FY 2012 IRR REPORT | APPENDIX 1 | R1
REGION: NORTHERN (R1)
Reporting Instructions: This is the annual Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) Pilot Program report
template. This template will be used for fiscal year (FY) 2012 reporting and may be modified in
subsequent years of the pilot program. This template will be used to compile information for the final
FY 2012 IRR Annual Report to be posted to the Forest Service’s Restoration Website. The Washington
Office will be responsible for completing sections A and E of the template. Regions 1, 3, and 4 will each
be responsible for completing sections B, C, and D. Regional responses are due to the Washington
Office by November 30, 2012.
The Secretary of Agriculture’s vision recognizes the role of healthy forests in enhancing water
resources and maintaining resiliency within a changing climate. The Forest Service is aligning the
budget structure to focus landscape scale restoration across deputy areas to support and accelerate
the pace of a wide spectrum of restoration and resiliency enhancing activities. This emphasis merges
programs previously separated out as forest products; vegetation and watershed management; fish and
wildlife habitat management; non-WUI hazardous fuels; post-fire restoration and rehabilitation; and
legacy roads and trails (including road decommissioning). Regions 1, 3, and 4 were selected as part of
an Agency pilot program to demonstrate the advantages of merging multiple budget line items BLIs into
one – National Forest Resource Restoration (NFRR).
The regions participating in the IRR Pilot (Regions 1, 3, and 4) will report on program achievements at
the end of a FY. Guidance on reporting performance measures can be found in the FY 2012 Final
Program Direction (pages 14-21). Each region will also provide 3 – 5 case studies highlighting a project
in which IRR funding enabled the project to be implemented more efficiently, to meet the desired
resource goal(s).
Accomplishment Reporting – Performance (The information in Section A will be completed by
A.
the Washington Office. For accomplishment reporting by forest, see the Appendix.)
1.
FY 2012 Accomplishments
a. Table 1 – IRR Performance Measures
Performance Measure
Acres treated annually to sustain or restore watershed
function and resilience
Number of watersheds move to an improved condition class
Miles of road decommissioned
Volume of timber sold (CCF)
Miles of stream habitat restored or enhanced
1
2
Target1
Total Units
Accomplished2
Percent
Accomplished
240,700
307,420
128%
2
2
100%
345
383
111%
565,000
423,416
75%
300
426
142%
Target should match the target recorded in the Databases of Record.
Units accomplished should match the accomplishments recorded in the Databases of Record.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 1
FY 2012 IRR REPORT | APPENDIX 1 | R1
b. Priority Watersheds and Watershed Action Plans
No response.
B.
Accomplishment Reporting – Regional Summary
The intent of consolidating several BLIs into NFFR is to provide the Agency the flexibility to focus on
priority work using a more integrated approach to management and allow the needs of the land to drive
what work gets done. The intent is to also increase flexibility to focus restoration treatments on the
priority watersheds or other priority locations in a more efficient manner. Regions 1, 3, and 4 were
selected to participate in the IRR Pilot Program to test this hypothesis. The focus on integrating various
programs complements other ongoing efforts such as the Planning Rule revision, Collaborative Forest
Landscape Restoration projects, travel management, and the watershed condition framework, which
are similarly anticipated to promote integration of various resource activities. The other regions were
not authorized to consolidate BLIs, but will continue to integrate programs within the existing limits of
authority.
The following questions are designed to help evaluate whether the Regions gained flexibility,
efficiencies, enhanced outcomes, and increased internal and external collaboration internally; and to
daylight/understand any potential pitfalls or adverse impacts.
Narrative: Describe the decision-making process used to formulate priorities for FY 2012’s program of
work.
I.
Why and Where on the Landscape
Across the Region, the NFRR Authority was applied judiciously to those program or resource
areas and projects where the Region and the units identified the most potential in terms of target
accomplishments, beneficial outcomes not traditionally captured through hard target numbers,
and where the Authority could be used to leverage partner or other program funding and
opportunities. While presenting itself late in the planning and budget year, the Authority afforded
the Region the opportunity to identify or address project areas and ecological needs that would
directly benefit from this authority. Regionally, NFRR was seen as an important tool to address
long-term restoration plans and objectives, particularly with respect to watershed conditions and
aquatic and wildlife habitat. The Case Study projects address specific programs and a wide
range of resource needs. These include significant Threatened & Endangered Species (TES)
concerns (grizzly bear and bull trout habitat), invasive weeds and plants that threaten native
species necessary for wildlife habitat improvements, and opportunities to leverage existing
funds as well as partner contributions to achieve stated goals.
As the individual Case Study reports indicate, the authority was used to focus on critical habitat,
watershed, and vegetation projects already in place, with the goal of subsidizing allocated
funding, or leveraging partnership contributions that would solidify the intended desired
conditions and associated resource targets. Regional Program directors and staff coordinated
these decisions and proposals with Forest program managers to identify how the Authority
would increase potential, leverage partner participation or encourage potential new partners,
and expedite completion or progress of projects.
II.
Priorities, Outcomes, and Outputs
There was no discernible difference in how priorities for on-the-ground projects were formulated.
The larger decision-making tools, including the Climate Change Scorecard, beetle-kill strategy,
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 2
FY 2012 IRR REPORT | APPENDIX 1 | R1
collaborative support, Watershed Condition Framework and Classification Map, as well as local
criteria, were still used to find the most appropriate and advantageous application of the
Authority.
Application of the Authority did not change or impact the expected project and application
outcomes. It did, however, provide an opportunity to engage in more discussions with partners
to determine the appropriate mix of land stewardship over a given landscape. It provided Line
officers and RO staff more opportunities to approach potential partners with future potential in
their involvement by providing greater opportunity for increased accomplishments and on-theground results of their investments.
III.
Flexibility, Advantages, and Disadvantages
The late arrival of the Authority, while not a distinct advantage in FY12, provides optimistic
potential versatility for FY13 planning, as noted by the Case Study program managers. We
received this comment from one Project report that captures the real benefit to the Authority for
out-year planning: “The NFRR BLI allows a fully integrated process across five formerly
traditional program BLIs. 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...”
One distinct advantage the Authority provides Region 1 is the applicability to roads
management. Region 1 has more than 51,000 miles of roads. The impacts associated with our
roads, to include our inability to maintain them all, are considerable. Of significance, some road
segments have much greater impacts than others and the authority provides a means to target
priority roads in critical watershed areas. This ability to target highest priority roads and road
segments increases the magnitude of the beneficial impacts of our management activities. The
Flathead NF highlights this in their Case Study, where they addressed almost 10 miles of road
that was placed into storage in a manner that eliminated significant sedimentation impacts.
We have not determined regionally that outcomes not associated with traditional target outputs
benefited from the use of this Authority. Indeed, the Flathead National Forest response seems
to indicate that this was not the case. However, conceptually, increased outcomes may in fact
be facilitated by the use of NFRR in the future through continued use of the Authority as
additional experience occurs, and also the beneficial effects of the Authority through the full
budgeting/planning cycle.
Initial observations indicate there were some shifts in planned target outputs when compared to
planned accomplishments. For example, both the reforestation and timber stand improvement
activities were substantially lower in overall accomplishment than what the Region has
experienced in previous years. The overall relationship of the use of NFRR and this observation
is not completely clear.
We have continually heard from the Units that the Authority provided increased flexibility in
developing integrated projects. This is a distinct advantage for those programs that are included
under the Authority to be considered in overall goal setting and that are able to be packaged
with other activities, possibly elevating their probability to be implemented.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 3
FY 2012 IRR REPORT | APPENDIX 1 | R1
IV.
Success and Unexpected Findings
We believe that the End-of-Year accomplishment report accurately depicts regional
accomplishments for performance measures funded with NFRR. Actual accomplishments
exceed those planned overall for the “Acres treated annually to sustain or restore watershed
function and resilience.” As discussed above, there was a noticeable shift between individual
performance elements.
Litigation continues to specifically affect the actual accomplishments of timber volume sold
performance measure.
IRR success would include elevated ability to more efficiently implement integrated projects that
contributed to the restoration and resiliency of defined landscapes. Efficient in this context
includes reduced unit costs, increased quantity and quality of projects, which address desired
outputs and outcomes simultaneously. The use of IRR would be an important demonstration to
our partners, publics, and employees on our organizational commitment and ability to
meaningfully address high priority resource goals/objectives. This would necessarily include the
restoration of selected watersheds/landscapes to meet priorities.
The Authority to use IRR would be one component for units to determine their individual goals
and priorities. Engagement with various partners, addressing social and economic issues, and
meeting legal mandates contribute to Units overall Program of Work. IRR assists units in
determining how this program of work can most effectively be accomplished.
The Authority also empowers Forest Service leadership, working in conjunction with
collaboratives, to more expediently and effectively debate and determine the appropriate mix of
land stewardship activities for a given landscape.
V.
Feedback from Partners
Initially, many of our traditional partners were concerned with the loss of transparency of NFRR
as compared with the traditional BLI’s that they replaced, and the potential effect this would
have on performance measures of interest. Communication at the Regional and Forest level, as
well as engagement by the units with partners at the project/program level, reduced but did not
necessarily eliminate this concern. Continued use of this Authority would require additional
outreach.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 4
FY 2012 IRR REPORT | APPENDIX 1 | R1
C.
Planning Future Accomplishments – FY 2013 Accomplishments and Future NFRR Program
Emphasis
1. FY 2013 Planned Accomplishments
a. Table 3 – IRR Planned Performance
Performance Measure
Total Units Planned3
240,700
Total acres treated annually to sustain or restore watershed function and resilience
1
Number of watersheds move to an improved condition class
354
Miles of road decommissioned
580,000
Volume of timber sold (CCF)
300
Miles of stream habitat restored or enhanced
2.
Based on FY 2012 Experiences, how would you anticipate IRR improving FY 2013 planning
and accomplishments?
See, “Flexibility, Advantages, and Disadvantages.”
Additional Activities Contributing to IRR
The annual reporting required regional accomplishment reporting of the five IRR performance
measures, as well as a narrative on FY 2012 program of work implementation, and case studies, which
are required by the FY 2012 Final Program Direction (pages 14-21).
In addition, it is important to emphasize programs that are outside of the IRR performance measures,
but are funded through NFRR (IRR budget line item). This addendum directs the regions to take a twotiered approach to reporting these activities:
Tier 1: In a short narrative, please highlight those activities that do not currently fall under an
IRR performance measure, but whose performance is tracked by the Agency. In addition to the
narrative, please list those activities and their FY 12 accomplishment. Add rows to the table
below, as necessary, to accommodate all activities.
Some very important parts of the broader restoration activity that are not captured in the
NFRR reporting items are road and trail maintenance and improvement, pest treatments
(both native and invasive), stream crossings modified to allow for aquatic organism
passage, and threatened and endangered species conservation activities. Also, the
accomplishments that roll up to create the Watershed Acres Restored item only include
part of that work. The remaining work is critical to getting a full picture of the amount of
restoration being done in the year. This is work funded by stewardship credits,
Cooperative Work – Knutson-Vandenberg Fund (CWKV), RTRT, Secure Rural Schools
Title II grants, managed fire, prescribed fire in the WUI, and other sources.
3
Units planned should match the planned accomplishments recorded in the Databases of Record.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 5
FY 2012 IRR REPORT | APPENDIX 1 | R1
Table – Additional Activities Contributing to IRR with trackable measures.
Performance Measure
Total Units
4
Accomplished
Miles of high clearance system roads improved
Miles of high clearance system roads maintained
Miles of passenger car system roads improved
Miles of passenger car system roads maintained
Miles of system trail improved to standard
Miles of system trail maintained to standard
Stream crossings constructed or reconstructed for aquatic organism passage
T&E species for which recovery actions accomplished
Priority acres treated for invasive species on Federal lands
Priority acres treated for invasive species on Coop lands
Priority acres treated for native species on Federal lands
Priority acres treated for native species on Coop lands
Acres of lake habitat restored/enhanced (not included in NFRR roll up)
Acres of water/soil resources protected/maintained/improved (not included in NFRR roll up)
Acres of terrestrial habitat restored/enhanced (not included in NFRR roll up)
Acres of forest vegetation improved (not included in NFRR roll up)
Acres of forestland vegetation established (not included in NFRR roll up)
Acres of range vegetation improved (not included in NFRR roll up)
Acres treated for noxious weeds/invasive plants on NFS lands (not incl. in NFRR roll up)
Acres of hazardous fuels outside the WUI to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildland fire (not
included in NFRR roll up)
121
896
162
4,370
485
13,422
51
0
4,684
22,456
17,433
236
8
9,720
73,445
6,234
47,139
229,481
6,107
45,987
Tier 2: In a short narrative, please highlight those activities that do not currently fall under an IRR
performance measure, and whose performance the Agency currently does not track. If you believe
that any of these measures should be tracked by the Agency in the future, please describe your
reasoning, as well.
To date the Northern Region Water Rights Team has collected wetted perimeter data on 167
additional streams. Of these, 16 water rights have been issued, 98 are currently being
processed by the State, and 53 are waiting processing. Instream flows from over 3,072,000
watershed acres have either already been issued or the data have been submitted. The rate
of data collection and State approvals is expected to increase in future years as the data
collection, application, and approval process matures. This effort will provide protection for
aquatic habitats and will become increasingly important as climate change progresses
resulting in earlier snow melt and projected lower late summer flows and higher water
temperatures.
In addition to all the items that we track, there are some very important activities funded by
NFRR that contribute to restoration but are not specifically tracked. These are activities like
air quality monitoring, water rights acquisition, monitoring of water yield, management of wild
horse and burro territories (activities outside of vegetation improvement such as herd
management), and a variety of monitoring. Monitoring could be related to livestock grazing
allotments, vegetation condition, threatened and endangered species occurrence, or
implementation and effectiveness of best management practices.
4
Units accomplished should match the accomplishments recorded in the Databases of Record.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 6
FY 2012 IRR REPORT | APPENDIX 1 | R3
REGION: SOUTHWESTERN (R3)
Reporting Instructions: This is the annual Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) Pilot Program report
template. This template will be used for fiscal year (FY) 2012 reporting and may be modified in
subsequent years of the pilot program. This template will be used to compile information for the final
FY 2012 IRR Annual Report to be posted to the Forest Service’s Restoration Website. The Washington
Office will be responsible for completing sections A and E of the template. Regions 1, 3, and 4 will each
be responsible for completing sections B, C, and D. Regional responses are due to the Washington
Office by November 30, 2012.
The Secretary of Agriculture’s vision recognizes the role of healthy forests in enhancing water
resources and maintaining resiliency within a changing climate. The Forest Service is aligning the
budget structure to focus landscape scale restoration across deputy areas to support and accelerate
the pace of a wide spectrum of restoration and resiliency enhancing activities. This emphasis merges
programs previously separated out as forest products; vegetation and watershed management; fish and
wildlife habitat management; non-WUI hazardous fuels; post-fire restoration and rehabilitation; and
legacy roads and trails (including road decommissioning). Regions 1, 3, and 4 were selected as part of
an Agency pilot program to demonstrate the advantages of merging multiple budget line items BLIs into
one–NFRR.
The regions participating in the IRR Pilot (Regions 1, 3, and 4) will report on program achievements at
the end of a FY. Guidance on reporting performance measures can be found in the FY 2012 Final
Program Direction (pages 14-21). Each region will also provide 3 – 5 case studies highlighting a project
in which IRR funding enabled the project to be implemented more efficiently, to meet the desired
resource goal(s).
A. Accomplishment Reporting – Performance (The information in Section A will be completed by the
Washington Office. For accomplishment reporting by forest, see the Appendix.)
2.
FY 2012 Accomplishments
a. Table 1 – IRR Performance Measures
Performance Measure
Target5
6
Percent
Accomplished
Acres treated annually to sustain or restore watershed
function and resilience
283,100
198,574
70%
Number of watersheds move to an improved condition class
Miles of road decommissioned
Volume of timber sold (CCF)
0
115
239,000
0
69
224,481
0%
60%
94%
130
162
124%
Miles of stream habitat restored or enhanced
5
Total Units
Accomplished6
Target should match the target recorded in the Databases of Record.
Units accomplished should match the accomplishments recorded in the Databases of Record.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 7
FY 2012 IRR REPORT | APPENDIX 1 | R3
b. Priority Watersheds and Watershed Action Plans
The Forests have identified 22 priority watersheds across the region. There is a wide variety
of work identified in the accompanying Watershed Restoration Action Plans, including 30
acres and over 200 miles of aquatic habitat improvement, over 30,000 acres of fuels
treatments (thinning and prescribed burning), 500 acres of meadow restoration, 235 miles of
road decommissioning, 87 miles of road maintenance or improvement, 3,000 acres of
erosion control, 11 miles of trail maintenance or realignment, and 3,000 acres of non-native
plant removal. The total estimated cost for the planned work is $17 million. As of the end of
FY12, 8 miles of aquatic habitat, 37 miles of road decommissioning, 2,200 acres of fuels
treatments, and almost 3,000 acres of erosion control have been completed for a total
estimated cost of $560,000.
B.
Accomplishment Reporting – Regional Summary
The intent of consolidating several BLIs into NFFR is to provide the Agency the flexibility to focus on
priority work using a more integrated approach to management and allow the needs of the land to drive
what work gets done. The intent is to also increase flexibility to focus restoration treatments on the
priority watersheds or other priority locations in a more efficient manner. Regions 1, 3, and 4 were
selected to participate in the IRR Pilot Program to test this hypothesis. The focus on integrating various
programs complements other ongoing efforts such as the Planning Rule revision, Collaborative Forest
Landscape Restoration projects, travel management, and the watershed condition framework, which
are similarly anticipated to promote integration of various resource activities. The other regions were
not authorized to consolidate BLIs, but will continue to integrate programs within the existing limits of
authority.
The following questions are designed to help evaluate whether the Regions gained flexibility,
efficiencies, enhanced outcomes, and increased internal and external collaboration internally; and to
daylight/understand any potential pitfalls or adverse impacts.
I.
Why and Where on the Landscape
Much of the work that forests accomplished in fiscal year 2012 (FY12) was planned and
scheduled prior to the beginning of the fiscal year as part of their ongoing programs. These
activities were determined based on a variety of factors including Watershed Condition
Framework priority watersheds, certified Community Wildfire Protection Plans, existing
partnerships, and approved National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) decisions. While forests
were given the latitude to determine where the most important work would be done, all forests
sought opportunities to best improve watershed condition class as well as mitigate
uncharacteristic wildfire behavior. The amount of integration within the broad restoration
program varied by forest at the implementation stages. It was most evident in projects that were
just entering the planning stages.
The Southwestern Region began aggregating programs and Budget Line Items (BLIs) in to
major program areas in 2010. The BLIs that were combined into NFRR were part of the
Restoration Program area. Because of the work done in the region prior to the implementation
of NFRR, most forests had been using an integrated approach to develop a restoration program
of work and found the switch to NFRR fairly easy.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 8
FY 2012 IRR REPORT | APPENDIX 1 | R3
II.
Priorities, Outcomes, and Outputs
Since most of the work accomplished in FY12 was planned prior to the implementation of
NFRR, it is not possible to contrast how work planning changed before and after pilot authority
was given. This will be more evident beginning in FY13.
In order to test the concept of achieving the best outcome, rather than a specific array of
outputs, the Region did not assign specific targets to the forests. Instead, the forests
determined what the most important work was and what outputs (accomplishments) would come
from that work. For a variety of reasons, not all these outputs were achieved to the degree the
Region expected. One of the reasons was the restriction on prescribed burning in late summer
and early fall of 2012. This is generally a good time for prescribed burning in the southwest and
as a result of the restrictions we were not able to accomplish some of the burning projects that
were planned. Due to the restriction in burning and the way “acres treated annually to sustain or
restore watershed function and resilience” was calculated, the region only shows an
accomplishment of 70% of the target. There is an additional 150,000 acres of this same type of
work that was funded by BLIs that weren’t included (RTRT, CWKV, SRS2, SPS4, NFRG, and
NFN3). In addition, the region accomplished over 70,000 acres of hazardous fuels reduction in
the wildland urban interface, which is not included. When looking at the broader scale of
watershed restoration (not limiting it to NFRR and associated codes), the region accomplished
over 400,000 acres of watershed restoration. The Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER)
program contributed yet an additional 71,100 acres in mulched, seeded and stabilized work and
100 miles of stabilized roads and trails within recently burned landscapes.
Forests reported mixed feelings as to efficiencies. Several forests confirmed IRR helped
specialists think more in terms of “whole watershed” health. Some forests simply allocated their
IRR back into the individual areas of how they traditionally operated. Forests did appreciate
additional flexibility to shift funds from one project to another as priorities changed or
opportunities arose throughout the season. Those forests hosting Collaborative Forest
Landscape Restoration (CFLR) projects used NFRR as their primary matching fund code that is
simplifying records and accounts.
III.
Flexibility, Advantages, and Disadvantages
Forests appreciated work that was based upon their planned accomplishments rather than on a
target given by the region. Forests became keen on seeking those integrated accomplishments
and valued that flexibility. NFRR did fund some work that would not have gotten funded
otherwise, particularly in terrestrial habitat improvement. However, some target
accomplishments are less flexible now because WUI fuels treatments funded with WFHF funds
do not contribute to WTRSHD-RSTR-ANN accomplishments even though many of the
treatments have benefits to sustain or restore watershed function and resilience.
Biological diversity was improved or maintained as a result of our restoration work. Keystone
species such as aspen were protected and regenerated. Vegetation species composition and
diversity, especially native grasses and forbs, were enhanced by our grassland restoration
program, timber stand improvement program, and commercial timber harvest program.
Productivity and diversity of insects and other animal species was also enhanced. These effects
are readily evident through our monitoring or supported by research evidence. It’s also likely
that water yields and seeps/spring productivity were also enhanced by our restoration program,
but we don’t have hard data to show that. These types of accomplishments are ones that are
not shown in the traditional accomplishment reporting and as a consequence are not accounted
for, but yet are essential to the restoration and maintenance of properly functioning healthy
watersheds.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 9
FY 2012 IRR REPORT | APPENDIX 1 | R3
Through our completed and ongoing work, local job and industry development, agency and
partnership alignment to fund mutually beneficial projects, and communication between the
resource specialists and staff have all improved.
Advantages include clear direction on where work is to be conducted, design and planning of
projects for implementation, and efficiencies gained through dialogue between resource
functions. Integrating the internal prioritization process allows for a higher level of confidence
when working with external partners. A more organized internal organization allows for a more
organized and confident overall organization, both externally and internally.
For FY12, the Forest’s goals and priorities were set prior to implementation of IRR. However,
some programs initially felt they were getting cut because their specific funding went away with
implementation of IRR. This pooling of funds requires increased coordination between resource
areas at the Forest level. Participating programs must look for opportunities to integrate projects
and priorities as an alternative to “competing” for funds from one BLI. This is occurring on most
forests with varying levels of success within the “regular” programs funded by NFTM, NFVW,
NFWF, and WFHF, but it requires increased coordination and Forest-level decision making
regarding activities previously funded by CMLG and NFN3 since they reduce NFRR funding
available for “regular” programs.
One of the disadvantages is the partial emphasis on priority watersheds when these were often
not developed through a process that incorporated full interdisciplinary, public, and community
values and involvement. Many of our partners were unsure of how we established our priorities.
Future watersheds prioritized on the Forest will involve a broader consideration for community
and public values in the decision making process. Some forests felt awkward sharing funding
between programs. Clear direction and sound planning is necessary to maintain program
expectations.
IV.
Underserved Programs
Roads and Trails both have significant impact on watershed function and water quality. Projects
that address road impacts often compete better for funding than trail projects. Under the Legacy
Roads and Trails Program trails projects were more competitive for limited dollars on a regional
scale. In addition, rehabilitation of burned areas funds (NFN3) are no longer available as a
separate fund. This work is now included in NFRR, adding to competition and prioritization for
these projects at the Forest level. Rehabilitation projects are essential; however instead of
competing on a regional scale against similar projects, post-fire rehabilitation projects now
compete against essential projects for watershed restoration as well as for other dollars which
fund primary Forest organizations. Lastly, unmanaged dispersed recreation activities have the
potential to significantly impact watershed condition and function; however is not one of the
weighted indicators that make up the condition score.
Since projects funded under the Reforestation Trust Fund (RTRT), CWKV, WFHF, and
Purchaser Requirement (Stewardship Credits) are not a part of the NFRR calculator, those
activities could not be reflected even though they serve a vital role in restoration and watershed
improvement.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 10
FY 2012 IRR REPORT | APPENDIX 1 | R3
V.
VI.
What does IRR success look like?
• Integration of resources to achieve site specific ecological restoration actions to improve
watershed function.
•
All resource functional areas communicating, developing and designing projects
collaboratively with communities and partners to achieve a sustainable improvement in
watershed function.
•
Traditional management activities are used as a tool along with non-traditional methods to
improve watershed health across jurisdictional boundaries.
•
Financial budgets are more flexible in identifying management activities that are more
effective in improving watershed indicator scores and improve watershed function.
•
Accomplishments are measured less on an annual report requirement and more aligned with
ultimately improving watershed function.
•
Frequency, scale and severity of large wildfires are on a downward trend.
•
Forest health is improving through removal and utilization of biomass, sawtimber, and other
forest products.
•
Forest restoration treatment costs are declining as economies of scale develop to meet the
supply of woody material. All permanent forest staffs are funded, encouraged to participate
and treated as valued resources in the overall restoration process.
Partner Feedback
Since most forests implemented previously planned projects rather than initiating new projects,
there were not specific collaborative efforts focused on NFRR. As we move forward with
planning new, more integrated projects, communication and collaboration with partners will
occur. Since partners have mostly been focused on one resource and one program area such
as wildlife or recreation in the past, it will take time to communicate the change in the way the
agency prioritizes and implements project work and how best in incorporate partner interest in
outcomes which maintain or improve watershed function. The forests exploring Stewardship
Agreements and who are hosting CFLR projects have begun working with their Partners to
understand integrated accomplishments.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 11
FY 2012 IRR REPORT | APPENDIX 1 | R3
C. Planning Future Accomplishments – FY 2013 Accomplishments and Future NFRR Program
Emphasis
3. FY 2013 Planned Accomplishments
a. Table 3 – IRR Planned Performance
Performance Measure
Total Units
Planned7
Total acres treated annually to sustain or restore watershed function and resilience
283,000
Number of watersheds move to an improved condition class
1
Miles of road decommissioned
86
Volume of timber sold (CCF)
280,351
Miles of stream habitat restored or enhanced
4.
80
Based on FY 2012 Experiences, how would you anticipate IRR improving FY 2013 planning
and accomplishments?
Each forest in the Region is in the process of developing a 5-year Restoration Plan. This
includes work that will be completed with NFRR as well as the other BLIs the Southwestern
Region includes in the Restoration Program Area (WFHF, NFRG, SPFH, and RTRT). Having
the single BLI will make prioritizing the work needed in an area much easier since the primary
purpose rules are much broader. These plans are to include both landscape level work as well
as critical smaller projects. This will help ensure that very important, single resource projects
are not lost. This integrated restoration concept should also improve project planning and
analysis (NEPA) that will begin in FY13.
Additional Activities Contributing to IRR
The annual reporting required regional accomplishment reporting of the five IRR performance
measures, as well as a narrative on FY 2012 program of work implementation, and case studies, which
are required by the FY 2012 Final Program Direction (pages 14-21).
In addition, it is important to emphasize programs that are outside of the IRR performance measures,
but are funded through NFRR (IRR budget line item). This addendum directs the regions to take a twotiered approach to reporting these activities:
Tier 1: In a short narrative, please highlight those activities that do not currently fall under an
IRR performance measure, but whose performance is tracked by the Agency. In addition to the
narrative, please list those activities and their FY 12 accomplishment. Add rows to the table
below, as necessary, to accommodate all activities.
7
Units planned should match the planned accomplishments recorded in the Databases of Record.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 12
FY 2012 IRR REPORT | APPENDIX 1 | R3
Some very important parts of the broader restoration activity that are not captured in the NFRR
reporting items are road and trail maintenance and improvement, pest treatments (both native
and invasive), stream crossings modified to allow for aquatic organism passage, and threatened
and endangered species conservation activities. Also, the accomplishments that roll up to
create the Watershed Acres Restored item only includes part of that work. The remaining work
is critical to getting a full picture of the amount of restoration being done in the year. This is work
funded by stewardship credits, CWKV, RTRT, Secure Rural Schools Title II grants, managed
fire, prescribed fire in the WUI, and other sources.
Table – Additional Activities Contributing to IRR with trackable measures.
Performance Measure
Total Units
Accomplished8
Miles of high clearance system roads improved
Miles of high clearance system roads maintained
Miles of passenger car system roads improved
Miles of passenger car system roads maintained
Miles of system trail improved to standard
Miles of system trail maintained to standard
Stream crossings constructed or reconstructed for aquatic organism passage
T&E species for which recovery actions accomplished
Priority acres treated for invasive species on Federal lands
Priority acres treated for invasive species on Coop lands
Priority acres treated for native species on Federal lands
Priority acres treated for native species on Coop lands
Acres of water/soil resources protected/maintained/improved (not included in NFRR roll up)
Acres of terrestrial habitat restored/enhanced (not included in NFRR roll up)
Acres of forest vegetation improved (not included in NFRR roll up)
Acres of forestland vegetation established (not included in NFRR roll up)
Acres of range vegetation improved (not included in NFRR roll up)
Acres treated for noxious weeds/invasive plants on NFS lands (not incl. in NFRR roll up)
Acres of hazardous fuels outside the WUI to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildland fire (not
included in NFRR roll up)
8
26
2,254
81
2,612
255
1,677
1
0
20
1,400
5,670
160
10,017
19,375
7,609
11,379
73,833
758
19,998
Units accomplished should match the accomplishments recorded in the Databases of Record.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 13
FY 2012 IRR REPORT | APPENDIX 1 | R3
Tier 2: In a short narrative, please highlight those activities that do not currently fall
under an IRR performance measure, and whose performance the Agency currently does
not track. If you believe that any of these measures should be tracked by the Agency in
the future, please describe your reasoning, as well.
In addition to all the items that we track, there are some very important activities funded
by NFRR that contribute to restoration but are not specifically tracked. These are
activities like air quality monitoring, water rights acquisition, monitoring of water yield,
management of wild horse and burro territories (activities outside of vegetation
improvement such as herd management), and a variety of monitoring. Monitoring could
be related to livestock grazing allotments, vegetation condition, threatened and
endangered species occurrence, or implementation and effectiveness of best
management practices.
The Region did not track the work that was accomplished under Burned Area
Emergency Response in any of our reporting databases. While some of the work may
not be specifically considered restoration, it often stabilizes an area so that long term
restoration work (which often would be funded by NFRR) can occur. Since this provides
some very important restoration benefits, it will be important to include those
accomplishments, as long as they do not affect the region’s target.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 14
FY 2012 IRR REPORT | APPENDIX 1 | R4
REGION: INTERMOUNTAIN (R4)
Reporting Instructions: This is the annual Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) Pilot Program report
template. This template will be used for fiscal year (FY) 2012 reporting and may be modified in
subsequent years of the pilot program. This template will be used to compile information for the final
FY 2012 IRR Annual Report to be posted to the Forest Service’s Restoration Website. The Washington
Office will be responsible for completing sections A and E of the template. Regions 1, 3, and 4 will each
be responsible for completing sections B, C, and D. Regional responses are due to the Washington
Office by November 30, 2012.
The Secretary of Agriculture’s vision recognizes the role of healthy forests in enhancing water
resources and maintaining resiliency within a changing climate. The Forest Service is aligning the
budget structure to focus landscape scale restoration across deputy areas to support and accelerate
the pace of a wide spectrum of restoration and resiliency enhancing activities. This emphasis merges
programs previously separated out as forest products; vegetation and watershed management; fish and
wildlife habitat management; non-WUI hazardous fuels; post-fire restoration and rehabilitation; and
legacy roads and trails (including road decommissioning). Regions 1, 3, and 4 were selected as part of
an Agency pilot program to demonstrate the advantages of merging multiple budget line items BLIs into
one–NFRR.
The regions participating in the IRR Pilot (Regions 1, 3, and 4) will report on program achievements at
the end of a FY. Guidance on reporting performance measures can be found in the FY 2012 Final
Program Direction (page 14-21). Each region will also provide 3 – 5 case studies highlighting a project
in which IRR funding enabled the project to be implemented more efficiently, to meet the desired
resource goal(s).
A. Accomplishment Reporting – Performance (The information in Section A will be completed by the
Washington Office. For accomplishment reporting by forest, see the Appendix.)
1.
FY 2012 Accomplishments
a. Table 1 – IRR Performance Measures
Performance Measure
Acres treated annually to sustain or restore watershed
function and resilience
Target9
283,795
126%
1
1
100%
190
286
151%
233,000
206,294
89%
220
346
157%
Miles of road decommissioned
Miles of stream habitat restored or enhanced
9
Percent
Accomplished
225,000
Number of watersheds move to an improved condition class
Volume of timber sold (CCF)
Total Units
Accomplished10
Target should match the target recorded in the Databases of Record.
Units accomplished should match the accomplishments recorded in the Databases of Record.
10
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 15
FY 2012 IRR REPORT | APPENDIX 1 | R4
b. Priority Watersheds and Watershed Action Plans
i. How many priority watersheds have been identified in the Region as of FY
12?
The Region completed 36 WRAP in FY 12.
ii. List the type of restoration activities—and associated dollars—identified in
the Watershed Restoration Action Plans.
Table two lists the type of restorative actions in the WRAP.
iii. List the restoration activities—and associated dollars—completed to date.
The complete of list and associated dollars is not available at this time.
Forests are inputting data into Watershed Inventory Tracking (WIT) at this
time. Table three shows available restoration actions completed and
entered into WIT at this time.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 16
FY 2012 IRR REPORT | APPENDIX 1 | R4
Forest
HUC12
Name
Ashley
Cart Creek
Ashley
Swift Creek
Boise
Scriver Creek
Boise
Stolle CreekSFSR
Hams ForkEast and
West
Muddy
CreekHoback River
Birch Creek
BriderTeton
BriderTeton
Dixie
Dixie
Fishlake
Tropic
Reservoir
UM Creek
Water
Hollow-Salina
Creek
Mant-LaSal Left Fork
Huntington
Creek and
Lowry Creek
Mant-LaSal Johnson
Creek
Payette
Lower
Kennally
Creek
Payette
Cottonwood
Creek/Mill
Creek/East
Fork/Jackson
Creek
SalmonUpper
Challis
sawmill
Creek
Vegetation
Restoration
Range
Road
Management Maintenance
Road
Decommission
Aquatic
Organism
Passage
Timber
Stream
Restoration
Riparian
Restoration
$0
$0
$0
$0
$200,000
$0
$450,000
$0
$500,000
$0
$0
$1,150,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$137,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$137,000
$0
$0
$478,000
$0
$1,768,000
$240,000
$640,000
$40,000
$118,000
$0
$0
$3,284,000
$0
$0
$1,686,000
$0
$1,050,000
$300,000
$0
$40,000
$0
$0
$0
$3,076,000
Invasive
Fuels
Monitoring
Total Cost
Sales
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$55,000
$0
$50,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$105,000
$0
$90,000
$813,000
$0
$370,000
$0
$584,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,857,000
$157,000
$213,000
$1,997,000
$0
$407,000
$0
$318,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,092,000
$0
$87,500
$0
$0
$260,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$15,000
$362,500
$0
$50,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$260,000
$0
$0
$0
$310,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,809,200
$1,306,500
$0
$0
$1,471,000 $848,000
$0
$5,434,700
$0
$0
$718,500
$0
$141,100
$0
$0
$24,000
$638,365
$0
$10,000
$1,531,965
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$114,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$114,000
$220,000
$0
$0
$0
$238,000
$450,000
$418,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,326,000
$58,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$15,000
$0
$0
$200,000
$0
$0
$273,000
Fishlake
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 17
FY 2012 IRR REPORT | APPENDIX 1 | R4
Forest
SalmonChallis
Sawtooth
Sawtooth
CaribouTarghee
CaribouTarghee
HumboldtToiyabe
HumboldtToiyabe
UintaWasatchCache
UintaWasatchCache
HUC12
Name
Withington
Creek
Wildcat,
Johnson, and
Onemile
Creek
Pole Creek
Jacknife
Creek
Lanes CreekDiamond
Fork
Indian Creek
Lower Walker
Creek
Spring
CanyonProvo River
and Shingle
Creek
Headwaters
Little
Cottonwood
canyon
Vegetation
Restoration
Range
Road
Management Maintenance
Road
Decommission
Aquatic
Organism
Passage
Timber
Stream
Restoration
Riparian
Restoration
$1,006,000
$0
$0
$0
$55,000
$0
$763,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,824,000
$0
$50,000
$210,000
$12,000
$187,000
$17,000
$0
$68,500
$0
$0
$0
$544,500
$63,000
$829,250
$119,000
$0
$119,879
$20,000
$337,000
$50,000
$0
$0
$0
$1,538,129
$195,000
$0
$145,000
$0
$120,000
$175,000
$510,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,145,000
$0
$800,000
$65,000
$0
$375,000
$0
$2,120,000
$90,000
$0
$0
$0
$3,450,000
$163,745
$0
$185,500
$46,500
$0
$50,800
$15,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$461,545
$188,400
$0
$110,000
$46,500
$0
$43,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$387,900
$0
$22,000
$1,200,000
$0
$304,000
$0
$40,000
$25,000
$150,000
$0
$0
$1,741,000
$0
$0
$10,000
$0
$187,000
$25,000
$150,000
$25,000
$0
$0
$0
$397,000
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Invasive
Fuels
Monitoring
Total Cost
Sales
Page 18
FY 2012 IRR REPORT | APPENDIX 1 | R4
Table 3. WRAP activities completed to date.
Forest
Aquatic
Road
Soil
Total
Humboldt-Toiyabe
Payette National Forest
Salmon-Challis
$29,000
$227800
$2,200
$256,800
$2,200
Uinta-Wasatch-Cache
Total
$31,200
$227,800
$259,000
B. Accomplishment Reporting-Regional Summary
The intent of consolidating several BLIs into NFFR is to provide the Agency the flexibility to
focus on priority work using a more integrated approach to management and allow the needs of
the land to drive what work gets done. The intent is to also increase flexibility to focus
restoration treatments on the priority watersheds or other priority locations in a more efficient
manner. Regions 1, 3, and 4 were selected to participate in the IRR Pilot Program to test this
hypothesis. The focus on integrating various programs complements other ongoing efforts such
as the Planning Rule revision, Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration projects, travel
management, and the watershed condition framework, which are similarly anticipated to
promote integration of various resource activities. The other regions were not authorized to
consolidate BLIs, but will continue to integrate programs within the existing limits of authority.
The following questions are designed to help evaluate whether the Regions gained flexibility,
efficiencies, enhanced outcomes, and increased internal and external collaboration internally;
and to daylight/understand any potential pitfalls or adverse impacts.
Narrative: Describe the decision-making process used to formulate priorities for FY 2012’s
program of work.
Executive summary
The intermountain Region (R4) participated in the Forest Service’s Integrated Resource
Restoration pilot in FY12. This pilot included the new NFRR BLI which combined the legacy
BLIS for several programs (Wildlife and Fish (NFWF), Forest Products (NFTM), Fuels NonWildland Urban Interface (WFHF non-WUI), Vegetation and Watershed (NFVW), Rehabilitation
and Restoration (NFN3), and Legacy Roads and Trails (CMLG). This report documents findings
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 19
FY 2012 IRR REPORT | APPENDIX 1 | R4
and recommendations for IRR. After a nearly a year of implementation, the Region offers up the
following key results:






IRR has focused investments in landscape scale restoration needs, both in planning and
implementation. The Watershed Condition Framework and subsequent watershed
restoration action plans (WRAP) are driving restoration under the pilot.
Our Forests report perceived efficiencies in operations, primarily with the ease of using
one BLI versus several, and with treatments being focused in one landscape. However,
these efficiencies are not quantified.
The concept of IRR in general appears to foster greater integration among resource
areas in planning and implementing projects. However, this conclusion was not
universally shared and there appears to be trade-offs for those programs that are not
drivers of WRAP, or do not have “hard” target associated with IRR.
With the current IRR outcomes and outputs, programs that have difficulty integrating
their priorities or projects within priority watersheds and WRAP may see their program
priorities diminished.
In our Region, achieving the timber volume sold performance measure may not always
coincide with accomplishing priority restoration.
The Washington Office, Regions, and Forests must implement an IRR organization with
clear roles and accountability for NFRR funds and accomplishments.
Decision-making process used to formulate priorities for FY 2012’s program of work.
Regional Office IRR Direction and Organization
The Regional Forester Team (RFT) established a Regional Office (RO) organization for
managing the NFRR BLI. The Director of Natural Resources is responsible for the NFRR BLI
with coordination with other affected staffs. The Region made NFRR allocation decisions based
on recommendations from the Budget Advice and Review Team (BART) and an NFRR Advisory
Board led by the Director of Natural Resources.
The RO gave specific direction that all units were to use NFRR funds to implement the
Watershed Restoration Action plans developed in FY11. The RO expected field units to direct
funding to achieve priority work in the most important places at the most meaningful scale. The
RO recognized that not all IRR objectives could be met in each project and not all NFRR funds
would be spent on direct restoration actions. The RO direction intended NFRR to give land
managers increased flexibility to accomplish priority resource objectives while still maintaining or
performing other necessary program work accomplished with the legacy BLIs.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 20
FY 2012 IRR REPORT | APPENDIX 1 | R4
Allocation Process
The Regional Office allocated about $38M in FY12 NFRR funds to R4 Forests in the combined
proportions of the NFWF, NFTM, WFHF non-WUI, NFVW and CMLG (excluding specific project
funding) allocations that each forest received in FY11. In FY12, the RO directed about 1.7M to
four focus investment projects within the region. These focused investment projects are the
case studies covered in of this report. The Region selected these projects from Forest
Watershed Restoration Action Plans (WRAP) and existing Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration Program (CFLRP) proposals that best met the criteria of the NFRR Advisory Board
criteria. The criteria used to select the focused investment projects are as follows:
1. Active management will improve watershed condition class or improve the condition of
attributes to measure watershed condition.
2. Potential for active management to improve terrestrial and aquatic habitat conditions and
provide for habitat connectivity.
3. Management actions have a high probability of making a measureable outcome at a
landscape /watershed scale.
4. Projects will retain and/or create local forest products jobs and businesses in rural
communities.
5. Projects will improve forest health and resiliency at a watershed/landscape scale.
6. The amount and commitment of partnerships to reach restoration goals at a
landscape/watershed scale.
7. Collaboration forums and existing partnerships are functioning and other indications of
social capacity exist.
8. Evidence of success in producing integrated resource restoration results in the recent
past.
9. Potential for high external visibilities.
I.
Why and Where on the Landscape
The activities and the accomplishments the Forests accomplished in FY12 depended on
a variety of factors. Not all necessarily driven by IRR objectives. These factors include
the following:

Activities already planned in completed work plans drove much of the FY12
accomplishments. The pilot Regions did not receive NFRR authority until
January of 2012, nearly 25% through the fiscal year. Forests were well on their
way to implementing projects and activities previously planned in FY11. Forests
report making adjustments where they could to better meet the intent of IRR, but
all report that their NFRR accomplishments and expenditures largely reflect
planning efforts in previous fiscal years.

Where adjustments could be made in planned activities, Forests focused their
efforts on attaining the targets associated with IRR. Many Forests report shifting
resources to those WRAP actions that would improve watershed condition class,
the reported outcome of IRR. For example the Ashley National Forest reports
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 21
FY 2012 IRR REPORT | APPENDIX 1 | R4
shifting considerable resources from other planned projects to completing trail
work on the Swift Creek watershed (See Ashley National Forest Case Study).

Many of the vegetation projects needed to meet the Timber Volume sold target
were outside of priority restoration areas. Many of the current or planned
vegetation projects in R4 are in wild urban interface (WUI) areas. These projects
do not necessarily coincide with priority watersheds, or with restoration activities
and actions identified in WRAPS.

Forests placed high priority on areas that had received previous investments.
Ongoing projects that would have been funded by the legacy BLIs continued to
be funded with NFRR. The Forests found they could not always simply change
actions and priorities as a result of the IRR direction and BLI.

Forests with updated Forest Plans found most planned and implemented projects
were consistent with the objectives of IRR. For example the Payette National
Forest revised their plan in 2003 and they report:
We are fortunate that our Forest Plan provides strong direction for
landscape restoration activities within watersheds rated as high
priority by our Forest Plan’s Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS)
and Wildlife Conservation Strategy (WCS). Due to this direction,
we have been attempting to integrate our vegetation management,
road, watershed, fish, and wildlife projects and accomplishments
for some time.
II.
Priorities, Outcomes, and Outputs
Priorities
We found that our Forest priorities generally fell into five non-exclusive categories:



Ongoing activities where Forests are making progress towards watershed improvements
in priority watersheds.
Watersheds where minimal investment gives quick return in overall watershed
improvement. Targets are still a main driver. The watershed restored annually target is
a compilation of nine performance measures. The costs of accomplishing these different
performance measures vary widely. The least expensive accomplishments or the
easiest accomplishments may occur at the expense of more expensive and possibly
more critical accomplishments with the pressure to accomplish more with less.
Activities that accomplish IRR targets, but not necessarily in priority watersheds. For
example the Caribou-Targhee National Forest reports:
The Forest completed many other IRR projects such as timber
volume sold and road miles decommissioned outside of the
“Priority Watersheds”. Not all IRR targets could be
accomplished in one watershed therefore the forest had to rely
on projects already in the “pipeline” from previous planning
and partner investment to meet assigned targets.

Investments in important non-target contributing NFRR funded activities such as range
NEPA, threatened, endangered and sensitive species, air, soil, water rights
administration, etc. While we heard that these activities were underserved in FY12 and
more so planned in FY13, the Region expended substantial NFRR resources for these
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 22
FY 2012 IRR REPORT | APPENDIX 1 | R4
types of activities. While they do not contribute to target outputs or outcomes, these
programs are critical to managing Forest resources.

Out year planning for IRR activities. For example the Ashley National Forest reports:
In the past, on-the-ground work was determined based on
isolated projects where an agency decision had been made or
a Forest program area or District had determined that a certain
project was important and warranted investment. With the IRR
pilot authority, planning for on-the-ground work was prioritized
by the potential of a project to contribute to the IRR Watershed
Acres Restored Annually target and centered on the Forest’s
focus watersheds.
Outcomes
In simple terms, the IRR outcome as identified in the Washington Office (WO) direction is
the number of watersheds moved to an improved water class. To improve a watersheds
condition class, a Forest must complete all the actions identified in a particular WRAP.
The Region achieved its target of one watershed moved to an improved condition class
in FY12. The Region has identified other desired outcomes that are more difficult to
quantify and include the following:
1. Improved terrestrial and aquatic habitat conditions and provide for habitat
connectivity.
2. Retain and/or create local forest products jobs and businesses in rural communities.
3. Improve forest health and resiliency at a watershed/landscape scale.
4. Improve the efficiency with which outcomes and outputs are realized.
5. Increase commitment of partnerships to reach restoration goals at a
landscape/watershed scale.
6. Collaboration forums and existing partnerships are functioning and other indications
of social capacity exist.
Completion of projects identified in WRAPs may achieve many, but not all, of these
above desired outcomes. All Forests report moving towards these desired outcomes,
but no additional metrics beyond those stated as outputs for IRR (see below) have been
identified.

Acres treated annually to sustain or restore watershed function and resilience.

Miles of road decommissioned.

Volume of timber sold.

Miles of stream habitat restored or enhanced.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 23
FY 2012 IRR REPORT | APPENDIX 1 | R4
Outputs
The Region exceeded all IRR performance measures except volume of timber sold (See
section A). The reasons identified for not achieving the timber target are as follows:

The Boise National Forest delayed offering a large timber sale (Scriver Stewardship)
to prepare a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement in response to
litigation concerns.

“No bid” sales amounted to 16% of our offerings in FY12. These sales will be reappraised and/or re-packaged to be offered again in the 1st and 2nd quarters of FY13.

The demanding fire season kept some Forests from completing their sale preparation
work before the end of the fiscal year.
The IRR pilot authority and NFRR BLI are not considered factors in the Region not
achieving its timber volume target. While we have concerns that achieving other IRR
objectives may not align with timber volume opportunities, we do not view IRR or NFRR
obstructions to achieving volume targets.
Efficiencies
All Forests describe efficiency gains in the budgeting process by having one NFRR BLI.
Having one BLI that is able to pay for large scale projects without concern for primary
purpose for multiple BLIs has simplified budget planning. At this point in the pilot, it is
unclear if the Region has experienced measureable efficiencies to plan and implement
projects. For example the Dixie National Forest reports:
Project efficiencies were not different from the integrated project process that
the forest had previously established. Integrated projects were already in
place for 2012. Efficiencies associated with our focused investment project in
FY12 were realized with stewardship objectives and pooling of funding to
accomplish integrated target accomplishment projects. This enabled larger
projects to be accomplished on the landscape.
However, there is some indication that as Forests plan projects at larger scales, with
numerous actions, and supported by collaborative partnerships, that better efficiency will
be achieved. For example the Caribou-Targhee Forest reports:
Activities within the Jackknife (please visit this link) priority watershed took
advantage of the multiple activities occurring at one time and existing contracts to
assist resource staffs in getting components of projects complete more efficiently.
For example heavy equipment from the stream restoration contract was used to
assist the recreation staff on installing the trail bridges as this would have taking
them 3-5 times longer with hand crews.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 24
FY 2012 IRR REPORT | APPENDIX 1 | R4
III.
Flexibility, Advantages, and Disadvantages
Flexibility
Some Forests Reported greater flexibility in being able to prioritize work. Forests
indicated that without multiple BLIs and primary purpose considerations line officers
found it easier to their fund priority projects. For example the Bridger-Teton states:
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.
Forests also reported that having a variety of ways to achieve the acres treated annually
to sustain or restore watershed function and resilience performance measure gave
greater flexibility in treating priority acres. While other Forests indicated that because the
IRR authority arrived too late in the fiscal year, substantial changes to programs could
not be made.
Most Forests also indicated that they were already integrating projects and were efficient
at working within the old constraints of multiple BLIs and primary purpose to accomplish
their objectives. The new NFRR BLI simply made doing so easier. For example the
Caribou-Targhee National Forest states:
The Forest has had a very integrated resource program for the past 5-6
years. This integration has been primarily in the following areas: Watershed,
Fisheries, and Engineering. The Forest Staff Officers and Program Leaders
have worked cooperatively to fund priority watershed improvement work
without regard for “territorialism” or program centric targets. Each year an
out-year program of work is developed and priorities are established that
meet multiple resource objectives such as improvement of stream channels,
road maintenance, deficient road crossing replacement etc. During the year
of implementation these priority projects are funded from multiple benefitting
programs and outside partners. This has served the Forest well in previous
years. We expect IRR will reinforce this behavior.
Advantages
The primary advantages of IRR identified by Forests in the Region are:

Setting Goals and Priorities: Internally, IRR made setting goals and priorities among
program areas easier by concentrating efforts on projects associated with the Forest’s
priority watersheds. This generally encouraged more integration among program areas
than occurred historically. For example the Dixie National Forest indicates:
The advantages internally are that we are building a better National Forest
Management Act (NFMA) process to attain multiple outputs. Vegetation
management projects do not stand alone and are being better integrated to attain
a larger watershed approach.

Partnership opportunities and integration: Because of the flexibility and integration,
Forests report there may be more opportunities to fund projects associated with partners.
The Humboldt-Toiyabe also reports that their partners are able to see a host of issues
addressed at once instead of small pieces of the issue at different times. Also, partners
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 25
FY 2012 IRR REPORT | APPENDIX 1 | R4
are finding that they need to integrate with us and others to accomplish their objectives.
This is best stated by the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest:
The advantage of IRR is that our partners are told that we all need to play in the
sandbox together – harvesting timber is as important as decommissioning roads;
ecological benefits and economic benefits are equally important.

Large Scale Restoration: Projects at landscape scales are very expensive- several
hundred thousand dollars- and are easier to fund and implement with increased flexibility
of the new NFRR BLI authority. The Region’s approach of identifying “focused
investment” funding for landscape level projects allowed for restoration actions that
would have otherwise had to have been piecemealed together over many years.
Disadvantages
Primary disadvantages of IRR identified by Forests in the Region are:

Reduced emphasis of projects outside of priority watershed: This concern is best
illustrated by the comments from the Caribou-Targhee National Forest:
Because of IRR, the Jackknife watershed projects ranked as a higher priority
for resource staff, partnership coordination, and funding. Other programs’
projects that were not included in the priority watershed understood they may
take longer to implement with the focus put on priority watersheds. This
created concerns across the forest as there are about 300 watersheds across
seven different Ranger Districts on the Caribou-Targhee NF that are also
important to manage and improve.

Reduced partner participation: While IRR has in many ways improved the ability of
partners to participate in restoration. Some Forests indicate that Partners with single
issue emphasis, or geographically limited concerns may be deterred as funds are moved
to priority restoration outside of their focus area. The Ashley National Forest has heard
the concern that :
Partners that represent a specific interest, be it wilderness or motorized
recreation or logging, are concerned that one strong personality or belief system
may “hijack” a disproportionate amount of the NFRR funds.

Difficulty in management of the NFRR BLI: Despite our efforts to create a Regional
organization to administer NFRR, the field reports that “to many RO program managers
are giving too many conflicting IRR messages from the RO”. We have found similar
results in the RO from the WO. As program managers try to advocate/manage for their
particular program they can often set up conflicts at the level below. For example, the
Regional TES program manager telling Forest and District biologists that they must
complete projects to meet T&E targets can create conflicts when there is clear direction
that NFRR is primarily for the restoration of priority watersheds, regardless of localized
T&E concerns.
Similar to the above concern, we have heard that because NFRR covers so many
program areas, accountability for tracking NFRR funding at the Forest level can be lost.
For example if an aquatic organism passage project implemented by engineering is
funded with NFRR in work plan, but the project is cancelled for some reason, who is
responsible for ensuring those funds are re-allocated to other projects? In the past,
CMLG funds would have fallen directly under the prevue of engineering and would have
had clear oversight and accountability.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 26
FY 2012 IRR REPORT | APPENDIX 1 | R4
A real example of lost NFRR accountability occurred on a R4 Forest this mid-summer. A
district fish biologist called the RO looking for $15K in NFRR to keep some seasonal
employees on through mid-August. His Forest had indicated that all NFRR funds were
obligated and nothing was available. The RO did find some funds and the biologist was
able to meet his objectives. However, within weeks that same Forest lost hundreds of
thousands in NFRR to fire transfer and still had tens of thousands in NFRR end-of-year
carryover funds. Regions and Forests must implement an IRR organization with clear
roles and accountability for this BLI.

Difficulty in funding “stand alone projects”: Forests, and particularly certain program
areas, report that program specific stand-alone projects are difficult to fund because
limited target attainment will not benefit the IRR as much as integrated landscape
projects. For example, the Dixie National Forest biologist reports difficulty in competing
for funds for projects like wildlife guzzlers, fencing of boreal toad breeding areas, and
Utah Prairie Dog translocations, because of cost relative to target accomplishments and
lack of project integration. The comments of the Payette National Forest illustrate these
concerns as well:
The large group dynamics of assigning IRR funds and activities do tend to ‘miss”
special projects unless there is a very strong program lead for that project. For
example, we currently do not have a soil scientist, and are “making-do”, but that
is a weak part in the integrated restoration work. If our wildlife biologist and
planner did not lobby to continue with “un-integrated” project work (such as
bighorn sheep monitoring, we would not accomplish that important task. The
important message is you may be able to integrate fund codes, but you still need
all the program managers at the table to accurately reflect the “integration”.

Underserved Program Areas: Underserved program areas are those programs that
fall under NFRR but are not directly tied to targets reported under NFRR. The
primary program areas that Forests report reduced emphasis as we move to IRR
objectives include:
Terrestrial and Aquatic Invasive species management: The ability to manage for
invasive species priorities is a major. Emphasis on priority watersheds for
restoration may not coincide with priorities with invasive treatments. IRR in some
cases is forcing Forests to shift invasive work to WCF priority watersheds and
ignore more significant invasive species priorities. For example the HumboldtToiyabe National Forest states:
There are other important issues on the landscape that don’t get
accomplished because the Forest concentrated on priority watersheds.
There are noxious weeds outside priority watersheds that were funded
prior to NFRR, but did not get funded under NFRR outside the priority
watershed. Range data collection to support range rescission decisions
was funded prior to NFRR, but received much lower funding under NFRR.
Wildlife, Fish, TES and rare plants (WFRP): These programs can contribute to
the watershed acres enhanced IRR performance measure, and are a stated
priority under IRR. In R4, terrestrial acres enhanced contributed the majority of
acres to the watershed acres enhanced performance measure. Where WFRP
priorities match well with priority watersheds all is well. However, biologists
indicate that IRR priority watersheds do not always coincide with the issues and
priorities of WFRP. Also, the T&E performance measure does not directly
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 27
FY 2012 IRR REPORT | APPENDIX 1 | R4
contribute to the watershed acres enhanced IRR performance measure. This
can tend to deemphasize T&E in the priorities of IRR and make achieving the
Regions T&E target challenging.
The feedback we are hearing is that while we are getting acres/miles of target,
they are not necessarily in the right places for these programs. As indicated
previously, any “stand alone” project will not compete well in the current IRR
environment. Region 4 Forests confirmed that WFRP projects in FY12 and
planned in FY13 generally are those that are associated with integrated projects
and may not coincide with priorities for these programs.
The following comments from a Forest fish biologist are indicative of the above
concern:
I believe it actually provided less flexibility than our prior process. When we
had a Forest level integrated process, it encouraged the legacy BLIs to work
together to compete for integrated dollars, while at the same time it allowed
for individual program areas to implement the projects that were the most
meaningful to them. Providing those same program areas with one pot of
money that was less than what they all had together previously, increasing
certain hard targets and eliminating hard targets for other program areas
probably made for less of a spirit of cooperation amongst the legacy program
managers and drove the overall forest towards achieving target by any means
possible, instead of projects that were the best for individual resources. Not
all target acres have the same value for a given resource area and the
WTRSHD-RSTR-ANN category increases the likelihood of getting “watered
down” target acres for legacy program areas.
Range NEPA Inventory: Range NEPA targets are dependent on completing
resource inventories funded with NFRR. However, in FY12 there was very little
mandate or direction associated with spending NFRR funds for this program.
Direction in FY12 and planned for FY 13 is for line officers to use discretion in
funding range NEPA inventory. Without stronger emphasis in budget direction a
performance measure tie to NFRR there is concern that this program area will be
underserved. See the above comments from the Humboldt-Toiyabe National
Forest on invasive species for a perspective on range NEPA and IRR.
Non-WUI Fuels: Approximately half of R4 Forests tended to not include fuels
reduction as priority work and Forest report fuels personnel were not involved in
the prioritization process. One reason for this is fuels reduction is not highlighted
as an outcome in IRR direction. Looking forward to 2013, some fuels personnel
are reporting that integrated projects with a fuels component are not competing
well in the prioritization process for NFRR funding.
CMLG Projects: While CMLG projects can contribute to watershed restoration,
they are typically very site-specific and high dollar in nature, e.g., aquatic
organism passage. Because of their site-specificity and sometimes isolated
nature, they may not occur in, or even near, a high priority restoration watershed,
yet the project work purpose and need is critical for aquatics management.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 28
FY 2012 IRR REPORT | APPENDIX 1 | R4
Reforestation: The primary concern is the inability to direct or flex NFRR
reforestation needs across Forests. Adjusting allocations towards an
unexpected or critical need is not an option when NFRR is based on a prior year
allocation. For example, unexpected events like an extreme fire year may create
a multi-year planting need on one or more Forests. Tree planting is expensive
and it is a multi-year commitment because trees need to be sown, grown, planted
and the planting survival monitored at a minimum the first and third year. If
planting is needed for more than one year (usually the case with large wildfires)
the costs will cascade over several years.
IV.
Success and Unexpected Findings
The Regional Leadership team spent considerable time trying to outline what IRR
success looks like. The Region has drafted a definition of what success looks like and
will be including this as definition as a focus area in the R4 business plan. The draft IRR
business plan is as follows:
The integrated resource restoration (IRR) program emphasizes integrated, collaborative
ecosystem restoration projects that are based on an all-lands approach and contribute to
a broad-scale conservation strategy.
Primary goals of IRR include:






Improving forest health and resiliency at the watershed/landscape scale.
Improving watershed condition class or improve the condition of attributes to
measure watershed condition.
Improving terrestrial and aquatic habitat conditions and provide for habitat
connectivity.
Retaining and/or creating local forest products jobs and/or businesses in rural
communities.
Reducing the threat of catastrophic wildfire threats
Remediating erosion-prone roads
The Intermountain Region is one of three regions participating in the 3-year pilot that
applies a consolidated BLI (NFRR) intended to facilitate IRR. Our objective for the IRR
focus area is to attain three key elements of success: meet Congressional intent to
dramatically increase active management and demonstrate more work accomplished
with less funding (through improved) management efficiencies, provide constructive
feedback on the pilot, and effectively communicate the intent and success of IRR.
Key Strategic Elements:
Increase effective landscape restoration through management efficiencies by:


Using the NFRR BLI to improve efficiencies in planning, implementing, and funding
restoration actions.
Identifying and implementing existing and novel approaches to increase efficiency in
and effectiveness of regulatory, management, and planning processes for both large
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 29
FY 2012 IRR REPORT | APPENDIX 1 | R4



and small-scale projects. Applying organizational and/or planning frameworks that
integrate resource disciplines for developing larger, strategically-located projects that
achieve a multitude of benefits at a landscape scale.
Outline approaches for identifying and prioritizing target landscapes or geographic
areas for treatment at regional and forest scales.
Improving the commitment of partnerships to reach restoration goals at a
landscape/watershed scale.
Sustained, dedicated funding for focused, high priority restoration actions around the
Region.
Provide constructive feedback on the IRR pilot by:


Developing a review process for evaluating the efficacy of IRR in achieving
congressional intent;
Identifying barriers and solutions to successful implementation of IRR.
Effectively communicate IRR intent and results by:



Develop and implement a communication plan for IRR;
Identify an IRR ‘spokesperson’ to champion the intent and success of IRR.
Determining appropriate metrics of IRR results and success to communicate
internally and externally
Key Targets/Measures of Success or Outcomes:








V.
The number of Watersheds with improved condition class.
Acres treated to sustain or restore watershed function and resilience.
Timber volume sold.
Miles of stream habitat restored.
Miles of roads decommissioned.
Jobs and businesses retained/created in rural communities
Relative cost of project implementation.
Collaborative projects that involve multiple partners.
Feedback from Partners
We have not solicited or heard formal concerns from partners. We have had discussions
with Wild Land CPR and the American Forest Resource Council. In general partners
seem supportive of the IRR, but are skeptical of motives and how the Forest Service will
meet competing demands of IRR. As we have increased road decommissioning local
County and State partners have expressed concerns about road maintenance and
access issues.
Possible Barriers to success
Based on conversations with Forests and Regional staff, we have identified the following
barriers to implementing IRR.

If some programs are de-emphasized or as funding is not always available to
implement some actions, traditional and long-term external partners could either walk
away or fight the full implementation of IRR.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 30
FY 2012 IRR REPORT | APPENDIX 1 | R4

Internal “gaming” by program managers at the Forest, RO, or WO could undermine
the intent of IRR. For example, insistence that a legacy BLI contributed a certain
percent to NFRR, therefore that percentage of NFRR needs to be allocated to their
resource activity. Similarly, as other BLIs decrease, NFRR may be tapped to cover
those actions (e.g., NFRR being used for road maintenance as CMRD decreases).

Increased timber volume targets could substantially change what is a priority or what
is considered restoration. Will IRR be considered successful if we meet all IRR
targets but not meet the expected timber volume?

There are definite new challenges at the Regional and Forest staff levels in
developing, prioritizing, and the communication of work under the IRR. This is
especially true for those programs that depended on the traditional BLIs to
accomplish/meet their expected targets (e.g., Range NEPA), or those programs that
have typically been in support roles for other BLIs (e.g., NFWF).

The threat of over promising and under delivering. There has been much talk about
expected efficiencies. We are concerned about how to measure and report this
expected efficiency. There are many high priority projects that are very expensive,
with big ecological benefits, but few measureable targets (i.e., acres, miles, volume
or jobs). What is the priority, to do what is the best thing for resources, or get the
most targets? Will cost/unit be the measuring stick or will outcomes be
incorporated?
C. Planning Future Accomplishments – FY 2013 Accomplishments and Future NFRR
Program Emphasis
1. FY 2013 Planned Accomplishments
b. Table 3 – IRR Planned Performance
Performance Measure
Total Units
Planned11
Total acres treated annually to sustain or restore watershed
function and resilience
260,000
Number of watersheds move to an improved condition class
1
Miles of road decommissioned
Volume of timber sold (CCF)
440
240,000
Miles of stream habitat restored or enhanced
240
2. Based on FY 2012 Experiences, how would you anticipate IRR improving FY 2013
planning and accomplishments?
11
Units planned should match the planned accomplishments recorded in the Databases of Record.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 31
FY 2012 IRR REPORT | APPENDIX 1 | R4
Assistance/Information Needed from the WO:

It is unclear to us how the WO allocated NFRR funds to the Pilot Regions and what, if
any, criteria are being used to allocate NFRR funds and targets. We are concerned
WO staff groups that fall under the NFRR BLI may be operating under old allocation
paradigms for funding and target allocations. How are NFRR funds and targets
being allocated and why?

Additionally, we need clarification from the WO on issues concerning Target
accomplishment reporting. Specifically, we have elevated issues related to reporting
WTRSHD-RSTR-ANN (Watershed Acres Restored Annually) to the WO and they are
as follows:

The accomplishment FP-FUELS-NON-WUI (Non WUI Fuels Acres) only counts if
funded with NFRR. Program Direction states that most NON-WUI must be
accomplished with NFRR and most WUI should be accomplished with WFHF. The
funding lines are blurred even more with the decision to stay with how 1st quarter
fuels work was charged; both WUI and Non-WUI charged all to WFHF.

The accomplishment RG-VEG-IMP (Range Vegetation Improved) that counts
towards WTRSHD-RSTR-ANN, only counts if funded with RBRB (Range
Betterment), and not counted if funded with NFRR. Why is this?

Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) information is currently housed in three
databases: Workplan, Watershed Classification and Assessment Tracking Tool
(WCATT), and Watershed Improvement Tracking (WIT). Some data has to be
entered in more than one database even though the information is the same.
National program managers are coordinating with Natural Resource Manager (NRM)
to consolidate these databases to improve reporting needs and reduce workload at
the field level. Because the focus of IRR is watershed restoration as tied to priority
watersheds in the WCF, this reporting consolidation work must remain a high priority
for both NRM and the national program managers.
Considerations
The following are considerations we think may improve IRR:

Consider removing “Regular program timber volume sold” (TMBR-VOL-SLD) as an
IRR performance measure. This measure does not necessarily work as a good
measure or proxy for watershed restoration. Our Forests indicate the need to meet
this measure outside of priority watersheds. Additionally, this measure is too much
of a driver to place “cutting boards” as a higher priority than some other type of
watershed restoration work, e.g., restoring gullies or removing small diameter conifer
encroachment to reduce catastrophic wildfire risk. That portion of TMBR-VOL-SLD
that truly is a restoration proxy can be included in “Number of acres treated annually
to sustain or restore watershed function and resilience” (WTRSHD-RSTR-ANN).

For those programs under IRR without specific NFRR targets (water rights, air etc.)
or are identified as underserved, consider stronger language or find means to
connect them to accomplishment accountability. Without a means to direct spending
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 32
FY 2012 IRR REPORT | APPENDIX 1 | R4
and priorities, there really is a diminished program. The Forests have requested this
from the RO. We are exploring options here and suggest the WO do the same.

We suggest the WO look at all program areas under IRR and determine if there is
any budget direction for these programs in the old BLIs. If so, move that language to
NFRR so that there is a clear understanding of expectations. While we understand
the links, making the direction and BLI congruent makes getting direction to the field
easier.

The budget direction relative to the use of NFRR for road maintenance for restoration
only needs to be re-enforced through stronger language. The opportunity for abuse
of this direction may become more prevalent if CMLG remains in NFRR and CMRD
continues to decline.

Consider adding additional outcome measures that reflect a broader perspective or
definition of restoration. Now, our performance outcome is simple, but is very limited
to accomplishing actions in priority watersheds that contribute to changes in
condition class. All good, but probably limiting to accomplishing other priority,
mandated work.

When considering metrics for estimating potential efficiencies with NFRR consider
that in the past HBT-ENH-TERR and FP-FUELS-NON-WUI acres could be counted if
accomplished under WFSU. It appears this was not the case this year. This could
result in reduced WTRSHD-RSTR-ANN acres being reported as accomplished
compared with previous years. This could make any inferences from a trend analysis
as proposed for IRR pretty sketchy.
Additional Activities Contributing to IRR
The annual reporting required regional accomplishment reporting of the five IRR performance
measures, as well as a narrative on FY 2012 program of work implementation, and case studies,
which are required by the FY 2012 Final Program Direction (page 14-21).
In addition, it is important to emphasize programs that are outside of the IRR performance
measures, but are funded through NFRR (IRR budget line item). This addendum directs the
regions to take a two-tiered approach to reporting these activities:
Tier 1: In a short narrative, please highlight those activities that do not currently fall
under an IRR performance measure, but whose performance is tracked by the Agency.
In addition to the narrative, please list those activities and their FY 12 accomplishment.
Add rows to the table below, as necessary, to accommodate all activities.
Some very important parts of the broader restoration activity that are not captured in the
NFRR reporting items are road and trail maintenance and improvement, pest treatments
(both native and invasive), stream crossings modified to allow for aquatic organism
passage, and threatened and endangered species conservation activities. Also, the
accomplishments that roll up to create the Watershed Acres Restored item only include
part of that work. The remaining work is critical to getting a full picture of the amount of
restoration being done in the year. This is work funded by stewardship credits, CWKV,
RTRT, Secure Rural Schools Title II grants, managed fire, prescribed fire in the WUI,
and other sources.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 33
FY 2012 IRR REPORT | APPENDIX 1 | R4
Table – Additional Activities Contributing to IRR with trackable measures.
Performance Measure
Total Units
Accomplished12
Miles of high clearance system roads improved
Miles of high clearance system roads maintained
Miles of passenger car system roads improved
Miles of passenger car system roads maintained
Miles of system trail improved to standard
Miles of system trail maintained to standard
Stream crossings constructed or reconstructed for aquatic organism passage
T&E species for which recovery actions accomplished
Priority acres treated for invasive species on Federal lands
Priority acres treated for invasive species on Coop lands
Priority acres treated for native species on Federal lands
Priority acres treated for native species on Coop lands
Acres of water/soil resources protected/maintained/improved (not incl. in NFRR roll up)
Acres of terrestrial habitat restored/enhanced (not included in NFRR roll up)
Acres of forest vegetation improved (not included in NFRR roll up)
Acres of forestland vegetation established (not included in NFRR roll up)
Acres of range vegetation improved (not included in NFRR roll up)
Acres treated for noxious weeds/invasive plants on NFS lands (not incl. in NFRR roll up)
Acres of hazardous fuels outside the WUI to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildland fire
(not included in NFRR roll up)
85.7
2,080.4
134.3
3,740.4
202
8,713.5
17
25 (Est)
88,652.3
1,405
3,913
310
11,900.8
27,582
6,762
8,465
16,257
31,664
14,942
Tier 2: In a short narrative, please highlight those activities that do not currently
fall under an IRR performance measure, and whose performance the Agency
currently does not track. If you believe that any of these measures should be
tracked by the Agency in the future, please describe your reasoning, as well.
In addition to all the items that we track, there are some very important activities
funded by NFRR that contribute to restoration but are not specifically tracked.
These are activities like air quality monitoring, water rights acquisition, monitoring
of water yield, management of wild horse and burro territories (activities outside
of vegetation improvement such as herd management), and a variety of
monitoring, inventories and studies. Monitoring and inventories could be related
to livestock grazing allotments, vegetation condition, threatened and endangered
species occurrence, wildlife/fisheries management relationship research, or
implementation and effectiveness of best management practices.
12
Units accomplished should match the accomplishments recorded in the Databases of Record.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 34