<br />o
<br />C:J
<br />o
<br />"'1
<br />
<br />being in the ~ shape,
<br />
<br />the comparati ve'rr~~cii~dt~f,i,iic:t"e,cjn<f:t~1~ft"1',l:lr improvemelIt and
<br />its otent::la '~:'"l:ijf'';''''' 'QstOJ\;,:'oJ&f'res1st4';;;:;:eros:i ' .
<br />P_."~~,,,,,,~,liJ~,,,...,,,....,,,,,.,.., _, .. ~.." , , 0If
<br />" ..._.n' .. ,.".
<br />
<br />Condition" ratings were made on a basis of '~~ wit~~
<br />~with
<br />little need for range rehabilitative work and 'JllD:a being in a
<br />
<br />The
<br />
<br />"Forage
<br />
<br />producing
<br />
<br />-:i!3.~~~LA~i:ij,.,::,>-- ~iM!;f~~ -.t. ;z4
<br />
<br />
<br />";\(~;~~ needed..
<br />
<br />Summation and Prioritization.
<br />
<br />At this point" of the 219
<br />
<br />wa tersheds had been
<br />
<br />~~-~
<br />" ;;;""""."'?'l'," ".'_ " "
<br />.. -'~ '...,
<br />~. <. .. .
<br />
<br />~~tto.
<br />-~4..~Ct1~,,- ,. ,
<br />. ""';,,-,-.
<br />
<br />-(j'i1....e< '
<br />~-~~l.-, ,
<br />
<br />~...~,.. ~I '
<br />~~.
<br />
<br />",,,%",:/~~ ~ ;~j>'i8. ~ i!!'~
<br />
<br />an
<br />
<br />~' ~_.~ "--'<,I":'-:"""'""""'r." ..
<br />. {f~~ ;'"~ ....).-~"".-h'\1i.b~
<br />- ~ '. . , ,;,.....,.,{
<br />
<br />The numerical
<br />
<br />ratings were totaled for the salinity, sedimentation, "Forage
<br />
<br />Condition", and precipitation in each watershed, for a maximum of
<br />
<br />~'\~lo.~-~~,:'i' ~~ '- .- i'<> >I. l'- - ~ _,
<br />J."fo'~ .'.~ \~""~~l1it~ ".. .... ~.~"",?!"""",~"l-.. _ ."II:~lI...r~-~..._,
<br />, ""~(..."_,,-,,,,,,,,,~,>,,,'!ll,.;.,~_, I/'''"-''..llt~''''''
<br />
<br />twelve in anyone watershed. The watersheds' ratings ranged from
<br />11 on down to three, there not being any in the~ (very
<br />with a great potential for
<br />improvement), nor were there any in th~or 2 category which would
<br />imply a very_~el!'I with
<br />The result of the process yielded a
<br />
<br />..
<br />
<br />" . -; ...., ',," :'" ~':.,. ---:~...._...;>.....~~~~'U.
<br />....:i"~''"1.....J<_~-'o<.,~1I:,/~.~~....,. .~?-~~...~~
<br />
<br />, ,. 'Ill "H., >- ,
<br />.I,.... .~~~l..':.,..:.'fiJ-..,~~Il_..::::~ "/..:'.~.<; :~1!.). '., "',:'~~,:\"1.J~,,;.j,.....,,"':..J' ".
<br />~ r~, .
<br />
<br />~~~$~it;il
<br />
<br />The final step in the process was the
<br />
<br />
<br />identification of those watersheds most in the need of a closer
<br />
<br /><~., . "-'" '~, ....,;<.0;
<br />, ~t1~ '1.:.'; .,:;.,1 ...~~' _t..< :~.~'::W""',~~~_"<I:,,~,t""f,J!
<br />
<br />examination. This was done by identifying those watersheds with a
<br />
<br />rating of ten or greater, with the realization that a rational
<br />
<br />decision on a manager's part maybe to implement planning and work
<br />
<br />on a watershed that has a nine rating. Their reasons may include
<br />
<br />previous work that was done in the area, it (the watershed) may
<br />
<br />fall in a convenient stage in the planning process, an unexpected
<br />
|