INTEGRATED
RESOURCE
RESTORATION
FY 2012 REPORT
USDA FOREST SERVICE | April 2013
INTEGRATED RESOURCE RESTORATION 2012 REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Integrated Resource Restoration FY 2012 Report ........................................................................ 1 - 11
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Key Findings ........................................................................................................................... 5 - 11
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 11
Appendix 1 Annual Reports.................................................................................................... A1.1 - 34
Region 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 1 - 6
Region 3 ....................................................................................................................................7 – 14
Region 4 .................................................................................................................................. 15 – 34
Appendix 2 Case Studies ........................................................................................................... A2.1 - 33
R1. Southwestern Crown of the Continent Collaborative ..............................................................1 – 3
R1. Flathead National Forest, Red Bench Road Storage ............................................................ 4 - 5
R1. Idaho Panhandle National Forest, Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative ................................. 6 - 8
R3. Coronado National Forest, Integrated Vegetation Management Planning Team ................. 9 - 10
R3. Prescott National Forest, Black Hills Vegetation Management Project .............................. 11 - 13
R3. Santa Fe National Forest, Las Conchas Fire Long-Term Restoration ............................... 14 - 15
R3. Post Fire Restoration Projects ................................................................................................. 16
R4. Boise National Forest, Stolle Creek-South Fork Salmon River Priority Watershed ............ 17 - 22
R4. Dixie National Forest, Birch Creek-Escalante River Priority Watershed ............................ 23 - 26
R4. Payette National Forest, Weiser and Little Salmon Rivers Priority Watershed .................. 27 - 29
R4. Ashley National Forest, Swift Creek Priority Watershed .................................................... 30 - 33
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 2
INTEGRATED RESOURCE RESTORATION 2012 REPORT
Region 1 | Western Montana landscape including USFS, BLM, USFWS, NPS, State of Montana, Tribal, Conservation
Easement, Wilderness, and private lands (Google Earth TerraMetrics 2013)
INTRODUCTION
In 2009, the Secretary of Agriculture, Thomas J. Vilsack, offered a vision for the USDA Forest
Service (FS), recognizing the role of healthy forests in protecting water resources and maintaining
resiliency in a changing climate—a vision that begins with restoration. Integrated Resource
Restoration (IRR) is one of many steps FS has taken to make the Secretary’s vision a reality. IRR
works in conjunction with numerous Agency actions and initiatives that reinforce the FS’ broader
commitment to restoration including the Accelerated Restoration Strategy, Watershed Condition
Framework (WCF), Climate Change Scorecard, Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration
(CFLR), Western Bark Beetle Strategy, and the 2012 Planning Rule. IRR is designed to create
flexibility and enhance the capacity of the Agency to increase the pace and scale of restoration
activities.
Integrated Resource Restoration allows the Forest Service to more effectively respond to
shifting priorities, unpredictable circumstances and changing conditions across the landscape.
The Pilot will serve as a blueprint as we continue to improve the resilience of our Nation’s forests
and grasslands.
– Chief Tom Tidwell
This 2012 report evaluates qualitatively the Agency’s success during IRR’s first year. It examines
whether the regions within the pilot gained flexibility, efficiencies, and/or enhanced outcomes;
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 3
INTEGRATED RESOURCE RESTORATION 2012 REPORT
whether regions experienced increased internal and/or external collaboration; and the report
identifies first year implementation challenges.
BACKGROUND
IRR realigns the Agency’s budget structure to support landscape scale restoration by consolidating
several existing programs1 into a single budget line item (BLI). The Forest Service proposed IRR in
both the fiscal year (FY) 2011 and FY 2012 President’s Budget requests. Congress approved a pilot
study in the FY 2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act to be conducted in three FS regions over a
period of three years. The three pilot regions include the Northern Region (Region 1), the
Southwestern Region (Region 3), and the Intermountain Region (Region 4). These regions offer a
diversity of collaborative efforts in landscape scale projects to test the IRR pilot. IRR funding and
program implementation guidance was provided within 30 days of the FY 2012 Act’s enactment.
At the end of the first fiscal year, each region prepared a report with three to five case studies
outlining the successes and challenges of implementing IRR. The next section provides key findings
from these reports. Individual regional reports are in Appendix 1, and the full case study reports are
in Appendix 2 of this report.
Integrated Resource Restoration Pilot Regions
1
Vegetation and Watershed Management, Forest Products, Fisheries and Wildlife Habitat Management, nonWildland-Urban Interface hazardous fuels, and Legacy Roads and Trails (including road decommissioning)
program areas.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 4
INTEGRATED RESOURCE RESTORATION 2012 REPORT
Before and After Restoration for ATV Damage Region 3
KEY FINDINGS
Many projects that were planned prior to IRR authority drove much of what was accomplished in FY
2012. However, pilot regions used the flexibility of IRR to focus restoration treatments on priority
landscapes. Field units focused on projects that would attain IRR targets and improve watershed
condition. Although previous planning efforts drove accomplishments, the IRR pilot helped Agency
specialists integrate actions for landscape improvements to benefit an entire watershed.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 5
INTEGRATED RESOURCE RESTORATION 2012 REPORT
The IRR pilot enabled restoration accomplishments to be measured in terms of outcomes, not just
resource outputs (i.e., acres treated) traditionally reported by the Agency. Improved watershed
condition was the focal point for measuring restoration outcomes. Participants reported the potential
for long-term improvements including: improved forest health, faster post fire restoration, increased
partnerships, increased biological diversity, improved habitat connectivity, and efficient planning.
The IRR pilot met or exceeded allocated targets in all areas except for timber volume sold, which
was 82 percent of the target volume. Factors unrelated to IRR caused this shortfall; for example,
litigation on projects with significant portions of acres to be treated, no bids received on timber sales,
and impacts from a demanding fire season. IRR was not identified as an obstruction to achieving
restoration targets. Accomplishments by region are provided in each regional report.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 6
INTEGRATED RESOURCE RESTORATION 2012 REPORT
FY IRR 2012 Pilot Regions’ Accomplishments2
FY 2012
Target
Performance Measure
FY 2012
Accomplishment
Percent
Accomplished
3
3
100%
650
738
114%
1,037,000
854,191
82%
650
933
144%
748,800
789,789
105%
Number of watersheds moved to an improved
condition class
Miles of road decommissioned
Volume of timber sold (CCF)
Miles of stream habitat restored or enhanced
Acres treated annually to sustain or restore
watershed function and resilience
There are several instances of acres being treated with non-IRR funding that contribute to the overall
restoration efforts; these are not captured in IRR accomplishment reporting. Some examples include,
burned area emergency response work, acres treated for invasive species, and abandoned mine
land restoration. Regions agree that watershed conditions are being improved as a result of this type
of restoration work.
Regions reported several advantages of IRR. Collectively, advantages associated with IRR have the
potential to result in projects that are more efficiently and effectively restoring the landscape. One
forest describes it best with, “This project has implemented a more diverse mix of outputs in one
focus area than any other project over the last five years on the forest.”
Advantages include:

Simplified budget planning

Increased flexibility and integration among programs

Increased partner engagement

Ease in identifying goals and priorities

Improved operational efficiencies
All three pilot regions consistently reported that IRR provided increased flexibility. This flexibility was
prominent in funding multiple restoration priorities, integrating planning efforts, leveraging IRR
funding to support CFLR projects, and highlighting opportunities for partnerships. IRR fostered
increased coordination across program areas and encouraged integrated planning efforts. As a
result, efficiencies were gained through dialogue between resource functions. Program managers
are shifting from competing for individual program funds to pay for specific resource objectives to
looking for opportunities to integrate restoration projects and priorities.
2
Accomplishments are averaged across each of the three regions in the IRR pilot.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 7
INTEGRATED RESOURCE RESTORATION 2012 REPORT
Additionally, regions found that planning and
funding high-priority projects was easier without the
constraints of multiple BLIs and numerous separate
program targets. Focused investments in
landscape-level projects allow restoration actions to
be funded in a single year that would otherwise be
piecemealed together over many years.
Constructed Pond Cottonwood Artesia Region 3
The BTNF has traditionally developed integrated landscape projects, often with partners such
as Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and the Wyoming Natural Resource Trust. The
challenge has always been to try to stay within the primary purpose caveat. This authority
makes that easier.
-
Bridger – Teton National Forest
A distinct advantage of IRR for Region 1 is its applicability to roads management where resource
impacts associated with roads are considerable. The flexibility provided by the IRR pilot allowed
Region 1 to target roads in high-priority watersheds. IRR provides a means to focus on reducing
resource impacts from roads in critical high-priority watersheds, ultimately increasing the magnitude
of the beneficial impacts of management activities.
The IRR pilot also made setting goals and priorities easier. This focused, integrated effort provided
clear direction on where work would be conducted. One forest stated, “...An integrated Forest team
identified and prioritized projects across the Forest including many that would have been unfunded
without an Integrated Resource Restoration approach. As the Forest leadership team prioritizes
future projects, we will continue to broaden our vision toward improving watershed condition class,
Aquatic Organism Passage or other improvements to our watersheds....” Additionally, an integrated
prioritization process internally will provide for a higher level of confidence when working with
external partners.
Implementing integrated projects with partnership funds seemed to be more efficient as a result of
IRR. IRR decreased the complexity associated with creating the proper “mix” of funding when
collaborating with partners and coordinating agencies. IRR also facilitated more discussions with
partners when determining the appropriate mix of land stewardship activities. As a result, IRR may
provide more opportunities to fund projects with partners.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 8
INTEGRATED RESOURCE RESTORATION 2012 REPORT
Before and After Restoration for Toadflax Removal in Region 1
For some field units with CFLR projects, leveraging IRR funds to support those projects provided
additional flexibility because IRR is a single source of funding that can be used for the full range of
restoration and monitoring efforts envisioned under the CFLR program. For example, the type of
traditional funding needed to address a particular treatment need may not be available in the right
mix of funds. However, with IRR, this barrier is removed and funds are allocated to address the
treatment needs. Leveraging one source of funding is much more efficient than leveraging several
different sources of funding.
Another advantage of IRR is that funding can be used for planning, while CFLR funds and matching
dollars cannot. In FY 2012, IRR funds were critical to advancing a variety of project planning efforts
essential to fuel reduction and restoration.
Despite these advantages, regions faced the following challenges during the first year of
implementing IRR:

Timing of IRR availability

Priorities determined prior to implementation of IRR

Restoration priorities and timber volume targets may not align

Targets, not priorities, could drive the work

Underserved programs

Tracking cost per unit

Quantifying efficiencies
Receipt of IRR authority in January 2012, a quarter of the way through the fiscal year, was
consistently cited as a disadvantage, even though it was retroactive. By that time, many field units
were already moving forward with their traditional program of work. Also, much of the work that was
accomplished in FY 2012 was a result of previous planning completed prior to implementation of
IRR. Therefore, regions reported that FY 2012 may not be a true indication of what can be expected
from implementing IRR and anticipate FY 2013 will provide better representation.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 9
INTEGRATED RESOURCE RESTORATION 2012 REPORT
Hunter Creek Restoration Before and After Region 4
Because several restoration goals and priorities were set prior to IRR, some field units felt the
potential for integration, both internally and externally, was not fully realized. IRR provides the
opportunity to strengthen the collaborative component of planned projects. Increased integration was
more evident for those projects just entering the planning stages.
Regions also faced the challenge of achieving targets while funding priority restoration work. Having
a single IRR output performance measure3 allowed for greater flexibility in treating priority areas;
however, the continued emphasis on attaining traditional targets4 reduced the overall effectiveness
of IRR. The ability to address the highest priorities can become limited when available IRR funds are
directed toward achieving traditional targets. This is an especially acute challenge if restoration
targets and priorities are not in alignment. Additionally, concerns surfaced regarding other restoration
accomplishments that may come at the expense of achieving these targets. Finally, regions
consistently reported the current suite of IRR performance measures did not accurately reflect the
breadth of restoration accomplishments.
One challenge of a single BLI is the perception that under-funded programs may lose funding
altogether if other restoration objectives are perceived as more important. Similarly, single-emphasis
projects have the potential to be a lower priority and difficult to fund. Types of projects have limited
target attainment toward IRR performance measures and lack project integration. This could be
exacerbated if these projects are not in the same geographic location as larger integrated projects.
3
4
Acres treated annually to sustain or restore watershed function and resilience
Timber volume sold, miles of road decommissioned, and miles of stream habitat restored or enhanced
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 10
INTEGRATED RESOURCE RESTORATION 2012 REPORT
Stream Channel Restoration Before and After
Reported underserved programs include Range NEPA, Rehabilitation and Restoration of burned
areas, Invasive species management, Threatened and Endangered species, Reforestation, Timber
Stand Improvement, and Trail projects traditionally funded by the Legacy Roads and Trails Program.
However, the level in which they are underserved varies across the regions, depending on the
circumstances within that region.
Although IRR has in many ways improved the ability of partners to participate in restoration efforts,
some field units indicate that partners with single issue emphasis, or geographically limited concerns,
may be deterred. Restoration funds could be moved to priority restoration areas that do not align with
some partners’ specific interests. Some units also experienced challenges with partners being
unsure of how priorities were established when determining priority watersheds. In order to
successfully restore landscapes, units will have to ensure partners and the general public is actively
involved in helping to determine priorities.
Regions also reported that because IRR covers so many resource functions, accountability for
tracking funds and reporting accomplishments can be difficult. Tracking costs for specific restoration
activities is not as straightforward with a single BLI. Although there are fewer BLIs to manage, the
“cost per unit” relationship with a single BLI is not as distinguishable because the IRR BLI covers
such a broad range of resources. Additionally, inconsistencies across accomplishment reporting
databases had a tendency to make end-of-year reporting overly complex. Different databases have
different business rules and require different information. Depending on the reporting system, the
timing of when an activity is reported as an accomplishment can be different. While these factors are
not distinct challenges, they are administrative functions that should be addressed to successfully
implement IRR.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 11
INTEGRATED RESOURCE RESTORATION 2012 REPORT
In general, partners seem supportive of IRR, and are happy to see a host of issues addressed
concurrently instead of portions of an issue at different times. Some partners, though, are skeptical of
the Agency’s motives and how the Forest Service will meet competing demands of IRR. Some of our
traditional partners were concerned with the loss of transparency of IRR as compared with the
traditional BLIs that IRR replaced. Partners were also concerned about the potential effect IRR would
have on their specific area of interest. Those partners who represent a specific interest are
concerned one strong personality or belief system may “hijack” a disproportionate amount of the IRR
funds. This could result in a decrease of funds that typically would have been invested in a particular
resource or geographic area of interest. Regions agree additional coordination and outreach with
partners is essential to communicate how decisions are made to prioritize and implement restoration
projects and how to best incorporate partner interest in restoration outcomes.
CONCLUSION
It is too early to determine if the IRR pilot is protecting water resources and maintaining resiliency in
a changing climate. While there are challenges, many positive benefits were realized and are
expected to continue in subsequent years of the pilot. Overall, IRR provides regions with flexibility to
focus on high-priority restoration needs without the limitation of individual budget line funding. It
facilitated a shift in communication with internal FS field specialists and external partners, as well as
provided flexibility in budgeting and out-year planning. In general, collaboration increased with the
exception of one region reporting partners with a specific interest may not see their interest
represented. Results from the first year showed that expected targets were attained across the pilot,
with the exception of one area. These benefits demonstrate how IRR has the potential to increase
the capacity of the Agency to accelerate the pace and scale of restoration.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 1400 Independence Ave. SW Washington DC 20250-0003
USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 12