IRR 2012 REPORT | APPENDIX 2 | R1 CASE STUDIES
SOUTHWESTERN CROWN OF THE CONTINENT COLLABORATIVE
1. Describe the case studies that reflect large scale/cross boundary activities (landscape level) or how the
authority allowed for program integration that may not have been available in the past. What were the
issues and goals?
The Southwestern Crown of the Continent (SW Crown) is a 1.5 million acre trans-boundary landscape
selected for Collaborative Landscape Restoration (CFLR) funding. Both the financial benefits and the
financial obligations of being a CFLR project are borne by three National Forests and three different
Ranger Districts, which adds to fiscal complexity.
The goals of the SWCC are elaborated in the Southwestern Crown of the Continent Landscape
Restoration Strategy prepared by the SWCC in 2010. The goals include a variety of fuel reduction,
restoration and monitoring objectives that will contribute toward ecological, economic and social
sustainability. The restoration goals span the resource spectrum, including forest health, invasives and
exotics treatments, fish and wildlife habitat restoration, and watershed improvements through road,
trails and site restoration work. The NFRR authority is an ideal and efficient means to address these
integrated goals.
2. Describe how IRR helped to facilitate project planning and implementation. Was the action or activity
implemented/completed more efficiently or effectively, including information on internal and external
collaboration and public engagement? Did the activities have a greater impact to resource outcomes?
In FY12 the Southwestern Crown Collaborative (SWCC) received $3,093,950 from the Washington
Office (WO) for completing high priority fuel reduction, restoration and monitoring work. After
consultation with SWCC partners the WO allocated a “special” $906,050 in the budget line item of
NFRR with instructions to use these funds as if they were CFLR/CFLN dollars. The flexibility of NFRR
use was critical to the success of this special allocation, and it effectively brought the total SWCC CFLR
funding to the requested $4 million.
The special allocation enabled six different restoration monitoring projects and 24 different restoration
projects effectively putting local contractors to work and improving fuel and watershed conditions.
For each CFLR dollar the SWCC receives we must match the investment with another dollar. In FY12
$402,140 of NFRR funds were invested by the three national forests contributing to the 1:1 match.
CFLR funds and CFLR matching dollars cannot be used for planning. NFRR dollars, however, can be,
and in FY12 NFRR funds were critical to advancing a variety of NEPA planning efforts critical to for fuel
reduction and restoration needs.
3. Describe the outcomes or on-going status. Did the activity lead to an improved watershed condition
within the context of WCF? If so, how? If not, why? Reports should provide qualitative as well as
quantitative data.
In FY12 NFRR contributed to a wide variety of restoration and fuel reduction work as displayed in the
following table. Additionally, NFRR funds were invested in six different restoration monitoring projects
with five different partners.
The projects include socioeconomic monitoring that assesses local contract capture, and fire manager’s
perspectives on reduced suppression costs due to fuel reduction; aquatic monitoring including nutrient,
total suspended sediment and trout genetic assessments; road restoration vegetation and soils
monitoring; and, bird monitoring. This investment leveraged an additional $86,250 of partnership cash
or non-cash, in-kind contributions and other federal allocations.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 1
IRR 2012 REPORT | APPENDIX 2 | R1 CASE STUDIES
Performance Measure
NFRR Funds Contributed To
Acres of forest vegetation established
Manage noxious weeds and invasive plants
Acres of water or soil resources protected, maintained or
improved to achieve desired watershed conditions.
Acres of lake habitat restored or enhanced
Miles of stream habitat restored or enhanced
Acres of terrestrial habitat restored or enhanced
Unit of
measure
Acres
Acre
Units Accomplished
That NFRR
Contributed To
120
2,899
Acres
231
Acres
Miles
Acres
3,000
25
3,100
Number of stream crossings constructed or reconstructed to
provide for aquatic organism passage
Number
Miles of property line marked/maintained to standard
Miles
36.3
Acres of hazardous fuels treated outside the wildland/urban
interface (WUI) to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildland fire
Acre
641
Acres of wildland/urban interface (WUI) high priority hazardous
fuels treated to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildland fire
Acres
875
8
4. Describe if the consolidation of BLIs (NFRR) changed the mix of outcomes and outputs. If so, how?
No
5. Describe the advantages and disadvantages of the single BLI (NFRR). How NFRR has impacted
efficiency?
It was extremely efficient to receive NFRR funds to make up the difference in the SWCC’s CFLR
request because the NFRR funds came in one lump sum, but were able to be used for the full range of
restoration and monitoring efforts envisioned under the CFLR program.
6. How did the IRR authority change the way activities were selected?
The IRR authority did not change the way activities were selected, however, its broad scope and
flexibility fit very well with the priority fuel reduction, restoration and monitoring activities selected to
implement within the SW Crown.
7. Suggest ways the use of this authority can be improved.
No Comment.
8. A GIS map showing specific treatment areas and submit geodatabase files/shapefiles. Spatial data
must also be recorded in the FACTS spatial data engine (SDE) and meet existing data dictionary
standards.
All data reported in FACTS will be recorded in the FACTS spatial data engine by April 15th as required
(the majority is already entered).
9. Illustrate the pros/cons of the pilot from the team member perspective, with contact information for a
team member who worked on the project.
NFRR is an efficient tool for implementing integrated restoration and monitoring projects across forest
boundaries.
10. List of partners, their contributions (if any) that were involved in the planning and/or implementation of
your project.
The following table lists 19 different organizations who directly contributed to the successes of the FY12
SWCC program.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 2
IRR 2012 REPORT | APPENDIX 2 | R1 CASE STUDIES
Performance Measure
NFRR Funds Contributed To
Acres of forest vegetation established
Manage noxious weeds and invasive
plants
Acres of water or soil resources
protected, maintained or improved to
achieve desired watershed conditions.
Acres of lake habitat restored or
enhanced
Miles of stream habitat restored or
enhanced
Acres of terrestrial habitat restored or
enhanced
Number of stream crossings
constructed or reconstructed to provide
for aquatic organism passage
Miles of system trail maintained to
standard
Miles of system trail improved to
standard
Acres of hazardous fuels treated
outside the wildland/urban interface
(WUI) to reduce the risk of catastrophic
wildland fire
Monitoring
Partners
Partner
Match
Swan Ecosystem Center, Montana Conservation
Corps
Ponderosa Snow Warriors, Blackfoot Challenge,
Montana Conservation Corps, Bob Marshall
Wilderness Foundation, Clearwater Resource
Council
$24,000
$76,200
Montana Wilderness Association
$2,000
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks
$70,000
Big Blackfoot Chapter of Trout Unlimited
$45,000
Blackfoot Challenge
$6,000
Big Blackfoot Chapter of Trout Unlimited
$45,000
Back Country Horseman, Ponderosa Snow
Warriors, Bob Marshall Wilderness Foundation,
Montana Wilderness Association
$144,541
National Off Highway Vehicle Conservation Council
$16,205
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
$6,000
Swan Ecosystem Center, University of Montana
Biological Station, University of Montana,
Ecosystem Management Research Institute,
Northwest Connections, Clearwater Resource
Council, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks,
Wildlands CPR
$234,610
The Wilderness Society
$22,570
Planning – CFLR Coordinator
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 3
IRR 2012 REPORT | APPENDIX 2 | R1 CASE STUDIES
FLATHEAD NATIONAL FOREST RED BENCH ROAD STORAGE
1. Describe the case studies that reflect large scale/cross boundary activities (landscape level) or how the
authority allowed for program integration that may not have been available in the past. What were the
issues and goals?
This project was relatively small and confined to one tributary watershed in the North Fork of the
Flathead River drainage. Some additional flexibility was achieved in the ability to fund this project from
a larger combined funding source but the total cost of $23,000 was not out of reach of even the
previous traditional funding codes (referred to as BLIs).
2. Describe how IRR helped to facilitate project planning and implementation. Was the action or activity
implemented/completed more efficiently or effectively, including information on internal and external
collaboration and public engagement?
Did the activities have a greater impact to resource outcomes? Comparison of this project in respect to
its former status prior to NFRR is somewhat misleading as it was in the process of receiving funding as
a Legacy Roads and Trails (CMLG) project. See response to question #4 below.
3. Describe the outcomes or on-going status. Did the activity lead to an improved watershed condition
within the context of WCF? If so, how? If not, why?
Reports should provide qualitative as well as quantitative data. The implementation of this work has
significantly reduced the risk of culvert and road failure in the future and eliminated several fish barriers.
4. Describe if the consolidation of BLIs (NFRR) changed the mix of outcomes and outputs. If so, how?
This project does not accurately reflect the integration possible through the BLI consolidation as it would
have been previously funded with CMLG as a proposed project selected for funding in the Regional
CMLG prioritization process.
5. Describe the advantages and disadvantages of the single BLI (NFRR). How NFRR has impacted
efficiency?
NA- See response to #4 above
6. How did the IRR authority change the way activities were selected?
We are continuing to develop and refine improvements to our present system for proposing and
prioritizing projects for funding in NFRR that address several additional factors beyond accomplishment
of targets.
7. Suggest ways the use of this authority can be improved.
Traditional targets brought forward into NFRR as well as continued emphasis of additional “soft” targets
from Regional programs have reduced effectiveness of the use of this authority. When most of the
available NFRR funding needs to be directed toward these targets, it limits our flexibility and ability to
address the highest priorities. There is also no assurance that if these targets are not met and funding is
applied to other higher priority restoration projects, that NFRR funding levels will remain constant or
even what level of decrease would result. There may be a way to balance NFRR and other “soft” or
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 4
IRR 2012 REPORT | APPENDIX 2 | R1 CASE STUDIES
non-accountable, non-quantitative targets more effectively at the regional level so that Forests can have
some variance in target accomplishment from year to year to implement non-traditional restoration
projects not reflected in existing NFRR targets.
8. A GIS map showing specific treatment areas and submit geodatabase files/shapefiles.
Spatial data must also be recorded in the Forest Service Activity Tracking System (FACTS) spatial data
engine (SDE) and meet existing data dictionary standards. Available on request.
9. Illustrate the pros/cons of the pilot from the team member perspective, with contact information for a
team member who worked on the project.
The Forest Aquatics Program Manager can be contacted for more detailed team perspectives on this
project. Be aware that this project was very limited in scope and was not a thorough test of the
pros/cons of the NFRR pilot.
10. List of partners, their contributions (if any) that were involved in the planning and/or implementation of
your project.
No partners were involved with this project.
Brief Description of the Red Bench Road Storage Project:
Several projects completed on the Flathead National Forest in FY12 exemplify the flexibility and
multiple resource benefits of the NFRR Budget Line Item.
For example, the Red Bench Road Storage Project will improve 9.9 miles of road, with benefits for fish,
wildlife, recreation, and watershed health, while maintaining long-term access for land management.
The project is located in the Red Meadow watershed, a tributary to the North Fork Flathead River. Red
Meadow Creek and the larger North Fork area provide key habitat grizzly bear and bull trout, both
Threatened species. Red Meadow Creek provides important spawning and rearing habitat for migratory
bull trout and resident westslope cutthroat trout. Current habitat is exceptional but at risk due to
potential culvert failures on the Red Bench Road.
This area is also very popular for hiking, hunting, camping, fishing, rafting, huckleberry picking, and a
variety of other recreational pursuits.
To balance the wide range of resource concerns and uses, the Forest Service is putting the Red Bench
Road into long term storage, or Maintenance Level 1 status. This will provide for long term resource
protection, but will leave the road prism in place for future management.
NFRR provided the flexibility to implement this important project and will help the forest achieve multiple
targets.
Project Details:
Cost: $23,000
Miles of road waterproofed: 9.9
Culverts upgraded to AOP standards: 4
Culverts removed: 2
Berms constructed: 1
Fish barriers removed: 6
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 5
IRR 2012 REPORT | APPENDIX 2 | R1 CASE STUDIES
IDAHO PANHANDLE NF, KOOTENAI VALLEY RESOURCE INITIATIVE PROJECT
1. Describe the case studies that reflect large scale/cross boundary activities (landscape level) or how the
authority allowed for program integration that may not have been available in the past. What were the
issues and goals?
The Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative (KVRI), a local collaborative with broad membership and
partners, is working with the Idaho Panhandle National Forests to implement the Lower Kootenai River
Watershed CFLRP project (KVRI 2011). The treatments proposed are expected to improve water
quality and wildlife habitat, improve economic opportunities for local communities, and enhance
landscape resistance to severe wildfire, insects, disease, and the effects of climate change. The project
will treat nearly 40,000 acres and is expected to create approximately 144 jobs.
Forest staff anticipates that the NFRR Authority will fund tangible on-the-ground results as the forest
incorporates the authority into out-years. Beginning in fiscal year 2013, the forest expects that the
combination of the NFRR Authority with the forest’s Five Year Action Plan, CFLR project, Treasured
Landscapes, WCF priorities, and ongoing program of work will result in improvements in specific areas
including TS Acres, TSI, Reforestation Acres, Range Vegetation Improved, Soil and Water, Invasive
Weeds, Wildlife Habitat, Stream Enhancement, Road Decommissioning, and non-WUI Treatments.
2. Describe how IRR helped to facilitate project planning and implementation. Was the action or activity
implemented/completed more efficiently or effectively, including information on internal and external
collaboration and public engagement? Did the activities have a greater impact to resource outcomes?
Though the NFRR Authority did not influence the planning or implementation of the project this year, we
expect it will in the future. The flexible nature of NFRR funding means the forest will be able to match
CFLN funding in a manner that targets the most-needed work. In the past, for instance, the noxious
weeds portion of the NFRW BLI had been low – perhaps lower than needed to treat a particular area.
With NFRR funding, the right amount could be allocated to effectively meet the target.
Allocating funding to one resource – such as noxious weeds as just described - could come at the
expense of other restoration activities, including timber outputs.
The table below shows how NFRR funding was used in the Lower Kootenai River Watershed project
area to meet the project’s objectives.
Project
NFRR Funding
CFLN Funding
Silver Crescent Road Construction and Reconstruction
$6,296
$99,500
East Fork Stewardship & Meadow Creek Timber Sales
$41,422
0
$37,000
$38,000
$22,584
$40,000
$10,554
$21,022
Timber Stand Improvement Thinning
Road Decommissioning
Invasive Plant Treatments
3. Describe the outcomes or on-going status. Did the activity lead to an improved watershed condition
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 6
IRR 2012 REPORT | APPENDIX 2 | R1 CASE STUDIES
within the context of WCF? If so, how? If not, why? Reports should provide qualitative as well as
quantitative data.
This table shows the accomplishments met in the Lower Kootenai River Watershed project area using
NFRR funding. The target outputs were achieved in fiscal year 2012.
Performance Measure
Units Accomplished
With NFRR Funds
Acres of forest vegetation improved
119
Manage noxious weeds and invasive plants
120.8
Acres of water or soil resources protected, maintained or improved to
achieve desired watershed conditions
3
Miles of stream habitat restored or enhanced
1.25
Acres of terrestrial habitat restored or enhanced
10
Acres of rangeland vegetation improved
41.4
Miles of road decommissioned
1.0
Number of stream crossings constructed or reconstructed to provide for
aquatic organism passage
2
Acres of wildland/urban interface (WUI) high priority hazardous fuels
treated to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildland fire
116.5
4. Describe if the consolidation of BLIs (NFRR) changed the mix of outcomes and outputs. If so, how?
No.
5. Describe the advantages and disadvantages of the single BLI (NFRR). How NFRR has impacted
efficiency?
The advantage of having a single BLI is that funding can be directed and targets set based on what
work is needed on the ground.
The disadvantage of having a single BLI is that under-funded programs may lose their “protected”
funding altogether if other objectives are perceived as being more important, and NFRR funds are
diverted to those objectives. This could be especially true if the secondary objectives are not in the
same geographic location as larger NFRR projects.
6. How did the IRR authority change the way activities were selected?
No change for fiscal year 2012.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 7
IRR 2012 REPORT | APPENDIX 2 | R1 CASE STUDIES
7. Suggest ways the use of this authority can be improved.
8. A GIS map showing specific treatment areas and submit geodatabase files/shapefiles. Spatial data
must also be recorded in the FACTS spatial data engine (SDE) and meet existing data dictionary
standards.
This will be done as part of the CFLRP Annual Report for the Lower Kootenai River Watershed project.
9. Illustrate the pros/cons of the pilot from the team member perspective, with contact information for a
team member who worked on the project.
Comments and input throughout this report for the IPNF are compilations of thoughts from several
employees. The Forest will provide team members’ contact information upon request.
We have described the expected benefits of the NFRR Authority above.
As a point of discussion with respect to this authority was the potential for the impact that allocating
funding to one resource – such as noxious weeds as just described – and how those target
accomplishments could come at the expense of other restoration activities, such as timber outputs.
While the obvious advantage of having a single BLI is that funding can be directed and targets set
based on what work is needed on the ground, the perception is that under-funded programs may lose
their “protected” funding altogether if other objectives are perceived as being more important.
For example, to meet the standards in the forest plan’s Grizzly Bear Access Amendment, roads need to
be decommissioned. If large vegetation management projects do not occur in grizzly bear habitat,
funding to decommission roads may not be available.
As the Forest realized through the limited implantation of this authority, however, NFRR does not drive
targets or accomplishments, and as such the perception is a cultural hold-over from single-item BLI
issues. We realize that NFRR authority is designed to eliminate the fencing of funds and provide better
application of funding and resources to meet targets across the Forest in a more efficient and timely
manner.
10. List of partners, their contributions (if any) that were involved in the planning and/or implementation of
your project.








Kootenai Tribe of Idaho
Boundary County
City of Bonners Ferry
Private citizens
Landowners
Federal and state agencies
Conservation/environmental advocacy groups
Representatives of business and industry
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 8
IRR 2012 REPORT | APPENDIX 2 | R3 CASE STUDIES
CORONADO NF INTEGRATED VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLANNING TEAM
The Coronado National Forest utilizes an integrated team to set the Forest’s priorities for vegetation
management projects such as prescribed fires and mechanical treatments (e.g. chainsaw thinning and
mastication). All vegetation management projects are intended to be included regardless of what the
primary purpose(s) of the treatment are. This team consists of representatives from each district as well
as forest level specialists. The team evaluates project proposals and makes recommendations to the
Forest Leadership Team. The team was established in order to have a planning system to develop
projects that are of high quality and integrated across resource boundaries and foster a forest-wide
ownership in the program of work. Projects are evaluated on a wide variety of factors including, but not
limited to, the watershed condition (as determined by the watershed condition framework), the values at
risk, the status of landscape scale analysis, the number and types of treatments and benefits, the
partners involved, and their contributions.
The implementation of IRR helped to facilitate IVMPT project planning and implementation by
essentially removing real or perceived barriers previously imposed by separate fund codes for
watershed, wildlife, timber and fuels projects. It did not did not change the mix of outcomes, primarily
because the Coronado NF historically had a very little funding in NFTM.
The single BLI has advantages in that it encourages integration of natural resource management
programs (i.e., vegetation management, wildlife, timber and fuels) from initial program of work planning
through implementation and accomplishment. The single BLI increases efficiency. Because of the
timing of development of the Forest program of work prior to the beginning of FY12, the IRR authority
did not change the way activities were selected in FY’12. In FY ’13 it may increase the number of
activities with wildlife habitat benefits.
The Coronado began implementing an integrated approach for planning and prioritizing vegetation
management projects a few years prior to the IRR Pilot Program. This allowed for a seamless transition
to the IRR Program from the planning and implementation standpoint.
The Forest Fuels Specialist felt that challenges came with reporting year end accomplishments.
Consolidating several BLIs into NFRR created challenges when it came to accomplishment reporting.
With individual BLIs for each program (NFVW, NFTM, NFWF) it was easier to filter out core vs.
integrated accomplishments, as well as proportion of acres accomplished by performance measure.
Consistency between reporting databases also created some challenges (FACTS, WFRP, Workplan,
etc.).
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 9
IRR 2012 REPORT | APPENDIX 2 | R3 CASE STUDIES
This project has a variety of partners that brought different expertise to the table.
 National Wild Turkey Federation – Stewardship Partner for Pinaleño Ecosystem Restoration
Project (PERP)
 Eastern Arizona College Small Business Development Center – Key in small wood products
workshops
 USFS State and Private Forestry- Partner in small wood market development
 Northern Arizona Wood Products Association –Partner in small wood market development
 Gila WoodNet/Restoration Technologies – Partner in small wood market development
 Center for Cooperative Forest Enterprises/National Network of Forest Practitioners- Lead for
economic
o Feasibility study of PERP products
 Graham County - Partner
 City of Safford - Partner
 Pinaleño Partnership
o (includes: Sky Island Alliance, San Carlos Apache Tribe Elders Council, White Mountain
Apache Tribe Heritage Program, FWS, AZG&FD, Gila Watershed Partnership, Old
Columbine Summer Home Owners, Turkey Flat Summer home Owners, lots of individual
public members, Maricopa Audubon, RMRS)- Small business workshops
 US Fish &Wildlife Service -Partner
 AZG&FD- Partner
 San Carlos Apache Tribe- Participant in the PERP Stewardship
 Freeport McMoRan – Small business working group
 Rocky Mountain Research Station - Partner
 UA/LTRR/Fire Ecology Lab/Biology Lab - Partner
 Safford BLM – Provided crews for Turkey Flat implementation
 Arizona Department of Corrections – Provided crews for PERP and Spencer/Bigelow
implementation
 Prescott NF – Provided crews for implementation Spencer/Bigelow
 Sky Island Alliance - Partner
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 10
IRR 2012 REPORT | APPENDIX 2 | R3 CASE STUDIES
BLACK HILLS VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT ON THE PRESCOTT NF
The Black Hills Vegetation Management Project area is 185,525 acres located on the Verde and Chino
Valley Ranger Districts on the Prescott National Forest. Of this, 163,139 acres are management by the
Prescott National Forest (PNF) with the remaining acres in private ownership or managed by other
Federal, State or local agencies or municipalities.
The assessment evaluated the area for opportunities to manage the vegetation in a manner that would
promote conditions more closely resembling the natural range of variability in vegetative structure,
species composition, and species distribution. It also provided an opportunity to manage vegetation
and fuels at a landscape level to reduce the potential for and risks associated with large, high-severity
wildfire.
The Forest currently has two Watershed Restoration Action Plans (WRAPs) completed for watersheds
within the Black Hills Vegetation Management area, with a two additional WRAPs expected within the
next fiscal year. Other planning was also complete in this multi-watershed area, addressing
management of rangeland resources (i.e. Bottle and Goat Peak Livestock Grazing Management EAs),
allowing for the opportunity to implement additional resource improvement projects to address multiple
indicators.
Many of the management activities designed to address resource issues and concerns within the
prioritized watersheds were based on planned forest projects which were implementable over the next
three to five years, as identified in the recent NEPA analysis and the WRAP. Other identified essential
projects proposed and implemented to improve watershed indicators were also considered to address
existing resource maintenance issues, including road maintenance, unmanaged dispersed recreation
activities, development and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), and obliteration of
user created routes to implement the Forest Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM).
Public involvement and outreach which occurred as part of the Planning and Analysis processes
provided a base for project implementation and partner development. Additional partner development
and work with adjacent land owners is still to be developed and implemented for watershed restoration
across jurisdictional boundaries; however, this work is trailing behind project implementation.
One integrated BLI resulted in efficiencies for prioritization and implementation of project work on the
Forest; incorporating multiple program areas into focusing planned management activities in priority
watersheds. Employees began working across program boundaries for implementation of essential
projects, regardless of their primary functionality.
Concentration of multiple Forest management activities within a single watershed or at a smaller
landscape scale in two or three watersheds is not the traditional way of doing business for the Forest.
The change in approach has yet to be well communicated with communities associated with priority
watersheds and with many of our partners. In order to change public perception and understanding the
Forest is planning a communication strategy to increase community involvement and improve public
engagement in restoration activities.
The Forest did not plan completion of all essential projects within the first year of implementation of the
Watershed Action Plan. The number of concurrent stressors that would be placed on a watershed as a
result of completion of an overwhelming number of projects within such a short timeframe could
potentially result in a decline in watershed function and condition, at least short-term. However,
planned implementation over the next 1-3 years, project design and preparation, partner and
community coordination, and inventorying and monitoring is ongoing and is expected to result in an
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 11
IRR 2012 REPORT | APPENDIX 2 | R3 CASE STUDIES
improved watershed condition within the context of the Watershed Condition Framework (WCF).
Tracking targets and accomplishments for the consolidated BLI has increased the complexity of
reporting (i.e. multiple reporting databases and levels of accomplishment for each outcome).
Accomplishments are more integrated, resulting in a decrease in forest accomplishments if one or more
resource programs accomplishes less than projected, causing a ripple effect. In addition, some
accomplishments are reported as being met when a contract is awarded. However, the same outputs
cannot be reported as accomplishments in WIT until the project work is completed, sometimes in a
timeframe difference of one or three years.
The combination of multiple BLIs into NFRR has resulted in many advantages to improving operational
efficiency at the Forest level. For example, focus based planning for project implementation has
significantly improved, resulting in increased dialogue between resource functions. The Forest is
moving away from funding small scale, single resource related projects to prioritizing larger landscape
or watershed related projects for funding and implementation based on multi-resource related benefits.
Coordination for planning and implementation of project work has also improved across program
boundaries, incorporating employees from a diverse perspective and background into ongoing
discussions and on-the-ground project work.
The combination of multiple BLIs into NFRR has also resulted in some challenges that are perceived as
having negative consequences to efficiency. For example, adding NFN3 funds to the combined BLI
creates on Forest competition against essential projects for watershed restoration as well as for dollars
which fund primary Forest organizations. The Forest roads and engineering program has effectively
realigned legacy roads funding to address resource issues within priority watersheds, however trails
related projects are less effective in addressing primary resource concerns within priority watersheds
and therefore less likely to compete well for limited funding. Lastly, the Forest fuels program has been
effective in implementing projects in priority watersheds, however continues to struggle with competing
for funds at a forest level for project implementation without full recognition of the need to fund the basic
program or organization.
The Prescott NF used an interdisciplinary team approach to select specific areas within the priority
watersheds where management activities could influence watershed indicator scores. The IRR
authority effectively improved dialogue between resource specialists and focused discussions on
essential projects to improve watershed function.
Resource specialists designed and proposed projects for implementation and the Forest Leadership
Team prioritized the Forest program of work. Additional criteria were added for the Forest Leadership
Team to emphasize work in priority watersheds. Timing or scheduling implementation for each project
is then leveled based on Forest capacity, Forest commitments, partner involvement or relationships,
responsiveness to meeting multi-functional resource objectives, addressing health and safety issues,
and/or meeting projected reporting measures. Timing and scheduling for project selection may also be
based on funding availability and program flexibility for successful implementation.
The use of a single BLI has emphasized implementation of Forest management activities within the
priority watersheds. The Forest has added additional criteria for consideration by the Forest Leadership
Team to help prioritize the Forest Program of Work each year. Out-year project work is coordinated
across resource programs and out-year implementation planning involves multiple resource functions.
Consideration is given to proposed projects which have the highest likelihood of addressing resource
issues and concerns within priority watersheds and which will produce outcomes to improve watershed
function.
Forest emphasis focus on activities to be performed has broadened and now includes essential projects
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 12
IRR 2012 REPORT | APPENDIX 2 | R3 CASE STUDIES
for implementation that in the past may only have been implemented as additional funding allowed;
such as prioritizing mine assessments for resource impacts and review of existing permits to assess
unauthorized water diversion and use. Selection of priority watersheds encourages multiple resource
programs to coordinate and identify projects that traditionally may not have been selected for
implementation or emphasized in the forest program of work. The cumulative selection of a diversity of
projects for implementation is expected to have tangible benefits from collaborative dialogue,
community and partner involvement, and result in improved watershed function and resiliency.
According to the Forest Engineer, a benefit of NFRR is that the funds can be used for any type of work
across the former BLI’s. This opened his eyes as to how the dollars could be “shared” and put toward a
priority project within the watershed. The Primary Purpose barrier went away. Savings from road
maintenance/ decommissioning projects could be used for other projects in the watershed. Projects
that identified in the WRAP were actually funded and were aligned with the MVUM. This was not an
unfunded mandate or exercise. One of the disadvantages is that it is a large BLI and a challenge to
track.
The Forest Fire Management Officer found that the intent to collaborate among traditionally separate
functions on the unit toward common priority land management work is commendable and desired. He
felt that a common BLI for multi-resource projects is more readily identifiable or traceable at some
financial levels. The combination of previous BLIs into one BLI did introduce challenges and negative
outcomes to the out-year planning process since it forced separate organizations within a single unit to
compete for dollars to fund organizations. He felt this introduced bias into prioritizing annual programsof-work; that bias being choosing projects that would fund organizations vs. choosing projects that are a
priority for the ecosystem.
The partners on Black Hills WRAP are the Boy Scouts of America (recreation signing and work on
erosion control projects to address resource impacts from unmanaged dispersed recreation activities),
Arizona Game and Fish Department and National Wild Turkey Federation (spring management and
improvement), and the grazing permittee and the Natural Resource Conservation Service (changes in
livestock management to address resources issues and concerns, project work to treat invasive plants
within the watershed, fencing to improve riparian vegetation condition).
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 13
IRR 2012 REPORT | APPENDIX 2 | R3 CASE STUDIES
SANTA FE NF - LAS CONCHAS FIRE LONG-TERM RESTORATION
The Las Conchas fire burned approximately 156,000 acres across the Santa Fe National Forest,
Bandolier National Monument, Los Alamos National Laboratory, tribal, county, and private lands,
including nearly 79,000 acres on Santa Fe National Forest. Post-fire effects include flooding and debris
flows downstream that affect additional stakeholders outside of the burn scar. The primary concern
with post-fire response is for protecting human health and safety. Stabilization of resources within the
fire-affected landscape is also a high priority. Goals of post-fire treatments include reducing the amount
of and human exposure to debris flows and hazard trees, stabilizing soils to reduce loss of productivity
as well as damage or loss of roads and cultural resources, repairing structural improvements used for
range and wildlife management, and providing safe access for private inholdings and public visitation.
The rehabilitation goals mentioned have benefits to the integrated natural resource areas as well as to
recreation, heritage, and engineering resource areas.
Most of the activities planned for Las Conchas restoration and rehabilitation were identified in
interdisciplinary settings including the BAER support and a subsequent Resource Allocation Team
using resources from off-Forest prior to implementation of Integrated Resource Restoration program.
Most of the activities are driven by one or two primary resource areas but deliver benefits to many
resources. The primary benefit of IRR was expanding the primary purpose to include all 6 BLIs it
incorporated, therefore increasing flexibility for activities that could be funded. For example:
Nearly 2,000 acres of reforestation were designated on the ground in consideration of timber
suitability, habitat for threatened, endangered, or proposed species, and in response to
pueblo concerns without having to be driven by multiple funding sources. Planting in FY13
will include a volunteer component including Los Alamos County government, local
communities and pueblos, and local recreation, conservation and civic groups. Project
preparation in FY12 was funded by NFRR and RTRT.
Nine earthen tanks were cleaned of ash and sediment and dams were repaired; materials
were purchased to repair nine spring developments; and materials were purchased to
replace 24 miles of range allotment and Forest boundary fences damaged in the fire. In
addition, NFRR funded planning and preparation work for one new wildlife trick tank that was
provided by Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the FY 13 installation will be funded by
Secure Rural Schools program funds. These efforts improve wildlife habitat and will restore
the ability to manage permitted grazing on the affected allotments.
Approximately 16 miles of trail repair and maintenance was funded by NFRR. Of that, 15
miles are funded with a 50% match challenge cost-share agreement to protect
improvements as well as to direct runoff to reduce additional soil loss downslope of trails
which are often located parallel to drainages. Public engagement for this project is high,
with more than 1,000 volunteer hours accrued and 2,300 more hours committed.
Heritage resource surveys have been funded to locate and identify heritage resources
threatened by post-fire erosion as well as to protect them from damage during continued
implementation of hazard tree removal projects. Some of the surveys are complete, more
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 14
IRR 2012 REPORT | APPENDIX 2 | R3 CASE STUDIES
are planned for FY13.
Surveys for Mexican spotted owls and Jemez Mountains Salamanders are ongoing to
monitor effects from the wildfire as well as to meet requirements to implement planned
hazard tree removal and harvest activities. These surveys are designed to efficiently meet
both needs since they were funded together.
Noxious weed surveys and treatments were continued with no change in program from
previous years. More than 200 additional acres of occurrence were mapped within the fire
area.
The landscape is severely altered from its prior functioning condition as a result of wildfire. The
watersheds in the Las Conchas fire area were not assessed under the WCF following the fire.
However, outcomes of prescribed activities have improved watershed conditions from the post-fire
status. Ongoing activities coupled with natural recovery will lead to improved watershed condition over
the long term. Integrated activities completed and ongoing will improve nearly all watershed condition
indicators including: water quality, aquatic habitat, aquatic biota, riparian vegetation, roads and trails,
soils, forest cover, rangeland vegetation, and forest health.
The consolidation of BLIs potentially increased the integrated benefits of individual activities by
increasing collaboration among resource areas. It also allowed the Forest to evaluate and approve
what post-fire rehabilitation activities to fund rather than competing for activity-specific NFN3 funds at
the regional level as in years past.
The pooling of so many funds into the single BLI requires more coordination than was already
occurring; reaching out to engineering as well as the previously-integrated ecosystem resources. The
increased coordination may have a positive effect on resources by trying to maximize benefits to all
resources. The increased coordination definitely requires more time and energy from personnel in
developing, prioritizing, and tracking projects to ensure the program is fully implemented. More time for
adjustment and coordination is needed to fully realize the impacts to efficiency.
To the Forestry Program Manager IRR meant fewer BLIs to keep track of, but more difficulty in tracking
because several programs are funded from the same pot of money. Since Las Conchas rehabilitation
projects were already identified at the start of the IRR implementation, it was simple to fund a large mix
of projects from the single BLI. For his employees directly involved in projects such as reforestation
layout and hazard tree mitigation, it made no difference.
Partners on this project include the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, who donated trick tank materials,
and the Southwest Nordic Ski Club who provided a 50% cost share for trail rehabilitation on 15.7 miles
of trail.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 15
IRR 2012 REPORT | APPENDIX 2 | R3 CASE STUDIES
POST FIRE RESTORATION PROJECTS
In the summer of 2011, the Region had numerous large fires that resulted in over $50 million in fire
rehabilitation needs, both short term and long term. There were additional large fires during 2012 which
added to the regional fire rehabilitation need. IRR proved instrumental with regards to post fire
restoration work across the Southwestern Region’s Forests in FY 2012.
Restoration and stabilization needs were so diverse as well as extensive that the IRR concept reduced
significant “process” time constraints in terms of fund allocations and interdisciplinary participation. IRR
allowed the forests to jump directly into restoration work assessed and planned the previous year. The
forests literally shifted on the fly into 2012 burn assessments and restoration planning. Implementation
was in full swing by the end of FY 2012. Coupled with the Region’s plan for forests to complete a fiveyear restoration plan, short-term stabilization efforts will mesh into long-term restoration goals. Long
term efforts such as reforestation, vegetation, habitat, water quality and other issues will then be
addressed.
In addition to the BAER (Burn Area Emergency Rehabilitation) work, most Forests pursued hazard tree
removal and range fence reconstruction as well as repairs to other damaged watershed infrastructure
as initial restoration priority needs. Strategic road closures were installed in order to protect watershed
resources as well as the public during the upcoming monsoon season.
The Coronado NF began trail repairs that were causing excessive erosion. The forest relied on
previously funded, standing agreements with the Department of Corrections to clean and stabilize trails,
repair erosion control devices, and reconstruct stock tanks. Volunteers were used to inventory and
monitor fire affected range and watershed infrastructure.
In 2012, the Gila NF utilized various partners from other forests and agencies to layout, mark, and
cruise roadside hazard tree salvage and salvage in areas of high natural regeneration potential. These
salvage sales are active and on-going. Use of a crew from the Alamo Navajo Band, trained by the
Forest Service, was completely successful in assisting with the marking and cruising of hazard trees.
Fencing supplies and an installation contracts worth $90,000 was awarded with NFRR. This work
completed over 72 miles of fence reconstruction on the Wallow (Gila side) Fire. Additional contracts for
fence replacement and repair were awarded on the Apache-Sitgreaves NF. This work was critical to the
restocking of the livestock allotments on the forests.
Fire affected forests contracted out Mexican Spotted Owl (MSO) survey teams with NFRR in FY 2012.
Partners and volunteers worked to repair wildlife water features (ponds and drinkers). Chiricahua
Leopard Frog habitat is being restored on the Coronado NF with cooperative effort from partners like
Bat Conservation International.
Forest Service crews replaced drainage pipes, cleared roads of fire flows, riprapped drainage inlets,
installed rolling grade dips, and replaced spot surfacing around washouts using a combination of NFRR
and CMRD funds.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 16
IRR 2012 REPORT | APPENDIX 2 | R4 CASE STUDIES
STOLLE CREEK –SOUTH FORK SALMON RIVER PRIORITY WATERSHED BOISE NF
Watershed Description
Ecologically important, the Stolle Creek
watershed is nested in the upper South Fork
Salmon River (SFSR) Subbasin, which
historically produced up to 60% of the
anadromous fish in the Snake River Basin.
High-value aquatic species include: Federallylisted Chinook salmon (Threatened), steelhead
trout (Threatened), bull trout (Threatened);
westslope cutthroat trout (R4 Sensitive); and
several amphibian species such as the Idaho
giant salamander. Stolle Meadows is one of
Stolle Meadows Chinook Salmon 2012
five major areas in the watershed that provides
critical spawning habitat for Chinook salmon and steelhead trout, which is key to the viability of the
SFSR populations. Additionally, the SFSR is considered suitable for Wild and Scenic River status
because of it outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fisheries, cultural resources, and
ecological/botanical values.
WCF Status
Functioning at Risk (WCF Rating of 2.13)
The current conditions contributing to the WCF rating are summarized as:
Impaired Water Quality. SFSR was 303(d) listed in 1998 and has had a TMDL for sediment since
1991. The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) proposed developing a stream
temperature TMDL in 2011.
Accelerated sediment, altered streambanks, increased width-to-depth ratios, and reduced stream
channel-floodplain connectivity from historic and current road-related and dispersed recreation
uses have substantially impacted aquatic habitat (Forest Service 2011, Forest Service 2009).
The 2007 Cascade Wildfire Complex burned 268,000 acres, 85% of the watershed. Post-fire
effects include extensive loss of forested vegetation and chronic soil erosion that will take many
decades into the future to recover (Forest Service 2007).
Stolle Creek-S.F. Salmon River Watershed Issues
Open road density of approximately 2.0 mi/mi2; with an RCA road density of 1.8 mi/mi2.
Identified road segments on unstable landtypes, with some landslide-related road failures.
Forested vegetation largely removed by recent wildfire thereby reducing stream shading and
leading to the increased landslide risk from reduced tree root/soil strength.
Although large woody debris (LWD) is currently high due to recent stand replacing wildfire, a longterm deficit in large diameter material is expected as the existing LWD naturally decomposes prior
to the availability of new LWD (>100 years).
The GRAIP1 Inventory estimated 540 tons/year of road-related sediment is being delivered to
streams from authorized and unauthorized roads having high surface erosion rates.
1
Geomorphic Road Assessment and Inventory Package (GRAIP) combines a detailed road inventory with GIS
analysis to predict road sediment production and delivery, mass wasting risk from gullies and landslides, and road
hydrologic connectivity (Black et al 2009).
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 17
IRR 2012 REPORT | APPENDIX 2 | R4 CASE STUDIES
Stream Crossing Road 473B Before Treatment
Stream Crossing After Treatment
Restoration Objectives
The Stolle Creek-South Fork Salmon River Priority Watershed Restoration Action Plan includes three
restoration objectives:
1. Reduce road-related impacts and risks to water quality and fisheries resources according to the
SFSR sediment TMDL while retaining a safe and efficient transportation system to meet current
and future management, public access, and recreational needs.
2. Reduce recreation impacts and risks by improving the trail system to provide public access and
recreation opportunities while reducing unintended impacts to the environment.
3. Enhance recreational experience by providing educational and interpretive exhibits describing
unique natural features in the upper South Fork Salmon River.
The following essential projects were identified to achieve the objectives:
Road decommissioning.
Road reconstruction.
Unauthorized route decommissioning.
Motorized trail reconstruction.
Post-wildfire reforestation.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 18
IRR 2012 REPORT | APPENDIX 2 | R4 CASE STUDIES
IRR Accomplishments
NFRR Performance
Measure
Planned
WTRSHD-CLS-IMP-NUM:
WTRSHD-RSTR-ANN (acres):
HBT-ENH-TERR (acres):
S&W-RSRC-IMP (acres):
FOR-VEG-EST (acres):
HBT-ENH-STRM (miles):
RD-DECOM (miles):
0
4,540
4,400
140
0
12
35
Actual
0
10,424
10,144
140
140
12
36
Comments
Not all essential projects have been implemented
Restoration activities implemented to achieve the accomplishments include:
 Decommission by recontouring 24 miles of Maintenance Level 1 roads, including restoration of
46 stream crossings.
 Obliteration by recontouring 12 miles of unauthorized routes.
 Construction of three trail bridges, installation of one metal culvert, and reconstruction of trail
segments adjacent to streams.
Funding (to date)
Approximately $362,317 ($262,317 Forest Service and $100,000 Partnership)
Excavator Decommissioning Road
Obliterated Road 483B
Partners
For this project $100,000 was contributed by the Nez Perce Tribe for the purpose of restoring
anadromous fish habitat. The source of this funding was the Bonneville Power Administration salmon
recovery efforts. Representatives of the Nez Perce Tribe also assisted in monitoring the implementation
of the road decommissioning/obliteration contracts.
Additional partners that have contributed to the planning and implementation of water quality
improvement projects or recreation projects by providing funding, grants, or volunteers include: Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ), Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation (IDPR),
Southwest Idaho Mountain Biking Association (SWIMBA), Back Country Horsemen, and McCall Hiking
Club.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 19
IRR 2012 REPORT | APPENDIX 2 | R4 CASE STUDIES
IRR Conclusions
1. Describe how IRR helped to facilitate project planning and implementation. Was the action or
activity implemented/completed more efficiently or effectively, including information on internal
and external collaboration and public engagement? Did the activities have a greater impact to
resource outcomes?
For the Stolle Creek-S.F. Salmon River Priority Watershed, the IRR process decreased the level
of internal coordination across the fish/wildlife, contracting, engineering, and watershed program
areas that would be needed when using the traditional BLIs. Using IRR funds reduced the effort
required to designate various fund codes to portions of this project (CMLG, CMRD, NFWF, and
NFVW). The integrated process decreased complexity often associated with creating the proper
“mix” of BLIs/funding when collaborating with partners and coordinating agencies to use
contributing funds.
2. Describe the outcomes or on-going status. Did the activity lead to an improved watershed
condition within the context of WCF? If so, how? If not, why? Reports should provide qualitative as
well as quantitative data.
By definition, once all essential projects have been implemented, or the Forest Service has
addressed the stressors limiting functioning status of the WCF indicators within its authority as the
land management agency, watershed condition should improve.
For the Stolle Priority Watershed all essential projects with the exception of reforestation have
been implemented. Currently, the watershed remains in the “Functioning at Risk” category.
Completing reforestation activities remains a priority with funding (NFRR and NFVW) designated
over the next two years. Additional road decommissioning and reconstruction activities will be
implemented as additional NFRR funding becomes available, while recognizing competing
priorities across the Forest.
3. Describe if the consolidation of BLIs (NFRR) changed the mix of outcomes and outputs. If so,
how?
With the exception of NFRW, the traditional BLIs needed to implement the essential projects were
consolidated into NFRR. Some NFRW funds were combined with NFRR in project planning. The
NFRR mix alleviated functional funding that would traditionally provide partial funding for a
resource activity and facilitated accomplishment of integrated restoration targets, sometimes
exceeding planned levels.
4. Describe the advantages and disadvantages of the single BLI (NFRR). How NFRR has impacted
efficiency?
Advantages – less effort needed to coordinate across multiple resource areas/BLIs. Disadvantage
– project managers must continually monitor spending or it is difficult to track actual project costs.
5. How did the IRR authority change the way activities were selected?
The authority did not necessarily change the way activities were selected. Prior to the wildfires
many restoration opportunities were already identified but lacked funding under a functional BLI to
implement. The post-fire rehabilitation efforts supported with NFN3/WFW3 provided some
flexibility to combine previously identified restoration activities and establish the foundation for an
integrated restoration program. The IRR authority enabled the Forest to prioritize and more
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 20
IRR 2012 REPORT | APPENDIX 2 | R4 CASE STUDIES
efficiently implement a range of restoration projects involving multiple resource areas with
integrated accomplishments.
6. Suggest ways the use of this authority can be improved.
Likely no recommendations specific to this project. With respect to reporting all restoration
accomplishments, there are some glitches that need to be worked out to capture potential
integrated activities funded under other BLIs.
7. Illustrate the pros/cons of the pilot from the team member perspective, with contact information for
a team member who worked on the project.
The District Hydrologist states: “Internally, the NFRR approach improved project integration (“BLI
cost-sharing”) by making it easier for program areas to capture respective accomplishments
(integrated targets) while reducing the level of coordination to agree on funding percentages
under the traditional BLIs. Externally, using NFRR increased efficiency to implement integrated
projects with partnership funds– which contributes to opening up new or additional partnerships”.
8. List of partners, their contributions (if any) that were involved in the planning and/or
implementation of your project.
For this project $100,000 was contributed by the Nez Perce Tribe for the purpose of restoring
anadromous fish habitat. The source of this funding was the Bonneville Power Administration
salmon recovery efforts. Representatives of the Nez Perce Tribe also assisted in monitoring the
implementation of the road decommissioning/obliteration contracts. Additional partners that have
contributed to the planning and implementation of water quality improvement projects or
recreation projects by providing funding, grants, or volunteers include: Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality (IDEQ), Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation (IDPR), Southwest
Idaho Mountain Biking Association (SWIMBA), Back Country Horsemen, and McCall Hiking Club.
References
Black, T.A., Cissel, R.M., and C.H. Luce. 2009. The Geomorphic Road Analysis and Inventory Package
(GRAIP) Data Collection Method. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, Boise
Aquatic Science Lab. http://www.fs.fed.us/
GRAIP/downloads/manuals/GRAIP_Field_Manual_2009.pdf.
Forest Service. 2011. Environmental Assessment, South Fork Salmon River Resource Management
Project. Cascade Ranger District, Boise National Forest.
Forest Service. 2009. Environmental Assessment, South Fork Salmon River Recreation Access
Management Project (RAMP). Cascade Ranger District, Boise National Forest.
Forest Service. 2007. Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) Reports, Cascade Complex South
and Cascade Complex North.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 21
Figure 6. Stolle Creek-South Fork Salmon River Priority Watershed Restoration Activities.
IRR 2012 REPORT | APPENDIX 2 | R4 CASE STUDIES
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 22
IRR 2012 REPORT | APPENDIX 2 | R4 CASE STUDIES
BIRCH CREEK – ESCALANTE RIVER PRIORITY WATERSHED | DIXIE NF
Watershed Description
The Dixie National Forest has entered into a collaborative
initiative with a range of governmental and non-governmental
entities aimed at a multi-year, multi-dimensional restoration of
ecological functions within the Escalante River Watershed.
The intent is to integrate Motorized Travel Plan, Restoration of
Upland Forest Vegetation, Riparian Restoration, and Rural
Community Stability and Protection into one seamless
initiative, with all four themes being considered in all projects.
The Escalante Watershed is a highly significant natural,
cultural, visual and recreational resource. It contains worldclass geological features including steep exposed rock
canyons and the Aquarius Plateau, one of the largest of its
type in the world. It possesses some of the best examples of
Escalante River Watershed
pre-historic cultural resources in the southwest. Excellent habitat
exists or could be restored for important native fish and wildlife resources. Visitors come from
throughout the nation and world to experience the watershed’s spectacular views and recreational
opportunities.
The focus in FY12 was in the Birch Creek watershed in the Escalante River drainage. Emphasis in this
watershed contributed to outputs relating to Colorado Cutthroat Trout stream habitat improvements,
road decommissioning, road improvements relating to road drainage and surfacing and removal of an
aquatic passage concerns. Vegetation management objectives in this watershed where advanced with
riparian vegetation thinning objectives being implemented and the accelerated advancement of
spruce/sub alpine and aspen timber sale offers. This project has implemented a more diverse mix or
outputs in one focus area than any other project over the last five years on the forest.
IRR Conclusions
1. Describe how IRR helped to facilitate project planning and implementation. Was the action or
activity implemented/completed more efficiently or effectively, including information on internal
and external collaboration and public engagement? Did the activities have a greater impact to
resource outcomes?
By utilizing the watershed condition framework analysis, the forest recognized the efficiency of
combining implementation efforts involved in more cohesive watershed condition improvement.
Internal collaboration with all specialists included a diverse mix of implementation goals
necessary to improve the watershed condition class in our IRR focus area.
2. Describe the outcomes or on-going status. Did the activity lead to an improved watershed
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 23
IRR 2012 REPORT | APPENDIX 2 | R4 CASE STUDIES
condition within the context of WCF? If so, how? If not, why? Reports should provide qualitative
as well as quantitative data.
Three major actions were implemented to improve watershed conditions:
•
Stream Miles Enhanced – for aquatic passage and riparian vegetation encroachment. Over
five miles of stream habitat improvement was improved on two road/ stream crossings. This
included the construction of step pool habitat in two stream segments and the removal of
vegetation in riparian areas to move the vegetative condition back to a properly functioning
condition class.
•
Road Miles Decommissioned – for reduction of sedimentation and terrestrial wildlife habitat
improvement. Ten miles of road was decommissioned and over one thousand acres of
terrestrial habitat improvement was realized.
•
Road Miles Improved – two miles improved with aggregate surfacing and ten miles of
maintenance to lessen sedimentation impacts to nearby aquatic habitat.
Following the completion of all these on–going projects the Birch Creek watershed will be
improved in condition class. Selected Forest Outcome: To restore Aquatic Organism Passage
and improve habitat connectivity for remnant populations of R4 Sensitive Colorado River
cutthroat trout by replacing Stream Erosion Check Dams with grade control structures passable
to fish.
Existing Birch Creek Check Dam. Erosion log
check dams constructed over 60 years ago were
impairing stream habitat connectivity.
Old Check Dam with New Stream Channel and
Step Pool Structures
Work Performed:
 Lowered Existing Log Erosion Check Dam
 Constructed 13 log/rock step structures to create a step-pool cascade stream channel to
cross over existing check dam.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 24
IRR 2012 REPORT | APPENDIX 2 | R4 CASE STUDIES
Expected Benefits:
 Re-established Aquatic Passage for R4 Sensitive Colorado River cutthroat trout (CRCT)
over Check Dam
 Maintained grade control of original check dam to prevent upstream head cut migration
 Access to additional 1.7 miles of stream habitat upstream of check dam.
 Part of a larger project to restore connectivity between Birch Creek and two tributary
streams for remnant populations of CRCT
3. Describe if the consolidation of BLIs (NFRR) changed the mix of outcomes and outputs. If so,
how?
All of the consolidation of BLIs increased the outputs in one area; to accomplish this much work with
5 or 6 BLIs with competing emphasis would not have been possible in previous years.
4. Describe the advantages and disadvantages of the single BLI (NFRR). How NFRR has
impacted efficiency?
Advantages:
 More defined projects at a watershed scale.
 Less budget work.
 More cooperation in analyzing projects.
 Fewer larger size projects with multiple target attainment.
Disadvantages:
 Less projects overall.
 Implementation may take more than one year.
5. How did the IRR authority change the way activities were selected?
The forest is moving toward larger scale watershed evaluations with multiple target attainment. This
likely lowers the overall number of projects we implement but focuses our investment in focused
areas.
6. Suggest ways the use of this authority can be improved.
Allow NFRR funding to be utilized for range vegetation improved acres. This resource improvement
is under-represented in the new IRR emphasis due to this restriction.
7. Illustrate the pros/cons of the pilot from the team member perspective, with contact information
for a team member who worked on the project.
One hydrologist states: ”IRR enabled using the Good Neighbor Agreement and “Schedule A”
Authorities to award implementation work quickly. IRR also facilitated the implementation team of
multiple specialists working together to allocate funding for restoration projects. On the downside
we did not invest in the vegetative management NFMA/NEPA process in the initial fiscal year that
the pilot project was initiated, slowing down large scale vegetation restoration.”
8. List of partners, their contributions (if any) that were involved in the planning and/or
implementation of your project.
Garfield County has accepted the implementation work of 10 miles of road maintenance, 2 miles or
road reconstruction and the construction of a bridge and a low-water crossing that meets aquatic
passage standards. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources has completed the implementation of
stream gradient restoration project that saved the forest over $20,000 in cost. The Utah Department
of Forestry, Fire, and Lands have accepted riparian area improvement through thinning. This will
result in protecting and restoring these systems to a properly functioning condition.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 25
IRR 2012 REPORT | APPENDIX 2 | R4 CASE STUDIES
Escalante River-Birch Creek Restoration
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 26
IRR 2012 REPORT | APPENDIX 2 | R4 CASE STUDIES
WEISER AND LITTLE SALMON RIVERS PRIORITY WATERSHED | PAYETTE NF
Watershed Description
The headwaters of the Weiser and Little Salmon
Rivers (WLSR) encompass working forests of westcentral Idaho. Long considered the breadbasket of
the Payette National Forest (PNF), these productive
forests provided resource benefits for fish, wildlife,
timber, grazing and recreation. The Weiser River
flows south through the PNF which forms a large
semi-circle around the predominately agricultural
communities of Council, Cambridge and Indian
Valley. The river flows out of the headwaters to
wind through these ranchlands, to join the Snake
River 100 miles away at the Oregon border.
Weiser-Little Salmon River Watershed
The Payette National Forest was selected as a CFLR
Project in February 2012 and adjusted our FY 2012
program of work to meet annual commitments made in the CFLRP Proposal. This resulted in numerous
shifts in dollars and tasks to make sure the CFLRP requirement of matching funds dollar per dollar were
achieved. The CFLR landscape is 972,000 acres and includes the Council RD, New Meadows RD and
portions of the McCall RD. NFRR funding was the primary source of matching. One significant
accomplishment was the completion of the NEPA document for the Mill Creek Council Mountain area
(MCCM) project. The MCCM project area is approximately 50,000 acres and includes forested areas
rated high priority for terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration as well as a high priority Aquatic
Conservation Strategy (ACS) subwatershed (East Fork of the Weiser River). The MCCM FEIS and
ROD set the stage for three to five years of restoration work on the ground that will contribute to IRR
performance measures.
IRR Conclusions:
1. Describe how IRR helped to facilitate project planning and implementation. Was the action or
activity implemented/completed more efficiently or effectively, including information on internal
and external collaboration and public engagement? Did the activities have a greater impact to
resource outcomes?
The concepts of IRR and CFLRP encourage project planning at much larger scales. The Forest has
embraced this concept and has increased the project area size to around 50,000–80,000 acres.
Completing one EIS for this large a landscape results in numerous restoration activities that can be
implemented over several years. External collaboration and public engagement has been
emphasized over the past three years working with the Payette Forest Coalition (PFC). The Forest
believes the collaboration and integration of these large landscape planning efforts results in better
decisions that lead to better resource outcomes when measured in terms of acres of habitat
restored, acres of vegetation restored, or miles of stream habitat improved.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 27
IRR 2012 REPORT | APPENDIX 2 | R4 CASE STUDIES
Dewey Creek culvert before AOP project
Dewey Creek bridge after AOP project
2. Describe the outcomes or on-going status. Did the activity lead to an improved watershed
condition within the context of WCF? If so, how? If not, why? Reports should provide qualitative
as well as quantitative data.
The FY 2012 accomplishments contributed to improvements to WCF watershed conditions, but they
did not result in a shift from functioning at unacceptable risk to a better class. It will take several
years before that shift occurs in the WSLR. One aquatic organism passage (AOP) structure was
installed within the Forest Plans Aquatic Conservation Strategy high priority watershed (East Fork of
the Weiser River) and the completion of the EIS will lead to numerous watershed improvements
implemented in FY 2013 through FY 2015. These activities include road decommissioning, more
AOPs, and road improvements. In FY 2013, the Forest will complete the final watershed
improvement activities in the Kennelly Creek Watershed (Paddy Flat Area) which will move this high
priority watershed into a functioning acceptable rating.
3. Describe if the consolidation of BLIs (NFRR) changed the mix of outcomes and outputs. If so,
how?
The consolidation of BLIs did not change the mix of outcomes and outputs other than the hazardous
fuels situation where only 25 percent of the fuels funding contribute to planning of integrated fuel
reduction projects. In the past, hazardous fuels often funded up to 50 percent of the planning.
4. Describe the advantages and disadvantages of the single BLI (NFRR). How NFRR has
impacted efficiency?
NFRR as a single BLI gives the Forest more flexibility and may increase some internal efficiency
because we will no longer spend as much time tracking and allocating funding from the separate
BLI’s. There is also a potential disadvantage. The responsibility to maintain programs such as the
stewardship or timber sale program that contribute outputs tied to jobs in our local communities
could be overlooked with the lumping of BLI’s. Each Forest Leadership Team should ensure the
outputs derived from NFRR maintain the right mix of commodity outputs.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 28
IRR 2012 REPORT | APPENDIX 2 | R4 CASE STUDIES
5. How did the IRR authority change the way activities were selected?
For us it was the combination of IRR authority and the CFLRP authority. Combined, these two
funding authorities resulted in more restoration work focused within the CLFRP landscape and were
selected to match the commitments outlined in our original CFLRP Proposal.
6. Suggest ways the use of this authority can be improved.
The Forest faced two major challenges in 2012 in relation to planning work and accomplishments.
First, we received authority for NFRR when we were 25% into the new fiscal year. This caused a lot
of work for Program Managers as we had to reassign activities from “old” work codes to the NFRR
code. Shortly after we received NFRR authority we were told we received funding as a CFLRP
Forest. We then had to completely re-do the forest budget to find sufficient funds to “match” the
influx of CFLN funds. As mentioned previously, in many cases we were already positioned to
complete integrated projects, so switching from many EBLIs to one (NFRR) was not too difficult, but
we were not positioned to fully utilize CFLRP funds without moving funds from projects planned for
outside the CFLRP boundary, to projects within the CFLRP area.
It would also be beneficial to change the distribution of WFHF funds attributed to NFRR, based on
the average amount of treatments in WUI versus non WUI areas. Currently, 25% of WFHF funds
are included in NFRR, but on our Forest a much larger percentage is considered integrated
restoration work. Conversely, fuel specialists have expressed concern at having more of their funds
“lumped” into the “big” NFRR code.
7. A GIS map showing specific treatment areas and submit geodatabase files/shapefiles. Spatial
data must also be recorded in the FACTS spatial data engine (SDE) and meet existing data
dictionary standards.
The Forest is working on our spatial data in FACTS and will not be able to produce this layer until
spring 2013.
8. Illustrate the pros/cons of the pilot from the team member perspective, with contact information
for a team member who worked on the project.
A team member states: “One of the biggest advantages 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. The disadvantage is
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.”
9. List of partners, their contributions (if any) that were involved in the planning and/or
implementation of your project.
The Payette Forest Coalition was our collaborative partner for this project. This group will be
recognized by the Regional Forester in late November for the Regional Partnership Award. The
Nez Perce Tribe contributed to one large AOP structure that was installed in the headwaters of the
Secesch River near Burgdorf.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 29
IRR 2012 REPORT | APPENDIX 2 | R4 CASE STUDIES
SWIFT CREEK PRIORITY WATERSHED | ASHLEY NF
Watershed Description
The restoration goal for the Swift/Cart Creek watershed
was to correct remaining resource issues (i.e., erosion,
soil productivity, stream sedimentation, wet meadow
braiding) associated with system trails in the watershed.
The major trail identified with resource issues was a trail
created by bulldozer in the 1950’s during dam
construction in what is now designated wilderness.
Sections of this trail had severe erosion and gullying
associated with it. Other sections of trail in the
watershed identified for restoration or relocation involved
eroding trail beds near streams, fords, wet meadows,
seeps, and overly steep terrain. Completions of these
projects were the only actions need to move the
watershed from condition class II to class I.
Swift/Cart Creek Watershed Restoration
1.
Describe how IRR helped to facilitate project planning and implementation. Was the action or
activity implemented/completed more efficiently or effectively, including information on internal and
external collaboration and public engagement? Did the activities have a greater impact to resource
outcomes?
Pilot authority and awarded Regional funding for this focus watershed raised the priority for this work to
be implemented in FY 2012. The interdisciplinary WCF assessment process identified watershed as a
candidate for focused restoration effort. A large-scale restoration project had just been completed in
the watershed involving the Forest Service, local county partners, federal agencies, and state of Utah,
to decommission 5 dams in the Swift Creek Watershed which resulted in restoring natural hydrologic
function of streams.
In FY 2012 the authority allowed for close integration between recreation and hydrology specialists on
remaining trail system issues within this wilderness watershed. NFRR funding was also used to
employ and oversee Utah Conservation Corps trail crews to assist in the workload of trail restoration for
this project.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 30
IRR 2012 REPORT | APPENDIX 2 | R4 CASE STUDIES
2.
Describe the outcomes or on-going status. Did the activity lead to an improved watershed
condition within the context of WCF? If so, how? If not, why? Reports should provide qualitative as well
as quantitative data.
Fiscal year 2012 activity
Trail restoration work was completed at the majority of the locations planned. Specific work resulted in
16 improved channel crossings and their approaches, 25 water bars, 35 check dams, 2 French drains,
over 250 feet of raised turnpike, and over 1,300 feet of braided trail restored at individual sites
throughout the watershed.
Plans for FY 2013/14
Delays in attaining archaeology clearance for six trail reroutes have postponed some relocation work to
FY13/14. Due to weather and logistic delays encountered late in the field season, one remaining
section of trail targeted for restoration in FY12 has also been delayed until FY13/14, when the
remaining reroutes will be completed.
With completion of these final sections of trail all essential projects identified for the watershed will have
been completed and will result in an improvement watershed condition class in the context of the WCF.
Work completed since 2007 will have resulted in improvements to framework items: 7.1 Soil
Productivity, 7.2 Soil Erosion, 6.2 Road Maintenance, 6.3 Proximity to Water, 6.4 Mass wasting, 2.1
Flow characteristics, and 3.2 Channel Shape and Function.
Trail 055 near Owl Creek Meadow before and after FY12 trail work
3.
Describe if the consolidation of BLIs (NFRR) changed the mix of outcomes and outputs. If so,
how?
In the case of the Swift Creek project, the mix of outcomes and outputs were probably similar to the
scenario if the BLI’s were separate. The scope of the project was more focused on correcting the
remaining resource issue (trail impacts) within the watershed and funding would have come from
watershed NFVW and trails NFRW/CMTL. However, combining the BLI’s and the designating the area
as a focus watershed allowed the work to occur more quickly because more funding was available for
the project.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 31
IRR 2012 REPORT | APPENDIX 2 | R4 CASE STUDIES
In the case of the Cart Creek focus watershed, the consolidation of BLI’s has changed the mix of
outcome and output/goals for projects within the watershed. The issues and restoration opportunities
cover a wider range of disciplines. Specialist’s time in NFRR was budgeted in FY 2012 to participate in
an ID team that included making coordinated field visits to the watershed to identify watershed issues
and to discuss restoration ideas as a group. While NEPA analysis acts in a similar interdisciplinary
manner, the level of integration and on-the-ground discussion of ideas for projects seems to be greater
than the past way of doing business under separate BLI’s.
Through our FY 2012 planning efforts, partnership funding from the EPA and the State of Utah has
been awarded for restoration projects in the Cart Creek Watershed. Implementation of projects will
begin in FY 2013 and continue for several years.
4.
Describe the advantages and disadvantages of the single BLI (NFRR). How NFRR has
impacted efficiency?
The disadvantage of the NFRR BLI is trying to manage the complexity of a BLI that incorporates
multiple program areas and associated targets and program elements, especially when it comes to
tracking spending. The advantages of the NFRR BLI is the transparency and integration among
program areas, the ability to leverage a large amount of funding and resources for a particular project,
the flexibility to plan projects without the constraints of numerous specific targets, limited primary
purpose, or territorialism of program areas.
5.
How did the IRR authority change the way activities were selected?
With the Swift Creek Watershed, potential activities were reviewed in a multidisciplinary manner (i.e.,
Watershed Condition Framework). Due to the wilderness setting and the large-scale project recently
completed in the watershed, all the remaining resource issues and restoration opportunities identified in
the framework related to the trail system. As such, activities and implementation was more limited to
watershed and trails personnel.
As demonstrated in the planning process of projects in the Cart Creek Focus watershed, the IRR mode
of operating has fostered greater on the ground interdisciplinary discussion and input in issue
identification and designing solutions (e.g., left side of the NEPA triangle planning).
6.
Suggest ways the use of this authority can be improved.
Not sure yet.
7.
A GIS map showing specific treatment areas and submit geodatabase files/shapefiles. Spatial
data must also be recorded in the FACTS spatial data engine (SDE) and meet existing data dictionary
standards.
Swift Creek Watershed restoration planning and accomplishments have been entered into WIT. Trail
improvement/maintenance is also documented by the recreation program under INFRA.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 32
IRR 2012 REPORT | APPENDIX 2 | R4 CASE STUDIES
8.
Illustrate the pros/cons of the pilot from the team member perspective, with contact information
for a team member who worked on the project.
The hydrologist on the project states: “Internally, IRR provided an advantage in setting goals and
priorities among program areas because we concentrated our efforts on projects associated with the
Forest’s focus watersheds. This seemed to encourage a lot more integration among program areas
than occurred historically. Because of the flexibility and integration, there were more opportunities to
fund projects associated with partners.”
9.
List of partners, their contributions (if any) that were involved in the planning and/or
implementation of your project.
Utah Conservation Corps crews were employed to handle the additional trail restoration workload in
Swift Creek FY2012. Partners involved in the recently completed High Lakes Dam Stabilization Project
(2007-2010) included: the Duchesne County Water Conservancy District, Bureau of Reclamation, State
of Utah Engineers Office, the Central Utah Project, and the Utah Conservation Corps.
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Page 33