WSP07690

• File Number: 8277.600.10
• Description: Big Sandy River Unit - Colorado River Salinity Control Program
• State: WY
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Date: 9/1/1987
• Title: Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Big Sandy River Unit
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: EIS

which could be supported by the State of Wyoming, the SCS, and the
irrigators in the area. The report did discuss environmental impacts
and mitigation for several alternatives.

Early in 1984, the Governor of Wyoming asked that the SCS evaluate an
additional alternative, installation of a low-pressure sprinkler
irrigation system. After the evaluation, the State of Wyoming, SCS, and
many irrigators were in favor of the low-pressure sprinkler alternative.
The State of Wyoming and Big Sandy Conservation District asked the SCS
to prepare a USDA Selected Onfarm Low-Pressure Sprinkler Plan. This EIS
addresses that alternative.

A large range of alternatives was evaluated during the course of the
salinity control study. The alternatives range from no project action
to various levels of irrigation water management including irrigation
retirement, which provided greatest salinity reduction benefits. In
addition to those alternatives requested by the Local Coordinating
Committee, an environmentally preferable alternative was developed.

The alternatives evaluated and displayed in this EIS are listed as
follows:

Alternative 1 - Future Without a Project (No Action)

Alternative 2 - Improved Water Management and Minimum Structural
Improvements

Alternative 3 - 15,700 Acres Irrigated with Sprinklers (High
Pressure, Individual Pumping)

Alternative 4 - 14,200 Acres Irrigated with Automated Border
Systems and 1,500 Acres Sprinkler Irrigated

Alternative 5 - Irrigation Retirement (Livestock Operation)

Alternative 6 - Sublettes Flat Reservoir and Wildlife Refuge
(Environmentally Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 7 - Selected Plan - 15,700 Acres Irrigated With
Sprinklers (Low-Pressure, Individual Onfarm
Pumping)

NOTE: With the exception of the irrigation retirement, all alternatives
evaluated and displayed in Tables S-l and S-2 assume that the existing
agricultural conservation programs administered by the ASCS, with
technical assistance provided by the SCS, will continue to be offered
and utilized at the same rate as in the past few years.

Alternatives 2 through 7, as displayed in Tables S-l and S-2, used
Alternative 1 Future Without a Project (No Action) as an evaluation
base. All values shown in the tables are incremental to Alternative 1.

0\ (, .. r ,~ .
L. '..Il"iU<J

S-4

..!