An Ecological Land Survey
for Fort Greely, Alaska
M. TORRE JORGENSON, JOANNA E. ROTH, MICHAEL D. SMITH,
SHARON SCHLENTNER, WILL LENTZ, ERIK R. PULLMAN, AND CHARLES H. RACINE
INTRODUCTION
eling, analyzing, interpreting, and applying ecological
In response to the need for information on the natu-
knowledge. To provide the information required for
ral resources of Fort Greely, we conducted an ecologi-
such a wide range of applications, an ELS involves three
cal land survey (ELS) within the base's boundaries. This
types of efforts:
information is needed for ongoing resource manage-
An ecological land survey that inventories and ana-
ment on the base, including assessing potential envi-
ronmental impacts associated with withdrawal of pub-
lyzes data obtained in the field.
An ecological land classification that classifies and
lic lands for military use (CEMML 1998) and the
Integrated Training Area Management program being
maps ecosystem distribution.
An ecological land evaluation that assesses the ca-
implemented by the U.S. Army. Accordingly, this re-
port presents the rationale and methods used to clas-
pabilities of the land for various land management
sify and map ecosystems on the base, describes the na-
practices.
ture and dynamics of these ecosystems, and documents
the structure of the GIS databases used in mapping and
Our emphasis in this report is on the ecological land
aggregating ecosystems at several spatial scales.
survey and classification efforts. A companion report
Spatial databases developed from an ecological land
examines some of the potential land evaluation appli-
classification are essential to managing land resources
cations, such as permafrost distribution and sensitivity,
and have many uses, such as assessing ecological risks,
disturbance regimes, and wildlife habitat use (Jorgenson
analyzing terrain sensitivity and wildlife habitats, miti-
et al., in prep.).
gating wetland damage, planning for training exercises,
The structure and function of ecosystems largely are
locating facilities, identifying rare habitats, and man-
regulated along energy, moisture, nutrient, and distur-
aging fire. By delineating areas with co-varying climate,
bance gradients and these gradients are affected by cli-
geomorphology (surficial geology, terrain units), sur-
mate, physiography, soils, hydrology, flora, and fauna,
face-forms, hydrology, and biota, the resulting maps
which can be viewed as ecosystem components or "state
provide a stratified view that is particularly useful for
factors" (Barnes et al. 1982, ECOMAP 1993, Bailey
integrated resource management based on GIS. This
1996). Accordingly, we used the state factor approach
hierarchy of scales can help land managers and mili-
(Jenny 1941, Van Cleve et al. 1990, Vitousek 1994,
tary trainers access information, identify information
Bailey 1996, Ellert et al. 1997) to partition the varia-
gaps, and improve resource management of large areas.
tions in independent factors, or ecosystem components
(e.g., climate, organisms, topography, parent material,
Ecological land survey approach
and time), and to help us classify and map ecosystems
In an ELS, landscapes are viewed not just as aggre-
(Fig. 1a). While thematic maps of individual ecosys-
gations of separate biological and earth resources, but
tem components (e.g., geomorphology and vegetation)
as ecological systems with functionally related parts
have their particular uses, this linking and aggregating
(Rowe 1961; Wiken and Ironside 1977; Bailey 1980,
of components into ecosystems with co-varying climate,
1996; Driscoll et al. 1984). The goal of an ELS, then, is
geomorphology, surface-forms, hydrology, and biota
to provide a consistent conceptual framework for mod-
can provide a stratified view that conveys a much
Previous Page
