My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC02665
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
15000-15999
>
WSPC02665
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 11:20:25 AM
Creation date
10/9/2006 3:29:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
7630.285
Description
Wild and Scenic - General
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
7/1/1978
Author
HCRS-DOI
Title
Viewpoints on the Impact of National Wild and Scenic River Designation - An Exploratory Survey - 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.
/
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />OOll~5 <br /> <br />Three rivers were chosen for study. They were: the Allagash River in <br /> <br />Maine, the St. Croix River between Minnesota and Wisconsin, and the <br /> <br />Chattooga River found in North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. <br /> <br />The selection of rivers was based on three factors. The first was the <br /> <br />length of time the river had been in the National Wild and Scenic <br />Rivers System. The second was the geographic location of the river. <br />All three rivers are in different regions with different land use <br />characteristics. This distribution would identify regional problems <br />~ <br />as well as those problems common to all rivers. The third was. the managing <br />agencies: State National Park Service~the U.S. Forest Service. <br />I <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />~ <br />1-' <br />i <br />.~1 <br /> <br />Prior to making any personal contacts, it was necessary to research <br /> <br /> <br />information on each river. A bibliography appears in the back of the <br /> <br /> <br />report. Most of the viewpoints ~ were compiled through interviews <br /> <br /> <br />(via phone calls) and questionnaires. The questionnaires differed <br /> <br /> <br />somewhat with each river according to environment and the official <br /> <br /> <br />status of the respondent. Respondents fell into three general categories: <br /> <br /> <br />river managers, State, Federal or local government officials (other <br /> <br /> <br />than managers), and private riverside landowners and/or local residents. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />The methodology used to conduct this study had several limiting factors. <br />A major drawback was ~ime e~im9~t. Only three rivers could be <br />researched within the available time frame. Another drawback was that <br /> <br />all questioning had to be via long distance telephone. The inability <br /> <br />; <br />to have face to face contact with the interviewees impaired the researcher's <br /> <br />-2- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.