PAGOSA-AREA Long-term Stewardship Contract

from idea to

implementation

Got too much of this…

want more of this.

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.

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.

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

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!

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);

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.

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).

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

BRUKS (Swedish made) Chipper

Chip Forwarder

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.