My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD10358 (2)
CWCB
>
Watershed Protection
>
DayForward
>
FLOOD10358 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/11/2010 2:06:45 PM
Creation date
6/19/2007 4:52:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Watershed Protection
Document ID
124
County
Alamosa
Rio Grande
Community
Rio Grande and Alamosa CountiesRio Grande and Alam
Stream Name
Rio Grande RiverRio Grande River
Basin
Rio Grande
Sub-Basin
Upper Rio Grande
Water Division
3
Title
Rio Grande Headwaters Restoration Project
Date
10/1/2001
Prepared For
San Luis Valley Water Conservancy District, RGHRP Technical Advisory CommitteeSa
Prepared By
Montgomery Watson Harza
Watershed Pro - Doc Type
Project Report
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
143
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 />. <br /> <br />Implementation of the RGHRP recommendations will require developing partnerships with oUlside <br />organizations and seeking funding assistance from public and private agencies. The following programs may <br />be potential funding partners. <br /> <br />Potential Implementation Partners and Funding Sources <br /> <br />ES.5.4 <br /> <br />Initiative Program <br /> <br />Natural Resources Conservation Service <br />U.S. Army Corps of Engineers <br />U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Partners for Fish and Wildlife <br />U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regional Geographic <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />Colorado Division of Wildlife <br />Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund <br />San Luis Valley Wetlands Focus Area Committee <br />Rio Grande Headwaters Land Trus' <br />River Network <br />The Nature Conservancy <br />Private Organizations (Ducks <br /> <br />Unlimited) <br /> <br />Trout <br /> <br />Unlimited, <br /> <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br /> <br />ES-26 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Begin the political lobbying process necessary to eventually have all the entities adopt <br />stream buffer, land use, and floodplain management ordinances that will protect the river <br />corridor from future impacts. It is anticipated that gaining approval for these ordinances <br />could be difficult, and work in forming political alliances should begin immediately. <br />Identify any land acquisition requirements for the high-priority structural projects, and <br />develop a property acquisition plan. Because land values in the river corridor will continue <br />to rise, acquiring needed property as early in the implementation process as possible will <br />minimize project costs. <br />Secure funding for specific feasibility studies that will be required to implement the key <br />RGHRP recommendations. <br />Package preferred channel restoration projects in ways that will attract funding from <br />outside sources. Financial assistance is primarily available for wetlands and wildlife <br />proteclion and enhancement projects, so it is important to identifY and quantify benefits in <br />these categories for any proposed projects. <br />Coordinate with the NRCS, which currently has a grant for implementing bank stabilization <br />and grazing management measures with selected willing landowners. The current and <br />proposed NRCS river stabilization projects are generally consistent with the <br />recommendations of the RGHRP. <br />Identify demonstration projects, like those being performed by NRCS, that can be readily <br />implemented and serve as focal points for generaling community interesl in the RGHRP. <br />Examples include establishing stream buffers on selected parcels, and consolidating <br />selected irrigation head gates. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />3. <br /> <br />4. <br /> <br />5. <br /> <br />6. <br /> <br />7. <br /> <br />8. <br /> <br />The River Task Force should set its own implementation priorities based on knowledge of special <br />opportunities for partnering with other organizations and projects, for working with selected landowners, and <br />for capitalizing on advantageous political conditions. It should be expected that priorities will shift over time <br />as different opportunities arise. <br /> <br />Recommendations presented in Section 4 include a number of additional studies that will be necessary <br />implement the proposed structural and non-structural projects. The most important additional studies are: <br /> <br />to <br /> <br />Monte Vista and <br />measures. and <br /> <br />Prepare Flood Hazard Mitigalion Plans for the cities of Del Norte, <br />Alamosa, that will include detailed analyses of potenlial flood management <br />will be developed in close cooperation with City and County staffs. <br /> <br />Prepare more detailed engineering studies of the possible approaches for combining the <br />Reach D headgates, improving the Consolidated SloughfPace head gates, and fixing the <br />Westside diversion problem. The RGRHP has identified several options in each case. <br />Engineering feasibility, cosl, and stakeholder preferences need to be evaluated for each <br />project in order to select and then design a recommended solution. <br /> <br />Perform hydrologic and hydraulic modeling studies to delermine whether approaches 10 <br />meeting the Rio Grande Compact deliveries can be developed that provide greater benefils <br />for the river corridor. The Rio Grande Decision Support System model should be used in <br />Ihis analysis, which will have to be coordinated closely with the State Engineers Office. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />ES-25 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.