^ Kunaie, Marcia J33.3 Beebe *^lLwr Land anl water 1990 resources of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Re«iervatlon PL F" Ui' \ w' iL.~, Tf Land and Water Respurces of the > ■ Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation N "■■-■ ^*^»-\_^ . v""' ■ ■^...: ....,.....^iir":.^rN'rnn? STAFF REPORT Presented to the STATF DOCUMENTS COLLECTION MAR 1 :■ 1991 MONTANA STATE LIBRARY 1515 E. 6th AVE. HELENA, MONTANA 59S20 MONTANA RESERVED WATER RIGHTS COMPACT COMMISSION MONTANA STATE LIBRARY 1 and «•!»« r»»owrc*« of th« NofPtv^n III II II 3 0864 00071000 7 STAFF REPORT Presented to the MONTANA RESERVED WATER RIGHTS COMPACT COMMISSION Land and Water Resources of the Northern Chq^enne Indian Reservation Marcia Beebe Rundle, Counsel/Program Manager Susan Cottingham, Technical Team Leader December, 1990 July 1990 This report contains memoranda prepared by che staff of the Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission, evaJuadng the practicality of irrigation on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation. This evaJuadon is a necessary component of the quandficatjon of the Tribe's reserved water right. The memoranda include anaJv'ses ofarable land, water availability, economics, and engineering designs, all of which were performed indepen- dendy of analyses by the Tribe or the federal government. The report also describes extensive data input to the Geographic Information System and computerized evalua- uons of the hydrology of the Reservadon. Staff members whose work is presented in this report include Anal Anderson, Soil Scientist, Craig Bacino, Geographer: Scott Freburg, GIS Specialist; Bill Grciman, -Agricultural Engineer; Bob Levitan, Hydrologist; and Igor Suchomel, Hydrologist. Previous RWRCC or DNRC staff whose work was reviewed and, in some cases, incor- porated into the report include Greg Ames, Lynda Saul, Steve Holnbeck, Nancy Granger, Glenn Smith and Earl Griffith. Susan Cotdngham coordinated the research and analysis of techrucal issues described in this report. My personal thanks for the pauence, good humor, and skills ofMary Bertagnolli, Danette Hayek, and Marilyn Richardson, who typed drafts, redrafb, and final copies of these memos, to James Madden for his assistance and counsel, and to Carole Massman and Dan Vichorek for their editorial expertise. A separate document analyzes the legal and historical bases for the Northern Cheyenne claims. Marcia Beebc Rundle Counsel/Program Manager TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. Background of Negotiations 1 B. Summary of Technical Analyses 2 II. RWRCC GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM 3 A. History of RWRCC Geographic Infomiation System 3 B. GIS Capabilities 3 C. Database 3 Glossary 7 III. b\ND RESOURCES 9 A. Procedures for Land Classification 9 B. Arable Lands 10 Bibliography 11 Glossary 1 1 IV. WATER RESOURCES 13 A. Tongue River 13 B. Rosebud Creek 20 Bibliography 23 Glossary 24 V. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS 25 A, Tongue River 25 B. Rosebud Creek : 28 Bibliography 30 APPENDIX A REFERENCE MAPS 31 APPENDLX B SOILS IN THE TONGUE AND ROSEBUD DRAINAGES 33 APPENDLX C METHODS OF LAND CLASSIFICATION 35 APPENDLX D LAND CLASSIFICATION SPECIFICATIONS 37 APPENDIX E SOIL MAPPING UNITS 39 APPENDIX F ENGINEERING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 51 APPENDLX G IRRIGATION PROJECT DESIGNS 53 List of Figures 1. Monthly Volumes at Sute Line, Tongue River — 1929-1960 reconstituted flows, 1961-1988 measured flows 14 2. Monthly Volume Differences Between State Line and Dam, 196 1-1 988, Tongue River 14 3. Monthly Volume Differences Between Miles City and Dam, 1947-1988, Tongue River 15 4. Two Season Volume Differences Between Tongue River Dam and Miles City — May TTirough September and Oaober Through April 15 5. Probability Distribution of Water Volume Change Between Miles City and Dam — Irrigation Season May-September, 1947- 1988, Tongue River 16 6. Tongue River — Groundwater Discharge into the River (Nov. 2-5, 1977) 16 7. Annual Runoff, 80% Row — Tongue River 19 8. Annual Runoff, Extremes — Tongue River 19 9. Monthly Volumes — Rosebud Creek — 1938-1973 Reconstituted Flows, 1974-1988 Measured Rows 20 10. Proposed Diversions and 80% Exceedance Rows — Rosebud Creek near Northern Reservation Boundary 23 I. INTRODUCTION In 1908, the U.S. Supreme Court first enunciated the doctrine of an implied reserved water right for Indian reser- vations. U.S. V Winters. 207 U.S. 564 (1908). Not until much later, however, did the Supreme Court establish a standard by which to quantify the federal reserved water rights for Indian reservauons. In 1963, die Supreme Court adopted the "practicably irrigable acreage" (PIA) standard for Indian reservations established for agricultural purposes. Arizona v. Cijifomia. 373 U.S. 546 (1963). The PIA stan- dard was most recendy applied by the state courts of Wyo- ming and affirmed by the United Sutes Supreme Court. Wyoming v. U.S.. 109 S.Cl 2994 (1989). The analyses employed by the staff of the Compaa Commission, and reported in this document, constitute a modified PIA analy- sis, which we refer to as a feasibly irrigable lands (FIL) analysis. A- Background of Negotiations The Northern Cheyenne Tribe was among the first tribes in Montana to agree to participate in negotiations to setde water rights issues between the Tribe and the State. In a letter dated February 28, 1980, Allan Rowland, President of the Northern CheyenneTribal Council, informed Henry Loble, Chairman of the Compact Commission, that the Council had appointed a team of tribal council members and tribal anomeys to represent them in discussions with the Compact Commission. At die dme, federal courts had ruled that federal and Indian reserved rights in Montana were to be quantified in the state's adjudication-negotiation process. In 1975 the Northern Cheyenne Tribe had requested Montana's federal distria court to adjudicate water rights in the Tongue River and Rosebud Creek' . The same year, the United Sutes filed a federal suit on its own behalf and as fiduciary for theTribe^. The cases were stayed pending the United States Supreme Court's determination whedier Indian reserved rights were to be adjudicated in federal or sute coun. Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States. 424 U.S. 800 (1976). In 1979, based on Colorado River. Montana's federal district courts dismissed the Tribal suits in favor of the state forum. This ruling was ultimately upheld by the United States Supreme Coun in Arizona v. San Carlos ApacheTribe. 463 U.S. 545 (1983)^ While San Carlos was pending, die Tribe and the BIA on behalf of die Tribe filed eleven claims for water rights with the Montana Water Court, although filing is statutorily suspended while negotiations are in progress. Section 85-2-217, Montana Code Annotated For over two years, discussions were held between the State and Tribe on a wide range of issues related to both the process of negotiations and the substantive issues involved in the Northem Cheyenne claims to water in the Tongue and Rosebud drainages of sou theastem Montana. The Commis- sion staff acquired a considerable amount of data and began analyses of the land and water resources of the reservation. At the same time, the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Con- servation were engaged in feasibility studies for rehabilitating the Tongue River Dam. ' Northern Chevenne Tritx v. Tongue River Water Users' Ass'n. 484 F. Supp 31 (D. Mont. 1979). 2 United States v. Tongue River Water Users' Ass'n. No. CV-75-20 (D. Mont, filed March 7, 1 975.). The United States also filed suit on behalf of the Crow Tnbe. United States v. Rip Horn low line Canal. No. CV-75-34 (D. MonL filed April 17. 1975). ' The supreme Court reversed and remanded to the Ninth Circuit, which had held in fiivor of the federal forum. Northem Chevenne Tnbc V. Adsit. 668 F.2d 1080 (9th Cir. 1982). On remand, the Ninth Circuit stayed all proceedings in the Montana federal actions pending die outcome of the state court proceedings. Northem Chevenne Tnbe v. Adsit. 721 F.2d 1 187 (9th Cir. 1983). For a compreher^ive discussion of this issue. See Maclntvie. Ouanrificadon of Indian Reserved Water Right in Montana: ."jgic g, rcli Grwlv in the Footsteps of San Carlos Apache Tnbe. 8 Public Land Law Review 33 (1987). SfiSJllifl. Maclntyre, The Adjudication of Montana's Water — A Blueprint for Improving the Judiaal Structure, 49 Mont. Law Rev. 21 1, 229 (1988). While these technical studies were underway, the Com- mission focused its efforts on negotiations with the Assini- boine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation. In May of 1985 the Fort Peck-Montana Compact was signed into law and the Commission again turned its attention to the Northern Chcvcnne. When the Compaa Commission and the Northern Cheyenne met again in Oaober of 1985, the attomeys for the Tribe agreed to draft a scniement proposal to submit to the Compact Commission. The Tribe's proposal for quanti- fication of its reserved water rights was received in October ofl988. Meanwhile, in 198T', thelcgisiature mandated that the Commission focus its work on negotiations in the Milk River Basin, to the maximum extent practicable. In 1989, the Commission obained increased fiinding from the legis- lature and authorization for additional personnel on the staff of the Commission, so that the Commission could respond to the Northern Cheyenne proposal without neglecting the mandate to work on the Milk River Basin. In March 1 989, the RWRCC andTribe agreed to try to havea water rights compact ready for radfication by the 1 99 1 Montana Legislature. Ratification of water rights compacts is required by sute statute. Section 85-2-702, Montana Code Annotated. In the spring and summer of 1989, the RWRCC resumed legal and historical analyses of the tribal claims. Initial responses to the Northem Cheyenne proposal on key issues of priority date and reservation purpose were sent to the Tribe in October. As new technical staff members were hired and trained, the work of the former staff was reviewed and updated, additional background information was obtained, and plans for a comprehensive technical review were developed. The first four months of 1 990 were devoted to intensive analyses of the land and water resources of the Northem Cheyenne Reservation. On May 1, 1990, the Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission responded to the Tribe's proposal with a counterproposal developed by the negotiating team with knowledge of the results of the technical work discussed in this report. B. Summary of Technical Analyses To estimate the amount of water necessary to fulfill the present and potential future agricultural needs of the North- em Cheyenne Reservation, the technical staff employed a four-part prtxredurc: geographic dau computerization, clas- sification of soils and arable land, assessment of water availability, and engineering design of economically feasible irrigation systems. The staff of the Compaa Commission uses a Geo- grapfuc Information System (CIS) for spatial analyses. Geo- graphic Information Systems are used to store, retrieve, manipulate and analyze resource data (ie. soils, hydrologic, engineering, agricultural). A GIS enables the user to overlay separate types of resource data for a particular area. The user can then identify relationships between natural features and man-made developments, compare past, existing and poten- tial conditions and model present conditions that could affea future management. The initial evaluation began with a survey of available information from previous staff work, library sources and other agencies. Information on soils, land use and land own- ership, along with other types of data, were entered into the GIS as base information for maps, overlays and statistics to aid decision-making. The staff soils scientist evaluated soil types on the reser- vadon and classified them as to whether they were physically capable of producing crops under sustained irrigation. The agricultural engineer then used this soil information to deter- mine where irrigation would be feasible, based on engineer- ing and economic criteria. The staff hydrologist evaluated stream flow and ground- water data to determine the amount of water actually available in the relevant basins. Scenarios were developed tor the different levels of irrigation that would result from dif- ferent water use efficiencies. On the Tongue River, the staff concluded that 4,027 acres could be irrigated on the Reservation, with a cost benefit ratio of 1 : 1 or better. RWRCC's negotiating team accepted this rado as a criterion of an economically feasible irrigation system. The amount of water necessary to irrigate these projects was estimated to be 10,497 acre feet per year. Litde of this acreage is being irrigated at the present. On the Rosebud, a complete FIL analysis was not per- formed because suflicient water was not available. A prelimi- nary engineering review determined that any currently nonirrigated land could only be served by partial service irrigadon, which most likely would be uneconomical. n. RWRCC GEOGRAPHIC INFORMAHON SYSTEM A. Histon' of RWRCC Geographic Information S^'Stem TTie Compaa Commission purchased its first land management system, a Linear Measurement Set (LMS), in 1 982-83. The LMS consisted of an Apple 1 1 computer, color monitor, video camera, light uble, linear measuring tablet and printer. This s>'stem analyzed aerial photography to determine geographic and hydrologic information con- cerning arable and irrigated lands. In 1986 it became apparent to the RWRCC staff that the LMS was outdated and that a more accurate system would h)e required to effectively analyze natural resource informadon for the Compaa Commission. After consider- able research, a geographic information hardware/software s\'stem was selected tliat would enhance staff efficiency and fiinctionalit)'. This system has become known as the Re- served Water Rights Compaa Commission Geographic Informadon Svstem (RWRCC-GIS). B. GIS Capabilities As discussed in Chapter I, Geographic Informadon Systems (GIS) store, retrieve, manipulate and analyze re- source data in a digital format. This type of system enables the RWRCC staff to relate different types of spadal data, to idenufy spatial reladonships, model existing data for the interpretation of "what if..." scenarios and to compare past, present and potential conditions. The GIS can generate maps that provide concise visual representations of geo- graphic information that are required when working in negotiation scenarios. This system also allows modeling and analyzing alternative assumptions before final decisions are made. A large amount of data manipulation is required to provide RWRCC memben with the most concise, accurate and up-to-date scenarios for making decisions in the nego- tiation of federal and Indian reserved water rights in Mon- tana. The RWRCC has used a GIS since 1987 to analyze land and water resource information related to federal and Indian reservations. The RWRCC-GIS was used to evaluate the reserved water rights for the Northern Cheyenne Reservation. Infor- mation compiled by the RWRCC or received from outside sources and stored in the RWRCC-GIS included polygonal data (such as soils and lakes) , linear dau (roads, streams and canals), and point data (wells, springs and stream gages). C. Database The database created for the Northern Cheyenne analysis was developed in sections and each section was based on 1 :24,000 base topographic maps. The Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation encompasses an area of aj>- proxi ma tely 445,000 acres and 27 sectional 1 :24,000 quad- rangles. Mylar maps were used to avoid the amount of distortion that is inherent in paper maps. This sectional design and scale provided easy data accessibility. 1. GIS Data Geographic data compiled for use in Northern Chey- enne negotiations were divided into two categories: (1) data currently available within the RWRCC-GISand (2) data on 9-track tape and available through conversion when nec- essary. Readily available data were converted or digitized into the GIS for data analysis. The data currently in the RWRCC-GIS pertain to soils, political boundaries and elevation. Soils units were previously digitized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) using maps compiled by the Soil Con- servation Service (SCS). Although this information was available, die RWRCC did not use it b)ecause the original field sheets were not geometrically correaed before the digitization process. This produced distortion errors that would have limited the accuracy of area calculations needed in a soil analysis of this size and importance. Through discussion with SCS staff members in Bozeman, it was agreed chat SCS would re »-( L 0 • • -0 c « c c - ^ C 3 _J N • 9 0 C • VOQ • 0 o t. • '>' — 0 X C 0 i« _«,> 2: 00 -» • 0 LU 1. - CO ■— .*-» 0 0 c — L 0 0 -*j M LU (• • > c c Gt 1 1. x I. 0 0 C 9 -. » ^ e • — > I- « C E 0 0 • 0 0 0 Q£ z o: z: 0 0 • 1 1 1 s • J a > LO CD tizcd by RWRCC stiff and mcorporated into the GIS. The SCS currently is in the process of updating many of its less accurate soil maps into corrected soil sheets. The Northern Che\'enne Reservation will be incorporated into a published soil report in the future, but is not available at this time. Political boundaries digitized into the RWRCC-GIS included the Northern Cheyenne Reservation boundary and the Rosebud and Bighorn County boundaries within the reservation. The Northern Cheyenne Reservation boundary was entered into the GIS as depicted on 1 :24,000 topographic maps. HKiM, Incorporated, an engineering firm in Billings, Montana, was hired for the Northern Cheyenne Tribe to perform various contracted services. One of those services was to identify 100 and 300 foot lift lines from both the Tongue River and Rosebud Creek. "Lift" denotes a specific elevation from a water source and is used primarily in ag- ricultural engineering. This information, along with infor- mation pertaining to irrigated lands, dry arable lands and "prime and important" lands, was provided to the RWRCC and used as part of the RWRCC's soil, agricultural and hydrologic analyses. Land resource information was obtained from the BLA Denver and Billings offices. These data were digitized by the BLA from 1:24,000 scale quadrangle maps and were com- pletely compatible with our database. The data were not entered into the GIS, but stored on 9-tnck upe. Tape storage simplified the database by keeping non-essential data out ofthe GIS. This provided easier and quicker access to essential data. Data stored on upe and available if needed pertains to: 1) Farmland 2) L-and Ownership 3) Roads 4) Range Water 5) Springs 6) Digital Elevation Models 7) Lakes and Reservoirs 8) Public Land Survey 9) Range Unit Boundaries 10) Soils 1 1 ) Streams 2. Maps Generated on the GIS The RWRCC staff has prepared various types of maps identifying specific data relationships within the Northern Cheyenne reservation. The most important maps are sum- marized in Appendix A. 3- Other maps used in analysis Maps compiled by the RWRCC in the early 1980s were used to a small degree in the current analyses. They also are listed in Appendix A. 4. Non-RWRCC maps Maps available from other sources and used by RWRCC staff arc also listed and described in Appendix A. Glossary- Conversion Database Digirizadon As used in this report, a computer process whereby a program or data file is changed so that it will run on a different computer. A collection of data organized for rapid search and retrieval (i.e. by a computer). The process whereby data is converted from map x,y points into a computer file of x,y points through use of a hardware equipment known as a "digitizer." iVIap Distortion The error produced when map and earth coordinates do not match within a specified error distance. Geometrical Correction CIS Topographic A process whereby coordinates on a map are adjusted to correspond to their true geographic location on the earth. Abbreviation for Geographic Informa- tion System; a system to efficiently store, retrieve, manipulate, analyze and display spatial data in a user specified format. Pertains to the configuration ofthesurface of the earth (i.e. elevation, natural and/or man-made features). m. LAND RESOURCES The Tongue River and Rosebud Creek drainages have four major physiographic soil areas. They are ( 1 ) floodplains and low terraces, (2) fans, terraces and uplands, (3) sedimen- tary uplands and (4) dissected sedimentary uplands. The elevation ranges from about 2,800 to 3,800 feet. The average annual precipitation in the river valleys ranges from 10 to 14 inches. The frost free period is 105 to 130 days. A more detailed description of these areas can be found in Appendix B. A. Procedures for Land Classification 1 . Definidon and Purpose Several agencies make soil surveys or land classi fications to show the kinds of soil that occur in an area. After all the soil characteristics are known, a land classification guide is developed to categorize the soils into the appropriate land class for the intended use. Several agencies have developed guides for classifying soils for irrigation purposes. A brief explanation of the most widely-used methods is provided in Appendix C. Land classification of arable lands for irrigation involves the systematic examination, description, appraisal and grouping of soils on the basis of physical and chemical characteristics affecdng suitability for sustained crop pro- duction under irrigation. Selection ofland for irrigation also involves prediction of the behavior of soils after develop- ment and application of irrigation water. All factors for an individual area are evaluated and delineations are made separating the land into different land classes. The purpose of the land classification system developed by the RWRCC Soil Scientist is to determine the extent and degree of suitability of land for irrigation. Soil units are grouped into interpretative classes, based upon relative ca- pability for sustained crop production under irrigation. This classification also provides an inventory ofland characteris- tics and identifies potential problems that may occur with irrigation. 2. Land Classification Land class indicates the general capability ofland for irrigation usein its present state. Land classes are based upon the rating and assessment of the soil properties and topo- graphic features that affect the suitability of the land for irrigation. Land within a land class is consistent, or nearly consistent, in its potential to be developed and in its response to a similar level of management. Land classes 1 , 2 and 3 are arable and suitable for irrigation. Class 6 land is nonarable and not suited for irrigation. Classes 4 and 5 are not used in this report, since these lands are limited to rare or unique situations requiring special studies. The limitations or haz- ards become progressively greater from class 1 to class 6. The land classification process depends on die experi- ence and judgement of soil scientists, based on observations of land conditions and supported by laboratory data and field studies. 3. Land Classes Class 1 - Arable Land in this class is well suited for irrigatedagriculturewithfewsignificant limitations. Class 1 land is capable of producing a high yield of a wide range of climatically adapted crops. The soils are of a medium tex- ture, well drained, and hold adequate available moisture. Class 1 land is level to nearly level. This class is suitable for irrigation by gravity and sprinkler methods. Class 2 -Arable: Land in this class is suited for irrigated agriculture with moderate limitations. Slightly more devel- opment and management may be required for Class 2 land than for Class 1 land, such as growing protective cover crops, contouring, and installing small drainage ditches. The land can be maintained or improved with proper management The soils in this class may be slowly permeable due to fine texture or soil structure deterioration. The available water capacity may be lower due to coarse texture or limited soil depth. Drainage may be somewhat restricted. Class 2 land is level to gently sloping or undulating. Land in this class is suitable for irrigation by gravity or sprinkler methods. Class 3 - Arable: Land in this class is suited for irrigated agriculture with severe limitations. The deficiencies may be due to a single condition or a combination of several condi- tions in soils and topographic features. The soils may be limited by excess salinity, sodicity, slow permeability or low water capacity. Surface or subsurface drainage may be restricted. A higher level of management is required, such as light, frequent irrigations or more intensive soil conserva- tion and improvement practices (terracing and installation of extensive drainage facilities) than for Class 2 land. Class 3 land may be level to strongly sloping. l.and in this class is suitable for irrigation by gravity (0 to 8 percent slopes) or sprinkler methods. Class 6 - Nonarable: This land may be steep, dissected, eroded, or may have soils with very poor structure, coarse texture, excess salinity or sodidty, poor drainage, only a shallow thickness over sand and gravel or bedrock, or may have other deficiencies not feasible to improve. Class 6 land may surround areas of Class 1 to Class 3 land which cannot be separated due to the small size of the delineation at the scale used in mapping. The arable land class for each mapping unit in the Tongue River and Rosebud Creek areas was determined by using the RWRCC Land Classification Specifications in Appendix D. The soil survey of Rosebud County Area and part of Big Hom County, Montana, completed in 1985 by the Soil Conservation Service, provided the basic data. Descriptions of individual soil mapping units are given in Appendix E. B. Arable Lands The amount of arable land in the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation was calculated for theTongue River and Rosebud Creek areas. TheTongue River part was calculated for three areas: (1) within che seven USGS topographic maps encompassing the Tongue River (Ashland NE, Ashland, Green Ocek, Garfield Peak, Hollowwood Creek, Clubfoot Creek, Bimey Day School), (2) 300 foot vertical lift from theTongue River and (3) 1 00 foot vertical lift from the Tongue River. The Rosebud Oeek area was calculated for the 300 and 1 00 foot vertical lift. The 1 00 foot and 300 foot areas were delineated by HKM Associates on its Arable Lands map. Areas in other parts of the reservation were not calculated because the amount of water available was not enough to irrigate beyond che 300 foot lift distance from the Tongue River and Rosebud Creek. The following acreages were generated by the RWRCC CIS from criteria established by the RWRCC staff. Data used for these calculations were received from SCS and BLA. NORTHERN CHEYENNE INDIAN RESERVATION Total soil acreage within the reservation = 445,482. Totalsoilacreagewithin 7quadsonTongucrivcr= 130,705. Total soil acreage within 300 foot lift of Tongue river = 49,025. ARABLE LANDS ANALYSIS • Tongue River 7 Quad area- 300 Foot Lft 100 Fooc Lift Tongue River distance line distance line RWRCC Class 1 2,493 AC. 1,821 AC. 1,798 AC. RWRCC Class 2 8,427 AC. 5,905 AC. 4243 AC. RWRCC Class 3 15,033 AC 6,982 AC. 2.556 AC Total Arable 25,953 AC. 14,708 AC. 8,597 AC. Lands Rosebud Creek 300 Foot Lift 100 Foot Lift distance line distance line RWRCC Class 1 2,685 AC 2,051 AC RWRCC Class 2 9,582 AC. 6,610 AC. RWRCC Class 3 7.788 AC 2,693 AC Total Arabic Lands 20325 AC 11 ,254 AC. 10 Bibliography U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservacion Service in cooperation with Montana Agriculture Experiment Sta- tion. 1 985. Soil Survey ofRosebud County Areaand Part of Big Horn County, Montana. Lewis A. Daniels and others. Unpublished. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1982. Reclamation Instruc- tions: Irrigauon. ,\nderson, Arial, January 18, 1990. Land Classification Specifications for Irrigation Suitability. Unpublished memo, 8pp. RWRCC, Helena, Montana. Glossary Alluvium Arable land Material such as sand, silt, or clay depos- ited on land by streams. In this document, land that could provide enough income to warrant consideration for irrigation development Land classes I through 3 are arable, class 6 is nonarable. Classes 4 and 5 are lands limited to rare or unique situations requir- ing special studies and are not used in this analysis. Available water The capacity of soils to hold water avail- capacity able for use by most plants. Commonly [available defined as the difference between the moisture amount of soil water at field moisture capacity] capacity and the amount at wilting point and commonly expressed as inches of water per inch of soil. Field moisture capacity - the percentage of water remaining in the soil two or three days after having been saturated. Wilting point - the moisture content of soil, on an oven dry basis, at which a plant (specifically sunflower) wilts so much that it does not recover when placed in a hu- mid dark chamber. Bedrock The solid rock that underlies the soil and other unconsolidated matenaJ or that is exposed at the surface. Channery Thin flat fragments of limestone, sand- stone or schist up to 6 inches in diameter Clay A soil textural class containing more than 40 percent clay, less than 45 percent sand and less than 40 percent silt Colluvium Soil, rock fragments, or both, moved by creep, slide, or local wash and deposited at the bases of steep slopes. Complex soil Twoor more kinds of soil occurring in such an intricate pattern diat they cannot be shown separately on a soil map. Depth to rock The distance from soil surface to bedrock. Eolian Material transported by wind. Includes earth materials ranging from dunesands to silty loess deposits and volcanic ash. Flooding The temporary covering of soil with water from overflowing streams or runoff fi"om adjacent slopes. Average frequency and probable dates of occurrence are estimated. Frequency is expressed as rare, occasional, or frequent. Rare means chat it floods less than once in ten years; occasional chat it floods once in two to ten years; and fre- quent that it floods once every two years. Probable dates are expressed in months; May and June, for example, means that flooding can occur during this time. Flood plain A nearly level alluvial plain that borders a stream and is subject to flooding unless artificially proteaed. Irrigable land Arable laridunderaspecific plan for which a water supply is or can be made available, and which is provided with, or planned to be provided with, irrigation, drainage, flood protection, and other facilities as nec- essary for sustained irrigation. (Bureau of Reclamation) 11 I^ent material The unconsolidated organic and mineral material from which soil forms. Permcabilitv Residuum [residual soil material] Sand Sedimentary rock Silt Slope Sodicity Soil The quality of the soil that enables water to move downward through the profile. Per- meability is measured as the number of inches per hour that water moves down- ward through the saturated soiL Terms describing permeability arc very slow [less than 0.06 inch], slow [0.06 to 0.2 inch], moderately slow [0.2 to 0.6 inch], moderate [0.6 to 2.0 inches), moderately rapid [2.0 to 6.0 inches], rapid [6.0 to 20 inches], and very rapid [more than 20 inches]. Unconsolidated, weathered or partly weathered mineral material that accumu- lated as consolidated rock disintegrated in place. Soil mineral particles from 2.0 to 0.5 mm in diameter. Rock made up of particles deposited from suspension in water. The chief kinds of sedimentary rock are conglomerate, formed from gravel; sandstone, formed from sand; shale, formed from clav, and limestone, formed from soft masses of cal- cium carbonate. There are many interme- diate t)pes. Some wind-deposited sand is consolidated into sandstone. Soil mineral particles 0.002 to 0.05 mm in diameter. The degree of deviation of a surface from horizontal, measured in percent or de- grees. The degree to which a soil is afFeaed by exchangeable sodium. Sodicity is ex- pressed as a sodium absorption ratio (SAR) of a saturated extract. Material at the earth's surface that is capable of supporting plants and has properties resulting from the effca of cli- mate and living matter acting on earthy parent material over periods of time. Soil Depth The depth in inches from the surface to a root impeding layer in the soil. The fol- lowing classes are used to express soil depth. Deep more than 40 inches deep. Moderately deep.... 20 to 40 inches deep. Shallow. 10 to 20 inches deep. Soil Profile A vertical section of the soil extending through all its horizons and into the par- ent material. Soil Series A group of soils with profiles that are al- most alike, except for differences in tex- ture of the surface layer or of the underly- ing material. All the soils of a series have horizons that are similar in composition, thickness and arrangement. Soil Structure The arrangement of soil particles. Dete- rioration can result from too much water, compaction by heavy machinery, effea of heavy rain on bare soil and excess sodium. Soil Texture The relative proportions of sand, silt and clay particles, in a mass of soil. TTic basic textural classes, in order of increasing pro- portion of fine particles are sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, loam, silt, silt loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay and clay. The sand, loamy sand and sandy loam classes may be fiirther divided by specifying "coarse," fine, or very hne. Terrace An old alluvial plain, ordinarily flat or undulating, bordering a river or a lake. Uplaiid Landatahigherelevation, in general, than the alluvial plain or stream terrace; land above the lowlands along streams. Vertical lift Vertical distance from water source. 12 IV WATER RESOURCES A. Tongue River 1 . Basin Characteristics The Tongue River headwaters originate in W»'oming's Bighorn Mountains. Annual precipitation in the Bighorn Mounuins at elevations around 1 3,000 feet averages over 25 inches and occurs primarilyas wintersnowfall and spring rainfall. Flows peak in May and June — the time of major snowmelt runofF(see figure 1 ). Litde of the discharge enters the river in Montana. The Northern Cheyenne Reservation lies in Montana about 60 miles downstream (northeast) from the base of the Bighorn Mountains. The Tongue River forms the Reservations 47-mile eastern boundary. Here, the river dissects plateaus and benches up to 4,400 feet in elevation. .Annual precipitation in theTongue River valley averages 12 to 14 inches. Seasonal and year-to-year variations are high. Prior to the construction of the Tongue River Dam, the river had summer flows near zero at its mouth on several occa- sions (Woessner et aJ. 1981). In contrast, the largest flood occurred at the end of May, 1978, with flows over 7,000 cubic feet per second The Tongue River enters the Yellow- stone River near Miles City. The Tongue River Reservoir with a storage capacity of about 69,000 acre-feet, lies 37 river miles upstream from the Reservation. Since the 1978 flood, which damaged its spill- way, it is operated at about 40,000 acre-feet storage capacity for safety reasons. 2. Streamflows The uses gage na 06306300, at die Montana/Wyo- ming border, has been in operation since 1 961 . The river at this point drains about 1,480 square miles with about 64,300 irrigated acres and 1 5,000 acre-feet combined vol- ume of small reservoirs (USGS, 1988). To come up with a representative set of data, synthetic streamflows for the 1 929- 1 960 period {Systems Technology, 1 984) were added to the existi ng record. The flows exceeded 50 and 80 percent of time during a water year are as follows (see also figure 1 ): Tongue River Percentile Flows Month 50% 80% October 14.500 af 10.200 af November 13,149 af 11.126 af December 1 1,000 af 8.610 af January 10.393 af 7.700 af February 9,934 af 7,800 af March 14,944 af 9,700 af April 20,289 af 1 5.767 af May 64,452 af 43.726 af June 88,100 af 42.700 af July 23,124 af 11.193af August 8,300 af 4,100 af September 9,300 af 4,900 af Annual 287.485 af 177,522 af On average, the flows leaving the dam (USGS gage no. 06307500) equal the flows at die state line during the period from October to January, fiom February to June, water is stored in the reservoir and released from July to September to supply irrigation needs (see figure 2). On the stretch of the river between the dam and Miles City (USGS gage no. 06308500), the flow is usually stable from October to December. During January to April, flows at Miles City exceed flows leaving the dam with biggest gains in March. Irrigation ofabout 21,000 acres (DNRC, 1981) and natural evapo transpiration account for net losses during the May to September period (see figure 3). In general, flows at Miles City are lower than the dam releases during the May to September irrigation period and higher from October to April (see figure 4). The highest measured volume deficit (flows at Miles City minus flows leaving the dam) peaked at about 72,000 acre-feet during the 1959 and 1988 May to September irrigation seasons. On a probability basis, during the 1 947- 1 988 period, 80 percent of the time the volume deficit did not exceed 56,000 acre- feet, and 8 percent of the time the flows at Miles City exceeded those leaving the dam during the irrigation season (figure 5). A comprehensive seepage run was conducted on the Tongue River between the dam and Miles City in November 13 Figure 1 Monthly Volumes at State Line, Tongue River 1929-1960 reconstituted flows, 1961-1988 measured flows 100000 90000 80000 =■ 70000 c o S 60000- >• 50000 40000 30000 20000- 10000 Row* axc««d«d 50% ol rh« itna Flows 8xc0e<)ed 80% ol ih« ims zi.r. *••♦»••• i- ■:::i:::::tT:~::i. -t — ^1 ■<■ JZ rrr: rtntr g 2 IS 5- o Z Month Figure 2 Monthly VolurriB Differences Between State Line and Dam, 1961-1988, Tongue River 14 E ■ 60000 50000 4OO00 30000 - -40000 B Majr ro*ease *l 3 C E >• s « E O > Figure 3 Monthly Volume Ditterences Between Miles City and Dam, 1947-1988, Tongue River 80000- 70000 -f 60000 50000 =m 1 S Max loss/min gam g Average loss/gain □ Max gain/min loss Negative values mean consumed and lost water Positive values mean gained water -40000 e Z E a < 3 < Montti Figure 4 TWO SEASON VOLUME DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TONGUE RIVER DAM AND MILES CITY MAY THROUGH SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER THROUGH APRIL 200000 180000 U 1 60000 - •■• 1 40000 - - 1 20000 - •• •ooooo- i ■• 80000- 60000 - • I - 40000 -t^ 20000- 0- -20000-1 -40000 - • ■60000- • 80000 •100000- □ May -SeotemOer (irrigation season) § Octot»r - Aoril (no or iitDe irngatran) NegaDve values mean consumed ana lost water PosiDve values mean gamed water ....:... 4—-o-^ ■»4-"4»-4-- fM rt V »n ^o ■*■ a> Sao o $ 9 ^ 9 O^ 0k Ok O) oi oi Year 15 Figure 5 Probability Distribution of Water Volume Change Between Miles City and Dam Irrigation season May- September, 1947-1988, Tongue River E ■ •a > m 3 c 1 o 40000 30000 20000 e > Vo*(w*«n Mil*s CJty and dam s waier consumM. lost and gained (d)v«rsions. daplcoont, rvtum iViws. ovaporation. and surfac* and gniunowalar njroH). Psfoent at 8me volume of water consumed/lost equaJs or exceeds the given vaJue. (••0.. 92% of Dme mere is a net loss; 8% ol ame net gain, and 20% of ame net loss exceeds 56.000 af) y . - 8.171S»M * 1957.5X - 38.949x«2 . 0.29S45x*3 R'2 • 0.963 100 Figure 6 Tongue River - Groundwater Discharge into the River (Nov. 2-5, 1977) j ■ \ ' \ \ ' i ' ! ' -10 ■20 i I ! I i u i i TTTjTTTT ...j...:-..i...j."i"* iO-i * ie to 7,500 acre-feet of water from the Tongue River Reservoir. Also, 30 cubic feet per second (9,075 acre-feet from May to Septem- ber) with a priority date of March 24, 1 909 was allocated to the Northern Cheyenne Tribe in the Miles City Decree. However, the Tribe does not recognize the decree as a legiti- mate quantification of its water right. The Northern Chey- enne Reservation was established by an Executive Order issued on March 19, 1900; it is presumed by the RWRCC negotiating team that this would be the likely priority date assigned to the Tribe in an adjudication of its reserved right The present system wi th the reservoir works well for the other existing users primarily because the Tribe doesn't fully use its contraa water or its share of the Miles City Decree water (around 500 acres are presently irrigated on the Res- ervation). Shortages are none or minimal even during the driest years (Mobley, 1990). If the irrigation season flow volume difference between the dam and Miles City is used as a surrogate for water demand, then 50 percent of the time water demand doesn't exceed 44,000 acre-feet and 80 per- cent of time it doesn't exceed 56,000 acre-feet (see Figure 5) . 6. Water Availability and Modeling The water availability issue on the Tongue River is complicated by the existence of the Yellowstone Compact, which apportions water between Montana and Wyoming. Under the terms of the Compact, Wyoming is en ti ded to 40 percent of the "unallocated flow" (the water left after servic- ing all Montana and ^oming pre- 1950 rights) at Miles City. Wyoming initially assened a right to 26,900 acre-feet of "supplemental water" for its pre- 1 950 projects with par- tial irrigation service. In 1 984 Systems Technology, under a contraa with the DNRC, developed a water allocation model and a projea yield analysis model to determine Montana's share of allo- cable water and firm annual yield from the Tongue River Reservoir. The project yield analysis model was updated in 1 990 to correspond to different scenarios of water alloca- tion between the private water users represented by the Tongue River Water Users Association and the Northern Chevenne Tribe. Initial computer runs used a hypothetical scenario in which W'oming used all of its allocable and claimed supple- mental water (29,000 acre-feet), the existing Montana de- mand was estimatedat 83,200 acre-feet, and the fimi annual yield from the enlarged, 80,300 acre-feet reservoir was predicted to be around 5 5,000 acre-feet (Anderson, Bucher, 1990). The estimate of the existing demand was a high, worst-case scenario; the hypothetical demand of 83,200 acre-feet of water used in the model is higher than the 72,500 acre-feet highest recorded flow volume diflFerence between the dam and Miles City. Eighty percent of the time the depletions do not exceed 56,000 acre-feet and it is improbable that Wyoming would develop all 29,000 acre- feet of its claimed water. Therefore, on a probability basis, more water would be available most of the time because of a lower demand. Wyoming's unused water could be available as well (see Figures 7 and 8). In a hypothetical scenario in which Wyo- ming does not use any of its claimed water and using 80th percentile depletions (56,000 acre-feet), the reservoir firm annual yield would significandy increase, depending on uses. The firm annual yield also changes with different sce- narios of water use; for example, a year-round industrial use puts less demand on the reservoir than agricultural use during a 5-month irrigadon season (Anderson, Bucher, 1 990). Subsequent computer analysis that used Wyoming's revi sed claim for supplemental depletions ( 1 8, 700 acre-feet) and the highest recorded Montana irrigation demand of 72,500 acre-feet resulted in a new firm annual vield estimate of 62,200 acre-feet of water (McDonald, 1 990). Use of 80 percentile flows and 80 percentile depletions in the calcula- tions indicates a large water reserve (see Fgure 7); however, it is not dear how much of that water would actually be available: not all ofit can be stored, and timing and quantity of uses throughout the year can makesignificant difl^erences. The analysis merely indicates that significandy more water may beavailable on a probability basis, dependingon timing and kind of use. In July, even the pre- 1 900 existing uses from the Miles City Decree exceed the 80th percentile state line flows by 4,686 acre-feet and by 1 1 ,779 acre-feet in August, even if a 35 percent irrigation reuse of return flows is assumed. Thus, there is no direct flow left for the Tribe during July and August if 1900 is used as a priority date for theTribe. Only 18 Figure 7 Annual Runoff, 80% Flow - Tongue River 800000 700000- n is assumed that 35 perceni ot Ihe Tribe's agricultural claim ol 70.315 a< and 10 percent ot the RWRCC's agncuHural proposal ol 13.300 al would be reused. No additional Wyoming depletions are considered. Figure 8 Annual Runoff, Extremes - Tongue River 800000 700000 - It IS assumed thai 35 percent ol Ihe Tnbes agncultural dam o« 70.315 al arxl 10 perceni ol ihe RWRCC's agncullural proposal ol 13.300 al would be reused No addrtional Wyoming depleiions are considered 19 a pre- 1 886 priori ty date ensures a dirca flow water right for anyone in July and Ai^ust. (Ai^ust 9, 1 886 is the prioriry date for the Tongue and Yellowstone Irrigation District on the Tongue River. It operates a ditch, which irrigates ap- proximately 9,000 acres of land in the lower Tongue River basin, with a decreed water right of 187.5 cubic feet per second.) peaks usually during spring snowmelt in March and April. A second, lesser magnitude peak occurs in June during early summer rainfalls (see Figure 9). Bascflow conditions prevail through summer and early fall. Two principal tributaries, Lame Deer and Muddy creeks, enter the Rosebud on the Rcscrvarion. Their flows are usually near Tero during late July and August. B. Rosebud Creek 1. Basin Characteristics The headwatersofRosebud Creek originate in the Wolf Mountains, a sedimentary upland with maximum elevation of 5,400 feet. The aeek flows through the Northern Chey- enne Reservation for about 73 milcsand then for about 132 miles through private land until it empties into the Yellow- stone River. Rosebud Creek isa perennial, prairiestream. Nosignifi- cant snowpack develops in the Wolf Mountains. RunoflF The creek dissects a semi-arid rangeland and forms a valleyapproximatcly 0.6 miles wide. Average annual precipi- tation ranges from 1 2 to 1 7 inches. Alfalfa, hay and grain arc major crops. Very few irrigation systems have been devel- oped on Rosebud Creek; most of the crops receive sub- irrigadon and natural flooding (Woessncr, ct al. 1981, Griffith, Holnbeck, 1 982). No major reservoirs exist on die creek. 2. Streamflows Most or all flow accumulates upstream from USGS gage no. 06295250 at Colstrip near the nonhcm reservation boundary. Flow at the northern reservation boundary is Figure 9 Monthly Volumes - Rosebud Creek 1938-1973 reconstituted flows, 1974-1988 measured flows 4000 I 2500 I 20 about 98 percent of the creek's flow at its mouth. Flow at the Colstrip gage is about 106 percent of that at the mouth (Woessner, et al. 1981, Saul, 1988). Consumption by irri- gation and riparian vegeution and a lack ot appreciable groundwater discharge into the creek downstream from Colstrip reduce saeamflows by the time the creek reaches the Yellowstone River. To develop a representative period of record, a 1938 to 1974 period of record was synthesized for the USGS gage no. 06295250 (drainage area 799 square miles) at Colstrip and added to measured streamflows from 1974 to 1988 (Holnbeck, 198 la, Saul, 1988). The same was done for the USGS gage no. 06296003 (drainage area 1302 square miles) at the creeks mouth near Rosebud. The flows that were exceeded 50 and 80 percent of time are shown in the table below (also see Figure 9). On average, the stretch of the Rosebud Creek between Colstrip and its mouth is a slightly losing reach. From October to April, the mean monthly flows at the two gages are roughly equal. During irrigation and growing season. May to September, significant losses occur. Based on a seepage run conduaed by Morrison Maierle Inc in November 1977, there is significant groundwater discharge (about 0.14 cubic-feet per second per mile) into Rosebud Creek in the 32-mile upstream reach extending down to Busbv (Woessner, et al. 1981). When effects of Muddy and Lame Deer Creeks were subtraaed, the down- stream reach fi-om Busby to the mouth showed a slight loss. The higher elevation coal and clinker aquifers flanking Rosebud Creek and its tributaries in the southern portion of the Northern Cheyenne Reservation are the major con- tributors of the groundwater inflow. 3. Groundwater As in the Tongue River basin, only the alluvial and the deep Madison aquifer can provide yield high enough to be used for inigation (Woessner, et aJ. 1981). Because of its depth (around 6,000 feet), high temperature and high ion concentrauon, the Madison aquifer probably would not be an economicaJ source for irrigation water. The alluvial aqui- fer could provide water for irrigarion; however, withdrawal of water from the alluvium would reduce Rosebud Creek streamflows. An alluvial well used to supply water for an irrigation center pivot on the reservadon may intercept the creek's flow after several days of pumping (Holnbeck, 1981b) and dius immediately lower surface water supply Poor quality and low yield in late summer would probably restrict irrigation use of alluvial groundwater (Griffith, Holnbeck, 1982). The clinker and coal aquifers, with maximum mea- sured yield of 50 gallons per minute, (Woessner, et al. 1 98 1 ) provide enough water for domesdc and stock water use, but not enough for irrigarion. Rosebud Creek Percentile Flowrs Month 50% 80% at Colstrip 50% 80% at moudi Oaober 363 af 121 af 484 af 182 af November 595 af 298 af 4l7af 119af December 484 af 121 af 424 af 182 af January 726 af 303 af 484 af 182 af February 1.403 af 444 af 1,998 af 553 af March 3.691 af 1,452 af 3.751 af 1,331 af April 2,737 af 1.131 af 2.975 af 940 af May 2.662 af 1,089 af 1,876 af 605 af June 2.023 af 1,131 af 2.321 af 883 af July 1,694 af 484 af 666 af 242 af August 726 af 121 af 363 af 121 af September 476 af 60 af 298 af Oaf Annual 1 7.620 af 6.753 af 16.054 af 5.291 af 21 4. Existing Irrigation Review of 1 980 aerial photographs, infrared photogra- phy and water resources data resulted in the following dis- tinaions between lands on the Rosebud north of the North- em Cheyenne Reservation: 1 . sprinkler irrigation; 2. surface irrigation, including all methods of application such as border dikes and ditches, which generally re- ceive at least one application a year, 3. partial service irrigation which receives some water on an intermittent basis; 4. naturally subirrigated cropland, based on deep rooted crops (alfalfa); 5. naturally subirrigated riparian areas which are not cropped; 6. formerly irrigated cropland which has been irrigated in the past but is now in dryland crops; and 7. formerly irrigated lands now idle and not being used as cropland. Irrigation occurring in 1 980 was calculated at approxi- mately the following levels for each of these categories: 1. sprinkler irrigated 0 acres 2. surface irrigation 1,960 acres 3. partial -service irrigation 322 acres 4. naturally subirrigated cropland 3,805 acres 5. naturally subirrigated riparian areas 453 acres 6. formerly irrigated cropland now in dryland crops 1,188 acres 7. formerly irrigated, idle 0 acres The method used to obtain these acreages does not give precise results, but does show the irrigation practices for this area in 1980. More accurate information could be obtained from detailed field work. Because of low flows and poor quality of water during summer and fall, all irrigation in the Rosebud Creek basin is partial service. No one irrigates after mid-July. Irrigators cooperate and usually only tfiree diversions operate simul- taneously (GrifFidi, Holnbeck. 1982). A field survey by former RWRCC staff members indi- cated about 1 ,900 acres were served by irrigation systems downstream from the northern Reservation boundary in 1981 (Griffith, Holnbeck, 1982). About one-third of these acres also benefited from natural flooding; most of them also benefited from natural sub- irrigation (high water table). Around 1 ,600 acres received a second irrigation that year. Pumpingwas used 88 percentandgravity diversions 12 percent for thesecond irrigation. Reduced streamflows were the main reason for pumping (Griffith, Holnbeck, 1982). The first application consisted mosdy of natural flooding upstream and from gravity diversion downstream from West Rosebud Creek. Acres totally dependent on natural sub-irrigation were not calculated. The estimate of irrigated acreage south of the northern reservation boundary, both on and off the Reservation, ranges from 300 acres (Woessner, et al. 1981) to 543 acres (Water Resources Survey, 1947). 5. Water Availability Rosebud Creek is almost a fully used system. In 1 980 it supported panial service irrigation for about 6,000 acres, most of which are dependent on sub-irrigation. There is a very small amount of additional water available during March and April for early first irrigation applications. How- ever, development of new irrigation systems just for one application probably would be economically infeasible (Greiman, 1 990) and would reduce the flow, thus probably forcing some downstream irrigators to change their diver- sion structures. Any other irrigation development, potential reservoirs included, could adversely afFea existing practices by stopping the natural flooding and changing the sub- irrigation water table (Colder, 1990). Barring development of the Madison aquifer. Rosebud Creek basin does not have enough water for significant development of irrigation systems on the reservation, even if all off-Reservation irrigation south of the northern reser- vation boundary would cease (see Hgure 10).The total flow of Rosebud Creek at the northern reservation boundary exceeded 80 percent of the time for the May to September irrigation season amounts to about 2,800 acre-feet Figure 10 PROPOSED DIVERSIONS AND 80% EXCEEDANCE FLOWS ROSEBUD CREEK NEAR NORTHERN RESERVATION BOUNDARY 14000- Bibliography Anderson, Roben, and William Buchcr. 1 990. Tongue River Modeling Scudy - Final Report, Draft. Helena, Montana. Montana Department of Natural Resources and Gjnserva- tion. 1 98 1 . The Tongue River Rehabilitation Projea. Hel- ena, Montana. Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conserva- tion. 1985. Tongue River Dam Study. Planning rejxirt and preliminary environmental review. Helena, Montana. Colder, Nick. Rancher, Forsyth, Montana. April 6, 1990. Letter to Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission. Helena, Montana. Griffidi, Earl E, and Steven R. Holnbcck. 1982. Rosebud Creek Irrigation Survey. Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. Heleru, Montana. Holnbeck, Steven R. 1 98 1 a. Stochastic approach to stream- flow synthesis for Rosebud Qeek. Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. Helena, Montana. Holnbcck, Scevcn R. 1981b. Memorandum to Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission. Helena, Montana. McDonald, Glen. DNRC Supervisor of the Projea Reha- biliution Section. 1990. Personal conversation with Igor Suchomel, RWRCC Hydrologisi. Helena, Montana. Mobley, Herb. Rancher, Ashland, Montana. 1990. Personal conversation with Igor Suchomel, R^TICC Hydrologist. Helena, Montana. State Engineer and State Conservation Board. 1947. Water Resources Survey. Helena, Montana. Saul, Lynda. 1988. Final report on Rosebud Creek, Draft. Reserved Water Rights Compaa Commission. Helena, Montana. Systems Technology Inc. 1984. Tongue River Reservoir Projea. Projea Yield Analysis. Helena, Montana. United States Geological Survey. 1988. Water Resources Data, Montana. Helena, Montana. Woessncr, WW and others. 1 98 1 . Hydrologic impacts from potential coal mining - Northern Cheyenne Reservation, Volume I. Oflice of Research and Development - United Sutcs Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati, Ohio. Glossary Evapotranspiration A water loss due co evaporarion from a water surface and consumption by veg- eution. Exceedance Water flows, the quantity of which repeats flows or is exceeded a given percentage of the time. If 30 acre-feet is the May 80th per- centile exceedance flow, then 30 acre-feet was met or exceeded 80 percent of the time in May during the period the flows were measured; if the period was 1 0 years, then the 30 acre-feet flows were met or exceeded 8 years (see percentile flows, probability flows). Firm annual An estimate of the maximum volume of yield water than can be released from a reservoir every year. It depends on reservoir inflows and downstream direct flow demands. Groundwater Water entering a stream from its banks discharge and bed. Losing reach A stream reach with flows decreasing downstream. Miles City A 1914 district court adjudication of all Decree existing water rights on the mainstem of the Tongue River. Natural A flooding caused by overflow of a stream flooding channel. No diversion means are used. Percentile flows (See exceedance flows) Probability flows (See exceedance flows) Reconstituted Statistically created strcamflow records for flows streams with no or few flow measure- ments. Retum flow Excess irrigation water returning back to a stream. SB76 Water In 1 979 Senate Bill 76 required the filing right claims of all pre-1973 water rights claims with the DNRC by 1982. These claims are being adjudicated by the Montana Water Courc Seepage run A method of measuring water leaving or entering a stream through its banks and bed. (see groundwater discharge). Sub-irrigation Natural watering due to groundwater dose to field surface. No diversion means are used. Synthesized flows Water year (See reconstituted flows). A year starting in October end ending in September. It represents water runoff and is used in hydrology. 24 V. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS A. Tongue River 1. Feasibly Irrigable Land Analysis DNRCs methcxJ of analyzing feasibly irrigable land (FIL) in the Missouri River Basin was adopted by the Re- served Water Rights Compaa Commission (RWRCQ to determine FIL on Indian reservations in Montana. This method is documented in DNRCs "Methodology Manual for Conservation Districts Water Reservation Applicadon" (DNRC. 1989). The determinadon of RWRCC's FIL is based on a 1 to 1 benefit/cost (B/Q rado. A 1:1 B/C ratio has been estab- lished by the courts as a means of determining tribal water rights for agricultural purposes. Wyoming v. U.S.. 1 09 S. Ct. 2994 (1989). DNRC s method evaluates the probability that a project will generate a specific amount of net annual rev- enue. Numerous conditions affect the economic feasibility of an irrigation development such as crops raised, yield, price, and production costs. Because alfalfa is the most widely raised crop in the study area, it is used to determine feasibility. The crops raised are the basis on which the other factors are determined. Alfalfa yield is assumed to be directly related to its water consumption. Several regional studies (Bauer and others 19-4, Hill 1981. USDI 1983, Wilcox 1978, and Wright 1981) have analyzed yields compared to consumption of water. While each study had slighdy different results, a gen- eral relationship between the consumption of water and alfalfa's potential yield was established. This relationship was used to determine the peak per-acrc yield for aifelfa on the Northern Cheyenne lands. The amount of water consumed by crops in the area was calculated to be 29.1 inches per irrigation season. It was assumed that alfalfa would be grown with an 8-year rotation where alfalfa is grown for the first 7 years followed by 1 year ofsmall-grain production. Alfalfa yieldsare low thefirst year, rapidly increase to a peak, and then gradually decline. These varNing alfalfa yields were estimated by proportion- ing the yields reported in "Optimal Replacement of Alfalfa Stands: A Farm Level Decision Model" (Stauber and Goodman 1986) based on the calculated peak alfalfa yield. At the end of the seventh year, the stand of alfalfa is replaced with a small-grain crop. The following year alfalfa is planted and the cycle begins again. A 70-year planning period is used. The peak vield used in thisstudy is 5.6 tons per acre with an average yield of 4.4 tons per acre. Crop prices are then forecast and these forecasts are com- bined with yield to provide an estimate of gross revenue per acre. This price forecasting is based on a statistical relationship established between alfalfa prices and a number of variables including calf prices, wheat prices, state-wide alfalfa produc- tion, and precipitation. Forecast prices are based on this statis- tical relationship. TTiree hundred forecasts were made in order to encompass as many scenarios as possible. Grain prices were also forecast because the stand is re- placed bv a grain crop in 1 out of8 years. Grain Yields are more constant than alfalfa, so an average yield of 70 bushels per-acre was used. In a year when alfalfa has been plowed under and grain planted, the gross revenue was calculated by multiplying the average grain yield by the forecast price of grai n in that year. Production costs also vary with yield. The production costs for establishing alfalfa, established alfalfe, and irrigated grain were based on a machinery costs computer program and a crop enterprise budget computer program (DNRC, 1989). When combined, these programs account for all production costs, except for the irrigation development and water appli- cation costs which are developed separately. These programs determine annual per-acre production costs based on farm size, cropping pattern, size and t\pe of equipment, annual equipment use, fertilization, and projected crop yields. The study uses the production costs established by DNRCs "Methodology Manual for Conservation Districts Water Reservation Application" (DNRC 1989). Using ibis production cost information, an alfalfa price of S64 per ton and an average yield of 4.4 tons per acre, the annual farm benefit was Si 54.35 per acre. This did not include any cost change for irrigation. This means that a positive B/C ratio can be obtained as long as the irrigation system and water delivery costs do not exceed that amount. The $154.35 per acre is NORTHERH CHEYENNE INBIAN RESERVATION Arable and Feasibly Ir r I gab I e Lands ; Tongue River Area RURCC Arabl* 90 i I s 1-2-3 Polanlially Irri gab I • so il s and Proj«cl feosibilily = or > 59/4 PolsnlpoMv Irrigobl* soils and Projacl feosibilily < 50X 300 fool HKM derived elevolion from Ihe Tongue river Reservolion Boundary Tongue R i ver T-TTVT k I I ome I ar s RURCC SAP 1 1 /90 26 PROJECT NUMBER Table 1. Northern Cheyenne Reservation FIL project descriptions. Tongue River ANNUAL FEASIBILITY COST RATING COMMENTS (S/Acrc) (percentile) FEASIBLE PROJECTS NCR-1 NCR-2 NCR-3 NCR-4 NCR-7 NCR-9 NCR- 10 NCR- 12 NCR- 13 NCR- 14 NCR- 15 NCR- 16 NCR- 17 NCR- 19 NCR-20 NCR-2 1 NCR-22 NCR-23 NCR-24 NCR-25 NCR-26 NCR-27 S1I8 $76 S131 SlOO S121 S120 $83 $112 S125 S90 $116 S95 S104 S82 $101 $149 $141 $98 $113 $124 $108 S109 93 Two hand lines and two wheellincs (low lift). 100 One pivot (low lift). 85 Two wheellincs (low lift). 1 00 Five pivots and one wheelline. 92 One pivot and two handlines. 93 One wheelline and one pivot. 100 Three pivots. 96 Two pivots and one wheelline. 9 1 Three pivots. 100 Three pivots. 94 Two pivots and one handline. 100 Three pivots. 99 Two pivots and two wheellines. 100 Three pivots. 100 Six pivots. 62 Three handlines and one pivot. 73 Five handlines, two pivots, and one wheelline. 1 00 Four pivots. 95 Two wheellines. 91 Three pivots. 97 Two pivots and one wheelline. 97 Six flooded fields. INFEASIBLE PROJECTS INCR-5 $230 0 INCR-3 $242 0 INCR-2 $236 0 NCR-6 $157 42 NCR-8 $174 19 NCR- 11 $178 15 NCR- 18 $163 33 Hand lines on Stebbins Cr. infeasible because of pipeline length vs. area irrigated Hand line on Reservarion Cr. infeasible because of pifjeline length vs. area irrigated. Same projea area as INCR-3 with two addidonaJ handlines. Same projea as INCR-5 with the last handline system eliminated. Four high (320') lift pivots. Infeasible because of lift and pipeline length vs area irrigated. Three wheellines. The last wheelline makes the projea infeasible, but the first two wheellines would be feasible. Two high (300') lift pivots. Infeasible because of lift and pipeline length vs area irrigated. 27 equivaJcnt to a 50th percentile feasibility rating which is discussed more completely in DNRC's methodology document. 2. Project Description First, the soils along theTongue River were classified for arability (see Soils section). Then site specific irrigation projects were designed on these lands to determine the economic feasibility of individual projects. (See Appendix R Projects were designed on lands adjacent to theTongue River and on contiguous lands away from the river until the B/C for a project went below 0.8. (See Appendix G) At this point, no fiirther projects were designed. The following tables summarize the results of the projects evaluated in the FlLanalvsis of Northern Chevenne Indian Reservation. B. Rosebud Creek 1 . Feasibly Irrigable Land Analysis The amount of feasibly irrigable land on the Rosebud depends on the availability (amount and timing) of water, the suitability of the soils adjacent to the water source, and the economic variables used in the analysis, such as interest rate, crops raised, crop prices, and crop yield. Rosebud Creek, like most eastern Montana creeks, has a high flow in the spring and little flow in late summer, fall, and winter. This means that fiiU service irrigation is limited to the amount of flow in July and August (less than 2 cfs). The standard approach in full service irrigation design is to base the design acreage on the amount of water available 8 years out of i 0 for the crop's peak use period. Therefore, the Rosebud would be able to support less than 1 50 acres of new irrigation. The customary way to irrigate on these creeks is to spread water in the spring during high flow. This will gen- erally provide enough water for one full cutting of hay. The Rosebud is a relatively flat meandering stream; land next to it is usually flooded by natural flows each year. Floodplain land is also partially sub-irrigated along the Rosebud which is an ideal way of using the Rosebud s water, from an eco- nomic point of view. Any increase in consumptive use from the current situarion would adversely impact downstream users, both Indian and non-Indian. Table 2. Northern Cheyenne Reservation FIL proj( sets summary. Tongue River TOTAL TOTAL FEASIBILTTY ACRFS ACRE- FLOW PRJ# RATING (%) IRR. FEET (CFS) NCR-1 93 168.0 484 3.5 NCR-2 100 116.0 286 1.9 NCR-3 85 75.0 214 1.7 NCR4 100 337.0 841 5.8 NCR-7 92 89.1 240 1.7 NCR-9 93 77.0 200 1.4 NCR- 10 100 248.6 612 4.2 NCR- 12 96 110.0 271 1.8 NCR- 13 91 113.1 286 2.1 NCR- 14 100 167.2 410 2.8 NCR- 15 94 148.2 379 2.7 NCR- 16 100 157.2 386 2.6 NCR- 17 99 196.5 507 3.4 NCR- 19 100 359.5 885 6.0 NCR-20 100 399.3 981 6.7 NCR-2 1 62 117.2 319 2.3 NCR-22 73 289.8 793 5.9 NCR-23 100 196.5 482 3.3 NCR-24 95 100.8 276 2.0 NCR-25 91 187.8 462 3.1 NCR-26 97 177.5 452 3.1 NCR-27 97 196.0 731 5.0 TOTAL FEASIBLE 4,027.3 10,497 73.0 INCR-5 0 247.0 707 8.6 INCR-3 0 66.0 190 1.6 INCR-2 0 184.0 528 4.4 NCR-6 42 78.0 225 2.0 NCR-8 19 301.4 741 5.0 NCR-1 1 15 90.0 258 2.0 NCR- 18 33 NFEASIBLE 159.3 392 2.7 TOTAL I 1,125.7 3.041 23.6 TOTAL ANALYZED 5.153.0 13.538 96.6 28 Because of the natural flooding and sub-irrigation i n the floodplain any "new" tloodplain development would be redundant (it is in effect irrigated now). So, new water- spreading irrigation would require pumping water to lev- eled or contour diked systems outside the flood plain. Ac- cording to the SCS, these systems generally cost between $300 toS600 per acre with an annual pumping cost of from SlO to S20 per acre. The expected yield for this type of development would vary, depending on the duration of the high flows and spring rain, from 1 to 3 tons per acre. The benefit/cost ratio of this type of system is decidedly less than 1:1, making them economically infeasible. 2. Current Agricultural Land Use on the Reservation On July 6, 1 990, members of the RWRCC stafFflew the length of the Rosebud Creek drainage on the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation. A video record of this flight was made, and approximately 100 still photographs were taken of the valley floor. Aerial photographs were borrowed from the Water Rights Bureau in Miles City and copied and were used to distinguish currently cropped lands into sub-irrigated, ir- rigated, and dry land categories. The video tape and the still photos were used to corroborate the following rough esti- mates of currently irrigated lands on the Reservation: naturally sub-irrigated currently irrigated (man-made systems) - 1,31 1 acres 525 acres 1 ,836 acres More accurate estimates could be achieved by field investigations. 29 Bibliography Bauer, Armond, D.K. Cassel, and LcRoy Zimmerman. 1974. Alfalfa Production Under Irrigation at Oakes. North Dakota Research Report Na 47, North Dakou Sutc Uni- versity, Fargo. Greiman, William Glen. 1986. Lower Yellow Conservation Distria Development Committee. Reserved Water Devel- opment Investigation: Rnai Report. Bill Greiman, coordi- nator. Lower yellowstone Conservation District, Miles City. Prepared under a grant administered by the Water Develop- ment Bureau, Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. 1990. Computer Aided Evaluation of the Value of Water for Irrigation. Master TTiesis. Department of Agricul- tural Engineering, Montana State University, Bozeman. 1 78 pp. Hill, Robert W 1981. Alfalfa Yield and Water Use in Utah Commercial Fields. Manuscript in preparation. Dep>art- ment of Agricultural and Irrigation Engineering, Utah State University, Logan. As modified in: U.S. Department of the Interior 1983. Lind, Robert C, Kenneth J. Arrow, Gordon R. Corey, Partha Dasgupta, Amartya K. Sen.ThomosStaufTer, Joseph L Sdglitz, J.A. Stockfish, and Robert Wilson. 1982. Dis- counting forTimeand Risk in Energy Policy. Resources for the Future, Inc, Washington D.C. 467pp. Nordell, Larry. 1984. The Choice of a Discount Rate for Evaluation of Conservadon Alternadves. Unpublished memorandum (December 5) to Files. Montana Depart- ment of Natural Resources and Conservation, Helena. Suuber, Steve, and Glen Goodman. 1986. Optimal Re- placement of Alfalfa Stands: A Farm Level Decision Model. In: Montana AgRescarch. spring/summer 1986, Montana Agricultural Experiment Stadon, Montana State Univer- sity, Bozeman. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1988. MT- TR21 Consumptive Use. Venion 2.2, May 19, 1988. Computer program developed by John Dalton, Soil Con- servation Service, Bozeman. U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI). 1983. Compari- son of Equadons Used for Esdmadng Agricultural Crop Evapotranspiration with Field Research. Prepared by: Dt. Robert W Hill, Agricultural and Irrigation Engineering Department, Utah State University, Logan, and Eldon L Johns and Donald K. Frevert, Water Utilization Secnon, Hydrology Branch, Division of Planning Technical Ser- vices, Bureau of Reclamadon, E&cR Center, Denver Wilcox, M.S. 1978. Alfalfa Yields Under Umited Water Condi dofis as Determined by Lysimeters at Fallon, Nevada. Unpublished thesis. University ofTJevada, Reno. As modi- fied in: U.S. Department of the Interior 1983. Wright, J.L 1981. Evapotranspiration and Yield of Irri- gated alfalfa in Southern Idaho. Manuscript in review. U.S. Department of Agriculture - ARS, Snake River Research Center, Kimberly, Idaho. As Modified in : U.S. Depart- ment of the Interior 1983. 30 APPENDIX A REFERENCE MAPS 1) ARABLE L\NDS - NORTHERN CHEYENNE INDIAN RESERVATION Scale: approximately 1:275,000. Produced: April, 1990 by RWRCC saff. This map displays Arable Lands (SCS classes 2-3-4), Non-arable Linds (RWRCC defined). 1 00 and 300 foot lift disance lines delineated from the HKM map ARABLE L\NDS, Northern Cheyenne boundar)' and potential de- velopment projects determined by RWRCC analysis along the Tongue River. 2) FEASIBLY IRRIGABLE LANDS ANALYSIS - NORTHERN CHEYENNE INDL\N RESERVATION Scale: approximately 1:275,000. Produced: April, 1990 by RWRCC staff. This map depicts 100 and 300 foot lift distance lines delineated from the HKM map ARABLE LANDS, 100 and 300 foot contour map lines digitized from topographic maps — beginning at the juncture of theTongue River and the south end of the reservation, feasibility of potential agricultural project developments along theTongue River, and the Northern Cheyenne Reservation boundary. 3) FEASIBLY IRRIGABLE LANDS ANALYSIS - NORTHERN CHEYENNE INDL\N RESERVATION Scale: approximately 1:275,000. Produced: June, 1990 by RWRCC staff. This map is a composite of the two previously defined maps and incorporates the major data themes from each map. See page 26. 4) LIFT DISTANCES -NORTHERN CHEYENNE INDIAN RESERVATION Scale: approximate 1:500,000. Produced: April, 1990 by RWRCC staff This map encompasses the 100 and 300 foot digitized contour lines, Northern Cheyenne boundary and 1 00 and 300 foot lift distance lines delineated from the HKM map ARABLE LANDS. 5) TONGUE RIVER AREA -NCIR Scale: approximately 1 : 1 00,000. Produced: June, 1990 by RWRCC staff This is a working map for the RWRCC which depicts 100 and 300 foot lift distance lines delineated from the HKM map ARABLE LANDS and SCS arable soil classes 2-3-4 over bedrock found within seven 1:24000 quads adjacent to the Tongue River. 6) NORTHERN CHEYENNE RESERVATION Scale: 1:63,000. Produced: 1981 by former RWRCC or DNRC staff personnel. This map depicts the reservation boundary, public land survey and isolated tracts of arable lands along both the Tongue and Rosebud rivers. The tracts are divided into: ARABLE LANDS Tongue Rosebud Small Isolated Tracts 1518ac 4956 ac Isolated Lands on Divide 1986 ac 2186ac Along Intermittent Streams 2193 ac 7585 ac Along P&rennial Streams 3306 ac 10,050 ac Active Floodplain Oac 4643 ac 7) ROSEBUD COUNTY -LAND CLASSinCATION MAP Scale: one-half inch equal one mile ( 1 : 1 25,000). Produced: former RWRCC staff (1982-83). This map encompasses Rosebud Creek from the Yel- lowstone River south to the Northern Cheyenne Border north of Lame Deer. Within one sectioniz^d area oi Rose- bud creek, lands were classified into irrigable classes 1, 2, 3, 3c and presendy irrigated lands. 31 8) TONGUE RIVER PROJECT - IRRIGATED ACRES Scale: approximately 1:125,000. Produced; former R^TICC staff (1982-83). A scries of six maps encompassing the Tongue River from the Tongue River Dam to its confluence with the Yellowstone River at Miles City. The maps depict tracts of irrigated lands as derived by former RWRCC staff analysis. 9) SEMI-DETAILED LAND CLASSIFICATION Scale: approximately 1:5,000. Produced: Bureau of Reclamation, 1972. These series of maps depict SCS class 1 -2-3 lands along the Tongue River, including topographic details and vegeta- tion cover. 10) AR,\BLE LANDS Scale: approximately 1:125,000. Produced: HKM, Associates (for Tribe). This map depicts the reservation boundary: major riv- ers, streams and creeks; 100 and 300 foot lift distance lines from both the Tongue River and Rosebud Creek; Prime and Important Farmland within the reservation and arable SCS soils within the lift distance lines on both the Tongue and Rosebud. 1 1 ) COUNTY ARABLE MAPS Scale 1:32,000. Produced: D N RC staff (1 970 s) . These three maps encompass Custer, Rosebud and Bighom counties. They depict the following data: 1. DNRC 1-2-3 arable lands 2. Currently irrigated lands 3. Public Land Survey lines 4. Major streams and creeks 5. Drainage basin boundaries 6. Stock watering ponds and reservoirs 32 APPENDIX B SOILS IN THE TONGUE AND ROSEBUD DRAINAGES 1 . Soils on floodplains and low terraces. These deep, well-drained soils are on nearly level flood- plains and low terraces along theTongue River and Rosebud Creek. The major soil series include Glendive, Hanly, Harlem, Havre and Straw. They formed in alluvium. Some soils are excessively drained and underlain by coarse or mod- erately coarse alluvium. Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent. 2. Soils on fans, terraces and uplands. These deep, well drained soils are on nearly level terraces, slopi ng fans and moderately steep uplands. They occur above the floodplain and adjacent to the valley floor of theTongue river and Rosebud Creek, Landscape dis.section is a common feature adjacent to the valleys. The major soil series include Bimey, Cooers, Kremlin, Lonna, Shambo and Yamac They formed in alluvium and coUuvium. Slopes range from 0 to 25 percent. 3. Soils on sedimentary uplands. These shallow to deep, well drained soils are on gently sloping to moderately steep uplands. The major soil series include Busby, Cabbart, Cambeth, Castner and Delpoint. They formed in colluvium and weakly consolidated loamy and sandy sedimentary beds. Slopes range from 2 to 25 percent. 4. Soils on dissected sedimentary uplands. These shallow to deep, well drained soils are on strongly sloping to very steep dissected uplands. The major soil series include Bitton, Cabbart, Cambeth, Delpoint and Yawdim. The dissected landscape has barren sideslopes, escarpments, narrow ridges, rock outcrops and deeply entrenched cou- lees. Geologic erosion is very active in the sedimentary beds. Slopes range from 8 to 70 f)ercent. 33 34 APPENDIX C METHODS OF LAND CLASSIHCATION The USDA Soil Conservation Service uses a Land Capabil- ity classification which involves the grouping of kinds of soil into special units, subclasses, and classes according to their capability for intensive use and the treatments required for sustained use. Eight land classes are used. Arable soils are classes I through IV, classes V through VIII are nonarable. The classification is based on a 5-foot profile. Class I is not used in \lontana due to climatic limitations. The Bureau of Reclamation uses an Irrigation Suitability Land Classification. Its primary purpose is to characterize the lands suitable for sustained, profitable irrigation agricul- ture. Soil and related features must be correlated with eco- nomic factors. Soil investigations may be to a depth of 10 feet or more. Arable soils are classes 1 through 3, Class 6 is nonarable. The Montana DNRC uses a Land Classification that has a format similar to the Bureau of Reclamation Land Classifi- cation. The specifications resemble those of the Soil Conser- vation Service Land Capability Guide. Arable soils are classes 1 through 3, Class 6 is nonarable. The RWRCC Land Classification Specifications for Irri- gated Land include some features of the other systems. It also includes additional soil properties and related features such as moist bulk density, surface and subsurface drainage, etc. It was designed to provide documented specifications for the classification of irrigated land and its suitability for sustained production under irrigated agriculture. Class rV used by the Soil Conservation Service is very restrictive and will occur in Bureau of Reclamation, DNRC and RWRCC classes 3 and 6. There will also be some overlap in other classes when the different classification systems are used. This in part helps to explain the difi^crences for arable and nonarable acres between the various systems. 35 36 APPENDIX D RWRCC LAND CLASSIHCAnON SPECinCATIONS When switching to next Land Ouraaeristics lower class, soil must satisfy all Class 1 criteria for that class. Class 2 Class 3 Soils Surface texture for 8 inches' Texture profile Coarse Fine Depth to coarse sand, gravel or cobble material^ Depth to dense clay, sandstone, siltstone, or shale bedrock' Available water- holding capacity'* Permeabillcv' Salinity in root zone* Sodidcv in root zonc^ Sandy loam through friable dav loam, SL, FSL, VFS'U L. SIL SI. SCL. CL, and SICL Sand permitted below 40 inches. No day, silty day or sandy day in upper 36 inches. Minimum 48 inches Minimum 84 inches. Six inches or more in upper 48 inches. .2 inch to 6 inches per _ hour. Salt content can be maintained at a level not to exceed 4 millimhos per centimeter. Sodium -Adsorption Ratio (SAR) less than 13. and no physical deterioration of soil. Coarse sandy loam to [jermeable day. COSL, SL FSU VFSL L SIL. SI. SCL CL SICL SC, and C. May be gravdly. Loamy coarse sand or sand permirted bdow 30 inches. Permeable day permitted below 12 inches. Minimum 36 inches. Minimum 84 inches. Greater than 4.5 inches in upper 48 inches. Greater . 1 inch to 20 inches per hour. Salt content can be maintained at a level not to exceed 6 millimhos per centimeter. Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) less than 1 3. some physical deteriorarion of soil, and permeability somewhat impaired. Loamy sand through permeable day LS, LVFS, COSL SL, VFSL SIL SI, SCL CL SICL SC, SIC, and C. May be gravelly, cobbly. Class I stoniness. Loamy, coarse sand permitted bdow 18 inches. Entire profile may be permeable day if infiltration rate is adequate for plant moisture requirements. Minimum 18 inches. Minimum 84 inches. Greater than 3 inches in upper 48 inches. Greater than . 1 inch per hour. Salt content can be maintained at a levd not to exceed 8 millimhos per centimeter. Sodium Adsorption Rario (SAR) less than 20, physical deteriorarion of soil, and fjermeability impaired. Permeability must be 0.2 inch per hour in the top 24 inches. 1. Ail surface tcxuira and soil depchs arc dependent upon water holding capacities. Gravelly - less than 35% gravel (less 3 inches) in diameter, cobbly - less 33% cobbles (3 co 10 inches) in diameter, stones (10 to 24 inches) in dbmctcr. Class I stoniness - stona cover less than 0.01 percent of surface. 2. All surface textures and soil depths are dependent upon water holding capacities. 3. The underlying geologic materials linit or prevent root penetration and pcrmeabilirv is Impaired. 4. Soils with available water holding capacities of less than 3 inches in the upper 48 inches arc Class 6 land. 5. Soils with a permeability of less than .1 inch per hour in any significant layer of the root zone arc Class 6 land. 6. Soils dominated by montmorillonite clav arc more difficult to manage than those dominated by illite or kaolinite and respond to lower levels of salinity. If the soil exceeds 8 millimhos per centimeter it must have good permeability (.2 inch per hour or greater) throughout the rcxjt zone. 7. The physical deterioration of the soil is caused bv the dispersion and swelling of clays. These interrelated phenomeru both aa to reduce permeability (hydraulic conductivity) of the soil. Type of mineralogy, and salinity must be taken into account. Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) should be less than 10 in some fine (day) textured soils but may range to 20 in coarse (sandy) textured soils with adequate drainage. 37 Land ChaTaaenstic3 CLusl aast2 Class 3 Moist bulk dcnsirv^ Slopc» Drainage Class Surface Subsurface 1.30 g/ cm' CO 1.60 g/cm' with overlapping of blocks then allowable densities would be less than 1.55 g/cm\ 0-4% Well and moderately well drained, water table below 60 inches Litde or no surface drainage required. Wyi aerated, no limit to moisture movement or root developmenL Barrier (soil and/or drainage fiiaor)' Overflow (Flooding)" Growing season'^ None in summer. Rare in fall and winter. More than 105 days. Maximum allowable 1.60 g/cm' with overlapping of blocks then allowable densities would be less than 1.55 g/cm'. 4-6% Moderately well though somewhat pworly drained, water table below 36 inches. Shalbw surface drainage required. Well to moderately well aerated; moisture movement and root development somewhat impeded. Rare in summer. Occasional in fall, winter, and spring. 90 to 105 days. Maximum allowable 1 .60 g/cm', with overlapping of blocks then allowable densities would be less than 1.55 g/cm'. 6 - 8% Gravity 15%Spnnkicr Somewhat excessively through poorly drained, water table below 18 inches. Shallow surface drainage required. Occassional small depressions, shallow drainwavs, few complex slopes. Moderately wdl aerated, moisture movement, and root development moderatclv rcstriaed. I Occassional in summer. Frequent in fall, winter, and spring. Less than 90 day growing season, oops produced 7 out of 1 0 vears. Classes 1 , 2, and 3 are arable. Class 6 is nonarable (lands which do not meet minimum requirements for arable land). The land class assigned to a given soil unit is dependent upon the best judgement of the soil sdentisL References Cited: National Soils Handbook. SCS, USDA National Soils Handbook Issue No. MT-2, SCS, USDA Soil Survey Manual, Chapters 4 and 5, SCS, USDA Land Classification Techiuques and Standards BOR, USDI 8. Bulk dcmiry is used to express weight mcuurcmenu on a volume basis. As bulk densities apptx»ch 1 .5 to 1 .6 g/cm-', depending on totturc. toot growth IS impeded and both aeration and water movement tmy be too low for optimum growth. 9. Gtaviry-rype irngation should be mostly limited to slopes of 6 pertxnc or less in gcnetal gtadicni, and sprinkler-type irrigation limited to slopes of 1 5 percent or less. 10. The general depth to very slowly permeable or impermeable material that is a barrier to subsurface water movement shall be 7 feet or greater. This includes dense clay and sandstone, siltstone. or shale bedrock. Permeability less than . 1 inch per hour. 1 1 . Definition of Flooding Frequency: Rare - Floods less than once in ten yeat3; Occasional - Floods once in rwo to ten years; Frequent - Floods at least once every two years. 1 2. TTie growing season (frost-free season) must be long enough to produce crops on a long term basis, at least 7 out of 1 0 years. TTie base reference crop is spring wheat. 38 APPENDIX E SOIL MAPPING UNITS Soil map unics below the 300 foot lift in the Tongue River and Rosebud Creek Areas have been grouped into three major parts, 1) soils on flood plains, terraces, fans and up- lands, 2) soils on fans and uplands, 3) soils on highly dis- sected uplands. 1. Soils on flood plains, terraces, fans and uplands. This group consists offorp,'-sLx map units. Slope is 0 to 1 5 percent. It includes the arable soils in Tongue River and Rosebud Creek areas. Non-arablesoils with slopes less than 1 5 percent are included. SOIL LEGEND Symbol Name 1 8 Bimey-Cooers-Kirby complex, 2 to 1 5 percent slopes 28 Bitton-Twin Creek-Ringling, dry, complex, 2 to 1 5 percent slopes 36 BorollicCamborthids-UsticTorrifluventscomplcx, 0 to 8 percent slopes 46 Busby loam, 0 co 2 percent slopes 47 Biisby-Rock outcrop complex, 8 to 1 5 percent slopes 56 Cambeth silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 57 Cambeth silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 58 Cambeth-Cabbart silt loams, 4 to 1 5 percent slopes 6 1 Casmer-Shambo complex, 2 to 1 5 percent slopes 62 Chinook fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 64 Cooers loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 65 Cooers-Birney complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes 66 Cooers- Yamac loams, 2 to 8 percent slopes 8 1 Floweree silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 82 Floweree silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 89 Gerdrum clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 91 Gerdrum-Kobarsilty clay loams, 2 to 8 percent slopes 95 Glendive loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded 96 Hanly-Glendive loams, occasionally flooded, 0 to 2 percent slopes 97 Harlem silty clay loam, occasionally flooded, 0 to 2 percent slopes 99 Havre loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 100 Havre loam, occasionally flooded, 0 to 2 percent slopes 1 09 Kobar silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 1 10 Kobar silty clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 1 1 1 Kobar silty clay loam, 8 to 1 5 percent slopes 1 12 Kobar silty clay loam, gullied, 2 to 1 5 percent slopes 1 16 Kremlin loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 1 17 Kremlin loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 123 Lonna silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 1 24 Lonna silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 125 Lonna silt loam, 8 to 1 5 percent slopes 1 59 Savage silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 161 Shambo loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 39 162 Shambo loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 168 Spang sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 169 Spang-Bimey complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes 171 Spinekop silcy clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 1 90 Vanstel loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 197 Yamac loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 198 Yamac loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 199 Yamac loam, 8 to 1 5 percent slopes 201 Yamac-Bimey complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes 202 Yamac-Bimey complex, 8 to 1 5 percent slopes 205 Yamac-Busby complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes 208 Yamac-Delpoint loams, 4 to I 5 percent slopes 209 Yamac- Redcreek loams, 2 to 1 5 percent slopes MAP UNIT DESCRIPTIONS 1 8 - Bimey-Cooers-Kirby complex, 2 to 1 5 percent slopes. This map unit is on uplands. Slope is 2 co I 5 percent. This unit is about 40 percent Bimey channery loam, 35 percent Cooers loam, and 25 percent Kirby channery loam. The Bimey and Cooers soils formed in colluvium derived fix)m baked sandstone. The Kirby soil formed in residuum derived from baked sandstone. The Bimey soil is deep and well drained The surface layer is a channery loam about 5 inches thick. TTie substra- tum to a depth of 48 inches or more is extremely channery sandy loam. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is about 3 inches in the upper 48 inches. The Cooers soil is deep and well drained. The surface layer is a loam about 4 inches thick. TTie underlying material to a depth of 48 inches or more is a loam or channery loam. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is about 8 inches in the upper 48 inches. The Kirby soil is shallow over fractured baked sand- stone. The surface layer is a channery loam about 5 inches thick. The underlying material to a depth of about 1 8 inches is a very channery loam. Below this, to a depth of 48 inches or more, is fractured baked sandstone. Permeability is rapid and available water capacity is mainly 1 to 2 inches in the upper 48 inches. This map unit is poorly suited to irrigated crops because of the low available water capacity of the Bimey and Kirby soils, and areas of rock outcrop. This map unit is class 6 irrigated. 28 - Bitton-Twin Creek-Ringling, dry, complex, 2 to 1 5 percent slopes. This map unit is on uplands and fans. Slope is 2 to 15 percent. TTiis unit is about 40 percent Bitton channery loam, 35 percent Twin Creek loam, and 25 percent Ringling channery loam. The Bitton soil is on side slopes, the Twin Creek soil is on side slopes and short fans, the Ringling soil is on knobs and ridges. The Bitton and Twin Creek soils formed in colluvium derived from baked sandstone and shale, the Ringling soil formed in residuum derived from baked sandstone and shale. The Bitton and Twin Creek soils are deep, and the Ringling soil is shallow to fractured baked sandstone. This map uni t is poorly suited to irrigated crops because of the lowavailable water capacity of the Bitton and Ringling soils and the shallow depth to fractured baked sandstone in the Ringling soil. This map unit is class 6 irrigated. 36 - Borollic Camborthids-Ustic Torrifluvents complex, 0 to 8 percent slopes. This map unit is on channeled fans, terraces and flood plains. Slope is 0 to 8 percent. This unit is about 65 percent Borollic Camborthids and 35 percent Ustic Torrifluvents. The Borollic Camborthids are on fens and terraces, the Usdc Torrifluvents are on low terraces and flood plains. TTiis map uni t is poorly suited to irrigated crops because the unit is dissected by stream channels and some areas contain a high percentage of coarse fragments. This map unit is class 6. 40 46 - Busby loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes. This deep, well drained soil is on stream terraces. It formed in alluvium. Slope is 0 to 2 percent. The surface layer of this soil is a loam about 5 inches thick. The subsoil is a loam about 1 1 inches thick- The substratum to a depth of 48 inches or more is mainly a fine sandy loam. Permeability is moderately rapid and available water capacity is about 6 inches in the upper 48 inches. This soil is well suited to irrigated crops. This map unit is Class 1 irrigated. 47 - Busby- Rock outcrop complex, 8 to 1 5 percent slopes. This map unit is on uplands. Slope is 8 to 1 5 percent. This unit is about 50 percent Busby fine sandy loam and 50 percent sandstone Rock outcrop. The Busby soil is on short fans, and the Rock outcrop is on knobs and ridges. The Busby soil formed in alluvium. The Busby soil is deep. This map unit is not suited to irrigated crops because of the areas of Rock outcrop. This map unit is class 6. 56 - Cambeth silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes. This mod- erately deep, well drained soil is on uplands. Slope is 2 to 8 percent. The surface layer of this soil is a silt loam about 5 inches thickThe underlying soil material is a silt loam. Below this, toa depth of48 inches or more, are loamy sedimentary beds. Permeability is moderate, and available water capacity is about 5 inches. The effective rooting depth is limited by the sedimentary beds at a depth of 20 to 40 inches. This soi 1 is poorly sui ted to irrigated crops because of the moderate depth to the sedimentary beds. This map unit is class 6 irrigated. 57 - Cambeth silt loam, 8 to 15 perrent slopes. This moderately deep, well drained soil is on uplands. Slope is 8 to 1 5 percent. The surface layer of this soil is a silt loam about 4 inches thick. The underlying soi 1 material is a silt loam. Below this, to a depth of 48 inches or more, are loamy sedi men tary beds. Permeability is moderate, and available water capacity is about 5 inches. The effective rooting depth is limited by the sedimentary beds at a depth of 20 to 40 inches. This map unit is poorly suited to irrigated crops because of the moderate depth to sedimentary beds. This map unit is class 6 irrigated. 58 - Cambeth-Cabbart silt loams, 4 to 1 5 percent slopes. This map unit is on uplands. Slope is 4 to 15 percent. Thisunitisabout65 percent Cambeth silt loam and 35 percent Cabbart silt loam. These soils formed in residuum from loamy sedimentary beds. The Cambeth soil is moderately deep and well drained. The surface layer is a silt loam about 5 inches thick The underlying soil material is a silty clay loam. Below this, to a depth of 48 inches or more, are loamy sedimentary beds. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is about 5 inches. The effective rooting depth is limited by the sedimentary beds at a depth of 20 to 40 inches. The Cabbart soil is shallow and well drained. The soil material is a silt loam. Below this, to a depth of 48 inches or more, are loamy sedimentary beds. Perm eabilit}' is moderate and available water capacity is about 2 inches. The effective rooting depth is limited by the sedimentary beds at a depth of 10 to 20 inches. This map unit is pooriy suited to irrigated crops because of the shallow to moderate depth to sedimentary beds. This map unit is class 6 irrigated. 6 1 - Castner-Shambo complex, 2 tol 5 percent slopes. This map unit is on uplands. Slope is 2 to 1 5 percent. This unit is about 50 percent Castner channery loam and 50 percent Shambo loam. The Casmer soil formed in residuum derived from sandstone. The Shambo soil formed in alluvium derived from loamy sedimentary beds. The Castner soil is shallow and well drained. The soil material is a channery or very channery loam. Below this, to 41 adcpth of48 inches or more, is hard sandstone. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is about 2 inches. The effective rooting depth is limited by hard sandstone at a depth of 1 0 to 20 inches. The Shambo soil is deep and well drained. The soil profile to a depth of 48 inches or more is a loam. Permeabil- ity is moderate and available water capacity is about 8 inches in the upper 48 inches. The map unit is poorly suited to irrigated crops because of the shallow depth to hard sandstone of the Casmcr soil. This map unit is class 6 irrigated. 62 - Chinook fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes. This deep, well drained soil is on fans and uplands. It formed in alluvium on fans and in eolian material on uplands. Slope is 2 to 8 percent. The soil profile to a depth of 48 inches or more is a fine sandy loam. Permeability is moderately rapid and available water capadcy is about 6 inches in the upper 48 inches. This soil is suited to irrigated crops. This map unit is class 3 irrigated. 64 - Cooers loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes. This deep, well drained soil is on fans and uplands. It formed in alluvium or in colluvium derived from baked sandstone and shale. Slope is 2 to 8 percent. The surface layer of this soil is a loam about 5 inches thick. The underKnng material to a depth of 48 inches or more is a loam. Permeability is moderate, and available water capacity is about 8 inches m the upper 48 inches. This soil is suited to irrigated crops. This map unit is class 2 irrigated. 65 - Cooers-Bimey complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes. This map unit is on uplands. Slope is 2 to 8 percent. This unit is about 60 percent Cooers loam and 30 percent Bimey channcry loam. The Cooers soil formed in alluvium. The Birncy soil formed in colluvium, derived from baked sandstone and shale. The Cooers soil is deep and well drained. The surface layer is a loam about 4 inches chick. The underlying material to a depth of 48 inches or more is a loam. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is about 8 inches in the upper 48 inches. The Bimey soil is deep and well drained. The surface layer is a channery loam about 5 inches thick. The subsoil is a channery loam about 8 inches thick. The substratum to a depth of 48 inches or more is mainly an extremely channcrv loam. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is about 3 inches in the upper 48 inches. This map unit is poorly suited to irrigated crops because of low available water capacity of the Bimey soil and inclu- sions of shallow soiU over baked sandstone and shale. This map unit is class 6 irrigated. 66 - Cooers- Yamac loams, 2 to 8 percent slopes. This map unit is on fans and uplands. Slope is 2 to 8 percent. This unit is about 50 percent Cooers loam and 50 percent Yamac loam. They formed in alluvium and collu- vium derived from baked sandstone and shale from loamy sedimentary beds. The Cooers soil is deep and well drained. The surface layer isa loam about 4 inches chick. The underlying material to a depth of 48 inches or more is a loam. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is about 8 inches in the upper 48 inches. The Yamac soil is deep and well drained. The surfece layer isa loam about 5 inches thick. The underlying material to a depth of 48 inches or more is a loam that has strata of fine sandy loam and silt loam. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is about 8 inches in the upper 48 inches. These soils are suited to irrigated crops. This map unit is class 2 irrigated. 81 - Floweree silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes. This deep, well drained soil is on terraces. It formed in alluvium. Slope is 0 to 2 percent. 42 The soil profile to a depth of 48 inches or more is a silt loam. Permcabilir*' is moderate and available water capaci ty is about 8 inches in the upper 48 inches. The soil is suited to irrigated crops. This map uni t is class 2 irrigated. 82 - Floweree silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes. This deep, well drained soil is on fans, terraces and uplands. It formed in alluvium. Slope is 2 to 8 percent. The soil profile to a depth of 48 inches or more is a silt loam. Permeabilit)' is moderate and available water capaci ty is about 8 inches in the upper 48 inches. This soil is suited to irrigated crops. This map unit is dass 2 irrigated 89 - Gerdrum clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes. This deep, well drained, sodium and salt-afFected soil is on fans and uplands. It formed in alluvium. Slope is 2 to 8 percent. The surface layer of this soil is a clay loam about 7 inches chick. The subsoi 1 is a clay about 6 i nches ch ick. The substra- tum to a depth of 48 inches or more is mainly a silty clay or silty clay loam. Permeability is slow and available water capacity is about 5 inches in the upper 48. inches. The soil is not suited to irrigated crops because of slow permeability, sodidry and salinity in the root zone. This soil is dass 6 irrigated. 91 -Gerdrum-Kobarsiltyclay loams, 2 to 8 percent slopes. This map unit is on fans and uplands. Slope is 2 to 8 percent. This unit is about 55 percent Gerdrum silty day loam and 45 percent Kobar silty day loam. They formed in alluvium. The sodium and salt affeaed Gerdrum soil is deep and well drained. The surface layer is a silty day loam about 7 inches thick. The subsoil is a siltvdav about 12 inches thick. The substratum to a depth of 48 inches or more is a sil cy day loam. Permeability is slow and available water capacity is about 5 inches in the upper 48 inches. The Kobar soil is deep and well drained. The soil profile to a depth of 48 inches or more is a silty day loam. Per- meability is slow and available water capadty is about 7 inches in the upper 48 inches. This map uni t is poorly suited to irrigated crops because of slow permeability, sodi city and salinity in the root zone ot the Gerdrum soiL This map unit is class 6 irrigated. 95 - Glendive loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded. This deep, well drained, occasionally flooded soil is on flood plains and low terraces along the Tongue River. It formed in alluvium. Slope is 0 to 2 percent. The surface layer of this soil is a loam about 10 inches thick. The underlying material to a depth of 48 inches or more is mainly a sandy loam that has strata of loam and loamy sand. Permeability is moderately rapid and available water capadty is mainly 5 or 6 inches in the upper 48 inches. This soil is subjea to occasional periods of flooding during spring and early in summer. The soil issuited to irrigated crops.This map uni t is dass 2 irrigated. 96 - Hanly-Glendive loams, occasionally flooded, 0 to 2 percentslopes. This map unitis on lowstrcam terraces along the Tongue River and Rosebud Creek. Slope is 0 to 2 percent This unit is about 55 percent Hanly loam and 45 percent Glendive loam. These occasionally flooded soils formed in alluvium. The Hanly soil is deep and somewhat excessivdy drained. The surface layer is a loam about " inches thick. The underiying material to a depth of 48 inches or more is mainly stratified loamy sand, fine sandy loam and fine sand. Permeability is rapid and available water capadty is mainly 3 to 4 inches in the upper 48 inches. The Glendive soi 1 is deep and well drained. The surface layer isa loam about 8 inches thick. The underlying material 43 to a depth of 4S inches or more is sandy loam with strata of loom and loamy sand. Permeability is moderately rapid and available water capacity is mainly 5 or 6 inches in the upper 48 inches. These soils are subject to occasional periods of flooding during spring and early in summer. They are suited to irrigated crops. This map unit is class 3 irrigated. 97 - Harlem silty clay loam, occasionally flooded, 0 to 2 percent slopes. This deep, well drained, occasionally flooded soil is on flood plains and low terraces along the Tongue River. It formed in alluvium. Slope is 0 to 2 percent. The surface layer of this soil is a silty clay loam about 8 inches thick. The underlying material to adcpth of48 inches or more is a silty clay loam with strau of loam, silt loam and fine sandy loam in the lower part. Permeability is slow, and available water capacity is mainly 7 or 8 inches in the upper 48 inches. This soil is subjea to occasional periods of flooding during spring and early in summer. This soil is suited to irrigated crops. This map unit is class 2 irrigated. 99 - Havre loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes. This deep, well drained, rarely flooded soil is on stream terraces along the Tongue River. It formed in alluvium. Slope is 0 to 2 percent. The surface layer of this soil is a loam about 6 inches thick. The underlying material to a depth of 48 inches or more is a loam that has strau of fine sandy loam and silt loam. Permeability is moderate and available water ca pa ci ty is about 8 inches in the upper 48 inches. This soil is subject to rare periods of flooding during spring and early in summer. This soil is well suited to irrigated crops.This map unit is class 1 irrigated. 100 - Havre loam, occasionally flooded, 0 to 2 percent slopes. This deep, well drained, occasionally flooded soil is on floodplains and low terraces along the Tongue River and Rosebud Creek. It formed in alluvium. Slope is 0 to 2 percent. The surface layer of this soil is a loam about 1 0 inches thick. The underlying material to a depth of 48 inches or more is mainly very fine sandy loam or loam. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is about 8 inches in the upper 48 inches. This soil is subject to occasional periods of flooding during spring and early in summer. This soil is suited to irrigated crops. This map unit is class 2 irrigated. 1 09 - Kobar silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes. This deep, well drained soil is on terraces. It formed in alluvium. Slope is 0 to 2 percent. The soil profile to a depth of 48 inches or more is a silty clay loam. Permeability is slow and available water capacity is about 7 inches in the upper 48 inches. This soil is suited to irrigated crops. This map unit is class 3 irrigated. 1 10- Kobar silty clay loam, 2to8percentslopes. This deep, well drained soil is on fans and uplands. It formed in allu- vium and colluvium. Slope is 2 to 8 percent. The soil profile to a depth of 48 inches or more is a silty clay loam. Permeability is slow and available water capacity is about 7 inches in the upper 48 inches. The soil issuited to irrigated crops.This map unit is class 3 irrigated 11 1 - Kobar silty clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes. This deep, well drained soil is on fans and uplands. It formed in alluvium and colluvium. Slope is 8 to 1 5 percent. The soil profile to a depth of 48 inches or more is a silty clay loam. 44 Penneabilicy is slow and available water capacity is about 7 inches in the upper 48 inches. This map unit is poorly suited to irrigated crops because of slow permeability and inclusion of shallow soils on knobs and ridges. This map unit is class 6 irrigated. 1 1 2 - Kobar silty clay loam, gullied, 2 to! 5 percent slopes. This deep, well drained soil is on dissected fans. It formed in alluvium. Slope is 2 to 1 5 percent. The soil profile to a depth of 48 inches or more is a silty clay loam. Permeability is slow and available water capacity is about 7 inches in the upper 48 inches. This soil is poorly suited to irrigated crops because it is dissected by deep gullies. This map unit is class 6 irrigated. 1 16 - Kremlin loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes. This deep, well drained soil is on terraces. It formed in alluvium. Slope s 0 to 2 percent. The soil profile to a depth of about 36 inches is a loam. Below this to a depth of 48 inches or more is fine sandy loam that has thin strata of loam. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is about 8 inches in the upper 48 inches. This soil is suited to irrigated crops. This map unit is class 1 irrigated. 1 17 - Kremlin loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes. This deep, well drained soil is on fans and terraces. It formed in alluvium. Slope is 2 to 8 percent. The soil profile toa depth of 48 inches or more isa loam. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is about 8 inches in the upper 48 inches. This soil is suited to irrigated crops. This map unit is class 2 irrigated. 123 - Lonna silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes. This deep, well drained soil is on terraces. It formed in alluvium. Slope is 0 to 2 percent. The soil profile to a depth of 48 inches or more is a silt loam. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is about 8 inches in the upper 48 inches. This soil issuited to irrigated crops. This map unit isclass 2 irrigated. 1 24 - Lonna silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes. This deep, well drained soil is on fans. It formed in alluvium. Slope is 2 to 8 percent. The soil profile to a depth of 48 inches or more is a silt loam. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is about 8 inches in the upper 48 inches. This soil issuited to irrigated crops. This map unit is class 2 irrigated. 1 25 - Lonnasilt loam, 8 to 1 5 percent slopes. This deep, well drained soil is on fans. It formed in alluvium. Slope is 8 to 1 5 percent. T~he soil profile to a depth of 48 inches or more is a silt loam. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is about 8 inches in the upper 48 inches. This soil issuited to irrigated crops.This map unit isclass 3 irrigated. 1 59 - Savage silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes. This deep, well drained soil is on terraces. It formed in alluvium. Slope is 0 to 2 percent. The surface layer of this soil is a silty clay loam about 6 inches thick. The subsoil is a silty clay about 9 inches thick. The substramm to a depth of 48 inches or more is a silty clay loam. Permeability isslow and available water capacity is about 8 inches in the upper 48 inches. This soil issuited to irrigated crops.This map unit is class 2 irrigated. 45 161 - Shambo loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes. This deep, well drained soil is on terraces. It formed in alluvium. Slope is 0 to 2 percent. The soil profile to a depth of 48 inches or more is a loam. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is about 8 inches in the upper 48 inches. This soil is suited to irrigated crops.This map unit is class 1 irrigated. 162 - Shambo loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes. This deep, well drained soil is on fans and uplands. It formed in alluvium. Slope is 2 to 8 percent. The soil profile to a depth of 48 inches or more is a loam. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is about 8 inches in the upper 48 inches. This soil is suited to irrigated crops. This map unit is class 2 irrigated. 168 - Spang sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes. This deep, well drained soil is on fans and uplands. It formed in alluvium or in colluvium derived from baked sandstone. Slope is 2 to 8 percent. The Spang soil is deep and well drained. The surface laver is a sandy loam about 6 inches thick. The underlying material to a depth of 48 inches or more is a sandy loam. Permeability is moderately rapid and available water capac- ity is about 5 inches in the upper 48 inches. The Bimcy soil is deep and well drained. The surface layer is a channery loam about 6 inches thick. The sub- stratum to a depth of about 25 inches is a very channery sandy loam. Below this, to a depth of 48 inches or more is extremely channery sandy loam. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is about 3 inches in the upper 48 inches. This map unit is poorly suited to irrigated crops because ofthe low available water capacity of the Bimey soil and the inclusions of shallow stony soils. This map unit is class 6 irrigated. 171 -Spinekopsiltyclayloam, 0 to 2 percent slopes. This deep, well drained soil is on terraces. It formed in alluvium. Slope is 0 to 2 percent. TTie surface layer ofthis soil is a silty clay loam about 1 1 inches thick. The subsoi 1 is a silty clay loam in the upper part and a loam in the lower part. The substratum to a depth of 48 inches or more is a loam with strau of fine sandy loam and clay loam. The surfece layer of this soil is a sandy loam about 6 inches thick. The underlying material to a depth of about 40 inches is a sandy loam, below this, is a loamy sand. Permeability is moderately rapid and available water capacity is about 5 inches in the upper 48 inches. This soil is suited to irrigated crops.This map unit isclass 3 irrigated. 169 - Spang-Bimey complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes. This map unit is on uplands. Slope is 8 to 1 5 percent. This unit is about 55 percent Spang sandy loam and 45 percent Bimey channery loam. The Spang soil formed in alluvium or in colluvium derived from baked sandstone. The Bimey soil formed in colluvium derived from baked sand- stone and sfiale. Permeability is moderately slow and available water capacity is about 8 inches in the upper 48 inches. The soil is well suited to irrigated crops. This map unit is class 2 irrigated. 190 - Vanstel loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes. This deep, well drained soil is on fans, terraces and uplands. It formed in alluvium. Slope is 2 to 8 percent. The surface layer ofthis soil is a loam about 5 inches thick. The subsoil is a clay loam in the upper part and a loam in the lower part. It is about 19 inches thick. The substratum to a depth of 48 inches or more is a loam. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is about 8 inches in the upper 48 inches. This soil is suited to irrigated crops. This map unit is class 3 irrigated. 46 197 - Yainac loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes. This deep, well drained soil is on terraces. It formed in alluvium. Slope is 0 to 2 percent. The surface layer of this soil is a loam about 5 inches thick. The underlying material to a depth of 48 inches or more is a loam that has strau of fine sandy loam and silt loam. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is about 7 inches in the upper 48 inches. TTussoil is well suited to irrigated crops. This map unit is class 2 irrigated. 198 -Yainac loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes. This deep, well drained soil is on fans and uplands. It formed in colluvium and alluvium derived from loamy sedimentary beds. Slope is 2 to 8 percent. Thesoil profile to a depth of48 inches or more is a loam. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is about 8 inches in the upper 48 inches. This soil is suited to irrigated crops. This map unit is class 3 irrigated. 199 - Yamac loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes. This deep well drained soil is on fans and uplands. It formed in alluvium and in colluvium derived from loamy sedimentary beds. Thesoil profile toa depth of48 inches or more isa loam. Permeability is moderateand available water capacity Is about 8 inches in the upper 48 inches. This map unit is poorly suited to irrigated crops because of inclusions of shallow soils over loamy sedimentary beds. This map unit is class 6 irrigated. 20 1 - Yamac-Bimey complex; 2 to 8 percent slopes. This map unit is on fans and uplands. Slope is 2 to 8 percent. This unit is about 60 percent Yamac loam and 40 percent Bimey channery loam. The Yamac soil formed in alluvium and in coQuvium. The Birney soil formed in colluvium derived from baked sandstone and shale. The Yamac soil is deep and well drained. The surface layer isa loam about 4 inches thick. The underlying material to a depth of 48 inches or more is a loam. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is about 8 inches in the upper 48 inches. The Bimey soil is deep and well drained. The surface layer is a channery loam about 5 inches thick. The subsoil is a channery loam about 6 inches thick. The substratum to a depth of 48 inches or more is a very channery loam. Perme- ability is moderate and available water capacity is about 3 inches in the upper 48 inches. This map unit is suited to irrigated cropw. Bimey soils have low available vrater capacity. Shallow soils over baked sandstone and shale are included. TTiis map unit is class 3 irrigated. 202 -Yamac-Bimey complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes. This map unit is on uplands. Slope is 8 to 1 5 percent. This map unit is about 55 percent Yamac loam and 45 percent Bimey channery loam. The Yamac soil formed in alluvium and in colluvium derived from baked sandstone and shale. The Yamac soil is deep and well drained. TTie surface layer isa loam about 4 inches thick. The underlying material to a depth of 48 inches or more is- a loam. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is about 8 inches in the upper 48 inches. The Birney soil is deep and well drained. The surface layer is a channery loam about 4 inches thick. The subsoil is a channery loam about 8 inches thick. The substratum to a depth of 48 inches or more is a very channery loam. Per- meability is moderate and available water capacity is about 3 inches in the upper 48 inches. This map unit is pooriy suited to irrigated crops because of low available water capacity of the Bimey soil and in- clusions ofshallow soil over baked sandstone and shale. This map unit is class 6 irrigated. 205 - Yamac-Busby complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes. This map unit is on fans and uplands. Slope is 2 to 8 percent. This unit is about 55 percent Yamac loam and 45 percent Busby fine sandy loam These soils formed in 47 alluvium and in colluvium derived from loamy and sandy sedimcncary beds. The Yamac soil is deep and well drained. The surface layer is a loam abouc 3 inches thick. The underlying material to a depth of 48 inches or more is a loam. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is about 8 inches in the upper 48 inches. The Busby soil is deep and well drained. The soil profile to a depth of 48 inches or more is a fine sandy loam. Per- meability is moderately rapid and available water capacity is about 5 inches in the upper 48 inches. This map unit is poorly suited to irrigated crops because of inclusions of rock outcrop. This map unit is class 6 irri- gated. 208 - Yamac-Del point loams, 4 to 1 5 percent slopes. This map unit is on uplands. Slope is 4 to 1 5 percent. This unit is about 55 percent Yamac loam and45 percent Delpoint loam. The Yamac soil formed in alluvium and in colluvium. The Delp>oint soil formed in residuum derived from loamy sedimentary beds. The Yamac soil is deep and well drained. The surface layer is a loam about 4 inches chick. The underlying material to a depth of 48 inches or more is a loam. Permeability is moderateand available water capacity is about 8 inches in the upper 48 inches. The Delpoint soil is moderately deep and well drained. The surface layer is a loam about 6 inches thick. The under- lyingsoil material is a loam. Below this, coadepth of48 inches or more, are loamy sedimentary beds. Permeability is mod- erate and available water capacity is mainly 3 to 5 inches, depending on the depth to the loamy sedimentary beds. This map unit is poorly suited to irrigated crops because of depth to loamy sedimentary beds. This map unit is class 6. 209 - Yamac-Redcreek loams, 2 to 1 5 percent slopes. This map unit is on uplands. Slope is 4 to 1 5 percent. This unit is about 50 percent Yamac loam and 50 percent Redcreek loam. The Yamac soil formed in colluvium. The Redcreek soil formed in residuum derived from sandstone. The Yamac soil is deep and well drained. The surface layer is a loam about 4 inches thick. The underlying material to a depth of 48 inches or more is a loam. Permeability is moderate and available water capadcy is about 8 inches in the upper 48 inches. The Redcreek soil is shallow and well drained. The soil material is loam. Below this, to a depth of 48 inches or more, is sandstone. Permeability is moderately rapid and available water capacity is about 2 inches. The effective rooting depth is limited by the sandstone at a depth of 1 0 to 20 inches. This map unit is poorly suited to irrigated crops because of the shallow depth to sandstone of the Redcreek soil. This map unit is class 6 irrigated. 2. Soils on fans and uplands. This group consists of fifteen map units. Slope is 4 to 25 percent. Soils are shallow to deep. They formed in alluvium, colluvium, baked sandstone and shale, and residuum from loamy and sandy sedimentary beds. These map units are not suited to irrigated crops due to one or more of the following: steepness of slope, shallow depth, to baked sandstone and shale, sedimentary beds and low available water capacity of the soils. These map units are class 6. The following map units are in this group. Symbol Name 16 Bimey channery loam, 1 5 to 25 percent slopes 19 Bimey-Kirby channery loams, 4 to 25 percent slopes 20 Bimey-IGrby-Cabbart complex, 1 5 to 25 percent slopes 22 Bimey, moist-Bimey-Kirby channery loams, 15 to 25 percent slopes 25 Bitton-Ringling, dry, channery loams, 8 to 25 per- cent slopes 49 Busby-Twilight-Blackhall, warm, fine sandy loams, 8 to 25 percent slopes 48 59 Cambcth-Cabbart complex, dissected, 8 to 25 per- cent slopes 73 Delfxjint-Cabbart-Yamac loams, 8 to 25 percent slopes 76 Delpoint, moist-Delpoint-Cabban looms, 1 5 to 25 percent slopes 1 1 5 Kobar-Cabbart-Yawdim complex, 8 to 25 percent slopes 132 Lonna-Cabban-Yawdim complex, 8 to 25 percent slopes 170 Spang, moist-Bimey complex, 8 to 25 percent slopes 203 Yamac-Bimey complex, 1 5 to 25 percent slopes 204 Yamac-Bimey-Cabbart complex, 1 5 to 25 percent slopes 207 Yamac-Cabbart loams, 8 to 25 percent slopes 3. Soils on hi^ly dissected uplands. This group consists of seventeen map units. Slope is 1 5 to 70 percent. They formed in coUuvium, baked sandstone and shale, residium from loamy sedimentary beds and shale. Most areas have barren side slopes, narrow ridges, rock outcrops and deeply en- trenched coulees. These map units are not suited to irrigated crops due to one or more of the following: steepness of slope, shallow depth to baked sandstone and shale, sedimentary beds and rock outcrop. These map units are class 6. The following map units are in this group. Symbol Name 8 Armells-Delpoint-Cabban complex, 25 to 70 per- cent slopes 9 Armells-Kirby complex, 25 to "'0 percent slopes 10 Armells-Kirby-Cabbart complex, 25 to 70 percent slopes. 12 Badland 14 Barvon, dry-Doney-Cabba complex, 15 to 70 per- cent slopes 21 Bimey, moist-Armells-Cabbart complex, 25 to 70 percent slopes 24 Bitton-Doney-Ringling, dry, complex, 25 to 70 percent slopes 29 Bitton, moist-doney-Cabba complex, 1 5 to 70 per- cent slopes 32 Bitton, moist-Ringling, dry-Cabba complex, 25 to 70 percent slopes 54 Cabbart-Armells-Rock outcrop complex, 25 to ~0 percent slopes 55 Cabbart-Yawdim-Rock outcrop complex, 1 5 to 70 percent slopes 72 Delpoint-Cabbart loams, 25 to 70 percent slopes. 74 Delpoint-Cabbart- Yawdim complex, 25 to ~0 per- cent slopes. 77 Delpoint, moist-Delpoint-Cabbart loams, 25 to 70 percent slopes. 108 Kirby-Cabbart-Rock outaop complex, 25 to "0 percent slopes 121 Lamedeer, dry-Bitton, moist-Ringling, dry, channery loams, 25 to 70 percent slopes 1 83 Ustic Torriorthents, 1 5 to 35 percent slopes. 49 50 APPENDIX F ENGINEERING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Individual projects are designed using che interactive computer prograrns developed by the DNRC for Missouri River water reservation applications. This method incorpo- rates computer-aided design (AutoCAD) and spreadsheet (Locus- 1 23) software to design and calculate annual irriga- tion costs of potential irrigation sites. With AutoCAD a user can draws points, lines, geomet- ric objects, and freehand traces. These drawing components are referred to as entities. Using a digitizing tablet and a printer or plotter these entities are drafted and reproduced on a map at any desired scale. A digitizing tablet is a com- puter input device, like the keyboard, that allows the user to place information on the screen. A map is placed on the digitizing tablet and the tablet is calibrated to che map'sscale. Then the user draws encicies on che screen ac a scale relative to che map. This procedure is used in che design of irrigacion syscems. Text and attribute information is entered to com- plete a drawi ng. An attribute is informadon that is associated with a drawing entity and is used to index and keep track of graphic drawings in che design. These drawing encicies and cheir attributes are referred to as blocks. To design an irrigation system a base map of the design area is calibraced co the tablet and irrigation system design information is entered by the designer. The AutoCAD LISP programs arc design tcx)ls that will perform calculations and insert standard symbols at che designer's discrecion. These programs are not 'intelligent'; they do not make design decisions. They do, however, make the design pr(x:ess easer, quicker, and moreaccurate. When the design is finished, the attribute information is transfered to a spreadsheet that performs the economic analysis and formats che informa- don CO be used in a report. The irrigadon design analysis (IDA) spreadsheet takes information that has been extracted for AutoCAD irriga- don designs and determines the total, annual, and annual per acre costs of chat system. TTie spreadsheet uses a key- board macro to import the information from AutoCAD and insert the informadon into the appropriate locadons in the spreadsheet. The identification (ID) range of the IDA spreadsheet imporcs AutoCAD design data on project number, owner name, legal land description, and designer's name. The ID range is used as a project identifier for all output. Other project data is imported co che system vari- able range of the IDA spreadsheet including; peak con- sumptive use , total consumptive use, net irrigation require- ment, maximum soil intake rate, soil water holding capacity, and miles of required power line construction. I his infor- mation is used to document che variables used in the AucoCAD design process and is used by che spreadsheec co calculate other variables. The irrigation attribute range imports AutoCAD de- sign data and determines che volume of wacer needed and che syscem cose for each irrigation attributes in the AutoCAD design. It then totals the number of acres irri- gated, flow required, labor required, acre feet of water needed, andsystem costs forallchesystems in the AutoCAD design. The distribution system attributes range import data from the pipeline attribute blocks of the AutoCAD design. This range determine che class and per foot cost of the pipeline at each node and then calculates che cocal cose of che pipeline for each reach. The per foot cost of the pi pe is found by searching the pipe cast table for the appropriate size and class of pipe. The range then calculates the cocal pipe line costs. The pump attributes range imports data for the pump attribute informarion.The range calculates the diesel engine cost chat would be required co drive each pump. These costs are compared to electrical motor costs and power line con- struction costs in thesystem variables range to decermi ne che least cost pumping alternative. Thesystem constants range sets the value for thespread- sheet variables that are not dependent on the AutoCAD design and so remain constant from one design to che nexc. The system variables range is the set of variables that is obtained from or calculated from the AutoCAD design and so change with che design. This sec of variables is included in che princ ouc of each design summary. The equipment 51 cost variable is the sum of the pivot, wheel line, and hand line costs. .Annual pumping costs are detemiined for the least cost method of pumping. The irrigation costs table range of the IDA spreadsheet annualizes the cost of the irrigation equipment in the AutoCAD designed system. The table separates the on-farm irrigation equipment costs from the water delivery system costs. The engineering and contingency costs arc based on the delivery system. The range determines the total cost for each item then calculates the operation and maintenance from the O&M column and adds this to the amortized cost. The amortized cost is calculated on a economic and fi- nancial basis. The amortized economic costs are based on the sv'Stems life from the life column and the real rate of remm interest variable. The amortized financial costs arc based on the fixed financial life and financial interest rate variables. The range sums these columns to determine the total annual economic and financial system costs. 52 APPENDIX G IRRIGATION PROJECT DESIGNS 1 Project# : NCR- 1 rOPO: ASHLAND NE Owner NCR SOURCE: TONGUE R. Location : T2S R44E 10 NW , NU , SE 16 -Feb-90 IRRIGATION ATTRIBUTES MIN-PR HU-L LABOR UATER USE 'IVOT LINE TYPE IDl» AREA FLOU FLOOD (systeo) (acres) gpra) (ft) (ft) (hours) (a- ■f/yr) COST COST COST UIHLN 1 42 370 126 948 74 119 $8,888 UHLN 2 44 425 126 1095 74 125 $9,770 HLN 1 25 233 135 600 133 73 $2,400 HLN 2 35 337 135 840 186 102 $3,360 HLN 3 22 199 135 520 115 65 $2,080 168 1564 582 484 t26.498 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES ID EL HEAD FLOU SIZE LENGTH PR- IN NODE ID PIPE COST/ TOTAL (OUT) (ft) (ft) (gpra) (in) (ft) (ft) (IN) CLASS FT COST 2880 126 425 8 2170 132 1 80 $3.41 $7,406 1 2880 132 795 10 1799 159 2 100 $6.05 $10,879 20 2870 137 337 6 1350 159 2 100 $2.70 $3 , 640 21 2860 150 233 6 2029 159 2 100 $2.70 $5,471 2 ?8wer line const Total consuaptive use Net irrigation reguir Total acres irrigated Ac- ft of water needed Total How Equipaent costs Flood costs Total pipe cost Total ditch cost LaCmr cost TR-21 weather station PLC 3.0 ■ lies TCU 29.1 inches NIR 22.2 inches TAI 168 4C AFN ua<. ac-ft Total poap hp THP 95 TFL 1564 gp» Hours of pumping HOP 1679 EQC S26.498 Engine amort. ENA S.7X FDC Annual electrical cost »7,502 TPC S58,333 Annual diesel costs $10,338 TOC Pumping power PPP Electrical ALC $2,910 Ann energy costs AEC $5,341 USTA N. CHEYENNE RES. Energy cost/ac EAC $31.79 I IRRIGATION COSTS TABLE | I I ECON FINAN. I I I I I I I I I I ITEM COST/ » OF UNITS T. COST X OtH OtM LIFE ANN-COST ANN-COST UNIT ITEMS $1 TOTAL TOTAL I I I I I 1 I I— I I Flood 10. OX 20 Line $26,498 1 . 5X $397 10 $3,763 $4,710 Pivot 3. OX 20 Other 1 5X 10 Other unit 5. OX 10 OH-FARM TOTALS Pua«> Engine D 1 ver s 1 on Pump controls Pipe Ditches Storage Other SYSTEM TOTALS Power dev . Engineering Contingency TOTAL $2,000 $58,333 $12,500 $26,498 $397 100 hp $13,564 2.5X $339 hp 5 5X 3.5 cfs $6,951 1.0X $70 lOXp. cost $1,356 1.0X $14 110X $64,166 0.5X $321 110X 5. OX ac-ft 1.0X unit 2. OX $86,038 3.0 miles $25,625 15%S. total $12,906 10XS. total $8,604 $743 $3,763 $4,710 30 $1,182 $2,547 17 30 $501 $1,201 20 $119 $234 50 $3,621 $10,764 20 50 50 $5,422 $14,745 50 $1,318 $4 , 1 70 50 $664 $2,100 50 $442 $1,400 SI 59. 670 $1,140 $11,609 $27,126 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS LABOR ENERGY EQUIPMENT ECONOMIC I TOTAL /AC /AC-FT $2,910 $17.32 $6.01 $5,341 $31.79 $11.04 $11,609 $69.10 $23.99 TOTAL annual costs $19,861 $118.22 $41.03 Feasibility rating (chance that revenues exceed costs) NCR-1 93 percentile N. CHEYENNE RES. FINANCIAL TOTAL I /AC /AC-FT $27,126 $161.46 $56.05 $35,377 $210.58 $73.09 54 Pro)ectl» : NCR-2 Owner NCR Location : T2S TOPO: ASHLAND NE SOURCE: TONGUE R. RUE 15 SE.NE.NU 06-Mar-90 IRRIGATION ATTRIBUTES TYPE ID# AREA (syste«) (acres) PIVOT 116 FLOW HIN-PR (gp») (ft) 869 72 HU-L LABOR WATER USE PIVOT LINE FLOOD (ft) (hours) (a-f/yr) COST COST COST 1168 86 286 $31, '.48 116 869 86 286 J31,448 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES ID EL HEAD FLOW SIZE LENGTH PR-IN NODE ID PIPE COST/ TOTAL (OUT) (ft) (ft) (gpa) (in) (ft) (ft) (IN) CLASS FT COST 2870 72 869 10 1368 97 30 J5.25 $7,179 1,368 $7,179 PUMP ATTRIBUTES 10 EL HEAD FLOW BHP AC- FT 0 pod (ft) (ft) (gpm) (annual. ) 2850 97 869 28 286 HRS 1785 MOTOR SIZE ELECTICAL COSTS DIESEL COSTS POWER PUMP FUEL ENGINE 30 $1,648 $6,669 $2,499 $3,992 28 30 $1,648 $6,669 $2,499 $3,992 SOIL ATTRIBUTES Peak consumptive use Soil water holding capacity Maximum intake rate Predominant soU (Map Unit * i Land class K )109 Acres of irngable soils in project area # of acres of Class 6 soil in design area 0 3 •/day 9 • 0 6 ■/hr 170 ac ac 123 BSHa3XSXB3=S 55 Project* : MCR-2 ftrfoer NCR Locatioo : T2S ft44E 15 TOPO: SOURCE : ASHLAND NE TONGUE R. SE.NE.NU 06-Mar-90 SYSTEM VARIABLES Require power line const Total consuaptive use Nat irrigation requir Total acres irrigated Ac-ft of water needed Total flow Equipaent costs Flood costs Total pipe cost Total ditch cost Latwr cost TR-21 weather station PLC I.O ■ lies TCU 29 1 inches NIR 22 2 i nchei TAI 116 ac AFN 286 ac-ft Total puap hp THP 28 TFL 869 OP" Hours of punptng HOP 1785 EQC S31,'.48 Engine anort ENA 9.n FOC Annual electrical cost $3,810 TPC $7,179 Annual diesel costs $3,663 TDC Puoping power PPP Diesel ALC J430 Ann energy costs AEC $2,812 USTA N. Cheyenne Res. Energy cost/ac EAC $24.24 I IRRIGATION COSTS TABLE | I I ECON FINAN. I I I I I --I- I I I I ITEM COST/ # OF UNITS T. COST X OtM O&N LIFE ANN-COST ANN-COST UNIT ITEMS $1 TOTAL TOTAL I I I I I --I I I I 1 Flood 10. OX 20 Line 1.5X 10 Pivot $31,448 3.0Z $943 20 $3,382 $6,061 Other 1.5X 10 Other unit 5. OX 10 ON- FARM TOTALS Puap Engine Diversion $2,000 Puap controls Pipe $7,179 Ditches Storage Other SYSTEM TOTALS Power dev Engineering Contingency TOTAL $12,500 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS LABOR ENERGY EQUIPMENT $31,448 $943 30 hp $6,669 2 5X $167 31 hp $3,992 5 5X $220 1.9 cfs $3,862 1 OX $39 lOXp. cost $667 1 OX $7 110X $7,897 0 5X $39 110X 5 OX ac-ft 1 OX uni t 2 OX $23,088 $471 miles 15XS. total $3,463 10XS. total $2,309 - $60,308 $1,415 ECONOMIC 1 ...... 1 . TOTAL 1 j. /AC /AC- FT $3,382 $6,061 30 $531 $1,252 16 $582 $869 30 $279 $667 20 $58 $115 SO $446 $1,325 20 50 50 $1,946 $4,228 50 50 $178 $564 50 $119 $376 $5,625 $11,229 FINANCIAL I I TOTAL /AC $430 $3.71 $1.50 S2.812 $24.24 $9 83 $5,625 $48.49 $19.67 TOTAL annual costs $8,866 $76.44 $31.00 Feasibility rating (chance that revenues exceed costs) NCR-2 100 percentile N. Cheyenne Res. $11,229 $96 80 $14,471 $124.75 /AC-FT $39.26 SSG.60 56 Project!* : NCR-3 Owner NCR Location : T2S R44E 22 NU.su, NU TOPO: SOURCE : ASHLAND NE TONGUE R. 06-Mar-90 IRRIGATION ATTRIBUTES TYPE IDl» AREA FLOU MIN-PR (syitea) (acres) (gpa) (ft) UHLN 3 45 472 130 UHLN 4 30 292 128 75 764 HU-L LABOR UATER USE (ft) (hours) (a-f/yr) 1220 740 74 74 148 129 35 PIVOT COST 214 LINE COST $10,520 S7,640 $18,160 FLOOD COST DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES ID (OUT) 1 2 3 EL (ft) 2880 2880 2880 HEAD (ft) FLOU (gpa) 130 472 137 764 139 764 ZE LENGTH PR-IN NODE ID PIPE COST/ TOTAL rt) (ft) (ft) (IN) CLASS FT COST 8 1800 137 2 100 t3.92 J7,063 10 940 139 3 100 $6.05 $5,684 10 940 172 4 125 J7.10 $6,675 3,680 $19,422 PUMP ATTRIBUTES ID 0 POD EL (ft) 2850 HEAD (ft) 172 FLOW (gpa) 764 BHP AC-FT (annual ) 44 214 HRS ELECTICAL COSTS DIESEL COSTS POUER PUMP FUEL ENGINE 1519 50 $2,302 $7,464 $3,342 $4,850 MOTOR SIZE 44 50 $2,302 $7,464 $3,342 $4,350 SOIL ATTRIBUTES Peak consumptive use 0.3 "/da)r Soil water holding capacity 9 ' Maximun intake rate 0.6 "/hr Predominant soil (Map Unit # i land class # )109 123 Acres of irrigable soils in project area 170 ac # of acres of Class 6 soil in design area ac 57 Project* Owner Location NCR-3 NCR T2S R44E 22 NU.su. NU TOPO: SOURCE: ASHLAND NE TONGUE R. 06-Mar-90 SYSTEM VARIABLES Require power line contt. PLC 3.0 ■ lies Total consuaptive use TCU 29.1 inches Net irrigation requireaent NtR 22.2 inches Total acret irrigated TAI 75 ac Ac-ft of water needed AFN 214 ac-ft Total flow TFL 764 gpa Equipaent costs EQC J18.160 flood costs FDC Total pipe cost TPC S19.422 Total ditch cost TDC Labor cost ALC J740 TH-21 weather station USTA N . Cheyenne Res . Total punp hp Hours of punping Engine amort . Annual electrical cost Annual diesel costs Pumping power Ann. energy costs Energy cost/ac THP 44 HOP 1519 ENA a.2x $4,411 S4,655 PPP Electrical AEC S2.302 EAC S30.69 IRRIGATION COSTS TABLE ECON FINAN. I-- UNITS T. ITEM COST/ UNIT » OF ITEMS COST S1 X O&M OtM LIFE ANN-COST ANN-COST TOTAL TOTAL I- Flood Line Pivot Other Other ON- FARM TOTALS Punp Engine Diversion Puap controls Pipe Ditches Storage Other SYSTEM TOTALS Power dev Eng 1 neer i ng Contingency TOTAL J2,0(XI $19,422 $12,500 $18,160 10. OX 1.5S 3.03; 1.5X 5. OX $272 20 10 20 10 10 $18,160 $272 50 hp $7,464 2.5X $187 hp 5.5X 1.7 cfs $3,396 1.0X $34 lOXp. cost $746 1.0X $7 110X $21,365 Q.5X $107 110X 5. OX ac-ft 1.0X unit 2. OX $32,970 $335 3.0 miles $32,000 15XS. total $4 . 946 1GXS. total $3,297 $2,579 $3,228 $2,579 $3,228 30 $650 $1,401 18 30 $245 $587 20 $65 $129 50 $1,206 $3,584 20 50 50 $2,166 $5,701 50 $1,646 $5,208 50 $254 $805 50 $170 $537 $91,373 $607 $6,814 $15,478 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS LABOR ENERGY EQUIPMENT ECONOMIC I - TOTAL /AC /AC-FT $740 $9.87 $3.46 $2,302 $30 69 $10.76 $6,814 $90.86 $31 84 TOTAL annual costs $9,856 $131.42 $46.06 Feasibility rating (chance that revenues exceed costs) NCR-3 85 percentile N. Cheyenne Res. FINANCIAL I I TOTAL /AC $15,478 $206.37 $18,520 $246.93 /AC-FT $72.33 $86.54 K3SS333S3Xa= saaaaxcassssaasaass ■ a3assss=: = a 58 Proiecl* Owner Location NCR- NCR T2S R44E 27 NE.SU.NE TOPO: SOURCE : ASHLAND NE TONGUE R. 20-Feb-90 IRRIGATION ATTRIBUTES TYPE ID» AREA FLOW MIN-PR HU-L LABOR WATER USE PIVOT LINE FLOOD (syste«) (acres) (gp«) (ft) (ft) (hours) (a- •f/yr) COST COST COST PIVOT 1 66.7 500 59 361 50 164 »24,234 PIVOT 2 112.1 840 105 1146 84 276 S30,931 PIVOT 3 46.5 349 79 703 34 114 $20,521 PIVOT 4 49.5 371 54 728 37 122 $21,108 PIVOT 5 30.2 226 66 547 22 74 $16,855 UHLN 1 32 297 117 980 72 91 $9,080 337 2583 299 841 $113,648 $9,080 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES ID EL HEAD FLOW SIZE LENGTH PR- IN NODE ID PIPE COST/ TOTAL (OUT) (ft) ,(ft) (gpm) (in) (ft) (ft) (IN) CLASS FT COST 2 2920 105 840 10 2029 112 80 $5.25 $10,648 3 2920 112 1189 12 973 135 100 $8.03 $7,812 40 2900 114 297 6 3051 135 100 $2.70 $8,227 41 2900 108 500 8 1426 114 41 80 $3.41 $4 . 867 4 2900 135 1986 15 778 137 100 $11.60 $9,027 5 2900 137 2212 15 1447 141 100 $11.60 $16,790 6 2900 141 2583 15 1002 165 100 $11.60 $11,626 10.706 $68,997 PUMP ATTRIBUTES ID EL HEAD FLOW BMP AC-FT HRS MOTOR ELECTICAL COSTS 0 POD (ft) (ft) (gpm) (annual) SIZE POUER PUMP 2880 165 2583 144 841 1766 150 $8,406 $17,583 DIESEL COSTS FUEL ENGINE 144 150 $8,406 $17,583 $12,715 $12,440 SOIL ATTRIBUTES Peak consumptive use SoU water holding capacity Maxiaua intake rate Predoainant soU (Map Unit # S land class # Acres of irngable soils in project area It of acres of Class 6 soil in design area )197 /day 0.3 7 • 0.5 -/hr 608 ac •c 59 Pro]ect» : NCR-4 Owner NCR Location T2S R'.oE 27 NE.su, NE TOPO: SOURCE : ASHLAND NE TONGUE R. 20-feb-90 SYSTEM VARIABLES Require power line const. PLC 3.0 ■ lies Total consuaptive use TCU 29.1 inches Net irrigation requireaent NIR 22.2 inches Total acres irrigated TAI 337 ac Ac-ft of water needed AFN 841 ac-ft Total flow TFL 2583 gpa EQuipsent costs EQC S122.728 Flood costs FDC Total pipe cost TPC $68,997 Total ditch cost TDC Labor cost ALC t1,495 TR-21 weather station USTA N. Cheyenne Res. Total punp hp Hours of punping Engine amorc . Annual electrical cost Annual diesel costs Pumping power Ann. energy costs Energy cost/ac THP U4 HOP 1766 ENA 9. OX JIO.SOI S16,05fc PPP Electrical AEC $9,468 EAC $28.10 IRRIGATION COSTS TABLE ECON FINAN. ITEM COST/ UNIT » OF ITEMS UNITS T. COST $1 Z O&M O&H LIFE ANN-COST TOTAL ANN-COST TOTAL I- Flood Line Pivot Other Other ON- FARM TOTALS Puap Engine Diversion PuoH) controls Pipe Ouches Storage Other SYSTEM TOTALS Power dev . Engineering Contingency TOTAL $2,000 $68,997 $12,500 10. OX $9,080 1.5X SI 36 $113,648 3. OX 1.5X $3,409 unit 5. OX $122,728 $3,546 150 hp $17,583 2.5X $440 hp 5.5X 5.7 cfs $11,480 1.0X $115 lOXp. cost $1,758 1.0X $18 110X $75,897 0.5X $379 110S 5. OX ac-ft 1.0X unit 2. OX $106,718 $951 3 0 ailes $19,500 15XS. total $16,008 10XS. total $10,672 20 10 $1,289 20 $12,222 10 10 $1,614 $21,905 $275,625 $4,497 $13,511 $23,519 30 $1,532 $3,301 16 30 $828 $1,983 20 $154 $304 50 $4 , 283 $12,731 20 SO 50 $6,796 $18,319 50 $1,003 $3,174 50 $823 $2,605 50 $549 $1,737 $22,683 $49,354 =xas3axsa3sxsxaxasxKa3a TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS LABOR ENERGY EQUIPMENT ECONOMIC I TOTAL /AC /AC-FT $1,495 $4.44 $1.78 $9,468 $28 10 $11.26 $22,683 $67.31 $26.97 TOTAL annual costs $33,646 $99.84 $40.01 Feasibility rating (chance that revenues exceed costs) NCR-4 100 percentile N. Cheyenne Res. FINANCIAL I I TOTAL /AC $49,354 $146.45 $60,317 $178.98 /AC-FT $58.68 $71.72 60 Project* : NCR-6 Owner NCR Location : T2S TOPO: ASHLAND NE SOURCE: TONGUE R. R44E 27 NE, SE.su 20-Feb-9O IRRIGATION ATTRIBUTES TYPE ID# AREA FLOU NIN-PR HU-L LABOR UATER USE PIVOT LINE FLOOD (systea) (acres) (gp") (ft) (ft) (hours) (a-f/yr) COST COST COST HLN 1 65 765 136 2040 446 186 t8.160 HLN 2 13 117 136 400 87 39 $1,600 78 382 533 225 $9,760 PUMP ATTRIBUTES ID EL HEAD (ft) (ft) 0 POD 2880 225 FLOU (gpn) 882 BMP AC-FT (annual) 66 225 MRS 1384 MOTOR SIZE ELECTICAL COSTS DIESEL COSTS POUER PUMP FUEL ENGINE 75 $3,233 $10,082 $4,566 $6,223 66 75 $3,233 $10,082 $4,566 $6,223 SOIL ATTRIBUTES Peak consuoptiv/e use Soil water holding capacity Maxioun intake rate PredoBinant soil (Map Unit # & land class # )197 Acres of irrigable soils in project area # of acres of Class 6 soil in design area 0 3 7 •/day • 0 5 ■/hr 608 ac ac 61 Projects : NCR-6 Owner NCR Location T2S R44E 27 NE, SE.su TOPO: ASHLANO NE SOURCE TONGUE R. 20-Feb-90 SYSTEM VARIABLES Require power line const. Total consuaotive use Met irrigation requireaent TotaL acres irrigated Ac- ft of water needed Total flow Equipment costs Flood costs Total pipe cost Total ditch cost Labor cost TR-21 weather station PLC 3.0 ■ lies TCU 29 1 inches NIR 22.2 inches TAI ■ 78 iC AFN 225 ac-ft Total puap hp THP 66 TFL 882 gpa Hours of puaping HOP 1384 EOC $9,760 Engine anort . ENA 7 7% FOC Annual electrical cost $5,363 IPC J20.949 Annual diesel costs $6,266 TDC Pumping power PPP Electrical ALC $2,665 Ann energy costs AEC $3,233 USTA N . Cheyenne Res . Energy cost/ac EAC $41.45 sasxaiaasasxa BasaasaaassHSVBSSHaBss X5XSS 3S3SSS3SX== IRRIGATION COSTS TABLE ECOM FINAN. ITEM COST/ UNIT # OF UNITS T. COST ITEMS $1 Z 0AM O&M LIFE ANN-COST ANN-COST TOTAL TOTAL Flood Line Pivot Other Other Of*- FARM TOTALS Pump Engine Diversion Pump controls Pipe Ditches Storage ROAD CROSSING SYSTEM TOTALS Power dev. Engineering Contingency TOTAL $9,760 $2,000 $20,949 $5,000 $12,500 3.0 miles 15XS. total 10XS. total $43,054 $29,250 $6 458 $4,305 $92,828 10, OX 1,5X 3. OX 1,5X 5. OX $146 $9,760 $146 75 hp $10,082 2.5X $252 hp 5.5X 2,0 cfs $3,920 1.0X $39 10Xp. cost $1,008 1.0X $10 110X $23,044 0.5X $115 110X 5. OX ac-ft 1.0X 1 unit $5,000 2. OX $100 $517 20 10 20 10 10 30 20 30 20 50 20 50 50 50 50 50 $1,386 $1,735 $1,386 $878 $283 $88 $1,300 $357 $2,907 $1,504 $332 $221 $1,735 $1,893 $677 $174 $3,866 $914 $7,523 $4,760 $1,051 $701 $663 $6,350 $15,770 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS LABOR ENERGY EQUIPMENT ECONOMIC I TOTAL /AC /AC-FT $2,665 $34.17 $11.84 $3,233 $41.45 $14.37 $6,350 $81.42 $28 22 TOTAL annual costs $12,248 $157.03 $54.44 Feasibility rating (chance that revenues exceed costs) NCR-6 42 percentile N. Cheyenne Res. FINANCIAL I- TOTAL /AC $15,770 $202 18 $21,668 $277 80 /AC-FT $70 09 $96.30 = = = = = == = =: = 3x = xs3as3X = a 62 Proiecti» : NCR Owner NCR Location : T2S R44E 35 SU.SU.NU TOPO: SOURCE: ASHLAND TONGUE H. 20-Feb-90 IRRIGATION ATTRIBUTES TYPE ID« AREA FLOU NIN-PR HU-L LABOR UATER USE PIVOT LINE FLOOD (iy»t«i) (acres) (9P«) (ft) (ft) (hours) (a- ■f/yr) COST COST COST PIVOT 1 38.1 285 52 626 28 93 $18,711 HLN 1 30 296 130 880 195 88 $3,520 HLN 2 21 194 130 600 133 59 $2,400 89 1 775 356 240 $18,711 $5,920 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES ID EL HEAD FLOU SIZE LENGTH (OUT) (ft) (ft) (gp") (in) (ft) 2920 130 194 6 2091 1 2900 156 490 8 2853 2 2900 168 775 10 726 5,670 PR-IN NODE ID PIPE COST/ TOTAL (ft) (IN) CLASS FT COST 156 1 100 $2.70 $5,638 168 2 125 $4.60 $13,119 190 3 125 $7.10 $5,155 $23,912 PUMP ATTRIBUTES ID EL HEAD FLOU BHP AC-FT 0 POD (ft) (ft) (gp«) (annual) 2880 190 775 49 240 HRS 1680 MOTOR SIZE ELECTICAL COSTS DIESEL COSTS POUER PUMP FUEL ENGINE 50 $2,756 $7,475 $4,115 $5,143 49 50 $2,756 $7,475 $4,115 $5,143 SOIL ATTRIBUTES Peak consumptive use Sou water holding capacity Maximum intake rate Predominant soil (Map Unit # S land class it )171 Acres of irrigable soils in project area » of acres of Class 6 soil in design area 0.3 7.5 0.5 ■/day ■/hr 90 ac ac ■««*»«■■«««■»««■■«■■■ 63 Project* : NCR Owner NCR Loc«tion : T2S R4'.E J5 SU.su NU TOPO: SOURCE ASHLAND TONGUE R. 20-Feb-90 SYSTEM VARIABLES Require power line conit. PLC 1.0 ■iles Total consuaptive use TCU 29.1 inches Net irrigation requireaent NIR 22 2 inches Total acres irrigated TAI 89 ac Ac-ft of uater needed AFN 2«l ac-ft Total flow TFL 775 gp" Equipaent costs EQC $24,631 Flood costs FDC Total pipe cost TPC S23.912 Total ditch cost TDC Labor cost ALC J1,780 TR-21 weather station USTA N Cheyenne Res . Total punp hp Hours of punping Engine amort . Annual electrical cost Annual diesel costs Punp 1 ng power Ann. energy costs Energy cost/ac THP 49 HOP 1680 ENA 8.75; $3,549 $5 ".98 PPP Electrical AEC $2,923 EAC $32.80 IRRIGATION COSTS TABLE ECON FINAN. ITEM COST/ UNIT » OF ITEMS UNITS COST $1 X 0(M O&M LIFE ANN-COST TOTAL ANN-COST TOTAL Flood Line Pivot Other Other ON- FARM TOTALS Puap Engine Diversion $2,000 Puap controls Pipe $23,912 Ditches Storage SYSTEM TOTALS Power dev. $12,500 Engineering Contingency TOTAL TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS LABOR ENERGY EQUIPMENT 10. OX $5 , 920 1.5X $89 $18,711 3. OX 1.5X $561 unit 5. OX $24,631 $650 50 hp $7,475 2.5X $187 hp 5.5X 1.7 cfs $3,444 1.0X $34 lOZp. cost $748 1.0X $7 110X $26,303 0.5X $132 110X 5. OX ac-ft 1.0X unit 2. OX $37,970 $360 1.0 oiiles $6,375 15XS. total $5,696 10XS. total $3,797 - $78,469 $1,010 ECONOMIC 1 1 1 1 TOTAL /AC /AC-FT 20 10 20 10 10 $841 $2,012 $6,118 $1,780 $19.98 $7.42 $2,923 $32 80 $12 18 $6,118 $68 67 $25.49 TOTAL annual costs $10,821 $121.44 $45.09 Feasibility rating (chance that revenues exceed costs) NCR-7 92 percentile N. Cheyenne Res. $1,052 $3,606 $2,853 $4,659 30 $651 $1,403 17 30 $248 $595 20 $65 $129 50 $1,484 $4,412 20 50 50 $2,449 $6,540 50 $328 $1,038 50 $293 $927 50 $195 $618 $13,781 s = = ss = sxs = x3 = s3=:3a 33«333SSa FINANCIAL I I I TOTAL /AC /AC-FT $13,781 $154.67 . $57.42 $18,483 $207.45 $77.01 =3=a3=3a 64 Project* : NCR-8 Owner NCR Location : T3S R44E NU, SU.su TOPO: ASHLAND SOURCE: TONGUE R. 20-Feb-90 IRRIGATION ATTRIBUTES TYPE I0« AREA FLOU NIN-PR HU-L LABOR WATER USE PIVOT LINE FLOOD (systea) (acrej) (gp") (ft) (ft) (hours) (a- f/yr) COST COST COST PIVOT 1 67.4 505 60 866 50 166 S24.351 PIVOT 2 78.6 589 64 943 58 193 $26,161 PIVOT 3 87.9 659 103 1003 65 216 J27,571 PIVOT 4 67.5 505 75 867 50 166 J24.375 301.4 2258 223 741 $102,457 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES ID EL HEAD FLOU SIZE LENGTH PR-IN NODE ID PIPE COST/ TOTAL (OUT) (ft) (ft) (gp") (in) (ft) (ft) (IN) CLASS FT COST 3220 60 505 8 2054 89 1 80 $3.41 $7,010 1 3200 89 1094 12 2059 94 2 80 $6.88 $14,162 2 3200 103 1753 15 2004 127 3 80 $9.81 $19,650 3 3180 127 2258 15 6831 229 4 160 $16.79 $114,685 4 3100 229 2258 15 1240 423 5 STEEL $16.26 $20,159 14,188 $175,665 PUMP ATTRIBUTES ID EL HEAD FLOW BHP AC-FT 0 POO (ft) (ft) (gp«) (annual ) 2910 423 2258 321 741 HRS ELECTICAL COSTS DIESEL COSTS POUER PUMP FUEL ENGINE 1780 400 $18,848 $42,258 $28,569 $28,890 MOTOR SIZE 321 400 $18,848 $42,258 $28,569 $28,890 SOIL ATTRIBUTES Peak consuaptive use 0.3 '/day Soil water holding capacity 9 " MaxiauB intake rate 0.5 *,''hr Predoainant soil (Map Unit » t Land class » )65 Acres of irrigable soils in project area 490 ac « of acres of Class 6 soil in design area ac 65 Project* : NCR-8 Owner NCR Location : TJS R44E NU.SU.su TOPO: ASHLANO SOURCE: TOtKSUE R. 20-Feb-90 SYSTEM VARIABLES Require power line conit. Total consuaptive use Net irrigation requireaent Total acres irrigated Ac- ft of water needed Total flow Equipaent costs Flood costs Total pipe cost Total ditch cost Latxsr cost TR-21 weathier station PLC 2.0 • iles TCU 29.1 incfies NIR 22.2 incfies TAl 301 ac AFN 741 ac-tt Total puiap hp THP 321 TFL 2258 gpa Hours of pumping MOP 1780 EOC $102,457 Engine anort . ENA 9.U FOC Annual electrical cost $20,695 TPC $175,665 Annual diesel costs $36,460 TDC Punping power PPP Electrical ALC $1,115 Ann. energy costs AEC $19,830 USTA H. Chieyenne Res. Energy cost/ac EAC $65 . 79 IRRIGATION COSTS TABLE ECON FINAN. I TEH COST/ UNIT « OF ITEMS UNITS COST $1 Z O&fi 0£M LIFE ANN-COST TOTAL ANN-COST TOTAL Flood Line Pivot Other Other ON- FARM TOTALS PUBP Engine Diversion Puap controls Pipe Ditches Storage ROAO CROSSING SYSTEM TOTALS Power dev . Engineering Contingency TOTAL $4,000 $175,665 $10,000 $12,500 10. OX 1.5X $102,457 3. OX 1.5X $3,074 unit 5. OX $102,457 $3,074 400 hp $42,258 2.5X $1,056 hp 5.5X 5.0 cfs $20,071 1.0X $201 10'p. cost $4,226 1.0X $42 110X $193,232 0.5X $966 110X 5. OX ac-ft 1.0X 1 uni t $10,000 2. OX $200 $269,787 $2,466 2.0 mi les 15XS. total $40 , 468 10XS. total $26,979 20 10 20 10 10 50 50 50 $11,019 $2,081 $1,387 $19,748 $11,019 $19,748 30 $3,681 $7,934 16 30 $1,447 $3,467 20 $370 $730 50 $10,904 $32,414 20 50 50 $714 $1,827 $17,117 $46,372 $6 , 586 $4,391 $439,690 $5,539 $31,604 $77,097 K=33a=E33===3 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS L>«BOR ENERGY EQUIPMENT ECONOMIC 1 — TOTAL I - /AC /AC-FT $1,115 $3.70 $1 50 $19,830 $65 79 $26 76 $31,604 $104.86 $42 65 TOTAL annual costs $52,549 $174.35 $70.92 Feasibility rating (chance that revenues exceed costs) NCR-8 19 percentile N. Cheyenne Res. FINANCIAL 1 1 TOTAL /AC $77,097 $255 80 $98,042 $325.29 /AC-FT $104.04 $132.31 66 Project* NCa-9 Owner NCR Location T3S RUi.£ 10 SE.NU.su TOPO: ASHLAND SOURCE: TONGUE R. 20-Feb-) (ft) (ft) (hours) (a-f/yr) COST COST COST UHLN 1 36 340 124 980 72 103 t9.080 UHLN 2 27 280 123 800 72 77 $8,000 UHLN 3 27 280 119 800 72 78 J8,000 90 900 216 258 $25,080 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES ID EL HEAD FLOW SIZE LENGTH PR-IN NODE ID PIPE COST/ TOTAL (OUT) (ft) (ft) (gpii) (in) (ft) (ft) (IN) CUSS FT COST 2 3000 124 340 6 4343 189 3 125 $3.08 $13,368 3 2970 189 620 8 3373 241 4 160 $5.40 $18,211 4 2940 241 900 10 1934 289 5 200 $9.81 $18,981 9,650 $50,561 PUMP ATTRIBUTES ID EL HEAD FLOW BHP AC -FT 0 POO (ft) (ft) (gpni) (annual) 2900 289 900 87 258 ELECTICAL COSTS DIESEL COSTS HRS MOTOR SIZE POWER PUMP FUEL ENGINE 1553 100 $4,623 $12,900 $6,755 $7,715 87 100 $4,623 $12,900 $6,755 $7,715 SOIL ATTRIBUTES Peak consumptive use Soil water holding capacity Maximum intake rate Predominant soil (Map Unit # i land class # )124 Acres of irrigable soils in project area * of acres of Class 6 soil in design area 0 3 "/day 8 ■ 0 6 •/hr 1814 ac ac ■saaasa saaxBsaaaaaa saaasasaasaaa 71 Project* : NCR- 11 Owner NCR LOCltion : T03S R«4E 22 SE.NE.NU TOPO: ASHLAND SOURCE: TONGUE R. 02-Mar-90 SYSTEM VARIABLES Raquire power Une contt. Total contuaptive use Net irrigation requireaent Total acres irrigated Ac-ft of water needed Total flow Equipaent costs Flood costs Total pipe cost Total ditch cost Latxsr cost TR-21 weather station PLC 2.0 ■ lies TCU 29.1 inches NIR 22.2 inches TAI 90 ac AFN 258 ac-ft TFL 900 gpo EQC J25,080 FDC TPC J50,561 TDC ALC $1,080 USTA N. Cheyenne Res. IRRIGATION COSTS TABLE Total puav hp Hours of puapmg Engine aoiort. AnnudL electrical cost Annual diesel costs Pu«ping power Ann. energy costs Energy cost/ac TMP 87 HOP 1553 ENA 8.3X J6,151 18.942 PPP Electrical AEC S&.623 EAC J51.37 ECON FINAN. ITEM COST/ UNIT « OF UNITS T. COST X OtM ITEMS J1 OtM LIFE ANN-COST ANN-COST TOTAL TOTAL Flood Line Pivot Other Other ON- FARM TOTALS Puap Engine Diversion PuBp controls Pipe Ditches Storage ROAD CROSSING SYSTEM TOTALS Power dev Engineering Contingency TOTAL S2,000 S50.561 S5,000 $12,500 10. OX $25,080 1.5X 3. OX 1.5X $376 unit 5. OX $25,080 $376 100 hp $12,900 2.5X $323 hp 5.5X 2.0 cfs $4,000 1.0X $40 lOXp. cost $1,290 1.0X $13 110X $55,617 0.5X $278 110X 5. OX ac-ft 1.0X 1 unit $5,000 2. OX $100 $78,807 $753 2.0 Biles $14,125 15XS. total $11,821 10XS. total $7,881 20 10 20 10 10 $3,561 $4,458 $137,714 $1,130 $3,561 $4,458 30 $1,124 $2 422 18 30 $288 $691 20 $113 $223 50 $3,138 $9,329 20 50 50 $357 $914 $5,021 $13,579 50 $726 $2,299 50 $608 $1,924 50 $405 $1,283 $10,322 $23,542 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS LABOR ENERGY EQUIPMENT ECONOMIC TOTAL /AC /AC-FT $1,080 $12.00 $4.19 $4,623 $51.37 $17.94 $10,322 $114.69 $40.06 TOTAL annual costs $16,025 $178 05 $62.19 Feasibility rating (chance that revenues exceed costs) NCR-11 15 percentile N. Cheyenne Res. FINANCIAL I I I TOTAL /AC /AC-FT $23,542 $261 58 $91 37 $29,245 $324.95 $113.50 £SXS33a:33fl 72 Project* Owner Location NCR- 12 NCR T03S R'.I.E 22 SE.SU.NU TOPO: ASHLAND SOURCE: TONGUE R. 23-Feb-90 IRRIGATION ATTRIBUTES TYPE ID# AREA FLOW HIN-PR (syste«) (acres) (gp«) (ft) PIVOT 4 55.2 414 56 PIVOT 5 32.9 246 51 PIVOT 6 21.9 164 50 110 824 HU-L LABOR WATER USE (ft) (hours) (a-f/yr) 774 575 451 PIVOT COST 41 24 16 81 136 $22,189 81 $17,513 54 $14,599 271 $54,300 LINE COST FLOOO COST DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES ID EL HEAD FLOW SIZE LENGTH PR-IN NODE ID PIPE COST/ TOTAL (OUT) (ft) (ft) (gp» (in) (ft) (ft) (IN) CLASS FT :osT 5 2940 56 414 8 1482 60 6 80 $3 41 $5 058 60 2940 55 246 6 1122 60 6 80 $2 41 $? 700 6 2940 60 824 10 663 102 7 80 $5 25 $3 479 3.267 $11,238 PUMP ATTRIBUTES ID 0 POO EL (ft) 2900 HEAD (ft) 102 FLOU (gpi») 824 BHP AC-FT (annual) 28 271 MRS 1784 MOTOR SIZE ELECTICAL COSTS DIESEL COSTS POWER PUMP FUEL ENGINE 30 $1,647 $6,624 $2,497 $3,992 28 30 $1,647 $6,624 $2,497 $3,992 SOIL ATTRIBUTES Peak consumptive use Soil water holding capacity Maximum intake rate Predoainant soil (Map Unit # & land class * Acres of irrigable soils in pro)ect area • of acres of Class 6 soil in design area )124 /day 0.3 8 " 0.6 -/hr 1814 ac ac BS3a===s 73 Project* : NCR-12 TOPO: ASHLANO Owner NCR SOURCE: TONGUE R. Location : T03S H44E 22 SE.SU.NU 23-Feb-90 SYSTEM VARIABLES Require power line const. PLC 2.0 ■ lies Total coniuaptive use TCU 29.1 inches Net irrigation reQuire»ent NIR 22.2 inches Total acres irrigated TAI 110 ac Ac- ft of water neeOed AFN 271 ac-ft Total puap hp THP 28 Total flow TFL 824 gp" Hours of punping HOP 1784 Eguiciaent co«ts EOC t54,300 Engine aaort. ENA 9. IX Flood costs FDC Annual electrical cost S3. 164 Total pipe cost TPC 111,238 Annual diesel costs t3.657 Total ditch cost TDC Pumping power PPP Electrical Labor cost ALC 1405 Ann energy costs AEC J2.128 TR-21 weather station USTA N. Cheyenne Res. Energy cost/ac EAC $19.35 IRRIGATION COSTS TABLE ECON I I- LIFE ANN-COST TOTAL FINAN. ITEH COST/ UNIT » OF ITEMS UNITS T. COST $1 Z O&N o&n ANN-COST TOTAL Flood Line Pivot Other Other ON- FARM TOTALS Puap Eng i ne Diversion Puap controls Pipe Oi tches Storage LAND CLEARING SYSTEM TOTALS Power dev. Engineer ing Contingency TOTAL S2,000 111,238 $100 $12,500 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS 10. OX 1.5X $54,300 3. OX 1.5X $1,629 unit 5. OX $54,300 $1,629 30 hp $6,624 2.5X $166 hp 5.5X 1.8 cfs $3,662 1.0X $37 lOXp. cost $662 1 OX $7 110X $12,361 0.5X $62 110X 5. OX ac-ft 1.0X 110 unit $11,000 2. OX $220 $34,310 $491 2,0 ailes $21,500 15XS. total $5,146 10XS. total $3,431 • $118,687 $2,120 ECOtlOMIC 1 1 20 10 20 $5,840 10 10 $10,466 $5,840 $10,466 30 $577 $1,244 16 30 $264 $633 20 $58 $114 50 $698 $2,074 20 50 50 $786 $2,010 $2,382 $6,074 50 $1,106 $3,499 50 $265 $838 50 $176 $558 $9,769 $21,435 xaaxaazxawaKaaaaxa TOTAL /AC /AC-FT FINANCIAL I -I TOTAL /AC LABOR ENERGY EQUIPMENT $405 $3 68 $1.49 $2,128 $19.35 $7.85 S9,769 $88.81 $36.05 TOTAL annual costs $12,302 $111.84 $45.39 Feasibility rating (chance that revenues exceed costs) NCR-12 96 percentile N Cheyenne Res. $21,435 $194.87 $23,969 $217.90 /AC-FT $79.10 $88.45 Project/* Owner Location NCR-12 NCR T03S R44E TOPO: ASHLAND SOURCE: TONGUE R. 22 SE.SU.NW 23-Feb-90 74 This project would require Land clearing in old river channels. Project* Owner Location NCH-13 NCR T03S R44E TOPO: ASHLAND SOURCE: TONGUE R. 22 NE, SU.su 21-Feb-90 IRRIGATION ATTRIBUTES TYPE (syste«) PIVOT 7 PIVOT 9 UHLN S ID# AREA (acres) J9 57.1 17 FLOU (gp") 292 428 220 MIN-PR (ft) 52 S6 118 HU-L LABOR UATER USE PIVOT (ft) (hours) (a-f/yr) COST 635 789 620 29 42 72 113.1 940 143 96 »18,923 140 J22.542 50 LINE COST J6,920 286 S41.464 $6,920 FLOOD COST DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES 10 EL HEAD FLOU SIZE LENGTH PR-IN NODE ID PIPE COST/ TOTAL T) (ft) (ft) (gpo) (in) (ft) (ft) (IN) CLASS FT COST 7 2980 118 220 6 1081 141 8 100 S2.70 $2,915 8 2960 141 220 6 796 164 9 100 $2.70 $2,146 90 2970 129 428 8 1554 164 9 100 $3.92 $6,098 10 2940 164 940 10 848 208 11 160 $8.35 $7,082 4.279 $18,242 PUMP ATTRIBUTES ID EL HEAD FLOU BHP AC-FT 0 pod (ft) (ft) (gpo) (annual) 2900 208 940 66 286 HRS 1650 MOTOR SIZE ELECTICAL COSTS DIESEL COSTS POUER PUMP FUEL ENGINE 75 $3,665 $10,140 $5,446 $6,223 66 75 $3,665 $10,140 $5,446 $6,223 SOIL ATTRIBUTES Peak consumptive use 0.3 '/day Soil water holding capacity 8 " Maximum intake rate 0.6 "/hr Predominant soil (Map Unit 0 i land class # )124 1 Acres of irrigable soils in project area 1814 ac » of acres of Class 6 soil in design area ac 75 Project* Owner Location NCR- 13 NCR T03S RittE 22 NE.SU.su TOPO: SOURCE ASHLAND TONGUE R. 21-Feb-90 SYSTEM VARIABLES Require cxjwer line const . PLC 2.0 ■ lies ToCtl consuaptive use TCU 29.1 inches Net irrigation requireaent NIR 22.2 inches Total acres irriga ted TAI 113 ac Ac-ft of water needed AFN 286 ac-ft Total flow TFL 940 gpa Equipaent costs EQC S48.384 Flood costs FOC Total pipe cost TPC $18,242 Total ditch cost TOC Lat»r cost ALC S715 TR-21 weather station USTA N. Cheyenne Res. ZSSZBaS3=3 Total puap hp Hours of puaping Engine anort . Annual electrical cost Annual diesel costs Puap 1 ng power Ann. energy costs Energy cost/ac IRRIGATION COSTS TABLE ■I- TMP 66 HOP 1650 ENA 8.6X $5,156 $7,208 PPP Electrical AEC $4,045 EAC $35.76 ECON FINAN. ITEM COST/ UNIT » OF ITEMS UNITS T. COST $1 X O&H OtM LIFE ANN-COST TOTAL ANN-COST TOTAL Flood Line Pivot Other Other ON- FARM TOTALS Puap Engine Diversion Puap controls Pipe Ditches Storage LAND PREP. SYSTEM TOTALS Power dev. Engineering Contingency TOTAL TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS $2,000 $18,242 $100 $12,500 10. OX $6,920 1.5X $104 $41,464 3. OX 1.5X $1,244 unit 5. OX $48,384 $1,348 75 hp $10,140 2.5X $254 hp 5.5X 2.1 cfs $4,178 1.0X $42 lOXp. cost $1,014 1.0X $10 110X $20,066 0.5X $100 110X 5. OX ac-ft 1.0X 28 unit $2,828 2. OX $57 $38,225 $462 2.0 Biles $16,750 15XS. total $5,734 lOXS. total $3,823 - $112,915 $1,810 ECONOMIC 1 ..... 1 TOTAL 1 /AC /AC-FT 20 10 20 10 10 $983 $4,459 FINANCIAL •I- TOTAL LABOR $715 $6.32 $2.50 ENERGY . $4,045 $35.76 $14.14 EQUIPMENT $9,402 $83 13 $32.88 TOTAL annual costs $14,162 $125.22 $49.52 Feasibility rating (chance that revenues exceed costs) NCR-13 91 percentile N. Cheyenne Res. $1,230 $7,992 $5,442 $9,222 30 $883 $1,904 17 30 $301 $722 20 $89 $175 50 $1,132 $3,366 20 50 50 $202 $517 $2,608 $6,683 50 $861 $2,726 50 $295 $933 50 $197 $622 $9,402 $20,186 /AC /AC-FT $20,186 $178.48 $70.58 $24,946 $220.57 $87.22 3SS3XSSSS X3 =3ss;: ======33333 76 Project/* : NCR-U Owner NCR Location : T03S R4AE 28 SU.NU.NE TOPO: SOURCE: ASHLAND TONGUE R. 23-Feb-90 IRRIGATION ATTRIBUTES TYPE I0# AREA FLOW MIN-PR HU-L LABOR WATER USE PIVOT LINE FLOOD (syste«) (acres) (gp") (ft) (ft) (hours) (a-f/yr) COST COST COST PIVOT 1 38.8 290 67 633 29 95 $18,876 PIVOT 2 74.6 559 62 916 55 183 J25.526 PIVOT 3 53.8 403 55 763 40 132 t21,931 167 2 1252 124 410 J66.332 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES 10 EL HEAD FLOU SIZE LENGTH (OUT) (ft) (ft) (gpm) (in) (ft) 2 2950 62 559 8 1835 30 2950 66 403 8 1799 31 2950 62 290 6 1504 3 2950 71 1139 12 465 5,603 PR-IN NODE ID PIPE COST/ TOTAL (ft) (IN) CLASS FT COST 71 3 80 J3.41 $6,262 71 3 80 J3.41 $6,140 71 3 80 $2.41 $3,620 93 4 80 $6.88 $3,198 $19,220 PUMP ATTRIBUTES 10 EL HEAD FLOU BHP AC-FT (ft) (ft) (gp«) ( annua L ) 0 POO 2930 93 1139 35 373 HRS ELECTICAL COSTS DIESEL COSTS POUER PUMP FUEL ENGINE 1776 40 $2,052 $7,439 $3,108 $4,352 MOTOR SIZE 35 40 $2,052 $7,439 $3,108 $4,352 SOIL ATTRIBUTES Peak consumptive use Soil water noLding capacity Maximun intake rate Predominant soiL (Map Unit # S land class # Acres of irrigable soils in project area # of acres of Class 6 soil in design area )100 0.3 "/day 8 ■ 0.6 Vhr 2079 ac ac 77 Pro)ect» Owner Locat ion NCR-U NCR TOSS R44E 28 Sy . NU , NE TOM: SOURCE : ASHLANO TOfKUE R 23-fet>-90 SYSTEM VARIABLES Require power line conit. PLC 3.0 ■Ues Total contuaptive us* TCU 29.1 inches Met irrigation requireaent NIR 22.2 inches Total acres irrigated TAI 167 ac Ac-ft of water needed AFN 410 ac-ft Total puap hp THP 35 Total flow TFL 1252 gpo Hours of puaping HOP 1776 Eouipaent costs EOC S66,332 Engine amort . ENA 9 IX Flood costs FOC Annual electrical cost S4.218 Total pipe cost TPC J19.220 Annual diesel costs J4,390 Total ditch cost TDC Puaping power PPP Electrical Lakior cost ALC S620 Ann. energy costs AEC J2.667 TR-21 weather station USTA N . Cheyenne Res . Energy cost/ac EAC 115.95 IRRIGATION COSTS TABLE ECON FINAN. I ITEM COST/ # OF UNITS T. COST I 0«M ' O&M LIFE ANN-COST ANN-COST UNIT ITEMS SI TOTAL TOTAL I I I I I I I I — Flood Line Pivot Other Other ON-FARN TOTALS Puao Engine Diversion Puap controls Pipe Ditches Storage LAND CLEARING SYSTEM TOTALS Power dev. Engineering Contingency TOTAL S66.332 uni t 10. OX 1.5X 3. OX 1.5X 5. OX S2,000 SI 9, 220 S100 S12,500 S145.569 ECONOMIC TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS L>BOR ENERGY EQUIPMENT TOTAL /AC /AC-FT S620 S3. 71 SI. 51 S2,667 S15.95 S6.51 SI 1.762 S70.35 S28.69 TOTAL annual costs S15,049 S90.01 S36.71 Feasibility rating (chance that revenues exceed costs) NCR-14 100 percentile N. Cheyenne Res. SI, 990 20 10 20 10 10 S7,134 S66,332 SI, 990 40 hp $7,439 2 5X S186 hp 5.5X 2.8 cfs S5,564 1.0X S56 lOXp. cost S744 1.QX S7 110X S21,142 0.5X S106 110X 5. OX ac-ft 1.0X 20 unit S2.000 2. OX S40 S 36. 889 S395 3.0 ailes S33,125 15XS. total S5,533 10XS. total S3. 689 $2,385 112.785 S7.134 $12,785 30 S648 $1,397 16 30 S401 $961 20 $65 $129 50 $1,193 $3,546 20 50 50 $143 $365 $2,450 $6,398 50 $1 , 704 $5,391 50 $285 $901 50 $190 $600 $11,762 $26,075 F INANCIAL I I I TOTAL /AC /AC-FT $26,075 $155.95 $63.60 $29,363 $175.62 $71 62 78 Project* ; NCR-15 Owner NCR Location : T03S R4'.E 32 SE.NU.NE TOPO: SOURCE: ASHLAND TONGUE R. 25-Fet>-90 IRRIGATION ATTRIBUTES TYPE (systea) PIVOT 4 PIVOT 5 HLN 1 ID« AREA (acres) 45.7 63.5 39 148. 2 FLOU (gp") 342 475 394 1211 NIN-PR (ft) 53 58 107 HW-L LABOR WATER USE (ft) (hours) (a-f/yr) PIVOT COST 695 34 838 47 1760 187 LINE COST 268 112 J20,333 156 $23,693 111 $7,040 FLOOD COST 379 $44,026 $7,040 DISTaiBUTION SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES ID EL HEAD FLOU SIZE LENGTH PR-IN NODE ID PIPE COST/ TOTAL (OUT) (ft) (ft) (gp") (in) (ft) (ft) (IN) CLASS FT COST 4 3020 58 475 8 2997 99 5 80 $3.41 $10,228 5 2990 99 817 10 905 132 6 80 $5.25 $4,750 60 2960 130 394 8 827 132 6 30 $3.41 $2,822 61 2960 126 394 3 1382 130 61 80 $3.41 $4,716 62 2960 120 394 8 1931 126 62 80 $3.41 $6,590 6 2960 132 1211 12 152 7 100 $8.03 8,042 $29,106 PUMP ATTRIBUTES ID 0 POO EL (ft) 2940 HEAD (ft) 152 FLOU (gp") 1211 BHP AC- FT (annual) 62 379 ELECTICAL COSTS DIESEL COSTS MRS MOTOR SIZE POUER PUMP FUEL ENGINE 1698 75 $3,515 $10,411 $5,262 $5,958 62 75 $3,515 $10,411 $5,262 $5,958 SOIL ATTRIBUTES Peak consumptive use Soil water holding capacity Haxrnua intake race Predominant soU (Map Unit * & land class # )100 Acres of irrigable soils in project area » of acres of Class 6 soil in design area 0.3 •/day 8 " 0.6 •/hr 1 2079 ac ac = :=3SExa33B 79 Pro)ect» : NCR- 15 Ouncr NCR Location : T03S R44E 32 SE.NU.NE TOPO tSHLANO SOURCE TONGUE R. 23-Feb-'»0 SYSTEM VARIABLES Require power line const. Total consuactive uie N«t irrigation requirenent Total acres irrigated Ac- ft of water needed Total flow Equipaent costs Flood costs Total pipe cost Total ditch cost Latx>r cost TR-21 weather station PLC 3.0 ■iles TCU 29.1 inches NIR 22.2 inches TAI U8 ac AfN 379 ac-ft Total puap hp THP 62 TFL 1211 gp" Hours of punping HOP 1698 EOC SSI. 066 Engine aaort. ENA 8.8X FOC Annual electrical cost S5,692 TPC S29.106 Annual diesel costs S7.020 TOC Punping power PPP Electrical ALC SI, 340 Ann energy costs AEC S3, 924 USTA N . Cheyenne Res . Energy cost/ac EAC S26 48 I IRRIGATION COSTS TABLE | I I ECON FINAN. I - I I I I I I I I I ITEM COST/ « OF UNITS T. COST X OtM Ot« LIFE ANN-COST ANN-COST UNIT ITEMS SI TOTAL TOTAL I -I I I I I I I I I Flood Line Pivot Other Other ON-FARM TOTALS Puap Engine Diversion Puap controls Pipe Ditches Storage ROAD CROSSING SYSTEM TOTALS Power dev. Engineering Contingency TOTAL TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS S2,000 S29.106 S10.000 S12,500 10. OX S7.040 1.5X S106 S44,026 3. OX 1.5X SI, 321 unit 5. OX S51,066 SI, 426 75 hp $10,411 2.5X S260 hp 5.5X 2.7 cfs S5 , 382 1.0X S54 lOXp. cost SI. 041 1.0X S10 110X S32,017 0.5X S160 110X 5. OX ac-ft 1.0X 1 unit S10,000 2. OX S200 S58,851 S68S 3.0 ailes S29,750 15XS. total S8.828 10XS. total S5,885 - SI 54. 380 S2,111 ECONOMIC TOTAL /AC /AC-FT 20 10 20 10 10 SI, 000 S4.735 S1 1,928 FINANCIAL TOTAL ■I- /AC LABOR SI. 340 S9.04 S3 . 54 ENERGY S3, 924 S26.48 S10.35 EQUIPMENT S1 1,928 S80.49 S31.47 TOTAL annual costs S17,192 S116.00 S45.36 Feasibility rating (chance that revenues exceed costs) NCR- 15 94 percentile N. Cheyenne Res. $27,236 $183 78 $32,499 $219 29 $1,251 $8 . 486 $5,734 $9,737 30 $907 $1,955 16 30 $388 $930 20 $91 $180 50 $1,807 $5,371 20 50 50 $714 $1,827 $3,907 $10,262 50 $1,530 $4,342 50 $454 $1,437 50 $303 $958 $27,236 /AC-FT $71.86 $85 . 75 80 Project* Owner Location NCR- 16 NCR T04S «'.4E TOPO: ASHLANO SOURCE: TONGUE R. NE.NENU 23-Feb-90 IRRIGATION ATTRIBUTES TYPE (sy$te«) PIVOT 6 PIVOT 7 PIVOT 8 ID* AREA (•cre») 87 39 31.2 157.2 FLOU niN-PR (gp") (ft) 652 292 233 1177 68 52 51 HU-L LABOR WATER USE PIVOT (ft) (hours) (a-f/yr) COST 998 635 557 65 29 23 117 214 S27,453 96 $18,923 76 117. (D90 386 163 , 465 LINE COST FLOOD COST DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES ID EL HEAD FLOU SIZE LENGTH PR-IN NODE ID PIPE COST/ TOTAL (OUT) (ft) (ft) (9Pa) (in) (ft) (ft) (IN) CLASS FT COST 7 2960 51 233 6 1739 48 8 80 J2.41 $4,185 8 2970 68 885 10 1074 32 9 80 $5.25 $5,636 90 2960 77 292 6 705 82 9 80 $2.41 $1,697 9 2960 82 1177 12 529 103 10 80 $6.38 $3,638 4,047 $15,157 PUMP ATTRIBUTES ID EL HEAD FLOU BHP AC- FT 0 POO (ft) (ft) (gpa) (annual) 2940 103 1177 41 386 ELECTICAL COSTS HRS MOTOR SIZE POUER PUMP 1779 50 DIESEL COSTS FUEL ENGINE $2,406 $7,877 $3,647 $4,680 41 50 $2,406 $7,877 $3,647 $4,680 SOIL ATTRIBUTES Peak consuapcive use 0.3 '/day Soil water holding capacity 8 " MaxiQHja intake rate 0.6 V'hr Predoainant soil (Map Unit « i Land class « )100 1 Acres of irrigaole soils in project area 2079 ac » of acres of Class 6 soil in design area ac 81 Project* : MCR-16 Owner NCR Location ; T04S RUE NE.NE.NW TOPO: ASHLANO SOURCE: T0N6UE R. 23-Fet>-90 SySTEH VARIABLES Raquire power Line const. PLC 3.0 ■ lies Total consuaptive use TCU 29.1 inches Met irrigation requireaent NIR 22.2 inches Total acres irrigated TAX 157 ac Ac-ft of water needed AFN 386 ac-ft Total flow TFL 1177 gp" Equipaent costs GQC 163,465 Flood costs FOC Total pipe cost TPC S15,157 Total ditch cost TDC Labor cost ALC $585 TR-21 weather station USTA N . Cheyenne Res . Total puop hp Hours of puaping Engine aaiort. Annual electrical cost Annual diesel costs Pumping power Ann. energy costs Energy cost/ac THP HOP ENA 41 1779 9 U $4,560 S5,014 PPP Electrical AEC S2,990 EAC (19.02 IRRIGATION COSTS TABLE ECON FINAN. ITEM COST/ UNIT » OF ITEMS UNITS T. COST SI X OtM OAH LIFE ANN-COST ANN-COST TOTAL TOTAL •I- Flood Line Pivot Other Other ON-FARM TOTALS Puap Engine Diversion Puap controls Pipe Di tches Storage L^NO CLEARING SYSTEM TOTALS Power dev . Engineering Contingency TOTAL S2.000 J15,157 S100 S12.50O $63 , 465 10. OX 1.5X 3. OX 1.5X 5. OX $1,904 20 10 20 10 10 $63,465 $1,904 50 hp $7,877 2.5X $197 hp 5.5X 2.6 cfs $5,231 1.0X $52 lOXp. cost $788 1.0X $8 110X $16,673 0.5X $83 110X 5. OX ac-ft 1.0X 50 unit $5,000 2. OX $100 $35,569 $440 3.0 niles $32,375 15XS. total $5,335 10XS. total $3,557 $140,301 $2,344 $6,825 $12,233 $6,825 $12,233 30 $686 $1,479 16 30 $377 $904 20 $69 $136 50 $941 $2,797 20 50 50 $357 $914 $2,430 $6,229 50 $1,665 $5,269 50 $274 $868 50 $183 $579 $11,378 $25,178 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS LABOR ENERGY EQUIPMENT ECONOMIC I TOTAL /AC /AC-FT $585 $3.72 $1.52 $2,990 $19.02 $7 75 $11,378 $72.38 $29 48 TOTAL annual costs $14,953 $95 12 $38.74 Feasibility rating (chance that revenues exceed costs) NCR-16 100 percentile N. Cheyenne Re«. FINANCIAL TOTAL /AC $25,178 $160 16 $28,753 $182.91 /AC-FT $65 23 $74.49 82 Projecti* Owner Location NCR-17 NCR T04S R'.^E NU.SU.SU TOPO: ASHLAND SOURCE; TONGUE R. 23-Feb-90 IRRIGATION ATTRIBUTES TYPE I0« AREA FLOU MIN-PR HU-L (syste«) (acres) (gp» (ft) (ft) PIVOT 10 58.4 438 62 800 PIVOT 11 80.1 600 65 953 UHLN 1 34 260 119 740 UHLN 2 24 240 118 680 196.5 1538 LABOR WATER USE PIVOT LINE (hours) (a-f/yr) COST COST 43 60 72 72 247 144 197 97 69 S22,300 S26,396 17.640 S7,280 507 S49,196 SI 4, 920 FLOOD COST DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES ID EL HEAD FLOU SIZE LENGTH PR-IN NODE ID PIPE COST/ TOTAL (OUT) (ft) (ft) (gpa) (in) (ft) (ft) (IN) CLASS FT COST 12 2990 119 260 6 3075 144 13 100 $2.70 $8,291 13 2980 144 860 10 1451 160 14 100 S6.05 $8,774 140 2980 146 240 6 780 160 14 100 $2.70 $2,103 141 2980 145 438 8 1267 160 14 100 $3 92 $4,972 14 2970 160 1538 12 780 183 15 125 $9.55 $7,446 7,353 $31,586 PUMP ATTRIBUTES FLOU BHP AC-FT HRS 10 EL HEAD MOTOR 0 POO (ft) (ft) (gp») (annual ) SIZE 2950 183 1538 95 507 1788 100 ELECTICAL COSTS DIESEL COSTS POWER PUMP FUEL ENGINE 100 $5,597 $13,538 $8,493 $8,325 95 100 $5,597 $13,538 $8,493 $8,325 SOIL ATTRIBUTES Peak consumptive use Soil water holding capacity Maxtmuffl intake rate Predominant soil (Map Unit # i land class # Acres of irrigable soils in project area # of acres of Class 6 soil in design area )100 0.3 8 0.6 •/day • ■/hr 2079 ac 83 Project* NCR-17 Owner NCR Location : TOtS R44E NU.su, SU TOPO: ASHLAND SOURCE: TOMGUE R. 23-Fot)-90 SYSTEM VARIABLES Require oower Line const Total consuaptive use Net irrigation requir Total acres irrigated Ac-ft of water needed Total now Equipaent costs Flood costs Total pipe cost Total ditch cost Labor cost TR-21 weather station PLC 3.0 ■ lies TCU 29.1 inches • NIR 22.2 inches TAI 197 ac AFN 507 ac-ft Total puap hp THP 95 TFL 15J8 gpai Hours of puBping HOP 1788 EOC S64,116 Engine 4«ort. ENA 9 U FOC Annual electrical cost $7,756 TPC J31.5a6 Annual diesel costs $10,888 IOC Puaping power PPP Electr ical ALC $1,235 Ann. energy costs AEC $6,065 USTA N . Cheyenne Res . Energy cost/ac EAC $30.87 I IRRIGATION COSTS TABLE | I I ECON FINAN. I I I --I I I I --I I I ITEM COST/ * OF UNITS T. COST X Otii OiM LIFE ANN-COST ANN-COST UNIT ITEMS $1 TOTAL TOTAL I I 1 I 1 I I I I I Flood Line Pivot Other Other ON-FARM TOTALS Puap Engine Diversion Puap controls Pipe Ditches Storage Other SYSTEM TOTALS Power dev. Engineering Contingency TOTAL $2,000 $31,586 $12,500 $14,920 $49,196 unit 10. OX 1.5X $224 3. OX $1,476 1.5X 5. OX $64,116 $1,700 100 hp $13,538 2.5X $338 hp 5.5X 3.4 cfs $6,836 1.0X $68 lOXp. cost $1,354 1.0X $14 110X $34,745 0.5X $174 110X 5. OX ac-ft 1.0X unit 2. OX $56,472 $594 3.0 Biles $25,625 15XS. total $8,471 10XS. total $5,647 20 10 20 10 10 50 50 50 $2,119 $5,291 $3,751 $1,318 $436 $290 $2,652 $9,482 $7,409 $12,134 30 $1,179 $2,542 16 30 $493 $1,181 20 $119 $234 50 $1,961 $5,828 20 50 50 $9,785 $4 . 1 70 $1,379 $919 $160,331 $2,294 $13,205 $28,387 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS LABOR ENERGY EQUIPMENT ECONOMIC TOTAL /AC /AC-FT $1,235 $6.28 $2.44 $6,065 $30.87 $11 96 $13,205 $67 20 $26.04 TOTAL annual costs $20,505 $104.35 $40.44 Feasibility rating (chance that revenues exceed costs) NCR-17 99 percentile N. Cheyenne Res. FINANCIAL TOTAL /AC /AC-FT $28,387 $144.46 $55 99 $35,687 $181.61 $70.39 84 Project* Owner Location NCR-18 NCR T04S R44E TOPO; ASHLAND SOURCE: TONGUE R. NU.SU.SU 23-Feb-90 IRRIGATION ATTRIBUTES TYPE ID# AREA fLOU MIN-PR (systea). (acrei) (gp") (ft) PIVOT 9 50.5 379 69 PIVOT 12 108.8 816 84 159.3 1195 HU-L LABOR UATER USE (ft) (hours) (a-f/yr) PIVOT COST 737 37 124 $21,320 1128 81 268 t30,508 118 392 151,828 LINE COST FLOOD COST DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES 10 EL HEAD FLOU SIZE LENGTH (OUT) (ft) (ft) (gp») (in) (ft) 12 2990 119 260 6 3075 15 3180 84 816 10 3547 16 3160 116 1195 12 5278 11,900 PR-IN NODE ID PIPE COST/ TOTAL (ft) (IN) CLASS FT COST 144 13 100 $2.70 $8,291 116 16 80 $5.25 $18,615 341 17 STEEL $13.54 $71,457 $98,364 PUMP ATTRIBUTES ID EL HEAD FLOU BHP AC- FT 0 POO (ft) (ft) (gpm) (annual ) 2950 341 1195 137 392 ELECTICAL COSTS DIESEL COSTS HRS MOTOR SIZE POUER PUMP FUEL ENGINE 1779 150 $8,042 $16,195 $12,188 $11,819 137 150 $8,042 $16,195 $12,188 $11,819 SOIL ATTRIBUTES Peak consumptive use 0.3 "/day Soil water holding capacity 8 " Maximum intake rate 0.6 "/hr Predominant soil (Map Unit # & land class tt )100 1 Acres of irrigable soils in project area 2079 ac # of acres of Class 6 soil in design area ac 85 Pro)«ctt Owner Locition NCR- 18 NCR T04S R44E NU, SU.su TOPO: SOURCE: ASHLAND TONGUE R. 23-Feb-90 SYSTEM VARIABLES Require power line const. Total consuaptive uie Met irrigation requirement Total acrei irrigated Ac-ft of water needed Total flow Equipaent coits Flood coiti Total pipe cost Total ditch cost Lat>or cost TR-21 weather station MX J.O ■ iles TCU 29.1 inches NIK 22.2 inches TAI 159 ac AFN 392 ac-ft Total puap hp THP 137 TFL 1195 gpa Hours of puaping HOP 1779 EQC S5 1.828 Engine aaort ENA 9 U FK Annual electrical cost S10.096 IPC $98,364 Annual diesel costs 115.321 TDC Puoping power PPP Electrical ALC J590 Ann. energy costs AEC J8.539 USTA N. Cheyenne Res. Energy cost/ac EAC t53 60 IRRIGATION COSTS TABLE ECON FINAN. ITEM I- COST/ UNIT » OF ITEMS UNITS . T. COST S1 X OtM OtM LIFE ANN-COST ANN-COST TOTAL TOTAL Flood Line Pivot Other Other ON- FARM TOTALS Pviap Engine Diversion Puap controls Pipe Oi tches Storage ROAO CROSSING SYSTEM TOTALS Power dev Engineering Contingency TOTAL S2.000 $98,364 $5,000 $12,500 10, oz 1,5X $51,828 3 OX 1.5X $1 .555 unit 5. OX $51,828 $1 ,555 150 hp $16,195 2.SX $405 hp 5.5X 2.7 cfs $5,311 1.0X $53 lOXp. cost $1,620 1 OX $16 110X $108,200 0.5X $541 110X 5, OX ac-ft 1.0X 1 unit $5,000 2, OX $100 • $136,326 $1 .115 20 10 20 10 10 $5,574 3.0 nUes $20,375 15XS. total $20,449 10XS. total $13,633 $9,990 $242,610 $2,670 $5,574 $9,990 30 $1,411 $3,041 16 30 $383 $917 20 $142 $280 50 $6,105 $18,150 20 50 50 $357 1914 $8,398 123,302 50 $1 048 $3,316 50 $1,052 $3,328 50 $701 $2,219 $16,773 $42,154 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS LABOR ENERGY EQUIPMENT ECONOMIC TOTAL /AC /AC-FT $590 $3.70 $1,51 $8,539 $53.60 $21 78 $16,773 $105 29 $42 79 TOTAL annual costs $25,902 $162.60 $66,08 Feasibility rating (chance that revenues exceed costs) NCR- 18 33 percentile N Cheyenne Res. FINANCIAL TOTAL ■I- /AC /AC-FT $42,154 $264.62 $107.53 $51,283 $321,92 $130.82 aaaxaaa ■ ■3 = 3S3 = = xss33S35X3sss3xaiSSSxaaa33 = Ba3X3 = 3 86 Project* Owner Location NCR-19 NCR T04S TOPO GREEN CREEK SOURCE: TONGUE R. R'.^E NE.NE.NE 28-feb-90 IRRIGATION ATTRIBUTES TYPE ($yste«) PIVOT 1 PIVOT 2 PIVOT 3 ID« AREA (acres) %.8 170.1 92.6 359.5 fLOU (gp«) 725 1275 694 2694 MIN-PR (ft) 73 72 71 HU-L (ft) 1058 1435 1033 LABOR (hours) 72 127 69 UATER USE (a-f/yr) PIVOT COST 238 J28,863 419 J39,660 228 128,276 268 385 J96.799 LINE COST FLOOD COST DISTRIBUTION SYSTEH ATTRIBUTES ID EL HEAD FLOU SIZE LENGTH (OUT) (ft) (ft) (gp») (in) (ft) 3020 73 725 8 2707 10 3000 94 694 8 2623 1 3000 116 2694 18 1550 6.880 PR- IN NODE ID PIPE COST/ TOTAL (ft) (IN) CLASS FT COST 116 1 80 J3.41 J9,238 116 1 80 $3.41 $8,952 148 2 100 S17.04 $26,406 $44 . 596 PUHP ATTRIBUTES ID EL HEAD FLOU (ft) (ft) (gpo) 0 pod 2970 148 2694 8HP AC- FT (annual ) 135 885 MRS 1782 ELECTICAL COSTS DIESEL COSTS POUER PUMP FUEL ENGINE 150 $7,933 $17,694 $12,027 $11,643 MOTOR SIZE 135 150 $7,933 $17,694 $12,027 $11,643 SOIL ATTRIBUTES Peak consuaptive use 0.3 '/day Soil water holcJing capacity 10 • Naxiaua intake rate 0.6 '/hr Predoamant soil (Map Unit t & land class ft )99 Acres of irrigable soils in project area 359 ac 0 of acres of Class 6 soil in design area ac 87 Project* ; NCR-19 Owner NCR Locitioo : T04S R43E 24 NE.NE.NE TOPO SOORCE: GREEN CREEK TONCUE R 28-Fetj-90 SYSTEM VARIABLES Require power line conit. Total cooiuaptwe use Net irrigation requireaent Total acres irrigated Ac-tt of water needed Total flow Equipaent costs Flood costs Total pipe cost Total di tch cost Lat»r cost TR-21 weather station TCU NIR TAI AFN TFL EOC FOC TPC TDC ALC USTA 4.0 ■lies 29.1 inches 22.2 inches 360 ac sas ac-tt Total puap hp TUP 135 269* gpa Hours of puoiping HOP 1782 t96,799 Engine aaort . Annual electrical cost ENA 9 U 110,736 144,596 Annual diesel costs 115,266 Pumping power PPP Electrical 11,340 Ann. energy costs AEC 18,875 . Cheyenne Res . Energy cost/ac EAC 124.69 IRRIGATION COSTS TABLE ECON FINAN. ITEM COST/ UNIT « OF ITEMS UNITS T, COST 11 X OtM 0(11 LIFE ANN-COST ANN-COST TOTAL TOTAL Flood Line Pivot Other Other ON- FARM TOTALS Puao Engine Divers ion PuBp controls Pipe Ditches Storage LAND CLEARING SYSTEM TOTALS Power dev. Engineering Contingency TOTAL 12.000 144,596 1100 $12,500 10. OX 1.5X $96,799 3. OX 1.5X 12.904 unit 5. OX 196.799 $2,904 150 hp 117.694 2.5X $442 hp 5.5X 6.0 cfs 111.973 1.0X $120 lOXp. cost 11.769 1.0X $18 IIOX 149,056 0.5X $245 110X 5. OX ac-ft 1.0X 75 unit 17,500 2. OX $150 187.993 1975 4.0 niles $33,125 15XS. total $13,199 10XS. total $8,799 20 10 20 $10,410 10 10 $18,657 $239,914 $3,879 $10,410 $18,657 30 $1,541 $3,322 16 30 $863 $2,068 20 1155 1306 50 12,768 18,229 20 50 50 1536 $1,371 15.864 $15,295 50 11,704 15,391 50 1679 12.148 50 $453 11.432 119,109 142,924 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS LABOR ENERGY EQUIPMENT ECONOMIC I TOTAL /AC /AC-FT $1,340 $3.73 $1.51 $8,875 $24.69 $10.03 $19 109 $53 15 $21 59 TOTAL annual costs $29,323 $81.57 $33.13 Feasibility rating (chance that revenues exceed costs) NCR-19 100 percentile N. Cheyenne Res. FINANCIAL ■I- TOTAL /AC /AC-FT $42,924 $119 *0 148.50 153.139 1147.81 160.04 88 Projecti* Owner Location NCR-20 NCR T04S R43E 23 SU.NU.SE TOPO: BIRNEY DAY SCHCX3L SOURCE: TONGUE 28-feb-90 IRRIGATION ATTRIBUTES TYPE I0# AREA FLOU MIN-PR HU-L LABOR WATER USE PIVOT LINE FLOOD (systea) (acres) (gp"> ■ (ft) (ft) (hours) (a-f/yr) COST COST COST PIVOT 2 74 555 87 913 55 182 t25,456 PIVOT 3 99.2 743 90 1072 74 244 J29,192 PIVOT 4 57.9 433 56 795 43 142 S22,683 PIVOT 5 35.6 267 52 602 26 87 $18,147 PIVOT 7 87.4 655 73 1000 65 215 J27,500 PIVOT 8 45.2 339 58 692 33 111 S20.262 399.3 2992 296 981 $143,239 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES ID EL HEAD FLOU SIZE LENGTH PR-IN NODE ID PIPE COST/ TOTAL (OUT) (ft) (ft) (gpn) (in) (ft) (ft) (IN) CLASS FT COST 5 3060 90 743 10 1249 93 6 80 $5.25 $6,555 60 3060 89 822 10 1037 93 6 80 $5.25 $5,442 61 3060 80 267 6 1748 89 61 30 $2.41 $4,207 6 3060 93 1565 12 2222 124 7 80 $6.88 $15,283 70 3040 117 994 10 1246 124 7 80 $5 25 $6,539 71 3040 101 339 6 1902 117 71 80 $2.41 $4,578 71 3040 116 433 8 2192 124 7 80 $3.41 $7,481 7 3040 124 2992 18 109 184 8 125 $20.58 $2,243 11,705 $52,328 PUMP ATTRIBUTES 10 EL HEAD FLOU BHP AC- FT (ft) (ft) (gpm) (annual ) 0 POO 2980 134 2992 185 981 HRS 1773 ELECTICAL COSTS DIESEL COSTS POUER PUMP FUEL ENGINE 200 $10,855 $22,992 $16,450 $16,208 MOTOR SIZE 185 200 $10,855 $22,992 $16,450 $16,208 SOIL ATTRIBUTES Peak consumotiue use Soil water holding capacity Maxmiua intake rate PredoBinant soil (Map Unit # t land class # )123 Acres of irrigable soils in project area It of acres of Class 6 soil in design area 0.3 9 •/day 0.6 •/hr 475 ac ac 89 Project* Own«r Locscion NCR-20 NCR TO.S RAJE 23 SU.NU.SE TOPO SOURCE: BIRNEY OAY TONGUE SCHOOL 28-Feb-90 SYSTEM VARIABLES Require power line const. Total coniuaptive use Net imgat'.on requireaent Total acres irrigated Ac-ft ot water needed Total flow Eguipaent costs Flood costs Total pipe cost Total ditch cost Labor cost TR-21 weather station PLC TCU NIR TAI AFN TFL EOC FDC TPC TOC ALC USTA s.o ■net 29.1 inches 22.2 inches 399 ac 981 ac-ft 2992 gpa $U3,239 SS2,328 S1.480 H . Cheyenne Res . Total puao hp Hours of puaping Engine anort Annual electrical cost Annual diesel costs PuBping power Ann. energy costs Energy cost/ac THP HOP ENA 185 1778 9 U $U,309 t20.8n PPP Electrical AEC $12,208 EAC J30.57 IRRIGATIOf* COSTS TABLE ECOf« FINAN. ITEH COST/ UNIT « OF ITEMS UNITS T. COST S1 Z O&H OiM LIFE I- ANN-COST TOTAL ANN -COST TOTAL Flood Line Pivot Other Other OH-FARM TOTALS PUBQ Engine Diversion Puao controls Pipe Oi tches Storage ROAO C. I LAND P. SYSTEM TOTALS Power dev . Engineering Contingency TOTAL S2.000 S52.328 J12.5CX) 10. OX 1.5X SU3,239 3. OX 1.5X $4,297 unit 5. OX tU3.239 $4,297 200 hp S22,992 2.5X $575 hp 5.5X 6.6 cfs S13,298 1.0X $133 10Xp. cost J2,299 1 OX $23 110X S57,561 0.5X $288 110X 5. OX ac-ft 1.0X unit t20,000 2. OX $400 S116,150 $1,419 S.O Biles $39,375 15XS. total $17,422 10XS. total $11,615 $327,801 $5,716 20 10 20 10 10 $15,404 $27,609 $15,404 $27,609 30 $2,003 $4,317 16 30 $959 $2,297 20 $201 $397 50 $3,248 $9 656 20 50 50 $1,429 $3,655 $7,840 $20,321 50 $2,025 $6 , 408 50 $896 $2,835 50 $597 $1,890 $26,763 $59,064 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS LASOil ENERGY EQUIPMENT ECONOMIC I TOTAL /AC /AC-FT $1,480 $3.71 $1.51 $12,208 $30 57 $12 44 $26,763 $67 02 $27.28 TOTAL annual costs $40,450 $10130 $41.23 Feasibility rating (chance that revenues exceed costs) NCR-20 100 percentile N. Cheyenne Res. FINANCIAL I -I TOTAL /AC $59,064 $147.92 $72,751 $182.20 /AC-FT $60.21 $74.16 ■sasaxsa 90 Project* Owner Location NCR-21 NCR T04S R43E 34 NE.NE.NU TOPO: SOURCE : BIRNEY DAY SCHOOL TONGUE 28-Feb-90 IRRIGATION ATTRIBUTES TYPE ID« AREA FLOU MIN-PR HU-L LABOR WATER USE PIVOT LINE FLOOD (systea) (acres) (gp") (ft) (ft) (hours) (a -f/yr) COST COST COST PIVOT 10 46.2 346 54 700 34 113 $20,450 HLN 1 14 119 135 320 71 41 J1,280 HLN 2 34 337 135 840 186 99 $3,360 HLN 3 23 216 140 560 124 66 $2,240 117.2 1018 415 319 $20,450 $6,880 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES ID EL HEAD FLOU SIZE LENGTH PR-IN NODE ID PIPE COST/ TOTAL (OUT) (ft) (ft) (gp") (in) (ft) (ft) (IN) CLASS FT COST 8 3080 140 216 6 2251 188 9 125 $3.08 $6,929 90 3040 177 456 8 2820 188 9 125 $4.60 $12,967 91 3040 175 119 6 1510 177 91 125 $3.08 $4,648 91 3040 169 346 6 2089 188 9 125 $3.08 $6,430 9 3040 188 1018 10 84 228 10 160 $8.35 $702 8,754 $31,675 PUMP ATTRIBUTES ID EL HEAD FLOU BHP AC-FT 0 POO (ft) (ft) (gp") (annual ) 3000 228 1018 78 319 HRS ELECTICAL COSTS DIESEL COSTS POUER PUMP FUEL ENGINE 1700 100 $4,426 $13,018 $6,629 $7,056 MOTOR SIZE 78 100 $4,426 $13,018 $6,629 $7,056 SOIL ATTRIBUTES Peak consumptive use Soil water holding capacity Maxinun intake rate Predominant soil (Map Unit H t land class # )123 Acres of irrigable soils in project area * of acres of Class 6 soil in design area 0.3 9 0.6 •/day * ■/hr 475 ac ac 91 Project* Owner Location NCB-21 NCR T04S R*3E 34 NE.NE.NU TOPO: SOORCE BIRNEY DAY SCHOOL TONGUE 28-Feb-90 SYSTEM VARIABLES Require power line const Total consuaotive use Net irrigation requir Total acres irrigated Ac-ft of water needed Total flow Equipsent costs Flood costs Total pipe cost Total ditcn cost Labor cost TR-21 weather station PUC 5.0 ■ lies TCU 29.1 inches NIR 22.2 inches TAl 117 ac AFN 319 ac-ft Total puap hp TMP 78 TFL 1018 gp" Hours of puoQing HOP 1700 EOC J27.330 Engine anort . ENA 8 8X FDC Annual electrical cost J7.947 TPC J31.675 Annual diesel costs J8,771 TDC Pumping power PPP Electrical ALC $2,075 Ann. energy costs AEC »4,612 USTA N. Cheyenne Res. Energy cost/ac EAC J39.35 IRRIGATION COSTS TABLE ECON FINAN. ITEM COST/ UNIT • OF ITEMS UNITS T. COST SI X OtM OtM LIFE ANN-COST ANN-COST TOTAL TOTAL Flood Line Pivot Other Other ON-FARM TOTALS Puap Engine Diversion Puao controls Pipe Oi tches Storage LAND CLEARING SYSTEM TOTALS Power dev. Engineering Contingency TOTAL $2,000 $31,675 $150 $12,500 100 hp hp 2.3 cfs lOXp. cost 110X 110Z ac-ft 50 unit 5.0 miles 15XS. total 10XS. total $6,880 $20,450 $27,330 $13,018 $4,524 $1,302 $34,843 $7,500 $61,187 $52,750 $9,178 $6,119 $156,564 10. OX 1.5X 3. OX 1.5X 5. OX 2.5X 5.5X 1,0X 1.0X 0.5X 5.02 1.0X 2. OX $103 $614 $717 $325 $45 $13 $174 $150 $708 20 10 20 10 10 $977 $2,199 $1,223 $3,942 $1,425 $3,176 $5,165 30 $1,134 $2,444 16 30 $326 $782 20 $114 $225 50 $1,966 $5,845 20 SO 50 $536 $1,371 $4,076 $10,666 50 $2,713 $8,585 50 $472 $1,494 50 $315 $996 $10,752 $26,905 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS LABOR ENERGY EQUIPMENT ECONOMIC I TOTAL /AC /AC-FT $2,075 $17.70 $6.50 $4,612 $39.35 $14 46 $10,752 $91.74 $33 70 TOTAL annual costs $17,439 $148.80 $54.67 Feasibility rating (chance that revenues exceed costs) NCR-21 62 percentile N. Cheyenne Res. FINANCIAL TOTAL /AC /AC-FT $26,905 $229.56 $84.34 $33,592 $286.62 $105.30 92 Project* : Owner Location : NCR-22 NCR TOSS R43E SE.SE.NU TOPO: SOURCE: BIRNEY DAY TONGUE SCHOOL 28-Feb-90 IRRIGATION ATTRIBUTES TYPE ID# AREA FLOU MIN-PR HU-L ■ LABOR WATER USE PIVOT LINE FLOOD (systea) (acres) (gp«) (ft) (ft) (hours) (a-f/yr) COST COST COST PIVOT 11 30.3 227 51 548 22 74 J16,878 PIVOT 12 55.5 416 56 777 41 136 S22,260 UHLN 1 34 334 131 851 74 97 S8,306 HLN 4 22 199 135 520 115 62 S2.080 HLN 5 49 437 135 1160 257 139 S4 , 640 HLN 6 19 167 135 440 97 55 J1,760 HLN 7 16 135 135 360 79 46 J1,440 HLN 8 64 696 140 1560 346 184 $6,240 289.8 2661 1031 793 139,138 S24,466 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES 10 EL HEAD FLOU SIZE LENGTH PR- IN NODE ID PIPE COST/ TOTAL (OUT) (ft) (ft) (gpn) (in) (ft) (ft) (IN) CLASS FT COST 10 3140 140 696 3 4292 214 11 160 15.40 $23,173 11 3100 214 696 3 1594 247 12 160 $5.40 $8,606 12 3080 247 831 10 1360 251 13 160 $8.35 $11,359 13 3080 251 998 10 1154 277 14 200 $9.31 $11,326 140 3050 282 842 10 1434 277 14 200 $9 81 $14,074 141 3050 276 426 8 1644 282 141 200 $6.34 $10,415 142 3040 279 199 6 2388 276 142 200 $4.06 $9,699 14 3060 277 2174 15 421 319 15 200 $20.08 $8,454 15 3060 131 334 6 1679 164 16 100 $2.70 $4,527 15,966 $101,633 PUMP ATTRIBUTES ID EL HEAD FLOU BHP AC-FT 0 POO (ft) r cost TR-21 weather station nx 5.0 ■net TCU 29 1 incha* NIR 22.2 inches TAX 197 ac AFN 482 ac-ft Total puap hp THP 55 TFL U72 gp" Hours of puBping HOP 1776 EOC S82.012 Engine a»ort. ENA 9.U FOC Annual electrical cost S6,704 TPC $18,387 Annual diesel costs t6,555 roc Pueping power PPP Diesel ALC S730 Ann. energy costs AEC S5,632 USTA N. Cheyenne Res. Energy cost/ac EAC t28.66 I IRRIGATION COSTS TABLE | I I ECON FINAN. I — - I I I I I I I I- I ITEM COST/ # OF UNITS T. COST X 0»N Ot« LIFE ANN-COST ANN-COST UNIT ITEMS SI TOTAL TOTAL I I I I I-- I I— I -I I-- Flood 10. OX 20 Line 1.51 10 Pivot $82,012 3. OX $2,460 20 $8,820 $15,807 Other 1.5X 10 Other unit 5. OX 10 OH-FARH TOTALS Puap Engine Diversion Puap controls Pipe Oi tches Storage LAND CLEARING SYSTEM TOTALS Power dev. Engineering Contingency TOTAL $2,000 $18,387 $100 $12,500 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS $82,012 $2,460 60 hp $9,972 2 5X $249 61 hp $5,510 5 5X $303 3.3 cfs $6.5*2 1 OX $65 lOXp. cost $997 1 OX $10 110X $20,226 0 5X $101 110X 5 OX ac-ft 1 OX 20 unit $2,000 2 OX $40 $45,248 $769 ■ iles 15XS. total $6,787 10XS. total $4,525 - $138,571 $3,229 ECONOMIC 1 _.,._ 1 TOTAL /AC /AC- 'J $8,820 $15,807 30 $869 $1,872 16 $802 $1,200 30 $472 $1,130 20 $87 $172 50 $1,141 $3,393 20 50 50 $143 $365 $3,514 $8,133 SO so S349 $1,105 50 $233 $736 $12,916 $25,781 FINANCIAL I I TOTAL /AC LABOR ENERGY EQUIPMENT $730 $3.72 $1.51 $5,632 $28.66 $11 68 $12,916 $65.73 $26.80 TOTAL annual costs $19,277 $98.10 $39.99 Feasibility rating (chance that revenues exceed costs) NCR-23 100 percentile N. Cheyenne Res. /AC-FT $25,781 $131.20 $53.49 $32,143 $163.58 $66.69 96 Project* Owner Location NCR-24 NCR TOSS RA3E TOPO: BIRNEY DAY SCHOOL SOURCE: TONGUE SE.NU.NE Za-reb-90 IRRIGATION ATTRIBUTES TYPE ID* AREA FLOW MIN-PR HU-L LABOR WATER USE PIVOT LINE FLOOD (systea) (acres) (gp") (ft) (ft) (hours) (a-f/yr) COST COST COST PIVOT U 33.8 253 51 S84 25 83 S17,724 UHLN 2 33 315 126 799 74 95 17.994 UHLN 4 34 315 126 802 74 98 $8,012 100.8 883 173 276 $17,724 $16,006 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES ID (OUT) 18 19 EL (ft) 3090 3090 HEAD FLOU (ft) (gp«) 126 140 315 630 SIZE (in) 6 8 LENGTH (ft) 2002 2107 4,109 PR-IN NODE ID PIPE COST/ TOTAL (ft) (IN) CLASS FT COST 140 19 100 $2.70 $5 . 398 184 20 125 $4.60 $9,689 $15,087 PUMP ATTRIBUTES 10 0 POO EL (ft) 3060 HEAD (ft) 184 FLOU (gpo) 630 BMP AC-FT (annual ) 39 193 HRS 1662 MOTOR SIZE ELECTICAL COSTS DIESEL COSTS POUER PUMP FUEL ENGINE 40 $2,177 $6,930 $3,240 $4,569 39 40 $2,177 $6,930 $3,240 $4 , 569 SOIL ATTRIBUTES Peak consuntptive use Sou ijater holding capacity Maxinja intake rate Predoainant soU (Map Unit # S land class H )123 Acres of irngaole soils in project area * of acres of Class 6 soil in design area 0 3 9 •/day 0 6 ■/hr 475 ac ac ■XX333X=3*33=X3X=33«£SSa ■saK3ax=a33«ssa 97 Pro)ect» : NCR- Owoer NCR Location : TOSS R43E SE.NU.NE TOPO: SOURCE : BIRNEY OAT TONGUE SCHOOL 28-Feb-90 SYSTEM VARIABLES Require c>ower Line coniC. Total contuaptive jse Net irrigation reguireaent Total acres irrigated Ac-ft of ijater needed Total flow Equipaent costs Flood costs Total pipe cose Total ditch cost Labor cost TR-21 weather station PLC 5.0 ■ lies TCU 29.1 inches NIR 22.2 inches TAI 101 ac AFN 276 ac-ft Total puap hp THP 39 TFL 883 gpa Hours of puaping HOP 1695 EQC 133.730 Engine a«ort . ENA 8. ax FOC Annual electrical cost S5.571 IPC $15,087 Annual diesel coses S4,496 roc Pumping power PPP Oiesel ALC S865 Ann. energy costs AEC S3, 396 USTA N. Cheyenne Res. Energy cost/ac EAC J33.69 I IRRIGATION COSTS TABLE | I I ECON FINAN. I I I I -I I I I I --I ITEM COST/ » OF UNITS T, COST Z 0(M OlM LIFE ANN-COST ANN-COST UNIT ITEMS SI TOTAL TOTAL I I I I I I I I I I Flood Line Pivot Other Other ON- FARM TOTALS Puao Engine Diversion Puap controls Pipe Ditches Storage Other SYSTEM TOTALS Power dev. Engineering Contingency TOTAL S2.000 S15,087 S12,500 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS LABOR ENERGY EQOIPMENT 10. OX $16,006 1.5X $240 $17,724 3. OX 1.5X $532 unit 5. OX S33,730 $772 40 hp $6,930 2.5X $173 43 hp $4 , 569 5.5X $251 2.0 cfs $3,924 1.0X $39 lOXp. cost S693 1.0X $7 110X $16,595 0.5X $83 110X 5. OX ac-ft 1.0X unit 2. OX $32,712 $554 ■ iles 15ZS. total $4,907 10XS. total $3,271 - $74,619 $1,325 ECONOMIC 1 -_- - 1 TOTAL 1 1. /AC /AC-FT 20 10 20 10 10 $2,273 $1,906 FINANCIAL I I TOTAL /AC $865 $8.58 $3.13 $3,396 $33.69 $12.30 $7,136 $70.79 $25 85 TOTAL annual costs $11,397 $113 06 $41.29 Feasibility rating (chance that revenues exceed costs) NCR-24 95 percentile N. Cheyenne Res. $13,469 $133.63 $17,730 $175.90 $2,845 $3,416 $4,179 $6,261 30 $604 $1,301 17 $652 $995 30 $283 $678 20 $61 $120 50 $936 $2,784 20 50 50 $2,536 $5,877 50 50 $252 $799 50 $168 $532 $7,136 $13,469 /AC-FT $48 80 $64.24 98 Proiect* : NCR-25 Owner NCR Location : TOSS R43E 19 SE.NU.NU TOPO: SOURCE : BIRNEY DAY SCHOOL TONGUE R. 28-feb-90 IRRIGATION ATTRIBUTES TYPE I0# APEA FLOW MIN-PR (system) (acres) (gpn) (ft) PIVOT 1 83.2 623 81 PIVOT 2 57.8 433 71 PIVOT 3 46.8 350 69 187.8 1406 HU-L LABOR WATER USE PIVOT (ft) (hours) (a-f/yr) COST 973 795 705 62 43 35 140 205 S26,866 142 $22,683 115 $20,568 462 $70,116 LINE COST FLOOD COST DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES ID EL HEAD FLOW SIZE LENGTH PR-IN NODE ID PIPE COST/ TOTAL (OUT) (ft) (ft) (gpn) (in) (ft) (ft) (IN) CLASS FT COST 3220 81 623 3 1974 133 1 80 $3.41 $6,737 1 3180 133 1056 10 1712 183 2 125 $7.10 $12,156 2 3140 183 1406 12 2168 262 3 160 $11.35 $24,601 5,854 $43,494 PUMP ATTRIBUTES 10 EL HEAD FLOU BHP AC- FT 0 POD (ft) (tt) (gpn) (annual ) 3070 262 1406 124 462 ELECTICAL COSTS DIESEL COSTS HRS MOTOR SIZE POWER PUMP FUEL ENGINE 1782 125 $7,288 $15,706 $11,050 $10,691 124 125 $7,288 $15,706 $11,050 $10,691 SOIL ATTRIBUTES Peak consumptive use 0.3 "/day Soil water holding capacity 9 " Maximum intake rate 0.6 "/hr Predominant soil (Map Unit # S land class # ) 198 123 Acres of irrigable soils in project area 187.8 ac It of acres of Class 6 soil in design area ac 99 Project* : NCR-25 Ouner NCR Location : TOSS R43E 19 SE.NU.NU TOPO SOURCE : BIRNEY DAY SCHOOL TONGUE R 28-Frt)-90 SYSTEM VARIASLES Require power I ine const . PU 3.0 ■ lies Totil consuBptive use TCU 29.1 inches Net irrigation requireaent NIR 22.2 inches Total acres irnga ted TAI 18S ac Ac-ft of water needed AFN M2 ac-ft Total flow TFL U06 gpa Equipaent costs EQC J70.116 Flood costs FOC Total pipe cost TPC $43,494 Total ditch cost TOC Labor cost ALC $7M TR-21 weather station WSTA N . Cheyenne Res . Total puap hp Hours of puaping Engine aaort . Annual electrical cost Annual diesel costs Pumping power Ann. energy costs Energy cost/ac THP HOP ENA 124 1782 9. IX t9.395 $13,977 PPP Electrical AEC $7,949 EAC $42.32 I IRRIGATION COSTS TABLE | I I ECON FINAN. I I I I I I 1-- I I 1 — - ITEM COST/ » OF UNITS T. COST X Ot« 0»M LIFE ANN-COST ANN-COST UNIT ITEMS $1 TOTAL TOTAL I — -I- I -I 1 I I I I 1 — Flood 10. OX 20 Line 1.5X 10 Pivot $70,116 3. OX $2,103 20 $7,540 $13,514 Other 1.5X 10 Other unit 5. OX 10 ON- FARM TOTALS PuiO Engine Diversion Puap controls Pipe Ditches Storage ROAO CROSSING SYSTEM TOTALS Power dev . Engineering Contingency TOTAL $2,000 $43,494 $12,500 125 hp hp 3.1 cfs lOXp. cost 110X 110X ac-ft unit 3 0 niles 15XS. total 10XS. total $70,116 $15,706 $6,249 $1,571 $47,844 $5,000 $76,369 $22,000 $11,455 $7,637 $187,577 $2,103 2.5X 5.5X 1.0X 1.0X 0.5X 5. OX 1.0X 2. OX $393 $62 $16 $239 $100 $810 $2,914 $7,540 $13,514 30 $1,368 $2,949 16 30 $451 $1,079 20 $137 $271 50 $2,700 $8,026 20 50 50 $357 $914 $5,013 $13,239 50 $1,131 $3,580 50 SS89 $1,864 50 $393 $1,243 $14,667 $33,441 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS LABOR ENERGY EQUIPMENT ECONOMIC TOTAL /AC /AC-FT $700 $3.73 $1 52 $7,949 $42.32 $17.20 $14,667 $78 10 $31.75 TOTAL annual costs $23,316 $124.15 $50.47 Feasibility rating (chance that revenues exceed costs) NCR-25 91 percentile N. Cheyenne Res. aaaBBaBSa = = 3 = 3 = = = = = = 3 = s3a3ss3a3 = 3xxX3 = = a3aaa = s3 = = 3 = = 3E = 3 = 3 = = = xe FINANCIAL ■I- TOTAL /AC /AC-FT $33,441 $178.07 $72.38 $42,089 $224.12 $91.10 sa3=xE«maa 100 Project* Owner Location NCR-26 NCR TOSS R43E 19 NU.SU.NU TOPO ■. SOURCE: BIRNEY DAY SCHOOL TONGUE R. 28-Feb-90 IRRIGATION ATTRIBUTES TYPE ID# AREA FLOU MIN-PR HU-L LABOR WATER USE PIVOT LINE FLOOD (systea) (acres) (gp») . (ft) (ft) (hours) (a-f/yr) COST COST COST PIVOT 4 81.5 611 65 963 61 201 $26,631 PIVOT 5 61 457 57 819 45 150 $23,247 WHLN 2 35 337 125 859 74 101 $8,354 177.5 1405 180 452 $49,877 $8,354 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES 10 EL HEAD FLOU SIZE LENGTH (OUT) (ft) (ft) (gpm) (in) (ft) 3 3090 65 611 8 1884 4 3090 76 1068 10 1545 5 3090 125 1405 12 2140 5,569 PR-IN NODE ID PIPE COST/ TOTAL (ft) (IN) CLASS FT COST 76 4 80 $3.41 $6,430 85 5 80 $5 25 $8,108 153 6 100 $8.03 $17,181 $31,719 PUMP ATTRIBUTES 10 EL HEAD FLOU BHP AC-FT 0 POO (ft) (ft) (gpn) (annual ) 3070 153 1405 72 452 MRS ELECTICAL COSTS DIESEL COSTS POWER PUMP FUEL ENGINE 1745 75 $4,166 $10,605 $6,282 $6,633 MOTOR SIZE 72 75 $4,166 $10,605 $6,282 $6,633 SOIL ATTRIBUTES Peak consumptive use Soil water holding capacity HaximuB intake rate Predoainant soil (Map Unit # & land class H Acres of irrigable soils in project area H of acres of Class 6 soil in design area )197 /day 0.3 9 • 0.6 Vhr 35 ac ac 123 101 Project* (X>ner Loc«t ion NCH-26 NCR T05S R'.SE 19 NU.su. NU TOPO: SOURCE : BIRNEY OAr SCHOOL TONGUE R. 28-Fe b O Ql > = • 3 1- O (/I (T b o a. » ^ » z> I- o :^ Ci 103 /f= 02 o CD =^ UJ O ^ UJ O c/)cm;J (N ^ Od. » C • o 00 ^ 31- o r^ ^ fr I q: ^ o ^ UJ =1 0 _1 UJ Z X(/l ^ O (/IfN •*■ f^ UJ O ci C7« o O I/) 104 fr v^ o CD =^ = 1 O _1 UJ lij O if 0> ti o + ^ "^ / 105 fr /f o 2 ^ =^ O COO * 1^ t- 3 I- 107 c ^ ^ ^ . UJ (Tcr o LlI 3 Z (r (/I O 0. » "^ ~ oc o' 3t- o ui O C 0> (J O QL * C » 108 r? — r^ — ^ CD ] —J O o X o o tf) CR-2 NCR Q ^ l-QQi-QICN lij O c o> ti 0£L > C « (K o'-'KV) ^J^ y^ ^v ({ m _) o o X o ^— Ul CN 1 cc 1 2 ONGUE IRNEY 04S 43E 4 t- ODt— QC r-) lii O C d> (j OQ. J = « (TO^-'^l^ 31=- \ O (/I ^ 109 '' ^ fr rO 8 X o CR-2 NCR z TONG BIRNE TOSS R43E 9 lij o c cr o 3 >- vv o c/1 y; ^ ^ f^ ^ /-^ CD _J o o I o CM £ • q:o^-°^<^ 31- \V (/i J ^ ^ ■^ ^ [? OQ -* -I o o X NCR-2 NCR 1 UJ z5ai'2 o — o ■* »- CDt-o: CO uj o c: o> b 3t: Vv 00 J) v^ ^ 110 Ill 112 fr oz ^ CD =^ O J UJ uj O c W u ^ JJ ^ + y \ //- INCR-2 NCR TONGUE R. ASHLAND NE T2S R44E 10 Vv o ^ J) >^ ^ 113 i tr in v^ =^ UJ ; Z o5 UJ ZIV)2 lJ O c: b>