This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
Political Guidelines for Management
and Restoration of Pinyon and Juniper
Woodlands
Deanna R. Nelson
John A. Fairchild
Carol R. Nunn-Hatfield
Abstract-In 1989 and 1990, on the he~ls of public protest against
chaining of pinyon-juniper woodlands on public lands near Moab,
Utah, the Uinta National Forest and Central Region, Utah Division
of Wildlife Resources, were proposing to improve big game ranges in
Spanish Fork Canyon through management of pinyon-juniper.
Consideration of an array of treatments using various tools (such as
prescribed fire and clear cutting) resulted in a proposal to create
numerous small openings 5 to 60 acres in size, and seed these to
provide additional forage and ground cover. Anchor chaining seemed
to be the most practical and economical tool with which to accomplish this. Early public involvement quickly revealed strong support, and strong opposition, for pinyon-juniper treatment and specifically for chaining in upper Spanish Fork Canyon. This case-study
describes the process used and experience gained in developing and
planning this project. Elements are described which proved critical
in enabling conflicts to be resolved, implementation to proceed, and
the project to continue as a multi year effort.
In 1989, the Uinta National Forest and Central Region,
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR), were searching
for a way to enhance winter range for big game to partially
compensate for habitat being lost to development along the
southern portion of the Wasatch Front, adjacent to the
communities of Provo, Springville, and Mapleton. Attention
was focused on Spanish Fork Canyon because it contained
considerable acres ofwinter and transitional range on public
lands with potential for improvement. The canyon serves as
a migrational corridor and it was believed that enhanced
range there could "short stop" animals by holding them back
from critical ranges along the Front in the fall and early
winter. Overall pressure on the lower-elevation ranges could
be reduced in most years and depredation on private lands
reduced as well.
As biologists, hydrologists and ecologists from the two
agencies looked for opportunities to improve winter range in
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.
Deanna R. Nelson is Ecologist, USDA Forest Service, Uinta National
Forest, P.O. Box 1428, Provo, UT 84603. John A. Fairchild is Habitat
Manager, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Central Region, 1115 North
Main, Springville, UT 84663. Carol R. Nunn-Hatfield is Wildlife Biologist,
Helena National Forest, Townsend Ranger District, 315 South Front,
Townsend, MT 59644.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999
the canyon, they identified considerable potential for increasing forage production on gentle to moderate slopes on
soils derived from the Green River Shale. These sites were
currently occupied by pinyon-juniper woodlands and provided extensive acres of good thermal cover but very little
forage. Most of these sites were experiencing accelerated
sheet erosion and gully development, believed to be due to
large expanses with little ground cover. Openings in the
woodlands were observed to be occupied by productive sagebrush and mixed mountain brush communities. However,
these openings were very small, providing insufficient interruption of overland flow and offering little forage to wintering big game.
Specialists believed that soil productivity and precipitation were adequate to enable substantial increases in forage
production in openings created in the pinyon-juniper woodland. The sites being considered were felt to be areas onto
which the woodlands had expanded from adjacent "fire safe"
sites. Heavy use by domestic sheep in the early part of the
century had likely contributed to the loss of understory and
accelerated the increase in tree density by reducing fine
fuels which carry fire. Biologists looked for a way to create
openings in the woodland, while maintaining critical thermal cover and travel corridors for big game and other
wildlife. Ecologists wanted to be able to preserve older
forests on steeper slopes and ridge tops, as well as healthy
stands of shrubs scattered throughout the area. A tool was
needed which could provide the control necessary to create
a mosaic of openings within a matrix of pinyon-juniper
woodland.
\Vhile specialists were conducting field surveys and investigating potential solutions, and preparation was being
made to begin public interaction, local news broadcasts
erupted with coverage of controversy over chaining of pinyon-juniper on public lands near Moab, Utah. At this same
time, local sportsman's groups were pressuring the agencies
to move forward with some sort of habitat enhancement
work in Spanish Fork Canyon or allow them to commence
winter feeding there. Both agencies preferred to pursue a
long-term solution based on habitat improvement. Agency
personnel were looking at possible tools to enable them to do
just that-fire, clearcutting, and chaining.
Individuals involved in protests at Moab were contacted
and invited to learn more about work being proposed in
Spanish Fork Canyon. Public interaction proceeded with
strong support for treatment, as well as strong opposition.
Meetings, field trips, and more meetings were held. Analysis
371
of alternatives continued. Personnel from both agencies
agreed that chaining would provide the control needed to
create the desired mosaic of habitat features. Fire could not
be adequately controlled under conditions existing in the
dense woodland to assure that necessary cover would be left.
Clearcutting could accomplish the desired goals but the cost
would be much greater.
Appeals were filed and negotiations undertaken. Both
proponents and opponents worked hard to find solutions.
Together with the agencies, they sought compromise that
would allow the wildlife objectives to be met. It was agreed
that a test would be performed: work was allowed to proceed
using chaining as a tool to open no more than 350 acres in
small patches. The work was to be a trial only, the results to
be reviewed and evaluated before additional work would
proceed. At the same time a small thinning would be made
and the costs and outcome compared-to the chaining.
Monitoring was established, work completed, and followup monitoring performed. Field reviews with both proponents and opponents were conducted and the outcome was
favorable enough to opponents that appeals were not pursued further (Brocci 1994). Thinning proved to be less costeffective than chaining (Chadwick and others 1998). Over
the next five years, a total ofmore than 1,500 acres of pinyonjuniper habitat was treated in this manner. Forage production on south-facing slopes increased from less than 20
pounds per acre prior to treatment in 1990, to over 1000 in
1997. On north-facing sites treated that same year an
increase from 500 to 1500 pounds per acre was recorded
(USDA Forest Service 1997). Sediment loss was found to be
five times greater and soil loss eight times greater on
untreated (control) plots than on treated (chained and seeded)
plots (Farmer 1995). Farmer found deer pellet groups to be
twice as dense on treated plots, and elk five times as dense,
as on adjacent untreated plots. Resource management objectives to provide additional forage for big game in upper
Spanish Fork Canyon and to reduce erosion and soil loss on
these same sites were accomplished.
Establishing Support and
Developing Solutions
Following is an attempt to share what proved to be
"critical elements" in the planning process for this project:
things that we believe were important in enabling planning
to proceed through controversy and disagreement, a oneyear trial to be implemented, and implementation to then
continue.
Much of the area proposed for treatment in Spanish Fork
Canyon does not lie within a grazing allotment. This eliminated an issue that has proved contentious in similar projects
and, subsequently, agreement upon objectives came more
readily. There was little debate over whether additional
forage would benefit domestic livestock or wildlife. While
our situation with respect to grazing issues was different
than many projects involving treatment ofpinyon-juniper, a
host of other points of controversy and disagreement remained to be resolved, for example: method of treatment,
visual impacts, consideration of historic and archaeological
resources, use of natives vs. exotics in reseeding, and the
potential for objectives to be met on sites selected for treatment. We believe that the steps outlined here could have
been used to successfully address grazing issues as well.
Involvement in more recent projects has shown us the
importance of avoiding laundry lists of objectives. While
there are many secondary benefits resulting from any welldesigned treatment, it is best to focus on what is actually
driving the project in question. This allows for greater focus
on pertinent issues and avoids the impression in some that
the "deck" is being overwhelmingly "stacked" against any
opposition. With a long list of objectives it becomes likely
that objectives will conflict, i.e. providing for one will reduce
the degree to which another can be accomplished. With even
a short list of objectives, it may be necessary to prioritize.
With our project, and just two primary objectives (to reduce
runoff and erosion from the sites and improve winter and
transitional-season forage for big game), compromise had to
be made: it had to be decided whether to treat a maximum
number of acres to meet watershed objectives, or treat a
reduced number of acres to allow wildlife requirements to be
met as well.
The importance of considering long-term as well as shortterm needs, and to look at the problem and address the
effects of potential solutions across a large area, became
readily apparent. Appellants insisted that Utah DWR focus
on maintaining sustainable populations of big game animals. These discussions ultimately lead to commitments to
hold elk populations within current carrying capacities and
to provide temporary reductions in the upper canyon until
seedings were established. Appellants asked the Forest
Service to expand the analysis area and extend the number
of years of treatment considered. While this increased the
complexity of the analysis and subsequently the amount of
effort expended, it improved the overall quality ofthe analysis and increased opponents' confidence in it. Additionally,
the planning work required in subsequent years of implementation was greatly reduced because of the extra effort
spent in the beginning.
Objectives
Establishment of clear, honest and obtainable objectives
proved critical in creating a working relationship with those
opposed to the project, and provided the basis for developing
support among potential proponents. In this particular case,
the project objectives actually provided common ground
among proponents and opponents. Agreement upon the purpose and need for the project provided a critical commonality
among all involved, and allowed disagreement to focus on
issues revolving primarily around methods.
372
Public Input
It proved critical to involve the public throughout the
planning process, and to continue this effort through implementation and monitoring. Not only is informing the public
required by law (for Federal agencies and federally-funded
efforts, under the National Environmental Policy Act), but
the input provided can be valuable. The public must be
involved early in the process, to provide an opportunity for
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999
input before a course is already charted. It may be necessary
to actively seek out public input, both potentially in support
of and in opposition to what is proposed. This reduces the
risk that any unexpected issues will arise later in the
process. As soon as debate was voiced in the media over
projects near Moab, District Ranger Tom Tidwell sought out
those individuals involved and invited their input on our
project.
Tidwell worked to create open dialogue among the proponents, the opponents, and the agencies. He provided opportunities for the public to visit potential project sites and
discuss concerns with the specialists designing the project.
Through use of mediated debate, lead by a trained facilitator, proponents and opponents were able to talk directly
rather than through agency personnel. Agreement on the
fundamental needs driving the project provided common
ground for the two groups. This made it possible to develop
solutions by finding a balance in meeting each groups'
concerns, while maintaining the ability to meet the agreedupon objectives.
When some concerns could not be sufficiently addressed
up-front, the agencies and involved public (both opponents
and proponents) agreed to allow treatment to proceed for one
phase (350 acres) and postpone any decisions regarding
further treatment until this work could be evaluated. It was
also agreed that a small thinning would be created to
evaluate the costs and test the effects ofthat method relative
to chaining. Monitoring was designed and implemented to
address some of the specific concerns of opponents. For
example, because the literature contained conflicting reports on the effects of chaining and seeding on reducing
erosion, paired runoff plots were installed to compare effects
on treated and adjacent untreated sites. Adequate monitoring, evaluating parameters of concern, was fundamental in
demonstrating the val ue of the project and hence enabling
work to continue.
Public input improved the outcome of the project in several ways. As previously mentioned, analysis of a project
extending across a landscape .and considering several years
of treatment work, improved the decision making process
and expedited planning work in subsequent years. Appellants strongly encouraged the Forest Service to use a seed
mix containing primarily native species and it was agreed
that a mix with approximately one-halfnative species would
be used. The mix performed well and was used in subsequent
years on this project. The Uinta National Forest has since
increased its use of natives on all seeding projects. The
establishment of monitoring to document runofffrom treated
and untreated areas, initiated because of concerns of opponents, has resulted in an entry in the scientific literature
documenting dramatic results as well as an appropriate
(and relatively inexpensive) method of evaluating effects at
a scale appropriate for such projects.
Evaluate Options
Consideration of a full range of options, looking at all
reasonable tools, was necessary to assure good decisionmaking and important in developing credibility and support
for the final decision. It was important to fully assess the "no
action" alternative. Analysis of the no-action should affirm
the validity of the purpose and need for action. Alternatives
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999
should be developed which address concerns, but it is critical
to then evaluate how well the alternative can address the
objectives. When all parties agreed to the objectives, it
became simple to reject alternatives that quelled specific
concerns but did not enable accomplishment of objectives.
All reasonable alternatives should be fully assessed and
given the same level of consideration. Experience has shown
that more detailed analysis of some alternatives over others
more likely results in suspicion than in strengthened support for that alternative. Each should be analyzed across a
landscape and projected through a reasonable period oftime
to avoid the perception of a segmented, or piece-meal, analysis which does not fully reveal the cumulative effects of
multiple years of work. This provided an appeal point in our
case.
Careful Implementation
Care in implementation of the project, and in particular
the close attention paid to detail in the design and layout of
treatment units, built substantial support for the project.
Criteria for unit design and layout were developed by experienced personnel from both agencies, assuring that project
objectives would be met. Utah DWR biologists worked carefully to assure that adequate thermal cover would remain
and that travel corridors would be provided. Forest Service
hydrologists and ecologists worked together to determine
which sites had the greatest capabilities for meeting erosion
reduction and forage production objectives. Archeological
surveys were conducted and protection provided for "eligible" sites. Implementation was closely supervised to assure that the desired outcome was achieved. Personnel (at
least one biologist and several technicians) were on the sites
with chaining and seeding contractors at all times.
Interagency Cooperation
Cooperation among interested agencies was very important to the success ofthe project. Both the Forest Service and
Utah DWR provided funding and participated actively in all
phases from planning to monitoring. Joint efforts in planning and design proved especially important in creating
agreement and developing a sense of ownership in the
project with agency personnel. The two parties worked
together to develop support from the public, participated
together in discussions with opponents, jointly pursued
solutions and evaluated results. We feel this contributed
considerably to the credibility of the project.
Nonagency Partnerships
Endorsement of the project by non-governmental organizations, especially groups willing to contribute funding or inkind assistance, helped to build a broad base of support for
the project. Partners' willingness to make a tangible contribution to the project by providing cash support and/or
volunteering time and talents proved successful in drawing
favorable attention to the project, and served as a vote of
confidence. Funding provided by partners was critical in
some years to enabling work to proceed. With continually
shrinking budgets, being experienced by both state and
373
federal agencies in recent years, such funding becomes
increasingly important.
Partnerships create a responsibility for agency personnel
to keep non-agency players informed. Circumstances often
prevent these groups from participating in the day-to-day
development and implementation ofthe project. This makes
it important for the agencies to keep these groups informed
as to the status of the project, by providing regular updates
even in periods of little activity.
Dedication of Proponents and Opponents
It is important that all parties involved, both those who
fully support the project and those who don't, are dedicated
to spending the time necessary to fully explore issues and to
remaining open to each other's ideas. This requires agency
specialists and decision-makers to spend time with all groups
involved, to listen to their concerns and ideas and explore
these fully. Field reviews provided an excellent opportunity
to accomplish this. This proved to be the best way to help the
public develop an understanding of the project, while creating a forum for airing and discussing concerns and exploring
ways to mitigate those issues. At a critical point when
solutions were needed so that decisions could be made
mediated debate (discussed above) served a critical role i~
developing compromise and agreement.
Agency Decisionmaker Support
Excellent support and dedication by the deciding officer,
in this case the district ranger, was without question one of
the most critical components enabling compromise and
collaboration to develop from disagreement. The district
ranger first became intimately familiar with the project, it's
purpose and need, its objectives and the proposed action. He
then gave priority to spending time with the proponents and
opponents, helping them to understand the agencies' proposal and then listening to and coming to understand their
feelings about the proposal. He worked to build support for
the objectives of the project, while remaining open to ideas
and concerns. He was dedicated to finding solutions that
enabled our objectives to be met, and skillful in dealing with
controversy.
Our district ranger's insistence on remaining flexible and
seeking solutions prevented an unsurmountable stalemate
from developing. His willingness to accept opponents' request to implement a one-year trial, and their faith that he
would stand behind that agreement, was an important
turning point for the project. He worked with agency specialists to see that adequate monitoring was established so that
the work could be properly and fairly evaluated. He maintained contact with the opponents throughout planning,
implementation and assessment to assure that they understood how work was progressing.
Conclusions -----------------------------Experience obtained through the development, implementation and monitoring of the Spanish Fork Canyon big
game winter range enhancement project revealed a handful
374
of factors that proved important in dealing with the controversy surrounding treatment of pinyon-juniper woodlands:
• develop clear, honest and obtainable objectives
• solicit and use public input, representing diverse points
of view
• consider an array of options and alternatives
• establish interagency and partner support
• encourage proponents and opponents to dedicate the
time needed to pursue solutions and create an open
environment for exchange of ideas
• decisionmakers must dedicate the time and energy
necessary to establish relationships with proponents
and opponents, find common ground, and develop
solutions
• use great care in planning (including design and layout), implementation and monitoring
While most or all of these items may be considered to reflect
primarily common sense, we often see insufficient time and
energy dedicated to them "up-front." Instead, an equal or
greater investment is required to struggle through stalemates which develop when public involvement comes too
late. Of course, such situations cannot always be avoided but
prevention is a worthwhile goal.
We recognize that in the experience shared here, all
conflicts were not resolved. Some opponents remained unhappy with the decisions made but chose not to commit the
time necessary to pursue solutions. We are grateful to those
who remained dedicated to the process of finding answers.
Their contributions of energy and ideas enhanced the outcome of the project.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the many individuals and
organizations who's efforts shaped this project, greatly improving the outcome. Special thanks to Rocky Mountain Elk
Foundation, Utah Sportsman Alliance, and the appellants,
who contributed funding, materials, and/or labor to the
project and gave substantially of their time and talents.
Heartfelt thanks to our colleagues in our own organizations,
as well as those with Great Basin Cooperative Experiment
Station, Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station,
and Brigham Young University Department of Botany and
Range Science.
References -------------------------------Brocci, Jan. 1994. Rough times on the Wasatch Front-rejuvenating a winter range. Bugle. Spring: 44-54.
Chadwick, J. Holbrook. Thinning versus chaining: which costs
more? In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard; Tausch, Robin
J.; Miller, Rick; Goodrich, Shere!' (This proceedings). Proceedings: ecology and management of pinyon-juniper communities
within the interior west. 1997 Sept. 15-18, Provo, UT. Ogden, UT:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Research Station.
Farmer, Mark E. 1995. The effect of anchor chaining pinyon-juniper
woodland on watershed values and big game animals in central
Utah. Unpublished thesis. Brigham Young University, Provo,
UT. 46 p.
USDA Forest Service. 1997. Unpublished data summary. Uinta
National Forest, Provo, UT.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999