| | 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.
| | | | 2 | Land Ownership US Forest Service
| | | | 3 | Location Torrance County, New Mexico | | | 4 | Forest Type Ponderosa Pine; Piñon - Juniper
| | | | Context |  | | | 5 | Is this project a part of a landscape plan? Yes
| | | | 6 | In a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI)? Yes
| | | | 7 | Acreage treated 70 ac
| | | | 8 | Type of contract CFRP grant
| | | | 9 | Funding source CFRP, Region 3 of US Forest Service
| | | | 10 | Collaborators 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.
| | | | 11 | Project start date Summer 2005
| | | 12 | Project completion date Summer 2009
| | | | Treatment Goals |  | | | 13 | Restoration, watershed, or habitat improvement
| | | | 14 | Reduce fuel load
| | | | 15 |
| | | | 16 |
| | | 17 |
| | | | Treatment Specifics |  | | | 18 | Primary treatment objective Reduce density of small trees, forest health, wildlife improvement, fuels reduction | | | | 19 | How does biomass removal fit with other objectives? It is a means to get other objectives met like fuels reduction & small wood removed
| | | | 20 | Treatment description Group selection / individual tree selection
| | | | 21 | Description of contractors Local contractor | | | | 22 | Travel distance for contractors ~12 miles and ~15 miles from grantee home base
| | | | 23 | Type of equipment used Grappel skidder, majority done with hand falling with a harvester used in limited capapcity with log loader and semi truck
| | | | 24 | Treatment of residual slash if any Tops and limbs lopped and scattered, planned for broadcast burn
| | | | 25 | Treatment cost per acre
| | | 26 | Trucking costs
| | | | Utilization |  | | | 27 | Products from project Sold small material as firewood and larger logs went to sawmill for rough cut lumber | | | | 28 | Price for products
| | | | 29 | Date of Sale
| | | | 30 | Did biomass markets exist previous to project? Firewood markets only
| | | | 31 | Type of utilization
| | | | 32 | How well did the woody biomass match the utilization options?
| | | 33 | Distance to utilization ~15 miles from forest to consumer
| | | | Treatment guidelines, targets, limitations |  | | | 34 | Diameter limit Nothing cut over 24", retain larger, older, and healthy, kept yellow belly
| | | | 35 | Basal area reduction ~40BA in clumps (new goshawk guidelines used)
| | | | 36 | Crown coverage 40% closure on VSS 4, 5, 6 but since majority were VSS 3 no target
| | | | 37 | Fuel loading 3-5 tons/acre
| | | | 38 | Retention guidelines Nothing cut over 24", retain larger, older, and healthy, kept yellow belly
| | | | 39 | Treatment of snags and downed logs Keep all snags not deemed to be safety hazards, try to recruit downed wood, and mortality from broadcast burns
| | | | 40 | Soil 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
| | | 41 | Other ecological impacts monitored See monitoring report
| | | | Pre Treatment |  | | | 42 | Fuel load 3.7 tons/acre
| | | | 43 | Stem density (stems/ac) 290
| | | | 44 | Basal area (ft2/ac)
| | | | 45 | Canopy closure (%) 36% | | | | 46 | Height to live crown base
| | | | 47 | Snags and downed woody material
| | | | 48 | Size class distribution Mean 5 in DBH
| | | | 49 | Tree species composition 91% ponderosa pine
| | | | 50 | Presence/absence of invasive species
| | | 51 | Soil and other ecological data
| | | | Post Treatment |  | | | 52 | Fuel load 4.1 tons/acre
| | | | 53 | Stem density (stems/ac) 67
| | | | 54 | Basal area (ft2/ac)
| | | | 55 | Canopy closure (%) 11
| | | | 56 | Height to live crown base
| | | | 57 | Snags and downed woody material
| | | | 58 | Size class distribution
| | | | 59 | Tree species composition
| | | | 60 | Presence/absence of invasive species
| | | | 61 | Soil and other ecological data
| |
| |