My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Estimating Additional Water Yield From Changes in Management of National Forests in the North Platte Basin
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Estimating Additional Water Yield From Changes in Management of National Forests in the North Platte Basin
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/29/2013 2:57:42 PM
Creation date
3/6/2013 10:50:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
An Independent Report Prepared for the Platte River EIS Office U.S. Department of the Interior Related to Platte River Endangered Species Partnership (aka Platte River Recovery Implementation Program or PRRIP),
State
CO
NE
WY
Basin
North Platte
Water Division
6
Date
5/12/2000
Author
Charles A. Troendle, Matcom Corporation & James M. Nankervis, Blue Mountain Consultants
Title
Estimating Additional Water Yield from Changes in Management of Ntional Forests in the North Platte Bains, Final Report
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 values of <br />each area, determine primary 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, even 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 managed 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, and mandate, would imply an even further <br />reduction in the percentage of "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. <br />5 Wildlife Habitat <br />4 Closed Forest <br />3 Species <br />2 <br />BC PC US MS SS GS IS NC <br />5 <br />4 <br />3 Wildlife Habitat <br />2 Open Forest <br />BC PC US MS SS GS IS NC <br />5 <br />4 <br />3 <br />2 Water Yield <br />1 <br />BC PC US MS SS GS IS NC <br />5 <br />4 Timber Growth <br />3 and Yield <br />2 <br />BC PC US MS SS GS IS NC <br />livestock Forage <br />BC PC US MS SS GS IS NC <br />Recreation and <br />Esthetics <br />• Flypothetipl <br />composite for <br />BC PC US MS SS GS IS NC <br />Timber <br />Economics <br />BC PC US MS SS GS IS NC <br />BC <br />Bloat aearmftV 10 acres + <br />PC <br />Patch deararlting 35 saes <br />US <br />Dam e <br />MS <br />Modred shetterwood <br />SS <br />Simulated shetterwood <br />GS <br />Group selection or <br />Group shefterwood 2.0 aces <br />IS <br />Individual tree selection <br />NC <br />No cutting <br />Figure 11. Relative 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 />21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.