the u.s. air force embraces ecosystem management through a landscape assessment in the front range...

The U.S. Air Force Embraces Ecosvstem ' J

Management Through a Landscape Assessment in the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains

John Armstrong, James R. McDevmott, and J . Douglas Xipley

Through a cooperative partnership of several government agencies, conservation organizations, and interested private citizens, the Air Force Academy is working in cooperation with the Colorado Natural Heritage Program to com- plete a landscape analysis of a portion of the Colorado Front Range. The project area includes the Monument Creek Watershed, comprising all Air Force Academy lands and surrounding lands of the Rampart Range, from the confluence of Monument Creek at Fountain Creek north to the Palmer Divide and from the Rampart Range Road east to the Monument Creek watershed boundary. Desired future conditions as well as management strategies to achieve ;hem w ill be developed through this collaborative partners hip planning

John Armstrong is a conservation planner with the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, a sponsored program of Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. He has a planning degreefrom the Uniziersity of New Mexico, Albuquerque, and has worked on a wide variety of natural resoiirces and community developnient-related planning projects in Ne7c~ Mexico and Colorado. JamesR. McDermott is thechiefof natiiral resources with the51 0th Civil Engineering Squadron at the US. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado. He worked for nine years with the US. Forest Seroice in timber sale preparation, sale adininistration, and zvildland fire fightingprior to accepting the Natural Resources position at the A i r Force Academy. He has been at the Academy for 12 years. J . Douglas Ripley is the natiiral and ciiltural resoii~ces program manager ziiith the Environmental Division of the U.S. A i r Force Headquarters in Washington, D.C. Prior to retiringfronz active du ty in the Air Force, he serzied as an associate professor zuithin the Departirient of Biology at the U S . A i r Force Acadeniy, Colorado.

Federal Facilities Environmental Journal/Aufumn 2000 125 0 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

John Armstrong, James R. McDermott, and J. Douglas Ripley

Starting in the mid-l990s, the Department of Defense (DOD) has encouraged the milita y services to adopt an ecosystem approach in the management of the natural and cultural resources on the 24 million acres of milita y land.

process. When completed in 2001, the results of this project will represent an important contribution to Air Force and Department of Defense continuing efforts to implement ecosystem-based natural and cultural resources management strategies on milita y lands. 0 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

INTRODUCTION Established in 1954, the US. Air Force Academy has occupied an

18,000-acre campus in the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains, El Paso County, Colorado, since 1958. The Air Force also owns and maintains the 650-acre Farish Recreation Area located approximately five miles to the northwest of the main campus. In the nearly half century since the Air Force acquired the Air Force Academy Reservation, unprecedented population growth and urbanization of the Front Range have resulted in the encroachment of the Academy’s northern, eastern, and southern borders. Fire suppression and other forest management practices in the Pike National Forest along the Academy’s western border have also impacted the Academy’s environment. Within this dynamically chang- ing landscape, the Air Force Academy Reservation contains some of the best-preserved natural communities in the entire Front Range.

Starting in the mid-1990s, the Department of Defense (DOD) has encouraged the military services to adopt an ecosystem approach in the management of the natural and cultural resources on the 24 million acres of military land.’,’ The Air Force has recognized ecosystem management as a critical strategy for the accomplishment of its military mission in a way that also satisfies its natural and cultural resources stewardship responsibilities.3 Working in partnership with The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and utilizing funding from the Department of Defense Legacy Resource Management Program (Legacy),” the Air Force has engaged in numerous initiatives during the past five years that have contributed significantly to the implementation of ecosystem management on Air Force lands.

As a foundation to ecosystem management, the conservation of biological diversity has emerged as a key element of the Air Force’s overall conservation ~trategy.~ Approaches to biodiversity conservation on military lands were explored in a two-year DOD Biodiversity Initiative led by the Air Force with the assistance of TNC and the Keystone Center6and funding from the DOD’s Legacy Program. In addition to developing specific recommendations for the conservation of biodiversity of military land^,^ the initiative also produced a compre- hensive biodiversity handbook for military installation natural resources managers.’

The Air Force’s work in developing strategies for biodiversity conservation provided a stimulus for expanded work in ecosystem management. Building on earlier pioneering work at the 460,000-acre Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, the Air Force has sponsored several major ecosystem management initiatives throughout the county. For the past two years the Air Force has been working closely with TNC and the Sonoran Institute in an ecoregional planning initiative of the Sonoran

126 Federal Facilities Environmental JournallAutumn 2000

A Landscape Assessment in the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains

Desert.“Now in its final phase, that effort is playing an important role in helping the Air Force and the U.S. Marine Corps develop a comprehen- sive integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) for the Barry M. Goldwater Range, Arizona. A similar, but smaller scale, project was also completed for the Nellis Range in southern Nevada.’OOther formal ecoregional initiatives at Arnold AFB, Tennessee, and Avon Park Air Force Range, Florida,” have complemented smaller, less formal efforts at many other Air Force installations. Most recently, the Air Force began with The Nature Conservancy of Nevada a Legacy-funded ecoregional study of the Great Basin that will assist in natural resources planning for Air Force, Army, and Navy facilities in the region. It is within this framework that the Air Force began in 1999 the initiative described in this paper.

DISCUSSION As required by Air Force Instruction 32-7064,” the Air Force Acad-

emy completed an INRMP in 1997 that outlined a number of ecosystem management strategies, several of which could be applied on a multijurisdictional regional scale. In particular, Objective Number 9 of the INRMP called for the coordination of resources protection efforts with other landowners, managers, and local governments in the Monu- ment Creek Watershed. To address that objective, the USAF Academy sought and received funding from the DOD Legacy Program and established a partnership with the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). CNHP is a sponsored program at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, and is part of an international network of Conservation Data Centers that gather and disseminate information and knowledge about biologically significant natural resources. Closely associated with TNC, the CNHP employs a staff of biologists, information managers, and planners that work closely with land managers and private citizens on a wide variety of natural resources-related projects throughout the state. The CNHP had long worked on Air Force Academy land conducting biological inventories and other natural resources assess- ments, so it was particularly well suited to serve as the facilitator for this undertaking.

Facilitated by the CNHP, the project utilizes an ecosystem-management planning process developed in the INRMP and recognizes the necessity of applying ecosystem management practices on a multijurisdictional regional scale. The first step in the process was to establish a core planning team made up of representatives from primary stakeholders. That team consists of representatives from the federal government (U.S. Air Force Academy, U.S. Forest Service, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service), the state government (Colo- rado State Forest Service, Colorado Division of Wildlife, and Colorado Natural Heritage Program), and local government (El Paso County and Colorado Springs Utility).

Following its establishment, the core planning team developed the following objectives:

, - d n Y

A performance partnership is formed when the ESOH community teams closely wi th the process owner from the start.

Federal Facilities Environmental JournallAutumn 2000 127

John Armstrong, James R. McDermott, and 1. Douglas Ripley

Identify the highest priority issues and needs; Finalize resource analysis and conduct targeted field investigations for the information needs identified; Identify desired future conditions and alternatives; Develop implementation strategies integrating resources data and human dimensions; and Prepare the final landscape assessment and recommendations by the landscape unit.

The project will integrate existing natural resources planning initia- l 1 tives currently underway in the region by: r

~ ~~~

Ecosystem management assumes that naturally evolving ecosystems with minimal human influence are diverse, resilient, and sustainable in the long- term.

Addressing Front Range forest health problems and forestry restoration potential; Exploring silviculture and prescribed fire methodologies as key management tools to improve forest health; Defining human dimensions pertaining to the landscape; and Investigating economic aspects of the landscape, including forest industry, recreation, and other forest uses.

PROJECT BACKGROUND AND ASSUMPTIONS Ecosystem management assumes that naturally evolving ecosystems

with minimal human influence are diverse, resilient, and sustainable in the long-term.13This is not meant to suggest that humans be excluded from the landscape, but rather that understanding the historic condition of an area and thoughtful engagement of stakeholders and partners can help ensure that the planning process and results are ecologically and socially sustainable.

It is useful to regard a landscape within a temporal context, as landscapes are in continual flux. This change, to some extent, is gradual, but to an even larger extent occurs as a result of medium to large landscape-level events of relatively low frequency."Change over time in several key components of the landscape illustrates the myriad planning issues and opportunities present within the project area while emphasiz- ing the benefits to the Air Force Academy and its partners and neighbors from this type of planning.

Project Area Description The Monument Creek watershed assessment is located in northwest-

ern El Paso County, Colorado. (See Exhibit 1.) The project area encom- passes approximately 61,200 hectares (151,200 acres). Elevation ranges from approximately 1,800 meters (6,000 feet) to 2,900 meters (9,500 feet).

The project area is characterized by a complex land-ownership pat- tern, representing a variety of potential uses and relationships. Approxi- mate land status breaks are as follows'5:

Department of Defense-12 percent or 7,473 ha (18,466 acres); Forest Service-29 percent or 17,900 ha (44,232 acres);

228 Federal Facilities Environmental lournal/Auturnn 2000

A Landscape Assessnzent in the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains

Bureau of Land Management-<l percent or 3 ha (6 acres); State of Colorado-1 percent or 500 ha (1,228 acres); and Private (which includes land managed by local government)- 58 percent or 35,360 ha (87,377 acres).

PROGRESS TO DATE

following key project components have been completed: Since the start of the initiative in the late summer of 1999, the

Assembly of core planning team comprised of representatives of federal, state, and local managers and stakeholders; Identification of planning issues and opportunities; Survey of existing information on key physical, biological, and social systems; Establishment of historic reference condition for major ecological systems within project area; and Interview process for key stakeholders to gather input about planning issues and concerns and possible courses of action.

Key Findings Of particular interest at this juncture of the project is the relationship

between the historic condition of the landscape to its current condition. The historic or reference condition provides an ecological frame of

Exhibit 1. Map of the Monument Creek Watershed



Approximately 40 percent of the watershed is comprised of ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa)- dominated forests.

reference against which the current condition can be compared. Essen- tial to assessing the landscape is understanding how the landscape has changed over time. Two major systems have seen significant changes from their assumed historic condition and are of particular concern to the planning process due to a pressing need to address associated issues: forests and the human population.

Forest Reference and Current Conditions Approximately 40 percent of the watershed is comprised of ponde-

rosa pine (Pinus pondeuosn)-dominated forests.I6 This forest type is the predominant vegetation type within the project area. Ponderosa pine forests occupy a large portion of the Air Force Academy and Pike National Forest above the Academy and represent a pressing management concern for Academy and other forest resources managers.

Research on similar ponderosa pine forests from the Cheesman Lake area (roughly 15 miles northwest of the Monument Creek watershed) suggests that periodic fires with some partial stand replacing components, burned every 50-60 years in the region.I7It is believed that the historic forest landscape structure was significantly more heteroge- neous than the current forest condition due to dynamics of tree recruitment, existing forest structure, fire and regional climate patterns. Openings of various sizes were widespread, persisting for upwards of 100 years in places.”These openings were dominated by grasses and shrub understory components. Openings of this type resulted from both the effects of stand replacing or high frequency fires or differences in soil types.I8

The current forest condition in the project area is significantly altered from its historic condition. Existing forest stands are comprised of dense, relatively even aged timber resulting from decades of fire suppression, logging, and grazing. Few openings exist in the forest mosaic, apart from the striking exception of the Farish Recreation Area. Persistent patterns of disturbance and alteration of ecological processes have resulted in the accumulation of fuels, increasing the likelihood of catastrophic fire.

Altered forest structure also increases potential severity and impacts from insects. Both fire suppression and human induced impacts increase the likelihood of insect outbreaks by reducing landscape heterogeneity and by decreasing the mean stand age.I9 Similar cycles of infestation occur also with dwarf mistletoe and other tree pathogens. The resulting accumulation of deadwood can provide fuels for catastrophic fires.

Fire and land use are generally regarded at the two most important disturbance factors in determining the structure of Front Range forests? while water, in particular runoff, is considered to be the most effective process shaping the landscape.2’

As a result of land use (logging and grazing) and altered ecological processes (insects and fire), forested areas within the project area are considered to be at high risk for catastrophic fire. Stand replacing crown fires result in the loss of structures and property, and of vegetative cover resulting in the potential for extreme erosion. In extreme cases, fires burn

130 Federal Facilities Environmental ]ournal/Auturnn 2000


Effects to watershed systems over time from population growth are diverse and complicated, yet understanding the relational nature of these impacts is important for the accurate assessment of the landscape.

hot enough to impact soil regimes to the extent that vegetative cover is altered for the long-term. Significant deviation from historic landscape conditions then affects all facets of the landscape community via loss of property, scenic values, wildlife habitat, damage to structures, altered surface hydrology, and altered vegetation patterns that may exacerbate the spread of exotic and noxious plant species.

Regional Population Growth Between 1990 and 1998, the population of El Paso county grew by

approximately 24 percent.ZZ This rate of growth is overshadowed by a higher rate of growth in neighboring Douglas County, yet El Paso County has received more than 95,000 new residents in this same time period, more than any other county in Colorado.*’

Effects to watershed systems over time from population growth are diverse and complicated, yet understanding the relational nature of these impacts is important for the accurate assessment of the landscape. Hard surface development (e.g., roads, roofs, sidewalks, etc.) has increased and accelerated runoff and sedimentation into tributaries of Monument Creek, including Smith and Black Squirrel Creeks resulting in bank cutting, slope failure, and habitat alteration in Monument Creek and other areas downstream.

Increased population has placed pressure on other resources and amenities in the area including recreation, transportation routes, and critical species such as the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsoniiis preblei), a federally threatened species found along Monument Creek and its tributaries. Increased outdoor recreation in the Rampart Range has led to higher levels of vandalism, illegal off-road vehicle use, excessive erosion, and trespassing (both on private inholdings and on Air Force Academy lands).

Increased population in areas adjacent to the Air Force Academy Reservation has led to increased pressure for public access to Depart- ment of Defense lands as well as to increased concerns by the public to aircraft noise from the Academy’s flying operations.

Development is occurring in what is regarded as the ”wildland-urban interface” or the transition area between forested lands and urban development. Development in this transition area is problematic for several reasons: increased fire fuel loads, public opposition to treatments and management strategies, and a greater likelihood of structural damage or loss of life from catastrophic fire. Development in this area also creates an access buffer to public lands leading to concentration of recreational use and public pressure to open lands previously off limits to general use.

CONCLUSION A landscape ecological approach to assessing the Monument Creek

Watershed allows for a greater understanding of relationships between component systems providing the foundation for management action that addresses root level causal factors. The Air Force Academy Reserva-



tion is an integral component of the landscape that both affects and is affected by land use in surrounding areas. Understanding how planning issues develop over time and establishing a reference condition will greatly assist Air Force Academy resource managers and planners in their mission while providing leadership and a foundation for regional, multijurisdictional planning.

Reintroduction of large-scale ecological processes that have been excluded from the landscape, particularly fire (see Exhibit 2) and timber stand thinning (see Exhibit 3), will likely be important to long-term sustainable management of installation and adjacent lands.

This landscape assessment project will result in a reference document for use by Air Force Academy managers and planners, partners, and members of the surrounding communities. The document will include planning pathways or general level recommendations for management

Exhibit 2. Prescribed Burning in Ponderosa Pine at the U.S. Air Force Academy

132 Federal Facilities Environmental lournal/Autumn 2000


Exhibit 3. Timber Stand Thinning in Ponderosa Pine at the U.S. Air Force Academy

action in the area enabling the DOD and its partners to better realize long-range planning goals. It is expected that the planning process, methodology, and resulting documents will be replicable by other DOD installations and communities in the region. 0:.

NOTES 1. Goodman, S. W. (1994, August 8). Memorandum for Assistant Secretary of the Army, Navy, and Air Force on implementation of ecosystem management in the DOD. Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security), US. Department of Defense, Washington, DC.

2. Department of Defense Instruction4715.3.1996. Environmental Conservation Program. Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security), Washington. DC.

3. Lillie, T. H., & Ripley., J. D. (1998). A strategy for implementing ecosystem management in the United States Air Force. Natural Areas Journal, 18(1), 73-80.

4. Legacy Resource Management Program website: http: / /www.dodlegacy.org.

5. Ripley, J. D., & Leslie, M. (1997). Conserving biodiversity on military lands. Federal Facilities Environmental Journal, 8(2), 93-105.

6. Vogel, G. (1996). The Pentagon steps up the battle to save biodiversity. Science, 275,20.

Federal Facilities Environmental \oournal/Autumn 2000 133


7. The Keystone Center. (1996). Keystone Center policy dialogue on a DOD biodiversity management strategy: Final report. Keystone, CO.

8. Leslie, M., Meffe, G. K., Hardesty, J. L., & Adams, D. L. (1996). Conserving biodiversity on military lands: A handbook for natural resources managers. Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy.

9. Ripley, J. D., Lillie, T. H.,Cornelius, S. E., & Marshall, R. M. (2000). The U.S. Department of Defense embraces biodiversity conservation through ecoregional partnerships in the Sonoran desert. Diversity, 15(4), 32-35.

10. Ripley, J. D., Moore, J. E., Humke, J. W., & Leslie, M. Anecoregional context for natural resources management: A case study at Nellis Air Force Range, Nevada. Federal Facilities Environmental Journal 9(3),19-26.

11. See note 3.

12. Air Force Instruction 32-7064. 1997. Integrated natural resources management. Washington, DC: Department of the Air Force.

13. Kaufmann, M. R., Graham, R. T., Boyce, Jr., D. A., Moir, W. H., Perry, L. Reynolds, R. T., Bassett, R. L., Mehlhop, P., Edminster, C. B., Block, W. M., & Corn, P. S. (1994). An ecological basis for ecosystem management. General Technical Report RM-246. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

14. Marsh, W. M. (1998). Landscape planning: Environmental applications (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

15. ColoradoDivision of Wildlife. (1998). Digital Data: Colorado Gap analysis land status map. Denver, CO: Colorado Division of Wildlife, Habitat Resources Section.

16. Colorado Division of Wildlife. (1998). Digital Data: Colorado Gap analysis land cover map. Denver, CO: Colorado Division of Wildlife, Habitat Resources Section.

17. Kaufmann, M. R., Huckaby, L., & Gleason, P. (in press). Ponderosa pine in the Colorado Front Range: Long historical fire and tree recruitment intervals and a case for landscape heterogeneity. Proceedings, Joint Fire Science Conference and Workshop, June 1999, Boise, ID.

18. Covich A., Rudman, B., Smith, S., Kennedy, P., Cooper, D., Fausch, K., & Wilson, K. (1994). Literature review on the range of natural variation in the Colorado Front Range and associated grasslands. Fort Collins, CO: College of Natural Resources, Colorado State University.

19. Hadley, K. S., & Veblen, T. T. (1993). Stand response to western spruce budworm and Douglas-fir bark beetle outbreaks, Colorado Front Range. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research, 23,479491.

20. See note 18.

21. See note 14.

22. Colorado Department of Local Affairs. (1999). Demography section of the Colorado Division of Local Government: http: / /dlg.oem2.state.co.us/demog/demog.htm.

23. Id.

134 Federal Facilities Environmental Journal/Autumn 2000

the u.s. air force embraces ecosystem management through a landscape assessment in the front range...

Documents