Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />