This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
Pinyon-Juniper Chaining Design Guidelines
For Big Game Winter Range Enhancement
Projects
John A. Fairchild
Abstract-There are numerous examples of pinyon-juniper chaining projects in the Intermountain Region. The design of each reflects
the objectives of the project and the "state-of-the-art" at the time of
the chaining. Projects carried out on public lands in the 1950's and
1960's emphasized forage production for livestock. The early pinyon-juniper chainings were characterized by large treatments with
borders closely tied to property boundaries. In the 1970's, the list of
project objectives expanded to include wildlife habitat restoration,
with an emphasis on enhancement of big game winter range. These
projects were designed with irregular boundaries, "leave areas"
and travel corridors to capitalize on the "edge effect" described by
Aldo Leopold back in the 1930's. Consideration of mule deer habitat
requirements and behavioral adaptations for winter survival is
critical for planning projects on winter ranges. Guidelines are
presented for treatment designs to protect and enhance wildlife
habitat on these ranges.
The Utah Division ofWildlife Resources has been involved
in chaining projects on mule deer winter ranges for more
than 40 years. The practice has been used to improve winter
range habitat on numerous wildlife management areas
throughout the state. Projects have been carried out on
public land in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service and
the Bureau of Land Management. In addition, the Division
has contributed browse and forb seed to landowners that
have selected chaining as a method for increasing forage
production on their private rangeland. In most cases, the
landowners have developed a conservation plan for their
property with the assistance of the Natural Resource Conservation Service.
The basic premise has been that if we increase the availability offoraging areas within the larger woodland, then we
should be able to red uce the home range of elk and mule deer
on their winter range. If successful, animals should be able
to conserve energy, and be better equipped to survive harsh
winters. Treatment design, seeding success and long-term
management will determine the ultimate value of these
projects for wildlife. The following is a summary of the key
habitat requirements and behaviors that must be considered when developing guidelines for a chaining design.
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.
John A. Fairchild is Habitat Manager, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources,
Central Region, 1115 North Main St., Springville, Utah 84663.
278
Effect of Home Range _ _ _ __
To understand the constraints that need to be imposed on
chaining to achieve benefits for mule deer, it is important to
keep in mind that the project will affect a species whose
home range during the winter may be as small as 125 acres.
Estimates vary depending on the area, but to conserve
energy, it is not uncommon for deer to limit their activity to
a %-mile activity radius. A treatment can be expected to
have a positive effect on a local mule deer population if the
project scale (chained vs. unchained area) is set based on
this critical acreage. For example, a 200-acre chaining,
without leave areas, could totally displace the animals that
traditionally use a particular area and force them to move
into an area occupied by another group. Long-term carrying
capacity for the area could be reduced.
ThermaICover _________________
For mule deer, energy conservation during the winter is
the key to survival. Deer carry a portion of their winter
range on their back in the form of fat. Regardless of range
conditions, deer continue to lose weight during the winter.
The rate of loss, which is affected by habitat conditions
and the severity of the winter, determines survival The
thermal cover provided by pinyon-juniper woodlands provides a buffer against exposure to severe weather conditions. The trees serve as a windbreak which reduces the
wind-chill factor. Deer move to the interior of dense stands
to avoid the strong winds associated with winter storms.
To conserve energy at night, deer select areas beneath the
tree canopy to bed down. The tree canopy absorbs heat
during the day and reradiates the heat back to the ground at
night, thereby increasing the air temperature beneath the
canopy.
Interspersion of Vegetative Cover
Types
Deer are attracted to areas where thermal cover and
feeding areas are in close proximity. Again, energy conservation probably drives this behavior, but predator avoidance
is also involved. Recognition of this "edge effect" has influenced the design of chaining projects over the last 20 years.
First introduced as a concept by AIdo Leopold in the 1930's,
it took a while to get incorporated into land management
practices. Since treatment designs are often driven by watershed and forage production objectives, wildlife habitat
remains an issue that must be negotiated for most projects.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999
Mule Deer Distribution on Winter
Ranges _______________________
It is important to keep in mind that mule deer are not
evenly distributed on their winter range. When planning a
chaining project, we need to distinguish between normal and
critical use areas. The nutritional status of mule deer changes
as they are forced by severe weather to occupy lower elevation pinyon-juniper stands. If there is insufficient thermal
cover available on these critical winter ranges, then the
herd will be subjected to additional stress.
Deer tend to concentrate in what are called "key areas."
Due to a combination of elevation, slope, aspect, topography,
thermal cover and the presence of sites that support preferred browse species, deer are not distributed uniformly
throughout their range. Chaining design is especially critical in these key areas, if they are to be chained at all.
Chaining Design Guidelines
Thermal Cover
The chaining design should reflect the importance of
thermal cover over the need for foraging areas. Studies
have suggested that no more than 40 percent of a pinyonjuniper stand should be chained within the expected home
range of wintering mule deer (Thomas and others 1979). If
the conservative estimate of a 1/4 mile radius is used as an
estimate for home range during the winter, then no more
than 50 acres should be chained in a 125 acre area. An upper
limit of about 260 acres per section would be possible,
depending on terrain.
Interspersion
To maximize interspersion of cover types, and increase
utilization by deer, the distance from any chained location to
the edge of an untreated stand (leave area) should be no
greater than Ys mile (660 feet). Terrel (1973) found that deer
use in a chained area was greatest near the edge and
dropped off significantly 400 feet in either direction. Consequently, chaining widths should be no greater than 1/4 mile.
Leave areas should be at least 40 acres in size and be distributed on a variety of sites (different slopes and aspects).
Leave Areas
The oldest stands should be incorporated into the leave
areas. These stands provide considerable amount of concealment and thermal cover for mule deer. They generally
occupy the shallowest soils, with less potential for forage
prod uction.
Scattered Trees
Clumps of trees should be left scattered throughout the
chaining. These clumps are not considered leave areas, but
provide hiding cover and habitat diversity within the chaining. These sites provide perching areas for raptors, and
facilitate movement through the area by other bird species.
The spacing for the clumps should be at least every 300 feet.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999
Travel Corridors
Travel corridors (ridges and drainage bottoms) should be
excluded from treatment. The corridors should be at least
300 feet wide. Leave areas should be arranged so that they
are connected by travel corridors.
Site Selection
Chainings should be located on soil types that have the
potential to produce a diverse stand of vegetation. The best
sites for browse production should be included in the chaining (Plummer and others, 1968).
Vegetation Management _ _ _ __
The reestablishment of Utah Juniper and Pinyon Pine
on previously chained areas has been well documented
(Van Pelt and others 1990, Stevens 1987). Most ofthe trees,
in these treated areas, were young plants at the time of
the chaining and were not affected by the treatment. Shrubs,
including highly nutritious browse species, can become the
predominant species in the understory. Gradually, as tree
and shrub densities increase, herbaceous production decreases. When one of the management objectives is to provide livestock forage, as is the case on most Western rangelands, pinyon-juniper maintenance treatments are often
considered to restore maximum productivity.
Fire can be an effective, low-cost tool to arrest plant
succession and reestablish a grass-forb dominated community in the openings created by the initial project. Although
a prescribed burn may have a positive effect on forage
production for livestock, the loss of browse production on a
critical big game winter range could have serious consequences for the local deer herd. Key browse species are often
just beginning to contribute significantly to the diet of the
wintering deer herd when a maintenance treatment is
carried out. After 20-30 years, these chained areas often
have higher habitat value for big game, based on cover and
forage characteristics, than during the early post-chaining
period. Consideration should be given to the importance of
an area for wintering big game when evaluating the need for
maintenance.
Conclusions -----------------------------Pinyon-juniper woodlands provide key winter use areas
for mule deer and elk throughout Utah. The thermal cover
provided by this ecosystem has an important function in
energy conservation by big game. Consequently, the habitat
value of a chaining is more closely tied to the proportion of
the woodland that is left untreated, and its interspersion
with treated areas, than to the amount of acreage that is
converted to herbaceous cover.
Range managers have an opportunity to redesign old
chainings to increase the acreage of usable habitat by mule
deer. Many of these early projects failed to take into
consideration the thermal cover requirements of big game.
Ifprescribed burning is selected as the tool to retreat key use
areas, careful consideration will have to be given to the postburn design to maintain wildlife benefits. Another option
279
that is available to land managers in Utah is to contract
with the Utah State Division of Forestry, Fire and State
Lands, Lone Peak Conservation Center, to clearcut or thin
previously chained areas. The Lone Peak Conservation
Center, in cooperation with the Utah State Department of
Corrections, employs a prison work force to carry out a
variety of conservation practices.
Joint ventures involving federal land management agencies, private landowners, state agencies, and Soil Conservation Districts, will playa bigger role in the management
of pinyon-juniper woodlands in the future. The high cost of
rangeland conversion projects dictates the need for partnerships. It is very important that wildlife habitat protection
and enhancement be among the objectives identified for
these projects.
280
References ---------------------------------Plummer, A. P.; Christensen, D. R; Monsen, S. B. 1968. Restoring
big game range in Utah. Utah Div. Fish and Game, Pub!. 68-3,
183 p. Publishers Press, Salt Lake City.
Stevens, R 1987. Thirty years of pinyon-juniper big game habitat
improvement projects: what have we learned. In: Everett, R L.,
compo Proceedings: pinyon-juniper conference; 1986 Jan. 13-16;
Reno, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-215. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research
Station: 558-571.
Terrel, T. L. 1973. Mule deer use patterns as related to pinyonjuniper conversion in Utah. Ph.D. thesis. Utah State Univ.,
Logan. 174 p.
Thomas, J. W.; Black, H. J r; Scherzinger, R J.; Pedersen, R J. 1979.
Deer and Elk. In: Thomas, J. W., Tech. Ed. Wildlife habitats in
managed forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington.
Agric. Handb. No. 553: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service. 104-127.
VanPelt, N. S.; Stevens, R; West, N. E. 1990. Survival and growth
of immature Juniperus osteosperma and Pinus edulis following
woodland chaining in central Utah. The Southwestern Naturalist 35(3): 322-328.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999