Laserfiche WebLink
<br />5 <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />(developed by the Water Resources Council, SCS and USGS, Deeember, <br />1980). <br /> <br />l <br />io'> <br /> <br />@ <br />N <br />~ <br />If", <br /> <br />A time frame of three months was allowed for the Phase I inventory. <br />A clear mylar copy of the Utah watershed map was used to ov~rlay , <br />the other maps. All maps were enlarged to a scale of 1:500rOOO for <br />purposes of direct overlay comparison work. Acommercialm~p <br />reproduction machine was used to minimize distortion during <br />reproduction and scale adjustments. The overlay inventory process <br />was accomp!ished by manual observation. The maps used in the <br />project were too complex to allow time for digitizing and the uSe <br />of a geographic information system. When these maps are diqitized, <br />the time' frame for the inventory report process is estimated: at two <br />weeks. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />The resource evaluation parameters were agreed upon by the Steering <br />Committee. These parameters were assigned weighted numerical <br />values with a total maximum of twelve points for purposes of rating <br />and comParison. The following parameters and rating ranges ,were <br />used in the inventory procedure. The parameters are numbered in <br />the order they appear in the PHASE I RESOURCE INVENTORY DATA in <br />Appendix I. <br /> <br />(1) The watersheds were identified by USGS Hydrologic' unit ,numbers <br />(eight digits) with an additional watershed number (three digits) <br />derived by interagency agreement on the Watershed Map of the State <br />of Utah (USGS, 1980). These numerical designations serve as a <br />common referral unit for interagency planning efforts. The. <br />HydrOlogic Unit Number parameter was not given numerical rating in <br />this evaluation. <br /> <br /> <br />(2) The.drainage areas were determined for the individual <br />. watersheq.s by digitiz.ing.the Watershed Map of the. '8 tate' of. utah '.' ........ <br />(USGSet al, 1980). The size ranged from a fe\ot'hundredacreS to' <br />. greater than 250 ,000 acres with most water.sheds being. 'approxiimately:. <br />150,000 acres to 200,000 aores. The drainage area parameter allows <br />managers to assess the size and complexity of a planning effort <br />within a watershed. This parameter was not given a numerical <br />rating in this evaluation. <br /> <br />(3) The 'Major Land Resource Areas within the individual watersheds <br />were determined by the map overlay process. This data gives <br />planners, managers and technical specialists the .ability to <br />evaluate the general vegetative and soil character of a watershed. <br />This parameter was not given a numerical rating in this eval~ation. <br /> <br /> <br />(4) The Areas of Responsibility and Land Status Map, State of Utah <br />(BLM, 1977) was evaluated by the map overlay process. The <br />percentage of acreage of each major land ownership within a <br />watershed was estimated visually to the nearest 5%. The accuracy <br />level of this procedure is not high. The utility of giving a <br />manager or planner an approximate characterization of land <br />ownership within a watershed can be decisive information in <br />coordinated resource planning. This parameter was not given a <br /> <br /> <br />,-.0-<': <br />