Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science
Arizona Watershed Management Program
Author(s): Peter F. Ffolliott, Malchus B. Baker Jr., Leonard F. DeBano
Source: Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science, Vol. 35, No. 1, Watershed
Management in Arizona (2003), pp. 5-10
Published by: Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40056922
Accessed: 07/05/2010 20:27
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anas.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science.
http://www.jstor.org
ArizonaWatershedManagement
Program
Peter F. Ffolliott, School of RenewableNaturalResources,University of Arizona, Tucson AZ 85721;
Malchus B. Baker Jr., Rocky MountainResearchStation,USDA ForestService, FlagstaffAZ 86001; and
Leonard F. DeBano, School of RenewableNaturalResources, University of Arizona, Tucson AZ 85721
Abstract
Formedin the early 1960s, the ArizonaWatershedProgramwas a joint initiativeof the StateLandDepartmentand
the ArizonaWaterResourcesCommittee.The programworkedwith the USDA Forest Service and othersto obtainand
extrapolateresearchfindings relatedto integratedwatershedmanagementpracticesdesigned to increasewater yields
by manipulatingvegetative cover. Otherprogramgoals included measuringthe positive and negative effects of the
vegetative manipulationson all naturalresourcesand economicallyevaluatingthe manipulations.The Forest Service,
othergovernmentalagencies,andtheircooperators,implementedmanyresearchprojectsthroughoutthe vegetativetypes
in the SaltandVerdeRiverBasins andelsewherein Arizonato meetthe programgoals. The ArizonaWatershedProgram
attemptedto solve the age-old problem of rainfallconservationin an arid environment.The history of this milestone
programis presentedin this paper.
Introduction
Two eventswere the stimulusforthe creationof
the Arizona Watershed Program- a meeting of
rancherswho were concernedaboutthe conditions
of Arizona'swatersheds and a field trip to inspect
the condition of the watersheds.In the summerof
1955, Dave Wingfield invited his longtime friend
and neighbor Kel Fox, who was to become the
leading light of the ArizonaWatershedProgram,to
attenda meeting. The purpose of this meeting was
to listen to a novel idea introducedby Wingfield,
JakeWest, an employee of the Salt River Project(a
project that provides water to centralArizona for
agricultural,municipal and industrial uses, and
electricity) and Joe Arnold, a researcherwith the
USDA ForestService. Theirthoughtwas thatwater
and other products from and uses of Arizona's
watershed lands could be increased if the watersheds were intensively managed.
Wingfield had noted entries in his diary that
indicted forage productionhad decreased significantly over the previous 50 years. Westhad studied
the recordof rainfallandrelatedrunofffor the same
50 years that showed a steady decline in water
yields. Meeting attendeesdecided that it was probable that the steady increase in trees and shrubson
the watershedscontributedto the decline in forage
and water. Someone in the group suggested that
they invite members of Congress and the State
Legislature,representativesof the landmanagement
agencies, andthe mediaon a field tripto investigate
a representativesite.
The field trip to the Long Valley area near
Clint'sWell in 1955, was a success. Among those
thatattendedwere SenatorsCarlHaydenandBarry
Goldwater, Congressman John Rhodes, several
members of the Arizona Legislature, upper managers of the Salt River Project,and representatives
of the media. The field trip generatedsupportfor a
studyof the conditionson the Salt andVerdewatersheds. The SaltRiverProjectfinancedthe study,the
Arizona State Land Departmentprovided the personnel, while the Universityof Arizonacontributed
George Barr,an agriculturaleconomist, to provide
the scientific leadership.Lookingtowardthe future,
Fox saw the need for additionalfundsto conductthe
anticipatedrecommendationsof Barr and his colleagues. Accordingly, he drafteda bill containing
the necessary appropriationsfor submission to the
StateLand Department.
Barr's Study
Barr and his team spent the summer of 1956
touring the Salt and Verde watersheds. By late
summer,BarrhandedArnoldandFox his completed
report,RecoveringRainfall- More Waterf or Irrigation, a massive document(VolumeII) (Barr 1956a)
plus a shortersummary(Volume I) (Barr 1956b).
The report,commonly called the BarrReport,confirmed that Arizona's watersheds were in serious
condition. The reportprovidedthe scientific impetus to test the group'sbelief that intensive managementpractices,especially vegetativemodifications,
could improvethe condition of the watersheds.
Barr'steam recognized the importanceof the
Salt and Verdewatersheds for their ability to provide water, timber, grazing, wildlife, and outdoor
recreation. They also thought that the greatest
increase in water yields from vegetative manipulations would be obtainedfromthose partsof the Salt
andVerdewatershedsthatwere atthe highest elevation, where precipitationis the greatest.Therefore,
Ffolliott, P. F.,M. B. Baker, Jr., and L F. DeBano. 2003. Arizona Watershed Management Program. Journal of
Arizona-Nevada Academy of Sc/ea/ce 35(1):5-10. ©2003. Peter F. Ffolliott, Malchus B. Baker, Jr., and Leonard F.
DeBano.
6
Arizona Watershed Management Program + Ffolliott, Baker, and DeBano
emphasis was placed on the ponderosa pine and
mixed-coniferforestsgrowing at higher elevations.
The teamalso recommendedimplementationof silviculturaltreatmentsalong streamchannels and on
poor timber-producingsites. Substitutinggrass and
otherdrought-tolerant
forageplants,thatcould generate additionalwater from the extensive pinyonjuniperwoodlands, was also consideredimportant.
The teamfelt thatthe hydrologiceffects of controllingchaparralshrubswere speculative,because
of the limitedwatershedresearchdone in thatvegetative type. Removal of the chaparralmight reduce
interceptionand transpirationlosses and result in
increases in water yields, but typically the low
amountof rainfallwould limit the amountrealized.
Althoughthe teamrecognizedthatstreamsidelosses
that occur when water flows from the point of productionto the reservoirsmight be large, any reductions in these losses would mean substantial
savings. They believed that replacing the deeprootedtrees and shrubswith shallow-rootedherbaceous cover would greatly reduce evapotranspiration losses in the ripariancorridors.
Ban* and his team recommended that an
extensive,well-coordinatedactionprogrambe initiated to increase the water yields from Arizona's
watersheds(Barr1956a). They knew thatwaterwas
notanunchangeableandinexhaustiblebyproductof
a watersheddevotedto timberand foragegrowth.A
programwas implementedfirst in areas where the
greatest increase in water might be economically
obtained,andwhereresultsof water-yieldimprovement treatments and costs could be adequately
evaluated.
ArizonaWater
Resources Committee
CommissionerErnstsuggestedthe formationof
a citizens committee to implement the programs
recommendedby Barr'steam.ArnoldandFox organized a policymaking committee to work with the
WatershedManagementDivision of the StateLand
Department.Overthe next 20 years or so, the committee would help to raise more than $80 million
(2002-2001 dollars) in federal, state, and private
funds for watershedprogramsin Arizona. Immediately after it was organized,the committee had to
decide whether to implementBarr'srecommendations on improving water yields from watershed
lands or to test the concepts before recommending
theiradoption.The latterapproachwas selected and
Arizona WatershedProgramwas born (Fox et al.
2000).
ArizonaWatershedProgram
The Arizona WatershedProgramwas a joint
initiativeof the ArizonaWaterResourcesCommittee andthe StateLandDepartment.The focus of the
programwas to work with the USDA Forest Service, their cooperators,and others to obtain and
extrapolate research findings on water-yield improvements designed to increase water yields by
manipulatingvegetative cover. Otherobjectives of
the program included determining the costs of
water-yield improvementtreatments,encouraging
the developmentof improvedmethods and techniques for multiple-use management practices on
Arizona'swatershedlandsandconductingeconomic
evaluationsof thesepractices,andsupportingwatershed managementresearch.
At one of their first meetings with the Committee, Fred Kennedy, Regional Forester, Southwestern Region, Forest Service, announced his
decision to set aside 250,000-acres of the Coconino
National Forest for the plannedresearch.This area
would later be known as the Beaver CreekProject
(Worley 1965). Ray Price, Director,Rocky Mountain Forest and Range ExperimentStation, Forest
Service, supportedthe Beaver CreekProject,which
was primarily in the ponderosa pine (Pinus
ponderosa) forests and pinyon-juniper {PinusJuniperus) woodlands. Price also asked the Committee to endorse research efforts in the highelevation mixed-conifer forests in easternArizona
and the chaparralshrublandsscattered on lower
elevations throughoutArizona.
The partnershipbetween Kennedy and Price,
andthe ArizonaWaterResourcesCommitteewas to
last for the next decadeor so. However,the decision
to work together toward a common goal needed
more than a dedicated partnership.Funding was
needed to conduct the researchthat Kennedy and
Price envisioned. Senator Carl Hayden'sbelief in
the goals of the program,and his commitmentto
Arizona,providedthe financialresourcesneededto
realize the vision.
Carl Hayden
Hayden,amongthe dignitarieswho attendedthe
first watershed field trip to Long Valley in 1955,
understood the significance of the proposed research. When Kennedy and Price recommended
Beaver Creek as the site for the initial watershed
experiments,Haydensuccessfully obtainedthe first
appropriation.The Committeeaddeda secondproject in the chaparralshrublandsto the list, and sent
Hayden a letter asking for additional funding.
Arizona Watershed ManagmentProgram + Ffoluott, Baker, and DeBano
Again, the Senatorprocuredthe needed funds,as he
did on many future occasions. Encouraged by
Hayden'ssupport,the Committeeexpandedits horizons, andotherfederalandstateagencies andstakeholdersbeganto participateandsupportthe research
effort.
WorkingwithAmericanIndians
The Committeesponsoredtwo large projects
on the WhiteMountainApacheReservation,one on
CorduroyRidge and anotheron the Cibecuewatershed. The first projectwas a pinyon-juniperwoodland-to-grassconversion treatment,while the secondwas a combinationof pinyon-juniperwoodland
and chaparralshrub conversion. Senator Hayden
was again instrumentalin obtaining the needed
funding,the Bureauof IndianAffairs furnishedthe
equipment to implement the project, the Tribe
providedthe necessarylabor,and the U.S. Geological Survey(USGS) monitoredthe runoff.Although
all partiesperformedas agreedupon, the results of
the conversiontreatmentswere inconclusive.
U.S.Geological Survey
Committeemembers were interestedin determining how much waterwas transpiredand lost to
runoff in dense stands of cottonwoods {Populus
fremontii) and other tree species that made up the
higher-elevationriparianecosystems, which were
mentioned in the Barr Report as having a great
potentialforincreasedwateryields. The areachosen
for the cottonwood study was a 3-mile reach of
CottonwoodWash, a perennial stream in Mohave
County near the YavapaiCounty line. The USGS
built the gauging stations, treated the vegetation,
and monitoredthe results as its contributionto the
effort. The Salt River Project and the State Land
Departmentassumedthe costs. The study successfullyproducedbenchmarkestimateson transpiration
losses from riparianplant communities. The Salt
River Projectused the results from this experiment
as the basis for treatinghundredsof acresof cottonwoods along the VerdeRiver to reduce water consumptionby riparianecosystems.
AnotherUSGS effort occurredon the Middle
Gila Projecton a reachabove San CarlosDam. This
projectinvolvedmeasuringtranspirationlosses from
saltcedar(Tamarixramosissima),an introducedtree
species that grows extensively within Arizona's
riparianecosystems.Resultsshowedthatsubstantial
savings in water was possible by controlling saltcedar. However, the results of this researcheffort
were not implemented due to opposition from
sportsmenand wildlife advocates who were con-
7
cerned that the clearing process would destroy
wildlife habitats.
USDAForest Service
The Forest Service was the most active supporter of the Arizona Watershed Program. The
agency's interest manifested itself in researchand
action projects throughoutthe national forests of
Arizona. The largest effort was the Beaver Creek
Project located south of Flagstaff. Beginning in
1957 and continuing into the early 1970s, various
vegetative manipulations were applied to watersheds in the pinyon-juniperwoodlands and ponderosa pine forests on Beaver Creek. The treatments
were monitored to evaluate their effect on water
yields and other multiple-usevalues.
BeaverCreekProject
As predicted, the results from the treated
pinyon-juniper woodland watersheds on Beaver
Creek showed only a modest increase in water
yields fromthis vegetationtype. The only exception
was on a watershedwhere an aerial applicationof
herbicideshad killed the overstorytrees. However,
since these chemicals were laterwithdrawnfor use
in land management due to concerns about their
environmental effects, prospects for increasing
wateryields fromthe pinyon-juniperwoodlandsdid
not appear encouraging. Results from the treated
ponderosapine forest watershedswere more promising. Most of the treatment prescriptions
- thinning, strip-cutting, clearing- that were
appliedto ponderosapine forests showed increases
in water yields in the years following treatment
implementation.It also appearedthatthe treatments
tested would be beneficial to other multiple-use
values (Brown et al. 1974). However, the duration
of these treatmenteffects on water yields and the
otherwatershedresourceswere largely unknown.
Beaver Creek developed into a multiple-use
evaluationeffort in the early 1970s when planners
andmanagersof timber,livestock forage, wildlife,
and recreation,and other amenities expressed concern about the scarcity of water resources. The
multiple-use, multidisciplinary orientations on
Beaver Creekwere in accordwith a policy adopted
by the ArizonaWaterResources Committee,which
was based on the MultipleUse and SustainedYield
Act of 1964.
OtherForestService ResearchEfforts
Althoughthe Committeewas proudof the fame
achieved by the Beaver Creek Project, members
were also proud of the lesser known, but equally
8
Arizona Watershed Management Program + Ffoluott, Baker, and DeBano
important, collaborative efforts with the Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
Chaparralshrublands, largely ignored by Barr's
team, were a focus of the Arizona WatershedProgram. The first investment in chaparralresearch
yielded greaterdividendsthan those reportedfrom
theponderosapine forests.Unexpectedlyhigh water
yields were observed following the conversion of
chaparralshrubsto a cover of herbaceousplants on
the Three-Bar Experimental Watersheds, near
Roosevelt Lake. The vegetative manipulationsfor
water-yield improvement in the high-elevation
mixed-coniferforestswas anotherCommitteeinterest addressedby the Rocky Mountain Forest and
Range ExperimentStation. Research in these forests, with theirhigh precipitation,promisedresults
as significant as those obtained on the chaparral
shrublands.Silviculturaltreatmentsin the mixedconiferforestsincludedsingle-treeandgroupselection methods and partialclearings to duplicatethe
forest managementpractices of the late 1960s and
early 1970s. Wateryields and other multiple-use
values increasedin the short-termfromthese treatments. The durationof these effects is unknown.
JohnJ. Rhodes
When SenatorHayden retired from Congress,
the Committeeturnedto anothermember of Congress fromthe Phoenix area,John Rhodes of Mesa.
Rhodeswas also amongthose who hadvisited Long
Valley and, like Hayden,his specialty was securing
appropriations.Hayden, a Democrat, had risen to
the chair of the AppropriationsCommittee in the
Senate. Rhodes, a Republican, was the ranking
Minority member,which was a position of power
and influence. The following incident illustrates
how well Rhodes wielded that power.
CarlWengerandBill Hurst,who replacedPrice
andKennedyas Rocky MountainForestandRange
ExperimentStationDirectorandRegionalForester,
respectively, came to the Committee in the early
1970s with a sad story.Increasinginflation and the
expandingworkthroughoutthe ArizonaWatershed
Programresearchlocations, was depletingthe coffers.Not wantingto curtailresearch,the Committee
wroteto Rhodesrequestingan increaseof $400,000
in the annualappropriation.Believing in the value
of the effort, Rhodes succeeded in procuring an
increase of $600,000 plus the additionalrequested
$178,000 for Forest Service administration.
ArizonaWaterCommission
As State Land Commissioner,Andrew Bettwy
felt that the language in the earlier legislation did
notjustify the annualappropriationsthatwere nec-
essary to maintain the Watershed Management
Division withinhis organization.He terminatedthe
division, and its connection with the State Land
Department.However,beforethe division closed its
doors, the State Legislaturedecided to consider a
bill to create a water commission in Arizona. The
Committeevoted to endorsea ArizonaWaterCommission bill, if it referencedthe role of watershed
management.In 1971, the State Legislature reorganizedandexpandedthe ArizonaInterstateStream
Committee, restructuringit as the Arizona Water
Commission.The membership,powers, and duties
of the ArizonaInterstateStreamCommissionwere
transferreden bloc to the new commission.
TheArizonaWaterResourcesCommitteeended
its relationshipwith the StateLandDepartmentand
began a relationshipwith the Arizona WaterCommission. During the transition,the policymaking
role of the Committee,andits quasi-publicposition,
was modified. The Commission, rather than the
Committee, now began officially to assume the
state'srole in watershedmanagementprograms(Fox
et al. 2000).
A Setback
An agreementhadbeen signedin 1964 between
the Salt River Project and the Forest Service to
rehabilitatethe Salt andVerdewatersheds.The first
projects to convert pinyon-juniperwoodlands and
chaparralshrublandsto herbaceousplant covers to
improveforageproductionandincreasewateryields
were initiated.As partof a rehabilitativeprogramto
reduce the densities of the chaparralstands in the
foothills of the Pinal Mountains,a helicopter,hired
by the ForestService, sprayedherbicideson a stand
of chaparralshrubsin June1969. The routineoperation used a chemical mixture dominated by the
herbicide known as 2,4,5-T. Since 1965, similar
operationshadoftenbeen performedat locationson
the TontoNational Forest.
On Sundaymorning,June 8, 1969, a longtime
Globe residentsaid she "steppedoutside (her) bedroom door . . . and was covered with a spraymist
from a helicopterflying over (herhouse) located at
the foot of the Pinal Mountains."On that same day,
a residentof nearbyKellnerCanyonthoughthe saw
a suddengust of wind carrydropletsof 2,4,5-T and
the otherchemicalsinto his yard,where they fell on
his farm animals.A group of arearesidents subsequentlyendorseda proposal,which they sent to the
SaltRiverProjectandthe ForestService, calling for
the immediatecessation of all vegetative spraying
on the Pinal Mountains.A lawsuit alleging thatthe
herbicides sprayedin the Pinal Mountainscaused
malformationsin farmanimalsin the Globe vicinity
was filed a year after the sprayingincident. Resi-
Arizona Watershed ManagmentProgram + Ffolliott, Baker, and DeBano
dents filed suit against Dow Chemical,the manufacturerof the herbicide,the Salt RiverProject,and
ArizonaHelicopters,Inc., claimingnegligence, and
these entities, along with the Forest Service, were
named as defendants. Due to the lawsuit and
adverse publicity, the Forest Service stopped all
plannedconversionprojects,which were intended
to be the first operationalwater-yieldimprovement
projectsof the ArizonaWatershedProgram.
Thorud-FfolliottReport
Some months later, members of the Arizona
WaterResourcesCommitteemetwithDave Thorud,
Headof the Departmentof WatershedManagement,
University of Arizona, to discuss a projectof vital
importance.The Committeefelt that it was time to
assembleandanalyzeall the informationgleanedby
watershedresearchersover the decade-and-a-half
that the Committee and the Arizona Watershed
Programhad been collaborating.The Committee
also felt that it was time to change the focus of the
Arizona WaterProgramfrom researchto application. The Departmentof WatershedManagement
was asked to help, and Thorudagreedthat a working relationshipwas needed. The association between the Committeeand the Departmentwas the
seed thatwould bearthe fruit VegetationModificationfor Increased WaterYieldsin Arizona,a publication informallyknown as the Thoroud-Ffolliott
Report(Ffolliott and Thorud1974, 1975).
Thorud,Ffolliott, and their associates worked
for about a year preparinga report, which was a
massive documentthat came off the press in 1975.
A shortersummary,More Waterfor Arizona, prepared by the Committee and the Arizona Water
Commission,was also availableto the public. Bill
Hurst, the SouthwesternRegional Forester,commented that the report "constitutes an excellent
summaryof the knowledgeavailableon water-yield
possibilities from the major vegetative types in
Arizona."He continued, "this informationwill be
extremelyhelpful to land managersin developing
managementobjectives for specific areas of land
duringthe planningprocess"(Fox et al. 2000).
Battle Flat
The need to test andrefinechaparralecosystem
management for shrubland-grasslandmosaics to
increase multi-resourceoutputs became a critical
issue by the mid-1970s. Earlier research on the
Three-BarExperimentalWatershedshadshownthat
improvementsin wateryields werepossiblethrough
conversionof chaparralshrublandsinto less waterconsumingherbaceousplant cover. Consequently,
what became known as the Battle Flat Pilot Appli-
9
cation Programwas initiated as a prototypechaparralmanagementproject in 1977. The Battle Flat
study site, an area of about 3,800 acres near
Prescott,Arizona,containeda densechaparralcover
on a mixtureof volcanic, granite,andalluvial soils.
The site was grazed by livestock, providedhabitat
for a variety of wildlife species, and was used for
hunting,hiking, andhorsebackriding.BattleFlat is
not as steep as most chaparralshrublandin Arizona,
although its terrain was suitable for testing the
proposed conversion treatmentsand then demonstratingthe results of these treatmentsto the public.
Forest Service researchers, and their cooperators, developed the baseline data sets and predictive models for futuretreatmentevaluationsduring
the pretreatmentcalibration period. Researchers
planned to treat smaller watersheds,whose treatment responses had been predictedby the models,
and to conducta large-scaletreatmentinvolving an
mosaic patternplaced
optimal shrubland-grassland
on the ground. Although inventories and studies
were undertakenas prescribed,the mosaictreatment
of the entirewatershedon Battle FlatCreekwas not
implemented, largely because of the controversy
about using herbicides to treatwatersheds.On the
smaller watershed that was treated, prescribed
burningonly temporarilyreducedthe shrub-cover.
The researchersdeterminedthatprescribedburning
was not a feasible alternativeto the use of herbicides in convertingchaparralshrublandsbecause of
the subsequentneed to controlthe post-fire sprouting and the study ended.
CurrentSituation
In the early 1980s, the Rocky MountainForest
and Range ExperimentStationexaminedthe status
and resultingbenefits of the existing experimental
watershedstudies in relationto their contributions
to watershed-relatedresearchin Arizona.As a result
of this review, the station decidedto consolidateits
watershed-related research in Arizona into a
researchproject in its Tempe,Arizona, office. The
tasks of this projectincluded studyingthe effects of
fire on soil nutrients in the pinyon-juniperwoodlands andchaparralshrublandsof Arizona,examining erosional processes and rates in these ecosystems, and investigating the effects on water
quantityand water quality in areas of high precipitation when high-density chaparralshrublandsare
manipulated.The project'spersonnel continuedto
evaluatethe effects of vegetative manipulationson
water yields from Arizona'swatersheds.
A meeting was convened in Tempein November 1983 to discuss the futureof watershedresearch
in the state,particularlythe statusof the experimental watersheds. Attending were members of the
10
Arizona Watershed Management Program +Ffoluott,
Arizona WaterResources Committee, researchers
fromthe Rocky MountainForestandRangeExperiment Station, and representatives from the Salt
River Project and the State's universities. At the
meeting,it was decided thatthe USGS would monitor Watershed13 in the ponderosapine forests on
BeaverCreekbecausethe watershedwas being consideredfor congressionaldesignationas a Research
Natural Area. However, except for the two large
watersheds,Woods and Bar M Canyons,which had
been set aside for pilot applications,researchon the
remainingBeaver Creek watershedswas stopped.
The USGS continuedstreamflowand precipitation
measurementson Watershed 13 through October
1992, when all measurementswere terminated.The
area never became a Research Natural Area.
NorthernArizonaUniversity continuesto measure
streamflowand precipitationon the watershedson
Woods and Bar M Canyons.
The decisions reached at the Tempe meeting
also affectedresearcheffortson otherwatershedsin
Arizona. The Three-BarExperimentalWatersheds
wereimmediatelycanceled.Streamflowandprecipitation measurementscontinued on the Whitespar
Watersheds, in the chaparral shrublands near
Prescottuntil October 1988, when they also ended.
The WorkmanCreek watersheds in the mixedconifer forests on the SierraAncha Experimental
Forestwere cancelled. However,the ForestService
reactivatedthe monitoring work on the Workman
Creek Watersheds in July 2001 to evaluate the
effects of wildlandfire on streamflowregimes. The
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station continued taking precipitation and other
meteorologicalmeasurementsat the SierraAncha
Headquartersuntil the middle of the 1990s, when
ArizonaStateUniversity assumedthe task. Streamflow and precipitationmeasurementson the Castle
CreekWatersheds,in the ponderosapine forests of
the White Mountains, continue to be taken by the
Apache-SitgreavesNationalForest.Thewatersheds
were then released as experimental areas to the
Apache-SitgreavesNational Forest, who incorporated them into their forest planningprocess.
FinalThoughts
A significant amount of the applicationenvisionedby the ArizonaWatershedProgramwere not
conducted as intended. Changing societal values
limited the adoption of the managementpractices
proposedin 1956. However,the ArizonaWatershed
Programestablisheda research-baseto build upon
the proposed management program offered by
Barr'steam of experts, althoughhydrologic limitations andmultiple-useconcernsconstrainthe operationalimplementationof these finding.Otherlimita-
Baker, and DeBano
tions, such as those on timber harvesting and
livestock grazing, continue to constrain management activities on Arizona'swatershed. The early
goal of the ArizonaWatershedProgramto increase
wateryields fromwatershedlandsthroughintensive
managementpractices,especiallyvegetativemanipulation, has been temperedby the passage of time
andplaced into a currentperspective.
Authors' Note
A more comprehensive history of the Arizona
WatershedProgramis in More Waterfor Arizona:A History of the Arizona WatershedProgramand the Arizona
WaterResources Committee,by Kel M. Fox, Peter F.
Ffolliott,MalchusB. Baker,Jr.,andLeonardF. DeBano,
publishedin 2000.
LiteratureCited
Barr,G.W. 1956a.Recoveringrainfall:Morewater
for Arizona.Part II. Departmentof Agricultural
Economics,University of Arizona, Tucson.
Barr,G.W. 1956b. Recoveringrainfall:Morewater
for Arizona.Parti. Departmentof Agricultural
Economics,University of Arizona, Tucson.
Brown, H. E., M. B. Baker, Jr.,J. J. Rogers, W. P.
Clary,J. L. Kovner,F. R. Larson,,C. C. Avery,
and R. E. Campbell. 1974. Opportunitiesfor
increasing water yield and other multiple use
values on ponderosa pine forest lands. USDA
ForestService, ResearchPaperRM-129.
Ffolliott, P. R, and D. B. Thorud.1974. Vegetation
managementfor increasedwateryield in Arizona. Arizona AgriculturalExperimentStation,
Universityof Arizona, Tucson, TechnicalBulletin 215.
Ffolliott,P. F., andD. B. Thorud.1975. Wateryield
improvement
byvegetationmanagement:Focus
on Arizona. U.S. Departmentof Commerce,
NationalTechnicalInformationService,PB246
055/AS.
Fox, K. M., P. F. Ffolliott, M. B. Baker,Jr.,and L.
F. DeBano. 2000. More waterfor Arizona: A
historyof the Arizona watershedprogram and
the Arizona Water Resources Committee.
PrimerPublishers,Phoenix, AZ.
Worley, D. P. 1965. The Beaver Creek watershed
for evaluatingmultipleuse effects ofwatershed
treatments.USDA Forest Service, Research
PaperRM-13.