MARMOT CREEK R

ESEARCH

BASIN W

ORKSHOP

BA

RR

I ER

LA

KE

FI E

LD

ST A

TI O

N

2 1 - 2 2 FE

BR

UA

RY

2 0 1 3

MARMOT CREEK BASIN: MANAGING FORESTS FOR WATER

CABIN AND TWIN CREEK EXPERIMENTS1962-1987

MARMOT CREEK SUBBASINS

Subbasin Drainage Treatment Area (ha) (completion date)

Cabin Creek 212 (50%)* Commercial cut (1974)

Middle Creek 285 None (control)

Twin Creek 264 (50%) Honeycomb cut (1979)

*Percentage below tree line

OBJECTIVE OF CABIN CREEK TREATMENT

To determine if the guidelines of the Alberta Forest Service

for commercial cutting in spruce-fir forests were

satisfactory for maintaining the volume of high quality

water that these watersheds yield

(Swanson et al., 1986)

ALBERTA FOREST SERVICE GUIDELINES• No debris from road construction and maintenance, and logging

shall be allowed to enter any water courses

• Roads shall be located and constructed so as to cause a minimum of soil erosion and sediment deposition in streams, and no road shall restrict the natural flow of streams

• Abandoned skid roads and trails shall have adequate drainage to prevent erosion

• No green timber shall be cut within 100 feet of the high water mark of any water course

• Logging methods (i.e. skidding) shall be confined to the use of horses, rubber tired skidders or crawler tractors

(Rothwell 1977)

THE COMMERCIAL CUTTING ON CABIN CREEK SUBBASIN

(Rothwell, 1977)

23

1

4

5

6

(Rothwell 1977)

OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SWE ON CABIN SUBBASIN BELOW TREELINE AT MAXIMUM SNOW PACK, 1975-1977

(After Golding and Swanson 1986)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200ObservedPredicted

Sn

ow

wa

ter

eq

uiv

ale

nt (m

m)

PREDICTED VS OBSERVED STREAMFLOWS FOR CABIN CREEK DURING THE POSTTREATMENT

PERIOD

(After Swanson et al., 1986)

Jan Feb March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.0

40

80

120

160

200

Predicted if left uncut

Observed after logging

Mo

nth

ly f

low

(d

am

3)

OBJECTIVE OF TWIN CREEK TREATMENT

To prolong recession flow from snowmelt and/or delay

the time to peak runoff

(Research Coordinating Committee,

Alberta Watershed Research Program, 1977)

HYDROGRAPHS ILLUSTRATING OBJECTIVE OF THE TWIN CREEK TREATMENT

(After Swanson and Hillman 1977)

5-May 15-May 25-May 4-Jun 14-Jun 24-Jun 4-Jul 14-Jul 24-Jul 3-Aug0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Noname Creek (Control)Fox Creek (60% logged)

Dis

cha

rge

(L

itre

/s/k

m2

)

1974

Mean maximum snow accumulation, 1973-1976, in forest openings at James River, near Caroline. (After Golding 1977)

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

0

1/41/2

3/41

2 3

4 5 6

Opening diameter (tree heights (H) )

Sn

ow

ac

cu

mu

lati

on

(c

m w

. e

.)

Mean snow accumulation at last measurement of the season,1973-1976, James River, near Caroline (After Golding , 1977)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

0

1/4

1/2

3/4

12

3

4

5 6

Opening diameter (tree heights (H)) Sn

ow

ac

cu

mu

lati

on

(c

m w

. e.)

DETAILS OF TWIN CREEK SUBBASIN TREATMENT

• Based on the James River results, treatment of Twin consisted of 2103 circular clearings of 15 m and 20 m diameter, or 3/4 to 1 1/2 times the height of the surrounding forest

• 40% (52.8 ha) of the forested area cleared

• Mechanical clearing over most of the subbasin

• Clearings centred on alternate intersections of a square grid 15 or 20 m apart

• Slash and non-merchantable trees were flattened

• Merchantable trees were removed in tree lengths with rubber-tired skidders. Horse logging was tried on a small portion of the subbasin

(Golding and Swanson, 1986)

HONEYCOMB TREATMENT APPLIED TO TWIN CREEK SUBBASIN

(Golding and

Swanson,

1986)

SNOW ACCUMULATION ON TWIN SUBBASIN BELOW TREELINE AT MAXIMUM SNOWPACK,

MARCH 1980-1982 (410 MEASUREMENT POINTS)

(After Golding and Swanson 1986)

Subbasin Actual

Subbasin predicted

Clearings Intervening forest

0

50

100

150

200

250

300 198019811982All years

Sn

ow

wa

ter

eq

uiv

ale

nt (

mm

)

EFFECTS OF TWIN TREATMENT ON STREAMFLOW

Nakiska resort and ski runs were built between 1985 and 1987; some ski

runs intruded on Twin Creek subbasin (also snow- making

machines?)

Streamflow was measured on Cabin, Middle and Twin Creeks up to the

end of 1986

This suggests that there are five years of post-treatment streamflow

data (1980 -1984) that can be used to evaluate the effects of the Twin

treatment, or 4 years if we exclude the year following treatment

I used all the data available for Middle Creek and Twin Creek to obtain

some tentative results. I defined 1964 – 1977 as the pretreatment

period and 1980 – 1986 as the posttreatment period

CALIBRATION FOR PREDICTING TWIN CREEK JUNE STREAMFLOW

Water Survey of Canada data

200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 10000

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Middle Creek - June streamflow (dam3)

Tw

in -

Ju

ne

str

ea

mflo

w (

da

m3

)

slope = 0.912

intercept = 97.836

PREDICTED VS OBSERVED STREAMFLOWS FOR TWIN CREEK DURING THE POST- TREATMENT PERIOD

Water Survey of Canada data

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0Predicted

Observed

Mo

nth

ly f

low

(d

am

3)