REV98159 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. MidwPl BaJay/Ms. • Dicisim~ of Ma+n'ats a'rt G®logy Septardrr 29, 1999 Pate 7 On 6/15/99, Dennis Jones (SCC Hydrologist) had a conversation with Mr. John Ricks, the currem owner of the Sage Creek Reservoir site. Mr. Ricks, once again stated that he does not want the reservoir to be reconstructed. He stated that his plans were to eventually sell this land as potential homesites. The subject area in Section 30, T6N, R87W is currently a wheat field. According to the CMLRD 1988 AVF Guidance Document, the threshold irrigation water conductance value for wheat is 4.0 mmhos/cm. This is significantly higher that the 2.1 mmhos/cm maximum value predicted by SCC to occur in Sage Creek as a result of Yoast Mine discharges. Also, this wheat field is not being imgated, nor will it be given that the Sage Creek Reservoir will not be rebuilt. In the unlikely event that the Sage Creek Reservoir were to be rebuilt (or another reservoir constructed elsewhere on Sage Creek) and the landowner decided to convert the land use back to irrigated hay, crop species could be selected that are compatible with the predicted maximum salinity of Sage Creek. Salt tolerant species that could be selected include: Wheatgrass, Barley, and Perennial ryegrass. Locally grown hay crop species (smooth brome and mountain brome) rank as moderately tolerant (with threshold values in the 2.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm range) and would be only slightly affected by the predicted maximum Sage Creek conductance levels. Crops rated as moderately sensitive (e.g., alfalfa, clover, orchard grass and timothy) could also be grown along with more tolerant crops with only a small decrease in yield. Comment 7 (August 31, 1999) Response aorptal with one mnttticvz 73x water grmlity in Sage Crtek i_< pnrli'clal to Ee 2.9 nm]lps/on instrad of 2.1 as statol yr tlx thml ¢arrgraph. (Response to August 31, 1999 Comment) SCC will correct this typo. Comment 7 (Septemher 2, 1999) SCC has state! that tlr Sam Creek Resermir most likely will not fx re(xrilt vllia'i hutorirally pnruiclet water to :nigate tlr field yr Sectrcat 30, T6N, R87W. Currently 7efxut u lxvrg gnnerz SC>v'says that in tl~ tmlikefy etera the Sage Crrek Re_serwir is relsnlt and Sage Crtek water is ustrl to irrigate this fief salt toleranm sptries mold be pl~mrei The Diuisirnt agr~s with tlics assessnolt. Hotrerr, in older for the Division to make a fuxlrng tltzt theme xeill lr no material dmr~e in tlx tmlikely etalt tlx field is imgna~ in tlx futztre will aemer firm Sagr C>eek, please provide an estvnnte of potential crop raGuriat for tlx listed salt toleamt spaies using the fo»rttrla disause~ almte Also, please note that tJx weer qua/tty in Safe Clerk u prali'ctal to Ee 2.9 mrnlxls/on instead of 2.1 as state! in tl~ third paragraph o~tlx resporrre. (Response to Septemher 2, 1999 Comment) SCC acknowledges that a typographic error was inadvertently made relating that the pnslicrsl Sage Creek water quality would be 2.1 instead of 2.9 mmhos/cm. Also the DMG stated in the Augtsst 31 Adequary Review letter chat the previous response had been accepted except for the typo, now the DMG states that the response was not adequate and that potential crop reduction estimates are required! These inconsistencies make it very expensive and time consuming for SCC to continually respond to comments because the Division can't make up its mind. As stated in previous responses;