WSP08158

• File Number: 8272.600.60
• Description: Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program - Basin Member State Info - Utah
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 1/1/1991
• Title: Colorado River Basin Rangeland Salinity Control Project - State of Utah
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

~ . 11

~ content by weight to verify field estimates. During this
~ reconnaissance the augmented team characterizes and identifies
00 areas in need of land treatment and characterizes areas with no
~. need or little potential for nonpoint source pollution control.
This process is called targeting. A target area is defined as lan~
that would not respond to the current level.of management, w()uld'
not improve if all livestock use was excluded from the area anQ is
yielding offsite nonpoint source salt and sediment pollution to t~e
Colorado River Basin.

I
!
i
I
j
~
.,

During the second week there is usually a necessity of conducting
a project orientation session and PSIAC (1968) training sess~on fOr
the field managers and field technical specialists. Thisgenerally
takes about one hour to explain the purpose,: procedures and.
anticipated results of the rangeland salinity project. Then about
two to three hours is spent in a detailed explanation of the.PSI~C
(1968) procedure and how it is used in a geomorphic unit analysis.
This is followed by a field session in one of the typically good
condition areas of the watershed. Early in the second day,
decisions should be made regarding the preliminary division'of the
watershed into geomorphic units based on management quality,
. rangeland condition, geology, soils, climate and other pertinent
'parameters.. The rest of the second day through the fourth day.are
spent in verifying the geomorphic divisions and obtainingPSIAC
(1968) for the Present, FWOP and FWP conditions for the various
geomorphic divisions. Land treatment practicesandjor a
coordinated resource management plan should be proposed during the.
FWP condition modelling. Before the fifth day, a preliminatymap
of the geomorphic areas of the watershed should be prepared with
emphasis on the high salinity yielding target areas for. iand
treatment planning, rangeland condition and the. sediment yield
values for the. various shouldbesu1lll\\arized.On the fj,fthday
there should be an exit conference with themanagersandf~l!i\ld
techn'ieal specialists to..present a sU1lll\\aryof the prelimin~y
results of the field work. At this conference finalconcu~renc~ .
should be reached on the general character of the geomorph~cunits
the boundaries of the geomorphic unitlil and the general cOntent of. .
the final report. Experience has shown that the above.work
scenario for the second week can be accomplished in the time
allotted, although it may require some night work on the p.rt of
the primary team members.

The third week is a data processing week in which the detailed
parameters of the watershed are developed. Some of the pettinent :
parameters are as follows: (1) digitizing .of the drainage areas 0$
the subwatersheds, (2) digitizing of the geomorphic unit drainage ..
areas, (3) calculation of storm flow hydrology for the
subwatersheds, (4) calculations of sediment and salt yield' for the'.
geomorphic units (salt content was estimated as a percent of the .
sediment yield, (5) routing of the sediment and salt yie14s from
the geomorphic units to major perennial stream channels, (6)
calculation of the economics of proposed land treatment in the
target areas, (7) calculation of salinity cost effectiveness, . (8).
preparation of geomorphic unit maps with sediment yield rates,map~
,

.<
.~

,:>:
,

:~,;
,

.;)

:"<
-.'.'
,;:,:~

tJJ...
r:~
;:~
'-.;',
"
."

">:.
.,
?'.~
:;1

~

~

;-.,;

"'J