My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC00665
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
13000-13999
>
WSPC00665
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 10:51:09 AM
Creation date
10/9/2006 2:17:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
7630.650
Description
Wild and Scenic - Yampa River
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
6/30/1976
Author
Unknown
Title
Annotated Report Outline for Yampa-Green Wild and Scenic Rivers Study - Draft
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />001757 , <br /> <br />C. NED Alternatives l-N - Each NED alternative's proposed <br />development and Bross impacts should be briefly described <br />'on a p1an-by-plan basis. <br /> <br />D. EQ Alternatives 1-N - Each EQ alternative's significant effects <br />should also be briefly explained. <br /> <br />1- <br />L <br />L <br />, <br />1 <br /> <br />This chapter will also include summary display tables and possibly <br />maps. <br /> <br />VII. Recommended Actions <br /> <br />A. Introduction - Begin by stating the general reasons for preserving <br />rivers under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Then, the reasons <br />for recommending or not recommending each segment should be <br /> <br />~"--',' <br />described. Included with the reasons for recommending or not - <br />recommending inclusion of each segment should be the goals <br />for preservation or use of that segment which have basis for I <br />that decision. A detailed description (map and/or textual) , <br />of the boundaries of the area proposed for inclusion should <br />also be given. <br /> <br />B. 'Implementation <br /> <br />1. Classification - How would the segments proposed for inclusion <br />be classified? If recommended for a lower or higher classi- <br />fication than eligible for, justify position. <br /> <br />2. Administration - For the Yampa-Green study area it will, if <br />designated, be the Fish and Wildlife Service and National <br />Park Service. If there are, any anticipated increased <br />administrative costs due to designation, they should be <br />described here. <br /> <br />I <br />Ii <br /> <br />3. Acquisition - I don't believe there would be any required by <br />this proposal, but if so, state what type of acquisition <br />where, why, and costs here. There could, however, be a <br />need for an easement by Mantle Ranch. <br /> <br />4. Development Again there probably would be none on this <br />study, but if so, give all details. <br /> <br />.;; <br />I~ <br />~! <br /> <br />5. Resources Use Policies - Begin with what is shown in the <br />Guidelines. Then describe any policies needing further <br />coverage (picnic tables and outhouses?) and those which <br />differ from the Guidelines for a given classification. <br /> <br />6. River Corridor Management - Probably won't differ from <br />existing management. However, existing management which <br />will be continued and changes (if any) should be described. <br /> <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.