Forest Reference Conditions for Ecosystem Management in the Sacramento Mountains, New Mexico
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
This file was created by scanning the printed publication. Errors identified by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain. United States Department of ForestForest ReferenceReference ConditionsConditions forfor Agriculture Forest Service Ecosystem Management in the Rocky Mountain Research Station SacramentoSacramento Mountains,Mountains, NewNew MexicoMexico General Technical Report RMRS–GTR–19 September 1998 Merrill R. Kaufmann, Laurie S. Huckaby, Claudia M. Regan, and John Popp Abstract Kaufmann, M.R.; Huckaby, L.S.; Regan, C.M.; Popp, J. 1998. Forest reference conditions for ecosystem management in the Sacramento Mountains, New Mexico. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-1 9. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 87 p. We present the history of land use and historic vegetation conditions on the Sacramento Ranger District of the Lincoln National Forest within the framework of an ecosystem needs assessment. We reconstruct forest vegetation conditions and ecosystem processes for the period immediately before Anglo-American settlement using General Land Office survey records, historic studies and accounts, and reconstructive studies such as dendrochronological histories of fire and insect outbreak and studies of old growth. Intensive grazing, clearcut logging, fire suppression, and agriculture in riparian areas have radically altered forest structure and processes since the 1880s, when intensive settlement began in the Sacramento Mountains. Present forests are younger and more dense than historic Or:les, and in areas that were previously dominated by ponderosa pine, dominance has shifted to Douglas-fir and white fir in the absence of frequent surface fire. L'andscapes are more homogeneous and contiguous than historic ones, facilitating large-scale, intense 9isturbances such as insect outbreaks and crown fires. Keywords: Sacramento Mountains, New Mexico, environmental history, ecosystem management, fire, logging, grazing The Authors Merrill R. Kaufmann is a research scientist and Laurie Huckaby is a forest ecologist with the Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO. Claudia M. Regan is a forest ecologist with the Rocky Mountain Region, USDA Forest Service, Lakewood, CO. John Popp is a forestry technician with the Rocky Mountain Research Station in Fort Collins. Publisher Rocky Mountain Research Station Fort Collins, Colorado You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your mailing information in label form through one of the following media. Please send the publication title and number. Telephone (970) 498-1719 E-mail rschneider/[email protected] FAX (970) 498-1660 Mailing Address Publications Distribution Rocky Mountain Research Station 3825 E. Mulberry Street Fort Collins, CO 80524-8597 Cover: Water Canyon, 1928 Forest Reference Conditions for Ecosystem Management in the Sacramento Mountains, New Mexico Merrill R. Kaufmann, Laurie S. Huckaby, Claudia M. Regan, and John Popp Contents. PART I. ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT ..................................... Detecting Ecosystem Changes. 2 An Ecological Assessment Process ...................................... '. 3 The Role of Reference Conditions in Ecological Assessments . 4 PART II. SOURCES FOR REFERENCE CONDITIONS ......................... 7 Reference Conditions . 8 Sources. 8 Historical Records and Studies. 8 Archaeology and Paleontology . .. 10 Reconstructive Studies . .. 11 Present Conditions .................................................. 11 PART III. HISTORY OF THE SACRAMENTO MOUNTAINS. .. 13 The Study Area . .. 14 Biotic Communities . .. 14 Geology of the Sacramento Mountains. .. 16 Quaternary Environment ............................................ " 19 History of Human Occupation. .. 20 Prehistoric Habitation ................................................ 21 The Apaches and the Spanish ......................................... 21 The Americans ..................................................... 23 PART IV. FAUNA OF THE SACRAMENTO MOUNTAINS ....................... " 35 Historic Fauna. .. 36 Predators. .. 36 Game and Other Animals . .. 37 Present Fauna ...................................................... " 38 Introductions . .. 38 Threatened and Endangered Species. .. 39 PART V. HISTORIC VEGETATION IN THE SACRAMENTO MOUNTAINS ........... 41 Fresnal CanyonlWest Escarpment Historic Conditions. .. 43 Present Conditions . .. 45 James Canyon Historic Conditions. .. 46 Present Conditions ............................................. .. 48 RMRS-FILE COpy Rio Penasco Historic Conditions ................................................. " 48 Present Conditions ................................................ " 51 Aqua Chiquita Historic Conditions. .. 51 Present Conditions ................................................ " 53 Sacramento River Historic Conditions. .. 53 Present ,Conditions .... .. 55 Riparian Areas Historic .Conditions. .. 56 Rio Penasco ....................................................... 57 Present Conditions .......... .. 57 Historic Disturbance Regimes. .. 57 Climate.. .. 58 Native American Influences. .. 58 Fire. .. 58 Insects. .. 63 Diseases and Parasites. .. 65 Comparison and Summary of Historic and Existing Forest Conditions. .. 68 PART VI. USING INFORMATION IN THE ECOSYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT PROCESS. .. 75 Iterative Assessment Processes. .. 77 Old Growth. .. 77 Fire. .. 78 Riparian Conditions. .. 78 Gray Wolf. .. 79 Mexican Spotted Owl. .. 80 White Pine Blister Rust . .. 80 Blending Ecosystem Needs With Social and Economic Needs. .. 80 LITERATURE CITED ...... .. 83 PART I. ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT " Most people agree that certain troubling natural re Think long term. Ecosystems must be sustained for the source issues exist, generally involving unintended bio well-being of humans and other forms of life. logical consequences of human activities. These include Save all the pieces. Ecosystems must have the potential threats to rare and endangered species, fragmentation or for keeping all the naturally occurring organisms, their destruction of habitats, and disruption of natural distur assemblages into communities, and the physical environ bances and other ecological processes. Disagreement ex ment supporting them present in the system. ists, however, over the degree to which humans have af Save all the processes. Natural ecosystem processes, in fected forests and the extent to which these changes are cluding their frequency and intensity, should be retained acceptable. Responsible resource managers deal daily with to allow ecosystems to self-regulate. the difficulty of conserving natural resource features and Assure sustainability. Human impacts should not affect values for future generations while trying to meet human ecosystems in such a way that they would not return to needs and wants for today. their natural state if left alone. The concept of ecosystem management was brought Applying these principles in the management of natu to the forefront of natural resource management in most ral resources requires a framework for analyzing ecosys land management agencies in the early 1990s. The tems. This framework has been developed during the last concept's appeal is in holistically addressing the biologi several years as an ecosystem assessment process. Assess cal, social, and economic issues facing our use of natural ments have developed primarily at two degrees of scope resources (Kaufmann et al. 1994). The transition from (not to be confused with scale). The larger scope, repre management for multiple use to management that in sented for example by the Columbia Basin Assessment, cludes a focus on sustainitlg ecosystems has affected ac includes both the ecological considerations related to eco tivities in and among many agencies at national, state, and system sustainability and the social and economic con local levels. The task is not easy, however. On one hand, siderations associated with sustainable natural resource we often have inadequate know ledge of how ecosystems management as a whole. At a smaller scope (but not function and how much we can use them without destroy smaller scale), the ecosystem needs assessment process ing important ecosystem functions and characteristics. On focuses on identifying ecosystem needs and capabilities the other hand, we have a long history of human use of associated specifically with ecosystem sustainability forested systems that is difficult to change, even in cases (Kaufmann et al. 1994). While this approach requires in where our patterns of use appear unsustainable. tegration with social and economic considerations in man While examining the social and economic patterns and agement decision processes (as was done in the Colum practices of human use of natural ecosystems is beyond bia Basin assessment), its advantage is that it focuses the scope of this paper, our focus here is on understand clearly on the well-being of ecosystems at multiple spa ing ecosystem characteristics that should be taken into tial and temporal scales. This focus is crucial to develop account when evaluating management alternatives, so that ing an understanding of how human activities impact goods and services can be provided while sustaining eco ecosystem sustainability. systems for future generations. Recent conclusions from the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project illustrate the magnitude of the problems faced in sustaining ecosystems (Haynes et al. 1996, Quigley and