Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, ' <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />MOAB, UTAH 7/7/76 <br /> <br />Twenty-four people participated in the Moab meeting. Fifty-one <br />items of concern or recommendation were submitted by the partici- <br />pants. Of these fifty-one, the following items received the most <br />attention. These items are listed in decreasing order of priority <br />as determined by the participants' combined input. <br /> <br />1. Exclude uses which consume, modify river bank resources and <br />H20 quality, e.g., oil and gas, minerals, coal, oil shale. <br /> <br />8. Need a wider corridor than proposed. <br /> <br />2. What plans are in order for proposed development; i.e., <br />marinas, dams, roads, mining activity, power development? <br /> <br />3. What kind of active vote will we have in final say and what <br />effect can we have on final management planning? <br /> <br />4. What effect will designation status have on rIver- running <br />opportunities (commercial and private); and how will this be deter- <br />mined--allocations, number of people, allotments, etc.? <br /> <br />5. How [will] designation change BLM present management? <br /> <br />6. Control adj acent land so as to preserve "Wild and Scenic" <br />values. <br /> <br />7. Too much government control. <br /> <br />Note: Items 1 and 2 had equal priority ratings as did Items 3, 4, <br />5 and 6. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The majority of comments submitted reflect concerns that overJRp <br />or fall within the following general categories; regulations govern- <br />ing river management (more than 30% of the comments fell within this <br />category), river classification recommendations, and impacts on <br />present and future land use. <br /> <br />0632 <br />