This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
Thinning Versus Chaining: Which Costs
More?
James H. Chadwick
Deanna R. Nelson
Carol R. Nunn
Debra A. Tatman
Abstract-In 1990, 320 acres of pinyon-juniper were chained as
part of a big game winter range improvement project in Spanish
Fork Canyon. Areas were double-chained: units were chained in one
direction, seed was broadcast aerially, and the units chained in the
opposite direction. In conjunction with the chaining, 40 acres were
thinned and seeded with the same mix in order to compare implementation costs and results between the two treatments. Trees
were dragged and hand-piled in drainage ways and seed was raked
into the soil so as to better simulate the effects of chaining. Per-acre
cost for thinning was considerably greater than for chaining.
During the mid to late 1980's local wildlife biologists
became concerned by the rate at which critical winter range
for mule deer and elk was being lost to the recent growth of
communities along the Wasatch Front. As development
encroached onto these areas, big game began to overuse the
range still available to them. Wildlife biologists looked to
nearby Spanish Fork Canyon for opportunities to improve
early spring/late fall transitional range, as well as critical
winter range in order to relieve pressure along the Front. It
was decided that creation of small openings in dense pinyonjuniper stands would produce a mosaic-like effect, increasing forage and browse while maintaining adequate cover.
Partners in the project believed that chaining was the most
economical way to accomplish this. A thinning was performed as a comparison to chaining in order to determine
which treatment was the most cost effective. Costs are evaluated and results compared between the two treatments.
Methods
Each unit was chained once, after which seed (a mixture of
grasses, forbs and shrubs) was applied aerially, then chained
again in the opposite direction. Browse species, having a
relatively large seed, were applied with dribblers mounted
on the dozers. All forb and grass species as well as smallseeded shrub species, were applied aerially. A 290-foot
smooth anchor chain was pulled with two D-9 dozers. Great
care was taken to assure a varied and natural looking edge
effect as well as to minimize the amount of open space away
from the edge. Many islands, drainage bottoms and ridgetops
were left unchained for use as cover and travel routes. Large
and mature pinyon pine and mountain mahogany were also
left unchained in order for natural reseeding to occur.
Thinning
During the spring of 1991, 40 acres of the same pinyonjuniper woodland was seeded and thinned as one unit. Grass
and forb seeds were broadcast by hand prior to the treatment. It was believed that the seed would be buried during
the thinning through the activities of work crews. The Flame
In Goes firecrew (Utah Department of Corrections) utilized
chainsaws to thin the area, removing 25-40 percent of the
stems per acre. The downed trees were then "lopped and
scattered" with some trees being thrown into gullies to slow
runoff and soil erosion. Once the thinning was complete,
bitterbrush seeds were planted by hand. The unit was laid
out so that the edge was varied and adequate travel routes
were protected. The treatment protected healthy pinyon
pine as well as valuable browse species like mahogany, oak,
bitterbrush and sagebrush.
Chaining
Seed Mix
In the fall of 1990, 320 acres of pinyon-juniper woodland
scattered over five square miles were doubled chained and
reseeded. The 11 units range in size from 20 to 60 acres.
Both treatment areas were seeded with the same mix in
order to compare results between the two treatments. The
seed mix was chosen for its ability to provide the quantity
and quality of forage required to support big game during
critical time periods, as well as provide food for a variety of
small game and non-game species. Included in the mix were
species known to establish quickly, in order to rapidly
provide ground cover and readily bind soils to reduce erosion. The seed mix contained a variety of grasses, forbs and
shrubs to mimic plant communities currently present on the
site without using more than 50 percent non-native species.
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.
James H. Chadwick is Biological Technician, Uinta National Forest,
Spanish Fork Ranger District, UT. Deana R. Nelson is Ecologist, Uinta
National Forest, Provo, UT. Carol R. Nunn is Wildlife Biologist, Helena
National Forest, Townsend Ranger District, MT. Debra A. Tatman is GIS
Analyst/Coordinator, Eldorado National Forest, Placerville, CA.
290
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999
The seed mixes used were:
Broadcast Mix
Intermediate wheatgrass
Hard sheep fescue
Tall fescue
Western wheatgrass
Big bluegrass
Basin wildrye
"Regar" brome
Crested wheatgrass
Orchardgrass
Blue lewis flax
Palmer penstemon
Small burnett
Ladak alfalfa
Yellow sweetclover
Low elevation mountain big sagebrush
White stemmed rubber rabbitbrush
Dribbler Mix
Antelope bitterbrush
True mountain mahogany
Curlleaf mountain mahogany
Fourwing saltbush
Cicer milkvetch
Treatment Costs per Acre
250
200
150
100
50
o-=----,-----~----,-----~----~--~
Chaining
Thinning
Clearcutting
C. . . ____T_r_e_a_tm_e_n_t_c_o_s_t__D
__s_e_e_d_C_o_s_t______)
Figure 1-Comparison of costs ofthree techniques
(chaining, thinning and clearcutting) to create small
openings in pinyon-juniperwoodland. Values shown
include only direct implementation costs ( materials, labor, contracts and supervision) and represent
actual costs in 1990-1991. Costs for clearcutting
were extrapolated from thinning costs.
In the thinned unit, only bitterbrush was planted. Seed
was hand planted after thinning activities were completed.
Results ------------------------------------
Thinning
Costs
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.
The effects ofthinning seem to be dependent upon opening
size. Increases in vegetative cover were only observed where
larger openings were created. Opening size must be controlled by close supervision of thinning crews or extensive
marking of the treatment areas, which increases the cost of
the treatment.
The opening size also effects the overall amount of acres
treated and the lifespan of the treatment. Retreatment of
the area would need to be completed sooner, at yet another
cost to the overall project.
The economics associated with each treatment were evaluated on a per acre basis, taking into consideration costs ofthe
actual treatment, application of seed, and on-site supervision. The cost for thinning was found to be 44 percent greater
than for chaining (fig. 1). It is important to note that figures
represent only direct treatment costs. Costs for planning
and layout and general administration (for example, resource identification and classification, interagency cooperation, environmental analysis, and monitoring) are not
included. These costs represent a real and often large expense, but would be similar for each so are not presented
here. Figures presented represent costs in 1990 and have not
been adjusted to reflect inflation.
Clearcutting
Chainings
Prior to treatment, units were dominated by pinyonjuniper and bare soil. Seven years after treatment total
ground cover on the site had increased from 47 percent (prior
to treatment) to 80 percent. Forage production within the
chained unit increased from <20 Ibs per acre in 1990 to
approximately 1000 Ibs per acre in 1997 (USDA Forest
Service 1997).
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999
Although a clearcut was not completed, figure 1 shows the
cost estimate for this treatment. In order to evaluate
clearcutting, costs were extrapolated from the cost of the
thinning. The thinning in Spanish Fork Canyon removed, on
average, 33 percent of the stems per acre. Assuming that a
clearcut (removal of100 percent ofthe stems) would require
three times more work than the thinning, the cost of this
treatment is estimated to be 3-times the cost of thinning, or
nearly 4 times the cost of chaining.
291
Conclusion -------------------------------The intent of the Spanish Fork Canyon big game winter
range enhancement project was to increase the quantity and
quality of the forage available to big game animals during
transition periods and critical winter months. The creation
of openings in pinyon-juniper stands was needed to increase
forage and browse production while maintaining cover. Two
treatments were applied to the degraded habitat in order to
compare the cost efficiency and benefit of each. Chaining
seemed to provide an adequate seed bed and sufficient seed
burial, which resulted in increased forage production. Thinning did not prepare an adequate seed bed or provide
sufficient seed burial, and results were unsatisfactory. It is
important to note that the costs and benefits can vary with
soil type, tree density, and topography and many other local
292
factors. However, chaining was more effective than thinning
in meeting the goals for the Spanish Fork Canyon winter
range enhancement project and at a much lower cost.
Acknowledgments
We would like to extend our gratitude to Rocky Mountain
Elk Foundation, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, and
Utah Sportman Alliance for their cooperation and support
in this project.
Reference ____________
USDA Forest Service. 1997. Unpublished data. Uinta National
Forest, Provo, UT.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999