| | Most of the ponderosa pine found in Arizona lies within the boundaries of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest (A-SNF) and Coconino National Forest along the Mogollon Rim. The ponderosa pine forest type forms a continuous belt that is often more than 25 miles wide and is over 200 miles long. In August 2004, the A-SNF awarded a 10-year stewardship contract to thin 150,000 acres of primarily small-diameter ponderosa pine trees, emphasizing wildland-urban interface (WUI) areas surrounding communities in the White Mountains of Arizona. The White Mountain Stewardship Project (WMSP) is among the largest ongoing stewardship contracts in the U.S. The stewardship contract is designed to restore forest health, reduce the risk of fire to communities, reduce the cost of forest thinning to taxpayers, support local economies, and encourage new wood-product industries and uses for the thinned wood fiber. Products created from the thinned wood fiber include wood pellets for home and industrial heating, animal bedding, compost materials, wood molding, structural lumber, paneling, wood pallets, and biomass to generate electricity.
The minimum contract guarantee is for 5000 acres per year, at an average of $538 per acre or $2.7 million per year. The goal has been to thin at least 15,000 acres per year, a goal that has yet to be reached. There is some indication that the projects in WUI areas and those closest to the utilization centers (Eagar/Springerville and Show Low) have been started before more remote projects. The wood harvesting and utilization industry on the A-SNF is enabled entirely by the WMSP. A snapshot of the industry in 2006 is provided in tables 1 and 2.
Table 1. White Mountain Area (Apache-Sitgreaves NF) Havesting Contractors, 2006.
Harvesting Contractors | Green Tons
(thousand) | CCF
(thousand) | % of Total
Volume | | Walker Brothers | 110.8 | 31.7 | 63.6 | | Tri Star Logging | 44.6 | 12.7 | 25.6 | | Nutrioso Logging | 12.3 | 3.5 | 7.1 | | Renegy | 6.5 | 1.9 | 3.7 | | Total | 174.2 | 49.8 | 100.0 |
Table 2. White Mountain Area (Apache-Sitgreaves NF) Mills and Manufacturers, 2006.
Mills and Manufacturers | Green Tons
(thousand)
| CCF
(thousand)
| % of Total
Volume | | Forest Energy | 95.9 | 27.4 | 55.1 | Reidhead (Round Valley
& Nutrioso)* | 24.4 | 7.0 | 14.0 | | Renegy | 9.8 | 2.8 | 5.6 | | Western Renewables ** | 14.1 | 4.0 | 8.1 | | SW Forest Products *** | 13.3 | 3.8 | 7.6 | | Other | 16.7 | 4.8 | 9.6 | | Total | 174.2 | 49.8 | 100 | Source: Apache-Sitgreaves NF, Forest Energy, and SW Forest Products
* The 24.4K tons to Reidhead was distributed between the Eagar lumber mill (21.5K tons) and the Nutrioso mill (2.9K tons).
** Western Renewables is no longer in business.
*** Southwest Forest Products is no longer operating in the White Mountain area.
Conversion rate = 3.5 tons per ccf (70 lbs per cf)
Monitoring
Multi-party monitoring is an important requirement of the WMSP. In accordance with the stewardship contracting authority, the A-SNF convened a multi-party community monitoring board that recommends activities to assess the economic, social, and environmental consequences of the contract. The monitoring board is composed of 16 members from across the geographic area of the forests, and includes representation or interests in local, county and state government, and various resource interest groups and organizations. Economic monitoring has resulted in two reports documenting estimated changes in jobs, local expenditures/cash flow and development of the wood-products industries that use the wood and biomass generated by the thinning. A report by Dr. Lay Gibson documented that the WMSP has generated $12 million in commerce and supports 318 jobs in the White Mountain region. Social monitoring consists of public opinion surveys intended to gauge public awareness and acceptance of forest management and fire-hazard-reduction work. A report from Dr. Tim Collins states:
| Three general conclusions are: (1) residents value the White Mountain forest environment more than other aspects of place; (2) they have basic knowledge about fire ecology and White Mountain forests; and (3) they overwhelmingly support the use of mechanical fuel reduction and prescribed fire, as well as the idea of enforcing a mandatory fire safety/forest health ordinance. |
Results of the environmental monitoring have not yet been reported. Primary variables being assessed are: tree growth, fuel loading, canopy closure, and habitat changes for tassel-eared squirrels, black bears, and migratory birds. The Mexican Spotted Owl (MSO) is also a concern in the area. Diameter limits (mostly 6- to 9-inch DBH) are imposed in MSO Protected Activity Centers (PACs) and Post-Fledging Areas (PFAs) in accordance with MSO Recovery Plan requirements.
Information is presented for three of the projects which EAs were completed and work accomplished. These are:
Links
| | | | 2 | Land Ownership
US Forest Service
| | | | 3 | Location
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, Arizona | | | 4 | Forest Type
Ponderosa pine
| | | | Context |  | | | 5 | Is this project a part of a landscape plan?
Yes
| | | | 6 | In a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI)?
| | | | 7 | Acreage treated
| | | | 8 | Type of contract
| | | | 9 | Funding source
| | | | 10 | Collaborators and partners
| | | | 11 | Project start date
| | | 12 | Project completion date
| | | | Treatment Goals | | | | 13 |
| | | | 14 |
| | | | 15 |
| | | | 16 |
| | | 17 |
| | | | Treatment Specifics | | | | 18 | Primary treatment objective
| | | | 19 | How does biomass removal fit with other objectives?
| | | | 20 | Treatment description
| | | | 21 | Description of contractors
| | | | 22 | Travel distance for contractors
| | | | 23 | Type of equipment used
| | | | 24 | Treatment of residual slash if any
| | | | 25 | Treatment cost per acre
| | | 26 | Trucking costs
| | | | Utilization | | | | 27 | Products from project
| | | | 28 | Price for products
| | | | 29 | Date of Sale
| | | | 30 | Did biomass markets exist previous to project?
No | | | | 31 | Type of utilization
| | | | 32 | How well did the woody biomass match the utilization options?
| | | 33 | Distance to utilization
| | | | Treatment guidelines, targets, limitations | | | | 34 | Diameter limit
| | | | 35 | Basal area reduction
| | | | 36 | Crown coverage
| | | | 37 | Fuel loading
| | | | 38 | Retention guidelines
| | | | 39 | Treatment of snags and downed logs
| | | | 40 | Soil impacts
| | | 41 | Other ecological impacts monitored
| | | | Pre Treatment | | | | 42 | Fuel load
| | | | 43 | Stem density (stems/ac)
| | | | 44 | Basal area (ft2/ac)
| | | | 45 | Canopy closure (%)
| | | | 46 | Height to live crown base
| | | | 47 | Snags and downed woody material
| | | | 48 | Size class distribution
| | | | 49 | Tree species composition
| | | | 50 | Presence/absence of invasive species
| | | 51 | Soil and other ecological data
| | | | Post Treatment | | | | 52 | Fuel load
| | | | 53 | Stem density (stems/ac)
| | | | 54 | Basal area (ft2/ac)
| | | | 55 | Canopy closure (%)
| | | | 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
| |
| |
