My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP05106
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
5001-6000
>
WSP05106
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:16:58 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:52:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8276.150
Description
Grand Valley Unit-Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
12/1/1977
Title
Final Report of the Grand Valley Salinity Study - On-Farm Program for Salinity Control
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.
/
78
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 />1 <br /> <br />"'. <br /> <br />~f <br />~' / <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />! <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />. f <br />I: <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />~ <br />i <br />I <br />. <br />. <br />! <br /> <br />-' <br />t- <br />~ <br />..-4 <br /> <br />(-:;J <br /> <br />ALTERNATIVE PLANS <br /> <br />This section describes four alternative plans that satisfy objectives of <br />the study. Each plan consists of two parts; one part discusses recom- <br />mended management practices, the other discusses needed structural <br />measures. A No-proJect-Action alternative is the same as the future- <br />Without-proJect-Conditlon discussed above. Vqri'able elements used in <br />formulating each plan are shown in Table 12. The reconvnended improve- <br />ments and estimated i'mplementation costs for each alternative are given <br />in Table 13. Tne effect of each plan on s~lt load pickup is shown in <br />Table l4. <br /> <br />Each plan assumes an 80 percenL implementation level which reflects two <br />basic premises. First, part of the valley has already received some of <br />the recommended tyPes of land treatment and, therefore, need not be <br />further improved; and second, some farm operators may not participate in <br />the program for any of a variety of reasons. <br /> <br />For the irrigated land a common goal of each plan was to recommend for <br />each irrigation the time of set, or flow rate per furrow, and the number <br />of irrigations per season that will provide the net irrigation require- <br />ment of the crop. These recommendations supplemented by the Bureau of <br />Reclamation's Irrigation Management Services elMS) program can effec- <br />tively and efficiently maintain soil moisture within desired Ilmits. <br />The IMS program provides the irrigator with information which allows him <br />to apply irrigations at the proper soil moisture depletion level and to <br />apply the amount of water needed to replenish the depleted soil moisture <br />plus an appropriate amount for leaching. The IMS program is scheduling <br />irrigations on about 6,000 acres. ' <br /> <br />Grazing control is an effective means for reducing runoff and erosion <br />from the non-irrigated uplands. Studies on Badger Wash by the USGS and <br />by BLM show as much as 40 percent reduction in runoff and sedimentation <br />by completely el iminating grazing. Therefore, each plan considers <br />control of grazing supplemented by structural measures. <br /> <br />35 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.