Literature Sources Disclaimer: All material and quotes were drawn from “The State of the Southern Rockies Ecoregion” A report by the Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project.
PLAN SUMMARY
The Southern Rockies Ecoregion is internationally revered
as an area of astounding natural beauty. The region stretches 500 miles from
southern Wyoming to northern New Mexico and 250 miles from east to west at its
widest point. The ecoregion encompasses 63,654 square miles of the Rocky Mountains
of the American West. It is considered to be the highest ecoregion in the United
States, in terms of elevation.
There are numerous landscape features
which shape the region. To the east, where the high mountains meet the plains,
there are mesas, foothills, parallel ridges and rocky outcroppings. To the west
lies the Colorado Plateau, which consists of mountains leading into jagged canyons
and mesas. These landscape components influence the location and diversity of
ecosystems because they effect environmental factors such as climate, precipitation,
and geology.
The diverse array of ecosystems (see
Figure 1) in the region provide habitat for a plethora of species. The species
distribution is therefore directly linked to ecosystem structures. For instance,
species diversity is higher in wetland, riparian and lower elevation systems
than in higher elevation systems. It is important to manage these ecosystems,
especially because the Southern Rockies Ecoregion is home to 1,181 threatened
or endangered species. In figure 2, the graphs represent the species distribution
by taxonomic groups and the conservation status of species of special concern.
There are several driving issues that
prompted the Southern Rockies Ecosystem Plan. There have been a number of changes
since early settlement that have driven managers to write a comprehensive plan
to help improve the state of the Southern Rockies. These threats to ecosystem
integrity are mostly the result of human land use, water use and pollution.
Agriculture and grazing cause strain
to the land in many ways. Agriculture infringes upon lowland riparian areas,
wetlands and floodplains and disrupts their natural functions. Riparian areas
are also negatively affected by grazing. Despite the fact that cattle are rotated
around, they tend to congregate in riparian zones, which leads to erosion of
stream banks, and reduction in native grasses that stabilize the banks.
Urban development is another leading
cause of environmental degradation in the Southern Rockies. The human population
in the region has grown from less than 500,000 in 1900 to 2.9 million today.
The population is expected to reach 3.9 million by the year 2020. People are
infringing upon agricultural lands, wildlife habitat and remote natural areas
at an astounding rate. As a result of this increasing urban sprawl, native habitat
is lost or fragmented, wildlife corridors are destructed, and natural processes
such as fire and flooding are suppressed.
The ultimate goals outlined in the
Southern Rockies Ecosystem Plan are maintaining ecosystem integrity and improving
biodiversity. In order to facilitate these goals, the plan calls for the establishment
of an effective reserve system that would preserve large tracts of land throughout
the region. The plan also seeks to employ sound ecosystem management principles.
The Southern Rockies ecosystem Plan
sets forth four conservation objectives that will be used to help create the
reserve system:
_
Represent
all native ecosystem types and successional stages across their range of natural
variation
_
Maintain
viable populations of all native species in natural patterns of abundance and
distribution.
_
Maintain
ecological and evolutionary processes (e.g., disturbance regimes, nutrient cycles
and predation).
_
Maintain
responsiveness to short term and long term environmental change.
These
objectives created under SREP allow for identification and integration of conservation
priorities. The following priorities
seek to be the most effective in the design and implementation of a reserve
system. These priorities are:
1.
Representation
of ecosystem types
2.
The
identification and protection of special biological and landscape elements (i.e.
old growth forests and rare and imperiled species habitats)
3.
The
securing of habitat for certain focal species
Representation
of ecosystem types is important because the lands protected now are typically
only protected for recreation, because they contain “charismatic” mega-fauna,
or because they have little economic value.
The identification and protection of special biological and landscape
elements is important because, despite actions by organizations such as the
National Heritage Program, there are still many special elements that remain
at risk. The securing of habitat for
focal species is significant because its protection will benefit numerous other
species without having to address thousands of individual habitat needs.
In order to employ sound ecosystem
management principals to the reserve system as well as other areas, the plan
outlines five main strategies. The first
strategy is managing forest ecosystems. In
order to restore native species diversity and stand structure within a forest,
managers need to carefully re-establish natural landscape mosaics and disturbance
regimes.
The second
strategy is managing rangelands. Human
alteration of these rangelands has severely impacted the natural species composition
and processes. The plan provides tactics
in which to restore these ecological components.
The third
strategy is managing aquatic and riparian ecosystems. Habitat loss and destruction in the form of
flow regime modification and point/non point source pollution are the main concerns
in which the management objectives seek to resolve.
The fourth
strategy is managing for recreation. The
negative effects of recreation are increasingly encroaching into natural lands
and habitat. The suggested management tactics work to reverse
these trends.
The final
strategy involves the management of private lands. The landownership patterns create a landscape
in which 40% of the area is privately owned. The management objectives attempt to overcome
the barriers between value differences amongst stakeholders.
Reserve Management Actions:
_
Provide
protection for native ecosystem types
_
Encourage
land trust to preserve open lands
_
Protect
the areas present roadless areas
_
Immediate
identification and protection of ecologically valuable and vulnerable elements
_
Protect
and determining habitat needs for carefully selected sets of focal species (they
in turn will act as umbrella species)
_
Habitat
mapping to provide information useful to carnivore species restoration
Reserve Design Actions:
_
Habitat
restoration efforts may also be required to adequately establish biological
reserves that will encompass and protect all the Southern Rockies’ Native species,
habitats, and natural processes
_
The
connection of core reserves across the landscape in order to permit important
ecological processes to continue
_
Managing
surrounding areas as multiple use “buffer zones” that allow for increased intensity
of land use
Forest Ecosystem Management:
_
Maintain an extensive network of late-successional
and old growth forest ecosystems in amounts adequate to support old-growth dependent
species.
_
Restore significant areas of lower elevation forests (e.g.,
ponderosa pine and Douglas fir) to late successional and old growth structural
conditions.
_
Allow large, natural fires to burn in many high-elevation
forests (e.g., spruce-fir) and reintroduce low intensity fire regimes to many
lower elevation forests (e.g., ponderosa pine and Douglas fir).
_
Don’t over-generalize restoration procedures for major
forest ecosystem types, such as employing thinning and prescribed low-intensity
burning to all ponderosa pine forests (especially those that may have been naturally
dense and historically experienced stand-replacing fires).
_
Allow and plan for natural variability in forest disturbance
regimes (e.g., intensity and size) when possible, even in low elevation forests.
_
On lands where timber production remains a dominant use,
employ sound ecological principles to guide harvest techniques (e.g., long rotation
or selective logging practices)
_
When possible, use logging practices that mimic natural
disturbances, such as thinning of understory trees in old growth forests. Clear-cut
logging does not mimic large catastrophic fires.
_
Reduce cut levels and alter cutting patterns that lead
to highly fragmented forest landscapes (e.g., on the Medicine Bow-Routt NF).
_
Prohibit future road building and close thousands of miles
of existing roads. Strategic removal of even just a few logging and OHV roads
can help to restore forest interior habitat conditions throughout the Southern
Rockies.
_
Discourage residential development in areas prone to naturally-
occurring, catastrophic forest fires.
Rangeland Management:
_
Remove livestock from badly degraded areas and sensitive
habitat (e.g., riparian areas or threatened and endangered species habitat).
_
Identify overgrazed areas and lower the number of livestock
on those areas and/or employ progressive grazing management techniques, such
as seasonal closures and livestock rotation to prevent year-round grazing.
_
Establish large "livestock-free" areas in most
major ecosystem types; places that can serve as sanctuaries from the impacts
of livestock grazing and as control areas that can be compared to grazed landscapes.
_
Manage domestic livestock to mimic native herbivore grazing
patterns.
_
Replace domestic ungulates (e.g., cows) with native ungulates
(e.g., bison) if economically feasible.
_
End ecologically destructive vegetation manipulation techniques
designed to increase forage for livestock (e.g., plowing, seeding, and chaining
of piñon-juniper forests).
_
End government predator control services.
_
Restore and maintain natural ecological processes, such
as rangeland fires (or use prescribed fires that mimic natural grassland, shrubland,
and forest fire regimes).
_
Restore large prairie-dog colonies and prairie-dog town
associated species (e.g., black-footed ferrets, and burrowing owls) on rangelands,
where appropriate.
_
Reintroduce missing rangeland predators where feasible
(e.g., wolves, black-footed ferrets).
_
Use aggressive weed control measures.
_
Don’t usurp the water needs of native wildlife for livestock.
Aquatic and Riparian Management:
_
Establish strictly protected aquatic reserves that include
both headwaters and lower elevation river reaches.
_
Remove and/or control exotic species and prohibit the introduction
of new exotic species (including non-indigenous game fish).
_
Employ the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and other conservation
tools to protect free-flowing and biologically-key river stretches
_
Better enforce laws such as the Clean Water Act that require
monitoring and regulation of water pollution levels and protect wetlands.
_
Better monitor and control non-point source pollution (e.g.,
agricultural and urban run-off) through enhanced community and state government
programs.
_
Mimic natural flood regimes with large water releases from
reservoirs during the spring.
_
Build no new dams and diversions and eventually remove
the most ecologically destructive dams.
_
Prohibit or control land uses near aquatic habitat, such
as livestock grazing, most mining activities, and most ORV use, that negatively
impact hydrology, water quality, and species diversity.
_
Return straightened and channelized rivers to their natural,
meandering stream courses.
_
Prohibit and, when possible, remove residential and other
development in floodplains and sensitive riparian habitat.
_
Limit or prohibit massive groundwater pumping projects.
Recreation Management
_
Reduce trail densities in ecologically sensitive areas
and in areas that have extremely high-density trail networks.
_
Remove or re-route off highway vehicle trails and some
nonmotorized trails from sensitive areas (e.g., riparian habitat, wetlands,
Threatened and Endangered species habitat).
_
Regulate trail use in certain areas and during certain
seasons (e.g., close certain trails seasonally for wildlife needs such as elk
calving or raptor nesting, and limit use during the mud/wet season to prevent
severe erosion).
_
Close and remove unofficial ORV trails from (otherwise)
roadless areas.
_
Eliminate user-created "social" trails.
_
Educate trail users about ecologically ethical trail use.
_
When designing trail systems, concentrate rather than disperse
trails, avoid fragmenting large habitat patches, set biologically based road
and trail densities, and keep some areas devoid of trails for sensitive species
_
Prohibit expansion of ski areas onto important and sensitive
wildlife habitat on public lands; restrict snowmaking activities by ski resorts
in order to maintain natural stream flows.
_
Establish voluntary conservation easements that protect
biologically important lands in perpetuity from future development, but also
keep the land in private hands and offer tax breaks to the landowner.
_
Directly purchase and acquire key private land parcels
from willing sellers. Possible buyers include local governments (e.g., through
open space departments), state and federal agencies, and land trusts (e.g.,
The Nature Conservancy).
_
Enact and enforce effective land-use planning and zoning
laws that protect key habitat types such as wetlands and riparian areas.
_
Provide tax incentives and/or create programs where the
public has opportunities to pay private landowners for conservation actions
that protect important habitats and at-risk species.
_
Education concerning environmental issues
_
Building effective coalitions between stakeholders, including
conservation groups, private land-owners, and government agencies
_
Stricter enforcement and/or implementation of existing
environmental laws and their associated regulations (ESA, Clean Water Act, NEPA)
_
Amend provisions in existing laws (i.e. the outdated 1872
Mining Law)
_
New Laws may also be needed in order to address issues
not currently covered
In order to critique the Southern Rockies
Ecosystem Plan effectively, we focused on six principles of ecosystem management.
We feel these six principles provide the framework to carry out an ecosystem
plan most effectively. The principles that we focused on were ecosystem boundaries,
ecological integrity, interagency cooperation, data collection, monitoring and
humans imbedded in nature.
The first principle that we focused
on in our critique is ecological boundaries and whether or not they were recognized
as being important to the plan. The Southern Rockies Ecoregion is defined by
patterns of geology, topography, soils, vegetation, climate and natural processes.
This plan recognizes that an ecoregion should transcend all human-delineated
political boundaries in order to be effective.
We feel that this plan was effective
in using ecological boundaries. It is
important to manage an ecoregion by ecological boundaries, and not by political
boundaries because ecosystems do not stop at state or county lines. Just as
an ecosystem is not restricted by political boundaries, neither are wildlife
nor their habitats.
The plan
goes a step further and acknowledges that outside influences and ecosystems
(i.e. the “Zone of Influence”) have an effect on the Southern Rockies ecoregion.
The plan only introduces this as a secondary management action, not a primary
one. However, we feel that this acknowledgment is a step in the right direction
because eventually there will be management recommendations to treat the “Zone
of Influence”.
Ecological
Integrity
The second
guiding principle of ecosystem management we focused on is ecological integrity.
We feel that this plan effectively addresses this issue given that it
is the overriding theme of the Southern Rockies Ecosystem Plan.
The plan thoroughly addresses ecosystem health and biodiversity. The major findings were summarized in the biodiversity
evaluation, as well as the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem assessments. These
assessments looked into the overall health of the Southern Rockies. They specifically
analyzed ecological changes and whether human uses of land and water caused
these changes.
In the
biodiversity section, the plan focused on managing predator/prey interactions
and the critical role in which keystone species play in influencing the structure
and function of an ecosystem. By beginning
at a coarse filter scale, they will be able to represent all the major species
in the area. Using a fine filter scale,
they will effectively be able to manage for species of special concern.
In the terrestrial section, the plan focuses
on human impacts, such as development, agriculture, recreation, roads, and fire
suppression. They stress the need for habitat protection and for the management
for human use. This aspect of the plan should be effective in that it recognizes
that humans are a part of nature and need to be managed. The plan also discusses
positive trends, such as the creation of land trusts and participation by private
landowners. This is beneficial because it addresses that actions taken to protect
the areas are currently being pursued. With the human population and development increasing,
it is extremely important that the area be protected in order to maintain terrestrial
habitat.
Protection
of roadless areas is an excellent way to ensure the continuation of biodiversity
and ecosystem health. On a coarse filter
scale, they have adequately addressed the need for present and future protection
of the area as a whole. The coarse scale
allows there to be an array of habitats, which will ultimately lead to a diverse
and healthy ecosystem. On a fine filter scale, it provides for reintroduction of top predators
and maintenance of native plant species. The plan also seeks to provide linkages between these existing habitats
and protected areas. This connectivity
between existing areas is essential to species foraging, dispersal, and gene
flow.
In the
aquatic assessment, the plan focuses on pollution, human water use, and habitat
preservation in aquatic and riparian zones.
We consider this part of the report extremely important because 80% of
animals and natural communities depend on aquatic and riparian ecosystems and
they are being rapidly degraded. These
ecosystems serve a variety of natural functions and support species rich communities
and need to be managed accordingly.
Interagency
Cooperation
The third principle we focused
on was interagency cooperation. This
is an extremely important aspect of managing an entire ecoregion.
Individual agencies and landowners are responsible for managing small
parts of the region as a whole and everyone needs to work together in order
to maintain a healthy ecosystem.
There are many actions involved in
the plans that require the cooperation of various agencies. These jurisdictions
have to communicate and agree upon a variety of different issues. For example,
in order to successfully identify and protect the rare and endangered species,
the National Heritage Program of Colorado must coordinate with the Endangered
Species Act to create comprehensive lists and appropriate management actions.
With
respect to terrestrial ecosystems, the management of lands involves mainly the
Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management and private landowners. The complex ownership patterns of the region
requires that interagency cooperation exist in order to effectively deal with
important issues. For example, since 85% of the rare and endangered species
are found on private lands, cooperation between Federal/State/Local governments
and private landowners is critical in facilitating appropriate management solutions.
The integration
of landowners and agencies plays an important role in the management of these
large protected areas. In figure 3,
there is a description of land area categories and the agencies that manage
them. This component of the plan provides
a means to better represent the more diverse and under-protected ecosystems.
By encouraging private landowners, non-governmental organizations and
land trust organizations to interact more actively with federal agencies, the
areas, which mainly consist of private and tribal ownership, can be more effectively
managed for ecological integrity. We
feel that the Land Stewardship Status Categories (fig 2) shows the importance
of involvement by agencies such as the USFWS, in conjunction with private landowners,
in protecting areas of concern.
There is also a significant amount
of interagency cooperation regarding aquatic and riparian conservation as well.
For instance, the federal Clean Water Act requires that the discharge of pollutants
from a point source be regulated by the states and by the Environmental Protection
Agency. Also the states have to report the status of their water quality to
the EPA and to Congress every two years so that water standards can be improved.
Data
Collection
The forth
principle that we focused on in our critique was data collection. We feel that
this plan was adequately researched and relevant data was collected. Each section supplies enough information to
create an understanding of the truly complex nature of this ecoregion. For example, in the biodiversity section, the
plan explains the species composition and distribution by ranking them in order
of conservation concerns (see fig 2). The
research shows the overall species biodiversity of the region. By giving ample consideration to the rare and
endangered species and by providing multiple objectives, the goal of maintaining
viable populations of all native species can be achieved.
With
regards to the terrestrial ecosystem, the plan researched many important points.
The most important facet covered in this section was increased development and
it’s affects on natural habitats. For example, as development has increased, “nearly 94% of the ecoregion
[is now] within 2 miles of a road, and only about 1% of the total area [is]
more than 4 miles from the nearest road” (pp.57).
The plan
also discusses the impacts that rangeland and agriculture have on the landscape,
as well as discussing how rural development is impacting wildlife and plant
habitat. In order to remedy this and other issues concerning natural communities,
it provides management objectives for forests, rangelands, recreation, fire
suppression, and areas with roads. The attention given to the roadless areas
in this region is effective in relaying the importance of their preservation. One
strength of this section is the extent of information gathered and the fabrication
of proposed objectives, in order to reach the overriding goal.
Monitoring
Monitoring is a critical part
of a management plan. It needs to happen in all stages of the process.
Interagency cooperation is crucial in successful monitoring.
The SREP identified several ways in which the area was monitored. In addition to monitoring during the writing
of a plan, post-implementation monitoring will enable managers to access the
effectiveness of the plan.
In regard
to the monitoring of species, the plan identifies and emphasizes that species
and their populations have a direct correlation to the health and integrity
of an ecosystem. The plan notes the
lack of direct legal protection to represent these ecosystems and the species
that inhabit them. The plan in no-way
discusses the importance of monitoring, nor methods of monitoring the biodiversity
of the region. The only mention of monitoring
comes in the form of “encouraging the US forest service and the BLM to monitor
species at risk.” The extent of the
research, combined with the formulation of objectives to maintain biodiversity,
was extensive.
The plan,
however, severely lacks emphasis on, and objectives for quality monitoring programs.
Without the establishment of monitoring programs, the management objectives
are susceptible to decay. Interagency
cooperation could play an important part in giving states the funds and authority
in which to monitor at an even finer scale that that of the ESA. The Colorado Natural Heritage program is the leading agency afforded
to classifying species, but there are no objectives in the plan, which specify
the way in which to provide accurate and effective monitoring.
The monitoring of wilderness/roadless areas
using a coarse scale would involve such actions as monitoring the areas for
any signs of encroachment or degradation by human activities. Using a fine scale would involve monitoring
native flora and fauna and the effects, which may result from exotic and invasive
species. The closing of Off Road Vehicle trails on otherwise wilderness or roadless
areas would also enable the ecosystem to return to its’ “natural range of variability”.
Monitoring of species, landscape patterns, and natural disturbance regimes can
be used in both wilderness and human degraded areas to assess ecosystem health.
Monitoring the ecoregions renewable resources and assessing logging practices
to ensure the use of practices such as “legacies” are used instead of old practices
such as clear-cutting can also be productive in returning the health and integrity
to the Southern Rockies Ecoregion.
The SREP
also mentioned water pollution monitoring and regulation. Impacts from point
and non-point sources of water pollution are measured every two years when the
states are required by the federal Clean Water Act to report their water quality.
Each state’s water quality is then listed based on whether the water can support
fishing, swimming, and habitat for aquatic life. After these reports are submitted,
it is mandatory that each state set pollution reduction goals for degraded waters.
Although
there are a number of positive monitoring trends for aquatic ecosystems, there
are also several problems. One problem is that only 27% of Colorado’s rivers
have been assessed. Also, survey methods differ across state lines and deficiencies
are evident when streams cross-state borders, such as along the New Mexico-Colorado
border. A final problem that we identified with the aquatic monitoring has to
do with the lack of non-point source pollution regulations. There are currently
no federal standards for pollutants such as agricultural and urban run-off despite
the fact that non-point source pollution is the leading cause of pollution in
Colorado, Wyoming and New Mexico.
Humans Embedded in Nature
Humans are documented to have existed
in the Southern Rockies region up to 11,000 years ago. Although this is a relatively short time frame
compared to other species, the human race has ha a disproportionate effect on
the area. Population growth, natural
resource consumption and land ownership patterns have played an integral role
in shaping the landscape. The impact
of human activity can be seen in threats to species diversity, terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems.
The final ecosystem management principle we wish to discuss is that humans are embedded in nature. It is commonly accepted and rarely denied that humans benefit from the ecological components of the region as well as degrade them.
The biodiversity of the region is impacted most significantly by habitat loss due to human land use. This human induced loss of habitat places stress on the relatively high diversity of the Southern Rockies. Species diversity is directly related to genetic variation and the structure and function of natural communities. These processes are the most important elements required to maintain biodiversity in a system. Habitat fragmentation, degradation and loss as a result of human activity pose the most serious threat to maintaining species diversity. It is estimated that 85% of species at risk of extinction in the U.S. are threatened by declines in habitat due to development and agriculture.
Urban sprawl and the expansion of low-density residential development into natural landscapes and ecosystems are among the most significant agents of landscape change and habitat alteration. The expansion of human development has eliminated critical wildlife habitats and remote areas. By 2020, urban and suburban development is estimated to consume an additional 800,000 acres of these vulnerable ecosystems.
Through such devices such as tax incentives and public education, private property owners intrigued and encouraged to change their values toward nature. This change in values is important in recognizing that humans are a part of nature and play an important role in maintaining its health and integrity.
The plan includes a section on recreation management in which it seeks to manage ecosystems for both animals and humans alike. The plan calls for the closure of certain trail systems during critical mating and nesting periods of species such as elk and raptors. Included in this section are management objectives, which seek to educate trail users to their potential impact on a variety of ecological functions that occur in the regions ecosystems. One of the largest impacts of recreational users comes in the form of downhill ski areas. The plan establishes management objectives aimed at regulating snow making as to reduce its negative effect on localized stream flows. The recreation management strategies request some limitation on human activities while still maintaining a balance between stakeholders and the ecosystem.
In conclusion, we felt that the
Southern Rockies Ecoregion Plan could potentially be effective when it is implemented.
It employed five of the six ecosystem management principles that we thought
were best suited to accomplish the goals of improving biodiversity and maintaining
the integrity of the region. The five principles that the plan utilized were
recognizing ecological boundaries, assessing ecosystem integrity, the collection
of qualitative data, interagency cooperation, and acknowledging the role of
humans in nature. The only ecosystem management principle that we felt was underrepresented
in the plan was post-implementation monitoring. Any monitoring programs that
will be used after the plan is implemented should be mentioned in the stated
objectives. Without monitoring as an objective, the plan lacks the vehicle in
which to achieve cohesive, comprehensive and effective management of the Southern
Rockies.
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure
3.
