Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002436 <br /> <br />FORMULATION AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES <br /> <br />The following objectives were defined by project sponsors at the onset of the project: <br /> <br /> <br />(1) Reduce negative water quality impacts to surface and groundwater from selenium, <br /> <br /> <br />sediment, salts. and nitrate loading; (2) Achieve better water manaaement on-farm <br /> <br /> <br />wator mano.gomem-in order to improve water application effectiveness for," on and off <br /> <br /> <br />site uses"; (3) Protect the soil resource base from excessive irrigation induced erosion. <br /> <br />Data were collected during field inventories and expanded to reflect the condition and <br /> <br />needs for the entire watershed. Treatment alternatives were considered and defined, <br /> <br />based on the types and extent of the problems taking place. The sponsors and publics <br /> <br />participated in the formulation of several treatment alternatives. The effectiveness of <br /> <br />each alternative in reaching the goals of the sponsors was evaluated and a <br /> <br />recommended plan selected. <br /> <br />Formulation Process <br /> <br />With the sponsors objectives identified, two levels of inventories were conducted. A <br /> <br />cursory inventory of the entire watershed, followed by a detailed inventory of 80 percent <br /> <br />of the area W8S c8rried out. The total needs for the sampled area were identified. A list <br /> <br />of potential measures to deal with the identified problems was drafted based on <br /> <br />measureg effectiveness, efficiency, completeness. and acceptability. Since the majority <br /> <br />of the soils and underlying geologic formations in the watershed are similar, the <br /> <br />problems and needs are similar. The watershed was therefor evaluated as one <br /> <br />treatment unit during the formulation process. <br /> <br />1ilIi<5 <br />