This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain.
Robert B. Campbell, Jr.
Abstract-Restoration of pinyon and juniper landscapes is a complex subject. Notable strides made during the past decade provide information to restore many sites. An array of treatments and plant materials are available for restoration of-a variety of sites and plant associations. Restoration will not be successful without commitment and proactive treatments on a broad scale. This session included oral papers, poster presentations, and portions of an informative field trip.
I summarize the 29 presentations from the "Ecological
Restoration" session of the conference. This summary highlights significant concepts and weaves together themes frequently shared in many of the presentations. With two exceptions, the references cited are found in this proceedings or were presented at the conference. This synthesis also includes information presented on the field tour and a few poster presentations not printed in the proceedings.
In the context ofthis session, ecological restoration means restoring the community balance of native species that existed prior to European settlement and reinstituting succession complete with historical functions and processes
(Monsen). Emphasis should be to favor, if still present, or reintroduce the species that were historically present. In contrast, McArthur and Young explained that rehabilitation implies a renewal of land productivity but with an associated change in the composition and structure of the ecosystem.
I synthesized the themes and concepts from this session's papers in the following general areas:
1. Site selection (historical cover types and objectives and guidelines)
2. Treatments (chaining, fire use, chemical control, rollerchopping, and harvests)
3. Species composition and selection (native and introduced species, seed mixes and stockpiling, weed control, and seed certification).
I offer a reaction to the chaining demonstration, followed by a discussion of new information, management implications, prioritizing potential treatment areas, and the "land ethic and ecological conscience."
In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard, comps. 1999. Proceedings: ecology and management of pinyon-juniper communities within the Interior
West; 1997 September 15-18; Provo, UT. Proc. RMRS-P-9. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research
Station.
Robert B. Campbell, Jr. is ecologist, USDA Forest Service, Fishlake
National Forest, 115 E. 900 N., Richfield, UT 8470l.
Site Selection
Ecological restoration of pinyon-juniper landscapes requires a basic understanding of plant associations, distributions, and areas of occupation. It is important to recognize cover types that existed throughout the landscape prior to
European settlement. It is also essential to know if landscapes currently supporting pinyon or juniper or both previously sustained mature and old pinyon or juniper, or ifareas were dominated by grasses, forbs, and shrubs.
Two steps are basic to all considerations for ecological restoration including site selection, potential treatments, and species composition. First, recognize what the historical cover type for the area was 200 to 400 years ago. This historical cover type generally is assumed to be the plant association that is ecologically adapted for the area. Second, land managers, with information from stakeholders, should decide what cover type is desired for the area in the future.
:Mature and Old Pinyon and Juniper-Many closed stands of pinyon and juniper were open or savanna-like communities with grasses and forbs flourishing in the interspaces. With altered ecosystem processes (such as heavy grazing and altered fire return intervals), Jacobs and
Gatewood note that these areas have degraded as young trees filled the interspaces and displaced understory species. These authors explained that degraded "communities appear to have little capacity to recover .... Exclusion of grazing alone is insufficient to promote recovery of these systems." In many cases lack of ground cover results in erosion, soil loss, and removal of seed banks for the native understory species.
Young Pinyon and Juniper-Many of these areas were also historically grass/forb cover types with scattered shrubs
(Goodloe). Periodic fires precl uded the s urvi val of few, if any, pinyon or juniper trees, and seed sources for these trees were less abundant.
Past rehabilitation efforts in pinyon and juniper types often have been conducted to improve livestock and big game forage and to provide cover and soil stability (McArthur and Young).
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999 271

Soil and Watershed Protection-Planted species respond differently depending on growing conditions including soil, climate, and topographic features; thus, soil standards should reflect the capabilities to support different plant associations (Goodrich and Huber). Davis, Farmer, and Vernon concluded that chaining methods and the presence of litter left in place to protect soils also benefit establishment of seeded species. Goodrich and Reid compared the ground cover on burned and seeded and unburned pinyonjuniper sites in northeastern Utah. After 7 years, treated sites had 15 percent less bare soil and rock pavement and
24 percent greater cover from litter and vegetation.
Ground cover is a major factor preventing soil loss and sustaining good water quality. Farmer, Harper, and Davis found protective ground cover significantly reduced runoff and soil erosion from treated pinyon-juniper sites. They reported that "untreated control plots produced an average of nearly six times more runoff and nine times more sediment than chained plots." Considerable diversity in pinyonjuniper landscapes exist, and different responses to similar treatments are common. Lopes, Ffolliot, and Baker reported that "suspended sediment concentrations, above a threshold discharge, increased as a result of the cabling treatment, while no change in sediment concentrations was observed as a result of the herbicide treatment." Monsen and Pellant reported that "chaining did not reduce the percent of sites with hydrophobic conditions on or near the soil surface, but did reduce the number of sites having hydrophobic zones or layers at depths below 2.5 cm." Although infiltration conditions were not improved by tillage of the soil surface from chaining, the practice did significantly improve seedling establishment and plant cover. A more diverse assembly of species established as a result of creating better seedbed conditions. Presence of annual weeds was reduced by chaining and seeding over sites that were seeded but not chained.
Chaining obviously improved seedbed conditions, resulting in improved ground cover during the first 2 years after treatment.
Improve Wildlife Habitat-Fairchild explained that forage production for livestock was emphasized in some chaining projects on public lands during the 1950's and
1960's. However, by the 1970's most project objectives included wildlife habitat restoration with a focus on improved big game winter range. He shared the basic premise that increased availability of foraging areas within larger pinyon-juniper woodlands, which provide thermal cover that is critical to animal survival, would reduce the home range of elk and deer on key winter ranges. Studies indicated that no more than 40 percent of home range for mule deer winter range (for areas of 125+ acres) should be chained at one time. Also, leave areas of 40+ acres should be distributed on a variety of slopes and aspects.
Restore Native Species and Ecosystem Processes-
McArthur and Young explained that, in the past, site adaptability and resource values were the most important criteria used to determine the particular species planted. Currently many other factors are considered. Stevens stated, "Converting juniper-pinyon communities to only an assembly of foreign species is not advisable." Desired objectives of the project will determine what species are planted (Britton,
Anderson, Horrocks, and Horton).
Bates, Miller, and Svejcar explained that in eastern
Oregon, understory diversity and productivity were restored when competing western juniper were cut. They stated "that, priortojunipercutting, a qualitative prediction of early succession species assemblages and dominance patterns can be made based on a site's initial floristics."
Walker discussed the competitive and aggressive nature of many exotics, which "are often detrimental and have an adverse impact on natural functioning plant communities and ecosystems." During the conference, Monsen implored the participants to place less emphasis on watershed restoration, wildlife habitats, or cattle forage. Rather, he suggested focus on restoring functional plant communities, and re-establishment of diverse plant associations.
Rodent Control-Monsen indicated that rodent control measures are critical, maybe as important as any factor for the protection of treated areas and the establishment of new seedlings.
Treatments
Stevens described the types of anchor chains commonly used for chaining treatments: (1) smooth chains with the links unmodified, (2) Ely chain with lengths of steel bar or railroad rail welded crossways, and (3) Dixie sager with a rail welded horizontal to each link. He explained chains may be from 90 to 350 feet long and individual links may weigh
40 to 160 pounds. Two crawler tractors are required to pull a chain, complete with swivels on the ends and often in the middle. Depending on the position of and distance between tractors, chaining patterns may be J-shaped, U-shaped or half-circle patterns. Different chains and treatment patterns result in varying degrees of percent kill to trees and shrubs as well as differential soil scarification and seedbed prep~ration. Stevens listed many advantages for leaving downed trees in place.
Stevens expanded on the desirable characteristics of chaining, describing it as a successful way to restore areas with pinyon and juniper. Studies show chaining to be less destructive to vegetation and soil than plowing, disking, fire use, or herbicides. Appropriate chaining releases, rather than destroys, understory species and does not harm native seed banks. Studies by Monsen and Pellant confirmed that chaining did not disrupt or reduce recovery of native grasses and broadleaf herbs. Stevens stressed that chaining treatments, including time of use, offers more flexibility than any other treatment with minimum impact to resource values.
Seeding, often done aerially with fixed-wing aircraft or helicopters, may occur before or during treatments such that the final pass of the chain covers the seed with soil. At the conference Monsen emphasized, "creating suitable seedbeds for all species planted is an important aspect of restoration, yet, of all of the things we fail to do, this is key."
Davis, Vernon, and Farmer reported the use of a lightweight chain in treating a mature stand of pinyon-juniper with cliffrose interspersed in the understory. The treatment resulted in a dramatic recovery of cliffrose as plants were released from tree competition. The treatment minimized the impact to mature cliffrose plants, but still provided a
272 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999

92 percent elimination of the pinyon and juniper trees.
Monsen and Pellant evaluated chainings in eight paired watersheds following the Boise Foothills fire of 1992. The treatment did not hamper recovery of perennial forbs or grasses. The treatment significantly increased establishment of all seeded species including those with both small and large seeds. Beck, Stevens, and Walker reported the dynamics of herbaceous understory species over 31 years following anchor chaining of five pinyon-juniper woodlands sites in south-central Utah. The areas included no use and use by mule deer, lagomorphs, and livestock. During the first 5 years following treatment, annual plants increased in numbers and density. However, perennial species increased while annuals decreased after the initial 5 years.
Beyond the specifics of various types of chaining treatments, many feel that these treatments hold promise for the restoration of native communities. -Chaining may be the treatment of choice for landscapes with mature or old pinyon and juniper (Monsen). Stevens recognized that native communities can be restored by chaining as endemic species are allowed to recover after tree competition is reduced. In addition, planting select native species may be required to supplement reestablishment of species that have been eliminated.
Prescribed fire is usually more economical and ecologically compatible for areas with younger pinyon and juniper and for treatment of mature and older trees located on steep slopes and less accessible sites. Erskine and Goodrich indicate that, following prescribed burning, areas of younger pinyon and juniper respond well with respect to improvement of ground cover, minimal soil erosion, and recovery of native species that dominate post-treatment seral communities. Costs for prescribed fire (more than 1,000 acres), seed, and aerial seed application were about $20 per acre
(1989 dollars). Costs go down as treated areas enlarge.
Favorable conditions for prescribed fire include high temperatures, low humidity, and clear skies. Where prescribed fire is used to treat steeper slopes, drainage bottoms are excellent ignition sources to create desired crown fires.
Helitorches were the ignition source for all of the fires discussed in their paper.
Fire is an economically feasible tool to enhance or change plant succession to grass-forb dominated communities created by initial chaining projects (Fairchild). However, chained areas that are 20 to 30 years old often provide excellent big game habitat, and burning these areas can significantly reduce fire-intolerant shrubs. Habitat could be impaired by burning at this time, so delaying burning for two to three decades may be advisable.
Cheatgrass, an annual, often thrives on pinyon-juniper rangelands following burning or mechanical treatments, and thus competes vigorously with native perennials. Pellant,
Kaltenecker, and Jirik reported the use ofOUS'J'® herbicide to control cheatgrass on rangelands in southwestern Idaho and northern Nevada. OUS'J'® is water-dispersable and functions as a pre- and post-emergent herbicide. OUS~ may be applied either from the ground or aerially for $25 to
$28 per acre. Both methods have provided control of cheatgrass for up to 2 years. Data indicate this means of control was more effective than disking or burning. The authors found remnant perennial grasses regained dominance and were more vigorous in the areas treated with the herbicide than nontreated sites.
Other chemicals, such as Spike, have been used with mixed results to control or directly kill pinyon and juniper.
None of the papers in this session dealt with any of these chemicals.
Large expanses of pinyon-juniper woodlands treated in past decades, often with a combination of chaining and seeding, are prime for a maintenance treatment. However, fire may not always be appropriate. Rollerchopping is relatively inexpensive and effectively restores site productivity
(Sorensen). The treatment can be done any time or season the area is accessible and the soil is not sufficiently wet to be damaged by mechanical action.
Sorensen explained that rollerchopping can be used to control sagebrush, juniper, and pinyon. During the treatment, brittle, woody plants are crushed and chopped in place. The treatment does not concentrate piles of slash that may need to be dispersed later. The action removes woody competition of nonsprouting species allowing remaining vegetation to increase. Some areas need not be rested prior to treatment. Other design advantages include the ability to leave groups, strips, or individual trees and also to provide irregular patterns that are visually pleasing and may improve wildlife habitat. Treatment costs usually vary from
$25 to $30 per acre.
Fuelwood Cutting-Loftin described a simulated fuelwood cut in a pinyon-juniper woodland on the Santa Fe
National Forest. All pinyon less than 8 inches diameter and all junipers were removed during the treatment. The purpose of the treatment was to increase the number of herb aceous plants, stabilize soils, and increase water availability.
Trees were hand-cut, limbed, and lopped. Within 2 years, herbaceous plant cover increased to nearly 2.5 times more than the control. This method may not be as efficient as treating with heavy equipment; however, the treatment is less destructive and is well suited for sensitive areas. This treatment reduced both soil erosion and establishment of invasi ve weeds. Fire will be re-introd uced to the treated area to control stump sprouts and abundant new pinyon and juniper seedlings and return the functional processes ofthis productive grassland ecosystem. This treatment was for both thinning and providing fuelwood.
Thinning and Slashing-J acobs and Gatewood reported the results of a slash mulching and overs tory reduction project in north-central New Mexico that yielded two- to seven-fold increases in total herbaceous cover. However, additional soil surface preparation and seeding treatments did not improve the benefits over the initial treatment.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999
273

The character of the pinyon-juniper savanna was restored when mature trees were spaced about 15 to 20 meters apart.
They "suggest that tree overstory removal reduces competition for limited water and nutrient resources while the scattered slash provides benefits to exposed soils: reducing runoff and sediment transport, increasing infiltration and soil moisture, moderating soil temperature, freeze-thaw and evaporation, redistributing nutrients, and mitigating grazing impacts."
Thinning and slashing can also be used to treat historic grasslands where tree encroachment may occur. Managers can determine the shape and size of the treated areas, and selectively decide which trees to cut and which to leave
(Barber and Chapman). These authors indicated that a more natural appearance occurs with better big game movement when groups of trees are left standing. Selective cutting can be effective but expensive (Davis). In another study, costs per acre for thinning were much higher than for chaining
(Chadwick, Nelson, Nunn, and Tatman), and the authors concl uded that "thinning did not create an effective seed bed or provide for adequate seed burial. Mechanical means should be employed to create a seed bed and cover the seed, introducing additional costs to the treatment."
Species Composition and
Selection
Most of the information in this section applies to plant species. However, an underlying assumption is implied: diverse communities of native flora provide habitat for diverse communities of native fauna.
Young stated, "Decisions as to what plant materials to use in a given revegetation project are made on many levels, with economic considerations often competing with those of ecology. The decision nearly always boils down to what is the revegetation objective for this site." The Bridger Plant Materials Center, affiliated with USDA-NRCS, focused projects on the selection and establishment of native species to revegetate a wide array of difficult restoration situations
(Majerus, Winslow, and Scianna).
When harsh environmental conditions complicate reclamation of arid and semi-arid rangelands, efforts often fail to meet the objectives (Britton, Anderson, Horrocks, and
Horton). These authors evaluated the performance ofa large group of species at two sites, sagebrush/grass and greasewood, and suggested further studies to determine which mix of species grow best together.
Stevens discussed how to create stable communities. Restoration efforts should include seeding with native species if the site does not have sufficient understory to exclude exotic weeds that would dominate the area otherwise. Walker indicated that competition from seeded introduced species affected differences in species composition for up to four decades (the length of the studies). This significantly reduced the frequency and cover ofthe desired native species.
He shared four case studies from various cover types: gambel oak, aspen-mountain brush,juniper-pinyon woodlands, and
Great Plains grassland ecosystems. Smooth brome, intermediate w hea tgrass, and crested w hea tgrasses were some of the exotic species in the examples. In all cases, a shift in species composition occurred where exotic species were favored at the expense of native communities. Walker underscored that resource values declined with this loss of species diversity.
McArthur and Young reported on seed sales and marketing information from two surveys. The first survey presented detailed data on seed production and sales of 47 species from the Intermountain and Pacific Northwest regions. The potential to use these species greatly exceeds current use and the vol ume of seed that is or can be harvested from wildland stands. To meet the demand for many species, field-grown seed will be needed. The second survey contained information provided by five seed companies in
Utah that sold seed of native species in 1996. These companies reported marketing significant amounts of native seed of 29 grasses, 39 forbs, and 42 shrubs.
McArthur and Young indicated that recently increased enthusiasm to reconstruct natural plant communities by using regionally adapted native plants has resulted in more native plant materials becoming available from private suppliers. However, seeds of wheat grasses (and their relatives) and legumes (rangeland alfalfas and clovers) continue to be the most available and are the plants of choice for most rehabilitation projects in pinyon-juniper areas (McArthur and Young). Jensen and Asay reported that "breeding programs are progressing to develop improved grasses and legumes for resource conservation as well as for grazing and habitat for livestock and wildlife .... Improved forage yield, forage quality, and resistance to insects and diseases are receiving major attention. Added emphasis is being placed on persistence of perennial ryegrass and development of endophyte-free cultivars of tall fescue."
McArthur and Young recognized that stockpiling seed of native species by principal users will assure that seed will be available when needed. Consistent production from private industry should result from the orderly stockpiling of native seed in public sector (such as Forest Service) warehouses.
The authors described two successful stockpiling programs by public agencies: the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
Seed Warehouse in Ephraim, Utah, and the Bureau of Land
Management Seed Warehouse in Boise, Idaho.
Goodrich and Huber stated, "features of pinyon-juniper communities strongly point to the need to develop a wide array of plant materials with the potential to compete with cheatgrass on a variety of exposures and many geological substra tes and soil types." Monsen explained that weeds are a major concern to most wildland communities, and pinyon-juniper woodlands are prone to invasion of annuals. Cheatgrass and other annuals have been a problem for decades, but squarrose knapweed, skeletonweed, and other perennials are rapidly expanding, and a new generation of perennial weeds appears adapted to extensive rangeland communities (Monsen).
274 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999

If req uirements and standards of the Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies are followed, seed quality
(purity, germination, and presence of foreign material) as well as genetic identity and purity can be assured (McArthur and Young). "The certification system is applicable to seed and other propagating materials both wild collected and grown in production fields, whether natural or genetically manipulated populations" (Young). The seed industry and government agencies are expending efforts to improve seed testing, selecting native species, training collectors and growers, and providing standards for seed cleaning and storage.
Field Tour and Chaining
Demonstration
A weed may be defined as a plant out of place. During the pinyon-juniper chaining demonstration of the field tour for this conference, that definition flashed through my mind.
Indeed, grasses and forbs along with some scattered brush species dominated much of this area that is seral to pinyon or juniper during at least the past five centuries. Historically, fire occurred in the areas we visited with sufficient frequency to preclude survival of pinyon and juniper seedlings and, thus, perpetuated grass and forb cover types. In these areas, pinyon andjuniper on the landscape are similar to pigweed in a garden plot. Chaining overgrown stands of pinyon and j uni per is similar to a gardener pulling or hoeing out abundant "pigweed" on a vast landscape. The result is the removal of competition and recovery of desired communities of native and/or introduced species.
Notable strides made during the past decade demonstrate that restoration is possible for many landscapes. More information, seed sources, and native plant materials are available for restoration of pinyon-juniper areas than for any other vegetative type (Monsen). As the demand and supply increase, the cost of using native material in restoration projects should continue to decrease.
There is a need to increase the amount offield-grown seed of native plant species (McArthur and Young). Walker showed that well-meaning introductions of exotic species adversely impacted the natural functioning of plant communities and ecosystems. His caution underscores the need for studies about the compatibility of exotics in natural systems.
Potential Conflicts-The potential for conflicting objectives exists with management of pinyon-juniper communities. Efforts to restore closed stands of pinyon-juniper by prescribed burning or chaining large areas (Monsen) and at the same time maintain sufficient "leave areas" are key to improvement and management of big game winter range
(Fairchild). Collaborative stewardship and accurate identification of key big game winter ranges are needed to reduce potential conflicts.
The advent of OUS'f® as an herbicidal control of cheatgrass shows considerable promise. However, public perceptions about herbicides in general and effects on wildlife can limit herbicide use on public lands (Pellant, Kaltenecker, and
Jirik). IfOUS'f® is deemed suitable for large-scale application, an opportunity exists to treat areas with mixed stands of native species and selectively remove undesirable species.
There will be a need to share information with the public about the benefits and relative risks ofthis herbicide before widespread acceptance will be found.
Partnerships-Joint ventures among State and Federal agencies and private landowners will be important for future management of pinyon-juniper woodlands (Fairchild).
For example, he suggested that range managers could redesign old chainings by thinning or clear-cutting to increase the area of usable mule deer habitat. Davis underscored the critical importance of the age structure of the stand to be treated.
Land managers with the responsibility to discern areas to be treated should recognize at least four landscape situations (Monsen):
1. Restoration may be accomplished relatively quickly with some changes in management practices (such as altering grazing systems, burning, chaining, etc.).
2. Restoration is feasible but will require supplemental seeding with native species.
3. Restoration may be possible for some areas, but substantial alteration ofthe site and existing weed communities before restoration begins.
4. Restoration is not possible but areas may still be rehabilitated.
Monsen concluded that when designing restoration projects, diverse areas should be identified. These include areas separated by soil type, terrain, slope, aspect, and presence of herbs, shrubs, and trees. Land managers and researchers should work closely to develop a systematic way to delineate these site conditions. Managers could then categorize the pinyon-juniper areas into one of the four landscape situations. Only after sites have been properly classified, can managers determine which actions are required to restore an ecological balance. Care should be given not to prioritize all restoration effort on the basis of total acres restored for the dollars spent. Such priorities could in effect preclude treatments in critical pinyon-juniper sites where watershed and ecological stability are necessary.
Where restoration is possible, but some rehabilitation is needed initially, it is important to ensure that the first treatments (such as seeding with certain exotics) do not compromise or preclude later restoration measures. However, in some situations where restoration is not currently possible, the goal should be to promote ecologically sensitive rehabilitation using species that will not dominate the area
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999 275

but rather occupy a niche in the newly derived community.
Sadly, some areas may be too expensive to rehabilitate.
The title of this session is "Ecological Restoration." Thus,
I interject some considerations from the ecological perspective with themes taken from the writings of AIdo Leopold.
While visiting Germany in 1935, Leopold penned part of an essay on the back of hotel stationary. He wrote: "One of the anomalies of modern ecology is that it is the creation of two groups, each of which seems barely aware of the existence of the other. The one studies the human community, almost as if it were a separate entity, and calls its findings sociology, economics, and history. The other studies the plant and animal community, and comfortably relegates the hodge-podge of politics to the liberal arts. The inevitable fusion of these two lines ofthought will, perhaps, constitute the outstanding advance of the present century" (Bradley
1997). The close parallel of the papers presented in the
"Ecological Restoration" session and in the "Management
Implications" session of this conference demonstrate that this "fusion of two lines of thought" is occuring in the management of pinyon-juniper landscapes. It will be the challenge and the hope of this generation of researchers and managers to cement this fusion on behalf of sustaining productive historical pinyon-juniper woodlands and recovering and restoring landscapes that were previously healthy grass/forb/shrub communities but invaded by pinyon or juniper in the past several decades.
In "Oregon and Utah-Cheat Takes Over" Leopold (1949) wrote: "I listened carefully for clues whether the West has accepted cheat as a necessary evil, to be lived with until kingdom come, or whether it regards cheat as a challenge to rectify its past errors in land-use. I found the hopeless attitude almost universal. There is, as yet, no sense of pride in the husbandry of wild plants and animals, no sense of shame in the proprietorship of a sick landscape. We tilt windmills in behalf of conservation in convention halls and editorial offices but on the back forty we disclaim even owning a lance."
Leopold's (1949) concept of the land ethic enlarged the community boundaries to consider soils, waters, plants, and animals collectively as the land. "A land ethic, then, reflects the existence of an ecological conscience, and this in turn reflects a conviction of individual responsibility for the health of the land. Health is the capacity of the land for self-renewal. Conservation is our effort to understand and preserve this capacity." An A-B cleavage exists in many disciplines or specialized fields. "In each field one group
(A) regards the land as soil, and its function as commodity-production; another group (B) regards the land as a biota, and its function as something broader .... Group B feels the stirrings of an ecological conscience."
For ecological restoration to occur, factors other than big budgets and strong financial backing are critical. Leopold's philosophy and concluding challenge at the end of his "Land
Ethic" has direct application to the situations that occur today on pinyon-juniper dominated landscapes in the West.
He wrote:
"The 'key-log' which must be moved to release the evolutionary process for an ethic is simply this: quit thinking about decent land-use as solely an economic problem. Examine each question in terms of what is ethically and esthetically right, as well as what is economically expedient. A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.
It of course goes without saying that economic feasibility limits the tether of what can or cannot be done for land. It always has and it always will. The fallacy the economic determinists have tied around our collective neck, and which we now need to cast off, is the belief that economics determines all land-use. This simply is not true. An innumerable host of actions and attitudes, comprising perhaps the bulk of all land relations, is determined by the land-users' tastes and predilections, rather than by his purse. The bulk of all land relations hinges on investments of time, forethought, skill, and faith rather than on investments of cash. As a land-user thinketh, so is he.
... By and large, our present problem is one of attitudes and implements." (Leopold 1949)
At the close of the "Ecological Restoration" session of the conference, Richard Stevens gave a stirring challenge to the group. "The biggest problem is attitude!" Many native species can recover. However, native species may need to be rested more than 2 years, and a project cannot be judged a failure in the first 3 years. If the objective is to promote natives, plan for it. "If you build it, they will come! Have this kind of an attitude with native species," Stevens said.
These are challenging and demanding times with complex iss ues for those who manage landscapes of expansi ve pinyon and juniper. Leopold's guiding keywords to make investments of "time, forethought, skill, and faith" must be applied if we hope to improve existing situations in pinyon-juniper ecosystems. We must be proactive, albeit at times on a shoestring. We cannot and must not be complacent with our ecological conscience and model a "hopeless attitude." We must challenge the status quo in our larger circles of influence and convey to politicians and the public that, although the "landscape is sick,"withoutthoughtful and skilled attention, conditions can and will become much worse.
Should we burn? chain? harvest? or do nothing? If treatments are made, then the questions become: how big? what shape? seed with natives? seed with exotic species? rely only on the seedbank? Such questions land managers will ask.
Answers should depend on the desired conditions for the landscapes as determined by managers after weighing in put from informed stakeholders in a forum of collaborative stewardship. The full range of alternatives (including doing nothing) should be applied to the full range of sites and situations on these landscapes. Also, monitoring of conditions, treatments, and responses is essential to understand the effects of treatments and then to adapt future actions.
Refer to the four compelling case studies in Walker to appreciate the value oflong-term monitoring.
Land managers mustj udiciously weigh the prudent use of chaining and where feasible restore the ecosystem process of fire to its historical function. These are challenging times with the hope of an improved future. Steps must be taken to value native species in sustainable communities. Unless we use landscape-scale measures to control undesirable exotic species, the legacy of this generation to coming generations
276
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999

will be populations of even less desirable exotic species on these landscapes.
The challenge for researchers and land managers is to be proactive in restoring the ecological integrity of pinyon -juni per ecosystems. These landscapes have the potential to sustain healthy and diverse biological communities. Let this be our legacy to future generations.
Bradley, Nina Leopold. 1997. Of the Land. American Forests.
103(2)25-29.
Leopold, Aldo. 1949. A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 226 p.
All other citations are to presentations at the symposium, most of which are included in these proceedings. All are in abstract form in "Brigham Young University, 1997. Ecology and mangement of pinyon-juniper communities within the Interior West." Brigham
Young University, Provo, UT. Non-paginated.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999 277