Laserfiche WebLink
<br />DATA COLLECTION <br /> <br />The data requirements of this study were broad and could have been <br />satisfied from a number of possible sources including maps and literature <br />of various federal and state agencies, both published and unpublished <br />information from universities and other research organizations, state and <br />local records concerning land use, and original field work. As a result <br />of this diversity, a fundamental decision was required at the outset in <br />regard to (1) the adequacy of these sources to provide sufficient dis- <br />crimination for the predictive model, (2) the feasibility of using them <br />in terms of manpower, funding and time constraints, and (3) their even- <br />tual suitability for routine planning applications. It would have been <br />beneficial from a strictly scientific viewpoint to rely solely on direct <br />observations. However, the enormous area involved, as well as generally <br /> <br />poor access due to land ownership and terrain, made such an approach im- <br /> <br />practical. Accordingly, secondary data sources were employed and were <br /> <br />subject to limited field verification in situations where this was con- <br />sidered desirable and practical. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Watershed Morphometry <br />Standard U.S. Geological Survey 7y,-minute quadrangles with a scale <br />of 1:24000 were selected as the base map for this study, a choice which <br />provided adequate detail for the purposes of the research. Furthermore, <br />this particular scale is judged to be a desirable standard for such <br />studies because of the general availability and familiarity of these <br />maps. Smaller scale maps probably would not have been as effective, al- <br />though they were not evaluated. Clearly, the use of widely different <br />scales would introduce serious problems regarding data consistency when <br /> <br />. <br />