Respondents report that the most appropriate uses for
this site, if acquired as openspace, would be to use it as a wildlife
preserve with hiking paths or for a setting/picnic area. The longitudinal
analysis of residence time found that this site is valued least
by respondents who have lived in Charlestown for 0-3 years. All other
residence cohorts place low value on this site. The longitudinal
analysis of respondent age found a correlation between increased
age and increased valuation.
| 2. How
familiar are you with this site? |
|
16
|
Not familiar |
|
| 9
|
Somewhat
familiar |
| 1
|
Very familiar
|
|
| 3. Do
you spend time here? |
|
|
0
|
Yes |
|
| 26
|
No |
|
| 4. Do
you drive past this site often? |
|
7
|
Yes
|
|
| 19
|
No |
|
| 5. Listed
below are two statements about this site. Next to each statement
are five numbers representing different levels of agreement or
disagreement. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with
the statements. |
|
- If I moved
away from Charlestown, I would miss this site.
|
| |
6 |
Strongly
disagree |
|
5 |
Disagree |
|
12 |
Neutral |
|
0 |
Agree |
|
2 |
Strongly
Agree |
|
|
| |
6 |
Strongly
disagree |
|
6 |
Disagree |
|
11 |
Neutral |
|
0 |
Agree |
|
2 |
Strongly
Agree |
|
7. Compared with
other sites in Charlestown, how important is it to have this
land protected as open space?
|
|
Not
important at all
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
Very
important
|
|
6
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
6
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
5
|
|
| 8.
Please indicate how much you would either support or oppose efforts
to use this site as a: |
|
Strongly
Oppose
|
Oppose
|
Neutral
|
Support
|
Strongly
Support
|
|
| ball
field |
6
|
2
|
5
|
6
|
3
|
| swimming
area-if possible |
4
|
1
|
7
|
5
|
5
|
| hunting/fishing
area |
5
|
4
|
9
|
4
|
1
|
| wildlife
preserve with hiking paths |
2
|
0
|
4
|
9
|
8
|
| wildlife
preserve where people are not allowed |
5
|
1
|
8
|
5
|
2
|
| setting/picnic
area |
2
|
2
|
5
|
12
|
1
|
| camping
area |
9
|
2
|
6
|
3
|
1
|
| |
|
6. What changes,
if any, would you make to improve this landscape?
- The soils would need to be restored. If the quarry were
part of a larger acquisition it would make sense, but on its
own it might not.
- This site as is does not contribute to the aesthetics of
Charlestown. The areas that are not being mined should be
restored to a natural state, and the work should be confined
to a specific area with restoration ongoing .
- This a strip mining gone bad. It appears that no natural
plant existing anywhere.
- Public access
- Recover natural vegetative cover for habitat
- I don't believe this site can be seen from Ross Hill road.
Maybe the entrance to it. The pictures don't make it as attractive
as the Kondike Road Quarries. These are restricted sites,
both quarries, and so they aren't viewed legally by anyone
because of the danger involved. The Klondike Quarry could
be made safe much the way Ausable and Glens Falls, NY are.
This one doesn't appear in these pictures to have the same
potential for tourism and might better be openspace land.
- Unused areas should be restored to natural state. The operation
of mining should be held to a minimum, with restoration done
in an orderly and planned fashion. This opinion is offered
if mining is continued.
- Needs to be replanted with natural local vegetation
|
