# in defense of chaining



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

https://www.facebook.com/UtahDNR/?h...f0FjAy3PiNxeClYCJpQBjFHZn33PNba-4&pnref=story

as a hydrologist trained in watershed management - i have penned the following in response to SUWA's attack on a legitmate and appropriate watershed management treatment. it costs about 50 bucks and acre compared to 300 to 500 bucks for a brush hawg. or the immeasurable damage that an uncontrolled fire will do.

In defense of chaining.
Chaining is the practice of removing large woody species from a watershed or rangeland. It is typically done by utilizing two large bulldozers connected by an anchor chain which is drug over the landscape. This action knocks down and uproots trees such as Pinyon Pine and Junipers. It can also be used to uproot sage brush and smaller brush species although it is not as effective as the chain may or may not actually uproot smaller plants. It is a practice that, when combined with reseeding efforts, is very effective at watershed restoration. 
Why do watersheds need restoration at all? With the removal of naturally and man caused fires, aggressive species such as Pinyon Pine and Junipers have successfully expanded and moved into and replaced areas that were once grass and brush lands. These lands had a large diversity of grass, forb and brush species that provided a diversity of habitat, cover and forage. This allowed a greater abundance and larger diversity of bird and animal species to flourish. As Pinyon/Juniper encroach on this natural setting, these grass and shrub lands are removed. There is very little understory vegetation in Pinyon/Juniper areas thus a huge reduction is species diversity. In addition to this loss of species diversity and abundance, Pinyon/Juniper lands at high densities are prone to large destructive fires of the type recently seen in the Milford Flat Fire and those in California. The fuel load increases and when fires happen they tend of be large, high intensity and very destructive to the watershed and property. Grass and shrub lands also burn but at less intensity and regenerate quickly. Given the choice of fighting fire, grasslands have far less potential for destruction or loss of life than crowning Pinyon/Juniper fires. With the very next rain storm, grass and shrub lands begin regeneration of the watershed whereas the Pinyon/Juniper burned watershed will be in a constant state of erosion, mud and debris flows for years. Pinyon/Juniper lands are highly susceptible to erosion since there is little understory to hold soils in place which has impact on both water quantity and quality. Too many people have the impression that Mother Nature is a benevolent Fairy sprinkling pixie dust and riding Unicorns whereas with respect to fire and other subsequent natural disasters post fire she should be thought of as a cackling green hag blitzing about on her broom with thunder and lightning. We have basically two options - manage the watershed and its vegetation to a desired state or let Mother Nature do it for us through destructive fires. The destructive nature of large and intense fires and their subsequent impacts on watersheds are far greater than that of targeted vegetative management by any methodology. There are many reasons to restore these lands to a more natural setting: diversity and abundance of vegetation and animal species, water quality and quantity, habitat restoration, reduction of fuel loads and thus fire potential, safety of citizens, reduction of erosion and thus the preservation of soils which in turn promotes greater vegetation.
Why chaining? Because it is the most cost effective and safe method of Pinyon/Juniper removal. Utilization of a brush hog machine is very costly, time consuming and doesn't leave any micro-depression in the soil that are beneficial at trapping rainfall and providing soil moisture to growing plants or creation of beneficial micro-habitats. It also has a much higher carbon footprint compared the chaining or controlled or uncontrolled burns. Chaining rips the trees out by the root which leaves a sizeable micro-depression which is effective at filling with rain water. The chain itself leaves gouges and pits in the soil that promote infiltration and water retention. Some trees are left in place in the uprooted position which creates micro-habitats and shelter for plants and animals. While it looks destructive the end result is amazing in terms of the increase in species abundance and diversity. Compared to the destructive nature and unpredictability of large scale fires, either controlled or natural, chaining is a specific, controlled, targeted and effective method of vegetation management.
I support the efforts by various governmental agencies, Federal, State and Local in vegetation management, particularly the removal of Pinyon/Juniper species that have encroached and altered natural landscapes of Grass and Shrub lands. I support chaining as a cost effective method of vegetation and watershed management.
If you support targeted vegetation management, species diversity and abundance, fuel load reduction, watershed improvement and the efficient use of tax payer dollars - support the BLM's chaining projects by calling 801.539.4010 and let them know of your support.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Thx!

In a previous life I supported SUWA so I know their hyperbole and rhetoric well. Sometimes their intentions are solid but their claims often stand in sharp contrast to active management (supported by evidence-based science). I had to unlearn alot in my years of studying wildlife biology and eventually a few field years.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Kingfisher said:


> https://www.facebook.com/UtahDNR/?h...f0FjAy3PiNxeClYCJpQBjFHZn33PNba-4&pnref=story
> 
> There are many reasons to restore these lands to a more natural setting: diversity and abundance of vegetation and animal species, water quality and quantity, habitat restoration, reduction of fuel loads and thus fire potential, safety of citizens, reduction of erosion and thus the preservation of soils which in turn promotes greater vegetation.


I'm not sold on chaining, maybe I'm ignorant. What time frame is set for this restoration and abundance of vegetation and animal species. 10, 25, 50 or more years for a restoration to be useful and usable? I sure cannot see how chaining helps an erosion problem. To me, chaining seems to leave the ground bare, yes a few pockets to retain water but generally speaking it seems like strip mining.

Enlighten me more please.....


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

the time frame for vegetation restoration is a few years at most for vibrant grasses, forbes and small brush. seeding is done immediately after the chaining and this is the best time to chain, late winter, early spring to take advantage of spring rains and snowmelt. if you want continued erosion, leave it in the PJ condition - a recipe for for constant erosion. grasses, forbes and brush prevent erosion. and this was the condition the regular fire maintained for years until we started putting out every fire. PJ was restricted to the steeper side hills and the bottoms were all grass, forbes and brush. just look at the before and after photos in the DNR chaining presentation, its amazing. millions of farmers use this same method to grow crops - you just see it as a plow, it loosens the soil, promotes infiltration, gives seeds a chance to germinate and grow. the areas are seeded in natural vegetation like great basin wild rye, sagebrush, etc. and yes, it is brutal. but far less than the conditions left by uncontrolled fire which is the alternative. gotta break a few eggs to bake a cake and how else to remove PJ? brush hawg at 10 to 20 times the price? how about chain saws and hand removal at 100 times the cost? its nonsense, chaining is the most cost effective and gives the best results.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

.45 said:


> Enlighten me more please.....


Have you watched the video the DWR put out on Facebook?



__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2153042871373380


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I never did quite understand the back lash to chaining except "it looks ugly".
I have heard that it's hard to re-establish the forage before the cheat grass takes over. Any truth to that?

I've spent a lot of DH hours cutting the [email protected] things to know manual removal is not the way to go.


----------



## mtnrunner260 (Feb 15, 2010)

Good letter king. 
One suggestion is to speak to annual invasive grasses dominating post fire as an additional benefit to fuel reduction. 
As for post chaining recovery -
Grasses and forbs are flown on before chaining and then sage and kochia go on after. There is a risk that the seeding will not take but it is impossible to predict spring weather in the fall. But the option of not doing anything will lead to having zero habitat underneath and around the juniper. 
Also the benefits of additional water post juniper removal is amazing. Like dry ponds being chest deep after tree removal in the watershed above the pond.


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

the benefits to water auantity and quality cannot be overstated. when the vernon creek watershed was done in the 60/70's time frame, springs came back that had been dry for decades, the streamflow increased about 60%. PJ are immense water hogs when its available and can withstand long periods of drought when its not. they have their place but its not in the meadows and places where grass, forbs and brush should dominate.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

My undergrad degree is in animal field biology and my profession is only loosely allied to it, so I'll defer to Kingfisher on the hydrology, but from what I've seen, the improvement to wildlife from chaining is huge. 

Case in point close to my heart. The picture below is a nice buck I harvested this year during the general deer hunt. It was taken at the edge of a chained area. In the area we hunt, there is an area that was chained in about 2014. There are gullies that run through there (background of pic) that still had trees and there are still heavy PJ areas above the chained area that are utilized by deer for cover. In the area we hunt, the deer numbers around the chained area astounded us this year. It is low on the mountain and in the 40 years I've been there for the deer hunt, I've never seen so many deer this low. Some of it is from the deer utilizing nearby agricultural areas but not all. Meanwhile the deer numbers "on the mountain" seemed markedly less this year. 

The reason why can be seen in the picture. There are abundant grasses growing all over between the rocks. Near my boot, there is even a green plant (in October). This simply is not seen in the dense stands of PJ elsewhere on the mountain. The ground is basically bare. In addition to the markedly increased deer numbers in the area, beef cattle that graze in the area preferentially stay on the chained area as well, so it enhances grazing potential for agriculture. 

I must admit I am surprised by SUWA and their allies opposition to this type of management. The biology of PJ stands is for frequent fires to come through. With current fire supression and human activity making controlled burns impractical in many locales, chaining safely and effectively mimics fire and unleashes the positive benefits. Environmentalists and the Left often criticize opponents as being anti science (sometimes with reason), but here is an example of the enviros using emotion based arguments that don't align with scientific results. If you don't believe me, read some of the responses to the DWR Facebook item.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Catheder,

Chaining has been a long term issue with SUWA, dating back at least two decades. They have called for national bans at moments. If I remember right, its been more than a decade, they have often used it in their literature about damage to areas around WSAs. 

Photos and video are key components of such campaigns and chaining unfortunately leaves a massive visual scar. Its easy to rally a base with that and not even have to dig into the science. But even then they are honestly more preservation oriented and not conservation oriented which sets up a tension with active management tools like chaining. Its a classic, old battle. Muir versus Pinchot sort of stuff. 

I'm increasingly disappointed to see campaigns like this focus on pulling our heart strings. Grateful I had mentors to help become a better critical thinker, no matter how slowly I a maturing in that regard.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Well, I'll never get that 10 minutes back from reading the Facebook comments. Sad to say I know the names of people making some of those mean spirited remarks. Not surprising given my own interactions with them.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

I know very little about hydrology or other changes resulting from chaining, but it is just a fact that wildlife, both small and large, benefit immensely from chaining and replanted areas. Areas that held no, and I mean no wildlife before, are now the homes to a diverse array of animals. 
I am happy that someone is watching the chaining activities, but to just blindly take a "no chaining" policy and try and sell it to a uninformed public hoping to gain support for their hard headed options does a disservice to the SUWA's good works from the past.


----------



## jsumm_2000 (Sep 18, 2008)

*Chaining*

I think we need to something here. The fish and game properties are a shameful mess of old sage and very little feed and browse for our game. I was on a doe hunt this past fall down by Paragonah on F&G property. Cheat grass and dead sage. I have never seen a state where the range land is so neglected as in Utah. Nevada range land is pristine. Idaho reseeds and plants buck brush, maples and sage in their burn areas. Utah used to grow replacement brush at the point and now I don't think they do anything to improve the range land.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

I'm all in on chaining. 
I have seen several areas improved over the years in southern Utah.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

I don't know much about chaining, so thanks for the info. I have hunted through P-J, though, and it's really striking how sterile those areas are. The commercial about chaining sure is dramatic. But, it appears SUWA is wrong to champion an anti-chaining agenda. Very disappointing, as you would think that habitat improvement and scientific management would be supported by SUWA. I really don't understand their position, as chaining appears to play the same role as periodic fires played in the days before fire suppression.


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

Much of the expansion of pinion/juniper areas is a result of overgrazing more than a century ago. I would think environmentalists would be in favor of undoing man made damage to the ecosystem.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

paddler said:


> The commercial about chaining sure is dramatic. But, it appears SUWA is wrong to champion an anti-chaining agenda. Very disappointing, as you would think that habitat improvement and scientific management would be supported by SUWA. I really don't understand their position, ...


Honestly, I don't know that SUWA cares whether or not sound science is behind it. The commercial is dramatic. That's their point. It tugs at the heart-strings of those who see it. And for those that know nothing about range management, and more specifically about P/J forests, that dramatic imagery stirs their emotions in support of SUWA, which in turn generates support in terms of money so that SUWA can continue to operate.

What better way to garner support than to show large, noisy, dirty steel machinery ripping old, native, beautiful trees by their roots and dragging them along in such a disrespectful manner leaving nothing but barren soil behind? The benefits don't matter when the perception is so ugly. SUWA nailed it.

The DWR has done well in their response, but defense doesn't always trump a good offense.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Kevin D said:


> Much of the expansion of pinion/juniper areas is a result of overgrazing more than a century ago. I would think environmentalists would be in favor of undoing man made damage to the ecosystem.


Again -- that commercial isn't about what's best for the environment. It's about generating support / money. It's not about the reality, but rather the perception.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

PBH said:


> Again -- that commercial isn't about what's best for the environment. It's about generating support / money. It's not about the reality, but rather the perception.


It specifically states that the chaining is going to happen in the areas within the original BENM area. Nothing but fundraising for sure.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

middlefork said:


> PBH said:
> 
> 
> > Again -- that commercial isn't about what's best for the environment. It's about generating support / money. It's not about the reality, but rather the perception.
> ...


Is there a plan for chaining BENM in place? I know there were fights over chaining in such landscapes in the 90s, ie ones with high concentrations of antiquities.

Bringing BENM into the chaining equation would definitely pull the national heart strings.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

backcountry said:


> Is there a plan for chaining BENM in place? I know there were fights over chaining in such landscapes in the 90s, ie ones with high concentrations of antiquities.
> 
> Bringing BENM into the chaining equation would definitely pull the national heart strings.


I don't see anything in their current planning.
https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/plans-in-development/utah


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

the SUWA commercial specifically states grand staircase escalante, dont think it mentions bears ears. chaining in large areas of BENM may not be the best practice due to antiquities and i would support other less invasive methods in those cases.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Kingfisher said:


> the SUWA commercial specifically states grand staircase escalante, dont think it mentions bears ears. chaining in large areas of BENM may not be the best practice due to antiquities and i would support other less invasive methods in those cases.


Yeah, there are reasonable arguments for that landscape. I would think the federal lands processes in place would require extensive surveying before approval anyways.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Kingfisher said:


> *the SUWA commercial specifically states grand staircase escalante,* dont think it mentions bears ears.


The more I think about it, the more I think this has a lot to do with GSENM and not so much about chaining in general. With the current coal market somewhat suppressed worldwide, there probably isn't an imminent threat to commencement of mining operations in the former GSENM boundaries. Therefore, SUWA needed some other "immediate" threat to this land to work their base into a froth and ,as PBH stated, to fill their legal defense coffers with cash for upcoming lawsuits against Trumps shrinkage decision. DWR chaining projects provide adequate visual shock value for the uninformed and serve the purpose. No matter that the benefit to the ecosystem from chaining is scientifically demonstrated.

I suppose if the DWR were to actually do a chaining project on this land, it would mean that at least some good would have come from the shrinkage decision.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Catherder said:


> Trumps shrinkage decision.


Have a good Holiday Everyone:


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

At the gym in the morning, I see that SUWA commercial a few times a day while on the treadmill. It annoys me like crazy. 

Tonight I saw the response video on the TV. It was nice to see them stand up for their policies!


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

This OpEd was in a local online newspaper. She makes a thoughtful contribution without too much partisan acrimony:

http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/ar...re-effective-on-grand-staircase/#.Wp2oUXplA0O


----------

