1

Climate Report

For

The Bonito Forest Restoration Project

Author: Adapted from previous reports by Adam Mendonca

Date: September 19, 2009

/s/ Adam Mendonca

2

Background

The role of climate as a driver in ecosystem function is well established (e.g., Stenseth et al.

2002). Long-term climate trends have the potential to exacerbate GHG emissions issues and

represent a large challenge for all land managers. Throughout the Intermountain West, scientists

project increases in temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns that would likely result in

reduced snowpack, earlier spring snowmelt and runoff, lower stream flows in summer, altered

groundwater recharge, and increased soil moisture stress. These changes may lead to more

frequent and longer drought periods, more insect outbreaks, declining water supplies in an era of

increasing demand and more intense wildfire seasons

A changing climate may affect forests in several ways, ranging from direct effects on

temperature and precipitation, as well as indirect effects of increased atmospheric CO2

concentrations on tree growth and water use, further alteration of fire regimes and changes in

range and severity of pest outbreaks. Climate change has the potential to transform entire forest

systems and shift forest distribution and composition. Some modeling estimates show that

boreal forests may decline as much as 50% (Noss, 2001). As a result, the importance of

adaptive forest management approaches that enhance ecosystem resilience to disturbance will

increase (Malmsheimer et al, 2008). Management must develop strategies that anticipate

increased insect and disease epidemics and increases in wildfire frequency and severity due to

climate change.

Trees are a major depository of significant amounts of the earth’s recyclable carbon, thereby

helping offset the large amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by factories, motor vehicles,

and other sources. When trees burn down or die, much of that carbon is returned to the

atmosphere. Consequently, it can take decades for forest re-growth to sequester the amount of

carbon emitted in a single, stand replacing fire. The reduction of wildland fires through active

management has significant impacts on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

(Malmsheimer et al. 2008).

Wildfires of a nature that reduce entire stands of timber not only inject great quantities of carbon

into the atmosphere, but change the landscape through soil erosion and the subsequent alteration

of watersheds. It has been estimated that active management of forest landscapes has the

potential to decrease the acreage burned by high intensity wildfires by 50 to 60 percent (Finney

2000). Prescribed fire managers follow stringent air quality and burn plan requirements. In

addition to detailed weather and fuel modeling, prescribed burn emissions must comply with

federal and state air quality requirements.

Resistance is the capacity of an ecosystem to avoid or withstand disturbance, such as anticipated

increased insect and disease epidemics and wildfires. Management actions should aim at

increasing resistance and thus forestall damage and protecting valued resources, such as water,

endangered species, wildland-urban interface areas, and special forest stands. Resiliency is

defined as the ability of an ecosystem to recover quickly from a disturbance by promoting

ecological processes and diversity in vegetative composition and structure (Noss, 2001).

Treatments that promote both resistance and resiliency include thinning of overstocked stands,

prescribed burning, removal of invasive species, and restoration of native species. This general

3

principle of maintaining ecosystems through resistance and resiliency can also be applied to

landscapes affected by climate change.

Malmsheimer et al. (2008) also point out that active forest and wildland fire management

strategies can dramatically reduce CO2 emissions while conserving wildlife habitat, preserving

recreational, scenic, and wood product values, and reducing the threat of wildfires to

communities and critical infrastructure. Furthermore, the success of a sequestration strategy

depends on ensuring full stocking, maintaining ecosystem health, minimizing soil disturbance,

and reducing increased losses due to tree mortality, wildfires, insect, and disease. For example,

treatments such as thinnings are known to reduce competition for soil moisture and nutrients,

thus reducing competition-based stress and increasing resistance to attacks from insects and

disease and resilience to drought and weather anomalies (Malmsheimer et al, 2008).

Existing Condition

The Bonito Forest Restoration Analysis Area covers approximately 28,488 acres of the Bonito

Wildland Urban Interface area. The Bonito Analysis Area consists of parcels of land in both the

White Mountain Wilderness and non-wilderness lands that are part of the Bonito watershed. The

Bonito Analysis Area encompasses U.S. Forest Service land bordering private holdings of

individuals and the city of Alamogordo in the Bonito Lake Area. The Bonito Forest Restoration

treatment area, however, is limited to 12,465 acres of non-wilderness public land less 582 acres

of no treatment/nest core within Mexican Spotted Owl (MSO) Protected Activity Centers (PACs)

and the 274 acres of the Teflor Research Natural Area. These 11,160 acres of treatable forest sits

astride portions of the watershed that feeds the Rio Bonito drainage that forms Bonito Lake.

Bonito Lake is a municipal water supply for Alamogordo, Holloman Air Force Base and smaller

communities. The city of Alamogordo owns 2,243 acres on the southern border of the treatment

area while private lands border the treatment area on both the north and east sides. The State of

New Mexico also owns land that borders the treatment area. Not only is the treatment area a

major source of clean water but it is also home to a federally listed threatened species, the MSO.

The Ruidoso Red Squirrel and the Sacramento Salamander are endemic subspecies that reside in

the mixed conifers on the treatment area. Large mammals such as elk, deer and woodland

raptors such as the Northern Goshawk are also found in the area. The scenic beauty and wildlife

of the area make it a desirable spot for birders, hunters and recreationist.

Historically, fire maintained a diverse and patchy mosaic of mixed conifer, ponderosa pine,

pinyon-juniper, shrub, and grasslands in a frequent mixed-severity fire regime on the treatment

area. Scar data suggests a return interval at 26 years with a range of 12-55 years between fires.

From 1916 to 2006 there were 226 lightning and human caused fires with an average of two fires

per year. However, since the era of modern wildfire suppression, most fires have been

contained and extinguished quickly. The effect of this suppression has been to alter the historic

cycle of low intensity ground fires which has resulted in an explosion of trees and a reduction in

the historic park-like structure of these forests. Surveys have shown acreages with as many as

3,887 trees per acre with 80% below 9” dbh on ponderosa pine stands. Monocultural stands of

great numbers of trees represent an unnatural state that is susceptible to high intensity wildlfires

that could remove old growth forests, alter watersheds and contribute to GHG (Kuhar, 2009).

4

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative one, no action, continues the degrading of the treatment area through the current

management practice of fire suppression and non-treatment which is creating an unnatural

environment of overgrown forests. Although this continuation of current management policy

might be beneficial to shade tolerant plants, it is not the condition of the forest based on

historical data from pre-Columbus eras to the age of European settlement in the late 19th

and

early 20th

centuries (Kuhar, 2009). Alternative one also creates the potential for a large wildfire;

specifically a high-intensity wildfire of catastrophic proportion which would significantly alter

the landscape for generations. Under this alternative there is an increase in the potential for an

increased amount of carbon to be released during a high intensity wildfire. Althought the

increase in carbon would be negligible when effects analysis are expanded to a larger scale.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

This alternative would not reduce or increase GHG emissions by mechanical treatments or

prescribed fire. The effect of no action would be an increased undesirable fire behavior such as

stand replacing fires.

Without management action, much of the Bonito Forest Restoration treatment area would remain

at increased risk of stand replacing fire and stand development would continue its departure from

historic conditions with respect to species composition, stand densities, surface and canopy fuels,

fire hazard and GHG emissions. Canopy fuels and ladder fuels would continue to increase with

the increased establishment of shade tolerant species such as white fir and semi-shade tolerant

Douglas-fir seedlings and saplings.

The effect of no action also means continued accumulation of surface fuels and further increases

in stand densities, and should a large wildfire occur, increased smoke emissions (as compared to

prescribed fire) for the following reasons:

more acres would likely burn in a more compressed time frame,

fire weather conditions would be hotter and drier, thus increasing fire behavior such as

high intensity fires,

traditionally, fuel moistures are lower during wildfires on the Smokey Bear Ranger

District (late spring, early summer) versus fall or early spring prescribed fire, thus

resulting in more fuel consumption, and

high intensity fire behavior would consume live canopy fuels on a large scale where

prescribed fire would be largely limited to surface fuels.

The area considered for cumulative effects is the treatment area boundary. The time period

considered for cumulative effects is 50 years. Past actions and natural disturbances have all

contributed to the current condition and the departure from the natural disturbance regimes.

5

These actions have resulted in increases in understory vegetation and surface fuels, changes in

species composition, and vegetative continuity.

Under the no action alternative, the cumulative effects of past management actions and the

continuation of fire suppression without management action would result in the area trending

toward greater surface and canopy fuels increasing fire hazard and increased GHG emissions.

Alternative 2 – Thinning with Road Reconstruction

Prescribed fire with no mechanical treatment has been analyzed for acres located within the

project area where tree densities are not high enough to warrant mechanical thinning but would

still provide an ecological benefit.

Thinning treatments would involve cutting trees while retaining current species composition,

mechanical and hand piling of slash, followed by activity fuels treatment (pile burning) and

broadcast burning following commercial treatments and would result in some GHG emissions.

Machine and hand piles would be burned in the winter when snow is on the ground or during

monsoon season to minimize fire spread and reduce scorching on the residual stand. This also

distributes the GHG emissions over a larger time period instead of potentially at one time from a

stand replacing wildfire. Fire from pile burning would be allowed to creep within unit

boundaries.

To improve the resistance of the project area to drought and fire risk stands would be thinned to

densities and species composition such they would be resilient under a variety of potential future

climates. Lower densities are more likely to survive future drought stress, fire, and insect and

disease problems.

Ponderosa pine and mixed conifer stands would be thinned so that they are likely to remain

healthy should the sites become warmer and dryer due to changing climate. Thinning within

these stands would retain the existing species composition, rather than modifying the species

composition of the existing stand. This would retain diversity and provide species capable of

thriving in either wetter or dryer conditions.

Alternative two, preferred alternative, includes the thinning and prescribed burning of 11,610

acres of non-wilderness lands that border private and incorporated lands near Bonito Lake. The

effect of alternative 2 would be the reduction of crown fire potential by removing small diameter

trees. The majority of the thinning would be in mixed conifer and ponderosa pine with 8,512

acres of this vegetation type thinned up to 9 inches dbh and species selection towards mid-seral

tree species. Free thinning in this mixed conifer and ponderosa zone would leave at least 20 trees

per acre less than 9” dbh and striving to maintain an uneven-aged stand. Approximately 535

acres of strictly mixed conifer would be free thinned up to 24” dbh thus favoring large tree

retention over smaller trees and striving for an uneven-age nature. This thinning would favor

healthy and vigorous trees while selected low vigor, diseased or insect stressed trees for removal.

In addition, 377 acres of ponderosa pine would be free thinned across all diameter ranges thus

6

favoring large trees and striving to create an uneven-aged stand. Another 1,940 acres of pińon-

juniper within the project area would be thinned by group selection by removing all trees less

than 14” in diameter at the root collar. Species preference for the mixed conifer and ponderosa

would be in the following order: southwestern white pine, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, piñon

pine, juniper and white fir. Piñon/juniper forests species preference during thinning would be in

the order of ponderosa pine, piñon pine and juniper. Vigorous and healthy individuals could be

removed but the species selection in piñon/juniper and ponderosa would favor mid-seral species.

Thinning would be conducted through various methods including manual or mechanical felling

or in combination or with other extractive means that are reasonable on grades approaching 40

percent. Biomass removal could use ground-based, cable, or skyline log removal. Trees may be

left on the ground after felling due to difficulties in terrain or to meet criteria established for logs

as outlined for certain species of wildlife such as Sacramento salamanders, Mexican spotted owls

or Northern goshawks. A fire cycle regimen of one to five years through prescribed burning

would be done by accepted practices of ground based or aerial ignition. Firelines may be

constructed during prescribed burns to control fire movement and these firelines will be dug to

mineral soil. Alternative firelines such as vegetative, blackline, or wetline might also be used

and in accordance to standard procedures in difficult terrain. To facilitate thinning activities

within the treatment area, alternative 2 would involve the recontruction of 4.0 miles of level 1

roads. These roads would allow for the removal of cut woody material as well as provide fire

access during implementation of the project. These roads will be gated and only open to thinning

crews, forest personnel and necessary machinery during the time needed to complete the project.

These roads will be closed after the project is completed. The removal of material would aid in

reducing the total amount of carbon released during burning operations. This reduction, when

analized on a larger scale would become negligible.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

The direct effects of the Proposed Action on climate change (GHG emissions and carbon

cycling) might include short-term GHG emissions and alteration to the carbon cycle from

hazardous fuels reduction, and longer-term GHG emissions and effects to the carbon cycle by

thinning overstocked stands to increase forest resilience and decrease the potential for large scale

wildfire. Restoring the health, resilience, and productivity of the vegetation in the Bonito Forest

Restoration treatment area may also improve the capability of the stands or landscape to

withstand climate change stresses in the form of drought, catastrophic fire and insect and disease

outbreaks.

The removal of biomass, and thus carbon, through thinning, harvesting and prescribed fire,

would be offset with increased biomass in the form of understory vegetation. Species diversity

would also be increased along with carbon sequestration in the understory, and long term

reduction in smoke or other GHG emitted by potential stand replacing fires would offset this.

Removal of biomass would be a short term impact and in the long term an increase or flush of

understory would occur depending on precipitation amounts and timing. Smoke can be

measured from prescribed burns, and prescribed burns could lead to additional air quality

7

benefits. Previous research has indicated that such burns could reduce emissions of pollutants

such as fine particulate matter and carbon monoxide.

In research examining the effectiveness of pre-wildfire fuels treatments, Omi et al. (2006) found

that “only treatments that reduced both canopy and surface fuels in combination showed

significant correlation to weather conditions and the effectiveness of these treatments actually

increased with weather severity.”

Prescribed fires can increase the ability to recover quickly after a disturbance (forest resiliency)

from insect and disease and is a climate change strategy that would be applied to the Bonito

Forest Restoration treatment area. Following treatments planned in the proposed action, grasses

and forbs are expected to increase, and wildlife habitat is improved and increased after

prescribed fire treatments. Over time, the return to a patchy, mosaic forest with a diverse

understory could have a positive impact/effect on carbon sequestration. The increased

productivity in the understory creates a carbon sink due to increased biomass in the understory

production of grasses, forbs, and shrubs.

The proposed action includes the option to implement prescribed fire across the entire project

area. This would directly release CO2 during the burning operation in the project area.

However, Wiedinmyer and Hurteau (2010) indicate that restoring (or maintaining) historic

conditions would result in a lower risk of uncharacteristically severe wildfire for these treated

acres. This reduced risk has a two-fold effect on GHG emissions or the carbon cycle:

There is a direct beneficial effect on climate change of decreased GHG emissions from

these acres because the risk of acres being burned by uncharacteristically severe wildfires

would be reduced, and prescribed burns, often used by forest managers to reduce

underbrush and protect bigger trees, release substantially less carbon dioxide emissions

than wildfires of the same size.

There is an indirect beneficial effect by treating these acres because live stands of trees

would retain higher capacity to sequester carbon dioxide compared to stands killed by

uncharacteristically severe wildfires, especially if not immediately reforested. Wildfires

often destroy large trees that store significant amounts of carbon. Prescribed fires are

designed to burn underbrush and small trees, which store less carbon. By clearing out the

underbrush, these controlled burns reduce the chances of subsequent high-severity

wildfires, thereby protecting large trees and keeping more carbon locked up in the forest.

Alternative 3: Thinning with No Road Reconstruction

Alternative three utilizes the same treatment prescriptions across the project area as alternative

two; however, alternative three will not re-open any level 1 roads. Consequently, this alternative

may alter rehabilitation by:

Increasing the length of time for the completion of the project .

Leaving a debris field or untreated timber will increase fire hazard.

Increasing the mortality to residual timber stands during prescribed

burning.

8

The treatments that will be utilized if alternative two or three is selected as the preferred

alternative are described in the table below (Kuhar, Fire and Fuels Report Revised, 2009)

Table 1: Vegetation Types: Acreage and Proposed Treatments

Treatment

Description

Acres/

% of

project

Logging

System Silvicultural Treatments

Mixed Conifer 535

5%

Ground Based

Commercial

Thin(>9”dbh), free thin across diameter

ranges to 24”dbh, 80ft2

to 100 ft2 BA per

acre, prescribed fire

Ponderosa Pine 377

3%

Ground Based

Commercial

Thin(>9”dbh), free thin favoring large

trees, 40ft2

to 80ft2 BA per acre, enhance

uneven-aged nature; prescribed fire

Mixed

Conifer/Ponderosa

Pine

8512

73%

Ground Based Thin-from-below(<9”), free thin to

prescribed basal area; leave at least 20

trees per acre less than 9” dbh, 80ft2

to

100 ft2 BA per acre, prescribed fire

Pińon/Juniper 1940

17%

Ground Based Thin (>9” dbh), group selection removing

all trees less than 14” (DRC) in a mosaic

pattern; prescribed fire

Grasslands 246

2%

Prescribed

Burn Only

Prescribed fire

Total 11,610

According to the Forest Silviculturist the following prescribed burning mortality rates for each

vegetation type will occur under this project:

9

Table 2. Prescribed Burning Vegetation Mortality Rates

Vegetation Type Mortality Rate %

Pinon/Juniper The overall mortality of the seedlings may be as high as

40%, but the mortality of juniper greater than 4” drc should

be 5-10%, and pinon 5” drc and greater should not exceed

15%.

Ponderosa Pine The overall mortality should not be greater than 25%, but

the mortality of the ponderosa pine 5” dbh and greater

should not exceed 10%.

Mixed Conifer The overall mortality should not be greater than 25%, but

the mortality of the mixed conifer 5” dbh and greater

should not exceed 10%.

Transportation

Ground-based removal on some of the areas within the Bonito treatment area would require the

reconstruction of approximately 4.0 miles of temporary (Level 1) roads. Level one maintained roads

are roads that have been closed to the public and have basic custodial care. Approximately 3.0 miles

of temporary road would be reconstructed in the Loma Grande area with an additional 1.0 miles of

road in the Philadelphia Canyon area. These temporary roads would be utilized for woody material

removal and administrative use only. Gates will be installed and locked outside of treatment periods.

These roads will be closed upon project completion to reduce long term impacts. All skid trails and

landings would be closed to all motorized use and rehabilitated upon completion of treatment

activities. Rehabilitation needs would be identified by the contract officer representative upon

completion of a treatment contract and might include disking, seeding with native species, or pulling

residual slash across disturbed sites.

After hazardous fuel reduction objectives have been met, surface fuel loads would start to

increase again over time and be maintained with prescribed fire that would mimic a historical

fire regime within the historic range of variability.

Past actions and natural disturbances include large fire scars, fire suppression, timber harvest and

grazing and have contributed to current conditions. Cumulatively, this project, in combination

with the fuel treatments already planned within the project area would have a positive effect on

protection of life and property through the reduction of severe wildfire potential across the

landscape. Goals, outcomes and impacts of the Bonito Forest Restoration Project are shown in

the Appendix, Table 3.

10

References (Literature Cited)

Blate, G.M., Joyce, L.A., Littell, J.S., McNulty, S.G., Millar, C.I., Moser, S.C., Neilson, R.P.,

O’Halloran K., and. Peterson D.L. Adapting to climate change in United States national

forests. Unasylva 231/232, Vol. 60, 2009

Finney, M.A. 2000. Design of regular landscape fuel treatment patterns for modifying fire

growth and behavior. Forest Science Journal 47(2):219 –228.

Kaufmann, Merrill R.; Huckaby, Laurie S.; Regan, Claudia M.; and Popp, John. Forest

Reference conditions for ecosystem management in the Sacramento Mountains, New Mexico.

1998. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-19. Fort Collins, Colorado: USDA Forest

Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, 87p.

Kuhar, Kim, 2009. “Fire and fuels Report: Bonito forest Restoration Project” Smokey Bear

Ranger District.

Malmsheimer, R. W., P. Heffernan, S. Brink, D. Crandall, F. Deneke, C. Galik, E. Gee, J. A.

Helms, N. McClure, M. Mortimer, S. Ruddell, M. Smith, and J. Stewart. Forest Management

Solutions for Mitigating Climate Change in the United States. Journal of Forestry. April/May

2008 115-128.

Noss, Reed F. Beyond Kyoto: forest Management in a Time of Rapid Climate Change,

Conservation Biology, June, 2001 v. 15, No. 3.

Stenseth, N.C., A. Mysterud, G. Ottersen, J.W. Hurrell, K.-S. Chan and M. Lima. 2002.

Ecological effects of climate fluctuations. Science 297:1292–1296.

Wiedinmyer, C. and M.D. Hurteau. Prescribing Fire as a Means of Reducing Forest Carbon

Emissions in the Western United States. Environmental Science and Technology. Vol 44, No

6, 2010. 1926-1932.

11

Appendix

Table 3: Goals, outcomes, impacts and options: Bonito Forest Restoration Project

Goal Desired or intended

outcome

Possible climate

change

impacts

Adaptation options

Restore, sustain, and

enhance

- Hazardous fuels

- Suitable timber land

- Forage production

- Watershed condition

- Historic Structure

Restoration

Maintain forest

health,

productivity, diversity

and resistance to

severe

disturbances

Longer, warmer

growing seasons

Shifts in seasonality

of

hydrological

processes

Intense droughts

Reduce fuel loads in

forests

Enhance the early

detection and

response strategy

associated with

non-native invasive

species

Provide and sustain

benefits

to the local

communities

Maintain multiple

socioeconomic

benefits to meet

society’s needs over

the long

term, including a

reliable supply

of forest products,

energy

resource needs and

market based

conservation

Climate change

interacting with

current

stress factors such as

insect pests

and disease, wildfire,

legacy of past

management and air

pollution

Shifts in forest species

composition

Increased erosion

events impairing

watershed condition

Increase efforts to

reduce current stress

factors

Incorporate long-term

climate change

into wildland fire

planning

Develop silvicultural

treatments to reduce

drought stress

Review genetic

guidelines for

reforestation

Sustain and enhance

outdoor

recreation opportunities

Maintain high-quality

outdoor

recreation

opportunities in

national forests

available to the

public

Increased air and

stream temperatures

Reduced snowpack

Altered in-stream

flows

Evaluate recreational

impact on

ecosystems under a

changing climate

Expand recreational

opportunities across

all four seasons

Redesign roads and

trails to withstand

increased rainfall

intensity

12

Supplement to Climate Report

For

The Bonito Forest Restoration Project

Author: Sabrina Flores, Lincoln National Forest Planner

Date: June 21, 2011

13

Alternatives Two and Three, Action Alternatives

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Supplement:

Forests are a critical carbon pool in the global balance of GHGs. Carbon emissions and savings

from the proposed project are highly uncertain. Also, because greenhouse gases mix readily into

the global pool of greenhouse gases, it is not currently possible to ascertain the indirect effects of

emissions from single or multiple sources (projects). In addition, because the large majority of

Forest Service projects are extremely small in the global atmospheric CO2 context, it is not

presently possible to conduct quantitative analysis of actual climate change effects based on

individual or multiple projects.

It is known that risks of increased wildfire, outbreaks of insects and disease, and invasive

species, represent ongoing, broad-scale management challenges. Even the most moderate

climatic change scenarios predict increasing insect and disease epidemics and wildfire impacts.

These issues are nothing new, however, climate change has the potential to increase or augment

the impacts of these ecosystem risks. A beneficial direct effect of the Bonito project is to make

this ecosystem more resilient to the potential impacts of these increased ecosystem risks.

Preventing or suppressing fire in order to maximize carbon sequestration would destabilize

ecosystems that require fire and also increase carbon losses caused by wildfires in the long term.