# Stewardship Contracting Pilot Projects: Multiparty Monitoring and Evaluation Process

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A99-21247

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Notice
- **Published:** August 17, 1999
- **Citation:** 64 FR 44685

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Stewardship Contracting Pilot Projects: Multiparty Monitoring and
Evaluation Process

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 44686]]

SUMMARY: Section 347 of the FY 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act
authorizes the Forest Service to enter into 28 stewardship end results
contracts. These contracts are intended to provide a means for pilot-
testing an array of potential new authorities for giving national
forest managers greater administrative flexibility to improve forest
conditions and potentially help meet the needs of local communities.
One of the key provisions of the statute, embodied in subsection (g) of
the Act, is a provision requiring the establishment of a process for
multiparty monitoring and evaluation of the stewardship contracts. The
Forest Service hereby gives notice that a draft framework for
multiparty monitoring and evaluation has been developed and is now
available for public review and comment.

DATES: Comments must be received, in writing, on or before September
16, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this proposal may be sent to Cliff
Hickman, USDA Forest Service, Forest Management Staff, Mail Stop 1105,
P.O. Box 96090, Washington, D.C. 20090-6090 or electronically to
chickman/[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cliff Hickman, Forest Management
Staff, (202) 205-1162, or chickman/[email protected]. Electronic copies of
the Act, and of this proposed framework for multiparty monitoring and
evaluation, may be obtained via the INTERNET at www.fs.fed.us/land/fm/
stewardship.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 347 of the FY 1999 Omnibus
Appropriations Act (Act) authorizes the Forest Service to implement up
to 28 stewardship end results contracts. The Forest Service provided
background information about the provisions of Section 347 and its
progress in implementing the legislation, in a notice that appeared in
the July 9, 1999, issue of the Federal Register (64 FR 37096). That
notice identified the stewardship pilot projects that the agency had
already selected. This notice sets out the proposed framework and
requests public comment. A notice summarizing the public comment and
the agency's response to that comment will be published along with the
finalized framework.
The framework that the agency proposes to use to comply with the
requirements of subsection (g) of Section 347 of the Act consists of
two parts: (1) A process for securing multiparty monitoring and
evaluation, and (2) a set of criteria to be considered during
monitoring and evaluation. Besides ensuring proper documentation of any
treatments and their resulting environmental effects, the proposed
framework is intended to provide an objective basis for assessing the
implications of the stewardship pilots regarding the following:
(1) The potential advantages of greater collaboration during period
planning and implementation;
(2) The potential for new authorities to facilitate efficient
implementation of desired ecosystem restoration, maintenance, or
protection activities; and
(3) The potential of stewardship contracting to help meet the needs
of local communities.
This proposed framework represents only one option for satisfying
the multiparty monitoring and evaluation requirement of the Act. It is
designed to comply with the provisions of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA). The proposed framework is being developed to
facilitate the data inventory required by Section 347 of the Act and is
not a public information survey. Comments and suggestions on this
proposal and on other ways to accomplish multiparty monitoring and
evaluation, that would be in compliance with FACA requirements, are
requested.

Proposed Process

At the national level, a single Advisory Committee will be
established under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA). The framework proposes establishing two types of teams at the
local (project) level: (1) Data Inventory teams, and (2) Assessment and
Evaluation Teams. Due to the composition, duties, and purpose of these
teams, FACA chartering is not required. Additional details concerning
the structure and functions of these proposed groups are provided
below:
Local Data Inventory Teams. Each forest with a stewardship pilot
project will be responsible for organizing a team of interested publics
to gather the data needed to assess project and program results. These
teams will operate under the direction of a Forest Service employee who
will encourage participation of all team members, develop monitoring
methods, schedule team assignments, compile and validate the team's
data, and interact, as needed, with the appropriate Assessment and
Evaluation Team. Where a Forest has more than one pilot project,
separate Data Inventory teams will be established to compile the
relevant data for each project.
As the name suggests, the principal function of the Data Inventory
teams will be to gather project (local) level data for analysis by the
appropriate Assessment and Evaluation Team. The criteria that the Data
Inventory teams will be required to consider are described under the
subheading ``Criteria for Local Data Inventory Teams.'' Once validated,
the facts gathered by the Data Inventory teams will be made available
for public review and use.
The Data Inventory teams will be free to compile facts and other
evidence deemed relevant by the responsible Assessment and Evaluation
Team, but any additional data must be factual rather than interpretive
data. Limiting the role of these teams to the compilation of factual
evidence eliminates the need to establish a FACA committee.
Participation on the teams will be open to all interested parties.
Local Monitoring Assessment and Evaluation Team. Each forest with a
stewardship pilot project will be responsible for organizing a team of
government employees, federal, state, local, or tribal. This Monitoring
Assessment and Evaluation Team's tasks are to assess and evaluate the
data compiled by the corresponding Data Inventory Team and, also, to
formulate appropriate recommendations. The Assessment and Evaluation
Teams will operate under the direction of a Forest Service employee,
serving as chairperson. A non-Forest Service person will be selected as
the vice-chairperson of the committee. If other governmental entities
are unavailable or unwilling to participate in the evaluation process,
a Forest Service team will be organized. Where a forest has more than
one stewardship pilot, only one Assessment and Evaluation Team will be
established to deal with all the projects on that forest.
As already suggested, a key function of the Assessment and
Evaluation Teams will be to analyze and weigh the significance of the
factual evidence compiled by the Data Inventory Teams. The criteria
that the Assessment and Evaluation Teams will be required to consider
are described under the subheading ``Criteria for Local Assessment and
Evaluation Teams.'' These teams, at their discretion, will be free to
develop other site-specific criteria that they deem relevant--e.g.,
additional criteria pertaining to forest conditions before and after
treatment, effects on the local economy, and relations between and
among community members, including the Forest Service. Finally, the
Assessment and Evaluation Teams will be free to interact with the Data
Inventory Teams and the National Advisory Committee, as needed.

[[Page 44687]]

The Assessment and Evaluation Teams will be responsible for making
judgments, reaching conclusions, and formulating recommendations on the
basis of the data assimilated. Because the teams, as envisioned in this
proposal, will be comprised of government employees only, they qualify
for the FACA requirement exemption, authorized by Section 204 of the
Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995. Section 204 provides for the formation
of intergovernmental committees to exchange official views concerning
the implementation or administration of intergovernmental
responsibilities.
A second key function of the local Assessment and Evaluation teams
will be to prepare annual reports to the National Advisory Committee.
Annual reports will be submitted to the National Advisory Committee
within 60 days of the close of each fiscal year. In situations where a
forest has more than one stewardship pilot, each project will be
analyzed, evaluated, and discussed in a separate report.
The local Assessment and Evaluation Team reports will include the
descriptive data that has been compiled by the local Data Inventory
Teams, the responses to the criteria described under the subheading
``Critria for Local Assessmet and Evaluation Teams,'' and any other
issues that the teams determine to be relevant.
The Assessment and Evaluation Teams will actively seek input from
the public. Therefore, they will open their meetings to the public and
give adequate notice of the times and locations of their meetings.
Draft annual evaluation results will be shared with the public for
comment by posting a notice of availability of the results in the local
newspapers, posting the results on each forest's INTERNET website (if
available), and by holding one or more public meetings. Public comments
will be considered in preparing the annual reports to the National
Advisory Committee. All public comments will be retained in the
monitoring and evaluation file for each project.
National Advisory Committee. A FACA advisory committee will be
chartered to monitor and evaluate the stewardship pilot program at the
national level. The Forest Service will recommend potential National
Advisory Committee members to the Office of the Secretary of USDA.
Committee representation will reflect the need to represent all
communities of interest and to ensure that there is balance in the
views represented. To ensure a connection to the projects at the local
level, at least two Committee members will be people serving on local
monitoring and evaluation teams. This arrangement will help ensure that
the broad array of criteria considered and the resulting
recommendations present an accurate, coherent picture of what the
section 347 stewardship pilots have actually accomplished and
demonstrated. Notices concerning the National Advisory Committee's
establishment, its membership, and meeting information will be
published in the Federal Register. The Forest Service will provide
organizational support to the National Committee.
The National Advisory Committee will be responsible for obtaining
the information it needs from the local monitoring and evaluation teams
and will interact with these teams as needed to discharge its duties.
The Committee, at a minimum, will consider the criteria described under
the subheading ``Criteria for the National Advisory Committee.'' These
criteria focus on national issues, such as, whether national forest
policies and priorities were advanced by the new authorities (processes
and procedures) being tested, whether the interests of non-local
publics were adequately considered, and whether agency accountability
for actions and outcomes was appropriately maintained. The National
Committee will also identify and evaluate the important ``lessons
learned'' from the stewardship pilots; they will assess what worked
well and what did not work well. As part of this process, they will
describe any barriers that had to be overcome or that prevented smooth
implementation of the pilot projects.
The National Advisory Committee will be responsible for preparing
annual reports to the Forest Service's Washington Office Forest
Management Staff. The Committee's reports will form the basis for the
Forest Service's required annual reports to Congress.
The Committee's annual reports are to be completed within 60 days
of its receiving the reports from the local Assessment and Evaluation
Teams. These reports will contain a compilation of descriptive data
pertaining to such things as: the acreages treated for different
purposes; the costs incurred; the sources of project funding; the types
of products produced; the revenues generated; the types of
collaborators involved in project planning, implementation, and
monitoring; the roles played by different collaborators; and the
processes and procedures that were tested. The reports also will
address the information requested by Congress, the criteria listed
under the subheading ``Criteria for National Advisory Committee,'' and
any other issues that the National Committee determines to be
important.
Other Process Principles. Other principles guiding the monitoring
and evaluation process include the following:
* All monitoring and evaluation teams will be structured so as to
encompass a diverse mix of resource management skills.
* As needed and as is reasonable, the Forest Service will
compensate monitoring and evaluation team members for any travel costs
that they incur as a result of their service to the agency.
* All monitoring and evaluation team members will be encouraged to
network with their constituents and bring new information and issues
forward.
* Whenever possible, pilots will be designed to include two types
of controls: (1) areas where no vegetative treatment is occurring, and
(2) areas where standard timber sale and/or service contracting
procedures are being observed.

Proposed Criteria

To measure whether the new authorities have achieved the desired
results, four categories of criteria will be considered by the
different monitoring and evaluation (ME) groups. These categories are:
(1) Biophysical critiera, (2) economic criteria, (3) social criteria,
and (4) administrative criteria.
Within each category, some of the criteria call for compiling
numerical or descriptive data, while other criteria require that some
aspect of a pilot project's performance be assessed. As noted earlier,
to assure compliance with FACA requirements, the local Data Inventory
Teams will consider only the criteria calling for numerical or
descriptive responses. Within this constraint, and recognizing that
there may be certain questions that may be relevant in some, but not
all, situations, it is proposed that all teams be free to entertain
questions beyond those listed. In all instances, however, the criteria
that are listed, as a minimum, would be addressed by the designated
groups. In addition to addressing the criteria set-forth, the local
Data Inventory Teams will be encouraged to establish photo points that
will record the condition of the landscape, before, during, and after
project implementation.
Criteria for the Local Data Inventory Teams. The local Data
Inventory Teams will answer, at a minimum, the 16 criteria listed in
this section. Additional criteria may be added, but they must be of an
objective, factual nature.
Biophysical Criteria will include:

[[Page 44688]]

(1) The stated purpose and need for the project.
(2) The project objectives.
(3) The land management treatments being applied. All treatments
applied in connection with a particular are to be considered,
including: the mileage of road maintained or obliterated; the mileage
of trails maintained or obliterated; the acreage of soil and water
improvement; the acreage of terrestrial habitat restored or enhanced;
the mileage of stream habitat restored or enhanced; the acreage of
fuels management by mechanical means and/or prescribed burning; the
acreage treated to decrease insect, disease, or fire risks, and/or to
enhance forest health; and the acreage of noxious and/or exotic weed
control. For each treatment that is applied, the local Data Inventory
teams with gather data on the accomplishments realized to date using
regular appropriations, the exchange of goods for services, or retained
receipts.
Economic Criteria will include:
(4) The total project costs, and the breakdown of these costs into
the following categories: formal project planning and NEPA (including
citizen/public involvement in the process); sale/contract preparation;
sale/contract administration; citizen involvement (during project
implementation); monitoring, evaluation & reporting (including citizen
involvement in this process); and other (to be specified).
(5) The funding of project implementation, and the breakdown of
this funding into the following categories: exchange of goods for
services; retained receipts; regular appropriations; cooperator
contributions (cash); cooperator contributions (materials or in-kind
services); and other funding sources (to be specified). For
appropriated funds, the local Data Inventory teams will show the
amounts provided from each of the Forest Service's recognized fund
codes.
(6) The types and amounts of forest products produced, including:
sawtimber; pulpwood; posts and poles; and different types of special
forest products (ferns, pine boughs, pine straw, mushrooms, etc.). In
all instances, product amounts will be expressed in terms of commonly
recognized units.
(7) The total project receipts, and the proportion of these
receipts attributable to: timber products; special forest products; and
other products (to be specified).
(8) The disposition of the project receipts, showing the amounts:
returned to Treasury; exchanged for services; retained and reinvested;
or distributed in some other manner (to be specified).
(9) The manner in which the pilot changed employment or
entrepreneurial opportunities in the local community.
(10) The special skills required of a contractor for the project.
(11) The difficulties encountered in hiring contractors with the
needed skills.
(12) The average wage paid in connection with the project and
whether this wage rate represented woods a worker, service contract, or
Davis-Bacon wage rate.
(13) The duration of the contract for this project and whether the
contract period was longer or shorter than what is common with
conventional timber sale or service contract projects.
Social Criteria will include:
(14) The individuals and/or groups (other than the Forest Service)
who collaborated in planning, implementing, or monitoring the project,
and the manner in which they were selected.
(15) The roles that each collaborator performed.
Administrative Criteria will include:
(16) The new processes and/or procedures that were used in
connection with the project. The possibilities to be considered
include: awarding of contracts on a ``best value'' basis (specify how
``best value'' was determined); designation by prescription; end
results contracting; exchange of goods for services; retention of
receipts; use of an appraisal method other than standard procedures
(method to be specified); offering sales (appraised value of over
$10,000) without advertisement; using state foresters as federal
agents; using service contracts of over 5 years duration; using
contract logging with subsequent sale of the cut products; or using
some other new process or procedure (to be specified).
Criteria for the Local Assessment and Evaluation Teams. The local
Assessment and Evaluation teams will use the evidence compiled by the
local Data Inventory teams to, as a minimum, address the 14 criteria
that follow. The Assessment and Evaluation teams may consider any
additional criteria that they deem relevant.
Biophysical Criteria will include:
(1) An assessment as to whether the stated purposes and needs for
the project were fulfilled and the basis for the conclusion.
(2) An assessment as to whether the resource management objectives
of the project were realized and an explanation for the conclusion.
(3) An assessment as to whether the Forest Service was able to do a
better job of ecosystem management by giving a single contractor the
responsibility for a ``bundled group'' of resource work activities
(e.g., timber extraction, watershed restoration, habitat improvement,
and road obliteration) on the project area and an explanation of the
conclusion.
Economic Criteria will include:
(4) An assessment as to whether employment opportunities for local
communities were enhanced as a result of the project and the basis for
the conclusion.
(5) An assessment as to whether the prevailing wage rate in the
local community was enhanced as a result of the project and the basis
for the conclusion.
Social Criteria will include:
(6) An assessment as to whether the dynamics of the collaborative
process permitted all interested parties to participate and the basis
for the conclusion.
(7) An assessment as to whether and how collaboration facilitated
planning, implementing, and monitoring for the project.
Administrative Criteria will include:
(8) An assessment as to whether difficulties were experienced in
interpreting or implementing the Section 347 authorities.
(9) An assessment as to whether the project planning and
implementation timelines were being met and what contributed to that
outcome.
(10) An assessment as to how the new processes and/or procedures
that were tested in this project compare to the Forest Service's
conventional timber sale or service contract authorities. As
appropriate, in making that determination, the teams will consider the
following performance variable: attractiveness to potential bidders;
fairness to potential bidders; implications for the Forest Service's
ability to maintain accountability for the treatments being applied and
the forest products being removed; implications for the Forest
Service's ability to implement ecosystem management projects
efficiently and effectively; implications for the Forest Service's
ability to successfully manage small diameter, under-utilized material;
the ease of administration; the agency's ability to help meet the needs
of rural, resource dependent communities; and their performance with
regard to any other indicators deemed to be relevant.
(11) An assessment as to how useful the new, tested authorities
were overall and the team's recommendations for applying the
authorities more broadly.
(12) An assessment as to what other legislative, regulatory, or
administrative changes would have helped make the project more
effective.

[[Page 44689]]

(13) An assessment as to what type of contractual non-compliance
problems occurred, if any, and how expeditiously they were resolved.
(14) A recommendation as to what should be done differently on
another pilot project.
Criteria for the National Advisory Committee. The National Advisory
Committee will be required to address the following nine criteria. Some
of the criteria are the same as those asked at the local level. Where
this is the case, the duplication is deliberate and reflects the belief
that these criteria have relevancy at both levels. The national team
members, like their local counterparts, will be free to address other
criteria that they deem to be relevant; however, it is worth noting
that their ability to do so may be constrained by the nature of the
data compiled locally.
Biophysical Criteria will include: Based on the collective
experience of the pilot projects;
(1) A determination as to whether the stated purposes and needs for
the projects were fulfilled and an explanation for the conclusion.
(2) A determination as to whether the resource management
objectives of the projects were realized and the basis for the
conclusion.
(3) An assessment as to whether the Forest Service was able to do a
better job of ecosystem management by giving a single contractor the
responsibility for a ``bundled group'' of resource work activities
(e.g., timber extraction, watershed restoration, habitat improvement,
and road obliteration) on the project area and an explanation for the
conclusion.
Economic Criteria will include: Based on the collective experience
of the pilots:
(4) A determination as to whether any of the new processes and
procedures that were tested appear to represent effective ways to
create new or enhance existing employment or entrepreneurial
opportunities in local communities.
(5) A determination of what administrative costs were incurred at
the regional and national levels in order to carry out the stewardship
pilots.
Social Criteria will include: Based on the collective experience of
the pilots:
(6) An assessment as to what steps were taken to ensure that
regional and/or national publics were not excluded or placed at a
disadvantage in the collaborative process, and a determination of
whether the steps taken were effective.
(7) A determination as to the potential for stewardship contracting
to improve the quality of life within local resource-dependent
communities (jobs, environmental conditions, economic infrastructure,
etc.).
Administrative Criteria will include: Based on the collective
experience of the pilots:
(8) An assessment as to what difficulties were experienced in
interpreting or implementing the Section 347 authorities.
(9) An assessment as to how the new processes and/or procedures
that were tested compare to the Forest Service's conventional timber
sale or service contract authorities. As appropriate, in making these
determinations, the committee will consider the following performance
variables: attractiveness to potential bidders; fairness to potential
bidders; implications for the Forest Service's ability to maintain
accountability for the treatments being applied and the forest products
being removed; implications for the Forest Service's ability to
implement ecosystem management projects efficiently and effectively;
implications for the Forest Service's ability to successfully manage
small diameter, under-utilized material; ease of administration;
ability to help meet the needs of rural, resource dependent
communities; and any other indicators deemed to be relevant.
Lastly, the National Advisory Committee will make a recommendation
for which of the new authorities that were tested appear to warrant
broader application on a permanent basis.

Dated: August 10, 1999.
Phil Janik,
Acting Chief.
[FR Doc. 99-21247 Filed 8-16-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A99-21247. Public record. Not legal advice.