PAGOSA-AREA Long-term Stewardship Contract

1. PAGOSA-AREA Long-term Stewardship Contract from idea to implementation

2. Got too much of this…

3. want more of this.

4. Began with a meshing of minds between a receptive resource group and a visionary entrepreneur… • Pagosa Ranger District/San Juan National Forest ….. and JR Ford • Other driving factors: • lack/continued loss of timber-processing industry; • downturn in economy; “urgent removal” needs elsewhere; • tightening budgets (e.g., big decline in fuels-treatment funding); • backlog of treatment needs (loss of credibility with publics..?). • [not all negative…] • recognition by publics of need to treat (esp. WUI); • willingness to accept/support mechanical treatments.

5. Pagosa RD staff conducted evaluation of: • potential, & NEPA-complete, treatable acres; • associated available biomass product; • administrative capability to fulfill potential contract obligations; and • estimated costs and revenues (i.e., “services” & “goods”) resulting from contract treatments. • and then we did the “demo” • test our assumptions (volume, production, costs); • thinning across multiple cover types, veg structure, ground conditions; • solicited on fed.biz.ops; • included third-party monitoring of effects; & • invited all to see and comment.

6. untreated – warm-dry mixed conifer (i.e., ponderosa pine overstory over white fir/Douglas-fir midstory/understory)

7. treated – whole-tree removal (boles, tops, branches/foliage) [DxD white fir & aspen, cut-tree ITM of DF, PP]; resulting activity fuels ~ 3-4 tons/acre – it’s ready to Rx burn!

8. PALTSC – building the contract • Contract proposal to Regional Forester; authorized June/2010 • Key objectives: • fuels reduction, forest restoration, forest health • “Shelf stock” (NEPA complete) -- ~ 7 years* [*some with whole-tree utilization; some w/o, needing NEPA review] • Areas to treat -- mostly lower-elevation, condition class 3 forests, in WUI, w/ CWPP’s in place; • 50-mile working circle – potentially 60,000 acres (roaded, < 35%); • Key service work (thinning) cost tied to green-ton basis (not per acre);

9. PALTSC – building the contract (continued) • Simplified the number of bid items, while incorporating the following: • typical tasks, associated with mechanical treatments, included within the “thinning” service-work activities (e.g., during/post-use road maintenance, erosion control, slash disposal, felling/treatment of damaged trees); • three haul “ranges”; • four broad forest cover types; • weighted average calculations for service-work thinning and product removal, coupled with 100% weight scale • three product types – sawtimber, poles (POL), & “miscellaneous biomass” (tops, limbs, foliage); • bids on typical pre-use road maintenance items (only 7 system road activities; 5 temporary road activities); remainder of potential items became cost allowances where FS set prices. • Other Strategies/Needs: use designation-by-description; good weight-factor data; “one-entry” approach; provide minimum tonnage per acre; requested sawtimber specs begin at 10.0” dbh.

10. Feedback from solicitation • Prospective Contractors liked: • simplicity of contract; • green-ton basis; • use of weighted averages (given good weight factors & cruise data) & 100% weight scale; • multiple show-me-trip days. • They didn’t like, or struggled with: • dealing with full range of resulting timber product; • relatively quick due date on proposals; • potential concern of change in silvi Rx (i.e., available product).

11. The Contract • awarded 6/4/12 (contract “program year” differs from FS fiscal year); • negotiated a 3-year rolling average tied to FS commitment of 32,500 green tons per year; • includes a minimum size for Task Orders (given high cost of mobilization); • flexibility on part of FS and Contractor is very advantageous! • for example, revising priorities for Task Order completion

12. BRUKS (Swedish made) Chipper

13. Chip Forwarder

14. Lessons learned… • the demo helped: • much greater tonnage obtained than we (FS) thought; • treatment of very small trees, shrubs requires different equip; • followup Rx burning will be much easier/less expensive to do. • plan pre-thinning work: road maintenance (or reconstruction); weed treatment • visit other, similar contracts – we looked at White Mtn, Front Range: • simple is better (for both agency and Contractors); • get support on your unit & maintain that support; • hear from the Contractors, as well as Agency personnel. • engage with all interested parties: • concurrent w/ contract efforts, we co-sponsored a forest conference, which led to establishment of “Upper San Juan Mixed Conifer Working Group”; • get to the field – it’s the best place to debate forest management; • be honest, and visualize the big picture.