Docstoc

X - USDA Forest Service.rtf

Document Sample
X - USDA Forest Service.rtf Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                 File Date: [9/17/02]




                       USDA Forest Service
                   Stewardship Contracting Pilots
                      Monitoring/Evaluation Report

                               Fall - FY 2003
.............




Project Name:                  Dry Wolf Stewardship
Region:                        Northern Region, R1
Forest: .                      Lewis and Clark N.F.
Ranger District:               Judith Ranger District



                             Primary Forest Service Contact
Name: .......            Steve Martin
Title: .........         Timber Management Officer
Address: ...             Box 1906, Harlowton, MT
                         59036_____________________________
Phone ........           (406) 632-4391
Email: .......           sjmartin@fs.fed.us


                        Primary Multiparty Team Member Contact

Name: .......            Steve Martin
Organization             USFS
Phone .......            (406) 632-4391
Email: ......            sjmartin@fs.fed.us




                                                           PROJECT NAME– Page 1
                                                                                    File Date: [9/17/02]




A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
In some instances, the information for this section has already inserted. Each year, please review this
information for accuracy and make corrections and additions, as necessary.

A.1 Project Summary/Objectives:
Please provide a brief summary of your project.

Dry Wolf Creek is a tributary to the Judith River in the Missouri River Basin and provides habitat
for genetically pure westslope cutthroat trout and is a potential site for habitat expansion. The Dry
Wolf Campground is one of the most heavily used recreational areas on the Judith Ranger District.
Presently the campground improvements are deteriorating in quality and accessibility. In addition,
past stream channelization has reduced fish habitat and altered the hydrologic function of the
stream. The Dry Wolf Stewardship Project combines vegetative management and the resultant


                                                                              PROJECT NAME– Page 2
                                                                                    File Date: [9/17/02]



values with resource activities for improved recreation, accessibility and watershed restoration.
Commercial thinning is combined with service work through a service contract with embedded
timber sale.

Objectives are:
        1.        Improve/restore stream function and fish habitat
        2.        Maintain forest health and disturbance processes
        3.        Improve recreation/campground facilities
        4.        Improve access for all users in and around the campground

A.2 Project Location:
Please describe where the project is located relative to the nearest community.
The project is located in the Little Belt Mountains, 17 miles south of Stanford, MT on Forest Road
#251.


A.3 Size of Project Area:
Indicate the number of acres in each of the following:

                                  Expected                        Actual
Acres Analyzed                   45,800 acres (Running Wolf EIS)
Acres Treated in this project       170 acres                    139 acres

A.4 Proposed Activities:
Please list and describe the activities proposed to achieve each of your project objectives. Please use
the same numerical designations for those objectives identified in A.1.

1. Improve/restore stream function and fish habitat in Dry Wolf Creek

        a. Flood Plain modification (removing berms that channelize stream)
        b. Create log barbs for plunge pools
        c. Tear out non-functioning rock gabions, replace with boulder structures for stream channel
        restoration.
        d. About 10 acres of riparian habitat improvement

2. Maintain forest health and disturbance processes
       a. 114 acres of commercial thinning to improve stand structure and reduce fuels
       b. 25 acres of commercial thinning in post and pole sized lodgepole stands to improve forest
       structure
       c. Construct temporary access road and stream crossing

3. Improve recreation/campground facilities
        a. Reconstruct campground units 13-16
        b. Construct fishing platform #1 and #2
        c. Convert one mile of temporary road to motorized recreation trail, removing that activity
        from the campground.
        d. Remove hazard trees and debris

4. Improve campground accessibility


                                                                              PROJECT NAME– Page 3
                                                                                       File Date: [9/17/02]



         a. Reconstruct campsite units 13-16 (leveling and raising grade)
         b. Construct fishing platforms #1, #2
         c. Make trail #401 accessible (not awarded at this time)

A.5 Authorities Being Tested:
Please indicate the authorities that your project plans to, or has already, tested.

                         Authority                          Mark if being tested
        Goods for Services                              X
        Designation by Description or Rx                X
        Retention of Receipts
        Best Value Contracting                          X
        Multi-year Contracting
        Less than free and open competition             X
        Non- USDA administration of timber sales


For each authority checked, please explain why it was selected for testing.
Goods for services was selected as it would allow the local use of any resource value resulting
from the proposed vegetation treatments.
Designation by description was selected as a more efficient (in terms of time and money) means
of designating low value post/pole products rather than individual tree marking. Risk is low and
results are expected to be comparable to individual tree marking.
Best Value Contracting was selected in order to place emphasis on the selection of contractors with
previous stream rehabilitation experience, rather than use price alone.
Less than free and open competition was used in the award process so as to build contracting
capacity and skills within the local community. For this project, “local” was defined as Judith Basin
County. Sole-source contracting was used to complete hazard tree removal following a storm that
affected the campground.

B. ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION

B.1 Project Planning
Please indicate when the following activities were completed or when you anticipate completion. If
certain fields are already filled out, please check for accuracy.

Pilot initiation                 Sec 347

Monitoring team formed           Date:     August of 2001

NEPA completed                    Date:5/95 (Running Wolf EIS)

DN/DM/ROD Signed                 Date: 3/29/2000 (Additional DM for stream/trail work)

B.2 Appeals

Was the project appealed?


                                                                                   PROJECT NAME– Page 4
                                                                                         File Date: [9/17/02]



                                           No

Please list appellants:

Current Status:


B.3 Litigation

Was a lawsuit filed against this project or has it been directly affected by litigation not specific to the
project (e.g., an action filed against your entire National Forest, which delayed or changed your
project)?
                                           Lawsuit filed against project.
                                           Action filed, not specific to project.
                                   X       No lawsuit filed.


Please list involved parties:

Current Status:


B.4 Contract Development

Contract offered          Date: 11/2000
Contract awarded          Date: 3/27/2001

Project Completion        Date:      September of 2004



B.5 Contract Information
If contract development is underway or completed, please indicate the type(s) of contract(s) used. If
contract development is not underway, please proceed to Section C.



                  Timber Sale Contract
                  Service Contract
                  Timber Sale Contract with Services Included
                  Service Contract with Product Removal Included
                  Agreement
        X      Other (specify) _Service with embedded Timber Sale
        Contract________________________________________




                                                                                   PROJECT NAME– Page 5
                                                                                             File Date: [9/17/02]



Please indicate why this specific mechanism was chosen (e.g., cost savings, contractor familiarity,
legal requirements, administrative flexibility, desire to experiment, etc.)

This contract type is a Construction Contract with embedded timber sale provisions. It was
chosen because the bulk of the complexity in the contract was contained in the variety of service
work (construction) to be performed. The timber was relatively simple to contract for and was
combined into this blended contract. The Contracting Officer is a procurement CO.

B.6 Selection Process
If contractor selection is underway or completed, please answer the following. If selection is not
underway, please proceed to Section C.

How many bids were submitted for this project?            1

Was there a pre-solicitation meeting?                       Yes

Criteria used for contractor selection
                                                                   How evaluated (e.g., relative
        Criterion                                                  weight or percent of points for each factor).


        G       Past performance                                   30%
        G       Technical proposal                                 30%
        G       Price                                              30%
        G       Local economic benefit or use of local labor       10%
                Within Judith Basin County –Proposals from within the county were given preference
        G       Use of by-products                                 no

        G       Other (please specify)                             no

Did community members serve on the technical review panel?
                                                                               No


B.7 Contractor Information
If one or more contracts have been awarded, please provide the following information for each
contract (please just cut and paste fields to incorporate all contractors). If the contract has not been
awarded, please proceed to Section C.

Name of successful bidder: R&R Post and Pole

Address:                         P.P. Box 176
                                 Stanford, MT 59479


For each contractor selected, check the appropriate boxes:



                                                                                     PROJECT NAME– Page 6
                                                                                               File Date: [9/17/02]




Business or Organization Size:
                       X 25 employees                           25 employees, but less than 500
                         500 employees

Is this contractor local (please define local)?        Yes – Judith Basin County



What is the primary focus of this business or organization (e.g., reforestation, thinning, logging, etc.)?
                                                                   Logging, Post/Pole manufacturing

How many people are working on the project?            2

Of these, how many are from the local area?            2

Are subcontractors being utilized?                      No- not at this time, but 1 is planned

                                              If, so, how many? 1 subcontractor for stream restoration.


Approximately how many worker days are associated with the project? 150

What is the estimated average hourly wage for employees? 14.00/hr


C. CONTRACT COST & BENEFIT INFORMATION
The following questions aim to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the pilot efforts. Please complete each table to
the best of your ability. Estimates are perfectly acceptable.

C.1 Estimated Total Cost to Implement Project. Please refer to the total for activities including
planning,, surveys, implementation and monitoring.
                                                                Amount:      $65,000

C.2 Project Funding
Please provide the source of funds used to cover the total cost of the project, as accurately as
possible.
                                                                                            Cumulative
                                                       Current FY                           Total to Date

Forest Service Appropriations                          $ 5,000                              $ 54,500
Appraised value of products exchanged                  $ N/A                                $ 78,000
for Services

Receipts Retained or Credits Earned                    *$   22,000                          *$ 24,000
(to pay for project services)

Cooperator Contributions



                                                                                        PROJECT NAME– Page 7
                                                                                            File Date: [9/17/02]



     In-cash                                       $0                                  $ 0
     Donated Services                              $0                                  $ 2,900

 Other (specify)Grant From Central MT Foundation   $ 0                                 $ 4,000

     *These values reflect the amount of cash and land management credits on account.

 C.3 Costs
 Please provide the distribution of total project direct costs by activity.
                                                                                       Cumulative
                                                   Current FY                          Total to Date

 Planning and NEPA                                 $ 0                                 $ 3,000

 Contract/Sale Preparation                         $ 0                                 $ 36,500

 Contract/Sale Administration                      $ 5,000                             $ 11,000

 Service Contract                                  $ N/A                               $

 Citizen Involvement                               $     0                             $     1,100
  (e.g., field trips, meetings, etc.)

 Monitoring/Evaluation/Reporting                    $ 200                              $     1,300
 (include time/activities associated with public involvement)

 Other (specify)                                   $                                   $




 C.4 Material Being Removed
 In the following table, please indicate the volume and value of material that you expect to remove and
 have removed to date.

                     Volume (ccf/tons/cords/etc.)              Value of material to the government ($)
               Appraised     Removed       Removed           Appraised Removed in Removed to
               (adjusted     in Current to date                          Current FY date
               through       FY
               modification)
*Sawlogs       *1217 ccf     919ccf        1217ccf           $59,633      $45,031          $59,633
Product        271 ccf       73ccf         77ccf             $4,650       $ 730            $ 770
other than     rndwood
sawlog
Other



                                                                                    PROJECT NAME– Page 8
                                                                                              File Date: [9/17/02]



     Total         1488ccf          992ccf       1294ccf       $64,283        $45,761       $60,403
      * Sawlogs are lodgepole pine and other species >7” DBH with at least an 8’ piece to a 5.6”
      small end diameter inside bark. Reflects volume adjustments due to unforeseen defect

      C.5 Receipt Retention/Credits Earned

      Did the contract have a positive financial value for the government?        Yes
      If so, were the receipts retained?                                          No
      What were they spent on?
       The table above displays total value REMOVED to date.



      C.6 Cost Comparison
      In your estimation, are there any significant differences in the costs of administering a traditional
      stewardship contract, as opposed to a traditional timber sale or service contract? Please explain.
      Administration is more time consuming due to the complexity of multiple activities occurring
      that require close coordination of timing. Example: It is easy to coordinate the timing of harvest
      and stream crossing construction with fish spawning activity. Difficulties arise when weather
      delays the harvest, which delays trail construction/rehabilitation, which delays slash treatment
      and service work items that also have mandatory timing constraints (stream rehabilitation).
      Timing of one activity cannot be changed without affecting others. With one small contractor
      trying to accomplish a variety of activities on a small scale, he can only work on one item at a
      time. Some of the work items are too small to subcontract. This has resulted in contract
      modifications, and the need to renew permits and reschedule activities.



      D. BIOPHYSICAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS
      This section will provide information on the outputs and achievements of the pilots and how the pilot
      authorities affected those achievements. If the pilot has NOT entered the implementation phase,
      please proceed to Section E.

      D.1 Quantification of Activities
      Please complete the following table as accurately as possible. In the “Objectives Addressed” column,
      please use the same number you assigned to each objective in A.1 (above), listing as many as apply.
      For example, using those objectives listed as example in directions for A.1, “Roads
      closed/decommissioned” accomplishments would address both objectives #1 and #2, so both numbers
      would be entered into “Objectives Addressed”. Be sure to list other accomplishments, as necessary.
      Also note, that double-counting of accomplishments (e.g., prescribed burns that improve habitat and
      reduce wildfire, etc.) is acceptable. Please note that this list is purely suggestive, add other
      accomplishments as necessary.
                                                                    Current       Cumulative       Objectives
                                                       Planned       FY           Total to Date    Addressed
Roads closed/decommissioned (miles)                        1        0               0                 3,4
Roads obliterated (miles)
Roads improved/ maintained (miles)


                                                                                        PROJECT NAME– Page 9
                                                                                                     File Date: [9/17/02]




Temporary Roads built (miles)                                .5         .5               .5                  3,4
Temporary roads obliterated (miles)
Permanent roads built (miles)                                .5         .5               .5                  3,4

Streams restored (miles/feet)                                1300ft     0                0                   1
Riparian areas restored (acres)                              10ac       0                0                   1
Culverts installed                                           2          2                2                   4
Culverts removed                                             2          0                0                   4
Forage seeding (acres)
Thinning (acres)                                             139ac      89ac             114ac               2
Disease treatment (hazard tree removal) (acres)              10ac       10ac             10ac                2,3
Campsite reconstruction (units)                              4          0                0                   3,4




       E. Social Information
       Information from this section will be used to track community involvement (diversity and interest) and the impact
       of the pilot effort on local communities. Some of this information may have been provided in earlier years.
       Where appropriate, please check for accuracy and indicate necessary changes.

       E.1 Multiparty Team:
       Please list all organizations           and/or    interests    participating   on      your   local       multiparty
       monitoring/evaluation team.

                                  Organization/Affiliation

                 Vic & Mona Ehnes (I)
                 Jim Super (I)
                 Ray Brady (K)
                 Harvey Peterson (H)
                 John Hurlbut (K)
                 Rory Gondero (H)
                 Mike Youderian (H)
                 Isabelle Wagoner (K)
                 Wes Gibbs (L) News Paper Editor
                 Will Tonne (K)
                 Bill Sloan (K)
                 Central Montana Foundation (G)
                 Anne Tews; Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (B)




                                                                                              PROJECT NAME– Page 10
                                                                                       File Date: [9/17/02]




In the past year, how many times has this team met?
Once

E.2 Stakeholder Contribution.
Please list organizations and individuals (excluding contractors) currently active in any aspect of the
pilot project and identify their affiliation by coding each with the appropriate organizational “code”
(see below). Example: Idaho Department of Fish and Game (B). Please note that stakeholders can
represent multiple interests.

Stakeholders Codes:      (A) Other Federal agency           (G) Community-based Group
                         (B) State Agencies                 (H) Commodity Interests/Groups
                         (C) Municipal Agencies             (I) Sport/Recreation Groups
                         (D) Tribal Governments             (J) Wildlife Groups
                         (E) Universities/Schools           (K) Community member
                         (F) Conservation Groups            (L) Other (please specify)


         Vic & Mona Ehnes (I)
         Jim Super (I)
         Ray Brady (K)
         Harvey Peterson (H)
         John Hurlbut (K)
         Isabelle Wagoner (K)
         Wes Gibbs (L) News Paper Editor
         Will Tonne (K)
         Bill Sloan (K)
         Central Montana Foundation (G)
         Anne Tews; Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (B)




Then please check the box that best describes the role of these collective stakeholders in the activities
below.

              Activity                  No Role      Limited      Active     *Strong         N/A
                                                      Role         Role       Role
Problem identification/definition                       X
Project design/revision                                                         X
NEPA analysis                                                                                 X
Financial contributions                                 X
Project implementation (volunteers)         X
Developing monitoring plan                              X




                                                                                PROJECT NAME– Page 11
                                                                                    File Date: [9/17/02]



Conducting monitoring                                     X
Public education                                                  X
Other:
* A strong role, we considered critical to the success of the project. An active role, while a
valued asset, was not critical to the success of the project.

E.3 Outreach Efforts
For educational or outreach efforts used, please check all boxes that apply.

        X Conducted Field     tours               X Mailings                       Videos

        X Meetings                                X Other _Regional News articles_______


Please describe these outreach efforts (e.g., impacts).
Field tours were the most successful at communicating information. Once people saw
resource conditions first hand, they could decide for themselves how or if they wished to
be involved. Mailings were used to communicate information and schedule meetings
and field trips. Meetings were productive when objectives were clear and there was
some focus. Attempts to involve organized conservation groups failed largly because
these groups saw little to gain or loose by their involvement (or lack thereof). This small
scale project failed to attract participation from even the local conservation/outdoor
clubs.



F. GENERAL
The following section provides opportunity for general comment and over-all evaluation. Please
complete this section every year and complete this in collaboration with the local team.

F.1 Project Objectives
Please describe whether objectives identified in A.1 were met and how the authorities affected the
meeting of those objectives? Please indicate any problems that you encountered in meeting those
objectives?


F.2 Usefulness of Authorities
Please identify the advantage or disadvantages associated with the new authorities by responding to
the following questions.

       To what extent did the new authorities allow your project to accomplish objectives that would
        not have been possible under traditional circumstances? 
    Goods for services allowed necessary improvements to Dry Wolf Campground and stream
    restoration that would not have occurred otherwise. It created an opportunity for local
    employment that may not have occurred otherwise.




                                                                               PROJECT NAME– Page 12
                                                                                      File Date: [9/17/02]



       To what extent did the new authorities make the pilot any more or less attractive to potential
        bidders? Please explain.
    The goods for services concept was very attractive at first, until contractors discovered that
    bonding or payment was required in advance of any harvesting. The requirement to
    produce and submit a proposal as opposed to a simple $ bid amount stopped several small
    contractors from participating. With a limited amount of profit available in such a small
    project, it was not worth their time to participate. This was the view of several lumber mills
    and their foresters. Instead of merely contracting the services of a logger and paying
    stumpage, to realize some profit, they now have to prepare a detailed proposal, hire a logger
    and hire several other subcontractors to complete their work all with some degree of
    uncertainty prior to realizing the same profit.
       To what extent did the new authorities impact on the agency’s ability to maintain
        accountability for treatments and products removed? Please explain. 
    Adequate accounting procedures were included in this contract. The agency took a
    conservative approach by measuring prior to sale the products to be offered. The downside
    of this approach is that the risk is on the contractor if the estimate is off. It appears that the
    estimate of unseen defect may have been low which has resulted in less product removal than
    anticipated higher operating costs and contract modifications. Designation by description
    was used only on a small portion of the product to be removed so accountability was not
    compromised.
       To what extent did the new authorities lead to any enhancement or reduction in the agency’s
        ability to implement ecosystem management projects? Please explain. 
    The new authorities had no negative or positive influence on this particular project with
    regard to implementing ecosystem management treatments The treatments were planned
    prior to selection as a stewardship pilot.
To what extent did the new authorities assist the agency to better meet the needs of the local
community? Please explain.
The goods for services concept allowed a number of projects to occur that without special
authority would have to wait on funding. Award based on best value allowed the local
community a hand in developing the evaluation criteria used to make the final selection
increasing ownership in the project. Local preference gained support when it became clear that
the program was designed to help local communities.
F.3 Unexpected Outcomes
Please describe any unexpected (positive or negative) ecological, social, economic, or administrative
outcomes that resulted from the pilot project.
It was a disappointment to see only one proposal received for this project. This did not allow us
to fully test award based on best value. When recreationists from outside the area herd of the
plans for this project, there has been support and encouragement to do more of the same. These
unsolicited responses from outside the area have been a surprise.

F.4 Lessons learned.
Please identify and discuss any “lessons learned” in your project thus far that you feel might be useful
to others.
Complexity increased rapidly with a large number of dissimilar activities included in one
contract. Specifications and contract language and drawings were prepared for each item of


                                                                               PROJECT NAME– Page 13
                                                                                 File Date: [9/17/02]



service work. The proposal was difficult to complete and somewhat confusing to the
contractors. Time required to prepare a proposal increases when service work requires many
different skills or subcontractors or equipment sources. In this project there was not enough
quantity of work in each of these areas to make them economically attractive to a contractor.

Local preference was a very attractive feature that encouraged local contractors to “stay in the
game”.

We did not allow enough time/training for contractors to learn what was expected of them prior
to asking for a contract proposal. This resulted in delays and misunderstandings.

Negotiations were an essential part of the award process. Some of the service work was difficult
to describe (stream restoration), but through negotiations, a common understanding was
reached and a better price obtained for the work.

Bonding rules need to be clearly understood by all parties if small contractors are to be
encouraged to participate.

Need to schedule show-me trips and solicitations at a time when contractors can have time to
work out a proposal.

F.5 Suggestions for future improvement.
How could the stewardship pilot program, in general, and the monitoring/evaluation process, in
particular, be improved.
This group is very pleased that the FS is trying this process both from an involvement
standpoint and from the standpoint of the local improvements to the campground and stream.

This group is pleased that the monitoring process is open and flexible. They look forward to
participating in the future.




                                                                          PROJECT NAME– Page 14

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:1
posted:5/18/2012
language:
pages:14
zhaonedx zhaonedx http://
About