Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />1-- , <br />-.J <br />0) <br />vI <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />{'(JI(JI'd'~ ONR <br />Table (X) does not appear in the'final report. <br />^' <br /> <br />d. <br /> <br />Table (Y) <br /> <br />The table designated (Y) does appear (under a different desig- <br />nation) in the final report. It presents a descriptive summary <br />of the means of the percentages of maximums referenced in 4' <br />above. The descriptive terms relate to four categories of mean <br />values as follows: <br /> <br />l' P - Poor (0-24% of Max. WUA) <br />2' F - Fair (25-49% of Max. WUA) <br />3' G - Good (50-74% of Max. WUA) <br />4' E - Excellent (75-100% of Max. WUA) <br /> <br />This broad descriptive ranking was used to overcome the impli- <br /> <br /> <br />cations of preciseness connected with the percentage figures by <br /> <br /> <br />themselves. It has been suggested that a 5-part ranking would <br /> <br /> <br />have accomplished this objective, while being more sensitive to <br /> <br /> <br />habitat conditions and recreation potential. <br /> <br />e. Tables (X') and Y') <br /> <br />Comparable tabulations covering the recreational activities <br /> <br /> <br />dependent upon i nstream flows are i ncl uded in attachment H; <br /> <br /> <br />these are designated tables (X') and (Y'). The findings are <br /> <br /> <br />based upon average condi t ions duri ng June, July, and August <br /> <br />53 <br />