Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.' ~ <br />(;) <br />~r") <br />, ..-! <br /> <br />....-\ <br /> <br />("_:\ <br /> <br />OBJECTIVES OF THE M&E PROGRAM <br /> <br />The objectives of the M&E program are to measure and quantify the <br />effects of improved on-farm irrigation systems and practices being <br />installed in the Grand Valley to reduce salt loading to the Colorado <br />River. <br /> <br />The goals of the Irrigation M&E program are: 1) to measure al I <br />irrigations for the entire season on selected fields, 2) quantify deep <br />percolation reduction resulting from implementing irrigation system <br />and management improvements, 3) evaluate on-farm irrigation system <br />performance and recommend design improvements based on actual system <br />performance, and 4) identify management follow-up needs and <br />directions. <br /> <br />The impacts on wi I d life hab i tat due to cost-share sa Ii n i ty pract ices <br />were monitored and evaluated between 1983 to 1988 <Refer to "Wi Idl ife <br />Habitat" podion of the 1986, 1987 and 1988 Annual M&E Repods) as <br />outl ined in the 1983 Grand Valley Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, <br />pages 11 to 13. Acres of wi Idl ife habitat improvements continue to be <br />tracked and recorded. <br /> <br />Economic impacts, potential sal inity reductions and soi I sal inity <br />levels are being evaluated. The M&E data wi I I help determine program <br />effectiveness in reducing the salt load to the Colorado River; and <br />wi II help di rect future sal inity program activities. <br /> <br />This repod is divided into four pads deal ing with each of the <br />monitoring discipl ines: Irrigation, Soi Is, Economics, and Wi Idl ife. <br />Each discipl ine is at a different level of project implementation and <br />data collection, therefore, each is dealt with separately in this <br />report. <br /> <br />PRODUCER CONSULTATION <br /> <br />Most operators received individual irrigation summaries at least once <br />during the irrigation season and then at the end of the year. Data <br />from their sites were explained to them and recommendations provided <br />to improve irrigation efficiencies, e.g., better irrigation <br />schedul ing, adjusting set times or inflow rates, reducing or <br />increasing time of set, and furrow flow or number of furrows. Before <br />the start of the new irrigation season, some operators received soi I <br />moisture deficit data to help them with their irrigation management <br />decisions. Very few operators made any changes to their existing <br />irrigation practices. <br /> <br />4 <br />