biomass.forestguild.org - 1040 New Mexico Forest & Watershed Restoration Institute

New Mexico Forest & Watershed Restoration Institute Case Studies

Sugarite Canyon State Park
Colfax County, NM
Case study from New Mexico Forest Prescription: Case Studies from Around the State

Project ID: 1040

1. Name - New Mexico Forest & Watershed Restoration Institute

The New Mexico Forest and Watershed Restoration Institute (NMFWRI) has created a series of case studies of fuel reduction and restoration treatments across the state of New Mexico. These were published in New Mexico Forest Prescription: Case Studies from Around the State. The following case study on Sugarite Canyon State Park provides one example from NMFWRI's work.

The major justification for this project was to reduce the threat of crown fire and thus protect the forest, part of the watershed of Lake Maloya and Raton, and the infrastructure in the state park. A secondary reason for the project was to improve forest health and wildlife habitat. In addition, managers wanted to demonstrate that broad-sense restoration was compatible with fuels treatment. Treatment consisted of the following:

All slash was chipped on-site and blown out over the stand.
Chip depth was 3 inches or less. Stumps were ground with the hydro-axe.
All conifers that could serve as ground and ladder fuels were removed. Smaller-diameter conifers that were co-dominant or intermediate in the canopy were retained when appropriate to maintain an uneven-aged stand structure. The majority of trees with a DBH of 12 inches or greater that were in good health and of good form were kept.
Clusters of larger oaks (greater than 4 inches DBH) were retained. Small- diameter oaks were removed.
Small wildlife habitat piles were allowed to remain in the watershed with the consultation of the N.M. State Game and Fish Department. These habitat piles measured 3 feet wide, 4 feet long and 2.5-3 feet high.
Old (over 50 years) piles of logs, which had been cut for mine timbers but never removed from the woods, existed in the stand. These were considered cultural artifacts, and were retained and not disturbed.

Observations:
This site was visited on Wednesday 4 April 2007, with Ernie Lopez (District Forester, Cimarron District, New Mexico State Forestry) and Arnie Friedt (Timber Management Officer, Cimarron District). The forest floor and the residual trees exhibited almost no damage from the machinery that thinned the stand. Vigor of the residual trees had increased, and threat from bark beetles was reduced. Viewed from across the lake, the ground under the stand described above appeared tan, as if it was bare soil. That tan was not soil but was wood chips, and the color may change as the chips weather.

Ground fire may now be introduced into this stand without significant danger to the residual trees. The large amount of chips is a minor concern, however. A fire might get into the chips and smolder, producing a great deal of smoke and unexpectedly blazing up later. A fire that is too hot might burn all the chips, including any fine roots that have grown into the lower layers of the piles. This might harm the residual trees. A burn plan has not been prepared, although the park is open to the possibility.

Another site within the park was visited the same day. That area is east of Lake Maloya and adjacent to the Colorado state line. It was thinned under what park management calls “Phase One.” The Colorado side was not really thinned, but the oak and locust were “mown” and now are growing back. The New Mexico side has bigger trees, including snags, and was mechanically thinned. Some large chunks of wood are still on the ground. A consultant marked the first 2.5 acres of this stand as a broad-perspective restoration, and the thinning contractor cut the remainder of this stand, extrapolating from this initial mark.

Links

New Mexico Forest and Watershed Restoration Institute

	2	Land Ownership State
	3	Location Colfax County, New Mexico
	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 90 ac
	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 Reduce the threat of crown fire, and thus protect the forest.
	19	How does biomass removal fit with other objectives? Not well
	20	Treatment description Reduce density by cutting smaller trees
	21	Description of contractors
	22	Travel distance for contractors
	23	Type of equipment used Hydro-axed with chipper attached, trees fed directly into chipper, chips on site.
	24	Treatment of residual slash if any Chipped and left on site
	25	Treatment cost per acre $2,500
	26	Trucking costs
	Utilization
	27	Products from project No products generated
	28	Price for products Not sold
	29	Date of Sale
	30	Did biomass markets exist previous to project? No
	31	Type of utilization Not utilization, chipped and left on site
	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 Reduce to 50 ft2/ac
	36	Crown coverage
	37	Fuel loading
	38	Retention guidelines Retain larger oaks in clusters
	39	Treatment of snags and downed logs Retain old log piles and some new wildlife habitat piles
	40	Soil impacts
	41	Other ecological impacts monitored
	Pre Treatment
	42	Fuel load
	43	Stem density (stems/ac) 767
	44	Basal area (ft2/ac) 125
	45	Canopy closure (%)
	46	Height to live crown base
	47	Snags and downed woody material
	48	Size class distribution Mean diameter of mature trees 11"
	49	Tree species composition ponderosa 25%; Douglas-fir 23%; gambel oak 52%
	50	Presence/absence of invasive species
	51	Soil and other ecological data
	Post Treatment
	52	Fuel load
	53	Stem density (stems/ac) 148
	54	Basal area (ft2/ac) 50
	55	Canopy closure (%) 20%
	56	Height to live crown base 25 ft
	57	Snags and downed woody material
	58	Size class distribution Mean diameter of mature trees 16"
	59	Tree species composition ponderosa 93%; Douglas-fir 1%; gambel oak 6%
	60	Presence/absence of invasive species
	61	Soil and other ecological data No visible soil impacts

< Prev		Next >

[ Back ]