Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br />Early results of onfarm evaluations by SCS showed the effect of three levels <br />of improvement. These levels of improvement were presented at a joint meeting <br />of the Gunnison, Delta and Shavano Soil Conservation Districts (SeDs) in Sep- <br />tember 1978, held at Montrose, Colorado. The consensus from that meeting was <br />that the highest level of improvement should be evaluated in more detail. <br />Further evaluation suggested that the size of the area targeted for improvement <br />could be based on three levels of cost effectiveness, the smallest area being <br />the most cost effective. These results were presented to a joint meeting of <br />the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) County Committee <br />and the Board of Directors of the Soil Conservation Districts serving Delta <br />and Montrose Counties at a meeting held in January 1980, and a followup meet- <br />ing held in March 1980. Both meetings were held at Montrose, Colorado, to <br />solicit opinion on the size of area to be treated. The consensus of the meeting <br />was that all areas should receive some treatment, but that a uniform degree of <br />treatment for all areas may not be necessary. <br /> <br />On April 30, 1980, the SCS joined with the USBR to hold a Public Scoping Meeting <br />at Olathe, Colorado, where the results of the evaluations were presented and <br />local opinion on environmental concerns was solicited. No significant local <br />environmental issues were raised at the meeting. In fact, the local people <br />thought the agencies were overly concerned with environmental issues not con- <br />sidered important by the local people. Plan five was considered the least <br />acceptable by the people in attendance at the scoping meeting because it limits <br />treatment to only the poorer agricultural soils in the valley. Plan eight was <br />considered to be most acceptable and plan seven was the second most desirable. <br /> <br />Alternate 6 although not chosen as being among the most desirable, does maximize <br />net benefits to the farmer. <br /> <br />After reexamining the concept of a uniform level of improvement throughout all <br />26 watersheds the eight alternative plans included in this supplement were <br />presented in separate public meetings to the ASCS County Committee and to the <br />Board of Directors for the Soil Conservation Districts serving Delta and Montrose <br />Counties. Both meetings were held on November 12, 1980. <br /> <br />IV-40 <br /> <br />