable. A uo rst case salinity increase <br />analysis was performed for the 12-acre parcel and potential yield declines of from 3.9 <br />percent [0 5.9 percent were calculated. Considering the 12-acre parcel with the other <br />1,988 acres of non-irrigable cropland in the same field, the overall crop reduction is <br />less than 7 percent. <br />In the second case, a small field along Annand Draw in Section 8, TSN, R87W was identified <br />as improved pasture, subirrigated. Based on the small size of the field, the limited <br />productivity exhibited, the dissimilarity of this field with others being successfully <br />cropped in the region, and the marginal to poor alluvial eater quality documented by SLC <br />(EL >7000 umhos/cm, SOG >200 mg/l, pH >8-5, Mn >0.2 mg/l and high salinity hazard <br />potential), the consultant concluded the field was not an AVF. <br />• DMG has challenged this end gCC is providing the following additional information <br />regarding the present utility of the field, further clarification on its size, its <br />13 Revised 03/24/95 <br />