Laserfiche WebLink
w <br />1 <br />i <br />r <br />Cumulatively, approximately 18 percent of the basal area has been removed <br />from the Deadhorse .Creek watershed above the main streamgage, as a result <br />of the three treatments. Although significant increases in flow have been <br />documented to occur at the level of the individual sub - basins, significant <br />changes in flow cannot be detected at the main streamgage (figure 7). <br />Noted earlier, the flow increase observed to have occurred incrementally <br />from the North Fork, Upper Basin, and North Slope (Unit 8) portions of <br />Deadhorse Creek were not in aggregate, detectable a few hundred yards <br />downstream at the mouth of the main watershed. As watershed size <br />increases, the changes in flow documented to occur at the point of impact, or <br />on -site, become less detectable. The argument cannot be made that the <br />observed increases in flow are not present downstream, but their presence is <br />difficult to document. <br />60 <br />^ 50 <br />U <br />u <br />40 <br />30 <br />0 <br />Q20 <br />3 <br />w 10 <br />0 <br />10 20 30 40 s0 60 <br />Flow East St. Louis Creek (cm) <br />Figure 7. Regression line demonstrating the relationship between streamflow from <br />Deadhorse Main plotted over streamflow from the control watershed, East St. Louis <br />` Creek. Pre- and post- harvest data are presented. <br />In the early 1980's, preliminary results from the Deadhorse Creek <br />Watershed study rekindled studies exploring the effect of forest vegetation <br />on snow pack accumulation. At least two processes contribute to this <br />increase in snow pack within cut stands. Wilm and Dunford (1948) <br />attributed the increase to a reduction in evaporation of snow intercepted by <br />the tree crowns. Measurements by Goodell (1959) supported this <br />conclusion. However, when (limited) snow pack measurements on the Fool <br />Creek watershed demonstrated no net increase in peak water equivalent after <br />