Laserfiche WebLink
Creek, it is not likely that enough water would be available to flood irrigate any <br />additional acreage. Rainfall runoff hydrographs show, very little change at monitoring <br />sites along Dry and Sage Creeks. This statement is based on the discussion presented in <br />Tab 7, Runoff and Flow Hydrograph Analyses. The baseflow, during the growing season is <br />very low and in the drier years is zero (based on Sites FG1 and FG2). No farmer is going <br />to spend the money to develop wider, flatlying fields and a conveyance ditching system if <br />the water will not be there during the dry years or the flows are so low during normal <br />years that flow conveyance and ditch maintenance would be difficult at best. Those areas <br />that can be subirrigated, have been. The remaining areas are too narrow, too boggy for <br />equipment, or the terraces sit too high above the alluvial water table. <br />The types of crops grown on the fields that do exist indicate that water availability is a <br />limiting factor and that natural salt levels also affect what can be grown and where. <br />Throughout western Colorado, valley bottoms are used for hay production, if there is <br />enough water present. The Yampa River Valley is an excellent example of an irrigated hay <br />production area. Alfalfa hay commands the highest price per bale and when conditions are <br />favorable, this is the hay crop of choice. Grass hay is grown on the less favorable sites <br />and this is the crop one finds on a significant number of the fields included in this <br />study. The grasses tend to be somewhat more tolerant of salty conditions. Portions of <br />lower Dry Creek support stands of black greasewood and rubber rabbitbrush, both of which <br />are highly salt tolerant, but of no use for agriculture. <br />?0 <br />Conclusion. Exhibits 16-2 and 16-3 present the geomorphic and irrigation use/water <br />availability information, respectively, for the Dry and Sage Creek drainages. Mining will <br />not intercept any alluvial valley floor areas. Lands satisfying the geomorphic and flood <br />or subirrigation criteria of alluvial valley floors do exist adjacent to and downstream of <br />the Seneca II-W mining operation. Those in hydraulic communication with the mine are the <br />two subirrigated fields in Section 9, T5N, RHW, and the flood irrigated fields in Section <br />22, T6N, R68W in the Dry Creek drainage, and the flood irrigated fields in Section 30, <br />T6N, R87W in the Sage Creek drainage. Any others noted on Exhibit 16-3 receive their <br />water from other sources, are above mining, are undeveloped rangeland, or are too distal <br />from the mine to be of concern. <br />The Seneca II-W mining and reclamation plans as proposed will minimize disturbances to the <br />hydrologic balance by preserving the essential hydrologic functions of the AVF's adjacent <br />to the mining and reclamation operations. That is, the mining and reclamation operations <br />19