THE LUBRECHT REPORT
A MID-WAY ASSESSMENT OF THE 10-YEAR WILDERNESS
STEWARDSHIP CHALLENGE
Summary and Associated Appendices
Developed By:
Wilderness Advisory Group Members
(Steve Boutcher, Ryan Brown, Laura Burns, Tom Carlson, David Cole,
Kevin Hood, Ruth Monahan, Diane Taliaferro, Wendi Urie)
Version Date: April 16TH, 2010
1|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.
Percent of Wildernesses Meeting Standard
100.0%
80.0%
60.0%
After five years, national accomplishment
has improved from 44 wildernesses
“managed to a minimum stewardship level”
in FY 2005 (or 10.8% of all wildernesses) to
122 wildernesses managed to this level in FY
2009 (30.0% of all wildernesses).
40.0%
While progress has been made across all
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
that the current rate of progress will not get
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
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.
20.0%
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 overcommitted 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 nonForest 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, E7Outfitters & 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
of Progress
200
Progress
Needed
150
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)
REGION
TOTAL
SCORE
LEAD FOREST NAME
WILDERNESS NAME
05
09
09
09
09
LAKE TAHOE BASIN MGT UNIT
WHITE MOUNTAIN NATIONAL FOREST
WHITE MOUNTAIN NATIONAL FOREST
WHITE MOUNTAIN NATIONAL FOREST
OTTAWA NATIONAL FOREST
90
88
88
88
86
09
WHITE MOUNTAIN NATIONAL FOREST
02
SAN JUAN NATIONAL FOREST
09
WHITE MOUNTAIN NATIONAL FOREST
04
02
05
05
SAWTOOTH NATIONAL FOREST
BLACK HILLS NATIONAL FOREST
LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST
INYO NATIONAL FOREST
09
SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
01
02
09
01
02
04
TWIN PEAKS WILDERNESS
76
01
01
02
FLATHEAD NATIONAL FOREST
BIGHORN NATIONAL FOREST
HIAWATHA NATIONAL FOREST
NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST
RIO GRANDE NATIONAL FOREST
DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST
UINTA-WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL
FOREST
FLATHEAD NATIONAL FOREST
LOLO NATIONAL FOREST
WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST
DESOLATION WILDERNESS
GREAT GULF WILDERNESS
PEMIGEWASSET WILDERNESS
SANDWICH RANGE WILDERNESS
SYLVANIA WILDERNESS
PRESIDENTIAL RANGE-DRY RIVER
WILDERNESS
WEMINUCHE WILDERNESS
CARIBOU-SPECKLED MOUNTAIN
WILDERNESS
SAWTOOTH WILDERNESS
BLACK ELK WILDERNESS
SAN RAFAEL WILDERNESS
JOHN MUIR WILDERNESS
BOUNDARY WATERS CANOE AREA
WILDERNESS
MISSION MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS
CLOUD PEAK WILDERNESS
BIG ISLAND LAKE WILDERNESS
SELWAY-BITTERROOT WILDERNESS
SOUTH SAN JUAN WILDERNESS
BOX-DEATH HOLLOW WILDERNESS
75
75
75
02
WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST
01
MOUNT OLYMPUS WILDERNESS
74
08
08
01
09
09
FLATHEAD NATIONAL FOREST
UINTA-WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL
FOREST
NATIONAL FORESTS IN FLORIDA
NATIONAL FORESTS IN FLORIDA
FLATHEAD NATIONAL FOREST
HOOSIER NATIONAL FOREST
MARK TWAIN NATIONAL FOREST
BOB MARSHALL WILDERNESS
RATTLESNAKE WILDERNESS
HOLY CROSS WILDERNESS
MAROON BELLS-SNOWMASS
WILDERNESS
GREAT BEAR WILDERNESS
74
74
73
73
73
10
TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST
ALEXANDER SPRINGS WILDERNESS
JUNIPER PRAIRIE WILDERNESS
SCAPEGOAT WILDERNESS
CHARLES C. DEAM WILDERNESS
HERCULES-GLADES WILDERNESS
WEST CHICHAGOF-YAKOBI
WILDERNESS
ANACONDA PINTLER WILDERNESS
72
SANGRE DE CRISTO WILDERNESS
HIGH UINTAS WILDERNESS
72
72
MOUNT NAOMI WILDERNESS
72
04
04
01
02
04
04
BEAVERHEAD-DEERLODGE NATIONAL
FOREST
PIKE-SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FOREST
ASHLEY NATIONAL FOREST
UINTA-WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL
FOREST
86
85
84
82
80
80
79
79
78
78
78
77
76
76
75
74
73
16 | P a g e
REGION
09
09
05
02
02
04
04
04
04
08
08
TOTAL
SCORE
LEAD FOREST NAME
WILDERNESS NAME
GREEN MOUNTAIN AND FINGER LAKES
NATIONAL FORESTS
BIG BRANCH WILDERNESS
72
DOLLY SODS WILDERNESS
SAN GABRIEL WILDERNESS
POPO AGIE WILDERNESS
FLAT TOPS WILDERNESS
PINE VALLEY MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS
MT. MORIAH WILDERNESS
72
71
70
70
70
70
LONE PEAK WILDERNESS
70
WELLSVILLE MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS
70
BILLIES BAY WILDERNESS
LITTLE LAKE GEORGE WILDERNESS
70
70
MONONGAHELA NATIONAL FOREST
ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST
SHOSHONE NATIONAL FOREST
WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST
DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST
HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST
UINTA-WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL
FOREST
UINTA-WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL
FOREST
NATIONAL FORESTS IN FLORIDA
NATIONAL FORESTS IN FLORIDA
09
GREEN MOUNTAIN AND FINGER LAKES
NATIONAL FORESTS
LYE BROOK WILDERNESS
70
09
GREEN MOUNTAIN AND FINGER LAKES
NATIONAL FORESTS
PERU PEAK WILDERNESS
70
04
05
05
BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST
INYO NATIONAL FOREST
STANISLAUS NATIONAL FOREST
TETON WILDERNESS
ANSEL ADAMS WILDERNESS
EMIGRANT WILDERNESS
69
69
69
10
TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST
PETERSBURG CREEK-DUNCAN SALT
CHUCK WILDERNESS
69
10
TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST
MEDICINE BOW-ROUTT NATIONAL
FOREST
PIKE-SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FOREST
SHOSHONE NATIONAL FOREST
WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST
DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST
ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST
ELDORADO NATIONAL FOREST
NATIONAL FORESTS IN FLORIDA
NATIONAL FORESTS IN FLORIDA
NATIONAL FORESTS IN FLORIDA
MONONGAHELA NATIONAL FOREST
MEDICINE BOW-ROUTT NATIONAL
FOREST
HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST
SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST
SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST
GALLATIN NATIONAL FOREST
WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST
CARIBOU-TARGHEE NATIONAL FOREST
UINTA-WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL
FOREST
CHATTAHOOCHEE-OCONEE NATIONAL
FOREST
HURON MANISTEE NATIONAL FOREST
SOUTH BARANOF WILDERNESS
69
SARVIS CREEK WILDERNESS
68
LOST CREEK WILDERNESS
FITZPATRICK WILDERNESS
PTARMIGAN PEAK WILDERNESS
ASHDOWN GORGE WILDERNESS
SHEEP MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS
MOKELUMNE WILDERNESS
BIG GUM SWAMP WILDERNESS
BRADWELL BAY WILDERNESS
MUD SWAMP/NEW RIVER WILDERNESS
OTTER CREEK WILDERNESS
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
MOUNT ZIRKEL WILDERNESS
67
HOOVER WILDERNESS
SAN GORGONIO WILDERNESS
LUSK CREEK WILDERNESS
ABSAROKA-BEARTOOTH WILDERNESS
EAGLES NEST WILDERNESS
JEDEDIAH SMITH WILDERNESS
67
67
67
66
66
66
DESERET PEAK WILDERNESS
66
COHUTTA WILDERNESS
66
NORDHOUSE DUNES WILDERNESS
66
02
02
02
02
04
05
05
08
08
08
09
02
04
05
09
01
02
04
04
08
09
17 | P a g e
REGION
TOTAL
SCORE
LEAD FOREST NAME
WILDERNESS NAME
WARREN ISLAND WILDERNESS
66
NEVER SUMMER WILDERNESS
65
04
04
TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST
ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL
FOREST
BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST
HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST
GROS VENTRE WILDERNESS
JARBIDGE WILDERNESS
65
65
10
TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST
MISTY FJORDS NATIONAL MONUMENT
WILDERNESS
65
10
TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST
TEBENKOF BAY WILDERNESS
65
02
GRAND MESA UNCOMP GUNNISON
NATIONAL FOREST
POWDERHORN WILDERNESS
64
BRIDGER WILDERNESS
64
MOUNT NEBO WILDERNESS
64
GARCIA WILDERNESS
MACHESNA MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS
SANTA LUCIA WILDERNESS
CORONATION ISLAND WILDERNESS
LEE METCALF WILDERNESS
DOMELAND WILDERNESS
BALD KNOB WILDERNESS
TRACY ARM-FORDS TERROR
WILDERNESS
64
64
64
64
63
63
63
BYERS PEAK WILDERNESS
62
JAMES PEAK WILDERNESS
62
MOUNT EVANS WILDERNESS
BLUE RANGE WILDERNESS
CURRANT MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS
62
62
62
MOUNT TIMPANOGOS WILDERNESS
62
DICK SMITH WILDERNESS
SIPSEY WILDERNESS
MCCORMICK WILDERNESS
KARTA RIVER WILDERNESS
MAURILLE ISLANDS WILDERNESS
SOUTH ETOLIN WILDERNESS
WELCOME CREEK WILDERNESS
GOSPEL-HUMP WILDERNESS
62
62
62
62
62
62
61
61
FOSSIL RIDGE WILDERNESS
61
GILA WILDERNESS
EAGLE CAP WILDERNESS
61
61
LINVILLE GORGE WILDERNESS
61
CRANBERRY WILDERNESS
GARDEN OF THE GODS WILDERNESS
KUIU WILDERNESS
61
61
61
CACHE LA POUDRE WILDERNESS
60
10
02
04
05
05
05
10
01
05
09
BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST
UINTA-WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL
FOREST
LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST
LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST
LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST
TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST
GALLATIN NATIONAL FOREST
SEQUOIA NATIONAL FOREST
SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST
10
TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST
04
02
02
02
03
04
04
05
08
09
10
10
10
01
01
02
03
06
08
09
09
10
02
ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL
FOREST
ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL
FOREST
PIKE-SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FOREST
GILA NATIONAL FOREST
HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST
UINTA-WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL
FOREST
LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST
NATIONAL FORESTS IN ALABAMA
OTTAWA NATIONAL FOREST
TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST
TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST
TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST
LOLO NATIONAL FOREST
NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST
GRAND MESA UNCOMP GUNNISON
NATIONAL FOREST
GILA NATIONAL FOREST
WALLOWA WHITMAN NATIONAL FOREST
NATIONAL FORESTS IN NORTH
CAROLINA
MONONGAHELA NATIONAL FOREST
SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST
TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST
ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL
FOREST
63
18 | P a g e
REGION
02
02
LEAD FOREST NAME
ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL
FOREST
WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST
WILDERNESS NAME
TOTAL
SCORE
NEOTA WILDERNESS
60
HUNTER-FRYINGPAN WILDERNESS
60
60
04
SALMON-CHALLIS NATIONAL FOREST
FRANK CHURCH-RIVER OF NO RETURN
WILDERNESS
05
05
08
08
LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST
SIERRA NATIONAL FOREST
OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST
OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST
CHUMASH WILDERNESS
DINKEY LAKES WILDERNESS
CANEY CREEK WILDERNESS
FLATSIDE WILDERNESS
60
60
60
60
09
GREEN MOUNTAIN AND FINGER LAKES
NATIONAL FORESTS
BREADLOAF WILDERNESS
60
WILDERNESSES “NEAR” STANDARD (50 – 59 points)
REGION
06
09
10
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
04
06
06
08
08
08
08
08
TOTAL
SCORE
LEAD FOREST NAME
WILDERNESS NAME
MT HOOD NATIONAL FOREST
MARK TWAIN NATIONAL FOREST
TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST
ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL
FOREST
ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL
FOREST
ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL
FOREST
GRAND MESA UNCOMP GUNNISON
NATIONAL FOREST
MOUNT HOOD WILDERNESS
DEVILS BACKBONE WILDERNESS
STIKINE-LECONTE WILDERNESS
59
59
59
COMANCHE PEAK WILDERNESS
58
INDIAN PEAKS WILDERNESS
58
VASQUEZ PEAK WILDERNESS
58
RAGGEDS WILDERNESS
58
NEBRASKA NATIONAL FOREST
SHOSHONE NATIONAL FOREST
SHOSHONE NATIONAL FOREST
CARIBOU-TARGHEE NATIONAL FOREST
MT HOOD NATIONAL FOREST
MT HOOD NATIONAL FOREST
FRANCIS MARION-SUMTER NATIONAL
FORESTS
OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST
OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST
OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST
OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST
SOLDIER CREEK WILDERNESS
NORTH ABSAROKA WILDERNESS
WASHAKIE WILDERNESS
WINEGAR HOLE WILDERNESS
MARK O. HATFIELD WILDERNESS
SALMON-HUCKLEBERRY WILDERNESS
58
58
58
58
58
58
ELLICOTT ROCK WILDERNESS
58
BLACK FORK MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS
DRY CREEK WILDERNESS
POTEAU MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS
UPPER KIAMICHI RIVER WILDERNESS
58
58
58
58
02
GRAND MESA UNCOMP GUNNISON
NATIONAL FOREST
LA GARITA WILDERNESS
57
03
04
08
08
09
09
GILA NATIONAL FOREST
HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST
KISATCHIE NATIONAL FOREST
NATIONAL FORESTS IN ALABAMA
MARK TWAIN NATIONAL FOREST
MARK TWAIN NATIONAL FOREST
ALDO LEOPOLD WILDERNESS
ARC DOME WILDERNESS
KISATCHIE HILLS WILDERNESS
CHEAHA WILDERNESS
IRISH WILDERNESS
PADDY CREEK WILDERNESS
57
57
57
57
57
57
19 | P a g e
REGION
09
02
02
06
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
09
09
02
08
08
WILDERNESS NAME
SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST
ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL
FOREST
GRAND MESA UNCOMP GUNNISON
NATIONAL FOREST
CLEAR SPRINGS WILDERNESS
57
RAWAH WILDERNESS
56
WEST ELK WILDERNESS
56
GIFFORD PINCHOT NATIONAL FOREST
CHATTAHOOCHEE-OCONEE NATIONAL
FOREST
GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON
NATIONAL FORESTS
MOUNT ADAMS WILDERNESS
56
BLOOD MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS
56
LEWIS FORK WILDERNESS
56
LITTLE WILSON CREEK WILDERNESS
56
EAST FORK WILDERNESS
HURRICANE CREEK WILDERNESS
LEATHERWOOD WILDERNESS
RICHLAND CREEK WILDERNESS
UPPER BUFFALO WILDERNESS
ROCK RIVER CANYON WILDERNESS
ROUND ISLAND WILDERNESS
GREENHORN MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS
BIG FROG WILDERNESS
DUGGER MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
55
55
55
MIDDLE PRONG WILDERNESS
55
SHINING ROCK WILDERNESS
55
DELIRIUM WILDERNESS
BELL MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS
SOUTH PRINCE OF WALES
WILDERNESS
CABINET MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS
WHEELER PEAK WILDERNESS
55
55
RAVEN CLIFFS WILDERNESS
54
BRISTOL CLIFFS WILDERNESS
54
ENCAMPMENT RIVER WILDERNESS
53
MOUNT MASSIVE WILDERNESS
MT. CHARLESTON WILDERNESS
QUINN CANYON WILDERNESS
CUCAMONGA WILDERNESS
TRAPPER CREEK WILDERNESS
MOUNT JEFFERSON WILDERNESS
LITTLE FROG MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS
JOYCE KILMER-SLICKROCK
WILDERNESS
MARBLE MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS
KIAVAH WILDERNESS
INDIAN HEAVEN WILDERNESS
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON
NATIONAL FORESTS
09
09
OZARK-ST FRANCIS NATIONAL FOREST
OZARK-ST FRANCIS NATIONAL FOREST
OZARK-ST FRANCIS NATIONAL FOREST
OZARK-ST FRANCIS NATIONAL FOREST
OZARK-ST FRANCIS NATIONAL FOREST
HIAWATHA NATIONAL FOREST
HIAWATHA NATIONAL FOREST
PIKE-SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FOREST
CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST
NATIONAL FORESTS IN ALABAMA
NATIONAL FORESTS IN NORTH
CAROLINA
NATIONAL FORESTS IN NORTH
CAROLINA
HIAWATHA NATIONAL FOREST
MARK TWAIN NATIONAL FOREST
10
TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST
01
03
KOOTENAI NATIONAL FOREST
CARSON NATIONAL FOREST
CHATTAHOOCHEE-OCONEE NATIONAL
FOREST
GREEN MOUNTAIN AND FINGER LAKES
NATIONAL FORESTS
MEDICINE BOW-ROUTT NATIONAL
FOREST
PIKE-SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FOREST
HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST
HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST
SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST
GIFFORD PINCHOT NATIONAL FOREST
WILLAMETTE NATIONAL FOREST
CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST
NATIONAL FORESTS IN NORTH
CAROLINA
KLAMATH NATIONAL FOREST
SEQUOIA NATIONAL FOREST
GIFFORD PINCHOT NATIONAL FOREST
08
08
08
09
02
02
04
04
05
06
06
08
08
05
05
06
TOTAL
SCORE
LEAD FOREST NAME
55
54
54
53
52
52
52
20 | P a g e
REGION
08
09
09
09
02
02
02
04
04
04
06
08
LEAD FOREST NAME
FRANCIS MARION-SUMTER NATIONAL
FORESTS
CHEQUAMEGON-NICOLET NATIONAL
FOREST
CHEQUAMEGON-NICOLET NATIONAL
FOREST
HIAWATHA NATIONAL FOREST
PIKE-SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FOREST
PIKE-SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FOREST
PIKE-SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FOREST
HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST
HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST
HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST
FREMONT-WINEMA NATIONAL FORESTS
CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST
WILDERNESS NAME
TOTAL
SCORE
WAMBAW CREEK WILDERNESS
52
PORCUPINE LAKE WILDERNESS
52
RAINBOW LAKE WILDERNESS
52
MACKINAC WILDERNESS
BUFFALO PEAKS WILDERNESS
COLLEGIATE PEAKS WILDERNESS
SPANISH PEAKS WILDERNESS
ALTA TOQUIMA WILDERNESS
RUBY MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS
TABLE MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS
MOUNTAIN LAKES WILDERNESS
CITICO CREEK WILDERNESS
52
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
08
GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON
NATIONAL FORESTS
BARBOURS CREEK WILDERNESS
51
08
GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON
NATIONAL FORESTS
JAMES RIVER FACE WILDERNESS
51
08
GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON
NATIONAL FORESTS
MOUNTAIN LAKE WILDERNESS
51
08
GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON
NATIONAL FORESTS
PETERS MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS
51
HIAWATHA NATIONAL FOREST
MARK TWAIN NATIONAL FOREST
MEDICINE BOW-ROUTT NATIONAL
FOREST
MEDICINE BOW-ROUTT NATIONAL
FOREST
TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST
CHATTAHOOCHEE-OCONEE NATIONAL
FOREST
CHATTAHOOCHEE-OCONEE NATIONAL
FOREST
CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST
CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST
CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST
CHEQUAMEGON-NICOLET NATIONAL
FOREST
CHEQUAMEGON-NICOLET NATIONAL
FOREST
CHEQUAMEGON-NICOLET NATIONAL
FOREST
GREEN MOUNTAIN AND FINGER LAKES
NATIONAL FORESTS
HORSESHOE BAY WILDERNESS
PINEY CREEK WILDERNESS
51
51
PLATTE RIVER WILDERNESS
50
SAVAGE RUN WILDERNESS
50
GRANITE CHIEF WILDERNESS
50
BRASSTOWN WILDERNESS
50
MARK TRAIL WILDERNESS
50
BIG LAUREL BRANCH WILDERNESS
POND MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS
UNAKA MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS
50
50
50
BLACKJACK SPRINGS WILDERNESS
50
HEADWATERS WILDERNESS
50
WHISKER LAKE WILDERNESS
50
GEORGE D. AIKEN WILDERNESS
50
TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST
KOOTZNOOWOO WILDERNESS
50
09
09
02
02
05
08
08
08
08
08
09
09
09
09
10
21 | P a g e
WILDERNESSES “APPROACHING” STANDARD (35 - 49 points)
REGION
02
03
05
06
08
LEAD FOREST NAME
MEDICINE BOW-ROUTT NATIONAL
FOREST
SANTA FE NATIONAL FOREST
INYO NATIONAL FOREST
UMATILLA NATIONAL FOREST
CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST
TOTAL
SCORE
WILDERNESS NAME
HUSTON PARK WILDERNESS
49
PECOS WILDERNESS
GOLDEN TROUT WILDERNESS
WENAHA-TUCANNON WILDERNESS
BALD RIVER GORGE WILDERNESS
49
49
49
49
08
GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON
NATIONAL FORESTS
BEARTOWN WILDERNESS
49
08
GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON
NATIONAL FORESTS
SHAWVERS RUN WILDERNESS
49
09
09
MONONGAHELA NATIONAL FOREST
MONONGAHELA NATIONAL FOREST
49
49
01
HELENA NATIONAL FOREST
04
05
05
06
MANTI-LASAL NATIONAL FOREST
LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST
SIERRA NATIONAL FOREST
WILLAMETTE NATIONAL FOREST
CHATTAHOOCHEE-OCONEE NATIONAL
FOREST
CHATTAHOOCHEE-OCONEE NATIONAL
FOREST
FRANCIS MARION-SUMTER NATIONAL
FORESTS
FRANCIS MARION-SUMTER NATIONAL
FORESTS
FRANCIS MARION-SUMTER NATIONAL
FORESTS
GRAND MESA UNCOMP GUNNISON
NATIONAL FOREST
LAUREL FORK NORTH WILDERNESS
LAUREL FORK SOUTH WILDERNESS
GATES OF THE MOUNTAINS
WILDERNESS
DARK CANYON WILDERNESS
SESPE WILDERNESS
KAISER WILDERNESS
OPAL CREEK WILDERNESS
RICH MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS
48
TRAY MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS
48
HELL HOLE BAY WILDERNESS
48
LITTLE WAMBAW SWAMP WILDERNESS
48
WAMBAW SWAMP WILDERNESS
48
LIZARD HEAD WILDERNESS
47
KANAB CREEK WILDERNESS
EAST HUMBOLDTS WILDERNESS
SANTA ROSA-PARADISE PEAK
WILDERNESS
MATILIJA WILDERNESS
NORTH FORK JOHN DAY WILDERNESS
NORTH FORK UMATILLA WILDERNESS
THREE SISTERS WILDERNESS
47
47
08
08
08
08
08
02
48
48
48
48
48
03
04
KAIBAB NATIONAL FOREST
HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST
04
HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST
05
06
06
06
LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST
UMATILLA NATIONAL FOREST
UMATILLA NATIONAL FOREST
WILLAMETTE NATIONAL FOREST
08
GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON
NATIONAL FORESTS
PRIEST WILDERNESS
47
08
GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON
NATIONAL FORESTS
SAINT MARY'S WILDERNESS
47
09
OTTAWA NATIONAL FOREST
05
05
SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST
SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST
NATIONAL FORESTS IN NORTH
CAROLINA
PRESCOTT NATIONAL FOREST
08
03
STURGEON RIVER GORGE
WILDERNESS
SAN JACINTO WILDERNESS
SANTA ROSA WILDERNESS
47
47
47
47
47
47
46
46
BIRKHEAD MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS
46
GRANITE MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS (AZ)
45
22 | P a g e
REGION
04
06
06
06
08
TOTAL
SCORE
LEAD FOREST NAME
WILDERNESS NAME
HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST
ROGUE RIVER-SISKIYOU NATIONAL
FOREST
SIUSLAW NATIONAL FOREST
WILLAMETTE NATIONAL FOREST
DANIEL BOONE NATIONAL FOREST
GRANT RANGE WILDERNESS
45
KALMIOPSIS WILDERNESS
45
CUMMINS CREEK WILDERNESS
MOUNT WASHINGTON WILDERNESS
BEAVER CREEK WILDERNESS
45
45
45
08
GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON
NATIONAL FORESTS
LITTLE DRY RUN WILDERNESS
45
08
GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON
NATIONAL FORESTS
RAMSEYS DRAFT WILDERNESS
45
08
GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON
NATIONAL FORESTS
RICH HOLE WILDERNESS
45
08
GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON
NATIONAL FORESTS
ROUGH MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS
45
THUNDER RIDGE WILDERNESS
45
SOUTHERN NANTAHALA WILDERNESS
45
ROCKPILE MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS
BURDEN FALLS WILDERNESS
PANTHER DEN WILDERNESS
RUSSIAN WILDERNESS
CARIBOU WILDERNESS
YOLLA BOLLY-MIDDLE EEL
WILDERNESS
DIAMOND PEAK WILDERNESS
45
45
45
44
44
SKY LAKES WILDERNESS
44
DRIFT CREEK WILDERNESS
ROCK CREEK WILDERNESS
MENAGERIE WILDERNESS
MIDDLE SANTIAM WILDERNESS
44
44
44
44
CATFISH LAKE SOUTH WILDERNESS
44
POCOSIN WILDERNESS
44
POND PINE WILDERNESS
44
SHEEP RIDGE WILDERNESS
44
09
09
09
05
05
GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON
NATIONAL FORESTS
NATIONAL FORESTS IN NORTH
CAROLINA
MARK TWAIN NATIONAL FOREST
SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST
SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST
KLAMATH NATIONAL FOREST
LASSEN NATIONAL FOREST
05
MENDOCINO NATIONAL FOREST
06
DESCHUTES NATIONAL FOREST
ROGUE RIVER-SISKIYOU NATIONAL
FOREST
SIUSLAW NATIONAL FOREST
SIUSLAW NATIONAL FOREST
WILLAMETTE NATIONAL FOREST
WILLAMETTE NATIONAL FOREST
NATIONAL FORESTS IN NORTH
CAROLINA
NATIONAL FORESTS IN NORTH
CAROLINA
NATIONAL FORESTS IN NORTH
CAROLINA
NATIONAL FORESTS IN NORTH
CAROLINA
SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST
08
08
06
06
06
06
06
08
08
08
08
09
44
44
BAY CREEK WILDERNESS
44
02
GRAND MESA UNCOMP GUNNISON
NATIONAL FOREST
MOUNT SNEFFELS WILDERNESS
43
02
GRAND MESA UNCOMP GUNNISON
NATIONAL FOREST
UNCOMPAHGRE WILDERNESS
43
KAIBAB NATIONAL FOREST
HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST
HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST
SHASTA TRINITY NATIONAL FOREST
OKANOGAN-WENATCHEE NATIONAL
FORESTS
SADDLE MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS
LA MADRE MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS
RAINBOW MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS
TRINITY ALPS WILDERNESS
LAKE CHELAN-SAWTOOTH
WILDERNESS
43
43
43
43
03
04
04
05
06
43
23 | P a g e
REGION
TOTAL
SCORE
LEAD FOREST NAME
WILDERNESS NAME
08
08
CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST
DANIEL BOONE NATIONAL FOREST
SAMPSON MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS
CLIFTY WILDERNESS
43
43
08
GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON
NATIONAL FORESTS
KIMBERLING CREEK WILDERNESS
43
08
GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON
NATIONAL FORESTS
THREE RIDGES WILDERNESS
43
10
TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST
PLEASANT/LEMUSURIER/INIAN
ISLANDS WILDERNESS
43
05
LASSEN NATIONAL FOREST
OKANOGAN-WENATCHEE NATIONAL
FORESTS
WILLAMETTE NATIONAL FOREST
PRESCOTT NATIONAL FOREST
PRESCOTT NATIONAL FOREST
PRESCOTT NATIONAL FOREST
SANTA FE NATIONAL FOREST
OCHOCO NATIONAL FOREST
OKANOGAN-WENATCHEE NATIONAL
FORESTS
UMPQUA NATIONAL FOREST
HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST
LASSEN NATIONAL FOREST
OKANOGAN-WENATCHEE NATIONAL
FORESTS
PRESCOTT NATIONAL FOREST
PRESCOTT NATIONAL FOREST
SANTA FE NATIONAL FOREST
HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST
OCHOCO NATIONAL FOREST
OLYMPIC NATIONAL FOREST
OLYMPIC NATIONAL FOREST
UMPQUA NATIONAL FOREST
CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST
TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST
TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST
GIFFORD PINCHOT NATIONAL FOREST
SANTA FE NATIONAL FOREST
INYO NATIONAL FOREST
KLAMATH NATIONAL FOREST
OLYMPIC NATIONAL FOREST
CARSON NATIONAL FOREST
INYO NATIONAL FOREST
MENDOCINO NATIONAL FOREST
GIFFORD PINCHOT NATIONAL FOREST
OCHOCO NATIONAL FOREST
ROGUE RIVER-SISKIYOU NATIONAL
FOREST
PRESCOTT NATIONAL FOREST
ISHI WILDERNESS
42
PASAYTEN WILDERNESS
42
WALDO LAKE WILDERNESS
CASTLE CREEK WILDERNESS
PINE MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS
WOODCHUTE WILDERNESS
SAN PEDRO PARKS WILDERNESS
BLACK CANYON WILDERNESS
42
41
41
41
41
41
WILLIAM O. DOUGLAS WILDERNESS
41
ROGUE-UMPQUA DIVIDE WILDERNESS
MT. ROSE WILDERNESS
THOUSAND LAKES WILDERNESS
41
40
40
NORSE PEAK WILDERNESS
40
CEDAR BENCH WILDERNESS
JUNIPER MESA WILDERNESS
CHAMA RIVER CANYON WILDERNESS
CARSON-ICEBERG WILDERNESS
MILL CREEK WILDERNESS
MOUNT SKOKOMISH WILDERNESS
THE BROTHERS WILDERNESS
BOULDER CREEK WILDERNESS
GEE CREEK WILDERNESS
CHUCK RIVER WILDERNESS
ENDICOTT RIVER WILDERNESS
TATOOSH WILDERNESS
DOME WILDERNESS
SOUTH SIERRA WILDERNESS
SISKIYOU WILDERNESS
BUCKHORN WILDERNESS
LATIR PEAK WILDERNESS
INYO MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS
SNOW MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS
GLACIER VIEW WILDERNESS
BRIDGE CREEK WILDERNESS
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
38
37
37
37
37
36
36
36
36
36
RED BUTTES WILDERNESS
36
APACHE CREEK WILDERNESS
35
06
06
03
03
03
03
06
06
06
04
05
06
03
03
03
04
06
06
06
06
08
10
10
06
03
05
05
06
03
05
05
06
06
06
03
24 | P a g e
REGION
06
06
10
LEAD FOREST NAME
WILDERNESS NAME
GIFFORD PINCHOT NATIONAL FOREST
OLYMPIC NATIONAL FOREST
TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST
GOAT ROCKS WILDERNESS
WONDER MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS
RUSSELL FJORD WILDERNESS
TOTAL
SCORE
35
35
35
WILDERNESSES “WELL BELOW” STANDARD (0 - 34 points)
REGION
LEAD FOREST NAME
03
COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST
05
08
03
05
03
SHASTA TRINITY NATIONAL FOREST
NATIONAL FORESTS IN MISSISSIPPI
CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST
INYO NATIONAL FOREST
ROGUE RIVER-SISKIYOU NATIONAL
FOREST
LINCOLN NATIONAL FOREST
06
MALHEUR NATIONAL FOREST
08
03
NATIONAL FORESTS IN MISSISSIPPI
CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST
OKANOGAN-WENATCHEE NATIONAL
FORESTS
UMPQUA NATIONAL FOREST
NATIONAL FORESTS IN TEXAS
CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST
ROGUE RIVER-SISKIYOU NATIONAL
FOREST
COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST
COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST
KAIBAB NATIONAL FOREST
LINCOLN NATIONAL FOREST
SEQUOIA NATIONAL FOREST
SHASTA TRINITY NATIONAL FOREST
WALLOWA WHITMAN NATIONAL FOREST
NATIONAL FORESTS IN TEXAS
NATIONAL FORESTS IN TEXAS
NATIONAL FORESTS IN TEXAS
NATIONAL FORESTS IN TEXAS
SIX RIVERS NATIONAL FOREST
FREMONT-WINEMA NATIONAL FORESTS
CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST
CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST
CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST
MT BAKER-SNOQUALMIE NATIONAL
FOREST
MT BAKER-SNOQUALMIE NATIONAL
FOREST
06
06
06
08
03
06
03
03
03
03
05
05
06
08
08
08
08
05
06
03
03
03
06
06
WILDERNESS NAME
RED ROCK-SECRET MOUNTAIN
WILDERNESS
MT. SHASTA WILDERNESS
BLACK CREEK WILDERNESS
CHIRICAHUA WILDERNESS
BOUNDARY PEAK WILDERNESS
TOTAL
SCORE
34
34
34
33
33
WILD ROGUE WILDERNESS
33
WHITE MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS
STRAWBERRY MOUNTAIN
WILDERNESS
LEAF WILDERNESS
GALIURO WILDERNESS
32
ALPINE LAKES WILDERNESS
31
MOUNT THIELSEN WILDERNESS
UPLAND ISLAND WILDERNESS
PUSCH RIDGE WILDERNESS
31
31
29
GRASSY KNOB WILDERNESS
29
KACHINA PEAKS WILDERNESS
STRAWBERRY CRATER WILDERNESS
KENDRICK MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS
CAPITAN MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS
JENNIE LAKES WILDERNESS
CHANCHELULLA WILDERNESS
HELLS CANYON WILDERNESS
BIG SLOUGH WILDERNESS
INDIAN MOUNDS WILDERNESS
LITTLE LAKE CREEK WILDERNESS
TURKEY HILL WILDERNESS
NORTH FORK WILDERNESS
GEARHART MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS
PAJARITA WILDERNESS
RINCON MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS
SANTA TERESA WILDERNESS
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
27
26
25
25
25
GLACIER PEAK WILDERNESS
25
NOISY-DIOBSUD WILDERNESS
25
32
32
31
25 | P a g e
REGION
03
05
03
03
06
06
06
06
06
03
03
06
09
06
06
03
03
03
03
03
05
05
09
03
03
03
03
05
03
06
TOTAL
SCORE
LEAD FOREST NAME
WILDERNESS NAME
COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST
LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST
COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST
CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST
MT BAKER-SNOQUALMIE NATIONAL
FOREST
MT BAKER-SNOQUALMIE NATIONAL
FOREST
MT BAKER-SNOQUALMIE NATIONAL
FOREST
MT BAKER-SNOQUALMIE NATIONAL
FOREST
OLYMPIC NATIONAL FOREST
COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST
COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST
MALHEUR NATIONAL FOREST
ALLEGHENY NATIONAL FOREST
MT HOOD NATIONAL FOREST
MT HOOD NATIONAL FOREST
APACHE-SITGREAVES NATIONAL
FOREST
APACHE-SITGREAVES NATIONAL
FOREST
APACHE-SITGREAVES NATIONAL
FOREST
COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST
CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST
LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST
SEQUOIA NATIONAL FOREST
ALLEGHENY NATIONAL FOREST
CIBOLA NATIONAL FOREST
CIBOLA NATIONAL FOREST
CIBOLA NATIONAL FOREST
CARSON NATIONAL FOREST
SHASTA TRINITY NATIONAL FOREST
CIBOLA NATIONAL FOREST
COLVILLE NATIONAL FOREST
MUNDS MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS
VENTANA WILDERNESS
FOSSIL SPRINGS WILDERNESS
MT. WRIGHTSON WILDERNESS
24
24
23
23
BOULDER RIVER WILDERNESS
23
CLEARWATER WILDERNESS
23
HENRY M. JACKSON WILDERNESS
23
MOUNT BAKER WILDERNESS
23
COLONEL BOB WILDERNESS
SYCAMORE CANYON WILDERNESS
WEST CLEAR CREEK WILDERNESS
MONUMENT ROCK WILDERNESS
ALLEGHENY ISLANDS WILDERNESS
BADGER CREEK WILDERNESS
BULL OF THE WOODS WILDERNESS
23
22
22
22
22
20
20
BEAR WALLOW WILDERNESS
18
ESCUDILLA WILDERNESS
18
MOUNT BALDY WILDERNESS
16
WET BEAVER WILDERNESS
MILLER PEAK WILDERNESS
SILVER PEAK WILDERNESS
MONARCH WILDERNESS
HICKORY CREEK WILDERNESS
APACHE KID WILDERNESS
SANDIA MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS
WITHINGTON WILDERNESS
CRUCES BASIN WILDERNESS
CASTLE CRAGS WILDERNESS
MANZANO MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS
SALMO-PRIEST WILDERNESS
16
16
16
16
12
10
10
10
8
8
4
0
26 | P a g e
WILDERNESSES NOT REPORTING IN FY 2009
REGION
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
LEAD FOREST NAME
WILDERNESS NAME
TONTO NATIONAL FOREST
TONTO NATIONAL FOREST
TONTO NATIONAL FOREST
TONTO NATIONAL FOREST
TONTO NATIONAL FOREST
TONTO NATIONAL FOREST
TONTO NATIONAL FOREST
CLEVELAND NATIONAL FOREST
CLEVELAND NATIONAL FOREST
CLEVELAND NATIONAL FOREST
CLEVELAND NATIONAL FOREST
MODOC NATIONAL FOREST
PLUMAS NATIONAL FOREST
SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST
FOUR PEAKS WILDERNESS
HELLSGATE WILDERNESS
MAZATZAL WILDERNESS
SALOME WILDERNESS
SALT RIVER CANYON WILDERNESS
SIERRA ANCHA WILDERNESS
SUPERSTITION WILDERNESS
AGUA TIBIA WILDERNESS
HAUSER WILDERNESS
PINE CREEK WILDERNESS
SAN MATEO CANYON WILDERNESS
SOUTH WARNER WILDERNESS
BUCKS LAKE WILDERNESS
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 preexisting 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
Develop detailed proposal
Responsible Parties
WAG or WO-WWSR Staff
Develop template for Regional Strategies
WAG or WO-WWSR Staff
Brief Chris Brown and WO-WWSR Staff and seek input/advice
from a Regional Forester on proposal - gain input to improve
WAG or WO-WWSR Staff
Brief Joel Holtrop– gain support to move forward
Draft letter for Chief
Have letter signed and disseminated to the RFs
WO-WWSR Staff
WAG or WO-WWSR Staff
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
and master performers)
WO-WWSR Staff
Secure national funding
WO-WWSR Staff
Assess interest of forests in using strike teams and solicit proposals
Identify potential strike teams:
 Field based strike teams
 Enterprise Units (assess current capacity or build new?)
WWSR RPMs
WO-WWSR Staff and RPMs
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
Develop budget estimate and proposed approach for allocating
funds to the Regions
Task Regions with developing approach for allocating funds to the
forests
Secure national funding and allocate to the Regions
Regions to allocate funds to the forests
Evaluation at year’s end to determine how the funds were spent
and if they were successful
Responsible Parties
WO-WWSR Staff, RPMs, and
Regional RHWR Directors
WWSR RPMs
WO-WWSR Staff
WWSR RPMs
WO-WWSR Staff, RPMs, and
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
Develop national approach to be used in place of 1:1 cash matching
requirement
Responsible Parties
WO-WWSR Staff
Meet with National Forest Foundation to assess their support and
discuss issues
WO-WWSR Staff
Secure national funding and provide to NFF (will likely require an
agreement of some type)
WO-WWSR Staff
Keys to Implementation:
 Support from NFF to not only continue their current grant program but to expand its capacity
 Need to nurture and support nascent stewardship groups
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
Determine method for identifying regions to visit
Identify people who might serve as subject matter experts and
would have the time to travel to one or more regions.
Responsible Parties
WAG with WWSR
Director and WO Staff
WO-WWSR Staff
Poll the regions to see if they have interest in hosting the assistance
review team. Inquire about their ability to cover travel expenses.
WO-WWSR Staff
Pair up those willing to serve on a team and the regions requesting
assistance – and schedule the visits.
WO-WWSR Staff
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
Get concurrence on Chief’s willingness to develop video (consider
Joel if the Chief is not willing or able)
Schedule Chief’s time
Responsible Parties
WWSR Director
WWSR Director
Develop draft script – have WO staff and Office of Communications
provide review
WAG rep and WOWWSR Staff
Finalize script
WAG rep and WOWWSR 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
Get concurrence from the WWSR Director on the need for this
communication
Responsible Parties
WAG WO Liaison
Decide format for this communication as well as the frequency
WAG with WWSR
Director and WO Staff
Develop content for the first communication
WAG with WWSR
Director and WO Staff
Keys to Implementation:
 Need concurrence from WWSR Director that this is a worthwhile thing to do
 Need to provide the staff resources necessary to produce the periodic communications
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
Identification of role responsibilities
Responsible Parties
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
Determine if leveling calls is something Regional Wilderness
Managers would support
Identify moderator to create a leveling template of questions and
handle logistics of call
Responsible Parties
WO-WWSR Staff
WO-WWSR Staff
Keys to Implementation:
 Support from regional program managers
 Identification of moderator for call
 Would need to be coupled with regional calls for benefits of leveling efforts to reach data
stewards on Forests
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
Gain support for calls
Responsible Parties
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
Gain support for project from WO staff
Responsible Parties
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
Integrate region-wide approaches in development of regional
10YWSC strategy.
Responsible Parties
Regional RHWR Director, RPM,
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
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Address 10YWSC fatigue and clarify objectives (i.e. planning vs. on-the- ground
accomplishment).
Develop and use strike teams as needed.
Utilize subject matter experts as detailers to draft a template or prepare examples or plans to
share with others.
Establish and support a wilderness career ladder at all levels.
Develop and use a regional strategy and/or action plan.
Use regional or wilderness-wide leveling calls or meetings to examine accomplishments and
share ideas and expertise.
Consider using a regional approach to focus on one element per year to increase efficiency,
knowledge transfer and accomplishment.
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.
Increase priority level of commitment to wilderness stewardship vs. competing priorities such as
travel management, ARRA projects, other NFRW programs, etc.
Involve regional leadership to show commitment to under-performing forests.
Display accomplishments on clear, color-coded charts to help focus priorities.
Develop a regional Guidebook.
Use a regional Wilderness Advisory Group.
Funding:
o
o
o
Integrate funding for all resource management programs in wilderness.
Target funding to enhance accomplishment of specific elements or to support under-performing
locations.
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