Laserfiche WebLink
<br />4'i,'} <br />-",,"r'/{j <br />'i!.t"f' <br /> <br />~ <br />~ <br />~ <br />0) <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />',~'-,-, <br />:t:2~;:;f~ <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />resources. This assistance includes conservation planning and <br />appl ication of conservation practices, including irrigation practices <br />to improve on-farm irrigation efficiencies. In recent years, on-farm <br />irrigation improvements have been emphasized as am important method <br />of reducing salt contribution 'to the river from irrigated land." Also, <br />there is little mention of the extensive Agricultural Research Service <br />Program being conducted at Grand Valley, Colorado,on irrigation and <br />sa'linity management. <br /> <br />5. Page 1-76, Paragraph 2 - We bel ieve that the assistance provided <br />by the Department of Agriculture should be recognized as an essential <br />step in obtaining the goals of the IMS Program. We understand the IMS <br />Program predicts when to irrigate and how much water to apply. An <br />important step in improving on-farm irrigation efficiencies is the <br />technical assistance provided to the landowner by the SCS, through the <br />local Soil Conservation District. This assistance enables the landowner <br />to properly plan and apply on-farm irrigation practices to effectively <br />and efficiently use the irrigation wat'er once it is del ivered to his <br />property. <br /> <br />6. Page 1-83-84 - We believe the discussion on the Grand Valley IMS <br />Program would be strengthened by further discussion of the IMS Program <br />in relation to technical assistance provided by the SCS for on-farm <br />irrigation improvements. <br /> <br />We feel it is not possible to increase overall efficiency nearly 30% with <br />the IMS Program as projected for the Grand Valley Area. With the use of <br />cutback heads, new systems, a high level of management, and pump-back <br />facilities, it may be possible to get 60% plus efficiency; however, it is <br />not practical to obtain this, when 48% of the operators are part-time <br />farmers and water is bcally plentiful and inexpensive. The 60% <br />efficiency should be defined and the information used to project 60% <br />on-farm effi,ciency with IMSshould be referenced. <br /> <br />7. Pages 1-108 through 1-135 - This section represents a description of <br />the action planned on a number of irrigation and diffuse source control <br />units. We estimate there are 705,000 acres of irrigated acreage in these <br />units. However, there is very little, if any, coverage in the EIS of <br />these units of on~farm irrigation efficiency improvement programs of <br />USDA. In each of these areas there is a potential to increase irrigation <br />efficiency if systems are improved and water supplies are assured. About <br />60% of the water diverted to these areas is return flow (based on <br />prel iminarySCS investigations). <br /> <br />8. Pages 1-117 and 11-170 - On page 1-117, the irrigated acres in the <br />Uinta Basin is listed as 170,000 acres and on 11-170, it is listed as <br />224,364 acres. There are actually about 205,000 acres in the Basin. <br /> <br />9. Pages 11-14 through 11-16 - Additional information about the soils <br />of the basin should be provided. Some of the soil terminology is <br />obsolete. The statement would be improved if it identified' those sal ine <br />soils and geologic formations which are natural occurring sources of <br />large amounts of salt. <br /> <br />11 <br />