This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
The Panguitch Wildlife Habitat Improvement
Project
Harry Barber
Paul Chapman
Abstract-The purpose of this project was to remove a significant
amount of pinyon-juniper trees and establish an understory more
conducive to big game. Tree removal was accomplished using prison
crews and hand tools. Crews removed trees in a mosaic pattern
leaving groups of trees standing together to allow for better movement of big game and a more natural appearance. Fire and chaining
were not options during the period of time the trees were removed.
By use of the prison crews the Bureau of Land Management was able
to open up an encroaching stand of trees allowing native grasses and
shrubs to flourish.
The pinyon-juniper vegetation type is found in the Intermountain Region mostly at intermediate elevations in
areas that receive less than twenty inches of precipitation
annually (Vallentine 1980).
In the Kanab Resource Area (KRA) there are a number of
areas that appear to be filling in with both pinyon and
juniper trees. It is evident that as the trees encroach into
shrub or grass/forb sites production is reduced in these
areas. As these areas fill in with pinyon-juniper trees they
become less productive and decrease available forage to big
game species.
In 1997 the Bureau of Land Management, Kanab Resource Area (KRA) and the Division of Wildlife Resources,
Southern Region (DWR) formed a cooperative agreement. In
the agreement it was determined that prison crews would
be hired to hand-cut encroaching trees in the more desired
sagebrush parks adjacent to dense stands of mostly pinyonjuniper trees. The project was 'carried out near Panguitch,
UT. on public lands administered by the KRA. It was the
opinion of those involved that the more dense stands of
trees located along the rocky ridges probably represented a
more climax situation and should not be disturbed. Burkhardt
and others (1969), determined in their work that juniper
was climax only on rocky ridges and rimrock where soil
development was limited.
Prison crews worked on the project for several weeks using
chain saws to cut the trees down. Some parameters were
provided the crews in terms of what trees should be cut and
what trees should remain standing. Under no circumstances
were the crews to cut ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa).
Crews were instructed to cut the younger pinyon and
juniper trees. The younger trees «10 ft) appeared to be most
responsible for the encroachment into the more open areas.
Crews were also instructed to leave patches of trees standing at random locations within the areas they were cutting
in. It was determined that these patches would allow animals greater protection as they moved through the area.
Peek (1986), demonstrated that where large clearcuts may
be beneficial to livestock, smaller cuts are more important to
big game species. Tree removal in some KRA projects was
carried out on a larger scale than was done by the prison
crews. When large areas were cleared of trees the areas
usually had to be seeded. Success of these seedings was
highly dependent on time ofyear, moisture. Seeding costs for
native seed are fairly high. By cutting the younger, smaller
trees that were encroaching into preferred big game sites no
seeding was necessary. Native grasses and shrubs were
present in numbers sufficient to provide seed in areas where
trees were removed. Indian Ricegrass (Stipa hymenoides)
and needle-and-thread grass (Stipa comata) were the two
dominant grasses in the area where trees were removed.
Since this work was accomplished in the Fall of 1997 no
conclusions as to the success of the project can be made at
this time. Vegetative and wildlife transects are being placed
in the areas where trees were removed to determine if
work ofthis kind should be carried out in the future. Several
photo plots have also been established. It is expected that
native grasses and shrubs will better maintain themselves
without the competition of encroaching pinyon and juniper
trees. It is likely that the BLM and DWR will do more work
of this nature with prison crews in 1998.
It is important to note that managers were able to be
highly selective in determining what trees should be cut and
how the shape of the cuts should be made by using prison
crews. It was learned that if the crews are experienced and
have some knowledge of big game foraging habits with little
instruction the crews could create openings in the trees in a
mosaic pattern.
References ____________________
In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard, comps. 1999. Proceedin~s:
ecology and management of pinyon-juniper communities within the Intenor
West; 1997 September 15-18; Provo, UT. Proc. RMRS-P-9. Ogd.en, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountam Research
Station.
Harry Barber is Wildlife Biologist, Bureau of Land Management, Kanab
Resource Area, Kanab, UT. 84741. Paul Chapman is Botanist, Bureau of
Land Management, Kanab Resource Area, 84741.
306
Burkhardt, J. Wayne; Tisdale, E. W. 1969. Nature and successional
status of western juniper vegetation in Idaho. J. Range Mgt.
22(4):264-270.
Peek, James M. 1986. A review of wildlife management. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Publishing. 486 p.
Vallentine John F. 1980. Range developments and improvements,
second ~d. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press. 545 p.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999