Hi! Welcome to your guidebook. We hope this guidebook helps you understand the 10 Year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge and provides you with some tools to help you implement it. We have tried to answer many questions here; however, we recognize individual wilderness managers have the best understanding of their unique situations and are responsible for making their own judgment on how to report on the accomplishments. Therefore this guide will not tell you what to report. Ultimately, this is up to you.

Executive Summary

The 10-Year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge (Challenge) was developed by the Chief’s Wilderness Advisory Group (WAG) as a quantifiable measurement of the Forest Service’s success in Wilderness stewardship. The goal identified by the Wilderness Advisory Group, and endorsed by the Chief, is to bring each and every wilderness under Forest Service management to a minimum stewardship level by the 50th Anniversary of the Wilderness Act in 2014. The first year of the Challenge was Fiscal Year 2005.

Wilderness encompasses nearly 20% of the land area of the National Forest System. The Wilderness Act of 1964 states that wilderness is to be managed for the “enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness.” With improving technologies and ever increasing pressure from a growing population, wilderness program responsibilities and complexities have increased while available wilderness workforce has decreased. Consequently, concerns have risen at many levels of the agency regarding our ability, at the ground level, to assure the protection and perpetuation of wilderness.

In 2002, an assessment of critical tasks of wilderness stewardship was applied nationally, and wildernesses did not fare well. An earlier attempt to quantify wilderness management tasks had identified over 200 individual tasks. The Wilderness Information Management Steering Group, in an effort to simplify this measurement, distilled these 200 individual tasks down to 10 comprehensive elements. A “minimum stewardship level” was defined as meeting 6 out of the 10 elements. The 2002 data indicated that only 8% of the Forest Service Wildernesses were managed to this “minimum stewardship level.”

Data from the 2005 reporting indicate only a slight improvement from the original assessment, with approximately 12% of wildernesses meeting the minimum level of stewardship. Since then, accomplishment has been in a positive direction, most recently 73.2% of wildernesses reported being managed to this standard as of the FY 2012 reporting cycle. Perhaps more encouragingly, the average score for all wildernesses has risen steadily from 34.7 in FY 2005 to 65.5 in FY 2012.

It is clear that the Challenge cannot be met by utilizing resources in wilderness and recreation alone. An interdisciplinary approach is necessary. Support is needed from specialists in air quality, aquatics, botany, fire, and wildlife. Leadership and field managers will need to work closely with these programs to successfully meet the Challenge.

Feedback Requested

The Wilderness Advisory Group is interested in making this guidebook as helpful as possible. If you’ve referred to this Guidebook with a question, and did not find an answer, or if you are confused by what has been written, we want to hear from you. If you have comments or suggestions, please send them to Steve Boutcher ().

What is the purpose of the 10-Year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge?

§
For the first time, critical parts of the job of wilderness management are defined. The 10-Year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge provides a yardstick against which we can evaluate how we are doing and what it will take to reach successful stewardship levels. It’s important to remember that the 10 elements identified in the Challenge are not to be regarded as a checklist or a card to be punched. Attainment of each element is a stepping-stone to ensure that each wilderness retains its untamed spirit into the future. The purpose of the 10-Year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge is to insure that wildernesses are managed as required by the Wilderness Act and passed to the next generation in better condition than when they were designated.

How does the 10-Year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge impact the way wilderness is managed within the Forest Service?

§ The 10-Year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge will bring a multi-disciplinary focus to wilderness management. The Forest Service oversees 33% of the National Wilderness Preservation System; wilderness comprises 19% of the land base of the Forest Service. It is essential to have specialists from a variety of disciplines to help with this task. Specialists from air quality, hydrology, botany, fire, heritage, and fish and wildlife should continue or begin to address wilderness stewardship in their annual program of work.

What will happen if the 10-Year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge is not implemented?

§ The Wilderness Act requires the Forest Service to preserve wilderness character and insures that the adverse effects of human activities do not impair natural conditions. The 10YWSC is a measure of how the agency is handling this responsibility.

§ Wilderness management may continue to take a backseat to the myriad of demands being made on the Forest Service. With achievable, measurable outcomes we can clearly articulate the job that is and is not being done to protect wilderness and its wilderness character.

What happens once the 10–Year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge “minimum stewardship level” is met?

§ Bringing all wildernesses up to the level where they are considered “meeting the minimum stewardship level” will bring Forest Service wildernesses to a standard not achieved before. However, this is only a step towards “preserving wilderness as an enduring resource.” If we are to maintain a minimum level of stewardship, plans will need to be implemented and progress must be checked through monitoring. Elements may be modified through time, if necessary, to meet the intent of our mandate.

Some of the 10 elements are not NFRW funded - - why are we being held responsible for achieving these elements?

§ Some level of NFRW funding (dollars allocated to the recreation and wilderness programs) is needed in each element for project initiation and coordination. Wilderness managers, while not ultimately responsible for completion of fire plans, should still be closely involved with those specialists who will be doing the work.

§ Wilderness does not operate in a vacuum and is not just about recreation. Instead, the wilderness resource is a collection of integrated components including air, water, fish, wildlife, plants, heritage resources, and fire. In the past, management of these resources has often stopped at the wilderness boundary. There is a need to integrate funds, resources, and cooperation among programs in order to effectively manage wilderness. Achievement of the 10-Year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge is the responsibility of all employees regardless of funding source and opportunities exist for discussion with and education of other specialists who may not typically work in wilderness.

If successful accomplishment is scoring 60 points, then what is the incentive to do more and better stewardship for the resource? I envision people developing plans to check off as many elements as possible but it won’t improve things in wilderness. Isn’t this just a paper exercise?

§ While it may be tempting to view this as a checklist, each element has a desired outcome that will actually make a difference on the ground. Planning plays a large role in management of the national forests; but without actual implementation, efforts will fail. A plan on the shelf may get you some points in certain elements; but to progress farther, field work must take place.

§ What quality of wilderness do you want in fifty years? The purpose of planning is to take a hard look at a resource, develop strategies for improvement and to take a proactive role in preserving its desired conditions. Minimally, this effort will serve as a mechanism to determine what is there, what threats may appear, and how to deal with those threats.

Once my wilderness scores 60 or more points, will I get less funding?

§ Achieving a score of 60 points is not a one-time accomplishment. It is recognized that maintaining or exceeding that level is equally important. Each region is developing a strategy (make sure you have seen yours) and should concentrate on maintaining good stewardship as well as initially meeting a score of 60 points. Without continued attention, it’s possible that a wilderness could score 60 points one year and fewer points in the following year.

Why is there an inconsistency in the points available for the different levels of achievement?

§ Some elements have a different point system that acknowledges different levels of accomplishment within that element. What is consistent from element to element is the 6-point level which defines fully meeting that element. Below that level are the incremental steps that must be accomplished to meet that element and scoring above 6-points rewards accomplishment beyond simply meeting the element. Some levels are relatively easy to meet with only a few resources; others will depend on an interdisciplinary process and a longer time frame.

The wilderness I manage is small with few issues and I believe it is managed to the minimum standard even though the planning required in the 10-Year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge has not been done. How do I report that the area is managed to the minimum standard?

§ The reporting system does not allow for documentation of wilderness managed to minimum standard except through the Challenge. The requirement for planning is included in most of the elements because it is important, even for a small wilderness, to establish a desired condition and set standards or guidelines to insure that wilderness character is preserved over the long run.

§ The planning and monitoring requirements for a small wilderness with few issues can be accomplished by using established processes effectively and efficiently to fit the situation. For example, a Wilderness Education Plan does not have to be long and complex to be meaningful and it could be combined with an Education Plan for an adjacent or nearby larger area.


Will the definitions or scoring ever change?

§ Some changes have been and may continue to be necessary because other resource areas changed their processes or terminology or agency guidance has been revised (e.g., fire management plans, forest plan revision rule).

§ Additional changes may be necessary to clarify terminology or to better reflect agency capabilities but these changes are not arbitrary and are carefully considered by the Wilderness Advisory Group and the Regional Wilderness Program Managers to avoid “raising the bar” and minimize inconsistency in annual reporting.

§ The definitions have been quite stable over the past 5-6 years.

How do changes in the scoring affect accomplishment of the 10YWSC?

§ The 10YWSC uses an annual reporting system to monitor progress towards achieving the goal of all wildernesses managed to the minimum stewardship level by 2014. Changes in scoring may cause fluctuations in annual reporting but there will likely be other differences between reporting years due to factors such as budget, staffing, other agency priorities, fire or weather events, etc. Annual fluctuations are not as important as the overall trend and achievement of the goal of the 10YWSC.

Who does the upward reporting and how is it done?

§ Every wilderness has an assigned data steward. Data stewards come from different levels of the organization and may or may not be the person that directly manages the wilderness. The data steward won’t necessarily be the one who enters the data; they are merely the person responsible for ensuring the data is entered accurately and on schedule. Wilderness managers should know who their data steward is and work with them to report the most accurate information possible. The reporting is done through Infra-WILD immediately after the fiscal year ends.

How do I report scores that differ between forests for the same wilderness?

§ The goal is to manage each wilderness as a single unit and to coordinate management when the wilderness is within two or more national forests (FSM 2320.3 #6). Often this is accomplished through unified management or shared services so that the differences in management and accomplishment are minimized. If annual scoring for the 10YWSC is widely different between forests it is an indicator of a need for increased coordination to insure common interpretation of the elements and agreement on priorities.

§ If differences in scores between forests cannot be resolved or leveled they should not be averaged for annual reporting. In order to honestly reflect achievement of the 10YWSC for the entire wilderness the lowest score should be reported.

Who do I call when I have questions about reporting?

§ Reporting instructions are sent out each year prior to the due date. Coordinate with the person on your Forest who is responsible for reporting the data prior to approval. It is recommended that individual wilderness managers consult among themselves in their regions in order to ensure accurate interpretation of what is reported.

Links

WAG home page

Lead Wilderness Data Steward home page


The 10 Elements

Element # 1

Fire Management direction exists in the Forest Land Management Plan (LMP), or an amendment to the LMP, and information is contained in the Fire Management Plan (FMP) or the Fire Management References System (FMRS) which address the natural role of fire in wilderness and informs the full range of management responses to wildland fire.

Outcome

Wilderness considerations are incorporated into the Forest Plan and Fire Management Plan Fire in wilderness is managed to preserve natural conditions. Wilderness character is maintained regardless of the management response.

What is the primary consideration necessary for achieving both fire and wilderness management objectives for Element 1?

§ Each accomplishment level of this element requires close cooperation and coordination by wilderness managers, fire managers, and other resource specialists.

Do I need a standalone wildland fire management plan for wilderness?

Generally the answer is no. What you need is adequate language in your Forest Land Management Plan (LMP) which addresses the natural role of fire and a forest Fire Management Plan that guides planning for planned ignitions and response to an unplanned ignition in wilderness.

§
The 1995 Federal Fire Policy requires Fire Management Plans for all areas with burnable vegetation.

§ Wilderness specific FMPs may be created by Forests to implement forest plan direction for management of fire in wilderness, if necessary, in areas where the response to an unplanned ignition is different inside vs. outside wilderness.