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 



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 



