LTSC HANDOUT.doc

Pike & San Isabel National Forests Pike & San Isabel National Forests

2840 Kachina Drive

Pueblo, CO 81008

Phone: 719-553-1400

Fax: 719-553-1440

Email: bleaverton@fs.fed.us

Front Range Long-term Stewardship Contract Handout Caring for the Land and Serving the People…

Key Point

Overview Executive Summary

The Pike & San Isabel National Forests is issuing a Long-Term Stewardship Contract (LTSC). The purpose of the LTSC is to thin timber stands to historic densities in order to prevent catastrophic wildfire and improve overall forest health. The Request for Proposal will be issued in the fall of 2008 and contract award is projected for the end of March 2009. The Forest will provide a minimum of 2000 treatment acres per year for 10 years. The selected contractor might also be in a good position to enter into separate contracts with private land owners to treat adjacent land and meet the overall goal of reducing fire risk along the Front Range of Colorado.

Project Location

Almost 23,000 acres have been identified on the Pike National Forest for possible inclusion in the LTSC. The Pike National Forest, comprising of 5 counties (Park, Teller, Douglas, Jefferson and El Paso), has identified approximately 365,000 forested acres that require treatment to reduce the risks of catastrophic wildfire to area communities or to restore forests to sound ecological health.

The proposed project is bounded by the following communities at risk: Harris Park, Bailey, Castle Rock, Lake George, and Woodland Park. Additionally, over 60 percent of the water used by metropolitan Denver originates from the South Platte River. Furthermore, the San Isabel National Forest will designate additional acres for protecting municipal water supplies and community infrastructure improvements (see NEPA Status Map on page 3).

NEPA Status

Values at Risk

In the summer of 2002, the Hayman fire, the biggest wildfire in Colorado’s recorded history, burned 140,000 acres, destroyed 133 homes and 466 outbuildings, and left parts of four counties vulnerable to flash floods and mudslides. The cost of fighting the fire and rehabilitating the burned area exceeded $80 million, excluding an estimated $160 million in indirect economic losses and long-term rehabilitation.

And yet, losses throughout the Forest could have been much greater. By sheer chance, no major fire in the last few years has found its way into a major residential area. In the words of Rick Cables, Regional Forester of the Rocky Mountain Region, Colorado has up to this point “dodged a bullet” with regard to loss of life and property. The forest’s luck, however, will not last forever. With the memories of recent fire seasons still fresh in their minds, Front Range residents understand more than ever the need to diminish the dangers posed by fire to life and property, to restore forests’ ecological integrity, to protect the watersheds that sustain the region’s inhabitants and its agricultural lands, and to use economic incentives to drive this critical work The threat to life and property will only increase with population growth along the Front Range in the coming years. Experts have projected that the Front Range Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) will double over the next 20 years. While it is often the desire to live close to nature that drives people to build homes next to and within the forest, this type of development complicates forest management and can negatively affect forest health. As Front Range communities grow, local leaders must consider how best to protect new development from wildfire while maintaining the ecological health of the forest.

Talking Points

· Project location: Pike & San Isabel NFs - within the Front Range of Colorado

· Project Purpose: Prevent Catastrophic Wildfire; Improve Forest Health

· Project Process:

· Will utilize stewardship contracting authority

· RFP for a long-term (10-year) stewardship contract will be distributed in the fall of 2008 and awarded by end of March 2009.

· Minimum treatment estimate: 2000 acres per year for 10 years totaling 20,000 acres

· 2008 treatment sites: Harris Park, Rocky Messenger, Howard, Trout (West), Upper South Platte

· Maximum treatment estimate: 4000 potential annual acres… funding dependent.

Key Point

Pre and Post Stand Conditions

Background and Report

Scientists agree that most of the ponderosa pine forests located in the Front Range ecological zone known as the Lower Montane are unnaturally dense and in need of fuels reduction treatment. The Lower Montane life zone is currently far outside its historical range of variability. Pre-settlement conditions in these forests showed scattered open meadows and more large, older, fire-resistant ponderosa pines, spaced fairly far apart (with approximately 40 to 50 trees per acre) and with a rich understory. However, as a result of logging, fire suppression, historic livestock grazing, and a wetter-than-average climate over the last 30 years, the forests of the Lower Montane are now extremely dense (with 200 to 400 trees per acre) and are often lacking in understory and forest openings. While frequent surface fires used to be the norm for this life zone, dense ladder fuels are now capable of carrying fire up to the canopy and causing unnaturally severe crown fires. Hazardous fuels reduction through selective thinning of mostly smaller trees can effectively reduce the occurrence of extensive crown fires and restore the historical surface fire regime.

The Pike & San Isabel National Forests has approximately 22,400 identified acres within the lower Montane, constituting ninety seven percent of the project area. This is also where a significant portion of the Wildland-Urban Interface exists. Because of this overlap between fire risk mitigation and ecological restoration goals, the overlap between the Lower Montane forests and the Wildland-Urban Interface should be the top priority for forest treatments. The table below displays the acres needing hazardous fuel treatments.

Advantages to Healthy Stand

Healthy stands within a forest provide a range of benefits and advantages when compared to overstocked and declining stands. Managing forests and thinning fuel loads can reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire. There are different types of treatments, ranging from fuel breaks to the removal of ladder fuels, to decreasing the number of live trees per acre; each providing a different level and type of fire protection.

In addition, managed forests are known to produce high quality water. In the dry Front Range of Colorado, forests play an especially crucial role in providing life sustaining water to nearly four million people. Fuels reductions treatments can protect watersheds by mitigating the potential for post-fire flooding. While studies show the impact of thinning Ponderosa pines on water yield as low, the potential does exist to enhance water yields by thinning additional species at different elevations. Dependant on species, elevation and treatment type; at times thinning can improve, usually slightly, water yield by reducing the number of stems per acre. A stand that has been actively managed and treated to provide for healthy ecosystem conditions across National Forests will help maintain and improve habitat for both terrestrial and aquatic wildlife and fish. In particular, management targeting healthy forest conditions should ensure the viability and conservation of threatened and endangered (T&E) species and help prevent the addition of sensitive and at-risk species to the list of T&E species.

Hazardous Fuels Planning

Thinning of the small diameter trees will improve the torching index (the wind speed that will be required to cause a ground fire to torch trees in the stand). Thinning dominant and co-dominate trees will improve the crowning index (the wind speed that will be required to sustain a crown fire). These indices are useful for several purposes in fuels reduction project planning. These include the ability to identify the areas of greatest concern for possible treatment and their relationship to other areas of concern. The maps give us the ability to compare analysis areas such as watersheds to determine which are the highest priorities for treatment. These maps are also quite useful in communicating to the public about the condition of areas they may live near or have concerns about.

BEFORE

AFTER

Results of Roundtable Analysis: Front Range Forests Requiring Forest Treatment

Sample Summary of Cruise Data Harris Park:

Green ton

PP

Howard 2:

Net

Sawtimber

Green ton

PP

1,096

Long John:

Net

Sawtimber

Green ton

PP

Girl Scout:

Net

Sawtimber

Green ton

PP

Ridgewood 2:

Net

Sawtimber

Green ton

PP

Key Point

Partnership Opportunities Background and Report

A number of the Upper South Platte properties have been thinned with contracts taking up to 12 inch diameter trees. They are finding that although they are taking about 80 percent of the trees out of the area, the basal area (i.e., the density of the forest) was still not significantly reduced. Past treatments have created an even aged vertical treatment, which focused on evenly thinning the forest and trimming the ladder fuels (i.e., the lower branches on the tree). This treatment would make it difficult for a fire to get into the crowns of the trees, however, once it did, it may remain within the canopy.

Consequently, uneven-aged “horizontal treatments” of the forest, which creates a “park like setting” with clumps of trees and areas of openness, is the preferred alternative. In order to achieve the desired condition, large and small diameter trees will need to be removed or re-distributed across the landscape. Considering varied stand conditions and multiple resource objectives, land managers need various harvesting equipment to achieve the desired end state.

I think the paragraph below needs to be removed. Teaming may or may not result in better pricing, flexibility, etc. The vendors will do the math and decide if it makes sense. Aaron’s Response: I think it does hurt to encourage the action… other Forest Service Findings have suggested this approach to lower costs.

As a result, the Forest Service encourages “teaming” of contractors in order to implement the hazardous fuels reduction and forest restoration program of work. Reasons for the teaming are as follows:

· Less Capital Investment of Equipment

· More Flexibility in Scheduling Tasks and Increasing Capacity

· Broader Capacity to Deliver Goods to the Market

· Broader Capacity to Deliver Service to the Government and Private Land Owners

· Realize Value from Small Diameter Products

· Encourage Local Employment and Small Business

· Assure Competitive Pricing of Services

Sources of Sub-Contractors

· The Fedbizopps website - where the solicitation is posted electronically - has an Interested Vendors List. To view the list: 1) go to www.fedbizopps.gov, 2) type the solicitation number (AG-82X9-S-08-0120) in the Quick Search Box, 3) click on Front Range Long Term Stewardship Contract, and 4) click on Interested Vendors List.

· To register as an interested vendor: 1) go to www.fedbizopps.gov, 2) type the solicitation number (AG-82X9-S-08-0120) in the Quick Search Box, 3) click on Front Range Long Term Stewardship Contract, 4) click on Add Me to Interested Vendors 5) click on register now, 6) you will be asked to provide information about your company and will create a username and password, 7) You will receive a separate email instructing you how to verify your username and password, 8) once verification is complete, repeat steps 1 thru 4, and 9) enter username and password and follow the prompts.

Federal and State Collaboration Front Range Fuels Treatment Partnership (FRFTP) Colorado’s Front Range Fuels Treatment Partnership (FRFTP) was created following the record fire season of 2002. Made up of representatives from the Pike & San Isabel National Forests, Arapaho & Roosevelt National Forests, Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS), Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS), and Rocky Mountain National Park, the interagency Partnership’s goals are to reduce wildland fire risks through fuels treatment projects that are economically feasible, socially acceptable, and ecologically sustainable; to protect communities from wildland fires; and to restore fire-adapted ecosystems.

In 2004, the Partnership decided to broaden its capacity and expertise with the creation of a “roundtable” comprised of representatives from state and federal agencies, local governments, environmental conservation organizations, academic and scientific communities, and industry and user groups. The FRFTP Roundtable was charged with the development of a long-term vision and roadmap for achieving comprehensive forest restoration and fire risk mitigation goals within Front Range forests and to engage local communities in the effort.

Building on the work of the FRFTP, the Roundtable pulled together leading local experts to examine ecological and fire risk mitigation needs, economic constraints, and policy issues that must be addressed to reduce fire risk and restore Front Range forests to good health.

Municipal Watersheds Through agreements, Colorado State Forest Service is responsible for management of Denver Water's forested properties statewide, and the City of Colorado Springs Watershed. In addition, the CSFS have developed a list of water providers and their key contacts, and will schedule meetings that include the USDA Forest Service, Denver Water, CSFS and the Pinchot Institute to begin discussions about fire and forest health problems associated with critical Front Range watersheds.

Colorado State Forest Service

The CSFS has indicated that their project locations will occur on municipal watershed lands, state lands, and private and other non-federal lands within 10 miles of USFS project areas. Projects will be within areas managed by the CSFS Broomfield Office and Golden, Franktown and Woodland Park Districts.

USFS Rocky Mountain, Northern, and Pacific Southwest Research Stations and Region 5

The USFS Rocky Mountain and Northern Research Stations will supply science to support the planning and implementation of this project. In addition, there is potential, if adequate funding is available, to use this project as a pilot for research on the full cycle of carbon, including standing trees, harvest used for biomass and potential offsets from fire emissions avoided.

Potential Uses

The utilization of biomass for energy or products is critical to the success of this project. Eleven towns, eight of which are within the project design borders, are located in proximity to the proposed treatment. It appears that Canon City, located south of the main project area (not included in the count of towns above), is the only town with a current co-generation biomass facility. Research shows that the viability range for biomass is approximately 50 miles between the biomass facility and the forest treatment site. That said, there is ample capacity and opportunity to introduce additional biomass utilization facilities into the area.

The recent “Jefferson County Biomass Facility Feasibility Study” supported the use and viability of forest supported biomass energy in the Front Range of Colorado. In addition, the Governor’s Office is supportive of such endeavors. Initial biomass infrastructure needs in the rural areas surrounding the project site (e.g., boiler, mill, pellet plant) would require start-up funds. The receipts from the treatment could provide steady source supply to the facility once operational. The proximity of these towns to the forest is within a viable transport range for processing and use. Larger cities (e.g., Colorado Springs, Pueblo) are all within a relatively close proximity to the site. Depending on the location of a facility proposed by the Jefferson County group, it too might be able to serve as a viable outlet for materials. Financial support via markets for renewable energy certificates or carbon offsets might also be able to help fund the forest thinning, providing biomass to these facilities, which in turn stimulates local economies.

Talking Points

· The Pike & San Isabel National Forests should continue working with local communities to build capacity among public and private sector partners who are committed to improving the condition of our forest resources.

· The US Forest Service should use a variety of procurement approaches (contract, RFP, etc.) to facilitate the supply of small diameter tree resources to small businesses that improve rural economic development.

· Partnerships:

· Colorado State Forest Service

· Front Range Fuels Treatment Partnership

· Denver Water

· Colorado State University

· Colorado Forest Restoration Institute

· Service Contractors that have been Awarded Significant Amount of Work in the Past:

· Open Range Land LLC

· Enviro Land Management LLC

· Gray Brothers Logging LLC

· Rue Logging Inc

· Bushwackers Inc

· Jerry Luce Contracting

· Summitt Forests Inc

Your Notes…

Your Notes…

End Notes

Stand Conditions

Partnership Opportunities

Overview

� http://www.state.co.us/oemc/biomass/reports/Jeffco%20Biomass%20Final%20Report_01-21-05.pdf

� Estimated direct and indirect costs of Hayman Fire: (note that calculation below excludes ecological benefits for the ~66,000 acres within the burn perimeter that either did not burn or burned with low severity thereby enhancing forest health)

� EMBED PowerPoint.Slide.8 ���

� Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) definition: The Wildland-Urban Interface is defined as an area where structures such as private homes or community infrastructure abut or are intermixed with forest and other vegetative fuel types. The WUI includes three types of communities:

(1) Interface Community: structures directly abut wildland fuels. A clear line of demarcation generally exists between the wildland fuels and residential, business, and public structures. Wildland fuels generally do not extend into the developed area. The Federal Register notice of January 4, 2001 allows the development density for an Interface Community to be defined in two ways: three structures per acre or 250 people per square mile (which translates to approximately one structure per six acres). The Roundtable prefers the definition of 250 people per square mile (or one structure per six acres) because three structures per acres is much denser than many mountain communities of interest to the Roundtable. Although the Roundtable ideally would have liked to use the one-structure-per-six-acres definition to measure the total number of acres within the Colorado Front Range made up of Interface Community land, the available data required defining an Interface Community as one structure per 10 acres.

(2) Intermix Community: structures are scattered throughout a wildland area with no clear demarcation between wildland fuels and residential, business, and public structures. Wildland fuels are continuous outside of and within the developed area. The Federal Register allows the development density for an Intermix Community to be defined in two ways: at least one structure per 40 acres or 28 to 50 people per square mile (which translates to approximately one structure per 64 acres). For the purpose of this analysis, the Roundtable used the definition of at least one structure per 40 acres (and less than one structure per 10 acres) to measure the total number of acres within the Colorado Front Range made up of Intermix Community land

(3) Island Community (a forested area surrounded by urban density, such as Central Park in New York City. Island Communities are not found in Colorado’s Front Range).

� Working definitions of Front Range life zones:

� EMBED PowerPoint.Slide.8 ���

� The need for ecological restoration in the Lower Montane life zone was evaluated by three criteria:

(1) Is the historical range of variability (HRV) well understood?

The HRV for the Lower Montane life zone is well understood. From a historical fire regime perspective, this life zone has a mixed severity fire regime that tends toward frequent, low-severity surface fires as often as every 30 to 70 years. Historically, the lower elevations of this life zone have been characterized by sparse, open tree stands created by frequent, low-severity fires that kill many of the younger, smaller trees while leaving the larger, older, more fire-resistant trees.

(2) Is this life zone outside its HRV?

The Lower Montane life zone is generally far outside its HRV. Pre-settlement conditions in these forests would have shown scattered open meadows and more large, older, fire-resistant ponderosa pines, spaced fairly far apart (with approximately 40 to 50 trees per acre) and with a rich understory. However, as a result of logging, fire suppression, livestock grazing, and a wetter-than-average climate over the last 30 years, the forests of the Lower Montane are now extremely dense (with 200 to 400 trees per acre) and are often lacking in understory and forest openings. While smaller, more frequent surface fires used to be the norm for this life zone, dense ladder fuels are now capable of carrying fire up to the canopy and causing unnaturally severe crown fires. Hazardous fuels reduction through selective thinning of mostly smaller trees can effectively reduce the occurrence of extensive crown fires and restore the historical surface fire regime.

(3) What is the risk of ignition / fire spread?

The risk of fire ignition and spread within the Lower Montane life zone is often high because several months of warm, dry weather occur almost annually within this life zone, leaving fuels sufficiently desiccated for extensive fires to occur almost annually.