P&M Plastics Collaborative Forest Restoration Project

Torrance County, NM
P&M Plastics and Cibola National Forest
Submitted by Eytan Krasilovsky, Forest Guild
    
  
Project ID: 1025

1. Name - P&M Plastics Collaborative Forest Restoration Project

Context | Objectives | Treatment Specifics | Utilization | Targets | Pre Treatment data | Post Treatment data | Links |  

 
 

In 2005 P&M Plastics was awarded a Collaborative Forest Restoration Program grant for $450,000 (20% non-federal match) from Region Three of the U.S. Forest Service. In addition to P&M Plastics and the Cibola National Forest, project partners include the community group, the USDA Forest Products Laboratory, the Nature Conservancy, the Pueblo of Isleta, the Claunch-Pinto Soil and Water Conservation District, the New Mexico Youth Conservation Corps, and Mountainair High School.

The project, Innovative Use of Small Diameter Material from the Thunderbird Forest Restoration Project Area of the Cibola National Forest, proposed to restore forest structure across 1,500–3,000 acres of ponderosa pine dominated forest on the Mountainair Ranger District of the Cibola National Forest. The need for this management action was initiated after the 2002 fire season and outlined in the Thunderbird Environmental Assessment from 2003, which analyzed 10,000 acres and recommended 6,000 acres for forest management. The restoration treatment was intended to reduce the potential for uncharacteristic crown fire and improve forest, watershed, and wildlife conditions. The woody material generated by the project was intended to be removed from the site and hauled to the town of Mountainair to be utilized as biomass in composite wood products such as road signs.

The project area is located approximately 50 miles southeast of Albuquerque, New Mexico, on the east side of the north-south aligned Manzano Mountains between, 7,000 and 8,400 feet in elevation. Based on pre-treatment project sampling, the forests are dominated by ponderosa pine (>90%) (Pinus ponderosa) in the overstory with some alligator juniper (5%, Juniperus deppeana) and have a sub-canopy dominated by ponderosa pine (24%), Gambel oak (37%, Quercus gambelii), and alligator juniper (29%) along with minor occurrences of piñon pine (Pinus edulis), Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum), one-seed juniper (Juniperus monosperma), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and white fir (Abies concolor). The site maintains uncharacteristically high tree densities for the ponderosa pine type, with over 2,000 trees and saplings per acre.

Monitoring data shows that most changes in the site wre due to the fire, rather than the treatment. Overall, there was no reduction in the density of trees in the project area, as trees, both alive and dead, remained standing in the summer of 2008 following the fire. However, there was a decrease in the number of saplings and seedlings per acre. Saplings were reduced by 178% and seedlings by 54%. The understory was perdominantly litter, both pre- and post-treatment and post-fire. Grasses and forbs were sparse at the site both pre- and post-treatment, with a decline in each cover category, primarily due to fire effects. For all sites combbined, canopy cover decreased by 47%. Surface fuels decreased by 57%, largely due to the fire.

To date only 70 acres have been thinned with roughly 300,000 cubic feet of biomass removed, due to a variety of challenges faced. In accomplishing the acreage targets the main challenges faced by the project have related to the workforce’s lack of familiarity and training with harvester and skidder machinery. This has led the project to use mostly chainsaw felling with a skidder and loader. Another major challenge the project faced occurred during project year three (of four), when a wind-driven crown-dominated wildfire burned across the Thunderbird area and consumed one deck of biomass and a loader vehicle. Incidentally, David Fox from the Mountainair Ranger District observed a desired change in fire behavior when the fire entered the treated stand. The running crown fire dropped to the forest floor and continued through the understory consuming slash before jumping to the crown upon exiting the treated area.

The project is now entering its fourth year, and while it is clear the 1,500–3,000 acre target will not be reached, P&M Plastics has learned a great deal with their forest operations, and the Cibola National Forest has seen the fire hazard reduction benefits of a forest restoration minded biomass removal project. 

 The fire came from the mountain in the background toward the
photopoint and dropped to the ground at the thinning. Photo by Kent Reid, New Mexico Forest and Watershed Restoration Institute.


 The fire crossed from left to right. The fire immediately went back into the crowns after passing through the thinned area.  Photo by Kent Reid, New Mexico Forest and Watershed Restoration Institute.


Links

  • P&M Plastics
  • Ecological Monitoring Report
  • Collaborative Forest Restoration Program: The CFRP implements the Community Forest Restoration Act of 2000 (Title VI, Public Law 106-393), which established a cooperative forest restoration program in New Mexico to provide cost-share grants to stakeholders for on public-land forest restoration projects to be designed through a collaborative process. Projects must include a diversity of stakeholders in their design and implementation, and address specified objectives, including: wildfire threat reduction; ecosystem restoration, including non-native tree species reduction; reestablishment of historic fire regimes; reforestation; preservation of old and large trees; increased utilization of small diameter trees; and the creation of forest- related local employment. The act limits projects to four years, and sets forth cost limits and provisions respecting: collaborative project review and selection; joint monitoring and evaluation; and reporting. The act authorizes appropriations of up to $5 million annually and directs the secretary to convene a technical advisory panel to evaluate proposals that may receive funding through the CFRP.


 

 2Land Ownership
US Forest Service

 
 3Location
Torrance County, New Mexico
 
4Forest Type
Ponderosa Pine; Piñon - Juniper

 
 Context
 5Is this project a part of a landscape plan?
Yes

 
 6In a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI)?
Yes

 
 7Acreage treated
70 ac
 
 8Type of contract
CFRP grant

 
 9Funding source
CFRP, Region 3 of US Forest Service

 
 10Collaborators and partners
Cibola National Forest, community group Las Humanas, USDA Forest Products Laboratory, Nature Conservancy, Pueblo of Isleta, Soil and Water Conservation District, New Mexico Youth Conservation Corps, and Mountainair High School.

 
 11Project start date
Summer 2005

 
12Project completion date
Summer 2009
 
 Treatment Goals
 13Restoration, watershed, or habitat improvement

 
 14Reduce fuel load

 
 15

 
 16

 
17

 
 Treatment Specifics
 18Primary treatment objective
Reduce density of small trees, forest health, wildlife improvement, fuels reduction
 
 19How does biomass removal fit with other objectives?
It is a means to get other objectives met like fuels reduction & small wood removed
 
 20Treatment description
Group selection / individual tree selection

 
 21Description of contractors
Local contractor
 
 22Travel distance for contractors
~12 miles and ~15 miles from grantee home base
 
 23Type of equipment used
Grappel skidder, majority done with hand falling with a harvester used in limited capapcity with log loader and semi truck
 
 24Treatment of residual slash if any
Tops and limbs lopped and scattered, planned for broadcast burn
 
 25Treatment cost per acre

 
26Trucking costs

 
 Utilization
 27Products from project
Sold small material as firewood and larger logs went to sawmill for rough cut lumber
 
 28Price for products 

 
 29Date of Sale

 
 30Did biomass markets exist previous to project?
Firewood markets only
 
 31Type of utilization

 
 32How well did the woody biomass match the utilization options?

 
33Distance to utilization
~15 miles from forest to consumer
 
 Treatment guidelines, targets, limitations
 34Diameter limit
Nothing cut over 24", retain larger, older, and healthy, kept yellow belly
 
 35Basal area reduction
~40BA in clumps (new goshawk guidelines used)
 
 36Crown coverage
40% closure on VSS 4, 5, 6 but since majority were VSS 3 no target
 
 37Fuel loading
3-5 tons/acre
 
 38Retention guidelines
Nothing cut over 24", retain larger, older, and healthy, kept yellow belly
 
 39Treatment of snags and downed logs
Keep all snags not deemed to be safety hazards, try to recruit downed wood, and mortality from broadcast burns
 
 40Soil impacts
No more than 15% impact by skid trails and landings, definitly exceeded that since new operator and some compaction (some in-progress feedback given to improve operations
 
41Other ecological impacts monitored
See monitoring report
 
 Pre Treatment
 42Fuel load
3.7 tons/acre
 
 43Stem density (stems/ac)
290
 
 44Basal area (ft2/ac)

 
 45Canopy closure (%)
36%
 
 46Height to live crown base

 
 47Snags and downed woody material

 
 48Size class distribution
Mean 5 in DBH
 
 49Tree species composition
91% ponderosa pine
 
 50Presence/absence of invasive species

 
51Soil and other ecological data

 
 Post Treatment
 52Fuel load
4.1 tons/acre
 
 53Stem density (stems/ac)
67
 
 54Basal area (ft2/ac)

 
 55Canopy closure (%)
11
 
 56Height to live crown base

 
 57Snags and downed woody material

 
 58Size class distribution

 
 59Tree species composition

 
 60Presence/absence of invasive species

 
 61Soil and other ecological data

 

 
PDFPrintE-mail
 
< Prev   Next >