Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. " <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />III. SCS Reactions <br /> <br />The report: <br /> <br />1. aclcnowledges and confirms need for closer BR-SCS coordination from planning <br />through implementation; <br /> <br />Z. confirms the reasonableness of salt loading and salt load reduction estimates; <br /> <br />3. confirms that water and salt budgets can be addressed differently, that the <br />accuracy of the budgets are only as good as the data and technical value <br />judgements that are used, and that the budgets should be updated as new and <br />better information becomes available. In essence, it confirms the need for some <br />type of "continuing planning" effort for SCS to be administered in conjunction <br />with monitoring and evaluation activities; <br /> <br />4. identifies "salting out" problems as an area needing further consideration <br />and as an area where subsequent benefits may be realized; <br /> <br />S. identifies in McElmo Creek that more research effort should be directed <br />toward the "gray soils" area as opposed to continued efforts in the less critical <br />"red soils" area. <br />, <br /> <br />6. stresses the importance of Irrigation Water Management (IWM) and suggests <br />that an incentive provision or practice has much merit; <br /> <br />7. suggests the current USDA lXBSCP implementation schedule should be revised to <br />consider a gradual "phase in" for McElmo Creek at a much earlier timeframe; and <br /> <br />8. should provide Forum and Work Group members with a better understanding and <br />appreciation for the relationships and differences between the BR and USDA <br />salinity control planning processes. '. <br /> <br />Prepared by: <br />George L. Stem <br />Salinity Control <br />Planning Coordinator <br /> <br />9-~8' 83 <br /> <br />001524 <br />