Upper South Platte Watershed Protection and Restoration Project

Transcription

1 Upper South Platte Watershed Protection and Restoration Project Stephen Higgs and Julia Wondolleck Ecosystem Management Initiative School of Natural Resources and Environment The University of Michigan 430 E. University Ann Arbor, MI Copyright 2004 by the Ecosystem Management Initiative All Rights Reserved. This paper may not be copied, reproduced, or translated without permission in writing from the authors. 1

2 Background The Upper South Platte River Watershed is a critical watershed that provides approximately eighty percent of the drinking water for the 1.5 million residents of the Denver Metropolitan area. In 1996, the Buffalo Creek fire burned 11,900-forested acres in this watershed. The torrential rains that followed washed so much silt from the denuded landscape into Denver s main water intake structure that the structure was closed for over three weeks, threatening Denver s drinking water supply. Lingering smoke and ash contaminated a neighboring reservoir and city residents had to drink water with a smoky, frog-like taste for over a week. The Buffalo Creek fire served as a wake-up call for the host of land management agencies and water providers in the region. Rocky Wiley, Manager of Planning for the Denver Water Department recalled, We got a black eye from that. Though the public was understanding, it proved to the Forest Service and others what could happen because of these fires and this was only an 11,000-acre fire! Officials from the US Environmental Protection Agency, Colorado State Forest Service, and USDA Forest Service immediately recognized the need to begin working collaboratively and across jurisdictions in order to better manage the risk of catastrophic fire along Colorado s Front Range. Catastrophic forest fires have sparked the formation of collaborative partnerships throughout the western United States. The Upper South Platte Watershed Protection and Restoration Project is a prime example of the forces that can bring together both agency and nonagency partners at the local, state and federal levels to begin grappling with a problem that is bigger than any one of them can deal with alone. Once proceeding in a more collaborative manner, these agencies were better able to capitalize on existing scientific research, conduct complimentary restoration projects and, moreover, coordinate monitoring and evaluation initiatives in order to enhance their understanding across agencies of landscape scale fire and water quality issues. This case tells the story of the progress that can be made when groups build strong linkages between scientists and managers, adopt a learning mode that includes systematic experimentation and monitoring, and build the political and budgetary support to move forward. The Watershed The Upper South Platte River watershed is located southwest of Denver, Colorado. The watershed covers approximately 1.7 million acres, 500,000 acres of which lie within the Pike National Forest. The remaining acreage is divided among private landowners, Denver Water (the agency responsible for providing water to the City of Denver), and the State of Colorado. The region is of paramount economic importance because of its proximity to Denver. In addition to providing most of Denver s water supply, the basin is also the playground for city residents and outof-state tourists, with over two million visitor days per year. Denver s population is growing rapidly 2

3 at 2.5 percent or 40,000 people per year so the South Platte as a source of water and recreation is increasingly in demand. The Upper South Platte River offers gold medal fishing reaches for trout enthusiasts; in other parts of the watershed visitors enjoy popular recreational activities such as sightseeing, camping, hiking, mountain biking, motorcycle and ATV riding, cross country skiing, boating, and hunting. Similar to other regions in the arid mountain west, the two most significant environmental challenges in the region are water supply and catastrophic fire. According to Merrill Kaufmann, an ecologist at the Forest Service s Rocky Mountain Research Station, forests in the Upper South Platte breed catastrophic fire because they are out of whack with historical or more sustainable conditions. Over the past century, forest management in the basin has resulted in dense stands of small trees when compared to pre-1900 conditions. These small trees can serve as ladders that allow surface fires to climb their branches, spreading fire to the forest canopy. Crown or canopy fires can easily spread across large areas to consume huge forested areas. Burgeoning population growth in the area is exacerbating the threat of fire as more and more communities continue to sprawl into high risk areas. For many, the Buffalo Creek fire was a clear sign that something had to be done to address fire along Colorado s Front Range. Following the fire, the Environmental Protection Agency commissioned a Red Zone assessment of the Front Range from Colorado Springs to Fort Collins to identify areas where forests and neighboring communities were most susceptible to catastrophic fire. Building on the findings in the assessment, the Colorado State Forester began crafting objectives for a landscape approach to management that would entail cross-boundary and interagency land management. The Forest Service Regional Forester also recognized the need to manage landscapes across boundaries and appointed the regional silviculturist to work with the Colorado State Forest Service and EPA to find ways to collaborate to address the threat of fires and to identify demonstration areas where some of the restoration recommendations from the Red Zone study could be implemented. At the same time, ecologist Merrill Kaufmann was meeting with various land management personnel in the basin. Based on his research in the Upper South Platte, Kaufmann stressed that the Buffalo Creek fire would not have been nearly as intense or destructive if forest conditions had been more like pre-1900 conditions. Linking Science and Management After some initial meetings organized by the Colorado State Forest Service, and involving representatives from EPA, the USDA Forest Service, the Rocky Mountain Research Station, Colorado State University, and Denver Water, the idea for a large-scale, interagency restoration 3

4 project to reduce the threat of fire along the Front Range was born. The parties discussed potential demonstration sites to test restoration strategies and settled on a 645,000-acre segment of the Upper South Platte basin because of the area s importance to Denver, and the fact that Kaufmann and other scientists understood the area s historical ecological conditions. Kaufmann recounted the first few days of the loosely formed partnership and noted that it was not one individual that spearheaded the group but rather a harmonic convergence of people and ideas. He continued, we had six or eight of us in a van driving around the Upper South Platte looking over the area we all got talking about what it would take to actually do some restoration work so that Denver Water and other players didn t have the same kind of problem. According to Kaufmann, from the beginning the agencies were interested in what science could tell managers about healthy or historical forest conditions and how management could put science into practice to restore the landscape. Kaufmann stressed that he and his team of scientists at the Rocky Mountain Research Station had already studied fire histories in the Upper South Platte and that researchers would be hard pressed to find another demonstration site in Colorado that is better understood. Thus, according to Kaufmann, science could be a significant role player [in restoration in the Upper South Platte] because it could provide some of the underpinnings to justify some treatment of the forest that would lead to better ecological conditions and those same treatments would also help mitigate the wildfire problem. Hence, the Upper South Platte seemed like a perfect demonstration site to try different restoration techniques because there was a reasonably clear idea of the kinds of on-the-ground conditions managers wanted to recreate. Building Support for their Initiative While these individuals in the field recognized that they needed to be working together to deal with fire, they also recognized that they would not get very far without the support both financial and political of their agencies leadership. In September 1998, members of the fledgling partnership developed a strategic plan outlining the steps that they felt were needed to present to then Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck. In less than a month, they crafted a vision statement and goals for a basin-wide restoration effort and entitled the project the Upper South Platte Watershed Protection and Restoration Project. The idea of implementing a large-scale restoration effort fit within Chief Dombeck s focus on watershed-wide management, especially because the Forest Service manages approximately eighty percent of the land in the Upper South Platte basin. The agency provided direct funding for the project, in addition to funds from Denver Water and the Colorado State Forest Service. The Upper South Platte Watershed Protection and Restoration Project was launched. 4

5 The group s vision is to promote: sustainable forest conditions within the watershed and surrounding forest area that enable the forest ecosystem to thrive and function over time while adapting to changing environmental and social conditions. And its four project goals are to: 1. Reduce the risks of large catastrophic fires occurring; 2. Reduce the risk to human life and property; 3. Protect water quality for all users; and 4. Create a program of continuous and effective forest management through integrated research, continuous monitoring and adaptive management techniques. Establishing Critical Connections With strong backing from the Forest Service and others, the group next considered how to structure themselves to implement the project. Many of the agencies were already participating in the Coalition for the Upper South Platte (CUSP), a large coalition of local, state, and federal governmental agencies, citizens, business groups, and environmentalists who work together to discuss resource management issues in the Upper South Platte Watershed [ EPA, the Forest Service, the Colorado State Forest Service, and Denver Water decided to organize themselves as a sub-committee of CUSP in order to capitalize on the already existing communication channels and networks in CUSP. These agencies structured the sub-committee as a steering committee comprised of themselves as well as some new members from the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Executive Director of CUSP who serves as the official liaison between the steering committee and CUSP. The parties jointly crafted a charter for the steering committee, outlining the roles and responsibilities of members and later developed a business plan [ to guide the everyday workings of the group from project conceptualization to implementation to follow-up. The Steering Committee was formalized in 1999 and today meets every one or two months. Steering Committee Chair, Dave Hessel, a forty-year USFS veteran who now works for the Colorado State Forest Service, coordinates meetings and reports for the restoration project. Today, the Project encompasses a series of sub-projects associated with restoring forestlands within the basin to historical conditions less susceptible to catastrophic fire. It is touted as a major initiative involving application of pre-existing data on current and historical forest conditions to guide the 5

6 implementation of various restoration projects, as well as related monitoring studies to determine the impact of individual restoration efforts. An Adaptive Management Approach Perhaps the group s most significant accomplishment and strength is its ability to put adaptive management into practice. An overriding goal of the project is to experiment and demonstrate how integrated landscape-scale forest treatments can be effective in reducing the threat of fire. This requires a project planning process grounded in applying science to practice. From the beginning, ecologist Merrill Kaufmann has been an active member of the steering committee and has been instrumental in designing the project s adaptive management approach. As described in detail below, the group s strategy for implementing adaptive management includes four key stages: 1) understanding the system to be restored by conducting a landscape assessment, 2) asking key monitoring questions, 3) identifying core demonstration sites to test ideas, and 4) sustaining research to meet management needs. 1. Landscape Assessment Kaufmann stressed that before they launched the restoration project, they had to understand the system in which they worked. He noted that scientists and the managers who work with them should always ask the question: Do you have enough science that says that whatever you are proposing to do here is going to work in the right direction ecologically? If you fail to answer that question, it makes you all the more vulnerable to the appeal process. According to Kaufmann, the steering committee already had a strong science base to draw from when designing the restoration project the result of years of studies within the Upper South Platte. This information provided a useful roadmap for the kinds of conditions the parties wanted to replicate. Using Kaufmann s data and additional field surveys, the group completed a landscape assessment of the 645,000-acre basin in 1999 to better understand the region s ecological state and craft strategies to restore the area to historical conditions. The steering committee s landscape assessment was well thought out and reasonably comprehensive. Kaufmann noted, In any kind of good ecological assessment, what you would do is to take current conditions and evaluate them against a backdrop of reference conditions. The reference conditions tell you historically what went on in these ecosystems, and [to some extent] a historical backdrop tells us what is a sustainable ecosystem. The group s assessment involved both coarse and fine-filter analysis. A coarse filter analysis asks the question whether the current structure of the overall system is like the historical conditions or significantly departed from it. To participants 6

7 in the steering committee, the coarse filter analysis suggested that the current forest structure in the Upper South Platte was fairly homogenous and generally made up of small diameter trees, a structure that differs considerably from historical conditions. Hence, through the coarse filter analysis, the parties were able to design restoration prescriptions to alter the landscape to be more consistent with historical conditions. By contrast, the committee s fine filter analysis looked at the factors that fall through the cracks when people are strictly focused on the large scale. Where the coarse filter analysis looks at the overall structure of an ecosystem, the fine filter analysis focuses on the smaller elements such as threatened species or a particularly unique habitat that comprise the system. The steering committee identified the unique habitat needs of threatened species in the basin, including the Pawnee montane skipper that depends exclusively on one species of flower, the gayfeather. The group s landscape assessment offered a simplifying and unifying way to understand the condition of the landscape, and to set more specific goals and strategies for restoration. Some of the goals that emerged from the assessment included the need to manage vegetation in the watershed to reduce the risk of fire, to reduce soil erosion along roads and trails, and to promote landscape-scale management to protect water quality and quantity. 2. Monitoring With the landscape assessment complete, a sub-committee was created to spearhead the monitoring component of the project. The monitoring sub-committee focused on the task of identifying key questions and indicators to evaluate the impact of individual restoration projects. Efforts to select monitoring questions were initially fairly haphazard and the group generated an enormous laundry list of possible questions and indicators that could be examined. The group found direction by focusing on the coarse and fine filter analysis in the landscape assessment. Building on the coarse and fine filter analysis, the monitoring sub-committee was able to select key questions such as: Are the treatments resulting in the kinds of landscape outcomes intended? And, more narrowly, What is the impact of the treatments on critical species and habitats within the basin? The group selected indicators or metrics to be tracked over time to answer their questions. For example, the group wondered whether the overstory at a project site could be altered through prescribed burns to better mimic historical overstory characteristics. At some of the project sites where prescribed burns had been applied as a restoration tool, monitoring professionals have returned to the sites year after year to study attributes of the overstory as indicators against which current conditions can be compared with the historical conditions that are the ultimate goal of the treatments. As Fred Patten, Project Coordinator for the South Platte Ranger District, commented, 7

8 This is my 34th year with the Forest Service, and while we ve done monitoring, I ve never had a program where you are actually doing the monitoring and using the information to then do adaptive management. 3. Demonstration Sites The group next identified core demonstration sites on which to try out their new treatments. Many members of the partnership point to the group s emphasis on learning from demonstration projects as the key to their success. For example, an annual monitoring program was designed in 2000 to study the effects of prescribed burns and other restoration efforts on the endangered Pawnee montane skipper butterfly. There is continuing uncertainty about how the butterfly will respond to prescribed burns, however, scientists assume burns will ultimately benefit its habitat. Today, under the partnership, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, and Denver Water are counting adult skippers and blooming prairie gayfeather (the butterfly s only nectar source) in sample plots to compare areas where vegetation has been treated with those not treated, in order to understand skipper survival and habitat conditions in burned and unburned landscapes. Thus far, sampling efforts suggest that recent drought and wildfires have adversely impacted the skippers, while forest thinning projects may have a beneficial effect on skipper habitat. Importantly, the monitoring efforts have helped the parties adapt the way in which they conduct prescriptions to create the most beneficial habitat for the butterfly. Many participants recount the first demonstration project led by Denver Water as a meaningful lesson in adaptive management learning by doing. As a non-federal agency, Denver Water was not required to follow a long-term National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) planning process to treat some of its lands for restoration. Thus, early in the partnership s history, Denver Water contracted with the Colorado State Forest Service to oversee mechanical prescriptions on Denver Water land. Following the treatments, Chuck Dennis, the state forester who planned the treatments invited steering committee members to the site to see the effects of the treatments and discuss potential improvements. Many parties learned a great deal from this first restoration initiative. Merrill Kaufmann attended and was able to suggest modifications such as where trees could be clumped a bit more instead of being uniformly distributed as well as where the density of trees could be further reduced. Denver Water s follow-up treatments incorporated Kaufmann s recommendations and later treatments on National Forest lands were also guided by Kaufmann s suggestions. One of the earliest initiatives under the project involved a 200-acre mechanical treatment on Denver Water s land. With funding through the National Fire Plan, the Colorado State Forest 8

9 Service has also recently completed over 100 acres of fuel breaks and additional acres in defensible space on private lands in the region. The forests where these early prescriptions took place were not significantly damaged by the massive Hayman Fire in National Fire Plan funds had helped the Forest Service complete the 8,000-acre Polhemus prescribed burn in the fall of 2001, the objective of which was to reduce ladder fuels on national forest land. According to the annual report, during the Hayman Fire, the value and impact of the Polhemus prescribed burn became apparent, being credited with causing the high-intensity wildfire to drop to the ground, enabling firefighting crews to finally get a line around that portion of the fire and saving over 30 homes and preventing the fires incursion into highly populated areas of southwest metropolitan Denver. Wiley at Denver Water noted that some of the prescriptions and prescribed burns that have occurred have shown everyone that in fact the Forest Service does know what to do to the forest to alleviate these tremendous fires that harm us all. It s going to cost a lot of money and take a lot of time but in fact there is a plan out there. While the parties have been working on the long-term process of designing and implementing projects, and further scaling up the size of prescriptions, researchers at the Rocky Mountain Research Station have continued to refine their idea of what the landscape should look like on a coarse scale. They have continued to conduct studies to better estimate how much of the landscape would have been in different categories of tree density and how species were historically mixed across the landscape. The goal is to keep science in pace with and relevant to management needs which, as many managers on the project point out, has occurred in the Upper South Platte. What has fostered progress? One of the key factors in the progress made by the Upper South Platte Project was the group s decision to directly involve scientists as members of the partnership. Many members stressed how useful it has been to have scientists present who can explain complicated ecosystem processes to decision makers and serve as a resource to answer management questions. Steve Culver, a Fisheries Biologist with the Forest Service, noted, Our whole project was based on Kaufmann s research. Kaufmann is a connecting link between research and management in this area. We ve taken his research and rolled it into active management. While Kaufmann s preliminary research helped the group identify the goals of the restoration project, his ongoing involvement has been valuable throughout project implementation, helping the Forest Service, Denver Water, and others plan better treatments for their own lands. 9

10 Similarly, the group s progress has been fostered by their emphasis on cooperative monitoring and the coordination and shared learning it has fostered. In any partnership, participants may have several monitoring initiatives taking place all at once with little coordination across them. In this case, the steering committee underscored the importance of coordinated monitoring by establishing a monitoring sub-committee that provided a forum for experts to talk with one another and identify monitoring goals of mutual interest, design coordinated monitoring projects, and discuss openly with others the results and implications of their findings. Although individual partners on the steering committee typically pay for and carry out their own monitoring initiatives, the monitoring sub-committee allows parties to coordinate their monitoring objectives so that all parties can gain the information they need in the most efficient way possible. Carol Ekarius, Executive Director of the multi-member CUSP, noted, One group can say we are really interested in phosphorus data, and the other groups would incorporate phosphorus into their monitoring strategy whereas maybe phosphorus wasn t a question they were interested in. Wiley pointed out the value of working closely with other monitoring experts and suggested that the process has helped Denver Water think more broadly about water quality management. He noted, There are things that the group is monitoring that we don t. We really don t go and look at the whole like what s on the land, how are the soils coming off. We just react to what s in the river. So it has expanded our knowledge. Wiley also noted that by working within the monitoring sub-committee, Denver Water has been able to learn new modeling techniques relevant to their own concerns: We are learning about what other modeling techniques exist and what other people we can go to and ask what do you think is going to happen here [as a result of this project]? Members commitment to working together and building relationships has been another critical factor fostering the group s progress. Evident from conversations with group members, there is a newfound enthusiasm for working with others that is contagious and widespread. A 2000 summary of the project highlighted the group s emphasis on getting parties to work together: Because the forest ecosystem covers various governmental jurisdictions, successful restoration and protection efforts must also employ integrated governance to coordinate the activities of federal, state, and local government entities and to find ways to streamline management and funding. Fred Patten of the Forest Service stressed that before the restoration project there were many organizations that would have nothing to do with the agency. Today, through this restoration project, the agency has developed many working relationships with others. Terry McCann, a Forest Service Public Affairs Officer, underscored the value of the partnership noting, The relationships that have been established with this program have had a tremendous benefit in other areas aside from the watershed project, whether in dealing with forest fire emergencies or dealing with general fuels treatment. When issues come up, Fred or Steve just have to pick up the phone 10

11 and can work with many people they ve developed relationships with. Steve Culver adds, Because we are able to work together, it s more cost effective and the results represent the whole ecosystem. From her perspective as CUSP Executive Director, Carol Ekarius appreciates the value of this collaborative partnership effort. She noted that the steering committee has been successful because the parties have been pulling in the same direction; they share a broad vision for forest restoration in the basin and firmly believe they are following the right process of working together to achieve that vision. She also stressed that for many project participants, working together has made their jobs easier, not harder. For example, with so many different agencies at the table there is ample opportunity to discuss the pros and cons and legality of different proposed actions, which has helped those who are designing restoration prescriptions such as the Forest Service and Denver Water to quickly adapt their plans for thinning projects with early, valuable input from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Because the steering committee is part of CUSP s preexisting network of citizens and organizations, it has been easier for the steering committee to communicate the daily workings of the restoration project to others not directly involved in the project. What challenges have been encountered? A major challenge the group has faced is the recent battery of fires that have destroyed large forested areas in the Upper South Platte basin. Following the Buffalo Creek fire in 1996, the High Meadow Fire of 2000 burned 11,000 more acres in the watershed and destroyed over 51 homes. In 2002, Colorado saw the most destructive fire season in its history. The Hayman Fire was the largest fire on record, burning 137,000 acres, 133 homes, 447 other structures, and causing the evacuation of over 5,430 people. It also damaged some of the best trout waters in the Upper South Platte River. Two other fires in the basin consumed over 6,400 acres in the project area. A significant amount of the steering committee s time and energy was spent preparing for a large-scale prescription to take place in 2002 on Forest Service lands (the result of a NEPA decision of the summer of 2001 and spring of 2002). Unfortunately, within a two-month period, the 2002 fires destroyed over 142,000 acres in and around the basin, and burned over 5,800 of the 17,400 acres of National Forest lands planned for fuel treatment. These fires also destroyed many of the project s monitoring stations, including some of stations that were used as study control sites to evaluate the effects of prescribed treatments against un-treated forest stands. According to the project s annual report, [ as a result of the 2002 fires, [t]he monitoring program lost valuable information due to delayed or cancelled surveys, as well as approximately $6,000 in direct monetary losses from lost time, materials and the cost of replacement equipment. 11

12 For steering committee members, the 2002 fires were a major distraction that frustrated efforts and forced the restoration project off track. Ekarius noted, Hayman this year overshadowed any accomplishments we had made because it took a long time to get through the NEPA process and finally the restoration project was going to actually start moving forward and we had this big fire and some of the area defined for work burned. Wiley noted that the fire forced parties to shift priorities, When this fire happened, everyone rolls into town to do rehabilitation so I think it has been hard for the group at the Forest Service level to do other things and pull off the job. For the Forest Service, some days it is on the front burner, some days it is off to the side. Importantly, while the 2002 fires created setbacks, they also underscored the need for partnership and, if anything, strengthened the bonds of steering committee members. The project s annual report notes, A positive aspect of the summer s devastating fires is the sense of community that developed among the watershed project s partners as well as with surrounding jurisdictions and community organizations and businesses during both the fire suppression activities and, particularly, during the recovery and rehabilitation phase. The time is ideal to capitalize on the interests and relationships that now exist and the general public support for federal, state and local agencies to address the area s fuels treatment and forest management needs. Despite the setbacks, the parties have made haste to put the restoration project back on track. In the fall 2003, the Forest Service planned to undertake major fuel treatments on 1000 acres of national forest land which, as stressed in the group s annual report, is a major step forward, given the appeals-delayed Decision Notices and the early and tumultuous fire season this [past] year. Another major challenge faced by the restoration effort was an appeal filed by seven conservation groups of a Forest Service decision to log approximately eight square miles within a roadless area. The conservation groups filed their appeal in September 2001 and argued, among other things, that the agency failed to determine the cost-effectiveness of logging in roadless areas. Commenting on the appeal, Ekarius noted, There are players we didn t get in early enough and that s part of why we had an appeal. The environmental community as a whole doesn t trust the Forest Service and has worked for years now on the process of waiting for when there is a decision notice and then they appeal it. That s the process they ve operated under in the past and so that s familiar ground for them and we had an appeal. Maybe we could have, as a steering committee, more effectively gone to some of the groups that were appellants before the decision and encouraged them to actually sit down at the table earlier [before the suit]. Importantly, the conservationists appeal did not oppose the general idea for restoration initiatives in the valley. Indeed, in a press release about the appeal, [ one conservationist commented on the positive, but failed negotiations with the agency prior to the suit, We had some really good discussions with the Forest Service, and we hope those will continue 12

13 as the Forest Service takes another look at this project. There s a real chance we would not oppose this type of restoration work in these particular roadless areas if the Forest Service continues in the direction they were moving. One of the great frustrations among staff in the Forest Service is that they feel the appeal could not have been avoided. Steve Culver commented on the Environmental Assessment they prepared for the project, We spent a lot of time and effort trying to get the environmental groups involved and we sent out over 600 newsletters. They provided zero input on our project. To me that was a wasted effort. I was shocked when we got no input after the effort we went through; we thought nobody had an interest in our project. Commenting on the appeal process and some of the distrust between the agencies and environmental community, Ekarius stressed that leaders of collaborative initiatives should do everything they can to identify those parties who should be involved in the process. She advises, sit down and really think about what stakeholders you haven t got at the table yet. You have to try to get the divergent sides to come together. You also have to expect that there probably are a few people you can t let stop the process, meaning the extremes on either side of the issue. Ekarius noted that today, all parties are more attuned to the need to be more inclusive, and stressed that next time, the appellants would probably be willing to come to the table earlier in the decision-making process. Finally, the restoration project has struggled with the differing capabilities of the parties to implement projects in a timely manner. From the project s beginning there were expectations that all parties would coordinate and administer the sub-projects according to a shared timeline. Unfortunately, due to the different administrative operating procedures of the Forest Service (involving a lengthy NEPA planning process), these expectations have not been met. With approximately eighty percent of the land in the Upper South Platte basin, the Forest Service is the major player in the effort, but their individual fuels treatment projects have lagged far behind those of Denver Water and the Colorado State Forest Service. Wiley from Denver Water commented on the Forest Service s delay, We would yell at them all the time you were supposed to start two years ago - - and then at the end of each year they would lose the money and they d have to go back and get it again. So, that was a concern by everyone outside the Forest Service. [But we eventually realized], they ve got a lot of things they have to do. That was something that kind of surprised us. As a testimony to the group s resolve, committee members tried to turn this problem into an opportunity. The delays heightened the need for communication between the parties and gave the Forest Service a chance to educate others about the complexities of federal decision-making processes. More significantly, as noted earlier, delays in implementation provided a useful avenue for adaptive management. Wiley noted, We were able to do things on our land a lot quicker than they could, it went on three or four years before they could even start on their land and by that time we 13

14 had a majority of our stuff done With some of the restoration work completed on Denver Water s land, the Forest Service and Colorado State Forest Service were able to draw lessons from the earlier restoration work and apply these lessons on their own lands. What lessons can be learned? The efforts of the Upper South Platte Watershed Protection and Restoration Project, and the challenges that they have encountered along the way, contain many important insights for other groups trying to address landscape-scale issues in the face of distrust, scientific uncertainty, differing agency procedures and capabilities, funding shortages and, as always, the unpredictability of fire. This case study vividly illustrates three particular aspects of the group s process that have been important contributors to their progress First, the group s deliberate focus on learning has played a big role in their success. They recognized that the ecological system needed attention, and that revised management approaches were in order. They acknowledged the need to learn about the system and experiment with different prescriptions. Consequently, they integrated science and scientists into their dialogue in a meaningful way. Moreover, they took monitoring seriously, and paid attention to key indicators to make sure that they were making progress. Additionally, they found ways to creatively fund this monitoring. They recognized that they could learn more by trying to learn together; individually they were only looking at pieces and doing so with narrower objectives and capabilities. By working together, they began looking at the whole. While many projects and monitoring were conducted individually, it was done with an eye on larger questions and implications. Forging strong working relationships between scientists and managers can help to ensure a project continues to learn from its successes and failures. In this case, managers benefited from the early research that Kaufmann and his team at the Rocky Mountain Research Station had completed on historical fire regimes and forest composition in the basin. However, having a strong body of scientific information available to you does not ensure that it can easily be applied in management. Kaufmann observed that often managers don t have the interpretative skills to really know how to make sense out of some of [the scientific research at hand]. Involving Kaufmann and other scientists on the Steering Committee as direct partners helped management personnel interpret the research available to them and better understand the implications of different management techniques. The decision to involve scientists in management is not a decision restricted to managers; scientists should also take the initiative. As Kaufmann commented, When we do a lot of science and we just stick it into journal articles and expect the people who are interested to read it and they ll 14

15 get all of our knowledge out of those papers and apply what they need, that s a pipe dream. I ve got a lot of articles to write, but I m at the same time conveying that information out there to the managers on the ground and in the grand scheme of things that s going to have as much impact even if I was to never publish. When asked about the inhibitions scientists often feel about getting involved in management decisions, Kaufmann stressed, You run the risk that you become an advocate for certain courses of action if you do get out there and carry the message that is conveyed by your research. You just have to be darn careful as you approach that line that you maintain that scientific integrity. Second, the individual participants patience, persistence and sustained commitment has enabled their effort to overcome many challenges. While pursuing a collaborative approach was logical for all participants, it was not always easy, fluid, and without hurdles raised by pre-existing norms, procedures and expectations of the partner organizations. As Carol Ekarius noted, It is challenging; there s nothing easy about doing projects collaboratively. There are days when I wish I was the Queen when I think this would be so easy if I could just say we are going to do this. But I do believe in the long run this process is the best process for accomplishing things and making a difference on the landscape. She stresses the point that collaborative products are better outcomes because you get more creative ideas and approaches than you would if it was strictly Agency X going forth and saying we are going to do this without including other folks. Obstacles in large-scale restoration projects are inevitable and members of this steering committee have had their share of challenges. The group endured an appeal of the U.S. Forest Service s first major restoration initiative under the project, distractions from widespread fires in the project area, and the destruction of key monitoring sites. Wiley of Denver Water summed up the group s ability to weather these challenges and stressed that you have to maintain a can-do attitude and a commitment to the process in order to overcome roadblocks, Like anything you join, you have to put in the time. It s not a let s go to a meeting once a month and then walk away If you want to be a player and you want things to work in relation to what you are trying to accomplish, you have to be involved. He continued, You have to believe that if this is something you are going to spend a lot of time [and] money on. [Then it] really is going to lead to something that supports the kinds of goals you are looking for. There is no doubt in our mind that this effort and the knowledge the U.S. Forest Service has will help the water quality and improve our ability to provide service to our customers. Ekarius echoed Wiley s comments, Collaboration is hard work It takes time and that s part of the process, but I think when you get a product out the other end that has been built collaboratively it s a better product. And I think people can live with it better even if they might not [entirely] agree with one hundred percent of what happens; if it s done collaboratively, everybody is going to feel like they can live with [the decision.] 15

16 Third, building on pre-existing networks enabled the group to quickly move forward. All of the partner organizations existed beforehand and were working independently in the region. In particular, they capitalized on the CUSP network that had an infrastructure and communication network that could facilitate their effort. The group also recognized the need to build capacity within their network at the same time that they capitalized on their differing strengths and capabilities. As the one non-agency person on the steering committee, Ekarius recommended that the agencies should invest in training their staff. She noted, One of my pieces of advice for the Forest Service is to actually start doing some direct training with staff on partnership building The [Forest Service] staff here [has] learned how to collaborate, but when we first started they really didn t know It s been a learning experience for their staff, and so they need to go out in the fields and start building that capacity in house. She also noted that in order to invest more in partnership-building, agencies should focus on building the capacity of non-profit and community groups to participate in these processes. She recommended that agencies should collectively fund some capacity building grants to help community groups adequately participate in these processes. In the wake of the 2002 fires, members of the partnership have stressed that greater collaboration is essential to mitigate the effects of fire in the basin and throughout the Front Range of Colorado. The parties are currently discussing ways they can build on the structure and restoration goals of the steering committee to address increasing restoration needs throughout the Front Range. Ekarius noted, We are entering into some of the initial discussions about whether we do away with this steering committee. Does it become part of a new steering committee for a larger front range project? What is its role now post fire? Kaufmann commented on the future of the partnership in the context of a broader Front Range fuels reduction treatment partnership currently being planned, the Upper South Platte committee provides a key [learning] focus and it would be a mistake to lose that right now. It has way too much momentum and it s doing good things and let s let it move its natural path. And that natural path is to continue to learn from the science and to continue to address barriers that get in the way as we start scaling up to larger levels of treatment in the South Platte. For further information Carol Ekarius, Executive Director for the Coalition for the Upper South Platte, (719) Dave Hessel, Steering Committee Chair, (970) Merrill Kaufmann, USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station, (970) Fred Patten, Project Coordinator South Platte Ranger District, (303)

17 Rocky Wiley, Manager of Planning Denver Water, (303) Web sites Upper South Platte Watershed Protection and Restoration Project: Pike and San Isabel National Forests 2002 Annual Report Coalition for the Upper South Platte Press release highlighting Forest Service s decision to delay implementing project in light of environmentalists appeal 17