My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Estimating Additional Water Yield from Changes in Management
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
2001-3000
>
Estimating Additional Water Yield from Changes in Management
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:41:08 PM
Creation date
7/22/2009 12:50:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8461.250
Description
Water Issues
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Date
5/12/2000
Author
Charles A. Troendle, James M. Nankervis
Title
Estimating Additional Water Yield from Changes in Management
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
54
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
acres. Land managers must recognize the potential multiple-use vELlues of <br />each area, determine pri:mary and secondary uses, and then select the <br />management alternative that will enhance or protect those values. On any <br />individual site it is likely, eve-n probable, that some uses must be sacrificed <br />or diminished to maintain the quantity or quality of others (Alexander• 1977). <br />However, all areas cannot be imanaged for the same, or a single, resource or <br />value at the detriment of other resources. Today, land managers are <br />concerned with ecosystem sustainability implying they manage for all <br />resources. This concept, a:nd mandate, would imply an even further <br />reduction in the percentage oi.' "suitable and treatable" land base that could <br />be dedicated to water yield. augmentation at the detriment of other resources. <br />Current revisions of the Forest: Plans reflect these complex tradeoffs more so <br />than past efforts. 5 Wildlife Habitat ? <br />4 Closed Forest / <br />3 Speaes <br />2 <br />1 <br />J <br />BC PC US MS SS GS IS NC <br />Livestock Forage <br />BC PC US MS SS GS IS NC <br />5 <br />4 <br />3 Wildli e Habitat \ <br />2 Open Forest <br />1 Species ? <br />J <br />BC PC US MS SS GS IS NC <br />5 <br />4 ? <br />3 ? <br />2 Water Yeld <br />1 ? <br />J <br />BC PC US MS SS GS IS NC <br />5 ? <br />4 Timber Growth <br />3 and Yield \ <br />2 <br />1 <br />J <br />BC PC US MS SS GS IS NC <br />Recreatio7compowte Esthetics <br />• t?yyotne6cal <br />tor <br />BC PC US MS SS GS IS NC <br />Timber <br />• Economics <br />BC PC US MS SS GS IS NC <br />BC Blodc dearcuttinp to eves + <br />PC Pffich dearwttinq 3-5 auea <br />US Uni(ortn sheltenvood <br />MS Modified shekenvood <br />SS Simulated shetterwood <br />GS Group selection w <br /> Group shettervrood 2.0 eaes <br />IS Individual tree seledion <br />NC No wtdny <br />Figure 11. Re(ative ranking of the effects of cutting methods on the <br />resources of spruce-fir forests. Scale: 1 signifies the least favorable, 5 the most <br />favorable. <br />t..: <br /> <br />.. . <br />21
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.