1

New Mexico Forest Inventory and Analysis:

American Recovery and Reinvestment Project

Field Report 2010-2012

Mary Stuever and John Capuano

Stuever, Mary; Capuano, John. 2014. New Mexico Forest Inventory and 

Analysis: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Project, Field Report: 

2010-2012. Res. Note RMRS-RN-68. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 34 p.

Abstract

For a 3-year period, from 2010-2012, the New Mexico Forestry Division utilized contractors to collect Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data in New 

Mexico. Funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the 

State partnered with the Interior West FIA Program. Together, both agencies 

collected data on approximately 6,450 plots. This effort represents the largest statewide inventory of forest and woodlands to date for New Mexico. The 

data collection schedule deviated from standard FIA protocols of collecting 

annual panels of data each year; in contrast, this project collected data on an 

accelerated, compressed schedule that rapidly produced a current and comprehensive forest inventory dataset. Data analysis is published elsewhere 

and the focus of this report is to document the process of the data collection. 

Keywords: forest inventory and analysis (FIA), field procedures, partnership, 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), New Mexico

Forest Rocky Mountain Research Note

Service Research Station RMRS-RN-68 August 2014

United States Department of Agriculture
2

Introduction

In the spring of 2009 the State of New Mexico, EMNRD- Forestry 

Division applied to the Southwest Region of the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Forest Service (Forest Service) for a grant under the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) to collect 

Forest Inventory & Analysis (FIA) data. The original request was for 

$12 million based on estimates provided by Forest Service staff working on FIA. In October 2009, $4 million dollars was granted to the 

State to do a portion of the collection.

This report documents processes, decisions, people, and actions that 

were involved in this project. The primary audiences for this report 

are those utilizing this data, undertaking a similar project, and/or interested in the finer details of this project. This report is organized 

into three sections: Background, Implementation, and Discussion. 

The Background Section describes the FIA program, the status of New 

Mexico data at the start of this project, and the ARRA grant. The 

Implementation Section discusses contracts and contractors including 

participating Tribes, training and quality control for data collection, 

landowner permission and denied access, and plot assignments and data 

collection. The Discussion Section includes an explanation of projects 

that were considered but not implemented, describes the involvement 

of the New Mexico FIA users group, documents the functioning partnership that developed between State Forestry and the Forest Service 

FIA program, outlines the future needs for FIA data in New Mexico, 

and explores the potential impacts of newly collected FIA data for the 

State.

This report does not address analysis of the data. The Forest Service 

Interior West FIA Analysis team has developed a State report (Goeking 

and others 2014) that provides general analysis of the data. The data is 

also available on the internet through the Forest Service’s FIA website.

Background

Forest Inventory and Analysis Program and Data

The FIA program’s mission is to conduct and continuously update a 

comprehensive inventory and analysis of the present and prospective 

conditions of renewable resources of the forests of the United States. 

The inventory consists of a grid of permanent sample locations known 

as plots. Theoretically, each plot in the Interior West region is visited every 10 years. Not only is the current information from the plot 
3

valuable, but the change in conditions since it was last visited provides 

important trend information. Prior to 2000 data was collected as a 

series of periodic inventories. Crews would cycle through each State 

spending a few years collecting data upon which a report was written 

for that State. When the data collection was completed for a state, the 

crews moved on to the next state, returning on an approximate 10-year 

interval. In the year 2000, the national FIA sample design was adapted 

to involve an annual collection, such that data was collected each year 

in each State. In the West, each state’s set of plots were divided into 10 

annual panels. One tenth of the plots were to be visited each year. After 

10 years, the process would start over again, with field crews visiting 

the first set of plots in the eleventh year. This staggering of data collection allows for landscape scale events such as insect outbreaks and 

mega-wildfires to be recorded in the years when the impact is greatest.

The plots are located on all jurisdictions including Federal, Tribal, State, 

local governments, and private land. Landowners or managers are contacted to gain access to the plots. Landowners have the right to deny 

access. Landowner privacy is an important part of the program, and 

information about landowners is not available to the public. Tribal data 

is also given special protection. Access to information that would allow 

someone to determine that plots occur on specific Tribal lands requires 

approval of the Tribe and Bureau of Indian Affairs representatives.

Although the program was initially developed to estimate marketable 

timber volumes, over the years the data collected and data uses have 

expanded to include measures of plant diversity; fuels and potential fire 

hazards; condition of wildlife habitats; mortality and risks associated 

with fire, insects, or disease; biomass and carbon storage; forest health; 

and other general characteristics of forest ecosystems. The program 

does not document or look for endangered species.

Data collection is a complex process that requires a natural resources 

education. The field procedures manual that outlines how to collect the 

data is over 400 pages in length and requires a professional background 

to interpret. Generally, a two-person crew can collect all the necessary 

data required for a plot in 1 day, though some plots may take longer.

History of FIA Data Collection in New Mexico

The Federal government has been collecting forest inventory data nationally since 1930. However, periodic inventory data collected in New 

Mexico in the 1950s and 1960s followed different protocols (Choate 

1966). Those inventories used aerial photographs to summarize large 

areas of forest land and timber volume. Plot data either was not collected or was not retained from those inventories, so they are generally 
4

not comparable to FIA data collected today (personal communication 

with Sara Goeking, February 2013). However, there are three datasets 

that were collected prior to this ARRA project. Two periodic inventories were conducted in New Mexico in the late 1980s and the late 

1990s. Additional plots were established in the early 1990s on the Gila 

National Forest.

The oldest FIA data currently available for analysis was collected in 

New Mexico between 1985 and 1987. Due to budget constraints 

approximately 1,100 forest plots were sampled. Most of these plots 

were sampled using a protocol that called for a single fixed radius plot. 

The Gila National Forest intensified this sample in 1993 and 1994 by 

collecting data on more than 400 forest plots (O’Brien 2003). The protocol at that time used sub-plots with a variable radius methodology. 

Another periodic inventory occurred in 1996 through 2000. However, 

due to reduced budgets, many of the plots from the 1987 inventory were not revisited, but instead the growth was calculated for these 

plots for the 2000 State report. The methodology in the 1999 sample 

included 4 sub-plots with fixed radius similar to the layout used currently. Data was gathered on just over 8001 forest plots between 1996 

and 1998, which was combined with earlier periodic data to summarize New Mexico’s forest resource in a second State report (O’Brien 

2003).

As part of the 1999 inventory, FIA continued to collect data on nearly 

340 additional forest plots in New Mexico until 2000, the same year 

that the national FIA program switched to annual data collection. The 

decision was made to defer collecting annual data in New Mexico, apparently because the State had a recent data set. However, each year, 

due to budget constraints, the decision to collect data in New Mexico 

continued to be deferred.

Since the earliest panel for New Mexico is designated as the 2005 panel, 

it is clear the Federal program had intentions of gathering New Mexico 

data; yet this was not happening. Meanwhile, a significant outbreak 

of piñon bark beetles in the State between 2002 and 2004 was going 

unrecorded, as well as the impact of major forest fires such as Cerro 

Grande (2000) and the Ponil Complex (2002). State officials were becoming increasingly alarmed at the lack of action in collecting forest 

inventory data in the State.

1 O’Brien reports 819 plots measured prior to publication of the 2000 report; 

however, not all of these plots are utilized in the current database based on 

updated definitions. 
5

On February 15, 2007 Governor Bill Richardson sent a letter to U.S. 

Forest Service Chief Abigail Kimball urging full funding for FIA data 

collection in New Mexico. The letter cited the need for a Statewide 

Assessment identified in the State’s Forest and Watershed Health 

Plan and explained that current FIA data would be necessary for this 

assessment.

Forest Service FIA crews started collecting data from the 2008 annual 

panel in 2008, and continued on the same panel in 2009; they collected data on 453 forest plots during this time period. The majority 

of the plots visited during this time were on Federal land. The crews 

worked in the State on a temporary basis at the beginning and ending 

of field seasons in other States.

NM – FIA ARRA Grant

In 2009, the State Forester met with the director of the Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, the director of the Interior West FIA program, the Southwest Regional Forester, and representatives from the 

New Mexico congressional delegation to discuss the lack of current and 

comprehensive FIA data for New Mexico. At the time, grant proposals for hazardous fuels projects were being solicited from the Forestry 

Division through the U.S. Forest Service for the newly established 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) program. The professionals from the congressional delegation offices urged the State to 

also submit a proposal for collecting the lacking FIA data utilizing the 

ARRA program funding.

FIA data collection was identified as the State of New Mexico’s Forestry 

Division’s highest priority for ARRA funding. The project would have 

a favorable ratio of funds spent on worker income versus equipment 

expenses, and the data would directly benefit economic development 

within the State on many levels. The project would also build capacity within the State to continue data collection and avoid future data 

gaps. Despite the ranking and the logical argument, the project was 

not funded in the first round of allocations, but did get approved by 

October of 2009.

The State has managed the program in cooperation with the U.S. 

Forest Service’s Interior West FIA program under a memorandum of 

understanding (Appendix A). Utilizing ARRA funding, the State contracted the data collection to private contractors and local Tribes. With 

regular FIA program funds, Forest Service inspectors collected additional data in the State and insured the data collected by contractors 

met national program standards.
6

Information has been gathered on all jurisdictions; coordination includes working with the New Mexico State Forestry, New Mexico State 

Land Office, the Southwest Region and the Rocky Mountain Research 

Station of the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management New 

Mexico State Office, various Department of Defense facilities, National 

Parks and Monuments, many city and county governments, dozens of 

Native Tribes, and thousands of private landowners.

Implementation

Contracts and Contractor Selection

Contractors were selected following New Mexico State law, procedures 

and policies. There were two solicitations, one in the spring of 2010 

and one in the spring of 2011. A Request for Proposals (RFP) for professional services (due to the depth of professional knowledge required 

to complete inventory plots) was posted on the Division’s website. 

Additional outreach included developing a list of 26 potential contractors from agencies that had previous FIA contracts. A special outreach 

effort was made to forestry contractors in New Mexico and to Tribes 

with natural resource management programs. Prior to advertising the 

RFP, the project was presented to the New Mexico Abilities, a stateaffiliated non-profit agency, who advised the State that they had no 

potential qualified providers.

Six proposals were submitted in 2010 and three contractors were selected: Chestnut Ridge Forestry, South Wind Conservation Inc., and 

SWCA Environmental Consultants. Contract amounts could not exceed $1 million dollars and assignments were made between the three 

companies based on capacity. For the RFP posted in the spring of 

2011, six bids were received and three contractors selected: Chestnut 

Ridge Forestry, South Wind Conservation Inc., and SBH Contracting. 

Assignments were again made based on capacity.

One lesson learned with these contracts was that each contract designated specific plots to be completed by that contractor; therefore, 

changing plot assignments due to access or other issues required a contract amendment. Each of these contracts was amended three times, 

which is the maximum number of allowable amendments. Therefore 

in 2011 for the next round of contracts, the new personal service agreements did not include plot assignments; instead, plots were assigned 

by work orders. There were between 6 and 16 work orders on each of 

these contracts adjusting plot assignments. The other major difference 

between the 2010 contracts and the 2011 contracts was to raise the 
7

Quality Control standard from 85% to 90% to conform with FIA’s 

national data collection protocols.

Plots were grouped into various categories for bidding. All plots were 

Phase 2 (P2) plots but were divided into P2 regular or P2 marginal 

categories based on the status of the plot as undeniable forest land or 

possible forest land. Any plot that meets the FIA definition of “forest 

land” requires further field measurements, while any plot that does 

not meet that definition is recorded as non-forest and does not have 

additional data collected. A visit type value from the FIA field database 

(MIDAS) was used to determine the classification. P2 regular plots had 

a visit value of 1 (forest) or 2 (woodland) that had been determined in 

the office during plot preparation. P2 marginal plots had visit values of 

3-5, which indicated that office staff was uncertain the plot met conditions to require a field sample, but did require a field visit to make that 

determination. Federal crews commonly refer to P2 marginal plots as 

“checker” plots. Table 1 lists the successful bid prices for the 2010 contracts and table 2 lists the successful bid prices for the 2011 contracts.

Table 1—2010 Successful bid prices for contracts ( All prices are per plot).

Offerers Project manager Project size Price range - regular Price range - marginal

SWCA Coleman Burnett

Bernalillo, Navajo Nation, 

Rio Grande Pueblos, 

Western Pueblos $1526.53 - $1593.42 $854.86 - $879.90

Chestnut Ridge 

Forestry Joel Fyock All $1048 - $1325 $840 - $890 

Southwind Wind 

Conservation, Inc. J. Ike Wennihan

All but RG Pueblos; 

Western Pueblos; and 

Mescalero $791.12 $631.43 

Table 2—2011 Successful bid prices for contracts ( All prices are per plot).

Offerers Project manager Project size Price range - regular Price range - marginal

Chestnut Ridge 

Forestry Joel Fyock All $888 - $928 $725 - $765

Southwind Wind 

Conservation, Inc. J. Ike Wennihan

All but Cimarron 

District $1175 - $1200 $900-$925

SBH Contracting Stuart Hall

Capitan, Chama, 

Cimarron Districts $1,100 $850 
8

Tribal Participation

Although no Tribes bid on the statewide contract, Tribes were provided the opportunity to collect the data on their own Tribal lands, as 

allowed by the State-Tribal Collaboration Act. Initially four Tribes opted to participate: Navajo Nation, Mescalero Apache, Pueblo of Santa 

Clara, and Ramah Navajo. Work plans were developed under existing 

Joint Powers Agreements for Navajo Nation, Mescalero Apache, and 

the Pueblo of Santa Clara. We were not able to develop an agreement 

with Ramah Navajo due to unresolved issues of contract legality. In 

the fall of 2011 the Pueblo of Taos offered to participate. There were 

multiple delays with their agreement; it was not approved by the State 

until late summer in 2012, which conflicted with the Tribe’s hunting 

program so they had to decline the agreement.

Tribes did not bid on the project and were offered a flat fee of $1200 

per plot (no distinction between P2 regular and marginal plots was 

made). Table 3 list the number of plots for which each Tribe collected 

data on their reservation.

Table 3—Number of plots contracted 

to tribes.

Tribe Plots

Navajo Nation 186

Mescalero Apache Tribe 41

Pueblo of Santa Clara 6

Training and Quality Control

High quality data is essential to the effectiveness of the FIA database. 

Over the years, the Forest Service has developed a complex Quality 

Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) process. Rather than re-invent the wheel, the State adopted and adapted the existing QA/QC 

program. This section discusses contract requirements, training, inspections, blind check plots, and problem resolutions. Throughout our 

QA/QC process, we had an excellent collaboration between Federal 

Forest Service staff, State Forestry staff, and contractors. One of the 

key contributing factors to this success was frequent communication.

Contract Requirements—Our intention in the contract was to have 

identical standards for Quality Assurance/Quality Control as required 

by the Forest Service crews. Unfortunately, due to miscommunication, 

our contracts in 2010 listed the passing score for a quality control inspection as 85%. After the contracts were issued, we learned that the 

FS crews were required to earn a score of 90% to pass. Fortunately, 
9

we had very few passing scores under 90%, and in most cases this 

was due to a missed tree or another mistake that was easily corrected 

for that plot. The 2010 contracts with the 85% minimum included 

the first contracts for South Wind Conservation, Inc.; Chestnut Ridge 

Forestry; the contract for SWCA Environmental Consultants; and the 

work plans for Mescalero Apache, Navajo Nation, and the Pueblo of 

Santa Clara. The 2011 contracts for Chestnut Ridge Forestry, South 

Wind Conservation, and SBH Contracting required a score of 90% to 

pass the quality control inspection.

A sample copy of the 2011 contract is provided in Appendix B. The 

Scope of Work required contractors to adhere to the Interior West 

Forest Inventory & Analysis P2 Field Procedures, commonly referred 

to as the field manual. The 2010 contract referenced Version 4.0 of this 

manual for the 2010 and 2011 field seasons. Version 4.0 refers to both 

the field manual and the MIDAS software program used to collect data 

on digital data recorders. An amendment to the 2011 contracts and the 

continuing Tribal work plans referenced Version 5.0 for the 2012 field 

season2. The Scope of Work also required the contractors to gain legal 

access to each plot. Although contractors were not paid for plots where 

access was denied, they were required to document the denial before 

receiving new plot assignments. The language regarding inspections is 

located under the Compensation heading.

Training—The primary goal of the ARRA FIA project was to collect 

quality data that would meet or exceed the quality of data collected by 

Federal crews. Therefore, an FIA training workshop was held in Silver 

City from June 17 to June 24, 2010, to train the crew leaders who were 

working for each of the contractors and Tribal programs. Students included 46 contracted staff and eight staff from State Forestry (Appendix 

C). Approximately nine Federal FIA staff provided the training on data 

collection methods and the use of portable data recorders using MIDAS 

software (Appendix D). Several specialty instructors provided sessions 

for identifying insects, diseases and habitat types. Following this training session, contractors were responsible for additional training for the 

staff and any new hires. Several contractors spent additional days with 

crew leaders working together on the same plots until they felt they 

had developed thorough competence to work alone or in pairs. Most 

training of new hires after this initial training course occurred in a 

2 While the USFS crews started using the Version 5.0 manual in other States 

for the 2011 Field Season, the plan in New Mexico was to complete the 

ARRA project by December 2011 so the decision was made not to switch 

protocols for 2011. Once the decision was made to extend contracts to 2012, 

it was imperative to switch the data collection to the Version 5.0 manual for 

the 2012 field season.
10

one-on-one environment. In 2011 a single individual successfully bid 

and received a contract. He spent several days with Federal crew leaders 

to come up to speed on specific FIA inventory requirements.

Additional 2-day trainings were sponsored by the State in February and 

April of 2012 to review the changes from the Version 4.0 to Version 

5.0 of MIDAS and the field manual. These workshops were held at 

the Sevilleta Long Term Ecological Research station near La Joya, New 

Mexico. Contractors also attained access to the national MIDAS database; in 2012 crew leaders, rather than inspectors, were responsible for 

loading data and photos for each plot.

Equipment—Contractors were required by the contract to provide all 

of the field gear necessary for installing and measuring plots. However, 

the Forest Service chose to provide some of the supplies to ensure consistency throughout the survey: RP and witness tree tags, steel and 

aluminum nails, sample envelopes for leaf samples, and micro-climate 

sensors. In addition, the State provided heavy gauge wire for use as plot 

center stakes. A list of recommended field equipment is included in 

Appendix E.

Contractors were required to provide a data recorder for each crew 

leader. The type of data recorder was limited because it had to have the 

capability to run the MIDAS software. Many cheaper data recorders 

are available that work fine for continuous forest inventory and other 

inventories; however, the devices that handle the MIDAS software are 

more expensive. This cost was anticipated upfront and emphasized 

with potential bidders. The U.S. Forest Service crews use the Juniper 

Allegra, and those contractors who purchased this device were able to 

get more specific assistance in trouble shooting software problems.

The other device that required a higher level of accuracy was the GPS 

unit. National FIA protocols require that GPS units are capable of averaging to provide more accurate location information.

Quality Control Inspections—Inspections were handled by seasoned, 

well-qualified Forest Service FIA crew leaders who worked for the 

Interior West FIA Program. The majority of the inspections were done 

by three individuals: Jim Dexter, Dave Herwig, and John Capuano; 

however, there were times when other Forest Service personnel helped 

out, particularly at the end of each field season. The State developed a 

plot packet handling protocol (Appendix F) and provided procedures 

for bundling packets into sets and submitting them for inspection.

The inspectors followed standard protocols that provided for scoring a 

sample that represented 10% of each set of plots. Generally, there were 

10 plots turned in for each set, and an inspector would select one plot 
11

to visit. Based on contract language, the minimum passing score varied 

between 85% and 90%. However, only a few of the passing scores were 

below 90%, and most scores were above 95%.

Contract crew leaders were in direct communication with the inspectors to arrange drop off points for the sets. Crew leaders would print 

out the reports generated by the MIDAS software and leave them in 

each packet. At the same time, crew leaders or contractors were required to send an email to the ARRA project manager, the ARRA 

grants manager, and the Forest Service FIA supervisor for New Mexico 

and Arizona to initiate tracking the set through the inspection and 

payment process. However, this step was often missed, and the State 

did not learn of the sets until they received an inspection report from 

the Inspectors.

For the most part, this process worked with one major exception. At 

the end of 2011 and in early 2012, the usual inspectors were not available; however, the crew leaders with the Navajo Forestry program were 

finishing up their assignments. The personnel assigned to inspect the 

plots during this time period did not provide inspection reports to 

the State and it took over a year to determine which plots had or had 

not been completed. In addition, the use of varied personnel on this 

project was frustrating for the crew leaders because of the variation in 

expectations among the various inspectors.

Blind Check Plots—Another aspect of the QA/QC program is to have 

field crews revisit plots that another crew has completed. The second 

crew does not have access to the original crew’s data, so these are referred 

to as blind check plots. Analysts use the data to identify the reliability 

of the values collected, or quality assessment. The programmatic goal 

is to collect this data on 3% of the plots. In 2010, blind check plots 

were only assigned within each contractor group, so although the blind 

plot check was done by a different crew leader, they both worked for 

the same company. In 2011 and 2012 there were some cross-company 

assignments. A total of 134 blind plots were completed by contractors, 

which represented 3.4% of the total number of plots inventoried in the 

contract program.

The selection of blind plots included some bias, because selected plots 

were generally on public lands where access would not be a major issue. 

Also, plots that were identified in the first visit as non-forest land were 

generally not selected as blind plots. Because blind plot assignments 

were being made before the first visit, this was achieved by only selecting plots that had a visit value of 1 (forest) or 2 (woodlands). When an 

access problem arose due to weather, terrain, or access permission the 

plot was removed from the contractor list and a different blind plot 

was assigned.
12

Ideally, the programmatic goal is to have blind plots visited within a 

month of the original assignment. Since blind plots were assigned with 

regular plots and there were no contract specifications on when these 

plots were completed, there were some blind plots that were inventoried the field season after the original data collection. Any assigned 

blind plots that had catastrophic disturbance (wildfire) was removed 

and replaced if the fire occurred after the first visit but before the second visit.

Landowner Permission and Denied Access

One of the most critical coordination tasks for the field collection of 

FIA data is acquiring permission and access to the plots. Not only 

is this important for private lands, but each jurisdiction has its own 

requirements. This section will discuss land access issues for private 

landowners, State Trust Lands, Tribal access, Department of Defense 

access, National Park Service access, and access issues on public land 

administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the National 

Forests. In addition, special situations, such as recently burned areas, 

require additional access considerations.

Many of the issues described here are not unique to New Mexico but 

are also relevant to other States. They are described here for the purpose of documenting how this project dealt with those issues and the 

lessons that were learned. The aspects of the New Mexico forest inventory that are unique, relative to other States, is that the State Forester’s 

office handled most requests and communicated extensively with private landowners and Tribal representatives; that the denied access rate 

was higher on private lands than it typically is in other States; and that 

the ARRA project manager, rather than Forest Service staff, was able 

to facilitate access to plots across all jurisdictions within New Mexico.

In keeping with the national FIA privacy policy, plot locations are not 

released. The first reason is to protect the privacy of landowners and 

the resources on their land. The second reason is to protect the plot 

location from being managed differently than the surrounding forests, 

so that the plot is representative of the surrounding area.

In the FY2000 Consolidated Appropriations Bill (PL 106-113), 

Congress included language that modified the Food Security Act 

of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 2276(d)) to add FIA data collection to a list of 

items requiring confidential treatment. Among other things, the law 

prevents FIA from disclosing sample locations in such a way that individual ownership can be determined, and specifies criminal penalties 

for violations. Current FIA policy (Forest Service Handbook Interim 

Directive number 4809.11-2003-1) permits public release of FIA 
13

sample coordinates rounded to the nearest 1/2 to 1 mile with a random 

set of locations swapped within a State. Such inexact coordinates prevent association of individual sample locations with individual owners, 

but will still meet the needs of users looking for approximate geographical location of data.

The following principles have been developed to implement this policy:

•	We obtain landowner permission prior to collecting data.

•	We never release the name or address of private landowners to 

the general public.

•	We require any person or organization providing products or 

services to FIA to protect the confidentiality of FIA information 

on our behalf through a data security certification process.

•	We allow reporting of data only in such a manner that individual 

landowners cannot be identified.

One of the primary cooperator categories for the Forestry Division in 

New Mexico is private landowners. Foresters for the State also work 

closely with the State Land Office, the State’s Department of Game 

and Fish, and the State Parks. The Forestry Division has also been 

directed to take a leadership role in coordinating multi-jurisdictional cooperation across the landscape. To maintain and enhance these 

relationships, the State decided to directly manage the landowner permission aspect of this project. State officials were optimistic that their 

long-term, positive history of working with private landowners, State 

and Federal agencies, and Tribes would pave the way for lower access 

denied percentages. On the contrary, the actual level of access denied 

plots (15% for all jurisdictions and 38% for private land3) ended up 

setting a regional record for highest rate of access denied in any of the 

western States. This situation is further considered in the discussion 

section of this report.

Access on Private Lands—The land ownership category is initially 

determined through GIS layers in the Ogden office and then sent to 

the field for verification. Federal crew leaders made visits to court houses and utilized online databases to build a spreadsheet of individual 

landowners and addresses. This spreadsheet and sample letters that the 

Forest Service had previously used were supplied to the State. In the 

3 These figures represent the percentage of access denied with the plots that 

were sent to the field. FIA often reports the percentage of denied access out 

of all plots, including those that do not leave the office. In New Mexico, the 

overall percentages would be about 8% for all jurisdictions and 14% for 

private lands.
14

spring of 2010, the State sent letters from the State Forester to 1,250 

private landowners requesting access to 1,460 plots (a sample letter and 

return permission form are provided in Appendix G and Appendix H). 

By August of 2010, landowners representing 39% of the plots had 

returned forms with 77% granting access to the plot. A second round 

of letters was sent in late summer to landowners who had not yet responded. Crew leaders were also encouraged to locate landowners in 

person to acquire necessary permission. A third set of permission request letters went out in the spring of 2011.

One of the primary conflicts crews encountered in the field were landowners unwilling to grant access permission during the fall hunting 

seasons. Elk hunting in particular is a primary source of income for 

New Mexico ranchers. This conflict was particularly problematic in 

2011 when contracts were expiring and contractors had spent the summer on public plots that were easier to access. By the time they were 

tackling the private plots, landowners who were otherwise willing to 

participate needed to limit access to their ranch for hunting. Aware of 

this concern, many crews worked with landowners to operate on the 

land between 10 a.m. and 2 or 3 p.m. to insure that their operations 

did not upset a hunt.

When it became apparent that contractors were not going to finish by 

December of 2011, and that a large number of privately owned plots 

remained unsurveyed, the State extended the 2011 contracts and the 

work plans for two Tribes that had not completed their plots. Since 

the initial landowner permission letters had only asked for access up 

through December 31, 2011, landowners were sent letters in the spring 

of 2012. After May of 2012, no additional letters were sent to landowners, although crews continued to call and contact individuals in 

the field.

Throughout the 3 years of the project, employees from State Forestry, 

the Forest Service, and the contractors spent many hours with landowners discussing the program and the importance of gaining access. 

Here are some of the highlights of those discussions.

•	There is generally little direct benefit for a private landowner 

in granting permission to the site. Landowners may benefit in 

the long run from having general information about the state’s 

resources that can lead to funding programs that could possibly 

help the landowner down the road.

•	Crew leaders are gathering specific information on forests, trees, 

and common plants. They are not looking for endangered species 

and are instructed not to record them (unless plant species 

exceed 5% cover, which did not happen) and not to share any 
15

information with others on any resource related observations 

that they make on private land.

•	When asked, crew leaders work directly with the landowner 

to schedule the visit and comply with any reasonable requests 

the landowner makes. In general, gates are left as they are 

found (open or shut) and vehicle traffic remains on established 

roadways.

•	Landowners were offered the opportunity to request the State 

report and a report on their plot. Not all crew leaders were 

aware of this option and expressed regret towards the end of the 

program that they did not offer this service to the landowners 

they worked with. Thirty-eight reports were requested in 2010-

2011 and three reports were requested in 2012.

•	Several landowners, especially those with mesquite dominated 

lands, refused to participate in the program because they viewed 

the survey as a waste of taxpayer’s money.

•	Several landowners denied access because they preferred no 

unnecessary government involvement with their land.

•	Sharpies were the preferred writing tool employed by landowners 

denying access.

•	Several landowners were surprised to learn a previously measured 

FIA plot was on property that they owned at the time it had 

been measured.

•	Several landowners denying access requested their plot be 

removed from our list. They were surprised to be told that it 

was not possible to remove the plot, and that the plot might be 

measured in the future after they were gone. This information 

invariably brought a different perspective to the conversation.

•	The majority of landowners who asked for additional information 

about the program to determine whether to grant access or not, 

chose to grant access once all of their questions and concerns 

had been addressed.

There were only a few incidents of irate landowners contacting the 

State Forester in 3 years. Considering that crews interacted with thousands of landowners and land managers, this seems like a reasonable 

response rate. There were also a few instances where data was gathered 

on a plot that did not have permission. In one case, the State refused 

to pay for the data collection of the plot because of the implied trespass. The State requested that this data be expunged from the national 

database.
16

One non-profit organization sent an email to their membership urging members to deny access. When the State’s ARRA project manager 

contacted the organization’s executive director to explain the program 

and mitigate the situation, the executive director denied that the email 

had been sent. The State chose to drop the issue. Several landowners 

shared the email and explained they were denying access based on the 

email’s advice.

Access on State Trust Lands—In New Mexico, State Trust Lands are 

managed by the State Land Office and do not have general public access. State Lands managed by other State agencies, such as State Parks 

or the New Mexico Department of Game & Fish, have different access 

protocols. Prior to this project, several crew leaders working for the 

Forest Service in other States had come to New Mexico assuming they 

had access to plots on all State lands. As a result, the State Land Office 

was aware of the trespass issue on State Trust Lands and wary about 

granting access permission. State Forestry employees and State Land 

Office employees worked together to resolve the issue.

The mission of the State Land Office is to generate revenue to beneficiaries. Although the agency recognized the benefit of the inventory 

for State management, a small fee was charged for a 3-year permit that 

included the contractors and the Forest Service crews. The permit required the crew leader to notify the surface lease owner of the day 

and location where they would be. If the plot had public access to the 

State Trust land, there were no other requirements. If accessing the plot 

required crossing private land on a private road, then the crew leader 

was required to secure access permission. State Land Office District 

Managers often assisted field crews with communicating with State 

Land Office lessees.

A form was developed to guide the crew leader through the permission 

process. Crew leaders were required to carry a copy of the permit and 

a permit amendment list that showed the plot they were working on. 

These lists were generated by the ARRA project manager and sent to 

the State Land Office each time a new panel was added to the inventory. Contractors were provided an initial listing of State Trust Land 

plots with surface landowners, but also were encouraged to look up 

lease holder contact information online through the State Land Office 

website. A copy of the State Land Office permit and a blank form is 

included in appendices H and I.

Access on Tribal Lands—The primary consideration when working 

with Tribes is that each Tribe is a sovereign nation and has its own way 

of conducting business. Many Tribes have their own natural resource 

management, forestry, and realty offices that oversee this type of access. 
17

Unless the ARRA project manager had a working relationship with the 

forestry or natural resource management department, the initial contact with a Tribe was a letter from the State Forester to the Governor or 

Tribal Chairperson requesting access. In those cases where a previous 

relationship existed, the ARRA project manager contacted the Tribal 

employee to request the most appropriate pathway for securing permission. Usually, having a person working with the Tribe facilitated the 

permission request.

Prior to advertising the RFP, State officials reached out to Tribes to see 

if any Tribes were interested in collecting FIA data on their own lands, 

or in bidding to collect the data on other lands. The State viewed the 

project as an excellent capacity building opportunity for Tribal forestry 

programs. A meeting was held between interested Tribal officials at the 

Intertribal Timber Council meeting held in Ruidoso in April 2010. 

Initially there were four Tribes interested in collecting their own FIA 

data, and no Tribes actually bid on the RFP. However, in anticipation 

that some Tribes might wish to bid, plots on Tribal Lands were placed 

in two separate line items.

In 2010, SWCA Environmental Consultants received both of these 

line items based on their bids. The firm had worked with many of the 

Tribes in the past, and, in general, managed Tribal relationships well. 

Many lessons were learned, and contractors, crew leaders, and State officials worked with Tribal leaders to help facilitate the process. As with 

private landowners, the Tribes had the option to deny access. Several 

of the pueblos exercised this option. As additional panels were added 

to the project, it was necessary to contact Tribal officials again. SWCA 

had prepared a useful database of contacts that helped facilitate this 

process.

There was one incident on Tribal lands that resulted in the program 

discontinuing any attempts to access those plots. A crew had reached a 

plot towards the end of the day and established the center point. When 

they returned to the plot the next day, two Victor leg-hold traps had 

been set beneath their center pin. Fortunately the crew detected and 

set off the traps without injury. Through resulting cooperation with 

Tribal officials it was learned that a Tribal contract trapper had set the 

traps, rationalizing that coyotes were likely to investigate a place where 

humans had been. He claimed no mal intent towards the crew. All parties agreed though it was better to stop the data collection that year on 

that reservation.

Access on Department of Defense Facilities—There are several large 

facilities under the direction of the Department of Defense with FIA 

plots, including the White Sands Missile Range and Fort Bliss Military 
18

Reservation. To reduce access burden on these installations, all military 

plots were assigned to one contracting firm. Chestnut Ridge Forestry 

worked closely with the base officials and had select crew leaders attend specialized training to be on the facilities and utilize escorts when 

necessary. Due to proximity of unexploded ordinance or scheduled 

bombing events, some plots were denied access.

Access on National Park Service Lands—The National Park Service 

has a rather lengthy permitting process that the FIA office adheres to 

under a nationwide Memorandum of Understanding between the FIA 

Program and the National Park Service. Therefore, Forest Service staff 

worked with the State and contractors to secure necessary permits for 

access to parks and monuments. Access to Bandelier Monument was 

complicated by the 2011 Las Conchas Fire (see additional access issues 

below.)

Access on Bureau of Land Management Lands—Although BLM 

lands are public and generally open to public access, some BLM lands 

require access through private land. Crews were required to get permission to cross private land on private roads. Crews were encouraged to 

check in with local BLM districts to get information on landowners, 

issues, and other information that would help them access their plots.

Access on National Forest Lands—Like BLM lands, National Forest 

lands also generally have public access, though crews may need to get 

access through private and Tribal lands in some cases. At the Silver City 

training, the Gila Zone Manager requested that crews check in with 

the local zone offices when they were working in the area. Although all 

crew leaders may not have followed this advice, throughout the course 

of the project there were no complaints about FIA contractors being on 

National Forest lands.

Access to Land Managed by Other Agencies—There were other agencies that had permitting processes and required various forms and 

authorization. These included the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

New Mexico Department of Game & Fish, and the Middle Rio Grande 

Conservancy District.

Additional Access Issues—Both 2011 and 2012 posed additional access issues due to large wildfires burning in the State. Crew leaders 

stayed away from areas that were actively experiencing fire; but often 

after a large fire, vast regions were administratively closed because of 

hazard from falling trees, persistent hot spots, and flash flooding. The 

ARRA project manager generally contacted the appropriate resource 

manager of the burn site to determine if permission could be granted, and crew leaders were given safety briefings before entering these 
19

recently burned lands. These plots were particularly challenging because existing roads were often compromised or impassable.

Only one incident was reported of a crew member being threatened 

with a gun. The individual did not wish to have the incident investigated, but wanted to be sure no one was sent out to the site.

Plot Assignments and Data Collection

Prior to each field season, Forest Service FIA staff determines which 

plots come to the field for inventory. Plots are reviewed in the office 

to determine if they are forest (timberland or woodland), non-forest, 

or needing a determination in the field. If the office crew can identify 

from interpretation of aerial imagery that the plot does not include any 

forest, the information for the plot is gathered in the office and the 

plot never reaches the field. Our ARRA project was devoted to only 

conducting surveys on those plots needing a field visit.

For plots needing a field visit, a plot packet was prepared by FIA staff. 

The packet included maps, aerial photos, and various forms used to record location and sketch a map, capture tree canopy information, take 

photos, and so forth. The packets were packaged in a specially sized 

manila envelope. Throughout the course of the project, the management of plot packets was a key activity for the State and the contractors. 

The penalty for contractors losing a packet was $100; as a result, only a 

few packets were lost (and these were stolen along with the contractor’s 

inventory gear). A few packets were also misplaced and so duplicate 

sets were made. Considering the handling of over 4,000 plot packets, 

the control protocol was quite successful.

The first set of plots considered for the ARRA project consisted of the 

2005-2011 panels, including the remainder of the 2008 panel that had 

been partially completed by FS crews in 2008 and 2009. This provided 

a total pool of 4,412 plots needing field visits. At the start of the 2010 

field season, 1,511 plots were retained for Forest Service crews to work 

on and 2,801 plots were assigned to contractors and Tribes. Each plot 

was identified by a code that consisted of a county code and plot number. Both the county code and the plot number are necessary, since plot 

numbers assigned for each county start at one. We used this unique 

combination identifier to assign plots to the contractors. If the crew 

leader failed to find the old plot and re-established a new plot center, 

a new plot number was assigned in MIDAS; however, for payment 

purposes the old plot number was used for invoicing.

In 2010, plots were split up among the contractors by the line items 

from the RFP with the exception of plots in wilderness areas, which 
20

were assigned geographically adjacent to each contractor’s other assignments. Most assignments followed New Mexico State Forestry District 

boundaries. Chestnut Ridge was assigned the eastern half of the State, 

including the Cimarron, Las Vegas, and Capitan District plots, and 

all of the Department of Defense plots. South Wind Conservation 

was assigned the Chama District and the Socorro District plots, and 

the bulk of the wilderness plots since these areas included the Gila, 

Aldo Leopold and Apache Kid wildernesses. The two Tribal line items 

(Western Pueblos and Rio Grande Pueblos) and the Bernalillo District 

plots went to SWCA. The Navajo Nation plots were assigned to the 

Navajo Tribal Forestry program, the Mescalero plots were assigned to 

the Mescalero Department of Resource Management Protection, and 

the Santa Clara plots were assigned to Santa Clara Tribal Forestry. The 

Ramah Navajo plots were not assigned, pending an agreement developing between the State and the Ramah Forestry program.

As plots were denied access, amendments to the contracts swapped out 

the original assignments with new plots. There was some flexibility 

between the plots assigned to the Forest Service and the State. For example, when a large landowner required crews to sign a specific liability 

release4, those plots were transferred from the Forest Service pool to 

the contractor pool because administratively the contractors were able 

to sign the release. Contract amendments require several weeks to a 

month to work through the State’s administrative processes, so when 

a new RFP was issued in 2011, these contracts utilized administrative 

work orders for plot assignments that were processed within the division administration and could be executed in approximately 1 week. 

Therefore, the State chose to close out the 2010 contracts at the end 

of 2011, and only carry forward the 2011 contracts. Table 4 shows 

the contract documents and effective dates. More funds became available for field collection because the access denied rate was larger than 

expected and the State decided not to use funds originally targeted for 

analysis. Therefore, in the fall of 2010, project managers added the 

2012 panel to the pool of plots. In 2011, the State determined it did 

not need the full allocation for administrative costs and moved more 

of the funding into contracting, so the 2013 panel was added to the pool. 

About the same time, Forest Service staff from the Southwest Region requested that approximately 57 plots that were included in large fires 

from the 2011 fire season be re-measured by the ARRA project. 

4 The existing laws that protect landowners are the Federal Tort Claims Act 

(for damages incurred) and the Worker’s Compensation Act (for liability). 

Collectively they offer the landowner liability protection, but in a Federally 

legislated form. The flexibility to transfer the plots to private contractors saved 

staff time that would have been needed to work out the details for both the 

landowner and the government.
21

Contractor Type Change Contract ID Purpose Contract Value Value assigned change in value Signed by Contractor Effective Date

Chestnut Ridge 

Forestry PSA 10-521-9999- 282 Initial PSA, assign value and plots to contract. $950,000.00 $872,510.00 5/14/2010 6/7/2010

Chestnut Ridge 

Forestry

AmendmentPSA Amend 1 Removed access denied plots (163) and added 2012 plots (249) & low elevation blind plots (49). $950,000.00 $948,082.00 $75,572.00 12/13/2010 12/23/2010

Chestnut Ridge 

Forestry

AmendmentPSA Amend 2 Removed excess blind & access denied plots (47); added high elev. blind plots and new 2012 panel plots (42). $950,000.00 $948,912.00 $830.00 3/24/2011 4/15/2011

Chestnut Ridge 

Forestry

AmendmentPSA Amend 3 Remove access denied and Singleton plots (47) and added “turn in” plots (47) from SWCA $950,000.00 $949,334.00 $422.00 10/5/2011 10/13/2013

South Wind Conservation, Inc. PSA 10-521-40187- 0281 Initial PSA, assign value and plots to contract. $950,000.00 $779,910.81 5/18/2010 6/3/2010

South Wind Conservation, Inc. Amendment- PSA Amend 1 remove access denied and add blind plots $950,000.00 $779,888.82 ($21.99) 1/27/2011 2/7/2011

South Wind Conservation, Inc. Amendment- PSA Amend 2 remove access denied and add 2012 panel plots $950,000.00 $780,164.22 $275.40 3/22/2011 3/31/2011

SWCA Environmental PSA 10-521-9999- 280 Initial PSA, assign value and plots to contract. $950,000.00 $709,991.04 5/14/2010 6/2/2011

SWCA Environmental Amendment- PSA Amend 1 remove access denied and add blind plots $950,000.00 $707,456.00 ($2,535.04) 1/26/2011 2/2/2011

SWCA Environmental Amendment- PSA Amend 2 remove access denied and add 2012 panel plots $950,000.00 $780,005.00 $72,549.00 4/7/2011 4/25/2011

SWCA Environmental Amendment- PSA Amend 3 remove turn in and access denied plots (145) and add tribal plots (6) $950,000.00 $554,679.82 ($225,325.18) 10/4/2011 10/13/2011

Mescalero Apache 

Tribe

JPA/work 

plan

10-521-2301-

0304 Initial work plan, assign value and plots to contract. $47,400.00 $47,400.00 6/23/2010 6/30/2010

Pueblo of Santa Clara JPA/work plan 09-521-40042- 0072 Initial work plan, assign value and plots to contract. $6,000.00 $6,000.00 6/9/2010 6/10/2010

Pueblo of Santa Clara Work plan modification Mod 1 extend date $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $ - 12/29/2011 12/29/2011

The Navajo Nation JPA/work plan 10-521-2301- 0264 Initial work plan, assign value and plots to contract. $226,200.00 $226,200.00 10/15/2011 1/6/2011

The Navajo Nation Work plan modification Mod 1 remove P3 assist and extend date $226,200.00 $226,200.00 12/30/2011 12/31/2011

The Navajo Nation Work plan modification Mod 2 add 2012 field season plots and adjust budget $225,600.00 ($600.00) 8/2/2012 8/13/2012

Chestnut Ridge 

Forestry PSA 11-521-9999- 0232 Initial PSA, assign value to contract. $552,000.00 4/22/2011 5/9/2011

Chestnut Ridge 

Forestry

AmendmentPSA Amend 1 extend date to 12/31/12 $552,000.00 12/8/2011 12/16/2011

Chestnut Ridge 

Forestry

AmendmentPSA Amend 2 added funds $727,510.00 3/29/2012 4/19/2012

Table 4—Contract Documents.
22

Contractor Type Change Contract ID Purpose Contract Value Value assigned change in value Signed by Contractor Effective Date

Chestnut Ridge 

Forestry

AmendmentPSA Amend 3 added funds $828,676.00 5/17/2012 5/30/2012

Chestnut Ridge 

Forestry Work Order wo #1 Initial Assignment of 656 plots. $552,000.00 $547,323.00 5/16/2011 5/18/2011

Chestnut Ridge 

Forestry Work Order wo #2 remove access denied (30) and added FS transfer plots (32) $552,000.00 $551,504.00 $4,181.00 8/8/2011 8/16/2011

Chestnut Ridge 

Forestry Work Order wo #3 remove access denied (40) and add “turn in” plots (38) $552,000.00 $551,801.00 $297.00 9/7/2011 9/12/2011

Chestnut Ridge 

Forestry Work Order wo #4 remove all 2010-11 plots, first 2012 assignments $552,000.00 $551,208.00 ($593.00) 2/20/2012 2/24/2012

Chestnut Ridge 

Forestry Work Order wo #5 replace access denied $552,000.00 $551,613.00 $405.00 4/10/2012 4/12/2012

Chestnut Ridge 

Forestry Work Order wo #6 new assignments & replace access denied $727,510.00 $727,063.00 $175,450.00 4/24/2012 4/24/2012

Chestnut Ridge 

Forestry Work Order wo#7 replace access denied $727,510.00 $727,473.00 $410.00 5/10/2012 5/11/2012

Chestnut Ridge 

Forestry Work Order wo#8 new assignments & replace access denied $828,676.00 $828,622.00 $101,149.00 6/1/2012 6/5/2012

Chestnut Ridge 

Forestry Work Order wo#9 replace access denied $828,676.00 $828,617.00 ($5.00) 6/13/2012 6/25/2012

Chestnut Ridge 

Forestry Work Order wo#10 replace access denied $828,676.00 $828,576.00 ($41.00) 9/4/2012 9/11/2012

Chestnut Ridge 

Forestry Work Order wo#11 replace access denied $828,676.00 $828,034.00 ($542.00) 10/9/2012 10/16/2012

Chestnut Ridge 

Forestry Work Order wo#12 replace access denied $828,676.00 $828,650.00 $616.00 10/15/2012 10/18/2012

Chestnut Ridge 

Forestry Work Order wo#13 replace access denied $828,676.00 $828,379.00 ($271.00) 10/31/2012 11/2/2012

Chestnut Ridge 

Forestry Work Order wo#14 replace access denied $828,676.00 $828,061.00 ($318.00) 11/11/2012 11/21/2012

Chestnut Ridge 

Forestry Work Order wo#15 replace access denied $828,676.00 $828,316.00 $255.00 11/16/2012 11/27/2012

South Wind Conservation, Inc. PSA 11-521-9999-2- 0231 Initial PSA, assign value to contract. $102,570.00 4/19/2011 5/12/2011

South Wind Conservation, Inc. Amendment- PSA Amend 1 added funds $163,000.00 $60,430.00 10/6/2011 10/25/2011

South Wind Conservation, Inc. Amendment- PSA Amend 2 extend date to 12/31/12 $163,000.00 12/8/2011 12/22/2011

South Wind Conservation, Inc. Amendment- PSA Amend 3 added funds $339,275.00 $176,275.00 4/1/2012 4/17/2012

South Wind Conservation, Inc. Amendment- PSA Amend 4 added funds $378,700.00 $39,425.00 10/11/2012 10/17/2012

South Wind Conservation, Inc. Work Order wo #1 Initial assignment of 91plots. $102,570.00 $101,000.00 5/19/2011 5/25/2011

South Wind Conservation, Inc. Work Order wo #2 3 new Animas plots + wilderness plots $163,000.00 $163,000.00 $62,000.00 11/2/2011 11/4/2011

Table 4—Contract Documents (Continued).
23

Contractor Type Change Contract ID Purpose Contract Value Value assigned change in value Signed by Contractor Effective Date

South Wind Conservation, Inc. Work Order wo #2 3 new Animas plots + wilderness plots $163,000.00 $163,000.00 $62,000.00 11/2/2011 11/4/2011

South Wind Conservation, Inc. Work Order wo #3 Move Ute Mtn plots $163,000.00 $153,925.00 ($9,075.00) 11/25/2011 11/28/2011

South Wind Conservation, Inc. Work Order wo #4 remove all 2010-11 plots, first 2012 assignments $163,000.00 $161,825.00 $7,900.00 2/16/2012 2/16/2012

South Wind Conservation, Inc. Work Order wo #5 replace access denied $163,000.00 $163,000.00 $1,175.00 3/19/2012 3/23/2012

South Wind Conservation, Inc. Work Order wo #6 new assignments $339,275.00 $339,100.00 $176,100.00 4/28/2012 5/4/2012

South Wind Conservation, Inc. Work Order wo #7 replace access denied $339,275.00 $338,300.00 ($800.00) 6/18/2012 6/25/2012

South Wind Conservation, Inc. Work Order wo #8 replace access denied $339,275.00 $338,600.00 $300.00 7/20/2012 7/26/2012South Wind Conservation, Inc. Work Order wo #9 replace access denied $339,275.00 $339,150.00 $550.00 9/1/2012 9/13/2012South Wind Conservation, Inc. Work Order wo#10 new assignments $378,700.00 $378,700.00 $39,550.00 10/26/2012 10/30/2012

South Wind Conservation, Inc. Work Order wo#11 replace access denied $378,700.00 $378,467.00 ($233.00) 11/7/2012 11/21/2012

South Wind Conservation, Inc. Work Order wo#12 replace access denied $378,700.00 $378,725.92 $258.92 11/26/2012 11/29/2012

SBH Contracting PSA 11-521-9999- 0239 Initial PSA, assign value to contract. $76,000.00 5/3/2011 5/23/2011

SBH Contracting Amendment- PSA Amend 1 added funds $110,000.00 10/14/2011 10/28/2011

SBH Contracting Amendment- PSA Amend 2 extend date to 12/31/12 $110,000.00 12/5/2011 12/22/2011

SBH Contracting Amendment- PSA Amend 3 added funds $204,450.00 3/12/2012 4/4/2012

SBH Contracting Work Order wo #1 Initial plot assignments. $76,000.00 $75,200.00 5/30/2011 6/3/2011

SBH Contracting Work Order wo #2 Remove 22 access denied plots and add 15 additional plots. $76,000.00 $66,400.00 ($8,800.00) 8/5/2011 8/16/2011

SBH Contracting Work Order wo #3 Remove 11 (Taos) plots and add 18 plots. $76,000.00 $73,600.00 $7,200.00 8/31/2011 9/2/2011

SBH Contracting Work Order wo #4 add plots for new funding $110,000.00 $106,300.00 $32,700.00 11/4/2011 11/8/2011

SBH Contracting Work Order wo #5 remove all 2010-11 plots, first 2012 assignments $110,000.00 $109,950.00 $3,650.00 2/14/2012 2/16/2012

SBH Contracting Work Order wo #6 new assignments $204,450.00 $203,200.00 $93,250.00 4/12/2012 4/17/2012

Table 4—Contract Documents (Continued).
24

This study would be modeled after similar post-fire studies in other 

regions. In 2012, after determining that the special collection for post 

fire information was not ready to occur, project managers added approximately 90 plots from the 2014 panel into the pool. Therefore, the 

ARRA project and the combined efforts of the Forest Service FIA crews 

were able to collect 9 out of 10 panels and to start collections on the 

10th panel. The plans are for the FS FIA crews to complete the 2014 

panel and possibly the additional re-measurement of burned plots during the field seasons of 2013 and 2014. During the field season of 

2015, crews will start the second cycle of measurements with the 2005 

panel. This will put the State on the annual collections cycle in congruence with the rest of the nation’s program.

Together, both agencies attempted data collection on 6,456 plots, and 

actually visited or attempted to visit 5,468 plots (access was denied 

on 988 plots)5. Contractors working for the State gathered data on 

3, 9866 plots (including 145 blind check plots) over the course of the 

3-year program. Table 5 breaks out the accomplishments by year and 

by contractor or organization. Management of the program included 

the use of extensive databases. Although much specific information in 

those databases is not public information and protected by the Food 

and Drug Act, the databases are described in Appendix K along with 

the color coding that was used for tracking specific information.

Jobs Created/Retained

The primary objective for ARRA was to save and create jobs. Between 

the contractors hired and Tribal participation, there was a total of 50 

different individuals that worked on this project. The requirement 

for reporting “Number of Jobs” was based on a formula used to avoid 

overstating the number of other than full-time, permanent jobs. The 

calculation converts part-time and temporary jobs into fractional “fulltime equivalent” (FTE) jobs. The total number of hours worked by 

a person in the current reporting quarter was divided by a full-time 

schedule of 520 hours. Table 6 shows the total hours reported, by quarter as per the FTE calculation.

5 These numbers are presented from a State contracting perspective, and include plots that the State paid for (blind plots, nonforest plots, and hazardous 

plots) but does not include access denied plots for the plots visited value. 

There were 20 plots that were hazardous; following standard FIA conventions, 

they would be tallied with access denied plots for a non-sampled value. There 

were also 176 blind plots included.

6 This number follows the conventions described above with the exception 

of removing five plots that were paid for, but did not have data entered into 

the final database.
25

Table 5—Plots completed by year and contractor.

Contract company 2012 2011 2010

Chestnut Ridge Forestry 625 810 416

Mescalero Apache Tribe 0 37 4

Navajo Nation 31 158 0

Colorado State Forest Service 8 12 149

South Wind 313 678 227

Pueblo of Santa Clara 6 0 0

SBH 106 91 0

SWCA 0 329 156

USFS 56 371 645

Office entered nonvisits 509 330 120

Discussion

Projects Considered But Not Implemented

When the State received the ARRA grant for developing the FIA database, the initial thought was that a portion of the data would be 

collected, and that part of the project would also work on some of the 

data analysis issues. Several additional projects were considered, but 

the final outcome was to prioritize the collection of P2 data and to get 

as much data collected as possible. These projects are briefly discussed 

here to document the need and thought process behind these ideas.

Table 6—FTE grand totals 

for each quarter.

Quarter FTE total

2010-Q1 0

2010-Q2 3.65

2010-Q3 19.77

2010-Q4 14.7

2011-Q1 19.18

2011-Q2 20.86

2011-Q3 26.64

2011-Q4 18.63

2012-Q1 4.71

2012-Q2 12.48

2012-Q3 6.14

2012-Q4 10.89

2013-Q1 0.02

2013-Q2 0
26

Collecting Additional Data Collection for Volume Tables for 

Woodland and Forest Species—Based on outside input, the State 

considered developing an RFP to address some deficiency issues of 

current volume equations for woodland species for estimating biomass 

and carbon sequestration. In the end, the decision was to support a 

similar process that was being planned by the FIA analysts in Ogden. 

The State considered paying for field analysis for some species (in particular one-seed juniper) that would not be done during the regional 

field process. However, the protocols necessary for developing an RFP 

were not ready in time to add this aspect to the ARRA project.

Revamping the NM Statewide Assessment Based on New Data—

Much of the 2010 New Mexico Natural Resources Assessment was 

based on older FIA data. The hope was to develop an RFP that would 

take the data collected in the first 2 years of the ARRA project and rerun the analysis for the Statewide Assessment in the third year of the 

ARRA project. Delays at a national level in data processing, and delays 

in the field in completing the data collection, led the State to decide 

not to use ARRA funding for this task. We are hopeful that the State 

will find additional funding for this important step in overall natural 

resource management visioning for New Mexico.

Remeasuring and Gathering Fire Effects Data for Plots Recently 

Burned in Large Fires—In 2011 and 2012 New Mexico experienced 

several large landscape fires. In other regions, a procedure known as 

AREBA (Accelerated Re-measurement and Evaluation of Burned 

Areas) has been developed for re-measuring FIA plots and gathering 

immediate feedback on the fire’s impact. Region 3 of the U.S. Forest 

Service contacted the State in 2011 and asked if AREBA plots could 

be incorporated into the ARRA project. State officials worked with the 

regional office to develop protocols, but by mid-2012 had been unable 

to produce a functional field procedure for adding the plots to the program. At that time, the decision was to add plots from the 2014 panel 

to the ARRA contracts, and ask the FIA crews to do the AREBA plots 

in 2013 once the field procedures had been confirmed.

New Mexico FIA User Group Participation

The State recognized that there was broad interest in FIA data among 

many natural resource managers and users. An informal group was 

created to keep informed on the progress of the FIA inventory and 

to solicit input. This group included Tribal representatives, industry 

representatives, representatives from the U.S. Forest Service, BLM, 

State Land Office, and Forest and Watershed Health Institute. A Users 

Group meeting was hosted in March 2012 to solicit input for the 

Interior West FIA report writing team.
27

State – Federal Partnership

This project truly manifested as wonderful collaboration between State 

and Federal agencies to achieve a shared goal. The teamwork and communication was invaluable. Specific individuals who were involved are 

included in the acknowledgment section of this report.

There were several elements of this project that required communication and coordination. At times, funding for one aspect of the job, 

such as purchasing additional equipment or funding part-time staff to 

help with administration, could not be administratively accomplished 

by one agency, but could be accomplished by the other agency. Federal 

employees often pitched in to help sort plot packets, manage databases, 

etc., when their own workloads were low. The outstanding cooperation 

among the partners involved in this study resulted in smooth project 

implementation.

Overall, the partnership was successful and could serve as a model for 

future collaborations. This project clearly demonstrated the opportunity to utilize alternative sources of funding to collect FIA data. To avoid 

future scenarios of data deficit where this extent of special effort is necessary, on-going (i.e. annual) data collection is required to maintain the 

temporal and spatial value of forest inventory information. This goal 

will require continued collaboration and support from Federal, State, 

Tribal and other partners.

Discussion of Access Denied Issues

The high rate of access denied for plots on private and State lands is disappointing. One of the primary reasons State Forestry was interested in 

the FIA data was for increased information on State and private lands. 

Typically landowner permission is handled by FIA staff. The State offered to take on this role, rationalizing that New Mexico landowners 

would be more comfortable dealing with a State agency that provides 

services to New Mexico landowners rather than the Federal government. Since there really is no comparable activity in the State, it is hard 

to say that the Federal government would have had a better or worse 

success rate had that responsibility remained with the Forest Service.

On a positive note, analysts were able to stratify the private land plots 

(Goeking and Patterson 2012) to allow measured plots to carry more 

weight for similar denied access plots, which provides meaningful 

analysis on private land on a State-wide level as well as for individual 

counties. There are some large properties where access was denied, 

which left some geographic gaps in the data. Unique and significant 
28

parts of the State that were under-sampled include the boot heel region, and pieces of woodland in San Miguel, Torrance, Chaves, and 

Otero counties.

From a lesson learned standpoint, more aggressive outreach with landowner organizations and landowners may have been useful. We ended 

up responding to negative attitudes rather than proactively building 

partnerships initially. Interestingly, we believed that organizations that 

support ranchers had the most to gain from the survey to provide documentation for initiatives and grants and were quite surprised to find 

an adversarial attitude.

Some landowners in areas of grassland with mesquite expressed a sense 

of disbelief that we were interested in conducting forest inventory in 

those areas. In retrospect, we should have provided specific information in permission request letters that explained the need for data for 

these ecosystems.

Future FIA Data Needs for New Mexico

The 2008-2012 inventory has developed a solid baseline data set for 

tracking the effects of changing climates; impacts from insects, disease, and wildfires; fuel conditions; and many other forest attributes for 

New Mexico. The current plan is to have the USFS FIA crews finish 

the final panel and possibly do the AREBA plots that were planned for 

2012 over the next two field seasons.

In 2015, there is an opportunity to help the State get started on the 

standard FIA data rotation by revisiting the plots in the 2005 panel; in 

2016, revisit the plots in the 2006 panel, and so forth. Although that 

means the re-measurement interval may only be 3-5 years in 2015, the 

forests in the State are rapidly changing due to insects, disease, and 

wildfire. Data documenting these changes will help resource managers 

target limited funds to the most appropriate issues.

One benefit of the ARRA project has been the capacity for contracting 

that has been developed. Already, one company involved in the New 

Mexico ARRA project has submitted successful bids for at least three 

additional contracts for FIA plot inventories nationwide. There is a 

strong potential that qualified contractors would be available should 

the Forest Service decide to contract data collection in New Mexico in 

the future.
29

Potential Uses of New FIA Data

The new FIA data creates a comprehensive baseline for tracking the 

impact of changing climates on New Mexico forest resources. The data 

also provides relevant and current information for basing decisions on 

biomass and industry development. The forthcoming New Mexico 

forest resources report (Goeking and others 2014) identifies many of 

the changes that have been detected since 1999.

It is critical that other tools that utilize FIA data update their information with the new data. One important resource is the LANDFIRE 

program, which is used to model fire behavior and make fire management decisions7. These types of national programs need to be made 

aware of the unique situation in New Mexico where this new data set 

is not yet aligned with the annual inventories. If these programs do not 

update their tools, there may be an opportunity to develop functional 

work-around adjustments to calibrate the programs for better results 

based on the new inventory.

Acknowledgments

The accomplishment of implementing the New Mexico forest inventory was indeed a huge team effort. At the risk of overlooking any 

essential player, this section attempts to identify and thank those who 

helped this project succeed.

Leadership: Much credit goes to agency and political leaders that 

helped get this project off the ground. Former New Mexico State 

Forester, Butch Blazer, had the original vision to get this done, and his 

successor, New Mexico State Forester Tony Delfin, has continued to 

support the program and ensure its completion and success. Interior 

West FIA Program Manager Michael Wilson and Rocky Mountain 

Research Station Director Sam Foster have ensured Federal support 

for the project’s success. The New Mexico congressional delegation, 

especially staff from Senator Tom Udall’s and Senator Jeff Bingaman’s 

offices, provided the initial support for applying for ARRA grant funding. Resource Management Bureau Chief Kim Kostelnik, succeeded by 

Eddie Tudor, provided invaluable direct project support. Mary Stuever 

served as the project manager.

7 The P2 down woody data, which is available from the Interior West FIA program, represents the largest fuels dataset ever collected in New Mexico. We 

strongly recommend an update of LANDFIRE’s fuel layers utilizing this data.
30

State employees: Administratively, this program ran smoothly and efficiently under the capable eye of Natasha Ripple who ensured all ARRA 

requirements were met and processed invoices and purchasing documents. Doris Archuleta, Tammy Kessler, and Denise Zendel provided 

invaluable help processing the vast number of contracting documents 

involved. Andrew Frederick and Lindsey Quam provided capable 

back-up support on program management. In the field, District staff 

handled plot packets, supported contractors with landowner contacts, 

fielded inquiries from landowners, shuttled equipment, and provided 

other various help. At the risk of overlooking someone, thanks are extended to Doug Boykin, Nick Smokovich, Todd Haines, Joe Carrillo, 

Arnie Friedt, Ernie Lopez, Shannon Atencio, Carmen Austin, Eddie 

Tudor, and Susan Rich.

USFS FIA employees: Bob Rhoads, Data Collection Team Leader for 

the Interior West FIA program, provided amazing support and collaboration. John Capuano, Area Leader for Arizona and New Mexico, 

did much of the heavy lifting and in many ways provided essential 

interface between the State and Federal programs. The real heroes 

of the project are the inspectors Jim Dexter, Dave Herwig, and John 

Capuano. Several other inspectors came to New Mexico to help during 

the off-season as well. The Arizona-New Mexico FIA crew, including 

Juliet Wilhelm, Vernon Robinson, and others, provided necessary support, and often at a moment’s notice. Many others in the Ogden office 

were also fantastic resources: Mark Rubey, TomWuenschell, and Jeremy 

Hamblin for MIDAS and database support; Bill Dunning for advice 

on all things contracting and field based; Sara Goeking succeeded by 

Jennifer Bakken for landowner access and permitting support and for 

plot packet preparation; John Shaw and team for analyst insight and 

user group outreach; and Michael Wilson and Renee O’Brien for problem solving.

Contractors: Obviously, the project would not have happened without the contractors: Joel and Esther Fyock of Chestnut Ridge Forestry; 

Ike Wennihan of South Wind Conservation, Inc.; Stuart Hart of 

SBH Contracting; and Coleman Burnett of SWCA Environmental 

Consultants. Our Tribal partners added richness to the program that 

was invaluable. From an administrative standpoint, we enjoyed working with Alexious Becenti, Frankie Thompson, and Sadie Johnson 

of the Navajo Nation; Thora Padilla and Earl Bell of the Mescalero 

Apache Tribe; and Michael Chavarria and Bruce Bauer with the Pueblo 

of Santa Clara. In addition, despite not getting a working project off 

the ground, we appreciate the interest of Mike Henio of Ramah Navajo 

Forestry and Sylvia Rains Dennis working with the War Chief of Taos 

Pueblo. The crew leaders were of course the major producers of the 
31

project and Table 7 lists each crew leader, their employer, and the number of plots they are credited for in MIDAS. 

Colorado State Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis Crew:

We wish to thank the FIA crews from the Colorado State Forest Service 

for assisting with data collection on plots as we wrapped up our field 

seasons each year

Landowners and Land Managers: In the spirit of privacy, we are not 

naming names, but our heartfelt gratitude goes out to those landowners, many who managed access to multiple plots, for participating with 

us on this project. This includes our Tribal partners, other agency contacts, as well as thousands of New Mexico landowners who recognized 

the greater value of completing this inventory and allowed access to 

their property.

User’s Group: As stated previously, the New Mexico user’s group is 

an informal network without formal membership; however, several 

people stepped up to assist with program direction and support including Wayne Robbie of the U.S. Forest Service Southwest Regional 

Office, Jeremy Kruger of the BLM’s New Mexico State Office, and 

Mark Meyers with the State Land Office.

Reviewers: Special thanks to Sara Goeking and Mark Meyers for reviewing this document and improving its content. 

References

Choate, Grover A. 1966. New Mexico’s forest resources. Resour. Bull. INT-5. Ogden, 

UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station. 61 p.

Goeking, Sara A.; Shaw, John D.; Witt, Chris; Werstak, Charles; Thompson, Michael 

T; Morgan, Todd A.; Sorenson, Colin B.; Menlove, Jim; Amacher, Michael C.; 

Stuever, Mary; Hayes, Steven W.; McIver, Chelsea P.; Bailey, Robert G. 2014. 

New Mexico’s forest resources, 2008-2012. Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-18. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station.

O’Brien, R. A. 2003. New Mexico’s forests, 2000. Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-3. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 117 p.
32

Crew Contractor Company Production + Blind Plots

Adelson Chestnut Ridge Forestry 22

Ayotte Chestnut Ridge Forestry 38

Bell Chestnut Ridge Forestry 23

Bernhardt Chestnut Ridge Forestry 34

Biasotti Chestnut Ridge Forestry 24

Cziperle Chestnut Ridge Forestry 118

Dolecek Chestnut Ridge Forestry 296

Fyock Chestnut Ridge Forestry 1

Gee Chestnut Ridge Forestry 42

Gosack Chestnut Ridge Forestry 39

Hastings Chestnut Ridge Forestry 2

Hayes Chestnut Ridge Forestry 250

Hutchinson Chestnut Ridge Forestry 8

Landewe Chestnut Ridge Forestry 4

Mamerow Chestnut Ridge Forestry 11

Mclelland Chestnut Ridge Forestry 9

Mueller Chestnut Ridge Forestry 152

Nowak Chestnut Ridge Forestry 78

Oukrop Chestnut Ridge Forestry 28

Parks Chestnut Ridge Forestry 155

Quinion Chestnut Ridge Forestry 97

Romero Chestnut Ridge Forestry 190

Roth Chestnut Ridge Forestry 83

Sommerville Chestnut Ridge Forestry 42

Starn Chestnut Ridge Forestry 40

Tumenas Chestnut Ridge Forestry 44

Wagner Chestnut Ridge Forestry 21

Bernhardt South Wind 26

Brennan South Wind 1

Brisbin South Wind 193

Brown South Wind 6

Cargill South Wind 172

Dekoker South Wind 2

Dolecek South Wind 4

Hayes South Wind 7

Howard South Wind 6

Kesonie South Wind 16

Macfarland South Wind 19

North South Wind 262

Quinion South Wind 10

Reininger South Wind 167

Simons South Wind 13

Sommerville South Wind 69

Tumenas South Wind 31

Table 7—Plots by crew.
33

Crew Contractor Company Production + Blind Plots

Wagner South Wind 125

Wennihan South Wind 89

Allen SWCA 111

Amato SWCA 15

Nietupski SWCA 95

Stropki SWCA 148

Timmons SWCA 116

Cziperle Mescalero Apache Tribe 16

Dexter Mescalero Apache Tribe 3

Mendez Mescalero Apache Tribe 1

Parks Mescalero Apache Tribe 10

Roth Mescalero Apache Tribe 6

Starn Mescalero Apache Tribe 5

Catron Navajo Nation 2

Dennison Navajo Nation 17

Fischer Navajo Nation 1

H.Yazzie Navajo Nation 37

Jim Navajo Nation 1

Metteba Navajo Nation 75

Quintana Navajo Nation 55

Thomas Navajo Nation 1

Robinson Pueblo of Santa Clara 6

Hart SBH 197

Arnold USFS 57

Bellcock USFS 109

Bialach USFS 54

Conklin USFS 3

Dexter USFS 6

Green USFS 240

Herwig USFS 18

Holte USFS 21

Kindt USFS 69

Lagioia USFS 40

Marshall USFS 95

Mazzulla USFS 27

Office Entered USFS 959

Robinson USFS 194

Scott USFS 20

Table 7—Plots by crew (Continued).
34

Crew Contractor Company Production + Blind Plots

Steed USFS 28

West USFS 33

Wilhelm USFS 16

Yazzie USFS 42

Bell Colorado State Forest Service 8

Clements Colorado State Forest Service 17

Dilling Colorado State Forest Service 34

Hanley Colorado State Forest Service 23

Harrison Colorado State Forest Service 7

Rector Colorado State Forest Service 22

Stout Colorado State Forest Service 35

Wykhuis Colorado State Forest Service 23

Table 7—Plots by crew (Continued).
Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper

You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your 

mailing information in label form through one of the following media. 

Please specify the publication title and number.

Telephone (970) 498-1393

E-mail rmrspubrequest@fs.fed.us

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rmpublications

Mailing Address Publications Distribution

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 West Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526

*RMRS posted link: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_rn068.html

*RMRS publications are also listed in Treesearch
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination 

against its customers, employees, and applicants for emploment on 

the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender 

identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital 

status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of 

an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program, 

or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or 

activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited 

bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research Station