Application for Designation of the Beaver Creek Watershed
as a Biosphere Reserve
Project 8: Man and the Biosphere Program, UNESCO
July 20, 1977
Name: The Beaver Creek Watershed, Coconino National Forest, Arizona
Purpose: The purpose of the Beaver Creek
Watershed as a Biosphere Reserve will be to meet Objective number three
and parts of Objective number two of the Biosphere Reserve Program 1.
More specifically it will provide a large watershed on which intensive
environmental and economic data has been gathered. It offers the opportunity
for monitoring and evaluating a broad spectrum of natural and human effects
of ongoing Forest Service management and related activities - and communicating
the findings of the studies to people involved or interested in natural
resource planning and management. The current and planned Forest Service
management activities are primarily of an operational, rather than research,
nature.
Geographical Location: The Beaver Creek Watershed
is delineated by approximately 34° 30' to 35° north latitude,
and 111° 30' to 112° west longitude. The center of the watershed
is 50 km south of Flagstaff, Arizona, in Coconino and Yavapai Counties.
The general orientation of the watershed drainage is southwest, with the
major drainage into the Verde River. (Fig. la)
Altitude: Elevation on the Beaver Creek Watershed ranges from
approximately 900 to 2,400 meters above mean sea level.
Area: The Beaver Creek Watershed encompasses an area of approximately
111,300 ha.
Legal Protection: The vast majority, approximately 97 percent
of the area, is National Forest which must be managed now and in the future
on a multiple use, sustained yield basis under the specific direction
of land management plans. Activities are governed by Federal Law, regulation,
policies, and land management plans prepared, maintained, and periodically
revised by the Coconino National Forest in accordance with changing national
needs and public desires.
Land Tenure: Approximately 97 percent is National
Forest (Federal ownership), one-half of one percent is National Monuments
(also Federal ownership), and the remainder is privately owned. Approximately
850 ha of National Forest are classified as base-for-exchange, meaning
they may be traded for private lands within National Forests in Arizona
which are classified as desirable for acquisition. Much of the land is
used under grazing permit by local ranchers for cattle grazing (Fig.
2). The Woods Land Use Plan has been completed and describes the management
of 27,400 ha. within the watershed.
Physical Features: A high plateau, sloping mesas and breaks, steep
canyons, and valleys characterize the topography on the Beaver Creek Watershed.
Bedrock underlying the area consists of igneous rocks of volcanic origin;
below them are sedimentary rocks of Kaibab, Coconino, and Supai formations.
Prominent mountains on the watershed include Fain, Lake,
Jones, Bill Back Butte, Apache Maid, and Round. Stoneman Lake lies within
the watershed area. Major drainages are Dry Beaver Creek, Rattlesnake
Draw, Red Tank Draw, and Wet Beaver Creek, all of which join and enter
the Verde River near Camp Verde, Arizona (Fig.
1b).
One Interstate Highway, 1-17, crosses the area, linking Flagstaff and
Phoenix. Approximately 7,000 vehicles per day use this highway.
Vegetation: Three vegetation types are found on
the Beaver Creek Watershed (Fig. 1b, 3). In descending order with respect to elevation, these
types are: ponderosa pine, pinyon-juniper (including alligator juniper
and Utah juniper subtypes), and semi-desert snrubs.
Representative vegetation (common and scientific names of plants) by
type are listed in Appendix
A.
Noteworthy Fauna: Habitat for many species of wildlife, both game
and nongame, is found within the Beaver Creek Watershed. Wildlife inhabiting
the watershed include both resident and migratory species.
Representative fauna (common and scientific names of animals) by vegetation
type are listed in Appendix
B.
Zoning: Some "zoning" currently exists for purposes
of multiple use management. This includes both Multiple Use Management
Zones (Intermediate, Woodland, -Travel Influence and Water Influence)
with general management direction and management units which give more
specific management direction. A land use plan for the Woods Planning
Unit covers 27,400 ha of the area. Management units within this plan give
specific direction to uses and management activities. All research and
related activities within the area must not conflict with approved management
plans And be authorized by the Forest Supervisor. Land management plans
will be in effect for the entire area by 1985.
Modifications by Man: Since the late 19th Century the area has
had various degrees of modification by man, the earliest being introduction
of domestic livestock. Most of the ponderosa pine area has been logged,
which has changed the size and age class distribution from "natural"
but has not caused major changes in the ecosystem. Protection from natural
fire since the early l900s has had a slow, but cumulative effect.
Approximately 16,500 ha of pinyon-juniper woodlands (both alligator and
Utah juniper) were converted by chaining and pushing in the early 1960's.
This work was carried out for range and water yield improvement purposes.
In addition, fences, water developments, etc. have been constructed on
the watershed for management.
In the lower end, near the Verde River, several small unincorporated
residential communities have been developed in recent years. Some smaller
summer home type developments are located on isolated parcels at high
elevations, e.g., Stoneman Lake.
Scientific Research Potential: Research on the Beaver Creek Watersheds
began in 1962 after several years of preliminary work and construction
of stream gaging stations (Fig. 3) The effects
of a range of forest management treatments are being investigated. These
management treatments include clearcutting, severe thinning, strip cutting,
spot cutting to favor wildlife. and shelterwood cutting to facilitate
maximum sustained timber production. Pilot watersheds ranging frown 27
ha to 820 ha were instrumented to facilitate the work. Two larger watersheds,
Woods (4330 ha) and Bar M (6670 ha) were instrumented to test treatments
on an operational scale (Fig. 3). Impacts of
the treatments were measured on a wide range of ecosystem parameters,
Including hydrologic response, timber and forage yields, soil erosion
and sediment production, water quality, scenic beauty, and the dynamics
of insect, bird, small animal and big game populations. Much of the early
research was summarized in two State-of the-Art publications (Brown et
al. 1974, Clary et al. 1974).
Several small "homogenous" watersheds were
instrumented within the larger pilot research watersheds (Fig.
4). Their purpose is to provide data for ecosystem model testing.
Ecosystem simulation models are being designed, developed, and tested
for use by forest managers in estimating commodity production and in evaluating
impacts of alternative forest and natural resource management problems
on many facets of the ecosystem. The models are being designed to have
broad application to forest and range lands. Some will apply to areas
similar to those of the Southwestern United States, while others will
apply to comparable areas throughout the world.
An integrated effort by specialists from a wide spectrum of disciplines
is necessary to accomplish the objectives required in the ecosystem models
and to acquire the necessary data to test these models.
The desirability of the Beaver Creek watersheds for studying the interaction
of a broad spectrum of ecosystem components is enhanced by the wide range
of forest management treatments and of disciplines of investigations being
carried on there.
Currently the operational scale activities with close monitoring of effects
and applicability of prediction models make the area quite suitable for
meeting Biosphere Reserve Objective three (education and training), plus
part of Objective two.
The Beaver Creek Watershed is readily accessible from Flagstaff or from
the Verde Valley by motor vehicle on Interstate 17, a 4-lane highway which
traverses the watershed. A second paved highway from Flagstaff passes
through the eastern extremities of the watershed. Most of the research
watersheds are accessible by secondary, gravel or cinder surfaced roads.
Principal Reference Material
Anderson, T.C., Jr., J.A. Williams and D.B. Crezee. 1960. Soil management
report for Beaver Creek Watershed. U.S. Forest Serv., Region 3, Coconino
National Forest. 66 pp.
Baker, Malchus B., Jr. 1975. Modeling management of ponderosa pine forest
resources. Watershed Manage. Symp., ASCE Irrig. and Drain. Div. 478-493.
Balda, Russell P. 1975. Vegetation structure and breeding bird diversity.
In Proceedings of the Symposium on Management of Forest and Range Habitats
for Nongame Birds, May 6-9, Tucson, USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep.
WO-1 p. 59-80.
Beus, Stanley S., Richard W. Rush, and DeForrest Smouse. 1966. Geologic
investigation of experimental drainage basins 7-14, Beaver Creek Watershed,
Coconino County, Arizona. 47 p.
Brown, Harry E. 1965. Characteristics of recession flows from small watersheds
in a semiarid region of Arizona. Water Resources. Res. 1:517-522.
Brown, Harry E. 1969. A combined control-metering section for gaging
large streams. Water Resources Res. 5:888-894.
Brown, Harry E. 1971. Evaluating watershed management alternatives. J.
Irrig. and Drain. Div. 97(IR1):93-108.
Brown, Harry E., Malchus B. Baker, Jr., James J. Rogers, Warren P. Clary,
J.L. Kovner, Frederic R. Larson, Charles C. Avery, and Ralph E. Campbell.
1974. Opportunities for increasing water yields and other multiple use
values on ponderosa pine forest lands. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. RM-129,
36 p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ft. Collins, Colo.
Campbell, R.E. and O.G. Stevenson. 1977. Solar radiation measurement
in Northern Arizona. USDA, For. Serv. Res. Note RM-339, Rocky Mt. For.
and Range Exp. Stn., Ft. Collins, Colo. 4 p.
Carder, D. Ross. 1976. Woods Canyon: a large scale watershed management
experiment: An explanation and interim report. In 19th Annual Ariz. Watershed
Symp. Proc., Rep. No. 7, Phoenix, Arizona, Sept. 24, 1975. pp. 43-46.
Arizona Water Commission, Phoenix.
Clary, Warren P. 1971. Effects of Utah juniper removal on herbage yields
from Springerville soils. J. Range Manage. 24(5):373-378.
Clary, Warren P. 1972. A treatment prescription for improving big game
habitat in ponderosa pine forests. 16th Annual Ariz. Watershed Symp. Proc.
1972:25-27. Rep. No. 2.
Clary, Warren P. 1974. Response of herbaceous vegetation to felling of
alligator juniper. J. Range Manage. 27(5):387-389.
Clary, Warren P. 1974. Pinyon-juniper control - does it pay? 18th Annual
Ariz.
Clary, Warren P. 1974. Response of herbaceous vegetation to felling of
alligator juniper. J. Range Manage. 27(5):387-389.
Clary, Warren P. 1974. Pinyon-juniper control - does it pay1 18th Annual
Ariz. Watershed Symp. Proc. 1974:26-29.
Clary, Warren P., Malchus B. Baker, Jr., Paul F. O'Connel, Thomas N.
Johnsen and Ralph E. Campbell. 1974. Effects of pinyon-juniper removal
on natural resource products and uses in Arizona. USDA For. Serv. Res.
Pap. RM-128, 2; 8p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ft. Collins, Colo.
Clary, Warren P. and Peter F. Ffolliott. 1966. Differences in herbage-timber
relationships between thinned and unthinned ponderosa pine stands. USDA
For. Serv. Res. Note RM-74, 4 p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ft.
Collins, Colo.
Clary, Warren P. and Peter F. Ffolliott. 1969. Water holding capacity
of ponderosa pine forest floor layers. J. Soil and Water Conserv. 24:22-23.
Clary, Warren P., Peter F. Ffolliott and Donald A. Jameson. 1968. Relationship
of different forest floor layers to herbage production. USDA For. Serv.
Res. Note RM-123, 3 p. Rocky Mtn. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ft. Collins,
Colo.
Clary, Warren P., William H. Kruse and Frederic R. Larson. 1975. Ca.tle
grazing and wood production with different basal areas of ponderosa pine.
J. Range Manage. 28(6):434-437.
Clary, Warren P. and Frederic R. Larson. 1971. Elk and deer use are related
to food sources in Arizona ponderosa pine. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note RM-202,
4 p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ft. Collins, Colo.
Davis, James R., Peter F. Ffolliott and Warren P. Clary. 1968. A fire
prescription for consuming ponderosa pine duff. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note
RM-115, 4 p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ft. Collins, Colo.
Ffolliott, Peter F., Warren P. Clary and James R. Davis. 1968. Some characteristics
of the forest floor under ponderosa pine in Arizona. USDA For. Serv. Res.
Note RM-127, 4 p. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Exp. Stn., Ft. Collins,
Colo.
Ffolliott, Peter F. and Warren P. Clary. 1974. Predicting herbage production
from forest gcowth in Arizona ponderosa pine. Prog. Agric. Ariz. 26(3):3-5.
Ffolliott, Peter F. and Edward A. Hansen. 1968. Observations of snowpack
accumulation, melt, and runoff on a small Arizona watershed. USDA For.
Serv. Res. Note RM-124, 7 p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ft. Collins,
Colo.
Ffolliott, Peter F. and David R. Patton. 1975. Production-rating functions
for Abert squirrels in Southwestern ponderosa pine. Wildl. Soc. Bull.
162-165.
Hansen, Edward A. and Peter F. Ffolliott. 1968. Observations of snow
accumulation and melt in demonstration cuttings of ponderosa pine in central
Arizona. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note RM-lil, 12 p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range
Exp. Stn., Ft. Collins, Colo.
Larson, Frederic R. 1975. Simulating growth and management of ponderosa
pine stands. Ph.D. Dissertation, Colorado State University, 118 p.
Larson, Frederic R., Peter F. Ffolliott and Warren P. Clary. 1970. Distribution
of dwarf mistletoe in ponderosa pine stands on the Beaver Creek watershed.
USDA For. Serv. Res. Note RM-175, 4 p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn.,
Ft. Collins, Colo.
Lejcher, Terrence Richard. 1969. Snow accumulation and melt under various
densities of ponderosa pine in Arizona. M.S. Thesis. Univ. of Ariz. 70
p. Co-op Agreement 16-144 with Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ft.
Collins, Colo.
Li, Ruh-Ming, Daryl B. Simons and D. Ross Carder. l976. Computer simulation
or storm water and sediment nydrographs from small watersheds. Paper presented
at 1976 Summer-Computer Simulation Conference, Washington, D.C., July
12-14.
Li, Ruh-Ming, Daryl B. Simons and. Michael Stevens. 1975. On overland
flow water routing. In Proc. of the National Symp. on Urban Hydrology
and Sediment Control, Univ. of Kentucky, Lexington, July 28-31.
Miller, Robert L. and Frederic R. Larson. 1973 A cost analysis of clearing
a ponderosa pine watershed. USDA For. Serv. Res. Nott RM-231, 7 p. Rocky
Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ft. Collins, Colo.
O'Connell, Paul F. and Harry E. Brown. 1972. Use of production functions
to evaluate multiple use treatments on forested watersheds. Water Resour.
Res. 8(5):11881198.
Patton, David R.1975. Abert squirrel cover requirements in Southwestern
ponderosa pine. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. RM-145, 12 p. Rocky Mt. For.
and Range Exp. Stn., Ft. Collins, Colo.
Rector, John Raymond. 1969. Infiltration characteristics of soils in
the Beaver Creek area of north central Arizona. M.S. Thesis. Univ. of
Ariz. 60 p.
Robinson, A.R. 1961. Study of the Beaver Creek measuring flumes. Report
to Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ft. Collins, Colo. 14 p.
Rogers, J.J. 1973. Design of a system for predicting effects of vegetation
manipulation on water yield in the Salt-Verde Basin. Ph.D. Thesis dissertation.
Univ. of Ariz., Tucson. 444 p.
Rogers, J.J., R.H. Waring and W.T. Swank Synthesis and modeling of the
hydrology and water relations of forest ecosystems. Manuscript to be submitted
for publication in Ecological Monographs.
Szaro, Robert C. and Russell P. Balda. 1976. Population densities, habitat
selection and foliage use by the birds of selected ponderosa pine forest
areas in the Beaver Creek watershed, Arizona. A final report presented
to the U.S. Forest Service. p. 264.
Staff: No staff is assigned exclusively for management or protection
for MAB purposes. The area which is part of four of seven Range Districts
of the Coconino National Forest, is managed along with the rest of the
Forest. The staff of the Beaver Creek Multiresource Evaluation Project
and their cooperators spend a major part of their research effort on the
area.
Budget: Funds available each year for protection, maintenance,
research, other management activities, etc. total about $1,500,000.00.
Address of Local Administration
Forest Service Administrator of the Land:
Michael Kerrick
Supervisor
Coconino National Forest
P.O. Box 1268
Flagstaff, Arizona 86002
Questions about Research on the area should be addressed to:
Dr. D. Ross Carder
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station
Forestry Sciences Laboratory, NAU
Flagstaff, Arizona 86001
Note:
1. Task force on: Criteria and Guidelines
for the Choice and Establishment of Biosphere Reserves (UNESCO MAB Report
Series, No. 22, Paris, 1974, page 6). (Return to
text)
|
