THE LUBRECHT REPORT A MID-WAY ASSESSMENT … · Web viewTHE LUBRECHT REPORT A MID-WAY ASSESSMENT OF...

THE LUBRECHT REPORT

A MID-WAY ASSESSMENT OF THE 10-YEAR WILDERNESS STEWARDSHIP CHALLENGE

Summary and Associated Appendices

Developed By:Wilderness Advisory Group Members

(Steve Boutcher, Ryan Brown, Laura Burns, Tom Carlson, David Cole, Kevin Hood, Ruth Monahan, Diane Taliaferro, Wendi Urie)

Version Date: April 16TH, 2010

1 | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY

I. Introduction ………. Page 3II. Looking Back – The First Five Years ………. Page 4III. Looking Ahead – The Next Five Years ………. Page 6

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Current Status Graphs ………. Page 9Appendix B – Wildernesses by Progress Classes ………. Page 16Appendix C – What Has and Hasn’t Worked ………. Page 28Appendix D – Recommended Actions ………. Page 37Appendix E – Tips for Success ……….Page 59

2 | P a g e

INTRODUCTION

The 10-Year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge (10YWSC) was approved by Chief Dale Bosworth and the National Leadership Team in the fall of 2003 with the stated goal of having all 406 wildernesses in existence at that time managed to a “minimum stewardship level” by 2014, which coincides with the 50th anniversary of the Wilderness Act. The “minimum stewardship level” is reached when a wilderness scores 60-points or higher of a total possible 100-points on ten elements, such as fire planning, recreation site inventory and baseline workforce. In the first year of the 10YWSC, only 44 wildernesses, or 10.8% of the total, were managed to this level.

The Wilderness Advisory Group (WAG) is comprised primarily of wilderness management representatives from each Region and is charged with routinely providing input to the Chief on matters relating to wilderness stewardship from a field-going perspective. The charter for the 2010/2011 edition of the WAG tasked the group with “making specific recommendations and developing products that will increase the likelihood that all wildernesses are “managed to a minimum stewardship level” by the 50 th anniversary of the Wilderness Act in 2014.”

During the 2010 WAG meeting at the Lubrecht Experimental Forest outside of Missoula Montana, the WAG recognized a unique opportunity presented by the half way point of the Challenge to take a look back over the past five years to assess what has and has not worked, as well as to develop a series of recommendations to improve the likelihood of meeting Chief Bosworth’s commitment to meeting the Challenge—a commitment that has been reconfirmed by subsequent Chiefs Gail Kimball and Tom Tidwell. The collection of thoughts and ideas resulting from this meeting has been compiled into the “Lubrecht Report”, WAG’s attempt at meeting its responsibility to assist national and local efforts to meet the Chief’s 10YWSC.

After five years, national accomplishment has improved from 44 wildernesses “managed to a minimum stewardship level” in FY 2005 (or 10.8% of all wildernesses) to 122 wildernesses managed to this level in FY 2009 (30.0% of all wildernesses).

While progress has been made across all regions and elements, the rate of progress has not been uniform, and overall it is clear that the current rate of progress will not get us near 100% of wildernesses meeting standard

by 2014. Instead, it is projected that only 200 - or slightly less than half - of all wildernesses will reach this level by 2014, falling far short of the goal. To meet the Challenge by the 50 th anniversary of the Wilderness Act, we will have to dramatically increase our scores – more than tripling the current rate of improvement.

3 | P a g e

FY 2005

FY 2006

FY 2007

FY 2008

FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012

FY 2013

FY 2014

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Percent of Wildernesses Meeting Standard

Please refer to Appendix A for more graphs depicting various aspects of accomplishment on the Challenge. Appendix B lists the individual wildernesses by “progress classes”, based on data from the FY 2009 reporting season.

What follows is an assessment of the first five years and a look ahead at the next five. Few would argue that the wilderness program has not benefitted from the 10 Year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge. However, it is equally clear that a different approach is needed of we are to dramatically improve accomplishment and realize the commitment made by Chief Bosworth five years ago.

LOOKING BACK – THE FIRST FIVE YEARS

An examination of the past five years of implementing the Chief’s Ten Year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge illuminates both the successes and shortcomings of this effort. This section describes both of these aspects to set the stage for a discussion of future actions that can be taken to accelerate progress on the Challenge. A more detailed description can be found in Appendix C.

Efforts to meet the Challenge have transformed wilderness managers, leaders, and the agency as a whole, increasing the organization and comprehensiveness of wilderness stewardship. The existence of strong wilderness programs has been the key to success in meeting the Challenge. Indeed, those Forests with established wilderness programs have been particularly successful in making progress.

Progress has been made within Regions through the use of various strategies, including the setting of specific and definable timelines for completion of goals, focusing efforts on specific Elements of the Challenge, focusing resources on lagging wilderness areas, dedicating staff to wilderness stewardship (through the use of detailers, trainers, strike teams, and resource specialists), and increasing cooperation between wilderness programs on different administrative units. One key to improved stewardship is successful integration—collaboration between wilderness personnel and specialists from other resource program areas, as well as interdisciplinary funding.

Bold actions taken by leadership to support and promote the Challenge have resulted in marked increases in scores on the Challenge. Positive results have also been observed in situations where leadership has been held accountable for their progress on the Challenge.

Creative approaches in using limited resources to meet the Challenge have included focused funding efforts to meet the Challenge, the use of volunteers to implement Elements of the Challenge, and the professional development of skills needed to implement the Challenge utilizing existing training opportunities.

The Challenge has provided motivation to develop and use strategies such as the ones discussed above, which are crucial to building the foundation for successful wilderness stewardship programs. Although these strategies should be common practice, they are more the exception than the rule. Consequently,

4 | P a g e

trials abound in implementing the Challenge. Particularly given the current budget situation and absence of consistent and focused leadership, frustration and a lack of corporate energy have caused eddies in the forward momentum required to meet this task.

Many barriers have been identified by WAG as limiting factors in meeting the Challenge. These barriers are not ubiquitous; they apply in some places and situations but not in others. The full gamut of obstacles is examined here in an effort to lay the groundwork for the identification of innovative strategies to go beyond simply increasing budget allocations for wilderness stewardship. It is our hope that the resulting strategies may be used by managers at all levels to make decisions in support of meeting the Challenge. We fully appreciate that decisions are not made in a sterile room, but rather in a complex and political environment in which the interest of wilderness must be balanced against fiscal and social pressures. This report is not intended to be an avenue to voice complaints; rather it is intended to portray an honest assessment of the challenges we face in meeting the 10YWSC to be used in the generation of effective solutions.

Barriers to Success

Lack of Functional Integration. Progress on many elements of the Challenge cannot be made unless all functions within the Forest Service recognize that wilderness stewardship is their responsibility too and contribute appropriately. Budget allocations in NFRW alone are not adequate to cover the cost of implementing the Challenge, and budget advice for non-recreation resources does not include wilderness as a component.

Inadequate Line Officer Leadership and Commitment. Leadership plays a crucial role at all levels of the organization regarding the prominence and importance associated with the wilderness program and the implementation of the Challenge. Progress on the Challenge has been stymied where there is a lack of visible and tangible support from leadership and little emphasis or priority given to wilderness and the Challenge.

Insufficient Resources. Boots on the Ground: A lack of paid, wilderness-focused personnel is one of the largest barriers

to meeting the Challenge by 2014. This is an issue at all levels in the organization, from National and Regional staff to seasonal wilderness rangers. Wilderness management is an increasingly collateral duty for managers and fewer field-going wilderness employees and seasonal workers are being funded to address elements of the Challenge.

Funding: Agency support for wilderness is not sufficient to meet the Challenge. The level of funding, and constraints in how funds are directed to wilderness, have resulted in implications reaching far and wide. Other priorities out-compete wilderness in budget allocation and work prioritization. Leaders are not held accountable for progress on the Challenge, lowering priority for wilderness funding compared to programs with hard targets.

Training: Many existing training opportunities (including resources offered by the Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center) are underutilized because staff, including line officers,

5 | P a g e

wilderness managers, non-recreation resource specialists and seasonal employees, are over-committed and often the lack of funds for travel.

Partnerships and Volunteers: Partnership opportunities are underutilized in many areas due to lack of FS staff capacity at the District and Forest levels to develop and guide the necessary work. While the contributions of partners and volunteers are widely appreciated, the sense that the Forest Service is abdicating its stewardship role by wholly replacing wilderness crews with partners/volunteers demoralizes employees and erodes enthusiasm to meet the Challenge non-Forest Service staff.

Inadequate Policy. Nation-wide changes associated with revisions to the Forest Planning Rule have made it difficult for planners to effectively write guidelines for wilderness. Different regions have policies relating to wilderness stewardship which can heavily influence the ability for managers to implement the 10YWSC. For some elements of the Challenge, a lack of policy results in unclear direction.

Limitations in the Structure of the Challenge: In many wilderness areas, the “low hanging fruit” has been picked and the remaining tasks in the 10YWSC are more complex and time consuming and require a higher level of expertise and field implementation. Some wilderness personnel are concerned that success on the Challenge may be interpreted as evidence that the wilderness program can do more with less, resulting in a permanent reduction in funding leading to a decline in wilderness character. The ten year span of the Challenge has made it difficult for many managers to sustain enthusiasm for the duration of the initiative.

LOOKING AHEAD – THE NEXT FIVE YEARS

The barriers we face in meeting the Chief’s 10YWSC are considerable. At the half-way point of the Challenge, with only one third of our wilderness areas meeting minimum stewardship levels, it is apparent that we will not meet the Challenge by the 50th Anniversary of the Wilderness Act without significantly changing our approach. However, with focused effort and some increased commitment to wilderness stewardship, barriers can be overcome and the Challenge can be met. Toward this end, we have scoured success stories and identified a number of actions we believe could be employed to meet the Challenge by 2014.

Each of these action items are described in detail in Appendix D. Many actions listed here are interconnected; these relationships are noted in the keys to implementation listed for each action item in Appendix D. Action items are targeted at the following three levels of the organization: the Chief’s Office, National Wilderness Leadership, and Regional leadership.

Priority Actions for the Chief. The Chief of the Forest Service could improve progress on the Challenge by identifying a change in funding strategy to allow wilderness areas to meet the Challenge and making regional foresters accountable with this goal in mind. These actions are interdependent and should be

6 | P a g e

viewed as a package; the success of each action depends heavily upon the implementation of the others.

Require each Regional Forester to develop, and submit to the Chief, a Regional strategy to meet the 10YWSC (page 37)

Organize and fund strike teams (page 39) Establish internal grant funds (page 41) Provide funds to support NFF grant program (page 43) Conduct assistance reviews for the Regions (page 44) Develop desktop video to the field from the Chief (page 46)

Innovative Strategies for National Wilderness Leadership. These actions could be employed at the national level, and are expected to have great impact on efforts to meet the Challenge.

Increase communication between WWSR Director and the field (page 48) Designate National 10YWSC Lead (page 50) Conduct national leveling calls (page 52) Conduct national calls to support individual elements of the 10YWSC (page 53) Improve educational resources for implementing the 10YWSC (page 54)

Strategies for Regional Leadership. A wide range of actions can be employed at the Regional level to support the efforts of wilderness managers in meeting the 10YWSC depending on regional conditions, funding and preferences. While the full list is presented in Appendix D (page 56) a sampling includes:

Charter Regional Wilderness Council to facilitate the integration of other program areas into meeting the Challenge

Charter integrated regional teams around specific elements (Strike Teams) or to assist units in most need

Develop integrated region-wide funding strategies around specific elements Hold funding aside to allow competition from individual forests to make progress on the

Challenge Create and fill a Regional 10YWSC Coordinator Incorporate meeting 10YWSC in region-wide Business Plans, emphasis areas, and

program direction Hold region-wide “leveling” calls for consistency in scoring Develop regional forum for sharing successes/Regional support group Include more specific budget advice related to the Challenge from the Regions and

Forests Look at other opportunities for funding for the Challenge such as Stimulus Include progress on the Challenge in annual line officer performance reviews

In order to overcome the significant barriers we face, a paradigm shift must occur within our agency to provide the support required to achieve the goals of the 10YWSC through the sincere stewardship of our wilderness resource. In order to accomplish this, wilderness must be viewed as a resource in itself, a worthy recipient of integrated knowledge and management support.

7 | P a g e

Our successes on the 10YWSC have been a result of imaginative and innovative solutions implemented by dedicated and passionate employees. Efforts to meet the Challenge have served to increase the commitment and resources available to support wilderness, reinvigorate wilderness programs, raise awareness of wilderness stewardship needs, integrate different resource areas, improve coordination between administrative units, strengthen relationships with partners, and improve planning and monitoring efforts. If the agency is truly committed to the goals of the Challenge and improving the condition of our treasured resource of Wilderness, now is the time for us to overcome the barriers we have faced so far and embrace successfully meeting the Challenge.

8 | P a g e

APPENDIX A – CURRENT STATUS GRAPHS

Progress toward meeting the Challenge is graphically displayed in the following series of graphs:

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 20140.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%


Figure 1 - Percent of wildernesses meeting standard nationally by year

Figure 1 displays the percent of wildernesses meeting standard across the country by fiscal year. Accomplishment ranges from 44 wildernesses to standard in FY 2005 (10.8%) to 122 wildernesses to standard in FY 2009 (30.0%).

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 20140.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Average Score

Figure 2 - Average score nationally by year

Figure 2 displays the average score across all wildernesses nationally by fiscal year. Scores improved from 34.7 in FY 2005 to 50.7 in FY 2009. Reports from the Regions indicate this current rate of improvement in average scores is not sustainable. The “low hanging fruit” have been grabbed, and a continued increase in average scores will require a higher level of funding to implement the field-based implementation of many of the elements.

9 | P a g e

E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 E100.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

Average Score by Element

FY 05FY 06FY 07FY 08FY 09

Figure 3 - Average score nationally by element by year

Figure 3 displays the average score by element for fiscal years FY 2005 – 2009. The element numbers relate to the ten elements of the Challenge (E1-Fire Planning, E2-Non-native, Invasive Plants, E3-Air Quality, E4-Wilderness Education Plans, E5-Opportunities for Solitude, E6-Recreation Site Inventory, E7-Outfitters & Guides, E8-Adequate Plan Standards, E9-Information Management, E10-Baseline Workforce). Average scores are highest for Elements 1 and 7, and lowest for Elements 3 and 10.

While most data display a steady and continuous improvement, Element 10 shows a decline from FY 2005-2007, and then a sudden increase in FY 2008 and 2009. This increase in scores is attributable to a change in counting instructions in FY 2008—not a change in staffing. Starting in FY 2008, it was permissible to count Forest Service staff funded by non-recreation fund codes (other than NFRW) and volunteers.

10 | P a g e

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R8 R9 R10 Natl. Ave.

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%


Figure 4 - Percent of wildernesses meeting standard by region (FY 2009 data)

Figure 4 displays the percent of wildernesses meeting minimum standard by Forest Service Region, using FY 2009 data. The data range from a low of 1.7% (R6) to a high of 84.6% (R1). Nationally, 30.0% of wildernesses were determined to be managed to the minimum standard.

The relatively low scores in several of the regions will present the greatest challenge to reaching 100% accomplishment by 2014.

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R8 R9 R10 Natl. Ave.

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

Average Score

Figure 5 - Average score by region (FY 2009 data)

Figure 5 displays the average score of wildernesses by Forest Service Region, using FY 2009 data. The data range from a low of 31.0 (R3) to a high of 67.5 (R1). The average score across all regions was 50.7.

This graph tells a slightly more positive story than Figure 4. With the exception of Regions 3 and 6, regional average scores for all remaining regions are near 50-points or above.

11 | P a g e

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R8 R9 R100.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%


FY 05

FY 06

FY 07FY 08FY 09

Figure 6 - Percent of wildernesses meeting standard by region by year

Figure 6 displays the trend of scores by region. Accomplishment for some regions has been relatively stable while still improving, such as Regions 1 and 2, while others show greater fluctuation from year, most notably Regions 3 and 9. Greatest improvement has been shown in R10, which improved dramatically from 0 wildernesses managed to standard in FY 2005-2006, to 63.2% in FY 2009.

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R8 R9 R100.0

10.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.0

Average Score

FY 05FY 06FY 07FY 08FY 09

Figure 7 - Average scores by region by year

While Figure 6 shows year to year variability, Figure 7 shows steady improvement in average scores across all regions. This provides hope that, with sustained effort, the Challenge can be met.

12 | P a g e

At or Above (60+)Near (50-59)Approaching (35-49)Well Below (0-34)Did Not Report

Figure 8 - Number of wildernesses by "progress classes" nationally (FY 2009 data)

Figure 8 displays the number of wilderness nationally that currently score within four “progress classes”, as a percent of the whole, using FY 2009 data. The classes are:

“At or Above” (60-points or above): 122 wildernesses;“Near” (50 to 59-points): 94 wildernesses;“Approaching” (35-49 points): 113 wildernesses; and“Well Below” (0-34 points): 63 wildernesses.

The graph also shows the 14 wildernesses that did not complete the reporting for FY 2009.

These “progress classes” are important as we develop recommendations for making further progress on the Challenge. For example, those wildernesses that are approaching 60-points can likely reach the minimum stewardship level with a bit of assistance, perhaps with funding through an internal grant process. Those wildernesses that are currently well below 60-points probably need more than funding since they may well lack the staffing resources to accomplish work. Those units may be better candidates for the use of strike teams or other off-forest assistance.

13 | P a g e

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R8 R9 R100

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


Figure 9 – Number of wildernesses by “progress classes” by region (FY 2009 data)

Figure 9 displays the number of wilderness by “progress classes” by region, using the data from the FY 2009 reporting. This graph shows the number of wildernesses by each class, providing an indication of the amount of improvement needed to meet standard.

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R8 R9 R100%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Figure 10 - Percent of wildernesses by "progress classes" by region (FY 2009 data)

Figure 10 displays the percent of wilderness in each “progress class” by region, using the data from the FY 2009 reporting. This graph normalizes the groupings to account for the difference in number of wildernesses in each of the regions. While perhaps not as good of an indicator of the overall workload as Figure 9, this graph depicts the relative position of each of the regions.

14 | P a g e

15 | P a g e

FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 20140

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Current Rate of ProgressProgress Needed

Figure 11 - Progress needed to meet the Challenge

Figure 11 displays the current accomplishment, as of FY 2009 reporting, and then two potential trajectories for FY 2010 – 2014: a steady state projection assuming a continuation of the current rate of progress between FY 2005-2009 and the more ambitious rate of progress that would be needed to have all 406 wildernesses managed to a minimum stewardship level by 2014.

Figure 12 - Score rank by element by region (FY 2009 data)

Figure 12 displays the relative rank of each region for each Element of the Challenge by grouping scores in the top, middle and bottom thirds, and color coding the results to aid in viewing. Most regions consistently score in the same group across all elements, such as Region 3, whereas others, such as Region 10, show a wider disparity in relative accomplishment between elements.

16 | P a g e

APPENDIX B – WILDERNESSES BY “PROGRESS CLASSES”

WILDERNESSES “AT OR ABOVE” STANDARD (60-points and higher)

REGION LEAD FOREST NAME WILDERNESS NAME TOTAL SCORE

05 LAKE TAHOE BASIN MGT UNIT DESOLATION WILDERNESS 9009 WHITE MOUNTAIN NATIONAL FOREST GREAT GULF WILDERNESS 8809 WHITE MOUNTAIN NATIONAL FOREST PEMIGEWASSET WILDERNESS 8809 WHITE MOUNTAIN NATIONAL FOREST SANDWICH RANGE WILDERNESS 8809 OTTAWA NATIONAL FOREST SYLVANIA WILDERNESS 86

09 WHITE MOUNTAIN NATIONAL FOREST PRESIDENTIAL RANGE-DRY RIVER WILDERNESS 86

02 SAN JUAN NATIONAL FOREST WEMINUCHE WILDERNESS 85

09 WHITE MOUNTAIN NATIONAL FOREST CARIBOU-SPECKLED MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 84

04 SAWTOOTH NATIONAL FOREST SAWTOOTH WILDERNESS 8202 BLACK HILLS NATIONAL FOREST BLACK ELK WILDERNESS 8005 LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST SAN RAFAEL WILDERNESS 8005 INYO NATIONAL FOREST JOHN MUIR WILDERNESS 79

09 SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST BOUNDARY WATERS CANOE AREA WILDERNESS 79

01 FLATHEAD NATIONAL FOREST MISSION MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS 7802 BIGHORN NATIONAL FOREST CLOUD PEAK WILDERNESS 7809 HIAWATHA NATIONAL FOREST BIG ISLAND LAKE WILDERNESS 7801 NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SELWAY-BITTERROOT WILDERNESS 7702 RIO GRANDE NATIONAL FOREST SOUTH SAN JUAN WILDERNESS 7604 DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST BOX-DEATH HOLLOW WILDERNESS 76

04 UINTA-WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL FOREST TWIN PEAKS WILDERNESS 76

01 FLATHEAD NATIONAL FOREST BOB MARSHALL WILDERNESS 7501 LOLO NATIONAL FOREST RATTLESNAKE WILDERNESS 7502 WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST HOLY CROSS WILDERNESS 75

02 WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST MAROON BELLS-SNOWMASS WILDERNESS 75

01 FLATHEAD NATIONAL FOREST GREAT BEAR WILDERNESS 74

04 UINTA-WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL FOREST MOUNT OLYMPUS WILDERNESS 74

08 NATIONAL FORESTS IN FLORIDA ALEXANDER SPRINGS WILDERNESS 7408 NATIONAL FORESTS IN FLORIDA JUNIPER PRAIRIE WILDERNESS 7401 FLATHEAD NATIONAL FOREST SCAPEGOAT WILDERNESS 7309 HOOSIER NATIONAL FOREST CHARLES C. DEAM WILDERNESS 7309 MARK TWAIN NATIONAL FOREST HERCULES-GLADES WILDERNESS 73

10 TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST WEST CHICHAGOF-YAKOBI WILDERNESS 73

01 BEAVERHEAD-DEERLODGE NATIONAL FOREST ANACONDA PINTLER WILDERNESS 72

02 PIKE-SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FOREST SANGRE DE CRISTO WILDERNESS 7204 ASHLEY NATIONAL FOREST HIGH UINTAS WILDERNESS 72

04 UINTA-WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL FOREST MOUNT NAOMI WILDERNESS 72

09 GREEN MOUNTAIN AND FINGER LAKES NATIONAL FORESTS BIG BRANCH WILDERNESS 72

17 | P a g e


09 MONONGAHELA NATIONAL FOREST DOLLY SODS WILDERNESS 7205 ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST SAN GABRIEL WILDERNESS 7102 SHOSHONE NATIONAL FOREST POPO AGIE WILDERNESS 7002 WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST FLAT TOPS WILDERNESS 7004 DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST PINE VALLEY MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 7004 HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST MT. MORIAH WILDERNESS 70

04 UINTA-WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL FOREST LONE PEAK WILDERNESS 70

04 UINTA-WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL FOREST WELLSVILLE MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 70

08 NATIONAL FORESTS IN FLORIDA BILLIES BAY WILDERNESS 7008 NATIONAL FORESTS IN FLORIDA LITTLE LAKE GEORGE WILDERNESS 70

09 GREEN MOUNTAIN AND FINGER LAKES NATIONAL FORESTS LYE BROOK WILDERNESS 70

09 GREEN MOUNTAIN AND FINGER LAKES NATIONAL FORESTS PERU PEAK WILDERNESS 70

04 BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST TETON WILDERNESS 6905 INYO NATIONAL FOREST ANSEL ADAMS WILDERNESS 6905 STANISLAUS NATIONAL FOREST EMIGRANT WILDERNESS 69

10 TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST PETERSBURG CREEK-DUNCAN SALT CHUCK WILDERNESS 69

10 TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST SOUTH BARANOF WILDERNESS 69

02 MEDICINE BOW-ROUTT NATIONAL FOREST SARVIS CREEK WILDERNESS 68

02 PIKE-SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FOREST LOST CREEK WILDERNESS 6802 SHOSHONE NATIONAL FOREST FITZPATRICK WILDERNESS 6802 WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST PTARMIGAN PEAK WILDERNESS 6804 DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST ASHDOWN GORGE WILDERNESS 6805 ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST SHEEP MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 6805 ELDORADO NATIONAL FOREST MOKELUMNE WILDERNESS 6808 NATIONAL FORESTS IN FLORIDA BIG GUM SWAMP WILDERNESS 6808 NATIONAL FORESTS IN FLORIDA BRADWELL BAY WILDERNESS 6808 NATIONAL FORESTS IN FLORIDA MUD SWAMP/NEW RIVER WILDERNESS 6809 MONONGAHELA NATIONAL FOREST OTTER CREEK WILDERNESS 68

02 MEDICINE BOW-ROUTT NATIONAL FOREST MOUNT ZIRKEL WILDERNESS 67

04 HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST HOOVER WILDERNESS 6705 SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST SAN GORGONIO WILDERNESS 6709 SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST LUSK CREEK WILDERNESS 6701 GALLATIN NATIONAL FOREST ABSAROKA-BEARTOOTH WILDERNESS 6602 WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST EAGLES NEST WILDERNESS 6604 CARIBOU-TARGHEE NATIONAL FOREST JEDEDIAH SMITH WILDERNESS 66

04 UINTA-WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL FOREST DESERET PEAK WILDERNESS 66

08 CHATTAHOOCHEE-OCONEE NATIONAL FOREST COHUTTA WILDERNESS 66

09 HURON MANISTEE NATIONAL FOREST NORDHOUSE DUNES WILDERNESS 6610 TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST WARREN ISLAND WILDERNESS 66

02 ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL FOREST NEVER SUMMER WILDERNESS 65

04 BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST GROS VENTRE WILDERNESS 65

18 | P a g e


04 HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST JARBIDGE WILDERNESS 65

10 TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST MISTY FJORDS NATIONAL MONUMENT WILDERNESS 65

10 TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST TEBENKOF BAY WILDERNESS 65

02 GRAND MESA UNCOMP GUNNISON NATIONAL FOREST POWDERHORN WILDERNESS 64

04 BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST BRIDGER WILDERNESS 64

04 UINTA-WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL FOREST MOUNT NEBO WILDERNESS 64

05 LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST GARCIA WILDERNESS 6405 LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST MACHESNA MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 6405 LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST SANTA LUCIA WILDERNESS 6410 TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST CORONATION ISLAND WILDERNESS 6401 GALLATIN NATIONAL FOREST LEE METCALF WILDERNESS 6305 SEQUOIA NATIONAL FOREST DOMELAND WILDERNESS 6309 SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST BALD KNOB WILDERNESS 63

10 TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST TRACY ARM-FORDS TERROR WILDERNESS 63

02 ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL FOREST BYERS PEAK WILDERNESS 62

02 ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL FOREST JAMES PEAK WILDERNESS 62

02 PIKE-SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FOREST MOUNT EVANS WILDERNESS 6203 GILA NATIONAL FOREST BLUE RANGE WILDERNESS 6204 HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST CURRANT MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 62

04 UINTA-WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL FOREST MOUNT TIMPANOGOS WILDERNESS 62

05 LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST DICK SMITH WILDERNESS 6208 NATIONAL FORESTS IN ALABAMA SIPSEY WILDERNESS 6209 OTTAWA NATIONAL FOREST MCCORMICK WILDERNESS 6210 TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST KARTA RIVER WILDERNESS 6210 TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST MAURILLE ISLANDS WILDERNESS 6210 TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST SOUTH ETOLIN WILDERNESS 6201 LOLO NATIONAL FOREST WELCOME CREEK WILDERNESS 6101 NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST GOSPEL-HUMP WILDERNESS 61

02 GRAND MESA UNCOMP GUNNISON NATIONAL FOREST FOSSIL RIDGE WILDERNESS 61

03 GILA NATIONAL FOREST GILA WILDERNESS 6106 WALLOWA WHITMAN NATIONAL FOREST EAGLE CAP WILDERNESS 61

08 NATIONAL FORESTS IN NORTH CAROLINA LINVILLE GORGE WILDERNESS 61

09 MONONGAHELA NATIONAL FOREST CRANBERRY WILDERNESS 6109 SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST GARDEN OF THE GODS WILDERNESS 6110 TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST KUIU WILDERNESS 61

02 ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL FOREST CACHE LA POUDRE WILDERNESS 60

02 ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL FOREST NEOTA WILDERNESS 60

02 WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST HUNTER-FRYINGPAN WILDERNESS 60

04 SALMON-CHALLIS NATIONAL FOREST FRANK CHURCH-RIVER OF NO RETURN WILDERNESS 60

19 | P a g e


05 LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST CHUMASH WILDERNESS 6005 SIERRA NATIONAL FOREST DINKEY LAKES WILDERNESS 6008 OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST CANEY CREEK WILDERNESS 6008 OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST FLATSIDE WILDERNESS 60

09 GREEN MOUNTAIN AND FINGER LAKES NATIONAL FORESTS BREADLOAF WILDERNESS 60

WILDERNESSES “NEAR” STANDARD (50 – 59 points)


06 MT HOOD NATIONAL FOREST MOUNT HOOD WILDERNESS 5909 MARK TWAIN NATIONAL FOREST DEVILS BACKBONE WILDERNESS 5910 TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST STIKINE-LECONTE WILDERNESS 59

02 ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL FOREST COMANCHE PEAK WILDERNESS 58

02 ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL FOREST INDIAN PEAKS WILDERNESS 58

02 ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL FOREST VASQUEZ PEAK WILDERNESS 58

02 GRAND MESA UNCOMP GUNNISON NATIONAL FOREST RAGGEDS WILDERNESS 58

02 NEBRASKA NATIONAL FOREST SOLDIER CREEK WILDERNESS 5802 SHOSHONE NATIONAL FOREST NORTH ABSAROKA WILDERNESS 5802 SHOSHONE NATIONAL FOREST WASHAKIE WILDERNESS 5804 CARIBOU-TARGHEE NATIONAL FOREST WINEGAR HOLE WILDERNESS 5806 MT HOOD NATIONAL FOREST MARK O. HATFIELD WILDERNESS 5806 MT HOOD NATIONAL FOREST SALMON-HUCKLEBERRY WILDERNESS 58

08 FRANCIS MARION-SUMTER NATIONAL FORESTS ELLICOTT ROCK WILDERNESS 58

08 OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST BLACK FORK MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 5808 OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST DRY CREEK WILDERNESS 5808 OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST POTEAU MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 5808 OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST UPPER KIAMICHI RIVER WILDERNESS 58

02 GRAND MESA UNCOMP GUNNISON NATIONAL FOREST LA GARITA WILDERNESS 57

03 GILA NATIONAL FOREST ALDO LEOPOLD WILDERNESS 5704 HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST ARC DOME WILDERNESS 5708 KISATCHIE NATIONAL FOREST KISATCHIE HILLS WILDERNESS 5708 NATIONAL FORESTS IN ALABAMA CHEAHA WILDERNESS 5709 MARK TWAIN NATIONAL FOREST IRISH WILDERNESS 5709 MARK TWAIN NATIONAL FOREST PADDY CREEK WILDERNESS 5709 SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST CLEAR SPRINGS WILDERNESS 57

02 ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL FOREST RAWAH WILDERNESS 56

02 GRAND MESA UNCOMP GUNNISON NATIONAL FOREST WEST ELK WILDERNESS 56

06 GIFFORD PINCHOT NATIONAL FOREST MOUNT ADAMS WILDERNESS 5608 CHATTAHOOCHEE-OCONEE NATIONAL BLOOD MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 56

20 | P a g e


FOREST

08 GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON NATIONAL FORESTS LEWIS FORK WILDERNESS 56

08 GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON NATIONAL FORESTS LITTLE WILSON CREEK WILDERNESS 56

08 OZARK-ST FRANCIS NATIONAL FOREST EAST FORK WILDERNESS 5608 OZARK-ST FRANCIS NATIONAL FOREST HURRICANE CREEK WILDERNESS 5608 OZARK-ST FRANCIS NATIONAL FOREST LEATHERWOOD WILDERNESS 5608 OZARK-ST FRANCIS NATIONAL FOREST RICHLAND CREEK WILDERNESS 5608 OZARK-ST FRANCIS NATIONAL FOREST UPPER BUFFALO WILDERNESS 5609 HIAWATHA NATIONAL FOREST ROCK RIVER CANYON WILDERNESS 5609 HIAWATHA NATIONAL FOREST ROUND ISLAND WILDERNESS 5602 PIKE-SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FOREST GREENHORN MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 5508 CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST BIG FROG WILDERNESS 5508 NATIONAL FORESTS IN ALABAMA DUGGER MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 55

08 NATIONAL FORESTS IN NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE PRONG WILDERNESS 55

08 NATIONAL FORESTS IN NORTH CAROLINA SHINING ROCK WILDERNESS 55

09 HIAWATHA NATIONAL FOREST DELIRIUM WILDERNESS 5509 MARK TWAIN NATIONAL FOREST BELL MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 55

10 TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST SOUTH PRINCE OF WALES WILDERNESS 55

01 KOOTENAI NATIONAL FOREST CABINET MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS 5403 CARSON NATIONAL FOREST WHEELER PEAK WILDERNESS 54

08 CHATTAHOOCHEE-OCONEE NATIONAL FOREST RAVEN CLIFFS WILDERNESS 54

09 GREEN MOUNTAIN AND FINGER LAKES NATIONAL FORESTS BRISTOL CLIFFS WILDERNESS 54

02 MEDICINE BOW-ROUTT NATIONAL FOREST ENCAMPMENT RIVER WILDERNESS 53

02 PIKE-SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FOREST MOUNT MASSIVE WILDERNESS 5304 HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST MT. CHARLESTON WILDERNESS 5304 HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST QUINN CANYON WILDERNESS 5305 SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST CUCAMONGA WILDERNESS 5306 GIFFORD PINCHOT NATIONAL FOREST TRAPPER CREEK WILDERNESS 5306 WILLAMETTE NATIONAL FOREST MOUNT JEFFERSON WILDERNESS 5308 CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST LITTLE FROG MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 53

08 NATIONAL FORESTS IN NORTH CAROLINA

JOYCE KILMER-SLICKROCK WILDERNESS 53

05 KLAMATH NATIONAL FOREST MARBLE MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 5205 SEQUOIA NATIONAL FOREST KIAVAH WILDERNESS 5206 GIFFORD PINCHOT NATIONAL FOREST INDIAN HEAVEN WILDERNESS 52

08 FRANCIS MARION-SUMTER NATIONAL FORESTS WAMBAW CREEK WILDERNESS 52

09 CHEQUAMEGON-NICOLET NATIONAL FOREST PORCUPINE LAKE WILDERNESS 52

09 CHEQUAMEGON-NICOLET NATIONAL FOREST RAINBOW LAKE WILDERNESS 52

09 HIAWATHA NATIONAL FOREST MACKINAC WILDERNESS 5202 PIKE-SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FOREST BUFFALO PEAKS WILDERNESS 5102 PIKE-SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FOREST COLLEGIATE PEAKS WILDERNESS 51

21 | P a g e


02 PIKE-SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FOREST SPANISH PEAKS WILDERNESS 5104 HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST ALTA TOQUIMA WILDERNESS 5104 HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST RUBY MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS 5104 HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST TABLE MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 5106 FREMONT-WINEMA NATIONAL FORESTS MOUNTAIN LAKES WILDERNESS 5108 CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST CITICO CREEK WILDERNESS 51

08 GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON NATIONAL FORESTS BARBOURS CREEK WILDERNESS 51

08 GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON NATIONAL FORESTS JAMES RIVER FACE WILDERNESS 51

08 GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON NATIONAL FORESTS MOUNTAIN LAKE WILDERNESS 51

08 GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON NATIONAL FORESTS PETERS MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 51

09 HIAWATHA NATIONAL FOREST HORSESHOE BAY WILDERNESS 5109 MARK TWAIN NATIONAL FOREST PINEY CREEK WILDERNESS 51

02 MEDICINE BOW-ROUTT NATIONAL FOREST PLATTE RIVER WILDERNESS 50

02 MEDICINE BOW-ROUTT NATIONAL FOREST SAVAGE RUN WILDERNESS 50

05 TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST GRANITE CHIEF WILDERNESS 50

08 CHATTAHOOCHEE-OCONEE NATIONAL FOREST BRASSTOWN WILDERNESS 50

08 CHATTAHOOCHEE-OCONEE NATIONAL FOREST MARK TRAIL WILDERNESS 50

08 CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST BIG LAUREL BRANCH WILDERNESS 5008 CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST POND MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 5008 CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST UNAKA MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 50

09 CHEQUAMEGON-NICOLET NATIONAL FOREST BLACKJACK SPRINGS WILDERNESS 50

09 CHEQUAMEGON-NICOLET NATIONAL FOREST HEADWATERS WILDERNESS 50

09 CHEQUAMEGON-NICOLET NATIONAL FOREST WHISKER LAKE WILDERNESS 50

09 GREEN MOUNTAIN AND FINGER LAKES NATIONAL FORESTS GEORGE D. AIKEN WILDERNESS 50

10 TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST KOOTZNOOWOO WILDERNESS 50

22 | P a g e

WILDERNESSES “APPROACHING” STANDARD (35 - 49 points)


02 MEDICINE BOW-ROUTT NATIONAL FOREST HUSTON PARK WILDERNESS 49

03 SANTA FE NATIONAL FOREST PECOS WILDERNESS 4905 INYO NATIONAL FOREST GOLDEN TROUT WILDERNESS 4906 UMATILLA NATIONAL FOREST WENAHA-TUCANNON WILDERNESS 4908 CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST BALD RIVER GORGE WILDERNESS 49

08 GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON NATIONAL FORESTS BEARTOWN WILDERNESS 49

08 GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON NATIONAL FORESTS SHAWVERS RUN WILDERNESS 49

09 MONONGAHELA NATIONAL FOREST LAUREL FORK NORTH WILDERNESS 4909 MONONGAHELA NATIONAL FOREST LAUREL FORK SOUTH WILDERNESS 49

01 HELENA NATIONAL FOREST GATES OF THE MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS 48

04 MANTI-LASAL NATIONAL FOREST DARK CANYON WILDERNESS 4805 LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST SESPE WILDERNESS 4805 SIERRA NATIONAL FOREST KAISER WILDERNESS 4806 WILLAMETTE NATIONAL FOREST OPAL CREEK WILDERNESS 48

08 CHATTAHOOCHEE-OCONEE NATIONAL FOREST RICH MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 48

08 CHATTAHOOCHEE-OCONEE NATIONAL FOREST TRAY MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 48

08 FRANCIS MARION-SUMTER NATIONAL FORESTS HELL HOLE BAY WILDERNESS 48

08 FRANCIS MARION-SUMTER NATIONAL FORESTS LITTLE WAMBAW SWAMP WILDERNESS 48

08 FRANCIS MARION-SUMTER NATIONAL FORESTS WAMBAW SWAMP WILDERNESS 48

02 GRAND MESA UNCOMP GUNNISON NATIONAL FOREST LIZARD HEAD WILDERNESS 47

03 KAIBAB NATIONAL FOREST KANAB CREEK WILDERNESS 4704 HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST EAST HUMBOLDTS WILDERNESS 47

04 HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST SANTA ROSA-PARADISE PEAK WILDERNESS 47

05 LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST MATILIJA WILDERNESS 4706 UMATILLA NATIONAL FOREST NORTH FORK JOHN DAY WILDERNESS 4706 UMATILLA NATIONAL FOREST NORTH FORK UMATILLA WILDERNESS 4706 WILLAMETTE NATIONAL FOREST THREE SISTERS WILDERNESS 47

08 GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON NATIONAL FORESTS PRIEST WILDERNESS 47

08 GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON NATIONAL FORESTS SAINT MARY'S WILDERNESS 47

09 OTTAWA NATIONAL FOREST STURGEON RIVER GORGE WILDERNESS 47

05 SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST SAN JACINTO WILDERNESS 4605 SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST SANTA ROSA WILDERNESS 46

08 NATIONAL FORESTS IN NORTH CAROLINA BIRKHEAD MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS 46

03 PRESCOTT NATIONAL FOREST GRANITE MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS (AZ) 4504 HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST GRANT RANGE WILDERNESS 45

23 | P a g e


06 ROGUE RIVER-SISKIYOU NATIONAL FOREST KALMIOPSIS WILDERNESS 45

06 SIUSLAW NATIONAL FOREST CUMMINS CREEK WILDERNESS 4506 WILLAMETTE NATIONAL FOREST MOUNT WASHINGTON WILDERNESS 4508 DANIEL BOONE NATIONAL FOREST BEAVER CREEK WILDERNESS 45

08 GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON NATIONAL FORESTS LITTLE DRY RUN WILDERNESS 45

08 GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON NATIONAL FORESTS RAMSEYS DRAFT WILDERNESS 45

08 GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON NATIONAL FORESTS RICH HOLE WILDERNESS 45

08 GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON NATIONAL FORESTS ROUGH MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 45

08 GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON NATIONAL FORESTS THUNDER RIDGE WILDERNESS 45

08 NATIONAL FORESTS IN NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN NANTAHALA WILDERNESS 45

09 MARK TWAIN NATIONAL FOREST ROCKPILE MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 4509 SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST BURDEN FALLS WILDERNESS 4509 SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST PANTHER DEN WILDERNESS 4505 KLAMATH NATIONAL FOREST RUSSIAN WILDERNESS 4405 LASSEN NATIONAL FOREST CARIBOU WILDERNESS 44

05 MENDOCINO NATIONAL FOREST YOLLA BOLLY-MIDDLE EEL WILDERNESS 44

06 DESCHUTES NATIONAL FOREST DIAMOND PEAK WILDERNESS 44

06 ROGUE RIVER-SISKIYOU NATIONAL FOREST SKY LAKES WILDERNESS 44

06 SIUSLAW NATIONAL FOREST DRIFT CREEK WILDERNESS 4406 SIUSLAW NATIONAL FOREST ROCK CREEK WILDERNESS 4406 WILLAMETTE NATIONAL FOREST MENAGERIE WILDERNESS 4406 WILLAMETTE NATIONAL FOREST MIDDLE SANTIAM WILDERNESS 44

08 NATIONAL FORESTS IN NORTH CAROLINA CATFISH LAKE SOUTH WILDERNESS 44

08 NATIONAL FORESTS IN NORTH CAROLINA POCOSIN WILDERNESS 44

08 NATIONAL FORESTS IN NORTH CAROLINA POND PINE WILDERNESS 44

08 NATIONAL FORESTS IN NORTH CAROLINA SHEEP RIDGE WILDERNESS 44

09 SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST BAY CREEK WILDERNESS 44

02 GRAND MESA UNCOMP GUNNISON NATIONAL FOREST MOUNT SNEFFELS WILDERNESS 43

02 GRAND MESA UNCOMP GUNNISON NATIONAL FOREST UNCOMPAHGRE WILDERNESS 43

03 KAIBAB NATIONAL FOREST SADDLE MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 4304 HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST LA MADRE MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 4304 HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST RAINBOW MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 4305 SHASTA TRINITY NATIONAL FOREST TRINITY ALPS WILDERNESS 43

06 OKANOGAN-WENATCHEE NATIONAL FORESTS

LAKE CHELAN-SAWTOOTH WILDERNESS 43

08 CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST SAMPSON MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 4308 DANIEL BOONE NATIONAL FOREST CLIFTY WILDERNESS 43

24 | P a g e


08 GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON NATIONAL FORESTS KIMBERLING CREEK WILDERNESS 43

08 GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON NATIONAL FORESTS THREE RIDGES WILDERNESS 43

10 TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST PLEASANT/LEMUSURIER/INIAN ISLANDS WILDERNESS 43

05 LASSEN NATIONAL FOREST ISHI WILDERNESS 42

06 OKANOGAN-WENATCHEE NATIONAL FORESTS PASAYTEN WILDERNESS 42

06 WILLAMETTE NATIONAL FOREST WALDO LAKE WILDERNESS 4203 PRESCOTT NATIONAL FOREST CASTLE CREEK WILDERNESS 4103 PRESCOTT NATIONAL FOREST PINE MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 4103 PRESCOTT NATIONAL FOREST WOODCHUTE WILDERNESS 4103 SANTA FE NATIONAL FOREST SAN PEDRO PARKS WILDERNESS 4106 OCHOCO NATIONAL FOREST BLACK CANYON WILDERNESS 41

06 OKANOGAN-WENATCHEE NATIONAL FORESTS WILLIAM O. DOUGLAS WILDERNESS 41

06 UMPQUA NATIONAL FOREST ROGUE-UMPQUA DIVIDE WILDERNESS 4104 HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST MT. ROSE WILDERNESS 4005 LASSEN NATIONAL FOREST THOUSAND LAKES WILDERNESS 40

06 OKANOGAN-WENATCHEE NATIONAL FORESTS NORSE PEAK WILDERNESS 40

03 PRESCOTT NATIONAL FOREST CEDAR BENCH WILDERNESS 3903 PRESCOTT NATIONAL FOREST JUNIPER MESA WILDERNESS 3903 SANTA FE NATIONAL FOREST CHAMA RIVER CANYON WILDERNESS 3904 HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST CARSON-ICEBERG WILDERNESS 3906 OCHOCO NATIONAL FOREST MILL CREEK WILDERNESS 3906 OLYMPIC NATIONAL FOREST MOUNT SKOKOMISH WILDERNESS 3906 OLYMPIC NATIONAL FOREST THE BROTHERS WILDERNESS 3906 UMPQUA NATIONAL FOREST BOULDER CREEK WILDERNESS 3908 CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST GEE CREEK WILDERNESS 3910 TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST CHUCK RIVER WILDERNESS 3910 TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST ENDICOTT RIVER WILDERNESS 3906 GIFFORD PINCHOT NATIONAL FOREST TATOOSH WILDERNESS 3803 SANTA FE NATIONAL FOREST DOME WILDERNESS 3705 INYO NATIONAL FOREST SOUTH SIERRA WILDERNESS 3705 KLAMATH NATIONAL FOREST SISKIYOU WILDERNESS 3706 OLYMPIC NATIONAL FOREST BUCKHORN WILDERNESS 3703 CARSON NATIONAL FOREST LATIR PEAK WILDERNESS 3605 INYO NATIONAL FOREST INYO MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS 3605 MENDOCINO NATIONAL FOREST SNOW MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 3606 GIFFORD PINCHOT NATIONAL FOREST GLACIER VIEW WILDERNESS 3606 OCHOCO NATIONAL FOREST BRIDGE CREEK WILDERNESS 36

06 ROGUE RIVER-SISKIYOU NATIONAL FOREST RED BUTTES WILDERNESS 36

03 PRESCOTT NATIONAL FOREST APACHE CREEK WILDERNESS 3506 GIFFORD PINCHOT NATIONAL FOREST GOAT ROCKS WILDERNESS 3506 OLYMPIC NATIONAL FOREST WONDER MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 3510 TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST RUSSELL FJORD WILDERNESS 35

25 | P a g e

WILDERNESSES “WELL BELOW” STANDARD (0 - 34 points)


03 COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST RED ROCK-SECRET MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 34

05 SHASTA TRINITY NATIONAL FOREST MT. SHASTA WILDERNESS 3408 NATIONAL FORESTS IN MISSISSIPPI BLACK CREEK WILDERNESS 3403 CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST CHIRICAHUA WILDERNESS 3305 INYO NATIONAL FOREST BOUNDARY PEAK WILDERNESS 33

06 ROGUE RIVER-SISKIYOU NATIONAL FOREST WILD ROGUE WILDERNESS 33

03 LINCOLN NATIONAL FOREST WHITE MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 32

06 MALHEUR NATIONAL FOREST STRAWBERRY MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 32

08 NATIONAL FORESTS IN MISSISSIPPI LEAF WILDERNESS 3203 CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST GALIURO WILDERNESS 31

06 OKANOGAN-WENATCHEE NATIONAL FORESTS ALPINE LAKES WILDERNESS 31

06 UMPQUA NATIONAL FOREST MOUNT THIELSEN WILDERNESS 3108 NATIONAL FORESTS IN TEXAS UPLAND ISLAND WILDERNESS 3103 CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST PUSCH RIDGE WILDERNESS 29

06 ROGUE RIVER-SISKIYOU NATIONAL FOREST GRASSY KNOB WILDERNESS 29

03 COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST KACHINA PEAKS WILDERNESS 2803 COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST STRAWBERRY CRATER WILDERNESS 2803 KAIBAB NATIONAL FOREST KENDRICK MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 2803 LINCOLN NATIONAL FOREST CAPITAN MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS 2805 SEQUOIA NATIONAL FOREST JENNIE LAKES WILDERNESS 2805 SHASTA TRINITY NATIONAL FOREST CHANCHELULLA WILDERNESS 2806 WALLOWA WHITMAN NATIONAL FOREST HELLS CANYON WILDERNESS 2808 NATIONAL FORESTS IN TEXAS BIG SLOUGH WILDERNESS 2808 NATIONAL FORESTS IN TEXAS INDIAN MOUNDS WILDERNESS 2808 NATIONAL FORESTS IN TEXAS LITTLE LAKE CREEK WILDERNESS 2808 NATIONAL FORESTS IN TEXAS TURKEY HILL WILDERNESS 2805 SIX RIVERS NATIONAL FOREST NORTH FORK WILDERNESS 2706 FREMONT-WINEMA NATIONAL FORESTS GEARHART MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 2603 CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST PAJARITA WILDERNESS 2503 CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST RINCON MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 2503 CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST SANTA TERESA WILDERNESS 25

06 MT BAKER-SNOQUALMIE NATIONAL FOREST GLACIER PEAK WILDERNESS 25

06 MT BAKER-SNOQUALMIE NATIONAL FOREST NOISY-DIOBSUD WILDERNESS 25

03 COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST MUNDS MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 2405 LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST VENTANA WILDERNESS 2403 COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST FOSSIL SPRINGS WILDERNESS 2303 CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST MT. WRIGHTSON WILDERNESS 23

06 MT BAKER-SNOQUALMIE NATIONAL FOREST BOULDER RIVER WILDERNESS 23

06 MT BAKER-SNOQUALMIE NATIONAL FOREST CLEARWATER WILDERNESS 23

26 | P a g e


06 MT BAKER-SNOQUALMIE NATIONAL FOREST HENRY M. JACKSON WILDERNESS 23

06 MT BAKER-SNOQUALMIE NATIONAL FOREST MOUNT BAKER WILDERNESS 23

06 OLYMPIC NATIONAL FOREST COLONEL BOB WILDERNESS 2303 COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST SYCAMORE CANYON WILDERNESS 2203 COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST WEST CLEAR CREEK WILDERNESS 2206 MALHEUR NATIONAL FOREST MONUMENT ROCK WILDERNESS 2209 ALLEGHENY NATIONAL FOREST ALLEGHENY ISLANDS WILDERNESS 2206 MT HOOD NATIONAL FOREST BADGER CREEK WILDERNESS 2006 MT HOOD NATIONAL FOREST BULL OF THE WOODS WILDERNESS 20

03 APACHE-SITGREAVES NATIONAL FOREST BEAR WALLOW WILDERNESS 18

03 APACHE-SITGREAVES NATIONAL FOREST ESCUDILLA WILDERNESS 18

03 APACHE-SITGREAVES NATIONAL FOREST MOUNT BALDY WILDERNESS 16

03 COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST WET BEAVER WILDERNESS 1603 CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST MILLER PEAK WILDERNESS 1605 LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST SILVER PEAK WILDERNESS 1605 SEQUOIA NATIONAL FOREST MONARCH WILDERNESS 1609 ALLEGHENY NATIONAL FOREST HICKORY CREEK WILDERNESS 1203 CIBOLA NATIONAL FOREST APACHE KID WILDERNESS 1003 CIBOLA NATIONAL FOREST SANDIA MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 1003 CIBOLA NATIONAL FOREST WITHINGTON WILDERNESS 1003 CARSON NATIONAL FOREST CRUCES BASIN WILDERNESS 805 SHASTA TRINITY NATIONAL FOREST CASTLE CRAGS WILDERNESS 803 CIBOLA NATIONAL FOREST MANZANO MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS 406 COLVILLE NATIONAL FOREST SALMO-PRIEST WILDERNESS 0

27 | P a g e

WILDERNESSES NOT REPORTING IN FY 2009

REGION LEAD FOREST NAME WILDERNESS NAME

03 TONTO NATIONAL FOREST FOUR PEAKS WILDERNESS03 TONTO NATIONAL FOREST HELLSGATE WILDERNESS03 TONTO NATIONAL FOREST MAZATZAL WILDERNESS03 TONTO NATIONAL FOREST SALOME WILDERNESS03 TONTO NATIONAL FOREST SALT RIVER CANYON WILDERNESS03 TONTO NATIONAL FOREST SIERRA ANCHA WILDERNESS03 TONTO NATIONAL FOREST SUPERSTITION WILDERNESS05 CLEVELAND NATIONAL FOREST AGUA TIBIA WILDERNESS05 CLEVELAND NATIONAL FOREST HAUSER WILDERNESS05 CLEVELAND NATIONAL FOREST PINE CREEK WILDERNESS05 CLEVELAND NATIONAL FOREST SAN MATEO CANYON WILDERNESS05 MODOC NATIONAL FOREST SOUTH WARNER WILDERNESS05 PLUMAS NATIONAL FOREST BUCKS LAKE WILDERNESS05 SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST BIGHORN MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS

28 | P a g e

APPENDIX C – WHAT HAS AND HASN’T WORKED

What Has Worked Well

One outcome of the 10YWSC has been to require wilderness managers and the agency to become more organized and comprehensive in their stewardship of wilderness areas. Wilderness personnel have coordinated more closely with resource specialists. Plans have been written for a range of elements. The plans are being implemented, monitored, evaluated and refined. Cooperation has increased between wilderness programs. Progress is being made toward improved stewardship.

StrategiesThe strategies and techniques that have resulted in this progress are listed below. Many are simply the realization of professional management practices that occur concurrently. It should be recognized that the 10YWSC has invigorated both ongoing and nascent stewardship efforts.

Regional Coordination

Setting a Specific Timeframe for Making Progress. Several Regions have set firm deadlines by which to accomplish part of the 10YWSC.

Examples: Region 2 dedicated a year for rapid assessment campsite monitoring teams to get up to

standard on Element 6. Region 1 and Region 3 held one-day workshops by Carhart staff at which most wildernesses

completed their education plans for Element 4.

Focusing on Progressing in a Single Element. Some areas have focused their attention on a single element until they are managing it to standard. This single-element focus makes the 10YWSC more achievable for areas that lack sufficient resources to tackle multiple elements simultaneously and it promotes a cooperative effort across the region.

Example: Region 3 focused on Fire in the first year and Education Plans in the second year.

Concentrating on Lagging Wilderness Areas. Some regions have focused efforts on areas lagging behind in the Challenge.

Example: Region 10 is planning on using personnel from wilderness areas already at standard for getting its lagging wildernesses up to standard. Other regions have created strike force teams or hired detailers to assist with areas that lack resources (see below).

29 | P a g e

Dedicating Professionals to Make Progress. Regions have applied dedicated professionals to making progress in the 10YWSC in several ways:

Hiring detailers to focus on: writing specific plans; providing expertise to areas lacking specialists; boosting efforts in areas lagging in scoring, and transferring 10YWSC work successfully completed in one area to another. In Region 2, a detailer was hired who developed a template plan and Minimum Requirements Decision Guide for Element 2 (Invasives).

Bringing in Trainers . Regions 1 & 3 conducted Arthur Carhart Wilderness Training Center education planning workshops in which Carhart trainers enabled participants to come away with template or actual wilderness education plans.

Creating Strike Teams . Region 2 created rapid assessment campsite monitoring teams to progress in Element 6 (Campsite Inventories).

Having Region/Forest resource specialists work directly with wilderness personnel . For Element 3 (Air Quality), Region 10 had the Forest ecologist visit every wilderness area with wilderness crews to re-inventory old lichen plots and to establish new ones. She also worked with wilderness personnel to development air quality monitoring plans.

Increasing Cooperation between Wilderness Programs. Many Regions conduct regular meetings pertaining to the Challenge. In particular, leveling calls to ensure consistent scoring (and to discuss challenges) are noted as helpful, as are skill-training sessions and strategy sessions (including dates and assignments) for advancing each element.

Examples: Region 8 has created the SWAG, the Southeastern Wilderness Advisory Group, which meets

occasionally and calls Forests quarterly to check in on how wilderness management/the 10YWSC is going. Additionally, Region 8 conducts wilderness chat sessions (Sametime, LiveMeeting) which often revolve around Challenge topics.

Region 4 has progressed in Element 6 (Campsite Inventories) due to skill training at annual Region-wide wilderness meetings.

Functional Integration

Supporting Specialists to Work Directly with Wilderness Personnel. The 10YWSC has inspired and fostered better interaction between program areas.

Example: Regions 1 & 2 both progressed in Element 3 by having Air Quality Specialists work directly with wilderness staff.

Line Officer Leadership and Commitment

Emphasizing the Challenge as a Priority. Leaders are the ones who set and emphasize priorities. Where leaders have emphasized the need to meet the Challenge, more programs have contributed toward achieving this goal.

30 | P a g e

Example: The Region 1 Regional Forester visited failing Forests to show her commitment to the Challenge and to apply pressure.

Leadership Accountability for Meeting the Challenge. The 10YWSC holds the agency accountable for managing wilderness to a minimum level of stewardship. In turn, the agency can ensure it meets this standard by holding its leaders accountable for meeting the Challenge.

Example: Region 4 is holding line officers accountable at the Forest Supervisor level by making meeting the Challenge a performance element.

Bold Action by Leadership. Some of the elements and wildernesses require bold action from leaders. This is particularly true of elements requiring revisions of forest plans, for wildernesses with little staff and for areas where wilderness is subordinated by other priorities.

Example: In Region 9 the Regional Forester led an ambitious forest plan revision cycle (based on the 1982 rules). All forests completed forest plan revisions within two years. The Regional Wilderness Program Manager ensured that the revision included direction, standards & guidelines for Elements 5 (Solitude) and 8 (Forest Plans).

Creative Use of Resources

Focusing Funding on the Challenge. In addition to applying NFRW funds used for general administration of wilderness, there are several ways Regions have focused funding on making progress in the Challenge:

Creating a Challenge Grant at the Regional Level . In Region 8, the Region allocates $50,000 of NFRW every year to support 10YWSC grants (up to $5,000 each). It is a streamlined process: a one-page application, money can be spent on salary, agreements, whatever: “we are ‘buying’ points.” These Challenge grants establish accountability and create momentum. Forests often add money to get more done. This requires political will: some Forests want the money sent down.

Applying Outfitter/Guide generated funds for Element 7 (Outfitters/Guides) . Regions 5 & 10 are using FDDS dollars to fund commercial needs assessments for wilderness areas. Note: some FDDS money may be applicable for achieving part of Element 4 (Education Plans).

Applying Inventorying & Monitoring funds for specialists to work on plans and monitoring . Region 1 found I&M funding for their air quality specialist to do air quality monitoring plans and field monitoring.

Using Volunteers. Most, if not all Regions have compensated for a lack of field staff by using volunteers. Volunteers trained and guided by experienced wilderness personnel are more effective toward making progress in the Challenge than unsupported volunteers.

31 | P a g e

Examples: For Element 5 (Solitude), one Ranger District on Region 10 trained 100 volunteers to monitor

solitude during wilderness visits. Region 4 has progressed in Elements 6 (Campsite Inventories) & 2 (Invasives) in part due to

Friends of Nevada Wilderness “getting it done.”

Training. Many regions have used forest level wilderness workshops, conducted by the Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center, to raise awareness of wilderness stewardship needs and focus on making progress on the 10YWSC.

Example: Region 9 has raised the profile of the Challenge by hosting workshops on nearly every Forest .

Strength of Existing Programs

Relying on Dedicated & Experienced Wilderness Personnel. Every Region noted that having dedicated and experienced wilderness personnel was critical to the success in the Challenge that has been attained thus far. In the words of one Regional Program Manager, “Personal champions are what is necessary for good stewardship these days.” Seasoned wilderness employees have the skills, know the land, are aware of the issues, understand the purpose of wilderness and most importantly, are passionate about the work; people work best on what they care about most.

Revisiting and Adapting pre-10YWSC efforts. One successful technique has been to correlate pre-existing wilderness management work with the 10YWSC’s point schedule and to attribute points accordingly. There were stewardship endeavors prior to the Challenge. While some updating or revising might be appropriate, most existing plans or inventories contain relevancy for the Challenge.

Example: Region 6 has scored decently for Element 8 (Forest Plans) because the region established a full set of management standards for wilderness during the first round of forest planning (late 70s, early 80s). Many Forests adopted the regional standards into their plans which gave them a complete set of management directions. While these could stand to be better tailored for specific areas, they are better than no such direction and garner 10YWSC points.

What Has Not Worked Well

While the Challenge has so far resulted in multiple benefits to Wilderness, challenges abound in its implementation. Given the current budget situation, frustration and a lack of corporate energy can often cause eddies in the forward momentum required to meet this task. The following section highlights a spectrum of barriers identified by WAG as limiting factors in meeting the Challenge. These barriers are not ubiquitous; while they may apply in some places and situations, they may prove irrelevant in others. The full gamut of obstacles is examined here in an effort to lay the groundwork for the exploration of innovative strategies to go beyond simply increasing the budget allocations for

32 | P a g e

wilderness stewardship. It is our hope that the resulting strategies may be used by managers at all levels to make decisions in support of meeting the Challenge.

We fully appreciate that decisions are not made in a sterile room, but rather in a complex and political environment in which the interest of wilderness must be balanced against fiscal and social pressures. Public concerns regarding the role of wildland fire suppression in relation to the urban interface, the use of chemical treatments for invasive plants, and other social and political issues constitute major constraints placed on our decision makers. This report is not intended to be an avenue to voice complaints, rather it is intended to portray an honest assessment of the challenges we face in meeting the 10YWSC to be used in the generation of effective solutions.

Lack of Functional Integration

Wilderness is considered by many to be a specialized niche of the recreation program. In actuality, it is much more. Effective wilderness stewardship requires comprehensive management similar to forest management with professional efforts from every sphere of specialty including but not limited to: recreation, research, education, heritage, fire, air, hydrology, ecology, wildlife biology, botany, fisheries, special uses and range. Effective wilderness stewardship ties all of these elements together to ensure the preservation of wilderness character. A lack of available expertise retards progress on many elements of the Challenge.

Budget allocations in NFRW alone are not adequate to cover the cost of implementing the Challenge. While there are many specific stories highlighting the successful integration of multiple resource areas in support of wilderness stewardship, too often NFRW funding is tasked with the bulk of the 10YWSC. With declining budgets, this is hampering success. NFRW funding is also being used to fund resources that have declining budgets, creating less flexibility and ability to fund this important work. Competing national and regional priorities often hamper focus on the challenge.

There is still a lack of understanding regarding the 10YWSC as a national strategy and the need for integration of resources based on the primary purpose budget advice. Budget advice for non-recreation resources does not include wilderness as a component. This contributes to a misunderstanding of integrated budget and accomplishment reporting requirements. Because of this, managers of other resources (wildlife, heritage, invasive species, etc.) cannot prioritize time or funding to address wilderness management needs.

A disconnect also exists between wilderness managers and the research community. Some issues associated with the Challenge may be addressed through a closer connection between these two groups.

Inadequate Line Officer Leadership and Commitment

Leadership plays a crucial role at all levels of the organization regarding the prominence and importance associated with the wilderness program and implementation of the Challenge. In some areas, wilderness managers at the forest and district levels have accomplished all that they are capable of doing and need some help in terms of both emphasis/priority and tangible support for further accomplishments on the Challenge.

33 | P a g e

Leadership holds great power to emphasize the multiple and diverse values of wilderness and the benefits of meeting the 10YWSC by helping to promote the role of wilderness in nourishing our rugged independent national character, providing fresh air and water, protecting biodiversity, preserving native ecosystems, mitigating climate change and providing a restorative tonic for the spirit. To date, wilderness stewardship and the 10YWSC have not been highly visible priorities with leadership.

Forest and District leaders do not regularly hear from Regional and National leaders that the 10YWSC is a priority. People working in the field do not receive messaging from their leaders emphasizing the importance and priority of the Challenge. There is a perceived lack of recognition or reward for achievement of 10YWSC goals. This weakens employee determination and damages morale. It also does little to encourage investment in meeting the Challenge from non-recreation resource areas.

A lack of buy-in on the Challenge has been observed from regional and forest leadership. This reflects a general lack of priority for wilderness issues in general, as is further illustrated when leadership fails to mention wilderness stewardship or the 10YWSC in speeches or other communication to employees about strategies and key emphasis items. By contrast, other programs are heard about regularly and recognized as priorities, such as Access Travel Management, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the proposed forest planning rule change, and so on.

There is currently no required mechanism by which to hold leaders accountable for their progress on the 10YWSC. District Rangers, Forest Supervisors and Regional Foresters have responsibilities for stewardship of wilderness; this is currently not reflected in their critical performance elements.

Insufficient Resources

Boots on the GroundA lack of paid, wilderness-focused personnel may be one of the largest barriers to meeting the Challenge by 2014. This is an issue at all levels in the organization, from National and Regional staff to seasonal wilderness rangers. We will focus here on the challenges observed at the local level.

Wilderness management is increasingly a collateral duty on forests and districts due to combining roles and taking on additional administrative burden, though wilderness programs come with an endless workload. Managers are forced to perform triage and frequently end up dealing reactively to burning issues, and all too often wilderness stewardship and the 10YWSC lose out. Important activities such as wilderness education and outreach, resource condition monitoring, and the consistent implementation and monitoring of management actions are often the first to go.

Some wilderness managers believe they are losing their grip on the 10YWSC due to lack of time to coordinate between functions and the pull of other projects. This is often seen in areas with small wilderness programs, though it has become a common element in many large wildernesses across the country. The treatment of wilderness as a collateral duty contrasts with other program areas such as timber, fire, fisheries, minerals, special uses, developed recreation, and heritage in which personnel are often dedicated to their discipline.

34 | P a g e

If wilderness managers had the ability to focus on wilderness stewardship, barriers to implementing many elements of the Challenge remain. There are fewer and fewer field-going employees working in wilderness, as well as an existing workforce that is aging and corporate knowledge being lost with retirements. Many wildernesses do not have the budget for any seasonal wilderness rangers and skilled people who are willing to spend long hours in the backcountry are getting harder to find. While some pieces of the Challenge may be implemented through the use of volunteers and partners, many elements require dedicated, knowledgeable employees to be effectively implemented.

FundingAgency funding for wilderness is inadequate for the 10YWSC, a minimum level of stewardship. The level and structure of funding available for meeting the Challenge has resulted in implications reaching far and wide. As discussed in the previous section, limited budgets have thinned the ranks of wilderness rangers, leaving fewer ‘boots on the ground’ to implement action items associated with meeting the Challenge, and have prevented wilderness managers from focusing on wilderness stewardship. This point is made clear by how Element 10, Workforce, is markedly the lowest scoring element nation-wide and was in decline until the scoring process was reconfigured to include non-USFS personnel (see Fig.3, p.9).

Through the budget allocation process and the evaluation of national, regional and local priorities, wilderness simply does not compete well, even with other NFRW funded programs (i.e. developed recreation, heritage resources, etc.). By the time recreation (NFRW) funds are distributed to the districts, the decision space to spend funds on wilderness is severely limited, and competing priorities exist there too. Leaders are not held accountable for the progress made on the Challenge, and are thus less inclined to prioritize the funding of wilderness efforts over projects or programs for which they have hard targets.

The approaches taken for the implementation of the Travel Management Rule of 2005 and ARRA projects have been quite effective at meeting their goals. However, the workloads associated with unfunded mandates such as these directly eat into the time recreation and wilderness personnel have for wilderness management.

Even small amounts of funding could be invested at the regional and national levels to leverage great returns in meeting the Challenge. However, reluctance has been observed among leadership to invest in agency infrastructure such as additional training and improving the availability and quality of resources to assist with meeting the Challenge.

Barriers also exist in the mechanisms by which funds are made available for meeting the Challenge. There is a lack of non-federal, non-cash match funding opportunities for implementing the Challenge. The costs of achieving the elements have not been calculated nor translated into hard targets. Meeting the Challenge is not integrated into an annual program of work associated with funding.

TrainingThe Forest Service offers amazing training opportunities for wilderness stewardship, and is fortunate to have the interagency Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center. Access to affordable training is an issue for many wilderness managers and seasonal employees due to travel restrictions or lack of

35 | P a g e

prioritized time available for on-line training. With fewer permanent wilderness positions, training efforts sometimes result in short-lived benefits, as temporary employees move on to other positions.

The Interagency Wilderness Stewardship Training is offered yearly for line officers, and is a requirement to be able to authorize the use of motorized or mechanized equipment in wilderness in two regions. Other priorities competing for line officer time, and limited budgets available to offer trainings have resulted in many line officers who have yet to experience this course. Very few employees associated with other program areas receive training in wilderness history, ethics, law and policy.

There is little organized training specifically designed to focus on the 10YWSC elements. Toolboxes on wilderness.net provide templates and examples for each element of the 10YWSC, an invaluable resource for wilderness managers. However, toolboxes alone cannot answer all questions. Often the wheel is reinvented in different regions or people struggle with problems that others may have resolved because information and lessons learned are not adequately shared.

Partnerships and VolunteersPartnering helps to meet the Challenge and involves local communities in wilderness stewardship efforts. Partners have traditionally focused their efforts in Wilderness on trail work. Over the last few years, and in response to increasing encouragement from Forest Service leadership to use partnerships to achieve goals, managers have turned to the use of volunteers and partners to implement some elements of the Challenge.

Significant limitations exist in utilizing our valuable partners to implement the 10YWSC. Partnership opportunities are underutilized in many areas due to lack of FS staff capacity at the District and Forest levels to develop and guide the necessary work. The coordination of partnerships and volunteers takes a great investment of time and energy, two items in short supply on forests and ranger districts. The bureaucratic requirements associated with volunteers working in wilderness can often limit activities or even stop projects.

Volunteers take a great deal of training to be proficient in the skills needed to implement the Challenge, and few remain with the agency for long periods of time. In some cases, paid wilderness personnel are a more appropriate choice for implementing elements of the 10YWSC, especially when the task involves consistent data collection, entering data into a corporate database, or representing the Forest Service to the public.

Inadequate Policy

The development of wilderness management direction through Forest planning efforts faces challenges of its own. Significant and multiple changes to the Forest Planning Rule has made it difficult for planners to effectively write forest plan guidelines for wilderness. This barrier effectively prevents many forests from making progress on Elements 5 and 8 of the challenge. There is currently no standard approach for planning revisions to wilderness direction.

Different regions have policies relating to wildfire suppression, treatments for invasive weeds and other wilderness activities which can heavily influence the ability for managers to implement the 10YWSC.

36 | P a g e

Limitations in the structure of the Challenge

The first five years revealed many ways in which the structure or elements of the Challenge complicated its implementation. Although a change in the structure of the Challenge is not a possibility so far into its lifespan, some of these issues are worth discussing, as there is potential to address them through other avenues.

The 10YWSC can feel like a heavy burden to wilderness managers without the support they require to accomplish it. Over time, initial feelings of wariness or uneasiness with the approach have turned into reduced interest and even full dismissal of the importance of the Challenge by some managers. In some cases the challenge is viewed as an unfunded mandate and therefore not a serious effort or requirement. The ten year span of the Challenge, coupled with frustration at the lack of progress on the Challenge makes it difficult for many people to keep a high level of energy and inspiration.

Uneasy feelings about the Challenge are even more pronounced for some managers who see their possible success on the Challenge as an indication to leadership that they are able to move mountains without appropriated funds. The concern is that this could lead to a permanent, unsustainable reduction in funding.

In many areas, the “low hanging fruit” has been picked and the remaining tasks in the 10YWSC are more complex and time consuming and require a higher level of expertise and field implementation. A plateau in scoring over the next few years is expected as more and more wilderness areas complete the simpler tasks.

Among leadership, interest in the Challenge is mainly garnered at the time of year when upward reporting is due. This has been a limit for generating year-round energy to meet the Challenge and communicates to field-level employees that leadership only cares about how scoring might reflect on them.

37 | P a g e

APPENDIX D - RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

The following are action items that the WAG believes would enable wildernesses to meet the Ten-Year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge by 2014. They were gleaned primarily from interviews with regional wilderness program leaders, success stories and careful analysis of barriers to progress. Action items are targeted at three levels of the organization: the Chief’s Office, National Wilderness Leadership, and Regional leadership. For each item, we describe the necessary action, its pros and cons, as well as the time and resources required. Many actions listed here are connected to one another; these connections are noted in the keys to implementation listed for each action item.

Priority Actions for the Chief

Recommended Action: Require each Regional Forester to develop, and submit to the Chief, a Regional Strategy to meet the 10YWSC.

Discussion: A letter from the Chief would be sent to all RFs requiring each of them to develop a region specific strategy that takes them from where they are at the end of FY 2009 reporting to 100% accomplishment by 2014. The response would be in the form of a letter back to the Chief, with attached strategy, within a prescribed due date. A template would be developed to guide Regional Strategy development including a step by step description of necessary steps, specific actions, and resources needed. It is recognized that the strategies and approaches will vary between Regions, although a standard template would be helpful in summarizing strategies nationally. Strategies need to be integrated, realistic, and implementable. Regions may choose to reach out to partners, enterprise teams, interns, and/or contractors to assist with strategy development and implementation. Completion of the strategy, and implementation of specific actions for a given FY, would be incorporated in Regional Forester SES Performance Plan.

Considerations:Pros:

Strong message from leadership about their commitment to the Challenge Would result in improved strategies, actions, and focus in regions Will hold RFs accountable to the Chief for progress Would force discussion with those Regions not planning to meet the Challenge Would guide current and out-year budget development Could develop/expand external support for 10YWSC Standard template would be helpful in summarizing Regional Strategies nationally Would force integration discussions at National and Regional levels

Cons: Potential pushback from Forest Supervisors and other Regional Resource Directors Additional workload for Regional and Forest staff

38 | P a g e

May divert limited resources from “meeting the challenge” to “regional strategy development”.

Will require balance with other competing priorities. Strategy may be developed but not implemented. May require shift in funding and additional resources. May duplicate strategies already developed.

Time Required (Workload): 3-4 months

Resources Required (People, funding): None other than those identified in “Steps” below

Steps Responsible PartiesDevelop detailed proposal WAG or WO-WWSR Staff

Develop template for Regional Strategies WAG or WO-WWSR Staff

Brief Chris Brown and WO-WWSR Staff and seek input/advice from a Regional Forester on proposal - gain input to improve

WAG or WO-WWSR Staff

Brief Joel Holtrop– gain support to move forward WO-WWSR Staff

Draft letter for Chief WAG or WO-WWSR Staff

Have letter signed and disseminated to the RFs National Wilderness Program Manager

Keys to Implementation: Need buy-in from Chris Brown, Joel Holtrop, and Regional Foresters before taking proposal to

the Chief. Touch base with Regional RHWR Directors and RPMs to get a sense for how this requirement

will be received in their regions. Need buy-in and support from other Resource Directors within WO for integration and funding

strategies. Funding strategy and primary purpose clarification. Successful implementation will require additional resources and assignment of hard targets.

39 | P a g e

Recommended Action: Organize and fund strike teams

Discussion: The common understanding of what constitutes a “strike team” should be expanded to encompass the use of any off-forest staff. This broader definition also includes master performers and enterprise teams. The use of off-forest resources can be an efficient solution when a forest lacks staff, capacity, skills or commitment to accomplish work needed to make progress on certain elements of the Challenge.

The use of strike teams is not a silver bullet. In order to be successful, strike teams require the support of local line officers and the active participation of local staff who know the wilderness resource. Additionally, this approach does not work uniformly for all elements, but has particular value for Elements 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9.


A viable solution in instances where the absence of staff or needed skills are a barrier for making progress on the Challenge

Economies of scale Consistency of products/approaches between forests, and perhaps even regions

Cons: Potentially high costs (use of enterprise teams or if travel and per diem are involved) Requires support of local line officers, which may be lacking Requires active participation of local staff with wilderness expertise, which may also not

be present (hence the need for the strike team)

Time Required (Workload): 4-6 months to assess the need and identify potential strike teams

Resources Required (People, funding): Would require a national commitment of funds, perhaps $250k per year

Steps Responsible PartiesIdentify potential uses for strike teams (including enterprise teams and master performers)

WO-WWSR Staff

Secure national funding WO-WWSR Staff

Assess interest of forests in using strike teams and solicit proposals WWSR RPMs

Identify potential strike teams: Field based strike teams Enterprise Units (assess current capacity or build new?) Master performers

WO-WWSR Staff and RPMs

40 | P a g e

Match needs to available resources and develop schedule WO-WWSR Staff, RPMs, and Forest Wilderness Lead

Keys to Implementation: Active engagement of local wilderness staff throughout the process Support from line offers (district ranger and forest supervisors) and key staff Infusion of “new money” (if existing funds are simply reallocated to this task, staff may feel they

would do better if they had the money as part of their normal allocation) Resources should be composed of staff from within the host region

41 | P a g e

Recommended Action: Establish internal grant funds

Discussion: The funds would be distributed annually to each Region taking into account the number of wildernesses in each region and complexity class. The WO would develop the granting criteria in consultation with the Regions. Grants would require increases in Challenge scores and would encourage matching from partners and other program areas. Regions would be tasked with reviewing grant proposals and awarding funds. Accountability for spending the funds properly would be monitored by holding the Regional Foresters accountable for meeting their regional targets as reported in Infra-WILD.


A viable solution in instances where the staff are present on forest but lack sufficient funding to making progress on the Challenge

Utilization of local resources knowledgeable Builds skill base needed for institutional support

Cons: Requires national commitment of funds and use of regional pools or earmarks to

allocate those funds Requires accountability to make sure funds are spent as intended

Time Required (Workload): 3-4 months to develop and implement the approach for allocating the funds to where they are needed the most (more time needed to build request into budget development process)

Resources Required (People, funding): Would require a national commitment of funds, perhaps over $2 million per year.

Steps Responsible PartiesDevelop budget estimate and proposed approach for allocating funds to the Regions

WO-WWSR Staff, RPMs, and Regional RHWR Directors

Task Regions with developing approach for allocating funds to the forests

WWSR RPMs

Secure national funding and allocate to the Regions WO-WWSR Staff

Regions to allocate funds to the forests WWSR RPMs

Evaluation at year’s end to determine how the funds were spent and if they were successful

WO-WWSR Staff, RPMs, and Regional RHWR Directors

42 | P a g e

Keys to Implementation: Support of Regional RHWR Directors Accountability needs to be an integral part of this approach (what happens if a forest spends the

money and progress is not made?)

43 | P a g e

Recommended Action: Provide funds to supplement NFF grant program

Discussion: Funds would be provided to the National Forest Foundation to supplement their on-going “Wilderness Stewardship Challenge” grant program. Funds would be used to leverage support from nonprofit partners. Because the current 1:1 cash matching requirement is prohibitive to smaller stewardship groups, a reduced matching requirement would apply to the majority of the supplemental funds.


Takes advantage of existing program used by the NFF to target funds to where they are needed most

Leverages use of local stewardship groups for making progress on the Challenge Useful in instances where field staff are lacking for making progress

Cons: Not a viable approach in locations where stewardship groups are absent Requires active role for local staff to coordinate activities with partnership groups

Time Required (Workload): 1-2 months to determine approach as alternative to 1:1 cash matching requirement

Resources Required (People, funding): Would require national funding (proposed $300k/year) and the support of the National Forest Foundation

Steps Responsible PartiesDevelop national approach to be used in place of 1:1 cash matching requirement

WO-WWSR Staff

Meet with National Forest Foundation to assess their support and discuss issues

WO-WWSR Staff

Secure national funding and provide to NFF (will likely require an agreement of some type)

WO-WWSR Staff

Keys to Implementation: Support from NFF to not only continue their current grant program but to expand its capacity Need to nurture and support nascent stewardship groups

44 | P a g e

Recommended Action: Conduct assistance reviews for the Regions

Discussion: A national team of subject experts would travel to a region to provide assistance on particular elements on which the host region hopes to improve. Alternatively, this same service could be provided remotely through telephone and e-mail correspondence and teleconferencing. This would reduce the quality of the review, but would also reduce travel costs. The review could be targeted at: (1) those regions that request assistance; (2) those regions that are lagging most significantly; or (3) those regions that have not developed a credible strategy as to how they are going to meet the Challenge.


An in-person visit from the appropriate subject matter experts might the key to jump start interest in the 10YWSC in a focused way

Cons: It may be very difficult to find subject matter experts willing to spend a week or longer

on this assignment Travel funding would need to be covered by the WO or host region. This may be a

barrier. The host regions will need to have the institutional fortitude to carry forward the

recommendations made by the assistance team.

Time Required (Workload): 3-4 months to schedule the first assistance review

Resources Required (People, funding): Will need subject matter experts to volunteer their time (salary not covered) Will need assistance of regional wilderness program manager to schedule the session and to line

up appropriate staff. Will need funding to cover travel/per diem costs for the subject matter experts

Steps Responsible PartiesDetermine method for identifying regions to visit WAG with WWSR

Director and WO StaffIdentify people who might serve as subject matter experts and would have the time to travel to one or more regions.

WO-WWSR Staff

Poll the regions to see if they have interest in hosting the assistance review team. Inquire about their ability to cover travel expenses.

WO-WWSR Staff

Pair up those willing to serve on a team and the regions requesting assistance – and schedule the visits.

WO-WWSR Staff

45 | P a g e

Keys to Implementation: Need to decide, early on, the method for identifying regions to visit. It if is not based on a

request (that is, deficient regions are targeted) it may change the tone of the session Will need support from the host regions (regional director and wilderness program manager) to

make the session a success

46 | P a g e

Recommended Action: Develop video for the Chief

Discussion: WAG would recommend the development of a brief (3-4 minute) video be developed in which the Chief would communicate his support for the Challenge. This video would take advantage of the half-way point of the Challenge to get attention and plot the course for the remaining 5-years.


Visibly shows support of the top leadership for the Challenge Likelihood of good distribution (at least to permanent employees) and other resource

staffs Video viewed by many as more powerful communication media than issuance of a letter

of supportCons:

Could be significant workload (don’t under-estimate # of drafts that will be required, particularly when working with OC)

Might not be viewed widely by temporary staff

Time Required (Workload): 2-4 months (or so, depending on the Chief’s schedule)

Resources Required (People, funding): Might need to enlist the help of Terry Knupp or Christina Boston. Office of Communications would like someone in the WO to develop the script.

Steps Responsible PartiesGet concurrence on Chief’s willingness to develop video (consider Joel if the Chief is not willing or able)

WWSR Director

Schedule Chief’s time WWSR Director

Develop draft script – have WO staff and Office of Communications provide review

WAG rep and WO-WWSR Staff

Finalize script WAG rep and WO-WWSR Staff

Produce video & distribute Office of Communications

Keys to Implementation: Need to provide the staff resources necessary to move the video from draft script to final script

to production

47 | P a g e

Requires support of Chief to create message with substance, containing details regarding changes in budget strategy and clear expectations. Without this substantial level of detail, it may not be worth following through on this action item.

48 | P a g e

Innovative Strategies for National Wilderness Leadership

Recommended Action: Increase communication between WWSR Director and the field

Discussion: To date, the WWSR Director has not been very vocal about his support for the Challenge – at least before wide audiences. Consider a regularly occurring communication (1-page newsletter, email, other media?) that would be distributed 3-4 times per year.


Creates consistency of support from the Chief (assuming the video is produced), to the Director and then on out to the Regions

Frequency of the communication will reinforce notion that the WO takes the Challenge very seriously and it is not going away

Cons: Frequency of the communication has the potential to make staff a bit numb to the

message Workload associated with issuing periodic communications Having WO leadership continually support the Challenge without any additional funding

might feed the cynicism held by some

Time Required (Workload): 2 months to produce first communication

Resources Required (People, funding): Will require time from Chris to provide his initial thoughts for each communication and then review time to produce the final version. It is assumed that someone other than Chris will develop the draft.

Steps Responsible PartiesGet concurrence from the WWSR Director on the need for this communication

WAG WO Liaison

Decide format for this communication as well as the frequency WAG with WWSR Director and WO Staff

Develop content for the first communication WAG with WWSR Director and WO Staff

Keys to Implementation: Need concurrence from WWSR Director that this is a worthwhile thing to do Need to provide the staff resources necessary to produce the periodic communications

49 | P a g e

Need to have the delivery mechanism in place to make sure the communication is widely distributed (note: there have been problems of having documents sent through the RPMs not making it to the field)

50 | P a g e

Recommended Action: Designate National 10YWSC Lead

Discussion: The National 10YWSC lead would be the person responsible for assisting, encouraging, and otherwise tracking the progress for the National 10YWSC. Not all regions and forests are engaged, and the focus provided by this position may improve success on the Challenge. It may not be feasible to fully fund the position described here. If the funding is not available to support this position (.25-.50 FTE), it would still be valuable to identify a lead for the effort and minimize the duties associated with the task.


A national perspective and status check for the entire system Strong message from leadership about their commitment to the Challenge Point of contact which in turn provides emphasis for accomplishment of the Challenge Potential to focus emphasis to specific elements, Wildernesses, or parts of the nation Could provide the mechanism for National leveling calls Line officers are very busy but also very competitive. Having charts, maps, graphs to

show very quickly the accomplishments/lack of accomplishment nationally by region and regionally by wilderness may be a way to increase the awareness and support to the Challenge.

Cons: Vast differences between workloads of units working on the challenge; how effective

can this person be. Top down approach (Big Brother watching); can be discouraging to field if only critical

feedback with no opportunity for resolution of shortcomings. Should not become another information collecting/reporting venue. Collateral duty for someone (.25-.50 FTE) Skeptical of the ability of such a person to influence action. Removes some responsibility from Regional Program Managers

Time Required (Workload): Since we are halfway through the 10-year challenge timeframe, needs to happen within the next year.

Resources Required (People, funding): Probably a collateral duty for person already using NFRW funds.

Steps Responsible PartiesIdentification of role responsibilities WAG or WO-WWSR Staff

Prepare a letter for the Chief to send to RF’s WAG or WO-WWSR Staff

Have letter signed and disseminated National Wilderness Program Manager

51 | P a g e

Select person and authorize time for implementation WWSR Staff

Keys to Implementation: Support from NFS Deputy Chief and WWSR Director

52 | P a g e

Recommended Action: Conduct national leveling calls

Discussion: Regional program managers would have a leveling call one time per year to discuss scoring and common issues and compare notes at the national level.


Create greater consistency between regions on how they score themselves Improved consistency may result in increases scores by helping people to judge more

accurately, and in some cases, less harshlyCons:

Requires Regional Program Managers to set aside time for task. Some regions may be vastly different, resulting in difficulties comparing scoring.

Time Required (Workload): 1 hour, 1 time per year

Steps Responsible PartiesDetermine if leveling calls is something Regional Wilderness Managers would support

WO-WWSR Staff

Identify moderator to create a leveling template of questions and handle logistics of call

WO-WWSR Staff

Keys to Implementation: Support from regional program managers Identification of moderator for call Would need to be coupled with regional calls for benefits of leveling efforts to reach data

stewards on Forests

53 | P a g e

Recommended Action: Conduct national calls to support individual elements of the 10YWSC

Discussion: National conference calls would be open to anyone interested in participating. Each call would focus on how to improve scores on a specific element. Resource specialists and managers with successful experiences relating to the element would be identified and invited to participate in the call. This would serve as a semi-structured forum in which regions or wildernesses struggling on specific elements could ask questions and gather ideas from others who have had success in that realm. Elements would be prioritized according to need for call; elements with low scores would be first on the list of planned calls.


Provide access to key knowledge and examples of success for struggling Regions and Forests

Provide new tools and resources for managers to improve scores on the Challenge Improve networking and contacts among wilderness managers Inexpensive and relatively simple to pull together

Cons: Will require some planning work on the part of a facilitator to coordinate the call and

recruit participants Recruitment for participants may be a challenge

Time Required (Workload): 1 day prep time per call for facilitator.

Steps Responsible PartiesGain support for calls WO-WWSR Staff

Identify facilitator for calls WO-WWSR Staff

Prioritize elements for calls Facilitator

Recruit participants and arrange first call Facilitator

Keys to Implementation: Would need to be available in association with other Challenge education efforts, such as virtual

courses and toolboxes on wilderness.net. Identification of facilitator Publicity of calls for adequate participation

54 | P a g e

Recommended Action: Improve educational resources for implementing the 10YWSC

Discussion: The effort to improve educational resources available to managers could include the following actions:

Fully develop and enhance toolboxes on wilderness.net. Lack of staff time at the Carhart Center and challenges associated with obtaining examples from wilderness managers has hampered efforts to update the contents of the toolboxes on wilderness.net. The hiring of a detailer to work on this project would improve the information available to wilderness managers in their efforts on the Challenge.

Develop virtual course on implementing 10YWSC. A virtual course for each of the elements on the 10YWSC would provide students with tools to complete each stage of the element. Examples of methods used in different regions would be incorporated. The course would provide an explanation of each element and details on scoring, reporting requirements, and specific actions to be taken to increase scores. This class would also serve as a method for leveling.


More examples, products available, and educational opportunities would provide additional support to managers.

Virtual courses would be available when needed, have flexible timelines, would reduce travel costs associated with trainings, and could be developed using virtual course templates from the Carhart Center, using existing 10YWSC content.

Cons: Funding would be required to support the accomplishment of this work; workload

would be extensive. The focus of this education effort is agency-specific to the Forest Service, limiting the

potential involvement of the Carhart Center

Time Required (Workload): Significant portion of FTE. Consider term appointment or detail opportunity.

Steps Responsible PartiesGain support for project from WO staff WAG

Identify funding source for project WO-WWSR Staff

Select individual to implement this project WO-WWSR Staff

Keys to Implementation: Funding for project Identify appropriate party to implement project Connect these efforts with other resources, including national calls by element

55 | P a g e

Prioritize efforts to identify actions resulting in the most return on the investment of time and energy (ex: focus on elements doing poorly).

56 | P a g e

Strategies for Regional Leadership

Recommended Action: Develop region-wide approaches to meet the 10YWSC.

Discussion: Implementation of integrated regional strategies to meet 10YWSC will require region-wide approaches to be successful. Limited resources will require the most efficient and effective approaches. The approaches will vary by Region, based on Regional organizations, culture, and available resources. Those regions that have made the most progress on meeting the 10YWSC have deployed a variety of region-wide approaches vs. asking Forests to “go it alone”. Approaches will vary by element and greatest need. It is recognized that implementation of any approach will require re-focus of existing resources, people and funding.

Region-wide approaches could include one or more of the following action items. These action items are designed to be prioritized by the needs of each Region. Therefore, this list is not ranked in order of priority.

Charter Regional Wilderness Council to facilitate integration; Charter Regional, Zone or Forest WAG’s composed of specialists from all resources; Charter integrated regional teams around specific elements (Strike Teams) or to assist units

in most need; Develop integrated region-wide funding strategies around specific elements; Hold funding aside to allow competition from individual forests to make progress on the

Challenge; Hold funding aside for “model” forests to make progress on specific elements; Create and fill a Regional 10YWSC Coordinator; Identify regional Subject Matter Experts (SME) to assist other units; Incorporate meeting 10YWSC in region-wide Business Plans, emphasis areas, and program

direction; Conduct region-wide training and meetings to share lessons learned; Hold region-wide “leveling” calls for consistency in scoring; Create and fill regional internship positions on units of most need; Utilize Enterprise Teams to complete plans, coordinate with specialists, and complete

evaluation and/or monitoring; Create and fill regional detail positions that could spend time in the region assisting where

most needed and/or focus on specific elements; Develop regional forum for sharing successes/Regional support group (web based, video

conferencing, conference calls); Identify and support staff with ability to focus on Wilderness ; Include more specific budget advice related to the Challenge from the Regions and Forests; Require Forests and Districts to develop work plans specific to 10YWSC; Look at other opportunities for funding for the Challenge such as Stimulus; Include progress on the Challenge in annual line officer performance reviews; Require training for all wilderness managers;

57 | P a g e

Encourage training for non-wilderness staff; and Adopt models of successful staffing – examples include:

o White Mtn NF Gary Davis - (603)466-2713x 234 (Great Gulf, Pemigewasset, Sandwich Ridge and Wild River Wilderness)

o Black Hills NF Laura Burns – (605)673-4853 (Black Elk Wilderness)o Sawtooth NF Liese Dean – (208)774-3017 (Sawtooth Wilderness)o San Juan NF Nancy Berry – (970) 375-3304 (Weninuche Wilderness)


Would provide consistency across the Region. Would build a sense of “team” within Region in meeting 10YWSC. No “Wilderness/Forest” left behind. Will facilitate region-wide priority setting and budget allocation. Increased probability for success because of improved focus and efficiency. Would force discussion with those Forests not planning to meet the Challenge Would guide current and out-year budget development in the Region Would force integration discussions at Regional level Focus additional resources on 10YWSC. Could develop external support for 10YWSC

Cons: Additional workload for Regional and Forest staff Will require balance with other competing priorities. May be difficult to find the right level of skills and expertise Could require increased investment. May require shift in funding and additional resources.

Time Required (Workload): Varied by approach

Resources Required (People, funding): The resources required to implement one or many of the region-wide approaches will vary. Some approaches will be more costly, and others will be more “people” intensive.

Steps Responsible PartiesIntegrate region-wide approaches in development of regional 10YWSC strategy.

Regional RHWR Director, RPM, and WAG Rep

Develop implementation strategy for any approach selected Regional RHWR Director, RPM, and WAG Rep

58 | P a g e

Keys to Implementation: Need buy-in from Forest and Regional Leadership Teams to prioritize resources to implement

any region-wide approaches. Need support from other Resource Directors within RO for integration and funding strategies to

implement region-wide approaches.

59 | P a g e

APPENDIX E - TIPS FOR SUCCESS

This section contains tips for success organized first by general categories and then by tips for each element of the Challenge. These tips were gleaned from interviews with Regional Wilderness Program Managers, wilderness managers, and WAG members and represent the lessons learned for making progress on the elements of the challenge. While some are addressed elsewhere in this document, others are not. Not all of the suggested tips are relevant or appropriate for every region, forest, or wilderness. Critical thinking, networking, and a review of other resources are needed before selecting and implementing an approach best suited for each unique wilderness.

General

National and Regional Strategies:

o Address 10YWSC fatigue and clarify objectives (i.e. planning vs. on-the- ground accomplishment).

o Develop and use strike teams as needed.o Utilize subject matter experts as detailers to draft a template or prepare examples or plans to

share with others.o Establish and support a wilderness career ladder at all levels. o Develop and use a regional strategy and/or action plan. o Use regional or wilderness-wide leveling calls or meetings to examine accomplishments and

share ideas and expertise.o Consider using a regional approach to focus on one element per year to increase efficiency,

knowledge transfer and accomplishment.o Improve integration through Regional Wilderness Program Managers and forest and district staff

working with their colleagues who manage other resources (i.e. fire, invasive species, fish and wildlife, etc.) to identify and prioritize mutual objectives.

o Increase priority level of commitment to wilderness stewardship vs. competing priorities such as travel management, ARRA projects, other NFRW programs, etc.

o Involve regional leadership to show commitment to under-performing forests. o Display accomplishments on clear, color-coded charts to help focus priorities. o Develop a regional Guidebook.o Use a regional Wilderness Advisory Group.

Funding:

o Integrate funding for all resource management programs in wilderness. o Target funding to enhance accomplishment of specific elements or to support under-performing

locations. o Refrain from reducing funding from wilderness areas that meet the minimum stewardship level.

Set aside funding for targeted grants to improve accomplishment.

60 | P a g e

Training:

o Support training or workshops and meetings at regional level to increase skills and network with subject matter experts.

Element Specific

1 – Fire

Provide regional emphasis in support of identifying mutual objectives, amending forest plans, preparing fire management plans, and promoting wilderness fires resource advisor training.

Make it a regional priority to revise forest and fire management plans to include wilderness objectives.

2 – NNIS

Provide leadership at the RO level in the form of interdisciplinary coordination, a regional NEPA analysis, or a detailer to provide templates.

3 – Air

Coordinate at the regional level between wilderness and air program specialists for planning and monitoring

Use detailers to identify what needs to be done, transfer work already done to other areas, revise plans or provide guidance.

Use I&M funding for plans and monitoring.

4 – Education

Use education workshops to provide templates and examples, share common issues and planning, and network ideas and skills.

Target funding where needed to produce education plans.

5 – Adequate direction – Solitude or Primitive Recreation

Provide a standardized approach and process, with training, for establishing adequate direction.

6 – Recreation Site Monitoring

Use trained partners whenever possible. Use grants and recreation fees in support of monitoring.

7 – Outfitters and Guides

Use targets from Special Uses program and funding from fees to increase accountability and accomplishment.

Prepare a needs assessment template.

61 | P a g e

8 – Adequate direction – Degradation of the Wilderness Resource

Provide regional default standards for areas without forest or wilderness plan direction. Provide a standardized approach and process, with training, for establishing adequate direction.

9 - Priority Information Needs

Take advantage of training available for INFRA-Wild Use forest plan direction to establish a priority for monitoring. Use an Information Needs Assessment process to identify data gaps and collect and analyze

necessary data

10 – Baseline Workforce

Involve other resource areas and functions in wilderness work (i.e. trail funding and trail workers, etc.).

Establish wilderness-related targets for other resource areas and functions.

62 | P a g e

Date post:	19-Feb-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

THE LUBRECHT REPORT A MID-WAY ASSESSMENT … · Web viewTHE LUBRECHT REPORT A MID-WAY ASSESSMENT OF...

Documents