Baseflow evaluation of a logged smallwatershed of the Bull Run River, Oregon

Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic)

Authors Hidayat, Noor, 1952-

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this materialis made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona.Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such aspublic display or performance) of protected items is prohibitedexcept with permission of the author.

Download date 07/04/2021 06:07:40

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/278028

http://hdl.handle.net/10150/278028

INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI

films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some

thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may

be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,

and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete

manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if

unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate

the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and

continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each

original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in

reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white

photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations

appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly

to order.

University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company

300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600

Order Number 1346688

Baseflow evaluation of a logged small watershed of the Bull Run River, Oregon

Hidayat, Noor, M.S.

The University of Arizona, 1991

U-M-I 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Aibor, MI 48106

BASEFLOW EVALUATION OF A LOGGED SMALL WATERSHED

OF THE BULL RUN RIVER, OREGON

by

Noor Hidayat

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the

SCHOOL OF RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE WITH A MAJOR IN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

In the Graduate College

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

19 9 1

2

STATEMENT BY AUTHOR

This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library.

Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Request for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.

This thesis has been approved on the date shown below:

Signed

APPROVAL BY THESIS COMMITTEE

/2- °l\

Dr. Richard H. Hawkins Professor of Watershed Management

Date

Associate Professor of Watershed Mgt.

Associate Professor of Watershed Mgt. Date

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Richard H. Hawkins for his advice and guidance during my studies at the University of Arizona. His assistance in setting up this study and his comments and suggestions on organizing and editing this thesis are deeply appreciated. I also extend my gratitude to Dr. D. Phillip Guertin and Dr. Vicente L. Lopes for their reviews, comments, and suggestions for improving this thesis.

In addition, I wish to thank Mr. Douglas M. Bloem and Mr. Dick Robbins, from Bureau of Water Works, City of Portland, Oregon, and Mr. Allan Smart, from USDA-Forest Service in Troutdale, Oregon, for their time in taking me to visit the Bull Run watershed and for providing some additional data, references, and many other valuable information.

Special appreciation is extended to the Director of Soil Conservation and the Secretary of the Directorate General of Reforestation and Land Rehabilitation, Ministry of Forestry of Indonesia, for their encouragement and support to the this study. Also, special thank is extended to the Secretary of Steering Committee of the Upland Agriculture and Conservation Project-Jratunseluna and Brantas Watersheds, Indonesia, who has provided funds for my study.

Finally, I wish to extend my deep gratitude to my wife, Nuraeni Pudji Astuti Hidayat, and my daughter, Raenidya Ayu Astani Hidayat, for their encouragement, patience, and support during the period of my study at the University of Arizona.

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF FIGURES 6

LIST OF TABLES 7

ABSTRACT 8

I. INTRODUCTION 9

A. Problem Statement 9 B. Objective 10 C. Approach . 10 D. Benefits 11

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 12

A. Definition 12 B. Effect of Vegetation Management Practice. . 13 C. Baseflow Analysis 16

III. AREA OF STUDY 22

A. Location and Area 22 B. Physical Characteristics 23 C. Climate 23 D. Logging Operations 24

IV. MATERIALS AND METHODS 25

A. Source of Data 25 B. Analysis of Data 25

V. RESULTS 30

A. Baseflow Slope Coefficient 30 B. Regression Analysis 30 C. Watershed Storage 34

VI. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 35

A. Discussion 35

1. Baseflow Slope Coefficient 35 2. Daily Baseflow Yield . 36 3. Watershed Storage 41

5

Page

B. Conclusions 42 C. Recommendations 43

APPENDIX A - GRAPHICAL CORRELATION METHOD USED TO DETERMINE BASEFLOW SLOPE COEFFICIENT 45

APPENDIX B - MATCHED BASEFLOW DATA BETWEEN TREATED AND UNTREATED WATERSHEDS USED IN THE REGRESSION ANALYSIS 58

APPENDIX C - STATISTICAL METHOD USED TO ESTIMATE AND TEST HYPOTHESES 87

APPENDIX D - PLOTTING OF THE MATCHED BASEFLOW DATA BETWEEN TREATED AND UNTREATED WATERSHEDS 89

REFERENCES 98

6

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure

1. Possible paths of water moving downhill 13

2. Map of the Fox Creek experimental watershed .... 22

3. Regression lines of FC-1 (Watershed 1) vs. FC-2 (Watershed 2) for pre-logging and post-logging period 33

4. Regression lines of FC-3 (Watershed 3) vs. FC-2 (Watershed 2) for pre-logging and post-logging period 33

7

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table

1. Baseflow slope (c-coefficient) 30

2. Regression analysis for the matched baseflow (mm/day) of each compared watershed 31

3. T-test result for baseflow (mm/day) for each compared watershed pre- and post-logging 31

4. Volume of watershed storage 34

8

ABSTRACT

The impact of logging operation on baseflow yield on the

Bull Run Municipal watershed, Oregon was examined. Daily

streamflow data, from 1958 to 1984, for the three small

watersheds on the Bull Run river were analyzed. The baseflow

recession coefficient was determined by analyses of successive

days flows. Least squares and linear regression analysis were

utilized to evaluate the effect of treatments.

It was shown that logging of 25 percent of total treated

watershed reduced mean daily baseflow yield, but this was not

significantly different at either the 0.05 or 0.01 level.

Also, it was shown by the untreated watershed that there was

a significant difference, at the 0.05 level, of baseflow yield

between the period of pre- and post-logging. The decreased

baseflow yield may have resulted from decreasing fog drip and

increasing evaporation rate in the logged areas and from

decreasing precipitation on the watersheds during the post-

logging period.

9

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Problem Statement

One of the important components of water yield on a

watershed is baseflow, that is, the input to the surface water

from the groundwater system. It is related to various physical

properties of the watershed, such as infiltration capacity and

water storage capability, which in turn are affected by the

nature of geological materials (rock and soil) of the

watershed, land use, vegetation, and other factors. Land-use

activities on the watershed, such as logging operation, may

affect changes in water yield and baseflow as well.

Many studies show that forest logging results in

increased water yield. For instance, Hibbert (1965) and

Thompson (1974) indicate that the size of the increase in

water yield is roughly proportional to the percentage of

watershed that is clearcut. However, a study done on small

watersheds, the Fox Creek watershed on the Bull Run River,

Oregon, shows contrary results. In this study, the annual

water yield decreased by 6 percent and the low flow decreased

by 15-20 percent (Harr, 1980).

The previous study on the Fox Creek watersheds used

monthly stream flow data. Groundwater accretion resulting from

a particular storm is normally released as a baseflow over an

extended period measured in days for small watersheds, and

10

often in months or years for large drainage areas, generally

larger than 500 square miles (Kim, 1989). Since the watersheds

studied have small drainage areas, less than 100 ha (0.39

square miles), it will be more accurate to use daily

streamflow data to evaluate the baseflow.

In order to get more reasonable information on the effect

of forest logging on water yield, a baseflow evaluation study

in the Fox Creek watershed will be done using daily values.

B. Objective

The main objective of the study is to evaluate baseflow

changes resulted from forest logging on the Fox Creek

watersheds, Bull Run River, using daily stream flow data. 9

C. Approach

The watershed being studied is assumed to be

satisfactorily represented by a linear groundwater reservoir.

The methodology to accomplish the main objective of this study

is as follows: (1) Determine the pure baseflow portions of the

Fox Creek data sets; (2) Perform regressions between the

treated watersheds (FC-1 and FC-3) and the untreated (control)

watershed (FC-2) for the pretreatment baseflow data; (3)

Perform regression between the treated watershed (FC-1 and FC-

3) and the untreated watershed (FC-2) for the effects of

posttreatment baseflow data; (4) Attempt to explain all the

11

above relations in terms of watershed hydrology and linear

reservoir storage analogies.

D. Benefits

The results reported in this study will contribute to the

previous study on baseflow evaluation for the Fox Creek

watershed (Harr, 1980). This study will also provide insight

as to whether the methodology being applied is a fruitful

representation for watershed baseflow evaluation.

In addition, the benefits of a management strategy

focused on baseflow augmentation are many (Ponce and

Lindquist, 1990), including; (1) increased summer flows, (2)

healthier riparian areas, (3) increased channel and bank

stability, (4) decreased erosion and sediment transport, (5)

improved water quality, (6) enhanced fish and wildlife

habitat, (7) lower stream temperatures, and (8) improved

stream aesthetics. Thus, the knowledge of baseflow yield for

a certain watershed is valuable information in management

planning with regard to water uses and environmental impacts

downstream, particularly during the summer session. For the

Bull Run Watershed, the baseflow yield information, with

regard to the effects of logging, is important because water

yield from this watershed is the main source for the

Portland's water supply.

12

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

A. Definition

The diversity of names hydrologists have given to

baseflow is an indication of the variety of their interest in

this phenomenon. Among the names that have been used are

groundwater flow, low flow, percolation flow, under run,

seepage flow, and sustained flow (Hall, 1968).

To define the baseflow, an understanding of the

streamflow process (Figure 1) is quite helpful. During a

rainstorm, streamflow can result from several source

processes. First, rain falls directly on the surface of

channels and instantly becomes part of a hydrograph. This

channel interception is usually a small amount of the total

hydrograph. Overland flow reaches the channel via surface

means, usually from larger source areas and in a somewhat

longer time frame. Some infiltrated water can reach the stream

via shallow subsurface stormflow (Dunne and Leopold, 1978),

which requires even longer flow paths and duration. Finally,

baseflow, which is provided by longer and deeper storage of

groundwater, can sustain streamflow during the long rainless

periods between rainfall events. Hall (1968) defines baseflow

is as the portion of flow that comes from groundwater storage

or other delayed sources. Some combination of these four

components, direct channel interception, overland flow,

13

shallow subsurface stormflow, and baseflow, produce a runoff

hydrograph. The terms stormwater runoff or direct runoff are

sometimes used to designate the storm hydrograph with the

baseflow component excluded.

Picc". '•

Walcr (able

V *

14

controlling infiltration and baseflow recharge. Vegetation and

litter protect soil from packing by raindrops and provide

organic matter to bind soil particles together in open

aggregates. The manipulation of vegetation during land use may

cause large differences in infiltration capacity under the

same rainfall regime and soil type.

Logging may increase the water yield of a watershed by

reducing the transpiration rate. Stream flow during the

rainless period (baseflow) is sustained by groundwater, so any

effects that changes in vegetative cover and soils have on

streamflow during these times would be attributed to changes

in groundwater. Most experimental evidence in rainfall

dominated regimes suggests that forest removal, or conversion

from plants that are high water users to plants that are low

water users, increases recession flow and sometimes dry-season

flows.

There have been many studies on the effect of forest

management practices on water yield. Forest management in the

United States usually deals with two goals, timber harvesting

and water augmentation. Particularly for water augmentation,

the basic idea is that opening forest vegetation will increase

water yield because it will reduce water loss through

transpiration. Hibbert (1965) and Thompson (1974) indicate

that the size of the increase in water yield is roughly

proportional to the percentage of watershed that is clearcut.

15

Each type of vegetation has also a different effect on water

yield. Douglas and Swank (1975) show that conversion of a

hardwood-covered watershed to white pine substantially reduces

monthly and annual streamflow; conversion of hardwood to grass

produces up to 5.8 inches of increased flow per year. Opening

forest vegetation also results in the accumulation of more

snowpack during the winter season, which can result in

increasing streamflow during the spring and summer session.

This management practice is particularly applicable for the

arid Southwest regions, such as in Arizona and New Mexico

(Ffolliott, et al., 1989).

In contrast to these results, another study showed that

opening forest vegetation cover reduces low flow of the

watershed. In this study by Harr (1980) in the Bull Run

watershed, and it was found that logging reduced baseflow

yield. Furthermore, Harr reported that annual water yields and

size of peak flows were not changed, but low flows decreased

significantly after logging in the two small watersheds. The

main reason was thought to be the unconsidered effects of fog

drip on the water yield (Harr, 1980; 1982; and Ingwersen,

1985) . If fog drip had contributed to total basin

precipitation before logging, then removing timber stands that

intercepted fog could have reduced effective precipitation and

thus streamflow during summer low-flow periods. Harr (1982)

found that net precipitation under forest totaled 1747 mm

16

during a 40-week period, 419 mm more than in adjacent

clearcut. Moreover, by expressing data on a full water year

basis and adjusting gross precipitation for losses due to

rainfall interception suggest fog drip could have added 890 mm

of water to total precipitation during a year when

precipitation was measured in a nearby rain gage to be 2160

mm.

C. Baseflow Analysis

The determination of baseflow recession has received

considerable attention. By the early nineteen hundreds much of

the basic mathematical development was completed, and some

methods of hydrograph analysis were known. The mathematical

work has the advantage that it assesses more closely the

effect of the simplifying assumptions used to obtain a

solution. However, most hydrologists have preferred to follow

graphical or statistical rather than mathematical approaches.

The reasons appear to lie mainly in problems caused by the

assumptions and difficulties in interpreting the real stream

hydrograph. Also, baseflow can come from numerous sources

besides groundwater. Other complications arise from the

question of whether the basin response is linear or nonlinear

because the response is usually a function of various geologic

and hydrologic factors in addition to those considered in the

mathematical derivations (Hall, 1968).

17

The three most common graphical methods for the

construction of a master recession curve as suggested by most

authors (Toebes and Strang, 1964; and Hall, 1968) are:

1• Strip Method

This is done by plotting individual recession on a

tracing paper and superimposing them on each other to

construct the master recession curve. Although the method

allows for visual inspection of the flows being analyzed,

reasonable result may often be obtained only by altering

the vertical or horizontal scales of some individual

curves.

2. Correlation Method

For plotting at one time against discharge at some time

interval later, a curve or straight line is fitted to the

data points. In most cases, some standard curves are

prepared to be matched with the one fitted to the data.

The choice of the standard curve to be used is subjective

and may not fit directly with that of the plotted data.

3. Tabulating Method

This method involves tabulating the discharge for several

periods. After the suitable time-origin adjustments, the

average flows are calculated for the recession period.

This method is similar to the strip method.

18

In the development of a baseflow equation, Barnes (1939)

notes that a plot of river discharge recession on a semi-

logarithmic paper tends to be a straight line which can be

used to describe the recession characteristics of a watershed.

Empirical evidence indicates that during individual short

baseflow periods, streamflow recedes exponentially (Singh and

Stall, 1971).. To define a baseflow recession constant, the

equations may take different forms but the most commonly used

(Barnes, 1939; Chow, 1964; Toebes and Strang, 1964; Singh and

Stall, 1971; Potter and Rice, 1987; Bako and Hunt, 1988) are:

Qt = QoK*

Qt = Q0Ke" (2)

Qt = 20e-yt

where Q0 is the initial discharge (t=0), Qt is the discharge

at a later time t (usually in days), K is the recession

constant, and n and y are constants. Basically equation (3) is

similar to (1) when the e"y term is replaced by K. Equation (2)

plots out as a straight line on semi-logarithmic paper only

when n = 1.

If the watershed is modeled as a linear reservoir, the

baseflow equation can be written as follows:

19

Qt = Q0 * e'kt (4)

This equation is derived from the basic idea that

discharge from a reservoir is a linear function of the

storage, or

Q = k S ( 5 )

where Q is the discharge, S is the storage, and k is a

coefficient characteristic of the relationship. An alternative

explanation of flow from the reservoir draws on the definition

of the rate of change in storage as the outflow Q, or

0--ff «*>

Equations 5 and 6 must be equal, and setting these two equal

equations and moving terms around gives

4 ? = -k * dt ( 7 )

Integration this equation from S = S0 to S = St and from t =

0 to t = t gives

ln(S't)- ln(S0) = -kt (8)

or

20

= e~kt ; then St = S0 * e~kt '0

(9)

This equation shows storage (St) is a function of time (t) ,

initial storage (S0) , and the original linear coefficient (k) .

substituting storage S0 = Q0/k and St = Qt/k from equation (5)

with equation (10) gives

A popular alternative engineering form of this idea is as a

power function of coefficient "c" (or "K" given in equation

1), such that

Equations 11 and 12 must be equal, then the "c" value can be

computed as c = e"k, or k = -ln(c). Therefore, the total

storage in the reservoir, or watershed in this analogy, which

corresponds to outflow rate of Q, can be determined by the

following equation:

Qt = Co e"*e (10)

01 = Co (11)

ln(c) Q (12)

21

In engineering form, the total storage at a flow Q must

be the sum of all the interval period outflows until time

equals infinity, or

S = Q + cQ + c20 + C3Q + (13)

or

S = Q{1 + c + c2 + c3 + ) (14)

For the case of c

22

III. AREA OF STUDY

A. Location and Area

The study area, Bull Run watershed, is located about 40

km east of Portland, Oregon. It consists of three small

watersheds of the Fox Creek drainage, a tributary to the South

Fork Bull Run River. The watersheds, which are designated Fox

Creek 1 (FC-1), Fox Creek 2 (FC-2), and Fox Creek 3 (FC-3),

are 59 ha, 253 ha, and 71 ha in size shown in Figure 2.

r o x c n f c t u 2

LEGEND

STREAM

PERMANENT IIOAD TEMPORAR* NOAU

STREAM GAGE

F O X C f l L E K 3 1 k m

CONTOURS IH METERS 900

BOO

.̂

23

B. Physical Characteristics

The physical characteristics of the watershed include

topography, soil, and vegetation. Side slope gradients of the

watersheds average only 5-9 percent but range up to 60 percent

near the outlets of the watersheds. Elevation ranges from 840

m to 1,070 m. Most soils have formed from igneous glacial till

overlaying basalt and andesite. They are loamy in texture with

depths of 1-3 m, and exhibit moderately rapid percolation

capacities. Overstory vegetation is primarily old-growth

Douglas-fir (Pseudotsucra menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) and western

hemlock (Tsuga heterophvla (Raf.) Sarg.) mixed with younger

Pacific silver fir (Abies amabilis (Dougl.) Forbes).

C. Climate

Since precipitation measurements began in 1957, annual

precipitation has averaged 273 cm at the watershed outlet,

about 83 percent of which has fallen during the October-April

period. The average annual precipitation seems to be gradually

decreasing since 1971. Based on the data from 1971 to 1979,

precipitation has been averaged 236 cm per year. Annual

snowpack, which varies greatly from year to year, begins

accumulating in November and reaches a maximum depth of more

than 1.5 m by early April.

24

D. Logging Operations

In August 1965, a 1-km all-weather road was completed

across gentle topography in FC-1 and FC-2 to the south

boundary of FC-3. In addition, short temporary spur roads were

built into the areas to be logged in FC-1 and FC-3.

In FC-1, timber was clearcut in four units of 3-4 ha,

with a total logged area of 14.8 ha, in late spring of 1969,

and high-lead yarding was completed in July. Logging residue

in the four logged units was burned in the fall of 1970.

Logging in FC-3 occurred over a 3-year period; cutting in two

units of 8-10 ha, with a total logged area of 17,8 ha, began

in the summer of 1970, and yarding was completed in August

1972. Both tractors and a high-lead cable system were used to

yard logs. No residue was burned in FC-3. The logged area in

each watershed constitutes 25 percent of the total watershed.

No logging operations occurred in FC-2, since this watershed

is used as the untreated (control) watershed.

25

IV. MATERIALS AND METHODS

A. Source of Data

The hydrology data set used in this study was provided in

reduced form on a floppy disc by the U.S. Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest, Forest and Range Experiment Station. It

consists of daily stream flow (in cubic feet per second, and

in inches/day) for each watershed, from 1958 to 1984. These

data were converted into metric units (mm/day). There were two

treated watersheds (FC-1 and FC-3) with different logging

operations. The FC-1 watershed was clearcut in 1969 and the

FC-3 watershed was clearcut within three consecutive years,

1970-1972. One untreated watershed (FC-2) was as a control

watershed in the study.

B. Analysis of Data

In this study, all analyses presumed linear reservoir

storage release of groundwater as follows:

Qt = Q0 * e~kt = Q0 * cfc (16)

where Qt : stream flow on time t (mm)

Q0 : stream flow on time 0 (mm)

k : watershed storage constants

c : baseflow slope coefficient

26

To achieve the stated objectives of this study, the

following procedures were used:

1. To determine the baseflow portion of the Fox Creek data

sets, the graphical correlation method was applied. The

stream flow for day "n+l" was plotted against the stream

flow for day "n". Plotting of data (Qn+1 and Qn) was done

for each treated watershed, pre- and post-logging

(Appendix A: Figures A.l, A.4, A.7, A.10, A.13, and

A. 16). For an accurate visual judgment to determine the

baseflow slope coefficient from these figures, the graphs

of flow day Qn vs. flow day Qn+l/Qn and flow Qn+l/Qn vs.

its frequency of occurrence were developed (Appendix A:

Figures A.2-3, A.5-6, A.8-9, A.11-12, A.14-15, and A.17-

18). For example, by examining Figures A.2 and A.3

(Appendix A) for the FC-1 during the pre-logging period,

the plotted data is concentrated between 0.865 to 0.985

of baseflow slope coefficient axes. This means that

baseflow slope coefficient for the FC-1 during pre-

logging period ranges from 0.865 to 0.985.

Based on the visual examination of the resulting

plots and graphs in Appendix A, criterion for the

determining baseflow slope coefficient for each watershed

was established. This slope coefficient represents the

storage capacity of the watershed as in the following

27

equation:

CU = 0n * c (17)

where qn+1: stream flow on day n+1 (mm)

qn : stream flow on day n (mm)

c : baseflow slope coefficient

The resulting baseflow slope coefficient from each

watershed was used as a criterion to censor the daily

streamflow data set. The censored data, which represent

the pure baseflow data which have met the criteria of the

resulting baseflow slope coefficient ranges, were

tabulated. This data is summarized in Table 1.

To form regressions between the treated watersheds and

untreated watershed for the pre-logging baseflow data,

the censored pure baseflow for the treated watershed was

matched, which based on the occurrence date, with the

untreated watershed data set (Appendix B.l and B.3) . Then

the matched baseflow data of the compared watersheds

during the pre-logging period was analyzed.

To determine the effects of logging on the baseflow

hydrology for the post-logging periods, the censored pure

28

baseflow for the treated watersheds was matched with the

untreated watershed data (Appendix B.2 and B.4) . Then the

matched baseflow data for the post-logging period were

analyzed to develop regressions.

To form regression analyses of the pure baseflow data

between the treated and control (untreated) watersheds

for the pre-logging and post-logging periods, the least

squares method was applied to calculate the coefficient

by using the equations:

Y = a0 + b0*X (18)

and

Y = a1 + bx*X (19)

: treated pure baseflow (mm); FC-1 and FC-3

: untreated pure baseflow (mm); FC-2

: intercept for pre-logging period

: intercept for post-logging period

: slope for pre-logging period

: slope for post-logging period

T-tests were applied to calculate the intercept and slope

significance for those regression analyses (Gomez and

Gomez, 1984; Hamburg, 1970), with the following

where Y

X

a o

ai

^0

b1

29

hypotheses:

H„ : a1 - a0 = 0 and b, - bQ = 0

H, : a, - a0 * 0 and b1 - b0 * 0

where H0, the null hypothesis, states that there was no

significant difference on baseflow intercept and slope

coefficient between the treated watersheds (FC-1 or FC-3)

and untreated watershed (FC-2); otherwise, H1f the

alternate hypothesis, states that there was a

significant difference in baseflow intercept and slope

coefficient between the treated watersheds (FC-1 or FC-3)

and the untreated watershed (FC-2). The statistical

equations used in this analysis are shown in Appendix C.

A t-test was also applied to evaluate the differences

of baseflow yield between pre- and post-logging period

for the untreated watershed (FC-2).

To explain the linear reservoir storage analogies to

the watershed hydrology, the resulting baseflow slope

coefficients were used to compute the storage capacity of

the watersheds at representative flows.

30

V. RESULTS

A. Baseflow Slope Coefficient

After reviewing the graphs of plotting vs. Qn, the c-

coefficient vs. Qn, and frequency distribution of the c-

coefficient for each treatment (Appendix A) , the judgment

result for the baseflow slope (c-coefficient) is as shown in

Table 1 below. Using these baseflow slope coefficients, the

data of streamflow for each watershed were censored to find

"pure" baseflow data only.

Table 1. Baseflow slope (c-coefficient)

Treatment Watershed # C-coefficient ranges

Treatment Watershed # minimum maximum average

Pre-logging

1958-1969

FC-1 0.865 0.985 0.925 Pre-logging

1958-1969 FC-2 0. 866 0.975 0.921

Pre-logging

1958-1969

FC-3 0.868 0.955 0.912

Post-logging

1972-1984

FC-1 0.883 0.958 0.921 Post-logging

1972-1984 FC-2 0.883 0.957 0.920

Post-logging

1972-1984

FC-3 0.855 0.944 0. 900

B. Regression Analysis

To compare the treated watersheds (FC-1 and FC-3) with

the untreated watershed (FC-2), the pure baseflow data were

matched to each other on the basis of daily occurrence

31

(Appendix B). The results of regression analysis of the

"matching" pure daily baseflow for the compared watersheds are

shown in Table 2, and the t-test results are shown in Table 3.

Table 2. Regression analysis for the matched baseflow (mm/day) of each compared watershed.

FCl Vs FC2 pre-logging

FCl Vs FC2 post-logging

FC3 Vs FC2 pre-logging

FC3 Vs FC2 post-logging

#observ. 1017 646 813 620

Q mean Y 4.26497 3.66845 3.47361 3.07705

Q mean X 2.50159 2.43128 2.57159 2.32689

a 0.70530 0.42160 -0.15397 -0.14242

b 1.42297 1.33545 1.41064 1.38360

r2 0.94584 0.89965 0.92062 0.88795

SE of Y 1.12119 1.28945 1.04884 1.19518

SE coef. 0.01547 0.01758 0.01455 0.01977

Notes: Y is watershed 1 (FC-1) or watershed 3 (FC-3) X is daily baseflow (mm) watershed 2 (FC-2)

Table 3. T-test results for baseflow (mm/day) for each compared watershed pre- and post-logging.

Paired Ws Df S2P tb

FCl Vs FC2 1659 11752.063 0.03791 NS 0.04212 NS

FC3 Vs FC2 1429 6868.348 -0.00186 NS 0.01512 NS

Notes: NS means "not significant difference" at the 0.05 level of probability.

From Table 2, the regression equations for each compared

32

watershed are as follows:

FC-1 vs. FC-2:

1. Pre-logging period:

Y = 0.70530 + 1.42297 X

2. Post-logging period:

Y = 0.42160 + 1.33545 X

FC-3 vs. FC-2:

1. Pre-logging period:

Y = -0.15397 + 1.41064 X (r2 = 0.92062)

2. Post-logging period:

Y = -0.14242 + 1.38360 X (r2 = 0.88795)

Figures 3 and 4 show*the regression lines for the FC-1

vs. FC-2, pre-logging period and post-logging period, and for

the FC-3 vs. FC-2, pre-logging and post-logging period.

Plotting of the matched baseflow data for each compared

watershed in regression analysis is shown in Appendix D.

The differences between pretreatment and posttreatment

for the untreated watershed (FC-2) are shown by the following

t-test results:

pretreatment mean baseflow = 4.675 mm/day

posttreatment mean baseflow = 4.423 mm/day

Difference of means = 0.252 mm/day

(r2 = 0.94584)

(r2 = 0.89965)

33

46

40

L ^ 30 I 3 25

1 20

U o

I10 G 5 0

V

pr flowing

pô -toflgfng

6 10 16 20 26 fjow of TaUobed2 - mm/lily

30

Figure 3. Regression lines of FC-1 (Watershed 1) vs. FC-2 (Watershed 2) for pre-logging and post-logging period.

pf«Ho«lng

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 (loir of TatcrsiiKi2 - mni/day

Figure 4. Regression lines of FC-3 (Watershed 3) vs. FC-2 (Watershed 2) for pre-logging and post-logging period.

34

t-test at 0.05 = 0.235

0.01 = 0.310

The t-test is significantly different at 0.05 level of

probability, but not significantly difference at the 0.01

level.

C. Watershed Storage

Using a linear reservoir assumption for baseflow volume

prediction and the results of baseflow c-coefficient presented

in Table 1, the computed volume of watershed storage, using

equation 16 (S = Q / (1-c)), for each watershed is in the

following table:

Table 4. Volume of watershed storage

Treatment Watershed #

Watershed storage volume (mm) Treatment

Watershed #

minimum maximum average

Before

logging

FC1 31.592 284.331 56.866 Before

logging FC2 18.669 100.064 31.666

Before

logging

FC3 26.315 77.191 39.473

After

logging

FC1 31.354 85.313 46.436 After

logging FC2 21.979 56.541 30.391

After

logging

FC3 21.221 54.947 30.771

35

VI. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Discussion

1. Baseflow Slope Coefficient

Table 1 shows that baseflow slope coefficient varies for

each watersheds and treatment periods. The average baseflow

slope coefficient for FC-1, FC-2, and FC-3 during pre-logging

are 0.93, 0.92, and 0.91 respectively, and during post-logging

are 0.92, 0.92, and 0.90 respectively. From this, it would

seem that logging reduces baseflow slope coefficient.

However, the method used to determine the baseflow slope

coefficient in this study, a graphical correlation method, is

very subjective. Its accuracy is absolutely relayed on how to

judge the baseflow slope coefficient from the graph of

plotting flow Qn+1 vs. flow Qn. The visual judgement of this

graphs is not quite essay when the baseflow data set is huge.

To provide an easier judgement, plotting data of the flow

Qn+i/Qn/ or c-coefficient, vs. flow Qn and plotting of the

frequency distribution of c-coefficient (see Appendix A) are

very helpful.

The result of the baseflow slope coefficients in this

study are varies from 0.855 to 0.985 (Table 1). This result is

similar to the other studies. Nathan'and McMahon (1989) state

that baseflow recession coefficients lie in the range of 0.93

to 0.995; Vogel, et al.(1989) mention that baseflow slope

36

coefficient, a non-dimensional time constant, is usually in

the range 0.8 to 0.95; and Wilson and Wiser (1974) find that

using daily values of baseflow of the Piedmont Watershed,

South Carolina, correlation coefficient by year from 1966-1970

ranges from 0.86 to 0.93. This means that the graphical

correlation method, which is provided with other supplemented

graphs as mentioned above, used in this study is relatively

accurate to determine baseflow slope coefficient for a

watershed. Moreover, Harr (1968) suggests that correlation

method is potentially the most useful, but in practice several

problems may arise. In this study, however, this problem such

as the difficulty of visual judgement of baseflow slope

coefficient can be eliminated.

2. Daily Baseflow Yield

Table 2 shows that the mean daily baseflow for FC-1 and

FC-3 pre-logging (pretreatment), 2.500159 mm and 2.57159 mm

respectively, is higher than that for post-logging

(posttreatment), 2.43128 mm and 2.32689 mm respectively. This

means that logging affects reduction of the mean daily

baseflow yield of the forested watershed. However, there is no

significant difference between the pre-logging and the post-

logging period. Table 3 shows that t-tests for both intercept,

ta, and slope coefficient, tb, are lower than tt bl at the 0.05

level of probability, which equals 1.96. The t and tb for FC-1

37

compared to FC-2 are 0.03791 and 0.04212 mm respectively, and

for FC-3 compared to FC-2 are -0.00186 and 0.01512 mm

respectively.

This study shows that logging in the Fox Creek watersheds

reduces daily baseflow yield, a result contrary to the common

research findings that logging increases annual water yield

due to higher evapotranspiration rate of the forest vegetation

(Hibbert, 1965; Thompson, 1974; Douglas, et al. , 1975; and

Ffolliott, et al. 1989).

The main reason that logging in the Fox Creek watersheds,

Oregon, does not increase baseflow yield is thought to be

possibly fog drip effects. Harr (1982) says that fog drip

eliminated by removal of trees during logging may explain why

the expected increases in post-logging annual water yield were

not observed and why summer streamflow (baseflow) decreased

after logging. His study on fog drip in the same site shows

that net precipitation under forest totaled 1747 mm during a

40 week period, 419 mm more than in adjacent clearcut areas.

Other authors, Azevedo and Morgan (1974) find that during a

46-day rainless period, in the summer season, in coastal

northern California, fog drip beneath a 18-m tall Douglas fir

trees ranges up to 425 mm; Ekern (1964) finds that fog drip

under a 9-m tall pine tree in Hawaii is 760 mm, a 20 percent

greater than the annual precipitation measured in open areas.

This means that fog drip under forest contributes more net

38

precipitation," which may increase annual water yield.

Therefore, reducing forest cover, such as logging, may

decrease annual water yield due to the decreased fog drip,

which can result in the decreased net precipitation beneath

forest vegetation.

Kerfoot (1969), cited 156 references concerning cloud

moisture interception by vegetation. Some references, which

relate to this study, suggest that the taller vegetation could

intercept greater quantities of fog moisture. The intensity of

fog interception varied with wind speed and the size and

distribution of droplets in passing clouds. Furthermore, it

has been indicated that conifers are better adapted than

broadleaved species in the interception of fog moisture. These

reviews suggest that old Douglas-fir, a tall-conifer type

forest dominating the vegetation in the Fox Creek watersheds,

could have high cloud interception that would generate high

fog drips.

The hydro-climatologic condition of Fox Creek forested

watersheds is probably analogous to a mountain cloud forested

watershed in a humid tropic region. Wherever fog, mist, or

cloud impact forested areas and specially where these

conditions persist in the form of orographic systems or

advective sea fogs, moisture is intercepted by plant surfaces

and precipitation occurs in the form of drip and steamflow

even though no rainfall occurs on adjacent open ground

39

(Zadroga, 1981). Moreover, this cloud forest ecosystems can be

particularly valuable resources from a hydrologic point of

view for three major reasons: (1) their effect in increasing

net precipitation, as explained in the previous paragraphs,

(2) their regulation of flow regime, and (3) their low

evapotranspiration rate.

It is reasonable to expect that cloud moisture

interception can have an important effect on the timing of

runoff from watersheds that have a substantial proportion of

their headwaters under cloud forest. Depending upon the

temporal distribution of cloud effects throughout the

hydrologic year, intercepted cloud water may or may not play

a critical role in maintaining dry season flow. The typical

positive effect occurs when cloud banks enshroud mountain

slopes during dry season months when little or no rainfall is

recorded. Under these conditions fog-born moisture, mist, and

other forms of cloud moisture may condense upon exposed

vegetational surface, and drip or run down stems to the

ground, thereby recharging soil and groundwater supplies and

thus maintaining stream discharge. It can be inferred from

these logical explanations that logging, which reduces the

area of vegetational surface, in cloud mountain forest

watersheds may decrease the condensation rate of cloud

moisture, as well as fog drip and water yield, particularly

during the dry season. In other words, in cloud forested

40

watershed, logging may reduce baseflow yields.

Fog results in higher humidity of the micro-climate in a

forested watershed, which may lead to a decreased

evapotranspiration rate. The extremely low saturation (vapor

pressure) deficits of the air, frequent moisture deposition,

and low insolation reaching the leaves because of frequent fog

and closed canopy are reported to be the major causes of the

low transpiration (Zadroga, 1981). This suggests that logging

in humid-cloud forest may result in a slightly higher

evaporation rate because opening vegetation will let more

solar radiation reach the forest floor, reduce air moisture,

and increase vapor pressure deficit. These solar energy

(sensible heat) and a large vapor deficit are factors

affecting high evapotranspiration (Dunne and Leopold, 1978).

Another reason for the anomalous results of baseflow

yield as the effect of logging in the Fox Creek watersheds is

probably the changes of weather, particularly precipitation.

T-test result for pre- and post-logging of the untreated

watershed (FC-2) shows that the mean daily baseflow yield

during the pre-logging period (4.675 mm) is higher than during

the post-logging period (4.423 mm) , and the difference in mean

daily baseflow yields is significant at the 0.05 level of

probability. It means that even for the untreated watershed

shows a slightly reduced mean daily baseflow yield during

posttreatment period. Harr (1980) reports that annual

41

precipitation has averaged 273 cm since precipitation

measurement began in 1957. The annual data record of

precipitation, from 1971 to 1979, shows that annual

precipitation is 236 cm. These different precipitation data

may cause the changes of baseflow in Fox Creek watersheds

between pre-logging period and post-logging period.

This study shows similar results to those of the previous

study done by Harr (1980) in the same site. Both studies

suggest that logging in the Fox Creek watersheds does not

increase baseflow yield. However, there is a difference

between these results in terms of statistical analysis. Harr

(1980) points out that there is a significant difference

between pre- and post-logging, while this study find out that

there is no significant difference. These results are probably

caused by differences in the methods applied. The Harr study

used monthly data of streamflow for a selected period of low-

flow months, from July to September, while this study used

daily data throughout the year and the selection of daily

baseflow data was based on the computed baseflow slope

coefficient.

3. Watershed Storage

Using the applied linear reservoir watershed analogies,

the storage of the watersheds for different treatments is

computed and the results are shown in Table 4. The average

42

watershed storage varies from 30.391 mm to 56.866 mm. It seems

that logging reduces average watershed storage volume by

10.430 mm for FC-1, and 8.702 mm for FC-3, while FC-2 (the

untreated watershed) shows a slight decrease of 1.275 mm/day.

There were no statistical tests performed.

As has been mentioned earlier, watershed storage

capability is affected mostly by input water from the surface

soil which infiltrates and percolates to the groundwater. The

decrease of input water, due to low net precipitation and high

evaporation in the logged areas, particularly during summer

flow, and decreased annual precipitation in the entire

watershed result in decreased watershed storage.

B. Conclusions

Based on the findings from this study, it can be

concluded that:

1. The baseflow slope coefficients vary between 0.865 and

0.985 for pre-logging period and between 0.855 and 0.957

for post-logging period.

2. The method used, that is the graphical correlation method

provided with the graphs of plotting coefficient Qn+1/Qn

vs. flow Qn and plotting coefficient Qn+1/Qn vs. its

frequency distribution, seems to be a useful method for

visual judgement to determine baseflow slope coefficient

of a watershed.

43

3. The clearcut logging of 25 percent of the total forested

watershed area decreased mean daily baseflow yield, from

4.26497 mm to 3.66845 mm for FC-1 and from 3.47361 mm to

3.07705 mm for FC-3, compared to FC-2 (unlogged

watershed). However, there is no statistically

significant difference either at the 0.01 or the 0.05

level of probability.

4. The decreased daily baseflow yield on logged watersheds

maybe caused by a combination of factors, including a

decreased fog drip amount and annual precipitation during

the post-logging period.

5. These results support the finding of the previous study

that logging in the Fox Creek, Bull Run watershed, does

not increase baseflow. However, there is a difference in

the results of statistical analysis. The previous study

states that there is a significant difference in reducing

mean baseflow during the post-logging period, while this

study shows that there is no significant difference

between pre- and post logging period.

C. Recommendations

To increase our knowledge on the effect of forest

management on water yield, the following additional studies

are suggested:

44

A study similar to this work should be done, using flow

duration curve analysis to assess the effects of

management at high, medium and low flows.

The variation of seasonal flows as affected by the

logging operations might be undertaken; This could follow

from this study by examining the before and after effects

for different months of the year.

The hydrologic recovery of the logged watershed

throughout time should be studied.

45

APPENDIX A - GRAPHICAL CORRELATION METHOD USED TO DETERMINE BASEFLOW SLOPE COEFFICIENT.

46

0 O.S 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Flow day "n" — nrm/doy

Figure A.l. Plotting Qn+1 (flow day n+1) vs. Qn (flow day n) for FC-1, pre-logging period.

1.2-K* ++ -t

•H- H & •f++. 1 f4%

I"*-' +

1 +

H-+ M

4

S1 1 N

1 1" 0

1 ! §0.9-

1

-S

£

1 o

3!

Mr* Hffejj

1 i +•?+

PI *rV

jgj

i

Ml

M

fT +

• j£r

SB i

%&

3

V «

•* 4-

£'

6#

•A

t + + •

•V *«. + 4 ri 4.

0 1 3 6 7 10 Flow doy "n" - nrm/dcy

Figure A.2. Plotting Q^/Qn vs. Qn (flow day n) for FC-1, pre-logging period.

47

0.9 0.8 c-coefflctent

Figure A. 3. Frequency distribution of c-coefficient (Qn+1/Qn) for FC-1, pre-logging period.

48

t.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 A flow doy JK', In mm/doy

Figure A. 4. Plotting of (flow day n+1) vs. Qn (flow day n) for FC-1, post-logging period.

Flow dcy -"n". In mm/cJoy

Figure A.5. Plotting of Q^/Qn vs. Qn (flow day n) for FC-1, post-logging period.

49

A

J A. 1 0 } '• • ivr\̂ r

50

t* 4.5

3̂.5

£ 2.5

$ > £

0.5

0.5 2 2.5 3 Flow "rf', fn mm/doy

3.5

Figure A. 7. Plotting of Qn+1 (flow day n+1) vs. Qn (flow day n) for FC-2, pre-logging period.

Flow On, in mm/day

Figure A.8. Plotting of Qn+1/Qn vs. (flow day n) for FC-2, pre-logging period.

51

o i t n —4: 1 1 1 1 0.5 o.e 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2

c-cooffTctont

Figure A.9. Frequency distribution of c-coefficient (Qn+l/Qn) for FC-2, pre-logging period.

52

4.S

13.5

2.5

0.5

0.5 5 2 2.5 Flow day "n", h rrm/doy

4.5 3.5

Figure A. 10. Plotting (flow day n+1) vs. Qn (flow day n) for FC-2, post-logging period.

Flow day "n", h mm/dcy

Figure A. 11. Plotting Q^/Q,, vs. Qn (flow day n) for FC-2, post-logging period.

53

450

400

350

300

1250

1200 II

150

100

50

OH 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 I 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

C-coelflderrt

wWY \

Figure A-12. Frequency distribution of c-coefficient (Qn+l/Qn) for FC-2, post-logging period.

54

1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Flow day "n", In mm/day

Figure A. 13. Plotting Qn+1 (flow day Qn+1) vs. Qn (flow day n) for FC-3, pre-logging period.

Flow day "n", In mm/day

Figure A. 14. Plotting Qn+1/Qn vs. Qn (flow day n) for FC-3, pre-logging period.

55

J \ 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1

0.6 0.8 1 1.2 c-coeffTctonl

Figure A. 15. Frequency distribution of c-coefficient (Qn+1/Qn) for FC-3, pre-logging period.

56

4.S

i. 2.5

0.5

0.5 3.5 1.5 2.5 Flow day "n", in mm/day

Figure A. 16. Plotting of Qn+1 (flow day n+1) vs. Qn (flow day n) for FC-3, post-logging period.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 1 0 Flow day "n", h mm/day

Figure A. 17. Plotting of Qnt.^/Qn vs. Qn (flow day n) for FC-3, post-logging period.

57

—' 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1

0.$ 0.8 1 1.2 c-cocrf fTcIflnt

Figure A. 18. Frequency distribution of c-coefficient (Qn+1/Qn) for FC-3, post-logging period.

58

APPENDIX B - MATCHED BASEFLOW DATA BETWEEN TREATED AND UNTREATED WATERSHEDS USED IN THE REGRESSION ANALYSIS.

dix

10 Dy

11 5 11 6 11 7

II 8 11 26 12 19

2 4 2 5 2 21 3 1

3 2 3 3

3 5 3 6

3 7

3 8

4 1 4 2 4 3 4 5

4 14 4 27 4 28 5 1 5 4 5 8 5 9 5 11 5 12 5 13

5 15

5 18 5 19

5 23

5 24 5 29

6 11 6 13

6 15

6 16 6 17 6 18 6 19 6 20 6 21 7 5 7 6

7 9

7 10 7 11

7 12 7 14

7 16 7 23

7 24

7 26

7 28

B.l. Matched baseflow for FC-1 vs. FC-2, pre-logging period.

FC-1 FC-2 FC-1 FC-2 Q(mm/day) Q(mm/day) Yr Ho Dy Q(tnm/day) Q(mm/day)

2.184 1.041 58 8 3 1.143 0.381 2.057 0.965 58 8 6 1.092 0.305 1.905 0.864 58 8 30 0.737 0.203 1.829 0.762 58 9 2 0.660 0.203 4.978 2.794 58 9 25 3.454 2.692 41.783 27.864 58 10 1 1.372 0.432 10.770 5.258 58 10 2 1.295 0.381 9.906 4.826 58 10 3 1.219 0.356 9.373 4.597 58 11 1 0.711 1.397 7.391 3.353 58 11 22 20.015 12.471 6.985 2.946 58 11 28 9.271 4.039 6.426 2.642 58 11 29 8.585 3.607 5.740 2.438 58 11 30 8.001 3.404 5.283 2.337 58 12 15 11.405 5.080 4.775 2.261 58 12 21 11.379 5.613 4.420 2.134 58 12 22 10.287 4.877 7.620 4.039 58 12 23 9.576 4.267 6.985 3.708 58 12 24 8.865 3.912 6.375 3.505 58 12 27 12.040 6.756 5.740 3.277 58 12 31 18.644 11.405 7.798 7.290 59 1 15 11.354 6.274 10.973 5.359 59 1 16 10.744 6.096 9.855 4.826 59 2 2 14.503 6.934 8.560 4.597 59 2 4 15.621 8.280 5.791 3.378 59 2 5 14.503 7.315 4.089 2.489 59 2 10 7.798 3.556 3.835 2.311 59 2 11 6.960 3.226 3.480 2.057 59 2 12 6.248 3.048 3.327 1.956 59 2 13 5.817 2.946 3.150 1.778 59 2 14 5.410 2.718

2.870 1.346 59 2 21 7.366 3.327 2.718 1.041 59 2 22 6.579 3.175 2.642 0.965 59 2 23 5.867 2.997 2.769 0.991 59 3 9 8.153 4.496 2.515 0.889 59 3 10 7.722 4.140 1.829 1.041 59 3 15 7.518 4.394

4.216 2.591 59 3 28 18.440 10.998 3.988 2.388 59 4 5 12.725 6.909

3.810 2.057 59 4 6 11.862 6.147 3.505 1.829 59 4 7 10.744 5.436 3.200 1.626 59 4 8 9.627 4.902 2.997 1.448 59 4 9 8.890 4.547

2.845 1.346 59 4 10 8.636 4.369 2.642 1.219 59 4 11 8.458 4.166

2.540 1.143 59 4 12 7.976 3.861 3.353 1.956 59 4 13 7.341 3.581 3.048 1.702 59 4 14 6.782 3.277 2.184 1.168 59 4 24 6.960 4.013

2.032 1.067 59 5 5 19.177 10.719 1.905 0.991 59 5 9 12.649 10.871 1.803 0.940 59 5 23 7.518 4.115 1.499 0.813 59 5 27 6.452 4.648

1.397 0.737 59 5 28 6.274 4.216 1.245 0.559 59 5 29 6.147 3.683

1.219 0.508 59 5 30 5.867 3.302

1.194 0.483 59 5 31 5.410 2.972

1.168 0.432 59 6 1 4.902 2.692

Ho Dy

6 2 6 7 6 14 6 15

6 16 6 17

6 18 6 19

6 22 6 24

6 25 6 28 6 29

7 2

7 5 7 7 7 10

7 11

7 12 7 13

7 14 7 15

7 16 7 17 7 18

7 19 7 20

7 21 7 22 7 25

7 26 7 27

7 28 7 29

7 31 8 1 8 2 8 3

8 5 8 6 8 7 8 9

8 10 8 11 8 16 9 14

9 15 9 24

10 3 10 4 10 5

10 16 10 17 10 18 10 30 10 31

11 1 11 4

11 5 11 6 11 7

FC-1 FC-2 Q(rrm/day) Q(trm/day)

FC-1 FC-2 Yr Ho Dy Q(mn/day) Q(rm/day)

4.496 2.438 59 11 8 4.394 2.235 6.071 4.394 59 11 9 3.988 2.007 6.198 3.581 59 11 10 3.581 1.803 5.639 3.277 59 11 11 3.277 1.676

5.359 3.023 59 11 12 2.997 1.600 4.851 2.743 59 11 15 2.540 1.270

4.470 2.489 59 11 30 5.182 3.073 4.166 2.261 59 12 3 4.724 2.870 3.531 1.473 59 12 4 4.394 2.591 3.378 1.651 59 12 5 4.191 2.388 3.200 1.473 59 12 8 3.734 2.184

2.997 1.499 59 12 20 5.004 3.150

2.819 1.372 59 12 21 4.470 2.819 2.769 1.270 59 12 22 4.064 2.515

2.997 1.397 59 12 25 5.182 3.277 3.327 1.956 59 12 26 5.004 2.896

3.124 1.448 59 12 27 4.597 2.794 2.997 1.346 59 12 28 4.140 2.565

2.870 1.219 59 12 29 3.759 2.337

2.667 1.118 59 12 30 3.429 2.184

2.413 1.067 59 12 31 3.099 2.007 2.286 1.016 60 1 1 2.794 1.753

2.159 0.940 60 1 2 2.616 1.600 2.032 0.889 60 1 3 2.464 1.448

1.930 0.838 60 1 4 2.311 1.321 1.854 0.787 60 1 8 2.718 1.651

1.753 0.737 60 1 9 2.642 1.473

1.651 0.711 60 1 10 2.565 1.397

1.575 0.660 60 1 11 2.464 1.321

1.473 0.584 60 1 12 2.311 1.194

1.397 0.559 60 1 13 2.159 1.067 1.346 0.533 60 1 14 2.057 1.016

1.295 0.508 60 1 15 1.956 0.965

1.245 0.483 60 1 16 1.880 0.889

1.168 0.457 60 1 17 1.727 0.864 1.143 0.432 60 1 18 1.575 0.838

1.118 0.406 60 1 19 1.524 0.787

1.092 0.381 60 1 20 1.473 0.762

1.016 0.356 60 2 21 7.620 3.150

0.965 0.330 60 2 22 6.858 2.819

0.940 0.305 60 2 23 6.477 2.743 0.864 0.279 60 2 25 6.121 2.565

0.813 0.254 60 2 26 5.664 2.337

0.762 0.229 60 2 27 5.283 2.108

0.660 0.203 60 2 28 4.928 1.905

2.159 1.245 60 2 29 4.674 1.778

2.032 1.092 60 3 1 4.445 1.651

6.121 3.708 60 3 2 4.242 1.549

4.978 2.616 60 3 11 7.264 3.734 4.470 2.311 60 3 13 7.036 3.378

4.064 2.057 60 3 23 15.088 7.341 7.950 3.429 60 4 5 17.678 9.550

7.112 3.175 60 4 10 13.411 7.468

6.350 2.921 60 4 28 12.802 6.629

7.087 3.302 60 4 29 12.040 6.401 6.426 2.972 60 5 2 13.894 8.941

5.842 2.743 60 5 23 15.316 7.899

6.172 3.429 60 6 1 7.874 7.036

5.867 3.124 60 6 3 6.680 6.655

5.385 2.819 60 6 4 6.172 6.198

4.851 2.515 60 6 5 5.791 5.385

Ho Dy

6 7 6 8

- 6 9 6 10 6 11 6 12 6 25 6 26 6 27

6 28 6 29 6 30

7 1 7 2 7 3 7 4

7 5 7 6

7 8 7 9

7 10 7 11 7 12 7 13

7 14 7 15

7 16 7 17

7 18 7 20

7 21 7 22

7 23 7 26

7 27 7 29

8 16 8 30

8 31 9 10

9 11 9 13

9 14 9 15

9 16 9 17

9 19 9 20

9 21

9 26 9 28 9 29

10 1 10 4

10 19 10 20 10 21 11 8 11 29 11 30

12 8

FC-1 FC-2 Q(mm/day) Q(mm/day)

FC-1 FC-2 Yr Ho Dy 0(imi/day) Q(mm/day)

5.055 4.166 60 12 9 6.248 2.489 4.750 3.708 60 12 12 6.147 2.743 4.496 3.429 60 12 14 5.740 2.235 4.242 3.200 60 12 23 6.706 3.302 3.988 2.946 60 12 24 6.071 2.997 3.835 2.718 60 12 31 5.690 2.718

5.283 3.048 61 1 1 5.105 2.464 4.724 2.794 61 1 21 5.791 2.972

4.293 2.565 61 1 22 5.207 2.642 3.962 2.311 61 1 23 4.750 2.362

3.759 2.032 61 1 24 4.394 2.159 3.505 1.854 61 1 25 4.089 1.930

3.277 1.676 61 1 26 3.810 1.803 3.048 1.524 61 1 27 3.581 1.651

2.845 1.422 61 2 6 17.628 11.582 2.692 1.346 61 2 7 16.739 10.490

2.540 1.295 61 3 9 8.077 3.454 2.413 1.245 61 3 18 14.046 8.712 2.210 1.143 61 3 19 13.437 8.153 2.083 1.092 61 3 20 13.056 7.468

1.930 1.041 61 3 27 11.303 5.486 1.854 0.991 61 3 28 10.820 5.283

1.753 0.965 61 3 29 10.109 5.105 1.676 0.940 61 4 13 13.564 7.925

1.626 0.889 61 4 17 9.169 5.512 1.524 0.864 61 4 19 7.595 4.343 1.473 0.838 61 5 2 14.986 10.922

1.397 0.787 61 5 22 8.204 7.823

1.346 0.762 61 5 24 7.036 5.664 1.295 0.711 61 5 31 6.934 4.775 1.219 0.686 61 6 1 6.452 4.267 1.118 0.660 61 6 2 5.918 3.912

1.041 0.635 61 6 3 5.385 3.505 0.940 0.584 61 6 4 4.928 3.150

0.914 0.559 61 6 6 4.623 2.972

0.864 0.483 61 6 10 3.327 2.032

0.787 0.330 61 6 13 2.997 1.600 2.159 0.889 61 6 14 2.870 1.422

2.032 0.838 61 6 15 2.769 1.295 2.159 0.813 61 6 16 2.667 1.194

2.007 0.737 61 6 17 2.591 1.118 1.575 0.660 61 6 18 2.515 1.016

1.448 0.610 61 6 19 2.464 0.965

1.321 0.584 61 6 20 2.388 0.940

1.194 0.559 61 6 21 2.235 0.889

1.118 0.533 61 6 22 2.108 0.864

1.245 0.584 61 6 23 1.956 0.838

1.194 0.559 61 6 24 1.854 0.787

1.067 0.508 61 6 25 1.803 0.737 1.067 0.483 61 6 26 1.727 0.711

0.991 0.457 61 6 27 1.626 0.660

0.965 0.432 61 6 29 1.676 0.660

0.914 0.406 61 6 30 1.549 0.584 0.889 0.356 61 7 1 1.499 0.559

2.362 1.295 61 7 2 1.422 0.533

2.159 1.143 61 7 5 1.499 0.584

1.981 1.041 61 7 8 1.219 0.457

4.166 2.540 61 7 10 1.092 0.432

9.855 3.632 61 7 16 0.914 0.381 8.941 3.226 61 7 24 0.787 0.330

6.960 2.794 61 7 25 0.737 0.305

Mo Dy

7 28 8 8 9 8 9 9

9 10 9 11 9 12 9 13

9 23 9 24

9 25

10 1 10 8 10 19

10 20 10 21 11 1 11 16 11 17 11 18 11 19 12 2 12 11 12 13

1 16 1 18 1 19

1 20 1 21 1 22 1 29 2 2 2 7 2 11 2 14 2 15

2 21 2 24 2 25 2 28 3 1 3 5

3 8 3 9

3 12 3 13 3 14 3 15

3 22 3 30

4 2 4 21

4 22

4 24 4 25 5 6

5 12 5 14

5 16 5 31

6 5

FC-1 FC-2 Q(rmi/day> QCmn/day)

FC-1 FC-2 Yr Ho Dy Q(mm/day) Q(mm/day)

0.686 0.279 62 6 10 4.293 3.505 0.457 0.203 62 6 11 3.835 3.150

1.346 0.559 62 6 12 3.531 2.896 1.219 0.508 62 6 13 3.353 2.794 1.092 0.457 62 6 15 2.845 2.235 1.041 0.432 62 6 16 2.642 1.981

0.965 0.406 62 6 17 2.489 1.753

0.914 0.381 62 6 18 2.362 1.549

1.626 0.483 62 6 19 2.311 1.422 1.549 0.432 62 6 20 2.261 1.295

1.448 0.406 62 6 21 2.159 1.168 1.245 0.381 62 6 22 2.032 1.092 4.496 2.032 62 6 23 1.930 1.041 3.023 1.575 62 6 24 1.880 0.991

2.769 1.473 62 6 25 1.829 0.940

2.642 1.321 62 6 26 1.778 0.914

12.624 7.849 62 6 27 1.702 0.889 4.318 2.438 62 6 28 1.651 0.838

3.988 2.235 62 7 1 1.499 0.787 3.708 2.083 62 7 2 1.422 0.762

3.480 1.930 62 7 3 1.372 0.711 7.188 4.267 62 7 5 1.295 0.711 5.055 2.540 62 7 6 1.219 0.686 4.166 2.261 62 7 7 1.143 0.635

5.613 3.658 62 7 8 1.067 0.610 4.648 2.743 62 7 9 1.016 0.584

4.242 2.489 62 7 10 0.991 0.559 3.886 2.311 62 7 11 0.940 0.533

3.556 2.134 62 7 14 0.864 0.508 3.327 1.981 62 7 15 0.813 0.483

8.484 5.944 62 7 22 0.660 0.356 8.357 4.953 62 7 28 0.584 0.330

5.867 3.886 62 7 29 0.559 0.305

7.645 5.791 62 8 5 0.965 0.584 6.858 5.105 62 8 7 1.321 0.660

6.477 4.953 62 8 8 1.194 0.584

6.020 3.759 62 8 9 1.143 0.533 4.039 2.388 62 8 10 1.067 0.508

3.658 2.235 62 8 12 0.991 0.457 2.997 2.007 62 8 13 0.940 0.432

2.870 1.854 62 8 14 0.889 0.406

9.119 4.978 62 8 16 0.838 0.406

6.502 4.115 62 8 17 0.813 0.381 5.918 3.937 62 8 18 0.787 0.356

4.013 2.692 62 8 20 0.686 0.330 3.759 2.616 62 8 22 0.660 0.279 3.556 2.515 62 8 30 0.584 0.203 3.327 2.388 62 9 10 1.981 0.914

5.182 2.565 62 9 14 2.108 0.610

8.128 6.172 62 9 17 1.448 0.457

8.077 5.258 62 9 18 1.295 0.406 13.360 9.398 62 9 19 1.194 0.381

13.056 8.738 62 9 20 1.118 0.356

11.989 9.017 62 9 22 1.041 0.330

11.074 8.433 62 9 24 0.965 0.305 12.065 7.620 62 9 29 1.829 0.711

9.804 6.629 62 9 30 1.753 0.660

7.823 5.055 62 10 20 3.429 2.032

6.452 4.470 62 10 21 3.099 1.778 5.740 4.420 62 10 22 2.845 1.549

7.976 7.188 62 10 23 2.667 1.346

Ho Dy

10 24 10 25

10 26 10 27

10 28 10 29 10 30

11 1 11 2 11 14

12 1 12 15

12 18 12 20 12 21 12 22 12 23 12 24

12 25 12 26 1 12 1 21 1 22 1 23

1 24 1 25

1 26 1 27

2 13 3 1 3 4 3 5 3 6

3 7 3 8 3 13

3 16 3 27

4 1 4 8

4 11 4 24 4 25 5 3

5 25 5 26 5 27

5 30 5 31 6 14 6 15 6 16 6 17 6 18 6 19 6 26 6 30

7 1 7 2 7 3

7 8

FC-1 FC-2 Q(mn/day) Q(mn/day}

FC-1 FC-2 Yr Mo Dy Q(mm/day) Q(m/day)

2.489 1.194 63 7 11 8.509 4.064

2.337 1.067 63 7 14 5.918 2.667

2.235 0.965 63 7 15 5.334 2.438

2.159 0.889 63 7 16 4.851 2.184

2.057 0.813 63 7 17 4.470 1.981

2.007 0.762 63 7 18 4.216 1.753

1.905 0.711 63 7 19 3.988 1.549 1.702 0.686 63 7 20 3.734 1.372

1.626 0.635 63 7 26 3.937 1.524 5.309 3.480 63 7 27 3.734 1.372

21.006 15.596 63 7 28 3.378 1.245

7.925 6.756 63 7 29 3.048 1.168

5.817 3.607 63 7 30 2.743 1.092 4.750 2.896 63 7 31 2.464 1.041

4.420 2.718 63 8 1 2.210 0.991

4.267 2.642 63 8 3 1.778 0.838

3.937 2.311 63 8 4 1.600 0.813 3.683 2.083 63 8 5 1.499 0.762

3.404 1.854 63 8 7 1.219 0.660

3.150 1.727 63 8 8 1.092 0.610

3.023 1.702 63 8 9 1.067 0.584 2.972 1.778 63 8 10 0.991 0.559

2.718 1.600 63 8 15 0.813 0.457

2.515 1.473 63 8 17 0.762 0.432

2.362 1.346 63 8 19 1.016 0.559

2.235 1.245 63 8 21 0.813 0.432

2.134 1.118 63 8 23 0.889 0.457 1.905 0.991 63 8 24 0.864 0.432

4.801 4.267 63 8 25 0.813 0.381 9.093 6.325 63 8 27 0.711 0.356

6.274 3.886 63 9 2 0.508 0.330 5.613 3.404 63 9 10 0.483 0.229

5.080 3.023 63 9 27 2.235 0.965

4.597 2.743 63 9 28 2.032 0.864

4.242 2.515 63 10 1 1.803 0.559

6.248 2.997 63 10 2 1.702 0.508

4.394 2.362 63 10 3 1.575 0.483

8.357 5.740 63 10 4 1.524 0.457

5.715 2.870 63 10 5 1.448 0.432

12.116 8.407 63 10 9 0.991 0.381

9.677 5.740 63 10 12 0.965 0.356

8.331 4.343 63 10 28 5.867 4.394

7.849 4.089 63 12 2 5.436 2.616

12.776 7.899 63 12 3 4.928 2.286

4.597 3.886 63 12 13 4.521 2.235

4.242 3.378 63 12 14 4.064 2.032

3.988 3.023 63 12 17 4.039 2.438

3.327 2.489 64 1 12 5.740 3.023

3.124 2.286 64 1 18 11.684 6.198

4.318 2.235 64 2 4 9.271 5.486

4.039 2.007 64 2 5 8.763 5.029

3.861 1.829 64 2 12 6.502 2.870 3.683 1.676 64 2 13 6.045 2.692 3.505 1.499 64 2 14 5.410 2.489

3.353 1.372 64 2 22 6.528 4.064 6.629 2.616 64 2 23 5.842 3.556

7.823 3.861 64 2 24 5.461 3.226

7.518 3.378 64 2 25 5.080 2.870

6.807 3.048 64 2 26 4.699 2.591

6.121 2.718 64 2 27 4.318 2.388

4.877 2.311 64 2 28 4.013 2.261

Ho Dy

3 17 3 18 3 19

3 20 3 21 3 22 3 23

3 24 3 25

4 4 4 5 4 13 4 19 4 20

4 23

4 29 5 6

5 12 5 24 5 28 6 5

6 12 6 13

6 14 6 24

6 25

6 26 6 28 6 29 6 30

7 1 7 2 7 3 7 4 7 8

7 10 7 11

7 12 7 16

7 17 7 18

7 19 7 23

7 25 7 26

7 27 7 28 8 5 8 6 8 7 8 8 8 9 8 10 8 14

8 15

8 16 8 18 8 20 8 22 8 23 9 2

9 4

FC-1 FC-2 FC-1 FC-2 Q(mm/day) Q(mm/day) Yr Ho Dy CKmm/day) Q(mm/day)

8.407 5.359 64 9 5 2.794 1.219 7.518 4.699 64 9 6 2.642 1.067 6.731 4.115 64 9 10 2.057 0.762 6.172 3.835 64 9 11 1.956 0.686 5.690 3.531 64 9 12 1.854 0.635 5.359 3.251 64 9 14 1.727 0.559 4.928 2.946 64 9 30 2.921 1.600 4.394 2.692 64 10 8 3.175 1.600 3.962 2.489 64 10 11 2.565 1.041

7.442 4.445 64 10 12 2.438 0.914 6.833 4.166 64 10 24 2.591 1.143 10.719 7.417 64 10 25 2.388 1.016 7.036 4.623 64 11 8 3.988 2.057 6.502 4.115 64 11 13 4.191 1.727 8.357 4.674 64 11 14 3.912 1.524

11.100 7.620 64 11 15 3.556 1.448 8.407 4.597 64 11 16 3.251 1.397 14.021 9.754 64 11 17 3.023 1.295 12.776 7.950 64 11 18 2.769 1.168 12.268 8.407 64 11 19 2.515 1.041 15.291 14.935 64 11 20 2.388 0.940

9.957 7.391 64 12 19 6.629 5.055 8.992 6.985 65 1 1 3.810 3.073 8.382 6.706 65 3 1 8.153 4.039 7.214 5.334 65 3 4 5.893 2.921 6.528 4.928 65 3 12 6.401 2.997 5.969 4.674 65 3 13 5.740 2.794 5.055 3.708 65 3 14 5.182 2.565

4.648 3.327 65 3 15 4.750 2.413 4.293 3.175 65 3 16 4.369 2.286 4.013 3.073 65 3 17 3.988 2.083 3.835 2.896 65 3 18 3.607 1.880 3.556 2.591 65 3 19 3.404 1.753 3.353 2.413 65 3 22 3.683 2.007 2.794 2.108 65 3 23 3.581 1.930

2.413 1.651 65 3 24 3.429 1.778 2.286 1.499 65 3 27 3.937 1.778

2.210 1.372 65 3 28 3.759 1.626 3.277 2.108 65 4 4 4.851 2.362 3.175 1.829 65 4 6 3.785 2.007 3.023 1.626 65 4 16 4.470 3.251 2.769 1.448 65 4 25 7.747 7.696 2.108 1.016 65 4 27 6.401 6.782 2.032 0.838 65 4 29 5.004 5.283 1.930 0.737 65 4 30 4.674 4.623 1.854 0.660 65 5 1 4.470 4.013 1.803 0.610 65 5 14 3.886 3.531

3.124 1.219 65 5 24 4.623 4.064 3.048 1.067 65 5 25 4.445 3.556

2.769 0.940 65 5 26 4.064 3.327 2.540 0.864 65 5 29 2.845 3.048

2.311 0.762 65 5 30 2.540 2.743 2.108 0.660 65 5 31 2.388 2.438

1.753 0.533 65 6 1 2.159 2.261 1.651 0.508 65 6 2 1.981 2.159 1.575 0.483 65 6 3 1.854 2.083 3.531 1.422 65 6 4 1.727 1.981

3.454 1.041 65 6 5 1.600 1.880 2.794 0.787 65 6 6 1.499 1.727 2.515 0.686 65 6 7 1.422 1.575 3.658 1.778 65 6 8 1.346 1.448

2.972 1.397 65 6 9 1.270 1.372

Ho Dy

6 18 6 19 6 20 6 21 6 22 6 24

6 26 6 28 6 29

6 30

7 1 7 3

7 22

8 5 10 24

10 25 10 29

10 30 10 31

11 17 11 25

11 29

12 7 12 13

12 14 12 15

12 16 12 17 12 18 12 20 12 21 12 24 1 1 1 20 1 21 1 22 1 26 1 27 1 31

2 2 2 3

2 4 2 5

2 7 2 9

2 10 2 11 2 12 2 13

2 14

2 15 2 23 2 25

2 28 3 1

3 2 3 3

3 4 3 19

3 20 3 21 3 22

FC-1 FC-2 Q(mm/day) Q(mm/day)

FC-1 FC-2 Yr Ho Dy Q(mm/day) Q( mm/day)

1.143 0.965 66 3 23 5.080 2.769

1.041 0.864 66 4 3 12.268 7.671 0.991 0.762 66 4 16 14.961 8.839 0.965 0.711 66 4 23 12.802 7.264 0.940 0.660 66 4 25 12.192 6.477

0.914 0.533 66 4 27 11.684 6.198 0.838 0.508 66 4 28 10.465 5.740 0.787 0.457 66 5 8 14.859 11.608

0.737 0.432 66 5 11 10.135 7.239

0.711 0.406 66 5 12 9.500 6.325 0.660 0.381 66 5 13 8.738 5.537

0.610 0.356 66 5 16 10.262 7.493 0.610 0.254 66 5 17 9.423 6.883

0.406 0.203 66 5 28 5.258 5.207 0.813 0.381 66 5 29 4.928 4.674

0.737 0.356 66 5 30 4.597 4.394 0.635 0.305 66 5 31 4.318 3.861

0.610 0.279 66 6 1 4.064 3.353

0.559 0.254 66 6 2 3.835 3.099

3.886 2.565 66 6 3 3.581 2.921

4.648 2.997 66 6 13 4.267 5.537

4.115 2.286 66 6 20 2.261 2.794 6.807 6.172 66 6 21 2.108 2.464 3.480 2.210 66 6 25 2.184 2.337 3.124 1.956 66 7 9 3.454 2.210

2.997 1.702 66 7 10 3.124 1.981

2.870 1.549 66 7 11 2.794 1.829

2.692 1.397 66 7 12 2.565 1.651

2.540 1.270 66 7 14 2.286 1.448

2.261 1.168 66 7 15 2.108 1.270 2.108 1.118 66 7 16 1.981 1.118

2.540 1.372 66 7 17 1.854 0.991 4.851 2.692 66 7 20 1.524 0.864

6.756 4.013 66 7 21 1.422 0.813

6.121 3.505 66 7 22 1.346 0.762

5.690 3.150 66 7 24 1.295 0.737

7.264 3.658 66 7 25 1.245 0.711

6.553 3.480 66 7 26 1.194 0.660

7.391 3.810 66 7 27 1.118 0.635

6.071 3.150 66 7 28 1.067 0.584

5.436 2.819 66 7 30 1.041 0.508

5.004 2.642 66 7 31 1.016 0.483

4.826 2.565 66 8 2 0.965 0.457

4.572 2.311 66 8 5 0.838 0.406

4.191 2.184 66 8 6 0.813 0.381

3.835 2.007 66 8 8 0.762 0.356

3.632 1.880 66 8 11 0.737 0.305

3.531 1.753 66 8 14 0.711 0.305

3.378 1.600 66 8 16 0.584 0.254

3.277 1.549 66 8 18 0.533 0.229 3.048 1.372 66 8 20 0.457 0.203

7.544 3.302 66 8 29 0.584 0.203

6.045 2.946 66 9 19 0.686 0.203

5.715 2.819 66 10 3 1.499 0.457 5.334 2.667 66 10 5 1.168 0.356

4.801 2.388 66 10 14 1.930 0.813

4.343 2.108 66 10 15 1.803 0.787

3.912 1.930 66 10 16 1.626 0.711 6.985 3.759 66 10 18 1.194 0.610

6.502 3.658 66 10 26 6.629 4.775

5.918 3.277 66 10 28 5.385 3.302

5.359 2.921 66 11 7 5.563 2.845

Mo Dy

11 22 11 23

12 6 12 18 12 23 12 25

12 26 12 27 2 8 2 13

2 14 2 23 3 4 3 5

3 6 3 11 3 13 3 26

3 27 3 28

3 29 3 30 3 31

4 1 4 17 4 18

4 20 5 12 5 13

5 17 5 18 5 21 5 25 6 3

6 5 6 8 6 9

6 11 6 12 6 16 6 17

6 18 6 29 6 30

7 2 7 3

7 4 7 5

7 6 7 8 7 9

7 10

7 11 7 12

7 19 7 23

7 27 7 29

8 1 8 7 8 9

FC-1 FC-2 QCmn/day) QCmn/day)

FC-1 FC-2 Yr Ho Dy QCmn/day) QCmn/day)

6.096 2.921 67 8 12 0.533 0.229 5.436 2.540 67 10 4 0.559 0.203 8.052 3.581 67 11 5 3.886 1.854 8.204 4.191 67 11 6 3.531 1.651 7.087 3.683 67 11 19 3.099 1.727 5.994 2.819 67 11 20 2.870 1.499

5.436 2.489 67 11 21 2.718 1.321 5.029 2.413 67 11 27 4.928 3.048

7.214 3.404 67 11 29 6.579 3.861 7.087 3.454 67 12 17 3.937 2.769 6.528 3.048 67 12 18 3.505 2.413

6.706 3.454 67 12 19 3.124 2.159 5.791 2.667 68 1 23 10.160 6.198 5.309 2.591 68 1 24 9.677 5.664

4.877 2.489 68 1 28 5.283 3.124 5.283 2.540 68 1 29 4.801 2.972

4.140 2.210 68 1 30 4.343 2.819 6.579 3.683 68 2 9 5.232 3.175

5.893 3.302 68 2 10 4.674 2.769 5.461 3.048 68 2 11 4.267 2.464

5.029 2.845 68 2 12 3.988 2.184 4.572 2.667 68 2 13 3.632 1.956

4.242 2.489 68 2 14 3.327 1.803

3.810 2.286 68 2 15 3.099 1.676

4.293 2.388 68 2 28 7.544 3.835

4.115 2.235 68 2 29 6.731 3.429

3.378 1.829 68 3 1 5.994 3.048 7.569 5.867 68 3 2 5.359 2.642

7.137 5.613 68 3 3 4.877 2.362

9.042 9.042 68 3 5 4.318 2.337

8.255 8.306 68 3 7 3.708 2.210 7.061 9.169 68 3 8 3.429 1.930

4.521 4.521 68 3 10 2.845 1.422 5.055 5.842 68 3 18 5.893 3.023

4.166 5.664 68 3 20 5.080 2.718

3.353 3.683 68 3 21 4.877 2.540

3.150 3.302 68 4 8 8.585 4.623

2.997 3.099 68 4 9 7.823 4.267

2.718 2.870 68 4 13 5.156 3.708

2.184 2.667 68 4 15 5.740 3.988

2.083 2.591 68 4 28 8.712 5.715

1.981 2.438 68 5 3 4.166 4.191

2.413 1.702 68 5 4 3.759 4.039

2.184 1.549 68 5 9 4.851 4.699

1.854 1.168 68 5 23 7.036 5.613

1.753 1.041 68 6 10 2.997 1.854

1.626 0.940 68 6 11 2.845 1.753

1.549 0.864 68 6 15 2.210 1.397

1.499 0.813 68 6 16 2.057 1.245 1.397 0.737 68 6 17 1.930 1.118

1.346 0.711 68 6 18 1.803 1.041

1.270 0.660 68 6 19 1.753 0.991

1.219 0.635 68 6 20 1.626 0.940

1.168 0.584 68 6 30 3.861 2.591

1.118 0.457 68 7 7 1.651 1.041 1.016 0.406 68 7 8 1.499 0.965

0.914 0.356 68 7 9 1.372 0.889

0.864 0.330 68 7 19 1.753 1.016

0.813 0.305 68 7 20 1.575 0.940

0.686 0.279 68 7 21 1.448 0.864

0.610 0.254 68 7 22 1.372 0.838

FC-1 FC-2 Yr Mo Dy QCum/day) Q(nm/day)

68 7 23 1.270 0.813 68 7 24 1.194 0.762

68 7 25 1.118 0.737 68 7 26 1.041 0.711 68 7 27 0.965 0.686 68 7 28 0.889 0.660

68 7 29 0.864 0.635

68 7 30 0.813 0.584

68 8 8 0.737 0.457

68 8 19 5.486 2.692 68 9 6 2.007 1.245 68 9 7 1.803 1.118 68 9 8 1.651 1.016 68 9 9 1.549 0.965

68 9 10 1.473 0.914

68 9 11 1.346 0.889

68 9 26 2.972 2.007

68 9 27 2.667 1.829

68 9 29 2.184 1.397

68 9 30 2.032 1.245

68 10 1 1.930 1.143

68 10 2 1.854 1.067

69 2 6 1.245 0.508

69 3 2 1.041 0.737 69 3 3 0.965 0.711

69 3 8 2.311 1.448 69 3 9 2.159 1.372 69 4 3 7.315 5.537

69 4 6 8.052 5.461

69 4 7 7.391 5.055

69 5 3 6.401 4.445 69 5 9 20.015 14.910

69 6 7 6.883 7.569

69 6 9 5.740 7.442

69 7 5 5.080 3.124

69 7 6 4.674 2.769

69 7 7 4.267 2.515

69 7 8 3.861 2.261

69 7 9 3.480 1.981

69 8 1 1.194 0.584

69 8 2 1.168 0.559

68

Appendix B.2. Matched baseflow for FC-1 vs. FC-2, post-logging period.

FC-1 FC-2 FC-1 FC-2 Yr Mo Dy Q(mn/day) QCm/day) Yr Ho Dy Q(nm/day) Q(imi/day

71 10 6 2.007 1.118 73 2 18 6.426 2.489 71 10 7 1.803 0.991 73 2 21 3.962 1.829

71 10 8 1.651 0.914 73 3 6 4.775 3.531 71 10 10 1.448 0.813 73 3 7 4.420 3.226

71 10 11 1.372 0.762 73 3 17 6.934 3.734 71 11 8 10.312 6.858 73 3 18 6.477 3.480

71 11 10 13.335 8.738 73 3 19 5.766 3.277 71 12 27 4.623 2.515 73 3 20 5.207 2.997 71 12 28 4.242 2.286 73 3 26 5.893 2.413

71 12 29 3.937 2.134 73 3 27 5.334 2.286

72 1 5 5.004 3.124 73 4 2 6.883 2.896

72 1 15 6.960 5.537 73 4 30 4.166 2.743

72 2 16 43.561 31.852 73 5 1 3.734 2.489 72 3 28 7.468 3.785 73 5 17 2.337 2.515

72 3 29 6.756 3.378 73 5 18 2.108 2.261 72 4 12 7.823 3.962 73 5 19 1.930 2.007 72 5 14 9.652 11.024 73 5 31 1.905 1.397

72 5 31 4.928 6.883 73 6 1 1.702 1.245

72 6 1 4.496 6.096 73 6 2 1.524 1.118

72 6 3 3.810 5.639 73 6 5 1.143 0.762

72 6 7 2.769 5.410 73 6 9 0.914 0.610 72 6 13 1.880 3.454 73 6 10 0.864 0.559

72 6 18 1.448 2.489 73 6 12 0.965 0.610

72 6 20 1.270 2.286 73 7 4 2.057 1.473

72 6 21 1.194 2.184 73 7 5 1.854 1.346 72 7 3 1.676 1.905 73 7 6 1.702 1.245

72 7 5 1.524 1.524 73 7 7 1.549 1.118 72 7 8 1.270 1.092 73 7 8 1.448 0.991

72 7 15 0.965 0.787 73 7 10 1.295 0.889

72 7 16 0.914 0.737 73 7 11 1.219 0.838

72 7 17 0.864 0.686 73 7 13 1.041 0.762 72 7 21 0.762 0.533 73 7 15 0.914 0.686

72 7 24 0.711 0.457 73 7 18 0.787 0.584 72 7 26 0.635 0.432 73 7 23 . 0.686 0.457

72 7 28 0.533 0.406 73 7 28 0.584 0.305 72 7 30 0.457 0.381 73 7 30 0.533 0.279

72 8 2 0.381 0.356 73 9 11 0.787 0.279 72 8 6 0.279 0.305 73 9 12 0.711 0.254

72 8 8 0.254 0.279 73 9 14 0.584 0.229 72 10 2 1.524 0.787 73 10 3 2.388 1.981

72 10 3 1.448 0.737 73 10 4 2.159 1.753 72 10 6 1.194 0.610 73 10 15 3.124 1.702 72 10 7 1.118 0.559 73 10 18 2.235 1.194

72 10 10 1.016 0.533 73 11 9 26.086 17.882

72 10 22 0.711 0.356 73 11 10 23.647 16.256 72 11 21 1.626 0.940 73 12 24 23.063 17.628

72 12 4 4.547 2.819 74 1 3 8.357 4.318

72 12 31 7.976 3.810 74 2 8 7.341 4.445

73 1 6 4.267 2.311 74 2 9 6.680 4.115 73 1 20 8.814 4.953 74 2 10 5.969 3.861

73 1 29 3.988 2.413 74 2 11 5.436 3.632 73 1 30 3.734 2.235 74 2 12 5.055 3.454 73 1 31 3.378 2.057 74 2 26 6.985 4.191 73 2 3 2.819 1.803 74 3 1 6.172 3.835

FC-1 FC-2 Yr Mo Dy Q(mm/day) QCirm/day)

FC-1 FC-2 Yr Ho Oy QCirm/day) QCmm/day)

74 3 22 7.188 4.343 75 7 31 0.660 0.356 74 3 31 20.168 13.005 75 9 8 1.676 0.889 74 4 21 12.929 8.484 75 9 10 1.321 0.787 74 4 22 11.963 7.671 75 9 11 1.219 0.711 74 4 23 10.846 6.934 75 9 12 1.143 0.660 74 4 28 12.725 8.484 75 9 13 1.067 0.610 74 4 29 11.608 7.696 75 9 14 1.016 0.559 74 5 1 9.474 6.655 75 9 15 0.965 0.533 74 5 16 12.217 6.756 75 9 22 0.711 0.356 74 5 30 7.010 6.299 75 9 27 0.584 0.279 74 6 18 2.997 6.833 75 9 29 0.559 0.254 74 6 20 2.642 5.156 75 9 30 0.533 0.229 74 6 23 2.108 4.013 75 10 11 3.124 1.600 74 6 25 2.032 3.632 75 10 25 22.327 18.364 74 6 28 1.880 3.912 75 11 11 5.893 3.404 74 7 6 1.270 2.362 76 1 21 8.915 4.877 74 7 12 2.134 2.565 76 1 23 8.611 4.597 74 7 13 2.007 2.286 76 1 31 6.604 4.064 74 7 14 1.829 2.057 76 2 1 5.944 3.759 74 7 15 1.727 1.880 76 2 2 5.410 3.581 74 7 29 1.041 0.737 76 2 8 3.277 2.108 74 7 30 0.965 0.686 76 2 9 3.099 1.956 74 8 3 0.787 0.559 76 2 14 7.315 4.674 74 8 4 0.737 0.508 76 2 21 6.756 4.496 74 8 14 0.508 0.381 76 3 3 4.496 2.286 74 8 15 0.483 0.356 76 3 4 4.064 2.083 74 8 23 0.533 0.356 76 3 5 3.632 1.880 74 8 25 0.483 0.330 76 3 6 3.327 1.702 74 9 10 0.457 0.229 76 3 7 3.073 1.600 74 11 7 8.890 2.921 76 3 8 2.870 1.499 75 1 17 35.128 24.790 76 3 28 5.131 2.870 75 1 30 8.509 3.912 76 4 2 5.182 3.124 75 1 31 7.518 3.607 76 4 13 11.379 5.537 75 2 4 5.029 2.032 76 5 6 14.249 10.058 75 3 25 5.461 2.997 76 5 13 9.601 9.042 75 3 27 4.293 2.413 76 5 16 6.782 6.960 75 3 28 3.810 2.184 76 5 18 5.461 5.486 75 3 31 5.156 2.261 76 5 20 4.674 5.182 75 4 5 2.997 1.473 76 5 22 3.912 4.674 75 4 6 2.769 1.397 76 5 25 3.480 5.055 75 4 7 2.565 1.295 76 5 27 3.480 6.020 75 4 15 5.588 1.473 76 6 6 3.835 3.759 75 5 14 9.982 10.744 76 6 7 3.429 3.531 75 5 16 8.001 7.849 76 6 8 3.048 3.378 75 5 18 7.366 7.264 76 6 27 1.803 1.803 75 6 1 3.353 7.620 76 6 28 1.651 1.600 75 6 5 2.515 4.750 76 7 14 1.575 0.889 75 6 8 1.956 3.073 76 7 15 1.499 0.838 75 6 11 1.499 2.921 76 7 16 1.397 0.787 75 6 12 1.397 2.743 76 7 17 1.321 0.737 75 6 17 1.194 1.854 76 7 18 1.245 0.686 75 7 5 2.108 1.803 76 7 21 1.092 0.584 75 7 10 1.245 0.965 76 7 25 0.991 0.508 75 7 11 1.168 0.889 76 7 26 0.940 0.483 75 7 15 1.168 0.787 76 7 27 0.864 0.457 75 7 20 1.041 0.610 76 8 23 1.600 0.914 75 7 22 0.965 0.533 76 8 29 0.940 0.635 75 7 23 0.914 0.508 76 8 31 0.864 0.559 75 7 25 0.838 0.457 76 9 19 1.118 0.508 75 7 29 0.762 0.406 76 9 20 1.067 0.483 75 7 30 0.711 0.381 76 9 24 0.914 0.406

FC-1 FC-2 Yr Mo Oy Q

>» a

r-»-f-eotnfMf,«.oSr-coin"4,N»oaj>qaiinfOOfOin*-Nj«j,r-^N.NroNinoo«-cocoo»'orainK-p>oOK»oNwinf\ir-0'^«-inNro{MO^r-s.inn(>co»omininin^cO'roCNeO(OSiAOSrjONfNO.oin*-cO

• J M ( M N f M N ( V I K J M K ) W N N N r ' » - t - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 « - * - T - O O O r - * J « 4 , f V I U , > i n * t ' l J t - i n ^ ^ r O r O M < M N t M ( M t \ l « - r - I O r O M f V J N N ( M r -

rsiino*ON-coa»0>ON.coo»«-CM»oco«-o»-h-oo>o^o^N-rurO'»a,cotn«-ro>ooo^o«-rjom»os.coo*«-rvjm-«j-ir>'Ococh«-rvjro«»3-in>ON.co rr*f-«-«- «— cm cm cm «— cm cm cm cm ro cm «- «- «- cm m

»nininiftiniftin^^'0'0'ONNSNNNNNNSCOeOCOO.OOOOO«-«-«-«-N j « - M O f - o o NO>NQOK"«

' 0 « - M " 0 ' « t f O M M N * - « - « - T - * - * - « - O O t - f O C \ J P 4 C M ' • *-oooooo*-oooo< »—mCMrvjcMco-vfO

*-«-f0C0^^oininin«j^M'tf»JinSSoc0>0'0in

N « J - C Q W v 0 N C 0 i n C 0 O f - ^ N C 0 0 « O ( M M r 0 t n C 0 C 0 ^ i n C 0 « - ' 0 f 0 ' 0 ' - O f M > 0 O i - f M i n M M M 0 ' O C 0 O M t \ J M > J - i n ' 0 O s f i n > 0 f M < J N M i n i - O

FC-1 FC-2 Yr Ho Dy Q(mm/day) Q(mm/day)

FC-1 FC-2 Yr Ho Dy Q(mm/day) Q(imi/day)

81 2 9 1.854 1.016 82 3 19 5.232 2.718 81 2 27 6.985 3.785 82 3 20 4.699 2.413 81 2 28 6.553 3.556 82 3 21 4.318 2.184 81 3 2 5.664 2.819 82 3 30 4.470 2.159 81 3 5 4.597 2.286 82 3 31 4.064 1.956 81 3 6 4.293 2.108 82 4 1 3.759 1.778 81 3 7 4.089 1.981 82 4 2 3.505 1.651 81 3 8 3.912 1.854 82 4 3 3.226 1.499 81 3 9 3.708 1.702 82 4 4 2.997 1.372 81 3 10 3.505 1.549 82 4 25 8.077 3.962 81 3 11 3.251 1.448 82 4 30 7.061 5.055 81 3 12 2.946 1.346 82 5 1 6.706 4.572 81 3 13 2.667 1.194 82 5 10 5.563 4.369 81 3 19 2.489 1.143 82 5 19 4.318 5.232 81 3 22 2.388 1.524 82 5 22 3.353 5.309 81 3 26 5.613 3.048 82 6 2 1.676 2.972 81 3 27 5.283 2.819 82 6 13 2.007 3.150 81 5 1 4.623 5.334 82 6 15 1.753 2.413 81 5 10 6.782 4.953 82 6 16 1.600 2.184 81 5 19 9.627 5.944 82 6 17 1.473 2.083 81 5 21 8.712 5.613 82 6 18 1.321 1.905 81 6 2 3.099 1.676 82 6 20 1.143 1.524 81 6 6 16.154 10.084 82 6 21 1.067 1.372 81 6 13 10.262 6.426 82 6 27 1.118 1.194 81 6 29 4.166 2.159 82 7 11 1.397 0.813 81 6 30 3.835 2.007 82 7 15 1.016 0.737 81 7 2 3.150 1.549 82 7 16 0.914 0.686 81 7 3 2.870 1.372 82 7 17 0.813 0.635 81 7 9 2.184 1.041 82 7 18 0.762 0.584 81 7 10 2.032 0.940 82 8 17 0.660 0.406 81 7 11 1.880 . 0.889 82 8 19 0.584 0.356 81 7 13 1.829 0.889 82 8 21 0.559 0.305 81 7 14 1.651 0.813 82 8 23 0.533 0.279 81 7 15 1.524 0.762 82 8 31 0.660 0.406 81 7 23 1.092 0.559 82 9 2 0.559 0.381 81 7 24 1.041 0.533 82 9 25 2.642 2.007 81 7 25 0.991 0.508 82 11 14 3.988 1.753 81 7 26 0.889 0.483 82 11 18 15.392 10.363 81 7 29 0.813 0.432 82 11 25 3.937 2.692 81 8 8 0.559 0.305 82 12 18 11.938 7.036 81 10 4 2.057 1.041 82 12 27 5.537 2.642 81 10 17 1.372 0.889 82 12 28 5.004 2.362 81 10 18 1.219 0.787 82 12 29 4.597 2.108 81 10 19 1.092 0.711 82 12 30 4.267 1.905 81 10 20 0.965 0.660 82 12 31 3.988 1.702 81 10 21 0.864 0.610 83 1 15 7.671 3.505 81 10 22 0.787 0.559 83 1 25 8.179 5.182 81 11 7 1.727 0.965 83 1 27 6.807 4.521 81 11 8 1.549 0.864 83 1 29 5.893 3.581 81 11 9 1.397 0.787 83 1 30 5.537 3.327 81 11 28 3.302 2.032 83 1 31 5.182 3.073 81 12 29 6.299 2.972 83 2 1 4.750 2.718 81 12 30 5.588 2.692 83 2 2 4.369 2.489 81 12 31 5.105 2.565 83 2 3 3.937 2.261 82 1 1 4.674 2.311 83 2 4 3.581 2.083 82 1 6 3.175 1.295 83 2 6 3.581 2.311 82 1 31 10.871 6.426 83 2 20 13.945 10.541 82 2 8 5.791 3.302 83 3 22 4.115 2.946 82 2 11 4.394 2.870 83 4 7 7.645 4.267 82 2 26 8.433 3.785 83 4 8 6.756 3.785 82 2 27 7.798 3.404 83 4 9 6.096 3.429

FC-1 FC-2 Yr Mo Dy Q(mm/day) Q(mm/day)

83 4 10 5.588 3.150 83 4 11 5.131 2.921

83 4 21 3.658 2.692

83 4 26 4.394 2.896

83 4 29 3.048 1.981

83 4 30 2.743 1.778

83 5 27 2.616 1.245 83 8 14 1.041 0.660

83 8 16 0.889 0.584

83 8 17 0.838 0.559

83 8 25 0.686 0.432

83 9 2 1.803 0.965

83 9 3 1.702 0.889 83 9 4 1.600 0.813

83 9 5 1.448 0.762

83 9 20 1.270 0.914

83 9 21 1.143 0.838

83 9 22 1.067 0.787

83 9 24 0.965 0.686

83 9 27 0.914 0.584

83 9 30 0.813 0.508

83 11 12 5.918 3.099

84 6 14 5.105 3.048

84 6 15 4.597 2.718

84 6 16 4.115 2.438 84 7 7 2.972 1.676

84 7 8 2.718 1.549

84 7 9 2.489 1.397

84 7 15 2.337 0.991

84 7 16 2.184 0.940

84 7 17 2.032 0.838

84 7 18 1.905 0.762

84 7 21 1.549 0.635

84 7 23 1.194 0.584

84 7 24 1.143 0.559

84 7 26 1.041 0.533

84 7 29 0.965 0.457

84 7 30 0.914 0.432

84 8 4 0.787 0.356

84 8 18 0.559 0.254

84 8 22 0.508 0.229

84 9 2 0.508 0.254

84 9 5 1.473 0.838

84 9 14 1.372 0.965

84 9 15 1.270 0.864

84 9 17 1.092 0.787

84 9 25 1.118 0.686

84 9 27 0.965 0.610

84 9 28 0.864 0.559

84 9 29 0.787 0.533

Appendix B.3. Matched baseflow for FC-2 vs. FC-3, pre-logging period.

FC-2 FC-3 FC-2 FC-3 Yr Ho Dy Q(fim/day) Q(mn/day) Yr Ho Dy Q(nm/day) Q(mm/day)

57