Meeting Attendees: Cal Mukumoto, Steve Foster, Marcus Kauffman, Helen Mapp, Kate Fitzpatrick, Bruce Berryhill, Phil Blatt, Eeke Dortmund, Fara Currim, Candace Roseberry, Vickie Dunaway, Scott Aycock, Karen Coulter, Bob Flores, Jerry Smith, Dennis Dietrich, Dave Moyer, Scott Melcher, Slater Turner, Kirk Metzger, Cindy Glick (notetaker)

The revised agenda was as follows:

1. Welcome and new intros
2. Review revised agenda
3. Action Items:

1. Minutes
2. Charter and signatures
3. Confirm objectives and discuss pilot authorities (focus)

1. Bob Flores discuss pilot authorities
2. Vickie Dunaway and Jerry Smith share examples of DxD (Designation by Description) and DxP (Designation by Prescription)

4. Contract Monitoring

1. Monitoring types- Bob, Cindy, Marcus
2. Objectives- Marcus

5. Wrap-up and Record of Decision timelines

There were three main accomplishments of the meeting:

1. All present signed the charter, that was slightly amended in the Decision Making section to state, "The group chose to use modified consensus with a majority rule of 2/3 as their decision making process. The MPMT did not decide on a minimum number of objections that are allowed for a decision to go forward." The last statement used to read as "The MPMT did not decide on a minimum number of objections before a decision could go forward."
2. The MPMT suggested to the Forest Service Implementation Team that a best value contract be offered for the 100-130 acre project to be conducted this summer if the project is not held up by an appeal. Particularly for this one project, the MPMT endorsed the Implementation Team's idea that half of the 12"DBH cutting prescription project area have tree marking and presale work accomplished by the Forest Service and the other half of the unit receive treatment under a "designation by description or prescription" marking system, where the contractor is given a clearly defined desired outcome that is to be achieved. The MPMT reached consensus by voting on their high priority values that they would like to see used as evaluation criteria in the best value contract:

   1) Past Performance

   2) Technical Capability

   3) Management.

   Past Performance was defined as the need to have contractors provide recommendations and records from their past employers, as well as the Forest Service using databases and internal networking to evaluate the contractors' past work performance. The MPMT prioritized work quality as the #1 criteria of past performance that they regarded as most important, but they rated with equal importance: timeliness, quality of business relationships with subcontractors and supply of labor, other business relationships, and cost.

   Technical Capability was defined to be the methods of work and equipment used by the contractor to accomplish the contract. It also includes the ability of the contractor to utilize small diameter wood in markets.

   Management was defined as how the contractor manages the resources they have to accomplish the project. This would include considerations as obtaining quality personnel that have degrees, certificates, and diversity of experience or that have been trained in stewardship techniques through AOL, SFI, etc. and the use of local labor resources. The MPMT defined "local" as putting more people to work from as close to Sisters as possible.

3. Some monitoring objectives were identified:

1. Track small diameter wood utilization to understand the true economic value of the removed material. Were there benefits to the contractor?
2. After implementing a DxD or DxP, did the outcome meet the ecological goals as defined in the silvicultural prescription? (considering soil
3. impacts and disturbance, hiding cover for wildlife, down woody debris, etc.).
4. Were local contractors used? Were there any benefits for the local economy?
5. Does the site look like what was anticipated before treatment? Need to take before and after pictures and gather baseline information.
6. Was there increased local acceptance of the project and the economics involved with it?

Above are the MPMT's recommendations and preferences that were given to the Implementation Team, but the Forest Service doesn't have to follow or limit the contract based on the above. Ultimately, the Forest Service hopes to implement a well thought out stewardship end result contract with the new pilot authorities.

The next meeting is scheduled for April 28, at the Sisters Ranger District from 1-4 pm.