Laserfiche WebLink
Mun'h 2006 RCCD C peer Yumpu Ricer Bue'in Implementation Ptun • 19 <br />• Streambank stabilization: Streambank erosion results in the loss of highly productive ground <br />and an increase in stream sediment load. There is a need for additional Streambank <br />• stabilization along the Yampa Ri~aer and tributaries. <br />• Sprinkler irrigation: Installation of sprinkler systems would result in a more efficient use of <br />water and less runoff/erosion. <br />• Riparian fencing: Fencing would protect riparian areas and minimize erosional releases. <br />• Grazing management: with cross-fencing and water development would result in improved <br />pastures and less erosional release. <br />Public Meeting <br />A public meeting was held on June 28, 2005 at the Yampa River State Park, in conjunction with <br />conservation tours focusing on two Routt County water projects (Frentress Streambank Protection <br />:Project and Cary Ditch Irrigation Project). The meeting was announced in a newsletter distributed to <br />approximately 950 residents (Appendix B), as well as in the local newspaper (Appendix B) and radio. <br />Approximately 50 people attended the rneeting and conservation practices tours, which focused on <br />Routt County water projects. A Po~verPoint slide-show outlining the Implementation Plan was <br />presented and is included in Appendix B. Comments from meeting participants included: <br />• The need Eor additional educational programs and especially more outreach to small-acre <br />landowners; <br />• n f r additional ro'ect fundin • and <br />The eed o p ~ g, <br />The desire for additional conser`~ation practices tours (several respondents noted that actually <br />seeing conservation practices helped them understand how it might be applied to their <br />property). <br />Draft Implementation Plan <br />Comments and recommendations from the meetings summarized above are presented in this Draft <br />.Implementation Plan, which summarizes tL~e general Upper Yampa River Basin characteristics (Section <br />2.0), 208 Plan (Section 3.0); Implementation Plan process-to-date (Section 4.0); and Implementation Plan <br />projects (Section 5.0). A second newsletter article released in September 2005, also distributed to <br />approximately 950 residents, invited the public to provide input into the plan. A copy of the <br />newsletter article is included in Appendix: C. <br />4.2 SUMMARY OF PRIORITIES <br />Based upon the review, screening, and prioritization of the 208 Plan recommendations, as well as <br />input received from the public and interested agencies, the following projects were selected for <br />development within this Implementation Plan: <br />• Conduct a comprehensive headgate survey; <br />• • Prepare a nonpoint source poll,.rtion control educational brochure, geared toward the non- <br />urban and small acreage landowner; <br />RCCD * 1 d7~ Pint Greece Krxrrl, Snitr 101 ~l * StrumGnut .Sf~rir{gr, CO 3037 * (Ji O) 87J :322 <br />