What makes Elevation successful?

2001 ESA Consultation Survey 2001 ESA Consultation Survey Percent of administrative units reporting: Percent of administrative units reporting: FS – 74% (L1), 24% (L2)FS – 74% (L1), 24% (L2) BLM – 52% (L1), 1% (L2)BLM – 52% (L1), 1% (L2) FWS – 100% (L1), 80% (L2)FWS – 100% (L1), 80% (L2) NOAA – 33% (L1), 25% (L2)NOAA – 33% (L1), 25% (L2)

Is the elevation process used and understood? Yes: 64% (L1), 47% (L2) Yes: 64% (L1), 47% (L2) No: 15% (L1), 35% (L2) No: 15% (L1), 35% (L2)

If you have elevated an issue, was resolution reached? Yes: 58% (L1), 86% (L2) Yes: 58% (L1), 86% (L2) No: 24% (L1), 0% (L2) No: 24% (L1), 0% (L2)

If elevated, was the issue resolved in a reasonable timeframe? YES: 59% (L1), 62% (L2) YES: 59% (L1), 62% (L2) NO: 15% (L1), 38% (L2) NO: 15% (L1), 38% (L2)

Conclusions “Many of the consultation delays reported were caused by a failure to elevate.” “Many of the consultation delays reported were caused by a failure to elevate.” “This issue resolution process breaks down when teams are reluctant to elevate issues to the next level, even after they reach an impasse.” “This issue resolution process breaks down when teams are reluctant to elevate issues to the next level, even after they reach an impasse.” “The survey highlighted instances where consultations had been stalled for months or even years, apparently due to an unwillingness to elevate an issue to the next higher level.” “The survey highlighted instances where consultations had been stalled for months or even years, apparently due to an unwillingness to elevate an issue to the next higher level.” (Letter of 11/27/2001)

People are reluctant to use the elevation process because: Perceived failurePerceived failure Timeliness issuesTimeliness issues Resolution issuesResolution issues Overall Conclusion

Why Elevate?  When consensus cannot be reached within identified timelines.  To clarify policy and direction.  Assistance with difficult technical and legal issues.

Formal Process Letter signed by Level I Team members Letter signed by Level I Team members Accompanied by a succinct position statement written by each Level 1 member elevating the issue. Accompanied by a succinct position statement written by each Level 1 member elevating the issue. Clarify why consensus cannot be reached Clarify why consensus cannot be reached May include suggested remedies to the situation May include suggested remedies to the situation

Formal Process  Level 2 – meets as soon as possible, typically within two weeks of receipt of the letter.  Goal:  review the issue,  determine a course of action  hold joint Level 1 and 2 discussions  identify other agency personnel that should be involved), and  identify a timeframe for reaching a Level 2 decision

Formal Process Level 2 results Level 2 results  Resolution of the issue with Guidance to the Level 1 team:  dropping,  modifying, or  continuing with the originally designed action.  documented in a letter to the Level 1 team  Elevation to the Regional Executives

Formal Process “Deciding officials, such as Field Managers, District Rangers, or Field Office Supervisors, may also elevate issues with coordination from the Level 1 team.” “Deciding officials, such as Field Managers, District Rangers, or Field Office Supervisors, may also elevate issues with coordination from the Level 1 team.”

Formal Process If a Level 2 member has an unresolved issue with a particular consultation, the issue should be elevated to all members of the Level 2. If a Level 2 member has an unresolved issue with a particular consultation, the issue should be elevated to all members of the Level 2.

Informal Process Level 1 teams to informally interact and have dialogue with Level 2 teams, and others (usually technical and process issues). Level 1 teams to informally interact and have dialogue with Level 2 teams, and others (usually technical and process issues).

Informal Process Use outside sources to help resolve:  Field implementation issues,  Technical questions,  Process problems,  Policy issues or interpretation of existing streamlining guidance

Informal Process Regional Technical Team (RTT), Regional Technical Team (RTT), Interagency Coordinators (ICS), Interagency Coordinators (ICS), Interagency Implementation Team (IIT), Interagency Implementation Team (IIT), National Riparian Service Team, National Riparian Service Team, Other outside groups and experts Other outside groups and experts

Example of Optional Outline for Formal Elevation Level 1 Action or Issue Elevation: Forest/District ( Action Location): Date: Action Name: Type of Activity: I.Background: II.Specific Issues Being Elevated: A. B. III.Alternatives Recommended: A. B. C. D. IV.Enclosures: V.Recommended Response Date From Level 2: VI.Level 2 Team: Forward to 1. FWS 2. NMFS 3. BLM 4. FS VII.Level 1 Team: 1. /s/ FWS 2. /s/ NMFS 3. /s/ BLM 4. /s/ FS VIII.Manager/Supervisor Comment. (If the elevation is at the request of the Manager or Supervisor.)

INFORMAL Primarily Technical and/or Process Issues Level 1 Team Level 2 Team Regional Technical Team (RTT) Level 1 Team Interagency Coordinators (IC’s)/ Interagency Coordinators Subgroup (ICS) Level 2 Team FORMAL Primarily Policy and/or Precedent Setting Issues Level 1 Team Interagency Coordinators (IC’s)/ Interagency Coordinators Subgroup (ICS ) Level 2 Team Legend: Elevation of Issues: Resolutions of Issues: Advise and Counsel: Interagency Regional Executives (3) Legal Counsel