Laserfiche WebLink
u <br />I To evaluate this hypothesis, an area equal in size to the North Fork 100 <br />Yp � q ( <br />acres), was partially cut, removing approximately the same percentage of the <br />forest by individually marking trees. Unfortunately and unlike the North <br />Fork sub drainage, Unit 8 is not independently or directly gauged. The <br />measured flow from the Upper Basin and the North Fork must be subtracted <br />from the flow measured at the Deadhorse Main streamgage to partition out <br />of the flow from the interbasin area, which includes the contribution from <br />the North Slope. Partitioning the flow increases the opportunity for error <br />and decreases the reliability of the experiment, but was done out of necessity <br />to assess response from the North Slope (Unit 8) and only for the period <br />1981 -1983. After 1983, the combined response of treatments from both the <br />North Fork and the Upper Basin make detection of the hydrologic effect of <br />the North Slope (Unit 8) treatment even more tentative. <br />Not all of the observed responses, were as expected. Peak water equivalent <br />increased in the openings on the North Fork by 18 percent as expected <br />(Troendle and King 1987). Although a significant increase in snow pack <br />could be documented within the openings, the increase did not significantly <br />increase the overall mean for the watershed (Forest plus open). On the <br />Upper Basin, openings are more wind exposed, resulting in a certain degree <br />of scour, and increases in snow pack accumulation at the level of the <br />openings cannot be documented. The real surprise however, was that Peak <br />Water Equivalent in the snow pack on the partially cut North Slope <br />increased 16 percent, representing a 4.8 cm or 1.9 inch, increase snow in <br />water equivalent over the entire 100 acre unit (Troendle and King 1987). <br />Total water yield increased on the North Fork (figure 5) as expected but <br />increases have occurred only periodically on the Upper Basin (figure 6). In <br />the case of the North Fork, increases have averaged 2.5 — 3 inches per year <br />for the period of study. In the case of the Upper Basin, the clear cuts were <br />not as effective in generating an increase in flow. On average, covariance <br />analysis indicates flow has significantly increased, but not all individual <br />yearly responses show that trend. In drier years, flow is not increased <br />detectably (figure 6) on the upper basin. Both the North Fork and the Upper <br />Basin demonstrate that the largest increases occur in the wettest years and <br />that most of the increase occurs in May. <br />The surprise was the response from the North Slope (Unit 8). Partial cutting, <br />or thinning, the stand resulted in a 3.5 -inch increase in flow for the period <br />1981 -1983. Over 50 percent of the observed increase in flow can be <br />1 <br />