Laserfiche WebLink
,dtr. Miduel LbuGry/A1r. ~,t~rt • <br />Dccisiao o/'MineraG aryl Gm/agy <br />Septvrrlrr 29, ] 999 <br />Page 6 <br />TABLE 6.2, SUMMARY OF CROP REDUCTION VARIABLES <br />FOR MODERATELY SENSITIVE CROP SPECIES <br />Crop Species Veld Decreeae <br />Bw <br />fpercentl Salinity Threshold <br />Aw <br />(mmhos/cml Reference <br />Corn 12.0 1.1 Banta, 1988 <br />Lettuce 13.0 0.9 Banta, 1988 <br />Orchardgrass 6.2 1.0 Banta, 1988 <br />Alfalfa 7.3 1.5 Maas, 1986 <br />Manchar Brome 20.9 1.0 Ippolito, 1992 <br />Smooth Brome 13.2 1.3 Ippolito, 1992 <br />Cicer Milkvetch 14.7 1.0 Ippolito, 1992 <br />Timothy 17.3 1.0 Ippolito, 1992 <br />Alsike Clover 12.2 1.3 Ippolito, 1992 <br />Minimum Value: 6.2 0.9 N/A <br />Maximum Value: 20.9 1.5 N/A <br />Mean Value: 13.0 1.1 N/A <br />Notes: Bw =percent yie/d decrease per unit salinity increase <br />Aw =Salinity threshold of irrigation water <br />N/A =Not App/icable <br />Comment 7 (Original Comment) 71x Drviricvt gvterally agt~s -with SCC's findings regarding dx <br />azailalidity of Tenter in Sage Cr~k subsaluau to rlp failum °f the Sage Crtek Reserwir rlraix Hoietne, the <br />potouial exists for future imgaiinn of the hay field laratal in Section 30, T6N, R87W, if dx Sage C1trk <br />Resertoirdmn is nrlxult or if anot{xrdreeiTiat clan is cmzstn+ctel daterutn`mi: an Sage Cr>~k dosrr to tlx hay/Meld <br />rn Stctiat 30. SCC asserts that tfx potential for ilrggatian of tlx full does not exist Please pnn~ide some <br />daaoir~iuitian supporting this asserticre In rzgard to this questiai, pleae cmrsider tlx follauiaeg <br />Basel on infrnnnaiat ~i1Y atYalable m the Drrnsiat, the field in question appems to meet t{x mgidatary <br />defnziticvt of an aUurnal TAY floor: 7lns vcw/d Ee bzsel cyz ne%s 2.06.8(3J(IJ(BJ(IJ and (IIJ, sinm c1x field Teas <br />historically imgatal and the capabiltty of Fx'pzg flag! imgatel again may exist Please note that ride <br />2.06.8(3J(IJ(BJ dictates that the Divisiai find an alluvia/ flcrn exists if histonra! use OR capab/lity for imgatiat <br />exists. <br />In order to find thhat this area dins not mgt t1u criteria of 2.06.8(3J(IJ(BJ(IIJ, tlr Division wxJd hair to find that <br />the caplalnlity jrn funny imgaticvt does not exist hw.ef at stmmnflow yields (already ptvvidal by SCC), 1¢nlrr <br />gi/nlity, te>pngr'apliy~ and ragicvurl practirrs. Horeete , it is net drat !ate tl~ Dn~isicvr avJd fntd that thr criterur of <br />2.06.8(3J(IJ(BJ(IJ, since t{x field in queszirn xrus hismrically imgatel [sic). <br />(Response submitted 6/25/99-AVF and HydroloAic Responses) SCC has previousl}~ stated (in <br />the 1/19/99 response letter, Comment 3) that the Sage Creek Reservoir would most likely not be <br />rebuilt. Historically, both the Sage Creek Reservoir and an unnamed downstream reservoir have <br />failed due to high spring flows and possibly, poor construction. Nea• reservoir construction would <br />require a full engineering evaluation and engineered fill placement. Under current regulations, the <br />cost to engineer and rebuild the reservoir would be significant. In addition, SCC now holds 15/16chs <br />of the water rights for the reservoir. Since those water rights are used for the Yoast Mine water rights <br />augmentation plan, SCC has no intention in transferring chose rights back to the Sage Creek <br />Reservoir, or any other potential reservoir on Sage Creek. <br />