Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br />Q) <br />~ <br />~ <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />ABSTRACT <br /> <br />Historically, salinity control w k in the Colorado River <br />Basin has been accomplished sol y by irrigation water <br />management projects. Rangelan watershed salinity control <br />was determined to be too expen ivedue to the very large <br />number of acres of rangeland within the basin. Soil <br />Conservation Service watershed planning work has shown that <br />severely eroding rangeland can be succesSfully treated in a <br />cost effective manner using the principle of resource <br />problem targeting. Studies have also shown that most of the <br />watersheds will have approximately 5% to 15% of <br />the surface area in severely eroding condit~ and in need <br />of improved conservation treatment. ~ <br /> <br />A two phase project was implemented that inventoried <br />watersheds in the State of Utah that are in the Colorado <br />River Basin. Phase I of the project involved an <br />interdisciplinary team of specialists from the US Soil <br />Conservation Service (SCS) , US Bureau of Land Management <br />(BLM) and US Geological survey. The project had a steering <br />committee composed of many federal and state agencies <br />interested in control of salt and sediment nonpoint source <br />pollution in the Colorado River Basin. The project was <br />supported by the Colorado River Basin Salinity Forum., <br /> <br />The 218 watersheds in the Colorado River Basin within the <br />State of Utah were inventoried for various resource <br />parameters including potential sediment yield, potential <br />salt yield, rangeland condition and annual precipitation <br />range. This inventory gave each watershed a rating on a <br />scale of one to twelve with the highest ratings in those <br />watersheds most in need of conservation planning to control <br />offsite nonpoint source sediment and salt problems. The <br />steering committee and cooperating agencies identified eight <br />watersheds for detailed planning in Phase II of the project <br />based on the Phase I parameters and individual agency needs. <br />