WSP06571 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

E. RIVER StuDY PROCESS The first tasks were to decide how the study wa~ to be conducted and to develop criteria for eligibility judgements On the .....11 atre.alllS .and tributariea (see Appi'ndtx A). At the beginning. all flOYing water in the Piedra drainage above Colorado Highway #160 was the purview of the study. Once the criteria and ~ethodology were established the study proceeded In four basiC steps. 1) Study [lata The study team used existing data bases to full advantage. data base WaS developed for tbe Piedra drainage. Data for extracted. In addition. a large resource the river corridor was field studies of the Piedra River and Its tributaries began lmmediately after the public Information progra~. Segments of nearly all named tributariu. East and Middle forks and the Piedra mainstream were examined via foot, horseback. raft, motor vehicle. and by aircraft. Notices of field trips were published and the public invited to attend. Sixty- eight persona found tim~ from their joba to go on the trips. Eleven persons went on twO or more. They represented a full range of interest fr~ private landowners on the river to aembers of various envlrollPental organizations. 2) Suitabi.!..!.f1. Next, the Piedra River segments were evalusted to determine their suitability for inclusion in the National ~ild and Scenic Rivers System. Direction for this phase ia found in tbe Act and aupplemented in "Guidel1nes for Evaluating loIild, Scenic. and Recreational Areas Proposed for Inclusion in the National ~ild and Scenic Rivers System". The latter doeUlllent was Is~ued by the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior, february, 1970. A four step process for determining suitability was used: (1) The river was evaluated in terms of eligibility for inclusion in the national syst<'tll; (2) the eligible portions were divided into ~lassiriable units on the basis of length and character similarities; (3) the most re~trictive classification level was identified; (4) all tnfo~tion from the public, including comments on criteria and eligibility findings, and comments obtained at tbe public meetings. was evaluated. This information was utilized by the study team to review Its suitabiliry findings snd to check for errors and oversights. 3) Alternatives The loIater Resourcea Council's "Principles an.d Standards for Planning ~ater and Relsted Land Resources" was used to develop and analyze alrernative plans, The adoption and requirements of "Principles and Standards" waS published in the federal Reaister, Vol. 38, No. 174, Part Ill, September 10, 1973. 4) The StudvReco_ndation The preferred alternative and recommended action were selected by both the Forest Service and the Colorado Department of Satural Resources representing the State. Their decision Is baaed upon the alternative plan that in their judgement ~et tbe evaluation criteria. Inforwation and c~nt received from the public was also considered. Although public response to the river study was vigorous and primarily polarized between two philosophies, all substantive publit comments were utilized in the alternative formulation and analysis procesa. G. O'I1lER GO"'ER.l",,~.AL RELATIONSHIPS To complement the Colorado Oepart~nt of Natural Resources and their direct involveaent in the study, the Department of Local Affairs, Division of Planning, insured that all State agencies had opportunity for revi~ and c~nt. Although specific county objectives were not available, contacts were made with the County Planner to keep the study abreast with county planning efforts. 1-4