Gerald J. Gottfried and Daniel G. Nearyl

Hydrology of the Upper Parker Creek Watershed, Sierra Ancha Mountains, Arizona Item Type text; Proceedings Authors Gottfried, Gerald J.; Neary, Daniel G. Publisher Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science Journal Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest Rights Copyright ©, where appropriate, is held by the author. Download date 02/10/2021 12:18:47 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/296587 HYDROLOGY OF THE UPPER PARKER CREEK WATERSHED, SIERRA ANCHA MOUNTAINS, ARIZONA Gerald J. Gottfried and Daniel G. Nearyl The hydrology of headwater watersheds and river Creek watershed, and reevaluates the hypothesis basins is variable because of fluctuations in climate that Upper Parker Creek could serve as the hydro- and in watershed conditions due to natural or logic control for post -fire streamflow evaluations human influences. The climate in the southwestern being conducted on the nearby Middle Fork of United States is variable, with cycles of extendedWorkman Creek, which burned in 2000. The pres- periods of drought or of abundant moisture. These ent knowledge of wildfire effects on hydrologic cycles have been documented for hundreds of responses is low, and data from Upper Parker years in the tree rings of the Southwest (Swetnam Creek and Workman Creek should help alleviate and Betancourt 1998). Hydrologic records that the gap. The relationships for annual and seasonal only span a decade or so may not provide a true runoff volumes are of particular interest in the indication of watershed responses because the present evaluation; subsequent analyses will eval- measurements could be from a period of extreme uate relationships for peak flows. climatic conditions. This inherent variability dic- tates that the best understanding of hydrologic HISTORY responses must be based on long -term records. The Upper Parker Creek watershed was one of Land and water managers, who are charged with the first instrumented after the USDA Forest Ser- predicting the impacts of land management activi- vice, Southwestern Forest and Range Experiment ties, are hindered by the lack of long -term hydro-Station established the Parker Creek Experimental logic information. However, some relatively long- Forest in 1932 (Figure 1). The area of the experi- term records exist throughout the United States mental forest was enlarged in 1938, and the name because of the watershed research programs that was changed to the Sierra Ancha Experimental were initiated by the USDA Forest Service and Forest. The Parker Creek headquarters is about 40 other state and federal agencies. Some of the mi from Globe, Arizona. The experimental forest records have never been updated or completelywas located on this site because it encompassed analyzed. the range of forest and rangeland conditions typi- The hydrologic records from the Upper Parker cal of the Salt River Basin and other Southwest Creek watershed in the southern part of the Sierra drainages. Elevations range from 2500 to 7700 ft; Ancha Mountain Range in central Arizona have the vegetation extends from desert shrub to mixed not been fully analyzed. However Ward (1995) didconifer forests (Pase and Johnson 1968). In 1982, include the watershed in his studies of channel the Parker Creek watershed, including the un- morphology of streams within the Sierra Anchagauged North Fork, was proposed as a research Experimental Forest (Figure 1). The watershed has natural area (RNA), although a final determination been monitored intermittently since the summer of still has not been made. The USDA Forest Service's 1934. The current record includes 54 complete RNA committee for the Southwestern Region was years of runoff data and an additional 2 years with impressed with the riparian vegetation and by the primarily summer data, as well as 25 years of pre- availability of good climatic and hydrologic rec- cipitation records. This paper collates and sum- ords. Livestock have not grazed in the Upper Park- marizes the existing record, examines some of the er Creek watershed since the late 1930s. The Rocky hydrologic relationships within the Upper Parker Mountain Research Station currently administers the experimental forest, which is located within the 1Rocky Mtn. Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Flagstaff, Tonto National Forest. Arizona 6 Gottfried and Neary SIERRA ANCHA EXPERIMENTAL FOREST WORKMAN CREEK WATERSHEDS MAIN DAM N.FK.DAM.. S. FK. DAM To Young ...` MIDDLE FK. FLUME ó North Fk , PARKER CREEK--/ { DEEP SOIL WATERSHED LYSIMETERS ( / 1 SOUl1Fk. / UPPER ` UPPER DAM / PARKER %HEADQUARTERS CREEK CHAPARRAL WATERSHED LYSIMETERS i - - - / NATURAL DRAINAGE; i WATERSHED POCKET CREEK Ì WATERSHED +#I ' MOWER i DAMS .X UPPER DAM LEGEND SHEE EROSION:' PLOTS( Boundary o Highway Secondary Roads Watershed Divide ] SNAKEWEED ./EROSION PLOT BASE1 ROCK PLOTS : ARIZONA Flagstaff. Prescott. t Sierra Ancha Experimental Forest Springerville Phoenix Roosevelt -a Lahn Tucson. To Summit and Globe Figure 1. Map of the experimental watersheds and main study sites on the Sierra Ancha Experimental Forest in central Arizona modified from USDA Forest Service (1953). The Lower Parker Creek and two Pocket Creek watersheds were deactivated in October of 1972. Hydrology of Upper Parker Creek 7 The Upper Parker Creek watershed was instru- that measures the main 411 ac unit of Middle Fork. mented with a 90° V -notch weir and an 8 ft Cipo-An analysis of the quadratic regression model of letti weir, and measurements began in June of 1934 annual runoff indicated that Middle Fork (as (Figure 1). Records were collected continuously determined at the main dam) and Upper Parker through the 1972 water year. Annual runoff is Creek were related, with a coefficient of determi- based on a water year that includes the period be- nation (r2) of 0.91 (Gottfried 1977). A strong statis- tween October 1 and the following September 30. tical relationship also existed between annual Cooperrider et al. (1945) used Parker Creek data to flows at the Middle Fork flume and Upper Parker develop a fairly accurate method of forecasting Creek (r2 = 0.92). The planned treatment was never March through May runoff from the Salt River applied to Middle Fork. above Roosevelt Dam. The intense storms of Octo- Significant relationships were also estimated ber 1972 caused the settling basin for the installa- between annual flows in Upper Parker Creek and tion to fill up with relatively large boulders and those in the North and South Forks of Workman cobbles. The costs to clean the structure and the Creek for the various treatment periods since 1939 lack of anticipated experimental studies resulted in (Gottfried 1977). Streamflow was measured a decision to close the weirs. No vegetation manip- through the 1983 water year, when most water- ulation treatments were ever applied to the watershed studies throughout the Southwest were shed. terminated in a program redirection. The weirs and basin were cleaned and reopened The three Workman Creek watersheds burned in 1977 in anticipation of Upper Parker Creek serv- in the Coon Creek Wildfire of April -May 2000, and ing as the hydrological control for a planned ex- these installations, which also were closed in 1983, perimental timber harvest on the Middle Fork of were reopened by the Rocky Mountain Research Workman Creek, which is located within the ex-Station and the Tonto National Forest to measure perimental forest and northeast of Parker Creek the impacts of this wildfire on peak flows, runoff (Figure 1). Middle Fork had served as the hydro-volumes, and erosion and sedimentation. Middle logic control during earlier watershed experiments Fork, with its dense, old- growth stands of mixed on the North Fork and the South Fork of Workman conifer and ponderosa pine trees, suffered high Creek that involved several timber harvesting or burn intensities; the other two watersheds burned vegetation manipulation prescriptions (Gottfried at low or moderate intensities (Gottfried and and Neary 2001; Hibbert and Gottfried 1987; Rich Neary 2001). The Upper Parker Creek watershed is and Gottfried 1976). The Workman Creek water- being evaluated as the hydrologic control for post- sheds were instrumented in 1939, and experimen- fire studies at Workman Creek. tal treatments were begun in 1953. South Fork was The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) took re- treated with a single -tree selection harvest at that sponsibility for the Upper Parker Creek installa- time and in 1966 by a treatment designed to tion in 1985. Except for a break from October 1992 convert the watershed to a ponderosa pine (Pinus through May 1994, the USGS has maintained the ponderosa) cover with a stand density of 40 ft2 /ac. records to date. The experimental treatments on North Fork were designed to evaluate the progressive removal of WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS forest vegetation and conversion to grass cover on streamflow volumes. The first treatment in 1953 The Upper Parker Creek weirs measure inter- (USDA Forest Service 1953) removed the riparian mittent streamflow from a 700 ac watershed within trees, the second in 1958 removed the mixed coni- the South Fork of Parker Creek (Figure 1). The fer forest cover from 80 ac on moist sites adjacent installation is located at 5440 ft and 1.5 mi above to the stream channels, and the last treatment in the confluence of Parker and Pocket Creeks. The 1966 removed the commercial ponderosa pine upper boundary of the watershed is over 7400 ft in cover from 100 ac on drier sites. elevation. Initially, the stream flows to the south Runoff from the 521 ac Middle Fork of Work- from its origin but curves to the west for most of man Creek is determined by subtracting flows its course through the experimental forest. Most of from South Fork and North Fork from those at the the watershed contains steep slopes and cliffs, main dam, which is located on the main stem of except near the top, where areas with 10 percent Workman Creek below the confluence of the three slopes occur.

Load more