DOCSLIB.ORG

Iii. Visitor Profile

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Iii. Visitor Profile Surveys of Visitors to Ross Lake National Recreation Area: State Route 20 Corridor User Survey and Ross Lake User Survey Jane E. Swanson Darryll R. Johnson Technical Report NPS/PWR/PNWCESU - 2007/03 NPS D-286 January 2007 Protected Area Social Research Unit College of Forest Resources Box 352100 University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195-2100 The Protected Areas Social Research Unit is the applied social science program associated with the NPS Pacific Northwest Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit (NPS PNW CESU). This applied social science program has been operating out of the UW College of Forest Resources since 1970 when it was a part of the Cooperative Park Studies Unit (CPSU). The NPS (NPS PNW CESU) is located in the University of Washington (UW) College of Forest Resources. The NPS PNW CESU is part of a larger partnership involving 7 federal agencies, 12 universities and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The PNW CESU was created in October of 2000 to provide research, technical assistance and education to enhance management of natural and cultural resources on public lands in the Pacific Northwest. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by NPS, UW, or any of the other agencies or institutions associated with this research. The contents of the report do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the NPS, UW, or any of the agencies associated with this report. Copies are available from the following: Technical Information Center Denver Service Center National Park Service P. O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225-0287 303-969-2130 ii Surveys of Visitors to Ross Lake National Recreation Area: State Route 20 Corridor User Survey and Ross Lake User Survey Jane E. Swanson Darryll R. Johnson Technical Report NPS/PWR/PNWCESU - 2007/03 NPS D-286 January 2007 Protected Area Social Research Unit College of Forest Resources Box 352100 University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195-2100 Cooperative Agreement No. CA9088A0008 National Park Service and University of Washington This research was supported by the Skagit Environmental Endowment Commission and the Pacific Northwest Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit of the National Park Service iii Table of Contents Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................x Preface ............................................................................................................................xi A SURVEY OF STATE ROUTE 20 CORRIDOR USERS.................................................1 Corridor User Survey Highlights ...................................................................................1 Visitor Profile................................................................................................................................. 1 Trip Characteristics ...................................................................................................................... 1 Facilities and Programs ................................................................................................................ 2 Trip Motivations............................................................................................................................ 3 I. INTRODUCTION AND METHOD ..................................................................................4 Corridor User Survey......................................................................................................5 Survey design and development................................................................................................... 5 Sampling and contact procedures................................................................................................ 5 Survey administration................................................................................................................... 7 Administration of mailings ........................................................................................................... 7 Peak versus shoulder season visitors ........................................................................................... 8 Sub-group analyses........................................................................................................................ 8 Statistical considerations............................................................................................................... 8 Limitations ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Non-response ............................................................................................................................ 9 Accuracy of the sample ................................................................................................................. 9 Conventions followed in this report........................................................................................... 10 II. VISITOR PROFILE .....................................................................................................12 Location Contacted and Destination Type................................................................................ 12 iv Age of respondents ...................................................................................................................... 13 Sex................................................................................................................................................. 18 Residence...................................................................................................................................... 19 Education ..................................................................................................................................... 21 Ethnicity and Race ...................................................................................................................... 22 Number of trips in the past three years..................................................................................... 23 Party Size...................................................................................................................................... 24 Party Type.................................................................................................................................... 25 Party members under the age of 18 ........................................................................................... 27 III. TRIP CHARACTERISTICS........................................................................................30 Transportation Mode.................................................................................................................. 30 Type of destination ...................................................................................................................... 33 Driving pattern of visitors........................................................................................................... 35 Length of stay............................................................................................................................... 39 General activities engaged in...................................................................................................... 45 Most and second most important activity ................................................................................. 48 Walk/hikes during trip................................................................................................................ 51 Places stopped along SR 20 corridor ......................................................................................... 55 Overall trip satisfaction .............................................................................................................. 61 IV. FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS ................................................................................63 Sought information prior to visit ............................................................................................... 63 Prior knowledge of facilities and programs .............................................................................. 66 Awareness of and interest in North Cascades Institute’s environmental education programs ....................................................................................................................................................... 74 Interest in different types of ranger activities........................................................................... 79 Visitation of and satisfaction with specific facilities/programs ............................................... 95 v V. TRIP MOTIVATIONS................................................................................................115 Trip motivations ........................................................................................................................ 115 VI. LOCAL VISITORS...................................................................................................153 Comparison of local visitors with local residents using census data..................................... 153 Comparison of local to non-local park users .......................................................................... 154 Visitor Profile ....................................................................................................................... 154 Trip characteristics...............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • North Cascades Contested Terrain
    North Cascades NP: Contested Terrain: North Cascades National Park Service Complex: An Administrative History NORTH CASCADES Contested Terrain North Cascades National Park Service Complex: An Administrative History CONTESTED TERRAIN: North Cascades National Park Service Complex, Washington An Administrative History By David Louter 1998 National Park Service Seattle, Washington TABLE OF CONTENTS adhi/index.htm Last Updated: 14-Apr-1999 http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/noca/adhi/[11/22/2013 1:57:33 PM] North Cascades NP: Contested Terrain: North Cascades National Park Service Complex: An Administrative History (Table of Contents) NORTH CASCADES Contested Terrain North Cascades National Park Service Complex: An Administrative History TABLE OF CONTENTS Cover Cover: The Southern Pickett Range, 1963. (Courtesy of North Cascades National Park) Introduction Part I A Wilderness Park (1890s to 1968) Chapter 1 Contested Terrain: The Establishment of North Cascades National Park Part II The Making of a New Park (1968 to 1978) Chapter 2 Administration Chapter 3 Visitor Use and Development Chapter 4 Concessions Chapter 5 Wilderness Proposals and Backcountry Management Chapter 6 Research and Resource Management Chapter 7 Dam Dilemma: North Cascades National Park and the High Ross Dam Controversy Chapter 8 Stehekin: Land of Freedom and Want Part III The Wilderness Park Ideal and the Challenge of Traditional Park Management (1978 to 1998) Chapter 9 Administration Chapter 10 http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/noca/adhi/contents.htm[11/22/2013
    [Show full text]
  • OFR 2019–1144: Preliminary Assessment of Shallow Groundwater Chemistry Near Goodell Creek, North Cascades National Park, Washi
    Prepared in cooperation with the National Park Service Preliminary Assessment of Shallow Groundwater Chemistry near Goodell Creek, North Cascades National Park, Washington Open-File Report 2019–1144 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Preliminary Assessment of Shallow Groundwater Chemistry near Goodell Creek, North Cascades National Park, Washington By Rich W. Sheibley and James R. Foreman Prepared in cooperation with the National Park Service Open-File Report 2019–1144 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior David Bernhardt, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey James F. Reilly II, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2019 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov/ or call 1–888–ASK–USGS (1–888–275–8747). For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit https://store.usgs.gov/. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. Suggested citation: Sheibley, R.W., and Foreman, J.R., 2019, Preliminary assessment of shallow groundwater chemistry near Goodell Creek, North Cascades National Park, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2019–1144, 14 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20191144.
    [Show full text]
  • Flooding the Border: Development, Politics, and Environmental Controversy in the Canadian-U.S
    FLOODING THE BORDER: DEVELOPMENT, POLITICS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROVERSY IN THE CANADIAN-U.S. SKAGIT VALLEY by Philip Van Huizen A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in The Faculty of Graduate Studies (History) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) June 2013 © Philip Van Huizen, 2013 Abstract This dissertation is a case study of the 1926 to 1984 High Ross Dam Controversy, one of the longest cross-border disputes between Canada and the United States. The controversy can be divided into two parts. The first, which lasted until the early 1960s, revolved around Seattle’s attempts to build the High Ross Dam and flood nearly twenty kilometres into British Columbia’s Skagit River Valley. British Columbia favoured Seattle’s plan but competing priorities repeatedly delayed the province’s agreement. The city was forced to build a lower, 540-foot version of the Ross Dam instead, to the immense frustration of Seattle officials. British Columbia eventually agreed to let Seattle raise the Ross Dam by 122.5 feet in 1967. Following the agreement, however, activists from Vancouver and Seattle, joined later by the Upper Skagit, Sauk-Suiattle, and Swinomish Tribal Communities in Washington, organized a massive environmental protest against the plan, causing a second phase of controversy that lasted into the 1980s. Canadian and U.S. diplomats and politicians finally resolved the dispute with the 1984 Skagit River Treaty. British Columbia agreed to sell Seattle power produced in other areas of the province, which, ironically, required raising a different dam on the Pend d’Oreille River in exchange for not raising the Ross Dam.
    [Show full text]
  • The Archaeology of the Dead at Boundary Bay, British Columbia
    THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE DEAD AT EOtDi'DhRY BAY, BRITISH COLUmLA: A fflSTORY AND CRITICAL ANALYSIS Lesley Susan it-litchefl B.A., Universiry of Alberta 1992 THESIS SUBMITTED INPARTIAL FULFILMENT OF TNE REQUIREmNTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Archaeof ogy 8 Lesley Susan Mitcheif 1996 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY June 1996 All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whofe or in part, by photocopy or nrher mas, without permission of the author. rCawi~itionsand Direstion des acquisitions et BiWiographilt; Services Branch cks serviGeS biMiographiques The author has granted an t'auteur a accorde une licence irrevocable non-exclusive licence irrbvocable et non exclusive allowing the National Library of permettant A fa Bibliotheque Canada to reproduce, taan, nationale du Canada de distribute or sell copies of reproduire, prkter, distribuer ou - his/her thesis by any means and vendre des copies de sa these in any form or format, making de quelque maniere et sous this thesis available to interested quelque forme que ce soit pour persons. mettre des exemplaires de cette thBse a la disposition des personnes intbressbes. The author refains ownership of L'auteur conserve ia propriete du I the copyright in his/her thesis. droit d'auteur qui prot6ge sa Neither the thesis nor substantial these. Ni la these ni des extraits extracts from it may be printed or substantiels de celle-ci ne otherwise reproduced without doivent &re imprimes ou his/her permission. autrement reproduits sans son - autorisation. ISBN 0-612-17019-5 f hereby grant to Simon Fraser Universi the right to lend my thesis, pro'ect or extended essay (the Me o'r which is shown below) to users of' the Simon Fraser University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users.
    [Show full text]
  • Design Basis for the Living Dike Concept Prepared by SNC-Lavalin Inc
    West Coast Environmental Law Design Basis for the Living Dike Concept Prepared by SNC-Lavalin Inc. 31 July 2018 Document No.: 644868-1000-41EB-0001 Revision: 1 West Coast Environmental Law Design Basis for the Living Dike Concept West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation and West Coast Environmental Law Association gratefully acknowledge the support of the funders who have made this work possible: © SNC-Lavalin Inc. 2018. All rights reserved. i West Coast Environmental Law Design Basis for the Living Dike Concept EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background West Coast Environmental Law (WCEL) is leading an initiative to explore the implementation of a coastal flood protection system that also protects and enhances existing and future coastal and aquatic ecosystems. The purpose of this document is to summarize available experience and provide an initial technical basis to define how this objective might be realized. This “Living Dike” concept is intended as a best practice measure to meet this balanced objective in response to rising sea levels in a changing climate. It is well known that coastal wetlands and marshes provide considerable protection against storm surge and related wave effects when hurricanes or severe storms come ashore. Studies have also shown that salt marshes in front of coastal sea dikes can reduce the nearshore wave heights by as much as 40 percent. This reduction of the sea state in front of a dike reduces the required crest elevation and volumes of material in the dike, potentially lowering the total cost of a suitable dike by approximately 30 percent. In most cases, existing investigations and studies consider the relative merits of wetlands and marshes for a more or less static sea level, which may include an allowance for future sea level rise.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Skagit
    A GUIDE TO PEOPLE AND PLACES OF THE UPPER SKAGIT BOB MIERENDORF AND GERRY COOK NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX NORTH CASCADES INSTITUTE JULY 22–25 2010 1 CLASS FIELD DAYS ITINERARY PEOPLE AND PLACES OF THE UPPER SKAGIT RIVER JULY 22–25, 2010 FRIDAY 9 am Drive from ELC to Ross Dam Trailhead parking lot 9:15–10:00 Hike to Ross Lake (end of haul road) – Brief stop on trail at a Ross Dam overlook – Load ourselves and gear on the Mule 10:30 am Welcome to the Wild Upper Skagit – Rules of the Mule and other safety matters – Instructor and participant introductions Noon Lunch on the Mule near Big Beaver Creek 2:45 pm Second stop near May Creek (no rest rooms here) 6 pm Arrive at Lightning Horse Camp (our base camp for two nights) 7 pm Potluck dinner SATURDAY 7 am Breakfast 8 am–Noon Ethnobotany hike along Eastbank Trail – About a two mile hike, rolling terrain – Gerry will pick us up with the Mule – Lunch on the Mule 1 pm Quick rest room stop at Boundary Bay Campground 3 pm Arrive at International Boundary 3:15 pm Stop at Winnebago Flats – There are toilets here – Get drinking water and fill water jugs 3:45 pm Depart Winnebago Flats on return trip 5 pm Arrive back at our camp 6:30 pm Potluck dinner SUNDAY ABOUT THE COVER 7 am Breakfast U.S. Forest Service, Mt. Baker 8 am Break camp and load Mule Ranger District, 1931 oblique 9 am Depart on Mule aerial facing 182o (south), of pre-impoundment Skagit River 10 am Arrive at Big Beaver Campground flood plain; Skymo Creek canyon – There are rest rooms here in lower right, Devil’s Creek canyon – Hike up Big Beaver to old growth cedar grove emerging from middle left.
    [Show full text]
  • The Skagit-High Ross Controversy: Negotiation and Settlement
    Volume 26 Issue 2 U.S. - Canada Transboundary Resource Issues Spring 1986 The Skagit-High Ross Controversy: Negotiation and Settlement Jackie Krolopp Kirn Marion E. Marts Recommended Citation Jackie K. Kirn & Marion E. Marts, The Skagit-High Ross Controversy: Negotiation and Settlement, 26 Nat. Resources J. 261 (1986). Available at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nrj/vol26/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Natural Resources Journal by an authorized editor of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. JACKIE KROLOPP KIRN* and MARION E. MARTS** The Skagit-High Ross Controversy: Negotiation and Settlement SETTING AND BACKGROUND The Skagit River is a short but powerful stream which rises in the mountains of southwestern British Columbia, cuts through the northern Cascades in a spectacular and once-remote mountain gorge, and empties into Puget Sound approximately sixty miles north of Seattle. The beautiful mountain scenery of the heavily glaciated north Cascades was formally recognized in the United States by the creation of the North Cascades National Park and the Ross Lake National Recreation Area in 1968, and earlier in British Columbia by creation of the E.C. Manning Provincial Park. The Ross Lake Recreation Area covers the narrow valley of the upper Skagit River in Washington and portions of several tributary valleys. It was created as a political and, to environmentalists who wanted national park status for the entire area, controversial, compromise which accom- modated the city of Seattle's Skagit River Project and the then-planned North Cascades Highway.
    [Show full text]
  • Winter 2008-2009
    THE WILD CASCADES THE JOURNAL OF THE NORTH CAS CADES CONSERVATION COUNCIL WINTER 2008-2009 THE WILD CASCADES • Winter 2008-2009 1 The North Cascades THE WILD CASCADES Winter 2008-2009 Conservation Council was formed in 1957 “To protect and In This Issue preserve the North Cascades’ scenic, scientific, recreational, educational, 3 President’s Report — Marc Bardsley and wilderness values.” Continuing 4 The Long-Term Future of NCCC: The Role of Bequests in Conservation this mission, NCCC keeps government — Jim Davis, Executive Director, North Cascades Conservation Council officials, environmental organizations, and the general public informed about Announcing the closing of the North Cascades Foundation issues affecting the Greater North 5 Reiter Forest Update — Karl Forsgaard Cascades Ecosystem. Action is pursued 6 Heybrook Ridge: Protected as a Snohomish County Park — Conway through legislative, legal, and public Leovy participation channels to protect the 7 Azurite Mine Cleanup lands, waters, plants and wildlife. NCCC Hosts North Cascades’ 40-Year Celebration Over the past half century the NCCC 8 NCCC Announces “American Alps Legacy Project” — Rick McGuire has led or participated in campaigns to create the North Cascades National 11 Re-Wilding the Cascades: Middle Fork Snoqualmie Bridge Out Park Complex, Glacier Peak Wilder- — Kevin Geraghty, Rick McGuire ness, and other units of the National 12 The Secret Lives of North Cascades Wildlife — Jim Davis Wilderness System from the W.O. 15 What Ever Happened to WPN-114: Life and Death Among the Bristle- Douglas Wilderness north to the cones — Charles Ehlert Alpine Lakes Wilderness, the Henry M. 19 Book Reviews — John S. Edwards Jackson Wilderness, the Chelan-Saw- The Bridge at the Edge of the World tooth Wilderness, the Wild Sky Wil- Two Planks and a Passion — the Dramatic History of Skiing derness and others.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Hydroeiectirc Projects Continuation Sheet
    NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-O018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service skagit ^VQT & Newhalem Creek National Register of Historic Places Hydroeiectirc Projects Continuation Sheet Section number ___ Page ___ SUPPLEMENTARY LISTING RECORD NRIS Reference Number: 96000416 Date Listed: 4/26/96 Skagit River & Newhalem Creek Hvdroelectirc Projects Whatcom WA Property Name County State Hydroelectric Power Plant MPS Multiple Name This property is listed in the National Register of Historic Places in accordance with the attached nomination documentation subject to the following exceptions, exclusions, or amendments, notwithstanding the National Park Service certification included in the nomination documentation. Signature of tty^Keejifer Date of Action Amended Items in Nomination: Photographs: The SHPO has verified that the 1989 photographs accurately document the current condition and integrity of the nominated resources. Historic Photos #1-26 are provided as photocopy duplications. Resource Count: The resource count is revised to read: Contributing Noncontributing 21 6 buildings 2 - sites 5 6 structures 1 - objects 29 12 total Number of contributing resources previously listed in the National Register 16 . A revised inventory list is appended to clarify the resource count and contributing status of properties in the district, particularly at the powerplant/dam sites. (See attached) This information was confirmed with Lauren McCroskey of the WA SHPO. DISTRIBUTION: National Register property file Nominating Authority (without nomination attachment) NFS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service Skagit River & Newhalem Creek National Register of Historic Places Hydroelectirc Projects Continuation Sheet Section number The following is a list of the contributing and noncontributing resources within the district, beginning at its westernmost—downstream—end, organized according to geographic location.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington State's Scenic Byways & Road Trips
    waShington State’S Scenic BywayS & Road tRipS inSide: Road Maps & Scenic drives planning tips points of interest 2 taBLe of contentS waShington State’S Scenic BywayS & Road tRipS introduction 3 Washington State’s Scenic Byways & Road Trips guide has been made possible State Map overview of Scenic Byways 4 through funding from the Federal Highway Administration’s National Scenic Byways Program, Washington State Department of Transportation and aLL aMeRican RoadS Washington State Tourism. waShington State depaRtMent of coMMeRce Chinook Pass Scenic Byway 9 director, Rogers Weed International Selkirk Loop 15 waShington State touRiSM executive director, Marsha Massey nationaL Scenic BywayS Marketing Manager, Betsy Gabel product development Manager, Michelle Campbell Coulee Corridor 21 waShington State depaRtMent of tRanSpoRtation Mountains to Sound Greenway 25 Secretary of transportation, Paula Hammond director, highways and Local programs, Kathleen Davis Stevens Pass Greenway 29 Scenic Byways coordinator, Ed Spilker Strait of Juan de Fuca - Highway 112 33 Byway leaders and an interagency advisory group with representatives from the White Pass Scenic Byway 37 Washington State Department of Transportation, Washington State Department of Agriculture, Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife, Washington State Tourism, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission and State Scenic BywayS Audubon Washington were also instrumental in the creation of this guide. Cape Flattery Tribal Scenic Byway 40 puBLiShing SeRviceS pRovided By deStination
    [Show full text]
  • The Damnation of a Dam : the High Ross Dam Controversy
    THE DAMYIATION OF A DAM: TIIE HIGH ROSS DAM CONTROVERSY TERRY ALLAN SIblMONS A. B., University of California, Santa Cruz, 1968 A THESIS SUBIUTTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Geography SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY May 1974 All rights reserved. This thesis may not b? reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. APPROVAL Name: Terry Allan Simmons Degree: Master of Arts Title of Thesis: The Damnation of a Dam: The High Ross Dam Controversy Examining Committee: Chairman: F. F. Cunningham 4 E.. Gibson Seni Supervisor / /( L. J. Evendon / I. K. Fox ernal Examiner Professor School of Community and Regional Planning University of British Columbia PARTIAL COPYRIGHT LICENSE I hereby grant to Simon Fraser University rhe righc to lcnd my thesis or dissertation (the title of which is shown below) to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users. I further agree that permission for multiple copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by me or the Dean of Graduate Studies. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed ' without my written permission. Title of' ~hesis /mqqmkm: The Damnation nf a nam. ~m -Author: / " (signature ) Terrv A. S.imrnonze (name ) July 22, 1974 (date) ABSTRACT In 1967, after nearly fifty years of preparation, inter- national negotiations concerning the construction of the High Ross Dan1 on the Skagit River were concluded between the Province of British Columbia and the City of Seattle.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality in British Columbia
    WATER and AIR MONITORING and REPORTING SECTION WATER, AIR and CLIMATE CHANGE BRANCH MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT Water Quality in British Columbia _______________ Objectives Attainment in 2004 Prepared by: Burke Phippen BWP Consulting Inc. November 2005 WATER QUALITY IN B.C. – OBJECTIVES ATTAINMENT IN 2004 Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data Main entry under title: Water quality in British Columbia : Objectives attainment in ... -- 2004 -- Annual. Continues: The Attainment of ambient water quality objectives. ISNN 1194-515X ISNN 1195-6550 = Water quality in British Columbia 1. Water quality - Standards - British Columbia - Periodicals. I. B.C. Environment. Water Management Branch. TD227.B7W37 363.73’942’0218711 C93-092392-8 ii WATER, AIR AND CLIMATE CHANGE BRANCH – MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT WATER QUALITY IN B.C. – OBJECTIVES ATTAINMENT IN 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................................... III LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. VI LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ VII SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]