Laserfiche WebLink
<br />t..l <br />>- <br />1\j <br />..... <br /> <br />3. <br /> <br />Provide inc~eased technical d5S1Slance by SCS through the Delta and Shav~no <br />Soil Coservation Districts and by ASCS county offices to service the <br />expected decelerated ~orkload. <br /> <br />4. Develop a conservation plan that includes an environmental evaluation for <br />each farm containing conservation practices consistent ~ilh priorities by <br />watershed area and reflecting the o~ner's decisions for making improvements <br />to meet objectives of the salinity control program. <br /> <br />S. Obtain a long.term commitment trom farm operators to begin an improvement <br />program based on individual conservatIon plans and to accelerate that <br />program consistent with established priorities for early completion of <br />needed improvements, <br /> <br />6. Continue the program for irrigation research to determine applicability <br />and limitations of various irrigation methods under local conditions of <br />soil, climate, crops dnd pconomics. <br /> <br />7. Initiate ~ program to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of onfarm <br />improvements to verify that objectives of the salinity control program <br />have been achieved. <br /> <br />Sondlscrimlnatlon <br /> <br />The salinity control program ....ill be Implemented in compliance ....ith <br />all requirements respecting nondIscrimination as cont.ained in the Civil Rights <br />La~ of 1964, as amended, and the regulations of ~he Secretary of Agriculture <br />(efR 15.1-15.12), ...'hich providf" that no person in tne United States shall, on <br />the grounds of race, color, religion, nattonal origin, sex, age, physical or <br />mental handicap be e'xcluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, <br />or be othen.:ise subjected to discrimln.Jtion under any activity receiving federal <br />financial assistance. <br /> <br />Mitigation <br /> <br />Each alternative plan (Table AI-4) for the Lo~er Gunnison Basin Unit <br />has d display of the potential _etland loss. This is sho.n in acres and in <br />Habitat Valul" Units. The significance of the ....etland impacts are given in <br />perspective by sho~ing: (1) thf" ~etlands avoided in each alternative; (2) the <br />""etlands that could be upgraded (rehdbilitated)i dud (3) additional ...'etlands <br />needed (replacement). In addition, the wetland loss in each alternative is <br />evaluated to display the replacement cost (dt S2,OOOjacre) to upgrade (rehabili- <br />tate) wetlands by increasing the habitat value of other~ise undisturbed wetlands <br />elsehlo'ere in the valley. In most instances proper control of grazing by domestic <br />livestock will allow natural rebound of native vegetation. In some areas <br />reseeding of native species may be needed, The revitalized vegetation could <br />adequately minimIze the adverse effects on habitat values lost due to program <br />implementation. <br /> <br />It is anticipated that the most likely scenario for mitigation is a voluntary <br />commitment on individual or contiguous farms. This commItment could result in <br />an acreage with habit unit value which is less than the full level of mitigation <br />by avoiding areas, upgrading (rehabilttation), or replacement. It is estimated <br />that 100 acres of wetlands obtained through voluntary mitigation will partially <br />replace lost .etlands in the recommended plan. In addition the recommended <br /> <br />1\'-2) <br />