THE LUBRECHT REPORT A MID-WAY AS

Document Sample
THE LUBRECHT REPORT A MID-WAY AS Powered By Docstoc
					                  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)
                                             TH
                        Version Date: April 16    , 2010




                                                                           1|Page
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS




                               SUMMARY

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



                              APPENDICES

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




                                                             2|Page
                                               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 50th
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
          Percent of Wildernesses Meeting Standard             has improved from 44 wildernesses
 100.0%
                                                               “managed to a minimum stewardship level”
  80.0%                                                        in FY 2005 (or 10.8% of all wildernesses) to
                                                               122 wildernesses managed to this level in FY
  60.0%
                                                               2009 (30.0% of all wildernesses).
  40.0%
                                                                 While progress has been made across all
  20.0%
                                                                 regions and elements, the rate of progress
    0.0%                                                         has not been uniform, and overall it is clear
           FY    FY   FY  FY    FY   FY    FY  FY    FY   FY
          2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014      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 50th anniversary
of the Wilderness Act, we will have to dramatically increase our scores – more than tripling the current
rate of improvement.

                                                                                                   3|Page
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|Page
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.



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

                                                                                               6|Page
regional foresters accountable with this goal in mind. These actions are interdependent and should be
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


                                                                                            7|Page
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.

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|Page
                                 APPENDIX A – CURRENT STATUS GRAPHS

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


                                     Percent of Wildernesses Meeting Standard

       100.0%

        80.0%

        60.0%

        40.0%

        20.0%

         0.0%
                FY 2005    FY 2006    FY 2007    FY 2008   FY 2009    FY 2010    FY 2011    FY 2012   FY 2013   FY 2014


                          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%).


                                                Average Score

     60.0

     50.0

     40.0

     30.0

     20.0

     10.0

      0.0
            FY 2005   FY 2006     FY 2007    FY 2008   FY 2009       FY 2010    FY 2011    FY 2012    FY 2013   FY 2014


                                        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|Page
                                         Average Score by Element
 7.00

 6.00

 5.00
                                                                                                     FY 05
 4.00                                                                                                FY 06

 3.00                                                                                                FY 07
                                                                                                     FY 08
 2.00
                                                                                                     FY 09
 1.00

 0.00
           E1      E2      E3       E4        E5        E6        E7        E8        E9   E10
                             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
                                     Percent of Wildernesses Meeting Standard
      100.0%

        80.0%

        60.0%

        40.0%

        20.0%

         0.0%
                   R1       R2        R3        R4       R5        R6        R8        R9       R10 Natl. Ave.

                     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.



                                                     Average Score
       70.0

       60.0

       50.0

       40.0

       30.0

       20.0

       10.0

        0.0
                R1        R2        R3        R4        R5        R6        R8        R9       R10   Natl. Ave.

                                  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
                                         Percent of Wildernesses Meeting Standard

           100.0%

             80.0%
                                                                                                   FY 05
             60.0%
                                                                                                   FY 06
             40.0%                                                                                 FY 07
                                                                                                   FY 08
             20.0%
                                                                                                   FY 09
              0.0%
                          R1        R2         R3    R4       R5      R6      R8        R9   R10

                          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.


                                                         Average Score

          80.0
          70.0
          60.0
                                                                                                   FY 05
          50.0
          40.0                                                                                     FY 06
          30.0                                                                                     FY 07
          20.0                                                                                     FY 08
          10.0                                                                                     FY 09
            0.0
                     R1        R2         R3        R4      R5      R6       R8         R9   R10

                                          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
     90

     80

     70

     60                                                                                            At or Above (60+)
     50                                                                                            Near (50-59)

     40                                                                                            Approaching (35-49)
                                                                                                   Well Below (0-34)
     30
                                                                                                   Did Not Report
     20

     10

      0
               R1         R2        R3     R4       R5       R6      R8       R9      R10
                         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.



      100%
       90%
       80%
       70%
                                                                                                  At or Above (60+)
       60%
                                                                                                  Near (50-59)
       50%
                                                                                                  Approaching (35-49)
       40%
                                                                                                  Well Below (0-34)
       30%                                                                                        Did Not Report
       20%
       10%
          0%
                    R1         R2    R3      R4      R5       R6      R8      R9     R10
                         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
         450
         400
         350
         300
         250
                                                                                         Current Rate
         200                                                                             of Progress
         150                                                                             Progress
                                                                                         Needed
         100
          50
           0
               FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

                               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.




                                                                                                    15 | P a g e
                   APPENDIX B – WILDERNESSES BY “PROGRESS CLASSES”

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

                                                                                   TOTAL
 REGION   LEAD FOREST NAME                     WILDERNESS NAME
                                                                                   SCORE
   05     LAKE TAHOE BASIN MGT UNIT            DESOLATION WILDERNESS                 90
   09     WHITE MOUNTAIN NATIONAL FOREST       GREAT GULF WILDERNESS                 88
   09     WHITE MOUNTAIN NATIONAL FOREST       PEMIGEWASSET WILDERNESS               88
   09     WHITE MOUNTAIN NATIONAL FOREST       SANDWICH RANGE WILDERNESS             88
   09     OTTAWA NATIONAL FOREST               SYLVANIA WILDERNESS                   86
                                               PRESIDENTIAL RANGE-DRY RIVER
   09     WHITE MOUNTAIN NATIONAL FOREST                                             86
                                               WILDERNESS
   02     SAN JUAN NATIONAL FOREST             WEMINUCHE WILDERNESS                  85
                                               CARIBOU-SPECKLED MOUNTAIN
   09     WHITE MOUNTAIN NATIONAL FOREST                                             84
                                               WILDERNESS
   04     SAWTOOTH NATIONAL FOREST             SAWTOOTH WILDERNESS                   82
   02     BLACK HILLS NATIONAL FOREST          BLACK ELK WILDERNESS                  80
   05     LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST           SAN RAFAEL WILDERNESS                 80
   05     INYO NATIONAL FOREST                 JOHN MUIR WILDERNESS                  79
                                               BOUNDARY WATERS CANOE AREA
   09     SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST                                                   79
                                               WILDERNESS
   01     FLATHEAD NATIONAL FOREST             MISSION MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS          78
   02     BIGHORN NATIONAL FOREST              CLOUD PEAK WILDERNESS                 78
   09     HIAWATHA NATIONAL FOREST             BIG ISLAND LAKE WILDERNESS            78
   01     NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST            SELWAY-BITTERROOT WILDERNESS          77
   02     RIO GRANDE NATIONAL FOREST           SOUTH SAN JUAN WILDERNESS             76
   04     DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST                BOX-DEATH HOLLOW WILDERNESS           76
          UINTA-WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL
   04                                          TWIN PEAKS WILDERNESS                 76
          FOREST
   01     FLATHEAD NATIONAL FOREST             BOB MARSHALL WILDERNESS               75
   01     LOLO NATIONAL FOREST                 RATTLESNAKE WILDERNESS                75
   02     WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST          HOLY CROSS WILDERNESS                 75
                                               MAROON BELLS-SNOWMASS
   02     WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST                                                75
                                               WILDERNESS
   01     FLATHEAD NATIONAL FOREST             GREAT BEAR WILDERNESS                 74
          UINTA-WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL
   04                                          MOUNT OLYMPUS WILDERNESS              74
          FOREST
   08     NATIONAL FORESTS IN FLORIDA          ALEXANDER SPRINGS WILDERNESS          74
   08     NATIONAL FORESTS IN FLORIDA          JUNIPER PRAIRIE WILDERNESS            74
   01     FLATHEAD NATIONAL FOREST             SCAPEGOAT WILDERNESS                  73
   09     HOOSIER NATIONAL FOREST              CHARLES C. DEAM WILDERNESS            73
   09     MARK TWAIN NATIONAL FOREST           HERCULES-GLADES WILDERNESS            73
                                               WEST CHICHAGOF-YAKOBI
   10     TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST                                                    73
                                               WILDERNESS
          BEAVERHEAD-DEERLODGE NATIONAL
   01                                          ANACONDA PINTLER WILDERNESS           72
          FOREST
   02     PIKE-SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FOREST      SANGRE DE CRISTO WILDERNESS           72
   04     ASHLEY NATIONAL FOREST               HIGH UINTAS WILDERNESS                72
          UINTA-WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL
   04                                          MOUNT NAOMI WILDERNESS                72
          FOREST


                                                                              16 | P a g e
                                                                                  TOTAL
REGION   LEAD FOREST NAME                   WILDERNESS NAME
                                                                                  SCORE
         GREEN MOUNTAIN AND FINGER LAKES
  09                                        BIG BRANCH WILDERNESS                   72
         NATIONAL FORESTS
  09     MONONGAHELA NATIONAL FOREST        DOLLY SODS WILDERNESS                   72
  05     ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST            SAN GABRIEL WILDERNESS                  71
  02     SHOSHONE NATIONAL FOREST           POPO AGIE WILDERNESS                    70
  02     WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST        FLAT TOPS WILDERNESS                    70
  04     DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST              PINE VALLEY MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS         70
  04     HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST   MT. MORIAH WILDERNESS                   70
         UINTA-WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL
  04                                        LONE PEAK WILDERNESS                    70
         FOREST
         UINTA-WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL
  04                                        WELLSVILLE MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS          70
         FOREST
  08     NATIONAL FORESTS IN FLORIDA        BILLIES BAY WILDERNESS                  70
  08     NATIONAL FORESTS IN FLORIDA        LITTLE LAKE GEORGE WILDERNESS           70
         GREEN MOUNTAIN AND FINGER LAKES
  09                                        LYE BROOK WILDERNESS                    70
         NATIONAL FORESTS
         GREEN MOUNTAIN AND FINGER LAKES
  09                                        PERU PEAK WILDERNESS                    70
         NATIONAL FORESTS
  04     BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST      TETON WILDERNESS                        69
  05     INYO NATIONAL FOREST               ANSEL ADAMS WILDERNESS                  69
  05     STANISLAUS NATIONAL FOREST         EMIGRANT WILDERNESS                     69
                                            PETERSBURG CREEK-DUNCAN SALT
  10     TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST                                                    69
                                            CHUCK WILDERNESS
  10     TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST            SOUTH BARANOF WILDERNESS                69
         MEDICINE BOW-ROUTT NATIONAL
  02                                        SARVIS CREEK WILDERNESS                 68
         FOREST
  02     PIKE-SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FOREST    LOST CREEK WILDERNESS                   68
  02     SHOSHONE NATIONAL FOREST           FITZPATRICK WILDERNESS                  68
  02     WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST        PTARMIGAN PEAK WILDERNESS               68
  04     DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST              ASHDOWN GORGE WILDERNESS                68
  05     ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST            SHEEP MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS               68
  05     ELDORADO NATIONAL FOREST           MOKELUMNE WILDERNESS                    68
  08     NATIONAL FORESTS IN FLORIDA        BIG GUM SWAMP WILDERNESS                68
  08     NATIONAL FORESTS IN FLORIDA        BRADWELL BAY WILDERNESS                 68
  08     NATIONAL FORESTS IN FLORIDA        MUD SWAMP/NEW RIVER WILDERNESS          68
  09     MONONGAHELA NATIONAL FOREST        OTTER CREEK WILDERNESS                  68
         MEDICINE BOW-ROUTT NATIONAL
  02                                        MOUNT ZIRKEL WILDERNESS                 67
         FOREST
  04     HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST   HOOVER WILDERNESS                       67
  05     SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST     SAN GORGONIO WILDERNESS                 67
  09     SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST            LUSK CREEK WILDERNESS                   67
  01     GALLATIN NATIONAL FOREST           ABSAROKA-BEARTOOTH WILDERNESS           66
  02     WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST        EAGLES NEST WILDERNESS                  66
  04     CARIBOU-TARGHEE NATIONAL FOREST    JEDEDIAH SMITH WILDERNESS               66
         UINTA-WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL
  04                                        DESERET PEAK WILDERNESS                 66
         FOREST
         CHATTAHOOCHEE-OCONEE NATIONAL
  08                                        COHUTTA WILDERNESS                      66
         FOREST
  09     HURON MANISTEE NATIONAL FOREST     NORDHOUSE DUNES WILDERNESS              66


                                                                             17 | P a g e
                                                                                  TOTAL
REGION   LEAD FOREST NAME                   WILDERNESS NAME
                                                                                  SCORE
  10     TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST            WARREN ISLAND WILDERNESS                66
         ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL
  02                                        NEVER SUMMER WILDERNESS                 65
         FOREST
  04     BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST      GROS VENTRE WILDERNESS                  65
  04     HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST   JARBIDGE WILDERNESS                     65
                                            MISTY FJORDS NATIONAL MONUMENT
  10     TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST                                                    65
                                            WILDERNESS
  10     TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST            TEBENKOF BAY WILDERNESS                 65
         GRAND MESA UNCOMP GUNNISON
  02                                        POWDERHORN WILDERNESS                   64
         NATIONAL FOREST
  04     BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST      BRIDGER WILDERNESS                      64
         UINTA-WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL
  04                                        MOUNT NEBO WILDERNESS                   64
         FOREST
  05     LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST         GARCIA WILDERNESS                       64
  05     LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST         MACHESNA MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS            64
  05     LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST         SANTA LUCIA WILDERNESS                  64
  10     TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST            CORONATION ISLAND WILDERNESS            64
  01     GALLATIN NATIONAL FOREST           LEE METCALF WILDERNESS                  63
  05     SEQUOIA NATIONAL FOREST            DOMELAND WILDERNESS                     63
  09     SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST            BALD KNOB WILDERNESS                    63
                                            TRACY ARM-FORDS TERROR
  10     TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST                                                    63
                                            WILDERNESS
         ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL
  02                                        BYERS PEAK WILDERNESS                   62
         FOREST
         ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL
  02                                        JAMES PEAK WILDERNESS                   62
         FOREST
  02     PIKE-SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FOREST    MOUNT EVANS WILDERNESS                  62
  03     GILA NATIONAL FOREST               BLUE RANGE WILDERNESS                   62
  04     HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST   CURRANT MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS             62
         UINTA-WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL
  04                                        MOUNT TIMPANOGOS WILDERNESS             62
         FOREST
  05     LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST         DICK SMITH WILDERNESS                   62
  08     NATIONAL FORESTS IN ALABAMA        SIPSEY WILDERNESS                       62
  09     OTTAWA NATIONAL FOREST             MCCORMICK WILDERNESS                    62
  10     TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST            KARTA RIVER WILDERNESS                  62
  10     TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST            MAURILLE ISLANDS WILDERNESS             62
  10     TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST            SOUTH ETOLIN WILDERNESS                 62
  01     LOLO NATIONAL FOREST               WELCOME CREEK WILDERNESS                61
  01     NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST          GOSPEL-HUMP WILDERNESS                  61
         GRAND MESA UNCOMP GUNNISON
  02                                        FOSSIL RIDGE WILDERNESS                 61
         NATIONAL FOREST
  03     GILA NATIONAL FOREST               GILA WILDERNESS                         61
  06     WALLOWA WHITMAN NATIONAL FOREST    EAGLE CAP WILDERNESS                    61
         NATIONAL FORESTS IN NORTH
  08                                        LINVILLE GORGE WILDERNESS               61
         CAROLINA
  09     MONONGAHELA NATIONAL FOREST        CRANBERRY WILDERNESS                    61
  09     SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST            GARDEN OF THE GODS WILDERNESS           61
  10     TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST            KUIU WILDERNESS                         61
         ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL
  02                                        CACHE LA POUDRE WILDERNESS              60
         FOREST


                                                                             18 | P a g e
                                                                                   TOTAL
 REGION   LEAD FOREST NAME                      WILDERNESS NAME
                                                                                   SCORE
          ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL
   02                                           NEOTA WILDERNESS                     60
          FOREST
   02     WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST           HUNTER-FRYINGPAN WILDERNESS          60
                                                FRANK CHURCH-RIVER OF NO RETURN
   04     SALMON-CHALLIS NATIONAL FOREST                                             60
                                                WILDERNESS
   05     LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST            CHUMASH WILDERNESS                   60
   05     SIERRA NATIONAL FOREST                DINKEY LAKES WILDERNESS              60
   08     OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST              CANEY CREEK WILDERNESS               60
   08     OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST              FLATSIDE WILDERNESS                  60
          GREEN MOUNTAIN AND FINGER LAKES
   09                                           BREADLOAF WILDERNESS                 60
          NATIONAL FORESTS




WILDERNESSES “NEAR” STANDARD (50 – 59 points)

                                                                                   TOTAL
 REGION   LEAD FOREST NAME                      WILDERNESS NAME
                                                                                   SCORE
   06     MT HOOD NATIONAL FOREST               MOUNT HOOD WILDERNESS                59
   09     MARK TWAIN NATIONAL FOREST            DEVILS BACKBONE WILDERNESS           59
   10     TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST               STIKINE-LECONTE WILDERNESS           59
          ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL
   02                                           COMANCHE PEAK WILDERNESS             58
          FOREST
          ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL
   02                                           INDIAN PEAKS WILDERNESS              58
          FOREST
          ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL
   02                                           VASQUEZ PEAK WILDERNESS              58
          FOREST
          GRAND MESA UNCOMP GUNNISON
   02                                           RAGGEDS WILDERNESS                   58
          NATIONAL FOREST
   02     NEBRASKA NATIONAL FOREST              SOLDIER CREEK WILDERNESS             58
   02     SHOSHONE NATIONAL FOREST              NORTH ABSAROKA WILDERNESS            58
   02     SHOSHONE NATIONAL FOREST              WASHAKIE WILDERNESS                  58
   04     CARIBOU-TARGHEE NATIONAL FOREST       WINEGAR HOLE WILDERNESS              58
   06     MT HOOD NATIONAL FOREST               MARK O. HATFIELD WILDERNESS          58
   06     MT HOOD NATIONAL FOREST               SALMON-HUCKLEBERRY WILDERNESS        58
          FRANCIS MARION-SUMTER NATIONAL
   08                                           ELLICOTT ROCK WILDERNESS             58
          FORESTS
   08     OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST              BLACK FORK MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS       58
   08     OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST              DRY CREEK WILDERNESS                 58
   08     OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST              POTEAU MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS           58
   08     OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST              UPPER KIAMICHI RIVER WILDERNESS      58
          GRAND MESA UNCOMP GUNNISON
   02                                           LA GARITA WILDERNESS                 57
          NATIONAL FOREST
   03     GILA NATIONAL FOREST                  ALDO LEOPOLD WILDERNESS              57
   04     HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST      ARC DOME WILDERNESS                  57
   08     KISATCHIE NATIONAL FOREST             KISATCHIE HILLS WILDERNESS           57
   08     NATIONAL FORESTS IN ALABAMA           CHEAHA WILDERNESS                    57
   09     MARK TWAIN NATIONAL FOREST            IRISH WILDERNESS                     57
   09     MARK TWAIN NATIONAL FOREST            PADDY CREEK WILDERNESS               57


                                                                              19 | P a g e
                                                                                  TOTAL
REGION   LEAD FOREST NAME                   WILDERNESS NAME
                                                                                  SCORE
  09     SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST            CLEAR SPRINGS WILDERNESS                57
         ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL
  02                                        RAWAH WILDERNESS                        56
         FOREST
         GRAND MESA UNCOMP GUNNISON
  02                                        WEST ELK WILDERNESS                     56
         NATIONAL FOREST
  06     GIFFORD PINCHOT NATIONAL FOREST    MOUNT ADAMS WILDERNESS                  56
         CHATTAHOOCHEE-OCONEE NATIONAL
  08                                        BLOOD MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS               56
         FOREST
         GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON
  08                                        LEWIS FORK WILDERNESS                   56
         NATIONAL FORESTS
         GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON
  08                                        LITTLE WILSON CREEK WILDERNESS          56
         NATIONAL FORESTS
  08     OZARK-ST FRANCIS NATIONAL FOREST   EAST FORK WILDERNESS                    56
  08     OZARK-ST FRANCIS NATIONAL FOREST   HURRICANE CREEK WILDERNESS              56
  08     OZARK-ST FRANCIS NATIONAL FOREST   LEATHERWOOD WILDERNESS                  56
  08     OZARK-ST FRANCIS NATIONAL FOREST   RICHLAND CREEK WILDERNESS               56
  08     OZARK-ST FRANCIS NATIONAL FOREST   UPPER BUFFALO WILDERNESS                56
  09     HIAWATHA NATIONAL FOREST           ROCK RIVER CANYON WILDERNESS            56
  09     HIAWATHA NATIONAL FOREST           ROUND ISLAND WILDERNESS                 56
  02     PIKE-SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FOREST    GREENHORN MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS           55
  08     CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST           BIG FROG WILDERNESS                     55
  08     NATIONAL FORESTS IN ALABAMA        DUGGER MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS              55
         NATIONAL FORESTS IN NORTH
  08                                        MIDDLE PRONG WILDERNESS                 55
         CAROLINA
         NATIONAL FORESTS IN NORTH
  08                                        SHINING ROCK WILDERNESS                 55
         CAROLINA
  09     HIAWATHA NATIONAL FOREST           DELIRIUM WILDERNESS                     55
  09     MARK TWAIN NATIONAL FOREST         BELL MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS                55
                                            SOUTH PRINCE OF WALES
  10     TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST                                                    55
                                            WILDERNESS
  01     KOOTENAI NATIONAL FOREST           CABINET MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS            54
  03     CARSON NATIONAL FOREST             WHEELER PEAK WILDERNESS                 54
         CHATTAHOOCHEE-OCONEE NATIONAL
  08                                        RAVEN CLIFFS WILDERNESS                 54
         FOREST
         GREEN MOUNTAIN AND FINGER LAKES
  09                                        BRISTOL CLIFFS WILDERNESS               54
         NATIONAL FORESTS
         MEDICINE BOW-ROUTT NATIONAL
  02                                        ENCAMPMENT RIVER WILDERNESS             53
         FOREST
  02     PIKE-SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FOREST    MOUNT MASSIVE WILDERNESS                53
  04     HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST   MT. CHARLESTON WILDERNESS               53
  04     HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST   QUINN CANYON WILDERNESS                 53
  05     SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST     CUCAMONGA WILDERNESS                    53
  06     GIFFORD PINCHOT NATIONAL FOREST    TRAPPER CREEK WILDERNESS                53
  06     WILLAMETTE NATIONAL FOREST         MOUNT JEFFERSON WILDERNESS              53
  08     CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST           LITTLE FROG MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS         53
         NATIONAL FORESTS IN NORTH          JOYCE KILMER-SLICKROCK
  08                                                                                53
         CAROLINA                           WILDERNESS
  05     KLAMATH NATIONAL FOREST            MARBLE MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS              52
  05     SEQUOIA NATIONAL FOREST            KIAVAH WILDERNESS                       52
  06     GIFFORD PINCHOT NATIONAL FOREST    INDIAN HEAVEN WILDERNESS                52


                                                                             20 | P a g e
                                                                                TOTAL
REGION   LEAD FOREST NAME                   WILDERNESS NAME
                                                                                SCORE
         FRANCIS MARION-SUMTER NATIONAL
  08                                        WAMBAW CREEK WILDERNESS               52
         FORESTS
         CHEQUAMEGON-NICOLET NATIONAL
  09                                        PORCUPINE LAKE WILDERNESS             52
         FOREST
         CHEQUAMEGON-NICOLET NATIONAL
  09                                        RAINBOW LAKE WILDERNESS               52
         FOREST
  09     HIAWATHA NATIONAL FOREST           MACKINAC WILDERNESS                   52
  02     PIKE-SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FOREST    BUFFALO PEAKS WILDERNESS              51
  02     PIKE-SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FOREST    COLLEGIATE PEAKS WILDERNESS           51
  02     PIKE-SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FOREST    SPANISH PEAKS WILDERNESS              51
  04     HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST   ALTA TOQUIMA WILDERNESS               51
  04     HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST   RUBY MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS             51
  04     HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST   TABLE MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS             51
  06     FREMONT-WINEMA NATIONAL FORESTS    MOUNTAIN LAKES WILDERNESS             51
  08     CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST           CITICO CREEK WILDERNESS               51
         GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON
  08                                        BARBOURS CREEK WILDERNESS             51
         NATIONAL FORESTS
         GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON
  08                                        JAMES RIVER FACE WILDERNESS           51
         NATIONAL FORESTS
         GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON
  08                                        MOUNTAIN LAKE WILDERNESS              51
         NATIONAL FORESTS
         GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON
  08                                        PETERS MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS            51
         NATIONAL FORESTS
  09     HIAWATHA NATIONAL FOREST           HORSESHOE BAY WILDERNESS              51
  09     MARK TWAIN NATIONAL FOREST         PINEY CREEK WILDERNESS                51
         MEDICINE BOW-ROUTT NATIONAL
  02                                        PLATTE RIVER WILDERNESS               50
         FOREST
         MEDICINE BOW-ROUTT NATIONAL
  02                                        SAVAGE RUN WILDERNESS                 50
         FOREST
  05     TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST              GRANITE CHIEF WILDERNESS              50
         CHATTAHOOCHEE-OCONEE NATIONAL
  08                                        BRASSTOWN WILDERNESS                  50
         FOREST
         CHATTAHOOCHEE-OCONEE NATIONAL
  08                                        MARK TRAIL WILDERNESS                 50
         FOREST
  08     CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST           BIG LAUREL BRANCH WILDERNESS          50
  08     CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST           POND MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS              50
  08     CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST           UNAKA MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS             50
         CHEQUAMEGON-NICOLET NATIONAL
  09                                        BLACKJACK SPRINGS WILDERNESS          50
         FOREST
         CHEQUAMEGON-NICOLET NATIONAL
  09                                        HEADWATERS WILDERNESS                 50
         FOREST
         CHEQUAMEGON-NICOLET NATIONAL
  09                                        WHISKER LAKE WILDERNESS               50
         FOREST
         GREEN MOUNTAIN AND FINGER LAKES
  09                                        GEORGE D. AIKEN WILDERNESS            50
         NATIONAL FORESTS
  10     TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST            KOOTZNOOWOO WILDERNESS                50




                                                                           21 | P a g e
WILDERNESSES “APPROACHING” STANDARD (35 - 49 points)

                                                                                    TOTAL
REGION   LEAD FOREST NAME                      WILDERNESS NAME
                                                                                    SCORE
         MEDICINE BOW-ROUTT NATIONAL
   02                                          HUSTON PARK WILDERNESS                 49
         FOREST
   03    SANTA FE NATIONAL FOREST              PECOS WILDERNESS                       49
   05    INYO NATIONAL FOREST                  GOLDEN TROUT WILDERNESS                49
   06    UMATILLA NATIONAL FOREST              WENAHA-TUCANNON WILDERNESS             49
   08    CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST              BALD RIVER GORGE WILDERNESS            49
         GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON
   08                                          BEARTOWN WILDERNESS                    49
         NATIONAL FORESTS
         GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON
   08                                          SHAWVERS RUN WILDERNESS                49
         NATIONAL FORESTS
   09    MONONGAHELA NATIONAL FOREST           LAUREL FORK NORTH WILDERNESS           49
   09    MONONGAHELA NATIONAL FOREST           LAUREL FORK SOUTH WILDERNESS           49
                                               GATES OF THE MOUNTAINS
   01    HELENA NATIONAL FOREST                                                       48
                                               WILDERNESS
   04    MANTI-LASAL NATIONAL FOREST           DARK CANYON WILDERNESS                 48
   05    LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST            SESPE WILDERNESS                       48
   05    SIERRA NATIONAL FOREST                KAISER WILDERNESS                      48
   06    WILLAMETTE NATIONAL FOREST            OPAL CREEK WILDERNESS                  48
         CHATTAHOOCHEE-OCONEE NATIONAL
   08                                          RICH MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS               48
         FOREST
         CHATTAHOOCHEE-OCONEE NATIONAL
   08                                          TRAY MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS               48
         FOREST
         FRANCIS MARION-SUMTER NATIONAL
   08                                          HELL HOLE BAY WILDERNESS               48
         FORESTS
         FRANCIS MARION-SUMTER NATIONAL
   08                                          LITTLE WAMBAW SWAMP WILDERNESS         48
         FORESTS
         FRANCIS MARION-SUMTER NATIONAL
   08                                          WAMBAW SWAMP WILDERNESS                48
         FORESTS
         GRAND MESA UNCOMP GUNNISON
   02                                          LIZARD HEAD WILDERNESS                 47
         NATIONAL FOREST
   03    KAIBAB NATIONAL FOREST                KANAB CREEK WILDERNESS                 47
   04    HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST      EAST HUMBOLDTS WILDERNESS              47
                                               SANTA ROSA-PARADISE PEAK
   04    HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST                                             47
                                               WILDERNESS
   05    LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST            MATILIJA WILDERNESS                    47
   06    UMATILLA NATIONAL FOREST              NORTH FORK JOHN DAY WILDERNESS         47
   06    UMATILLA NATIONAL FOREST              NORTH FORK UMATILLA WILDERNESS         47
   06    WILLAMETTE NATIONAL FOREST            THREE SISTERS WILDERNESS               47
         GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON
   08                                          PRIEST WILDERNESS                      47
         NATIONAL FORESTS
         GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON
   08                                          SAINT MARY'S WILDERNESS                47
         NATIONAL FORESTS
                                               STURGEON RIVER GORGE
   09    OTTAWA NATIONAL FOREST                                                       47
                                               WILDERNESS
   05    SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST        SAN JACINTO WILDERNESS                 46
   05    SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST        SANTA ROSA WILDERNESS                  46
         NATIONAL FORESTS IN NORTH
   08                                          BIRKHEAD MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS          46
         CAROLINA
   03    PRESCOTT NATIONAL FOREST              GRANITE MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS (AZ)       45


                                                                               22 | P a g e
                                                                                 TOTAL
REGION   LEAD FOREST NAME                   WILDERNESS NAME
                                                                                 SCORE
  04     HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST   GRANT RANGE WILDERNESS                 45
         ROGUE RIVER-SISKIYOU NATIONAL
  06                                        KALMIOPSIS WILDERNESS                  45
         FOREST
  06     SIUSLAW NATIONAL FOREST            CUMMINS CREEK WILDERNESS               45
  06     WILLAMETTE NATIONAL FOREST         MOUNT WASHINGTON WILDERNESS            45
  08     DANIEL BOONE NATIONAL FOREST       BEAVER CREEK WILDERNESS                45
         GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON
  08                                        LITTLE DRY RUN WILDERNESS              45
         NATIONAL FORESTS
         GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON
  08                                        RAMSEYS DRAFT WILDERNESS               45
         NATIONAL FORESTS
         GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON
  08                                        RICH HOLE WILDERNESS                   45
         NATIONAL FORESTS
         GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON
  08                                        ROUGH MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS              45
         NATIONAL FORESTS
         GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON
  08                                        THUNDER RIDGE WILDERNESS               45
         NATIONAL FORESTS
         NATIONAL FORESTS IN NORTH
  08                                        SOUTHERN NANTAHALA WILDERNESS          45
         CAROLINA
  09     MARK TWAIN NATIONAL FOREST         ROCKPILE MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS           45
  09     SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST            BURDEN FALLS WILDERNESS                45
  09     SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST            PANTHER DEN WILDERNESS                 45
  05     KLAMATH NATIONAL FOREST            RUSSIAN WILDERNESS                     44
  05     LASSEN NATIONAL FOREST             CARIBOU WILDERNESS                     44
                                            YOLLA BOLLY-MIDDLE EEL
  05     MENDOCINO NATIONAL FOREST                                                 44
                                            WILDERNESS
  06     DESCHUTES NATIONAL FOREST          DIAMOND PEAK WILDERNESS                44
         ROGUE RIVER-SISKIYOU NATIONAL
  06                                        SKY LAKES WILDERNESS                   44
         FOREST
  06     SIUSLAW NATIONAL FOREST            DRIFT CREEK WILDERNESS                 44
  06     SIUSLAW NATIONAL FOREST            ROCK CREEK WILDERNESS                  44
  06     WILLAMETTE NATIONAL FOREST         MENAGERIE WILDERNESS                   44
  06     WILLAMETTE NATIONAL FOREST         MIDDLE SANTIAM WILDERNESS              44
         NATIONAL FORESTS IN NORTH
  08                                        CATFISH LAKE SOUTH WILDERNESS          44
         CAROLINA
         NATIONAL FORESTS IN NORTH
  08                                        POCOSIN WILDERNESS                     44
         CAROLINA
         NATIONAL FORESTS IN NORTH
  08                                        POND PINE WILDERNESS                   44
         CAROLINA
         NATIONAL FORESTS IN NORTH
  08                                        SHEEP RIDGE WILDERNESS                 44
         CAROLINA
  09     SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST            BAY CREEK WILDERNESS                   44
         GRAND MESA UNCOMP GUNNISON
  02                                        MOUNT SNEFFELS WILDERNESS              43
         NATIONAL FOREST
         GRAND MESA UNCOMP GUNNISON
  02                                        UNCOMPAHGRE WILDERNESS                 43
         NATIONAL FOREST
  03     KAIBAB NATIONAL FOREST             SADDLE MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS             43
  04     HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST   LA MADRE MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS           43
  04     HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST   RAINBOW MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS            43
  05     SHASTA TRINITY NATIONAL FOREST     TRINITY ALPS WILDERNESS                43
         OKANOGAN-WENATCHEE NATIONAL        LAKE CHELAN-SAWTOOTH
  06                                                                               43
         FORESTS                            WILDERNESS


                                                                            23 | P a g e
                                                                                 TOTAL
REGION   LEAD FOREST NAME                   WILDERNESS NAME
                                                                                 SCORE
  08     CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST           SAMPSON MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS            43
  08     DANIEL BOONE NATIONAL FOREST       CLIFTY WILDERNESS                      43
         GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON
  08                                        KIMBERLING CREEK WILDERNESS            43
         NATIONAL FORESTS
         GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON
  08                                        THREE RIDGES WILDERNESS                43
         NATIONAL FORESTS
                                            PLEASANT/LEMUSURIER/INIAN
  10     TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST                                                   43
                                            ISLANDS WILDERNESS
  05     LASSEN NATIONAL FOREST             ISHI WILDERNESS                        42
         OKANOGAN-WENATCHEE NATIONAL
  06                                        PASAYTEN WILDERNESS                    42
         FORESTS
  06     WILLAMETTE NATIONAL FOREST         WALDO LAKE WILDERNESS                  42
  03     PRESCOTT NATIONAL FOREST           CASTLE CREEK WILDERNESS                41
  03     PRESCOTT NATIONAL FOREST           PINE MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS               41
  03     PRESCOTT NATIONAL FOREST           WOODCHUTE WILDERNESS                   41
  03     SANTA FE NATIONAL FOREST           SAN PEDRO PARKS WILDERNESS             41
  06     OCHOCO NATIONAL FOREST             BLACK CANYON WILDERNESS                41
         OKANOGAN-WENATCHEE NATIONAL
  06                                        WILLIAM O. DOUGLAS WILDERNESS          41
         FORESTS
  06     UMPQUA NATIONAL FOREST             ROGUE-UMPQUA DIVIDE WILDERNESS         41
  04     HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST   MT. ROSE WILDERNESS                    40
  05     LASSEN NATIONAL FOREST             THOUSAND LAKES WILDERNESS              40
         OKANOGAN-WENATCHEE NATIONAL
  06                                        NORSE PEAK WILDERNESS                  40
         FORESTS
  03     PRESCOTT NATIONAL FOREST           CEDAR BENCH WILDERNESS                 39
  03     PRESCOTT NATIONAL FOREST           JUNIPER MESA WILDERNESS                39
  03     SANTA FE NATIONAL FOREST           CHAMA RIVER CANYON WILDERNESS          39
  04     HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST   CARSON-ICEBERG WILDERNESS              39
  06     OCHOCO NATIONAL FOREST             MILL CREEK WILDERNESS                  39
  06     OLYMPIC NATIONAL FOREST            MOUNT SKOKOMISH WILDERNESS             39
  06     OLYMPIC NATIONAL FOREST            THE BROTHERS WILDERNESS                39
  06     UMPQUA NATIONAL FOREST             BOULDER CREEK WILDERNESS               39
  08     CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST           GEE CREEK WILDERNESS                   39
  10     TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST            CHUCK RIVER WILDERNESS                 39
  10     TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST            ENDICOTT RIVER WILDERNESS              39
  06     GIFFORD PINCHOT NATIONAL FOREST    TATOOSH WILDERNESS                     38
  03     SANTA FE NATIONAL FOREST           DOME WILDERNESS                        37
  05     INYO NATIONAL FOREST               SOUTH SIERRA WILDERNESS                37
  05     KLAMATH NATIONAL FOREST            SISKIYOU WILDERNESS                    37
  06     OLYMPIC NATIONAL FOREST            BUCKHORN WILDERNESS                    37
  03     CARSON NATIONAL FOREST             LATIR PEAK WILDERNESS                  36
  05     INYO NATIONAL FOREST               INYO MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS              36
  05     MENDOCINO NATIONAL FOREST          SNOW MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS               36
  06     GIFFORD PINCHOT NATIONAL FOREST    GLACIER VIEW WILDERNESS                36
  06     OCHOCO NATIONAL FOREST             BRIDGE CREEK WILDERNESS                36
         ROGUE RIVER-SISKIYOU NATIONAL
  06                                        RED BUTTES WILDERNESS                  36
         FOREST
  03     PRESCOTT NATIONAL FOREST           APACHE CREEK WILDERNESS                35



                                                                            24 | P a g e
                                                                                   TOTAL
 REGION   LEAD FOREST NAME                     WILDERNESS NAME
                                                                                   SCORE
   06     GIFFORD PINCHOT NATIONAL FOREST      GOAT ROCKS WILDERNESS                 35
   06     OLYMPIC NATIONAL FOREST              WONDER MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS            35
   10     TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST              RUSSELL FJORD WILDERNESS              35



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

                                                                                   TOTAL
 REGION   LEAD FOREST NAME                     WILDERNESS NAME
                                                                                   SCORE
                                               RED ROCK-SECRET MOUNTAIN
   03     COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST                                                   34
                                               WILDERNESS
   05     SHASTA TRINITY NATIONAL FOREST       MT. SHASTA WILDERNESS                 34
   08     NATIONAL FORESTS IN MISSISSIPPI      BLACK CREEK WILDERNESS                34
   03     CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST             CHIRICAHUA WILDERNESS                 33
   05     INYO NATIONAL FOREST                 BOUNDARY PEAK WILDERNESS              33
          ROGUE RIVER-SISKIYOU NATIONAL
   06                                          WILD ROGUE WILDERNESS                 33
          FOREST
   03     LINCOLN NATIONAL FOREST              WHITE MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS             32
                                               STRAWBERRY MOUNTAIN
   06     MALHEUR NATIONAL FOREST                                                    32
                                               WILDERNESS
   08     NATIONAL FORESTS IN MISSISSIPPI      LEAF WILDERNESS                       32
   03     CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST             GALIURO WILDERNESS                    31
          OKANOGAN-WENATCHEE NATIONAL
   06                                          ALPINE LAKES WILDERNESS               31
          FORESTS
   06     UMPQUA NATIONAL FOREST               MOUNT THIELSEN WILDERNESS             31
   08     NATIONAL FORESTS IN TEXAS            UPLAND ISLAND WILDERNESS              31
   03     CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST             PUSCH RIDGE WILDERNESS                29
          ROGUE RIVER-SISKIYOU NATIONAL
   06                                          GRASSY KNOB WILDERNESS                29
          FOREST
   03     COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST             KACHINA PEAKS WILDERNESS              28
   03     COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST             STRAWBERRY CRATER WILDERNESS          28
   03     KAIBAB NATIONAL FOREST               KENDRICK MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS          28
   03     LINCOLN NATIONAL FOREST              CAPITAN MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS          28
   05     SEQUOIA NATIONAL FOREST              JENNIE LAKES WILDERNESS               28
   05     SHASTA TRINITY NATIONAL FOREST       CHANCHELULLA WILDERNESS               28
   06     WALLOWA WHITMAN NATIONAL FOREST      HELLS CANYON WILDERNESS               28
   08     NATIONAL FORESTS IN TEXAS            BIG SLOUGH WILDERNESS                 28
   08     NATIONAL FORESTS IN TEXAS            INDIAN MOUNDS WILDERNESS              28
   08     NATIONAL FORESTS IN TEXAS            LITTLE LAKE CREEK WILDERNESS          28
   08     NATIONAL FORESTS IN TEXAS            TURKEY HILL WILDERNESS                28
   05     SIX RIVERS NATIONAL FOREST           NORTH FORK WILDERNESS                 27
   06     FREMONT-WINEMA NATIONAL FORESTS      GEARHART MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS          26
   03     CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST             PAJARITA WILDERNESS                   25
   03     CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST             RINCON MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS            25
   03     CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST             SANTA TERESA WILDERNESS               25
          MT BAKER-SNOQUALMIE NATIONAL
   06                                          GLACIER PEAK WILDERNESS               25
          FOREST
          MT BAKER-SNOQUALMIE NATIONAL
   06                                          NOISY-DIOBSUD WILDERNESS              25
          FOREST

                                                                              25 | P a g e
                                                                              TOTAL
REGION   LEAD FOREST NAME                 WILDERNESS NAME
                                                                              SCORE
  03     COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST         MUNDS MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS             24
  05     LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST       VENTANA WILDERNESS                    24
  03     COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST         FOSSIL SPRINGS WILDERNESS             23
  03     CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST         MT. WRIGHTSON WILDERNESS              23
         MT BAKER-SNOQUALMIE NATIONAL
  06                                      BOULDER RIVER WILDERNESS              23
         FOREST
         MT BAKER-SNOQUALMIE NATIONAL
  06                                      CLEARWATER WILDERNESS                 23
         FOREST
         MT BAKER-SNOQUALMIE NATIONAL
  06                                      HENRY M. JACKSON WILDERNESS           23
         FOREST
         MT BAKER-SNOQUALMIE NATIONAL
  06                                      MOUNT BAKER WILDERNESS                23
         FOREST
  06     OLYMPIC NATIONAL FOREST          COLONEL BOB WILDERNESS                23
  03     COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST         SYCAMORE CANYON WILDERNESS            22
  03     COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST         WEST CLEAR CREEK WILDERNESS           22
  06     MALHEUR NATIONAL FOREST          MONUMENT ROCK WILDERNESS              22
  09     ALLEGHENY NATIONAL FOREST        ALLEGHENY ISLANDS WILDERNESS          22
  06     MT HOOD NATIONAL FOREST          BADGER CREEK WILDERNESS               20
  06     MT HOOD NATIONAL FOREST          BULL OF THE WOODS WILDERNESS          20
         APACHE-SITGREAVES NATIONAL
  03                                      BEAR WALLOW WILDERNESS                18
         FOREST
         APACHE-SITGREAVES NATIONAL
  03                                      ESCUDILLA WILDERNESS                  18
         FOREST
         APACHE-SITGREAVES NATIONAL
  03                                      MOUNT BALDY WILDERNESS                16
         FOREST
  03     COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST         WET BEAVER WILDERNESS                 16
  03     CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST         MILLER PEAK WILDERNESS                16
  05     LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST       SILVER PEAK WILDERNESS                16
  05     SEQUOIA NATIONAL FOREST          MONARCH WILDERNESS                    16
  09     ALLEGHENY NATIONAL FOREST        HICKORY CREEK WILDERNESS              12
  03     CIBOLA NATIONAL FOREST           APACHE KID WILDERNESS                 10
  03     CIBOLA NATIONAL FOREST           SANDIA MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS            10
  03     CIBOLA NATIONAL FOREST           WITHINGTON WILDERNESS                 10
  03     CARSON NATIONAL FOREST           CRUCES BASIN WILDERNESS               8
  05     SHASTA TRINITY NATIONAL FOREST   CASTLE CRAGS WILDERNESS               8
  03     CIBOLA NATIONAL FOREST           MANZANO MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS           4
  06     COLVILLE NATIONAL FOREST         SALMO-PRIEST WILDERNESS               0




                                                                         26 | P a g e
WILDERNESSES NOT REPORTING IN FY 2009

REGION   LEAD FOREST NAME                 WILDERNESS NAME

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




                                                                         27 | 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.

Strategies
The 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).




                                                                                              28 | 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.

                                                                                               29 | 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.




                                                                                                  30 | 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

                                                                                             31 | 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.


                                                                                                 32 | 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 Ground
A 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.


                                                                                                 33 | 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.

Funding
Agency 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.

Training
The 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


                                                                                              34 | 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 Volunteers
Partnering 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.



                                                                                              35 | 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.




                                                                                               36 | 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


                                                                                              37 | 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 Parties
Develop 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                 WAG or WO-WWSR Staff
from a Regional Forester on proposal - gain input to improve

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.




                                                                                            38 | 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.

Considerations:
       Pros:
            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 Parties
Identify potential uses for strike teams (including enterprise teams              WO-WWSR Staff
and master performers)

Secure national funding                                                           WO-WWSR Staff

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

Identify potential strike teams:                                            WO-WWSR Staff and RPMs
     Field based strike teams
     Enterprise Units (assess current capacity or build new?)

                                                                                                39 | P a g e
       Master performers

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




                                                                                            40 | 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.

Considerations:
       Pros:
            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 Parties
Develop budget estimate and proposed approach for allocating             WO-WWSR Staff, RPMs, and
funds to the Regions                                                      Regional RHWR Directors

Task Regions with developing approach for allocating funds to the                WWSR RPMs
forests

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           WO-WWSR Staff, RPMs, and
and if they were successful                                               Regional RHWR Directors



                                                                                            41 | 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?)




                                                                                          42 | 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.

Considerations:
       Pros:
            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 Parties
Develop national approach to be used in place of 1:1 cash matching         WO-WWSR Staff
requirement

Meet with National Forest Foundation to assess their support and           WO-WWSR Staff
discuss issues

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

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




                                                                                        43 | 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.

Considerations:
       Pros:
            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 Parties
         Determine method for identifying regions to visit                           WAG with WWSR
                                                                                   Director and WO Staff
         Identify people who might serve as subject matter experts and                WO-WWSR Staff
         would have the time to travel to one or more regions.

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

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



                                                                                             44 | 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




                                                                                        45 | 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.

Considerations:
       Pros:
                 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 support
       Cons:
                 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 Parties
         Get concurrence on Chief’s willingness to develop video (consider             WWSR Director
         Joel if the Chief is not willing or able)

         Schedule Chief’s time                                                         WWSR Director

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




                                                                                               46 | 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.




                                                                                          47 | 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.

Considerations:
       Pros:
                 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 Parties
         Get concurrence from the WWSR Director on the need for this                WAG WO Liaison
         communication

         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




                                                                                             48 | 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)




                                                                                    49 | 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.

Considerations:
       Pros:
            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 Parties
Identification 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


                                                                                               50 | P a g e
Select person and authorize time for implementation    WWSR Staff

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




                                                                51 | 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.

Considerations:
       Pros:
            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 harshly
       Cons:
            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 Parties
Determine if leveling calls is something Regional Wilderness                 WO-WWSR Staff
Managers would support

Identify moderator to create a leveling template of questions and             WO-WWSR Staff
handle logistics of call

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




                                                                                           52 | 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.

Considerations:
       Pros:
            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 Parties
Gain 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




                                                                                              53 | 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.

Considerations:
       Pros:
            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 Parties
Gain 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

                                                                                           54 | 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).




                                                                                           55 | 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;

                                                                                              56 | 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)

Considerations:
       Pros:
            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 Parties
Integrate region-wide approaches in development of regional                Regional RHWR Director, RPM,
10YWSC strategy.                                                                   and WAG Rep

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




                                                                                             57 | 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.




                                                                                        58 | 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.



                                                                                            59 | 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.

                                                                                                60 | 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.




                                                                                               61 | P a g e

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:3
posted:12/12/2011
language:English
pages:61