My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP00047
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
WSP00047
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:12:31 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 9:29:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8273.500
Description
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control - Federal Agencies - EPA
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
9/1/1982
Title
EPA - Grazing Nonpoint Source Control Strategy
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Relative cost-effectiveness of BMP's. Cost-effectiveness is <br />expressed as cost per increment of improvement in some water qual ity <br />parameter where costing analysis are available. In actual practice, <br />such figures are seldom available and it is necessary to make <br />rel ati 'Ie estimates of cost-effecti veness based on professional <br />judgement. <br /> <br />Readiness to rOo Federal agencies have mandated management <br />responsibilit es on federal rangelands that involve actions not <br />directly related to water quality control. It is conceivable that <br />the BLM or the Forest Service could be planning a management action <br />on an area which in itself or with minimal supplemental funding <br />could alleviate an otherwise low priority water quality problem. <br />This could be true on private lands as well. Situations involving <br />readiness to take action should be given special consideration. <br /> <br />Public and 1 andowner support. The degree of local enthusi asm and <br />general support is an important consideration. A remedial program <br />for rangelands often involves both federal and private grazing lands <br />and in some instances state lands. Because of the dependence of <br />grazing use on lands in several ownerships, it is highly desirable <br />that all actions be supported by all parties, but downstream <br />considerations could be overriding. <br /> <br />3. Best Manaqement Practi ces (BMP' s) <br /> <br />..... <br />CJ) <br />c..o <br />-..J <br /> <br />b. Technical effectiveness of available Best Management Practices <br />(B~'S). AreBMPts available that would significantly correct or <br />mitlgate the identified problem? Are they economically feasible? <br /> <br />c. <br /> <br />d. <br /> <br />e. <br /> <br />Best Management Practices are those measures which, together or singly, <br />mitigate the adverse affects of livestock grazing on rangeland vegetation, <br />maintain or enhance watershed stability, or reduce or eliminate water quality <br />degradation originating on grazed rangeland. In most situations a number of <br />alternatives or combinations of alternatives are available for correcting <br />water quality problems. All would have some effect, direct or incremental, on <br />water quality. The single most important grazing management objective <br />relating to water quality control is the maintenance or development of optimum <br />vegetative ground Cover to protect the watershed from excessive runoff and <br />erosion. <br /> <br />Selection of BMP's is guided by management objectives, water quality <br />requirements and specific site conditions relating to soils, vegetation, <br />geology, topography, climate and proximity to receiving water bodies. <br />Economic considerations may be important also. A discussion of best <br />management practi ce for rangeland is treated in more detail in Livestock <br />Grazing Manqement and Water Qual ity Protection (EPA Doc. 910/9-79-67, 19/9) <br />pages 13-19. <br /> <br />- 14 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.