Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ '; t'. ~~, :: ' ) ~ f <br /> <br />The cultural resources located within the project area are not affected by the irrigated cropland <br />practice activities. <br /> <br />The greatest social and economic benefits would be realized with this alternative. These benefits will <br />be achieved as improved water management allows the agricultural producers to better meet crop <br />needs and contribute to the goal of improved water quality. This alternative will provide the greatest <br />protection of the soil resource base from irrigation-induced erosion, which will also have a positive <br />effect on the local economy. The environmental condi,tions related to fish and wildlife will see <br />improvement, thus providing a similar impact on the social and economic conditions of the area. <br /> <br />The project sponsors estimated that farmers would install practices on at least 60% of the watershed <br />irrigated acreage. This was agreed to, by consensus of the participants, in the planning analysis <br />meetings for the project. This level of protection would reduce the problems for which the project is <br />formulated to acceptable levels, and is attainable accorcjing to field office and sponsors which <br />interviewed a majority of the farmers in the area. <br /> <br />Other Measures: <br /> <br />Other measures which were considered but not developed into alternatives plans due to not meeting <br />the 4 criteria completeness, effectiveness, efficiency, and acceptability include: <br /> <br />1. Canal lining (did not reduce pollutant problems to an acceptable level and was <br />too costly). . <br />2. Change to center pivots (was far too costly). <br />3. Purchase of the irrigation rights from the land owners within the watershed, and <br />purchase of the feed lots (was not a viable alternative). <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />.-.,.----~...._- '<.", -.,.~_.~~.~,--'--- -.. '..' ,~.~------_.. .,.-,-,..,..",...-,.~,~~-c--.._,. ".~. <br />