Action Items for Supporting Successful Wilderness Partnerships 2011 Wilderness Advisory Group Team Members: Wendi Urie, Diane Taliaferro, Justin Preisendorfer, and Ryan Brown Introduction In 2009 the Wilderness Advisory Group developed a white paper titled Creating Shared Stewardship of the Wilderness Resource through Partnerships and Volunteers. The paper identified ten barriers to creating wilderness partnerships and suggested many solutions to lowering these barriers. The 2011 Wilderness Advisory Group has taken a second look at these suggestions to search for ideas that may be especially timely and actionable today. Seven action items for supporting successful wilderness partnerships have been identified and categorized by the logical entity to accomplish the task: the Wilderness Advisory Group, the Carhart National Wilderness Training Center or the Washington Office Wilderness Staff. The authors feel that these seven suggestions are the most immediately effective means to overcome partnership creation barriers with relatively low financial costs.
Ideas for WAG Program of Work Recommended Action: Introduce a national award recognizing employees or partners who excel at creating and maintaining valuable wilderness partnerships. Discussion: Efforts to promote wilderness partnerships often go unrecognized. Dedicated individuals and groups, both Forest Service and partners, are working hard to develop and sustain relationships with those eager to assist in wilderness stewardship. Partnership building requires extensive outreach to, and organizing and training of volunteers. The path to successful partnership building is often arduous and not easily developed. This award is intended to recognize efforts of these partnership champions. The award would recognize either a Forest Service or external individual, or group, who is a champion of wilderness partnerships. Considerations: Pros: Cons: Recognizes those who go the extra mile to create partnerships. Sends a message that partnerships are valued by Forest Service leadership. Encourages others to engage partners for wilderness stewardship. Implementing a new national award should be relatively easy. Cost Time Required (workload): Low Steps Research potential for new WO award Develop criteria for WO Award Write an article for a WAG newletter encouraging rewarding those who work with partners Responsible Parties WAG (Done WO was very supportive.) WAG (Done See attachment.) WAG Keys to Implementation: Support and commitment from WO
Recommended Action: Provide developmental opportunities for employees to learn from successful partnership programs. Discussion: Successful wilderness partnership programs have navigated the process of developing relationships with partner organizations and setting up thriving programs. These programs, whether within the Forest Service or other federal agencies, could provide valuable guidance to others seeking to create new wilderness stewardship partnerships. Short term details could help facilitate the sharing of expertise between programs. Individuals could spend 2 to 4 weeks on a detail learning how to discover potential partners, draft agreements, outline responsibilities, develop training and safety plans, and coordinate work projects. Detail locations could vary from Ranger Districts with large wilderness partnership programs, Forest programs coordinating groups across a forest or several forests, or with other agencies such as the National Park Service or Bureau of Land Management in offices with strong programs. Details could be coordinated like a mentoring program. Wilderness programs with strong partnership skills would be sought to host detailers interested in learning wilderness partnership building skills. A listing of available locations for detailing would be created and posted via the web, social networking sites (connect.wilderness.net?), or internal outreach notices. Considerations: Pros: Cons: Allows participants to learn from those who have successfully navigated the process. Allows existing programs to share their knowledge and maintain enthusiasm for their existing programs. How to pay for salaries when work is not directly tied to home units program of work? Who pays for the employee s time, travel and per diem costs associated with detail. Time Required (workload): High Steps Responsible Parties Determine guidelines for program Set up how to directions for interested individuals Create method for mentors and mentees to connect web, social networking, outreach notices Solicit interested mentors WAG WAG WAG/Carhart WAG
Market program to wilderness community WAG Keys to Implementation: Gathering support for funding details. Finding interested mentors with the time and enthusiasm to coach others through their partnership nurturing process
Ideas for Carhart Center Program of Work Recommended Action: Research successful partnerships with universities and other educational institutions and create a guide to partnering with educational organizations. Discussion: There are many opportunities to develop relationships with institutions of higher education across the National Wilderness Preservation System. These partnerships would not only provide assistance with wilderness stewardship activities but they would also offer students a chance to meet degree requirements and create a higher degree of public involvement by younger generations. Currently Region 1 has a partnership with the Wilderness Institute at the University of Montana where they have collected numerous wilderness data sets. Although institutions with wilderness or natural resource management programs may be the most likely targets for creating partnerships there are virtually unlimited opportunities to form lasting beneficial relationships with programs in botany, range management, fire sciences, education, etc. Existing programs that have a focus on wilderness management: Vermillion Community College Wilderness Management Program Oregon State University Wilderness and Recreation Resource Management Bemidji State University Wilderness Management and Outdoor Recreation Planning Indiana University Epply Institute for Parks and Public Lands Clemson University Parks, Recreation, Tourism Management Program University of Idaho Wilderness & Protected Area Research Center (WPARC) and the Taylor Wilderness Research Station Considerations: Pros: Cons: Helps students learn more about wilderness and expose them to the needs of the agency. Could provide a cost effective way to collect data, develop/implement plans, etc. Allows a farm-league approach to recruitment where relationships are developed with prospective employees. Creates a more invested public, especially in a generation that needs to be targeted for their understanding and support of future management actions. Requires time by local and regional wilderness managers to develop the partnership and provide training and oversight. Requires willing partners from the educational institutions.
Time Required (workload): High Steps Research current partnerships with institutes of higher education: What types of work have they been doing? What works? What are barriers? Create materials to be available in a toolbox at wilderness.net and through the NWSA on what these partnerships are and how to create one. Market the idea inside and outside the agency. Responsible Parties Carhart Center Carhart Center NWSA/WAG/Carhart Keys to Implementation: As with all partnerships one of the keys is finding champions in both the agency and the outside institution who are excited about establishing the relationship and have the time to commit to the endeavor.
Recommended Action: Provide support of volunteer management in wilderness using accessible and cost-effective venues for training. Discussion: Start a discussion on wilderness connect.net for managers and partnership coordinators to communicate with each other and to obtain resources and information from knowledgeable sources. The conversation would be monitored by a wilderness specialist, grants and agreements specialist, a designated volunteer and partnership program manager, and someone from ASC. The conversation would need to be mediated by a designated lead, and full participation of folks with the required knowledge would be required. A series of Sametime trainings would be designed and offered to wilderness managers regarding wilderness-specific issues in dealing with volunteers, including safety, common grants and agreements, relationship building, collaborative decision making processes, working with ASC, reimbursements, etc. This would require some upfront work to design the curriculum and obtain assistance from the knowledgeable specialists, as well as a course facilitator. Considerations: Pros: Cons: Simple, accessible venue to share information with wilderness managers No travel cost for participants or leaders Other program areas experience success with these types of trainings Sametime training would require development of curriculum cost to support detailer Would require active participation by non-recreation personnel cost for their time and contribution Time Required (workload): High Steps Obtain support for project and identify detailer Identify specialists to participate Build curriculum Start discussion group and facilitate expert involvement Market opportunity with wilderness managers Responsible Parties WO staff Detailer (or Carhart Center?) Detailer + specialists Detailer Detailer
Keys to Implementation: Detailer or someone devoted to development of curriculum, facilitation of discussion, and recruitment of participants Active recruitment to assure participation by managers and coordinators Involvement of specialists: wilderness, grants and agreements, volunteer and partnerships, ASC
Recommended Action: Create a wilderness partnership guide Addresses the Following Barriers: Logistics and complexity; Inadequate capacity; Process barriers Discussion: Initiatives such as America s Great Outdoors have called for greater public involvement in order to make the federal government a more effective conservation partner. The creation of these partnerships is in part the responsibility of agency staff at the local level. Numerous and sundry resources are currently available to support and enhance these partnerships. Some of the resources are wilderness-specific such as the majority of what is found in the volunteer and partners toolbox on wilderness.net. Other sources such as the Partnership Resource Center are not wilderness-specific but have vast amounts of valuable information. At the current time wilderness managers and agency partners regularly feel their way through the partnership process and have no established checklist for creating new partnerships. To address these challenges we recommend that a wilderness partner s guide be developed that dovetails with the many existing resources. This guide would have several sections that address barriers identified in the 2009 WAG paper. To address the logistics and complexity barrier it was suggested that a product be developed to help both parties understand FS basic authorities and restrictions on volunteer activities and the reasons why. A short but well written summary of the authorities and restrictions could provide everything that the intended audience would need to know to get them going. One of the 2009 proposed actions to combat the process barriers was to provide simple examples on the WEB on using and crafting the right agreements and grants. In regards to the inadequate capacity barrier it was suggested that partnerships be developed with clear objectives documented for achieving wilderness stewardship and agreed-upon scope of work between volunteers and FS wilderness managers. Although the objectives and scope of work will vary with each partnership sample agreements would be included in the guide. Samples will be chosen based on both quality and how likely similar agreements would be used in the future (e.g. trail maintenance vs. assistance with an annual llama packer jamboree). Another suggested action from the 2009 paper is to work with regional partnership coordinators on how to expedite and ease ASC agreement process. Although the scope of this proposed action does not include altering the agreement process in any way, it would be wise to work with national partnership specialists to develop the concise checklist for partnership creation and routine maintenance. The recommended alternative for implementing this action is to utilize a temporary detailer to develop the guide. Although it could be done by the USFS representative to the Carhart Center or a focused task team, the project would best be served by someone with a singular focus. This person would work with the Carhart Center to collate the existing resources, applicable guidelines, and steps for developing successful wilderness partnerships. A concise guide in pdf format would form the base of the project and supplemental resources would be available through the internet. The end product would be available at wilderness.net and linked through the wilderness manager s website, the National Wilderness Stewardship Alliance website, the Partnership Resource Center, the USFS volunteer website, etc. In addition to content some improvements to the structure of the wilderness.net toolbox may also result. The detailer would also identify specific areas where further development of wilderness partnership resources could add significant value to the product.
Considerations: Pros: Cons: Many of the required resources already exist. Would address multiple solutions suggested in the Barriers paper. Would create better efficiency in the early stages of partnership creation thus allowing partners to get out on the ground in a shorter amount of time. Requires the investment in a detailer. Much of this project is collating work done by others and there is danger of duplication of efforts if care is not exercised. Time Required (workload): Could be largely completed with a 30-day detail. Steps Determine what steps are required in the USFS to develop a basic partnership. What additional steps or resources are needed for wilderness partnerships? Survey existing partnership resources and pick examples for inclusion. Summarize other resources so that they are applicable in a wide range of situations and understandable by a wide range of partners. Compile all resources for the guide and bind as a pdf. Post all information to wilderness.net Provide links to related websites and encourage other websites to link to wilderness.net Responsible Parties Detailer and national partnership specialist Detailer Detailer Lisa Eidson Detailer Keys to Implementation: A significant project so best accomplished by a detailer with a singular focus. This requires support from national wilderness leadership with possible support from the national partnership program as well.
Ideas for WO Program of Work Recommended Action: Develop Wilderness specific work plans to ensure budget for Wilderness is being planned and spent appropriately as well as capturing partnerships and volunteers to meet stewardship accomplishments. Workplans can also be used to ensure dollars are being planned and allocated for matching grants or working agreements. Addresses the Following Barriers: Declining recreation budgets; agency culture and transition; national and local priorities that focus on other aspects of developed and dispersed recreation, which potentially can divert NFRW funds. Lack of tracking and accountability for Wilderness is difficult unless tools such as Workplan are used to ensure funds are being spent appropriately. Discussion: As recreation budgets are stretched funding for wilderness stewardship is often tapped for other developed recreation priorities. Additionally some line officers may believe that wilderness inherently requires little management and thus can afford to lose a bigger percentage of its funding. To ensure that there continues to be adequate funding to support wilderness management the WO should encourage all units to build work plans for wilderness from the WO, Regional, Forest and District levels. These work plans should utilize not only management codes such as NFRW and CMTL but also those of other program areas. An example would be how travel management has been funded or more recently off the top funding for Wilderness. This would help with the long and slow shift of agency culture so that wilderness is no longer just a recreation program but is a multi faceted resource. It would also allow funds to be dedicated in support of partnerships that enhance the greater wilderness resource. Specialists would have clear direction in their program of work, salary and associated costs to implement their work in Wilderness would be planned and they would be held accountable on a quarterly and fiscal year basis. Considerations: Pros: Cons: Uses an established system that is familiar to all budget managers Would provide clear budget direction for wilderness stewardship including support for partnerships Helps to change the perception that wilderness is just a recreation program Provides a clear look at how money can be leveraged through partnerships. It is important to capture the amount of work we get done with partnerships and volunteers and Workplan can be used as a tool for tracking partnership and volunteers for target accomplishment Creating wilderness focused work plans doesn t necessarily equate to making partnerships easier or more efficient Complicates purchasing when authority is needed for several codes One more step for stretched staffs to get work done
Time Required (workload): The tool is already in place and is expected for all levels of agency to use for budget planning and accountability. Most managers already use workplan for tracking BLIs such as NFRW and CMTL. This may require some training on Districts if budget is done at SO level. Budget staffs can assist. Steps Responsible Parties Convince agency wilderness leadership that this is worth their time Pilot test OFF funds for FY11 using workplan for accountability Convince Joel Holtrop and/or Chief that this is worth their time Write a letter for Joel or Tom to sign WAG WAG WO wilderness staff WO wilderness staff Keys to Implementation: Support at all levels is the key piece. For this recommendation or direction to actually be implemented it would have to have the support of line and staff officers alike. In order to build work plans that fully support wilderness with functional integration there must be buy-in from all program areas that might be involved (fire, air, wildlife, etc) as well.
Recommended Action: Continue to support programs and efforts currently underway that improve the quality of wilderness partnerships. The following programs have been identified as very useful to managers in coordinating with partners, or as start-up programs with great potential to make a difference. Discussion: The following current action items support wilderness partnerships: Action Lead Needs support from National Wilderness Stewardship Alliance: support startup efforts of organization and actively participate as partners Websites currently in use by managers and partners: ALWRI website WAG & WIMST websites Wilderness Manager s homepage Wilderness.net Partnership Resource Center Wilderness Professionals Social Network NFF grants to support wilderness partnerships; including special grant category for smaller organizations with small cash match capacity Encourage and reward managers for work with partnerships Support and promotion of an integrated approach to funding wilderness management Support existing groups/organizations with current efforts supporting wilderness and wilderness partners Arthur Carhart Center National Wilderness Training Center Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute Chief s Wilderness Advisory Group National wilderness leadership WO WO All levels of organization WO WWSR program WO All levels of organization WO integrated program areas WO integrated program areas; active participation in program by local managers All levels of organization Washington and Regional leadership WO integrated program areas
Wilderness Information Management Steering Team