Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br />',' <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO <br />7/6/76 <br /> <br />Twenty-one people participated in the Grand Junction ~eeting. forty <br />items of concern or recommendation were submitted by the participants. <br />Of these forty, the following items received the most attention. <br />These items are listed in decreasing order of priority as determined <br />by the participants' combined input: <br /> <br />1. Assure [that] present' use is continued. Land is already ad- <br />ministered by government. <br /> <br />2. Leave management as is. No restrictions on boating (with <br />motorboats). Do not increase people use. Need boat ramp. <br /> <br />[Classification ]will cause greater'impact than we pre- <br />have. <br /> <br />3. <br />sently <br /> <br />4. Favor multiple use concept. <br /> <br />5. Why classify at all? Enough government control now. <br /> <br />6. Why over-control the river? <br /> <br />7. Leave the river as is. If it must be classified, it <br />should be recreational. <br /> <br />Note: Items 1, 2 and 3 had equal priority ratings. <br /> <br />The majority of comments submitted reflect concerns that overlap <br />or fall within the following general categories: river classifica- <br />tion recommendations, impacts on present and future lnnd use, regu- . <br />lations governing river. management, water management and rights, and <br />administrative responsibility for river management. <br /> <br />0633 <br />