My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
R2002-156 AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
COD
>
City Clerk
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
2002
>
R2002-156 AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/14/2016 3:59:17 PM
Creation date
1/14/2016 3:59:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Resolution/Ordinance
Res Ord Num
R2002-156
Res Ord Title
AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT AMENDMENT MACON COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT FOR SAND CREEK RESOURCE PLAN
Approved Date
8/5/2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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).
View images
View plain text
Amount of soil saved (in tons per year) <br /> Federal & <br /> Erosion t pe State Cit Totaf saved <br /> Sheet & Rill Erosion 1566.8 191.28 1758.08 <br /> E hemeral Erosion 1637 2123 3760 <br /> Gull Erosion 206 245 451 <br /> Totals 3409.8 2559.28 5969.08 <br /> The table above shows how much soil was saved in one year. If you expand the soil <br /> saved over a 15-year period, which is the average expected life span of the installed <br /> projects, then we actually saved 89,536Z Tons of soil. This is equivalent to 4069 <br /> semi-trucks ful! of soil. <br /> Conclusion <br /> Well how did we do? If you compare the results to what we said we would <br /> accomplish in the Sand Creek Sediment Reduction Inventory Report, I feel we did very <br /> well, considering we only had a year and a half to work. The really nice thing about this <br /> project is the fact that we only used $27,?84.88 of the City's Dollazs to accomplish many <br /> I of the goals that we set out to achieve in the Sand Creek Report. <br /> The first goal in the report was to hold public meetings in the Sand Creek <br /> Watershed to discuss the inventory findings with producers and other stakeholders. We <br /> met this goal within the first two months of having the City money. We actually only <br /> held one meeting but it was well attended with the majority of the farmers in the Sand <br /> Creek Watershed represented. '� <br /> The second goal was to develop a mailing list to target all producers for resource II <br /> planning needs. This goal was also met within the first two months of the pro�ect. It � <br /> actually occurred at the same time as the first goa1. <br /> The third goal was to increase the application of resource management systems by <br /> 30%. By the end of the grant period, which was December 31, 2001, we had completed <br /> this goal. This goal was very important. In the past we had very little participation in <br /> any of the above cost-share programs. The Sand Creek cost-share program gave us an <br /> opportunity to emphasize several of our erosion programs in the watershed. The <br /> programs were well received. <br /> The fourth goal was to piggyback existing Federal, State and local programs to <br /> fund the erosion control measures. This goal was also met. If you look at the results you <br /> will see that the Federal government programs actually funded the majority of the <br /> projects in the watershed. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.