United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain

Research Station

Research Paper

RMRS–GTR–29

April 1999

History of Watershed Research

in the Central Arizona

Highlands

Malchus B. Baker, Jr., Compiler
Abstract

Baker, Jr., Malchus B. Compiler. 1999. History of Watershed Research in the Central Arizona

Highlands. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-29. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 56 p.

The Central Arizona Highlands have been the focus of a wide range of research efforts designed to

learn more about the effects of natural and human induced disturbances on the functioning,

processes, and components of the region’s ecosystems. The watershed research spearheaded by

the USDA Forest Service and its cooperators continues to lead to a comprehensive understanding

of the region’s ecology, and to formulation of management guidelines that meet the increasing needs

of people in the region, and throughout the Southwestern United States. This report assembles the

pertinent details of all watershed research accomplished by the USDA Forest Service and its

cooperators in the region and provides highlights of the results. An extensive literature cited section

is included for additional information. Information on the current status of the 5 major research area

is also provided.

Keywords: watershed management, water yield, hydrology, mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, pinyonjuniper, chaparral, riparian, vegetation treatment

The Authors

Malchus B. Baker, Jr. is a research hydrologist with the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Research Station, Flagstaff, AZ.

Leonard F. DeBano is a professor with the University of Arizona, School of Renewable Natural

Resources, Tucson, AZ.

Peter F. Ffolliott is a professor with the University of Arizona, School of Renewable Natural Resources,

Tucson, AZ.

Gerald J. Gottfried is a research forester with the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research

Station, Phoenix, AZ.

Steven T. Overby is a soil scientist with the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station,

Flagstaff, AZ.

Pesticide Precautionary Statement

The publication reports research involving pesticides. It does not contain recommendations for their use,

nor does it imply that the uses discussed here have been registered. All uses of pesticides must be

registered by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they can be recommended.

Caution: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, desirable plants, fish, and other

wildlife if they are not handled or applied properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Follow

recommended practices for the disposal of surplus pesticides and pesticide containers.

You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your

mailing information in label form through one of the following media.

Please send the publication title and number.

Telephone (970) 498-1719

E-mail rschneider/rmrs@fs.fed.us

FAX (970) 498-1660

Mailing Address Publications Distribution

Rocky Mountain Research Station

3825 E. Mulberry Street

Fort Collins, CO 80524-8597

Cover photo (circa 1960): Roosevelt Dam on the Salt River, AZ, was the first

reservoir to capture and store Arizona water.

Photo courtesy of Salt River Project History Services.
Contents

Chapter 1

Central Arizona Highlands ........................................................................... 1

Peter F. Ffolliott

Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1

Climate ............................................................................................................ 1

Vegetation Types ............................................................................................ 1

Mixed Conifer Forests ................................................................................ 2

Ponderosa Pine Forests ............................................................................. 2

Mountain Grasslands.................................................................................. 2

Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands......................................................................... 3

Chaparral Shrublands................................................................................. 3

Riparian Ecosystems .................................................................................. 3

Initial Research Emphasis .............................................................................. 4

Multiple Use Considerations ........................................................................... 5

Chapter 2

Beginning of Water Studies in the Central Arizona Highlands ................ 7

Gerald J. Gottfried, Leonard F. DeBano, and Malchus B. Baker, Jr.

Introduction ..................................................................................................... 7

Sierra Ancha Experimental Forest .................................................................. 7

Short-Term Studies..................................................................................... 7

Long-Term Studies ..................................................................................... 8

Cooperators .................................................................................................... 9

Results ............................................................................................................ 10

Implications ..................................................................................................... 11

Current Status ................................................................................................. 11

Chapter 3

Providing Water and Forage in the Salt-Verde River Basin...................... 13

Leonard F. DeBano, Malchus B. Baker, Jr., and Gerald J. Gottfried

Introduction ..................................................................................................... 13

Research and Management ........................................................................... 13

Three-Bar Experimental Watersheds ......................................................... 13

Brushy Basin Management Demonstration Area ....................................... 14

Cooperators .................................................................................................... 15

Results ............................................................................................................ 15

Three-Bar Watersheds ............................................................................... 15

Other Studies .............................................................................................. 16

Implications ..................................................................................................... 17

Current Status ................................................................................................. 18

History of Watershed Research in the

Central Arizona Highlands

Malchus B. Baker, Jr., Compiler
Chapter 4

Managing Chaparral in Yavapai County ..................................................... 19

Leonard F. DeBano, Malchus B. Baker, Jr., and Steven T. Overby

Introduction ..................................................................................................... 19

Experimental Watersheds ............................................................................... 19

Whitespar Watersheds ............................................................................... 19

Mingus Watersheds .................................................................................... 21

Battle Flat Pilot Application Program .............................................................. 22

Study Area .................................................................................................. 22

Project Planning, Inventories, and Research ............................................. 22

Cooperators .................................................................................................... 23

Results ............................................................................................................ 23

Whitespar Watersheds ............................................................................... 23

Mingus Watersheds .................................................................................... 24

Battle Flat Watershed ................................................................................. 24

Implications ..................................................................................................... 25

Current Status ................................................................................................. 25

Chapter 5

Interdisciplinary Land Use Along the Mogollon Rim................................. 27

Malchus B. Baker, Jr. and Peter F. Ffolliott

Introduction ..................................................................................................... 27

Beaver Creek Watershed ............................................................................... 27

Beaver Creek Project Design ......................................................................... 28

Pilot Watersheds ........................................................................................ 28

Responsibilities ........................................................................................... 28

Wild Bill Studies .............................................................................................. 29

Biosphere Reserve ......................................................................................... 29

Cooperators .................................................................................................... 29

Results ............................................................................................................ 30

Implications ..................................................................................................... 33

Current Status ................................................................................................. 33

Chapter 6

Creating a Basis for Watershed Management in

High Elevation Forests ................................................................................. 35

Gerald J. Gottfried, Leonard F. DeBano, and Peter F. Ffolliott

Introduction ..................................................................................................... 35

Experimental Watersheds ............................................................................... 35

Castle Creek ............................................................................................... 36

Willow Creek ............................................................................................... 36

Thomas Creek ............................................................................................ 36

Seven Springs ............................................................................................ 36

Research Design ............................................................................................ 36

Castle Creek ............................................................................................... 36

Willow Creek ............................................................................................... 37

Thomas Creek ............................................................................................ 38

Seven Springs ............................................................................................ 38

Snow Studies .................................................................................................. 38

Cooperators .................................................................................................... 39

Results ............................................................................................................ 39

Castle Creek ............................................................................................... 39

Willow Creek ............................................................................................... 39

ii
Thomas Creek ............................................................................................ 40

Seven Springs ............................................................................................ 40

Implications ..................................................................................................... 41

Current Status ................................................................................................. 41

Chapter 7

Changing Values of Riparian Ecosystems ................................................. 43

Malchus B. Baker, Jr., Leonard F. DeBano, and Peter F. Ffolliott

Introduction ..................................................................................................... 43

Riparian Ecosystems ...................................................................................... 43

Riparian-Watershed Linkages ........................................................................ 43

Changing Research Emphasis ....................................................................... 44

Early Emphasis ........................................................................................... 44

Water-Yield Improvement ........................................................................... 45

Current Research Emphasis ...................................................................... 45

Current Research Program ............................................................................. 45

Goals .......................................................................................................... 46

Results ........................................................................................................ 46

Implications ..................................................................................................... 46

Chapter 8

The Future...................................................................................................... 49

Peter F. Ffolliott

Introduction ..................................................................................................... 49

Long-Term Monitoring and Evaluation............................................................ 49

Other Uses of Databases ............................................................................... 49

Initiation of New Studies ................................................................................. 50

Implications ..................................................................................................... 50

Literature Cited ............................................................................................. 51

iii
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999 1

Central Arizona Highlands Ffolliott

Introduction

The Central Arizona Highlands are a distinct biogeographic, climatic, and physiographic province that forms

a diverse ecotone between the larger Colorado Plateau to

the north and the Sonoran Desert ecoregions to the south

(figure 1). The Highlands coincide approximately with the

Arizona Transition Zone identified by ecologists, geologists and others. This region is one of the last in the

Southwestern United States that was settled by European

immigrants.

With its unique and diverse landscape, the Central

Arizona Highlands has been the focus of a wide range of

research efforts designed to learn more about the effects of

natural and human induced disturbances on the functioning, processes, and components of the region’s ecosystems. Spearheaded by the USDA Forest Service and its

cooperators, this research continues to lead to a comprehensive understanding of the ecology of the region, and to

formulation of management guidelines that meet the increasing needs of people in the region and throughout the

Southwestern United States.

Climate

The Central Arizona Highlands, similar to other areas

in the state, are characterized by a cyclic climatic regime of

winter precipitation, spring drought, summer precipitation, and fall drought. Precipitation usually comes from

the northwest in the winter and from the southeast in the

summer. Winter precipitation, often snow at higher elevations, is associated with frontal storms moving into the

region from the Pacific Northwest. Surface thermal heating in the winter is less pronounced than in the summer;

upslope air movement is relatively slow; cloudiness is

common; and precipitation is usually widespread and

relatively low in intensity.

The major source of moisture for summer rains is the

Gulf of Mexico. This moisture moves into the Highlands

from the southeast, passes over highly heated and mountainous terrain, rises rapidly, cools, and condenses. Summer storms, primarily convectional, are often intense and

local rather than widespread. Summer rains typically

begin in early July, breaking the prolonged spring drought

and providing relief to the hot weather of June and July.

Winter precipitation is more variable than summer in

amount and time of occurrence from year-to-year. However, yearly variations in precipitation generally decrease

with increases in elevation. Spring drought is often more

detrimental to most plants and animals in the region than

fall drought, due to the higher temperatures and wind

conditions during the beginning of the growing season.

Vegetation Types

Vegetation types in the Central Arizona Highlands

include mixed conifer forests, ponderosa pine forests,

Chapter 1

Central Arizona Highlands

Peter F. Ffolliott

Figure 1. The Central Arizona Highlands.
2 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999

Ffolliott Central Arizona Highlands

mountain grasslands, pinyon-juniper woodlands, and

chaparral shrublands. The elevational and precipitation

regimes for these vegetation types are in figure 2. These

ecosystems contain: water, timber, forage, recreation opportunities, and habitats for a variety of big and small

game animals, rodents, and game and non-game birds. A

diversity of riparian ecosystems occur in, or adjacent to,

stream systems and their floodplains throughout the region.

Mixed Conifer Forests

Seven coniferous and one deciduous tree species in a

variety of mixtures characterize these high elevation forests. These species include Engelmann spruce (Picea

engelmannii), blue spruce (P. pungens), Douglas-fir

(Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca), white fir (Abies concolor),

corkbark fir (A. lasiocarpa var. arizonica), ponderosa pine

(Pinus ponderosa), southwestern white pine (P. strobiformis),

and quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides). Relatively little

herbaceous vegetation is produced under dense overstories in these forests. As a consequence, carrying capacities

for livestock and wildlife, which graze these forests in

summer, are low in relation to other vegetative types in the

region. Mixed conifer forests contain: water, timber, forage, recreation opportunities (camping, hunting, picnicking, hiking, and site-seeing), and habitats for a variety of

big and small game animals, rodents, and game and nongame birds.

Annual precipitation in high elevation mixed conifer

forests (above 9,500 ft) ranges from 30 to 45 inches and is

usually in excess of potential evapotranspiration (figure 2).

As a result, streams originating in this area are often

perennial. Streams originating in low elevation mixed

conifer forests (8,000 to 9,500 ft) are mostly intermittent.

Snowmelt runoff is a significant source of annual runoff.

Soils, which vary in origin, are medium to moderately

fine textured. Soil materials (regolith) are usually deep,

allowing deep water penetration and storage. Mixed conifer forests are found over a range of slope and aspect

combinations, although slope steepness is generally greater

than in other vegetative types.

Ponderosa Pine Forests

Most of the ponderosa pine forests are at elevations

between 5,500 and 8,500 ft on the Mogollon Plateau (figure

2). Although ponderosa pine trees dominate these forests,

they often contain Douglas-fir, quaking aspen, and southwestern white pine at high elevations, and alligator juniper (Juniper deppeana) and Colorado pinyon (Pinus edulis)

and its singleleaf form (P. edulis var. fallax) at low elevations. Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii) is scattered throughout. Grasses and grasslike plants, forbs, and half-shrubs

grow beneath ponderosa pine overstories. Ponderosa pine

forests are a valuable source of water, timber, forage, and

recreation. Carrying capacities for livestock and wildlife,

which graze these rangelands from late spring to early

autumn, are relatively high. A diversity of wildlife species

use these forests for cover and food, both seasonally and

yearlong.

High transpiration rates and soil moisture deficiencies

can curtail the growth of plants in ponderosa pine forests,

which receive 20 to 30 inches of annual precipitation

(figure 2). High elevation forests tend to have greater

frequencies and amounts of precipitation than low elevation forests; although this can be altered by storm patterns

and topography. Usually only a small amount of summer

rain is converted into streamflow. Winter precipitation is

the major source of runoff.

Basalt and cinders are the most common parent materials (57%), although sedimentary soils (43%) are also found

throughout these forests. Topography is characterized by

extensive flat, rolling mesas, intermixed with steeper,

mountainous terrain, and a diversity of slope and aspect

combinations.

Mountain Grasslands

Mountain grasslands, small in aggregate area, are scattered throughout the mixed conifer and ponderosa pine

forests. While tree species are not usually part of these

communities, isolated trees or shrubs occur through invasion from the adjacent forests on cinder cones and elevated

places within the grasslands. The forest edge, where the 2

habitats come together, is a well delineated ecotone. Characteristic grasses are timothy (Phleum pratense), Arizona

Figure 2. Precipitation-elevation relationships for vegetation

types in the Central Arizona Highlands.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999 3

Central Arizona Highlands Ffolliott

fescue (Festuca arizonica), mountain muhly (Muhlenbergia

montana), pine dropseed (Blepharoneuron triholepis), black

dropseed (Sporobolus interreptus), mountain brome (Bromus

marginatus), and the introduced Kentucky bluegrass (Poa

pratensis). Many of these species have high forage value for

livestock and wildlife species. Recreation is a valuable

resource of these high elevation grasslands because they

are intermixed with mixed conifer and ponderosa pine

forests.

Annual precipitation ranges from 30 to 45 inches, with

almost 50% occurring during the summer season. The

general weather patterns of mountain grasslands coincide

with those in the adjacent coniferous forests.

Soils are usually fine-textured alluviums that are frequently and easily compacted and often have poor drainage. Mountain grasslands occupy relatively level terrain

compared to most of the adjacent forests.

Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands

These coniferous woodlands are below the ponderosa

pine forests, at elevations between 4,500 to 7,500 ft (figure

2). Colorado pinyon is found throughout, with singleleaf

pinyon (Pinus monophylla) occurring on limited areas.

North of the Mogollon Rim, Utah juniper (Juniperus

osteosperma), Rocky Mountain juniper (J. scopulorum), and

one-seed juniper (J. monosperma) are intermixed with pinyon, while alligator juniper and Utah juniper are south of

the Mogollon Rim. Annual and perennial grasses and

grass-like plants, forbs, half-shrubs, and shrubs abound

beneath the woodland overstories. Recreation, a resource

of these woodland areas, is limited by summer temperatures and the relative lack of water. These woodlands are

also an important source of firewood. Livestock, which

spend their summers at higher elevations, graze in the

woodlands in winter. These woodlands are also seasonal

and yearlong habitats for many wildlife species.

There are wide fluctuations in weather patterns throughout the pinyon-juniper woodlands. Annual precipitation

varies from 12 to 24 inches. Winter precipitation is usually

rain with occasional snow. Evapotranspiration rates are

relatively high in the growing season. Only during the

coldest months of December through February is precipitation greater than the evapotranspiration rates.

Soils are derived from basalt, limestone, and sandstone

parent material. Pinyon-juniper woodlands generally occupy extensive areas of gently rolling topography. With

the exception of steep canyon walls, few slopes exceed

20% to 25%. All aspects are well represented.

Chaparral Shrublands

Chaparral shrublands occur on rough, discontinuous,

mountainous, terrain south of the Mogollon Rim. Chaparral stands consist of a heterogenous species mix in many

locations, but often only 1 or 2 species dominate. Shrub

live oak (Quercus turbinella) is the most prevalent species,

while true (Cercocarpus montanus) and birchleaf

mountainmahogany (C. betuloides), Pringle (Arctostaphylos

pringlei) and pointleaf (A. pungens) manzanita, yellowleaf

(Garrya flavescens), hollyleaf buckthorn (Rhamnus crocea),

desert ceanothus (Ceanothus greggii), and other shrub species are included in the chaparral mixture of shrub species.

Annual and perennial grasses, forbs, and half-shrubs are

present, particularly where the overstory canopy is open

or only moderately dense. Although the recreational value

(hiking, camping, and hunting) of chaparral is lower than

that of higher elevation vegetation types, its close proximity to major population centers provide it with an advantage. Research has also determine that chaparral areas are

major sources of water if vegetation control is exercised.

Chaparral rangelands are often grazed year-long by livestock, because evergreen plants common to the shrublands

provide a continuous forage supply. A variety of wildlife

species are found in chaparral shrublands, with comparatively high populations often concentrated in fringe areas.

Average annual precipitation varies from about 15

inches at the lower limits of the chaparral shrublands

(3,000 ft) to over 25 inches at the higher elevations (6,000 ft)

(figure 2). Approximately 60% of the annual precipitation

occurs as rain or snow between November and April. The

summer rains fall in July and August, which are the

wettest months of the year. Annual potential evapotranspiration rates can approach 35 inches (Hibbert 1979).

Chaparral soils are typically coarse-textured, deep, and

poorly developed. Granites occur on more than half of the

shrublands. The topography is characterized by mountain

ranges dissected by steep-walled gorges and canyons.

Slopes of 60% to 70% are common. All aspects are represented.

Riparian Ecosystems

Three riparian ecosystems, delineated by elevation, are

recognized in the Central Arizona Highlands. Riparian

vegetation that occurs along the flood plain of stream

channels are typically composed of herbaceous species of

Carex, Eleocharis, Juncus, and Scirpus and produce the

characteristic dark green edge along the channel systems.

Woody plants, including saltcedar (Tamarix pentandra),

sycamore (Platanus wrightii), and cottonwood (Populus

fremontii), that are often associated with riparian ecosystems are typically found higher up on the terraces next to

the flood plains.

In ecosystems below 3,500 ft, many of the ephemeral

streams have broad alluvial floodplains that can support

herbaceous plants and terraced bottoms that often support high densities of deep-rooted trees including saltcedar,
4 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999

Ffolliott Central Arizona Highlands

sycamore, cottonwood, palo verdes (Cercidium spp.), and

other species.

Riparian ecosystems between 3,500 and 7,000 ft contain

the greatest number of plant species and the greatest

canopy cover. Besides the characteristic herbaceous plants

along the flood plain, cottonwood, willow (Salix spp.),

sycamore, ash (Fraxinus velutina), and walnut (Juglans

major) are typically found on the terraces, with 3 or 4

species often occurring together.

Above 7,000 ft, herbaceous species of Carex, Eleocharis,

Juncus, and Scirpus predominate along the edge of the

stream channels. Willow, chokecherry (Prunus virens),

boxelder (Acer negundo), Rocky Mountain maple (A.

glabrum), and various coniferous tree species occupy the

higher terraces.

Because of the abundance of water, plants, and animals,

riparian areas provide valuable recreation opportunities

as well as forage for livestock and wildlife in an otherwise

arid environment. Riparian ecosystems are prime habitats

for many game and non-game species of wildlife and fish.

Collectively, climatic characteristics of riparian ecosystems exhibit a wide range of conditions due to large

elevational differences and distributions of associated

mountain ranges and highlands. The key characteristic of

the riparian system is the availability of water throughout

the year or at least during the growing season.

Soils at the higher elevations generally consist of consolidated or unconsolidated alluvial sediments from parent materials of the surrounding uplands. Soil depths vary

in riparian ecosystems, depending upon the stream gradient, topographic setting, and parent materials. Soils on the

flood plains at lower elevations consist of recent depositions, tend to be uniform within horizontal strata, and

exhibit little development. The alluvial soils in all ecosystems are subject to frequent flooding and, as a consequence, are characterized by a range of textures. Riparian

ecosystems vary from narrow, deep, steep-walled canyon

bottoms, to intermediately exposed sites with at least one

terrace or bench, to exposed, wide valleys with meandering streams.

Initial Research Emphasis

One situation that conditioned and circumscribed

people’s behavior throughout Arizona and the Southwestern United States was the perennial shortage of water. The expected but variable supplies of surface water

have long since been appropriated. Electricity and electric

pumps enabled access to previously unavailable groundwater sources, while the favorable climate resulted in an

increase in agriculture and urbanization. As a consequence,

nearly all of the increased water supplied to this rapidly

growing area was pumped from underground basins.

This has caused a steady decline in regional water tables,

which, in turn, has affected local economies. Many acres

that formerly supported agriculture have been abandoned,

converted to housing developments, or switched to an

alternate source of water, such as the Central Arizona

Project (CAP) water that became available in the late

1980s. However, the water situation, especially in the

heavily populated areas, has had little affect on people’s

behavior, except for the farmer (Wilson 1997). Within any

user group (household, municipal, commercial, industrial, or agriculture), the willingness to pay for water

varies significantly depending on the benefits obtained

from its use. For example, as the price of water increases,

the quantity demanded by various users changes because

of differences in their ability to purchase water. Household users have the highest willingness to pay and one of

the lowest quantities demanded (about 2 to 3 acre-ft/

acre/yr assuming 4 families per acre). On the other hand,

the willingness of farmers to pay is far less than any other

user. However, their crops require much more water (5

and 6 acre-ft/acre/yr to grow cotton and alfalfa, respectively). To put this in perspective, the native desert around

Phoenix uses about 0.5 acre-ft/acre/yr. When the cost of

water sufficiently reduces the farmer’s profit, he is forced

to stop farming and either abandons or sells his land to a

developer who provides what many homeowners desire:

artificial lakes, golf courses, pools, and green lawns. Conversion of water previously used for agriculture (5 or 6

times that used by a household), therefore, has the potential to sustain growth of municipalities and industry for

some years into the future.

Barring conversion of saline water, additional importation of outside water, advancements in rainmaking, and

rigorous conservation measures, regional residents must

rely on the variable surface and diminishing groundwater

supplies. In response to this situation, the initial direction

of research in the Central Arizona Highlands focused on

investigating the potentials for increasing water yields

from forests, woodlands, and shrublands of the region

through vegetative manipulations (Barr 1956). Numerous

watersheds were instrumented with various climatic and

hydrologic measuring equipment by the USDA Forest

Service and its cooperators in the late 1950s and throughout the 1960s to study the effects of vegetative clearings,

thinnings, and conversions on water yields under controlled, experimental conditions.

These watersheds formed a research network, called

the Arizona Watershed Program, of public agencies and

private groups interested in obtaining more water for

future economic growth while maintaining the state’s

watersheds in good condition. This collaborative program

was the focus of watershed research in the Central Arizona

Highlands through the 1960s, 1970s, and into the early

1980s.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999 5

Central Arizona Highlands Ffolliott

Multiple Use Considerations

Vegetative manipulations that were tested on the instrumented watersheds not only influenced the water

yield, but also affected all of the other natural resource

products and uses of the forests, woodlands, and

shrublands in the region. Therefore, the USDA Forest

Service and its cooperators enlarged the research program

to evaluate the effects of vegetative manipulations on the

array of multiple uses contained in the ecosystems studied. Results from this research showed that vegetation can

often be managed to increase water yields while providing

timber, forage, wildlife, and amenity values in some optimal combination. This finding was not surprising, as

many of the vegetation management practices studied for

their water-yield improvement possibilities are common

in principle and application to management programs

that are often implemented to benefit other natural resources.

Much of the research in the Central Arizona Highlands

has centered on the Sierra Ancha Experimental Forest

above Roosevelt Lake; the Three-Bar Wildlife Area west of

Roosevelt Lake; the Whitespar, Mingus Mountain, and

Battle Flat watersheds in the vicinity of Prescott; the Beaver Creek watersheds along the Mogollon Rim south of

Flagstaff; and Castle Creek, Willow Creek, Thomas Creek,

and Seven Springs watersheds in the White Mountains of

eastern Arizona. Descriptions of research designs, characteristics of research sites, cooperators involved, results

and implications, and the current status of research activities on these and associated sites are presented in the

following chapters. The history of research efforts in the

riparian ecosystems of the Central Arizona Highlands is

also presented.
6 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999

Ffolliott Central Arizona Highlands
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999 7

Beginning of Water Studies in the Central Arizona Highlands Gottfried, DeBano, and Baker

Introduction

Water has been recognized as an important resource in

central Arizona and has affected populations occupying

the Salt River Valley for centuries. Water related activities

have been documented since about 200 before the common era, when Hohokam Indians settled the Valley and

constructed canals to irrigate their fields. Europeans began to settle in the Phoenix area in the late 1860s and

depended on irrigation water from the Salt River for

agriculture. However, water supplies fluctuated greatly

because the river often flooded in winter and dried up in

the summer. There were no impoundments to store water

for the dry seasons. In 1904, the Salt River Water Users’

Association signed an agreement with the United States

government under the National Reclamation Act to build

a dam on the Salt River below the confluence with Tonto

Creek. The Roosevelt Dam, the first of 6 dams on the Salt

and Verde Rivers, was completed in 1911.

In the early 20th century, watershed managers became

concerned that erosion on the adjacent and headwater

watersheds of the Salt River would move sediment into

the newly constructed Roosevelt Reservoir and decrease

its capacity. Measurements indicated that 101,000 acre-ft

of coarse granitic sediments had accumulated behind

Roosevelt Dam between 1909 and 1925. The Summit Plots,

located between Globe, Arizona and Lake Roosevelt, were

established in 1925 by the USDA Forest Service 15 mi

upstream from Roosevelt Dam to study the effects of

vegetation recovery, mechanical stabilization, and cover

changes on stormflow and sediment yields from the lower

chaparral zone (Rich 1961).

Shortly after establishing the Summit Plots, the USDA

Forest Service dedicated a research area known as the

Parker Creek Experimental Forest in May 1932 (USDA

Forest Service 1932). This experimental forest was enlarged and renamed the Sierra Ancha Experimental Forest

in April 1938 (figure 3). The hydrologic and ecological

experiments that were conducted on the Sierra Ancha

Experimental Forest are discussed below.

Other research studies began in the 1950s with establishment of the Three Bar watersheds in chaparral vegetation on the west side of the Tonto Basin (Hibbert et al. 1974,

DeBano et al., Chapter 3 of this publication). The initial

research objective of the Southwestern Forest and Range

Experiment Station (currently the Rocky Mountain Research Station) was to develop a program to study the

interrelated influences of climate and soils, topography

and geology, and the nature, condition, and use of watershed vegetation on streamflow, soil erosion, floods, and

sedimentation.

Sierra Ancha

Experimental Forest

The research mission on the Sierra Ancha Experimental

Forest was to study the effects of grazed and ungrazed

Chapter 2

Beginning of Water Studies in the Central Arizona Highlands

Gerald J. Gottfried, Leonard F. DeBano, and Malchus B. Baker, Jr.

Figure 3. Sierra Ancha Experimental Forest in the Central

Arizona Highlands.
8 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999

Gottfried, DeBano, and Baker Beginning of Water Studies in the Central Arizona Highlands

vegetation on water yields and to learn more about water

cycle relationships within the diverse vegetation zones

extending from the higher elevation mixed conifer forests

to the semi-desert grass type (USDA Forest Service 1938).

The area of the enlarged experimental forest is about

13,500 acre (USDA Forest Service 1953, Pase and Johnson

1968). The experimental forest is within the Tonto National Forest and is located on the western slope of the

Sierra Ancha Mountains about 10 miles from Roosevelt

Dam. The hydrologic installations were constructed by

the Civilian Conservation Corps during the 1930s.

The experimental forest lies along the crest of the Sierra

Ancha Mountain range and includes areas between 3,550

to 7,725 ft in elevation. Geology of the range is complex

with sedimentary, metamorphic, and igneous rocks uplifted in a dome-like structure (Pase and Johnson 1968).

Thick formations of Dripping Springs quartzite, dissected

by deep canyons or with intrusions of diabase and basalt

plugs and sills, are common in much of the forest. Troy

sandstone occurs at higher elevations (Rich et al. 1961,

Pase and Johnson 1968).

Precipitation averages about 33 inches at the higher

elevations at Workman Creek, 25 inches at the intermediate elevations (4,800 to 6,000 ft) surrounding the headquarters, and 16 inches at the lower elevations near the

Base Rock lysimeters (Pase and Johnson 1968). Pase and

Johnson (1968) identified 8 vegetation types including,

from high to low elevations: mixed conifer, mountain

park, ponderosa pine, chaparral, oak woodland, desert

grassland, desert shrub, and riparian. Fifty-seven percent

of the experimental forest is covered by chaparral shrubs.

The habitat relations of the vertebrate fauna have been

described by Reynolds and Johnson (1964).

The Sierra Ancha Experimental Forest provides a unique

research environment for conducting short- and longterm studies about basic hydrologic and ecological relationships in vegetation types ranging from mixed conifer

forests to lower elevation desert shrub-grassland communities.

Short-Term Studies

Short-term studies were used to investigate hydrological and ecological relationships of different plant communities on the Sierra Ancha Experimental Forest. The results of these studies provided the basis for establishing

long-term watershed studies to fully evaluate water-yield

responses to brush control in chaparral (Natural Drainages), and to timber harvesting in mixed conifer forests

(Workman Creek). Studies were designed to test erosion control and revegetation techniques (Hendricks

1936, 1942, Hendricks and Grabe 1939). Cooperrider

and Hendricks (1940) and Hendricks and Johnson (1944)

studied the effects of grazing and wildfire on soil erosion. Sykes (1938) and Cooperrider et al. (1945) evaluated winter hydrographs for Parker Creek and the Salt

River.

The effect of consumptive use of range vegetation on

soil and water resources was determined by using small

lysimeters. A lysimeter is an instrument for measuring the

amount of water percolating through soils and for determining materials dissolved by the water. Evaporation

from bare soil was compared to evapotranspiration from

perennial grasses and shrubs (Rich 1951).

Fletcher and Rich (1955) developed a method of classifying Southwestern watersheds on the basis of precipitation, potential evapotranspiration, and potential

water yields. Most water yields resulted from water

stored in the soil during the winter when evapotranspiration is low. High-water yielding areas should be managed

for water augmentation, while intermediate and lowwater yielding areas should be managed to reduce

erosion.

Early ecological studies were concerned with characteristics of the Arizona white and Emory oak trees (Bliss

1937, Pase 1969, Pond 1971). Little (1938, 1939) conducted

several botanical studies. The forest floor was recognized

as playing an important role providing soil protection,

increasing water holding capacity and availability to vegetation, and enhancing plant germination (Hendricks 1941,

Pase 1972, Garcia and Pase 1967, Pase and Glendening

1965).

Watershed assessments suggested that streamflow was

related to the interaction of precipitation and to the different native vegetation types occupying the upland watersheds of the Salt River Basin (Cooperrider and Sykes 1938,

Cooperrider and Hendricks 1940, and Cooperrider et al.

1945). This finding encouraged further research on techniques of vegetation manipulations and the hydrologic

responses to these manipulations. Of particular interest

was development of a method for controlling deep-rooted

brush species, and replacing them with shallower-rooted

grass plants.

Early studies tested herbicides for shrub control (Cable

1957, Lillie et al. 1964), while other studies evaluated the

combined use of herbicide and prescribed burning for

controlling vegetation (Lindenmuth and Glendening 1962,

Lillie et al. 1964, Pase and Glendening 1965, Pase and

Lindenmuth 1971).

Short-term studies were also conducted at Workman

Creek to supplement information gained from watershed-level studies. Investigations were conducted on

the control of New Mexico locust and Gambel oak

(Gottfried 1980, Davis and Gottfried 1983). The aboveand below-ground biomass of locust was also related to

water yield (Gottfried and DeBano 1984). Another concern of managers was the potential impact of pocket

gophers on ponderosa pine seedling survival (Gottfried

and Patton 1984).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999 9

Beginning of Water Studies in the Central Arizona Highlands Gottfried, DeBano, and Baker

Long-Term Studies

Important study areas dedicated to long-term research

were located at the Base Rock lysimeters, Natural Drainages watersheds, and the Workman Creek watersheds.

Base Rock Lysimeters

Hydrologic research in the 1930s used lysimetry to

obtain quantitative information on the water balance for

different vegetation types because it offered a degree of

experimental control that was not attainable using experimental runoff plots or small and large watersheds (Martin

and Rich 1948). However, limitations associated with the

use of lysimeters were recognized. Typical limitations

included difficulty making the lysimeters large enough to

reduce border effects and the disruption or destruction of

the natural soil profile. The lysimeters constructed on the

experimental forest mitigated these limitations by using

large, undisturbed soil blocks overlying bedrock and,

therefore, were named the “Base Rock Lysimeters.” Three

lysimeters (18 ft wide and 50 ft long) with undisturbed soil

profiles were established on an area supporting a deteriorated stand of perennial grasses, snakeweed (Gutlerrezia

sarothrae), and yerba-santa (Eriodictyon angustifloium) (<2%

total plant cover). Revegetation treatments including seeding, fertilizing, and watering the lysimeters were carried

out during 1934 and 1935. By 1942, the cover had increased to about 8% and consisted of mainly sprangletop

(Leptochioa dubia), sideoats (Bouteloua curtipendula), and

hairy grama (B. hirsuta). Three grazing treatments applied

between 1942 and 1948 were:

• Overgrazing with sheep at the rate of 2 mature

ewes for 4 days annually, usually in October.

• More moderate grazing at half the above rate.

• Ungrazed.

Natural Drainages Watersheds

Four chaparral-covered watersheds, called the Natural

Drainages, were established on the Sierra Ancha Experimental Forest in 1934. These watersheds ranged in size

from 9 to 19 acres. Precipitation and runoff were measured. The upper slopes of the watersheds contain diabase

soils, which cover between 28% and 54% of the watersheds. Soils on the lower slopes are derived from quartzite. The original vegetation on these watersheds was sparse,

with low density chaparral stands on southerly exposures.

Before treatment, crown cover of the chaparral shrubs

was 20% to 25% compared with covers 2-to-3 times this

density on the Whitespar and Three Bar watersheds

(DeBano et al., Chapters 3 and 4 of this publication). Shrub

live oak was the most abundant shrub. Livestock grazing

in the area started about 1880 and continued until 1934,

when experimental watersheds were established on the

Sierra Ancha Experimental Forest.

The Natural Drainages watersheds were one of the first

watershed-level studies used in the Central Arizona Highlands to evaluate the effect of grazing on vegetative change

and on production of streamflow and sediment. Two of

the four watersheds were grazed by cattle and horses for

short periods during the fall and spring beginning in 1939,

and 2 watersheds were the controls (Rich and Reynolds

1963). Herbaceous vegetation was quantified using metersquare quadrants. Streamflow was determined using 90o

V-notch weirs and sediment was measured in weir basins

at the bottom of each of the 4 watersheds. These studies

were terminated in 1952 when it was determined that the

intensities of grazing used in the studies had no effect on

total water yield or sediment trapped in the weir ponds

(Rich and Reynolds 1963).

A growing interest in augmenting streamflow in the

Central Arizona Highlands by manipulating native vegetation developed among water users in central Arizona

during the 1950s. As a result, many of the research efforts

during this period were initiated to evaluate the feasibility

of increasing streamflow. A second experiment designed

to determine the effects of chaparral cover manipulations

on streamflow was started on the Natural Drainages

watersheds in 1954 (Ingebo and Hibbert 1974). Chaparral

cover was suppressed on 2 watersheds by treating the

shrubs with herbicides, while the other 2 watersheds were

maintained as control areas.

Workman Creek Watersheds

A major project was conducted on the Workman Creek

watersheds to evaluate the hydrology of higher elevation

mixed conifer forests and to determine the changes in

streamflow and sedimentation from manipulating the

forest vegetation. The 3 watersheds on Workman Creek

are North Fork, Middle Fork, and South Fork. The treatments

evaluated were selected to cover the range of water yields

possible through manipulation or removal of the forest

vegetation (Rich and Gottfried 1976). These treatments

were not intended to be examples or recommendations for

actual management applications, but instead they were

used to obtain basic hydrologic information on streamflow

responses to vegetation manipulations.

North Fork.—Studies on the North Fork of Workman

Creek were designed to evaluate streamflow responses to

clearing the forest cover in stages, starting on the wettest

and progressing to the driest sites. The first treatment was

implemented in 1953.

Riparian trees, mainly Arizona alder (Alnus oblongifolia)

and bigtooth maple (Acer grandidentatum), growing adjacent to streams, springs, and seeps, were cut and their

stumps were treated with herbicides to prevent sprouting.

The cut removed 0.6% of the total basal area.
10 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999

Gottfried, DeBano, and Baker Beginning of Water Studies in the Central Arizona Highlands

The next treatment on North Fork converted the moist

site forest vegetation, mostly Douglas-fir and white fir, to

grass on about 80 acres. Larger trees were harvested, and

smaller and unmerchantable material was windrowed

and burned. The cleared areas were seeded with grass

species.

The final treatment on North Fork removed the adjacent dry-site forest of ponderosa pine trees and converted

the site to grass (figure 4).

South Fork.—Treatments on South Fork of Workman

Creek were designed to test the current forest management prescriptions of 1953. The watershed was harvested

according to a standard single-tree selection prescription

starting in June 1953.

The objective of the second treatment on South Fork

was to convert mixed conifers to a pure ponderosa pine

stand by removing the other conifer species, and to maintain the stand at a density of 40 ft2

/acre. The hypothesis

tested was that this forest density should optimize both

timber and water production.

Middle Fork.—Middle Fork watershed was left untreated so it could be used as a control for quantifying

changes in streamflow after treating North Fork and South

Fork watersheds.

Cooperators

A number of organizations cooperated with the Rocky

Mountain Station’s research effort on the Sierra Ancha

Experimental Forest. The Salt River Water Users’ Association provided financial support for the treatments on

Workman Creek. The Tonto National Forest assisted with

implementation of these forest management treatments.

Faculty and students from Arizona State University and

the University of Arizona conducted collaborative experiments on Sierra Ancha. University-sponsored research

has increased in recent years.

Results

A status-of-knowledge publication presented the results of the water yield improvement experiments and

other research conducted on the watersheds through the

early 1970s (Rich and Thompson 1974). This publication

reported on the opportunities for increasing water yields

and other multiple use values in mixed conifer forests.

Many of these results were later refined, expanded upon,

and subsequently reported on in other publications. A

brief discussion of the results is presented below; details

are in the cited literature.

Conclusions from the Base Rock Lysimeters showed

that (Martin and Rich 1948):

• The major portion of annual water yield occurred

during winter as sub-surface flow from longduration, low-intensity storms.

• Most surface run-off and soil erosion occurred

during summer storm events from short-duration, high-intensity thunderstorms.

• Overgrazing caused increases in summer surface

runoff and erosion and decreases in areal infiltration capacities, while the amount of winter water

Figure 4. Overstory manipulations on the

North Fork of Workman Creek Watershed.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999 11

Beginning of Water Studies in the Central Arizona Highlands Gottfried, DeBano, and Baker

percolation was independent of the grazing treatment. Soil losses during summer storms increased

from 60 to 307 tons/mi2

 on heavily grazed plots

compared to theungrazed controls. In contrast,

winter soil losses only increased from 15 to 68

tons/mi2 on moderately grazed plots.

• Results from late summer frontal-type storms

were intermediate between those from summer

and winter storm events.

Overall, major amounts of sediment-free water come

from areas with good grass cover and soil erosion is

greatest where vegetation densities have been decreased,

as by overgrazing.

Results from herbicide studies on the Natural Drainages watersheds indicated:

• There was 3-times more grass, forb, and halfshrub production on the treated areas having

quartzite soils than on similar soils on the control

areas (Pond 1964). No differences in plant production were observed on the diabase soils.

• An increase of 22% in streamflow occurred on

treated areas (Ingebo and Hibbert 1974). Pretreatment average annual streamflow was 1.65 inches.

• The treated areas showed a 30% increase in quickflows, a 32% increase in delayed flows (the rising

and falling stages of a streamflow hydrograph),

and a 26% increase in peak flows (Alberhasky

1983).

• A decline of 72% in annual sedimentation was

attributed to the increase in grass cover on the

treated areas.

Streamflow increases from vegetation manipulations

were attributed to lower evapotranspiration demands by

the replacement grass cover. The streamflow increases

from the Natural Drainages watersheds were low compared to other chaparral areas (Hibbert et al. 1974); this

was related to the initial low density of shrubs and to the

southeastern exposure of the area that results in relatively

high energy inputs for evapotranspiration.

Results from the 3-stage removal of the forest overstory

on North Fork of Workman Creek indicated:

• Streamflow increased from both the moist- and

dry-site treatments, but not from the riparian areas.

• Evaluation of the treatments in 1979, after 13

years of data collection, showed that the increases

had remained stable (Hibbert and Gottfried 1987).

• Winter stormflows responded less to treatment

than summer stormflows, although the actual

volumes of winter runoff were larger (Hibbert

and Gottfried 1987).

• Sediment yield increases were low (Rich et al.

1961). Most sediments moved during high-volume stormflows, and most material originated

from the channels and main logging road (Rich

and Gottfried 1976).

Results from thinning the forest overstory to 40 ft2

/acre

on South Fork of Workman Creek showed:

• Water yield increases, which remained constant

for 13 years (Hibbert and Gottfried 1987). Severe

forest overstory removal (to 40 ft2/acre) to encourage growth of the ponderosa pine forests is

not recommended for present day management.

An adverse reaction of the public would likely be

created because of the esthetic of such a treatment

and because of the perceived influence such a

thinning would have on other components of the

ecosystem.

• There was little effect on soil movement (Rich

1962, Rich and Gottfried 1976). A wildfire on the

upper area of South Fork produced the greatest

amount of soil disturbance.

Implications

Research on the Sierra Ancha Experimental Forest has

contributed to the knowledge base of hydrology, watershed management, and basic ecology for over 65 years.

These studies provided:

• Guidance for subsequent watershed research programs in chaparral and mixed conifer forested

ecosystems.

• Information on water yield responses to vegetation manipulation that is useful to land managers

and researchers.

• Research findings that continue to be implemented

when designing multiple resource ecosystem management treatments.

Current Status

Most of the hydrologic measurements on the Sierra

Ancha Experimental Forest were discontinued in the late

1970s and 1980s in response to a shift in USDA Forest

Service research priorities. Currently, only the Upper

Parker Creek weir, the Sierra Ancha weather station, and

the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service snow
12 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999

Gottfried, DeBano, and Baker Beginning of Water Studies in the Central Arizona Highlands

measuring station are active. Ecologically-oriented research continues to a limited extent.

Arizona State University entered into a lease agreement with the Forest Service in 1983 to use the Parker

Creek Headquarters complex. The experimental forest

and surrounding Tonto National Forest continues to be

used for faculty and graduate student ecological research

and summer field classes. The Parker Creek complex is

used for Forest Service, university, and conservation group

meetings. The Sierra Ancha Experimental Forest has a

tradition of natural ecosystem ecology and management

research and the potential for future contributions.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999 13

Providing Water and Forage in the Salt-Verde River Basin DeBano, Baker, and Gottfried

Chapter 3

Providing Water and Forage in the Salt-Verde River Basin

Leonard F. DeBano, Malchus B. Baker, Jr., and Gerald J. Gottfried

Introduction

The Salt-Verde River Basin, covering about 8.4 million

acres of the Central Arizona Highlands, supplies most of

the water for the Salt River Valley in addition to providing

other multiple use values. Mixed conifer, ponderosa pine

forests, and a portion of the pinyon-juniper woodlands

predominantly occupy the higher-elevation watersheds.

Chaparral shrublands occupy a wide range of elevations,

experience varied annual precipitation amounts, and overlap major portions of the pinyon-juniper woodland and

semidesert grassland types (figure 2). Management of

these shrublands for increased forage and water production, and reduction in sediment production and its subsequent transport into Roosevelt Reservoir, has been of

major interest to people in the Central Arizona Highlands

and Salt-Verde River valley since the early 1900s.

Research And Management

The importance of the chaparral shrublands resulted in

the establishment of research and management programs

that used permanent study areas devoted to long-term

demonstration and monitoring. Research watersheds were

located on the Three-Bar Wildlife Area (figure 5) and the

Natural Drainages watersheds on the Sierra Ancha Experimental Forest (see Gottfried et al. Chapter 2 of this

publication). A demonstration management project was

also established in the 1960s at Brushy Basin, located

about 10 mi west of the Three-Bar experimental watersheds, to test the effectiveness of chaparral control methods.

Potential erosion and sedimentation problems were a

major concern in the Salt-Verde River Basin because of the

possibly that eroded materials from hillslopes would fill

Roosevelt Reservoir (Rich 1961). Therefore, management

of plant cover on upland watersheds was important.

There was also interest in increasing forage production for

livestock and wildlife, while maintaining wildlife habitat

diversity.

Three-Bar Experimental Watersheds

The research program on the Three-Bar watersheds

represented the first major experimental watershed program in Arizona chaparral shrublands. Four watersheds

(A, B, C, and D) were established and instrumented in

1956 on the Three-Bar Wildlife Area west of Lake Roosevelt.

This area supported dense chaparral stands and had not

been grazed since 1947. All of the watersheds had been

burned by a wildfire in June of 1959. After the burn,

watershed A was abandoned and watershed F was instrumented in June 1963 to replace it. All 4 watersheds (B, C,

D, and F) are north-facing, at elevations of 3,350 to 4,250 ft,

on soils derived from granite, with the upper slopes

exceeding 70%.

Figure 5. Three-Bar Watersheds in the Central Arizona

Highlands.
14 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999

DeBano, Baker, and Gottfried Providing Water and Forage in the Salt-Verde River Basin

Previous studies on chaparral had been conducted at

the Natural Drainages watersheds on the Sierra Ancha

Experimental Forest (see Gottfried et al. Chapter 2 of this

publication). However, the Three-Bar location, provided

a better opportunity for evaluating the maximum water

yields that might be expected from shrub-to-grass conversions because of its higher yearly precipitation and dense

chaparral cover (>60% crown cover). The dense stands

were highly productive areas. Experimental watersheds

were subsequently established in medium density chaparral (40% to 60%) on the Whitespar watersheds and in

low density cover (<40%) on the Mingus watersheds.

These watersheds are in north-central Arizona (Yavapai

County) in the Central Arizona Highlands (DeBano et al.

Chapter 4 of this publication). The range of densities at

Three-Bar, Whitespar, and Mingus were representative of

most of Arizona’s chaparral shrublands and allowed researchers and managers to better identify chaparral

shrublands that could be economically treated to obtain

increased streamflow.

Research Objectives

The Three-Bar Experimental Watersheds were established to determine the effects of chaparral shrub-to-grass

conversions on increasing water yields (figure 6), on dissolved chemical constituents and sediment, and of fire

and herbicide applications in controlling shrub re-growth.

While these research objectives provided a framework

for treatment of Watersheds B, C, and F, other research

agendas evolved as the understanding of chaparral response to treatment increased. Foliar sprays, initially used

to control chaparral shrubs, inadequately eliminated all of

the shrubs and required repeated application (Hibbert et

al. 1974). Because of this inadequacy, soil-applied herbicides in subsequent treatments of Watersheds C, B, and F

were tested. Above-normal nitrate levels were discovered

in stream water as a result of earlier herbicide treatment

on Watershed C. These high nitrate responses led to

studies on water quality and nitrogen losses as a result of

shrub treatments.

The treatment pattern changed from treating entire

watershed areas (Watersheds C and F) to selectively controlling shrub plants in a mosaic pattern to provide protection from erosion on steep slopes, better habitat diversity

for wildlife, and maintenance of increased streamflow

(Watershed B). The mosaic treatment pattern of chaparral

control was ultimately tested on the Whitespar watersheds (DeBano et al. Chapter 4 of this publication).

Brushy Basin Management

Demonstration Area

Brushy Basin (8,100 acres) was the site of a chaparral

management project initiated by the Tonto National forest

on the west slope of Mazatal Divide, 2 mi northwest of

Four Peaks (figure 7). The objective was to demonstrate

how fire and herbicides could be used to control chaparral

shrubs and to improve forage resources (Courtney and

Baldwin 1964). The treatment consisted of a prescribed

burn followed by a maintenance plan. The maintenance

plan included continuous and complete herbicide treatment of the highest water-yielding sites with the exception of a hardwood-riparian area, occasional spraying

Figure 6. A shrub-to-grass conversion

water yield improvement treatment on

a Three-Bar Experimental Watershed.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999 15

Providing Water and Forage in the Salt-Verde River Basin DeBano, Baker, and Gottfried

with foliar herbicides to lower the density of brush on the

moderate water-yielding sites, and retention of cover on

steep and rocky sites (Suhr 1967).

Broadcast burning consumed about 80% of the canopy

on about 5,000 acres over 3 yr. This burning program

represented the first large-scale burning on national forest

land (Moore and Warskow 1973). The burned areas were

re-seeded with a mixture of grasses (Suhr 1967). Portions

of Brushy Basin have been heavily grazed since this treatment, and erosion was particularly severe on some grazed

areas during heavy rains in October 1972 (Ffolliott and

Thorud 1974). Follow-up maintenance with herbicides

was not implemented because of the environmental concerns associated with pesticide use, particularly foliar

herbicides.

Cooperators

Interest in chaparral management evolved into a research and management program involving several agencies and organizations. The Tonto National Forest was

responsible for managing much of the chaparral areas in

the Central Arizona Highland. USDA Forest Service research was conducted by the Rocky Mountain Forest and

Range Experiment Station and was assigned to the Forestry Science Laboratory at Tempe. Most of the Forest

Service research addressed hydrologic and vegetative

evaluations. Scientists with the Arizona Game and Fish

Department provided wildlife evaluations on the ThreeBar Wildlife Area. Cooperative studies were also carried

out with the University of Arizona, Arizona State University, and Colorado State University. Personnel from the

Salt River Project and Arizona Water Resources Committee provided support and guidance in many of the watershed evaluations. Streamflow was gaged on some watersheds by the U.S. Geological Survey of the Department of

Interior.

Results

Earlier status-of-knowledge publications presented the

results of increasing water yields and other multiple use

values in chaparral shrublands through the early 1970s

(Brown, T. C. et al 1974, Hibbert et al. 1974). These results

have been refined and, in some cases, expanded upon in

subsequent publications. A brief discussion of the results

is presented below; details are found in the cited literature.

Three-Bar Watersheds

After a wildfire in 1959, Watershed D recovered naturally to be used as a control and Watershed B, Watershed

C, and Watershed F received chemical treatments. Results

of the treatments (Hibbert et al. 1974) were:

• The effect of the wildfire on streamflow was shortlived. A sharp increase in overland flow occurred

in the first few years after the wildfire, especially

during the first summer rains.

Figure 7. Overview of the Brushy Basin

Management Demonstration Area.
16 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999

DeBano, Baker, and Gottfried Providing Water and Forage in the Salt-Verde River Basin

• Stream flows increased on all the watersheds.

However, after the third year, the crown cover on

the control watershed (D) was dense enough to

prevent any increased water production.

Following the treatment on Watershed C:

• Streamflow increased 4-fold (5.8 area-inches of

water) over 11 yr when compared with flow from

the control Watershed D.

• Foliar herbicides killed about 40% of the shrub

live oak and 70% of the birchleaf

mountainmahogany. Because of the poor rate of

shrub control, the remaining shrubs were treated

individually with soil-applied herbicides in 1965

and 1968. This treatment reduced the shrub crown

cover to less than 3% by 1969.

• Annual forage production averaged 1,200 lb/

acre and provided a ground cover that maintained high infiltration rates.

• The increase in streamflow, particularly yearlong

streamflow, allowed riparian vegetation to become established below the gaging station

(DeBano et al. 1984).

• Bird populations flourished in the newly created

riparian areas, but were reduced in the areas

converted to grass (Szaro 1981).

Results from Watershed B were:

• Nitrates in streamflow rose to relatively high

concentrations (about 85 ppm) and were exported

from the watershed in amounts up to 125 lb/

acre/yr, in comparison to a control watershed

value of about 1 lb/acre/yr. High concentrations

of nitrates in the streamflow lasted longer from

the 2-stage treatment on Watershed B than from

the 1-stage treatment on Watershed F. High nitrate concentrations (44 to 373 ppm) were found

in soil solutions from 5, 10, and 15 ft depths on the

converted watershed compared to low nitrate

concentrations (0.2 to 6.2 ppm) on an adjacent

undisturbed area (Davis 1987a, Davis and DeBano

1986).

• Herbicide (picloram) concentrations in streamflow

were higher (360 to 370 ppb) during the initial 3

months following treatment than thereafter. After 14 months and 40 inches of accumulated rainfall, picloram could not be detected in the

streamflow (Davis 1973).

• Surviving chaparral shrubs were re-treated in

1968 and again in 1978 (Davis 1987a). These additional 2 treatments reduced the shrub cover to

about 8%.

• Annual grass and forb production averaged 690

lb/acre on the treated areas as compared to 300

lb/acre on nearby untreated slopes.

Results from Watershed F were:

• Nitrate concentrations in streamflow from the

control (Watershed D) remained less than 1 ppm,

while nitrate from the treated watershed increased

to a maximum concentration of 56 ppm during the

first posttreatment year, with an annual average

concentration of 16 ppm (Davis 1984, 1987b, 1989).

• Shrub crown cover was reduced from 55% to less

than 5% the first year after treatment. Shrub kill

increased to more than 95% after 2 years.

• Runoff efficiency (the ratio of streamflow-to-precipitation) was increased to 2.3 times the efficiency of the control watershed (D), an increase of

1.5 area-inches of streamflow.

Other Studies

Results of other studies near the Three-Bar experimental watersheds, and conducted elsewhere in the chaparral

shrublands in the Salt-Verde River Basin, are summarized

below. In addition to testing of the effectiveness of herbicides for shrub control, studies using prescribed fire and

a biological control (goat browsing) were tested:

When using fire, more than half the chaparral canopy

should be eliminated and prevented from becoming reestablished to obtain relatively high levels of seeded grass

production (Pase 1971 and Pond 1961a). However, burning can also result in an increase in undesirable plant

species (Pase 1965).

Goat browsing reduces total cover in chaparral stands,

particularly when in conjunction with initial brush-crushing (Severson and DeBano 1991). Goat browsing to control

chaparral shrubs can result in the consumption of the

same plant species preferred by cattle, deer, and elk (Knipe

1983). Successful use of goats to control shrub cover requires an intensive level of animal management.

The root system of a shrub live oak (figure 8) was

excavated to characterize its mass (Davis and Pase 1977).

It was determined that:

• The root system included a taproot, many deeppenetrating roots, and profuse lateral roots.

• The shrub live oak root system effectively depletes both ephemeral surface and deeply stored

soil moisture.

A study was conducted at El Oso west of Lake Roosevelt

and north of the Three-Bar Wildlife area, to measure the

temporal and spatial sediment delivery to and within a
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999 17

Providing Water and Forage in the Salt-Verde River Basin DeBano, Baker, and Gottfried

stream network following a wildfire in chaparral

shrublands. This study indicated that:

• Severe erosion following a wildfire deposited

large amounts of hillside soil and debris in the

channel system (Heede 1988).

• As vegetation recovered after fire, sediment delivery from the watershed practically ceased.

• Relatively clear water, upon entering the channel,

caused degradation of the sediment deposited in

the tributaries and delivered this sediment into

the main channel for years after active hillslope

erosion had ceased.

• The delayed sediment delivery made it difficult to

interpret the effect of current management activities on erosion responses.

Mule (Odocoileus hemionus) and white-tailed deer (O.

viginianus) and black bear (Ursus americanus) were studied

on the Three-Bar Wildlife Area by the Arizona Game and

Fish Department. These studies indicated that:

• Mule and white-tailed deer select a variety of plants

for food including forbs, dwarf and half-shrubs,

mast and other fruits, and evergreen browse of both

chaparral and desert shrub (McCulloch 1973, Urness

1973, Urness and McCulloch 1973).

• While conversion treatments increased forage production for cattle and deer, loss of cover adversely

effected deer, particularly when conversions of

large areas or entire watersheds were implemented

(McCulloch 1972).

• Cover and food for black bear are enhanced in

habitats composed of shrubs and low trees interspersed with a few forest species in the major

drainages. This arrangement provides numerous

mast- and fruit-producing species (LeCount 1980).

• Leaving areas of adequate size as escape cover

and providing a number of seral stages of postburn

vegetation should benefit both game and nongame wildlife species (Pase and Granfelt 1977).

Less than half of any area should be converted

(Reynolds 1972).

An inventory of 139 chaparral sites totaling almost

335,000 acres was accomplished in the early 1970s (Brown

et al. 1974). The cost of converting portions of chaparral

shrubland areas that met crown cover, slope, and managerial criteria for conversion to grass, and maintaining these

conversions over 50 yr, was compared with the benefits to

society of increased water yield and forage for livestock

and reduced fire-fighting costs. It was shown that:

• Using fire as the main conversion tool, 96 of the

inventoried sites (69%) had a benefit-cost ratio

greater than 1. Using a soil-applied herbicide, 72

sites (52%) had a benefit-cost ration greater than 1.

• Proper management would favorably affect soil

movement, wildlife habitat, an esthetics. Recreation use would be unaffected in most treated

areas.

Implications

Information has been obtained on how chaparral

shrubland ecosystems function for land management deciFigure 8. Root system of shrub live

oak excavated to a depth of 21 feet.
18 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999

DeBano, Baker, and Gottfried Providing Water and Forage in the Salt-Verde River Basin

sion making. Past research has contributed information

on shrub control techniques, watershed and soil responses

to shrub control, water quality, wildlife habitat changes,

and economics. The most important management implication of this research is the ability to determine how to

control chaparral shrubs to enhance the production of

water and forage and to maintain wildlife habitat diversity.

If chaparral shrub suppression is desired, burning must

be combined with other control methods such as applications of soil-applied herbicides or mechanical control

methods. A problem associated with mechanical equipment is that it is limited to slopes with less than a 10%

grade on rock free soils. One advantage of using prescribed fire is that the environmental changes created are

similar to those occurring during the natural evolution of

fire-adapted ecosystems (Axelrod 1989). A disadvantage

of using prescribed fire is that shrub control is temporary

(Hibbert et al. 1974). Therefore, a management objective is

often the suppression of shrubs rather than their eradication.

Current Status

Hydrologic evaluations on the Three-Bar watersheds

were discontinued in 1983. The Three-Bar Wildlife Area

remains ungrazed and provides a study site for current

wildlife studies and for monitoring by the Arizona Game

and Fish Department.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999 19

Managing Chaparral in Yavapai County DeBano, Baker, and Overby

Chapter 4

Managing Chaparral in Yavapai County

Leonard F. DeBano, Malchus B. Baker, Jr., and Steven T. Overby

Introduction

Yavapai County in central Arizona supports extensive

stands of chaparral in the Bradshaw Mountains, Mingus

Mountain, and the Santa Maria Range. Chaparral occupies about 400,300 acres of the Prescott National Forest

(Anderson 1986). These chaparral communities provide a

wide range of benefits including watershed protection,

grazing for wildlife and domestic animals, recreational

opportunities, and wildlife habitat. As in other chaparral

areas in Arizona and California, these shrublands are

subject to regular wildfires that can destroy the protective

shrub canopy and leave the burned areas susceptible to

runoff and erosion, normally for 3 to 4 following fire.

Mining and cattle ranching are important activities in

these chaparral areas (Bolander 1986). Cattle grazing of

chaparral stands began in central Arizona around 1874

and within a single decade the vegetation type was almost

entirely stocked or overstocked (Croxen 1926). Almost

every acre of Yavapai County was occupied by cattle or

sheep by 1890. Because of these early extremely high

stocking rates, by 1926 grasses in many chaparral stands

had disappeared and the cover and density of shrubs had

increased (Cable 1975).

The extensive stands of chaparral in Yavapai County

provided the setting for further refinement of research

evaluations and management techniques that started earlier in the Salt-Verde Basin (see DeBano et al., Chapter 4 of

this publication). Consequently, experimental watersheds

(Whitespar and Mingus), experimental grazing areas

(Tonto Springs), and a pilot application area (Battle Flat)

were established in Yavapai County. Satellite research

studies were also implemented on fire effects and designing prescriptions for prescribed burning in chaparral.

Experimental Watersheds

Three experimental watersheds, the Whitespar, Mingus,

and Battle Flat, were established in Yavapai County to

study chaparral management (figure 9). The Whitespar

watersheds played an important role in assessing the

potential water yield increases that could be obtained by

chaparral conversion practices in areas of moderately

dense chaparral (40% to 60% cover density). This information extended the research results obtained from the ThreeBar watersheds, which were covered with a dense stand of

chaparral (see DeBano et al., Chapter 3 of this publication).

The Mingus watersheds contained a sparse cover of chaparral and were similar to the Natural Drainages watersheds on the Sierra Ancha Experimental Forest (see

Gottfried et al., Chapter 2 of this publication).

Whitespar Watersheds

A pair of watersheds located about 8 mi southwest of

Prescott, on the Prescott National Forest, were gaged in

1958. One watershed designated as Whitespar A was

Figure 9. Watersheds in Yavapai County in the Central

Arizona Highlands.
20 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999

DeBano, Baker, and Overby Managing Chaparral in Yavapai County

about 300 acres in size and an adjacent watershed designated as Whitespar B was 250 acres. The elevations of

Whitespar A and B range from 5,900 to 7,200 ft (Davis

1993). The climate is semi-arid with 26 inches of annual

precipitation over 30 yr. About 90% of the streamflow

from the untreated watershed occurred between December and April. Medium-dense chaparral composed of

shrub live oak/hairy mountainmahogany (Quercus

turbinella/Cercocarpus breviflorus) habitat type provided a

crown cover of about 50% (Hibbert and Davis 1986).

Whitespar A was dominated by chaparral with isolated

areas of Gambel oak and ponderosa pine along the upper

ridges and north-facing slopes. Whitespar B was totally

covered with chaparral.

The initial research emphasis on the Whitespar watersheds was on water yield responses, with sediment production as a secondary hydrological evaluation. The

major input and output measurements were precipitation, stream discharge, and sediment production. There

was also emphasis on developing methods for controlling chaparral and converting a shrub cover to grass. As

the research program evolved, environmental and ecological issues became increasingly important. One of

these issues was increased nitrate concentrations that

had been detected earlier on the Three-Bar experimental

watersheds (Davis 1984). The need to convert chaparral

in a mosaic pattern to enhance wildlife, reduce fire

danger and nitrate release resulting from brush control,

and improve esthetics strongly influenced later treatments.

The Whitespar watersheds were treated in 3 phases

reflecting the changing emphasis on chaparral management over time. Each treatment phase required a pretreatment stream discharge calibration period lasting several

years to establish the annual runoff relationship between

the control and the treated watershed. The 3 treatment

phases on Whitespar A and B were experiments designed

to address emerging questions.

The Phase 1 experiments were applied to Whitespar B

in the 1960s to determine whether annual streamflow

could be increased by killing the chaparral brush and trees

in and along the main channel (essentially a riparian

treatment). Previous studies in California indicated that

clearing trees along channels would substantially decrease evapotranspiration and increase streamflow (Rowe

1963). The main emphasis in the 1950s and early 1960s was

managing chaparral vegetation to produce water yield

increases. The riparian areas throughout the Central Arizona Highlands were viewed as major consumers of available water, causing reduced streamflow. Conversion of

these woody riparian species to grass or other species that

use less water was promoted. A decade later, these riparian systems were recognized as important recreation sites

and wildlife habitats that required preservation and enhancement to maintain their sustainability (see Baker et

al., Chapter 7 of this publication).

Within the context of earlier research emphasis on

riparian treatment, 37 acres (about 15% of the watershed)

of the channel area were treated with soil-applied herbicides that was hand applied underneath shrubs and small

junipers in March 1967 (Hibbert et al. 1974). Intershrub

spaces were not treated to avoid killing grasses and forbs.

Larger junipers were either cut or girdled. The single

application of the soil-applied herbicide gave 80% to 90%

Figure 10. Vegetation treatment in the

Phase 2 experiment on Whitespar B.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999 21

Managing Chaparral in Yavapai County DeBano, Baker, and Overby

control of the shrubs and made a follow-up treatment

unnecessary. The channel treatment effect was evaluated

for 7 yr, after which the Phase 2 experiment was initiated.

The Phase 2 experiment began in 1973 with a second

treatment on Whitespar B. This experiment was started

after the effect of the channel treatment on streamflow had

stabilized and been evaluated. The objective of the Phase

2 experiment was to determine whether ridgeline brushcontrol would affect annual streamflow volume. The treatment consisted of treating the boundary ridges and a

main centrally-located ridge with soil-applied herbicides

broadcast aerially (figure 10). A follow-up treatment was

necessary in 1976 because of uneven chemical distribution

and poor shrub control after the aerial application. The

overall shrub reduction on the areas treated was about

85% (Hibbert et al. 1986). The combined area was about

20% of the watershed (49 acres). The evaluation was for 7

yr.

The Phase 3 experiment was the last applied on the

Whitespar watersheds. In February 1981, soil-applied

herbicides were applied by helicopter in a mosaic pattern

on Whitespar A. The treatment was applied to about 55%

of the watershed (168 acres). This treatment pattern was

designed to incorporate what had been learned from

previous experiments into a design that would increase

water yield without degrading wildlife habitat or other

watershed resource values. Hydrology, soil-plant water

relations, and wildlife habitat improvement were considered in designing a mosaic conversion pattern on Whitespar

A that was aesthetically pleasing and technically feasible

to implement by applying herbicide with a helicopter

(Hibbert and Davis 1986). Because of esthetics and wildlife values, all ponderosa pine and Gambel oak stands

were excluded from treatment. The ponderosa pine sites

were used extensively for roosting doves and pigeons and

contained big game trails leading into the watershed.

Gambel oak sites along stream channels are valuable

javelina (Tayassu tajacu) and deer habitat.

Mingus Watersheds

Three Mingus experimental watersheds, located about

23 mi northeast of Prescott, Arizona, were established in

1958 and equipped with stream gaging stations in 1960

(Ffolliott and Thorud 1974, Hibbert 1986). Watershed A is

about 96 acres, Watershed B is 67 acres, and Watershed C

is 44 acres. The mid-area elevation ranges from 6,200 to

6,560 ft and the mean annual precipitation over 12 yr

averages 17 to 19 inches. The chaparral cover consisted of

a low density stand of shrub live oak-mountainmahogany

brush. The density was less than 40% crown cover. The

mean annual streamflow on the untreated watersheds

was 0.04 to 0.19 inch and was ephemeral.

The treatment plan called for Watershed A to be burned

and Watershed B to be treated with chemicals (figure 11).

Watershed C was the control. Chemicals, fire, or a combination, were to be used to maintain the brush cover below

10% crown density (Ffolliott and Thorud 1974). The upper

halves of Watersheds A and B were treated in 1974 and the

lower halves in 1975 to minimize any treatment-induced

erosion (Hibbert 1986).

Figure 11. Burning treatment applied

on Mingus Mountain Watershed A.
22 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999

DeBano, Baker, and Overby Managing Chaparral in Yavapai County

Battle Flat Pilot

Application Program

Following 20 yr of research on small experimental

watersheds in the chaparral shrublands, planning began

for a joint pilot application project in 1976 between the

Southwestern Region of the USDA Forest Service and the

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station

(Bolander 1986, Hassel 1976, Krebill and Tackle 1978). The

objective of this pilot application program was to test the

state-of-the art technology on a larger, operational-scale

chaparral watershed. Management techniques aimed at

improving the production of water, maintaining water

quality, increasing livestock and wildlife forage, enhancing wildlife habitat, reducing fire hazard and erosion, and

determining the economic feasibility of chaparral management was to be evaluated and refined. This program

also provided research opportunities to study fire effects

on nutrients, erosion and sedimentation rates, plant productivity and growth, and fire history.

Study Area

A 3,780-acre watershed (Battle Flat) on the Prescott

National Forest in central Arizona was designated as a

pilot application area in chaparral shrublands in July 1977

(Hassell 1976). The Battle Flat Demonstration Area in the

Bradshaw Mountains was chosen to test the current knowledge of managing chaparral shrublands on an operational-size watershed (Bolander 1986). The results of all

information gained on experimental chaparral watersheds

(both in Arizona and in California) were used to design

treatments.

The demonstration area consists of 2 adjacent watersheds. The southern-most watershed (1,600 acres) is

drained by the northeast trending Tuscumbia Creek; the

northern-most watershed (2,174 acres) is drained by the

east-southeast trending Battle Flat Creek. Elevation at the

junction point of the 2 stream channels is 4,969 ft.

The topography is highly dissected and rugged. Most

of the watershed faces southeast with slopes ranging from

8 to 30 degrees. Parent rock materials in the study area

consist of granitics, volcanics, and alluvium. The Battle

Flat watershed contains 11 different soil-map units

(Humbert et al., 1981) whose texture range from sandy

loams to very gravelly coarse loams. These soils are located on slopes from 0% to 60% and are all less than 16

inches deep. Runoff on these slopes is rapid, and erosion

hazard is moderate to high.

Annual precipitation averaged 27 inches over 10 yr.

The watersheds were dominated by shrub live oak (48%),

birchleaf mountainmahogany (27%), and pointleaf manzanita (19%). The remaining 6% cover was a combination

of several other species.

Project Planning, Inventories, and Research

Before treatment, several inventories were done on the

control (Tuscumbia) and treated (Battle Flat) watersheds

in addition to hydrologic instrumentation. These inventories included archaeologic, geologic, vegetation, soils,

hydrologic, and wildlife habitat. The vegetation and wildlife inventory was done jointly by the Prescott National

Forest, Southwestern Region of the Forest Service, and the

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station in

coordination with the Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Once the inventory data were obtained, it was possible

to specify the mosaic treatment pattern. This effort included modeling chaparral conversion for water augmentation based on social, economic, and ecological parameters (Hodge et al. 1985). The purpose of the model was to

maximize water yield, while constraining the anticipated

effects of conversion within selected boundaries. Upper

limit constraints were based on nitrate and herbicide

contamination of water and soil erosion due to conversion. Lower limit constraints were based on economic

benefits associated with increased water yield to ensure

cost-effectiveness. This research was used to decide which

soil-mapping units were appropriate for treatment based

on the model. According to this model, about 50% to 55%

of the watershed was to be treated in a mosaic pattern

similar to that developed for Whitespar A, which was

described earlier.

Several nutrient cycling studies on shrubs and soils

were accomplished as part of the overall research program. One study was designed to gather prefire data over

several years, focusing on plant available nitrogen and

phosphorus, and comparing immediate pre- and postburn levels of available nitrogen and phosphorus (Overby

and Perry 1996). This study was coordinated with one on

the effect of aspect and shrub species on the availability

and accumulation of nitrogen and phosphorus in soils

(Klemmedson and Wienhold 1991a, 1991b). Nutrient and

biomass studies were completed on shrub live oak and

birchleaf mountainmahogany before and after fire

(Whysong 1991, Whysong and Carr 1987).

Hydrologic research evaluations consisted of analyzing stream flow data from several permanent gaging

stations located on the major drainages and on some of the

smaller subdrainages in the Battle Flat and Tuscumbia

watersheds. In addition, stock water tanks were established in 2 of the smaller watersheds to obtain annual

measurements of sediment production. One of these watersheds was prescribe-burned in 1985 (figure 12). Nutri-
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999 23

Managing Chaparral in Yavapai County DeBano, Baker, and Overby

ent changes and losses associated with increased erosion

resulting from this prescribed burn were also studied

(Overby and Baker 1995, Overby and Perry 1996, Hook

and Hibbert 1979).

Relatively little was known about the fire history in the

chaparral shrublands at the time, although fire suppression records indicated that large fires had been common.

The Battle Flat area provided an opportunity to establish

the fire history in chaparral stands because vegetation

along the drainages contained ponderosa pine trees that

could be dated by tree ring methodologies based on interpreting fire scars on the trunk of ponderosa pine trees

(Dieterich and Hibbert 1990). Shrubs do not lend themselves to this analysis because the whole plant is often

consumed during a fire. In contrast, during ground fires

the basal area of some ponderosa pine trees may be

scarred without significantly damaging the trees. Therefore, the close association of ponderosa pine trees with

surrounding hillslopes covered with chaparral allowed

fire frequencies to be estimated for both the pine and

chaparral areas.

Cooperators

In collaboration with the pilot application program,

several research studies were initiated by Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station scientists and

other scientists from Arizona State University and the

University of Arizona. These studies included establishing baseline information on streamflow, erosion and sedimentation, shrub biomass, scenic beauty, effects of fire on

nutrient cycling, fire history, and the effect of fire on

erosion.

Streamflow, precipitation, and sediment measurements

were a joint effort between the Rocky Mountain Research

Station and the Prescott National Forest. Overall program

management was jointly shared by a project leader for the

Rocky Mountain Research Station, the supervisor of the

Prescott National Forest, and the lead hydrologist for the

Southwestern Region of the Forest Service.

Results

As previously stated, 2 status-of-knowledge publications presented the results of water yield improvement

experiments and other research conducted on the watersheds in chaparral shrublands (Brown, T. C. et al 1974,

Hibbert et al. 1974). These results have been refined and,

in some cases, expanded in subsequent publications. A

brief discussion of the results is presented below; details

are in the cited literature.

Whitespar Watersheds

The channel treatment of trees and shrubs at Whitespar

B (Phase 1) resulted in an increase in amount and duration

of streamflow. Although only 15% of the watershed was

treated, it produced perennial flow in previously ephemeral stream channels that was beneficial to wildlife and

livestock (Hibbert et al. 1986). When the increases were

prorated to the area treated, there was an annual increase

Figure 12. Igniting prescribed fire on

Battle Flat with heliotorch.
24 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999

DeBano, Baker, and Overby Managing Chaparral in Yavapai County

in streamflow of 4.2 inches. The increase in streamflow

was short-lived as vegetation recovered after treatment

and below normal precipitation occurred.

Ridgetop treatment of trees and shrubs at Whitespar B

(Phase 2) resulted in no additional streamflow increases

(Hibbert et al. 1986). It was concluded that any water

saved by reducing the shrub cover along the ridgelines

was used by the untreated downslope shrubs before it

reached the channels.

The mosaic treatment of brush on Whitespar A (Phase 3)

resulted in:

• Increased annual streamflow of 1.5 to 5.0 inches

over a 7-year posttreatment evaluation period.

• A small, but statistically significant, increase in

nitrate concentrations was attributed to the mosaic treatment (Davis 1993). Nitrate nitrogen released from converted areas was diluted by

streamflow from untreated areas, which reduced

nitrate concentrations in streamflow at the watershed outlet.

Mingus Watersheds

As expected, only small increases in streamflow occurred as a result of treatment on the Mingus Watersheds.

Annual streamflow from Watershed A (prescribed burn)

increased 0.30 inch and Watershed B (chemical treatment)

increased 0.22 inch (Hibbert et al. 1986). The magnitude

of response was similar to that measured on the lowprecipitation watersheds of the Natural Drainages watersheds study area on the Sierra Ancha Experimental Forest

(Gottfried et al,. Chapter 2 of this publication).

Battle Flat Watershed

Although extensive instrumentation, inventories, and

baseline research studies were performed on the Battle

Flat Demonstration Area, treatment of the entire watershed was delayed because of the political and legal constraints surrounding the widespread use of soil-applied

herbicides for treating watersheds. However, one small

area on the Battle Flat watershed was prescribe burned in

1985. Measurements associated with this prescribed fire,

along with other inventories and studies, added to our

basic understanding of chaparral shrublands.

Sediment accumulations in the 2 stock tanks before

treatment with prescribed fire, showed that sediment

production from chaparral is primarily the result of winter periods of heavy precipitation and runoff and generally not from summer rainstorms (Hook and Hibbert

1979). The sediments came mostly from erosion of channel

alluvium in upstream tributaries where the sediments

accumulated from downslope creep, dry ravel, and overland flow produced during the typical, smaller, convective rainstorm events. The study further concluded that:

• The long-term sediment rate from the unburned

watersheds was about 0.6 lb/acre annually, but

increased to almost 2.7 lb/acre (about 4 times)

during winters of heavy precipitation.

• After the prescribed burn, sediment yields increased to over 7 lb/acre (about 12 times) annually for 3 years following the fire (Overby and

Baker 1995).

• The increased erosion resulting from the prescribed fire removed substantial amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus, and cations from the burned

watershed (Overby and Baker 1995). Both concentrations and amounts of these nutrients increased in the sediment material that was eroded

from the burned areas.

A separate study on the small watersheds within the

Battle Flat Watershed showed that interactions between

species composition and aspect have an effect on nutrient

responses to prescribed fire. Higher preburn nutrient

concentrations were found under shrub live oak than

under mountainmahogany (Klemmedson and Wienhold

1991a). Phosphorus was also a limiting nutrient before

burning, particularly on south aspects (Klemmedson and

Wienhold 1991b).

The results after the prescribed burn indicate that:

• Ammonia and phosphorus were translocated

downward in the soil as a result of fire (Overby

and Perry 1996).

• Residual ash and underlying soil contained increased concentrations of available nitrogen and

phosphorus. This temporarily increased soil fertility on the burned sites.

Fire history for the Battle Flat watershed was established from the mid 1800s (Dieterich and Hibbert 1990).

Reconstruction of the history showed that:

• Fires burned at an average 2-yr interval within the

200 acre ponderosa pine stand and surrounding

chaparral, before intensive mining activities began in the 1860s.

• Ponderosa pine and associated oak and juniper

trees were heavily cut during expansion of local

mining from 1863 to 1885, after which fire protection, low fuel loading, and grazing eliminated

large fires for many years. This resulted in the

current overmature chaparral stands that lack a

natural mosaic appearance and contain heavy

accumulations of dead material.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999 25

Managing Chaparral in Yavapai County DeBano, Baker, and Overby

• Large wildfires have swept through continuous

stands of dense chaparral since the 1900s due to

the large fuel accumulation.

Implications

Research and management efforts in Yavapai County

consisted primarily of testing previous research findings

on experimental watersheds and on an operational scale.

Studies at Whitespar and Mingus experimental watersheds extended the information gained from the ThreeBar watersheds and Natural Drainages watersheds in the

Salt River Valley (DeBano et al. Chapter 3 of this publication). It was concluded from the investigative studies

that:

• The mosaic pattern (where about 50% of the brush

was treated with soil-applied herbicides and fire)

was beneficial for increasing water yield, maintaining water quality, improving wildlife habitat,

and reducing fire hazard.

• The availability of soil nitrogen and phosphorus

increased as a result of the burning and these firerelated responses were affected by plant species

and aspect. The increased nutrient availability

disappeared after 2 yr.

• Sediment production and nutrient loss increased

even after low-intensity prescribed burns.

• Long-term productivity and sustainability of chaparral ecosystems were enhanced by prescribed

fire (Overby and Perry 1996).

Current Status

Evaluations on the Mingus experimental watersheds

were discontinued in 1983 and on the Whitespar watersheds in 1986 as part of the change in emphasis of watershed research in the Central Arizona Highlands.

Streamflow and precipitation measurements were continued at Battle Flat through 1989, then all data collection was

terminated.
26 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999

DeBano, Baker, and Overby Managing Chaparral in Yavapai County
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999 27

Interdisciplinary Land Use along the Mogollon Rim Baker and Ffolliott

Chapter 5

Interdisciplinary Land Use Along the Mogollon Rim

Malchus B. Baker, Jr. and Peter F. Ffolliott

Introduction

The amount of water stored in the Salt River Project

reservoirs during the middle 1950s was low and, as a

consequence, apprehension arose among some residents

of the Salt River Valley that a serious water shortage

would soon occur. Groundwater supplies in the Valley

were also being rapidly depleted, and pumping costs

were steadily rising. Long-term studies at Sierra Ancha

Experimental Forest had shown some potential for increasing runoff by converting chaparral shrublands to

grass (Gottfried et al., Chapter 2 of this publication).

Therefore, a belief existed that the yield of water from the

Salt and Verde Watersheds could be increased by drastic,

but fairly simple, conversions of the various vegetation

types. Suggestions for water yield improvement included

widespread burning of chaparral, eradication of pinyonjuniper woodlands by burning and mechanical methods,

and prescribed burning in ponderosa pine forests.

Several ranchers met with a USDA Forest Service representative and an official with the Salt River Project on

the Beaver Creek watershed near Flagstaff to address this

issue in the summer of 1955. People at this meeting were

concerned that the flow of streams and the amount of

livestock forage on watersheds in the Salt-Verde River

Basins were being reduced by increasing densities of

ponderosa pine saplings. As a result of this meeting, the

University of Arizona was commissioned to investigate

the potential for increasing water yields from the state’s

forests and rangelands. The findings of this study were

contained in a publication entitled “Recovering Rainfall:

More Water for Irrigation,” commonly referred to as the

Barr Report (Barr 1956). The study suggested that surface

runoff from mountain watersheds might be increased by

replacing high water-using plants, such as trees and shrubs,

with low water-using grasses and forbs. This report resulted in a demand for an immediate action program to

ascertain the feasibility of improving water yields through

vegetative manipulations.

But many questions as to the effects of such vegetative

manipulations on other natural resource products and

uses of the watersheds remained unanswered, and the

effectiveness of most of the practices proposed was largely

untested. In response to the demand for increased water

yields, the Arizona Water Program of the USDA Forest

Service was initiated in the late 1950s to evaluate the

feasibility of selected vegetative management programs

to increase water yields and other multiple resource benefits in the Salt River Basin (Arizona State Land Department 1962). The Beaver Creek watershed became a significant component of this program.

Beaver Creek Watershed

The Beaver Creek watershed encompasses 275,000 acres

on the Coconino National Forest, upstream from the junction of Beaver Creek and the Verde River (figure 13). This

watershed is part of the Salt-Verde River Basin, which is a

Figure 13. Beaver Creek watershed in the Central Arizona

Highlands.
28 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999

Baker and Ffolliott Interdisciplinary Land Use Along the Mogollon Rim

major river drainage in central Arizona. The Salt and

Verde Rivers provide much of the water for Phoenix and

other communities in the heavily populated Salt River

Valley. The Beaver Creek watershed was selected for

research because it contains extensive areas of ponderosa

pine forests and pinyon-juniper woodlands, which are

found in the Central Arizona Highlands and throughout

the Southwest (Worley 1965).

Beaver Creek Project Design

The Beaver Creek Project was initiated by the USDA

Forest Service as a pilot study in 1957 to test some of the

Barr Report hypotheses. The original plan was to apply

generally accepted management practices intensively to

one large watershed, while retaining a similar watershed

in an untreated condition to determine whether a change

in runoff could be detected. Management practices contemplated were:

• Thinning and debris disposal in ponderosa pine

forests to improve the growth of residual trees.

• Eradication of the pinyon-juniper woodlands to

enhance livestock grazing conditions.

Isolation of the effects of certain land treatments was

necessary to concentrate on treatments that were thought

to be effective in improving water yields. A system of

smaller pilot watersheds was established to study these

effects.

Pilot Watersheds

Since the standard program of applying management

practices to large areas of vegetation would take several

years to perform, smaller watersheds were selected for

treatment to obtain results earlier and to determine if local

changes in runoff could be realized downstream. Twenty

pilot watersheds were established between 1957 and 1962

to test the effects of vegetation management practices on

water yield and other resources (Brown, et al. 1974). Of the

20 watersheds, 18 were from 66 to 2,036 acres in size; 3 in

the Utah juniper type, 3 in the alligator juniper type, and

12 in the ponderosa pine type. The other 2 catchments,

encompassing 12,100 and 16,500 acres of ponderosa pine

forests, were set aside to demonstrate the effects of management practices on areas the size that managers work

with operationally.

Stream gauges were built at the outlets of all watersheds, while sediment-measuring devices, in which suspended sediments and bedloads could be collected, were

constructed on some. A network of precipitation gauges

was installed throughout the study area (Baker 1982).

Timber, herbage, and wildlife resources were inventoried

(the latter by the Arizona Game and Fish Department) on

a system of permanently-located primary sampling units

established on each pilot watershed (Brown et al. 1974,

Clary et al. 1974). Point sampling techniques were used to

monitor stand structures, tree-stem form, and species

composition over time. These sampling points were also

center-points for plots of varying sizes on which regeneration success, herbaceous vegetation, wildlife populations

and habitat preferences, and hydrologic conditions were

sampled.

Yields of water, timber, forage, and other natural resource products from the pilot watersheds were determined before any treatments were applied to provide the

needed pre-treatment calibration information. One watershed was then altered through vegetative manipulation and another held in its original condition as a control

for evaluations of potential changes in these yields. If a

resource change was detected after treatment, it was attributed to the treatment implemented.

To refine the findings from the studies on the pilot

watersheds for use over a wide range of conditions, 24

smaller watersheds, 12 to 40 acres in size, with more

uniform soil, plant life, and topography, were established

in the early 1970s to sample the range of diverse ecological

characteristics in the ponderosa pine forests (Brown et al.

1974). To compare the findings from watersheds with soils

developed on basalt and cinders (55% of the Salt-Verde

River Basin) to watersheds on soils formed from sedimentary rocks (45% of the Salt-Verde River Basin), 3 of these

smaller watersheds were established on limestone soils

(Campbell et al. 1977) and 4 were installed on sandstone

soils (Ffolliott and Baker 1977).

Responsibilities

The Beaver Creek watershed, located on the Coconino

National Forest, is administered for a full range of multiple use benefits. National forest personnel installed many

of the measuring structures and devices, performed the

land treatment prescriptions, and accomplished the normal protection and management functions.

Up dated evaluation techniques would be required if

the Beaver Creek Project was to meet its objective. As a

consequence, the assistance of Forest Service Research

was necessary. A team of forest, range, and watershed

scientists, economists, and hydrologists was assigned fulltime to the project in 1960. This team of Rocky Mountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station employees, in collaboration with their cooperators, developed the neces-
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999 29

Interdisciplinary Land Use along the Mogollon Rim Baker and Ffolliott

sary research studies to support the project, and helped

national forest personnel design the treatments that were

applied to the pilot watersheds. This team was also responsible for collecting and analyzing much of the data

obtained on the pilot watersheds before and after treatment.

Wild Bill Studies

Knowledge of the relationships between various land

products and uses is required for effective multiple use

planning. If managers modify an area in favor of one

product, what will be the effect on other products? Since

cattle production was an integral part of the Beaver Creek

Project, an area of approximately 1,300 acres of ponderosa

pine-bunchgrass range was established to develop relationships between beef and forage production under different overstory densities (Pearson 1972). The area, known

as the Wild Bill Cattle Allotment, is northwest of Flagstaff

on the Coconino National Forest. Specific objectives for

this study were to:

• Determine the effects of various tree overstories

on quantity, quality, and composition of forage.

• Establish the relationships between beef and timber

production at various tree overstory densities.

Information obtained on Wild Bill was used to estimate

changes in beef production following the various treatments applied to the Beaver Creek watershed. This aspect

of the project resulted in a number of publications related

to forage digestibility by cattle, plant phenology and

forage production, and beef-forage-timber relationships

(Clary et al. 1975, Pearson 1972, 1973, Pearson et al. 1972).

Biosphere Reserve

In 1976, the Beaver Creek watershed was designated a

biosphere reserve, a component of a worldwide network

of biosphere reserves in UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Program. Previously, the governors of Arizona and the State of Durango, Mexico, signed an agreement entitled “Comparative Studies of Dry Forests in

Western North America” to improve the scientific knowledge and technology of Mexico and the United States.

Two sites, the designated La Michilia Biosphere Reserve

in Durango, Mexico and the designated-to-be Beaver Creek

Biosphere Reserve, were selected as the primary study

areas for this bi-national program.

Although the 2 biosphere reserves contained dry forests and woodlands, La Michilia and the Beaver Creek

watershed were distinct from one another in some respects. Little information on multiple resource management had been gathered at La Michilia, an area partly used

for timber production, livestock grazing, and hunting.

Beaver Creek, however, had been managed actively for

multiple resource benefits by the USDA Forest Service

and, as mentioned, was the center of an intensive multiple-resource management, research, and testing program. While dissimilar with respect to past management

and research activities, the 2 biosphere reserves shared

similar climatic, topographic, and land use characteristics. Objectives of this bi-national program were to:

• Analyze the growth, yield, and quality of timber

resource for primary wood products.

• Investigate the levels of forage production and

associated cattle, other livestock, and wildlife production on the representative grazing lands.

• Determine the habitat requirements and the distribution of preferred habitats for indigenous wildlife species and cattle, with an emphasis on food

habitats, population dynamics, carrying capacities, and potential competition.

• Develop a set of simulation techniques to predict

the environmental and socioeconomic consequences of alternative land use practices and provide a basis to identify improved methods for

sustainable multiple resource management and

environmental preservation.

• Produce a computerized data management system to assist decision-makers and managers in

achieving wise use and proper conservation of all

natural resources.

From information obtained from the 2 biosphere reserves, alternative land management practices could be

proposed to meet the local needs of forage for livestock and

wildlife and timber for lumber and fuelwood supplies while

attaining conservation through environmentally-sound

management practices. Publications from this bi-national

program are reported in a Department of State publication

in which MAB-sponsored research in the temperate regions

of the world was reviewed (Ffolliott and Bartlett 1991).

Cooperators

By the late 1960s, the major objective of the Beaver

Creek Project had evolved into evaluations of the effects of
30 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999

Baker and Ffolliott Interdisciplinary Land Use Along the Mogollon Rim

vegetative treatments on all of the natural resources and

uses of national forest lands, rather than on only water

yields (Brown et al. 1974). Therefore, cooperation of

many agencies, institutions, and organizations was enlisted. The help of the U.S. Geological Survey was secured

to install and service specific stream gauges. The Arizona

Game and Fish Department evaluated the effects of treatments on wildlife populations and habitat conditions.

Research by universities in the state complemented the

efforts of scientists from the Rocky Mountain Forest and

Range Experiment Station. The advice and support of

other groups, including the Salt River Project, Soil

Conservation Districts, cattle-grower’s associations, timber industries, and others, was solicited and made available.

One of the most important groups was the Arizona

Water Resources Committee (AWRC); a committee comprised of civic-minded, thoughtful representatives of practically every citizens’ group interested in public land

management. The AWRC worked closely with the supervisor of the Coconino National Forest, supervisors of

other national forests in the Central Highlands, the regional forester, and the director of the Rocky Mountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station in an advisory and

supporting capacity. The AWRC also played a critical role

in securing the necessary financial support for much of the

work accomplished by the Beaver Creek Project and the

Arizona Watershed Program as a whole.

Results

Results from the experiments and studies conducted on

the Beaver Creek watershed have been reported in nearly

700 publications including USDA Forest Service releases,

journal articles, and special publications on specific topics

(Baker and Ffolliott 1998). While the details of all of these

results cannot be presented here, highlights of the major

findings are presented.

Two status-of-knowledge publications presented the

results of water yield improvement experiments and other

research conducted on the pilot watersheds through the

early 1970s. One of these publications reported on the

opportunities for increasing water yields and other multiple use values in the ponderosa pine forests (Brown et al.

1974). The other publication described the effects of removing pinyon-juniper woodlands on natural resource

products and uses (Clary et al. 1974). Many of these results

have been refined and, in some cases, expanded upon in

subsequent publications listed in an annotated bibliography of 40 yr of investigations on the Beaver Creek watershed (Baker and Ffolliott 1998). A brief discussion of the

results is presented below; details are in the referenced

bibliography and cited literature.

Natural resource responses to manipulation of ponderosa pine forests by total clearcutting (figure 14a),

stripcutting in uniform or irregular strips (figure 14b),

strip shelterwood cutting, thinning by group selection

(figure 14c), a combined shelterwood-seed tree silvicultural treatment, patch cutting to improve wildlife habitats, and grazing on a watershed converted to herbaceous

plants include:

• Annual water yield increases of 1 to 2 inches were

realized in the initial (up to 10 yr) post-treatment

periods as a result of various intensities and patterns of forest overstory reduction (Baker 1986).

Considering multiple use objectives, an average

annual increase of almost 0.6 inch is possible on

the more productive sites (Brown et al. 1974).

These increases in water yields diminished over

time, approaching pretreatment levels after 10 or

fewer yr.

• No meaningful changes in total sediment production or water quality occurred as a result of the

treatments applied in ponderosa pine forests.

However, relationships between the amount of

sediment in suspension and streamflow discharge

differed among the treated watersheds (Dong

1996). Highest sediment concentrations occurred

after clearcutting, followed, in order of decreasing concentration, by stripcutting, thinning by

group selection, and the combined shelterwoodseed tree silvicultural treatment.

• Repeated inventories of the timber resource indicate that volume production has been maintained

in many cases, although at generally lower levels

than those represented by pre-treatment conditions. Exceptions to this finding are on a watershed that was totally cleared in 1966 and 1967.

Another watershed had also been converted from

ponderosa pine forest to grass in 1958 and subsequently subjected to grazing in the spring and fall

starting in 1968. While these 2 watersheds are

currently stocked by stands of Gambel oak and

alligator juniper, they have been withdrawn from

pine production due to inadequate natural pine

stocking (Ffolliott and Gottfried 1991a).

• Reductions in the density of ponderosa pine forest overstories have generally resulted in increases

in the production of herbaceous plants (BojorquezTapia et al. 1990) and vice versa. These increases

can approach 500 lbs/acre after complete overstory removal including forage and non-forage

plants. Average pretreatment forage production

was 200 lbs/acre.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999 31

Interdisciplinary Land Use along the Mogollon Rim Baker and Ffolliott

Figure 14a. Vegetation treatments in ponderosa

pine forests on Beaver Creek Watershed

including clearcutting (top), strip-cutting in

uniform strips (middle), and thinning by group

selection(bottom).
32 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999

Baker and Ffolliott Interdisciplinary Land Use Along the Mogollon Rim

• Reducing densities of ponderosa pine forests

has also increased food for deer and elk, while

retaining protective cover (Larson et al. 1986).

Residual dense stands, often referred to as dog

hair thickets, have frequently provided bedding

cover. Total clearcutting is detrimental to big

game and Abert squirrel (Sciurus abertii), although

cottontail habitat can be enhanced when slash and

Gambel oak thickets are retained (Ffolliott 1990).

• Public responses to vegetative treatments applied

to the Beaver Creek watersheds were variable.

Through applications of Scenic Beauty Estimation (SBE), which provides quantitative measures

of aesthetic preferences for alternative landscapes

(Daniel and Boster 1976), natural-appearing watersheds were preferred by most publics. This

conclusion substantiated the claim that naturalness is a desirable forest landscape characteristic

(Boster and Daniel 1972). Also 2 of the treated

sites studied, a conventional logging of Mahan

Park near Beaver Creek and a uniform stripcut on

Beaver Creek Watershed 9, were preferred by

many publics over a nearly natural relict forest,

despite the fact that these 2 sites were clearly

distinguishable as treated. SBE is an efficient and

relatively objective means of assessing the scenic

beauty of forests and other wildlands and of predicting aesthetic consequences of alternative land

management practices.

• Information obtained on resources in the ponderosa pine forests provided a framework for developing models to simulate the responses of natural

resources to the treatments applied to the Beaver

Creek watersheds. This aspect of the project resulted in a number of publications related to

hydrology, vegetation, and wildlife responses

(Baker 1975, Bojorquez-Tapia 1987, Brown and

Daniel 1984, Ffolliott 1985, Ffolliott et al. 1988,

Larson 1975, Larson et al. 1979, Li et al. 1976,

O’Connell 1971, Rogers 1973, Rogers et al. 1982).

A complete list of publications on modeling and

simulation techniques is in Baker and Ffolliott

(1998).

• Fire can be prescribed to consume portions of the

forest floor, including the accumulation of dead

organic material on mineral soil, and to impact

the hydrologic behavior of the burned site (Ffolliott

and Guertin 1990). Burning the L layer (unaltered

organic material), the F layer (partly decomposed

organic material), and the H layer (welldecomposed organic material) affects postfire infiltration rates and erosion potentials. Other effects of fire include thinning forest overstories

from below, increasing seedling establishment

and production of herbaceous plants, and temporarily reducing the fire hazard.

• Wildfire of moderate severity can have effects

similar to prescribed fire. However, wildfire of

high severity often results in burning the forest

floor to the mineral soil and inducing a waterrepellent layer in sandy soils (Campbell at el.

1977). The reduced infiltration rates can greatly

increase surface runoff from the burned site, which

causes soils to erode and removes nutrients that

have been mineralized by the fire. All small trees

and many large trees can be killed, which results

in large increases in herbage production.

Conversion of pinyon-juniper woodlands to herbaceous covers by cabling, felling, and herbicide treatments

(Clary et al., 1974) resulted in the following resource

responses:

• Mechanical methods (cabling and felling) of

pinyon-juniper removal cannot be expected to

increase water yields (figure 15). However, a herbicide treatment (aerial application of picloram

and 2,4-D) increased annual water yield by about

0.6 inch (Baker 1984). In this treatment, the pilot

watershed was sprayed with the herbicide mixture to kill the overstory trees. These dead trees

were removed after 8 yr of post-herbicide evaluation. Streamflow was reduced to near pretreatment levels after the dead trees were removed

• Cabling resulted in increased suspended sediment concentrations at specified streamflow discharges, while the herbicide treatment did not

cause a change (Lopes et al. 1996). Soil disturbances during the uprooting of trees by cabling

were believed responsible for the increased sediment concentration. Chemical water quality remained unchanged following conversion.

• Herbage production, generally lower in the

pinyon-juniper woodlands than in the ponderosa pine forests, has increased as a result of the

conversion treatments (Ffolliott and Clary 1986).

The value of this increase for livestock or wildlife

is temporary because it probably will decline as

the pinyon-juniper overstory becomes reestablished.

• Big and small game species dependent on pinyonjuniper trees for forage and cover generally decline as a consequence of conversion treatments

(Ffolliott and Clary 1986). However, cottontails

can increase, provided a sufficient canopy cover

remains. The numbers of overstory-dependent,

non-game birds decrease after treatment and are

replaced by ground-feeding species.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999 33

Interdisciplinary Land Use along the Mogollon Rim Baker and Ffolliott

These results were obtained on watersheds located on

volcanic soils along the Mogollon Rim. The literature

suggests that similar results might be obtained on volcanic soils elsewhere in the Central Arizona Highlands.

However, extrapolation of the results from Beaver Creek

to sites on sedimentary soils requires prior validation

(Ffolliott and Baker 1977).

Measurements continued on treated and control watersheds after the treatments were applied. Streamflow, sediment production, and water quality were monitored regularly through 1982. Other resources continue to be reinventoried periodically. Multiple-resource changes

caused by management practices applied to pilot watersheds continue to be evaluated by comparing post-treatment values with pretreatment data, and with data from

the untreated, control watersheds.

Implications

Similar projects included in the Arizona Watershed

Program were undertaken by the USDA Forest Service in

mixed conifer forests, chaparral shrublands, and streamside vegetation, as reported elsewhere in this publication.

Results of studies conducted at Beaver Creek, and other

research sites in the Central Arizona Highlands, have

shown that:

• Changes in vegetative cover can produce shortterm changes in streamflow from some vegetation types (Hibbert 1979, Baker 1984, 1986).

• Much of the additional streamflow accrues during above average precipitation years when reservoir capacity or operating strategy may not allow

effective use or control of this additional runoff.

• Some vegetative modifications on upstream watersheds can be designed to increase water yields

and still provide forage, wildlife, timber, and

amenity values required by society in some optimal combination. This finding is not surprising as

many of the management practices tested are

common in principle and application to programs

often used to benefit other natural resources in a

ecosystem-based, multiple-use management

framework.

Implications of the Beaver Creek Project and the Arizona Watershed Program as an entity are not confined to

the Central Arizona Highlands or to the Southwest, but

they are of national and international interest (Ffolliott

and Brooks 1990, 1996). The Beaver Creek watershed

continues to be frequently visited by scientists, administrators, and students from other states and countries. The

results from Beaver Creek are being applied in many arid

and semi-arid regions of the world.

Current Status

Most of the published and unpublished results of research conducted on the Beaver Creek Watershed between 1957 and 1982, and from more recent monitoring

Figure 15. Felling treatment in pinyonjuniper vegetation type on Beaver

Creek.
34 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999

Baker and Ffolliott Interdisciplinary Land Use Along the Mogollon Rim

activities, re-inventories of resources on the watershed,

and additional analyses of the original data is in the

annotated bibliography by Baker and Ffolliott (1998). The

24 subject areas contained in the bibliography and nearly

700 references cited provide insight into the breadth and

diversity of research developed during the Beaver Creek

Project.

Because of the unique nature and length of the data sets

obtained on Beaver Creek, particularly the hydrologic

data, scientists continue to analyze these data sets to meet

current objectives. The Beaver Creek watershed has provided the study site and, in many instances, the Beaver

Creek Project has furnished financial assistance for 49

theses and 18 dissertations on a diversity of topics. Included are 2 dissertations from Colorado State University;

one dissertation from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; one dissertation from Michigan State University;

9 theses and one dissertation from Northern Arizona

University; 39 theses and 12 dissertations from the University of Arizona; and one thesis and one dissertation

from Utah State University.

Because of the length of time since much of the original

data were obtained (20 to 35 yr in many cases), additional,

up-dated information on plant responses to the treatments is being collected by re-inventorying the original,

permanently-located sampling units on the watersheds

(Ffolliott and Gottfried 1991a, 1991b; Sheppard and

Edminster 1997). Repeated measurement of these inventory locations provides a method of evaluating long-term

changes in managed and unmanaged ponderosa pine

forests and pinyon-juniper woodlands. The information

obtained allows investigations of long-term ecosystem

responses to disturbances including climatic change, habitat fragmentation, and invasion of exotic species.

The Beaver Creek Watershed remains a biosphere reserve and continues to function as an outdoor laboratory,

providing study areas for various research cooperators.

Those interested in exploring these opportunities should

contact the Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Flagstaff, Arizona.

Most of the references in the annotated bibliography of

publications based on the Beaver Creek Project (Baker and

Ffolliott 1998) are found in the Northern Arizona University Library, Special Collections (Beaver Creek Watershed

Project), other university libraries, or the Rocky Mountain

Research Station field unit in Flagstaff, Arizona. Included

are copies of administrative reports, hand written notes

from respective scientists, maps showing location of study

plots, and original records of research data. This information is invaluable for continuing long-term evaluations of

climate, flora, and fauna of the ponderosa pine forests and

pinyon-juniper woodlands in the Southwest.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999 35

Creating a Basis for Watershed Management in High Elevation Forests Gottfried, DeBano, and Ffolliott

Chapter 6

Creating a Basis for Watershed Management in

High Elevation Forests

Gerald J. Gottfried, Leonard F. DeBano, and Peter F. Ffolliott

Figure 16. High elevation watersheds in mixed conifer forsets

and grasslands of the Central Arizona Highlands.

Introduction

Higher mountains and plateaus in the Central Arizona

Highlands generally support southwestern mixed conifer

forests, associated aspen and spruce-fir forests, and a

small acreage of grasslands interspersed among the forested areas. Most of the major rivers in the region originate

on headwater watersheds that support mixed conifer

forests where annual precipitation, particularly snow, is

high and evapotranspiration demands are lower than

other vegetation types in the Central Arizona Highlands.

Rich and Thompson (1974) reported that 6% of Arizona’s

surface water originates from the portion of the state

occupied by mixed conifer watersheds (less than 0.5%).

Studies on the mixed-conifer-dominated watersheds at

Workman Creek on the Sierra Ancha Experimental Forest

(Rich et al. 1961, Rich and Gottfried 1976, Gottfried et al.,

Chapter 2 of this publication) demonstrated that large and

significant increases in streamflow could be obtained by

replacing the forest with a grass cover on large or strategically located parts of a watershed or by greatly reducing

the forest overstory density. However, most of the experimental treatments at Workman Creek were relatively

drastic and compromised other resource sustainability.

The USDA Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Forest and

Range Experiment Station expanded its watershed research program in mixed conifer and high elevation ponderosa pine forests to the White Mountains of eastern

Arizona during the late 1950s and early 1960s (figure 16).

The initial research objective was to determine if results

from Workman Creek experiments could be confirmed,

and if they were transferable to other mixed conifer areas

in Arizona. Information from the Workman Creek studies

provided the basis for designing forest overstory treatments that were beneficial for timber production and

wildlife habitat values and that would produce significant

increases in streamflow. The major experiments in the

White Mountains were designed to test multiple-use forest watershed treatments.

Experimental Watersheds

The White Mountains are a transition area that contains

many features of the northern Colorado Plateau and southern Basin and Range Province vegetation types (Chronic

1983). The surface geology is attributed to tertiary and

quaternary basaltic eruptions that produced extensive

flows (Wilson 1962). Soils are from basalt and, except in

alluvial areas, have been classified into the suborder boralf,

indicating cool temperatures (Gottfried and DeBano 1990,

Gottfried 1991). Most of the surface soils are sandy loams,

and soil depths vary from 20 to over 40 inches.

Four pairs of experimental watersheds were established in the White Mountains of Arizona. The East and

West Fork Watersheds of Castle Creek are located 12 miles

south of Alpine, Arizona. The North and South Fork

Watersheds of Thomas Creek are situated south of Castle
36 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999

Gottfried, DeBano, and Ffolliott Creating a Basis for Watershed Management in High Elevation Forests

Creek, about 14 miles south of Alpine, and the East and

West Forks of Willow Creek are located further south near

Hannagan Meadows. A fourth set of experimental watersheds, the East and West Forks of Seven Springs, were

established in the high mountain grasslands located north

and east of Mt. Baldy and 11 miles south of Springerville,

Arizona. All watersheds are administered by the ApacheSitgreaves National Forests.

Castle Creek

The vegetation on Castle Creek is predominately ponderosa pine with an understory of Gambel oak. Mixed

conifer species occur on moist north-facing slopes and

along drainages. West Fork (900 acres) and East Fork

(1,163 acres) range between 7,835 and 8,583 ft in elevation

(figure 2). Annual precipitation averaged 27 inches, and

annual runoff during the calibration period averaged 2

inches on West Fork and 3 inches on East Fork.

Willow Creek

The East Fork (489 acres) watershed and the West Fork

(290 acres) control watershed on Willow Creek range

between 8,800 and 9,300 ft in elevation (figure 2). The

watersheds received an average annual precipitation of 34

inches (Gottfried et al. 1997). The watersheds supported

an old-growth, uneven-aged southwestern mixed conifer

forest consisting of Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir, Rocky

Mountain white fir, ponderosa pine, southwestern white

pine, Engelmann spruce, blue spruce, corkbark fir, and

quaking aspen.

Thomas Creek

The South Fork (562 acres) and North Fork (467 acres)

of Thomas Creek range from 8,400 to 9,300 ft in elevation

(figure 2). The watersheds support dense mixed conifer

stands that are similar in composition and structure to

those on Willow Creek. Vegetation on most of the watersheds was classified as Picea engelmannii/Senecio cardamine

habitat type (USDA Forest Service 1986). Annual precipitation averaged 30 inches. Annual runoff from South Fork

averaged 3 inches from both South Fork and North Fork.

Seven Springs

A fourth set of experimental watersheds, the East and

West Forks of Seven Springs, were established in the high

mountain grasslands. The grasslands cover about 80,000

acres at elevations above 9,000 ft, and are surrounded by

or interspersed with mixed conifer forests. The predominant grass species is Arizona fescue with associated mountain muhly, pine dropseed, and longtongue mutton bluegrass (Poa longiliguia) (Thompson et al. 1976). Elevations

on the watersheds range from 9,200 to 9,765 ft. East Fork

covers 748 acres and West Fork 482 acres.

Research Design

Castle Creek

The results from the moist-site cut on North Fork and

the single-tree selection harvest on South Fork of Workman Creek indicated that even-aged management could

maintain long-term timber production and improve water yields (Rich 1972). The 2 Castle Creek Watersheds, East

Fork and West Fork, were used to test this hypothesis.

In 1965, one -sixth of the area of the West Fork was

harvested in irregular blocks fitted to stand conditions.

The remaining area was placed into optimum growing

condition by thinning and sanitation operations (figure 17).

The idea was to duplicate commercial forest management

using a 120-yr rotation and a 20-yr cutting cycle. The

harvest reduced watershed basal area from 135 to 63 ft2

/

acre. Harvest blocks were planted with ponderosa pine

for adequate regeneration.

A debate concerning the impacts of aggressive fire

suppression on forest health and the potential dangers of

stand-replacing wildfires began in the middle 1970s. Forest history studies indicate that before fire suppression,

most wildfires were surface fires that reduced fuel loadings, improved seedbeds, thinned advance regeneration,

and retarded the establishment of shade-tolerant species

(Dieterich 1983). Managers attempting to reintroduce fire

into the region’s forests, often found it difficult because of

heavy fuel buildups. Therefore, in 1981 a second watershed treatment was initiated at Castle Creek to test the

effects of preharvest prescribed burning on water parameters.

The burning treatment was applied to the East Fork,

which had previously served as the control watershed.

Analyses of the data indicated that this approach was

valid because the streamflow annual volume relationship

between West Fork and East Fork had remained constant

since 1967. The fire was ignited in November 1981 and

burned about 503 acres or 43% of the watershed (Gottfried

and DeBano 1990). Surface fuels were consumed, while

the middle forest floor layer was only slightly charred and

few downed logs were totally consumed. Changes in the
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999 37

Creating a Basis for Watershed Management in High Elevation Forests Gottfried, DeBano, and Ffolliott

residual stand were minimal and tree mortality was 1% of

the basal area.

Willow Creek

The second test of the effects of timber management

was conducted in the mixed conifer stands on the East

Fork of Willow Creek in late 1971 and 1972. The objectives

of this treatment were to measure the effects of overstory

removal and timber selection harvest on the quality and

quantity of water yield and on other multiple use products such as timber, forage, wildlife, and recreation

(figure 18). The proposed treatment was similar to that

applied to the West Fork of Castle Creek. The treatment

was designed to bring the basal area level to optimum

stocking primarily by removing mature, over-mature,

defective, damaged, and high risk trees.

Figure 17. Thinning treatment on the

West Fork of Castle Creek.

Figure 18. Patch clearcut treatment on

the East Fork of Willow Creek.
38 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999

Gottfried, DeBano, and Ffolliott Creating a Basis for Watershed Management in High Elevation Forests

Thomas Creek

Research emphasis in the mid 1970s shifted to the South

and North Forks of Thomas Creek. The objective was to

demonstrate and evaluate the knowledge of integrated

resource management for southwestern mixed conifer

forests (Gottfried 1991, Gottfried and Ffolliott 1992).

A primary objective of the harvesting treatment on

Thomas Creek was to develop an operational resource

allocation plan and use a procedure to establish a management plan over a 120-yr period. Brown (1976) developed

the basic allocation model. Based on inputs from managers and researchers in natural resource disciplines, a prescription using patch clearcutting with other single-tree

and group selection methods was selected. They decided

that this prescription would produce the highest return

for a mix of timber, watershed, range, and wildlife resources. Harvesting that created small openings had been

advocated by Hibbert (1979) and Rich and Thompson

(1974) as a method of increasing water yields from moist,

mixed conifer forests. The Thomas Creek prescription was

also consistent with the silvicultural recommendations

for southwestern mixed conifer forests proposed by

Alexander (1974) and Jones (1974).

Seven Springs

The original treatment plan on the Seven Springs Watersheds was to install rows of large snow fences on one

watershed to reduce the movement of snow due to wind

and consequent losses of water through sublimation. Estimates based on a model developed by Schmidt (1972)

predicted that this treatment could increase water yields

by 1.5 to 2 inches if snow could be collected in drifts and

protected from sublimation behind the snow fences. However, this plan was eliminated because of high construction expenses and concerns about the visual impact of the

fences on recreationists traveling to the popular Big Lake

area. The alternate plan was to create natural windbreaks

by planting trees. Test plantings were conducted and

initial results showed satisfactory survival but growth

was very slow because of temperature-related bud damage.

A 120o V-notch weir was used on all of the experimental

watersheds in the White Mountains. Hydrologic records

began at the Castle Creek Watersheds in 1955, at the

Willow Creek and the South Fork of Thomas Creek in

October 1962, at the North Fork of Thomas Creek in

October 1965, and at Seven Springs in October 1964. A

weather station, including a recording precipitation gage

and hygrothermograph, was established within each watershed pair; additional standard precipitation gages were

also located within most watersheds. Sediment was measured in stilling basins that were constructed upstream

from the weirs on all watersheds.

Snow Studies

Snow falling at the higher elevation forests is an important source of water for much of the Central Arizona

Highlands (Ffolliott et al. 1989). However, less than 10% of

this water is recovered as streamflow. Snowpacks in the

Central Arizona Highlands differ from those at more

northern latitudes, since extremely wet or dry winters are

common and most snowpacks, except those at the highest

elevations, experience some melting throughout the winter. Forest management affects snowpack accumulation

and melt dynamics and can be used to increase and

concentrate accumulation and to speed or retard spring

snowmelt. Snowpack dynamics have been an important

consideration in all of the forest watershed studies in the

Central Arizona Highlands. Watershed-level snow studies have been augmented by a large amount of research on

experimental plots and sites.

Snow research efforts in the Central Arizona Highlands have focused on developing snow management

guidelines for increasing the amount of recoverable water

from snowpacks on forested watersheds (Ffolliott et al.

1989). Process studies in the White Mountains included

the use of snow lysimeters to characterize snowmelt rates,

timing of melt, and site differences in snowpack behavior

under different forest canopies. Snowpack changes were

linked to energy budget indices. Melt from lysimeters at

Thomas Creek was related to streamflow (Gottfried and

Ffolliott 1980). Lysimeter data in the mixed conifer forests

showed that sites with low and medium stand densities

had greater snowpacks, melt rates, and more runoff than

denser sites.

Theoretical studies focused on the relationships between components of the solar radiation energy budget

and snowmelt runoff. A number of predictive techniques

and simulation models were developed from studies in

the White Mountains. The SNOWMELT model, originally

developed for use in the Rocky Mountains, has been

adapted to conditions in the Central Arizona Highlands

(Solomon et al. 1976). Another model, YIELD, can be used

to predict the effects of forest management on water yields

(Ffolliott et al. 1989). The accuracy of several snowmeltstreamflow models has been compared during this effort

(Ffolliott and Gottfried 1995).

The measurements on Thomas Creek by Plasencia

(1988) and Gottfried (1991) are examples of studies

about the effects of forest management on snowpack

dynamics. Similar studies have been conducted in the
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999 39

Creating a Basis for Watershed Management in High Elevation Forests Gottfried, DeBano, and Ffolliott

ponderosa pine forests at Beaver Creek (Ffolliott et al.

1989).

Cooperators

The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest was the main

cooperator on the various studies in these high elevation

forests. They were responsible for maintaining the hydrological and meteorological installations and assisted with

several of the snow and ecological studies. In addition, the

University of Arizona cooperated with most of the studies. The Salt River Valley Users Association contributed

partial financial support of the first Castle Creek treatment.

Results

Earlier statue-of-knowledge publications reported the

results from experimental watersheds and studies conducted in the mixed conifer forest ecosystems (Rich and

Thompson 1974). Highlights of the major findings are

presented below.

Castle Creek

Results from the irregular, block, harvesting treatment

in predominately ponderosa pine on Castle Creek, West

Fork were:

• An annual average water yield increase of about

30%, or 0.5 inch, was attributed to reduced evapotranspiration and increased snow accumulations

in the openings (Rich 1972).

• Evapotranspiration was lowered by 4 inches (19

to 15 inches) (Thompson 1974).

• Increased water yield remained stable for 21 yr

(1967 to 1987), probably because new tree roots

had not fully occupied the soil mantle, and the

height differences between the residual trees surrounding the openings and the regeneration continued to provide aerodynamics that favored increased snow accumulations in the openings

(Gottfried and DeBano 1990).

• Effects on wildlife were important. The mixture of

forest and interspaced clearcut blocks provided

excellent conditions for deer and elk; day-use was

increased (Patton 1974).

Results of prescribed fire on Castle Creek, East Fork

included:

• No increase in average annual water yields

(Gottfried and DeBano 1990), which was understandable because the fire did not affect forest

overstory conditions or consume much of the

forest floor.

• Concentrations of NH4

-N and NO3-N, PO4, and K

increased during the first 2 post-fire snowmelt

periods (Gottfried and DeBano 1990). The changes

in nutrient concentrations, while statistically significant, were small and of little consequence in

terms of site productivity and downstream water

quality.

Willow Creek

Results of the diameter-limit harvest in mixed conifers

on Willow Creek, East Fork were:

• Logging and wind damage caused a 68% reduction in tree density and a 82% reduction in basal

area (Gottfried 1983).

• Aspen became the dominant overstory after the

harvest.

• Initial logging damage to advance regeneration

was severe in the diameter-limit area; there was a

71% decline in density (Gottfried 1983). Regeneration numbers and stocking were recovering 6

yr after harvest because of vigorous aspen

suckering.

The heavy logging removals and wind damage compromised the original research objectives on Willow Creek,

East Fork. The diameter-limit area, before aspen dominance, was similar to a large clearcut rather than the

intended stand of young sawtimber trees. The proposed

openings could not be distinguished from adjacent thinned

areas. Approximately 62% of the watershed was in openings (Gottfried 1991).

Evaluations of changes in runoff on Willow Creek, East

Fork indicated:

• A 54%, or 3.8 inches, increase in water yields.

• Snow water-equivalent data from a USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) snow

course could be used to predict snowmelt runoff from a headwater drainage (Gottfried et al.

1997).
40 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999

Gottfried, DeBano, and Ffolliott Creating a Basis for Watershed Management in High Elevation Forests

The diameter-limit treatment was beneficial because:

• Deer and elk use increased in the diverse cover

that provided food while retaining sufficient timber for bedding and hiding cover (Patton 1976).

• Some species, such as the yellow-bellied sap

sucker, were more common in the openings than

in the uncut stands, although total bird densities

were reduced (Franzblau 1977).

Thomas Creek

Streamflow responses to patch cutting on Thomas Creek,

South Fork were:

• Annual water yield increased about 2 inches or

45% (Gottfried 1991). The yearly streamflow increases were generated by winter snowmelt or

rain storms.

• Increases in peak flows occurred. Annual increases

were about 3 ft3/s/mi2 or 65%.

• Water yield increases are usually attributed to

increased snowpack accumulations and reduced

evapotranspiration in the forest openings

(Gottfried 1991). Snow surveys did not measure

any significant changes in snow water equivalents following the harvest, although more snow

was measured in the small openings than in the

adjacent partially-harvested stand (Plasencia 1988).

• During high and average precipitation years, increases in water yield can occur without heavy

reductions in stand density or the creation of large

openings because the residual stand is unable to

use all of the available water.

There was a concern that the timber harvest on South

Fork would cause accelerated soil erosion. Heede and

King (1990) determined:

• Overland flow and sediment delivery from severely disturbed and undisturbed sites were low

and inconsequential. This was true even though

measured sediment deliveries from severely disturbed areas (37 lbs/acre/yr) were higher than

from undisturbed areas (5 lbs/ac/yr).

• Increased streamflow after treatment caused the

natural channel adjustment process to accelerate,

but the impacts on downstream areas were unknown.

• Mule deer, elk, and livestock benefitted from the

harvested openings because of increased production of herbaceous species (Ffolliott and Gottfried

1989).

• Only minor, short-term changes in bird populations were reported (Scott and Gottfried 1983).

• Habitat requirements of red squirrels

(Tamisciurus hundsonicus) were evaluated and

used in the preparation of a marking guide to

minimize detrimental affects from timber cutting (Patton and Vahle 1986, Vahle and Patton

1983).

Ecologically-oriented studies were also conducted

on the Thomas Creek areas before treatment. A study by

Dieterich (1983), described the fire history in this mixed

conifer stand. Dieterich found that before 1900, fires

burned through South Fork at intervals of 22 yr and that

small, localized fires occurred frequently throughout

the area. Fire suppression resulted in changes in stand

structure and composition, a greater number of smaller

trees, and more shade-tolerant species that normally

would have been reduced by periodic ground fires.

Other studies conducted on Thomas Creek and Willow

Creek were used to characterize dwarf mistletoe infections by host, site, and stand characteristics (Gottfried

and Embry 1977) and to describe species and stand

growth of an old-growth mixed conifer forest (Gottfried

1978).

Studies were also initiated during preparation of or

immediately after the harvest. Determination of the effects of treatment on forest productivity and sustainability was based on common stand parameters such as species composition, stand structure and stocking, regeneration success, and growth of residual trees and stands

(Gottfried and Ffolliott 1992). The Thomas Creek treatment produced a wide range of benefits while retaining

many desired old-growth stand characteristics.

Seven Springs

Climatic data from Seven Springs (grassland) and the

nearby station at Burro Mountain, within a mixed conifer

stand, were compared to determine feasibility of using

windbreaks in these grassland sites. Soils analyses indicated that the main difference between forest and grassland soils was the lack of mycorrhizae in the grassland

soils (Thompson et al. 1976). Temperature data from Seven

Springs and Burro Mountain Station were similar. Annual

precipitation at Seven Springs averaged 22 inches while

Burro Mountain averaged 32 inches, but high winds on

the grasslands may have resulted in inaccurate gage readings. Thompson and his associates (1976) believed that

lower available soil water, related to snowpack sublimation, was one reason that trees had not moved into the

grasslands. Trees are found at the edges of the grasslands

where topography shelters them and the snowpack from

wind; moderating the microclimate.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999 41

Creating a Basis for Watershed Management in High Elevation Forests Gottfried, DeBano, and Ffolliott

Implications

Research results from the experimental watersheds in

the White Mountains of Arizona have increased the knowledge about hydrology and watershed management of

mixed conifer and high elevation ponderosa pine forests

in the Central Arizona Highlands, and to some extent, of

the high elevation grasslands. Watershed treatments were

directed towards practical options that would be useful to

forest managers. This is demonstrated by:

• The shift in opening size, from large openings

dominated with seeded grasses on the North Fork

of Workman Creek (Rich and Gottfried 1976), to

smaller 20 acre openings on Castle Creek where

tree regeneration was the goal. The small 1 to 2

acre openings on the South Fork of Thomas Creek

were the next step in achieving forest regeneration while increasing runoff by increasing snow

accumulations and lowering evapotranspiration

demands. The shift in size also reflects concerns

about forest esthetics. The change from evenaged to uneven-aged silviculture in the residual

stands also reflects this change.

• The initial emphasis of the watershed management research program was to determine how to

increase runoff into the Salt River System. Management for other forest resources, especially timber and wildlife, was of secondary importance in

the 1950s. However, management for water at the

expense of the forest was unacceptable.

• Water-yield augmentation is no longer a primary

management goal in the Central Arizona Highlands. Even timber production has declined as

other forest value, such as recreation and concerns about rare and endangered species, have

increased.

Current Status

Most of the watershed experiments were terminated

between 1983 and 1986. However, the Apache-Sitgreaves

National Forest continues to collect streamflow and precipitation measurements from the Castle, Willow, and

Thomas Creek Watersheds as part of its hydrological

monitoring program. Vegetation transects and points continue to be visited by USDA forest pathologists to determine changes in dwarf mistletoe infections over time.

Additional inventories are being considered by scientists

at the Rocky Mountain Research Station. Data from the

watersheds have also been used by graduate students at

the University of Arizona.
42 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999

Gottfried, DeBano, and Ffolliott Creating a Basis for Watershed Management in High Elevation Forests
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999 43

Changing Values of Riparian Ecosystems Baker, DeBano, and Ffolliott

Chapter 7

Changing Values of Riparian Ecosystems

Malchus B. Baker, Jr., Leonard F. DeBano, and Peter F. Ffolliott

Introduction

Riparian ecosystems in the Central Arizona Highlands,

and throughout the Southwest in general, provided the

necessary water for humans, livestock, and agricultural

crops during settlement by Europeans in the late 1800s.

Other resources available in these moist environments

included wildlife and fish, livestock and wildlife forage,

and shade. Trees were often used for fuel, poles, and

building materials. As human population increased in the

early 1950s, demands for increased water supplies often

dominated management of riparian ecosystems, which

resulted in the destruction of many riparian areas (Horton

and Campbell 1974). Within the last 25 yr people have

become more aware of the diversity and multiple benefits

provided by healthy riparian ecosystems.

This chapter describes changes in research emphasis

that reflect changing attitudes of the public about the

importance of riparian ecosystems. No one site has been

the focus of this research. Instead, investigations were,

and continue to be, conducted in response to a wide range

of issues. Some important concerns are:

• Flow of water into and through these ecosystems.

• Maintenance of wildlife and fish habitats.

• Vegetative structure, classification, and patterns

of plant succession.

• Impacts of grazing by livestock and wildlife.

Riparian Ecosystems

The nature of riparian ecosystems and the linkages

between them and the upland watershed areas are described to place subsequent discussions into a watershed

perspective. Riparian areas are at the interface between

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The abruptness and

extent of the transitions across these interfaces are generally site-specific. Riparian ecosystems are delineated by

soil characteristics and vegetative communities that require free or unbound water (DeBano and Schmidt 1989).

These vegetative communities consist of herbaceous riparian plants (generally species of Carex, Eleocharis, Juncus,

and Scirpus), which typically produce the characteristic

dark-green edge on the sides of stream, and woody species (alder, ash, cottonwood, saltcedar, and willows) that

usually reside on the higher alluvial terraces. Riparian

systems are ecological sites where soil moisture exceeds

the requirement of species present because of water flowing into and through the ecosystems.

Riparian ecosystems in the Central Arizona Highlands

furnish habitats for a variety of wildlife species, are grazed

by livestock and wildlife, and provide areas for fishing,

hiking, bird watching, picnicking, and camping. Maintaining the integrity of these ecosystems requires careful

management and, in some cases, protection from overgrazing, excessive tree cutting and recreational use, and

other disturbances.

Riparian-Watershed Linkages

Erosion and surface runoff are important to the stability of riparian ecosystems and its surrounding hillslopes.

A response to a disturbance, such as a vegetative conversion treatment or fire, must be considered within this

context (DeBano and Schmidt 1989, DeBano et al. 1996a,

Baker et al. 1998). Water flow and sediment movement

through a riparian ecosystem is controlled by vegetation,

topography, hydrology, and geologic formations within

this linked system.

Riparian ecosystems are considered healthy if channel

deposition (aggradation by sedimentation) and

downcutting (degradation by erosion) is at equilibrium

(figure 19). A healthy riparian area maintains a dynamic

equilibrium between the streamflow forces producing

change and the forces of resistance to change of its vegetative, geomorphic, and structural features (DeBano and

Schmidt 1989). This dynamic equilibrium is sufficiently

stable so that external disturbances on surrounding

hillslopes can often occur without altering the equilibrium. This resistance to change results largely from adjustments among several factors, such as vegetation,
44 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999

Baker, DeBano, and Ffolliott Changing Values of Riparian Ecosystems

channel depth, and stream morphology, which react simultaneously within the riparian system to increases or

decreases in flow or sediment from the uplands.

Short-term increases in surface runoff from disturbances on upland areas can increase streamflow volume

and velocity, which causes changes in channel erosion

and deposition downstream (figure 19). In a healthy riparian area, oscillations in the system produce little change in

its dynamic equilibrium. Equilibrium can easily be reestablished when the resiliency of the system is not severely

stressed by the disturbance. When degradational or

aggradational forces overwhelm this dynamic equilibrium, riparian health can be adversely affected. Usually

degradation processes (causing channel downcutting)

result in unhealthy riparian conditions more rapidly than

do aggradational processes (causing sediment deposition). The sensitivity of the equilibrium to aggradation

and degradation processes are indicated by the riparian

health scale in figure 19.

Fire is a common disturbance in riparian ecosystems

and the surrounding hillslopes. Fire can burn either the

upland watershed or both the riparian and upland areas.

Fire rarely occurs only in a riparian ecosystem unless a

controlled burn is prescribed to do so. When only the

upland watershed area is burned, the riparian ecosystem

acts as a buffer between the burned hillslopes and stream.

However, when both the upland and riparian areas are

severely burned, devastating results can occur. Of most

significance, the buffering effect of the riparian ecosystem

is lost, leading to a disruption of the dynamic equilibrium

(DeBano and Neary 1996).

Changing Research Emphasis

A major goal of flood plain management through the

mid 1960s was control or elimination of riparian vegetation for water salvage and flood control. By the late 1960s,

pressure by environmental groups and the general public

to preserve and develop riparian ecosystems for wildlife

habitats, recreation, and aesthetic values largely halted

these water salvage programs. As a consequence, holistic,

ecosystem-based riparian management has prevailed

throughout the Central Arizona Highlands since the mid

1970s.

Early Emphasis

Removal of riparian trees and shrubs (phreatophytes)

in stream channels, floodplains, and terraces to reduce

transpiration characterized riparian management from

the early 1950s through the mid 1970s. A phreatophyte is

a plants with a root system that obtains water either

directly from groundwater or from the capillary fringe

above the water table. The potential for water-yield improvement by converting phreatophytes to low waterusing plants was considered for a number of reasons. The

high transpiration rate of plants in arid or semi-arid

environments with roots extended into the groundwater

or capillary fringe above the water table was a major

Figure 19. Relationships of a stable

stream channel balance (adapted

from Rosgen 1980, based on Lane

1955).

COARSE FINE FLAT STEEP

SEDIMENT SIZE STREAM SLOPE

DEGRADATION ADDRADATION

CHANNEL PROCESSES

UNHEALTHY

HEALTHY

UNHEALTHY

RIPARIAN HEALTH
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999 45

Changing Values of Riparian Ecosystems Baker, DeBano, and Ffolliott

reason for conversion. The rapid invasion of the introduced saltcedar, a high water-using phreatophyte that

forms dense, impenetrable thickets, created further interest. Managers believed that phreatophytes were low in

economic value and, more importantly, were water-wasters (Horton 1960). Therefore, their eradication was stressed

as a major management goal.

Water-Yield Improvement

To determine the potential for water-yield improvement by manipulating riparian vegetation, early experiments were conducted on Sycamore Creek, the Whitespar

Watersheds, and the North Fork of Workman Creek.

These experiments involved water-budget analyses and

paired-watershed studies.

Thomsen and Schumann (1968) conducted a waterbudget study on the lower 10 miles of Sycamore Creek

where riparian vegetation covered about 1,400 acres of

stream channel and floodplain. The study was designed to

estimate possible changes in the water yield through

removal of riparian vegetation. Water losses were estimated to average 81,500 acre-ft annually or about 1.1 acreft per acre. Since transpiration by vegetation was thought

responsible for much of this loss, it was determined that

a large percentage of water would be saved by eradication of the riparian vegetation (Horton and Campbell

1974).

A primary reason for gaging the Whitespar watersheds

near Prescott was to determine the streamflow response

when channel-side chaparral shrubs were converted to a

grass-forb cover (Ingebo 1972, Hibbert et al. 1974, DeBano

et al. this publication). For the 4 years following the

herbicide treatment, annual streamflow increased an average of 0.61 inch or about 30% when compared to the

untreated control watershed. This increase of streamflow

averaged 4 inches from the treated area (15% of the watershed). Over 75% of the increase came during the December through April major flow period.

All of the Arizona alder and bigtooth maple adjacent to

springs, seeps, and streams on the North Fork of Workman Creek were cut in 1952, and their stumps were

poisoned with an herbicide to prevent resprouting. The

effect of removing these broad-leaved trees on subsequent

streamflow was insignificant, even during the growing

season when the greatest rate of transpiration would

occur. It was hypothesized that the number of trees removed and the area affected by this treatment were too

small to cause a significant change (Rich and Thompson

1974, Gottfried et al., Chapter 2 of this publication).

While the results from these and similar experiments

on effect of riparian vegetation removal on water regimes

were inconclusive, relatively large-scale operational eradication programs continued into the 1970s (Horton and

Campbell 1974). Riparian plants, particularly woody

phreatophytes, were removed from within stream channels, on floodplains, and terraces by mechanical, chemical, or a combination of mechanical-chemical means.

Following initial conversion, the treated areas were

usually subjected to mechanical or chemical maintenance

programs to suppress invasion by high water-using

plants.

Current Research Emphasis

Continual pressure by environmental groups and the

general public to preserve and develop riparian ecosystems for wildlife habitats, recreation, and aesthetic values

resulted in altering the riparian management emphasis in

the Central Arizona Highlands and throughout the Southwest by the mid 1970s. Interest in the condition, role,

and sustainability of riparian ecosystems had increased

greatly. Because water-yield improvement was not the

primary focus of management, eradication of riparian

vegetation ceased. Environmental groups and the general

public had become increasingly concerned about maintaining the integrity of riparian ecosystems for multiple

values.

Concern for the declining health of riparian ecosystems, initially expressed by the scientific community, had

expanded to a broad spectrum of interest groups including land and water resource managers, educators, recreation managers, legislators, and environmentalists (Shaw

and Finch 1996). These groups were seeking information

and a better understanding of the dynamics, functions,

uses, and the restoration of riparian ecosystems. A series

of symposia has reflected this growing interest and the

often conflicting uses and desired future conditions of

riparian ecosystems (Johnson and Jones 1977, Johnson

and McCormick 1979, Johnson et al. 1985, Tellman et al.

1993, and Shaw and Finch 1996).

Current Research Program

The sustainability of riparian ecological systems in

Southwestern forests and woodlands is being investigated by scientists with the USDA Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Research Station, Flagstaff, Arizona. The purpose of this project is to create, develop, and apply knowledge on fluvial, geomorphological, and ecological system functions, processes, and dynamics needed to sustain diverse and healthy riparian ecosystems in the Central Arizona highlands and elsewhere in the arid Southwest.
46 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999

Baker, DeBano, and Ffolliott Changing Values of Riparian Ecosystems

Goals

Goals of this research program include:

• Determination of specific interrelationships

among hydrologic, geomorphic, and biotic processes that affect fish habitat, riparian vegetation,

channel dynamics, and instream flow regimes.

• Development of predictive models to determine

the effect of watershed-scale activities, such as

prescribed fire, grazing, and vegetation management, on the functioning and quality of riparian

ecological systems.

• Determination of factors that influence populations and habitats of threatened, endangered, and

sensitive fish, and other fish, plants, and biota

inhabitating Southwestern riparian ecosystems.

Results

Results from earlier studies conducted on riparian ecosystems have been previously reported in a status-ofknowledge paper (Horton and Campbell 1974). Results of

the current research program show that:

• Although there is a public perception that riparian areas are fragile, current information indicates that riparian systems are often resilient.

Today, many riparian areas are at risk because of

various stresses, such as overgrazing by livestock

and wildlife, drought, and flooding, which have

caused the system to lose its dynamic equilibrium. However, once these stresses are relieved,

many riparian systems can regain their equilibrium within a few years because of resilient, native, herbaceous, riparian plants such as Carex,

Eleocharis, Juncus, and Scirpus (Medina 1996;

Medina et al 1996).

• Instream structures, channelization, bank modification, and rip-rap can be used to provide flood

control, irrigation development, and wetland conversion. Many restoration projects using these

methodologies, however, have resulted in further

site degradation and reduction in the functioning

condition of the affected streams (Baker and

Medina 1997).

• The importance of the interactions between the

riparian vegetation and channel systems must be

recognized as integral factors in maintaining ecosystem productivity (Medina et al. 1997). Channel

systems are continually adjusting to varying flows

and sediment loads, a process that is incompatible with placement of fixed structures. Riparian

vegetation on flood plains allows the stream to

function properly and helps provides resiliency

to withstand a variety of environmental conditions.

• Often, restoration of a degrading channel system

only requires exclusion of grazing (ideally, both

domestic animals and wildlife) for a few years

and occasionally reestablishment of riffle bars

(Medina 1996). Removal of the grazing stress

allows the riparian plants to regain vigor and

restores their functioning ability to detain flood

flows, reduce water energy and bank erosion, and

to trap sediments and nutrients in the water (figure 20). The riffle bars slow down the water velocities, reduce or terminate downcutting of the

channel, and provide fish spawning habitat.

Implications

Research efforts in the riparian ecosystems and changing attitudes of the general public have had major effects

on how riparian areas are currently viewed and managed.

Riparian ecosystems are now considered important habitats for wildlife species and important grazing areas for

livestock and wildlife, while providing opportunities for

fishing, hiking, bird watching, picnicking, and camping.

Maintaining the integrity of these fragile systems requires

careful management and, in some cases, protecting them

from overgrazing, excessive tree cutting, recreational use,

and other disturbances.

Currently, research emphasis is on assessment of the

condition of our riparian resources and on restoration of

areas that are not functioning properly. Although millions

of dollars have been spent during the last century for

riparian restoration and fish habitat improvement, riparian areas have been and are still disappearing, while

others remain in a degraded condition (Baker and Medina

1996). Current research, however, provides hope that

with little effort and money, many degraded but resilient

systems can be restored using inexpensive materials and

equipment and changes in grazing strategies.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999 47

Changing Values of Riparian Ecosystems Baker, DeBano, and Ffolliott

Figure 20. Section of Boggy Creek in eastern Arizona,immediately following exclosure with an elk proof fence in

1992 (above), and some location in October 1996 (below).
48 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999

Baker, DeBano, and Ffolliott Changing Values of Riparian Ecosystems
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999 49

The Future Ffolliott

Chapter 8

The Future

Peter F. Ffolliott

Introduction

Research in the vegetation types of the Central Arizona

Highlands has evolved, for the most part, from single

resource evaluations (increased water yield) to evaluations that consider the multiple benefits of vegetation

management treatments. The papers presented in this

publication have demonstrated that vegetation can be

managed to increase water yields, while providing timber, forage, recreation, wildlife, and other amenities. One

question that should be asked is to what extent can the

established research framework and available databases

be used to meet future management-oriented informational needs in the Central Arizona Highlands and elsewhere in the Southwest?

Long-Term Monitoring and

Evaluation

Long-term monitoring and evaluations, based on

reinventories of the permanently-located sampling units

on the study sites in the Central Arizona Highlands,

represent a valuable use of the cumulative research efforts. A better framework for conservation and the sustainable use of natural resources in the region should

evolve from the evaluations obtained.

Repeated measurements of permanent inventory locations provide a basis for the long-term monitoring and

evaluations that are central to almost every important

ecological concept and environmental issue (Franklin

1989). Information from these measurements allows a

look at the “big picture” of how ecosystems might respond to disturbances resulting from climatic change,

habitat fragmentation, or invasions of exotic species. Information of this kind is becoming increasingly important

in developing a holistic, coherent viewpoint of how ecosystems function (Baskin 1997, Shepperd and Edminster 1997).

Sampling variability is generally reduced when the

same transects, plots, or points can be repeatedly visited in

a series of inventories. Analysis of such data sets can result

in accurate, precise, meaningful conclusions and predictions for long-term management purposes. To illustrate

this point, analysis of data obtained from repeated inventories of ponderosa pine stands on a Beaver Creek watershed shows the changes in volume of trees 7.0-inches

diameter breast height (dbh) and larger before (1963 to

1969) and after (1970 to 1995) a heavy thinning treatment

was applied on the watershed in 1970 (figure 22). Knowledge of this progression can be helpful in prescribing

future management actions on the watershed. Even this

relatively long post-treatment record (1970 to 1995) might

be insufficient for full appreciation of the changes from

implementation of the thinning treatment. Therefore, continued monitoring and evaluation of the thinning treatment is anticipate.

Other Uses of Databases

The diverse databases developed from the research

programs in the Central Arizona Highlands describe the

dynamics of the ecosystems studied and are unique in

their multiresource character. These databases are available today because efforts were made to protect the original maps and airphotos, inventory forms, and file copies

of summaries. Many of these databases have been computerized, making them easier to preserve, retrieve, and

update. Computerization of the databases facilitates incorporation of future resource inventories into the databases. This allows continuing evaluations of ecosystem

properties after implementation of alternative land management activities.

These databases were developed originally at a considerable expense of time and money. By computerizing this

information, the stored information can be easily retrieved

and analyzed, using new techniques and methodologies

to help meet current needs. The databases can be used as

stored in the system or modified in structure to analyze

the changing trends in specific resource values through

time. This information is available to managers, researchers, and decisionmakers to better understand the ecologies of ecosystems in the highlands region.
50 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999

Ffolliott The Future

Initiation of New Studies

Managers, researchers, and decisionmakers continue

to analyze these databases to meet current objectives and

answer questions that are asked about the impacts of

alternative land management activities on these resources

and ecosystem properties. However, analyses of existing

information can sometime only partially answer these

questions. When additional knowledge is needed, the

research framework on the Sierra Ancha Experimental

Forest, the Beaver Creek watersheds, Castle Creek, Willow Creek, and Thomas Creek watersheds, and other

research sites in the Central Arizona Highlands can provide the basis for implementing new studies to complement what is known.

These research sites continue to serve society’s needs

for outdoor laboratories to study how vegetative manipulations, or its absence, affect forage, wildlife, wood, and

water resources, and amenity values such as scenic beauty.

As the mixture of these benefits and values changes, the

emphasis placed on the newly-formulated studies should

also change.

Implications

Implications of the overall research efforts in the Central Arizona Highlands are not confined to Arizona or the

Southwest, but instead they are of national and, in some

instances, international interest. The research sites continue to be visited frequently by out-of-state and foreign

scientists, land managers, administrators, and students.

As a consequence, results of the research programs in the

highlands are being applied throughout the world today.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999 51

The Future Ffolliott

Literature Cited

Alberhasky, J. M. 1983. Stormflow analysis of chaparral conversion of small, central Arizona watersheds. MS Thesis, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona. 106 p.

Alexander, R. R. 1974. Silviculture of central and southern Rocky

Mountain forests: a summary of the status of our knowledge

by timber types. USDA Forest Service, Research Paper RM120.

Anderson, J. 1986. Chaparral Management: The Prescott National Forest Strategy. In: Wagner, M.R., editor. Changes and

Opportunities in Chaparral Management. Proceedings of the

Southwestern Society of American Foresters Annual Fall

Meeting. November 12-14, 1986. Prescott, AZ. SAF Publication No. SAF 87.10.

Arizona State Land Department. 1962. The Arizona watershed

program. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State Land Department.

Axelrod, D. I. 1989. Age and origin of chaparral. In: Keeley, S. C.,

ed. The California chaparral: Paradigms reexamined. Science

Series No. 34. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles

County, Los Angeles, CA. 7-19.

Baker, M.B., Jr. 1975. Modeling management of ponderosa pine

forest resources. In: Proceedings of the 1975 watershed management symposium, Logan, Utah, August 11-13, American

Society of Civil Engineers, Irrigation and Drainage Division.

478-493.

Baker, M.B., Jr. 1982. Hydrologic regimes of forested areas in the

Beaver Creek watershed. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-90.

Baker, M.B., Jr. 1984. Changes in streamflow in an herbicidetreated pinyon-juniper watershed in Arizona. Water Resources Research. 20:1639-1642.

Baker, M.B., Jr. 1986. Effects of ponderosa pine treatments on

water yield in Arizona. Water Resources Research. 22:67-73.

Baker, M.B., Jr; Ffolliott, P. F. 1998. Multiple resource evaluations on the Beaver Creek watershed: An annotated bibliography of 40 years of investigations. USDA Forest Service

General Technical Report RM-GTR-13.

Baker, M.B., Jr.; Medina, A.L. 1997. Fisheries and stream restoration in the Southwest: A critical review. In: Warwick, J.J., ed.

Proceedings of the AWRA Annual Symposium, Water Resources Education, Training, and Practice: Opportunities for

the Next Century. American Water Resources Association,

Herndon, Virginia, TPS-97-1. 407-415.

Baker, M. B., Jr; DeBano, L. F.; Ffolliott, P. F. 1999. Changing

values of riparian ecosystems. In: Baker, M.B., Jr.; Gottfried,

G.J., Technical Coordinators, History of watershed research

in the Central Arizona Highlands. USDA Forest Service,

General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-29, 56 p.

Baker, M.B., Jr.; DeBano, L.F.; Ffolliott, P.F., Gottfried, G.J. 1998.

Riparian-watershed linkages in the Southwest. In: Potts, D.

E., editor. Rangeland management and water resources: Proceedings AWRA Specialty Conference, American Water Resources Association, Herndon, Virginia, pp. 347-357.

Barr, G.W. 1956. Recovering rainfall: More water for irrigation,

Part I. Arizona Watershed Program. Cooperating: Arizona

State Land Department, Water Division of the Salt River

Users’ Association, University of Arizona. 33 p.

Baskin, Y. 1997. Center seeks synthesis to make ecology more

useful. Science. 275:310-311.

Bliss, E.S. 1937. Tree oaks of the Southwest. USDA, Forest Service, Research Note No 20, Southwestern Forest and Range

Experiment Station, Tucson, AZ.

Bojorquez-Tapia, L.A. 1987. Multiple-resource modeling in the

forest and woodland ecosystems of Arizona. PhD Dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.

Bojorquez-Tapia, L. A.; Ffolliott, P. F.; Guertin, D. P. 1990.

Herbage production-forest overstory relationships in two

Arizona ponderosa pine forests. Journal of Range Management. 43:25-28.

Bolander, D. 1986. Chaparral in Arizona. In: Wagner, M. R., ed.

Changes and Opportunities in Chaparral Management. Proceedings of the Southwestern Society of American Foresters

Annual Fall Meeting. November 12-14, 1986. Prescott, AZ.

SAF Publication No. SAF 87.10.

Boster, R.S.; Daniel, T.C. 1972. Measuring public responses to

vegetative management. Arizona Watershed Symposium

Proceedings 16:38-43.

Brown, H.E.; Baker, M.B., Jr.; Rogers, J.J.; Clary, W.P.; Kovner,

J.L.; Larson, F.R.; Avery, C.C.; Campbell, R.E. 1974. Opportunities for increasing water yields and other multiple use

values on ponderosa pine forest lands. USDA Forest Service,

Research Paper RM-129.

Brown, T. C. 1976. Alternatives analysis for multiple use management: A case study. USDA Forest Service, Research Paper

RM-176.

Brown, T.C.; Daniel, T.C. 1984. Modeling forest scenic beauty:

concepts and application to ponderosa pine. USDA Forest

Service, Research Paper RM-256.

Brown, T.C.; O’Connell, P.F.; Hibbert, A.R. 1974. Chaparral

conversion potential in Arizona. Part II: An economic analysis. USDA Forest Service, Research Paper RM-17.

Cable, D. R. 1957. Chemical control of chaparral shrubs in central

Arizona. Journal of Forestry. 55: 899-903.

Cable, D.W. 1975. Range management in the chaparral type and

its ecological basis: The status of our knowledge. USDA

Forest Service, Research Paper RM-155.

Campbell, R.E.; Baker, M.B., Jr.; Ffolliott, P.F.; Larson, F.R.;

Avery, C.C. 1977. Wildlife effects on a ponderosa pine ecosystem: An Arizona case study. USDA Forest Service, Research

Paper RM-191.

Chronic, H. 1983. Roadside geology of Arizona. Mountain Press

Publishing Co., Missoula, MT. 314 p.

Clary, W.P.; Kruse, W.H.; Larson, F.R. 1975. Cattle grazing and

wood production with different basal area levels. Journal of

Range Management. 28:434-437.
52 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999

Ffolliott The Future

Clary, W.P.; Baker, M.B., Jr.; O’Connell, P.F.; Johnsen, T.N., Jr.;

Campbell, R.E. 1974. Effects of pinyon-juniper removal on

natural resource products and uses in Arizona. USDA Forest

Service, Research Paper RM-128.

Cooperrider, C.K.; Hendricks, B.A. 1940. The role of vegetation

on steep mountain slopes. USDA Forest Service, Research

Note No 85, Southwestern Forest and Range Experiment

Station, Tucson, AZ.

Cooperrider, C.K.; Sykes, G.G. 1938. The relationship of

streamflow to precipitation on the Salt River watershed above

Roosevelt Dam. Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station

Technical Bulletin 76, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 69 p.

Cooperrider, C.K.; Cassidy, H.D.; Niederhof, C.H. 1945. Forecasting stream-flow of the Salt River, Arizona. American

Geophysical Union Transactions. 26: 275-282.

Courtney, R.E.; Baldwin, J.J. 1964. Modifying chaparral brushland on the Tonto National Forest to improve multiple resource values. Arizona Watershed Symposium Proceedings

8:31-35.

Croxen, F.W. 1926. History of grazing Tonto. Tonto Grazing

Conference. Phoenix, AZ. November 1926. 12 p.

Daniel, T.C.; Boster, R.S. 1976. Measuring landscape esthetics:

The scenic beauty estimation method. USDA Forest Service,

Research Paper RM-167.

Davis, E.A. 1973. Picloram movement from a chaparral watershed. Water Resources Research. 9:1304-1313).

Davis, E.A. 1984. Conversion of Arizona chaparral to grass

increases water yield and nitrate loss. Water Resources Research. 20:1643-1649.

Davis, E.A., 1987a. Chaparral conversion to increase streamflow

in Arizona: Sequential treatments extend duration of nitrate

loss to stream water. Forest Science. 33:89-103.

Davis, E.A. 1987b. Chaparral conversion and streamflow: Nitrate increase is balanced mainly by a decrease in bicarbonate. Water Resources Research. 23: 215-224.

Davis, E.A. 1989. Prescribed fire in Arizona chaparral: Effects on

stream water quality. Forest Ecology and Management. 16:189-

206.

Davis, E.A. 1993. Chaparral control in mosaic pattern increased

streamflow and mitigated nitrate loss in Arizona. Water

Resources Bulletin. 29:391-399.

Davis, E.A.; DeBano, L.F. 1986. Nitrate increases in soil water

following conversion of chaparral to grass. Biogeochemistry.

2:53-65.

Davis, E.A.; Gottfried, G.J. 1983. Picloram pellets control New

Mexico locust sprouts on a cleared forest site in Arizona.

Down to Earth. 39: 18-21.

Davis, E.A.; Pase, C.P. 1977. Root System of shrub Live Oak:

Implications for Water Yield in Arizona Chaparral. Journal of

Soil and Water Conservation. 32:174-180.

DeBano, L.F.; Neary, D.G. 1996. Effects of fire on riparian systems. In: Ffolliott, P.F.; DeBano, L.F.; Baker, M.B., Jr.; Gottfried,

G.J.; Solis-Garza, G.; Edminster, C.B.; Neary, D.G.; Allen, L.S.;

Hamre, R.H., tech. coords. Effects of fire on Madrean Province ecosystems: A symposium proceedings. USDA Forest

Service, General Technical Report RM-GTR-289.

DeBano, L.F.; Schmidt, L.J. 1989. Improving southwestern riparian areas through watershed management. USDA Forest

Service, General Technical Report RM-182.

DeBano, L. F.; Baker, M. B., Jr; Gottfried, G. J. 1998. Providing

water and forage in the Tonto Basin. In: Baker, M.B., Jr.;

Gottfried, G.J., Technical Coordinators, History of research in

the Central Highlands of Arizona, USDA Forest Service,

General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-29, 56 p.

DeBano, L. F.; Baker, M. B., Jr; Overby, S. T. 1998. Managing

chaparral in Yavapai county. In: Baker, M.B., Jr.; Gottfried,

G.J., Technical Coordinators, History of research in the Central Highlands of Arizona. USDA Forest Service, General

Technical Report RMRS-GTR-29, 56 p.

DeBano, L.F.; Brejda, J.J.; Brock, J.H. 1984. Enhancement of Riparian Vegetation Following Shrub Control in Arizona Chaparral. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 39(5):317-320.

DeBano, L.F.; Ffolliott, P.F.; Baker, M.B., Jr. 1996a. Fire severity

effects on water resources. In: Ffolliott, P.F.; DeBano, L.F.;

Baker, M.B., Jr.; Gottfried, G.J.; Solis-Garza, G.; Edminster,

C.B.; Neary, D.G.; Allen, L.S.; Hamre, R.H., tech. coords.

Effects of fire on Madrean Province ecosystems: A symposium proceedings. USDA Forest Service, General Technical

Report RM-GTR-289.

Dieterich, J. H. 1983. Fire history of southwestern mixed conifer:

a case study. Forest Ecology and Management. 6:13-31.

Dieterich, J.H.; Hibbert, A.R. 1990. Fire history in a small ponderosa pine stand surrounded by chaparral. In: Krammes, J.S.,

technical coordinator. Proceedings of a Conference on the

Effects of Fire Management of Southwestern Natural Resources. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report RM191. 168-173.

Dong, C. 1996. Effects of vegetative manipulations on sediment

concentrations in north-central Arizona. MS Thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.

Ffolliott, P.F. 1985. Application of multiple-resource modeling

in watershed management. Working Paper for the International Center for Integrated Mountain Development,

Kathmandu, Nepal.

Ffolliott, P.F. 1990. Small game habitat use in southwestern

ponderosa pine forests. In: Krausman, P.R.; Smith, N., eds.

Managing wildlife in the Southwest: Proceedings of the symposium. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Chapter of the Wildlife Society. 107-117.

Ffolliott, P.F.; Baker, M.B., Jr. 1977. Characteristics of Arizona

ponderosa pine stands on sandstone soils. USDA Forest

Service, General Technical Report RM-44.

Ffolliott, P.F.; Bartlett, E.T. 1991. Dry forests of North America:

Opportunities for multiple resource management. In: Ffolliott,

P.F.; Swank, W.T., eds. People and the temperate region: A

summary of research from the United States Man and the

Biosphere program. Washington, DC: Department of State,

Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs. 41-44.

Ffolliott, P.F.; Brooks, K.N. 1990. Forest hydrology and watershed management in the world. In: Ffolliott, P.F.; D.P. Guertin,

eds. Proceedings of a workshop: Forest hydrological resources in China - An analytical assessment. U.S. Department

of State, Publication 9829. 22-54.

Ffolliott, P.F.; Brooks, K.N. 1996. Process studies in forest hydrology: A worldwide review. In: Singh, V.P., and B. Kumar,

eds. Surface-Water Hydrology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands. 1-18.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999 53

The Future Ffolliott

Ffolliott, P.F.; Clary, W.P. 1986. Pinyon-juniper woodlands in

the Southwest. In: Ffolliott, P.F.; Swank, W.T., eds. Potentials

of noncommercial forest biomass for energy. Technical Bulletin 256. Agricultural Experiment Station. 3-9. Tucson, AZ.

Ffolliott, P. F.; Gottfried, G. J. 1989. Production and utilization of

herbaceous plants in small clearcuts in an Arizona mixed

conifer forest. USDA Forest Service, Research Note RM-494.

Ffolliott, P.F.; Gottfried, G.J. 1991a. Natural tree regeneration

after clearcutting in Arizona’s ponderosa pine forests: Two

long-term case studies. USDA Forest Service, Research Note

RM-507.

Ffolliott, P.F.; Gottfried, G.J. 1991b. Mixed conifer and aspen

regeneration in small clearcuts within a partially harvested

Arizona mixed conifer forest. USDA Forest Service, Research

Paper RM-294.

Ffolliott, P.F.; Gottfried, G.J. 1995. Evaluation of water balance

models: an assessment in mixed conifer forests of Arizona.

Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest. 22-25:1-5.

Ffolliott, P.F.; Guertin, D.P. 1990. Prescribed fire in Arizona

ponderosa pine forests: A 24-year case study. In: Krammes, J.

S., tech. coord. Effects of fire management of southwestern

natural resources. USDA Forest Service, General Technical

Report RM-191.

Ffolliott, P.F.; Thorud, D.B. 1974. Vegetation management for

increased water yield in Arizona. Technical Bulletin 215,

Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 38 p.

Ffolliott, P. F.; Gottfried, G. J.; Baker, M. B., Jr. 1989. Water yield

from forest snowpack management: research findings in Arizona and New Mexico. Water Resources Research. 25:1999-2007.

Ffolliott, P.F., Guertin, D.P., and Rasmussen, W.O. 1988. A

model of snowpack dynamics in forest openings. Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest 18:1-

6.

Fletcher, H.C.; Rich, L.R. 1955. Classifying southwestern watersheds on the basis of water yields. Journal of Forestry. 53: 196-

202.

Franklin, J.F. 1989. Importance and justification of long-term

studies in ecology. In: Long-term studies in ecology: Approaches and alternatives. Springer-Verlag, New York. 3-19.

Franzblau, K.E. 1977. Bird population changes after timber harvesting of a mixed conifer forest in Arizona. USDA Forest

Service, Research Paper RM-184.

Garcia, R.M.; Pase, C.P. 1967. Moisture-retention capacity of

litter under two Arizona chaparral communities. USDA Forest Service, Research Note RM-85.

Gottfried, G. J. 1978. Five-year growth and development in a

virgin Arizona mixed conifer stand. USDA Forest Service,

Research Paper RM-203.

Gottfried, G. J. 1980. Control of New Mexican locust and the

effect on planted ponderosa pine in central Arizona. USDA

Forest Service, Research Note RM-386.

Gottfried, G. J. 1983. Stand changes on a southwestern mixed

conifer watershed after timber harvesting. Journal of Forestry. 83:311-316.

Gottfried, G. J. 1991. Moderate timber harvesting increases water yields from an Arizona mixed conifer watershed. Water

Resources Bulletin. 27:537-547.

Gottfried, G. J.; DeBano, L. F. 1984. Total shrub biomass of a New

Mexico locust site in central Arizona. In: New forests for a

changing world. Proceedings of the 1983 convention of the

Society of American Foresters; 1983 October 16-20; Portland,

OR. Washington, D.C.: Society of American Foresters. 310-

314.

Gottfried, G. J.; DeBano, L. F. 1990. Streamflow and water quality

responses to preharvest prescribed burning in an undisturbed ponderosa pine watershed. In: Krammes, J.S., tech.

coord.; Effects of fire management of southwestern natural

resources: proceedings of the symposium; Tucson, AZ. USDA

Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-191.

Gottfried, G. J.; Embry, R. S. 1977. Distribution of Douglas-fir

and ponderosa pine dwarf mistletoes in a virgin Arizona

mixed conifer stand. USDA Forest Service, Research Paper

RM-192.

Gottfried, G. J.; Ffolliott, P. F. 1980. An evaluation of snowmelt

lysimeters in an Arizona mixed conifer stand. Hydrology and

Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest. 10:221-229.

Gottfried, G. J.; Ffolliott, P. F. 1992. Effects of moderate timber

harvesting in an old-growth Arizona mixed conifer watershed. In: Kaufmann, M.R.; Moir, W.H.; Bassett, R.L., tech.

coords., Old-growth forests in the Southwest and Rocky

Mountain Regions: proceedings of a workshop; Portal, AZ.

USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-213.

Gottfried, G. J.; D. R. Patton. 1984. Pocket gopher food habits on

two disturbed forest sites in central Arizona. USDA Forest

Service, Research Paper RM-255.

Gottfried, G.J.; DeBano, L.F.; Baker, M.B., Jr. Beginning of water

studies in the Central Arizona Highlands. In: Baker, M.B., Jr.;

Gottfried, G.J., tech. coords. History of research in the central

highlands of Arizona. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-29, 56 p.

Gottfried, G.J.; DeBano, L.F.; Ffolliott, P.F. Creating a basis for

management of high elevation forests. In: Baker, M.B., Jr.;

Gottfried, G.J., tech. coords. History of research in the Central

Highlands of Arizona. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-29, 56 p.

Gottfried, G.J.; Baker, M.B., Jr.; Ffolliott, P.F.; Colmer, G.K. 1997.

Snowpack-runoff relationships for a mixed conifer watershed in Arizona. Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona

and the Southwest. 27:1-8.

Hassel, M.J. 1976. Forest Service’s Role in Arizona’s water future. Arizona Watershed Symposium Proceedings. 20:40-42.

Heede, B.H. 1988. Sediment delivery linkages in a chaparral

watershed following a wildfire. Environmental Management.

12: 349-358.

Heede, B.H.; King, R.M. 1990. State-of-the-art timber harvest in

an Arizona mixed conifer forest has a minimal effect on

overland flow and erosion. Journal des Sciences

Hydrologiques. 35:623-635.

Hendricks, B.A. 1936. Revegetation of small gullies through the

use of seeded earth-filled sacks. USDA Forest Service, Research Note No 1. Southwestern Forest and Range Experiment Station, Tucson, AZ.

Hendricks, B.A. 1941. Effect of forest litter on soil temperature.

Chronica Botanica. 6:440-441.

Hendricks, B.A. 1942. Effects of grass litter on infiltration of

rainfall on granitic soils in a semidesert shrub-grass area.
54 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999

Ffolliott The Future

USDA, Forest Service, Research Note No 96, Southwestern

Forest and Range Experiment Station, Tucson, AZ.

Hendricks, B.A.; Grabe, N. 1939. The use of cotton netting in

revegetation of road-fill slopes. USDA Forest Service, Research Note No 78, Southwestern Forest and Range Experiment Station, Tucson, AZ.

Hendricks, B. A.; Johnson, J. M. 1944. Effects of fire on steep

mountain slopes in central Arizona. Journal of Forestry.

42:568-571.

Hibbert, A.R. 1979. Managing vegetation to increase flow in the

Colorado River Basin. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-66.

Hibbert, A.R. 1986. Water yield improvement in chaparral: A

summary of experimental results. In: M. R. Wagner, M. R., ed.

Changes and opportunities in chaparral management. Proceedings of the Southwestern Society of American Foresters

Annual Fall Meeting. November 12-14, 1986. Prescott, AZ.

SAF Publication No. SAF 87.10.

Hibbert, A.R.; Davis, E.A. 1986. Streamflow response to converting Arizona chaparral in a mosaic patter. Hydrology and

Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest. 16:123-131.

Hibbert, A.R.; Gottfried, G.J. 1987. Streamflow responses to

forest treatments on two Arizona mixed conifer watersheds.

In: Troendle, C.A.; Kaufmann, M.R.; Hamre, R.H.; Winokur,

R.P., tech. coords. Management of subalpine forests: building

on 50 years of research; 1987 July 6-9; Silver Creek, CO. P.189-

194. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-149.

Hibbert, A.R.; Davis, E.A.; Scholl, D.G. 1974. Chaparral conversion. Part I: Water yield response and effects on other resources. USDA Forest Service, Research Paper RM-17.

Hibbert, A.R.; Knipe, O.D.; Davis, E.A. 1986. Streamflow response to control of chaparral shrubs along channels and

upper slopes. In: Proceedings Chaparral Ecosystems Research Conference. May 16-17, 1985. Santa Barbara, CA. California Water Resource Center. University of California, Davis

CA. Report No. 62. 95-103.

Hodge, W.; Anderson, R.J.; Schidgall, D. 1985. Chaparral watershed management a system approach. Watershed Management in the Eighties. American Society of Civil Engineers.

New York. 69-76.

Hook, T. E.; Hibbert, A.R. 1979. Sediment production from a

chaparral watershed in central Arizona. Hydrology and Water

Resources in Arizona and the Southwest. 9:31-36.

Horton, J.S. 1960. Ecology of saltcedar. Arizona Watershed Symposium Proceedings. 4:19-21.

Horton, J.S.; Campbell, C.J. 1974. Management of phreatophyte

and riparian vegetation for maximum multiple use values.

USDA Forest Service, Research Paper RM-117.

Humbert, W.E.; Ciancetta, D.A.; Zaborske, R.R.; Ahuja, S.P.

1981. Soil Survey, Battle Flat Chaparral Demonstration Area,

Bradshaw Ranger District Prescott National Forest. USDA

Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Tempe, AZ.

Ingebo, P.A. 1972. Converting chaparral to grass to increase

streamflow. Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and

the Southwest. 2:181-192.

Ingebo, P. A.; Hibbert, A. R. 1974. Runoff and erosion after brush

suppression on the Natural Drainages watersheds in central

Arizona. USDA Forest Service, Research Note RM-275.

Johnson, R.R.; Jones, D.A., tech. coords. 1977. Importance,

preservation and management of riparian habitat: A symposium. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report RM43.

Johnson, R.R.; McCormick, J.F., tech. coords. 1979. Strategies for

protection and management of floodplain wetlands and other

riparian ecosystems: Proceedings of a symposium. USDA

Forest Service, General Technical Report WO-12.

Johnson, R.R.; Ziebell, C.D.; Patton, D.R.; Ffolliott, P.F.; Hamre,

R.H., tech. coords. 1985. Riparian ecosystems and their management: Reconciling conflicting uses. USDA Forest Service,

General Technical Report RM-120.

Jones, J. R. 1974. Silviculture of southwestern mixed conifer and

aspen: the status of our knowledge. USDA Forest Service,

Research Paper RM-122.

Klemmedson, J.O.; Wienhold, B.J. 1991a. Aspect and species

influences on nitrogen and phosphorus accumulation in Arizona chaparral soil-plant systems. Arid Soil Research and

Rehabilitation. 6:105-116.

Klemmedson, J.O.; Wienhold, B.J. 1991b. Aspect and species

influences on nitrogen and phosphorus availability in Arizona chaparral soils. Soil Science Society America Journal.

55:1735-1740.

Knipe, O. D. 1983. Effects of Angora goat browsing on burnedover Arizona chaparral. Journal Range Management 5:252-

255.

Krebill, R.G.; Tackle, D. 1978. A case study in public involvement: Program planning for forestry research and the Battle

Flat chaparral study area. Arizona Water Commission 11: 24-27.

Lane, E.W. 1955. The importance of fluvial morphology in hydraulic engineering. Proceedings of the American Society of

Civil Engineers. 81(745):1-17.

Larson, F.R. 1975. Simulating growth and management of ponderosa pine stands. In: Meadows, J.; Bare, B.; Ware, K; Row,

C., eds. Systems Analysis and Forest Resources. Society of

American Foresters, Bethesda, MD. 211-221.

Larson, F.R.; Ffolliott, P.F.; Clary, W.P. 1986. Managing wildlife

habitat: In southwestern ponderosa pine forests, diverse

treatments. Journal of Forestry. 84:40-41.

Larson, F.R.; Ffolliott, P.F.; Rasmussen, W.O.; Carder, D.R. 1979.

Estimating impacts of silvicultural management practices on

forest ecosystems. In: Best Management Practices for Agriculture and Silviculture, Proceedings of the 1978 Cornell

Agriculture Waste Management Conference. 281-294.

LeCount, A.L. 1980. Some aspects of black bear ecology in

Arizona chaparral. In: Martinka, C. J.; McArthur, K. L., eds.

Bears - their biology and management. Fourth International

Conference on Bear Research and Management. Kalispell,

Montana. Bear Biology Association Conference Series. The

Bear Biology Association. 175-179

Li, R.M.; Simons, D.B.: Carder, D.R. 1976. Mathematical modeling of overland flow soil erosion. In: Natural Soil Erosion

Conference: Prediction and Control, May 25-26. Soil Conservation Society of America, Special Publication No. 21.

Lillie, D.T.; Glendening, G. E.; Pase, C.P. 1964. Sprout growth of

shrub live oak as influenced by season of burning and chemical treatments. Journal of Range Management. 17:69-72.

Lindenmuth, A. W., Jr.; Glendening, G.E. 1962. Control burning

of Arizona chaparral - a 1962 progress report. Arizona Watershed Symposium Proceedings 6:23-24.

Little, E. L., Jr. 1938. Pteridophytes of Sierra Ancha, Arizona.

American Fern Journal. 28:144-151.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999 55

The Future Ffolliott

Little, E. L., Jr. 1939. Hepaticae of Sierra Ancha, Arizona. Bryologist.

42:24-27.

Lopes, V.L.; Ffolliott, P.F.; Gottfried, G.J.; Baker, M.B., Jr. 1996.

Sediment rating curves for pinyon-juniper watersheds in

northern Arizona. Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest. 26:27-33.

Martin, W.P.; Rich, L.R. 1948. Preliminary hydrologic results,

1935-1948, “Base Rock” undisturbed soil lysimeters in the

grassland type, Arizona. Soil Science Society of America

Proceedings. 13:561-567.

McCulloch, C.Y. 1972. Deer foods and brush control in southern

Arizona. Journal of Arizona Academy of Science 7:113-119.

McCulloch, C.Y. 1973. Deer nutrition in Arizona chaparral and

desert habitats. Part I. Seasonal diets of mule and white-tailed

deer. In: Arizona Game and Fish Department Special Report

No. 3. 1-37.

Medina, A.L. 1996. Native aquatic plants and ecological condition of southwestern wetlands and riparian areas. In: Shaw,

D. W.; Finch, D. M., tech. coords. 1996. Desired future conditions for southwestern ecosystems: Bringing interests and

concerns together. P.329-335. USDA Forest Service, General

Technical Report RM-GTR-272.

Medina, A.L.; Baker, M.B., Jr.; Neary, D.G. 1996. Desirable functional processes: A conceptual approach for evaluating ecological condition. In: Shaw, D.W. and Finch, D.M. tech. coords.

Desired future conditions for Southwestern riparian ecosystems: Bringing interests and concerns together. 1955 Sept. 18-

22, 1995; Albuquerque, NM. P. 302-311. USDA Forest Service,

General Technical Report RM-GTR-272.

Medina, A.L.; Baker, M.B., Jr.; Turner, J.D. 1997. Channel types

and geomorphology of the upper Verde River. In: Warwick,

J.J., ed, 1997 Proceedings of the AWRA Annual Symposium,

Water Resources Education, Training, and Practice: Opportunities for the Next Century. American Water Resources

Association, Herndon, Virginia, TPS-97-1. 465-473.

Moore, R.E.; Warskow, W.A. 1973. Brush Basin - A formula for

watershed management success. Arizona Watershed Symposium Proceedings. 17:18-20.

O’Connell, P. F. 1971. Economic modeling in natural resource

planning. Arizona Watershed Symposium. 14:31-38.

Overby, S.T.; Baker, M.B., Jr. 1995. Sediment and nutrient regime

from a central Arizona chaparral watershed. Hydrology and

Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest. 22-25:61-67.

Overby, S.T.; Perry, H.M. 1996. Direct effects of prescribed fire

on available nitrogen and phosphorus in an Arizona chaparral watershed. Arid Soil Research and Rehabilitation. 10:347-

357.

Pase, C.P. 1965. Shrub seeding regeneration after controlled

burning and herbicidal treatment of dense Pringle manzanita

chaparral. USDA Forest Service, Research Note RM-56.

Pase, C.P. 1969. Survival of Quercus turbinella and Q. emoryi

seedlings in an Arizona chaparral community. Southwestern

Naturalist. 14:149-155.

Pase, C.P. 1971. Effect of a February burn on Lehmann lovegrass.

Journal of Range Management 24:454-456.

Pase, C.P. 1972. Litter production by oak-mountainmahogany

chaparral in central Arizona. USDA Forest Service, Research

Note RM-214.

Pase, C.P.; Glendening, G. E. 1965. Reduction of litter and shrub

crowns by planned fall burning of oak-mountainmahogany

chaparral. USDA Forest Service, Research Note RM-49.

Pase, C.P.; Granfelt, E.E. 1977. The use of fire on Arizona rangelands. Arizona Interagency Range Committee Publication

No. 4. 15 p.

Pase, C. P.; Johnson, R. R. 1968. Flora and vegetation of the Sierra

Ancha Experimental Forest, Arizona. USDA Forest Service,

Research Paper RM-41.

Pase, C. P.; Lindenmuth, A.W.,Jr. 1971. Effects of prescribed fire

on vegetation and sediment in oak-mountain mahogany chaparral. Journal of Forestry. 69:800-805.

Patton, D. R. 1974. Patch clearcutting increases deer and elk

use in a pine forest in Arizona. Journal of Forestry. 72:764-

766.

Patton, D. R. 1976. Timber harvesting increases deer and elk use

in a mixed conifer forest. USDA Forest Service, Research

Note RM-329.

Patton, D. R.; Vahle, J. R. 1986. Cache and nest characteristics of

the red squirrel in an Arizona mixed-conifer forest. Western

Journal of Applied Forestry. 1:48-51.

Pearson, H.A. 1972. Estimating cattle gains from consumption of

digestible forage on ponderosa pine range. Journal of Range

Management. 25:18-20.

Pearson, H.A. 1973. Calculating grazing intensity for maximum

profit on ponderosa pine range in northern Arizona. Journal

of Range Management. 26:277-288.

Pearson, H.A.; Davis, J.R.; Schubert, G.H. 1972. Effects of wildfire on timber and forage production in Arizona. Journal of

Range Management. 25:250-253.

Plasencia, D. J. 1988. Effects of Arizona mixed conifer forests on

snow. MS Thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. 30 p.

Pond, F.W. 1961a. Basal cover and production of weeping

lovegrass under varying amounts of shrub live oak crown

cover. Journal of Range Management. 14:335-337.

Pond, F. W. 1971. Chaparral: 47 years later. USDA Forest Service,

Research Paper Rm-69.

Reynolds, H.G. 1972. Wildlife habitat improvement in relation

to watershed management in the Southwest. Arizona Watershed Symposium Proceedings. 16:10-17.

Reynolds, H. G.; Johnson, R. R. 1964. Habitat relations of vertebrates of the Sierra Ancha Experimental Forest. USDA Forest

Service, Research Paper RM-4.

Rich, L.R. 1951. Consumptive use of water by forest and range

vegetation. American Society of Civil Engineering. Vol 77, 14 p.

Rich, L.R. 1961. Surface runoff and erosion in the lower chaparral

zone - Arizona. USDA Forest Service, Station Paper No. 66.

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort

Collins, CO.

Rich, L. R. 1962. Erosion and sediment movement following a

wildfire in a ponderosa pine forest of central Arizona. USDA

Forest Service, Research Note No. 76, Rocky Mountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colo.

Rich, L. R. 1972. Managing a ponderosa pine forest to increase

water yield. Water Resources Research. 8:422-428.

Rich, L. R.; Gottfried, G. J. 1976. Water yields resulting from

treatments on the Workman Creek Experimental Watersheds

in central Arizona. Water Resources Research. 12:1053-

1060.

Rich, L. R.; Reynolds, H. G. 1963. Grazing in relation to runoff

and erosion on some chaparral watersheds of central Arizona. Journal of Range Management. 16:322-326.
56 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–29. 1999

Ffolliott The Future

Rich, L.R.; Thompson, J.R. 1974. Watershed management in

Arizona’s mixed conifer forests: The status of our knowledge.

USDA Forest Service, Research Paper RM-130.

Rich, L.R.; Reynolds, H.G.; West, J.A. 1961. The Workman Creek

experimental watershed. USDA Forest Service, Station Paper

No 65, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Rogers, J.J. 1973. Design of a system for predicting effects of vegetation manipulation on water yield in the Salt-Verde Basin. PhD

Dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.

Rogers, J.J.; Prosser, J.M.; Garrett, L.D. 1982. ECOSIM: A prototype system for estimating multiresource outputs under alternative forest management regimes. In: Corcoran, T.; W.

Heij, eds. Proceedings VIII IUFRO World Congress, Working Party Planning and Control of Forest Operations S3.04.01.

[Kyoto, Japan, Sept. 6-17, 1981]. Life Sci. and Agric. Exp. Stn.,

Univ. of Maine, Orono. Misc. Rep. 264. 122-127.

Rosgen, D.L. 1980. Total potential sediment. In: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. An approach to water resources

evaluation of non-point silvicultural sources: A procedural

handbook. EPA-600/8-80-012. Athens, GA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. VI.1-VI-43.

Rowe, P.B. 1963. Streamflow increases after removing woodland- riparian vegetation from a southern California watershed. Journal of Forestry 61:365-370.

Schmidt, R.A., Jr. 1972. Sublimation of wind-transported snow—

a model. USDA Forest Service, Research Paper RM-90.

Scott, V. E.; Gottfried, G. J. 1983. Bird responses to timber harvest

in a mixed conifer forest in Arizona. USDA Forest Service,

Research Paper RM-245.

Shaw, D.W.; Finch, D.M., tech. coords. 1996. Desired future

conditions for southwestern ecosystems: Bringing interests

and concerns together. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-GTR-272.

Shepperd, W. D., and Edminster, C. B. 1997. The value of longterm silvicultural research studies. In: Northeastern Forest

Experiment Station. Communicating the role of silviculture

in managing the national forests: Proceedings of the National

Silvicultural Workshop. P. 110-114. USDA Forest Service,

General Technical Report NE-238.

Severson, K.E.; DeBano, L.F. 1991. Influence of Spanish goats on

vegetation and soils in Arizona chaparral. Journal of Range

Management. 44:111-117.

Solomon, R. M.; Ffolliott, P. F.; Baker, M. B., Jr.; Thompson, J.R.

1976. Computer simulation of snowmelt. USDA Forest Service, Research Paper RM-174.

Suhr W. 1967. Watershed action program - Tonto National

Forest. Arizona Watershed Symposium Proceedings. 11:20-24.

Sykes, G. G. 1938. The relation of infiltration to streamflow on a

Southwestern mountain watershed. USDA Forest Service,

Research Note No 41, Southwestern Forest and Range Experiment Station, Tucson, AZ.

Szaro, R.C. 1981. Bird population responses to converting chaparral to grassland and riparian habitats. The Southwestern

Naturalist. 26:251-256.

Tellman, B.H.; Cortner, H.J.; Wallace, M.G.; DeBano, L.F.; Hamre,

R.H., tech. coords. 1993. Riparian management: Common

threads and shared interests: A western regional conference

on river management strategies. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-226.

Thompson, J.R. 1974. Energy budget measurements over three

cover types in eastern Arizona. Water Resources Research.

10:1045-1048.

Thompson, J.R.; Knipe, O.D.; Johnson, P.M. 1976. Windbreaks

may increase water yield from the grassland islands in

Arizona’s mixed conifer forests. Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest. 6:323-329.

Thomsen, B.W.; Schumann, H.H. 1968. Water resources of the

Sycamore Creek Watershed, Maricopa County, Arizona.

Water Supply Paper 1861. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of the Interior, Geological Survey.

Urness, P.J. 1973. Deer nutrition in Arizona chaparral and desert

habitats. Part II: Chemical analyses and in vitro digestibility

of seasonal deer forages. In: Arizona Game and Fish Department Special Report No. 3. 39-52.

Urness, P.J.; McCulloch, C.Y. 1973. Deer nutrition in Arizona

chaparral and desert habitats. Part III: Nutritional value of

seasonal deer diets. In: Arizona Game and Fish Department

Special Report No. 3. 53-68.

USDA Forest Service. 1932. Parker Creek Experimental Forest.

Unpublished Establishment Report. 9 p.

USDA Forest Service. 1938. Sierra Ancha Experimental Forest.

Unpublished Establishment Report. 13 p.

USDA Forest Service. 1953. The Sierra Ancha Experimental

watersheds. USDA Forest Service, Unnumbered Publication,

Southwestern Forest and Range Experiment Station, Tucson,

AZ.

USDA Forest Service. 1986. Forest and woodland habitat types

(plant associations) of southern New Mexico and central

Arizona (north of the Mogollon Rim). Albuquerque, NM:

USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region.

Vahle, J. R.; Patton, D. R. 1983. Red squirrel cover requirements in Arizona mixed conifer forests. Journal of Forestry.

81:14-15.

Whysong, G.L. 1991. Fire effects on plant nutrient content in

Arizona chaparral. Final Report submitted to USDA Forest

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest Range Experiment Station.

Ft. Collins, CO.

Whysong, G.L.; Carr, M.A. 1987. Effect of fire on shrub biomass,

cover and nitrogen content in Arizona chaparral. Progress

Report submitted to USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Forest Range Experiment Station. Ft. Collins, CO.

Wilson, E. D. 1962. A resume of the geology of Arizona.

TheUniversity of Arizona Press, Tucson. 104 p.

Wilson, P. N. 1997. Economic discovery in federally supported

irrigation districts: A tribute to William E. Martin and

friends. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics

22:61-77.

Worley, D.P. 1965. The Beaver Creek watershed for evaluating

multiple use effects of watershed treatments. USDA Forest

Service, Research Paper RM-13.

The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientific information

and technology to improve management, protection, and use of forests

and rangelands. Research is designed to meet the needs of National

Forest managers, federal and state agencies, public and private

organizations, academic institutions, industry, and individuals.

Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving ecosystems,

range, forests, water, recreation, fire, resource inventory, land

reclamation, community sustainability, forest engineering technology,

multiple use economics, wildlife and fish habitat, and forest insects and

diseases. Studies are conducted cooperatively, and applications can be

found worldwide.

Research Locations

Flagstaff, Arizona

Fort Collins, Colorado*

Boise, Idaho

Moscow, Idaho

Bozeman, Montana

Missoula, Montana

Lincoln, Nebraska

* Station Headquarters, 240 West Prospect Road, Fort Collins, CO 80526

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender,

religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or familial

status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities

who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille,

large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202)

720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil

Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is

an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Printed on recycled paper

Reno, Nevada

Albuquerque, New Mexico

Rapid City, South Dakota

Logan, Utah

Ogden, Utah

Provo, Utah

Laramie, Wyoming