Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />.- <br /> <br />~. <br /> <br />OilJ221 <br /> <br />VIII. <br /> <br />COSSUL'IATIOS WITH OTRI'Jl.S <br /> <br />Individuals, <br />COnCernS snd <br />opinions and <br /> <br />organizations and other governmental agencies Were encouraged to contribute information. <br />ideas throughout the study. Public iovolveoent gave the study team the feelings, values, <br />needs of zany persons and organizations with widely differing viewpoints. <br /> <br />A. <br /> <br />PL~LIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVItIES <br /> <br />ro~l Public Involvement Activities. Public meetings were conducted twice during the study. <br />Meeting locatIons, dates and registered attendance Is listed bel~: <br /> <br />Information and Data Ass~ly: The objectives and study process were explained and i~diate <br />questions were received from the participants. The public was asked to express their ideas snd <br />concerns regarding the study, the river environ~nt, the supplementary criteria, and resource <br />uses. <br /> <br />Information Meetings: <br /> <br />Location <br /> <br />Date <br /> <br />Registered Attendance <br /> <br />PagosaSpringa <br /> <br />July 7. 1976 <br /> <br />106 <br /> <br />Durango <br /> <br />July 8. 1976 <br /> <br />41 <br /> <br />Denver <br /> <br />July9,1976 <br /> <br />19 <br /> <br />Formulate and Analyze Alternatives: Five generalized alternatives were proposed by the study <br />teem. Participants at the workshops were asked to review and critique the alternatives and <br />formulate new alternatives that the team may have overlooked. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Alurnatives Wark9hops: <br />Location Date <br />pagosa Sprinp January 11. 1977 <br />Durango January 11. 1977 <br />Denver January ". 1977 <br /> <br />Registered Attendance <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />18 <br /> <br />field Workshop-River Eligib1l1ty and Suitability: An auto tour of the Piedra River area WaS <br />~lde. providing an opportunity for on-the-ground review of the atudy team findings for various <br />segments of the river. Participants were also asked to submit their own evaluations using the <br />same criterLa as the study t~. During the entire field .tudy the public was invited to <br />accompany the study team on field trips (the field trip schedule waS published in advance). <br />Although participanta were required to provide their own transportation and personal needs. 31 <br />persons found time to go on one or more trips. <br /> <br />Informal Activities. <br /> <br />U.e of Mass Media: The public was advised of all study activities through radio, teleVision and <br />;;';spapers-throughout Colorado and northwestern New Mexico. Eleven scheduled new releases were <br />made to inform the public of various meetings and workshops, keeping them abreast of the study <br />progre.... <br /> <br />Mass Mailing..: The...tudy team ~intained s supplCQcntary aailing list tQ complement the ...ss <br />iiiedla nPw relealles. Initial annDWlCement of the study was sent to 2,440 individual.. and another <br />400 were distributed through Federal and State offices. The mailing list stsbilized at about <br />450 individuals. organizations and businesses. <br /> <br />~itten Information Handouts: Public information and involvement activities ~re aided through <br />dTStf1bution of writtcn information. This effort focused on five documents distributed at <br />meetings or mailed by spect..l request: <br /> <br />Document <br /> <br />Approximate ~ Distributed <br /> <br />Wild and Scenic Rivers. USDI-BOR and <br />lJSDA-FS. 1975 (GPO 0-57&-21,)) <br /> <br />160 <br /> <br />Public La.... 93-621 <br /> <br />200> <br /> <br />Federal Guidelines eSDI-USDA <br />(GPO 864-100) <br /> <br />25'" <br /> <br />1-:'0 <br />