This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
A Checklist for Ecosystem Management in
Southwestern Pifton-Juniper
Earl F. Aldon 1 , Reggie Fletcher2 , and Doug Shavl
Abstract.-It has been estimated that 3.5 million acres of pinon-juniper in
the Southwestern Region are in unsatisfactory watershed condition. the
current Pinon-Juniper Initiative in the Region places priority on restoration
of these acres in conjunction with the Forest Service's move toward ecosystem management. Using a checklist format, this- paper lists important ecological aspects useful in developing and implementing desired future
conditions designed to move degraded areas toward a more sustainable
condition. While the needs of each site are different, utilization of this
checklist will ensure projects implemented have a broad focus based on
scientific information. References are provided for additional in-depth review for many items while others relay on the author's experience. The
checklist can be utilized as an aid for implementation of the IRM process.
INTRODUCTION
is described in the Kaufmann report. Economic
and social needs can be tested against a filter of
physical and biologicql principles. Also, economic and ecological needs can be tested against
a filter of human dimension principles. The concept of using filters is good and clear, but how do
you do it?
This checklist is an attempt to provide some ingredients for the filter and move toward ecosystem
thinking based on principles before embarking on
a specific project in Southwestern Piflon-Juniper
ecosystems. The current Southwestern Regional
initiative for the p-J type is focused on restoration
ecology and requires guidelines to insure management strategies are based on biological, physical
and social science. By following this checklist in
planning one should be fairly certain major omissions will be avoided. The checldist is based on research information and where possible referenced.
It is not meant to be complete and final, but an
evolving chec;l<list that will require periodic updating as more and better information becomes available. It assumes all applicable laws (Endangered
Species Act, National Forest Management Act, Federal Land Policy Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act, etc.) will be followed.
The current emphasis on ecosystem management has resulted in much talk and writing
on the philosophy and principles of ecosystem
management from both the physicaVbiological
and human dimension. A team of scientists,
chartered by the Regional Forester, recently published I~n Ecological Basi~ for Ecosystem Management" in which six guiding principles are
stated. The premise for sustaining ecosystems
and protecting biodiversity now and into the future is to manage ecosystems such that structure,
composition, and function of all elements including their frequency, distribution, and natural extinction, are conserved. (Kaufmann et al. 1994)
Another Regional team has published a brochure in which eight human dimension principles and strategies are discus_sed (R-3 ,Human
Dimension Study Group). The philosophies and
principles outlined in both these reports provide
an important basis for policy decisions.
Few rules or side boards are available to
guide specific efforts in ecosystem management
at particular forest locations for the PinonJuniper (P-J) type. An ecosystem principles filter
1 Retired, Rocky
Albu~uerque, NM.
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station,
USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM.
125
An ecosystem needs assessment proposed by
Ka ufmann, et al. is a useful way to organize this
checklist. The assessment consists of: (1) Defining
the analysis area. (2) Finding and describing reference conditions. (3) Describing and understanding
existing conditions. (4) Applying a course filter
analysis. (5) Applying a fine filter analysis if necessary. (6) Describing ecosystem needs and capabilities.
• What are the key indicators of system
health or sustainability at the broader
scale?
CHECKLIST
• Has literature been searched for information on historic and/or reference condi~
tions?
Defining the Analysis Area
REFERENCE CONDITIONS
• Are there undisturbed examples of the
same or similar ecosystems available for
direct evaluation of natural ecosystem
structure, composition, and function?
• Has the nature, frequency, intensity, and
scale of disturbance been identified and
considered at the local and landscape
scale?
• Begin by looking over a broad scale (for
example a province or section on the
ecological scale) to see how a particular
proposed project area fits in a larger ecological prospective.
• Has an attempt been made to identify the
natural biological diversity of reference
conditions and of the project area?
• Human
dimension
and
physicaVbiological considerations extend beyond jurisdictional boundaries. Effects of
actions at a particular site can be far
reaching and cumulative.
• Have changes in climate, soils, hydrology,
and human use patterns been considered
in deciding the appropriate understanding and use of reference conditions?
• Identify the stakeholders at this level of
scale? What are their desires for the future?
COURSE AND FINE FILTER ANALYSIS
• What is the potential biological diversity?
• What are the economic factors that need
to be considered at the ~arger scale?
• Will planned actions over time result in
an array of vegetative structure and composition aggregates similar to that under
which the project area developed?
• Focus in on the particular project area
where restoration ecology appears
needed (watershed, range allotment, etc.).
• Will planned actions effect critical habitat
features for T.E.&S. species?
• Determine the priority of the site specific
proposal in the context of the broader
scale assessment and the predicted sustainability deficiencies surfaced by other
disciplines.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
• Is priority given to the 3.5 million acres of
National Forests in the Southwest in unsa tis factory soil and wa tershed condition?
(Spann 1993) (Shaw 1993)
• Have state water quality reports been
consulted to determine water quality
standards and water quality status relative to meeting beneficial uses?
• Is priority given to areas of social or cultural need?
• Have stakeholders been consulted about
past, current and future use of the area?
• Is priority given to threatened, endangered or sensitive species habitat needs?
• Have field investigations been conducted
to assess canopy structure and composition changes that have occurred over time
to understand factors of change (drought,
• Is priority given to heritage resource sites?
126
fire, ecosystem dynamics)? (Betancourt et
al. 1993)
• Will threatened, endangered, and sensitive species habitats be protected?
• Have you referred to historical records for
the area - aerial photos, range allotment
plans, old cultural treatments (chaining,
pushing, farming, etc.) to understand
causative factors of change.
• Will actions improve or enhance the publics understanding or appreciation of the
p-J ecosystem?
• Will human life style needs be protected?
• Can existing human uses be sustained?
• Have ecosystem dynamics such as fire
and drought been considered in understanding changes? (Cooket al. 1991)
• Is sUfficient flexibility in human use provided to weather drought years.
• Are there potential commercial areas for
piii.on nut production? (Cunningham et
al. 1993)
• Have you decided what p-J habitat types
are represented in the project area? An
uneven aged mature piii.on stand requires
much different" management than a juniper savannah. (USDA - Forest Service
1987) (Dick-Peddie 1993)
• Can areas be managed for nut production
within the project area? (Norwick et al.
1993, Cunningham et al. 1993)
• Has Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey data
been used, if available to further define
habitat? (USDA - Forest Service variable
dates)
• Can Christmas trees be harvested from
the area? (Barger and Ffolliotl, 1972)
• Are there areas needing reve geta tion with
grasses?
• Have collaborative partnerships been
sought among stakeholders? (Giusti 1993)
(USDA - Forest Service 1993) (USDA - Forest Service Southwestern Region 1993)
• Are there remnant native herbaceous or
shrubby seed sources that can, when
managed, expand native species? (Scholl
et al. 1986, Johnson, T. N. Jr. 1987)
• Are public involvement recommendations
for desired future condition biologically
feasible? (Garcia 1993)
• Are grass species present in mosaic patterns rather than continuous one-species
stands? Have ~ acre openings been provided to insure a positive blue gramma
response?
• Do proposed project areas include sacred
places for American Indians or other cultures? Are archeo~ogical sites noted?
(Koyiyumptewa 1993, Cartledge et al.
1993, Miller et al. 1993)
• Where herbaceous species are growing
directly under tree canopies (little-seed or
piIi.on rice grass ) have ~ acre clumps of
trees been retained to prevent desiccation?
• What is the status of key indicators of system health or sustainability at the broader
scale?
• Are treatment sites needed as a corridor
or barrier to movement of animal species?
ECOSYSTEM NEEDS AND CAPABILITIES
• Will plans protect or improve soil quality?
• Are climatic cycles considered in scheduling actions? (Betancourt 1993)
• Will state water quality standards be met?
Are Best Management Practices prescribed?
• Have cryptogram cover been considered
in management plans? (Ladyman et al.
1993)
• Will plans result in a visually desirable
mosaic on the landscape?
• Are insects and diseases in the stand inventoried and included in management
plans?
Are mistletoe infected trees
scheduled for removal? (Rogers 1993)
(Shaw, C. G. et al. 1994) (Gottfried, G. J. et
al. 1994)
• Will riparian areas be protected or improved?
• Will heritage resources be prote"cted?
127
LITERATURE CITED
• Are there areas of bitterbrush and cliffrose
present that could be enhanced through
management for winter range for wildlife? (Suminski 1993)
Many papers referred to in this checklist appear in either of the following 2 references. Rather
than repeat these citations the paper will be cited
as a I or II to refer to its location.
I. Aldon, Earl R; Shaw, Douglas W, technical coordinators. 1993. Managing Pinyon-Juniper
Ecosystems for Sustainability and Social Needs;
proceedings of the symposium 1993 April 26-30;
Santa Fe, New Mexico. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-236.
Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 169 p.
II. Everett, Richard L., compiler. Proceedingspmon-juniper conference; 1986 January 13-16;
Reno, NY. General Technical Report INT-215.
Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station;
1987.581 p.
• Is dead and down material present and
could it be enhanced by management for
nutrient enhancement and erosion protection? (Ernest et al. 1993)
• Do fuelwood harvest plans consider
making small openings, utilizing smaller
size trees, lopping and scattering pmon
limbs to prevent slash buildup?
• Can harvest plans be outlined in steps to
prevent desiccation of understory vegetation?
• Will slash placement provide erosion protection and increase organic soil content?
• Do pifion seedlings need protected with
slash to enhance survival?
1. Brady, Ward, John Cook, Earl E Aldon, unpublished.
COVER - A decision support system for ecological
monitoring. Arizona State University Dept. of Ag. Business, Tempe, AZ.
• Is protection from grazing for at least two
grazing seasons possible?
• If fire is considered for management has
nutrient depletion as a result of fire been
considered? (Perry 1993)
2. Perry, Hazel. 1993. Soil nutrient research on the He-
ber Ranger District Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, p 149-152. IN:I
• If fire is an appropriate tool to move us
toward a desired condition, is herbaceous
recovery sufficient to control erosion and
survive the fire?
3. Shaw, D.W. 1993. Pinyon-Juniper initiative in the
Southwestern Region p 12-13. IN: 1.
4. Scholl, David G. and Earl E Aldon. 1986. Grass establishment on uranium exploration sites in New
Mexico. pp. 95-98. In: Proceedings of the National
meeting of the American Society for Surface Mining
and Reclamation Oackson, MS., March 17-20), 1986. p.
219. Harper, Jarvis and Bill Ploss eds. American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation, 21 Grandview Dr., Princeton, WV 24740.
• Can fire prescriptions. be followed while
meeting other resource objectives?
(Wright 1982)
• Are follow-up maintenance needs and
funding planned?
• Are your monitoring goals purposeful
and retrievable from a corporate data
base? (Brady unpublished)
5. Wright, Henry A., and Arthur W. Bailey. 1982. Fire
ecology. Ch. 9, p. 195-208.
• Are provisions made to monitor, store,
and retrieve understory vegetation
changes?
6. Spann, Charles L. 1993. Procedural guidelines for developing soil and water conservation practices in
Pinyon-Juniper ecosystems. p. 159-161. IN. 1.
• Are plans made to monitor key indicators
of system health or sustainability at the·
broader scales?
7. Suminski, Rita R. 1993. Management implications for
mule deer winter range in Northern Pinyon-Juniper.
p.133-139. IN:1.
• Considering everything contemplated are
we sure we will do no harm?
8. Rogers, Terrence J. 1993. Insect and disease associates of the Pinyon-Juniper woodlands. p. 124-125.
IN:!.
128
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 232
9. Ernest, K.A., Earl E Aldon, and E. Muldavin. 1993.
Woody debris in undisturbed Pinyon-Juniper woodlands of New Mexico, p. 117-123. IN: I.
p.
20. Gottfried, Gerald J, and Peter F. Ffolliott. 1994. Silvicultural prescriptions for sustained productivity of
the Southwestern Pinyon-Juniper and encinal
woodlands. p.185-192. In: Manzanilla, Hugo; Shaw,
Douglas; Aguirre-Bravo, Celedonio; Iglesias Gutierrez, Leonel; Hamre, R. H., tech. coords. 1993. Making Sustainability Operational: Fourth MexicoN.S.
Symposium; 1993 April 19-23; Santa Fe, NM. Gen.
Tech. Rep. RM-240. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station. 232 p.
10. Ladyman, J.A., E. Muldavin, and Reggie Fletcher.
1993. Pattern and relationships of terrestrial cryptogram cover in two Pinyon-Juniper communities in
New Mexico. p.97-104. IN: I.
11. Betancourt, Julio L. et al. 1993. Influence of history
and climate on New Mexico Pinyon-Juniper woodlands p. 42-73. IN: I.
12. Dick-Peddie, William A. 1993. New Mexico vegetation: past, present and future. University of New
Mexico Press. Albuquerque, NM p. 244.
21. Garcia, Maria Teresa. 1993. Traditional use of pinyonjuniper woodland resources. p.79-81. IN: I.
13. USDA Forest Service - Southwestern Region. Various
dates. Terrestrial Ecosystem Report (TES) Albuquerque,NM.
22. Koyiyumptewa, Bruce K. 1993. Spiritual values of
the pinyon-juniper woodland: A Hopi's perspective.
p.19-20. IN: I.
14. USDA Forest Service - Southwestern Region. 1987.
Forest and woodland habitat types of Arizona and
New Mexico. 3 vol. Albuquerque, NM.
23. Cartledge, T. R., and Judith G. Propper. 1993. Pinyon-juniper ecosystems through time: Information
and insights from the past. p.63-71. IN: I
15. USDA Forest Service - Southwestern Region. 1993.
Integrated Resource Management. The road to ecosystem management. 4th ed. Albuquerque, NM. p
28.
24. Miller, Ronald K. and Steven K. Albert. 1993. Zuni
cultural relationships to pinyon-juniper woodlands.
p.74-78. IN: I.
16. USDA Forest Service. 1993. The power of collaborative planning. Report of the National Workshop.
Washington, D.C. p. 12.
25. Cunningham, Gary, Jim Fisher, and John Mexal. 1993.
Establishing research, management, and harvest areas for pinyon nut production. p.85-88. IN: I.
17. Giusti, Gregory A. 1993. Model for the conservation
of biological diversity through bio-regional planning.
Proceedings Society of American Foresters annual
meeting. Indianapolis, Indiana. 1993. Society of
American Foresters, Bethesda, MD 20814-2198.
26. Norwick, Jim, Dennis Garcia, and Bill Torgensen.
1993. Commercial leases and permits for pinyon nut
harvesting. p.24-25. IN: I.
27. Barger, Roland L. and Peter F. Ffoliott. 1972. Physical
characteristics and utilization of major woodland tree
species in Arizona. USDA Forest Service, Research
Paper RM-83, 80 p. Rocky Mountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO.
18. Cook, John W; Brady, Ward W; Aldon, Earl F. 1991.
Handbook for converting Parker loop frequency data
to basal area. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-212. Fort Collins,
CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 22p.
28. Johnson, Thomas N. Jr. 1987. Seeding pinyonjuniper sites in the Southwest. IN: II.
29. Kauffmann, M.R., R.T.Graham, D.A.Boyce Jr., W.H.
Moir, L.Perry, R.T.Reynolds, R.L.Bassett, P.Mehlhop,
C.B.Edminster, WM.Block and P.S.Corn. 1994. An
Ecological Basis For Ecosystem Management.
U.s.D.A. Forest Service, General Technical Report
RM-246. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, Colorado 80526.
19. Shaw, C. G., F. G. Hawksworth, D. Bennett, G.
Sanchez-Martinez, and B. M. Tkacz. 1994. Diseases
and insects of pine and there implications for sustainability in forests of the Southwestern United States
and Northern Mexico. p. 36-50. In: Manzanilla,
Hugo; Shaw, Douglas; Aguirre-Bravo, Celedonio;
Iglesias Gutierrez, Leonel; Hamre, R. H., tech. coords.
1993. Making Sustainability Operational: Fourth
Mexico/U.S. Symposium; 1993 April 19-23; Santa Fe,
NM. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-240. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
30. R-3 and Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station Human Dimension Study Group. 1994.
The Human Dimension in Sustainable Ecosystem
Management. USDA Forest Service. Albuquerque,
NM 87102.
129