Software for calculating vegetation disturbance and recovery by using the equivalent clearcut area model

USDA Forest Service - General Technical Report PNW

Volumn , Issue 637, 2005, Pages 1-11

  Ager, Alan A ^a   Clifton, Caty ^a  

^a Umatilla National Forest   (United States)

Author keywords

Cumulative watershed effects; ECA; Equivalent clearcut area; Equivalent roaded area

Indexed keywords

DISTURBANCE; RECOVERY; SOFTWARE;

SALMONIDAE;

EID: 22844433878     PISSN: 08874840     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Berg, N.H.; Roby, K.B.; McGurk, B.J. 1996. Cumulative watershed effects: applicability of available methodologies to the Sierra Nevada. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project; final report to Congress. Davis, CA: University of California-Davis, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources: 39-78. Vol. 3. Chapter 2.
2. Beschta, R.L.; Pyles, M.R.; Skaugset, A.E.; Surfleet, C.G. 2000. Peakflow response to forest practices in the western Cascades of Oregon, USA. Journal of Hydrology. 233: 102-120.
3. Bosch, J.M.; Hewlett, J.D. 1982. A review of catchment experiments to determine the effect of vegetation changes on water yield and evapotranspiration. Journal of Hydrology. 55: 3-23.
4. Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team [FEMAT]. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior [and others].
5. Hicks, B.J.; Beschta, R.L.; Harr, R.D. 1991. Long-term changes in streamflow following logging in western Oregon and associated fisheries implications. Water Resources Bulletin. 27: 217-226.
6. Johnson, C.; Mrowka, R. 1993. Draft recovery coefficients for the equivalent clearcut area model. 3 p. Unpublished working paper. On file with: Land Management Planning, Umatilla National Forest, 2517 SW Hailey Ave., Pendleton, OR 97801.
7. King, J.G. 1989. Streamflow responses to road building and harvesting: a comparison with the equivalent clearcut area procedure. Res. Pap. INT-401. Ogden, UT U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 13 p.
8. Menning, K.D.; Erman, C.; Johnson, K.N.; Sessions, J. 1997. Modeling aquatic and riparian systems, assessing cumulative watershed effects, and limiting watershed disturbance. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: final report to Congress. Davis, CA: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.
9. Reid, L.M. 1993. Research and cumulative watershed effects. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-141. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 118 p.
10. Scherer, R. 2001. Effects of changes in forest cover on streamflow: a literature review. In: Watershed assessment in the southern interior of British Columbia: workshop proceedings. Working Pap. 57. Vancouver, BC: Ministry of Forestry: 44-55.
11. Stednick, J.D. 1996. Monitoring the effects of timber harvest on annual water yield. Journal of Hydrology. 176: 79-95.
12. U.S. Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Considering cumulative effects under the National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President. 48 p.
13. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 1974. Forest hydrology part II-hydrologic effects of vegetation manipulation. 229 p. Unpublished report. On file with: Natural Resources, Umatilla National Forest, 2517 SW Hailey Ave., Pendleton, OR 97801.
14. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management [USDA USDI]. 1995a. Interim strategies for managing anadromous fish-producing watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of California (PACFISH). 68 p.
15. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management [USDA USDI] 1995b. Interim strategies for managing fish-producing watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, western Montana, and portions of Nevada (INFISH).
16. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service [USDC NMFS]. 1995 (March 1). Memo to USFS Regional Foresters. Endangered Species Act Section 7 biological opinion on the land and resource management plans for the Boise, Challis, Nez Perce, Payette, Salmon, Sawtooth, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. 138 p. On file with: Forest Hydrologist, Umatilla National Forest, 2517 SW Hailey Ave., Pendleton OR 97801.
17. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service [USDI FWS]. 1998. Effects to bull trout from continued implementation of land and resource management plans as amended by the interim strategy for managing anadromous fish-producing watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, western Montana, and portions of Nevada (INFISH), and the interim strategy for managing anadromous fish-producing watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of California (PACFISH). Portland, OR. 120 p.