WSP02794 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

o Co? , ' o information on hydrology, sedimentation, land status, and range condition and trend. The1:,,".1!~~"'>::~;?oil!~'-:;;wa't.rSliEKt cc:mdi.tion , d' ....N....":"'~ ~, _:,*_~f':W.<!'!'j:ca.;~XC:::'<1;:;r"",(~~:.,'tE-'~- ''::coild~:",r '"4 ,_c~_-~. .~~.,' _.__".~~~,~",.",~~9P. term. We need a term that describes the watershed condition of rangelands; from a watershed viewpoint, a lower seral stage may be adequate and we may not need a high seral stage. On the BUM data base, the use of various Grazing EISs, and Resource Management Plans, has shown them to be of varying utility. In general, they have all been good, however, we could say that some have been better than others in the depth of the data, adequacy of maps and wether or not they addressed various issues (water quality, salinity, etc). This is probably indicative of when the EIS was done, for example with the Occular Reconnaissance method compared to the SVIM method of range surveys, or a Grazing EIS compared to a Resource Management Plan EIS. In. general, though, the BUM EISs and staffs have been very useful and knowledgeable. This statement would include the Coal EISs that have been done. The process has shown me (not that I wasn't already a believer) that an office should never throw out information. occasionally we would have the need for some information that had been "cleaned out". The data supplied and maintained by the USGS has been excellent, again they too appear to have been impacted by budget cuts in the past and in some circumstances are no longer collecting the data that they once were. One advantage of the process is that there is a consistant viewpoint of a resource on a statewide area, in the past for example, one District Manager I s poor condition